Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________mixqec

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, WindsorFox[SS] wrote:
>
>
>>Shut up Daniel, I know a number of gays that supported Bush.
>
>
> And this proves...what, now?
>
> DS


Daniel, i get fussed at by the rest of the guys for being OT, and i
don't think that this has anything to do with cars, does it?

unless it has to do with Stupid Americans buying incredible American Gas
hogs?

hmmmmmm

Daniel, i am staying!!!!! thanks for the support...

lw

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, WindsorFox[SS] wrote:
>
>
>>Shut up Daniel, I know a number of gays that supported Bush.
>
>
> And this proves...what, now?
>
> DS


Daniel, i get fussed at by the rest of the guys for being OT, and i
don't think that this has anything to do with cars, does it?

unless it has to do with Stupid Americans buying incredible American Gas
hogs?

hmmmmmm

Daniel, i am staying!!!!! thanks for the support...

lw

Eric Gironda wrote:


> Last time I checked "marriage" was not a
> right the people of this country are granted.

Last time you checked you had no comprehension of what the Constitution
is, and you still don't.

Our government does not grant us rights, nor does the Constitution
itself, it merely recognizes them. The Constitution limits the
government, not the People.

Too bad we have let it be trashed.


Jack

Eric Gironda wrote:


> Last time I checked "marriage" was not a
> right the people of this country are granted.

Last time you checked you had no comprehension of what the Constitution
is, and you still don't.

Our government does not grant us rights, nor does the Constitution
itself, it merely recognizes them. The Constitution limits the
government, not the People.

Too bad we have let it be trashed.


Jack

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, M100C wrote:
>
>
>>Dan,
>>My name is Chris ... no obscurity intended.
>
>
> Congratulations, Chris, on a job half done.
>
>
>>I assumed (incorrectly) from the umich address that you were near to me
>>... perhaps in Ann Arbor.
>
>
> As it seems.
>
>
>>You are revealing your limited political knowledge,
>
>
> No, I am discussing my viewpoint. It differs from yours. That makes
> neither of us right or wrong, neither of us necessarily knowledgeable or
> ignorant.
>
>
>>To be fair, you have forgotten more than I know about Chrysler
>>products,
>
>
> Irrelevant.
>
>
>>But, your ramble is very Will Hunting-ish.
>
>
> "Rambles" are not organized into coherent bullet points, each confined to
> one specific point, and all in direct response to a question.
>
> Since my response was, in fact, organized into coherent bullet points,
> each confined to one specific point, and all in direct response to a
> question, it was not a "ramble".
>
>
>>A lot of academic conjecture
>
>
> Nope. Two points of conjecture, and a lot of historical evidence.
>
>
>>pointless for straightforward debate.
>
>
> Humanity's long societal-behavior track record is very much germane to a
> discussion of societal behavior.
>
>
>>Think more logical.
>
>
> Your self-perception as exclusive holder of logic on the issue is noted,
> as is your improper grammar.
>
>
>>Think smaller
>
>
> No thanks, I'm not into being small-minded. Small-mindedness is the
> problem here, not the solution.
>
>
>>- for Christians, it is upholding their Biblical interpretation of marriage
>
>
> ...which they can uphold fully well without enforcing their Biblical
> interpretations upon those who don't share it. All they have to do if they
> don't believe in gay marriage is (class? Anyone? Buehler?) Not gay-marry.
>
>
>>it is the fear of liberal, activist judges who enact law, instead of
>>interpreting it.
>
>
> "Activist judges" like the ones who struck down mixed-race marriage bans?
> "Activist judges" like the ones who desegregated America? Those kinds of
> "activist judges", or some other kind?
>
>
>>Don't you see the irony?
>
>
> Of course I do: Those who oppose gay marriage (or abortion, or gun rights,
> etc.) do not want to prevent the installation and hamper the machinations
> of activist judges. They simply want a different polarity to the activism
> and a different result from it.
>
> Look, Chris, I don't expect to change your mind on this. I disagree with
> you, but I don't think you're ignorant or addlebrained or anything. It's
> sad, but you seem incapable of coping with the notion that it is possible
> for reasonable, intelligent, educated individuals to disagree. That being
> the case, I see little point in further debate with you.
>
> DS


Daniel, I worked with a woman, obviously ignorant, who stated, I would
rather have my child die a horrible death than be a homosexual. In
fact, she said she would kill him herself... How sad. I would rather
see my drug addicted son being a happy healthy homosexual than die a
horrible death. which in fact, he did die a horrible death. he
overdosed on heroin. however, i had called paramedics just in time and
fortunately for me, the paramedics got to him in time and brought him
back to life, it was touch and go for a while. he is now recovering
from his addiction but has problems associated with his sharing of
needles (hep c). this was the same woman who told me that she would
not have an abortion if she found out that her child would have NO
quality of life, and be severely physically and mentally handicapped.
she was a redneck (a southern term we use for stupid people who should
now better).... don't get me started on gays not being able to
have/adopt children.


linda

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, M100C wrote:
>
>
>>Dan,
>>My name is Chris ... no obscurity intended.
>
>
> Congratulations, Chris, on a job half done.
>
>
>>I assumed (incorrectly) from the umich address that you were near to me
>>... perhaps in Ann Arbor.
>
>
> As it seems.
>
>
>>You are revealing your limited political knowledge,
>
>
> No, I am discussing my viewpoint. It differs from yours. That makes
> neither of us right or wrong, neither of us necessarily knowledgeable or
> ignorant.
>
>
>>To be fair, you have forgotten more than I know about Chrysler
>>products,
>
>
> Irrelevant.
>
>
>>But, your ramble is very Will Hunting-ish.
>
>
> "Rambles" are not organized into coherent bullet points, each confined to
> one specific point, and all in direct response to a question.
>
> Since my response was, in fact, organized into coherent bullet points,
> each confined to one specific point, and all in direct response to a
> question, it was not a "ramble".
>
>
>>A lot of academic conjecture
>
>
> Nope. Two points of conjecture, and a lot of historical evidence.
>
>
>>pointless for straightforward debate.
>
>
> Humanity's long societal-behavior track record is very much germane to a
> discussion of societal behavior.
>
>
>>Think more logical.
>
>
> Your self-perception as exclusive holder of logic on the issue is noted,
> as is your improper grammar.
>
>
>>Think smaller
>
>
> No thanks, I'm not into being small-minded. Small-mindedness is the
> problem here, not the solution.
>
>
>>- for Christians, it is upholding their Biblical interpretation of marriage
>
>
> ...which they can uphold fully well without enforcing their Biblical
> interpretations upon those who don't share it. All they have to do if they
> don't believe in gay marriage is (class? Anyone? Buehler?) Not gay-marry.
>
>
>>it is the fear of liberal, activist judges who enact law, instead of
>>interpreting it.
>
>
> "Activist judges" like the ones who struck down mixed-race marriage bans?
> "Activist judges" like the ones who desegregated America? Those kinds of
> "activist judges", or some other kind?
>
>
>>Don't you see the irony?
>
>
> Of course I do: Those who oppose gay marriage (or abortion, or gun rights,
> etc.) do not want to prevent the installation and hamper the machinations
> of activist judges. They simply want a different polarity to the activism
> and a different result from it.
>
> Look, Chris, I don't expect to change your mind on this. I disagree with
> you, but I don't think you're ignorant or addlebrained or anything. It's
> sad, but you seem incapable of coping with the notion that it is possible
> for reasonable, intelligent, educated individuals to disagree. That being
> the case, I see little point in further debate with you.
>
> DS


Daniel, I worked with a woman, obviously ignorant, who stated, I would
rather have my child die a horrible death than be a homosexual. In
fact, she said she would kill him herself... How sad. I would rather
see my drug addicted son being a happy healthy homosexual than die a
horrible death. which in fact, he did die a horrible death. he
overdosed on heroin. however, i had called paramedics just in time and
fortunately for me, the paramedics got to him in time and brought him
back to life, it was touch and go for a while. he is now recovering
from his addiction but has problems associated with his sharing of
needles (hep c). this was the same woman who told me that she would
not have an abortion if she found out that her child would have NO
quality of life, and be severely physically and mentally handicapped.
she was a redneck (a southern term we use for stupid people who should
now better).... don't get me started on gays not being able to
have/adopt children.


linda

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004, linda wrote:

> >>Shut up Daniel, I know a number of gays that supported Bush.

> > And this proves...what, now?

> Daniel, i get fussed at by the rest of the guys for being OT,

We all do.

> don't think that this has anything to do with cars, does it?

Nope.

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004, linda wrote:

> >>Shut up Daniel, I know a number of gays that supported Bush.

> > And this proves...what, now?

> Daniel, i get fussed at by the rest of the guys for being OT,

We all do.

> don't think that this has anything to do with cars, does it?

Nope.

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Nov 2004, linda wrote:
>
>
>>>>Shut up Daniel, I know a number of gays that supported Bush.
>
>
>>>And this proves...what, now?
>
>
>>Daniel, i get fussed at by the rest of the guys for being OT,
>
>
> We all do.
>
>
>>don't think that this has anything to do with cars, does it?
>
>
> Nope.
>

TO ALL:
Homosexuality is an accepted lifestyle nowadays with a proven biological
causation. For too long homosexuality has been considered a form of
"deviant sexual behavior". Those making these accusations should examine
the history books and the psychological research. Throughout our history
going all the way back to ancient Greece, homosexual relationships have
existed. The term "lesbian" comes from a Greek island called "Lesbos"
where many such couples lived. An overwhelming amount of research has
been done showing that homosexuality has a biological causation; not yet
determined a genetic one, biological one. The easiest way to think of it
is as a hormonal switch that gets thrown one way or the other. And if
you think about it, it makes logical sense. Consider many gays and
lesbians you've seen. NOT ALWAYS, but at times, secondary sexual
characteristics resemble the opposite sex. In other words, homosexual
males may have softer voices. Lesbians may have strong cheekbones and a
more masculine body shape. It's all affected by those hormone switches.
And why would someone choose to be gay. Do people analyze the
situation..."Let's see, I can be discriminated against, ridiculed by
friends and co-workers, rejected by my family, told I'm going to hell by
the church, subjected to beatings by gay bashers...hmmm, sign me up!"
Now, there will be odd cases where people experiment with different
types of sex, but you can't just teach people to be gay or not gay for a
lifetime.

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Nov 2004, linda wrote:
>
>
>>>>Shut up Daniel, I know a number of gays that supported Bush.
>
>
>>>And this proves...what, now?
>
>
>>Daniel, i get fussed at by the rest of the guys for being OT,
>
>
> We all do.
>
>
>>don't think that this has anything to do with cars, does it?
>
>
> Nope.
>

TO ALL:
Homosexuality is an accepted lifestyle nowadays with a proven biological
causation. For too long homosexuality has been considered a form of
"deviant sexual behavior". Those making these accusations should examine
the history books and the psychological research. Throughout our history
going all the way back to ancient Greece, homosexual relationships have
existed. The term "lesbian" comes from a Greek island called "Lesbos"
where many such couples lived. An overwhelming amount of research has
been done showing that homosexuality has a biological causation; not yet
determined a genetic one, biological one. The easiest way to think of it
is as a hormonal switch that gets thrown one way or the other. And if
you think about it, it makes logical sense. Consider many gays and
lesbians you've seen. NOT ALWAYS, but at times, secondary sexual
characteristics resemble the opposite sex. In other words, homosexual
males may have softer voices. Lesbians may have strong cheekbones and a
more masculine body shape. It's all affected by those hormone switches.
And why would someone choose to be gay. Do people analyze the
situation..."Let's see, I can be discriminated against, ridiculed by
friends and co-workers, rejected by my family, told I'm going to hell by
the church, subjected to beatings by gay bashers...hmmm, sign me up!"
Now, there will be odd cases where people experiment with different
types of sex, but you can't just teach people to be gay or not gay for a
lifetime.