[Rhodes22-list] definition "religious kook" (as requested)

Brad Haslett flybrad at gmail.com
Tue Sep 9 09:00:14 EDT 2008


Pete,

I'm sure glad you're not trying to pin that label on Palin.  The "book
banning" story has been debunked over, and over, and over.  I'll send
you some links this afternoon after my "teeth cleaning" if you insist
on this silliness. Oh yeah, the WaPo has an article out about Palin's
expense reports. These people are desperate for anything.  I'll be
happy to de-bunk that one for you this afternoon as well, and oh what
fun it is to make the Wash.  Two things we have learned this election
cycle, (1) the MSM is totally in the tank for "The One", and (2) they
are STUPID!

Attached is an e-mail from an Alaskan about Palin's record as Guv and
her social conservative views.

Brad

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

Nate:

As someone who lives in Wasilla, Alaska, who knows Sarah's family, and
has watched her rise in politics over the last 10 years, I would
concede that she probably does not have the knowledge of international
markets as someone with a Ph.D. in finance. That being said, though, I
would still want her in office as opposed to others for several
reasons.

First, she has understood, more than most politicians, that government
does not produce. It only erect barriers to economic production. That
right there puts her ahead of many persons who may have more formal
education on the matter.

Second, her actions as governor demonstrate a commitment, at least as
much as a Republican can be committed to such an ideal, to less
government regulation of markets. Her first year in office, she used a
line item veto to excise roughly 15% of the government budget, even in
the Mat-Su Valley, because of her philosophical disagreements with
government spending in that area. She cut property taxes while mayor
and otherwise reduced regulatory and financial burdens. While
governor, she fought to get rid of the certificate of need (CON)
requirement for health care providers. She was unsuccessful, but she
did more than a lot of other politicians.

In that light, I would trust her gut reaction more than I would
someone such as Biden or Obama, who seem to believe that government
can play a positive role in the economy.

To respond to Orin's post, then, about Palin, there are definitely
some matters of Palin's politics I do not care for. Before going into
that so much, I would point to a good post for separating rumor from
fact is here:



Thus, rumors about book banning, etc., do not concern me so much
because they are revealed to be incorrect or hoaxes.

I am pro-choice and, while Palin has been decidedly conservative on
that point, she has not governed as a socially conservative governor.
Our Supreme Court held that, since marriage is defined as including
only different-sex couples, the equal protection clause of the state
constitution mandated providing employer benefits to same-sex couples
of state employees. Palin publicly disagreed with the ruling but went
on to do - nothing. She did not seek to stack the court. She did not
seek to appoint different judges, amend the constitution or other
matters. Rather, she ordered the department of law to implement the
decision. That has been her modus operandi so far - follow the rules
even if she disagrees with them. Remember that Alaska's state
constitutional right to abortion as a part of the right of privacy
precedes Roe v. Wade. Yet Palin has not championed to overturn that or
impose a rigid pro-life perspective but rather left matters pretty
much alone.

For that reason, I am not as concerned with her social conservatism.
And while an economics professor would know more about the global
economy, her instincts to get government out of the way will solve far
more problems than most other politicians. So, while I cannot vouch
for her knowledge of the economy, I can vouch for what she has
actually done. And based on that, I can say that as a libertarian
(actually much closer to an anarchist in the Murray Rothbard/Randy
Barnett tradition), I would rather Palin get into office than any of
the other candidates with a reasonable chance of winning.
9.9.2008 1:55am

On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 7:39 AM, petelargo <petelauritzen at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> an individual who is driven by their religious Belief to impose their Belief
> on others in order to "save you" for what they believe is your own good by
> using their civic power and position to support and pass laws requiring your
> compliance with their Beliefs, hence making societal criminals out of people
> should they not share these particular Beliefs. Always combined with an
> inherent feeling of righteous seniority and intolerance of other beliefs,
> based on the belief that their Belief is superior to all other beliefs.
>
> examples: 1)  supporting and imposing laws that state what you can and
> cannot do with or put in your own body as an adult based on their specific
> religion 2) supporting restrictions and public bans of literature, books,
> movies, and art that may not support their religion 3) attempts to create
> laws that make their religion the 'official state' religion 4) imposing
> their religion as the 'truth' that must be taught in public forums over
> empirical contrary scientific evidence 5) wanting to change the Constitution
> of the United States in order to better reflect their specific religion 6)
> supporting deconstructing boundaries between church and state in order to
> more effectively implement the above
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/definition-%22religious-kook%22-%28as-requested%29-tp19391467p19391467.html
> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> __________________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
>


More information about the Rhodes22-list mailing list