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

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>
>>>>>the difference between bona fide Christians and those who merely
>>>>>assume the title for political expedience.
>
>
>>>>ROTFL - I'm not even gonna ask!!
>
>
>>>Why's that, Bill? Afraid you might accidentally learn something?
>
>
>>Oh yes, Daniel. I fear knowledge and learning. Thinking hurts so much.
>
>
> Well, c'mon, you present me with a golden opportunity like that and expect
> me not to jump on it? ;-) In all seriousness, I'm sure you can probably
> figure out the difference between a genuine Christian and a
> self-proclaimed phony if you think about it for awhile. Here's food for
> thought to help you get started:
>
> What does it mean to be a Christian? Is it enough just to say "I accept
> Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Saviour?" What if one goes to church
> every Sunday, is *that* enough? How 'bout if one says the words, goes to
> church *and* gives money to Christian charities, would *that* make one a
> Christian?
>
> Or is all of that maybe necessary to varying degrees but not sufficient?
> Is it maybe necessary to walk the walk as well as talking the talk? To
> really spend time and effort thinking "What would Jesus do?"...and then
> spend time and effort doing it?
>
>
>>Funny how *only* *you* can simultaneously understand what it is to be
>>gay and Christian/christian.
>
>
> I've not made that assertion.
>
>
>>They'll probably have Michael Moore in a seat of prominence again at
>>their next convention and still not be able to agree on what the heck
>>happened.
>
>
> Perhaps. I dislike Michael Moore and his disingenuous work.

Ah - but that's the dillema, the paradox, of your cause. In order to
have any support in the base of the Democratic party, you will have to
get (or, should I say, stay) in bed with the likes of Michael Moore. I
know and am related to Christians who think Michael Moore is wonderful.
Like I say - quite a dilemma dna quite a paradox.

You start dis'ing Michael Moore and his kind, telling them they can't be
the darlings of their convention, that they have to stay in the
background and keep their mouths shut, etc., and they will turn against
the party. The support for it was already marginal enough. I'm
thinking, and you probably realize in your heart of hearts, that the
needle of the Dems pushing the gay marriage agenda *AND* simultaneously
getting elected into political power is not threadable - unless they
don't run openly on the agenda but keep it as a hidden agenda - but
people would not fall for it - the people who would do that aren't smart
enough to pull it off. Reality is a bitch.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>
>>>>>the difference between bona fide Christians and those who merely
>>>>>assume the title for political expedience.
>
>
>>>>ROTFL - I'm not even gonna ask!!
>
>
>>>Why's that, Bill? Afraid you might accidentally learn something?
>
>
>>Oh yes, Daniel. I fear knowledge and learning. Thinking hurts so much.
>
>
> Well, c'mon, you present me with a golden opportunity like that and expect
> me not to jump on it? ;-) In all seriousness, I'm sure you can probably
> figure out the difference between a genuine Christian and a
> self-proclaimed phony if you think about it for awhile. Here's food for
> thought to help you get started:
>
> What does it mean to be a Christian? Is it enough just to say "I accept
> Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Saviour?" What if one goes to church
> every Sunday, is *that* enough? How 'bout if one says the words, goes to
> church *and* gives money to Christian charities, would *that* make one a
> Christian?
>
> Or is all of that maybe necessary to varying degrees but not sufficient?
> Is it maybe necessary to walk the walk as well as talking the talk? To
> really spend time and effort thinking "What would Jesus do?"...and then
> spend time and effort doing it?
>
>
>>Funny how *only* *you* can simultaneously understand what it is to be
>>gay and Christian/christian.
>
>
> I've not made that assertion.
>
>
>>They'll probably have Michael Moore in a seat of prominence again at
>>their next convention and still not be able to agree on what the heck
>>happened.
>
>
> Perhaps. I dislike Michael Moore and his disingenuous work.

Ah - but that's the dillema, the paradox, of your cause. In order to
have any support in the base of the Democratic party, you will have to
get (or, should I say, stay) in bed with the likes of Michael Moore. I
know and am related to Christians who think Michael Moore is wonderful.
Like I say - quite a dilemma dna quite a paradox.

You start dis'ing Michael Moore and his kind, telling them they can't be
the darlings of their convention, that they have to stay in the
background and keep their mouths shut, etc., and they will turn against
the party. The support for it was already marginal enough. I'm
thinking, and you probably realize in your heart of hearts, that the
needle of the Dems pushing the gay marriage agenda *AND* simultaneously
getting elected into political power is not threadable - unless they
don't run openly on the agenda but keep it as a hidden agenda - but
people would not fall for it - the people who would do that aren't smart
enough to pull it off. Reality is a bitch.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 23:12:23 -0500, "Daniel J. Stern"
> wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>> And to the guy who wants to marry his sister, or his dog, or a tree, or
>> a rock - what do you tell him?
>
>Ah, Bill's true colors finally show through.
>
>You tell him, Bill, that his dog, his tree or his rock is not sentient and
>is therefore unable to give consent, and that family members are
>prohibited from intermarrying for medical reasons.
>
>DS

Well, tongue in cheek or not, declaring what's sentient and what's not
can be tricky.
There are people who claim to be able to understand what animals are
thinking. *I* think they're frauds, but who's to say with authority?
And as for laws governing marriage between close blood relatives, what
if one or both are 'fixed' so children are not possible?
Point being, once you open the door to such things, well, there's the
camel.

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 23:12:23 -0500, "Daniel J. Stern"
> wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>> And to the guy who wants to marry his sister, or his dog, or a tree, or
>> a rock - what do you tell him?
>
>Ah, Bill's true colors finally show through.
>
>You tell him, Bill, that his dog, his tree or his rock is not sentient and
>is therefore unable to give consent, and that family members are
>prohibited from intermarrying for medical reasons.
>
>DS

Well, tongue in cheek or not, declaring what's sentient and what's not
can be tricky.
There are people who claim to be able to understand what animals are
thinking. *I* think they're frauds, but who's to say with authority?
And as for laws governing marriage between close blood relatives, what
if one or both are 'fixed' so children are not possible?
Point being, once you open the door to such things, well, there's the
camel.

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Abeness wrote:

> Very well said. I chalk it all up to sloppy thinking, and there's a
> shameful amount of that in the world.

Yes, but here at home I'm not sure we have a right to expect better than
sloppy thinking. We don't teach critical analysis and reasoning, we don't
teach civics and government, and what we do teach is, by and large, taught
sloppily.

DS

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Abeness wrote:

> Very well said. I chalk it all up to sloppy thinking, and there's a
> shameful amount of that in the world.

Yes, but here at home I'm not sure we have a right to expect better than
sloppy thinking. We don't teach critical analysis and reasoning, we don't
teach civics and government, and what we do teach is, by and large, taught
sloppily.

DS

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:

> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:

> >>And to the guy who wants to marry his sister, or his dog, or a tree, or
> >>a rock - what do you tell him?

> > You tell him, Bill, that his dog, his tree or his rock is not sentient and
> > is therefore unable to give consent, and that family members are
> > prohibited from intermarrying for medical reasons.

> Well if the medical thing was used in the past to prevent racially mixed
> marriage, then, by liberal logic, "medical reasons" can never be used
> for denail of alleged rights in any "rights" issue in the future,
> because we all know that if a = b, then d = f (by liberal logic).

The above paragraph consists of you railing against something that has not
been argued -- at least you've not provided a cite for any such an
argument. It seems to be something you're afraid might be argued.

> Oh, but Daniel - he disagrees with you about the sentient part,

Your comparison of homosexual people to dogs, trees and rocks is noted.

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:

> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:

> >>And to the guy who wants to marry his sister, or his dog, or a tree, or
> >>a rock - what do you tell him?

> > You tell him, Bill, that his dog, his tree or his rock is not sentient and
> > is therefore unable to give consent, and that family members are
> > prohibited from intermarrying for medical reasons.

> Well if the medical thing was used in the past to prevent racially mixed
> marriage, then, by liberal logic, "medical reasons" can never be used
> for denail of alleged rights in any "rights" issue in the future,
> because we all know that if a = b, then d = f (by liberal logic).

The above paragraph consists of you railing against something that has not
been argued -- at least you've not provided a cite for any such an
argument. It seems to be something you're afraid might be argued.

> Oh, but Daniel - he disagrees with you about the sentient part,

Your comparison of homosexual people to dogs, trees and rocks is noted.

Geoff wrote:

>
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>
>>Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 02:53:00 -0800
>>From: Ted Mittelstaedt >
>>Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.chrysler
>>Subject: Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!!
>> ___________ mixqec
>>
>>
>>"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
gin.umich.edu...
>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>
>>Ever notice how they are never called activist judges when they try putting
>>the
>>10 commandments in their courtrooms?
>>
>>Ted
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Just to disabuse you of the notion that all right-leaning voters are
> Christian activists, let me offer myself up as an example. In my
> agnostic view of the world (true agnosticism, by the way -- I'm not
> someone who "just doesn't know" about God's existence, I have an
> opinion...) the Alabama judge who wanted his biblical sculpture in the
> courtroom ought to have been vilified. I voted for Bush, proudly, and
> will probably vote for conservative candidates well into the foreseeable
> future, but I'll part company with 'em every time when it comes to
> matters regarding the separation of church in state. In a secular
> government, the 10Cs have no place in the courtroom, or in the
> public schools.
>
> Period.

Baloney. You show a profound lack of understanding of our Constitution
and the beliefs of the founding fathers. Separation of church and state
is NOT found in the Constitution. If you can find it, please provide a
paragraph reference as I've read it several times and can't find it.
The only thing the founding fathers wanted to avoid was a state
religion/state church as existed in England. The separation concept
came from the bench the same as the activism regarding homosexual marriage.

Look at the government buildings in DC, they contain many Christian
artifacts, even the Supreme Court isn't "sanitary" in this regard. The
reality is that our government was established against a backdrop of
Christian and Biblical principles. You don't have to like that, but it
is a fact.


Matt

Geoff wrote:

>
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>
>>Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 02:53:00 -0800
>>From: Ted Mittelstaedt >
>>Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.chrysler
>>Subject: Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!!
>> ___________ mixqec
>>
>>
>>"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
gin.umich.edu...
>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>
>>Ever notice how they are never called activist judges when they try putting
>>the
>>10 commandments in their courtrooms?
>>
>>Ted
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Just to disabuse you of the notion that all right-leaning voters are
> Christian activists, let me offer myself up as an example. In my
> agnostic view of the world (true agnosticism, by the way -- I'm not
> someone who "just doesn't know" about God's existence, I have an
> opinion...) the Alabama judge who wanted his biblical sculpture in the
> courtroom ought to have been vilified. I voted for Bush, proudly, and
> will probably vote for conservative candidates well into the foreseeable
> future, but I'll part company with 'em every time when it comes to
> matters regarding the separation of church in state. In a secular
> government, the 10Cs have no place in the courtroom, or in the
> public schools.
>
> Period.

Baloney. You show a profound lack of understanding of our Constitution
and the beliefs of the founding fathers. Separation of church and state
is NOT found in the Constitution. If you can find it, please provide a
paragraph reference as I've read it several times and can't find it.
The only thing the founding fathers wanted to avoid was a state
religion/state church as existed in England. The separation concept
came from the bench the same as the activism regarding homosexual marriage.

Look at the government buildings in DC, they contain many Christian
artifacts, even the Supreme Court isn't "sanitary" in this regard. The
reality is that our government was established against a backdrop of
Christian and Biblical principles. You don't have to like that, but it
is a fact.


Matt