Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
> You would think, but no, not in the cases in question. > > The issue related to failed abortions that resulted > in the live delivery of an infant. Absent intense > medical care this child would die. In most cases > this child would probably die anyway. These children > were not being given any care, life saving or even > palliative care as the intent had been their death > all along. You keep saying this, but you provide no evidence that it ever happened. One more time: I have found one case where it was *alleged* to have occurred, but two separate investigations, including one by the office of the anti-abortion Attorney General, found no evidence to support the allegations. A state spokesman said that the alleged events would have been illegal had they occurred. Do you feel that you understand Illinois law better than the state Attorney General does? Can you explain why his office would investigate the allegations if they weren't illegal? The fact is, you just keep stating without any documentation that (a) this happened and (b) it was legal. Saying these things over and over does not make them true. > As an aside, this all relates to the legal definition > of personhood. To be a homicide the victim has to be a > person. That is the principle reason that most on the > pro abortion side fight any effort to recognize the > personhood of a child in the womb. The implications > are obvious. Indeed, and this invalidates the rest of what you've been saying. The infants in question are no longer "in the womb", are they? Once a child has been born alive, it is a person by anyone's definition. The fact that this occurred during an abortion is wholly irrelevant. That makes it homicide, and quite illegal. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
> >>> Ding! You win the prize for the obvious - the bills > >>> threatened the availability of abortion without > >>> consequences and had to be opposed - even if this > >>> meant tolerating infanticide > > >> Why are you ignoring the fact that this "infanticide" > >> was already illegal? > > Infanticide is legal? Wouldn't that come under the homicide" > label? Of course it does. It's homicide. That's the point. But it doesn't fit with the vision of Obama-as-the-Antichrist, so it's ignored. It doesn't even matter that the state AG's office (and the AG is anti-abortion, by the way) also said that it was already illegal. The conservatives appear to think that if they repeat "Infanticide is legal in Illinois" enough times, it becomes true. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
You would think, but no, not in the cases in question. The issue related to failed abortions that resulted in the live delivery of an infant. Absent intense medical care this child would die. In most cases this child would probably die anyway. These children were not being given any care, life saving or even palliative care as the intent had been their death all along. In my book that is infanticide, and the proposed law would have made that clear. Obama and others voted against it to protect unfettered abortion rights. As an aside, this all relates to the legal definition of personhood. To be a homicide the victim has to be a person. That is the principle reason that most on the pro abortion sidesideside fight any effort to recognize the personhood of a child in the womb. The implications are obvious. Matthew On Feb 15, 2009, at 9:13 AM, Wayne Dernoncourt wrote: Matthew Taylor You can not ignore what is not there. On Feb 15, 2009, at 7:52 AM, Chris Dunford wrote: Ding! You win the prize for the obvious - the bills threatened the availability of abortion without consequences and had to be opposed - even if this meant tolerating infanticide Why are you ignoring the fact that this "infanticide" was already illegal? Infanticide is legal? Wouldn't that come under the homicide" label? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
Matthew Taylor > You can not ignore what is not there. > On Feb 15, 2009, at 7:52 AM, Chris Dunford wrote: >>> Ding! You win the prize for the obvious - the bills >>> threatened the availability of abortion without >>> consequences and had to be opposed - even if this >>> meant tolerating infanticide >> Why are you ignoring the fact that this "infanticide" >> was already illegal? Infanticide is legal? Wouldn't that come under the homicide" label? -- Take care | This clown speaks for himself, his job doesn't Wayne D. | supply this, at least not directly Crime wouldn't pay if the government ran it. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
You can not ignore what is not there. On Feb 15, 2009, at 7:52 AM, Chris Dunford wrote: Ding! You win the prize for the obvious - the bills threatened the availability of abortion without consequences and had to be opposed - even if this meant tolerating infanticide Why are you ignoring the fact that this "infanticide" was already illegal? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
> Ding! You win the prize for the obvious - the bills threatened the > availability of abortion without consequences and had to be opposed - > even if this meant tolerating infanticide Why are you ignoring the fact that this "infanticide" was already illegal? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
Ding! You win the prize for the obvious - the bills threatened the availability of abortion without consequences and had to be opposed - even if this meant tolerating infanticide. The final bill that Obama voted against contained the same language as in a Federal law he said he preferred. Then he voted against in anyway. And no, I did not read about this in any smear site. All of this is in the public record - you just object to the logical conclusion. On Feb 12, 2009, at 10:14 AM, Jordan wrote: Matthew Taylor wrote: I have not seen MM's take on Obama's support of infaticide, but it is real. I have read the original bill. I have read the final bill after it was modified to meet Obama's and other's objections. At the end of the day it was legal in Illinois for living infants to be allowed to die with no medical or pallitive assistance and that was a position Obama preferred as a matter of law. In what way is that not support for at least passive Infanticide? It matters not at all to the question of O's views that some R's also supported it. Obama and other opponents said the bills posed a threat to abortion rights and were unnecessary because, they said, Illinois law already prohibited the conduct that these bills purported to address. Read something other than right wing smear sites. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
On Feb 13, 2009, at 2:42 PM, Rev. Stewart Marshall wrote: One of the problems with Solar and Wind is that at present and in the coming future (I have heard at least a decade) is that we can not generate enough power from them. True - and we have a nimby problem as well when it comes to locating the collection points and transmitting the electricity. I think a lot of Armageddon preachers (cultural not theological) have been beating the drums and not addressing the real issues. And this is new how? Where wind makes sense do wind. Where solar makes sense do solar. Do not make a round peg fit into a square hole. (Solar works much better down here than wind) And where Nuclear makes sense do that, and where coal makes sense, do that. But most of all we need to develop power generating methods that do not rely solely on oil. Agreed. Using solar and nuclear to crack sea water for hydrogen has promise in the long run. Matthew * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
On Feb 13, 2009, at 12:35 PM, Elaine Zablocki wrote: > What scarcity? What is America running out of in your view? In what > way are our prospects diminished? Most libertarians believe that if > there is a scarcity, it represents a market opportunity, and believe > that with the right choices made our prospects look good indeed. We are running out of oil, and our entire economy is based on oil. No, our modern industrial economy is based on high energy availability. Energy is the commodity, oil merely one (very important) way we produce it. There is no shortage of available energy sources - the sun beats down every day, the tides go in an out, the earth's core is still hotter than its surface and winds sweep the plains and ridgelines of the world. Most libertarians believe that if there is a scarcity, it represents a market opportunity If there were huge amounts of oil still buried in the ground, then we could go look for them then the scarcity would become a new opportunity. However, people have been doing a lot of looking and they haven't come up with new oil fields equivalent to the ones we've been pumping for the last 100 years or more. So... they MIGHT find a lot more but also they may not, and we need to start getting our minds used to this unpalatable fact. The market opportunity is for other energy sources and methods of delivery. I've been reading about this over the past couple of months, and I find it's very difficult to take in this information... because it means our lives are going to change a lot over the next decades. When has this ever not been true since the industrial revolution? The rate of change appears to be accelerating, and have been accelerating since that time. This is depressing information. I keep wanting to put down the book and go read something more pleasant. However, as I keep reading, the facts do seem to be that we're going to face oil shortages, and our lives will have to change. If this is the truth, better to face up to it now. Why is the prospect of change depressing? Do you lack confidence in government to solve all our problems? It may seem odd to say this today, when oil is at such a low price per barrel... but that doesn't affect our long-term prospects. Well, it complicates them. If we actually taxed oil such that the tax covered the cost of maintaining a stable supply (read paid for the military we use to guarantee the supply) then other energy would look more attractive. Currently we subsidize oil. Matthew * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
One of the things that has not been mentioned is how Energy sources are being used as the new Political weapon. Witness Russia's recent blackmailing of the Ukraine and Europe to get what it wanted for Gas to flow. China uses it's "Need" to influence the speculation market. (Did anyone else notice that after the Olympics were over, China's "need" for oil seemed to have shurnk?) Stewart At 02:05 PM 2/13/2009, you wrote: Many countries in the world are developing rapidly. (China in particular) They tend to want to live like we do, meaning in particular, many millions more cars. The article doesn't seem to address that. To say nothing of the pollution that these new oil extraction methods cause. Anyone who is well informed about this subject understands the precarious energy era we are heading into. Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:popoz...@earthlink.net Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
> http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural
> _resources/article3207311.ece
>
>
> That's a ridiculous headline ("World Not Running Out Of Oil"). I can
> see "World Not Running Out Of Oil As Quickly As Predicted", or even
> "World Not Running Out Of Oil In This Century". But, as I'm not aware
> of new reserves of oil being generated underground, we will run out
> eventually.
Amen.
And, of course, it completely ignores the real point: it wouldn't make any
difference if the oceans themselves were filled with oil instead of water.
We still have to replace fossil fuels with clean energy.
*
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ **
*
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
At 10:54 AM 2/13/2009, mike wrote: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article3207311.ece The article Mike recommends mistates the peak oil hypothesis. It sets up a straw man and then knocks it down... a well-recognized debating technique. It says: >Doom-laden forecasts that world oil supplies are poised to fall off the edge of a cliff are wide >of the mark ... > Typically, Peak Oil theorists believe that the output of oil reserves can be plotted on a graph >as a bell curve, rising to a peak and then falling rapidly. Come on, folks on this list know what a bell curve is, don't they? Peak Oil theorists do believe that the output of oil reserves can be plotted on a graph as a bell curve, rising to a peak and then falling SLOWLY falling at about the same rate as they rose, in fact. No one is saying that "world oil supplies are poised to fall off the edge of a cliff." The people I'm reading say that we're probably entering a period of gradual decline in oil production. This article says that The Cera analysis targeted oilfields producing more than 10,000 barrels a day of conventional oil and concluded that overall output was declining at a rate of 4.5 per cent a year and that field decline rates were not increasing. This is much lower than the 7 to 8 percent average rate that is generally assumed in the industry. "Overall output was declining at a rate of 4.5 per cent a year" That sure sounds like a decline to me. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
Vicky Staubly wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009, mike wrote:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article3207311.ece
That's a ridiculous headline ("World Not Running Out Of Oil"). I can
see "World Not Running Out Of Oil As Quickly As Predicted", or even
"World
Not Running Out Of Oil In This Century". But, as I'm not aware of
new reserves of oil being generated underground, we will run out
eventually. And, I feel safe in saying, we will run out of oil sooner
than we will run out of solar power (something on the order of 5 billion
years from now). Even the article itself really only addresses the next
decade.
Many countries in the world are developing rapidly. (China in
particular) They tend to want to live like we do, meaning in particular,
many millions more cars. The article doesn't seem to address that.
To say nothing of the pollution that these new oil extraction methods cause.
Anyone who is well informed about this subject understands the
precarious energy era we are heading into.
*
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ **
*
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
One of the problems with Solar and Wind is that at present and in the
coming future (I have heard at least a decade) is that we can not
generate enough power from them.
I think a lot of Armageddon preachers (cultural not theological) have
been beating the drums and not addressing the real issues.
Where wind makes sense do wind. Where solar makes sense do
solar. Do not make a round peg fit into a square hole. (Solar
works much better down here than wind)
But most of all we need to develop power generating methods that do
not rely solely on oil.
My brother-in-law works at the Tar sands in Ft. McMurray, AL. What
had been a boomtown the past few years is shrinking fast.
One of the side effects of low oil prices is that it makes searching
for alternative energy sources highly expensive which in turn makes
it highly speculative.
I do not think there are any easy answers, but the doom and gloom
sayers do not help the situation either. They just drive up
speculation which was part of the problem in the last run up of oil.
Stewart
At 01:09 PM 2/13/2009, you wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009, mike wrote:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article3207311.ece
That's a ridiculous headline ("World Not Running Out Of Oil"). I can
see "World Not Running Out Of Oil As Quickly As Predicted", or even "World
Not Running Out Of Oil In This Century". But, as I'm not aware of
new reserves of oil being generated underground, we will run out
eventually. And, I feel safe in saying, we will run out of oil sooner
than we will run out of solar power (something on the order of 5 billion
years from now). Even the article itself really only addresses the next
decade.
Rev. Stewart A. Marshall
mailto:popoz...@earthlink.net
Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org
Ozark, AL SL 82
*
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ **
*
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009, mike wrote:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article3207311.ece
That's a ridiculous headline ("World Not Running Out Of Oil"). I can
see "World Not Running Out Of Oil As Quickly As Predicted", or even "World
Not Running Out Of Oil In This Century". But, as I'm not aware of
new reserves of oil being generated underground, we will run out
eventually. And, I feel safe in saying, we will run out of oil sooner
than we will run out of solar power (something on the order of 5 billion
years from now). Even the article itself really only addresses the next
decade.
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Elaine Zablocki
wrote:
At 09:01 PM 2/12/2009, Ray Rheault wrote:
-- Original message from Matthew Taylor <
taylorsmatt...@gmail.com>:
On Feb 11, 2009, at 2:33 PM, db wrote:
and they have been increasingly motivated in the last 25 years or so
to come strongly and selfishly forward by a trend of increasing
American scarcity and diminishing prospects.
What scarcity? What is America running out of in your view? In what
way are our prospects diminished? Most libertarians believe that if
there is a scarcity, it represents a market opportunity, and believe
that with the right choices made our prospects look good indeed.
We are running out of oil, and our entire economy is based on oil.
U.S. oil production hit its peak in 1970. World oil production is at its
peak about now.
[...]
--
Vicky Staubly http://www.steeds.com/vicky/vi...@steeds.com
*
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ **
*
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article3207311.ece On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Elaine Zablocki wrote: > At 09:01 PM 2/12/2009, Ray Rheault wrote: > >> -- Original message from Matthew Taylor < >> taylorsmatt...@gmail.com>: >> > On Feb 11, 2009, at 2:33 PM, db wrote: >> > >> > > and they have been increasingly motivated in the last 25 years or so >> > > to come strongly and selfishly forward by a trend of increasing >> > > American scarcity and diminishing prospects. >> > >> > What scarcity? What is America running out of in your view? In what >> > way are our prospects diminished? Most libertarians believe that if >> > there is a scarcity, it represents a market opportunity, and believe >> > that with the right choices made our prospects look good indeed. >> > > We are running out of oil, and our entire economy is based on oil. > > U.S. oil production hit its peak in 1970. World oil production is at its > peak about now. > > This doesn't mean there is no more oil... there is still lots left but > it means we probably face declining amounts of available oil, plus increased > competition from other countries for what is available. > > While various substitutes for oil have been suggested, my understanding is > that none of them have the same amount of available energy as oil does. > People talk about oil shale, or substitutes based on coal... but it TAKES a > lot of energy to start with those substitutes and transform them into > something that can perform the same functions as oil. They may be helpful, > but they aren't enough to replace the amount of oil that we depend on. > > Most libertarians believe that if >> > there is a scarcity, it represents a market opportunity >> > > If there were huge amounts of oil still buried in the ground, then we could > go look for them then the scarcity would become a new opportunity. > However, people have been doing a lot of looking and they haven't come up > with new oil fields equivalent to the ones we've been pumping for the last > 100 years or more. So... they MIGHT find a lot more but also they may > not, and we need to start getting our minds used to this unpalatable fact. > > I've been reading about this over the past couple of months, and I find > it's very difficult to take in this information... because it means our > lives are going to change a lot over the next decades. This is depressing > information. I keep wanting to put down the book and go read something more > pleasant. However, as I keep reading, the facts do seem to be that we're > going to face oil shortages, and our lives will have to change. If this is > the truth, better to face up to it now. > > It may seem odd to say this today, when oil is at such a low price per > barrel... but that doesn't affect our long-term prospects. > > Here's one book on the subject: >The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies by > Richard Heinberg > > I've also been reading Bad Money by Kevin Phillips. The two books together > help me understand what has been happening over the past few months, and > what to expect (and prepare for) in future years... but as I said, this > isn't pleasant reading. Necessary, though. > > > * > > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > * > -- Make sure you support your local CarbonONset programs! * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
At 09:01 PM 2/12/2009, Ray Rheault wrote: -- Original message from Matthew Taylor : > On Feb 11, 2009, at 2:33 PM, db wrote: > > > and they have been increasingly motivated in the last 25 years or so > > to come strongly and selfishly forward by a trend of increasing > > American scarcity and diminishing prospects. > > What scarcity? What is America running out of in your view? In what > way are our prospects diminished? Most libertarians believe that if > there is a scarcity, it represents a market opportunity, and believe > that with the right choices made our prospects look good indeed. We are running out of oil, and our entire economy is based on oil. U.S. oil production hit its peak in 1970. World oil production is at its peak about now. This doesn't mean there is no more oil... there is still lots left but it means we probably face declining amounts of available oil, plus increased competition from other countries for what is available. While various substitutes for oil have been suggested, my understanding is that none of them have the same amount of available energy as oil does. People talk about oil shale, or substitutes based on coal... but it TAKES a lot of energy to start with those substitutes and transform them into something that can perform the same functions as oil. They may be helpful, but they aren't enough to replace the amount of oil that we depend on. Most libertarians believe that if > there is a scarcity, it represents a market opportunity If there were huge amounts of oil still buried in the ground, then we could go look for them then the scarcity would become a new opportunity. However, people have been doing a lot of looking and they haven't come up with new oil fields equivalent to the ones we've been pumping for the last 100 years or more. So... they MIGHT find a lot more but also they may not, and we need to start getting our minds used to this unpalatable fact. I've been reading about this over the past couple of months, and I find it's very difficult to take in this information... because it means our lives are going to change a lot over the next decades. This is depressing information. I keep wanting to put down the book and go read something more pleasant. However, as I keep reading, the facts do seem to be that we're going to face oil shortages, and our lives will have to change. If this is the truth, better to face up to it now. It may seem odd to say this today, when oil is at such a low price per barrel... but that doesn't affect our long-term prospects. Here's one book on the subject: The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies by Richard Heinberg I've also been reading Bad Money by Kevin Phillips. The two books together help me understand what has been happening over the past few months, and what to expect (and prepare for) in future years... but as I said, this isn't pleasant reading. Necessary, though. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
> There's not much sense in trying to have a rational discussion with someone > with blind faith. By George, Jordan, I think you finally have got it! Others can beat their heads against the unyielding wall of incurious partisanship, but me? Nah. Life's too short. Have a nice day. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
Apparently you missed the O's last town hall with people nearly prostrating themselves before him. Blind faith is not just a republican trait. On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 7:43 AM, Jordan wrote: > Ray Rheault wrote: > > There's not much sense in trying to have a rational discussion with > someone with blind faith. > > > * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
Ray Rheault wrote: I've concluded after reading through this thread that you may be (and there are plenty of contenders) the winner of the "Legend in His Own Mind" award. I congratulate you. Well put Ray! The way this "discussion" died reminds me of a conversation at a picnic of my wife's stamp club. It was a few years ago and we were talking about the Iraq "war". Some thought it was a good thing, some knew it was a disaster. Then the wife of one of the members said something like "we can trust Bush because he is a man of god." Conversation stopped. There's not much sense in trying to have a rational discussion with someone with blind faith. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
> I've concluded after reading through this thread that you may be (and > there are plenty of contenders) the winner of the "Legend in His Own > Mind" award. I congratulate you. It's called a "discussion" Ray. It's when 2 or more people share their experiences, thoughts and ideas. I see that you have nothing to add to it, tragic for a lurker's first post, so thanks for playing. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
I've concluded after reading through this thread that you may be (and there are plenty of contenders) the winner of the "Legend in His Own Mind" award. I congratulate you. -- Original message from Jeff Wright : -- > > One of the consistent trends of our recent political history is that > > the broadly conservative and libertarian thinks the left is badly > > misguided but educable, while the left thinks conservatives and > > libertarians are evil and selfish. > > IME, what most non-libertarians seem to think is that libertarians are born > as libertarians. From my own observations, most people start out as > liberals and a good many stay that way for the rest of their life, never > re-evaluating their beliefs. Some do, and turn into conservatives and the > truly reformed turn into libertarians. I think that this is where the above > dynamic comes from. > > Throughout my youth and well into college, I was a solid Kennedy Democrat. > I barely missed voting in 1980 and would have voted for Anderson; I never > even heard of Ed Clark. Later on, I worked with hard-line conservatives for > years (doing their IT). So, I'm very familiar with the arguments from both > the left and right. A former list member (old listers may remember JB) is > the one who turned me onto libertarianism many years ago (and after years of > arguments) when we worked together. > > This is to say that I've re-evaluated my beliefs many times over the years. > When I started having doubts about the correctness of libertarianism, I > would look at what the 2 dominant political powers were doing and my > admittedly non-conformist beliefs were quickly reaffirmed. > > That someone would start as a libertarian first and then morph into either a > liberal or conservative, well, that person is the proverbial unicorn. > > > * > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
-- Original message from Matthew Taylor : -- > On Feb 11, 2009, at 2:33 PM, db wrote: > > > To me the cutting tax (ad nauseum...), small hands off government, > > "free" trade concepts are just "me me me" first types trying to make > > sure nobody gets in the way of "them getting theirs" > > And you determine this how? > > > and they have been increasingly motivated in the last 25 years or so > > to come strongly and selfishly forward by a trend of increasing > > American scarcity and diminishing prospects. > > What scarcity? What is America running out of in your view? In what > way are our prospects diminished? Most libertarians believe that if > there is a scarcity, it represents a market opportunity, and believe > that with the right choices made our prospects look good indeed. > > > > > > I wouldn't want to be standing in line for the lifeboats on a > > sinking ship with any of these types around. > > Amazing how many military who might be coming to your rescue are of a > more conservative or libertarian bent though. > > > > I think you'll find rank and file military donations to Ron Paul, Obama and the Dems in general dwarfed those to McCain and the Repubs. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/mccain-edges-obama-with-military-donors/ > > That they argue that such policy is best for all of us is just > > superficial and insincere BS propaganda > > You have some secret inside source that tells you that libertarians do > no believe what they are saying? > > > ... a slim cover for an otherwise socially unacceptable self serving > > philosophy. > > Self reliance within a greater community, a long standing American > tradition, is now socially unacceptable? > > > I'm convinced that by nature they subjectively don't really give a > > functional damn about the good of the whole > > By nature? So you are saying there is a libertarian gene? > > > so debating the economic and governance points with them makes about > > as much sense as trying to talk a wolf out of eating meat. > > Or say vegetarians who feed their dogs and cats vegetable diets? > > > > > > If the last decade didn't prove out the bankruptcy of their theories > > of governance, I don't know what ever will. > > The spendthrift Republican congress of 2001 - 2006 were hardly an > exemplar of libertarian fiscal policy. > > > > > > But I do learn a lot from other types in discussing such matters so > > I guess our string is worthwhile. > > Other types. Do you mean types you already agree with? I find I > learn more from being challenged with demonstrable reason backed up by > facts. > > > * > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
> I do not know which conservatives you have in mind, but once you are > done > with William Buckley, who unfortunately is no longer around to keep > Conservatism honest and clean, the fold is mostly histrionic beyond all > pale > (starting with the current darling- Hannity, Palin, and Coulter). I'm not talking about public polemicists. I was referring to personal experience with everyday people. But yeah, I miss Bill. If you're going to use who appears on tee-vee as the standard on either Team Red or Blue, then you're pretty much screwed. I stopped watching broadcast news for some of the reasons you mention. > Amazing how when you inject invective and hyperbole, it's acceptable. > When > others use the same terminology, it's offensive. Very true, and also very normal. I'll repost my rules of partisanship: - Your side is brilliant, honest, forthright, righteous, of the highest ethics and above reproach. - The other side is evil, stupid and/or ignorant, dishonest, sleazy and always up to something no good. - And, above all, you are never a partisan, just the other guy. - Most importantly though, if you don't believe in the same thing, you're the other guy from the other side. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
> It is not illegal at the present time is the problem. No, it is homicide. Homicide is illegal. > The bill was in part an attempt to make it illegal, as > the practice was ongoing in Illinois hospitals. This is an overstatement of Homeric proportion. There was an allegation that this occurred at one hospital. Both the state Attorney General's office and the Illinois Department of Public Health investigated; neither found any evidence for it. Q: Why would the IDPH and the AG investigate if it wasn't illegal? A: They wouldn't. When asked by the Chicago Tribune why there was an investigation, an IDPH spokesman said, "Because what they were alleging were violations of existing law." > Can you point to a single case of prosecution > that would indicate the state thought it to be illegal? No, because in order for there to be a prosecution, there would have to have been an occurrence of this. No one has found any evidence that there has been. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
I do not know which conservatives you have in mind, but once you are done with William Buckley, who unfortunately is no longer around to keep Conservatism honest and clean, the fold is mostly histrionic beyond all pale (starting with the current darling- Hannity, Palin, and Coulter). Amazing how when you inject invective and hyperbole, it's acceptable. When others use the same terminology, it's offensive. Eschew Obfuscation This is a reply from: Roy A. Ackerman, Ph.D., E.A. Financial, Managerial, and Technical Services for the Professional, Non-Profit, and the Entrepreneurial Organization 703.548.1343 voice 703.783.1340 fax >From thinking to doing, from sales to profits, from tax to investments- we are YOUR adjuvancy -Original Message- From: Computer Guys Discussion List [mailto:computerguy...@listserv.aol.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Wright Sent: 02/12/2009 9:58 AM To: COMPUTERGUYS-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Subject: Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life] I've stayed out of this thread until now, because over the years I have learned the utter futility in having political discussions with hardcore liberals. It's simply not worth it. Conservatives sometimes have a somewhat better grip on reality and can actually have a discussion where it doesn't immediately devolve into a puddle of histrionics, but not always. If you are actually interested in learning what libertarians believe, there are many fine and reliable sources all over the internet. RTFM. David Bergland's "Libertarianism in One Lesson" is an excellent primer, but it isn't free. Liberals & Libertarians, even though it hasn't been updated in years, is a good starting place for its FAQs, including one from open source maven Eric Raymond: http://www.impel.com/liblib/FAQs.html. Take the world's smallest political quiz, tho' the site is a bit cluttered: http://www.theadvocates.org/index.html. If you find the female form interesting and need further persuasion to join Team Purple, Libertarian Hotties is a fun site: http://libhotties.com/. I'll, of course, plug Reason magazine too. http://www.reason.com. Plenty of sites out there. I'm happy to answer any actual factual inquiries about libertarianism, and I'm sure Matthew is too, but no, I won't be dragged into a pointless, partisan, bickering, political argument. If anyone actually wants to learn, rather than wallow in self-rationalizing ignorance, please do ask questions, but otherwise, don't bother with a response. > -Original Message- > To me the cutting tax (ad nauseum...), small hands off government, > "free" trade concepts are just "me me me" first types trying to make > sure nobody gets in the way of "them getting theirs" and they have been > increasingly motivated in the last 25 years or so to come strongly and > selfishly forward by a trend of increasing American scarcity and > diminishing prospects. > > I wouldn't want to be standing in line for the lifeboats on a sinking > ship with any of these types around. > > That they argue that such policy is best for all of us is just > superficial and insincere BS propaganda ... a slim cover for an > otherwise socially unacceptable self serving philosophy. I'm convinced > that by nature they subjectively don't really give a functional damn > about the good of the whole so debating the economic and governance > points with them makes about as much sense as trying to talk a wolf out > of eating meat. > > If the last decade didn't prove out the bankruptcy of their theories of > governance, I don't know what ever will. > > But I do learn a lot from other types in discussing such matters so I > guess our string is worthwhile. > Betty. for one... you are a treasure trove of information and reason! * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
Not clear that Huffington is "liberal" or "Liberal". Read all her works. Eschew Obfuscation This is a reply from: Roy A. Ackerman, Ph.D., E.A. Financial, Managerial, and Technical Services for the Professional, Non-Profit, and the Entrepreneurial Organization 703.548.1343 voice 703.783.1340 fax >From thinking to doing, from sales to profits, from tax to investments- we are YOUR adjuvancy -Original Message- From: Computer Guys Discussion List [mailto:computerguy...@listserv.aol.com] On Behalf Of mike Sent: 02/12/2009 10:11 AM To: COMPUTERGUYS-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Subject: Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life] Well this can be said in both directions, I don't see many of my liberal friends who populate the Kos and MM and Huffington post spending much time at conservative blogs...these blogs are just lying liars who lie. Very open minded. Generally speaking most people gavitate towards views they already hold, it's disconcerting to spend time challanging ones own views, this is a human trait, not a left or right wing one. On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 7:47 AM, Jordan wrote: > Thank you Chris, > Unless a person is actually broadminded, curious, or both, they won't look > at a site like MM and see for them selves what we are talking about. If they > are not broadminded or curious they'll resort to knee jerk responses and > never look or understand, no matter how many times you tell them. > > By the way, there's a new article on Kos documenting how the right > manipulates the media and scares the public in just the way we are talking > about here. > http://tinyurl.com/ahv9vz > > * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
It does sound as if time spent there is quality time. That is besides the point was making though. It is possible to convey misinformation without uttering a single thing that is not true. Matthew On Feb 12, 2009, at 12:47 PM, Chris Dunford wrote: Actually one of the time honored smear tactics is to stick to the facts, meticulously, but SELECTIVELY reported, and devoid of important context. In my experience both the left and right excel at this, of late the left more consistently. It doesn't sound like you've spent much quality time at the MM site. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
It is not illegal at the present time is the problem. The bill was in part an attempt to make it illegal, as the practice was ongoing in Illinois hospitals. Can you point to a single case of prosecution that would indicate the state thought it to be illegal? On Feb 12, 2009, at 12:47 PM, Chris Dunford wrote: At the end of the day it was legal in Illinois for living infants to be allowed to die with no medical or palliative assistance See, this is wrong. I guess you are saying this because the final bill did not contain language making this practice illegal. You're right; it did not. But neither did it have any language making drunk driving, embezzlement, or kidnapping illegal--does that make them legal? Of course not. The fact is, this practice was -already- illegal; it is homicide according to existing Illinois law. So, the statement that it's legal is just plain wrong. In what way is that not support for at least passive Infanticide? Well, in the way that it is not support for infanticide at all. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http:// www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
> One of the consistent trends of our recent political history is that > the broadly conservative and libertarian thinks the left is badly > misguided but educable, while the left thinks conservatives and > libertarians are evil and selfish. IME, what most non-libertarians seem to think is that libertarians are born as libertarians. From my own observations, most people start out as liberals and a good many stay that way for the rest of their life, never re-evaluating their beliefs. Some do, and turn into conservatives and the truly reformed turn into libertarians. I think that this is where the above dynamic comes from. Throughout my youth and well into college, I was a solid Kennedy Democrat. I barely missed voting in 1980 and would have voted for Anderson; I never even heard of Ed Clark. Later on, I worked with hard-line conservatives for years (doing their IT). So, I'm very familiar with the arguments from both the left and right. A former list member (old listers may remember JB) is the one who turned me onto libertarianism many years ago (and after years of arguments) when we worked together. This is to say that I've re-evaluated my beliefs many times over the years. When I started having doubts about the correctness of libertarianism, I would look at what the 2 dominant political powers were doing and my admittedly non-conformist beliefs were quickly reaffirmed. That someone would start as a libertarian first and then morph into either a liberal or conservative, well, that person is the proverbial unicorn. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
Well this can be said in both directions, I don't see many of my liberal friends who populate the Kos and MM and Huffington post spending much time at conservative blogs...these blogs are just lying liars who lie. Very open minded. Generally speaking most people gavitate towards views they already hold, it's disconcerting to spend time challanging ones own views, this is a human trait, not a left or right wing one. No. There's an excess of political opinion, with roadblocks to finding accurate objective information. How many times do you seek something in a search engine and find the top results are not for data, but for opinion? Blogs may be entertaining, but you can do better when you have facts and can form your own opinions instead of bloggers "yelling" from all sides. There are plenty of good factual news sources across the spectrum. I subscribe to the Financial Times of London because it has detailed news that I rarely see in any US-based media. I read the Wall Street Journal. FT has an interesting cross-section of writers on the editorial pages, but it's generally quite conservative [small 'c']. WSJ has excellent news reporters, but the editorial page, especially since Alexander Cockburn's column ended, continues to decline into the depths of greed. I also read/subscribe to The Economist, The Atlantic Monthly, Time, Newsweek, Wired, Conde Nast Traveler, Make, and anything I can get my hands on in the library. My main concern is the media consolidation by large corporations, the near death of local media, and the fractured nature of news on the Internet. I generally gravitate to the more liberal sources because they first provide news with facts, and then opinions. My friend keeps sending me links to articles at TownHall.com and similar sites, and I see a lot of opinion but with a dearth of news/facts/links. I want news and information. I can decide which is useful to me, and can decide what makes sense for me, only when I can get facts. We need news organizations that we can trust to give accurate news, then we supply the opinions ourselves. However, it helps to read/hear/see many sides. Can't do that with radio most of the time, and television isn't much better. We need a path to all points of view on the Internet, without being hindered by corporate owners, or broadband providers that limit access to information by price or by censorship. Betty * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
> I am corrrected, I took your statement about MM documenting everything > as meaning they document both the right and left disinformation. They > take no pains at all to check left wing disinformation. No, they don't, but why should they? That's like saying that firefighters never check for embezzlement schemes at the local bank. It's true that they don't; but it's also not their job. MM's stated purpose is to expose conservative media misinformation. There are plenty of others who cover both sides. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
> At the end of the day it was legal in Illinois for living > infants to be allowed to die with no medical or pallitive > assistance See, this is wrong. I guess you are saying this because the final bill did not contain language making this practice illegal. You're right; it did not. But neither did it have any language making drunk driving, embezzlement, or kidnapping illegal--does that make them legal? Of course not. The fact is, this practice was -already- illegal; it is homicide according to existing Illinois law. So, the statement that it's legal is just plain wrong. > In what way is that not support for at least passive Infanticide? Well, in the way that it is not support for infanticide at all. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
> Actually one of the time honored smear tactics is to stick to the > facts, meticulously, but SELECTIVELY reported, and devoid of important > context. In my experience both the left and right excel at this, of > late the left more consistently. It doesn't sound like you've spent much quality time at the MM site. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
Jeff; One of the consistent trends of our recent political history is that the broadly conservative and libertarian thinks the left is badly misguided but educable, while the left thinks conservatives and libertarians are evil and selfish. On Feb 12, 2009, at 12:06 PM, Jeff Wright wrote: If you just want to be a political bigot and jawbone about how "those people" are just shiftless and no good, good for target practice but not much else, then have a nice day. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
Actually one of the time honored smear tactics is to stick to the facts, meticulously, but SELECTIVELY reported, and devoid of important context. In my experience both the left and right excel at this, of late the left more consistently. Matthew On Feb 12, 2009, at 11:56 AM, Chris Dunford wrote: Sorry Chris but you are wrong on this one, MM is a left wing/progressive site, it does NOT monitor all news, only what it considers as 'right wing' disinformation. Mike, of course it is a left wing site. It does not pretend to be anything else. That does not, however, make it a *smear* site, which is what I was complaining about. Everything they say is scrupulously documented. Stating facts is not smearing. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
I am corrrected, I took your statement about MM documenting everything as meaning they document both the right and left disinformation. They take no pains at all to check left wing disinformation. On 2/12/09, Chris Dunford wrote: >> Sorry Chris but you are wrong on this one, MM is a left >> wing/progressive site, it does NOT monitor all news, >> only what it considers as 'right wing' disinformation. > > Mike, of course it is a left wing site. It does not pretend to be anything > else. That does not, however, make it a *smear* site, which is what I was > complaining about. Everything they say is scrupulously documented. Stating > facts is not smearing. > > > * > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > * > -- Make sure you support your local CarbonONset programs! * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
> There are many fine elements to the libertarian point of view. > They are also the party of "I've got mine, screw you" way of thinking. I will again point out that if you have any actual questions, I will be glad to answer them. If you want to know more in general, feel free to educate yourself on the intertubes. If you just want to be a political bigot and jawbone about how "those people" are just shiftless and no good, good for target practice but not much else, then have a nice day. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
What makes you think that libertarians aren't generous? The difference is that they are generous with their own money. Liberals are generous with other peoples money. Jordan wrote: Jeff Wright wrote: libertarians There are many fine elements to the libertarian point of view. They are also the party of "I've got mine, screw you" way of thinking. That is not what this country should be about and it would be disastrous in our current economic situation. Maybe you've forgotten how this topic started: I've mentioned before, the common knowledge that the people in countries there the taxes are high tend to feel more satisfied with life. So I dug up an article and a study with charts and graphs that show this. One talks about measures of well being, and is a pdf from Deutche Bank: http://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_EN-PROD/PROD00202587.pdf The other is an article from MSN Money that lists tax burdens of industrialized countries. (I know, it might be another Microsoft plot) http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxes/P148855.asp * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
> Sorry Chris but you are wrong on this one, MM is a left > wing/progressive site, it does NOT monitor all news, > only what it considers as 'right wing' disinformation. Mike, of course it is a left wing site. It does not pretend to be anything else. That does not, however, make it a *smear* site, which is what I was complaining about. Everything they say is scrupulously documented. Stating facts is not smearing. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
Jeff Wright wrote: libertarians There are many fine elements to the libertarian point of view. They are also the party of "I've got mine, screw you" way of thinking. That is not what this country should be about and it would be disastrous in our current economic situation. Maybe you've forgotten how this topic started: I've mentioned before, the common knowledge that the people in countries there the taxes are high tend to feel more satisfied with life. So I dug up an article and a study with charts and graphs that show this. One talks about measures of well being, and is a pdf from Deutche Bank: http://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_EN-PROD/PROD00202587.pdf The other is an article from MSN Money that lists tax burdens of industrialized countries. (I know, it might be another Microsoft plot) http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxes/P148855.asp * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
mike wrote: Well this can be said in both directions, I don't see many of my liberal friends who populate the Kos and MM and Huffington post spending much time at conservative blogs...these blogs are just lying liars who lie. Very open minded. Generally speaking most people gavitate towards views they already hold, it's disconcerting to spend time challanging ones own views, this is a human trait, not a left or right wing one. On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 7:47 AM, Jordan wrote: Thank you Chris, Unless a person is actually broadminded, curious, or both, they won't look at a site like MM and see for them selves what we are talking about. If they are not broadminded or curious they'll resort to knee jerk responses and never look or understand, no matter how many times you tell them. By the way, there's a new article on Kos documenting how the right manipulates the media and scares the public in just the way we are talking about here. http://tinyurl.com/ahv9vz Perhaps you missed the post below. Try actually going to and reading left and right sites and see if and how they back up what they say. Then decide who is more legitimate. The way things work on the right blogosphere, some radical winger will say something twisted or half true or just fabricated. Then 3 other right wing sites will repeat the lie and site each other as sources. Then this lie will appear in the mainstream press as if it were an established fact. Check former conservative David Brock's web site Media Matters to see occurrences of this and lots of other shenanigans that are going on. The legendary example is Chalabi and the White House Iraq group telling Judy Miller that there were WMDs, she puts a story about it in the NY Times, and Chaney sites it as fact. Rush Limbaugh, Drudge, and Fox News do this all the time. It's called the echo chamber. If you do any reading at these places, try to check their sources down to verifiable research, studies, or reports. If you read on the left blogosphere, Media Matters, TPM Muckraker, and Huffington Post you'll typically see links to legitimate researched reports. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
Matthew Taylor wrote: I have not seen MM's take on Obama's support of infaticide, but it is real. I have read the original bill. I have read the final bill after it was modified to meet Obama's and other's objections. At the end of the day it was legal in Illinois for living infants to be allowed to die with no medical or pallitive assistance and that was a position Obama preferred as a matter of law. In what way is that not support for at least passive Infanticide? It matters not at all to the question of O's views that some R's also supported it. Obama and other opponents said the bills posed a threat to abortion rights and were unnecessary because, they said, Illinois law already prohibited the conduct that these bills purported to address. Read something other than right wing smear sites. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
Well this can be said in both directions, I don't see many of my liberal friends who populate the Kos and MM and Huffington post spending much time at conservative blogs...these blogs are just lying liars who lie. Very open minded. Generally speaking most people gavitate towards views they already hold, it's disconcerting to spend time challanging ones own views, this is a human trait, not a left or right wing one. On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 7:47 AM, Jordan wrote: > Thank you Chris, > Unless a person is actually broadminded, curious, or both, they won't look > at a site like MM and see for them selves what we are talking about. If they > are not broadminded or curious they'll resort to knee jerk responses and > never look or understand, no matter how many times you tell them. > > By the way, there's a new article on Kos documenting how the right > manipulates the media and scares the public in just the way we are talking > about here. > http://tinyurl.com/ahv9vz > > * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
I've stayed out of this thread until now, because over the years I have learned the utter futility in having political discussions with hardcore liberals. It's simply not worth it. Conservatives sometimes have a somewhat better grip on reality and can actually have a discussion where it doesn't immediately devolve into a puddle of histrionics, but not always. If you are actually interested in learning what libertarians believe, there are many fine and reliable sources all over the internet. RTFM. David Bergland's "Libertarianism in One Lesson" is an excellent primer, but it isn't free. Liberals & Libertarians, even though it hasn't been updated in years, is a good starting place for its FAQs, including one from open source maven Eric Raymond: http://www.impel.com/liblib/FAQs.html. Take the world's smallest political quiz, tho' the site is a bit cluttered: http://www.theadvocates.org/index.html. If you find the female form interesting and need further persuasion to join Team Purple, Libertarian Hotties is a fun site: http://libhotties.com/. I'll, of course, plug Reason magazine too. http://www.reason.com. Plenty of sites out there. I'm happy to answer any actual factual inquiries about libertarianism, and I'm sure Matthew is too, but no, I won't be dragged into a pointless, partisan, bickering, political argument. If anyone actually wants to learn, rather than wallow in self-rationalizing ignorance, please do ask questions, but otherwise, don't bother with a response. > -Original Message- > To me the cutting tax (ad nauseum...), small hands off government, > "free" trade concepts are just "me me me" first types trying to make > sure nobody gets in the way of "them getting theirs" and they have been > increasingly motivated in the last 25 years or so to come strongly and > selfishly forward by a trend of increasing American scarcity and > diminishing prospects. > > I wouldn't want to be standing in line for the lifeboats on a sinking > ship with any of these types around. > > That they argue that such policy is best for all of us is just > superficial and insincere BS propaganda ... a slim cover for an > otherwise socially unacceptable self serving philosophy. I'm convinced > that by nature they subjectively don't really give a functional damn > about the good of the whole so debating the economic and governance > points with them makes about as much sense as trying to talk a wolf out > of eating meat. > > If the last decade didn't prove out the bankruptcy of their theories of > governance, I don't know what ever will. > > But I do learn a lot from other types in discussing such matters so I > guess our string is worthwhile. > Betty. for one... you are a treasure trove of information and reason! * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
Thank you Chris, Unless a person is actually broadminded, curious, or both, they won't look at a site like MM and see for them selves what we are talking about. If they are not broadminded or curious they'll resort to knee jerk responses and never look or understand, no matter how many times you tell them. By the way, there's a new article on Kos documenting how the right manipulates the media and scares the public in just the way we are talking about here. http://tinyurl.com/ahv9vz Chris Dunford wrote: Didn't notice him saying that he "limited" his sources to these, did you? The conservatives love to refer to Media Matters as a "left wing smear site". The problem with this is, MM documents *everything* it says with links to external materials, often to original sources. It's pretty hard to call something "a smear" when it uses original documents to prove that what you said was wrong. Well, I guess it's not *that* hard, since O'Reilly and others do it constantly. Repetition-makes-truth in action. The conservative commentators keep talking about how the rescue bill includes $4.something billion for ACORN; MM documents the falsity of this using links to the bill itself. Bernie Goldberg butchers the Brokaw/Rose interview; MM provides links to the actual interview so you can see what Brokaw really said. Limbaugh keeps saying that Obama favors infanticide (seriously); MM provides links to the original Illinois bill, Obama's comments, and the recorded vote showing that many Republicans took the same position. It goes on and on and on. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
Sorry Chris but you are wrong on this one, MM is a left wing/progressive site, it does NOT monitor all news, only what it considers as 'right wing' disinformation. This from their site verbatim. *Media Matters for America* is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 5:32 AM, Chris Dunford wrote: > > > The conservatives love to refer to Media Matters as a "left wing smear > site". The problem with this is, MM documents *everything* it says with > links to external materials, often to original sources. It's pretty hard to > call something "a smear" when it uses original documents to prove that what > you said was wrong. Well, I guess it's not *that* hard, since O'Reilly and > others do it constantly. Repetition-makes-truth in action. > > * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
Every source I can recall him mentioning has been a left wing ax grinder. I did not say he reads nothing else, I said IF. I have not seen MM's take on Obama's support of infaticide, but it is real. I have read the original bill. I have read the final bill after it was modified to meet Obama's and other's objections. At the end of the day it was legal in Illinois for living infants to be allowed to die with no medical or pallitive assistance and that was a position Obama preferred as a matter of law. In what way is that not support for at least passive Infanticide? It matters not at all to the question of O's views that some R's also supported it. Matthew On Feb 12, 2009, at 7:32 AM, Chris Dunford wrote: If you are so limiting your news source I can understand how you come by your viewpoints. If you read on the left blogosphere, Media Matters, TPM Muckraker, and Huffington Post you'll typically see links to legitimate researched reports. Didn't notice him saying that he "limited" his sources to these, did you? The conservatives love to refer to Media Matters as a "left wing smear site". The problem with this is, MM documents *everything* it says with links to external materials, often to original sources. It's pretty hard to call something "a smear" when it uses original documents to prove that what you said was wrong. Well, I guess it's not *that* hard, since O'Reilly and others do it constantly. Repetition-makes-truth in action. The conservative commentators keep talking about how the rescue bill includes $4.something billion for ACORN; MM documents the falsity of this using links to the bill itself. Bernie Goldberg butchers the Brokaw/ Rose interview; MM provides links to the actual interview so you can see what Brokaw really said. Limbaugh keeps saying that Obama favors infanticide (seriously); MM provides links to the original Illinois bill, Obama's comments, and the recorded vote showing that many Republicans took the same position. It goes on and on and on. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http:// www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
>If you are so limiting your news source I can understand how you come by your viewpoints. > >> If you read on the left blogosphere, Media Matters, TPM Muckraker, and >> Huffington Post you'll typically see links to legitimate researched >> reports. Didn't notice him saying that he "limited" his sources to these, did you? The conservatives love to refer to Media Matters as a "left wing smear site". The problem with this is, MM documents *everything* it says with links to external materials, often to original sources. It's pretty hard to call something "a smear" when it uses original documents to prove that what you said was wrong. Well, I guess it's not *that* hard, since O'Reilly and others do it constantly. Repetition-makes-truth in action. The conservative commentators keep talking about how the rescue bill includes $4.something billion for ACORN; MM documents the falsity of this using links to the bill itself. Bernie Goldberg butchers the Brokaw/Rose interview; MM provides links to the actual interview so you can see what Brokaw really said. Limbaugh keeps saying that Obama favors infanticide (seriously); MM provides links to the original Illinois bill, Obama's comments, and the recorded vote showing that many Republicans took the same position. It goes on and on and on. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
You said 7 Judges were crooked. If not your position, then what objective criteria did you use to determine their crookedness? On Feb 11, 2009, at 7:49 PM, Jordan wrote: Matthew Taylor wrote: Now we get to the heart of the matter. Crooked = disagrees with your position. Got it. Please try to resist the impulse to say such ignorant things. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
On Feb 11, 2009, at 2:33 PM, db wrote: To me the cutting tax (ad nauseum...), small hands off government, "free" trade concepts are just "me me me" first types trying to make sure nobody gets in the way of "them getting theirs" And you determine this how? and they have been increasingly motivated in the last 25 years or so to come strongly and selfishly forward by a trend of increasing American scarcity and diminishing prospects. What scarcity? What is America running out of in your view? In what way are our prospects diminished? Most libertarians believe that if there is a scarcity, it represents a market opportunity, and believe that with the right choices made our prospects look good indeed. I wouldn't want to be standing in line for the lifeboats on a sinking ship with any of these types around. Amazing how many military who might be coming to your rescue are of a more conservative or libertarian bent though. That they argue that such policy is best for all of us is just superficial and insincere BS propaganda You have some secret inside source that tells you that libertarians do no believe what they are saying? ... a slim cover for an otherwise socially unacceptable self serving philosophy. Self reliance within a greater community, a long standing American tradition, is now socially unacceptable? I'm convinced that by nature they subjectively don't really give a functional damn about the good of the whole By nature? So you are saying there is a libertarian gene? so debating the economic and governance points with them makes about as much sense as trying to talk a wolf out of eating meat. Or say vegetarians who feed their dogs and cats vegetable diets? If the last decade didn't prove out the bankruptcy of their theories of governance, I don't know what ever will. The spendthrift Republican congress of 2001 - 2006 were hardly an exemplar of libertarian fiscal policy. But I do learn a lot from other types in discussing such matters so I guess our string is worthwhile. Other types. Do you mean types you already agree with? I find I learn more from being challenged with demonstrable reason backed up by facts. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
If you are so limiting your news source I can understand how you come by your viewpoints. On Feb 11, 2009, at 5:23 PM, Jordan wrote: If you read on the left blogosphere, Media Matters, TPM Muckraker, and Huffington Post you'll typically see links to legitimate researched reports. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009, Steve at Verizon wrote: > Chris Dunford wrote: > > > let their demand for small/weak federal government (or against > > > "activist judges") try to justify their bigotry. > > > > Yeah, and, as a side note, it's always interesting to note that > > judges are only "activist" if they do stuff that the > > conservatives don't like. There's apparently nothing "activist" > > about, say, five judges selecting as President the candidate > > with a half-million fewer votes. > > You keep forgetting that we do not elect a president by popular > vote. Get the Constitution changed if you want it that way. And it > was 7 Justices who overruled the Fla Supreme Courts decision (The > 5-4 vote was for remanding it back to them). It was Scalia, the guy who says that the Constitution is a dead document, at the prompting of the Bush campaign, who inserted the Supreme Court into a state (FL) election matter. When it suits them, screw the "state rights" and to hell with the 10th amendment. So much for sticking to the said "dead document." If _that_ isn't being an activist judge, I don't know what is! * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
> And it was 7 Justices who overruled the Fla Supreme Courts > decision (The 5-4 vote was for remanding it back to them). No, the 5-4 decision was the one that really mattered. The 7-2 decision said that the statewide recount violated equal protection clauses because the various localities were interpreting the voters' intent differently. That decision by itself would not have stopped a recount by a different method. The 5-4 decision effectively ended *any* recount by stating that December 12 was the deadline and that no constitutionally valid recount could be completed by that date (and, as my daughter would say, "You know this, how?") The decision is very difficult to understand absent political motivation. Reading the decision and the dissents is instructive--the logic in the dissents is far more compelling than that in the decision. Breyer is very blunt: "The Court was wrong to take this case. It was wrong to grant a stay. It should now vacate that stay and permit the Florida Supreme Court to decide whether the recount should resume. The political implications of this case for the country are momentous. But the federal legal questions presented, with one exception, are insubstantial." And Stevens even more so: "What must underlie petitioners' entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law." That's a pretty stunning paragraph to appear in a Supreme Court decision. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
They were also complicated and conflicted about their politics, and used reason to resolve issues; that's what the Enlightenment was all about! I can agree with that statement. But I can't consider anyone who kept slaves a liberal. And perhaps not as enlightened as you seem to believe, given that all three knew, as is proven by their writings, that it was wrong and yet profited from it anyway. No doubt that they wrote some very fine prose on the subject, but when it came down to the money the ideals went out the window. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
Matthew Taylor wrote: Now we get to the heart of the matter. Crooked = disagrees with your position. Got it. Please try to resist the impulse to say such ignorant things. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
Now we get to the heart of the matter. Crooked = disagrees with your position. Got it. On Feb 11, 2009, at 6:27 PM, Jordan wrote: Oh, OK. It's better if there were 7 crooked judges. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
On Feb 11, 2009, at 2:34 PM, Vicky Staubly wrote: Matthew Taylor wrote: I respect your life choices - I have made some unorthodox choices myself. I don't demand others welcome my choices, or even support my choices. I certainly don't demand that the law be changed to suit my choices - I do what I can to persuade others to support my views that the laws should be changed in an orderly manner. Have I advocated storming city hall and stealing marriage licenses? I'm saying that I don't care how unjust laws get changed. And if you had greater respect for the law rather than your preferred outcome you would care how the laws are changed. The constitution and the ordinary body of law have proscribed methods of change, the latter harder to change than the former. I advocate following the rules to change the rules, not using judges to change the plain meaning of the rules or just toss them out as unpopular or incompatible with the judge's idea of what the law should be when it clearly is not that. Did black people tell the supreme court after "Brown vs Board of Education"... "no, no, we'll wait until we can get favorable laws in all 48 states"? How does this apply to our discussion? That decision said the constitution (14th Amendment chiefly) meant what it said it did - equal protection. Did slaves after the civil war say "No, no, I'll wait until my state of South Carolina outlaws slavery"? Define wait - it took the 13th Amendment to outlaw slavery nation wide. The Emancipation Proclamation did not do that. I wish that the people of the US would reject past injustices sooner, As do I. but it seems that it's usually the courts and/or the federal government that first tries to fix things. I disagree. Much change comes from ordinary citizens and interest groups lobbying for incremental change. When the courts are used to short circuit the process before there is a consensus for change that usually creates a tremendous backlash. Then the bigots cry "states rights!" and let their demand for small/weak federal government (or against "activist judges") try to justify their bigotry. Wow, talk about a loaded, inflammatory statement. Am I bigoted because I support the rule of law? Am I bigoted because I think the text actually matters? Am I bigoted because I support a republican form of government rather than direct democracy? It's also telling that you called it my "lifestyle" and "a choice". Because everything you do, everything I do, is a lifestyle and a choice. Those choices can be guided or constrained by external forces or internal makeup, but as an autonomous individual possessed of free will, your actions are a choice. Strangely, your religion, more of a choice than my "lifestyle", does more damage than my "lifestyle", and yet no one suggests you give it up. Argument by unsupported assumption. I have no religion. I am an agnostic - a militant agnostic. This existence of the supernatural can neither be proved nor disproved by natural means. And plenty of people do suggest I give up my agnosticism and find faith - in their deity naturally. Granted a few don't care which deity, as long as there is one. Did I say anything about your lifestyle was damaging, or wrong? I do not think I did. You also dragged marriage into the discussion, trying to say I want more (or changed) laws, but it was "Lawrence v. Texas" that started this discussion (for me anyway). That overturned a state law which made what I do in the privacy of my own bedroom (if I lived in Texas) a crime. How is having that law "small unobtrusive government"? You simply brings up that excuse when it suits your bigotry. I think that law is a terrible law and should have been REPEALED long ago. The people of Texas through their elected representatives disagreed, as is their privilege under our constitutional system. I do not want any government in my or your bedroom. Under our present laws though they are allowed to be there in certain circumstances. That was my point - in our system the state MAY legislate morality. I do not think they should absent some other compelling interest, but I do not argue that they may not, for our constitution and the common law that precedes it are clear that morality can be legislated. You write as though you think you know me and my views on personal life and morality. Clearly you do not and have chosen to project a straw man to denigrate. I shouldn't have jumped into this political discussion, but I was simply trying to show that this kind of bigotry affects real people, people you know, but obviously don't care about. Again, you assume much yet know little about me. Why is this? Matthew * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmnes
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
We never elect a president by Popular vote. A president is elected by the Electoral College. Rules can be changed and other things done to alter this end result. That was what Florida in 2000 was all about. Stewart At 05:13 PM 2/11/2009, you wrote: You keep forgetting that we do not elect a president by popular vote. Get the Constitution changed if you want it that way. And it was 7 Justices who overruled the Fla Supreme Courts decision (The 5-4 vote was for remanding it back to them). Chris Dunford wrote: let their demand for small/weak federal government (or against "activist judges") try to justify their bigotry. Yeah, and, as a side note, it's always interesting to note that judges are only "activist" if they do stuff that the conservatives don't like. There's apparently nothing "activist" about, say, five judges selecting as President the candidate with a half-million fewer votes. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:popoz...@earthlink.net Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
Steve at Verizon wrote: You keep forgetting that we do not elect a president by popular vote. Get the Constitution changed if you want it that way. And it was 7 Justices who overruled the Fla Supreme Courts decision (The 5-4 vote was for remanding it back to them). Oh, OK. It's better if there were 7 crooked judges. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
You keep forgetting that we do not elect a president by popular vote. Get the Constitution changed if you want it that way. And it was 7 Justices who overruled the Fla Supreme Courts decision (The 5-4 vote was for remanding it back to them). Chris Dunford wrote: let their demand for small/weak federal government (or against "activist judges") try to justify their bigotry. Yeah, and, as a side note, it's always interesting to note that judges are only "activist" if they do stuff that the conservatives don't like. There's apparently nothing "activist" about, say, five judges selecting as President the candidate with a half-million fewer votes. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
Thank you Betty, db, Vicky, and others. It's good to read the thoughts of some more true patriots here. A distillation of what Betty referred to regarding Raygun and his methods occurs now: the way things work on the right blogosphere, some radical winger will say something twisted or half true or just fabricated. Then 3 other right wing sites will repeat the lie and site each other as sources. Then this lie will appear in the mainstream press as if it were an established fact. Check former conservative David Brock's web site Media Matters to see occurrences of this and lots of other shenanigans that are going on. The legendary example is Chalabi and the White House Iraq group telling Judy Miller that there were WMDs, she puts a story about it in the NY Times, and Chaney sites it as fact. Rush Limbaugh, Drudge, and Fox News do this all the time. It's called the echo chamber. If you do any reading at these places, try to check their sources down to verifiable research, studies, or reports. If you read on the left blogosphere, Media Matters, TPM Muckraker, and Huffington Post you'll typically see links to legitimate researched reports. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
> let their demand for small/weak federal government (or against > "activist judges") try to justify their bigotry. Yeah, and, as a side note, it's always interesting to note that judges are only "activist" if they do stuff that the conservatives don't like. There's apparently nothing "activist" about, say, five judges selecting as President the candidate with a half-million fewer votes. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
Quoting b_s-wilk : How do intelligent people get tricked so easily? Just because you want something to be true doesn't make it true. Even though you've been inundated with fabrications from the likes of Raygun's deputy press secretary Larry "Say something five times and it becomes true" Speakes [and Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, Heritage Foundation, et al], you should have learned in school and afterwards to discern the difference between fact and fiction. In the words of Mother Tyler* "Most 'round here believe. And when most believe, that d' make it true". *Dr Who "Curse of the Fendal" * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009, db wrote: You got to break some eggs to make an omelet. Is breaking things orderly? Probably not from the chicken's point of view... And we have some pretty stubborn chickens. Matthew Taylor wrote: I respect your life choices - I have made some unorthodox choices myself. I don't demand others welcome my choices, or even support my choices. I certainly don't demand that the law be changed to suit my choices - I do what I can to persuade others to support my views that the laws should be changed in an orderly manner. Have I advocated storming city hall and stealing marriage licenses? I'm saying that I don't care how unjust laws get changed. Did black people tell the supreme court after "Brown vs Board of Education"... "no, no, we'll wait until we can get favorable laws in all 48 states"? Did slaves after the civil war say "No, no, I'll wait until my state of South Carolina outlaws slavery"? I wish that the people of the US would reject past injustices sooner, but it seems that it's usually the courts and/or the federal government that first tries to fix things. Then the bigots cry "states rights!" and let their demand for small/weak federal government (or against "activist judges") try to justify their bigotry. It's also telling that you called it my "lifestyle" and "a choice". Strangely, your religion, more of a choice than my "lifestyle", does more damage than my "lifestyle", and yet no one suggests you give it up. You also dragged marriage into the discussion, trying to say I want more (or changed) laws, but it was "Lawrence v. Texas" that started this discussion (for me anyway). That overturned a state law which made what I do in the privacy of my own bedroom (if I lived in Texas) a crime. How is having that law "small unobtrusive goverment"? You simply brings up that excuse when it suits your bigotry. I shouldn't have jumped into this political discussion, but I was simply trying to show that this kind of bigotry affects real people, people you know, but obviously don't care about. -- Vicky Staubly http://www.steeds.com/vicky/vi...@steeds.com * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
To me the cutting tax (ad nauseum...), small hands off government, "free" trade concepts are just "me me me" first types trying to make sure nobody gets in the way of "them getting theirs" and they have been increasingly motivated in the last 25 years or so to come strongly and selfishly forward by a trend of increasing American scarcity and diminishing prospects. I wouldn't want to be standing in line for the lifeboats on a sinking ship with any of these types around. That they argue that such policy is best for all of us is just superficial and insincere BS propaganda ... a slim cover for an otherwise socially unacceptable self serving philosophy. I'm convinced that by nature they subjectively don't really give a functional damn about the good of the whole so debating the economic and governance points with them makes about as much sense as trying to talk a wolf out of eating meat. If the last decade didn't prove out the bankruptcy of their theories of governance, I don't know what ever will. But I do learn a lot from other types in discussing such matters so I guess our string is worthwhile. Betty. for one... you are a treasure trove of information and reason! db Tom Piwowar wrote: How do you preserve history and direct seekers to facts and rational discussions instead of getting lost and entangled in a jungle of disinformation and fantasy? How do we educate our children so that they have the ability to know the difference and discern truth/fact from fiction? Yesterday's Morning Edition had an interesting interview with Matt Miller, author of "The Tyranny of Dead Ideas: Letting Go of the Old Ways of Thinking" may be a good place to start. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100338745 "Yet it is equally clear that the latest conservative "strategy" ‹ cutting taxes (mostly for the well off ), standing idle while health costs soar and the ranks of the uninsured swell toward 50 million, mortgaging our future to nations like China via massive trade deficits, and deregulating our financial system with explosive results ‹ has torpedoed our public finances and fueled a pervasive sense of foreboding." * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
Actually, I think the REAL problem is letting others define who/what you are. The right demands characteristics that are easily vilified to be part of "Liberal". Once you fall into that trap, you are forced to continually define who/what you are/think/act in terms of another's definition- which is generally a moving target. Eschew Obfuscation This is a reply from: Roy A. Ackerman, Ph.D., E.A. Financial, Managerial, and Technical Services for the Professional, Non-Profit, and the Entrepreneurial Organization 703.548.1343 voice 703.783.1340 fax >From thinking to doing, from sales to profits, from tax to investments- we are YOUR adjuvancy -Original Message- From: Computer Guys Discussion List [mailto:computerguy...@listserv.aol.com] On Behalf Of Vicky Staubly Sent: 02/11/2009 2:01 PM To: COMPUTERGUYS-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Subject: Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life] On Wed, 11 Feb 2009, Chris Dunford wrote: >> I can't help but notice you did not address the question - why do most >> liberals appear to prefer progressive? > > Pretty simple answer: because Limbaugh and the rest of the neocon media > comedians have managed to turn "liberal" into something akin to "communist" > in the fifties--an unpatriotic America-hater. > > I still use "liberal" because I am neither. I am a liberal patriotic > America-lover. Limbaugh thinks this is an oxymoron, but he is wrong as > usual. (Hard to say whether he actually believes the stuff he says or just > says it because it makes him a lot of money--he certainly has to know that a > lot of his rant is factually incorrect. And if we're looking for someone > unpatriotic, let's nominate someone who has actually said, in so many words, > that he hopes Obama will fail.) Thanks, Chris. I too call myself a liberal, as do my parents, my aunts and uncles and cousins. I understand (I don't remember personally) that I went on my first civil rights march in a stroller. :-) >> [Progressive] implies change is valuable for the sake of >> change itself > > Sez who? I still prefer "liberal", but "progressive" doesn't have the > meaning you impute. A progressive is someone who wants progress. Progress > means improvement. That is not "change for the sake of change". And, as software developers, we could point out that in contrast to "progress" (good change), there is "regress" (bad change), as in "regression testing" (testing for features in software which used to work, but no longer do because a developer made some change). -- Vicky Staubly http://www.steeds.com/vicky/vi...@steeds.com * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
I vote for progress over disintegration. db Chris Dunford wrote: I can't help but notice you did not address the question - why do most liberals appear to prefer progressive? Pretty simple answer: because Limbaugh and the rest of the neocon media comedians have managed to turn "liberal" into something akin to "communist" in the fifties--an unpatriotic America-hater. I still use "liberal" because I am neither. I am a liberal patriotic America-lover. Limbaugh thinks this is an oxymoron, but he is wrong as usual. (Hard to say whether he actually believes the stuff he says or just says it because it makes him a lot of money--he certainly has to know that a lot of his rant is factually incorrect. And if we're looking for someone unpatriotic, let's nominate someone who has actually said, in so many words, that he hopes Obama will fail.) [Progressive] implies change is valuable for the sake of change itself Sez who? I still prefer "liberal", but "progressive" doesn't have the meaning you impute. A progressive is someone who wants progress. Progress means improvement. That is not "change for the sake of change". * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009, Chris Dunford wrote: I can't help but notice you did not address the question - why do most liberals appear to prefer progressive? Pretty simple answer: because Limbaugh and the rest of the neocon media comedians have managed to turn "liberal" into something akin to "communist" in the fifties--an unpatriotic America-hater. I still use "liberal" because I am neither. I am a liberal patriotic America-lover. Limbaugh thinks this is an oxymoron, but he is wrong as usual. (Hard to say whether he actually believes the stuff he says or just says it because it makes him a lot of money--he certainly has to know that a lot of his rant is factually incorrect. And if we're looking for someone unpatriotic, let's nominate someone who has actually said, in so many words, that he hopes Obama will fail.) Thanks, Chris. I too call myself a liberal, as do my parents, my aunts and uncles and cousins. I understand (I don't remember personally) that I went on my first civil rights march in a stroller. :-) [Progressive] implies change is valuable for the sake of change itself Sez who? I still prefer "liberal", but "progressive" doesn't have the meaning you impute. A progressive is someone who wants progress. Progress means improvement. That is not "change for the sake of change". And, as software developers, we could point out that in contrast to "progress" (good change), there is "regress" (bad change), as in "regression testing" (testing for features in software which used to work, but no longer do because a developer made some change). -- Vicky Staubly http://www.steeds.com/vicky/vi...@steeds.com * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
You got to break some eggs to make an omelet. Is breaking things orderly? Probably not from the chicken's point of view... db Matthew Taylor wrote: On Feb 10, 2009, at 11:36 PM, Vicky Staubly wrote: That any state feels it can prohibit who I am as a person is outrageous and should not be permitted in any civilized country, let along one that claims to be as enlightened as we claim. People like you and Scalia belong in the Dark Ages. Best to put me there with them - and all others who support a government of laws and not of men. The very essence of judicial impartiality is that a judge must rule on the law says, not what they wish the law to be. In this nation there is a long established jurisprudence that the state can indeed legislate matters of personal morality when the legislature finds a compelling interest in doing so. The state does it all the time. The state regulates vice, be it the sex trade, recreational pharmaceuticals, or other activities it considers detrimental to the public good. I don't think it should, certainly not in the manner it does, but that is a political choice the people through their representatives have made. The state regulates marriage - the very act of sanctioning any form of marriage, of defining marriage in law is an act of legislating morality. If you argue for same sex marriage sanctioned by the state you are asserting the power of the state to define marriage - that is legislating morality. If our judges start, some would argue continue, ruling based on their philosophy of what the law should be, or should mean today, as opposed to what the drafters of a law meant at the time that they drafted it, then we no longer have a government of laws. We simply have a government of political majority - whatever that majority might be, whenever and wherever assembled. That is a recipe for tyranny, not liberty. I respect your life choices - I have made some unorthodox choices myself. I don't demand others welcome my choices, or even support my choices. I certainly don't demand that the law be changed to suit my choices - I do what I can to persuade others to support my views that the laws should be changed in an orderly manner. Finally, if Liberal isn't a bad word anymore, why do Liberals call themselves Progressives now instead. I have some more bad words for you, but I don't want to subject the nice people on this list (as opposed to you) to them. I can't help but notice you did not address the question - why do most liberals appear to prefer progressive? Progressive is such an interesting label. It implies change is valuable for the sake of change itself - that the old must be dispensed with simply because it is the old. It gives no weight to custom and tradition as the evolved wisdom of society, yet most progressives strenuously argue that evolution has shaped the members of society who now must change that society in the name of progress. Such an interesting contradiction. Matthew * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
How do you preserve history and direct seekers to facts and rational discussions instead of getting lost and entangled in a jungle of disinformation and fantasy? How do we educate our children so that they have the ability to know the difference and discern truth/fact from fiction? Yesterday's Morning Edition had an interesting interview with Matt Miller, author of "The Tyranny of Dead Ideas: Letting Go of the Old Ways of Thinking" may be a good place to start. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100338745 "Yet it is equally clear that the latest conservative "strategy" ‹ cutting taxes (mostly for the well off ), standing idle while health costs soar and the ranks of the uninsured swell toward 50 million, mortgaging our future to nations like China via massive trade deficits, and deregulating our financial system with explosive results ‹ has torpedoed our public finances and fueled a pervasive sense of foreboding." When I want to find information about medicine, I don't go to a florist, I read medical journals and talk to doctors. When I want to learn the rules of soccer, I go to FIFA or USSF for the rule books, and talk to referees. When I want to learn more about Macintosh computers, I get my information from Apple and from the computer user groups and Mac users. It makes sense for me to seek Liberals when I want to learn more about liberal philosophy and politics, instead of some conservative whose pretzel logic is so twisted that he has a few people believing that a self-serving conservative like Scalia, whose thinking has barely made it out of the 18th century without acknowledging the Age of Enlightenment, is a liberal. You need to go to the sources of liberal thinking, rather than believing a cartoonish caricature that's essentially irrelevant. Contrary to the odd redefinition of Liberal, there are a lot of similarities with those in the 18th century and the 21st century. Cons attempt to changed the definition, while actual Liberals have not changed significantly in their philosophy. How do intelligent people get tricked so easily? Just because you want something to be true doesn't make it true. Even though you've been inundated with fabrications from the likes of Raygun's deputy press secretary Larry "Say something five times and it becomes true" Speakes [and Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, Heritage Foundation, et al], you should have learned in school and afterwards to discern the difference between fact and fiction. Internet information and news sources range from the absurd to partisan rants to straight news to deliberate obfuscation and everything in between. It helps to choose sources carefully, and check their reputations. Wikipedia is a very good source for information on computers and electronics, however when you get to politics and history, those entries are often questionable and can change frequently; same for lesser know sites. Most important, find information and opinions from all points of view instead of just one, then parse and compare. BTW, Ben Franklin wasn't a Puritan although his father was. Franklin retained some of the Puritan values of hard work, community, education, but considered himself to be a Deist. As for Jefferson and Madison, being exemplars of the Enlightenment, of course they were liberal. They were also complicated and conflicted about their politics, and used reason to resolve issues; that's what the Enlightenment was all about! They discovered that blind Tradition is usually the worst reason for doing anything, and grew from that. Betty --- Reality is that which, once you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -- Philip K. Dick * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
> I can't help but notice you did not address the question - why do most > liberals appear to prefer progressive? Pretty simple answer: because Limbaugh and the rest of the neocon media comedians have managed to turn "liberal" into something akin to "communist" in the fifties--an unpatriotic America-hater. I still use "liberal" because I am neither. I am a liberal patriotic America-lover. Limbaugh thinks this is an oxymoron, but he is wrong as usual. (Hard to say whether he actually believes the stuff he says or just says it because it makes him a lot of money--he certainly has to know that a lot of his rant is factually incorrect. And if we're looking for someone unpatriotic, let's nominate someone who has actually said, in so many words, that he hopes Obama will fail.) > [Progressive] implies change is valuable for the sake of > change itself Sez who? I still prefer "liberal", but "progressive" doesn't have the meaning you impute. A progressive is someone who wants progress. Progress means improvement. That is not "change for the sake of change". * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
On Feb 10, 2009, at 11:36 PM, Vicky Staubly wrote: That any state feels it can prohibit who I am as a person is outrageous and should not be permitted in any civilized country, let along one that claims to be as enlightened as we claim. People like you and Scalia belong in the Dark Ages. Best to put me there with them - and all others who support a government of laws and not of men. The very essence of judicial impartiality is that a judge must rule on the law says, not what they wish the law to be. In this nation there is a long established jurisprudence that the state can indeed legislate matters of personal morality when the legislature finds a compelling interest in doing so. The state does it all the time. The state regulates vice, be it the sex trade, recreational pharmaceuticals, or other activities it considers detrimental to the public good. I don't think it should, certainly not in the manner it does, but that is a political choice the people through their representatives have made. The state regulates marriage - the very act of sanctioning any form of marriage, of defining marriage in law is an act of legislating morality. If you argue for same sex marriage sanctioned by the state you are asserting the power of the state to define marriage - that is legislating morality. If our judges start, some would argue continue, ruling based on their philosophy of what the law should be, or should mean today, as opposed to what the drafters of a law meant at the time that they drafted it, then we no longer have a government of laws. We simply have a government of political majority - whatever that majority might be, whenever and wherever assembled. That is a recipe for tyranny, not liberty. I respect your life choices - I have made some unorthodox choices myself. I don't demand others welcome my choices, or even support my choices. I certainly don't demand that the law be changed to suit my choices - I do what I can to persuade others to support my views that the laws should be changed in an orderly manner. Finally, if Liberal isn't a bad word anymore, why do Liberals call themselves Progressives now instead. I have some more bad words for you, but I don't want to subject the nice people on this list (as opposed to you) to them. I can't help but notice you did not address the question - why do most liberals appear to prefer progressive? Progressive is such an interesting label. It implies change is valuable for the sake of change itself - that the old must be dispensed with simply because it is the old. It gives no weight to custom and tradition as the evolved wisdom of society, yet most progressives strenuously argue that evolution has shaped the members of society who now must change that society in the name of progress. Such an interesting contradiction. Matthew * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
And you have all this insider information how, Dr. Who? Jeff M On Feb 10, 2009, at 6:43 PM, Eric S. Sande wrote: Was Ben Franklin conservative? Thomas Jefferson? James Madison? >Not hardly. Very different men. Two Southern slaveholders (although Jefferson saw the contradiction with his thought) and a Northern Puritan (that wasn't all that pure). The uniting factor was distrust of a strong Federal government and a dislike of being subjects of a distant King. Madison and Jefferson were aristocrats born and bred and Franklin was largely a self-made man. All were of the Enlightenment, but that didn't make them Liberals in the modern sense of the word. They gambled and they won. At least a third of the people were on their side to some extent, a third didn't care one way or the other, and the rest were perfectly happy to be British subjects (Brinton, 1965). None of them had any immediate interest in sticking their heads in a noose and none of them except the extreme radicals had any vested interest in changing the status quo ante other than removing what had then become a business inconvenience. Please consider the roles an increasing commerce and consequent taxation played in setting the conditions for the American Revolution and I think you'll agree that the movers and shakers thereof were no more Liberals than the government of George III was sane. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http:// www.cguys.org/ ** * The friend is the man who knows all about you, and still likes you. - Elbert Hubbard * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009, Steve at Verizon wrote: Back to Scalia. I was impressed with his take on his (losing) vote on the Lawrence v. Texas ruling. He supported the legality of the legislation, that states can enact laws pertaining to morality, while at the same time saying that if he had been in that legislature, he would have voted against it. He did not let his liberal view of homosexuality cloud the interpretation of law. I suggest that whatever state Scalia lives in outlaw Italians, and we reinstate Bush long enough that Scalia can be tortured. In fact, maybe that state can reinstate lynching. In fact, what state do you live in? That any state feels it can prohibit who I am as a person is outrageous and should not be permitted in any civilized country, let along one that claims to be as enlightened as we claim. People like you and Scalia belong in the Dark Ages. Finally, if Liberal isn't a bad word anymore, why do Liberals call themselves Progressives now instead. I have some more bad words for you, but I don't want to subject the nice people on this list (as opposed to you) to them. -- Vicky Staubly http://www.steeds.com/vicky/vi...@steeds.com * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
Was Ben Franklin conservative? Thomas Jefferson? James Madison? >Not hardly. Very different men. Two Southern slaveholders (although Jefferson saw the contradiction with his thought) and a Northern Puritan (that wasn't all that pure). The uniting factor was distrust of a strong Federal government and a dislike of being subjects of a distant King. Madison and Jefferson were aristocrats born and bred and Franklin was largely a self-made man. All were of the Enlightenment, but that didn't make them Liberals in the modern sense of the word. They gambled and they won. At least a third of the people were on their side to some extent, a third didn't care one way or the other, and the rest were perfectly happy to be British subjects (Brinton, 1965). None of them had any immediate interest in sticking their heads in a noose and none of them except the extreme radicals had any vested interest in changing the status quo ante other than removing what had then become a business inconvenience. Please consider the roles an increasing commerce and consequent taxation played in setting the conditions for the American Revolution and I think you'll agree that the movers and shakers thereof were no more Liberals than the government of George III was sane. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
I guess I shouldn't have delved into the tricky definitions of these terms. Let me try to clarify. From that site I referenced, I thought we could all agree with items 1-6, in that, most of us are small l liberal. I.e. we all agree with the same ends; equality under the law, equal opportunity, no discrimination, etc. It is the means to achieve these objectives that divide us. Back again to that smaller/bigger government involvement issue. That site went on further to distinguish Conservatives and Modern Liberals. In most of the discussions in this long and unending thread, we all should have used the cap form. (I'm sure that you have many small c conservative qualities, like protection of natural resources.) (I am a democrat, but not a Democrat) I'm surprised that Scalia said either of the quotes you gave. Can you cite? I highly doubt the former. The latter is a gross misstatement of original intent. It completely ignores the amendments which have made many improvements in our Constitution over the centuries (Correcting slavery, suffrage, etc) Back to Scalia. I was impressed with his take on his (losing) vote on the Lawrence v. Texas ruling. He supported the legality of the legislation, that states can enact laws pertaining to morality, while at the same time saying that if he had been in that legislature, he would have voted against it. He did not let his liberal view of homosexuality cloud the interpretation of law. I stand by my claim, that since the core of Modern Conservative philosophy is limited government, and that was the aim of our founders, then they would be more attuned to Modern Conservatism even though I agree that they were all small l liberals. Finally, if Liberal isn't a bad word anymore, why do Liberals call themselves Progressives now instead. b_s-wilk wrote: Again, I was referring to contemporary usage of the terms liberal and conservative. If you looked at the link I gave, you will see that today the term liberal usually refers to Modern Liberal as described there. I cannot think of any modern conservatives who would side with the Tories. Modern conservatives are more attuned to the original principles of the Constitution (think Judge Scalia). That's stunning. You say that Antonin 'torture isn't cruel and unusual punishment so it's Constitutional' Scalia is a liberal. You say that Antonin 'we have a Constitution that is fixed by the words as the Founders understood them back in the late 1700s' Scalia is a liberal. Amazing. The odd [re-]definition of liberal from conservative-resources.com, is doublespeak that would make Frank Luntz smile. The good news is that liberal isn't a bad word any more. The bad news is that the redefinition is so blatantly wrong. Liberal = conservative? Was Ben Franklin conservative? Thomas Jefferson? James Madison? Not hardly. The Internet contains a vast wealth of information and is also a vast wasteland. You want Jack Kennedy to be a conservative? You can find plenty of sites claiming that. You want Barack Obama to be the most liberal person in the Senate [pre-POTUS]? You can find plenty of site claiming that too. Both assertions are wrong. How do you preserve history and direct seekers to facts and rational discussions instead of getting lost and entangled in a jungle of disinformation and fantasy? How do we educate our children so that they have the ability to know the difference and discern truth/fact from fiction? Betty --- ...Rot a peck of pa's malt had Jhem or Shen brewed by arclight and rory end to the regginbrow was to be seen ringsome on the aquaface. The fall (bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnbronntonner- ronntuonnthunntrovarrhounawnskawntoohoohoordenenthurnuk!) of a once wallstrait oldparr is retaled early in bed and later on life down through all christian minstrelsy... * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
>How do you preserve history and direct seekers to facts and rational >discussions instead of getting lost and entangled in a jungle of >disinformation and fantasy? How do we educate our children so that they >have the ability to know the difference and discern truth/fact from fiction? Yesterday's Morning Edition had an interesting interview with Matt Miller, author of "The Tyranny of Dead Ideas: Letting Go of the Old Ways of Thinking" may be a good place to start. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100338745 "Yet it is equally clear that the latest conservative "strategy" cutting taxes (mostly for the well off ), standing idle while health costs soar and the ranks of the uninsured swell toward 50 million, mortgaging our future to nations like China via massive trade deficits, and deregulating our financial system with explosive results has torpedoed our public finances and fueled a pervasive sense of foreboding." * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
[CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
Again, I was referring to contemporary usage of the terms liberal and conservative. If you looked at the link I gave, you will see that today the term liberal usually refers to Modern Liberal as described there. I cannot think of any modern conservatives who would side with the Tories. Modern conservatives are more attuned to the original principles of the Constitution (think Judge Scalia). That's stunning. You say that Antonin 'torture isn't cruel and unusual punishment so it's Constitutional' Scalia is a liberal. You say that Antonin 'we have a Constitution that is fixed by the words as the Founders understood them back in the late 1700s' Scalia is a liberal. Amazing. The odd [re-]definition of liberal from conservative-resources.com, is doublespeak that would make Frank Luntz smile. The good news is that liberal isn't a bad word any more. The bad news is that the redefinition is so blatantly wrong. Liberal = conservative? Was Ben Franklin conservative? Thomas Jefferson? James Madison? Not hardly. The Internet contains a vast wealth of information and is also a vast wasteland. You want Jack Kennedy to be a conservative? You can find plenty of sites claiming that. You want Barack Obama to be the most liberal person in the Senate [pre-POTUS]? You can find plenty of site claiming that too. Both assertions are wrong. How do you preserve history and direct seekers to facts and rational discussions instead of getting lost and entangled in a jungle of disinformation and fantasy? How do we educate our children so that they have the ability to know the difference and discern truth/fact from fiction? Betty --- ...Rot a peck of pa's malt had Jhem or Shen brewed by arclight and rory end to the regginbrow was to be seen ringsome on the aquaface. The fall (bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnbronntonner- ronntuonnthunntrovarrhounawnskawntoohoohoordenenthurnuk!) of a once wallstrait oldparr is retaled early in bed and later on life down through all christian minstrelsy... * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
