[Vision2020] Fw: Re: Leonard Pitts Jr: The Triumph of Igorance

Fri Nov 5 10:29:59 PDT 2010

Joe
Take a tranquilizer.  I never intended for any of this to be off list. I hit "reply all" on all my responses. If you intended for it to be off list, It was not obvious. I usually honor requests for off list posting. The heading here had been on list and I assumed it still was. Will some one please show me where I have been offensive and Joe has been the model of civility and decorum.
Joe, for your information, I sometimes vote for democrats. I voted for Butch this time, but I do like Keth Allred and think he would have been a good governor. I am also a member of his group "The Common Interest."

Roger
-----Original message-----

From: Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 10:53:23 -0700
To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Leonard Pitts Jr: The Triumph of Igorance

You are a liar. You are offensive and narrow minded. If your last email can't convince you of this, the one with the offensive, misleading comments about democrats, nothing will. I voted for Tom Trail, you vote for inexperienced bigots who refuse to answer reasonable questions. You give Republicans a bad name and would serve them better by keeping your mouth shut.

And criticizing your stupid, misspelled comments is not the same as insulting you, you jackass. Keep this letter to remind yourself of the difference and DO NOT contact me off list again. I'll keep my comments to exposing your never ending string of fallacies.

On Nov 2, 2010, at 10:32 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:

> Joe 
> speak for your self on being offensive. I have  tried to carry on a civil discussion. You twist my words to represent me as the opposite of what I said Apparently any thing that does not agree with your opinion is offensive and narrow minded. So much for being an objective philosophy professor.
> Roger
> -----Original message-----
> From: Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 15:15:57 -0700
> To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Leonard Pitts Jr: The Triumph of Igorance
> 
>> I cut and pasted the sentence, Roger. You reread your own sentences.
>> I'm done talking to you. You are offensive and narrow minded, based on
>> your last post if nothing else. I want to talk to people who have a
>> chance of hearing me. You don't. Sorry but life is short!
>> 
>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 10:31 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
>>> Joe
>>> Re-read my first sentence where I quoted the 1st Amendment verbatim.I said "exercise".The sentence you referenced was not an exact quote. The difference between exercise and express in the sence in which it was used is a matter of semantics.
>>> Your sentence-"The issue is allowing me to partake in  my own religious practices, as I see fit: to exercise my religious freedom." is what I have been saying all along. No where have I ever said that I favor laws favoring the establishment on one religion over another. I would be vehemently opposed to any laws doing so.
>>> The University is a public place. When I worked there, I shared an office for a time with a Moslem. He asked me if it was alright with me if he said his noon prayer in the office. I told him that "as long as it did not interfere  with what I was doing go right ahead." Every day at noon he got out his little carpet, kneeled on it and said his prayers. This was fine with me. It did me no harm.
>>> Roger
>>> -----Original message-----
>>> From: Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
>>> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 15:07:12 -0700
>>> To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Leonard Pitts Jr: The Triumph of Igorance
>>> 
>>>> Well the second amendment doesn't say anything about armor piercing
>>>> bullets. And why not just understand "arms" the way the framers of the
>>>> constitution understood it, as referring to the kinds of arms that
>>>> they had back then? Why assume they meant what we mean by "arms"
>>>> today?
>>>> 
>>>> I'm just applying the "fundamentalist" criteria you applied to the
>>>> first amendment on your interpretation of the second. Why not be
>>>> consistent? I have no problem with the second amendment as you
>>>> understand it.
>>>> 
>>>> Of course, let's not forget about Amendment IX: "The enumeration in
>>>> the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or
>>>> disparage others retained by the people." This blows a hole in the
>>>> myth of absolute rights. Sorry it wasn't me who did it but the framers
>>>> of our Constitution.
>>>> 
>>>> Also, wrt the first amendment, you wrote: "What it says is that no
>>>> state religion  is to be established and that every one has the right
>>>> to express their religious beliefs or lack there of." But it doesn't
>>>> say this at all. It doesn't use the word "express" it uses the word
>>>> "exercise." The issue isn't about voicing my religious views, which is
>>>> already covered by the free speech portion of the first amendment. The
>>>> issue is allowing me to partake in my own religious practices, as I
>>>> see fit; to exercise my religious freedom. Kind of hard to do if we
>>>> make laws favoring one religion over another. Your radical religious
>>>> friends are no fans of the first amendment, correctly understood.
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 11:03 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
>>>>> Joe
>>>>> 2nd Amendment
>>>>> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
>>>>> That is what the Constitution says, which I support.
>>>>> Roger
>>>>> -----Original message-----
>>>>> From: Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
>>>>> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 16:47:53 -0700
>>>>> To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Leonard Pitts Jr:  The Triumph of Igorance
>>>>> 
>>>>>> No where in the constitution does it say that individuals have a right to bear semi-automatic rifles.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So you must be for gun control, Roger!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Oct 25, 2010, at 11:56 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The First Amendment
>>>>>>> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,or prohibiting the free exercise there of; or abridging the freedom of speech,or of the press,or the right of people peaceably to assemble, and or to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
>>>>>>> No where is there any thing said about the separation of church and state. What it says is that no state religion  is to be established and that every one has the right to express their religious beliefs or lack there of. The "separation of church and state" comes from an article written by Thomas Jefferson in which he said "There should be a wall of separation between church and state" ,but it no where in the Constitution.
>>>>>>> Roger
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -----Original message-----
>>>>>>> From: "Art Deco" deco at moscow.com
>>>>>>> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 10:24:30 -0700
>>>>>>> To: "Vision 2020" vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>>>> Subject: [Vision2020] Leonard Pitts Jr:  The Triumph of Igorance
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> LEONARD PITTS JR.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> We don't deserve this
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> - from the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States That's for Christine O'Donnell.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> "Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?" she asked last week, drawing gasps and astonished laughter from an audience of law school students.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Chris Coons, her Democratic opponent for a Delaware Senate seat, replied that in asking the question, O'Donnell shows "fundamental misunderstanding of what our Constitution is. ... The First Amendment establishes the separation ..."
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> O'Donnell wasn't buying it.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> "The First Amendment does? ...
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> So you're telling me that the separation of church and state, the phrase 'separation of church and state,' is found in the First Amendment?"
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> It was a bizarre exchange that permits but two conclusions. One, O'Donnell is frighteningly ignorant, particularly for a woman who claims constitutional expertise and aspires to the Senate. Or, two, assuming you buy her after-the-fact explanation (she was merely observing that the phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the First Amendment), she is terribly disingenuous.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> After all, the framers' intention to isolate church from state and vice versa is evident in the amendment's wording and is a matter of long-settled law, besides. The phrase "freedom of expression" doesn't appear in the First Amendment, either.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Would O'Donnell question that right, too?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Maybe I shouldn't ask.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> While one is appalled by O'Donnell's ignorance and/or disingenuousness, one is not surprised. The capacity to be surprised by her died long ago, victim of revelations that she once "dabbled" in witchcraft.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> And was the subject of an IRS lien. And said people with AIDS brought the disease upon themselves. And was sued for nonpayment by her college and mortgage company. And was cited eight times by the Federal Elections Commission And thinks scientists have created mice with human brains.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> That this woman is a major party candidate for national office, that she is among the brightest stars of a constellation of like-minded cranks - some of them already in office - tells you all you need to know about this moment in our political life. Welcome to the United States of Amnesia.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Somehow we have forgotten the lesson we spent most of the last decade learning at ruinous cost: that faith-based governance, foreign policy by gut instinct, choosing leaders on the basis of which one we'd most like to watch television with, simply does not work.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Some say this is a conservative revolution, but this is no conservatism Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater would have recognized. At least their ideology adhered to an interior logic. This ideology adheres to a perverse "illogic" that posits that the less you know, the more authentic you are. So what triumphs here is not conservatism, but rather, mediocrity. The Know Nothings and Flat Earthers are ascendant. But intellect matters.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Knowledge is good. And what's it tell you that that point even needs to be made?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> In a recent debate, O'Donnell was asked to name a modern Supreme Court decision to which she objects. "Oh, gosh," she said. "Give me a specific one, I'm sorry. ... Right off the top of my head, I know that there are a lot, but I'll put it up on my website, I promise you."
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Some of us are reminded of how candidate George W. Bush kept calling Greeks "Grecians."
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Some of us remember how the electorate shrugged off that evidence of looming gaps in his basic knowledge because he had a folksy way and twinkling eyes. Some of us remember how that came out.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Others apparently don't.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Others are ready to travel that road again. It brings to mind an old saying: we get the leaders we deserve.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> You and I better hope that's not true.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Leonard Pitts Jr. is a columnist for the Miami Herald.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>>>>>               http://www.fsr.net
>>>>>>>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Leonard Pitts Jr: The Triumph of Igorance
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 10:53:23 -0700
Size: 13648
Url: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20101105/2da14db7/attachment-0001.mht 