you people are gay

On 11/24/2004 06:41 PM, in article
, "TritonRider"
wrote:

From: John Forrest Tomlinson

I've got no problem with what right-wing zealots do in their own
homes.* I've got no problem even with them talking about it in public
-- they should. I've got a big problem with attempts to deny civil
rights based on that -- that has to be denounced and fought. Those
actions are wrong and must be stopped..

JT


That we are in complete agreement on. My contention is that the Democratic
party was convinced early in the election cycle that they could not win so
they
went into pander to the base/far left, then it became winable due to Bush's
actions, but by that point they had completely terrified and alienated most of
the moderate undecided.


I disagree with you there ... Why do you think, in the early polls, Howard
Dean was doing so well, with Kerry languishing in a distant second or third?

I don't think most Democrats voted their hearts in the primaries .. They
voted for their second choice because he was being portrayed as "electable".

Kerry tried too hard to be moderate for the right and liberal for the left,
and it killed him because you never really knew where he stood.

While I would never vote for an incompetent dolt like Bush-the-Second, there
are a number of Republicans that I would consider voting for, even if I
disagree with some of their positions, as long as I knew where they stood.

Someone needs to tell Bush that it's okay to admit that you made a mistake
and change your mind on policy matters. Someone needs to tell Kerry that
you can't keep changing back-and-forth-and-back-and-forth-and-back-again.

I would vote for John McCain ... Socially and fiscally conservative, but not
a bull****ter like Bush/Cheney/Rove.

I would consider voting for Rudy Giuliani; fiscally conservative and
socially moderate, and another non-bull****ter.

I would vote for Richard Riordan, the former mayor of Los Angeles, even
though I'm a Northern Californian, and thus genetically biased against
anything from Sothern California.

In fact, in the 2002 California gubernatorial elections, I was supporting
Riordan, even though I was in Utah instead of California, because Gray Davis
was such a worthless sack of **** as a governor.

And if the Democratic party runs Hillary Clinton as their presidential
candidate in 2008, I'll either be voting Republican (if the Republican
candidate is someone I can respect, even if I disagree with them), or for
one of the small no-hoper party candidates.

--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
veloworks at worldnet dot ay tea tee dot net
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [foreword] slash

From: "Steven L. Sheffield"

I disagree with you there ... Why do you think, in the early polls, Howard
Dean was doing so well, with Kerry languishing in a distant second or third?

You're not in the north east. Dean was leading because he was the Democratic
attack dog and that's what the motivated faithful wanted to hear. Dean was
NEVER electable IMO. He did a great job until he melted down, and that's my
argument for why Kerry lost. They were perceived as scarier to the US than
Bush. My bet would be that Gore 2000 would've won this one in a landslide.
I'd like to see a Republican ticket of Powell and, say, Bill Weld for 2008 but
that's not going to happen since the far right torpedoed Weld and they hate
Powell too. I agree about Davis, but I'm not going to re-open that here again.
I really wish that there was a high profile Democrat who was in touch with most
of America. I think Obama is the new JFK if they don't screw it up.
Bill C

From: "Steven L. Sheffield"

I disagree with you there ... Why do you think, in the early polls, Howard
Dean was doing so well, with Kerry languishing in a distant second or third?

You're not in the north east. Dean was leading because he was the Democratic
attack dog and that's what the motivated faithful wanted to hear. Dean was
NEVER electable IMO. He did a great job until he melted down, and that's my
argument for why Kerry lost. They were perceived as scarier to the US than
Bush. My bet would be that Gore 2000 would've won this one in a landslide.
I'd like to see a Republican ticket of Powell and, say, Bill Weld for 2008 but
that's not going to happen since the far right torpedoed Weld and they hate
Powell too. I agree about Davis, but I'm not going to re-open that here again.
I really wish that there was a high profile Democrat who was in touch with most
of America. I think Obama is the new JFK if they don't screw it up.
Bill C

TritonRider wrote:
From: Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS


I personally hear far, far more of the right wing characterizing those
who disagree with them as "un-American". I think they have been far
more successful at wrapping themselves in the flag, and less tolerant of
dissent.
I'm not aware of any lefties promoting laws protecting the flag--are
you? Generally, the right wants to protect the flag. The left wants to
protect what they feel it stands for. If you don't agree with what the
left believes the flag stands for, I guess we agree that the left and
right are selective in just what rights they care about. But as far as
labeling the other side anti-American? No contest.

Steve


Steve I'm going to conditionally disagree.
I think that the right has at least as many people who are trying to twist
what is American, but the left is doing exactly the same thing with different
issues.
My vision for the ideal "Main Street" Anytown would have a church, a mosque, a
synagogue, an NAACP office, A Klan office with lawful protesters outside, a
planned parenthood office, a decent shelter, a leftwing and rightwing news
outlet, a park where everybody could speak and debate freely without
intimidation...you should be able to add the rest for yourself.
Bill C


Bill--

There is probably a lot we could find to agree on.
For me I guess the main thing is that JT, I and many others are very
angry, very frustrated and very upset--partly (but not totally) for
reasons you've already mentioned.
You can tell us we shouldn't be angry, or we should suck it up, but
that's not how it works. I can hear JT venting, but I don't hear him
censoring anyone (as if he could).
You and I view things differently, and that's perfectly OK with me.

Steve

Steve

TritonRider wrote:
From: Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS


I personally hear far, far more of the right wing characterizing those
who disagree with them as "un-American". I think they have been far
more successful at wrapping themselves in the flag, and less tolerant of
dissent.
I'm not aware of any lefties promoting laws protecting the flag--are
you? Generally, the right wants to protect the flag. The left wants to
protect what they feel it stands for. If you don't agree with what the
left believes the flag stands for, I guess we agree that the left and
right are selective in just what rights they care about. But as far as
labeling the other side anti-American? No contest.

Steve


Steve I'm going to conditionally disagree.
I think that the right has at least as many people who are trying to twist
what is American, but the left is doing exactly the same thing with different
issues.
My vision for the ideal "Main Street" Anytown would have a church, a mosque, a
synagogue, an NAACP office, A Klan office with lawful protesters outside, a
planned parenthood office, a decent shelter, a leftwing and rightwing news
outlet, a park where everybody could speak and debate freely without
intimidation...you should be able to add the rest for yourself.
Bill C


Bill--

There is probably a lot we could find to agree on.
For me I guess the main thing is that JT, I and many others are very
angry, very frustrated and very upset--partly (but not totally) for
reasons you've already mentioned.
You can tell us we shouldn't be angry, or we should suck it up, but
that's not how it works. I can hear JT venting, but I don't hear him
censoring anyone (as if he could).
You and I view things differently, and that's perfectly OK with me.

Steve

Steve

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 02:46:12 GMT, "Steven L. Sheffield"
wrote:


I would vote for John McCain ... Socially and fiscally conservative, but not
a bull****ter like Bush/Cheney/Rove.

I would consider voting for Rudy Giuliani; fiscally conservative and
socially moderate, and another non-bull****ter.


I wouldn't vote for any of these guys, but can respect anyone who
supported them. I simply disagree with a lot of these politicians'
policies.

GWB is another lever from there guys -- incompetent, deceptive and a
proven danger to the wellbeing of the US and people of the world.

JT.

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 02:46:12 GMT, "Steven L. Sheffield"
wrote:


I would vote for John McCain ... Socially and fiscally conservative, but not
a bull****ter like Bush/Cheney/Rove.

I would consider voting for Rudy Giuliani; fiscally conservative and
socially moderate, and another non-bull****ter.


I wouldn't vote for any of these guys, but can respect anyone who
supported them. I simply disagree with a lot of these politicians'
policies.

GWB is another lever from there guys -- incompetent, deceptive and a
proven danger to the wellbeing of the US and people of the world.

JT.

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

In article ,
(TritonRider) wrote:

From: John Forrest Tomlinson

I still don't understand why you have dragged people who "hate"
America into political discussions here.

JT

When those people are donating millions of dollars to the Democratic party,
making numerous statements in support of the Democrats, and making propaganda
films for the Democrats then they need to be part of the total discussion
here, that should be as ovious to you as the need to discuss the SBVT guys,
and Bush's ties to the Saudi monarchy.

Well, if Michael Moore is considered to be a guy making propaganda films
for the Democrats, isn't that countered by the daily barrage of propaganda
out of Fox? Or the rest of the media, which dutifully reported what the
admin. said, and chose to forego doing any actual investigating into the
veracity of the info they were getting? In order to be propagandized by MM,
a person had to actively go out of their house, search down a theatre
showing F-911 and watch it. The other stuff comes right into one's home -
you don't have to lift a finger. And don't forget the incident with
Sinclair Braodcasting right before the election (the cancellation of
regular programming to run a Kerry-bashing piece under the guise of "news").

As for being part of the discussion, many of the voices on the left were
left hanging during the run-up to the war. The voices that dominated were
the Hannitys, O'Reillys and the rest.

--
tanx,
Howard

"You ain't having fun until you're dialing 911"
Atomic 7

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article ,
(TritonRider) wrote:

From: John Forrest Tomlinson

I still don't understand why you have dragged people who "hate"
America into political discussions here.

JT

When those people are donating millions of dollars to the Democratic party,
making numerous statements in support of the Democrats, and making propaganda
films for the Democrats then they need to be part of the total discussion
here, that should be as ovious to you as the need to discuss the SBVT guys,
and Bush's ties to the Saudi monarchy.

Well, if Michael Moore is considered to be a guy making propaganda films
for the Democrats, isn't that countered by the daily barrage of propaganda
out of Fox? Or the rest of the media, which dutifully reported what the
admin. said, and chose to forego doing any actual investigating into the
veracity of the info they were getting? In order to be propagandized by MM,
a person had to actively go out of their house, search down a theatre
showing F-911 and watch it. The other stuff comes right into one's home -
you don't have to lift a finger. And don't forget the incident with
Sinclair Braodcasting right before the election (the cancellation of
regular programming to run a Kerry-bashing piece under the guise of "news").

As for being part of the discussion, many of the voices on the left were
left hanging during the run-up to the war. The voices that dominated were
the Hannitys, O'Reillys and the rest.

--
tanx,
Howard

"You ain't having fun until you're dialing 911"
Atomic 7

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

TritonRider wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.

Does not say freedom from religion. It does say will not prohibit free exercise
of religion.
You are violently opposed to people's freedom to practice their religion.

I must have missed a post here as I didn't see where John expressed such
an opinion, violently or otherwise.

Being opposed to having others religious views foisted upon you differs
from being 'opposed to people's freedom to practice their religion'. It
does not matter whether these others are moslems trying to force women to
cover their faces or christian fundamentalists (or catholics) trying to
impose their views on for example abortion on everyone else.