> On 2012-10-02, Alec Cawley <a...@spamspam.co.uk> wrote:
> > daniel goldsmith <dg...@ascraeus.bongley.net.invalid> wrote:
> >> [2] Jackson ran as Vice-Presidential Candidate for all three of his > >> major Presidential opponents - Adams, Crawford & Clay. And they ran
> >> as VP candidates for him, and each other - Elections meaning something
> >> back then.
> > I think there were no Vice Presidential candidates in those days. The
> > Presidency was not supposed to be a party post, so everybody was going for
> > the top job. The best man got the job, and the second best was the reserve,
> > or Vice, President. That is why the Vice President ha no defined functions
> > - he is just the next to be called on if the winner is somehow unavailable.
> No, that *was* the case for the first few elections - John Adams came
> second to Washington, so became the first Veep, Jefferson came second
> to Adams, and thence in their turn betwixt.
> This led to the nonsense of Jefferson's first, unsuccessful, election,
> where the growth of Political Parties meant the process had become
> intracable - there were 36 rounds of voting before he became Veep,
> this led to the 12th Amendment, which for the first time gave full
> Constitutional recognition to the Veep, and provided that it would > be the subject of a wholly separate election.
> That election was what led to the complexity of the Jackson/Adams/&c
> vice-presidential race - but this all disappeared with the growth of
> the two-party state in the late 19C, when both parties selected just
> one candidate for the office.
> Early american constitutional development is *fun*!
The Founders did not want political parties, but set up a system which inevitably lead to their founding. And the set up the Presidency with George Washington in mind. As the Circus manager said when the man shot from a cannon retired, "Where am I going to find a man of his caliber?".
>On 2012-10-02, Paul Jamison <pjamis...@cox.net> wrote:
>> The most unsettling theory that I've seen online is that the whole >> Romney/Ryan ticket fiasco is part of a long-term plan by Karl Rove to put >> Jeb Bush in the White House in 2016. *shudder*
>> Paul
>> *shudder*
>On an platform of 'Education Reform'.
>'Education reform' is a euphemism for what, one wonders?
That's an easy one. It means "give us more money so we can make the
federal bureaucracies even bigger, without actually doing anything
constructive." Consider, for example, how much money is spent annually
per student in the average US classroom. Compare that to the level of
education the students are receiving.
-Chris Zakes
Texas
--
You can find complaints as far back as Socrates about how things aren't like they were in "the good old days" and how the world is going to Hell in a handbasket. Either Hell is a lot farther away than we thought, or that handbasket is moving *really* slowly.
> On 2012-10-03, Lesley Weston <brightly_coloured_b...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 10-02-12 4:04 PM, Larry Moore wrote:
>>> On 2012-10-02, Lesley Weston <brightly_coloured_b...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> I'm 68 now. Vote for me!
>>>> Lesley.
>>> Gladly! What position are you running for?
>> Anything. I'm getting bored by retirement.
>> Lesley.
> I don't smoke cigars nor drink whisk{e}y but perhaps you could
> find a place on your phone bank for me?
Certainly! You will be an asset.
Lesley.
-- This address is real, but to reach me use leswes att shaw dott ca
> On 10-03-12 2:21 PM, Larry Moore wrote:
>> On 2012-10-03, Lesley Weston <brightly_coloured_b...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 10-02-12 4:04 PM, Larry Moore wrote:
>>>> On 2012-10-02, Lesley Weston <brightly_coloured_b...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> I'm 68 now. Vote for me!
>>>>> Lesley.
>>>> Gladly! What position are you running for?
>>> Anything. I'm getting bored by retirement.
>>> Lesley.
>> I don't smoke cigars nor drink whisk{e}y but perhaps you could
>> find a place on your phone bank for me?
> Certainly! You will be an asset.
> Lesley.
OK, put me on your Rolodex.
-- ... There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesome returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
-- Mark Twain
> On 2012-10-05, Lesley Weston <brightly_coloured_b...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 10-03-12 2:21 PM, Larry Moore wrote:
>>> On 2012-10-03, Lesley Weston <brightly_coloured_b...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 10-02-12 4:04 PM, Larry Moore wrote:
>>>>> On 2012-10-02, Lesley Weston <brightly_coloured_b...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> I'm 68 now. Vote for me!
>>>>>> Lesley.
>>>>> Gladly! What position are you running for?
>>>> Anything. I'm getting bored by retirement.
>>>> Lesley.
>>> I don't smoke cigars nor drink whisk{e}y but perhaps you could
>>> find a place on your phone bank for me?
>> Certainly! You will be an asset.
>> Lesley.
> OK, put me on your Rolodex.
Done!
Lesley.
-- This address is real, but to reach me use leswes att shaw dott ca
- hi; in article,
<LqudnXKpF4kV7_bNnZ2dnUVZ_gmdn...@wightman.ca>,
sshirleyallan1...@gmail.com "Larry Moore" wondered:
> Paul Jamison <pjamis...@cox.net> wrote:
>>The most unsettling theory that I've seen online is that the whole >>Romney/Ryan ticket fiasco is part of a long-term plan by Karl Rove
>>to put Jeb Bush in the White House in 2016. *shudder* *shudder*
>On an platform of 'Education Reform'.
>'Education reform' is a euphemism for what, one wonders?
- at a guess, and in the spirit of the hopefully to be avoided
possible future you anticipate, it would seem likely that it
would include use of the threat to withdraw central government
subsidy and grant to any educational establishment that fails
to teach creationism as science, and "intelligent design" as a
valid alternative to the processes of inheritance and evolution;
and to do likewise to any states that fail to do so in their
public school systems.
- i don't know whether they'd go so far as to require that the
doctrine derived by bishop usher, that the universe was created
on a certain day in 4004 BC; it depends on whether they perceive
any electoral advantage to be gained thereby. they might offer
to settle for a "compromise", say, that the age of the earth be
taught as 9,000 years, to present themselves as "reasonable men".
- outside of education, i'd expect them to foster further measures
to restrict the availability of abortion to women in economic _or_
medical need of ending their pregnancies, and perhaps even that of
birth control; though i think this latter rather less likely. they
will also promise further restrictions upon charities working in
the third world, and of aid to governments and ngos there, unless
they refrain from promoting or offering birth control and abortion.
- look also for further restriction of the electoral franchise,
perhaps presented as commonplace justice; that anyone convicted
of, say, three petty crimes - but not driving offences - should
lose the right to vote. this, it will be claimed, will be both
politically and racially "blindfold", penalising only the poor^W
convicted criminals, who have of course lost all moral and human
rights in a democracy.
- further suggestions for their presidential campaign platform?
- love, ppint.
[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
-- "never trust a man with shaved buttocks"
- jim darby, 2/9/96 (9/2/96 for merkins)
> - hi; in article,
> <LqudnXKpF4kV7_bNnZ2dnUVZ_gmdn...@wightman.ca>,
> sshirleyallan1...@gmail.com "Larry Moore" wondered:
>> Paul Jamison <pjamis...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>The most unsettling theory that I've seen online is that the whole >>>Romney/Ryan ticket fiasco is part of a long-term plan by Karl Rove
>>>to put Jeb Bush in the White House in 2016. *shudder* *shudder*
>>On an platform of 'Education Reform'.
>>'Education reform' is a euphemism for what, one wonders?
> - at a guess, and in the spirit of the hopefully to be avoided
> possible future you anticipate, it would seem likely that it
> would include use of the threat to withdraw central government
> subsidy and grant to any educational establishment that fails
> to teach creationism as science, and "intelligent design" as a
> valid alternative to the processes of inheritance and evolution;
> and to do likewise to any states that fail to do so in their
> public school systems.
> - i don't know whether they'd go so far as to require that the
> doctrine derived by bishop usher, that the universe was created
> on a certain day in 4004 BC; it depends on whether they perceive
> any electoral advantage to be gained thereby. they might offer
> to settle for a "compromise", say, that the age of the earth be
> taught as 9,000 years, to present themselves as "reasonable men".
> - outside of education, i'd expect them to foster further measures
> to restrict the availability of abortion to women in economic _or_
> medical need of ending their pregnancies, and perhaps even that of
> birth control; though i think this latter rather less likely. they
> will also promise further restrictions upon charities working in
> the third world, and of aid to governments and ngos there, unless
> they refrain from promoting or offering birth control and abortion.
> - look also for further restriction of the electoral franchise,
> perhaps presented as commonplace justice; that anyone convicted
> of, say, three petty crimes - but not driving offences - should
> lose the right to vote. this, it will be claimed, will be both
> politically and racially "blindfold", penalising only the poor^W
> convicted criminals, who have of course lost all moral and human
> rights in a democracy.
> - further suggestions for their presidential campaign platform?
> - love, ppint.
> [drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
Have a 'moral turpitude' exclusion that disfranchises any one
accused of being LGBT; require a minimum annual attendance at a 'house of worship' (thereby avoiding religious discrimination challenges.)
-- An old favourite quote of mine from the Talmud springs to mind:
In these three things is a man revealed:
In his wine goblet, in his purse
And in his wrath. Daniel Goldsmith on AFP.
>On 2012-10-11, "ppint. at pplay" <v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> - hi; in article,
>> <LqudnXKpF4kV7_bNnZ2dnUVZ_gmdn...@wightman.ca>,
>> sshirleyallan1...@gmail.com "Larry Moore" wondered:
>>> Paul Jamison <pjamis...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>The most unsettling theory that I've seen online is that the whole >>>>Romney/Ryan ticket fiasco is part of a long-term plan by Karl Rove
>>>>to put Jeb Bush in the White House in 2016. *shudder* *shudder*
>>>On an platform of 'Education Reform'.
>>>'Education reform' is a euphemism for what, one wonders?
>> - at a guess, and in the spirit of the hopefully to be avoided
>> possible future you anticipate, it would seem likely that it
>> would include use of the threat to withdraw central government
>> subsidy and grant to any educational establishment that fails
>> to teach creationism as science, and "intelligent design" as a
>> valid alternative to the processes of inheritance and evolution;
>> and to do likewise to any states that fail to do so in their
>> public school systems.
>> - i don't know whether they'd go so far as to require that the
>> doctrine derived by bishop usher, that the universe was created
>> on a certain day in 4004 BC; it depends on whether they perceive
>> any electoral advantage to be gained thereby. they might offer
>> to settle for a "compromise", say, that the age of the earth be
>> taught as 9,000 years, to present themselves as "reasonable men".
>> - outside of education, i'd expect them to foster further measures
>> to restrict the availability of abortion to women in economic _or_
>> medical need of ending their pregnancies, and perhaps even that of
>> birth control; though i think this latter rather less likely. they
>> will also promise further restrictions upon charities working in
>> the third world, and of aid to governments and ngos there, unless
>> they refrain from promoting or offering birth control and abortion.
>> - look also for further restriction of the electoral franchise,
>> perhaps presented as commonplace justice; that anyone convicted
>> of, say, three petty crimes - but not driving offences - should
>> lose the right to vote. this, it will be claimed, will be both
>> politically and racially "blindfold", penalising only the poor^W
>> convicted criminals, who have of course lost all moral and human
>> rights in a democracy.
>> - further suggestions for their presidential campaign platform?
>> - love, ppint.
>> [drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
>Have a 'moral turpitude' exclusion that disfranchises any one
>accused of being LGBT;
Accused of, not *convicted* of? That could get entertaining--accuse
everybody you don't like of being LGBT, and none of them can vote.
They do the same to you, and you can't vote. Give it a few weeks, and
you'd have to cancel the election because nobody could vote.
> require a minimum annual attendance at a 'house >of worship' (thereby avoiding religious discrimination challenges.)
Does that include Pastafarians, the Church of Body Modification, Zen
Druids, etc.?
-Chris Zakes
Texas
--
Well, if you're going to have a circus, you've got to have elephants.
-Jubal Harshaw in "Stranger in a Strange Land" by Robert Heinlein
Chris Zakes <donti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 07:06:58 -0500, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused Larry Moore <sshirleyallan1...@gmail.com> to write:
> >On 2012-10-11, "ppint. at pplay" <v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> - hi; in article,
> >> <LqudnXKpF4kV7_bNnZ2dnUVZ_gmdn...@wightman.ca>,
> >> sshirleyallan1...@gmail.com "Larry Moore" wondered:
> >>> Paul Jamison <pjamis...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>>>The most unsettling theory that I've seen online is that the whole
> >>>>Romney/Ryan ticket fiasco is part of a long-term plan by Karl Rove
> >>>>to put Jeb Bush in the White House in 2016. *shudder* *shudder*
> >>>On an platform of 'Education Reform'.
> >>>'Education reform' is a euphemism for what, one wonders?
> >> - at a guess, and in the spirit of the hopefully to be avoided
> >> possible future you anticipate, it would seem likely that it
> >> would include use of the threat to withdraw central government
> >> subsidy and grant to any educational establishment that fails
> >> to teach creationism as science, and "intelligent design" as a
> >> valid alternative to the processes of inheritance and evolution;
> >> and to do likewise to any states that fail to do so in their
> >> public school systems.
> >> - i don't know whether they'd go so far as to require that the
> >> doctrine derived by bishop usher, that the universe was created
> >> on a certain day in 4004 BC; it depends on whether they perceive
> >> any electoral advantage to be gained thereby. they might offer
> >> to settle for a "compromise", say, that the age of the earth be
> >> taught as 9,000 years, to present themselves as "reasonable men".
> >> - outside of education, i'd expect them to foster further measures
> >> to restrict the availability of abortion to women in economic _or_
> >> medical need of ending their pregnancies, and perhaps even that of
> >> birth control; though i think this latter rather less likely. they
> >> will also promise further restrictions upon charities working in
> >> the third world, and of aid to governments and ngos there, unless
> >> they refrain from promoting or offering birth control and abortion.
> >> - look also for further restriction of the electoral franchise,
> >> perhaps presented as commonplace justice; that anyone convicted
> >> of, say, three petty crimes - but not driving offences - should
> >> lose the right to vote. this, it will be claimed, will be both
> >> politically and racially "blindfold", penalising only the poor^W
> >> convicted criminals, who have of course lost all moral and human
> >> rights in a democracy.
> >> - further suggestions for their presidential campaign platform?
> >> - love, ppint.
> >> [drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
> >Have a 'moral turpitude' exclusion that disfranchises any one
> >accused of being LGBT;
> Accused of, not *convicted* of? That could get entertaining--accuse
> everybody you don't like of being LGBT, and none of them can vote.
> They do the same to you, and you can't vote. Give it a few weeks, and
> you'd have to cancel the election because nobody could vote.
> > require a minimum annual attendance at a 'house > >of worship' (thereby avoiding religious discrimination challenges.)
> Does that include Pastafarians, the Church of Body Modification, Zen
> Druids, etc.?
The Church of Elvis is open to all, you know...
-- John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
John S. Wilkins wrote:
> Chris Zakes <donti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 07:06:58 -0500, an orbital mind-control laser
>> caused Larry Moore <sshirleyallan1...@gmail.com> to write:
>>> On 2012-10-11, "ppint. at pplay" <v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> - hi; in article,
>>>> <LqudnXKpF4kV7_bNnZ2dnUVZ_gmdn...@wightman.ca>,
>>>> sshirleyallan1...@gmail.com "Larry Moore" wondered:
>>>>> Paul Jamison <pjamis...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>> The most unsettling theory that I've seen online is that the whole
>>>>>> Romney/Ryan ticket fiasco is part of a long-term plan by Karl Rove
>>>>>> to put Jeb Bush in the White House in 2016. *shudder* *shudder* >>>>> On an platform of 'Education Reform'.
>>>>> 'Education reform' is a euphemism for what, one wonders?
>>>> - at a guess, and in the spirit of the hopefully to be avoided
>>>> possible future you anticipate, it would seem likely that it
>>>> would include use of the threat to withdraw central government
>>>> subsidy and grant to any educational establishment that fails
>>>> to teach creationism as science, and "intelligent design" as a
>>>> valid alternative to the processes of inheritance and evolution;
>>>> and to do likewise to any states that fail to do so in their
>>>> public school systems.
>>>> - i don't know whether they'd go so far as to require that the
>>>> doctrine derived by bishop usher, that the universe was created
>>>> on a certain day in 4004 BC; it depends on whether they perceive
>>>> any electoral advantage to be gained thereby. they might offer
>>>> to settle for a "compromise", say, that the age of the earth be
>>>> taught as 9,000 years, to present themselves as "reasonable men".
>>>> - outside of education, i'd expect them to foster further measures
>>>> to restrict the availability of abortion to women in economic _or_
>>>> medical need of ending their pregnancies, and perhaps even that of
>>>> birth control; though i think this latter rather less likely. they
>>>> will also promise further restrictions upon charities working in
>>>> the third world, and of aid to governments and ngos there, unless
>>>> they refrain from promoting or offering birth control and abortion.
>>>> - look also for further restriction of the electoral franchise,
>>>> perhaps presented as commonplace justice; that anyone convicted
>>>> of, say, three petty crimes - but not driving offences - should
>>>> lose the right to vote. this, it will be claimed, will be both
>>>> politically and racially "blindfold", penalising only the poor^W
>>>> convicted criminals, who have of course lost all moral and human
>>>> rights in a democracy.
>>>> - further suggestions for their presidential campaign platform?
>>>> - love, ppint.
>>>> [drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
>>> Have a 'moral turpitude' exclusion that disfranchises any one
>>> accused of being LGBT;
>> Accused of, not *convicted* of? That could get entertaining--accuse
>> everybody you don't like of being LGBT, and none of them can vote.
>> They do the same to you, and you can't vote. Give it a few weeks, and
>> you'd have to cancel the election because nobody could vote.
>>> require a minimum annual attendance at a 'house >>> of worship' (thereby avoiding religious discrimination challenges.)
>> Does that include Pastafarians, the Church of Body Modification, Zen
>> Druids, etc.?
> John S. Wilkins wrote:
>> Chris Zakes <donti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 07:06:58 -0500, an orbital mind-control laser
>>> caused Larry Moore <sshirleyallan1...@gmail.com> to write:
>>>> On 2012-10-11, "ppint. at pplay" <v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> - hi; in article,
>>>>> <LqudnXKpF4kV7_bNnZ2dnUVZ_gmdn...@wightman.ca>,
>>>>> sshirleyallan1...@gmail.com "Larry Moore" wondered:
>>>>>> Paul Jamison <pjamis...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> The most unsettling theory that I've seen online is that the whole
>>>>>>> Romney/Ryan ticket fiasco is part of a long-term plan by Karl Rove
>>>>>>> to put Jeb Bush in the White House in 2016. *shudder* *shudder* >>>>>> On an platform of 'Education Reform'.
>>>>>> 'Education reform' is a euphemism for what, one wonders?
>>>>> - at a guess, and in the spirit of the hopefully to be avoided
>>>>> possible future you anticipate, it would seem likely that it
>>>>> would include use of the threat to withdraw central government
>>>>> subsidy and grant to any educational establishment that fails
>>>>> to teach creationism as science, and "intelligent design" as a
>>>>> valid alternative to the processes of inheritance and evolution;
>>>>> and to do likewise to any states that fail to do so in their
>>>>> public school systems.
>>>>> - i don't know whether they'd go so far as to require that the
>>>>> doctrine derived by bishop usher, that the universe was created
>>>>> on a certain day in 4004 BC; it depends on whether they perceive
>>>>> any electoral advantage to be gained thereby. they might offer
>>>>> to settle for a "compromise", say, that the age of the earth be
>>>>> taught as 9,000 years, to present themselves as "reasonable men".
>>>>> - outside of education, i'd expect them to foster further measures
>>>>> to restrict the availability of abortion to women in economic _or_
>>>>> medical need of ending their pregnancies, and perhaps even that of
>>>>> birth control; though i think this latter rather less likely. they
>>>>> will also promise further restrictions upon charities working in
>>>>> the third world, and of aid to governments and ngos there, unless
>>>>> they refrain from promoting or offering birth control and abortion.
>>>>> - look also for further restriction of the electoral franchise,
>>>>> perhaps presented as commonplace justice; that anyone convicted
>>>>> of, say, three petty crimes - but not driving offences - should
>>>>> lose the right to vote. this, it will be claimed, will be both
>>>>> politically and racially "blindfold", penalising only the poor^W
>>>>> convicted criminals, who have of course lost all moral and human
>>>>> rights in a democracy.
>>>>> - further suggestions for their presidential campaign platform?
>>>>> - love, ppint.
>>>>> [drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
>>>> Have a 'moral turpitude' exclusion that disfranchises any one
>>>> accused of being LGBT;
>>> Accused of, not *convicted* of? That could get entertaining--accuse
>>> everybody you don't like of being LGBT, and none of them can vote.
>>> They do the same to you, and you can't vote. Give it a few weeks, and
>>> you'd have to cancel the election because nobody could vote.
>>>> require a minimum annual attendance at a 'house >>>> of worship' (thereby avoiding religious discrimination challenges.)
>>> Does that include Pastafarians, the Church of Body Modification, Zen
>>> Druids, etc.?
>> The Church of Elvis is open to all, you know...
> Uh-uh-huh!
Thank you... thank you, very much ..
-- "As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to
kindle a light in the darkness of mere being." Carl Jung
<sshirleyallan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 2012-10-12, Nigel Stapley <u...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote:
>> John S. Wilkins wrote:
>>> The Church of Elvis is open to all, you know...
>> Uh-uh-huh!
>Thank you... thank you, very much ..
I tried joining but every time I attended the High Priest had left the
building...
Andrew Nevill B.F. D.W. FdV. Reply address: nevilland...@ntlworld.com AFPWorshipper to Spooky, AFPfiance to Sarah (Nanny Ogg) pia & Esmeraldus. AFPUncle to James Vaughan. You cannot value friends as pennies, nor can you replace them as easily (Spooky in email, Aug 2001.)
Andrew Nevill <spookystw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 05:42:34 -0500, Larry Moore
> <sshirleyallan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On 2012-10-12, Nigel Stapley <u...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote:
> >> John S. Wilkins wrote:
> >>> The Church of Elvis is open to all, you know...
> >> Uh-uh-huh!
> >Thank you... thank you, very much ..
> I tried joining but every time I attended the High Priest had left the
> building...
You should have gone to the one in the ghetto...
-- John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
On Friday, October 12, 2012 1:48:43 PM UTC+1, Chris Zakes wrote:
> Accused of, not *convicted* of? That could get entertaining--accuse
> everybody you don't like of being LGBT, and none of them can vote.
> They do the same to you, and you can't vote. Give it a few weeks, and
> you'd have to cancel the election because nobody could vote.
Probably the fun would be reserved for recognised pastors.
Like the right to nominate for the Nobel Peace Prize. (There are
some other categories of people who get to do that.)
> > require a minimum annual attendance at a 'house > >of worship' (thereby avoiding religious discrimination challenges.)
> Does that include Pastafarians, the Church of Body Modification, Zen
> Druids, etc.?
No. Nor, for various reasons, anyone other than Christians or Jews.
Possible distinctions: taking off your shoes and/or painting your face
disqualifies you.
In article <f383b3b1-a57c-4b75-bf41-0849a40e807c@googlegroups.com>,
Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> No. Nor, for various reasons, anyone other than Christians or Jews.
> Possible distinctions: taking off your shoes and/or painting your face
> disqualifies you.
Many Christians paint there face. Are we going to prohibit bathing like Christians used to?
On 2012-10-13, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> On Friday, October 12, 2012 1:48:43 PM UTC+1, Chris Zakes wrote:
>> Accused of, not *convicted* of? That could get entertaining--accuse
>> everybody you don't like of being LGBT, and none of them can vote.
>> They do the same to you, and you can't vote. Give it a few weeks, and
>> you'd have to cancel the election because nobody could vote.
> Probably the fun would be reserved for recognised pastors.
> Like the right to nominate for the Nobel Peace Prize. (There are
> some other categories of people who get to do that.)
I assume that theology schools would include a gaydar training course
requirement?
>> > require a minimum annual attendance at a 'house >> >of worship' (thereby avoiding religious discrimination challenges.)
>> Does that include Pastafarians, the Church of Body Modification, Zen
>> Druids, etc.?
> No. Nor, for various reasons, anyone other than Christians or Jews.
> Possible distinctions: taking off your shoes and/or painting your face
> disqualifies you.
Unfortunately, various provisions of the US constitution interfere
with the full flow; if any organized group has sufficient funds
to hire sufficient lawyers and are small enough a minority to not
make a difference - they could be grandfathered in.
-- “All acts are caused by the natures of the entities acting, but some acts are appropriately unconstrained by external coercion.” John Wilkins
On 2012-10-14, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <f383b3b1-a57c-4b75-bf41-0849a40e807c@googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>> No. Nor, for various reasons, anyone other than Christians or Jews.
>> Possible distinctions: taking off your shoes and/or painting your face
>> disqualifies you.
> Many Christians paint there face. Are we going to prohibit bathing > like Christians used to?
I think most American women paint their faces - would this be sufficient
to disenfranchise them (pace. Emmeline Pankhurst?)
-- “All acts are caused by the natures of the entities acting, but some acts are appropriately unconstrained by external coercion.” John Wilkins
On Sunday, October 14, 2012 6:41:43 PM UTC+1, Larry Moore wrote:
> On 2012-10-14, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote: > > In article <f383b3b1-a57c-4b75-bf41-0849a40e807c@googlegroups.com>, > > Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> >> No. Nor, for various reasons, anyone other than Christians or Jews. > >> Possible distinctions: taking off your shoes and/or painting your face > >> disqualifies you.
> > Many Christians paint there face. Are we going to prohibit bathing > > like Christians used to?
> I think most American women paint their faces - would this be sufficient > to disenfranchise them (pace. Emmeline Pankhurst?)
I expect that that could be legislated by a determined government.
Something about the requirement to present a photo ID, maybe.
It might be fifty-fifty whether they'd ban painting of the face
(I had in mind Hindus), or just voting once you'd done so. But I suspect that a U.S. ban on cosmetics would be quickly reversed when they got to see the result.
Realistically it'd take a /bit/ more than one term to get from _The Audacity of Hope_ to _The Handmaid's Tale_, but, the price of
vigilance is constant, er, something.
Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> I expect that that could be legislated by a determined government.
> Something about the requirement to present a photo ID, maybe.
> It might be fifty-fifty whether they'd ban painting of the face
> (I had in mind Hindus), or just voting once you'd done so. But > I suspect that a U.S. ban on cosmetics would be quickly reversed > when they got to see the result.
It would be reversed as soon as the cosmetics companies heard about it. D
you know what the cosmetics business is worth? And they don't want any
suggestion that wearing cosmetics is ever undesirable (in several senses).
On 2012-10-15, Alec Cawley <a...@spamspam.co.uk> wrote:
> Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>> I expect that that could be legislated by a determined government.
>> Something about the requirement to present a photo ID, maybe.
>> It might be fifty-fifty whether they'd ban painting of the face
>> (I had in mind Hindus), or just voting once you'd done so. But >> I suspect that a U.S. ban on cosmetics would be quickly reversed >> when they got to see the result.
> It would be reversed as soon as the cosmetics companies heard about it. D
> you know what the cosmetics business is worth? And they don't want any
> suggestion that wearing cosmetics is ever undesirable (in several senses).
One of my kin is in the cosmetics and fashion racket and she quoted
me industry sales over $150 billion sales. That's about a third of
world arms sales by comparison.
-- An old favourite quote of mine from the Talmud springs to mind:
In these three things is a man revealed:
In his wine goblet, in his purse
And in his wrath. Daniel Goldsmith on AFP.
