Leaving the community

Richard Hertz wrote:

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
...

"Cecil Chapman" wrote in message
The gay population has become the new 'coloreds' - get over your

bigotry. Live and let live.

You pushed a button, Cecil. I see this kind of statement repeated with
sickening frequency

Comparing gay folks to "colored" people is just utter bullsquat. If I
were black, I'd smack people who say this upside the face. If you weren't
such a generally nice feller, this honkey would wanna smack you.

Black folks suffered brutally for hundreds of years right here in America.
Many still suffer today from generations of whip-toting, slave-owning,
water-cannon-wielding white folks denying them basic, God given,
Constitutional rights to equal treatment by their representative
government.

Not one should is denying gay folks their constitutional rights to
practice their behavior in private . . . or even in public. They can
vote. They can get elected to office. They can hold powerful positions
in the media and corporate America.

Hell, they can even fly a high wing airplanes.

But they can't get married and they can't fly low wing planes. That's
just they way it is.

To say that "Denying sexually aberrant citizens 'marital' status is akin
to human rights abuses endured by black Americans" is an affront to my,
and your, intelligence.


Bull**** - why shouldn't they have a right to take advantage of "marriage?"
Also, the gays/queers/fags have suffered brutally. They are still routinely
victims of hate crimes. Now, here I am sounding like a liberal, but tht is
not the case. I would never vote for the socialist, I mean democratic
party, but for all love, why this unbending rule against "marriage" for
queers?

Perhaps that analogy is not quite right, but there is no excuse for the
gubment to take moral stands and deny certain status to some citizens that
are routinely granted to others?

The government takes moral stands all of the time. A good share of our
laws are based on morality. Things such as not killing your neighbors.


Matt

Jay Honeck wrote:

Uh huh. Which polls are these? Are they compiled by the same ones
compiling the exit polling data?

This is a prime example of the ignorance of so many people. The exit polls
on election day were actually amazingly accurate. What many people like
you should learn before you start spouting off is what actually happened.
Results from the exit polls was leaked before the polls were complete,
i.e. around 3 or 4 pm, before the polls were closed.


I heard a terrific explanation of this exit polling phenomenon at the
airport today, from an old gray-head sitting in the terminal building...

He said "OF COURSE the exit polls showed Kerry ahead early in the day -- all
the Republicans work for a living, and couldn't vote till after 6 PM!"

:-)

That's a keeper!


Matt

Greg Butler wrote:

He said "OF COURSE the exit polls showed Kerry ahead early in the day --
all
the Republicans work for a living, and couldn't vote till after 6 PM!"


The funny part is that is exactly right.



Not entirely. I'm a working Republican and I voted at 7 AM on my way TO
work. :-)


Matt

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Polls are facts about statistics.

I'd say just the opposite. Polls are statistics about facts.


Statistics are always about facts. Polls are the facts about the
statistics.

No, a fact is an invariant. If you take a poll and then take another
poll, you'll get a different result. That isn't factual, sorry.


Yes, most of these polls have significant biases.


Such as?

Such as who they talk to, where they conduct the poll, what time they
poll (as mentioned earlier, the working Republicans may not vote until
after the welfare liberals are done), and many other factors.


Matt

Earl Grieda wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

AES/newspost wrote:


In article ,
"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:



He's opposed to private ownership of any firearm except shotguns plugged

to

three
shells. And just where in the Constitution exactly is hunting mentioned?

He

prattles
about "military-style assault weapons" while trying to ban

semi-automatics,

knowing
full well that no military-style assault weapon is semi-automatic.

I have the right to own and fire my Mauser, and, as far as I'm

concerned,

that
includes the right to be allowed to buy ammunition for it. Kerry tried

to ban

that,
and we aren't talking anything armor-piercing here.



Want to give us a few details, just for the record, about the "well
regulated militia" to which you, personally, belong? (given your focus
on the Constitution, I assume you do) -- Name, location where it's
registered, number of members, just who it's "well regulated" by, that
sort of thing?

You better go back and learn what "well regulated" meant in the time
when the Constitution was written. And while you are at it, learn what
militia meant at that time as well. Hint, the meanings aren't at all
the same as the generally accepted meanings today.





Please provide a referance to back up your etymological evolution of these
terms.

Earl G.



That would be a reference, with three e's. Since you are too lazy to do
your own research, here's a little to get you started:

http://www.constitution.org/mil/cs_milit.htm

http://www.post-gazette.com/forum/20001008edkelly5.asp

http://www.nitewavesherrym.com/militia/militia.html


Do you think you can handle "well regulated" on your own?


Matt

Newps wrote:



Earl Grieda wrote:


You better go back and learn what "well regulated" meant in the time
when the Constitution was written. And while you are at it, learn what
militia meant at that time as well. Hint, the meanings aren't at all
the same as the generally accepted meanings today.





Please provide a referance to back up your etymological evolution of
these
terms.


Read your history for christs sake. The militia was not an organized
army like we have today, the original framers wanted no part of a United
States Army. They thought that if things got bad the US Army would
basically have a coup and take over the country. Every able bodied
adult male was considered to be the militia.

Yes, it took me all of 5 seconds to find a boat load of references that
explain this is great detail.


Matt

Earl Grieda wrote:

"Newps" wrote in message
...


Earl Grieda wrote:



You better go back and learn what "well regulated" meant in the time
when the Constitution was written. And while you are at it, learn
what militia meant at that time as well. Hint, the meanings aren't
at all the same as the generally accepted meanings today.





Please provide a referance to back up your etymological evolution
of these terms.

Read your history for christs sake. The militia was not an
organized army like we have today, the original framers wanted no part
of a United States Army. They thought that if things got bad the US
Army would basically have a coup and take over the country. Every
able bodied adult male was considered to be the militia.


I am not the one making the claim. It is the responsibility of the person
making the claim to prove it, or state that it is his opinion.

However, since the meaning of words do evolve then it certainly is possible
that what this person claims is true. But in that case we need to use the
definition of "Arms" as it was defined when the Bill of Rights was written.

I agree. Private ownership of cannons was fairly common on those days
and they were about the biggest and baddest weapons available to anyone
then.


Matt

G.R. Patterson III wrote:


Earl Grieda wrote:

However, since the meaning of words do evolve then it certainly is possible
that what this person claims is true. But in that case we need to use the
definition of "Arms" as it was defined when the Bill of Rights was written.


That would be whatever weaponry is used by a modern military force.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

Yes, Earl really should learn when to stop digging the hole he's in.


Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Greg Butler wrote:

He said "OF COURSE the exit polls showed Kerry ahead early in the day --
all
the Republicans work for a living, and couldn't vote till after 6 PM!"


The funny part is that is exactly right.

Not entirely. I'm a working Republican and I voted at 7 AM on my way TO
work. :-)

Obviously there are exceptions

No, a fact is an invariant. If you take a poll and then take another
poll, you'll get a different result. That isn't factual, sorry.

Actually a poll is a statement of fact: the people polled did in fact say
what the poll says. The problem arises with how you extend the poll to
represent the unpolled.