"Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:3FD15247.5A62FC42@kinez.net...
>
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> > In article <tdudnVxyI7goDlKiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks>
wrote:
> > >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >> And the US refusing to buy any military hardware from Airbus isn't a
form
> > of
> > >> subsidy to Boeing?
> > >>
> > >
> > >Nope. Lockheed, Northrop-Grumman, and even Gulfstream and Cessna are
> > >free to submit bids also. Its restricting military contracting to US
> > >companies, and I have no problem with that.
> > >
> > It's subsidizing US companies by giving only them government contracts.
>
>
> Ah - you must be referring to Nancy Pelosi's (sp?) husband.
>

Tom Daschle's wife is a lobbiest for Boeing. Remember that dirty rotten
lease deal?

> Bill Putney
> (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> address with "x")
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
newsine.SOL.4.44.0312060131380.19494-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
>
> > Fine. But if ending discrimination is the goal, than why should
> > siblings be prevented from marriage?
>
> Clear and present public health reasons.
>
> > Because if banning marriage of gays is discriminatory, than banning
> > marriage of consenting adults in parties greater than two etc. certainly
> > is too.
>
> Is this supposed to be scary and/or threatening? If so, why? Or is it just
> another one of those things that you think should be illegal because you
> think it's icky or whatever and it's been that way for as long as you can
> remember?
>
> DS
>
>

Perhaps you presume that those who believe in the value of marriage and
familty to society, to the exclusion of moral anarchy, is due to weak
mindedness. Peasants nodding agreement, with bland stares, to
power-mongering priests.

Quite to the contrary in my view.

"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
news:90dd454846e580ba7f135bbeabb683c1@news.teranews.com...
> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 21:51:16 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
> >news:8170e4c810deaf732ac373b4a63f687c@news.teranews.com...
> >> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 17:33:26 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> >> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Having a little trouble understanding the argument Lloyd? Let me
clarify.
> >> >The gay activist agenda is to redefine and rebuild our whole social
> >> >structure to abstract out distinction between sexual preference.
> >>
> >> You keep mentioning this point. Why is this a problem?
> >
> >For some things it matters. Marriage is one of them. Marriage has a
> >distinct value to society that would be diminished without it's focus on
the
> >traditional family. Where would we go in the long run if we lost that?
> >Hard to say, but I believe it would be harmful. It's just my view
though.
>
> We're already in the long run now. With divorce rates as high as they
> are, marriage has apparently lost whatever sacred aspect there was to
> it to society in general.
>

I disagree. Whatever the marriage failure rate has been or is, there are
still plenty of successful enough marriages and family units and the hope
for better success is always there.


> >> So gay families with either adopted kids or kids from prior
> >> relationships don't count?
> >
> >I'm not for gay adoption and kids from prior marriages don't mean
anything
> >legally in a new marriage of any stripe. Step parents don't have any
legal
> >obligations or rights to step children.
>
> They provide a stable environment for those kids to grow up in.

Too often (not always) step-parents intrude on a childs relationship with
the only full-time parent they have left. And the dependent benefits of
marriage don't apply to second marriages. The biological parents retain
most of the protective benefits of marriage, even after divorce for the sake
of the children unless an adoption occurs.

> --
> Brandon Sommerville
> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.

"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
news:e039db6b422e40b19d80083bd626b86f@news.teranews.com...
> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 18:32:03 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>
> >x-no-archive: yes
> >
> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:08:11 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 00:35:30 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Siblings cannot either. I don't see you pointing out the
'discrimination' here.
> >> >>
> >> >> There are significant medical reasons for disallowing siblings to
> >> >> marry. Are you suggesting that there are similar reasons preventing
> >> >> gays from marrying?
> >> >
> >> >Only if the siblings are opposite sex & producing children is
involved. Clearly
> >> >producing children is not a factor for gay marriage, why should it be
for sibling
> >> >marriage? If two (or more) siblings wish to get married to get all
those legal
> >> >benefits that people strive for in the form of marriage, why stop
them?
> >>
> >> Children are impossible in a gay marriage. They are not impossible in
> >> a sibling marriage.
> >
> >Then why ban gay, sibling marriages, or marriages between sterilized
siblings where
> >children are impossible?
>
> An interesting question. Now that I think about it, incest was fairly
> common amongst royalty in a number of different cultures.
>
> Do I support it? No. Why? Because it's far simpler to ban
> incestuous marriages in total than to just ban specific types based on
> testing. Suppose the tests were wrong?
>
> Now, back to the real question, what do you specifically have against
> gay marriage?

Maybe you've missed many of the earlier posts.

> --
> Brandon Sommerville
> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.

"Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:3FD239AD.848FE689@kinez.net...
>
>
> Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 23:33:26 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >"C. E. White" wrote:
> > >
> > >> Lesbian couples can even have children.
> > >
> > >Technically, no. There has to be a real penis involved somewhere.
> >
> > Have you never heard of a sperm bank?
>
> Yes, and I was fully aware of that when I posted. If a lezzie has a
> baby, then obviously the other lezzie is not the father (or to
> "de-gendrize" it, one of the biological parents). Even for the sperm
> bank, there was undoubtedly a male involved somewhere in the process,
> hence the reference to the penis (that's where they got *THE SPERM*).
>
> So, no, lesbian couples cannot "have" children biologically. One
> lesbian and one other person "had" the child, biologically speaking.
> The other person could not be another lesbian.
>

This means a woman and a tree can have children too. Both types.


> Bill Putney
> (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> address with "x")
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
news:1519c877a638b4692bf664e5ab69070b@news.teranews.com...
> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 21:29:11 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
> >news:beb825a8ecf1d3432a7e0a25f00dd235@news.teranews.com...
> >> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 18:18:29 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> >> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
> >> >news:dec265a9d8c5cf0fe2add7ae9b9955db@news.teranews.com...
> >>
> >> >> So view gay marriage as a marriage with one sterile member. How can
> >> >> one "detract" from marriage these days? With a 50% divorce rate it
> >> >> seems that hetero couples have done a pretty bang up job detracting
> >> >> from it on their own. Perhaps gay couples could show us how to live
> >> >> together happily for an extended period.
> >> >>
> >> >By giving it's benefits civil rights status.
> >>
> >> Again, what's wrong with this?
> >
> >Marriage isn't about civil rights. If it were, you couldn't discriminate
> >amongst those who could lay claim to it on civil rights grounds.
> >
> >Marriage is what it is for the benefit is provides to society not for any
> >civil right it satisfies.
>
> And that benefit is children, right? Which brings us back to couples
> who can't or don't want to have children. It also leads us to the
> question of what is better for kids? An unhappy marriage between a
> man and a woman or a happy relationship between two men or two women?
> As long as they learn how to love someone else, it doesn't matter the
> sex of that person.
> >>

No, the benefit is carrying forward values and blessings from generation to
generation. You can try to stir up the stew by throwing in a bunch of "what
if"'s about happy, well adjusted, smart, intelligent gay couples and stupid,
idiodic, lying, cheating, bank-robbing straight couples. It doesn't change
the principles of the argument though.

Changing marriage into a civil right for <fill in the blank> rather than an
institution to bless our continued existence over the generations.

> >> And the right wants to limit who gets these benefits, right?
> >>
> >No. The right believes in natural rights that are God given.
>
> Tough on atheists, isn't it? Every right is granted by the community,
> not god (which god anyways?).
>

That isn't the point, and no it isn't tough on Athiests (they should
thank.... oh never mind). The basis for our entire political system, and
what made it unique at the time, is the concept that there are certain
rights that can't be granted by *any* institution or government (or
community) because they are inalienable. So they were described as granted
"by God".

The notion that our rights are granted by the community is un-American.
Literally. In the monarchies of the past, rights were derived from the
monarch. They were the gods of their subjects. Communism claims all rights
eminate from the government or 'proletariet'.

We all know that he who has the power to grant, also has the power to take
away.

By the way... are you from Canada? It didn't occur to me that you might be
and that maybe Canadians rights aren't recognized as "God given".

> >The left
> >loves to pile on with new rights all the time. We start out with rights
of
> >life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the bill of rights and the
> >libs want to drive it as far as they can with rights to benefits, jobs,
> >shelter, health care, etc.. All of which would obligate the government
to
> >provide them. The right believes that, generally, individuals should be
> >responsible for their own welfare and do a better job of it that the
> >government.
>
> If only we could come to a fair balance. The problem now is that as
> soon as something is suggested by the left the right reflexively
> dismisses it and the same thing happens to that suggested by the
> right. *Who* puts forward the idea has become more important than the
> idea itself.
>

Well that works both ways (left and right). And it's true for the politcal
faces of Democrats and Republicans. But actually, it isn't true. Both left
and right have won ideological vitories in the US. There is a huge
entitlement class in the US thanks to the left. The right is not going to
change it. The right has built a powerful military that has protected
freedom and liberty wordwide and has the courage to use it.

> >> Why is this not good? Hell, 50 yrs ago the idea of a woman working
> >> outside the home was a bad thing. The idea of a woman executive was
> >> unthinkable, yet here we are today.
> >>
> >Because it changes the nature of marriage. It changes it into a union
whose
> >purpose is to acquire benefits, most of which are available outside
> >marriage, and are specific to protecting the dependents of a provider.
>
> Women working changed the nature of marriage too. We survived.
>

We have, but it's caused family problems for double income families with
children. It hasn't been a good thing. It's tended towards a negative
effect on families. The idea of women in the work force as a concept
isolated to itself is not an issue. Just it's effect on the family.

> >BTW, we don't have a completely gender normalized society and it's
debatable
> >that it would be beneficial. One could *never* differentiate based on
> >gender. Is that necessarily good?
>
> Why should you differentiate on gender for anything except who your
> life partner is?
>

Oh heavens. Anything we do by gender. Public bathrooms and locker rooms,
public nudity, public discrimination of private organizations that gender
discriminate (the priesthood, private universities, etc.). There are
probably better examples, but we wouldn't benefit from a gender normalized
society. That's not to say that there are some things that should be gender
normalized that maybe aren't, just that it's unrealistic and undesirable to
normalize *everything* we do and *every* institution by gender. That's why
the Equal Rights Amendment lost 30 years ago. Men and women are different
to a degree that warrants proper discrimination.

> >> What do you consider to be true civil rights?
> >
> >I'm sure the list is long, but it includes speech, assemble, congregate,
> >vote, property, worship, access to courts, due process, etc., etc.
> >
> >The people don't have a absolute rights to everything. The government
can
> >regulate many things based on legislation. One of those is who can and
> >can't marry to the extent that it can stop certain marriages based on a
> >compelling state interest (polygamy, same-sex, siblings, etc.). There's
our
> >argument. Making marriage a civil right, turns off that filter and we
can
> >no longer (or would have a much harder time) stop any type of marriage
from
> >occuring. Intellectually, opening the door to same-sex but closing it to
> >other possibilities becomes discriminatory in the same fashion. If it's
a
> >reflection of public values, then it will be what the people will
tolerate.
> >If it's a matter of civil rights, then it doesn't matter what the people
> >will tolerate and the courts will protect whatever individuals choose.
>
> The courts *should* protect what individuals choose. It would seem
> that you're all about freedom until it compromises your ideas about
> what people should be doing.

Not at all! The courts have no such jurisdiction! They only have power to
rule on the law. You seem to have missed the point. If marriage were a
civil right, then congress could not pass laws regulating it and the courts
would enforce it. As long as it isn't a civil right, congress, or
legislatures, can regulate it in the interest of the public welfare (that's
for you Lloyd) as they see fit. Since they are our representatives, they
represent the public view by how they vote to regulate things. If they vote
to allow gay marriage. That's what we'll do. If the court "finds" a right
to marriage in the constitution (and only a leftest court would), then
congress is removed from the picture and thus the desires and opinions of
the people on the matter are rendered irrelevent (unless we pass a
constitutional amendment).


> --
> Brandon Sommerville
> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.

"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
news:adb899d19671876a979a0b540920b529@news.teranews.com...
> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 20:06:44 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >> How does a marriage between 2 gays differ in what it "produces" from
one
> >> between 2 senior citizens, for example?
> >>
> >Anectodal. The principles behind marriage are what they are and
variation
> >*within* those principles are insignificant. Changing the principles
behind
> >marriage are significant and opens a door that will force us to
re-evaluate
> >the meaning of marriage in ever changing contexts.
>
> Why is re-evalution bad? The current model is failing badly at the
> moment, unless you consider a 50% failure rate to be a success.

Divorce, by itself, isn't proof our insitution of marriage doesn't work.
Early on Lenin and the Soviets attempted to eradicate the family so the
state could raise children ideologically pure. Now there's a model that
failed badly.

>
> >> Yes, and then there's the black agenda to normalize being black, the
Jewish
> >> agenda to normalize being Jewish, the left-handed agenda to normalize
being
> >> left-handed...
> >>
> >If our society were normalized for race, racial differences would be
> >abstracted out of all our institutions. Oh, that it were the case!
> >Unfortunately, the agenda of liberal black groups like the NAACP and
what's
> >his name Farrakhan is to abnormalize race, not normalize it. Abnormal
works
> >both ways.
>
> If people were truly colour blind then those institutions would have
> no purpose and would disappear. Racism occurs on both sides,
> unfortunately.
>

I'm sure it does, but don't get the idea that those organizations exist (any
longer) because of racism. They've transformed into political and financial
entities seeking power. They love to find racism to justify the good will
they need to exist. They love to find racism so much they'll find it where
it isn't... just to find something. They love to conjure up anger and
resentment in the black community at every turn.


> >Normalizing our institutions based on sexual preference is much
different,
> >at least for marriage. It isn't about making it more inclusive, it's
about
> >redefining it. It changes the nature of marriage.
>
> Two people formally agreeing to an exclusive arrangement. Sounds
> pretty similar to me.

That's not marriage. That's a contract and anyone (adult) can enter a
contract.

> --
> Brandon Sommerville
> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.

"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
newsine.SOL.4.44.0312060112220.19494-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, David J. Allen wrote:
>
> > Marriage isn't about civil rights.
>
> Society grants certain privileges and rights and responsibilities to
> married couples that are not granted to unmarried persons. Because it is
> society (not God or an orange tree or a pair of blue jeans) from which
> these rights and privileges flow, they are CIVIL rights. That's what
> "civil" means.
>

Which means legislatures can regulate marriage according to the values that
got them elected. That means *the courts can stay out of it* and let
legislatures decide. It means that gay marriage isn't protected by the
constitution.

I can live with that.


> > Because it changes the nature of marriage.
>
> The nature of marriage has been changed in Western society many times over
> the last two thousand years. This is not a new phenomenon.
>

Not in the most distilled sense. The things that have changed are things
like having increased women's rights within marriage, but it still remains
as it has for millenia. A man and a woman (well, or women in some culures)
creating a family to become productive members of future generations.


> > the government ... can stop certain marriages based on a
> > compelling state interest (polygamy, same-sex, siblings, etc.).
>
> And the current question is whether there is, in fact, a compelling state
> interest in barring same-sex marriages.
>

I actually take that back. The legislature should be able to stop certain
marriages according to what they think is for the general welfare of that
country (that's for you Lloyd).

The state, being constituted from elected representatives, will reflect the
values of society. It's a choice. As long as I get to vote my way without
it being negated by anything other than more votes on the other side, I can
live with it.

> DS
>

"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
newsine.SOL.4.44.0312060116130.19494-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, David J. Allen wrote:
>
> > Mixed race doesn't do a thing to change what marriage is.
>
> The folks who argued against it 50 years ago claimed that was exactly what
> it did. They used the selfsame language you're using now against same-sex
> marriage.
>

What? That it would change the nature of marriage from producing successful
future generations to one of access to benefits?

>
> > > Exactly the same arguments were made -- unsuccessfully, eventually,
for
> > > they were utterly without merit then as now -- against allowing
mixed-race
> > > couples to marry.
> >
> > Mixed race is a racial issue, not a marriage issue.
>
> When mixed-race marriage is being discussed, it's a marriage issue.
>

Not in the sense that it changes the nature of marriage.

> DS
>

Notes From An Inexperienced Chili Tester Named FRANK, who was visiting Texas
from the East Coast: "Recently, I was honored to be selected as a judge at
a chili cook-off. The original person called in sick at the last moment and
I happened to be standing there at the judge's table asking directions to
the beer wagon, when the call came. I was assured by the other two judges
(Native Texans) that the chili wouldn't be all that spicy, and besides, they
told me I could have free beer during the tasting, so I accepted." Here are
the scorecards from the event:

CHILI # 1 MIKE'S MANIAC MOBSTER MONSTER CHILI JUDGE ONE: A little too heavy
on tomato. Amusing kick. JUDGE TWO: Nice, smooth tomato flavor. Very mild.
FRANK: Holy ****, what the hell is this stuff? You could remove dried paint
from your driveway. Took me two beers to put the flames out. I hope that's
the worst one. These Texans are crazy.
_______________________________________________
CHILI # 2 ARTHUR'S AFTERBURNER CHILI
JUDGE ONE: Smokey, with a hint of pork. Slight Jalapeno tang. JUDGE TWO:
Exciting BBQ flavor, needs more peppers to be taken seriously. FRANK: Keep
this out of the reach of children I'm not sure what I am supposed to taste
besides pain. I had to wave off two people who wanted to give me the
Heimlich maneuver. They had to rush in more beer when they saw the look on
my face.
_______________________________________________
CHILI # 3 FRED'S FAMOUS BURN DOWN THE BARN CHILI JUDGE ONE: Excellent
firehouse chili! Great kick. Needs more beans. JUDGE TWO: A beanless
chili, a bit salty, good use of peppers. FRANK: Call the EPA, I've located
a uranium spill. My nose feels like I have been snorting Drano. Everyone
knows the routine by now get me more beer before I ignite. Barmaid pounded
me on the back; now my backbone is in the front part of my chest. I'm
getting ****-faced from all the beer.
_______________________________________________
CHILI # 4 BUBBA'S BLACK MAGIC JUDGE ONE: Black bean chili with almost no
spice. Disappointing. JUDGE TWO: Hint of lime in the black beans. Good
side dish for fish or other mild foods, not much of a chili. FRANK: I felt
something scraping across my tongue, but was unable to taste it, is it
possible to burnout taste buds? Sally, the barmaid, was standing behind me
with fresh refills; that 300 lb. bitch is starting to look HOT just like
this nuclear waste I'm eating. Is chili an aphrodisiac?
_______________________________________________
CHILI # 5 LINDA'S LEGAL LIP REMOVER JUDGE ONE: Meaty, strong chili. Cayenne
peppers freshly ground, adding considerable kick. Very Impressive. JUDGE
TWO: Chili using shredded beef, could use more tomato. Must admit the
cayenne peppers make a strong statement. FRANK: My ears are ringing, sweat
is pouring off my forehead and I can no longer focus my eyes. I farted and
four people behind me needed paramedics. The contestant seemed offended
when I told her that her chili had given me brain damage, Sally saved my
tongue from bleeding by pouring beer directly on it from a pitcher. I wonder
if I'm burning my lips off? It really ****ed me off that the other judges
asked me to stop screaming. Screw those rednecks!
_______________________________________________
CHILI # 6 VERA'S VERY VEGETARIAN VARIETY JUDGE ONE: Thin yet bold vegetarian
variety chili. Good balance of spice and peppers. JUDGE TWO: The best yet.
Aggressive use of peppers, onions, and garlic. Superb. FRANK: My intestines
are now a straight pipe filled with gaseous, sulfuric flames. I **** myself
when I farted and I'm worried it will eat through the chair. No one seems
inclined to stand behind me except Sally. Can't feel my lips anymore. I
need to wipe my ass with a snow cone!
________________________________________________
CHILI # 7 SUSAN'S SCREAMING SENSATION CHILI JUDGE ONE: A mediocre chili with
too much reliance on canned peppers. JUDGE TWO: Ho Hum, tastes as if the
chef literally threw in a can of chili peppers at the last moment. I should
take note that I am worried about Judge Number 3- He appears to be in a bit
of distress as he is cursing uncontrollably. FRANK: You could put a grenade
in my mouth, pull the pin, and I wouldn't feel a damn thing. I've lost sight
in one eye, and the world sounds like it is made of rushing water. My shirt
is covered with chili, which slid unnoticed out of my mouth. My pants are
full of lava-like **** to match my damn shirt. At least during the autopsy
they'll know what killed me. I've decided to stop breathing, it's too
painful. Screw it, I'm not getting any oxygen anyway. If I need air, I'll
just suck it in through the 4 inch hole in my stomach


"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
news:%gAAb.5593$ng6.5049@twister.socal.rr.com...
>
> "Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
> news:1519c877a638b4692bf664e5ab69070b@news.teranews.com...
> > On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 21:29:11 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> > <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
> > >news:beb825a8ecf1d3432a7e0a25f00dd235@news.teranews.com...
> > >> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 18:18:29 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> > >> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
> > >> >news:dec265a9d8c5cf0fe2add7ae9b9955db@news.teranews.com...
> > >>
> > >> >> So view gay marriage as a marriage with one sterile member. How
can
> > >> >> one "detract" from marriage these days? With a 50% divorce rate
it
> > >> >> seems that hetero couples have done a pretty bang up job
detracting
> > >> >> from it on their own. Perhaps gay couples could show us how to
live
> > >> >> together happily for an extended period.
> > >> >>
> > >> >By giving it's benefits civil rights status.
> > >>
> > >> Again, what's wrong with this?
> > >
> > >Marriage isn't about civil rights. If it were, you couldn't
discriminate
> > >amongst those who could lay claim to it on civil rights grounds.
> > >
> > >Marriage is what it is for the benefit is provides to society not for
any
> > >civil right it satisfies.
> >
> > And that benefit is children, right? Which brings us back to couples
> > who can't or don't want to have children. It also leads us to the
> > question of what is better for kids? An unhappy marriage between a
> > man and a woman or a happy relationship between two men or two women?
> > As long as they learn how to love someone else, it doesn't matter the
> > sex of that person.
> > >>
>
> No, the benefit is carrying forward values and blessings from generation
to
> generation. You can try to stir up the stew by throwing in a bunch of
"what
> if"'s about happy, well adjusted, smart, intelligent gay couples and
stupid,
> idiodic, lying, cheating, bank-robbing straight couples. It doesn't
change
> the principles of the argument though.
>
> Changing marriage into a civil right for <fill in the blank> rather than
an
> institution to bless our continued existence over the generations.
>
> > >> And the right wants to limit who gets these benefits, right?
> > >>
> > >No. The right believes in natural rights that are God given.
> >
> > Tough on atheists, isn't it? Every right is granted by the community,
> > not god (which god anyways?).
> >
>
> That isn't the point, and no it isn't tough on Athiests (they should
> thank.... oh never mind). The basis for our entire political system, and
> what made it unique at the time, is the concept that there are certain
> rights that can't be granted by *any* institution or government (or
> community) because they are inalienable. So they were described as
granted
> "by God".
>
> The notion that our rights are granted by the community is un-American.
> Literally. In the monarchies of the past, rights were derived from the
> monarch. They were the gods of their subjects. Communism claims all
rights
> eminate from the government or 'proletariet'.
>
> We all know that he who has the power to grant, also has the power to take
> away.
>
> By the way... are you from Canada? It didn't occur to me that you might
be
> and that maybe Canadians rights aren't recognized as "God given".
>
> > >The left
> > >loves to pile on with new rights all the time. We start out with
rights
> of
> > >life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the bill of rights and
the
> > >libs want to drive it as far as they can with rights to benefits, jobs,
> > >shelter, health care, etc.. All of which would obligate the government
> to
> > >provide them. The right believes that, generally, individuals should
be
> > >responsible for their own welfare and do a better job of it that the
> > >government.
> >
> > If only we could come to a fair balance. The problem now is that as
> > soon as something is suggested by the left the right reflexively
> > dismisses it and the same thing happens to that suggested by the
> > right. *Who* puts forward the idea has become more important than the
> > idea itself.
> >
>
> Well that works both ways (left and right). And it's true for the
politcal
> faces of Democrats and Republicans. But actually, it isn't true. Both
left
> and right have won ideological vitories in the US. There is a huge
> entitlement class in the US thanks to the left. The right is not going to
> change it. The right has built a powerful military that has protected
> freedom and liberty wordwide and has the courage to use it.
>
> > >> Why is this not good? Hell, 50 yrs ago the idea of a woman working
> > >> outside the home was a bad thing. The idea of a woman executive was
> > >> unthinkable, yet here we are today.
> > >>
> > >Because it changes the nature of marriage. It changes it into a union
> whose
> > >purpose is to acquire benefits, most of which are available outside
> > >marriage, and are specific to protecting the dependents of a provider.
> >
> > Women working changed the nature of marriage too. We survived.
> >
>
> We have, but it's caused family problems for double income families with
> children. It hasn't been a good thing. It's tended towards a negative
> effect on families. The idea of women in the work force as a concept
> isolated to itself is not an issue. Just it's effect on the family.
>
> > >BTW, we don't have a completely gender normalized society and it's
> debatable
> > >that it would be beneficial. One could *never* differentiate based on
> > >gender. Is that necessarily good?
> >
> > Why should you differentiate on gender for anything except who your
> > life partner is?
> >
>
> Oh heavens. Anything we do by gender. Public bathrooms and locker rooms,
> public nudity, public discrimination of private organizations that gender
> discriminate (the priesthood, private universities, etc.). There are
> probably better examples, but we wouldn't benefit from a gender normalized
> society. That's not to say that there are some things that should be
gender
> normalized that maybe aren't, just that it's unrealistic and undesirable
to
> normalize *everything* we do and *every* institution by gender. That's
why
> the Equal Rights Amendment lost 30 years ago. Men and women are different
> to a degree that warrants proper discrimination.
>
> > >> What do you consider to be true civil rights?
> > >
> > >I'm sure the list is long, but it includes speech, assemble,
congregate,
> > >vote, property, worship, access to courts, due process, etc., etc.
> > >
> > >The people don't have a absolute rights to everything. The government
> can
> > >regulate many things based on legislation. One of those is who can and
> > >can't marry to the extent that it can stop certain marriages based on a
> > >compelling state interest (polygamy, same-sex, siblings, etc.).
There's
> our
> > >argument. Making marriage a civil right, turns off that filter and we
> can
> > >no longer (or would have a much harder time) stop any type of marriage
> from
> > >occuring. Intellectually, opening the door to same-sex but closing it
to
> > >other possibilities becomes discriminatory in the same fashion. If
it's
> a
> > >reflection of public values, then it will be what the people will
> tolerate.
> > >If it's a matter of civil rights, then it doesn't matter what the
people
> > >will tolerate and the courts will protect whatever individuals choose.
> >
> > The courts *should* protect what individuals choose. It would seem
> > that you're all about freedom until it compromises your ideas about
> > what people should be doing.
>
> Not at all! The courts have no such jurisdiction! They only have power
to
> rule on the law. You seem to have missed the point. If marriage were a
> civil right, then congress could not pass laws regulating it and the
courts
> would enforce it. As long as it isn't a civil right, congress, or
> legislatures, can regulate it in the interest of the public welfare
(that's
> for you Lloyd) as they see fit. Since they are our representatives, they
> represent the public view by how they vote to regulate things. If they
vote
> to allow gay marriage. That's what we'll do. If the court "finds" a
right
> to marriage in the constitution (and only a leftest court would), then
> congress is removed from the picture and thus the desires and opinions of
> the people on the matter are rendered irrelevent (unless we pass a
> constitutional amendment).
>
>
> > --
> > Brandon Sommerville
> > remove ".gov" to e-mail
> >
> > Definition of "Lottery":
> > Millions of stupid people contributing
> > to make one stupid person look smart.
>
>

Notes From An Inexperienced Chili Tester Named FRANK, who was visiting Texas
from the East Coast: "Recently, I was honored to be selected as a judge at
a chili cook-off. The original person called in sick at the last moment and
I happened to be standing there at the judge's table asking directions to
the beer wagon, when the call came. I was assured by the other two judges
(Native Texans) that the chili wouldn't be all that spicy, and besides, they
told me I could have free beer during the tasting, so I accepted." Here are
the scorecards from the event:

CHILI # 1 MIKE'S MANIAC MOBSTER MONSTER CHILI JUDGE ONE: A little too heavy
on tomato. Amusing kick. JUDGE TWO: Nice, smooth tomato flavor. Very mild.
FRANK: Holy ****, what the hell is this stuff? You could remove dried paint
from your driveway. Took me two beers to put the flames out. I hope that's
the worst one. These Texans are crazy.
_______________________________________________
CHILI # 2 ARTHUR'S AFTERBURNER CHILI
JUDGE ONE: Smokey, with a hint of pork. Slight Jalapeno tang. JUDGE TWO:
Exciting BBQ flavor, needs more peppers to be taken seriously. FRANK: Keep
this out of the reach of children I'm not sure what I am supposed to taste
besides pain. I had to wave off two people who wanted to give me the
Heimlich maneuver. They had to rush in more beer when they saw the look on
my face.
_______________________________________________
CHILI # 3 FRED'S FAMOUS BURN DOWN THE BARN CHILI JUDGE ONE: Excellent
firehouse chili! Great kick. Needs more beans. JUDGE TWO: A beanless
chili, a bit salty, good use of peppers. FRANK: Call the EPA, I've located
a uranium spill. My nose feels like I have been snorting Drano. Everyone
knows the routine by now get me more beer before I ignite. Barmaid pounded
me on the back; now my backbone is in the front part of my chest. I'm
getting ****-faced from all the beer.
_______________________________________________
CHILI # 4 BUBBA'S BLACK MAGIC JUDGE ONE: Black bean chili with almost no
spice. Disappointing. JUDGE TWO: Hint of lime in the black beans. Good
side dish for fish or other mild foods, not much of a chili. FRANK: I felt
something scraping across my tongue, but was unable to taste it, is it
possible to burnout taste buds? Sally, the barmaid, was standing behind me
with fresh refills; that 300 lb. bitch is starting to look HOT just like
this nuclear waste I'm eating. Is chili an aphrodisiac?
_______________________________________________
CHILI # 5 LINDA'S LEGAL LIP REMOVER JUDGE ONE: Meaty, strong chili. Cayenne
peppers freshly ground, adding considerable kick. Very Impressive. JUDGE
TWO: Chili using shredded beef, could use more tomato. Must admit the
cayenne peppers make a strong statement. FRANK: My ears are ringing, sweat
is pouring off my forehead and I can no longer focus my eyes. I farted and
four people behind me needed paramedics. The contestant seemed offended
when I told her that her chili had given me brain damage, Sally saved my
tongue from bleeding by pouring beer directly on it from a pitcher. I wonder
if I'm burning my lips off? It really ****ed me off that the other judges
asked me to stop screaming. Screw those rednecks!
_______________________________________________
CHILI # 6 VERA'S VERY VEGETARIAN VARIETY JUDGE ONE: Thin yet bold vegetarian
variety chili. Good balance of spice and peppers. JUDGE TWO: The best yet.
Aggressive use of peppers, onions, and garlic. Superb. FRANK: My intestines
are now a straight pipe filled with gaseous, sulfuric flames. I **** myself
when I farted and I'm worried it will eat through the chair. No one seems
inclined to stand behind me except Sally. Can't feel my lips anymore. I
need to wipe my ass with a snow cone!
________________________________________________
CHILI # 7 SUSAN'S SCREAMING SENSATION CHILI JUDGE ONE: A mediocre chili with
too much reliance on canned peppers. JUDGE TWO: Ho Hum, tastes as if the
chef literally threw in a can of chili peppers at the last moment. I should
take note that I am worried about Judge Number 3- He appears to be in a bit
of distress as he is cursing uncontrollably. FRANK: You could put a grenade
in my mouth, pull the pin, and I wouldn't feel a damn thing. I've lost sight
in one eye, and the world sounds like it is made of rushing water. My shirt
is covered with chili, which slid unnoticed out of my mouth. My pants are
full of lava-like **** to match my damn shirt. At least during the autopsy
they'll know what killed me. I've decided to stop breathing, it's too
painful. Screw it, I'm not getting any oxygen anyway. If I need air, I'll
just suck it in through the 4 inch hole in my stomach


"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:i8p4tvg0mtp1g0e9sbfcqn36glsd6pri1p@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 19:09:47 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
> <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 17:18:54 -0700, Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 19:22:36 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
> >><grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
> >>
> >>>You can always pay for more care here, if you want a chiropractor or
> >>>you want to go to some sort of therapist or something along those
> >>>lines. What you *don't* get is the right to skip to the head of the
> >>>line because you've got more disposable income if you need or want a
> >>>non-critical procedure.
> >>
> >>Really?
> >>So your health system is non-competitive, in the sense that doctors
> >>can't work outside the system?
> >
> >Not that I'm aware of, unless they want to work for free.
>
> it seemed that way, from what was written...
> "What you *don't* get is the right to skip to the head of the line
> because you've got more disposable income if you need or want a
> non-critical procedure."
>
> This seems to be saying that you can't get faster service even if you
> pay for it.
> But if doctors can work outside the system, why can't you get service
> faster by paying more?
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"

Notes From An Inexperienced Chili Tester Named FRANK, who was visiting Texas
from the East Coast: "Recently, I was honored to be selected as a judge at
a chili cook-off. The original person called in sick at the last moment and
I happened to be standing there at the judge's table asking directions to
the beer wagon, when the call came. I was assured by the other two judges
(Native Texans) that the chili wouldn't be all that spicy, and besides, they
told me I could have free beer during the tasting, so I accepted." Here are
the scorecards from the event:

CHILI # 1 MIKE'S MANIAC MOBSTER MONSTER CHILI JUDGE ONE: A little too heavy
on tomato. Amusing kick. JUDGE TWO: Nice, smooth tomato flavor. Very mild.
FRANK: Holy ****, what the hell is this stuff? You could remove dried paint
from your driveway. Took me two beers to put the flames out. I hope that's
the worst one. These Texans are crazy.
_______________________________________________
CHILI # 2 ARTHUR'S AFTERBURNER CHILI
JUDGE ONE: Smokey, with a hint of pork. Slight Jalapeno tang. JUDGE TWO:
Exciting BBQ flavor, needs more peppers to be taken seriously. FRANK: Keep
this out of the reach of children I'm not sure what I am supposed to taste
besides pain. I had to wave off two people who wanted to give me the
Heimlich maneuver. They had to rush in more beer when they saw the look on
my face.
_______________________________________________
CHILI # 3 FRED'S FAMOUS BURN DOWN THE BARN CHILI JUDGE ONE: Excellent
firehouse chili! Great kick. Needs more beans. JUDGE TWO: A beanless
chili, a bit salty, good use of peppers. FRANK: Call the EPA, I've located
a uranium spill. My nose feels like I have been snorting Drano. Everyone
knows the routine by now get me more beer before I ignite. Barmaid pounded
me on the back; now my backbone is in the front part of my chest. I'm
getting ****-faced from all the beer.
_______________________________________________
CHILI # 4 BUBBA'S BLACK MAGIC JUDGE ONE: Black bean chili with almost no
spice. Disappointing. JUDGE TWO: Hint of lime in the black beans. Good
side dish for fish or other mild foods, not much of a chili. FRANK: I felt
something scraping across my tongue, but was unable to taste it, is it
possible to burnout taste buds? Sally, the barmaid, was standing behind me
with fresh refills; that 300 lb. bitch is starting to look HOT just like
this nuclear waste I'm eating. Is chili an aphrodisiac?
_______________________________________________
CHILI # 5 LINDA'S LEGAL LIP REMOVER JUDGE ONE: Meaty, strong chili. Cayenne
peppers freshly ground, adding considerable kick. Very Impressive. JUDGE
TWO: Chili using shredded beef, could use more tomato. Must admit the
cayenne peppers make a strong statement. FRANK: My ears are ringing, sweat
is pouring off my forehead and I can no longer focus my eyes. I farted and
four people behind me needed paramedics. The contestant seemed offended
when I told her that her chili had given me brain damage, Sally saved my
tongue from bleeding by pouring beer directly on it from a pitcher. I wonder
if I'm burning my lips off? It really ****ed me off that the other judges
asked me to stop screaming. Screw those rednecks!
_______________________________________________
CHILI # 6 VERA'S VERY VEGETARIAN VARIETY JUDGE ONE: Thin yet bold vegetarian
variety chili. Good balance of spice and peppers. JUDGE TWO: The best yet.
Aggressive use of peppers, onions, and garlic. Superb. FRANK: My intestines
are now a straight pipe filled with gaseous, sulfuric flames. I **** myself
when I farted and I'm worried it will eat through the chair. No one seems
inclined to stand behind me except Sally. Can't feel my lips anymore. I
need to wipe my ass with a snow cone!
________________________________________________
CHILI # 7 SUSAN'S SCREAMING SENSATION CHILI JUDGE ONE: A mediocre chili with
too much reliance on canned peppers. JUDGE TWO: Ho Hum, tastes as if the
chef literally threw in a can of chili peppers at the last moment. I should
take note that I am worried about Judge Number 3- He appears to be in a bit
of distress as he is cursing uncontrollably. FRANK: You could put a grenade
in my mouth, pull the pin, and I wouldn't feel a damn thing. I've lost sight
in one eye, and the world sounds like it is made of rushing water. My shirt
is covered with chili, which slid unnoticed out of my mouth. My pants are
full of lava-like **** to match my damn shirt. At least during the autopsy
they'll know what killed me. I've decided to stop breathing, it's too
painful. Screw it, I'm not getting any oxygen anyway. If I need air, I'll
just suck it in through the 4 inch hole in my stomach


"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
news:5242d476b06108ecd707ffd97d743cc9@news.teranews.com...
> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:08:11 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>
> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 00:35:30 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Siblings cannot either. I don't see you pointing out the
'discrimination' here.
> >>
> >> There are significant medical reasons for disallowing siblings to
> >> marry. Are you suggesting that there are similar reasons preventing
> >> gays from marrying?
> >
> >Only if the siblings are opposite sex & producing children is involved.
Clearly
> >producing children is not a factor for gay marriage, why should it be for
sibling
> >marriage? If two (or more) siblings wish to get married to get all those
legal
> >benefits that people strive for in the form of marriage, why stop them?
>
> Children are impossible in a gay marriage. They are not impossible in
> a sibling marriage.
> --
> Brandon Sommerville
> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.

Notes From An Inexperienced Chili Tester Named FRANK, who was visiting Texas
from the East Coast: "Recently, I was honored to be selected as a judge at
a chili cook-off. The original person called in sick at the last moment and
I happened to be standing there at the judge's table asking directions to
the beer wagon, when the call came. I was assured by the other two judges
(Native Texans) that the chili wouldn't be all that spicy, and besides, they
told me I could have free beer during the tasting, so I accepted." Here are
the scorecards from the event:

CHILI # 1 MIKE'S MANIAC MOBSTER MONSTER CHILI JUDGE ONE: A little too heavy
on tomato. Amusing kick. JUDGE TWO: Nice, smooth tomato flavor. Very mild.
FRANK: Holy ****, what the hell is this stuff? You could remove dried paint
from your driveway. Took me two beers to put the flames out. I hope that's
the worst one. These Texans are crazy.
_______________________________________________
CHILI # 2 ARTHUR'S AFTERBURNER CHILI
JUDGE ONE: Smokey, with a hint of pork. Slight Jalapeno tang. JUDGE TWO:
Exciting BBQ flavor, needs more peppers to be taken seriously. FRANK: Keep
this out of the reach of children I'm not sure what I am supposed to taste
besides pain. I had to wave off two people who wanted to give me the
Heimlich maneuver. They had to rush in more beer when they saw the look on
my face.
_______________________________________________
CHILI # 3 FRED'S FAMOUS BURN DOWN THE BARN CHILI JUDGE ONE: Excellent
firehouse chili! Great kick. Needs more beans. JUDGE TWO: A beanless
chili, a bit salty, good use of peppers. FRANK: Call the EPA, I've located
a uranium spill. My nose feels like I have been snorting Drano. Everyone
knows the routine by now get me more beer before I ignite. Barmaid pounded
me on the back; now my backbone is in the front part of my chest. I'm
getting ****-faced from all the beer.
_______________________________________________
CHILI # 4 BUBBA'S BLACK MAGIC JUDGE ONE: Black bean chili with almost no
spice. Disappointing. JUDGE TWO: Hint of lime in the black beans. Good
side dish for fish or other mild foods, not much of a chili. FRANK: I felt
something scraping across my tongue, but was unable to taste it, is it
possible to burnout taste buds? Sally, the barmaid, was standing behind me
with fresh refills; that 300 lb. bitch is starting to look HOT just like
this nuclear waste I'm eating. Is chili an aphrodisiac?
_______________________________________________
CHILI # 5 LINDA'S LEGAL LIP REMOVER JUDGE ONE: Meaty, strong chili. Cayenne
peppers freshly ground, adding considerable kick. Very Impressive. JUDGE
TWO: Chili using shredded beef, could use more tomato. Must admit the
cayenne peppers make a strong statement. FRANK: My ears are ringing, sweat
is pouring off my forehead and I can no longer focus my eyes. I farted and
four people behind me needed paramedics. The contestant seemed offended
when I told her that her chili had given me brain damage, Sally saved my
tongue from bleeding by pouring beer directly on it from a pitcher. I wonder
if I'm burning my lips off? It really ****ed me off that the other judges
asked me to stop screaming. Screw those rednecks!
_______________________________________________
CHILI # 6 VERA'S VERY VEGETARIAN VARIETY JUDGE ONE: Thin yet bold vegetarian
variety chili. Good balance of spice and peppers. JUDGE TWO: The best yet.
Aggressive use of peppers, onions, and garlic. Superb. FRANK: My intestines
are now a straight pipe filled with gaseous, sulfuric flames. I **** myself
when I farted and I'm worried it will eat through the chair. No one seems
inclined to stand behind me except Sally. Can't feel my lips anymore. I
need to wipe my ass with a snow cone!
________________________________________________
CHILI # 7 SUSAN'S SCREAMING SENSATION CHILI JUDGE ONE: A mediocre chili with
too much reliance on canned peppers. JUDGE TWO: Ho Hum, tastes as if the
chef literally threw in a can of chili peppers at the last moment. I should
take note that I am worried about Judge Number 3- He appears to be in a bit
of distress as he is cursing uncontrollably. FRANK: You could put a grenade
in my mouth, pull the pin, and I wouldn't feel a damn thing. I've lost sight
in one eye, and the world sounds like it is made of rushing water. My shirt
is covered with chili, which slid unnoticed out of my mouth. My pants are
full of lava-like **** to match my damn shirt. At least during the autopsy
they'll know what killed me. I've decided to stop breathing, it's too
painful. Screw it, I'm not getting any oxygen anyway. If I need air, I'll
just suck it in through the 4 inch hole in my stomach


"Greg" <greg@greg.greg> wrote in message news:3FD25B2B.574C176E@greg.greg...
>
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?
>
> Apparently not, see Harvey Milk Public High School, City of New York. It
is a
> separate public high school for gay students only. Interesting that the
gay
> lobby only feels like latching on to the civil rights crusade to receive
equal
> treatment when it is most convenient.
>
> First we hear that gay people need to be married, because they need to be
> treated like anyone else, than we hear that they need separate schools,
unlike
> anyone else.
>
> And just try not hiring any job applicant with that school on his/her
resumé and
> try to claim that you aren't discriminating on sexuality.
>

Notes From An Inexperienced Chili Tester Named FRANK, who was visiting Texas
from the East Coast: "Recently, I was honored to be selected as a judge at
a chili cook-off. The original person called in sick at the last moment and
I happened to be standing there at the judge's table asking directions to
the beer wagon, when the call came. I was assured by the other two judges
(Native Texans) that the chili wouldn't be all that spicy, and besides, they
told me I could have free beer during the tasting, so I accepted." Here are
the scorecards from the event:

CHILI # 1 MIKE'S MANIAC MOBSTER MONSTER CHILI JUDGE ONE: A little too heavy
on tomato. Amusing kick. JUDGE TWO: Nice, smooth tomato flavor. Very mild.
FRANK: Holy ****, what the hell is this stuff? You could remove dried paint
from your driveway. Took me two beers to put the flames out. I hope that's
the worst one. These Texans are crazy.
_______________________________________________
CHILI # 2 ARTHUR'S AFTERBURNER CHILI
JUDGE ONE: Smokey, with a hint of pork. Slight Jalapeno tang. JUDGE TWO:
Exciting BBQ flavor, needs more peppers to be taken seriously. FRANK: Keep
this out of the reach of children I'm not sure what I am supposed to taste
besides pain. I had to wave off two people who wanted to give me the
Heimlich maneuver. They had to rush in more beer when they saw the look on
my face.
_______________________________________________
CHILI # 3 FRED'S FAMOUS BURN DOWN THE BARN CHILI JUDGE ONE: Excellent
firehouse chili! Great kick. Needs more beans. JUDGE TWO: A beanless
chili, a bit salty, good use of peppers. FRANK: Call the EPA, I've located
a uranium spill. My nose feels like I have been snorting Drano. Everyone
knows the routine by now get me more beer before I ignite. Barmaid pounded
me on the back; now my backbone is in the front part of my chest. I'm
getting ****-faced from all the beer.
_______________________________________________
CHILI # 4 BUBBA'S BLACK MAGIC JUDGE ONE: Black bean chili with almost no
spice. Disappointing. JUDGE TWO: Hint of lime in the black beans. Good
side dish for fish or other mild foods, not much of a chili. FRANK: I felt
something scraping across my tongue, but was unable to taste it, is it
possible to burnout taste buds? Sally, the barmaid, was standing behind me
with fresh refills; that 300 lb. bitch is starting to look HOT just like
this nuclear waste I'm eating. Is chili an aphrodisiac?
_______________________________________________
CHILI # 5 LINDA'S LEGAL LIP REMOVER JUDGE ONE: Meaty, strong chili. Cayenne
peppers freshly ground, adding considerable kick. Very Impressive. JUDGE
TWO: Chili using shredded beef, could use more tomato. Must admit the
cayenne peppers make a strong statement. FRANK: My ears are ringing, sweat
is pouring off my forehead and I can no longer focus my eyes. I farted and
four people behind me needed paramedics. The contestant seemed offended
when I told her that her chili had given me brain damage, Sally saved my
tongue from bleeding by pouring beer directly on it from a pitcher. I wonder
if I'm burning my lips off? It really ****ed me off that the other judges
asked me to stop screaming. Screw those rednecks!
_______________________________________________
CHILI # 6 VERA'S VERY VEGETARIAN VARIETY JUDGE ONE: Thin yet bold vegetarian
variety chili. Good balance of spice and peppers. JUDGE TWO: The best yet.
Aggressive use of peppers, onions, and garlic. Superb. FRANK: My intestines
are now a straight pipe filled with gaseous, sulfuric flames. I **** myself
when I farted and I'm worried it will eat through the chair. No one seems
inclined to stand behind me except Sally. Can't feel my lips anymore. I
need to wipe my ass with a snow cone!
________________________________________________
CHILI # 7 SUSAN'S SCREAMING SENSATION CHILI JUDGE ONE: A mediocre chili with
too much reliance on canned peppers. JUDGE TWO: Ho Hum, tastes as if the
chef literally threw in a can of chili peppers at the last moment. I should
take note that I am worried about Judge Number 3- He appears to be in a bit
of distress as he is cursing uncontrollably. FRANK: You could put a grenade
in my mouth, pull the pin, and I wouldn't feel a damn thing. I've lost sight
in one eye, and the world sounds like it is made of rushing water. My shirt
is covered with chili, which slid unnoticed out of my mouth. My pants are
full of lava-like **** to match my damn shirt. At least during the autopsy
they'll know what killed me. I've decided to stop breathing, it's too
painful. Screw it, I'm not getting any oxygen anyway. If I need air, I'll
just suck it in through the 4 inch hole in my stomach


"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:4tl4tv8r0suoe4arke323b2185bdqlsele@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 23:33:26 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"C. E. White" wrote:
> >
> >> Lesbian couples can even have children.
> >
> >Technically, no. There has to be a real penis involved somewhere.
>
> If, by "have" you mean "beget", you're right.
> However, couples that can't beget children can still have children in
> their family.
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"

Notes From An Inexperienced Chili Tester Named FRANK, who was visiting Texas
from the East Coast: "Recently, I was honored to be selected as a judge at
a chili cook-off. The original person called in sick at the last moment and
I happened to be standing there at the judge's table asking directions to
the beer wagon, when the call came. I was assured by the other two judges
(Native Texans) that the chili wouldn't be all that spicy, and besides, they
told me I could have free beer during the tasting, so I accepted." Here are
the scorecards from the event:

CHILI # 1 MIKE'S MANIAC MOBSTER MONSTER CHILI JUDGE ONE: A little too heavy
on tomato. Amusing kick. JUDGE TWO: Nice, smooth tomato flavor. Very mild.
FRANK: Holy ****, what the hell is this stuff? You could remove dried paint
from your driveway. Took me two beers to put the flames out. I hope that's
the worst one. These Texans are crazy.
_______________________________________________
CHILI # 2 ARTHUR'S AFTERBURNER CHILI
JUDGE ONE: Smokey, with a hint of pork. Slight Jalapeno tang. JUDGE TWO:
Exciting BBQ flavor, needs more peppers to be taken seriously. FRANK: Keep
this out of the reach of children I'm not sure what I am supposed to taste
besides pain. I had to wave off two people who wanted to give me the
Heimlich maneuver. They had to rush in more beer when they saw the look on
my face.
_______________________________________________
CHILI # 3 FRED'S FAMOUS BURN DOWN THE BARN CHILI JUDGE ONE: Excellent
firehouse chili! Great kick. Needs more beans. JUDGE TWO: A beanless
chili, a bit salty, good use of peppers. FRANK: Call the EPA, I've located
a uranium spill. My nose feels like I have been snorting Drano. Everyone
knows the routine by now get me more beer before I ignite. Barmaid pounded
me on the back; now my backbone is in the front part of my chest. I'm
getting ****-faced from all the beer.
_______________________________________________
CHILI # 4 BUBBA'S BLACK MAGIC JUDGE ONE: Black bean chili with almost no
spice. Disappointing. JUDGE TWO: Hint of lime in the black beans. Good
side dish for fish or other mild foods, not much of a chili. FRANK: I felt
something scraping across my tongue, but was unable to taste it, is it
possible to burnout taste buds? Sally, the barmaid, was standing behind me
with fresh refills; that 300 lb. bitch is starting to look HOT just like
this nuclear waste I'm eating. Is chili an aphrodisiac?
_______________________________________________
CHILI # 5 LINDA'S LEGAL LIP REMOVER JUDGE ONE: Meaty, strong chili. Cayenne
peppers freshly ground, adding considerable kick. Very Impressive. JUDGE
TWO: Chili using shredded beef, could use more tomato. Must admit the
cayenne peppers make a strong statement. FRANK: My ears are ringing, sweat
is pouring off my forehead and I can no longer focus my eyes. I farted and
four people behind me needed paramedics. The contestant seemed offended
when I told her that her chili had given me brain damage, Sally saved my
tongue from bleeding by pouring beer directly on it from a pitcher. I wonder
if I'm burning my lips off? It really ****ed me off that the other judges
asked me to stop screaming. Screw those rednecks!
_______________________________________________
CHILI # 6 VERA'S VERY VEGETARIAN VARIETY JUDGE ONE: Thin yet bold vegetarian
variety chili. Good balance of spice and peppers. JUDGE TWO: The best yet.
Aggressive use of peppers, onions, and garlic. Superb. FRANK: My intestines
are now a straight pipe filled with gaseous, sulfuric flames. I **** myself
when I farted and I'm worried it will eat through the chair. No one seems
inclined to stand behind me except Sally. Can't feel my lips anymore. I
need to wipe my ass with a snow cone!
________________________________________________
CHILI # 7 SUSAN'S SCREAMING SENSATION CHILI JUDGE ONE: A mediocre chili with
too much reliance on canned peppers. JUDGE TWO: Ho Hum, tastes as if the
chef literally threw in a can of chili peppers at the last moment. I should
take note that I am worried about Judge Number 3- He appears to be in a bit
of distress as he is cursing uncontrollably. FRANK: You could put a grenade
in my mouth, pull the pin, and I wouldn't feel a damn thing. I've lost sight
in one eye, and the world sounds like it is made of rushing water. My shirt
is covered with chili, which slid unnoticed out of my mouth. My pants are
full of lava-like **** to match my damn shirt. At least during the autopsy
they'll know what killed me. I've decided to stop breathing, it's too
painful. Screw it, I'm not getting any oxygen anyway. If I need air, I'll
just suck it in through the 4 inch hole in my stomach


"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0312061421.24c3bc71@posting.google.com...
> Greg (greg@greg.greg) wrote:
> Subject: Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about
> safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
>
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> >>>>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we
> spent less on >health
> >> >>>>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it?
> Terrible for >insurance
> >> >>>>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
> > >>>>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for
health
> > >>>>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>
> Americans are now spending over $5,000 per capita on healthcare, more
> than double what is spent in Canada, or any other country, and that's
> with like 40% of the people not belonging to any health plan. What
> makes you think we would 'spend *AT LEAST* that much in additional
> taxes'?
>
> > >>>> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada
and Japan,
> > >>>> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover
everybody?
> > >>>Answer a question with a question. How does your state run health
care
> > >>>system cost less than the current private one?
>
> Because there are no expenses for HMO marketing, competing redundant
> HMO bureaucracies (if you think the government bureaucracy is bad
> you're not familiar with HMOs), huge executive salaries, dividends and
> profits for shareholders, money to cover investment losses (a big
> factor in the current sudden rise in insurance costs, or didn't you
> know that that's what insurance companies and HMOs do with your
> money?); because providers don't have to spend significant chunks of
> their highly expensive time filling out various and sundry varieties
> of reimbursement forms; because there are no random deliberate or
> accidental routine nonpayments of bills that should be paid, requiring
> a repeat of the reimbursement process; because a huge health plan has
> the market muscle to wrestle low charges from providers, who then
> charge correspondingly more for smaller plans and charge the maximum
> for individuals paying out of pocket. (Or did you have no idea the
> discount your health plan, if you have one, gets from the amount you
> see on your hospital bill?)
> Of course, that explains why Medicare gets the lowest rates in the US,
> and is one of the most successful plans in terms of patient
> satisfaction, as well as being the only health plan in the US whose
> members get care that's at or near the top rank of the industrialized
> nations. Ironic, because of course it is, of course, state-run
> healthcare.
>
> > >> Because all the examples we have of state-run health care say it
would.
> > >> Economy of scale, negotiation for lower prices, preventative care
instead of
> > >> waiting until the person becomes sick -- all these and other factors.
> > >
> > >So your answer is we would save money through the reduced quality of
care.
> > >I suggest you gain some experience with how government price controls
> > >have a negative impact on care, at least with regards to how it works
> > >in the USA.
> > >
> > >
> > Again, I refer you to all the data which shows people in Canada and
western
> > Europe are healthier and live longer.
>
> >And naturally this has absolutely nothing to do with lifestyle, food
> choices,
> >relative scarcity of obesity, and regular excercise as part of the
> daily
> >routine. Nope, it must only because of state run health care.
>
> Well, yeah, good to see it's dawning on you.
> The famous JAMA 7/26/2000 paper points out that the US doesn't have
> such bad habits as to put it at the bottom of the barrel for health
> care outcomes; we're the 5th best and 3rd best for smoking for females
> and males, 5th best for alcohol consumption, fifth best in consumption
> of animal fats and third best for cholesterol level, for instance. And
> deaths from unnatural causes, like getting shot or car accidents, are
> not included. So, if we rank at the bottom of healthcare measures of
> quality without ranking at the bottom for lifestyle causes, it's hard
> to escape the implication that we are just not getting the best or
> most appropriate care, regardless of price.
> But enough about me and what I know; what evidence do you have that
> you are getting the best care in the industrialized world, or even
> average care for the industrialized world, other than your deep-seated
> belief that anything else would be just too unthinkable to even
> consider?

Notes From An Inexperienced Chili Tester Named FRANK, who was visiting Texas
from the East Coast: "Recently, I was honored to be selected as a judge at
a chili cook-off. The original person called in sick at the last moment and
I happened to be standing there at the judge's table asking directions to
the beer wagon, when the call came. I was assured by the other two judges
(Native Texans) that the chili wouldn't be all that spicy, and besides, they
told me I could have free beer during the tasting, so I accepted." Here are
the scorecards from the event:

CHILI # 1 MIKE'S MANIAC MOBSTER MONSTER CHILI JUDGE ONE: A little too heavy
on tomato. Amusing kick. JUDGE TWO: Nice, smooth tomato flavor. Very mild.
FRANK: Holy ****, what the hell is this stuff? You could remove dried paint
from your driveway. Took me two beers to put the flames out. I hope that's
the worst one. These Texans are crazy.
_______________________________________________
CHILI # 2 ARTHUR'S AFTERBURNER CHILI
JUDGE ONE: Smokey, with a hint of pork. Slight Jalapeno tang. JUDGE TWO:
Exciting BBQ flavor, needs more peppers to be taken seriously. FRANK: Keep
this out of the reach of children I'm not sure what I am supposed to taste
besides pain. I had to wave off two people who wanted to give me the
Heimlich maneuver. They had to rush in more beer when they saw the look on
my face.
_______________________________________________
CHILI # 3 FRED'S FAMOUS BURN DOWN THE BARN CHILI JUDGE ONE: Excellent
firehouse chili! Great kick. Needs more beans. JUDGE TWO: A beanless
chili, a bit salty, good use of peppers. FRANK: Call the EPA, I've located
a uranium spill. My nose feels like I have been snorting Drano. Everyone
knows the routine by now get me more beer before I ignite. Barmaid pounded
me on the back; now my backbone is in the front part of my chest. I'm
getting ****-faced from all the beer.
_______________________________________________
CHILI # 4 BUBBA'S BLACK MAGIC JUDGE ONE: Black bean chili with almost no
spice. Disappointing. JUDGE TWO: Hint of lime in the black beans. Good
side dish for fish or other mild foods, not much of a chili. FRANK: I felt
something scraping across my tongue, but was unable to taste it, is it
possible to burnout taste buds? Sally, the barmaid, was standing behind me
with fresh refills; that 300 lb. bitch is starting to look HOT just like
this nuclear waste I'm eating. Is chili an aphrodisiac?
_______________________________________________
CHILI # 5 LINDA'S LEGAL LIP REMOVER JUDGE ONE: Meaty, strong chili. Cayenne
peppers freshly ground, adding considerable kick. Very Impressive. JUDGE
TWO: Chili using shredded beef, could use more tomato. Must admit the
cayenne peppers make a strong statement. FRANK: My ears are ringing, sweat
is pouring off my forehead and I can no longer focus my eyes. I farted and
four people behind me needed paramedics. The contestant seemed offended
when I told her that her chili had given me brain damage, Sally saved my
tongue from bleeding by pouring beer directly on it from a pitcher. I wonder
if I'm burning my lips off? It really ****ed me off that the other judges
asked me to stop screaming. Screw those rednecks!
_______________________________________________
CHILI # 6 VERA'S VERY VEGETARIAN VARIETY JUDGE ONE: Thin yet bold vegetarian
variety chili. Good balance of spice and peppers. JUDGE TWO: The best yet.
Aggressive use of peppers, onions, and garlic. Superb. FRANK: My intestines
are now a straight pipe filled with gaseous, sulfuric flames. I **** myself
when I farted and I'm worried it will eat through the chair. No one seems
inclined to stand behind me except Sally. Can't feel my lips anymore. I
need to wipe my ass with a snow cone!
________________________________________________
CHILI # 7 SUSAN'S SCREAMING SENSATION CHILI JUDGE ONE: A mediocre chili with
too much reliance on canned peppers. JUDGE TWO: Ho Hum, tastes as if the
chef literally threw in a can of chili peppers at the last moment. I should
take note that I am worried about Judge Number 3- He appears to be in a bit
of distress as he is cursing uncontrollably. FRANK: You could put a grenade
in my mouth, pull the pin, and I wouldn't feel a damn thing. I've lost sight
in one eye, and the world sounds like it is made of rushing water. My shirt
is covered with chili, which slid unnoticed out of my mouth. My pants are
full of lava-like **** to match my damn shirt. At least during the autopsy
they'll know what killed me. I've decided to stop breathing, it's too
painful. Screw it, I'm not getting any oxygen anyway. If I need air, I'll
just suck it in through the 4 inch hole in my stomach


"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
newsine.SOL.4.44.0312061547400.10056-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
>
> > The defining difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is the
> > type of activity they each engage in
>
> Repetition does not bolster this statement's validity.
>
> > unless you know of other differences unrelated to sexuality.
>
> The gender of people with whom homosexuals fall in love with...?
>
> DS
>
>

Notes From An Inexperienced Chili Tester Named FRANK, who was visiting Texas
from the East Coast: "Recently, I was honored to be selected as a judge at
a chili cook-off. The original person called in sick at the last moment and
I happened to be standing there at the judge's table asking directions to
the beer wagon, when the call came. I was assured by the other two judges
(Native Texans) that the chili wouldn't be all that spicy, and besides, they
told me I could have free beer during the tasting, so I accepted." Here are
the scorecards from the event:

CHILI # 1 MIKE'S MANIAC MOBSTER MONSTER CHILI JUDGE ONE: A little too heavy
on tomato. Amusing kick. JUDGE TWO: Nice, smooth tomato flavor. Very mild.
FRANK: Holy ****, what the hell is this stuff? You could remove dried paint
from your driveway. Took me two beers to put the flames out. I hope that's
the worst one. These Texans are crazy.
_______________________________________________
CHILI # 2 ARTHUR'S AFTERBURNER CHILI
JUDGE ONE: Smokey, with a hint of pork. Slight Jalapeno tang. JUDGE TWO:
Exciting BBQ flavor, needs more peppers to be taken seriously. FRANK: Keep
this out of the reach of children I'm not sure what I am supposed to taste
besides pain. I had to wave off two people who wanted to give me the
Heimlich maneuver. They had to rush in more beer when they saw the look on
my face.
_______________________________________________
CHILI # 3 FRED'S FAMOUS BURN DOWN THE BARN CHILI JUDGE ONE: Excellent
firehouse chili! Great kick. Needs more beans. JUDGE TWO: A beanless
chili, a bit salty, good use of peppers. FRANK: Call the EPA, I've located
a uranium spill. My nose feels like I have been snorting Drano. Everyone
knows the routine by now get me more beer before I ignite. Barmaid pounded
me on the back; now my backbone is in the front part of my chest. I'm
getting ****-faced from all the beer.
_______________________________________________
CHILI # 4 BUBBA'S BLACK MAGIC JUDGE ONE: Black bean chili with almost no
spice. Disappointing. JUDGE TWO: Hint of lime in the black beans. Good
side dish for fish or other mild foods, not much of a chili. FRANK: I felt
something scraping across my tongue, but was unable to taste it, is it
possible to burnout taste buds? Sally, the barmaid, was standing behind me
with fresh refills; that 300 lb. bitch is starting to look HOT just like
this nuclear waste I'm eating. Is chili an aphrodisiac?
_______________________________________________
CHILI # 5 LINDA'S LEGAL LIP REMOVER JUDGE ONE: Meaty, strong chili. Cayenne
peppers freshly ground, adding considerable kick. Very Impressive. JUDGE
TWO: Chili using shredded beef, could use more tomato. Must admit the
cayenne peppers make a strong statement. FRANK: My ears are ringing, sweat
is pouring off my forehead and I can no longer focus my eyes. I farted and
four people behind me needed paramedics. The contestant seemed offended
when I told her that her chili had given me brain damage, Sally saved my
tongue from bleeding by pouring beer directly on it from a pitcher. I wonder
if I'm burning my lips off? It really ****ed me off that the other judges
asked me to stop screaming. Screw those rednecks!
_______________________________________________
CHILI # 6 VERA'S VERY VEGETARIAN VARIETY JUDGE ONE: Thin yet bold vegetarian
variety chili. Good balance of spice and peppers. JUDGE TWO: The best yet.
Aggressive use of peppers, onions, and garlic. Superb. FRANK: My intestines
are now a straight pipe filled with gaseous, sulfuric flames. I **** myself
when I farted and I'm worried it will eat through the chair. No one seems
inclined to stand behind me except Sally. Can't feel my lips anymore. I
need to wipe my ass with a snow cone!
________________________________________________
CHILI # 7 SUSAN'S SCREAMING SENSATION CHILI JUDGE ONE: A mediocre chili with
too much reliance on canned peppers. JUDGE TWO: Ho Hum, tastes as if the
chef literally threw in a can of chili peppers at the last moment. I should
take note that I am worried about Judge Number 3- He appears to be in a bit
of distress as he is cursing uncontrollably. FRANK: You could put a grenade
in my mouth, pull the pin, and I wouldn't feel a damn thing. I've lost sight
in one eye, and the world sounds like it is made of rushing water. My shirt
is covered with chili, which slid unnoticed out of my mouth. My pants are
full of lava-like **** to match my damn shirt. At least during the autopsy
they'll know what killed me. I've decided to stop breathing, it's too
painful. Screw it, I'm not getting any oxygen anyway. If I need air, I'll
just suck it in through the 4 inch hole in my stomach


"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
newsine.SOL.4.44.0312061543470.10056-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
>
> > > > You claim discrimination by excluding gays. I claim that others
could
> > > > claim that you would want to discriminate against them because you
would
> > > > exlude non-adults, non-humans, or even non-living things for those
> > > > humans that wanted to marry, say, their dog, tree, torque wrench,
etc.
>
> > > And this is a slippery-slope argument totally divorced, as it were,
from
> > > any reality.
>
> > Why is it a slippery slope argument?
>
> If you don't know the definition of a slippery-slope argument, go look it
> up. I am not your debate coach.
>
> DS
>

GIVING PILLS TO CATS AND DOGS MADE EASY

CATS:
1. Pick cat up and cradle it in the crook of your left arm as if holding
baby. Position right forefinger and thumb on either side of cat's mouth
and gently apply pressure to cheeks while holding pill in right hand. As
cat opens mouth pop pill into mouth. Allow cat to close mouth and swallow.

2. Retrieve pill from floor and cat from behind sofa. Cradle cat in left
arm and repeat process.

3. Retrieve cat from bedroom, and throw soggy pill away.

4. Take new pill from foil wrap, cradle cat in left arm -- holding rear
paws tightly with left hand. Force jaws open and push pill to
back of mouth with right forefinger. Hold mouth shut for a count of ten.

5. Retrieve pill from goldfish bowl and cat from top of wardrobe. Call
spouse from garden.

6. Kneel on floor with cat wedged firmly between knees, hold front and
rear paws. Ignore low growls emitted by cat. Get spouse to hold head
firmly with one hand while forcing wooden ruler into mouth. Drop pill
down ruler and rub cat's throat vigorously for 30-40 seconds.

7. Retrieve cat from curtain rail, get another pill from foil wrap. Make
note to buy new ruler and repair curtains. Carefully sweep shattered
figurines and vases from hearth and set to one side for gluing later.

8. Wrap cat in large towel and get spouse to lie on cat with head just
visible from below armpit. Put pill in end of drinking straw, force open
with pencil and blow down drinking straw.

9. Check label to make sure pill not harmful to humans, drink 1 beer to
take taste away. Apply Band-Aid to spouse's forearm and remove blood from
carpet with cold water and soap. Throw pieces of towel in garbage.

10. Retrieve cat from neighbor's shed. Get another pill. Open another
beer. Place cat in cupboard and close door onto neck to leave head
showing. Force mouth open with dessert spoon. Flick pill down throat
with elastic band.

11. Fetch screwdriver from garage and put cupboard door back on hinges.
Drink beer. Fetch bottle of scotch. Pour shot, drink. Apply cold compress
to cheek and check records for date of last tetanus shot. Apply whiskey
compress to cheek to disinfect. Toss back another shot. Throw T-shirt away
and fetch new one from bedroom.

12. Ring fire brigade to retrieve the cat from tree across the
road. Apologize to neighbor who crashed into fence while swerving to
avoid cat. Take last pill from foil wrap.

13. Tie the cat's front paws to rear paws with garden
twine and bind tightly to leg of dining room table, find heavy duty pruning
gloves from shed. Push pill into mouth followed by large piece of fillet
steak. Be rough about it. Hold head vertically and pour 2 pints of water
down throat to wash pill down. Pray vigorously while performing all steps.

14. Consume remainder of Scotch. Get spouse to drive you to the emergency
room, sit quietly while doctor stitches fingers and forearm and removes
pill remnants from right eye. Call furniture shop on way home to order
new table.

15. Arrange for ASPCA to collect mutant cat from hell and ring local pet
shop to see if they have any hamsters left.



DOGS:
1. Wrap pill in bacon.



"Bobby Koch" <bobby.koch53@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FD2A433.D186DB8C@hotmail.com...
> Nice language from a netcop.
>
> George wrote:
>
> > Why is this **** in the car groups?
>

GIVING PILLS TO CATS AND DOGS MADE EASY

CATS:
1. Pick cat up and cradle it in the crook of your left arm as if holding
baby. Position right forefinger and thumb on either side of cat's mouth
and gently apply pressure to cheeks while holding pill in right hand. As
cat opens mouth pop pill into mouth. Allow cat to close mouth and swallow.

2. Retrieve pill from floor and cat from behind sofa. Cradle cat in left
arm and repeat process.

3. Retrieve cat from bedroom, and throw soggy pill away.

4. Take new pill from foil wrap, cradle cat in left arm -- holding rear
paws tightly with left hand. Force jaws open and push pill to
back of mouth with right forefinger. Hold mouth shut for a count of ten.

5. Retrieve pill from goldfish bowl and cat from top of wardrobe. Call
spouse from garden.

6. Kneel on floor with cat wedged firmly between knees, hold front and
rear paws. Ignore low growls emitted by cat. Get spouse to hold head
firmly with one hand while forcing wooden ruler into mouth. Drop pill
down ruler and rub cat's throat vigorously for 30-40 seconds.

7. Retrieve cat from curtain rail, get another pill from foil wrap. Make
note to buy new ruler and repair curtains. Carefully sweep shattered
figurines and vases from hearth and set to one side for gluing later.

8. Wrap cat in large towel and get spouse to lie on cat with head just
visible from below armpit. Put pill in end of drinking straw, force open
with pencil and blow down drinking straw.

9. Check label to make sure pill not harmful to humans, drink 1 beer to
take taste away. Apply Band-Aid to spouse's forearm and remove blood from
carpet with cold water and soap. Throw pieces of towel in garbage.

10. Retrieve cat from neighbor's shed. Get another pill. Open another
beer. Place cat in cupboard and close door onto neck to leave head
showing. Force mouth open with dessert spoon. Flick pill down throat
with elastic band.

11. Fetch screwdriver from garage and put cupboard door back on hinges.
Drink beer. Fetch bottle of scotch. Pour shot, drink. Apply cold compress
to cheek and check records for date of last tetanus shot. Apply whiskey
compress to cheek to disinfect. Toss back another shot. Throw T-shirt away
and fetch new one from bedroom.

12. Ring fire brigade to retrieve the cat from tree across the
road. Apologize to neighbor who crashed into fence while swerving to
avoid cat. Take last pill from foil wrap.

13. Tie the cat's front paws to rear paws with garden
twine and bind tightly to leg of dining room table, find heavy duty pruning
gloves from shed. Push pill into mouth followed by large piece of fillet
steak. Be rough about it. Hold head vertically and pour 2 pints of water
down throat to wash pill down. Pray vigorously while performing all steps.

14. Consume remainder of Scotch. Get spouse to drive you to the emergency
room, sit quietly while doctor stitches fingers and forearm and removes
pill remnants from right eye. Call furniture shop on way home to order
new table.

15. Arrange for ASPCA to collect mutant cat from hell and ring local pet
shop to see if they have any hamsters left.



DOGS:
1. Wrap pill in bacon.



"Bobby Koch" <bobby.koch53@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FD2A40B.58196CED@hotmail.com...
> So you that you can have something to keep you busy.
>
> George wrote:
>
> > Why is this **** in the car groups?
> >
> > "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> > newsine.SOL.4.44.0312061547400.10056-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> > > On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
> > >
> > > > The defining difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is the
> > > > type of activity they each engage in
> > >
> > > Repetition does not bolster this statement's validity.
> > >
> > > > unless you know of other differences unrelated to sexuality.
> > >
> > > The gender of people with whom homosexuals fall in love with...?
> > >
> > > DS
> > >
> > >
>

GIVING PILLS TO CATS AND DOGS MADE EASY

CATS:
1. Pick cat up and cradle it in the crook of your left arm as if holding
baby. Position right forefinger and thumb on either side of cat's mouth
and gently apply pressure to cheeks while holding pill in right hand. As
cat opens mouth pop pill into mouth. Allow cat to close mouth and swallow.

2. Retrieve pill from floor and cat from behind sofa. Cradle cat in left
arm and repeat process.

3. Retrieve cat from bedroom, and throw soggy pill away.

4. Take new pill from foil wrap, cradle cat in left arm -- holding rear
paws tightly with left hand. Force jaws open and push pill to
back of mouth with right forefinger. Hold mouth shut for a count of ten.

5. Retrieve pill from goldfish bowl and cat from top of wardrobe. Call
spouse from garden.

6. Kneel on floor with cat wedged firmly between knees, hold front and
rear paws. Ignore low growls emitted by cat. Get spouse to hold head
firmly with one hand while forcing wooden ruler into mouth. Drop pill
down ruler and rub cat's throat vigorously for 30-40 seconds.

7. Retrieve cat from curtain rail, get another pill from foil wrap. Make
note to buy new ruler and repair curtains. Carefully sweep shattered
figurines and vases from hearth and set to one side for gluing later.

8. Wrap cat in large towel and get spouse to lie on cat with head just
visible from below armpit. Put pill in end of drinking straw, force open
with pencil and blow down drinking straw.

9. Check label to make sure pill not harmful to humans, drink 1 beer to
take taste away. Apply Band-Aid to spouse's forearm and remove blood from
carpet with cold water and soap. Throw pieces of towel in garbage.

10. Retrieve cat from neighbor's shed. Get another pill. Open another
beer. Place cat in cupboard and close door onto neck to leave head
showing. Force mouth open with dessert spoon. Flick pill down throat
with elastic band.

11. Fetch screwdriver from garage and put cupboard door back on hinges.
Drink beer. Fetch bottle of scotch. Pour shot, drink. Apply cold compress
to cheek and check records for date of last tetanus shot. Apply whiskey
compress to cheek to disinfect. Toss back another shot. Throw T-shirt away
and fetch new one from bedroom.

12. Ring fire brigade to retrieve the cat from tree across the
road. Apologize to neighbor who crashed into fence while swerving to
avoid cat. Take last pill from foil wrap.

13. Tie the cat's front paws to rear paws with garden
twine and bind tightly to leg of dining room table, find heavy duty pruning
gloves from shed. Push pill into mouth followed by large piece of fillet
steak. Be rough about it. Hold head vertically and pour 2 pints of water
down throat to wash pill down. Pray vigorously while performing all steps.

14. Consume remainder of Scotch. Get spouse to drive you to the emergency
room, sit quietly while doctor stitches fingers and forearm and removes
pill remnants from right eye. Call furniture shop on way home to order
new table.

15. Arrange for ASPCA to collect mutant cat from hell and ring local pet
shop to see if they have any hamsters left.



DOGS:
1. Wrap pill in bacon.



"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
newsine.SOL.4.44.0312061547400.10056-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
>
> > The defining difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is the
> > type of activity they each engage in
>
> Repetition does not bolster this statement's validity.
>
> > unless you know of other differences unrelated to sexuality.
>
> The gender of people with whom homosexuals fall in love with...?
>
> DS
>
>