--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 115 RUSH LIMBAUGH Ref: F1M00061 Date: 01/17/98 From: ROY J. TELLASON Time: 02:13pm \/To: SHOSHONA BIEMAN (Read 1 times) Subj: piml] [Fwd: Clinton Puppy Stories] Shoshona Bieman wrote in a message to Roy J. Tellason: RT> 9. Obviously miffed Socks slips Kenneth Starr a note reading RT> "Bil kilt Vyns Fosdr!" SB> Have you seen the cartoon of Sucks being called upon to SB> testify? Nope. SB> I could send it to you E-mail if you want... That'd be cool, though it may take some trying. I hear that frackit.com is down at the moment, and have been unable to connect for some days now. Hopefully he'll get it fixed soon, but if you try and it bounces that's why... RT> 3. To the embarrassment of the trainers, dog still unable to RT> tell Al Gore from a tree. SB> No surprise there -- we sentient, DittoHeads can't tell either! SB> OK, OK... we can tell -- a tree has a better SENSE of SB> HUMOR... email: roy.j.tellason%tanstaaf@frackit.com --- * Origin: TANSTAAFL BBS 717-432-0764 (1:270/615) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 115 RUSH LIMBAUGH Ref: F1M00062 Date: 01/17/98 From: JOHN BOONE Time: 03:45pm \/To: ROBERT CRAFT (Read 0 times) Subj: 1/2] Smoking Costs On 01-09-98 Robert Craft wrote to John Boone... Hello Robert and thanks for writing, RC> JB> Hmmm, there is a government law, COBRA, requiring hospitals RC> JB> to care for -ALL- foiks regardless of ability to pay, RC> JB> particularly those that can't pay. IOW, the federal [snip] RC> Let us not forget the fact the any hospital which sees RC> Medicare patients *cannot* turn away any patient without RC> first examining and evaluating them. Yep, but I don't they can turn anybody away. Take care, John ___ * OFFLINE 1.54 --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: Strawberry Fields (1:116/5) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 115 RUSH LIMBAUGH Ref: F1M00063 Date: 01/18/98 From: DOUGLAS ANDERSON Time: 01:35am \/To: DAVE SHAKESPEARE (Read 0 times) Subj: Libertarian Party RP>> Is being exposed to belief in Christ and the Bible really so RP>> terrible t an atheist that it's worth sacrificing liberty in RP>> order to avoid it? DS> Yes, Robert. One sacrifices liberty by beliving in the bible. DS> -- and yes, i was "exposed" - dave - "Whom the Son sets free is free indeed." True liberty can only be found by believing in the Bible... Douglas doogie@pbl.umsmed.edu --- * Origin: Dr. Doogie's Pill Point (1:3632/72.1) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 115 RUSH LIMBAUGH Ref: F1M00064 Date: 01/17/98 From: KEITH KNAPP Time: 10:51pm \/To: ROBERT PLETT (Read 0 times) Subj: Gates vs Reno 01/ RP>slow as all getout, no matter what they're doing. At the moment, the RP>only Windoze browser I've kept around for rare use is Quarterdeck's RP>Mosaic - *considerably* faster on this slow little machine (and I mean RP>*considerable* - a factor of at least 5, maybe a *lot* more) and, except RP>for caching URLs, practically no disk accesses at all once loaded. RP>I suspect that even were I to have a hairy-chested monster 500mhz RP>machine, I'd still use my ISP's Lynx browser the majority of the time RP>and likely still use my DOS emailer too. |-) For once I'm compelled to agree with you, Robert. This here 486 makes DOS apps go like a bat, and if a Windoze app brings the machine to its knees and only offers cute graphics, I really don't understand why I should use it. And I really really don't understand why I should spend two months' pay on a box that does nothing more than run Windoze apps at reasonable speeds. Call me a conservative, see if I care. * SLMR 2.1a * Dammit Jim, I'm a writer, not a morning person! --- PCBoard (R) v15.4/M 5 Beta * Origin: * Binary illusions BBS * Albuquerque, NM * 505.897.8282 * (1:301/45) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 115 RUSH LIMBAUGH Ref: F1M00065 Date: 01/17/98 From: KEITH KNAPP Time: 10:52pm \/To: DAVID HARTUNG (Read 1 times) Subj: Re: Clinton impeached? DH> DH> KK> You seem to have forgotten that Mr Dornan and Mr Gingrich have fough DH> DH> KK> for several years to have some tens of BILLIONS of dollars spent on DH> DH> KK> B-2 bombers, even though the Pentagon said in so many words that it DH> DH> KK> did not need them, and would not spend its own money to buy them. DH> DH> KK> Good sir, can you say "pork"? The people who were doing this ere DH> DH> KK> the same people who were accusing Democrats of wasting federal money DH> DH> KK> on pet projects. DH> DH> I was not aware of this, do you by chance have some sources? DH> KK> It's been in the newspapers for some years now. Mother Jones agazine DH> KK> keeps track of it DH> I will check this out, but from what little I know of Mother Jones DH> Magazine, I am nor convinced they are a credible source. Flaming liberals that they are, they only blast Clinton about every second or third issue. Their Email address is www.motherjones.com. They have some sort of chat line at www.motherjones.com/live_wire. DH> KK> I haven't listened nearly as much lately as I did a few years ago. DH> KK> When he was bashing Dems over the S/L scandal, I never heard one DH> KK> word from him about the numerous Repubs who were embroiled in it. DH> KK> It's one thing to chide them for not being far enough to the right, DH> KK> quite another to deal with them the same way he bashes the Dems. DH> KK> We all tend to hear and read only things that support what we DH> KK> already believed. DH> The other thing to consider, Rush has never claimed to be unbiased, in DH> fact his conservative bias is one of the reasons he is so popular. Yes, we do indeed believe what we want to believe. * SLMR 2.1a * Nature bats last. --- PCBoard (R) v15.4/M 5 Beta * Origin: * Binary illusions BBS * Albuquerque, NM * 505.897.8282 * (1:301/45) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 115 RUSH LIMBAUGH Ref: F1M00066 Date: 01/17/98 From: KEITH KNAPP Time: 10:52pm \/To: DAVID HARTUNG (Read 0 times) Subj: PBS DH> DH> allow other groups), making Christianity a public policy? Both of these DH> DH> refer to actions of the ACLU, which have had the effect of limiting DH> DH> the expression of Christianity as compared to the rest of society. DH> KK> Only in the context of government institutions. DH> Simple fact, the ACLU has sought to deny Christian groups the same DH> access that other groups enjoy, and this denial is in itself, DH> unconstitutional. I would have to have more information to have an opinion about this. DH> DH> RP>I thouroughly enjoyed the reaction of that town in New Jersey to ACLU DH> DH> RP>court suits - they removed the Christmas displays and replaced hem DH>with DH> DH> RP>signs quoting the New Jersey Constitution preamble, which speaks of G DH> DH> RP>from beginning to end. Another sign indicates the town will continue DH> DH> RP>its fight to restore religious freedom and once again proudly display DH> DH> RP>the emblems of the season on public grounds as has so long been he DH> DH> RP>tradition of this nation. DH> KK> If the town contained any Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Moslems, or avajo, DH> KK> what do you think would happen if _they_ tried that? DH> My understanding is that they had displays from several religions, but DH> that Christianity was singled out. I'd like to hear more about that. In any case, Zoroastrianism is extremely unlikely, anytime soon, to pose a threat to the separation of church and state, whereas there are some Christian groups (perhaps represented here by Mr Plett) who have stated in so many words that the federal government should be Christian in nature. DH> DH> I know of no law passed in my lifetime which has established DH> DH> Christianity as the state faith. DH> KK> Why do the words 'de facto' spring to mind? DH> Please explain. A majority of religious Americans are Christian. If Zoroastrians even exist in this country, and they have something like our Ten Commandments, we are not likely to see that document on the wall in courthouses anytime soon. DH> DH> I seem to recall having read somewhere(perhaps the two Roberts know f DH> DH> this) that the way to bring about a socialist state, one must first DH> DH> destroy the existing legal system,by bringing about a state of anarchy. DH> KK> That's Communism you're talking about -- violent revolution, DH> KK> dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. When I finally got around to DH> KK> reading about Marx, I couldn't believe he could be so incredibly aive DH> KK> as to think that "when the state has withered away, the people will DH> KK> enjoy a new freedom." Even in the 30s, the Soviets demonstrated that DH> KK> it was the people who withered away and the state that enjoyed a new DH> KK> freedom. DH> In the context of history, it was Socialism which the Soviet Union was DH> actively trying to export, and the destruction of the existing system DH> was their first step. In Russia after 1917, the Bolsheviks considered socialism (Menshevism) to be as evil as capitalism, because they considered it to be a half-assed solution. DH> DH> The resulting disorder would be so great, that the people would be DH> DH> willing to give up much or all of their liberty in order to restore DH> DH> law and order. Like the "War on Drugs," for example. * SLMR 2.1a * Did that gesture mean your team is number one? --- PCBoard (R) v15.4/M 5 Beta * Origin: * Binary illusions BBS * Albuquerque, NM * 505.897.8282 * (1:301/45) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 115 RUSH LIMBAUGH Ref: F1M00067 Date: 01/17/98 From: KEITH KNAPP Time: 10:52pm \/To: DAVID HARTUNG (Read 0 times) Subj: Religious costs. DH> DH> I have yet to see a case where the state has established a religion, DH> DH> although there have been numerous cases recently where the state has DH> DH> limited the practice of Christianity(see previous post). DH> KK> You must have missed the "balanced treatment" cases of the late 70s DH> KK> and early 80s, where creationists got laws passed mandating the DH> KK> teaching of "creation science" in public school science classes. DH> KK> When this was challenged in Arkansas, it became obvious that DH> KK> "creation science" not only was not science by its own definition, DH> KK> but that it was nothing more than Genesis 1-11 with all the religious DH> KK> words removed. The court showed that the people who wrote and DH> KK> supported the law believed that evolutionary science was a plot DH> KK> by Satan to undermine God's moral authority, and that one of them DH> KK> pointed out in private correspondence that his real aim was to DH> KK> "kill evolution." In short, they were trying to make the views DH> KK> and values of a very specific sect into the law of the land. DH> The teaching of creationism, along with evolution merely teaches a DH> variety of theories, it does not establish a state faith. In common parlance, the word 'theory' means, 'an idea that some guy had.' But in science, the word 'theory' has a very specific meaning: a testable hypothesis that has been tested many times against hard data, and which is holding up just fine against those tests. By that criterion, creationism is not even remotely a theory. Creationism in this context is biblical literalism, pure and simple. That is, it asserts that Genesis 1-11 is a rigidly factual account of the Earth's history. There is not a shred of scientific data in support of that belief, and plenty to show that it is impossible. But many fundamentalists base their whole Christian faith on the literality of every sentence, word and punctuation mark in the bible. (I personally believe that Yeshua ben Joseph was an incarnation of God -- that is, if you were in his physical presence, you were in the presence of God. I fail to understand why I should doubt this faith simply because the OT places locusts among the 4-legged creatures, or because Genesis is quite obviously one creation story among many invented by pre-literate shepherds 5,000 years ago.) When creationists passed a law in Arkansas in 1981, the "Balanced Treatment Act" (Act 590), the law was challenged be a coalition of MAINSTREAM CHRISTIAN CHURCHES trying to protect religious freedom from the dominace of one sect. The judge found that "creation science" had no science at all, and was just Genesis 1-11 with the religious words removed. He also found that the impetus behind the law was the promulgation of religion, coupled with an attempt to conceal that fact. I have the actual quotes around here somewhere. DH> DH> RP> "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upo DH> DH> RP> the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future o DH> DH> RP> all of our political institutions...upon the capacity of each and DH>all DH> DH> RP> of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God DH> DH> RP> - James Madison, "Father" of the Constitution DH> DH> KK> Would you kindly show me those places in the Constitution where DH> DH> KK> the Ten Commandments are listed or incorporated? DH> DH> If you will study the Constitution, and our legal system, you will find DH> DH> that at least part of their basis are the Ten Commandments, ie laws DH> DH> against theft vs the commandment against stealing. DH> KK> Any reasoably sane country would have something like that. DH> This being the case, what would be the problem with the display of such DH> in public buildings? What would be the problem with taking down the TC and replacing it with the Code of Hammurabai? Or a similar code from the Maori or the !Kung? Stable societies forbid theft and murder and all that. It has nothing to do with Christianity per se. So when sects want their formulation to have federal power, they are saying that their narrow sect should be given favor over all others. Many fundamentalists don't seem to understand that it's possible to live outside their sect and still be a decent and sane human being. * SLMR 2.1a * . If ignorance isn't bliss, I don't know what is. --- PCBoard (R) v15.4/M 5 Beta * Origin: * Binary illusions BBS * Albuquerque, NM * 505.897.8282 * (1:301/45) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 115 RUSH LIMBAUGH Ref: F1M00068 Date: 01/17/98 From: KEITH KNAPP Time: 10:52pm \/To: TOM ENRIGHT (Read 0 times) Subj: Religious costs. TE> KK> It's not hard to find quotes from the founding fathers and others TE> KK> stating these things. Jefferson and other deists had other opinions, TE> KK> though I don't have those quotes anymore. TE>Give it a rest. Jefferson criticized the practices of *some* TE>religious leaders, not Christianity in general. That's because he was a Deist, and saw clearly the damage that could happen when religious sects took political power. He also TE>wrote.statements on *both* sides of several issues during his TE>lifetime, including slavery. Right. While he publicly advocated the slow abolition of slavery, he privately asserted that them nigras were not capable of the attainments of real humans. If you would like to push your idea to a further conclusion, all you have to do is take your above point and apply it to what Jefferson thought about Chritianity: while his private opinion of sectarian Christianity was not very high, he also acknowledged publicly that it would have to be enlisted to form a strong Union. Try doing thorough research some TE>time instead of stopping when you find something that *seems* to TE>support your predetermined conclusion. Oddly enough, when others here post Jefferson quotes that agree with your value programming, you don't complain that they have been taken out of context. * SLMR 2.1a * AIBOHPHOBIA: Fear of palindromes. --- PCBoard (R) v15.4/M 5 Beta * Origin: * Binary illusions BBS * Albuquerque, NM * 505.897.8282 * (1:301/45) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 115 RUSH LIMBAUGH Ref: F1M00069 Date: 01/17/98 From: KEITH KNAPP Time: 10:52pm \/To: LARRY GAULT (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: Religious costs. LG>KK> Interestingly, one way the creationists have been trying to get LG>KK> creationism taught in science classes is by arguing that 'scientism' LG>KK> and 'humanism' are religions and therefore on a par with creationism. LG>KK> If you are planning on using the above dictionary definition as an LG>KK> authority, you might want to note that according to it, nothing in LG>KK> science or humanism is religion. LG> And interestingly enough, in Funk and Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary, LG> humanism is defined as "a system or attitude in thought, religion, etc., LG> in which human ideals and the perfection of personality are made ntral". It could be argued that the development of human political thought over the last 10,000 years is the development of the concept of the individual. People in many Stone-Age tribes of today do not feel themselves to be individuals but rather fractions of the tribe. In that sense, the US Constitution is the greatest and also the most radical document in human history, becuase it defines government as the consent of the governed, or the will of the people. AFAIK it is the first document in history to state that Government does not inhere in a father-figure or an alpha male. So we're all revolutionaries, really. LG> Hmmmm... LG> Now how could anyone equate *that* with a religion? Disoportunadamente, we humans seem to have the ability to make an ideology (religion) out of whatever belief we absorbed at the age of about 4 or 5. After that, we don't think it's 'religion' or 'belief,' we think it's 'reality.' * SLMR 2.1a * Here at Intel, quality is Job 0.999997037582. --- PCBoard (R) v15.4/M 5 Beta * Origin: * Binary illusions BBS * Albuquerque, NM * 505.897.8282 * (1:301/45) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 115 RUSH LIMBAUGH Ref: F1M00070 Date: 01/17/98 From: KEITH KNAPP Time: 10:52pm \/To: ROBERT PLETT (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: Religious costs. RP>KK>It's not hard to find quotes from the founding fathers and others RP>KK>stating these things. Jefferson and other deists had other opinions, RP>KK>though I don't have those quotes anymore. RP>Calling him a deist does him a disservice. He denied such assertions RP>himself, and claimed to be a Christian: RP> On his personal religious views: "They are the result of a life of RP> inquiry and reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian RP> system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To RP> the corruption of Christianity, I am, indeed opposed; but not to the RP> genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian ..." RP> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803 That's what a Deist would say, Robert. Why do you suppose he brought up the "corruption of Christianity" and railed against the way Christianity tortured its critics? RP>As noted previously, it's a mistake, most often deliberate, to think RP>criticisms they leveled at church authorities means they weren't RP>Christians. Right. And since church authorities often believed that their sect should dominate politically (as yours believes) Deists used their authority as Christians to criticize those authorities. Deism accepted the existence of the Christian God, but rejected the common 'graven' image of God as an old patriarch on a throne who threw thunderbolts at any mortal who disagreed with him. I would submit for your consideration a radical view of God put forward by a long-haired hippie 2,000 years ago: God is infinite light, infinite ecstasy, infinite wisdom, infinite FORGIVENNESS, infinite mercy, infinite release from petty human obsessions. I know church-obsessed people are deeply offended by this radical view, but I urge you to try it on anyway. Maybe God isn't your father who monitors everything you do. Maybe God is a love so deep that it pervades every cell of your body and makes you helplessly fall to your knees, but forgives you for some stupid thing you did when you were 4 years old and didn't know any better. Just a thought, of course. But as a human being I know how much more deeply satisfying it is to imagine paying back all those dickheads who've wronged you over the years. It's easy to hate people, and if they speak the wrong language or have the wrong skin color, it's officially OK. We human beings are unique among animals in that we are willing to kill out-group members on the basis of ideologies, not just looks or skin color. Gee, some distinction. * SLMR 2.1a * . Chico of Borg: "Resistance? Atsa no good!" --- PCBoard (R) v15.4/M 5 Beta * Origin: * Binary illusions BBS * Albuquerque, NM * 505.897.8282 * (1:301/45)