Ms Palin's bookery

On Sep 10, 11:20=A0am, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Sep 10, 10:26=A0am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > ...
>
> > As a matter of law, you're absolutely right. =A0To remove the evil of s=
lavery,
> > we had to sacrifice limited government, the rule of law, the Constituti=
on,
> > and, arguably, our future. =A0Perhaps this is our divine punishment for
> > ever trading in humans.
>
> Slavery has been aptly referred to as the original sin of the
> United States.
>

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

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

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

Morris Dovey wrote:
<SNIP>

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


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

<SNIP>

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Do you really believe "most, or "some" or "all" that you read
on the web ?

On Sep 8, 11:14=A0pm, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:57:04 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> > ... =A0I'd vote for W for
> > reelection a third term before I'd vote for those two Leninists.
> > (And I can't stand the Republican party.)
>
> Nice to see you reiterating your middle of the road stance, Tim :-).
>
> I wonder if equating someone to Marx, Lenin, et al, should rate the
> same automatic disqualification as Hitler equates do?

Godwin!

--

FF

On Sep 8, 8:45=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Sep 8, 6:58=A0pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Apparently you got suckered into believing this already "Urban Legend"
>
> > Yuh think the left side started it?
>
> It isn't the message that surprised me, Leon. =A0It was the messenger,
> John. =A0Worse, no OT. =A0Maybe the only thing to do with wood was the
> organ this crap came from..
>
> Or maybe this is John's first attempt at a good troll. =A0If so, he
> should find a subject that is at least a little harder to find out is
> an outright lie.
>
> I think we need to come up with some kind of shorthand code for posts
> when the is a post that contains such hysterical, paranoid lefty
> shrieking from the tin hat squad that just seems to haul in the
> catfish. =A0That way bandwidth wouldn't be wasted reading tripe like
> this. =A0In fact, we could use that shorthand for just about any post
> that didn't have something to do with woodworking.
>
> I dunno... just throwing out some ideas here, how about marking the
> post "OT"
> or something like that? =A0It could stand for Off Topic.
>
> As for the content, I guess it speaks for itself. I can just see a big
> blue catfishes now.... =A0mouth working away, ready to swallow
> anything...
>
> Robert

Ahh yes.. those wonderful Flipper-like tailwalks...

On Sep 9, 2:45=A0pm, Frank Boettcher <[email protected]> wrote:
> =A0My question was to determine if the OP actually
> believed it or if he was dropping a troll on the group.
>
> Frank

My friend jo4hn would never do such a thing.

g,d & r.

On Sep 8, 3:36=A0pm, jo4hn <[email protected]> wrote:
> Let's spend a few moments browsing the list of books Mayor Sarah Palin
> tried to get town librarian Mary Ellen Baker to ban in the lovely,
> all-American town of Wasilla, Alaska . =A0When Baker refused to remove th=
e
> books from the shelves, Palin threatened to fire her. =A0The story was
> reported in Time Magazine and the list comes from the librarian.net websi=
te.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0I'm sure you'll find your own personal favorit=
es among the
> classics Palin wanted to protect the good people of Wasilla from, but
> the ones that jumped out at me were the four Stephen King novels (way to
> go Stephen, Joh n Steinbeck only got three titles on the list), that
> notorious piece of communist pornography "My Friend Flicka," =A0the usual
> assortment of Harry Potter books, works by Shakespeare, Walt Whitman,
> Kurt Vonnegut, Mark Twain (always fun to see those two names together),
> Arthur Miller, and Aristophanes, as well as "Our Bodies, Ourselves"
> (insert your own Bristol Palin joke here), and the infamous one-two
> punch of depravity: =A0"To Kill a Mockingbird" and "Little Red Riding
> Hood." =A0But the cherry on the sundae, the topper, is Sarah Palin's
> passionate, religious mission to clear the shelves of the Wasilia Public
> Library of that ultimate evil tome: =A0"Webster's Ninth New Collegiate
> Dictionary." =A0That's the one with "equality," "free speech" and
> "justice" in it.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Go over to your book case and take down one of=
the books
> you'll find on the list (I know you've got a couple) and give it a read
> in honor of the founding fathers. =A0Then tell me I'm not the only voter
> who doesn't want this woman within thirty feet of the United States
> Constitution.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Sarah Palin's Book Club
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L?Engle
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Annie on My Mind by Nancy Garden
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Blubber by Judy Blume
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Canterbury Tales by Chaucer
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Carrie by Stephen King
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Christine by Stephen King
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Confessions by Jean-Jacques Rousseau
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Cujo by Stephen King
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Curses, Hexes, and Spells by Daniel Cohen
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Daddy?s Roommate by Michael Willhoite
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Day No Pigs Would Die by Robert Peck
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Decameron by Boccaccio
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0East of Eden by John Steinbeck
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Fallen Angels by Walter Myers
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Fanny Hill (Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure) by=
John Cleland
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Flowers For Algernon by Daniel Keyes
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Forever by Judy Blume
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Grendel by John Champlin Gardner
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Halloween ABC by Eve Merriam
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Harry Potter and the Sorcerer?s Stone by J.K. =
Rowling
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets by J.K=
. Rowling
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Harry Potter20and the Prizoner of Azkaban by J=
.K. Rowling
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by J.K. Ro=
wling
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Have to Go by Robert Munsch
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Heather Has Two Mommies by Leslea Newman
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0How to Eat Fried Worms by Thomas Rockwell
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelo=
u
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Impressions edited by Jack Booth
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0In the Night Kitchen by Maurice Sendak
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0It's Okay if You Don't Love Me by Norma Klein
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Lady Chatterley's Lover by D.H. Lawrence
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Little Red Riding Hood by Jacob and Wilhelm Gr=
imm
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Lord of the Flies by William Golding
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Love is One of the Choices by Norma Klein
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Lysistrata by Aristophanes
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0More Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwar=
tz
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0My Brother Sam Is Dead by James Lincoln Collie=
r and
> Christopher Collier
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0My House by Nikki Giovanni
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0My Friend Flicka by Mary O'Hara
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Night Chills by Dean Koontz
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0On My Honor by Marion Dane Bauer
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0One Day in The Life of Ivan Denisovich by Alex=
ander
> Solzhenitsyn
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garci=
a Marquez
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Ordinary People by Judith Guest
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Our Bodies, Ourselves by Boston Women's Health=
Collective
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Prince of Tides by Pat Conroy
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Revolting Rhymes by Roald Dahl
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Scary Stories 3: More Tales to Chill Your Bone=
s by Alvin
> Schwartz
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Separate Peace by John Knowles
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Silas Marner by George Eliot
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twa=
in
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Bastard by John Jakes
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Color Purple by Alice Walker
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Devil's Alternative by Frederick Forsyth
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Figure in the Shadows by John Bellairs
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Great Gilly Hopkins by Katherine Paterson
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Headless Cupid by Zilpha Snyder
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Learnin g Tree by Gordon Parks
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Living Bible by William C. Bower
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The New Teenage Body Book by Kathy McCoy and C=
harles Wibbelsman
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Pigman by Paul Zindel
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Seduction of Peter S. by Lawrence Sanders
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Shining by Stephen King
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Witches by Roald Dahl
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Witches of Worm by Zilpha Snyder
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Then Again, Maybe I Won't by Judy Blume
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Twelfth Night by William Shakespeare
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary by t=
he
> Merriam-Webster Editorial Staff
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Witches, Pumpkins, and Grinning Ghosts: The St=
ory of the
> Halloween Symbols by Edna Barth
>
> See the following:
>
> http://www.librarian.net/stax/2366/sarah-palin-vp-nominee/http://www.time=
.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1837918,00.html

pssssst.. if anybody wants a copy of any of these, they're for sale in
Canada... e-mail me and I'll hook you up. I'll send it in a plain
brown wrapper so your fundy nutbar neighbour won't see it and he won't
taser you.... pass it on... freedom is coming...

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> On Sep 9, 4:30 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> DGDevin wrote:
>>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>>> You can easily remove my ability to influence the content of the
>>>> library by having the government ceasing make me pay for it.
>>> Some people object to their taxes being used to fund the military, should
>>> they be allowed to opt-out of contributing to the defense budget? Obviously
>> No - because running the military is an explicitly enumerated task of
>> the Federal government in the Constitution, but libraries are not.
>
> Actually, the Constitution only authorizes an Army and a Navy. There
> is
> no blanket authorization for a 'military', certainly none for any
> branch that
> is not part of one or the other (e.g. Air Force).
>
> Regardless, neither can be funded for more than two years.
>
> --
>
> FF
>
>

Noted. But my primary point is that there is NO provision for Federal
involvement in education.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Sep 8, 6:58=A0pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Apparently you got suckered into believing this already "Urban Legend"
>
> Yuh think the left side started it?

It isn't the message that surprised me, Leon. It was the messenger,
John. Worse, no OT. Maybe the only thing to do with wood was the
organ this crap came from..

Or maybe this is John's first attempt at a good troll. If so, he
should find a subject that is at least a little harder to find out is
an outright lie.

I think we need to come up with some kind of shorthand code for posts
when the is a post that contains such hysterical, paranoid lefty
shrieking from the tin hat squad that just seems to haul in the
catfish. That way bandwidth wouldn't be wasted reading tripe like
this. In fact, we could use that shorthand for just about any post
that didn't have something to do with woodworking.

I dunno... just throwing out some ideas here, how about marking the
post "OT"
or something like that? It could stand for Off Topic.

As for the content, I guess it speaks for itself. I can just see a big
blue catfishes now.... mouth working away, ready to swallow
anything...

Robert

On Sep 9, 11:55=A0am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Phil Again wrote:
> ...
> > I, for one, am deeply concerned about a (any) President using the offic=
e
> > to impose, and thus enforce, by Presidential decree and administrative
> > action the beliefs and theology of a specific denomination. =A0The crea=
tion
> > of an ipso-facto state religion. =A0
>
> There is not now, nor has there ever been any serious risk of that in
> the US. =A0It is a red herring thrown out by the lifestyle liberals and
> various anti-religionists. =A0If anything, American culture and governmen=
t
> today are *less* religious than at any time in our history.
>

To the contrary, a variant of Christianity was a de-facto State
religion for a very long time. Consider the Sunday blue laws
and the kidnapping of Hopi Indian children.

--

FF

Apparently you got suckered into believing this already "Urban Legend"

Yuh think the left side started it?

On Sep 9, 4:30=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> DGDevin wrote:
> > Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
> >> You can easily remove my ability to influence the content of the
> >> library by having the government ceasing make me pay for it.
>
> > Some people object to their taxes being used to fund the military, shou=
ld
> > they be allowed to opt-out of contributing to the defense budget? =A0Ob=
viously
>
> No - because running the military is an explicitly enumerated task of
> the Federal government in the Constitution, but libraries are not.

Actually, the Constitution only authorizes an Army and a Navy. There
is
no blanket authorization for a 'military', certainly none for any
branch that
is not part of one or the other (e.g. Air Force).

Regardless, neither can be funded for more than two years.

--

FF

Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "jo4hn" wrote:
>
>> Then tell me I'm not the only voter who doesn't want this woman
>> within thirty feet of the United States Constitution.
>
> You're not, but since you are in California, not to worry.
>
> Not even a revolution will keep California from voting anything but
> Democratic this election cycle, so you will have done your part to
> express your views..
>
> I have no problem with those people wishing to have ultra conservative
> religious views.
>
> Think it is called religious freedom.
>
> OTOH, I have a major problem with anyone attempting to inject any
> religious position into the political situation.
>
> Lew
>
>

Then you would have seriously objected to both John and Sam Adams and
host of other Floundering Fathers. Even the least religious of the
bunch (Jefferson, Paine, and Franklin leap to mind) made some general
gesture to a creating God from which all rights flowed.

The protections in the Constitution regarding religion are there to
protect *religion* (from the government). They are not there to
protect the government from any religious influence. That bit of
intellectual sleight-of-hand was invented in the early 20th century by
so-called "progressives" (who are no such thing).

I don't want to live in a theocracy, but I'm far more worried about
being overtaken by the Leninists on the left (like Obama) than I am
about a person of deep personal faith occupying office...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

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

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

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

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

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:
>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>
>>> I have no tolerance for killing people that cannot defend themselves.
>>>
>> Eh? Are you posting from Darfur? Listening to the echoes of Beethoven's
>> Ninth in Sarajevo? Turning back Russian tanks at the Georgian border?
>>
>> I'm inclined to believe you have a bit more tolerance than you've been
>> willing to admit to yourself.
>>
>
> What an absurd argument. The fact that I cannot actually *do* anything
> about these situations is hardly evidence that I tolerate them. In
> any case, the genocide directed at the unborn in the West far exceeds
> that in the places you cite above. I *can* do something about that:
> Vote for people who pledge to stop the infanticide.

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

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

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

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

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:

>> I don't think that'll work, but I hope you have a nice ride.
>
> 1) I have used reason and argument to make the case for why abortion
> is wrong. I have never anointed myself the "arbiter of right and
> wrong" but have made a case against abortion on legal, moral,
> and practical grounds. In any case, judging from the tone of
> your snide little post, I'd guess you are incapable of even
> acknowledging that right and wrong exist as objectively exist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:
> <SNIP>
>
>> You have not made a case - rather you have made a weak and unconvincing
>> argument, even within just the context of your own society and culture.
>
>
> The fact that you do not grasp and/or agree with my case doesn't mean
> I haven't made it. I shall not repeat it because - as you point out -
> loud repetition cannot prove something to people with fingers in their
> ears.

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

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

> <SNIP>
>
>> Your "reason and logic" is simply one perspective that others may or may
>> not share. More, or louder, words do not make your message more
>> convincing. If you wish to end the practice of abortion, then words,
>> logic, and even legislation will not suffice - to accomplish that you
>> will need to remove its root causes, and I seriously doubt that you'd be
>> willing even to undertake the effort to discover all of those, let alone
>> put forth the effort to design a comprehensive strategy to effect the
>> necessary societal changes. Instead, as I said earlier, you find a way
>> to tolerate what you don't like.
>
> I am bounded by law which prevents the underlying causes from being
> fixed. The only way to ameliorate them is to have the laws changed
> hence the focus on the elected officials. I think even you must grasp
> that abortion's root cause is unwanted conception. Aside from rape and
> incest (very minor parts of the abortion demographic), unwanted
> conception is caused fundamentally by a lack of personal
> responsibility. The only way to fix that is to insist that people *be*
> personally accountable for their actions. Abortion does the exact
> opposite. It is a "get out of jail free card" for the sexually
> irresponsible and/or promiscuous person. The way to thus "fix" the
> underlying problem is to both make abortion illegal (other than for a
> very short time after conception for cases of rape and incest) AND
> hold *both* parents accountable before the law for the wellbeing of
> the consequent child. If they fail to do so and the society is forced
> to step in and pick up the tab on behalf of the child, the condition
> of so doing should be the sterilization of both parents. Not *forced*
> sterilization mind you, simply a condition of getting taxpayers to
> help them. The parents in question would have to option to go to jail
> with their reproductive parts intact as a punishment for failing to
> act responsibly toward a human that cannot care for itself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dishonesty noted. See above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Sep 9, 7:47=A0pm, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
> > What the Framers had to say at some _other_ point is
> > irrelevant.
>
> Well, not exactly. =A0The SCOTUS is known to look at the writings of the
> Framers and legislation they were involved in at the state level and so o=
n
> in making rulings. =A0E.g., in the recent 2nd Amendment case both sides
> referred to such extra-Constitutional evidence in trying to illustrate wh=
at
> the Framers meant.

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

--

FF

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 13:48:02 -0700, Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 09:26:09 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> As a matter of law, you're absolutely right. To remove the evil of slavery,
>> we had to sacrifice limited government, the rule of law, the Constitution,
>> and, arguably, our future. Perhaps this is our divine punishment for
>> ever trading in humans.
>
>If you believe the Gulf wars were fought to "free the oppressed" then
>you'll believe the Civil War was fought over slavery :-).
>
>Yes, the south seceded to keep slavery. That was morally wrong but
>legal. The north went to war to "preserve the union", not to free the
>slaves. That was illegal. The emancipation proclamation was issued in
>hopes of fomenting slave rebellion in the south. It didn't free a single
>slave in areas under Union control.

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

Mark

Phil Again wrote:
>> .... If anything, American culture and government
>> today are *less* religious than at any time in our history.
>
> Which is a grand and glorious thing!!! I hope the Federal Government
> keeps it up.
>

So at least you stipulate to the religious roots of our government.
That's progress.

>> There is no
>> Constitutionally enumerated power for the Federal government to fund
>> *any* education. Doing so is an arrogation of power to the Feds that
>> properly belongs in the hands of "the people and the states."
>
> Ah, no, you are wrong. The Constitution gives Congress the power to pass
> legislation, and if the President signs the legislation it is law. Any
> Law Congress chooses to pass. The Federal Courts may review the
> constitutionality of laws and regulation. Unless there is a
> unconstitutionality decision by the courts, the statues stand and can be
> enforced. The Congress has every *right* to fund education, sports,
> parks, tree farms, oil rigs, whatever; unless a law is reviewed and
> declared unconstitutional by the courts the law stands.

This power to legislate is supposed to be bounded by the list of
enumerated powers given the Federal government. All you've described
above is the prostitution of the system by using its inherent complexity
and corners to thwart the clear intent of the Framers.

>
>> ...... Oh, and BTW, as a person of
>> pretty deep principle and conviction on the matter, you and yours are
>> violating *my* civil rights when you make me pay for your infanticide.
>>
>
> How? Your civil rights are divorced from you religious beliefs. Where is
> your constitutional right to impose your religious beliefs on the society

Nowhere have I said I wish to impose my religious beliefs - if any -
upon anyone. I wish to not pay for infanticide. I don't care what
the "courts have found in the matter". I prefer not to be a party
to murder. This apparently doesn't bother you much, and I'm not
saying you can or should be entirely prevented from doing so. I'm
saying I ought not to have to pay for it.


>
> I may be unable to understand this: the constitution was written my
> humans, passed by humans, and amended by humans. No Divine inspiration
> or intervention is claimed or declared. No Supreme court decision has

Utterly false. Virtually every Framer at some point spoke of their
belief in the Divine as animating their political ideals. No matter
how much you put your fingers in your ears and scream to the contrary
you are still wrong in this matter. Notice that I have not - anywhere
in this thread argued *for* more religion in politics. I have merely
argued that you and yours are - and remain - utterly wrong in your
understanding of our history because - apparently - it hurts your feelings.
a
> been inspired by Divine intervention. The laws of the USA, and the
> Federal courts are of the realm of Mankind; Mundane. When, or at what
> stage a fetus acquires a soul is known only to the Deity that created
> that soul(s.) No human has been granted an audience with any Deity to
> receive an answer to the question, no one. Therefor all humans can do is
> take their best shot at a guess. I will take the written decision of the

Right. And in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, a nation
built on individual liberty should at least have the good manners to
take as narrow a view of this matter of possible on the off chance we
might, just might, be murdering citizens. This is ultimately not a
religious matter. It is a matter of law - when does one become a
citizen and thus become entitled to the legal protections that accrue
thereto. You and yours seem to think that this doesn't happen till
well into the third trimester. This is nonsense. It is murder. You are
wrong (and evil for supporting such a system).

In fact, using your fine reasoning above, if enough people created the
necessary "human law", retroactive abortions would be legal. Oh, wait,
you're already headed that way with euthanasia. Just think, someday
you'll have your perfect world. When a child is born and turns out to,
say, have a profound learning disability not discovered until they
enter kindergarten, you'll be able to legally kill them. Absurd? It
should be, but it's not. It is the logical extension of the rationale'
you and others give for supporting the current abortion-on-demand
laws.

BTW, I am entirely consistent in this. I also wholly oppose the
death penalty on the same grounds. The state cannot legitimately
give the people or itself permission to murder its own citizens.
No amount of law making makes it OK - it just makes it legal.


> US Supreme Court on this matter over anyone else's opinion. Because our
> government is a rule of law; human laws.

Fine. So, if say, SCOTUS found that slavery was still legal,
that it was OK to silence liberals, that killing Muslims in
the street was fine, you'd have no problem with this? Your line
of argumentation is puerile and silly. All law is an encoding
of *somebody's* ethical/moral system. You seem to want to divorce
yourself form this or act like it doesn't matter.

>
>> .. But Obama is almost overtly Leninist in his hatred of wealth,
>> achievement, and success.
>>
>
> While you equate Obama to Lenin, I equate McBush with Mussolini.
>
>

Even if true (it isn't), Mussolini did far less harm than Lenin.
This is a lousy election. There are no good choices. Obama is
just the worst choice by a mile. He will further the collectivist/
socialist sewer that this country has wallowed in since FDR. He
will undermine the national safety and defence of the nation,
and he will pander to every slimy far left wingnut faction
far moreso than McCain will ever do on the right.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"jo4hn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Let's spend a few moments browsing the list of books Mayor Sarah Palin
> tried to get town librarian Mary Ellen Baker to ban in the lovely,
> all-American town of Wasilla, Alaska . When Baker refused to remove the
> books from the shelves, Palin threatened to fire her. The story was
> reported in Time Magazine and the list comes from the librarian.net
> website.

> The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger

Yep, this one screwed me up for years.

Dave in Houston

On Sep 9, 11:49=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> =A0 The Bill of Rights was not meant to protect the Federal Government *f=
rom*
> anything -- it was designed to protect the people from the *government*.
> The first amendment was designed to prevent the federal government from
> establishing a state church, not to prevent leaders of the country from
> expressing their own religious views.
> ...

Implimentation, OTOH, is another thing entirely.

--

FF

On Sep 9, 7:06=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
> > On Sep 9, 11:55 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> ...
> >> Our government - from its inception - was deeply influenced by
> >> Judeo-Christian people and ideas. The fact that this annoys you
> >> doesn't change the fact.
>
> > I know more than one Jew who finds the term "Judeo-Christian"
> > annoying or outright insulting.
>
> ...
>
>
> > They regard it as just another attempt on the part of Christians
> > to blame the Jews for their own moral failings.
>
> Utter nonsense. =A0I know many Christians in many different traditions,
> none of whom have I ever heard make such an absurd claim.
>

Neither have I.

So?

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

--

FF

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 13:05:39 -0700, tom_murphy wrote:
>
>> Maybe I'm crazy for thinking the TRUTH matters in a political
>> discussion, but this story is unverifiable and almost certainly
>> false.
>
> The list of books is certainly false, but apparently Ms Palin did try to
> get some books removed from the library and threatened to fire the
> librarian when she didn't cooperate.
>
> Don't want no book burner in no White House!
>

Since I am forced - by law - to pay for the libraries in my locale',
there are several I'd like to see banned for lack of any evident
merit: Anything by Michael Moore, Bill Maher, Al Gore, Sean Hannity,
and Lyndon LaRouche. I hate paying for their drivel.

You can easily remove my ability to influence the content of the
library by having the government ceasing make me pay for it. It's real
simple - when you accept the government dollar (un-Constitutionally,
in this case) you also accept the scrutiny of *all* the people who pay
for it. That's why the government has no business in the arts,
schools, and so forth: You cannot meet the expectations of the diverse
set of ideas held by those who pay for it. The purpose of government
is to maintain an environment of freedom wherein each of us is free to
express our ideas and support those who share our views as we see fit.
It is flatly immoral to make any of us pay for ideas with the force
of government which we find offensive, corrosive, or flatly wrong.
Freedom of speech is fundamentally abrogated when we make people
support (again, by government force) ideas with which they do not
agree. It is just as bad as banning ideas, books, movies, and art.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Sep 8, 9:36=A0am, jo4hn <[email protected]> wrote:
> Let's spend a few moments browsing the list of books Mayor Sarah Palin
> tried to get town librarian Mary Ellen Baker to ban in the lovely,
> all-American town of Wasilla, Alaska . =A0When Baker refused to remove th=
e
> books from the shelves, Palin threatened to fire her. =A0The story was
> reported in Time Magazine and the list comes from the librarian.net websi=
te.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0I'm sure you'll find your own personal favorit=
es among the
> classics Palin wanted to protect the good people of Wasilla from, but
> the ones that jumped out at me were the four Stephen King novels (way to
> go Stephen, Joh n Steinbeck only got three titles on the list), that
> notorious piece of communist pornography "My Friend Flicka," =A0the usual
> assortment of Harry Potter books, works by Shakespeare, Walt Whitman,
> Kurt Vonnegut, Mark Twain (always fun to see those two names together),
> Arthur Miller, and Aristophanes, as well as "Our Bodies, Ourselves"
> (insert your own Bristol Palin joke here), and the infamous one-two
> punch of depravity: =A0"To Kill a Mockingbird" and "Little Red Riding
> Hood." =A0But the cherry on the sundae, the topper, is Sarah Palin's
> passionate, religious mission to clear the shelves of the Wasilia Public
> Library of that ultimate evil tome: =A0"Webster's Ninth New Collegiate
> Dictionary." =A0That's the one with "equality," "free speech" and
> "justice" in it.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Go over to your book case and take down one of=
the books
> you'll find on the list (I know you've got a couple) and give it a read
> in honor of the founding fathers. =A0Then tell me I'm not the only voter
> who doesn't want this woman within thirty feet of the United States
> Constitution.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Sarah Palin's Book Club
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L?Engle
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Annie on My Mind by Nancy Garden
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Blubber by Judy Blume
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Canterbury Tales by Chaucer
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Carrie by Stephen King
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Christine by Stephen King
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Confessions by Jean-Jacques Rousseau
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Cujo by Stephen King
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Curses, Hexes, and Spells by Daniel Cohen
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Daddy?s Roommate by Michael Willhoite
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Day No Pigs Would Die by Robert Peck
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Decameron by Boccaccio
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0East of Eden by John Steinbeck
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Fallen Angels by Walter Myers
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Fanny Hill (Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure) by=
John Cleland
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Flowers For Algernon by Daniel Keyes
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Forever by Judy Blume
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Grendel by John Champlin Gardner
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Halloween ABC by Eve Merriam
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Harry Potter and the Sorcerer?s Stone by J.K. =
Rowling
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets by J.K=
. Rowling
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Harry Potter20and the Prizoner of Azkaban by J=
.K. Rowling
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by J.K. Ro=
wling
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Have to Go by Robert Munsch
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Heather Has Two Mommies by Leslea Newman
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0How to Eat Fried Worms by Thomas Rockwell
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelo=
u
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Impressions edited by Jack Booth
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0In the Night Kitchen by Maurice Sendak
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0It's Okay if You Don't Love Me by Norma Klein
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Lady Chatterley's Lover by D.H. Lawrence
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Little Red Riding Hood by Jacob and Wilhelm Gr=
imm
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Lord of the Flies by William Golding
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Love is One of the Choices by Norma Klein
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Lysistrata by Aristophanes
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0More Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwar=
tz
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0My Brother Sam Is Dead by James Lincoln Collie=
r and
> Christopher Collier
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0My House by Nikki Giovanni
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0My Friend Flicka by Mary O'Hara
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Night Chills by Dean Koontz
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0On My Honor by Marion Dane Bauer
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0One Day in The Life of Ivan Denisovich by Alex=
ander
> Solzhenitsyn
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garci=
a Marquez
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Ordinary People by Judith Guest
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Our Bodies, Ourselves by Boston Women's Health=
Collective
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Prince of Tides by Pat Conroy
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Revolting Rhymes by Roald Dahl
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Scary Stories 3: More Tales to Chill Your Bone=
s by Alvin
> Schwartz
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Separate Peace by John Knowles
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Silas Marner by George Eliot
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twa=
in
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Bastard by John Jakes
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Color Purple by Alice Walker
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Devil's Alternative by Frederick Forsyth
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Figure in the Shadows by John Bellairs
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Great Gilly Hopkins by Katherine Paterson
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Headless Cupid by Zilpha Snyder
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Learnin g Tree by Gordon Parks
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Living Bible by William C. Bower
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The New Teenage Body Book by Kathy McCoy and C=
harles Wibbelsman
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Pigman by Paul Zindel
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Seduction of Peter S. by Lawrence Sanders
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Shining by Stephen King
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Witches by Roald Dahl
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Witches of Worm by Zilpha Snyder
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Then Again, Maybe I Won't by Judy Blume
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Twelfth Night by William Shakespeare
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary by t=
he
> Merriam-Webster Editorial Staff
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Witches, Pumpkins, and Grinning Ghosts: The St=
ory of the
> Halloween Symbols by Edna Barth
>
> See the following:
>
> http://www.librarian.net/stax/2366/sarah-palin-vp-nominee/http://www.time=
.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1837918,00.html

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

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

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

On Sep 8, 10:16=A0pm, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 13:05:39 -0700, tom_murphy wrote:
> > Maybe I'm crazy for thinking the TRUTH matters in a political
> > discussion, but this story is unverifiable and almost certainly
> > false.
>
> The list of books is certainly false, but apparently Ms Palin did try to
> get some books removed from the library and threatened to fire the
> librarian when she didn't cooperate.
>
> Don't want no book burner in no White House!

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

Tom

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

>>> What the Framers had to say at some _other_ point is
>>> irrelevant.
>>
>> Well, not exactly. The SCOTUS is known to look at the writings of the
>> Framers and legislation they were involved in at the state level and
>> so on in making rulings. E.g., in the recent 2nd Amendment case both
>> sides referred to such extra-Constitutional evidence in trying to
>> illustrate what the Framers meant.
>
> Again, that is irrelevant to the point Phil made which is that the
> Framers explicitly left religion out of the Constitution.

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

Eigenvector wrote:

>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> jo4hn wrote:
>>> Let's spend a few moments browsing the list of books Mayor Sarah
>>> Palin
>>> tried to get town librarian Mary Ellen Baker to ban in the lovely,
>>
>> OK, I am hereby killfiling all posts to this newsgroup that containt
>> the words "Palin", "Obama", and/or "McCain". If anybody posts one
>> that relates to the woodworking prowess of any of those worthies,
>> please be kind enough to let me know.
>>
>> --
>> --
>> --John
>
> Damnit, I was just going to post something about a new horsehead bookend I
> made called Obama Palin McCain. It is quite a striking design. Very
> conservative wood tones with very liberal use of curves. There does that
> count?

You missed Biden.
;-)
--
Froz...

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

Those two traditions, jointly, inform our history hence the
hyphenation. If someone gets offended thereby, they are bozos.
History is what it is, not what some politically correct
revisionist or religious zealot wants it to be.

>
> They regard it as just another attempt on the part of Christians
> to blame the Jews for their own moral failings.

Utter nonsense. I know many Christians in many different traditions,
none of whom have I ever heard make such an absurd claim.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:

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

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


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

jo4hn <[email protected]> writes:

> Let's spend a few moments browsing the list of books Mayor Sarah Palin
> tried to get town librarian Mary Ellen Baker to ban in the lovely,
> all-American town of Wasilla, Alaska .

Incorrect.

The list of books you gave came from

http://www.adlerbooks.com/banned.html

Which has nothing to do with Palin.

> See the following:
>
> http://www.librarian.net/stax/2366/sarah-palin-vp-nominee/

Yes. Indeed. Did you see the part that said:
Quote:
-----------------------------------
# dw Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 10:44

The source of the list appears to be this site, which I got to from
this site, which I found by googling the very first titles on the list
as a single search term (A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess A
Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L’Engle).

This list obviously has nothing to do with Palin whatsoever.
# Ryan Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 10:53

The list of banned books is inaccurate. Several of the titles listed
above, most notably the Harry Potter books, had not been published yet
in 1996 when Sarah Palin attempted to fire the librarian.
-----------------------------------


You know, BOTH vocal liberals and conservatives tend to fire away
without researching the truth.

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:33:34 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> You know, I've heard/read this analysis before, but I don't entirely
>> buy it. Your facts, as rendered, are correct. But it's kind of
>> hard to ignore the slavery elephant in the room. *None* of this
>> would have happened had the slavery issue not existed. The rest is
>> just window dressing. In the end, the US was built by patriots intent
>> on preserving individual liberty but who caved the first time a
>> real issue in that vein showed up. We've been paying for it ever since.
>
> I think we somewhat agree here. It's not news that a great majority of
> the public, including a fair number of southeners, found slavery
> abhorrent. That was used as a convenient excuse for the war.
>
> But the south was agricultural and favored free trade. The north was
> industrial and favored tariffs. The federal government at that time got
> most of its revenue from tariffs and was horrified at the thought that
> importers would sail into free trade southern ports with their goods
> which could then easily be smuggled over the border to the north, and
> thus deprive the feds of most of their revenue.
>
> Marx may not have been right about much, but he hit it on the nose when he
> said wars were fought for economic reasons.
>

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

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Sep 11, 1:12=A0pm, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:33:34 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> > You know, I've heard/read this analysis before, but I don't entirely
> > buy it. =A0 Your facts, as rendered, are correct. =A0But it's kind of
> > hard to ignore the slavery elephant in the room. =A0*None* of this
> > would have happened had the slavery issue not existed. =A0The rest is
> > just window dressing. =A0In the end, the US was built by patriots inten=
t
> > on preserving individual liberty but who caved the first time a
> > real issue in that vein showed up. =A0We've been paying for it ever sin=
ce.
>
> I think we somewhat agree here. =A0It's not news that a great majority of
> the public, including a fair number of southeners, found slavery
> abhorrent. =A0That was used as a convenient excuse for the war.
>
> But the south was agricultural and favored free trade. =A0The north was
> industrial and favored tariffs. =A0The federal government at that time go=
t
> most of its revenue from tariffs and was horrified at the thought that
> importers would sail into free trade southern ports with their goods
> which could then easily be smuggled over the border to the north, and
> thus deprive the feds of most of their revenue.

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

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

--

FF

Morris Dovey wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>>
>> I have no tolerance for killing people that cannot defend themselves.
>>
>
> Eh? Are you posting from Darfur? Listening to the echoes of Beethoven's
> Ninth in Sarajevo? Turning back Russian tanks at the Georgian border?
>
> I'm inclined to believe you have a bit more tolerance than you've been
> willing to admit to yourself.
>

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



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

In article <[email protected]>, "Eigenvector" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Damnit, I was just going to post something about a new horsehead bookend I
>made called Obama Palin McCain. It is quite a striking design. Very
>conservative wood tones with very liberal use of curves. There does that
>count?

Wrong end of the horse...

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Join the UseNet Improvement Project: killfile Google Groups.
http://www.improve-usenet.org

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Download Nfilter at http://www.milmac.com/np-120.exe

On Sep 10, 10:26=A0am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...
>
> As a matter of law, you're absolutely right. =A0To remove the evil of sla=
very,
> we had to sacrifice limited government, the rule of law, the Constitution=
,
> and, arguably, our future. =A0Perhaps this is our divine punishment for
> ever trading in humans.
>

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

--

FF

See the following:

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


"John Santos" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>> Let's spend a few moments browsing the list of books Mayor Sarah
>> Palin
>> tried to get town librarian Mary Ellen Baker to ban in the lovely,
>> all-American town of Wasilla, Alaska . When Baker refused to remove
>> the
>> books from the shelves, Palin threatened to fire her. The story was
>> reported in Time Magazine and the list comes from the librarian.net
>> website.
>>
>>
>> I'm sure you'll find your own personal favorites among
>> the
>> classics Palin wanted to protect the good people of Wasilla from, but
>> the ones that jumped out at me were the four Stephen King novels (way
>> to
>> go Stephen, Joh n Steinbeck only got three titles on the list), that
>> notorious piece of communist pornography "My Friend Flicka," the
>> usual
>> assortment of Harry Potter books, works by Shakespeare, Walt Whitman,
>> Kurt Vonnegut, Mark Twain (always fun to see those two names
>> together),
>> Arthur Miller, and Aristophanes, as well as "Our Bodies, Ourselves"
>> (insert your own Bristol Palin joke here), and the infamous one-two
>> punch of depravity: "To Kill a Mockingbird" and "Little Red Riding
>> Hood." But the cherry on the sundae, the topper, is Sarah Palin's
>> passionate, religious mission to clear the shelves of the Wasilia
>> Public
>> Library of that ultimate evil tome: "Webster's Ninth New Collegiate
>> Dictionary." That's the one with "equality," "free speech" and
>> "justice" in it.
>>
>> Go over to your book case and take down one of the books
>> you'll find on the list (I know you've got a couple) and give it a
>> read
>> in honor of the founding fathers. Then tell me I'm not the only
>> voter
>> who doesn't want this woman within thirty feet of the United States
>> Constitution.
>>
>> Sarah Palin's Book Club
>>
>
> [snip long list]
>
> I've read maybe a quarter of these, really falling behind. It's an
> inspiration. I should really try to read the rest of them by election
> day.
>
> Silas Marner? We did that in 7th grade, IIRC. Some of the books,
> while completely inoffensive, I can see why a religious fundamentalist
> idiot would be against, but Silas Marner? Are they against people
> changing for the better and caring for those less fortunate?
>
> And why didn't Nathanial Hawthorne or Herman Melville make the list?
>
> UNFAIR!!
>
>
>>
>> See the following:
>>
>> http://www.librarian.net/stax/2366/sarah-palin-vp-nominee/
>> http://www.time.com/time/politics/artic le/0,8599,1837918,00.html
>>
>
> --
> John

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

> Phil Again wrote:
... snip

>>
>> The Democratic Party does not claim the either Obama or Bidden to be
>> above the Constitution. Obama will enforce the Constitution, and the
>> laws authorized and enacted by Congress as interpreted by the Federal
>> Courts.
>
> No he won't. He will expand social entitlement spending, wealth
> redistirbution, and generally ignore the limits of power explicit
> in the doctrine of enumerated powers. If it makes you feel better,
> so will McCain. But Obama is almost overtly Leninist in his
> hatred of wealth, achievement, and success.
>

Well, unless it's his own wealth, achievement, and success. But then you
did indicate his tendency toward Leninism


... snip

>>
>> BTW: I completely, and totally reject any and all arguments that the
>> constitution's first amendment does not protect the Federal Government
>> from any specific religious denomination taking control.
>
> You're free to reject what you like, you are not free to invent your
> own facts.
>

The Bill of Rights was not meant to protect the Federal Government *from*
anything -- it was designed to protect the people from the *government*.
The first amendment was designed to prevent the federal government from
establishing a state church, not to prevent leaders of the country from
expressing their own religious views.



--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

> Noted. But my primary point is that there is NO provision for Federal
> involvement in education.

Politics is the art of the possible. Railing against federal participation
in education is going to be perceived as wingnuttery no matter how heartfelt
your belief is. Fight the battles you can win or you're just kicking up
dust.

jo4hn wrote:

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

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

jo4hn wrote:
[snip]

First of all, thank you all for your contributions. Secondly, my
apologies for not labeling this exercise OT.

Having watched Ms Palin give her speech, I was struck by her ability to
breathe life into the crowd. She actually said little beyond McCain
good, Obama evil, me hockey mom; having been given little policy by the
RNC. Since then she has not been allowed in public unless she was in
the company of McCain and RNC functionaries. I was curious to see what
the wRECkers thought about the erstwhile administration and rather than
ask a direct question, I threw out the lure.

My thoughts on results are that wooddorkers generally are not convinced
that the Reds are going to do much more than continue the Bush track
concerning the war, education, the war, etc. One major problem, of
course, is that little policy has been presented in any form. Reading
the platform gives some information. For example, the chapter on
education promotes abstinence education, voluntary prayer in schools (!)
and to have access to school property for bible study and the like, and
what appears to be vouchers. Speeches are of no use: they like blogs
focus on misstatements of the intentions of the Blues. Nor is there
much clarity on the wedge issues like abortion, gay rights, flag
burning, etc., McCain having modified his stand on most.

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

If anyone has a good source for clear, concise information from either
party (did I say that?) please communicate same. In the meantime, make
sawdust, enjoy it, and don’t let the toolbugs bite.
mahalo,
jo4hn

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> jo4hn wrote:
> > Let's spend a few moments browsing the list of books Mayor Sarah Palin
> > tried to get town librarian Mary Ellen Baker to ban in the lovely,
> > all-American town of Wasilla, Alaska . When Baker refused to remove the
> > books from the shelves, Palin threatened to fire her. The story was
> > reported in Time Magazine and the list comes from the librarian.net
> > website.
> >
> >
> > I'm sure you'll find your own personal favorites among the
> > classics Palin wanted to protect the good people of Wasilla from, but
> > the ones that jumped out at me were the four Stephen King novels (way to
> > go Stephen, Joh n Steinbeck only got three titles on the list), that
> > notorious piece of communist pornography "My Friend Flicka," the usual
> > assortment of Harry Potter books, works by Shakespeare, Walt Whitman,
> > Kurt Vonnegut, Mark Twain (always fun to see those two names together),
> > Arthur Miller, and Aristophanes, as well as "Our Bodies, Ourselves"
> > (insert your own Bristol Palin joke here), and the infamous one-two
> > punch of depravity: "To Kill a Mockingbird" and "Little Red Riding
> > Hood." But the cherry on the sundae, the topper, is Sarah Palin's
> > passionate, religious mission to clear the shelves of the Wasilia Public
> > Library of that ultimate evil tome: "Webster's Ninth New Collegiate
> > Dictionary." That's the one with "equality," "free speech" and
> > "justice" in it.
> >
> > Go over to your book case and take down one of the books
> > you'll find on the list (I know you've got a couple) and give it a read
> > in honor of the founding fathers. Then tell me I'm not the only voter
> > who doesn't want this woman within thirty feet of the United States
> > Constitution.
> >
> > Sarah Palin's Book Club
> >
> > A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
> > A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L?Engle
> > Annie on My Mind by Nancy Garden
> > As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
> > Blubber by Judy Blume
> > Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
> > Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson
> > Canterbury Tales by Chaucer
> > Carrie by Stephen King
> > Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
> > Christine by Stephen King
> > Confessions by Jean-Jacques Rousseau
> > Cujo by Stephen King
> > Curses, Hexes, and Spells by Daniel Cohen
> > Daddy?s Roommate by Michael Willhoite
> > Day No Pigs Would Die by Robert Peck
> > Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller
> > Decameron by Boccaccio
> > East of Eden by John Steinbeck
> > Fallen Angels by Walter Myers
> > Fanny Hill (Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure) by John Cleland
> > Flowers For Algernon by Daniel Keyes
> > Forever by Judy Blume
> > Grendel by John Champlin Gardner
> > Halloween ABC by Eve Merriam
> > Harry Potter and the Sorcerer?s Stone by J.K. Rowling
> > Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets by J.K. Rowling
> > Harry Potter20and the Prizoner of Azkaban by J.K. Rowling
> > Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by J.K. Rowling
> > Have to Go by Robert Munsch
> > Heather Has Two Mommies by Leslea Newman
> > How to Eat Fried Worms by Thomas Rockwell
> > Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
> > I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou
> > Impressions edited by Jack Booth
> > In the Night Kitchen by Maurice Sendak
> > It's Okay if You Don't Love Me by Norma Klein
> > James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl
> > Lady Chatterley's Lover by D.H. Lawrence
> > Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman
> > Little Red Riding Hood by Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm
> > Lord of the Flies by William Golding
> > Love is One of the Choices by Norma Klein
> > Lysistrata by Aristophanes
> > More Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz
> > My Brother Sam Is Dead by James Lincoln Collier and
> > Christopher Collier
> > My House by Nikki Giovanni
> > My Friend Flicka by Mary O'Hara
> > Night Chills by Dean Koontz
> > Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
> > On My Honor by Marion Dane Bauer
> > One Day in The Life of Ivan Denisovich by Alexander
> > Solzhenitsyn
> > One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey
> > One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez
> > Ordinary People by Judith Guest
> > Our Bodies, Ourselves by Boston Women's Health Collective
> > Prince of Tides by Pat Conroy
> > Revolting Rhymes by Roald Dahl
> > Scary Stories 3: More Tales to Chill Your Bones by Alvin
> > Schwartz
> > Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz
> > Separate Peace by John Knowles
> > Silas Marner by George Eliot
> > Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
> > Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs
> > The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
> > The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain
> > The Bastard by John Jakes
> > The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
> > The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier
> > The Color Purple by Alice Walker
> > The Devil's Alternative by Frederick Forsyth
> > The Figure in the Shadows by John Bellairs
> > The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
> > The Great Gilly Hopkins by Katherine Paterson
> > The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood
> > The Headless Cupid by Zilpha Snyder
> > The Learnin g Tree by Gordon Parks
> > The Living Bible by William C. Bower
> > The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare
> > The New Teenage Body Book by Kathy McCoy and Charles Wibbelsman
> > The Pigman by Paul Zindel
> > The Seduction of Peter S. by Lawrence Sanders
> > The Shining by Stephen King
> > The Witches by Roald Dahl
> > The Witches of Worm by Zilpha Snyder
> > Then Again, Maybe I Won't by Judy Blume
> > To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee
> > Twelfth Night by William Shakespeare
> > Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary by the
> > Merriam-Webster Editorial Staff
> > Witches, Pumpkins, and Grinning Ghosts: The Story of the
> > Halloween Symbols by Edna Barth
> >
> >
> >
> > See the following:
> >
> > http://www.librarian.net/stax/2366/sarah-palin-vp-nominee/
> > http://www.time.com/time/politics/artic le/0,8599,1837918,00.html
>
> This is OT, please mark it as such.

We should assign a single thread where everyone puts their
political stuff. That way, we can bozo list it with one
entry.

S.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Let's spend a few moments browsing the list of books Mayor Sarah Palin
> tried to get town librarian Mary Ellen Baker to ban in the lovely,
> all-American town of Wasilla, Alaska . When Baker refused to remove the
> books from the shelves, Palin threatened to fire her. The story was
> reported in Time Magazine and the list comes from the librarian.net website.
>
>
> I'm sure you'll find your own personal favorites among the
> classics Palin wanted to protect the good people of Wasilla from, but
> the ones that jumped out at me were the four Stephen King novels (way to
> go Stephen, Joh n Steinbeck only got three titles on the list), that
> notorious piece of communist pornography "My Friend Flicka," the usual
> assortment of Harry Potter books, works by Shakespeare, Walt Whitman,
> Kurt Vonnegut, Mark Twain (always fun to see those two names together),
> Arthur Miller, and Aristophanes, as well as "Our Bodies, Ourselves"
> (insert your own Bristol Palin joke here), and the infamous one-two
> punch of depravity: "To Kill a Mockingbird" and "Little Red Riding
> Hood." But the cherry on the sundae, the topper, is Sarah Palin's
> passionate, religious mission to clear the shelves of the Wasilia Public
> Library of that ultimate evil tome: "Webster's Ninth New Collegiate
> Dictionary." That's the one with "equality," "free speech" and
> "justice" in it.
>
> Go over to your book case and take down one of the books
> you'll find on the list (I know you've got a couple) and give it a read
> in honor of the founding fathers. Then tell me I'm not the only voter
> who doesn't want this woman within thirty feet of the United States
> Constitution.
>
> Sarah Palin's Book Club
>

[snip long list]

I've read maybe a quarter of these, really falling behind. It's an
inspiration. I should really try to read the rest of them by election
day.

Silas Marner? We did that in 7th grade, IIRC. Some of the books,
while completely inoffensive, I can see why a religious fundamentalist
idiot would be against, but Silas Marner? Are they against people
changing for the better and caring for those less fortunate?

And why didn't Nathanial Hawthorne or Herman Melville make the list?

UNFAIR!!


>
> See the following:
>
> http://www.librarian.net/stax/2366/sarah-palin-vp-nominee/
> http://www.time.com/time/politics/artic le/0,8599,1837918,00.html
>

--
John

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 10:59:53 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
> >>
> >> That seems to me to be a major difference between the neocons and
> >> traditional conservatives. The neocons seem to want all government
> >> supported organizations to espouse ONLY the neocon view of the world.
> >> Of course, the PC branch of liberalism is just as bad.
> >
> > Whereas the Constitutional view is one in which the Federal government
> > is so limited in scope that none of this would even be a discussion.
>
> Tim, you lost that argument in 1861. Most legal opinion of the day held
> that a state that had freely joined the union could freely leave it. Old
> Abe even argued that once in a court case, IIRC. We still went to war to
> prevent it.
>
> So yes, the federal government has expanded far beyond its original scope.
> Often at the behest of the general public. You're trying to close
> Pandora's box.
>
While closing it may be impossible, attempting to stem the leakage
of demons within is certainly a worthwhile goal.

--
Keith

"jo4hn" wrote:

> Then tell me I'm not the only voter who doesn't want this woman
> within thirty feet of the United States Constitution.

You're not, but since you are in California, not to worry.

Not even a revolution will keep California from voting anything but
Democratic this election cycle, so you will have done your part to
express your views..

I have no problem with those people wishing to have ultra conservative
religious views.

Think it is called religious freedom.

OTOH, I have a major problem with anyone attempting to inject any
religious position into the political situation.

Lew

Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>> If everything you note here is 100% true, she and McCain are still
>> a miles better choice than Obama and Biden. I'd vote for W for
>> reelection a third term before I'd vote for those two Leninists.
>> (And I can't stand the Republican party.)
>
> Nice to see you reiterating your middle of the road stance, Tim :-).
>
> I wonder if equating someone to Marx, Lenin, et al, should rate the
> same automatic disqualification as Hitler equates do?

Larry,

Never argue with the ignorant. They'll drag you down to their level, and
then beat you on experience.

Scott

>>"This problem could easily be solved with a minute's thought but
>>thought is arduous and a minute is a long time"--can't remember who
>>said it.
>>
> Presumably, you would wish others to make that investment of a
> minute's thought, before spreading rumors about *you*, rumors that
> they suspect to be false.
>
> Yet you won't do the same.
>
> Why is that?

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

>
> I don't want to live in a theocracy, but I'm far more worried about
> being overtaken by the Leninists on the left (like Obama) than I am
> about a person of deep personal faith occupying office...

I, for one, am deeply concerned about a (any) President using the office
to impose, and thus enforce, by Presidential decree and administrative
action the beliefs and theology of a specific denomination. The creation
of an ipso-facto state religion.

There is a line, and I have no concept where that line is, that should a
President cross it, would lead to claims the President has violated his
oath of office by actions which are blatantly and defiantly opposed the
1st amendment. In such a situation, after Supreme Court review, could
likely give cause to the Congress to start Impeachment processes.

For example: If the President, by decree, refuses to provide federal
funds to any public school districts which will not teach creationism.

or If the President, by administrative decree, halts all medicare
reimbursements to any hospital that has extended admission privileges or
staff position to any Doctor who performs abortions.

The Democratic Party does not claim the either Obama or Bidden to be
above the Constitution. Obama will enforce the Constitution, and the
laws authorized and enacted by Congress as interpreted by the Federal
Courts.

McBush and Palin scare me (down to my toes) when they give speeches
proclaiming their desire to impose a minor religious sect belief system
upon this nation by their actions (if elected.) Even if those actions
are in opposition, or in violation, of current statues or decisions from
the Federal Court(s) system.

BTW: I completely, and totally reject any and all arguments that the
constitution's first amendment does not protect the Federal Government
from any specific religious denomination taking control.

On Sep 9, 7:10=A0pm, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>...
> =A0(Which, BTW
> conflicted with some state constitutions that restricted
> public office to Christians.) =A0 ...

Er, after thinking about this a bit I think the actual provisions I
have read forbade office to atheists.

--

FF

On Sep 9, 5:20=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Phil Again wrote:
>
> ...
>
>
> > I may be unable to understand this: the constitution was written my
> > humans, passed by humans, and amended by humans. =A0No Divine inspirati=
on
> > or intervention is claimed or declared. =A0No Supreme court decision ha=
s ...
>
> Utterly false. =A0Virtually every Framer at some point spoke of their
> belief in the Divine as animating their political ideals. =A0No matter
> how much you put your fingers in your ears and scream to the contrary
> you are still wrong in this matter. =A0Notice that I have not - anywhere
> in this thread argued *for* more religion in politics. =A0I have merely
> argued that you and yours are - and remain - utterly wrong in your
> understanding of our history because - apparently - it hurts your feeling=
s.
> a
> ...

Wrong.

What Phil wrote was entirely correct.

What you wrote was entirely irrelevant.

What the Framers had to say at some _other_ point is
irrelevant. The Constitution itself contains not one one
word invoking Divine or religious inspiration or justification.
Religion is mentioned only in terms of prohibiting any
religious test as a qualification for office. (Which, BTW
conflicted with some state constitutions that restricted
public office to Christians.) Subsequent amendments
only prohibit establishment of religion, or discrimination
on the basis of religion.

As these facts contrast markedly with the Articles of Confederation
and the Declaration of Independence, I do not think the omission
was accidental.

Of course, having read those documents, I may have you at
a disadvantage.

Whatever religious beliefs the Framers had, they chose to leave
them out of the Constitution. That they chose to leave their
religion out of their politics for their most important political
work, should serve as an inspiration to today's politicians.

--

FF

In article <[email protected]>, jo4hn <[email protected]> wrote:

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

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

I'd expected better from you.

jo4hn wrote:

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

Palin's actions were unacceptable and IMO call her fitness to be VP into
serious question. However there has been a flood of anti-Palin propaganda
and misinformation including fake photos of her, when closely examined some
of the claims about her have evaporated. I'm concerned about this paragraph
from the site you linked to:

"note: there's some buzz being generated that says that this post contains a
comment that lists the books that Palin supposedly wanted banned. The list
is here, [link to the list] but there appears to be no truth to the claim
made by the commenter, and no further documentation or support for this has
turned up."

So the question has to be asked, where did this list come from? Are we
supposed to just blindly accept this list which apparently comes from a de
facto anonymous comment on somebody's blog?

Here's a story about the issue from the Anchorage Daily News, if they'd
printed a list of books Palin wanted banned it might be credible. They
didn't.

http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/515512.html

BTW, the NY Times reported that no list of books or objectionable passages
was ever offered during the exchanges between Palin and the librarian, so
again, where does this list come from? Snopes.com also asks how it was that
a list of books Palin wanted banned in 1996 includes books which had not yet
been published (e.g. the Harry Potter books). That's kind of a tip-off that
the list might not be the real deal.

There are good reasons for wondering if Sarah Palin is fit to be VP, it
really isn't necessary to make up stuff that never happened, leave that sort
of trash to Daily Kos.

Maybe I'm crazy for thinking the TRUTH matters in a political
discussion, but this story is unverifiable and almost certainly
false.

______________________________________________
"This is not a true tale, but who needs truth if it's dull?"
- Mason Williams

On Sep 8, 2:36=A0pm, jo4hn <[email protected]> wrote:
> Let's spend a few moments browsing the list of books Mayor Sarah Palin
> tried to get town librarian Mary Ellen Baker to ban in the lovely,
> all-American town of Wasilla, Alaska . =A0When Baker refused to remove th=
e
> books from the shelves, Palin threatened to fire her. =A0The story was
> reported in Time Magazine and the list comes from the librarian.net websi=
te.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0I'm sure you'll find your own personal favorit=
es among the
> classics Palin wanted to protect the good people of Wasilla from, but
> the ones that jumped out at me were the four Stephen King novels (way to
> go Stephen, Joh n Steinbeck only got three titles on the list), that
> notorious piece of communist pornography "My Friend Flicka," =A0the usual
> assortment of Harry Potter books, works by Shakespeare, Walt Whitman,
> Kurt Vonnegut, Mark Twain (always fun to see those two names together),
> Arthur Miller, and Aristophanes, as well as "Our Bodies, Ourselves"
> (insert your own Bristol Palin joke here), and the infamous one-two
> punch of depravity: =A0"To Kill a Mockingbird" and "Little Red Riding
> Hood." =A0But the cherry on the sundae, the topper, is Sarah Palin's
> passionate, religious mission to clear the shelves of the Wasilia Public
> Library of that ultimate evil tome: =A0"Webster's Ninth New Collegiate
> Dictionary." =A0That's the one with "equality," "free speech" and
> "justice" in it.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Go over to your book case and take down one of=
the books
> you'll find on the list (I know you've got a couple) and give it a read
> in honor of the founding fathers. =A0Then tell me I'm not the only voter
> who doesn't want this woman within thirty feet of the United States
> Constitution.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Sarah Palin's Book Club
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L?Engle
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Annie on My Mind by Nancy Garden
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Blubber by Judy Blume
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Canterbury Tales by Chaucer
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Carrie by Stephen King
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Christine by Stephen King
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Confessions by Jean-Jacques Rousseau
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Cujo by Stephen King
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Curses, Hexes, and Spells by Daniel Cohen
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Daddy?s Roommate by Michael Willhoite
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Day No Pigs Would Die by Robert Peck
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Decameron by Boccaccio
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0East of Eden by John Steinbeck
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Fallen Angels by Walter Myers
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Fanny Hill (Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure) by=
John Cleland
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Flowers For Algernon by Daniel Keyes
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Forever by Judy Blume
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Grendel by John Champlin Gardner
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Halloween ABC by Eve Merriam
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Harry Potter and the Sorcerer?s Stone by J.K. =
Rowling
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets by J.K=
. Rowling
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Harry Potter20and the Prizoner of Azkaban by J=
.K. Rowling
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by J.K. Ro=
wling
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Have to Go by Robert Munsch
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Heather Has Two Mommies by Leslea Newman
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0How to Eat Fried Worms by Thomas Rockwell
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelo=
u
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Impressions edited by Jack Booth
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0In the Night Kitchen by Maurice Sendak
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0It's Okay if You Don't Love Me by Norma Klein
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Lady Chatterley's Lover by D.H. Lawrence
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Little Red Riding Hood by Jacob and Wilhelm Gr=
imm
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Lord of the Flies by William Golding
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Love is One of the Choices by Norma Klein
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Lysistrata by Aristophanes
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0More Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwar=
tz
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0My Brother Sam Is Dead by James Lincoln Collie=
r and
> Christopher Collier
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0My House by Nikki Giovanni
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0My Friend Flicka by Mary O'Hara
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Night Chills by Dean Koontz
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0On My Honor by Marion Dane Bauer
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0One Day in The Life of Ivan Denisovich by Alex=
ander
> Solzhenitsyn
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garci=
a Marquez
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Ordinary People by Judith Guest
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Our Bodies, Ourselves by Boston Women's Health=
Collective
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Prince of Tides by Pat Conroy
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Revolting Rhymes by Roald Dahl
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Scary Stories 3: More Tales to Chill Your Bone=
s by Alvin
> Schwartz
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Separate Peace by John Knowles
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Silas Marner by George Eliot
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twa=
in
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Bastard by John Jakes
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Color Purple by Alice Walker
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Devil's Alternative by Frederick Forsyth
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Figure in the Shadows by John Bellairs
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Great Gilly Hopkins by Katherine Paterson
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Headless Cupid by Zilpha Snyder
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Learnin g Tree by Gordon Parks
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Living Bible by William C. Bower
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The New Teenage Body Book by Kathy McCoy and C=
harles Wibbelsman
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Pigman by Paul Zindel
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Seduction of Peter S. by Lawrence Sanders
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Shining by Stephen King
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Witches by Roald Dahl
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Witches of Worm by Zilpha Snyder
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Then Again, Maybe I Won't by Judy Blume
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Twelfth Night by William Shakespeare
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary by t=
he
> Merriam-Webster Editorial Staff
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Witches, Pumpkins, and Grinning Ghosts: The St=
ory of the
> Halloween Symbols by Edna Barth
>
> See the following:
>
> http://www.librarian.net/stax/2366/sarah-palin-vp-nominee/http://www.time=
.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1837918,00.html

On Sep 10, 12:52=A0pm, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sep 10, 11:20=A0am, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 10, 10:26=A0am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > ...
>
> > > As a matter of law, you're absolutely right. =A0To remove the evil of=
slavery,
> > > we had to sacrifice limited government, the rule of law, the Constitu=
tion,
> > > and, arguably, our future. =A0Perhaps this is our divine punishment f=
or
> > > ever trading in humans.
>
> > Slavery has been aptly referred to as the original sin of the
> > United States.
>
> I've always found that a bit of a laugher. The U.S. was far from the
> only country to use slaves--hell, several do today. The supplies of
> slaves came, often on British ships, from Africa where tribesmen and
> women were gathered by Arab slave traders, or, at times, by their own
> continent-mates who had beaten them in battle or otherwise acquired
> power over them.
>
> Yet it's the original sin of the U.S.

Yes.

That the sin predates the nation changes nothing.

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

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

Sharing the blame makes none of the guilty parties blameless.

--

FF

In article <[email protected]>, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Maxwell Lol wrote:
>> [email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>>
>>> In other words... you figured it was probably false, but decided to
>>> spread it anyway.
>>
>> The web page that the OP referred to already rebutted the claim
>> about
>> the list of books. All you had to do was read the responses. I read
>> it the day before I say it posted here.
>>
>>
>> But spend more than 15 seconds researching an issue - too much work
>> for some....
>
>"This problem could easily be solved with a minute's thought but
>thought is arduous and a minute is a long time"--can't remember who
>said it.
>
Presumably, you would wish others to make that investment of a minute's
thought, before spreading rumors about *you*, rumors that they suspect to be
false.

Yet you won't do the same.

Why is that?

Morris Dovey wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> Morris Dovey wrote:
>>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have no tolerance for killing people that cannot defend themselves.
>>>>
>>> Eh? Are you posting from Darfur? Listening to the echoes of Beethoven's
>>> Ninth in Sarajevo? Turning back Russian tanks at the Georgian border?
>>>
>>> I'm inclined to believe you have a bit more tolerance than you've been
>>> willing to admit to yourself.
>>>
>>
>> What an absurd argument. The fact that I cannot actually *do* anything
>> about these situations is hardly evidence that I tolerate them. In
>> any case, the genocide directed at the unborn in the West far exceeds
>> that in the places you cite above. I *can* do something about that:
>> Vote for people who pledge to stop the infanticide.
>
> I don't question that, in your heart, you mean well - I just noticed
> that you seem to have difficulty getting your feet and hands to follow
> your heart.
>
> My interpretation of what you're saying is that you want to be the
> arbiter of right and wrong, and that you expect others (who you select
> with your ballot) to supply the blood, sweat, and tears needed to get
> the job done.
>
> I don't think that'll work, but I hope you have a nice ride.
>

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

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

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

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






--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Sep 9, 11:55=A0am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...
> Our government - from its inception - was deeply influenced by
> Judeo-Christian people and ideas. The fact that this annoys you
> doesn't change the fact.
>

I know more than one Jew who finds the term "Judeo-Christian"
annoying or outright insulting.

They regard it as just another attempt on the part of Christians
to blame the Jews for their own moral failings.

--

FF

samson wrote:
<SNIP>
>>>
>>> http://www.librarian.net/stax/2366/sarah-palin-vp-nominee/
>>> http://www.time.com/time/politics/artic le/0,8599,1837918,00.html
>> This is OT, please mark it as such.
>
> We should assign a single thread where everyone puts their
> political stuff. That way, we can bozo list it with one
> entry.
>
> S.

Naw, I don't mind the political stuff (or any other non-WWing
stuff for that matter) so long as it is so marked. The whole
point of "OT" is so you can filter on *that* if you like ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Every second of this campaign not spent talking about the Republican
Party's record, and John McCain's role in that record, is a victory
for John McCain.

Her critics like to say that Palin hasn't accomplished anything.

In the space of ten days she's succeeded in distracting the entire
country from Bush's record -- and McCain's complicity in it.

My friends, that's accomplishment we can believe in.

Keep your eye on the ball.

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 09:26:09 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> As a matter of law, you're absolutely right. To remove the evil of slavery,
>> we had to sacrifice limited government, the rule of law, the Constitution,
>> and, arguably, our future. Perhaps this is our divine punishment for
>> ever trading in humans.
>
> If you believe the Gulf wars were fought to "free the oppressed" then

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

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

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


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

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

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"jo4hn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Let's spend a few moments browsing the list of books Mayor Sarah Palin
> tried to get town librarian Mary Ellen Baker to ban in the lovely,
> all-American town of Wasilla, Alaska . When Baker refused to remove the
> books from the shelves, Palin threatened to fire her. The story was
> reported in Time Magazine and the list comes from the librarian.net
> website.
>
>
> I'm sure you'll find your own personal favorites among the
> classics Palin wanted to protect the good people of Wasilla from, but the
> ones that jumped out at me were the four Stephen King novels (way to go
> Stephen, Joh n Steinbeck only got three titles on the list), that
> notorious piece of communist pornography "My Friend Flicka," the usual
> assortment of Harry Potter books, works by Shakespeare, Walt Whitman, Kurt
> Vonnegut, Mark Twain (always fun to see those two names together), Arthur
> Miller, and Aristophanes, as well as "Our Bodies, Ourselves" (insert your
> own Bristol Palin joke here), and the infamous one-two punch of depravity:
> "To Kill a Mockingbird" and "Little Red Riding Hood." But the cherry on
> the sundae, the topper, is Sarah Palin's passionate, religious mission to
> clear the shelves of the Wasilia Public Library of that ultimate evil
> tome: "Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary." That's the one with
> "equality," "free speech" and "justice" in it.
>
> Go over to your book case and take down one of the books
> you'll find on the list (I know you've got a couple) and give it a read in
> honor of the founding fathers. Then tell me I'm not the only voter who
> doesn't want this woman within thirty feet of the United States
> Constitution.
>
> Sarah Palin's Book Club

Not that I'd vote for the ticket but did you bother to read any of your
own link? NOTE the last paragraph witht he high-lighted word "note."
Fair is fair (not that right-wingers care anything about playing fair).

Dave in Houston

Sarah Palin, VP nominee
Posted in hi | Tuesday, September 2nd, 2008 | Trackback
Tags: banningbooks, books, libraries, sarahpalin

I try to keep "who to vote for" politics pretty well off of this blog and
prefer to discuss politics in general and better and worse strategies for
promoting libraries in whatever political climate we happen to be in. People
acutely interested in high level politics in the US who also work in
libraries may be interested in this Time magazine article about Sarah Palin.
I was very interested in this paragraph.


[Former Wasilla mayor] Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject
religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she
could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had
inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." The librarian,
Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the
time show that Palin had threatened to fire her for not giving "full
support" to the mayor.
Usually I'm just happy to see libraries even mentioned in national level
politics, but not like this. Mary Ellen Baker resigned from her library
director job in 1999.

note: there's some buzz being generated that says that this post contains a
comment that lists the books that Palin supposedly wanted banned. The list
is here, but there appears to be no truth to the claim made by the
commenter, and no further documentation or support for this has turned up.





> http://www.librarian.net/stax/2366/sarah-palin-vp-nominee/
> http://www.time.com/time/politics/artic le/0,8599,1837918,00.html

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> On Sep 9, 7:06 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 9, 11:55 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> Our government - from its inception - was deeply influenced by
>>>> Judeo-Christian people and ideas. The fact that this annoys you
>>>> doesn't change the fact.
>>> I know more than one Jew who finds the term "Judeo-Christian"
>>> annoying or outright insulting.
>> ...
>>
>>
>>> They regard it as just another attempt on the part of Christians
>>> to blame the Jews for their own moral failings.
>> Utter nonsense. I know many Christians in many different traditions,
>> none of whom have I ever heard make such an absurd claim.
>>
>
> Neither have I.
>
> So?
>
> As I made clear above, I have heard the claim made by Jews.
>
> --
>
> FF

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

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> On Sep 9, 5:20 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Phil Again wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>> I may be unable to understand this: the constitution was written my
>>> humans, passed by humans, and amended by humans. No Divine inspiration
>>> or intervention is claimed or declared. No Supreme court decision has ...
>> Utterly false. Virtually every Framer at some point spoke of their
>> belief in the Divine as animating their political ideals. No matter
>> how much you put your fingers in your ears and scream to the contrary
>> you are still wrong in this matter. Notice that I have not - anywhere
>> in this thread argued *for* more religion in politics. I have merely
>> argued that you and yours are - and remain - utterly wrong in your
>> understanding of our history because - apparently - it hurts your feelings.
>> a
>> ...
>
> Wrong.
>
> What Phil wrote was entirely correct.
>
> What you wrote was entirely irrelevant.
>
> What the Framers had to say at some _other_ point is
> irrelevant. The Constitution itself contains not one one
> word invoking Divine or religious inspiration or justification.
> Religion is mentioned only in terms of prohibiting any
> religious test as a qualification for office. (Which, BTW
> conflicted with some state constitutions that restricted
> public office to Christians.) Subsequent amendments
> only prohibit establishment of religion, or discrimination
> on the basis of religion.

And they - isn't this fascinating - at no point *prohibit*
the influence of religion on government. Quite to the contrary,
the prohibitions are on *government* not to meddle with religion.
Given the precise legal writing that characterizes the Constitution,
I think *that* is no accident.

>
> As these facts contrast markedly with the Articles of Confederation
> and the Declaration of Independence, I do not think the omission
> was accidental.
>
> Of course, having read those documents, I may have you at
> a disadvantage.
>

You don't ... I've read all the above at one point or another.
I have the advantage of *understanding them* because I am not
trying to inflict my current worldview upon documents. I actually
let them speak for themselves. You sound remarkably like one
of those "living document" ideologues who - under the influence
of malignant theories such as deconstructionism /post-modernism /
post-structurualistm - can find any meaning in any text they wish ...
thereby robbing the texts of *all* meaning.


> Whatever religious beliefs the Framers had, they chose to leave
> them out of the Constitution. That they chose to leave their
> religion out of their politics for their most important political
> work, should serve as an inspiration to today's politicians.

You are being argumentative for its own sake. No rational person
looks at a document like the Constitution in some sort of sterile
isolation. Exegesis of a text requires input from something other
than just the text. I have no doubt the Framers did NOT want a state
sponsored religion. But arguments like Phil's fundamentally
underestimate the degree to which the Framers were animated by
religious principles. They said so, they said so repeatedly.
Suddenly discovering a pure atheist/humanist document in the
Constitution does a disservice to our history and tradition.
One can acknowledge the religious influences without demanding
a theocracy.

Then again, having read a number of these extra-canonical texts
and the words of the Framers, I may have you at a disadvantage.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"J. Clarke" wrote:

> OK, I am hereby killfiling all posts to this newsgroup that containt
> the words "Palin", "Obama", and/or "McCain".

Meat axe mode.

Your loss.

Lew

On Sep 8, 8:21=A0pm, FrozenNorth <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Eigenvector wrote:
>
> > "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> jo4hn wrote:
> >>> Let's spend a few moments browsing the list of books Mayor Sarah
> >>> Palin
> >>> tried to get town librarian Mary Ellen Baker to ban in the lovely,
>
> >> OK, I am hereby killfiling all posts to this newsgroup that containt
> >> the words "Palin", "Obama", and/or "McCain". =A0If anybody posts one
> >> that relates to the woodworking prowess of any of those worthies,
> >> please be kind enough to let me know.
>
> >> --
> >> --
> >> --John
>
> > Damnit, I was just going to post something about a new horsehead booken=
d I
> > made called Obama Palin McCain. =A0It is quite a striking design. =A0Ve=
ry
> > conservative wood tones with very liberal use of curves. =A0There does =
that
> > count?
>
> You missed Biden.
> ;-)
> --
> Froz...

Bad Froz!! *we have to whisper because there are some people here who
seem to think that a newsgroup, ANY news group is for Americans
only...*

DGDevin wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> You can easily remove my ability to influence the content of the
>> library by having the government ceasing make me pay for it.
>
> Some people object to their taxes being used to fund the military, should
> they be allowed to opt-out of contributing to the defense budget? Obviously

No - because running the military is an explicitly enumerated task of
the Federal government in the Constitution, but libraries are not.

> that is impractical, we can't have every taxpayer micro-managing various
> govt. budgets. It's not unlike letting individuals demand books be removed
> from a public library, eventually you'd have few books left. If you don't
> like how the govt. spends your tax dollars there are elections every few
> years so you have the opportunity to elect people who will be more
> responsive to your wishes. So long as the bulk of the population and their
> elected representatives think publicly funded libraries are a good idea,
> you'll have to learn to live with the injustice of your tax dollars being
> used for things you disapprove of, just like the rest of us.

Translation: If enough people break the law, it's OK. Fine. There are lots
of laws I don't like, so since you obviously don't believe in rule-of-law,
I am free to ignore the rules I don't like.

You are going to have to get used to the idea that our Federal government
is built upon a doctrine of enumerated rights. If a right is not enumerated
in the Constitution, the Federal government has no permission to act on
that matter. You are also going to have to come to terms with the
fact that ignoring this doctrine and thus our entire legal history
places *all* law at risk.

>
>


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Sep 11, 9:40=A0pm, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:36:23 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
> > While tariffs were a divisive issue, the expansion of slavery into
> > the Western territories, which was essential for the survival
> > of slavery, was the issue the led to secession and the Civil War.
>
> Fred, what I was trying to clarify was that the issue that led to
> secession and the issue that led to war were not the same. =A0There are
> several books out there of writings from the time that will clarify my
> point, if you're interested enough to look for them.

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

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

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

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

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

But I digress.

--

FF

On Sep 10, 2:41=A0pm, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
> >>> What the Framers had to say at some _other_ point is
> >>> irrelevant.
>
> >> Well, not exactly. The SCOTUS is known to look at the writings of the
> >> Framers and legislation they were involved in at the state level and
> >> so on in making rulings. E.g., in the recent 2nd Amendment case both
> >> sides referred to such extra-Constitutional evidence in trying to
> >> illustrate what the Framers meant.
>
> > Again, that =A0is irrelevant to the point Phil made which is that the
> > Framers explicitly left religion out of the Constitution.
>
> I'm a realist, and the brutal reality is the Constitution says what the
> SCOTUS says it says. =A0If the court rules that God stays in the Pledge o=
f
> Allegiance then that's that. =A0And if they refer to extra-Constitutional
> factors like letters or local laws the Framers were associated with in
> making their ruling (as they recently did in the 2nd Amendment case) then
> what the Framers didn't say in the Constitution is of academic interest
> only.

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

--

FF

On Sep 10, 11:57=A0am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 10, 10:26 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> ...
>
> >> As a matter of law, you're absolutely right. =A0To remove the evil of =
slavery,
> >> we had to sacrifice limited government, the rule of law, the Constitut=
ion,
> >> and, arguably, our future. =A0Perhaps this is our divine punishment fo=
r
> >> ever trading in humans.
>
> > Slavery has been aptly referred to as the original sin of the
> > United States.
>
> ...
>
> Well, in a sense I agree. =A0But let's not forget that the US - indeed
> all the Western powers of that day - hardly invented slavery. =A0More to
> the point, the slaves they bought were enslaved by, um, *Africans*.
> Further to the point, it was the West - animated by the Enlightenment
> ideas and driven by *religious* conscience *that gave up slavery in
> less than 3 centuries* whereas it has been going on for millenia before.

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

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

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

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

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

--

FF

On Sep 10, 11:43=A0am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 9, 7:06 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
> >>> On Sep 9, 11:55 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> ...
> >>>> Our government - from its inception - was deeply influenced by
> >>>> Judeo-Christian people and ideas. The fact that this annoys you
> >>>> doesn't change the fact.
> >>> I know more than one Jew who finds the term "Judeo-Christian"
> >>> annoying or outright insulting.
> >> ...
>
> >>> They regard it as just another attempt on the part of Christians
> >>> to blame the Jews for their own moral failings.
> >> Utter nonsense. =A0I know many Christians in many different traditions=
,
> >> none of whom have I ever heard make such an absurd claim.
>
> > Neither have I.
>
> > So?
>
> > As I made clear above, I have heard the claim made by Jews.
>
> ...
>
> I've heard all manner of claims about all manner of things from all
> manner of people. =A0This does not instantly imbue those claims with
> any credibility. =A0
>...

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

--

FF

In article <[email protected]>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sep 9, 7:06=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>>
>> > On Sep 9, 11:55 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> ...
>> >> Our government - from its inception - was deeply influenced by
>> >> Judeo-Christian people and ideas. The fact that this annoys you
>> >> doesn't change the fact.
>>
>> > I know more than one Jew who finds the term "Judeo-Christian"
>> > annoying or outright insulting.
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>> > They regard it as just another attempt on the part of Christians
>> > to blame the Jews for their own moral failings.
>>
>> Utter nonsense. =A0I know many Christians in many different traditions,
>> none of whom have I ever heard make such an absurd claim.
>>
>
>Neither have I.
>
>So?
>
>As I made clear above, I have heard the claim made by Jews.
>
[whoosh]

Slow down, Fred, you're missing the point.

samson wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
>> jo4hn wrote:
>>> Let's spend a few moments browsing the list of books Mayor Sarah Palin
>>> tried to get town librarian Mary Ellen Baker to ban in the lovely,
>>> all-American town of Wasilla, Alaska . When Baker refused to remove the
>>> books from the shelves, Palin threatened to fire her. The story was
>>> reported in Time Magazine and the list comes from the librarian.net
>>> website.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm sure you'll find your own personal favorites among the
>>> classics Palin wanted to protect the good people of Wasilla from, but
>>> the ones that jumped out at me were the four Stephen King novels (way to
>>> go Stephen, Joh n Steinbeck only got three titles on the list), that
>>> notorious piece of communist pornography "My Friend Flicka," the usual
>>> assortment of Harry Potter books, works by Shakespeare, Walt Whitman,
>>> Kurt Vonnegut, Mark Twain (always fun to see those two names together),
>>> Arthur Miller, and Aristophanes, as well as "Our Bodies, Ourselves"
>>> (insert your own Bristol Palin joke here), and the infamous one-two
>>> punch of depravity: "To Kill a Mockingbird" and "Little Red Riding
>>> Hood." But the cherry on the sundae, the topper, is Sarah Palin's
>>> passionate, religious mission to clear the shelves of the Wasilia Public
>>> Library of that ultimate evil tome: "Webster's Ninth New Collegiate
>>> Dictionary." That's the one with "equality," "free speech" and
>>> "justice" in it.
>>>
>>> Go over to your book case and take down one of the books
>>> you'll find on the list (I know you've got a couple) and give it a read
>>> in honor of the founding fathers. Then tell me I'm not the only voter
>>> who doesn't want this woman within thirty feet of the United States
>>> Constitution.
>>>
>>> Sarah Palin's Book Club
>>>
>>> A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
>>> A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L?Engle
>>> Annie on My Mind by Nancy Garden
>>> As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
>>> Blubber by Judy Blume
>>> Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
>>> Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson
>>> Canterbury Tales by Chaucer
>>> Carrie by Stephen King
>>> Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
>>> Christine by Stephen King
>>> Confessions by Jean-Jacques Rousseau
>>> Cujo by Stephen King
>>> Curses, Hexes, and Spells by Daniel Cohen
>>> Daddy?s Roommate by Michael Willhoite
>>> Day No Pigs Would Die by Robert Peck
>>> Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller
>>> Decameron by Boccaccio
>>> East of Eden by John Steinbeck
>>> Fallen Angels by Walter Myers
>>> Fanny Hill (Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure) by John Cleland
>>> Flowers For Algernon by Daniel Keyes
>>> Forever by Judy Blume
>>> Grendel by John Champlin Gardner
>>> Halloween ABC by Eve Merriam
>>> Harry Potter and the Sorcerer?s Stone by J.K. Rowling
>>> Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets by J.K. Rowling
>>> Harry Potter20and the Prizoner of Azkaban by J.K. Rowling
>>> Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by J.K. Rowling
>>> Have to Go by Robert Munsch
>>> Heather Has Two Mommies by Leslea Newman
>>> How to Eat Fried Worms by Thomas Rockwell
>>> Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
>>> I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou
>>> Impressions edited by Jack Booth
>>> In the Night Kitchen by Maurice Sendak
>>> It's Okay if You Don't Love Me by Norma Klein
>>> James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl
>>> Lady Chatterley's Lover by D.H. Lawrence
>>> Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman
>>> Little Red Riding Hood by Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm
>>> Lord of the Flies by William Golding
>>> Love is One of the Choices by Norma Klein
>>> Lysistrata by Aristophanes
>>> More Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz
>>> My Brother Sam Is Dead by James Lincoln Collier and
>>> Christopher Collier
>>> My House by Nikki Giovanni
>>> My Friend Flicka by Mary O'Hara
>>> Night Chills by Dean Koontz
>>> Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
>>> On My Honor by Marion Dane Bauer
>>> One Day in The Life of Ivan Denisovich by Alexander
>>> Solzhenitsyn
>>> One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey
>>> One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez
>>> Ordinary People by Judith Guest
>>> Our Bodies, Ourselves by Boston Women's Health Collective
>>> Prince of Tides by Pat Conroy
>>> Revolting Rhymes by Roald Dahl
>>> Scary Stories 3: More Tales to Chill Your Bones by Alvin
>>> Schwartz
>>> Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz
>>> Separate Peace by John Knowles
>>> Silas Marner by George Eliot
>>> Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
>>> Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs
>>> The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
>>> The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain
>>> The Bastard by John Jakes
>>> The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
>>> The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier
>>> The Color Purple by Alice Walker
>>> The Devil's Alternative by Frederick Forsyth
>>> The Figure in the Shadows by John Bellairs
>>> The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
>>> The Great Gilly Hopkins by Katherine Paterson
>>> The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood
>>> The Headless Cupid by Zilpha Snyder
>>> The Learnin g Tree by Gordon Parks
>>> The Living Bible by William C. Bower
>>> The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare
>>> The New Teenage Body Book by Kathy McCoy and Charles Wibbelsman
>>> The Pigman by Paul Zindel
>>> The Seduction of Peter S. by Lawrence Sanders
>>> The Shining by Stephen King
>>> The Witches by Roald Dahl
>>> The Witches of Worm by Zilpha Snyder
>>> Then Again, Maybe I Won't by Judy Blume
>>> To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee
>>> Twelfth Night by William Shakespeare
>>> Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary by the
>>> Merriam-Webster Editorial Staff
>>> Witches, Pumpkins, and Grinning Ghosts: The Story of the
>>> Halloween Symbols by Edna Barth
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> See the following:
>>>
>>> http://www.librarian.net/stax/2366/sarah-palin-vp-nominee/
>>> http://www.time.com/time/politics/artic le/0,8599,1837918,00.html
>> This is OT, please mark it as such.
>
> We should assign a single thread where everyone puts their
> political stuff. That way, we can bozo list it with one
> entry.
>
> S.

Should be marked as B.S.:

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

MikeB

jo4hn wrote:
> Let's spend a few moments browsing the list of books Mayor Sarah
> Palin
> tried to get town librarian Mary Ellen Baker to ban in the lovely,

OK, I am hereby killfiling all posts to this newsgroup that containt
the words "Palin", "Obama", and/or "McCain". If anybody posts one
that relates to the woodworking prowess of any of those worthies,
please be kind enough to let me know.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Maxwell Lol wrote:
> [email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>
>> In other words... you figured it was probably false, but decided to
>> spread it anyway.
>
> The web page that the OP referred to already rebutted the claim
> about
> the list of books. All you had to do was read the responses. I read
> it the day before I say it posted here.
>
>
> But spend more than 15 seconds researching an issue - too much work
> for some....

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

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

RE: Subject

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

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

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

He simply doesn't have the tools.

Lew

jo4hn wrote:
> Let's spend a few moments browsing the list of books Mayor Sarah Palin
> tried to get town librarian Mary Ellen Baker to ban in the lovely,
> all-American town of Wasilla, Alaska . When Baker refused to remove the
> books from the shelves, Palin threatened to fire her. The story was
> reported in Time Magazine and the list comes from the librarian.net
> website.
>
>
> I'm sure you'll find your own personal favorites among the
> classics Palin wanted to protect the good people of Wasilla from, but
> the ones that jumped out at me were the four Stephen King novels (way to
> go Stephen, Joh n Steinbeck only got three titles on the list), that
> notorious piece of communist pornography "My Friend Flicka," the usual
> assortment of Harry Potter books, works by Shakespeare, Walt Whitman,
> Kurt Vonnegut, Mark Twain (always fun to see those two names together),
> Arthur Miller, and Aristophanes, as well as "Our Bodies, Ourselves"
> (insert your own Bristol Palin joke here), and the infamous one-two
> punch of depravity: "To Kill a Mockingbird" and "Little Red Riding
> Hood." But the cherry on the sundae, the topper, is Sarah Palin's
> passionate, religious mission to clear the shelves of the Wasilia Public
> Library of that ultimate evil tome: "Webster's Ninth New Collegiate
> Dictionary." That's the one with "equality," "free speech" and
> "justice" in it.
>
> Go over to your book case and take down one of the books
> you'll find on the list (I know you've got a couple) and give it a read
> in honor of the founding fathers. Then tell me I'm not the only voter
> who doesn't want this woman within thirty feet of the United States
> Constitution.
>
> Sarah Palin's Book Club
>
> A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
> A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L?Engle
> Annie on My Mind by Nancy Garden
> As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
> Blubber by Judy Blume
> Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
> Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson
> Canterbury Tales by Chaucer
> Carrie by Stephen King
> Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
> Christine by Stephen King
> Confessions by Jean-Jacques Rousseau
> Cujo by Stephen King
> Curses, Hexes, and Spells by Daniel Cohen
> Daddy?s Roommate by Michael Willhoite
> Day No Pigs Would Die by Robert Peck
> Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller
> Decameron by Boccaccio
> East of Eden by John Steinbeck
> Fallen Angels by Walter Myers
> Fanny Hill (Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure) by John Cleland
> Flowers For Algernon by Daniel Keyes
> Forever by Judy Blume
> Grendel by John Champlin Gardner
> Halloween ABC by Eve Merriam
> Harry Potter and the Sorcerer?s Stone by J.K. Rowling
> Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets by J.K. Rowling
> Harry Potter20and the Prizoner of Azkaban by J.K. Rowling
> Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by J.K. Rowling
> Have to Go by Robert Munsch
> Heather Has Two Mommies by Leslea Newman
> How to Eat Fried Worms by Thomas Rockwell
> Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
> I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou
> Impressions edited by Jack Booth
> In the Night Kitchen by Maurice Sendak
> It's Okay if You Don't Love Me by Norma Klein
> James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl
> Lady Chatterley's Lover by D.H. Lawrence
> Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman
> Little Red Riding Hood by Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm
> Lord of the Flies by William Golding
> Love is One of the Choices by Norma Klein
> Lysistrata by Aristophanes
> More Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz
> My Brother Sam Is Dead by James Lincoln Collier and
> Christopher Collier
> My House by Nikki Giovanni
> My Friend Flicka by Mary O'Hara
> Night Chills by Dean Koontz
> Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
> On My Honor by Marion Dane Bauer
> One Day in The Life of Ivan Denisovich by Alexander
> Solzhenitsyn
> One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey
> One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez
> Ordinary People by Judith Guest
> Our Bodies, Ourselves by Boston Women's Health Collective
> Prince of Tides by Pat Conroy
> Revolting Rhymes by Roald Dahl
> Scary Stories 3: More Tales to Chill Your Bones by Alvin
> Schwartz
> Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz
> Separate Peace by John Knowles
> Silas Marner by George Eliot
> Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
> Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs
> The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
> The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain
> The Bastard by John Jakes
> The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
> The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier
> The Color Purple by Alice Walker
> The Devil's Alternative by Frederick Forsyth
> The Figure in the Shadows by John Bellairs
> The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
> The Great Gilly Hopkins by Katherine Paterson
> The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood
> The Headless Cupid by Zilpha Snyder
> The Learnin g Tree by Gordon Parks
> The Living Bible by William C. Bower
> The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare
> The New Teenage Body Book by Kathy McCoy and Charles Wibbelsman
> The Pigman by Paul Zindel
> The Seduction of Peter S. by Lawrence Sanders
> The Shining by Stephen King
> The Witches by Roald Dahl
> The Witches of Worm by Zilpha Snyder
> Then Again, Maybe I Won't by Judy Blume
> To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee
> Twelfth Night by William Shakespeare
> Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary by the
> Merriam-Webster Editorial Staff
> Witches, Pumpkins, and Grinning Ghosts: The Story of the
> Halloween Symbols by Edna Barth
>
>
>
> See the following:
>
> http://www.librarian.net/stax/2366/sarah-palin-vp-nominee/
> http://www.time.com/time/politics/artic le/0,8599,1837918,00.html

This is OT, please mark it as such.

If everything you note here is 100% true, she and McCain are still
a miles better choice than Obama and Biden. I'd vote for W for
reelection a third term before I'd vote for those two Leninists.
(And I can't stand the Republican party.)

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> jo4hn wrote:
>> Let's spend a few moments browsing the list of books Mayor Sarah
>> Palin
>> tried to get town librarian Mary Ellen Baker to ban in the lovely,
>
> OK, I am hereby killfiling all posts to this newsgroup that containt
> the words "Palin", "Obama", and/or "McCain". If anybody posts one
> that relates to the woodworking prowess of any of those worthies,
> please be kind enough to let me know.
>
> --
> --
> --John

Damnit, I was just going to post something about a new horsehead bookend I
made called Obama Palin McCain. It is quite a striking design. Very
conservative wood tones with very liberal use of curves. There does that
count?

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 16:20:05 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> Nowhere have I said I wish to impose my religious beliefs - if any -
>> upon anyone. I wish to not pay for infanticide. I don't care what
>> the "courts have found in the matter". I prefer not to be a party
>> to murder. This apparently doesn't bother you much, and I'm not
>> saying you can or should be entirely prevented from doing so. I'm
>> saying I ought not to have to pay for it.
>
> Since you define it as murder, it is murder? Tim, you seem to have no
> tolerance for opposing points of view. I have no desire to force any

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

> woman to have an abortion, even though in my view it's not murder. But
> you would prevent women who disagree with you to abide by your views.

That is correct. Just like I want to prevent thief from stealing in
a bank, or a common thug from shooting my while walking down the street.
Personal rights are not boundless. They have legitimate limitations.
A woman's right to "choose" cannot supercede a human's very right to
exist.

>
> Why can't you live by your views and let others live by theirs. By all
> means argue the point, but try a little tolerance for the opinions of
> others. You are NOT infallible.

It is exactly because I am not infallible that I take this position.
I don't know when a fetus becomes human - no one does. A decent
and civil society thus takes the most careful possible view of this -
acknowledging that we don't know this moment - and extends citizenship
to that unborn child as soon as possible so as to prevent murder.
Is every abortion murder - I'd guess not (but I don't know). But
I think it is indisputable that some, or even many, are. I watch in
horror as the execrable political left has defended third trimester
abortions with a song in their vile little hearts and spring in their
step.

>
> Yes, I know. You'll bring up that tired rant about not wanting to pay for
> it. I think others have answered that one pretty well.

No one has answered it even remotely well. Let's review. Making me
pay for abortion is:

1) Un-Constitutional because this is no an enumerated right of the govt.
2) Forcing me to act in what I believe to be an immoral manner

So, it is both illegal and immoral.

>
> BTW, I took a look at our library budget. It's just under $10 million for
> 2008. The great majority of revenue is local property taxes plus some
> contract fees from local cities without their own library system and some
> interest earnings. A total of $161,000 is listed as miscellaneous. Some
> of that is book sales, some from fines, but lets give your view the
> benefit of the doubt and say that about $150,000 is government grants.
> That's roughly 1.5% of the budget. Or, if prorated, thank you for your
> contribution of 5 cents to our library. I'll think of you every week when
> I go there :-).
>

I have no objection to local taxation for schools, libraries, and so
on. I object specifically to the *Federal* government being involved
as it has no legal power to do so.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Phil Again wrote:
>> I don't want to live in a theocracy, but I'm far more worried about
>> being overtaken by the Leninists on the left (like Obama) than I am
>> about a person of deep personal faith occupying office...
>
> I, for one, am deeply concerned about a (any) President using the office
> to impose, and thus enforce, by Presidential decree and administrative
> action the beliefs and theology of a specific denomination. The creation
> of an ipso-facto state religion.

There is not now, nor has there ever been any serious risk of that in
the US. It is a red herring thrown out by the lifestyle liberals and
various anti-religionists. If anything, American culture and government
today are *less* religious than at any time in our history.

>
> There is a line, and I have no concept where that line is, that should a
> President cross it, would lead to claims the President has violated his
> oath of office by actions which are blatantly and defiantly opposed the
> 1st amendment. In such a situation, after Supreme Court review, could
> likely give cause to the Congress to start Impeachment processes.
>
> For example: If the President, by decree, refuses to provide federal
> funds to any public school districts which will not teach creationism.

You're focused on the symptoms, not the disease. There is no
Constitutionally enumerated power for the Federal government to
fund *any* education. Doing so is an arrogation of power to
the Feds that properly belongs in the hands of "the people and the
states." If you're all that worried about an overweening religious
president, all you have to do is demand that the Federal government
be trimmed back to its proper and Constitutionally limited roles -
there won't be enough there for religion to make much of a difference
one way or another.

>
> or If the President, by administrative decree, halts all medicare
> reimbursements to any hospital that has extended admission privileges or
> staff position to any Doctor who performs abortions.

More examples of Government Gone Wild. Oh, and BTW, as a person
of pretty deep principle and conviction on the matter, you and
yours are violating *my* civil rights when you make me pay for
your infanticide.

>
> The Democratic Party does not claim the either Obama or Bidden to be
> above the Constitution. Obama will enforce the Constitution, and the
> laws authorized and enacted by Congress as interpreted by the Federal
> Courts.

No he won't. He will expand social entitlement spending, wealth
redistirbution, and generally ignore the limits of power explicit
in the doctrine of enumerated powers. If it makes you feel better,
so will McCain. But Obama is almost overtly Leninist in his
hatred of wealth, achievement, and success.

>
> McBush and Palin scare me (down to my toes) when they give speeches
> proclaiming their desire to impose a minor religious sect belief system

Please cite where they have done so. (BTW, Judeo-Christianity, in its
various expressions is hardly a "minor" viewpoint.)

> upon this nation by their actions (if elected.) Even if those actions
> are in opposition, or in violation, of current statues or decisions from
> the Federal Court(s) system.

Nothwithstanding the left hallucinations to the contrary, the courts
are not supposed to be deciding what the law is. They are supposed to be
checking to make sure that laws in question are *Constitutional*.
Since neither the left nor right give a rats ass about the Consitution any
more, today's politics are simply a tug-of-war over whose perversions of
law will be enforced for the next 4 to 8 years.

>
> BTW: I completely, and totally reject any and all arguments that the
> constitution's first amendment does not protect the Federal Government
> from any specific religious denomination taking control.

You're free to reject what you like, you are not free to invent your
own facts.

It is simple, plain, and historically clear that virtually every
framer made direct appeals to their personal religious views when
constructing their theory of individual rights / structure of
government AND in their later conduct as government officials. It is
no accident that Congress began with a prayer. It is no accident that
references to "God" pepper their argument - their *public* argument.
Our government - from its inception - was deeply influenced by
Judeo-Christian people and ideas. The fact that this annoys you
doesn't change the fact.




--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
<SNIP>
> You are going to have to get used to the idea that our Federal government
> is built upon a doctrine of enumerated rights. If a right is not enumerated


Errrrr, make that a doctrine of enumerated *powers*...
>


>


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

In case nobody has checked, see:

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

w.


Hoosierpopi wrote:
> Every second of this campaign not spent talking about the Republican
> Party's record, and John McCain's role in that record, is a victory
> for John McCain.
>
> Her critics like to say that Palin hasn't accomplished anything.
>
> In the space of ten days she's succeeded in distracting the entire
> country from Bush's record -- and McCain's complicity in it.
>
> My friends, that's accomplishment we can believe in.
>
> Keep your eye on the ball.

"jo4hn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> jo4hn wrote:
> [snip]
>
> First of all, thank you all for your contributions. Secondly, my
> apologies for not labeling this exercise OT.
>
> Having watched Ms Palin give her speech, I was struck by her ability
> to breathe life into the crowd. She actually said little beyond
> McCain good, Obama evil, me hockey mom; having been given little
> policy by the RNC. Since then she has not been allowed in public
> unless she was in the company of McCain and RNC functionaries. I
> was curious to see what the wRECkers thought about the erstwhile
> administration and rather than ask a direct question, I threw out
> the lure.
>
> My thoughts on results are that wooddorkers generally are not
> convinced that the Reds are going to do much more than continue the
> Bush track concerning the war, education, the war, etc. One major
> problem, of course, is that little policy has been presented in any
> form. Reading the platform gives some information. For example,
> the chapter on education promotes abstinence education, voluntary
> prayer in schools (!) and to have access to school property for
> bible study and the like, and what appears to be vouchers. Speeches
> are of no use: they like blogs focus on misstatements of the
> intentions of the Blues. Nor is there much clarity on the wedge
> issues like abortion, gay rights, flag burning, etc., McCain having
> modified his stand on most.
>
> And for the curious out there, I did check with snopes.com the day I
> sent out this little gem and it was not listed. Did I suspect it
> would be? Yup. Did it anyway.
>
> If anyone has a good source for clear, concise information from
> either party (did I say that?) please communicate same. In the
> meantime, make sawdust, enjoy it, and don’t let the toolbugs bite.
> mahalo,
> jo4hn

On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 18:27:08 GMT, Pat Barber
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Do you really believe "most, or "some" or "all" that you read
>on the web ?

Very little that does not come from a source I consider reliable.
What's your point? My question was to determine if the OP actually
believed it or if he was dropping a troll on the group.

Frank

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

> You can easily remove my ability to influence the content of the
> library by having the government ceasing make me pay for it.

Some people object to their taxes being used to fund the military, should
they be allowed to opt-out of contributing to the defense budget? Obviously
that is impractical, we can't have every taxpayer micro-managing various
govt. budgets. It's not unlike letting individuals demand books be removed
from a public library, eventually you'd have few books left. If you don't
like how the govt. spends your tax dollars there are elections every few
years so you have the opportunity to elect people who will be more
responsive to your wishes. So long as the bulk of the population and their
elected representatives think publicly funded libraries are a good idea,
you'll have to learn to live with the injustice of your tax dollars being
used for things you disapprove of, just like the rest of us.

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:57:04 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> If everything you note here is 100% true, she and McCain are still
>> a miles better choice than Obama and Biden. I'd vote for W for
>> reelection a third term before I'd vote for those two Leninists.
>> (And I can't stand the Republican party.)
>
> Nice to see you reiterating your middle of the road stance, Tim :-).

Not remotely middle-of-the-road - I prefer the Constitution as written.

>
> I wonder if equating someone to Marx, Lenin, et al, should rate the
> same automatic disqualification as Hitler equates do?
>

It was not ad hominem. Obama has made clear the deep influence his
mother had upon him. She was very much in the Marx/Lenin camp.
Moreover, his wealth redistribution schemes are a page out of the
same hymnbook. He appears to be a fine father and devoted husband.
He appears to be a generally decent person and a brilliant orator.
He has really bad ideas ... ideas so bad, he should never see the
inside of the White House except as a tour visitor.



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 12:36:16 -0700, jo4hn <[email protected]>
wrote:

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


I'm pretty sure she's a practicing Muslim too.

Sheesh....


Mike O.