Dear Red States

"Karen C in California" wrote in message
...
Jangchub wrote:

I
suppose I generally luck out with the women I've met over the years.



Some people have that luck, and some don't.

Maybe it's a California thing that most of the women I've met here are
bubblebrains. One of the girls I used to work with couldn't process why
her boyfriend left a real cutie like her in order to date someone "older
and ugly"; one of the attorneys (like me, an East Coast transplant with
different values than the locals) suggested maybe the woman had a
functioning brain and was a good conversationalist (on topics other than
makeup and fashion), and she seemed stunned that cute and good in bed
weren't every man's ideal woman.

Almost all the women I've met here who I could have a good conversation
with were from back East, not native Californians.


--
Karen C - California
Editor/Proofreader www.IntlProofingConsortium.com



Did you ever think there's a possibility that the smart, sophisticated, well
read, well educated, well rounded women just don't want to hang out with
someone who believes that the sun rises and sets depending on her health and
welfare, and her interests, are the only important things to talk about.

I have dozens of acquaintances that I spend a bit of time with, sometimes
just because we can have an inane conversation about nothing important.

Then there are the closer friends that I can talk to for hours about
politics, or baseball, or fashion, or our pets and dozens of other subjects,
both important and trivial.

Different people, different subjects--all important at the moment.

Oh and what the heck does being a native Californian have to do with
intellect or interests. Have you been spending too much time reading silly
gossip magazines or do you actually know these people?

Lucille

"flitterbit" wrote in message
...
Pat P wrote:
"Jinx Minx" wrote in message
...
"Karen C in California" wrote in message
...
Dear Red States:


snipped


Offensive as HELL, especially the paragraph about happy families vs.
"under-educated single moms" as if they are mutually exclusive. If
espousing spew like this comes with blue state residency, then I'm
moving. Count me out of your "new country".

Jinx

I don`t think that Karen`s really qualified to make judgements on Happy
Families, either, do you?

Pat
Karen didn't write the piece she posted; it's satire/humour that's been
circulating the Web since the 2004 Presidential election.

In my book, if you forward it, you take responsibility for it, whether you
originated it or not.

Pat

On Nov 7, 3:48*pm, Jangchub wrote:
On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 16:56:48 -0500, flitterbit
wrote:

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.

If people would watch the movie "All Aboard" to see just how amazing
they are as parents of children nobody wants. *One gay couple adopted
four children of a crack addicted woman who kept getting pregnant.
They held one baby for months because he too was addicted to drugs. *I
have never seen such happy faces, sweet faces, smiling and love
pouring out. *This is such a non issue and has no place on the ballot.
IMO.

Victoria

"There are known knowns. These are things we
know that we know. There are known unknowns.
That is to say, there are things that we know
we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns.
There are things we don't know we don't know."

Donald Rumsfeld

http://gotbodhicitta-wangmo.blogspot.com/

Thank you for Telling THAT woman, that her way of writing is
offensive ,,
She thinks she is BETTER ,,,
She is a Xhenophobe .
mirjam

"Gillian Murray" wrote in message
...
Pat P wrote:
"Lucille" lzoltynospam@now at comcast..net wrote in message
...
"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

Good for them!

Pat
I was really ambivalent on this one. Marriage I think is between a man and
woman. However, there needs to be a legal situation for unmarried people,
who really have a long term relationship. Some states have it, some don't.

Pat, in Florida there are a lot of us "mature" folk. There may be no sex
involved, but definitely over the hill regarding having babies.

Many of us oldies really lose a pension or a take a big, really big,
financial loss, by being married. Jim and I lived together for 13 years
before we married, 13 years ago. The reason?? I would lose the widows
Pension I had earned (yup earned, you were a navy wife) by marrying prior
to age 55. Now, we get both pensions, but Congress , taxes us on almost
all our Social Security.

Guess you can't win for losing these days LOL

Gill

Social Security is unfair all across the globe, I imagine. There`s an
enquiry going on over here now about the "Carer`s" allowance. John`s my
carer, but because he gets a pension, doesn`t get a Carer`s Allowance. It`s
worse for those on basic DSS pension only, of course and for those in
particular it would be such a help as if you`re disabled there are a lot
more expenses just to live and to get to where you have to be!

Even those who DO get a Carer`s Allowance only get one allowance (Only £50)
and there was a case mentioned of a woman in Wales who is looking after a
permanently disabled son as well as a disabled husband. £50 allowance for
that seems measly when you think how much it costs the Government to look
after someone in a care home.

Pat

"Lucille" lzoltynospam@now at comcast..net wrote in message
...

"Gillian Murray" wrote in message
...
Pat P wrote:
"Lucille" lzoltynospam@now at comcast..net wrote in message
...
"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

Good for them!

Pat
I was really ambivalent on this one. Marriage I think is between a man
and woman. However, there needs to be a legal situation for unmarried
people, who really have a long term relationship. Some states have it,
some don't.

Pat, in Florida there are a lot of us "mature" folk. There may be no sex
involved, but definitely over the hill regarding having babies.

Many of us oldies really lose a pension or a take a big, really big,
financial loss, by being married. Jim and I lived together for 13 years
before we married, 13 years ago. The reason?? I would lose the widows
Pension I had earned (yup earned, you were a navy wife) by marrying prior
to age 55. Now, we get both pensions, but Congress , taxes us on almost
all our Social Security.

Guess you can't win for losing these days LOL

Gill


Florida is really backward when it comes to this. They don't even have a
proper domestic partnership law and they don't allow gay couples to adopt.

I should think not! A child at least needs to be RAISED in a normal
(heterosexual) home - whastever it decides is is sexuality later on should
at least be uncoloured by anything but the norm.

I`m afraid it`s the same old story these days, people just will not admit
that if they take a certain course of action, there will be something they
just can`t have.

Pat

Pat

"Jangchub" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 20:18:17 -0500, "Lucille" lzoltynospam@now at
comcast..net wrote:

Florida is really backward when it comes to this. They don't even have a
proper domestic partnership law and they don't allow gay couples to adopt.

The part I don't understand is, what the hell is it anyone's business
if gay men and women want to marry? What is this crap about
semantics, civil unions, marriage, legal contract, whatever anyone
wants to call it. Do they love one another any less than any other
couple?

The people who are against gay marriage are ignorant and unkind. Gay
couples in Florida can foster children, but then they get ripped out
of their stable gay homes to be put back with the maniac mothers who
were involved with meth or crack and the beat goes on and that poor
kid will probably end up in prison because of their total instability.

Ignorance is the worst form of laziness, IMO. Another way to look at
it is why should gays not be able to marry and be as miserable as
anyone else who gets to marry? The door swings both ways.

Ho hum.

Victoria

You mean there are no homosexuals on crack, or alcoholic, or who are
violent? Get real!

Pat

"Bruce Fletcher (remove dentures to reply)"
wrote in message ...
wrote:
On Nov 8, 10:20 am, "Bruce Fletcher (remove dentures to reply)"
wrote:
wrote:
Other way around. DH and I were married by a Catholic priest whose
religious authority also gave him the authority to marry us in the
eyes of the state. In European countries if you want a religious
ceremony that's fine, buy you still have to have a civil one.
Elizabeth
Oh dear, that means I've not been "officially" married to Maureen for
the last 33 years as we were married in a Methodist church by a
Methodist minister and didn't have a civil ceremony. And will I have to
pay back the income tax that I didn't pay because I was married?

The UK isn't "European." That's why you get all that special
treatment from the EU.

Elizabeth (ducking)

Our biggest mistake was to (almost) abandon the Commonwealth in favour of
Europe. Now a lot of our legislation comes straight from Brussels
--
Bruce Fletcher
Stronsay, Orkney UK

Oh good - at last someone else who realises that the UK is NOT European.

Pat

"Pat P" wrote in message
...

"Jangchub" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 20:18:17 -0500, "Lucille" lzoltynospam@now at
comcast..net wrote:

Florida is really backward when it comes to this. They don't even have a
proper domestic partnership law and they don't allow gay couples to
adopt.

The part I don't understand is, what the hell is it anyone's business
if gay men and women want to marry? What is this crap about
semantics, civil unions, marriage, legal contract, whatever anyone
wants to call it. Do they love one another any less than any other
couple?

The people who are against gay marriage are ignorant and unkind. Gay
couples in Florida can foster children, but then they get ripped out
of their stable gay homes to be put back with the maniac mothers who
were involved with meth or crack and the beat goes on and that poor
kid will probably end up in prison because of their total instability.

Ignorance is the worst form of laziness, IMO. Another way to look at
it is why should gays not be able to marry and be as miserable as
anyone else who gets to marry? The door swings both ways.

Ho hum.

Victoria

You mean there are no homosexuals on crack, or alcoholic, or who are
violent? Get real!

Pat
I suspect there are no more or less then with the general population.

"Bruce Fletcher (remove dentures to reply)"
wrote in message ...
Parrotfish wrote:
"lucretia borgia" wrote...
"Bruce Fletcher opined:
Our biggest mistake was to (almost) abandon the Commonwealth in favour
of Europe. Now a lot of our legislation comes straight from Brussels
What was the business about straight bananas as opposed to bent
bananas ? I know that it was done to stop imports from the Honduras.

Not to mention Cucumbers..... lol
And Snails (Escargot) being classified as *Land based Fish*

Britain is doing its best to outdo Europe in this area! See the Tax
Payers' Alliance website especially the "non-jobs" page
http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/waste/nonjobs
--
Bruce Fletcher
Stronsay, Orkney UK

Mayne that`s why I had a couple of perfectly straight Honduran King Prawns
yesterday! They`ve started on the prawns, too!

Pat

On Nov 9, 7:06 am, lucretia borgia wrote:
On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 04:43:13 -0600, "Jinx Minx"
opined:





"Karen C in California" wrote in message
...
Jangchub wrote:

I
suppose I generally luck out with the women I've met over the years.

Some people have that luck, and some don't.

Maybe it's a California thing that most of the women I've met here are
bubblebrains. One of the girls I used to work with couldn't process why
her boyfriend left a real cutie like her in order to date someone "older
and ugly"; one of the attorneys (like me, an East Coast transplant with
different values than the locals) suggested maybe the woman had a
functioning brain and was a good conversationalist (on topics other than
makeup and fashion), and she seemed stunned that cute and good in bed
weren't every man's ideal woman.

Almost all the women I've met here who I could have a good conversation
with were from back East, not native Californians.

Maybe "older and ugly" was the one good in bed....

Jinx

You KNOW you're supposed to put a spew warning ahead of remarks like
that !!!


That didn't make me spew at all. Just nodded my head and went "of
course."

Elizabeth (lol!)