"Michelle Steiner" > wrote in message
...
> In article > ,
> "BaJoRi" > wrote:
>
>> > You're looking at it all wrong, which is not surprising. One side
>> > (yours) is trying to oppress the other side, and deprive it of
>> > human rights. The other side (mine) is working for liberty and
>> > justice for all.
>>
>> As long as it is done your way and there are no dissenting opionions.
>
> I don't care how it is done, so long as it is done. But what do you
> mean by a dissenting opinion? Do you mean that you don't want liberty
> and justice for all?

Wouldn't mind it at all. I just find it funny that you insist on your own
liberties and justice, at the expense of others. Just like those folk on
which you base your claim of moral superiority.

>
>> > BTW, 104 retired generals and admirals have signed a statement that
>> > they believe that "Don't ask, don't tell" should be done away with:
>>
>> I agree. I would put all the gays on the front line against the
>> Taliban, tell them that there is a Penney's on the other side of the
>> hill, and that there is a TREMENDOUS sale on new drapes.
>
> I'm sure that in your warped little so-called mind, you actually believe
> that.

YOU need to get a sense of humor.

>
>> > <http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/...tell/index.htm
>> > l>
>> >
>> > You may have won the recent battle, but you're going to lose the
>> > war. And don't forget that you started the war.
>>
>> And the stupidity in your stance is that you alienate people that
>> actually are on your side, but disagree with you tactics.
>
> The only people who are alienated are the bigots like you, who are
> already alienated.

SO you have the whole "with us or against us" stance going, just like Bush.
How does that influence your moral superiority?

>
>> Schools are no place for you to make your point.
>
> Why do you keep dragging schools into this? This is about marriage, not
> schools. Unlike you creeps, we don't want to marry children.

You know EXACTLY what I mean. And it is sad that YOU are the one who is in
need of a course on civil liberties.

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:56:01 +0000, BaJoRi wrote:

> "KK" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 00:27:17 +0000, BaJoRi wrote:
>>
>>> While you claim it is wrong for people to force you to adhere to their
>>> views, through things like Prop 8, etc. So it is also wrong for people
>>> to try and force their own views of homosexuality on others, by
>>> whetever means necessary, notably trying to get tolerance for such to
>>> be placed into the curriculum of public schools. And don't tell me
>>> that isn't happening,
>>
>> I haven't seen anyone here demand *** sex-ed curriculum, and it wasn't
>> part of Prop 8, or any other *** marriage bill, referendum, or court
>> decision about *** marriage.
>>
>>
> Interesting how you don't have the intellectual honesty

Oh, eat me. I take issue with your equating and connecting ***-sex
school cirriculum with *** marriage. It's the only thing in your post I
addressed, so it's the only thing I included.

What's intellectually dishonest is making graphic sex cirriculum the
logical conclusion (or inseperable side effect) of *** marriage.

> to confront that
> whole paragraph, and you had to snip out the portion about me going to a
> school board meeting to argue against a *** lifestyle curriculum
> addition to my son's grade school.


Because it's irrelevant to the *** marriage issue, unless, as I stated,
your cirriculum issue is part of a bill, referendum, or decision on ***
marriage.

It's not.

In article
>,
" > wrote:


> This seems like a hoax, the type perpetrated to attempt to get the
> gullible
> many to blame the *** community. There is no evidence or claim to
> any
> connection.

> And there is this particularly off sentence:
>
> >Protests in recent days have targeted the Mormon church, which encouraged
> >its members to fight the recently passed amendment banning *** marriage in
> >California.
>
> So if I read this right, gays may have targetted a church which
> opposed the
> amendment to ban *** marriage in California.
>
> Permit me to say "huh"?

It's a little complicated. So complicated that even AP got it wrong,
although I think it was a simple typo kind of thing:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081114/D94EEP9O2.html

Change "fight the" to "fight for the".

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

In article > ,
"BaJoRi" > wrote:

> "Michelle Steiner" > wrote:
>
> > The other side (mine) is working for liberty and justice for all.
>
> As long as it is done your way and there are no dissenting opionions.

What is the "dissenting opinion" from "liberty and justice for all"?
Liberty and justice for some? Liberty and justice for no one?

--
D.F. Manno |

This time _we_ won. This time _you_ get over it.

In article >,
"BaJoRi" > wrote:

> I agree that someone teling someone else to burn in hell and die is a little
> much. However, for every idiot bible-thumper who spouts that type of
> nonsense, so we can find a militant *** activist who finds it very
> justifiable to do the same thing, while condemning others for the same act.

I call. Name three "militant *** activists" who are telling anyone to
burn in hell and die.

--
D.F. Manno |

This time _we_ won. This time _you_ get over it.

In article > ,
"tar~bal" > wrote:

> I'm not afraid of homos, they disgust me. There's a difference.

Not really. You can't have one without the other.

--
D.F. Manno |

This time _we_ won. This time _you_ get over it.

In article > ,
"tar~bal" > wrote:

> WWJD?

What Would a Jackass Do?

--
D.F. Manno |

This time _we_ won. This time _you_ get over it.

"D.F. Manno" > wrote in message
...
> In article > ,
> "tar~bal" > wrote:
>
>> D.F. Manno > wrote:
>> > "tar~bal" > wrote:
>> >> D.F. Manno > wrote:
>> >> > "tar~bal" > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> I guess this is what passes for a constructive and healthy
>> >> >> dialog on the issues in the *** community. While not all
>> >> >> gays did this, I would suspect that a number of them are in
>> >> >> solidarity with the act.
>> >> >
>> >> > Ya know, the Mormons have enemies, including those polygamous
>> >> > Mormon sects. Their enemies or someone else could have done
>> >> > this, knowing that people like you would pin it on the gays.
>> >> >
>> >> > How about waiting until they find out who did it before you
>> >> > treat us to another anti-*** rant?
>> >>
>> >> Let's just say it's in line with the other stories that I posted,
>> >> 'kay?
>> >
>> > Let's not, not without, you know, _evidence_?
>>
>> Is it your opinion that not one *** person out there could have actually
>> done this?
>
> That's not what I said. You really need to work on that comprehension
> problem.

I didn't say that was what you said. I asked you about your opinion. You
really need to work on that comprehension problem.

>
> The point is that at the moment the only person who knows who did it is
> the person who did it. Your attempt to link it to *** activists is
> nothing more than uninformed speculation.
>

Yeah, it could have been someone upset about their view on polygamy. Like a
*** person or some shit.

"Michelle Steiner" > wrote in message
...
> In article > ,
> "tar~bal" > wrote:
>
>> > No you didn't. You said that's what the link means, but it
>> > doesn't.
>>
>> Because you're too addled to figure out what it means doesn't mean
>> that it doesn't.
>
> I figured out what it means, your lies to the contrary.
>
>> > Watch those insults, asshole. I'm a *******, not one of your
>> > cock-sucking bimbos.
>>
>> Whatever. You clearly are one of those self loathing gays that will
>> do anything to try to make their cause something that others will
>> take notice of, even at the detriment of children.
>
> Children are more in danger from you than they'll ever be from me. Oh,
> and I don't loathe myself at all, I don't even dislike myself.

Wow! Two ridiculous statements in one paragraph! Good job.


>
>> >> Where did I lie?
>> >
>> > Just about everything you have said about gays.
>>
>> So no cite, just a prejudged generalization. Hmm...
>
> No prejudgement at all; I came to that conclusion after reading your
> garbage. And anything I cite as a lie, you'll merely lie again and say
> that it's not a lie.

I'm personally very insulted by that statement to the fullest extent that I
would be given how serious I take your opinion.

>
>> > That's because you can't accept what you really are.
>>
>> Sure I can. I'm happy with the way I am.
>
> You're happy to be a hate-mongering bigot?
>
>> Are you happy with the way YOU are?
>
> Mostly; about the only thing I'm not happy about is that I don't run
> fast enough. I would have loved to have had a better time in the
> marathon I ran a month ago

Wow, that's a pretty superficial issue. Did you hear about the model that's
married to Howard Stern that trained for the marathon? You could take some
points from her and improve everything that you feel is wrong with you.

I'm actually kinda down on myself because

What am I saying, I'm not down on myself at all...

>
>> I'd love to meet a ******* that didn't have a ****ing chip on their
>> shoulder about everything in life.
>
> If you weren't so obnoxious, you would find that people would treat you
> better. Stop pretending to be a victim, ****wit.

LOL! I'm not a victim. I have ******* friends and relatives that think I'm
a great guy. I think they have a ****ing chip on their shoulder and I tell
them, but they still think I'm a great guy.

>
>> >> That really shows a lot of tolerance and acceptance on your
>> >> behalf.
>> >
>> > I tolerate thugs like you the same way that blacks tolerate the
>> > Klan.
>>
>> Don't be ridiculous, I wouldn't light a cross in front of your house
>> or string you up or anything like the Klan would do to blacks.
>
> No, you don't have the guts to do something direct as that, but what you
> do do is just as damaging to us as the overt action the Klan takes. But
> they're not all that brave either; they have to hid beneath their sheets.

So I don't have guts and the Klan doesn't have guts but somehow we're both a
threat and we're bad.

No wonder folks think gays have mental problems...


>
>> I just have an issue with your terrorist tactics and think they're
>> wrong.
>
> You accusing me of being a terrorist is like Bin Laden accusing the Dali
> Lama of being a terrorist, but on a smaller scale.


HAHA! Yeah, you're all like the Dali Lama. Except about the part where you
have a screw loose. That's the only difference.

>
>> And I think that bringing graphic words describing your sex acts into
>> classrooms full of ten year olds is reprehensible.
>
> I think that you are full of shit.

So if it WERE true, that a certain group named GLSEN was actually bringing
graphic words describing your sex acts into a classroom where there were ten
year olds, you would find that wrong? I just want to know where you stand
on that before I waste more time with it.

The fact is that they HAVE done that. I just wanted to know if you were in
league with them.

>
>> Other than that I'm sure you're a nice person with only a few mental
>> defects...
>
> Whereas I know that you are definitely not a nice person, and think you
> have a major mental defect.
>

Ok, here's the part of the discussion where you have to decide if you are
just saying stuff to try to top me, or if you really hate me for my opinion.
Most people end up liking me at this point and telling me that they're sick
of discussing this, but that gets boring. So go ahead and show me how you
hate me and how intolerant you are of the way that I express myself. I love
irony as much as I love attention...

"D.F. Manno" > wrote in message
...
> In article > ,
> "tar~bal" > wrote:
>
>> I'd love to meet a ******* that didn't have a ****ing chip on their
>> shoulder about everything in life.
>
> Not about everything in life, just you.

Are you a ******* or do you just feel compelled to generalize a whole group
of people?

"D.F. Manno" > wrote in message
...
> In article > ,
> "tar~bal" > wrote:
>
>> WWJD?
>
> What Would a Jackass Do?

Mind if I use that in the future?

"Michelle Steiner" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "tar~bal" > wrote:
>
>> Funny how you responded to my comments in the above manner and still
>> have the nerve to call me a liar.
>
> What is so funny about calling a liar a liar?
>
>> I have to say that I have really enjoyed this exchange. Are you
>> always this passionate, or does it only occur about a week out of the
>> month.
>
> So you're sexist as well as homophobic. I'd wager that you're racist
> and anti-Semitic as well.
>
> Are you always an obnoxious bigot, or does it occur only when you're
> awake?

Why do I get the feeling that you REALLY want to make me a sandwich and rub
my feet? Seriously, maybe in another life, but I'm in a monogamous
committed relationship with my wife.

Come on, drop the pretenses and talking points. You aren't really this
angry in real life and you're coming across as the typical hateful *******
that everyone imagines when the subject comes up. Why do they call it ***
when you are so far from actually being ***?

"D.F. Manno" > wrote in message
...
> In article > ,
> "tar~bal" > wrote:
>
>> I'm not afraid of homos, they disgust me. There's a difference.
>
> Not really. You can't have one without the other.

You didn't think that response out, did you?

> wrote in message
...
On Nov 18, 10:55 am, "tar~bal" > wrote:

> Exactly. Reread the article and get back to me. Unless you think this
> behavior is acceptable.

This seems like a hoax, the type perpetrated to attempt to get the
gullible
many to blame the *** community. There is no evidence or claim to
any
connection. And there is this particularly off sentence:


Sure. Ya see, in the past two years suddenly gays became mentally stable
and responsible and upright and moral, etc. and NORMAL people are completely
the opposite. I mean, now people that marry the opposite sex, have
children, have a job, work to be contributing members of society and look
out for their children are awful humans that should be put to death. They
have no business having an opinion. They are shit and gays are great.
There's no way that a *** person could EVER do this crime. Just
stereotyping, of course...


>Protests in recent days have targeted the Mormon church, which encouraged
>its members to fight the recently passed amendment banning *** marriage in
>California.

So if I read this right, gays may have targetted a church which
opposed the
amendment to ban *** marriage in California.

Permit me to say "huh"
=========

So you have no problem with gays forcing their way into a church, disrupting
a service, having two gays make out on the pulpit, stating there is no god
and throwing out condoms, right?

I would imagine that if that is true, you also would have no problem with a
church group interrupting one of your silly "*** marriages" in a similar
fashion...

"Michelle Steiner" > wrote in message
...
> In article
> >,
> " > wrote:
>
>> >Protests in recent days have targeted the Mormon church, which
>> >encouraged its members to fight the recently passed amendment
>> >banning *** marriage in California.
>>
>> So if I read this right, gays may have targetted a church which
>> opposed the amendment to ban *** marriage in California.
>
> Like most bullies, they whine when someone fights back.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=80743

Read this and tell me who the bullies are. Do you seriously condone this
action and expect normal people to accept it?

"Dan Abel" > wrote in message
...
> In article
> >,
> " > wrote:
>
>
>> This seems like a hoax, the type perpetrated to attempt to get the
>> gullible
>> many to blame the *** community. There is no evidence or claim to
>> any
>> connection.
>
>> And there is this particularly off sentence:
>>
>> >Protests in recent days have targeted the Mormon church, which
>> >encouraged
>> >its members to fight the recently passed amendment banning *** marriage
>> >in
>> >California.
>>
>> So if I read this right, gays may have targetted a church which
>> opposed the
>> amendment to ban *** marriage in California.
>>
>> Permit me to say "huh"?
>
> It's a little complicated. So complicated that even AP got it wrong,
> although I think it was a simple typo kind of thing:
>
> http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081114/D94EEP9O2.html
>
> Change "fight the" to "fight for the".
>


Quote:
Protests in recent days have targeted the Mormon church, which encouraged
its members to fight the recently passed amendment banning *** marriage in
California.

--

Which members were encouraged to fight?

"Michelle Steiner" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "BaJoRi" > wrote:
>
>> > Eh, dude, I'd say I'm plenty differentiated from Dobson and his
>> > ilk. I support personal freedom, whereas Dobson & Co. think they
>> > should make your choices for you because you can't be trusted to
>> > make the "right" choices (that is, the choices they think you
>> > should make).
>>
>> Sorry, you have still done nothing to show that you are different. If
>> someone believes in the hear that homosexuality is wrong, and to have
>> any of it in society is wrong, your goal is to force your beliefs and
>> what you think is "right" on those people. In other words, no matter
>> what the issue, one side or the other will not be happy with the
>> results.
>
> You're looking at it all wrong, which is not surprising. One side
> (yours) is trying to oppress the other side, and deprive it of human
> rights. The other side (mine) is working for liberty and justice for
> all.
>
> I don't give a shit what you believe; it's what you try to do to me that
> matters to me.
>
> BTW, 104 retired generals and admirals have signed a statement that they
> believe that "Don't ask, don't tell" should be done away with:
>
> <http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/17/dont.ask.dont.tell/index.html>
>
> You may have won the recent battle, but you're going to lose the war.
> And don't forget that you started the war.

Speaking of equal rights, what is your opinion of adding women to the
selective service? I mean, you are all for equality, right? Why aren't you
out protesting about the inequality there?

And another thing, a woman was just given house arrest for having sex with a
student down here in Florida. In the same breath, a man was given 15 years
for having some kiddie porn (*** kiddie porn) on his computer. He never had
contact with a child that anyone was certain of, just possessed some digital
images that someone else took. I would think that if you were serious about
your attitude regarding equal rights, you would be all over these kind of
issues. It kinda kills your silly *** marriage argument when people are
being systematically ruled against based on their sex over and over again in
court. I mean, how can you really say that you are being singled out when
there are so many examples of EVERYONE being "singled out" by the legal
system?

Just something to chew on...

"Michelle Steiner" > wrote in message
...
> In article > ,
> "tar~bal" > wrote:
>
>> Speaking of equal rights, what is your opinion of adding women to the
>> selective service?
>
> Women should be included.
>
>> Why aren't you out protesting about the inequality there?
>
> If they ever start drafting again, I will be protesting that women
> aren't being drafted. Right now, it's not a major issue.

Why wait? Men have to sign up for the selective service right now or
they're breaking the law. I view this just as minor as the ridiculous
concept of gays getting married because this effects a lot of people, not a
small fraction of the 5% or so *** people that say they want to be married.

>> And another thing, a woman was just given house arrest for having sex
>> with a student down here in Florida. In the same breath, a man was
>> given 15 years for having some kiddie porn (*** kiddie porn) on his
>> computer. He never had contact with a child that anyone was certain
>> of, just possessed some digital images that someone else took. I
>> would think that if you were serious about your attitude regarding
>> equal rights, you would be all over these kind of issues.
>
> How do you know whether I am or not?

Because I'm smart and I have you figured out.

>
>> It kinda kills your silly *** marriage argument when people are being
>> systematically ruled against based on their sex over and over again
>> in court.
>
> No it doesn't. The ones you cited are isolated issues, affecting only a
> few people. The same-sex marriage issue is widespread, affecting
> hundreds of thousands of people, and is the result of a systematic
> effort to deprive a class of people of fundamental civil rights.

The same sex marriage people affects a small percentage of people. You
think that it's widespread, but I would venture a guess that more people are
violating pedophile laws than actually want to have a *** marriage.

Face it, your beef is that you want to be recognized as being ***. You are
thumping your chest about a stupid issue.

Why aren't you married now? You could be, ya know. You're making a big
deal out of this because you want to be seen as a martyr and that is ALL.
If you were only interested in getting married and being happy, you could go
to Connecticut and use all of this ridiculous energy spreading hate to
foster your monogamous and loving relationship that is obviously missing
from your miserable life.

>
> The time and energy you bigots put into rationalizing your oppressive
> behavior is astounding; too bad you don't try to do something useful
> with it.
>

I use it to hold a mirror to the hate filled gays just so they know that
they are guilty of what they accuse others of...

"Michelle Steiner" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "tar~bal" > wrote:
>
>> > Children are more in danger from you than they'll ever be from me.
>> > Oh, and I don't loathe myself at all, I don't even dislike myself.
>>
>> Wow! Two ridiculous statements in one paragraph! Good job.
>
> The only ridiculous thing about them is that you think they're
> ridiculous.
>
>> >> Are you happy with the way YOU are?
>> >
>> > Mostly; about the only thing I'm not happy about is that I don't
>> > run fast enough. I would have loved to have had a better time in
>> > the marathon I ran a month ago
>>
>> Wow, that's a pretty superficial issue.
>
> Yup, that's because I'm happen about all the serious things about the
> way I am.
>
>> What am I saying, I'm not down on myself at all...
>
> That's because you're in denial about what you are.
>
>> LOL! I'm not a victim. I have ******* friends and relatives that
>> think I'm a great guy. I think they have a ****ing chip on their
>> shoulder and I tell them, but they still think I'm a great guy.
>
> I doubt that.
>
>> Ok, here's the part of the discussion where you have to decide if you
>> are just saying stuff to try to top me, or if you really hate me for
>> my opinion.
>
> I don't give a **** about your opinion; what I care about is that you
> are trying to deprive gays of our civil rights. You're no different
> from a segregationist or an anti-Semite.
>
> I think the best way to let you know how I feel about you is to tell you
> to go **** yourself.

You'll never find a bride with that lousy attitude, missy.

"Michelle Steiner" > wrote in message
...
> In article > ,
> "tar~bal" > wrote:
>
>> Come on, drop the pretenses and talking points. You aren't really
>> this angry in real life and you're coming across as the typical
>> hateful ******* that everyone imagines when the subject comes up.
>> Why do they call it *** when you are so far from actually being ***?
>
> The only hateful people around here are you bigots. You pretend to take
> the high moral ground, when in reality you are no better than bin Laden
> and Saddam Hussein. Thankfully we live in a country where you can't act
> like those two.
>
> I feel sorry for your wife, being married to a scoundrel and reprobate
> like yourself.

Yeah, you have a firm grasp on what is normal. Tell me, have you EVER had
any companionship, or is this just a dry spell?

"Michelle Steiner" > wrote in message
...
> In article > ,
> "tar~bal" > wrote:
>
>> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=80743
>>
>> Read this and tell me who the bullies are. Do you seriously condone
>> this action and expect normal people to accept it?
>
> Yet another right-wing lie. Here is what really happened:
>
>> LANSING - Officials from the Eaton County Sheriff's Department and
>> the Delta Township Fire department are contradicting reports about a
>> Nov. 9 protest held at Mt. Hope Church. The protest on Nov. 9 was
>> held by a self-described anarchist *** group called Bash Back!
>> Lansing. The protest, according to reports from the media, the church
>> and the protestors, were held both inside and outside the
>> conservative evangelical church located on Lansing's west side.
>>
>> All the reports indicate a fire alarm was also pulled during the
>> protest. However, Delta Township Fire Department, which covers fire
>> issues in the area, said today they had not received any fire alarm
>> calls nor did they respond to one in the area of the church on
>> Sunday.
>>
>> A press release from the church states:
>>
>> "The Eaton County Sheriff's office was called and the illegal
>> demonstration ceased."
>>
>> But in an interview yesterday, Eaton County Sheriff Lt. Jeff Warder
>> said when the two officers arrived on the scene at about noon, they
>> found protestors on the public sidewalk. Officers were called to the
>> scene for "disorderly persons."
>>
>> "They were picketing," Warder said. "The church security people came
>> out, the pastor contacted the deputies and told us we want them off
>> our property. We had to tell them they (the protesters) were on
>> public property."
>>
>> After further discussion with protestors, it was determined some had
>> parked in the church's parking lot, and officers directed that the
>> vehicles be removed from the lot, or the owners could face
>> trespassing charges for retrieving them if police had to return. The
>> protest broke up as a result of that.
>>
>> Warder said that at no time did the church inform officers of the
>> disruption inside the church, and that no charges were filed. He also
>> said there was no criminal investigation underway and the church had
>> declined to file any formal complaints.
>
> No invasion inside the church, no condoms being thrown, no vandalism.

And ironically, no link to verify the source of this article. Funny, that.

"Michelle Steiner" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "tar~bal" > wrote:
>
>> So you have no problem with gays forcing their way into a church,
>> disrupting a service, having two gays make out on the pulpit, stating
>> there is no god and throwing out condoms, right?
>
> I have a problem with people spreading the lie that it happened.

I think that there is a lie somewhere in there, we just aren't sure who is
telling it.

In article > ,
"tar~bal" > wrote:

> "Michelle Steiner" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "tar~bal" > wrote:
> >
> >> So you have no problem with gays forcing their way into a church,
> >> disrupting a service, having two gays make out on the pulpit, stating
> >> there is no god and throwing out condoms, right?
> >
> > I have a problem with people spreading the lie that it happened.
>
> I think that there is a lie somewhere in there, we just aren't sure who is
> telling it.

The point is when reading a news article we have to accept that it is
never 100% truth. By reading several things from different angles on
the same subject or occurrence usually results in a closer view of the
truth. So multiple sources should always be used if possible. Both pro
and con for fairness.

And why is this being posted to rec.food.cooking? LOL.

On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:52:30 -0600, JZ wrote:

> In article > ,
> "tar~bal" > wrote:
>
>> "Michelle Steiner" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "tar~bal" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> So you have no problem with gays forcing their way into a church,
>> >> disrupting a service, having two gays make out on the pulpit,
>> >> stating there is no god and throwing out condoms, right?
>> >
>> > I have a problem with people spreading the lie that it happened.
>>
>> I think that there is a lie somewhere in there, we just aren't sure who
>> is telling it.
>
> The point is when reading a news article we have to accept that it is
> never 100% truth. By reading several things from different angles on
> the same subject or occurrence usually results in a closer view of the
> truth. So multiple sources should always be used if possible. Both pro
> and con for fairness.
>
> And why is this being posted to rec.food.cooking? LOL.

Because you included it in the "Newsgroups" field.

"KK" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:56:01 +0000, BaJoRi wrote:
>
>> "KK" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 00:27:17 +0000, BaJoRi wrote:
>>>
>>>> While you claim it is wrong for people to force you to adhere to their
>>>> views, through things like Prop 8, etc. So it is also wrong for people
>>>> to try and force their own views of homosexuality on others, by
>>>> whetever means necessary, notably trying to get tolerance for such to
>>>> be placed into the curriculum of public schools. And don't tell me
>>>> that isn't happening,
>>>
>>> I haven't seen anyone here demand *** sex-ed curriculum, and it wasn't
>>> part of Prop 8, or any other *** marriage bill, referendum, or court
>>> decision about *** marriage.
>>>
>>>
>> Interesting how you don't have the intellectual honesty
>
> Oh, eat me. I take issue with your equating and connecting ***-sex
> school cirriculum with *** marriage. It's the only thing in your post I
> addressed, so it's the only thing I included.
>
> What's intellectually dishonest is making graphic sex cirriculum the
> logical conclusion (or inseperable side effect) of *** marriage.
>

They are not inseperable, but you are a fool to think one has no effect on
the other. Then again, you are a fool no matter what, but we already knew
that.

"Michelle Steiner" > wrote in message
...
> In article > ,
> "BaJoRi" > wrote:
>
>> > I don't care how it is done, so long as it is done. But what do
>> > you mean by a dissenting opinion? Do you mean that you don't want
>> > liberty and justice for all?
>>
>> Wouldn't mind it at all. I just find it funny that you insist on your
>> own liberties and justice, at the expense of others. Just like those
>> folk on which you base your claim of moral superiority.
>
> Can you write anything on this subject without lying? We're not trying
> to deprive anyone of liberty and justice.

Sure you are. People are voicing their opinion on *** marriage, and you have
stated that it shouldn't be alloed because it is about abusing the rights of
others. Your attiturde is no different. Sorry that you don't like it.


>
>> >> I agree. I would put all the gays on the front line against the
>> >> Taliban, tell them that there is a Penney's on the other side of
>> >> the hill, and that there is a TREMENDOUS sale on new drapes.
>> >
>> > I'm sure that in your warped little so-called mind, you actually
>> > believe that.
>>
>> YOU need to get a sense of humor.
>
> The fact that you think that murder and the deprivation of human rights
> is humorous says a lot about you, and none of it is good.

Your bitterness and happiness, no matter how much you try to project on to
others, is rejected.



>
>> >> > You may have won the recent battle, but you're going to lose the
>> >> > war. And don't forget that you started the war.
>> >>
>> >> And the stupidity in your stance is that you alienate people that
>> >> actually are on your side, but disagree with you tactics.
>> >
>> > The only people who are alienated are the bigots like you, who are
>> > already alienated.
>>
>> SO you have the whole "with us or against us" stance going, just like
>> Bush. How does that influence your moral superiority?
>
> No, I don't have the "with us or against us" stance, liar.

Sure you do. I am all for *** marriage and *** rights, but I believe the
tactics that you and others espouse and support is wrong. So in your mind I
am as bad as any mormon leader you can name, which is exactly the whole
"with us or against us" mentality operating in full flower.


>
>> >> Schools are no place for you to make your point.
>> >
>> > Why do you keep dragging schools into this? This is about
>> > marriage, not schools. Unlike you creeps, we don't want to marry
>> > children.
>>
>> You know EXACTLY what I mean. And it is sad that YOU are the one who
>> is in need of a course on civil liberties.
>
> Yes, I know exactly what your lies mean.

UNfortunately, for you, it means more of the "with us or against us"
mentality, that only the mentally challenged adhere to like a security
blanket.

"D.F. Manno" > wrote in message
...
> In article > ,
> "BaJoRi" > wrote:
>
>> "Michelle Steiner" > wrote:
>>
>> > The other side (mine) is working for liberty and justice for all.
>>
>> As long as it is done your way and there are no dissenting opionions.
>
> What is the "dissenting opinion" from "liberty and justice for all"?
> Liberty and justice for some? Liberty and justice for no one?

On her part, it is "liberty and justice as long as it coincides with my
beliefs; yours be damned."


>
> --
> D.F. Manno |
>
> This time _we_ won. This time _you_ get over it.

On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:44:32 +0000, BaJoRi wrote:

> "KK" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:56:01 +0000, BaJoRi wrote:
>>
>>> "KK" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 00:27:17 +0000, BaJoRi wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> While you claim it is wrong for people to force you to adhere to
>>>>> their views, through things like Prop 8, etc. So it is also wrong
>>>>> for people to try and force their own views of homosexuality on
>>>>> others, by whetever means necessary, notably trying to get tolerance
>>>>> for such to be placed into the curriculum of public schools. And
>>>>> don't tell me that isn't happening,
>>>>
>>>> I haven't seen anyone here demand *** sex-ed curriculum, and it
>>>> wasn't part of Prop 8, or any other *** marriage bill, referendum, or
>>>> court decision about *** marriage.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Interesting how you don't have the intellectual honesty
>>
>> Oh, eat me. I take issue with your equating and connecting ***-sex
>> school cirriculum with *** marriage. It's the only thing in your post
>> I addressed, so it's the only thing I included.
>>
>> What's intellectually dishonest is making graphic sex cirriculum the
>> logical conclusion (or inseperable side effect) of *** marriage.
>>
>>
> They are not inseperable


They seem to be in your posts.



>, but you are a fool to think one has no effect
> on the other.


They're at most tangentially related. If people should be entitled to
one, but not the other, it's wrong to deny them the first because you're
scared of the second.


> Then again, you are a fool no matter what, but we already
> knew that.

Did we? I'd guess that, from your avoiding the actual issue and your
name calling ("fool", dishonest) that you'd be pegged as the dummy in
this one.

"KK" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:44:32 +0000, BaJoRi wrote:
>
>> "KK" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:56:01 +0000, BaJoRi wrote:
>>>
>>>> "KK" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 00:27:17 +0000, BaJoRi wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> While you claim it is wrong for people to force you to adhere to
>>>>>> their views, through things like Prop 8, etc. So it is also wrong
>>>>>> for people to try and force their own views of homosexuality on
>>>>>> others, by whetever means necessary, notably trying to get tolerance
>>>>>> for such to be placed into the curriculum of public schools. And
>>>>>> don't tell me that isn't happening,
>>>>>
>>>>> I haven't seen anyone here demand *** sex-ed curriculum, and it
>>>>> wasn't part of Prop 8, or any other *** marriage bill, referendum, or
>>>>> court decision about *** marriage.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Interesting how you don't have the intellectual honesty
>>>
>>> Oh, eat me. I take issue with your equating and connecting ***-sex
>>> school cirriculum with *** marriage. It's the only thing in your post
>>> I addressed, so it's the only thing I included.
>>>
>>> What's intellectually dishonest is making graphic sex cirriculum the
>>> logical conclusion (or inseperable side effect) of *** marriage.
>>>
>>>
>> They are not inseperable
>
>
> They seem to be in your posts.
>
>
>
>>, but you are a fool to think one has no effect
>> on the other.
>
>
> They're at most tangentially related. If people should be entitled to
> one, but not the other, it's wrong to deny them the first because you're
> scared of the second.

Flip it around. Pushing an agenda in school is how people, whether gays or
religious bozos, seek to influence the thought processes on their issue.
Simple enough, even for you.


>
>
>> Then again, you are a fool no matter what, but we already
>> knew that.
>
> Did we? I'd guess that, from your avoiding the actual issue and your
> name calling ("fool", dishonest) that you'd be pegged as the dummy in
> this one.
>

"Michelle Steiner" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "BaJoRi" > wrote:
>
>> > Can you write anything on this subject without lying? We're not
>> > trying to deprive anyone of liberty and justice.
>>
>> Sure you are. People are voicing their opinion on *** marriage, and
>> you have stated that it shouldn't be alloed because it is about
>> abusing the rights of others.
>
> I haven't said any such thing, you mother ****ing liar.

You really need to control your temper. Oh, and by the way, contradicting
yourself isn't very smart. You should stop doing it.



>
>> > No, I don't have the "with us or against us" stance, liar.
>>
>> Sure you do. I am all for *** marriage and *** rights,
>
> Bullshit. You've been arguing against them.

Point out where, please.


>
>> but I believe the tactics that you and others espouse and support is
>> wrong.
>
> What tactics are those? (I can't wait to read your bullshit lies about
> this one.)
>

Asked and answered on many occasions

Even though this thread is off topic, it seems to persist. Thus, I am
tossing in my 2¢.

Everyone seems to miss the point that marriage is fundamentally about
protecting children. It is not a means of giving rights to spouses
whether heterosexual or not. A corollary was to combine power from
separate families. Even for that purpose, children, especially male.
children who could inherit land, were necessary. Marriage may be
outmoded in many ways because much protection of children is provided by
law even if parents are not married.. In my opinion. ALL so called
rights from marriage should be because they benefit children--not sexual
partners.

I liked the idea I saw in TRUE magazine decades ago. Marriage licenses
and consequent obligations expire after two years. Renewal is possible.
If children result from the marriage, the license becomes permanent.
Anything else, including civil unions among two or more adults can be
handled by contract law.

Bill

--
Private Profit; Public Poop! Avoid collateral windfall!

"Michelle Steiner" > wrote in message
...
> In article > ,
> "tar~bal" > wrote:
>
>> > If they ever start drafting again, I will be protesting that women
>> > aren't being drafted. Right now, it's not a major issue.
>>
>> Why wait? Men have to sign up for the selective service right now or
>> they're breaking the law.
>
> Because there are more important and more pressing issues right now. If
> the draft is reinstituted, then it will become a pressing issue.

Like what? And don't say that silly *** marriage non-issue.

>
>> I view this just as minor as the ridiculous concept of gays getting
>> married
>
> The issue of same-sex marriage is neither minor nor ridiculous, but I
> can see why you believe as you do; you don't believe in human rights for
> everyone.

Absolutely right. Until I have equal rights to exactly every person in the
country, I hope the rest of the world drops dead. Until women are on the
front line with men and men have an equal say in whether or not their child
is aborted, **** the silly *** marriage.

>
>> because this effects a lot of people,
>
> Draft registration not accepting women has no meaningful effect on
> anyone without there being an actual draft.

So you only worry about specific equality, not total equality. Typical of a
person with mental problems.

>
>> >> And another thing, a woman was just given house arrest for having
>> >> sex with a student down here in Florida. In the same breath, a
>> >> man was given 15 years for having some kiddie porn (*** kiddie
>> >> porn) on his computer. He never had contact with a child that
>> >> anyone was certain of, just possessed some digital images that
>> >> someone else took. I would think that if you were serious about
>> >> your attitude regarding equal rights, you would be all over these
>> >> kind of issues.
>> >
>> > How do you know whether I am or not?
>>
>> Because I'm smart and I have you figured out.
>
> You are delusional.
>
>> Why aren't you married now? You could be, ya know.
>
> No I can't; my state doesn't recognize same-sex marriages, so I can't be
> married here.

No one says you have to stay in your state. If *** marriage is important to
you and you were somehow capable of tricking someone into marrying you, love
would be the most important thing. But in your case, love isn't the most
important thing. Crusading as a professional *** is. Face it, you have no
intention of getting married. Your argument is much ado about nothing. As
it is with a vast majority of gays.

>
>> If you were only interested in getting married and being happy, you
>> could go to Connecticut and use all of this ridiculous energy
>> spreading hate to foster your monogamous and loving relationship that
>> is obviously missing from your miserable life.
>
> Yeah, I could go to Connecticut and get married, and return home and not
> be married.

Yeah, and you could run around in traffic all day until you were hit by a
car. That would do a lot for your victim status, too.

> And the only thing that could be considered being miserable about my
> life is caused by mother ****ers like you.

I'm glad that I have that totally unintentional power over you. How does it
feel to be so weak?

"Salmon Egg" > wrote in message
...
> Even though this thread is off topic, it seems to persist. Thus, I am
> tossing in my 2¢.
>
> Everyone seems to miss the point that marriage is fundamentally about
> protecting children. It is not a means of giving rights to spouses
> whether heterosexual or not. A corollary was to combine power from
> separate families. Even for that purpose, children, especially male.
> children who could inherit land, were necessary. Marriage may be
> outmoded in many ways because much protection of children is provided by
> law even if parents are not married.. In my opinion. ALL so called
> rights from marriage should be because they benefit children--not sexual
> partners.
>
> I liked the idea I saw in TRUE magazine decades ago. Marriage licenses
> and consequent obligations expire after two years. Renewal is possible.
> If children result from the marriage, the license becomes permanent.
> Anything else, including civil unions among two or more adults can be
> handled by contract law.

Well said. I agree. In my opinion, unless children are involved, being
married is playing house.

"Michelle Steiner" > wrote in message
...
> In article > ,
> "tar~bal" > wrote:
>
>> Yeah, you have a firm grasp on what is normal. Tell me, have you EVER
>> had
>> any companionship, or is this just a dry spell?
>
> I've had two long-lasting ones; the first was for 28 years; she and I
> are still good friends, but we grew apart and ended the relationship
> amicably. The second lasted 5 1/2 years; she has PTSD from the Gulf War
> and wasn't able to adjust to a long-term relationship. She is now my
> best friend, and I'm her best friend.

LOL! God damn, I'm good. I nailed your age as well as your level of
declining acuity.

>
> What about you?

I married my high school sweetheart right after college 22 years ago, had
our first of two kids ten years ago. Never grew apart and are normal.

"Michelle Steiner" > wrote in message
...
> In article > ,
> "tar~bal" > wrote:
>
>> >> So you have no problem with gays forcing their way into a church,
>> >> disrupting a service, having two gays make out on the pulpit,
>> >> stating there is no god and throwing out condoms, right?
>> >
>> > I have a problem with people spreading the lie that it happened.
>>
>> I think that there is a lie somewhere in there, we just aren't sure
>> who is telling it.
>
> I know who is telling it.

Do you have a link to the lying post you put up, or should we just tacitly
acknowledge that it's a *** activist publication?

On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:31:52 +0000, BaJoRi wrote:


> Flip it around. Pushing an agenda in school is how people, whether gays
> or religious bozos, seek to influence the thought processes on their
> issue. Simple enough, even for you.

And I've repeated ad nauseum: I'd oppose that agenda in school, also -
or any religious agenda - but neither of those gives any moral, legal, or
practical reason against *** marriage.

I'm actually glad to see that the tactic is shifting from opposing ***
marriage itself to the running-scared strategy of warning that the sky
will fall if these people are allowed what they're entitled to.

On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:08:05 -0800, Salmon Egg wrote:

> Everyone seems to miss the point that marriage is fundamentally about
> protecting children.

Says you.

If you want to be pedantic about it, to begin with it was about dividing
and combining property.

> It is not a means of giving rights to spouses

Much of it absolutely is.


> whether heterosexual or not. A corollary was to combine power from
> separate families. Even for that purpose, children, especially male.
> children who could inherit land, were necessary. Marriage may be
> outmoded in many ways because much protection of children is provided by
> law even if parents are not married.. In my opinion. ALL so called
> rights from marriage should be because they benefit children--not sexual
> partners.

You can imagine what your opinion is worth to someone who's told they
can't make the same legal commitment to another that you can.



>
> I liked the idea I saw in TRUE magazine decades ago. Marriage licenses
> and consequent obligations expire after two years. Renewal is possible.
> If children result from the marriage, the license becomes permanent.
> Anything else, including civil unions among two or more adults can be
> handled by contract law.

Close. It can *all* be handled by contract law. Either everyone has to
do it that way, or nobody should be forced to.

"KK" > wrote in message
news
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:08:05 -0800, Salmon Egg wrote:
>
>> Everyone seems to miss the point that marriage is fundamentally about
>> protecting children.
>
> Says you.
>
> If you want to be pedantic about it, to begin with it was about dividing
> and combining property.
>
>> It is not a means of giving rights to spouses
>
> Much of it absolutely is.
>
>
>> whether heterosexual or not. A corollary was to combine power from
>> separate families. Even for that purpose, children, especially male.
>> children who could inherit land, were necessary. Marriage may be
>> outmoded in many ways because much protection of children is provided by
>> law even if parents are not married.. In my opinion. ALL so called
>> rights from marriage should be because they benefit children--not sexual
>> partners.
>
> You can imagine what your opinion is worth to someone who's told they
> can't make the same legal commitment to another that you can.
>
>
>
>>
>> I liked the idea I saw in TRUE magazine decades ago. Marriage licenses
>> and consequent obligations expire after two years. Renewal is possible.
>> If children result from the marriage, the license becomes permanent.
>> Anything else, including civil unions among two or more adults can be
>> handled by contract law.
>
> Close. It can *all* be handled by contract law. Either everyone has to
> do it that way, or nobody should be forced to.
>

Including siblings?

"KK" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:31:52 +0000, BaJoRi wrote:
>
>
>> Flip it around. Pushing an agenda in school is how people, whether gays
>> or religious bozos, seek to influence the thought processes on their
>> issue. Simple enough, even for you.
>
> And I've repeated ad nauseum: I'd oppose that agenda in school, also -
> or any religious agenda - but neither of those gives any moral, legal, or
> practical reason against *** marriage.
>
> I'm actually glad to see that the tactic is shifting from opposing ***
> marriage itself to the running-scared strategy of warning that the sky
> will fall if these people are allowed what they're entitled to.

Because we have already worn the path ragged with all of the direct reasons
that gays shouldn't be allowed to call their "unions" marriage.

"Michelle Steiner" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "BaJoRi" > wrote:
>
>> >> > The other side (mine) is working for liberty and justice for
>> >> > all.
>> >>
>> >> As long as it is done your way and there are no dissenting
>> >> opionions.
>> >
>> > What is the "dissenting opinion" from "liberty and justice for
>> > all"? Liberty and justice for some? Liberty and justice for no one?
>>
>> On her part, it is "liberty and justice as long as it coincides with
>> my beliefs; yours be damned."
>
> You're projecting again.

Hey Shelly, I can married and you can't! Ha ha.

Which is about where you've drug this discussion.