[Rhodes22-list] Political....there they go again.
Herb Parsons
hparsons at parsonsys.com
Tue Sep 9 12:02:48 EDT 2008
Rummy,
While you may not do so, please note that such things are not restricted
to the "ultra conservative far right wing fanatics", there's been a bit
of labeling on here recently. Face it, stupidity isn't restricted to a
single party.
R22RumRunner at aol.com wrote:
> Brad,
> Why is it that the ultra conservative far right wing fanatics of the
> Republican party find it necessary to call people names and place labels on them? I
> would never stoop so low as to call a Republican a zealot or fanatic or
> religious nut.
>
> Rummy
>
>
> In a message dated 9/9/2008 9:14:25 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> hparsons at parsonsys.com writes:
>
> Brad,
>
> I think one of the most fun things about this has been watching the
> "liberal left" revealing their true nature - sexist religious bigots.
>
> Brad Haslett wrote:
>
>> Pete,
>>
>> I'm sure glad you're not trying to pin that label on Palin. The "book
>> banning" story has been debunked over, and over, and over. I'll send
>> you some links this afternoon after my "teeth cleaning" if you insist
>> on this silliness. Oh yeah, the WaPo has an article out about Palin's
>> expense reports. These people are desperate for anything. I'll be
>> happy to de-bunk that one for you this afternoon as well, and oh what
>> fun it is to make the Wash. Two things we have learned this election
>> cycle, (1) the MSM is totally in the tank for "The One", and (2) they
>> are STUPID!
>>
>> Attached is an e-mail from an Alaskan about Palin's record as Guv and
>> her social conservative views.
>>
>> Brad
>>
>> -------------------------
>>
>> Nate:
>>
>> As someone who lives in Wasilla, Alaska, who knows Sarah's family, and
>> has watched her rise in politics over the last 10 years, I would
>> concede that she probably does not have the knowledge of international
>> markets as someone with a Ph.D. in finance. That being said, though, I
>> would still want her in office as opposed to others for several
>> reasons.
>>
>> First, she has understood, more than most politicians, that government
>> does not produce. It only erect barriers to economic production. That
>> right there puts her ahead of many persons who may have more formal
>> education on the matter.
>>
>> Second, her actions as governor demonstrate a commitment, at least as
>> much as a Republican can be committed to such an ideal, to less
>> government regulation of markets. Her first year in office, she used a
>> line item veto to excise roughly 15% of the government budget, even in
>> the Mat-Su Valley, because of her philosophical disagreements with
>> government spending in that area. She cut property taxes while mayor
>> and otherwise reduced regulatory and financial burdens. While
>> governor, she fought to get rid of the certificate of need (CON)
>> requirement for health care providers. She was unsuccessful, but she
>> did more than a lot of other politicians.
>>
>> In that light, I would trust her gut reaction more than I would
>> someone such as Biden or Obama, who seem to believe that government
>> can play a positive role in the economy.
>>
>> To respond to Orin's post, then, about Palin, there are definitely
>> some matters of Palin's politics I do not care for. Before going into
>> that so much, I would point to a good post for separating rumor from
>> fact is here:
>>
>>
>>
>> Thus, rumors about book banning, etc., do not concern me so much
>> because they are revealed to be incorrect or hoaxes.
>>
>> I am pro-choice and, while Palin has been decidedly conservative on
>> that point, she has not governed as a socially conservative governor.
>> Our Supreme Court held that, since marriage is defined as including
>> only different-sex couples, the equal protection clause of the state
>> constitution mandated providing employer benefits to same-sex couples
>> of state employees. Palin publicly disagreed with the ruling but went
>> on to do - nothing. She did not seek to stack the court. She did not
>> seek to appoint different judges, amend the constitution or other
>> matters. Rather, she ordered the department of law to implement the
>> decision. That has been her modus operandi so far - follow the rules
>> even if she disagrees with them. Remember that Alaska's state
>> constitutional right to abortion as a part of the right of privacy
>> precedes Roe v. Wade. Yet Palin has not championed to overturn that or
>> impose a rigid pro-life perspective but rather left matters pretty
>> much alone.
>>
>> For that reason, I am not as concerned with her social conservatism.
>> And while an economics professor would know more about the global
>> economy, her instincts to get government out of the way will solve far
>> more problems than most other politicians. So, while I cannot vouch
>> for her knowledge of the economy, I can vouch for what she has
>> actually done. And based on that, I can say that as a libertarian
>> (actually much closer to an anarchist in the Murray Rothbard/Randy
>> Barnett tradition), I would rather Palin get into office than any of
>> the other candidates with a reasonable chance of winning.
>> 9.9.2008 1:55am
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 7:39 AM, petelargo <petelauritzen at earthlink.net>
>>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> an individual who is driven by their religious Belief to impose their
>>>
> Belief
>
>>> on others in order to "save you" for what they believe is your own good by
>>> using their civic power and position to support and pass laws requiring
>>>
> your
>
>>> compliance with their Beliefs, hence making societal criminals out of
>>>
> people
>
>>> should they not share these particular Beliefs. Always combined with an
>>> inherent feeling of righteous seniority and intolerance of other beliefs,
>>> based on the belief that their Belief is superior to all other beliefs.
>>>
>>> examples: 1) supporting and imposing laws that state what you can and
>>> cannot do with or put in your own body as an adult based on their specific
>>> religion 2) supporting restrictions and public bans of literature, books,
>>> movies, and art that may not support their religion 3) attempts to create
>>> laws that make their religion the 'official state' religion 4) imposing
>>> their religion as the 'truth' that must be taught in public forums over
>>> empirical contrary scientific evidence 5) wanting to change the
>>>
> Constitution
>
>>> of the United States in order to better reflect their specific religion 6)
>>> supporting deconstructing boundaries between church and state in order to
>>> more effectively implement the above
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context:
>>>
> http://www.nabble.com/definition-%22religious-kook%22-%28as-requested%29-tp19391467p19391467.html
>
>>> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>> __________________________________________________
>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>>>
> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>
>>> __________________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>>
> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>
>> __________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>>
> __________________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
> **************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog,
> plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.
> (http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)
> __________________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
>
>
>
More information about the Rhodes22-list
mailing list