Hello Robert,
> Check it out for yourself:
> http://www.au.org/press/pr021114.htm
I took a look at that. It looked like one administration official was in the
proximity of a person that might have had that opinion. I didn't see that
the administration official shared that exact opinion, nor that the entire
Bush administration is being influenced by it.
I must admit I limited the amount of time spent analyzing it. In fact I
just spared the time for a brief scan.
These days just about anyone can upload just about any point of view
and make just about any claim they want on a page on the internet.
In just a couple minutes with google ...
Here's a Survivalist's Page
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6856/home.html
Here's a Christian Fundamentalist's Page
http://www.falwell.com/
Islamic Fundamentalists ???
http://ikashmir.org/fundamentalism.html
The John Birch Society ... The Far, Far, Right Wing point of view ???
http://www.jbs.org/
The Anarchists ???
http://www.radio4all.org/anarchy/
The Communists ???
http://www.communism.org/
The Neo-Nazis ???
http://www.geocities.com/newworldorder_themovie/intro_neonazi.html
In other words, every "ist" or "izm" point of view is out there. There is
one common feature to everyone of them. They all claim to be telling
the truth, and that their point of view is the correct one.
Reminds me of political "phamplets" printed and distributed by
underground organizations in the past. What they are distributing
is their opinion. And of course it would be claimed as fact. These days
this distribution can be done at much lower cost. No printing. No
paper. Just web space and a connection.
Some of it you just have to take with a grain of salt. I don't think it is
any real danger. Plus we have a system of government with checks
and balances built into it. There could be individuals employed by or
in some other way providing services to our government that may
personally have an opinion that may be somewhat "unique" unto themselves
but will never pass all the hurdles required to become national policy or
law to affect everyone.
But in this country with freedom of speech, and freedom of the press,
to have your point of view is your right, just as long as you keep your
actions within the confines of the law.
But when you tell your point of view to others that hold a different
point of view, there is the potential for disagreement. And when you tell
others
that have a different point of view that they are wrong because they don't
share your point of view, disagreement is a very likely outcome.
> Conspiracy. The word is conspiracy
No, I was looking for a different variant. I keep a dictionary on my shelf
above
the computer. I did check and didn't find the correct spelling for the
variant I
was looking for, so I noted that I doubted the spelling was correct, and moved
on. Again, it was the need to limit the amount of time spent on that one item.
> Try thinking for yourself
I do. That's why I don't believe everything I read or everything I hear. On the
internet, in the newspapers, or on TV.
> you may begin to understand not only my way of thinking, but
> the way of thinking of the many other individuals on this list
I understand the point of view of many others too. But I remember having
read just about everything I have read. I also cross correlate information
from numerous sources. In doing so, I have discovered some dichotomies.
I then put thought into the analysis of why these dichotomies might exist,
and unfortunately, sometimes, there is much going on other than would
be noted from examining only one source.
Best Regards
At 09:21 PM 2/19/03 -0500, you wrote:
>Quothe Mail List, from writings of Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 09:30:56PM -0500:
> > Come on man, this can't be true, can it? Where did you find this
> > information?
>
>[about Bush administration officials and their connection to a group
>that favors stoning people to death for offenses that violate Biblical
>teachings, such as stoning women to death for extramarital affairs]
>
> > And is it factual?
>
>Check it out for yourself:
>
>http://www.au.org/press/pr021114.htm
>
>Also, keep in mind that the Bush Administration unofficially requires
>staff members to attend Bible study in the White House, and at least
>one member of the staff has resigned over this unofficial requirement.
>Draw your own conclusion. For further information, check out an
>article in the Baltimore Sun (www.sunspot.net) about Bush and
>religion:
>
>"Bush turns increasingly to language of religion," (Published: 02/10/03)
>
>Here's another interesting little tidbit of information connecting the
>Shrub administration to religious extremism, displaying the
>administration's apparent dislike for science and rational thought
>(does anyone want to place a bet on how long it will be until an
>"Intellectual Thought Crimes Act" is proposed by the administration?):
>
> President Bush has announced his plan to select Dr. W.
> David Hager to head up the Food and Drug
> Administration's (FDA) Reproductive Health Drugs
> Advisory Committee. Hager is a practicing
> obstetrician-gynecologist, and sources told Time
> magazine that in his private practice he will not
> prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women. He is also
> the author of a book which suggests that women who
> suffer from premenstrual syndrome should seek help from
> reading the bible and praying.
>
> The Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee is
> responsible for offering expert scientific and medical
> advice to the FDA on matters relating to drugs used in
> the practice of obstetrics, gynecology, and related [...]
>
> > You are a unique individual.
>
>Should not everyone be a unique, free-thinking, individual?
>
> > It seems you have some "conspierist" <sp?> theories of the US
> > Government. ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Conspiracy. The word is conspiracy, as most people, of reasonable
>intellect, learned by the time they were old enough to vote or discuss
>politics. However, no, I don't really think that what I write about
>has much of anything to do with conspiracy theories, despite your
>fanciful thinking. Does denying reality truly make you happy?
>
> > We're actually fairly close neighbors. Someday I'd like to meet
>
>Eh? We might both be on the same side of the Mason-Dixon line, but
>you're in a different state... not exactly close by. Alas, we're not
>close enough neighbors for a nice neighborly feud... dang. ;-)
>
> > you. Not to argue your point of view, but just to try to understand
> > it.
>
>Here's the key to understanding what I've written: Try thinking for
>yourself----that's what you have a useable brain (it must be somewhat
>functional, as you appear to have sense enough to like DEC equipment
>:-)) for, and you may begin to understand not only my way of thinking,
>but the way of thinking of the many other individuals on this
>list---who are capable of independent thought, whether or not they
>share any of my views. I don't claim to always be 100-percent
>correct, although I can at least say that I think for myself, and I
>try not to be a pawn of the propaganda pushers on the right or left.
>
>--
>Copyright (C) 2002 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals:
>All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature &
>rdd_at_rddavis.org 410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify
>such
>http://www.rddavis.org beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.
Received on Thu Feb 20 2003 - 00:29:00 GMT