Unofficial Summary for Monday, January 6, 1992
John Switzer
for Monday, January 6, 1992
by John Switzer
This unofficial summary is copyright (c) 1991 by John Switzer.
All Rights Reserved. Distribution of this summary to
other electronic forums and bulletin boards is highly encouraged.
Please note the following disclaimer when reading and using this
summary:
1. These summaries are unofficial summaries and are not
approved or sanctioned by Rush Limbaugh or EIB, and should not
be considered a 100% accurate representation of each show. I have
no connection to Rush Limbaugh or EIB other than as a daily
listener.
2. Because this summary is not a word-by-word transcript, it
is inevitable that I may not accurately portray Rush's beliefs
or supporting points. My choice of words may also distort the
points presented by Rush and his callers. A good rule of
thumb is "If something sounds reasonable and
intelligent, it belongs to Rush; if something sounds
weird or wrong, it probably belongs to me."
3. The format of this summary is as follows:
o NEWS - refers to what I consider to be pertinent news
items of the day, as reported by the newspapers, radio, or TV
news media. This news may or may not also be reported by Rush
during his show; however, I like to use this feature to keep a
perspective on current events as they happen.
o Items - these are the short bits of news or other items
of interest that Rush himself discusses.
o Phone - this indicates a phone call.
o Update - this is one of Rush's many updates, and
indicates which song Rush is playing. Note, though, that I may
not use the "official" title of the song, and sometimes will use
the most recognizable line of dialogue as the title.
Any other text is part of Rush's monologue.
4. Anything that appears in "double quotes" may or may not
be a direct quote of Rush, his sources, or his callers. Use the
context of the quoted statement to determine the meaning. My
editorial comments are enclosed in double angled brackets (<<
>>).
5. Although I strive for accuracy at all times, because of
the length of each show (3 hours a day, 5 days a week), I cannot
check facts, figures, or names. In particular, the names of
people, places, and things may be spelled incorrectly.
6. A note is needed on Rush's sense of humor, which can run
the gamut from sardonic and sarcastic to rude and crude. Trying
to convey the spirit of spoken humor into the written word is a
daunting task, and I may not always be successful. Therefore, I
use the following conventions to identify Rush's humor: a) a
lead-in such as "Rush jokes" or "Rush injects some humor by
saying; b) using words such as "according to Rush," "supposedly,"
"allegedly" as in "The police supposedly called the theft of 500
panties `unmentionable.' c) putting editorial comments within
double brackets as in <<Rush is joking here>>. Above all, use
your knowledge of Rush and his show, and the context of the
remarks to determine if humor is present.
DISCLAIMER: This unofficial summary is intended for regular
listeners of Rush's show and is not intended to replace or
surplant Rush's show, as if that would be possible. If you find
that you cannot regularly listen to Rush's show, check with your
local station to see if they replay the show later at night. My
local station, for example, replays the show most nights at 8pm.
You can also use most VCRs to record from the radio - simply
connect an audio cable from the AUDIO IN jack at the back of your
VCR to the AUDIO OUT or auxiliary speaker jack at the back of
your radio. Then switch your VCR over to LINE mode (see the VCR's
documentation for details) and record.
*******************************************************************
January 6, 1992
FIRST HOUR
NEWS
o Today is the 47th wedding anniversary of President George
Bush and Barbara Bush.
o The FDA warned women that if they have silicon-gel
implants, they should have them checked periodically for leaks.
Even though the FDA suggested voluntary restrictions on the
implants until their safety can be ensured, it stopped short of
implementing a ban on them. However, women with silicon-gel
implants who did not experience any symptoms were told that they
had little to worry about.
FIRST HOUR
Rush asked a group of his friends this weekend "Is health care a
right?" The conservative/libertarian view was that health care is
not a right, while the liberal view was "of course, it's a
right." The conservative/libertarian view was practical (the
government doesn't have the resources, and would have to take
resources from others first), while the liberal viewpoint was
based on emotion. Rush promises more later.
Update Marion Barry ("No, No, No, No, I Don't Smoke it
No More")
Barry was accused of having oral sex with a woman visitor last
week, while dozens of inmates and other visitors watched. One
inmate was talking with his wife and children when Barry
allegedly performed the act; this inmate was transferred to
another federal prison after he complained, because of "fears for
his safety." Rush calls this story "too hard to swallow." Barry
has denied the charges, and has allegedly stated that "I hope it
doesn't blow my chances for parole." No one has been able to get
the woman to comment, allegedly because she's under a "gag rule."
Update Homeless (Clarence "Frogman" Henry, "Ain't Got No
Home")
The Friday issue of the New York Times (Jan. 3, 1992) has an ad
for the homeless. Rush first mentions his appearance on CBS
Morning News today where Harry Smith accused him of making fun of
the homeless; Rush corrected him to say that his point is to
point out the hypocrisy of the homeless advocacy. As an example,
an ad in the NY Times shows a caricature of Christ looking down
and the caption says "How can you ignore a homeless man on Sunday
while ignoring another on Monday?" Rush says that this is exactly
the fraud and deceit that they use in exploiting guilt; Christ
was not homeless, nor were his parents Mary and Joseph, as is
sometimes claimed by some ministers. Rush cannot allow
unchallenged the idea that Christ belongs to the same group of
drunks and winos that make up the majority of today's homeless.
This ad simply shows the extents that the homeless advocacy will
go to extort money from achievers and the successful.
In another story, warnings abounded in the East Coast about the
horrible weather that was coming last week. Rush saw an interview
where a New Jersey mayor accused George Bush for the weather
problems, saying that Bush was at fault for not building up a sea
wall. It amazes Rush that liberals would use their stock tirades
even to the point of blaming Bush for the weather.
*BREAK*
Items
o One of the dumbest headlines appears in USA Today -
"Dropout Moms' Smoking Now Linked to Kids' Asthma." Rush promises
more later.
o Amazing things are being said about the riot at the
celebrity rap basketball game benefit, including some things by
Mike Tyson. Rush will add more later.
o Dick Rich of New York faxed Rush last year about the
possibility of Cuomo not running in the Democratic primaries so
he "can help New York." Then, however, in the smoke-filled rooms
he gets drafted. This way he limits his exposure and doesn't have
to deal with the primaries. Rush admits that he should have paid
more attention to Rich's suggestion because everything he's said
is coming true.
*BREAK*
Phone Joy from Shawnee, KS
Joy makes the point that Mary and Joseph went to Bethlehem to
enroll in tax rolls so that they could start paying taxes. Rush
wonders "who among the homeless do that?"
Phone Rose from Chicago, IL
Rose thinks that it's "really offensive for the President to
travel halfway across the world, hat in hand to get help from the
Japanese." Rush says that what is ironic about Bush's trip is
that Australian farmers have asked Bush to open up US markets, so
that they no longer have to compete with US subsidies to American
farmers. Bush basically told them to "shut up," which is exactly
what Japan has been saying to America.
Rush asks Rose if she thinks Bush is in trouble; she thinks so,
and Rush mentions that many believe Buchanan can deal Bush a
"mortal blow" if he gets 35% or more in the New Hampshire
primary. He adds that "if you live by the photo-op, you die by
the photo-op." In politics, many people have built their
political lives on "phoniness" and by avoiding items of
substance; this is how President Bush now appears to be
conducting his administration.
Rose is worried that since Bush was popular only during a war,
that he might consider starting an economic trade war against
Japan. Yet this would destroy America's economy even more. Rush
mentions that the Japanese are starting to throw a few bones to
Bush and America; yet, even though Bush is getting everything
that the Democrats want, Democrats like Richard Gephardt are
saying that it's too little and too late. People are also
starting to ask "will things really change if the Japanese give
America what it wants?"
Rush says that this is the problem with not having an agenda;
Reagan didn't have an agenda in his second term and thus didn't
get anything done. This is in contrast to what Reagan did in his
first term (cut taxes, stop the Soviets, etc.). Some Republicans
are now worried about people like Bill Clinton and are warning
Rush not to underestimate him. Others, however, still think Bush
is untouchable, thanks to the nature of the electoral college.
*BREAK*
Phone Deborah from Utica, NY
Deborah was disappointed that only 3 minutes or so was given to
Rush this morning on CBS Morning News. Rush says that it was
unfortunate that he had the last segment before the "local news
cutaway." Rush stayed on after the segment, but he was not seen
on any stations that provided their own local programming. The
first segment that was national was a "bit too pressured and
fast," but the second segment was much better.
Deborah, who is trying to handle her crying children while on the
phone, was hoping to hear about Rush's position, on both the
voucher plan for education and on stay-at-home moms. Rush is all
for vouchers for education since it gives parents involvement and
choice in their children's education. Rush does want to make the
point that he has gotten a number of letters from teachers, who
are criticizing his criticisms of them. Rush admits that many
teachers are doing the best they can and are limited by their
school district's administration and funding. He also believes
that stay-at-home moms are fine, if her household's economics
allow that choice; what Rush is against is when feminists attack
such women for staying at home, even though these feminists are
allegedly in favor of choice.
In an aside, Rush was surprised that CBS used an excerpt from the
Rush III video as a promo. He was also surprised at how many CBS
employees wanted his autograph, even though they seemed somewhat
embarrassed and furtive about it.
*BREAK*
Rush is "duly embarrassed and properly chastised" because he
assumed during the previous call that the screaming child needed
a diaper change. The EIB staff told him that the woman had to be
nursing her kid, and that's why the screaming was so loud - the
baby's mouth was very near the phone. He admits that this is
something that would have never occurred to him.
*BREAK*
SECOND HOUR
Items
o EIB has 450 plus affiliates.
o USA Today asks the question "What would it take to
restore your confidence in the economy?" Kiki answers "winning
the lottery." Two answers in the paper include "reducing
unemployment" and "an even distribution of the wealth using a
fairer tax system that puts more of the burden on the people who
have money." Rush says that any society that is more interested
in "redistributing wealth" than in "producing wealth" is going to
have continual downturns and weakness.
Rush is getting worried about the Japan-bashing that is going on,
and fears that the US is being manipulated by the Japanese about
the higher pay that US executives earn. Rush feels that this
issue is providing a great distraction from what the Japanese are
really doing. Also, Rush points out that the US does not have to
emulate the Japanese in order to succeed. First, the Japanese
have a standard of living that is 40% less than that in the US.
Also, the Japanese government exists to benefit Japanese
business, not the people; for example, simply by importing
California rice, the Japanese would pay much less than they are
now. This would benefit the Japanese people, but not Japanese
businesses, and so it isn't done.
Rush asks the question "how are you going to fix the alleged
overpayment of US executives?" If you let government fix the
salaries of CEOs, then this will continue down the chain to
include all US workers. Simply because Lee Iacocca makes $4
million last year does not mean something is wrong; salaries for
professional sports players and actors far exceed Iacocca's
salary. People justify actors' salaries by saying that the movie
was a success, yet CEOs are still criticized for their salaries
even when their companies succeed. No one questions why Jack
Nicholson makes thousands of times more money than the gaffer of
the movie "Batman." Yet this same logic is used to attack CEOs of
America's businesses.
If there is a problem here, though, it cannot be solved through
government intervention. Yet liberals continue to exploit this
and other forms of class envy, but the simple matter is that
punishing the successful and "rich" won't help the "little
people" one bit. Rush could make the case that if all airlines
are losing money, but one airline loses less than the others,
than shouldn't that CEO be rewarded?
*BREAK*
Phone Shirley from Placentia, CA
Shirley wants to agree with the caller Friday who thought that
sex outside marriage was being made too big a deal. She remembers
when relationships used to be about getting to know one another;
now, however, relationships start with sex. She is also saddened
by the serious sexual diseases out there, but is hoping that they
may encourage a return to more conventional morality.
Rush mentions a USA Today story that reports that more than half
of US high schoolers have had sex. By the 12th grade, 72% of
teenagers have had sex, according to the study; the researchers
don't have any figures on past behavior but believe that this an
increase from previous generations. Rush says that they are right
- just look at the increases in abortion, teen pregnancy, sexual
diseases, and so forth. He will comment more after the break.
*BREAK*
Rush wants to make the point that he "encounters many points of
opportunity when it comes to women"; however, he is an old-
fashioned type of guy who believes "a boy chases a girl until she
catches him." The sexual revolution is no longer active, and he
thinks that this is good - men and women may fear sex, but also
they have more legitimate self-respect than before. They
understand that relationships have more going for them than
simple sex. Rush is therefore enthused that things aren't as
"easy" as they once were; after all, it's only things you work
for that have any real value.
However, Rush thinks that stories such as those appearing in USA
Today are part of a desire to see condoms distributed as widely
as possible, so as to prevent any calls for limiting types of
behavior.
Phone Debbie from Monroeville, PA
Debbie thinks that the restoration of the Graham-Rudman Act would
get her to believe the economy is getting better. Rush, though,
thinks that this is a solution to the problem; he's interested in
what Debbie thinks would be indicators of a better economy. She
doesn't think any economic indicator would convince her; rather,
she would have to see President Bush take a more active stance on
the economy. She also mentions an analogy - the 1200 pound man
who died is much like the US welfare system - it just gets fatter
and fatter. Rush mentions that Newt Gingrich's plan to fix the
welfare state is to build more and more prisons and to keep
criminals in there. For example, Gingrich would stop things like
the criminal on parole who killed a cop; this was his 30th-
something felony.
Debbie also wonders about the media's attempts to portray Pat
Buchanan as an anti-Semite, and whether Buchanan's past remarks
are being taken out of context. Rush doesn't believe Buchanan is
guilty of anti-Semitism, but rather is against the current US
policy towards Israel. For this, he's accused of anti-Semitism.
Rush mentions the Dec. 30th issue of National Review which is
about anti-Semitism. Debbie hears a lot about Buchanan's anti-
Semitism, but hasn't heard anything about what Buchanan has
actually done or said. Debbie, though, thinks that it will be
very hard "to hand the keys of the White House back to George
Bush."
Debbie mentions that she also asked Bo "why does it seem that the
women who get through to Rush seem `dippy,' while the men seem to
have the thoughtful questions?" Bo answered "that's just the type
of women we get here." Rush is amazed that both Bo and Debbie
made such remarks.
*BREAK*
Phone Debbie from Monroeville, PA (continued)
Debbie admits that "today has certainly been an exception" to
female dippy callers. However, she theorizes that women just get
so excited that "they lose it." Rush, however, believes that the
answer is that women have not been discussing serious issues for
as long as men, and thus they are only now getting confident
about calling into shows like his. Debbie further admits that she
is "in the executive sitting room" so that she can hide from her
five children while talking to Rush. Rush has Bo ask Debbie over
the break what she would do, though, to get better women callers.
*BREAK*
Phone Mike from El Paso, TX
Mike doesn't think three hours is enough for Rush's program, and
insists that "we need four." Also, Rush needs to be on FM
stations for those people living in the mountains. Rush says that
he's trying to "save AM," and will move onto FM after doing so.
Mike thinks that too many CEOs are making too much money, and
aren't earning their money - they no longer bring new ideas or
profitability. Rush admits that there are a lot of things that
could be reformed (such as golden parachutes), but the answer is
not to let the government dictate such reforms.
*BREAK*
THIRD HOUR
Items
o Rush has an upcoming caller who wants to know if he has
"ever talked to a black person - you are so racist - you are full
of lies."
o Rush mentions the celebrity basketball game at which 9
people died, and the remarks by "Puff Daddy," who is accusing
everyone else except himself for the deaths. Rush calls this a
classic case of shifting the blame; the fact is that a mob
rioted, not because of cops, but because of the behavior they
were engaged in.
Mike Tyson has also been accused of insensitivity for clearing
out of the gym the moment that trouble started and then going to
a bar and partying. Tyson got a "dose of guilt" and offered his
condolences to the families; however, he was caught in a moment
of "candid honesty" when he said of blacks "we're going to have
to start respecting ourselves." This was in reference to the fact
that 5,000 tickets were sold for a 2700-seat gym, and that black
promoters ripped off black consumers. Even Al Sharpton said that
this had nothing to do with race, and is a black-on-black
problem.
Rush, though, wonders why the race of any of the parties involved
matters - one group of people ripped off another group of people.
Crime is crime, regardless of the races involved.
Rush goes back to Tyson - Tyson said he believed that all of the
people lying on the gym floor "might have fainted out of
excitement because of all the rap star celebrities."
o Today's USA Today has the headline "Dropout Moms' Smoking
Linked to Kids' Asthma." Thus, the story infers that if a kid has
asthma, he can blame his mother if she was a dropout and a
smoker. Rush wonders what being a dropout has to do with
anything. Dr. Benjamin Burrows of the University of Arizona
College of Medicine said in the Journal of Pediatric Medicine
that smoking is continuing to contribute to America's poverty
problems. Rush says that it's asinine to link dropouts with
asthma.
o The Coast Guard is searching for 19,000 gallons of
Arsenic that was lost by a freighter during a heavy storm. Rush
bets that George Bush will be blamed for this.
o A number of European food producers are upset about
"French Fries" and "Hamburgers." They want to copyright their
country's or city's name when it is applied to food; thus,
hamburgers can be sold only in Hamburg, Germany and French fries
can be sold only in France.
o The PMS hotline in Wisconsin gets 2,000 calls a month
from women asking about mood swings. This is the same number of
calls that the Suicide Hotline in Wisconsin gets from men every
month. Are these two figures related?
o Mark Chappell completed a survey on penguins that
concludes that penguins are not cute animals, but fierce and
aggressive creatures.
o The US Fish and Wildlife Service has decided not to give
protection to the Chicago Bears. Mike Ditka says that they need
this protection or they will be wiped out by the Cowboys next
season.
*BREAK*
Phone Evelyn from East Orange, NJ
Evelyn wishes that Rush would be fair about his remarks on blacks
and welfare. She mentions Father Ritter, who ran Covenant House
and who was forced to resign for sexually abusing young buys.
Rush says that this happened two years ago, and he did talk about
it at the time. Evelyn says that intelligent people do not have
to engage in name-calling, which is something Republicans do all
the time. Rush asks her what she is specifically talking about;
she answers that Rush inferred that all welfare recipients are
black but he's ignoring the fact that most of those on welfare
are white; Rush wonders when he ever said anything otherwise.
Evelyn replies "that's what you infer" and says that white
Russians are coming in and getting welfare. Also, whites looted
in England when Margaret Thatcher imposed the poll tax. Finally,
Evelyn is a black who has worked 40 years without welfare.
Rush tells her that he made no such inferences, but she says that
he did. For example, the "guy that shot the cop"; Rush says he
never mentioned the race of the guy, but Evelyn says you "didn't
have to, people aren't dumb." Rush tells her to stop using age-
old cliches and start listening to what he actually says instead
of "inferring all of these things."
Rush says that you can't win with people like Evelyn, because if
you tell them you know blacks, then "it doesn't matter to them,"
because they aren't "real blacks if they agree with you."
Item
o In more "black news," singer Paul Simon has gotten
threats if he travels to South Africa. Whoopi Goldberg has also
been criticized for making plans to appear in a stage play.
Critics says that the cultural boycott of South Africa should
continue until that country is totally free.
*BREAK*
Phone Mike from Sunnyvale, CA
Mike his Rush "micro-dittos from the Silicon Valley," but
disagrees with some of his "facts." In particular, he disagrees
with Rush's comment that humans can't damage the Earth, and
points to the hills near San Francisco, which used to be covered
with redwood trees until they were cut down after the earthquake
of 1906. Rush corrects Mike by saying that he didn't say that man
can't damage the earth; rather man can't destroy the earth,
because it is a remarkably rejuvenative world. Mike agrees.
Rush makes the point that he's not anti-environment, but rather
opposed to the militant doomsday environmental movement which
claims that if we don't do what they want and do it right now,
then the Earth will be destroyed in 15 or 20 years. However,
these militants are never called extremists, while Rush is
constantly tarred with that label.
Mike agrees with Rush about the militants, but says "there is
some truth in what they say." Rush disagrees totally; Mike,
though, points to the Mediterranean region which had all of its
trees cut down, and thus it's very hard to raise crops in the
area. Rush points out that there are more oranges in Israel than
in Florida. Mike says that's only because of nuclear power and
de-sal plants. This is Rush's point - human life has not been
harmed by these things. Rush, however, doesn't believe we should
eliminate redwoods.
Mike also takes Rush to task for saying that there are more trees
now than during the past 70 years. Rush says that he doesn't make
things up. Mike also thinks that Rush sounds like a "hateful
person" when he talks about Native Americans. Rush believes Mike
is misinterpreting his sense of humor which seeks to ridicule the
lunacy of some of the Native American movement. For example, why
did it take them 50 years to object to the "Tomahawk Chop?" Mike,
though, says that their name isn't the "Atlanta Nigger Boys or
Jew Boys." Rush points out that "Braves" is not a racial slur,
either, like those two terms. Rush simply thinks that the Indians
were simply being opportunistic.
Mike mentions that Rush does have a point in that there are some
lunatic fringers; however, many Native Americans were killed and
enslaved by European invaders. Rush points out, though, that the
Native Americans did the same thing to themselves, long before
Europeans came, and that they did it to whomever was on the North
American continent when the Indians first arrived. The simple
fact is that aggressive domination of one culture by another has
occurred throughout all history, and it is not right to single
out white Europeans as the only source of this evil.
Rush thanks Mike for calling and for allowing him to express his
opinions to new listeners. He mentions that there is more
evidence against global warming than supporting it; even though
militant environmentalists agree that we need 20 to 30 years more
study before anything can be concluded, they still insist that we
can't afford to wait, and that we must act now. The problem is
that their "solutions" center around destroying the American way
of life and capitalism, and they push for an ever increasing and
more socialistic government. Rush refuses to believe that America
is the focus of environmental evil, especially when the opening
up of Eastern Europe shows the true horrors that can happen.
Rush also mentions that not all environmentalists are members of
the doomsday, socialist, wacko crowd, but the media doesn't make
any distinctions, and he is tired of seeing extremists given
credibility and support by a willing media. People like Ted
Danson are treated like experts, when in fact, they have no
business whatsoever making any statements on anything scientific.
Yet, Rush is still treated as an extremist whenever he appears on
the media.
Rush adds that David Brauer, founder of Earth Island Institute
and the Sierra Club, lives in Berkeley. Brauer supported Daniel
Ortega in the `80s, and is a leader of many of the wackos, as
well as other well-intentioned peoples. Brauer, by the way, lives
in a redwood house with a redwood deck.
Before going to the break, Rush announces that he won't be doing
his regular spot for the Rush III video because many fans have
felt he is being too commercial. So, Bo will do the commercial.
(However, Rush adds a number of helpful suggestions like "It's
better than Batman" and "Buy the tape" while Bo is doing the
commercial.)
*BREAK*
Phone Rich from Forrest Lake, MN
Rich wants to congratulate Rush for his successful attempt to
keep CBS's Harry Smith from painting him with the "David Duke
Brush." Rush was prepared for that accusation, and thinks he did
a good job on answering the question.
Rich goes on to his topic - representative Gerry Sikorski (D-MN)
invited his constituents to join him in a debate on "national
health care, an American right." Sikorski gave his assurances
that he thinks the best plan is a national health care system for
all Americans. Rush is saddened to say that he thinks that a
cradle-to-grave system will happen; Rich is a health-care broker
and is convinced that it will not turn out for the best.
Rush continues on to say that health care is inevitable because
people like Senator Kennedy have increased the health care burden
on employers to the point where businesses are willing to support
national health care, just so that they can be freed of the
burden. A perfect example of this is that Bob Kerrey, Democratic
candidate for President, was asked by reporters why he didn't pay
for the health care of the employees in the fast food franchises
that he owns. His answer was a simple "I can't afford it," to
which Rush replies "touche." Rush adds that Kerrey made his
millions during the "decade of greed - the '80s."
*BREAK*
Phone A.K. from Staten Island, NY
A.K. says that he was impressed with the story about penguins,
and Rush admits that they are "mean little vipers." A.K. goes
onto his theory that the reason the Japanese are trying to
discredit American CEOs is that less money would attract less
intelligent and gifted people. Rush calls this a good point.
A.K. also mentions that the Japanese work 6 days a week, up to 12
hours a day, without unions, or any independence on the part of
workers. Rush adds that the young people of Japan are starting to
rebel at the traditional hard-work habits of their parents, and
that this means that the Japanese won't have the same cheap labor
that they've been used to.
--
John Switzer | "Handsome dudes, ain't all they're said to be,
| I don't want to wake up next to someone
74076...@Compuserve.com | prettier than me" - Thelma Houston
j...@netcom.com |
Cindy Kandolf
>right?" The conservative/libertarian view was that health care is
>not a right, while the liberal view was "of course, it's a
>right." The conservative/libertarian view was practical (the
>government doesn't have the resources, and would have to take
>resources from others first), while the liberal viewpoint was
>based on emotion.
Translation:
The above writer supports the conservative/libertarian viewpoint,
and henceis willing to tell us its strongest point. He does not
support the liberal viewpoint, and out of fear that someone may
actually believe both sides have some valid points to make in this
discussion, dismisses it out of hand and refuses to give any of the
points made.
Gotta shoot for accuracy in these summaries.
-Cindy Kandolf
ci...@solan.unit.no
Trondheim, Norway
nathan engle
>>The conservative/libertarian view was practical (the
>>government doesn't have the resources, and would have to take
>>resources from others first), while the liberal viewpoint was
>>based on emotion.
>
>Translation:
>The above writer supports the conservative/libertarian viewpoint,
>and henceis willing to tell us its strongest point. He does not
>support the liberal viewpoint, and out of fear that someone may
>actually believe both sides have some valid points to make in this
>discussion, dismisses it out of hand and refuses to give any of the
>points made.
>
>Gotta shoot for accuracy in these summaries.
Cindy, I think that in relating both the style and content of Rush's
program John Switzer should actually be commended for his accuracy. In
listening to Rush's show and then comparing with John's summaries, I am
of the opinion that he (John) takes great pains to get things right.
In the case of the above passage and the way that it was presented,
I believe that John's summary correctly conveys Rush's position and the
reasoning which was presented on the air to support it. In short, I think
that your accuracy beef should be directed at Rush rather than John.
>-Cindy Kandolf
> ci...@solan.unit.no
> Trondheim, Norway
Have you had the opportunity to hear Rush in action? Has Rush made
it to Norway yet? If not then maybe we'll have to send you a tape and
let you hear "The Most Dangerous Man in America" for yourself.
--
Nathan Engle Software Juggler
Indiana University Dept of Psychology
nen...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Cindy Kandolf
> Cindy, I think that in relating both the style and content of Rush's
>program John Switzer should actually be commended for his accuracy. In
>listening to Rush's show and then comparing with John's summaries, I am
>of the opinion that he (John) takes great pains to get things right.
> In the case of the above passage and the way that it was presented,
>reasoning which was presented on the air to support it. In short, I think
>that your accuracy beef should be directed at Rush rather than John.
>it to Norway yet? If not then maybe we'll have to send you a tape and
>let you hear "The Most Dangerous Man in America" for yourself.
I was afraid someone was going to say that was accurate. Thanks for the
offer, but if that's truly the way this man works - presenting one side of
the issue as the obviously correct side and shoving any criticism aside -
then i think i can do without the tape.... i grew up in a town that only
allowed one side of the issue (Lancaster, Pennsy., if anyone's curious),
and i'm happy to be away from it.
By the way, judging from these summaries the program deals mostly with
topics concerning the US - so i doubt they'll ever be enough interest to
bring the show to Europe. We already have the VoA and CNN to tell us
what's going on "over there"....
nathan engle
(Cindy Kandolf) writes:
>Nathan Eagle writes:
>>....Have you had the opportunity to hear Rush in action? Has Rush made
>>it to Norway yet? If not then maybe we'll have to send you a tape and
>>let you hear "The Most Dangerous Man in America" for yourself.
>
>topics concerning the US - so i doubt they'll ever be enough interest to
>bring the show to Europe. We already have the VoA and CNN to tell us
>what's going on "over there"....
Hey, how are we ever going to balance our trade with Norway if you
people keep turning away some of our best exports (like arrogance,
flawed logic, and insensitivity)?
Are you somehow insinuating that the "best talk show in the universe"
is irrelevant to the European community? Don't you people realize how
vitally important it is to the world economy for you to buy Rush III
(The Video)?
WERLING
> Have you had the opportunity to hear Rush in action? Has Rush made
> it to Norway yet? If not then maybe we'll have to send you a tape and
> let you hear "The Most Dangerous Man in America" for yourself.
Hmmm. Is he really the most dangerous man in America? He can get a
certain section of the country all riled up, they would agree with him
anyway. He serves to continue the polarization of the country rather
than do any really dangerous things. He'll last forever if he's got
the steam, but in terms of how he effects the country, I'm not too
frightened.
--
Andrew Werling awer...@nmsu.edu "As the fisherman depends upon the
rivers, lakes, and seas, and the farmer upon the land for his existence,
so does mankind in general depend upon the beauty of the world about him
for his spiritual and emotional existence." --Ansel Adams, 5-9-80
geoff
>
>Hmmm. Is he really the most dangerous man in America? He can get a
>certain section of the country all riled up, they would agree with him
>anyway. He serves to continue the polarization of the country rather
>than do any really dangerous things. He'll last forever if he's got
>the steam, but in terms of how he effects the country, I'm not too
>frightened.
My goodness, you should be frightened. Those people being riled up go
out and vote for David Duke and those with similar platforms.
But consider yourself lucky to be able to listen to this guy-
Canada has a wonderful Hate Literature law which would probably
have him in jail if he lived in this country.
---------------
Geoff
Andrew C. Aiken
>But consider yourself lucky to be able to listen to this guy-
>Canada has a wonderful Hate Literature law which would probably
>have him in jail if he lived in this country.
O, Canada! Home of liberty!
Andrew Aiken
David John Rasmussen
>Hmmm. Is he really the most dangerous man in America? He can get a
>certain section of the country all riled up, they would agree with him
>anyway. He serves to continue the polarization of the country rather
>than do any really dangerous things.
So the advocacy of a conservative agenda is "polarization"?
Do you claim the advocacy of a liberal agenda is "polarization"?
>Andrew Werling
-David
Any political philosophy which states that by posting a giant AS IS sign
over her bed an HIV+ prostitute can ply her trade with legal impunity
is essentially self-refuting.
WERLING
> <AWERLING.9...@dante.nmsu.edu> awer...@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
> >Hmmm. Is he really the most dangerous man in America? He can get a
> >certain section of the country all riled up, they would agree with him
> >anyway. He serves to continue the polarization of the country rather
> >than do any really dangerous things.
> So the advocacy of a conservative agenda is "polarization"?
> Do you claim the advocacy of a liberal agenda is "polarization"?
I wasn't talking about his conservatism as such, but rather the way he
promotes it. He uses mockery, emotional attacks, lots of glamor. If
the liberals and conservatives can at least work together and
empathize with each other, are they really polarized? I'm not sure.
I'm definitely not a political theorist!
--
Andrew Werling awer...@nmsu.edu Happily buzzing in a new land.
Andrew C. Aiken
>Any political philosophy which states that by posting a giant AS IS sign
>over her bed an HIV+ prostitute can ply her trade with legal impunity
>is essentially self-refuting.
Fornicat emptor.
Andrew Aiken
David John Rasmussen
><1992Jan14.0...@ncsu.edu> (David Rasmussen) writes:
>> <AWERLING.9...@dante.nmsu.edu> awer...@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
>>>Hmmm. Is he really the most dangerous man in America? He can get a
>>>certain section of the country all riled up, they would agree with him
>>>anyway. He serves to continue the polarization of the country rather
>>>than do any really dangerous things.
>> So the advocacy of a conservative agenda is "polarization"?
>> Do you claim the advocacy of a liberal agenda is "polarization"?
>I wasn't talking about his conservatism as such, but rather the way he
>promotes it. He uses mockery, emotional attacks, lots of glamor.
How about NOW, ACT-UP, PETA, PWA, and the ACLU? "Mockery, emotional
attacks" discribes their actions.
>If the liberals and conservatives can at least work together and
>empathize with each other, are they really polarized? I'm not sure.
>I'm definitely not a political theorist!
Everytime I have heard the above remarks, they were by a liberal,
and the liberals subsequent comments confirmed my suspicion that
the remarks were not made in good faith.
So far, you have been rather one-sided. Failing to mention that
Rush's targets use the tactics you denounce, ex: Teddy's slurring
of Robert Bork, was a glaring omission.
Fact is, that politically, conservatives have the power, and liberals
are at best, obstructionists, or specatators.
Why should conservatives work with liberals when conservatives can
safely *ignore* liberals?
There should be a vigorous public debate between the politically
philosophies that really are in a position to do something: Wall Street
Conservatism vs. Social Conservatism, vs. Libertarian-oriented
Conservatism vs. Neo-Conservatism.
Those are the people who need to "at least work together and empathize
with each other."
If your claim is actually an honest claim, vs. a hypcritical call for
powersharing by the "outs", then may I suggest that you prove your
good faith by asking Liberals, were they hold sway, to share power
with Conservatives.
Are you willing to demand NOW stop using "emotional" attacks on
say, CWA, or the Eagle Forum?
Or are claiming Conservatives should be courtesly respectful while
liberal can bash Jesse Helms/Jerry Fawell/Randall Terry/George Gilder/
RR and the other members of their demonology all guns blazing?
TOM NEWARK
>>I wasn't talking about his conservatism as such, but rather the way he
>>promotes it. He uses mockery, emotional attacks, lots of glamor.
>
>How about NOW, ACT-UP, PETA, PWA, and the ACLU? "Mockery, emotional
>attacks" discribes their actions.
>
>>If the liberals and conservatives can at least work together and
>>empathize with each other, are they really polarized? I'm not sure.
>>I'm definitely not a political theorist!
>
>Everytime I have heard the above remarks, they were by a liberal,
>and the liberals subsequent comments confirmed my suspicion that
>the remarks were not made in good faith.
How about if we get a group from ACT-UP, PETA and NOW (led by T. Kennedy of
course) and a group from the NRA and PMRC (led by R Limbaugh) to fight
it out to the death either at UCLA or maybe at YMCA. (so we don't
discriminate against the homeless, most of which are rabid listeners)
We'll have the PTA moderate the whole thing and we'll have coverage on
CNN, CBS, ABC, PBS, EIB and ESPN....
It takes 2 poles to have polarization (not to mention a whole load
of letters...)
@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@
#@ Tom Newark System Manager/Programmer @#
@# Department of Molecular Genetics and Cell Biology #@
#@ University of Chicago -- new...@befvax.uchicago.edu @#
@# The views expressed in this article are not those or Rush Limbaugh #@
#@ ... but they should be.... @#
@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@
Marc Rassbach
>Fact is, that politically, conservatives have the power, and liberals
>are at best, obstructionists, or specatators.
If the conservatives have the power, then why do liberals hold the congress?
>There should be a vigorous public debate between the politically
>philosophies that really are in a position to do something: Wall Street
>Conservatism vs. Social Conservatism, vs. Libertarian-oriented
>Conservatism vs. Neo-Conservatism.
'Libertarian-oriented Conservatism'? The Libertarian party just doesn't
have $$$, like the group in power now. So why must you tie the
Libertarians to 'Conservatism'?
At least with the Libertarians, they'd have to build 50+ year
relationships with other power bases to become the effective crooks
the present group of politions are.
(Assume all political leaders are crooks, unless proven otherwise.
They are all human, thus are subject to corruption.)
--
Marc Rassbach ma...@marque.mu.edu If you take my advice, that
MS-DOS - it's not ma...@milestn.mil.wi.us is your problem, not mine!
my problem! If it was said on UseNet, it must be true.
Unix - It's a nice place to live, but you don't want to visit there.
WERLING
Path: nmsu.edu!lynx!news.cs.indiana.edu!mips!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken!taco!druid.csc.ncsu.edu!gr-djr
From: gr-...@druid.csc.ncsu.edu (David John Rasmussen)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Date: 14 Jan 92 20:32:41 GMT
References: <AWERLING.9...@dante.nmsu.edu> <1992Jan14.0...@ncsu.edu> <AWERLING.92...@dante.nmsu.edu>
Sender: ne...@ncsu.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: NCSU Graduate Machine: Druid.csc.ncsu.edu.
Lines: 62
> <AWERLING.92...@dante.nmsu.edu> awer...@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
> >I wasn't talking about his conservatism as such, but rather the way he
> >promotes it. He uses mockery, emotional attacks, lots of glamor.
> How about NOW, ACT-UP, PETA, PWA, and the ACLU? "Mockery, emotional
> attacks" discribes their actions.
Never denied that. They help as well, if they are organizations that
truly use mockery and emotional attacks.
> >If the liberals and conservatives can at least work together and
> >empathize with each other, are they really polarized? I'm not sure.
> >I'm definitely not a political theorist!
> Everytime I have heard the above remarks, they were by a liberal,
> and the liberals subsequent comments confirmed my suspicion that
> the remarks were not made in good faith.
I am in good faith.
> So far, you have been rather one-sided. Failing to mention that
> Rush's targets use the tactics you denounce, ex: Teddy's slurring
> of Robert Bork, was a glaring omission.
You want examples? Just listen to his show. Rather than rationally
criticizing liberal movements, he attacks them with mockery.
> Fact is, that politically, conservatives have the power, and liberals
> are at best, obstructionists, or specatators.
Fact?
> Why should conservatives work with liberals when conservatives can
> safely *ignore* liberals?
Because otherwise they'd be ignoring part of the population, and it is
a legitimate piece of the population.
> There should be a vigorous public debate between the politically
> philosophies that really are in a position to do something: Wall Street
> Conservatism vs. Social Conservatism, vs. Libertarian-oriented
> Conservatism vs. Neo-Conservatism.
> Those are the people who need to "at least work together and empathize
> with each other."
And they should do so. How does this refute what I said?
> If your claim is actually an honest claim, vs. a hypcritical call for
> powersharing by the "outs", then may I suggest that you prove your
> good faith by asking Liberals, were they hold sway, to share power
> with Conservatives.
I was not attacking conservatives. I was attacking Rush.
> Are you willing to demand NOW stop using "emotional" attacks on
> say, CWA, or the Eagle Forum?
I'd say that anyone's emotional attacks could be damaging.
> Or are claiming Conservatives should be courtesly respectful while
> liberal can bash Jesse Helms/Jerry Fawell/Randall Terry/George Gilder/
> RR and the other members of their demonology all guns blazing?
Criticism and bashing are different things. If liberals are bashing
these people, it is nonproductive in depolarization. If liberals are
criticizing, I see no harm.
David John Rasmussen
><1992Jan14.2...@ncsu.edu> (David Rasmussen) writes:
>>Fact is, that politically, conservatives have the power, and liberals
>>are at best, obstructionists, or specatators.
>If the conservatives have the power, then why do liberals hold the congress?
Past momentum. I should point out that liberals do not hold the
congress. Democrats hold the congress. The political medium of congress
is moderate, not liberal. Liberals have the leverage of being the
majority of majority party [which only requires 31% of the congress].
With the latest round of redistricting yeilding much fairer maps, and
the recent rise of GOP to partisan parity with the Democrats, combined with
the fact that Democratic vote is more concentrated, plus the shift of
16 seats into the sunbelt, means that it is now advantageous to be a
Republican in the majority of congressional districts (As well as a
moderate-to-conservative Democrat in many other districts).
Unfortunately, since many congressmen serve 20+ years, it will take
a considerable amount of time for partisan parity to yeild a GOP
majority. But, the philosophical balance is likely to shift either
in 1992 or 1996.
>>There should be a vigorous public debate between the politically
>>philosophies that really are in a position to do something: Wall Street
>>Conservatism vs. Social Conservatism, vs. Libertarian-oriented
>>Conservatism vs. Neo-Conservatism.
>'Libertarian-oriented Conservatism'?
Socially permissive, market-oriented people.
>The Libertarian party just doesn't
>have $$$, like the group in power now.
Libertarian-oriented Conservatism has little to do with
the fanatical stance called "Libertarianism". Selling the
streets, on principle, has little to do with free-market
conservatism. Also, few l-o conservatives are the radical
isolationists that the Libertarian political party is.
>So why must you tie the Libertarians to 'Conservatism'?
Libertarians are an asterisk, no more. I was discussing the
political philosophies that actually were in a position to
do something. Libertarianism ain't on that list.
>At least with the Libertarians, they'd have to build 50+ year
>relationships with other power bases to become the effective crooks
>the present group of politions are.
In other words, to have power bases they would have to stop being
Libertarians. Correct. There are a few Libertarian-oriented
Conservatives out there in a position to influence public policy.
Scallia and Clarence Thomas are two.
>Marc Rassbach ma...@marque.mu.edu If you take my advice, that
-David
Marc Rassbach
>In article <2...@milestn.UUCP> ma...@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach) writes:
>><1992Jan14.2...@ncsu.edu> (David Rasmussen) writes:
>Unfortunately, since many congressmen serve 20+ years, it will take
>a considerable amount of time for partisan parity to yeild a GOP
>majority. But, the philosophical balance is likely to shift either
>in 1992 or 1996.
If the GOP gains the congress and presidency doesn't this 'blow' the
balance of power the original founders tried to set up, thus allowing
the possiblity of a repressive regime?
>>'Libertarian-oriented Conservatism'?
>Socially permissive, market-oriented people.
I would hardly call 'Conservatism' SOCIALLY PERMISSIVE. Didn't a
certain conserative say athiests should not be members of this country?
--
Marc Rassbach ma...@marque.mu.edu If you take my advice, that
nathan engle
>In article <1992Jan15.1...@ncsu.edu> gr-...@druid.csc.ncsu.edu
>(David John Rasmussen) writes:
>>In article <2...@milestn.UUCP> ma...@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach) writes:
>>><1992Jan14.2...@ncsu.edu> (David Rasmussen) writes:
>> But, the philosophical balance is likely to shift either
>>in 1992 or 1996.
>
>If the GOP gains the congress and presidency doesn't this 'blow' the
>balance of power the original founders tried to set up, thus allowing
>the possiblity of a repressive regime?
Nope. I don't recall reading anything in the constitution that
requires the separate branches of government to disagree with each
other. I think that Congress can still serve to "check and balance" the
president even if it's taken over by the GOP.
Andrew C. Aiken
>In article <2...@milestn.UUCP> ma...@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach) writes:
>>In article <1992Jan15.1...@ncsu.edu> gr-...@druid.csc.ncsu.edu
>>(David John Rasmussen) writes:
>>>In article <2...@milestn.UUCP> ma...@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach) writes:
>>>><1992Jan14.2...@ncsu.edu> (David Rasmussen) writes:
>>> But, the philosophical balance is likely to shift either
>>>in 1992 or 1996.
>>
>>If the GOP gains the congress and presidency doesn't this 'blow' the
>>balance of power the original founders tried to set up, thus allowing
>>the possiblity of a repressive regime?
> Nope. I don't recall reading anything in the constitution that
>requires the separate branches of government to disagree with each
>other. I think that Congress can still serve to "check and balance" the
>president even if it's taken over by the GOP.
Indeed. Carter, Johnson, Kennedy, and FDR had Democratic
Congresses (and Democratic-appointed courts), which were arguably
repressive regimes, though certainly not if you were a government
employee. Of course, I'm being a bit facetious here. Buchanan, Bush,
and Robert Packwood would not agree on much, even though all are
Republicans. Mr. Engle is correct.
Andrew Aiken
David John Rasmussen
>In article <1992Jan15.1...@ncsu.edu> gr-...@druid.csc.ncsu.edu (David John Rasmussen) writes:
>>In article <2...@milestn.UUCP> ma...@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach) writes:
>>><1992Jan14.2...@ncsu.edu> (David Rasmussen) writes:
>>Unfortunately, since many congressmen serve 20+ years, it will take
>>a considerable amount of time for partisan parity to yeild a GOP
>>majority. But, the philosophical balance is likely to shift either
>>in 1992 or 1996.
>If the GOP gains the congress and presidency doesn't this 'blow' the
>balance of power the original founders tried to set up, thus allowing
>the possiblity of a repressive regime?
No, the exact same system of checks and balances remain in effect.
You will note that the original constitution makes no reference to partisan
affiliation. The interests of the 50 states, and the 435 CDs will
be represented in the Congress.
The founding fathers attempted to design a system where the bare majority
has a hard time governing, but the clear majority did not.
A clear consensus is building that liberalism, feminism, socialism
and other left-wing "isms" have failed.
And isn't ironic that no such concerns were voiced when Jimmy Carter
Tip O'Neil Robert Byrd and Brennan/Marshall et al controlling
a three branchs of government?
>>>'Libertarian-oriented Conservatism'?
>>Socially permissive, market-oriented people.
>I would hardly call 'Conservatism' SOCIALLY PERMISSIVE. Didn't a
>certain conserative say athiests should not be members of this country?
I see you are not above the BIG LIE technique. You know no such
statement was ever made. First you come out with the outrageous
mischaracterization, and then when challenged, you will drag out
the actual quote, note that there is a little "smoke", and then
try to intimidate me about how I could "defend" such a quote. Of course,
that is irrelevent to the issue, because the issue you raised
is "Didn't a certain conservative say atheists should not be
members of this country?" The answer to that question is, "No."
Conservativism has many strips. Some,
such as William Weld are quite socially permissive, where other,
most, Conservatives are not.
>
>
>--
>Marc Rassbach ma...@marque.mu.edu If you take my advice, that
-David
Alex S. Crain
>A clear consensus is building that liberalism, feminism, socialism
>and other left-wing "isms" have failed.
If you say so. I don't know too many people who would care to defend
Reagans policies today, in spite of the fact that many of them voted for him.
>And isn't ironic that no such concerns were voiced when Jimmy Carter
>Tip O'Neil Robert Byrd and Brennan/Marshall et al controlling
>a three branchs of government?
My, your memory is short. I remember a great many people (mostly from
the right, I admit) making exactly that complaint.
--
################################# :alex.
#Disclaimer: Anyone who agrees # Systems Programmer
#with me deserves what they get.# University of Maryland Baltimore County
################################# al...@umbc3.umbc.edu
Marc Rassbach
<In article <2...@milestn.UUCP> ma...@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach) writes:
<No, the exact same system of checks and balances remain in effect.
<You will note that the original constitution makes no reference to partisan
<affiliation. The interests of the 50 states, and the 435 CDs will
<be represented in the Congress.
<
<Tip O'Neil Robert Byrd and Brennan/Marshall et al controlling
<a three branchs of government?
Oh really? Why not go back to the days and papers of the time. You
WILL find referances to the 'democratic control' of the government.
Some people complained back then, as others complained now.
<<<<'Libertarian-oriented Conservatism'?
<
<<<Socially permissive, market-oriented people.
<
<<I would hardly call 'Conservatism' SOCIALLY PERMISSIVE. Didn't a
<<certain conserative say athiests should not be members of this country?
<
<I see you are not above the BIG LIE technique. You know no such
Nor are you. See your 'ironic' comment.
<Conservativism has many strips. Some,
<such as William Weld are quite socially permissive, where other,
<most, Conservatives are not.
First you accuse me of 'being wrong' about my quote about athests,
then proceed to tell how most Concervatives are not socially
permissive. What gives?
--
Marc Rassbach ma...@marque.mu.edu If you take my advice, that
Andrew C. Aiken
>In article <1992Jan19....@ncsu.edu> gr-...@druid.csc.ncsu.edu (David John Rasmussen) writes:
>>A clear consensus is building that liberalism, feminism, socialism
>>and other left-wing "isms" have failed.
> If you say so. I don't know too many people who would care to defend
>Reagans policies today, in spite of the fact that many of them voted for him.
I would defend many of Reagan's policies, and I voted for
Dukakis in 1988. Do you talk to anyone who is not a liberal?
Andrew Aiken
David John Rasmussen
>In article <2...@milestn.UUCP> ma...@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach) writes:
>>In article <1992Jan15.1...@ncsu.edu> gr-...@druid.csc.ncsu.edu
>>(David John Rasmussen) writes:
>>>In article <2...@milestn.UUCP> ma...@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach) writes:
>>>><1992Jan14.2...@ncsu.edu> (David Rasmussen) writes:
>>> But, the philosophical balance is likely to shift either
>>>in 1992 or 1996.
>>
>>If the GOP gains the congress and presidency doesn't this 'blow' the
>>balance of power the original founders tried to set up, thus allowing
>>the possiblity of a repressive regime?
>
> Nope. I don't recall reading anything in the constitution that
>requires the separate branches of government to disagree with each
>other. I think that Congress can still serve to "check and balance" the
>president even if it's taken over by the GOP.
The liberal view of the Constitution is that Conservatives have a
right to vote, but not a right to win. It is not suprising then,
that a liberal would claim that the Constitution has a provision
claiming that Liberals have an "inalienable right" to control
at least one branch of government!
Of course, when Liberals controlled all three branches, the
same Constitution worked splendily!
>--
>Nathan Engle Software Juggler
>Indiana University Dept of Psychology
>nen...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
-David
Marc Rassbach
>The liberal view of the Constitution is that Conservatives have a
>right to vote, but not a right to win. It is not suprising then,
>that a liberal would claim that the Constitution has a provision
>claiming that Liberals have an "inalienable right" to control
>at least one branch of government!
>
>Of course, when Liberals controlled all three branches, the
>same Constitution worked splendily!
David,
Perhaps your memory doesn't go back all that far, being an American and
all. (Isn't the saying the memory of the American voter is 6 months)
Wasn't that long ago when the liberals were in control, and from
these controlling liberals.....
The Conservative view of the Constitution is that Liberals have a
right to vote, but not a right to win. It is not suprising then,
that a conservative would claim that the Constitution has a provision
claiming that Conservatives have an "inalienable right" to control
at least one branch of government!
Of course, when Conservatives controlled all three branches, the
same Constitution worked splendily!
Sound familar? Care to explain why this is?
(Hint: Think of a swinging pendulum.)
nathan engle
>In article <1992Jan17.1...@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
>nen...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (nathan engle) writes:
>> Nope. I don't recall reading anything in the constitution that
>>requires the separate branches of government to disagree with each
>>other. I think that Congress can still serve to "check and balance" the
>>president even if it's taken over by the GOP.
>
>The liberal view of the Constitution is that Conservatives have a
>right to vote, but not a right to win.
I don't know where you got that "pearl of wisdom", but if I were
you I'd throw it back to the swine that gave it to me.
If you really think that liberals are such poor citizens and
constitutional scholars as you claim, then I'd say that either you
don't know many liberals, or you don't listen to the ones you know,
or you (like Rush Limbaugh) are trying to advance some political
agenda by accusing liberals of something that they have never
believed.
>It is not suprising then,
>that a liberal would claim that the Constitution has a provision
>claiming that Liberals have an "inalienable right" to control
>at least one branch of government!
Please read back through the previous articles in this thread. The
person to whom you were responding (Marc Rassbach) is a Libertarian, not
a liberal. I am not aware of a single liberal posting to this group who
has ever made anything like your sweeping statement about liberals
having an "inalienable right" to control a branch of government. In
fact, I believe that you have misquoted or misrepresented even Marc's
views on the subject.
Could it be that so many years of rejection by the voters in
Congressional campaigns has caused Limbaugh-conservatives to get a
little paranoid about liberals? Believe it or not, liberals have been
winning those races fair and square. If you want to change something
about it then let me suggest that you alter your party's platform so
that you can win more elections rather than trying to blame your
troubles on the liberals.
David John Rasmussen
>In article <1992Jan19....@ncsu.edu> (David Rasmussen) writes:
>
>>A clear consensus is building that liberalism, feminism, socialism
>>and other left-wing "isms" have failed.
> If you say so. I don't know too many people who would care to defend
>Reagans policies today, in spite of the fact that many of them voted for him.
How about the foreign policies that won the cold war? Or tax reform?
Reagan's achievements are taken for granted.
>>And isn't ironic that no such concerns were voiced when Jimmy Carter
>>Tip O'Neil Robert Byrd and Brennan/Marshall et al controlling
>>a three branchs of government?
> My, your memory is short. I remember a great many people (mostly from
>the right, I admit) making exactly that complaint.
I never heard *one* such complaint. I heard lots of bitching and
moaning about how it was a bad thing, but I did not hear *anyone*
claim conservatives have a constitutional right to control at
least one branch of the government.
>################################# :alex.
David John Rasmussen
>In article <1992Jan19....@ncsu.edu> gr-...@druid.csc.ncsu.edu (David John Rasmussen) writes:
><In article <2...@milestn.UUCP> ma...@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach) writes:
><No, the exact same system of checks and balances remain in effect.
><You will note that the original constitution makes no reference to partisan
><affiliation. The interests of the 50 states, and the 435 CDs will
><be represented in the Congress.
><
><And isn't ironic that no such concerns were voiced when Jimmy Carter
><Tip O'Neil Robert Byrd and Brennan/Marshall et al controlling
><a three branchs of government?
>Oh really? Why not go back to the days and papers of the time. You
>WILL find referances to the 'democratic control' of the government.
>Some people complained back then, as others complained now.
I see you have little integrity. The issue, of course, was not
complaining about total control, but rather, claiming that total
control was "unconstitional". You switch the issues, and then
delete the contex that shows you have switched issues. Tsk! Tsk!
No conservative that I am aware of stated that electing a Democratic
President, House, and Senate was a Constitutional violation of the
system of checks and balances.
><<<<'Libertarian-oriented Conservatism'?
><
><<<Socially permissive, market-oriented people.
><
><<I would hardly call 'Conservatism' SOCIALLY PERMISSIVE. Didn't a
><<certain conserative say athiests should not be members of this country?
><
><I see you are not above the BIG LIE technique. You know no such
>Nor are you. See your 'ironic' comment.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
><Conservativism has many strips. Some,
><such as William Weld are quite socially permissive, where other,
><most, Conservatives are not.
>First you accuse me of 'being wrong' about my quote about athests,
You are. That simply is a matter of fact.
>then proceed to tell how most Concervatives are not socially
>permissive. What gives?
Nothing. Again, I repeat. Most Conservatives are not socially
permission. Some Conservatives are socially permissive. There
is no unified political philosophy called "conservativism".
Conservatism is a locus of related political philosophies. Again,
I repeat. There are different types of conservatism.
>Marc Rassbach ma...@marque.mu.edu If you take my advice, that
-David
David John Rasmussen
In the following, Marc Rassbach relies on the rhetorical technique
of moral equivalence. That is, when faced with over-whelming evidence
of liberal guilt, the dual guilt of Conservatives is *assumed* without
the slightest shread of proof.
In article <1...@milestn.UUCP> ma...@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach) writes:
><1992Jan19....@ncsu.edu> (David Rasmussen) writes:
>>The liberal view of the Constitution is that Conservatives have a
>>right to vote, but not a right to win. It is not suprising then,
>>that a liberal would claim that the Constitution has a provision
>>claiming that Liberals have an "inalienable right" to control
>>at least one branch of government!
>>
>>Of course, when Liberals controlled all three branches, the
>>same Constitution worked splendily!
>David,
>
>Perhaps your memory doesn't go back all that far, being an American and
>all. (Isn't the saying the memory of the American voter is 6 months)
In fact I quite vividly remember the Carter era. I remember 14%
inflation and 18% interest rates. I remember it well.
>Wasn't that long ago when the liberals were in control, and from
>these controlling liberals.....
>
>The Conservative view of the Constitution is that Liberals have a
>right to vote, but not a right to win.
False, Conservatives, rather than taking the liberal cry-baby
approach of blaming the "ignorant" electorate for not voting for
them, instead ask themselves "Why?" had they just had their clocks
cleaned.
The GOP rejected its failed policies [austerity], and replaced
them with winning policies [tax-cuts, economic growth]. The
result was 3 straight Presidential election victories, and
massive increasing in GOP affiliation among the electorate.
The Democrats are going to embrace quotas until they are 20% of
the electorate.
>It is not suprising then,
>that a conservative would claim that the Constitution has a provision
>claiming that Conservatives have an "inalienable right" to control
>at least one branch of government!
Do you have *any* evidence that *any* Conservative has ever
suggested this?
I caught you red-handed.
>Of course, when Conservatives controlled all three branches, the
>same Constitution worked splendily!
>
>Sound familar? Care to explain why this is?
Because you assume you can assert moral equivalence as fact,
without a shread of evidence.
>(Hint: Think of a swinging pendulum.)
Wrong view of politics. Japan, England, Canada, France, Italy and
Germany have been dominated by one party for decades [For instance
UK Conservatives traditionally win 70% of the elections. The LDP wins
100% of Japanese elections.
60 Years of Democratic dominance may very well turn into 100 years
of GOP dominance.
>Marc Rassbach ma...@marque.mu.edu If you take my advice, that
-David
David John Rasmussen
>In article <1992Jan19....@ncsu.edu> gr-...@druid.csc.ncsu.edu
>(David John Rasmussen) writes:
>>In article <1992Jan17.1...@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
>>nen...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (nathan engle) writes:
>>> Nope. I don't recall reading anything in the constitution that
>>>requires the separate branches of government to disagree with each
>>>other. I think that Congress can still serve to "check and balance" the
>>>president even if it's taken over by the GOP.
>>
>>The liberal view of the Constitution is that Conservatives have a
>>right to vote, but not a right to win.
>
> I don't know where you got that "pearl of wisdom", but if I were
>you I'd throw it back to the swine that gave it to me.
>
> If you really think that liberals are such poor citizens and
>constitutional scholars as you claim, then I'd say that either you
>don't know many liberals, or you don't listen to the ones you know,
>or you (like Rush Limbaugh) are trying to advance some political
>agenda by accusing liberals of something that they have never
>believed.
No, I know Liberals, in general, are arrogant snobs who have attempted to
claim the Constitution as their holy Excaliber that will slay
all those who dare oppose them. In short, Liberals know they
can't win elections, so they attempt to impose their agenda on
the American people via the courts. It was inevitable that
one would claim that the Constitution guarantees them one
of three branches of government. In short, a quota for Liberals.
>>It is not suprising then,
>>that a liberal would claim that the Constitution has a provision
>>claiming that Liberals have an "inalienable right" to control
>>at least one branch of government!
> Please read back through the previous articles in this thread. The
I suggest you do. Marc made a reference to violations of checks and
balances. The only rational conclusion to draw from his remarks he
he believed Liberals were entitled to at least one of three branches
of government at all times.
>person to whom you were responding (Marc Rassbach) is a Libertarian, not
>a liberal.
Yeech. He is worse than I imagined. I at least give Liberals some
credit for meaning well. Libertarian is Hobbesian selfishness, get
this, packaged as a virtue.
Libertarianism is to politics what Mathuslianism is to economics.
Both attempt to claim social neglect as a virtue.
>I am not aware of a single liberal posting to this group who
>has ever made anything like your sweeping statement about liberals
>having an "inalienable right" to control a branch of government. In
>fact, I believe that you have misquoted or misrepresented even Marc's
>views on the subject.
In fact I have not. Re-read what he said about checks and
balances.
> Could it be that so many years of rejection by the voters in
>Congressional campaigns has caused Limbaugh-conservatives to get a
>little paranoid about liberals?
Nope, Conservatives are trending up. There is every reason to
believe that after this election the GOP will be approaching its
post Eisenhower high of 192 house seats.
>Believe it or not, liberals have been
>winning those races fair and square.
If gerrymandering is "fair and square".
Fact is that Democrats control congress because in the past, when
the current set of incumbants were first elected, Democrats were
the clear majority of the electorate. Now partisan strength is
equal. As a result of that fact, the GOP will trend up to 50% of
the seats in the next 10-20 years. If GOP affliation continues
to increase, the GOP will win even more seats.
>If you want to change something
>about it then let me suggest that you alter your party's platform so
>that you can win more elections rather than trying to blame your
>troubles on the liberals.
On the contrary. Liberals are just hanging on to their past successes.
Growing GOP strength, plus the de-gerrymandering of California
Illinios and other states will set the stage for a rapid rise in the
number of GOP held seats in congress this decade.
What was the last major liberal policy objective inacted into law?
I can't remember. Can you?
>Nathan Engle
nathan engle
>In article <1992Jan20.1...@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
>nen...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (nathan engle) writes:
>No, I know Liberals, in general, are arrogant snobs who have attempted to
>claim the Constitution as their holy Excaliber that will slay
>all those who dare oppose them.
Thank you very much. For the moment I'll refrain from making any
similar sweeping generalizations about conservatives...
>In short, Liberals know they
>can't win elections, so they attempt to impose their agenda on
>the American people via the courts.
That is only correct in the context of abortion. Liberals may not
have legalized abortion by legislation, but I'm still not convinced of
your claim that "liberals know they can't win elections". Last time I
checked it seemed like some of them DO win elections.
>It was inevitable that
>one would claim that the Constitution guarantees them one
>of three branches of government. In short, a quota for Liberals.
Perhaps, however I would point out yet again that the person who
made that claim in this newsgroup is a libertarian, not a liberal. Are
you being intentionally dense or do you really not know the difference?
>> Please read back through the previous articles in this thread. The
>
>I suggest you do. Marc made a reference to violations of checks and
>balances. The only rational conclusion to draw from his remarks he
>he believed Liberals were entitled to at least one of three branches
>of government at all times.
Marc is not a liberal. By this extremely thin argument can I assume
that you also want libertarians to speak for conservatives, or would you
prefer to let conservative speak for themselves? If you'd rather let the
conservatives speak for themselves, then why don't you want liberals to
have the same privelage?
>>Believe it or not, liberals have been
>>winning those races fair and square.
>
>If gerrymandering is "fair and square".
Gerrymandering is a sword that cuts two ways. Look at a state like
Indiana and then tell me who's guilty of gerrymandering.
>Fact is that Democrats control congress because in the past, when
>the current set of incumbants were first elected, Democrats were
>the clear majority of the electorate.
So do you admit that there were at least one of two of those nasty
liberals who WERE elected fair and sqaure, or were they all "cheaters"?
> Liberals are just hanging on to their past successes.
>Growing GOP strength, plus the de-gerrymandering of California
>Illinios and other states will set the stage for a rapid rise in the
>number of GOP held seats in congress this decade.
Maybe. Don't count your chickens until they hatch.
>What was the last major liberal policy objective inacted into law?
How about the Civil Rights Act of 1991?
>I can't remember. Can you?
You must have either a very short memory or a very selective one.
Even Rush Limbaugh remembers how Bush "caved-in" to the liberals on the
Civil Rights bill.
nathan engle
(David John Rasmussen) writes:
>Marc Rassbach wrote:
>>It is not suprising then,
>>that a conservative would claim that the Constitution has a provision
>>claiming that Conservatives have an "inalienable right" to control
>>at least one branch of government!
>
>Do you have *any* evidence that *any* Conservative has ever
>suggested this?
Let's go back to the way you wrote it with liberal substituted for
conservative. Do you have any evidence that any *liberal* has ever
suggested this (and I mean real liberals, not just any old group whose
name happens to begin with the letters "LIB")?
>I caught you red-handed.
Ditto. (sorry Rush)
>>(Hint: Think of a swinging pendulum.)
>
>Wrong view of politics. Japan, England, Canada, France, Italy and
>Germany have been dominated by one party for decades
I can see your point in the case of Japan, UK, and Germany, but I
don't think you've studied France, Italy, or Canada. Both France and
Canada have had a mix of liberal and conservative governments, and Italy
is typically ruled by coalitions of at least a half dozen distinct
parties. That's hardly what I would call "domination".
Alex S. Crain
> I would defend many of Reagan's policies, and I voted for
>Dukakis in 1988. Do you talk to anyone who is not a liberal?
Would you defend Reagans policy of deregulating the S&Ls without
first absolving the government of any liability? Would you defend Reagans
policy of using government personell to route private funding (much of it
from certain S&Ls) to wage a private war in south america, in spite of its
clear unpopularity (and questionable legality)? Would you defend Reagans
policy of tripling the defence budget without first negociating the needed
cuts with congress? Would you defend the Reagan policy of crippling
depeartments that he didn't like but couldn't get rid of, like the EPA
which became a very expensive, but largely non functioning department for
eight years?
Its popular among conservatives to blame congress for these things,
but it doesn't really wash. The bulk of the problems with Reagans policys
seem to center around the side effects of going half way, coupled with the
argument that "If the liberals had let us do what we wanted, we wouldn't
have these problems". This ignores a very real factor that the public
isn't going to go along with everything that Reagan wanted to do.
A good example is S&L deregulation. I can't imagine a situation
where the American public is going to accept loosing their life savings
because a bank went under, particularly if it says FDIC on the front.
Middle america doesn't want to have to learn to read a bond portfolio
in order to know that their money is safe. This should have been as clear
in 1980 as it is now, and in that light, the decision to deregulate
S&Ls is a very stupid one, because it should have been obvious from the
start the the government is going to pick up the tab.
What the policy did was to make mismanaging a bank a very profitable
venture, as long as no actual fraud took place (which is why Neil Bush
is out of jail, and michael keating isn't). Free market economics dictates
that mismanagement would become very popular (as it did), cie-la-vie.
But Hey, maybe the debt really is Lyndon Johnsons fault after all,
as some would have us believe.
Andrew C. Aiken
> Its popular among conservatives to blame congress for these things,
>but it doesn't really wash. The bulk of the problems with Reagans policys
>seem to center around the side effects of going half way, coupled with the
>argument that "If the liberals had let us do what we wanted, we wouldn't
>have these problems". This ignores a very real factor that the public
>isn't going to go along with everything that Reagan wanted to do.
I agree, in part. This is what happens, though, when the
legislature is controlled by one party and the executive is controlled
by another. Presidents win elections by addressing national issues such
as tax policy, defense, and public assistance programs. Conservatives
are adept at talking about the national issues, so they win.
Congressional elections, however, arew won by concentrating on local
issues, and liberals, more willing than ever to spend money we don't
have (with a president willing to go along with busting Gramm-Rudman),
are able by principle to promise plenty of pork-barrel.
> A good example is S&L deregulation. I can't imagine a situation
>where the American public is going to accept loosing their life savings
>because a bank went under, particularly if it says FDIC on the front.
>Middle america doesn't want to have to learn to read a bond portfolio
>in order to know that their money is safe. This should have been as clear
>in 1980 as it is now, and in that light, the decision to deregulate
>S&Ls is a very stupid one, because it should have been obvious from the
>start the the government is going to pick up the tab.
Well, here we part ways. In life, there are risks, and if you
want your money to earn money, you must risk it. FDR first proposed
FDIC as an emergency measure: $5000 would protect the average investor
very well in 1933. But through political pressure from banks (who want
to limit THEIR liability by pushing it onto the government-- for this
same reason, big corporations FAVOR big welfare spending) the amount was
jacked up further and further and is now a holy sacrament that is
utterly beyond criticism. Now, the government made this promise, so it
must keep it. But is is protecting far too much. The average "middle
American" doesn't have anywhere near $100000 in even ONE bank account.
The FDIC should protect $20000 at most.
Deregulation is not the problem.
Andrew Aiken
David John Rasmussen
>In article <1992Jan21.0...@ncsu.edu> (David John Rasmussen) writes:
>>No, I know Liberals, in general, are arrogant snobs who have attempted to
>>claim the Constitution as their holy Excaliber that will slay
>>all those who dare oppose them.
> Thank you very much. For the moment I'll refrain from making any
>similar sweeping generalizations about conservatives...
I did not make a generalization. I made an observation about the
behavior and attitude of the typical liberal. Learn to recognize
critical distinctions.
>>In short, Liberals know they
>>can't win elections, so they attempt to impose their agenda on
>>the American people via the courts.
> That is only correct in the context of abortion.
False. Quotas. School busing. "Comparable worth". The banishing
of Creaches from public display.
>Liberals may not
>have legalized abortion by legislation, but I'm still not convinced of
>your claim that "liberals know they can't win elections". Last time I
>checked it seemed like some of them DO win elections.
I mispoke. Liberals can't elect enough liberals to legislate their
agenda, so they end-run the electorate through the courts.
>>It was inevitable that
>>one would claim that the Constitution guarantees them one
>>of three branches of government. In short, a quota for Liberals.
> Perhaps, however I would point out yet again that the person who
>made that claim in this newsgroup is a libertarian, not a liberal. Are
>you being intentionally dense or do you really not know the difference?
Ie he is a classical *LIBERAL*, as I have stated.
The similiarities between Ted Kennedy Liberalism, and "Libertarianism"
liberalism are quite striking. Both are egalitarianism gone beserk.
One claims equal that everyone has an equal right to their property,
while the other claims everyone has an equal right to property.
>>> Please read back through the previous articles in this thread. The
>>I suggest you do. Marc made a reference to violations of checks and
>>balances. The only rational conclusion to draw from his remarks he
>>he believed Liberals were entitled to at least one of three branches
>>of government at all times.
> Marc is not a liberal. By this extremely thin argument can I assume
>that you also want libertarians to speak for conservatives, or would you
>prefer to let conservative speak for themselves?
I prefer for the truth to be spoken, no more, no less. And as I said,
Libertarianism is classical liberalism.
>If you'd rather let the
>conservatives speak for themselves, then why don't you want liberals to
>have the same privelage?
Your mistake. "Libertarian = classical liberal".
>>>Believe it or not, liberals have been
>>>winning those races fair and square.
>>If gerrymandering is "fair and square".
> Gerrymandering is a sword that cuts two ways. Look at a state like
>Indiana and then tell me who's guilty of gerrymandering.
Of the current 435 districts, the districts of Texas [27], Illinios
[22], California [45], Florida [19], North Carolina [11], Minnisota
[8], Kansas [4], Missouri [9], Georgia [10], Oregon [5], Massachusetts
[10] and Michigan [18] were gerrymandered to favor the Democrats.
Pennsylvania[23], Indiana[10] Washington[8], and Arizona [5] were
gerrrymandered to favor the GOP.
Ohio[21] Iowa[5], and New York[34] had bipartisan redistricting.
New Jersey was gerrymandered Democratic, but that was overturned in
federal court after the 1982 elections. But tell that to Harold
Hollenback.
By my count that is 188 to 46 in favor of the Democrats. One
side cut a lot deeper, don't you agree?
>>Fact is that Democrats control congress because in the past, when
>>the current set of incumbants were first elected, Democrats were
>>the clear majority of the electorate.
> So do you admit that there were at least one of two of those nasty
>liberals who WERE elected fair and sqaure, or were they all "cheaters"?
I "admit" nothing. I acknowledged the truth that IN THE PAST,
the Democrats had the allegence of the majority of the electorate.
That has changed to partisan parity.
>> Liberals are just hanging on to their past successes.
>>Growing GOP strength, plus the de-gerrymandering of California
>>Illinios and other states will set the stage for a rapid rise in the
>>number of GOP held seats in congress this decade.
> Maybe. Don't count your chickens until they hatch.
It is a question of statistics. GOP growth is inevitable.
>>What was the last major liberal policy objective inacted into law?
> How about the Civil Rights Act of 1991?
Nope, that cut back the *reversal* of a *past* Liberal policy
objective: quotas and affirmative action.
>>I can't remember. Can you?
> You must have either a very short memory or a very selective one.
Care to cite a valid counter-example?
>Even Rush Limbaugh remembers how Bush "caved-in" to the liberals on the
>Civil Rights bill.
Correct, he did.
>Nathan Engle Software Juggler
David John Rasmussen
>In article <1992Jan21.0...@ncsu.edu> gr-...@druid.csc.ncsu.edu
>(David John Rasmussen) writes:
>>Marc Rassbach wrote:
>>>It is not suprising then,
>>>that a conservative would claim that the Constitution has a provision
>>>claiming that Conservatives have an "inalienable right" to control
>>>at least one branch of government!
>>
>>Do you have *any* evidence that *any* Conservative has ever
>>suggested this?
> Let's go back to the way you wrote it with liberal substituted for
>conservative. Do you have any evidence that any *liberal* has ever
>suggested this (and I mean real liberals, not just any old group whose
>name happens to begin with the letters "LIB")?
Nope, classical liberalism is a variation of liberalism. As a rule,
liberalism is committed to "individual rights", whatever that means,
while conservative, or traditional positions are committed to
acheive "the good", whatever that means.
>>I caught you red-handed.
> Ditto. (sorry Rush)
No you did not.
>>>(Hint: Think of a swinging pendulum.)
>>Wrong view of politics. Japan, England, Canada, France, Italy and
>>Germany have been dominated by one party for decades
> I can see your point in the case of Japan, UK, and Germany, but I
>don't think you've studied France, Italy, or Canada. Both France and
In fact they confirm my thesis. The center-right won every election
until demographic changes in France made the left wing voters the
demographic majority. From now on, the left will win the vast
majority of elections in France. Similiarly, the shift in the
Shepardic/Askenasi demographic balance has resulted in an Isreal
where Likud is going to win the vast majority of elections from
now on out, after Labor won for 30 straight years.
In Canada, the Liberals win the vast majority of elections, and are
apt to return to power this year. Quebecism has skewed the electorate
there. Once that issue settles down, Liberals will go back to winning
nearly every election.
In Italy, the various faction all win about the same number of votes
each election.
A large "swing" electorate is the exception, not the rule.
>Canada have had a mix of liberal and conservative governments, and Italy
>is typically ruled by coalitions of at least a half dozen distinct
>parties. That's hardly what I would call "domination".
You missed my point. In Italy, the left-center--right-center
consistantly win a majority of the seats in Parliment. The Communists,
traditionally got in the high 30s. The weaking of the Communist party
in Italy is one of the few significant political changes among western
democracies.
nathan engle
><1992Jan21.1...@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> (nathan engle) writes:
>>In article <1992Jan21.0...@ncsu.edu> (David John Rasmussen) writes:
>>>No, I know Liberals, in general, are arrogant snobs who have attempted to
>>>claim the Constitution as their holy Excaliber that will slay
>>>all those who dare oppose them.
>
>> Thank you very much. For the moment I'll refrain from making any
>>similar sweeping generalizations about conservatives...
>
>I did not make a generalization. I made an observation about the
>behavior and attitude of the typical liberal. Learn to recognize
>critical distinctions.
I'm sorry, but snobs are not required to make critical distinctions.
If you want people to act as though what you have to say is worth
reading closely, then you might try revising your presentation strategy
(i.e.- learn some manners). Otherwise we "liberal snobs" are just going
to arrogantly look down our noses at you...
>> Perhaps, however I would point out yet again that the person who
>>made that claim in this newsgroup is a libertarian, not a liberal. Are
>>you being intentionally dense or do you really not know the difference?
>
>Ie he is a classical *LIBERAL*, as I have stated.
Just as a matter of curiosity, David, how would you feel if people
went around misrepresenting your positions and telling people how you
are a classical *FASCIST*? I don't doubt that from your point of view
Marc must seem like a radical left-winger, however I think that if
anyone has a right to say that Marc is a liberal then that person is
Marc, not you.
>The similiarities between Ted Kennedy Liberalism, and "Libertarianism"
>liberalism are quite striking. Both are egalitarianism gone beserk.
The similarities between Rush Limbaugh Conservatism and David Duke
"Conservatism" are also quite striking, however similarities don't make
Rush a Nazi, or Ted a Libertarian, or Marc a liberal.
Why don't you ask Marc whether he's a liberal or not, rather than
trying to pin the name on him?
>> Marc is not a liberal. By this extremely thin argument can I assume
>>that you also want libertarians to speak for conservatives, or would you
>>prefer to let conservative speak for themselves?
>
>I prefer for the truth to be spoken, no more, no less. And as I said,
>Libertarianism is classical liberalism.
Suit yourself. If that's your version of truth then I'm afraid that
we must agree to disagree.
>> Gerrymandering is a sword that cuts two ways. Look at a state like
>>Indiana and then tell me who's guilty of gerrymandering.
>
>Of the current 435 districts, the districts of Texas [27], Illinios
>[22], California [45], Florida [19], North Carolina [11], Minnisota
>[8], Kansas [4], Missouri [9], Georgia [10], Oregon [5], Massachusetts
>[10] and Michigan [18] were gerrymandered to favor the Democrats.
>
>Pennsylvania[23], Indiana[10] Washington[8], and Arizona [5] were
>gerrrymandered to favor the GOP.
>
>Ohio[21] Iowa[5], and New York[34] had bipartisan redistricting.
>
>New Jersey was gerrymandered Democratic, but that was overturned in
>federal court after the 1982 elections. But tell that to Harold
>Hollenback.
>
>By my count that is 188 to 46 in favor of the Democrats. One
>side cut a lot deeper, don't you agree?
Yes, I agree. Democrats have been far more adept at working the
system to their favor. However, are you also trying to tell me that
Republicans are better at whining about it? If you don't like the
system it can be changed. You could even work on it yourself.
>>> Liberals are just hanging on to their past successes.
>>>Growing GOP strength, plus the de-gerrymandering of California
>>>Illinios and other states will set the stage for a rapid rise in the
>>>number of GOP held seats in congress this decade.
>
>> Maybe. Don't count your chickens until they hatch.
>
>It is a question of statistics. GOP growth is inevitable.
Sounds like you're already counting your chickens. Maybe it's a good
thing that there are other members of the GOP like Rush who don't take
success for granted and want to work like hell to make their plans come
true. If things are as inevitable as you say, I guess that you won't be
bothering with little formalities like voting?
>> How about the Civil Rights Act of 1991?
>
>Nope, that cut back the *reversal* of a *past* Liberal policy
>objective: quotas and affirmative action.
"Cut back the reversal"? Isn't that a double negative? And if, as
you say, liberals are pushing for quotas and Affirmative Action then
doesn't that make those two issues a *current* liberal policy? And
wouldn't you say that the Civil Rights Act promotes that policy?
David John Rasmussen
>In article <1992Jan21....@ncsu.edu> (David Rasmussen) writes:
>><1992Jan21.1...@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> (nathan engle) writes:
>>>>No, I know Liberals, in general, are arrogant snobs who have attempted to
>>>>claim the Constitution as their holy Excaliber that will slay
>>>>all those who dare oppose them.
>>> Thank you very much. For the moment I'll refrain from making any
>>>similar sweeping generalizations about conservatives...
>>I did not make a generalization. I made an observation about the
>>behavior and attitude of the typical liberal. Learn to recognize
>>critical distinctions.
> I'm sorry, but snobs are not required to make critical distinctions.
No, but it is a requirement for intelligent discourse. I take it
you aren't interested in intelligent discourse.
>If you want people to act as though what you have to say is worth
>reading closely, then you might try revising your presentation strategy
>(i.e.- learn some manners). Otherwise we "liberal snobs" are just going
>to arrogantly look down our noses at you...
1) Are you admitting *you* are a "liberal"? Marc is a liberal, and
I have said so. You used "we `liberal snobs'", so I assume you are
a liberal too.
2) I have not said and done anything that can *rationally* be construed
as ill-mannered. I have refered to Marc as a "liberal", and I have
carefully articulated the intellectual petigree of Libertarianism to
show exactly why it is a "liberal" philosophy. What is ill-mannered
about that?
>>> Perhaps, however I would point out yet again that the person who
>>>made that claim in this newsgroup is a libertarian, not a liberal. Are
>>>you being intentionally dense or do you really not know the difference?
>>Ie he is a classical *LIBERAL*, as I have stated.
> Just as a matter of curiosity, David, how would you feel if people
>went around misrepresenting your positions and telling people how you
>are a classical *FASCIST*?
Confused, there is no political philosophy called "classical Fascism".
You are confused about the meaning of "liberal". "Liberal" is a
philosphical orientation. For instance, parents who speak "openingly"
and "honestly" with their children about sex are deemed "liberal",
while parents who impose strick rules on sex are deemed "conservative".
Yet, neither involves *any* government activity.
Liberalism, the philosophy, usually expresses itself politically as
Ted Kennedy liberalism, socialism, or some variant of classical liberalism,
including Libertarianism.
>I don't doubt that from your point of view
>Marc must seem like a radical left-winger,
I see you are a hypocrite of the first order. You bitch and moan
about me falsely labeling people's views, and then you turn around
and *grossly* distort my own position.
I have know idea whether Marc advocates any particular radical
left wing political agenda. I do know that he has repeatedly
used the rhetoric of, and appealed to the values of, liberal
culture. From that, I am willing to estimate that Marc agrees
with the vast majority of the following Liberal value statements.
"Abortion should be legal."
"Sex outside of marriage can be a positive thing."
"The courts exist to safeguard our freedoms."
"Jerry Fawell, Pat Robertson and Jimmy Swaggert are dangerous."
"Womyn's liberation has been a very good thing."
"Homosexuality is an alternate lifestyle equal to heterosexuality."
"Teenagers, if emotionally mature enough, may or should have `healthy'
sex lives."
"Religion, if taken to `excess' is dangerous, witness the Inquisition
and Crusades."
"Public schools should teach sex-education."
>however I think that if
>anyone has a right to say that Marc is a liberal then that person is
>Marc, not you.
Nope, his presentation uses liberal rhetoric, and appeals to liberal
values. In short, he quacks, and floats like a duck.
>>The similiarities between Ted Kennedy Liberalism, and "Libertarianism"
>>liberalism are quite striking. Both are egalitarianism gone beserk.
> The similarities between Rush Limbaugh Conservatism and David Duke
>"Conservatism" are also quite striking, however similarities don't make
>Rush a Nazi,
Correct, because David Duke, when speaking in public, uses Conservative
rhetoric, and appeals to Conservative values. In public, he does not
use either Nazi rhetoric or appeal to Nazi values.
>or Ted a Libertarian, or Marc a liberal.
It makes both Ted and Marc liberals.
> Why don't you ask Marc whether he's a liberal or not, rather than
>trying to pin the name on him?
Because he used liberal rhetoric to appeal to liberal values.
>>> Marc is not a liberal. By this extremely thin argument can I assume
>>>that you also want libertarians to speak for conservatives, or would you
>>>prefer to let conservative speak for themselves?
>>I prefer for the truth to be spoken, no more, no less. And as I said,
>>Libertarianism is classical liberalism.
> Suit yourself. If that's your version of truth then I'm afraid that
>we must agree to disagree.
But you have *condemned* me as ill-mannered, predicated on the
*assumption* that what I said was *wrong*. Now, you are unwilling
to state that I was wrong. What gives?
>>> Gerrymandering is a sword that cuts two ways. Look at a state like
>>>Indiana and then tell me who's guilty of gerrymandering.
>>Of the current 435 districts, the districts of Texas [27], Illinios
>>[22], California [45], Florida [19], North Carolina [11], Minnisota
>>[8], Kansas [4], Missouri [9], Georgia [10], Oregon [5], Massachusetts
>>[10] and Michigan [18] were gerrymandered to favor the Democrats.
I forgot one of the most aggredious, Oklahoma[6].
>>Pennsylvania[23], Indiana[10] Washington[8], and Arizona [5] were
>>gerrrymandered to favor the GOP.
>>
>>Ohio[21] Iowa[5], and New York[34] had bipartisan redistricting.
>>
>>New Jersey was gerrymandered Democratic, but that was overturned in
>>federal court after the 1982 elections. But tell that to Harold
>>Hollenback.
>>
>>By my count that is 188 to 46 in favor of the Democrats. One
>>side cut a lot deeper, don't you agree?
> Yes, I agree. Democrats have been far more adept at working the
>system to their favor.
And during the Carter years they packed the federal courts by
nearly doubling the size of the courts. Those courts ordered
a third of those Democratic gerrymanders.
>However, are you also trying to tell me that
>Republicans are better at whining about it?
No.
>If you don't like the system it can be changed.
Spoken with a true, "America, love it or leave it!" tone.
I am suprised to hear you express such sentiments!
>You could even work on it yourself.
>>>> Liberals are just hanging on to their past successes.
>>>>Growing GOP strength, plus the de-gerrymandering of California
>>>>Illinios and other states will set the stage for a rapid rise in the
>>>>number of GOP held seats in congress this decade.
>>> Maybe. Don't count your chickens until they hatch.
>>It is a question of statistics. GOP growth is inevitable.
> Sounds like you're already counting your chickens.
In fact I am doing no such thing. Statistics dictate that if all
things remain equal, the GOP will trend up in Congress.
That is the underlying trend. Another trend could counter-act, or
multiply the underlying trend.
>Maybe it's a good
>thing that there are other members of the GOP like Rush who don't take
>success for granted
I certainly have not. My analysis was predicated on the assumption
of all thing being equal. Actually, I project the GOP will do even
better than the one base-line trend I articulated. Pro-religious,
and pro-natal, trends with further help the GOP.
>and want to work like hell to make their plans come
>true. If things are as inevitable as you say, I guess that you won't be
>bothering with little formalities like voting?
No, what I said was that if everyone keeps on doing what they are
doing know, then GOP growth in the Congress will occur.
>>> How about the Civil Rights Act of 1991?
>>Nope, that cut back the *reversal* of a *past* Liberal policy
>>objective: quotas and affirmative action.
> "Cut back the reversal"? Isn't that a double negative?
Exactly. It is not a *new* policy objective. It is actually the
frustration of a Conservative policy objective: the repeal of
quotas and affirmitive action programs.
>And if, as
>you say, liberals are pushing for quotas and Affirmative Action then
>doesn't that make those two issues a *current* liberal policy? And
>wouldn't you say that the Civil Rights Act promotes that policy?
The policies of the CRB were public policy prior to a series of
Conservative court rulings. The CRB cancelled out that series
of Conservative policy inititives.
It was a, somewhat successful, Liberal rear-guard action. Ultimately,
if a Conservative President orders the drafted executive order
enforced, the CRB may prove to be a Conservative mega-victory.
Ironic, eh??
>Nathan Engle
nathan engle
interested in subtle half-flames and David's liberal litmus test...
In article <1992Jan22.2...@ncsu.edu> gr-...@druid.csc.ncsu.edu
(David John Rasmussen) writes:
><1992Jan22....@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> (nathan engle) writes:
>> I'm sorry, but snobs are not required to make critical distinctions.
>
>No, but it is a requirement for intelligent discourse. I take it
>you aren't interested in intelligent discourse.
Good heavens, was intelligent discourse your intended goal? From the
way you started by calling liberals "arrogant snobs" I received the
mistaken impression that all you were interested in was mud-slinging.
>1) Are you admitting *you* are a "liberal"? Marc is a liberal, and
>I have said so. You used "we `liberal snobs'", so I assume you are
>a liberal too.
I used to think so, but as you will see from my responses to your
"Liberal Litmus Test" below that I don't quite fit your liberal mold.
>2) I have not said and done anything that can *rationally* be construed
>as ill-mannered.
Let's see... do you mean that if I said that conservatives were, in
general, arrogant snobs, then no conservatives would have any rational
cause to take offense? Not even those who I KNOW are not snobs?
>You are confused about the meaning of "liberal". "Liberal" is a
>philosphical orientation.
My understanding is that the word "Liberal" has several meanings
which extend beyond its use as an adjective. When used as an
adjective the word "liberal" should never be capitalized except when
used at the beginning of a sentence. Since your past posts invariably
used the word "Liberal" (capital L) I assumed that you were using the
word as a proper noun to refer to political leftists. (i.e.- referring
to a person, not a philosphy)
>>I don't doubt that from your point of view
>>Marc must seem like a radical left-winger,
>
>I see you are a hypocrite of the first order. You bitch and moan
>about me falsely labeling people's views, and then you turn around
>and *grossly* distort my own position.
Well, if I am a hypocrit then at least I am in good company. I
haven't distorted your position any worse than you've distorted mine.
*** Now for the "Liberal Litmus Test" ***
Just for fun I've scored myself on your list of liberal statements
just to see how I rate as a "Liberal".
>"Abortion should be legal."
Ok, yes. (1 for 1)
>"Sex outside of marriage can be a positive thing."
In some cases yes. (2 for 2)
>"The courts exist to safeguard our freedoms."
Nope. Courts exist to adminster laws. (2 for 3)
>"Jerry Fawell, Pat Robertson and Jimmy Swaggert are dangerous."
No (at least they're not dangerous to society at large - as to
the danger they pose to themselves I cannot speculate). (2 for 4)
>"Womyn's liberation has been a very good thing."
Right. Our society doesn't need for women to be second class
citizens. (3 for 5)
>"Homosexuality is an alternate lifestyle equal to heterosexuality."
No, they are different and thus not equal. However I suspect that
this may be a poorly phrased statement. If you meant to say
"Homosexuality is an alternate lifestyle and homosexuals should enjoy
the same civil rights as are afforded to heterosexuals" then I would
change my vote. However as it stands... (3 for 6)
>"Teenagers, if emotionally mature enough, may or should have `healthy'
> sex lives."
Hmmm, no again. (3 for 7, I'm not doing that well here)
>"Religion, if taken to `excess' is dangerous, witness the Inquisition
> and Crusades."
True. Consider also the example of suttee from Hinduism in which
widows are burned on the funeral pyres of their dead husbands (4 for 8)
>"Public schools should teach sex-education."
True, however I'd like to hear just what you mean should be included
in the curriculum. For instance, I do not believe that sex education
classes are intended to teach "techniques of French kissing" or similar
garbage. (5 for 9)
Unfortunately it looks like I've scored barely 55% on your liberal
test... not so good.
>> Why don't you ask Marc whether he's a liberal or not, rather than
>>trying to pin the name on him?
>
>Because he used liberal rhetoric to appeal to liberal values.
Well, here's the thing that I really want to know. Just how high do
I have to score on your test to be a liberal myself. I'm very keen to
become a better liberal, and although you seem to be a conservative (and
thus the last person I would expect to know anything about liberalism)
you appear to be a bona fide expert on liberals. Have got any pointers
for me?
>> Suit yourself. If that's your version of truth then I'm afraid that
>>we must agree to disagree.
>
>But you have *condemned* me as ill-mannered, predicated on the
>*assumption* that what I said was *wrong*. Now, you are unwilling
>to state that I was wrong. What gives?
We can both sit here and state that each other are wrong all day
long, or at least until the net.police come and yank our ethernet drops.
However if we can't agree on anything then there just doesn't seem to
be much point, don't you know?
Under these circumstances, I'm man enough to throw in the towel on
this pointless (though highly intellectual) discussion. After all, it's
no skin off my nose if you can't see that people don't like being called
arrogant snobs.
>>If you don't like the system it can be changed.
>
>Spoken with a true, "America, love it or leave it!" tone.
Actually more like "Love it or change it". I don't care where you
live. All I'm trying to do is to get you to quit yer bitchin'. If you
think something's wrong you can take personal responsibility for
changing it, or you can sit there and bitch about it. Now, I wonder
which one of those things you're doing?
>I am suprised to hear you express such sentiments!
So would they also surprise me if I had expressed them. Unfortunately
those sentiments were a figment of your imagination.
>>and want to work like hell to make their plans come
>>true. If things are as inevitable as you say, I guess that you won't be
>>bothering with little formalities like voting?
>
>No, what I said was that if everyone keeps on doing what they are
>doing know, then GOP growth in the Congress will occur.
Oh, I must have missed all the disclaimers the first time around. I
thought what you said was that "GOP growth is inevitable". I didn't see
anything about people keeping on doing what they are now.
Just to remind you, here's what you actually wrote:
>It is a question of statistics. GOP growth is inevitable.
Thanks for the "intelligent discourse". It's been fun mostly, except
for the part where you were calling me and all my friends "arrogant
snobs"...
Oh well, I guess I can't have everything...
Marc Rassbach
>utterly beyond criticism. Now, the government made this promise, so it
>must keep it. But is is protecting far too much. The average "middle
>American" doesn't have anywhere near $100000 in even ONE bank account.
>The FDIC should protect $20000 at most.
The $100,000 amount was not even approved by congress, as I have heard
someone on the net. (and if it was said on UseNet, it MUST be true.)
When someone has $20,000 or even $50,000 asking them to take $500 or some
time to look at finationals of any bank they wish to put their money into
is not alot to ask. (The $500 is for some finational planner to look
at the health of a bank.)
>Deregulation is not the problem.
Well, it didn't help. The big trouble was the $100,000 limit. It's
easy to gamble with someone elses money. That's what happened with the
S&L's.
--
Marc Rassbach ma...@marque.mu.edu If you take my advice, that
Marc Rassbach
>In article <5...@milestn.UUCP> ma...@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach) writes:
>><And isn't ironic that no such concerns were voiced when Jimmy Carter
>><Tip O'Neil Robert Byrd and Brennan/Marshall et al controlling
>><a three branchs of government?
>
>>Oh really? Why not go back to the days and papers of the time. You
>>WILL find referances to the 'democratic control' of the government.
>>Some people complained back then, as others complained now.
>
>I see you have little integrity. The issue, of course, was not
>complaining about total control, but rather, claiming that total
>control was "unconstitional". You switch the issues, and then
>delete the contex that shows you have switched issues. Tsk! Tsk!
Alright. Tell you what we'll do here, if you are game.
As you are SO sure of yourself, let me propose something. You first
define 'conservative' and 'liberal'. This will allow your label to be
applied to others. Then with the labels in hand, I'll be willing to
go back and FIND a person who fits YOUR conservative label who
said something to the effect "liberals can't control all 3 branches of
the government as this will upset the balance of powers. Such an
upset is unconstitutional!"
Then, upon finding such text, you will:
1) post to this group and admit your error.
2) pay for the database time I will use to find this quote.
Now, I can only do this search if you DEFINE what a conservative and a
liberal person is. Otherwise, you could say "Oh, who said that is
NOT a true conservative" and I'd hate to go thru all that effort to
feed your words to you.
>No conservative that I am aware of stated that electing a Democratic
>President, House, and Senate was a Constitutional violation of the
>system of checks and balances.
Please, allow me to make you aware.
>>First you accuse me of 'being wrong' about my quote about athests,
>
>You are. That simply is a matter of fact.
Alright. I'll get the quote for you. With sources. I'll love
watching you eat your words.
>Nothing. Again, I repeat. Most Conservatives are not socially
>permission. Some Conservatives are socially permissive. There
>is no unified political philosophy called "conservativism".
If there is no political philospphy called "conservativism", then
how can you accuse me of a lack of integerty when I quote your
statement, and just replace 'conservative' with 'liberal'? If no
one can define conservative, then how can you say no conservative
has ever said (or not said) such things?
--
Marc Rassbach ma...@marque.mu.edu If you take my advice, that
Marc Rassbach
>In the following, Marc Rassbach relies on the rhetorical technique
<of moral equivalence. That is, when faced with over-whelming evidence
<of liberal guilt, the dual guilt of Conservatives is *assumed* without
<the slightest shread of proof.
As you are such an expert at this David, why not show some proof of
what you've said. Produce some 'liberals' who have said what you
accusing them of.
<In article <1...@milestn.UUCP< ma...@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach) writes:
<<<1992Jan19....@ncsu.edu< (David Rasmussen) writes:
<<<The liberal view of the Constitution is that Conservatives have a
<<<right to vote, but not a right to win. It is not suprising then,
<<<that a liberal would claim that the Constitution has a provision
<<<claiming that Liberals have an "inalienable right" to control
<<<at least one branch of government!
<<<
<<<Of course, when Liberals controlled all three branches, the
<<<same Constitution worked splendily!
<<Perhaps your memory doesn't go back all that far, being an American and
<<all. (Isn't the saying the memory of the American voter is 6 months)
<
<In fact I quite vividly remember the Carter era. I remember 14%
<inflation and 18% interest rates. I remember it well.
<
<<Wasn't that long ago when the liberals were in control, and from
<<these controlling liberals.....
<<
<<The Conservative view of the Constitution is that Liberals have a
<<right to vote, but not a right to win.
<
<False, Conservatives, rather than taking the liberal cry-baby
<approach of blaming the "ignorant" electorate for not voting for
<them, instead ask themselves "Why?" had they just had their clocks
<cleaned.
You know, you should give Rush a run for his money. Rush will define
/make and outragious statment. When asked to define what he means,
he clairifys himself and admits what he's ranting about is a limited
group.
You are engauging in RLC by saying in a previous post how conservitives
are a non-defineable label, THEN you talk about conservitives (which
by your own admission are not definable) don't whine, and instead
look at themselves and ask "why?".
If conservitives are not defineable, how can a non-defined group look
at themselves?
<<It is not suprising then,
<<that a conservative would claim that the Constitution has a provision
<<claiming that Conservatives have an "inalienable right" to control
<<at least one branch of government!
<
<Do you have *any* evidence that *any* Conservative has ever
<suggested this?
<
<I caught you red-handed.
If I come back with a 'conservative' who has said this, will you
admit your error, or will you just pull a Rush and either ignore
the quote, or just re-define the word conservitive?
I'm up to the challenge, are you man enough to admit the errors of
your ways in a public forum?
--
Marc Rassbach ma...@marque.mu.edu If you take my advice, that
Marc Rassbach
>I suggest you do. Marc made a reference to violations of checks and
>balances. The only rational conclusion to draw from his remarks he
>he believed Liberals were entitled to at least one of three branches
>of government at all times.
Being you are such an EXPERT of rhetoric there is another conclusion
possible. It was just a question. Have you seen myself defend the
position? If I believed "Liberals were entitled to at leastt one
of the three branches of government at all times", I would defend
such a position. If you have been reading, I have not attempted to
defend such a position. I'll leave it to your 'rational mind'
to detemine what my position on such is.
>>person to whom you were responding (Marc Rassbach) is a Libertarian, not
>>a liberal.
>
>Yeech. He is worse than I imagined. I at least give Liberals some
>credit for meaning well. Libertarian is Hobbesian selfishness, get
>this, packaged as a virtue.
I'm going to cross post this reply to another group and
let the card carrying Libertarians reply.
>Libertarianism is to politics what Mathuslianism is to economics.
>Both attempt to claim social neglect as a virtue.
Social neglect? Oh, please, expound on this.
>>I am not aware of a single liberal posting to this group who
>>has ever made anything like your sweeping statement about liberals
>>having an "inalienable right" to control a branch of government. In
>>fact, I believe that you have misquoted or misrepresented even Marc's
>>views on the subject.
>
>In fact I have not. Re-read what he said about checks and
>balances.
David, Nathan is a very good poster in this group. I'd suggest you
re-read the posts, and please show where I have said any one
political party has a "inalienable right" to control a branch of
government.
>If gerrymandering is "fair and square".
Oh. Taking a 'high moral ground' here? And tell us all about how the
GOP would NEVER stoop to such a thing.
Marion Bates
trade balance.
---===[[[ Ratava Orkslayer ]]]===---
* Origin: Software City Public Beach (616)245-5585 (1:228/14)
Marc Rassbach
><1992Jan22....@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> (nathan engle) writes:
>culture. From that, I am willing to estimate that Marc agrees
>with the vast majority of the following Liberal value statements.
And what's really neat about your list is these all represent
allowing people to make a free willed choice. There is one
problem with your 'classic liberal' list..... that's the fact these
choices have results, and these results you should ALSO live
with.
without other imposing
their value
>"Abortion should be legal."
Give a convincing argument why not. Do not use refs. to God.
>"Sex outside of marriage can be a positive thing."
Two unwed people qualify here. Gosh, it even leads to marriage sometimes.
(even w/o a shotgun)
>"The courts exist to safeguard our freedoms."
Nope. Exist to interpert the law.
>"Jerry Fawell, Pat Robertson and Jimmy Swaggert are dangerous."
Haven't all these people have had charges of corruption/swindling at
one time or another, and the courts have convicted 2 of the 3?
>"Womyn's liberation has been a very good thing."
Please define 'liberation'. = $$$ for = work (assuming a def. of = work
can be made) is a bad thing?
>"Homosexuality is an alternate lifestyle equal to heterosexuality."
The word equal here is (or is not) the problem. They are NOT equal
in the same way women are != men.
>"Teenagers, if emotionally mature enough, may or should have `healthy'
> sex lives."
Why does a calender age make a difference? The laws make a distiction
by age, thus legally may shield the persons from their actions.
>"Religion, if taken to `excess' is dangerous, witness the Inquisition
> and Crusades."
Care to try to debate ANYTHING in excess is a good thing, and not
dangerous?
>"Public schools should teach sex-education."
Who's job is it? If you say parents, then what do you do if the parents
don't do their part? Allow people to walk about ignorate and misinformed?
Or should everyone listen to Rush Limbaugh to get the truths of
the universe?
What you list are not liberal ideas, but STATEMENTS commonly made
by liberals. If statements made by a person qualify you for a given
group in your book, the label FACIST comes to mind for you. Snob also
works for you David.
>-David
>
>Any political philosophy which states that by posting a giant AS IS sign
>over her bed an HIV+ prostitute can ply her trade
Sounds like a liberal thing to say. Shielding one from the results
of ones actions.
David John Rasmussen
>><1992Jan22....@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> (nathan engle) writes:
>>culture. From that, I am willing to estimate that Marc agrees
>>with the vast majority of the following Liberal value statements.
>And what's really neat about your list is these all represent
>allowing people to make a free willed choice.
Actually, that is blatently false. For instance, religion and atheism
both allow "free willed choice".
>There is one
>problem with your 'classic liberal' list....
It is my liberal list, not my classical liberal list. Remember,
both ADA Liberalism, and Libertarianism are subsets of liberalism.
>>"Abortion should be legal."
>Give a convincing argument why not. Do not use refs. to God.
Life begins at conception.
The arbitary taking of a life deprives the victim of the enjoyment
of remainder of his life, and is thus wrong, FOR PRIMARILY THAT REASON.
Abortion cause the deprivation of the enjoyment of the remainder of
the unborn child's life, and is thus wrong, FOR THE SAME REASON THAT
IT IS WRONG TO KILL YOU OUR I.
It is illegal to kill you or I.
-------------------------------
Abortion should be illegal.
How about you giving a compelling argument that allows for the
capital punishment of a women who is 6 weeks pregnant? If abortion
is non-problematic, the execution of pregnant women should not
be either.
>>"Sex outside of marriage can be a positive thing."
> Two unwed people qualify here. Gosh, it even leads to marriage sometimes.
>(even w/o a shotgun)
Again, ``free will'' can "choose" either sex, or celibacy.
>>"The courts exist to safeguard our freedoms."
> Nope. Exist to interpert the law.
>>"Jerry Fawell, Pat Robertson and Jimmy Swaggert are dangerous."
>Haven't all these people have had charges of corruption/swindling at
>one time or another, and the courts have convicted 2 of the 3?
I thought in our society, we all had a basic presumption of innocence
until proven guilty. I am not aware of *any* charges of corruption
or swindling, against Robertson or Fawell. Swaggert's sexual doings seem to
be more a personal failing of the man, than sign of either "corruption",
or "hypocrisy". The man did not live up to his ideals. If every man
lived up to his ideals, then they wouldn't be ideals.
>>"Womyn's liberation has been a very good thing."
>Please define 'liberation'. = $$$ for = work (assuming a def. of = work
>can be made) is a bad thing?
Sorry, the question is suppose to be subjective. Disambiguiate according
to your value-preferences.
>>"Homosexuality is an alternate lifestyle equal to heterosexuality."
>The word equal here is (or is not) the problem. They are NOT equal
>in the same way women are != men.
Again, define "equal" as you define equal, and then answer the
question.
>>"Teenagers, if emotionally mature enough, may or should have `healthy'
>> sex lives."
>Why does a calender age make a difference?
Experience.
>The laws make a distiction
>by age, thus legally may shield the persons from their actions.
You didn't answer the question.
>>"Religion, if taken to `excess' is dangerous, witness the Inquisition
>> and Crusades."
>Care to try to debate ANYTHING in excess is a good thing, and not
>dangerous?
Sure, excessive attempts at virtue are good thing. You can't try
to hard to be virtous. You can try poorly, but you can't error
by trying too hard.
>>"Public schools should teach sex-education."
>Who's job is it?
That is Conservative/Liberal essence of the problem, isn't it?
>If you say parents, then what do you do if the parents
>don't do their part?
Essentially the same thing we do when schools fail miserably
at providing "quality sex-education", suffer the consequence.
>Allow people to walk about ignorate and misinformed?
That is exactly what we are doing by teaching "sex-education"
in the schools. Basically, SE teachs, implicitly, that sex
is a "value-free" thing, which is as ignorant and misinformed
AND DANGEROUS a belief as "you can't get pregnant during your
period."
>Or should everyone listen to Rush Limbaugh to get the truths of
>the universe?
>What you list are not liberal ideas, but STATEMENTS commonly made
>by liberals.
No, I am giving statements that evolk a gut-level value response.
people with Liberal values tend to approve, while those with
Conservative values tend to be repulsed.
>If statements made by a person qualify you for a given
>group in your book, the label FACIST comes to mind for you.
Pure Libertarian intolerance. Libertarian claims to be a "value-free"
governmental philosophy, but in practice is social philosophy which
makes definite pro-free_sex, anti-religious, pro-drug etc value statements
"as being in the *spirit* of freedom." The repeal of external restraints
is combined with a denounciation of *internal* restraints. Thus,
religion, even if "mutually consentual" and "non-aggressive", becomes
somewhat "FASCIST", while advocates of teen celibacy get labeled as
hateful.
>Snob also works for you David.
Pure Liberalism. To have non-libertine value preferences is
"Snob[bish]". How dare our society have, gasp, standards.
It is also something quit bizarre from a man who claims the GOP
holding all three branches is somehow unconstitutional.
-David
Any political philosophy which states that by posting a giant AS IS sign
Kurt Ludwick
-In article <2...@milestn.UUCP> ma...@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach) writes:
->In article <1992Jan22.2...@ncsu.edu> (David John Rasmussen) writes:
->> [as part of a liberalism 'litmus test']
->>"Abortion should be legal."
->Give a convincing argument why not. Do not use refs. to God.
^^^^^^^^^^
-Life begins at conception.
Hey, this looks like fun. Can I play? I'll make up an arbitrary beginning
point for life too (see below), for an equally convincing argument that
menstruation is illegal. (In other words, never let an egg go to waste!
Have sex daily!)
-The arbitary taking of a life deprives the victim of the enjoyment
-of remainder of his life, and is thus wrong, FOR PRIMARILY THAT REASON.
-Abortion cause the deprivation of the enjoyment of the remainder of
-the unborn child's life, and is thus wrong, FOR THE SAME REASON THAT
-IT IS WRONG TO KILL YOU OUR I.
-It is illegal to kill you or I.
--------------------------------
OK, cool, my turn...
--------------------------------
Life begins at ovulation.
The arbitrary taking of a life deprives the victim of the enjoyment
of the remainder of his life, and is thus wrong, FOR PRIMARILY THAT REASON.
Ovulation cause(s) the deprivation of the enjoyment of the remainder of the
unborn child's life, and is thus wrong, FOR THE SAME REASON THAT IT IS G
WRONG TO KILL YOU OR I.
It is illegal to kill you or I.
--------------------------------
-Abortion should be illegal.
Menstruation should be illegal.
--David
-Any political philosophy which states that by posting a giant AS IS sign
-over her bed an HIV+ prostitute can ply her trade with legal impunity
-is essentially self-refuting.
Kurt Ludwick
nathan engle
>In article <2...@milestn.UUCP> ma...@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach) writes:
>>In article <1992Jan22.2...@ncsu.edu> (David John Rasmussen) writes:
>>><1992Jan22....@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> (nathan engle) writes:
>>There is one
>>problem with your 'classic liberal' list....
>
>It is my liberal list, not my classical liberal list.
Marc never said that it was a "classical" liberal list. The
meaning I percieve in his use of the word classic is "typical" (as in
the phrase "typical liberal") rather than "historical" (as in whatever
liberals were in the past).
>>Please define 'liberation'. = $$$ for = work (assuming a def. of = work
>>can be made) is a bad thing?
>
>Sorry, the question is suppose to be subjective. Disambiguiate according
>to your value-preferences.
It isn't our job to "disambiguate" your statements. If you want your
words "disambiguated" then take a deep breath, count to ten, and choose
different words.
>>>"Homosexuality is an alternate lifestyle equal to heterosexuality."
>
>>The word equal here is (or is not) the problem. They are NOT equal
>>in the same way women are != men.
>
>Again, define "equal" as you define equal, and then answer the
>question.
I believe that's exactly what Marc has done. The question is already
answered - the two are not equal. If you'd care to clean up your
sentence construction and let us have another crack at it then I'm game.
We can't read your mind, David. If you want us to understand or be
able to respond to your "intellectual discourses" then you'll have to
take the time to say what you mean.
>>>"Teenagers, if emotionally mature enough, may or should have `healthy'
>>> sex lives."
>
>>Why does a calender age make a difference?
>
>Experience.
Wait a minute. If teenagers are all supposed to "Just Say No" to
sex, then how are they ever going to accumulate any experience? For
example, I personally abstained from sex until I was 29 years old, at
which time I was still as inexperienced as I was when I emerged from
the womb.
Perhaps you would care to state in less ambiguous terms what you
meant by "experience".
>>The laws make a distiction
>>by age, thus legally may shield the persons from their actions.
>
>You didn't answer the question.
1) Your statement was not a question,
and 2) From Marc's response to your statement it's evident that he
doesn't think that age makes any difference. In effect, Marc
DID answer the question. You just didn't think much of (or
about) his answer.
>Any political philosophy which states that by posting a giant AS IS sign
>over her bed an HIV+ prostitute can ply her trade with legal impunity
>is essentially self-refuting.
Unless laws against prostitution are repealed I don't believe that
anyone would suggest that ANY prostitute can ply her trade with legal
impunity no matter what disease she has.
Any .signature quote which states tautological truths as though they
refute what anyone says is also essentially self-refuting.
Marc Rassbach
>In article <1992Jan25.0...@ncsu.edu> (David John Rasmussen) says:
>-In article <2...@milestn.UUCP> ma...@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach) writes:
>->In article <1992Jan22.2...@ncsu.edu> (David John Rasmussen) writes:
>->> [as part of a liberalism 'litmus test']
>->>"Abortion should be legal."
>->Give a convincing argument why not. Do not use refs. to God.
Amazing, this is the ONLY reply to the one liners I gave in David's
liberal acid test.
Life may BEGIN at conception, but when is killing a mass of cells the
'murder' of a human? When is the developing fetus human?
Now, my turn to play David.... How sacred is life David?
Bill Pfeiffer
(other attributions deleted for expediancy)
>->> [as part of a liberalism 'litmus test']
>->>"Abortion should be legal."
*>->Give a convincing argument why not. Do not use refs. to God.
*> ^^^^^^^^^^
*>-Life begins at conception.
*>
*>-The arbitary taking of a life deprives the victim of the enjoyment
*>-of remainder of his life, and is thus wrong, FOR PRIMARILY THAT REASON.
*>-Abortion cause the deprivation of the enjoyment of the remainder of
*>-the unborn child's life, and is thus wrong, FOR THE SAME REASON THAT
*>-IT IS WRONG TO KILL YOU OUR I.
*>-It is illegal to kill you or I.
>OK, cool, my turn...
*>Life begins at ovulation.
*>The arbitrary taking of a life deprives the victim of the enjoyment
*>of the remainder of his life, and is thus wrong, FOR PRIMARILY THAT REASON.
*>Ovulation cause(s) the deprivation of the enjoyment of the remainder of the
*>unborn child's life, and is thus wrong, FOR THE SAME REASON THAT IT IS
*>WRONG TO KILL YOU OR I.
*>It is illegal to kill you or I.
*>-Abortion should be illegal.
*>Menstruation should be illegal.
*******************************
Hey, sperm are alive. Let's make male masturbation illegal too!
(in jail) "What'ya in for buddy?' (new inmate) 500,000 counts of spermacide!
It really doesn't matter when life begins. Rush tells us that ANYTHING man
(humankind) can do is natural! Therefore abortion is natural too! Hey, pal,
you trying to overturn natural law? Abortion is natural. Rush said so!
*>
*>--David
*>
*>-Any political philosophy which states that by posting a giant AS IS sign
*>-over her bed an HIV+ prostitute can ply her trade with legal impunity
*>-is essentially self-refuting.
>Kurt Ludwick
Bill Pfeiffer ----------------------------------------- w...@chinet.chi.il.us
Alex S. Crain
>>>"Abortion should be legal."
>
>>Give a convincing argument why not. Do not use refs. to God.
>
>Life begins at conception.
Question: how many people think that this is a convincing argument?
Just curious.
David John Rasmussen
Will Alex Crain have the personal integrity to apologize for ...?
<1992Jan25.0...@umbc3.umbc.edu> (Alex S. Crain) writes:
>In article <1992Jan25.0...@ncsu.edu> (David John Rasmussen) writes:
>>>>"Abortion should be legal."
>>>Give a convincing argument why not. Do not use refs. to God.
>>Life begins at conception.
> Question: how many people think that this is a convincing argument?
>
> Just curious.
It is an important first premise, no more, and no less. This was my first
premise, of a larger argument. Another poster editted out the rest of my
argument out. If you search your newsreel, you will find my full argument.
You have grossly misrepresented what I had to say.
Are you going to apologize?
>################################# :alex.
-David
Any political philosophy which states that by posting a giant AS IS sign
over her bed an HIV+ prostitute can ply her trade with legal impunity
is essentially self-refuting.
Marc Rassbach
>In article <2...@milestn.UUCP> ma...@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach) writes:
>>In article <1992Jan22.2...@ncsu.edu> (David John Rasmussen) writes:
>>><1992Jan22....@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> (nathan engle) writes:
>>>culture. From that, I am willing to estimate that Marc agrees
>>>with the vast majority of the following Liberal value statements.
>
>>And what's really neat about your list is these all represent
>>allowing people to make a free willed choice.
>
>Actually, that is blatently false. For instance, religion and atheism
>both allow "free willed choice".
>
>>There is one
>>problem with your 'classic liberal' list....
>
>It is my liberal list, not my classical liberal list. Remember,
>both ADA Liberalism, and Libertarianism are subsets of liberalism.
Hmmm. Interesting.
Let's draw a picture, shall we?
10
Gonv. Liberal (q2) Facist (q1)
control
of
economy
Liberalism (q3) Conservative (q4)
1
1 10
Government control of lifestyle
1) Liberal and Libertarian share the set of values of Gonv. control of
lifestyle.
2) Libertarian and conservative share the set of values of Gonv. control
of economy.
By liberalism, you must mean liberty in personal matters.
>>>"Sex outside of marriage can be a positive thing."
>> Two unwed people qualify here. Gosh, it even leads to marriage sometimes.
>>(even w/o a shotgun)
>Again, ``free will'' can "choose" either sex, or celibacy.
You are not clear here. Sex != love != marriage. Are you saying the only
time one can love someone is if they are married? Love with sex is a
wonderful, beautiful thing.
>>>"Jerry Fawell, Pat Robertson and Jimmy Swaggert are dangerous."
>>Haven't all these people have had charges of corruption/swindling at
>>one time or another, and the courts have convicted 2 of the 3?
>I thought in our society, we all had a basic presumption of innocence
>until proven guilty. I am not aware of *any* charges of corruption
>or swindling, against Robertson or Fawell. Swaggert's sexual doings seem to
I'll check into it. Just for you David.
>>>"Womyn's liberation has been a very good thing."
>>Please define 'liberation'. = $$$ for = work (assuming a def. of = work
>>can be made) is a bad thing?
>Sorry, the question is suppose to be subjective. Disambiguiate according
>to your value-preferences.
See Nathan's post. And past discussions in this group. Or even the next
">>" reply of mine.
>>>"Homosexuality is an alternate lifestyle equal to heterosexuality."
>>The word equal here is (or is not) the problem. They are NOT equal
>>in the same way women are != men.
>Again, define "equal" as you define equal, and then answer the
>question.
The idea behind ANY intimite sexual relationship is SUPPOSED to
be love. If two males/two females love each other and are happy,
I see no reason why laws etc should deny them this happyness.
Do you see a reason why one should deny a couple their mutual love
for each other?
Or is the idea behind ANY intimite sexual relationship SUPPOSED to
be procreation of the species?
>>>"Teenagers, if emotionally mature enough, may or should have `healthy'
>>> sex lives."
>>Why does a calender age make a difference?
>Experience.
Reminds me of the quote "To get a job you need experience. To get
experience, you need a job." Love and sex are head games (no
pun intended). If you are able to handle the possible emotional
reprocusions, then why should you be stopped? We DO allow this in our
present society to some extent. From age 16-18, you can 'legally'
enguage in sex (aka marriage), with parental consent.
>>>"Religion, if taken to `excess' is dangerous, witness the Inquisition
>>> and Crusades."
>>Care to try to debate ANYTHING in excess is a good thing, and not
>>dangerous?
>Sure, excessive attempts at virtue are good thing. You can't try
>to hard to be virtous. You can try poorly, but you can't error
>by trying too hard.
Oh, please define this 'virtue' you wish to persue in excess.
The tao has some interesting things to say about such excesses of virtue.
>>>"Public schools should teach sex-education."
>>Who's job is it?
>That is Conservative/Liberal essence of the problem, isn't it?
No, the problem is "The job is the parents. If the parents don't teach
it, THEN who's job is it? The school is the common experence in this land.
So it falls on the school, for better or for worse."
>>If you say parents, then what do you do if the parents
>>don't do their part?
>Essentially the same thing we do when schools fail miserably
>at providing "quality sex-education", suffer the consequence.
Who's claiming the schools provide quality? Define 'quality' in
education. There are alot of educators who'd like a nice, concise,
concete definition of quality education.
They've got all these 50 year old textbooks. :-)
>>Allow people to walk about ignorate and misinformed?
>That is exactly what we are doing by teaching "sex-education"
>in the schools. Basically, SE teachs, implicitly, that sex
>is a "value-free" thing, which is as ignorant and misinformed
Sex, in and by itself IS a "Value-free" thing. The emotional
baggage that goes along with sex (in this culture) is what
makes 'sex dangerous'.
>No, I am giving statements that evolk a gut-level value response.
>people with Liberal values tend to approve, while those with
>Conservative values tend to be repulsed.
Considering your reaction to Libertarians, and the fact q1 is opposite
q3 in the chart above, I'd tend to say Facist values, not Conservative.
(No where in your little 'liberal' test, do you bring in
economic questions. Interesting.)
>It is also something quit bizarre from a man who claims the GOP
>holding all three branches is somehow unconstitutional.
Please David, PRODUCE THIS CLAIM of mine.
I'd love to see it.
nathan engle
>In article <1992Jan25.0...@ncsu.edu> gr-...@druid.csc.ncsu.edu
>(David John Rasmussen) writes:
>>>
>>>Give a convincing argument why not. Do not use refs. to God.
>>
>>Life begins at conception.
>
> Question: how many people think that this is a convincing argument?
I'm not convinced (no surprise there).
If our society allows people to die because we don't want to provide
them with health care, then why does it even matter when life begins?
IMHO it's far more humane to abort a fetus than it is to let impoverished
cancer and AIDS patients die by inches because we don't have the stomach
to even allow them take their own lives.
Alex S. Crain
Will Alex Crain have the personal integrity to apologize for ...?
>>>Life begins at conception.
>
>> Question: how many people think that this is a convincing argument?
>It is an important first premise, no more, and no less. This was my first
>premise, of a larger argument. Another poster editted out the rest of my
>argument out. If you search your newsreel, you will find my full argument.
>
>You have grossly misrepresented what I had to say.
>
>Are you going to apologize?
For what? Marc asked for a convincing argument, and you
attempted to give him one,
based on the highly subjective premise that I quoted. I will grant you
that if you accept the quoted line, then the rest of you (deleted)
argument is valid. None the less, since your argument is based in the
quoted text, and the quoted text is completely unsupported by anything
in your posting, I think that it is fair to state that your argument
is entirely dependent on this single line, and it would not,
therefore, be incorrect to observe that if this line is not convincing
(I do not find it so), then the argument is also not convincing,
regardless of its content. The content of your argument being
irrelevant to the topic at hand, I see no reason to include it.
Finally, as to your complaints of being quoted out of context,
a review of you post shows no support for this assertation anywhere,
that I can see. The point of the statement appears to be clear, but
none the less, heres a clarification for you:
I, Alex Crain, assert that David Rasmussen has failed in any
way to provide a convincing argument regarding abortion, because he
bases all of his points on the concept that life begins at conception,
which is entirely a subjective and current unsubstanciated
assertation. It was not my intention to make him look any more
confused or deluded than is normally evident from his posts, and if I
did, I apologize.
Happy?
Daniel Gene Sinclair
>>Life begins at conception.
>
> Question: how many people think that this is a convincing argument?
>
> Just curious.
>--
I for one, do. The problem of deciding when a baby becomes human (a day
before birth? a day after birth? a week before birth? until it can
survive without extra means outside the womb? what if it gets sick *after
* being born? Is it now not human, as before?) is a stick one.
I think that conception is a logical starting point because it is a
distinct genetic individual.
However, I think that the problem is actually deeper than abortion, but
the skewed values that lead us into lifestyles that promote pleasure
without responsiblility for one's actions, as well as lifestyles that
promote our pleasure at the expense of others. Ok, so I've said a lot
without substantiation or specifics. Ah, well, got to get back to work!
I agree, life at conception, not birth or viablility or pre-conception.
Abortion should be considered murder 1. This brings up an interesting
point. What of all these fertility clinics that fertilize many ovums, and
implant only a few. Are the remaining ones *trash*, or humans? I for
one, will keep with my logic and conclude that this is wrong as well.
Personally, I think that infertile couples should accept their lot and
have a little compassion by adopting a child, instead of being so self
centered as to go to any expense and length to have one of their own. The
world is crying out for people to care for the unwanted children (and
adults), and we should take advantage of our opportunities to help.
danielg
--
<><************************************************************** |
><> I tried to contain myself... ==+==
<>< but I escaped. |
<><************************************************************** |
nathan engle
>What of all these fertility clinics that fertilize many ovums, and
>implant only a few. Are the remaining ones *trash*, or humans? I for
>one, will keep with my logic and conclude that this is wrong as well.
I applaud you on your consistant stand, although I deplore your
reasoning.
>Personally, I think that infertile couples should accept their lot and
>have a little compassion by adopting a child, instead of being so self
>centered as to go to any expense and length to have one of their own.
I may be way off base here, but I would speculate that you don't
personally know any infertile couples. I do, and I don't feel like it's
my place to question their motives or actions. I can see how the act of
nurturing someone else's child is an entirely different prospect than
having a child who bears the parent's genes. Some people don't want to
settle for second best.
>The
>world is crying out for people to care for the unwanted children (and
>adults), and we should take advantage of our opportunities to help.
Wait a minute. I thought that one of the big pro-life arguments was
that there are plenty of parents who are absolutely standing in line to
adopt. Are you saying that there are children who fall through the
cracks in the compassion of our society and who are NOT wanted even
by the current (supposedly huge) pool of couples who want to be candidates
for adoption?
Keith Andrew Cochran
>
>Will Alex Crain have the personal integrity to apologize for ...?
>
><1992Jan25.0...@umbc3.umbc.edu> (Alex S. Crain) writes:
>>In article <1992Jan25.0...@ncsu.edu> (David John Rasmussen) writes:
>>>>>"Abortion should be legal."
>
>>>>Give a convincing argument why not. Do not use refs. to God.
>
>>>Life begins at conception.
>
>> Question: how many people think that this is a convincing argument?
>>
>> Just curious.
>
>It is an important first premise, no more, and no less. This was my first
>premise, of a larger argument. Another poster editted out the rest of my
>argument out. If you search your newsreel, you will find my full argument.
>
>You have grossly misrepresented what I had to say.
>
>Are you going to apologize?
Just remember, Davie, if he doesn't apologize, that any reasonable and
"prudient" person will assume he is attempting to defame your character,
and thus, YOU CAN SUE HIM!
So, Davie, when's graduation? When are you going to come back and play
in talk.abortion?
And please tell us once again how you think whites and blacks shouldn't
marry...That always was good for a laugh.
--
=kcoc...@nyx.cs.du.edu | !uunet!nyx!kcochran | kcoc...@isis.cs.du.edu =
=B(0/1/2/3) f- t w- c- d- s++(+) m e++ r(-) p k(+) <--My BearCode, if you care=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza. Ok???=
=I'm gonna climb that mountain high. I'm gonna see what's on the other side!!=
Patrick L Humphrey
>In article <1992Jan28.0...@ncsu.edu> gr-...@druid.csc.ncsu.edu (David John Rasmussen) writes:
>>
>>Will Alex Crain have the personal integrity to apologize for ...?
>>
>><1992Jan25.0...@umbc3.umbc.edu> (Alex S. Crain) writes:
>>>In article <1992Jan25.0...@ncsu.edu> (David John Rasmussen) writes:
>>>>>>"Abortion should be legal."
>>
>>>>>Give a convincing argument why not. Do not use refs. to God.
>>
>>>>Life begins at conception.
>>
>>> Question: how many people think that this is a convincing argument?
>>>
>>> Just curious.
>>
>>It is an important first premise, no more, and no less. This was my first
>>premise, of a larger argument. Another poster editted out the rest of my
>>argument out. If you search your newsreel, you will find my full argument.
>>
>>You have grossly misrepresented what I had to say.
>>
>>Are you going to apologize?
>
>Just remember, Davie, if he doesn't apologize, that any reasonable and
>"prudient" person will assume he is attempting to defame your character,
>and thus, YOU CAN SUE HIM!
Again? Gad. Hasn't he learnt his lesson from last time he tried that?
>So, Davie, when's graduation? When are you going to come back and play
>in talk.abortion?
Why would he want to graduate? He'd have to *work* for a living then, and
wouldn't have the time to pollute the net.
>And please tell us once again how you think whites and blacks shouldn't
>marry...That always was good for a laugh.
I think his recent implied assertion that *all* of Rush's alleged 9.5
million listeners agree with him was worthy of a few yocks, myself -- even
better than his classic image of the Boston Marathon course lined with the
1.6 million fetuses aborted annually in this country. (That one was itself
a veritable classic. :-)
--
Patrick L. Humphrey (pat...@is.rice.edu) Rice Networking & Computing Systems
+1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 713 776-1541 at home. 713 527-4056 at Willy's Pub.
*"The opinions expressed by Patrick do not necessarily represent those
of Rice staff, management, or any living person."*
Jeff Kaskey
>In article <2...@milestn.UUCP> ma...@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach) writes:
>>In article <1992Jan22.2...@ncsu.edu> (David John Rasmussen) writes:
>>><1992Jan22....@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> (nathan engle) writes:
....Warning - attributions could be scrambled here...
>>>"Abortion should be legal."
>
>>Give a convincing argument why not. Do not use refs. to God.
>
>Life begins at conception.
>The arbitary taking of a life deprives the victim of the enjoyment
>of remainder of his life, and is thus wrong, FOR PRIMARILY THAT REASON.
>Abortion cause the deprivation of the enjoyment of the remainder of
>the unborn child's life, and is thus wrong, FOR THE SAME REASON THAT
>IT IS WRONG TO KILL YOU OUR I.
>It is illegal to kill you or I.
>-------------------------------
>Abortion should be illegal.
>
>How about you giving a compelling argument that allows for the
>capital punishment of a women who is 6 weeks pregnant? If abortion
>is non-problematic, the execution of pregnant women should not
>be either.
God, I love you guys. OK, try this. Life begins at conception, so
a mother whose miscarriage can be shown to be the result of some
level of negligence (didn't fix the shocks in the car, didn't eat
well, didn't avoid catching cold, whatever), should be charged with
negligent homicide. Personally, I prefer "life begins at egg
production" (it's equally arbitrary). :-)
Lets face it - anyone who supports a death penalty and/or the military
is not against killing. They are left to waffle with what are
'appropriate' murders and what aren't. Likewise, the word "life"
(as in "begins at...") is a waffle. Cells just split and multiply, they
don't come "poof" from nowhere, so the model of "life" begining is
shear abstraction. Mold your own...
More importantly, since this IS a.f.r.l, has Rush come out *specifically*
against abortion? I know he ridicules the various pro-choice activities
and such, painting them broadly with the 'liberal' brush, but has he
ever actually said that he supports making abortion illegal? (I don't
get to listen to his whole show - wouldn't if I could.) Personally,
I think he could be a closet libertarian :-)
>>>"Teenagers, if emotionally mature enough, may or should have `healthy'
>>> sex lives."
>
>>Why does a calender age make a difference?
>
>Experience.
At what? and at what age does everyone have "enough"? Where'd they
get it?
>>>"Religion, if taken to `excess' is dangerous, witness the Inquisition
>>> and Crusades."
>
>>Care to try to debate ANYTHING in excess is a good thing, and not
>>dangerous?
>
>Sure, excessive attempts at virtue are good thing. You can't try
>to hard to be virtous. You can try poorly, but you can't error
>by trying too hard.
Webster: ex-cess', n.
1. action or conduct that goes beyond the usual, reasonable,
or lawful limit.
2. intemperance, immoderation......etc......
It would seem that going beyond the lawful limit in trying to
be virtous is at least a bad thing, really a complete contradiction.
Oh, guess what, your determination of excess and mine are likely
to differ. Darn, there goes another easy demarcation.
BTW, Rush can hardly be considered excessively religious. He
occasionally mumbles something about believing in God (but only
in "evolutionary creationism") mostly to keep the midwest
houswives on his side...
>>>"Public schools should teach sex-education."
>
>>Who's job is it?
>
>That is Conservative/Liberal essence of the problem, isn't it?
>
>>If you say parents, then what do you do if the parents
>>don't do their part?
>
>Essentially the same thing we do when schools fail miserably
>at providing "quality sex-education", suffer the consequence.
>
>>Allow people to walk about ignorate and misinformed?
>
>That is exactly what we are doing by teaching "sex-education"
>in the schools. Basically, SE teachs, implicitly, that sex
>is a "value-free" thing, which is as ignorant and misinformed
>AND DANGEROUS a belief as "you can't get pregnant during your
>period."
So you are saying that teaching sex education badly is ... bad.
OK. Even when I went to school (dinosaurs were discussed in
Current Events) sex ed taught how pregnancy is caused, how it
isn't, taught us hygiene and protection, taught us about the
bizzare transformation that our bodies were going through, 'n
such. Yep, the class was pretty much value-neutral. Not like
American History where we learned why the evil indians had
to be killed off for our safety. Hell, they'd 've killed
themselves off eventually anyway.
Again, let's focus. What's the Rush dude have to say? Is sex-ed
OK as long as we say "these are professionals - don't try this at
home, kids"? Should we delete biology, or at least the sections
on reproduction, altogether? ("...and then a baby appears...")
Yeah, yeah, leave it to the parents. The same ones who are doing
such a good job of keeping kids off drugs and out of gangs. Does
"the great pudgy one" have any concrete solutions? "leave it to
the free market - someone will package sex-ed with bubble gum
and make a fortune" :-)
>Pure Libertarian intolerance. Libertarian claims to be a "value-free"...
>Pure Liberalism. To have non-libertine value preferences is...
For the record. Liberals and Libertarians are more than a bit
different. True, they share many of the same letters and that
can be misleading, but we must look beyond the labels...
-jeff "passing through"
C J Silverio
|Kurt Ludwick <KEL...@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
|*Somebody, probably Davey RasMuffin, wrote:
|*>-Abortion should be illegal.
|*>Menstruation should be illegal.
|Hey, sperm are alive. Let's make male masturbation illegal too!
|(in jail) "What'ya in for buddy?' (new inmate) 500,000 counts of spermacide!
Headline in this morning's SF Chronicle:
Live Animals Produced From Dead Sperm
So even the dead ones are sacred. Don't wash those
sheets after sex, people! You're killing MILLIONS of
potential human lives, which makes you BABYKILLERS.
Laundromats should be illegal!
---
c...@eno.corp.sgi.com C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Just saying no prevents teenage pregnancy the way 'Have a nice day'
cures chronic depression." -- Faye Wattleton
David John Rasmussen
>In article <1992Jan25.0...@ncsu.edu> (David John Rasmussen) says:
>-In article <2...@milestn.UUCP> ma...@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach) writes:
>->In article <1992Jan22.2...@ncsu.edu> (David John Rasmussen) writes:
>
>->> [as part of a liberalism 'litmus test']
>->>"Abortion should be legal."
>
>->Give a convincing argument why not. Do not use refs. to God.
>-Life begins at conception.
>-The arbitary taking of a life deprives the victim of the enjoyment
>-of remainder of his life, and is thus wrong, FOR PRIMARILY THAT REASON.
>-Abortion cause the deprivation of the enjoyment of the remainder of
>-the unborn child's life, and is thus wrong, FOR THE SAME REASON THAT
>-IT IS WRONG TO KILL YOU OUR I.
>-It is illegal to kill you or I.
>OK, cool, my turn...
>--------------------------------
>Life begins at ovulation.
False premise. An egg is not a life, it is a part of a life.
>[If false, then ... deleted.]
>Kurt Ludwick
-David
Any political philosophy which states that by posting a giant AS IS sign
over her bed an HIV+ prostitute can ply her trade with legal impunity
is essentially self-refuting.
David John Rasmussen
> If our society allows people to die because we don't want to provide
>them with health care, then why does it even matter when life begins?
So because certain people go without medical care, no one should
have a right to continue to live?
>IMHO it's far more humane to abort a fetus than it is to let impoverished
>cancer and AIDS patients die by inches because we don't have the stomach
>to even allow them take their own lives.
So "impoverished" cancer victims want to kill themselves, while
middle-class cancer victims do not? [Otherwise, our not "allow[ing]
them to take their own lives" is irrelevant.]
The answer is pain managment those middle-class persons are receiving,
not death.
>Nathan Engle
David John Rasmussen
>In article <1992Jan25.0...@ncsu.edu> (David Rasmussen) writes:
>>Life begins at conception.
>>The arbitary taking of a life deprives the victim of the enjoyment
>>of remainder of his life, and is thus wrong, FOR PRIMARILY THAT REASON.
>>Abortion cause the deprivation of the enjoyment of the remainder of
>>the unborn child's life, and is thus wrong, FOR THE SAME REASON THAT
>>IT IS WRONG TO KILL YOU OUR I.
>>It is illegal to kill you or I.
>>-------------------------------
>>Abortion should be illegal.
>>
>>How about you giving a compelling argument that allows for the
>>capital punishment of a women who is 6 weeks pregnant? If abortion
>>is non-problematic, the execution of pregnant women should not
>>be either.
>God, I love you guys. OK, try this. Life begins at conception, so
>a mother whose miscarriage can be shown to be the result of some
>level of negligence (didn't fix the shocks in the car, didn't eat
>well, didn't avoid catching cold, whatever), should be charged with
>negligent homicide.
When is the last time a mother of an infant child was charged
with negligent homicide because she failed to fix the shocks of
her car?
Be realistic.
>Personally, I prefer "life begins at egg
>production" (it's equally arbitrary). :-)
Sorry, you are a life, your arm is alive, but not a life. An egg
is a part of a life, not the whole of a life.
>Lets face it - anyone who supports a death penalty and/or the military
>is not against killing. They are left to waffle with what are
>'appropriate' murders and what aren't.
Correct.
>Likewise, the word "life"
>(as in "begins at...") is a waffle. Cells just split and multiply, they
>don't come "poof" from nowhere, so the model of "life" begining is
>shear abstraction. Mold your own...
Then *death* must also be a "shear abstraction" as well. After all,
there are people walking around with kidneys of "dead" people. Those
kidney cells continue to "split and multiply".
>More importantly, since this IS a.f.r.l, has Rush come out *specifically*
>against abortion?
Yes.
>I know he ridicules the various pro-choice activities
>and such, painting them broadly with the 'liberal' brush, but has he
>ever actually said that he supports making abortion illegal? (I don't
>get to listen to his whole show - wouldn't if I could.) Personally,
>I think he could be a closet libertarian :-)
I doubt that strongly.
>>>>"Teenagers, if emotionally mature enough, may or should have `healthy'
>>>> sex lives."
>>>Why does a calender age make a difference?
>>Experience.
>At what?
Life.
>and at what age does everyone have "enough"?
"Enough" for what?
>Where'd they
>get it?
Living.
>>>>"Religion, if taken to `excess' is dangerous, witness the Inquisition
>>>> and Crusades."
>>>Care to try to debate ANYTHING in excess is a good thing, and not
>>>dangerous?
>>Sure, excessive attempts at virtue are good thing. You can't try
>>to hard to be virtous. You can try poorly, but you can't error
>>by trying too hard.
>Webster: ex-cess', n.
>1. action or conduct that goes beyond the usual, reasonable,
>or lawful limit.
>2. intemperance, immoderation......etc......
>It would seem that going beyond the lawful limit in trying to
>be virtous is at least a bad thing, really a complete contradiction.
>Oh, guess what, your determination of excess and mine are likely
>to differ. Darn, there goes another easy demarcation.
Try to read more carefully. The definition states "or", not "and".
Attempts at virtue beyond the usual are a good thing. And certainly
this is the sense that was meant in the question.
>BTW, Rush can hardly be considered excessively religious. He
Fine, so what?
>>>>"Public schools should teach sex-education."
>>>Who's job is it?
>>That is Conservative/Liberal essence of the problem, isn't it?
>>>If you say parents, then what do you do if the parents
>>>don't do their part?
>>Essentially the same thing we do when schools fail miserably
>>at providing "quality sex-education", suffer the consequence.
>>>Allow people to walk about ignorate and misinformed?
>>That is exactly what we are doing by teaching "sex-education"
>>in the schools. Basically, SE teachs, implicitly, that sex
>>is a "value-free" thing, which is as ignorant and misinformed
>>AND DANGEROUS a belief as "you can't get pregnant during your
>>period."
>So you are saying that teaching sex education badly is ... bad.
No, that is the opposite of what I said. What I said is that
the government should not teach sex education. Governmental
attempts at sex education are nearly certain to `value-free'
failures.
Private and parocial schools could probably created value-based
coriculium acceptable to all.
>Again, let's focus. What's the Rush dude have to say? Is sex-ed
>OK as long as we say "these are professionals - don't try this at
>home, kids"? Should we delete biology, or at least the sections
>on reproduction, altogether? ("...and then a baby appears...")
No, put that in *biology* class.
>Yeah, yeah, leave it to the parents.
Or church, or community organization.
>The same ones who are doing
>such a good job of keeping kids off drugs and out of gangs. Does
Why are public schools are doing a good job of preventing
drugs and gangs?
>"the great pudgy one" have any concrete solutions?
Parents teaching values to their children.
>For the record. Liberals and Libertarians are more than a bit
>different.
In fact their underlying premises are nearly identical. Both
are attempts to acheive the same ends.
>-jeff "passing through"
Alex S. Crain
>>OK, cool, my turn...
>>--------------------------------
>>Life begins at ovulation.
>
>False premise. An egg is not a life, it is a part of a life.
Why?
Patrick L Humphrey
>>In article <1992Jan25.0...@ncsu.edu> (David John Rasmussen) says:
>>-In article <2...@milestn.UUCP> ma...@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach) writes:
>>->In article <1992Jan22.2...@ncsu.edu> (David John Rasmussen) writes:
>>
>>->> [as part of a liberalism 'litmus test']
>>->>"Abortion should be legal."
>>
>>->Give a convincing argument why not. Do not use refs. to God.
>
>>-Life begins at conception.
>>-The arbitary taking of a life deprives the victim of the enjoyment
>>-of remainder of his life, and is thus wrong, FOR PRIMARILY THAT REASON.
>>-Abortion cause the deprivation of the enjoyment of the remainder of
>>-the unborn child's life, and is thus wrong, FOR THE SAME REASON THAT
>>-IT IS WRONG TO KILL YOU OUR I.
>>-It is illegal to kill you or I.
>
>>OK, cool, my turn...
>>--------------------------------
>>Life begins at ovulation.
>
>False premise. An egg is not a life, it is a part of a life.
Obviously you never spent any time around chickens...:-)
--
Patrick L. Humphrey (pat...@is.rice.edu) Rice Networking & Computing Systems
+1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 713 776-1541 at home. 713 527-4056 at Willy's Pub.
* Hit any key to continue, or any other key to quit *
nathan engle
><1992Jan28.1...@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> (nathan engle) writes:
>> If our society allows people to die because we don't want to provide
>>them with health care, then why does it even matter when life begins?
>
>So because certain people go without medical care, no one should
>have a right to continue to live?
Oooh, fresh! He's *grossly* distorting my position again... I think
I ought to demand an apology and consider legal action...
David, be sensible... remember, I'm a liberal... ergo I must believe
that at least all liberals have a right to live but not conservatives, eh?
Actually, being serious for a moment, I do *not* in fact believe
that people shouldn't have a right to continue to live. (I'm sure
everyone is now breathing easier)
>>IMHO it's far more humane to abort a fetus than it is to let impoverished
>>cancer and AIDS patients die by inches because we don't have the stomach
>>to even allow them take their own lives.
>
>So "impoverished" cancer victims want to kill themselves, while
>middle-class cancer victims do not? [Otherwise, our not "allow[ing]
>them to take their own lives" is irrelevant.]
Impoverished cancer victims have much less access to the aid of our
medical institutions with the result that the poor are much less
likely to be treated for (and survive) cancer. For the same reason,
they are also more likely to suffer more because the "pain management"
which is available to the middle class is not available to the poor.
>The answer is pain managment those middle-class persons are receiving,
>not death.
Perhaps you're not living in the real world or perhaps you believe
that there are not people suffering right now because they haven't heard
that you've said that it's ok for them to have access to "pain management".
For those people who are in constant excruciating pain and for whom
immediate or even near-term relief is unlikely, death may be a preferable
option to living in pain. Those people are not going to get "pain
management" just because you or I want them to. The ducats have to come
from somewhere and in our current political climate they're not going to
come from anywhere in the foreseeable future.
[now getting really heavy and serious for one paragraph]
I'm curious to know whether you've ever known a person who has died
under those circumstances? Do you have any idea what you're talking
about? Ever seen the face of death? Has it ever happened to someone who
was really close to you so that you could feel the pain too? Sometimes
if you really love somebody, you have to let them go.
Gordon Storga
><92025.234...@psuvm.psu.edu> (Kurt Ludwick) writes:
>>In article <1992Jan25.0...@ncsu.edu> (David John Rasmussen) says:
>>-In article <2...@milestn.UUCP> ma...@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach) writes:
>>->In article <1992Jan22.2...@ncsu.edu> (David John Rasmussen) writes:
>>
>>->> [as part of a liberalism 'litmus test']
>>->>"Abortion should be legal."
>>
>>->Give a convincing argument why not. Do not use refs. to God.
>
>>-Life begins at conception.
>>Life begins at ovulation.
>
>False premise. An egg is not a life, it is a part of a life.
The original statement was not refering to _a_ life, it simply stated
"life" as in continuing process, as in "not dead".
If an egg is not alive it is dead, and can no longer participate in the
normal event of conception.
Gordon
--
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for. So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak: Freedom for Dan Bredy.
James Purdon
><92025.234...@psuvm.psu.edu> (Kurt Ludwick) writes:
>>In article <1992Jan25.0...@ncsu.edu> (David John Rasmussen) says:
>>-In article <2...@milestn.UUCP> ma...@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach) writes:
>>->In article <1992Jan22.2...@ncsu.edu> (David John Rasmussen) writes:
>>->> [as part of a liberalism 'litmus test']
>>->>"Abortion should be legal."
>>->Give a convincing argument why not. Do not use refs. to God.
>>-Life begins at conception.
>>-The arbitary taking of a life deprives the victim of the enjoyment
>>-of remainder of his life, and is thus wrong, FOR PRIMARILY THAT REASON.
>>-Abortion cause the deprivation of the enjoyment of the remainder of
>>-the unborn child's life, and is thus wrong, FOR THE SAME REASON THAT
>>-IT IS WRONG TO KILL YOU OUR I.
>>-It is illegal to kill you or I.
Prove that the remainder of your life will be enjoyable. Failing that,
perhaps you could come up with a reason that does not involve predicting
the future.
>>OK, cool, my turn...
>>--------------------------------
>>Life begins at ovulation.
>False premise. An egg is not a life, it is a part of a life.
Mere prejudice. Haploid humans (sperm and eggs for you diploidy bigots) are
complete and independent living entities, fully entitled to be described by
the term "human life". If one considers numbers alone, it is clear that
the majority of humanity belongs to the haploid generation.
>>[If false, then ... deleted.]
>
>>Kurt Ludwick
>
>-David
>
>Any political philosophy which states that by posting a giant AS IS sign
>over her bed an HIV+ prostitute can ply her trade with legal impunity
>is essentially self-refuting.
Is this a mother thing?
--
Jim
Once I was single. Now I am married.
Franklin Suo
In article <1992Jan30.2...@athena.mit.edu>, pur...@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon) writes:
|> Mere prejudice. Haploid humans (sperm and eggs for you diploidy bigots) are
|> complete and independent living entities, fully entitled to be described by
|> the term "human life". If one considers numbers alone, it is clear that
|> the majority of humanity belongs to the haploid generation.
|>
Oh, whatever. Would you consider a human liver cell growing in culture to be a
"complete and indep't living entitiy"??? The words "complete...entity" are
even less applicable to gametes (eggs and sperm) because at least liver cells
can reproduce in culture. Individual sperm and ova do not regenerate themselves;
sperm are produced in the male testes, and ova are released from a finite
number of follicles that are present in the female ovary. These facts are
obvious, but since you chose to ignore them in your post, I thought I'd remind
you (and everyone else, for that matter.)
Gametes are only entitled to be described as "human life" in a metaphysical or
religious context, which does not form a compelling interest for the government
to interfere in the private lives of its citizens.
Marc Rassbach
>More importantly, since this IS a.f.r.l, has Rush come out *specifically*
>against abortion? I know he ridicules the various pro-choice activities
>and such, painting them broadly with the 'liberal' brush, but has he
>ever actually said that he supports making abortion illegal? (I don't
>get to listen to his whole show - wouldn't if I could.) Personally,
>I think he could be a closet libertarian :-)
He makes comments like 'A feminazi is a person who's not happy unless
there is an abortion a minute', but stays off of abortion and religion
to avoid the conversations we have here.
As for closet libertarian, hey, there are worse choices. Come out of
the closet, be happy. :-)
Marc Rassbach
<>More importantly, since this IS a.f.r.l, has Rush come out *specifically*
<<against abortion?
<Yes.
Do you have a date? Time? Place?
<<<<<"Teenagers, if emotionally mature enough, may or should have `healthy'
<<<<< sex lives."
<<<<Why does a calender age make a difference?
<<<Experience.
<<At what?
<Life.
And what is this 'life experence' suppose to get you? Insight? Emotional
maturity? And what if you spent your time in school and/or school studies?
Are you 'less life experenced'? Instead of school, you dropped out. Now,
are you 'less life experianced'?
David, your ascertation of
Teenagers, if emotionally mature enough, may not or should not have
`healthy' sex lives because of the fact they are teenagers.
is undefendable. But, please, if you wish try to defend it.
Or if you wish to clairify your position, please do it.
<No, that is the opposite of what I said. What I said is that
<the government should not teach sex education. Governmental
<attempts at sex education are nearly certain to `value-free'
<failures.
<
<Private and parocial schools could probably created value-based
<coriculium acceptable to all.
A state sponsored religion? Is that what you want? What values
do you want to use? Yours? Rush Limbaugh III's? All in all, sounds
like a tool of facists.
<<"the great pudgy one" have any concrete solutions?
It's "Pear-shaped one".
<<For the record. Liberals and Libertarians are more than a bit
<<different.
<
<In fact their underlying premises are nearly identical. Both
<are attempts to acheive the same ends.
Oh, please tell us what these underlying principles are.
Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way
>
>>-Life begins at conception.
>>Life begins at ovulation.
>
>False premise. An egg is not a life, it is a part of a life.
The original statement was not refering to _a_ life, it simply stated
"life" as in continuing process, as in "not dead".
If an egg is not alive it is dead, and can no longer participate in the
normal event of conception.
Gordon
--
Ah, but an egg can get laid... 8->
Starting to sound like the old chicken and egg argument!
"Yeh, Buddy.. | la...@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)| _~~_
I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory | (O)(-)
Right HERE!!" | New Mexico State University | /..\
(computer THIS!) | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003 | <>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
Tularosa: tullies, roses, lava, white sands, and home of THEM! (atomic ants).
nathan engle
>In article <1992Jan29....@ncsu.edu> gr-...@druid.csc.ncsu.edu (David John Rasmussen) writes:
><>More importantly, since this IS a.f.r.l, has Rush come out *specifically*
><<against abortion?
><Yes.
Actually Rush does not come out specifically against abortion, but
rather says that he's pro-choice and hopes that the choice is for life.
In no case have I heard Rush specifically state that he thought that
abortion should be restricted or criminalized. He opposes Roe vs. Wade
not because it allows abortion but rather because (in his own words)
it's bad law.
Amazing how people can listen to the words and hear just what they
want to hear regardless of what Rush really says.
Christopher M. Conway
In article <1992Jan30....@rice.edu>, pat...@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
- In article <1992Jan29....@ncsu.edu> gr-...@druid.csc.ncsu.edu (David John Rasmussen) writes:
- >
- >False premise. An egg is not a life, it is a part of a life.
-
- Obviously you never spent any time around chickens...:-)
-
On the contrary, I think he's spent too much time around chickens. The sheep
were too large for him... B^{)>
--
I speak for Kodak and all its subsidiaries.
(and ron and suzanne and chaney and provost and djr and bernie and preuss too!)
--
Christopher M. Conway | U*ix and C Guru
wom...@nfinit.enet.dec.com | Resist the tyrants in Washington.
wom...@juliet.ll.mit.edu | "We must all hang together, or, most
wom...@jupiter.nmt.edu | assuredly, we will all hang separately."
nfinit::wombat (DECnet internal)| (505)761-2413 DTN 552-2413
Christopher M. Conway
In article <LARRY.92J...@rock.psl.nmsu>, la...@rock.psl.nmsu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:
-
- Ah, but an egg can get laid... 8->
But djr can't.... B^{)>
David John Rasmussen
>In article <4...@milestn.UUCP> ma...@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach) writes:
>>In article <1992Jan29....@ncsu.edu> gr-...@druid.csc.ncsu.edu (David John Rasmussen) writes:
>><>More importantly, since this IS a.f.r.l, has Rush come out *specifically*
>><<against abortion?
>><Yes.
>
> Actually Rush does not come out specifically against abortion, but
>rather says that he's pro-choice and hopes that the choice is for life.
He also says that he supports a law.
>In no case have I heard Rush specifically state that he thought that
>abortion should be restricted or criminalized.
Then you missed the shows in which I heard him say he does.
>He opposes Roe vs. Wade
>not because it allows abortion but rather because (in his own words)
>it's bad law.
> Amazing how people can listen to the words and hear just what they
>want to hear regardless of what Rush really says.
The think the exact quote was "and in order to be consistant, I support
a law against it."
It is obviously you who have engaged in self-serving intrepretation.
The rhetoric Rush uses is designed to show that the "choice" rhetoric
is in fact merely rhetoric.
>Nathan Engle
Patrick L Humphrey
>In article <1992Jan31.1...@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> nen...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (nathan engle) writes:
>>In article <4...@milestn.UUCP> ma...@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach) writes:
>>>In article <1992Jan29....@ncsu.edu> gr-...@druid.csc.ncsu.edu (David John Rasmussen) writes:
>>><>More importantly, since this IS a.f.r.l, has Rush come out *specifically*
>>><<against abortion?
>>><Yes.
>>
>> Actually Rush does not come out specifically against abortion, but
>>rather says that he's pro-choice and hopes that the choice is for life.
>
>He also says that he supports a law.
A law? That's really specific, considering the several million laws in
force at various levels of government in this country. Now, if you're
talking about an *abortion* law -- that's not much more specific. A law to
do what -- criminalize *all* abortions? Ban them only after 26 weeks?
Something in between? That's one helpful little piece of information that
you either don't have, or do and don't want to reveal it.
>>In no case have I heard Rush specifically state that he thought that
>>abortion should be restricted or criminalized.
>
>Then you missed the shows in which I heard him say he does.
I wouldn't be surprised if he *did* say that somewhere along the line, but
given your propensity for creating "facts" out of thin air, I'd rather wait
until I hear it with my own two ears...
>>He opposes Roe vs. Wade
>>not because it allows abortion but rather because (in his own words)
>>it's bad law.
>
>> Amazing how people can listen to the words and hear just what they
>>want to hear regardless of what Rush really says.
>
>The think the exact quote was "and in order to be consistant, I support
>a law against it."
So, document that. You have no trouble documenting every unfavorable thing
I say about you on the net, as I've seen the listing of your home directory
-- remember *that* dust-up in t.a? -- so paging back through this newsgroup
to support your claim should be a piece of cake for such a "truer and
better" person as you believe yourself to be.
>It is obviously you who have engaged in self-serving intrepretation.
>The rhetoric Rush uses is designed to show that the "choice" rhetoric
>is in fact merely rhetoric.
I suppose such sterling logic as "abortion should be illegal because it
shouldn't be legal" as you've repeatedly used *isn't* rhetoric?
I can see why you're still in grad school at 32, all right...
(so...when can we expect to see that apology, eh? :-)
--
Patrick L. Humphrey (pat...@is.rice.edu) Rice Networking & Computing Systems
+1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 713 776-1541 at home. 713 527-4056 at Willy's Pub.
All wiyht, rho sritched mg keg tops awound?
e elizabeth bartley
>>>OK, cool, my turn...
>>>--------------------------------
>>>Life begins at ovulation.
Well, some life....
>>False premise. An egg is not a life, it is a part of a life.
> Why?
As usual, Mr Rassmusen is wrong. An egg is a life, as is a sperm.
Jim Purdon has pointed out here that the human species alterates
between generations of diploid and haploid organisms. A diploid male
or female has haploid offspring by asexual reproduction. We call the
haploid offspring of female diploid humans "eggs" and "polar bodies"
and the haploid offspring of male diploid humans "sperm". English
does not possess the proper gender terms to use for haploid humans; in
this post, I use the term "female-neuter" for eggs and polar bodies,
"male-male" for sperm with a Y chromosome, and "male-female" for sperm
with an X chromosome.
Regrettably, haploid humans have a very short life expectancy. Eggs
can only survive for a couple of weeks, polar bodies usually survive a
day at most before being eaten by the eggs, and sperm of both genders
can only survive for five or six days at most. Also regrettably,
haploid humans (like both haploid and diploid members of many species
-- salmon, mayflies, etc.) die immediately after reproduction. This
reproduction is sexual reproduction between a female-neuter egg and a
sperm of either gender (polar bodies are uniformly infertile). If the
sperm is male-male, the result is a male diploid human; if
male-female, the result is a female diploid human. In either case, we
refer to the diploid human as a "zygote".
The development of diploid humans is reasonably well known on
talk.abortion; if the diploid human survives long enough the "zygote"
becomes an "embryo" and then a "fetus" and is removed from its female
diploid human grandmother. After this event, termed "birth", the
diploid human must still wait several years (anywhere from nine to
eighteen, depending on the individual and whether the haploid human is
male or female) before sexual maturity, when he or she then begins
producing haploid human offspring.
So we can see that eggs and sperm are lives, just as diploid humans
are lives. Eggs, sperm, and polar bodies are microscopically small,
bear no resemblance to mature diploid humans, and have no brains.
Haploid humans share these characteristics with early pre-separation
diploid humans, so these characteristics are insufficient reason to
discriminate against haploid humans.
--
I'm testing a .sig file. If you don't see this message, e-mail me. ;-)
Pro-Choice Anti-Roe - E. Elizabeth Bartley
Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way
As usual, Mr Rassmusen is wrong. An egg is a life, as is a sperm.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Jim Purdon has pointed out here that the human species alterates
between generations of diploid and haploid organisms. A diploid male
or female has haploid offspring by asexual reproduction. We call the
haploid offspring of female diploid humans "eggs" and "polar bodies"
and the haploid offspring of male diploid humans "sperm". English
does not possess the proper gender terms to use for haploid humans; in
this post, I use the term "female-neuter" for eggs and polar bodies,
"male-male" for sperm with a Y chromosome, and "male-female" for sperm
with an X chromosome.
Regrettably, haploid humans have a very short life expectancy. Eggs
^^^^^^^^^^^
can only survive for a couple of weeks, polar bodies usually survive a
day at most before being eaten by the eggs, and sperm of both genders
can only survive for five or six days at most. Also regrettably,
haploid humans (like both haploid and diploid members of many species
-- salmon, mayflies, etc.) die immediately after reproduction. This
reproduction is sexual reproduction between a female-neuter egg and a
sperm of either gender (polar bodies are uniformly infertile). If the
sperm is male-male, the result is a male diploid human; if
male-female, the result is a female diploid human. In either case, we
refer to the diploid human as a "zygote".
The development of diploid humans is reasonably well known on
talk.abortion; if the diploid human survives long enough the "zygote"
becomes an "embryo" and then a "fetus" and is removed from its female
diploid human grandmother. After this event, termed "birth", the
diploid human must still wait several years (anywhere from nine to
eighteen, depending on the individual and whether the haploid human is
male or female) before sexual maturity, when he or she then begins
producing haploid human offspring.
So we can see that eggs and sperm are lives, just as diploid humans
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
are lives. Eggs, sperm, and polar bodies are microscopically small,
^^^^^^^^^
bear no resemblance to mature diploid humans, and have no brains.
Haploid humans share these characteristics with early pre-separation
diploid humans, so these characteristics are insufficient reason to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
discriminate against haploid humans.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
--
I'm testing a .sig file. If you don't see this message, e-mail me. ;-)
Pro-Choice Anti-Roe - E. Elizabeth Bartley
Now let me understand here. Are we really regretting the death of haploid
humans (unfertilized human eggs and unsuccessful human sperm) here?
I'll concede that sperm and eggs, just like blood cells and a thousand
other specialized human cells are all living. They certainly are alive.
But a life? (Are we speaking common English here?)
Apparently nature doesn't hold the lives of these haploid humans in very
high regard. Otherwise, why would the average man's body produce several
billion sperm in his lifetime, all but a tiny number of which are never
destined to succeed in fertilizing a human egg? And the hundreds of human
female eggs which are destined to die unfertilized? In the Grand Scheme
Of Things, eggs and sperm are pretty cheap, it appears to me.
Get serious, E. Are you suggesting that due to the sanctity of life, ALL
life, that we consider sperm and eggs as *lives*, regarded in the same manner
as a living human? With human rights and all?
What incredible bullshit.
L.
"Yeh, Buddy.. | la...@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)| _~~_
I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory | (O)(-)
Right HERE!!" | New Mexico State University | /..\
(computer THIS!) | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003 | <>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
The first time I had sex, it terrified me. I was alone..
Alex S. Crain
>Get serious, E. Are you suggesting that due to the sanctity of life, ALL
>life, that we consider sperm and eggs as *lives*, regarded in the same manner
>as a living human? With human rights and all?
>
>What incredible bullshit.
I don't know, it made sense to me. There are a whole lot of folks
who are willing to grant human rights to a zygote, and it seems reasonable
that if you are going to do that, you may as well grant those rights to
haploids and other potential humans.
Admitedly, I would have to side with Rush and say that the government
has no business defending the rights of creatures that can't take care of
themselves, and conclude that abortion restrictions are just another form
of the socialism thats seeping into our society in these uncertain times.
(Ok, so I drew my own conclusion, but a zygote isn't even as animate as the
lizard that it so closely resembles, let alone a spotted owl, so if Rush
doesn't agree with me, he's inconsitant, right?).
Larry Margolis
>
> Apparently nature doesn't hold the lives of these haploid humans in very
> high regard. Otherwise, why would the average man's body produce several
> billion sperm in his lifetime, all but a tiny number of which are never
> destined to succeed in fertilizing a human egg? And the hundreds of human
> female eggs which are destined to die unfertilized? In the Grand Scheme
> Of Things, eggs and sperm are pretty cheap, it appears to me.
>
> life, that we consider sperm and eggs as *lives*, regarded in the same manner
> as a living human? With human rights and all?
>
> What incredible bullshit.
That's more or less the point - an individual sperm and an individual egg
are worthless, so it's incredible bullshit to say that the instant they
combine, they're of equal importance as the person whose body they met in.
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI at YKTVMV (Bitnet), mar...@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
David John Rasmussen
><1992Jan29....@ncsu.edu>(David John Rasmussen) writes:
>>False premise. An egg is not a life, it is a part of a life.
>As usual, Mr Rassmusen is wrong. An egg is a life, as is a sperm.
No, I am correct. An egg and sperm are parts of a life, no whole
entities in and of themselves.
>Jim Purdon has pointed out here that the human species alterates
>between generations of diploid and haploid organisms.
Incorrect. Sperm and eggs fail the test being able to reproduce
themselves, and thus are not lives.
>A diploid male
>or female has haploid offspring by asexual reproduction.
False, they have diploid offspring by sexual reproduction.
>Regrettably, haploid humans have a very short life expectancy. Eggs
1) Categorically false. Egg cells among the oldest cells in a females
body.
2) Sperm and egg *cells* are cells that are part of a woman's and
man's body respectively.
>So we can see that eggs and sperm are lives, just as diploid humans
>are lives.
No, you assert certain *cells* are lifes, and then attempt to
create sytem of internally consistant postulates to rationalize
your *assumption*.
I repeat, Egg and Sperm are incapable of reproducing their own
kind, and thus are not lives. [The same criteria that nukes
a disembodied kidney from being considered a life.]
The refutation of your assertion that eggs and sperm are haploid lives.
If sperm and eggs = haploid life form then
"Plant life alternates between *three* life forms: the diploid form,
the haploid form, and the gamete produced by the haploid life form."
There cannot be *two* forms of haploid life.
-------------------------------
Sperm and eggs are not haploid life forms.
> - E. Elizabeth Bartley
WERLING
God, I love you guys. OK, try this. Life begins at conception, so
a mother whose miscarriage can be shown to be the result of some
level of negligence (didn't fix the shocks in the car, didn't eat
well, didn't avoid catching cold, whatever), should be charged with
negligent homicide. Personally, I prefer "life begins at egg
production" (it's equally arbitrary). :-)
No! How could we, as a society, deal with the fact that with every
menstruation, murder is committed? ;-) There's the difference. It's very
easy to scream out the judgment "abortion is murder" without
questioning the very definition of life.
Lets face it - anyone who supports a death penalty and/or the military
is not against killing. They are left to waffle with what are
'appropriate' murders and what aren't. Likewise, the word "life"
(as in "begins at...") is a waffle. Cells just split and multiply, they
don't come "poof" from nowhere, so the model of "life" begining is
shear abstraction. Mold your own...
We could go further and define what death is. Why do we load the word
"murder" with such emotion? What's inherently bad about dying?
--
Andrew Werling awerling.nmsu.edu
Cowards die many times before their deaths;
The valiant never taste of death but once.
--Shakespeare's Julius Caesar
WERLING
In article <1992Jan25.0...@umbc3.umbc.edu> al...@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
>>Life begins at conception.
>
> Question: how many people think that this is a convincing argument?
>
> Just curious.
>--
I for one, do. The problem of deciding when a baby becomes human (a day
before birth? a day after birth? a week before birth? until it can
survive without extra means outside the womb? what if it gets sick *after
* being born? Is it now not human, as before?) is a stick one.
I guess the first step here would be to define what "life" is.
I think that conception is a logical starting point because it is a
distinct genetic individual.
My question would be: is this your definition of life? Distinctfully
genetically individualized?
However, I think that the problem is actually deeper than abortion, but
the skewed values that lead us into lifestyles that promote pleasure
without responsiblility for one's actions, as well as lifestyles that
promote our pleasure at the expense of others. Ok, so I've said a lot
without substantiation or specifics. Ah, well, got to get back to work!
Only if you see it as a problem. Pleasure without responsibility
sounds like fun! But I see your point. This has nothing to do with
the notion of conception being the start of life.
I agree, life at conception, not birth or viablility or pre-conception.
Abortion should be considered murder 1.
Why?
This brings up an interesting
point. What of all these fertility clinics that fertilize many ovums, and
implant only a few. Are the remaining ones *trash*, or humans? I for
one, will keep with my logic and conclude that this is wrong as well.
Logic? "Path of thinking," more like it, I think.
Personally, I think that infertile couples should accept their lot and
have a little compassion by adopting a child, instead of being so self
centered as to go to any expense and length to have one of their own. The
world is crying out for people to care for the unwanted children (and
adults), and we should take advantage of our opportunities to help.
You're preaching for compassion while at the same time showing an
extreme lack of compassion.
WERLING
That's more or less the point - an individual sperm and an individual egg
are worthless, so it's incredible bullshit to say that the instant they
combine, they're of equal importance as the person whose body they met in.
Ah, c'mon! Don't ya believe in ***MAGIC***?
Cindy Kandolf
>...Egg cells among the oldest cells in a females
>body.
Sorry, but i think you're confusing ova (eggs) with oocytes (cells which
have the potential to become ova). A baby girl is indeed born with all
the oocytes she will produce in her life, but she won't have any eggs until
after puberty. A few oocytes become ova each month from puberty to
menopause, the dominant ovum (sometimes 2, very rarely 3 or more) will
proceed down the Fallopian tube, and the hormones produced by ovulation will
cause any other ova to decay. Only a few hundred of the oocytes a woman
has in her body will ever become ova. Gradually, the others decay; when
a woman stops menstruating it is because her oocytes have all died or are
too decayed to become ova any more.
Ova are among the _shortest_ lived cells in the female body.
-Cindy Kandolf
ci...@solan.unit.no
Trondheim, Norway
Daniel Gene Sinclair
>>>>> sex lives."
>
>>>>Why does a calender age make a difference?
>
>>>Experience.
>
>>At what?
>
>Life.
>
are emotionally mature enough. Of course, I think that this goes for
adults as well. AND, I think that emotionally mature includes the
following:
1. they ought to realize that relationships entail much more than
just a physical component. A sex life that does not include a
healthy emotional component (called friendship :-) is really just
using the other person for your own pleasure. I think that even
if both people agree and are 'mutually using each other', they are
hurting one another. It will show up later.
2. they ought to be prepared to accept the responsibility that
comes with the privaledge of sex. This primarliy means that they
are ready to emotionally and financially care for the children
that result from their activities.
NOTE: one reason that I think abortion as birth control
is so hideous is because it stems from the selfish and
immature philoshsophy that says 'have fun now, don't worry
who pays for it later.' The fact is, just like sowing
seeds, you naturally get a harvest; all actions have
consequences. However, as long a someone else has to pay,
we don't care ('Every age has heard it, this voice that
speaks from hell, sacrifice your children and for you it
will be well.' -- Michael Card from _Spirit of the Age_)
3. they ought to be comitted to one another for life, that is to
say, married. I personally think that if you love someone, you
will commit your life them *before* having sex with them. What if
every person who was desiring sex with someone was met with the
question 'Do you really love me?' 'Of course I do!' 'Then marry me
for life' 'Uh, well, I don't know if I'm ready for *that*.' 'Then
probably you are not prepared to responsibly have sex.'
Although this may not seem proper to everyone, I think that sex
was meant to bring husband and wife together in a special bond
that will help give them a more permanent and enjoyable, special
marriage. It is part of sharing the deepest and closest part of
your self. This was not meant to be desecrated by cheap sex. No
wonder we have so many problems with realationships, we misuse the
tools and precious things we have been given.
So on *that* basis, let teens have sex! If they are not ready for this,
then probably they are not ready for sex. This goes for adults too!
Just as an aside, are there any of you netters who are practicing
abstinence (hah! chastity sounds so oldfashioned, but purity will always
be cool :-) until marriage? I know that A.C. Green of the L.A. Lakers
came out to say that he thought this was the best way to not pick up any
VDT's. He said 'If I can live 6(?) years in the NBA without having sex,
then our teens can as well.'
I am often met with ridicule at work for my position on this, and some of
my coworkers are suprised to find that I actually *do* have the same
strong physical desires that 'regular' men have (hah!). They think that
it is rediculous to wait until marriage, especially when you are as old as
me (27!). Not only that, they (mistakenly) think that it is impossible,
or terribly agonizing. Well, ok, so it might at times be the latter :-),
but I've just done a simple cost/benefit analysis, like I do with my
finances. Is it worth the price to not save for the future? Should I
suffer a little now and save for later, or just live like I want now and
pay (perhaps heavily) later? I think that the consequences of sex outside
of a permanent marriage partner is greater than the temporary pleasure,
and that the benefits of waiting are also worth it.
Too candid for rn,
danielg
--
<><************************************************************** |
><> I tried to contain myself... ==+==
<>< but I escaped. |
<><************************************************************** |
nathan engle
>In article <1992Jan31.1...@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
>nen...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (nathan engle) writes:
>> Actually Rush does not come out specifically against abortion, but
>>rather says that he's pro-choice and hopes that the choice is for life.
>
>He also says that he supports a law.
>
>>In no case have I heard Rush specifically state that he thought that
>>abortion should be restricted or criminalized.
>
>Then you missed the shows in which I heard him say he does.
Ah, that's not surprising. Due to the time slot in which RL is
programmed I often find that I have other more constructive activities
that demand my attention during the show. I guess it's only the idle
non-producing classes who are allowed to devote that time exclusively to
the study of the Words of Limbaugh.
>It is obviously you who have engaged in self-serving intrepretation.
>The rhetoric Rush uses is designed to show that the "choice" rhetoric
>is in fact merely rhetoric.
Well, suit yourself. Personally, when I hear Rush say that he is
pro-choice, I'm more than willing to accept his statement regardless of
what his preference might be. Hell, I hope the choice is for life too.
Rush and I can agree on at least that much.
nathan engle
>Just as an aside, are there any of you netters who are practicing
>abstinence (hah! chastity sounds so oldfashioned, but purity will always
>be cool :-) until marriage?
My fiance and I are not practicing abstinence. I, for one, have had
far too much practice, and neither of us are inclined to keep up the
effort. I *did* practice abstinence up until the time that I met my
future bride, but I think that if we continued at this point we would
just be showing off. Just in case you are wondering, my period of
abstinence was 29 years.
(Now you know that not all liberals are over-sexed perverts with
no self-control...)
dean.kaflowitz
> <1992Feb1.0...@midway.uchicago.edu> ee...@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
> ><1992Jan29....@ncsu.edu>(David John Rasmussen) writes:
> >>False premise. An egg is not a life, it is a part of a life.
>
> >As usual, Mr Rassmusen is wrong. An egg is a life, as is a sperm.
>
> No, I am correct. An egg and sperm are parts of a life, no whole
> entities in and of themselves.
You miss the point entirely. Egg and sperm, under the right
circumstances, will develop like any other normal egg and sperm.
They are, except for circumstances, no different from a zygote.
It would be wrong, according to you, to deprive a zygote
from the enjoyment of the rest of its life. It would, if
we stick with what passes for your logic, be equally wrong to
deprive an egg and sperm from the enjoyment of the rest of
its life were it placed in the right circumstances. Remember
that egg and sperm, like zygotes, live within us and require
our healthy bodies for existance. And given the right
circumstances will develop consciousnesses and refuse to
attend NCSU because of what they have seen of the students
there. All the normal signs of intelligent, functioning
life.
Dean Kaflowitz
David John Rasmussen
>David John Rasmussen writes:
>>...Egg cells among the oldest cells in a females
>>body.
>Sorry, but i think you're confusing ova (eggs) with oocytes (cells which
>have the potential to become ova). A baby girl is indeed born with all
>the oocytes she will produce in her life, but she won't have any eggs until
>after puberty. A few oocytes become ova each month from puberty to
>menopause, the dominant ovum (sometimes 2, very rarely 3 or more) will
>proceed down the Fallopian tube, and the hormones produced by ovulation will
>cause any other ova to decay. Only a few hundred of the oocytes a woman
>has in her body will ever become ova.
Thanks for the bio lesson, but the fact remains they are the same
cell, just different stages of devolopment.
>Gradually, the others decay; when
>a woman stops menstruating it is because her oocytes have all died or are
>too decayed to become ova any more.
This is categorically false. Hormonal treatments can restore fertility.
>Ova are among the _shortest_ lived cells in the female body.
Are among the cells which least future life exceptancy, you mean.
>-Cindy Kandolf
James Purdon
><1992Feb2.171408*ci...@solan.unit.no> (Cindy Kandolf) writes:
>>David John Rasmussen writes:
>>>...Egg cells among the oldest cells in a females
>>>body.
>
>>Sorry, but i think you're confusing ova (eggs) with oocytes (cells which
>>have the potential to become ova). A baby girl is indeed born with all
>>the oocytes she will produce in her life, but she won't have any eggs until
>>after puberty. A few oocytes become ova each month from puberty to
>>menopause, the dominant ovum (sometimes 2, very rarely 3 or more) will
>>proceed down the Fallopian tube, and the hormones produced by ovulation will
>>cause any other ova to decay. Only a few hundred of the oocytes a woman
>>has in her body will ever become ova.
>
>Thanks for the bio lesson, but the fact remains they are the same
>cell, just different stages of devolopment.
Incorrect. At the time of reduction division the oocyte ceases to exist.
If the ova was the same as the oocyte, we wouldn't call it an ova, but
something like a "post-reduction oocyte". Functionally and structurally,
they are completely different.
Of course, if you insist on pressing this riduculous claim of post division
continuity, to be logically consistant you will have to agree that the
developing zygote/embryo/fetus is the same as the ova (or sperm cell, it really
doesn't matter), making it the same as its parents, implying that its
parents should be able to dispose of it without any more legal
encumberence that would be required of them to pluck hairs.
>>Gradually, the others decay; when
>>a woman stops menstruating it is because her oocytes have all died or are
>>too decayed to become ova any more.
>
>This is categorically false. Hormonal treatments can restore fertility.
David isn't a doctor, but he plays one on Usenet. While I have heard of
estrogen being used to reduce some of the potentially debilitating
effects of menopause, I have never heard anyone claim that they restore
fertility. From my admittedly hazy understanding of the subject, the
estrogen is administered in periodically varying concentrations. This
results in periodic changes in the uterine lining which result in
menstruation, but does not restore fertility.
>>Ova are among the _shortest_ lived cells in the female body.
>
>Are among the cells which least future life exceptancy, you mean.
Of course, David claimed in his original posting that they were "the
oldest cells" - the poster is merely correcting his error.
Of course, in true Rasmussenian fashion, he chooses to quibble about
semantics rather than admit his error. If pressed, I suspect he will
claim that he called ova the "oldest" because if fertilized,
they develop into diploid humans. Of course, since he already claimed
that an egg cell is the same cell as the oocyte that produced it, this
leads right to the conclusion that the zygote/embryo/fetus is also the
same as the oocyte (which is, of course, part of a women) and can be
disposed of by its mother as she pleases.
>>-Cindy Kandolf
>
>-David
>
>Any political philosophy which states that by posting a giant AS IS sign
>over her bed an HIV+ prostitute can ply her trade with legal impunity
>is essentially self-refuting.
Any political philosophy which states that zygote/embryo/fetus/children
are separate individuals from their parents and yet insists that
cellular identity is continuous across meiosis/mitosis is essentially
self-refuting.
--
Jim
Once I was single. Now I am married.
Nntp-Posting-Host: cons1.mit.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-life
References: <1992Jan29.0...@cherokee.uswest.com> <1992Jan31.1...@city.cs> <1992Feb3.2...@csusac.csus.edu>
Distribution: world.
Organization: .
Path: cons1.mit.edu!purdon
From: pur...@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon)
In article <1992Feb3.2...@csusac.csus.edu> cha...@athena.ecs.csus.edu (The Insurgent (Steve Chaney) ) writes:
>There is no MURDER involved in a legal act of killing. We pro-lifers are
>here to expose the lie that abortion is an act that 1) is not killing;
>2) should be legal. To those who hold to that, we hold in opposite:
>1) Abortion is killing innocent human beings, esp. children.
>2) killing innocent human beings should never be legal.
>3) A child, as a minor, either born or unborn, has a right to parental
>support, and cannot be removed from that until another guardian is
>present to provide the same support, given the normal support children
>of that age receive.
Which leads to:
4) Women who have abortions should be arrested, charged with homocide in
the first degree and conspiracy to commit homocide, tried by their
peers, and if convicted, should be punished as any other person who
is found guilty of homocide in the first degree.
James Purdon
>>David John Rasmussen writes:
>>>...Egg cells among the oldest cells in a females
>>>body.
>
>>Sorry, but i think you're confusing ova (eggs) with oocytes (cells which
>>have the potential to become ova). A baby girl is indeed born with all
>>the oocytes she will produce in her life, but she won't have any eggs until
>>after puberty. A few oocytes become ova each month from puberty to
>>menopause, the dominant ovum (sometimes 2, very rarely 3 or more) will
>>proceed down the Fallopian tube, and the hormones produced by ovulation will
>>cause any other ova to decay. Only a few hundred of the oocytes a woman
>>has in her body will ever become ova.
>
>Thanks for the bio lesson, but the fact remains they are the same
>cell, just different stages of devolopment.
Incorrect. At the time of reduction division the oocyte ceases to exist.
If the ova was the same as the oocyte, we wouldn't call it an ova, but
something like a "post-reduction oocyte". Functionally and structurally,
they are completely different.
Of course, if you insist on pressing this riduculous claim of post division
continuity, to be logically consistant you will have to agree that the
developing zygote/embryo/fetus is the same as the ova (or sperm cell, it really
doesn't matter), making it the same as its parents, implying that its
parents should be able to dispose of it without any more legal
encumberence that would be required of them to pluck hairs.
>>Gradually, the others decay; when
>>a woman stops menstruating it is because her oocytes have all died or are
>>too decayed to become ova any more.
>
>This is categorically false. Hormonal treatments can restore fertility.
David isn't a doctor, but he plays one on Usenet. While I have heard of
estrogen being used to reduce some of the potentially debilitating
effects of menopause, I have never heard anyone claim that they restore
fertility. From my admittedly hazy understanding of the subject, the
estrogen is administered in periodically varying concentrations. This
results in periodic changes in the uterine lining which result in
menstruation, but does not restore fertility.
>>Ova are among the _shortest_ lived cells in the female body.
>
>Are among the cells which least future life exceptancy, you mean.
Of course, David claimed in his original posting that they were "the
oldest cells" - the poster is merely correcting his error.
Of course, in true Rasmussenian fashion, he chooses to quibble about
semantics rather than admit his error. If pressed, I suspect he will
claim that he called ova the "oldest" because if fertilized,
they develop into diploid humans. Of course, since he already claimed
that an egg cell is the same cell as the oocyte that produced it, this
leads right to the conclusion that the zygote/embryo/fetus is also the
same as the oocyte (which is, of course, part of a women) and can be
disposed of by its mother as she pleases.
>>-Cindy Kandolf
>
>-David
>
>Any political philosophy which states that by posting a giant AS IS sign
>over her bed an HIV+ prostitute can ply her trade with legal impunity
>is essentially self-refuting.
Any political philosophy which states that zygote/embryo/fetus/children
Patrick L. Libertarian Humphrey
> In article <5...@milestn.UUCP> ma...@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach) writes:
> >He's pulled this with me, taking words I've said and intereperted them the
> >way HE wants. (Which I have yet to see an appology for.)
>
> This is an extremely odd comment from a man who has repeatedly
> twisted what I have said in order to claim I advocate Facism.
No, it's a pretty logical response from anyone who's ever been subjected to
your slice-and-dice approach to the meaning of words. (As one of those
victims, I can say that Marc knows what he's talking about a hell of a lot
better than *you* know what he's talking about. You don't know what you yourself are trying to argue, most of the time.)
> I most certainly do not.
You most certainly don't understand much, that's for sure...
--
Patrick L. Humphrey (pat...@is.rice.edu) Rice Networking & Computing Systems
+1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 713 776-1541 at home. 713 527-4056 at Willy's Pub.
* Hit any key to continue, or any other key to quit *
(Now watch David spend a few days looking for the "any" key...)
David John Rasmussen
>He's pulled this with me, taking words I've said and intereperted them the
>way HE wants. (Which I have yet to see an appology for.)
This is an extremely odd comment from a man who has repeatedly
twisted what I have said in order to claim I advocate Facism.
I most certainly do not.
>Marc Rassbach
James Purdon
><1992Feb2.171408*ci...@solan.unit.no> (Cindy Kandolf) writes:
>>David John Rasmussen writes:
>>>...Egg cells among the oldest cells in a females
>>>body.
>
>>Sorry, but i think you're confusing ova (eggs) with oocytes (cells which
>>have the potential to become ova). A baby girl is indeed born with all
>>the oocytes she will produce in her life, but she won't have any eggs until
>>after puberty. A few oocytes become ova each month from puberty to
>>menopause, the dominant ovum (sometimes 2, very rarely 3 or more) will
>>proceed down the Fallopian tube, and the hormones produced by ovulation will
>>cause any other ova to decay. Only a few hundred of the oocytes a woman
>>has in her body will ever become ova.
>
>Thanks for the bio lesson, but the fact remains they are the same
>cell, just different stages of devolopment.
Incorrect. At the time of reduction division the oocyte ceases to exist.
If the ova was the same as the oocyte, we wouldn't call it an ova, but
something like a "post-reduction oocyte". Functionally and structurally,
they are completely different.
Of course, if you insist on pressing this riduculous claim of post division
continuity, to be logically consistant you will have to agree that the
developing zygote/embryo/fetus is the same as the ova (or sperm cell, it really
doesn't matter), making it the same as its parents, implying that its
parents should be able to dispose of it without any more legal
encumberence that would be required of them to pluck hairs.
>>Gradually, the others decay; when
>>a woman stops menstruating it is because her oocytes have all died or are
>>too decayed to become ova any more.
>
>This is categorically false. Hormonal treatments can restore fertility.
David isn't a doctor, but he plays one on Usenet. While I have heard of
estrogen being used to reduce some of the potentially debilitating
effects of menopause, I have never heard anyone claim that they restore
fertility. From my admittedly hazy understanding of the subject, the
estrogen is administered in periodically varying concentrations. This
results in periodic changes in the uterine lining which result in
menstruation, but does not restore fertility.
>>Ova are among the _shortest_ lived cells in the female body.
>
>Are among the cells which least future life exceptancy, you mean.
Of course, David claimed in his original posting that they were "the
oldest cells" - the poster is merely correcting his error.
Of course, in true Rasmussenian fashion, he chooses to quibble about
semantics rather than admit his error. If pressed, I suspect he will
claim that he called ova the "oldest" because if fertilized,
they develop into diploid humans. Of course, since he already claimed
that an egg cell is the same cell as the oocyte that produced it, this
leads right to the conclusion that the zygote/embryo/fetus is also the
same as the oocyte (which is, of course, part of a women) and can be
disposed of by its mother as she pleases.
>>-Cindy Kandolf
>
>-David
>
>Any political philosophy which states that by posting a giant AS IS sign
>over her bed an HIV+ prostitute can ply her trade with legal impunity
>is essentially self-refuting.
Any political philosophy which states that zygote/embryo/fetus/children
e elizabeth bartley
>>David John Rasmussen writes:
>>>...Egg cells among the oldest cells in a females
>>>body.
>>Sorry, but i think you're confusing ova (eggs) with oocytes (cells which
>>have the potential to become ova). A baby girl is indeed born with all
>>the oocytes she will produce in her life, but she won't have any eggs until
>>after puberty. A few oocytes become ova each month from puberty to
>>menopause, the dominant ovum (sometimes 2, very rarely 3 or more) will
>>proceed down the Fallopian tube, and the hormones produced by ovulation will
>>cause any other ova to decay. Only a few hundred of the oocytes a woman
>>has in her body will ever become ova.
>Thanks for the bio lesson, but the fact remains they are the same
>cell, just different stages of devolopment.
DJR, shut up about biology until you actually understand some.
An oocyte is not the same cell as an ova. An oocyte has four copies
of DNA (two diploid copies; quadraploid). It splits into two,
creating a polar body and another cell. The polar body may or may not
split into two again; the other cell does split into two, creating an
ovum and a polar body. The ovum (haploid) then usually envelopes the
polar bodies and breaks them up for energy.
In other words, the oocytes each split into three or four cells: an
ovum and two or three polar bodies. Because most diploid humans
consider haploid humans insigificant except as they produce haploid
humans, and polar bodies are sterile, diploid humans ignore the polar
bodies and casually say that the oocyte turns into an ovum when in
fact it produces two or three other cells.
James Purdon
>>David John Rasmussen writes:
>>>...Egg cells among the oldest cells in a females
>>>body.
>
>>Sorry, but i think you're confusing ova (eggs) with oocytes (cells which
>>have the potential to become ova). A baby girl is indeed born with all
>>the oocytes she will produce in her life, but she won't have any eggs until
>>after puberty. A few oocytes become ova each month from puberty to
>>menopause, the dominant ovum (sometimes 2, very rarely 3 or more) will
>>proceed down the Fallopian tube, and the hormones produced by ovulation will
>>cause any other ova to decay. Only a few hundred of the oocytes a woman
>>has in her body will ever become ova.
>
>Thanks for the bio lesson, but the fact remains they are the same
>cell, just different stages of devolopment.
Incorrect. At the time of reduction division the oocyte ceases to exist.
If the ova was the same as the oocyte, we wouldn't call it an ova, but
something like a "post-reduction oocyte". Functionally and structurally,
they are completely different.
Of course, if you insist on pressing this riduculous claim of post division
continuity, to be logically consistant you will have to agree that the
developing zygote/embryo/fetus is the same as the ova (or sperm cell, it really
doesn't matter), making it the same as its parents, implying that its
parents should be able to dispose of it without any more legal
encumberence that would be required of them to pluck hairs.
>>Gradually, the others decay; when
>>a woman stops menstruating it is because her oocytes have all died or are
>>too decayed to become ova any more.
>
>This is categorically false. Hormonal treatments can restore fertility.
David isn't a doctor, but he plays one on Usenet. While I have heard of
estrogen being used to reduce some of the potentially debilitating
effects of menopause, I have never heard anyone claim that they restore
fertility. From my admittedly hazy understanding of the subject, the
estrogen is administered in periodically varying concentrations. This
results in periodic changes in the uterine lining which result in
menstruation, but does not restore fertility.
>>Ova are among the _shortest_ lived cells in the female body.
>
>Are among the cells which least future life exceptancy, you mean.
Of course, David claimed in his original posting that they were "the
oldest cells" - the poster is merely correcting his error.
Of course, in true Rasmussenian fashion, he chooses to quibble about
semantics rather than admit his error. If pressed, I suspect he will
claim that he called ova the "oldest" because if fertilized,
they develop into diploid humans. Of course, since he already claimed
that an egg cell is the same cell as the oocyte that produced it, this
leads right to the conclusion that the zygote/embryo/fetus is also the
same as the oocyte (which is, of course, part of a women) and can be
disposed of by its mother as she pleases.
>>-Cindy Kandolf
>
>-David
>
>Any political philosophy which states that by posting a giant AS IS sign
>over her bed an HIV+ prostitute can ply her trade with legal impunity
>is essentially self-refuting.
Any political philosophy which states that zygote/embryo/fetus/children
Gordon Storga
>In article <1992Feb1.0...@midway.uchicago.edu> ee...@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:
>
> As usual, Mr Rassmusen is wrong. An egg is a life, as is a sperm.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Jim Purdon has pointed out here that the human species alterates
> Regrettably, haploid humans have a very short life expectancy. Eggs
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
> can only survive for a couple of weeks, polar bodies usually survive a
...
> So we can see that eggs and sperm are lives, just as diploid humans
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> are lives. Eggs, sperm, and polar bodies are microscopically small,
> ^^^^^^^^^
> bear no resemblance to mature diploid humans, and have no brains.
> Haploid humans share these characteristics with early pre-separation
> diploid humans, so these characteristics are insufficient reason to
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> discriminate against haploid humans.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
An exellent post.
>Now let me understand here. Are we really regretting the death of haploid
>humans (unfertilized human eggs and unsuccessful human sperm) here?
It would seem so, although I suspect a little tongue in cheek humor.
>I'll concede that sperm and eggs, just like blood cells and a thousand
>other specialized human cells are all living. They certainly are alive.
>But a life? (Are we speaking common English here?)
They _are_ *life*. Without their existence you wouldn't be here.
>Apparently nature doesn't hold the lives of these haploid humans in very
>high regard. Otherwise, why would the average man's body produce several
>billion sperm in his lifetime, all but a tiny number of which are never
>destined to succeed in fertilizing a human egg? And the hundreds of human
>female eggs which are destined to die unfertilized? In the Grand Scheme
>Of Things, eggs and sperm are pretty cheap, it appears to me.
If you are talking "numbers in the grand scheme of things" I agree with
you. And yet, the pro-life position is that saving just *one* fetus makes
all the oppression ok.
>Get serious, E. Are you suggesting that due to the sanctity of life, ALL
>life, that we consider sperm and eggs as *lives*, regarded in the same manner
>as a living human? With human rights and all?
I suggest that if you disagree with that definition that you work to get
"pro-*life* to change their name to be a little less ambiguous.
Gordon
--
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for. So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak: Freedom for Dan Bredy.