Democrats attempt to gut Electoral College

[Gunner Asch]

Devious election plot bypasses Constitution
Strategy takes 36 states out of voting decision


The National Popular Vote effort, which could see only 14 states –
those with the largest populations – decide the presidency for voters
in all 50 states, is fully partnered with a George Soros-funded
election group.

The group, the Center for Voting and Democracy, received original seed
money in 1997 from the Joyce Foundation, a non-profit that boasted
President Obama served on its board at the time of the grant. Obama
was a board member from July 1994 until December 2002.

The National Popular Vote, or NPV, is run by individuals with a
history of support for the Democratic Party, WND found.

Last week, the Washington Post reported NPV is “now halfway to its
goal of electing future presidents via the popular vote, after Rhode
Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee (D) made his state the latest to sign on.”

The Post story described NPV as a campaign seeking to “get states that
comprise a majority of the 538 votes in the Electoral College –270, to
be precise – to agree to award their electoral votes to the winner of
the national popular vote.”

The states will not be required to award their electoral votes to the
national popular vote winner until NPV has signed up enough states to
garner 270 electoral votes.

The Founding Fathers firmly rejected a purely popular vote to elect
the president because they wanted to balance the power of the larger
states against the smaller.

The Electoral College was fashioned as a compromise between an
election of the president by direct popular vote and election by
Congress.

Now the NPV effort could change the way Americans vote without
amending the U.S. Constitution. The plan simply requires that enough
states sign up by voting in their own legislatures and then having
their governors approve.

It takes two-thirds of both the House and Senate to pass a
constitutional amendment to repeal the Electoral College.

To bypass the constitutional amendment process, NPV minimizes the
number of states that would need to agree. Instead, once enough states
agree to allot their electoral votes to the national popular vote
winner, the Electoral College becomes irrelevant.

With the addition of Rhode Island to the NPV effort, the pact now has
nine states plus the District of Columbia for a total of 136 of the
270 electoral votes needed. The other states signed up are Hawaii,
Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Washington, Vermont and
California.

NPV is partnered with FairVote, a project of the Soros-funded Center
for Voting and Democracy.

FairVote’s website expounds on its relationship with NVP:

FairVote advocates for a national popular vote for president, and
has nurtured and supported the National Popular Vote plan to ensure
that every vote for president is equally valued no matter where it is
cast.

FairVote’s executive director Rob Richie co-authored Every Vote
Equal, a book explaining how the National Popular Vote plan would work
and why the United States desperately needs it, and Fairvote regularly
works with advocacy leaders at the National Popular Vote organization
to assist in getting to important legislation passed.

Richie, executive director of FairVote since he co-founded it in 1992,
is also a member of the civil society committee of the Soros-led
Bretton Woods Committee, which openly seeks to remake the world
economy.

Richie’s book “Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the
President by National Popular Vote” was co-authored with the NPV’s
founder, John R. Koza.

In a Dec. 15, 2008, Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Jonathan Soros,
son of George Soros, wrote that it was time to junk the Electoral
College.

Soros’s Open Society Institute funds the Center for Voting and
Democracy, where FairVote is based.

The center’s website notes the group was kick-started in 1997 with two
grants – one from the Open Society and another from the Joyce
Foundation.

With Obama on its board, the Joyce Foundation also funded the American
Civil Liberties Union Foundation; the AFL-CIO Working for America
Institute; the National Council of La Raza and Physicians for Social
Responsibility, among numerous other radical groups.

Meanwhile, the NPV leadership is comprised of Democratic Party
supporters.

The organization’s chairman and major funder is John R. Koza. He was
the co-founder, chairman and CEO of Scientific Games Inc., where he
co-invented the rub-off instant lottery ticket used by state
lotteries.

Koza, who has reportedly pledged $12 million to NPV, previously gave
tens of thousands of dollars to various Democratic Party committees
and liberal candidates and was an Al Gore elector in 2000, the Weekly
Standard reported.

Another pledged NPV leader is Tom Golisano, founder and chairman of
Paychex, the nation’s second largest payroll and human resource
company. He co-founded the Independence Party of New York in 1994 and
ran as the party’s gubernatorial candidate.

Golisano is a registered Republican, even though he supported John
Kerry and gave $1 million to the Democratic National Convention in
2008.

NPV’s secretary, Chris Pearson, served in the Vermont House of
Representatives in 2006. In 2005, he was director of the Presidential
Election Reform program at the Soros-funded FairVote.

With additional research by Brenda J. Elliott
--
""Almost all liberal behavioral tropes track the impotent rage of small
children. Thus, for example, there is also the popular tactic of
repeating some stupid, meaningless phrase a billion times" Arms for
hostages, arms for hostages, arms for hostages, it's just about sex, just
about sex, just about sex, dumb,dumb, money in politics,money in
politics, Enron, Enron, Enron. Nothing repeated with mind-numbing
frequency in all major news outlets will not be believed by some members
of the populace. It is the permanence of evil; you can't stop it." (Ann
Coulter)

[Winston_Smith]

On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 20:16:51 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Devious election plot bypasses Constitution
> Strategy takes 36 states out of voting decision

>The National Popular Vote effort, which could see only 14 states –
>those with the largest populations – decide the presidency for voters
>in all 50 states, is fully partnered with a George Soros-funded
>election group.

snip

>Last week, the Washington Post reported NPV is “now halfway to its
>goal of electing future presidents via the popular vote,

snip

To be consistent, they should eliminate the Senate too. None of this
all states are equal stuff - it's only about how many high school
dropouts in the city can you hornswaggle.

[rbowman]

Gunner Asch wrote:

> The National Popular Vote effort, which could see only 14 states –
> those with the largest populations – decide the presidency for voters
> in all 50 states, is fully partnered with a George Soros-funded
> election group.

Isn't that how it works anyway? Have you ever seen Montana, North Dakota,
Wyoming, or any of the other states with a massive 3 electoral votes
mentioned as 'battleground' state in the breathless news reports on election
night? It's always about hanging chads in Florida or the rigged counts in
Ohio.

Oddly, the two times when it was a real CF, 1876 and 2000, Florida was one
of the states with highly suspect votes. I think there was only one other
instance where the electoral vote went against the popular vote, with the
Republicans winnign each time.

Gore Vidal's '1876' is a well researched novelization of that mess.

[David J. Hughes]

1888, Benjamin Harrison vs. Grover Cleveland. Harrison was the clear
winner in the EC.

1824 Four man race, no majority winner in the EC or the popular vote.
Andrew Jackson won the most votes in both the EC and the popular vote,
but the House selected John Quincy Adams to be President.

[Ed Huntress]

The Republicans are trying to push through a countermeasure, by which
prairie dogs and gophers will count as 3/5 of a man.

--
Ed Huntress

[PrecisionmachinisT]

"Winston_Smith" <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote in message
news:ju3hv8pk0ia0jrosu...@4ax.com...

> it's only about how many high school dropouts in the city can you
> hornswaggle

High school dropouts should only be allowed to vote if they live a rural
redneck area..

[Winston_Smith]

On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 09:39:44 -0400, Ed Huntress
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:

>The Republicans are trying to push through a countermeasure, by which
>prairie dogs and gophers will count as 3/5 of a man.

Only if they have black or Indian blood in thier heritage.

[Ed Huntress]

...and they say they aren't racist. <g>

--
Ed Huntress

[rbowman]

Ed Huntress wrote:

> The Republicans are trying to push through a countermeasure, by which
> prairie dogs and gophers will count as 3/5 of a man.

And 5/3 of a Democrat...

[Ed Huntress]

On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 19:22:55 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
wrote:

Democrats are thinking about accepting the proposals, as long as the
Republicans allow the gophers to vote. They figure it can't be any
crazier than it is now.

At least gophers don't believe that children born from rape are the
result of God's will.

--
Ed Huntress

[David R. Birch]

On 7/31/2013 8:39 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

>
> The Republicans are trying to push through a countermeasure, by which
> prairie dogs and gophers will count as 3/5 of a man.

I'd go for gun owners over the age of 18 and with no criminal record get
6/5 vote.

David

[rbowman]

Ed Huntress wrote:

> At least gophers don't believe that children born from rape are the
> result of God's will.

That only applies until they take the first breath on their own. After that,
they can screw off and die.

[Winston_Smith]

On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 21:31:50 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

>On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 19:22:55 -0600, rbowman wrote:
>>Ed Huntress wrote:
>>
>>> The Republicans are trying to push through a countermeasure, by which
>>> prairie dogs and gophers will count as 3/5 of a man.
>>
>>And 5/3 of a Democrat...
>
>Democrats are thinking about accepting the proposals, as long as the
>Republicans allow the gophers to vote. They figure it can't be any
>crazier than it is now.
>
>At least gophers don't believe that children born from rape

I didn't realize lady gophers got to pick their mate. Thought the
toughest dog just grabbed her by the neck and explained about dominant
males getting to propagate their genes. I don't even think she gets
diner and a show first.

>are the result of God's will.

You failed to specify which god. Certainly one of the gods of the
seven known universes thinks that.

[Ed Huntress]

A gun-owner oligarchy? Well, oligarchies usually wind up being
tyrannical, and that group would at least have the means to enforce
it.

But if the gun owners break up into factions, it will be the Hatfields
and the McCoys, with breechloaders.

--
Ed Huntress

[Winston_Smith]

On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 20:44:31 -0500, "David R. Birch"
<dbi...@wi.rr.com> wrote:

Nah. Set it up by how many rounds in their chosen personal defense
weapon.

[Ed Huntress]

On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 18:48:57 -0700, Winston_Smith
<inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 21:31:50 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 19:22:55 -0600, rbowman wrote:
>>>Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Republicans are trying to push through a countermeasure, by which
>>>> prairie dogs and gophers will count as 3/5 of a man.
>>>
>>>And 5/3 of a Democrat...
>>
>>Democrats are thinking about accepting the proposals, as long as the
>>Republicans allow the gophers to vote. They figure it can't be any
>>crazier than it is now.
>>
>>At least gophers don't believe that children born from rape
>
>I didn't realize lady gophers got to pick their mate. Thought the
>toughest dog just grabbed her by the neck and explained about dominant
>males getting to propagate their genes. I don't even think she gets
>diner and a show first.

I don't know; I've never watched.

>
>>are the result of God's will.
>
>You failed to specify which god. Certainly one of the gods of the
>seven known universes thinks that.

Gophers have a benevolent God.

--
Ed Huntress

[Winston_Smith]

On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 22:03:26 -0400, Ed Huntress
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:

>A gun-owner oligarchy? Well, oligarchies usually wind up being
>tyrannical, and that group would at least have the means to enforce
>it.

An armed society is a polite society.

>But if the gun owners break up into factions, it will be the Hatfields
>and the McCoys, with breechloaders.

One of many ways to address overpopulation. What's your problem?
People are bio-degradable too, so it's a green solution.

[Ed Huntress]

On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 19:09:14 -0700, Winston_Smith
<inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 22:03:26 -0400, Ed Huntress
><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>A gun-owner oligarchy? Well, oligarchies usually wind up being
>>tyrannical, and that group would at least have the means to enforce
>>it.
>
>An armed society is a polite society.

Like, umm....Darfur? Syria?

>
>>But if the gun owners break up into factions, it will be the Hatfields
>>and the McCoys, with breechloaders.
>
>One of many ways to address overpopulation. What's your problem?
>People are bio-degradable too, so it's a green solution.

As long as they keep it in the red states, where they have most of the
guns, I'll look the other way.

--
Ed Huntress

[rbowman]

Winston_Smith wrote:

> An armed society is a polite society.

Do you want the list that puts the lie to that? Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya,
Somalia... Of course it's questionable if any of them have evolved into a
society yet.

[rbowman]

Ed Huntress wrote:

> Gophers have a benevolent God.

A benevolent God would not have allowed .204 Rugers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZw5oAHUfPw

32 grains of love at 4225 ft/sec.

[Winston_Smith]

On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 21:06:53 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
wrote:

Precisely. "Society" implies the rudiments of civilization. Things
like stone your children for honor prove they aren't close yet.

[Tom Gardner]

On 7/31/2013 9:48 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:.

>
> You failed to specify which god. Certainly one of the gods of the
> seven known universes thinks that.
>

Not only multiple universes but multiple time-lines!

[Tom Gardner]

And, shooting instructors get 83/57 vote!

[Frnak McKenney]

On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 22:03:26 -0400, Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:

And there will be a race to see which side "fills their breeches"
first?


Frank "Runnning away now" McKenney
--
No greater wrong can ever be done than to put a good man at the
mercy of a bad, while telling him not to defend himself or his
fellows; in no way can the success of evil be made quicker or surer.
--Theodore Roosevelt
--
Frank McKenney, McKenney Associates
Richmond, Virginia / (804) 320-4887
Munged E-mail: frank uscore mckenney aatt mindspring ddoott com

[Ed Huntress]

On Thu, 01 Aug 2013 08:26:13 -0500, Frnak McKenney
<fr...@far.from.the.madding.crowd.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 22:03:26 -0400, Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 20:44:31 -0500, "David R. Birch"
>><dbi...@wi.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 7/31/2013 8:39 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Republicans are trying to push through a countermeasure, by which
>>>> prairie dogs and gophers will count as 3/5 of a man.
>>>
>>>I'd go for gun owners over the age of 18 and with no criminal record get
>>>6/5 vote.
>>>
>>>David
>>
>> A gun-owner oligarchy? Well, oligarchies usually wind up being
>> tyrannical, and that group would at least have the means to enforce
>> it.
>>
>> But if the gun owners break up into factions, it will be the Hatfields
>> and the McCoys, with breechloaders.
>
>And there will be a race to see which side "fills their breeches"
>first?
>
>
>Frank "Runnning away now" McKenney

Oh, I don't doubt that it would end pretty quickly, with both sides
deciding it was a bad idea and heading in the other direction.

People who have actually been involved in combat generally don't get
all warm and fuzzy about engaging in it again -- which makes me wonder
about whether Gunner really had a desk job, if any job, in the
military. He just doesn't talk like someone who's been there.

>--
> No greater wrong can ever be done than to put a good man at the
> mercy of a bad, while telling him not to defend himself or his
> fellows; in no way can the success of evil be made quicker or surer.
> --Theodore Roosevelt

Teddy probably didn't know any Quakers.

--
Ed Huntress

[David R. Birch]

On 7/31/2013 9:57 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 19:09:14 -0700, Winston_Smith
> <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 22:03:26 -0400, Ed Huntress
>> <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>> A gun-owner oligarchy? Well, oligarchies usually wind up being
>>> tyrannical, and that group would at least have the means to enforce
>>> it.
>>
>> An armed society is a polite society.
>
> Like, umm....Darfur? Syria?

Those societies aren't armed, just the bad guys.

>
>>
>>> But if the gun owners break up into factions, it will be the Hatfields
>>> and the McCoys, with breechloaders.
>>
>> One of many ways to address overpopulation. What's your problem?
>> People are bio-degradable too, so it's a green solution.
>
> As long as they keep it in the red states, where they have most of the
> guns, I'll look the other way.

SO you think we on the left are unarmed?

Nah, that's just the Establishment Left, the Dems, mostly.

David

[Winston_Smith]

A couple surveys have shown that among gun buyers that identify with a
party, Democrats are the majority. A decent majority.

(Of course, I always caution that equating R/D with
conservative/liberal is a mistake and a gross over simplification.)

[Ed Huntress]

On Thu, 01 Aug 2013 19:57:58 -0500, "David R. Birch"
<dbi...@wi.rr.com> wrote:

>On 7/31/2013 9:57 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 19:09:14 -0700, Winston_Smith
>> <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 22:03:26 -0400, Ed Huntress
>>> <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A gun-owner oligarchy? Well, oligarchies usually wind up being
>>>> tyrannical, and that group would at least have the means to enforce
>>>> it.
>>>
>>> An armed society is a polite society.
>>
>> Like, umm....Darfur? Syria?
>
>Those societies aren't armed, just the bad guys.

Gee, there sure seem to be a lot of people shooting from both sides in
Syria. Are they all bad guys?

>>
>>>
>>>> But if the gun owners break up into factions, it will be the Hatfields
>>>> and the McCoys, with breechloaders.
>>>
>>> One of many ways to address overpopulation. What's your problem?
>>> People are bio-degradable too, so it's a green solution.
>>
>> As long as they keep it in the red states, where they have most of the
>> guns, I'll look the other way.
>
>SO you think we on the left are unarmed?

No, but you're less likely to start shooting each other.

[rbowman]

Ed Huntress wrote:

> Gee, there sure seem to be a lot of people shooting from both sides in
> Syria. Are they all bad guys?

Yes.

[Ed Huntress]

On Thu, 01 Aug 2013 23:02:06 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
wrote:

So what society do you think Heinlein had in mind? Maybe
Florida?...no, that doesn't work...Alaska?....mmm...nope....

--
Ed Huntress

[Winston_Smith]

On Thu, 01 Aug 2013 23:00:42 -0400, Ed Huntress
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:

>Gee, there sure seem to be a lot of people shooting from both sides in
>Syria. Are they all bad guys?

Yes.

[Winston_Smith]

On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 01:37:22 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

>On Thu, 01 Aug 2013 23:02:06 -0600, rbowman wrote:
>>Ed Huntress wrote:
>>
>>> Gee, there sure seem to be a lot of people shooting from both sides in
>>> Syria. Are they all bad guys?
>>
>>Yes.
>
>So what society do you think Heinlein had in mind? Maybe
>Florida?...no, that doesn't work...Alaska?....mmm...nope....

Our own. During his lifetime. The world has changed considerably. I
like his (and my) world much better than the screwed up peoples
paradise we have now.

[Stormin Mormon]

I used to be a Republican. Now, I'm not sure there is much difference
between the two parties.

.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

[Ed Huntress]

I think the real issue is that the people who took that line seriously
forgot they were reading a sci-fi story about a society built on
genetic selection, where work was optional.

In other words, the whole thing was a fantasy.

--
Ed Huntress

[rbowman]

Ed Huntress wrote:

> So what society do you think Heinlein had in mind? Maybe
> Florida?...no, that doesn't work...Alaska?....mmm...nope....

The moon? Heinlein wrote interesting fiction with the emphasis on fiction.
otoh, a disarmed society is the Servile State Hilaire Belloc wrote about in
1912. Belloc wrote some poetry but was primarily a non-fiction author.

[rbowman]

Stormin Mormon wrote:

> I used to be a Republican. Now, I'm not sure there is much difference
> between the two parties.

There is hope for you yet.

[rbowman]

Ed Huntress wrote:

> I think the real issue is that the people who took that line seriously
> forgot they were reading a sci-fi story about a society built on
> genetic selection, where work was optional.

Well, we've certainly flushed eugenics down the toilet in the race to
generate new souls, ad majorem Dei gloriam. I'm not sure why the right is so
down on ghetto baby mommas. They're all god's chillun.

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 08:10:50 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
wrote:

To the right, that's true only until they're born. Then all bets are
off.

--
Ed Huntress

[Stormin Mormon]

The problem with ghetto kids, is they grow up to be criminals and
welfare leeches.

.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

On 8/2/2013 10:12 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 08:10:50 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 11:34:29 -0400, Stormin Mormon
<cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>The problem with ghetto kids, is they grow up to be criminals and
>welfare leeches.

So your solution is what -- to put them in prison as soon as they're
born?

--
Ed Huntress

[Stormin Mormon]

Nice troll, asshat.

The situation has been many years in the making. It will take a major
shift from the legislative branch. Need to elect more conservatives who
defund public dependance programs, and at the same time reduce
government tax and spend. so the private economy can recover. We also
need to teach the value of work. But, don't let me influence you.

.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

[Jeff M]

On 8/2/2013 10:34 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
> The problem with ghetto kids, is they grow up to be criminals and
> welfare leeches.

Some do, but most don't. That's an indisputable fact. The problem with
regressive adults, is they ignore the facts and believe the stereotypes.

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 12:22:48 -0400, Stormin Mormon
<cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Nice troll, asshat.

You're the one who brought it up, Chris. You profiled an entire race
with a dog whistle ("ghetto kids"), in true piggy style.

>
>The situation has been many years in the making. It will take a major
>shift from the legislative branch. Need to elect more conservatives who
>defund public dependance programs, and at the same time reduce
>government tax and spend. so the private economy can recover. We also
>need to teach the value of work. But, don't let me influence you.

Don't worry about that. We already have some of the lowest overall tax
rates in the developed world, so I'm waiting to see if your ideas turn
the country into a real-life version of "Little House on the Prairie"
or "The Blade Runner."

--
Ed Huntress

[Stormin Mormon]

"Conservatives want to starve gramma, and throw her out of the home."
"Republican war on women."
"Conservatives don't care about the poor, because they don't tax the
working people to give money to people who won't work"
"The rich didn't pay their fair share".

Yep, regressive slogans.

.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

[Stormin Mormon]

I don't think that's the case. I'm disputing your "fact".

.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

On 8/2/2013 12:24 PM, Jeff M wrote:

[Stormin Mormon]

Your reply was a troll, not a polite discussion, asshat.

.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

[Jeff M]

On 8/2/2013 12:18 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
> "Conservatives want to starve gramma, and throw her out of the home."
> "Republican war on women."
> "Conservatives don't care about the poor, because they don't tax the
> working people to give money to people who won't work"
> "The rich didn't pay their fair share".
>
> Yep, regressive slogans.

What a silly and inane response. YOU were caught spouting ignorant,
counter-factual, party-line stereotypes that serve as both standard
slogans for regressives and as their substitute for actual thoughts.

So, instead of dealing with that, you just reflexively spout more party
line nonsense. Do you ever think for yourself anymore? It certainly
appears that you don't. Perhaps, after having caved in to regressive
lockstep mindlessness for so long, you have lost that ability altogether.

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 13:24:21 -0400, Stormin Mormon
<cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Your reply was a troll, not a polite discussion, asshat.

Your "polite" discussion started off with an answer to why
conservatives don't care about the lives of "ghetto kids" once they're
born. Look at the post you responded to, and then at your response.

And, for the record, you aren't giving a "conservative" response. It's
a right-wing response.

You can say "please" and "thank you" all you want. But if your
assertion is based on a bigoted stereotype, lumping individuals
together and disparaging them all, that's not a polite discussion.

--
Ed Huntress

[Jeff M]

On 8/2/2013 12:23 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
> I don't think that's the case. I'm disputing your "fact".

Then you'll need some facts. First, define what you meant by "ghetto
kids," then find some factual evidence that a majority of them become
criminals and that a majority of them receive public assistance.

I vaguely seem to recall that you admit receiving public assistance from
the SSA yourself. Is that correct? If so, were you a "ghetto kid"?

[Jeff M]

On 8/2/2013 12:34 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 13:24:21 -0400, Stormin Mormon
> <cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Your reply was a troll, not a polite discussion, asshat.
>
> Your "polite" discussion started off with an answer to why
> conservatives don't care about the lives of "ghetto kids" once they're
> born. Look at the post you responded to, and then at your response.
>
> And, for the record, you aren't giving a "conservative" response. It's
> a right-wing response.
>
> You can say "please" and "thank you" all you want. But if your
> assertion is based on a bigoted stereotype, lumping individuals
> together and disparaging them all, that's not a polite discussion.

His "ghetto kids" usage is also regressive-speak code words for "urban
black kids."

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 12:45:54 -0500, Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.org>
wrote:

Of course. I want to see if he dances around it.

--
Ed Huntress

[misanthrope]

On 8/2/2013 9:10 AM, rbowman wrote:
>
> Well, we've certainly flushed eugenics down the toilet in the race to
> generate new souls, ad majorem Dei gloriam. I'm not sure why the right is so
> down on ghetto baby mommas. They're all god's chillun.

Even the Prom night dumpster babies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRj-S8Aklcw

[George Plimpton]

On 8/2/2013 10:32 AM, Jeff M wrote:
> On 8/2/2013 12:18 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
>> "Conservatives want to starve gramma, and throw her out of the home."
>> "Republican war on women."
>> "Conservatives don't care about the poor, because they don't tax the
>> working people to give money to people who won't work"
>> "The rich didn't pay their fair share".
>>
>> Yep, regressive slogans.
>
> What a silly and inane response.

No, it isn't. They *are* regressive slogans.

[Stormin Mormon]

Thank you, George. I guess we know who's party line slogan type, in this
conversation. None so blind as who will not see. (Yeah, I'm borrowing a
slogan from the Bible.)

.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

[Jeff M]

On 8/2/2013 5:24 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
> Thank you, George. I guess we know who's party line slogan type, in this
> conversation. None so blind as who will not see. (Yeah, I'm borrowing a
> slogan from the Bible.)

Yes, we do. It's you. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy
brother�s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
(Yeah, now I'm also borrowing a slogan from the Bible. But it's the
first one I've used in this thread, so you're still way ahead of me.)

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to come up with your first fact to
support your ignorant, regressive, stereotype-based claim that "The

problem with ghetto kids, is they grow up to be criminals and welfare

leeches." and your even stupider refutation of the fact that, while some
do, most don't.

I'm also still waiting for you to clarify exactly what and who you meant
by "ghetto kids" and to admit or deny my recollection that you,
yourself, are receiving public assistance.

[PrecisionmachinisT]

"Jeff M" <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote in message
news:VbqdnTVhUrSucGbM...@giganews.com...

> On 8/2/2013 12:18 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
>> "Conservatives want to starve gramma, and throw her out of the home."
>> "Republican war on women."
>> "Conservatives don't care about the poor, because they don't tax the
>> working people to give money to people who won't work"
>> "The rich didn't pay their fair share".
>>
>> Yep, regressive slogans.
>
>

> So, instead of dealing with that, you just reflexively spout more party
> line nonsense. Do you ever think for yourself anymore?

He never has.

[rbowman]

Stormin Mormon wrote:

> The problem with ghetto kids, is they grow up to be criminals and
> welfare leeches.

Meanwhile those to the manor born grow up to be criminals and corporate
welfare leeches.

[Winston_Smith]

On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 13:34:26 -0400, Ed Huntress
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:

>And, for the record, you aren't giving a "conservative" response. It's
>a right-wing response.

Thank you for recognizing that. Too few people do. In Stormin's case,
the reactionary racist view. Blacks and Mexicans get a lot of quips
from him.

I call myself a conservative and he doesn't even know how to spell it.

[Winston_Smith]

On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 13:53:56 -0400, Ed Huntresswrote:

>On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 12:45:54 -0500, Jeff M wrote:

>>His "ghetto kids" usage is also regressive-speak code words for "urban
>>black kids."
>
>Of course. I want to see if he dances around it.

He has already called you an ''asshat''. That is about the limit of
his rhetorical debating skills.

[Winston_Smith]

On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 20:17:36 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
wrote:

Similar jobs but the pay is better. Good thing Diogenes is dead and
departed from the modern world.

[Winston_Smith]

On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 08:29:41 -0400, Stormin Mormon
<cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I used to be a Republican. Now, I'm not sure there is much difference
>between the two parties.

Same here. There isn't. But I've stopped spouting their mantras long
ago where as you seem to be in fine voice.

[Jeff M]

On 8/2/2013 10:31 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 13:34:26 -0400, Ed Huntress
> <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> And, for the record, you aren't giving a "conservative" response. It's
>> a right-wing response.
>
> Thank you for recognizing that. Too few people do. In Stormin's case,
> the reactionary racist view. Blacks and Mexicans get a lot of quips
> from him.

In fairness to Stormi, I believe he is from an era when racism was part
of the official doctrine of his religion, and he would have been
carefully taught to be a racist from his earliest years. It's pretty
hard to undo such training. Mere exposure to facts, no matter how
objectively clear and convincing, no matter how often repeated, is
unlikely to overcome that sort of early programming.

> I call myself a conservative and he doesn't even know how to spell it.

There doesn't seem to be any limit to the things he doesn't know, or to
the things he believes he knows that just ain't do.

[Winston_Smith]

On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 09:49:40 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
>On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 00:36:20 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 01:37:22 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

>>>So what society do you think Heinlein had in mind? Maybe
>>>Florida?...no, that doesn't work...Alaska?....mmm...nope....
>>
>>Our own. During his lifetime. The world has changed considerably. I
>>like his (and my) world much better than the screwed up peoples
>>paradise we have now.

>
>I think the real issue is that the people who took that line seriously
>forgot they were reading a sci-fi story about a society built on
>genetic selection, where work was optional.
>

>In other words, the whole thing was a fantasy.

If you think we are not in a work-optional world, check any newspaper.
Half the country is on some sort of either entitlements (earned and
not) or welfare.

Companies have started announcing they will no longer hire any but
part time employees. Many are requiring 24/7 availability so Joe
Sixpack can't even consider taking a second part time job for fear of
losing his first one.

Food stamp recipients are increasing at an astounding rate. And the
bad news is, they probably need the help. A big chunk of our military
qualifies for public aid. Even governments are going on the part time
job band wagon.

It's partly people raised in households that haven't known anything
but public assistance for generations. It's questionable if they COULD
hold a job if they were motivated to get one, due to lack of skills
and attitude. They simply have no point of reference in their lives.

It's also partly people that simply can't find work. Even low paid
menial work. In a world of increasing population and decreasing
numbers of jobs for a dozen reasons.

But the bottom line is that, for half the population, work IS optional
or simply impossible. Is there a difference?

[Winston_Smith]

On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 22:50:06 -0500, Jeff M wrote:
>On 8/2/2013 10:31 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:

>> On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 13:34:26 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>
>>> And, for the record, you aren't giving a "conservative" response. It's
>>> a right-wing response.
>>
>> Thank you for recognizing that. Too few people do. In Stormin's case,
>> the reactionary racist view. Blacks and Mexicans get a lot of quips
>> from him.
>
>In fairness to Stormi, I believe he is from an era when racism was part
>of the official doctrine of his religion, and he would have been
>carefully taught to be a racist from his earliest years. It's pretty
>hard to undo such training. Mere exposure to facts, no matter how
>objectively clear and convincing, no matter how often repeated, is
>unlikely to overcome that sort of early programming.

That would generally be a good assumption. Some time ago in a.s, he
wrote that he came to Mormonism rather late in life. (To meet women.)
My personal guess is he found the sort of old timer you describe and
liked what he heard. I also suspect the rank and file is still a lot
more biased than the organization which has to live in the public
spotlight.

As to exposure to facts, we had a recent threat that started with him
telling us all the MS had abandoned XP support. A dozen people
corrected him, but he kept on repeating it. It IS human nature that
once you believe something is a fact, you are often blind to what
doesn't fit.

>> I call myself a conservative and he doesn't even know how to spell it.
>
>There doesn't seem to be any limit to the things he doesn't know, or to
>the things he believes he knows that just ain't do.

I've posted my theory of 4 political creatures, instead of 2, often
enough that I'll keep this short. Conservative and liberal, yes. But
on two kinds of issues - social and fiscal. Most real issues are one
of those.

What the media and Democrats today like to call "conservative" with an
accent mark over the "evil" are social conservatives. Even then they
are more accurately described as social reactionaries. There is
nothing conservative about throwing away half the countries
population.

The proof of this is that, this sort of "conservative" likes to parrot
conservative spending but doesn't practice it when the ball is in
their court. G.W. Bush by his actions, not his rhetoric, was the most
"liberal" president this country ever had before Obama. The lad cut
taxes, spent big, and borrowed bigger. To the tune of two
unresolved/able wars and a trillion dollars deeper in the hole. None
of which are fiscally conservative.

[George Plimpton]

Occasionally, but in terms of percentages, ghetto kids are orders of
magnitude more likely to grow up to be criminals than are the offspring
of rich people. No serious observer questions that.

[rbowman]

George Plimpton wrote:

> Occasionally, but in terms of percentages, ghetto kids are orders of
> magnitude more likely to grow up to be criminals than are the offspring
> of rich people. No serious observer questions that.

"Some will rob you with a six gun, and some with a fountain pen."

Woody Guthrie

Which do you think has caused more damage to the country, some South Central
gangsta or the banksters that almost bankrupted the country, the soft spoken
gentlemen who keep lying us into wars, or the New World order types who
thought NAFTA was the greatest thing since sliced bread?

[rbowman]

Jeff M wrote:

> In fairness to Stormi, I believe he is from an era when racism was part
> of the official doctrine of his religion, and he would have been
> carefully taught to be a racist from his earliest years. It's pretty
> hard to undo such training. Mere exposure to facts, no matter how
> objectively clear and convincing, no matter how often repeated, is
> unlikely to overcome that sort of early programming.

I have gathered that Stormin is a fairly recent convert, probably well after
Kimball got the memo from God that blacks could be priests.

I come from an era where I can personally confirm colored drinking fountains
did not have colored water; it was the same old stuff, just warm. True, that
was in Huntsville but if you think racism stopped at the Mason Dixon Line,
I'd refer you to South Boston. Or, for that matter Buffalo, which is much
closer to Stormin's doorstep.

The real question is if people of my generation have had an epiphany or if
they have just learned politer speech.

[rbowman]

Winston_Smith wrote:

> It's partly people raised in households that haven't known anything
> but public assistance for generations. It's questionable if they COULD
> hold a job if they were motivated to get one, due to lack of skills
> and attitude. They simply have no point of reference in their lives.
>
> It's also partly people that simply can't find work. Even low paid
> menial work. In a world of increasing population and decreasing
> numbers of jobs for a dozen reasons.
>
> But the bottom line is that, for half the population, work IS optional
> or simply impossible. Is there a difference?

Kurt Vonnegut covered that territory in his first novel, 'Player Piano',
which came out in the '50s. His crystal ball was a little cloudy. He saw
scientists and engineers as being the elite who still had meaningful,
productive jobs. The man had a lot of imagination but didn't imagine the
country would also outsource it's brains if it could make a buck.

[Cold Lazarus]

George Plimpton wrote

What is wrong with you boy?

Are you stupid as a stump?

What makes you think that Canadians give a shit about how the USA
is a peice of shit and all you do is whine, whine whine?

[Winston_Smith]

Define 'criminal'. Does Lehman Brothers, Enron, Madeoff, etc count? Or
perhaps Bush=Carlisle, Cheney=Haliburton, Runsfeld=Bektel , and
Rice=Mobil. Ain't war a grand and glorious thing? Profitable too. I
can't wait until us sheeples get all that lovely cheap oil.

[George Plimpton]

"National Popular Vote" (NPV) is an attempt to circumvent the
Constitution and basic principles of representative democracy. This is
obvious.

The constitutional provision that states the legislatures of states get
to decide how to allocate their electoral college votes does not
anticipate those legislatures might go against the wishes of their
citizens. Suppose the legislature of a state is controlled by one
party, but in a presidential election the candidate of the other party,
perhaps because he is a "favorite son" in that state, wins a sizable
majority of state's popular vote. However, the candidate of the other
party that controls the legislature wins the majority of the national
popular vote by a slim margin. If the electoral college vote of the
state in question were cast as the sizable majority of the state voted,
the majority's candidate would win; but if the feckless legislators
instead award the state's electoral college votes based on a national
popular majority of voters *outside* the state, they are effectively
disenfranchising their state's voters. How can that possibly be seen as
a valid democratic outcome? Answer: it can't be.

There is an excellent and valid reason why the president of the US is
not elected based on popular vote, and it ought not to be fucked with.
Without any doubt at all, the "NPV" effort is an attempt to circumvent
the Constitution. It's an attempt by left-wing shitwipes who don't
understand and appreciate the structure of government deliberately
crafted and instituted by the founders. If they don't like the existing
method of electing the president, they are free to try to amend the
Constitution to provide for a direct popular vote for president (which,
without doubt, is a bad idea - hence the explanation for why the
leftists don't take that approach.)

You can always count on leftists to try to fuck with the Constitution
when they think they might not get their way.

[Winston_Smith]

On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 23:20:04 -0600, rbowman wrote:
>Winston_Smith wrote:
>
>> It's partly people raised in households that haven't known anything
>> but public assistance for generations. It's questionable if they COULD
>> hold a job if they were motivated to get one, due to lack of skills
>> and attitude. They simply have no point of reference in their lives.
>>
>> It's also partly people that simply can't find work. Even low paid
>> menial work. In a world of increasing population and decreasing
>> numbers of jobs for a dozen reasons.
>>
>> But the bottom line is that, for half the population, work IS optional
>> or simply impossible. Is there a difference?
>
>Kurt Vonnegut covered that territory in his first novel, 'Player Piano',
>which came out in the '50s. His crystal ball was a little cloudy. He saw
>scientists and engineers as being the elite who still had meaningful,
>productive jobs.

Engineers do still have meaningful, productive jobs. In India.

>The man had a lot of imagination but didn't imagine the
>country would also outsource it's brains if it could make a buck.

I'm suspicious of anyone that thinks engineers are good at anything
except engineering. Perhaps Hoover was one of the few exceptions
dealing with feeding Belgium after WW1, but mostly their social
designs are disaster. I say this as a life long engineer.

[George Plimpton]

On 8/2/2013 10:07 PM, rbowman wrote:
> George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> Occasionally, but in terms of percentages, ghetto kids are orders of
>> magnitude more likely to grow up to be criminals than are the offspring
>> of rich people. No serious observer questions that.
>
> "Some will rob you with a six gun, and some with a fountain pen."
>
> Woody Guthrie

Guthrie was not a sage.

[George Plimpton]

On 8/2/2013 10:16 PM, Cold Lazarus wrote:
> George Plimpton wrote
>
>>> Stormin Mormon wrote:
>>>
>>>> The problem with ghetto kids, is they grow up to be criminals
> and
>>>> welfare leeches.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile those to the manor born grow up to be criminals and
> corporate
>>> welfare leeches.
>>
>> Occasionally, but in terms of percentages, ghetto kids are
> orders of
>> magnitude more likely to grow up to be criminals than are the
> offspring
>> of rich people. No serious observer questions that.
>>
>
> What is wrong with you

Nothing, you stupid HIV-oozing fuckstain.

[David R. Birch]

On 8/1/2013 10:00 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

>>> Like, umm....Darfur? Syria?
>>
>> Those societies aren't armed, just the bad guys.
>
> Gee, there sure seem to be a lot of people shooting from both sides in
> Syria. Are they all bad guys?

You can also see it as armed citizens attempting to teach the government
dictatorship a lesson in courtesy.

>>> As long as they keep it in the red states, where they have most of the
>>> guns, I'll look the other way.
>>
>> SO you think we on the left are unarmed?
>
> No, but you're less likely to start shooting each other.

Maybe, but the fruitcakes seem to be evenly distributed on both sides of
the aisle.

David

[David R. Birch]

On 8/2/2013 12:37 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Aug 2013 23:02:06 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
> wrote:

>
>> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>
>>> Gee, there sure seem to be a lot of people shooting from both sides in
>>> Syria. Are they all bad guys?
>>

>> Yes.

>
> So what society do you think Heinlein had in mind? Maybe
> Florida?...no, that doesn't work...Alaska?....mmm...nope....

Any society that recognizes the right of citizens to resist the illegal
imposition of authority or power at the point of a gun will do.

Maybe it would help if you read or reread "Beyond This Horizon", the
source of the quote.

David

[David R. Birch]

On 8/2/2013 8:49 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 00:36:20 -0700, Winston_Smith

> <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 01:37:22 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

>>> On Thu, 01 Aug 2013 23:02:06 -0600, rbowman wrote:
>>>> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Gee, there sure seem to be a lot of people shooting from both sides in
>>>>> Syria. Are they all bad guys?
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> So what society do you think Heinlein had in mind? Maybe
>>> Florida?...no, that doesn't work...Alaska?....mmm...nope....
>>

>> Our own. During his lifetime. The world has changed considerably. I
>> like his (and my) world much better than the screwed up peoples
>> paradise we have now.
>
> I think the real issue is that the people who took that line seriously
> forgot they were reading a sci-fi story about a society built on
> genetic selection, where work was optional.
>
> In other words, the whole thing was a fantasy.

Do you object to fantasizing about a better way for how people can live
together?

Is it because our society is so perfect that improvement can only be
fantasy?

David

[David R. Birch]

On 8/2/2013 9:12 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 08:10:50 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
> wrote:

>
>> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>
>>> I think the real issue is that the people who took that line seriously
>>> forgot they were reading a sci-fi story about a society built on
>>> genetic selection, where work was optional.
>>

>> Well, we've certainly flushed eugenics down the toilet in the race to
>> generate new souls, ad majorem Dei gloriam. I'm not sure why the right is so
>> down on ghetto baby mommas. They're all god's chillun.
>
> To the right, that's true only until they're born. Then all bets are
> off.

That's why I accept abortion until the end of the 51st trimester. If
they're still feral at 12 years old, pull the plug.

David

[David R. Birch]

On 8/2/2013 12:45 PM, Jeff M wrote:
> On 8/2/2013 12:34 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 13:24:21 -0400, Stormin Mormon
>> <cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Your reply was a troll, not a polite discussion, asshat.
>>
>> Your "polite" discussion started off with an answer to why
>> conservatives don't care about the lives of "ghetto kids" once they're
>> born. Look at the post you responded to, and then at your response.

>>
>> And, for the record, you aren't giving a "conservative" response. It's
>> a right-wing response.
>>

>> You can say "please" and "thank you" all you want. But if your
>> assertion is based on a bigoted stereotype, lumping individuals
>> together and disparaging them all, that's not a polite discussion.

>
> His "ghetto kids" usage is also regressive-speak code words for "urban
> black kids."

That's not fair. I'm sure he included Latin kids as well.

David

[David R. Birch]

Why not? His words quoted above are true.

David

[Stormin Mormon]

Well, isn't it obvious? I mean, the guy obviously meant what we all
think he meant, and that proves it. But, please don't anyone ask the OP
what he really meant, that's not done on Usenet.

.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

[Stormin Mormon]

I'm expecting several posts, speculating on David R. Birch's racial
prejudices. After all, he's recommending the deaths of persons of "you
know.... THAT" group, until the age of 12. OK, folks, everyone pile on.
We've got to conclude that Birch is a racist, regardless of any lack of
evidence. After all, it's the seriousness of the charge, not the lack of
evidence.

I hope people recognize how absurd this is all becoming. The
illustration will be lost, of course, on you stupids in "THAT" group.

.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 05:05:18 -0500, "David R. Birch"
<dbi...@wi.rr.com> wrote:

>On 8/2/2013 12:37 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>> On Thu, 01 Aug 2013 23:02:06 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gee, there sure seem to be a lot of people shooting from both sides in
>>>> Syria. Are they all bad guys?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>
>> So what society do you think Heinlein had in mind? Maybe
>> Florida?...no, that doesn't work...Alaska?....mmm...nope....
>
>Any society that recognizes the right of citizens to resist the illegal
>imposition of authority or power at the point of a gun will do.

The trouble with that idea is that it isn't true. Armed societies,
almost without exception, are violent and anything but polite.

>
>Maybe it would help if you read or reread "Beyond This Horizon", the
>source of the quote.

I read Heinlein when I was a pre-teen. Sci-fi fantasy writers never
impressed me.

--
Ed Huntress

>
>David

[Ed Huntress]

I don't get your connection, but if you think that a society like
Heinlein's, where people are bred and genetically selected, is a
"better way," then we have little chance of communicating.

>
>Is it because our society is so perfect that improvement can only be
>fantasy?

You've presumed my answer to your first question, and it was
incorrect. So your second question does not relate to anything I've
said.

--
Ed Huntress

>
>David

[David R. Birch]

On 8/3/2013 6:50 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:

> On 8/3/2013 6:11 AM, David R. Birch wrote:
>
>>>> Well, we've certainly flushed eugenics down the toilet in the race to
>>>> generate new souls, ad majorem Dei gloriam. I'm not sure why the
>>>> right is so
>>>> down on ghetto baby mommas. They're all god's chillun.
>>>
>>> To the right, that's true only until they're born. Then all bets are
>>> off.
>>
>> That's why I accept abortion until the end of the 51st trimester. If
>> they're still feral at 12 years old, pull the plug.
>>
>> David

> I'm expecting several posts, speculating on David R. Birch's racial
> prejudices. After all, he's recommending the deaths of persons of "you
> know.... THAT" group, until the age of 12. OK, folks, everyone pile on.
> We've got to conclude that Birch is a racist, regardless of any lack of
> evidence. After all, it's the seriousness of the charge, not the lack of
> evidence.
>
> I hope people recognize how absurd this is all becoming. The
> illustration will be lost, of course, on you stupids in "THAT" group.
>
> .
> Christopher A. Young
> Learn about Jesus

Nothing racist about it, I apply the 51st trimester to all humanity,
rich or poor.

David

[David R. Birch]

On 8/3/2013 7:14 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 05:09:08 -0500, "David R. Birch"
> <dbi...@wi.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/2/2013 8:49 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

>>> In other words, the whole thing was a fantasy.
>>
>> Do you object to fantasizing about a better way for how people can live
>> together?
>
> I don't get your connection, but if you think that a society like
> Heinlein's, where people are bred and genetically selected, is a
> "better way," then we have little chance of communicating.

I asked a general question, you replied about a specific aspect of a
specific novel.

Although eugenics has been used successfully in animal & plant husbandry
for millennia, applying it to humans has usually been for political
reasons in terms of what constitutes "improvement".

>> Is it because our society is so perfect that improvement can only be
>> fantasy?
>
> You've presumed my answer to your first question, and it was
> incorrect. So your second question does not relate to anything I've
> said.

Actually, no, I didn't, I asked another general question related to the
first general question, which you didn't answer.

So:

Do you object to fantasizing about a better way for how people can live
together?

Is it because our society is so perfect that improvement can only be
fantasy?

Please answer what I'm asking, not what you assume I'm asking.

Thank you.

David

[Jeff M]

On 8/3/2013 7:04 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
[snip]

Sci-fi fantasy writers never impressed me.

Just to clarify, SF and Fantasy are two separate and distinct literary
genres.

Miriam Allen deFord is quoted as saying, roughly, "Science fiction
consists of improbable possibilities, fantasy of plausible
impossibilities."

Webster�s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary describes science fiction as
�fiction dealing principally with the impact of actual or imagined
science on society or individuals or having a scientific factor as an
essential orienting component.� In other words, science fiction relies
on a scientific foundation for the speculative elements of the story.

Things like magic, vampires, flying telepathic dragons, werewolves, and
the like belong to the fantasy genre, except for those rare instances
when the author establishes and builds upon a plausible scientific
predicate.

[deep]

wrong on so many counts it's hard to know where to start.

Look at it this way: it's a TWO axis graph. An X axis of left/right
wing socialist/conservative economics. AND the Y axis of
authoritarianism/libertarianism. That's all I have time for now but
think about it and let me know what questions you have. I've post
this concept here more times than I can count. Let me know what
problems you have. Hint: George Bush was NOT a liberal. He was a
hardline authoritarian conservative.

[Jeff M]

It's n-dimensional. Like others here, I've been mistaken for just about
every sort of political descriptor you can think of, one time or
another, depending on the issue.

[deep]

On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 23:14:30 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
wrote:

Education allows people to start thinking for themselves. That's why
it's so dangerous to conservatives.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 09:00:00 -0500, "David R. Birch"

If I'm to read this question literally, I don't object to people
fantasizing about anything they want. I'm not into thought control.

>
>Is it because our society is so perfect that improvement can only be
>fantasy?

Is *what* because....?

I don't understand what the "is it because..." refers to.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 09:24:35 -0500, Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.org>
wrote:

>On 8/3/2013 7:04 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>[snip]
> Sci-fi fantasy writers never impressed me.
>
>Just to clarify, SF and Fantasy are two separate and distinct literary
>genres.
>
>Miriam Allen deFord is quoted as saying, roughly, "Science fiction
>consists of improbable possibilities, fantasy of plausible
>impossibilities."

I've heard this distinction before, and to someone who likes sci-fi or
fantasy, it may be significant. To me, it isn't. I don't care much for
either, although I've found a few of each type interesting.

>
>Webster�s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary describes science fiction as
>�fiction dealing principally with the impact of actual or imagined

>science on society or individuals or having a scientific factor as an

>essential orienting component.� In other words, science fiction relies

>on a scientific foundation for the speculative elements of the story.
>
>Things like magic, vampires, flying telepathic dragons, werewolves, and
>the like belong to the fantasy genre, except for those rare instances
>when the author establishes and builds upon a plausible scientific
>predicate.

Tastes in fiction are very individual, of course, but I care more
about the quality of the stories and the quality of the writer's
imagination most of all. IMO, there haven't been many good sci-fi
writers in those terms. Most fantasy writers are no better.

I just don't like the stories, for the same reason I don't like
fantasy movies. The stories usually are hackneyed retreads dressed up
with spectacle and strangeness. I look at them, or read them, and I
see someone trying to dress up stories from ancient Greece or
Shakespeare, and it looks a little silly to me.

Each to his own, to belabor a hackneyed expression. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

[Jeff M]

On 8/3/2013 6:46 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
> Well, isn't it obvious? I mean, the guy obviously meant what we all
> think he meant, and that proves it. But, please don't anyone ask the OP
> what he really meant, that's not done on Usenet.

Wrong again.

Have you already forgotten that just yesterday I specifically asked you,
as the OP of this regressive gem: "The problem with ghetto kids, is
they grow up to be criminals and welfare leeches" what you meant by
"ghetto kids"?

I asked "First, define what you meant by 'ghetto kids'" and then, having
received no reply, reminded you about it again:

"I'm also still waiting for you to clarify exactly what and who you
meant by 'ghetto kids'"

But you still haven't answered the question, or taken any other
opportunity to explain what you really meant.

Yet here you are the very next morning, with blindly self-righteous
regressive hypocrisy, whining about not being asked what you meant.

[Jim Wilkins]

"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:nv6qv8l2hiuge6l7a...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 09:24:35 -0500, Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.org>
> wrote:
>
>>On 8/3/2013 7:04 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>[snip]
>> Sci-fi fantasy writers never impressed me.
>>
>>Just to clarify, SF and Fantasy are two separate and distinct
>>literary
>>genres.
>>
>>Miriam Allen deFord is quoted as saying, roughly, "Science fiction
>>consists of improbable possibilities, fantasy of plausible
>>impossibilities."
>
> I've heard this distinction before, and to someone who likes sci-fi
> or
> fantasy, it may be significant. To me, it isn't. I don't care much
> for

> either, although I've found a few of each type interesting....
>
> Ed Huntress

Sci-fi establishes and follows rules, like the complex laws of nature
that scientists can't avoid.

Fantasy does whatever it pleases.

jsw

[Ed Huntress]

Ok. The distinction doesn't mean a lot to me. Sci-fi stories seem to
*bend* the rules, at least from the little I've read, or to break them
entirely here and there for the sake of the story -- the deus ex
machina of sci-fi.

For example, Larry forced me to read <g> _State of Fear_ by Crichton,
which Larry took as a science-based story that "unmasks" falsehoods
behind global warming. Only it doesn't, because it used a couple of
gods in the machine to make the story plausible.

I find these things annoying because such stories sometimes are taken
as literal truth. Heinlein's pitch about "armed societies" being
polite is another one. The authors of these stories often have a nasty
streak of polemicism in them.

And polemical stories tend to be obvious, heavily contrived, and
loaded with cliches. Heinlein thrived on it. Many of the writers of
those things are not very good. I admire Crichton, but his writing is
pretty sad. As literature, his stories suck. As thrillers, they're
interesting because he digs deeply into some obscure aspects of
science and makes high drama out of them. They make better movies than
literature.

It just isn't my thing.

--
Ed Huntress

[Jeff M]

Fair 'nuff, and I understand what you're saying. There's lots of crap
out there, Crichton among them. But I do think you might enjoy
discovering "hard" SF, which is different. Something along the lines of
what's found in "Analog" magazine, say.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 11:39:21 -0500, Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.org>

I've read it a bit, after meeting and having lunch once with Isaac
Asimov, when we were writing a lot about robotics at _American
Machinist_ (you name-dropper, Huntress...). I thought I'd see what it
was about. And I liked his couple of light-hearted SF stories
published in _Playboy_. I also was a Ray Bradbury fan for a short
while, in my early teens.

It just never stuck with me, for the reasons I listed above.

--
Ed Huntress

[Jeff M]

On 8/3/2013 12:11 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
[snip]

>> Fair 'nuff, and I understand what you're saying. There's lots of crap
>> out there, Crichton among them. But I do think you might enjoy
>> discovering "hard" SF, which is different. Something along the lines of
>> what's found in "Analog" magazine, say.
>
> I've read it a bit, after meeting and having lunch once with Isaac
> Asimov, when we were writing a lot about robotics at _American
> Machinist_ (you name-dropper, Huntress...). I thought I'd see what it
> was about. And I liked his couple of light-hearted SF stories
> published in _Playboy_. I also was a Ray Bradbury fan for a short
> while, in my early teens.
>
> It just never stuck with me, for the reasons I listed above.

Okay. Cool "brush with celebrity" story, though. I like those, and I
always enjoy hearing about ordinary people's various brief encounters
with celebrities. It's kind of an odd quirk of mine, in that I have no
interest of any kind in celebrities otherwise. In fact, they tend to
annoy me, especially when they usurp the real news, and I've generally
disliked those I've met.

[David R. Birch]

On 8/3/2013 10:03 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

>> Do you object to fantasizing about a better way for how people can live
>> together?
>
> If I'm to read this question literally, I don't object to people
> fantasizing about anything they want. I'm not into thought control.
>
>>
>> Is it because our society is so perfect that improvement can only be
>> fantasy?
>
> Is *what* because....?
>
> I don't understand what the "is it because..." refers to.

Let me rephrase it.

Is our society is so perfect that improvement can only be fantasy?

David

[rbowman]

Jeff M wrote:

> Things like magic, vampires, flying telepathic dragons, werewolves, and
> the like belong to the fantasy genre, except for those rare instances
> when the author establishes and builds upon a plausible scientific
> predicate.

Unicorns. When scanning the new fiction shelves at the library, if an
unicorn is included in the dust jacket art, I quickly replace it. If the
jacket notes mention vampires, back on the shelf. If a quick scan of the
text leaves me uncertain on how to pronounce the characters' names, back on
the shelf.

I definitely do judge books by their covers. I'm just as bad in other
genres. If I see 'legal thriller' or an indication that the author has a day
job as a lawyer or accountant, back on the shelf.