From: Chris H on
In message <2010041421333329560-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes
>I'm afraid my sense of ceremony is distinctly lacking. It also helped
>to have a sensible woman around me.
>After living is "sin" for 6 years we decide to do the "why not get
>married" thing. So it was off to the San Luis Obispo Court House. $50
>for a license. A clerk of the Court to officiate (not even a judge!)
>Then a dinner with a few good friends at a fine local restaurant.

I did much the same!!!

>We were waaay too cynical to let the wedding industry rob us. We had
>other things to spend our money on.
>...and we limited our moochers.

Agreed. However (looking at the NG headers) if some one wants to pay me
1000 GBP to shoot their wedding I am all in favour of big weddings
:-))))



--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/



From: Pete Stavrakoglou on
FYI, we "me first" right wingers have proven to be far more charitable with
our own money than the left wingers. Howeer, the left wingers are very
charitable with someone else's money.

Please, stop blaming the Republicans, that argument holds no water. The
Democrats have a mojority in both the Senate and the House, they are in
control and have the votes to pass anything they want.

"David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hq6s92$nqn$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>
> Hmmm, a "me first" right-wing attitude...;-)
> But, really, the Democrats have passed some financial form legislation
> in the House, but are now encountering the usual "'Bublican't" "Hell No!"
> reaction (as in, "reactionary"...) response in the Senate, with their
> usual
> "extreme stretching" of the truth about what is in the bill. It is not
> Obama
> who is impeding reform, but as usual, it is the Republicans who vote as
> a block against anything Obama wants, whether or not the Republicans
> originally submitted and cosponsored it(!). This is quite irresponsible
> "politics-first, the country's welfare be damned" behavior. The proposed
> reforms are needed now, and they move toward restoring the regulations
> that were weakened or removed, resulting in the near-disaster we just
> escaped (I hope...).
> --DR
>


From: David Ruether on

"Pete Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote in message news:hq6vsf$mtl$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote in message news:hq6s92$nqn$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu...

>> Hmmm, a "me first" right-wing attitude...;-)
>> But, really, the Democrats have passed some financial form legislation
>> in the House, but are now encountering the usual "'Bublican't" "Hell No!"
>> reaction (as in, "reactionary"...) response in the Senate, with their usual
>> "extreme stretching" of the truth about what is in the bill. It is not Obama
>> who is impeding reform, but as usual, it is the Republicans who vote as
>> a block against anything Obama wants, whether or not the Republicans
>> originally submitted and cosponsored it(!). This is quite irresponsible
>> "politics-first, the country's welfare be damned" behavior. The proposed
>> reforms are needed now, and they move toward restoring the regulations
>> that were weakened or removed, resulting in the near-disaster we just
>> escaped (I hope...).
>> --DR

> Please, stop blaming the Republicans, that argument holds no water. The Democrats have a mojority in both the Senate and the
> House, they are in control and have the votes to pass anything they want.

Oh - I guess you haven't been paying attention to what has
been going on in the last year or so. It took only one Republican
to potentially block final vote on the Health Care Reform bill
in the Senate, and ***ONE*** Republican, acting *alone*, to
block extended unemployment benefits. Not to mention the
threatened fight over the next Supreme Court member (*before
the nominee has even been named!*), and resistance to financial
reform passage in the Senate, using some of the same type of
misrepresentations of what is actually in the bill, as was done
with the Health Care Reform bill (remember "death panels",
"gov'mint control of health care", "socialization of health care",
"putting people in jail for not buying health care", etc.?). All to
fire up an unsuspecting public (or one misled by Fox "news")
to get pressure against passage of anything good for the country
(but *potentially* bad for Republican vote strategies). Do wake
up..., please....., and note how the government actually does
work (or does not, when one party decides to "gum up the
works', and can, even if it is the minority party).
--DR


From: David Ruether on

"Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
news:Uc-dndBPH77bqlvWnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...

[The usual nonsense from Neil Harrington is removed - and since
useful discourse with him is impossible, he is either a troll or he is
simply unable to understand or accept the truth of the experiences
of others (and of history), and will hold views harmful to others no
matter what... Therefore, <PLONK!>]
--DR


From: David Ruether on

"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bMednb_-lv-IolvWnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote in message news:hq4ktc$otk$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
>> news:kb6dnYJomvx3KVjWnZ2dnUVZ_uadnZ2d(a)giganews.com...

[...]
>>> But you aren't satisfied with that; for some reason you want some chimerical pretend-"marriage" to be recognized for what it is
>>> not, and you want other people to be forced by law to recognize it for something they know it is not.
>>>
>>> And that, you see, is the issue. Nothing to do with "bigotry."

>> It has everything to do with bigotry.
>> --DR

> Yes. It is bigotry in the same way that separate restrooms for blacks was bigotry in most Southern cities back in the 60's. It
> didn't matter that the restrooms were the same, or just as good, or even better and more numerous. No black person had to wet his
> pants.....Just the fact that they were separate was an imposition on his liberty.

Yes - but this concept does seem to be difficult for some to grasp
(that "equal but separate" cannot represent equality under the law
and the constitution), and it was so decided long ago by the supreme
court. But we still see posts like NH's above, and PS's below who
fail to understand what "bigotry" means, and that permitting its
existence is not appropriate.
--DR