Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

I have no tolerance for killing people that cannot defend themselves.

Eh? Are you posting from Darfur? Listening to the echoes of Beethoven's
Ninth in Sarajevo? Turning back Russian tanks at the Georgian border?

I'm inclined to believe you have a bit more tolerance than you've been
willing to admit to yourself.


What an absurd argument. The fact that I cannot actually *do* anything
about these situations is hardly evidence that I tolerate them. In
any case, the genocide directed at the unborn in the West far exceeds
that in the places you cite above. I *can* do something about that:
Vote for people who pledge to stop the infanticide.

I don't question that, in your heart, you mean well - I just noticed
that you seem to have difficulty getting your feet and hands to follow
your heart.

My interpretation of what you're saying is that you want to be the
arbiter of right and wrong, and that you expect others (who you select
with your ballot) to supply the blood, sweat, and tears needed to get
the job done.

I don't think that'll work, but I hope you have a nice ride.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Morris Dovey wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

I have no tolerance for killing people that cannot defend themselves.

Eh? Are you posting from Darfur? Listening to the echoes of Beethoven's
Ninth in Sarajevo? Turning back Russian tanks at the Georgian border?

I'm inclined to believe you have a bit more tolerance than you've been
willing to admit to yourself.


What an absurd argument. The fact that I cannot actually *do* anything
about these situations is hardly evidence that I tolerate them. In
any case, the genocide directed at the unborn in the West far exceeds
that in the places you cite above. I *can* do something about that:
Vote for people who pledge to stop the infanticide.

I don't question that, in your heart, you mean well - I just noticed
that you seem to have difficulty getting your feet and hands to follow
your heart.

My interpretation of what you're saying is that you want to be the
arbiter of right and wrong, and that you expect others (who you select
with your ballot) to supply the blood, sweat, and tears needed to get
the job done.

I don't think that'll work, but I hope you have a nice ride.


1) I have used reason and argument to make the case for why abortion
is wrong. I have never anointed myself the "arbiter of right and
wrong" but have made a case against abortion on legal, moral,
and practical grounds. In any case, judging from the tone of
your snide little post, I'd guess you are incapable of even
acknowledging that right and wrong exist as objectively exist.

2) "Your interpretation" is an argumentative ploy no more. If I were, say,
to take matters into my own hands and fly to Georgia and kill Russians
or start shooting abortion doctors iN NYC, you no doubt, would
likely disapprove. You're talking through your hat.

3) You evidently skipped the part in high school civics in which it
explained that government is formed first to keep people free.
We appeal to those who govern not to "supply the blood, sweat, and
tears" but to act to defend liberty. Appealing to government on behalf
of those whose liberty is ripped from them before they can even speak
is not an act of cowardice (implicitly accused in your scratchings
above), but an normal act of a free citizen.

4) You have NO idea just what I have- and have not personally done to
try and remediate evil of the sort you mention above. I feel no
particular reason to provide you with a list as it is none of your
business. What I do know is that when backed into a corner, people
with lousy ideas (like yours) always go after the speaker with whom
they disagree because they cannot defend their own ideas. Game, set,
match.






--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Sep 10, 11:20*am, Fred the Red Shirt
wrote:
On Sep 10, 10:26*am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

...

As a matter of law, you're absolutely right. *To remove the evil of slavery,
we had to sacrifice limited government, the rule of law, the Constitution,
and, arguably, our future. *Perhaps this is our divine punishment for
ever trading in humans.

Slavery has been aptly referred to as the original sin of the
United States.


I've always found that a bit of a laugher. The U.S. was far from the
only country to use slaves--hell, several do today. The supplies of
slaves came, often on British ships, from Africa where tribesmen and
women were gathered by Arab slave traders, or, at times, by their own
continent-mates who had beaten them in battle or otherwise acquired
power over them.

Yet it's the original sin of the U.S.

Actually, it's not a laugher. It's a sad commentary on the fact that
too many Americans tend to take the total blame for everything wrong
with the U.S. throughout history, when the blame deserves to be
shared.

On Sep 10, 11:43*am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:



On Sep 9, 7:06 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

On Sep 9, 11:55 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
...
Our government - from its inception - was deeply influenced by
Judeo-Christian people and ideas. The fact that this annoys you
doesn't change the fact.
I know more than one Jew who finds the term "Judeo-Christian"
annoying or outright insulting.
...

They regard it as just another attempt on the part of Christians
to blame the Jews for their own moral failings.
Utter nonsense. *I know many Christians in many different traditions,
none of whom have I ever heard make such an absurd claim.

Neither have I.

So?

As I made clear above, I have heard the claim made by Jews.

...

I've heard all manner of claims about all manner of things from all
manner of people. *This does not instantly imbue those claims with
any credibility. *
...

That's beside the point, which was that some Jews, at least,
object to the use of the term "Judeo-Christian" by some Christians.

--

FF

On Sep 10, 11:57*am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:



On Sep 10, 10:26 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
...

As a matter of law, you're absolutely right. *To remove the evil of slavery,
we had to sacrifice limited government, the rule of law, the Constitution,
and, arguably, our future. *Perhaps this is our divine punishment for
ever trading in humans.

Slavery has been aptly referred to as the original sin of the
United States.

...

Well, in a sense I agree. *But let's not forget that the US - indeed
all the Western powers of that day - hardly invented slavery. *More to
the point, the slaves they bought were enslaved by, um, *Africans*.
Further to the point, it was the West - animated by the Enlightenment
ideas and driven by *religious* conscience *that gave up slavery in
less than 3 centuries* whereas it has been going on for millenia before.

Slavery was not a single institution. There was a substantial
difference between the Roman concept of slavery which held
that one became a slave through the fortunes of war, and the
English view of genetic inferiority, that held that slaves were
property.

Through most of history a slave was a sort of second class
citizen.

Also you should be aware that several of the ostensibly Christian
Churches in the antebellum US split into separate abolitionist
and pro-slavery branches. Some ostensibly Christian churches
adopted the doctrine that Africans had no souls.

No one should form an attitude about 'Christianity' and slavery
without first reading what Frederick Douglass himself wrote
about it..

Immediately after the Revolutionary war several colonies
abolished slavery, others, like Virginia came close. So
slavery was not, by any means, a generally accepted
practice at the birth of the US.

--

FF

On Sep 10, 12:52*pm, Charlie Self wrote:
On Sep 10, 11:20*am, Fred the Red Shirt
wrote:

On Sep 10, 10:26*am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

...

As a matter of law, you're absolutely right. *To remove the evil of slavery,
we had to sacrifice limited government, the rule of law, the Constitution,
and, arguably, our future. *Perhaps this is our divine punishment for
ever trading in humans.

Slavery has been aptly referred to as the original sin of the
United States.

I've always found that a bit of a laugher. The U.S. was far from the
only country to use slaves--hell, several do today. The supplies of
slaves came, often on British ships, from Africa where tribesmen and
women were gathered by Arab slave traders, or, at times, by their own
continent-mates who had beaten them in battle or otherwise acquired
power over them.

Yet it's the original sin of the U.S.

Yes.

That the sin predates the nation changes nothing.

It was the original sin of the US because slavery was a hotly
debated issue at the time, and the decision to perpetuate the
practice in the newly born US was adopted to placate a minority
who otherwise might have rejected Independence.

Actually, it's not a laugher. It's a sad commentary on the fact that
too many Americans tend to take the total blame for everything wrong
with the U.S. throughout history, when the blame deserves to be
shared.

Sharing the blame makes none of the guilty parties blameless.

--

FF

In article , "J. Clarke" wrote:
Maxwell Lol wrote:
(Doug Miller) writes:

In other words... you figured it was probably false, but decided to
spread it anyway.

The web page that the OP referred to already rebutted the claim
about
the list of books. All you had to do was read the responses. I read
it the day before I say it posted here.


But spend more than 15 seconds researching an issue - too much work
for some....

"This problem could easily be solved with a minute's thought but
thought is arduous and a minute is a long time"--can't remember who
said it.

Presumably, you would wish others to make that investment of a minute's
thought, before spreading rumors about *you*, rumors that they suspect to be
false.

Yet you won't do the same.

Why is that?

Amen to that.

An odd turn of phrase, given the context of this discussion.

I didn't use it casually.

You're absolutely right. There's no way that Obama and his pal's
Phelger and Wright (two men of the cloth with whom he communed
with regularly - well, one of them anyway) could ever be as vile
as a more-or-less traditional Christian.

Did I post that? Care to quote me? Or would you rather just on go on
making up stuff I didn't write?

BTW, do more-or-less traditional Christians ignore the advice of their
father who once held the same job they now hold and instead rely on a
"higher authority," say when deciding whether to invade a country on the
basis of imaginary evidence? I know lots of Christians, generally when they
do something stupid they don't claim it was God's idea.

Again, I am not defending
Christianity particularly here. I am holding your view up to the
ridicule it deserves. Phelger, Wright, Ayers, and host of other
vicious, race-baiting, violent, and generally horrid influences on
Obama get scant notice.

"Scant notice?" Sure, if you ignore newspapers, news magazines, television,
radio and the internet you might not have seen much about Wright, Ayers et
al. You should check out your local public library, they have all kinds of
news publications there you can read. Might as well get some use out of
something it irritates you to pay for.

But a president that expresses a fairly
mainstream Christian viewpoint is "extreme'. You're hilarious.
I'll take the whacky right over the nasty, cruel, victim-laden
socialists that you adore.

LOL, you are leaping to conclusions on the basis of scant evidence. I'm
traditionally seen mocking the left more than the right, by miles. However
given that the Bush administration has been a circus of corruption and
incompetence it's rather difficult to ignore that. What's funny is that if
Obama wins it won't be because he's such a dream candidate (personally I
think he lacks experience) but because the Bush legacy will be a millstone
around the neck of McCain.

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

What the Framers had to say at some _other_ point is
irrelevant.

Well, not exactly. The SCOTUS is known to look at the writings of the
Framers and legislation they were involved in at the state level and
so on in making rulings. E.g., in the recent 2nd Amendment case both
sides referred to such extra-Constitutional evidence in trying to
illustrate what the Framers meant.

Again, that is irrelevant to the point Phil made which is that the
Framers explicitly left religion out of the Constitution.

I'm a realist, and the brutal reality is the Constitution says what the
SCOTUS says it says. If the court rules that God stays in the Pledge of
Allegiance then that's that. And if they refer to extra-Constitutional
factors like letters or local laws the Framers were associated with in
making their ruling (as they recently did in the 2nd Amendment case) then
what the Framers didn't say in the Constitution is of academic interest
only.

On Sep 8, 10:16*pm, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 13:05:39 -0700, tom_murphy wrote:
Maybe I'm crazy for thinking the TRUTH matters in a political
discussion, but this story is unverifiable and almost certainly
false.

The list of books is certainly false, but apparently Ms Palin did try to
get some books removed from the library and threatened to fire the
librarian when she didn't cooperate.

Don't want no book burner in no White House!

I don't know. The Time article could only state hearsay on the topic
of the threat to fire, and could not even site the "news reports" that
they carelessy alluded to. That said, the list of titles was the most
imflammatory aspect of the original story, a complete fabrication
which is a typical and disgusting tool of unscrupulous politics on
either side. Also, while I most definitely disagree with removing
books from the library, I think it's a bit of a leap to call Sarah
Palin a book burner. (I do realize that your use of the term was
"tongue in cheek".)

Tom

jo4hn wrote:

And for the curious out there, I did check with snopes.com the day I
sent out this little gem and it was not listed. Did I suspect it
would be? Yup. Did it anyway.

So it was all a dream sequence, never *really* happened. Oh what a scamp
you are.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:

I don't think that'll work, but I hope you have a nice ride.

1) I have used reason and argument to make the case for why abortion
is wrong. I have never anointed myself the "arbiter of right and
wrong" but have made a case against abortion on legal, moral,
and practical grounds. In any case, judging from the tone of
your snide little post, I'd guess you are incapable of even
acknowledging that right and wrong exist as objectively exist.

You have not made a case - rather you have made a weak and unconvincing
argument, even within just the context of your own society and culture.

Yes, you'd guess. It appears that you do that a lot.

2) "Your interpretation" is an argumentative ploy no more. If I were, say,
to take matters into my own hands and fly to Georgia and kill Russians
or start shooting abortion doctors iN NYC, you no doubt, would
likely disapprove. You're talking through your hat.

I would call the first unwise, and would call the second murder. It's
interesting that you limited the options for dealing with both issues to
the taking of lives - something I (and a great many other people) would
not have done.

Your "reason and logic" is simply one perspective that others may or may
not share. More, or louder, words do not make your message more
convincing. If you wish to end the practice of abortion, then words,
logic, and even legislation will not suffice - to accomplish that you
will need to remove its root causes, and I seriously doubt that you'd be
willing even to undertake the effort to discover all of those, let alone
put forth the effort to design a comprehensive strategy to effect the
necessary societal changes. Instead, as I said earlier, you find a way
to tolerate what you don't like.

3) You evidently skipped the part in high school civics in which it
explained that government is formed first to keep people free.
We appeal to those who govern not to "supply the blood, sweat, and
tears" but to act to defend liberty. Appealing to government on behalf
of those whose liberty is ripped from them before they can even speak
is not an act of cowardice (implicitly accused in your scratchings
above), but an normal act of a free citizen.

On the other hand, one need not limit oneself to appealing to those who
govern - and then washing one's hands saying: "I've done all I can do."
I wouldn't have labeled it 'cowardice' (but you can if you see it that
way) - I would have labeled it 'detachment' sufficient to make "not
tolerate" questionable.

4) You have NO idea just what I have- and have not personally done to
try and remediate evil of the sort you mention above. I feel no
particular reason to provide you with a list as it is none of your
business. What I do know is that when backed into a corner, people
with lousy ideas (like yours) always go after the speaker with whom
they disagree because they cannot defend their own ideas. Game, set,
match.

Nor would I be particularly interested in reading any such list - just
as you have neither interest nor knowledge of my ideas and actions
(which renders your opinion fairly worthless).

I can understand that you might choose to the the sole arbiter of
'lousiness' as well - and I'm perfectly willing to concede your superior
knowledge of how it might be most fully practiced.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Morris Dovey wrote:
SNIP

You have not made a case - rather you have made a weak and unconvincing
argument, even within just the context of your own society and culture.


The fact that you do not grasp and/or agree with my case doesn't mean
I haven't made it. I shall not repeat it because - as you point out -
loud repetition cannot prove something to people with fingers in their
ears.

SNIP


Your "reason and logic" is simply one perspective that others may or may
not share. More, or louder, words do not make your message more
convincing. If you wish to end the practice of abortion, then words,
logic, and even legislation will not suffice - to accomplish that you
will need to remove its root causes, and I seriously doubt that you'd be
willing even to undertake the effort to discover all of those, let alone
put forth the effort to design a comprehensive strategy to effect the
necessary societal changes. Instead, as I said earlier, you find a way
to tolerate what you don't like.


I am bounded by law which prevents the underlying causes from being
fixed. The only way to ameliorate them is to have the laws changed
hence the focus on the elected officials. I think even you must grasp
that abortion's root cause is unwanted conception. Aside from rape and
incest (very minor parts of the abortion demographic), unwanted
conception is caused fundamentally by a lack of personal
responsibility. The only way to fix that is to insist that people *be*
personally accountable for their actions. Abortion does the exact
opposite. It is a "get out of jail free card" for the sexually
irresponsible and/or promiscuous person. The way to thus "fix" the
underlying problem is to both make abortion illegal (other than for a
very short time after conception for cases of rape and incest) AND
hold *both* parents accountable before the law for the wellbeing of
the consequent child. If they fail to do so and the society is forced
to step in and pick up the tab on behalf of the child, the condition
of so doing should be the sterilization of both parents. Not *forced*
sterilization mind you, simply a condition of getting taxpayers to
help them. The parents in question would have to option to go to jail
with their reproductive parts intact as a punishment for failing to
act responsibly toward a human that cannot care for itself.


Like I said, that won't happen, because the
larger society is full of irresponsible twits who want what they
haven't earned and don't want responsibility for what they actually
*have* done.



3) You evidently skipped the part in high school civics in which it
explained that government is formed first to keep people free.
We appeal to those who govern not to "supply the blood, sweat, and
tears" but to act to defend liberty. Appealing to government on
behalf
of those whose liberty is ripped from them before they can even speak
is not an act of cowardice (implicitly accused in your scratchings
above), but an normal act of a free citizen.

On the other hand, one need not limit oneself to appealing to those who
govern - and then washing one's hands saying: "I've done all I can do."
I wouldn't have labeled it 'cowardice' (but you can if you see it that
way) - I would have labeled it 'detachment' sufficient to make "not
tolerate" questionable.

Yes, your snide tone was already noted. But, pray tell, just *what* should
we be doing beyond demanding the elimination of abortion from our culture?
I stand ready to be schooled and corrected. If there is something that
is both ethical (e.g., does not rely on robbing some citizens by force
of government to implement) and legal (e.g., does not require acts of violence
or force) that would make a difference, I'd love to hear it. I probably won't
comment as it is not my habit to reveal what causes I do- and do not support
financially or otherwise, but I do await your condescending wisdom with
bated breath.


4) You have NO idea just what I have- and have not personally done to
try and remediate evil of the sort you mention above. I feel no
particular reason to provide you with a list as it is none of your
business. What I do know is that when backed into a corner, people
with lousy ideas (like yours) always go after the speaker with whom
they disagree because they cannot defend their own ideas. Game, set,
match.

Nor would I be particularly interested in reading any such list - just
as you have neither interest nor knowledge of my ideas and actions
(which renders your opinion fairly worthless).

Because, of course, until one has read the list of your deep virtue,
one's opinions simply cannot be important.


I can understand that you might choose to the the sole arbiter of
'lousiness' as well - and I'm perfectly willing to concede your superior
knowledge of how it might be most fully practiced.


I am *one* of the arbiters of lousy *ideas*. I got that way by
studying and reading a breadth of thinkers who wrote over a breath of
times and human experiences and who were all my intellectual betters.
I do not claim special knowledge or even superior knowledge. I just
don't think it takes a whole lot of deep thought to realize that -
given the very lax abortion laws we have today - some abortions are
murder. Given that, I am horrified that more people aren't horrified
by it.

What is especially fascinating about this is that the drooly
progressives and lefties who so overwhelmingly support abortion
"rights" would just come unglued if only a single modifier were inserted
in front of the word "fetus". Instead of the right of a woman to abort
a "fetus", it was "black fetus", "female fetus", "asian fetus" and so
forth, they'd be screaming about it as a hate crime against a
particular racial or identity group. I guess when you are happy to
kill *all* fetuses, then there no longer exists any hate.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 09:26:09 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

As a matter of law, you're absolutely right. To remove the evil of slavery,
we had to sacrifice limited government, the rule of law, the Constitution,
and, arguably, our future. Perhaps this is our divine punishment for
ever trading in humans.

If you believe the Gulf wars were fought to "free the oppressed" then
you'll believe the Civil War was fought over slavery :-).

Yes, the south seceded to keep slavery. That was morally wrong but
legal. The north went to war to "preserve the union", not to free the
slaves. That was illegal. The emancipation proclamation was issued in
hopes of fomenting slave rebellion in the south. It didn't free a single
slave in areas under Union control.

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 09:26:09 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

As a matter of law, you're absolutely right. To remove the evil of slavery,
we had to sacrifice limited government, the rule of law, the Constitution,
and, arguably, our future. Perhaps this is our divine punishment for
ever trading in humans.

If you believe the Gulf wars were fought to "free the oppressed" then

Hmm, IIRC, the first Gulf War was fought to return Kuwait to
the "Kuwaitis" and kick Sadaam out. The second one was
fought - depending on who you find credible - to:

a) Get rid of Sadaam and any WMDs found there. (Check and Check)
b) Control ME oil. (That really worked, didn't it)
c) Enrich Halliburton (Curse Clinton for giving them the contracts in the first place)
d) Hasten the return of Jesus (Even the Hadron Collider seems not to have done this)
e) Get even on behalf of W's daddy (Check)
f) Further enfranchise the necons (Yeah, that's why they're fighting for survival now.)
e) Show the world how eeeeeeeevil the US is.
f) Tee up pressure on the real bad guys, Iran (my belief)

(Actually, I think the war was concocted to benefit the political
left/progressives. There is no other situation other than war protests
were the most unattractive, unkempt, dirty, vulgar, and generally dumb
citizens, could ever get that much TV time... but that's just a
guess on my part.)


you'll believe the Civil War was fought over slavery :-).

Yes, the south seceded to keep slavery. That was morally wrong but
legal. The north went to war to "preserve the union", not to free the
slaves. That was illegal. The emancipation proclamation was issued in
hopes of fomenting slave rebellion in the south. It didn't free a single
slave in areas under Union control.


You know, I've heard/read this analysis before, but I don't entirely
buy it. Your facts, as rendered, are correct. But it's kind of
hard to ignore the slavery elephant in the room. *None* of this
would have happened had the slavery issue not existed. The rest is
just window dressing. In the end, the US was built by patriots intent
on preserving individual liberty but who caved the first time a
real issue in that vein showed up. We've been paying for it ever since.
(And we continue you to pay for it. Absent the slavery issue, we'd never
have to listen to the likes of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan,
and all the rest of the professional victims.)

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Subject

This thread reminds me of the way you drive an agressive dog mad.

Put agressive dog in small cage which restricts movement, then poke a
stick with a piece of red meat on it at dog till it almost reaches and
dog goes after meat, then pull it back so dog can't get it.

No matter how dog tries, he can't win.

He simply doesn't have the tools.

Lew

In article ,
says...
On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 10:59:53 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:


That seems to me to be a major difference between the neocons and
traditional conservatives. The neocons seem to want all government
supported organizations to espouse ONLY the neocon view of the world.
Of course, the PC branch of liberalism is just as bad.

Whereas the Constitutional view is one in which the Federal government
is so limited in scope that none of this would even be a discussion.

Tim, you lost that argument in 1861. Most legal opinion of the day held
that a state that had freely joined the union could freely leave it. Old
Abe even argued that once in a court case, IIRC. We still went to war to
prevent it.

So yes, the federal government has expanded far beyond its original scope.
Often at the behest of the general public. You're trying to close
Pandora's box.

While closing it may be impossible, attempting to stem the leakage
of demons within is certainly a worthwhile goal.

--
Keith

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 21:42:36 GMT, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote:

Subject

This thread reminds me of the way you drive an agressive dog mad.

Put agressive dog in small cage which restricts movement, then poke a
stick with a piece of red meat on it at dog till it almost reaches and
dog goes after meat, then pull it back so dog can't get it.

No matter how dog tries, he can't win.

He simply doesn't have the tools.

The USGA, in defense of the difficulty of the course setup for the
U.S. Open, always argues they aren't trying to embarrass the best
players--they're trying to identify them.

The analogy is apt in any political discussion here--they serve not to
embarrass the unreconstructed idiots---but they sure do identify them.
Same ones. Every time.



--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net
http://www.normstools.com

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.

"This problem could easily be solved with a minute's thought but
thought is arduous and a minute is a long time"--can't remember who
said it.

Presumably, you would wish others to make that investment of a
minute's thought, before spreading rumors about *you*, rumors that
they suspect to be false.

Yet you won't do the same.

Why is that?

Probably because it's much more fun watching the self-righteous pedants get
hairs across their asses.

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 13:48:02 -0700, Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 09:26:09 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

As a matter of law, you're absolutely right. To remove the evil of slavery,
we had to sacrifice limited government, the rule of law, the Constitution,
and, arguably, our future. Perhaps this is our divine punishment for
ever trading in humans.

If you believe the Gulf wars were fought to "free the oppressed" then
you'll believe the Civil War was fought over slavery :-).

Yes, the south seceded to keep slavery. That was morally wrong but
legal. The north went to war to "preserve the union", not to free the
slaves. That was illegal. The emancipation proclamation was issued in
hopes of fomenting slave rebellion in the south. It didn't free a single
slave in areas under Union control.

But it did preempt the British from siding with the CSA, Indian cotton
helped to though.

Mark

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:
SNIP

You have not made a case - rather you have made a weak and unconvincing
argument, even within just the context of your own society and culture.


The fact that you do not grasp and/or agree with my case doesn't mean
I haven't made it. I shall not repeat it because - as you point out -
loud repetition cannot prove something to people with fingers in their
ears.

Excellent - it would be most disturbing if you were to recite the same
words over and over in expectation of producing a different response.

I don't have my fingers in my ears, and still I find myself not
persuaded to your position. I invite you to consider that the lack of
persuasion is a defect in me, rather than a shortcoming of your
presentation.

SNIP

Your "reason and logic" is simply one perspective that others may or may
not share. More, or louder, words do not make your message more
convincing. If you wish to end the practice of abortion, then words,
logic, and even legislation will not suffice - to accomplish that you
will need to remove its root causes, and I seriously doubt that you'd be
willing even to undertake the effort to discover all of those, let alone
put forth the effort to design a comprehensive strategy to effect the
necessary societal changes. Instead, as I said earlier, you find a way
to tolerate what you don't like.

I am bounded by law which prevents the underlying causes from being
fixed. The only way to ameliorate them is to have the laws changed
hence the focus on the elected officials. I think even you must grasp
that abortion's root cause is unwanted conception. Aside from rape and
incest (very minor parts of the abortion demographic), unwanted
conception is caused fundamentally by a lack of personal
responsibility. The only way to fix that is to insist that people *be*
personally accountable for their actions. Abortion does the exact
opposite. It is a "get out of jail free card" for the sexually
irresponsible and/or promiscuous person. The way to thus "fix" the
underlying problem is to both make abortion illegal (other than for a
very short time after conception for cases of rape and incest) AND
hold *both* parents accountable before the law for the wellbeing of
the consequent child. If they fail to do so and the society is forced
to step in and pick up the tab on behalf of the child, the condition
of so doing should be the sterilization of both parents. Not *forced*
sterilization mind you, simply a condition of getting taxpayers to
help them. The parents in question would have to option to go to jail
with their reproductive parts intact as a punishment for failing to
act responsibly toward a human that cannot care for itself.

"The only way to fix that is ..." requires more substantiation for me
than just 'Tim Daneliuk says so'.

You have defined abortion (correct me if I've misunderstood) as an
enabling mechanism for the "irresponsible and/or promiscuous". Your
definition leads me to wonder about the generally responsible and
non-promiscuous folks with an unplanned, unintended, and unwanted
pregnancy who have no room in their lives for (another?) child. Have you
given serious thought to /all/ of the consequences to the course of
action you've proposed?

I oppose your proposal to effectively orphan the children such a couple
might already have. I find it unloving, crippling to the children, and
thoroughly offensive - more offensive even than the abortion. If you
have not considered this consequence, then I would label you a fool, and
if you have considered that consequence, then I would judge you
differently - and much more harshly.

In the case where there were no previous children, one of the possible
(with probability considerably greater than zero) of forcing parenthood
on unwilling parents is not only imposing a kind of bondage on the
parents, but condemning a child to grow up unwanted and un-nurtured, to
join the ranks of teenage suicides when they develop to the point of
being able to choose and act with full independence.

Like I said, that won't happen, because the
larger society is full of irresponsible twits who want what they
haven't earned and don't want responsibility for what they actually
*have* done.

I would be interested in hearing how _you_ would exercise _your_
responsibility for all the consequences of getting _your_ way - or
whether you think that once you have gotten your way you have no further
responsibility for the consequences.

3) You evidently skipped the part in high school civics in which it
explained that government is formed first to keep people free.
We appeal to those who govern not to "supply the blood, sweat, and
tears" but to act to defend liberty. Appealing to government on
behalf
of those whose liberty is ripped from them before they can even speak
is not an act of cowardice (implicitly accused in your scratchings
above), but an normal act of a free citizen.
On the other hand, one need not limit oneself to appealing to those who
govern - and then washing one's hands saying: "I've done all I can do."
I wouldn't have labeled it 'cowardice' (but you can if you see it that
way) - I would have labeled it 'detachment' sufficient to make "not
tolerate" questionable.

Yes, your snide tone was already noted. But, pray tell, just *what* should
we be doing beyond demanding the elimination of abortion from our culture?

I think you're operating on an invalid premise. I don't think we should
do anything of the sort until our culture adopts the norm that all human
life is sacred, and I think we're a long way from that - as you,
yourself, indicated in your 'kill abortion doctors' and 'kill Russians'
response. If ever all human life is perceived as sacred, I think
abortion no longer be an issue. Any argument that it's ok to kill an
adult but not ok to kill a foetus looks pretty leaky.

In the meantime, we can start an entirely new argument about when a
human becomes old enough to kill with a clear conscience.

I stand ready to be schooled and corrected. If there is something that
is both ethical (e.g., does not rely on robbing some citizens by force
of government to implement) and legal (e.g., does not require acts of violence
or force) that would make a difference, I'd love to hear it. I probably won't
comment as it is not my habit to reveal what causes I do- and do not support
financially or otherwise, but I do await your condescending wisdom with
bated breath.

Dishonesty noted. See above.

4) You have NO idea just what I have- and have not personally done to
try and remediate evil of the sort you mention above. I feel no
particular reason to provide you with a list as it is none of your
business. What I do know is that when backed into a corner, people
with lousy ideas (like yours) always go after the speaker with whom
they disagree because they cannot defend their own ideas. Game, set,
match.
Nor would I be particularly interested in reading any such list - just
as you have neither interest nor knowledge of my ideas and actions
(which renders your opinion fairly worthless).

Because, of course, until one has read the list of your deep virtue,
one's opinions simply cannot be important.

Is that an intentional distortion? Do you really think I would waste my
time on you if I did not think you were important and that your opinion
mattered? If so, then you devalue us both.

I can understand that you might choose to the the sole arbiter of
'lousiness' as well - and I'm perfectly willing to concede your superior
knowledge of how it might be most fully practiced.

I am *one* of the arbiters of lousy *ideas*. I got that way by
studying and reading a breadth of thinkers who wrote over a breath of
times and human experiences and who were all my intellectual betters.
I do not claim special knowledge or even superior knowledge. I just
don't think it takes a whole lot of deep thought to realize that -
given the very lax abortion laws we have today - some abortions are
murder. Given that, I am horrified that more people aren't horrified
by it.

Congratulations - I think that qualifies you for 'sophmoric'. On a less
facetious note, I think a lot of deep thought /is/ called for.

What is especially fascinating about this is that the drooly
progressives and lefties who so overwhelmingly support abortion
"rights" would just come unglued if only a single modifier were inserted
in front of the word "fetus". Instead of the right of a woman to abort
a "fetus", it was "black fetus", "female fetus", "asian fetus" and so
forth, they'd be screaming about it as a hate crime against a
particular racial or identity group. I guess when you are happy to
kill *all* fetuses, then there no longer exists any hate.

I admit that it may seem a bit convoluted, but of late every time I hear
someone talk about right wing/left wing I have an auto-response that the
speaker has a firm attachment to one form of bigotry or another, and
that an argument is being made in favor of living in "a house divided
against itself".

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On Sep 10, 2:41*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

What the Framers had to say at some _other_ point is
irrelevant.

Well, not exactly. The SCOTUS is known to look at the writings of the
Framers and legislation they were involved in at the state level and
so on in making rulings. E.g., in the recent 2nd Amendment case both
sides referred to such extra-Constitutional evidence in trying to
illustrate what the Framers meant.

Again, that *is irrelevant to the point Phil made which is that the
Framers explicitly left religion out of the Constitution.

I'm a realist, and the brutal reality is the Constitution says what the
SCOTUS says it says. *If the court rules that God stays in the Pledge of
Allegiance then that's that. *And if they refer to extra-Constitutional
factors like letters or local laws the Framers were associated with in
making their ruling (as they recently did in the 2nd Amendment case) then
what the Framers didn't say in the Constitution is of academic interest
only.

Points that are well taken, though separate from OP's.

--

FF

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:33:34 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

You know, I've heard/read this analysis before, but I don't entirely
buy it. Your facts, as rendered, are correct. But it's kind of
hard to ignore the slavery elephant in the room. *None* of this
would have happened had the slavery issue not existed. The rest is
just window dressing. In the end, the US was built by patriots intent
on preserving individual liberty but who caved the first time a
real issue in that vein showed up. We've been paying for it ever since.

I think we somewhat agree here. It's not news that a great majority of
the public, including a fair number of southeners, found slavery
abhorrent. That was used as a convenient excuse for the war.

But the south was agricultural and favored free trade. The north was
industrial and favored tariffs. The federal government at that time got
most of its revenue from tariffs and was horrified at the thought that
importers would sail into free trade southern ports with their goods
which could then easily be smuggled over the border to the north, and
thus deprive the feds of most of their revenue.

Marx may not have been right about much, but he hit it on the nose when he
said wars were fought for economic reasons.

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:33:34 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

You know, I've heard/read this analysis before, but I don't entirely
buy it. Your facts, as rendered, are correct. But it's kind of
hard to ignore the slavery elephant in the room. *None* of this
would have happened had the slavery issue not existed. The rest is
just window dressing. In the end, the US was built by patriots intent
on preserving individual liberty but who caved the first time a
real issue in that vein showed up. We've been paying for it ever since.

I think we somewhat agree here. It's not news that a great majority of
the public, including a fair number of southeners, found slavery
abhorrent. That was used as a convenient excuse for the war.

But the south was agricultural and favored free trade. The north was
industrial and favored tariffs. The federal government at that time got
most of its revenue from tariffs and was horrified at the thought that
importers would sail into free trade southern ports with their goods
which could then easily be smuggled over the border to the north, and
thus deprive the feds of most of their revenue.

Marx may not have been right about much, but he hit it on the nose when he
said wars were fought for economic reasons.


Oh yeah ... and not much has changed. The Feds still are scrambling to
bleed as much money out of the citizens as they can get away with...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Sep 8, 9:36*am, jo4hn wrote:
Let's spend a few moments browsing the list of books Mayor Sarah Palin
tried to get town librarian Mary Ellen Baker to ban in the lovely,
all-American town of Wasilla, Alaska . *When Baker refused to remove the
books from the shelves, Palin threatened to fire her. *The story was
reported in Time Magazine and the list comes from the librarian.net website.

* * * * * * *I'm sure you'll find your own personal favorites among the
classics Palin wanted to protect the good people of Wasilla from, but
the ones that jumped out at me were the four Stephen King novels (way to
go Stephen, Joh n Steinbeck only got three titles on the list), that
notorious piece of communist pornography "My Friend Flicka," *the usual
assortment of Harry Potter books, works by Shakespeare, Walt Whitman,
Kurt Vonnegut, Mark Twain (always fun to see those two names together),
Arthur Miller, and Aristophanes, as well as "Our Bodies, Ourselves"
(insert your own Bristol Palin joke here), and the infamous one-two
punch of depravity: *"To Kill a Mockingbird" and "Little Red Riding
Hood." *But the cherry on the sundae, the topper, is Sarah Palin's
passionate, religious mission to clear the shelves of the Wasilia Public
Library of that ultimate evil tome: *"Webster's Ninth New Collegiate
Dictionary." *That's the one with "equality," "free speech" and
"justice" in it.

* * * * * * *Go over to your book case and take down one of the books
you'll find on the list (I know you've got a couple) and give it a read
in honor of the founding fathers. *Then tell me I'm not the only voter
who doesn't want this woman within thirty feet of the United States
Constitution.

* * * * * * *Sarah Palin's Book Club

* * * * * * *A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
* * * * * * *A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L?Engle
* * * * * * *Annie on My Mind by Nancy Garden
* * * * * * *As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
* * * * * * *Blubber by Judy Blume
* * * * * * *Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
* * * * * * *Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson
* * * * * * *Canterbury Tales by Chaucer
* * * * * * *Carrie by Stephen King
* * * * * * *Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
* * * * * * *Christine by Stephen King
* * * * * * *Confessions by Jean-Jacques Rousseau
* * * * * * *Cujo by Stephen King
* * * * * * *Curses, Hexes, and Spells by Daniel Cohen
* * * * * * *Daddy?s Roommate by Michael Willhoite
* * * * * * *Day No Pigs Would Die by Robert Peck
* * * * * * *Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller
* * * * * * *Decameron by Boccaccio
* * * * * * *East of Eden by John Steinbeck
* * * * * * *Fallen Angels by Walter Myers
* * * * * * *Fanny Hill (Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure) by John Cleland
* * * * * * *Flowers For Algernon by Daniel Keyes
* * * * * * *Forever by Judy Blume
* * * * * * *Grendel by John Champlin Gardner
* * * * * * *Halloween ABC by Eve Merriam
* * * * * * *Harry Potter and the Sorcerer?s Stone by J.K. Rowling
* * * * * * *Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets by J.K.. Rowling
* * * * * * *Harry Potter20and the Prizoner of Azkaban by J..K. Rowling
* * * * * * *Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by J.K. Rowling
* * * * * * *Have to Go by Robert Munsch
* * * * * * *Heather Has Two Mommies by Leslea Newman
* * * * * * *How to Eat Fried Worms by Thomas Rockwell
* * * * * * *Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
* * * * * * *I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou
* * * * * * *Impressions edited by Jack Booth
* * * * * * *In the Night Kitchen by Maurice Sendak
* * * * * * *It's Okay if You Don't Love Me by Norma Klein
* * * * * * *James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl
* * * * * * *Lady Chatterley's Lover by D.H. Lawrence
* * * * * * *Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman
* * * * * * *Little Red Riding Hood by Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm
* * * * * * *Lord of the Flies by William Golding
* * * * * * *Love is One of the Choices by Norma Klein
* * * * * * *Lysistrata by Aristophanes
* * * * * * *More Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz
* * * * * * *My Brother Sam Is Dead by James Lincoln Collier and
Christopher Collier
* * * * * * *My House by Nikki Giovanni
* * * * * * *My Friend Flicka by Mary O'Hara
* * * * * * *Night Chills by Dean Koontz
* * * * * * *Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
* * * * * * *On My Honor by Marion Dane Bauer
* * * * * * *One Day in The Life of Ivan Denisovich by Alexander
Solzhenitsyn
* * * * * * *One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey
* * * * * * *One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez
* * * * * * *Ordinary People by Judith Guest
* * * * * * *Our Bodies, Ourselves by Boston Women's Health Collective
* * * * * * *Prince of Tides by Pat Conroy
* * * * * * *Revolting Rhymes by Roald Dahl
* * * * * * *Scary Stories 3: More Tales to Chill Your Bones by Alvin
Schwartz
* * * * * * *Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz
* * * * * * *Separate Peace by John Knowles
* * * * * * *Silas Marner by George Eliot
* * * * * * *Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
* * * * * * *Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs
* * * * * * *The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
* * * * * * *The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain
* * * * * * *The ******* by John Jakes
* * * * * * *The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
* * * * * * *The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier
* * * * * * *The Color Purple by Alice Walker
* * * * * * *The Devil's Alternative by Frederick Forsyth
* * * * * * *The Figure in the Shadows by John Bellairs
* * * * * * *The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
* * * * * * *The Great Gilly Hopkins by Katherine Paterson
* * * * * * *The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood
* * * * * * *The Headless Cupid by Zilpha Snyder
* * * * * * *The Learnin g Tree by Gordon Parks
* * * * * * *The Living Bible by William C. Bower
* * * * * * *The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare
* * * * * * *The New Teenage Body Book by Kathy McCoy and Charles Wibbelsman
* * * * * * *The Pigman by Paul Zindel
* * * * * * *The Seduction of Peter S. by Lawrence Sanders
* * * * * * *The Shining by Stephen King
* * * * * * *The Witches by Roald Dahl
* * * * * * *The Witches of Worm by Zilpha Snyder
* * * * * * *Then Again, Maybe I Won't by Judy Blume
* * * * * * *To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee
* * * * * * *Twelfth Night by William Shakespeare
* * * * * * *Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary by the
Merriam-Webster Editorial Staff
* * * * * * *Witches, Pumpkins, and Grinning Ghosts: The Story of the
Halloween Symbols by Edna Barth

See the following:

http://www.librarian.net/stax/2366/s...837918,00.html

##################
Some NOT true. . . . . . .

http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/bannedbooks.asp

################################################
Smitty

On Sep 11, 1:12*pm, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:33:34 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
You know, I've heard/read this analysis before, but I don't entirely
buy it. * Your facts, as rendered, are correct. *But it's kind of
hard to ignore the slavery elephant in the room. **None* of this
would have happened had the slavery issue not existed. *The rest is
just window dressing. *In the end, the US was built by patriots intent
on preserving individual liberty but who caved the first time a
real issue in that vein showed up. *We've been paying for it ever since.

I think we somewhat agree here. *It's not news that a great majority of
the public, including a fair number of southeners, found slavery
abhorrent. *That was used as a convenient excuse for the war.

But the south was agricultural and favored free trade. *The north was
industrial and favored tariffs. *The federal government at that time got
most of its revenue from tariffs and was horrified at the thought that
importers would sail into free trade southern ports with their goods
which could then easily be smuggled over the border to the north, and
thus deprive the feds of most of their revenue.

Not an hour's drive from where I type these words there lie in their
graves several tens of thousands of Iowans, Wisconsinsers, Ohioans,
Hoosiers, Nebraskans, Minnesotans, and others from Northern states
that were every bit as agrarian as any Southern state. Though they
stood to benefit as much or more from tariff-free trade, they fought
and died none-the-less for the Union. There were barely enough
copperheads to make them worth mentioning even in passing.

While tariffs were a divisive issue, the expansion of slavery into
the Western territories, which was essential for the survival
of slavery, was the issue the led to secession and the Civil War.

--

FF

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:36:23 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

While tariffs were a divisive issue, the expansion of slavery into
the Western territories, which was essential for the survival
of slavery, was the issue the led to secession and the Civil War.

Fred, what I was trying to clarify was that the issue that led to
secession and the issue that led to war were not the same. There are
several books out there of writings from the time that will clarify my
point, if you're interested enough to look for them.

On Sep 11, 9:40*pm, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:36:23 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

While tariffs were a divisive issue, the expansion of slavery into
the Western territories, which was essential for the survival
of slavery, was the issue the led to secession and the Civil War.

Fred, what I was trying to clarify was that the issue that led to
secession and the issue that led to war were not the same. *There are
several books out there of writings from the time that will clarify my
point, if you're interested enough to look for them.

Of course they were different. The issue that led to the
war was secession itself.

The notion that Northern Industrialists pushed for war
out of the fear that that tariff-free goods from Europe
would be smuggled across the new Southern border
ignores both the desire for tariff free goods on the
part of most of the North outside of the extreme Northeast
(NY, NJ, eastern PA, and New england) as well as the
long undefended border with Canada across which
they could be even more easily smuggled, given that
much of that border was defined by navigable bodies
of water.

If contemporary authors made that argument, I submit
that it was no more valid than the WMD arguments used
to go to war with Iraq. It may have inflamed the passions
of some of the less observant persons, but was at its
heart, disingenuous.

There is a one-time popular historical school of Confederate
apologists who made a career of glorifying the Confederacy,
and downplaying both the evils of slavery and its role in
dividing the nation. They are usually identifiable by their
preference for the term "War between the States", and
term which perforce denies the 100,000 plus Union troops
raised from within the Confederacy itself (not counting
the border states), as well as a similar number of troops
raised in the North from recent ex-Southerners.

Of course the last story of the Civil War to be told is
probably that of the 50,000 or so Negro troops raised
by the Confederacy. That is a story almost everyone
wants to forget.

But I digress.

--

FF

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
...
Immediately after the Revolutionary war several colonies
abolished slavery, others, like Virginia came close. So
slavery was not, by any means, a generally accepted
practice at the birth of the US.

--

FF


I would also suggest that slavery was the most divisive issue facing the
nation from inception to the civil war. Debates in congress would fill
volumes, as the country expanded the free state Vs slave state designations
dominated political discourse. Regrettably the original inclusion was
politically necessary to ensure a united country for the revolution, without
the limited acceptance the war would have failed or not happened at all.
That abolishment eventually required such a bloody civil war attests to the
ultimate difficulty. But clearly the moral direction of the country as a
whole from 1776 onward put slavery on a ever more slippery slope to
extinction. Rod