george bush jr is scum, and he is going to be your next president

[Paul]

> Wouldn't that be fun? Love n peace would radiate from the White¿ House.

The Moz would definitely get my vote.

[satan's cheerleader]

earth to colin, come in, colin? the boy scouts thing is only one issue (and granted, you may be right on that one).

but do you also agree that gays & lesbians shouldn't adopt children, colin? legislation proposed in bush's texas would also have REMOVED adopted & foster children from homes with gay & lesbian parents or OTHER family members (which could include siblings or anyone else in the household).

and as for marriage, if it is viewed as a SECULAR institution, there is no reason same sex couples should not be afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples. if you view it as a RELIGIOUS institution, then i point out our Constitutional separation of church & state, making it no business of our government to force a particular system of "morality" upon the people.

when he is our president, he will not be a nonentity, as you put it. he will be in a position to influence the lives of people he has no respect for...

it is up to people who truly support equality and personal freedom to stop him and his narrow-minded agenda.¿ ------------¿ "Love they neighbor" doesn't mean "accept what¿ thy neighbor does."¿ Bush is actually right here - it's crazy to demand that private¿ organizations accept anyone. It's their organization. The Boy¿ Scouts have a right to exclude gays, just like ACT UP! has the¿ right to exclude homophobes.¿ George Jr. is pretty much a non-entity.

[Consumer Monkey]

I have to say, that I don't agree that the Boy Scouts should be able to prevent gay men from working with them. What they are saying is that gay men represent a threat to boys; ie they are implying that gay men are quivalent to paedophiles. If this is not what they are saying, then what is their justification, other than basic predudice? By the same logic, heterosexual men shouldn't be allowed to have contact with girls. Is the Boy Scout movement in the US supported by public funds in the US? Are US companies allowed to avoid employing people on the basis of age, gender, race or sexuality? If so, then US ideas of freedom are obviously facile and untrue.¿ earth to colin, come in, colin? the boy scouts thing is only one¿ issue (and granted, you may be right on that one).¿ but do you also agree that gays & lesbians shouldn't adopt¿ children, colin? legislation proposed in bush's texas would also¿ have REMOVED adopted & foster children from homes with gay¿ & lesbian parents or OTHER family members (which could¿ include siblings or anyone else in the household).¿ and as for marriage, if it is viewed as a SECULAR institution,¿ there is no reason same sex couples should not be afforded the¿ same rights as heterosexual couples. if you view it as a¿ RELIGIOUS institution, then i point out our Constitutional¿ separation of church & state, making it no business of our¿ government to force a particular system of "morality"¿ upon the people.¿ when he is our president, he will not be a nonentity, as you put¿ it. he will be in a position to influence the lives of people he¿ has no respect for...¿ it is up to people who truly support equality and personal¿ freedom to stop him and his narrow-minded agenda.




http://www.georgeformby.co.uk/gf_story/gf4.jpg

[Spinster]

Hello again. Sorry to go off on a tangent, but have you noticed how right winged groups tend to use slogans or the name of their groups with the titles of Bryan Adams songs? Several years ago, former KKK member David Duke, who was running for Louisiana governor at the time, used the song "Everything I Do..I Do It For You" in commercials for his political campaign. Mr. Adams found out about this, and told him to stop using his song for his campaign slogan. Thankfully, he wasn't elected, although i believe he still holds a political office of some sort.
I wonder if he knows about this "Straight From the Heart" dealie? He should tell that group to stop using his song title. Poor guy, always having his songs being used in the cause for right-wing hate groups against his will.

[Bertrand]

Bill Bradley states in an upcoming interview with the Advocate that he would push to expand the 1964 Civil Rights Act to protect homosexuals. He also states that "We ought to get to a time when gays can serve openly in the military."

Even though this contradicts his stance on same sex marriages, which he still opposes, it's lightyears ahead of George W and it's to the left of the sinking ship that is the Gore candidacy.

Also, that other hatemonger, Pat Buchanan, is considering running with the Reform Party, which could only be good news for those left-thinking individuals amongst us.¿ Bush clarifies antigay stands¿ Questioned by the antigay newsletter “Straight From the Heart,”¿ Texas governor George W.¿ Bush said Tuesday that he opposes gay marriages and that a court¿ erred in striking a ban on¿ gays in the Boy Scouts. Publishers of the newsletter said Bush’s¿ comments are “a good¿ start” but said they have more questions about his position on¿ gay rights. Bill Horn, a leading¿ antigay activist and publisher of the newsletter, has questioned¿ presidential candidates about¿ their views on gay issues. Pushed to clarify his positions,¿ Bush’s campaign staff sent Horn a¿ brief statement Tuesday. “Governor Bush believes marriage is¿ between a man and a woman¿ and therefore does not believe in gay marriages,” the statement¿ said. He also opposes¿ adoption by gay couples because “he believes children ought to¿ be adopted in families with a¿ man and woman who are married.” Bush told the newsletter he¿ believes the New Jersey¿ supreme court “was wrong” when it struck down the Boy Scouts’¿ ban on gays in the¿ organization. “He believes the Boy Scouts is a private¿ organization and they should be able¿ to set their own standards,” Bush’s statement said. Horn said he¿ would press Bush to offer¿ views on “the gay agenda in public education” and on¿ domestic-partner laws allowing¿ benefits for partners in a gay relationship. “My recommendation¿ to him would be to provide¿ those specific questions to us and we will provide answers to¿ him,” said Bush spokesman¿ Eric Woolson.

[What do you think of the monarchy?]

Your reply tells me that you think I'm stupid but your assumptions make you the stupid one dear.

My point was that people who have never lived in America seem to enjoy going into long rants about what is wrong with this country.

I wrote that post based on a few things. For example, I noticed that for every knock you gave America you gave Britain a plus.(such as- If that ever happened in Britain those people would be condemned -of course implying that Britain is a much more decent and respectable country)

Which of course was pointless for you to even mention unless you are trying to be competitive about it. Which again is the only reason you would have made that point. So that's what i was calling you on.

So you're not just commenting on bigotry you are doing a "2 points for the UK. 0 points for the USA"¿ Interesting that you should focus on my last comment, which¿ really only askes a question - the actual issue obviously¿ doesn't bother you in the slightest.

Assumption number 1 - Wrong.¿I'm not going to avoid commenting on it just because your best pals >with G.Bush junior.

Assumption number 2 - Wrong again.

FYI I'm a democrat. I wouldn't vote for Bush Jr. unless I had a gun to my head. I can't stand the man and I find his political ideas narrowminded and offensive.

[satan's cheerleader]

Bush clarifies antigay stands

Questioned by the antigay newsletter “Straight From the Heart,” Texas governor George W.

Bush said Tuesday that he opposes gay marriages and that a court erred in striking a ban on

gays in the Boy Scouts. Publishers of the newsletter said Bush’s comments are “a good

start” but said they have more questions about his position on gay rights. Bill Horn, a leading

antigay activist and publisher of the newsletter, has questioned presidential candidates about

their views on gay issues. Pushed to clarify his positions, Bush’s campaign staff sent Horn a

brief statement Tuesday. “Governor Bush believes marriage is between a man and a woman

and therefore does not believe in gay marriages,” the statement said. He also opposes

adoption by gay couples because “he believes children ought to be adopted in families with a

man and woman who are married.” Bush told the newsletter he believes the New Jersey

supreme court “was wrong” when it struck down the Boy Scouts’ ban on gays in the

organization. “He believes the Boy Scouts is a private organization and they should be able

to set their own standards,” Bush’s statement said. Horn said he would press Bush to offer

views on “the gay agenda in public education” and on domestic-partner laws allowing

benefits for partners in a gay relationship. “My recommendation to him would be to provide

those specific questions to us and we will provide answers to him,” said Bush spokesman

Eric Woolson.

[Spinster]

I read that same exact article in this morning's newspaper. That sucks. Although i am a heterosexual female, i feel that the governor's stance on gays opens up more opportunities for gays to be persecuted against. It is nothing more than the "they're not like us, so it's okay to make life hell for them" mentality.
It amazes me how one of the main philosphies of the Christian religion is to love one another, yet i see very few of these so-called followers of Christ doing so.
Pity, i was just beginning to like Bush.

[Wild ea Wake]

> Bush clarifies antigay stands

Another Bush in the White House is a big pile of leaves too much!

[dirty gertie from number 30]

Wouldn't that be fun? Love n peace would radiate from the White House.

[Colin]

> It amazes me how one of the main philosphies of the Christian¿ religion is to love one another, yet i see very few of these¿ so-called followers of Christ doing so.
------------
"Love they neighbor" doesn't mean "accept what thy neighbor does."

Bush is actually right here - it's crazy to demand that private organizations accept anyone. It's their organization. The Boy Scouts have a right to exclude gays, just like ACT UP! has the right to exclude homophobes.

George Jr. is pretty much a non-entity.

[Consumer Monkey]

Such attitudes are comletely unacceptable, and basically fascistic - they attempt to exlude people not because thay cant do a job, or are not qualified, but because thay happen to choose a different lifestyle. It an offence to nature, and an extremely undignified, and uncivilized way of thinking. If a politician in Britain were to suggest such ideas, his political career would be over, and he would be thought of as an extremist.¿ ------------¿ "Love they neighbor" doesn't mean "accept what¿ thy neighbor does."¿ Bush is actually right here - it's crazy to demand that private¿ organizations accept anyone. It's their organization. The Boy¿ Scouts have a right to exclude gays, just like ACT UP! has the¿ right to exclude homophobes.¿ George Jr. is pretty much a non-entity.




http://home.clara.net/dawson.derbys/characters/dennisandgnasherondark.gif

[Cornflake Girl]

> Such attitudes are comletely unacceptable, and basically¿ fascistic - they attempt to exlude people not because thay cant¿ do a job, or are not qualified, but because thay happen to¿ choose a different lifestyle. It an offence to nature, and an¿ extremely undignified, and uncivilized way of thinking. If a¿ politician in Britain were to suggest such ideas, his political¿ career would be over, and he would be thought of as an¿ extremist.

I'm an American and I completely agree with you. It's absolutely disgusting and I can't believe that some Americans who post here find that acceptable. George Bush Jr. is a pig.

[Paul]

About time you came up with an intelligent post.¿ Bush clarifies antigay stands¿ Questioned by the antigay newsletter “Straight From the Heart,”¿ Texas governor George W.¿ Bush said Tuesday that he opposes gay marriages and that a court¿ erred in striking a ban on¿ gays in the Boy Scouts. Publishers of the newsletter said Bush’s¿ comments are “a good¿ start” but said they have more questions about his position on¿ gay rights. Bill Horn, a leading¿ antigay activist and publisher of the newsletter, has questioned¿ presidential candidates about¿ their views on gay issues. Pushed to clarify his positions,¿ Bush’s campaign staff sent Horn a¿ brief statement Tuesday. “Governor Bush believes marriage is¿ between a man and a woman¿ and therefore does not believe in gay marriages,” the statement¿ said. He also opposes¿ adoption by gay couples because “he believes children ought to¿ be adopted in families with a¿ man and woman who are married.” Bush told the newsletter he¿ believes the New Jersey¿ supreme court “was wrong” when it struck down the Boy Scouts’¿ ban on gays in the¿ organization. “He believes the Boy Scouts is a private¿ organization and they should be able¿ to set their own standards,” Bush’s statement said. Horn said he¿ would press Bush to offer¿ views on “the gay agenda in public education” and on¿ domestic-partner laws allowing¿ benefits for partners in a gay relationship. “My recommendation¿ to him would be to provide¿ those specific questions to us and we will provide answers to¿ him,” said Bush spokesman¿ Eric Woolson.

[Colin Eager]

> Such attitudes are comletely unacceptable, and basically¿ fascistic - they attempt to exlude people not because thay cant¿ do a job, or are not qualified, but because thay happen to¿ choose a different lifestyle.
-----------------
But again, it's a private organization. If the organization is homophobic, that's their right. They can hold any belief they want. If we're dealing with the right to join any organization one wishes, then the right would have to extend both ways. Otherwise, it's a mere priviledge. So if gay groups have the right to march in the St. Patrick's Day parade, then homophobes have the right to march in a gay pride parade, or black people have the right to join the Klan. These "rights" just don't apply to private organizations.

[satan's cheerleader]

i agree with your first statements, of course. george bush is of the fascist variety...

but i don't agree that it would be unacceptable in england...there are many people in your political system who would be in agreement with mr bush. don't be naive, because it's dangerous to be naive about such important issues.

and one last thing, which is really just a matter or semantics...but it is not a choice of lifestyle. there is not a choice involved in being homosexual. republicans here rarely use the word "orientation," because they prefer words like "choice" and "preference," so they can more easily judge those they hate...

[satan's cheerleader]

a point agreed upon, but as i wrote above, bush's agenda has to do with much more than this...bush opposes the equality and dignity of homosexuals. he doesn't want them to be adoptive parents, or foster parents...he doesn't want their unions recognized legally. this is based upon his narrow standards of christian morality, which he has no right to impose on the whole of society.

mr bush, and the majority of his republican party, so not truly believe in justice, freedom or equality. they only want freedom for christians and other conservatives...at the expense of those who do not subscribe to their views.¿ -----------------¿ But again, it's a private organization. If the organization is¿ homophobic, that's their right. They can hold any belief they¿ want. If we're dealing with the right to join any organization¿ one wishes, then the right would have to extend both ways.¿ Otherwise, it's a mere priviledge. So if gay groups have the¿ right to march in the St. Patrick's Day parade, then homophobes¿ have the right to march in a gay pride parade, or black people¿ have the right to join the Klan. These "rights" just¿ don't apply to private organizations.

[satan's cheerleader]

and thanks so much for YOUR insightful contribution to the discussion, paul.¿ About time you came up with an intelligent post.

[Consumer Monkey]

I'm not denying that people in Britain aren't capable of such thinking, and I'm certain such people exist in ploitics - but such people are no longer capable of serious political careers - mainy because they are so thourouly laughrd at. To give you some idea of the political climate in England, the person tipped to be the next leader of the Conservative Party ( equivalent to the Republicans ), a man called Michael Portillo, has just revealed that he had several homsexual relationships while at University. The general reaction to this was "so what?". A recent headline in a British newspaper said in relation to this that "Britons would vote for a gay Prime Minister". Several top politicans in the UK, in very high positions, have already "come out". Homophobia is considered to be old fashioned, and basically 'uncool', so politicians avoid it like the plague. In fact it gives politicians a certain credability if they are gay ( even on the right!)¿ i agree with your first statements, of course. george bush is of¿ the fascist variety...¿ but i don't agree that it would be unacceptable in¿ england...there are many people in your political system who¿ would be in agreement with mr bush. don't be naive, because it's¿ dangerous to be naive about such important issues.¿ and one last thing, which is really just a matter or¿ semantics...but it is not a choice of lifestyle. there is not a¿ choice involved in being homosexual. republicans here rarely use¿ the word "orientation," because they prefer words like¿ "choice" and "preference," so they can more¿ easily judge those they hate...




http://home.clara.net/dawson.derbys/characters/dennisandgnasherondark.gif

[Paul]

> and thanks so much for YOUR insightful contribution to the¿ discussion, paul.

Just finally agreeing with something you said since you pretty much said everything I believe in about homophobic Republicans. Not everybody here is a flaming Einstein like you are which you'll agree to because you're a great person. So, why bother getting into "YOUR" insightful thoughts? Wow, and you didn't even make any posts about Morrissey being a flaming queen?! Keep up the good work and have a nice day.

[What do you think of the monarchy?]

> I have to say, that I don't agree that the Boy Scouts should be¿ able to prevent gay men from working with them. What they are¿ saying is that gay men represent a threat to boys; ie they are¿ implying that gay men are quivalent to paedophiles. If this is¿ not what they are saying, then what is their justification,¿ other than basic predudice? By the same logic, heterosexual men¿ shouldn't be allowed to have contact with girls. Is the Boy¿ Scout movement in the US supported by public funds in the US?¿ Are US companies allowed to avoid employing people on the basis¿ of age, gender, race or sexuality? If so, then US ideas of¿ freedom are obviously facile and untrue.

Do you not think there is prejudice in England? You seem to think the US sucks and Britain is the perfect country. Typical Brit attitude.
Every country has their problems so get off your high horse.

[Consumer Monkey]

Interesting that you should focus on my last comment, which really only askes a question - the actual issue obviously doesn't bother you in the slightest. Sorry to slight your country.
Personally I find patriotism to be foolish. If you want to talk about the problems in the UK, fine, I'm all ears, and I'll probably agree with whatever you have to say.
Personally, I am against any kind of bigotry, anywhere. I'm not going to avoid commenting on it just because your best pals with G.Bush junior.¿ Do you not think there is prejudice in England? You seem to¿ think the US sucks and Britain is the perfect country. Typical¿ Brit attitude.¿ Every country has their problems so get off your high horse.




http://www.compusmart.ab.ca/icorry/best4.jpg

[key slapper]

That's what I said. I couldn't stand the politics.

[Consumer Monkey]

Everything I have written is just true - nothing more or less. If American's are willing to put up with people like George Bush Jnr, then thats fine by me. If you sense some sort of competitive edge to what I'm saying, then that's fine too. I have no desire to get into an argument about moral differences in American and British culture. I didn't start this thread in the first place you know. If something appears on the Morrissey-Solo discussion board, I have as much right to contribute as anyone else. If you have something positive to add to the actual issue at hand, ( which is to do with homophobia, and not Britain vs America ) then I suggest you do so.
I would hardly say that I went into a long rant about what is wrong with the US - this whole thread is about George Bush Jnr's attitude, I can only comment on this from a British perspective, because that's where I'm coming from!

)> Your reply tells me that you think I'm stupid but your
> assumptions make you the stupid one dear.

> My point was that people who have never lived in America seem to
> enjoy going into long rants about what is wrong with this
> country.

> I wrote that post based on a few things. For example, I noticed
> that for every knock you gave America you gave Britain a
> plus.(such as- If that ever happened in Britain those people
> would be condemned -of course implying that Britain is a much
> more decent and respectable country)

> Which of course was pointless for you to even mention unless you
> are trying to be competitive about it. Which again is the only
> reason you would have made that point. So that's what i was
> calling you on.

> So you're not just commenting on bigotry you are doing a "2
> points for the UK. 0 points for the USA"

> Assumption number 1 - Wrong.

> Assumption number 2 - Wrong again.

> FYI I'm a democrat. I wouldn't vote for Bush Jr. unless I had a
> gun to my head. I can't stand the man and I find his political
> ideas narrowminded and offensive.




http://www2.tpg.com.au/users/klsdb4/champions/gallery/b&w-sharron.jpg

[What do you think of the monarchy?]

I notice you didn't address my points. That's ok though, obviously you didn't have a reply for them.

> If American's are willing to put up with people like George Bush
> Jnr, then thats fine by me.

We have about as much choice as you do for overthrowing the Monarchy.
People just like to think they have a choice but they seldom ever do.

>If you sense some sort of
> competitive edge to what I'm saying, then that's fine too.

I didn't sense it, it was a fact. There was no other reason to say it.

> have no desire to get into an argument about moral differences
> in American and British culture.

You did earlier. It's cute how you throw those lines in but expect it to be taken another way or not be taken any way at all.

>I didn't start this thread in
> the first place you know.

Not the point.

> If something appears on the
> Morrissey-Solo discussion board, I have as much right to
> contribute as anyone else.

Yes and so do I. And your point is?

>If you have something positive to add
> to the actual issue at hand, ( which is to do with homophobia,
> and not Britain vs America )

Yes teacher but you made it about that by bringing up the UK - duh.

To spell it out, the UK was completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

> I would hardly say that I went into a long rant about what is
> wrong with the US -

I never said you did.

>this whole thread is about George Bush Jnr's attitude,

You made it about more than that.

>I can only comment on this from a British perspective,
> because that's where I'm coming from!

The issue was bigotry but you brought more into it which, as I said, was irrelevant in my opinion. That was my point but instead of simply addressing it you choose to ignore it and title your post "Go back to sleep"

The "Go back to sleep" simply shows that you can't handle people calling you out on things preceived.

[Consumer Monkey]

"Go Back to Sleep" was a responce to "Wake up America";
And I didn't realize that you had made any points for me to address other than you don't like 'outsiders' commenting on American culture. If i had blatantly said "America Sucks" or something then I think I could understand your position, but reading back through my posts I cant actually see anything that would cause you such offense - all I did was give an example of how this issue seems from another part of the world.
If I say Micheal Johnson is a very fast runner and probably the worlds best athlete, does that make you any feel better? And when it comes to the conquest of space, America is the best country in the world. See, there's still plenty for you to be proud of.

> I notice you didn't address my points. That's ok though,
> obviously you didn't have a reply for them.

> We have about as much choice as you do for overthrowing the
> Monarchy.
> People just like to think they have a choice but they seldom
> ever do.

> I didn't sense it, it was a fact. There was no other reason to
> say it.

> You did earlier. It's cute how you throw those lines in but
> expect it to be taken another way or not be taken any way at
> all.

> Not the point.

> Yes and so do I. And your point is?

> Yes teacher but you made it about that by bringing up the UK -
> duh.

> To spell it out, the UK was completely irrelevant to the topic
> at hand.

> I never said you did.

> You made it about more than that.

> The issue was bigotry but you brought more into it which, as I
> said, was irrelevant in my opinion. That was my point but
> instead of simply addressing it you choose to ignore it and
> title your post "Go back to sleep"

> The "Go back to sleep" simply shows that you can't
> handle people calling you out on things preceived.




http://www2.tpg.com.au/users/klsdb4/champions/gallery/b&w-sharron.jpg

[satan's cheerleaders]

...just thought i'd throw out that tidbit of info...

[satan's cheerleader]

no, the boy scouts is a private organization, with a christian-based (supposedly) origin...

> I have to say, that I don't agree that the Boy Scouts should be
> able to prevent gay men from working with them. What they are
> saying is that gay men represent a threat to boys; ie they are
> implying that gay men are quivalent to paedophiles. If this is
> not what they are saying, then what is their justification,
> other than basic predudice? By the same logic, heterosexual men
> shouldn't be allowed to have contact with girls. Is the Boy
> Scout movement in the US supported by public funds in the US?
> Are US companies allowed to avoid employing people on the basis
> of age, gender, race or sexuality? If so, then US ideas of
> freedom are obviously facile and untrue.

[satan's cheerleader]

hmmmmm...i really thought i just read that bradley supports gay marriage, or at least has stated he would oppose legislation specifically outlawing it...

but maybe i'm wrong. have to check into it...

in fairness to republicans (though they deserve none), there is one called mccain, i believe, from arizona, who supports many gay rights issues...

[Holly Golightly]

> ...just thought i'd throw out that tidbit of info...

I read an interview with him where he was talking about this and he said he was a vegetarian not a vegan.

On this topic you can go here:
http://www.veg.org/veg/People/famveg.html

to see a list of famous vegetarians sourced from Vegetarian Society. (UK) It lists movie stars and musicians.

Morrissey and Marr and both listed as vegetarians. I didn't know Johnny was a vegetarian still actually.

Those that are vegans have "vegan" listed next to their names.

[What do you think of the monarchy?]

> "Go Back to Sleep" was a responce to "Wake up
> America";

I think you would know how that would be preceived.

You're like one of those people who can only see your points aren't you?

> And I didn't realize that you had made any points for me to
> address other than you don't like 'outsiders' commenting on
> American culture.

Can I say that you are a bit hard-headed? :)

Again that was not my point. My point was, ONE LAST TIME, it's fine to comment on American culture but when you do so by making direct comparisons to the UK it comes off a certain way.

I could give you childish comparisons but somehow I believe you still wouldn't get my point.

>If i had blatantly said "America
> Sucks" or something then I think I could understand your
> position,

No then I wouldn't have even responded.

>but reading back through my posts I cant actually see
> anything that would cause you such offense - all I did was give
> an example of how this issue seems from another part of the
> world.

Well, no, that's not exactly what you did.

> If I say Micheal Johnson is a very fast runner and probably the
> worlds best athlete, does that make you any feel better?

Why had you just said that in the first place we wouldn't even be having this discussion!

You're silly.

> when it comes to the conquest of space, America is the best
> country in the world. See, there's still plenty for you to be
> proud of.

Yawn.

[Bertrand]

> hmmmmm...i really thought i just read that bradley supports gay
> marriage, or at least has stated he would oppose legislation
> specifically outlawing it...

Bradley voted for the Defense of Marriage Act in '96, which was nothing if not anti gay marriage. Of course he might have moderated his position since then.

[Consumer Monkey]

You know, you remind me of Suzanne - she has the same peculiar ability to write two inches to the left of reality.
In future, I'm determined never to make direct comparisons between British and American culture - instead I'll compare America to er.. Ethiopia or somewhere ( incidently, did you know that Ethiopia HAVE signed up to the UN convention on the "rights of the child" - there's only 3 or 4 countries who haven't - Iran, Somalia and er.. cant seem to remember the other one - somewhere near Canada I think ).
And I cant believe you can yawn at the conquest of space; its so thrilling!




http://www.coronationstreet.co.uk/cimages/cr134.gif

[What's the weather like in Britain in October?]

> You know, you remind me of Suzanne - she has the same peculiar
> ability to write two inches to the left of reality.

Oh great, that's worse then your UK/USA comparison.

> In future, I'm determined never to make direct comparisons
> between British and American culture - instead I'll compare
> America to er.. Ethiopia or somewhere ( incidently, did you know
> that Ethiopia HAVE signed up to the UN convention on the
> "rights of the child" - there's only 3 or 4 countries
> who haven't - Iran, Somalia and er.. cant seem to remember the
> other one - somewhere near Canada I think ).

You're starting to grow on me like a you know what.

> And I cant believe you can yawn at the conquest of space; its so
> thrilling!

Serious or joking with that last statement? I can't tell. That dry British humor you know.

Hey, I wanted to ask you, I'm off to Britain on "hols" (as you zany Brits call it) in October. Could I possibly stay with you?

[Consumer Monkey]

Good idea - get out of the US for a bit - You'd be welcome to visit as long as you're clean, and are willing to put up with extreme poverty and a very lethargic person - ie the full Smiths experience. I don't live in Whalley Range though, so it wouldn't be quite the real thing.

> Oh great, that's worse then your UK/USA comparison.

> You're starting to grow on me like a you know what.

> Serious or joking with that last statement? I can't tell. That
> dry British humor you know.

> Hey, I wanted to ask you, I'm off to Britain on "hols"
> (as you zany Brits call it) in October. Could I possibly stay
> with you?

[Girl About Town]

> Good idea - get out of the US for a bit - You'd be welcome to
> visit as long as you're clean, and are willing to put up with
> extreme poverty and a very lethargic person - ie the full Smiths
> experience.

Oh you're too kind, and even after all I said.

>I don't live in Whalley Range though, so it wouldn't
> be quite the real thing.

Can you move?

[Suzanne]

> You know, you remind me of Suzanne - she has the same peculiar
> ability to write two inches to the left of reality.

Oh whatever. At least my left of center approach is usually alcohol induced. What's your excuse?

Dude, if you didn't spend your precious hours sitting in front of your computer thinking you can explain Morrissey every aspect of how Morrissey poops in the woods and related topics (I guess I have to throw that disclaimer in coz you will obviously say something brilliant like "but we weren't discussing Morrissey in this thread" even though your dribble is all over this board) and chastising every fan who can't name the Carry-On films in proper sequence, then I would be more offended by what you imply.

Besides, you are indeed Mr. King George III who posted those idiotic things about America a month or two back...and you know I have proof of it, so don't say otherwise.

> In future, I'm determined never to make direct comparisons
> between British and American culture - instead I'll compare
> America to er.. Ethiopia or somewhere ( incidently, did you know
> that Ethiopia HAVE signed up to the UN convention on the
> "rights of the child" - there's only 3 or 4 countries
> who haven't - Iran, Somalia and er.. cant seem to remember the
> other one - somewhere near Canada I think ).
> And I cant believe you can yawn at the conquest of space; its so
> thrilling!

[Girl About Town]

Note to the Consumer Monkey:
Oh dear. I knew I was right about you. tsk tsk tsk.

Here's some advice: As much as you like your little nickname you definitely need to change it now and come back with a different personality.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
> Oh whatever. At least my left of center approach is usually
> alcohol induced. What's your excuse?

He has none. And he obviously just says that to women to put them down. The poor thing is threatened by a womans intelligence.

> Besides, you are indeed Mr. King George III who posted those
> idiotic things about America a month or two back...and you know
> I have proof of it, so don't say otherwise.

He was King George yeah? I knew he had an irrational hate towards America. A womans instinct always wins. What a fraud.

[Colin Eager]

> I have to say, that I don't agree that the Boy Scouts should be
> able to prevent gay men from working with them. What they are
> saying is that gay men represent a threat to boys; ie they are
> implying that gay men are quivalent to paedophiles. If this is
> not what they are saying, then what is their justification,
> other than basic predudice?
------------
Their position can and has been called simple prejudice. That's fine - it's their right to be prejudiced. The Boy Scouts are a basically conservative organization. I may disagree with them, but that's basically irrelevant.

> Is the Boy Scout movement in the US supported by public funds in the US?
--------
I'm not sure. I don't think they recieve direct public funding, though.

> Are US companies allowed to avoid employing people on the basis
> of age, gender, race or sexuality? If so, then US ideas of
> freedom are obviously facile and untrue.
----------
The law says that they're not. The law is pretty obviously @#!!!ed. The guy at the corner store only hires Lebanese. Good for him. I won't be bringing a discrimination lawsuit against him anytime soon.

Private organizations are free to discriminate as they choose. We can see that this is plainly true. The Nation of Islam has no Hindu members. The Communist Party has no capitalists. Senior citizens groups are not overrun with young whippersnappers. The Catholic Church has every right to deny the sacrements to a Protestant.

[Colin Eager]

> but do you also agree that gays & lesbians shouldn't adopt
> children, colin?
----------
I don't know. It's a lot like inter-racial adoption. It creates problems. On the other hand, beggers can't be choosers - plenty of kids go unadopted as it is.

> and as for marriage, if it is viewed as a SECULAR institution,
> there is no reason same sex couples should not be afforded the
> same rights as heterosexual couples. if you view it as a
> RELIGIOUS institution, then i point out our Constitutional
> separation of church & state, making it no business of our
> government to force a particular system of "morality"
> upon the people.
----------
Marriage is almost always both religious and secular. A religion has the right to deny the sacrament of marriage to anyone. And a secular marriage isn't simply a rubber stamp, it's social sanction.

As I understand it, the twin beefs that religion and state have against homosexuality revolve around the purpose of sex and the definition of family. Heterosexual sex has, at least in theory, a justification beyond mere pleasure. It's a creative act, it's THE creative act. Homosexuality doesn't share this justification. Religions, states, major philosophical and ethical systems have traditionally had a hard time with the idea of purposeless pleasure or hedonism.

As for family, I don't think it's a controversial statement to say that "family" is a culturally contstructed concept. Family means different things to a Samoan, to a white American, a black American, an Asian American, etc. Note that these differences aren't simply arbitrary. They are responses to the situations that each group finds itself in. In America today, family typically means mother and father, or single mother. What that says about us, I don't know. But that's how it is, in any case.

> when he is our president, he will not be a nonentity, as you put
> it. he will be in a position to influence the lives of people he
> has no respect for...
-------
I think Bush is like most other non-descript politicians - he's riding a wave he can't control. He's a careerist, not an ideologue.

[Consumer Monkey]

Actually, it was meant to be a compliment. ( "2 inches left of reality" was not a political statement ) - my excuse for a left of centre approach ( if you're talking about my stance on homophobia ) is basically because I'm not a rabid fascist.
And if you dont think that the Morrissey-Solo discussion board is not an appropriate place to discuss Morrissey, then I'm not too sure what its for.

> Oh whatever. At least my left of center approach is usually
> alcohol induced. What's your excuse?

> Dude, if you didn't spend your precious hours sitting in front
> of your computer thinking you can explain Morrissey every aspect
> of how Morrissey poops in the woods and related topics (I guess
> I have to throw that disclaimer in coz you will obviously say
> something brilliant like "but we weren't discussing
> Morrissey in this thread" even though your dribble is all
> over this board) and chastising every fan who can't name the
> Carry-On films in proper sequence, then I would be more offended
> by what you imply.

> Besides, you are indeed Mr. King George III who posted those
> idiotic things about America a month or two back...and you know
> I have proof of it, so don't say otherwise.

[Consumer Monkey]

Nice to be advised by someone with a brand spanking new nickname never before seen on this discussion board until the past few days.
I really dont quite understand this attack on me though - I dont recall ever doing anything unpleasant here - perhaps I've negatively commented on something you've contributed before under a different name.
Its easy to appear brave when nobody knows who you are.

> Note to the Consumer Monkey:
> Oh dear. I knew I was right about you. tsk tsk tsk.

> Here's some advice: As much as you like your little nickname you
> definitely need to change it now and come back with a different
> personality.

>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

> He has none. And he obviously just says that to women to put
> them down. The poor thing is threatened by a womans
> intelligence.

> He was King George yeah? I knew he had an irrational hate
> towards America. A womans instinct always wins. What a fraud.

[Consumer Monkey]

Yes, your argument is fine, and reveals the complexity of this issue in general, but I cant help feel that there has to be a way of dealing with this properly - any group that wishes to exclude another group has to have a reasonable explantion for doing so, other than prejudice. For instance, can people put up signs saying "whites only" - I'm sure not, because excluding people on the ground of race is wrong. The same should apply to the Scouts, ( imagine if the Scouts said "No Blacks" - there would be an uproar ) The only question should be "are you capable of doing the job?" . If thay want to say, "no paedophiles" then that I can understand since the welfare of the children is all that matters here. There has to be a balance between the priciples of freedom, and equal rights.

> ------------
> Their position can and has been called simple prejudice. That's
> fine - it's their right to be prejudiced. The Boy Scouts are a
> basically conservative organization. I may disagree with them,
> but that's basically irrelevant.
> --------
> I'm not sure. I don't think they recieve direct public funding,
> though.
> ----------
> The law says that they're not. The law is pretty obviously
> @#!!! ed. The guy at the corner store only hires Lebanese. Good
> for him. I won't be bringing a discrimination lawsuit against
> him anytime soon.

> Private organizations are free to discriminate as they choose.
> We can see that this is plainly true. The Nation of Islam has no
> Hindu members. The Communist Party has no capitalists. Senior
> citizens groups are not overrun with young whippersnappers. The
> Catholic Church has every right to deny the sacrements to a
> Protestant.

[Pashernate Friend]

As a fellow "Brit", I'd like to stick up for CM and his wide-eyed remarks about US Space exploration. Space really is rather wonderful. The astronauts wear shiny spacesuits and eat pills that transform themselves into roast beef and Yorkshire Pudding when swallowed, and they go to the moon and sample the cheese and bring back magic space dust and things. And everything's dead shiny and fab and the stars are much brighter up there.

I'm going next week.

[Girl About Town]

A pair of horns atop her head,her eyes a fiery red as the room fills with the odor of sulpher. Girl About Town steps into the message box.

Hi again CM, I knew it wouldn't be long before you started playing victim.

> Nice to be advised by someone with a brand spanking new nickname
> never before seen on this discussion board until the past few
> days.

Hey don't get snotty. hehehe.

> I really dont quite understand this attack on me though - I dont
> recall ever doing anything unpleasant here - perhaps I've
> negatively commented on something you've contributed before
> under a different name.

No never. Don't flatter yourself Monkey.

> Its easy to appear brave when nobody knows who you are.

What's funny is I don't feel like I know who you are. Odd huh? Oh wait that's right you're Consumer Monkey!

Revelations, revelations.

So anyway, are you saying you weren't King George III? Suzanne said she has proof that you were and it really kinda makes sense that you were him - for some completely unknown reason.

If you weren't him, then I apologize then for my vicious attack on your delicate little soul.

You know when I wrote that other post, I was half joking - ok maybe 1/4 joking but still.

Anyway this is going to have to go to trial.

[Colin Eager]

> Yes, your argument is fine, and reveals the complexity of this
> issue in general, but I cant help feel that there has to be a
> way of dealing with this properly - any group that wishes to
> exclude another group has to have a reasonable explantion for
> doing so, other than prejudice
--------
There is a way to deal with it. Refuse to associate with organizations with whom you disagree. Start rival organizations. Boycott, and spread the word. In any case, an organization doesn't "have to" justify it's beliefs or its political orientation. On the other hand, the state must respect the rights of any organization, no matter its beliefs.

[Suzanne]

First, I had to explain the Your Arsenal punnery, and now this....

> He was King George yeah? I knew he had an irrational hate
> towards America. A womans instinct always wins. What a fraud.

It wasn't instinct. My first clue was when I got an email entitled King George Apologizing signed by Consumer Monkey.

I was trying to be nice. I didn't want to say anything. Despite the slamming he did, I thought it would be nice and not announce it to everyone because I respect people's privacy. And for my niceness, he calls me a fruitcake....in some argument I was never involved in to begin with.

[Suzanne]

> Actually, it was meant to be a compliment. ( "2 inches left
> of reality" was not a political statement )

Jeezus, just stop there. I can read and comprehend the context of what it was said. Don't insult my intelligence.

>- my excuse for
> a left of centre approach ( if you're talking about my stance on
> homophobia )

I'm not even talking about anything political. I'm talking about life in general. I was referring to the 2" from reality remark.

>is basically because I'm not a rabid fascist.
> And if you dont think that the Morrissey-Solo discussion board
> is not an appropriate place to discuss Morrissey, then I'm not
> too sure what its for.

[Girl About Town]

> It wasn't instinct. My first clue was when I got an email
> entitled King George Apologizing signed by Consumer Monkey.

Oh when I said a womans instinct I was referring to myself actually because I was trying in earlier posts to call him out on being an American hater. I had no idea he was King George and of course he in other words denies it and accuses me of picking on him.

> I was trying to be nice. I didn't want to say anything. Despite
> the slamming he did, I thought it would be nice and not announce
> it to everyone because I respect people's privacy. And for my
> niceness, he calls me a fruitcake....in some argument I was
> never involved in to begin with.

He's not too smart is he? :)

ok Consumer Monkey - be a man and come forward and admit it!

[noam]

he`s not even an american citizen!

[Consumer Monkey]

Ok Suzanne, you're right. You don't post "2 inches to the left of the reality", your not in the slightest bit surreal or interesting, your posts don't seem to arrive at a tangent - in fact your a completely straight, centred, boring, bland, middle of the road sort of person - does that make you feel better?
The reason I mentioned your name, was because I actually believed that it was you I was talking to, and I was expecting you to say, "yes, well done you've caught me out" or something.
I actually did assume your approach to posting here was your surreal intelligence ( hence my remarks ) - its very disappointing to discover that you were merely inebriated.

> Jeezus, just stop there. I can read and comprehend the context
> of what it was said. Don't insult my intelligence.

> I'm not even talking about anything political. I'm talking about
> life in general. I was referring to the 2" from reality
> remark.

[Consumer Monkey]

Amit to what exactly? And I dont hate Americans, but I do hate homophobes - weird that in a post in which I'm defending the rights of homosexuals, I should be attacked. What does that suggest to you?

> Oh when I said a womans instinct I was referring to myself
> actually because I was trying in earlier posts to call him out
> on being an American hater. I had no idea he was King George and
> of course he in other words denies it and accuses me of picking
> on him.

> He's not too smart is he? :)

> ok Consumer Monkey - be a man and come forward and admit it!

[Consumer Monkey]

I vaguely recall some posts by someone calling themselves King George III - he obviously had a big impact on your life. From what I recall, those posts were all charming, witty and intelligent. Obviously, I dont agee with anything said by that diabolical individual, and his behaviour was reprehensible; the idea of someone turning up on this board and posting such obscenities ( however well observed ) should be dealt with most thoroughly, invoking the full force of the law. If it were up to me that fellow would be asked not to do it again, by people with some sort of authority to do so!
Was I King George III? Well Suzanne seems to think so, but she also thinks that "Your Arsenal" is a pun on "Your Arse and All".
( sorry for 'playing victim', but your name changing cofused me, and I thought you were new to this thread - if I'd known it was you, I would have politely inquired about your horns )

> A pair of horns atop her head,her eyes a fiery red as the room
> fills with the odor of sulpher. Girl About Town steps into the
> message box.

> Hi again CM, I knew it wouldn't be long before you started
> playing victim.

> Hey don't get snotty. hehehe.

> No never. Don't flatter yourself Monkey.

> What's funny is I don't feel like I know who you are. Odd huh?
> Oh wait that's right you're Consumer Monkey!

> Revelations, revelations.

> So anyway, are you saying you weren't King George III? Suzanne
> said she has proof that you were and it really kinda makes sense
> that you were him - for some completely unknown reason.

> If you weren't him, then I apologize then for my vicious attack
> on your delicate little soul.

> You know when I wrote that other post, I was half joking - ok
> maybe 1/4 joking but still.

> Anyway this is going to have to go to trial.




http://www.coronationstreet.co.uk/cimages/cr096.gif

[Paul]

> he`s not even an american citizen!

He will be soon since he's habitating in L.A. He'd be much more promising than George W. Bush or Al Gore.

[Girl About Town]

> Amit to what exactly?

CM don't play dumb for heavens sake. You know what I'm talking about.

>And I dont hate Americans, but I do hate
> homophobes - weird that in a post in which I'm defending the
> rights of homosexuals, I should be attacked. What does that
> suggest to you?

Oh gawd this is all going over your head. Either that or you're playing dumb again. Or maybe you - forget it.

[Spinster]

> He'd be much more
> promising than George W. Bush or Al Gore.

He's more intelligent than the both of them put together.

[Girl About Town]

> I vaguely recall some posts by someone calling themselves King
> George III - he obviously had a big impact on your life.

Did you want to know about my King George folder?

> Was I King George III? Well Suzanne seems to think so, but she
> also thinks that "Your Arsenal" is a pun on "Your
> Arse and All".

And you like to think you're charming, witty and intelligent - hehehe.

> ( sorry for 'playing victim', but your name changing cofused me,
> and I thought you were new to this thread

I forgive you but you have to stop putting your guard up. I bet deep down you have an inferiority complex. We can talk about that if you like.

>- if I'd known it was you, I would have politely inquired about your >horns )

0=)

[Suzanne]

> Was I King George III? Well Suzanne seems to think so, but she
> also thinks that "Your Arsenal" is a pun on "Your
> Arse and All".

I wrote Boz a while back after that debate where you and other people we shall lump in as a faceless group of British twaddle called me an idiot, and asked him because he was there when the album was made (unlike you, who sits in front of the computer and imagines you were there) and Boz told me I was right.

How about *THAT* Mr. Fung?

[Our Frank]

> Was I King George III? Well Suzanne seems to think so, but she
> also thinks that "Your Arsenal" is a pun on "Your
> Arse and All".

How do you know she's wrong? Personally I think she had a good observation there! Very funny really and Moz likes doing things like that.

[Consumer Monkey]

Well he would wouldn't he? He likes a good joke.

> I wrote Boz a while back after that debate where you and other
> people we shall lump in as a faceless group of British twaddle
> called me an idiot, and asked him because he was there when the
> album was made (unlike you, who sits in front of the computer
> and imagines you were there) and Boz told me I was right.

> How about *THAT* Mr. Fung?




http://www.coronationstreet.co.uk/cimages/cr096.gif

[Consumer Monkey]

I do have an inferiority complex - which is odd when you consider how impressive I am as a human being.

> Did you want to know about my King George folder?

> And you like to think you're charming, witty and intelligent -
> hehehe.

> I forgive you but you have to stop putting your guard up. I bet
> deep down you have an inferiority complex. We can talk about
> that if you like.

> 0=)




http://www.coronationstreet.co.uk/cimages/cr096.gif

[Christie Cornpop]

Some countries suck more than others, but they all suck in their own way. It's people that count, not states and governments.

> You know, you remind me of Suzanne - she has the same peculiar
> ability to write two inches to the left of reality.
> In future, I'm determined never to make direct comparisons
> between British and American culture - instead I'll compare
> America to er.. Ethiopia or somewhere ( incidently, did you know
> that Ethiopia HAVE signed up to the UN convention on the
> "rights of the child" - there's only 3 or 4 countries
> who haven't - Iran, Somalia and er.. cant seem to remember the
> other one - somewhere near Canada I think ).
> And I cant believe you can yawn at the conquest of space; its so
> thrilling!

[James Madison]

> He will be soon since he's habitating in L.A. He'd be much more
> promising than George W. Bush or Al Gore.

Unfortunately for Mr. Morrissey, even if he were to become an American citizen, he could not run for President. Naturalized citizens are not eligible for our highest office. (Article II, Section 1.4)

[Paul]

> Unfortunately for Mr. Morrissey, even if he were to become an
> American citizen, he could not run for President. Naturalized
> citizens are not eligible for our highest office. (Article II,
> Section 1.4)

Dumb law, by the way, former president Madison. In another world, Mr. Steven Patrick Morrissey would still get my vote for president. The Christian Coalition would have a field day with the election of good, old Moz. Hopefully, they would give up their terror campaign and die.

[Paul]

> He's more intelligent than the both of them put together.

Good old Spinster. I can always rely on some good additions to my post. Long time no response. How's life?

[Spinster]

> Good old Spinster. I can always rely on some good additions to
> my post. Long time no response. How's life?

Well helloooo! So i guess this means you're the same Paul from D.C., correct? Life's okay here. Could be better, could be worse. How are things for you?

[Paul]

> Well helloooo! So i guess this means you're the same Paul from
> D.C., correct? Life's okay here. Could be better, could be
> worse. How are things for you?

Yeah, I guess it is the Paul from D.C. or Maryland, whatever. I've noticed that there's a Paul from Australia and another Paul. I guess I should change my name around here. Life is good, could be better, as always.

Well, Sayonara

[Spinster]

You know, the high school that i attended was called James Madison. It was quite horrid. No offense.