On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:08:00 -0500, T wrote:

> In article >,
> lid says...
>>
>> On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:09:33 +0000, Michael \"Dog3\" wrote:
>>
>>> Wim van Bemmel >
>>
>>>> My daughter is ***,
>>>> and married to a wonderful girl that is physical mother of 2 of my
>>>> grandchildren. In fact, they both are. Here in The Netherlands this is
>>>> normal, and widely accepted. Only some religious fundamentalists
>>>> oppose. They lost. But, they should stop ****ing. To prevent them from
>>>> becoming a majority.
>>>
>>> I'm glad the fundies lost. They're still winning here but I suspect
>>> they will be winning for only a little while longer. There is a huge
>>> movement to begin taxing religious organizations that involve themselves
>>> in political issues. This is not a new idea in the US but it is gaining
>>> momentum after the Prop 8 fiasco in November. I support this effort but
>>> don't see anything coming of it in my lifetime.
>>>
>>> Michael
>>
>> I did not comprehend all you wrote, it is part of US politics, but I
>> understand that you are on our side. We are a bit ahead here. We take
>> literally that no discrimination of sex and race shall be allowed. And
>> practice that, too. At least in matters of sexual addition. I do not know
>> of anyone *** being harmed in his or her career by being so. Of course
>> there are jokes, but no discrimination.
>> I am speaking for the common sense people, not the fundies, or the right
>> wing diehards.
>> Follow us, it makes life a lot easier for many of us. And ban
>> fundamentalism.
>
> Face it, even our currency says "In God We Trust". It's going to take a
> long time for us to throw off the yoke of religious intolerance.
>
> Europe has had several hundred years more than we have to do that.
>
> And need I remind you that the initial settlers of the U.S. were
> essentially religious fundamentalists.
>
> Puritans, Calvinists, et al. All people the Church of England couldn't
> tolerate.

but the u.s. did write into the constitution that there would be no
established religion. this is not a feature of most european countries.
(in fact, the example of europe led the founders to do so.)

of course, what this actually means has been the cause of much litigation.

your pal,
blake3

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 21:29:55 -0500, Dave Smith wrote:

> T wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> And need I remind you that the initial settlers of the U.S. were
>> essentially religious fundamentalists.
>>
>> Puritans, Calvinists, et al. All people the Church of England couldn't
>> tolerate.
>
> Exactly. The Pilgrims were a sect of the Puritans. They didn't come
> across the ocean to escape religious persecution. They cam to create a
> religious colony. Meanwhile, back in England, the Puritans were gaining
> strength and their anti Catholic zeal led to a civil war and regicide.
> They sure weren't about religious freedom and tolerance.

but that was some one hundred years before the constitution was written.

your pal,
blake

blake murphy wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:48:57 -0600, Lou Decruss wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:13:24 -0800 (PST), merryb >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>On Feb 10, 6:17 am, Lou Decruss > wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 20:35:58 -0600, Melba's Jammin'
> >>>
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> >In article >,
> >>> > blake murphy > wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >> not that it's the same thing we're taking about here, but a good
example is
> >>> >> the tacit agreement in the media not to show or refer to franklin
roosevelt
> >>> >> in his wheelchair. it just wasn't seemly.
> >>>
> >>> >> your pal,
> >>> >> blake
> >>>
> >>> >Or to show Jacqueline Kennedy with a cigarette in her hand.
> >>>
> >>> Did anyone ever pin obama down as to whether he quit smoking or not?
> >>>
> >>> Lou
> >>
> >>I don't think he has, but I think he cut down. It's a tough habit to
> >>quit (the voice of experience) and now may not be the time...
> >
> > I know it's hard. I still smoke. I wonder where he goes to smoke?
> > Outside the back door of the whitehouse?
> >
> > Lou
>
> i hope to god that the white house is not non-smoking by law. as i
> understand it, the dreaded she-witch hillary put the kibosh on it in the
> clinton administration.


That's becaue tobacky smoke made Hitlery's "cankles" puff up, blake...


--
Best
Greg

blake murphy wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 21:29:55 -0500, Dave Smith wrote:
>
>> T wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> And need I remind you that the initial settlers of the U.S. were
>>> essentially religious fundamentalists.
>>>
>>> Puritans, Calvinists, et al. All people the Church of England couldn't
>>> tolerate.
>> Exactly. The Pilgrims were a sect of the Puritans. They didn't come
>> across the ocean to escape religious persecution. They cam to create a
>> religious colony. Meanwhile, back in England, the Puritans were gaining
>> strength and their anti Catholic zeal led to a civil war and regicide.
>> They sure weren't about religious freedom and tolerance.
>
> but that was some one hundred years before the constitution was written.

Closer to 150 year, but the mythology seems to be that they came to
escape persecution, which is not exactly accurate. Yet, for some
reason, the constitutional rhetoric about liberty, freedom and all men
being created equally didn't apply to black slaves. Go figger.

Dave wrote on Wed, 11 Feb 2009 14:51:01 -0500:

> Blake Murphy wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 21:29:55 -0500, Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>>> T wrote:
>>>
>>>> And need I remind you that the initial settlers of the UP.SO.
>>>> were essentially religious fundamentalists. Puritans, Calvinists,
>>>> et al. All people the Church of
>>>> England couldn't tolerate.
>>> Exactly. The Pilgrims were a sect of the Puritans. They
>>> didn't come across the ocean to escape religious
>>> persecution. They cam to create a religious colony.
>>> Meanwhile, back in England, the Puritans were gaining
>>> strength and their anti Catholic zeal led to a civil war and
>>> regicide. They sure weren't about religious freedom and
>>> tolerance.
>>
>> but that was some one hundred years before the constitution was
>> written.

>Closer to 150 year, but the mythology seems to be that they came to
>escape persecution, which is not exactly accurate. Yet, for some
>reason, the constitutional rhetoric about liberty, freedom and all men
>being created equally didn't apply to black slaves. Go fogger.

Freedom to persecute and enslave in your way without interference from
people with different ideas.


--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.Jim.Silverton.at.venison.not

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 18:52:14 GMT, blake murphy
> wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:24:55 -0600, Lou Decruss wrote:

>> I have a friend who comes over and "borrows" a smoke. Then washes his
>> face and hands and asked for gum. Kinda strange if you ask me.
>>
>> Lou
>
>it is odd. my years-ago boss's husband went out into the garage to drink
>beer, because she for bade him to drink. she knew good and well that's
>what was happening, and i think he knew she knew, but that was the system.

I know of someone who hid a bottle of vodka in the tank on the toilet.
His wife eventually did figure it out.

Lou

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 18:48:08 GMT, blake murphy
> wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:48:57 -0600, Lou Decruss wrote:

>> I know it's hard. I still smoke. I wonder where he goes to smoke?
>> Outside the back door of the whitehouse?
>>
>> Lou
>
>i hope to god that the white house is not non-smoking by law. as i
>understand it, the dreaded she-witch hillary put the kibosh on it in the
>clinton administration.
>
>do you think laura was going out behind the barn to smoke?

I dunno.

Lou

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:15:10 -0600, "Gregory Morrow"
> wrote:

>
>blake murphy wrote:

>> > I know it's hard. I still smoke. I wonder where he goes to smoke?
>> > Outside the back door of the whitehouse?
>> >
>> > Lou
>>
>> i hope to god that the white house is not non-smoking by law. as i
>> understand it, the dreaded she-witch hillary put the kibosh on it in the
>> clinton administration.
>
>
>That's becaue tobacky smoke made Hitlery's "cankles" puff up, blake...

She was afraid of where the cigars had been.

Lou

Lou Decruss wrote:
>
>> it is odd. my years-ago boss's husband went out into the garage to drink
>> beer, because she for bade him to drink. she knew good and well that's
>> what was happening, and i think he knew she knew, but that was the system.
>
> I know of someone who hid a bottle of vodka in the tank on the toilet.
> His wife eventually did figure it out.

I had a friend who managed to keep his drinking problem hidden. We knew
he wasn't working so when we went to visit I took beer enough for both
of us. I would be there on a Sunday and take a 12 pack, and it seemed
curious that if I was there on the next Friday there would be 5 or 6
cases of 24 empties. He worked at my wife's school and got into a lot of
trouble over his drinking, his wife had left him and he was supposed to
be going to AA. I met the staff at a bar after work one day. The rest
of the staff ordered their drinks and he ordered tomato juice. Good for
him. Then he slipped out to talk to the waitress and when he got his
tomato juice he was charged for a drink. It seems that he was ordering
Bloody Marys without the garnish so everyone would think he was drinking
straight tomato juice.

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 21:39:07 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>Lou Decruss wrote:
>>
>>> it is odd. my years-ago boss's husband went out into the garage to drink
>>> beer, because she for bade him to drink. she knew good and well that's
>>> what was happening, and i think he knew she knew, but that was the system.
>>
>> I know of someone who hid a bottle of vodka in the tank on the toilet.
>> His wife eventually did figure it out.
>
>I had a friend who managed to keep his drinking problem hidden. We knew
>he wasn't working so when we went to visit I took beer enough for both
>of us. I would be there on a Sunday and take a 12 pack, and it seemed
>curious that if I was there on the next Friday there would be 5 or 6
>cases of 24 empties. He worked at my wife's school and got into a lot of
>trouble over his drinking, his wife had left him and he was supposed to
>be going to AA. I met the staff at a bar after work one day. The rest
>of the staff ordered their drinks and he ordered tomato juice. Good for
>him. Then he slipped out to talk to the waitress and when he got his
>tomato juice he was charged for a drink. It seems that he was ordering
>Bloody Marys without the garnish so everyone would think he was drinking
>straight tomato juice.

Reminds me of the beer can wraps that made the can look like a coke or
orange "crash." They were reusable. My friends and I did some pretty
silly things in our youth. If I had to hide it now I'd probably not
drink.

Lou

Lou Decruss wrote:

>
> Reminds me of the beer can wraps that made the can look like a coke or
> orange "crash." They were reusable. My friends and I did some pretty
> silly things in our youth. If I had to hide it now I'd probably not
> drink.

I would drink a lot less if my wife wasn't around. She is the one who
pushes the before dinner cocktails and is disappointed if I don't have
one..... because she wants one. Not that she is lush or anything, but
when she is away I never drink at home. Like liquor, beer and wine, but
I don't crave it, and I do not like to get drunk.

Wim van Bemmel wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:05:38 -0500, T wrote:
>
>
>> One thing I've noted about those that rally against gays most is that
>> they tend to be some of the fugliest people around. Makes you wonder if
>> its just jealousy that they aren't getting laid.
>>
>> Google Maggie Gallagher, the President of the National Organization for
>> Marriage. She testified at the marriage equality hearing in RI a couple
>> years back. Smug bitch.
>
> What does that mean, "fugliest people" ?? Sorry, it is not in my
> vocabulary.
> And "aren't getting laid" does that mean: "not being ****ed" ??
>
>
"fugly" is North American slang, a contraction of f*ing ugly; "getting
laid" is North American slang for having sex.

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 14:51:01 -0500, Dave Smith wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 21:29:55 -0500, Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>>> T wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And need I remind you that the initial settlers of the U.S. were
>>>> essentially religious fundamentalists.
>>>>
>>>> Puritans, Calvinists, et al. All people the Church of England couldn't
>>>> tolerate.
>>> Exactly. The Pilgrims were a sect of the Puritans. They didn't come
>>> across the ocean to escape religious persecution. They cam to create a
>>> religious colony. Meanwhile, back in England, the Puritans were gaining
>>> strength and their anti Catholic zeal led to a civil war and regicide.
>>> They sure weren't about religious freedom and tolerance.
>>
>> but that was some one hundred years before the constitution was written.
>
> Closer to 150 year, but the mythology seems to be that they came to
> escape persecution, which is not exactly accurate.

nope. you may or may not have learned this in school, depending on the
teacher.

>Yet, for some
> reason, the constitutional rhetoric about liberty, freedom and all men
> being created equally didn't apply to black slaves. Go figger.

yeah, at first it didn't come out as written. i hope at least the founders
wouldn't have been displeased at the eventual outcome. sometimes
unintended consequences aren't all bad.

your pal,
blake