[Janice D. Soderling]

Re Post #37.

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have. Thomas Jefferson

Charlie, you must learn critical thinking. You are constantly putting up statements that are incorrect because you have just swallowed them unthinkingly without checking their veracity.

http://www.monticello.org/site/jeffe...-wantquotation

Quotation: "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have."
Variations:

1. "If your government is big enough to give you everything you want, it is big enough to take away everything you have."
2. “Any government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have."
3. "Government that is big enough to give everything you need and want is also strong enough to take it away."
4. "Any government powerful enough to give the people all that they want is also powerful enough to take from the people all that they have."

Earliest known appearance in print: 1952
Earliest known appearance in print, attributed to Jefferson: 2005

Comments: Neither this quotation nor any of its variant forms has been found in the writings of Thomas Jefferson. Its first known appearance in print was in 1953, although it is most likely older. It appeared frequently in newspapers in the 1950s (usually unattributed), and was even used in political cartoons. It was copyrighted in 1957 by the General Features Corporation, as part of a syndicated newspaper feature called "Today's Chuckle."

It later became a popular saying among Republican politicians. Governor Harold W. Handley of Indiana used it in his annual message to the Indiana General Assembly in 1961; Barry Goldwater was quoted using it in his 1964 run for president; and Gerald Ford is on record using it in an address to a joint session of Congress on August 12, 1974. It was attributed to Ford as early as 1954, however, and Ford's assistant, Robert Hartmann, said that Ford claimed to have heard the quotation "early in his political career" from Harvard McClain at the Economic Club of Chicago.


This quotation was not attributed to Jefferson until relatively recently. It is sometimes followed by, "The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases," which is most likely a misquotation of Jefferson's comment, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild, and government to gain ground."


Also
http://www.businessinsider.com/thoma...up-2013-9?IR=T

There are a lot of spin doctors out there, Charlie, feasting on the gullible. They been around for a long time.

Here is another myth for you.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/...e-pelican.html

The source of this pelican canonization is that in order to regurgitate the fish the pelican has swallowed to feed the young, it holds its beak to its breast. Fish don't have much blood but enough to color the regurgitated mass reddish.

Always go one step further, Charlie, question, question, question.

Then

And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
John 1: 14

[Janice D. Soderling]

Just when I think it can't get more muddled, it does.

Ross, Eratosphere rules make it impossible for me to give an adequate reply to your silly proclamations.

[Michael Cantor]

Great post, Janice. Posts, actually. I was talking about #41, but then you put up #42 which is briefer, but perfect.

[John Whitworth]

Most of Asia and Africa pays a good deal of attention to religion, Michael. Europe and the old white British Empire is a shining light of impiety and profanity.

[Charlie Southerland]

Well said, Michael.

But your #3 post says "we." I am not a rabbit in your pocket. So, politically speaking; you don't speak for me, so "we" is inappropriate.

Your post #3 says "we". I am not your valet. So, socially speaking, you don't speak for "we". It is inappropriate.

Your post #3 says"we". I am not your conscience. So, religiously speaking, I am not your "declared" moral guide. Your rant is inappropriate however well meaning it is meant to instruct one such as myself. You fly the banner of Humanism which is your religion. Don't lecture me about privacy about my beliefs.

To sum up, I don't really care if you are tired of what I say or believe. You'll get over it and hopefully, yourself.

[Michael F]

I’d be sorry to see this thread devolve into arguments over religion or constitutional theory (and then get locked). Before it does:

I started it in the sweep of elation and celebration. It is Pride weekend in SF and NYC and other places. If you are of similar spirit, check out this link to more than a dozen sites and monuments nationwide, from New York to California to Arkansas to Puerto Rico, lit up in the colors of the rainbow.

It’s beautiful – at least, it’s beautiful to me.

[Matt Q]

So, trying to stay more on topic, did anyone see the Supreme Court marriage decision in haiku on McSweeney's? Five haiku. The four dissents plus the decision. The second, Alito's dissent, made me smile. The fifth, the decision haiku, is rather lovely.

[Shaun J. Russell]

Originally Posted by Michael Ferris

I’d be sorry to see this thread devolve into arguments over religion or constitutional theory (and then get locked).

I agree. I still haven't seen an actual argument here against gay marriage, however, other than what amounts to "a few verses in the Bible kinda, sorta circle something that vaguely resembles something that might be construed as gay love..." I'm not trying to knock the religious argument against gay marriage...but there hasn't been an argument. I'm not sure if one can be had in this forum without devolving into ad hom sniping, but I legitimately want to see one raised.

[Ian Hoffman]

Originally Posted by Charlie Southerland

Well said, Michael.

But your #3 post says "we." I am not a rabbit in your pocket. So, politically speaking; you don't speak for me, so "we" is inappropriate.

Your post #3 says "we". I am not your valet. So, socially speaking, you don't speak for "we". It is inappropriate.

Your post #3 says"we". I am not your conscience. So, religiously speaking, I am not your "declared" moral guide. Your rant is inappropriate however well meaning it is meant to instruct one such as myself. You fly the banner of Humanism which is your religion. Don't lecture me about privacy about my beliefs.

To sum up, I don't really care if you are tired of what I say or believe. You'll get over it and hopefully, yourself.

Humanism isn't a religion. To say it's "your religion" could be an expression, meaning that you adhere to it in a serious, devotional manner (as smoking weed is the religion of some hippies, for example), but it's a religion in the literal way that Christianity is your religion, because it has no religious precepts. Can we just make that clear? It's absurd that people want to argue these days that things like atheism, the lack or religion, are the same as religion. They aren't. It's like saying that he follows just a different sort of creed, when, if you'd try to give atheism or humanism a generous reading for a moment, you'd find that they're more about the scientific method (hence, they have literally nothing to do with belief). You don't "believe" in science; that's just insane. You prove it. So you can believe in whatever you want, and I can believe that you suck, even though I hardly know you. But actually it's just soooo annoying to see people like you go on rants about gay marriage being bad, referring to the bible, acting like "atheists" (/ordinary thinking people) are just as crazy as you are, and then offering no evidence to back themselves up except that it's their "belief" in the same way that science is my belief. Yeah, right.

I mean, I'm preaching to the choir now, but I really hope you self-reflect some day and feel bad, because comments like yours can actually be hurtful to people and negatively affect our society. Sorry.

EDIT: Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if in 30 years we look back on this time and think that comments like Charlie's first one in this thread were akin to the comments of African American-hating segragationalists in the 60s.

[ross hamilton hill]

Hiding behind rules Janice, that's very brave of you.

'Silly proclamations',

What a stunning reply. How insightful, how witty.

If you want to contest what I have said, do so, don't resort to sarcasm and snide condescension.