wrote

That said, I don't think you really understand what the founding fathers
desired or what they intended to design,

that could easily be, I'm not an expert, for sure

I'd suspect that you'd freak out if such a system
were implemented as they intended.

I find it amazing how you can understand my views and pin them down so well.
I, on the other hand, find myself constantly changing and challenging my own
thoughts and often I'm not nearly as certain about what LarryL believes as
you are.


FWIW, I suggested listening and thinking ... I did NOT suggest a "correct"
way to listen. One thing that all members of the Rdean Wolfenberry AbUseNet
Club seem to have in common is listening ( reading ) only to find something
to attack, as opposed to listening to hear what was said. To me, that
pretty much explains why this place contains so little conversation amidst
all the noise. It may be built into the media, not just RWAC membership, as
I am replying mainly to what irked me g, ........ much of your second
paragraph makes good sense to me.

Again, fwiw, I think 'social liberals' have way, way, overcooked many of
their issues, including prayer in schools and religious symbols in public
places. I do NOT claim a religion, but I recently heard a 'conservative'
say something to the effect that " freedom of religion' was never meant to
imply freedom from exposure to religion, just the right to choose your own"
.... I agree. There is some nut in California using all his own time and
money fighting every last religious symbol in every last place he can find
one .... what a waste of precious life and resource

On the other hand, I believe that 'social conservatives' also tend to
overcook their issues. By example, I believe that calling 4 cells in a
test-tube a 'human' in fact belittles the whole meaning and special-ness of
humanity. If a 'complete set' of human DNA, alone, has a 'soul' then
having one loses meaning. I can't help but think that reducing 'humanness'
to such levels must really **** God off.

Or, although I own several guns, I think extending 'right to bear arms' to
mean that anybody should be able to have a 50cal automatic rifle or three,
and a few grenade launchers, is an insult to the founders ... if they were
that stupid we should certainly NOT feel bound by their documents.

Carrying any idea to absurd extremes makes that idea .... absurd ... whether
the idea started out right or left of center. That last sentence is, I
believe, a pretty accurate statement of one of the things LarryL believes.