From: Bill Graham on

<stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hq84lt$oer$3(a)news.albasani.net...
> Neil Harrington wrote:
>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>
>>> but want to apply the new laws to it. And this (sadly) takes away some
>>> peoples constitutional rights.
>>
>> Whoa! What "constitutional rights" does it take away? If you can show me
>> how it does that, I promise to reverse my position on this, on the spot.
>
> It's been pointed our, you continue to ignore the facts.
>
>> No one believes more strongly than I do in constitutional rights --
>
>
> But Neil, you are only interested in YOUR rights. Screw some minority of
> the population.
>
> Stephanie

Yes. I don't see any way to believe in the US Constitution and not allow
gays to marry. This could only be possible if "marriage" was only a ritual
of some private club. As long as it is a government sanctioned state,
everyone must be allowed to enter into it. And I am sure that very soon,
everyone will be allowed to do so.

From: Ray Fischer on
Neil Harrington <never(a)home.com> wrote:
>> It would be the end of the USA as a world power in weeks.
>
>We currently have a Chicago machine thug and his gang in the White House. If
>we can survive that I suppose we can survive anything, but anyway Sarah

It is clear that these rightard bigots hate Obama, for whatever reason, and
do not care what he does or does not do. They will lie shamelessly,
make up absurd stories, and ignore the truth in order to rationalize
their irrational hatred.

Why? Obama is no more left than was Clinton, and much less
big-government than was Bush. Is it really all based upon racism?

>Palin can stand on her own.

What a stupid statement.

> She has principles and ideals.

She has neither. Abandoning her job in order to sell hate to the
right wingnuts is not principled.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: stephe_k on
Bill Graham wrote:
>
> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:hq7q1r$8q1$1(a)news.albasani.net...
>
>> I just don't see why the "religious right" in this country thinks they
>> should be allowed to control how other people live.
>>
>> Stephanie
>>
> I agree with this, but why don't you expand the concept and say, "I just
> don't see why anyone in this country thinks they should be allowed to
> control how other people live." Only government and the law should have
> that kind of power, and even they should be subject to the restraints of
> the constitution. If there are no one else's rights involved, then
> someone should be able to do whatever he/she damn well pleases.


I have to agree with that. As long as what they do doesn't have a
negative impact on my life (like stealing from me or burning down my
house etc) or violate -my- rights, they should be allowed to do whatever
they want.

Stephanie
From: Ray Fischer on
Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>Nice try.....Obama sure looks and talks like a statesman. And I don't like
>Palin any more than you do. But I don't think she would spend two trillion
>dollars of my money.

Certainly not if you're white and upper-middle class. The GOP doesn't
believe in taking money from those who have it, but will freely spend
the money of the middle and lower class incomes.

> And, I think she believes in personal responsibility
>when it comes to saving and investing for ones own future,

Which is why she left Wasilla AND Alaska much deeper in debt when she
left office.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: stephe_k on
Bill Graham wrote:
>
> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:hq84lt$oer$3(a)news.albasani.net...
>> Neil Harrington wrote:
>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>>>> but want to apply the new laws to it. And this (sadly) takes away
>>>> some peoples constitutional rights.
>>>
>>> Whoa! What "constitutional rights" does it take away? If you can show
>>> me how it does that, I promise to reverse my position on this, on the
>>> spot.
>>
>> It's been pointed our, you continue to ignore the facts.
>>
>>> No one believes more strongly than I do in constitutional rights --
>>
>>
>> But Neil, you are only interested in YOUR rights. Screw some minority
>> of the population.
>>
>> Stephanie
>
> Yes. I don't see any way to believe in the US Constitution and not allow
> gays to marry. This could only be possible if "marriage" was only a
> ritual of some private club. As long as it is a government sanctioned
> state, everyone must be allowed to enter into it. And I am sure that
> very soon, everyone will be allowed to do so.


Right or the government needs to stop regulating it, remove the "rights"
they have in place and turn this back over to the churches to deal with.


Stephanie