worth thinking about

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

The GOP got bitch slapped, and rightly so, they're the party
constantly complaining about the left-wing judiciary legislating
from the bench.

Speaking of the GOP, consider Claude A. Allen, Bush's former top
domestic policy advisor, who mysteriously and abruptly resigned last
month, citing a desire to "spend more time with his family." This guy is
a extreme social conservative who developed White House policy on things
like abortion, stem cell research, abstinence-only sex education, and so
on. Bush appointed him the the U.S. Court of Appeals, but those evil
Democrats blocked his confirmation.

It looks like he'll end up in court after all. Yesterday he was arrested
for felony shoplifting. He can spend time with his family during
visiting hours. That's what you get for taking the GOP's "lie, cheat,
steal" mantra too literally.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

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.

"Larry L" wrote in message
...

...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....

Not me, boss. I only listen/read to find sufficient cause to beat, sue,
lecture, shoot, pepper spray or citizens arrest the
neighbors......um.....and/or their pets.

Wolfgang

Larry L wrote:
...
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. ...

This untimely little personal attack right out of the blue
pretty much explains why I consider you a pompous jackass
and a mean-spirited sociopath. I'll bet you were probably
an OK sort of guy before you quit drinkin' and started
ridin' a high horse, but it's sure hard to tell from the
snotty notes you post here now.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Larry L wrote:

wrote

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.

I believe that RDean and Ken, while abusive, do actually believe what
they spout. Wolfie is just doing it to get a rise from people. He's
a weakminded, lonely, bitter man and gets his jollies off by riling
people.

"Joe Smith" wrote in message
...
I believe that RDean and Ken, while abusive, do actually believe what
they spout.

That's pretty funny. Kennie doesn't believe in anything......and dicklet
doesn't say anything.

Wolfie is just doing it to get a rise from people. He's
a weakminded, lonely, bitter man and gets his jollies off by riling
people.

If you stop scratching those sores they won't continue to get bigger. Well,
not as fast, anyway.

Wolfgang

Wolfgang wrote:

"Joe Smith" wrote in message
...

I believe that RDean and Ken, while abusive, do actually believe what
they spout.


That's pretty funny. Kennie doesn't believe in anything......and dicklet
doesn't say anything.

While I disagree with most of what each of them say, it's obvious that
they believe what they say. You are just playing some silly game.
My guess is because in the real world no one wants anything to do
with you.

Larry L wrote:
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


Either is RDean, so you are in excellent company :-)

Larry L wrote:
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


Either does RDean, so you are in excellent company :-)

wrote:

So-called (modern) conservatives generally champion laws that don't
offend the Constitution but can, and often do, offend the individual,
whereas so-called (modern) liberals generally champion laws that make
particular individuals feel great but offend the Constitution. As
examples, guns (because the 2nd is clear and combined with legislative
intent, it is ironclad), most "recreational" drugs, and abortion
(because the Constitution is silent directly on-point) should be
legislated, not controlled by the Supreme Court. IMO, they should be
Federally legal, with caveats, generally without input from or notice by
the Supreme Court (form of law excepted, should the case arise) - malum
prohibitum vs malum in se, unless the former crosses the line in such a
way that the latter would be a foreseeable result, i.e., drunk driving
in an unsafe (and uninsured, just to get it all messy) vehicle. OTOH, a
lot of what is put forth a "free" press and a separation of church
and state is just plain wrong - as examples, there is no language, and
no intent, to allow the press to run amok, nor any prohibition against,
for example, prayer in schools or religious symbols at public buildings.

Conservatives (so-called) are continually whining about liberal activist
Supreme Court justices, but they don't bother to define what "activist"
means.

A reasonably objective and quantifiable measure of a judge's activism
can be had with this question:

How often has each justice voted to strike down a law passed by Congress?

Here are the numbers:

Thomas 65.63 %
Kennedy 64.06 %
Scalia 56.25 %
Rehnquist 46.88 %
O'Connor 46.77 %
Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %

Clarence Thomas, appointed by President Bush the First, is the most
activist. Stephen Breyer, appointed by Clinton, is the least activist.
The clear pattern is that the judges considered to be "conservative" are
most activist than those considered to be "liberal".

What conservatives really mean by "activists" is that some judges don't
decide cases according to right-wing ideology.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.