Conference back40::soapbox

    Part of the gender gap is this assumption that Clinton has smooth-
    talked (i.e., charmed or fooled) a majority of women in this country.

    Politics has become a gigantic street fight where bravado counts most
    (along with the virtual 'who can pee highest on the wall' contest.)

    Clinton has done more for women than any other President in our history.
    This matters to the majority of women who support Bill Clinton, IMO.

    Whether women get involved in the street fight or not, a great many 
    of us will be voting this year (and the majority of these votes will
    go to Bill Clinton.)

  well, you can count me as one of the women in here who doesn't
  find him at all appealing.  heaven knows if i did, i would certainly
  have voted for him, 'cuz that's how shallow i am.  ayup, uhunh.  ;>

  woman's man?  eesh. 
  i sure as hell can't figure that one out.

>>   the feeling is viceral and creates the same emotional dissonance 
>>   that i used to feel in high school when i saw good looking 
>>   sweet talking womanizers charm the pants (or whatever) off of 
>>   female friends of mine.

    Hmmm... I never looked at it that way... But I do tend to get that
    nauseating feeling whenever I hear the man talk. In fact my main
    reason for not liking the man is non-political. He just seems (to
    me) like he's full of s*t. The thing is, I can't really point out
    why. It's weird, cuz I've talked to a coupla friends about it
    wondering why he has this effect on me, and they haven't a clue.

    I'm a female, BTW. So I guess your theory doesn't work with me (';

    What's even more interesting is I have had completely different
    reactions to Hillary. The first time I saw her speak I was actually
    impressed. She came across to me as intelligent, shrewd, and concise.

    All that aside I still don't care for the Clintons, then again I'm
    not particularly crazy about the Repub candidate either. Hopefully the
    candidates will get down to stating where they stand on issues rather
    than this mud slinging crap that's been going on. That's probably too
    much to ask for though.

    re .1
    
    What has Clinton done for women that exceeds what any other president
    has done?

      I think one reason more women like Clinton is because, at least
      on the surface, more women are compassionate.
    
      I think a superficial analysis of liberal and conservative 
      philosophy would lead to the conclusion by most people (regardless
      of sex) that a liberal philosophy is actually more compassionate.
      Thus I think that more woman than men would like Clinton, in this 
      sense.
    
      I happen to believe that Conservatism is actually more compassionate.
    
      Another thing might just be that blindness factor that was mentioned.  
      Like maybe men see something in men that women are less able to see
      and vice versa.
    
      It seems that a lot more men, from a gut level, perceive Clinton
      as being totally full of it.  (I do.)
      
      							Tony

    i don't like clinton.  i think he's mealy-mouthed and
    spineless.  however, the relentless bashing this president
    has withstood since the day of his inauguration is, i think,
    unprecedented.  it's sickening.  and it only serves to 
    cheapen the american political process even more.

     As to the charge of being spineless, I must confess that I don't
    agree. He had enough spine to veto some budget bills and cause a
    shutdown of the government, something I'd wanted Reagan (and then Bush)
    to do. I said back in November that I admired him for that, and I still
    do (even though I think he was wrong to do it, and even though I think
    it was a political maneuver rather than an act of conviction.) I don't
    think spineless really applies. Rudderless? Yeah, I think that's more
    apt.

    you pick your fights and political principles and you 
    stick with them, no matter what.  no matter how much 
    heat is applied.  like ted kennedy does.  i respect the
    man for that.  politically, you know what he stands for,
    no matter how much you hate him.

>         <<< Note 698.7 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "put the opening in back" >>>

>    I said back in November that I admired him for that, and I still
>    do (even though I think he was wrong to do it, and even though I think
>    it was a political maneuver rather than an act of conviction.) 
	
	what's to admire about it then?

    
      My perception is that the base note is correct - there exists a
     real gender gap.  That is, it would be hard to come up with any
     candidate with appeal to both genders.
    
      Any suggestions ?
    
      bb

    Re .-1
    
    You could always elect an Hermaphrodite...

>           <<< Note 698.10 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "Welcome to Paradise" >>>

>      Any suggestions ?


	Colin Powell, perhaps?

    
    
    i agree with mark to the extent that clinton's fall stance
    on the budget was a surprise.  as to whether this was an
    excercise in courage or simply the application of mr. morris's
    grand scheme to remold clinton's image will have to be left
    to historians to resolve.
    
    

  ZZ  Clinton has done more for women than any other President in our
  ZZ history.
    
    Suzanne, I was scratching my head on this one.  I fail to see how you
    can compare Clintons stint to that of The Equal Rights Ammendment or
    whoever was in office when voting for women became an ammendment...
    1920.  I believe that was either Woodrow Wilson or Warren Harding.
    
    Let me see if I can guess at how your mind works.  I think the only
    thing you see is Hillary...in fact, I believe you see Hillary as the
    champion here.  Considering your stance regarding gun rights and the
    like, Clinton just doesn't mesh with your ideology on Constitutional
    issues.  Social issues, yes but big whoop...so does Barbara Bush.
    
    I believe you see Bill's defeat as a defeat against a solidly confident 
    first lady who could redefine the role of the first lady.  I think this
    is what it's aaaaaaalll about with you am I right?????
    
    -Jack

  .14  how _does_ he do it?

    RE: .15  Di
    
    > how _does_ he do it?
    
    I was just wondering that myself.  :-)
    

    he just duz it.

    Jack, you need to scratch your head a lot longer and a lot deeper
    for this one.
    
    President Clinton himself has done a great deal for women in this
    country with his policies.
    
    Obviously, you wouldn't agree with these policies even if you knew
    what they were - so let's leave it at that.  :/

    > Jack, you need to scratch your head a lot longer and a lot deeper
    > for this one.
    
    Ahh, but there's that thick layer of bone to contend with.

    Good pun!  :/

>>    President Clinton himself has done a great deal for women in this
>>    country with his policies.
    
    Not to be perjorative Suzanne...
    
    But would you mind elaborating (either here, or e-mail me is fine)
    
    Thanks!
    Michelle
    
    

    
    interesting that suzanne ignores the question regarding the
    women's suffrage movement.  it would be hard to argue that anything
    mr. bill has done has remotely come close to the passing of the
    19th amendment.
    

    Mr. Wilson's adminstration oversaw the passing of the 19th
    Amendment, and as can be seen below it was at least a bipartisan 
    effort.
    
    quote from www.rnc.org/hq/gop_history.html


    "Standing in sharp contrast to the two existing political parties' 
    present stereotypes regarding minorities and women, once again 
    the Republican Party was the vanguard in relation to women. 
    In 1917, Jeannette Rankin, a Montana Republican, became the
    first woman to serve in the House. Committed to her pacifist beliefs, 
    she was the only member of Congress to vote against entry into 
    both World War I and World War II. 

    Shortly after Ms. Rankin's election to Congress, the 19th Amendment 
    was passed in 1919. The amendment's journey to ratification had been 
    a long and difficult one.

    Starting in 1896, the Republican Party became the first major party 
    to officially favor women's suffrage. That year, Republican 
    Sen. A. A. Sargent of California introduced a proposal in the Senate 
    to give women the right to vote. The proposal was defeated
    four times in the Democratic-controlled Senate. When the Republican 
    Party regained control of Congress, the Equal Suffrage Amendment 
    finally passed (304-88). Only 16 Republicans opposed the amendment. 

    When the amendment was submitted to the states, 26 of the 36 states 
    that ratified it had Republican-controlled legislatures.  Of the 
    nine states that voted against ratification, eight were controlled 
    by Democrats. Twelve states, all Republican, had given women
    full suffrage before the federal amendment was finally ratified." 

Let's please not refer to Slick as mr. bill. I happen to like mr. bill.

    The women's suffrage movement in the United States began in
    1848 (almost 50 years before the idea was accepted by any party.)
    The entire movement to win the vote took 72 years.

    Women grew up, fought and died in generations before the Amendment
    was finally passed.

    Some women held hunger strikes and were tortured by being force fed
    through tubes which were jammed down their throats and into their
    stomachs against their wills.

    Other women were arrested and sent to jail for violating the law
    by voting before it was legal.

    Women were the heroes of this Amendment.  It took 72 years, but they
    won the vote without having the leverage of being able to threaten
    politicians that they would NOT vote for them unless they agreed to it.

    
    if they didn't have the leverage, who was responsible for for
    getting the amendment passed and what has clinton done that surpasses
    this landmark?
    

    women were responsible for getting the amendment passed.
    by constantly cajoling the men in power.

    Women changed public opinion about women's suffrage in the course
    of their 72 year struggle to win the vote.

    
    okay so early in the century women get exclusive credit
    for anything positive legislated on their behalf BUT
    currently bill clinton gets credit (not his female
    constituentcy).  it seems to me that this kind of arguement 
    is inconsistent.
    

    Suzanne:
    
    Nice way to back out of it.  Fact is I don't believe you can present a
    cogent argument to back up your statements regarding Bill Clinton.
    
    Affirmative Action, Abortion, Equal Rights Ammendment, Voting
    Ammendment were all committed under a Republican president or a
    republican controlled congress.  While I don't pour accolades so much
    over the pubs, I fail to see your position regarding ole square
    genitalia.  
    
    Sorry but if anything, Bill Clinton brought forth the notion that
    presidents can stand trial against women who have been violated
    against.  In that case, then yes, he has done alot for women.
    Gosh, I hope your not referring to the wretched Affirmative Action
    hires he put in the cabinet...is that it??
    
    -Jack

    what's very interesting is that many of the western states
    accepted and endorsed women's suffrage long before the more
    established eastern seacoast states. 

    .30
    
    ole square genitalia?
    
    jack, you crack me up, you really do.

    
    western women were a pretty tough breed.  one of the best
    books i ever read (forgot the title) was about the western
    movement from a female perspective.  it was excellent in that
    it described the nitty gritty details of scratching out an
    existence on the prarie.  
    

    RE: .29  Pvt. Parts
    
    > okay so early in the century women get exclusive credit
    > for anything positive legislated on their behalf BUT
    > currently bill clinton gets credit (not his female
    > constituentcy).  it seems to me that this kind of arguement 
    > is inconsistent.
    
    Women fought for suffrage for 72 years - of course they get the
    credit for winning it, finally.
    
    It was a tremendous milestone, but obviously, winning the vote
    was only one of the first steps needed.  (Being allowed to own
    property was another important one.)
    
    Bill Clinton gets credit for policies which were not as high-profile
    as women's suffrage had been, but which were important to many women
    (and long overdue.)  He gets the credit because these issues were not
    specifically pressed by most women in the way that women's suffrage had
    been.

                      <<< Note 698.34 by SPECXN::CONLON >>>

>   Bill Clinton gets credit for policies which were not as high-profile
>   as women's suffrage had been, but which were important to many women
>   (and long overdue.)  He gets the credit because these issues were not
>   specifically pressed by most women in the way that women's suffrage had
>   been.

This is a restatement of your position.  I am curious.  
Please list the policies that he should get credit for.

    
    suzanne is probably scrambling.  she shot from the hip,
    overstating the case for mr. clinton and will need some 
    quiet time to get some facts out the door for all
    us to peruse and yawn over.
    
    interesting how women's suffrage gets demeaned as simply being
    "high-profile".  typical late 20th century myopia with a tad
    of the gender rose colored filter turned on....
    

WARNING GENERALIZATION ZONE AHEAD:

Men do not hold woman's values to be relevant.  They accept 
that it is proper that women hold those values, but those 
values, like the woman who hold them, are unimportant and 
weak and should be ignored.  However, if a man "turns soft" 
and treats those values as relevant, then he is a traitor 
to his gender and should be cast out.  

The male culture devalues most things feminine.  Look at the 
words men insult each other with: Panty Waist, Runs Like A Girl, 
Sissy, etc.

My question of the male culture is, what is it that you 
don't get?  What is so wrong with caring for people over 
things?  Why does the male culture think that if something 
like the environment gets trashed then that's just too bad 
and all part of doing business? 

Women seem to understand that the world we live on is all
we have.  But as soon as someone stands up in defense of
the snail darter or some other endangered creature they
are scoffed at as being soft.  

Clinton values many of the things that women value.  He 
cares about the environment and for family.  He is one of 
the few candidates who hasn't been divorced at least once.  
He understands the issues that have kept women in poverty 
for generations.  

I can see Clinton's weaknesses as clearly as anyone else,
but as far as woman's issues are concerned, he is our best
bet for at least keeping what we have gained.  Under those
other macho BS artists I fear we would stand in danger of 
losing even the vote.

      I just want to echo agreement with .29.
    
      I see an extreme example of inconsistency here.  It goes like
      this (but I invite anyone to correct me if I am inaccurate).
    
      Some want to support the notion that Clinton did more for women
      than did any other past president.
    
      A reply seems to thoroughly support a conflicting position - that
      being that Republican politicians, the president included, did
      much (even more) to help women.
    
      The reply comes back...women were the principle cause of the
      positive changes in the early 1900's.
    
      Even if I accept this rationale, does it not follow that women
      are also largely responsible for the mindset Clinton has had
      toward women in the first place?  On what basis can one take
      away from the changes made during one administration by saying
      they were *really* effected by women, but still hold up Clinton's
      changes (thus inferring that women were, in contrast, no real
      force behind the changes in recent past)???
    
      I tend to think a consistent posture is more accurate; that being
      that women are primarily responsible for a cultural shift in 
      both the late 1800's/early 1900's and today.  In both cases,
      they were instrumental in influencing the mindsets of politicians
      in their day.  In this example, politicians in the early 1900's
      and Clinton today.
    
      We'll be consistent and give primary accolades to women for the
      achievements of both the early 1900's and today.  
    
      HOWEVER, I think we ought be consistent and give SECONDARY acknow-
      ledgment to the governing bodies that legislated any changes.
      And as we do so, we cannot help but observe that the Republicans
      of the early 1900's did far more for women's rights than has
      Clinton.
    
      Again, acknowledging that in both cases, the contributions of
      government were SECONDARY to the contributions of the women of
      our country.
    
      I am sure we would not want to leave out the women today from
      being the primary contributors and would not want to falsely
      honor Clinton as such.
    
    						Tony

      I have to say one thing about Clinton's *alleged* character.
    
      Regardless of any outward act such as legislation, how one
      is toward a woman in terms of honor/respect/etc. is most
      evident in one's personal life.
    
      There is some real possibility that Clinton is one heck of
      a womanizer.  (Paula Jones, etc.)
    
      Should this be true, from the HEART OF THE MAN, he is very
      much a degrader of women.
    
      That is what mostly counts...what goes on in his heart.
    
    						Tony

    RE: .30  Jack Martin

    > Nice way to back out of it.  Fact is I don't believe you can present a
    > cogent argument to back up your statements regarding Bill Clinton.

    You despise Clinton, so nothing I could possibly list about his
    accomplishments would do anything more than generate a new rathole 
    where you start wishing you could cut off his head and puke down his 
    throat.

    His accomplishments in the areas of policy changes and/or funding for
    women's health issues, women's small businesses, women's opportunities
    in the military (260,000 positions), and women's federal procurement
    contracts (not to mention the largest number of minority and women's 
    judicial appointments, women's Presidential appointments and women's
    cabinet appointments) are impressive, for starters.

    These probably mean nothing to you, but they mean something to the
    majority of women who plan to vote for Clinton in November.

    
    
    yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwn.
    

    Well, at least you aren't trying to puke down Clinton's throat.  :-)
    
    People demanded to know what specific policies were being praised so
    they could crap on them.
    
    Welcome to the gender gap.

    Women do get most of the credit for changing public opinon about
    women's rights, granted.
    
    Clinton still gets a great deal of credit for doing something about
    a long list of items that were not as critical as getting the vote
    itself, but long overdue in this country 72 years later.
    

    .41
    
    why do you yawn?  do you think that's not impressive?
    i think it's fairly impressive.
    

    
    i'm more impressed by gaskell's generalizations.
    

    
    
    
    .23 I love it when the Republican party points to their ancient 
    	liberal past to show what they accomplished.
    
    

    .37
    
    Two word smug response: Phyllis Schlaffly
    

    
    btw, could you explain to me what a "women's federal procurement 
    contract" is?  thx.
    
    
    

    It's more of the ghastly affirmative action policies.  Basically some
    mens companies faced overt tax funded discrimination to make the
    playing field level.  

    
    is this some kind of program that designates a company as
    being a "minority" or "female" company and then gives
    procurment preferences to contracts?
    

    This is truly making my blood boil.  Add to the list of Clinton's
    affirmation of women's issues his FIRST executive order - lifting the
    ban on the importation of RU-486.  ANY attempt by the neo-cons to
    appropriate this issue is utterly ridiculous.  After all, who attacked
    Pat Schroeder for being "emotional"?  If you neanderthals weren't so
    mysogynistic, we might have had a female president years ago.  Then, we
    wouldn't even be having this disussion...
    

    
    you don't have to be a nut to believe that clinton's acheivements
    are not on the same order of magnitude of acheivement as what occured
    in the early part of the century.  all you need is some historical
    perspective.
    
    also regarding patsy schroeder.  you make it sound like emotional
    outbursts were only a liability if you were female.  again, perhaps
    you should open a book and read about the 1972 elections and the
    failed candidacy of edmund muskie.  
    

    i think oppery was trying to be ironic again.

    RE: .52  Pvt. Parts
    
    > you don't have to be a nut to believe that clinton's acheivements
    > are not on the same order of magnitude of acheivement as what occured
    > in the early part of the century.  all you need is some historical
    > perspective.
    
    The historical perspective is that women's suffrage was not some big
    gift by the Republicans in 1920.  Women fought hard for this victory
    for 72 years.
    
    Women have been fighting hard for other victories in the 76 years
    since then, but Clinton is the best President (so far) for giving 
    women's issues in general a strong priority in a Presidential 
    administration.  Obviously, a great many women are glad he did
    and will vote for him because of this.
    
    > also regarding patsy schroeder.  you make it sound like emotional
    > outbursts were only a liability if you were female.  again, perhaps
    > you should open a book and read about the 1972 elections and the
    > failed candidacy of edmund muskie.  
    
    Dole's voice shook with tears at Nixon's funeral and it happened again
    when he gave a speech to his home town to thank them for giving him the
    money for his hospital treatments after the war.  (This speech was given
    a few weeks ago.)
    
    No one bats an eye when he cries, and he's won the Republican 
    Presidential nomination.

    |No one bats an eye when he cries, and he's won the Republican
    |Presidential nomination.
    
    That's because he's senile. You'd cry too if you were losing your mind.

    Oh, and by the way... This being a discussion of gender issues, I would
    suggest that Clinton's support of gay rights helps to complete the
    circle.  (Remember Clinton's SECOND executive order?)
    
    Here's a little help: Many who study such things believe that
    homophobia is a repudiation of femininity.  Seems that in Biblical
    times, there were male prostitues at the temples co-mingling with the
    females.  The men who partook of these male prostitutes never were
    challenged about their masculinity.  The male prostitutes, though, were
    considered chattel, just like the females (all of em).  Why?  Because
    they were submissive (read feminine).
    
    So... Masculine = Superior, Feminine = Subordinate.  Goes to follow
    that revealing one's feminine side (i.e., supporting the causes with
    which women and gay men identify) would place one squarely on the
    bottom (go ahead and read into it all the innuendo you want).
    
    In summary: Macho neo-cons are, by nature, scared to be buggered
    (especially if they think they might like it).  Any support of feminine
    issues proffered by these folks, accordingly, merely reinforces the
    whole dominance/submission thing.  Very sad...
                                                  

    
    a little context helps put things in perspective.
                                                                  
    if dole had broken down and cried in the heat of the new hampshire
    primary he would have been seriously questioned as far as his
    ability to cope with the pressures of the presidential office. 
    

    .52
    
    Wow!  While I was writing my last note, I was completely unaware that
    someone was posting a different note affirming my position!
    
    Yep.  Muskie cried.  And it cost him his candidacy.  Why?  Grown men
    don't cry!  Why?  Makes em look LIKE WOMEN!
    
    BTW, grown men also don't seek psychiatric help.  Just ask Eagleton...
    

    I predict that within 2 years of Slick Willie leaving the office of
    President of the United States, the Clintons will go through an ugly
    divorce. She acts as though she can barely tolerate him now. I think
    the whole Gennifer Flowers (why can't she spell it with a 'j' like
    everybody else) thing put the nail in the coffin of that marraige, but
    they stayed together so as not to jeopardize his chances for the
    presidency.
    
    					lunchbox

    I think they will go through a pristine divorce. You know, the beautiful
    type.

    
    .39 Barbieri
    
    The womanizing stuff needs a rest. Why, do you believe that he is
    the ONLY male politician to be allegedly unfaithful?! The only
    difference is whether the public knows. At least we can give our
    dubious thanks to the tabloids, eh?  
    
    As long as he can govern and his associations does not compromise
    his in-office responsibilities, that issue is between he and his
    spouse.  
    
    Frankly I wouldn't trust a saintly politician, would you?
    

RE Note 698.56                Gender Gap and Bill Clinton
DYPSS1::OPPER "Theresa dancing shoes!"               22 lines   4-APR-1996 17:53
                          -< More wing-nut fodder... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    So... Masculine = Superior, Feminine = Subordinate.  Goes to follow
>    that revealing one's feminine side (i.e., supporting the causes with
>    which women and gay men identify) would place one squarely on the
>    bottom (go ahead and read into it all the innuendo you want).
    
>    In summary: Macho neo-cons are, by nature, scared to be buggered
>    (especially if they think they might like it).  
    
    How many women like this? Please stand up. You are BLATENTLY wrong!
    
    You really don't know very many men very well do you? Can you spell
    stereotype...?
    
    Steve

      re: -1
    
      The "character is not an issue" tack.  Lets' just say we
      agree to disagree.
    
      						Tony

    
    >>Can you spell stereotype...?
    
    Perhaps you should have asked for his/her help in spelling "blatantly"
    instead 8^).                                                    ^
    
    

    
      A less-thought-out aspect of the "gender gap" is that it works
     both ways.  Just as Republicans have had trouble getting female
     votes, the Democrats have suffered election disasters in several
     recent years because the vast majority of men, including many
     registered as Democrats, have deserted the party at the polls.
    
      It is very disconcerting to numerous Democratic leaders (just as
     the inability to recruit women scares Republicans), and I've heard
     lots of attempts to explain the phenomenon, but none I really
     believe.  But the statistics from exit polls are striking.  Men
     who you would traditionally assume were left-of-center and likely
     Democratic voters, crossing over in the booth.  Union members,
     school teachers, men who identify themselves as liberals.
    
      I wonder why.
    
      bb

    Frankly, I think men are more likely to base their vote on perceptions
    of how it will affect their financial position. I think women are more
    likely to base their vote on other considerations. Not that in both
    these statements, the modifier SOME is implied. SOME men. SOME women.

    .56
    
    > You really don't know very many men very well do you?
    
    Nope.  Here at the convent, we've come to accept the Mother Superior as
    our father figure.  Must be the moustache.  Or is that a steereotipe?
    

   .66 do you think that's gender related - the financial impact 
       consideration - or a function of number of dependents/head of
       household status?

    
    
    |      I wonder why.
    
    i'm sure gaskett and friends would say that it is purely hormonal.
    

   >.66 do you think that's gender related - the financial impact 
   >    consideration - or a function of number of dependents/head of
   >    household status?
    
     I dunno. 

    It was highly publicized that the 1994 elections were the product
    of the 'angry white male' vote, true.
    
    The unions were angry at Clinton for NAFTA in 1994.  Now they've
    come back to the fold, and they're doing everything they can (well,
    everything that $35M will buy) to help bring liberal/Democratic
    men's votes to the Democratic party this fall.
    
    They may very well be successful.

    
    	Four more years!!
    

                      <<< Note 698.71 by SPECXN::CONLON >>>
    
   > They may very well be successful.

    And pigs could fly...

    daryll

    Greetings all,
    
    I came into this at the Gennifer Flowers level of the discussion and...
    When I came to Maryland in 1976 the Governor was the soon to be jailed
    Marvin Mandel. While he was Governor besides the illegal things that
    got him thrown in jail he also fell in love with another woman. His
    wife took him to the cleaners publically and monitarily. The divorce
    settlement included something that said that her picture was to be the
    only one in the Governor's Mansion amoung other things. 
    
    Its hard for me to imagine that being the presidents wife has enough
    alure to it for Hillery to put up with Bill Clinton.
    
    fred

    
    | Its hard for me to imagine that being the presidents wife has
    | enough alure to it for Hillery to put up with Bill Clinton.
    
    it is hard to believe that hillary and bill did not make some
    political deal before he started running.
     
    my guess is that this will be the subject of much interest
    fifty and one hundred years from now. 
    

    re: .61
    
    By the way, can you cite where I have ever claimed I: "believe
    that he is the ONLY male politician to be allegedly unfaithful?!"
    
    I'd appreciate it.
    
    							Thanks,
    
    							Tony

    re: .46
    
    I think this is an EXCELLENT point.  (assuming the Repubs were
    liberal - I don't know.

    .40
    
    Please enlighten us as to exactly what your boy Bill did to pass the
    landmark legislation that gave all of these rights to women.  I believe
    that every one of the items you specify was already in place long
    before Billy came to office.
    
    the fact that he worked to keep the status quo in place does not make
    him the greatest president ever by a long shot.  Also, you really have
    to be kidding you use family values and Bill clinton in hte same note. 
    Bill clinton is the most anti-family president I can remember.  He
    opposes any attempt to allow families to keep more of their income,
    refuses to allow families to make decisions about education for their
    children, makes a mockery of marriage and commitment and escalates
    lying to a fine art.  I do not view any of these as family values.  the
    fact that you give him credit for family values shows a clear myopia on
    your part.  You abviously have a different agenda and using these terms
    makes you feel good, but they are all lies, but then what to expect
    from a Clinton supporter.
    
    
    BTW is Opper really that wied and clueless or does he just like to look
    that way.
    

    Z   Oh, and by the way... This being a discussion of gender issues, I would
    Z   suggest that Clinton's support of gay rights helps to complete the
    Z   circle.  (Remember Clinton's SECOND executive order?)
    
    You know what really annoys me about people like you?  You don't appear
    to have the integrity to admit that what your returning for evil is
    evil.  You piss and moan about the non level playing field, but in
    order to achieve your goal of equity, you commit the very same crime
    you were victimized by.  
    
    If your blood's boiling because I minimize Affirmative Action programs,
    keep in mind...you are the one condoning discrimination here.  Stand
    up, admit it up front, then maybe some of us neo cons will have a
    smidgen of respect for you.
    
    -Jack

    Here's a groovy example of neo-con attitudes toward womankind (courtesy
    of The Everlasting GOP-Stopper [http://members.aol.com/gopstopper]:
    
    "In 1992, the Washington State Legislature approved some of the most
    sweeping health care reforms the nation has ever seen.
    When the Republicans won control of same in 1994, they gutted every bit
    of it, save for a few (minor) provisions...
    
    "About two weeks ago, concern about so-called 'drive-through
    childbirth,' wherein a
    mother and newborn child are kicked out of the hospital ready or not in
    24 hours or less
    so that the HMO can keep their costs down, prompted a vote on a bill
    that simply stated
    that an insurance carrier must pay for hospital stays over 24 hours if
    a medical doctor
    recommends such a stay. Simple, right? Who could disagree? 
    
    "Well, a Republican named Phil Dyer, for one. On the day that the
    measure went down in
    defeat, he stated, 'It will be too costly to leave it up to the women
    who have given birth.
    It's just human nature. Next thing you know they will be using $1000 a
    day hospital rooms
    as resort hotels.'     
    

    Forgot to reply to what I cross posted.  Yes, I do remember Clintons
    executive order quite well.  Looking at reality here, we have a man
    with a very poor track record with the military, dispising it no less,
    who attempts to supercede the knowledge and expertise of the Joint
    Chiefs of Staff to bring forth an executive order.
    
    Get this through your ears lady and listen good.  I have very little
    patience with goo goo's who use the military as a social engineering
    experiment.  You've already dysfunctionalized the Constitution up one
    side and down the other and, speaking as a non radical, non gun owning,
    non malitia promoting conservative, you will mess with the military
    over my dead body.  The military is NOT a place for this...save it for
    the Department of Health.  The military breaks things...and kills
    people.  DEAL WITH IT!!!!

    <- Medic!

    .80
    
    Wait a minute here.  I think I see a patern.  The people who are
    responsible for paying the bill want to excercise some control over
    their liability and the radical way they want to do this is, have a
    doctor specifically state that additional confinement is required.
    
    Wow, this is terrible so the wacko, radical left demands that the
    omnicient government limit the ability of the bill payer to have any
    control over the amount of their liability.  Well this is certainly the
    type of activist government that has brought the wonderful society we
    now have.
    
    No wonder the author favors the legislation, being totally clueless and
    out of touch with reality makes greater government grabs look
    attractive.
    
    What a pity.
    

    I loooove this neo-con position!  Yep, I condone discrimination.  Do
    you respect me now?
    
    Further, isn't it your party of Lincoln that started this whole thing? 
    I mean, what with discriminating against slave holders, weren't y'all
    depriving them of their right to unbridled capitalist success?
    

    .83
    
    I guess I have to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that
    your system locked up half-way into my note.
    
    As I recall, the legislation stated that "an insurance carrier must pay
    for hospital stays over 24 hours IF A MEDICAL DOCTOR RECOMMENDS SUCH A
    STAY".
    
    The measure was DEFEATED by the repubs.
    
    I assume you wouldn't have a problem if your insurance company insisted
    your procedure was complete, despite your doctor suggesting that if
    he/she doesn't sew you up, you run the risk of (literally) spilling
    your guts on the way home...
    

      I suspected severe mental convolutions with the 'prison bugger'
      comment.
    
      Fear of submission?  For crying out loud...for one thing, it 
      just might hurt like h*&l.  Not to mention anything along the
      lines of perhaps believing in monagomy...
    
      Unbelievable.
    
    						Tony

    .81
    
    Boy, am I stooopid!  Thanks for helping me see the light.  This whole
    discussion is a RUSE!  Obviously, Clinton can't advance women's issues
    because he has no experience AS A WOMAN!   I could kick myself...
    
    BTW, watch who you're calling lady, mister.
    

    having recently been through the patch them up and out the door routine
    on my mom, I have to agree that Medical care providors need a bit more
    descretion on how long they should keep people in.  
    
    My brother was discharged from a hospital the day after he knew who he
    was, although he still had some life-threatening problems and could not
    walk more than ten steps without assistance.  They were going to send
    him home to a 7-year-old with her own problems, and expect her to
    manage his meds, bedpan.....  I had a scramble finding a recovery
    center bed, that his insurance won't pay for, "It isn't a 'hospital.'" 
    Hell you all kicked him out of same with no provisions for home-health
    care.  
    
    Two months later, Mom is in the hospital for 10 days.  The MD said he
    would like to keep her another two weeks, but, again the health
    management geeks say this is the max number of days you can stay for
    DBV, COPD, and way-out-of-control diabietes.  She couldn't negotiate
    stairs either, a requirement for getting around in her home.  At least
    they did make provisions for some HHC, but left the rest on relatives
    (guess who?) to deal with.  I am glad I have an understanding boss, and
    had a fair amount of Vacation time.  
    
    I think we need to get MBA's out of the Health care business and give
    it back to medical providers again, but, gee, that would make sense.  
    
    

    Ohhh...your name is Stephen.  My apologies.  It might help if you sign
    your notes.
    
    Sorry I came across so brazen, but quite frankly, where the hell do you
    get off having your blood boil?  
    
    Try to understand, your...YOUR representatives in the House, in the
    Senate, and in the Executive branch are sworn to uphold the
    Constitution of the United States.  ANYTHING over and above that which
    they are sworn to is a gimme, a goodie, an entitlement, call it what
    you will.  Therefore, your whole concept of Clinton...or hell, Nixon
    who started this whole debacle of Affirmative Action, is founded on
    unconstitutional principles.  
    
    Now I realize you are not for discrimination...but your blindness
    toward the actual foundation of the policies has in fact made you
    become the very thing you despise.  In other words, you're a
    compromiser of principles.
    
    -Jack

    .90
    
    Perhaps, OJM, you have forgotten, as you revel in your newfound ability
    to fulminate, that one of the specific purposes of the Constitition,
    and therefore one of the resons for which the Congress might pass laws,
    is TO PROVIDE FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE.  The purpose of government is to
    ensure that it citizens are provided for, not to see to it that they
    are kicked out of hospitals while still incapable of providing for
    their own convalescence.

     One could justify socialism with that same paragraph. Providing for
    the general welfare, ensuring its citizens are provided for, etc. food
    for thought, if you have a sufficiently strong constitition. :-)

  ZZ  and therefore one of the resons for which the Congress might pass laws,
  ZZ      is TO PROVIDE FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE. 
    
    Sorry Dick, you are wrong.  The purpose of that clause was to ensure
    that the benefits of constitutional funding to the federal government
    would be applied to all thirteen states equally.  
    
    This is probably the most misunderstood and misused line in the
    Constitution.
    
    -Jack

    .90
    
    Nixon - that commie-sympathizing pinko bleeding-heart liberal DID
    create this whole mess.  If only George Wallace had been better
    understood.  Ah, but we can only dream...
    

    "Provide for the general welfare" is limited in scope, in Article 1,
    section 8, herr Binder.  Not that this stops Congress from continuing
    to rip pages from our founding document (something that has been
    popular throughout this century).
    
    "Provide for the general welfare" is not a blank check for government
    to do what it wants...or even for government to do what the people think 
    needs doing, should these desires clash with the limitations built into
    said document.
    
    
    -steve

    Steve Opper:
    
    Why don't you sit down some night and read the 1964 Civil Rights act. 
    Quotas or prefential treatment are AGAINST THE LAW.  This was confirmed
    by the Supreme Court last week in a case of a woman who was not
    accepted to University of Texas because they wanted more of Mexican
    decent.  
    
    You're foaming at the mouth with non sequitors.  Wallace blatantly
    believe in segregation.  Opposing quotas is abiding by the 1964 Civil
    Rights Act.  So please get off your high horse and get a grip.
    
    -Jack

    .92
    
    'Cept that socialism decrees that the government owns the businesses. 
    Our system (Democracy <--> Capitalism) works quite well, thank you, by
    ensuring that business takes care of its own, and governemnt provides
    for the rest.
    

    .96
    
    ... groooaaannn.  Nixon was wrong by supporting Affirmative Action
    (intending to, among other things, encourage an integrated society)? 
    Wallace was wrong by supporting segregation?  Why is my head spinning?
    
    

    Seems that Dick is in good company, going by the 1937 SCOTUS
    decision.

    They only had one that year?

    .97
    
    
    No, I'm sorry you don't have clue.  Buisnesses provide for what they
    are in buisness for.  They hire employees, pay them a competitive wage
    to keep them, give them com[etitive benenfits to keep them, etc.  The
    government has no role in any of that.  If buisnesses don't provide a
    service it is not the governments role to step in and provide it.  THAT
    IS THE WHOLE PROBLEM.  All of the wacko, radical liberals think that it
    is the government's position to take care of everything that you don't
    take care of personally.  Hog wash!!!
    
    If you work for something and get it, that's great.  If not, keep
    plugging away until you do.  Just because you don't get what you want
    or don't have what somebody else has doesn't mean that the government
    steps in.
    
    You want a real life example, try being a sales rep in this company. 
    Every year you get a new territory, new accounts and new budgets.  Of
    course, you sent an entire year building a business that now you don't
    get credit for and you have no business to get you going during the
    current year.  Well, it's tough but that's the way it is.  If I don't
    like it I can leave or make the best of it.  The last thing I expect is
    for the government to come in and correct this horrible situation.
    
    All of you radical lefties would expect that.  What a sick bunch you
    are.
    

    
    Don't mince words, Bones, what do you really think ?
    

    .93, .95
    
    > Sorry Dick, you are wrong.  The purpose of that clause...
    
    ...was to enumerate the reasons for which the Congress was empowered to
    levy taxes and excise.  There is no limitation in Article I, Section 8,
    explicit or implicit, on what the Congress may consider necessary to
    provide for the general welfare of the United States.  The health and
    safety of the country's citizens do seem to me to be relatively
    essential to that end.  Denying health care is tantamount to compelling
    intolerable living conditions.

    Dick, my wife has two pre-existing life threatening handicaps.  I
    know...believe me.
    
    Seems to me Dick like the Federal government has done alot to create
    the debacle of high medical costs in the first place.  Just as credit
    card companies charge 17% to insure themselves against theft, non
    payments, etc., so have doctors placed a high premium on malpractice
    coverage.
    
    Tort reform Dick...THAT to me would be the highest priority of
    promoting the General Welfare.
    
    -Jack

    .103
    
    I disagree completely.  There are most definitely limitations built in,
    enumerated even, in that very section.  These enumerations are to what
    purpose Congress can lay taxes and spend money. 
    
    You will find that health care, SS, welfare and similar redistribution
    programs to be absent from this list.  You will also find that the
    Tenth Amendment limits the general government specifically to only those
    enumerated powers granted to it in the Constitution.
    
    
    -steve

   Z   Nixon was wrong by supporting Affirmative Action; (intending to, among 
   Z   other things, encourage an integrated society)? 
   Z   Wallace was wrong by supporting segregation?  Why is my head spinning?
    
    Yes, and very easily explained.  Dick Nixon promoted a policy that was
    outlawed by the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  Wallace promoted something that
    was outlawed by the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  Quotas and Segregation
    respectively.  You're comparing apples to pizzas here.
    
    -Jack

    
      Actually, the key word is "general".  The passage does not
     empower Congress to provide for the welfare of individual
     citizens, but to take actions which benefit society as a whole.
    
      An example would be the Interstate Highway System.  Or launching
     a weather satellite.  Or funding cancer research.
    
      GENERAL welfare.
    
      bb

    >Denying health care is tantamount to compelling
    >intolerable living conditions.
    
     Refraining from mandating that health care providers must provide
    certain types of treatment simply does not equate to (the state)
    denying medical care, regardless of underhanded attempts to frame
    the discussion as such.
    
     The government hasn't denied me a living wage, despite the fact that
    they have refrained from requiring my employer to provide the same.

    .105
    
    The things you cite as being absent in the list are permitted IF THE
    CONGRESS DEEMS THEM BENEFICIAL TO THE GENERAL WELFARE.
    
    I've quoted this one before, but I'll quote it again.  Pay attention
    this time, okay?
    
    	"Law must retain useful ways to break with traditional forms
    	because nothing is more certain than that the forms of Law remain
    	when all justice is gone."
    
    				- Frank Herbert, _The Dosadi Experiment_
    
    You, in your obsessive need to conform to the exact words of the
    Constitution, have forgotten its spirit.  Simple adherence to the
    words, exactly as they are laid down, is not what the Framers had in
    mind - that is the specific reason for which they built in the
    mechanism by which the Constitution can be amended.
    
    Here's another quotation from the same book:
    
        "People always provide their own justifications.  Fixed and
        immovable Law merely provides a convenient structure on which to
        hang your justifications and the prejudices behind them.  The only
        universally acceptable Law for mortals would be one which fitted
        every justification.  What obvious nonsense.  Law must expose
        prejudice and question justification.  Thus, Law must be flexible,
        must change to fit new demands.  Otherwise, it becomes merely the
        justification of the powerful."
        
    Suck on that a while.  Then start questioning inwardly.  What are you
    afraid of, and why must you cling so hard to the Constitution as a
    rock, when it was actually intended to be a vessel to carry us on an
    ever-changing journey?

    .109
    
    Let me ask you a question, Binder.  Why enumerate a specific list of
    things into the text of article 1, section 8?  Was there no
    purpose for it? were these just examples?  I think not.
    
    The paragraph before this list is a preamble- a statement of purpose
    for taxation- not a blank check that Congress can overwrite with
    impunity.  The list is the enumeration of those things which the
    federal government can legally lay taxes for, "for the general welfare".
    
    The order is, statement of purpose (reason behind the the list), then
    the list of specifically enumerated things that Congress can lay taxes
    for.
    
    Your problem is that your thinking is too federally-based.  You see,
    the states are not limited in this same way- even the 10th states that
    the those powers not specifically granted to the fed.gov. is reserved
    for the STATES and people.  If states want to have welfare programs,
    more power to them.  The feds, however, do not have such freedom, nor
    were they ever intended to have such taxation powers.
    
    You are not alone, though, it seems that everyone today thinks too 
    broadly on these issues.  Many think that in order to get something
    done, it has to be done by the federal government (I am not including
    you in this generalization, so don't get excited...8^) ).  
    
    The FF knew well that the best form of a general government is the 
    smallest one possible.  Let it get too big, let it control the people 
    via taxation, and you end up with a tyranny.  
    
    I cannot in good conscience support things that go against the very
    intent and spirit of this document.  It is not I that is fighting
    against its spirit, but those who push for an infinitely flexible 
    founding document.  Such a document cannot survive, as it has no 
    foundation.  A nation attempting to base itself upon such a 
    foundationless document will crumble from within.
    
    
    -steve

      re: -1
    
      How much you know is far exceeded by how much you think you know.

    Re 100
    
    tOUCHe.  They made a decision on the constitutional interpretation
    of the term "General Welfare" in '37:
    
    	"Spending to relieve the needs of the army of unemployed
    	in a nationwide depression serves the general welfare, the
    	spending power knows no other limitation."
    

      My last reply was directed to .109.

    .101
    
    "Business" has no interest whatsoever in anything other than profit. 
    What "business" must to in order to maximize profit is a by-product of
    competition.  That may mean providing competitive wages, health
    benefits, et al, but not necessarily.
    
    "Government" has no profit motive.  Its primary function is to provide
    for the common good.  What "government" must do in order to meet its
    obligations is a by-product of representative democracy.  That may mean
    establishing standards by which "business" operates, but not
    necessarily.
    
    Left to their own mutually exclusive devices, "business" and
    "government" (as practiced here in the good ole US of A) would decimate
    one another.  Thanks, however, to the dynamic complexities of our
    system, we have achieved a certain level of symbiosis.
    
    I suggest you read *anything* by Lester Thurow for more cogent insight.
    
    As for me, bein' serious jest don't fit.  The gloves are back on. 
    Let's get ready to RUMBLE...
     

    Hope I'm not getting my leaning perception wrong, here, but I'm
    thinking it's modern conservatism that maintains such rigid
    Constitutional interpretation, and that, huh?? it's modern conservatism
    that seems hell bent on amending said Constitution every nanosecond.
    
    I say let's pass one final amendment - the Constitution cannot be
    amended unless the anti-amendment amendment is amended.  While the
    wing-nuts are figuring it out, the rest of the nation can go about its
    business in relative harmony.
    

    RE: .78  Rocush

    > I believe that every one of the items you specify was already in place 
    > long before Billy came to office.                                  

    Well, you're out of your freaking mind, so I'm not surprised you think
    this.

    > the fact that he worked to keep the status quo in place does not make
    > him the greatest president ever by a long shot. 

    This 'status quo' phrase has become the main buzz phrase of the brain-
    dead Republican party this year.  I think it's funny.  :)  Liberals and
    feminists have been using this phrase for years and now you've got it.

    Bill Clinton won by challenging people to vote for 'change', so now
    Bob Dole figures he can win in 1996 if he claims that HE is the new
    candidate for 'change'.  Doesn't this guy have a single original idea?

    > Also, you really have to be kidding you use family values and 
    > Bill clinton in hte same note. 

    Well, I didn't, so you must be hallucinating.  I do think it's funny
    to mention the words 'Republican' and 'family values' in the same
    note, though.  Is this what you meant?

    > Bill clinton is the most anti-family president I can remember.  He
    > opposes any attempt to allow families to keep more of their income,

    He's trying to keep his opponents from throwing poor children into
    orphanages (which doesn't do much to keep families together.)

    > refuses to allow families to make decisions about education for their
    > children, makes a mockery of marriage and commitment and escalates
    > lying to a fine art. 

    All the twice- and thrice-married Republican candidates or commentators
    (like the much-married Rush Limbaugh) are so dedicated to marriage
    that they get married as often as they can, though, right?  :/
    That's a sure sign of commitment and respect for marriage alright.

    As for lying, no one does it better than the Clinton-bashers.

    > I do not view any of these as family values.  

    Your view of family values is probably as sick and perverted as
    Single-Digit Gingrich's.

    > the fact that you give him credit for family values shows a clear 
    > myopia on your part.  

    The fact that you'd bother to LIE about what was in my note shows
    what little regard you have for the truth.  Yet I'm supposed to
    believe what you say about Clinton??  Bwahahahahaha

    > You abviously have a different agenda and using these terms
    > makes you feel good, but they are all lies, but then what to expect
    > from a Clinton supporter.

    You tell a blatant lie about the contents of my note and have the
    audacity to call me a liar?  You are one very, very sick bastard.

    .116
    
    ... sorry, sir.  Mrs. Gingrich is sedated right now...
    

    Rocush, I have to ask you - why on Earth did you decide to tell such
    a blatant (and verifiable) LIE about the contents of my note?  You've
    provided me with tremendous ammunition against you and everything you
    say about Bill Clinton from now on.

    You do realize that this is *precisely* what I've been talking about
    (regarding the Clinton-bashing.)

    RE: .117  Opper
    
    > ... sorry, sir.  Mrs. Gingrich is sedated right now...
    
    "Well, when she wakes up, would you tell her that Newt came by with
    the divorce settlement, please?  This cancer stuff is a real bummer,
    doncha think?  Glad I'm rid of it now - I mean, glad SHE'S rid of it."

    
    	Suzanne, are you finally happy with the wording of .116, or
    	are you going to change it a 3rd time?  This is the 3rd time
    	I've gotten in here and seen that entry.
    

    Hey, I did it for you, Shawn.  
    
    And this is all the appreciation I get for it?  Hmph!  :-)

    
    	How inconsiderate of me.
    
    	Thank you, Suzanne.  8^)
    

| <<< Note 698.117 by DYPSS1::OPPER "Honey, hand me a Kleenek please..." >>>

| ... sorry, sir.  Mrs. Gingrich is sedated right now...

	Suz...did you have an operation that I didn't hear about?

    No, Glen - he was referring to what hospital officials might
    have said to Newt Gingrich when Mr. Family Values himself
    showed up to deliver divorce settlement papers to his first
    wife at her hospital bedside.
    
    Newt is such a sweetie - he probably knew that it was going
    to be difficult for her to run over to his lawyer's office
    to pick up the papers in her fragile condition (recovering 
    from cancer, etc) so he saved her the trip.

    RE: .83  Rocush

    > Wait a minute here.  I think I see a patern.  

    It's 'pattern', and you missed it.  Big time!!  Read this again:
    
    	"About two weeks ago, concern about so-called 'drive-through
    	childbirth,' wherein a mother and newborn child are kicked out 
    	of the hospital ready or not in 24 hours or less so that the 
    	HMO can keep their costs down, prompted a vote on a bill
    	that simply stated that an insurance carrier must pay for hospital 
    	stays over 24 hours if a medical doctor recommends such a stay. 
    	Simple, right? Who could disagree? 
    
    	"Well, a Republican named Phil Dyer, for one. On the day that the
    	measure went down in defeat, he stated, 'It will be too costly to 
    	leave it up to the women who have given birth.  It's just human 
    	nature. Next thing you know they will be using $1000 a day hospital 
    	rooms as resort hotels.'"     
    
    > The people who are responsible for paying the bill want to excercise 
    > some control over their liability and the radical way they want to do 
    > this is, have a doctor specifically state that additional confinement 
    > is required.

    This radical idea was the one the Republicans and HMOs fought against!

    They want the women and babies out of the hospital in 24 hours whether
    or not the doctors believe they should stay.

    In other words, this plan (that you think is so damn wonderful that
    you can't freaking BELIEVE the nerve of the radical left to oppose
    it) is actually the plan that the radical left created.  The Wash.
    State Republicans opposed it.

    > Wow, this is terrible so the wacko, radical left demands that the
    > omnicient government limit the ability of the bill payer to have any
    > control over the amount of their liability. 

    The Republicans insisted that the mothers and babies should not be
    allowed to stay in the hospital (with HMO coverage) even if their 
    doctors recommend it.

    > Well this is certainly the type of activist government that has brought 
    > the wonderful society we now have.

    Now that you realize that you accidentally backed the wrong side (you
    backed the Democratic position, which is absolutely wonderful!) - now,
    you'll find a reason to explain why women and newborn babies should
    NOT be allowed to stay in hospitals for more than 24 hours with HMO
    coverage.

    I hope you realize that many problems with newborns do not become
    obvious within the first 24 hours of birth.

    Now, go ahead and reverse your position to back the Wash. State
    Republican point of view (which goes against everything you wrote 
    in your note.)

    You've really had a rough day.  :)

    And in New Hampshire the predominately Republican Legislature and
    Republican Governor just signed into law such a provision.
    
    /jim

    Getting back to the Gender Gap...

    The bottom line for the differences cited in the basenote is that
    the farther to the 'right' you move on the political spectrum,
    the closer you get to white male supremacy.   

    Right wing white supremacy groups do exist in this country, and the 
    Republican party is certainly quite a bit less extreme than these
    groups, but the connection is still there.  The majority of women
    in this country are Democrats because of it, IMO.  The overwhelming
    majority of African-Americans are Democrats, too, and it's probably
    for much the same reason.

    My mother was a life-long Republican and so is my sister.  I don't
    believe for a minute that they ever supported white male supremacy
    in any way whatsoever.  I'm positive they did not, in fact, and
    I'm sure that most Republican women do not support it, either.

    Even so, the nuances of 'white male supremacy' in the Republican
    party are noticeable enough to keep the majority of women away
    from the GOP (although this distance is actually obtained because
    of a long list of specific issues which address the various rights
    of women and/or minorities.)

    The Republican party itself (and its members) help to foster this
    image.  When people talk about the Gender Gap, conservatives often
    explain it by saying that women have been 'fooled' or 'charmed'
    by the media, or President Clinton, or the Democratic politicians
    (as if only white males can think clearly and logically about 
    politics.)

    It's almost impossible to have a political discussion between the
    sexes without women being called 'emotional' and/or 'illogical'
    (as if white males are the ones with the authority to decide the
    validity, or lack thereof, of all political positions and that
    women can be ordered to agree with men's political views on demand.)

    This attitude limits political discussions, but the majority of
    women vote against the party which happens to foster it (so the
    attitude does the Republican party more harm than good when it
    comes to winning the majority of women's votes.)

    Earlier in this topic, I said that American politics has become a
    street fight.  Well, it's worse than this, actually.  A lot worse.

    As the poisonous right wing bravado escalates to the point where
    some of the most extreme white supremacy groups in this country 
    are described as 'getting a bad rap', many women and minorities 
    look to the Democratic party as being the only ones with enough 
    power to counter this poison.

    Every "Oh, you've been duped by the media" or "You fell for the
    Democratic propaganda - hook, line and sinker" that is launched
    at women is another nail in the Republican party's coffin (as
    far as being able to acquire the majority of women's votes.)

    This is a big part of the Gender Gap.

    RE: .126  /jim
    
    > And in New Hampshire the predominately Republican Legislature and
    > Republican Governor just signed into law such a provision.
    
    So the NH republicans would tell the Washington state Republicans
    that their heads are up their butts for defeating such a measure, 
    then?

    Another big part of the Gender Gap...

    As others mentioned earlier, another important part of the 
    Gender Gap is about compassion.  

    While I would certainly agree that many Republican women (and
    men) also have compassion for fellow human beings, a majority
    of women in this country make it one of their voting priorities.

    The Republican party loses most women badly by making statements
    such as 'putting poor children in orphanages' and/or 'forcing the
    so-called deadbeat poor to pull their own weight' although the vast
    majority of these poor people are small children.

    Every time the subject comes up in debate, some conservatives
    make an absolute point of driving most women farther away by making
    ever colder and more heartless statements about the poor with every
    new statement they utter.  

    They'll never win the majority of women's votes this way.  They'll
    never win the overwhelming majority of African American votes this
    way, either.  Most poor people are women, children and minorities.
    And much of this poverty can be attributed to long standing cultural
    problems with white male supremacy to one degree or another, which
    also still has ties to the Republican party (as mentioned earlier.)

    As inflexible as the Republican party is on this issue, they never
    stand to gain any real ground among women or African Americans.
    Any attempts to use the 'You have been fooled, etc.' methods to 
    gain ground only make their position look worse.

    Personally, I think the Gender Gap is here to stay (at least until
    the middle of the 21st Century, IMO.)

    
    
>    And much of this poverty can be attributed to long standing cultural
>    problems with white male supremacy to one degree or another, which
>    also still has ties to the Republican party (as mentioned earlier.)
    
    	It always seems to work its way back to those angry white males
    doesn't it? Maybe we should start busing them to different parts of the
    country....
    
    
    	jim

    As I said, when these discussions come up, some conservatives make
    an absolute point of pushing the majority of women farther away.
    
    This is why the Gender Gap is somewhat permanent.

    re. 127
    
    Nice one Suzanne!
    
    I am a woman and I work.  Why would I support a party who do not
    address my issues and protect my rights.  The Democrats may not be 
    perfect but they are all I have working on my side in this election.  
    

    .132
    
    And what exactly, do the Democrats do for you?

    Z    The Republican party loses most women badly by making statements
    Z    such as 'putting poor children in orphanages' and/or 'forcing the
    Z    so-called deadbeat poor to pull their own weight' although the vast
    Z    majority of these poor people are small children.
    
    Somebody pinch me!  I didn't know Donna Shalala was a republican!

    OUCH!!  Damn Glen, I was speaking figuratively.  You didn't really have
    to pinch me!!!!!!!!!

    Suzanne, you remind me of some poor worker in the 30's who just came
    from an AFL-CIO rally down at the shipyards.  Suzanne...they're
    screwing you.  You heard it from me first...I'm a republican.  If that
    isn't compassion then I don't know what is.
    
    -Jack

    "The facts show that people who are raped, who are truly raped--the
    juices don't flow, the body functions don't work, and
    they don't get pregnant."
    
    --North Carolina Representative Henry Aldridge, on why we should not
    include rape victims in a state abortion fund. The
    Boston Globe, April 22, 1995. 
    

    this aldridge, he some kind of mental defect or sunthin'?

    > this aldridge, he some kind of mental defect or sunthin'?
    
    Well, he's an avowed Republican... I'm not sure how that's clinically
    classified, but it might be fodder for some kind of insanity defense...
    

      I'll be the 1st to admit that the Republican Party has a lot
      of problems.  For example, I saw a recent Gerry Spence show
      (its on CNBC) where he held a mock trial against tobacco
      companies for murder.  I actually agreed with him on the
      basis that they communicate deception to underage people.
      Anyway, the preponderance of Republicans accepting campaign
      money from the tobacco companies relative to Democrats was
      pathetic, imo.
    
      If I could summarize my major take on this, it is the following:
    
      I see a gender-biased characteristic that essentially goes
      like this.  We are against Constitutional government and want
      socialism instead.  We want the government involved in areas
      in which it Constitutionally is not permitted to have involve-
      ment.  We are socialists.
    
      I've said it before and I'll say it again...
    
      If one were to add the SUM TOTAL of human pain and suffering as
      a result of a socialist form of government and as a result of
      a Constitutional form of government, the socialist form would
      have FAR MORE pain.
    
      One example is the obvious case of welfare begetting an entire
      welfare culture - a mass of millions on welfare primarily because
      of the inception of welfare.  It propagates.
    
      My take is that the rationale that socialism is a more compassionate
      form of government is very trite.  The toll that it ultimately
      inflicts on society as a whole is vast.
    
      Liberal thought is also condescending.  So often, the underlying
      implication of much of their programs is, "We're here to help you.
      We think so much of you.  But, we have concluded that you are
      too incapable of knowing how to help yourself or of knowing just
      what kind of help you really need.  We have taken the liberty of
      doing this for you."
    
      I'm still waiting for Ms. Scanlon and Gaskell and others of their
      stance to at least have the integrity to openly acknowledge that
      they support repudiation of the Constitution and replacement of
      it with socialism.
    
      As one example, government involvement in the redistribution of
      wealth (i.e. "I will take your money and give it to this person
      over here" is pure socialism) - at least at the Federal level.
    
    						Tony

    The real problem Steve is that this guys from a hick state.  
    
    Yes, those people down there are uneducated boobs.  Too bad they don't
    have a northeast mentality like the Mario Cuomos or the Dukakis' of the
    world.  Then they'd be smart.
    
    

    .116
    
    
    Sorry you misread my note.  the first paragraph referred to your entry
    #40.  the rest of it related to entry #37 that rteferenced family. 
    Should have made that clearer for you, but I thought you could
    figure out that the rest of my reply did not refer to your entry.  I'll
    make sure that I make it plainer in the future so you can follow along
    easier.  I wouldn't want to have you think too much.
    
    Other than just making the same claims, please identify what new
    legislation Clinton has enacted since taking office that specifically
    addresses the needs of women?
    
    Also, you love to throw around insults on a personal basis fairly
    easily so should I fall into the same style I'm sure you'll understand. 
    But please explain just when any Republican said they wanted to throw
    poor children into orphanages.  I beleive the reference was made in
    relation to dealing with the cycle of poverty, crime and abuse that
    face many poor children in the environments they confront at home. 
    Personally I beleive that if a child faces a situation at thome that is
    beyond the parent's ability to correct, then the children should be
    removed.  I suppose you think that it is cruel, cold-hearted, and
    mena-spirited to have a child placed in a orphange when they can be
    left at home with mom or dad who takes the welfare money, food stamps,
    etc and sells them for crack starving the children to death.
    
    I know I must be really sick and perverted to think that the orphange
    would be greatly preferred over leaving the family intact in such a
    wonderful home situation.
    
    As I said before, you much prefer to deal with things as you view them
    as opposed to spending just a bit of time dealing with the facts.  No,
    it's easier for you to just repeat the lies and distortions the DNC and
    the media publish as opposed to what actually gets said.
    

    Mr. Rocush:
    
    I already splained it to you!  Donna Shalala, the only republican in
    the Clinton Cabinet was the one who openly propogated the idea of
    opening up more homes for children.  
    
    I believe Suzanne was quite unequivocal in this.
    
    -Jack

    >I have splained it to you! 
    
    Is this some old 'I Love Luci' e-run?;) 
    
    Baaaa-baaaaa Looooooo!!!

    
    
    "It was common knowledge that Newt was involved with other women during
    his [first] marriage to Jackie. Maybe not on the
    level of John Kennedy. But he had girlfriends -- some serious, some
    trivial." -- Dot Crews, his campaign scheduler throughout
    the 70s. One woman, Anne Manning, has come forward and confirmed a
    relationship with him during the 1976 campaign. "We
    had oral sex. He prefers that modus operandi because then he can say,
    'I never slept with her.'" 
    
    Kip Carter, his former campaign treasurer, was walking Newt's daughters
    back from a football game one day and cut across a
    driveway where he saw a car. "As I got to the car, I saw Newt in the
    passenger seat and one of the guys' wives with her head
    in his lap going up and down. Newt kind of turned and gave me this
    little-boy smile. Fortunately, Jackie Sue and Kathy were a
    lot younger and shorter then."
    
    Courtesy "Skeleton Closet" (http://www.realchange.org/index.htm)
    
    

    
    
    	ick. who would want to go down on Newt? {shudder}

    .141
    
    Speaks volumes for states' rights, huh?
    

    >Tell me when you've had enough...
    
     Smear away.

      re: -1
    
      Whats your point?  Are you correlating a certain behavior with
      a certain political ideology?
    
      Well, I've a couple for you.
    
      Gerry Studds, while serving as a Congressman, had sex with underage
      males.  Barney Frank, Democratic Congressman, lived in an apartment
      from which a homosexual prostitution business was taking place.
    
      What correlation would you like me to draw from the examples I
      just gave you?
    
      Would I be displaying a high degree of intellectual output were I
      to conclude that it follows that all Democratic Congresspersons
      engage in homosexual activity with underage people and have
      homosexual prostitution rings at their places of residence?
    
      I'm not sure what your point is, but if I try to establish what
      it might be, I come to two possibilities (not denying there may
      be others).  One, some kind of sick humor or two, the attempt to
      draw some correlation between lifestyle and political persuasion.
    
      If the second possibility I listed is your point, your level of
      intellectual ineptitude is 'up there'.
    
    						Tony
                            

    Re 698.126 and 698.70-698.80
    
    Regarding the Washington State republicans voting against prevention of
    'drive-by delivery' ..... 
    
    The reason I brought up the fact that NH has passed such law preventing
    health care providers from pushing out new mothers in 24 hrs, was to
    counter the example of Washington State.
    
    By implication or counter example, I was trying to point out that it
    did not appear to be a tenet of the republican agenda and it just might
    be due to a 'local' issue in Washington State.
    
    Maybe I was being too subtle  ... folks THE REASON FOR THE FAILURE OF
    FURTHER REFORM MEASURES IN WASHINGTON STATE IS THAT THEIR HEALTH CARE
    SYSTEM IS IN DEEP DO-DO.  
    
    The health care commisioner (an elected position) made the mistake of
    forcing all health care plans offered in Washington State to prevent
    exclusion of pre-existing conditions. In all fairness she expected the
    legislature to pass laws that would have expanded the risk pool, and
    put a provision that would have require continuous coverage.  The
    result has been disasterous for Washington State.  Companies are losing
    money left and right as people are signing right before an expensive
    medical procedure then terminating just after the medical crisis is
    over.  30 insurance/HMO's have requested permission to stop selling in
    Washington State.  The Insurance commissioner's office is having to
    file injunctions for companies to prevent them from not selling new
    policies.
    
    In this environment, any legislation that would increase health care
    costs no matter how reasonable is going to face terrific resistance.
    
    As Tip O'Neil said, "All politics is local."  When ever you see
    something done at a state legislature level - try to find out the
    context.
    
    If you want to read all about, check last Wednesday's or Thursday's
    Wall Street Journal.
    
    /jim

    
>      Gerry Studds, while serving as a Congressman, had sex with underage
>      males.  Barney Frank, Democratic Congressman, lived in an apartment
>      from which a homosexual prostitution business was taking place.
    
 

      ...and their punishment for these activities was?                            

    [B1-Bob] Dornan's wife Sallie has left him 3 or 4 times, and alleged in 
    several aborted divorce suits over 16 years that he beat her. For
    example, in her 1961 divorce suit she stated under oath that he
    "dragged her about the home... by her hair and ... exhibited a
    revolver."
    
    In June 1966, Dornan was found guilty of a "violent attack" on his wife
    and was ordered to go to jail, though police records do
    not show him actually serving any time.
    
    After Dornan's opponent in his 1992 re-election brought up these old
    charges, Sallie recanted, saying that alcohol and drug
    addiction drove her to falsely accuse him of beating her. She said "I
    am a Christian. I am a good wife. I am a good mother, but
    I sure as hell wasn't then. It's just very sad that Bob had to suffer
    what I brought down on his head through illness, major
    illness." Sad, indeed.
    
    Courtesy "Skeleton Closet"
    
    

    Ted Kennedy, Democrat Senator from Massachusetts, while driving under
    the influence of alcohol, drove a car and plunged over an embankment
    and into a river.  While the Senator struggled valiantly to save his
    life, he ignored the well being of his mistress (the one he wasn't
    married to), Mary Jo Kepekne.  She consequently was drowned in the car.
    
    Fortunately, they had neck braces at the time.
    
    -Jack

    i just learned from the "Vampire 2000" document that not
    only is Clinton a Bildeberger, but so is Bush.  

    .149
    
    Okay, I'll bite.  The diff is that neither of these guys claim to
    represent a higher moral ground than their own lifestyles reflect.  I
    have no problem whatsoever with Bob Dole, Phil Gramm, Newt Gingrich, et
    al being divorced or having a less-than-pure history.  But when they
    stand as beacons of morality; or, worse, attack the lifestyles of
    others, they are reduced to pure, laughable hypocricy.
    
    The day that Barney Frank attacks anyone for being gay is the day that
    I repudiate Barney Frank without reservation.
    
    In the meantime, my expositions will continue...
    
    

    
>    In the meantime, my expositions will continue...
 

     the audience murmurs in anticipation..   
    

    Florida Republican lawmaker Marvin Couch, one of those holier-than-thou
    "family values" nags best known for his paranoid
    and unwarranted attacks on what he sees as "pro-homosexual,
    anti-family" policies at the Disney corporation, was caught
    entertaining a prostitute last week in a shopping center parking lot.
    
    Let's see if we've got this straight...Couch, who is married with
    children, seems to think that a gay accountant or cameraman
    toiling at the Disney studios poses a bigger threat to his marriage and
    family than his illicit tryst with a common streetwalker?
    
    Wait...it gets better just before this story broke, the ayatollahs of
    the Christian Coalition recently mailed their addle-headed
    minions thousands of voter guides commending the disgraced legislator's
    perfect record.
    
    Couch might be inspired by the following story: Police caught
    California Republican and "family values" cheerleader Ken
    Calvert "talking" (in his words) with a prostitute in his car some
    three years back. Calvert actually ran for re-election to
    Congress immediately after the incident. He was trailing badly in the
    polls until he and his lackeys managed to convince the
    churchgoing folks in his district that his intelligent and talented
    Democratic opponent was gay. After that story broke, Calvert
    won re-election handily.
    
    Courtesy of "The Everlasting GOP-Stopper"

      re: .155
    
      I don't *completely* agree, but I did not anticipate this and
      I think its about the best reason you could have given (although
      I don't think its all that good)!
    
      By the way, the complaint I lodged had much more to do with other
      than engaging in homosexual acts.  Are not all politicians "de facto"
      presumed to be standing for adherence to the law?  Is an adult
      having sex with a minor legal?  Is it legal to have a prostitution
      ring run in one's place of residence???
    
      I submit that they must be presumed to be upholding, at the least,
      a morality that does not transgress our civil laws.
    
    						Tony
    
    						Tony

    Steve:
    
    What it boils down to is your hypocrites are costing me more money than
    my hypocrites.  Therefore, your hypocrites a leeching scums while my
    hypocrites ...well, they just exist.

    Tony,
    
    You seem to forget, constitutional forms of government and socialism
    are not mutually exclusive.  The former USSR had a great looking
    constitution, one that looked better than the US Constitution in many
    ways.  However, they ignored the constitution, just as many pol's from
    both parties do in the US today.  Hell, I bet Cuba has a constitution.
    
    If you are looking for a difference in economic forms, niether
    socialism, nor capitalism are panacea's for the world.  One tries to
    ignore human greed as a motivating factor, the other honors human greed
    without any thought to those who are injured by run away greed heads in
    the process of making their pile.  I suspect that there is soomething
    in between the two that makes more sense.  
    
    If you are looking at political structures, then remember this country
    is a Republic, not  Democracy.  Republics were founded to allow the
    majority to do most things, yet protect the minorities' rights. 
    Totalitarianism on recognizes the rights of the inner circle. 
    Democracies forget about the rights of the minorities.  Jim P's example
    of cannibalism and whether 50.00001 people should be allowed to decide
    that the other 49.99999 could be food is an excericise in pure
    democracy.  our system of checks and balances and three parts of
    government is an example of protecting the minority from the majority,
    using the constitution and SCOTUS when the legislative and executive
    branches fail to do their jobs properly.  
    
    I am a liberal, I believe in the constitution, I believe there is a
    large faction of the republican party that would prefer to see me
    barefoot and pregnant and completely dependent on the whims of another
    for my living.  
    
    meg

    Z    I believe there is a
    Z    large faction of the republican party that would prefer to see me
    Z    barefoot and pregnant and completely dependent on the whims of
    Z    another for my living. 
    
    That may have been the case in the not so distant past.  I believe the
    paradigm is changing.  I think what this faction resents Meg is
    compulsory participation in programs which do not promote the general
    welfare of the country at large.  Primarily, the things President
    Clinton, and yes George Bush have supported.
    
    -Jack

RE: .133


>>.132

    And what exactly, do the Democrats do for you?<<

It's not what they do, but what they don't want to do.
    
They don't want to ban abortion.  They don't want to repeal 
the overtime wage law.  They don't want to punish gays for
being what God made them.  They don't want to trash the 
environment.  They don't want to trash OSHA.  They don't 
want to punish women and children for being abandoned by 
the man of the house. And that names only a few.
    

    .159
    
    > ... your hypocrites are costing me more money...
    
    ummmmm... sorry.  Were you one of Barney's customers, too?
    

    .161
    
    For your perusal...
    
    THE REPUBLICAN WAR AGAINST WOMEN
    
    GOP In-Fighting Update #80 (2/5/96) 
    
    Tanya Mellich was a lifelong republican, as her father was before her.
    She became active in the party back in 1952. She was a
    delegate to every republican national convention since 1964. Until the
    1992 national convention, when she walked out of the
    republican convention because of it's hostility toward women. 
    
    Mellich has not officially left the republican party. However, she says
    she can no longer fight for women's rights from within the
    party. The GOP, she says, has "ceded control to right-wing zealots
    whose purpose was to intensify hostility between the sexes
    and sow division among the American people." Mellich has written a book
    entitled "The Republican War Against Women: An
    Insider's Report from Behind the Lines," (Bantam hardcover, $23.95 US /
    $32.95 CAN). The book is a disturbing expose
    from a party insider on how the GOP has moved toward a strategy that
    appeals to sexist and racist bigotry to win votes. 
    
    The GOP used to accept feminism and women's rights, Mellich says. The
    party had included support for the Equal Rights
    Amendment in its party platform since 1940. Most party leaders,
    including George Bush, were very supportive of women.
    However, Mellich said, Nixon discovered he could use the "Southern
    strategy" to win votes from conservative Democrats.
    Nixon, and other republicans, found they could play the race card
    successfully. They found they could exploit issues such as
    busing, integration, anti-abortion and anti-ERA to win votes. 
    
    The big change in the GOP came in 1980, says Mellich, with the
    ascendency of Ronald Reagan. The party took a sharp turn to
    the right and began an anti-women shift. In 1980, the GOP dropped its
    support for the ERA in its platform for the first time in
    40 years. Mellich writes in her book about how the Reagan and Bush
    administrations moved to curtail abortion, family and
    child-care programs, and policies to help women gain equal opportunity;
    how they skewed the appointments of women in the
    administration and in party leadership. 
    
    Mellich said she and many other republican women had hoped that George
    Bush in 1992 would return to his pre-Reagan
    moderate positions. Yet, Mellich and others were bitterly disappointed
    when the 1992 convention was dominated by the
    Religious Right. Pat Buchanan's "Culture War" speech "made her sick,"
    Mellich said. Worse, Bush went along with it all. The
    convention was "the last straw" for Mellich. She turned in her delegate
    badge and walked out of the convention. 
    
    The book "The Republican War Against Women" is Tanya Mellich's
    impassioned call to arms to republicans and to all
    Americans to reject the extremist social agenda that dominates the GOP.
    Today, Mellich says, about 30 of the 50 state GOP
    parties are controlled or dominated by the Religious Right. She longs
    for a return to the days when the GOP was not
    anti-women. 
    
    (Sources: "The Republican War Against Women," Bantam Books; National
    Public Radio) 
    
    

    
    So, Ms. Mellich is asserting that her personal beliefs are
    held by all women?  
    
    

    .165
    
    We'll find out in November!
    

 ZZ   They don't want to ban abortion.  
    
    I know of very few republicans who want to ban abortion.  Emotional
    tripe.
    
 ZZ   They don't want to repeal the overtime wage law.  
    
    Unconstitutional.  None of your business.
    
 ZZ   They don't want to punish gays for
 ZZ   being what God made them.  
    
    I think you'll find a very large segment of the gay population to be
    republican.  Sorry but not all victims in this country adhere to the
    democrat line.
    
ZZ    They don't want to trash the environment.  They don't want to trash OSHA.
      
    You are confusing irresposible private business with the republican
    party.  Tell me something...why do people like you have this ongoing
    mentality that if we don't piss away dollars in the name of something,
    then we don't care?  I would really like to know.  
    
        
 Z   They don't want to punish women and children for being abandoned by 
 Z   the man of the house. And that names only a few.
    
  Please get it in your mind....society has ABSOLUTELY NO RESPONSIBILITY in
    the bailing out of families in distress.  It is something the
    government implements...not as an entitlement but as a service.  I say
    this because you put the onus on others to take care of where others
    fall short.  Not my job mon.  I'll be glad to help out, but nobody has
    a right to an attitude...NOBODY!

    Well, the majority of women would probably agree with her (since the
    majority of women are Democrats for many of the reasons she listed.)

    Jack, surely you don't think that the majority of gays are Republicans.
    

    Susan, Do you have any stats are in this reguards? Or does Public Radio
    spell it out for all of your information?
    

    Well, actually as a matter of fact, I do.
    
    I know this will be hard for you to accept Suzanne, but you will find
    the gay lobby we see on the streets yelling in microphones and the like
    are actually in the minority.  As you have implied in the past, there
    are gays in our families, in our churches, and throughout integral
    parts of our society.  Many of them eschew what is termed the militant
    gay movement of the 80's.  They simply want to be left alone!  
    
    Furthermore, the median wealth thermometer of the gay population is
    higher.  The gay population has a higher median income and attend the
    more prestigious schools.  Sorry to bust your bubble but you can't have
    this victim class, okay?!
    
    -Jack

 Z   Mellich has not officially left the republican party. However, she
 Z   says she can no longer fight for women's rights from within the
    
    Steve, while this may in fact be the case, by posting this you made a
    severe indictment on the democrat party.  
    
    Considering this woman's disdain from the platform, it is interesting
    to note she did not go to your party.  So if she loathes the ideals of 
    the pubs, I can only imagine what she thinks of your ilk!

    I feel that Public Radio is like listening to Rush L. talk.
    

    RE: .171  Jack Martin

    > I know this will be hard for you to accept Suzanne, but you will find
    > the gay lobby we see on the streets yelling in microphones and the like
    > are actually in the minority.  

    And you think that the only gay Democrats are the ones who yell in
    microphones?  Hee hee

    > As you have implied in the past, there are gays in our families, in our 
    > churches, and throughout integral parts of our society.  Many of them 
    > eschew what is termed the militant gay movement of the 80's.  They 
    > simply want to be left alone!  
                   
    Wow, so you're willing to admit that we have far more gays in this
    country than the little 2%-10% figure that the religious right keeps
    claiming, eh?  Cool!

    > Furthermore, the median wealth thermometer of the gay population is
    > higher.  

    Um, I take it you've been reading the Colorado for Family Values
    literature about how 'they make so much money than we do!'

    > The gay population has a higher median income and attend the
    > more prestigious schools.  

    Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa!!!!

    Let's take this one step at a time.  How do gay people manage to
    be born into the heterosexual families who have LOTS OF MONEY
    (enough to make it possible for them to go to the most prestigious
    schools when they're old enough to attend schools?)  What a neat 
    trick for an embryo (especially if they have to move from family
    to family to find the rich ones.)

    Or, are you saying that gays are smarter than heterosexuals (and
    get more scholarships because they are so much more deserving?)
    If so, then are you suggesting that gay people are a better class
    of people (smarter, more talented, more deserving of success) than
    heterosexual people?  Interesting viewpoint.

    While I would certainly agree with you that a great many gay people
    are brilliant and talented (not to mention successful), I think you
    may want to reconsider the notion that 'somewhat rich people' 
    automatically become Republicans.   A recent factoid here mentioned
    that Hollywood donates 95% of its contributions to Democrats (and
    they are all 'somewhat rich' or 'very rich'.)

    > Sorry to bust your bubble but you can't have this victim class, okay?!

    Well, I think it's cute as hell (literally) that you want to fight to
    claim the gay community for the Republican party on the basis that
    you think gays have more money than heterosexuals do.  :/  It's funny.

    Suzanne:
    
    My claiming the gay population for the republicans is about as absurd
    as the hasty generalizations made by you and Steve Opper in the last 6
    hours!  

    .172
    
    I have an ilk?
    

    
    FYI
    
    Going back to .0 and the Gender Gap/Slick?/Women
    
    Not too long ago, the Boston Globe published an article about an
    internal, White House memo/list/stats of all White House
    employees/staffers/etc.
    
     The memo was circulated accidentally and was meant for certain "eyes
    only". It showed a large disparity between salaries (men's vs.
    women's) at the White House.
    
     This memo became news because it was supposed to be one of the first
    things Slick was to address/fix when he hired/added/appointed his
    "people"... It never got fixed, and probably hasn't been to this day. 
    It's amazing how this didn't stay in the news for too long. I believe
    it was at the time of the first budget fight, so it took a back seat.
    
     I detest Slick simply for examples such as this where the mouth is
    bigger than the deed. He spits out his platitudes and rhetoric, but
    when it comes to fixing problems in his own house, it never seems to
    get done...
    
     And "the majority of women" will vote for him???
    

    .174
    
    I think that Jack is suggesting that homosexuality is a lifestyle
    choice made by intelligent offspring of wealthy conservatives. 
    Interesting premise.
    

    RE: .177  Andy Krawiecki
    
    >   -< Fool me once... >-
    
    > And "the majority of women" will vote for him???
    
    As I said earlier, when these discussions come up, some conservatives
    can't seem to stop themselves from trying to sway women voters with 
    talk about how the women have been 'fooled' by the opposition.
    
    It pushes the majority of women farther away from the Republican
    party, but they do it anyway.

    Z    It pushes the majority of women farther away from the Republican
    Z    party, but they do it anyway.
    
    Suzanne, do you by chance have any actual percentages from a reliable
    source stating this trend?  
    
    I have found in my experience for example, that most of the women I
    know don't think too highly of the President, his spouse, or the
    democrat party.  
    
    -Jack

    .162
    
    You seem to go over the top like some many others of your political
    persuasion.
    
    The overwhelming majority of the "facts" contained in your note are
    such overstatements, generalizations, distortions and apparent
    purposeful misrepresentations as to reduce any accurate statements you
    might make in the future to be dismissed.
    
    The best one is to make the claim that God makes people gay.  If this
    were truly the case then why do I constantly hear reports, interviews
    and PBS specials that present members of the gay community as making a
    conscious choice to be gay.  And this isn't some biased reporter's
    agenda showing through, these are statements made by the individuals
    themselves.  If God made them gay then there would be no choice, like
    having blue eyes, but these folks claim that they make a personal
    choice to be gay.
    
    The rest of your entry is just as inaccurate.  Stop blaming someone
    else for your and other's failings and take resposnibility for yourself
    and stop expecting the government to take care of you.
    
    I know persoanl responsibility is not fashionable these days.  sorry.
    

    jack, you actually solicit political opinions from women?
    who, mrs. dougherty?

    |The overwhelming majority of the "facts" contained in your note are   
    |such overstatements, generalizations, distortions....
    
    ho ho.  as if yours aren't.

    re: .162
    
>It's not what they do, but what they don't want to do.
 
    In other words, they do nothing for you?
       
>They don't want to ban abortion.  
    
    Niether does the GOP.  Limit it, yes, ban it outright?  No.
    
>    They don't want to repeal the overtime wage law.  
    
    I wasn't aware that the GOP wanted to do this.  Not that it matters, it
    shouldn't be up to government to tell businesses how much to pay
    employees in the first place.  
    
>    They don't want to punish gays for being what God made them.  
    
    Assumes something not provable- that God made certain specific people
    gay intentionally, and that such did no come about by other aspects of
    life and growing up.
    
    In any case, who is wanting to punish gays?  This is a red herring.
    
>    They don't want to trash the environment.  
    
    Neither does the GOP.  Just because they want to cut back on some
    regulations does not mean that they wish to trash the environment.  The
    EPA has become a very business unfriendly beauracracy, tossing out
    policy without thinking it through very well (and regardless of the
    economic impact of their policy).
    
>    They don't want to trash OSHA.  
    
    OSHA has reached the point of beauracratic uselessness.  They force
    business to expend billions of dollars every year for their pet PC
    projects- some of which are downright silly. 
    
>    They don't want to punish women and children for being abandoned by 
>the man of the house. And that names only a few.
 
    Neither do the Republicans.  Welfare reform (which is desparately
    needed) is always represented in this fashion by the Democrats.  "Those
    mean 'ol Republicans want to toss all them women and children into the
    street", etc... I've heard it all.  They lie.  They exaggerate.   And
    the media just eats it up (and folks actually believe it).
    
    
    -steve   

    RE: .181  Rocush
    
    You weren't addressing me this time, but I'd like to address your
    note:
    
    > The best one is to make the claim that God makes people gay.  If this
    > were truly the case then why do I constantly hear reports, interviews
    > and PBS specials that present members of the gay community as making a
    > conscious choice to be gay.  And this isn't some biased reporter's
    > agenda showing through, these are statements made by the individuals
    > themselves.  If God made them gay then there would be no choice, like
    > having blue eyes, but these folks claim that they make a personal
    > choice to be gay.
    
    You are an idjit.
    
    Gay people say (to no avail, apparently) that they did ******NOT******
    choose to be gay.  They were born gay and they realized it during
    childhood, usually.  Often times, they tried to deny it or fight it
    (some teenagers commit suicide over it, sadly enough, because they
    are treated so badly if they are discovered.)
    
    Where in HELL do you keep 'constantly' seeing gay people say they
    made a choice to be gay????  This is what their enemies say ABOUT
    them.  It's not what they 'constantly' say about themselves.
    
    Are you really this 'out of it', or is this some sort of trick?

    
    re: .179
    
    I notice you cut/pasted the very last line without addressing the rest
    of my reply. 
    
    
    Why is that Suzanne???
    
    
     No comments about verifiable evidence?? It's so easy to look up and
    confirm the facts, but dammit-all, that would confuse the issues...
    wot????
    

    .186
    
    Me, I chose heterosexuality so's I could go about undetected at Klan
    rallies and such.
    

    RE: .185  Steve Leech
    
    > They lie.  They exaggerate.   And the media just eats it up (and 
    > folks actually believe it).
                                        
    You could start a campaign to say, "Hey, believe OUR LIES and OUR
    EXAGGERATIONS!  We don't give a crap about you, but we'd like your
    votes anyway."

 Z   jack, you actually solicit political opinions from women?
 Z   who, mrs. dougherty?
    
    Mrs. Dougherty is the hag from Southie who votes with absolutely no
    basis of fact or of policy.  Mrs. Dougherty is still orgasmic over 
    anybody named Kennedy or Roosevelt (No matter how far the candidates
    have swayed away from FDR or JFK).  In short, Mrs. Dougherty is a
    brainless, thoughtless emotional ignoramous.  I even hold deep
    admiration for loathesome first ladies...at least they have an agenda
    and the gumption to implement it.  Being a Mrs. Dougherty requires no
    conviction or intellect, and hopefully they will forget to vote that
    day.  
    
    Give me an Elizabeth Dole, a Barbara Bush, a Jean Kirkpatrick, a
    Phyllis Schlafly, a Margaret Thatcher, a Christine Whitman
    anyday...there are MANY of them out there.
    
    The Gloria Steinhams of the world...The Bellyaching Whiners...are dead. 
    While they continue on their diatribes to further separate the sexes,
    the ones like those mentioned above are doing something about it.
    
    -Jack

    .189
    
    Where have you been since 1980?  That IS their platform!
                                                            

    but jack, you didn't answer my question!
    
    do you actually solicit political opinions from women??

    Well, you asked who Mrs. Dougherty was and I answered you.  
    
    The answer to the other question is yes.  I particularly enjoy the
    intellect of the women on The Capitol Gang (CNN), I am very much
    interested in the guests from the media on CSPAN and commentaries in
    journals such as the National Review, The New Republic, and Women
    Politicians.  
    
    At the same time, I find alot of commentaries from certain men to be
    ridiculous.  Columnist Greene from the Herald...he's a horrible whiner.
    Kinsley from Crossfire....emotional wreck.  Many Congresscritters and
    Senators I believe to be major idiots.  Not to worry.  
    
    -Jack

    .186
    
    I will try not to engage in the name calling that you seem to be so
    fond of in responding to replies, but once again you demonstrate your
    absolute lack of knowledge in entering replies.
    
    Once again you ignore what is actually said and substitute your own
    words instead.  I can not say what all gay people beleive, nor would I
    try.  I will say again, what has been presented.  But so that you can
    deal with this let me reduce it to a very simple discussion.  When a
    gay is asked if they could wave a magic wand and not be gay, I have yet
    to hear anyone of them say yes.  The ones that I have seen and heard
    have said that they would chose the gay life style if they had to make
    the decision again.
    
    Based on this typical response and many others, I do not believe that
    the majorrity of gays were made that way by God.  Saying the opposite
    to try and demonize Republicans doesn't change what they themselves
    have said.
    
    You still keep on trucking down that same road undeterred by facts.  It
    must be wonderful.
    

| <<< Note 698.178 by DYPSS1::OPPER "OhMyGOD! I forgot to have a BABY!" >>>

| I think that Jack is suggesting that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice made 
| by intelligent offspring of wealthy conservatives. Interesting premise.

	Then Newt, Buchanan, Dole, Helms, Robertson, etc, all have gay
relatives? Don't tell them....they might pop a nut...opps, that belongs in
another topic.


Glen

    no no no, jack.  do you ask ordinary women (women you see
    every day, for instance, at work) what their political views
    are?  

      I thought it was kind of sad to link the question of whether or
      not a group is victimized by how much wealth they (might) have.
    
      Man, I acknowledge being politically conservative, but methinks
      gays, even if financially better off on the average, are victims
      in a way that heteros are not.
    
      My guess is that most gays wouldn't be gay if they had a choice.
      Too much cultural criticism.
    
      So, Jack I disagree with you bigtime there.
    
      							Tony

    >  Give me an Elizabeth Dole, a Barbara Bush, a Jean Kirkpatrick, a
    >  Phyllis Schlafly, a Margaret Thatcher, a Christine Whitman
    >  anyday...there are MANY of them out there.
     
    We DID give 'em to you.  Now all that we ask is that you KEEP 'em.
    
    BTW, all of these women are the intelligent offspring of wealthy
    conservatives.  Hmmm...
    

    
    re: .198
    
    Ahhhh.. I see... if they're "conservatives" we can keep 'em, but if
    they toe the liberal-line then they're a-okay...
    

    .194
    
    Two word smug response (again!): Mel White
    

    .199
    
    In a nutshell, yes.
    

    
    re: .201
    
    
    >In a nutshell, yes.
    
    Well... at least you're honest about it. Clueless, but honest,
    nonetheless...
    

    Z    BTW, all of these women are the intelligent offspring of wealthy
    Z    conservatives.  Hmmm...
    
    Steve, I am not the least bit concerned as to how a person obtained
    their wealth...so long as it was done legally.  For example, Ted
    Kennedy amassed his wealth through his father.  It was done illegally
    and therefore, the families wealth is tainted by illegality. 
    Incidently, Clintons entire cabinet is comprised of millionaires...in
    case you hadn't heard.
    
    I have no problem with inherited wealth.  Unlike you apparently, I
    don't have a problem with envy.  More power to them.  This is why I
    avoid unions and government regulations robbing from one to give to the
    have not.  Make your own damn fortune.
    
    -Jack

    Bonnie:
    
    Typically I do not talk politics in the workplace.  This is the only
    place I discuss it.  If I wasn't interested in womens opinions, then I
    wouldn't be here!  
    
    I talk to my wife Michele from time to time.  She voted for Pat
    Buchanan in the primary.  I voted for Alan Keyes.  She is far from a
    bigot.
    
    -Jack

    .203
    
    Hey!  I wasn't criticizing their wealth at all.  I was merely
    celebrating their sexual orientation.
    
    You go girls!
    

    
>    I talk to my wife Michele from time to time.  She voted for Pat
>    Buchanan in the primary.  I voted for Alan Keyes.  She is far from a
 
    
     She hasn't been to reeducation camp yet?

re .195:

Then Newt, Buchanan, Dole, Helms, Robertson, etc, all have gay relatives?

Doesn't Newt have a lesbian sister or something?

 Z   Then Newt, Buchanan, Dole, Helms, Robertson, etc, all have gay
 Z   relatives?
    
    I wouldn't doubt it!

    Phyllis?  You mean the successful "homemaker", who spends next to no
    time at home, while saying that is what women should do?  The woman who
    used a vaginal wrench and tears, by her own admission, to get her hubby
    to "allow" her to go to law school? A woman who uses all the
    neandrethal stereotypes about men, and basically says that men are
    scum, unless they are civilized by other women using the same tools she
    did?
    
    Real familiy values there.
    
    meg

    RE: .194  Rocush

    > Once again you ignore what is actually said and substitute your own
    > words instead.  I can not say what all gay people beleive, nor would I
    > try.  I will say again, what has been presented.  

    You've taken the words of the *enemies* of the gay rights movement and
    attributed them to the gay community.  What an utterly dishonest thing
    to do.

    > But so that you can deal with this let me reduce it to a very simple 
    > discussion.  When a gay is asked if they could wave a magic wand and 
    > not be gay, I have yet to hear anyone of them say yes. 

    Good grief.  If it would TAKE a 'magic wand' to change them to be
    heterosexual, then it isn't a matter of CHOICE at all!

    As badly as gays are treated in this country, the gay community has
    found great pride in being who they are (who God made them to be!)
    Of course they aren't going to say "Yes, if I had a magic wand, I'd
    want to be something I'm not and can never be:  heterosexual."

    Why the hell should they say this?  I wouldn't say it if I were gay.

    > The ones that I have seen and heard
    > have said that they would chose the gay life style if they had to make
    > the decision again.

    If it were a mere 'decision', they could change it at will !!!!!!!!!!
    But they can't, because it isn't a decision.  It isn't like having
    your ears pierced or getting laser surgery on your eyes.

    > Based on this typical response and many others, I do not believe that
    > the majorrity of gays were made that way by God.  Saying the opposite
    > to try and demonize Republicans doesn't change what they themselves
    > have said.

    The gay community does **NOT** say they chose to be gay.  They say
    the exact opposite, in fact.

    You've turned it around (to put the words of their enemies in their
    mouths) and you think people here are trying to demonize Republicans???

    You are unbelievable.

    jack, that is most intriguing.  on what issues did your wife
    agree with pat?  i don't think i know of another woman voting
    for pat.  

    .210
    
    Gee, then I guess I haven't heard the people who identify themselves as
    gay when they call in or are quoted in the newspapers or magazines or
    whewn I see them on TV discussing ht eissue.  And I guess I have never
    heard them make the same claims.
    
    You see I have the belief that a lot of research has been done with
    this subject and a lot of it points to an emotional response and
    decision.  there may indeed be some % with a genetic difference, but I
    have never seen any verification.  Also, there was a major protest
    angainst identifying any genetic cause of homosexaulity.  All of the
    hype aside, the fact remains that the people who were speaking did not
    want any proof that there may not be a genetic predisposition to be
    identified.  Otherwise they woudl be 100% behind the research.
    
    I really wish you would think before you respond.  It might make a
    better and more intelligent response.
    

    .212
    
    > Gee, then I guess I haven't heard the people who identify
    > themselves as gay when they call in or are quoted in the newspapers 
    > or magazines or whewn I see them on TV discussing ht eissue.  And I 
    > guess I have never heard them make the same claims.
    
    Right.  You haven't.  Now go home.  You need LOTS of sleep.
    
    

    No Steve actually that point is well taken.  How about it???

    .214
    
    I assume that's directed at me.  What point?  That gays would remain
    homosexual if given a "choice"?  Utter tripe.  In a perfect world,
    where homophobia was not endemic, perhaps.  But my many gay friends
    would spew their coffee at the very suggestion.  Again, I suggest
    you follow the goings-on of Reverend Mel White (ghost-writer of Pat
    Robertson's autobiography).  Revered by fundamentalist Christians
    everywhere until, after years of trying every damn thing he could think
    of to "rid" himself of the scourge of his own sexual orientation, he
    approached the church for guidance.  Their response?  Guess.  Now
    here's a guy who just LOVES being gay in a straight world.
    
    
    

    RE: .212  Rocush

    > Gee, then I guess I haven't heard the people who identify themselves as
    > gay when they call in or are quoted in the newspapers or magazines or
    > whewn I see them on TV discussing ht eissue.  And I guess I have never
    > heard them make the same claims.

    I'll give you $10 for every instance you can send to me of gays saying
    they are gay because they made the CHOICE to be gay.

    Every distinct newspaper article, every distinct television interview,
    every distinct PBS program.  $10 for each, until we reach a $100 limit.
    
    You send them to me, I'll pay you.

    Such a deal - how can you refuse?  Easy money, right?

    Remember, the thing about not being willing to use a 'magic wand' to
    change them to be heterosexual isn't good enough.  (This is a mark
    of 'gay pride', which is a healthy and happy way to see yourself as
    God made you.)

    Show me the gays who say "I AM GAY BECAUSE I MADE THE CHOICE TO BE GAY"
    and I'll pay you.  (Don't send me fundamentalists who claim they can
    be 'cured' of gayness, by the way.  Send me only the accounts about
    real gay people from the gay community.)
    
    Put up or shut up.

| <<< Note 698.197 by LUDWIG::BARBIERI >>>


| My guess is that most gays wouldn't be gay if they had a choice. Too much 
| cultural criticism.

	Tony, if it were the other way around someday and it was the hets
getting all the flack, would that make you into something else if you had a
choice just for cultural criticism? I know it doesn't for your Christianity,
which just for the name Christian ya get slammed a bit. Think about it...


Glen

| <<< Note 698.203 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| Ted Kennedy amassed his wealth through his father. It was done illegally and 
| therefore, the families wealth is tainted by illegality.

	If one takes what another earned as illegal, and uses it for good, is
that a bad thing, or a good thing?



Glen

| <<< Note 698.212 by ACISS1::ROCUSH >>>

| -< Gee, thanks for setting me right. >-

	She actually did set you right. There wasn't anything in her .210 that
was wrong, well, except for when she quoted from your note. 

	Why wouldn't gays turn straight if they could? It's like she said, gays
are who they are. They don't need to be something they aren't to please others.
Now true, some would change. But I have yet to hear more than a handful say
they would. And the ones who would are for the reasons they get crapped on by
people.

	You see, many gays were something they weren't to please others. It was
pure hell for most. Why would they want to go back to being what they aren't? 

| I really wish you would think before you respond.  It might make a
| better and more intelligent response.

	I wish you would live by your own words.


Glen

    Who cares?!! It's yours, put it where you want!! I can't see the issue
    on this. Sex is a recreational activity, particularly for gays, as,
    obviously they aren't procreating. Why do people concern themselves
    with others' recreation activities, especially when they don't effect
    them? It's not like gay people are out hitting people with hammers,
    they're off by themselves doing gay things in their own bedrooms so who
    cares? If I'm supposed to cite the Bible because I'm Christian I would
    be a hypocrite, because I'm not married and I'm not abstaining. I hate
    people looking into other people's bedroom and telling them what to do.
    
    							lunchbox

	Lunchbox, I wonder what yer girlfriend would do to you if she found out
you let us know you're having sex...... :-)

    .216  .219
    
    Well, now that there is money involved i this I'm going to have follow
    up on this offer.  Since I never really bother a lot about the gay
    issues the one thing I don't do is keep copies of newpare articles,
    etc.  I will, however, make sure that I do keep track of these for the
    future.  As I acquire these I will be more than happy to share them
    with you.  for every reference I provide I would prefer that you send
    the $10 to the RNC.
    
    As far as the stupid comment that the only reason someone would change
    is because of societal pressure, well I suppose we can extend this same
    liberal attitude to many different aspects of society.  I doubt that
    you be quite as understanding or provide such a liberal attitude if the
    behavior was something you objected to, or felt that it was damaging to
    society.
    
    

    Lunchbox:
    
    We don't really care where people put theirs...not at all!  Have
    fun...but....
    
    - Keep the damn teachers unions out of the social engineering business.
    
    - Keep it out of the school curriculums.  We don't care about gay pride
      month.
    
    - Stay out of parades and other events you are not invited to.
    
    Is that too much to ask lunchie?

    Yeah!  And don't invite us to your damn Moose lodge dinners, either!
    

RE .181

>>The overwhelming majority of the "facts" contained in your note are
  such overstatements, generalizations, distortions and apparent
  purposeful misrepresentations as to reduce any accurate statements you
  might make in the future to be dismissed.>>

EXCUUUUSE MEEE!!!!!

Do you mean to say that the Clinton administration IS trying to ban abortion,
repeal the overtime wage law, punish gays, trash the environment and OSHA,
and DO want to punish woman and children for being abandoned by the man of the 
house??????  PROVE IT!

Do you have a standard note in your files that you just substitute
the topic, name and note location to suite?  This note of yours is even 
more out of whack than usual, not only with the topic but my reply as well.  
You're slipping Sunshine.

<<Stop blaming someone else for your and other's failings and take 
responsibility for yourself and stop expecting the government to take 
care of you.  I know personal responsibility is not fashionable these 
days.  sorry.>>

Where the heck did this come from?  It's a hoot.  As the only word there
that fits reply .162 is "sorry" and so you should be, I accept your apology.

I think it's about time you wrote a new generic note Rocush.

    .225
    
    Gee, I'm terribly sorry that you find it difficult to follow along with
    the conversation.  The question that you answered was following up on
    why you would support Democrats as opposed to Republicans.  Your
    response indicated that the Democrats were going to support all of
    these areas and the Republicans would not.
    
    Now I assume from your response that you do not think that the
    Republicans are not out to trash the environment, trash OSHA, etc, etc. 
    why is it that I don't think so.
    
    To make this easier for you, my response indicated that you make the
    statement that the Republicans were going to do all of these terrible
    things and only the Democrats would protect us from those Republicans.
    
    that is what generated my response.  Now if that wasn't the case and
    you think the Republicans are just as likely to provide responsible
    leadership in all of these areas, then I stand corrected.  I doubt that
    is what you mean, but I would rather have you make the clarification
    yourself.
    

    RE: .222  Rocush

    >  -< This will probably be costly for you. >-

    Well, I did stipulate a $100 limit, but I doubt I'll have to pay a
    red cent.

    > Since I never really bother a lot about the gay issues 

    Duh!  You only go as far as putting the words of the enemies of the
    gay community into the gay community's collective mouth.  (It's too
    bad you bothered to go this far.)

    > the one thing I don't do is keep copies of newpare articles,
    > etc. 

    Boy, are you going to be surprised when you start reading about the
    gay community (and find out that they say the exact opposite of what
    you claimed they say.)

    It's too bad I didn't make this a bet where YOU send money to the
    DNC when you can't find any articles to prove your point.

    
    .227
    
    The one thing you can count on is that I have no need to ever make up
    facts or to exaggerate, unless I am using it to make a point.  Just
    because you don't happen to like the information I present in no way
    makes it untrue.
    
    Perhaps you might spend a little time examining your predjudices you
    might make more rational statements.  For starters you might just
    wonder why the gay leardership opposes indenpendent research into
    genetic research on homosexuals in order to determine a true genentic
    source for their orientation.  they have been very vocal in claiming
    such a relationship, but oppose real research to verify it.
    
    BTW, when I get you the information what will your response be?
    

| <<< Note 698.222 by ACISS1::ROCUSH >>>


| As far as the stupid comment that the only reason someone would change
| is because of societal pressure, well I suppose we can extend this same
| liberal attitude to many different aspects of society.  I doubt that
| you be quite as understanding or provide such a liberal attitude if the
| behavior was something you objected to, or felt that it was damaging to
| society.

	But homosexuality is not damaging to society.

| <<< Note 698.228 by ACISS1::ROCUSH >>>



| Perhaps you might spend a little time examining your predjudices you might 
| make more rational statements. For starters you might just wonder why the gay 
| leardership opposes indenpendent research into genetic research on homosexuals
| in order to determine a true genentic source for their orientation.  

	Is this more CFV crap? Please list the source you got this so called
information from. I know when the hyperthalmus was discussed in the gay
notesfile, not one person said they shouldn't do the research.

	Now, another thing you can provide is who wants to do the research.
People like Dr. Paul Cameron maybe? That would be a laugh.


Glen

    RE: .228  Rocush

    > The one thing you can count on is that I have no need to ever make up
    > facts or to exaggerate, unless I am using it to make a point.  Just
    > because you don't happen to like the information I present in no way
    > makes it untrue.

    You don't believe that the gay community promotes the idea that gay
    people *choose* to be gay.  Your statement below gives you away.
    (You're just a garden variety liar, it turns out.)

    > Perhaps you might spend a little time examining your predjudices you
    > might make more rational statements.  

    So now I'm prejudiced against you for saying something completely
    false about gays?  I'm a heterosexual who is prejudiced against
    heterosexuals now?  Greeeat.

    > For starters you might just wonder why the gay leardership opposes 
    > indenpendent research into genetic research on homosexuals in order 
    > to determine a true genentic source for their orientation.  

    As Glen requested, please name your source for this.
    
    > they have been very vocal in claiming such a relationship, but oppose 
    > real research to verify it.

    You said they were very vocal about saying that being gay is a CHOICE.
    (You lied.)

    > BTW, when I get you the information what will your response be?

    You won't send me the information you promised.

    
      There actually isn't, and never was, a plan to outlaw abortion
     throughout the United States.
    
      bb

    Mr Rocush,
    
    We have at least one and I believe more openly gay people in this
    notesfile.  Why don't you ask them about the "Gay Agenda's" stance on
    Genetic tracking and choosing to be homosexual?
    
    I do know that there are some concerns in the community that if the
    genetic link is found that there are some unloving parents who would
    abort a fetus who had these markers, or would  spend the kids childhood
    trying to prevent the child from becoming gay, and potentially raising
    even higher the teen suicide rate.
    
    meg

    .220
    
    No one is telling anyone else what to do.   

	Steve's straw man answer does make me laugh a bit. I mean, he uses it
so much I wonder if he was in the wizard of oz?

    .230
    
    Your claim of it not being damaging to society apparently is in the eye
    of the beholder.  I, an many others, hold a different view.
    
    .231
    
    As I said previously, I don't really give this issue a lot of time and
    don't indelibly etch all occurrences in a file.  It was about two
    months ago on local radio station and the response was from a leader,
    or at least identified himself as such, of a local gay rights
    organization.
    
    .232
    
    Your first paragraph makes no sense whatsoever, but I do recognize that
    it did give you another opportunity to name-call as opposed to actually
    reply.
    
    Your second paragraph was another example of your apparent inability to
    read in context or intent.  Might be reading disability on your part. 
    Also, I didn't say you were prejudiced against me, as I couldn't care
    less.
    
    Your forth paragraph is another distortion of what I said.  My
    contention was that I had heard consistently that gays claimed they
    were happy with their choice and would not change if they could.  I
    have heard them use the word choice, I did not claim it.
    
    Your inability or unwillingness to actually read what is written, and
    particularly the context in which it is presented, is a real problem
    for you.
    

    RE: .238  Rocush

    > My contention was that I had heard consistently that gays claimed they
    > were happy with their choice and would not change if they could.  I
    > have heard them use the word choice, I did not claim it.

    Apparently, you are too dumb to figure out that the words "IF THEY
    COULD [CHANGE it]" means that they "CAN NOT CHANGE IT" because being 
    gay is not a choice.

    You promised to put up or shut up about your claim that members of the
    gay community 'constantly' say they chose to be gay.  Quit yer bitching
    and provide me with the proof.

    .239
    
    When someone says that they are happy with their choice, I take them at
    their word that they made a choice.  BTW, I will be more than happy to
    provide supporting information as I run across it.
    
    My question from several notes ago is still exactly what do you think
    the Republican's agenda is that is so disasterous compared to
    Clinton's?  Where was it that you read that the Republicans support
    dirty air, water, unsafe working conditions, taxing the poor to death
    and killing poor children?  I would be interested in obtaining that
    information or are you making an assumption based on what Clinton et.
    al. have said.
    

    
      re, .239 - does not follow logically.  There are choices you
     make that you cannot change.  We do it every election.  Suicide.
     Buying a used car.  Having kids.
    
      There are choices you can never change.
    
       bb

    Hey, I know somebody who chose to be gay!  Know her personally, thru
    my sister.  Last we heard, she tired of it and is currently a
    practicing heterosexual.
    
    for the record:  all family and friends were supportive of her when
    she decided to be gay or 'came out' as it were.  This is also someone
    who likes to try new things and doesn't live with many 'limits'.
    
    Do I still qualify for the 10.00? :-)))))

    RE: .241  bb
    
    > -< illogic >-
    
    Glad you recognize your problem.
    
    > re, .239 - does not follow logically.  There are choices you
    > make that you cannot change.  We do it every election.  Suicide.
    > Buying a used car.  Having kids.
    
    If being gay were a choice, a person could simply stop it (and
    start loving people of the opposite sex.)
    
    > There are choices you can never change.
    
    If sexual orientation were a choice, it would be just as easy to
    make the choice twice (or three times, or four times) as it would
    be to make the choice once.

    
      That simply does not follow.
    
      bb

    
      Let me be clear about "does not follow".  It is NOT the case
     that choosing a pattern of behavior is necessarily reversible.
     Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.  You claim, if I understand
     you, that there are only two possible cases : that there is no
     choice, OR that there is, and it is reversible.  But there are
     plenty of examples of a THIRD case : you choose a behavior, but
     then cannot change it.  For example, there is addiction.  I could
     cite numerous examples.  Note that I make no claim to know (and
     neither does science) that we know very much about what causes
     sexual behavior.  All I was pointing out is this : there are
     one-way passages in life.
    
      bb

    Anyone who is "pro-choice" knows that.
    
    -Stephen

    hey, where is my 10 bucks?!?!?!

    Christine, you only get $10 for delivering articles, interviews
    or PBS programs which show members of the gay community promoting
    the idea that they chose to be gay.
    
    Sorry!  I'll send $10 to the DNC, though, if you wish!  :)
    (They're probably sick of getting money from me, though.)

    Tine:
    
    You will have to provide an exact quote from this friend of yours!! 
    Otherwise...ferget it! :-)

    RE: .245  bb

    > It is NOT the case that choosing a pattern of behavior is necessarily 
    > reversible.

    Sexual orientation is not a choice in the first place.  If it were
    a choice, I still don't think it would be irreversible (like having
    a child.)
    
    > Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.  

    You claimed that sexual orientation would be irreversible, once
    'chosen' (presuming incorrectly that sexual orientation is a choice.)

    > You claim, if I understand you, that there are only two possible 
    > cases : that there is no choice, OR that there is, and it is 
    > reversible.  

    You didn't understand me.

    I said that sexual orientation is NOT a choice.  Some people are
    using the argument about 'even if I could change it with a magic
    wand, I wouldn't want to [be heterosexual]' as proof that such
    individuals are admitting that sexual orientation is a choice.

    What I've been saying is that this is not proof AT ALL that
    sexual orientation is a choice.  Obviously, if the question had
    to be phrased with a 'magic wand' or an "*IF* you could change
    it, would you" - the people being questioned aren't saying that
    they CHOSE to be gay.

    > But there are plenty of examples of a THIRD case : you choose a 
    > behavior, but then cannot change it. 

    Sexual orientation is NOT a behavior.  Sexual orientation is a
    matter of WHO people are attracted to and bond with in a physical,
    loving way.

    If your heart goes pitty-pat for Brad Pitt (no pun intended) although 
    you are a married man with 12 children, your sexual orientation is 
    probably gay (or bi-sexual, at least.)  No one need ever know about it, 
    and you may not consider yourself gay unless you have sex with a man - 
    but your feelings of attraction and love for members of the same (or 
    the opposite) sex is the part you cannot choose.

    > All I was pointing out is this : there are one-way passages in life. 

    Of course.  This doesn't mean that sexual orientation is a choice
    or that it's a one-way choice, and I'll bet you realize this.

    The national Republican party indeed has an anti-abortion plank, and
    has had for over a decade.  
    
    Wanting to deregulate industries, particularly on EPA rules, is
    something I do not support.  I'm old enough to remember the garbagte
    spewed into the air, water and earth before the reg's came into being. 
    Oh and I have been hit in the pocket book complying with
    the reg's regarding contaminated dirt that had probably been on that
    particular piece of ground since shortly after the Civil War. 
    (Long-term machine shop in an industrial zone.)
    
    I believe in funding public schools and not subsidizing private ones
    with my tax dollar. 
    
    I believe in fixing the current AFDC system, but by increasing the
    money for education, and training, not by reducing the minimum wage and
    throwing children to the wolves or putting them in foster care or
    orphanages.  
    
    I believe that if you are going to proclaim to have the moral high
    ground, that you had best not have divorced long-term spouses, because
    you were tired of them, or they aren't pretty, smart or young enough to
    look like an appropriate ornament.
    
    I believe that each person has the right not to be plagued in
    publically funded buildings with a religion not of their choosing. 
    Also that people have the right to worship or not the god(dess)s of
    their choice.
    
    I believe that tolerance for others who are not impacting my life is a
    reasonable thing.
    
    I believe women are capable of making their own decisions regarding
    where they work, how many children and when to have them, and what
    their marital status is going to be.  
    
    I believe in both parents taking responsibility for their offsping,
    regardless of gender or orientation.  
    
    I don't see any of this in the National Republican Platform.  They can
    keep their agenda.  I don't like all the Dem's do by a long shot, but
    at least the party of no direction is far better than a party of IMO
    the wrong direction.
    
    meg

    
      No, Suzanne.  I never argued that sexual orientation is a choice.
    
      I never argued it isn't.
    
      The fact is, I can't tell.  And I don't understand how you claim
     you can tell, and be so sure of something, when science isn't.
    
      By "choice", I mean, "is the result of brain action".  By "no
     choice", I mean, "is not the result of brain action".   For example,
     is mostly genetic, or is caused by environmental chemicals, or is
     induced by the behavior of others.
    
      Why did I buy Fritos brand corn chips ?  Was it a "choice" ?  This
     is a VERY hard question.  In the case of sexual orientation, your
     confident assertion has neither been proved nor disproved.  It is
     still a matter of debate.
    
      bb

    
    right on .251 especially about the gutting of environmental regulations
    the republicans have been slipping into the balanced budget bills. Its
    shameless.
    
    Clinton and his veto power are the only thing keeping this madness
    under control and if these bills are so wonderful the bi-partisan 
    congress could always exercise their veto override powers.
    
     

    RE: .252  bb

    > And I don't understand how you claim you can tell, and be so sure of 
    > something, when science isn't.
                                  
    Do you remember at what point you made a decision to be heterosexual?
    ("Gee, I could decide to be gay, but it would be a hassle, so I guess
    I'll choose to be heterosexual.  What the heck!")

    Or did you find yourself noticing members of the opposite sex in a
    longing way around the time of puberty?

    If you found yourself feeling these loving attractions to people of
    the same sex, you'd be gay (whether you ever did anything about it
    or not.)  You could live your life pretending to love people of
    the opposite sex, but if you were attracted to people of the same
    sex in your heart of hearts, this would be your true sexual orientation
    (and it would not be a choice.)

    Gay teenagers are sometimes suicide risks because they have feelings
    that they know will bring condemnation from their parents, peers and
    society.  Do you think they would choose to feel something that would
    make their lives too painful to be worth living?  I don't.

    While we're on the belief kick...  8^)  (Meg's last)
    
    
    I believe in personal responsibility and accountability.
    
    I believe that an individual should succeed or fail on his/her own
    merits, and that they should be able to succeed without limits or fail
    utterly.
    
    I believe charity comes from family, friends, private organizations and
    the church- NOT the government.  The sooner the federal government gets
    out of the entitlment industry, the better (this means no money sent to
    the feds for welfare...not block grants).  Let the states run their own
    programs if they like.
    
    I believe in sensible pollution regulations.  Unfortunately, the EPA
    lost its senses years ago.  
    
    Currently, in Ohio (thanks to the wonderful EPA), I am forced to have my 
    1981 Volkswagon Rabbit's emissions checked by a system that was forced 
    into law before proper research has been done.  To put it bluntly, 20% of 
    the NEW cars tested could not pass it.  My car does not smoke or otherwise 
    pollute more than it should, yet I'm sure it won't pass, even though the 
    engine has been rebuilt.  
    
    More and more newer, tighter regulations come out every year,
    costing the average Joe a lot more money than you think.  These
    regulations are passed so that the EPA can look busy, thus keeping its
    budget.  I say axe the whole lot of them...we don't need more
    beauracrats controlling every aspect of our lives.  Common sense
    regulatios can be done on the state level, with less fuss and fewer
    problems.
    
    My feelings run just as strongly towards OSHA, for various reasons.  We
    don't need federal beauracrats making policy for everyone.
    
    I believe the Democrats have lost touch with the people and reality. 
    They run over themselves to be yes-men/women for the lastest PC group
    and their cause.  Their tax and spend policies of the last 30 years
    have failed taxpayers miserably; but this pales in comparison to what
    their policies have done to those groups on the receiving end of their
    "compassion".
    
    
    
    I could go on, but I won't.  I'm off topic enough as it is.  8^)

    
      Well, I THINK all of my sexual actions have been chosen
     consciously in my brain, not genetic, not induced by my
     environment.  But that could be a mirage : how would I know
     if there was something in the water that made me choose as I
     did ?  No, I don't think examination of my subjective reactions
     would yield scientific truth.  Time and again, proof has been
     found that what we sense most strongly in our innermost being
     is plain hogwash.
    
      Now, science DOES know that sexual behaviors can be induced by
     hormone injections, and that the body produces hormones that do
     this.  But that only shows that sexuality is chemical in mechanism.
     It does not solve the problem of what causes the hormones to be
     produced.
    
      We don't know.  If sexual orientation were purely genetic, then
     it would run in families or genetic lines.  This is not proved.
     If it were environmental, we could induce it.  If this is possible,
     the technology is not known.  If sexual orientation is innate, it
     gets there somehow, just like everything else.  But this source
     has not been found.
    
      Now look at it the other way : suppose it arises in the brain - that
     sexual orientation arises from "a train of thinking".  We do not
     understand the human brain well enough to understand what it does
     or why.  WHY did I decide to work for Digital (assume the brain
     was involved) ?  The process is not known.
    
      bb

    Meg:
    
    You will find that countries, like Japan, Germany, and England all
    share one thing in common.  They all have struggling economies and
    alot of government regulation
    
    You will find countries like Switzerland and Singapore have one thing
    in common.  They all have thriving economies with very very little
    government regulation.
    
    In your eagerness to help the downtrodden, you are shooting everybody,
    including the downtrodden in the foot.
    
    -Jack 

    
      Oh, and I don't buy the argument that humans would not "choose"
     behaviors or characteristics harmful to themselves.  On the contrary,
     I think people choose self-destructive habits all the time.  The
     mere fact that a person chose badly is no proof they didn't choose.
    
      Not, by the way, that I share your view that a gay lifestyle would
     necessarily be self-destructive if chosen.  Sure, you would be
     choosing the less popular path.  So does a poet.  So does a
     mountain climber.  Both have less-than-average life expectancy.
     But I don't think poets or mountain climbers are necessarily "born
     that way", or suicidal.  I think these non-standard lifestyles are
     actively chosen by trains of thought in the brains of their
     practitioners, sometimes fully aware they may die young.
    
      bb

    RE: .256  bb

    > Well, I THINK all of my sexual actions have been chosen
    > consciously in my brain, not genetic, not induced by my
    > environment. 

    Again, ACTIONS are not the same thing as sexual orientation.

    At what point did you decide to be ATTRACTED TO people of the
    opposite sex?
                                   
    > If sexual orientation is innate, it gets there somehow, just like 
    > everything else.  But this source has not been found.           

    Last I heard, scientists were exploring the theory that sexual
    orientation is determined by the content of hormones distributed
    by the mother to the fetus during development.

    >The national Republican party indeed has an anti-abortion plank, and
    >has had for over a decade.  
    
     The democrats have the anti-RKBA plank. Have for decades. They quite
    happily claim they don't especially while introducing legislation to
    gut the 2nd amendment.
    
    >Wanting to deregulate industries, particularly on EPA rules, is
    >something I do not support.  
    
     I think there can be some sensible amendments to environmental
    regulations that preserve the environment without taking property
    without compensation and without unreasonably impacting the economy.
    Indeed, a sound environmental policy would encourage recycling and
    other forms of environmentally based industry.
    
    >I believe in funding public schools and not subsidizing private ones
    >with my tax dollar. 
    
     I believe in getting the most for our educational dollars regardless
    of where the money goes. Continuing to spend good money after bad with
    no hope of getting a return is fiscally unwise and shortchanges young
    americans whose future depends on a sound education. 
    
    >I believe in fixing the current AFDC system, but by increasing the
    >money for education, and training, 
    
     I believe in resolving the welfare situation by creating opportunities
    and means to escape the welfare culture. Additionally, I believe that
    bounded benefits will goad the less motivated to make best use of those
    opportunities while also providing the savings which make increased
    opportunities possible.
    
    >I believe that if you are going to proclaim to have the moral high
    >ground, that you had best not have divorced long-term spouses, because
    >you were tired of them, or they aren't pretty, smart or young enough to
    >look like an appropriate ornament.
    
    >I believe that tolerance for others 
    
     I believe if you are going to claim the attribute of "tolerance for
    others" one should avoid making judgments about behaviors of people
    whom you know very little about. Sitting in judgment of others,
    ascribing motivations and circumstances to others without specific
    knowledge is hypocritical and extremely intolerant. Another case of
    "do as I say, not as I do."
    
    >I believe women are capable of making their own decisions regarding
    >where they work, how many children and when to have them, 
    
     I believe that women who wish to make decisions regarding how many
    children to have and when to have them ought to expect to be
    responsible for all aspects of their upbringing, including financial.
    There is no right to government funded children.
    
    >I believe in both parents taking responsibility for their offsping,
    >regardless of gender or orientation.  
    
     Including financially. Don't have children you have no means to
    support.

    RE: .258  bb
    
    > Oh, and I don't buy the argument that humans would not "choose"
    > behaviors or characteristics harmful to themselves. 
    
    Once again, sexual orientation is not a behavior.  Apparently, you
    can't seem to comprehend this aspect of the discussion.
    
    > On the contrary, I think people choose self-destructive habits all 
    > the time.  The mere fact that a person chose badly is no proof they 
    > didn't choose.
    
    Sexual orientation is not a behavior, so your comments don't apply.
    
    Sexual orientation is like the yearning for a Tropical Island or a
    mountain you've never climbed.  You may never engage in the behaviors
    of going to the Island or the mountain, but the city or the flat
    prarie will probably seem dull and lifeless to you in comparison.
    
    Sexual orientation is about who you can love and bond with, physically
    and emotionally.  Even if you never have a relationship with anyone,
    you are still heterosexual, homosexual or bi-sexual.
    
    > Not, by the way, that I share your view that a gay lifestyle would
    > necessarily be self-destructive if chosen. 
    
    Again, sexual orientation is not a behavior or a lifestyle.
    
    > I think these non-standard lifestyles are actively chosen by trains 
    > of thought in the brains of their practitioners, sometimes fully aware 
    > they may die young.
                              
    Again, sexual orientation is not a behavior or a lifestyle.

    
      Well then, let me ask you this (hypothetical) question :
    
      What proof do you have that what you describe as "sexual
     orientation" exists at all ?
    
      bb

    Suzanne:
    
    Do you believe alcoholism is a disease or a predisposition?
    
    Do you believe homosexuality is a disease or a predisposition?
    
    Do you believe the two are genetic?  What gives one merit over the
    other?
    
    -Jack

    Mark
    
    regarding the RKBA, the democrats are atleast fairly honest about it. 
    Ronnie Zap and bush and co, sure didn't do the RKBA any big favors.
    
    If you don't have the training and education piece hit is pointless to
    tell people to pull themselves out of the swamp by their bootstraps. 
    since I did benefit from a program that gave training for a job that
    would support me and mine I do know that giving this opportunity works. 
    In the mean time the people who brought you the contract on America are
    busily trying to gut what few ed and training programs there are, thus
    helping to foster dependence.
    
    Bob and Newt were both married to their first wives for many years, in
    Bob's case 21 years.  I have a problem believeing this was a "youthful
    mistake."  In any case they have both tyried to discuss the immorality
    of others who don't marry or who divorce.  Can you spell hypocritical?
    
    I live in an state where the mining interests were allowed to denude
    and kill large portions of the mountains, not only from heavy metals,
    but also from cyanide, tunneling mine ground water out to streams and
    rivers, and moving large piles of tailing to other locations and
    creeks.  This includes abandoning radium plants, burying radioactive
    waste inside the city of Denver, leaving huge uranium tailings ponds
    with improper lining, the release of many toxins from Rocky Flats, not
    to mention the infamous "mashed potato" experiment where we now have
    moldering hot and toxicc lumps of concrete being rained on, and to
    toxic chemical plants that spewed god know what pesticides into a
    wildlife refuge.  
    
    Having seen that, and wanting to have my children be able live in this
    state, I think a little more regulation wouldn't hurt.  
    
    meg

    
      You can observe characteristics, you can observe behavior.
     There isn't any direct way to observe thoughts or feelings.  They
     can only be inferred, either from behavior, or from messages that
     seem to come from them.  If I closely observe the sex practices
     of 1000 people for a year, I might find, say, 425 who have no sex,
     525 who have sex only with 1 or more members of the opposite sex,
     45 who have sex only with 1 or more members of the same sex, and
     5 who have sex with both (I made those numbers up).  If I then
     chose to follow these people, I would find that very few of them
     switch between the 4 groups over time, but a few do.  I'm pretty
     sure that's what I'd see.  So what does this say ?  The data is NOT
     consistent with the conclusion that sex behavior is random.
    
      One explanation is that there exist "predelictions" which are inate,
     but are occasionally violated.  Another is that these tendencies
     themselves are NOT inate, but are changable only under certain
     precise conditions.  Or it might be that changing patterns of sexual
     behavior is a Poisson process, but with a long average time interval,
     or lambda, and a relatively low probability.  And there are other
     more complicated explanations.  It is not clear what observations
     you could do next to distinguish whether there exists an innate
     predeliction, unless you could find a distinguishing characteristic
     or behavior pattern or message sent by the people you've put in the
     groups.
    
      bb

| <<< Note 698.245 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "Welcome to Paradise" >>>


| It is NOT the case that choosing a pattern of behavior is necessarily 
| reversible. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.  

	If you are saying one can hide who they really are, then I could agree
with the above. If you are saying they can get rid of their homosexuality, you
are wrong.



Glen

| <<< Note 698.247 by GMASEC::KELLY "Not The Wrong Person" >>>

| hey, where is my 10 bucks?!?!?!

	Christine, you even stated that this person does things on a whim. When
she figures out who she is, then that's when the $10 can be discussed. 

| <<< Note 698.250 by SPECXN::CONLON >>>

| If your heart goes pitty-pat for Brad Pitt (no pun intended) although
| you are a married man with 12 children, your sexual orientation is
| probably gay (or bi-sexual, at least.)  No one need ever know about it,
| and you may not consider yourself gay unless you have sex with a man -
| but your feelings of attraction and love for members of the same (or
| the opposite) sex is the part you cannot choose.

	This is key. Some end up getting divorced after a while, because they
did not make the right choice. They made a choice that was to be what they are
not. Had they not made that choice, they could have just been themselves. No
choice.

      ___                       ___                                
     /\__\                     /|  |                               
    /:/ _/_       ___         |:|  |           ___           ___   
   /:/ /\  \     /\__\        |:|  |          /\__\         /|  |  
  /:/ /::\  \   /:/__/      __|:|__|         /:/  /        |:|  |  
 /:/_/:/\:\__\ /::\  \     /::::\__\_____   /:/__/         |:|  |  
 \:\/:/ /:/  / \/\:\  \__  ~~~~\::::/___/  /::\  \       __|:|__|  
  \::/ /:/  /   ~~\:\/\__\     |:|~~|     /:/\:\  \     /::::\  \  
   \/_/:/  /       \::/  /     |:|  |     \/__\:\  \    ~~~~\:\  \ 
     /:/  /        /:/  /      |:|__|          \:\__\        \:\__\
     \/__/         \/__/       |/__/            \/__/         \/__/
      ___                       ___           ___     
     /\  \                     /\  \         /\__\    
     \:\  \       ___          \:\  \       /:/ _/_   
      \:\  \     /\__\          \:\  \     /:/ /\__\  
  _____\:\  \   /:/__/      _____\:\  \   /:/ /:/ _/_ 
 /::::::::\__\ /::\  \     /::::::::\__\ /:/_/:/ /\__\
 \:\~~\~~\/__/ \/\:\  \__  \:\~~\~~\/__/ \:\/:/ /:/  /
  \:\  \        ~~\:\/\__\  \:\  \        \::/_/:/  / 
   \:\  \          \::/  /   \:\  \        \:\/:/  /  
    \:\__\         /:/  /     \:\__\        \::/  /   
     \/__/         \/__/       \/__/         \/__/    
      ___           ___           ___           ___           ___     
     /\__\         /\  \         /\  \         /\  \         /\__\    
    /:/ _/_        \:\  \       /::\  \       /::\  \       /:/ _/_   
   /:/ /\  \        \:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\__\     /:/ /\__\  
  /:/ /::\  \   _____\:\  \   /:/ /::\  \   /:/ /:/  /    /:/ /:/  /  
 /:/_/:/\:\__\ /::::::::\__\ /:/_/:/\:\__\ /:/_/:/__/___ /:/_/:/  /   
 \:\/:/ /:/  / \:\~~\~~\/__/ \:\/:/  \/__/ \:\/:::::/  / \:\/:/  /    
  \::/ /:/  /   \:\  \        \::/__/       \::/~~/~~~~   \::/__/     
   \/_/:/  /     \:\  \        \:\  \        \:\~~\        \:\  \     
     /:/  /       \:\__\        \:\__\        \:\__\        \:\__\    
     \/__/         \/__/         \/__/         \/__/         \/__/    

| <<< Note 698.256 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "Welcome to Paradise" >>>


| Well, I THINK all of my sexual actions have been chosen consciously in my 
| brain, not genetic, not induced by my environment.  

	Well, I will give ya the enviroment one. I mean, in my hometown gay
wasn't even an option. It wasn't discussed, it did not exist. Yet I am gay. I
always thought guys were cool. 

| We don't know. If sexual orientation were purely genetic, then it would run 
| in families or genetic lines.  

	Ahhh....very few people have gay family members, right? Do you think
there are any that have none? I don't.

| Now look at it the other way : suppose it arises in the brain - that sexual 
| orientation arises from "a train of thinking".  

	Then if that were the case, you could train your thinking to be gay,
right? Go for it.! :-)



Glen

    Note 255 stands as such a clear differentiator between the Republican
    and Democratic agendas that it should part of the Republican platform.
    
    It points out that there is a need to exercise some contol over the
    unbridled excesses of a laize faire society and the excesses that have
    been foisted on America for the last 30 years.  So far I have not seen
    anything in the Republican proposals that remotely reflect the claims
    of our liberal participants here or in the national press.
    
    It appears that the reasonable and rational points made in 255 are
    anathema to the bigger government crowd.  Any changes to existing
    programs must be met with derision and screams of "gutting",
    "pillaging", etc unless a new program exactly like the old one is
    proposed.
    
    I sincerely hope that the lies and distortions that have been thrown
    out since Clinton started his campaign will get a thorough airing and
    the true Republican proposals can get an honest discussion.
    

RE: 698.256 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "Welcome to Paradise"

> We don't know.  If sexual orientation were purely genetic, then it would
> run in families or genetic lines.  

It does.  The best evidence is that about half of human male homosexuality
is genetic.


Phil

    i think the choice thing slices like this... sexual orientation is not
    a choice. i think there is more than enough medical evidence to
    support this. what is the choice is practicing an orientation, thus
    begetting the behavior.
    
    if you are oriented in one direction, but remain neutral or practice
    in the other, does that negate your orientation? I'd vote it does not.
    
    whew...

	Chip, your vote would be correct.

 ZZ   If you are saying they can get rid of their homosexuality, you
 ZZ   are wrong.
    
    Thanks Glen...
    
    Suzanne....
    
    Do you believe homosexuality is genetic?
    
    Do you believe alcoholism is genetic?
    
    Do you believe alcoholism is a disease?
    
    Final question...why is one predisposition we are born with a disease
    while the other is not?
    
    Thanks.

    
      Glen - I think you are right that people cannot easily change
     their sexual habits, and even if unhappy as they are, may be
     still more unhappy if they try to change.  I suspect this is
     true of most of our behaviors and personality traits.  If a
     humble person tries to be "assertive" in the modern style, they
     just mess up their brains.  We should learn to live with our
     limitations - all of us have them.  But that answer never seems
     to placate Americans, who all go rushing after "miracle cures"
     and "self-help seminars", trying to be something else.  It's
     fascinating to watch - it's all over the junk cable channels.
    
      bb

        <<< Note 698.275 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>


	Not Suzanne, but.........

>    Do you believe homosexuality is genetic?
 
	Yes.
   
>    Do you believe alcoholism is genetic?
 
	Probably.

>    Do you believe alcoholism is a disease?
 
	Yes.

>    Final question...why is one predisposition we are born with a disease
>    while the other is not?
 
	The term "disease" answers your question. Disease implies physical
	harm to those afflicted. This is certainly the case for an unreformed
	alchoholic. It is certainly not the case for homosexuals.

	Different example:

	Do you beleive that left-handedness is genetic?

	Do you believe that left-handedness is a disease?


Jim

    Okay...well explained.  Let me try it this way.
    
    Let's assumed just for the sake of the argument that 90% of gay men
    engage in anal intercourse.  We already know what C. Everett Koop 
    had to say about it...so assuming Koop is an authority on the issue of
    health...which I believe he is, then we can assume that the majority of
    gay men take part in actions which in turn cause harm not only to
    themselves and to others, but also to society.  
    
    -Jack

        <<< Note 698.278 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

>    Okay...well explained.

	Apparently not well enough.

>  Let me try it this way.
 
	No. You asked about homosexuality and I gave you my opinions.

	The argument that certain sexual behaviors are "homosexual"
	is not valid since those practices are certainly not limited
	to homosexuals. Since this train of thought is invalid, it has
	no bearing on whether homosexuality should be considered a 
	disease.

Jim

| <<< Note 698.275 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| Final question...why is one predisposition we are born with a disease
| while the other is not?

	Jack, if one hurts your body, if one hurts others because of your
actions, then they could attribute that to be a disease. Homosexuality does not
hurt ones body, and the actions do not hurt others. 


Glen

| <<< Note 698.276 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "Welcome to Paradise" >>>


| to placate Americans, who all go rushing after "miracle cures"
| and "self-help seminars", trying to be something else.  It's
| fascinating to watch - it's all over the junk cable channels.

	Shhhh....I don't want anyone to know I buy these things. :-)

| <<< Note 698.278 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| Let's assumed just for the sake of the argument that 90% of gay men engage in 
| anal intercourse.  

	Jack, that would make 10% of the gay men ok under your reasoning, and
all lesbians. So what does that show you? Nothing, as you don't think the other
10% of the men are ok, or lesbians. Please don't go on about statistics that
don't apply to the whole group, when you are trying to show the whole group to
be a disease.



Glen

Z    Jack, if one hurts your body, if one hurts others because of your
Z    actions, then they could attribute that to be a disease. Homosexuality
Z    does not hurt ones body, and the actions do not hurt others.
    
    Okay, then let's refine it to sodomites.  Instead of saying gays, let's
    talk about men and women even who involve themselves in sodomy.  By the
    way, I along with Koop disagree with you on the above, since the
    majority of gays practice anal sex.  
    
    Let's also center this on genetics, not so much disease.  
    
    Men and women practice sodomy.
    Men and men practice sodomy.
    
    Medical profession and common sense speak of the physical dangers of
    sodomy.  Conclusion...sodomy should not be encouraged.  People should 
    be encouraged to eschew their natural tendencies.
    
    Why should John Q. Public be tolerant of this practice?  You say it is
    a private choice?  Okay...then smoking is also a private choice...yet
    our fearless square man has put out an APB on smokers.  The hypocrisy
    is relentless.   Fair enough!?  
    
    The bottom line Glen is I couldn't give a rats ass who the smokers are
    in this country...and I couldn't give a rats ass who the gays are.  I
    couldn't give a rats ass who the left handed folk are, and I could care
    less who the blondes are.  Which is why (fill in the blank) pride day
    or blank history month is a sham...  Shut....
    
    
    							Up!!!
    
    
    Not you personally...the ghastly sensitivity crowd....WOULD YOU
    PLEASE...
    
    
    SHUT...
    
    
    
    
    		UP!!
    
    
    
    Thank you.    
    

.226

Once again, your reply shows that you could not have read my note properly,
unless you can't tell Republicans from Democrats.  Also, double and triple 
negatives will not improve your grade.

>>Now I assume from your response that you do not think that the
  Republicans are not out to trash the environment, trash OSHA, 
  etc, etc. why is it that I don't think so.<<

READ MY LIPS...THE REPUBLICANS *ARE* DOING THESE THINGS

>>why is it that I don't think so>>
     
     You tell me!  It may be the case that you are an idiot, but
     I wouldn't care to comment on that.

>>To make this easier for you, my response indicated that you make the
  statement that the Republicans were going to do all of these terrible
  things and only the Democrats would protect us from those Republicans.

The Republican are well on their way to doing all of these things.  For 
example, the assault on the hourly wage law was started last year, they 
are punishing gays in the military (because it's easier than trying to do it 
in the public sector I suppose, at least until they have completely overturned 
civil rights), their gutting of the clean water act is doing a great job of 
trashing the environment and the drastic cutting of OSHA's budget has 
emasculated that agency, and the clean indoor air policy that it was trying
to introduce.    

Whether the Democrats can protect us from ALL the destructive things the
Republicans are doing I don't know.  I can only hope so.

    .283
    
    > Which is why (fill in the blank) pride day or blank history month is
    > a sham...
    
    Somebody help me remember the name of the dad-blasted half a million
    participant Praise the Lord march on Washington.  And Christianity is a
    choice!  (Or is it a disease...)
    

        <<< Note 698.283 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

>    Let's also center this on genetics, not so much disease.  
    
>    Men and women practice sodomy.
>    Men and men practice sodomy.
 
	Is it your contention that sodomy (actually your specific complaint
	seems to be with anal intercourse, not sodomy in general) is a 
	genetic predisposition?

>    Medical profession and common sense speak of the physical dangers of
>    sodomy.  Conclusion...sodomy should not be encouraged.  People should 
>    be encouraged to eschew their natural tendencies.
 
	All sorts of sexual practices carry physical dangers of one sort
	or another. Even straight forward heterosexual intercourse in the
	classic missionary position with the lights out can carry fatal
	risks these days. So where does one draw the line?

>    Why should John Q. Public be tolerant of this practice?  You say it is
>    a private choice?  Okay...then smoking is also a private choice...yet
>    our fearless square man has put out an APB on smokers. 

	There are many relatively new regulations concerning smoking. All 
	of these seem to deal with public places where one can not smoke.
	None, that I'm aware of, tell me that I can not smoke in my own
	home, or even in my bedroom.

> The hypocrisy
>    is relentless. 

	Your is quite evident. The analogies that you attempt to use
	have little, if any direct correlation to the current issue
	under discussion.


Jim

  Hi,

    The following is entirely unprovable (so far as I can tell) and
    is my present understanding.  Much of it stems from my personal
    spiritual beliefs (Christian).

    I believe that all sin is unhealthy to the person.  I don't want
    to get into the complications of how much the unhealthiness is to
    the body or to the mind, however, I believe anything unhealthy to
    the mind will manifest itself in the physical in some way and vice 
    versa.

    Envy is unhealthy.  Covetousness is unhealthy.

    The Bible says that engaging in homosexual practises is wrong.
    (Well, I have heard that there are differing interpretations, let
    me say that this interpretation seems plain to me.)

    The Bible also says that the heart is desparately wicked and "Who
    can know it?"

    I believe that it can be hard to be able to reason why something may
    be wrong.  The reasons may sometimes be of a nature that can escape
    us.  I believe that to engage in homosexual thoughts and acts is 
    some form of idolatry where self is worshipped and not God - even
    though this pattern of thought may not be discerned for what it is.

    Anyway, my take as a Christian is not so much to show the sin, but
    to somehow get people to want to behold love - which reveals sin in
    the right time as a person is ready to have it revealed.  I'm not 
    out to 'bash' any homosexuals, in fact, I feel a tremendous amount
    of compassion for them and believe the only posture would be one of
    being willing to lay down one's life for any sinner - if it should 
    ever come to that.

    I guess the main point I am saying is to suggest that, within
    Christian thought, the notion of even certain thoughts being damaging
    is very viable.  To couple this with the notion that we are not
    extremely 'moral-sensitive' persons and thus do not know our own
    hearts that well, and to suggest that some thought patterns may
    be detrimental even were one to not discern it as such (sort of like
    extreme anger causing stress causing high blood pressure - as an
    example, though that example ought be easily discerned).

    That's part of the reason why my belief in the existence of a sort
    of reference is something I feel very good about.  (In my case, my
    belief that the Bible is that reference.)

    While I can see this response as getting bashed, I at least hope that
    there can be some comfort in my belief to love the sinner which is
    a kind of love I am in tremendous need of.

							Tony

    thump...
    
             thump...
    
                      thump...
    
                               thump...
    
                                         thump...
    
    
    this string is being contaminated.

Reply: Note 698.286

  Hi Jim,

    Let me be the millionth person to acknowledge that I find Jack's
    lack of ability to be able to string together coherent and rational
    thoughts to be impeccable.  So, I realize I am treading on some
    rather bizarre and convoluted ground!

    With that...

    ***	There are many relatively new regulations concerning smoking. All 
	of these seem to deal with public places where one can not smoke.
	None, that I'm aware of, tell me that I can not smoke in my own
	home, or even in my bedroom.

    I think we'd have to be open to the possibility that Jack is complaining
    about the fact that there are no sodomy regulations that deal with 
    public places (in the event that the sodomy occurs there and not in
    one's own home).

						Tony

    As a public service to all in this conference, I'm gonna help put the
    issue of the repub platform to rest.  This, then, is installment one of
    the 1996 Mock Republican Platform (courtesy of the Washington and Lee
    1996 Mock Republican Convention):
    
    Do the repubs wanna ban abortion?  I dunno... let's ask:
    
         Our entire position on abortion is based on one simple belief,
    that life begins at conception. We believe this for numerous reasons, 
    including because of the scientific data. Only three weeks after
    conception the heart is already beating on its own, and only twenty
    days later an electroencephalogram will register the presence of brain 
    waves. However, even if one regards the scientific data to be uncertain,
    we would rather err on the side of safety and life. If some say there
    is no single point between conception and birth where it is scientifically
    clear that life has begun, we will assume it has started at the earliest
    point, and that is the moment of conception. 
    
         From this simple fact flows every other stance we take. We believe
    that although at the heart of the concept of democracy lie freedom and 
    liberty, the most fundamental purpose of government is to protect
    the claims of the innocent and weak from the strong who seek to usurp
    those natural and God-given rights. This is to say that claims of choice, 
    freedom and individual responsibility must be subordinated to
    the protection of our natural rights; when a thief freely chooses to
    rob a house, we must protect the homeowner's property rights in place of 
    the thief's freedom to do what he wants. 
    
         The life of the unborn child is more important than the liberty of
    the mother who wants to kill it. The right-to-life is the most hallowed 
    and sacred of rights. Virtually every society the world has
    ever seen places the greatest emphasis upon life-takers, and we impose
    our strictest sentences upon murderers. Quite simply, life is the most 
    closely guarded right, an amazing gift from God which the state
    protects to the full extent of its power. Why should this life be less
    protected simply because it is taking place inside a mother's womb, and 
    not in a hospital incubator or nursery crib? 
    
         In view of this, we support all legislation which seeks to reduce
    the number of abortions committed in this nation. We reject the Supreme
    Court's creation of the supposed right-to-privacy, and wonder why
    they couldn't similarly find an unwritten right-to-life in the
    Constitution's text. So in the face of the Court's decisions, we 
    ultimately support a constitutional amendment outlining and recognizing 
    a right-to-life, especially for unborn children. Though that is our 
    ultimate goal, we also support any other legislation which moves us closer 
    to the realization of no abortions in America: preventing taxpayer money 
    from being spent on such atrocities, insuring women are fully informed as 
    to the many physical and psychological dangers of abortion, insisting that 
    both parents of the unborn child have a role in the decision-making 
    process and that parents of minors seeking abortions are aware of and 
    consent to their child's child-killing decision, etc. We also condemn 
    violence on either side of the debate, and believe such actions are in no 
    way conducive to resolving the issue. 
    
    

    re: thump/contamination
    
     Seems to me that Barbieri's note was respectful, observed that his
    opinions conveyed personal beliefs, and generally seemed to be more
    respectful of dissenting opinions than most. The thumping/contamination
    claims are uncalled for, and reflect more upon their author than
    their target.

    Installment two: Do the repubs wanna repeal the [minimum] wage law?  Do
    they wanna trash OSHA?  Well, we could just ask 'em.  Okay, then...
    
         The key to future economic growth lies with America's workers. No
    government policy can duplicate their ability to meet the ever-growing 
    challenges of creating jobs and prosperity. From their entrepreneurial 
    skill to their determined work ethic, only the American workers have the 
    ability to seize new opportunities and utilize their resources to further 
    improve Americans' quality of life. All government can do is to not impose 
    on the American worker burdens which prevent him from fulfilling his 
    potential. It is vital for our future economic status that the American 
    worker be permitted to realize her full productive potential. 
    
         The Republican Party pledges to improve the work place by removing
    unwise workplace regulations. Regulatory agencies such as OSHA, EPA, and 
    FDA have gone beyond their legal jurisdiction to impose on businesses and 
    workers unneeded regulations that cost our economy billions of
    dollars a year. We fully support reducing the size of these agencies to
    insure that they refrain from unneeded activities and must focus on their 
    original missions. We believe such action will help these agencies to once 
    again be an ally of our workers and not a foe. 
    
         We will work for the enactment of right-to-work laws in all fifty
    states. We will enact legislation making the use of striker-replacements 
    legal in order to restore fairness to the workplace. We fully support the 
    right of a worker to join a union and believe unions have an important
    role in our economy. However, Democratic lawmakers have given unions so
    many special privileges, done for their own political purposes, that 
    non-union workers are treated unfairly in the workplace. Every
    worker should have the choice to join or not to join a union based on
    her own personal judgment. It goes against our national sense of fairness 
    to force a worker to pay dues to a union with which he is dissatisfied. 
    Furthermore, an employer should be allowed to choose who her employees are,
    so she should not be bound to re-hire workers who walk off the job to 
    strike. While we recognize the right of employees to strike, it is unjust 
    to force an employer to re-hire striking workers, particularly if she
    believes they were abusing their striking privilege. We support these
    positions because they will help create stronger unions, and thereby help 
    our economy. Unions work best when they must compete with non-union workers
    for jobs. They are more innovative and are more apt to improve the 
    productivity of their members. 
    
         We reaffirm our opposition to the minimum wage and oppose any
    further increase in its rate. Workers who are willing to work for below 
    the minimum wage should not be prevented from doing so. Many workers, 
    particularly poor or minority workers, need the opportunity offered by 
    low-paying jobs to gain experience before they can move on to higher 
    paying jobs. A minimum wage limits them from gaining the opportunities 
    they need to become productive workers. Also, increasing the minimum wage
    produces wage inflation, which artificially raises the cost of labor
    above its market rate. If a employee gets a raise due to minimum wage 
    increase, it forces employers to raise the pay of all other workers to 
    keep the wage distribution the same. As a result, the higher wages reduce
    the number of jobs companies can provide and further limits opportunities 
    to Americans. 
    
         We believe job training is best left to companies, unions, and the
    individual. The costs of such training should be paid for by those who 
    receive its benefits. It is unfair to tax citizens to subsidize a
    company's job training program that benefits his neighbor. The federal
    government is not designed to be a trade school or a thrift. Both schools 
    and their financing can be more than adequately provided for by the
    private sector. There is no reason to needlessly extend the government's 
    responsibilities to job training. Certainly, this is one area were the 
    private market can more effectively satisfy the needs of our citizens. 
    
    

      re: .291
    
      Wow, thanks!
    
      I really wanted to express one Christian's view mainly because
      in this forum there happen to be people who believe this or that
      thing is wrong - and do so without really coming to terms with
      WHY.
    
      I sought to give what could be construed a credible rationale
      for one who is a subset of a few with the same general foundation.
      (Bible-believing Christian.)
     
      Thats all.
    
      But, I do appreciate that this isn't the place to go on a 
      thumping frenzy.
    
    						Tony

    Installment three.  The environment?  Well...
    
         Our nation has been blessed from its founding with bountiful
    natural resources and an abundance of nature's beauty. Ever since the 
    days of Theodore Roosevelt, the first Conservationist President, the
    Republican Party has been committed to protecting and defending the 
    environment. We understand and respect the idea that it is our duty to 
    pass down to our children and our children's children an environment that 
    is safe and healthy, an environment where nature's wonders are protected 
    and cherished in a manner which preserves their beauty and allows all to
    gaze at them in wonder. It is our duty to do so and we will continue to 
    sponsor programs that work to achieve those goals. 
    
         At the same time we must question the extent to which government
    infringes on the rights of the people when it moves to protect the 
    environment. It is wrong to take land away from private owners or
    devalue their land by imposing burdensome restrictions without giving
    them just compensation. It is also unnecessary to impose restrictions on 
    industry when what might be theoretically gained from such restrictions 
    is outweighed by the many benefits that industry provides to a community. 
    We will not support programs that would take jobs from hard working 
    Americans in order to protect desert field mice or spotted owls from 
    unproved ills. 
    
         We believe as Theodore Roosevelt said, "We are not building this
    country of ours for a day. It is to last through the ages." In order to 
    continue to build America into an ageless and enduring country we
    must balance the needs of protecting our cherished environment with the
    needs of the American family who depends on the jobs they have for their 
    livelihood. The Republican Party will find that balance. 
    
    
                               

    Installment four.  Punish women and children?  Why, of course not! 
    Unless...
    
         The history of welfare in America is an increasingly ugly one. For
    the first one hundred fifty years of the nation's existence, the 
    overwhelming majority of social aid programs were carried out by
    private organizations, churches, charities, etc. However, beginning
    with the Great Depression, this changed rapidly. Although public-sector 
    welfare spending fell after the Second World War, it picked up
    again with the implementation of Lyndon Johnson's vaunted Great Society
    programs. As a result, the government, at all levels, now spends 
    tremendously more than it ever has before. Even after adjusting for
    inflation, the highest level of government spending during the Great
    Depression was $46.6 billion; now it has reached a mind-boggling $324 
    billion. This represents a growth of almost 600%! 
    
         Even more troubling than simply the amount of money we spend on
    welfare, though, is the vicious cycle this spending seems to have started. 
    Far from solving the problem of poverty, it seems that the various welfare 
    programs which have existed relatively unchanged since the inception of 
    the Great Society have instead only contributed to the problem. 
    
         Welfare encourages illegitimacy, joblessness, and one-parent
    families. The assortment of over eighty government programs called 
    "welfare" serves to discourage the recipients from adopting healthy,
    productive, 'normal' lifestyles. For example, common sense tells us
    bearing children within the context of a marriage and a full-time provider 
    and income-earner for each family is the best way to raise children.
    However, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, one of the federal
    government's largest welfare programs, discourages both. Not only is a 
    single-mother paid more money for each child she has, but she will lose 
    her benefits should she choose to get a job or to marry the father. (Since 
    1988, she has been allowed to marry the father, provided he is not employed
    full-time!) The result is that single women begin to see children as 
    financial tools and husbands, particularly productive ones, as financial 
    burdens. 
    
         A plethora of current research indicates children raised in this
    environment go on to repeat the pattern themselves; girls raised in 
    one-parent homes are three-times as likely as girls raised in two-parent
    homes to bear children out of wedlock. This means each generation of
    welfare recipients is often preparing the way for a subsequent generation 
    to take its place. As great an economic worry as that might be, it is even 
    more disturbing to realize the serious repercussions these societal trends 
    have for the crime rate. 
    
         Contrary to popular belief, income itself is not a primary factor
    in contributing to a neighborhood's crime rate. Rather, it is factors like 
    the percentage of adolescents in the community, the mobility of the
    population (ie, are they long-term residents or merely 'biding their
    time') and most importantly, the percentage of single-parent families. In 
    the past thirty years, our government has not only institutionalized
    a self-replicating program, but this same program also fosters the very
    problems government is created to eliminate, especially violent crime and 
    burglaries! The Republican Party seeks to correct the problem. 
    
         Any attempt at welfare reform will fail unless it addresses the
    underlying problems which foster economic decline. Previous attempts to 
    solve the problem have centered on spending more money, but that has 
    clearly not helped. Reform, in whatever form it might eventually take, 
    must do two central things: limit actual costs and address the root 
    problems of illegitimacy and divorce, as well as preparing recipients to 
    re-enter the work force. The programs which must be established are not 
    set in stone, yet some basic ideas are clear. 
    
         Eliminate outlays for illegitimate children. Now many welfare
    mothers see their children as the easiest way to a larger check each month.
    By cutting off these payments, there would no longer be a purely economic 
    incentive for women to have children. 
    
         Crack down on dead-beat dads and demand women identify the fathers
    of their children. The current culture of care-free and irresponsible 
    fathering of children must be stopped, and one way of doing so is insisting
    women identify the fathers, then making the men pay for the support and 
    care of their children. In addition, DNA testing can prevent anyone from 
    being unfairly mis-identified. 
    
         Eliminate the marriage penalty. Now a single mother might see
    marriage as a poor choice, since it likely eliminates her welfare payments.
    She should continue to receive the benefits of welfare through an earned 
    income tax credit for poor, married couples. 
    
         More abstinence education programs. Studies have shown that
    abstinence programs do work. In the past, the government has simply hoped 
    that sexually active teenagers will be cautious enough to use birth 
    control. This approach clearly has failed. Abstinence programs encourage 
    teens to take responsibility for their actions, think for themselves, 
    withstand peer pressure, and respect themselves. It also encourages them 
    to take sexuality more seriously and to view it within the context of 
    healthy marriages not simply as a means to instant gratification, whatever 
    the effects. 
    
         These are just a few of the many possibilities. Yet whatever is
    ultimately agreed upon as the appropriate legislation, it must control the 
    programs' spending, while encouraging marriage and legitimacy.
    
    
                              

    
      What is the Washington and Lee Mock Republican Convention ?
    
      bb

    It's a BS strawman designed by a democrat to be bashed without mercy.
    If you can't attack someone's actual words. make some words up and bash
    them.

    .296
    
    It is, as the name implies, a mock convention held at Washington and
    Lee College in Lexington, VA.  Somebody else will have to clarify its
    significance in respect to the national republican party platform.
    
    BTW, they nominated Bob Dole/Colin Powell.
                                                                     

    .297
    
    I'm so flattered that you believe I'm creative enough to invent such
    blather.  But, alas, I'm not.
    
    For hours and hours of belly-laughs, you, too, might want to check out
    the WHOLE text of their platform.  Find it at
    
                   http://logic.uc.wlu.edu/~mockcon/intro
    

| <<< Note 698.283 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| Okay, then let's refine it to sodomites.  Instead of saying gays, let's
| talk about men and women even who involve themselves in sodomy.  

	I have anal sex all the time. I have yet to catch any disease. You
really need to go to the gay topic and read about anal sex. But if we go with
your version of things, please talk about the gay men who do not have anal sex,
and the lesbians. Apparently these people do not harm themselves, and in the
end (pun intended), they are still not right, by you.

	Also, being homosexual is not what could make a gay person sick. Being
heterosexual is not what could make a straight person sick. You have to do an
action called sex in order for either group to have anything happen. So when
you try to say homosexuality is a disease, you have to clarify it as only if 
they have sex (and under a bunch of different conditions). But then the only 
way you could do that is to include heterosexuals, as they too can contract a 
disease. But you aren't willing to do that, are you?

	Now if alcoholism is a disease that happens only when a person drinks,
then is it something genetic? If it is genetic to have a drink which leads to
the disease, then the only way you can tie gays into a disease is if you also
include heterosexuals. Otherwise, you can't do it. If sex is where you think
gay=disease, then sex includes heterosexuals, as well.

| Medical profession and common sense speak of the physical dangers of
| sodomy.  Conclusion...sodomy should not be encouraged.  People should
| be encouraged to eschew their natural tendencies.

	Let's work this issue. You just made a point for people, not
homosexuals as bad. Glad you're seeing the real issue now.

| Why should John Q. Public be tolerant of this practice?  You say it is a 
| private choice?  Okay...then smoking is also a private choice...yet our 
| fearless square man has put out an APB on smokers.  The hypocrisy is 
| relentless.   Fair enough!?

	Now you have gone from saying being gay is a disease like alcoholism,
to if we allow smokers to smoke wherever, then sex should be able to happen
wherever, so there is no hypocrisy. Jack, 2nd hand smoke harms another. It's
gonna take a burning butt to generate smoke like that! :-) But seriously, my
having sex in front of you does not do any physical harm to you. My smoking a 
cigarette does. Trying to compare sex and a cigarette is useless unless it is
after sex, where cigs are often smoked! :-)

| The bottom line Glen is I couldn't give a rats ass who the smokers are
| in this country...and I couldn't give a rats ass who the gays are.  

	The bottom line is what you said is absolutely false. Or you wouldn't
spend time trying to make gays out to be some disease. Especially when you
can't include lesbians or that other 10% figure into your point. Face it, gays
and alcoholism are not the same thing at all.


Glen

| <<< Note 698.285 by DYPSS1::OPPER "Just say maybe." >>>

| Somebody help me remember the name of the dad-blasted half a million
| participant Praise the Lord march on Washington.  And Christianity is a
| choice!  (Or is it a disease...)

	Wow... this brought a big smile to my face.


Glen

	Tony, knowing you personally has shown me you love everyone. Whether
that person gets on your nerves, whether that person is a sinner, whether or
not that person is someone special, etc. It is sincere love that you have for
people. It is not condemning love. I like that.

	BUT (you knew one had to show up), I can understand how you base your
beliefs on homosexuality, but I can not agree with them. We have talked many a
time, and you know my position. 

	Now people like you, or people like Jim Henderson, have that
non-damning quality about them that is refreshing. It doesn't change your
beliefs, it just shows others love is there. I like that. But I can't agree
with those beliefs. :-)



Glen

	Tony, was the thanks for the but???? :-)

    
    	Glen, seems like a but always pops up when you're around.
    

                    <<< Note 698.289 by LUDWIG::BARBIERI >>>

>    I think we'd have to be open to the possibility that Jack is complaining
>    about the fact that there are no sodomy regulations that deal with 
>    public places (in the event that the sodomy occurs there and not in
>    one's own home).

	I doubt that this is the case, but let's go with it for a moment.
	There ARE laws that regulate having sex, any kind of sex, in public.
	So if this is the fear, it is groundless.

Jim

                    <<< Note 698.287 by LUDWIG::BARBIERI >>>

>    The following is entirely unprovable (so far as I can tell) and
>    is my present understanding.  Much of it stems from my personal
>    spiritual beliefs (Christian).

	And I am sure that you will acknowledge that others, even other
	Christians, have beliefs that do not agree with yours.

	If your belief system says that homosexuality is wrong, then
	don't become a homosexual.

	Others have different beliefs systems that do not view
	homosexuality as wrong. Respect their beliefs as they
	apply to themselves.

Jim

      re: .306
    
      Jim,
    
        My entire intent for that reply was humor!  No need for a
        serious reply!
    
    						Tony

                    <<< Note 698.308 by LUDWIG::BARBIERI >>>
>                         -< Twas A Joke Son!  A Joke! >-

	I guess that spending the second day of my vacation cleaning carpets
	(the REAL downside to dog rescue work) has left me humor-impaired.

Jim

        Z    Others have different beliefs systems that do not view
        Z    homosexuality as wrong. Respect their beliefs as they
        Z    apply to themselves.
    
    Look, I try very hard at times to keep Christian convictions out of my
    replies...lest I get the undaunted boring Chip/Ralson/Phil Thump Thump
    replies.  Obviously I'm trying to hit this from a physical handicap
    position and it isn't working.  A lawyer I would not make.
    
    I'll reply to the above as it no seems others have opened the pandora's
    box.  Jim, quite frankly, I believe that dispositions are something we
    are blessed with or cursed with...depending on our point of view.  I
    was trying to reconcile how we as humans put predispositions in neat
    little boxes of convenience lest we are chided for who we are.
    
    Take pedophilia for example.  We as a society say it is wrong both
    legally and morally.  As I asked Mary Michael, if our societal paradigm
    saw pedophilia as a neutral thing...as there are cultures in this world
    who do, does it make it morally right to practice pedophilia, or is it
    still inherently wrong.  I believe it is wrong, regardless of how a
    society reacts.  
    
    I believe homosexuality in and of itself is a part of the human
    condition, we all have our own dispositions in life to deal with.  
    I believe God gives us a measure of faith in how we deal with them
    personally.  I see acting on ones predisposition as good or bad,
    depending on how it is defined by my faith.  We all have our different
    ways of believing...that's fine.  It is the way societies have been
    since the beginning of earth's history.  
    
    My kids along with many children are leaving the public school system
    in droves.  To put it plainly, there are many parents out there with
    convictions that aren't in harmony with what is being pitched in
    here...the public school system is being used as a social engineering
    tool.  I resent it as a taxpayer but since there is little I can do
    about it, my attitude is that you keep your wretched school system,
    continue to extort money from myself as well as other citizens, and
    I'll keep working my second jobs in order to be sure the kiddies
    develop convictions in their own lives.  
    
    Glen, regarding your health, I sincerely hope the day doesn't come when
    you have to eat your words.  Too many people in this country are sick
    already.
    
    -Jack

    .310
    
    > Look, I try very hard at times to keep Christian convictions out of my
    > replies...
    
    >                       ... I believe that dispositions are something we
    > are blessed with or cursed with...depending on our point of view.
    
    Being blessed or cursed, as you mean it, implies a supernatural being. 
    Is this how you keep your Christian convictions out of your notes?
    
    > I
    > was trying to reconcile how we as humans put predispositions in neat
    > little boxes of convenience lest we are chided for who we are.
    
    Reconcile how we as humans put predispositions in neat little boxes of
    convenience so we can decide whom to disapprove of.
    
    > Take pedophilia for example.
    
    Let's don't.  Morally, pedophilia is wrong, religion aside, because it
    preys on children who are, though their lack of experience, unable to
    make sensible decisions in the matter.
    
    > I believe homosexuality in and of itself is a part of the human
    > condition, we all have our own dispositions in life to deal with.
    
    Bingo.
    
    > I
    > believe God gives us a measure of faith...
    
    There you go again, keeping your Christian convictions out of your
    notes.
    
    > My kids along with many children are leaving the public school system
    > in droves.
    
    Bye!
    
    >     ...the public school system is being used as a social engineering
    > tool.
    
    No, it is not.  It is being used as a tool to show children that
    toleration of others, as they themselves crave to be tolerated, is
    vital if we are all to live together.  By virtue of the essential "us
    and them" nature of religion, religious schools - without exception -
    teach division and bigotry.
    
    > I resent it as a taxpayer but since there is little I can do
    > about it, my attitude is that you keep your wretched school system,
    > continue to extort money from myself as well as other citizens, and
    > I'll keep working my second jobs in order to be sure the kiddies
    > develop convictions in their own lives.  
    
    Your privilege.  My children developed convictions quite well in the
    public schools, thank you.  I shal be eternally grateful that their
    convictions are not so narrow-minded as yours appear to be.

    "The guiding principle in sex should be: esteem sex as an expression
    and reason and of man's life in the full, moral sense of the term;
    then, keeping this context in mind, pursue the value greedily.
    	Intrinsicism dams sex outright.  It holds that love is a
    relationship between two souls and that it is not to be sullied by
    connection to the body.  In this view, sex - like wealth, pleasure, and
    life itself- has nothing to do with reason or the conceptual faculty;
    it is selfish, "animalistic." Such a function can be justified only as
    a necessary evil, a means to procreation. The true idealist among men,
    accordingly, such as priests and nuns, will stay morally pure by
    practicing celibacy. As to the rest of humanity, the guidance it needs
    is a scroll of prohibitions: no premarital sex, no divorce, no oral
    intercourse, no masturbation, no contraception, no abortion.
    The prohititions are an act of war against mankind. They are the formal
    declarations that joy is a crime."
    
    Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff p. 346
    

        <<< Note 698.310 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

>Obviously I'm trying to hit this from a physical handicap
>    position and it isn't working.  

	It isn't working because your basic premise, that a certain
	sex act, makes a person homosexual. The act that you have chosen
	is anal intercourse. Since heterosexuals also practice anal sex,	
	your basic premise is false. Therefore your argument has no foundation
	and it fails.

>    Take pedophilia for example.

	It would truly be delightful if every discussion of homosexuuality
	did not end up with a discussion of pedophilia, but since you can't
	seem to argue without it we shall proceed.

>  We as a society say it is wrong both
>    legally and morally.

	Not universally. There are states that allow marriage of girls
	young enough to net you a nice prison term if you tried it in
	a different jurisdiction. So "we as a society" can't seem to decide
	exactly what represents "pedophilia".

>  As I asked Mary Michael, if our societal paradigm
>    saw pedophilia as a neutral thing...as there are cultures in this world
>    who do, does it make it morally right to practice pedophilia, or is it
>    still inherently wrong.  I believe it is wrong, regardless of how a
>    society reacts.  
 
	The basic problem with trying to use "morality" to judge the
	behavior of others is that they may not share YOUR morality and
	may, in fact, have completly different morals than you. The
	question then becomes, are these people immoral, amoral, 
	or just moral, but in a different way?

	Morals are an individual choice, and as such they make lousy
	guidlines for law. 

	EDP remarked that murder was illegal because it is immoral.
	I disagree. Murder is illegal because no society that allowed
	indiscriminate murder among its members would survive. Murder
	is illegal as a result of societal self-preservation, not
	morality.
	
>I see acting on ones predisposition as good or bad,
>    depending on how it is defined by my faith.

	As long as you understand that this determination is only valid
	for YOU, then fine. But when you try to apply your judgements
	to others, those who do not share your faith or beliefs, you'll
	find me arguing against it.

>the public school system is being used as a social engineering
>    tool. 

	The public school system has ALWAYS been used as a social engineering
	tool. Even you have advocated that they be used in this manner by 
	promoting that we return to the practice of school prayer. THAT 
	is social engineering too.

	You are free to act in concordance with your beliefs and in 
	harmony with your faith. The problem is that you can not seem
	to understand that others should have the same rights as you.
	You are using YOUR yardstick to measure others that have a differnt
	measurement system. You might as well argue with a European about
	yards vs meters. Both are valid systems, neither is inherently
	better than the other, and both are somewhat arbitrary. A pretty
	good definitions of "morality" id you asked me.

Jim	

| <<< Note 698.310 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| Look, I try very hard at times to keep Christian convictions out of my replies

	Since when?

| I believe homosexuality in and of itself is a part of the human condition, we 
| all have our own dispositions in life to deal with.

	I could actually agree with this.

| depending on how it is defined by my faith.  

	Shouldn't you be using God's????? :-)

	Jack, now you bring the other thing that always gets into it all.
Schools. Now tie it into homosexuality being a disease like alcoholism.

| Glen, regarding your health, I sincerely hope the day doesn't come when you 
| have to eat your words. Too many people in this country are sick already.

	Jack, it comes down to what I know about the person I have sex with,
and what I do with them. It is the same way for any other human being. It isn't
a crap shoot! :-)


Glen

        Z    Even you have advocated that they be used in this manner by 
        Z    promoting that we return to the practice of school prayer. THAT 
        Z    is social engineering too.
    
    Actually, I have advocated against general school prayer.  I have
    proposed homeroom classes being available for children or children of
    parents with such conviction.  This way, such practice is available for 
    those who wish to participate at no burden to those who choose not to.
    
    As far as my bringing Christian values into it...sorry (Dick), but it
    seems to be the core of my convictions.  I guess it depends on how
    authoritative you see scripture within its context.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 698.315 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| Actually, I have advocated against general school prayer.  I have
| proposed homeroom classes being available for children or children of
| parents with such conviction.  This way, such practice is available for
| those who wish to participate at no burden to those who choose not to.

	Oh good. Seperate the masses, so to speak. Tell me how that is not
social engineering?



Glen

 ZZ   Oh good. Seperate the masses, so to speak. Tell me how that is not
 ZZ   social engineering?
    
    Glen, don't be a fool.  As I said earlier, there are children leaving
    the public schools in droves.  Furthermore, there are many cultural
    classes and activities in our school systems that children join. 
    Framingham South had a Spanish Club, French, German, Latin, Greek, and
    Italian.  They had about six different musical consortiums, i.e. boys
    and girls glee club, jazz band, band, Madrigal Assemble, Acapella
    Choir, you name it.  I firmly believe for example, that Hebrew would
    have been a very appropriate class to teach.  It would have been a
    great asset to me and I'm sure alot of Jewish parents would have
    appreciated it.  
    
    Your reply above reeks of hysteria.
    
    -Jack

    It's ALL engineering.  The question is only which is better for the
    kids.  Personally, I prefer a healthy respect for God and country to
    this PC crapola being spewed out into our kids' laps. 

.317

Greek?  Boys and girls glee club?  What kind of school IS this?

    .318
    
    I'd prefer a healthy respect for country - but not for God, because
    your god is not everyone's god.  Now if you could find it in your heart
    to agree that everyone's god is equally valid - to the individual
    person - then we might get somewhere.

| <<< Note 698.317 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| Your reply above reeks of hysteria.

	Actually, I took you to mean that those who want to go pray in the
morning, go off and do it. 

	Now unless you offer every single religion out there into the schools,
your plan is pushing your choice of Christianity onto the students, or social
engineering as you call it.


Glen

| <<< Note 698.318 by ACISS2::LEECH "extremist" >>>

| Personally, I prefer a healthy respect for God and country to this PC crapola 
| being spewed out into our kids' laps.

	Yeah, love God, love the country, and everyone else who doesn't believe
as you do is going to Hell.

I find it interesting that so many participants in this conference now seem to 
agree with my contention that gay issues are an integral component of the
perceived political gender gap (since this seems to have become a forum 
on the subject).  So, since the discussion has shifted, I think that the neo-cons
should weigh in on repub policy toward gays.  Howsabouit Newties?  Scared
to vent your true feelings?

 ZZ   Yeah, love God, love the country, and everyone else who doesn't believe
 ZZ   as you do is going to Hell.
    
    Glen, I believe truth must prevail above all else.
    
    History shows truth carries a heavy price tag.  It doesn't have to be
    flaunted...but it must not be ignored.
    
    

Chaw on this here fer awhile...

 " Now, human law is framed for a number of human beings, the majority of 
   whom are not perfect in virtue. Wherefore, human laws do not forbid all vices
   from which the virtuous abstain but only the more grievous vices from which
   it is possible for the majority to abstain and chiefly those that are to the hurt
   of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained; 
   thus human law prohibits murder, theft, and suchlike."

	- Thomas Aquinas

We can increase the earned-income credit by a couple billion 
dollars a year, and far more efficiently than raising the minimum 
wage, lift the poor out of poverty.

.326

Kudos for making a valid point, worthy of further discussion.  I'll start.

Any reasonable explanation for why the neo-cons wanna do away with
BOTH the minimum wage AND earned-income tax credit?

<<< Note 698.323 by NQOS01::nqsrv537.nqo.dec.com::OPPER "Not on MY planet, Monkey Boy!" >>>

>Howsabouit Newties?  Scared
>to vent your true feelings?

	Nope, not a bit (as you may have noticed). Since ya'll are new in
	town, I forgive you for thinking that I'm a Demo-Lib Newt hater,
	but only this once.

	;-)

	You may be suprised that a number of the noters with a pro-Gay
	opinion, wouldn't vote for Clinton on a bet.

Jim

.328

      >  You may be suprised that a number of the noters with a pro-Gay
      >  opinion, wouldn't vote for Clinton on a bet.

Nope.  Not a bit. 

YOU may be surprised that as an unabashed card-carrying member of the
progessive community, I wouldn't vote for him, either, if I had a choice.  But
what, exactly, are my options?  Frankly, I'm of the camp that Clinton and Dole
are cut of the same mold.  Either is quite comfortable cow-towing to the 
perceived pervasive political climate.  The *fundamental* difference, however,
is the underlying philosophy of their most intimate political bed-partners.

Personally, I'll opt for Clinton, however odious, and the influence of the political
left to whom he will likely turn for advice and consent, as opposed to Dole and 
the risk of further influence from an already too influential right.

Simply put, from the perspective of gay issues, do you prefer lip service (pun
intended) from the party of inclusion (Democrats), or the party of exclusion
(Republicans)?  Cause THAT'S what you're going to get, IMHO.

<<< Note 698.329 by NQOS01::nqsrv537.nqo.dec.com::OPPER "Not on MY planet, Monkey Boy!" >>>

>Simply put, from the perspective of gay issues, do you prefer lip service (pun
>intended) from the party of inclusion (Democrats), or the party of exclusion
>(Republicans)?  Cause THAT'S what you're going to get, IMHO.

	Given the possible alternatives, I'll vote for Dole. Neither he
	or CLinton are likely to really fight for Gay rights and Dole
	wins (with me) on other issues. Given the current political
	climate, the Gay rights fight will only be won in the courts.

Jim

    >Given the possible alternatives, I'll vote for Dole.
    
    We haven't been given the alternatives yet.  I expect the strain of
    running to kill him; failing that, the stress of office will.  The
    "possible alternatives" therefore include a very careful examination 
    of Dole's running mate, to be compared to Clinton.  That person isn't
    yet a given.  I can't choose, yet.
    
    DougO

             <<< Note 698.331 by SX4GTO::OLSON "DBTC Palo Alto" >>>

    
>    We haven't been given the alternatives yet. 

	Well Dole, while far from my ideal candidate wins on the most
	important criteria. He's not CLinton. I expect that Dole's running
	mate will be "not Clinton" also. ;-)

Jim

    DougO,
    
    re: .331, I couldn't agree more.  Just seeing those nasty bags under
    Clintoon's eyes, George Bush's hair (and face) turning gray after 
    "only" 4 years, gives me cause to consider what the presidency would
    do to Bob Dole.
    
    But hey, power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Mr.
    Dole is blinded after 16 years of attempts.  "I'll be the
    president, even if it kills me".
    

    for the record doctah, i was targeting Jack's note. tyvm for the
    attempt to clear that up.

      I have been surprised in the last year or so to read (some of)
      the writings of our founding fathers as they relate to God.
      It seems to me that the existence of God was something they all
      subscribed to AND EVEN MENTIONED WITHIN DOCUMENTS WHOSE CONTENT 
      WAS ABOUT GOVERNANCE.
    
      It would do well to do an exegetical study of our Constitution and
      Bill of Rights lest we interpret falsely.  It would do well to
      probe into their mindsets by becoming familiar with surrounding
      writings.
    
      It is seeming more and more clear to me that the notion of complete
      godlessness in schools and the like is a SHAM.  It is a bastardiza-
      tion of the intended meaning of the Constitution/BoR.
    
      I think their own writings testifies to a belief in God, albeit one
      that is understood to be considered in highly generic terms so far
      as where government is concerned.  
    
      Perhaps benevolent Creator who has bestowed equal rights to all
      individuals is appropriate.
    
      I think the idea of complete nonmention of Deity in government 
      buildings is more in harmony with Marx's manifesto than it is with
      the manifesto of the founding fathers.
    
      It would seem to follow (in my own thinking anyway) that public
      schools were never meant to shun any mention of God, they were
      actually meant to include God in the classroom, albeit in highly
      generic terms - terms that are inclusive enough to embrace 
      Mohamedism, Judaism, Christianity, and any religion that perceived
      of God as Creator, as benevolent, and as bestowing equal rights to
      all persons (i.e. "God-given rights").   (Gee, I think I even read
      that in some American government document of some sort - certainly
      not in the communist constitution tho!)
    
    							Tony
                                             

 Z   do you prefer lip service (pun
 Z   intended) from the party of inclusion (Democrats), or the party of
 Z   exclusion (Republicans)? 
    
    You sap...they're laughing at you!  

.330

        > Given the current political climate, the Gay rights fight will only
        > be won in the courts.

Stacked, if Dole wins, by ultra-con judges.

BTW, My first TYPO!  (See .329).  And it the TITLE, no less.  I really 
feel
like I belong here, now...

.336

I'm truly shocked.

    
      Actually, it IS interesting that so many issues have been
     listed here as gender issues that have no obvious link to
     gender at all.  Even on subjects like the environment, or
     the seat belt laws, there is a gender gap.  There is a gap
     in the percentage who think OJ really did it, on what TV
     programs to watch, on what to eat, on church attendence,
     on how warm to set the thermostat.
    
      bb

.337

My SECOND typo!  Mamma, they really LIKE me here!  I'm a
SOMMEBUDY!

    .320
    
    >Now if you could find it in your heart to agree that everyone's god is
    >equally valid - to the individual person - then we might get
    >somewhere.
    
     Certainly.  If someone really believes that a tree is god, then that
    tree is a valid god-figure to THEM.  This does not meant that truth
    back up their belief, however.
    
    I've never said that anyone's god is not valid to THEM. 
    
    
    -steve

    .322
    
    
    If you have a point to make, make it.  Please leave the hysterics out
    of the discussion, though.  Thanks.

    .335
    
    Much of what you say is absolutely correct.  Amazing how things get
    twisted around over the years, eh?
    
    What you have to understand about the mindset behind our Constitution
    is where the FF believed governmental power originates.  Once you
    realize this train of throught, the rest of their writings and such
    make a bit more sense, and the modern re-interpretations fall apart.
    
    
    -steve

 ZZ   Stacked, if Dole wins, by ultra-con judges.
    
    Not to worry, Dole is a centrist just like Clinton is...you said it
    yourself.  Besides, the damage has already been done and there are
    plenty of liberal lifers in the courts as it is.
    
    I'm in agreement with you that the gay rights issue will be resolved in
    the courts.  I also believe they will ultimately win.
    
    -Jack

    
    .335
    
    It's your manifesto!
    
    Marx mentions Gods and Religions quite a bit in his various works.
    His manifesto might not, but then neither does the Contract With
    America, which is the modern equivalent of the political manifesto - a
    distillation of ideology.
    
    However, at least those on a nodding acquaintance with Marx would know
    the famous quote on religion being the opiate of the masses and suspect
    that this was all there was to his opinion on the matter.  It's more
    true that he simply saw religion as a strong force in socialisation.  He
    noted that there were distinct differences  between the religions practised by
    the different classes ("The Condition of the Working Class in England",
    [Germany] 1844).  On the whole, both He and Engels were neutral on the
    subject, only illustrating that it could indeed be a force for
    maintaining class differences in Victorian England.
    
    Some historians hold that later socialists such as Lenin, misinterpreted
    Marx, and that the removal of organized religion was essential for
    removing all class barriers.
    
    Ironically, eliminating class differences had also been a goal of the
    founding fathers of the USA, and Marx was very aware of the founding
    principles of both the American and the French revolutions. At that
    time the BoR was the first and only document that specifically
    separated Church and State.  Marx may even have got some ideas from the
    FF.
                                                            
    Colin
    
     

.335

Boy howdy!  This conference sure has gone off the deep tangent!
As long as we're on the subject, however, let's see if we can FINALLY
put this puppy to rest.  All of you who think we've become a godless
society, put your ears REAAAL close to the screen... This is one of
the most religious nations on earth.  And, it's predominantly Christian.
Much as you would prefer to hear otherwise, there is NO conspiracy
to undermine your faith or spirituality.  (Well, none that I'm willing to 
admit to here, anyway.)

If there is ANY issue here, it's that some confused individuals sense
that Christians are being discriminated against.  Calm down, fellow
sinners.  My cable system boasts FOUR Christian channels.  My
neighborhood has only ONE bookstore - a Christian bookstore.  You
get the point.

Ya wanna know REAL discrimination?  Try growing up Jewish in a
wasp's nest.  Try praying to Jesus while biting your tongue.  Try taking
a day off of school for Yom Kippur.

Ya wanna know what us little Jewish kids did?  We followed the sage
advice of one whose name currently escapes me - turned the other cheek.
You might want to try it, too.

    Steve Opper What are you ranting about now???  This has absolutely
    nothing to do with discrimination or anything like it.
    
    In my book, any thumper who is outed, ousted, shunned, or what have you
    is normal.  If a thumper can't deal with it then a thumper should keep
    to him/herself.  I do want to clear up a misconception that has been
    going around though.  We are NOT a Christian nation and we never really
    were a Christian nation.  We are a nation is is FOUNDED on Judeo
    Christian principles.  For example, our Senate is similar to the
    Princes or representatives Moses used throughout the twelve tribes. 
    Another example...George Washington didn't lead the Revolution until
    AFTER the Continental Congress was established.  He believed in the
    precepts of scripture that we do not have the right to revolt against
    our own government unless we break off and become a sovereign unto
    ourselves.  There are many other principles our FF used from Biblical
    Principles....The OLD TESTAMENT also, but you will find most of the
    FF's to be Agnostics or Deists.
    
 Z   the most religious nations on earth.  And, it's predominantly
 Z   Christian.
    
    I agree with you in part on this one.  We are probably one of the most
    religious nations in western culture, however, being predominantly
    Christian is questionable.  I would say we are definitely a gentile
    nation but Deism and Christianity are two different things.  Another
    thing, one's religion is not determined by their heritage.  It is
    determined by their faith...or allegiance!
    
    
    -Jack

  Z   We are a nation is is FOUNDED 
    
    was

      re: .346
    
      Could you please explain to me how it is you
    
    1) Discussed my reply from the perspective of intimating a
       'specific' God.
    
    2) While the entire force of my reply had to do with accomadating
       a 'generic' God.  (One as I said is generic enough to accomadate
       Mohamedism, Judaism, and Christianity.  I purposely placed
       Christianity last.  One that I defined as specifically as
       a benevolent Creator who had bequeathed equal rights to all
       persons.)
    
    Can you reconcile this for me?
    
    Your discussion about how many cable channels there are is completely
    irrelevent to the point I made which is this.  Our government is
    interpreted as being godless.  The writers inferred no such thing.
    
    						Tony

.347, .349

The underlying tenet of this thread is that we are a godless nation, as
reflected by the reluctance of government to accomodate spirituality
in matters public.  I propose that this argument is unfounded and
ridiculous.  The influence of god (however generic) can be found
throughout instruments of the government, including daily benedictions
in Congress, our currency, ad nauseum.

My assertion is that the "godless society" non-issue is a trump by (dare
I say it) fundamentalist Christians whose agenda is to interject Christian
theology into the public arena.  And, further, I contend that no need
whatsoever exists to further that agenda, as Christian theology is an
integral component of American society, both public and private.

Current issues of separation of Church and State do not reflect a desire
to remove spirituality from the public arena; rather, they are an on-going
attempt to avoid government advocacy of any specific religion.  The current
administration has affirmed this, as has the current Supreme Court.

Perhaps we are all agreeing on this subject, but I defy you to convince me
that conservative Christian mouthpieces (including the preponderance of
the 104th freshman class) are not actively attempting to force a pro-Christian
government onto the backs of the people.

    Boy, miss a day, miss a lot.
    
    .284
    
    Please cite direct examples of your contentions - not just the
    Democratic liberal hype about how disasterous the Republican proposals
    would be.  It seems as if the fact the the targeted programs are out of
    control and unrealistic and desparately need changing equates the
    proposes changes means disaster.
    
    You apparently think that any changes are out of the question.  that
    any attempt to change the status quo is an attempt to trash the
    environment, etc, etc.
    
    .286
    
    Your comment about smoking in private is off base.  there have been
    several attempts to limit smoking at home.  One was in an apartment
    building.  Also, there are numerous reports of activits attempting to
    take children away from parents who smoke because it is damaging to the
    children, even though the children haven't had any consequences, it is
    consisdered a form of child abuse.  So your claim of a limited ban on
    smoking is wrong.
    
    .290, .292, .294 & .295
    
    I didn't read all of the note in detail but can you identify the parts
    of the "supposed" Republican positions that are unacceptable?  Most of
    what I read seemed to be rather moderate and rational approach to each
    of the topics.  Please specify what is wrong or unacceptable with the
    positions stated.
    
    .313
    
    Your claim that people may be moral, but in a different way, I think,
    identifies the problem.  Your poisiton implies that there are no such
    things as moral absolutes, and I disagree.  I believe that there are
    moral absolutes and even though you and others may not like it, doesn't
    mean that they don't exist.  As a point of reference, I assume that
    there are some things that you believe are wrong.  What would your
    reaction be if suddenly these were to be claimed as acceptable.
    
    Think of the changes that have taken place over the past 30 years. 
    Issues such as abortion, premarital sex and pregnancy, "recreational"
    drug use, treatment of criminals a societal victims and homosexuality
    would have been unthinkable as valid issues requiring serious debate or
    discussion.  Well here we are actually debating these issues and a
    measurable amount of people actually agree and support them.  Well,
    what changes do you think might take place in the next 30 years that
    seem unthinkable today?  As we continue to claim that there are no
    moral absolutes and everyone is entitled to their own morals, what will
    be acceptable then.  Can it be envisioned that rapists will be viewed
    as victims as they are just acting out their personal predisposition,
    can muggers and thieves be considered as oppresed and their victims
    should not have recourse against them as they have too much.  If there
    is a right to die, then can we decide that the government can decide
    who should be eliminated even if they do not want to commit suicide.
    
    These are just a few issues that may strike you as too outrageous to be
    considered, but I'm sure 30 years ago the majority of people held the
    same opinion.  so if there are no absolutes, then why can't we continue
    to extend these individual "morals"?
    

| <<< Note 698.342 by ACISS2::LEECH "extremist" >>>


| If you have a point to make, make it. Please leave the hysterics out of the 
| discussion, though. Thanks.

	Steve, I'd love to leave the republican party out of the picture. But
they have a candidate running this year.

.351

I cited the source for these "supposed" Republican positions.  If you
can't believe the repubs themselves...  Further, *I* didn't say anything
about the acceptability or lack thereof concerning these positions.  If you
want to believe they are moderate, fine.  I was merely providing a point
of reference for the discussion.  I refuse to waste my time debating these
issues point by point - the rest of you can have 'em.

BTB, thirty years ago women were dying from back-alley abortions, black
men were being lynched in the South, and the high school dropout rate
was something on the order of 40%.  Feel free to return to those care-free
days if you wish, but don't bother to send me any postcards...

    
    re: .353
    
    >back-alley abortions...
    
    You forgot to add the "coat-hanger" rhetoric that usually goes with
    that drek...
    

.354

Yeah, sorry.  Ahh, to return to the good ole days of back-alley [coat hanger]
abortions.

Oh, and I forgot more detail:  Ahh, to return to the good ole days of lynching
Negroes [from the highest branch].

Where's my head???  I forgot Ahh, to return to the GREAT ole days when we
fed Christians to lions [in the public arena].

There.  Feel better, now?

 Z   Where's my head???  I forgot Ahh, to return to the GREAT ole days when
 Z   we fed Christians to lions [in the public arena].
    
    Non sequitor.  The Roman Government condoned the policies of Ceaser.
    Liberal ideologues killed Christians because they were compelled under
    the fear of Rome.  Todays version would do something like this because
    they are blinded by their mythical mantras of feeling good about
    themselves.
    
    

    
    
    re: .355
    
    You forgot....
    
    "The sky is falling!!!  The sky is falling!!"
    
    
     There.. now I feel better... do you??
    

 The world will be a much better place if all of us Christians just shut
 up and went away, wouldn't it?




 Jim

    
    >The world will be a much better place if all of us Christians just
    >shut up and went away, wouldn't it?
    
    No! Not at all!
    Although I certainly understand why you might feel that way.
    
    						Hank

    
    Addressing the base note and title of this topic, if I may...
    
    I have long been puzzled by womens continuing support of Bill Clinton
    even though women traditionally seem to vote democratic.
    
    I'm puzzled because of his past behaviour; i.e.cheating on his wife.
    Seems to be a very disrespectful way to treat a woman one is married
    to. But alone I can see that being dismissed. What really puzzled
    me was late during the election or perhaps right after (can't quite
    remember exactly) when Betsy Wright was put in charge of squelching
    the "bimbo's" if any more other than Gennifer Flowers came forward.
    I thought that this was extremely insulting to women in general.
    And then of course we have the sexual harrassment lawsuit pending.
    But that too seems to be brushed off by liberal women.
    Is this yet another double standard by those on the left?
    
    						Hank
    
    

    Exactly.  I get very annoyed when politicians make fools out of you and
    consider you mental midgets like sheep going to the slaughter.
    
    

.356

Hey!  I thought I made it clear that I MISS those days.

.357

Never felt better.

.358

And learn how to use your turn signals.

    .351
    
    
    >>.284
    
        Please cite direct examples of your contentions<<
    
    
    Take a running jump Rocush.  It's a holiday weekend, if you want
    direct examples look them up yourself.  They are in any newspaper
    you want to consult.  Start looking in January 1995 forward.
    
    I'm going to have FUNNNNN!!!!!
    
    
      

    .358
    
    >>The world will be a much better place if all of us Christians just
    shut up and went away, wouldn't it?<<
    
    A man of true wisdom!
    

    
    re: .358
    
    
    His sarcasm was better than yours...
    
    hth

    RE: .360  Hank

    > I have long been puzzled by womens continuing support of Bill Clinton
    > even though women traditionally seem to vote democratic.
    
    He's very strong on issues that most women find important, for one
    thing.

    > I'm puzzled because of his past behaviour; i.e.cheating on his wife.
    > Seems to be a very disrespectful way to treat a woman one is married
    > to. But alone I can see that being dismissed. What really puzzled
    > me was late during the election or perhaps right after (can't quite
    > remember exactly) when Betsy Wright was put in charge of squelching
    > the "bimbo's" if any more other than Gennifer Flowers came forward.
    > I thought that this was extremely insulting to women in general.

    What is REALLY insulting to women in general is this attitude that
    most women support Bill Clinton because we've been fooled or duped
    (as though some Republicans think women can be manipulated by saying
    that Clinton is insulting us and that this Republican tactic will work 
    because only men can think clearly about politics.)

    > And then of course we have the sexual harrassment lawsuit pending.
    > But that too seems to be brushed off by liberal women.

    Again, some people think women can be manipulated by bringing up
    this lawsuit, apparently.  (I'm not referring to you, in particular,
    but to arguments about this lawsuit in general.)

    Liberal women aren't required to always believe a woman over a man
    in every possible situation.  This story doesn't ring true to most
    Liberal women.                    
    
    > Is this yet another double standard by those on the left?

    "YET ANOTHER" actually does sound manipulative.  Are you hoping that
    women will refuse to vote for Clinton just to prove to you that they
    are trying to be fair?  :)  (Mostly kidding about this part.)

| <<< Note 698.354 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "tumble to remove burrs" >>>


| You forgot to add the "coat-hanger" rhetoric that usually goes with that drek.


	I only wish it were drek. But it ain't.

    Suzanne:
    
    It minimizes the whole issue of sexual harrassment when people like
    Gloria Steynm and Patricia Ireland jump up and down over the likes of a 
    Clarence Thomas but don't act in kind to Bill Clinton.
    
    I don't believe Clinton has to be scorned by women but for crying out
    loud, the true colors show when the disparity is present.  Hell let's
    be honest with ourselves.  

    Honesty doesn't come into play, Jack.  It is nothing more than partisan
    politics that is being displayed here.  The hypocrisy is obvious to
    anyone willing to see it.
    
    
    -steve

    Jack,
    
    For whatever reasons, the Clintons have remained married, unlike many
    politicians being supported by the Repubs who divorced wives of many
    years after coming into their own power.  
    
    I also have a problem seeing Libby Dole right now.  Where is this
    bright, accomplished, professional in her own right these days.  I have
    not heard her speak, or seen her do more than a handwave for the last 4
    months.  Seems like dole is trying his best to keep her under wraps. 
    What a shame, she could be the best thing going for Bob.
    
    meg

    
>    I also have a problem seeing Libby Dole right now.  Where is this
>    bright, accomplished, professional in her own right these days.  I have
>    not heard her speak, or seen her do more than a handwave for the last 4
>    months.  Seems like dole is trying his best to keep her under wraps. 
>    What a shame, she could be the best thing going for Bob.
    
 

      Managing the International Red Cross, perhaps?

    she's probably the best thing going for bob's dole.

    RE: .368  Jack

    > It minimizes the whole issue of sexual harrassment when people like
    > Gloria Steynm and Patricia Ireland jump up and down over the likes of a 
    > Clarence Thomas but don't act in kind to Bill Clinton.

    It minimizes sexual harassment when the very people who RIDICULE the
    issue of sexual harassment go into PARADE mode when they find a woman
    willing to say that their despised enemy harassed her.

    Women aren't required to believe every woman's word over every man's
    word (as a way to be 'consistent' somehow), especially when people
    trash women for the mere PERCEPTION that women automatically believe 
    women over men in other situations ("You just believe her because she
    is a woman!")

    You can't have it both ways - you can't trash women for siding with
    a woman in one case (by saying women only did this BECAUSE women
    always side with women) and then trash women for NOT siding with a
    woman in another case (by saying that women are SUPPOSED to always
    side with women in order to be consistent.)

    > I don't believe Clinton has to be scorned by women but for crying out
    > loud, the true colors show when the disparity is present.  Hell let's
    > be honest with ourselves.  

    It's most honest to take each case on its own merits.  In the case
    against Clinton, her story does not ring true for most women.  Why
    should we back her if we don't believe her?  It wouldn't make sense.

    Libby took a leave of absence for campaigning for her husband, however,
    since doing that she seems to have disapeered off radar, except for a
    limp-wristed handwave in Kansas.
    
    It is a shame as the message I get from not seeing her is that
    Republicans can't handle professional women who are married to
    presidential candidates.  Given the hatchet job on Hillary by the same
    people, I suppose it should come as no surprise.
    
    meg

Where exactly is Dole campaining these days?

I thought he went back to the Senate after wrapping up the 
nomination?

daryll

    RE: .369  Steve Leech

    > Honesty doesn't come into play, Jack.  It is nothing more than partisan
    > politics that is being displayed here.  The hypocrisy is obvious to
    > anyone willing to see it.

    The hypocrisy is the practice of trashing women for siding with a
    woman on the basis that it's wrong to automatically agree with women
    over men, and then trashing women for siding with a man on the basis
    that women are SUPPOSED to automatically agree with women (when you
    agree with the *woman* this time.)

    
   > The hypocrisy is the practice of trashing women for siding with a
   > woman on the basis that it's wrong to automatically agree with women
   > over men, and then trashing women for siding with a man on the basis
   > that women are SUPPOSED to automatically agree with women (when you
   > agree with the *woman* this time.)

     Quite a sentence!
    
    ed

    Thank you, Ed.  :)

    
    
    You are welcome. But I'm still trying to figure it out!
    
    ed

    
    re: .366
    
    >This story doesn't ring true to most Liberal women.
                                          ^^^^^^^
    
    Is this a town in Colorado??
    
    
    Oh! You mean "liberal women"!
    
    
    BTW.. this is verifiable, I presume??

    RE: .379  Ed

    > You are welcome. But I'm still trying to figure it out!

    Think of it this way:

    	Women side with a woman: "Oh, you're just doing that because
    				   she's a woman!!"

    	Women side with a man: "Hey, you're supposed to side with women!!
    				 You're being inconsistent and hypocritical
    				 if you don't side with the woman this time!"

    Either way, women get trashed if they don't agree with Republicans
    (and the majority of women seldom do.)  :)

    Suzanne:
    
    Which teaches us a lesson that maybe we all shouldn't form an opinion
    until all the facts are out.  Patricia Ireland was pitching a hissy fit
    over Thomas before the man got to testify.  Patricia Ireland was
    pitching a hissy fit the first day the Jones allegations came out. 
    Maybe political posturing or spin doctoring isn't always expedient for
    anybody.  Fair enough?
    
    Meg, I'll be as charitable as I can here.  Hillary Clinton has been
    railed because of Hillary Clinton.  Nobody else.  After all the poo poo
    she's been involved in, I would say scum bum is about as gentile as I
    can get with her.  As far as her personal ideology regarding the
    family..."It Takes a Village" may as well be titled, "It Takes a
    Government."  Socialist tripe.  
    
    You picked a poor champion Meg.  
    
    -Jack

    .376
    
    This particular nit isn't even a gender issue, as far as I'm concerned,
    it is one of partisan politics (as I outlined in my note).  You've
    obviously missed the point that was brough up by Jack, and commented on
    by myself.  
    
    As usual, you prefer to dip into the pages of the Monty Python textbook of
    debating... Help help! I'm being repressed!!   
    
    
    -steve 

	Steve, and as usual you just dismiss what the other person is saying.



Glen

    Glen, and as usual you maintain your inability to think critically!!!

    RE: .382  Jack Martin

    > Which teaches us a lesson that maybe we all shouldn't form an opinion
    > until all the facts are out.  Patricia Ireland was pitching a hissy fit
    > over Thomas before the man got to testify.

    George Bush trashed Anita Hill on the day her charges were revealed.
    The White House said they were against her before they ever saw her.

    > Patricia Ireland was pitching a hissy fit the first day the Jones 
    > allegations came out. Maybe political posturing or spin doctoring 
    > isn't always expedient for anybody.  

    Right wingers were *standing with* Paula Jones in order to help her
    make her charges.  They funded her almost a million dollars, in fact,
    although the money may have been returned when it became so apparent
    that Bill's enemies were the backbone behind this whole thing.

    > Fair enough?

    Anita Hill is trashed by the right to this very day for daring to
    bring sexual harassment charges against Thomas.  Imagine the nerve
    of her trying to stop his confirmation with her measly 'her word
    against his word' allegation.

    Now, these same people support Paula Jones and they act as if one 
    woman's word about what happened when they were alone damn well 
    *ought* to be enough to nail the President of the United States, 
    whom they despise.

    If Anita's word was not enough to hang Clarence, then Paula's word
    is not enough to hang Bill.  (Isn't this fair?)

| <<< Note 698.385 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| Glen, and as usual you maintain your inability to think critically!!!

	I thought I was very critical. :-)

    RE: .383  Steve Leech
    
    In other words, Steve, I disagreed with you.
    
    Thanks for pointing this out to me.  :)

    steve can't help it - he's xtreem.

    The Democratic and Republican parties are both controlled by mostly men.
    
    The Democrats support and fight for the issues important to most women.
    
    The Republicans yell at women (as if it might help):
    
    		1. "You're just prejudiced in favor of women!"
    		2. "You're just dealing in the same ole partisan politics!"
    		3. "You're just suuuuch vi-i-i-i-ictims."
    
    
    And some people wonder why there's a gender gap.  :)

 ZZ    -< "We yell at you and piss you off. Vote for us anyway, ok?" >-
    
    Conversely....
    
    We don't really give two poops about your rights...and we actually
    think you're chattel.  Vote for us so we can maintain this power surge
    over you!

    RE: .391  Jack Martin
    
    >>  -< "We yell at you and piss you off. Vote for us anyway, ok?" >-
    
    > Conversely....
    
    > We don't really give two poops about your rights...and we actually
    > think you're chattel.  Vote for us so we can maintain this power surge
    > over you!
    
    Republicans express it this way when they're being REALLY honest.  :)

So where do Lynn Martin and Christine Todd Whitman among others 
fit in?

daryll

    As INDIVIDUALS, women and minorities have a lot to gain by becoming
    prominent in the Republican party.  (Clarence Thomas is a good example
    of this.)
    
    The majority of women vote for issues which affect women in general,
    and the Republican party seldom seems to come down on the 'good' side
    of issues which the majority of women consider important.

.391

Thanks for your honesty.  In fact, let's turn this whole conference into a
confessional.  I'll start:

I believe that women have an unalienable right to do with their bodies
such as they please.  No limits.  None.

Now, you say:  I believe that men can dictate, at their whim, what a woman
can and cannot do with her body.  It's in the Bible, ya know, so it's a
fundamental truth.  And further, any woman who defies this control is
a criminal, and should be treated as such.

But I hate to put words in your mouth.  You're off to such a good start, please
continue...

    But anyway,
    
    Where is Elizabeth Dole?
    
    Anyone want to tell me?  She has come across as an intelligent person
    in her own right, until Bob became the front-runner.  
    
    Until I see her out in public, I have a major problem with the RNC
    trying to hide competant women who ar married to candidates.
    
    

RE: 698.355 by NQOS01::nqsrv521.nqo.dec.com::OPPER "Not on MY planet, Monk

And you forgot,  Ahh,  to return to the WONDERFUL ole days of heretic
burning,  when the Christians burnt Christians over minutiae of doctrine. 


Phil

    Steve:
    
    Actually, I never implied anything of the such.  But since we're on the
    subject....you claim to be Jewish in a gentile society...and I
    sympathize with your plight.  However, I find it interesting that you
    seem to cleave to gentile ideologies more than that of the faith you
    claim to possess.
    
    I would recommend you go back to your roots and get a better grasp of
    the Hebrew scriptures.  Then maybe you'll have a better grasp at what
    you believe and what your talking about!
    
    

	Jack, I could be wrong, but I don't think anyone is asking for any
sympathy from you. Understanding would be nice, but I guess you are yet again
not doing this. 


Glen

    
    re: .397
    
    See Phil...
    
    See Phil hate...
    
    Can you ask Phil, "Why?"
    

    Glen, 
    
    Sure, I understand the situation.  My point still stands.  Steve needs
    to understand the precepts of the Hebrew law a little better before
    openly cleacing to gentile ideologies.  He brought religion into the
    fold here, I didn't.

    
    was it Bobby Riggs who once said "Women should keep their biscuit's
    in the oven, and they're buns in bed" ??   I believe he was quoted as
    such.

  .402  he didn't talk too good.

    
    re: .402
    
    I'm still willing to help out mz_deb, should she ask...
    

    women are buns in bed?

 ZZ   .402  he didn't talk too good.
    
    He didn't speak too eloquently either!

    .363
    
    Thank you for suggesting I keep physically fit, but I don't think
    that's what you meant.  As far as looking up the information, do you
    mean to read the distortions and misrepresentations that were all over
    the print and broadcast meadia since January and before?  Do you mean,
    for example, that the Republicans were going to kill old people with
    their Medicare proposals that were $8 less than that compassionate Bill
    clinton's proposal?  You still are unable to point to any proposal
    that carries with it the dire consequences you imply.
    
    As far as the othe other rather lame attempts to differentiate between
    Anita Hill and Paula Jones.  The difference is that a woman made a
    charge against a conservative, and therefore she should be believed. 
    On the other hand, Paula Jones charged a liberal and therefore she
    can't be believed.  What is apparent is that the self-identified
    liberal women will not extend the same standards when one of their own
    is involved.  Your claims of objectivity would be easier to accept and
    believe if you doubted Hill and supported Jones, but that's too much to
    ask.  The inability of any "liberal" women to even consider supporting
    a candidate like Lynn Martin, Christine Todd Whitman and Kay
    Bailey Hutchinson clearly shows that an agenda is more important than
    actually trying to make progress.
    
    Lastly, the complaints about Elizabeth Dole are equally hollow. 
    Elizabeth Doile is not running for any office and until she does, there
    is really no need for her to be a highly visible part of Bob Dole's
    campaign.  If and when she is identified as an integral part of his
    administration, like taking on health care, then it would be
    appropriate to see her and identify what her positions are.  Until then
    it is as appropriate as asking about where a candidiate's children
    stand on issues and why they aren't out in the public's eye.
     

    .398
    
    I hate to state the obvious, but let's not forget that Jesus, himself,
    was a Jew.  "Cleaving" to gentile ideologies, as you perceive it, is
    nothing more than adhering to Jewish tenet (as has been adopted by
    Christianity), as well as accepting some of Christ's teachings as
    valid.  This is no more contradictory than Methodists, Presbyterians,
    Catholics, et al asserting their Christian heritage while accepting the
    additional spin applied to the Bible by their particular faith.
    
    Further, I'm not sure to which "gentile" ideologies you are referring. 
    It is once again stating the obvious to note that the "Golden Rule" is
    consistent throughout all of the world's major religions.
    
    Finally, I do not "claim" to be Jewish, I AM Jewish, and devoutly so. 
    My heritage, however, is not the issue.  It is that this country IS
    predominantly Christian, and most certainly spiritual.  Perhaps my
    being a Jew in a gentile society allows me to see the claims of
    Christian persecution through the eyes of one who has been the victim
    of discrimination, and assure you and your brethren that you need not
    be concerned.
    

    RE: .407  Rocush

    > As far as the othe other rather lame attempts to differentiate between
    > Anita Hill and Paula Jones.  The difference is that a woman made a
    > charge against a conservative, and therefore she should be believed. 
    > On the other hand, Paula Jones charged a liberal and therefore she
    > can't be believed.  

    So, either women are charged with being prejudiced against men (as
    'always siding with women') or women are charged with being prejudiced
    against conservatives.  Either way, women are trashed, so why the
    hell should the majority of women care what Republicans say at all?
    (This is part of the Gender Gap.)

    > What is apparent is that the self-identified liberal women will not 
    > extend the same standards when one of their own is involved.  

    If women were obligated to believe other women over men, it would
    be easy to conquer the majority of women's votes.  All you'd need to
    do is to get conservative women to yell at the liberal women.

    It isn't that simple, though.  The idea of Republicans believing that
    women should be this easy to turn is another part of the Gender Gap.

    > Your claims of objectivity would be easier to accept and believe if 
    > you doubted Hill and supported Jones, but that's too much to ask.  

    Gee, do you really think the majority of women would go against their
    own beliefs to PROVE SOMETHING TO YOU?  HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA

    > The inability of any "liberal" women to even consider supporting
    > a candidate like Lynn Martin, Christine Todd Whitman and Kay
    > Bailey Hutchinson clearly shows that an agenda is more important than
    > actually trying to make progress.

    The majority of women vote for Democrats because of candidates' stands 
    on the issues (not because of the sex of a given candidate.)

    Don't Repub men vote for candidates because of the issues (or would they
    vote for a male liberal over a female conservative?)  I don't think so.

| <<< Note 698.401 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>


	You say this:

| Sure, I understand the situation.  

	Then you say:

| My point still stands.  Steve needs to understand the precepts of the Hebrew 
| law a little better before openly cleacing to gentile ideologies.  He brought 
| religion into the fold here, I didn't.

	You don't understand. You never would have said this if you did.

    .401
    
    > Steve needs
    > to understand the precepts of the Hebrew law a little better
    
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!  >gasp<
    
    This, coming from you?  Are you angling for Gerald Sacks to stomp on
    you again, is that it?

    Dick:
    
    Hmmm...pointer please.  I don't recall Gerald Sacks stomping on me at
    all Dick.  I remember Gerald pointing out the differences between
    Judaism under the Mosaic law and Judaism after the Council of Jania...I
    already understood the difference.
    
 Z   It is once again stating the obvious to note that the "Golden Rule" is
 Z       consistent throughout all of the world's major religions.
    
    Absolutely incorrect.  Common assumption by most however.  I was quite
    careful not to bring Christianity into the fold of this discussion.  I
    believe I used the term, Gentile.  Israel has a prolonged history of
    being surrounded by gentile nations...nations who were into the
    practice of idolatry and practices similar to what we have adopted in
    this country today.  Check into the historical background of Israel,
    you will find the Golden Rule most assuredly did not exist. 
    Egypt...400 years into slavery...Oppression by the Philistines, the
    Babylonians, the Medo Persians, and a prolonged period of repression
    under Rome.  Nevermind contemporary persecution in Europe.  
    
    You're keeping company with the wrong people if you are truly of
    Abraham.
    
    -Jack
    

    .412
    
    Hindu Faith
    
    This is the sum of duty: do naught to others which if done to thee
    would cause thee pain. The Mahabharata 
    
    Jewish Faith
    
    What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow men. That is the entire
    Law; all the rest is commentary. The Talmud 
    
    Zoroastrian Faith
    
    "Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others."
    Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29 
    
    Buddhist Faith
    
    Hurt not others with that which pains yourself. Udana-Varga 
    
    Christian Faith
    
    All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so
    to them: for this is the law and the prophets. The
    Gospel of Matthew Matt 7:12, Luke 6:31 
    
    Muslim Faith
    
    No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which
    he desires for himself. Hadith 
    
    Bah�'*iacute; Faith
    
    And if thine eyes be turned towards justice, choose thou for thy
    neighbour that which thou choosest for thyself. _Epistle to the
    Son of the Wolf_, 30 
    
    And yet some other sources:
    
    "Do not do unto others what angers you if done to you by others."
    Isocrates 436-338 BCE "An it harm none, do what thou
    wilt." Wiccan Rede "Tzu-kung asked, 'Is there a single word which can
    be a guide to conduct throughout one's life?' The
    Master said, 'It is perhaps the word "shu." Do not impose on others
    what you yourself do not desire.'" Analects, 15.24
    Christianity: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Summations by
    the author of this article did not include the following
    comparable statement of Jesus Christ in the New Testament, King James
    version, which says a bit more that what the author is
    representing under "Chritianity" It is found in the book of Matthew,
    Chapter 7 verse 12, and says "Therefore all things
    whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them:
    for this is the law and the prophets." ----- THE
    GOLDEN RULE The Golden Rule or the ethic of reciprocity is found in the
    scriptures of nearly every religion. It is often
    regarded as the most concise and general principle of ethics. It is a
    condensation in one principle of all longer lists of ordinances
    such as the Decalogue. See also texts on Loving Kindness, pp. 967-73.
    You shall love your neighbor as yourself. Judaism
    and Christianity. Bible, Leviticus 19.18 Whatever you wish that men
    would do to you, do so to them. Christianity. Bible,
    Matthew 7.12 Not one of you is a believer until he loves for his
    brother what he loves for himself. Islam. Forty Hadith of
    an-Nawawi 13 A man should wander about treating all creatures as he
    himself would be treated. Jainism. Sutrakritanga
    1.11.33 Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated
    yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to
    benevolence. Confucianism. Mencius VII.A.4 One should not behave
    towards others in a way which is disagreeable to oneself.
    This is the essence of morality. All other activities are due to
    selfish desire. Hinduism. Mahabharata, Anusasana Parva 113.8
    Tsekung asked, "Is there one word that can serve as a principle of
    conduct for life?" Confucius replied, "It is the word
    shu--reciprocity: Do not do to others what you do not want them to do
    to you." Confucianism. Analects 15.23 - - - - - - - - - -
    - - Leviticus 19.18: Quoted by Jesus in Matthew 22.36-40 (below).
    Mencius VII.A.4 and Analects 15.23: Cf. Analects
    6.28.2, p. 975. - - - - - - - - - - - - Comparing oneself to others in
    such terms as "Just as I am so are they, just as they are so
    am I," he should neither kill nor cause others to kill. Buddhism. Sutta
    Nipata 705 One going to take a pointed stick to pinch a
    baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts. African
    Traditional Religions. Yoruba Proverb (Nigeria) One who
    you think should be hit is none else but you. One who you think should
    be governed is none else but you. One who you think
    should be tortured is none else but you. One who you think should be
    enslaved is none else but you. One who you think should
    be killed is none else but you. A sage is ingenuous and leads his life
    after comprehending the parity of the killed and the killer.
    Therefore, neither does he cause violence to others nor does he make
    others do so. Jainism. Acarangasutra 5.101-2 The
    Ariyan disciple thus reflects, Here am I, fond of my life, not wanting
    to die, fond of pleasure and averse from pain. Suppose
    someone should rob me of my life... it would not be a thing pleasing
    and delightful to me. If I, in my turn, should rob of his life
    one fond of his life, not wanting to die, one fond of pleasure and
    averse from pain, it would not be a thing pleasing or delightful
    to him. For a state that is not pleasant or delightful to me must also
    be to him also; and a state that is not pleasing or delightful to
    me, how could I inflict that upon another? As a result of such
    reflection he himself abstains from taking the life of creatures and
    he encourages others so to abstain, and speaks in praise of so
    abstaining. Buddhism. Samyutta Nikaya v.353 A certain heathen
    came to Shammai and said to him, "Make me a proselyte, on condition
    that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one
    foot." Thereupon he repulsed him with the rod which was in his hand.
    When he went to Hillel, he said to him, "What is hateful
    to you, do not do to your neighbor: that is the whole Torah; all the
    rest of it is commentary; go and learn." Judaism. Talmud,
    Shabbat 31a - - - - - - - - - - - - Sutta Nipata 705: Cf. Dhammapada
    129-130, p. 478. Acarangasutra 5.101-2: Cf.
    Dhammapada 129-130, p. 478. Samyutta Nikaya v.353: The passage gives a
    similar reflection about abstaining from other
    types of immoral behavior: theft, adultery, etc. To identify oneself
    with others is also a corollary to the Mahayana insight that all
    reality is interdependent and mutually related; cf. Guide to a
    Bodhisattva's Way of Life 8.112-16, p. 181; Majjhima Nikaya
    i.415, p. 465. - - - - - - - - - - - - "Teacher, which is the great
    commandment in the law?" Jesus said to him, "You shall love the
    Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all
    your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And
    a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these
    two commandments depend all the law and the
    prophets." Christianity. Bible, Matthew 22.36-40 - - - - - - - - - - -
    - Matthew 22.36-40: Cf. Deuteronomy 6.4-9, p. 55;
    Leviticus 19.18, p. 173; Luke 10.25-37, p. 971; Galatians 6.2, p. 974;
    Brihadaranyaka Upanishad - - - - - - - - - - - - 
    

>                         Check into the historical background of Israel,
>    you will find the Golden Rule most assuredly did not exist. 

Leviticus 19:18.  I haven't really been following this string, but are you
saying that because Jews have been persecuted by non-Jews, the golden rule
is a Christian concept?  That's a very strange argument.

Leviticus 19:18  Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the 
children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the 
LORD. 

Z    I haven't really been following this string, but are you
Z    saying that because Jews have been persecuted by non-Jews, the golden
Z    rule is a Christian concept?  That's a very strange argument.
    
    No, I'm not saying that at all Gerald, and Steve, thanks for posting
    what you did.  Unfortunately, the harsh reality is that the Golden
    Rule, which is apparently a part of the rhetoric of many mainstream
    religions in the world, is rarely implemented.  This is why I brought
    up some of the historical facts of Pagan nations treatment of Judaism
    throughout history.
    
    The bottom line question or point I was making to Steve was:
    
    -How can one who claims to be of Abraham conform to the practices of
    the gentiles, i.e. believing in the right to abortion...that sort of
    thing.  The Mosaic law was quite straight forward regarding the
    sacrifices and social protocols of Judaism.  
    
    Are you of the seed of Abraham or are you not???
    
    -Jack

The halacha regarding abortion is far from straightforward.

    .417
    
    Gerald, you shouldn't argue with Jack.  He knows everything about
    Judaism, remember?

    Dick:
    
    I'm not claiming to know everything.  I'm just having a discussion
    about Judaism and how it is reconciled in a gentile nation like
    America.  That's all!
    
    -Jack

    
    
    Careful, Jack... or he'll taunt you a second time!!!
    

    Andy:
    
    Dick is a true blue New Englander...absolutes cannot be an integral
    part of one's faith; therefore, we cannot stand upon our faith
    solidly...because faith is unprovable.
    
    What we as a nation fail to realize is that true is concrete,
    regardless of how we perceive it.  
    
    -Jack

    truth!

    .419
    
    Jack, you have several times made blanket statements about Judaism or
    Jewish laws and beliefs that have subsequently been shown to be quite
    seriously in error by Gerald Sacks, who as an Orthodox Jew really ought
    to know.  Until you can demonstrate solid credentials (such as perhaps
    the completion of a course on Judaism taught by a Jew) to back up your
    pronouncements, I shall continue to believe that whatever you say about
    Judaism approaches 180 degrees out of phase with accuracy.

    .421
    
    > absolutes cannot be an integral
    > part of one's faith
    
    Wrong, as usual.  Absolutes are an essential part of my faith.  What is
    not an essential part of my faith is making pronouncements about things
    of which I know little or nothing.  You apparently have no such
    reservations.
    
    I stand upon my faith quite solidly, thank you; I do not, however, have
    have the colossal gall to assert that unprovable things are true, on no
    more foundation than that I happen to believe them.  You apparently
    have no such reservations.

    Dick:
    
    You sound like my beligerent mother n law.  
    
    It all comes down to Jewish history.  I believe as most Christian do
    that the sacrificial system under Moses has been nullified...because of
    the sacrifice made on Calvary.  
    
    I believe as it says in scripture that without the shedding of blood
    there is no remission of sin.  Therefore, it seems that to one of the
    Jewish faith, rebuilding the temple would be paramount.  No sacrifice,
    no atonement.  No atonement, no redemption.
    
    -Jack  

    
    
    How about that Thumper Index!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    

    .425
    
    > the sacrificial system under Moses has been nullified...
    
    ...for those who choose to accept the sacrifice made on Calvary.  But
    for those who don't, NOTHING that you believe applies.  What applies is
    what is between those nonChristians and their deity or deities.
    
    > it says in scripture that without the shedding of blood
    > there is no remission of sin.
    
    Do you want Gerald to tell you again, as he has already done once
    before, why this is wrong insofar as it pertains to Jewish belief?

 Z   I do not, however, have
 Z   have the colossal gall to assert that unprovable things are true,
 Z   on no more foundation than that I happen to believe them.
    
    So did Pauls letter to the Romans and the epistle to the Hebrews. 
    These two letters are almost an entire exegesis on how the law cannot 
    justify anybody before a Holy God.  The utter nerve of Paul using this
    tactic to pronounce that which was unprovable!
    
    -Jack

    .428
    
    Lest you forget, Paul wrote for the edification of Christian, not of
    nonChristians:
    
        To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace
        to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
        (Romans 1:7, KJV).
    
    So did the author of Hebrews:
    
        Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God,
        even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy
        fellows. (Hebrews 1:9, KJV).
    
    Or had you forgotten?

    I was quite aware of this Dick.  The problem was that these two
    particular audiences came from Hebrew backgrounds and were both in
    confusion as to why grace now took a central role and why the law was no 
    longer of any effect.  Actually the same conflicts took place in the
    Galatian church as Judaizers were teaching that one still had to adhere
    to the law for justification.  
    
    Even Peter the apostle wrestled with the same issues.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 698.414 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>

| Leviticus 19:18.  I haven't really been following this string, but are you
| saying that because Jews have been persecuted by non-Jews, the golden rule
| is a Christian concept?  That's a very strange argument.

	Gerald, when I first started reading this, I thought what you wrote was
the text from Lev 19:18. :-)  


Glen

| <<< Note 698.425 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| You sound like my beligerent mother n law.

	So at least your wife has a smart mother. :-)  Jack, you say the Bible
is quite clear on abortion. Please tell us how clear it really is by putting in
all the Scripture that you know that clearly goes against abortion.



Glen

	Just curious, Jack. How do you know both audiences were in a state of
confusion?

	Btw, if you state what is your opinion as fact, doesn't that mean you
have beared false witness?

 Z   So at least your wife has a smart mother. :-)  Jack, you say the Bible
 Z   is quite clear on abortion.
    
    Dick, actually scriptural evidence against abortion is obscure.  I was
    speaking of Gods mandate in the Old Testament against spilling the
    seed, i.e. birth control.  
    
 Z   Btw, if you state what is your opinion as fact, doesn't that mean you
 Z   have beared false witness?
    
    Not at all.  Incidently, the commandment is bearing false witness
    against thy neighbor.
    
    -Jack

.407

Once again, Say What!!!!  Were you replying to .363 or have you got confused
AGAIN.

THIS IS NOTE .363

    QQ  .351


    >>.284

        Please cite direct examples of your contentions<<


    Take a running jump Rocush.  It's a holiday weekend, if you want
    direct examples look them up yourself.  They are in any newspaper
    you want to consult.  Start looking in January 1995 forward.

    I'm going to have FUNNNNN!!!!!  

(And I did.  It was a great Patriots day, warm, sunshine.)

Boy or boy, you can really go off topic more completely than any
noter I have read.  I guess when you can't win on the topic you go 
back to the same tired old cods wallop.  

    .434
    
    > Gods mandate in the Old Testament against spilling the
    > seed, i.e. birth control.
    
    I know of no such mandate.  Cite the passage of which you speak,
    please.
    
    And BTW, that reply was addressed to me, but it concerns a remark by
    Glen Silva, not one by me.

| <<< Note 698.434 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| Z   So at least your wife has a smart mother. :-)  Jack, you say the Bible
| Z   is quite clear on abortion.

| Dick, actually scriptural evidence against abortion is obscure.  

	I'm not Dick, but it was my note you were answering. If it is obscure,
how did bring up someone being for abortion then? It would seem it has nothing
to do with anything that deals with mosaic law.

| Z   Btw, if you state what is your opinion as fact, doesn't that mean you
| Z   have beared false witness?

| Not at all. Incidently, the commandment is bearing false witness against thy 
| neighbor.

	If you state something as fact, when it is not, it will indeed trickle
down to bearing false witness against thy neighbor.



Glen

| <<< Note 698.436 by SMURF::BINDER "Uva uvam vivendo variat" >>>


| And BTW, that reply was addressed to me, but it concerns a remark by
| Glen Silva, not one by me.

	Dick, he is probably confusing us like he does the Bible passages,
meanings, etc. 

    Well, your wrong on the false witness issue Glen.  That commandment was
    in matters of justice and judicial issues.  Stating an opinion, even
    mistakingly as fact bears no resemblance to the commandment of bearing
    false witness...none whatsoever.
    
    Dick, the passage I was speaking of is in Genesis 38:9.  I thought this
    was a birth control issue (no pun intended) but stand corrected. 
    Apparently somebody's younger brother was supposed to procreate with a
    woman, but pulled out and apparently displeased God and was wiped out.
    I read it some time back and for whatever reason thought it was
    regarding birth control.  
    
    -Jack

	So Jack, I can state anything, and as long it is not of justice and
judicial issues, it doesn't matter? Be real? Earlier you said it had to do with
thy neighbor. Does it mean if I say something about someone that is wrong, as
long as j/j isn't involved, everything is ok? I hardly think so.



Glen

    .439
    
    > Dick, the passage I was speaking of is in Genesis 38:9.  I thought this
    > was a birth control issue (no pun intended) but stand corrected.
    
    Very good, Jack.  God's law at that time was that if a man died without
    an heir, his brother must impregnate the dead man's wife; the resulting
    sons (daughters need not apply) would be considered heirs of the dead
    man.  Onan, realizing that his biological children would not be his
    legal children, committed coitus interruptus.  That displeased God, and
    Onan died for his scruples.
    
    That same passage is commonly used to rail against masturbation, and it
    is equally inapplicable to that subject.

    .435
    
    You must rteally have a problem with comprehension and reading in
    context.  The first paragraph of my reply was addressed to your note
    363.  the rest of my note was related to the various notes entered on
    the subjects I was responding to.  I didn't think it was necessary to
    identify the obvious for you.  Apparently it is.  I really don't think
    you are as limited in your comprehension as you pretend to be with this
    response, but it does point out the basic approach of liberals and
    Democrats - never answer the question, just make another attack.  this
    puts your opposition on the defensive trying to carry on a rational
    debate while you never have to defend anything.
    
    .409
    
    Your inability to honestly discuss an issue is becoming all to obvious. 
    You claim that women are trashed, I assume by Republicans, no matter
    what they do.  but the issue is really one of honesty.  As a point of
    reference let me refer back to the Hill/Jones comparison.  You claim
    Hill told the truth, with out any proof of corroboration, but Jones is
    clearly lying.  Clinton claims that he never had anything to do with
    Jones and therefore, she must be lying and a dupe of Republicans. 
    Unfortunately, Jones has stated that she can describe details of
    Clinton's anatomy which would seem to indicate that Clinton's statement
    is once again, factually challenged.  But I assume that has no bearing
    on your opinion that Jones is lying.  I would think that this would at
    least raise a question in an unbiased mind.  And remember, Billy-boy
    does have a history regarding extra-marital activities with women.
    
    Also your last two paragraphs go a long way toward proving my point. 
    You claim that the Republicans are anti-women and yet there are many
    women in highly visible positions within the Republican party.  I would
    think that they would be very eloquent in addressing women's issues and
    insuring that these concerns are addressed.  this would seem to make
    your claim that the Republicans don't care abour women's iisues a
    blatant lie.  They may not agree with the radical, left-wing liberal
    women's agenda, but that is a different issue.
    

>    sons (daughters need not apply) would be considered heirs of the dead
>    man.

See Numbers 27:8.

 Z   Dick, he is probably confusing us like he does the Bible passages,
 Z   meanings, etc.
    
    Glen, at least my replies have some sort of content to them, unlike
    your emotional touchy feely responses.  Better to challenge and
    possibly open ones self to error than to live safely and in ignorance
    all ones life.
    
    Question:  Can one compare abortion to the sacrifices the Ammonites
    made to the god Molech...to which the Israelites became participants.
    I know the practice was idol worship as opposed to birth control but
    the result is still ultimately the same.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 698.442 by 35568::ROCUSH >>>


| You claim that the Republicans are anti-women and yet there are many women in 
| highly visible positions within the Republican party. I would think that they 
| would be very eloquent in addressing women's issues and insuring that these 
| concerns are addressed. this would seem to make your claim that the 
| Republicans don't care abour women's iisues a blatant lie. 

	I like this. Glad you used appearing, though. Think about something for
a minute. If you take any group of people, which women would have to be one of
those groups, do you have all in that group who think alike? Nope. You have
people at both ends of the spectrum, with most hanging out in the middle. So
having women repubs does not mean they will look out for women's issues. There
are some women in this country who believe the place for a woman is at home.
And that is fine, for them, but not for everyone. So to try and make her out to
be a liar when it is obvious she isn't, does nothing but show you can't talk
about this particular issue.

	Now the part of Clinton's anatomy... if she can describe it, then she
has seen it. But I hope they never make that tape public....:-)



Glen

| <<< Note 698.444 by 3258::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| Glen, at least my replies have some sort of content to them, 

	Since when? You seem to keep putting in notes that people keep
correcting. If you change the above to wrong content, then we're getting
somewhere.

| unlike your emotional touchy feely responses.  

	Nice deflection...

| Better to challenge and possibly open ones self to error than to live safely 
| and in ignorance all ones life.

	Jack, if this came from almost anyone but you, it would have some merit.



Glen

    .443
    
    Numbers 27:8 is law that was laid down long after anything that
    happened in Genesis.  The laws applying to Onan were far older and far
    more primitive.
    

>    Question:  Can one compare abortion to the sacrifices the Ammonites
>    made to the god Molech...to which the Israelites became participants.
>    I know the practice was idol worship as opposed to birth control but
>    the result is still ultimately the same.

According to many opinions, passing children through the fire to Moloch
was not human sacrifice, but something more like firewalking.

Even according to those who hold that it was human sacrifice, it's pretty
farfetched to compare human sacrifice of children to contraception.
Jack, suppose a woman has a medical condition such that she would die
if she became pregnant.  Would you suggest she remain celibate?

Dick, can you provide evidence that daughters of men without sons didn't
inherit in the time of Genesis?

    .449
    
    No.  I can cite no specifics.
    
    Clearly, if a man died with a daughter but no son, and also without a
    brother, the only option for keeping his property in his blood family
    would be that his daughter inherit.  But under a strongly patriarchal
    society such as the pre-Exodus Hebrews were, every effort would be made
    to see that a blood-related male got the property before falling back
    on the blood-related female.  Hence the law that Onan violated.

 Z   Since when? You seem to keep putting in notes that people keep
 Z   correcting. If you change the above to wrong content, then we're
 Z   getting somewhere.
    
    Glen, I'm bringing up points...I'm learning some things.
    
    What are you adding other than just being a bonafied pain in the ass?

    RE: .442  Rocush

    More rhetoric, I see.  Republicans are never going to back the issues
    that the majority of women find important, so arguing against or about
    women is the only other thing left to try.  It's not enough.

    > You claim Hill told the truth, with out any proof of corroboration, 
    > but Jones is clearly lying.  

    Hill's story is more credible than the story that Paula Jones herself
    (and her right wing backers) have released to the press.
    
    > Clinton claims that he never had anything to do withJones and 
    > therefore, she must be lying and a dupe of Republicans. 
    > Unfortunately, Jones has stated that she can describe details of
    > Clinton's anatomy which would seem to indicate that Clinton's statement
    > is once again, factually challenged.  

    Think about this:  Paula Jones says Clinton revealed his privates
    to her but she was upset about it and turned away.  Even so, she
    can recite detailed information about his private parts.  (She was
    so upset, apparently, that she took a GOOD LONG LOOK.)

    Her own family/friends say that after she met Clinton she was happy.
    ("I smell money" were her words.)

    > But I assume that has no bearing on your opinion that Jones is lying.  
    > I would think that this would at least raise a question in an unbiased 
    > mind.  

    Many men shower together after sports (and Bill is involved in a
    number of sports activities.)  Bill has also been examined by
    physicians.  Information about his body could have been acquired 
    by her right wing backers a number of ways.

    > And remember, Billy-boy does have a history regarding extra-marital 
    > activities with women.
                                                               
    At least he isn't divorced (like the twice-divorced, thrice-married
    Rush Limbaugh, and the divorced and twice-married Bob Dole and
    Newt Gingrich.)

    > Also your last two paragraphs go a long way toward proving my point. 

    Yours go way beyond proving my point.  The Republicans try to win
    women's votes by trashing women and challenging their integrity, etc.
    because there is no way in hell they will ever agree to back the
    issues that the majority of women find important.

    > You claim that the Republicans are anti-women and yet there are many
    > women in highly visible positions within the Republican party.  I would
    > think that they would be very eloquent in addressing women's issues and
    > insuring that these concerns are addressed. 

    The issues that are important to the majority of women are not backed
    by the Republican party.  Some Republicans occasionally stray from
    the party and back these issues, but not often enough to win the
    votes of the majority of women.

    > this would seem to make your claim that the Republicans don't care 
    > abour women's iisues a blatant lie.  They may not agree with the 
    > radical, left-wing liberal women's agenda, but that is a different 
    > issue.

    The Republican party does not back the issues which the majority
    of women find important.  Label these issues any way you like, but
    the Republican party will not win the votes of the majority of women
    in this country by fighting against these issues and trashing the
    majority of women who won't vote Republican.

    The Gender Gap lives.

    Z    At least he isn't divorced (like the twice-divorced, thrice-married
    Z    Rush Limbaugh, and the divorced and twice-married Bob Dole and
    Z    Newt Gingrich.)
    
    Suzanne, nobody really cares about this.  The bottom line is that these
    gentleman best represent people's interests.  Similar to the fact that
    Ted Kennedy killed a woman (and was going to cheat on his wife), the
    man is a champion for the downtrodden.  The problem I see is everytime
    the man speaks he attempts to weaken the constitution or interfere in
    the affairs of the private sector...which he has no right to do in most
    cases.
    
    -Jack 

    .451
    
    > Glen, I'm bringing up points...I'm learning some things.
    
    You are making assertions that are being debunked with regularity.  You
    would look more like someone interested in learning if you would ask
    more questions and make fewer egregious errors.
    
    > bonafied
    
    bona fide.  \hth

    .453
    
    > The bottom line is that these
    > gentleman best represent people's interests.
    
    As long as we remember that, like it or not, we have to call these
    "gentlemen" people, then, yes, we have to admit that they represent
    people's interests.

    Jack, these 'gentlemen' do not represent the interests of the majority
    of women in this country (nor do they represent the interests of roughly
    half the men in this country, either.)

>    Jack, these 'gentlemen' do not represent the interests of the majority
>    of women in this country (nor do they represent the interests of roughly
>    half the men in this country, either.)



    Really?

    Really.

    70% believe so, or they're hacked to death with a knife.

    Suzanne:
    
    Doesn't matter...the lambs keep voting them in, so the electorate is
    either stupid...or they are representing the interests of their
    constituents.
    
    -Jack

    Dick:
    
    I understand your point.  I'm just making the observation that Glen,
    who happens to know nothing about everything is the last person that
    should be judging my methods.  Oh, sorry, he knows alot about 69
    snarfs, softball, and good parenting.
    
    -Jack

    RE: .461  Jack
    
    > Doesn't matter...the lambs keep voting them in, so the electorate is
    > either stupid...or they are representing the interests of their
    > constituents.
    
    They represent the interests of SOME people in this country, but not
    the majority of women nor roughly half of the men in this country.
    (Like I said.)  :)

    
    	So:
    
    	Glen knows nothing about everything.
    	Jack knows everything about nothing.
    
    
    	6 of 1, 1/2 dozen of another.
    

    If that be the case, then what your saying is the State of Kansas is
    full of women who don't vote and men who believe in divorcing women!

    ZZ        Glen knows nothing about everything.
    ZZ        Jack knows everything about nothing.
    
    Please...Glen will revert to his natural tendencies and do a 69 snarf!

    
    re: .452
    
    
    >RE: .442  Rocush
    
    >More rhetoric, I see. 
    
    
    And yours isn't???????????
    
    
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!!

    
    .460
    
    doc, you beat me to it!

    .445
    
    Yoiu misread my note.  I didn't say she was a liar, I said her claim
    that Republicans don't care about women's issues is a lie.  there is a
    big difference between the two.
    
    .452
    
    No, not more rhetoric, just a request for clarification.  Just what are
    the issues that the "majority" of women find important that the
    Republicans will never support?  Just saying that they won't doesn't
    make it so.
    
    Also, why was Hill's story more credible than Jones'?  Please
    compare/contrast their stories to identify why there is such a
    difference in believability.  In addition, your comment that Jones must
    have taken a "GOOD LONG LOOK" raises an interesting question.  If your
    contention is accurate, that she did indeed voluntarily join in, then
    it makes Clinton out to be a liar, again.  His position is that he
    never had any contact with Jones.  A bit of a diachotomy.
    
    Your comment about the shower and right-wing backers isn't even worthy
    of serious response.
    
    You seem to think that Clinton not being divorced is a point in his
    favor as opposed to conservatives who are divorced.  Well, he might not
    be divorced, he just trashes his vows.  Personally, I despise divorce
    as a failure by both parties, but I would rather see someone get
    divorced than cheat on his wife.  Neither is good, but cheating is much
    worse, IMO.
    
    Lastly, I beleive that Reagan captured the majority of the women's
    votes in 80 and 84 as did Bush in 88.  I also believe that the
    Republicans received, if not the majority, a sizable portion of the
    women's vote in 94.  So the gender gap may live, but only with radical
    left-wing liberal women.
    

    What "gentlemen" are we talking about?  Rush Limbaugh??  I don't know
    ANYBODY who voted for him.  Newt Gingrich??  BARELY won the last two
    elections in his own wealthy, white-bread district.  Bob Dole??  In his
    defense, I don't think he'd appreciate being lumped into this category.
    
    

    RE: .465  Jack
    
    > If that be the case, then what your saying is the State of Kansas is
    > full of women who don't vote and men who believe in divorcing women!
    
    Kansas isn't the only (nor the most important) state of the Union. :)

    What IS the "most important" state?

    
    >>> Kansas isn't the only (nor the most important) state of the Union.
    
    Suzanne, you are correct. California and New York are, in terms of
    electoral votes. 45 and 41 respectively.

    RE: .467  Andy
    
    >> More rhetoric, I see. 
    
    > And yours isn't???????????
    > BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!!
    
    Hey, I don't have to worry about where the majority of women's votes
    are going this year.  (They'll be voting the same way I vote.)  :)
    
    BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    .469
    
    > I believe that Reagan captured the majority of the women's votes in
    > 80 and 84 as did Bush in 88.
    
    Yeah.  All six of 'em.
    
    > I also believe that the Republicans received, if not the majority, a
    > sizable portion of the women's vote in 94.
    
    Yeah.  All two of 'em.
    

    RE: .469  Rocush
    
    > Personally, I despise divorce as a failure by both parties, but I would 
    > rather see someone get divorced than cheat on his wife.  Neither is 
    > good, but cheating is much worse, IMO.                             
    
    'Cheating' and 'divorce' usually go hand in hand.  :/
    
    > So the gender gap may live, but only with radical left-wing liberal 
    > women. 
    
    If you've decided that the Gender Gap doesn't even EXIST (for the
    American population in general), then you have no need to discuss it 
    anymore.
    
    Bye.

| <<< Note 698.451 by 3258::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>


| What are you adding other than just being a bonafied pain in the ass?

	You are stating things like they are fact. If you did not do this, you
would not hear from me...as often. :-)

| <<< Note 698.462 by 3258::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| I understand your point.  

	If you cease to make statements, then you can say you understand the
point.

| I'm just making the observation that Glen, who happens to know nothing about 
| everything is the last person that should be judging my methods.  

	Jack, be real. Your methods are obvious to everyone. Some may agree
with them, but so far, anyway, I haven't heard anyone. Oh yeah... nice
deflection, yet again. Maybe you should spend more time talking about your
notes, then to deflect it all off on everyone else. You have been doing that
all along in this string.

| Oh, sorry, he knows alot about 69 snarfs, softball, and good parenting.

	Why yes, I do.



Glen

| <<< Note 698.469 by ACISS1::ROCUSH >>>

| Yoiu misread my note.  I didn't say she was a liar, I said her claim
| that Republicans don't care about women's issues is a lie.  there is a
| big difference between the two.

	In either case, you are still mistaken. Because what I said still fits
this situation. 



Glen

    .480
    
    If you didn't misread my note then you are wrong. TYVM.
    
    .477
    
    If cheating and divorce go hand-in-hand, then why is Clinton still
    married.  Does political desire negate your claim?
    
    
    Also, I never said the gender gap doesn't exist, I am trying to
    understand why it exists.  so far I have not seen any information or
    explanations that identify why a gap should exist.  I have seen a lot
    of claims and charges but no facts or information.  You have been one
    of the staunchest defenders of Clinton in the Whaitewater affair
    because there is no actual proof of wrongdoing on his part, just a
    bunch of charges.  Well, so far, your claim of the gender gap is based
    on a bunch of charges but no facts.  I guess an informative response is
    too much to hope for.
    

    RE: .481  Rocush
    
    > Also, I never said the gender gap doesn't exist, I am trying to
    > understand why it exists.  
    
    So you think the Gender Gap does exist.
    
    > You have been one of the staunchest defenders of Clinton in the 
    > Whaitewater affair because there is no actual proof of wrongdoing on 
    > his part, just a bunch of charges.  Well, so far, your claim of the 
    > gender gap is based on a bunch of charges but no facts.  
    
    So you don't think the Gender Gap exists.  (It's just a claim.)
    
    > so far I have not seen any information or explanations that identify 
    > why a gap should exist.  I have seen a lot of claims and charges but 
    > no facts or information.  
                                 
    If I gave you Poll results, you'd hack them to death with a knife
    (at least 70% of the Poll results, anyway.)  :)
    
    You know the issues where Democrats and Republicans disagree.
    
    **The Democrats come down on the 'good' side of most of the issues
    that the majority of women consider important.**
    
    What part of this statement don't you understand?

| <<< Note 698.481 by ACISS1::ROCUSH >>>


| If you didn't misread my note then you are wrong. TYVM.

	No. You have people at every end of everything out there. And a bunch
that are in the middle. The repub women do not make up the majority of the
women. The log cabin people, who are gay repubs, don't make up the majority of
the gays. Nothing can be taken as a whole for everyone and then considered a 
lie when you aren't dealing with any one group that agrees on everything. Case
in point was when you said, "surely the repub women are looking out for women's
interests", like they fit in just like the women of the middle, or the women
from another corner. They don't. That is why you can't use your liars analogy.




Glen

    Things as a woman I may base my votes on,
    
    1.  Reproductive rights.  As the mother of three women, and still
    fertile for some time myself, I want people to have access to
    contraceptives, regardless of age or marital status, including
    emergency contraception.  I feel that Abortion is a medical decisions,
    best made between a woman, her doctor, and ideally her partner.  
    
    2.  I believe people should have equal opportunities in jobs, education
    and training.  
    
    3.  I am a firm believer in Financial Aid for people of all ages,
    races, and religions.  This is an investment in the future of the
    country.
    
    4.  I want sensible welfare reform, which includes working on improving
    daycare availability and affordability, as well as education and
    training.  Making welfare families the scapegoat for all that is wrong
    in this county, but not bothering to offer a hand up is something I
    have a major problem with. 
    
    
    5.  I want real sex education in schools, including the
    responsibilities both sexes have to prevent pregnancies before both
    partners are ready.  This includes abstinence and resistance education,
    as well as contraceptive information.  
    
    6.  I want the government out of my uterus, bladder, bedroom,
    life-choices, not trying to get a deeper foothold into same. 
    
    7.  I recognize that without environmental laws and regs, people are
    likely to crap in their own nests in the name of profit.  Since I have
    children who will inherit whatever messes I make, I favor working to
    clean up our air, water, and indutrial wastes.
    
    8.  I favor worker-safety laws.  Since businesses have shown a poor
    record on policing themselves, I favor regulating business enough
    to minimize the risks to reproductive organs, hands, fingers, other
    limbs and lives.  The women and men on the chicken procesing line that
    died in the fire, shows what some people will do in the name of the
    sacred dollar when they can get away with limited inspections.
    
    9.  If we are going to concentrate on welfare reform, lets start with
    those who don't really need it, such as Mc Donalds, Pepsico, AMD,
    Pillsbury, RJR/Nab, and then go to agribus, and finally to those whose
    incomes easily top 100K that all receive government subsidies.  
    
    meg
    6.  

    
    
    Sources, please, for all the "polls" and "percentages" if you don't
    mind Suzanne..
    
    
    Thanks ever so much in advance...
    

    70% of the 'Boxers don't want no steeenking Poll results (they'll
    just hack them to death with a knife anyway), so why post 'em?

    Just curious,  Being an active member of the local Dem's parties, I
    know how they are addressing my issues in .484, anyone from the Repub's
    want to show me how these issues are being addressed, beyond what I
    read in two newspapers and three news programs?
    
    meg

    
    re: .486
    
    >70% of the 'Boxers don't want no steeenking Poll results (they'll
    >just hack them to death with a knife anyway), so why post 'em?
    
    Because you're all bluff??
    
    Because you don't have the figures, and probably read what posted in
    some editorial??
    

    So now poll results are cool in da 'Box??  :)
    

Z    1.  Reproductive rights.  As the mother of three women, and still
Z    fertile for some time myself, I want people to have access to
Z    contraceptives, regardless of age or marital status, including
Z    emergency contraception.  I feel that Abortion is a medical decisions,
Z    best made between a woman, her doctor, and ideally her partner.  
 
    Problem is we have children who are clueless about life.  In your 
experience, would you say at times the parents need to get involved?  If this
is the case, then do you agree with parentla notification?
  
Z    2.  I believe people should have equal opportunities in jobs, education
Z    and training.  
 
So you stand by the 1964 Civil Rights Act in its entirety?  I'm very glad
about this since there is much reform we can make in policies started by
the Nixon Administration.  Bravo...equal rights for all, special rights for
none.
   
Z    3.  I am a firm believer in Financial Aid for people of all ages,
Z    races, and religions.  This is an investment in the future of the
Z    country.
 
This is fine, except when welfare pimps like Maxine Waters exploit flood
disaster relief bills for Iowa residents by tacking on stipulations that all
welfare recipients, including thugs and illegal aliens in Los Angeles 
receive a $1,000.00 stipend for breathing.  This is where the line item
veto would have come in handy.  Too bad politicians like this have to give
those in real need a black eye.
   
Z    4.  I want sensible welfare reform, which includes working on improving
Z    daycare availability and affordability, as well as education and
Z    training.  Making welfare families the scapegoat for all that is wrong
Z    in this county, but not bothering to offer a hand up is something I
Z    have a major problem with. 
 
Yes, you're right.  It isn't fair.  Unfortunately, bad politicing in the 
past as well as a sheer misuse of welfare, both white collar and blue collar,
has given welfare a black eye.   
    
Z    5.  I want real sex education in schools, including the
Z    responsibilities both sexes have to prevent pregnancies before both
Z    partners are ready.  This includes abstinence and resistance education,
Z    as well as contraceptive information.  
 
After school seminars with permission slips signed by guardians.  I don't 
trust the teachers unions.  They would probably use materials from Planned 
Parenthood and next thing you know, kids will be buying dental dams.
   
Z    6.  I want the government out of my uterus, bladder, bedroom,
Z    life-choices, not trying to get a deeper foothold into same. 
 
Certain rights would require government intervention, i.e. recognizing gay 
marriages for example.  Maybe we should encourage our government to stay out
of it all together starting right now!
   
Z    7.  I recognize that without environmental laws and regs, people are
Z    likely to crap in their own nests in the name of profit.  Since I have
Z    children who will inherit whatever messes I make, I favor working to
Z    clean up our air, water, and indutrial wastes.
 
Yes, as long as it isn't extreme and is reasonable, i.e. keep groups like
PETA out of it.
   
Z    8.  I favor worker-safety laws.  Since businesses have shown a poor
Z    record on policing themselves, I favor regulating business enough
Z    to minimize the risks to reproductive organs, hands, fingers, other
Z    limbs and lives.  The women and men on the chicken procesing line that
Z    died in the fire, shows what some people will do in the name of the
Z    sacred dollar when they can get away with limited inspections.
 
Again in is too bad government has been irresponsible in regulating and making
it virtually impossible to conduct business.  
   
Z    9.  If we are going to concentrate on welfare reform, lets start with
Z    those who don't really need it, such as Mc Donalds, Pepsico, AMD,
Z    Pillsbury, RJR/Nab, and then go to agribus, and finally to those whose
Z    incomes easily top 100K that all receive government subsidies.  
 
I agree 100%, and also believe we should make it a deterrant for thugs to cross
the border for free money.

-Jack

    
    re: .489
    
    >So now poll results are cool in da 'Box??  :)
    
    
    
    Can this be classified as "rhetoric" or a "bob and weave"???

    If anyone complains about seeing Poll results, Andy, it's a pox
    on YOUR house, not mine.  :)
    
       U.S. Presidential polling numbers in last week's "Time" magazine:
    
        	  Nationwide, Clinton's lead on Dole has grown:
            		- 48/42% in November '95 to
            		- 55/41% last week
    
                  Genderwise, Clinton's lead is:
                        - 49/47% among men
                        - 60/36% among women
    
    Welcome to the Gender Gap.  :)

    
    
    Who conducted the "poll"
    
    Time?
    
    Are you being evasive on purpose, or is it just in your nature?
    

    Andy, stick it in your sock.  :)

    
    
    Can you please answer the question.
    
    You stated the poll was in Time magazine. You did not state that Time
    conducted the poll.
    
    Who conducted the poll?
    

    who polled the conductor?!

    
    stay outta this, or I'll be forced to use animus on you...
    

    Andy, I'll doublecheck my source and will get back to you on this.

    no need to get defensive!

    jack,
    
    I know how you feel, but can you give me what the repub platform is on
    these issues that are important to me and how I vote?
    
    If your rhetoric (which is only based in the reality of JM as far as I
    can see) is all they have to offer, then the repubs have nothing to
    offer me.
    
    I already know they have lied on the RTKBA's, the platform has shown me
    that they want to get their grubby little hands on my and every other
    woman's uterus in the country.  The attempts to gut the clean air bill,
    endangered species act, and clean water acts and "privatise" the meat
    inspection programs don't give me a warm, fuzzy feeling about
    regulatory reform, and the insanity of retaining subsidies to RJR/NAB,
    AMD, Pepsico, AT&T show me their true agenda on welfare reform.  (It is
    ok to get money from the gov if you have the millions to help finance
    my way back into office.)  
    
    Can you give me something solid as a woman, that would interest me in
    ANY but the RINO's in the Colorado legislature, let alone the national
    elections?
    
    meg

    Meg:
    
    Here's the way I look at it.  I believe the first two years of the
    Clinton Administration....well, wait a minute...first, let me say up
    front that at this very moment, I will honestly say that Bob Dole
    doesn't excite me by any means.  He's a worn out version of George Bush
    and quite frankly, good personalities don't cut it anymore.  One thing
    I can say about LBJ, Nixon, Ford and Carter...you didn't necessarily
    have to second guess what they were thinking.  Their personalities 
    were evident in their demeanor and policies...and least we knew what we
    got.  I also think this of Reagan but I don't think you do so I'll
    leave him out of it.  
    
    The first two years of the Clinton Administration were a mere
    forshadowing of what we can expect for the next four years should he
    win the election.  While it is true he did get a message in 1994, we
    cannot dismiss that, fact is he won't be running for office again so
    the man will once again revert back to his evil incarnate self.  He
    will cater to the special interests groups so much that he will without
    doubt distort the Constitution in different directions...just as he did
    when proposing the largest tax hike and government intervention in
    history.  
    
    I don't believe in White collar welfare Meg.  I see it as more
    beneficial in the long run because it brings money into local
    economies...but overall it is a scam.  Blue collar welfare helps people
    on a tactical basis but ultimately it produces little residual benefit
    and is sorely abused.  
    
    So what do we have?  We have a president who , in the name of womens
    rights, does not uphold the Constitution, the Civil Rights Act, and
    has already shown by his stunts a disregard for women, for business,
    and for the military.  
    
    The Republican party is the stupid party, the democrat party is the
    elitist sleezy party.  I don't see either as a champion for equal
    rights in recent history.  (From Carter to present).  Clinton vetoed
    the abortion bill last week but Gephardt and other democrat leaders
    voted in favor of it.  So both parties have its share of scumbies.  
    Sorry but I don't see Clinton as a champion for American causes.  What
    have the Republicans done?  Not much but at least I have a better idea
    as to where they stand on issues.
    
    -Jack
    

    Jack,
    
    Please address my issues with what the republican party's policies on
    these issues is going to be.  
    
    Attempting to say your guy isn't as bad as my guy because of anything
    cut it, without addressing my concerns as a woman on how I vote.  
    
    how is dole and co going to help me with my aging parents?
    
    how are they going to protect my daughters should they slip and have an
    unplanned pregnancy?
    
    How are they going to educate and train the women they want off
    welfare?  
    
    Where are the $'s going to come from to pay for child-care, one reason
    women with pre-school children are on AFDC?
    
    Why are they attempting to reduce student financial aid?
    
    Why haven't SFA limits been adjusted to inflation of both tuition and
    income in the last 20 years?
    
    Are they going to tell me what kind of family I can have?
    
    Are they going to insist on reducing respect for this country and its
    flag to meaningless rituals?
    
    meg

    .501
    
    Myth debunking time:
    
    > ... largest tax hike...
    
    The Reagan tax hike, in 1993 dollars, was some $50 billion more than
    the Clinton tax hike.  Furthermore, WWII-era tax increases were
    substantially larger (again in 1993 dollars) than either Reagan's or
    Clinton's.
    
    Fine by me if you attack tax policy, but get your facts straight,
    please.
    

>>  ...just as he did when proposing the largest tax hike... in history
    
    Actually, I believe his was the 2nd largest tax hike. Bush came in
    first.
    
    Either way you look at it though... I'm sick of politicians saying they
    won't raise taxes ("read my lips") and then doing so. Whether it's Bush
    or Clinton.
    
    I've heard, BTW, that Dole is for doing away with Income taxes completely.
    However, in order to make up for it he's proposing that the government
    initiate a Federal sales tax.  If I believed that they (the government)
    wouldn't levy some redicioulously large sales tax, I might buy into
    this. However, I just don't trust them not to.
    

>				If I believed that they (the government)
>    wouldn't levy some redicioulously large sales tax, I might buy into
>    this. However, I just don't trust them not to.

Given the note in here somewhere earlier about the fact that we now pay
more in federal, state, and local taxes than we do for food, clothing
and shelter, one would guess that the rate would have to be quite high
indeed in order to cover the current tax base. If you assume that Fed
taxes amount to 75% of the individual's tax burden, and that a sales
tax wouldn't directly affect your housing costs, I think it's safe to
conclude that food and clothing would be at least twice as costly as they
currently are. That would be a rate of roughly 100% if I figured properly.

    I do not vote as a man, but as a citizen.  I vote for the candidate who
    will best uphold the Constitution.  I do not base me vote on women's issues,
    men's issues, Christian issues, secular issues, minority issues, nor any 
    other single issue or group of issues...they are all deflections of
    what really matters- of what is really in the best interest of this
    nation.
    
    Meg, though you have every right to vote however you like and for
    whatever reasons, I think you are putting the cart before the horse,
    for the most part.  
    
    At this stage in the game, I don't think it matters, though.  Our
    economy will collapse, pure and simple.  It is only a matter of time,
    as no one- not the masses, nor Congress- is willing to do what it takes
    to pull our fat out of the fire (even though it is becoming obvious to
    the most unintelligent couch potato that we are in financial trouble).  
    The people are so inundated with voting for the "lastest cause", that 
    they have forgotten what is really important.
    
    Is it any wonder that the Constitution is no longer worth the paper it
    is printed on?
    
    
    -steve
                                                 

    .504
    
    Whoooooops!  Sorry - Reagan/Bush... they all begin to blend together
    after a while.  Point still valid, however...
    

    Steve, I think the country will be destroyed by terrorism from
    within (and/or from outside the U.S.) long before the economy 
    would have collapsed on its own.

ZZ    how is dole and co going to help me with my aging parents?
  
Most likely, he is going to maintain status quo, considering he is a moderate.
I don't see any cuts but I do hope to see a reduction in growth.  I believe 
this is what was attempted by the Freshman last year.  It has to be addressed,
we're broke.
  
ZZ    how are they going to protect my daughters should they slip and have an
ZZ    unplanned pregnancy?
  
They shouldn't...not at all.  A very astute person named Meg Evans told me
once that government must stay out of the business of reproductive rights.
Stay out of bedrooms, private choices, etc.  Meg, I believe the door swings
both ways.  It will be up to her or you to bail your daughters out.  I don't 
believe this is unreasonable.
  
Z    How are they going to educate and train the women they want off
Z    welfare?  
 
I believe Governors like Weld from Mass., and Governor Pitaki of New York are
bringing accountability into a depraved system.  I believe the democrats have
done little if anything to reform welfare.  

Clinton has done nothing he promised...you voted based on what he said.  I 
believe the republican party has shown alot more backbone in bringing 
accountability to the system.  What has Clinton done to help women in this?
   
Z    Where are the $'s going to come from to pay for child-care, one reason
Z    women with pre-school children are on AFDC?
 
One thing the Repub. governor has done up here is tracked down the deadbeat 
dads and has made their lives miserable.  It is not the responsibility of the
taxpayer to bail out fathers who aren't accountable.  Therefore, we should
implement a system where everything they earn should be tapped.  Loss of
license, whatever it takes.  That's a good start.  If they're in prison, make
them work 10 hours a day to at least subsidize what the gummit is paying.
   
Z    Why are they attempting to reduce student financial aid?
 
I don't know.  If anything, the gov't. makes 6% interest on the loans.  I'm 
baffled by that one.  Unless the system is being abused and they are losing 
money.  Then it falls into the white collar welfare ring!
   
Z    Why haven't SFA limits been adjusted to inflation of both tuition and
Z    income in the last 20 years?

I don't know.  Has Clinton done anything to promote this?  I agree with you but
the congress was run by Foley and Mitchell ya know.
   
Z    Are they going to tell me what kind of family I can have?
 
No...as long as you don't extort money from the taxpayer for it.  Furthermore,
the family issues have become a judicial matter, not a legislative matter.
   
Z    Are they going to insist on reducing respect for this country and its
Z    flag to meaningless rituals?
 
Meg, the flagburning issue was simply a waste of energy...much like the failed
bills of yesteryear by both parties.  The majority has spoken, the answer is no!

-Jack

    .505
    
    Wow!  What tax bracket are YOU in?  MY federal tax liability
    (disregarding payroll tax, as all politicos choose to do) is less
    than 50% of my INCOME tax.  Factoring in state and local sales taxes,
    property taxes, gasoline taxes, et al, I suspect that the federal
    burden is substantially lower still.
     

    .508
    
    You are right, Suzanne, government terrorism will certainly take its toll,
    causing a reaction the like of which we have never seen.  Whether this
    reaction will come before, during or after the economic crash is
    debatable.  At 5+ trillion (on budget, not including off-budget
    numbers) debt and climbing, with no end in sight, I don't imagine we
    will have to take our shoes off to count the years we have left before
    things get really...interesting (i.e., unless something REAL is done to
    stem the flow of economic blood).
    
    We could fund defense on what we pay to service the debt.  This is
    money out the window, with no benefit, funded by Joe taxpayer.
    
    But know the reason behind the coming crisis, should it indeed happen- it 
    is government terrorism and oppression that has people up in arms, so to 
    speak. 
    
    
    -steve 

    
    
>>    how are they going to protect my daughters should they slip and have an
>>    unplanned pregnancy?
    
    Why should they? If you want the government out of your bedroom, body,
    etc. Then they should stay completely out. IMHO it's up to the father
    (and the parents if he's not available) to help in such a situation.
    
>>    Are they going to tell me what kind of family I can have?
    
    Although I completely agree with you on this (eg., what kind of family
    you have is none of their business), I do tend to believe that the more
    support we expect from the government the more likely we will be to lose
    our rights to choose.
    
I'm a right-to-lifer...

What I mean is,

    "though I am against abortion (for me), each woman should have the right
     to choose, abortion, no-abortion."

And who am I to pass judgement on another's decision?

This whole issue, IMHO, is a moral issue, and I say keep moral issues out
of the government. It's none of their business what a woman chooses or does
not choose to do. However, if women insist on government subsidies for
their choice, then the government is going to get their noses into it.
We're talking about money after all...

     Here's where I have a real problem. Should my tax dollars go to a
     woman who continues to have children (or abortions)? When I think of
     it this way, I find it completely infuriating, and then, I find myself
     considering the taboo.

    Steve,
    
    if drinkable water, eatable food and breathable air are not on your
    agenda, then you might have a point.
    
    I am a human, and a mother.  these are high on mine, not just for me,
    but for my kids and their kids and........
    
    If having people have the equal chance to rise out of their
    class-strata isn't an issue for you and the underclass is something you
    believe should continue then we also don't have a place to talk about
    thing.  I did it, but not from people calling me scum, but my a
    training program and subsidized daycare.  I wish to have the same
    opportunities offered to others.  
    
    Medical reform is important to me as this is another reason for women
    and children to wind up on AFDC and is expensive as hell to me, as my
    insurance winds up with hidden costs from the medically indigent, as
    well as my tax dollars. 
    
    Reproductive rights can at least help some women stay out of the
    downward spiral into AFDC and dependancy.
    
    Continuing to use our limited resources to finance large corporations
    is a major hot button, articularly when these people are laying off
    middle-class people and potentially pushing them into dependancy.  
    
    Failing to educate peole, including retraining, is not investing in our
    future.  
    
    meg
    
    

>    Wow!  What tax bracket are YOU in?

It hasn't much to do with my tax bracket, it has to do with the fact that
I live in New Hampshire and the only real tax burden I have besides my 
federal income tax (aside from gasoline taxes which I've never bothered 
to evaluate) is my local property tax, which amounts to about 25% of what
my income tax is.

The datum about Murricans paying more in all taxes than they do for the
big 3 necessities was from the IRS, if I recall.

    RE: .511  Steve Leech
    
    > You are right, Suzanne, government terrorism will certainly take 
    > its toll, causing a reaction the like of which we have never seen.  
    
    Oh, those people (Americans, probably) who may kill millions of
    innocent people in the U.S. in attacks that will make the Oklahoma City
    bombing look like a fender bender would blame the government, alright.
    They'd claim to be entirely justified for whatever they'd done.
    
    > But know the reason behind the coming crisis, should it indeed happen- 
    > it is government terrorism and oppression that has people up in arms, 
    > so to speak. 
    
    The coming crisis, should it indeed happen, will be the fault of
    those who decide to kill massive numbers of innocent Americans as a 
    statement against the American government.  They will be the monsters.

    Suzanne:
    
    Do you believe George Washington was a monster?  He faced a similar
    situation except he. along with the FF, created a Continental congress
    and split from King George.
    
    -Jack

    The best thing for the rebels of today to do would be to try secession
    from the union.

    .514
    
    I hope that you realize that New Hampshire is an exception to the
    general rule.  My impression from your note was that it pertained to
    the nation as a whole, who generally do have to contend with state 
    and/or local income and/or sales taxes.  I seriously doubt that, on 
    average, federal income taxes represent 75% of an individual's total 
    tax burden.
    

    
    re: .515
    
    Suzanne is getting hysterical again...
    

Sorta makes you stop and wonder what the rest of the country is 
doing wrong, doesn't it?

    Jack, did George Washington ever slaughter innocent British children
    and British civilians (by the hundreds or by the millions) as a
    protest message to King George?
    
    Describing those who want to destroy this country as being most like
    those who founded it is pretty sick, IMO.

    .513 (Meg)
    
        
>    if drinkable water, eatable food and breathable air are not on your
>    agenda, then you might have a point.
 
    It is not the job of the federal government to insure a specific quality of
    life for me or anyone else- outside of guaranteeing the freedoms granted 
    to us via God (DoI), enumerated (and implied) in the BoR.
    
    That said, I'm not against some common sense regulations, if it has to
    do with interstate commerce.  If regulations can be done locally, I
    much prefer this tact.  We've gone well beyond common sense, however.
    
>    If having people have the equal chance to rise out of their
>    class-strata isn't an issue for you and the underclass is something you
>    believe should continue then we also don't have a place to talk about
>    thing.  
    
    Class-strata is a political invention, and it is actually propagated by
    the very unConstitutional programs you support.  You say you want equal
    chance to rise out of the lower class- but everyone has this chance. 
    Some choose not to take it (it's called hard work).  Not all of us can
    become rich, not all of us can even make middle class... we cannot get
    into the trap (oops, too late for that) of trying to guarantee, as in
    making is a "right" just for living here, a certain comfort level for
    all citizens, via the federal government.
    
>    I did it, but not from people calling me scum, but my a
>    training program and subsidized daycare.  I wish to have the same
>    opportunities offered to others.  
 
    More power to you, you used the system effecitively (unlike many).  
    Unfortunately, such "opportunities" are not free, and payment should
    not be forced upon the unwilling (at least on a federal level).  In
    other words, if you want these programs available, *you* pay for them.
    I'd rather put my money in the hands of people who will no waste 74% of
    what I give them.
     
>    Medical reform is important to me as this is another reason for women
>    and children to wind up on AFDC and is expensive as hell to me, as my
>    insurance winds up with hidden costs from the medically indigent, as
>    well as my tax dollars. 
 
    Get government out of the medical industry and you will find
    that things would not be so damn expensive to start with.  If you want
    government to regulate every aspect of your life, go ahead and hand
    them the medical industries on a legislative platter.
       
>    Reproductive rights can at least help some women stay out of the
>    downward spiral into AFDC and dependancy.
 
    So can one simple word...NO!  It would seem that too many lack the
    character or responsibility to say it, however.  I won't even go into
    the male cretins that impregnate with impunity and run.
       
>    Continuing to use our limited resources to finance large corporations
>    is a major hot button, articularly when these people are laying off
>    middle-class people and potentially pushing them into dependancy.  
 
    We should have NO corporate welfare, any more than we should have AFDC
    and other welfare crapola.  None of it is Constitutional.  If states
    wish to give tax breaks to corporations, or wish to start their own
    AFDC programs, then fine.  Get it off the federal plate, however.  The
    feds have amply proved that they have no economic sense nor scruples.
       
>    Failing to educate peole, including retraining, is not investing in our
>    future.  
 
    You invest in the future the way you like, and I will invest in my own
    way.  This is freedom, not forcing federal legislation that confiscates
    my money to do what YOU want to do with it (or vice versa).
    
    I will bet you big bucks that that my way (church/local charity) is much 
    more economical, less wasteful, and much more effective than your way,
    at helping folks help themselves...and this is the key- helping them to
    HELP THEMSELVES.  If you do not train someone in responsibility and
    self-sufficiency, you are countering your own help, and perpetuating
    the cycle of dependency.  
    
    
    -steve

    Z    Jack, did George Washington ever slaughter innocent British children
    Z    and British civilians (by the hundreds or by the millions) as a
    Z    protest message to King George?
    
    Do you know what it's like to be kicked...In The Head....WITH AN IRON
    BOOT!!!!!!????
    
    of course you don't nobody knows that forget I even mentioned it....
    
    Suzanne, that was a clip from the movie Airplane...I was reminded of
    that by what you asked above.  Seriously though, any kind of
    insurrection on the scale you mention would have to be organized. 
    Hence they would be considered a threat to National Security and the
    military would get involved.  I would say the carnage from the military
    would exceed any rioting on the scale you mention.
    
    -Jack

    .515
    
    Of course the government is completely innocent of any wrongdoing that
    is causing folks to fear it.  Oh yes, we are the government, we are
    here to help you.  You can trust us.
    
    Never mind.  For a second, I thought you may have had a clue, and
    thought it was possiblity for us to have an interesting conversation.
    
    [And no, I do not think bombing innocent people, for whatever reason,
    is acceptable, nor would I attempt to defend anyone doing this.]
      
    
    -steve         

    RE: .523  Jack
    
    > Seriously though, any kind of insurrection on the scale you mention 
    > would have to be organized. 
    
    A relatively small organization could kill millions via terrorism.
    
    > Hence they would be considered a threat to National Security and the
    > military would get involved. I would say the carnage from the military
    > would exceed any rioting on the scale you mention.          
    
    I'm not talking about rioting.  I'm talking about terrorism.  <Boom!>

    .522
    
    Yeah... Churches and charities are so incredibly efficient at providing
    for the downtrodden and helpless...
    
    Let them eat crystal!
    
    BTW - I'm suggesting TRUE tax reform to this rocket-scientist Congress: 
    ANY organization which wishes to maintain tax-exempt status MUST divert
    ALL profits to the general public.  And the PUBLIC will decide, for
    these organizations, how to establish their operating expenses.  Any
    organization that does not wish to participate can pay the going rate. 
    Got a problem with that?
    

    RE: .524  Steve Leech
    
    Well, I certainly don't trust extreme right wing anti-government
    groups who are looking to bring down this whole country.
    
    It would be like blowing up a train filled with passengers because
    you hate the engine or the price of the tickets.
    
    > Never mind. 
    
    Surely you didn't think we would agree on something...  :)

    Care to tell me how you repubs want to court women like me?

    Lot's of blather, but no real responses,

    Oh and FWIW, I do pay for my programs, in less than three years I had
    paid in taxes more than what had been invested in me.  for the last 11,
    my taxes have been going for expensive bombers, demonizing the poor,
    and corporate welfare from what I can see, and less for helping people
    off of AFDC.  

    Steve,  I haven't seen what your church does.  The last time I asked
    you what you were doing for the less fortunate you gave me a song and
    dance about not wanting to show this off.  I am interested in knowing. 
    I can only hope it isn't like a certain "family Based Ministry" here 
    though, it surprisec me that employees of that church are also
    burdening the food pantries of other ministries.
    

    meg

    .522
    
    > I will bet you big bucks...
    
    Tsk, tsk...  Gambling is so un-Christian.  Where'd you learn to do
    that?  Swilling beer at some church-sponsored fish fry?
    

Z    ANY organization which wishes to maintain tax-exempt status MUST divert
Z        ALL profits to the general public.
    
    Steve, do you recall a certain incident that happened in Israle.  It
    seems one of the Ceasers pronounced all Israelites to go to their place
    of birth and register...kind of a census.  Now I'm sure Ceaser Augustus
    didn't give two chits about the welfare of Israel...but they sure as
    heck had no problem taxing the Jews of that time.  
    
    The Jews, understandably so, had a deep resentment toward Rome.  Rome
    interfered in their religious customs and their laws.  I'm sure
    Israelites of that day would certainly disagree with your suggestion
    that any money over and above the operating expenses of the institution
    go to Ceaser.  They'd probably spit on you for even suggesting it.
    
    How about this.  All funds that are not used for the direct purpose of
    the organizations cause is taxed.  This means that if a synagogue pays
    its operating expenses, pays for its missions, its outreaches, etc.,
    that money cannot be taxed.  I think at this point you wouldn't get
    spat upon...you would just get a sneer and a jeer.
    
    Bottom line is non profit organizations promote more goodwill than the
    public (government) does.  If you tithe at your local synagogue, it
    seems to me like your 10% offering in the publics hands should make you
    resentful.
    
    -Jack

 Z    Care to tell me how you repubs want to court women like me?
    
 Z       Lot's of blather, but no real responses,
    
    How about upholding the Constitution and leaving it at that.  

    .530
    
    10% tithe?  Where you from, Noo Hampsure?  If my synagogue resorts to
    diverting any of my dues to election guides touting rabid right-wing
    Jewish fundamentalists (an oxymoron - see Webster's), especially if
    ANYONE in the congregation is doing without, I'll demand a prompt and
    satisfactory refund.  Further, if my synagogue fails to convince the
    public that its operating expenses include outreach programs, et al,
    then they have failed in their mission, and deserve the tax burden. 
    And yes, in anticipation of your response, I DO trust the public that
    much.
    

    Steve,
    
    All I have seen your side doing to the Constitution is to try to add on
    silly-assed ammenments to cancel SCOTUS ruling they object to.  Shake
    and Bake constitutionalism anyone?
    
    meg

    Methinks Steve simply suffers from his own poor constitution...
    

    Steve,

    Care to share on your church's charitable acts and how they get people
    off the dole?

    Inquiring minds would like to know.  

    You still haven't addressed my concerns and those of many other women
    across the US who vote, and why we shouldn't vote for someone who may
    be imperfect, but at least has some knowledge of what we find important.

    meg

    
    
    No government will set you free!!!
    
     Don't belive any of them!

    Until the Brady Bill the only thing I had any faith in the Reubs for
    was that they might respect the RKBA's.  Post-Brady I now know better.  
    
    I dont' expect them to respect Habeus Corpus, the 4th ammenement and
    lately the 1st ammendment.  
    
    the only ammendments to the constitution I have seen them support are
    those that make other ammendments meaningless, and make a mockery of
    our BOR.  
    
    The farm bill that was pushed through is tantamount to direct handouts
    to farmers, not something I particularly find empowering to said
    farmers.  
    
    I have seen attempts at killing those regulations which effect me and
    my future, such as the clean air, and water acts. Attempts at
    subsidizing mineral interests, and the usual pork to multinational
    corporations who are based in the US.
    
    Surely you can find something I can support?  No?  
    
    meg

    .482
    
    We're beginning to make progress.  Now, what's the "good" side actually
    proposed and done and what have the Republicans proposed that puts them
    on the "bad" side.
    
    .483
    
    But you can't say they don't represent a majority or a very significant
    %.  To dismiss an entire party on a speculation or an unfounded charge
    falls into the blatant lie category, IMO.
    
    .484
    
    More progress.  Other than #1 which deals with personal views on
    whether it is a simple medical procedure and choice or is simply
    premedidated muder, I haven't seen anything that the Republicans have
    proposed that oppose any of the issues you raise.  They have proposed,
    IMO, some much needed change and contol to many runaway and clearly
    unsuccessful programs.
    
    .502
    
    Most of the things you list the government should never have been
    involved with in the first place.  You can look at all of the countries
    that have tried to provide socialist, "cradle-to-grave" programs. 
    Almost without exception they are trying to eliminate them as they have
    proven to be unsuccessful and has brought their eceonmies to the brink
    of going down the toilet.
    
    .513
    
    Your statement that ensuring reproductive rights will help women stay
    out of the downward spiral into AFDC and dependency.  Well there have
    been more abortions, or reproductive rights decisions, in the last
    20-30 years and an astronomical increase in welfare programs and where
    is the reduction in dependency.    There is an increase in abortions
    each year and more people receiving welfare benefits and more people
    supposedly below the poverty line, even aftrer all of these "rights". 
    Just when do we see a reduction to this downward spiral.  Is it just
    possible that these programs have contributed to the spiral?
    
    .528
    
    Your question about what churches do deserves an answer.  I can't speak
    for all, but my local church participates in a PADS program thst is a
    homeless food and shelter program.  It also supports the Catholic
    Charities which provides many, many programs to the poor and needy. 
    Also, they provide for their own.  There is presently a need to provide
    retirement for our clergy and religious.  They hsave come to the
    Parishes and ask for our support and they will live on the
    contributions provided.  I have not seen them request any government
    help, just the congregations.  It would seem to me that the churches
    provide a significant amount of support for a number of people as well
    meeting their own expenses.
    

    .537
    
    Your complaint about the farm bill is exactly why you should support
    the Republicans.  When was the last time any Democrat took any action
    to reduce farm subsidies and supports?  This was not a perfect bill,
    but it did give a phase out to a program without cutting farmers off
    immediately.  If they did, I knowthere would have been howls about the
    cruel, mean-spirited Republicans.  This was a good example of how we
    can effect real long-term change without throwing people to the wolves. 
    It would seem like something you could support, but you claim it isn't
    enough.  Well please identify what the Democrats have done even
    remotely similar to ending a program.
    

    re .538
    
    Reproductive choice doesn't just include abortion, doncha know.  It
    includes availability of contraceptives and the empowerment to say no
    to sex, as well as abortion or term choices once a pregnancy has been
    established.  (In my mind and from my experience I don't count a
    pregnancy of under 10 weeks as established, 8 confirmed pregnancies, 3
    living children, natures way of establishing her clear choice around
    reproduction)  
    
    The RNC has had clear party planks that are rabidly anti-abortion,
    given some of their other issues, I don't count them as pro-life.  
    
    The attempts at gutting regulatory agencies around clean air and water
    when pollution doesn't recognize the bouncries of state and coutries,
    let alone corporate property is enough to curl what would be left of my
    hair if some of this stuff actully passed.  I live in a state with
    several active Superfund sites, many of which are combined
    radio-active/toxic waste dumps.  
    
    meg

| <<< Note 698.506 by ACISS2::LEECH "extremist" >>>

| I do not vote as a man, but as a citizen.  I vote for the candidate who
| will best uphold the Constitution.  

	Steve, you write your own name in at each election? :-)

| they are all deflections of what really matters- of what is really in the 
| best interest of this nation.

	How about what YOU believe is the best interest of the nation. Not
everyone agrees with you, I can tell you that now. Other people think other
issues are important for the best interest of the people.

| Is it any wonder that the Constitution is no longer worth the paper it
| is printed on?

	Steve, if you want things to be as they were, please build a time
machine and go back in time. I bet it would be a great history lesson.


Glen

RE: 698.519 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "tumble to remove burrs"

You know,  I've seen that "joke" someplace before.  How Special.


Phil

    Interesting that PBS aired a NOVA special about bombs (home grown
    terrorism) this evening.

    They didn't make any political comments about it - they just made
    it clear that bombs are a growing threat in this country.

    Good program.

    Obviously, neither party can win by selling a very negative image
    about what's going to happen to this country during the next decade
    (so the prediction I mentioned is strictly mine, in response to
    someone else's prediction about the collapse of the economy.)

    By the way, "issues which the majority of women find important" is
    not equivalent to the term "women's issues".
    

    
    re: .543
    
    >They didn't make any political comments about it - they just made
    >it clear that bombs are a growing threat in this country.
    
    And, course, they added that millions "could" be killed... right?
    

    
    Any word on the source of the poll yet, Suzanne?
    

    .540
    
    I believe that both sexes have always had the ability and empowerment
    to say "no" to no only sex but drugs as well.  No government program is
    necessary to provide this.  Is it possible that the attitudes and
    availability of contraception contributed some of the problems you
    identify?
    
    Your last paragraph, as far as I know is inaccurate.  I have not seen
    any proposal that would create waste sites in anyone's back yard, nor
    have I seen them present any plan to make ware and air dirtier.  I have
    seen proposals to eliminate many of the excesses of the EPA, et al. 
    These agencies have so far exceeded their original purpose as to be a
    real burden and drain on our economy.  Not to mkention that many of
    their rulings violate the Constitution.
    
    I will agree that anyone who proposes destroying the environment should
    not and would not get support on those programs.
    

 Z   And yes, in anticipation of your response, I DO trust the public that
 Z       much.
    
    Well don't worry Steve, you'll grow up someday and get a taste of
    reality.  It's just a matter of time.  You're aren't from Berkeley and
    you aren't from Cambridge so it is inevitable.
    
    You may demand your tithe back and your synagogue may say, "sorry, the
    public already spent it."  Then the courts will promptly flash you the
    bird.
    
    I don't think you will like the public getting the slightest bit
    involved in your synagogue affairs.
    
    -Jack 

    .442
    
    >> didn't think it was necessary to
        identify the obvious for you.<<
    
    The only thing obvious about your notes Rocush is that you have
    been brainwashed by listening to too many GOPAC inspirational tapes, 
    while sniffing the glossy finish on the paper of Newt articles.

    Re.  Suzanne,

You're right. They are issues that a majority of women are concerned about,
not "women's issues" (';  However, some issues do pertain directly to
women. I guess that's why I've refered to them as "women's issues". Then
again, these very issues affect men as well...
    
    Re.  -.2 (or so)
    
    >> I believe that both sexes have always had the ability and empowerment
    >> to say "no" to no only sex but drugs as well.  No government program is
    >> necessary to provide this.  Is it possible that the attitudes and
    >> availability of contraception contributed some of the problems you
    >> identify?

They (both sexes) may have always had the 'ability and empowerment' to say
"no", but, at least for women and sex, they haven't always been listened
to. Remember that campaign a while ago... "What part of 'NO' don't you
understand?"

As far as government programs go... I'm not sure they've been much help. On
the other hand, our society has become much more aware of rape than it was
in the past, though it still has a long way to go.
    
    >> Your last paragraph, as far as I know is inaccurate.  I have not seen
    >> any proposal that would create waste sites in anyone's back yard, nor
    >> have I seen them present any plan to make ware and air dirtier.
    
In New Mexico, there was some talk of using one of the reservations as a
nuclear dumping site. IMHO, that (especially when I lived in New Mexico)
was in my back yard.

    .549
    
    Actually, I spent most of my formative years in Ann Arbor.  So much for
    your theory.
    
    Aren't you one of the Constitutional purists here?  Sounds to me like
    you favor the federal government making all of the decisions regarding
    institutional tax-exemption.
    
    My synagogue has nothing to hide from the public.  Nor are they afraid
    of the public.  Howsabout your church?
    

  ZZ   Actually, I spent most of my formative years in Ann Arbor.  
    
    Oh Gawd, Michigan...I should have known!
    
    I'm sure your synagogue has nothing to hide from the federal
    government.  Don't forget however that the Separation of Church and
    State is one of the biggest mantra's of liberalism.  You can't have it
    both ways.  
    
    On the other hand, I do see your point.  While I disagree that any
    church or synagogue should have to be accountable to the general
    public fiscally, I also don't believe that companies like Blue Cross
    Blue Shield should be allowed the status of non profit.  We all know
    that is big business.
    
    Churches and synagogues are accountable to its members and to God.  We
    are, as the book of Joshua states, to meditate upon the word of God day
    and night and be careful to do everything in it.  It is up to the
    churches and synagogues to govern themselves and live on the principles
    to which God established.
    
    -Jack

    .553
    
    Let's not forget the basis of this thread - your contention that
    churches/charities would provide for the needy in a manner superior to
    the government (federal, I assume).  MY contention is that they SHOULD
    do so, but that, given the phenomenal greed evidenced by many such
    organizations (i.e., the Catholic church), such a scenario is unlikely. 
    I say give the non-profits the ENTIRE onus of providing for the
    downtrodden, and encourage the public to demand, at least, the same
    measure of accountability to which the government is subjected.
    

    care to document the "phenomenal greed" of the Catholic church?

  .555  right on cue.

    You're right. I should have meekly accepted the slander without having
    the gall to ask this bozo to back up his bashing. Silly me.

  .557  no, it's just that when i read his note, i said to myself
        "Time for the Doctah to put in some kind of note about
	Catholic-bashing."  et voila! 

    Re: The "greed" of the Catholic Church....
    
    Are you referring to the local church or are you referring to the
    Vatican?  
    
    If the Vatican, then we are whistling dixie because the Vatican is a
    country with it's own Ambassadors.  I don't believe the amassing of
    great wealth on the part of the Vatican is what they are commissioned
    to do, but the Vatican is outside the parameters of the US Tax
    collector.
    
    -Jack

    .541
    
    If you had paid attention to my note, you would know what I deem
    important, and it should be deemed important by all American citizens,
    as it is the basis of our way of life.
    
    I vote for the candidate who will best uphold the Constitution.  My
    personal pet issues are irrelevant beside this one thing.  And let me
    tell you something, it's getting damn hard to find someone I can
    comfortably vote for in this day and age.
    
    
    -steve

	So it seems you put the constitution before God when it comes to
elections. I'm sure God must love that.

    Note 698.535  (Meg)
    
>    Care to share on your church's charitable acts and how they get people
>    off the dole?

    Currently, my church is more centered on feeding/clothing the poor. 
    We do, however, "adopt" families- to help them become self-sufficient.
    
    In any case, why are you limiting this issue to my church?  I never
    limited "charity" specifically to the church.
    
>    You still haven't addressed my concerns and those of many other women
>    across the US who vote, and why we shouldn't vote for someone who may
>    be imperfect, but at least has some knowledge of what we find important.

    Why shouldn't I vote for someone who will ignore the Constitution, but
    will hand over <insert whatever- money, health care, etc.> to me.  This
    would certainly address my personal issues quite nicely.  Problem is,
    it is selling out this nation for what *I* want.  
    
    I think we place too much emphasis on "issues", and not enough on
    voting for a candidate that understands and respects the Constitution. 
    A candidate that will uphold the Constitution (keeping his oath of
    office) is singly the most important aspect of a representative...not
    what he can do for you.  
    
    Once you find a rep. who will uphold the Constitution, then you can
    look at where he stands on the "issues".  At least he will look at it
    from a broader Constitutional perspective, that is much needed these
    days.
    
    Currently, the only person I am comfortable voting for Pres. would be
    Harry Browne.  Unfortunately, he has little chance of winning, so I'm
    reduced to voting for someone I don't like, to get someone I like even
    less out of office (someone who has proven to me to have no respect for
    our founding document(s)).
    
    
    -steve

    .561
    
    What ARE you babbling about, Glen?

| <<< Note 698.506 by ACISS2::LEECH "extremist" >>>

| I do not vote as a man, but as a citizen.  I vote for the candidate who
| will best uphold the Constitution.  I do not base me vote on women's issues,
| men's issues, Christian issues, 


	I'm babbling about this. You put the constitution before God. How nice.

    
    
    You're still babbling Glen...
    
     Where do you see him putting things before God??
    
    

    
    	If his name were Brooke, that sentence would have been funnier.
    

	Shawn, a brook can flow through a Glen, ya know.

	If he is putting the constitution before christian issues, then he is
putting the constitution before God. Unless Christian issues aren't dealing
with what God wants. Hey, maybe he realizes that. :-)

    So Glen, in your eyes Steve  should be proposing a theocracy...which of
    course you would decry the rights of all citizens to their autonomous
    beliefs.  No problem.  Then you piss and moan the Steve is putting the
    Constitution before God...another absurdity.  
    
    ou're starting to sound like OJM whoever he is!

    By the way, I jilted you out of a snarf!  Nyaaaaaahhhhhh...

| <<< Note 698.569 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| So Glen, in your eyes Steve should be proposing a theocracy...

	That would be impossible. He should vote for who he thinks would be the
best candiate for his Christian values if he is a Christian, right? I believe
he is, but the constitution comes before God (not god like theocracy).

| course you would decry the rights of all citizens to their autonomous beliefs

	No, I think he can vote anyway he wants. I made an observation based on
what he said.