Message

Please email me off list. jsullivan@moscow.com.

Janesta = Sullivan

------=_NextPart_000_0021_01C359A1.B1922EA0-- From jsullivan@moscow.com Sun Aug 3 17:29:59 2003 From: jsullivan@moscow.com (JSullivan) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 09:29:59 -0700 Subject: [Vision2020] Professional position... References: <726E4F9A-C5CE-11D7-9BC3-000393B120B6@turbonet.com> Message-ID: <002901c359dc$7bf755f0$e9f2f5c7@Janestas> But how boring of a job! Janesta ----- Original Message ----- From: "Don Kaag" To: "Vision2020" Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2003 9:20 AM Subject: [Vision2020] Professional position... > Visionaries: > > Here's another one: > > Highway construction site flaggers (Priv): $23.00/hr > > This does take extensive training... 4 hours to be certified. > > Hey, wait a minute, that's more than I make teaching, doesn't require > an advanced degree, it's air-conditioned, and you can get a tan... > > Heh, heh... > > > Regards, > > Don Kaag > > On Sunday, August 3, 2003, at 07:14 AM, Dale Courtney wrote: > > > Ted Moffett wrote: > > > >> As I wrote before, the lack of comparison between the incomes > >> of top professionals in other fields with the incomes of > >> public school teachers is a glaring oversight in your attempt > >> to show that MSD teachers are overpaid. > > > > You must have missed this in all my previous posts. This *has* been > > something addressed repeatedly. > > > > The following numbers are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Here > > are the > > Mean Hourly Earnings by profession: > > > > Accountants & Auditors (S&L): $20.14/hr > > Computer Programmers (S&L): $21.27/hr > > Accountants & Auditors (Priv): $22.08/hr > > Computer Programmers (Priv): $24.49/hr > > Engineers, Architects, & Surveyors (S&L): $27.71/hr > > Secondary Teachers (S&L): $30.48/hr > > Elementary Teachers (S&L): $30.52/hr > > Engineers, Architects, & Surveyors (priv): $31.05/hr > > Lawyers (S&L): $34.64 > > > > Note: these numbers do *not* take into consideration benefits, etc. > > They > > also do not take into account the teachers' 60 non-work days per year. > > > > Would you like me to post a correction to your Letter to the Editor, or > > would you prefer to do it yourself? > > > > Best, > > Dale Courtney > > Moscow, Idaho > > > > _____________________________________________________ > > List services made available by First Step Internet, > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. > > http://www.fsr.net > > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com > > �� > > > > > _____________________________________________________ > List services made available by First Step Internet, > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. > http://www.fsr.net > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com > �� > > From dkaag@turbonet.com Sun Aug 3 19:44:05 2003 From: dkaag@turbonet.com (Don Kaag) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 11:44:05 -0700 Subject: [Vision2020] Flaggers... Message-ID: <7561F1FD-C5E2-11D7-8C09-000393B120B6@turbonet.com> Janesta: Boring? Only if you don't have anything to think about. Other than periodically turning the sign around, you are pretty much at liberty to listen to tunes on your CD box headphones, work on the perfect tan (Zonker would be jealous!), mentally solve the problems of the world, flesh out the characters for that first novel, fantasize about winning the lottery... the possibilities are endless! Regards, Don Kaag On Sunday, August 3, 2003, at 09:29 AM, JSullivan wrote: > But how boring of a job! > > Janesta > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Don Kaag" > To: "Vision2020" > Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2003 9:20 AM > Subject: [Vision2020] Professional position... > > >> Visionaries: >> >> Here's another one: >> >> Highway construction site flaggers (Priv): $23.00/hr >> >> This does take extensive training... 4 hours to be certified. >> >> Hey, wait a minute, that's more than I make teaching, doesn't require >> an advanced degree, it's air-conditioned, and you can get a tan... >> >> Heh, heh... >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Don Kaag >> >> On Sunday, August 3, 2003, at 07:14 AM, Dale Courtney wrote: >> >>> Ted Moffett wrote: >>> >>>> As I wrote before, the lack of comparison between the incomes >>>> of top professionals in other fields with the incomes of >>>> public school teachers is a glaring oversight in your attempt >>>> to show that MSD teachers are overpaid. >>> >>> You must have missed this in all my previous posts. This *has* been >>> something addressed repeatedly. >>> >>> The following numbers are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Here >>> are the >>> Mean Hourly Earnings by profession: >>> >>> Accountants & Auditors (S&L): $20.14/hr >>> Computer Programmers (S&L): $21.27/hr >>> Accountants & Auditors (Priv): $22.08/hr >>> Computer Programmers (Priv): $24.49/hr >>> Engineers, Architects, & Surveyors (S&L): $27.71/hr >>> Secondary Teachers (S&L): $30.48/hr >>> Elementary Teachers (S&L): $30.52/hr >>> Engineers, Architects, & Surveyors (priv): $31.05/hr >>> Lawyers (S&L): $34.64 >>> >>> Note: these numbers do *not* take into consideration benefits, etc. >>> They >>> also do not take into account the teachers' 60 non-work days per >>> year. >>> >>> Would you like me to post a correction to your Letter to the Editor, >>> or >>> would you prefer to do it yourself? >>> >>> Best, >>> Dale Courtney >>> Moscow, Idaho >>> >>> _____________________________________________________ >>> List services made available by First Step Internet, >>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. >>> http://www.fsr.net >>> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com >>> �� >>> >> >> >> _____________________________________________________ >> List services made available by First Step Internet, >> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. >> http://www.fsr.net >> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com >> �� >> >> > > From warrenhoskins@netscape.net Sun Aug 3 21:29:06 2003 From: warrenhoskins@netscape.net (Warren Hoskins) Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2003 16:29:06 -0400 Subject: [Vision2020] RE: Mars, red planet of war etc. - Meteorites on August 12-13, too Message-ID: <23E7BE83.276139B1.30998ADA@netscape.net> My cousin sent me the following:Watch the sky—Mars in August!Never again in your (or my) lifetime will the Red Planet be so spectacular. This month and next Earth is catching up with Mars, an encounter that will culminate in the closest approach between the two planets in recorded history. The next time Mars may come this close is in 2287. Due to the way Jupiter's gravity tugs on Mars and perturbs its orbit, astronomers can only be certain that Mars has not come this close to Earth in the last 5,000 years but it may be as long as 60,000 years. The encounter will culminate on August 27th when Mars comes to within 34,649,589 miles and will be (next to the moon) the brightest object in the night sky. It will attain a magnitude of -2.9 and will appear 25.11 arc seconds wide. At a modest 75-power magnification Mars will look as large as the full moon to the naked eye.--------So I had to point out the following:For extra fun, I understand that at 4:30 a.m. on the 13th, the Perseids will be in full show--two days after the full moon, so maybe get where you are in a shadow to watch for meteorites, as the moon could still be quite bright; and then the article above is a little misleading while accurate--it is true that Mars will look as large as the full moon and that it will be the next brightest object compared to how bright the moon is, EXCEPT, as they have failed to connect the dots on this one, that is the date of the NEW MOON, when the moon may be effectively dark, and if compared then, Mars will appear to be huge and glowing. Don't know where in the sky they will be at what time, perhaps someone else can do planetary and moon alignments, tell us best time to see Mars the night of the 27th, and where the moon will be. If we aren't all clouded up, of course. So--prepare for UFO reports! As Mars invades our skies, I am sure we will hear about the gigantic glowing red orb in space! What innocent fun... Peace,Warren __________________________________________________________________McAfee VirusScan Online from the Netscape Network.Comprehensive protection for your entire computer. Get your free trial today!http://channels.netscape.com/ns/computing/mcafee/index.jsp?promo=393397 Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 free of charge. Download Now!http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455 From predator75@moscow.com Sun Aug 3 23:11:03 2003 From: predator75@moscow.com (Dan Carscallen) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 15:11:03 -0700 Subject: [Vision2020] Flaggers... References: <7561F1FD-C5E2-11D7-8C09-000393B120B6@turbonet.com> Message-ID: <001e01c35a0c$2126bc80$a8f2f5c7@0019522361> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C359D1.74526660 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Boring, maybe. Dangerous for sure. They put their lives on the line = daily with all the drivers who are in too big a hurry to slow down for = road construction. It's also seasonal, so they aren't looking at that = paycheck year round. =20 DC ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Don Kaag=20 To: Vision2020=20 Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2003 11:44 AM Subject: [Vision2020] Flaggers... Janesta: Boring? Only if you don't have anything to think about. Other than periodically turning the sign around, you are pretty much at=20 liberty to listen to tunes on your CD box headphones, work on the=20 perfect tan (Zonker would be jealous!), mentally solve the problems of=20 the world, flesh out the characters for that first novel, fantasize=20 about winning the lottery... the possibilities are endless! Regards, Don Kaag On Sunday, August 3, 2003, at 09:29 AM, JSullivan wrote: > But how boring of a job! > > Janesta > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Don Kaag" > To: "Vision2020" > Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2003 9:20 AM > Subject: [Vision2020] Professional position... > > >> Visionaries: >> >> Here's another one: >> >> Highway construction site flaggers (Priv): $23.00/hr >> >> This does take extensive training... 4 hours to be certified. >> >> Hey, wait a minute, that's more than I make teaching, doesn't require >> an advanced degree, it's air-conditioned, and you can get a tan... >> >> Heh, heh... >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Don Kaag >> >> On Sunday, August 3, 2003, at 07:14 AM, Dale Courtney wrote: >> >>> Ted Moffett wrote: >>> >>>> As I wrote before, the lack of comparison between the incomes >>>> of top professionals in other fields with the incomes of >>>> public school teachers is a glaring oversight in your attempt >>>> to show that MSD teachers are overpaid. >>> >>> You must have missed this in all my previous posts. This *has* been >>> something addressed repeatedly. >>> >>> The following numbers are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Here >>> are the >>> Mean Hourly Earnings by profession: >>> >>> Accountants & Auditors (S&L): $20.14/hr >>> Computer Programmers (S&L): $21.27/hr >>> Accountants & Auditors (Priv): $22.08/hr >>> Computer Programmers (Priv): $24.49/hr >>> Engineers, Architects, & Surveyors (S&L): $27.71/hr >>> Secondary Teachers (S&L): $30.48/hr >>> Elementary Teachers (S&L): $30.52/hr >>> Engineers, Architects, & Surveyors (priv): $31.05/hr >>> Lawyers (S&L): $34.64 >>> >>> Note: these numbers do *not* take into consideration benefits, etc. >>> They >>> also do not take into account the teachers' 60 non-work days per=20 >>> year. >>> >>> Would you like me to post a correction to your Letter to the Editor, = >>> or >>> would you prefer to do it yourself? >>> >>> Best, >>> Dale Courtney >>> Moscow, Idaho >>> >>> _____________________________________________________ >>> List services made available by First Step Internet, >>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. >>> http://www.fsr.net >>> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com >>> = =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF >>> >> >> >> _____________________________________________________ >> List services made available by First Step Internet, >> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. >> http://www.fsr.net >> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com >> = =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF >> >> > > _____________________________________________________ List services made available by First Step Internet,=20 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. =20 http://www.fsr.net =20 mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C359D1.74526660 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Boring, maybe. Dangerous for sure. They put their lives = on the=20 line daily with all the drivers who are in too big a hurry to slow down = for road=20 construction. It's also seasonal, so they aren't looking at that = paycheck=20 year round.

----- Original Message -----=20

From: Don = Kaag

To: Vision2020

Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2003 11:44 AM

Subject: [Vision2020] Flaggers...

Janesta:

Boring? Only if you don't have = anything to=20 think about.

Other than periodically turning the sign around, you = are=20 pretty much at
liberty to listen to tunes on your CD box headphones, = work on=20 the
perfect tan (Zonker would be jealous!), mentally solve the = problems of=20
the world, flesh out the characters for that first novel, fantasize=20
about winning the lottery... the possibilities are=20 endless!

Regards,

Don Kaag

On Sunday, August 3, = 2003, at=20 09:29 AM, JSullivan wrote:

> But how boring of a = job!
>
>=20 Janesta
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Don Kaag" = <dkaag@turbonet.com>
> = To:=20 "Vision2020" <vision2020@moscow.com>
&g= t; Sent:=20 Sunday, August 03, 2003 9:20 AM
> Subject: [Vision2020] = Professional=20 position...
>
>
>> = Visionaries:
>>
>>=20 Here's another one:
>>
>> Highway construction site = flaggers=20 (Priv): $23.00/hr
>>
>> This does take extensive = training... 4=20 hours to be certified.
>>
>> Hey, wait a minute, = that's more=20 than I make teaching, doesn't require
>> an advanced degree, = it's=20 air-conditioned, and you can get a tan...
>>
>> Heh,=20 heh...
>>
>>
>> = Regards,
>>
>> Don=20 Kaag
>>
>> On Sunday, August 3, 2003, at 07:14 AM, = Dale=20 Courtney wrote:
>>
>>> Ted Moffett=20 wrote:
>>>
>>>> As I wrote before, the lack = of=20 comparison between the incomes
>>>> of top professionals = in other=20 fields with the incomes of
>>>> public school teachers is = a=20 glaring oversight in your attempt
>>>> to show that MSD = teachers=20 are overpaid.
>>>
>>> You must have missed this = in all=20 my previous posts. This *has* been
>>> something addressed=20 repeatedly.
>>>
>>> The following numbers are = from the=20 Bureau of Labor Statistics. Here
>>> are the
>>> = Mean=20 Hourly Earnings by profession:
>>>
>>> = Accountants &=20 Auditors (S&L): $20.14/hr
>>> Computer Programmers = (S&L):=20 $21.27/hr
>>> Accountants & Auditors (Priv):=20 $22.08/hr
>>> Computer Programmers (Priv): = $24.49/hr
>>>=20 Engineers, Architects, & Surveyors (S&L): = $27.71/hr
>>>=20 Secondary Teachers (S&L): $30.48/hr
>>> Elementary = Teachers=20 (S&L): $30.52/hr
>>> Engineers, Architects, & = Surveyors=20 (priv): $31.05/hr
>>> Lawyers (S&L):=20 $34.64
>>>
>>> Note: these numbers do *not* take = into=20 consideration benefits, etc.
>>> They
>>> also = do not=20 take into account the teachers' 60 non-work days per
>>>=20 year.
>>>
>>> Would you like me to post a = correction to=20 your Letter to the Editor,
>>> or
>>> would you = prefer=20 to do it yourself?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> = Dale=20 Courtney
>>> Moscow, Idaho
>>>
>>>=20 _____________________________________________________
>>>&nbs= p; List=20 services made available by First Step Internet,
>>> = serving=20 the communities of the Palouse since=20 1994.
>>>        &nbs= p;      =20 http://www.fsr.net
>>> &= nbsp;        =20 mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com>>>=20 =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF
>>>
>>
>>
>>=20 _____________________________________________________
>> = List=20 services made available by First Step Internet,
>> = serving the=20 communities of the Palouse since=20 1994.
>>         &n= bsp;     =20 http://www.fsr.net
>>  = ;        =20 mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com>>=20 =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF
>>
>>
>
>

____________= _________________________________________
List=20 services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the=20 communities of the Palouse since 1994.  =20
           &nb= sp;  =20 http://www.fsr.net    = ;            =       =20
          mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF=AF

------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C359D1.74526660-- From nielsen@uidaho.edu Mon Aug 4 00:35:47 2003 From: nielsen@uidaho.edu (Ralph Nielsen) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 16:35:47 -0700 Subject: [Vision2020] Re: Second coming of Jesus In-Reply-To: <20030803090001.98152.64652.Mailman@whale2.fsr.net> Message-ID: <356611C6-C60B-11D7-8007-00039385F674@uidaho.edu> --Apple-Mail-4-42168769 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > From: Douglas Stambler > Date: Sat Aug 2, 2003 3:07:37 PM US/Pacific > To: Ralph Nielsen , vision2020@moscow.com > Subject: [Vision2020] Second coming of Jesus: Response to R. Nielsen > > > Ralph: > =A0 > Christ is real and alive today!=A0 There's no doubt about that.=A0 And=20= > there is nothing that anyone can do to convince you of that, you have=20= > to try it yourself.=A0 Ask Jesus to come into your life today, and you=20= > will notice that your life improves, and that your burdens will be=20 > lifted, too.=A0 No one knows exactly when Christ will come again, and = I=20 > don't think that you really care about that.=A0 I think what you're=20 > after is for God to show Himself to you. > =A0 > Again, ask Christ into your life today, and you will feel the=20 > difference. > =A0 > In Christ, > Douglas Stambler RALPH NIELSEN I'm talking about the historical Jesus who was supposedly = carried up=20 into the sky and who promised to come down out of the sky again while=20 some of his contemporaries were still alive. Douglas, you are talking=20 about an imaginary companion. > RALPH NIELSEN (earlier) > The question of the Second Coming of Jesus becomes a "doctrinal" issue > only to those who refuse to face the fact that both Paul, the earliest > writer in the New Testament, and most of the others as well, looked = for > an imminent return of Jesus out of the clouds while nearly all of them > were still alive. Dale's claim that the Parousia was in two parts, = with > a judgment in the year 70, simply doesn't agree with the book of > Revelation, for example, where the judgment is yet to come. Most > scholars agree that Revelation was written around the year 100. > They also agree that the epistle of 2 Peter was not written by Peter, > but was a late attempt at damage control when Jesus had not yet shown > up as predicted. And ever since then, Christians looking for a magical > solution to all the world's troubles have had to pretend that Jesus, > Paul, et. al., either did not mean what they said or did not say what > they meant. Dale is correct that many books have been written over the > centuries attempting to rationalize this fact. > RALPH NIELSEN=A0 > >The question of the Second Coming of Jesus becomes a "doctrinal"=20 > issue only > >to those who refuse to face the fact that both Paul, the earliest=20 > writer in > >the New Testament, and most of the others as well, looked for an=20 > imminent > >return of Jesus out of the clouds while nearly all of them were still=20= > alive. > >Dale's claim that the Parousia was in two parts, with a judgment in=20= > the year > >70, simply doesn't agree with the book of Revelation, for example,=20 > where the > >judgment is yet to come. Most scholars agree that Revelation was=20 > written > >around the year 100. > From: "Dale Courtney" > Nielsen, you still have a lot more homework to do. > =A0 > First, your "late date" of 100 AD is held by "some" contemporary=20 > researchers. However, the vast majority of scholars thru history have=20= > disagreed with you and your 100 AD date. In fact, the vast majority=20 > have dated Revelation before 70 AD. If you would like, I can provide=20= > you (off-list) with a 15-page bibliography listing scholars who have=20= > disagreed with you over the past 2,000 years. Bottom line: all the=20 > internal and external evidence points to an early date (prior to 70=20 > AD). The reason for pushing the date to later isn't for scholarly=20 > purposes but to support a different agenda. > =A0 > Second, you need to study up more on Hebrew apocalyptic literature and=20= > see what it means to come in the clouds. Understanding apocalyptic=20 > genre is not like reading a Harry Potter book. > =A0 > Third, there is a significant difference between a coming in judgment=20= > and a physical coming. That distinction shouldn't be lost on you.=20 > Again, I refer you to the apocalyptic writings of the Hebrew Prophets=20= > where they speak of judgment comings. > =A0 > Finally, if you are *really* interested in knowing, contact me=20 > off-list -- vision2020 is not a forum for theological debates. Since=20= > you haven't done so, I'm assuming that you don't *really*=A0care to=20 > know, and that your agenda lies elsewhere. RALPH NIELSEN Recent scholars generally agree that Revelation was written = around the=20 year 95 (Adela Yarbro Collins, David E. Aune (both of whom I have=20 personally contacted) and others). But whenever it was written there is=20= no doubt that Jesus, Paul, and many early Christians believed that what=20= we call the first century was supposed to have been the last century.=20 But nothing happened, the prophecies failed, just as similar=20 prophecies, held by the Millerites, Latter-day Saints, and Jehovah's=20 Witnesses have also failed. I prophesy that Jesus will not come again=20 in your time or mine either. No matter how many Left Behind books or=20 Late Great Planet Earth books are written, he will not show up. Incidentally, Dale, a recent study concludes that frequent=20 masturbation by young men in their twenties helps to prevent prostate=20 problems in their later years. --Apple-Mail-4-42168769 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=ISO-8859-1 From: Douglas Stambler < Date: Sat Aug 2, 2003 3:07:37 PM US/Pacific To: Ralph Nielsen <, vision2020@moscow.com Subject: [Vision2020] Second coming of Jesus: Response to R. Nielsen Ralph: =A0 Christ is real and alive today!=A0 There's no doubt about that.=A0 And there is nothing that anyone can do to convince you of that, you have to try it yourself.=A0 Ask Jesus to come into your life today, and you will notice that your life improves, and that your burdens will be lifted, too.=A0 No one knows exactly when Christ will come again, and I don't think that you really care about that.=A0 I think what you're after is for God to show Himself to you. =A0 Again, ask Christ into your life today, and you will feel the difference. =A0 In Christ, Douglas Stambler RALPH NIELSEN I'm talking about the historical Jesus who was supposedly = carried up into the sky and who promised to come down out of the sky again while some of his contemporaries were still alive. Douglas, you are talking about an imaginary companion.=20 RALPH NIELSEN (earlier) The question of the Second Coming of Jesus becomes a "doctrinal" issue only to those who refuse to face the fact that both Paul, the earliest writer in the New Testament, and most of the others as well, looked for an imminent return of Jesus out of the clouds while nearly all of them were still alive. Dale's claim that the Parousia was in two parts, with a judgment in the year 70, simply doesn't agree with the book of Revelation, for example, where the judgment is yet to come. Most scholars agree that Revelation was written around the year 100. They also agree that the epistle of 2 Peter was not written by Peter, but was a late attempt at damage control when Jesus had not yet shown up as predicted. And ever since then, Christians looking for a magical solution to all the world's troubles have had to pretend that Jesus, Paul, et. al., either did not mean what they said or did not say what they meant. Dale is correct that many books have been written over the centuries attempting to rationalize this fact. RALPH NIELSEN=A0 >The question of the Second Coming of Jesus becomes a "doctrinal" issue only >to those who refuse to face the fact that both Paul, the earliest writer in >the New Testament, and most of the others as well, looked for an imminent >return of Jesus out of the clouds while nearly all of them were still alive. >Dale's claim that the Parousia was in two parts, with a judgment in the year >70, simply doesn't agree with the book of Revelation, for example, where the >judgment is yet to come. Most scholars agree that Revelation was written >around the year 100. From: "Dale Courtney" < Nielsen, you still have a lot more homework to do. =A0 First, your "late date" of 100 AD is held by "some" contemporary researchers. However, the vast majority of scholars thru history have disagreed with you and your 100 AD date. In fact, the vast majority have dated Revelation before 70 AD. If you would like, I can provide you (off-list) with a 15-page bibliography listing scholars who have disagreed with you over the past 2,000 years. Bottom line: all the internal and external evidence points to an early date (prior to 70 AD). The reason for pushing the date to later isn't for scholarly purposes but to support a different agenda. =A0 Second, you need to study up more on Hebrew apocalyptic literature and see what it means to come in the clouds. Understanding apocalyptic genre is not like reading a Harry Potter book. =A0 Third, there is a significant difference between a coming in judgment and a physical coming. That distinction shouldn't be lost on you. Again, I refer you to the apocalyptic writings of the Hebrew Prophets where they speak of judgment comings. =A0 Finally, if you are *really* interested in knowing, contact me off-list -- vision2020 is not a forum for theological debates. Since you haven't done so, I'm assuming that you don't *really*=A0care to know, and that your agenda lies elsewhere. RALPH NIELSEN Recent scholars generally agree that Revelation was written = around the year 95 (Adela Yarbro Collins, David E. Aune (both of whom I have personally contacted) and others). But whenever it was written there is no doubt that Jesus, Paul, and many early Christians believed that what we call the first century was supposed to have been the last century. But nothing happened, the prophecies failed, just as similar prophecies, held by the Millerites, Latter-day Saints, and Jehovah's Witnesses have also failed. I prophesy that Jesus will not come again in your time or mine either. No matter how many Left Behind books or Late Great Planet Earth books are written, he will not show up. Incidentally, Dale, a recent study concludes that frequent masturbation by young men in their twenties helps to prevent prostate problems in their later years. --Apple-Mail-4-42168769-- From ccm_moscow@yahoo.com Mon Aug 4 00:45:22 2003 From: ccm_moscow@yahoo.com (Douglas Stambler) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 16:45:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Vision2020] My Testimony In-Reply-To: <356611C6-C60B-11D7-8007-00039385F674@uidaho.edu> Message-ID: <20030803234522.30412.qmail@web80602.mail.yahoo.com> --0-1834125609-1059954322=:30000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Ralph: I offer you my testimony. I was molested and beaten as a child, and my mother raped me until about the age of twelve. I had a lot of problems getting along with people, and it was only when I came to Christ, that I felt the burden of these things really go away. Christ is not an imaginary companion. Christ works through our souls, and offers us protection in this very difficult world we live in. That's my testimony for you. I OPEN THIS UP TO ALL CHRISTIANS ON THIS FORUM TO COME FORTH WITH YOUR TESTIMONIES ABOUT WHAT JESUS HAS DONE IN YOUR LIFE. PERHAPS I'M NOT THE PERSON TO START THIS ON THE FORUM, AND PERHAPS THERE ARE THOSE WHO THINK THAT THIS IS INAPPROPRIATE ON THE VISION2020 FORUM. BUT HERE WE ARE: WHAT'S MORE HELPFUL TO OTHERS THAN TO GIVE YOUR TESTIMONY ABOUT WHAT CHRIST HAS DONE FOR YOU? PLEASE, RALPH IS I THINK A PERSON WHO REALLY NEEDS TO HEAR FROM CHRISTIANS THE MIRACULOUS CHANGES THAT CHRIST BRINGS TO EVERYONE WHO ASKS FOR CHRIST TO COME INTO THEIR LIFE. FOR ONCE, IGNORE THE SOURCE OF THIS E-MAIL. BRING YOUR TESTIMONIES ABOUT JESUS CHRIST FORTH ON THIS FORUM. Thank you, Douglas Stambler (Pullman) ************************************* ote: > > From: Douglas Stambler > Date: Sat Aug 2, 2003 3:07:37 PM US/Pacific > To: Ralph Nielsen , vision2020@moscow.com > Subject: [Vision2020] Second coming of Jesus: Response to R. Nielsen > > > Ralph: > > Christ is real and alive today! There's no doubt about that. And > there is nothing that anyone can do to convince you of that, you have > to try it yourself. Ask Jesus to come into your life today, and you > will notice that your life improves, and that your burdens will be > lifted, too. No one knows exactly when Christ will come again, and I > don't think that you really care about that. I think what you're > after is for God to show Himself to you. > > Again, ask Christ into your life today, and you will feel the > difference. > > In Christ, > Douglas Stambler RALPH NIELSEN I'm talking about the historical Jesus who was supposedly carried up into the sky and who promised to come down out of the sky again while some of his contemporaries were still alive. Douglas, you are talking about an imaginary companion. > RALPH NIELSEN (earlier) > The question of the Second Coming of Jesus becomes a "doctrinal" issue > only to those who refuse to face the fact that both Paul, the earliest > writer in the New Testament, and most of the others as well, looked for > an imminent return of Jesus out of the clouds while nearly all of them > were still alive. Dale's claim that the Parousia was in two parts, with > a judgment in the year 70, simply doesn't agree with the book of > Revelation, for example, where the judgment is yet to come. Most > scholars agree that Revelation was written around the year 100. > They also agree that the epistle of 2 Peter was not written by Peter, > but was a late attempt at damage control when Jesus had not yet shown > up as predicted. And ever since then, Christians looking for a magical > solution to all the world's troubles have had to pretend that Jesus, > Paul, et. al., either did not mean what they said or did not say what > they meant. Dale is correct that many books have been written over the > centuries attempting to rationalize this fact. > RALPH NIELSEN > >The question of the Second Coming of Jesus becomes a "doctrinal" > issue only > >to those who refuse to face the fact that both Paul, the earliest > writer in > >the New Testament, and most of the others as well, looked for an > imminent > >return of Jesus out of the clouds while nearly all of them were still > alive. > >Dale's claim that the Parousia was in two parts, with a judgment in > the year > >70, simply doesn't agree with the book of Revelation, for example, > where the > >judgment is yet to come. Most scholars agree that Revelation was > written > >around the year 100. > From: "Dale Courtney" > Nielsen, you still have a lot more homework to do. > > First, your "late date" of 100 AD is held by "some" contemporary > researchers. However, the vast majority of scholars thru history have > disagreed with you and your 100 AD date. In fact, the vast majority > have dated Revelation before 70 AD. If you would like, I can provide > you (off-list) with a 15-page bibliography listing scholars who have > disagreed with you over the past 2,000 years. Bottom line: all the > internal and external evidence points to an early date (prior to 70 > AD). The reason for pushing the date to later isn't for scholarly > purposes but to support a different agenda. > > Second, you need to study up more on Hebrew apocalyptic literature and > see what it means to come in the clouds. Understanding apocalyptic > genre is not like reading a Harry Potter book. > > Third, there is a significant difference between a coming in judgment > and a physical coming. That distinction shouldn't be lost on you. > Again, I refer you to the apocalyptic writings of the Hebrew Prophets > where they speak of judgment comings. > > Finally, if you are *really* interested in knowing, contact me > off-list -- vision2020 is not a forum for theological debates. Since > you haven't done so, I'm assuming that you don't *really* care to > know, and that your agenda lies elsewhere. RALPH NIELSEN Recent scholars generally agree that Revelation was written around the year 95 (Adela Yarbro Collins, David E. Aune (both of whom I have personally contacted) and others). But whenever it was written there is no doubt that Jesus, Paul, and many early Christians believed that what we call the first century was supposed to have been the last century. But nothing happened, the prophecies failed, just as similar prophecies, held by the Millerites, Latter-day Saints, and Jehovah's Witnesses have also failed. I prophesy that Jesus will not come again in your time or mine either. No matter how many Left Behind books or Late Great Planet Earth books are written, he will not show up. Incidentally, Dale, a recent study concludes that frequent masturbation by young men in their twenties helps to prevent prostate problems in their later years. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! --0-1834125609-1059954322=:30000 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

Ralph:

I offer you my testimony.

I was molested and beaten as a child, and my mother raped me until about the age of twelve. I had a lot of problems getting along with people, and it was only when I came to Christ, that I felt the burden of these things really go away. Christ is not an imaginary companion. Christ works through our souls, and offers us protection in this very difficult world we live in.

That's my testimony for you.

I OPEN THIS UP TO ALL CHRISTIANS ON THIS FORUM TO COME FORTH WITH YOUR TESTIMONIES ABOUT WHAT JESUS HAS DONE IN YOUR LIFE. PERHAPS I'M NOT THE PERSON TO START THIS ON THE FORUM, AND PERHAPS THERE ARE THOSE WHO THINK THAT THIS IS INAPPROPRIATE ON THE VISION2020 FORUM. BUT HERE WE ARE: WHAT'S MORE HELPFUL TO OTHERS THAN TO GIVE YOUR TESTIMONY ABOUT WHAT CHRIST HAS DONE FOR YOU?

PLEASE, RALPH IS I THINK A PERSON WHO REALLY NEEDS TO HEAR FROM CHRISTIANS THE MIRACULOUS CHANGES THAT CHRIST BRINGS TO EVERYONE WHO ASKS FOR CHRIST TO COME INTO THEIR LIFE.

FOR ONCE, IGNORE THE SOURCE OF THIS E-MAIL. BRING YOUR TESTIMONIES ABOUT JESUS CHRIST FORTH ON THIS FORUM.

Thank you,

Douglas Stambler

(Pullman)

*************************************
ote:

>
> From: Douglas Stambler
> Date: Sat Aug 2, 2003 3:07:37 PM US/Pacific
> To: Ralph Nielsen , vision2020@moscow.com
> Subject: [Vision2020] Second coming of Jesus: Response to R. Nielsen
>
>
> Ralph:
>
> Christ is real and alive today! There's no doubt about that. And
> there is nothing that anyone can do to convince you of that, you have
> to try it yourself. Ask Jesus to come into your life today, and you
> will notice that your life improves, and that your burdens will be
> lifted, too. No one knows exactly when Christ will come again, and I
> don't think that you really care about that. I think what you're
> after is for God to show Himself to you.
>
> Again, ask Christ into y! our life today, and you will feel the
> difference.
>
> In Christ,
> Douglas Stambler

RALPH NIELSEN
I'm talking about the historical Jesus who was supposedly carried up
into the sky and who promised to come down out of the sky again while
some of his contemporaries were still alive. Douglas, you are talking
about an imaginary companion.

>
RALPH NIELSEN (earlier)
> The question of the Second Coming of Jesus becomes a "doctrinal" issue
> only to those who refuse to face the fact that both Paul, the earliest
> writer in the New Testament, and most of the others as well, looked for
> an imminent return of Jesus out of the clouds while nearly all of them
> were still alive. Dale's claim that the Parousia was in two parts, with
> a judgment in the year 70, simply doesn't agree with the book of
> Revelation, for example, where the judgment is yet to come. Most
> scholars agree! that Revelation was written around the year 100.
> They also agree that the epistle of 2 Peter was not written by Peter,
> but was a late attempt at damage control when Jesus had not yet shown
> up as predicted. And ever since then, Christians looking for a magical
> solution to all the world's troubles have had to pretend that Jesus,
> Paul, et. al., either did not mean what they said or did not say what
> they meant. Dale is correct that many books have been written over the
> centuries attempting to rationalize this fact.

> RALPH NIELSEN
> >The question of the Second Coming of Jesus becomes a "doctrinal"
> issue only
> >to those who refuse to face the fact that both Paul, the earliest
> writer in
> >the New Testament, and most of the others as well, looked for an
> imminent
> >return of Jesus out of the clouds while nearly all of them were still
> alive.> >Dale's claim that the Parousia was in two parts, with a judgment in
> the year
> >70, simply doesn't agree with the book of Revelation, for example,
> where the
> >judgment is yet to come. Most scholars agree that Revelation was
> written
> >around the year 100.

> From: "Dale Courtney"
> Nielsen, you still have a lot more homework to do.
>
> First, your "late date" of 100 AD is held by "some" contemporary
> researchers. However, the vast majority of scholars thru history have
> disagreed with you and your 100 AD date. In fact, the vast majority
> have dated Revelation before 70 AD. If you would like, I can provide
> you (off-list) with a 15-page bibliography listing scholars who have
> disagreed with you over the past 2,000 years. Bottom line: all the
> internal and external evidence points to an early date (prior to 70
>! ; AD). The reason for pushing the date to later isn't for scholarly
> purposes but to support a different agenda.
>
> Second, you need to study up more on Hebrew apocalyptic literature and
> see what it means to come in the clouds. Understanding apocalyptic
> genre is not like reading a Harry Potter book.
>
> Third, there is a significant difference between a coming in judgment
> and a physical coming. That distinction shouldn't be lost on you.
> Again, I refer you to the apocalyptic writings of the Hebrew Prophets
> where they speak of judgment comings.
>
> Finally, if you are *really* interested in knowing, contact me
> off-list -- vision2020 is not a forum for theological debates. Since
> you haven't done so, I'm assuming that you don't *really* care to
> know, and that your agenda lies elsewhere.

RALPH NIELSEN
Recent scholars generally agree th! at Revelation was written around the
year 95 (Adela Yarbro Collins, David E. Aune (both of whom I have
personally contacted) and others). But whenever it was written there is
no doubt that Jesus, Paul, and many early Christians believed that what
we call the first century was supposed to have been the last century.
But nothing happened, the prophecies failed, just as similar
prophecies, held by the Millerites, Latter-day Saints, and Jehovah's
Witnesses have also failed. I prophesy that Jesus will not come again
in your time or mine either. No matter how many Left Behind books or
Late Great Planet Earth books are written, he will not show up.
Incidentally, Dale, a recent study concludes that frequent
masturbation by young men in their twenties helps to prevent prostate
problems in their later years.

Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! --0-1834125609-1059954322=:30000-- From ted_moffett@hotmail.com Mon Aug 4 01:07:51 2003 From: ted_moffett@hotmail.com (Ted Moffett) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 00:07:51 +0000 Subject: [Vision2020] [Vision2020]Teachers Work: Wenders' Diatribe Message-ID: Dale et. al. See link below to data on Idaho Public School teachers work days and hours. Ted Moffett wrote: >> >> > 2) His statement was "inaccurate" because MSD teachers >> > really work more than 180 days out of the year if you include >> > all that is required of them in their career. This point has >> > been repeated and analyzed by myself and others on this list >> > before. I have not yet heard a convincing refutation of this point. >> Dale replied: >>Ted, would you please provide for me the "analysis" that you conducted for >>the number of workdays that MSD teachers do. >> > Ted replies: The analysis provided via the link below is obviously NOT MY analysis. Note that the "teaching days" came out to just over 180 and "other days of contract" came out to just over 9. Then there is the 11 hours a week average spent on "instruction related activities" not a part of the regular work day. Then there is average 4+ hours a week spent on "non-compensated" activities, which would add up to about another work day every two weeks of school, if a work day at 8 hours a day was figured. Interestingly, we have an average amount ($443.66) donated to students by teachers during that year out of their own income that equals over a days pay given away to students! Note that, as far I can tell, these results do not include figures regarding my main point in arguing that your annualized salary figures are misleading, and that your claims of the number of days "worked" by public school teachers are misleading, that point being: any course work that is required for professional advancement or recertification that is done during the teacher's summer "vacation" must be figured as time spent when they cannot be doing some other sort of job while on "vacation." This added "work" should be included somehow (it is not totally "voluntary" and if not completed would have a negative impact on career advancement and income) in days "worked" per year associated with the requirements of their career, and the income they might make during this period doing some other job should be subtracted somehow from the annualized salary figures, unless the teachers are paid to take the courses at a rate that equals what they make during the school year work days, a possibility I highly doubt occurs. Info on Idaho Public School teachers work days and hours: http://www.idahoea.org/happenings/FYI%20-%20Hours%20which%20teachers%20put%20in%20during%20a%20school%20year.html Dale wrote: >I have the list that MSD provided me. I'm curious what numbers *you* are >working off of. Anecdotal information, perhaps? No, a little birdy from the beyond told me! Ted _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From lukenieuwsma@softhome.net Sun Aug 3 23:30:27 2003 From: lukenieuwsma@softhome.net (Luke) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 15:30:27 -0700 Subject: [Vision2020] Religious Diversity Education References: Message-ID: <005601c35a31$72119c80$7f00a8c0@MOBILELUKE> Hello, Mr. Moffett: > >because of man's sinfulness. Whatever God commands us not to do is what we > >want to do the most. He condemns stealing, yet thievery occurs en mass > >throughout the world. He condemns lying, but it is so natural for us to > >deceive others, and sometimes ourselves, when it suits our purposes. He > >condemns fornication, yet there are millions who either do it or tolerate > >it; the same goes for adultery. And the list goes ever on. Everything > >divinely forbidden is sought after, and so when God draws out a just reward > >for the murderer, the world today shuns His justice and lets the slayer get > >off free. > > > > Ted replies: > > Luke, stay tuned! I have been doing research on biblical references and > analysis regarding the death penalty (but not simple minded analysis, sorry > about my bias!). My point about the bias was that having bias is like breathing air - you can't escape it; everyone looks at the world from a particular vantage point, and there are things we like and things we dislike. I wasn't upholding simpletons. > > Oh, I have nothing wrong with science, but it is a tool with limited > >application; you cannot make moral judgments off of scientific knowledge, > >or > >upon the basis of empirical probability, which is in effect what you were > >doing. > > Ted replies: > > So if I use science to conclude that a chemical pollutant has a certain > probability that it will kill people, and so should be avoided, the use of > science in this example is invalid? Notice I am not saying that science > tells us it is immoral to kill, merely that it is part of the process of > finding out what does kill, and therefore what to avoid. I don't know that we have a disagreement here. I fully support technological research, but as you said, technology does not tell us that it is immoral to kill. > PLease supply the quote from my text where I used science as the total basis > to determine a moral or ethical rule. > I do not believe I have done this. >From your post on July 20th: "Some statements I do believe are certain... Some absolutist belief systems about God and the whole universe may be true in whole. The evidence is lacking to PROVE any of these belief systems to be wholly true, for many reasons. Logical and empirical uncertainty." You're juding these things based entirely on the scientific method. The scientific method is founded on the properties of physical matter, and it cannot make moral judgements or recommendations. It works great for telling you which solution will dissolve paint, or how to get better fuel economy, but the empirical modus operandus has no grasp on ethics or faith. Sincerely and respectfully, Luke Nieuwsma From johnbharrell@yahoo.com Mon Aug 4 04:20:32 2003 From: johnbharrell@yahoo.com (John Harrell) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 20:20:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Vision2020] Re: Second coming of Jesus In-Reply-To: <356611C6-C60B-11D7-8007-00039385F674@uidaho.edu> Message-ID: <20030804032032.19588.qmail@web13408.mail.yahoo.com> Ralph, You really do seem to have a very limited understanding of eschatology and preterism. For laughs though, I would recommend the book "Right Behind", by Nathan Wilson, publishing company Canon Press. Enjoy and Cheers! John Harrell --- Ralph Nielsen wrote: > > > > From: Douglas Stambler > > Date: Sat Aug 2, 2003 3:07:37 PM US/Pacific > > To: Ralph Nielsen , vision2020@moscow.com > > Subject: [Vision2020] Second coming of Jesus: Response to R. Nielsen > > > > > > Ralph: > > � > > Christ is real and alive today!� There's no doubt about that.� And > > there is nothing that anyone can do to convince you of that, you have > > to try it yourself.� Ask Jesus to come into your life today, and you > > will notice that your life improves, and that your burdens will be > > lifted, too.� No one knows exactly when Christ will come again, and I > > don't think that you really care about that.� I think what you're > > after is for God to show Himself to you. > > � > > Again, ask Christ into your life today, and you will feel the > > difference. > > � > > In Christ, > > Douglas Stambler > > RALPH NIELSEN > I'm talking about the historical Jesus who was supposedly carried up > into the sky and who promised to come down out of the sky again while > some of his contemporaries were still alive. Douglas, you are talking > about an imaginary companion. > > > > RALPH NIELSEN (earlier) > > The question of the Second Coming of Jesus becomes a "doctrinal" issue > > only to those who refuse to face the fact that both Paul, the earliest > > writer in the New Testament, and most of the others as well, looked for > > an imminent return of Jesus out of the clouds while nearly all of them > > were still alive. Dale's claim that the Parousia was in two parts, with > > a judgment in the year 70, simply doesn't agree with the book of > > Revelation, for example, where the judgment is yet to come. Most > > scholars agree that Revelation was written around the year 100. > > They also agree that the epistle of 2 Peter was not written by Peter, > > but was a late attempt at damage control when Jesus had not yet shown > > up as predicted. And ever since then, Christians looking for a magical > > solution to all the world's troubles have had to pretend that Jesus, > > Paul, et. al., either did not mean what they said or did not say what > > they meant. Dale is correct that many books have been written over the > > centuries attempting to rationalize this fact. > > > RALPH NIELSEN� > > >The question of the Second Coming of Jesus becomes a "doctrinal" > > issue only > > >to those who refuse to face the fact that both Paul, the earliest > > writer in > > >the New Testament, and most of the others as well, looked for an > > imminent > > >return of Jesus out of the clouds while nearly all of them were still > > alive. > > >Dale's claim that the Parousia was in two parts, with a judgment in > > the year > > >70, simply doesn't agree with the book of Revelation, for example, > > where the > > >judgment is yet to come. Most scholars agree that Revelation was > > written > > >around the year 100. > > > From: "Dale Courtney" > > Nielsen, you still have a lot more homework to do. > > � > > First, your "late date" of 100 AD is held by "some" contemporary > > researchers. However, the vast majority of scholars thru history have > > disagreed with you and your 100 AD date. In fact, the vast majority > > have dated Revelation before 70 AD. If you would like, I can provide > > you (off-list) with a 15-page bibliography listing scholars who have > > disagreed with you over the past 2,000 years. Bottom line: all the > > internal and external evidence points to an early date (prior to 70 > > AD). The reason for pushing the date to later isn't for scholarly > > purposes but to support a different agenda. > > � > > Second, you need to study up more on Hebrew apocalyptic literature and > > see what it means to come in the clouds. Understanding apocalyptic > > genre is not like reading a Harry Potter book. > > � > > Third, there is a significant difference between a coming in judgment > > and a physical coming. That distinction shouldn't be lost on you. > > Again, I refer you to the apocalyptic writings of the Hebrew Prophets > > where they speak of judgment comings. > > � > > Finally, if you are *really* interested in knowing, contact me > > off-list -- vision2020 is not a forum for theological debates. Since > > you haven't done so, I'm assuming that you don't *really*�care to > > know, and that your agenda lies elsewhere. > > RALPH NIELSEN > Recent scholars generally agree that Revelation was written around the > year 95 (Adela Yarbro Collins, David E. Aune (both of whom I have > personally contacted) and others). But whenever it was written there is > no doubt that Jesus, Paul, and many early Christians believed that what > we call the first century was supposed to have been the last century. > But nothing happened, the prophecies failed, just as similar > prophecies, held by the Millerites, Latter-day Saints, and Jehovah's > Witnesses have also failed. I prophesy that Jesus will not come again > in your time or mine either. No matter how many Left Behind books or > Late Great Planet Earth books are written, he will not show up. > Incidentally, Dale, a recent study concludes that frequent > masturbation by young men in their twenties helps to prevent prostate > problems in their later years. > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com From ted_moffett@hotmail.com Mon Aug 4 05:02:24 2003 From: ted_moffett@hotmail.com (Ted Moffett) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 04:02:24 +0000 Subject: [Vision2020] Teaching Salaries Compared Message-ID: Dale, et. al. My statement you quote below was not from my letter to the editor to the Daily News of this weekend. My letter to the editor did not mention you or anything you wrote. It focused on Jack Wenders' previous letter to the editor in the Daily News on this subject. Perhaps you are getting my letter mixed up with Chuck Pezeshki's letter, who mentioned both Dale Courtney and Jack Wenders in the same letters to the editor section of this "Weekend Edition" Daily News in a separate letter he wrote. What you quote below from V2020 was written carefully to refer to what the "top" professionals make in other fields. I am claiming that the top income of many other professions is far above what the top salary is for a public school teacher. It is possible, for example, there are many lousy computer programmers making low wages who lower the average hourly wage of all computer programmers. But what do the top computer scientists make? Even considering "mean" income, K-12 teaching is not that lucrative an option for "the best and the brightest," as the data I give below demonstrates. Of course you know that MSD teachers make far below the mean salary for public school teachers overall in the USA. Though my letter to the editor did not refer to any of your statements, I will nonetheless elucidate my meaning in my letter to the editor, and provide some data to back up my comments, which also illuminate my statement from V2020 which you do quote. Just as in the quote you reference below where I refer not to the "mean" salary, but to the "top" professional incomes, in my letter to the editor I refer to what the "best and brightest" can earn. I thought Wenders was presenting a misleading unflattering slant on the number of days worked by public school teachers when he compared their work year (with inaccurate numbers) with the average work year of all workers. Many well paid professionals can take long vacations, and with their higher rate of pay, still earn a substantial income, with a work year shorter than the average worker. This was part of the reason why I pointed out the incomes of many professions are higher than public school teachers, along with stating that because of the higher income of many other professions, "the best and the brightest" often do not consider teaching K-12 public school. So why the crusade to prove K-12 teachers they are so over paid? My assertions are based in part on the following data. No doubt you will want to annualize and add benefit costs to the salary listed below for K-12 teachers, but then the same process would need to be applied to the other professions listed with vacation and benefits. http://www.bls.gov/oco/ Median 1998 Salaries by Profession* Physician 164000 Dentist 110000 Pilot 91750 Lawyer 78170 Physicist 73240 Optometrist 68500 Aerospace Engineer 66950 Actuary 65560 Chiropractor 63930 Civil Engineer 62660 Computer Engineer 61910 Financial Manager 55070 Physicist (Bachelors only) 54000 Geologist 53890 Systems Analyst 52180 Mathematician 49120 Police 48700 Economist 48330 Psychologist 48050 Architect 47710 College Instructor 46630 Chemist 46220 Biologist 46140 Nurse 40690 Insurance Underwriter 38710 Accountant 37860 Building Inspector 37540 K-12 Teacher 35000 Mail Carrier 34840 Social Worker 30590 Musician 30020 Fire Fighter 31170 Designer 29200 Actor 27400 Travel Agent 23010 Dancer 21430 *From ``Occupational Outlook Handbook 2000-2001", U.S. Department of Labor. All median salaries listed include all educational levels, except for "Physicists (Bachelor's only)" which excludes Masters and Ph.D.s. Other professions have lower salaries (not listed) when such exclusions are made. Ted Moffett wrote: > > > As I wrote before, the lack of comparison between the incomes > > of top professionals in other fields with the incomes of > > public school teachers is a glaring oversight in your attempt > > to show that MSD teachers are overpaid. > Dale replied: >You must have missed this in all my previous posts. This *has* been >something addressed repeatedly. > >The following numbers are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Here are the >Mean Hourly Earnings by profession: > >Accountants & Auditors (S&L): $20.14/hr >Computer Programmers (S&L): $21.27/hr >Accountants & Auditors (Priv): $22.08/hr >Computer Programmers (Priv): $24.49/hr >Engineers, Architects, & Surveyors (S&L): $27.71/hr >Secondary Teachers (S&L): $30.48/hr >Elementary Teachers (S&L): $30.52/hr >Engineers, Architects, & Surveyors (priv): $31.05/hr >Lawyers (S&L): $34.64 > >Note: these numbers do *not* take into consideration benefits, etc. They >also do not take into account the teachers' 60 non-work days per year. > >Would you like me to post a correction to your Letter to the Editor, or >would you prefer to do it yourself? Ted replies: If you chose to correct my letter to the editor to the Daily News on this subject, at least remember the letter did not mention you, or refer to any statements you have or have not made. What you quote above that I wrote was from V2020, and as you can read from the data which I post here, I am still asserting that you are not sufficiently considering the top incomes in other professional fields when you make your case that K12 public school teachers are over paid. Your data above leaves out many other lucrative professions that attract capable individuals away from K-12 teaching careers. Consider the list of professions that I provide above, and the salaries given, for a more complete picture. Ted _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From sunilramalingam@hotmail.com Mon Aug 4 06:13:29 2003 From: sunilramalingam@hotmail.com (Sunil Ramalingam) Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2003 22:13:29 -0700 Subject: [Vision2020] Flaggers... Message-ID:

I don't know Dan, have you *annualized* their salaries? What about graphs?

Sunil

>From: "Dan Carscallen"

>To: "Vision2020"

>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Flaggers...

>Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 15:11:03 -0700

>Boring, maybe. Dangerous for sure. They put their lives on the line daily with all the drivers who are in too big a hurry to slow down for road construction. It's also seasonal, so they aren't looking at that paycheck year round.

>DC

>----- Original Message -----

>From: Don Kaag

>To: Vision2020

>Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2003 11:44 AM

>Subject: [Vision2020] Flaggers...

>Janesta:

>Boring? Only if you don't have anything to think about.

>Other than periodically turning the sign around, you are pretty much at

>liberty to listen to tunes on your CD box headphones, work on the

>perfect tan (Zonker would be jealous!), mentally solve the problems of

>the world, flesh out the characters for that first novel, fantasize

>about winning the lottery... the possibilities are endless!

>Regards,

>Don Kaag

>On Sunday, August 3, 2003, at 09:29 AM, JSullivan wrote:

> > But how boring of a job!

> >

> > Janesta

> > ----- Original Message -----

> > From: "Don Kaag"

> > To: "Vision2020"

> > Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2003 9:20 AM

> > Subject: [Vision2020] Professional position...

> >

> >> Visionaries:

> >>

> >> Here's another one:

> >>

> >> Highway construction site flaggers (Priv): $23.00/hr

> >>

> >> This does take extensive training... 4 hours to be certified.

> >>

> >> Hey, wait a minute, that's more than I make teaching, doesn't require

> >> an advanced degree, it's air-conditioned, and you can get a tan...

> >>

> >> Heh, heh...

> >>

> >> Regards,

> >>

> >> Don Kaag

> >>

> >> On Sunday, August 3, 2003, at 07:14 AM, Dale Courtney wrote:

> >>

> >>> Ted Moffett wrote:

> >>>

> >>>> As I wrote before, the lack of comparison between the incomes

> >>>> of top professionals in other fields with the incomes of

> >>>> public school teachers is a glaring oversight in your attempt

> >>>> to show that MSD teachers are overpaid.

> >>>

> >>> You must have missed this in all my previous posts. This *has* been

> >>> something addressed repeatedly.

> >>>

> >>> The following numbers are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Here

> >>> are the

> >>> Mean Hourly Earnings by profession:

> >>>

> >>> Accountants & Auditors (S&L): $20.14/hr

> >>> Computer Programmers (S&L): $21.27/hr

> >>> Accountants & Auditors (Priv): $22.08/hr

> >>> Computer Programmers (Priv): $24.49/hr

> >>> Engineers, Architects, & Surveyors (S&L): $27.71/hr

> >>> Secondary Teachers (S&L): $30.48/hr

> >>> Elementary Teachers (S&L): $30.52/hr

> >>> Engineers, Architects, & Surveyors (priv): $31.05/hr

> >>> Lawyers (S&L): $34.64

> >>>

> >>> Note: these numbers do *not* take into consideration benefits, etc.

> >>> They

> >>> also do not take into account the teachers' 60 non-work days per

> >>> year.

> >>>

> >>> Would you like me to post a correction to your Letter to the Editor,

> >>> or

> >>> would you prefer to do it yourself?

> >>>

> >>> Best,

> >>> Dale Courtney

> >>> Moscow, Idaho

> >>>

> >>> _____________________________________________________

> >>> List services made available by First Step Internet,

> >>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.

> >>> http://www.fsr.net

> >>> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com

> >>> ��

> >>>

> >>

> >> _____________________________________________________

> >> List services made available by First Step Internet,

> >> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.

> >> http://www.fsr.net

> >> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com

> >> ��

> >>

> >

>_____________________________________________________

> List services made available by First Step Internet,

> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.

> http://www.fsr.net

> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com

>��

MSN 8 helps ELIMINATE E-MAIL VIRUSES. Get 2 months FREE*. From ridethesaintedrhythms@hotmail.com Mon Aug 4 09:11:45 2003 From: ridethesaintedrhythms@hotmail.com (Joshua Gibbs) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 08:11:45 +0000 Subject: [Vision2020] Re: Second coming of Jesus Message-ID: Ralph, I'll ask you this honestly and openly for the third time. If I believe what you believe, how will it put joy in my life? Also, as far as a day to day living aspect is concerned, how does your view of life and the world make you happier? Mind it, I don't need to know about self-deception and organized religion. I know what's wrong with modern Christianity. I want to know how your beliefs will help my life be more enjoyable. I know you must have a better reason to hold your beliefs than just to smirk at Campus Crusade kids passing out leaflets. So what is it? Mad love, Josh >From: Ralph Nielsen >To: vision2020@moscow.com >Subject: [Vision2020] Re: Second coming of Jesus >Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 16:35:47 -0700 > >> >>From: Douglas Stambler >>Date: Sat Aug 2, 2003 3:07:37 PM US/Pacific >>To: Ralph Nielsen , vision2020@moscow.com >>Subject: [Vision2020] Second coming of Jesus: Response to R. Nielsen >> >> >>Ralph: >>� >>Christ is real and alive today!� There's no doubt about that.� And there >>is nothing that anyone can do to convince you of that, you have to try it >>yourself.� Ask Jesus to come into your life today, and you will notice >>that your life improves, and that your burdens will be lifted, too.� No >>one knows exactly when Christ will come again, and I don't think that you >>really care about that.� I think what you're after is for God to show >>Himself to you. >>� >>Again, ask Christ into your life today, and you will feel the difference. >>� >>In Christ, >>Douglas Stambler > >RALPH NIELSEN > I'm talking about the historical Jesus who was supposedly carried up into >the sky and who promised to come down out of the sky again while some of >his contemporaries were still alive. Douglas, you are talking about an >imaginary companion. > >> >RALPH NIELSEN (earlier) >>The question of the Second Coming of Jesus becomes a "doctrinal" issue >>only to those who refuse to face the fact that both Paul, the earliest >>writer in the New Testament, and most of the others as well, looked for >>an imminent return of Jesus out of the clouds while nearly all of them >>were still alive. Dale's claim that the Parousia was in two parts, with >>a judgment in the year 70, simply doesn't agree with the book of >>Revelation, for example, where the judgment is yet to come. Most >>scholars agree that Revelation was written around the year 100. >>They also agree that the epistle of 2 Peter was not written by Peter, >>but was a late attempt at damage control when Jesus had not yet shown >>up as predicted. And ever since then, Christians looking for a magical >>solution to all the world's troubles have had to pretend that Jesus, >>Paul, et. al., either did not mean what they said or did not say what >>they meant. Dale is correct that many books have been written over the >>centuries attempting to rationalize this fact. > >>RALPH NIELSEN� >> >The question of the Second Coming of Jesus becomes a "doctrinal" issue >>only >> >to those who refuse to face the fact that both Paul, the earliest writer >>in >> >the New Testament, and most of the others as well, looked for an >>imminent >> >return of Jesus out of the clouds while nearly all of them were still >>alive. >> >Dale's claim that the Parousia was in two parts, with a judgment in the >>year >> >70, simply doesn't agree with the book of Revelation, for example, where >>the >> >judgment is yet to come. Most scholars agree that Revelation was written >> >around the year 100. > >>From: "Dale Courtney" >>Nielsen, you still have a lot more homework to do. >>� >>First, your "late date" of 100 AD is held by "some" contemporary >>researchers. However, the vast majority of scholars thru history have >>disagreed with you and your 100 AD date. In fact, the vast majority have >>dated Revelation before 70 AD. If you would like, I can provide you >>(off-list) with a 15-page bibliography listing scholars who have disagreed >>with you over the past 2,000 years. Bottom line: all the internal and >>external evidence points to an early date (prior to 70 AD). The reason for >>pushing the date to later isn't for scholarly purposes but to support a >>different agenda. >>� >>Second, you need to study up more on Hebrew apocalyptic literature and see >>what it means to come in the clouds. Understanding apocalyptic genre is >>not like reading a Harry Potter book. >>� >>Third, there is a significant difference between a coming in judgment and >>a physical coming. That distinction shouldn't be lost on you. Again, I >>refer you to the apocalyptic writings of the Hebrew Prophets where they >>speak of judgment comings. >>� >>Finally, if you are *really* interested in knowing, contact me off-list -- >>vision2020 is not a forum for theological debates. Since you haven't done >>so, I'm assuming that you don't *really*�care to know, and that your >>agenda lies elsewhere. > >RALPH NIELSEN > Recent scholars generally agree that Revelation was written around the >year 95 (Adela Yarbro Collins, David E. Aune (both of whom I have >personally contacted) and others). But whenever it was written there is no >doubt that Jesus, Paul, and many early Christians believed that what we >call the first century was supposed to have been the last century. But >nothing happened, the prophecies failed, just as similar prophecies, held >by the Millerites, Latter-day Saints, and Jehovah's Witnesses have also >failed. I prophesy that Jesus will not come again in your time or mine >either. No matter how many Left Behind books or Late Great Planet Earth >books are written, he will not show up. > Incidentally, Dale, a recent study concludes that frequent masturbation by >young men in their twenties helps to prevent prostate problems in their >later years. _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From dale@courtneys.us Mon Aug 4 15:14:36 2003 From: dale@courtneys.us (Dale Courtney) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 07:14:36 -0700 Subject: [Vision2020] Professional position... In-Reply-To: <726E4F9A-C5CE-11D7-9BC3-000393B120B6@turbonet.com> Message-ID: <200308041414.h74EEtKM031069@whale2.fsr.net> > Highway construction site flaggers (Priv): $23.00/hr > > This does take extensive training... 4 hours to be certified. > > Hey, wait a minute, that's more than I make teaching, doesn't > require an advanced degree, it's air-conditioned, and you can > get a tan... Actually, with a base salary of $48,835 per year, working 180 days, you earn $33.91/hour. That's not including benefits, etc. Even *if* we assumed you worked 240 days/year, that is still $25.43/hour. Just for the record. Best, Dale From dougwils@moscow.com Mon Aug 4 16:27:13 2003 From: dougwils@moscow.com (Douglas) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 08:27:13 -0700 Subject: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage In-Reply-To: References: <20030801153100.38434.94875.Mailman@whale2.fsr.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030804082132.01ce8ea0@mail.moscow.com> Visionaries, Far from this being a demonstration of how illogical I am, it is actually a demonstration of whether or not ethical relativists have the courage of their convictions. If we reject the Christian morality that marriage consists of one man, one woman, one time, and we base this rejection on the fact that marriage is now only a "secular legal contract," then on what basis, Ralph, do we limit secular legal contract to just two parties? We were mistaken, it appears, in limiting marriage to heteros. Why are we not also mistaken in limiting it to couples? I urge you, Ralph, to stop trying to impede sexual liberation. The last thing we need around here is atheistic bluestocking wowserism. Cordially, Douglas Wilson t 02:18 PM 8/2/2003 -0700, you wrote: > Doug Wilson doesn't seem to want to recognize the difference > between church and state, so he gives us a homily about hypocrisy and sin > instead of recognizing that marriage, as far as the state is concerned, > is not a sacred institution, but a secular legal contract binding on the > two parties concerned. He illogically equates monogamy with polygamy and, > even more illogically, pretends that polygamy is a matter of how many > people can physically fit into a bedroom. > Doug concludes his diatribe by equating marriage laws with > building codes. Anyone who hasn't been indoctrinated with Wilsonian > "logic" can readily observe how totally illogical he is. > Ralph Nielsen > >On Friday, August 1, 2003, at 08:31 AM, vision2020-request@moscow.com wrote: > >> >>From: Douglas >>Date: Fri Aug 1, 2003 8:48:50 AM US/Pacific >>To: vision2020@moscow.com >>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage >> >> >>Visionaries, >> >>There is an important difference between sexual hypocrisy, which our >>nation has in spades, and which practices privately what it condemns >>publicly, and the tragic way of removing that hypocrisy, which is to >>bring yourself to approve the sin formally. Hypocrisy is the tribute that >>vice pays to virtue, and we always need to remember there are two ways to >>get out of a double standard. One is to repent of the sin, and the other >>is to drop the pretence of virtue. We are in the course of pursuing the >>latter, and it will not bring enlightenment. >> >>If it is true that marriage is nothing more than a "tax break," and is no >>longer a sacred institution, then we are not just talking about >>homosexual unions. We are also talking about polygamy, as long as more >>than two can physically fit into the privacy of the bedroom. What kind of >>sexual unions will have to be permitted as soon as the courts learn the >>rudiments of logic? He who says A must say B. >> >>And while we are on the subject of keeping the government out of the >>bedroom, why is it, when I built my house, the government wanted to tell >>me how far apart the sheetrock screws had to be in the bedroom, how the >>electric outlets had to be placed, how big the windows had to be, and so >>on, ad nauseam. Government out of the bedroom, aye. >> >>Cordially, >> >>Douglas > >_____________________________________________________ >List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the >communities of the Palouse since 1994. > http://www.fsr.net > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com >�� From nielsen@uidaho.edu Mon Aug 4 23:17:50 2003 From: nielsen@uidaho.edu (Ralph Nielsen) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 15:17:50 -0700 Subject: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage In-Reply-To: <20030804190006.26085.39348.Mailman@whale2.fsr.net> Message-ID: <7BFDE0B4-C6C9-11D7-8007-00039385F674@uidaho.edu> RALPH NIELSEN Mon Aug 4 Thank you, Doug, for further illustration of not only how illogical you are but also how disingenuous you can be. I said nothing about "Christian morality," whatever that might be, but pointed out that AS FAR AS THE STATE IS CONCERNED marriage is a secular legal contract. If Doug and other ecclesiastical poobahs wish to regulate marriage according to their alleged divine strictures, they are perfectly free to preach it to their followers. Likewise, the state also makes provision for divorce, whether some poobahs consider it to be moral or not. Some folks believe marriage is wrong, and some folks believe divorce is a sin, but that is of no concern to the state. I said nothing about sexual liberation but it seems to loom large in Doug's vocabulary. Neither do I promote polygamy, as Doug implies. In fact, many biblical heroes had more than one wife, e.g., Gideon, who had 70 sons "for he had many wives" (Judges 8:30). I think same-sex marriage is a good idea because it would place those couples on the same legal basis as bisexual couples. And don't forget that they would be under the same rules if they wanted to get divorced. We have laws to protect social stability and I think same-sex marriage will do just that. > From: Douglas > Date: Mon Aug 4, 2003 8:27:13 AM US/Pacific > To: vision2020@moscow.com > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage > > Far from this being a demonstration of how illogical I am, it is > actually a demonstration of whether or not ethical relativists have > the courage of their convictions. If we reject the Christian morality > that marriage consists of one man, one woman, one time, and we base > this rejection on the fact that marriage is now only a "secular legal > contract," then on what basis, Ralph, do we limit secular legal > contract to just two parties? We were mistaken, it appears, in > limiting marriage to heteros. Why are we not also mistaken in limiting > it to couples? I urge you, Ralph, to stop trying to impede sexual > liberation. The last thing we need around here is atheistic > bluestocking wowserism. > > RALPH NIELSEN 02:18 PM 8/2/2003 -0700, wrote: >> Doug Wilson doesn't seem to want to recognize the difference >> between church and state, so he gives us a homily about hypocrisy and >> sin instead of recognizing that marriage, as far as the state is >> concerned, is not a sacred institution, but a secular legal contract >> binding on the two parties concerned. He illogically equates monogamy >> with polygamy and, even more illogically, pretends that polygamy is a >> matter of how many people can physically fit into a bedroom. >> Doug concludes his diatribe by equating marriage laws with >> building codes. Anyone who hasn't been indoctrinated with Wilsonian >> "logic" can readily observe how totally illogical he is. >> Ralph Nielsen >> >>> >>> From: Douglas >>> Date: Fri Aug 1, 2003 8:48:50 AM US/Pacific >>> To: vision2020@moscow.com >>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage >>> >>> There is an important difference between sexual hypocrisy, which our >>> nation has in spades, and which practices privately what it condemns >>> publicly, and the tragic way of removing that hypocrisy, which is to >>> bring yourself to approve the sin formally. Hypocrisy is the tribute >>> that vice pays to virtue, and we always need to remember there are >>> two ways to get out of a double standard. One is to repent of the >>> sin, and the other is to drop the pretence of virtue. We are in the >>> course of pursuing the latter, and it will not bring enlightenment. >>> >>> If it is true that marriage is nothing more than a "tax break," and >>> is no longer a sacred institution, then we are not just talking >>> about homosexual unions. We are also talking about polygamy, as long >>> as more than two can physically fit into the privacy of the bedroom. >>> What kind of sexual unions will have to be permitted as soon as the >>> courts learn the rudiments of logic? He who says A must say B. >>> >>> And while we are on the subject of keeping the government out of the >>> bedroom, why is it, when I built my house, the government wanted to >>> tell me how far apart the sheetrock screws had to be in the bedroom, >>> how the electric outlets had to be placed, how big the windows had >>> to be, and so on, ad nauseam. Government out of the bedroom, aye. From vision2020@moscow.com Mon Aug 4 23:23:15 2003 From: vision2020@moscow.com (vision2020@moscow.com) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 15:23:15 -0700 Subject: [Vision2020] Latah County Zoning Commission Amended Agenda Message-ID: <000301c35ad6$ffb02160$3464000a@latah.id.us> The regularly scheduled Latah County Zoning Commission meeting for Wednesday, August 6th, 2003, previously cancelled, has been rescheduled and will meet at the regularly scheduled date and time. The agenda is available at http://www.latah.id.us/Comm/PlanZone_Main.htm. From thansen@moscow.com Tue Aug 5 00:09:29 2003 From: thansen@moscow.com (thansen@moscow.com) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 23:09:29 GMT Subject: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage Message-ID: <200308042239.h74Md3KM031600@whale2.fsr.net> Greetings Visionaires - I most seriously doubt that my 29-year heterosexual marriage will feel threatened if Jim and John Smith (or Mary and Jane Doe) decide to marry and move next door to me. That said, let's move on to more important topics. Is everybody enjoying this drop in temperature as much as I am? Tom Hansen Moscow, Idaho --------------------------------------------- This message was sent by First Step Internet. http://www.fsr.net/ From ccm_moscow@yahoo.com Mon Aug 4 23:43:01 2003 From: ccm_moscow@yahoo.com (Douglas Stambler) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 15:43:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage In-Reply-To: <200308042239.h74Md3KM031600@whale2.fsr.net> Message-ID: <20030804224301.11301.qmail@web80604.mail.yahoo.com> --0-213532984-1060036981=:10282 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii let 'em talk, tom, lots of people are interested in this very important topic thansen@moscow.com wrote:Greetings Visionaires - I most seriously doubt that my 29-year heterosexual marriage will feel threatened if Jim and John Smith (or Mary and Jane Doe) decide to marry and move next door to me. That said, let's move on to more important topics. Is everybody enjoying this drop in temperature as much as I am? Tom Hansen Moscow, Idaho --------------------------------------------- This message was sent by First Step Internet. http://www.fsr.net/ _____________________________________________________ List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com �� --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! --0-213532984-1060036981=:10282 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

let 'em talk, tom, lots of people are interested in this very important topic

thansen@moscow.com wrote:

Greetings Visionaires -

I most seriously doubt that my 29-year heterosexual marriage will feel
threatened if Jim and John Smith (or Mary and Jane Doe) decide to marry and
move next door to me.

That said, let's move on to more important topics.

Is everybody enjoying this drop in temperature as much as I am?

Tom Hansen
Moscow,
Idaho

---------------------------------------------
This message was sent by First Step Internet.
http://www.fsr.net/

_____________________________________________________
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
��

Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! --0-213532984-1060036981=:10282-- From donovanarnold@hotmail.com Tue Aug 5 00:30:12 2003 From: donovanarnold@hotmail.com (Donovan Arnold) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 16:30:12 -0700 Subject: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage Message-ID:

Ralph, Mr. Wilson, etc. . .,

I don't think you will ever through to Mr. Wilson. Using logic to get through to him is like using a wet noodle to get through a steel door.

If he wants to believe that the state should enforce the law so that all marriages fit his preferences that is his right to do so. I find that him proclaiming only his marriage is the only one that the state should endorse and all others are immoral ironic at best and hypocritical at worst.

If marriage is a religious issue, why do they allow people that are not Christian to get married? Or why do they allow people that are of different faiths to get married? Would it not be confusing to a child to have one parent be atheist, another Muslim, living in a society of Christians?

Why do they allow mail-order-brides? Is this not immoral? Or how about the marriage of a 80-year-old man to a 18-year-old girl? I don't see these Moralists fighting against these behaviors either.

When you boil it down, it comes to the government saying you can marry anyone on the basis of gender only. Not on the basis of if you love them.

Every argument they make for marriage to only be between a man and woman can be broken down to tiny pieces that wash away easily in logic and reason.

Argument 1) They can't reproduce.

This means that the moment that a women stops menstruating that the man should dump his wife? And with modern technology same sex partners now can reproduce, only now in a controlled manner that makes sure the child will be well taken care of.

Argument 2) They can't really love each other.

Well, this is impossible to prove or disprove to any degree of absolute certainty. Further, I don't see people attempting to break up Hollywood marriages, or rich men marrying young little Playboy models. This boils down to the government trying to get people to prove that they REALLY do love their partner.

Argument 3) The parts don't fit.

Well, in this case, let us hire doctors to make sure they do with heterosexual male and female couples too. Where is the push for this?

Argument 4) It is against the Bible.

Gee, so is hating people, should we make that illegal too?

Argument 5) It will lead to polygamy, bestiality, and pedophilia.

This is the opposite direction of where gay marriage is going. Polygamy, is a violation of the rights of women, bestiality is a violation of animal rights, and pedophilia is a violation of the rights of children.

Anymore people that would like to add more arguments please feel free to.

Thanks!

Donovan J Arnold

>From: Ralph Nielsen

>To: vision2020@moscow.com

>Subject: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage

>Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 15:17:50 -0700

>RALPH NIELSEN Mon Aug 4

> Thank you, Doug, for further illustration of not only how illogical

>you are but also how disingenuous you can be. I said nothing about

>"Christian morality," whatever that might be, but pointed out that

>AS FAR AS THE STATE IS CONCERNED marriage is a secular legal

>contract.

> If Doug and other ecclesiastical poobahs wish to regulate marriage

>according to their alleged divine strictures, they are perfectly

>free to preach it to their followers. Likewise, the state also makes

>provision for divorce, whether some poobahs consider it to be moral

>or not. Some folks believe marriage is wrong, and some folks believe

>divorce is a sin, but that is of no concern to the state.

> I said nothing about sexual liberation but it seems to loom large

>in Doug's vocabulary. Neither do I promote polygamy, as Doug

>implies. In fact, many biblical heroes had more than one wife, e.g.,

>Gideon, who had 70 sons "for he had many wives" (Judges 8:30).

> I think same-sex marriage is a good idea because it would place

>those couples on the same legal basis as bisexual couples. And don't

>forget that they would be under the same rules if they wanted to get

>divorced. We have laws to protect social stability and I think

>same-sex marriage will do just that.

>>From: Douglas

>>Date: Mon Aug 4, 2003 8:27:13 AM US/Pacific

>>To: vision2020@moscow.com

>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage

>>Far from this being a demonstration of how illogical I am, it is

>>actually a demonstration of whether or not ethical relativists have

>>the courage of their convictions. If we reject the Christian

>>morality that marriage consists of one man, one woman, one time,

>>and we base this rejection on the fact that marriage is now only a

>>"secular legal contract," then on what basis, Ralph, do we limit

>>secular legal contract to just two parties? We were mistaken, it

>>appears, in limiting marriage to heteros. Why are we not also

>>mistaken in limiting it to couples? I urge you, Ralph, to stop

>>trying to impede sexual liberation. The last thing we need around

>>here is atheistic bluestocking wowserism.

>>RALPH NIELSEN 02:18 PM 8/2/2003 -0700, wrote:

>>> Doug Wilson doesn't seem to want to recognize the

>>>difference between church and state, so he gives us a homily about

>>>hypocrisy and sin instead of recognizing that marriage, as far as

>>>the state is concerned, is not a sacred institution, but a secular

>>>legal contract binding on the two parties concerned. He

>>>illogically equates monogamy with polygamy and, even more

>>>illogically, pretends that polygamy is a matter of how many people

>>>can physically fit into a bedroom.

>>> Doug concludes his diatribe by equating marriage laws

>>>with building codes. Anyone who hasn't been indoctrinated with

>>>Wilsonian "logic" can readily observe how totally illogical he is.

>>> Ralph Nielsen

>>>

>>>>

>>>>From: Douglas

>>>>Date: Fri Aug 1, 2003 8:48:50 AM US/Pacific

>>>>To: vision2020@moscow.com

>>>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage

>>>>

>>>>There is an important difference between sexual hypocrisy, which

>>>>our nation has in spades, and which practices privately what it

>>>>condemns publicly, and the tragic way of removing that hypocrisy,

>>>>which is to bring yourself to approve the sin formally. Hypocrisy

>>>>is the tribute that vice pays to virtue, and we always need to

>>>>remember there are two ways to get out of a double standard. One

>>>>is to repent of the sin, and the other is to drop the pretence of

>>>>virtue. We are in the course of pursuing the latter, and it will

>>>>not bring enlightenment.

>>>>

>>>>If it is true that marriage is nothing more than a "tax break,"

>>>>and is no longer a sacred institution, then we are not just

>>>>talking about homosexual unions. We are also talking about

>>>>polygamy, as long as more than two can physically fit into the

>>>>privacy of the bedroom. What kind of sexual unions will have to

>>>>be permitted as soon as the courts learn the rudiments of logic?

>>>>He who says A must say B.

>>>>

>>>>And while we are on the subject of keeping the government out of

>>>>the bedroom, why is it, when I built my house, the government

>>>>wanted to tell me how far apart the sheetrock screws had to be in

>>>>the bedroom, how the electric outlets had to be placed, how big

>>>>the windows had to be, and so on, ad nauseam. Government out of

>>>>the bedroom, aye.

>_____________________________________________________

>List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the

>communities of the Palouse since 1994.

>http://www.fsr.net

>mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com

>��

MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* From dougwils@moscow.com Tue Aug 5 00:55:00 2003 From: dougwils@moscow.com (Douglas) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 16:55:00 -0700 Subject: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage In-Reply-To: <7BFDE0B4-C6C9-11D7-8007-00039385F674@uidaho.edu> References: <20030804190006.26085.39348.Mailman@whale2.fsr.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030804164237.0660c6e8@mail.moscow.com> Dear visionaries, Okay, Ralph. This should be fun. Thus far, we have agreed that as far as the state is concerned, marriage is a secular legal contract and nothing more. You persuaded me! Now, let's follow this out. What interest does the state have, and what basis does it have, for limiting said contracts to two parties? We have thought for a long time it should be just two, but of course, we thought *that* back in the day when we thought it should man and woman, one each. What benighted troglodytes we were back then! The forehead reddens to think of it. But now, if three or sixteen parties want to enter into a voluntary arrangement, a secular legal contract, mind you, what business is it of the state (which has agreed to stay out of the bedroom now) to say that they cannot? Why should the state restrict the formations of daisy chains? I invite everyone else to watch this closely. I am going to be very illogical, which is apparently defined these days as asking Ralph to be consistent. Cordially, Douglas At 03:17 PM 8/4/2003 -0700, you wrote: >RALPH NIELSEN Mon Aug 4 > Thank you, Doug, for further illustration of not only how > illogical you are but also how disingenuous you can be. I said nothing > about "Christian morality," whatever that might be, but pointed out that > AS FAR AS THE STATE IS CONCERNED marriage is a secular legal contract. > If Doug and other ecclesiastical poobahs wish to regulate > marriage according to their alleged divine strictures, they are perfectly > free to preach it to their followers. Likewise, the state also makes > provision for divorce, whether some poobahs consider it to be moral or > not. Some folks believe marriage is wrong, and some folks believe divorce > is a sin, but that is of no concern to the state. > I said nothing about sexual liberation but it seems to loom large > in Doug's vocabulary. Neither do I promote polygamy, as Doug implies. In > fact, many biblical heroes had more than one wife, e.g., Gideon, who had > 70 sons "for he had many wives" (Judges 8:30). > I think same-sex marriage is a good idea because it would place > those couples on the same legal basis as bisexual couples. And don't > forget that they would be under the same rules if they wanted to get > divorced. We have laws to protect social stability and I think same-sex > marriage will do just that. > > >>From: Douglas >>Date: Mon Aug 4, 2003 8:27:13 AM US/Pacific >>To: vision2020@moscow.com >>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage >> >>Far from this being a demonstration of how illogical I am, it is actually >>a demonstration of whether or not ethical relativists have the courage of >>their convictions. If we reject the Christian morality that marriage >>consists of one man, one woman, one time, and we base this rejection on >>the fact that marriage is now only a "secular legal contract," then on >>what basis, Ralph, do we limit secular legal contract to just two >>parties? We were mistaken, it appears, in limiting marriage to heteros. >>Why are we not also mistaken in limiting it to couples? I urge you, >>Ralph, to stop trying to impede sexual liberation. The last thing we need >>around here is atheistic bluestocking wowserism. >> >>RALPH NIELSEN 02:18 PM 8/2/2003 -0700, wrote: >>> Doug Wilson doesn't seem to want to recognize the difference >>> between church and state, so he gives us a homily about hypocrisy and >>> sin instead of recognizing that marriage, as far as the state is >>> concerned, is not a sacred institution, but a secular legal contract >>> binding on the two parties concerned. He illogically equates monogamy >>> with polygamy and, even more illogically, pretends that polygamy is a >>> matter of how many people can physically fit into a bedroom. >>> Doug concludes his diatribe by equating marriage laws with >>> building codes. Anyone who hasn't been indoctrinated with Wilsonian >>> "logic" can readily observe how totally illogical he is. >>> Ralph Nielsen >>> >>>> >>>>From: Douglas >>>>Date: Fri Aug 1, 2003 8:48:50 AM US/Pacific >>>>To: vision2020@moscow.com >>>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage >>>> >>>>There is an important difference between sexual hypocrisy, which our >>>>nation has in spades, and which practices privately what it condemns >>>>publicly, and the tragic way of removing that hypocrisy, which is to >>>>bring yourself to approve the sin formally. Hypocrisy is the tribute >>>>that vice pays to virtue, and we always need to remember there are two >>>>ways to get out of a double standard. One is to repent of the sin, and >>>>the other is to drop the pretence of virtue. We are in the course of >>>>pursuing the latter, and it will not bring enlightenment. >>>> >>>>If it is true that marriage is nothing more than a "tax break," and is >>>>no longer a sacred institution, then we are not just talking about >>>>homosexual unions. We are also talking about polygamy, as long as more >>>>than two can physically fit into the privacy of the bedroom. What kind >>>>of sexual unions will have to be permitted as soon as the courts learn >>>>the rudiments of logic? He who says A must say B. >>>> >>>>And while we are on the subject of keeping the government out of the >>>>bedroom, why is it, when I built my house, the government wanted to >>>>tell me how far apart the sheetrock screws had to be in the bedroom, >>>>how the electric outlets had to be placed, how big the windows had to >>>>be, and so on, ad nauseam. Government out of the bedroom, aye. > >_____________________________________________________ >List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the >communities of the Palouse since 1994. > http://www.fsr.net > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com >�� From ccm_moscow@yahoo.com Tue Aug 5 00:41:35 2003 From: ccm_moscow@yahoo.com (Douglas Stambler) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 16:41:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Vision2020] Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage: Offer To Doug Wilson In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030804164237.0660c6e8@mail.moscow.com> Message-ID: <20030804234135.36015.qmail@web80604.mail.yahoo.com> --0-940535744-1060040495=:35605 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii You know, for someone who calls himself a pastor, you sure NEVER SEEM TO TALK ABOUT CHRIST ON THIS FORUM, only about YOUR LEGAL INTERPRETATIONS OF THE BIBLE. THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE, SIR! TRY JESUS, DOUG...after all these years, try CHRIST. -Douglas Stambler ***************************************************************************** Douglas wrote: Dear visionaries, Okay, Ralph. This should be fun. Thus far, we have agreed that as far as the state is concerned, marriage is a secular legal contract and nothing more. You persuaded me! Now, let's follow this out. What interest does the state have, and what basis does it have, for limiting said contracts to two parties? We have thought for a long time it should be just two, but of course, we thought *that* back in the day when we thought it should man and woman, one each. What benighted troglodytes we were back then! The forehead reddens to think of it. But now, if three or sixteen parties want to enter into a voluntary arrangement, a secular legal contract, mind you, what business is it of the state (which has agreed to stay out of the bedroom now) to say that they cannot? Why should the state restrict the formations of daisy chains? I invite everyone else to watch this closely. I am going to be very illogical, which is apparently defined these days as asking Ralph to be consistent. Cordially, Douglas At 03:17 PM 8/4/2003 -0700, you wrote: >RALPH NIELSEN Mon Aug 4 > Thank you, Doug, for further illustration of not only how > illogical you are but also how disingenuous you can be. I said nothing > about "Christian morality," whatever that might be, but pointed out that > AS FAR AS THE STATE IS CONCERNED marriage is a secular legal contract. > If Doug and other ecclesiastical poobahs wish to regulate > marriage according to their alleged divine strictures, they are perfectly > free to preach it to their followers. Likewise, the state also makes > provision for divorce, whether some poobahs consider it to be moral or > not. Some folks believe marriage is wrong, and some folks believe divorce > is a sin, but that is of no concern to the state. > I said nothing about sexual liberation but it seems to loom large > in Doug's vocabulary. Neither do I promote polygamy, as Doug implies. In > fact, many biblical heroes had more than one wife, e.g., Gideon, who had > 70 sons "for he had many wives" (Judges 8:30). > I think same-sex marriage is a good idea because it would place > those couples on the same legal basis as bisexual couples. And don't > forget that they would be under the same rules if they wanted to get > divorced. We have laws to protect social stability and I think same-sex > marriage will do just that. > > >>From: Douglas >>Date: Mon Aug 4, 2003 8:27:13 AM US/Pacific >>To: vision2020@moscow.com >>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage >> >>Far from this being a demonstration of how illogical I am, it is actually >>a demonstration of whether or not ethical relativists have the courage of >>their convictions. If we reject the Christian morality that marriage >>consists of one man, one woman, one time, and we base this rejection on >>the fact that marriage is now only a "secular legal contract," then on >>what basis, Ralph, do we limit secular legal contract to just two >>parties? We were mistaken, it appears, in limiting marriage to heteros. >>Why are we not also mistaken in limiting it to couples? I urge you, >>Ralph, to stop trying to impede sexual liberation. The last thing we need >>around here is atheistic bluestocking wowserism. >> >>RALPH NIELSEN 02:18 PM 8/2/2003 -0700, wrote: >>> Doug Wilson doesn't seem to want to recognize the difference >>> between church and state, so he gives us a homily about hypocrisy and >>> sin instead of recognizing that marriage, as far as the state is >>> concerned, is not a sacred institution, but a secular legal contract >>> binding on the two parties concerned. He illogically equates monogamy >>> with polygamy and, even more illogically, pretends that polygamy is a >>> matter of how many people can physically fit into a bedroom. >>> Doug concludes his diatribe by equating marriage laws with >>> building codes. Anyone who hasn't been indoctrinated with Wilsonian >>> "logic" can readily observe how totally illogical he is. >>> Ralph Nielsen >>> >>>> >>>>From: Douglas >>>>Date: Fri Aug 1, 2003 8:48:50 AM US/Pacific >>>>To: vision2020@moscow.com >>>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage >>>> >>>>There is an important difference between sexual hypocrisy, which our >>>>nation has in spades, and which practices privately what it condemns >>>>publicly, and the tragic way of removing that hypocrisy, which is to >>>>bring yourself to approve the sin formally. Hypocrisy is the tribute >>>>that vice pays to virtue, and we always need to remember there are two >>>>ways to get out of a double standard. One is to repent of the sin, and >>>>the other is to drop the pretence of virtue. We are in the course of >>>>pursuing the latter, and it will not bring enlightenment. >>>> >>>>If it is true that marriage is nothing more than a "tax break," and is >>>>no longer a sacred institution, then we are not just talking about >>>>homosexual unions. We are also talking about polygamy, as long as more >>>>than two can physically fit into the privacy of the bedroom. What kind >>>>of sexual unions will have to be permitted as soon as the courts learn >>>>the rudiments of logic? He who says A must say B. >>>> >>>>And while we are on the subject of keeping the government out of the >>>>bedroom, why is it, when I built my house, the government wanted to >>>>tell me how far apart the sheetrock screws had to be in the bedroom, >>>>how the electric outlets had to be placed, how big the windows had to >>>>be, and so on, ad nauseam. Government out of the bedroom, aye. > >_____________________________________________________ >List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the >communities of the Palouse since 1994. > http://www.fsr.net > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com >�� _____________________________________________________ List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com �� --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! --0-940535744-1060040495=:35605 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

You know, for someone who calls himself a pastor, you sure NEVER SEEM TO TALK ABOUT CHRIST ON THIS FORUM, only about YOUR LEGAL INTERPRETATIONS OF THE BIBLE. THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE, SIR!

TRY JESUS, DOUG...after all these years, try CHRIST.

-Douglas Stambler

*****************************************************************************

Douglas <dougwils@moscow.com> wrote:

Dear visionaries,

Okay, Ralph. This should be fun.

Thus far, we have agreed that as far as the state is concerned, marriage is
a secular legal contract and nothing more. You persuaded me! Now, let's
follow this out. What interest does the state have, and what basis does it
have, for limiting said contracts to two parties? We have thought for a
long time it should be just two, but of course, we thought *that* back in
the day when we thought it should man and woman, one each. What benighted
troglodytes we were back then! The forehead reddens to think of it. But
now, if three or sixteen parties want to enter into a voluntary
arrangement, a secular legal contract, mind you, what business is it of the
state (which has agreed to stay out of the bedroom now) to say that they
cannot? Why should the state restrict the formation! s of daisy chains?

I invite everyone else to watch this closely. I am going to be very
illogical, which is apparently defined these days as asking Ralph to be
consistent.

Cordially,

Douglas

At 03:17 PM 8/4/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>RALPH NIELSEN Mon Aug 4
> Thank you, Doug, for further illustration of not only how
> illogical you are but also how disingenuous you can be. I said nothing
> about "Christian morality," whatever that might be, but pointed out that
> AS FAR AS THE STATE IS CONCERNED marriage is a secular legal contract.
> If Doug and other ecclesiastical poobahs wish to regulate
> marriage according to their alleged divine strictures, they are perfectly
> free to preach it to their followers. Likewise, the state also makes
> provision for divorce, whether some poobahs consider it to be moral or
> not. Some folks believe marriage is wrong, and some folks believe div! orce
> is a sin, but that is of no concern to the state.
> I said nothing about sexual liberation but it seems to loom large
> in Doug's vocabulary. Neither do I promote polygamy, as Doug implies. In
> fact, many biblical heroes had more than one wife, e.g., Gideon, who had
> 70 sons "for he had many wives" (Judges 8:30).
> I think same-sex marriage is a good idea because it would place
> those couples on the same legal basis as bisexual couples. And don't
> forget that they would be under the same rules if they wanted to get
> divorced. We have laws to protect social stability and I think same-sex
> marriage will do just that.
>
>
>>From: Douglas
>>Date: Mon Aug 4, 2003 8:27:13 AM US/Pacific
>>To: vision2020@moscow.com
>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage
>>
>>Far from this being a demonstration! of how illogical I am, it is actually
>>a demonstration of whether or not ethical relativists have the courage of
>>their convictions. If we reject the Christian morality that marriage
>>consists of one man, one woman, one time, and we base this rejection on
>>the fact that marriage is now only a "secular legal contract," then on
>>what basis, Ralph, do we limit secular legal contract to just two
>>parties? We were mistaken, it appears, in limiting marriage to heteros.
>>Why are we not also mistaken in limiting it to couples? I urge you,
>>Ralph, to stop trying to impede sexual liberation. The last thing we need
>>around here is atheistic bluestocking wowserism.
>>
>>RALPH NIELSEN 02:18 PM 8/2/2003 -0700, wrote:
>>> Doug Wilson doesn't seem to want to recognize the difference
>>> between church and state, so he gives us a homily about hypocrisy and
>>> sin instead of recognizing that marriage, as far as the state is
>>> concerned, is not a sacred institution, but a secular legal contract
>>> binding on the two parties concerned. He illogically equates monogamy
>>> with polygamy and, even more illogically, pretends that polygamy is a
>>> matter of how many people can physically fit into a bedroom.
>>> Doug concludes his diatribe by equating marriage laws with
>>> building codes. Anyone who hasn't been indoctrinated with Wilsonian
>>> "logic" can readily observe how totally illogical he is.
>>> Ralph Nielsen
>>>
>>>>
>>>>From: Douglas
>>>>Date: Fri Aug 1, 2003 8:48:50 AM US/Pacific
>>>>To: vision2020@moscow.com
>>>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage
>>>>
>>>>There is an important difference between sexual hypocrisy, which our
>>>>nation has in spades, and which practices privately what it condemns
>>>>publicly, and the tragic way of removing that hypocrisy, which is to
>>>>bring yourself to approve the sin formally. Hypocrisy is the tribute
>>>>that vice pays to virtue, and we always need to remember there are two
>>>>ways to get out of a double standard. One is to repent of the sin, and
>>>>the other is to drop the pretence of virtue. We are in the course of
>>>>pursuing the latter, and it will not bring enlightenment.
>>>>
>>>>If it is true that marriage is nothing more than a "tax break," and is
>>>>no longer a sacred institution, then we are not just talking about
>>>>homosexual unions. We are also talking! about polygamy, as long as more
>>>>than two can physically fit into the privacy of the bedroom. What kind
>>>>of sexual unions will have to be permitted as soon as the courts learn
>>>>the rudiments of logic? He who says A must say B.
>>>>
>>>>And while we are on the subject of keeping the government out of the
>>>>bedroom, why is it, when I built my house, the government wanted to
>>>>tell me how far apart the sheetrock screws had to be in the bedroom,
>>>>how the electric outlets had to be placed, how big the windows had to
>>>>be, and so on, ad nauseam. Government out of the bedroom, aye.
>
>_____________________________________________________
>List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the
>communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
>��

_____________________________________________________
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
��

Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! --0-940535744-1060040495=:35605-- From donovanarnold@hotmail.com Tue Aug 5 01:33:35 2003 From: donovanarnold@hotmail.com (Donovan Arnold) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 17:33:35 -0700 Subject: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage Message-ID:

Mr. Wilson,

Not only is your argument completely unrelated to the notion of Gay Marriage, but it is also illogical in itself.

Polygamy is a violation of human rights in numerous levels.

First, marriage requires that you place all loyalty to one person. How can you do that when you are married to multiple people?

Second, it allows the spread of disease, against the interests of the state and the community. One of the members of the union engages in sexual relations with someone outside the marriage and it goes to everyone, and could spread to many more children.

Third, it allows the suppression of women.

Fourth, it creates confusion in matters of divorce. Can the divorcing women sue all the ones he is married to also? If so, why is that fair? If not, he can transfer all his wealth to the others he is married to as well, leaving the women with nothing to raise her children on?

Fifth, how can one person swear to be monogamist to more than one person? Is this not an important part of marriage?

Sixth, who gets the benefits of life insurance, health insurance, and other benefits? If you have 20 wives, which one gets the dental benefit, which one gets the medicine? You could argue that businesses should provide health insurance for all the wives and children, but which children are his if they each have 20 husbands? You would also have bickering between the different health insurance companies as to which should pay for the costs of medical expenses.

Seventh, how is it fair to a spouse if one decides to marry another when they don't have a say in manner?

I could name about 50 more, but I don't see how this relates in any way to the gender of two people getting married. Polygamy is a heterosexual thing that was knocked down to protect the rights of women that were being abused in the relationship.

Donovan J Arnold

>From: Douglas

>To: vision2020@moscow.com

>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage

>Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 16:55:00 -0700

>Dear visionaries,

>Okay, Ralph. This should be fun.

>Thus far, we have agreed that as far as the state is concerned,

>marriage is a secular legal contract and nothing more. You persuaded

>me! Now, let's follow this out. What interest does the state have,

>and what basis does it have, for limiting said contracts to two

>parties? We have thought for a long time it should be just two, but

>of course, we thought *that* back in the day when we thought it

>should man and woman, one each. What benighted troglodytes we were

>back then! The forehead reddens to think of it. But now, if three or

>sixteen parties want to enter into a voluntary arrangement, a

>secular legal contract, mind you, what business is it of the state

>(which has agreed to stay out of the bedroom now) to say that they

>cannot? Why should the state restrict the formations of daisy

>chains?

>I invite everyone else to watch this closely. I am going to be very

>illogical, which is apparently defined these days as asking Ralph to

>be consistent.

>Cordially,

>Douglas

>At 03:17 PM 8/4/2003 -0700, you wrote:

>>RALPH NIELSEN Mon Aug 4

>> Thank you, Doug, for further illustration of not only how

>>illogical you are but also how disingenuous you can be. I said

>>nothing about "Christian morality," whatever that might be, but

>>pointed out that AS FAR AS THE STATE IS CONCERNED marriage is a

>>secular legal contract.

>> If Doug and other ecclesiastical poobahs wish to regulate

>>marriage according to their alleged divine strictures, they are

>>perfectly free to preach it to their followers. Likewise, the state

>>also makes provision for divorce, whether some poobahs consider it

>>to be moral or not. Some folks believe marriage is wrong, and some

>>folks believe divorce is a sin, but that is of no concern to the

>>state.

>> I said nothing about sexual liberation but it seems to

>>loom large in Doug's vocabulary. Neither do I promote polygamy, as

>>Doug implies. In fact, many biblical heroes had more than one wife,

>>e.g., Gideon, who had 70 sons "for he had many wives" (Judges

>>8:30).

>> I think same-sex marriage is a good idea because it would

>>place those couples on the same legal basis as bisexual couples.

>>And don't forget that they would be under the same rules if they

>>wanted to get divorced. We have laws to protect social stability

>>and I think same-sex marriage will do just that.

>>>From: Douglas

>>>Date: Mon Aug 4, 2003 8:27:13 AM US/Pacific

>>>To: vision2020@moscow.com

>>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage

>>>

>>>Far from this being a demonstration of how illogical I am, it is

>>>actually a demonstration of whether or not ethical relativists

>>>have the courage of their convictions. If we reject the Christian

>>>morality that marriage consists of one man, one woman, one time,

>>>and we base this rejection on the fact that marriage is now only a

>>>"secular legal contract," then on what basis, Ralph, do we limit

>>>secular legal contract to just two parties? We were mistaken, it

>>>appears, in limiting marriage to heteros. Why are we not also

>>>mistaken in limiting it to couples? I urge you, Ralph, to stop

>>>trying to impede sexual liberation. The last thing we need around

>>>here is atheistic bluestocking wowserism.

>>>

>>>RALPH NIELSEN 02:18 PM 8/2/2003 -0700, wrote:

>>>> Doug Wilson doesn't seem to want to recognize the

>>>>difference between church and state, so he gives us a homily

>>>>about hypocrisy and sin instead of recognizing that marriage, as

>>>>far as the state is concerned, is not a sacred institution, but a

>>>>secular legal contract binding on the two parties concerned. He

>>>>illogically equates monogamy with polygamy and, even more

>>>>illogically, pretends that polygamy is a matter of how many

>>>>people can physically fit into a bedroom.

>>>> Doug concludes his diatribe by equating marriage laws

>>>>with building codes. Anyone who hasn't been indoctrinated with

>>>>Wilsonian "logic" can readily observe how totally illogical he

>>>>is.

>>>> Ralph Nielsen

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>From: Douglas

>>>>>Date: Fri Aug 1, 2003 8:48:50 AM US/Pacific

>>>>>To: vision2020@moscow.com

>>>>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage

>>>>>

>>>>>There is an important difference between sexual hypocrisy, which

>>>>>our nation has in spades, and which practices privately what it

>>>>>condemns publicly, and the tragic way of removing that

>>>>>hypocrisy, which is to bring yourself to approve the sin

>>>>>formally. Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue, and

>>>>>we always need to remember there are two ways to get out of a

>>>>>double standard. One is to repent of the sin, and the other is

>>>>>to drop the pretence of virtue. We are in the course of pursuing

>>>>>the latter, and it will not bring enlightenment.

>>>>>

>>>>>If it is true that marriage is nothing more than a "tax break,"

>>>>>and is no longer a sacred institution, then we are not just

>>>>>talking about homosexual unions. We are also talking about

>>>>>polygamy, as long as more than two can physically fit into the

>>>>>privacy of the bedroom. What kind of sexual unions will have to

>>>>>be permitted as soon as the courts learn the rudiments of logic?

>>>>>He who says A must say B.

>>>>>

>>>>>And while we are on the subject of keeping the government out of

>>>>>the bedroom, why is it, when I built my house, the government

>>>>>wanted to tell me how far apart the sheetrock screws had to be

>>>>>in the bedroom, how the electric outlets had to be placed, how

>>>>>big the windows had to be, and so on, ad nauseam. Government out

>>>>>of the bedroom, aye.

>>_____________________________________________________

>>List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the

>>communities of the Palouse since 1994.

>> http://www.fsr.net

>> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com

>>��

>_____________________________________________________

>List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the

>communities of the Palouse since 1994.

>http://www.fsr.net

>mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com

>��

Protect your PC - Click here for McAfee.com VirusScan Online From ted_moffett@hotmail.com Tue Aug 5 04:24:14 2003 From: ted_moffett@hotmail.com (Ted Moffett) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 03:24:14 +0000 Subject: [Vision2020] Afghanistan's Record Opium Crop Message-ID: Visionaries: While we are distracted with Iraq and threats of terror, Kobe Bryant and ridiculous repressive government policies that block people who love each other from forming stable relationships, consider the lack of focus on or interest in Afghanistan: a country we bombed to oblivion and were going to rebuild. It is as though the entire nation has ADD! Ted Read below: ��Afghans on Edge of Chaos ��As opium production and banditry soar, the country is at risk of anarchy, some warn, and could allow a Taliban resurgence ��By Robyn Dixon ��The Los Angeles Times ��Monday 04 August 2003 ��WARDAK, Afghanistan - Two months after a gun attack, the bullet holes in the Datsun sedan have been patched and it runs beautifully. But water engineer Asil Kahn walks with a limp and he still has two bullets in his body, one of them half an inch from his spine. ��The vehicle's humanitarian logo made him a victim in the battle for Afghanistan's future, where water engineers, mine-clearers and humanitarian workers - people the country needs most - are prime targets for militants trying to destabilize President Hamid Karzai's interim government. ��The May attack on the Afghanistan Development Agency car in Wardak province, south of Kabul on the road to Kandahar, injured Kahn but killed the driver. ��"They weren't robbers or thieves," said Kahn, 46. "They just wanted to kill us. They're people against the government. They thought that maybe there would be some foreigners or some officials from aid organizations in the car. That's why they shot us." ��U.S. forces have their hands full trying to subdue attacks in Iraq. But with the slow buildup of a national Afghan army, an inadequate U.S. and coalition presence and poor progress on reconstruction projects, Afghanistan is spiraling out of control and risks becoming a "narco-mafia" state, some humanitarian agencies warn. ��Already the signs are there - a boom in opium production, rampant banditry and huge swaths of territory unsafe for Western aid workers. The central government has almost no power over regional warlords who control roads and extort money from truck drivers, choking commerce and trade. ��If the country slips into anarchy, it risks becoming a haven for resurgent Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters. And the point of U.S. military action here could be lost - a major setback in the war against terrorism. ��Money spent on the war may end up being wasted, and dragging the country back from chaos could be even more costly. America spends about $900 million a month on its forces stationed here, but little of the $3 billion authorized for aid in the Freedom Support Act has been spent. ��U.S. promises of a Marshall Plan for Afghanistan raised Afghan expectations, but security and reconstruction woes are undermining support for the coalition among ordinary Afghans. Their disappointment and disillusionment plays into the hands of anti-government militants. ��Humanitarian agencies, calling for a big boost in international funds for security and reconstruction, contend that the commitment to Afghanistan is relatively low. A CARE International paper in January stated that postwar international aid spent in Bosnia-Herzegovina was $326 per capita, compared with $42 promised for Afghans up to 2006. For every peacekeeping soldier there were 48 Bosnians, compared with one for every 5,380 Afghans, the paper said. Yet Bosnia poses no appreciable terrorist threat. ��There are 8,500 U.S. military personnel leading the 11,500 anti-terrorist coalition forces in Afghanistan. An additional 5,000 international troops secure the capital city, Kabul. A key missing piece is an Afghan army, but with only 4,000 troops trained so far, it will take many years to reach the planned 70,000-strong force. It won't be ready in time to ensure free and fair elections scheduled for June. Some of the 4,000 trained soldiers have already defected because of poor salaries and low morale. ��The security vacuum outside Kabul has emboldened Taliban fighters, who constitute the bulk of anti-government militants, some who cross from Pakistan, others based in the east and south. U.S. officials say the Taliban controls part of the opium business, a rich source of funds to attract fighters. ��As security worsens, there are sharp differences between the aid community and Western leaders on how to prevent a deepening slide. ��Many in the international aid community in Kabul believe the coalition's latest response to the security problem - small scale military teams tackling modest reconstruction projects - will have little impact and will put aid workers at more risk by blurring the line between them and soldiers. ��About 40% of the $5.2 billion pledged by the international community last year has been spent but with little progress on big reconstruction projects like the Kabul-to-Kandahar road. Much of the money has been eaten up by emergency relief - food, medicine, blankets and tents. ��Haji Abdul Khaliq, 54, arrived in Kabul exhausted by 14 hours on the shattering, rocky track of a highway from Kandahar. It was inconceivable to him that $2 billion had been spent in his country since January last year. ��"From what we can see, they didn't spend more than a dollar," he spluttered angrily. "There are no paved roads, no reconstruction of government buildings, no help for the people and no government salaries. ��"I think at first people were very hopeful, [but] day by day they lose hope," said Khaliq, a turbaned, white-bearded general from a Kandahar military base who is fighting Taliban militants in the south. ��The term Taliban can be a little confusing in a city like Kandahar, where most people in power were once with the Taliban. ��Typical of many Afghan moujahedeen fighters, Khaliq is loyal only to his commander. Though he's fighting anti-government militants, he is contemptuous of Americans and despises Karzai and his government. ��Khaliq said Taliban forces in the region were growing bolder. A June 30 explosion at a Kandahar mosque that injured more than a dozen was apparently aimed at the anti-Taliban mullah there. A day later another anti-Taliban mullah was shot dead in Nakobak village, six miles south of Kandahar. ��In the same week, said Khaliq, Taliban fighters from Pakistan set up a base northeast of Kandahar in Zabul province. Afghan forces attacked, killing a dozen Taliban fighters and capturing about five. ��The Taliban rebels offer local people good salaries - more than $100 a month - to fight, while Khaliq grumbled that he and his men are not being paid at all. Afghanistan's severe budgetary problems are leaving many civil servants unpaid. ��In Afghanistan, U.S. forces have not suffered the steady casualties borne by the much larger force in Iraq. But anti-government militants in recent months have killed aid workers, attacked mine-clearers and burned girls schools. In June, a suicide bomb attack in Kabul killed four German soldiers from the International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF. ��The security problem delaying the Kabul-Kandahar road project is denying the country the economic fillip of a six-hour trade route between the cities. Taxis can do the road in 14 hours, but truck transport takes at least two days. ��Taxi drivers working the road daily tell hair-raising tales of armed attacks by thieves and bandits. With something akin to nostalgia, they recall the security of the Taliban era, when they could drive all night without fear. ��U.S. forces are focused on eradicating remnants of the Taliban. But to many Afghans, a more immediate problem is bandits, often associated with the venal commanders and warlords who control the roads. ��Sher Alimad, 38, a driver from the western city of Herat, said he was attacked in mid-June by five gunmen at Gereshk, about 40 miles west of Kandahar. He was beaten, tied up and thrown into his trunk, driven to a deserted road and robbed of 12,000 Afghanis (about $250). ��A surge in trade by small businessmen after the Taliban's fall is being slowly strangled by extortion and banditry. ��A group of truck drivers sat wearily in the dust at Dashte Deh Sabz on the northern outskirts of Kabul, after their loads of gravel for the thriving brick industry were seized by a local commander named Maulana. They said he had taken over the gravel trade. ��"He's collecting from everyone. No one else can bring it into the city except for him," said driver Khalifa Yakub, 21, who said he was beaten by checkpoint soldiers and jailed for three days when he tried to protest. His dream of running his own small gravel transport business has died. He's become an employee. ��"These people, they're commanders, they're dealers, they're businessmen, they're killers, they're everything," he said ruefully. ��President Karzai has repeatedly called for the deployment of ISAF forces outside Kabul, a request echoed by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and international aid agencies, but resisted by U.S. and European leaders. Last month an open letter from 80 aid organizations called for a national ISAF presence, warning that efforts to rebuild and hold elections were at risk. ��Karzai has called for international donors to offer $20 billion over five years to help the country rebuild. CARE International called for at least $10 billion. ��Playing down the security problem on a recent visit, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said provincial reconstruction teams, or PRTs - military-civilian teams of 50-100 people deployed to rebuild infrastructure - would play a key role in improving security. Four are working, independent of ISAF, and eight are planned. ��Lt. Gen. Norbert van Heyst, the German commander of ISAF forces in Kabul, described the city as a "safe island" because of ISAF's presence, but expressed concern that militant attacks in the south and east could spill into the capital. However, he said, extending ISAF beyond Kabul was unrealistic. ��"For the entire country you would need 10,000 additional troops, and nobody is willing to do that," he said, adding that PRTs were a more realistic first step. "I'm convinced that this concept can improve security." ��It's a view contested by many in the humanitarian sector. Barbara Stapleton of ACBAR, the coordinating body for Afghan relief, said the military should focus on improving poor security, not duplicate the role of humanitarian agencies. ��PRTs "have neither the mandate nor the resources to have a significant impact on either reconstruction or security," she said, adding that the teams eroded Afghan confidence in the neutrality of humanitarian agencies. "In a highly complex security situation, they further muddy the waters." ��Stapleton said some U.S. military anti-terrorist forces had conducted crude searches in a village in southern Afghanistan, bursting into homes and offending cultural sensibilities. ��"Then they went in later with sweeteners and built wells. And the people refused to use them. It's actually a crude way of dealing with a highly sophisticated and very intelligent people." _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From jdanahy@turbonet.com Tue Aug 5 05:40:31 2003 From: jdanahy@turbonet.com (John Danahy) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 21:40:31 -0700 Subject: [Spam] [Vision2020] Afghanistan's Record Opium Crop In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c35b0b$b700b2b0$e274e4ce@laurie3zo89bgq> Come on now, surely no one is surprised at this. The CIA financed opium operation was endangered by the Taliban's attempt to shut it down. We attacked Afganistan to start it up again. So much for compassionate conservatism. John jdanahy@turbonet.com -----Original Message----- From: vision2020-admin@moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-admin@moscow.com] On Behalf Of Ted Moffett Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 8:24 PM To: vision2020@moscow.com Subject: [Spam] [Vision2020] Afghanistan's Record Opium Crop Visionaries: While we are distracted with Iraq and threats of terror, Kobe Bryant and ridiculous repressive government policies that block people who love each other from forming stable relationships, consider the lack of focus on or interest in Afghanistan: a country we bombed to oblivion and were going to rebuild. It is as though the entire nation has ADD! Ted Read below: ��Afghans on Edge of Chaos ��As opium production and banditry soar, the country is at risk of anarchy, some warn, and could allow a Taliban resurgence ��By Robyn Dixon ��The Los Angeles Times ��Monday 04 August 2003 ��WARDAK, Afghanistan - Two months after a gun attack, the bullet holes in the Datsun sedan have been patched and it runs beautifully. But water engineer Asil Kahn walks with a limp and he still has two bullets in his body, one of them half an inch from his spine. ��The vehicle's humanitarian logo made him a victim in the battle for Afghanistan's future, where water engineers, mine-clearers and humanitarian workers - people the country needs most - are prime targets for militants trying to destabilize President Hamid Karzai's interim government. ��The May attack on the Afghanistan Development Agency car in Wardak province, south of Kabul on the road to Kandahar, injured Kahn but killed the driver. ��"They weren't robbers or thieves," said Kahn, 46. "They just wanted to kill us. They're people against the government. They thought that maybe there would be some foreigners or some officials from aid organizations in the car. That's why they shot us." ��U.S. forces have their hands full trying to subdue attacks in Iraq. But with the slow buildup of a national Afghan army, an inadequate U.S. and coalition presence and poor progress on reconstruction projects, Afghanistan is spiraling out of control and risks becoming a "narco-mafia" state, some humanitarian agencies warn. ��Already the signs are there - a boom in opium production, rampant banditry and huge swaths of territory unsafe for Western aid workers. The central government has almost no power over regional warlords who control roads and extort money from truck drivers, choking commerce and trade. ��If the country slips into anarchy, it risks becoming a haven for resurgent Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters. And the point of U.S. military action here could be lost - a major setback in the war against terrorism. ��Money spent on the war may end up being wasted, and dragging the country back from chaos could be even more costly. America spends about $900 million a month on its forces stationed here, but little of the $3 billion authorized for aid in the Freedom Support Act has been spent. ��U.S. promises of a Marshall Plan for Afghanistan raised Afghan expectations, but security and reconstruction woes are undermining support for the coalition among ordinary Afghans. Their disappointment and disillusionment plays into the hands of anti-government militants. ��Humanitarian agencies, calling for a big boost in international funds for security and reconstruction, contend that the commitment to Afghanistan is relatively low. A CARE International paper in January stated that postwar international aid spent in Bosnia-Herzegovina was $326 per capita, compared with $42 promised for Afghans up to 2006. For every peacekeeping soldier there were 48 Bosnians, compared with one for every 5,380 Afghans, the paper said. Yet Bosnia poses no appreciable terrorist threat. ��There are 8,500 U.S. military personnel leading the 11,500 anti-terrorist coalition forces in Afghanistan. An additional 5,000 international troops secure the capital city, Kabul. A key missing piece is an Afghan army, but with only 4,000 troops trained so far, it will take many years to reach the planned 70,000-strong force. It won't be ready in time to ensure free and fair elections scheduled for June. Some of the 4,000 trained soldiers have already defected because of poor salaries and low morale. ��The security vacuum outside Kabul has emboldened Taliban fighters, who constitute the bulk of anti-government militants, some who cross from Pakistan, others based in the east and south. U.S. officials say the Taliban controls part of the opium business, a rich source of funds to attract fighters. ��As security worsens, there are sharp differences between the aid community and Western leaders on how to prevent a deepening slide. ��Many in the international aid community in Kabul believe the coalition's latest response to the security problem - small scale military teams tackling modest reconstruction projects - will have little impact and will put aid workers at more risk by blurring the line between them and soldiers. ��About 40% of the $5.2 billion pledged by the international community last year has been spent but with little progress on big reconstruction projects like the Kabul-to-Kandahar road. Much of the money has been eaten up by emergency relief - food, medicine, blankets and tents. ��Haji Abdul Khaliq, 54, arrived in Kabul exhausted by 14 hours on the shattering, rocky track of a highway from Kandahar. It was inconceivable to him that $2 billion had been spent in his country since January last year. ��"From what we can see, they didn't spend more than a dollar," he spluttered angrily. "There are no paved roads, no reconstruction of government buildings, no help for the people and no government salaries. ��"I think at first people were very hopeful, [but] day by day they lose hope," said Khaliq, a turbaned, white-bearded general from a Kandahar military base who is fighting Taliban militants in the south. ��The term Taliban can be a little confusing in a city like Kandahar, where most people in power were once with the Taliban. ��Typical of many Afghan moujahedeen fighters, Khaliq is loyal only to his commander. Though he's fighting anti-government militants, he is contemptuous of Americans and despises Karzai and his government. ��Khaliq said Taliban forces in the region were growing bolder. A June 30 explosion at a Kandahar mosque that injured more than a dozen was apparently aimed at the anti-Taliban mullah there. A day later another anti-Taliban mullah was shot dead in Nakobak village, six miles south of Kandahar. ��In the same week, said Khaliq, Taliban fighters from Pakistan set up a base northeast of Kandahar in Zabul province. Afghan forces attacked, killing a dozen Taliban fighters and capturing about five. ��The Taliban rebels offer local people good salaries - more than $100 a month - to fight, while Khaliq grumbled that he and his men are not being paid at all. Afghanistan's severe budgetary problems are leaving many civil servants unpaid. ��In Afghanistan, U.S. forces have not suffered the steady casualties borne by the much larger force in Iraq. But anti-government militants in recent months have killed aid workers, attacked mine-clearers and burned girls schools. In June, a suicide bomb attack in Kabul killed four German soldiers from the International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF. ��The security problem delaying the Kabul-Kandahar road project is denying the country the economic fillip of a six-hour trade route between the cities. Taxis can do the road in 14 hours, but truck transport takes at least two days. ��Taxi drivers working the road daily tell hair-raising tales of armed attacks by thieves and bandits. With something akin to nostalgia, they recall the security of the Taliban era, when they could drive all night without fear. ��U.S. forces are focused on eradicating remnants of the Taliban. But to many Afghans, a more immediate problem is bandits, often associated with the venal commanders and warlords who control the roads. ��Sher Alimad, 38, a driver from the western city of Herat, said he was attacked in mid-June by five gunmen at Gereshk, about 40 miles west of Kandahar. He was beaten, tied up and thrown into his trunk, driven to a deserted road and robbed of 12,000 Afghanis (about $250). ��A surge in trade by small businessmen after the Taliban's fall is being slowly strangled by extortion and banditry. ��A group of truck drivers sat wearily in the dust at Dashte Deh Sabz on the northern outskirts of Kabul, after their loads of gravel for the thriving brick industry were seized by a local commander named Maulana. They said he had taken over the gravel trade. ��"He's collecting from everyone. No one else can bring it into the city except for him," said driver Khalifa Yakub, 21, who said he was beaten by checkpoint soldiers and jailed for three days when he tried to protest. His dream of running his own small gravel transport business has died. He's become an employee. ��"These people, they're commanders, they're dealers, they're businessmen, they're killers, they're everything," he said ruefully. ��President Karzai has repeatedly called for the deployment of ISAF forces outside Kabul, a request echoed by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and international aid agencies, but resisted by U.S. and European leaders. Last month an open letter from 80 aid organizations called for a national ISAF presence, warning that efforts to rebuild and hold elections were at risk. ��Karzai has called for international donors to offer $20 billion over five years to help the country rebuild. CARE International called for at least $10 billion. ��Playing down the security problem on a recent visit, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said provincial reconstruction teams, or PRTs - military-civilian teams of 50-100 people deployed to rebuild infrastructure - would play a key role in improving security. Four are working, independent of ISAF, and eight are planned. ��Lt. Gen. Norbert van Heyst, the German commander of ISAF forces in Kabul, described the city as a "safe island" because of ISAF's presence, but expressed concern that militant attacks in the south and east could spill into the capital. However, he said, extending ISAF beyond Kabul was unrealistic. ��"For the entire country you would need 10,000 additional troops, and nobody is willing to do that," he said, adding that PRTs were a more realistic first step. "I'm convinced that this concept can improve security." ��It's a view contested by many in the humanitarian sector. Barbara Stapleton of ACBAR, the coordinating body for Afghan relief, said the military should focus on improving poor security, not duplicate the role of humanitarian agencies. ��PRTs "have neither the mandate nor the resources to have a significant impact on either reconstruction or security," she said, adding that the teams eroded Afghan confidence in the neutrality of humanitarian agencies. "In a highly complex security situation, they further muddy the waters." ��Stapleton said some U.S. military anti-terrorist forces had conducted crude searches in a village in southern Afghanistan, bursting into homes and offending cultural sensibilities. ��"Then they went in later with sweeteners and built wells. And the people refused to use them. It's actually a crude way of dealing with a highly sophisticated and very intelligent people." _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail _____________________________________________________ List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com �� From lukenieuwsma@softhome.net Tue Aug 5 05:56:50 2003 From: lukenieuwsma@softhome.net (Luke) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 21:56:50 -0700 Subject: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage References: <200308042239.h74Md3KM031600@whale2.fsr.net> Message-ID: <000e01c35b0e$0c615140$7f00a8c0@MOBILELUKE> Mr. Hansen, > I most seriously doubt that my 29-year heterosexual marriage will feel > threatened if Jim and John Smith (or Mary and Jane Doe) decide to marry and > move next door to me. What if you have a four-year-old son, and they are trying to convince him that he is being sexually deprived? Suppose they were active members of NAMBLA? Not an important topic to you? Luke Nieuwsma From donovanarnold@hotmail.com Tue Aug 5 06:49:05 2003 From: donovanarnold@hotmail.com (Donovan Arnold) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 22:49:05 -0700 Subject: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage Message-ID:

Luke writes:

"What if you have a four-year-old son, and they are trying to convince him that he is being sexually deprived? Suppose they were active members of NAMBLA? Not an important topic to you?"

Luke WTF? Honestly, you must live in hole that exists some where between the years 1892 and 1942.

First, Mr. Hansen is intelligent to check out who is left alone with his children.

Second, what does this have to do with Gay Marriage?

Third, he is worse off leaving his children with straight married man then he is gay man or women chosen at random.

Fourth, this is type of thinking that led to the placement of surge protectors on electrical outlets and warning signs on fans that say don't put your finger between the spinning blades.

Fifth, pull your head out of gutter!

Welcome to the 21st Century Luke!

Donovan J Arnold

>From: "Luke"

>To: vision2020@moscow.com

>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage

>Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 21:56:50 -0700

>Mr. Hansen,

> > I most seriously doubt that my 29-year heterosexual marriage will feel

> > threatened if Jim and John Smith (or Mary and Jane Doe) decide to marry

>and

> > move next door to me.

>What if you have a four-year-old son, and they are trying to convince him

>that he is being sexually deprived? Suppose they were active members of

>NAMBLA? Not an important topic to you?

>Luke Nieuwsma

>_____________________________________________________

> List services made available by First Step Internet,

> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.

> http://www.fsr.net

> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com

>��

Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. From petew@completebbs.com Tue Aug 5 07:11:17 2003 From: petew@completebbs.com (Peter Willard) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 23:11:17 -0700 Subject: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030804213333.009e6940@mail.completebbs.com> --=======233872A0======= Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-56BC5AF7; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit At 04:30 PM 8/4/03 -0700, Donovan Arnold wrote: >Argument 1) They can't reproduce. What other purpose does marriage serve if it doesn't create new, legitimate offspring? Are you suggesting some kind of santized prostitution? No! We shall build homes for the spinsters and the widowers where they can perform useful work without distraction and the men who remain unwed at age 22 shall volunteer for the Navy or the Merchant Marine, depending their temperments. >This means that the moment that a women stops menstruating that the man >should dump his wife? And with modern technology same sex partners now can >reproduce, only now in a controlled manner that makes sure the child will >be well taken care of. Modern technology is of the Devil, as a glimpse in a typical "INBOX" will quickly demonstrate. >Argument 2) They can't really love each other. Making marriage a "love" thing was probably the biggest mistake of Western Civilization. Marriage is of the community and not of the individual's fickle fancy!!! No one should be allowed to court, much less marry, without the approval of at least five upright men from their Church or perhaps of their fathers' Granges, if they live in different parishes. >Argument 3) The parts don't fit. There's one for some of your "modern technology"! >Argument 4) It is against the Bible. > >Gee, so is hating people, should we make that illegal too? Are you sure about that? Seems like that one guy hates just about everyone except perhaps Enoch and Noah, but it's not like we've heard much from them lately... >Argument 5) It will lead to polygamy, bestiality, and pedophilia. And tax credits just for checking out if it's "your style" or not! --=======233872A0======= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-56BC5AF7 Content-Disposition: inline --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.506 / Virus Database: 303 - Release Date: 8/1/03 --=======233872A0=======-- From timlohr@yahoo.com Tue Aug 5 08:02:26 2003 From: timlohr@yahoo.com (Tim Lohrmann) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 00:02:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Vision2020] Who Killed California? Message-ID: <20030805070226.82629.qmail@web10907.mail.yahoo.com> Visionaries, Even if he's not your cup of tea politically, you gotta admit that Pat tells it like it is about "Free" trade and Immigration. TL Who Killed California? > > By Patrick J. Buchanan > > With Gov. Gray Davis facing recall, a budget $38 > billion in deficit, and a bond rating dropped three notches by Standard & Poor's to near junk-bond > status, the lowest of all 50 states, the Golden > State is no more. > > Who killed the goose that laid the golden eggs? > > Certainly, Davis, who misled voters about the > gravity of his budget crisis in 2002, and won re-election by demonizing his GOP rivals, deserves his 20 > percent approval rating. But Gray Davis did not kill > California. > > The United States government did. For what killed > California as the golden land was massive and unrestricted immigration from the Third World, an > unrepelled invasion from Mexico, and a failure to > protect the U.S. manufacturing base and the wages of America's workers. > > During and after World War II, California became a > bastion of our defense, aerospace, auto and TV industries. Hundreds of thousands were hired to become > the highest-paid manufacturing workers on earth, > giving California the world's highest standard of living. The average California wage once stood at 130 > percent of the average U.S. wage. > > In the 1970s and 1980s, however, Japan, a free rider > on America's defense, began to engage in predatory trade, attacking and killing, one by one, U.S. industries and capturing U.S. markets with subsidized exports. > > California suffered first. Our TV industry was wiped > out. Our auto industry was reeling when Ronald Reagan stepped in to impose quotas on Japanese cars. > Reagan also intervened to save the semiconductor > industry, Big Steel and Harley-Davidson. Unlike today's free-trade fanatics, Ronald Reagan put America > first. > > But it was under Bush-Clinton-Bush that California > was irrevocably sacrificed to the gods of the Global Economy. > > During Bush I's term, millions of Mexicans began to > flee north to seek jobs and take advantage of the health care, welfare and free education American > citizens provided for their people. For one-third of > the illegals, California became the destination of choice. > > What the U.S. government should have done was > obvious, and was demanded by Americans: Enforce our immigration laws, halt the invasion, restrict > immigration from the Third World. But America's > politicians - out of fear of being brande xenophobic and to curry favor with Big Business, which > benefits from an endless supply of low-wage labor - did almost nothing to protect America. > > Californians tried to defend their state. As > illegals poured in by the hundreds of thousands yearly, they passed Proposition 187, denying social > welfare benefits to illegal aliens who had broken > the law and broken into the United States. > > The open-borders coalition, repudiated and routed, > ran to a federal judge, who annulled the voters' victory. Davis then refused to appeal the overturning > of 187 to the Supreme Court. Hispanic voters > rewarded him in 2002, and California state and local budgets continued to hemorrhage. > > By the 1990s, an exodus of taxpayers had begun. Fed > up with being fleeced to subsidize illegal aliens, Californians began leaving for Nevada, Idaho, > Arizona and Colorado. Two million native-born > Californians left the state in > the 1990s, as immigrants, legal and illegal, sent > poverty rates soaring in Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino and Orange counties. > > This, then, is what killed California: > > First, open borders. By failing to enforce our > immigration laws, America now hosts 31 million legal immigrants and their children and 10 million > illegals, most of them net tax consumers. California > got the lion's share. > > Second, global free trade and the trade deficits it > produced, now running at an annual rate of $562 billion in May. This has killed millions of > manufacturing jobs, as thousands of companies closed > factories here and shifted plants to Mexico, Asia and China. > > The Third Worldization of California is now far > advanced. Yet those responsible, Bush Republicans as well as Clinton Democrats, still cannot > see what they have done to our country. > > But what is happening in California is not confined > to California. It is happening across America. Unless we elect a president who will enforce our > immigration laws and defend our borders, unless we > find a Congress that will jettison the free-trade madness that is denuding America of her manufacturing, > what has happened to California will happen here. > > President Bush appears oblivious to it all - but > then, so did his father > before him. > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com From donovanarnold@hotmail.com Tue Aug 5 08:30:45 2003 From: donovanarnold@hotmail.com (Donovan Arnold) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 00:30:45 -0700 Subject: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage Message-ID:

HAHA! I think Peter is being sarcastic, I don't know him well enough to know or not over the internet, especially after Luke's crazy insane remarks. I really don't think anyone can be so far to the right and still exist in this world with any sanity. But I will take a crack at this just to be humorous back

>>Argument 1) They can't reproduce.

PW: "What other purpose does marriage serve if it doesn't create new, legitimate offspring? Are you suggesting some kind of santized prostitution?"

DA: Well, let me see, could marriage include things like LOVE, companionship, understanding, stability, and commitment? Or is it reduced to simply having sex and reproducing like bunnies on grassy field on a warm summer day?

PW "No! We shall build homes for the spinsters and the widowers where they can perform useful work without distraction and the men who remain unwed at age 22 shall volunteer for the Navy or the Merchant Marine, depending their temperments."

DA: Oh, so we will let men that have never had sex before and are prevented from being with women alone on a ship together? You are more liberal than I am. I guess since all men would be included there would gay men on these ships too?

DA: This means that the moment that a women stops menstruating that the man should dump his wife? And with modern technology same sex partners now can reproduce, only now in a controlled manner that makes sure the child will be well taken care of.

PW: "Modern technology is of the Devil, as a glimpse in a typical 'INBOX' will quickly demonstrate."

DA: I notice how you so well avoid the "evil" technology by reframing from the use of the internet. You will surely burn will you not?

Argument 2) They can't really love each other.

PW: "Making marriage a "love" thing was probably the biggest mistake of Western Civilization. Marriage is of the community and not of the individual's fickle fancy!!! No one should be allowed to court, much less marry, without the approval of at least five upright men from their Church or perhaps of their fathers' Granges, if they live in different parishes."

DA: Oh, yes, Love must be excluded from things like commitment, trust, and understanding. We would also not want to confuse the children by demonstrating to them what love is. They might go out and love people in the future, and soon enough, love could spread through the country. Where you are going to find five men that are upright in one community, I don't know, God could only find one man on the whole entire planet, and even he was a sinner.

>Argument 3) The parts don't fit.

PW: "There's one for some of your "modern technology"!"

DA: Yes, not to mention the hiring of about 200,000 high priced doctors.

Argument 4) It is against the Bible.

DA: Gee, so is hating people, should we make that illegal too?

PW: "Are you sure about that? Seems like that one guy hates just about everyone except perhaps Enoch and Noah, but it's not like we've heard much from them lately...

DA: Your right, let us make hating people a requirement.

Argument 5) It will lead to polygamy, bestiality, and pedophilia.

PW: "And tax credits just for checking out if it's "your style" or not!"

DA: We could not afford tax credits if you are paying doctors to measure body parts to make sure they fit their spouse.

Peter makes me look like a moderate. :)

Donovan J Arnold

>From: Peter Willard

>To: Vision2020

>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage

>Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 23:11:17 -0700

>At 04:30 PM 8/4/03 -0700, Donovan Arnold wrote:

>>Argument 1) They can't reproduce.

>What other purpose does marriage serve if it doesn't create new,

>legitimate offspring? Are you suggesting some kind of santized

>prostitution?

>No! We shall build homes for the spinsters and the widowers where

>they can perform useful work without distraction and the men who

>remain unwed at age 22 shall volunteer for the Navy or the Merchant

>Marine, depending their temperments.

>>This means that the moment that a women stops menstruating that the

>>man should dump his wife? And with modern technology same sex

>>partners now can reproduce, only now in a controlled manner that

>>makes sure the child will be well taken care of.

>Modern technology is of the Devil, as a glimpse in a typical "INBOX"

>will quickly demonstrate.

>>Argument 2) They can't really love each other.

>Making marriage a "love" thing was probably the biggest mistake of

>Western Civilization. Marriage is of the community and not of the

>individual's fickle fancy!!!

>No one should be allowed to court, much less marry, without the

>approval of at least five upright men from their Church or perhaps

>of their fathers' Granges, if they live in different parishes.

>>Argument 3) The parts don't fit.

>There's one for some of your "modern technology"!

>>Argument 4) It is against the Bible.

>>Gee, so is hating people, should we make that illegal too?

>Are you sure about that? Seems like that one guy hates just about

>everyone except perhaps Enoch and Noah, but it's not like we've

>heard much from them lately...

>>Argument 5) It will lead to polygamy, bestiality, and pedophilia.

>And tax credits just for checking out if it's "your style" or not!

>---

>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

>Version: 6.0.506 / Virus Database: 303 - Release Date: 8/1/03

STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* From donovanarnold@hotmail.com Tue Aug 5 09:27:47 2003 From: donovanarnold@hotmail.com (Donovan Arnold) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 01:27:47 -0700 Subject: [Vision2020] Who Killed California? Message-ID:

Tim,

Oh, he is not my cup of tea alright.

Pat Hitler, I mean, Pat Buchanan, (why I mix the two up I don't know) is only correct about three things. He is right it not the fault of Gov. Davis, he is right it is the fault of US Government, and the fault of Immigration.

But he has the wrong immigration of people mixed up. It was not the influx of Mexicans that is the problem. It is the fault of an influx of Europeans. Ya see m'kay, Mexicans and Native American Indians had California for about 10-16,000 years before the immigrants of Europeans came over. The land and economy was just fine for that amount of time. Then other people came into California, and less than 150 years of occupation the soil, environment, and economy has gone to sh*t. Now, I tend to think the Mexicans and Indians have a better track record. I am willing to bet that if the United States withdrew from California for another 10,000-16,000 years it would recover nicely and be ready for another 150 years of European abuse and raping of the land.

Now I know that the Mexicans had the audacity to do something like be born in California before Europeans even knew it existed, but I don't think they are the ones responsible for the failing of the United States and California economy. Mexicans picking oranges in some farmer's field making $2 an hour did not fly two airplanes into the World Trade Center. They didn't forge and fake the income earnings of Enron, Adelphia, and a whole host of others. They didn't engage in inside trading like Martha Steward. They didn't empty the Colorado River and drain California of it's electricity, they didn't write the budget or tax code. They didn't even withdraw their millions from the stock market or stop supporting the airline industry.

What Buchanan is doing is attempting to attack a weaker group of people that have little or no political ability to withstand such attacks. It is easy to blame the little poor guy for the mistakes of the rich, powerful, greedy, and corrupt.

Pat Buchanan is the biggest causation and beneficiary of immigration and free trade. It was the administration that he was a part of, Reagan's, that allowed for the largest immigration of Hispanics in the history of the United States. It was also he that was able to get a replacement value in his heart (yes, I know he does have actually have one) because of free trade policies with Japan.

If this man has such a problem with immigration, he should move back to Europe, if he has a problem with free trade, he should give back his heart, after all, he hasn't even used it in a while anyway.

Donovan J Arnold

>From: Tim Lohrmann

>To: vision2020@moscow.com

>Subject: [Vision2020] Who Killed California?

>Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 00:02:26 -0700 (PDT)

>Visionaries,

>Even if he's not your cup of tea politically, you

>gotta admit that Pat tells it like it is about "Free"

>trade and Immigration.

> TL

>Who Killed California?

> >

> > By Patrick J. Buchanan

> >

> > With Gov. Gray Davis facing recall, a budget $38

> > billion in deficit, and a bond rating dropped three

>notches by Standard & Poor's to near junk-bond

> > status, the lowest of all 50 states, the Golden

> > State is no more.

> >

> > Who killed the goose that laid the golden eggs?

> >

> > Certainly, Davis, who misled voters about the

> > gravity of his budget crisis in 2002, and won

>re-election by demonizing his GOP rivals, deserves his

>20

> > percent approval rating. But Gray Davis did not kill

> > California.

> >

> > The United States government did. For what killed

> > California as the golden land was massive and

>unrestricted immigration from the Third World, an

> > unrepelled invasion from Mexico, and a failure to

> > protect the U.S. manufacturing base and the wages of

>America's workers.

> >

> > During and after World War II, California became a

> > bastion of our defense, aerospace, auto and TV

>industries. Hundreds of thousands were hired to become

> > the highest-paid manufacturing workers on earth,

> > giving California the world's highest standard of

>living. The average California wage once stood at 130

> > percent of the average U.S. wage.

> >

> > In the 1970s and 1980s, however, Japan, a free rider

> > on America's defense, began to engage in predatory

>trade, attacking and killing, one by one, U.S.

>industries and capturing U.S. markets with subsidized

>exports.

> >

> > California suffered first. Our TV industry was wiped

> > out. Our auto industry was reeling when Ronald

>Reagan stepped in to impose quotas on Japanese cars.

> > Reagan also intervened to save the semiconductor

> > industry, Big Steel and Harley-Davidson. Unlike

>today's free-trade fanatics, Ronald Reagan put America

> > first.

> >

> > But it was under Bush-Clinton-Bush that California

> > was irrevocably sacrificed to the gods of the Global

>Economy.

> >

> > During Bush I's term, millions of Mexicans began to

> > flee north to seek jobs and take advantage of the

>health care, welfare and free education American

> > citizens provided for their people. For one-third of

> > the illegals, California became the destination of

>choice.

> >

> > What the U.S. government should have done was

> > obvious, and was demanded by Americans: Enforce our

>immigration laws, halt the invasion, restrict

> > immigration from the Third World. But America's

> > politicians - out of fear of being brande xenophobic

>and to curry favor with Big Business, which

> > benefits from an endless supply of low-wage labor -

>did almost nothing to protect America.

> >

> > Californians tried to defend their state. As

> > illegals poured in by the hundreds of thousands

>yearly, they passed Proposition 187, denying social

> > welfare benefits to illegal aliens who had broken

> > the law and broken into the United States.

> >

> > The open-borders coalition, repudiated and routed,

> > ran to a federal judge, who annulled the voters'

>victory. Davis then refused to appeal the overturning

> > of 187 to the Supreme Court. Hispanic voters

> > rewarded him in 2002, and California state and local

>budgets continued to hemorrhage.

> >

> > By the 1990s, an exodus of taxpayers had begun. Fed

> > up with being fleeced to subsidize illegal aliens,

>Californians began leaving for Nevada, Idaho,

> > Arizona and Colorado. Two million native-born

> > Californians left the state in

> > the 1990s, as immigrants, legal and illegal, sent

> > poverty rates soaring in Los Angeles, Riverside, San

>Bernardino and Orange counties.

> >

> > This, then, is what killed California:

> >

> > First, open borders. By failing to enforce our

> > immigration laws, America now hosts 31 million legal

>immigrants and their children and 10 million

> > illegals, most of them net tax consumers. California

> > got the lion's share.

> >

> > Second, global free trade and the trade deficits it

> > produced, now running at an annual rate of $562

>billion in May. This has killed millions of

> > manufacturing jobs, as thousands of companies closed

> > factories here and shifted plants to Mexico, Asia

>and China.

> >

> > The Third Worldization of California is now far

> > advanced. Yet those responsible, Bush Republicans as

>well as Clinton Democrats, still cannot

> > see what they have done to our country.

> >

> > But what is happening in California is not confined

> > to California. It is happening across America.

>Unless we elect a president who will enforce our

> > immigration laws and defend our borders, unless we

> > find a Congress that will jettison the free-trade

>madness that is denuding America of her manufacturing,

> > what has happened to California will happen here.

> >

> > President Bush appears oblivious to it all - but

> > then, so did his father

> > before him.

> >

>__________________________________

>Do you Yahoo!?

>Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

>http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

>_____________________________________________________

> List services made available by First Step Internet,

> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.

> http://www.fsr.net

> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com

>��

MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* From thansen@moscow.com Tue Aug 5 14:16:54 2003 From: thansen@moscow.com (Tom Hansen) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 06:16:54 -0700 Subject: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage In-Reply-To: <000e01c35b0e$0c615140$7f00a8c0@MOBILELUKE> Message-ID: If I had a four-year-old child. I (or my wife) would be around to supervise him/her (or don't you think that a four-year-old requires adult supervision). Subsequently, such adiscussion would not take place. If my neighbors were "active" members of NAMBLA and appeared to be behaving inappropriately around my children, I would report them to the authorities. Tom Hansen > -----Original Message----- > From: vision2020-admin@moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-admin@moscow.com]On > Behalf Of Luke > Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 9:57 PM > To: vision2020@moscow.com > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage > > > Mr. Hansen, > > > > I most seriously doubt that my 29-year heterosexual marriage will feel > > threatened if Jim and John Smith (or Mary and Jane Doe) decide to marry > and > > move next door to me. > > What if you have a four-year-old son, and they are trying to convince him > that he is being sexually deprived? Suppose they were active members of > NAMBLA? Not an important topic to you? > > > Luke Nieuwsma > > > _____________________________________________________ > List services made available by First Step Internet, > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. > http://www.fsr.net > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com > �� > From ccm_moscow@yahoo.com Tue Aug 5 16:16:45 2003 From: ccm_moscow@yahoo.com (Douglas Stambler) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 08:16:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Vision2020] Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage: Regarding D. Wilson In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030805151645.41245.qmail@web80602.mail.yahoo.com> --0-1956808820-1060096605=:40851 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Dear Visionaries: I strongly encourage any and all humans on this forum to ignore the so-called "Pastor" Doug Wilson. Even if you think that you can properly put him in his place, you cannot. Only the Lord can. The best thing to do at this point -on account of all the outrageous things that Doug Wilson has said on this forum- is simply to ignore all his postings. Maybe then he WILL close his cult church and leave the city limits. Cordially - or should I say, IN CHRIST, Douglas Stambler ************************************************************************************8 Donovan Arnold wrote: Mr. Wilson, Not only is your argument completely unrelated to the notion of Gay Marriage, but it is also illogical in itself. Polygamy is a violation of human rights in numerous levels. First, marriage requires that you place all loyalty to one person. How can you do that when you are married to multiple people? Second, it allows the spread of disease, against the interests of the state and the community. One of the members of the union engages in sexual relations with someone outside the marriage and it goes to everyone, and could spread to many more children. Third, it allows the suppression of women. Fourth, it creates confusion in matters of divorce. Can the divorcing women sue all the ones he is married to also? If so, why is that fair? If not, he can transfer all his wealth to the others he is married to as well, leaving the women with nothing to raise her children on? Fifth, how can one person swear to be monogamist to more than one person? Is this not an important part of marriage? Sixth, who gets the benefits of life insurance, health insurance, and other benefits? If you have 20 wives, which one gets the dental benefit, which one gets the medicine? You could argue that businesses should provide health insurance for all the wives and children, but which children are his if they each have 20 husbands? You would also have bickering between the different health insurance companies as to which should pay for the costs of medical expenses. Seventh, how is it fair to a spouse if one decides to marry another when they don't have a say in manner? I could name about 50 more, but I don't see how this relates in any way to the gender of two people getting married. Polygamy is a heterosexual thing that was knocked down to protect the rights of women that were being abused in the relationship. Donovan J Arnold >From: Douglas >To: vision2020@moscow.com >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage >Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 16:55:00 -0700 > > >Dear visionaries, > >Okay, Ralph. This should be fun. > >Thus far, we have agreed that as far as the state is concerned, >marriage is a secular legal contract and nothing more. You persuaded >me! Now, let's follow this out. What interest does the state have, >and what basis does it have, for limiting said contracts to two >parties? We have thought for a long time it should be just two, but >of course, we thought *that* back in the day when we thought it >should man and woman, one each. What benighted troglodytes we were >back then! The forehead reddens to think of it. But now, if three or >sixteen parties want to enter into a voluntary arrangement, a >secular legal contract, mind you, what business is it of the state >(which has agreed to stay out of the bedroom now) to say that they >cannot? Why should the state restrict the formations of daisy >chains? > >I invite everyone else to watch this closely. I am going to be very >illogical, which is apparently defined these days as asking Ralph to >be consistent. > >Cordially, > >Douglas > > >At 03:17 PM 8/4/2003 -0700, you wrote: >>RALPH NIELSEN Mon Aug 4 >> Thank you, Doug, for further illustration of not only how >>illogical you are but also how disingenuous you can be. I said >>nothing about "Christian morality," whatever that might be, but >>pointed out that AS FAR AS THE STATE IS CONCERNED marriage is a >>secular legal contract. >> If Doug and other ecclesiastical poobahs wish to regulate >>marriage according to their alleged divine strictures, they are >>perfectly free to preach it to their followers. Likewise, the state >>also makes provision for divorce, whether some poobahs consider it >>to be moral or not. Some folks believe marriage is wrong, and some >>folks believe divorce is a sin, but that is of no concern to the >>state. >> I said nothing about sexual liberation but it seems to >>loom large in Doug's vocabulary. Neither do I promote polygamy, as >>Doug implies. In fact, many biblical heroes had more than one wife, >>e.g., Gideon, who had 70 sons "for he had many wives" (Judges >>8:30). >> I think same-sex marriage is a good idea because it would >>place those couples on the same legal basis as bisexual couples. >>And don't forget that they would be under the same rules if they >>wanted to get divorced. We have laws to protect social stability >>and I think same-sex marriage will do just that. >> >> >>>From: Douglas >>>Date: Mon Aug 4, 2003 8:27:13 AM US/Pacific >>>To: vision2020@moscow.com >>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage >>> >>>Far from this being a demonstration of how illogical I am, it is >>>actually a demonstration of whether or not ethical relativists >>>have the courage of their convictions. If we reject the Christian >>>morality that marriage consists of one man, one woman, one time, >>>and we base this rejection on the fact that marriage is now only a >>>"secular legal contract," then on what basis, Ralph, do we limit >>>secular legal contract to just two parties? We were mistaken, it >>>appears, in limiting marriage to heteros. Why are we not also >>>mistaken in limiting it to couples? I urge you, Ralph, to stop >>>trying to impede sexual liberation. The last thing we need around >>>here is atheistic bluestocking wowserism. >>> >>>RALPH NIELSEN 02:18 PM 8/2/2003 -0700, wrote: >>>> Doug Wilson doesn't seem to want to recognize the >>>>difference between church and state, so he gives us a homily >>>>about hypocrisy and sin instead of recognizing that marriage, as >>>>far as the state is concerned, is not a sacred institution, but a >>>>secular legal contract binding on the two parties concerned. He >>>>illogically equates monogamy with polygamy and, even more >>>>illogically, pretends that polygamy is a matter of how many >>>>people can physically fit into a bedroom. >>>> Doug concludes his diatribe by equating marriage laws >>>>with building codes. Anyone who hasn't been indoctrinated with >>>>Wilsonian "logic" can readily observe how totally illogical he >>>>is. >>>> Ralph Nielsen >>>> >>>>> >>>>>From: Douglas >>>>>Date: Fri Aug 1, 2003 8:48:50 AM US/Pacific >>>>>To: vision2020@moscow.com >>>>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage >>>>> >>>>>There is an important difference between sexual hypocrisy, which >>>>>our nation has in spades, and which practices privately what it >>>>>condemns publicly, and the tragic way of removing that >>>>>hypocrisy, which is to bring yourself to approve the sin >>>>>formally. Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue, and >>>>>we always need to remember there are two ways to get out of a >>>>>double standard. One is to repent of the sin, and the other is >>>>>to drop the pretence of virtue. We are in the course of pursuing >>>>>the latter, and it will not bring enlightenment. >>>>> >>>>>If it is true that marriage is nothing more than a "tax break," >>>>>and is no longer a sacred institution, then we are not just >>>>>talking about homosexual unions. We are also talking about >>>>>polygamy, as long as more than two can physically fit into the >>>>>privacy of the bedroom. What kind of sexual unions will have to >>>>>be permitted as soon as the courts learn the rudiments of logic? >>>>>He who says A must say B. >>>>> >>>>>And while we are on the subject of keeping the government out of >>>>>the bedroom, why is it, when I built my house, the government >>>>>wanted to tell me how far apart the sheetrock screws had to be >>>>>in the bedroom, how the electric outlets had to be placed, how >>>>>big the windows had to be, and so on, ad nauseam. Government out >>>>>of the bedroom, aye. >> >>_____________________________________________________ >>List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the >>communities of the Palouse since 1994. >> http://www.fsr.net >> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com >>�� > > > >_____________________________________________________ >List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the >communities of the Palouse since 1994. >http://www.fsr.net >mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com >�� --------------------------------- Protect your PC - Click here for McAfee.com VirusScan Online _____________________________________________________ List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com �� --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! --0-1956808820-1060096605=:40851 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

Dear Visionaries:

I strongly encourage any and all humans on this forum to ignore the so-called "Pastor" Doug Wilson. Even if you think that you can properly put him in his place, you cannot. Only the Lord can. The best thing to do at this point -on account of all the outrageous things that Doug Wilson has said on this forum- is simply to ignore all his postings.

Maybe then he WILL close his cult church and leave the city limits.

Cordially - or should I say, IN CHRIST,

Douglas Stambler

************************************************************************************8

Donovan Arnold <donovanarnold@hotmail.com> wrote:

Mr. Wilson,

Not only is your argument completely unrelated to the notion of Gay Marriage, but it is also illogical in itself.

Polygamy is a violation of human rights in numerous levels.

First, marriage requires that you place all loyalty to one person. How can you do that when you are married to multiple people?

Second, it allows the spread of disease, against the interests of the state and the community. One of the members of the union engages in sexual relations with someone outside the marriage and it goes to everyone, and could spread to many more children.

Third, it allows the suppression of women.

Fourth, it creates confusion in matters of divorce. Can the divorcing women sue all the ones he is married to also? If so, why is that fair? If not, he can transfer all his wealth to the others he is married to as well, leaving the women with nothing to raise her children on?

Fifth, how can one person swear to be monogamist to more than one person? Is this not an important part of marriage?

Sixth, who gets the benefits of life insurance, health insurance, and other benefits? If you have 20 wives, which one gets the dental benefit, which one gets the medicine? You could argue that businesses should provide health insurance for all the wives and children, but which children are his if they each have 20 husbands? You would also have bickering between the different health insurance companies as to which should pay for the costs of medical expenses.

Seventh, how is it fair to a spouse if one decides to marry another when they don't have a say in manner?

I could name about 50 more, but I don't see how this relates in any way to the gender of two people getting married. Polygamy is a heterosexual thing that was knocked down to protect the rights of women that were being abused in the relationship.

Donovan J Arnold

>From: Douglas

>To: vision2020@moscow.com

>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage

>Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 16:55:00 -0700

>

>

>Dear visionaries,

>

>Okay, Ralph. This should be fun.

>

>Thus far, we have agreed that as far as the state is concerned,

>marriage is a secular legal contract and nothing more. You persuaded

>me! Now, let's follow this out. What interest does the state have,

>and what basis does it have, for limiting said contracts to two

>parties? We have thought for a long time it should be just two, but

>of course, we thought *that* back in the day when we thought it

>should man and woman, one each. What benighted troglodytes we were

>back then! The forehead reddens to think of it. But now, if three or

>sixteen parties want to enter into a voluntary arrangement, a

>secular legal contract, mind you, what business is it of the state

>(which has agreed to stay out of the bedroom now) to say that they

>cannot? Why should the state restrict the formations of daisy

>chains?

>

>I invite everyone else to watch this closely. I am going to be very

>illogical, which is apparently defined these days as asking Ralph to

>be consistent.

>

>Cordially,

>

>Douglas

>

>

>At 03:17 PM 8/4/2003 -0700, you wrote:

>>RALPH NIELSEN Mon Aug 4

>> Thank you, Doug, for further illustration of not only how

>>illogical you are but also how disingenuous you can be. I said

>>nothing about "Christian morality," whatever that might be, but

>>pointed out that AS FAR AS THE STATE IS CONCERNED marriage is a

>>secular legal contract.

>> If Doug and other ecclesiastical poobahs wish to regulate

>>marriage according to their alleged divine strictures, they are

>>perfectly free to preach it to their followers. Likewise, the state

>>also makes provision for divorce, whether some poobahs consider it

>>to be moral or not. Some folks believe marriage is wrong, and some

>>folks believe divorce is a sin, but that is of no concern to the

>>state.

>> I said nothing about sexual liberation but it seems to

>>loom large in Doug's vocabulary. Neither do I promote polygamy, as

>>Doug implies. In fact, many biblical heroes had more than one wife,

>>e.g., Gideon, who had 70 sons "for he had many wives" (Judges

>>8:30).

>> I think same-sex marriage is a good idea because it would

>>place those couples on the same legal basis as bisexual couples.

>>And don't forget that they would be under the same rules if they

>>wanted to get divorced. We have laws to protect social stability

>>and I think same-sex marriage will do just that.

>>

>>

>>>From: Douglas

>>>Date: Mon Aug 4, 2003 8:27:13 AM US/Pacific

>>>To: vision2020@moscow.com

>>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage

>>>

>>>Far from this being a demonstration of how illogical I am, it is

>>>actually a demonstration of whether or not ethical relativists

>>>have the courage of their convictions. If we reject the Christian

>>>morality that marriage consists of one man, one woman, one time,

>>>and we base this rejection on the fact that marriage is now only a

>>>"secular legal contract," then on what basis, Ralph, do we limit

>>>secular legal contract to just two parties? We were mistaken, it

>>>appears, in limiting marriage to heteros. Why are we not also

>>>mistaken in limiting it to couples? I urge you, Ralph, to stop

>>>trying to impede sexual liberation. The last thing we need around

>>>here is atheistic bluestocking wowserism.

>>>

>>>RALPH NIELSEN 02:18 PM 8/2/2003 -0700, wrote:

>>>> Doug Wilson doesn't seem to want to recognize the

>>>>difference between church and state, so he gives us a homily

>>>>about hypocrisy and sin instead of recognizing that marriage, as

>>>>far as the state is concerned, is not a sacred institution, but a

>>>>secular legal contract binding on the two parties concerned. He

>>>>illogically equates monogamy with polygamy and, even more

>>>>illogically, pretends that polygamy is a matter of how many

>>>>people can physically fit into a bedroom.

>>>> Doug concludes his diatribe by equating marriage laws

>>>>with building codes. Anyone who hasn't been indoctrinated with

>>>>Wilsonian "logic" can readily observe how totally illogical he

>>>>is.

>>>> Ralph Nielsen

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>From: Douglas

>>>>>Date: Fri Aug 1, 2003 8:48:50 AM US/Pacific

>>>>>To: vision2020@moscow.com

>>>>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage

>>>>>

>>>>>There is an important difference between sexual hypocrisy, which

>>>>>our nation has in spades, and which practices privately what it

>>>>>condemns publicly, and the tragic way of removing that

>>>>>hypocrisy, which is to bring yourself to approve the sin

>>>>>formally. Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue, and

>>>>>we always need to remember there are two ways to get out of a

>>>>>double standard. One is to repent of the sin, and the other is

>>>>>to drop the pretence of virtue. We are in the course of pursuing

>>>>>the latter, and it will not bring enlightenment.

>>>>>

>>>>>If it is true that marriage is nothing more than a "tax break,"

>>>>>and is no longer a sacred institution, then we are not just

>>>>>talking about homosexual unions. We are also talking about

>>>>>polygamy, as long as more than two can physically fit into the

>>>>>privacy of the bedroom. What kind of sexual unions will have to

>>>>>be permitted as soon as the courts learn the rudiments of logic?

>>>>>He who says A must say B.

>>>>>

>>>>>And while we are on the subject of keeping the government out of

>>>>>the bedroom, why is it, when I built my house, the government

>>>>>wanted to tell me how far apart the sheetrock screws had to be

>>>>>in the bedroom, how the electric outlets had to be placed, how

>>>>>big the windows had to be, and so on, ad nauseam. Government out

>>>>>of the bedroom, aye.

>>

>>_____________________________________________________

>>List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the

>>communities of the Palouse since 1994.

>> http://www.fsr.net

>> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com

>>��

>

>

>

>_____________________________________________________

>List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the

>communities of the Palouse since 1994.

>http://www.fsr.net

>mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com

>��

Protect your PC - Click here for McAfee.com VirusScan Online _____________________________________________________ List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com ��

Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! --0-1956808820-1060096605=:40851-- From dougwils@moscow.com Tue Aug 5 16:38:50 2003 From: dougwils@moscow.com (Douglas) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 08:38:50 -0700 Subject: [Vision2020] Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030805082436.01bf59d8@mail.moscow.com> Visionaries, Donovan asks, "how can one person swear to be monogamist to more than one person? Is this not an important part of marriage?" This is the point. We *used* to think so. But then, we *used* to think that marriage involved a man and a woman. Why do we retain what we retain and why do we jettison what we jettison? By what standard? And multiple partners is not necessarily the same thing as polygamy. You could also have polyandry, or multiple homosexual partners. And if the whole business is consensual, on what basis do you deny them a licence down at the county courthouse? On what basis do you intervene in the PRIVATE SEXUAL LIVES of this cute little seventeen-some? Donovan raises a host of practical questions, which obviously need to be anticipated in those handy-dandy-all-purpose private secular contracts we've been talking about so much lately. That's all marriage is, right? A matter of practical law? Such conundra would provide a good deal of work for attorneys and so on, but I am sure we can get the bugs worked out. After all, our primary concern should be to get the government OUT OF THE BEDROOM. I am astonished that Ralph and Donovan are still interested, after all these years of enlightenment, in trying to impose their own arbitrary code of ethics on the private sexual practices of consenting adults who don't agree with them. This is astonishing. I am, as they say, boggled. But I will try hard to compose myself. Cordially, Douglas Wilson From ccm_moscow@yahoo.com Tue Aug 5 16:39:38 2003 From: ccm_moscow@yahoo.com (Douglas Stambler) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 08:39:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Vision2020] Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage: Reply to D. Wilson 2 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030805082436.01bf59d8@mail.moscow.com> Message-ID: <20030805153938.2376.qmail@web80606.mail.yahoo.com> --0-1357551713-1060097978=:1534 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I don't know about anyone else, but reading Doug Wilson's thoughts on sex sort of gives me the creeps, sort of like your uncle who molested all your cousins coming UNINVITED to Thanksgiving Dinner. Yuck, Doug Wilson, yuk... SEX OFFENDER ON LINE HERE AT THE FORUM - DOUG WILSON I mean, honestly, look at the way he writes about this issue: "On what basis do you intervene in the PRIVATE SEXUAL LIVES of this cute little seventeen-some?" THOSE ARE DOUG WILSON'S WORDS! Is that the way for a pastor to talk about sex, or seventeen year olds? NO. UNSAVORY, to say the least. Something's wrong here...Doug Wilson is a SEXUAL PREDATOR. And this whole community just might be in denial about it, not just his own family. In Christ, Douglas Stambler ********************************************************************************* Douglas wrote: Visionaries, Donovan asks, "how can one person swear to be monogamist to more than one person? Is this not an important part of marriage?" This is the point. We *used* to think so. But then, we *used* to think that marriage involved a man and a woman. Why do we retain what we retain and why do we jettison what we jettison? By what standard? And multiple partners is not necessarily the same thing as polygamy. You could also have polyandry, or multiple homosexual partners. And if the whole business is consensual, on what basis do you deny them a licence down at the county courthouse? On what basis do you intervene in the PRIVATE SEXUAL LIVES of this cute little seventeen-some? Donovan raises a host of practical questions, which obviously need to be anticipated in those handy-dandy-all-purpose private secular contracts we've been talking about so much lately. That's all marriage is, right? A matter of practical law? Such conundra would provide a good deal of work for attorneys and so on, but I am sure we can get the bugs worked out. After all, our primary concern should be to get the government OUT OF THE BEDROOM. I am astonished that Ralph and Donovan are still interested, after all these years of enlightenment, in trying to impose their own arbitrary code of ethics on the private sexual practices of consenting adults who don't agree with them. This is astonishing. I am, as they say, boggled. But I will try hard to compose myself. Cordially, Douglas Wilson _____________________________________________________ List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com �� --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! --0-1357551713-1060097978=:1534 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

I don't know about anyone else, but reading Doug Wilson's thoughts on sex sort of gives me the creeps, sort of like your uncle who molested all your cousins coming UNINVITED to Thanksgiving Dinner.

Yuck, Doug Wilson, yuk...

SEX OFFENDER ON LINE HERE AT THE FORUM - DOUG WILSON

I mean, honestly, look at the way he writes about this issue: "On what basis do you intervene in the PRIVATE SEXUAL LIVES of this cute little seventeen-some?"

THOSE ARE DOUG WILSON'S WORDS! Is that the way for a pastor to talk about sex, or seventeen year olds? NO. UNSAVORY, to say the least. Something's wrong here...Doug Wilson is a SEXUAL PREDATOR. And this whole community just might be in denial about it, not just his own family.

In Christ,

Douglas Stambler
*********************************************************************************

Douglas <dougwils@moscow.com> wrote:

Visionaries,

Donovan asks, "how can one person swear to be monogamist to more than one
person? Is this not an important part of marriage?" This is the point. We
*used* to think so. But then, we *used* to think that marriage involved a
man and a woman. Why do we retain what we retain and why do we jettison
what we jettison? By what standard?

And multiple partners is not necessarily the same thing as polygamy. You
could also have polyandry, or multiple homosexual partners. And if the
whole business is consensual, on what basis do you deny them a licence down
at the county courthouse? On what basis do you intervene in the PRIVATE
SEXUAL LIVES of this cute little seventeen-some?

Donovan raises a host of practical questions, which obviously need to be
anticipated in those handy-dandy-all-purpose private secular contracts we've been talking about so much lately. That's all marriage is, right? A
matter of practical law? Such conundra would provide a good deal of work
for attorneys and so on, but I am sure we can get the bugs worked out.
After all, our primary concern should be to get the government OUT OF THE
BEDROOM. I am astonished that Ralph and Donovan are still interested, after
all these years of enlightenment, in trying to impose their own arbitrary
code of ethics on the private sexual practices of consenting adults who
don't agree with them. This is astonishing. I am, as they say, boggled. But
I will try hard to compose myself.

Cordially,

Douglas Wilson

_____________________________________________________
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
��

Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! --0-1357551713-1060097978=:1534-- From ccm_moscow@yahoo.com Tue Aug 5 16:42:29 2003 From: ccm_moscow@yahoo.com (Douglas Stambler) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 08:42:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Vision2020] Repost: Local Screenplay About Doug Wilson Message-ID: <20030805154229.66984.qmail@web80603.mail.yahoo.com> --0-1850083821-1060098149=:64054 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii "Darth Wilson Strikes Back" screenplay by Douglas Stambler (theme music: Darth Wilson's March - also known as the theme from Cheers) Darth Wilson: Are the 19 year old young men ready yet? Herr Kimmell: Not yet, sir! Still in the indoctrination stage of their mind programming. Darth Wilson: Did you show them the film, Clockwork Orange yet? Herr Kimmell: Yes, sir. And we flashed them pictures of you drinking beer, too, sir - right in the middle of the film. Darth Wilson: (evil laugh) Mooo-ha-ha!! I will have their souls yet, AND their tuition money! Herr Kimmell: Vera White called, sir, she says she'd like an interview for her column. Darth Wilson: (confused) Did you tell her that I never grant interviews to women, homosexuals or them African types? Herr Kimmell: (scared) Yes, sir, but she insisted. She said that she just has to see your beard in person. Darth Wilson: SHE SHALL HAVE MY BEARD, AND EAT IT, TOO!! Herr Kimmell: (rubbing his hands, counting the change in his khaki slacks) Yes, sir, yes! I think I have enough here to call her on the phone. Darth Wilson: Have her wait for me in the beer hall: She WILL submit to the elders of my church, my wonderful, all-powerful, empty-headed church!! Herr Kimmell: (voice like a rat) Yeeessss, ssiirrr! Yess. She will be like Swiss Cheese for us, and the congregation will make a sandwich of her! Darth Wilson: You're an idiot, Kimmell! Get out of my face. (breathes forcefully through his big, black helmet) I will be king of Moscow, I will be king of Moscow, I will be king of Moscow! (pounds his fist into his other hand) I WILL BE CHIEF MOOSE OF THE PALOUSE!! AH AHAHA HAAHAHHHHH!!!!! **************************************************** (meanwhile, at the Moscow Food Co-op) Garret Skywoosie: (in a kid's voice) If we just attach the antenna to the dumpster behind the food co-op, I think we can get Radio Free Moscow up and running in no time. Boob Hoffman: Did you cash that check for 45 cents that Tom Hansen donated for the cause? Garret Skywoosie: Oh, crud! I must have washed that check with my hipster jeans. It's gone, Boob, all gone. Boob Hoffman: All right, then, we'll just have to make do with these clothing hangers I stole from Ecclectica. Garret Skywoosie: Sounds like a plan, man. Say, do you think that Peter Basoa will ever run a radio station again? Boob Hoffman: Not if I can help it. If those strokes didn't finish him off, then we'll just confiscate his Fedora hat and sell it for auction at the Food Co-op to raise money for Kendra's Eyelash Transplant. Garret Skywoosie: Oh, praise the gods. She'll finally have a decent pair of eyelashes to wear in the store. Boob Hoffman: Come on, we need to get back to the van, so that we can begin transmitting. Garret Skywoosie: (philosophically) But I am an atheist! How can I praise the gods? Oh, never mind. (scurries off) ***************************************************** (inside Darth Wilson's beer hall) Vera White: And you promise never to throw eggs at my house again? Darth Wilson: I promise. Okay, so now we go after Stambler. Vera White: Right. The guy is totally a nuisance. Why, I tried being nice to him once (starts sobbing)...and, and... Darth Wilson: Yes? (sentimentally) What, Vera, what, talk to Darth "Papa Calvin" Wilson. Vera White: Well, he freakin' rejected me, like a cheap ho. Darth Wilson: But Vera... Vera White: Yes, I know what I am! Yes, I know what I've done, but NOBODY REJECTS ME, NOBODY!! I will have that boy's ponytail, and I will play pin the tail on the donkey with it! Darth Wilson: Uh, Vera? Vera White: Yes, Darth? Darth Wilson: I already have Dale Courtney taking care of that. He applied for a federal grant last year for surveillance equipment to keep an eye on our beloved "lunatic prophet," and he should have his ponytail any day now. (Dale Courtney enters with AK-47 firmly in his butt) Dale: Sir. Darth Wilson: What is it, Courtney? Can't you see that I am showing Vera White my beard? Anyway, sit down with us, have a beer. Dale: But sir... Darth Wilson: What is it, Courtney? Dale: Reports are that the brainwashing on Mayor CONstock didn't take, and that he has joined Stambler and the other revolutionaries at Friendship Square. Darth Wilson: (pounds the long, beer hall table) BUT!! We have to stop them. No one takes back Friendship Square. I have a secret camera mounted to take pictures of all the lovely young men who come by, so that I might quote Scripture to them and boggle their minds in my private study at a later time! We must hurry. (Dale, Vera and Darth Wilson exit hastily) *********************************************** --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! --0-1850083821-1060098149=:64054 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

"Darth Wilson Strikes Back"
screenplay by Douglas Stambler

(theme music: Darth Wilson's March - also known as the theme from Cheers)

Darth Wilson: Are the 19 year old young men ready yet?

Herr Kimmell: Not yet, sir! Still in the indoctrination stage of their mind programming.

Darth Wilson: Did you show them the film, Clockwork Orange yet?

Herr Kimmell: Yes, sir. And we flashed them pictures of you drinking beer, too, sir - right in the middle of the film.

Darth Wilson: (evil laugh) Mooo-ha-ha!! I will have their souls yet, AND their tuition money!

Herr Kimmell: Vera White called, sir, she says she'd like an interview for her column.

Darth Wilson: (confused) Did you tell her that I never grant interviews to women, homosexuals or them African types?

Herr Kimmell: (scared) Yes, sir, but she insisted. She said that she just has to see your
beard in person.

Darth Wilson: SHE SH! ALL HAVE MY BEARD, AND EAT IT, TOO!!

Herr Kimmell: (rubbing his hands, counting the change in his khaki slacks) Yes, sir, yes! I think I have enough here to call her on the phone.

Darth Wilson: Have her wait for me in the beer hall: She WILL submit to the elders of my church, my wonderful, all-powerful, empty-headed church!!

Herr Kimmell: (voice like a rat) Yeeessss, ssiirrr! Yess. She will be like Swiss Cheese for us, and the congregation will make a sandwich of her!

Darth Wilson: You're an idiot, Kimmell! Get out of my face. (breathes forcefully through his big, black helmet) I will be king of Moscow, I will be king of Moscow, I will be king of Moscow! (pounds his fist into his other hand) I WILL BE CHIEF MOOSE OF THE PALOUSE!! AH AHAHA HAAHAHHHHH!!!!!

****************************************************
(meanwhile, at the Moscow Food Co-op)

Garret Skywoosie: (in a kid's voice) If we just attach the antenna to the dumpster behind the food co-op, I think we c! an get Radio Free Moscow up and running in no time.

Boob Hoffman: Did you cash that check for 45 cents that Tom Hansen donated for the cause?

Garret Skywoosie: Oh, crud! I must have washed that check with my hipster jeans. It's gone, Boob, all gone.

Boob Hoffman: All right, then, we'll just have to make do with these clothing hangers I stole from Ecclectica.

Garret Skywoosie: Sounds like a plan, man. Say, do you think that Peter Basoa will ever run a radio station again?

Boob Hoffman: Not if I can help it. If those strokes didn't finish him off, then we'll just confiscate his Fedora hat and sell it for auction at the Food Co-op to raise money for Kendra's Eyelash Transplant.

Garret Skywoosie: Oh, praise the gods. She'll finally have a decent pair of eyelashes to wear in the store.

Boob Hoffman: Come on, we need to get back to the van, so that we can begin transmitting.

Garret Skywoosie: (philosophically) But I! am an atheist! How can I praise the gods? Oh, never mind. (scurries off)

*****************************************************
(inside Darth Wilson's beer hall)

Vera White: And you promise never to throw eggs at my house again?

Darth Wilson: I promise. Okay, so now we go after Stambler.

Vera White: Right. The guy is totally a nuisance. Why, I tried being nice to him once (starts sobbing)...and, and...

Darth Wilson: Yes? (sentimentally) What, Vera, what, talk to Darth "Papa Calvin" Wilson.

Vera White: Well, he freakin' rejected me, like a cheap ho.

Darth Wilson: But Vera...

Vera White: Yes, I know what I am! Yes, I know what I've done, but NOBODY REJECTS ME, NOBODY!! I will have that boy's ponytail, and I will play pin the tail on the donkey with it!

Darth Wilson: Uh, Vera?

Vera White: Yes, Darth?

Darth Wilson: I already have Dale Courtney taking care of that. He applied for a fe! deral grant last year for surveillance equipment to keep an eye on our beloved "lunatic prophet," and he should have his ponytail any day now. (Dale Courtney enters with AK-47 firmly in his butt)

Dale: Sir.

Darth Wilson: What is it, Courtney? Can't you see that I am showing Vera White my beard? Anyway, sit down with us, have a beer.

Dale: But sir...

Darth Wilson: What is it, Courtney?

Dale: Reports are that the brainwashing on Mayor CONstock didn't take, and that he has joined Stambler and the other revolutionaries at Friendship Square.

Darth Wilson: (pounds the long, beer hall table) BUT!! We have to stop them. No one takes back Friendship Square. I have a secret camera mounted to take pictures of all the lovely young men who come by, so that I might quote Scripture to them and boggle their minds in my private study at a later time! We must hurry. (Dale, Vera and Darth Wilson exit hastily)
***********************************************

Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! --0-1850083821-1060098149=:64054-- From carlwestberg846@hotmail.com Tue Aug 5 16:43:11 2003 From: carlwestberg846@hotmail.com (Carl Westberg) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 08:43:11 -0700 Subject: [Vision2020] Iran Message-ID: A Middle Eastern county is being asked by the U.N. to allow unrestricted inspections of its nuclear facilities, amid U.S. accusations that this country is running a clandestine nuclear weapons program. This sounds familiar. I think I've seen this film before. Is this the opening credits of the sequel to a movie that's still playing in theatres now? Carl Westberg Jr. _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From tomh@uidaho.edu Tue Aug 5 16:51:57 2003 From: tomh@uidaho.edu (Thomas Hansen) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 08:51:57 -0700 Subject: [Vision2020] Iran Message-ID: <165F697BE456F14EA4529F6B7BB6D4FC1F7003@daffy.dfm.uidaho.edu> Carl - Everybody knows that sequels are never as good as the original movie. George W. is becoming too type-cast. It seems that the only roles he is fit for now is the town bully. And with Secretary Colin Powell dropping out of the credits after next year . . . I think that it has become time for George W. to close the curtain on this gong show. Tom Hansen -----Original Message----- From: Carl Westberg [mailto:carlwestberg846@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 8:43 AM To: vision2020@moscow.com Subject: [Vision2020] Iran A Middle Eastern county is being asked by the U.N. to allow unrestricted inspections of its nuclear facilities, amid U.S. accusations that this country is running a clandestine nuclear weapons program. This sounds familiar. I think I've seen this film before. Is this the opening credits of the sequel to a movie that's still playing in theatres now? Carl Westberg Jr. _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail _____________________________________________________ List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com �� From tomh@uidaho.edu Tue Aug 5 16:59:26 2003 From: tomh@uidaho.edu (Thomas Hansen) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 08:59:26 -0700 Subject: [Vision2020] Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage: Reply to D. Wilson 2 Message-ID: <165F697BE456F14EA4529F6B7BB6D4FC1F7004@daffy.dfm.uidaho.edu> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C35B6A.8BC04340 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Let me see if I have this straight (excuse the pun). It is alright for a gay Catholic priest to have sex with an underage boy, provided he himself (the priest) remains unmarried? I think I found a new home for those Level 3 sex offendors that are constantly being released into society. Tom Hansen Moscow, Idaho ------_=_NextPart_001_01C35B6A.8BC04340 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"

Let me see if I have this straight (excuse the pun).

It is alright for a gay Catholic priest to have sex with an underage boy, provided he himself (the priest) remains unmarried?

I think I found a new home for those Level 3 sex offendors that are constantly being released into society.

Tom Hansen

Moscow, Idaho

------_=_NextPart_001_01C35B6A.8BC04340-- From tomh@uidaho.edu Tue Aug 5 17:07:16 2003 From: tomh@uidaho.edu (Thomas Hansen) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 09:07:16 -0700 Subject: [Vision2020] Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage: Reply to D. Wilson 2 Message-ID: <165F697BE456F14EA4529F6B7BB6D4FC1F7005@daffy.dfm.uidaho.edu> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C35B6B.A38C8730 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Remember the old crime drama from the sixties; Mod Squad. The theme song started something like, "They got busted. Then they got badges." I think that it is prime time for a sequel. Let's call it "God Squad". "They god busted. Then they got ordained." Book 'em, Dano Tom Hansen Moscow, Idaho ------_=_NextPart_001_01C35B6B.A38C8730 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"

Remember the old crime drama from the sixties; Mod Squad. The theme song started something like, "They got busted. Then they got badges."

I think that it is prime time for a sequel. Let's call it "God Squad". "They god busted. Then they got ordained."

Book 'em, Dano

Tom Hansen

Moscow, Idaho

------_=_NextPart_001_01C35B6B.A38C8730-- From ccm_moscow@yahoo.com Tue Aug 5 17:07:45 2003 From: ccm_moscow@yahoo.com (Douglas Stambler) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 09:07:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Vision2020] Doug Wilson, Come Out of The Closet! (Reply to Tom Hansen) In-Reply-To: <165F697BE456F14EA4529F6B7BB6D4FC1F7004@daffy.dfm.uidaho.edu> Message-ID: <20030805160745.71530.qmail@web80602.mail.yahoo.com> --0-452350371-1060099665=:70559 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii TOM: ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT SENDING THESE LEVEL 3 SEX OFFENDERS TO CHRIST cHURCH? I WOULDN'T RECOMMEND THAT: THERE ARE ALREADY A FEW OVER THERE, AND IT MIGHT CRAMP DOUG WILSON'S STYLE. GOOD IDEA, THOUGH. I SAY, lock 'em up! ****************************************************************** Thomas Hansen wrote: Let me see if I have this straight (excuse the pun). It is alright for a gay Catholic priest to have sex with an underage boy, provided he himself (the priest) remains unmarried? I think I found a new home for those Level 3 sex offendors that are constantly being released into society. Tom Hansen Moscow, Idaho --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! --0-452350371-1060099665=:70559 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

TOM: ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT SENDING THESE LEVEL 3 SEX OFFENDERS TO CHRIST cHURCH? I WOULDN'T RECOMMEND THAT: THERE ARE ALREADY A FEW OVER THERE, AND IT MIGHT CRAMP DOUG WILSON'S STYLE.

GOOD IDEA, THOUGH. I SAY, lock 'em up!

******************************************************************

Thomas Hansen <tomh@uidaho.edu> wrote:

Let me see if I have this straight (excuse the pun).

It is alright for a gay Catholic priest to have sex with an underage boy, provided he himself (the priest) remains unmarried?

I think I found a new home for those Level 3 sex offendors that are constantly being released into society.

Tom Hansen

Moscow, Idaho

Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! --0-452350371-1060099665=:70559-- From timlohr@yahoo.com Tue Aug 5 17:14:10 2003 From: timlohr@yahoo.com (Tim Lohrmann) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 09:14:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Vision2020] Who Killed California? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030805161410.3630.qmail@web10905.mail.yahoo.com> Donovan, I was a little surprised to see you advocating the old "America--Love It of Leave It" philosophy. Is it a retro thing? That WAS big in the late '60s and early '70s I understand. Oh well. I also disagree that Pat is attacking a weaker group of people. The US Government as run by both Bush and one Clinton administration can hardly be considered weaker than him. And that's who he blames this mess on the government. He's not blaming the illegal immigrants themselves---just the governmental policies that caused this mess. That's clear from the column. It's amazing when people who are breaking the law by coming into this country suddenly have access to free health care, education, food etc. etc. Is this a reward for their crime? Many illegal immigrants have visited informational offices in their own countries that show them in advance exactly which offices to go to in order to take advantage of all the freebies. Who can blame them for coming here and taking advantage of it? I'm sure most of us would. But can you imagine the effect on Medi-Cal, the state education budget, law enforcement and etc.? And what about the effect of the people of California's faith in the democratic process when they are not allowed to stop these goings on as much as they try? You're absolutely correct that there are other factors than the one mentioned in the column(9/11 etc) that have had an effect on consumer spending. But its undeniable that Free Trade and unrestricted/illegal immigration have had a huge negative effect on California and many other states. The effect on wages isn't confined to the agricultural sector at all. In CA and many other states a huge percentage of construction labor is done by illegal immigrants. That used to be a field where people could make a good living in this country. They could start as laborers, learn skills and work their way up, but that's denied to American workers in many areas. This is but one example of the suppression of wages by illegal immigration. And of course one of the major negative effects is, as mentioned above, on the social service, education, law enforcement, and penal budgets. And if you don't believe that unfair and so-called "Free Trade" hasn't had a devastating impact on the areas mentioned in the article, you're simply ignoring reality. And here's a question for you. How much immigration would be enough? There are currently 1 million LEGAL immigrants allowed into this country every year. To put that in perspective, the 2002 Census estimate for the population of Seattle was 570,000. So, in other words LEGAL IMMIGRATION--each year, every year--equals very TWICE the city of Seattle. EVERY YEAR! Been to Seattle lately? Pretty crowded place, huh? Of course no one knows how many ILLEGAL immigrants come in each year. I've seen estimates ranging from 2-5 million illegals per year. Some stay and some come back and forth. In any event there are millions upon millions of illegals here in the country right now. And anyone questioning immigration and illegal immigration is xenophobic? I don't think so. No, it's nothing like a phobia. It's a simple realization that this country can't keep going on supporting this huge influx of people indefinitely. California is finding that out for all to see. TL --- Donovan Arnold wrote: --------------------------------- Tim, Oh, he is not my cup of tea alright. Pat Hitler, I mean, Pat Buchanan, (why I mix the two up I don't know) is only correct about three things. He is right it not the fault of Gov. Davis, he is right it is the fault of US Government, and the fault of Immigration. But he has the wrong immigration of people mixed up. It was not the influx of Mexicans that is the problem. It is the fault of an influx of Europeans. Ya see m'kay, Mexicans and Native American Indians had California for about 10-16,000 years before the immigrants of Europeans came over. The land and economy was just fine for that amount of time. Then other people came into California, and less than 150 years of occupation the soil, environment, and economy has gone to sh*t. Now, I tend to think the Mexicans and Indians have a better track record. I am willing to bet that if the United States withdrew from California for another 10,000-16,000 years it would recover nicely and be ready for another 150 years of European abuse and raping of the land. Now I know that the Mexicans had the audacity to do something like be born in California before Europeans even knew it existed, but I don't think they are the ones responsible for the failing of the United States and California economy. Mexicans picking oranges in some farmer's field making $2 an hour did not fly two airplanes into the World Trade Center. They didn't forge and fake the income earnings of Enron, Adelphia, and a whole host of others. They didn't engage in inside trading like Martha Steward. They didn't empty the Colorado River and drain California of it's electricity, they didn't write the budget or tax code. They didn't even withdraw their millions from the stock market or stop supporting the airline industry. What Buchanan is doing is attempting to attack a weaker group of people that have little or no political ability to withstand such attacks. It is easy to blame the little poor guy for the mistakes of the rich, powerful, greedy, and corrupt. Pat Buchanan is the biggest causation and beneficiary of immigration and free trade. It was the administration that he was a part of, Reagan's, that allowed for the largest immigration of Hispanics in the history of the United States. It was also he that was able to get a replacement value in his heart (yes, I know he does have actually have one) because of free trade policies with Japan. If this man has such a problem with immigration, he should move back to Europe, if he has a problem with free trade, he should give back his heart, after all, he hasn't even used it in a while anyway. Donovan J Arnold >From: Tim Lohrmann >To: vision2020@moscow.com >Subject: [Vision2020] Who Killed California? >Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 00:02:26 -0700 (PDT) > >Visionaries, >Even if he's not your cup of tea politically, you >gotta admit that Pat tells it like it is about "Free" >trade and Immigration. > TL > > >Who Killed California? > > > > By Patrick J. Buchanan > > > > With Gov. Gray Davis facing recall, a budget $38 > > billion in deficit, and a bond rating dropped three >notches by Standard & Poor's to near junk-bond > > status, the lowest of all 50 states, the Golden > > State is no more. > > > > Who killed the goose that laid the golden eggs? > > > > Certainly, Davis, who misled voters about the > > gravity of his budget crisis in 2002, and won >re-election by demonizing his GOP rivals, deserves his >20 > > percent approval rating. But Gray Davis did not kill > > California. > > > > The United States government did. For what killed > > California as the golden land was massive and >unrestricted immigration from the Third World, an > > unrepelled invasion from Mexico, and a failure to > > protect the U.S. manufacturing base and the wages of >America's workers. > > > > During and after World War II, California became a > > bastion of our defense, aerospace, auto and TV >industries. Hundreds of thousands were hired to become > > the highest-paid manufacturing workers on earth, > > giving California the world's highest standard of >living. The average California wage once stood at 130 > > percent of the average U.S. wage. > > > > In the 1970s and 1980s, however, Japan, a free rider > > on America's defense, began to engage in predatory >trade, attacking and killing, one by one, U.S. >industries and capturing U.S. markets with subsidized >exports. > > > > California suffered first. Our TV industry was wiped > > out. Our auto industry was reeling when Ronald >Reagan stepped in to impose quotas on Japanese cars. > > Reagan also intervened to save the semiconductor > > industry, Big Steel and Harley-Davidson. Unlike >today's free-trade fanatics, Ronald Reagan put America > > first. > > > > But it was under Bush-Clinton-Bush that California > > was irrevocably sacrificed to the gods of the Global >Economy. > > > > During Bush I's term, millions of Mexicans began to > > flee north to seek jobs and take advantage of the >health care, welfare and free education American > > citizens provided for their people. For one-third of > > the illegals, California became the destination of >choice. > > > > What the U.S. government should have done was > > obvious, and was demanded by Americans: Enforce our >immigration laws, halt the invasion, restrict > > immigration from the Third World. But America's > > politicians - out of fear of being brande xenophobic >and to curry favor with Big Business, which > > benefits from an endless supply of low-wage labor - >did almost nothing to protect America. > > > > Californians tried to defend their state. As > > illegals poured in by the hundreds of thousands >yearly, they passed Proposition 187, denying social > > welfare benefits to illegal aliens who had broken > > the law and broken into the United States. > > > > The open-borders coalition, repudiated and routed, > > ran to a federal judge, who annulled the voters' >victory. Davis then refused to appeal the overturning > > of 187 to the Supreme Court. Hispanic voters > > rewarded him in 2002, and California state and local >budgets continued to hemorrhage. > > > > By the 1990s, an exodus of taxpayers had begun. Fed > > up with being fleeced to subsidize illegal aliens, >Californians began leaving for Nevada, Idaho, > > Arizona and Colorado. Two million native-born > > Californians left the state in > > the 1990s, as immigrants, legal and illegal, sent > > poverty rates soaring in Los Angeles, Riverside, San >Bernardino and Orange counties. > > > > This, then, is what killed California: > > > > First, open borders. By failing to enforce our > > immigration laws, America now hosts 31 million legal >immigrants and their children and 10 million > > illegals, most of them net tax consumers. California > > got the lion's share. > > > > Second, global free trade and the trade deficits it > > produced, now running at an annual rate of $562 >billion in May. This has killed millions of > > manufacturing jobs, as thousands of companies closed > > factories here and shifted plants to Mexico, Asia >and China. > > > > The Third Worldization of California is now far > > advanced. Yet those responsible, Bush Republicans as >well as Clinton Democrats, still cannot > > see what they have done to our country. > > > > But what is happening in California is not confined > > to California. It is happening across America. >Unless we elect a president who will enforce our > > immigration laws and defend our borders, unless we > > find a Congress that will jettison the free-trade >madness that is denuding America of her manufacturing, > > what has happened to California will happen here. > > > > President Bush appears oblivious to it all - but > > then, so did his father > > before him. > > > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software >http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com > >_____________________________________________________ > List services made available by First Step Internet, > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. > http://www.fsr.net > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com >�� --------------------------------- MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com From ccm_moscow@yahoo.com Tue Aug 5 17:30:03 2003 From: ccm_moscow@yahoo.com (Douglas Stambler) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 09:30:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Vision2020] Who Killed California? Doug Wilson did, of course. In-Reply-To: <20030805161410.3630.qmail@web10905.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20030805163003.41632.qmail@web80601.mail.yahoo.com> --0-1219266045-1060101003=:41006 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii DOUG WILSON KILLED CALIFORNIA!!! BLAME DOUG WILSON!!! he also started the war with iraq; caused the crisis in the middle east; sexually abused young men in moscow; and, caused the viola wildfire! (haha, joking) ****************************************************************** Tim Lohrmann wrote: Donovan, I was a little surprised to see you advocating the old "America--Love It of Leave It" philosophy. Is it a retro thing? That WAS big in the late '60s and early '70s I understand. Oh well. I also disagree that Pat is attacking a weaker group of people. The US Government as run by both Bush and one Clinton administration can hardly be considered weaker than him. And that's who he blames this mess on the government. He's not blaming the illegal immigrants themselves---just the governmental policies that caused this mess. That's clear from the column. It's amazing when people who are breaking the law by coming into this country suddenly have access to free health care, education, food etc. etc. Is this a reward for their crime? Many illegal immigrants have visited informational offices in their own countries that show them in advance exactly which offices to go to in order to take advantage of all the freebies. Who can blame them for coming here and taking advantage of it? I'm sure most of us would. But can you imagine the effect on Medi-Cal, the state education budget, law enforcement and etc.? And what about the effect of the people of California's faith in the democratic process when they are not allowed to stop these goings on as much as they try? You're absolutely correct that there are other factors than the one mentioned in the column(9/11 etc) that have had an effect on consumer spending. But its undeniable that Free Trade and unrestricted/illegal immigration have had a huge negative effect on California and many other states. The effect on wages isn't confined to the agricultural sector at all. In CA and many other states a huge percentage of construction labor is done by illegal immigrants. That used to be a field where people could make a good living in this country. They could start as laborers, learn skills and work their way up, but that's denied to American workers in many areas. This is but one example of the suppression of wages by illegal immigration. And of course one of the major negative effects is, as mentioned above, on the social service, education, law enforcement, and penal budgets. And if you don't believe that unfair and so-called "Free Trade" hasn't had a devastating impact on the areas mentioned in the article, you're simply ignoring reality. And here's a question for you. How much immigration would be enough? There are currently 1 million LEGAL immigrants allowed into this country every year. To put that in perspective, the 2002 Census estimate for the population of Seattle was 570,000. So, in other words LEGAL IMMIGRATION--each year, every year--equals very TWICE the city of Seattle. EVERY YEAR! Been to Seattle lately? Pretty crowded place, huh? Of course no one knows how many ILLEGAL immigrants come in each year. I've seen estimates ranging from 2-5 million illegals per year. Some stay and some come back and forth. In any event there are millions upon millions of illegals here in the country right now. And anyone questioning immigration and illegal immigration is xenophobic? I don't think so. No, it's nothing like a phobia. It's a simple realization that this country can't keep going on supporting this huge influx of people indefinitely. California is finding that out for all to see. TL --- Donovan Arnold wrote: --------------------------------- Tim, Oh, he is not my cup of tea alright. Pat Hitler, I mean, Pat Buchanan, (why I mix the two up I don't know) is only correct about three things. He is right it not the fault of Gov. Davis, he is right it is the fault of US Government, and the fault of Immigration. But he has the wrong immigration of people mixed up. It was not the influx of Mexicans that is the problem. It is the fault of an influx of Europeans. Ya see m'kay, Mexicans and Native American Indians had California for about 10-16,000 years before the immigrants of Europeans came over. The land and economy was just fine for that amount of time. Then other people came into California, and less than 150 years of occupation the soil, environment, and economy has gone to sh*t. Now, I tend to think the Mexicans and Indians have a better track record. I am willing to bet that if the United States withdrew from California for another 10,000-16,000 years it would recover nicely and be ready for another 150 years of European abuse and raping of the land. Now I know that the Mexicans had the audacity to do something like be born in California before Europeans even knew it existed, but I don't think they are the ones responsible for the failing of the United States and California economy. Mexicans picking oranges in some farmer's field making $2 an hour did not fly two airplanes into the World Trade Center. They didn't forge and fake the income earnings of Enron, Adelphia, and a whole host of others. They didn't engage in inside trading like Martha Steward. They didn't empty the Colorado River and drain California of it's electricity, they didn't write the budget or tax code. They didn't even withdraw their millions from the stock market or stop supporting the airline industry. What Buchanan is doing is attempting to attack a weaker group of people that have little or no political ability to withstand such attacks. It is easy to blame the little poor guy for the mistakes of the rich, powerful, greedy, and corrupt. Pat Buchanan is the biggest causation and beneficiary of immigration and free trade. It was the administration that he was a part of, Reagan's, that allowed for the largest immigration of Hispanics in the history of the United States. It was also he that was able to get a replacement value in his heart (yes, I know he does have actually have one) because of free trade policies with Japan. If this man has such a problem with immigration, he should move back to Europe, if he has a problem with free trade, he should give back his heart, after all, he hasn't even used it in a while anyway. Donovan J Arnold >From: Tim Lohrmann >To: vision2020@moscow.com >Subject: [Vision2020] Who Killed California? >Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 00:02:26 -0700 (PDT) > >Visionaries, >Even if he's not your cup of tea politically, you >gotta admit that Pat tells it like it is about "Free" >trade and Immigration. > TL > > >Who Killed California? > > > > By Patrick J. Buchanan > > > > With Gov. Gray Davis facing recall, a budget $38 > > billion in deficit, and a bond rating dropped three >notches by Standard & Poor's to near junk-bond > > status, the lowest of all 50 states, the Golden > > State is no more. > > > > Who killed the goose that laid the golden eggs? > > > > Certainly, Davis, who misled voters about the > > gravity of his budget crisis in 2002, and won >re-election by demonizing his GOP rivals, deserves his >20 > > percent approval rating. But Gray Davis did not kill > > California. > > > > The United States government did. For what killed > > California as the golden land was massive and >unrestricted immigration from the Third World, an > > unrepelled invasion from Mexico, and a failure to > > protect the U.S. manufacturing base and the wages of >America's workers. > > > > During and after World War II, California became a > > bastion of our defense, aerospace, auto and TV >industries. Hundreds of thousands were hired to become > > the highest-paid manufacturing workers on earth, > > giving California the world's highest standard of >living. The average California wage once stood at 130 > > percent of the average U.S. wage. > > > > In the 1970s and 1980s, however, Japan, a free rider > > on America's defense, began to engage in predatory >trade, attacking and killing, one by one, U.S. >industries and capturing U.S. markets with subsidized >exports. > > > > California suffered first. Our TV industry was wiped > > out. Our auto industry was reeling when Ronald >Reagan stepped in to impose quotas on Japanese cars. > > Reagan also intervened to save the semiconductor > > industry, Big Steel and Harley-Davidson. Unlike >today's free-trade fanatics, Ronald Reagan put America > > first. > > > > But it was under Bush-Clinton-Bush that California > > was irrevocably sacrificed to the gods of the Global >Economy. > > > > During Bush I's term, millions of Mexicans began to > > flee north to seek jobs and take advantage of the >health care, welfare and free education American > > citizens provided for their people. For one-third of > > the illegals, California became the destination of >choice. > > > > What the U.S. government should have done was > > obvious, and was demanded by Americans: Enforce our >immigration laws, halt the invasion, restrict > > immigration from the Third World. But America's > > politicians - out of fear of being brande xenophobic >and to curry favor with Big Business, which > > benefits from an endless supply of low-wage labor - >did almost nothing to protect America. > > > > Californians tried to defend their state. As > > illegals poured in by the hundreds of thousands >yearly, they passed Proposition 187, denying social > > welfare benefits to illegal aliens who had broken > > the law and broken into the United States. > > > > The open-borders coalition, repudiated and routed, > > ran to a federal judge, who annulled the voters' >victory. Davis then refused to appeal the overturning > > of 187 to the Supreme Court. Hispanic voters > > rewarded him in 2002, and California state and local >budgets continued to hemorrhage. > > > > By the 1990s, an exodus of taxpayers had begun. Fed > > up with being fleeced to subsidize illegal aliens, >Californians began leaving for Nevada, Idaho, > > Arizona and Colorado. Two million native-born > > Californians left the state in > > the 1990s, as immigrants, legal and illegal, sent > > poverty rates soaring in Los Angeles, Riverside, San >Bernardino and Orange counties. > > > > This, then, is what killed California: > > > > First, open borders. By failing to enforce our > > immigration laws, America now hosts 31 million legal >immigrants and their children and 10 million > > illegals, most of them net tax consumers. California > > got the lion's share. > > > > Second, global free trade and the trade deficits it > > produced, now running at an annual rate of $562 >billion in May. This has killed millions of > > manufacturing jobs, as thousands of companies closed > > factories here and shifted plants to Mexico, Asia >and China. > > > > The Third Worldization of California is now far > > advanced. Yet those responsible, Bush Republicans as >well as Clinton Democrats, still cannot > > see what they have done to our country. > > > > But what is happening in California is not confined > > to California. It is happening across America. >Unless we elect a president who will enforce our > > immigration laws and defend our borders, unless we > > find a Congress that will jettison the free-trade >madness that is denuding America of her manufacturing, > > what has happened to California will happen here. > > > > President Bush appears oblivious to it all - but > > then, so did his father > > before him. > > > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software >http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com > >_____________________________________________________ > List services made available by First Step Internet, > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. > http://www.fsr.net > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com >�� --------------------------------- MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com _____________________________________________________ List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com �� --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! --0-1219266045-1060101003=:41006 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

DOUG WILSON KILLED CALIFORNIA!!! BLAME DOUG WILSON!!!

he also started the war with iraq; caused the crisis in the middle east; sexually abused young men in moscow; and, caused the viola wildfire!

(haha, joking)

******************************************************************

Tim Lohrmann <timlohr@yahoo.com> wrote:

Donovan,
I was a little surprised to see you advocating
the old "America--Love It of Leave It" philosophy. Is
it a retro thing? That WAS big in the late '60s and
early '70s I understand.

Oh well.

I also disagree that Pat is attacking a weaker
group of people. The US Government as run by both Bush
and one Clinton administration can hardly be
considered weaker than him.

And that's who he blames this mess on the
government. He's not blaming the illegal immigrants
themselves---just the governmental policies that
caused this mess. That's clear from the column.

It's amazing when people who are breaking the law
by coming into this country suddenly have access to
free health care, education, food etc. etc.
Is this a reward for their crime?
Many illegal immigrants have visited informational
offices in their ! own countries that show them in
advance exactly which offices to go to in order to
take advantage of all the freebies. Who can blame them
for coming here and taking advantage of it? I'm sure
most of us would.
But can you imagine the effect on Medi-Cal, the
state education budget, law enforcement and etc.?
And what about the effect of the people of
California's faith in the democratic process when they
are not allowed to stop these goings on as much as
they try?

You're absolutely correct that there are other
factors than the one mentioned in the column(9/11 etc)
that have had an effect on consumer spending. But its
undeniable that Free Trade and unrestricted/illegal
immigration have had a huge negative effect on
California and many other states. The effect on wages
isn't confined to the agricultural sector at all.

In CA and many other states a huge percentage of
construction labor is done by illegal immigrants. That
used to be a field where people could make a good
living in this country. They could start as laborers,
learn skills and work their way up, but that's denied
to American workers in many areas. This is but one
example of the suppression of wages by illegal
immigration. And of course one of the major negative
effects is, as mentioned above, on the social service,
education, law enforcement, and penal budgets.

And if you don't believe that unfair and so-called
"Free Trade" hasn't had a devastating impact on the
areas mentioned in the article, you're simply ignoring
reality.
And here's a question for you. How much
immigration would be enough?
There are currently 1 million LEGAL immigrants
allowed into this country every year. To put that in
perspective, the 2002 Census estimate for the
population of Seattle was 570,000. So, in other words
LEGAL IMMIGRATION--each year, every year--equals very
TWICE the city of Seattle. EVERY YEAR! Been to Seattle
lately? Pretty crowded place, huh?

Of course no one knows how many ILLEGAL immigrants
come in each year. I've seen estimates ranging from
2-5 million illegals per year. Some stay and some come
back and forth. In any event there are millions upon
millions of illegals here in the country right now.

And anyone questioning immigration and illegal
immigration is xenophobic?
I don't think so. No, it's nothing like a phobia.
It's a simple realization that this country can't
keep going on supporting this huge influx of people
indefinitely. California is finding that out for all
to see.
TL

--- Donovan Arnold wrote:

---------------------------------

Tim,

Oh, he is not my cup of tea alright.

Pat Hitler, I mean, Pat Buchanan, (why I mix the two
up I don't know) is only correct about three things.
He is right it not the fa! ult of Gov. Davis, he is
right it is the fault of US Government, and the fault
of Immigration.

But he has the wrong immigration of people mixed up.
It was not the influx of Mexicans that is the problem.
It is the fault of an influx of Europeans. Ya see
m'kay, Mexicans and Native American Indians had
California for about 10-16,000 years before the
immigrants of Europeans came over. The land and
economy was just fine for that amount of time. Then
other people came into California, and less than 150
years of occupation the soil, environment, and economy
has gone to sh*t. Now, I tend to think the Mexicans
and Indians have a better track record. I am willing
to bet that if the United States withdrew from
California for another 10,000-16,000 years it would
recover nicely and be ready for another 150 years of
European abuse and raping of the land.

Now I know that the Mexicans had the audacity to do
something like be born in California before Europeans
even knew it existed, but I don't think they are the
ones responsible for the failing of the United States
and California economy. Mexicans picking oranges in
some farmer's field making $2 an hour did not fly two
airplanes into the World Trade Center. They didn't
forge and fake the income earnings of Enron, Adelphia,
and a whole host of others. They didn't engage in
inside trading like Martha Steward. They didn't empty
the Colorado River and drain California of it's
electricity, they didn't write the budget or tax code.
They didn't even withdraw their millions from the
stock market or stop supporting the airline industry.

What Buchanan is doing is attempting to attack a
weaker group of people that have little or no
political ability to withstand such attacks. It is
easy to blame the little poor guy for the mistakes of
the rich, powerful, greedy, and! corrupt.

Pat Buchanan is the biggest causation and beneficiary
of immigration and free trade. It was the
administration that he was a part of, Reagan's, that
allowed for the largest immigration of Hispanics in
the history of the United States. It was also he that
was able to get a replacement value in his heart (yes,
I know he does have actually have one) because of free
trade policies with Japan.

If this man has such a problem with immigration, he
should move back to Europe, if he has a problem with
free trade, he should give back his heart, after all,
he hasn't even used it in a while anyway.

Donovan J Arnold

>From: Tim Lohrmann

>To: vision2020@moscow.com

>Subject: [Vision2020] Who Killed California?

>Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 00:02:26 -0700 (PDT)

>

>Visionaries,

>Even if he's not your cup of tea politically, you

>gotta admit that Pat tells it like it is about "Free"

>trade and Immigration.

> TL

>

>

>Who Killed California?

> >

> > By Patrick J. Buchanan

> >

> > With Gov. Gray Davis facing recall, a budget $38

> > billion in deficit, and a bond rating dropped
three

>notches by Standard & Poor's to near junk-bond

> > status, the lowest of all 50 states, the Golden

> > State is no more.

> >

> > Who killed the goose that laid the golden eggs?

> >

> > Certainly, Davis, who misled voters about the

> > gravity of his budg! et crisis in 2002, and won

>re-election by demonizing his GOP rivals, deserves
his

>20

> > percent approval rating. But Gray Davis did not
kill

> > California.

> >

> > The United States government did. For what killed

> > California as the golden land was massive and

>unrestricted immigration from the Third World, an

> > unrepelled invasion from Mexico, and a failure to

> > protect the U.S. manufacturing base and the wages
of

>America's workers.

> >

> > During and after World War II, California became a

> > bastion of our defense, aerospace, auto and TV

>industries. Hundreds of thousands were hired to
become

> > the highest-paid manufactu! ring workers on earth,

> > giving California the world's highest standard of

>living. The average California wage once stood at 130

> > percent of the average U.S. wage.

> >

> > In the 1970s and 1980s, however, Japan, a free
rider

> > on America's defense, began to engage in predatory

>trade, attacking and killing, one by one, U.S.

>industries and capturing U.S. markets with subsidized

>exports.

> >

> > California suffered first. Our TV industry was
wiped

> > out. Our auto industry was reeling when Ronald

>Reagan stepped in to impose quotas on Japanese cars.

> > Reagan also intervened to save the semiconductor

> > industry, Big Steel and Harley-Davidson. ! Unlike

>today's free-trade fanatics, Ronald Reagan put
America

> > first.

> >

> > But it was under Bush-Clinton-Bush that California

> > was irrevocably sacrificed to the gods of the
Global

>Economy.

> >

> > During Bush I's term, millions of Mexicans began
to

> > flee north to seek jobs and take advantage of the

>health care, welfare and free education American

> > citizens provided for their people. For one-third
of

> > the illegals, California became the destination of

>choice.

> >

> > What the U.S. government should have done was

> > obvious, and was demanded by Americans: Enforce
our

>immigration laws, h! alt the invasion, restrict

> > immigration from the Third World. But America's

> > politicians - out of fear of being brande
xenophobic

>and to curry favor with Big Business, which

> > benefits from an endless supply of low-wage labor
-

>did almost nothing to protect America.

> >

> > Californians tried to defend their state. As

> > illegals poured in by the hundreds of thousands

>yearly, they passed Proposition 187, denying social

> > welfare benefits to illegal aliens who had broken

> > the law and broken into the United States.

> >

> > The open-borders coalition, repudiated and routed,

> > ran to a federal judge, who annulled the voters'

>victory. Davis then ! refused to appeal the overturning

> > of 187 to the Supreme Court. Hispanic voters

> > rewarded him in 2002, and California state and
local

>budgets continued to hemorrhage.

> >

> > By the 1990s, an exodus of taxpayers had begun.
Fed

> > up with being fleeced to subsidize illegal aliens,

>Californians began leaving for Nevada, Idaho,

> > Arizona and Colorado. Two million native-born

> > Californians left the state in

> > the 1990s, as immigrants, legal and illegal, sent

> > poverty rates soaring in Los Angeles, Riverside,
San

>Bernardino and Orange counties.

> >

> > This, then, is what killed California:

> >

> > First, open border! s. By failing to enforce our

> > immigration laws, America now hosts 31 million
legal

>immigrants and their children and 10 million

> > illegals, most of them net tax consumers.
California

> > got the lion's share.

> >

> > Second, global free trade and the trade deficits
it

> > produced, now running at an annual rate of $562

>billion in May. This has killed millions of

> > manufacturing jobs, as thousands of companies
closed

> > factories here and shifted plants to Mexico, Asia

>and China.

> >

> > The Third Worldization of California is now far

> > advanced. Yet those responsible, Bush Republicans
as

>well as Clinton Democrats, still cannot

!
> > see what they have done to our country.

> >

> > But what is happening in California is not
confined

> > to California. It is happening across America.

>Unless we elect a president who will enforce our

> > immigration laws and defend our borders, unless we

> > find a Congress that will jettison the free-trade

>madness that is denuding America of her
manufacturing,

> > what has happened to California will happen here.

> >

> > President Bush appears oblivious to it all - but

> > then, so did his father

> > before him.

> >

>

>__________________________________

>Do you Yahoo!?

>Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use! web site
design software

>http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

>

>_____________________________________________________

> List services made available by First Step Internet,

> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.

> http://www.fsr.net

> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com

>��

---------------------------------
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months
FREE*

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

_____________________________________________________
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
��

Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! --0-1219266045-1060101003=:41006-- From ccm_moscow@yahoo.com Tue Aug 5 17:35:25 2003 From: ccm_moscow@yahoo.com (Douglas Stambler) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 09:35:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Vision2020] Blame Doug Wilson Message-ID: <20030805163525.44448.qmail@web80601.mail.yahoo.com> --0-1680734290-1060101325=:43358 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii um, not joking about the sexual abuse of young in moscow, unfortunately. -douglas stambler --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! --0-1680734290-1060101325=:43358 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

um, not joking about the sexual abuse of young in moscow, unfortunately.

-douglas stambler

Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! --0-1680734290-1060101325=:43358-- From johnbharrell@yahoo.com Tue Aug 5 18:58:42 2003 From: johnbharrell@yahoo.com (John Harrell) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 10:58:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030805175842.44621.qmail@web13406.mail.yahoo.com> --0-48205279-1060106322=:43432 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mr. Donovan Arnold, Yes, someone is crazy or insane here. Let's look at it: Normal, traditional families OR those that are trying to promote perversity. Normalcy vs perversity. Normal or insane. You want to say that everyone that doesn't "celebrate" perversity is crazy or insane. Well, your promoting of perversity is what makes you insane, crazy, not normal. Celebrate normalcy not insanity! Cheers! John Harrell Donovan Arnold wrote: HAHA! I think Peter is being sarcastic, I don't know him well enough to know or not over the internet, especially after Luke's crazy insane remarks. I really don't think anyone can be so far to the right and still exist in this world with any sanity. But I will take a crack at this just to be humorous back >>Argument 1) They can't reproduce. PW: "What other purpose does marriage serve if it doesn't create new, legitimate offspring? Are you suggesting some kind of santized prostitution?" DA: Well, let me see, could marriage include things like LOVE, companionship, understanding, stability, and commitment? Or is it reduced to simply having sex and reproducing like bunnies on grassy field on a warm summer day? PW "No! We shall build homes for the spinsters and the widowers where they can perform useful work without distraction and the men who remain unwed at age 22 shall volunteer for the Navy or the Merchant Marine, depending their temperments." DA: Oh, so we will let men that have never had sex before and are prevented from being with women alone on a ship together? You are more liberal than I am. I guess since all men would be included there would gay men on these ships too? DA: This means that the moment that a women stops menstruating that the man should dump his wife? And with modern technology same sex partners now can reproduce, only now in a controlled manner that makes sure the child will be well taken care of. PW: "Modern technology is of the Devil, as a glimpse in a typical 'INBOX' will quickly demonstrate." DA: I notice how you so well avoid the "evil" technology by reframing from the use of the internet. You will surely burn will you not? Argument 2) They can't really love each other. PW: "Making marriage a "love" thing was probably the biggest mistake of Western Civilization. Marriage is of the community and not of the individual's fickle fancy!!! No one should be allowed to court, much less marry, without the approval of at least five upright men from their Church or perhaps of their fathers' Granges, if they live in different parishes." DA: Oh, yes, Love must be excluded from things like commitment, trust, and understanding. We would also not want to confuse the children by demonstrating to them what love is. They might go out and love people in the future, and soon enough, love could spread through the country. Where you are going to find five men that are upright in one community, I don't know, God could only find one man on the whole entire planet, and even he was a sinner. >Argument 3) The parts don't fit. PW: "There's one for some of your "modern technology"!" DA: Yes, not to mention the hiring of about 200,000 high priced doctors. Argument 4) It is against the Bible. DA: Gee, so is hating people, should we make that illegal too? PW: "Are you sure about that? Seems like that one guy hates just about everyone except perhaps Enoch and Noah, but it's not like we've heard much from them lately... DA: Your right, let us make hating people a requirement. Argument 5) It will lead to polygamy, bestiality, and pedophilia. PW: "And tax credits just for checking out if it's "your style" or not!" DA: We could not afford tax credits if you are paying doctors to measure body parts to make sure they fit their spouse. Peter makes me look like a moderate. :) Donovan J Arnold >From: Peter Willard >To: Vision2020 >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage >Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 23:11:17 -0700 > >At 04:30 PM 8/4/03 -0700, Donovan Arnold wrote: > >>Argument 1) They can't reproduce. > >What other purpose does marriage serve if it doesn't create new, >legitimate offspring? Are you suggesting some kind of santized >prostitution? > >No! We shall build homes for the spinsters and the widowers where >they can perform useful work without distraction and the men who >remain unwed at age 22 shall volunteer for the Navy or the Merchant >Marine, depending their temperments. > >>This means that the moment that a women stops menstruating that the >>man should dump his wife? And with modern technology same sex >>partners now can reproduce, only now in a controlled manner that >>makes sure the child will be well taken care of. > >Modern technology is of the Devil, as a glimpse in a typical "INBOX" >will quickly demonstrate. > > >>Argument 2) They can't really love each other. > >Making marriage a "love" thing was probably the biggest mistake of >Western Civilization. Marriage is of the community and not of the >individual's fickle fancy!!! > >No one should be allowed to court, much less marry, without the >approval of at least five upright men from their Church or perhaps >of their fathers' Granges, if they live in different parishes. > > >>Argument 3) The parts don't fit. > >There's one for some of your "modern technology"! > > >>Argument 4) It is against the Bible. >> >>Gee, so is hating people, should we make that illegal too? > >Are you sure about that? Seems like that one guy hates just about >everyone except perhaps Enoch and Noah, but it's not like we've >heard much from them lately... > >>Argument 5) It will lead to polygamy, bestiality, and pedophilia. > >And tax credits just for checking out if it's "your style" or not! > > > > >--- >Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.506 / Virus Database: 303 - Release Date: 8/1/03 --------------------------------- STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* _____________________________________________________ List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com �� --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software --0-48205279-1060106322=:43432 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

Mr. Donovan Arnold,

Yes, someone is crazy or insane here.

Let's look at it:

Normal, traditional families OR those that are trying to promote perversity.

Normalcy vs perversity.

Normal or insane.

You want to say that everyone that doesn't "celebrate" perversity is crazy or insane.

Well, your promoting of perversity is what makes you insane, crazy, not normal.

Celebrate normalcy not insanity!

Cheers!

John Harrell

Donovan Arnold <donovanarnold@hotmail.com> wrote:

HAHA! I think Peter is being sarcastic, I don't know him well enough to know or not over the internet, especially after Luke's crazy insane remarks. I really don't think anyone can be so far to the right and still exist in this world with any sanity. But I will take a crack at this just to be humorous back

>>Argument 1) They can't reproduce.

PW: "What other purpose does marriage serve if it doesn't create new, legitimate offspring? Are you suggesting some kind of santized prostitution?"

DA: Well, let me see, could marriage include things like LOVE, companionship, understanding, stability, and commitment? Or is it reduced to simply having sex and reproducing like bunnies on grassy field on a warm summer day?

PW "No! We shall build homes for the spinsters and the widowers where they can perform useful work without distraction and the men who remain unwed at age 22 shall volunteer for the Navy or the Merchant Marine, depending their temperments."

DA: Oh, so we will let men that have never had sex before and are prevented from being with women alone on a ship together? You are more liberal than I am. I guess since all men would be included there would gay men on these ships too?

DA: This means that the moment that a women stops menstruating that the man should dump his wife? And with modern technology same sex partners now can reproduce, only now in a controlled manner that makes sure the child will be well taken care of.

PW: "Modern technology is of the Devil, as a glimpse in a typical 'INBOX' will quickly demonstrate."

DA: I notice how you so well avoid the "evil" technology by reframing from the use of the internet. You will surely burn will you not?

Argument 2) They can't really love each other.

PW: "Making marriage a "love" thing was probably the biggest mistake of Western Civilization. Marriage is of the community and not of the individual's fickle fancy!!! No one should be allowed to court, much less marry, without the approval of at least five upright men from their Church or perhaps of their fathers' Granges, if they live in different parishes."

DA: Oh, yes, Love must be excluded from things like commitment, trust, and understanding. We would also not want to confuse the children by demonstrating to them what love is. They might go out and love people in the future, and soon enough, love could spread through the country. Where you are going to find five men that are upright in one community, I don't know, God could only find one man on the whole entire planet, and even he was a sinner.

>Argument 3) The parts don't fit.

PW: "There's one for some of your "modern technology"!"

DA: Yes, not to mention the hiring of about 200,000 high priced doctors.

Argument 4) It is against the Bible.

DA: Gee, so is hating people, should we make that illegal too?

PW: "Are you sure about that? Seems like that one guy hates just about everyone except perhaps Enoch and Noah, but it's not like we've heard much from them lately...

DA: Your right, let us make hating people a requirement.

Argument 5) It will lead to polygamy, bestiality, and pedophilia.

PW: "And tax credits just for checking out if it's "your style" or not!"

DA: We could not afford tax credits if you are paying doctors to measure body parts to make sure they fit their spouse.

Peter makes me look like a moderate. :)

Donovan J Arnold

>From: Peter Willard

>To: Vision2020

>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage

>Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 23:11:17 -0700

>

>At 04:30 PM 8/4/03 -0700, Donovan Arnold wrote:

>

>>Argument 1) They can't reproduce.

>

>What other purpose does marriage serve if it doesn't create new,

>legitimate offspring? Are you suggesting some kind of santized

>prostitution?

>

>No! We shall build homes for the spinsters and the widowers where

>they can perform useful work without distraction and the men who

>remain unwed at age 22 shall volunteer for the Navy or the Merchant

>Marine, depending their temperments.

>

>>This means that the moment that a women stops menstruating that the

>>man should dump his wife? And with modern technology same sex

>>partners now can reproduce, only now in a controlled manner that

>>makes sure the child will be well taken care of.

>

>Modern technology is of the Devil, as a glimpse in a typical "INBOX"

>will quickly demonstrate.

>

>

>>Argument 2) They can't really love each other.

>

>Making marriage a "love" thing was probably the biggest mistake of

>Western Civilization. Marriage is of the community and not of the

>individual's fickle fancy!!!

>

>No one should be allowed to court, much less marry, without the

>approval of at least five upright men from their Church or perhaps

>of their fathers' Granges, if they live in different parishes.

>

>

>>Argument 3) The parts don't fit.

>

>There's one for some of your "modern technology"!

>

>

>>Argument 4) It is against the Bible.

>>

>>Gee, so is hating people, should we make that illegal too?

>

>Are you sure about that? Seems like that one guy hates just about

>everyone except perhaps Enoch and Noah, but it's not like we've

>heard much from them lately...

>

>>Argument 5) It will lead to polygamy, bestiality, and pedophilia.

>

>And tax credits just for checking out if it's "your style" or not!

>

>

>

>

>---

>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

>Version: 6.0.506 / Virus Database: 303 - Release Date: 8/1/03

STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* _____________________________________________________ List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com ��

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software --0-48205279-1060106322=:43432-- From ccm_moscow@yahoo.com Tue Aug 5 19:08:44 2003 From: ccm_moscow@yahoo.com (Douglas Stambler) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 11:08:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Vision2020] Constitutional Ban on Christ Church and Doug Wilson In-Reply-To: <20030805175842.44621.qmail@web13406.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20030805180844.92389.qmail@web80606.mail.yahoo.com> --0-263532647-1060106924=:89392 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii DOES ANYONE ELSE ON THIS FORUM THINK THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD BAN CHRIST cHURCH AND DOUG WILSON? PERHAPS IT CAN BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION. OR, MAYBE WE CAN TRADE CHRIST cHURCH AND DOUG WILSON TO MEXICO IN EXCHANGE FOR SOME BURRITOS. JUST A THOUGHT. MAYBE THE SUPREME COURT CAN INTERVENE, TOO. In Christ, the "lunatic prophet" ************************************************************************************** John Harrell wrote: Mr. Donovan Arnold, Yes, someone is crazy or insane here. Let's look at it: Normal, traditional families OR those that are trying to promote perversity. Normalcy vs perversity. Normal or insane. You want to say that everyone that doesn't "celebrate" perversity is crazy or insane. Well, your promoting of perversity is what makes you insane, crazy, not normal. Celebrate normalcy not insanity! Cheers! John Harrell Donovan Arnold wrote: HAHA! I think Peter is being sarcastic, I don't know him well enough to know or not over the internet, especially after Luke's crazy insane remarks. I really don't think anyone can be so far to the right and still exist in this world with any sanity. But I will take a crack at this just to be humorous back >>Argument 1) They can't reproduce. PW: "What other purpose does marriage serve if it doesn't create new, legitimate offspring? Are you suggesting some kind of santized prostitution?" DA: Well, let me see, could marriage include things like LOVE, companionship, understanding, stability, and commitment? Or is it reduced to simply having sex and reproducing like bunnies on grassy field on a warm summer day? PW "No! We shall build homes for the spinsters and the widowers where they can perform useful work without distraction and the men who remain unwed at age 22 shall volunteer for the Navy or the Merchant Marine, depending their temperments." DA: Oh, so we will let men that have never had sex before and are prevented from being with women alone on a ship together? You are more liberal than I am. I guess since all men would be included there would gay men on these ships too? DA: This means that the moment that a women stops menstruating that the man should dump his wife? And with modern technology same sex partners now can reproduce, only now in a controlled manner that makes sure the child will be well taken care of. PW: "Modern technology is of the Devil, as a glimpse in a typical 'INBOX' will quickly demonstrate." DA: I notice how you so well avoid the "evil" technology by reframing from the use of the internet. You will surely burn will you not? Argument 2) They can't really love each other. PW: "Making marriage a "love" thing was probably the biggest mistake of Western Civilization. Marriage is of the community and not of the individual's fickle fancy!!! No one should be allowed to court, much less marry, without the approval of at least five upright men from their Church or perhaps of their fathers' Granges, if they live in different parishes." DA: Oh, yes, Love must be excluded from things like commitment, trust, and understanding. We would also not want to confuse the children by demonstrating to them what love is. They might go out and love people in the future, and soon enough, love could spread through the country. Where you are going to find five men that are upright in one community, I don't know, God could only find one man on the whole entire planet, and even he was a sinner. >Argument 3) The parts don't fit. PW: "There's one for some of your "modern technology"!" DA: Yes, not to mention the hiring of about 200,000 high priced doctors. Argument 4) It is against the Bible. DA: Gee, so is hating people, should we make that illegal too? PW: "Are you sure about that? Seems like that one guy hates just about everyone except perhaps Enoch and Noah, but it's not like we've heard much from them lately... DA: Your right, let us make hating people a requirement. Argument 5) It will lead to polygamy, bestiality, and pedophilia. PW: "And tax credits just for checking out if it's "your style" or not!" DA: We could not afford tax credits if you are paying doctors to measure body parts to make sure they fit their spouse. Peter makes me look like a moderate. :) Donovan J Arnold >From: Peter Willard >To: Vision2020 >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage >Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 23:11:17 -0700 > >At 04:30 PM 8/4/03 -0700, Donovan Arnold wrote: > >>Argument 1) They can't reproduce. > >What other purpose does marriage serve if it doesn't create new, >legitimate offspring? Are you suggesting some kind of santized >prostitution? > >No! We shall build homes for the spinsters and the widowers where >they can perform useful work without distraction and the men who >remain unwed at age 22 shall volunteer for the Navy or the Merchant >Marine, depending their temperments. > >>This means that the moment that a women stops menstruating that the >>man should dump his wife? And with modern technology same sex >>partners now can reproduce, only now in a controlled manner that >>makes sure the child will be well taken care of. > >Modern technology is of the Devil, as a glimpse in a typical "INBOX" >will quickly demonstrate. > > >>Argument 2) They can't really love each other. > >Making marriage a "love" thing was probably the biggest mistake of >Western Civilization. Marriage is of the community and not of the >individual's fickle fancy!!! > >No one should be allowed to court, much less marry, without the >approval of at least five upright men from their Church or perhaps >of their fathers' Granges, if they live in different parishes. > > >>Argument 3) The parts don't fit. > >There's one for some of your "modern technology"! > > >>Argument 4) It is against the Bible. >> >>Gee, so is hating people, should we make that illegal too? > >Are you sure about that? Seems like that one guy hates just about >everyone except perhaps Enoch and Noah, but it's not like we've >heard much from them lately... > >>Argument 5) It will lead to polygamy, bestiality, and pedophilia. > >And tax credits just for checking out if it's "your style" or not! > > > > >--- >Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.506 / Virus Database: 303 - Release Date: 8/1/03 --------------------------------- STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* _____________________________________________________ List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com �� --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! --0-263532647-1060106924=:89392 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

DOES ANYONE ELSE ON THIS FORUM THINK THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD BAN CHRIST cHURCH AND DOUG WILSON? PERHAPS IT CAN BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION.

OR, MAYBE WE CAN TRADE CHRIST cHURCH AND DOUG WILSON TO MEXICO IN EXCHANGE FOR SOME BURRITOS.

JUST A THOUGHT. MAYBE THE SUPREME COURT CAN INTERVENE, TOO.

In Christ,

the "lunatic prophet"
**************************************************************************************
John Harrell <johnbharrell@yahoo.com> wrote:

Mr. Donovan Arnold,

Yes, someone is crazy or insane here.

Let's look at it:

Normal, traditional families OR those that are trying to promote perversity.

Normalcy vs perversity.

Normal or insane.

You want to say that everyone that doesn't "celebrate" perversity is crazy or insane.

Well, your promoting of perversity is what makes you insane, crazy, not normal.

Celebrate normalcy not insanity!

Cheers!

John Harrell

Donovan Arnold <donovanarnold@hotmail.com> wrote:

HAHA! I think Peter is being sarcastic, I don't know him well enough to know or not over the internet, especially after Luke's crazy insane remarks. I really don't think anyone can be so far to the right and still exist in this world with any sanity. But I will take a crack at this just to be humorous back

>>Argument 1) They can't reproduce.

PW: "What other purpose does marriage serve if it doesn't create new, legitimate offspring? Are you suggesting some kind of santized prostitution?"

DA: Well, let me see, could marriage include things like LOVE, companionship, understanding, stability, and commitment? Or is it reduced to simply having sex and reproducing like bunnies on grassy field on a warm summer day?

PW "No! We shall build homes for the spinsters and the widowers where they can perform useful work without distraction and the men who remain unwed at age 22 shall volunteer for the Navy or the Merchant Marine, depending their temperments."

DA: Oh, so we will let men that have never had sex before and are prevented from being with women alone on a ship together? You are more liberal than I am. I guess since all men would be included there would gay men on these ships too?

DA: This means that the moment that a women stops menstruating that the man should dump his wife? And with modern technology same sex partners now can reproduce, only now in a controlled manner that makes sure the child will be well taken care of.

PW: "Modern technology is of the Devil, as a glimpse in a typical 'INBOX' will quickly demonstrate."

DA: I notice how you so well avoid the "evil" technology by reframing from the use of the internet. You will surely burn will you not?

Argument 2) They can't really love each other.

PW: "Making marriage a "love" thing was probably the biggest mistake of Western Civilization. Marriage is of the community and not of the individual's fickle fancy!!! No one should be allowed to court, much less marry, without the approval of at least five upright men from their Church or perhaps of their fathers' Granges, if they live in different parishes."

DA: Oh, yes, Love must be excluded from things like commitment, trust, and understanding. We would also not want to confuse the children by demonstrating to them what love is. They might go out and love people in the future, and soon enough, love could spread through the country. Where you are going to find five men that are upright in one community, I don't know, God could only find one man on the whole entire planet, and even he was a sinner.

>Argument 3) The parts don't fit.

PW: "There's one for some of your "modern technology"!"

DA: Yes, not to mention the hiring of about 200,000 high priced doctors.

Argument 4) It is against the Bible.

DA: Gee, so is hating people, should we make that illegal too?

PW: "Are you sure about that? Seems like that one guy hates just about everyone except perhaps Enoch and Noah, but it's not like we've heard much from them lately...

DA: Your right, let us make hating people a requirement.

Argument 5) It will lead to polygamy, bestiality, and pedophilia.

PW: "And tax credits just for checking out if it's "your style" or not!"

DA: We could not afford tax credits if you are paying doctors to measure body parts to make sure they fit their spouse.

Peter makes me look like a moderate. :)

Donovan J Arnold

>From: Peter Willard

>To: Vision2020

>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage

>Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 23:11:17 -0700

>

>At 04:30 PM 8/4/03 -0700, Donovan Arnold wrote:

>

>>Argument 1) They can't reproduce.

>

>What other purpose does marriage serve if it doesn't create new,

>legitimate offspring? Are you suggesting some kind of santized

>prostitution?

>

>No! We shall build homes for the spinsters and the widowers where

>they can perform useful work without distraction and the men who

>remain unwed at age 22 shall volunteer for the Navy or the Merchant

>Marine, depending their temperments.

>

>>This means that the moment that a women stops menstruating that the

>>man should dump his wife? And with modern technology same sex

>>partners now can reproduce, only now in a controlled manner that

>>makes sure the child will be well taken care of.

>

>Modern technology is of the Devil, as a glimpse in a typical "INBOX"

>will quickly demonstrate.

>

>

>>Argument 2) They can't really love each other.

>

>Making marriage a "love" thing was probably the biggest mistake of

>Western Civilization. Marriage is of the community and not of the

>individual's fickle fancy!!!

>

>No one should be allowed to court, much less marry, without the

>approval of at least five upright men from their Church or perhaps

>of their fathers' Granges, if they live in different parishes.

>

>

>>Argument 3) The parts don't fit.

>

>There's one for some of your "modern technology"!

>

>

>>Argument 4) It is against the Bible.

>>

>>Gee, so is hating people, should we make that illegal too?

>

>Are you sure about that? Seems like that one guy hates just about

>everyone except perhaps Enoch and Noah, but it's not like we've

>heard much from them lately...

>

>>Argument 5) It will lead to polygamy, bestiality, and pedophilia.

>

>And tax credits just for checking out if it's "your style" or not!

>

>

>

>

>---

>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

>Version: 6.0.506 / Virus Database: 303 - Release Date: 8/1/03

STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* _____________________________________________________ List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com ��

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! --0-263532647-1060106924=:89392-- From mghuskey@hotmail.com Tue Aug 5 19:46:01 2003 From: mghuskey@hotmail.com (Melynda Huskey) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 11:46:01 -0700 Subject: [Vision2020] Gay Marriage, again Message-ID: Against my better judgement (what there is of it), I've been thinking about some of Doug, Donovan, and Ralph's ideas about marriage--gay, straight, monogamous, polyandrous, and so on . . . Marriage in the U.S. is obviously a civil contract which may or may not include a religious covenant. According to the GAO, there are over 1000 statuatory rights and responsibilities associated with legal marriage in the U.S. Those are imposed and regulated by the state, not by any religious body, no matter what role that religious body may play in the wedding ceremony or the subsequent marriage. Those of us who seek the legal status which attends civil marriage in this country have a hard time understanding why the strictures of any religious body should have the power to withhold civil rights from some citizens. And it is really religious argument which stands in the way. The argument from history that marriage has always been between one man and one woman founders rapidly upon fact: polygyny is the most common form of marital relation, anthropologically and historically speaking. As recently as the Middle Ages, very few people were married at all. The argument that the family has always been composed of a man, a woman, and their children has been systematically refuted by historians, anthropologists, and sociologists. The primary objection raised against gay marriage is really that some people believe that God does not authorize such unions. The religious beliefs of some citizens are thus permitted to determine the civil rights of others. I had a church wedding, for goodness sake, and took my vows in the presence of God and the congregation. What I can't do is confer my Social Security death benefits to the woman with whom I took those vows, and to whom I have been married for nearly twelve years. I can't file my taxes jointly with her. I can't trust that if one of us dies, the other will automatically have custody of our children. I can't be with her in the Intensive Care Unit if one of her family members wants me out. I can't be sure that "Beloved Wife of Joan" will be carved on my tombstone, if the cemetary officials don't like those words. The argument that gay marriage ought logically to open the door to polygamy is of purely academic interest to me. Gay marriages need not *necessarily* lead to polygamous marriages, and the possibility that they might is not a sufficient reason on its own to justify the continued exclusion of some citizens from the civil benefits and responsibilities of marriage based solely on the gender of the partners. Melynda Huskey Go, said the bird, for the leaves were full of children, Hidden excitedly, containing laughter. Go, go, go, said the bird: human kind Cannot bear very much reality. Burnt Norton, T.S. Eliot _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From dougwils@moscow.com Tue Aug 5 20:25:53 2003 From: dougwils@moscow.com (Douglas) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 12:25:53 -0700 Subject: [Vision2020] Gay Marriage, again Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030805122524.04e62270@mail.moscow.com> Visionaries, Melynda, your last paragraph surprised me. Given what you acknowledge as common practice throughout history, how could we exclude a man's two wives (for example) from ICU unless we are willing to impose a particular religious view of marriage through the mechanism of civil law? Genuinely curious. Cordially, Douglas At 11:46 AM 8/5/2003 -0700, you wrote: Against my better judgement (what there is of it), I've been thinking about some of Doug, Donovan, and Ralph's ideas about marriage--gay, straight, monogamous, polyandrous, and so on . . . Marriage in the U.S. is obviously a civil contract which may or may not include a religious covenant. According to the GAO, there are over 1000 statuatory rights and responsibilities associated with legal marriage in the U.S. Those are imposed and regulated by the state, not by any religious body, no matter what role that religious body may play in the wedding ceremony or the subsequent marriage. Those of us who seek the legal status which attends civil marriage in this country have a hard time understanding why the strictures of any religious body should have the power to withhold civil rights from some citizens. And it is really religious argument which stands in the way. The argument from history that marriage has always been between one man and one woman founders rapidly upon fact: polygyny is the most common form of marital relation, anthropologically and historically speaking. As recently as the Middle Ages, very few people were married at all. The argument that the family has always been composed of a man, a woman, and their children has been systematically refuted by historians, anthropologists, and sociologists. The primary objection raised against gay marriage is really that some people believe that God does not authorize such unions. The religious beliefs of some citizens are thus permitted to determine the civil rights of others. I had a church wedding, for goodness sake, and took my vows in the presence of God and the congregation. What I can't do is confer my Social Security death benefits to the woman with whom I took those vows, and to whom I have been married for nearly twelve years. I can't file my taxes jointly with her. I can't trust that if one of us dies, the other will automatically have custody of our children. I can't be with her in the Intensive Care Unit if one of her family members wants me out. I can't be sure that "Beloved Wife of Joan" will be carved on my tombstone, if the cemetary officials don't like those words. The argument that gay marriage ought logically to open the door to polygamy is of purely academic interest to me. Gay marriages need not *necessarily* lead to polygamous marriages, and the possibility that they might is not a sufficient reason on its own to justify the continued exclusion of some citizens from the civil benefits and responsibilities of marriage based solely on the gender of the partners. Melynda Huskey Go, said the bird, for the leaves were full of children, Hidden excitedly, containing laughter. Go, go, go, said the bird: human kind Cannot bear very much reality. Burnt Norton, T.S. Eliot _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail _____________________________________________________ List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com �� From johnbharrell@yahoo.com Tue Aug 5 20:11:37 2003 From: johnbharrell@yahoo.com (John Harrell) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 12:11:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Vision2020] Gay Marriage, again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030805191137.34542.qmail@web13409.mail.yahoo.com> --0-1890811130-1060110697=:32733 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Wow! You were "married" in a "church?" I guess it all depends on what the definition of "is" is. Cheers! John Harrell Melynda Huskey wrote: Against my better judgement (what there is of it), I've been thinking about some of Doug, Donovan, and Ralph's ideas about marriage--gay, straight, monogamous, polyandrous, and so on . . . Marriage in the U.S. is obviously a civil contract which may or may not include a religious covenant. According to the GAO, there are over 1000 statuatory rights and responsibilities associated with legal marriage in the U.S. Those are imposed and regulated by the state, not by any religious body, no matter what role that religious body may play in the wedding ceremony or the subsequent marriage. Those of us who seek the legal status which attends civil marriage in this country have a hard time understanding why the strictures of any religious body should have the power to withhold civil rights from some citizens. And it is really religious argument which stands in the way. The argument from history that marriage has always been between one man and one woman founders rapidly upon fact: polygyny is the most common form of marital relation, anthropologically and historically speaking. As recently as the Middle Ages, very few people were married at all. The argument that the family has always been composed of a man, a woman, and their children has been systematically refuted by historians, anthropologists, and sociologists. The primary objection raised against gay marriage is really that some people believe that God does not authorize such unions. The religious beliefs of some citizens are thus permitted to determine the civil rights of others. I had a church wedding, for goodness sake, and took my vows in the presence of God and the congregation. What I can't do is confer my Social Security death benefits to the woman with whom I took those vows, and to whom I have been married for nearly twelve years. I can't file my taxes jointly with her. I can't trust that if one of us dies, the other will automatically have custody of our children. I can't be with her in the Intensive Care Unit if one of her family members wants me out. I can't be sure that "Beloved Wife of Joan" will be carved on my tombstone, if the cemetary officials don't like those words. The argument that gay marriage ought logically to open the door to polygamy is of purely academic interest to me. Gay marriages need not *necessarily* lead to polygamous marriages, and the possibility that they might is not a sufficient reason on its own to justify the continued exclusion of some citizens from the civil benefits and responsibilities of marriage based solely on the gender of the partners. Melynda Huskey Go, said the bird, for the leaves were full of children, Hidden excitedly, containing laughter. Go, go, go, said the bird: human kind Cannot bear very much reality. Burnt Norton, T.S. Eliot _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail _____________________________________________________ List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com �� --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software --0-1890811130-1060110697=:32733 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

Wow!

You were "married" in a "church?"

I guess it all depends on what the definition of "is" is.

Cheers!

John Harrell

Melynda Huskey <mghuskey@hotmail.com> wrote:

Against my better judgement (what there is of it), I've been thinking about
some of Doug, Donovan, and Ralph's ideas about marriage--gay, straight,
monogamous, polyandrous, and so on . . .

Marriage in the U.S. is obviously a civil contract which may or may not
include a religious covenant. According to the GAO, there are over 1000
statuatory rights and responsibilities associated with legal marriage in the
U.S. Those are imposed and regulated by the state, not by any religious
body, no matter what role that religious body may play in the wedding
ceremony or the subsequent marriage. Those of us who seek the legal status
which attends civil marriage in this country have a hard time understanding
why the strictures of any religious body should have the power to withhold
civil rights from some citizens. And it is really religious arg! ument which
stands in the way.

The argument from history that marriage has always been between one man and
one woman founders rapidly upon fact: polygyny is the most common form of
marital relation, anthropologically and historically speaking. As recently
as the Middle Ages, very few people were married at all. The argument that
the family has always been composed of a man, a woman, and their children
has been systematically refuted by historians, anthropologists, and
sociologists. The primary objection raised against gay marriage is really
that some people believe that God does not authorize such unions. The
religious beliefs of some citizens are thus permitted to determine the civil
rights of others.

I had a church wedding, for goodness sake, and took my vows in the presence
of God and the congregation. What I can't do is confer my Social Security
death benefits to the woman with whom I took those vows, and to whom I! have
been married for nearly twelve years. I can't file my taxes jointly with
her. I can't trust that if one of us dies, the other will automatically
have custody of our children. I can't be with her in the Intensive Care
Unit if one of her family members wants me out. I can't be sure that
"Beloved Wife of Joan" will be carved on my tombstone, if the cemetary
officials don't like those words.

The argument that gay marriage ought logically to open the door to polygamy
is of purely academic interest to me. Gay marriages need not *necessarily*
lead to polygamous marriages, and the possibility that they might is not a
sufficient reason on its own to justify the continued exclusion of some
citizens from the civil benefits and responsibilities of marriage based
solely on the gender of the partners.

Melynda Huskey

Go, said the bird, for the leaves were full of children,
Hidden excitedly, containing laughter.
Go,! go, go, said the bird: human kind
Cannot bear very much reality.
Burnt Norton, T.S. Eliot

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

_____________________________________________________
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
��

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software --0-1890811130-1060110697=:32733-- From ccm_moscow@yahoo.com Tue Aug 5 20:13:28 2003 From: ccm_moscow@yahoo.com (Douglas Stambler) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 12:13:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Vision2020] Doug Wilson: Gay Marriage, again? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030805122524.04e62270@mail.moscow.com> Message-ID: <20030805191328.92474.qmail@web80603.mail.yahoo.com> --0-240069571-1060110808=:87067 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Doug Wilson: Gay Marriage, again? Douglas wrote:Visionaries, Melynda, your last paragraph surprised me. Given what you acknowledge as common practice throughout history, how could we exclude a man's two wives (for example) from ICU unless we are willing to impose a particular religious view of marriage through the mechanism of civil law? Genuinely curious. Cordially, Douglas At 11:46 AM 8/5/2003 -0700, you wrote: Against my better judgement (what there is of it), I've been thinking about some of Doug, Donovan, and Ralph's ideas about marriage--gay, straight, monogamous, polyandrous, and so on . . . Marriage in the U.S. is obviously a civil contract which may or may not include a religious covenant. According to the GAO, there are over 1000 statuatory rights and responsibilities associated with legal marriage in the U.S. Those are imposed and regulated by the state, not by any religious body, no matter what role that religious body may play in the wedding ceremony or the subsequent marriage. Those of us who seek the legal status which attends civil marriage in this country have a hard time understanding why the strictures of any religious body should have the power to withhold civil rights from some citizens. And it is really religious argument which stands in the way. The argument from history that marriage has always been between one man and one woman founders rapidly upon fact: polygyny is the most common form of marital relation, anthropologically and historically speaking. As recently as the Middle Ages, very few people were married at all. The argument that the family has always been composed of a man, a woman, and their children has been systematically refuted by historians, anthropologists, and sociologists. The primary objection raised against gay marriage is really that some people believe that God does not authorize such unions. The religious beliefs of some citizens are thus permitted to determine the civil rights of others. I had a church wedding, for goodness sake, and took my vows in the presence of God and the congregation. What I can't do is confer my Social Security death benefits to the woman with whom I took those vows, and to whom I have been married for nearly twelve years. I can't file my taxes jointly with her. I can't trust that if one of us dies, the other will automatically have custody of our children. I can't be with her in the Intensive Care Unit if one of her family members wants me out. I can't be sure that "Beloved Wife of Joan" will be carved on my tombstone, if the cemetary officials don't like those words. The argument that gay marriage ought logically to open the door to polygamy is of purely academic interest to me. Gay marriages need not *necessarily* lead to polygamous marriages, and the possibility that they might is not a sufficient reason on its own to justify the continued exclusion of some citizens from the civil benefits and responsibilities of marriage based solely on the gender of the partners. Melynda Huskey Go, said the bird, for the leaves were full of children, Hidden excitedly, containing laughter. Go, go, go, said the bird: human kind Cannot bear very much reality. Burnt Norton, T.S. Eliot _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail _____________________________________________________ List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com �� _____________________________________________________ List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com �� --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! --0-240069571-1060110808=:87067 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Doug Wilson: Gay Marriage, again?

Douglas <dougwils@moscow.com> wrote:

Visionaries,

Melynda, your last paragraph surprised me. Given what you acknowledge as
common practice throughout history, how could we exclude a man's two wives
(for example) from ICU unless we are willing to impose a particular
religious view of marriage through the mechanism of civil law?

Genuinely curious.

Cordially,

Douglas

At 11:46 AM 8/5/2003 -0700, you wrote:
Against my better judgement (what there is of it), I've been thinking about
some of Doug, Donovan, and Ralph's ideas about marriage--gay, straight,
monogamous, polyandrous, and so on . . .

Marriage in the U.S. is obviously a civil contract which may or may not
include a religious covenant. According to the GAO, there are over 1000
statuatory rights and responsibilities associated with legal marriage in
the U.S. Those are imposed and r! egulated by the state, not by any religious
body, no matter what role that religious body may play in the wedding
ceremony or the subsequent marriage. Those of us who seek the legal status
which attends civil marriage in this country have a hard time understanding
why the strictures of any religious body should have the power to withhold
civil rights from some citizens. And it is really religious argument which
stands in the way.

The argument from history that marriage has always been between one man and
one woman founders rapidly upon fact: polygyny is the most common form of
marital relation, anthropologically and historically speaking. As recently
as the Middle Ages, very few people were married at all. The argument that
the family has always been composed of a man, a woman, and their children
has been systematically refuted by historians, anthropologists, and
sociologists. The primary objection raised against gay marriage is! really
that some people believe that God does not authorize such unions. The
religious beliefs of some citizens are thus permitted to determine the
civil rights of others.

I had a church wedding, for goodness sake, and took my vows in the presence
of God and the congregation. What I can't do is confer my Social Security
death benefits to the woman with whom I took those vows, and to whom I have
been married for nearly twelve years. I can't file my taxes jointly with
her. I can't trust that if one of us dies, the other will automatically
have custody of our children. I can't be with her in the Intensive Care
Unit if one of her family members wants me out. I can't be sure that
"Beloved Wife of Joan" will be carved on my tombstone, if the cemetary
officials don't like those words.

The argument that gay marriage ought logically to open the door to polygamy
is of purely academic interest to me. Gay marriages need not *necess! arily*
lead to polygamous marriages, and the possibility that they might is not a
sufficient reason on its own to justify the continued exclusion of some
citizens from the civil benefits and responsibilities of marriage based
solely on the gender of the partners.

Melynda Huskey

Go, said the bird, for the leaves were full of children,
Hidden excitedly, containing laughter.
Go, go, go, said the bird: human kind
Cannot bear very much reality.
Burnt Norton, T.S. Eliot

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

_____________________________________________________
List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
��

_____________________________________________________
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
��

Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! --0-240069571-1060110808=:87067-- From jdanahy@turbonet.com Tue Aug 5 20:39:31 2003 From: jdanahy@turbonet.com (John Danahy) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 12:39:31 -0700 Subject: [Spam] [Vision2020] Iran In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001b01c35b89$4dcb1d70$e274e4ce@laurie3zo89bgq> Yea, Terminator three!! John -----Original Message----- From: vision2020-admin@moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-admin@moscow.com] On Behalf Of Carl Westberg Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 8:43 AM To: vision2020@moscow.com Subject: [Spam] [Vision2020] Iran A Middle Eastern county is being asked by the U.N. to allow unrestricted inspections of its nuclear facilities, amid U.S. accusations that this country is running a clandestine nuclear weapons program. This sounds familiar. I think I've seen this film before. Is this the opening credits of the sequel to a movie that's still playing in theatres now? Carl Westberg Jr. _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail _____________________________________________________ List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com �� From tex@kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu Tue Aug 5 21:28:51 2003 From: tex@kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu (TEX) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 13:28:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Vision2020] [Vision 2020] Reply to Donovan RE: Poly* Message-ID: A friend who wishes to remain anonymous asked me to post the following: Donovan Arnold writes: > Polygamy is a violation of human rights in numerous levels. That's a pretty strong statement! Human rights! Wow. > First, marriage requires that you place all loyalty to one person. > How can you do that when you are married to multiple people? No, marriage doesn't require you to place your loyalty in one person. Where did you pick up on that? > Second, it allows the spread of disease, against the interests of the > state and the community. Heh. The spread of disease is pretty much never in the interests of the state or community, except maybe for measles or something. > One of the members of the union engages in sexual relations with > someone outside the marriage and it goes to everyone, and could > spread to many more children. That's correct. If none of the members of the union have sexual relations outside of marriage, they're unlikely to pick up an STD. Note that this is true *regardless of the number of partners*. It applies to monogamous relationships as well as polygamous relationships. (As an aside, how do you feel about abstinence before marriage?) > Third, it allows the suppression of women. Some would say that monogamous marriage suppresses women, too. You just can't win... By the way, let's be clear on the terms here. polygyny: where men have more than one wife at a time polyandry: where women have more than one husband at a time polygamy: where one has more than one spouse at a time (usually used in place of "polygyny") Most of what you say in this message (and others) refers to polygny. > Fourth, it creates confusion in matters of divorce. Can the divorcing > women sue all the ones he is married to also? If so, why is that fair? > If not, he can transfer all his wealth to the others he is married to > as well, leaving the women with nothing to raise her children on? I don't see any problem here that can't be worked out. Keep in mind that societies and cultures change. Similar questions existed in the past, when women didn't have the right to divorce or buy birth control or own property, etc. > Fifth, how can one person swear to be monogamist to more than one > person? Is this not an important part of marriage? Sure, one who swears to be monogamous should keep his/her promise. However, not all do because not all are asked to do so. > Sixth, who gets the benefits of life insurance, health insurance, and > other benefits? If you have 20 wives, which one gets the dental benefit, > which one gets the medicine? You could argue that businesses should > provide health insurance for all the wives and children, but which > children are his if they each have 20 husbands? I think recent scientific advances have helped in the paternity determination issue. As for the rest, I think everyone should get the benefits. I mean, stepchildren get medical and other benefits now. How is that any different (other than the serial monogamy/polygamy difference)? > You would also > have bickering between the different health insurance companies as to > which should pay for the costs of medical expenses. If you have six kids instead of the proverbial 2.3, you'd expect to pay more for medical/etc. Why should it be any different if you have two wives, or three? > Seventh, how is it fair to a spouse if one decides to marry another > when they don't have a say in manner? Certainly, it isn't fair at all. In some cultures, it's a requirement that one can't take on another wife without the consent of the current wife (or wives). However, that's a societal/cultural thing. The best you can do is codify it as law. > Polygamy is a > heterosexual thing that was knocked down to protect the rights > of women that were being abused in the relationship. That is simply not true. Read up on your history. The early pronouncements by the Christian church regarding polygamy came about to make Christianity more palatable to the Greco-Roman empire, who didn't have polygamy in their culture. If you have to treat all your spouses equally, you'll figure out pretty fast why polygamy's relatively rare, even in polygamous cultures. An anonymous friend of Tex From ted_moffett@hotmail.com Tue Aug 5 21:31:53 2003 From: ted_moffett@hotmail.com (Ted Moffett) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 20:31:53 +0000 Subject: [Vision2020] Afghanistan's Record Opium Crop Message-ID: John and All: Yes, of course. But surely many people do not believe the connections between the CIA and the drug trade you make here, and certainly not that getting the opium drug trade back in operation was a significant factor in the US invasion of Afghanistan. I'm just amazed to observe that the condition of Afghanistan as a concern of the American people is off the radar except for a few people, like Melynda Huskey, who are really doing something to help that country. Remember First Lady Laura Bush's public involvement with the rights of women in Afghanistan? How getting rid of the Taliban was such a nobel endeavor to promote human rights? What is the state of women and human rights in Afghanistan now with the drug trade back in business and various warlords really running pretty much the whole country except Kabul? And then there are the reports of Osama "Where's he Bin?" Laden still hanging around the area. No wonder they want Afghanistan off the radar. The main terrorist that was painted as the instigator, mastermind and financier for 9/11 is still at large while we spend tremendous resources chasing Saddam around. How convenient to have another war and bad guy to create a diversion from the failures over in Afghanistan. Ted >From: "John Danahy" >To: >Subject: RE: [Spam] [Vision2020] Afghanistan's Record Opium Crop >Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 21:40:31 -0700 > >Come on now, surely no one is surprised at this. The CIA financed opium >operation was endangered by the Taliban's attempt to shut it down. We >attacked Afganistan to start it up again. So much for compassionate >conservatism. >John >jdanahy@turbonet.com > >-----Original Message----- >From: vision2020-admin@moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-admin@moscow.com] >On Behalf Of Ted Moffett >Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 8:24 PM >To: vision2020@moscow.com >Subject: [Spam] [Vision2020] Afghanistan's Record Opium Crop > >Visionaries: > >While we are distracted with Iraq and threats of terror, Kobe Bryant and > >ridiculous repressive government policies that block people who love >each >other from forming stable relationships, consider the lack of focus on >or >interest in Afghanistan: a country we bombed to oblivion and were going >to >rebuild. > >It is as though the entire nation has ADD! > >Ted > >Read below: > > >��Afghans on Edge of Chaos >��As opium production and banditry soar, the country is at risk of >anarchy, >some warn, and could allow a Taliban resurgence >��By Robyn Dixon >��The Los Angeles Times > >��Monday 04 August 2003 > >��WARDAK, Afghanistan - Two months after a gun attack, the bullet holes >in >the Datsun sedan have been patched and it runs beautifully. But water >engineer Asil Kahn walks with a limp and he still has two bullets in his > >body, one of them half an inch from his spine. > >��The vehicle's humanitarian logo made him a victim in the battle for >Afghanistan's future, where water engineers, mine-clearers and >humanitarian >workers - people the country needs most - are prime targets for >militants >trying to destabilize President Hamid Karzai's interim government. > >��The May attack on the Afghanistan Development Agency car in Wardak >province, south of Kabul on the road to Kandahar, injured Kahn but >killed >the driver. > >��"They weren't robbers or thieves," said Kahn, 46. "They just wanted to > >kill us. They're people against the government. They thought that maybe >there would be some foreigners or some officials from aid organizations >in >the car. That's why they shot us." > >��U.S. forces have their hands full trying to subdue attacks in Iraq. >But >with the slow buildup of a national Afghan army, an inadequate U.S. and >coalition presence and poor progress on reconstruction projects, >Afghanistan >is spiraling out of control and risks becoming a "narco-mafia" state, >some >humanitarian agencies warn. > >��Already the signs are there - a boom in opium production, rampant >banditry >and huge swaths of territory unsafe for Western aid workers. The central > >government has almost no power over regional warlords who control roads >and >extort money from truck drivers, choking commerce and trade. > >��If the country slips into anarchy, it risks becoming a haven for >resurgent >Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters. And the point of U.S. military action >here >could be lost - a major setback in the war against terrorism. > >��Money spent on the war may end up being wasted, and dragging the >country >back from chaos could be even more costly. America spends about $900 >million >a month on its forces stationed here, but little of the $3 billion >authorized for aid in the Freedom Support Act has been spent. > >��U.S. promises of a Marshall Plan for Afghanistan raised Afghan >expectations, but security and reconstruction woes are undermining >support >for the coalition among ordinary Afghans. Their disappointment and >disillusionment plays into the hands of anti-government militants. > >��Humanitarian agencies, calling for a big boost in international funds >for >security and reconstruction, contend that the commitment to Afghanistan >is >relatively low. A CARE International paper in January stated that >postwar >international aid spent in Bosnia-Herzegovina was $326 per capita, >compared >with $42 promised for Afghans up to 2006. For every peacekeeping soldier > >there were 48 Bosnians, compared with one for every 5,380 Afghans, the >paper >said. Yet Bosnia poses no appreciable terrorist threat. > >��There are 8,500 U.S. military personnel leading the 11,500 >anti-terrorist >coalition forces in Afghanistan. An additional 5,000 international >troops >secure the capital city, Kabul. A key missing piece is an Afghan army, >but >with only 4,000 troops trained so far, it will take many years to reach >the >planned 70,000-strong force. It won't be ready in time to ensure free >and >fair elections scheduled for June. Some of the 4,000 trained soldiers >have >already defected because of poor salaries and low morale. > >��The security vacuum outside Kabul has emboldened Taliban fighters, who > >constitute the bulk of anti-government militants, some who cross from >Pakistan, others based in the east and south. U.S. officials say the >Taliban >controls part of the opium business, a rich source of funds to attract >fighters. > >��As security worsens, there are sharp differences between the aid >community >and Western leaders on how to prevent a deepening slide. > >��Many in the international aid community in Kabul believe the >coalition's >latest response to the security problem - small scale military teams >tackling modest reconstruction projects - will have little impact and >will >put aid workers at more risk by blurring the line between them and >soldiers. > >��About 40% of the $5.2 billion pledged by the international community >last >year has been spent but with little progress on big reconstruction >projects >like the Kabul-to-Kandahar road. Much of the money has been eaten up by >emergency relief - food, medicine, blankets and tents. > >��Haji Abdul Khaliq, 54, arrived in Kabul exhausted by 14 hours on the >shattering, rocky track of a highway from Kandahar. It was inconceivable >to >him that $2 billion had been spent in his country since January last >year. > >��"From what we can see, they didn't spend more than a dollar," he >spluttered angrily. "There are no paved roads, no reconstruction of >government buildings, no help for the people and no government salaries. > >��"I think at first people were very hopeful, [but] day by day they lose > >hope," said Khaliq, a turbaned, white-bearded general from a Kandahar >military base who is fighting Taliban militants in the south. > >��The term Taliban can be a little confusing in a city like Kandahar, >where >most people in power were once with the Taliban. > >��Typical of many Afghan moujahedeen fighters, Khaliq is loyal only to >his >commander. Though he's fighting anti-government militants, he is >contemptuous of Americans and despises Karzai and his government. > >��Khaliq said Taliban forces in the region were growing bolder. A June >30 >explosion at a Kandahar mosque that injured more than a dozen was >apparently >aimed at the anti-Taliban mullah there. A day later another anti-Taliban > >mullah was shot dead in Nakobak village, six miles south of Kandahar. > >��In the same week, said Khaliq, Taliban fighters from Pakistan set up a > >base northeast of Kandahar in Zabul province. Afghan forces attacked, >killing a dozen Taliban fighters and capturing about five. > >��The Taliban rebels offer local people good salaries - more than $100 a > >month - to fight, while Khaliq grumbled that he and his men are not >being >paid at all. Afghanistan's severe budgetary problems are leaving many >civil >servants unpaid. > >��In Afghanistan, U.S. forces have not suffered the steady casualties >borne >by the much larger force in Iraq. But anti-government militants in >recent >months have killed aid workers, attacked mine-clearers and burned girls >schools. In June, a suicide bomb attack in Kabul killed four German >soldiers >from the International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF. > >��The security problem delaying the Kabul-Kandahar road project is >denying >the country the economic fillip of a six-hour trade route between the >cities. Taxis can do the road in 14 hours, but truck transport takes at >least two days. > >��Taxi drivers working the road daily tell hair-raising tales of armed >attacks by thieves and bandits. With something akin to nostalgia, they >recall the security of the Taliban era, when they could drive all night >without fear. > >��U.S. forces are focused on eradicating remnants of the Taliban. But to > >many Afghans, a more immediate problem is bandits, often associated with >the >venal commanders and warlords who control the roads. > >��Sher Alimad, 38, a driver from the western city of Herat, said he was >attacked in mid-June by five gunmen at Gereshk, about 40 miles west of >Kandahar. He was beaten, tied up and thrown into his trunk, driven to a >deserted road and robbed of 12,000 Afghanis (about $250). > >��A surge in trade by small businessmen after the Taliban's fall is >being >slowly strangled by extortion and banditry. > >��A group of truck drivers sat wearily in the dust at Dashte Deh Sabz on >the >northern outskirts of Kabul, after their loads of gravel for the >thriving >brick industry were seized by a local commander named Maulana. They said >he >had taken over the gravel trade. > >��"He's collecting from everyone. No one else can bring it into the city > >except for him," said driver Khalifa Yakub, 21, who said he was beaten >by >checkpoint soldiers and jailed for three days when he tried to protest. >His >dream of running his own small gravel transport business has died. He's >become an employee. > >��"These people, they're commanders, they're dealers, they're >businessmen, >they're killers, they're everything," he said ruefully. > >��President Karzai has repeatedly called for the deployment of ISAF >forces >outside Kabul, a request echoed by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and > >international aid agencies, but resisted by U.S. and European leaders. >Last >month an open letter from 80 aid organizations called for a national >ISAF >presence, warning that efforts to rebuild and hold elections were at >risk. > >��Karzai has called for international donors to offer $20 billion over >five >years to help the country rebuild. CARE International called for at >least >$10 billion. > >��Playing down the security problem on a recent visit, Defense Secretary > >Donald H. Rumsfeld said provincial reconstruction teams, or PRTs - >military-civilian teams of 50-100 people deployed to rebuild >infrastructure >- would play a key role in improving security. Four are working, >independent >of ISAF, and eight are planned. > >��Lt. Gen. Norbert van Heyst, the German commander of ISAF forces in >Kabul, >described the city as a "safe island" because of ISAF's presence, but >expressed concern that militant attacks in the south and east could >spill >into the capital. However, he said, extending ISAF beyond Kabul was >unrealistic. > >��"For the entire country you would need 10,000 additional troops, and >nobody is willing to do that," he said, adding that PRTs were a more >realistic first step. "I'm convinced that this concept can improve >security." > >��It's a view contested by many in the humanitarian sector. Barbara >Stapleton of ACBAR, the coordinating body for Afghan relief, said the >military should focus on improving poor security, not duplicate the role >of >humanitarian agencies. > >��PRTs "have neither the mandate nor the resources to have a significant > >impact on either reconstruction or security," she said, adding that the >teams eroded Afghan confidence in the neutrality of humanitarian >agencies. >"In a highly complex security situation, they further muddy the waters." > >��Stapleton said some U.S. military anti-terrorist forces had conducted >crude searches in a village in southern Afghanistan, bursting into homes >and >offending cultural sensibilities. > >��"Then they went in later with sweeteners and built wells. And the >people >refused to use them. It's actually a crude way of dealing with a highly >sophisticated and very intelligent people." > >_________________________________________________________________ >The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* >http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > >_____________________________________________________ > List services made available by First Step Internet, > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. > http://www.fsr.net > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com >�� > > > >_____________________________________________________ > List services made available by First Step Internet, > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. > http://www.fsr.net > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com >�� _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From tex@kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu Tue Aug 5 21:43:44 2003 From: tex@kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu (TEX) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 13:43:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Vision2020] Re: I WOULD, TOO... In-Reply-To: <20030805203424.24795.qmail@web80602.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20030805203424.24795.qmail@web80602.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: In light of Aimless Rambler's latest private message to me (included for your reading pleasure below *note the signature), I ask that we all open our Bibles to Matthew 7:15-23: Looking at Matthew 7:15-23, we find Jesus gives us the guideline for determining false prophets: "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Douggy, your day of hewning can not come too quickly. Tex tex@kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, Douglas Stambler wrote: > Gosh, I'd choose to remain anonymous if I were your friend, too! > > -douglas stambler > *(in your fu*kin' face, sh*thead) > ****************************************************** > > TEX wrote: > > A friend who wishes to remain anonymous asked me to post the following: > From ccm_moscow@yahoo.com Tue Aug 5 21:47:33 2003 From: ccm_moscow@yahoo.com (Douglas Stambler) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 13:47:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Vision2020] Re: I WOULD, TOO... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030805204733.79321.qmail@web80606.mail.yahoo.com> --0-231211252-1060116453=:78076 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii well, said, Tex. thanks for the info! i'll be on the lookout for any false prophets in your vicinity. in the meantime, maybe you can look up "righteous anger" in your Bible: expletives are better employed instead of violence. so, i have no problem shooting a few *bleeped* expletives YOUR way. they are so WELL deserved, too. In Christ, Douglas Stambler ********************************************************************************** TEX wrote: In light of Aimless Rambler's latest private message to me (included for your reading pleasure below *note the signature), I ask that we all open our Bibles to Matthew 7:15-23: Looking at Matthew 7:15-23, we find Jesus gives us the guideline for determining false prophets: "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Douggy, your day of hewning can not come too quickly. Tex tex@kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, Douglas Stambler wrote: > Gosh, I'd choose to remain anonymous if I were your friend, too! > > -douglas stambler > *(in your fu*kin' face, sh*thead) > ****************************************************** > > TEX wrote: > > A friend who wishes to remain anonymous asked me to post the following: > --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! --0-231211252-1060116453=:78076 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

well, said, Tex. thanks for the info! i'll be on the lookout for any false prophets in your vicinity.

in the meantime, maybe you can look up "righteous anger" in your Bible: expletives are better employed instead of violence. so, i have no problem shooting a few *bleeped* expletives YOUR way. they are so WELL deserved, too.

In Christ,

Douglas Stambler

**********************************************************************************

TEX <tex@kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu> wrote:

In light of Aimless Rambler's latest private message to me (included for
your reading pleasure below *note the signature), I ask that we all open
our Bibles to Matthew 7:15-23:

Looking at Matthew 7:15-23, we find Jesus gives us the guideline for
determining false prophets:

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but
inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do
men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree
bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A
good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring
forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn
down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know
them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall! enter into the
kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in
heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not
prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy
name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never
knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

Douggy, your day of hewning can not come too quickly.

Tex
tex@kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu

On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, Douglas Stambler wrote:

> Gosh, I'd choose to remain anonymous if I were your friend, too!
>
> -douglas stambler
> *(in your fu*kin' face, sh*thead)
> ******************************************************
>
> TEX wrote:
>
> A friend who wishes to remain anonymous asked me to post the following:
>

Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! --0-231211252-1060116453=:78076-- From donovanarnold@hotmail.com Tue Aug 5 22:51:04 2003 From: donovanarnold@hotmail.com (Donovan Arnold) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 14:51:04 -0700 Subject: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage Message-ID:

Mr. Harrell,

Let us compare exactly what you define as "sane" and what I define as "sane" and we will see which is more sane.

You support a system of families that leads to teenage suicide. Sane or insane?

You support a system that leads to 1.2 million abortions. Sane or insane?

You support a system that oppresses masses in the society that claims to give people equal rights for all. Sane or insane?

You support a system that spreads diseases that kills people slowly inch by inch. Sane or insane?

You support bigotry and hatred of over 15 million Americans. Sane or insane?

You back the ideals and morals of the KKK, the Aryan Nations, and the Nazi Party. Sane or insane?

You back the destruction of 15 million Americans and don't wish to live the way you say to live. Sane or insane?

You ought to waving a flag of the Confederacy on your door step Mr. Harrell.

Celebrate Diversity not Hatred!

If fighting for the civil rights of law abiding, tax paying, decent Americans to be able to live in a way that doesn't harm another person is insane and perverse Mr. Harrell, then I am the most insane and perverse person you will ever meet. If fighting for the principles of the those that hate, judge, and condemn is sane and normalcy, then I guess you are far more normal and less perverse than I am. You sleep well while thousands of teens blow their brains out rather than deal with people like you. I sleep well knowing that, just maybe, I will give them a little glimer of hope that some people out in the cold cruel world do care about them, and think they should be given just a little bit of a chance at a decent fair life.

Donovan J Arnold

>From: John Harrell

>To: Donovan Arnold , petew@completebbs.com, vision2020@moscow.com

>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage

>Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 10:58:42 -0700 (PDT)

>Mr. Donovan Arnold,

>Yes, someone is crazy or insane here.

>Let's look at it:

>Normal, traditional families OR those that are trying to promote perversity.

>Normalcy vs perversity.

>Normal or insane.

>You want to say that everyone that doesn't "celebrate" perversity is crazy or insane.

>Well, your promoting of perversity is what makes you insane, crazy, not normal.

>Celebrate normalcy not insanity!

>Cheers!

>John Harrell

>From: John Harrell

>To: Donovan Arnold , petew@completebbs.com, vision2020@moscow.com

>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage

>Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 10:58:42 -0700 (PDT)

>Mr. Donovan Arnold,

>Yes, someone is crazy or insane here.

>Let's look at it:

>Normal, traditional families OR those that are trying to promote perversity.

>Normalcy vs perversity.

>Normal or insane.

>You want to say that everyone that doesn't "celebrate" perversity is crazy or insane.

>Well, your promoting of perversity is what makes you insane, crazy, not normal.

>Celebrate normalcy not insanity!

>Cheers!

>John Harrell

>Donovan Arnold wrote:

>HAHA! I think Peter is being sarcastic, I don't know him well enough to know or not over the internet, especially after Luke's crazy insane remarks. I really don't think anyone can be so far to the right and still exist in this world with any sanity. But I will take a crack at this just to be humorous back

> >>Argument 1) They can't reproduce.

>PW: "What other purpose does marriage serve if it doesn't create new, legitimate offspring? Are you suggesting some kind of santized prostitution?"

>DA: Well, let me see, could marriage include things like LOVE, companionship, understanding, stability, and commitment? Or is it reduced to simply having sex and reproducing like bunnies on grassy field on a warm summer day?

>PW "No! We shall build homes for the spinsters and the widowers where they can perform useful work without distraction and the men who remain unwed at age 22 shall volunteer for the Navy or the Merchant Marine, depending their temperments."

>DA: Oh, so we will let men that have never had sex before and are prevented from being with women alone on a ship together? You are more liberal than I am. I guess since all men would be included there would gay men on these ships too?

>DA: This means that the moment that a women stops menstruating that the man should dump his wife? And with modern technology same sex partners now can reproduce, only now in a controlled manner that makes sure the child will be well taken care of.

>PW: "Modern technology is of the Devil, as a glimpse in a typical 'INBOX' will quickly demonstrate."

>DA: I notice how you so well avoid the "evil" technology by reframing from the use of the internet. You will surely burn will you not?

>Argument 2) They can't really love each other.

>PW: "Making marriage a "love" thing was probably the biggest mistake of Western Civilization. Marriage is of the community and not of the individual's fickle fancy!!! No one should be allowed to court, much less marry, without the approval of at least five upright men from their Church or perhaps of their fathers' Granges, if they live in different parishes."

>DA: Oh, yes, Love must be excluded from things like commitment, trust, and understanding. We would also not want to confuse the children by demonstrating to them what love is. They might go out and love people in the future, and soon enough, love could spread through the country. Where you are going to find five men that are upright in one community, I don't know, God could only find one man on the whole entire planet, and even he was a sinner.

> >Argument 3) The parts don't fit.

>PW: "There's one for some of your "modern technology"!"

>DA: Yes, not to mention the hiring of about 200,000 high priced doctors.

>Argument 4) It is against the Bible.

>DA: Gee, so is hating people, should we make that illegal too?

>PW: "Are you sure about that? Seems like that one guy hates just about everyone except perhaps Enoch and Noah, but it's not like we've heard much from them lately...

>DA: Your right, let us make hating people a requirement.

>Argument 5) It will lead to polygamy, bestiality, and pedophilia.

>PW: "And tax credits just for checking out if it's "your style" or not!"

>DA: We could not afford tax credits if you are paying doctors to measure body parts to make sure they fit their spouse.

>Peter makes me look like a moderate. :)

>Donovan J Arnold

> >From: Peter Willard

> >To: Vision2020

> >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage

> >Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 23:11:17 -0700

> >

> >At 04:30 PM 8/4/03 -0700, Donovan Arnold wrote:

> >

> >>Argument 1) They can't reproduce.

> >

> >What other purpose does marriage serve if it doesn't create new,

> >legitimate offspring? Are you suggesting some kind of santized

> >prostitution?

> >

> >No! We shall build homes for the spinsters and the widowers where

> >they can perform useful work without distraction and the men who

> >remain unwed at age 22 shall volunteer for the Navy or the Merchant

> >Marine, depending their temperments.

> >

> >>This means that the moment that a women stops menstruating that the

> >>man should dump his wife? And with modern technology same sex

> >>partners now can reproduce, only now in a controlled manner that

> >>makes sure the child will be well taken care of.

> >

> >Modern technology is of the Devil, as a glimpse in a typical "INBOX"

> >will quickly demonstrate.

> >

> >>Argument 2) They can't really love each other.

> >

> >Making marriage a "love" thing was probably the biggest mistake of

> >Western Civilization. Marriage is of the community and not of the

> >individual's fickle fancy!!!

> >

> >No one should be allowed to court, much less marry, without the

> >approval of at least five upright men from their Church or perhaps

> >of their fathers' Granges, if they live in different parishes.

> >

> >>Argument 3) The parts don't fit.

> >

> >There's one for some of your "modern technology"!

> >

> >>Argument 4) It is against the Bible.

> >>

> >>Gee, so is hating people, should we make that illegal too?

> >

> >Are you sure about that? Seems like that one guy hates just about

> >everyone except perhaps Enoch and Noah, but it's not like we've

> >heard much from them lately...

> >

> >>Argument 5) It will lead to polygamy, bestiality, and pedophilia.

> >

> >And tax credits just for checking out if it's "your style" or not!

> >

> >---

> >Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

> >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

> >Version: 6.0.506 / Virus Database: 303 - Release Date: 8/1/03

>---------------------------------

>STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* _____________________________________________________ List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com ��

>---------------------------------

>Do you Yahoo!?

>Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

MSN 8 helps ELIMINATE E-MAIL VIRUSES. Get 2 months FREE*. From donovanarnold@hotmail.com Tue Aug 5 22:59:15 2003 From: donovanarnold@hotmail.com (Donovan Arnold) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 14:59:15 -0700 Subject: [Vision2020] Iran Message-ID:

I hope there is a really big shoot out at the end of the show, where the bad guy really gets it in the end.

Donovan J Arnold

>From: Thomas Hansen

>To: "'Carl Westberg'" , vision2020@moscow.com

>Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Iran

>Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 08:51:57 -0700

>Carl -

>Everybody knows that sequels are never as good as the original movie.

>George W. is becoming too type-cast. It seems that the only roles he is fit

>for now is the town bully.

>And with Secretary Colin Powell dropping out of the credits after next year

>. . .

>I think that it has become time for George W. to close the curtain on this

>gong show.

>Tom Hansen

>-----Original Message-----

>From: Carl Westberg [mailto:carlwestberg846@hotmail.com]

>Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 8:43 AM

>To: vision2020@moscow.com

>Subject: [Vision2020] Iran

>A Middle Eastern county is being asked by the U.N. to allow unrestricted

>inspections of its nuclear facilities, amid U.S. accusations that this

>country is running a clandestine nuclear weapons program. This sounds

>familiar. I think I've seen this film before. Is this the opening credits

>of the sequel to a movie that's still playing in theatres now?

> Carl Westberg Jr.

>_________________________________________________________________

>Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.

>http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

>_____________________________________________________

> List services made available by First Step Internet,

> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.

> http://www.fsr.net

> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com

>��

>_____________________________________________________

> List services made available by First Step Internet,

> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.

> http://www.fsr.net

> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com

>��

MSN 8 helps ELIMINATE E-MAIL VIRUSES. Get 2 months FREE*. From johnbharrell@yahoo.com Tue Aug 5 23:04:03 2003 From: johnbharrell@yahoo.com (John Harrell) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 15:04:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030805220403.12159.qmail@web13403.mail.yahoo.com> --0-586024227-1060121043=:11086 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Wow! You are truly the first nazi and anti-semite I have ever met. I dont know how you sleep at night. Cheers! John Harrell Donovan Arnold wrote: Mr. Harrell, Let us compare exactly what you define as "sane" and what I define as "sane" and we will see which is more sane. You support a system of families that leads to teenage suicide. Sane or insane? You support a system that leads to 1.2 million abortions. Sane or insane? You support a system that oppresses masses in the society that claims to give people equal rights for all. Sane or insane? You support a system that spreads diseases that kills people slowly inch by inch. Sane or insane? You support bigotry and hatred of over 15 million Americans. Sane or insane? You back the ideals and morals of the KKK, the Aryan Nations, and the Nazi Party. Sane or insane? You back the destruction of 15 million Americans and don't wish to live the way you say to live. Sane or insane? You ought to waving a flag of the Confederacy on your door step Mr. Harrell. Celebrate Diversity not Hatred! If fighting for the civil rights of law abiding, tax paying, decent Americans to be able to live in a way that doesn't harm another person is insane and perverse Mr. Harrell, then I am the most insane and perverse person you will ever meet. If fighting for the principles of the those that hate, judge, and condemn is sane and normalcy, then I guess you are far more normal and less perverse than I am. You sleep well while thousands of teens blow their brains out rather than deal with people like you. I sleep well knowing that, just maybe, I will give them a little glimer of hope that some people out in the cold cruel world do care about them, and think they should be given just a little bit of a chance at a decent fair life. Donovan J Arnold >From: John Harrell >To: Donovan Arnold , petew@completebbs.com, vision2020@moscow.com >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage >Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 10:58:42 -0700 (PDT) > >Mr. Donovan Arnold, > >Yes, someone is crazy or insane here. > >Let's look at it: > >Normal, traditional families OR those that are trying to promote perversity. > >Normalcy vs perversity. >Normal or insane. > >You want to say that everyone that doesn't "celebrate" perversity is crazy or insane. > >Well, your promoting of perversity is what makes you insane, crazy, not normal. > >Celebrate normalcy not insanity! > >Cheers! >John Harrell >From: John Harrell >To: Donovan Arnold , petew@completebbs.com, vision2020@moscow.com >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage >Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 10:58:42 -0700 (PDT) > >Mr. Donovan Arnold, > >Yes, someone is crazy or insane here. > >Let's look at it: > >Normal, traditional families OR those that are trying to promote perversity. > >Normalcy vs perversity. >Normal or insane. > >You want to say that everyone that doesn't "celebrate" perversity is crazy or insane. > >Well, your promoting of perversity is what makes you insane, crazy, not normal. > >Celebrate normalcy not insanity! > >Cheers! >John Harrell > > > > > > >Donovan Arnold wrote: > >HAHA! I think Peter is being sarcastic, I don't know him well enough to know or not over the internet, especially after Luke's crazy insane remarks. I really don't think anyone can be so far to the right and still exist in this world with any sanity. But I will take a crack at this just to be humorous back > > >>Argument 1) They can't reproduce. > > > > >PW: "What other purpose does marriage serve if it doesn't create new, legitimate offspring? Are you suggesting some kind of santized prostitution?" > > > > >DA: Well, let me see, could marriage include things like LOVE, companionship, understanding, stability, and commitment? Or is it reduced to simply having sex and reproducing like bunnies on grassy field on a warm summer day? > > > > > > > > >PW "No! We shall build homes for the spinsters and the widowers where they can perform useful work without distraction and the men who remain unwed at age 22 shall volunteer for the Navy or the Merchant Marine, depending their temperments." > > > > >DA: Oh, so we will let men that have never had sex before and are prevented from being with women alone on a ship together? You are more liberal than I am. I guess since all men would be included there would gay men on these ships too? > > > > > > > > >DA: This means that the moment that a women stops menstruating that the man should dump his wife? And with modern technology same sex partners now can reproduce, only now in a controlled manner that makes sure the child will be well taken care of. > > > > > > > > >PW: "Modern technology is of the Devil, as a glimpse in a typical 'INBOX' will quickly demonstrate." > > > > >DA: I notice how you so well avoid the "evil" technology by reframing from the use of the internet. You will surely burn will you not? > > > > > > > > >Argument 2) They can't really love each other. > > > > >PW: "Making marriage a "love" thing was probably the biggest mistake of Western Civilization. Marriage is of the community and not of the individual's fickle fancy!!! No one should be allowed to court, much less marry, without the approval of at least five upright men from their Church or perhaps of their fathers' Granges, if they live in different parishes." > > > > >DA: Oh, yes, Love must be excluded from things like commitment, trust, and understanding. We would also not want to confuse the children by demonstrating to them what love is. They might go out and love people in the future, and soon enough, love could spread through the country. Where you are going to find five men that are upright in one community, I don't know, God could only find one man on the whole entire planet, and even he was a sinner. > > > > > > > > > >Argument 3) The parts don't fit. > > > > > > > > >PW: "There's one for some of your "modern technology"!" > > > > >DA: Yes, not to mention the hiring of about 200,000 high priced doctors. > > > > > > > > >Argument 4) It is against the Bible. > > > > > > > > >DA: Gee, so is hating people, should we make that illegal too? > > > > > > > > >PW: "Are you sure about that? Seems like that one guy hates just about everyone except perhaps Enoch and Noah, but it's not like we've heard much from them lately... > > > > >DA: Your right, let us make hating people a requirement. > > > > > > > > >Argument 5) It will lead to polygamy, bestiality, and pedophilia. > > > > > > > > >PW: "And tax credits just for checking out if it's "your style" or not!" > > > > >DA: We could not afford tax credits if you are paying doctors to measure body parts to make sure they fit their spouse. > > > > >Peter makes me look like a moderate. :) > > > > >Donovan J Arnold > > > > > > > >From: Peter Willard > > > > > >To: Vision2020 > > > > >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage > > > > >Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 23:11:17 -0700 > > > > > > > > > >At 04:30 PM 8/4/03 -0700, Donovan Arnold wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>Argument 1) They can't reproduce. > > > > > > > > > >What other purpose does marriage serve if it doesn't create new, > > > > >legitimate offspring? Are you suggesting some kind of santized > > > > >prostitution? > > > > > > > > > >No! We shall build homes for the spinsters and the widowers where > > > > >they can perform useful work without distraction and the men who > > > > >remain unwed at age 22 shall volunteer for the Navy or the Merchant > > > > >Marine, depending their temperments. > > > > > > > > > >>This means that the moment that a women stops menstruating that the > > > > >>man should dump his wife? And with modern technology same sex > > > > >>partners now can reproduce, only now in a controlled manner that > > > > >>makes sure the child will be well taken care of. > > > > > > > > > >Modern technology is of the Devil, as a glimpse in a typical "INBOX" > > > > >will quickly demonstrate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>Argument 2) They can't really love each other. > > > > > > > > > >Making marriage a "love" thing was probably the biggest mistake of > > > > >Western Civilization. Marriage is of the community and not of the > > > > >individual's fickle fancy!!! > > > > > > > > > >No one should be allowed to court, much less marry, without the > > > > >approval of at least five upright men from their Church or perhaps > > > > >of their fathers' Granges, if they live in different parishes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>Argument 3) The parts don't fit. > > > > > > > > > >There's one for some of your "modern technology"! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>Argument 4) It is against the Bible. > > > > >> > > > > >>Gee, so is hating people, should we make that illegal too? > > > > > > > > > >Are you sure about that? Seems like that one guy hates just about > > > > >everyone except perhaps Enoch and Noah, but it's not like we've > > > > >heard much from them lately... > > > > > > > > > >>Argument 5) It will lead to polygamy, bestiality, and pedophilia. > > > > > > > > > >And tax credits just for checking out if it's "your style" or not! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >--- > > > > >Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > > > > >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > > > >Version: 6.0.506 / Virus Database: 303 - Release Date: 8/1/03 > > > > > > > > > >--------------------------------- >STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* _____________________________________________________ List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com �� > >--------------------------------- >Do you Yahoo!? >Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software --------------------------------- MSN 8 helps ELIMINATE E-MAIL VIRUSES. Get 2 months FREE*. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software --0-586024227-1060121043=:11086 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

Wow!

You are truly the first nazi and anti-semite I have ever met.

I dont know how you sleep at night.

Cheers!

John Harrell

Donovan Arnold <donovanarnold@hotmail.com> wrote:

Mr. Harrell,

Let us compare exactly what you define as "sane" and what I define as "sane" and we will see which is more sane.

You support a system of families that leads to teenage suicide. Sane or insane?

You support a system that leads to 1.2 million abortions. Sane or insane?

You support a system that oppresses masses in the society that claims to give people equal rights for all. Sane or insane?

You support a system that spreads diseases that kills people slowly inch by inch. Sane or insane?

You support bigotry and hatred of over 15 million Americans. Sane or insane?

You back the ideals and morals of the KKK, the Aryan Nations, and the Nazi Party. Sane or insane?

You back the destruction of 15 million Americans and don't wish to live the way you say to live. Sane or insane?

You ought to waving a flag of the Confederacy on your door step Mr. Harrell.

Celebrate Diversity not Hatred!

If fighting for the civil rights of law abiding, tax paying, decent Americans to be able to live in a way that doesn't harm another person is insane and perverse Mr. Harrell, then I am the most insane and perverse person you will ever meet. If fighting for the principles of the those that hate, judge, and condemn is sane and normalcy, then I guess you are far more normal and less perverse than I am. You sleep well while thousands of teens blow their brains out rather than deal with people like you. I sleep well knowing that, just maybe, I will give them a little glimer of hope that some people out in the cold cruel world do care about them, and think they should be given just a little bit of a chance at a decent fair life.

Donovan J Arnold

>From: John Harrell

>To: Donovan Arnold , petew@completebbs.com, vision2020@moscow.com

>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage

>Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 10:58:42 -0700 (PDT)

>

>Mr. Donovan Arnold,

>

>Yes, someone is crazy or insane here.

>

>Let's look at it:

>

>Normal, traditional families OR those that are trying to promote perversity.

>

>Normalcy vs perversity.

>Normal or insane.

>

>You want to say that everyone that doesn't "celebrate" perversity is crazy or insane.

>

>Well, your promoting of perversity is what makes you insane, crazy, not normal.

>

>Celebrate normalcy not insanity!

>

>Cheers!

>John Harrell

>From: John Harrell
>To: Donovan Arnold , petew@completebbs.com, vision2020@moscow.com
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage
>Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 10:58:42 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Mr. Donovan Arnold,
>
>Yes, someone is crazy or insane here.
>
>Let's look at it:
>
>Normal, traditional families OR those that are trying to promote perversity.
>
>Normalcy vs perversity.
>Normal or insane.
>
>You want to say that everyone that doesn't "celebrate" perversity is crazy or insane.
>
>Well, your promoting of perversity is what makes you insane, crazy, not normal.
>
>Celebrate normalcy not insanity!
>
>Cheers!
>John Harrell
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Donovan Arnold wrote:
>
>HAHA! I think Peter is being sarcastic, I don't know him well enough to know or not over the internet, especially after Luke's crazy insane remarks. I really don't think anyone can be so far to the right and still exist in this world with any sanity. But I will take a crack at this just to be humorous back
>
> >>Argument 1) They can't reproduce.
>
>
>
>
>PW: "What other purpose does marriage serve if it doesn't create new, legitimate offspring? Are you suggesting some kind of santized prostitution?"
>
>
>
>
>DA: Well, let me see, could marriage include things like LOVE, companionship, understanding, stability, and commitment? Or is it reduced to simply having sex and reproducing like bunnies on grassy field on a warm summer day?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>PW "No! We shall build homes for the spinsters and the widowers where they can perform useful work without distraction and the men who remain unwed at age 22 shall volunteer for the Navy or the Merchant Marine, depending their temperments."
>
>
>
>
>DA: Oh, so we will let men that have never had sex before and are prevented from being with women alone on a ship together? You are more liberal than I am. I guess since all men would be included there would gay men on these ships too?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>DA: This means that the moment that a women stops menstruating that the man should dump his wife? And with modern technology same sex partners now can reproduce, only now in a controlled manner that makes sure the child will be well taken care of.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>PW: "Modern technology is of the Devil, as a glimpse in a typical 'INBOX' will quickly demonstrate."
>
>
>
>
>DA: I notice how you so well avoid the "evil" technology by reframing from the use of the internet. You will surely burn will you not?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Argument 2) They can't really love each other.
>
>
>
>
>PW: "Making marriage a "love" thing was probably the biggest mistake of Western Civilization. Marriage is of the community and not of the individual's fickle fancy!!! No one should be allowed to court, much less marry, without the approval of at least five upright men from their Church or perhaps of their fathers' Granges, if they live in different parishes."
>
>
>
>
>DA: Oh, yes, Love must be excluded from things like commitment, trust, and understanding. We would also not want to confuse the children by demonstrating to them what love is. They might go out and love people in the future, and soon enough, love could spread through the country. Where you are going to find five men that are upright in one community, I don't know, God could only find one man on the whole entire planet, and even he was a sinner.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Argument 3) The parts don't fit.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>PW: "There's one for some of your "modern technology"!"
>
>
>
>
>DA: Yes, not to mention the hiring of about 200,000 high priced doctors.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Argument 4) It is against the Bible.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>DA: Gee, so is hating people, should we make that illegal too?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>PW: "Are you sure about that? Seems like that one guy hates just about everyone except perhaps Enoch and Noah, but it's not like we've heard much from them lately...
>
>
>
>
>DA: Your right, let us make hating people a requirement.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Argument 5) It will lead to polygamy, bestiality, and pedophilia.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>PW: "And tax credits just for checking out if it's "your style" or not!"
>
>
>
>
>DA: We could not afford tax credits if you are paying doctors to measure body parts to make sure they fit their spouse.
>
>
>
>
>Peter makes me look like a moderate. :)
>
>
>
>
>Donovan J Arnold
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: Peter Willard
>
>
>
>
> >To: Vision2020
>
>
>
> >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage
>
>
>
> >Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 23:11:17 -0700
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >At 04:30 PM 8/4/03 -0700, Donovan Arnold wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >>Argument 1) They can't reproduce.
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >What other purpose does marriage serve if it doesn't create new,
>
>
>
> >legitimate offspring? Are you suggesting some kind of santized
>
>
>
> >prostitution?
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >No! We shall build homes for the spinsters and the widowers where
>
>
>
> >they can perform useful work without distraction and the men who
>
>
>
> >remain unwed at age 22 shall volunteer for the Navy or the Merchant
>
>
>
> >Marine, depending their temperments.
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >>This means that the moment that a women stops menstruating that the
>
>
>
> >>man should dump his wife? And with modern technology same sex
>
>
>
> >>partners now can reproduce, only now in a controlled manner that
>
>
>
> >>makes sure the child will be well taken care of.
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >Modern technology is of the Devil, as a glimpse in a typical "INBOX"
>
>
>
> >will quickly demonstrate.
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >>Argument 2) They can't really love each other.
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >Making marriage a "love" thing was probably the biggest mistake of
>
>
>
> >Western Civilization. Marriage is of the community and not of the
>
>
>
> >individual's fickle fancy!!!
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >No one should be allowed to court, much less marry, without the
>
>
>
> >approval of at least five upright men from their Church or perhaps
>
>
>
> >of their fathers' Granges, if they live in different parishes.
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >>Argument 3) The parts don't fit.
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >There's one for some of your "modern technology"!
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >>Argument 4) It is against the Bible.
>
>
>
> >>
>
>
>
> >>Gee, so is hating people, should we make that illegal too?
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >Are you sure about that? Seems like that one guy hates just about
>
>
>
> >everyone except perhaps Enoch and Noah, but it's not like we've
>
>
>
> >heard much from them lately...
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >>Argument 5) It will lead to polygamy, bestiality, and pedophilia.
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >And tax credits just for checking out if it's "your style" or not!
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >---
>
>
>
> >Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>
>
>
> >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>
>
>
> >Version: 6.0.506 / Virus Database: 303 - Release Date: 8/1/03
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* _____________________________________________________ List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com ��
>
>---------------------------------
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

MSN 8 helps ELIMINATE E-MAIL VIRUSES. Get 2 months FREE*.

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software --0-586024227-1060121043=:11086-- From ccm_moscow@yahoo.com Tue Aug 5 23:04:53 2003 From: ccm_moscow@yahoo.com (Douglas Stambler) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 15:04:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Vision2020] Iran and Doug Wilson In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030805220453.70231.qmail@web80602.mail.yahoo.com> --0-901129596-1060121093=:70002 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Doug Wilson's in the final scene - he molests a young man as the credits go up... ********************************************************************************************** Donovan Arnold wrote: I hope there is a really big shoot out at the end of the show, where the bad guy really gets it in the end. Donovan J Arnold >From: Thomas Hansen >To: "'Carl Westberg'" , vision2020@moscow.com >Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Iran >Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 08:51:57 -0700 > >Carl - > >Everybody knows that sequels are never as good as the original movie. >George W. is becoming too type-cast. It seems that the only roles he is fit >for now is the town bully. > >And with Secretary Colin Powell dropping out of the credits after next year >. . . > >I think that it has become time for George W. to close the curtain on this >gong show. > >Tom Hansen > >-----Original Message----- >From: Carl Westberg [mailto:carlwestberg846@hotmail.com] >Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 8:43 AM >To: vision2020@moscow.com >Subject: [Vision2020] Iran > > >A Middle Eastern county is being asked by the U.N. to allow unrestricted >inspections of its nuclear facilities, amid U.S. accusations that this >country is running a clandestine nuclear weapons program. This sounds >familiar. I think I've seen this film before. Is this the opening credits >of the sequel to a movie that's still playing in theatres now? > > > > > > > > Carl Westberg Jr. > >_________________________________________________________________ >Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. >http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail > >_____________________________________________________ > List services made available by First Step Internet, > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. > http://www.fsr.net > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com >�� > >_____________________________________________________ > List services made available by First Step Internet, > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. > http://www.fsr.net > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com >�� --------------------------------- MSN 8 helps ELIMINATE E-MAIL VIRUSES. Get 2 months FREE*. _____________________________________________________ List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com �� --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! --0-901129596-1060121093=:70002 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

Doug Wilson's in the final scene - he molests a young man as the credits go up...

**********************************************************************************************

Donovan Arnold <donovanarnold@hotmail.com> wrote:

I hope there is a really big shoot out at the end of the show, where the bad guy really gets it in the end.

Donovan J Arnold

>From: Thomas Hansen
>To: "'Carl Westberg'" , vision2020@moscow.com
>Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Iran
>Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 08:51:57 -0700
>
>Carl -
>
>Everybody knows that sequels are never as good as the original movie.
>George W. is becoming too type-cast. It seems that the only roles he is fit
>for now is the town bully.
>
>And with Secretary Colin Powell dropping out of the credits after next year
>. . .
>
>I think that it has become time for George W. to close the curtain on this
>gong show.
>
>Tom Hansen
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Carl Westberg [mailto:carlwestberg846@hotmail.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 8:43 AM
>To: vision2020@moscow.com
>Subject: [Vision2020] Iran
>
>
>A Middle Eastern county is being asked by the U.N. to allow unrestricted
>inspections of its nuclear facilities, amid U.S. accusations that this
>country is running a clandestine nuclear weapons program. This sounds
>familiar. I think I've seen this film before. Is this the opening credits
>of the sequel to a movie that's still playing in theatres now?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Carl Westberg Jr.
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
>http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
>
>_____________________________________________________
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
>��
>
>_____________________________________________________
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
>��

MSN 8 helps ELIMINATE E-MAIL VIRUSES. Get 2 months FREE*. _____________________________________________________ List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com ��

Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! --0-901129596-1060121093=:70002-- From donovanarnold@hotmail.com Tue Aug 5 23:15:59 2003 From: donovanarnold@hotmail.com (Donovan Arnold) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 15:15:59 -0700 Subject: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage Message-ID:

Oh, yes, Mr. Harrell, I am a pro-equal rights, anti-machine gun, pro-choice, anti-death penalty, anti-discrimination, pro-education, pro-women's rights, pro-environment, pro-taxing the rich, party person. I am sure you will find that right in line with the Nazi-Party Platform. They are all inclusive now, just like the Republican Party's "Compassionate Discrimination and Deception" policy. I sleep very knowing that I somebody is not dead because of me. :)

Donovan J Arnold

>From: John Harrell

>To: Donovan Arnold , petew@completebbs.com, vision2020@moscow.com

>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage

>Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 15:04:03 -0700 (PDT)

>Wow!

>You are truly the first nazi and anti-semite I have ever met.

>I dont know how you sleep at night.

>Cheers!

>John Harrell

>Donovan Arnold wrote:

>Mr. Harrell,

>Let us compare exactly what you define as "sane" and what I define as "sane" and we will see which is more sane.

>You support a system of families that leads to teenage suicide. Sane or insane?

>You support a system that leads to 1.2 million abortions. Sane or insane?

>You support a system that oppresses masses in the society that claims to give people equal rights for all. Sane or insane?

>You support a system that spreads diseases that kills people slowly inch by inch. Sane or insane?

>You support bigotry and hatred of over 15 million Americans. Sane or insane?

>You back the ideals and morals of the KKK, the Aryan Nations, and the Nazi Party. Sane or insane?

>You back the destruction of 15 million Americans and don't wish to live the way you say to live. Sane or insane?

>You ought to waving a flag of the Confederacy on your door step Mr. Harrell.

>Celebrate Diversity not Hatred!

>If fighting for the civil rights of law abiding, tax paying, decent Americans to be able to live in a way that doesn't harm another person is insane and perverse Mr. Harrell, then I am the most insane and perverse person you will ever meet. If fighting for the principles of the those that hate, judge, and condemn is sane and normalcy, then I guess you are far more normal and less perverse than I am. You sleep well while thousands of teens blow their brains out rather than deal with people like you. I sleep well knowing that, just maybe, I will give them a little glimer of hope that some people out in the cold cruel world do care about them, and think they should be given just a little bit of a chance at a decent fair life.

>Donovan J Arnold

> >From: John Harrell

> >To: Donovan Arnold , petew@completebbs.com, vision2020@moscow.com

> >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage

> >Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 10:58:42 -0700 (PDT)

> >

> >Mr. Donovan Arnold,

> >

> >Yes, someone is crazy or insane here.

> >

> >Let's look at it:

> >

> >Normal, traditional families OR those that are trying to promote perversity.

> >

> >Normalcy vs perversity.

> >Normal or insane.

> >

> >You want to say that everyone that doesn't "celebrate" perversity is crazy or insane.

> >

> >Well, your promoting of perversity is what makes you insane, crazy, not normal.

> >

> >Celebrate normalcy not insanity!

> >

> >Cheers!

> >John Harrell

> >From: John Harrell

> >To: Donovan Arnold , petew@completebbs.com, vision2020@moscow.com

> >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage

> >Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 10:58:42 -0700 (PDT)

> >

> >Mr. Donovan Arnold,

> >

> >Yes, someone is crazy or insane here.

> >

> >Let's look at it:

> >

> >Normal, traditional families OR those that are trying to promote perversity.

> >

> >Normalcy vs perversity.

> >Normal or insane.

> >

> >You want to say that everyone that doesn't "celebrate" perversity is crazy or insane.

> >

> >Well, your promoting of perversity is what makes you insane, crazy, not normal.

> >

> >Celebrate normalcy not insanity!

> >

> >Cheers!

> >John Harrell

> >

> >Donovan Arnold wrote:

> >

> >HAHA! I think Peter is being sarcastic, I don't know him well enough to know or not over the internet, especially after Luke's crazy insane remarks. I really don't think anyone can be so far to the right and still exist in this world with any sanity. But I will take a crack at this just to be humorous back

> >

> > >>Argument 1) They can't reproduce.

> >

> >PW: "What other purpose does marriage serve if it doesn't create new, legitimate offspring? Are you suggesting some kind of santized prostitution?"

> >

> >DA: Well, let me see, could marriage include things like LOVE, companionship, understanding, stability, and commitment? Or is it reduced to simply having sex and reproducing like bunnies on grassy field on a warm summer day?

> >

> >PW "No! We shall build homes for the spinsters and the widowers where they can perform useful work without distraction and the men who remain unwed at age 22 shall volunteer for the Navy or the Merchant Marine, depending their temperments."

> >

> >DA: Oh, so we will let men that have never had sex before and are prevented from being with women alone on a ship together? You are more liberal than I am. I guess since all men would be included there would gay men on these ships too?

> >

> >DA: This means that the moment that a women stops menstruating that the man should dump his wife? And with modern technology same sex partners now can reproduce, only now in a controlled manner that makes sure the child will be well taken care of.

> >

> >PW: "Modern technology is of the Devil, as a glimpse in a typical 'INBOX' will quickly demonstrate."

> >

> >DA: I notice how you so well avoid the "evil" technology by reframing from the use of the internet. You will surely burn will you not?

> >

> >Argument 2) They can't really love each other.

> >

> >PW: "Making marriage a "love" thing was probably the biggest mistake of Western Civilization. Marriage is of the community and not of the individual's fickle fancy!!! No one should be allowed to court, much less marry, without the approval of at least five upright men from their Church or perhaps of their fathers' Granges, if they live in different parishes."

> >

> >DA: Oh, yes, Love must be excluded from things like commitment, trust, and understanding. We would also not want to confuse the children by demonstrating to them what love is. They might go out and love people in the future, and soon enough, love could spread through the country. Where you are going to find five men that are upright in one community, I don't know, God could only find one man on the whole entire planet, and even he was a sinner.

> >

> > >Argument 3) The parts don't fit.

> >

> >PW: "There's one for some of your "modern technology"!"

> >

> >DA: Yes, not to mention the hiring of about 200,000 high priced doctors.

> >

> >Argument 4) It is against the Bible.

> >

> >DA: Gee, so is hating people, should we make that illegal too?

> >

> >PW: "Are you sure about that? Seems like that one guy hates just about everyone except perhaps Enoch and Noah, but it's not like we've heard much from them lately...

> >

> >DA: Your right, let us make hating people a requirement.

> >

> >Argument 5) It will lead to polygamy, bestiality, and pedophilia.

> >

> >PW: "And tax credits just for checking out if it's "your style" or not!"

> >

> >DA: We could not afford tax credits if you are paying doctors to measure body parts to make sure they fit their spouse.

> >

> >Peter makes me look like a moderate. :)

> >

> >Donovan J Arnold

> >

> > >From: Peter Willard

> >

> > >To: Vision2020

> >

> > >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage

> >

> > >Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 23:11:17 -0700

> >

> > >

> >

> > >At 04:30 PM 8/4/03 -0700, Donovan Arnold wrote:

> >

> > >

> >

> > >>Argument 1) They can't reproduce.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >What other purpose does marriage serve if it doesn't create new,

> >

> > >legitimate offspring? Are you suggesting some kind of santized

> >

> > >prostitution?

> >

> > >

> >

> > >No! We shall build homes for the spinsters and the widowers where

> >

> > >they can perform useful work without distraction and the men who

> >

> > >remain unwed at age 22 shall volunteer for the Navy or the Merchant

> >

> > >Marine, depending their temperments.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >>This means that the moment that a women stops menstruating that the

> >

> > >>man should dump his wife? And with modern technology same sex

> >

> > >>partners now can reproduce, only now in a controlled manner that

> >

> > >>makes sure the child will be well taken care of.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >Modern technology is of the Devil, as a glimpse in a typical "INBOX"

> >

> > >will quickly demonstrate.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >>Argument 2) They can't really love each other.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >Making marriage a "love" thing was probably the biggest mistake of

> >

> > >Western Civilization. Marriage is of the community and not of the

> >

> > >individual's fickle fancy!!!

> >

> > >

> >

> > >No one should be allowed to court, much less marry, without the

> >

> > >approval of at least five upright men from their Church or perhaps

> >

> > >of their fathers' Granges, if they live in different parishes.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >>Argument 3) The parts don't fit.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >There's one for some of your "modern technology"!

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >>Argument 4) It is against the Bible.

> >

> > >>

> >

> > >>Gee, so is hating people, should we make that illegal too?

> >

> > >

> >

> > >Are you sure about that? Seems like that one guy hates just about

> >

> > >everyone except perhaps Enoch and Noah, but it's not like we've

> >

> > >heard much from them lately...

> >

> > >

> >

> > >>Argument 5) It will lead to polygamy, bestiality, and pedophilia.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >And tax credits just for checking out if it's "your style" or not!

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >---

> >

> > >Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

> >

> > >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

> >

> > >Version: 6.0.506 / Virus Database: 303 - Release Date: 8/1/03

> >

> >---------------------------------

> >STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* _____________________________________________________ List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com ��

> >

> >---------------------------------

> >Do you Yahoo!?

> >Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

>---------------------------------

>MSN 8 helps ELIMINATE E-MAIL VIRUSES. Get 2 months FREE*.

>---------------------------------

>Do you Yahoo!?

>Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* From predator75@moscow.com Tue Aug 5 23:23:10 2003 From: predator75@moscow.com (Dan Carscallen) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 15:23:10 -0700 Subject: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage References: Message-ID: <032a01c35ba0$2726b910$831da13f@MOSCOW1> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0327_01C35B65.7A9CD970 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Donovan said: >. . . I am a pro-equal rights, anti-machine gun, pro-choice, anti-death = penalty, anti-discrimination, pro-education, pro->women's rights, = pro-environment, pro-taxing the rich, party person. I am sure you will = find that right in line with the Nazi->Party Platform. They are all = inclusive now, just like the Republican Party's "Compassionate = Discrimination and Deception" >policy. I sleep very knowing that I = somebody is not dead because of me. :) Why must you pigeonhole yourself, Donovan? I'm pro-anti. =20 DC ------=_NextPart_000_0327_01C35B65.7A9CD970 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Donovan said:

>. . . I am a pro-equal rights, anti-machine gun, pro-choice, = anti-death penalty, anti-discrimination, pro-education, pro->women's = rights,=20 pro-environment, pro-taxing the rich, party person. I am sure you will = find that=20 right in line with the Nazi->Party Platform. They are all inclusive = now, just=20 like the Republican Party's "Compassionate Discrimination and Deception" = >policy. I sleep very knowing that I somebody is not dead because of = me.=20 :)

Why must you pigeonhole yourself, Donovan? I'm pro-anti. =

------=_NextPart_000_0327_01C35B65.7A9CD970-- From johnbharrell@yahoo.com Tue Aug 5 23:28:28 2003 From: johnbharrell@yahoo.com (John Harrell) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 15:28:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030805222828.15777.qmail@web13403.mail.yahoo.com> --0-1926990451-1060122508=:15401 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Well, that may be all good and fine, but tell me how that relates to your concept of "pro" and "anti". Cheers! John Harrell Donovan Arnold wrote: Oh, yes, Mr. Harrell, I am a pro-equal rights, anti-machine gun, pro-choice, anti-death penalty, anti-discrimination, pro-education, pro-women's rights, pro-environment, pro-taxing the rich, party person. I am sure you will find that right in line with the Nazi-Party Platform. They are all inclusive now, just like the Republican Party's "Compassionate Discrimination and Deception" policy. I sleep very knowing that I somebody is not dead because of me. :) Donovan J Arnold >From: John Harrell >To: Donovan Arnold , petew@completebbs.com, vision2020@moscow.com >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage >Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 15:04:03 -0700 (PDT) > >Wow! > >You are truly the first nazi and anti-semite I have ever met. > >I dont know how you sleep at night. > >Cheers! >John Harrell > > >Donovan Arnold wrote: > >Mr. Harrell, > >Let us compare exactly what you define as "sane" and what I define as "sane" and we will see which is more sane. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >You support a system of families that leads to teenage suicide. Sane or insane? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >You support a system that leads to 1.2 million abortions. Sane or insane? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >You support a system that oppresses masses in the society that claims to give people equal rights for all. Sane or insane? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >You support a system that spreads diseases that kills people slowly inch by inch. Sane or insane? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >You support bigotry and hatred of over 15 million Americans. Sane or insane? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >You back the ideals and morals of the KKK, the Aryan Nations, and the Nazi Party. Sane or insane? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >You back the destruction of 15 million Americans and don't wish to live the way you say to live. Sane or insane? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >You ought to waving a flag of the Confederacy on your door step Mr. Harrell. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Celebrate Diversity not Hatred! > > > > >If fighting for the civil rights of law abiding, tax paying, decent Americans to be able to live in a way that doesn't harm another person is insane and perverse Mr. Harrell, then I am the most insane and perverse person you will ever meet. If fighting for the principles of the those that hate, judge, and condemn is sane and normalcy, then I guess you are far more normal and less perverse than I am. You sleep well while thousands of teens blow their brains out rather than deal with people like you. I sleep well knowing that, just maybe, I will give them a little glimer of hope that some people out in the cold cruel world do care about them, and think they should be given just a little bit of a chance at a decent fair life. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Donovan J Arnold > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: John Harrell > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >To: Donovan Arnold , petew@completebbs.com, vision2020@moscow.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 10:58:42 -0700 (PDT) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Mr. Donovan Arnold, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Yes, someone is crazy or insane here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Let's look at it: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Normal, traditional families OR those that are trying to promote perversity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Normalcy vs perversity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Normal or insane. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >You want to say that everyone that doesn't "celebrate" perversity is crazy or insane. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Well, your promoting of perversity is what makes you insane, crazy, not normal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Celebrate normalcy not insanity! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Cheers! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >John Harrell > > > > > >From: John Harrell > >To: Donovan Arnold , petew@completebbs.com, vision2020@moscow.com > >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage > >Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 10:58:42 -0700 (PDT) > > > >Mr. Donovan Arnold, > > > >Yes, someone is crazy or insane here. > > > >Let's look at it: > > > >Normal, traditional families OR those that are trying to promote perversity. > > > >Normalcy vs perversity. > >Normal or insane. > > > >You want to say that everyone that doesn't "celebrate" perversity is crazy or insane. > > > >Well, your promoting of perversity is what makes you insane, crazy, not normal. > > > >Celebrate normalcy not insanity! > > > >Cheers! > >John Harrell > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Donovan Arnold wrote: > > > >HAHA! I think Peter is being sarcastic, I don't know him well enough to know or not over the internet, especially after Luke's crazy insane remarks. I really don't think anyone can be so far to the right and still exist in this world with any sanity. But I will take a crack at this just to be humorous back > > > > >>Argument 1) They can't reproduce. > > > > > > > > > >PW: "What other purpose does marriage serve if it doesn't create new, legitimate offspring? Are you suggesting some kind of santized prostitution?" > > > > > > > > > >DA: Well, let me see, could marriage include things like LOVE, companionship, understanding, stability, and commitment? Or is it reduced to simply having sex and reproducing like bunnies on grassy field on a warm summer day? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >PW "No! We shall build homes for the spinsters and the widowers where they can perform useful work without distraction and the men who remain unwed at age 22 shall volunteer for the Navy or the Merchant Marine, depending their temperments." > > > > > > > > > >DA: Oh, so we will let men that have never had sex before and are prevented from being with women alone on a ship together? You are more liberal than I am. I guess since all men would be included there would gay men on these ships too? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >DA: This means that the moment that a women stops menstruating that the man should dump his wife? And with modern technology same sex partners now can reproduce, only now in a controlled manner that makes sure the child will be well taken care of. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >PW: "Modern technology is of the Devil, as a glimpse in a typical 'INBOX' will quickly demonstrate." > > > > > > > > > >DA: I notice how you so well avoid the "evil" technology by reframing from the use of the internet. You will surely burn will you not? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Argument 2) They can't really love each other. > > > > > > > > > >PW: "Making marriage a "love" thing was probably the biggest mistake of Western Civilization. Marriage is of the community and not of the individual's fickle fancy!!! No one should be allowed to court, much less marry, without the approval of at least five upright men from their Church or perhaps of their fathers' Granges, if they live in different parishes." > > > > > > > > > >DA: Oh, yes, Love must be excluded from things like commitment, trust, and understanding. We would also not want to confuse the children by demonstrating to them what love is. They might go out and love people in the future, and soon enough, love could spread through the country. Where you are going to find five men that are upright in one community, I don't know, God could only find one man on the whole entire planet, and even he was a sinner. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Argument 3) The parts don't fit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >PW: "There's one for some of your "modern technology"!" > > > > > > > > > >DA: Yes, not to mention the hiring of about 200,000 high priced doctors. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Argument 4) It is against the Bible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >DA: Gee, so is hating people, should we make that illegal too? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >PW: "Are you sure about that? Seems like that one guy hates just about everyone except perhaps Enoch and Noah, but it's not like we've heard much from them lately... > > > > > > > > > >DA: Your right, let us make hating people a requirement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Argument 5) It will lead to polygamy, bestiality, and pedophilia. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >PW: "And tax credits just for checking out if it's "your style" or not!" > > > > > > > > > >DA: We could not afford tax credits if you are paying doctors to measure body parts to make sure they fit their spouse. > > > > > > > > > >Peter makes me look like a moderate. :) > > > > > > > > > >Donovan J Arnold > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: Peter Willard > > > > > > > > > > >To: Vision2020 > > > > > > > > >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage > > > > > > > > >Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 23:11:17 -0700 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >At 04:30 PM 8/4/03 -0700, Donovan Arnold wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>Argument 1) They can't reproduce. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >What other purpose does marriage serve if it doesn't create new, > > > > > > > > >legitimate offspring? Are you suggesting some kind of santized > > > > > > > > >prostitution? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >No! We shall build homes for the spinsters and the widowers where > > > > > > > > >they can perform useful work without distraction and the men who > > > > > > > > >remain unwed at age 22 shall volunteer for the Navy or the Merchant > > > > > > > > >Marine, depending their temperments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>This means that the moment that a women stops menstruating that the > > > > > > > > >>man should dump his wife? And with modern technology same sex > > > > > > > > >>partners now can reproduce, only now in a controlled manner that > > > > > > > > >>makes sure the child will be well taken care of. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Modern technology is of the Devil, as a glimpse in a typical "INBOX" > > > > > > > > >will quickly demonstrate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>Argument 2) They can't really love each other. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Making marriage a "love" thing was probably the biggest mistake of > > > > > > > > >Western Civilization. Marriage is of the community and not of the > > > > > > > > >individual's fickle fancy!!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >No one should be allowed to court, much less marry, without the > > > > > > > > >approval of at least five upright men from their Church or perhaps > > > > > > > > >of their fathers' Granges, if they live in different parishes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>Argument 3) The parts don't fit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >There's one for some of your "modern technology"! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>Argument 4) It is against the Bible. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>Gee, so is hating people, should we make that illegal too? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Are you sure about that? Seems like that one guy hates just about > > > > > > > > >everyone except perhaps Enoch and Noah, but it's not like we've > > > > > > > > >heard much from them lately... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>Argument 5) It will lead to polygamy, bestiality, and pedophilia. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >And tax credits just for checking out if it's "your style" or not! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >--- > > > > > > > > >Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > > > > > > > > >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > > > > > > > >Version: 6.0.506 / Virus Database: 303 - Release Date: 8/1/03 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >--------------------------------- > >STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* _____________________________________________________ List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com �� > > > >--------------------------------- > >Do you Yahoo!? > >Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software > > > >--------------------------------- >MSN 8 helps ELIMINATE E-MAIL VIRUSES. Get 2 months FREE*. > >--------------------------------- >Do you Yahoo!? >Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software --------------------------------- STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* _____________________________________________________ List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com �� --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software --0-1926990451-1060122508=:15401 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

Well, that may be all good and fine, but tell me how that relates to your concept

of "pro" and "anti".

Cheers!

John Harrell

Donovan Arnold <donovanarnold@hotmail.com> wrote:

Oh, yes, Mr. Harrell, I am a pro-equal rights, anti-machine gun, pro-choice, anti-death penalty, anti-discrimination, pro-education, pro-women's rights, pro-environment, pro-taxing the rich, party person. I am sure you will find that right in line with the Nazi-Party Platform. They are all inclusive now, just like the Republican Party's "Compassionate Discrimination and Deception" policy. I sleep very knowing that I somebody is not dead because of me. :)

Donovan J Arnold

>From: John Harrell
>To: Donovan Arnold , petew@completebbs.com, vision2020@moscow.com
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage
>Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 15:04:03 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Wow!
>
>You are truly the first nazi and anti-semite I have ever met.
>
>I dont know how you sleep at night.
>
>Cheers!
>John Harrell
>
>
>Donovan Arnold wrote:
>
>Mr. Harrell,
>
>Let us compare exactly what you define as "sane" and what I define as "sane" and we will see which is more sane.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>You support a system of families that leads to teenage suicide. Sane or insane?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>You support a system that leads to 1.2 million abortions. Sane or insane?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>You support a system that oppresses masses in the society that claims to give people equal rights for all. Sane or insane?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>You support a system that spreads diseases that kills people slowly inch by inch. Sane or insane?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>You support bigotry and hatred of over 15 million Americans. Sane or insane?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>You back the ideals and morals of the KKK, the Aryan Nations, and the Nazi Party. Sane or insane?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>You back the destruction of 15 million Americans and don't wish to live the way you say to live. Sane or insane?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>You ought to waving a flag of the Confederacy on your door step Mr. Harrell.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Celebrate Diversity not Hatred!
>
>
>
>
>If fighting for the civil rights of law abiding, tax paying, decent Americans to be able to live in a way that doesn't harm another person is insane and perverse Mr. Harrell, then I am the most insane and perverse person you will ever meet. If fighting for the principles of the those that hate, judge, and condemn is sane and normalcy, then I guess you are far more normal and less perverse than I am. You sleep well while thousands of teens blow their brains out rather than deal with people like you. I sleep well knowing that, just maybe, I will give them a little glimer of hope that some people out in the cold cruel world do care about them, and think they should be given just a little bit of a chance at a decent fair life.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Donovan J Arnold
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: John Harrell
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >To: Donovan Arnold , petew@completebbs.com, vision2020@moscow.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 10:58:42 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Mr. Donovan Arnold,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Yes, someone is crazy or insane here.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Let's look at it:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Normal, traditional families OR those that are trying to promote perversity.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Normalcy vs perversity.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Normal or insane.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >You want to say that everyone that doesn't "celebrate" perversity is crazy or insane.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Well, your promoting of perversity is what makes you insane, crazy, not normal.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Celebrate normalcy not insanity!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Cheers!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >John Harrell
>
>
>
>
> >From: John Harrell
> >To: Donovan Arnold , petew@completebbs.com, vision2020@moscow.com
> >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage
> >Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 10:58:42 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> >Mr. Donovan Arnold,
> >
> >Yes, someone is crazy or insane here.
> >
> >Let's look at it:
> >
> >Normal, traditional families OR those that are trying to promote perversity.
> >
> >Normalcy vs perversity.
> >Normal or insane.
> >
> >You want to say that everyone that doesn't "celebrate" perversity is crazy or insane.
> >
> >Well, your promoting of perversity is what makes you insane, crazy, not normal.
> >
> >Celebrate normalcy not insanity!
> >
> >Cheers!
> >John Harrell
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Donovan Arnold wrote:
> >
> >HAHA! I think Peter is being sarcastic, I don't know him well enough to know or not over the internet, especially after Luke's crazy insane remarks. I really don't think anyone can be so far to the right and still exist in this world with any sanity. But I will take a crack at this just to be humorous back
> >
> > >>Argument 1) They can't reproduce.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >PW: "What other purpose does marriage serve if it doesn't create new, legitimate offspring? Are you suggesting some kind of santized prostitution?"
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >DA: Well, let me see, could marriage include things like LOVE, companionship, understanding, stability, and commitment? Or is it reduced to simply having sex and reproducing like bunnies on grassy field on a warm summer day?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >PW "No! We shall build homes for the spinsters and the widowers where they can perform useful work without distraction and the men who remain unwed at age 22 shall volunteer for the Navy or the Merchant Marine, depending their temperments."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >DA: Oh, so we will let men that have never had sex before and are prevented from being with women alone on a ship together? You are more liberal than I am. I guess since all men would be included there would gay men on these ships too?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >DA: This means that the moment that a women stops menstruating that the man should dump his wife? And with modern technology same sex partners now can reproduce, only now in a controlled manner that makes sure the child will be well taken care of.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >PW: "Modern technology is of the Devil, as a glimpse in a typical 'INBOX' will quickly demonstrate."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >DA: I notice how you so well avoid the "evil" technology by reframing from the use of the internet. You will surely burn will you not?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Argument 2) They can't really love each other.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >PW: "Making marriage a "love" thing was probably the biggest mistake of Western Civilization. Marriage is of the community and not of the individual's fickle fancy!!! No one should be allowed to court, much less marry, without the approval of at least five upright men from their Church or perhaps of their fathers' Granges, if they live in different parishes."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >DA: Oh, yes, Love must be excluded from things like commitment, trust, and understanding. We would also not want to confuse the children by demonstrating to them what love is. They might go out and love people in the future, and soon enough, love could spread through the country. Where you are going to find five men that are upright in one community, I don't know, God could only find one man on the whole entire planet, and even he was a sinner.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >Argument 3) The parts don't fit.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >PW: "There's one for some of your "modern technology"!"
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >DA: Yes, not to mention the hiring of about 200,000 high priced doctors.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Argument 4) It is against the Bible.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >DA: Gee, so is hating people, should we make that illegal too?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >PW: "Are you sure about that? Seems like that one guy hates just about everyone except perhaps Enoch and Noah, but it's not like we've heard much from them lately...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >DA: Your right, let us make hating people a requirement.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Argument 5) It will lead to polygamy, bestiality, and pedophilia.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >PW: "And tax credits just for checking out if it's "your style" or not!"
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >DA: We could not afford tax credits if you are paying doctors to measure body parts to make sure they fit their spouse.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Peter makes me look like a moderate. :)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Donovan J Arnold
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >From: Peter Willard
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >To: Vision2020
> >
> >
> >
> > >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage
> >
> >
> >
> > >Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 23:11:17 -0700
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > >At 04:30 PM 8/4/03 -0700, Donovan Arnold wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > >>Argument 1) They can't reproduce.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > >What other purpose does marriage serve if it doesn't create new,
> >
> >
> >
> > >legitimate offspring? Are you suggesting some kind of santized
> >
> >
> >
> > >prostitution?
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > >No! We shall build homes for the spinsters and the widowers where
> >
> >
> >
> > >they can perform useful work without distraction and the men who
> >
> >
> >
> > >remain unwed at age 22 shall volunteer for the Navy or the Merchant
> >
> >
> >
> > >Marine, depending their temperments.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > >>This means that the moment that a women stops menstruating that the
> >
> >
> >
> > >>man should dump his wife? And with modern technology same sex
> >
> >
> >
> > >>partners now can reproduce, only now in a controlled manner that
> >
> >
> >
> > >>makes sure the child will be well taken care of.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > >Modern technology is of the Devil, as a glimpse in a typical "INBOX"
> >
> >
> >
> > >will quickly demonstrate.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > >>Argument 2) They can't really love each other.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > >Making marriage a "love" thing was probably the biggest mistake of
> >
> >
> >
> > >Western Civilization. Marriage is of the community and not of the
> >
> >
> >
> > >individual's fickle fancy!!!
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > >No one should be allowed to court, much less marry, without the
> >
> >
> >
> > >approval of at least five upright men from their Church or perhaps
> >
> >
> >
> > >of their fathers' Granges, if they live in different parishes.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > >>Argument 3) The parts don't fit.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > >There's one for some of your "modern technology"!
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > >>Argument 4) It is against the Bible.
> >
> >
> >
> > >>
> >
> >
> >
> > >>Gee, so is hating people, should we make that illegal too?
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > >Are you sure about that? Seems like that one guy hates just about
> >
> >
> >
> > >everyone except perhaps Enoch and Noah, but it's not like we've
> >
> >
> >
> > >heard much from them lately...
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > >>Argument 5) It will lead to polygamy, bestiality, and pedophilia.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > >And tax credits just for checking out if it's "your style" or not!
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > >---
> >
> >
> >
> > >Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> >
> >
> >
> > >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> >
> >
> >
> > >Version: 6.0.506 / Virus Database: 303 - Release Date: 8/1/03
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >---------------------------------
> >STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* _____________________________________________________ List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com ��
> >
> >---------------------------------
> >Do you Yahoo!?
> >Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>MSN 8 helps ELIMINATE E-MAIL VIRUSES. Get 2 months FREE*.
>
>---------------------------------
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* _____________________________________________________ List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com ��

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software --0-1926990451-1060122508=:15401-- From donovanarnold@hotmail.com Tue Aug 5 23:48:07 2003 From: donovanarnold@hotmail.com (Donovan Arnold) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 15:48:07 -0700 Subject: [Vision2020] Who Killed California? Message-ID:

Tim,

I was not advocating the old "Love it or Leave it" philosophy. I was advocating the old "don't be a hypocrite" philosophy.

I understand that Pat Buchanan was not directly blaming the Mexicans for the destroyed economy. I know Buchanan would never give Mexicans enough intelligence to do it themselves. He more or less treats them like the sheep that graze the fields to the roots destroying the grass permenintly and the rich white guys as the farmers that let them onto the field. Sorry, don't buy it.

None-Indians and none-Mexicans are now nearly two out of three people in California. I find them the immigration hazard that destroyed California. If 2/3 people got out of California it would be just fine and you can't disagree with that.

The fact is Mexicans that immigrate to the United States are doing far more for the country than most others. And certainly less damage to the economy than other legal immigrants. Did you know that the United States imports highly trained Europeans that work for half the wages of their American counterparts. These are real jobs. The Mexican immigrations are not taking jobs that pay $100,000 a year for just $45,000. They are taking the jobs nobody will do for $5.25 an hour. If illegal immigrants stopped coming into the country then two things would happen. First, millions of Hispanics would be starving in Mexico. These immigrates live here for about 6 months and then go back to feed their families. Second, the food prices would more then double, making it cheaper to import food, which would be done, and farmers would go bankrupt. The only changes I would like to make is that the immigrants are given decent places to stay and healthy food and water.

You are incorrect about the freebies. Illegal immigrates are given medical treatment only incases of emergency. To advocate otherwise would say that we should just let them die in the streets, I think that would be horrible. Food banks are given to everyone, and are usually donated by private citizens.

You are correct that free trade does destroy businesses. But it also helps others. In fact, 1/3 of US business is done overseas. Even more important istariffs% of all new business is conducted with foreign countries. So image what type of impact creating tarrifs would make on US Businesses. If we raise our tarrifs, they raise theirs, and all profit is sucked out of the system and goes to the governments of the countries and not the businesses that earned the profit, which prevents growth and job prosperity. I would stick with taxing the companies on profits only.

I would be pretty angry is I owned stock in a company that did $10 billion in sales with China and the US Government slapped a tarriff on China and they did the same back and my business had to give 1/2 the profit to the Chinese government, wouldn't you be.

No, Buchanan's idea doesn't work unless you have a monopoly on almost all products. Every time the US Government has put tarrifs on imports then inflation goes way up and it ends up hurting the world economy.

Donovan J Arnold

>From: Tim Lohrmann

>To: Donovan Arnold

>CC: vision2020@moscow.com

>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Who Killed California?

>Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 09:14:10 -0700 (PDT)

>Donovan,

> I was a little surprised to see you advocating

>the old "America--Love It of Leave It" philosophy. Is

>it a retro thing? That WAS big in the late '60s and

>early '70s I understand.

> Oh well.

> I also disagree that Pat is attacking a weaker

>group of people. The US Government as run by both Bush

>and one Clinton administration can hardly be

>considered weaker than him.

> And that's who he blames this mess on the

>government. He's not blaming the illegal immigrants

>themselves---just the governmental policies that

>caused this mess. That's clear from the column.

> It's amazing when people who are breaking the law

>by coming into this country suddenly have access to

>free health care, education, food etc. etc.

> Is this a reward for their crime?

> Many illegal immigrants have visited informational

>offices in their own countries that show them in

>advance exactly which offices to go to in order to

>take advantage of all the freebies. Who can blame them

>for coming here and taking advantage of it? I'm sure

>most of us would.

> But can you imagine the effect on Medi-Cal, the

>state education budget, law enforcement and etc.?

> And what about the effect of the people of

>California's faith in the democratic process when they

>are not allowed to stop these goings on as much as

>they try?

> You're absolutely correct that there are other

>factors than the one mentioned in the column(9/11 etc)

>that have had an effect on consumer spending. But its

>undeniable that Free Trade and unrestricted/illegal

>immigration have had a huge negative effect on

>California and many other states. The effect on wages

>isn't confined to the agricultural sector at all.

> In CA and many other states a huge percentage of

>construction labor is done by illegal immigrants. That

>used to be a field where people could make a good

>living in this country. They could start as laborers,

>learn skills and work their way up, but that's denied

>to American workers in many areas. This is but one

>example of the suppression of wages by illegal

>immigration. And of course one of the major negative

>effects is, as mentioned above, on the social service,

>education, law enforcement, and penal budgets.

> And if you don't believe that unfair and so-called

>"Free Trade" hasn't had a devastating impact on the

>areas mentioned in the article, you're simply ignoring

>reality.

> And here's a question for you. How much

>immigration would be enough?

> There are currently 1 million LEGAL immigrants

>allowed into this country every year. To put that in

>perspective, the 2002 Census estimate for the

>population of Seattle was 570,000. So, in other words

>LEGAL IMMIGRATION--each year, every year--equals very

>TWICE the city of Seattle. EVERY YEAR! Been to Seattle

>lately? Pretty crowded place, huh?

> Of course no one knows how many ILLEGAL immigrants

>come in each year. I've seen estimates ranging from

>2-5 million illegals per year. Some stay and some come

>back and forth. In any event there are millions upon

>millions of illegals here in the country right now.

> And anyone questioning immigration and illegal

>immigration is xenophobic?

> I don't think so. No, it's nothing like a phobia.

> It's a simple realization that this country can't

>keep going on supporting this huge influx of people

>indefinitely. California is finding that out for all

>to see.

> TL

>--- Donovan Arnold wrote:

>---------------------------------

>Tim,

>Oh, he is not my cup of tea alright.

>Pat Hitler, I mean, Pat Buchanan, (why I mix the two

>up I don't know) is only correct about three things.

>He is right it not the fault of Gov. Davis, he is

>right it is the fault of US Government, and the fault

>of Immigration.

>But he has the wrong immigration of people mixed up.

>It was not the influx of Mexicans that is the problem.

>It is the fault of an influx of Europeans. Ya see

>m'kay, Mexicans and Native American Indians had

>California for about 10-16,000 years before the

>immigrants of Europeans came over. The land and

>economy was just fine for that amount of time. Then

>other people came into California, and less than 150

>years of occupation the soil, environment, and economy

>has gone to sh*t. Now, I tend to think the Mexicans

>and Indians have a better track record. I am willing

>to bet that if the United States withdrew from

>California for another 10,000-16,000 years it would

>recover nicely and be ready for another 150 years of

>European abuse and raping of the land.

>Now I know that the Mexicans had the audacity to do

>something like be born in California before Europeans

>even knew it existed, but I don't think they are the

>ones responsible for the failing of the United States

>and California economy. Mexicans picking oranges in

>some farmer's field making $2 an hour did not fly two

>airplanes into the World Trade Center. They didn't

>forge and fake the income earnings of Enron, Adelphia,

>and a whole host of others. They didn't engage in

>inside trading like Martha Steward. They didn't empty

>the Colorado River and drain California of it's

>electricity, they didn't write the budget or tax code.

>They didn't even withdraw their millions from the

>stock market or stop supporting the airline industry.

>What Buchanan is doing is attempting to attack a

>weaker group of people that have little or no

>political ability to withstand such attacks. It is

>easy to blame the little poor guy for the mistakes of

>the rich, powerful, greedy, and corrupt.

>Pat Buchanan is the biggest causation and beneficiary

>of immigration and free trade. It was the

>administration that he was a part of, Reagan's, that

>allowed for the largest immigration of Hispanics in

>the history of the United States. It was also he that

>was able to get a replacement value in his heart (yes,

>I know he does have actually have one) because of free

>trade policies with Japan.

>If this man has such a problem with immigration, he

>should move back to Europe, if he has a problem with

>free trade, he should give back his heart, after all,

>he hasn't even used it in a while anyway.

>Donovan J Arnold

> >From: Tim Lohrmann

> >To: vision2020@moscow.com

> >Subject: [Vision2020] Who Killed California?

> >Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 00:02:26 -0700 (PDT)

> >

> >Visionaries,

> >Even if he's not your cup of tea politically, you

> >gotta admit that Pat tells it like it is about "Free"

> >trade and Immigration.

> > TL

> >

> >Who Killed California?

> > >

> > > By Patrick J. Buchanan

> > >

> > > With Gov. Gray Davis facing recall, a budget $38

> > > billion in deficit, and a bond rating dropped

>three

> >notches by Standard & Poor's to near junk-bond

> > > status, the lowest of all 50 states, the Golden

> > > State is no more.

> > >

> > > Who killed the goose that laid the golden eggs?

> > >

> > > Certainly, Davis, who misled voters about the

> > > gravity of his budget crisis in 2002, and won

> >re-election by demonizing his GOP rivals, deserves

>his

> >20

> > > percent approval rating. But Gray Davis did not

>kill

> > > California.

> > >

> > > The United States government did. For what killed

> > > California as the golden land was massive and

> >unrestricted immigration from the Third World, an

> > > unrepelled invasion from Mexico, and a failure to

> > > protect the U.S. manufacturing base and the wages

>of

> >America's workers.

> > >

> > > During and after World War II, California became a

> > > bastion of our defense, aerospace, auto and TV

> >industries. Hundreds of thousands were hired to

>become

> > > the highest-paid manufacturing workers on earth,

> > > giving California the world's highest standard of

> >living. The average California wage once stood at 130

> > > percent of the average U.S. wage.

> > >

> > > In the 1970s and 1980s, however, Japan, a free

>rider

> > > on America's defense, began to engage in predatory

> >trade, attacking and killing, one by one, U.S.

> >industries and capturing U.S. markets with subsidized

> >exports.

> > >

> > > California suffered first. Our TV industry was

>wiped

> > > out. Our auto industry was reeling when Ronald

> >Reagan stepped in to impose quotas on Japanese cars.

> > > Reagan also intervened to save the semiconductor

> > > industry, Big Steel and Harley-Davidson. Unlike

> >today's free-trade fanatics, Ronald Reagan put

>America

> > > first.

> > >

> > > But it was under Bush-Clinton-Bush that California

> > > was irrevocably sacrificed to the gods of the

>Global

> >Economy.

> > >

> > > During Bush I's term, millions of Mexicans began

>to

> > > flee north to seek jobs and take advantage of the

> >health care, welfare and free education American

> > > citizens provided for their people. For one-third

>of

> > > the illegals, California became the destination of

> >choice.

> > >

> > > What the U.S. government should have done was

> > > obvious, and was demanded by Americans: Enforce

>our

> >immigration laws, halt the invasion, restrict

> > > immigration from the Third World. But America's

> > > politicians - out of fear of being brande

>xenophobic

> >and to curry favor with Big Business, which

> > > benefits from an endless supply of low-wage labor

> >did almost nothing to protect America.

> > >

> > > Californians tried to defend their state. As

> > > illegals poured in by the hundreds of thousands

> >yearly, they passed Proposition 187, denying social

> > > welfare benefits to illegal aliens who had broken

> > > the law and broken into the United States.

> > >

> > > The open-borders coalition, repudiated and routed,

> > > ran to a federal judge, who annulled the voters'

> >victory. Davis then refused to appeal the overturning

> > > of 187 to the Supreme Court. Hispanic voters

> > > rewarded him in 2002, and California state and

>local

> >budgets continued to hemorrhage.

> > >

> > > By the 1990s, an exodus of taxpayers had begun.

>Fed

> > > up with being fleeced to subsidize illegal aliens,

> >Californians began leaving for Nevada, Idaho,

> > > Arizona and Colorado. Two million native-born

> > > Californians left the state in

> > > the 1990s, as immigrants, legal and illegal, sent

> > > poverty rates soaring in Los Angeles, Riverside,

>San

> >Bernardino and Orange counties.

> > >

> > > This, then, is what killed California:

> > >

> > > First, open borders. By failing to enforce our

> > > immigration laws, America now hosts 31 million

>legal

> >immigrants and their children and 10 million

> > > illegals, most of them net tax consumers.

>California

> > > got the lion's share.

> > >

> > > Second, global free trade and the trade deficits

>it

> > > produced, now running at an annual rate of $562

> >billion in May. This has killed millions of

> > > manufacturing jobs, as thousands of companies

>closed

> > > factories here and shifted plants to Mexico, Asia

> >and China.

> > >

> > > The Third Worldization of California is now far

> > > advanced. Yet those responsible, Bush Republicans

>as

> >well as Clinton Democrats, still cannot

> > > see what they have done to our country.

> > >

> > > But what is happening in California is not

>confined

> > > to California. It is happening across America.

> >Unless we elect a president who will enforce our

> > > immigration laws and defend our borders, unless we

> > > find a Congress that will jettison the free-trade

> >madness that is denuding America of her

>manufacturing,

> > > what has happened to California will happen here.

> > >

> > > President Bush appears oblivious to it all - but

> > > then, so did his father

> > > before him.

> > >

> >

> >__________________________________

> >Do you Yahoo!?

> >Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site

>design software

> >http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

> >

> >_____________________________________________________

> > List services made available by First Step Internet,

> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.

> > http://www.fsr.net

> > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com

> >��

>---------------------------------

>MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months

>FREE*

>__________________________________

>Do you Yahoo!?

>Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

>http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* From mghuskey@hotmail.com Wed Aug 6 00:32:04 2003 From: mghuskey@hotmail.com (Melynda Huskey) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 16:32:04 -0700 Subject: [Vision2020] Gay Marriage, again Message-ID: Doug writes: >Melynda, your last paragraph surprised me. Given what you acknowledge as >common practice throughout history, how could we exclude a man's two wives >(for example) from ICU unless we are willing to impose a particular >religious view of marriage through the mechanism of civil law? I'm not sure I understand the question. Our current marriage laws are indeed a consequence of, as you say, imposing a particular religious view of marriage through the mechanism of civil law. It's true that the number as well as the sex of the potential partners is regulated, and their degree of consanguinity and their age. Once upon a time their races were also policed, and in some places, their intelligence and "fitness to reproduce" as defined by the state. My point was simply that questions of policy regarding polygamous marriages are quite separate from questions of policy regarding same-sex marriage. Neither one implies the other, and although there may well be people on Vision 2020 who have well-defined ideas about public policy on polygamy, I am not one of them. I can only speak to the issues of same-sex marriage with any degree of expertise. Limitedly, Melynda Huskey Go, said the bird, for the leaves were full of children, Hidden excitedly, containing laughter. Go, go, go, said the bird: human kind Cannot bear very much reality. Burnt Norton, T.S. Eliot _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From ccm_moscow@yahoo.com Wed Aug 6 01:20:56 2003 From: ccm_moscow@yahoo.com (Douglas Stambler) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 17:20:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Vision2020] Breaking News: "U.S. Episcopal Leaders Approve Openly Gay Bishop" Message-ID: <20030806002056.33311.qmail@web80602.mail.yahoo.com> --0-435604359-1060129256=:33093 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Home > News > Top News > Article function newsOptionsPopup(newsOptionsUrl) { photoPopupWindow = window.open(newsOptionsUrl,"newsOptionsPopup","width=540,height=525,toolbar=no,status=no,resizable=no,scrollbars=yes"); photoPopupWindow.focus();}-->if ((!document.images & navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mozilla/2.') >= 0) || navigator.userAgent.indexOf("WebTV") >= 0) {document.write('');document.write('');} U.S. Episcopal Leaders Approve Openly Gay Bishop Tue August 5, 2003 08:07 PM ET function galaxyPopup(photoUrl) { photoPopupWindow = window.open(photoUrl,"photoPopup","width=540,height=560,toolbar=no,status=no,resizable=no,scrollbars=yes"); photoPopupWindow.focus();}MINNEAPOLIS (Reuters) - Episcopal bishops on Tuesday approved the church's first openly gay bishop after an investigation cleared him of 11th-hour allegations that he engaged in sexual misconduct. Sixty-two of the 107 votes in the church's House of Bishops were in favor of New Hampshire Canon Gene Robinson, a decision that could threaten a schism in the global Anglican community. A one-day church probe dismissed allegations that Robinson sexually harassed a parishioner or that he had anything to do with pornographic links to a Web site for a group he co-founded to help troubled teen-agers. Robinson's conservative opponents have argued that his relationship with another man violated biblical scripture and warned they will walk out of the convention and split from the U.S. church. Conservative Anglican bishops from Africa, Asia and Australia have said Robinson's appointment or the U.S. church's approval of a proposed liturgy allowing clergy to bless same-sex marriages will shatter the unity of the 77-million-member Anglican Communion. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! --0-435604359-1060129256=:33093 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

Home > News > Top News > Article

U.S. Episcopal Leaders Approve Openly Gay Bishop
Tue August 5, 2003 08:07 PM ET

MINNEAPOLIS (Reuters) - Episcopal bishops on Tuesday approved the church's first openly gay bishop after an investigation cleared him of 11th-hour allegations that he engaged in sexual misconduct.

Sixty-two of the 107 votes in the church's House of Bishops were in favor of New Hampshire Canon Gene Robinson, a decision that could threaten a schism in the global Anglican community.

A one-day church probe dismissed allegations that Robinson sexually harassed a parishioner or that he had anything to do with pornographic links to a Web site for a group he co-founded to help troubled teen-agers.

Robinson's conservative opponents have argued that his relationship with another man violated biblical scripture and warned they will walk out of the convention and split from the U.S. church.

Conservative Anglican bishops from Africa, Asia and Australia have said Robinson's appointment or the U.S. church's approval of a proposed liturgy allowing clergy to bless same-sex marriages will shatter the unity of the 77-million-member Anglican Communion.

Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! --0-435604359-1060129256=:33093-- From warrenhoskins@netscape.net Wed Aug 6 01:32:17 2003 From: warrenhoskins@netscape.net (Warren Hoskins) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 20:32:17 -0400 Subject: [Vision2020] RE: Poly* Message-ID: <65E1214C.1C13527D.30998ADA@netscape.net> Must note that human history is much, much longer than recorded human history, and that the great variety of human relationships around the planet reveal that "normal" relationships for mating and parenting vary rather widely from the expected practices of WASP America, or, for that matter, from African-America [since, surveys say, African-Americans by percentage are more likely to be believers and at least nominally participants in rather orthodox Christianity]. �Melynda has it right, as far as I am concerned, and has set it forth honestly, and rather eloquently. That said, I tend to believe that some sort of tribal structure is more "normal" for humanity, perhaps set up as the Native Americans of the plains have, with clans and tribes. �How Middle Eastern, too! � These structures definitely impose onto the individual--arranged marriages are still the rule in large parts of the world, after all. The clan and the tribe set responsibilities, and there are customary practices ("customs") that reflect the mores, beliefs and the harsh realities of the life. �Incest is avoided. �Children are raised, often to better conditions than their foreparents. �Sometimes there has been polygamy--I don't know enough about matriarchal societies, of which there have been some large ones. There may be provision for cross-dressing, especially by spiritual leaders, warriors and widows, as well as young men undergoing rights of passage. �Sexual practices and tolerances may vary widely as well, although everyone tends to know everyone's business. Some tribes allow sexual practice before marriage. �(In pilgrim America, the bundling board was an interesting custom, don't you think? Maybe sex wasn't allowed, but couples could learn quite a bit in bed together without being forced into matrimony if the chemistry turned out not to be there.) What happens if you consider the tribes of Judaism at the time of Jesus as his tribal structure? What if you wanted to live as Jesus? Wouldn't that mean adopting the marriage practices of his time? �If you expanded your search and looked at other tribes of that era, you might learn that there was more variety tolerated than we are familiar with today, some of it we would not want in this more "enlightened" time. �Although, having said that, there are groups referred to as "fundamentalist Mormons" who still practice polygyny, with often very young women being married by much older men, sometimes close blood relatives. �That's where a lot of the justified concern about abuse of women and children comes from. I would imagine that in a tribal/clan where there is any prosperity at all, elders have more freedom and less restriction and may hang out however they wish. When times are hard, their lives may come to resemble slavery or outright neglect and abandonment. �Marriage may be hard to "survive," therefore and perhaps some of the horrible customs, of women being burned with the bodies of their deceased spouses, or of elders being abandoned to die in the wilderness, may stem from these situations when they are protracted. So, by those kinds of considerations, contemporary American and European citizens are further from "normal" in their relationships and customs, including marriage, than the citizens of Iraq or Afghanistan, whose ancestors were in more than a few tussles with the patriarchs of the Bible--not that I am advocating changing in that direction for one second! In fact, I think America headed in the right direction only when women ceased to be denied the vote and ownership of property (thereby arriving at a position comparable to some of the Great Lakes native nations of three centuries ago--back to the future!). We still, as a culture, are missing something key--true respect for our elders. �And I don't just mean us older farts. A geezer doesn't necessarily have the mental clout, the head-wisdom of a wizened crone, in my humble experience. Terry Pratchett says never underestimate the power of an old woman in a black dress [they are the ones who, after the battle, pick up the survivors and household goods, and get whoever is left alive off to safety in some other village--I would add that they were the ones who kept the family history and contacts when everyone else was too busy just surviving; or, the ones who simply kept the kettle on, and fed everyone, night after night, making do when there was next to nothing to survive on]. �I seem to recall something about the value of the widow's mite, too. � Who are we to say to the widow, love only as allowed by one church's set of laws? �We don't live (thank God) in a land under any one religion. �If we did, do you think an American "taliban" would be tolerant of freedom of speech, press, worship and assembly? �Bet that this conversation would be monitored and censored. One person's orthodoxy is another's heresy. � Peace,Warren __________________________________________________________________McAfee VirusScan Online from the Netscape Network.Comprehensive protection for your entire computer. Get your free trial today!http://channels.netscape.com/ns/computing/mcafee/index.jsp?promo=393397 Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 free of charge. Download Now!http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455 From johnmoss@moscow.com Wed Aug 6 04:23:58 2003 From: johnmoss@moscow.com (John Moss) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 20:23:58 -0700 Subject: [Vision2020] Get the facts right References: Message-ID: <004101c35bca$2d458cc0$3701a8c0@RMACH> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_003E_01C35B8F.807B6FD0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Greetings, Visionaries: This message is in response to the Vision2020 conversation between Mr. = Arnold and Mr. Harrell, titled "Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage." Mr. Arnold was arguing for the sanity of homosexual marriage, whereas = Mr. Harrell was arguing for the sanity of traditional heterosexual = marriage. I will leave the claims about the KKK, nazis and the = confederate flag to Mr. Arnold and Mr. Harrell to sort out. But what I hope to do here is bring into context some of Mr. Arnold's = wild "sanity" claims about the insanity of traditional marriages: MR. ARNOLD: "You [John Harrell] support a system of families that leads = to teenage suicide. Sane or insane?" JOURNAL of HOMOSEXUALITY. 2002;42(4):107-17, Suicide among homosexual = youth by Lebson, M., University of Maryland: "The contemporary = literature on homosexual youth and suicide risk are reviewed in order to = delineate the incidence, development, causes/risk factors, and effects = of suicidality among homosexual youth. In comparison to heterosexual = youth, homosexual youths are more likely to attempt and complete = suicide. They confront more challenges in identity development and face = more risk factors for suicidality. In some cases, homosexual youths = might use suicidal ideation as a means of rediscovering a will to live." MR. ARNOLD: "You support a system that leads to 1.2 million abortions. = Sane or insane?" It is true that no matter how long two men engage in sexual intercourse, = they will never conceive a child. Thus, they have no necessity to = support the abortion industry. But does anyone think that the concept = of traditional marriage that Mr. Harrell was trying to present includes = the use of abortion? MR. ARNOLD: "You support a system that spreads diseases that kills = people slowly inch by inch. Sane or insane?" Okay, I highly doubt Mr. Arnold has gone to medical school. I have = never known a faithfully married heterosexual couple to contract an STD, = let alone any of the many medical conditions that face homosexual men. The real tragedy in this whole legality-of-homosexuality debate is the = silence of the media towards the masses of medical literature on this = subject. For those with a strong stomach, read on: JOURNAL of ADOLESCENT HEALTH CARE. 1985 Jul;6(4):278-85. Medical = problems of the homosexual adolescent by Owen WF Jr.: "Four general = groups of conditions may be encountered in homosexually active men: = classical sexually transmitted diseases (gonorrhea, infections with = Chlamydia trachomatis, syphilis, herpes simplex infections, genital = warts, pubic lice, scabies); enteric diseases (infections with Shigella = species, Campylobacter jejuni, Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia lamblia, = hepatitis A, hepatitis B, hepatitis non-A, non-B, and cytomegalovirus); = trauma (fecal incontinence, hemorrhoids, anal fissure, foreign bodies, = rectosigmoid tears, allergic proctitis, penile edema, chemical = sinusitis, inhaled nitrite burns, and sexual assault of the male = patient); and the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS)." PHARMACOTHERAPY. 1982 Jan-Feb;2(1):32-42. Enteric diseases of homosexual = men, by Baker RW, Peppercorn MA: "Certain enteric ailments are = particularly common among homosexual men. They are primarily infectious = diseases and include not only such common venereal diseases as gonorrhea = and syphilis but also infections not usually regarded as being sexually = transmitted. Among the latter are shigellosis, salmonellosis, = giardiasis, and amebiasis." MR. ARNOLD: "You support a system that oppresses masses in the society = that claims to give people equal rights for all. Sane or insane?" Since when has illegalizing behavior that leads to rectitis, penile = edema, anal fissure, fecal incontinence, rectosigmoid tears, and = cambylobacter jejuni been oppressive? =20 Yes, the decision to engage in anal sex is a personal choice. But those = who do must realize the physical consequences they will likely suffer. = And in some countries, legal consequences. Sorry if anyone was not braced for the rather grotesque medical = documenation. But we're Americans. We know all about the gushy-gushy = love presented on TV and in the movies. Shouldn't we have a grip on the = reality of what happens deep in the bedrooms of those who are making = personal choices to "love each other"? I could not just sit idly by and let this debate go on, without bringing = forward the much neglected and shoved-beneath-the-covers medical = literature. It seemed like the only just thing to do for this forum, = and those who are actually trying to sort out the good of the Moscow = community. Let's get the facts on the table. Now we can continue the debate on = whether and which personal choices should be legislated. John Moss For a reference on any of the medical terms used above, please refer to = the online version of the Merriam Webster Medical Dictionary at = http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH?t=3D9276. ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Donovan Arnold=20 To: johnbharrell@yahoo.com ; petew@completebbs.com ; = vision2020@moscow.com=20 Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 2:51 PM Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage Mr. Harrell, Let us compare exactly what you define as "sane" and what I define as = "sane" and we will see which is more sane. You support a system of families that leads to teenage suicide. Sane = or insane? You support a system that leads to 1.2 million abortions. Sane or = insane? You support a system that oppresses masses in the society that claims = to give people equal rights for all. Sane or insane? You support a system that spreads diseases that kills people slowly = inch by inch. Sane or insane? You support bigotry and hatred of over 15 million Americans. Sane or = insane? You back the ideals and morals of the KKK, the Aryan Nations, and the = Nazi Party. Sane or insane? You back the destruction of 15 million Americans and don't wish to = live the way you say to live. Sane or insane? You ought to waving a flag of the Confederacy on your door step Mr. = Harrell. Celebrate Diversity not Hatred! If fighting for the civil rights of law abiding, tax paying, decent = Americans to be able to live in a way that doesn't harm another person = is insane and perverse Mr. Harrell, then I am the most insane and = perverse person you will ever meet. If fighting for the principles of = the those that hate, judge, and condemn is sane and normalcy, then I = guess you are far more normal and less perverse than I am. You sleep = well while thousands of teens blow their brains out rather than deal = with people like you. I sleep well knowing that, just maybe, I will give = them a little glimer of hope that some people out in the cold cruel = world do care about them, and think they should be given just a little = bit of a chance at a decent fair life. Donovan J Arnold =20 >From: John Harrell=20 >To: Donovan Arnold , petew@completebbs.com, vision2020@moscow.com=20 >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage=20 >Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 10:58:42 -0700 (PDT)=20 >=20 >Mr. Donovan Arnold,=20 >=20 >Yes, someone is crazy or insane here.=20 >=20 >Let's look at it:=20 >=20 >Normal, traditional families OR those that are trying to promote = perversity.=20 >=20 >Normalcy vs perversity.=20 >Normal or insane.=20 >=20 >You want to say that everyone that doesn't "celebrate" perversity is = crazy or insane.=20 >=20 >Well, your promoting of perversity is what makes you insane, crazy, = not normal.=20 >=20 >Celebrate normalcy not insanity!=20 >=20 >Cheers!=20 >John Harrell=20 >From: John Harrell=20 >To: Donovan Arnold , petew@completebbs.com, vision2020@moscow.com=20 >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage=20 >Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 10:58:42 -0700 (PDT)=20 >=20 >Mr. Donovan Arnold,=20 >=20 >Yes, someone is crazy or insane here.=20 >=20 >Let's look at it:=20 >=20 >Normal, traditional families OR those that are trying to promote = perversity.=20 >=20 >Normalcy vs perversity.=20 >Normal or insane.=20 >=20 >You want to say that everyone that doesn't "celebrate" perversity is = crazy or insane.=20 >=20 >Well, your promoting of perversity is what makes you insane, crazy, = not normal.=20 >=20 >Celebrate normalcy not insanity!=20 >=20 >Cheers!=20 >John Harrell=20 > ------=_NextPart_000_003E_01C35B8F.807B6FD0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Greetings,=20 Visionaries:

This message is in response to the = Vision2020=20 conversation between Mr. Arnold and Mr. Harrell, titled "Re: = Constitutional Ban=20 on Gay Marriage."

Mr. Arnold was arguing for the = sanity of=20 homosexual marriage, whereas Mr. Harrell was arguing for the sanity of=20 traditional heterosexual marriage. I will leave the claims about = the KKK,=20 nazis and the confederate flag to Mr. Arnold and Mr. Harrell to sort=20 out.

But what I hope to do here is = bring into=20 context some of Mr. Arnold's wild "sanity" claims about the insanity of=20 traditional marriages:

MR. ARNOLD: "You [John Harrell] = support a=20 system of families that leads to teenage suicide. Sane or=20 insane?"

JOURNAL of HOMOSEXUALITY. = 2002;42(4):107-17,=20 Suicide among homosexual youth by Lebson, M., University of = Maryland:=20 "The contemporary literature on homosexual youth and suicide risk are = reviewed=20 in order to delineate the incidence, development, causes/risk factors, = and=20 effects of suicidality among homosexual youth. In comparison to = heterosexual=20 youth, homosexual youths are more likely to attempt and complete = suicide. They=20 confront more challenges in identity development and face more risk = factors for=20 suicidality. In some cases, homosexual youths might use suicidal = ideation as a=20 means of rediscovering a will to live."

MR. ARNOLD: "You support a system = that leads=20 to 1.2 million abortions. Sane or insane?"

It is true that no matter how long = two men=20 engage in sexual intercourse, they will never conceive a child. = Thus, they=20 have no necessity to support the abortion industry. But does = anyone think=20 that the concept of traditional marriage that Mr. Harrell was trying to = present=20 includes the use of abortion?

MR. ARNOLD: "You support a system = that spreads=20 diseases that kills people slowly inch by inch. Sane or=20 insane?"

Okay, I highly doubt Mr. Arnold = has gone to=20 medical school. I have never known a faithfully married = heterosexual=20 couple to contract an STD, let alone any of the many medical conditions = that=20 face homosexual men.

The real tragedy in this whole=20 legality-of-homosexuality debate is the silence of the media towards the = masses=20 of medical literature on this subject. For those with a strong = stomach,=20 read on:

JOURNAL of ADOLESCENT HEALTH CARE. = 1985=20 Jul;6(4):278-85. Medical problems of the homosexual adolescent = by Owen=20 WF Jr.: "Four general groups of conditions may be encountered in = homosexually=20 active men: classical sexually transmitted diseases (gonorrhea, = infections with=20 Chlamydia trachomatis, syphilis, herpes simplex infections, genital = warts, pubic=20 lice, scabies); enteric diseases (infections with Shigella species,=20 Campylobacter jejuni, Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia lamblia, hepatitis = A,=20 hepatitis B, hepatitis non-A, non-B, and cytomegalovirus); trauma (fecal = incontinence, hemorrhoids, anal fissure, foreign bodies, rectosigmoid = tears,=20 allergic proctitis, penile edema, chemical sinusitis, inhaled nitrite = burns, and=20 sexual assault of the male patient); and the acquired immunodeficiency = syndrome=20 (AIDS)."

PHARMACOTHERAPY. 1982 = Jan-Feb;2(1):32-42.=20 Enteric diseases of homosexual men, by Baker RW, Peppercorn MA: = "Certain enteric ailments are particularly common among homosexual men. = They are=20 primarily infectious diseases and include not only such common venereal = diseases=20 as gonorrhea and syphilis but also infections not usually regarded as = being=20 sexually transmitted. Among the latter are shigellosis, salmonellosis,=20 giardiasis, and amebiasis."

MR. ARNOLD: "You support a system = that=20 oppresses masses in the society that claims to give people equal rights = for all.=20 Sane or insane?"

Since when has illegalizing = behavior that=20 leads to rectitis, penile edema, anal fissure, fecal incontinence, = rectosigmoid=20 tears, and cambylobacter jejuni been oppressive? =

Yes, the decision to engage in = anal sex is a=20 personal choice. But those who do must realize the physical = consequences=20 they will likely suffer. And in some countries, legal=20 consequences.

Sorry if anyone was not braced for = the rather=20 grotesque medical documenation. But we're Americans. We know = all=20 about the gushy-gushy love presented on TV and in the movies. = Shouldn't we=20 have a grip on the reality of what happens deep in the bedrooms of those = who are=20 making personal choices to "love each other"?

I could not just sit idly by and = let this=20 debate go on, without bringing forward the much neglected and=20 shoved-beneath-the-covers medical literature. It seemed like the = only just=20 thing to do for this forum, and those who are actually trying = to sort=20 out the good of the Moscow community.

Let's get the facts on the = table. Now we=20 can continue the debate on whether and which personal choices should be=20 legislated.

John Moss

For a reference on any of the = medical terms=20 used above, please refer to the online version of the Merriam Webster = Medical=20 Dictionary at http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH?t=3D9276.

----- Original Message -----

From:=20 Donovan Arnold

Wow. I haven't checked out C/A for a while...months upon months... I've read online but now I'm thinking I don't want to! LOL I have some cynical tendancies that make me appreciate his humour but I definitely have to be in a certain mood for it and I guess I haven't been. Perhaps it's because it does go on so. Overkill. We enjoy listening to DW sermons online though and we do have the Modesty set. Hmm, does sound like a contradiction... For sure, I'm with you all the way on Kinkade...bleck.

Posted by Tamara at June 30, 2003 01:39 PM

Des,

D. Stambler doesn't have a church, he has an agenda to take out Christ Church. It's absolutely NOT the same as anything I have "against" Doug Wilson.

I have read Doug Wilson's books for several years now, and have really enjoyed much he has had to say about issues and Christianity, etc. I've become a more critical reader of his things since AAPC 2002 though.

On this weblog I have written quite a few times about Doug Wilson. Mr. Stambler takes this as evidence that I'm on his "side". I am not on his or anyone's "side".

I do firmly believe that some of his teachings are in error, that his desire to change some of the language we use particularly in Reformed circles is unneccesary --even dangerous. It does not make him a "heretic" to be hedging on Truth's edge, I sure hope there is a high hedge on it's edge.

Doug Wilson just seems, from down in the hinterling areas of the US, to be creating a Mecca in ID. This is subjective and purely not something that we all can understand outside of Moscow. Mr. Stambler is the loan voice of dissent, but it's not so cut and dry. His agenda goes far beyond "heretical teachings" He's not fond of the Reformed faith, Calvin, and so much more. He despises it.

No person that despises the Reformed faith is my close ally. Allies are folk that believe the same things, with differences being in little things. Between D.S. and D.W., who'd be considered my ally? D.W.

I have seen no evidence that Christ Church is "falling apart", it may be true, but that will have to wait for better reporting from that part of the Country.

Mr. Stambler has made some very heavy accusations around the interent, about the personage of Doug Wilson. I have nothing to do with that. I have no agenda against him [D. Wilson] as a person. I have desire for him to stay in the Reformed faith and not have him saying that he is, but that I'm {me} not really "Reformed".

That's in a nutshell, the gist of why I'm more careful with D. Wilson writings and sermons.

As for the "twisted theology" that D. Stambler refers to: it's some scandalous stuff "said to be going on in Moscow", as well as Calvinism, Reformed stuff in general.

I'd love to hear someone in Moscow truly report on the condition of Christ Church. D. Stambler ain't the one to do it. Neither am I. I just know that I've heard and read "troubling things" in D. Wilsons AAPC 2002 stuff as well as Post AAPC 2002. The sarcasm coming out of Moscow has gotten very stale and moldy as well. Straight talk has a high place in understanding what someone is talking about. I'm waiting for it, still.

Posted by Marysue at August 11, 2003 05:29 AM

I'm still relatively new to all this Reformed stuff... As a result, I find this contraversy a tad confusing. What's your opinion of H. King's analysis of D. Wilson/AAPC 2002? Also, could you define your use of the term "mecca"? I know what my dictionary says and if you mean "creating a place that people with certain interests are eager to visit" than I'd say he's certainly done that and as long as he's on the up-n-up theologically you can count on us stopping in the Kirk the next time we're visiting relatives in Spokane. If you mean creating a place of worship revolving around *him*, that is obviously wrong and worthy of great concern. If you mean creating a cohesive *community* based on a certain denominational faith, well, I see some definite benefits. It seems there are others out there with the same idea. P. Lancaster/Misty Mtn., RCJr./Highlands Study Center. (Forgive me, I could be associating wrong names w/ wrong places, etc. Like I said, I'm still relatively new to! all of this.) In which case, the problem w/ him creating this kind of community is *if* his theology is wrong...correct? I'm probably stepping in where I have no intellectual right to be...

Posted by Tamara (AK) at August 12, 2003 12:24 AM

Tamara,

I understand that this is a confusing issue. It is for newcomers to the Reformed faith, and for folks in it a long time already.

There are a few basic issues that are dividing the Reformed into particular camps. Not every camp is unto itself, it's very mixed up.

There's:
Paedocommunion - and this issue isn't two-sided, it multi-faceted

Norman Shepherd or "Sheperdism"
Kinnard of the OPC

New Perspective on Paul or "NPP"

These things are tangled together and not always easy to see clear lines of distinction.

In 2002 at the AAPC in Monroe, LA, four men, now known as "The Monroe Four" spoke on the relationship of the covenant.

To put it mildly, it stirred up a hornets nest.

If you are able to download the Mp3's from Sermon Audio still, you can find them on Schlissel's part of that site. There are 13 separate Mp3's to download.

In these lectures, things were said that put Justification by Faith Alone aside. New paradigms were introduced. It was troubling to listen to them, and really, worse than that.

In June of that year, the RPCUS came out with a document against NPP, and a document calling on the authority of the churches the Monroe Four are with, to look into their "heretical teachings". These documents were released together and caused quite a stir. They were separate documents, but had become glued at the hip by the internet community overnight

The men were said to be "teaching heretical things" and were NOT called "heretics".

Unfortunately sides were drawn and mud began to fly back and forth. Each side claims the other slang the mud only. It was on both sides, but it must be noted that the side the Monroe Four were on got quite nasty, and D.W. continued to issue forth sarcastic writings, instead of serious answers.

In the AAPC 2002 audio, the Westminster Confession of faith was mocked somewhat, and "Southern Presbyterians" were accused of being nothing more than "Reformed Baptists". The most noteworthy "Southern Presbyterians" would be the ones in the RPCUS, which is the denomination the church we are members of is in. So we've seen this whole thing firsthand.

The role that faith plays in our salvation, justification and sanctification has been re-worded, at best it's a re-wording, but clarifications have shown it's worse than that. It's a faith + works thing, vhelmently denied it's meritorious works, but in the end that's what it shows.

The New Perspective on Paul shows this
Sheperdism shows this
Schillsel shows this
Wilson shows this
Barach shows this
Wilkens shows this

Paedocommunion is an issue that is at the forefront. It's not supposed to be practiced in the PCA or the OPC, but some places are allowing it, wrongfully, and other pastors believe in it, but don't practice it in their churches. The thing about the AAPC and things since that conference, is that paedocommunion is being tauted as being "what the Westminster Confession teaches" what the "Reformers taught" and that it's a historic tradition accepted all through the Christian age, basically. That's hogwash.

As my pastor says: "Calvin's name can be invoked to have said anything. It doesn't mean he said it. Context is important. One has to read Calvin to know what he taught. Don't just believe someone when they say he taught it. Don't give them the benifit of doubt, look into it yourself."

OK now, as for the MECCA stuff, I'm not talking about covenant communties. That's no problem. I'm referring to a tendancy for everyone to bow to Moscow, ID. Doug Wilson has written some good stuff over the years, taught some good things. He's straying, but that's not the point. He's just a man, and the attitude of "HOW GREAT" it is in Moscow, Christ Church, it's cult-ish. I'm NOT saying they are a cult. What I mean by "cult-ish" is that he's reverd by many as if he is doing no wrong, and invoked as much as saying "I'm of Paul", or "I'm of Apollos" or "I'm Of Cepahs" ect.That's fully what I mean. Mecca, the place all bow to for prayer in Islam, it's a reference to that kind of thing. The place to journey to, a pilgrimage ... :)

Do you have a link to H. King's analysis of Doug Wilson? I have seen his critique of the Auburn Avenue July 18, 2002 document. Are you referring to something else?

The Auburn Ave. document came down as a very unclear statement to me. It confused things, and very much caused more of a stir in the Reformed camps.

Rewording things is part of this whole thing, giving new names to existing categories. It's a way to confuse a generation, and gain a step in another direction that will be fully realized in another generation or two.

Well, that's just the short of it. I hope I've not confused you more! Nor turned you off. The general feeling out there is to read everything critically, when it comes to this controversial stuff particularly, so read this just that same way. :)

Posted by Marysue at August 12, 2003 01:04 AM

Just so you know, as a member in good standing of Christ Church in Moscow, I intend to respond to your plea for realistic news sometime today or tomorrow. :)

Posted by Fred at August 13, 2003 09:01 AM

First off, I should explain my position. I am a student at New Saint Andrews College, and as such I have been away from Moscow all summer. Some things have changed. But I will try to fill you in on how I see things in Moscow, especially with regards to recent controversies.

The condition of the church. Christ Church continues to grow, in numbers and in understanding of the gospel. Because of the growth in numbers, they have recently started a church plant also in Moscow, headed by Dr. Peter Leithart. The elders recognize the difficulty of effectively shepherding a congregation that was pushing 1000, and they have decided on the strategy of starting a new congregation. Since Dr. Leithart's plant, Trinity Reformed Church, has only been in operation for a few weeks, the success of their efforts remains to be seen.

All of the ministries of Christ Church are growing and doing well. God has been blessing them enormously. Notable in this regard is New Saint Andrews with its new building and enrollment of (I imagine near) 150 this fall. I think their website has some information, www.nsa.edu.

As far as theology goes, I must state that in all my years of church going (which have been varied), I have never heard a preacher emphasize God's love for his people the way Doug Wilson does. In nearly every sermon, I walk away thinking how wonderful God is to me in everything, from salvation (most of all) and sanctification to grass stains and rubber tires. The church has a solid head on its shoulders, and the worship is becoming more and more Christ-centered as the church works through its philosophy in this area.

I want to briefly address the Credenda stuff. I admit I have wondered about whether or not Credenda has gone a little far with its recent covers. It's one thing to defend good satire, it's another when the cover merely scandalizes. That said, I do not feel that voicing complaints about the magazine on a blog to be the proper outlet. The proper outlet is, as Matthew 18 says, going first to your brother - the magazine itself. Because I have not said anything to Nate Wilson about this, I have no right to voice it on a blog. But even theological greats have had their embarassing moments (e.g., Luther and the book of James). I do not see a pattern in Credenda of over-reaching satirical stupidity. Yet.

As far as Doug Stambler goes, the church is ignoring him, as should everyone who runs across this lunatic. 'Nuff said.

Did I address everything adequately?

Posted by Fred at August 13, 2003 09:51 PM

General	$477,413.01
Street Dept	$76,100.29
HUD Reserve
Parks & Rec	$138,651.70
1912 Center	$2,453.45
Arts	$7,226.13
Water Fund	$81,575.65
Sewer Fund	$114,059.67
Sanitation	$171,783.98
Fleet Mgmt Fund	$19,587.19
WWTP Construction
Capital Projects
LID Construction	$1,000.00
Hamilton Indoor Rec Ctr	$155,004.23
Bond & Interest
LID Special Assessment
TOTALS	$1,244,855.30

General	$477,413.01
Street Dept	$76,100.29
HUD Reserve
Parks & Rec	$138,651.70
1912 Center	$2,453.45
Arts	$7,226.13
Water Fund	$81,575.65
Sewer Fund	$114,059.67
Sanitation	$171,783.98
Fleet Mgmt Fund	$19,587.19
WWTP Construction
Capital Projects
LID Construction	$1,000.00
Hamilton Indoor Rec Ctr	$155,004.23
Bond & Interest
LID Special Assessment
TOTALS	$1,244,855.30

General	468,195.42
Street Dept	105,568.82
HUD Reserve
Parks & Rec	173,155.83
1912 Center	5,401.07
Arts	8,635.33
Water Fund	155,029.60
Sewer Fund	98,055.96
Sanitation	170,877.11
Fleet Mgmt Fund	34,737.11
WWTP Construction
Capital Projects	147,123.69
LID Construction	31,705.68
Hamilton Indoor Rec Ctr	116,893.50
Bond & Interest
LID Special Assessment
TOTALS	1,475,379.12

PUBLIC WORKS/FINANCE = COMMITTEE

CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS

SPECIAL MEETING

= REGULAR MEETING

REGULAR MEETING

REGULAR MEETING

from: http://www.hyperthinking.us/weblog/ - posted by "MarySue"

********************************************************************

Credenda's Agenda

From the issue: "True DefianceA Memorial to Black Confederates "

************************************************

Quotations on Black Confederates

Debunking Racial Rights

April 02, 2003

Race Admissions

Odd Thoughts

In keeping with those that want us to tone our terms down a bit, I think that we should stop refering to each other as "bloggers." The B-word is too offensive and should be replaced by the more civilized version: Bloggroes.

These organizations offer hope for healing from homosexuality

These organizations offer hope for healing from homosexuality

PUBLIC WORKS/FINANCE = COMMITTEE

CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS

February 03, 2003

Wisdom, Doug Wilson: what "brand" does he have?

PUBLIC WORKS/FINANCE = COMMITTEE

CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS

PUBLIC WORKS/FINANCE COMMITTEE

CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS

REGULAR MEETING


Above: Gore greets diner patrons in Scranton, a city he called "the absolute worst place on Earth."


	Above: The skyline of Pittsburgh, which Gore called "maybe even worse than Scranton."