[Vision2020] Leonard Pitts Jr: The Triumph of Igorance

Wed Oct 27 11:15:07 PDT 2010

Strange, I don't see anything in there about semi-automatic rifles.  I
guess, by your logic, there is no right to bear semi-automatic rifles.
After all, the clause ensuring government shall make no establishment of
religion does not ensure a wall of separation between church and state,
right?  It has to be explicitly stated in the constitution for it to be
interpreted as such, according to you.  Or does it only have to be
explicitly stated if it is something a liberal supports, and need only be
implied if it is something a conservative supports?

-Reggie

On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 11:03 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:

> Joe
> 2nd Amendment
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
> the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
> That is what the Constitution says, which I support.
> Roger
> -----Original message-----
> From: Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 16:47:53 -0700
> To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Leonard Pitts Jr:  The Triumph of Igorance
>
> > No where in the constitution does it say that individuals have a right to
> bear semi-automatic rifles.
> >
> > So you must be for gun control, Roger!
> >
> >
> > On Oct 25, 2010, at 11:56 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The First Amendment
> > > "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,or
> prohibiting the free exercise there of; or abridging the freedom of
> speech,or of the press,or the right of people peaceably to assemble, and or
> to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> > > No where is there any thing said about the separation of church and
> state. What it says is that no state religion  is to be established and that
> every one has the right to express their religious beliefs or lack there of.
> The "separation of church and state" comes from an article written by Thomas
> Jefferson in which he said "There should be a wall of separation between
> church and state" ,but it no where in the Constitution.
> > > Roger
> > >
> > > -----Original message-----
> > > From: "Art Deco" deco at moscow.com
> > > Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 10:24:30 -0700
> > > To: "Vision 2020" vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > Subject: [Vision2020] Leonard Pitts Jr:  The Triumph of Igorance
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> LEONARD PITTS JR.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> We don't deserve this
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
> or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."
> > >>
> > >> - from the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
> That's for Christine O'Donnell.
> > >>
> > >> "Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?" she
> asked last week, drawing gasps and astonished laughter from an audience of
> law school students.
> > >>
> > >> Chris Coons, her Democratic opponent for a Delaware Senate seat,
> replied that in asking the question, O'Donnell shows "fundamental
> misunderstanding of what our Constitution is. ... The First Amendment
> establishes the separation ..."
> > >>
> > >> O'Donnell wasn't buying it.
> > >>
> > >> "The First Amendment does? ...
> > >>
> > >> So you're telling me that the separation of church and state, the
> phrase 'separation of church and state,' is found in the First Amendment?"
> > >>
> > >> It was a bizarre exchange that permits but two conclusions. One,
> O'Donnell is frighteningly ignorant, particularly for a woman who claims
> constitutional expertise and aspires to the Senate. Or, two, assuming you
> buy her after-the-fact explanation (she was merely observing that the phrase
> "separation of church and state" is not in the First Amendment), she is
> terribly disingenuous.
> > >>
> > >> After all, the framers' intention to isolate church from state and
> vice versa is evident in the amendment's wording and is a matter of
> long-settled law, besides. The phrase "freedom of expression" doesn't appear
> in the First Amendment, either.
> > >>
> > >> Would O'Donnell question that right, too?
> > >>
> > >> Maybe I shouldn't ask.
> > >>
> > >> While one is appalled by O'Donnell's ignorance and/or
> disingenuousness, one is not surprised. The capacity to be surprised by her
> died long ago, victim of revelations that she once "dabbled" in witchcraft.
> > >>
> > >> And was the subject of an IRS lien. And said people with AIDS brought
> the disease upon themselves. And was sued for nonpayment by her college and
> mortgage company. And was cited eight times by the Federal Elections
> Commission And thinks scientists have created mice with human brains.
> > >>
> > >> That this woman is a major party candidate for national office, that
> she is among the brightest stars of a constellation of like-minded cranks -
> some of them already in office - tells you all you need to know about this
> moment in our political life. Welcome to the United States of Amnesia.
> > >>
> > >> Somehow we have forgotten the lesson we spent most of the last decade
> learning at ruinous cost: that faith-based governance, foreign policy by gut
> instinct, choosing leaders on the basis of which one we'd most like to watch
> television with, simply does not work.
> > >>
> > >> Some say this is a conservative revolution, but this is no
> conservatism Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater would have recognized. At
> least their ideology adhered to an interior logic. This ideology adheres to
> a perverse "illogic" that posits that the less you know, the more authentic
> you are. So what triumphs here is not conservatism, but rather, mediocrity.
> The Know Nothings and Flat Earthers are ascendant. But intellect matters.
> > >>
> > >> Knowledge is good. And what's it tell you that that point even needs
> to be made?
> > >>
> > >> In a recent debate, O'Donnell was asked to name a modern Supreme Court
> decision to which she objects. "Oh, gosh," she said. "Give me a specific
> one, I'm sorry. ... Right off the top of my head, I know that there are a
> lot, but I'll put it up on my website, I promise you."
> > >>
> > >> Some of us are reminded of how candidate George W. Bush kept calling
> Greeks "Grecians."
> > >>
> > >> Some of us remember how the electorate shrugged off that evidence of
> looming gaps in his basic knowledge because he had a folksy way and
> twinkling eyes. Some of us remember how that came out.
> > >>
> > >> Others apparently don't.
> > >>
> > >> Others are ready to travel that road again. It brings to mind an old
> saying: we get the leaders we deserve.
> > >>
> > >> You and I better hope that's not true.
> > >>
> > >> Leonard Pitts Jr. is a columnist for the Miami Herald.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > =======================================================
> > > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > >               http://www.fsr.net
> > >          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > =======================================================
> >
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>

-- 
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what
the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be
replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another
theory which states that this has already happened.

Douglas Adams
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20101027/cf2b2ba9/attachment-0001.html 