[quote="justmom"]

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

The thing is, cartoons aren't real, and therefore lack all credibility.

Due to various parallels and patterns, millions and millions of mainstream Americans, even many conservative Republicans, actually stopped and entertained the notion that Wellstone's death may not have been an accident. quote]

"Millions and Millions"? Prove it. I dare you. Go right ahead and show me anything at all that proves that "Millions and Millions" of Americans even remotely considered that he was murdered.

Well, Alex, I found the site where Stonwall gets his stupid political cartoons. And guess what else I found? I found that it has had less than 600,000 hits since 1999. Check it out here

That's the number of cartoons. Not the number of hits. Mom.

[quote="buzzard44"]

Originally Posted by justmom

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

The thing is, cartoons aren't real, and therefore lack all credibility.

Due to various parallels and patterns, millions and millions of mainstream Americans, even many conservative Republicans, actually stopped and entertained the notion that Wellstone's death may not have been an accident. quote]

"Millions and Millions"? Prove it. I dare you. Go right ahead and show me anything at all that proves that "Millions and Millions" of Americans even remotely considered that he was murdered.

Well, Alex, I found the site where Stonwall gets his stupid political cartoons. And guess what else I found? I found that it has had less than 600,000 hits since 1999. Check it out here

That's the number of cartoons. Not the number of hits. Mom.

No, it's not. It's just next to the by-line. If you don't believe me hit your "refresh" button.

Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by justmom

Well, justifiable, yes and no.
The Ports claim they've promised that no body currently employed will loose their jobs.

two things:

first, a pet peeve of mine-- it's lose, not loose, their jobs. to "loose" one's job is to "let it loose", implying, at the very least, quitting.

second, if the port's claim is in fact the case, then it is not justifiable (in this case) at all. but let's be honest-- the only reason they would keep their jobs when an obvious efficiency has been achieved is due to the union's threat of walkout (or what have you).

personally, i think the "excesses of the unions" (as i believe scott '63 put it) could easily be curbed (if not "broken" as you suggest) if society as a whole accepted the fact that social insurance is needed to protect those that are left behind in the wake of technological and economic progress. that way, the burden would not fall upon specific employers or even industries, causing them to reduce efficiency in order to placate labor. instead, society itself would accept this as a cost of progress. it's a numbers game, really, on par with how insurance companies operate-- if the risk is spread amongst the largest population possible, the cost to any individual is minimized.

currently, the left champions such programs in the name of social equality and the right attacks them as inhibiting individual responsibility. but really, they both miss the point.


TK

TK, if you go around correcting my spelling, you've cut out an enormous task for yourself. :wink:

Talking the viability of the unions has kinda gotten off track. I'll let you and Scott have the last word.

Originally Posted by David '47

Originally Posted by justmom

Stand back peasants! And let the Children of God enlighten you.

1. NO the 3rd horse isn't commerce.
It doesn't go, a conqueror conquering the world, then war, then evil corporate capilitalist take over then death.

The third horse is Famine.
Remember Prof.. context,context, context.....

After performing a little research, I managed to find so many variations on a theme that I'll agree to accept famine if you agree that the only ones who starve are the poor. Context: "... hurt not the oil and wine.", which were only available to those who could afford them and manage to be spared.

I found several references to Levitticus, regarding the scales and selling grain by measure. I also found references to Zorastrianism. In fact, those are the oldest references. Here's a chronology of the topic. What is it with people that they dwell on this subject?

Personally, I find it to be interesting hogwash, but it has all the ultra-sex and ultra-violence anyone could ask.

I will grant you that. (only the poor are affected ) I can see how that conclusion can be drawn.

However since I don't think it is Hogwash, but, Gospel :wink: I don't take
extra-biblical sources as as reliable as the Bible.

It's always very interesting to me the variety of people who will discuss The Book of Revelation. Believers and non-Believers alike. I alway wonder as a Believer what draws the non-Believer. Seems like a pretty
horrific book to be dwelling on, given the alternatives in the other books.

Originally Posted by scott '63

- My own employer thought that he could deduct from the pay of his salaried employees if they didn't record 40 hours work every week.

That is quite legal if you are paid on a hourly not daily or weekly basis.

I don't have the answer for curbing the excesses of labor unions but I am very reluctant to wish them gone entirely.

Proper laws which respect the reasonable rights of both unions and employers and the abolishment of mininum wage laws would be a start. Heavy labour market regulation is a bad thing, ask the Australians or Europeans it leads to chornic welfare dependency and very high unemployment. Low unemployment leads to a competitve labour market and rising wages.

Originally Posted by Sanford

Originally Posted by justmom

I have a suggestion for you. Get rid of the filthy crap in your party.
When they absorb and accept groups like NAMBLA, what do you really expect?

To put things simply, I'm with you on all your points. (I had to lok up what NAMBLA was. Geez, are the Dems really dumb enough to associate closely with them?

Of course not. It's another lie spread by the Republican Party and the religious nuts. They have no shame. Same crowd that put out that piece of crap video about the "Clinton murders." And they have the nerve to call themselves Christians.

I'm croaking with you, Tank Girl. We all have to be careful about stepping in that "filthy crap." I check my shoes after every visit to T4T. Smutty moms and silly farm animals leave a lot of droppings, you know.

Don't forget to wash in Compound W.

Originally Posted by Tank Girl

And they have the nerve to call themselves Christians.

Who made you the standard bearer of Christianity?
As soon as you write an epistle, I will consider your opinon.

Until then........editorial

NAMBLA opposes setting any age of consent. At any rate, as Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) has observed, "It's not a Gay issue" -- as long as the age of consent applies equally regardless of sexual orientation.

Barney while being not quite the average Dem, was elected by Democrats, and even during the Prostitution-in-his-own-home scandal, was never recalled by his constituents.

Therefore I would have to conclude the Dem's supported Mr. Frank and his
politics.

But, to be entirely fair, during my search I found that over the past 5 years, even the gay and lesbian groups have disassociated themselves from Nambla. One group who does continue to support Nambla is the ACLU.

Originally Posted by justmom

One group who does continue to support Nambla is the ACLU.

Actually, I'm fairly certain that, rather than supporting the organization (as you imply) the ACLU is simply acting out the sentiment voiced by Voltaire, to wit:

"I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."

A noble sentiment, regardless of whose speech is at issue. Rights affect us all; those which any one of us lacks (to any degree), all people lack (in every degree).

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by justmom

One group who does continue to support Nambla is the ACLU.

Actually, I'm fairly certain that, rather than supporting the organization (as you imply) the ACLU is simply acting out the sentiment voiced by Voltaire, to wit:

"I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."

A noble sentiment, regardless of whose speech is at issue. Rights affect us all; those which any one of us lacks (to any degree), all people lack (in every degree).

Where is that sentiment on the ACLU's part where Evangelical Christians are concerned?

Originally Posted by jds1958xg

Where is that sentiment on the ACLU's part where Evangelical Christians are concerned?

Agreed. I'm not rushing to anyone's defense; only pointing out the flaws in mom's train of logic. Though I wonder when evangelicals (since there's an 'open' one in the White House) were ever a politically endangered class. It's true anyway that rights must adhere equally to the underdog as the overlord.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by jds1958xg

Where is that sentiment on the ACLU's part where Evangelical Christians are concerned?

Though I wonder when evangelicals (since there's an 'open' one in the White House) were ever a politically endangered class. It's true anyway that rights must adhere equally to the underdog as the overlord.

Anybody else wanna field this one? I am getting tired of doing web searches.

Justin, consider my last comment like filler at the bottom of a newspaper column.

The ACLU likes to "raise hell", not protect rights. They never defend a Christian's right to free practice of religion, and they never defend anyone's Second Amendment Rights. The ACLU is not a 4T type of outfit, as they specialize in division, not unification.

Justin:

Though I wonder when evangelicals (since there's an 'open' one in the White House) were ever a politically endangered class.

That depends on what you believe evangelical Christians are due -- or, to put it another way, what you think their rights are.

If evangelical Christians have the right to dominate American culture and define our values, as they seem to believe in many cases, then their rights have indeed been curtailed, pretty steadily and increasingly, over the past century or so, as those values have ceased to be the dominant ones in our culture.

If, on the other hand, evangelical Christians have only the same rights as everyone else -- to freely practice their religion, to express their views in the same fora as others without either hindrance or privilege, and to enjoy the same protections as other religions (but without official sanction or approval), then they have never been in any danger, and there has never been occasion for the ACLU to take up their defense.

Oh no no no no, you are way off target. We don't want the ACLU to defend us.

Originally Posted by justmom

Oh no no no no, you are way off target. We don't want the ACLU to defend us.

Oh? Why not?

Originally Posted by TrollKing

two things:

first, a pet peeve of mine-- it's lose, not loose, their jobs. to "loose" one's job is to "let it loose", implying, at the very least, quitting.

second, if the port's claim is in fact the case, then it is not justifiable (in this case) at all. but let's be honest-- the only reason they would keep their jobs when an obvious efficiency has been achieved is due to the union's threat of walkout (or what have you).

personally, i think the "excesses of the unions" (as i believe scott '63 put it) could easily be curbed (if not "broken" as you suggest) if society as a whole accepted the fact that social insurance is needed to protect those that are left behind in the wake of technological and economic progress. that way, the burden would not fall upon specific employers or even industries, causing them to reduce efficiency in order to placate labor. instead, society itself would accept this as a cost of progress. it's a numbers game, really, on par with how insurance companies operate-- if the risk is spread amongst the largest population possible, the cost to any individual is minimized.

TK

OK, TK - How would you suggest society carry this out without overtaxing people?

How will you account for the fact that national productivity would go down if you just started writing checks to people? There are whole generations out there whose work ethic was replaced by the welfare ethic: "I don't have to work, the government OWES me a check".

What will you do when national productivity drops to zero when there are more people on the dole than working?

How can you morally justify a bunch of parsitic deadbeats living off of those who work 9 to 5 each day?

I await a discussion of the grand plan that takes all of these matters into account.

Oh, and also, when you finally have your communist state, how will you keep it from becoming like the old Soviet Union, where you didn't have rich people (money-wise), but those in control lived richly while the average Russian was at or near the poverty level.

Read Orwells _ANIMAL FARM_ for a discussion of this.

Taka

When America crumbles like the Soviet Union, I think the Christians should be moved up to North Dakota with all the genomes of my essentialy food supply. That way, I'd be well-fed and sleep better, 'cause we really wouldn't need the ACLU any longer.

Originally Posted by angeli

Originally Posted by justmom

Oh no no no no, you are way off target. We don't want the ACLU to defend us.

Oh? Why not?

Because.


The Real Issue

Trial and Error: The ACLU and Religious Expression

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meet the Author: George Grant
George Grant, a graduate from the University of Houston, is the founder of HELP Services and is the executive director of Legacy Communications. He has been a pastor, community organizer, radio and television commentator, editorial director, and political advisor. He has written 12 books ranging in topics from homelessness to Biblical principles for political action.



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

When it comes to the Christian faith, the spokesmen, policy-makers, and attorneys for the ACLU have made their position painfully clear: they're against it. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Although they have fought for the free speech and expression "rights" of pornographers, witches, abortionists, homosexuals, convicted criminals, child molesters, occultists, Communists, lesbians, Nazis, illegal aliens, AIDS patients, and Satanists, they have resolutely attempted to deny those same privileges to Christians. As a result, according to Richard and Susan Vigilante, they have effectively reduced "the place of religion in American life" and have restricted religious speech "in a way they would never allow other forms of speech to be restricted." [1]

Their discriminatory intolerance is a matter of record. [2] Recently, they have sought to:


Halt the singing of Christmas carols like "Silent Night" and "Away in a Manger" in public facilities;

Deny the tax-exempt status of all churches--yet maintaining it for themselves as well as for various occult groups;

Disallow prayer--not just in the public school classrooms, but in locker rooms, sports arenas, graduation exercises, and legislative assemblies;

Terminate all military and prison chaplains;

Deny Christian school children access to publicly funded services;

Eliminate nativity scenes, crosses, and other Christian symbols from public property;

Repeal all blue law statutes;

Prohibit voluntary Bible reading in public schools--even during free time or after classes;

Remove the words In God We Trust from our coins;

Deny accreditation to science departments at Bible-believing Christian Universities;

Prevent the posting of the Ten Commandments in classrooms;

Terminate all voucher programs and tuition tax credits;

Prohibit census questions about religious affiliation;

Purge the words under God from the Pledge of Allegiance.
As Patrick Buchanan has all too obviously pointed out, "That is not a record of tolerance." [3]

Interestingly, the ACLU is led into this absurd contradiction of its stated purpose because it sees the Christian faith as "an almost irresistible persuasive force." [4] Gadfly liberal columnist Nat Hentoff has said that the ACLU seems to be "afraid of making religious speech first-class speech, the way all other speech is" because it really ascribes "extraordinary powers to religious speech." [5] In other words, the ACLU fears Christianity in a way that it fears nothing else.

Of course, its fear is cloaked in high-sounding Constitutional concerns--its bigotry is not overly blatant. It makes much ado over the principle of "separation of church and state." It brandishes the idea of "the wall of separation" like a saber. And it fixates on the "establishment clause" of the First Amendment. According to Barry Lynn, the ACLU's Legislative Director:

There is clearly a distinction made between religious speech and activity and any other speech and activity...There is an establishment clause which limits and tempers only religious speech and activity. There is no establishment clause which in any way limits economic, cultural, historical, or philosophical expression. Thus, the state may embrace any economic, political, or philosophical theory; it may not embrace or enhance any religious activity. [6]

Thus, according to the ACLU, the Christian faith is so powerful, so dangerous, and so intrusive that the founding fathers had to design the Constitution in order to protect us from it. Despite the fact that such a reading of history is convoluted at best, the ACLU has been very successful in pressing it upon our courts, schools, and communities all across the country. For all intents and purposes, says Russell Kirk, it has been able to "harass out of existence" public expressions of faith. [7]


Separation of Church and State
The ACLU's almost Bolshevik understanding of the separation of church and state was by no means shared by America's framers. In fact, they readily admitted that their new nation was utterly dependent upon a Christian social order--and its incumbent Christian influences. America was founded as a Christian nation.
Joseph Story, the foremost historian of the founding era, underscored this truth in his book, Commentaries on the Constitution, published in 1833:

The First Amendment was not intended to withdraw the Christian religion as a whole from the protection of Congress. At the time, the general if not universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state so far as was compatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of worship. Any attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference would have created universal indignation. [8]

More than a century later liberal Supreme Court Justice William 0. Douglas reaffirmed that historical verity:

We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. We guarantee the freedom to worship as one chooses. We make room for as wide a variety of beliefs and creeds as the spiritual needs of man deem necessary. We sponsor an attitude on the part of government that shows no partiality to any one group and that lets each flourish according to the zeal of its adherents and the appeal of its dogma. When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not, would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. We find no such Constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence. [9]

Justice Douglas went on to assert without hesitation that, "The First Amendment does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of church and state." [10]

It is true that the Founding Fathers designed the Constitution to clearly differentiate between church and state. There was to be no intermingling. They were to be separate institutions--with separate jurisdictions, separate authorities, and separate functions. They knew that a Christian social order depends on this kind of distinction. When any one institution begins to encroach upon another, chaos and tyranny inevitably result. The Biblical notion of checks and balances begins to break down. They knew that from personal experience.

Thus, they made certain that the state could not meddle in the affairs of the church. The church was to be outside the state's jurisdiction. This really is the force of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The state has no authority over the church and therefore was not to regulate, impede, or interfere in its work. Local municipalities and even individual commonwealths were free to render support to the church--as often they did--but never were they to have control over it. Certainly they were never to gag the church in the manner the ACLU has sought to gag it.

The framers also wanted to make certain that the church did not meddle in the affairs of the state. The state was to be outside the church's jurisdiction. They wanted to protect their fledgling Republic from any and all tyrannies. They wanted to avoid statism--in the form of imperialism, socialism, or even democracy. And they wanted to avoid oligarchy--in the form of caesaro-papism, agathism, or even ecclesiocracy.

Even so, this did not mean that they wanted to ensure that church and state had nothing to do with each other. On the contrary, they simply wanted to clear the way for church and state to cooperate with each other in building a Christian cultural consensus. Church and state were to balance one another. They were to serve one another. They were to check one another. They were to encourage one another. In other words, the founding fathers never envisioned a "wall of separation." Instead, they saw church and state as distinct but cooperative and interdependent. The state was to protect the church with just laws and a righteous restraint upon the citizenry so that the Gospel could do its work in peace and harmony. The state was to do and facilitate good deeds and encourage social enhancement. The church on the other hand, was to teach the Bible--the common standard of law for both church and state. It was to mobilize the forces of mercy, truth, and justice. And it was to expose sin, encourage the magistrates, and train the people.

The framers thus set up the American system as a decentralized, confederated, and self-consciously Christian social structure. It followed the Biblical order of multiple jurisdictions, separate but cooperating, under the sovereignty of God and the rule of His law.

That is a far cry from the ACLU version of Constitutional law.

But the facts are inescapable. Throughout our early history, the necessity of a free and expressive Christian witness was shared by all our great leaders:


George Washington, the hero of the Revolution and the first President under the Constitution, added the pledge, "So help me God," to his inaugural oath, and then stooped to kiss the Bible as an affirmation of his submission to the King of kings and Lord of lords. He later asserted, "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible." [11]

John Adams, the second President, made no secret of the fact that he studied the Bible often and with diligence in order to discern the proper administration of a Christian society. He said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. So great is my veneration of the Bible that the earlier my children begin to read it, the more confident will be my hope that they will prove useful citizens of their country and respectful members of society." [12]

Thomas Jefferson, the primary author of the Declaration of Independence and the third President, was also quite forthright in his acknowledgment of the necessity of a Christian foundation for this Republic. He said, "The Bible is the cornerstone of liberty. A student's perusal of the sacred volume will make him a better citizen, a better father, a better husband." [13]

Benjamin Franklin, the patriarch of the Constitutional Convention, said, "A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know the price of the rights which God has given them, cannot be enslaved." [14]

Andrew Jackson, the country's seventh President, read the Bible daily, and often referred to it as "the Rock on which our Republic rests." [15]

Noah Webster, the great author, educator, and lexicographer said that, "The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures form the basis of all our civil constitution and laws. All the miseries and evils which other nations suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible." [16]

Abraham Lincoln, President of the Union during the tumultuous days of the War Between the States, called the Bible "the best Gift God has ever given to man....But for it we could not know right from wrong." [17] He went on to say that, "It is the duty of nations, as well as of men, to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God and to recognize the sublime truth announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord." [18]

U.S. Grant, the hero of Appomattox and eighteenth President, enjoined his fellow citizens to "Hold fast to the Bible as the sheet-anchor of your liberties; write its precepts in your hearts and practice them in your lives. To the influence of this book we are indebted for all the progress made in true civilization and to this we must look as our guide in the future." [19]

Theodore Roosevelt, the paradigm of American patriotism and President at the turn of the century said, "In this actual world, a churchless community, a community where men have abandoned and scoff at, or ignore their Christian duties, is a community on the rapid down-grade." [20]
Notice, that many of these men were not themselves orthodox Christians. Adams and Jefferson were Unitarians, and Franklin was a deist. But each of them understood the importance of integrating the Christian faith into the fabric of society if the great American experiment of freedom and liberty were to succeed in any measure. They did not--and in fact, could not--imagine a separation between faith and polity, between individual morality and civic morality.
Even if the voices of those great men were silenced by the subverters of our history, the rocks and stones themselves would cry out.

In our public buildings, irrefutable evidence of our country's Christian heritage abounds: the Ten Commandments hang over the head of the Chief Justice in the Supreme Court; in the House and Senate chambers appear the words, In God We Trust; in the capitol rotunda is the figure of the crucified Christ; carvings on the capitol dome testify to, "The New Testament according to the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ"; the Great Seal of the United States proclaims, "Annuit Coeptis," which means, "God has smiled on our undertaking"; under the seal is inscribed the phrase from Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, "This nation under God"; the walls of the Library of Congress are adorned with the words of Psalm 19:1 and Micah 6:8; engraved on the metal cap of the Washington Monument are the words, Praise be to God; and lining the stairwell are numerous Scripture verses that apply the Christian faith to every sphere of life from the family to business, from personal character to government. [21]

The men who built this nation knew what we must know that America depended upon Christianity for its founding, and that it shall ever depend upon it for its perpetuation.


Conclusion
According to Russell Kirk, "True law is rooted in ethical assumptions or norms; and those moral principles are derived, in the beginning at least, from religious convictions." [22] In the United States, the religious convictions upon which our law is based are Christian. That means that if we attack public expressions of the Christian faith--as the ACLU would have us to do--we actually attack our very foundations of justice and liberty. If we institutionalize hostility to Christianity we instigate a riotous revolution which can only undermine the entire culture.
The issue of church state relations is not so much one of civil liberty, toleration, and justice as it is one of survival--the survival of Western Civilization in general and of American Culture in particular.

As George Washington so aptly and prophetically asserted:


Morality is the necessary spring of popular government. And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without Christianity. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. [23]

Editor's note: This article is excerpted from Trial and Error: The ACLU and Its Impact on Your Family by George Grant, published by Adroit Press, Box 680365, Franklin, TN 37068.


Notes
1.Policy Review, September, 1988.

2.ACLU Policy Guide, 159-190.

3.The Boston Herald, April 6, 1988.

4.Policy Review, September, 1988.

5.Ibid.

6.Ibid.

7.Imprimis, April, 1983.

Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, (New York: John A. Ta8.llirude and Sons, 1833, 1967), 161-162.

9.Zorach v. Clausen, (343 U.S. 306),1952.

10.Ibid.

11.Walker P. Whitman, A Christian History of the American Republic: A Textbook for Secondary Schools, (Boston: Green Leaf Press, 1939,1948),42.

12.Robert Ferrell, The Adams Family: Four Generations of Patriots, (New York: Publius Press, 1969), 12.

13.Whitman, 91.

14.Ibid, 97.

15.Alfred G. Knophler, The Lessons of Southern Culture, (Atlanta: Jefferson Davis Publishers, 1977), 33.

16.Harold K. Lane, Liberty! Cry Liberty! (Boston: Lamb and Lamb Tractarian Society, 1939), 31.

17.Whitman, 109.

18.Lane, 32.

19.Geoff Archer, The War Between the States and its Aftermath, (Philadelphia: Everson College Press, 1959), 72-73.

20.Theodore Roosevelt, The Foes of Our Own Household, (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1917, 1926), 134.

21.Gary DeMar, Ruler of the Nations: Biblical Principles for Government, (Fort Worth, TX: Dominion Press, 1987), 232.

22.Imprimis, April, 1983.

23.Quoted in Roosevelt, 3; 133.

...yup, that settles it, they all should go to North Dakota.

Originally Posted by Croaker'39

...yup, that settles it, they all should go to North Dakota.

Look in the mirror Mr. Toad. Oh so superior attitudes such as yours lay at the heart of why last Tuesday?s Wild Ride occurred.

On a different subject, here is a Millie's outline for his future, to see if it means anything generation-wise:

2003: Get Drivers' Licence
2005: Graduate High School
2006: Vote in first election
2009: Graduate College with B.S. Degree
Before March 2010, probably in college: Meet future wife, also graduated HS in 2005.
September 2010: Get engaged
June 2011: Get married
June 2011: Honeymoon in Hawaii
June 2011: Buy NEW suburban house
March 2012: Have first kid
November 2014: Have second kid
April 2054: Retire
2061 or later: Die
2068 or later: Wife Dies
(Last two based on life expectancies; its not like I'll kill myself if I don't die that year or anything)

These are only preferences, if it unfolds a bit differently, I'm not going to consider my life ruined or anything.[/quote]

This was posted prior to the 2002 election. Now that the Repugs are in charge it may be time to adjust the Millies life.

2004- Join GOP brownshirts, Report on subversives at T4T. Recieve merit award.

2006-Vote GOP is there any other party

2007- Start my two year manditory military service fighting "terrorist" In 2 years I was in Boswana and North Korea. Hey I saw the world, or I came home in a bag what the hay.

2009- My service record was excellent and being a very bright person recieved a job with Govt. propoganda now I analyze the endless fight on Govt. TV. Attend night school though I have been given the best education for my class from the govt.

2011- Marry the woman of my and the govt. dreams. She is so repug.

Originally Posted by nd boom '59

On a different subject, here is a Millie's outline for his future, to see if it means anything generation-wise:

2003: Get Drivers' Licence
2005: Graduate High School
2006: Vote in first election
2009: Graduate College with B.S. Degree
Before March 2010, probably in college: Meet future wife, also graduated HS in 2005.
September 2010: Get engaged
June 2011: Get married
June 2011: Honeymoon in Hawaii
June 2011: Buy NEW suburban house
March 2012: Have first kid
November 2014: Have second kid
April 2054: Retire
2061 or later: Die
2068 or later: Wife Dies
(Last two based on life expectancies; its not like I'll kill myself if I don't die that year or anything)

These are only preferences, if it unfolds a bit differently, I'm not going to consider my life ruined or anything.

This was posted prior to the 2002 election. Now that the Repugs are in charge it may be time to adjust the Millies life.

2004- Join GOP brownshirts, Report on subversives at T4T. Recieve merit award.

:lol: Maybe the "award" will be a revival of the Kubelwagen, perhaps built by Ford, presented to the newly licensed (read authorized with "papers") Millie.

2006-Vote GOP is there any other party

:lol: And of course attend weekly GOP cell meetings.

2007- Start my two year manditory military service fighting "terrorist" In 2 years I was in Boswana and North Korea. Hey I saw the world, or I came home in a bag what the hay.

And good conduct will ensure that a given Millie will not be sent to the Eastern Front. Don't question authority and you never have to face the Russians.

2009- My service record was excellent and being a very bright person recieved a job with Govt. propoganda now I analyze the endless fight on Govt. TV. Attend night school though I have been given the best education for my class from the govt.

And commence editing government news reports (constantly revising history) at a desk, sending all reports off through a "pneumatic tube."

2011- Marry the woman of my and the govt. dreams. She is so repug.

No doubt a woman with a government certified Grade A DNA eugenics status as indicated on her biometric National ID Card (read "papers"). Women with an inferior eugenics status will carry "papers" certified by the American Kennel Club.



OK, but what about the new Adaptives which many insist upon calling die Homelandern? They will no doubt be compelled to become Bushjungen. They will receive orientation and training on U-boats for the Marine, in gliders for the Luftwaffe, and on Humvees and Panzers for the Wehrmacht. Die Homelandern will be taught to despise and defeat die Auslandern. Die Homelandern shall build Amerika's thousand year Reich. Heil Bush!


BTW, this is a good place to post the latest:

PERVERT ALERT...PERVERT ALERT...PERVERT ALERT!

Remember, you are paying for this. You are paying these perverts' salaries as well as funding the development of this program and apparatus designed to perv on you. And good old Admiral Poindexter of Iran-Contra fame is directing the effort. Heil Bush!


November 9, 2002

Pentagon Plans a Computer System That Would Peek at Personal Data of Americans

By JOHN MARKOFF
NY Times

The Pentagon is constructing a computer system that could create a vast electronic dragnet, searching for personal information as part of the hunt for terrorists around the globe ? including the United States.

As the director of the effort, Vice Adm. John M. Poindexter, has described the system in Pentagon documents and in speeches, it will provide intelligence analysts and law enforcement officials with instant access to information from Internet mail and calling records to credit card and banking transactions and travel documents, without a search warrant.

Historically, military and intelligence agencies have not been permitted to spy on Americans without extraordinary legal authorization. But Admiral Poindexter, the former national security adviser in the Reagan administration, has argued that the government needs broad new powers to process, store and mine billions of minute details of electronic life in the United States.

Admiral Poindexter, who has described the plan in public documents and speeches but declined to be interviewed, has said that the government needs to "break down the stovepipes" that separate commercial and government databases, allowing teams of intelligence agency analysts to hunt for hidden patterns of activity with powerful computers....

(continued at link)

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/09/po...partner=GOOGLE

By JOHN MARKOFF
NY Times

The Pentagon is constructing a computer system that could create a vast electronic dragnet, searching for personal information as part of the hunt for terrorists around the globe ? including the United States.

[/quote]

Does this mean I have to scrub my hard drive or maybe use the computer at the public library to subvert the enemy within?

Orwell missed it by 19 years. A generation so to speak.