Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    I was indeed truly amazed at observing the convention last night.  
    
    Al Gore...had the unmidigated gall...to stand there and tell the
    audience, "I love you".  Okay...I'll lighten up a little bit.  Al Gore
    proved last evening that conventions are pretty much a publicity stunt
    with alot of rhetoric and hoopla.  I found his, "I love you " speech to
    be somewhat disingenuous....considering we all know how the democrat
    party actually operates.  Amazingly enough but not really to my
    surprise, the networks were focusing in on the nice senior citizens who
    had tears streaming down their face.  I certainly believe these
    individuals were sincerely moved but I have to be honest with you, this
    democrat party is absolutely shameless.
    
    -Jack

>    individuals were sincerely moved but I have to be honest with you, this
>    democrat party is absolutely shameless.

    They took a lotta notes a few weeks ago....  ;^)

    Such is politics.

    Tom

	Jack... hope you keep tying it in with Christianity.... I guess it is
wrong to say someone loves you... but why?

>	Jack... hope you keep tying it in with Christianity.... I guess it is
>wrong to say someone loves you... but why?

Actually, I think that if Tipper, instead of Al, said it, it would 
have been alright....   ;^)

Tom




Sorry, Jack :-)  Sorry, Glen :-)

    Hey Glen:
    
    For one thing I don't think they mean it.  Secondly, they are using
    smoking as an issue here, a habitual killing machine that comes from
    addiction.  The Arizona Senator a few weeks back at least made people
    emotional because of his experience in a POW camp...something he
    couldn't help.
    
    -Jack

    Jack, I know that when it comes to matters of religion, we don't see
    eye-to-eye on most things.  But in matters of politics, we've got a lot
    in common.
    
    The only thing I like about the democratic party is the fact that Al 
    Gore is strong on protecting the environment.  Can't really think of
    much beyond that.  Clinton lies so much his words are meaningless.  He's
    the quintesential camelleon(sp) orator, changing political complexion
    with the audience he happens to be speaking to.  The best I can say
    about him is that he *might* mean well.
    
    But Tom was right.  The republican spill on the thing was kinda farcical
    at times.. Especially whem Kemp said that he's throw the football for
    Dole while faining choking up.  
    
    Bottom line is that it sells.  Watch the polls rise and fall!
    
    QUestion is, who will Ross steal votes from this year?
    
    -dave
    

    Hey, Glen Silva can attest to you that I'm a realist and pretty much
    bipartisan when need be....seriously.  I know that conventions are a
    dog and pony show with all the balloons, the ridiculous nonsense like
    that of last evening, and of course the many delegates who feel quite
    comfortable with politicians picking the pockets of Americans
    throughout the land.  
    
    The ultimate measure we should be standing by is which party not only
    best represents our interests but also which one adheres closest to the
    Constitution.  I would'nt even vote Republican except for the fact that 
    I know the libertarian party is going to lose miserably.
    
    -Jack

    I've often wondered whether one should vote "for" the candidate (s)he
    likes best, regardless of how unpopular(s)he is, or "for" a forerunner
    which has a cnance to beat someone else who you're really voting
    "against".
    
    Personally, I'd like to see Ross get in.  If nothing else, he'd get the
    mud stirred up... step #1 for real reform.  Who knows, maybe this
    country would have it's first impeachment in the process :-).  But he
    hasn't got a shot.  So I guess I'll vote for Dole.
    
    -dave

| <<< Note 1269.5 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>


| For one thing I don't think they mean it.  

	There you go judging, again. You don't know what is in their hearts,
Jack.

| Secondly, they are using smoking as an issue here, a habitual killing machine 
| that comes from addiction.  

	An addiction that people like Helms is supporting.....



Glen

| <<< Note 1269.7 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| Hey, Glen Silva can attest to you that I'm a realist and pretty much
| bipartisan when need be....seriously.  

	There was a time where I did think this... yes. Not anymore, though.

    Glen:
    
    I've seen first hand the results of their compassion.  Like tarnished
    medals pulled out of the attic to parade down the street, they do this
    every four years...which is why I stated these people have no shame at
    all.  
    
    Re: Jesse Helms, yes the man in a hypocrite....so?  I'm man enough to
    state the obvious...are you?

 Z   Personally, I'd like to see Ross get in.  If nothing else, he'd get the
 Z   mud stirred up... step #1 for real reform.
    
    Oh...so you do agree with the economic policies of Pat Buchanan then. 
    I find this interesting since the Founding Fathers were staunch
    believers in free trade.  
    
    While I certainly agree on the kicking out of the UN and getting out of
    the WTO, I also believe isolationism would devastate the US economy.
    
    -Jack

    I didn't bother last night.  After Wednesday's convention for the U.S.
    Socialist Party I took a pass.

    .8
    
    If you want to waste your vote, do so in a more positive manner, and
    vote for Harry Browne.  He's the ONLY candidate that really backs up
    his words with actions.  While other politicians are spending your tax
    $$ to the tune of many millions of dollars, Browne turned down this
    "politician welfare" if favor of keeping to his guns/principles.
    
    I'd *really* like to see Browne in the debates... it would be good for
    this nation to hear some real issues, rather than the fluff coming from
    the other candidates.
    
    
    -steve

| <<< Note 1269.11 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| I've seen first hand the results of their compassion.  

	Jack... tell me how you knew what was in Gore's heart when he said he
loved eeveryone? I'd lov to hear this reasoning. 

| Re: Jesse Helms, yes the man in a hypocrite....so?  I'm man enough to
| state the obvious...are you?

	Why yes... Jesse Helms is a hypocrite. 

    Okay, since no one else has mentioned him (besides myself in the last
    note), I'll bring up a candidate that would at least work for real
    reform if he were elected.  He may not be able to implement much of his
    agenda, but he certainly would stir up DC (and they need a good
    stirring up, IMO).   He is Harry Browne, the Libertarian candidate.
    
    What is he for?
    
    * balance the budget in one year
    * eliminate the income tax and do away with the IRS 
    * reduce government to a size that can operate on Constitutional foms
      of taxation (at least within the original intent of said document)
    * do away with welfare in a common sense manner (for everyone - including 
      big business)
    * turn SS into a privately-run, personal retirement program
    * sell off extra government assets (after the big fedgov cuts) to pay
      off the national debt
    
    
    In his book, he describes how these things can be accomplished and why
    these changes are needed.  
    
    
    -steve

    
    He would probably also drive the legalization of narcotics and
    prostitution, homosexual marriage, abortion on demand and so forth.
    
    jeff

    Criticism time:
    
    Clinton -  has proven that character is indeed an issue.
    
    He stands for being President at any cost.  He has not stopped running
    for office since 1992.  He is for giving up YOUR (not his, mind you)
    freedoms for a promise of security (a promise that cannot be kept under
    the best of intentions).  He thinks the Second Amendment is about
    hunting, and seemingly has no clue about the firearms he is so quick to
    tag for banning.  He is in league with HCI - an organization that has
    no respect for the Constitution.
    
    His accomplishments include raising taxes on the "rich" (those making
    $30K a year or more), signing the Brady Bill (which has been ruled
    unconstitutional in a dozen or so states, I believe); attempting to
    have the federal government usurp our entire medical industry;
    promoting anti-terrorist bills that make you and I terrorists (if you
    have any association with groups that the gov. doesn't like), allowing
    widespread federal wiretaps and powers to illegally (according to the
    Constitution, anyway) search and seize your property, and giving federal 
    police - who've proven to be abusers of power - more power to harass
    you. [personally, I'd rather take my chances with terrorist than out of
    control federal police]
    
    He has promised to balance the budget in 7 years, 8 years, 9 years, 10
    years - while not submitting a budget that will balance in 12 years. 
    He bravely suggests cuts that would begin well after his second
    term (should he be elected).
    
    He has put our troops under direct control of the UN (a
    Constitutional no-no), and has decided that we have national interests
    everywhere - thus we need to be the world's police force, sending
    troops to areas in which we have NO vital national interests.  
    
    I could go on... I'm just getting warmed up.  The fact that he is a
    pathological liar should be enough to boot him out of office, but we
    are a forgetful people, it seems.
    
    
    Dole -  labelled Mr. Meanie by the Dems.
    
    Dole is a distant second in speechgiving (Clinton kicking his butt on
    this front).  He comes across mean at times, and doesn't seem to be
    able to get his ideas to the forefront with effectiveness needed to win
    the election.
    
    His ideas are a vast improvement over Clinton's ideal America, but this
    really says nothing.  His suggested minor changes (and they are MINOR)
    may help, if implemented, but they will only slow the bleeding.  
    
    Dole wants to save Medicare and SS, as far as I can tell, rather than
    changing them into something more viable for the long-term.  7%
    increase in Medic*** colas is still too high, but is an improvement
    over anything else I've seen proposed in Congress.
    
    The whole problem is that no reform will be implemented, at least none
    that will change the course we are on.  Delay tactics are okay, but
    eventually you HAVE to address the problems themselves, and the sooner
    the better.
    
    Dole seems to think that the federal government should be in our lives,
    but a little less so than it is currently.  Although this is a step in
    the right direction, the mindset will insure that nothing that is
    drasticaly needed will get done.  We cannot save SS and Medic***, that
    is an untenable plan in the long run.  They create their own problems,
    so as long as these programs exist in their current form, these
    problems will continue to multiply.
    
    
    I'll try and dig up some positives for both these candidates and post
    them later.  This will take a monumental effort on my part.  8^)
    
    
    -steve 

>    promoting anti-terrorist bills that make you and I terrorists (if you
>    have any association with groups that the gov. doesn't like), allowing
>    widespread federal wiretaps and powers to illegally (according to the
>    Constitution, anyway) search and seize your property, and giving federal 
>    police - who've proven to be abusers of power - more power to harass
>    you. [personally, I'd rather take my chances with terrorist than out of
>    control federal police]

    I don't like these either.  But they were passed by a 
    republican congress.  Go figure.
    
>    He has promised to balance the budget in 7 years, 8 years, 9 years, 10
>    years - while not submitting a budget that will balance in 12 years. 
>    He bravely suggests cuts that would begin well after his second
>    term (should he be elected).

    Reagan never submitted a balanced budget, either.

    Tom

    .17
    
    As far as I'm concerned, and keep in mind that I do not promote nor
    condone these things, the federal government should no have a say in
    the things you mention.  These laws belong at the State level (and I
    believe that prostitution laws ARE state jurisdiction).
    
    Let the states take care of their own.  Let the federal government do
    those things that it was intended to do, and get it out of my life and
    my wallet.
    
    Abortion is the one issue that I'm split on (there are arguments for
    this being a federal issue, and arguments that this should be a state
    issue... when dealing with laws regulating it), but I fail to see how
    Browne can make this situation any worse that it is today.  We have
    abortion on demand through all 9 months as it is.  
    
    
    
    -steve

    .19
    
    As I said, Republicrats one and all - the difference being HOW
    government will be inflicted upon you, and fiscal policy.  I have to
    give the Repub side a nod when weighing these issues, not that I think
    they are America's saviors.
    
    I've become quite a pessimist concerning politics.  I have the distinct
    feeling that we are all screwed as long as government is controlled by
    our current one-party system.
    
    
    -steve

    Steve,
    
    I thopught there was only one saviour?
    
    From a religious and inerrantist point of view I think both major
    candidates have serious fallings.  Dole has obviously not got the stuff
    paul called for in leaders and is living in a state of adultery. 
    
    Clinton has doen things in his marriage that are less than savory and
    also appears to have a problem with honesty.

    By ammending the Constitution, we gave the federal govt those powers.  We
    have no one to blame but ourselves.  I think it comes down to a
    question of whether law should be a relection of an objective morality
    which does not waiver in the face of the majority, or a subjective
    morality which is DEFINED BY the majority.  Personally, I feel that
    ethical morale conduct is objective and our laws should reflect that
    morality.  But that's not the way it work in a democracy (or a
    republic).  We've seen gross violations of fundamental morality enacted
    and enforced by majority consensus.  And I'm not talking about wire
    tapping or taxation.
    
    -dave

        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;2 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 1269.0                       Campaign 1996                       21 replies
MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs."             6 lines  29-AUG-1996 09:18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I thought it was about time we had a little fun by arguing and debating
    over something we can all relate to...the 1996 campaign.  Democrat,
    Republican or Independent...feel free to enter your greatest
    admirations or deepest criticisms.
    
    

    Al Gore and Bill Clinton are both Southern Baptist.
    
    Richard
    

    Funny this string didn't get started earlier.
    
    Richard
    

>    Al Gore and Bill Clinton are both Southern Baptist.
    
>    Richard
    
    And both have been taken to task very publicly and formally by the 
    Southern Baptist Convention for their political decisions, which are
    characterized as unChristian, in light of their SB affiliation.  Of
    course the Southern Baptists are not a traditional denomination and the
    SBC has no power or authority over local churches.
    
    If Gore or Clinton were a part of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church they
    would be tried for their serious sins and would ultimately be
    excommunicated if they did not repent.
    
    jeff

>    Funny this string didn't get started earlier.
    
>    Richard
    
    How many passions can one have?  In order to properly serve my local
    church I have had to dispense with an inordinate passion for politics. 
    I vote religiously (pun intended), I pray often for our elected
    officials, and I educate the ignorant and befuddled.  I don't stew or
    thrash over it anymore, however.
    
    jeff
    

    What???? And not make Glen sore!  I couldn't survive!! :-)

>    Al Gore and Bill Clinton are both Southern Baptist.
    
>    Richard
    
    Oh, it should be mentioned that in the South everyone who is not a Jew
    considers himself a Christian, mostly a Baptist.  It's much like
    Catholicism in the northeast.
    
    jeff
    

    .27
    
    "Southern Baptists are not a traditional denomination"??!
    
    Whoa!  No wonder you and I are worlds apart!
    
    What say you of the American Baptists or the Presbyterian Church, USA?
    
    Richard
    

.28

>>    Funny this string didn't get started earlier.
    
>>    Richard
    
>    How many passions can one have?  In order to properly serve my local
>    church I have had to dispense with an inordinate passion for politics. 
>    I vote religiously (pun intended), I pray often for our elected
>    officials, and I educate the ignorant and befuddled.  I don't stew or
>    thrash over it anymore, however.

What I mean is that it was conspicuously quiet here during the GOP Convention.
The topic of politics has arisen many times before in C-P.

Richard

    
>    "Southern Baptists are not a traditional denomination"??!
    
    Sorry if that was unclear.  What I meant was that there is no heirarchy
    of power which governs the local denominations.  Local churches
    strictly affliate with the SBC, primarily for concerted missionary
    efforts, they are independent in every sense of the word from both a
    central organization and from each other.
    
>    Whoa!  No wonder you and I are worlds apart!
    
     Hope my clarification causes you retract the "explanation" of why we
    are "worlds apart".  
        
>    What say you of the American Baptists or the Presbyterian Church, USA?
    
>    Richard
    
    Organizationally traditional denominations (not thelogically, of
    course).
    
    jeff

>    Oh, it should be mentioned that in the South everyone who is not a Jew
>    considers himself a Christian, mostly a Baptist.  

   I guess women don't count.

>    It's much like Catholicism in the northeast.

   !?!

   I have *never* considered myself a Roman Catholic, nor have
   most of the people I know and I've lived in New England all
   my life.

   Tom

    Tom:
    
    The Northeast is largely comprised of Catholics.  While there is a
    percentage of strong faith catholic believers, many, at least that
    which I am accustomed to are only catholic by name.
    
    -Jack

.33

>    Sorry if that was unclear.  What I meant was that there is no heirarchy
>    of power which governs the local denominations.  Local churches
>    strictly affliate with the SBC, primarily for concerted missionary
>    efforts, they are independent in every sense of the word from both a
>    central organization and from each other.

They're not unlike Jewish congregations, the United Church of Christ, Quakers
and Unitarian Universalists in this respect.
    
>    Organizationally traditional denominations (not thelogically, of
>    course).

Ah, polity!  Thanks for the clarification.

Richard

>    Oh, it should be mentioned that in the South everyone who is not a Jew
>    considers himself a Christian, mostly a Baptist.  

>>   I guess women don't count.
    
    I guess you're the poster child for the analy retentive politically
    correct.  
    
    It is proper grammer to use himself or herself to account for both
    genders of people.

    jeff

    Yeah Tom.  Kind of like... "She's a fast ship"
    
    Which Star Trek person pointed this out to Yoman Janice!?
    
    Live long and prosper.

RE: .37

I guess you just can't seem to give up calling people names.

    .39
    
    It's become politically correct.  Just tune in your deregulated talk
    radio (Not NPR).
    
    Richard
    

    |    Al Gore and Bill Clinton are both Southern Baptist.
    
    ...and the Southern Baptist leadership will have nothing to do with
    them and publicly criticize them.

    I thought that was another outstanding example of "Christian" love.

    7:16  Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or
     figs of thistles?
    7:17  Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt
    tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
    7:18  A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt
    tree bring forth good fruit.
    7:19  Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and
    cast into the fire.
    7:20  Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
    7:21  Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into
    the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in
    heaven.
    

>I guess you just can't seem to give up calling people names.
    
    You think my describing your behavior colorfully is calling you
    names?  Instead of getting all huffy and indignant why don't you see
    how clearly irritating your inappropriate nit-picking has become.  I'd
    rather endure the person who constantly corrects everyone's spelling
    mistakes than the one who wrongly reduces perfectly acceptable
    grammatical statements to sexism every chance they get.  It is
    ridiculous!  If I had said "herself" instead of "himself" you would
    have been silent, you hypocrite!!!
    
    jeff

>    You think my describing your behavior colorfully is calling you
>    names?

    Yes.

>    Instead of getting all huffy and indignant why don't you see
>    how clearly irritating your inappropriate nit-picking has become.

    "Inappropriate" and "irritating" because you don't agree with me.

    And why can't you see how irritating and inappropriate your putting
    inaccurate labels on me and others is.  You said, in essence, that
    everyone in the northeast calls themselve either jewish or catholic.

    More name calling.

>    If I had said "herself" instead of "himself" you would
>    have been silent, 

    Probably.  But, then again, I haven't been excluded due to my
    gender since I was born.  Hopefully, at some point, it will
    become a non-issue.

>    you hypocrite!!!

    Names again.

    Tom

>                              -< So be it, Tom. >-

    No.

    Just because you are "redeemed" doesn't excuse you from
    your obligation to act with some amount of civility.

    If you didn't think much of what I said you could have
    said as much.  Instead you chose to call me names.

    I had hoped for better coming from an adult.

    Tom

    Z    And why can't you see how irritating and inappropriate your putting
    Z    inaccurate labels on me and others is.  You said, in essence, that
    Z    everyone in the northeast calls themselve either jewish or
    Z    catholic.
    
    Tom, the mass media here in the US refers to Israel as the Jewish
    State.  This can of course be compared very much to calling the midwest
    the Bible belt.  Obviously not everybody is Catholic or jewish but it
    is safe to say the Northeast holds the two faiths as the predominants.
    
    Tom, we had an indepth discussion before you came to the file when our
    Cindy Painter said, "AWoman to that".  I gently told her she was
    "bastardizing the language", as man in the word Amen has absolutely
    nothing to do with gender...since it is Hebrew.  The suffix for the
    words, Fireman, Mailman, Chairman, etc. IS in fact gender neutral.  It
    is derived from the German root "mon" and is neuter.  In other words
    Tom...ASexual and not germane to a single gender.  Needless to say this
    TRUTH was met with some resistance...because of Political Correctness.  
    Why must the rules of language be changed in order to make the masses
    feel good about themselves?
    
    -Jack

    Jack,

    You just spoke your mind.  You informed me of how you felt
    or think about something and I accept that.

    You didn't, however, call me names or insult me or misrepresent me.

    That is what bothers me about Jeff's replies.

    Thank you for taking the time to point things out.

    Tom

| <<< Note 1269.43 by PHXSS1::HEISER "maranatha!" >>>

| 7:16  Ye shall know them by their fruits. 

	Hey! That's about me and my kind! Cool! I guess we made it into the
Bible afterall. 

RE: .50

	groan....

    <-- I second that groan...

    
    Jack...in regard to your reply .35
    
    your statement that the Northeast is "largely" Roman Catholic just 
    didn't seem factually correct to me so i researched the subject a bit.
    
    According to the "American church and church membership in the U.S."
    of the 72 percent of New Englanders who are church members 43 percent
    are Roman Catholic. by my understanding of basic arithmetic then one
    could accurately state that about 31 percent of the New English
    population is Roman Catholic. 
    
    i don't know where you came up with "largely"...
    
    peter

| <<< Note 1269.53 by RDVAX::ANDREWS "searching" >>>


| i don't know where you came up with "largely"...

	His head.....doh!

 ZZ    i don't know where you came up with "largely"...
    
    Peter:
    
    I believe I inferred that the Northeast was PREDOMINANTLY Catholic or
    Jewish.  I meant this in a combined way.  
    
    I was also ruling out atheists and that was my fault for lack of
    clarity.    
    
    -Jack

|        <<< Note 1269.50 by BIGQ::SILVA "http://www.yvv.com/decplus/" >>>
|
|	Hey! That's about me and my kind! Cool! I guess we made it into the
|Bible afterall. 
    
    You are so right.  That verse says alot about people who don't know
    their Bible.

    

================================================================================
Note 1269.35             Campaign 1996 and Christianity                 35 of 56
MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs."             7 lines  29-AUG-1996 13:54
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Tom:
    
    The Northeast is largely comprised of Catholics.  While there is a
    percentage of strong faith catholic believers, many, at least that
    which I am accustomed to are only catholic by name.
    
    -Jack

____________________________________

  Jack,

  nothing here about Jews or atheists that i can see...

  nothing here that i can see that speaks to any group's "predominance"..

  i'm not even sure what you mean by your last note..."a combined way"?
  "ruling out atheists"...

  perhaps you could fill in the ellipses for me, i'm just not getting
  what it is that you're trying to say..

  thanks,
  
  peter

    What I was trying to convey was out of the mainline churches and
    religions in the Northeast, the predominant religions are catholicism
    and Judaism.  By Northeast I was referring to New England and New York.
    
    I didn't have raw numbers I will admit.   
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1269.56 by PHXSS1::HEISER "maranatha!" >>>


| That verse says alot about people who don't know their Bible.

	Should I take it out to dinner and talk? :-)

      
    Re.48
    
    Jack...that's not exactly what happened.  My reasons for such
    things have nothing to do with Political Correctness.  I've been
    not in favor of such non-inclusive words long before the term 'PC' 
    was ever even invented.  And I don't care what the root is - in 
    *this* language, those words are non-inclusive.  There are lots of 
    words in other languages that if said in *this* language, they would 
    be considered offensive.  Not that I find non-inclusive words to be
    outright offensive, but the point is that the frame of reference 
    should be the current one in which we're using the words.
    
    And as I recall, I believe that's when you switched over to 'humankind' 
    from 'mankind', yes?
    
    I don't have time to pursue an in-depth discussion again, and may not
    get back to this note for a while due to lack of time...I was just 
    perusing the conference in a spare moment and decided to respond to 
    this one since my name was mentioned (though not in vain...for once 
    (;^)).  Just kidding!!!
    
    Cindy

    Well, I switched over to humankind; because Websters as well as other
    authorities recognize humankind as a viable term.  Therefore, I choose
    to use the term so as not to cause any dissention.  It isn't quite that
    important to me to be stiffnecked over the issue of mankind/humankind!
    
    Glead to see you are alive and wll Cindy!!
    
    -Jack

	Jack.... what does glead mean? heh heh

    Glead means.....aww shaddup! :-)

    
    Re.61
    
    >Glead to see you are alive and wll Cindy!!
    
    Why thank you, Jack!  (;^)
    
    It's just a misplaced letter...the 'e' in 'Glead' really goes in the
    'wll' word later on in the sentence.
    
    Cindy

    Uhh....yes!  Wht Cindy said! :-)

    .60
    
    Let's see... I guess we need to change a few more words, you know, to
    make them inclusive:
    
    mentality... can't have that (and remember, the root doesn't matter)
    it should be "humantality".
    
    establishment... becomes "establishhumanent"
    
    mentor... becomes "humantor"
    
    menace... becomes "humanace"
    
    mendacity... how about "womandacity"?  I like that one.
    
    mendacious... "womandacious"
    
    menhir... "humanhir"
    
    menfolk... "humanfolk"  (of course, it matters not that the exclusivity
    of this word has an actual purpose... it is exclusive and that is all
    that matters)
    
    menopause... never liked this one beginning with "men", anyway.  It
    should properly be called "womanopause"... for obvious reasons.
    
    menu... I like "womanu".
    
    menses... "womanses" makes more sense anyway
    
    mensural..."humansural"
    
    
    Hmmm... maybe this PC thing isn't so bad after all.  8^)
    
    
    
    FWIW, when anyone uses the term "mankind" and the like, they are
    certainly not talking specific gender - this term has never been
    intended to be exclusionary, but inclusive by definition.  I fail to see 
    how this is exclusionary, but what's logic got to do with PCisms, eh?  
    When synsytyvyty rises, logic falls... and in this case, so does our
    vocabulary.
    
    
    -steve

    > I've seen first hand the results of their compassion.  Like tarnished
    > medals pulled out of the attic to parade down the street, they do this
    > every four years...which is why I stated these people have no shame at
    > all. 

    I agree. If I hear one more time about Bob Dole's war injuries and the
    mellow dramatic story of recovery, I'll spew...

    Oh, I'm sorry. That's not what you were referring to?

    Eric

  Z   I agree. If I hear one more time about Bob Dole's war injuries and the
  Z      mellow dramatic story of recovery, I'll spew...
    
    Actually Eric, I agree with you. It is sadly obvious there are alot of
    old veterans who simply cannot let the war go!!  While I see veterans
    as bastians of historical insight, I also believe some get caught up in
    it wayyy too much.
    
    It's obvious he is making a comparison of his patriotism with that of
    his opponent.
    
    -Jack

    You also may be interested to know that I am inclined to vote for the
    candidate who upholds the constitution the most.  I see neither
    candidate as qualified in this realm.
    
    -Jack

    Harry Browne...

    Yes...Harry Browne.  I will admit however, it makes the decision easier
    for me considering I live in a state that voted for George McGovern and
    will ultimately vote in Bill Clinton.  But at least I can say I voted
    my convictions.
    
    -Jack

    I don't have that luxury, Jack.  My convictions say vote for Harry
    Browne - hands down.  My brain tells me that he has no chance of
    winning - grass roots efforts seem to be locked out of
    system, for the most part - so I should cast my vote for Dole. 
    
    If Browne gets into the debates (and I have my doubts that he will be
    let in... he would wipe the floor with the other candidates, IMO), I
    will likely vote for him.  If he doesn't, I'll vote for Dole.  
    
    Since Ohio is not a one-party state, my vote may actually matter.  I'd
    rather cast it for Dole, if it will get Clinton out of office -
    even though I don't really care for Dole, either (though he would be an
    improvement over Clinton, IMO... but that's really not saying much).  The 
    key for me is to get Clinton out of office, he's PROVEN to be
    detrimental to the Constitution, which makes him unfit for the office
    of president.
    
    Personally, I'd like to see political parties vanish altogether... the
    nation would be much better off with unaffiliated representatives who
    did not have to worry about party pressures to vote a specific way.  I 
    don't like supporting Republicans or Democrats... I could care less from 
    which party they hail (though being a Democrat is a negative with me,
    personally, since that particular party seems to be hell-bent on social 
    spending us into oblivian... but that is a generalization that does no 
    apply to every Democratic rep. - just the party in general).   
    
    
    -steve

    I think we could learn a valuable lesson from the Sneetches on the
    Beaches, by Dr. Seuss.
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Now the democrat sneetches had bellies with stars, the republicans
    had none upon thars...those stars weren't so big they were really quite
    small...you would think such a thing wouldn't matter at all.
    
    But because they had stars they would laugh, "We're the BEST sneetches
    on the beaches."  With their snoots in the air they would sniff and
    they'd snort, "We'll have nothing to do with the plain bellied sort."
    And whenever they'd pass by when they went out walking, they'd hike
    right on past them without even talking.
    
    When the democrats went out on the beach to play ball, could the
    republican sneeches get in the game?  Not at all.  Only YOU could play
    if your belly had stars and the republican sneetches had none upon
    thars.
    
    When the democrat sneetches had frankfurter roasts...or picnics or
    parties or marshmallow toasts, they would never invite the republican
    sneetches...they just left them out in the cold of the beaches.  They
    would not invite them, not let them come near.  And that's how they
    treated them year after year!"

    I fully expect to see the so-called Christian Right vocally campaigning
    against designated handicapped parking in the near future.
    
    "'Taint fair, it's unconstitutional, and they don't wanna be treated
    special anyways!"
    
    Richard
    

    Well isn't that just special.

 z   I fully expect to see the so-called Christian Right vocally campaigning
 z       against designated handicapped parking in the near future.
    
    Richard...that's absolutely absurd if you think about it.  George Bush
    is responsible for much of the legislation catering to people with
    disabilities.  
    
    What I do agree with is the Federal governments meddling in the flow of
    private commerce.  The Family Leave Act does this.
    
    -Jack

>    I fully expect to see the so-called Christian Right vocally campaigning
>    against designated handicapped parking in the near future.
    
 

     Why just last week my pastor was preaching on this very subject 
     announcing to the congregation that we're starting the campaign
     off by eliminating handicap parking at our church.  And the woman
     we bring to church because she can't drive?  Let her walk.  And the
     man I occasionally bring to church (and carry into the building) because
     his entire right side is paralized?  let him stay home..and my blind
     friend and his wife who is a victim of dwarfism?  I don't have to bring
     them anymore..heck, it's not our fault thier handicapped, and heck
     they don't work anyway.


     You bet..this is going to spread like wildfire..



     What nonsense.    

    > I fully expect to see the so-called Christian Right vocally
    > campaigning against designated handicapped parking in the near future.

    Richard,

    Are you being serious, or bitingly sarcastic? 

    Jack,

    I couldn't follow your reasoning: Richard's fears are absurd because
    Bush signed legislation? I don't get the connection. I mean, Bush
    wasn't exactly the Religious Right's favorite pick. Now if you sited
    ADA-like legislation that was sponsored by, or advocated by, the
    Christian Right then maybe you'd have something.

    > What I do agree with is the Federal governments meddling in the flow of
    > private commerce.  The Family Leave Act does this.

    Child labor laws, hazardous materials disclosure, fair warning on
    plant closings, anti-discrimination laws... examples of other nasty
    government meddling. :^) From my perspective you could have picked a
    *much* better example. But then I may have a personal interest in the
    Family Leave Act, so I could be prejudice.

    Eric

    Eric

 Z   But then I may have a personal interest in the
 Z       Family Leave Act, so I could be prejudice.
    
    Well, maybe I'm wrong..I dunno!

How come y'all are leaving out the punchline?

>    "'Taint fair, it's unconstitutional, and they don't wanna be treated
>    special anyways!"
    
Richard