[Rhodes22-list] The heart of the matter - beware, moral issues here
Herb Parsons
hparsons at parsonsys.com
Wed Sep 10 18:17:54 EDT 2008
Sorry Robert, you're lying again.
When you spout your nonsense about chattel, you're spouting either
nonsense or lies. I believe it's the latter.
When a person, any person, male or female, chooses to reproduce, they
have to assume responsibility. It's that simple. It's no more making a
woman "property" to say she cannot kill the innocent child she brought
about than it is making the man property by saying he must pay for that
child for 18-25 years.
It's all about responsibility. You don't want to reproduce, don't. But,
people should not kill to achieve their reproductive goals.
Robert Skinner wrote:
> An interesting solution... Talk about going to the
> heart of the matter!
>
> Semen storage:
>
> 1. Who would own it?
>
> 2. If a woman chose to be inseminated with sperm
> from a man, would that man be required to pay
> child support? (See case law!)
>
> 3. Would a woman have the option to buy (bid?) on
> sperm from a man? Could a man advertise?
>
> 4. At what age would the semen be collected?
>
> 5. Who would do the collecting and how would it
> be done? (Don't want a line forming...)
>
> 6. Would a donor have the option of selecting the
> donee - and would she have the option of
> declining? (You see where this goes!)
>
> Castration:
>
> 1. Would the guvment offer a bounty to reduce
> the social burden of unwanted children, rape, and
> other hyperagressive behavior?
>
> 2. Would the castratee be given a running head
> start? Could a person buy their way out?
>
> 3. Would this increase the quality of male choirs?
>
> 4. Would this have any effect on the US's dominant
> position in world affairs?
>
> 5. Would this promote whirled peas?
>
> 6. Would this mean the end of Chip and Dale?
>
> Maybe we should just offer/require prepubescent
> Norplant?
>
> Or would it be better to say that a woman owns HER
> body and anything in it until SHE chooses to
> present it to the world? Or does the state own
> her life and means of reproduction?
>
> A woman bearing a child runs risks similar to those
> of a man in the armed forces (or at least the Air
> Force). Requiring her to carry an unwanted fetus
> to term is equivalent to conscription. And such
> conscription is ridiculous in a time of world
> overpopulation.
>
> My wife is not my chattel, nor is she owned by the
> state. Any man who maintains that he has a right
> to decide whether a woman will carry a zygote to
> term is acting as if he owned her. That's no longer
> valid in today's world without a mutually agreed
> upon contract (marriage without an asterisk, etc.)
> to that effect.
>
> /Robert
> ----------------------------------------------------
> elle wrote:
>
>> Forced semen storage and then mass castration could end the abortion debate once and for all.
>>
>> elle
>>
>> We can't change the angle of the wind....but we can adjust our sails.
>>
>> 1992 Rhodes 22 Recyc '06 "WaterMusic" (Lady in Red)
>>
>>
>> --- On Wed, 9/10/08, Ben Cittadino <bcittadino at dcs-law.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> From: Ben Cittadino <bcittadino at dcs-law.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Praise Jesus, the "evolutionists" are going to save us from the Republicans
>>> To: rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org
>>> Date: Wednesday, September 10, 2008, 12:05 PM
>>> Herb,
>>>
>>> You raise an interesting legal point. Did you know that
>>> the right to use
>>> deadly force to defend one's property is different in
>>> the different states?
>>> In fact it changes in direct proportion to one's
>>> movement from northeast to
>>> southwest. In most northeastern states a person has a duty
>>> to retreat and
>>> not use deadly force to defend one's property, but as
>>> one moves southwest a
>>> person has more legal right to stand their ground and even
>>> use deadly force
>>> to defend their property. It's actually a fascinating
>>> study of the whole
>>> macho "code of the west" thing.
>>>
>>> I just can't do the abortion debate. Nobody ever
>>> changes anybody's mind on
>>> it. I think it just comes down to a society balancing very
>>> impotant
>>> competing interests. So far our society has decided that a
>>> woman's privacy
>>> right trumps the government's interest in protecting
>>> the life (or potential
>>> for life) of the not yet born up to the point of about
>>> 2/3rds of the way
>>> through the pregnancy. It's a judgment call. It seems
>>> reasonable enough to
>>> me.
>>>
>>> Ben, s/v Susan Kay, Highlands, NJ
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Psssst, Brad, don't tell anyone on here that already
>>> knows differently,
>>> but in spite of my personal religious beliefs, I believe
>>> that the issue
>>> should be left up to the states.
>>>
>>> Further, I think that local cities should be allowed to
>>> further
>>> restrict, within the confines of their state's charter
>>> and constitution,
>>> the matter. I believe that to be how we should operate on a
>>> lot of
>>> different issues.
>>>
>>> Did you know that in some states it's illegal to own a
>>> handgun, but in
>>> the GST (Great State of Texas), you not only can legally
>>> own one, you
>>> can shoot, and kill, someone who's stupid enough to try
>>> to take what is
>>> your property when you've got one of them handy.
>>>
>>> Brad Haslett wrote:
>>>
>>>> Herb,
>>>>
>>>> The nut cuttin' of the conversation is how much
>>>>
>>> should the federal
>>>
>>>> government be involved in personal decisions of
>>>>
>>> morality. I say, not
>>>
>>>> much. That should be left up to the states and the
>>>>
>>> locals. I grew up
>>>
>>>> in a dry township. Other people with other ideas
>>>>
>>> about that moved six
>>>
>>>> miles away. Everything is a trade-off. Roe v Wade was
>>>>
>>> an unnecessary
>>>
>>>> invasion of states rights. What certain groups
>>>>
>>> can't get legislated,
>>>
>>>> they try and get decided from the bench. The issue
>>>>
>>> that started this
>>>
>>>> thread was Gov. Palin's religious convictions.
>>>>
>>> The first bill she
>>>
>>>> vetoed was one that would strip health care benefits
>>>>
>>> from the gay
>>>
>>>> partners of Alaskan state employees. Her reasoning
>>>>
>>> and statements at
>>>
>>>> the time of the veto was that is was unconstitutional.
>>>>
>>> What greater
>>>
>>>> litmus test is there? The far lefts poster child yard
>>>>
>>> sign is molding
>>>
>>>> and wilting in the sunshine. We'll have this
>>>>
>>> argument another day
>>>
>>>> under another banner and with a different cheerleader.
>>>>
>>> This one
>>>
>>>> turned out to be an empty suit on too many other
>>>>
>>> issues.
>>>
>>>> Brad
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Herb Parsons
>>>>
>>> <hparsons at parsonsys.com>
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> There is nothing wrong with society determining
>>>>>
>>> the "moral boundries"
>>>
>>>>> they wish to maintain. There is also nothing wrong
>>>>>
>>> with those moral
>>>
>>>>> boundries being subject to change as said society
>>>>>
>>> changes. In spite of
>>>
>>>>> my religious beliefs, I do not now want a
>>>>>
>>> theocracy, no have I ever.
>>>
>>>>> However, the notion that 5 men can forever dictate
>>>>>
>>> to a nation of
>>>
>>>>> millions what their moral boundry should be is
>>>>>
>>> tyranny. I do not want
>>>
>>>>> the feds pushing any agenda one way or the other,
>>>>>
>>> and that includes the
>>>
>>>>> federal judicial branch. I want the citizenry to
>>>>>
>>> make that choice.
>>>
>>>>> I know, I know, it kinda blows your "Herb
>>>>>
>>> wants his religion for
>>>
>>>>> everyone" nonsense, huh Michael?
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, all of the above reflects my personal
>>>>>
>>> opinion. None of it intended
>>>
>>>>> to be perceived by an reader or observer as any
>>>>>
>>> type of fact, implied or
>>>
>>>>> otherwise. They are worth at least as much as the
>>>>>
>>> durability of the
>>>
>>>>> media in which they are made, and their only
>>>>>
>>> asserted value is that. All
>>>
>>>>> readers and/or observers are free, and even
>>>>>
>>> welcome, to ascribe to said
>>>
>>>>> beliefs, or simply write them off as so much
>>>>>
>>> bullshit.
>>>
>>>>> Oh, and Michael, you flatter yourself. I
>>>>>
>>> didn't just recently "realize"
>>>
>>>>> all of that. I DID make the absurd assumption that
>>>>>
>>> you recognized
>>>
>>>>> opinion when you saw it. Silly me.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Michael D. Weisner wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Todd,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I certainly never wanted to remove God from my
>>>>>>
>>> life. I, like Ben C.,
>>>
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> no problem with the coexistence of God and
>>>>>>
>>> science. I cannot understand
>>>
>>>>>> why
>>>>>> every group in this country (religious or
>>>>>>
>>> non-religious) feels that the
>>>
>>>>>> separation of church and state means that we
>>>>>>
>>> need to remove all traces
>>>
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> religion and culture from public places.
>>>>>>
>>> Since we can't offend anyone
>>>
>>>>>> by
>>>>>> celebrating our religious rituals, we must
>>>>>>
>>> remove all religion from
>>>
>>>>>> schools,
>>>>>> government and the public. I think that if we
>>>>>>
>>> remove all holidays,
>>>
>>>>>> ethnic
>>>>>> traditions, religious symbols, etc. the world
>>>>>>
>>> will be a pretty ugly
>>>
>>>>>> place.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do, however, feel that religious beliefs
>>>>>>
>>> are very personal and no one
>>>
>>>>>> has
>>>>>> the right to impose them on others. I think
>>>>>>
>>> that this is what was meant
>>>
>>>>>> by
>>>>>> the separation of church and state, to
>>>>>>
>>> eliminate religious persecution.
>>>
>>>>>> How
>>>>>> is one to deal with the concept put forth by
>>>>>>
>>> some faiths that place the
>>>
>>>>>> responsibility for misdeeds by one on all of
>>>>>>
>>> society? What is the basis
>>>
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> the following statement from Todd: "Each
>>>>>>
>>> draws his line of good
>>>
>>>>>> conscience
>>>>>> to justify acts past, present, or future in
>>>>>>
>>> his or her own life (or
>>>
>>>>>> afterlife) - not to protect the legal
>>>>>>
>>> reproductive rights of every
>>>
>>>>>> random
>>>>>> Jane Doe." What, exactly, does it mean?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>> s/v Shanghai'd Summer ('81)
>>>>>> Nissequogue River, NY
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: "Todd Tavares"
>>>>>>
>>> <sprocket80 at mail.com>Sent: Tuesday, September 09,
>>>
>>>>>> 2008
>>>>>> 4:43 PM
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Michael, It is just another example of
>>>>>>>
>>> taking God OR religion out of
>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> equation to ease our conscience. Excluding
>>>>>>>
>>> cases of rape, incest, etc.,
>>>
>>>>>>> the parents of the developing fetus;
>>>>>>>
>>> whether you consider it alive or
>>>
>>>>>>> not, had a choice and responsibility they
>>>>>>>
>>> chose not to exercise. Is
>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> knowledge and ability to perform surgical
>>>>>>>
>>> abortion the only thing that
>>>
>>>>>>> separates us from our animal urges and the
>>>>>>>
>>> apes we evolved from?
>>>
>>>>>>> Religious, Christian, Atheist, or Pagan;
>>>>>>>
>>> view videos and pictures of a
>>>
>>>>>>> "partial birth abortion"-- which
>>>>>>>
>>> the legal rights of the mother to
>>>
>>>>>>> choose, Clinton initially fought to try to
>>>>>>>
>>> preserve and even a
>>>
>>>>>>> civilized
>>>>>>> atheist would exclaim OH MY F'ing GOD
>>>>>>>
>>> and start thinking
>>>
>>>>>>> differently...even if they'd never
>>>>>>>
>>> admit it openly and risk
>>>
>>>>>>> contradicting
>>>>>>> their publicly espoused views. Each
>>>>>>>
>>> draws his line of good conscience
>>>
>>>>>>> to justify acts past, present, or future
>>>>>>>
>>> in his or her own life (or
>>>
>>>>>>> afterlife) - not to protect the legal
>>>>>>>
>>> reproductive rights of every
>>>
>>>>>>> random
>>>>>>> Jane Doe. Let's look in the mirror
>>>>>>>
>>> and stop lying to ourselves and
>>>
>>>>>>> each
>>>>>>> other here. (not a fact....just a thought)
>>>>>>>
>>> Todd T
>>>
>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>> From: "Michael D. Weisner"
>>>>>>> To: "The Rhodes 22 Email List"
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Praise
>>>>>>>
>>> Jesus, the "evolutionists" are
>>>
>>>>>>> going to save us from the Republicans
>>>>>>> Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 15:54:12 -0400
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Herb,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You state as fact:
>>>>>>> "... the individual's religious
>>>>>>>
>>> belifs (sic) involve yet another
>>>
>>>>>>> individual."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You conclude:
>>>>>>> "You are advocating that a woman be
>>>>>>>
>>> allowed to kill another living
>>>
>>>>>>> human
>>>>>>> based on HER religious beliefs, not those
>>>>>>>
>>> of that living human."
>>>
>>>>>>> The "fact" is actually your
>>>>>>>
>>> opinion according to your religious
>>>
>>>>>>> beliefs that
>>>>>>> this is another human being. You then
>>>>>>>
>>> employ your religious beliefs
>>>
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> close the argument in restating the
>>>>>>>
>>> premise "... of that living
>>>
>>>>>>> human."
>>>>>>> There is no logic to the argument. It is
>>>>>>>
>>> so only because you say it
>>>
>>>>>>> is so,
>>>>>>> and that is according to your religious
>>>>>>>
>>> beliefs. This is circular, at
>>>
>>>>>>> best.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know that you can do better ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>> s/v Shanghai'd Summer ('81)
>>>>>>> Nissequogue River, NY
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: "Herb Parsons" Sent:
>>>>>>>
>>> Tuesday, September 09,
>>>
>>>>>>> 2008 3:06 PM
>>>>>>> > Resent away Michael, but what did I
>>>>>>>
>>> "present as fact"?
>>>
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > And, beliefs aside, my reasoning is
>>>>>>>
>>> not "circular". I believe very
>>>
>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>> > in an individual's right to
>>>>>>>
>>> decide for themselves what they will
>>>
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> > will not do. However, when that
>>>>>>>
>>> decision directly affects another,
>>>
>>>>>>> > especially the life of another, than
>>>>>>>
>>> it is not the one individual's
>>>
>>>>>>> > choice to make.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Michael D. Weisner wrote:
>>>>>>> >> Herb,
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> It always amazes me that you
>>>>>>>
>>> have no problem putting your beliefs
>>>
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> >> opinions in the form of fact in
>>>>>>>
>>> your arguments. The interesting
>>>
>>>>>>> thing is
>>>>>>> >> that the more I agree with the
>>>>>>>
>>> basic principles of these
>>>
>>>>>>> discussions, the
>>>>>>> >> more I resent your reasoning.
>>>>>>>
>>> While we may reach the same
>>>
>>>>>>> conclusion, the
>>>>>>> >> paths are significantly diverse.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> My opinions and beliefs aside, I
>>>>>>>
>>> think that in order to state "I
>>>
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>> >> agree, except in this case, the
>>>>>>>
>>> individual's religious belifs
>>>
>>>>>>> (sic) involve
>>>>>>> >> yet another individual,"
>>>>>>>
>>> one must employ circular reasoning, thus
>>>
>>>>>>> defeating
>>>>>>> >> the value of the statement.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> Mike
>>>>>>> >> s/v Shanghai'd Summer
>>>>>>>
>>> ('81)
>>>
>>>>>>> >> Nissequogue River, NY
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> From: "Herb Parsons"
>>>>>>>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 09,
>>>
>>>>>>> >> 2008 1:58 PM
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>> I would agree, except in
>>>>>>>
>>> this case, the individual's religious
>>>
>>>>>>> belifs
>>>>>>> >>> involve yet another
>>>>>>>
>>> individual. You are advocating that a woman
>>>
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>> >>> allowed to kill another
>>>>>>>
>>> living human based on HER religious
>>>
>>>>>>> beliefs, not
>>>>>>> >>> those of that living human.
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>> Rik Sandberg wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>>> Herb,
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> >>>> Well, here you go my
>>>>>>>
>>> friend. War is a terrible analogy.
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> >>>> IF we are going to have
>>>>>>>
>>> freedom OF religion, which would also
>>>
>>>>>>> include
>>>>>>> >>>> freedom FROM religion
>>>>>>>
>>> and the abortion issue is mostly decided
>>>
>>>>>>> on a
>>>>>>> >>>> religious (or
>>>>>>>
>>> non-religious, choice again) basis, it is not our
>>>
>>>>>>> place to
>>>>>>> >>>> expect anyone else to
>>>>>>>
>>> assume our religious beliefs.
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> >>>> Which leads us right
>>>>>>>
>>> back to; the gov't should have no voice in
>>>
>>>>>>> this at
>>>>>>> >>>> all.
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> >>>> Rik
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> >>>> Ayn Rand was a prophet -
>>>>>>>
>>> - it isn't my fault
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> >>>> Herb Parsons wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>> I like your honest
>>>>>>>
>>> assessment on Palin, but I disagree about
>>>
>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>> >>>>> labeling of the
>>>>>>>
>>> position.
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>> If I say I'm not
>>>>>>>
>>> going to fight in a war, but it's OK if my
>>>
>>>>>>> government
>>>>>>> >>>>> attacks another, am
>>>>>>>
>>> I anti-war, or pro-war?
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>> Obviously,
>>>>>>>
>>> you'll not have an abortion, that would mean a male
>>>
>>>>>>> could be
>>>>>>> >>>>> neither pro or anti;
>>>>>>>
>>> however, anyone that believes the issue
>>>
>>>>>>> does not
>>>>>>> >>>>> affect me is wearing
>>>>>>>
>>> blinders.
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>> Rik Sandberg wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>> Herb,
>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>> Agreed. Palin
>>>>>>>
>>> claims no more religiousity (is that a word,
>>>
>>>>>>> sounds good)
>>>>>>> >>>>>> than either of
>>>>>>>
>>> the other three candidates involved. She has
>>>
>>>>>>> also shown
>>>>>>> >>>>>> that she can
>>>>>>>
>>> govern without forcing forcing those beliefs on
>>>
>>>>>>> her
>>>>>>> >>>>>> constituents.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>> On the abortion
>>>>>>>
>>> issue: Yep, she's against them, for her. So am
>>>
>>>>>>> I, for
>>>>>>> >>>>>> me. I am
>>>>>>>
>>> pro-choice. People just can't seem to get a handle on
>>>
>>>>>>> the idea
>>>>>>> >>>>>> that pro-choice
>>>>>>>
>>> doesn't mean anti or pro abortion. It means
>>>
>>>>>>> you should
>>>>>>> >>>>>> be able to make
>>>>>>>
>>> your own choice and let others make theirs,
>>>
>>>>>>> ie, mind
>>>>>>> >>>>>> your own
>>>>>>>
>>> business.
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>> From what
>>>>>>>
>>> I've seen Palin, as governor of Alaska has been
>>>
>>>>>>> doing this
>>>>>>> >>>>>> too.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>> If I had my way,
>>>>>>>
>>> the federal gov't wouldn't be involved in
>>>
>>>>>>> abortion at
>>>>>>> >>>>>> all.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>> Rik
>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>> Ayn Rand was a
>>>>>>>
>>> prophet - - it isn't my fault
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>> Herb Parsons
>>>>>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Stan,
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> What
>>>>>>>
>>> evidence do you have that would lead you to believe that
>>>
>>>>>>> Palin
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> would force
>>>>>>>
>>> her religious belief on anyone? My understanding
>>>
>>>>>>> is that
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> she's
>>>>>>>
>>> all for allowing the individual states to set the
>>>
>>>>>>> standard.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> However,
>>>>>>>
>>> that's really beside the point. As you said,
>>>
>>>>>>> anyone's
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> pinpoint
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> of the exact
>>>>>>>
>>> time is a "religious" matter, or a matter of
>>>
>>>>>>> fath, thus
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ANYONE
>>>>>>>
>>> setting pinpointed time would be them foisting their
>>>
>>>>>>> beliefs on
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> others.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Surely
>>>>>>>
>>> you're not advocating allowing the parents to decide
>>>
>>>>>>> at any
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> time
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> they choose,
>>>>>>>
>>> up to and including while the "fetus" is still
>>>
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> college?
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> stan wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Slim,
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As a
>>>>>>>
>>> member of your religious faith, and an ardent fan, if
>>>
>>>>>>> you really
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> plan
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> to skip
>>>>>>>
>>> voting (in effect voting for those whose direct
>>>
>>>>>>> religious
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> instructions got us into such a waste of our wealth and
>>>
>>>>>>> blood) I
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> would be
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> truly
>>>>>>>
>>> saddened. I don't think poorly of John's and
>>> Palin's
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> inability to
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> live up
>>>>>>>
>>> to their own family values, relying on their gods to
>>>
>>>>>>> forgive
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> them -
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I worry
>>>>>>>
>>> about their health; a topic that seems to be
>>>
>>>>>>> forbidden to
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> address.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> John's cheek is not like that from his prisoner days and
>>> his
>>>
>>>>>>> vp could
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> be our
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> leader
>>>>>>>
>>> without notice. Then where would this country's
>>>
>>>>>>> founding
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> desire
>>>>>>>
>>> for
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> religious freedom end up? The first example is already on
>>>
>>>>>>> the table
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Catholic
>>>>>>>
>>> Joe has it right: When life starts is a religious
>>>
>>>>>>> opinion
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>
>>> not be one decided by government. You may feel life
>>>
>>>>>>> does not
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> start
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> until a
>>>>>>>
>>> breath is taken, the Jews count a number of months
>>>
>>>>>>> before the
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> start,
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>
>>> Christens count from the moment the cells begin
>>>
>>>>>>> dividing.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> Personally I
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> don't think it starts until after college. If we allow a
>>>
>>>>>>> Palin to
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> call
>>>>>>>
>>> such
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> shots we
>>>>>>>
>>> are on a path Jefferson and all those other smart
>>>
>>>>>>> guys
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> insisted
>>>>>>>
>>> on
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> avoiding. McCain told the TV interviewer that if he had his
>>>
>>>>>>> way the
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> first
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> judge he
>>>>>>>
>>> would get rid of is Ginsberg and than went down the
>>>
>>>>>>> list of
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> her
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> kind.
>>>>>>>
>>> Once this is allowed to start (we already have allowed
>>>
>>>>>>> god
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> onto our
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> coins),
>>>>>>>
>>> god (hypocritically speaking) help us - or we will
>>>
>>>>>>> all,
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> eventually,
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> become
>>>>>>>
>>> strong advocates of the second amendment.
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> John, at
>>>>>>>
>>> least is a flip flopper so, if elected, would
>>>
>>>>>>> probably
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> revert
>>>>>>>
>>> to
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> many of
>>>>>>>
>>> his reasonable positions. It is Palin I am fearful
>>>
>>>>>>> will give
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> us
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>
>>> worse than another 8 years. (And this from a confessed
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> womanizer.)
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> stan/ec
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----
>>>>>>>
>>> Original Message ----- From: "Steven Alm"
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To:
>>>>>>>
>>> "The Rhodes 22 Email List"
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sent:
>>>>>>>
>>> Tuesday, September 09, 2008 2:02 AM
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Subject:
>>>>>>>
>>> Re: [Rhodes22-list] Praise Jesus,the
>>>
>>>>>>> "evolutionists" are
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> going to
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> save us
>>>>>>>
>>> from the Republicans
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> Todd,
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> I'm an atheist and I think Palin's a religious kook.
>>> And
>>>
>>>>>>> you're
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> right, I
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> won't vote for a religious kook. I haven't studied
>>> Darwin
>>>
>>>>>>> very much
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (and
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> applaud your research and quotes) but I don't think
>>> that's
>>>
>>>>>>> the only
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> rebuke
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>
>>> creationism. Since most of the species of plant and
>>>
>>>>>>> animal life
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> earth are in fact extinct, I'd call that
>>> "unintelligent
>>>
>>>>>>> design."
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You
>>>>>>>
>>> said there are only two possibilities as to how life
>>>
>>>>>>> started.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Are
>>>>>>>
>>> you
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> sure? How do you know this? What I know is that all
>>>
>>>>>>> religions
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> serve in
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> answering three questions: Where did we come from, how do
>>>
>>>>>>> we live
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> happens when we die? Myself, I've answered those
>>> questions
>>>
>>>>>>> to my
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> own
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> satisfaction and I don't need the church to tell me
>>>
>>>>>>> anything.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Slim
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On
>>>>>>>
>>> Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Todd Tavares
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> Slim, Wow! are you are going to vote for Obama because he
>>>
>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> Marxist
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> or not vote for McCain just because Palin is a religious
>>>
>>>>>>> extremist?
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> :^D
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> Glad you mentioned carbon dating. Carbon has been proven
>>>
>>>>>>> by many
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> scientists to be a wholly inaccurate method of dating. I
>>>
>>>>>>> am far
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> from
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> being a scientist...or a religious kook thinking the earth
>>>
>>>>>>> is only
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> a
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> couple of thousand of years old, but there is just as much
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> scientific
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> information out there to; while not proving creation is
>>>
>>>>>>> the truth,
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> surely
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> proves evolution is improbable if not impossible. You
>>>
>>>>>>> are/were an
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> educator and were taught evolution from a text book, like
>>>
>>>>>>> we all
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> were.
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> Just because you read something in a text book does not
>>>
>>>>>>> make it
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> truth.
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/ Maybe we could
>>>
>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> stomach
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> creationism if we called it a theory too. After all that
>>>
>>>>>>> is what
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> evolution is...just an unproven theory. There are equally
>>>
>>>>>>> as many
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> scientists out there who believe they have proven
>>>
>>>>>>> evolution is
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> myth. It
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> was not Darwin's brainstorm anyway. He thought he could
>>>
>>>>>>> further
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> explain
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> a centuries old belief; that life arose from non life and
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> everything
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> sprang from a common ancestor. Modern scientists say it
>>>
>>>>>>> was that
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> first
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> amino acid or protein chain in the pool of "primordial
>>>
>>>>>>> ooze." I
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> like how
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> one Nobel prize winner (Biology 1967?) put it:
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> "There are only two possibilities as to how life arose;
>>>
>>>>>>> one is
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is
>>>
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> supernatural
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> creative act of God, there is no third possibility.
>>>
>>>>>>> Spontaneous
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> generation that life arose from non-living matter was
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> scientifically
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That
>>>
>>>>>>> leaves us
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> with
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a
>>>
>>>>>>> creative act of
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> God. I
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> will not accept that philosophically because I do not want
>>>
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> believe in
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> scientifically
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> impossible, spontaneous generation arising to
>>> evolution."
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> (Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of
>>>
>>>>>>> Biology at
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> the
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.)
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> But the most interesting fact is that even Darwin himself
>>>
>>>>>>> realized
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> evolution was not workable.
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable
>>>
>>>>>>> contrivances for
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting
>>>
>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and
>>>
>>>>>>> chromatic
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> aberration, could have formed by natural selection, seems,
>>>
>>>>>>> I freely
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> confess, absurd in the highest degree possible."
>>> (Charles
>>>
>>>>>>> Darwin,
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> "The
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> origin of species by means of natural selection")
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ
>>>
>>>>>>> existed which
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> could
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive,
>>>
>>>>>>> slight
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
>>>
>>>>>>> (Charles
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> Darwin,
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> "The Origin of Species")
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have
>>> asked
>>>
>>>>>>> myself
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> whether
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." (Charles
>>>
>>>>>>> Darwin, Life
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229)
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> I could post a few hundred quotes from noted doctors and
>>>
>>>>>>> scientists
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> to
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> try to "prove" evolution wrong or creation right.
>>> I could
>>>
>>>>>>> "do my
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> homework" as we say here on the list and cite actual
>>>
>>>>>>> findings, but
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> that
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> is not necessary. Because to dismiss the possibility of
>>>
>>>>>>> God or some
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> other
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> Intelligent Designer makes it easier to accept our notions
>>>
>>>>>>> that it
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> is ok
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> to be a homosexual (and not allow me a choice when the
>>>
>>>>>>> schools
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> teach this
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> gargage to my kids while denying the right to learn about
>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> theory of
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> creation along with evolution) or that it should be a
>>>
>>>>>>> crime to kill
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> a
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> tree, but ok to kill an unborn baby. Not to say everyone
>>>
>>>>>>> believing
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> in
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> evolution is an athiest (or a Democrat), but you have made
>>>
>>>>>>> me see
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> this as
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> a hinge factor in how I will vote....real issues aside.
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> Todd T
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> Besides, it is not very PC to say we evolved (were
>>>
>>>>>>> "selected") from
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> apes.
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> We don't want any of the apes that were not selected to
>>> be
>>>
>>>>>>> made to
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> feel
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> inferior.
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> From: "Steven Alm"
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> To: "The Rhodes 22 Email List"
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Praise Jesus, the Republicans
>>>
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> going to
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> save us from the Republicans
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 13:11:17 -0500
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> "Ahh, so the "tolerant" lefty has a litmus
>>> test for
>>>
>>>>>>> religious
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> beliefs."
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> Yes, I require that the candidates be sane, critical
>>>
>>>>>>> thinkers.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> Palin is
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> obviously not. I wouldn't say that if she were a
>>> Catholic
>>>
>>>>>>> or a
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> Lutheran
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> but
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> here's a woman who wants to stare down the whole
>>>
>>>>>>> scientific
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> community and
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> deny things like carbon 14 dating and declare that the
>>>
>>>>>>> heavens and
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> earth
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> are
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> only a few thousand years old. You didn't just call ME
>>> an
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> extremist, did
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> you?
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> Brad, you left out the part of Kroon saying that his
>>>
>>>>>>> parishioners
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> should
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> pray for the completion of the pipeline because at the end
>>>
>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> world,
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> folks will flock to Alaska as their final refuge.
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> I can't believe that was you quoting all that God stuff.
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> Slim
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Steven Alm wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "She's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> already demonstrated that she is fully capable of
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separating her
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> beliefs from her duties."
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wouldn't it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> be better if she didn't have to?
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 8,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> 2008 at 6:18 AM, Herb Parsons wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ahh, so the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> "tolerant" lefty has a litmus test for
>>>
>>>>>>> religious
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beliefs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> already demonstrated that she is fully capable of
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> her
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> beliefs from her duties. She vetoed a bill that
>>>
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> denied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> benefits to gay couples.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> extremists keep it up, I'm sure you'll find (or
>>>
>>>>>>> make up)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SOMETHING
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> on her.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Steven Alm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> wrote:
>>> She's a creationist. Her Assembly of God stuff is a
>>>
>>>>>>> deal breaker
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> Religious extremism cannot be tolerated.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> most important legacy the president leaves is the
>>> appointment of
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> the
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supreme
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> court.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> next pres might appoint as many as three. If
>>>
>>>>>>> Sarabaracuda
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> her
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> goodbye to Roe V. Wade and hello to back-ally coat
>>>
>>>>>>> hanger
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abortions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Slim
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> Sep 7, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Herb Parsons
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> think it's funny that the candidate that was
>>>
>>>>>>> considered as a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> running
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> mate for the Democratic choice a few years back, is
>>>
>>>>>>> now being
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> touted as
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> "more of the same". Keep trying though, you guys
>>> may
>>>
>>>>>>> find
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> something
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> works.
>>> What exactly makes Palin a "religious kook", that
>>> fact
>>>
>>>>>>> that's
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> she
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> religious? I think your colors are beginning to show.
>>> petelargo wrote:
>>> Ben, thanks for your post. As you may have noticed,
>>>
>>>>>>> there is
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> no
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dialogue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> with
>>> the right-wing extremists. You are wrong, end of
>>>
>>>>>>> discussion
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> your
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> idiot to boot.
>>> When John McCain won the nomination, Bush disappears
>>>
>>>>>>> overseas.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> At
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> the
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> RNC,
>>> no Bush, no Cheney (and no mention of them). They
>>>
>>>>>>> know it's a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> failed
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> administration. Where were the solutions. Once again,
>>>
>>>>>>> they are
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> trying
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> frame the campaign as an ideology argument rather
>>>
>>>>>>> than an
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> issues
>>> discussion.
>>> Today on Face the Nation, "Sis Cum Ba and
>>> WHA-LAA",
>>>
>>>>>>> McCain is
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> now
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> the
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> change
>>> candidate and stated that he will end the incredible
>>> corruption in
>>> Washington and the failed policies. John McCain has
>>>
>>>>>>> re-defined
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> a
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> whole
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> level of flip-flopping on over two dozen key issues
>>>
>>>>>>> within the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> last
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eight
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> years including his own authored bill that he was for
>>>
>>>>>>> and now
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> against.
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> I couldn't give a poop about the experience argument
>>>
>>>>>>> of Palin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> vs
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Obama.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> It's
>>> a waste of time. The entire
>>>
>>>>>>> Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Rice-Rove,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> etc
>>> administration could be argued to be the most
>>>
>>>>>>> experienced
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> administration
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> the history of the White House. A huge amount of
>>>
>>>>>>> prior
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> "executive
>>> experience". For the first time in recent politics
>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> Republicans
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> had
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> power in the white house, judicial, house and senate.
>>>
>>>>>>> How was
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> it
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> for
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> It's one thing to drive a tractor trailer up our
>>>
>>>>>>> butts, but
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> when
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> they
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> start
>>> blowing on the horn while there're doing it, it's
>>>
>>>>>>> really gone
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> too
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> far.
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> A big thank you for the memories: the debt, the dead,
>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> twisting
>>> intelligence to "sell" us a war on a country that
>>> did
>>>
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> attack
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> us,
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> good ol boy ineffectual cronyism, and finally the
>>>
>>>>>>> shredding of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> the
>>> constitution. With Palin we now we get to have
>>>
>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> religious
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> kook
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> satisfy the so-called conservative extremist
>>>
>>>>>>> religious right
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> to
>>> 'bridge'
>>> them into this administration and get money.
>>> Spending 5-10 billion dollars a month on Iraq and
>>>
>>>>>>> kissing
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> chinese
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> ass
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> (borrowing the money) of the most Marxist suppressive
>>> government
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> on
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> planet at this time is a conservative value?
>>> Finally, the biggest hypocrisy of all . That these
>>>
>>>>>>> extremists
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> actually
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> think
>>> that they and the republicans are the vanguards of
>>> conservatism?
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> The
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> top key pillars of conservatism are less government
>>>
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> government
>>> intrusion
>>> and fiscal responsibility. The only administration
>>>
>>>>>>> that walked
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> that
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talk
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> 50 years was a Democrat that left Bush a 500 billion
>>>
>>>>>>> dollar
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> surplus.
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> blew
>>> threw that in one year and it was prior to 9-11. And
>>>
>>>>>>> there is
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> no
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> greater
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> government intrusion that being told what you can or
>>>
>>>>>>> cannot do
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> with or
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> into your body. Palin wants privacy for her family
>>>
>>>>>>> decisions,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> but
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> she
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> wants
>>> to legislate publicly what you should do with yours.
>>>
>>>>>>> No
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> thanks.
>>> Ben Cittadino-2 wrote:
>>> My Dear Culture Warriors;
>>> So....are we having fun yet?
>>> First, I'd like to thank Richard and Slim for
>>>
>>>>>>> stepping up to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> join
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> the
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> "Assault on the Citadel".
>>> The bullets don't sting as much when the adversary's
>>>
>>>>>>> fire is
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> spread
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> among more than one target.
>>> In the words first uttered by Gen. "Vinegar Joe"
>>>
>>>>>>> Stillwell,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> "illegitimi
>>> non carborundum".
>>> As for Tootle, Brad, and Herb, you guys crack me up.
>>>
>>>>>>> I posted
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> about
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> Obama
>>> only because I saw Tootle's post that
>>> suggested anybody supporting Obama was either a
>>>
>>>>>>> marxist, or a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> farm
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> animal.
>>> What did he expect when he said that?
>>> Herb, where was your outrage that Tootle would refer
>>>
>>>>>>> to some
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> of
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> his
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> fellow
>>> "Rhodies" in such derogatry terms? Supporting
>>> Obama
>>>
>>>>>>> or McCain
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> may turn out to be right or wrong, but if we debate
>>>
>>>>>>> policy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> don't
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> engage in mere name-calling this "sailor's
>>> bar"
>>>
>>>>>>> could be an
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> place.
>>> Richard's "geezer" remarks are defensible on
>>> several
>>>
>>>>>>> grounds.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> First,
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> was provoked. Second, he was defending ME.
>>> Third, it was funny. Calling someone a "marxist"
>>> as
>>>
>>>>>>> Tootle
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> did is
>>> several
>>> magnitudes worse than gentle kidding of the
>>> "old fart" kind. Surely you see the difference.
>>> The positions I tried to lay out as reasons some
>>>
>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> support
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> Obama
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> were
>>> intended as an outline of ideology (as Slim noted),
>>> not an argument supporting any position. For
>>>
>>>>>>> example, Herb,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> you
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> are
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> pro-life and will probably vote for McCain/Palin in
>>>
>>>>>>> part for
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> that
>>> reason.
>>> I am pro-choice, pro-embryonic stem cell research
>>>
>>>>>>> and so I
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> will
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> Obama/Biden in part for that reason. It is not
>>>
>>>>>>> hyperbole to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> point
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> the policy differences that explain my choice. What
>>>
>>>>>>> I know
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> for
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> sure
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> that marxism and "sheepiness" have nothing to do
>>>
>>>>>>> with it. I
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> have
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thought
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> about all of my positions on the issues I mentioned
>>>
>>>>>>> and am
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> completely
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> prepared to explain and justify them. In Brad's oft'
>>>
>>>>>>> repeated
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> mantra
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> know I have "done my homework".
>>> Enough for today. The games will be on soon.
>>> Cheers!
>>> Ben C. , s/v Susan Kay, Highlands, NJ
>>> __________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>> __________________________________________________
>>> __________________________________________________
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> __________________________________________________
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> Be Yourself @ mail.com!
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> Get a Free Account at www.mail.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
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> __________________________________________________
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> __________________________________________________
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> __________________________________________________
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> __________________________________________________
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>> 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
>>>
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>
>>> __________________________________________________
>>>
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>
>>> __________________________________________________
>>>
>>>>>>> > 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> __________________________________________________
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Be Yourself @ mail.com!
>>>>>>> Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
>>>>>>> Get a Free Account at www.mail.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
>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>> __________________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context:
>>> http://www.nabble.com/Praise-Jesus%2C-the-%22evolutionists%22-are-going-to-save-us-from-the-Republicans-tp19382633p19414836.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
> __________________________________________________
>
>
>
More information about the Rhodes22-list
mailing list