OT Is anyone really surprised?

"Donald Munro" wrote in message
om...

It takes a religious fanatic to know a religious fanatic.

Say, I'll bet you know a lot of gay guys really personally.

In article
,
Woland99 wrote:

On Jan 23, 5:42 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
"SLAVE of THE STATE" wrote in
The significant quote: "The secret dread of modern intellectuals, liberals
and conservatives alike, the unadmitted terror at the root of their anxiety,
which all of their current irrationalities are intended to stave off and to
disguise, is the unstated knowledge that Soviet Russia [was] the full,
actual, literal, consistent embodiment of the morality of altruism, that
Stalin did not corrupt a noble ideal, that this is the only way altruism has
to be or can ever be practiced." -- Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand is despicable heartless bitch that betrayed people who
trusted
her and her friends to McCarthy's House Committee on Un-American
Activities.
Hardly a person that any DECENT person would try to emulate.
And in the heart of every FASCIST like you lies deep fear of
complexity of
the world and desire to simplify it - bring it back to some imaginary
"kinder
simpler days of old". You people were raping the Constitution for last
7 yrs
it is time for you people to go back to obscurity where you belong.
You, Ayn
Rand, Bush, Cheney and all the evangelical Nazis. Americans can thing
for
themselves - they do not need you fear-mongering and you moron ideas
on how
to save freedom by killing it.

The next administration will give back any of the rescinded (if any)
Constitutional guarantees.

--
Michael Press

On Jan 29, 5:23*pm, Michael Press wrote:


The next administration will give back any of the rescinded (if any)
Constitutional guarantees.

--
Michael Press- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What about the hatchet job FDR did on the Constitution and our rights?
When are we getting those back?
I'll leave the elaboration to Greg since he's studied it more
recently than I have.
Bill C

In article ,
" wrote:

On Jan 26, 1:14*am, Howard Kveck wrote:
" wrote:

IOW, I grew out of calling people fascists around the
age of 22. *Except for Pat Buchanan, maybe.

* *David Duke?

I think of him more as a racist. They're not exclusive,
of course, and I'm sure he's a nationalist, but I don't
remember what Mr. Dragon Duke's position is on
running the whole country as a centralized corporatist
authoritarian regime, which is usually a hallmark
of fascism

Yeah, that's about what I'd thought. I do think he probably has those tendencies
in him, but the likelihood of him ever getting to a position where he could get a
start on that stuff is pretty much nil.

(or Fascism Classic, as opposed to
New Vanilla Fascism, or Fascism Zero - same great
taste, but no calories).

Does Fascism Zero have adjustable float?

I went to college with a girl who years later got a gig on
the Daily Show (pre-Jon Stewart), and late one night I
turned on the teevee and there was this (distant) friend
of mine interviewing David Duke, in a Baba Walters
style. That was weird. During the entire interview,
David Duke was holding and petting a tiny white (duh)
lapdog, straight from Opera Queen casting - or like
Dr. Evil's cat. That was weirder.

That is weird. I wonder if he knows that those tiny white dogs are strictly for
high maintenance chicks (heh)...

By the way, one other thing about Goldberg's book: in the process of trying to
describe populism (which has typically been one part of the rise to power of
fascistic regimes, though it's also part of many other social movements) as a
strictly leftist thing, he manages to include people like Father Charles Coughlin and
Sen. Joe McCarthy as lefties because of their populist roots. McCarthy was a
leftie??? Holy crap, when Ann Coulter reads that, she's going to go kick the Pantload
in the throat a few thousand times.

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.
But I've already got a pitchfork...

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Donald Munro wrote:
It takes a religious fanatic to know a religious fanatic.

Tom Kunich wrote:
Say, I'll bet you know a lot of gay guys really personally.

I seem to have improved my position on the Kunich gaylist.
At this rate I might even catch up with Howard and William/Bill.

On Jan 30, 2:43*am, Donald Munro wrote:
Donald Munro wrote:
It takes a religious fanatic to know a religious fanatic.
Tom Kunich wrote:
Say, I'll bet you know a lot of gay guys really personally.

I seem to have improved my position on the Kunich gaylist.
At this rate I might even catch up with Howard and William/Bill.

Holy ****! Are they contagious or something? If so, and if it
mattered, I'd be in deep ****. I have no idea how many I know pretty
closely, but it's a bunch. Females too, but they're OK 'cause the
porns fun to watch, right?
I have yet to hear a rational explanation how what someone does in
their lovelife, as long as it's not with kids, makes them a bad
person. The families here that I know seem to be pretty ordinary, in
reality, as opposed to the hysterical anti-marriage stuff. Have yet to
meet a single one of those "twisted" kids from one. They seem to do
things like ride/race bikes, play little league, go to school etc...
with mine like any other kids.
I'm still waiting to see the "DISASTER" to morals and the family from
allowing marriage here. The issue is pretty much dead.
I do love it when people point to exactly the same **** that happens
in any bad relationship as a reason to slam them. Duh, compare that to
everyone else. In places where there's all this hate directed at them
I can see it being self fulfilling because of the pressure and
harrassment, but who's the problem with then?
Bill C

On Jan 30, 7:12*am, Bill C wrote:

*I have yet to hear a rational explanation how what someone does in
their lovelife, as long as it's not with kids, makes them a bad
person.

snip



Dumbass -


If an entity (religion) is able to get you to control your instincts
(eating and reproduction) for them, there's nothing else for them to
do. They've got your ass.

All that stuff is relical, from the Puritanical roots of this country.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Bill C wrote:

On Jan 30, 2:43*am, Donald Munro wrote:
Donald Munro wrote:
It takes a religious fanatic to know a religious fanatic.
Tom Kunich wrote:
Say, I'll bet you know a lot of gay guys really personally.

I seem to have improved my position on the Kunich gaylist.
At this rate I might even catch up with Howard and William/Bill.

Holy ****! Are they contagious or something? If so, and if it
mattered, I'd be in deep ****. I have no idea how many I know pretty
closely, but it's a bunch. Females too, but they're OK 'cause the
porns fun to watch, right?
I have yet to hear a rational explanation how what someone does in
their lovelife, as long as it's not with kids, makes them a bad
person. The families here that I know seem to be pretty ordinary, in
reality, as opposed to the hysterical anti-marriage stuff. Have yet to
meet a single one of those "twisted" kids from one. They seem to do
things like ride/race bikes, play little league, go to school etc...
with mine like any other kids.
I'm still waiting to see the "DISASTER" to morals and the family from
allowing marriage here. The issue is pretty much dead.
I do love it when people point to exactly the same **** that happens
in any bad relationship as a reason to slam them. Duh, compare that to
everyone else. In places where there's all this hate directed at them
I can see it being self fulfilling because of the pressure and
harrassment, but who's the problem with then?
Bill C

I agree with you but what I am curious about is how it went from Kunich
calling me gay, to my getting married to Howard, and then getting involved
with a 3-way with Donald? Not that there's anything wrong with that. It
seems like there was a slippery slope (sorry for the unintended graphic
imagery) there that I missed. Also, I would hate for Henry to feel left
out, since he's the patriarch for all gays here according to Tom, so he can
have first pick at the bath house, or altar. Whatever.

I might need a Venn diagram to sort this out. And a crowbar.

--
Bill Asher

On Jan 30, 12:46*pm, William Asher wrote:
Bill C wrote:
On Jan 30, 2:43*am, Donald Munro wrote:
Donald Munro wrote:
It takes a religious fanatic to know a religious fanatic.
Tom Kunich wrote:
Say, I'll bet you know a lot of gay guys really personally.

I seem to have improved my position on the Kunich gaylist.
At this rate I might even catch up with Howard and William/Bill.

Holy ****! Are they contagious or something? If so, and if it
mattered, I'd be in deep ****. I have no idea how many I know pretty
closely, but it's a bunch. Females too, but they're OK 'cause the
porns fun to watch, right?
*I have yet to hear a rational explanation how what someone does in
their lovelife, as long as it's not with kids, makes them a bad
person. The families here that I know seem to be pretty ordinary, in
reality, as opposed to the hysterical anti-marriage stuff. Have yet to
meet a single one of those "twisted" kids from one. They seem to do
things like ride/race bikes, play little league, go to school etc...
with mine like any other kids.
*I'm still waiting to see the "DISASTER" to morals and the family from
allowing marriage here. The issue is pretty much dead.
*I do love it when people point to exactly the same **** that happens
in any bad relationship as a reason to slam them. Duh, compare that to
everyone else. In places where there's all this hate directed at them
I can see it being self fulfilling because of the pressure and
harrassment, but who's the problem with then?
*Bill C

I agree with you but what I am curious about is how it went from Kunich
calling me gay, to my getting married to Howard, and then getting involved
with a 3-way with Donald? *Not that there's anything wrong with that. *It
seems like there was a slippery slope (sorry for the unintended graphic
imagery) there that I missed. *Also, I would hate for Henry to feel left
out, since he's the patriarch for all gays here according to Tom, so he can
have first pick at the bath house, or altar. *Whatever.

I might need a Venn diagram to sort this out. *And a crowbar. *

--
Bill Asher- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

My thought process was that if being gay was a problem then I'm in a
boatload of trouble due to exposure. This area is frequently voted/
listed as one of the friendliest/best areas of the US towards gays. I
was just trying to provide my experiences here as an example that it
really doesn't matter much.
I'm not going to put words in Tom's mouth but my understanding of
all his comments is that somehow this is an insult, or problem. That
completely baffles me as my experience says in the functional world
there isn't any damn difference between them and any other group
that's been stigmatized and had their rights denied. As people they're
just people trying to get on with life like all the rest of us.
This seems to me to be one of Tom's positions I just can't see any
reasoning for other than, possibly, religion.
I'm sure you aren't insulted by the characterization, any more than
any of the other people he accuses are.
To steal a thought from D-y I just couldn't let that pass without a
challenge.
Bill C

"Bill C" wrote in message
...

I'm not going to put words in Tom's mouth but my understanding of
all his comments is that somehow this is an insult, or problem.

I'm still trying to discover how pointing out the flaws in Munro's logic is
somehow a deadly insult to gays everywhere.