- Terrence Geoghegan wrote: On another note ... is it really necessary for responders in this group to always leave the entire thread of previous messages inMessage 1 of 7 , Sep 1, 2005View Source
Terrence Geoghegan wrote: On another note ... is it really necessary for responders in this group to always leave the entire thread of previous messages in their messages every time?
I agree with you, Terrence, that the fat should be trimmed from messages, especially for the convenience of the folks who get the digest. I try to do that, but sometimes I forget. You will note that I usually snip all but the main point that I am addressing and format a snippet from the original message as a reference, as in the above, which I formatted to set it apart from my own message. I've noticed that sometimes folks just toss out a reply that leaves you wondering to whom or about what he is actually responding. It takes only a little effort to tweak a reply so that your reference is clear and your message is streamlined. Now all I have to do is figure out how to say more with fewer words (although when talking with a liberal, I find that I have to carefully define all my terms so that the bastard can't conveniently take things out of context and twist the meanings of words to suit his own demented purposes).
As for the responses to my original plea for assistance, I can only say I am humbled. Thank you for your willingness to share your thoughts and provide suggestions for reading. I will look at the Federalist Papers to get an education on this and other matters. Since I am homeschooling my children (now ages 2+ and nearly 4) I will need to make myself a Constitutional expert. To this end, I will be acquiring a home library with references such as the Federalist Papers and other important historical documents and history books. If anyone would care to recommend a list of "must have" materials, I'd really appreciate it.
- From: DGHarrison ... Some excellent responses offered. I d put the basic arguments in four aspects: 1. Original intent [if theyMessage 2 of 7 , Sep 1, 2005View SourceFrom: DGHarrison <DGHarrison@...>
> [preamble] ... defines the people's right to "welfare"Some excellent responses offered. I'd put the basic
> from the Federal government.
arguments in four aspects:
1. Original intent [if they respect that], with quotes
from Madison in Federalist 41:
2. Legal construction [if they're lawyers], with the
note of Justice Story that a broad interpretation runs
contrary to the enumerated powers that follow:
3. Common sense [if they have any ;o], with the
distinction between "promoting" conditions that are
beneficial to all (noting equal treatment under law),
rather than *providing* for every need (which must
4. Moral sense [...] that charitable assistance to
those who are innocent victims of misfortune cannot
be coerced, since that destroys any moral value in
I like the last one, for many reasons. The best
way to disarm opponents is to appeal to their values.
Government cannot provide *love* for those in need,
attending to their individual suffering or encouraging
their efforts; it can only take and give according to
the cold strictures of law. Nobody in government can
*care* about individuals.