--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > You mean you'd prefer a guy who graduated from college > > > to a gal who graduated from college? > > > > Her husband did not graduate from college and it is > > he who Richard is referring to on the energy fields. > > OK. That wasn't clear to me. Are you both > assuming, then, that Palin's energy stances > are dictated by her husband?
I just want the person making energy policy to have at least a college degree and I value it over "on the ground' experience that Richard was touting. I don't think I am alone in this. > Nor did anyone except me call you on your > slur of Palin for her religious beliefs. And > this from a group of people who constantly > rag on MMY and the TMO for disparaging other > spiritual paths! I still don't understand why you feel you were calling me on a slur because I spoke out against using Biblical teachings on the same level as scientific knowledge in schools. Your objection to me calling it an "old book" is not a slur except to people who believe it is God's word, and I don't put you or almost any poster here in that category. If I was talking to a Bible believer I probably wouldn't use that term. But here it sums up my position concisely in a phrase. I suspect you might be getting offended on behalf of people who don't read this forum. As far as your correction in her positions, that is appreciated. I am still not clear where she is drawing her lines. As I said I think that offering creationism as an alternative scientific view is way out of line. It belongs in a religion class. There is no scientific debate between these positions. I am a fan of religious education and personally believe that teaching world religions in every school is critical for people to understand other cultures. It also doesn't hurt that it can loosen the grip of one's own cultural bias for the religion you grew up in. At least it had that effect on me. I figured that you were not defending Palin's POV. And I also understand that you have the kind of fine tuned misogyny meter that I have for religious beliefs affecting policy decisions. We each have out "up" issues. Criticizing what someone believes and expecting it to affect their policy decision is important in politics to me. Especially after the last eight years. Trying to protect people's religious beliefs as if they are sacred has caused a lot of problems IMO. People are welcome to be offended by me calling the Bible an "old book", but I want them to understand that I am equally offended when they use their belief in putting their hand on that book in a courtroom as if it confers a greater likelihood of telling the truth in a trial. As far as calling Barry on the phrases he uses to get a rise out of you, I don't think you can realistically believe that anyone else here should rise to the same bait Judy. I don't believe Barry is a misogynist. And I don't believe women here are in need of any protection from me. We each have our arenas that we like to call people on in this forum. Most of them (my own included) are very predictable. > > > Your are working this angle pretty hard Judy. > > First you try to equate me attacking a person's > > chosen beliefs with being sexists against her > > non-chosen gender, and now this. I'm starting > > to think that you are carrying a hammer and so > > everything is starting to look like a nail to > > you. > > Yes, one's chosen and the other isn't. But > they're alike in that they're both used to > demean a person's character, abilities, and > intelligence *just by themselves*, without > relating them to anything the person has > actually done. > > That's what you did regarding Palin's > religious beliefs. And since a few hours > earlier Barry attacked her as a "bimbo" and > a "ditzy broad," again without any evidence > that being a woman has negatively affected > her job performance or her public > presentation as a VP candidate, it was hard > to avoid making the connection with your > slur. > > As to my carrying a hammer, there's some > truth to that, but it's because Clinton and > now Palin seem to have inspired a whole lot > of people to aim nails in their direction > rather than evaluating them on their record > and their positions. > > It's aggravating enough that Democrats, who > are supposed to be so big on women's rights, > are wielding those nails at least as viciously > as Republicans. > > But one would *think* that the members of a > supposedly spiritually oriented forum like > FFL would have risen above misogyny, > especially when MMY, who's the focus of so > much criticism here, is perceived to have > been misogynistic and has been subjected to > great scorn on that account. > > Of all the members of FFL, Shemp was the > only other person besides me to call Barry > on his disgusting smears of Palin. What he > said was OK with everybody else here, didn't > bother them at all. No problem calling a > nominee for vice president of the United > States a "bimbo." > > Nor did anyone except me call you on your > slur of Palin for her religious beliefs. And > this from a group of people who constantly > rag on MMY and the TMO for disparaging other > spiritual paths! > > The nails are bad enough, but the hypocrisy > is appalling. > > And for the record: I'm not a Palin fan. I > find many of her personal beliefs repugnant, > I don't like what I've read about much of > what she's done in office, and I don't think > she is at all prepared to be vice president, > let alone president if McCain should croak. > > But unlike some here, I object to unfair > attacks even when they're made against > politicians I don't like. >
