"Mac Cool" wrote in message
...
SteveB:

I almost cried when I saw the hammer and sycle flags they young
people were waving.

Would you have cried at the inevitable nazi flags had McCain won? Did you
cry over the KKK paperbombing after Obama's victory?

I don't know. You know everything. You tell me.

And this time, try to answer the subject.

Steve

"Mac Cool" wrote in message
...
Zoot:

if Obama sticks to his far-left agenda

Where do you people get this stuff? You listen to Rush Limbaugh every day,
don't you? Obama is about as middle of the road as we've had in a very
long time.

Okay, genius. Please give us ignorant unwashed rabble the definition of
right, left, and middle. Please use your own words.

Steve

SteveB wrote:

"Mac Cool" wrote in message
...


Zoot:



if Obama sticks to his far-left agenda


Where do you people get this stuff? You listen to Rush Limbaugh every day,
don't you? Obama is about as middle of the road as we've had in a very
long time.



Okay, genius. Please give us ignorant unwashed rabble the definition of
right, left, and middle. Please use your own words.

Steve




I've been tempted to ask that question............how is a liberal
dictator different than a
conservative dictator? I thought "liberal" was p.c. for "a--hole" )

SteveB, 11/8/2008,12:49:37 PM, wrote:


"Mac Cool" wrote in message
...
Zoot:

if Obama sticks to his far-left agenda

Where do you people get this stuff? You listen to Rush Limbaugh
every day, don't you? Obama is about as middle of the road as we've
had in a very long time.

Okay, genius. Please give us ignorant unwashed rabble the definition
of right, left, and middle. Please use your own words.

Steve

Hello Steve,

I would like to introduce a concept that goes beyond the simple left
-- right line of thinking. Check out The Political Compass
http://www.politicalcompass.org/index and take the test. You might be
surprised with the results. Here are mine:

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 1.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.69

--
"Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as
distinguished from the liberal, who wishes to replace them with
others." ~ Ambrose Bierce, The Devil’s Dictionary

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
retired54 wrote:

Fair taxing *is* a great idea. Giving the rich tax *breaks* is not.
Which is why we are in the shape we're in.


"Fair" taxing would be based on the demand for government services, not on
income. To be "fair," the poor would pay more, in absolute terms, than the
rich. Sure, the rich drive on government-built roads and benefit from
national defense, so they should pay something. But the rich don't send
their kids to government schools, get treated at the county charity
hospital, accept rent supplements or food stamps, or spend a goodly part
of their lives in jail.

I'm with you on the "breaks" idea. Taxes should be used to fund the
government, not advance government-approved plans or social agendas.

We have the second-highest corporate tax in the world. Only one other
country (Philippines) taxes its citizens on income derived from foreign
sources. That we continue to prevail in spite of these (and other)
criminally unfair practices is a testament to the robustness of our
system.

Here is another way of looking at it:

Reads like a text book but you get the idea. You can make statistic to say
anything you want.

http://www.askquestions.org/articles/taxes/

Olddog

Hello Steve,

I would like to introduce a concept that goes beyond the simple left
-- right line of thinking. Check out The Political Compass
http://www.politicalcompass.org/index and take the test. You might be
surprised with the results. Here are mine:

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 1.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.69


Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 6.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 3.23

HeyBub wrote:

retired54 wrote:


Fair taxing *is* a great idea. Giving the rich tax *breaks* is not.
Which is why we are in the shape we're in.




"Fair" taxing would be based on the demand for government services, not on
income. To be "fair," the poor would pay more, in absolute terms, than the
rich. Sure, the rich drive on government-built roads and benefit from
national defense, so they should pay something. But the rich don't send
their kids to government schools,

Sure they do.......and public schools in larger cities, esp. before
civil rights but continuing, have had
far better facilities and programs than in poor neighborhoods. The
"rich" send their kids to state
universites, as well. Some less wealthy (Clintons, Obama) go to Ivy
League schools, Oxford, etc.

get treated at the county charity


Lots of community hospitals treat "all".

hospital, accept rent supplements or food stamps, or spend a goodly part of
their lives in jail.


Wealthy kids very often have the beneift of attorneys, for same
offenses, and escape jail sentences. Of
course, with 1% of the population in prison, there are lots of kids
without adequate parenting. Getting
busted for coke, m'juana is stupid, but so is prison for non-violent
offenses many times.

I've worked with alcoholics and addicts given choice between treatment
and jail for DUI's......
it can be inspiring ) Universal problem, universal social fallout.

I'm with you on the "breaks" idea. Taxes should be used to fund the
government, not advance government-approved plans or social agendas.

We have the second-highest corporate tax in the world. Only one other
country (Philippines) taxes its citizens on income derived from foreign


Gee, lets go back to rickshaws and open sewers in the streets and we can
live like Filipinos on
their low taxes. Got universal healthcare, there, I believe. Or better
yet, lets live "up" to the
Chinese, whose demand for fossil fuels is rapidly increasing and whose
air and water are
already deadly.

sources. That we continue to prevail in spite of these (and other)
criminally unfair practices is a testament to the robustness of our system.

Zoot, 11/8/2008,1:48:58 PM, wrote:


Hello Steve,

I would like to introduce a concept that goes beyond the simple left
-- right line of thinking. Check out The Political Compass
http://www.politicalcompass.org/index and take the test. You might
be surprised with the results. Here are mine:

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 1.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.69


Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 6.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 3.23

What are the chances some of the other denizens will participate?

"badgolferman" wrote:

-snip-
I would like to introduce a concept that goes beyond the simple left
-- right line of thinking. Check out The Political Compass
http://www.politicalcompass.org/index and take the test. You might be
surprised with the results. Here are mine:

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 1.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.69

I'll take it again tomorrow- but I thought I'd 'register' a lefty for
your enjoyment;
Economic Left/Right: -2.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.21

I'm kinda surprised that it pegged me just about where I might have
said I was. [maybe slightly more towards the middle on both counts-
but I can't complain]

Jim

In article ,
"badgolferman" wrote:

Zoot, 11/8/2008,1:48:58 PM, wrote:


Hello Steve,

I would like to introduce a concept that goes beyond the simple left
-- right line of thinking. Check out The Political Compass
http://www.politicalcompass.org/index and take the test. You might
be surprised with the results. Here are mine:

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 1.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.69


Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 6.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 3.23

What are the chances some of the other denizens will participate?

I am
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 5.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.05
Although I have no idea what that means.

My sco

Economic Left/Right: -1.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.79

I consider myself strongly middle-of-the-road, although very
conservative with money issues, mostly liberal with social issues.
Neither Obama nor McCain got my vote, mainly due to the recent
irresponsible bailout issue.

On Nov 7, 6:58*pm, "Zoot" wrote:
Now come on, Obama has promised that he won't raise any taxes on the
"middle class" but then he has also promised to allow the Bush tax
cuts to expire next year. *Wonder which of those promises he will
keep. *Maybe he figures that the "middle class" would be too stupid to
realize that allowing tax cuts to expire is the same as raising
taxes. *Plausable deniability...yes thats it.

He doesn't have to let them expire, the poor/middle class are still going to
pay. Consider this - I own a grocery store chain. Obama raises my taxes
because I make a certain amount of money. How do you think I'm going to pay
those taxes? That's right - I'm going to raise my prices. Obama's tax
increases on the rich ain't coming out of *my* pocket, they are coming out
of the pockets of people that buy groceries. But people don't understand
basic economics. They think that taxing the rich is a great idea.

That was a lesson I learned in High School. I was initially very
happy to benefit from the increase in the minimum wage and thought the
government was my best friend. The week after the increase I was
asked to work on Sunday to help reprice everything in the grocery
store. We increased the price of every item in the store to make up
for the increased costs from the higher payroll. To be fair, the
store had increase all employee rates and made up for it by higher
prices. They didn't fear the competition because they knew the
competition had to do the same thing.

So I got a raise but also had to pay more for everything. I realized
right then that you don't get ahead by waiting for the government to
bail your ass out.

SteveB:

I almost cried when I saw the hammer and sycle flags they young
people were waving.

Would you have cried at the inevitable nazi flags had McCain won?
Did you cry over the KKK paperbombing after Obama's victory?

I don't know. You know everything. You tell me.

And this time, try to answer the subject.

I ran your post throught the gibberish to English translator and it
exploded.

Zoot:

Since when is wealth redistribution middle of the road?

Apparently wealth redistribution is only a bad thing when it goes from
rich to poor.

HeyBub:

The poster to whom you are responding has simply
confused cause and effect.

Can't respond directly so you've taken to sneaking in snide remarks.

HeyBub wrote:
Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

I know very few people who would buy all of their party's positions. Most
of them are like me, who agree with aspects of both.... but not
all. The parties need to move closer to us instead of expecting us
to come to them.

The political parties accurately reflect the views of their membership. If
you want them to change, get active in the party of your choice and become
an advocate.

The political parties reflect the extremes of their respective
ideologies not the mean.



It's the "independent" voter who's the most dependent of all. He has no say
in who the candidates will be, he has no voice in the platform, policies, or
practices of either party. After the election, he has no influence or power
over the elected officials.

To a politician, an independent voter is like a dust storm. He shows up once
every four years, creates a mess and much confusion, and has to be dealt
with. After that, he's ignored until next time.

HeyBub wrote:
George wrote:
What part about the his wanting the government to act as a wealth
redistribution mechanism is middle of the road? And I don't listen to
Limbaugh more than about an hour/year. I happen to get in the car at
certain times and the radio was tuned to the station he is on. I
listen for 10 minutes and then there is the couple month interval
until it happens again. You do know that there are people who thing
for themselves who don't OD on either red or blue kool-aid?

Rush Limbaugh doesn't tell people what to think - he simply echos what his
listeners already believe. The poster to whom you are responding has simply
confused cause and effect. This, however, is a common malady afflicting
liberals.


Maybe there is a different program where you are but in the one I have
heard he delivers his sermon which reflects his self proclaimed ability
to analyze and interpret any subject and then the faithful call in to
agree by saying "ditto".

Mac Cool wrote:
Zoot:

Since when is wealth redistribution middle of the road?

Apparently wealth redistribution is only a bad thing when it goes
from
rich to poor.

No, it's a bad thing when men with guns do the redistributing over the
protests of the person whose wealth is being redistributed.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

George wrote:

Rush Limbaugh doesn't tell people what to think - he simply echos
what his listeners already believe. The poster to whom you are
responding has simply confused cause and effect. This, however, is a
common malady afflicting liberals.


Maybe there is a different program where you are but in the one I have
heard he delivers his sermon which reflects his self proclaimed
ability to analyze and interpret any subject and then the faithful
call in to agree by saying "ditto".

Right. But I still don't think people are listening because his program is
some sort of distance-learning experience. In my view, he's a preacher with
a very large choir.

Most of all, however, Limbaugh is an entertainer. If you compare his show to
those of other conservatives (O'Reilly, Hannity, Ingram, etc.), you'll note
one big difference: Limbaugh almost never has a 'guest' with which he can
either agree or debate. His solo act yields an audience as big as the rest.
Combined.

Judith Reagan, who edited Limbaugh's books and Howard Stern's, said that
both men, even though radically different in personality, would excel at
virtually any field they chose. Both, according to her, had enormous
discipline, drive, and determination, far beyond those of mortal men.

"Mac Cool" wrote in message
...
HeyBub:

And so on. Point is, there are often several ways of looking at the
same set of events. Sadly, those not schooled in history or law often
reach simplistic conclusions. As one Supreme Court justice said: "The
Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact."

Your post was helpful in giving insight to how bush supporters convince
themselves he has not significantly damanged this country over the last
eight years. From a cursory view your arguments almost make sense except
they are simplistic and ignore the reality of bush's effect upon America.

The fact is, bush has driven a huge wedge between ourselves and our
alliances and only the shortsighted would believe that alliances have no
place in modern times. Fact is, the countries you named were the ones who
took strong exception to the claims of WMDs and they were correct. Bush
has used 9-11 to greatly expand the powers of government and the executive
office yet claims to be a Republican. Bush has used those powers to erode
our rights and just because it may have been done in the past, does not
make it right. Many mistakes were made in the past from which we have had
the opportunity to learn, yet Bush has not. Bush has spent more money than
any president in history, yet claims to be a Republican. Bush failed to
secure Iraq - fact. Bush failed to win in Afghanistan - fact. Bush failed
to build support among our allies which would have made securing
Afghanistan signficantly easier. Bush's big mouth has increased tensions
between us and our enemies at a time when he has significanlty weakened
our countries ability to respond to threats both domestic and abroad. Bush
talks loudly but carries broken stick.

To summarize - Bush's comment "Bring it on" just about says it all.

"Mac Cool" wrote in message
...
SteveB:

I almost cried when I saw the hammer and sycle flags they young
people were waving.

Would you have cried at the inevitable nazi flags had McCain won?
Did you cry over the KKK paperbombing after Obama's victory?

I don't know. You know everything. You tell me.

And this time, try to answer the subject.

I ran your post throught the gibberish to English translator and it
exploded.

Is that one of YOUR inventions? Just apply common sense, and it translates
perfectly. You are a pompous assed know it all. You are concerned about
nothing but your own viewpoint.

So long.

Steve, who has Mr. Coolaid in the proper translator now

"Mac Cool" wrote in message
...
SteveB:

I almost cried when I saw the hammer and sycle flags they young
people were waving.

Would you have cried at the inevitable nazi flags had McCain won?
Did you cry over the KKK paperbombing after Obama's victory?

I don't know. You know everything. You tell me.

And this time, try to answer the subject.

I ran your post throught the gibberish to English translator and it
exploded.

That's because you didn't answer the question about giving us your
definition of the terms right, left, and middle.

Steve

"Mac Cool" wrote in message
...
Zoot:

Since when is wealth redistribution middle of the road?

Apparently wealth redistribution is only a bad thing when it goes from
rich to poor.

It's only a bad thing when it's done against the will of those whom have the
wealth. If the poor don't like being poor, many of them could get off of
their fat lazy butts and actually do something about it. Been there, done
that. Didn't like being poor. Went to school for years while working days
and raising a family and now I find Uncle Obama telling me he wants to take
my money away from me and give it to those who were sitting on the couch
drinking beer Friday nights while I was studying my arse off? I give
thousands to charitable causes every year for those who are poor because of
circumstances beyond their control, and I do it willingly. I don't need
Uncle Obama telling me how much to give and whom to give it to. My money. I
busted my butt for many years so I could earn it. I decide what to do with
it.

On Nov 9, 2:01*am, Mac Cool wrote:
Zoot:

Since when is wealth redistribution middle of the road?

Apparently wealth redistribution is only a bad thing when it goes from
rich to poor.

Wealth redistribution defined as taking from one party without
compensation of service or product and giving to another who provides
no service or product is a bad thing. It would not matter if that was
from rich to poor or poor to rich, it would remain a bad thing. No
matter how noble the motivation of Robin Hood, he remained a thief.

On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 12:39:57 -0800 (PST), BobR
wrote:

On Nov 9, 2:01*am, Mac Cool wrote:
Zoot:

Since when is wealth redistribution middle of the road?

Apparently wealth redistribution is only a bad thing when it goes from
rich to poor.

Wealth redistribution defined as taking from one party without
compensation of service or product and giving to another who provides
no service or product is a bad thing. It would not matter if that was
from rich to poor or poor to rich, it would remain a bad thing. No
matter how noble the motivation of Robin Hood, he remained a thief.


Unlike what most think, Robin Hood stole from the government and gave
to the poor. What we have now is the government stealing from the
people.

On Nov 8, 1:01*pm, "badgolferman"
wrote:

Economic Left/Right: -1.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.15

Cindy Hamilton

On Nov 7, 6:30*pm, BobR wrote:
On Nov 7, 1:09*pm, Cindy Hamilton
wrote:





On Nov 6, 11:17*am, BobR wrote:

On Nov 6, 9:18*am, Cindy Hamilton
wrote:

On Nov 5, 9:29*am, "Stormin Mormon"

wrote:
I cried also. Because the nation I love so much just elected a far left
socialist who may not even be a US citizen. Who will likely continue the
failed policies of the Clinton Regime. Tax the people, spend on social
programs. Encourage immorality and perversion.

Do you really care what consenting adults do in private? *My God, man,
get a grip. *It's none of your business.

Cindy Hamilton

I have never cared one tiny little bit what consenting adults do in
private and I never will. *It is when they shove it in my face

How horrible for you! *That you might have to see something you don't
like. *Oh, you poor thing.

Guess a pervert like you must get off on watching all sorts of crap
but I don't. *Keep it to yourself and we can both be happy.

What's to watch? Gay couples holding hands? Same-sex marriage
announcements in the newspaper?

It's not as if people are having sex in the streets, you know.


Cindy Hamilton

On Nov 10, 11:52*am, Cindy Hamilton
wrote:
On Nov 7, 6:30*pm, BobR wrote:





On Nov 7, 1:09*pm, Cindy Hamilton
wrote:

On Nov 6, 11:17*am, BobR wrote:

On Nov 6, 9:18*am, Cindy Hamilton
wrote:

On Nov 5, 9:29*am, "Stormin Mormon"

wrote:
I cried also. Because the nation I love so much just elected a far left
socialist who may not even be a US citizen. Who will likely continue the
failed policies of the Clinton Regime. Tax the people, spend on social
programs. Encourage immorality and perversion.

Do you really care what consenting adults do in private? *My God, man,
get a grip. *It's none of your business.

Cindy Hamilton

I have never cared one tiny little bit what consenting adults do in
private and I never will. *It is when they shove it in my face

How horrible for you! *That you might have to see something you don't
like. *Oh, you poor thing.

Guess a pervert like you must get off on watching all sorts of crap
but I don't. *Keep it to yourself and we can both be happy.

What's to watch? *Gay couples holding hands? *Same-sex marriage
announcements in the newspaper?

It's not as if people are having sex in the streets, you know.

Cindy Hamilton- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Where have you been hiding for the last 20 plus years? It probably
has been about 20 years since my family took a vacation to
California. Decided to go the the planetarium one afternoon but
hadn't been warned in advance that it was one of the queer hangouts.
For your information, they were openly doing it in the streets. Then
there are the gay pride parades where just about anything goes in
public.

On Mon 10 Nov 2008 12:15:44p, BobR told us...

On Nov 10, 11:52*am, Cindy Hamilton
wrote:
On Nov 7, 6:30*pm, BobR wrote:





On Nov 7, 1:09*pm, Cindy Hamilton
wrote:

On Nov 6, 11:17*am, BobR wrote:

On Nov 6, 9:18*am, Cindy Hamilton
wrote:

On Nov 5, 9:29*am, "Stormin Mormon"

wrote:
I cried also. Because the nation I love so much just elected a
far left
socialist who may not even be a US citizen. Who will likely
con
tinue the
failed policies of the Clinton Regime. Tax the people, spend
on
social
programs. Encourage immorality and perversion.

Do you really care what consenting adults do in private? *My Go
d, man,
get a grip. *It's none of your business.

Cindy Hamilton

I have never cared one tiny little bit what consenting adults do
in
private and I never will. *It is when they shove it in my face

How horrible for you! *That you might have to see something you don
't
like. *Oh, you poor thing.

Guess a pervert like you must get off on watching all sorts of crap
but I don't. *Keep it to yourself and we can both be happy.

What's to watch? *Gay couples holding hands? *Same-sex marriage
announcements in the newspaper?

It's not as if people are having sex in the streets, you know.

Cindy Hamilton- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Where have you been hiding for the last 20 plus years? It probably
has been about 20 years since my family took a vacation to
California. Decided to go the the planetarium one afternoon but
hadn't been warned in advance that it was one of the queer hangouts.
For your information, they were openly doing it in the streets. Then
there are the gay pride parades where just about anything goes in
public.


Guess you ought to stay the hell out of California.

--
Wayne Boatwright
(correct the spelling of "geemail" to reply)

*******************************************
Date: Monday, 11(XI)/10(X)/08(MMVIII)
*******************************************
Countdown till Veteran's Day
10hrs 21mins
*******************************************
As they say in Beirut, Shiite happens.
*******************************************

On Nov 10, 2:15*pm, BobR wrote:

Where have you been hiding for the last 20 plus years? *It probably
has been about 20 years since my family took a vacation to
California. *Decided to go the the planetarium one afternoon but
hadn't been warned in advance that it was one of the queer hangouts.
For your information, they were openly doing it in the streets. *Then
there are the gay pride parades where just about anything goes in
public.

I've been living in Ann Arbor, Michigan, for the last 30 years.
Perhaps
it is too cold here for anyone to be "doing it" openly in the streets.

Although I did visit San Francisco about 10 years ago. I didn't see
anything
unexpected. (Because I expected to see openly gay people engaged in
flamboyant behavior.)

You know, we've been dancing around the notion of what "it" is. Are
you talking about sodomy in bathroom stalls or alleyways (or, for
that matter in the hallways at the planetarium), or are you talking
about cross-dressing, S&M gear, attempting to pick up other
men, and similar?

Cindy Hamilton

On Nov 10, 2:42*pm, Wayne Boatwright
wrote:
On Mon 10 Nov 2008 12:15:44p, BobR told us...







On Nov 10, 11:52*am, Cindy Hamilton
wrote:
On Nov 7, 6:30*pm, BobR wrote:

On Nov 7, 1:09*pm, Cindy Hamilton
wrote:

On Nov 6, 11:17*am, BobR wrote:

On Nov 6, 9:18*am, Cindy Hamilton
wrote:

On Nov 5, 9:29*am, "Stormin Mormon"

wrote:
I cried also. Because the nation I love so much just elected a
far left
socialist who may not even be a US citizen. Who will likely
con
tinue the
failed policies of the Clinton Regime. Tax the people, spend
on
*social
programs. Encourage immorality and perversion.

Do you really care what consenting adults do in private? *My Go
d, man,
get a grip. *It's none of your business.

Cindy Hamilton

I have never cared one tiny little bit what consenting adults do
in
private and I never will. *It is when they shove it in my face

How horrible for you! *That you might have to see something you don
't
like. *Oh, you poor thing.

Guess a pervert like you must get off on watching all sorts of crap
but I don't. *Keep it to yourself and we can both be happy.

What's to watch? *Gay couples holding hands? *Same-sex marriage
announcements in the newspaper?

It's not as if people are having sex in the streets, you know.

Cindy Hamilton- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Where have you been hiding for the last 20 plus years? *It probably
has been about 20 years since my family took a vacation to
California. *Decided to go the the planetarium one afternoon but
hadn't been warned in advance that it was one of the queer hangouts.
For your information, they were openly doing it in the streets. *Then
there are the gay pride parades where just about anything goes in
public.

Guess you ought to stay the hell out of California.

--
* * * * * * *Wayne Boatwright * * * * * *
(correct the spelling of "geemail" to reply)

*******************************************
Date: Monday, 11(XI)/10(X)/08(MMVIII)
*******************************************
* * * *Countdown till Veteran's Day * * *
* * * * * * * *10hrs 21mins * * * * * * * *
*******************************************
* As they say in Beirut, Shiite happens. *
*******************************************- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I intend to do just that but it isn't limited to California so it
doesn't do any good.

On Nov 10, 3:55*pm, Cindy Hamilton
wrote:
On Nov 10, 2:15*pm, BobR wrote:

Where have you been hiding for the last 20 plus years? *It probably
has been about 20 years since my family took a vacation to
California. *Decided to go the the planetarium one afternoon but
hadn't been warned in advance that it was one of the queer hangouts.
For your information, they were openly doing it in the streets. *Then
there are the gay pride parades where just about anything goes in
public.

I've been living in Ann Arbor, Michigan, for the last 30 years.
Perhaps
it is too cold here for anyone to be "doing it" openly in the streets.

Although I did visit San Francisco about 10 years ago. *I didn't see
anything
unexpected. *(Because I expected to see openly gay people engaged in
flamboyant behavior.)

You know, we've been dancing around the notion of what "it" is. *Are
you talking about sodomy in bathroom stalls or alleyways (or, for
that matter in the hallways at the planetarium), or are you talking
about cross-dressing, S&M gear, attempting to pick up other
men, and similar?

Cindy Hamilton

Yes, yes, and yes. I specifically was talking about two gay couples
performing sodomy openly in the parking lot in front of the
planetarium. I sure as hell didn't appreciate having to explain to my
10 year old daughter what they were doing and why we were leaving. By
the way, had it been a hetrosexual couple doing the same, I would also
have been equally ****ed. As I said, what you do in private is your
business but when done in public it becomes everyones business.

On Nov 10, 5:40*pm, BobR wrote:
On Nov 10, 3:55*pm, Cindy Hamilton
wrote:





On Nov 10, 2:15*pm, BobR wrote:

Where have you been hiding for the last 20 plus years? *It probably
has been about 20 years since my family took a vacation to
California. *Decided to go the the planetarium one afternoon but
hadn't been warned in advance that it was one of the queer hangouts.
For your information, they were openly doing it in the streets. *Then
there are the gay pride parades where just about anything goes in
public.

I've been living in Ann Arbor, Michigan, for the last 30 years.
Perhaps
it is too cold here for anyone to be "doing it" openly in the streets.

Although I did visit San Francisco about 10 years ago. *I didn't see
anything
unexpected. *(Because I expected to see openly gay people engaged in
flamboyant behavior.)

You know, we've been dancing around the notion of what "it" is. *Are
you talking about sodomy in bathroom stalls or alleyways (or, for
that matter in the hallways at the planetarium), or are you talking
about cross-dressing, S&M gear, attempting to pick up other
men, and similar?

Cindy Hamilton

Yes, yes, and yes. *I specifically was talking about two gay couples
performing sodomy openly in the parking lot in front of the
planetarium. *I sure as hell didn't appreciate having to explain to my
10 year old daughter what they were doing and why we were leaving. *By
the way, had it been a hetrosexual couple doing the same, I would also
have been equally ****ed. *As I said, what you do in private is your
business but when done in public it becomes everyones business

Goodness, gracious. (Honest, no sarcasm there. I'm channelling Aunt
Bea.)

That's not homosexuality, that's criminal behavior. Obviously they do
that
because they can get away with it. The police department hereabouts
would
never stand idly by while that was going on.

However, I just don't see the harm in cross-dressing, or gay marriage
(keeps
them out of the planetarium parking lot, anyway), or any of that other
stuff.

Cindy Hamilton

On Nov 11, 9:29*am, Cindy Hamilton
wrote:
On Nov 10, 5:40*pm, BobR wrote:





On Nov 10, 3:55*pm, Cindy Hamilton
wrote:

On Nov 10, 2:15*pm, BobR wrote:

Where have you been hiding for the last 20 plus years? *It probably
has been about 20 years since my family took a vacation to
California. *Decided to go the the planetarium one afternoon but
hadn't been warned in advance that it was one of the queer hangouts..
For your information, they were openly doing it in the streets. *Then
there are the gay pride parades where just about anything goes in
public.

I've been living in Ann Arbor, Michigan, for the last 30 years.
Perhaps
it is too cold here for anyone to be "doing it" openly in the streets..

Although I did visit San Francisco about 10 years ago. *I didn't see
anything
unexpected. *(Because I expected to see openly gay people engaged in
flamboyant behavior.)

You know, we've been dancing around the notion of what "it" is. *Are
you talking about sodomy in bathroom stalls or alleyways (or, for
that matter in the hallways at the planetarium), or are you talking
about cross-dressing, S&M gear, attempting to pick up other
men, and similar?

Cindy Hamilton

Yes, yes, and yes. *I specifically was talking about two gay couples
performing sodomy openly in the parking lot in front of the
planetarium. *I sure as hell didn't appreciate having to explain to my
10 year old daughter what they were doing and why we were leaving. *By
the way, had it been a hetrosexual couple doing the same, I would also
have been equally ****ed. *As I said, what you do in private is your
business but when done in public it becomes everyones business

Goodness, gracious. *(Honest, no sarcasm there. *I'm channelling Aunt
Bea.)

That's not homosexuality, that's criminal behavior. *Obviously they do
that
because they can get away with it. *The police department hereabouts
would
never stand idly by while that was going on.

However, I just don't see the harm in cross-dressing, or gay marriage
(keeps
them out of the planetarium parking lot, anyway), or any of that other
stuff.

Cindy Hamilton- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And just how far are you willing to move the line? Do you want one of
those cross-dressers joining you in the public restrooms? What's next
after gay marriage? Each time you move the line there will be more
pressure to move it just a bit more. Where do YOU draw the line?

clipped

And just how far are you willing to move the line? Do you want one of
those cross-dressers joining you in the public restrooms? What's next
after gay marriage? Each time you move the line there will be more
pressure to move it just a bit more. Where do YOU draw the line?


You two could continue this argument by email and notify the newsgroup
when you resolve
all of the gay related issues )

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 07:43:32 -0800 (PST), BobR
wrote:

On Nov 11, 9:29*am, Cindy Hamilton
wrote:
On Nov 10, 5:40*pm, BobR wrote:





On Nov 10, 3:55*pm, Cindy Hamilton
wrote:

On Nov 10, 2:15*pm, BobR wrote:

Where have you been hiding for the last 20 plus years? *It probably
has been about 20 years since my family took a vacation to
California. *Decided to go the the planetarium one afternoon but
hadn't been warned in advance that it was one of the queer hangouts.
For your information, they were openly doing it in the streets. *Then
there are the gay pride parades where just about anything goes in
public.

I've been living in Ann Arbor, Michigan, for the last 30 years.
Perhaps
it is too cold here for anyone to be "doing it" openly in the streets.

Although I did visit San Francisco about 10 years ago. *I didn't see
anything
unexpected. *(Because I expected to see openly gay people engaged in
flamboyant behavior.)

You know, we've been dancing around the notion of what "it" is. *Are
you talking about sodomy in bathroom stalls or alleyways (or, for
that matter in the hallways at the planetarium), or are you talking
about cross-dressing, S&M gear, attempting to pick up other
men, and similar?

Cindy Hamilton

Yes, yes, and yes. *I specifically was talking about two gay couples
performing sodomy openly in the parking lot in front of the
planetarium. *I sure as hell didn't appreciate having to explain to my
10 year old daughter what they were doing and why we were leaving. *By
the way, had it been a hetrosexual couple doing the same, I would also
have been equally ****ed. *As I said, what you do in private is your
business but when done in public it becomes everyones business

Goodness, gracious. *(Honest, no sarcasm there. *I'm channelling Aunt
Bea.)

That's not homosexuality, that's criminal behavior. *Obviously they do
that
because they can get away with it. *The police department hereabouts
would
never stand idly by while that was going on.

However, I just don't see the harm in cross-dressing, or gay marriage
(keeps
them out of the planetarium parking lot, anyway), or any of that other
stuff.

Cindy Hamilton- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And just how far are you willing to move the line? Do you want one of
those cross-dressers joining you in the public restrooms? What's next
after gay marriage? Each time you move the line there will be more
pressure to move it just a bit more. Where do YOU draw the line?

I draw this line: The government should not be in the business of
marriage at all. All couples who need legal protections based on their
partnership should have a civil union, just as two people who start a
business partnership can incorporate. The rights under a civil union
should be identical for all couples and families, regardless of
makeup. All current "marriage" licenses should be converted to civil
unions. Marriage is a religious institution and the government should
not be involved in it in any shape, manner or form.

On Nov 11, 9:50*am, Norminn wrote:
clipped

And just how far are you willing to move the line? *Do you want one of
those cross-dressers joining you in the public restrooms? *What's next
after gay marriage? *Each time you move the line there will be more
pressure to move it just a bit more. *Where do YOU draw the line?

You two could continue this argument by email and notify the newsgroup
when you resolve
all of the gay related issues )

Or you could just ignore the thread and not butt in.

, 11/11/2008,12:05:08 PM, wrote:

I draw this line: The government should not be in the business of
marriage at all. All couples who need legal protections based on their
partnership should have a civil union, just as two people who start a
business partnership can incorporate. The rights under a civil union
should be identical for all couples and families, regardless of
makeup. All current "marriage" licenses should be converted to civil
unions. Marriage is a religious institution and the government should
not be involved in it in any shape, manner or form.


It's all about the taxes and the benefits.

--
"I think gay marriage is something that should be between a man and a
woman." ~ California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

On Nov 11, 10:43*am, BobR wrote:
On Nov 11, 9:29*am, Cindy Hamilton
wrote:





On Nov 10, 5:40*pm, BobR wrote:

On Nov 10, 3:55*pm, Cindy Hamilton
wrote:

On Nov 10, 2:15*pm, BobR wrote:

Where have you been hiding for the last 20 plus years? *It probably
has been about 20 years since my family took a vacation to
California. *Decided to go the the planetarium one afternoon but
hadn't been warned in advance that it was one of the queer hangouts.
For your information, they were openly doing it in the streets. *Then
there are the gay pride parades where just about anything goes in
public.

I've been living in Ann Arbor, Michigan, for the last 30 years.
Perhaps
it is too cold here for anyone to be "doing it" openly in the streets.

Although I did visit San Francisco about 10 years ago. *I didn't see
anything
unexpected. *(Because I expected to see openly gay people engaged in
flamboyant behavior.)

You know, we've been dancing around the notion of what "it" is. *Are
you talking about sodomy in bathroom stalls or alleyways (or, for
that matter in the hallways at the planetarium), or are you talking
about cross-dressing, S&M gear, attempting to pick up other
men, and similar?

Cindy Hamilton

Yes, yes, and yes. *I specifically was talking about two gay couples
performing sodomy openly in the parking lot in front of the
planetarium. *I sure as hell didn't appreciate having to explain to my
10 year old daughter what they were doing and why we were leaving. *By
the way, had it been a hetrosexual couple doing the same, I would also
have been equally ****ed. *As I said, what you do in private is your
business but when done in public it becomes everyones business

Goodness, gracious. *(Honest, no sarcasm there. *I'm channelling Aunt
Bea.)

That's not homosexuality, that's criminal behavior. *Obviously they do
that
because they can get away with it. *The police department hereabouts
would
never stand idly by while that was going on.

However, I just don't see the harm in cross-dressing, or gay marriage
(keeps
them out of the planetarium parking lot, anyway), or any of that other
stuff.

Cindy Hamilton- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And just how far are you willing to move the line? *Do you want one of
those cross-dressers joining you in the public restrooms?

Unless he's peeing in the sink, I don't see a problem. I probably
would never notice, as I don't tend to make using a public restroom
into a social event. I rarely look at the other patrons.

*What's next
after gay marriage? *Each time you move the line there will be more
pressure to move it just a bit more. *Where do YOU draw the line

Consenting adult humans. Any number of any gender of consenting
adults
can be married, as far as I care.

Anyone without the mental capacity to enter into a valid contract
cannot
enter into a marriage.

That's where I'd draw the line. For my money, marriage is a legal
contract
and has nothing to do with religion. There's ample historical
precedent for that.

Cindy Hamilton

On Nov 11, 12:35*pm, Cindy Hamilton
wrote:
On Nov 11, 10:43*am, BobR wrote:





On Nov 11, 9:29*am, Cindy Hamilton
wrote:

On Nov 10, 5:40*pm, BobR wrote:

On Nov 10, 3:55*pm, Cindy Hamilton
wrote:

On Nov 10, 2:15*pm, BobR wrote:

Where have you been hiding for the last 20 plus years? *It probably
has been about 20 years since my family took a vacation to
California. *Decided to go the the planetarium one afternoon but
hadn't been warned in advance that it was one of the queer hangouts.
For your information, they were openly doing it in the streets. *Then
there are the gay pride parades where just about anything goes in
public.

I've been living in Ann Arbor, Michigan, for the last 30 years.
Perhaps
it is too cold here for anyone to be "doing it" openly in the streets.

Although I did visit San Francisco about 10 years ago. *I didn't see
anything
unexpected. *(Because I expected to see openly gay people engaged in
flamboyant behavior.)

You know, we've been dancing around the notion of what "it" is. *Are
you talking about sodomy in bathroom stalls or alleyways (or, for
that matter in the hallways at the planetarium), or are you talking
about cross-dressing, S&M gear, attempting to pick up other
men, and similar?

Cindy Hamilton

Yes, yes, and yes. *I specifically was talking about two gay couples
performing sodomy openly in the parking lot in front of the
planetarium. *I sure as hell didn't appreciate having to explain to my
10 year old daughter what they were doing and why we were leaving. *By
the way, had it been a hetrosexual couple doing the same, I would also
have been equally ****ed. *As I said, what you do in private is your
business but when done in public it becomes everyones business

Goodness, gracious. *(Honest, no sarcasm there. *I'm channelling Aunt
Bea.)

That's not homosexuality, that's criminal behavior. *Obviously they do
that
because they can get away with it. *The police department hereabouts
would
never stand idly by while that was going on.

However, I just don't see the harm in cross-dressing, or gay marriage
(keeps
them out of the planetarium parking lot, anyway), or any of that other
stuff.

Cindy Hamilton- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And just how far are you willing to move the line? *Do you want one of
those cross-dressers joining you in the public restrooms?

Unless he's peeing in the sink, I don't see a problem. *I probably
would never notice, as I don't tend to make using a public restroom
into a social event. *I rarely look at the other patrons.


Yeah, right.

*What's next
after gay marriage? *Each time you move the line there will be more
pressure to move it just a bit more. *Where do YOU draw the line

Consenting adult humans. *Any number of any gender of consenting
adults
can be married, as far as I care.


Do you think it will stop with "consenting adults"?

Anyone without the mental capacity to enter into a valid contract
cannot
enter into a marriage.

That's where I'd draw the line. *For my money, marriage is a legal
contract
and has nothing to do with religion. *There's ample historical
precedent for that.

Cindy Hamilton- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I wonder if your husband knows that you have not qualms about him
screwing around anywhere and any time with anybody (male or female) or
that you wouldn't mind for a second if he brought home another wife or
two.