A crafts forum. CraftBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » CraftBanter forum » Textiles newsgroups » Needlework
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Dear Red States



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old November 6th 08, 07:18 PM posted to rec.crafts.textiles.needlework
Dawne Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 649
Default Dear Red States

I would be more impressed with the great "blue" state of California if its
rich, healthy, educated, well-employed, tax-paying tolerant tanned and happy
people had not brought an end to the right of gay and lesbian couples
(presumably also mainly rich, healthy, educated, well-employed tax payers)
to civil marriage.

Dawne


Ads
  #22  
Old November 6th 08, 07:20 PM posted to rec.crafts.textiles.needlework
Karen C in California
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,010
Default Dear Red States

dark.angel wrote:

In article , Karen C in California
wrote:

Because I'm not the one who wrote the article.



Oh, dear .... I'm so very sorry! I completely didn't see where you
cited the source!

Because, as a professional proofreader, you'd have too much integrity
to post something without citing the source, of course.




The person who sent it to me didn't know the source. I don't see Fred
posting the source when *he* sends jokes. But I guess different rules
apply to me than to everyone else.


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

Finished 10/7/08 - Sun Fun (Dimensions)

WIP: Nativity from "Countdown to Christmas" book, Oriental Kimono
(Janlynn),
MLI The Teacher (gift to the library), Bethany Angel (Marbek)
Retrieved from UFO pile: Marbek's Snow Angel, MLI Farmers Market

CFSfacts -- where we give you the facts and dispel the myths
Myths, with research cites: http://www.aacfs.org/images/pdfs/myths.pdf
Newest research blog: http://cfs-facts.blogspot.com/
  #23  
Old November 6th 08, 08:34 PM posted to rec.crafts.textiles.needlework
flitterbit
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 79
Default Dear Red States

lucretia borgia wrote:
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 12:18:42 -0600, "Dawne Peterson"
opined:

I would be more impressed with the great "blue" state of California
if its rich, healthy, educated, well-employed, tax-paying tolerant
tanned and happy people had not brought an end to the right of gay
and lesbian couples (presumably also mainly rich, healthy,
educated, well-employed tax payers) to civil marriage.

Dawne

Yes, I was shocked to hear that. I thought California was supposed
to be ahead of everyone.


I was shocked as well as sorely disappointed. It would appear the "no"
campaign didn't do as good a job as they could have of dispelling
misconceptions, or of instilling the idea that the whole point of
permitting gays to marry was to extend equal rights to everyone, not
just heterosexuals, or of just plain emphasizing that gays are no
different than anyone else, they hold jobs, they vote, they buy homes,
they raise families, etc.

BTW, my understanding is that the "yes" voting was concentrated in rural
areas as well as in the religious and ethnic segments of California's
population.
  #24  
Old November 6th 08, 08:39 PM posted to rec.crafts.textiles.needlework
Jinx Minx
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 124
Default Dear Red States


"Karen C in California" wrote in message
...
Jinx Minx wrote:

Offensive as HELL



Oh, well.

For years, we've had to put up with Red Staters telling us that they have
superior morality and that we Californians are going to hell because we
don't think Rush Limbaugh and millionaire televangelists are destined for
sainthood.

Maybe the facts that Blue States are the ones with the money --
California gets back only a fraction of the money we send to DC, because
our money is used to subsidize poor Red States -- are offensive to those
who've been patting themselves on the back making fun of our collection of
fruits, nuts and flakes. Too bad, tit for tat.

I've lived in Red areas. I like Blue ones better. Less racist, more
tolerant of new ideas, better food.

Next time you get a craving for an orange, remember, we produce almost ALL
of the eating oranges in California. When you want a salad in December,
remember, most of the lettuce in winter is grown in California. Our
farmworkers work year-round; they don't get winters off because we don't
have winters.

And, for any of you who have ever made jokes about lazy Californians, I'm
accustomed to talking to NY law firms and telling them that our office
opens at 8 AM; in NYC, they don't show up till 10. There's always that
moment of shock when they realize that we're working harder than the city
that prides itself on working hard.

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

Finished 10/7/08 - Sun Fun (Dimensions)

WIP: Nativity from "Countdown to Christmas" book, Oriental Kimono
(Janlynn),
MLI The Teacher (gift to the library), Bethany Angel (Marbek)
Retrieved from UFO pile: Marbek's Snow Angel, MLI Farmers Market

CFSfacts -- where we give you the facts and dispel the myths
Myths, with research cites: http://www.aacfs.org/images/pdfs/myths.pdf
Newest research blog: http://cfs-facts.blogspot.com/


No. I live in a Blue State, have always lived in a Blue State, and I still
find it offensive. In addition, I've seen two slightly different versions
of this, and I'm not entirely sure which one is the original one. Karen's
version is slightly more inflammatory than the other (the other version I
saw just says "single moms", not "under-educated single moms").

As for Rich/Poor, Blue/Red....I found the following article interesting:
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/po...rich_stat.html

And perhaps the reason California needs to start work at 8am, is because
they need to in order to be in time synch with the rest of the working
states, not because they are harder workers. MY lawyer starts work at 7am.

Jinx


  #25  
Old November 6th 08, 08:41 PM posted to rec.crafts.textiles.needlework
Lucille[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,234
Default Dear Red States


"flitterbit" wrote in message
...
lucretia borgia wrote:
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 12:18:42 -0600, "Dawne Peterson"
opined:

I would be more impressed with the great "blue" state of California
if its rich, healthy, educated, well-employed, tax-paying tolerant
tanned and happy people had not brought an end to the right of gay
and lesbian couples (presumably also mainly rich, healthy,
educated, well-employed tax payers) to civil marriage.

Dawne

Yes, I was shocked to hear that. I thought California was supposed
to be ahead of everyone.


I was shocked as well as sorely disappointed. It would appear the "no"
campaign didn't do as good a job as they could have of dispelling
misconceptions, or of instilling the idea that the whole point of
permitting gays to marry was to extend equal rights to everyone, not just
heterosexuals, or of just plain emphasizing that gays are no different
than anyone else, they hold jobs, they vote, they buy homes, they raise
families, etc.

BTW, my understanding is that the "yes" voting was concentrated in rural
areas as well as in the religious and ethnic segments of California's
population.



They tightened the rules in Florida so that the constitution actually will
state that a marriage is between a man and a woman.

So sad.

Lucille


  #26  
Old November 6th 08, 09:11 PM posted to rec.crafts.textiles.needlework
Karen C in California
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,010
Default Dear Red States

lucretia borgia wrote:

On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 12:18:42 -0600, "Dawne Peterson"
opined:


I would be more impressed with the great "blue" state of California if its
rich, healthy, educated, well-employed, tax-paying tolerant tanned and happy
people had not brought an end to the right of gay and lesbian couples
(presumably also mainly rich, healthy, educated, well-employed tax payers)
to civil marriage.

Dawne


Yes, I was shocked to hear that. I thought California was supposed to
be ahead of everyone.



Succinctly, we have had an influx of religious-persecution refugees, who
think that it's OK for them to persecute anyone who doesn't believe
exactly as they do. (Including other brands of Christians.) These
folks would be much happier in one of the Bible-thumping Red States;
they did not realize what radical ideas they were going to be exposing
their children to by moving to the state with the best weather. Rather
than moving to where they'd fit in better, they want to change us to fit
their mold.

Add in massive funding from two large religions, one of which is now
being investigated with the possibility of losing their tax-exempt
status for inserting the church's nose too far into the political arena,
with both religions exhorting every Sunday from every pulpit that their
congregations must vote on this issue, and even some evidence that the
church's own funds were used for politicking.

It was also a little confusing -- even one of my favorite activists got
it wrong in an e-mail to me last week -- in that voting Yes means No gay
marriage, and No means Yes. I wonder how many people voted wrong
because they thought Yes meant Yes.

Last year, the prior traditional-marriage proposition was litigated all
the way up to the Calif Supreme Court and deemed unconstitutional.
These uber-religious-types immediately got it back on the ballot. As
soon as the announcement was made that it passed, there were attorneys
down at the courthouse filing new challenges. Since the Cal Supremes
have already deemed it unconstitutional, it'll be a quick trip back up
through the system, and the Supremes can tell them again, it was
unconstitutional last year, it's unconstitutional this year, and it'll
be unconstitutional again next year.

There's also some question about whether the rules were followed -- only
the Legislature is supposed to put something on the ballot that would
change the state constitution. Another attempt to put this on the
ballot will be very carefully scrutinized to make sure those rules are
followed to the letter, and I don't think they can get enough of the
Lege to go for it because too many of the Lege have gay staffers, and
all of them have to work with a couple of openly gay legislators.



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

Finished 10/7/08 - Sun Fun (Dimensions)

WIP: Nativity from "Countdown to Christmas" book, Oriental Kimono
(Janlynn),
MLI The Teacher (gift to the library), Bethany Angel (Marbek)
Retrieved from UFO pile: Marbek's Snow Angel, MLI Farmers Market

CFSfacts -- where we give you the facts and dispel the myths
Myths, with research cites: http://www.aacfs.org/images/pdfs/myths.pdf
Newest research blog: http://cfs-facts.blogspot.com/
  #27  
Old November 6th 08, 10:56 PM posted to rec.crafts.textiles.needlework
flitterbit
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 79
Default Dear Red States

Lucille wrote:
"flitterbit" wrote in message
...
lucretia borgia wrote:
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 12:18:42 -0600, "Dawne Peterson"
opined:

I would be more impressed with the great "blue" state of
California if its rich, healthy, educated, well-employed,
tax-paying tolerant tanned and happy people had not brought an
end to the right of gay and lesbian couples (presumably also
mainly rich, healthy, educated, well-employed tax payers) to
civil marriage.

Dawne

Yes, I was shocked to hear that. I thought California was
supposed to be ahead of everyone.


I was shocked as well as sorely disappointed. It would appear the
"no" campaign didn't do as good a job as they could have of
dispelling misconceptions, or of instilling the idea that the whole
point of permitting gays to marry was to extend equal rights to
everyone, not just heterosexuals, or of just plain emphasizing that
gays are no different than anyone else, they hold jobs, they vote,
they buy homes, they raise families, etc.

BTW, my understanding is that the "yes" voting was concentrated in
rural areas as well as in the religious and ethnic segments of
California's population.



They tightened the rules in Florida so that the constitution actually
will state that a marriage is between a man and a woman.

So sad.

Lucille


It *is* sad, and Arizonans also voted in favour (56% yes, 44% no) of a
ballot measure banning gay marriage, and Arkansans voted in favour (57%
yes, 43% no) of a ban on gay couples adopting children (both from
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/ballot.measures/ or
http://tinyurl.com/5vysp9).

I really don't understand why some people feel so threatened by gay
people; the only difference between gays and heterosexuals is to whom
they're sexually attracted.
  #28  
Old November 7th 08, 12:30 AM posted to rec.crafts.textiles.needlework
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 318
Default Dear Red States

On Nov 6, 1:18 pm, Karen C in California wrote:
wrote:

The problem is that the post was funny as sour grapes when "blue"
lost. It's offensive as gloating now that "blue" has won.


Elizabeth


Thank you for pointing that out. We in the Blue States have been
expected to laugh at "offensive gloating" for years. The Reds don't
like it now that the tables are turned.


My experience obviously differs from yours. I don't feel that I've
been subjected to offensive gloating over the years. I'm sorry if you
do.

Either way, please don't speak for me.

Elizabeth (in the bluest of states)
  #29  
Old November 7th 08, 01:55 AM posted to rec.crafts.textiles.needlework
dark.angel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default Dear Red States

In article , Karen C in California
wrote:

Jinx Minx wrote:

Offensive as HELL



Oh, well.

For years, we've had to put up with Red Staters telling us that they
have superior morality and that we Californians are going to hell
because we don't think Rush Limbaugh and millionaire televangelists are
destined for sainthood.


Balderdash. When has a single "Red state" actually knocked on your door
and said such? AFAIK, states don't talk.

Now, if you want to say that "asinine Republicans" said blah-blah-blah
to you, that's another matter entirely. And FTR, I personally know that
Dems can be just as preachy as the worst Rep.

And for the record? Being an asshole isn't just limited to any specific
party member. Last I checked, it's a pretty universal "quality" in
human beings.

Just two weeks ago (and I shudder to think how happy this will make
you), my DD came home from high school talking about how some Dem kids
were starting fist-fights. She told me with no small amount of pride
that neither she nor a particular friend of hers actually began a fight
nor participated in one.

She said, and I quote: "We're supposed to be a better example than
that. We're supposed to be the good guys. The ones with a heart."

Maybe you ought to take a page out of her book?

disgusted rant.

It's people like YOU with your bull**** that's made Dems the dirty word
it is in many American homes. It's people like YOU that make other
people too afraid to pray in front of me once they find out I'm a Dem.
It's people like YOU that have to act (and you've admitted it) like
Dems are superior creatures (shades of Aryan, perhaps?) and that Reps
are filthy uneducated (because of COURSE, if they don't agree with YOU,
they must be stupid, right?), asshats.

I work my ASS off to defray the ****ty way people see Dems. Dems are
about protecting freedoms, providing for those who can't provide for
themselves (and assisting them until they can), and encouraging the
differences -- and teaching others to be tolerant of those differences
-- inherent in our nation.

Being a Dem asshole is supposed to be the EXCEPTION, not the rule.

So, why don't you stop the political and rhetoric equivalent of
bragging that your dick is bigger and just grow a HEART? A brain, too,
if you can manage it. TIA.

/disgusted rant

Maybe the facts that Blue States are the ones with the money --
California gets back only a fraction of the money we send to DC, because
our money is used to subsidize poor Red States -- are offensive to those
who've been patting themselves on the back making fun of our collection
of fruits, nuts and flakes. Too bad, tit for tat.


Poor "Red states?" You mean the people that actually NEED the social
programs Dems champion? So you're essentially saying either you choose
to no longer help the people who need it -- or are you saying you want
the Dems in office to be out of a job?

Tsk, tsk. More discrimination against the poor. Again, free cl00, but
the very people you seem to despise (the poor and uneducated) are
typically the ones who vote Dem.


I've lived in Red areas. I like Blue ones better. Less racist, more
tolerant of new ideas, better food.


Guess you've either never had Cuban (which WE'RE known for) or are too
damned racist or bigoted to think it's "good food."

Next time you get a craving for an orange, remember, we produce almost
ALL of the eating oranges in California.


Not really. Florida Navel oranges (it's not just a clever name, you
know) are almost exclusively sold in the south and north.

When you want a salad in
December, remember, most of the lettuce in winter is grown in
California. Our farmworkers work year-round; they don't get winters off
because we don't have winters.


So you were the ones to thank for that latest E. Coli epidemic? Thanks
for the info. Good to know.

--
dark.angel
  #30  
Old November 7th 08, 03:30 AM posted to rec.crafts.textiles.needlework
Gillian Murray
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 795
Default Dear Red States

Jangchub wrote:
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 15:30:18 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Nov 6, 1:18 pm, Karen C in California wrote:
wrote:

The problem is that the post was funny as sour grapes when "blue"
lost. It's offensive as gloating now that "blue" has won.
Elizabeth
Thank you for pointing that out. We in the Blue States have been
expected to laugh at "offensive gloating" for years. The Reds don't
like it now that the tables are turned.

My experience obviously differs from yours. I don't feel that I've
been subjected to offensive gloating over the years. I'm sorry if you
do.

Either way, please don't speak for me.

Elizabeth (in the bluest of states)


Maybe I haven't been subject to the gloating, but living in the
reddest of states has not been easy. Then there are the hate speakers
Hannity, O'Reily, Limbaugh, Laura Ingram and the most vile, Michael
Savage (sp?) It has been a pounding, steaming pile of dung for years
and years. We've been hearing the vitriol for decades going back to
41, then through the Clinton years when they didn't have one nice or
kind word to say about anything Clinton did. Surely you are aware of
the "lilberal" media. That's a joke if I ever heard one.


Have you been regularly listening to these people, or are you, as usual,
parroting your replies? Frankly, Hannity I greatly dislike; O'Reilly can
be fair and Limbaugh has poured a lot of criticsm on Pres. Bush.

But then, I do remember you are a great fan of that man on talk radio
with the long hair, whose name momentarily escapes me.

So judge not, lest you be judged!

G
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
OT - Dear Dad Elly[_2_] Quilting 4 February 9th 08 06:37 AM
OT Dear all . . . CATS Quilting 5 September 13th 07 05:08 PM
A little OT Finished something - but oh dear! Cats Quilting 29 January 30th 07 04:39 AM
Oh Dear! KJ Quilting 13 January 31st 05 03:59 PM
OT - Dear Mom LN \(remove NOSPAM\) Quilting 8 April 25th 04 02:10 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CraftBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.