If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Dear Red States
I would be more impressed with the great "blue" state of California if its
rich, healthy, educated, well-employed, tax-paying tolerant tanned and happy people had not brought an end to the right of gay and lesbian couples (presumably also mainly rich, healthy, educated, well-employed tax payers) to civil marriage. Dawne |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Dear Red States
dark.angel wrote:
In article , Karen C in California wrote: Because I'm not the one who wrote the article. Oh, dear .... I'm so very sorry! I completely didn't see where you cited the source! Because, as a professional proofreader, you'd have too much integrity to post something without citing the source, of course. The person who sent it to me didn't know the source. I don't see Fred posting the source when *he* sends jokes. But I guess different rules apply to me than to everyone else. -- Karen C - California Editor/Proofreader www.IntlProofingConsortium.com Finished 10/7/08 - Sun Fun (Dimensions) WIP: Nativity from "Countdown to Christmas" book, Oriental Kimono (Janlynn), MLI The Teacher (gift to the library), Bethany Angel (Marbek) Retrieved from UFO pile: Marbek's Snow Angel, MLI Farmers Market CFSfacts -- where we give you the facts and dispel the myths Myths, with research cites: http://www.aacfs.org/images/pdfs/myths.pdf Newest research blog: http://cfs-facts.blogspot.com/ |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Dear Red States
lucretia borgia wrote:
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 12:18:42 -0600, "Dawne Peterson" opined: I would be more impressed with the great "blue" state of California if its rich, healthy, educated, well-employed, tax-paying tolerant tanned and happy people had not brought an end to the right of gay and lesbian couples (presumably also mainly rich, healthy, educated, well-employed tax payers) to civil marriage. Dawne Yes, I was shocked to hear that. I thought California was supposed to be ahead of everyone. I was shocked as well as sorely disappointed. It would appear the "no" campaign didn't do as good a job as they could have of dispelling misconceptions, or of instilling the idea that the whole point of permitting gays to marry was to extend equal rights to everyone, not just heterosexuals, or of just plain emphasizing that gays are no different than anyone else, they hold jobs, they vote, they buy homes, they raise families, etc. BTW, my understanding is that the "yes" voting was concentrated in rural areas as well as in the religious and ethnic segments of California's population. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Dear Red States
"Karen C in California" wrote in message ... Jinx Minx wrote: Offensive as HELL Oh, well. For years, we've had to put up with Red Staters telling us that they have superior morality and that we Californians are going to hell because we don't think Rush Limbaugh and millionaire televangelists are destined for sainthood. Maybe the facts that Blue States are the ones with the money -- California gets back only a fraction of the money we send to DC, because our money is used to subsidize poor Red States -- are offensive to those who've been patting themselves on the back making fun of our collection of fruits, nuts and flakes. Too bad, tit for tat. I've lived in Red areas. I like Blue ones better. Less racist, more tolerant of new ideas, better food. Next time you get a craving for an orange, remember, we produce almost ALL of the eating oranges in California. When you want a salad in December, remember, most of the lettuce in winter is grown in California. Our farmworkers work year-round; they don't get winters off because we don't have winters. And, for any of you who have ever made jokes about lazy Californians, I'm accustomed to talking to NY law firms and telling them that our office opens at 8 AM; in NYC, they don't show up till 10. There's always that moment of shock when they realize that we're working harder than the city that prides itself on working hard. -- Karen C - California Editor/Proofreader www.IntlProofingConsortium.com Finished 10/7/08 - Sun Fun (Dimensions) WIP: Nativity from "Countdown to Christmas" book, Oriental Kimono (Janlynn), MLI The Teacher (gift to the library), Bethany Angel (Marbek) Retrieved from UFO pile: Marbek's Snow Angel, MLI Farmers Market CFSfacts -- where we give you the facts and dispel the myths Myths, with research cites: http://www.aacfs.org/images/pdfs/myths.pdf Newest research blog: http://cfs-facts.blogspot.com/ No. I live in a Blue State, have always lived in a Blue State, and I still find it offensive. In addition, I've seen two slightly different versions of this, and I'm not entirely sure which one is the original one. Karen's version is slightly more inflammatory than the other (the other version I saw just says "single moms", not "under-educated single moms"). As for Rich/Poor, Blue/Red....I found the following article interesting: http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/po...rich_stat.html And perhaps the reason California needs to start work at 8am, is because they need to in order to be in time synch with the rest of the working states, not because they are harder workers. MY lawyer starts work at 7am. Jinx |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Dear Red States
"flitterbit" wrote in message ... lucretia borgia wrote: On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 12:18:42 -0600, "Dawne Peterson" opined: I would be more impressed with the great "blue" state of California if its rich, healthy, educated, well-employed, tax-paying tolerant tanned and happy people had not brought an end to the right of gay and lesbian couples (presumably also mainly rich, healthy, educated, well-employed tax payers) to civil marriage. Dawne Yes, I was shocked to hear that. I thought California was supposed to be ahead of everyone. I was shocked as well as sorely disappointed. It would appear the "no" campaign didn't do as good a job as they could have of dispelling misconceptions, or of instilling the idea that the whole point of permitting gays to marry was to extend equal rights to everyone, not just heterosexuals, or of just plain emphasizing that gays are no different than anyone else, they hold jobs, they vote, they buy homes, they raise families, etc. BTW, my understanding is that the "yes" voting was concentrated in rural areas as well as in the religious and ethnic segments of California's population. They tightened the rules in Florida so that the constitution actually will state that a marriage is between a man and a woman. So sad. Lucille |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Dear Red States
lucretia borgia wrote:
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 12:18:42 -0600, "Dawne Peterson" opined: I would be more impressed with the great "blue" state of California if its rich, healthy, educated, well-employed, tax-paying tolerant tanned and happy people had not brought an end to the right of gay and lesbian couples (presumably also mainly rich, healthy, educated, well-employed tax payers) to civil marriage. Dawne Yes, I was shocked to hear that. I thought California was supposed to be ahead of everyone. Succinctly, we have had an influx of religious-persecution refugees, who think that it's OK for them to persecute anyone who doesn't believe exactly as they do. (Including other brands of Christians.) These folks would be much happier in one of the Bible-thumping Red States; they did not realize what radical ideas they were going to be exposing their children to by moving to the state with the best weather. Rather than moving to where they'd fit in better, they want to change us to fit their mold. Add in massive funding from two large religions, one of which is now being investigated with the possibility of losing their tax-exempt status for inserting the church's nose too far into the political arena, with both religions exhorting every Sunday from every pulpit that their congregations must vote on this issue, and even some evidence that the church's own funds were used for politicking. It was also a little confusing -- even one of my favorite activists got it wrong in an e-mail to me last week -- in that voting Yes means No gay marriage, and No means Yes. I wonder how many people voted wrong because they thought Yes meant Yes. Last year, the prior traditional-marriage proposition was litigated all the way up to the Calif Supreme Court and deemed unconstitutional. These uber-religious-types immediately got it back on the ballot. As soon as the announcement was made that it passed, there were attorneys down at the courthouse filing new challenges. Since the Cal Supremes have already deemed it unconstitutional, it'll be a quick trip back up through the system, and the Supremes can tell them again, it was unconstitutional last year, it's unconstitutional this year, and it'll be unconstitutional again next year. There's also some question about whether the rules were followed -- only the Legislature is supposed to put something on the ballot that would change the state constitution. Another attempt to put this on the ballot will be very carefully scrutinized to make sure those rules are followed to the letter, and I don't think they can get enough of the Lege to go for it because too many of the Lege have gay staffers, and all of them have to work with a couple of openly gay legislators. -- Karen C - California Editor/Proofreader www.IntlProofingConsortium.com Finished 10/7/08 - Sun Fun (Dimensions) WIP: Nativity from "Countdown to Christmas" book, Oriental Kimono (Janlynn), MLI The Teacher (gift to the library), Bethany Angel (Marbek) Retrieved from UFO pile: Marbek's Snow Angel, MLI Farmers Market CFSfacts -- where we give you the facts and dispel the myths Myths, with research cites: http://www.aacfs.org/images/pdfs/myths.pdf Newest research blog: http://cfs-facts.blogspot.com/ |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Dear Red States
Lucille wrote:
"flitterbit" wrote in message ... lucretia borgia wrote: On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 12:18:42 -0600, "Dawne Peterson" opined: I would be more impressed with the great "blue" state of California if its rich, healthy, educated, well-employed, tax-paying tolerant tanned and happy people had not brought an end to the right of gay and lesbian couples (presumably also mainly rich, healthy, educated, well-employed tax payers) to civil marriage. Dawne Yes, I was shocked to hear that. I thought California was supposed to be ahead of everyone. I was shocked as well as sorely disappointed. It would appear the "no" campaign didn't do as good a job as they could have of dispelling misconceptions, or of instilling the idea that the whole point of permitting gays to marry was to extend equal rights to everyone, not just heterosexuals, or of just plain emphasizing that gays are no different than anyone else, they hold jobs, they vote, they buy homes, they raise families, etc. BTW, my understanding is that the "yes" voting was concentrated in rural areas as well as in the religious and ethnic segments of California's population. They tightened the rules in Florida so that the constitution actually will state that a marriage is between a man and a woman. So sad. Lucille It *is* sad, and Arizonans also voted in favour (56% yes, 44% no) of a ballot measure banning gay marriage, and Arkansans voted in favour (57% yes, 43% no) of a ban on gay couples adopting children (both from http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/ballot.measures/ or http://tinyurl.com/5vysp9). I really don't understand why some people feel so threatened by gay people; the only difference between gays and heterosexuals is to whom they're sexually attracted. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Dear Red States
On Nov 6, 1:18 pm, Karen C in California wrote:
wrote: The problem is that the post was funny as sour grapes when "blue" lost. It's offensive as gloating now that "blue" has won. Elizabeth Thank you for pointing that out. We in the Blue States have been expected to laugh at "offensive gloating" for years. The Reds don't like it now that the tables are turned. My experience obviously differs from yours. I don't feel that I've been subjected to offensive gloating over the years. I'm sorry if you do. Either way, please don't speak for me. Elizabeth (in the bluest of states) |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Dear Red States
In article , Karen C in California
wrote: Jinx Minx wrote: Offensive as HELL Oh, well. For years, we've had to put up with Red Staters telling us that they have superior morality and that we Californians are going to hell because we don't think Rush Limbaugh and millionaire televangelists are destined for sainthood. Balderdash. When has a single "Red state" actually knocked on your door and said such? AFAIK, states don't talk. Now, if you want to say that "asinine Republicans" said blah-blah-blah to you, that's another matter entirely. And FTR, I personally know that Dems can be just as preachy as the worst Rep. And for the record? Being an asshole isn't just limited to any specific party member. Last I checked, it's a pretty universal "quality" in human beings. Just two weeks ago (and I shudder to think how happy this will make you), my DD came home from high school talking about how some Dem kids were starting fist-fights. She told me with no small amount of pride that neither she nor a particular friend of hers actually began a fight nor participated in one. She said, and I quote: "We're supposed to be a better example than that. We're supposed to be the good guys. The ones with a heart." Maybe you ought to take a page out of her book? disgusted rant. It's people like YOU with your bull**** that's made Dems the dirty word it is in many American homes. It's people like YOU that make other people too afraid to pray in front of me once they find out I'm a Dem. It's people like YOU that have to act (and you've admitted it) like Dems are superior creatures (shades of Aryan, perhaps?) and that Reps are filthy uneducated (because of COURSE, if they don't agree with YOU, they must be stupid, right?), asshats. I work my ASS off to defray the ****ty way people see Dems. Dems are about protecting freedoms, providing for those who can't provide for themselves (and assisting them until they can), and encouraging the differences -- and teaching others to be tolerant of those differences -- inherent in our nation. Being a Dem asshole is supposed to be the EXCEPTION, not the rule. So, why don't you stop the political and rhetoric equivalent of bragging that your dick is bigger and just grow a HEART? A brain, too, if you can manage it. TIA. /disgusted rant Maybe the facts that Blue States are the ones with the money -- California gets back only a fraction of the money we send to DC, because our money is used to subsidize poor Red States -- are offensive to those who've been patting themselves on the back making fun of our collection of fruits, nuts and flakes. Too bad, tit for tat. Poor "Red states?" You mean the people that actually NEED the social programs Dems champion? So you're essentially saying either you choose to no longer help the people who need it -- or are you saying you want the Dems in office to be out of a job? Tsk, tsk. More discrimination against the poor. Again, free cl00, but the very people you seem to despise (the poor and uneducated) are typically the ones who vote Dem. I've lived in Red areas. I like Blue ones better. Less racist, more tolerant of new ideas, better food. Guess you've either never had Cuban (which WE'RE known for) or are too damned racist or bigoted to think it's "good food." Next time you get a craving for an orange, remember, we produce almost ALL of the eating oranges in California. Not really. Florida Navel oranges (it's not just a clever name, you know) are almost exclusively sold in the south and north. When you want a salad in December, remember, most of the lettuce in winter is grown in California. Our farmworkers work year-round; they don't get winters off because we don't have winters. So you were the ones to thank for that latest E. Coli epidemic? Thanks for the info. Good to know. -- dark.angel |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
OT - Dear Dad | Elly[_2_] | Quilting | 4 | February 9th 08 05:37 AM |
OT Dear all . . . | CATS | Quilting | 5 | September 13th 07 05:08 PM |
A little OT Finished something - but oh dear! | Cats | Quilting | 29 | January 30th 07 03:39 AM |
Oh Dear! | KJ | Quilting | 13 | January 31st 05 02:59 PM |
OT - Dear Mom | LN \(remove NOSPAM\) | Quilting | 8 | April 25th 04 02:10 AM |