| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Craig Chilton" |
| Date: |
17 Nov 2005 07:44:19 AM |
| Object: |
Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
Unwritten Rules of (Pseudo-Christian)
[RRR Cult] Hyper-Fundamentalism
(Found in alt.bible, authors unknown) -- (Updated by Craig)
1. "I'm right and you are wrong".
2. Never admit that you are wrong, even if you really are.
3. When you have nothing to say, hurl insults.
4. Regard and portray your own violence, whether physical,
psychological, or verbal, at all times as defensive
4a. Specific example for 4.: Cry for "freedom of religion",
but whenever followers of *other* faiths want the same
freedom and the courts agree, scream "Persecution!"
And then WHINE about "activist judges" and "legislating
from the bench."
5. Be prepared at all times to lie and bluster, particularly when
backed into a corner in an argument
5a. When caught lying, always accuse the opposition of
lying rather than be honest and admit the obvious.
6. Never accept responsibility for any mess you have
personally caused.
7. When you are forced to admit to an error, regard the whole
process of error and correction as part of God's personal plan
for you and not as something for which you should apologize,
retract, or make amends, except verbally and secretly to God,
Himself.
8. Always see yourself and you personal actions as part of God's
plans for the world. Recognize that even your errors are just
part of God's will for the betterment of mankind.
9. Profess humility but avoid the actual experience of it.
10. Refuse to take in information that differs from your own view
and oppose all such information through classification of such
information in a derogatory and simplistic manner(e.g., by cate-
gorizing it as left-wing propaganda).
11. Refuse to accept that truth is not black and white; that reality
is complex and there are shades of gray.
12. Refuse to forgive anyone else for anything unless you purport
to forgive on behalf of other people unconnected with you for
whom you don't have that right anyhow.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
--
RRR cult lemmings... dumber than dirt.
.
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: OT: My FAVORITE Telemarketing Calls... |
06 Jan 2006 07:39:43 PM |
|
|
...are the ones that go like THIS:
Phone rings. I pick it up. "Hello..."
Dead air for about 2 seconds. Then a
recorded voice says: "You have a call coming in..."
To which I think, as I gleefully hang up the
phone -- "Thanks for the heads-up on that!"
(Obviously, RRR cult lemming aren't the ONLY
dumb klutzes in the world. A telemarketing firm would
have to be dumber than a dead rock to provide people
with such a nifty way as that to NOT be bothered with
them. BUT... there may just be one more level of
stupidity below *that*: Anyone who actually waits
long enough for that call to GET through. (LOL!!!) )
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Young" |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
18 Nov 2005 08:03:15 PM |
|
|
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:5a0pn1tk1fe7onae6r8bslf2ek5s5ir21s@4ax.com...
Unwritten Rules of (Pseudo-Christian)
[RRR Cult] Hyper-Fundamentalism
(Found in alt.bible, authors unknown) -- (Updated by Craig)
< snip rantings of the LLL ( Looney Liberal Left ) >
Hypocrite, thy name is Chilton!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
19 Nov 2005 12:48:37 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 21:03:15 -0500,
"Jon Young"/"IBen Getiner" wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
Unwritten Rules of (Pseudo-Christian)
[RRR Cult] Hyper-Fundamentalism
(Found in alt.bible, authors unknown) -- (Updated by Craig)
1. "I'm right and you are wrong".
2. Never admit that you are wrong, even if you really are.
3. When you have nothing to say, hurl insults.
4. Regard and portray your own violence, whether physical,
psychological, or verbal, at all times as defensive
4a. Specific example for 4.: Cry for "freedom of religion",
but whenever followers of *other* faiths want the same
freedom and the courts agree, scream "Persecution!"
And then WHINE about "activist judges" and "legislating
from the bench."
5. Be prepared at all times to lie and bluster, particularly when
backed into a corner in an argument
5a. When caught lying, always accuse the opposition of
lying rather than be honest and admit the obvious.
6. Never accept responsibility for any mess you have
personally caused.
7. When you are forced to admit to an error, regard the whole
process of error and correction as part of God's personal plan
for you and not as something for which you should apologize,
retract, or make amends, except verbally and secretly to God,
Himself.
8. Always see yourself and you personal actions as part of God's
plans for the world. Recognize that even your errors are just
part of God's will for the betterment of mankind.
9. Profess humility but avoid the actual experience of it.
10. Refuse to take in information that differs from your own view
and oppose all such information through classification of such
information in a derogatory and simplistic manner(e.g., by cate-
gorizing it as left-wing propaganda).
11. Refuse to accept that truth is not black and white; that reality
is complex and there are shades of gray.
12. Refuse to forgive anyone else for anything unless you purport
to forgive on behalf of other people unconnected with you for
whom you don't have that right anyhow.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
===
RRR cult lemmings... dumber than dirt.
Hypocrite, thy name is Chilton!
ROTFL!!!!! Okay **liar** -- be the FIRST person in here ever to
substantiate such a dishonest claim.
("Jon/IBen"... what a comical and ignorant tool.)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
17 Nov 2005 12:16:58 PM |
|
|
Can you spare us the verbosity and show us where some RRR Cult is registered
as an official organization in the USA?
We already know that NAMBLA, NARAL, Planned Parenthood and gay and lesbian
organizations are registered in the USA, but where is this imagine RRR Cult
registered?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
17 Nov 2005 12:51:00 PM |
|
|
Unwritten Rules of (Pseudo-Christian)
[RRR Cult] Hyper-Fundamentalism
(Found in alt.bible, authors unknown) -- (Updated by Craig)
1. "I'm right and you are wrong".
2. Never admit that you are wrong, even if you really are.
3. When you have nothing to say, hurl insults.
4. Regard and portray your own violence, whether physical,
psychological, or verbal, at all times as defensive
4a. Specific example for 4.: Cry for "freedom of religion",
but whenever followers of *other* faiths want the same
freedom and the courts agree, scream "Persecution!"
And then WHINE about "activist judges" and "legislating
from the bench."
5. Be prepared at all times to lie and bluster, particularly when
backed into a corner in an argument
5a. When caught lying, always accuse the opposition of
lying rather than be honest and admit the obvious.
6. Never accept responsibility for any mess you have
personally caused.
7. When you are forced to admit to an error, regard the whole
process of error and correction as part of God's personal plan
for you and not as something for which you should apologize,
retract, or make amends, except verbally and secretly to God,
Himself.
8. Always see yourself and you personal actions as part of God's
plans for the world. Recognize that even your errors are just
part of God's will for the betterment of mankind.
9. Profess humility but avoid the actual experience of it.
10. Refuse to take in information that differs from your own view
and oppose all such information through classification of such
information in a derogatory and simplistic manner(e.g., by cate-
gorizing it as left-wing propaganda).
11. Refuse to accept that truth is not black and white; that reality
is complex and there are shades of gray.
12. Refuse to forgive anyone else for anything unless you purport
to forgive on behalf of other people unconnected with you for
whom you don't have that right anyhow.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
--
RRR cult lemmings... dumber than dirt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
17 Nov 2005 01:15:32 PM |
|
|
Do you enjoy wasting bandwidth?
Your writings are very boring.
I'm not kidding you either.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
17 Nov 2005 08:10:42 PM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
I'm not kidding you either.
That's good; It would be amusing if you were to give him your goat.
Can't have that...
--
"If Christians want us to believe in a Redeemer, let them act redeemed."
--Voltaire
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
17 Nov 2005 01:39:12 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 14:15:32 -0500,
Moronic Sociopath, John Wentzy wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
Unwritten Rules of (Pseudo-Christian)
[RRR Cult] Hyper-Fundamentalism
(Found in alt.bible, authors unknown) -- (Updated by Craig)
1. "I'm right and you are wrong".
2. Never admit that you are wrong, even if you really are.
3. When you have nothing to say, hurl insults.
4. Regard and portray your own violence, whether physical,
psychological, or verbal, at all times as defensive
4a. Specific example for 4.: Cry for "freedom of religion",
but whenever followers of *other* faiths want the same
freedom and the courts agree, scream "Persecution!"
And then WHINE about "activist judges" and "legislating
from the bench."
5. Be prepared at all times to lie and bluster, particularly when
backed into a corner in an argument
5a. When caught lying, always accuse the opposition of
lying rather than be honest and admit the obvious.
6. Never accept responsibility for any mess you have
personally caused.
7. When you are forced to admit to an error, regard the whole
process of error and correction as part of God's personal plan
for you and not as something for which you should apologize,
retract, or make amends, except verbally and secretly to God,
Himself.
8. Always see yourself and you personal actions as part of God's
plans for the world. Recognize that even your errors are just
part of God's will for the betterment of mankind.
9. Profess humility but avoid the actual experience of it.
10. Refuse to take in information that differs from your own view
and oppose all such information through classification of such
information in a derogatory and simplistic manner(e.g., by cate-
gorizing it as left-wing propaganda).
11. Refuse to accept that truth is not black and white; that reality
is complex and there are shades of gray.
12. Refuse to forgive anyone else for anything unless you purport
to forgive on behalf of other people unconnected with you for
whom you don't have that right anyhow.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
--
RRR cult lemmings... dumber than dirt.
Do you enjoy wasting bandwidth?
There's no shortage of bandwidth, and you do nothing BUT
waste it.
Your writings are very boring.
Look who's talking. One of the MOST boring and mindless
bigots in Usenet. Who doesn't give a rat's ***** about anyone
but himself. A social retard.
ROTFL!!!! What a tool.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
18 Nov 2005 04:10:58 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 14:15:32 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<kD4ff.36395$td.11321@bignews3.bellsouth.net> wrote:
Do you enjoy wasting bandwidth?
Your writings are very boring.
I'm not kidding you either.
That's funny, considering how much off topic posting you do.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
18 Nov 2005 06:36:28 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:16:58 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<pM3ff.70810$ty1.27788@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
Off topic
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "L. Michael Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
19 Nov 2005 08:11:30 AM |
|
|
Craig Chilton wrote:
Unwritten Rules of (Pseudo-Christian)
[RRR Cult] Hyper-Fundamentalism
(Found in alt.bible, authors unknown) -- (Updated by Craig)
<snip>
I recently read a fascinating essay entitled "Metaphor, Morality, and
Politics, Or, Why Conservatives Have Left Liberals In the Dust". This
is a very worthwhile read to better understand how the debate in the USA
has been framed and I highly recommend it.
Extract:
"For me, one of the most poignant effects of the ignorance of
metaphorical thought is the mystification of liberals concerning the
recent electoral successes of conservatives. Conservatives regularly
chide liberals for not understanding them, and they are right. Liberals
don't understand how anti-abortion "right-to-life" activists can favor
the death penalty and oppose reducing infant morality through prenatal
care programs. They don't understand why budget-cutting conservatives
should spare no public expense to build prison after prison to house
even non-violent offenders, or why they are willing to spend extra money
to take children away from their mothers and put them in orphanages ---
in the name of family values. They don't understand why conservatives
attack violence in the media while promoting the right to own machine
guns. Liberals tend not to understand the logic of conservatism; they
don't understand what form of morality makes conservative positions
moral or what conservative family values have to do with the rest of
conservative politics. The reason at bottom is that liberals do not
understand the form of metaphorical thought that unifies and makes sense
of the full range of conservative values.
To understand what metaphor has to do with conservative politics, we
must begin with that part of our metaphor system that is used to
conceptualize morality -- a system of roughly two dozen metaphors. To
illustrate how the system works, let us begin with one of the most
prominent metaphors in the system -- the metaphor by which morality is
conceptualized in terms of accounting."
Full Essay at: http://www.wwcd.org/issues/Lakoff.html
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bonnie Bitch" |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
19 Nov 2005 03:09:15 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 09:11:30 -0500, the faaaaabulous supreme deity
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of "L. Michael
Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com>
Craig Chilton wrote:
Unwritten Rules of (Pseudo-Christian)
[RRR Cult] Hyper-Fundamentalism
(Found in alt.bible, authors unknown) -- (Updated by Craig)
<snip>
I recently read a fascinating essay entitled "Metaphor, Morality, and
Politics, Or, Why Conservatives Have Left Liberals In the Dust". This
is a very worthwhile read to better understand how the debate in the USA
has been framed and I highly recommend it.
Extract:
"For me, one of the most poignant effects of the ignorance of
metaphorical thought is the mystification of liberals concerning the
recent electoral successes of conservatives. Conservatives regularly
chide liberals for not understanding them, and they are right. Liberals
don't understand how anti-abortion "right-to-life" activists can favor
the death penalty and oppose reducing infant morality through prenatal
care programs. They don't understand why budget-cutting conservatives
should spare no public expense to build prison after prison to house
even non-violent offenders, or why they are willing to spend extra money
to take children away from their mothers and put them in orphanages ---
in the name of family values. They don't understand why conservatives
attack violence in the media while promoting the right to own machine
guns. Liberals tend not to understand the logic of conservatism; they
don't understand what form of morality makes conservative positions
moral or what conservative family values have to do with the rest of
conservative politics. The reason at bottom is that liberals do not
understand the form of metaphorical thought that unifies and makes sense
of the full range of conservative values.
To understand what metaphor has to do with conservative politics, we
must begin with that part of our metaphor system that is used to
conceptualize morality -- a system of roughly two dozen metaphors. To
illustrate how the system works, let us begin with one of the most
prominent metaphors in the system -- the metaphor by which morality is
conceptualized in terms of accounting."
Full Essay at: http://www.wwcd.org/issues/Lakoff.html
Thank you for the link.
My own take on it is that human beings with functioning consciences
and brains have better things to do than contemplate republiCUNT
atrocities and their sickening *****. I guess we should, though, if
we're to stop the christstain republiCUNTS from turning the US into a
fascist theocracy. <sigh>
May the Blessings of Gong Gong rain ubiquitously and reign supreme!
Rev. Bonnie *****, Universal Life Church
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill K." |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
29 Nov 2005 12:09:51 PM |
|
|
Gee, Chilton, I didn't know you were a RRRist. This list describes what
YOU have been doing for YEARS.
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:44:19 +0000, Craig Chilton wrote:
Unwritten Rules of (Pseudo-Christian)
[RRR Cult] Hyper-Fundamentalism
(Found in alt.bible, authors unknown) -- (Updated by Craig)
1. "I'm right and you are wrong".
2. Never admit that you are wrong, even if you really are.
3. When you have nothing to say, hurl insults.
4. Regard and portray your own violence, whether physical,
psychological, or verbal, at all times as defensive
4a. Specific example for 4.: Cry for "freedom of religion",
but whenever followers of *other* faiths want the same
freedom and the courts agree, scream "Persecution!"
And then WHINE about "activist judges" and "legislating
from the bench."
5. Be prepared at all times to lie and bluster, particularly when
backed into a corner in an argument
5a. When caught lying, always accuse the opposition of
lying rather than be honest and admit the obvious.
6. Never accept responsibility for any mess you have
personally caused.
7. When you are forced to admit to an error, regard the whole
process of error and correction as part of God's personal plan
for you and not as something for which you should apologize,
retract, or make amends, except verbally and secretly to God,
Himself.
8. Always see yourself and you personal actions as part of God's
plans for the world. Recognize that even your errors are just
part of God's will for the betterment of mankind.
9. Profess humility but avoid the actual experience of it.
10. Refuse to take in information that differs from your own view
and oppose all such information through classification of such
information in a derogatory and simplistic manner(e.g., by cate-
gorizing it as left-wing propaganda).
11. Refuse to accept that truth is not black and white; that reality
is complex and there are shades of gray.
12. Refuse to forgive anyone else for anything unless you purport
to forgive on behalf of other people unconnected with you for
whom you don't have that right anyhow.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
--
RRR cult lemmings... dumber than dirt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
30 Nov 2005 01:53:31 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 13:09:51 -0500,
"Bill K." <bilkay@XXXoptonline.net> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
Unwritten Rules of (Pseudo-Christian)
[RRR Cult] Hyper-Fundamentalism
(Found in alt.bible, authors unknown) -- (Updated by Craig)
1. "I'm right and you are wrong".
2. Never admit that you are wrong, even if you really are.
3. When you have nothing to say, hurl insults.
4. Regard and portray your own violence, whether physical,
psychological, or verbal, at all times as defensive
4a. Specific example for 4.: Cry for "freedom of religion",
but whenever followers of *other* faiths want the same
freedom and the courts agree, scream "Persecution!"
And then WHINE about "activist judges" and "legislating
from the bench."
5. Be prepared at all times to lie and bluster, particularly when
backed into a corner in an argument
5a. When caught lying, always accuse the opposition of
lying rather than be honest and admit the obvious.
6. Never accept responsibility for any mess you have
personally caused.
7. When you are forced to admit to an error, regard the whole
process of error and correction as part of God's personal plan
for you and not as something for which you should apologize,
retract, or make amends, except verbally and secretly to God,
Himself.
8. Always see yourself and you personal actions as part of God's
plans for the world. Recognize that even your errors are just
part of God's will for the betterment of mankind.
9. Profess humility but avoid the actual experience of it.
10. Refuse to take in information that differs from your own view
and oppose all such information through classification of such
information in a derogatory and simplistic manner(e.g., by cate-
gorizing it as left-wing propaganda).
11. Refuse to accept that truth is not black and white; that reality
is complex and there are shades of gray.
12. Refuse to forgive anyone else for anything unless you purport
to forgive on behalf of other people unconnected with you for
whom you don't have that right anyhow.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
--
RRR cult lemmings... dumber than dirt.
Gee, Chilton, I didn't know you were a RRRist.
I'm quite the OPPOSITE of an RRR Cult lemming. Their loathsome
and anti-social agendas have NO redeeming social significance what-
soever... to therefore are supported by NO person who is both intelli-
gent AND sensible.
This list describes what YOU have been doing for YEARS.
Thanks for your clear proof of Points 5 and 5a, above.,
(LOL!!! And for providing further evidence of what my sig says.)
CHALLENGE: Provide ONE good reason for anyone's doing
*either* of the socially-retarded things described
in (A) and (B), below:
A. A person seeks to impose IMMENSE hardship upon no
fewer than tens of MILLIONS of women by FORCING childbirth
upon them. AGAINST their will. Resulting in the DENIAL of their
rights... their RELEGATION to second-class-citizen status... their
INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE to mere, NON-sentient, Stage 2, 3,
and 4 reproductive-process entities which are, in all important
ways, equivalent to the Stage 1 entities that you so *hypocritically*
do NOT "defend"-- which *also* are human, unique, alive, and
comprise a stage of development without which NO births would
occur. UNwanted entities which the WOMEN very sensibly,
under their circumstances, often regard to be parasitic.
Further manifestations of that hardship would be the DISRUPTION
of their well-being, both short-term and long-term (as in, for decades
or a lifetime)... and the DESTRUCTION of countless of their oppor-
tunities.
B. A person seeks to see that the legalization of same-sex
marriage fails to materialize in his/her state or country. Even
though ANY marriage provides an additional incentive for having
a monogamous sex life. (Sure, it would fail to live up to that in
many cases, just as is the case with opposite-sex married couples.
But for those who DO stay faithful to their same-sex partners,
their likelihood of ever contacting HIV/AIDS via sex is zero.)
(Suppose the legalization of s-s marriage saves even only ONE
life, total. What is of greater value: the entire hateful agenda to
deny legal s-s marriage... or ONE person's life?) AND, of course,
NO person (to the best of my knowledge) has ever been able
to explain how *any* opposite-sex couples' marriage could be
damaged in any way if a gay couple in thier town who've been
cohabiting for years were able to become legally married, and
then tied the knot.
[[[ READERS... watch now as he either whines something
having no substance -- or ducks and runs. Odds favor
the latter by around 100 to 1. ]]]
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
--
RRR cult lemmings... dumber than dirt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill K." |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
30 Nov 2005 10:28:17 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 07:53:31 +0000, Craig Chilton wrote:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 13:09:51 -0500,
"Bill K." <bilkay@XXXoptonline.net> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
Unwritten Rules of (Pseudo-Christian)
[RRR Cult] Hyper-Fundamentalism
(Found in alt.bible, authors unknown) -- (Updated by Craig)
1. "I'm right and you are wrong".
2. Never admit that you are wrong, even if you really are.
3. When you have nothing to say, hurl insults.
4. Regard and portray your own violence, whether physical,
psychological, or verbal, at all times as defensive
4a. Specific example for 4.: Cry for "freedom of religion",
but whenever followers of *other* faiths want the same
freedom and the courts agree, scream "Persecution!"
And then WHINE about "activist judges" and "legislating
from the bench."
5. Be prepared at all times to lie and bluster, particularly when
backed into a corner in an argument
5a. When caught lying, always accuse the opposition of
lying rather than be honest and admit the obvious.
6. Never accept responsibility for any mess you have
personally caused.
7. When you are forced to admit to an error, regard the whole
process of error and correction as part of God's personal plan
for you and not as something for which you should apologize,
retract, or make amends, except verbally and secretly to God,
Himself.
8. Always see yourself and you personal actions as part of God's
plans for the world. Recognize that even your errors are just
part of God's will for the betterment of mankind.
9. Profess humility but avoid the actual experience of it.
10. Refuse to take in information that differs from your own view
and oppose all such information through classification of such
information in a derogatory and simplistic manner(e.g., by cate-
gorizing it as left-wing propaganda).
11. Refuse to accept that truth is not black and white; that reality
is complex and there are shades of gray.
12. Refuse to forgive anyone else for anything unless you purport
to forgive on behalf of other people unconnected with you for
whom you don't have that right anyhow.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
--
RRR cult lemmings... dumber than dirt.
Gee, Chilton, I didn't know you were a RRRist.
I'm quite the OPPOSITE of an RRR Cult lemming. Their loathsome
and anti-social agendas have NO redeeming social significance what-
soever... to therefore are supported by NO person who is both intelli-
gent AND sensible.
This list describes what YOU have been doing for YEARS.
Thanks for your clear proof of Points 5 and 5a, above.,
Exactly WHICH of your "points" doesn't apply to YOU? Let's start with #1 -
have you ever acknowledged being wrong? Have you ever acknowledged that an
opponent is right?
(LOL!!! And for providing further evidence of what my sig says.)
CHALLENGE: Provide ONE good reason for anyone's doing
*either* of the socially-retarded things described
in (A) and (B), below:
A. A person seeks to impose IMMENSE hardship upon no
fewer than tens of MILLIONS of women by FORCING childbirth
upon them. AGAINST their will.
What evidence do you have that ANY opponent of abortion advocates RAPE?
That's what you're saying.
Resulting in the DENIAL of their
rights... their RELEGATION to second-class-citizen status...
If "second-class-citizen status" means having no rights, can you tell us
what "reproductive rights" apply to MEN?
their
INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE to mere, NON-sentient, Stage 2, 3,
and 4 reproductive-process entities which are, in all important
ways, equivalent to the Stage 1 entities that you so *hypocritically*
do NOT "defend"-- which *also* are human, unique, alive, and
comprise a stage of development without which NO births would
occur. UNwanted entities which the WOMEN very sensibly,
under their circumstances, often regard to be parasitic.
Further manifestations of that hardship would be the DISRUPTION
of their well-being, both short-term and long-term (as in, for decades
or a lifetime)... and the DESTRUCTION of countless of their oppor-
tunities.
B. A person seeks to see that the legalization of same-sex
marriage fails to materialize in his/her state or country. Even
though ANY marriage provides an additional incentive for having
a monogamous sex life.
Do you have ANY evidence whatsoever that same-sex "marriage" promotes
monogamy (i.e., discourages promiscuity)? I suspect that if criminal
penalties for adultery were reinstituted, the pressure for SSM would
evaporate in an instant.
(Sure, it would fail to live up to that in
many cases, just as is the case with opposite-sex married couples.
But for those who DO stay faithful to their same-sex partners,
their likelihood of ever contacting HIV/AIDS via sex is zero.)
(Suppose the legalization of s-s marriage saves even only ONE
life, total. What is of greater value: the entire hateful agenda to
deny legal s-s marriage... or ONE person's life?) AND, of course,
NO person (to the best of my knowledge) has ever been able
to explain how *any* opposite-sex couples' marriage could be
damaged in any way if a gay couple in thier town who've been
cohabiting for years were able to become legally married, and
then tied the knot.
The argument isn't about INDIVIDUAL marriages, it's about the INSTITUTION
of marriage. But even so, individual marriages ARE hurt by expanding
marriage to include a class of people for which it's BENEFITS were not
intended. People like you want us to ignore the PURPOSE of marriage and
its benefits, which is for the protection of children and their
caregivers. Any time a financial benefit is bestowed, we ALL end up paying
for it. If we bestow financial benefits MEANT for the benefit of children
on same-sex couples, the parents of CHILDREN will end up PAYING for them.
[[[ READERS... watch now as he either whines something
having no substance -- or ducks and runs. Odds favor
the latter by around 100 to 1. ]]]
Looks like you LOST that bet.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
--
RRR cult lemmings... dumber than dirt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tulle" |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
30 Nov 2005 12:56:23 PM |
|
|
Bill K. wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 07:53:31 +0000, Craig Chilton wrote:
[snip]
The argument isn't about INDIVIDUAL marriages, it's about the INSTITUTION
of marriage. But even so, individual marriages ARE hurt by expanding
marriage to include a class of people for which it's BENEFITS were not
intended. People like you want us to ignore the PURPOSE of marriage and
its benefits, which is for the protection of children and their
caregivers. Any time a financial benefit is bestowed, we ALL end up paying
for it. If we bestow financial benefits MEANT for the benefit of children
on same-sex couples, the parents of CHILDREN will end up PAYING for them.
You like you having to pay for my husbands children's medical care
through Medicad? Well, since I can't marry him under the law and cannot
add him and our children to my health insurance at work. YOU PAY! Or
pehaps the Medcare and Medicad YOU PAY, to my husband, because he is
disabled? You could save a lot of money by letting us get married. But
until then you can PAY for it.
[[[ READERS... watch now as he either whines something
having no substance -- or ducks and runs. Odds favor
the latter by around 100 to 1. ]]]
Looks like you LOST that bet.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
--
RRR cult lemmings... dumber than dirt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill K." |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
30 Nov 2005 01:56:57 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 10:56:23 -0800, tulle wrote:
Bill K. wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 07:53:31 +0000, Craig Chilton wrote:
[snip]
The argument isn't about INDIVIDUAL marriages, it's about the INSTITUTION
of marriage. But even so, individual marriages ARE hurt by expanding
marriage to include a class of people for which it's BENEFITS were not
intended. People like you want us to ignore the PURPOSE of marriage and
its benefits, which is for the protection of children and their
caregivers. Any time a financial benefit is bestowed, we ALL end up paying
for it. If we bestow financial benefits MEANT for the benefit of children
on same-sex couples, the parents of CHILDREN will end up PAYING for them.
You like you having to pay for my husbands children's medical care
through Medicad? Well, since I can't marry him under the law and cannot
add him and our children to my health insurance at work. YOU PAY! Or
pehaps the Medcare and Medicad YOU PAY, to my husband, because he is
disabled? You could save a lot of money by letting us get married. But
until then you can PAY for it.
If you can't be married, he's not your "husband".
Public policy should not be determined by anecdotal sob stories. If your
playmate really wants a "wife" to carry him and his children, he's free
under the law to marry a WOMAN. Since he had children by a WOMAN, he really
isn't a confirmed homosexual.
[[[ READERS... watch now as he either whines something
having no substance -- or ducks and runs. Odds favor
the latter by around 100 to 1. ]]]
Looks like you LOST that bet.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
--
RRR cult lemmings... dumber than dirt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tulle" |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
01 Dec 2005 06:33:17 AM |
|
|
Bill K. wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 10:56:23 -0800, tulle wrote:
If you can't be married, he's not your "husband".
Public policy should not be determined by anecdotal sob stories. If your
playmate really wants a "wife" to carry him and his children, he's free
under the law to marry a WOMAN. Since he had children by a WOMAN, he really
isn't a confirmed homosexual.
You seem to have missed my point. You are right, under the law he is
not my husband. He is my husband in my heart. That is why you are
paying for him and his kids. He could get food stamps too, but that
gets to be very much a hassle as we would have to keep our food
seperate. I am sorry if I was not clear enough, about our legal status
as a couple.
My point is since you will not allow us to many, It is costing you
thousands of dollars of tax payer money. I hope this clears things up.
tulle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ananias917" |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
01 Dec 2005 07:00:39 AM |
|
|
On 1 Dec 2005 04:33:17 -0800, "tulle"
<tulle040657@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
Bill K. wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 10:56:23 -0800, tulle wrote:
If you can't be married, he's not your "husband".
Public policy should not be determined by anecdotal sob stories. If your
playmate really wants a "wife" to carry him and his children, he's free
under the law to marry a WOMAN. Since he had children by a WOMAN, he really
isn't a confirmed homosexual.
You seem to have missed my point. You are right, under the law he is
not my husband. He is my husband in my heart. That is why you are
paying for him and his kids. He could get food stamps too, but that
gets to be very much a hassle as we would have to keep our food
seperate. I am sorry if I was not clear enough, about our legal status
as a couple.
My point is since you will not allow us to many, It is costing you
thousands of dollars of tax payer money. I hope this clears things up.
Pretending that something is okay and putting a stamp
of approval on it to save money is wrong.
"For the love of money is a root of all evils, of which
some having lusted after, they were seduced from the
faith and pierced themselves through with many
sorrows." - 1 Timothy 6:10
And poor people are still poor when they're married.
They still get food stamps. If this is your lover,
then he would starve whether you're married or not.
He is not your husband anywhere. There is no such
thing as "my husband in my heart", since "husband"
is a legal status, not an emotional one.
--
"And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house;
and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the
Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way
as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest
receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost."
- Acts 9:17
.
|
|
|
| User: "tulle" |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
01 Dec 2005 07:14:32 AM |
|
|
Ananias917 wrote:
On 1 Dec 2005 04:33:17 -0800, "tulle"
<tulle040657@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
Bill K. wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 10:56:23 -0800, tulle wrote:
If you can't be married, he's not your "husband".
Public policy should not be determined by anecdotal sob stories. If your
playmate really wants a "wife" to carry him and his children, he's free
under the law to marry a WOMAN. Since he had children by a WOMAN, he really
isn't a confirmed homosexual.
You seem to have missed my point. You are right, under the law he is
not my husband. He is my husband in my heart. That is why you are
paying for him and his kids. He could get food stamps too, but that
gets to be very much a hassle as we would have to keep our food
seperate. I am sorry if I was not clear enough, about our legal status
as a couple.
My point is since you will not allow us to many, It is costing you
thousands of dollars of tax payer money. I hope this clears things up.
Pretending that something is okay and putting a stamp
of approval on it to save money is wrong.
Who said I was pretending it is ok? I don't think its ok. There is no
way we can afford to cover his medical expenses unless I could put him
on my insurance at work. I cannot do that unless we are married.
"For the love of money is a root of all evils, of which
some having lusted after, they were seduced from the
faith and pierced themselves through with many
sorrows." - 1 Timothy 6:10
As I am not a Christain, the Bible has no authority over me. Only the
law and my own religous beliefs guide my actions.
And poor people are still poor when they're married.
They still get food stamps. If this is your lover,
then he would starve whether you're married or not.
Nope I would never let him starve.
He is not your husband anywhere. There is no such
thing as "my husband in my heart", since "husband"
is a legal status, not an emotional one.
Perhaps you are not aware of the law in Massachusetts. There I could
legally marry him, or in Canada I could. Also in many Euorpean
coutries, we could be leagally wed. You might not accept it, but it
would be a valid legal status.
--
"And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house;
and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the
Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way
as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest
receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost."
- Acts 9:17
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ananias917" |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
01 Dec 2005 05:10:14 PM |
|
|
On 1 Dec 2005 05:14:32 -0800, "tulle"
<tulle040657@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
Ananias917 wrote:
On 1 Dec 2005 04:33:17 -0800, "tulle"
<tulle040657@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
Bill K. wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 10:56:23 -0800, tulle wrote:
If you can't be married, he's not your "husband".
Public policy should not be determined by anecdotal sob stories. If your
playmate really wants a "wife" to carry him and his children, he's free
under the law to marry a WOMAN. Since he had children by a WOMAN, he really
isn't a confirmed homosexual.
You seem to have missed my point. You are right, under the law he is
not my husband. He is my husband in my heart. That is why you are
paying for him and his kids. He could get food stamps too, but that
gets to be very much a hassle as we would have to keep our food
seperate. I am sorry if I was not clear enough, about our legal status
as a couple.
My point is since you will not allow us to many, It is costing you
thousands of dollars of tax payer money. I hope this clears things up.
Pretending that something is okay and putting a stamp
of approval on it to save money is wrong.
Who said I was pretending it is ok? I don't think its ok. There is no
way we can afford to cover his medical expenses unless I could put him
on my insurance at work. I cannot do that unless we are married.
There are options for him to get his own insurance.
And if he needs state aid, then so be it. The fact is,
that you are trying to make him a separate case from
the rest of the world. Homosexuals claim that they
aren't looking for special rights, but your whole
approach shows that you are.
If he is that poor, then what is the problem? You're
trying to pretend that he's in the condition he's in,
because of homosexual discrimination, as if he is
somehow being discriminated against. He's poor,
because he's poor, not because people don't like
homosexuals getting married and if it is your money
that is causing him to eat, that won't change if you
are married. In fact, he would be unable to get food
stamps to help out with, because they would now take
into account both of your incomes. So your attempt to
claim that because you can't get married he has trouble
eating, backfired.
Marriage is by definition, between a man and a woman
and when you claim that he is kept without health
insurance because he is a homosexual, you are indeed
trying to claim homosexual discrimination. The reality
is, that he is without health insurance because he is
poor. Marriage is not an option and it shouldn't be
and that is not the issue here. The issue here is that
he is unable to afford health insurance. Guess what,
so am I. I do not have any health insurance at all.
I have never had any health insurance since I was
a child. And the state will not help me with it,
because I am a white male. If anyone has a right
to claim to discrimination, it is me. Minorities
and women qualify automatically. White males
are the only ones in this country who are excluded
from many programs. Now that is about race.
You are trying to make sexual orientation an issue
and you are saying that because someone has sex
with a member of the same gender, that they should
have some special right to medical care that I do not
have and I'm sorry, that false logic won't work. (:
"For the love of money is a root of all evils, of which
some having lusted after, they were seduced from the
faith and pierced themselves through with many
sorrows." - 1 Timothy 6:10
As I am not a Christain, the Bible has no authority over me. Only the
law and my own religous beliefs guide my actions.
God has authority over you, whether you want to admit
it or not. If you don't want to believe that, then
don't. However, for example, the police don't go away
when you commit a crime, because you shout out, "I do
not believe that you have authority over me.". :)
And poor people are still poor when they're married.
They still get food stamps. If this is your lover,
then he would starve whether you're married or not.
Nope I would never let him starve.
Then stop whining. If he's eating, then he's eating.
You have nothing to complain about and the fact is,
that the two of you being married does nothing to
change his financial status, so you have been caught
trying to make a claim that is not valid at all, in
your effort to obtain special rights.
He is not your husband anywhere. There is no such
thing as "my husband in my heart", since "husband"
is a legal status, not an emotional one.
Perhaps you are not aware of the law in Massachusetts. There I could
legally marry him, or in Canada I could. Also in many Euorpean
coutries, we could be leagally wed. You might not accept it, but it
would be a valid legal status.
The laws in states have been reversed and any state
that allows "civil unions" would not be valid if you
move. When you can't wherever you want and be
thought of as married, that isn't a valid marriage.
--
"And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house;
and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the
Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way
as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest
receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost."
- Acts 9:17
.
|
|
|
| User: "tulle" |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
02 Dec 2005 06:26:20 AM |
|
|
Ananias917 wrote:
On 1 Dec 2005 05:14:32 -0800, "tulle"
<tulle040657@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
Ananias917 wrote:
On 1 Dec 2005 04:33:17 -0800, "tulle"
<tulle040657@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
Bill K. wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 10:56:23 -0800, tulle wrote:
If you can't be married, he's not your "husband".
Public policy should not be determined by anecdotal sob stories. If your
playmate really wants a "wife" to carry him and his children, he's free
under the law to marry a WOMAN. Since he had children by a WOMAN, he really
isn't a confirmed homosexual.
You seem to have missed my point. You are right, under the law he is
not my husband. He is my husband in my heart. That is why you are
paying for him and his kids. He could get food stamps too, but that
gets to be very much a hassle as we would have to keep our food
seperate. I am sorry if I was not clear enough, about our legal status
as a couple.
My point is since you will not allow us to many, It is costing you
thousands of dollars of tax payer money. I hope this clears things up.
Pretending that something is okay and putting a stamp
of approval on it to save money is wrong.
Who said I was pretending it is ok? I don't think its ok. There is no
way we can afford to cover his medical expenses unless I could put him
on my insurance at work. I cannot do that unless we are married.
There are options for him to get his own insurance.
And if he needs state aid, then so be it. The fact is,
that you are trying to make him a separate case from
the rest of the world. Homosexuals claim that they
aren't looking for special rights, but your whole
approach shows that you are.
If he is that poor, then what is the problem? You're
trying to pretend that he's in the condition he's in,
because of homosexual discrimination, as if he is
somehow being discriminated against. He's poor,
because he's poor, not because people don't like
homosexuals getting married and if it is your money
that is causing him to eat, that won't change if you
are married. In fact, he would be unable to get food
stamps to help out with, because they would now take
into account both of your incomes. So your attempt to
claim that because you can't get married he has trouble
eating, backfired.
??? Who said any thing about having trouble eating? He has not
requested food stamps, even though he could get them, because we could
not keep our food together. The only point I was trying to make is that
it is costing over $40,000 a year of tax payers money, in Medicare and
Medicad, because the fed and state gov, (lets skip the word problems)
does not allow me to claim my partner and his two kids on my tax
returns. OK? Where I work I can add my dependants to my health
insurance. I would pay 80% and they pay the other 20% of the premiums.
I hope your God is a forgiving one, because you sure are going to need
it later. I feel really sorry for you.
tulle
Marriage is by definition, between a man and a woman
and when you claim that he is kept without health
insurance because he is a homosexual, you are indeed
trying to claim homosexual discrimination. The reality
is, that he is without health insurance because he is
poor. Marriage is not an option and it shouldn't be
and that is not the issue here. The issue here is that
he is unable to afford health insurance. Guess what,
so am I. I do not have any health insurance at all.
I have never had any health insurance since I was
a child. And the state will not help me with it,
because I am a white male. If anyone has a right
to claim to discrimination, it is me. Minorities
and women qualify automatically. White males
are the only ones in this country who are excluded
from many programs. Now that is about race.
You are trying to make sexual orientation an issue
and you are saying that because someone has sex
with a member of the same gender, that they should
have some special right to medical care that I do not
have and I'm sorry, that false logic won't work. (:
"For the love of money is a root of all evils, of which
some having lusted after, they were seduced from the
faith and pierced themselves through with many
sorrows." - 1 Timothy 6:10
As I am not a Christain, the Bible has no authority over me. Only the
law and my own religous beliefs guide my actions.
God has authority over you, whether you want to admit
it or not. If you don't want to believe that, then
don't. However, for example, the police don't go away
when you commit a crime, because you shout out, "I do
not believe that you have authority over me.". :)
And poor people are still poor when they're married.
They still get food stamps. If this is your lover,
then he would starve whether you're married or not.
Nope I would never let him starve.
Then stop whining. If he's eating, then he's eating.
You have nothing to complain about and the fact is,
that the two of you being married does nothing to
change his financial status, so you have been caught
trying to make a claim that is not valid at all, in
your effort to obtain special rights.
He is not your husband anywhere. There is no such
thing as "my husband in my heart", since "husband"
is a legal status, not an emotional one.
Perhaps you are not aware of the law in Massachusetts. There I could
legally marry him, or in Canada I could. Also in many Euorpean
coutries, we could be leagally wed. You might not accept it, but it
would be a valid legal status.
The laws in states have been reversed and any state
that allows "civil unions" would not be valid if you
move. When you can't wherever you want and be
thought of as married, that isn't a valid marriage.
--
"And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house;
and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the
Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way
as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest
receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost."
- Acts 9:17
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ananias917" |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
03 Dec 2005 01:29:54 AM |
|
|
On 2 Dec 2005 04:26:20 -0800, "tulle"
<tulle040657@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
The only point I was trying to make is that it is costing
over $40,000 a year of tax payers money, in Medicare
and Medicad,
Which has nothing to do with it. Something is either
right, or wrong. Marriage is defined as one man and
one woman. You are dishonestly using tax payer's
money as a way to try to get people outraged about
what you want them to be outraged about and you
want special rights for homosexuals! You want to
redefine marriage and you try to use tax money to
get people motivated to help you.
The truth is, your "partner" not being able to get
health insurance through your job, because you're not
married, has nothing to do with why you want to be able
to marry him and Medicare has nothing to do with
homosexual marriage.
Medicare is NOT the reason you want to see a special
law that supports homosexual marriage! Be honest
for a change! You did not sit back one day and say...
"You know dear, I think you and I should champion
the cause of saving taxpayers Medicare dollars!".
C'mon! Who you kiddin'? :)
The fact is, you're simply trying to use that as a tool
to get an edge with people and that's all it is,
claiming that now the state won't have to pay for it.
You claim that he is, "your husband in your heart
anyway", but the reality is, you also did not sit back
one day and say to your partner...
"You know dear, I really don't care about this
homosexual marriage issue, because well, you're my
husband in my heart anyway, but I am very concerned
about other taxpayers paying for your health care, so
let's get married!"
Again, c'mon, who you kiddin'? :)
But I have an idea! Let's play YOUR game! How about
we make up a marriage law in which polygamy is okay,
because well, after all, we wouldn't want the tax
payers paying anything for me, right? After all, I
don't have any insurance. I can't afford it! That $72
a month you were talking about, that is affordable to
you, is the difference between eating and not eating
for me! I spend about $100 a month on food and that
includes everything that has to be bought there, like
toothpaste, toilet paper, paper towels, soap, shampoo,
etc., etc.. So where's my special marriage rights,
that can change all of that for me, like you claim
to want to do for him?
So how about we make polygamy okay? That way
the tax payers will save money, because I can get on
someone else's insurance and can surely afford $72
a month and it will enrich all of our lives!
Don't bother telling me that polygamy shouldn't be
done. That is YOUR OPINION! After all, I was born
wanting more than one woman, so who are you to
judge me?!
And since marriage is defined as one man and one woman,
who are you to say that it shouldn't be more than two
people, if it can also include members of the same sex
anyway? I'm not looking for special protection for my
adultery and fornication, right?
Remember, it's not about "special rights". It's about
saving the tax payers money!
--
"And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house;
and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the
Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way
as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest
receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost."
- Acts 9:17
.
|
|
|
| User: "tulle" |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
05 Dec 2005 08:36:25 AM |
|
|
Ananias917 wrote:
On 2 Dec 2005 04:26:20 -0800, "tulle"
<tulle040657@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
The only point I was trying to make is that it is costing
over $40,000 a year of tax payers money, in Medicare
and Medicad,
Which has nothing to do with it. Something is either
right, or wrong. Marriage is defined as one man and
one woman. You are dishonestly using tax payer's
money as a way to try to get people outraged about
what you want them to be outraged about and you
want special rights for homosexuals! You want to
redefine marriage and you try to use tax money to
get people motivated to help you.
It is funny how you say I am being dishonest. Nope, I am honestly using
tax payer's money, 100% in line with federal and state law. Florida law
says I live at the same address as the rest of my family. Other than
that there is no legal relationship.
You say I am trying to get people outraged, hmmm, well not outraged,
but perhaps re-think thier position. Is this not the American way to do
things? Convince people the change is the right thing to do. Is that
not my right?
Point to one dishonest thing I said. please.
The truth is, your "partner" not being able to get
health insurance through your job, because you're not
married, has nothing to do with why you want to be able
to marry him and Medicare has nothing to do with
homosexual marriage.
Yes, I work for a small company that makes FLIR products. And they do
not offer insurance to non-married couples. But that does not mean I am
not working on it.
Yep, you are right. The insurance has nothing to do with the reason I
WANT to marry him. I want to marry him because I love him. But I need
to convince others that I should be allowed to marry him. So a good way
to do that is to show that they will benifit from it too.
You find somthing wrong with this? What country do you in that does not
allow one to make a case for what they believe. I would never think to
keep you from saying what you believe.
Medicare is NOT the reason you want to see a special
law that supports homosexual marriage! Be honest
for a change! You did not sit back one day and say...
"You know dear, I think you and I should champion
the cause of saving taxpayers Medicare dollars!".
C'mon! Who you kiddin'? :)
The fact is, you're simply trying to use that as a tool
to get an edge with people and that's all it is,
claiming that now the state won't have to pay for it.
So you do finally get what I am saying. I am just suggesting a win/win
for everyone.
You claim that he is, "your husband in your heart
anyway", but the reality is, you also did not sit back
one day and say to your partner...
"You know dear, I really don't care about this
homosexual marriage issue, because well, you're my
husband in my heart anyway, but I am very concerned
about other taxpayers paying for your health care, so
let's get married!"
Again, c'mon, who you kiddin'? :)
I am not trying to kid anyone. Do you think anyone would believe I
would want to give up so much to save YOU money, and increase how much
I spent on health care. I don't think people would think that. Once
again, my personal reason to marry is for love. I am making an argument
to suggest we will all get something out of my marriage. This seems to
sacre you. Do you think it might work?
But I have an idea! Let's play YOUR game! How about
we make up a marriage law in which polygamy is okay,
because well, after all, we wouldn't want the tax
payers paying anything for me, right? After all, I
don't have any insurance. I can't afford it! That $72
a month you were talking about, that is affordable to
you, is the difference between eating and not eating
for me! I spend about $100 a month on food and that
includes everything that has to be bought there, like
toothpaste, toilet paper, paper towels, soap, shampoo,
etc., etc.. So where's my special marriage rights,
that can change all of that for me, like you claim
to want to do for him?
So how about we make polygamy okay? That way
the tax payers will save money, because I can get on
someone else's insurance and can surely afford $72
a month and it will enrich all of our lives!
I could care less if you want to make polygamy okay. You'll have to
make you own arguments for that. It's not something I am interested in.
Don't bother telling me that polygamy shouldn't be
done. That is YOUR OPINION! After all, I was born
wanting more than one woman, so who are you to
judge me?!
And since marriage is defined as one man and one woman,
who are you to say that it shouldn't be more than two
people, if it can also include members of the same sex
anyway? I'm not looking for special protection for my
adultery and fornication, right?
Remember, it's not about "special rights". It's about
saving the tax payers money!
--
"And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house;
and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the
Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way
as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest
receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost."
- Acts 9:17
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tulle" |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
05 Dec 2005 06:26:54 AM |
|
|
Ananias917 wrote:
On 2 Dec 2005 04:26:20 -0800, "tulle"
<tulle040657@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
The only point I was trying to make is that it is costing
over $40,000 a year of tax payers money, in Medicare
and Medicad,
Which has nothing to do with it. Something is either
right, or wrong. Marriage is defined as one man and
one woman. You are dishonestly using tax payer's
money as a way to try to get people outraged about
what you want them to be outraged about and you
want special rights for homosexuals! You want to
redefine marriage and you try to use tax money to
get people motivated to help you.
The truth is, your "partner" not being able to get
health insurance through your job, because you're not
married, has nothing to do with why you want to be able
to marry him and Medicare has nothing to do with
homosexual marriage.
Medicare is NOT the reason you want to see a special
law that supports homosexual marriage! Be honest
for a change! You did not sit back one day and say...
"You know dear, I think you and I should champion
the cause of saving taxpayers Medicare dollars!".
C'mon! Who you kiddin'? :)
The fact is, you're simply trying to use that as a tool
to get an edge with people and that's all it is,
claiming that now the state won't have to pay for it.
You claim that he is, "your husband in your heart
anyway", but the reality is, you also did not sit back
one day and say to your partner...
"You know dear, I really don't care about this
homosexual marriage issue, because well, you're my
husband in my heart anyway, but I am very concerned
about other taxpayers paying for your health care, so
let's get married!"
Again, c'mon, who you kiddin'? :)
But I have an idea! Let's play YOUR game! How about
we make up a marriage law in which polygamy is okay,
because well, after all, we wouldn't want the tax
payers paying anything for me, right? After all, I
don't have any insurance. I can't afford it! That $72
a month you were talking about, that is affordable to
you, is the difference between eating and not eating
for me! I spend about $100 a month on food and that
includes everything that has to be bought there, like
toothpaste, toilet paper, paper towels, soap, shampoo,
etc., etc.. So where's my special marriage rights,
that can change all of that for me, like you claim
to want to do for him?
So how about we make polygamy okay? That way
the tax payers will save money, because I can get on
someone else's insurance and can surely afford $72
a month and it will enrich all of our lives!
As long as all parties where ok with it, I could care less if polygamy
was made legal. It affects me naught. I am not my neighbors keeper.
Don't bother telling me that polygamy shouldn't be
done. That is YOUR OPINION! After all, I was born
wanting more than one woman, so who are you to
judge me?!
And since marriage is defined as one man and one woman,
who are you to say that it shouldn't be more than two
people, if it can also include members of the same sex
anyway? I'm not looking for special protection for my
adultery and fornication, right?
Remember, it's not about "special rights". It's about
saving the tax payers money!
--
"And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house;
and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the
Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way
as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest
receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost."
- Acts 9:17
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ananias917" |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
05 Dec 2005 04:24:47 PM |
|
|
On 5 Dec 2005 04:26:54 -0800, "tulle"
<tulle040657@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
Ananias917 wrote:
On 2 Dec 2005 04:26:20 -0800, "tulle"
<tulle040657@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
The only point I was trying to make is that it is costing
over $40,000 a year of tax payers money, in Medicare
and Medicad,
Which has nothing to do with it. Something is either
right, or wrong. Marriage is defined as one man and
one woman. You are dishonestly using tax payer's
money as a way to try to get people outraged about
what you want them to be outraged about and you
want special rights for homosexuals! You want to
redefine marriage and you try to use tax money to
get people motivated to help you.
The truth is, your "partner" not being able to get
health insurance through your job, because you're not
married, has nothing to do with why you want to be able
to marry him and Medicare has nothing to do with
homosexual marriage.
Medicare is NOT the reason you want to see a special
law that supports homosexual marriage! Be honest
for a change! You did not sit back one day and say...
"You know dear, I think you and I should champion
the cause of saving taxpayers Medicare dollars!".
C'mon! Who you kiddin'? :)
The fact is, you're simply trying to use that as a tool
to get an edge with people and that's all it is,
claiming that now the state won't have to pay for it.
You claim that he is, "your husband in your heart
anyway", but the reality is, you also did not sit back
one day and say to your partner...
"You know dear, I really don't care about this
homosexual marriage issue, because well, you're my
husband in my heart anyway, but I am very concerned
about other taxpayers paying for your health care, so
let's get married!"
Again, c'mon, who you kiddin'? :)
But I have an idea! Let's play YOUR game! How about
we make up a marriage law in which polygamy is okay,
because well, after all, we wouldn't want the tax
payers paying anything for me, right? After all, I
don't have any insurance. I can't afford it! That $72
a month you were talking about, that is affordable to
you, is the difference between eating and not eating
for me! I spend about $100 a month on food and that
includes everything that has to be bought there, like
toothpaste, toilet paper, paper towels, soap, shampoo,
etc., etc.. So where's my special marriage rights,
that can change all of that for me, like you claim
to want to do for him?
So how about we make polygamy okay? That way
the tax payers will save money, because I can get on
someone else's insurance and can surely afford $72
a month and it will enrich all of our lives!
As long as all parties where ok with it, I could care less if polygamy
was made legal. It affects me naught. I am not my neighbors keeper.
Yea, sure ya would. :) That is of course, until they
had a bunch of kids that they couldn't take care of
and you wanted to argue that they are a drain on
the tax payers, which in order TO BE CONSISTENT,
you would HAVE to argue, but which you would be
prevented from arguing, because you just admitted
that you know that if homosexual marriage is justified,
so is theirs and you would be a hypocrite.
In other words, you would be forced to argue that
only polygamists who can support their children,
should be allowed to do it, which would mean that
they'd have to have a crystal ball and know ahead
of time?
Of course then, you'd be arguing for state control
of who can and can't get married based on income
and state control is what you're supposedly arguing
against now.
You see, the homosexual is forced to shoot themselves
in the foot every time. Yet they never realize that
it's because their argument is erroneous in the first
place. (:
Sp go ahead and get that homosexual marriage!
And be ready for ONE HUGE DRAIN on the
tax payers dollars, that YOU will help pay!
Have a nice day now. :)
--
"And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house;
and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the
Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way
as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest
receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost."
- Acts 9:17
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "L. Michael Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
03 Dec 2005 08:17:03 AM |
|
|
Ananias917 wrote:
On 2 Dec 2005 04:26:20 -0800, "tulle"
<tulle040657@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
<snip>
You are dishonestly using tax payer's
money as a way to try to get people outraged about
what you want them to be outraged about and you
want special rights for homosexuals!
Please list these "special rights" that you feel homosexuals want.
Feel free to take as much space, and be as detailed as you wish, to make
your case. Here I will help you get started:
Homos are seeking the following special rights:
1/
2/
3/
4/
<snip>
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ananias917" |
|
| Title: Re: Unwritten Rules that RRR Cult Lemmings Live By |
03 Dec 2005 07:08:01 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 09:17:03 -0500, "L. Michael
Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> spake thusly:
Ananias917 wrote:
On 2 Dec 2005 04:26:20 -0800, "tulle"
<tulle040657@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
<snip>
You are dishonestly using tax payer's
money as a way to try to get people outraged about
what you want them to be outraged about and you
want special rights for homosexuals!
Please list these "special rights" that you feel homosexuals want.
Feel free to take as much space, and be as detailed as you wish, to make
your case. Here I will help you get started:
Homos are seeking the following special rights:
I already laid it out. Snipping me message and then
pretending that I didn't, only shows your dishonesty.
--
"And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house;
and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the
Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way
as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest
receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost."
- Acts 9:17
.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
