On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:08:41 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

I know a few deeply religious evangelical types. They're not all Kristians

Then why label them as such? You didn't make a distinction - you said
"He's successfully pandering to right wing Kristians, and it's
working." You labeled an entire class of people - Kristians - as
having the same view - which you can't with any certainty.

"Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or
incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of
people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality,
religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language
ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or
appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity
and any other distinction-liability."

By definition, it's hate speech which is bigotry.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 10:07:48 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 14:12:12 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

I use that term to describe the sect that meddles a bit too much, to
the
point of trying to prevent the distribution of condoms in Africa as
part of
our AIDS prevention assistance. You know why, and you know they're
wrong.
People are dying, and these Kristians are trying to connect condoms
with
loose morals because of something they read in an old book written by
people
who were no holier than you or I. It's pure bull****.

Odd - I never thought of you as a bigot.

I'm disappointed.

THere's nothing bigoted about pointing out that the current
administration uses its small-minded concept of Christianity to prevent
the distribution of condoms.

Didn't think you were a bigot either.

Unfortunate.


I suspect you're on your way out the door in a little while, so you're
trying to end the discussion by stonewalling with a misused word. Maybe I'm
wrong, though. Without cutting & pasting definitions from elsewhere, and
without providing links, please provide YOUR definition of the word "bigot".

I'll give you mine, by example:

Bigot: I don't like black people.

Realist: I don't like this particular black person because he raped a woman.
http://www.nysmostwanted.com/295.htm


Bigot: I don't like religious people.
Realist: I don't like religious people who think their book is more
important than human beings in another country.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:08:41 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

I know a few deeply religious evangelical types. They're not all Kristians

Then why label them as such? You didn't make a distinction - you said
"He's successfully pandering to right wing Kristians, and it's
working." You labeled an entire class of people - Kristians - as
having the same view - which you can't with any certainty.

"Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or
incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of
people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality,
religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language
ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or
appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity
and any other distinction-liability."

By definition, it's hate speech which is bigotry.


OK. The Kristians are a SUBSET of Christianity. They're the ones who are
happy to see people die, while their sect supports policies which are proven
to be ineffective.

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
...
May the best candidates win the nominations of the respective parties,
and may the best candidate among the two finalists (regardless of
party) win in November.

Well said. You can't ask for more than that.

On Jan 4, 5:18�am, JG2U wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 11:34:43 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing

wrote:

I read an account that said more than half of the Republicans
attending caucus in Iowa described themselves as "born again" or
"evangelical" Christians. Romney actually led among the Republicans
who didn't arrive in a chruch bus, so you weren't completely unfounded
in your Republican guesstimate.

That's a good point and reading through the post mortems this morning,
that one jumped out as an interesting data point. �

Notice how the media makes sure to drive home the "evangelical
Christian" phrase, over and over. �They've made it an issue... to give
godless liberals something to rally against. �Look how well it's
working right here on this NG.

I don't think the "godless liberals" are ralllying against
"evangelical Christians". Huckabee's meteoric rise in a race that 90
days ago was heavily handicapped for Guiliani or (maybe) Mitt is
certainly legitimate reality, but nobody is "rallying against"
Huckabee by noting much of his support comes from people who share his
fundamentalist values. Certainly no more than people would be
"rallying against" Obama by noting he has many supporters among racial
minorities or "rallying against" Clinton by noting she has many
supporters among politically active women.

My parents and siblings all vote Republican. Given a chance, some of
them would vote for anybody *except* Romney, due to his "Mormonism".
(Pretty funny, considering we are all not-so-distant cousins of Joseph
Smith - his grandmother was a Gould from our ancestral home in
Topsfield, MA.) I'd like to think in general that the evangelical vote
isn't "rallied against" another Republican- and that their support for
Huckabee is truly proactive rather than reactive.

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 07:41:26 -0500, HK wrote:

My fear is that despite his qualities, in
a general election, whitey isn't going to vote for "the black guy."

Many knowledgable people said that about Iowa also, including quite a
few Iowans.

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 08:08:02 -0500, HK wrote:

I find Romney totally obnoxious and a
flip-flopping panderer.


Than he will win for sure.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Del Cecchi" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...


There'd better be a landslide if Huckabee is the Republican
candidate. He's dangerous. He's successfully pandering to right wing
Kristians, and it's working. If they see him as more ethical than
Bush, he could be a real problem.

Why do you misspell "Christian"? Is it a form of hate speech? Are
you attempting to suppress religion?


There are real Christians, and then there are Kristians.

How old are you? I can explain more about this issue, but it would help
if I had some idea of how long you've been alive, so I know how much
detail you'll require.

I'm old enough to recognize a tool when I see one. Which other groups do
you partition into those you like and those you call bad names? What is
your pet name for muslims that advocate policies you dislike? How about
those minorities that propose things that you disagree with? What are
your names for them? Latinos and what? African-Americans and what?
Gays and what?

del

"Del Cecchi" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Del Cecchi" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...


There'd better be a landslide if Huckabee is the Republican candidate.
He's dangerous. He's successfully pandering to right wing Kristians,
and it's working. If they see him as more ethical than Bush, he could
be a real problem.

Why do you misspell "Christian"? Is it a form of hate speech? Are you
attempting to suppress religion?


There are real Christians, and then there are Kristians.

How old are you? I can explain more about this issue, but it would help
if I had some idea of how long you've been alive, so I know how much
detail you'll require.

I'm old enough to recognize a tool when I see one. Which other groups do
you partition into those you like and those you call bad names? What is
your pet name for muslims that advocate policies you dislike? How about
those minorities that propose things that you disagree with? What are
your names for them? Latinos and what? African-Americans and what? Gays
and what?

del


Kristian: Someone who uses their religion to defeat humanitarian programs in
countries they really don't care about.
Christian: Someone who doesn't.

That's your answer. It's perfectly accurate.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 08:42:26 -0500, HK wrote:

I'm hoping the
Republicans nominate the Huckster, the Paul, or, best of all, the Fred.


The strange thing is "The Fred" might actually end up being the most
electible of the bunch. People have short memories and name
recognition may be more important than substance. If Fred puts on his
best Law and Order suit, sits in that mahogony office and gives us
some of his country wisdom speeches in a series of October ads, people
will probably vote for him. He is probably the perfect "anti-Obama"
and "anti-Clinton" candidate.
Americans are not very sophistocated when it comes right down to it.
Most of them make decisions based on what they see on TV. That is why
the advertising industry makes so much money


The candidates should be fined $25,000.00 every time they say "folks".