[Rhodes22-list] The heart of the matter - beware, moral issues here
Brad Haslett
flybrad at gmail.com
Wed Sep 10 19:51:45 EDT 2008
Robert,
As I've said before, the issue of abortion is one we probably
shouldn't concern ourselves with in national elections. I'm attaching
a long missive on the subject. For a lighter look at reproductive
issues, go here -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c&eurl=http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/
Brad
----------------
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
It's All over but the Shouting: The Increasing Irrelevance of Abortion Politics
Guest Blogger
[For The Conference on The Future of Sexual And Reproductive Rights]
Neal Devins
Twenty-one years after Robert Bork's failed Supreme Court nomination
and sixteen years after Pennsylvania v Casey, the rhetoric of abortion
politics sounds eerily familiar. On the eve of the Bork confirmation
battle (September 14, 1987), pro-choice activists took out full page
ads warning that the Supreme Court was poised to overturn "decisions
about marriage an family, childbearing and parenting" and that "if the
Senate confirms Robert Bork, it will be too late." Today, the
possibility of the Supreme Court overturning Roe is increasingly
becoming an important part of the 2008 presidential elections. On
August 27, Jeffrey Rosen wrote in The New York Times that "the
landmark ruling on abortion appears to hang by one vote." On September
1, the Obama campaign ran radio ads talking about what would happen if
"Roe v Wade is overturned."
Rhetorical similarities notwithstanding, the abortion battles of today
bear no meaningful resemblance to 1987-1992 era battles. Today's
abortion battles principally concern laws demanding that women see an
ultrasound before terminating a pregnancy. While these laws (part of
an effort to focus on the mental health consequences of abortion) are
important, there is little reason to think that they will trigger a
significant wave of far-ranging abortion regulation. Likewise, the
Supreme Court will not reignite the abortion fires. Republican Supreme
Court appointees will not cast the critical votes to overturn Roe;
Democratic appointees will not seek to restore Roe's stringent
trimester test. Put another way: The 2008 elections will do very
little to change the face of abortion rights. The Casey undue burden
standard will continue to govern judicial review of abortion rights.
And since the states are unlikely to enact significant new
restrictions on abortion, it is of only limited significance that the
judicial appointees of John McCain and Barack Obama are likely to
differ in their applications of Casey.
In sharp contrast, the 1987-1992 abortion battles were hugely
consequential. The Reagan administration, as then Solicitor General
Charles Fried put it, made Roe v Wade the symbol of everything that
had gone wrong in constitutional law. When Ronald Reagan nominated
Robert Bork to replace Lewis Powell in 1987, the future of Roe seemed
to hang in the balance. Powell played a decisive role in shaping the
Roe decision; Bork openly opposed Roe as a wholly unjustifiable
usurpation of state legislative power. Even after the Senate turned
Bork down because his narrow definition of liberty sets him apart from
[this nation s] traditions and history, Roe remained in doubt. In
1989, a plurality of Justices declared in Webster v Reproductive
Health Services that the rigid Roe framework is unworkable. By
signaling right-to-life interests that the Court was poised to
overturn Roe, Webster prompted several states to consider legislation
nullifying abortion rights. The decision also turned several
gubernatorial races into referendums on abortion rights.
By 1992, however, the political preferences of federal and state
lawmakers as well as the American people seemed to have coalesced
around a limited right to abortion. Post-Webster efforts to enact laws
prohibiting abortions failed as did the gubernatorial campaigns of
pro-life candidates. More than that, the Senate effectively demanded
that Supreme Court nominees embrace some form of privacy rights and
otherwise made clear that nominees openly opposed to Roe would not be
confirmed. At the same time, Supreme Court rulings overturning
informed consent laws, including waiting period requirements, would
continue to meet with resistance.
Planned Parenthood v Casey largely settled the abortion issue by
embracing this emerging consensus. In particular, Casey's middle
ground solution resonated with both lawmakers and the American people.
It solidified government and popular support for limited abortion
rights and, in turn, has proven a very durable precedent.
Pro-choice and pro-life interests, however, did not heed Justices O
Connor, Kennedy, and Souter's call for "the contending sides of a
national controversy to end their national division." 1987-1992
battles were hard fought and elected government preferences were very
much in flux throughout most of this period. More than that,
pro-choice and pro-life interests both rejected Casey's undue burden
standard. To a pro-choice advocate, Casey's balance sells out
important interests of women, and, to a pro-lifer, it permits moral
outrages to continue. For this very reason, pro-choice and pro-life
interests continue to push their agendas so that the smoke of past
battles is visible even though the fires have long been extinguished.
In remarks that I will make at the Yale Law School Conference on
Reproductive Justice After Carhart, I will make the above claims more
concrete in the following ways:
*First, I will look at the social and political forces that
contributed to the Supreme Court's decision in Casey. In so doing, I
will call attention to the fact that Casey returned the abortion issue
to the states. At the time of the decision, the Court had good reason
to know that states were not interested in outlawing abortion;
instead, state lawmakers, reflecting voter preferences, were
interested in enacting the very types of abortion regulations that the
Supreme Court approved in Casey. In the years following Casey, for
example, states largely steered away from the abortion issue. Rather
than see Casey as a wedge (facilitating the enactment of restrictions
more draconian than those approved by the Court), the focus of state
legislative efforts were the enactment of the very laws approved by
the Court. In sharp contrast, opposition to the Roe trimester test was
widespread. From 1973 (the year Roe was decided) until 1989, 306
anti-abortion measures were passed by 48 states. And while the vast
majority of these states enacted abortion restrictions that the
Supreme Court had found permissible (funding bans, parental
notification/consent), a dozen states regularly challenged the Roe
framework. Under this account of Casey, the Court diffused the
abortion issue by both embracing a middle-ground standard and applying
it in ways that validated elected government preferences. In
particular, by approving four of the five provisions of the
Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982, the Pennsylvania statute
became a template for states considering abortion regulations (and the
Casey Court's approval of those provisions a measuring stick for
federal courts considering undue burden challenges to post-Casey
enactments).
*Second, I will use Gonzales v Carhart as a vehicle to highlight the
stability of abortion politics today. Neither federal nor state
lawmakers saw partial birth bans as a wedge to pursue far-ranging
regulation of abortion. Correspondingly, abortion politics was not
transformed when Samuel Alito joined the Court (and then cast the
decisive vote upholding federal partial birth legislation in
Gonzales). Although right-to-life interest groups understood that the
Alito-for- O Connor swap made the Roberts Court especially likely to
uphold abortion regulations, state lawmakers did not pick up the pace
of legislative enactments. Before Alito joined the Court, states had
begun enacting laws requiring women to see a fetal ultrasound before
terminating a pregnancy. Some states have enacted such ultrasound laws
since the Alito confirmation but there is no reason to think that the
Alito confirmation impacted the pace of ultrasound legislation.
The fact that ultrasound legislation is the focus of state legislative
reforms is revealing for another reason. Rather than seek a
fundamental change in abortion regulation (by enacting legislation
that would either repeal abortion rights or test the boundaries of the
Casey undue burden standard), state lawmakers seem quite willing to
work within the parameters of existing Supreme Court doctrine.
Consider the following: The Supreme Court's 2000 rejection of a
Nebraska partial birth statute in Sternberg v Carhart did not prompt a
legislative backlash; instead, the focus of post-2000 efforts was to
craft a partial birth law that the Supreme Court would approve.
Likewise, the 2007 approval of the federal partial birth law in
Gonzales v Carhart did little more than prompt states with partial
birth statutes to revamp those statutes to conform to the federal
statute approved in Gonzales. More revealing, states that have enacted
legislation signaling their willingness to repeal abortion rights have
conditioned those legislative repeals on the Supreme Court's
overruling of Roe v Wade. And since (for reasons that I will soon
detail) there is no prospect of the Supreme Court overruling Roe,
these trigger laws are symbolically important but practically
insignificant.
I have no doubt that the above analysis will not ease the concerns of
pro-choice advocates. Pro-life interest groups are seeking to
transform the abortion debate by shifting the focus away from the
fetus and to maternal health. In Carhart, Justice Kennedy embraced
these efforts. Lawmakers, moreover, still introduce legislation that
would repeal abortion rights. And two states (South Dakota and
Colorado) will soon vote on initiatives that would effectively repeal
abortion rights. With that said, I think that Robert Post and Reva
Siegel's prediction that Carhart "will inflame political controversy"
did not materialize. Carhart did not significantly impact the type or
number of abortion-related measures actually enacted. No state
legislature has enacted a repeal measure and no voter initiative has
been approved. Polling data, moreover, suggests that there is little
reason to think that this election cycle will change things.
The political fallout from the 1987-1992 era (when state voters and,
ultimately, elected officials fought off efforts to repeal abortion
rights) continues through today. Public opinion on abortion rights has
varied little throughout the post-Casey era. That is why states have
either steered clear of the issue or enacted legislation that
expresses disapproval of abortion without questioning the
constitutionality of abortion rights (partial birth bans and
ultrasound requirements). And even if an outlier state passed an
anti-abortion initiative, there is no reason to think that other
states will follow suit. More than that, there is no prospect of the
Supreme Court's embracing such an outlier initiative and, in so doing,
overruling Roe.
One final observation about contemporary abortion politics before
turning to the question of why the Supreme Court will adhere to the
Casey standard. The fact that abortion politics is relatively stable
does not mean that the abortion issue has no political salience.
Right-to-life interests are successful in having state lawmakers
introduce a host of abortion-related reforms, including proposals that
will repeal abortion altogether. At the same time, these laws are not
being enacted and absent a fundamental shift in public opinion will
not be enacted. That is not to say that pro-choice interests do not
play an important role in counterbalancing the efforts of
right-to-life interests. It is to say, instead, that the appearance of
pitched battles about the possible repeal of abortion rights are
largely illusory. There is widespread support for limited abortion
rights and that support will continue.
*Third, the Supreme Court will not revisit the Casey undue burden
standard. Even if a president used his confirmation power to retool
abortion doctrine, those efforts would almost certainly fail. The
Senate supports limited abortion rights and would not confirm a
Justice who opposes Roe (unless that nominee claimed that stare
decisis compels continued recognition of abortion rights). Also,
social psychology literature suggests that significant obstacles stand
in the way of a Justice casting the fifth vote to overturn Roe. In
particular, this literature suggests that there is an aversion to
becoming the fifth member of a well defined group unless you are
strongly committed to the ideals of that group. In other words, a
president seeking a fifth vote to overturn Roe would have to find an
individual who is pre-committed to overturning Roe but who has never
had occasion to express that opposition in ways that would be
detectable to the Senate. A survey of books concerning Reagan and Bush
(both father and son) appointments to the Supreme Court suggests that
the White House is not looking for such a stealth nominee. Indeed, as
Jack Balkin has written on this blog, a Republican president may well
have incentives to appoint judicial moderates on the abortion
issue—rather than risk the political consequences of appointing
anti-Roe justices.
Supreme Court recognition of abortion rights therefore seems secure,
especially since there is no reason to think there are now 4 Justices
willing to overturn Roe. Just as the Supreme Court chipped away at
Miranda without overruling the decision, there is no need to think
that a Justice opposed to abortion rights would see the need to
overturn Roe. States are not enacting abortion repeal legislation. A
lax application of the Casey undue burden standard will result in the
Court's approval of nearly any abortion law that a state might pass.
And such an approach would not prompt the opprobrium of the Senate or
voters. Senate confirmation hearings make clear that the Senate is
uninterested in the Court's approval of abortion regulations so long
as the Court does not nullify abortion rights. Likewise, most voters
support the placing of limits on abortion rights. It therefore seems
extremely unlikely that judicial approval of abortion regulations
would ever trigger a legislative backlash against the Court.
For very much the same reason, there is no reason to think that a
president or Supreme Court Justice strongly committed to abortion
rights would want to upend the Casey undue burden standard. Whatever
one thinks of Casey's rulings on waiting periods, parental rights, and
informed consent requirements, it is unimaginable that a coalition of
5 pro-choice Justices would stand together to overturn these rulings
and restore the Roe trimester test. To accomplish such a
transformation, pro-choice presidents would need to be strongly
committed to the restoration of Roe and would need to have several
opportunities to appoint Justices also committed to the restoration of
Roe (not to mention the fact that efforts to restore Roe would be
resisted by lawmakers and the American people). Instead of such a
radical transformation, it is far more likely that pro-choice Justices
will apply Casey in ways that protect abortion rights.
For pro-choice advocates, the rub here is that states who want to
limit abortion rights have already gotten most of what they want. As
noted, states consistent with public opinion favor limited abortion
rights. Those limits have largely been approved by federal courts of
appeals or the Supreme Court. There is little reason to think that the
federal courts will revisit these rulings. States strongly resisted
Roe during the 1973-1989 period and there is no reason to think that
the Court would want to find out whether states would also resist the
overturning of post-1992 decisions approving abortion regulations
under Casey. Of course, pro-choice advocates would prefer a Court more
committed to abortion rights than today's Court. Likewise, just as the
Roberts Court's approval of the federal partial birth ban was
symbolically important, it would also be symbolically important for
pro-choice appointees to lead the charge against ultrasound
regulations and possible as applied challenges to partial birth bans.
So decades worth of sturm und drang about abortion rights now appears
to be little more than a fight over legislation that—while undoubtedly
important--does not meaningfully alter the abortion landscape. But
that is where we are today and I suspect that we will be at exactly
the same place after this November's elections and for quite some time
afterwards. To repeat what I stated at the start of this post: By
rejecting the absolutist visions of pro-choice and right-to-life
interests, Casey established a framework by which states could limit
abortion rights in ways that matched majoritarian preferences. More
than establish a standard, Casey also approved specific state laws
(waiting periods, informed consent, parental consent). These specific
laws became a template for subsequent state regulation of abortion.
Indeed, although states have pursued some other abortion-related
initiatives (most notably partial birth abortion), the all-or-nothing
stakes that characterized 1987-1992 abortion politics are well behind
us. Today, most states steer clear of the abortion wars and those that
enact legislation pursue measures that are of comparatively little
practical consequence. Consequently, although Democratic and
Republican nominees might reach different judgments on the
constitutionality of ultrasound requirements and partial birth bans,
today's abortion wars are largely about rhetorically powerful symbols.
These symbols sustain pro-choice and pro-life forces. But they are no
more than a shadow of the profoundly important 1987-1992 battles that
culminated in the Casey decision.
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Robert Skinner
<Robert at squirrelhaven.com> 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