Rush is a swine.
Kirsten Kappenberg
To whom it may concern:
I personally feel immensly disgusted to live in the same country as RushLimbaugh. He is a Nazi and a pig. If I ever saw him in person, I'd likely
vomit all over his shoes. But in all probablility, his gut is soooooooo fat
that he never would even notice. That's probably why he never wears sneakers;
his arms aren't long enough to reach! Howard Stern kicks Rush's ass.
In fact, Rush isn't worthy of cleaning Howard's house.
Sincerely,
Kirsten
Alan Gindlesperger
In a previous article, kir...@exg106.rh.psu.edu (Kirsten Kappenberg) says:
>
>To whom it may concern:
>
> I personally feel immensly disgusted to live in the same country as RushLimbaugh. He is a Nazi and a pig. If I ever saw him in person, I'd likely
Ok, PROVE he is a NAZI and a PIG! Give me one anti-semetic <SP>
statement, and one statement that degrades women (the anti-feminist
statements don't count, I want a statement that says women are
lower-class citizens!).
>that he never would even notice. That's probably why he never wears sneakers;
>his arms aren't long enough to reach! Howard Stern kicks Rush's ass.
> In fact, Rush isn't worthy of cleaning Howard's house.
Ok, prove it, you are getting personal about Rush, yet you arn't backing
it up, please back it up.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Kirsten
>
>
--
Alan Gindlesperger <-> aa...@cleveland.freenet.edu
Emil T. Chuck
>that he never would even notice.
Whoops! There it is!
Miss Kappenberg, you are a bigot and a "lipophobe." :)
Then again, what else do I expect from the rookies from Penn State.
--
Fuggi i precetti di quelli speculatori che le loro ragioni non sono
confermate dalla isperienza. -Leonardo da Vinci (thanks Robert!)
Emil Thomas Chuck e...@po.CWRU.edu
Biomedical Scientist Training Program - CWRU School of Medicine
Emil T. Chuck
> In fact, Rush isn't worthy of cleaning Howard's house.
Personally, I wouldn't WANT to clean Howard Stern's house. I suspect that
you would.
Just remember to wear lots of baby oil.
SXL...@psuvm.psu.edu
Gindlesperger) says:
>
>In a previous article, kir...@exg106.rh.psu.edu (Kirsten Kappenberg) says:
>
>>
>>To whom it may concern:
>>
>> I personally feel immensly disgusted to live in the same country as
>RushLimbaugh. He is a Nazi and a pig. If I ever saw him in person, I'd
>likely
>
>
>Ok, PROVE he is a NAZI and a PIG! Give me one anti-semetic <SP>
>statement, and one statement that degrades women (the anti-feminist
>statements don't count, I want a statement that says women are
>lower-class citizens!).
from a woman in legislation (need help here, can't remember her name)
saying how "the year of the woman has gone down the tubes" or some
such statement. Then the camera cut to Rush going "Yes!" with a
clenched fist. (It actually came across even more infantile than this
description of his action probably sounds) Then the show ended.
As a free thinker who usually leans toward the left side, (oh no,
here come the flames again.) I wonder how any self-respecting
conservative woman can watch Rush without strong feelings of disgust.
Any women care to comment?
Sean
Robb Topolski KJ6YT
> Okay, I remember distinctly this past summer, when he showed a clip
> from a woman in legislation (need help here, can't remember her name)
> saying how "the year of the woman has gone down the tubes" or some
> such statement. Then the camera cut to Rush going "Yes!" with a
> clenched fist. (It actually came across even more infantile than this
> description of his action probably sounds) Then the show ended.
> As a free thinker who usually leans toward the left side, (oh no,
> here come the flames again.) I wonder how any self-respecting
> conservative woman can watch Rush without strong feelings of disgust.
The so-called Year of the Woman did not include anything but liberal
women. In fact, liberal feminist extremists called Kay Hutchinson a guy
in drag because she is conservative. The Year of the Woman was nothing
more than a trojan horse for some of the farthest left liberalism ever
before witnessed -- ironically protected by chivilrous instincts that
prevent decent men from simply calling it the crap that it is.
To compare, Rush often applauds the losses to NAACP causes. Not that Rush
is racist, he is simply against the liberalism the NAACP engenders.
--
Robert M. Topolski <topo...@kaiwan.com>
Enrique Chavez
>>this message is posted for a friend of mine so keep flames to a minimum.
>>
>>Japanese family bathing time? What is it like and how is thier society
>>so open while ours is so shut??
>>
>>please reply to ech...@as.arizona.edu & not to alt.sex
1. Originally I was in alt.sex when I posted it to the Usenet system
2. I didn't know it would have such devastating effects of cross posting
itself to:
rec.arts.tv
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
alt.politics.radical-left
alt.flame
alt.drugs
3. Thanks to those that responded intelligently, I can now forward this
information to my friend.
4. To all those that got annoyed at my message being in the "wrong" place. Oh,
well, I'm sorry. Nobody's perfect!
Enrique
Robert D. Wilkens
>Sincerely,
>Kirsten
Dear Kristen,
What makes him a Nazi and a pig? Please explain. All I see
here is blatent Namecalling with no basis.
Sincerely,
Robert
Robert D. Wilkens
> Okay, I remember distinctly this past summer, when he showed a clip
> from a woman in legislation (need help here, can't remember her name)
> saying how "the year of the woman has gone down the tubes" or some
> such statement. Then the camera cut to Rush going "Yes!" with a
> clenched fist. (It actually came across even more infantile than this
> description of his action probably sounds) Then the show ended.
> As a free thinker who usually leans toward the left side, (oh no,
> here come the flames again.) I wonder how any self-respecting
> conservative woman can watch Rush without strong feelings of disgust.
> Any women care to comment?
> Sean
Dear Sean,
You have obviously misinterpreted what he was implying. He was
that women don't deserve special treatment in government. They are all
equal. Most feminists merely whine about being treated unfairly, with
no basis. He is merely pointing out that they should stop demanding
special treatment. Quotas are a badddddd thing. Can you argue that, I
think not.
There's my comment, Any Replies?
Rob
Robert D. Wilkens
>In a previous article, kir...@exg106.rh.psu.edu (Kirsten Kappenberg) says:
>>But in all probablility, his gut is soooooooo fat
>>that he never would even notice.
>Whoops! There it is!
>Miss Kappenberg, you are a bigot and a "lipophobe." :)
>Then again, what else do I expect from the rookies from Penn State.
While I would like to call this person politically incorrect, I'm forced
to call this person "politically challenged".
Robert D. Wilkens
>is racist, he is simply against the liberalism the NAACP engenders.
Promoting the NAACP is like promomting the KKK,
Anyone care to Coment?
Robert
JEFF KILLEEN
I feel sorry I live in the same country with Kirsten - another Liberal for
the open discussion of ideas and allowing the public to decide for
themselves...
Robb Topolski KJ6YT
> Promoting the NAACP is like promomting the KKK,
> Anyone care to Coment?
Yes, I agree!
Michael Lee Harrison
>Anyone care to Coment?
Oh my God... OH MY GOD!!!
Who is the racist that wrote this??? Everyone... EVERYONE
knows that the promotion of African-North American-Americans
on the basis of their skin pigmentation is NOT the same as
promoting European-North American-Americans on the lack of
theirs... The main difference lies in the fact that
African-North American-Americans have lived under the oppressive
thumb of European-North American-Americans for over a century!
This alone proves, PROVES, beyond any doubt that there is a
direct correlation betwixt melanin and intent. So, it
LOGICALLY follows that the more melanin in your skin, the
better your intentions. So if the KKK had gotten a pretty
good tan, their meetings would not have been frowned upon.
but as they were whiter than sheets, their clustering constitued
racism in its purist form.
-Michael
>Robert
Jared Dahl
Big difference. When was the last time the NAACP strung someone
up? Burned a cross in someones front yard? Pushed to make other
humans a sub-class?
For all it's faults, the NAACP is not even comparable with the KKK.
Jared Dahl
Opinions are mine, not my employers
GCS d--@ c++(++++) l++ u++ e-(*) m--- s+/+
n-(---)@ h--- f+ g+ w+@ t++(---) r(-) y+
Dennis Tetreault
|>
Well, Kirsten, WE are also disgusted that you live in the same country
as Rush, but that's America! I'm curious, though, why you feel you must
try to insult someone's personal appearance to build up your own self-image?
Regarding Stern: no comment, I've never listened to him.
DTetreault
(my opinions)
Robb Topolski KJ6YT
DISCLAIMER - DISCLAIMER - DISCLAIMER - DISCLAIMER
=================================================
THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE MAY APPEAR TO DEFEND THE KKK.
THE KKK IS A DESPICABLE ORGANIZATION WHICH I HOLD
IN MY LOWEST REGARD.
WHITE SUPREMECY, ESPECIALLY WHEN COUPLED BY THE
SUPPRESSION OF OTHER RACES, IS ABOUT THE MOST
INTELECTUALLY BANKRUPT PHILOSOPHY ONE CAN HOLD.
=================================================
Jared Dahl (jd...@rchland.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> Big difference. When was the last time the NAACP strung someone
> up? Burned a cross in someones front yard?
The Klan, as an organization doesn't do these things, but their members as
individuals and groups did and do. Just as the NAACP as an organization
doesn't kill, steal, and riot -- but they all but endorsed it last spring
as a threat if Clinton's jobs bill didn't pass (it didn't).
The NAACP lives on class and racial segregation -- they create it rather
than eliminate it.
> Pushed to make other humans a sub-class?
Daily, my friend.
Edward B. Taylor
: To whom it may concern:
: Sincerely,
: Kirsten
Just proves Rush's point. Liberals aren't smart enough to deal with the
issues and facts. They have to resort to name calling.
JEFF KILLEEN
> Robert D. Wilkens (rwi...@hubcap.clemson.edu) wrote:
>> Promoting the NAACP is like promomting the KKK,
>
>> Anyone care to Coment?
>
> Yes, I agree!
Nope - The KKK has routinely used murder as a means in its history. The NAACP
hasn't.
--
Jeff Killeen - Email:kil...@eisner.decus.org
Clinton - I feel your pain - I spend your money
JEFF KILLEEN
> The Klan, as an organization doesn't do these things, but their members as
> individuals and groups did and do.
Nope
If you look at the Klan through history they as an organization have seen
themselves as "knights" to protect the white christen race. They as an
organization believe they have had the right to "act" to protect the white
christen race - this includes the use of violence.
The KKK, even for purposes of intellectual debate, should never be classified
with anything but the most hateful and sinister groups in our society.
The NAALCP may be a bunch of buffoons who really have become nothing more than
a lobbying group for the "victim" handout business - but they do not
systematically preach hate of other races or religions or see themselves as
"knights" who can use violence.
John Gonzalez
That's probably because you have a close mind. You are unable to see any
viewpoints but your own. Pretty typical for a "free thinker who usually
leans toward the left side".
Adios
John R. Gonzalez
Mark Shaw
>
> To whom it may concern:
>
> I personally feel immensly disgusted to live in the same country as RushLimbaugh. He is a Nazi and a pig. If I ever saw him in person, I'd likely
> vomit all over his shoes. But in all probablility, his gut is soooooooo fat
Whoops, there it is!
Miss Kappenberg, you are a bigot.
---
Mark Shaw
mn...@dalsol.rtc.sc.ti.com
"Why don't you pass the time with a little solitaire?"
(my opinions, not Texas Instruments')
Jared Dahl
|> DISCLAIMER - DISCLAIMER - DISCLAIMER - DISCLAIMER
|> =================================================
|>
|> THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE MAY APPEAR TO DEFEND THE KKK.
|> THE KKK IS A DESPICABLE ORGANIZATION WHICH I HOLD
|> IN MY LOWEST REGARD.
|>
|> WHITE SUPREMECY, ESPECIALLY WHEN COUPLED BY THE
|> SUPPRESSION OF OTHER RACES, IS ABOUT THE MOST
|> INTELECTUALLY BANKRUPT PHILOSOPHY ONE CAN HOLD.
|>
|> =================================================
|>
|> Jared Dahl (jd...@rchland.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
|> > Big difference. When was the last time the NAACP strung someone
|> > up? Burned a cross in someones front yard?
|>
|> The Klan, as an organization doesn't do these things, but their members as
|> individuals and groups did and do.
BS!! The Klan promotes and encourages this type of behaviour,
even if it doesn't plan it outright. NAACP has never advocated
violence against anyone.
|> Just as the NAACP as an organization
|> doesn't kill, steal, and riot -- but they all but endorsed it last spring
|> as a threat if Clinton's jobs bill didn't pass (it didn't).
What you hear as a threat, I hear as a warning.
NAACP
"If you don't do something, things could get really bad."
KKK
"If you don't do something, we are gonna kick your ass."
See the difference?
|> The NAACP lives on class and racial segregation -- they create it rather
|> than eliminate it.
Never seen it.
|> > Pushed to make other humans a sub-class?
|>
|> Daily, my friend.
Give an example (much like when someone claims Rush is a
racist).
SXL...@psuvm.psu.edu
says:
>
>In article <93318.214...@psuvm.psu.edu> <SXL...@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>In article <2c6mt5$r...@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, aa...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
>(Alan
>>Gindlesperger) says:
>>>
>>>In a previous article, kir...@exg106.rh.psu.edu (Kirsten Kappenberg) says:
>>>> I personally feel immensly disgusted to live in the same country as
>>>RushLimbaugh. He is a Nazi and a pig. If I ever saw him in person, I'd
>>>statement, and one statement that degrades women (the anti-feminist
>>>statements don't count, I want a statement that says women are
>>>lower-class citizens!).
>> Okay, I remember distinctly this past summer, when he showed a clip
>> from a woman in legislation (need help here, can't remember her name)
>> saying how "the year of the woman has gone down the tubes" or some
>> such statement. Then the camera cut to Rush going "Yes!" with a
>> clenched fist. (It actually came across even more infantile than this
>> description of his action probably sounds) Then the show ended.
>> As a free thinker who usually leans toward the left side, (oh no,
>> here come the flames again.) I wonder how any self-respecting
>> conservative woman can watch Rush without strong feelings of disgust.
>>
>> Any women care to comment?
>>
>> Sean
>
>That's probably because you have a close mind. You are unable to see any
>viewpoints but your own. Pretty typical for a "free thinker who usually
>leans toward the left side".
Sigh. Explain to me, oh righteous John, how it follows from the above
that I am closed-minded. If I were truly closed-minded, would I be
reading this newsgroup, or watching Rush nearly every chance I get?
(This is just another case of: I'm right, and you're wrong,so,there!)
Sean (the closed-minded, wet-behind-the-ears, newbie.)
> Adios
> John R. Gonzalez
>
SXL...@psuvm.psu.edu
says:
>Just proves Rush's point. Liberals aren't smart enough to deal with the
>issues and facts. They have to resort to name calling.
And Rush is so "mature" as to have on his set a trash can with
the word "Liberals" on its side.
But that's just part of his method of proving silliness by being
silly, right?
Sean
Robb Topolski KJ6YT
> The KKK, even for purposes of intellectual debate, should never be classified
> with anything but the most hateful and sinister groups in our society.
> The NAALCP may be a bunch of buffoons who really have become nothing more than
> a lobbying group for the "victim" handout business - but they do not
> systematically preach hate of other races or religions or see themselves as
> "knights" who can use violence.
There is no way to continue this discussion without coming out sounding
like some anti-black pinko commie dolt (which I am not). Call me a victim
of PC (although unintended on your part).
Let me just say that the NAACP has a leadership role to play. One that
should encourage self-determination rather than self-victimization. One
that should blame crime and violence on a lack of values rather than
white-caused poverty. One that should condemn violence, rather than try
to rationalize (and therefore encourage) it.
Again, I'm not a racist. Farthest from it. Although I know I'm now going
to be branded as one. ....sigh...
Kenneth C. Mitchell
: I personally feel immensly disgusted to live in the same country as RushLimbaugh. He is a Nazi and a pig. If I ever saw him in person, I'd likely
: vomit all over his shoes. But in all probablility, his gut is soooooooo fat
: his arms aren't long enough to reach! Howard Stern kicks Rush's ass.
: In fact, Rush isn't worthy of cleaning Howard's house.
: Kirsten
Ah, how refreshing. Another liberal does her typical liberal thing. Boy,
it's probably been a whole, oh, 2 days since I've seen such pointless
venom. And, curioulsy, almost ALWAYS from liberals. Thanks for living
down to my worst expectations, Kirsten.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Mitchell |"After this week's elections, you know, the fastest
8037 Stone Canyon |way to get Senator Packwood out of office is to have
Citrus Heights, CA |President Clinton step forward and endorse him. He'd
95610 |be out of there, wow, like that."
kmit...@netcom.com | Jay Leno 11/5/93
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert D. Wilkens
>In article <CGJ10...@kaiwan.com>, topo...@kaiwan.com (Robb Topolski KJ6YT) writes:
>> Robert D. Wilkens (rwi...@hubcap.clemson.edu) wrote:
>>> Promoting the NAACP is like promomting the KKK,
>>
>>> Anyone care to Coment?
>>
>> Yes, I agree!
>Nope - The KKK has routinely used murder as a means in its history. The NAACP
>hasn't.
History? Yes! But how about recently?
How would you feel if I started:
The NAAWP?
The United Whitey College Fund?
Or whatever else..
Robert D. Wilkens
>BS!! The Klan promotes and encourages this type of behaviour,
>even if it doesn't plan it outright. NAACP has never advocated
>violence against anyone.
Still, in principle, their ideas are the same as the KKK. And I know
people who have been severely beaten up for promoting whites. Not
necessarily members of the NAACP, but darker skinned gentlemen.
>|> Just as the NAACP as an organization
>|> doesn't kill, steal, and riot -- but they all but endorsed it last spring
>|> as a threat if Clinton's jobs bill didn't pass (it didn't).
>What you hear as a threat, I hear as a warning.
Threat=Warning.
>NAACP
>"If you don't do something, things could get really bad."
>KKK
>"If you don't do something, we are gonna kick your ass."
>See the difference?
No, There is none. KKK is being straight forward. NAACP is saying the
same thing, but using careful wording.
>|> The NAACP lives on class and racial segregation -- they create it rather
>|> than eliminate it.
>Never seen it.
>
Really? Must be blind, I guess..
>|> > Pushed to make other humans a sub-class?
>|>
>|> Daily, my friend.
>Give an example (much like when someone claims Rush is a
>racist).
Promoting Quotas.. That causes employers to hire a dark skinned fellow
because while the light skinned fellow may be more qualified, the dark
skinned man is "better" for having dark skin.
-Rob
=========
Warning!
---------
The opinions expressed above are not necessarily my true sentiments but
are here for the purpose of debate only.
----------
(Notice i didn't say they are *not* my true feelings though)
Robert D. Wilkens
> (This is just another case of: I'm right, and you're wrong,so,there!)
Isn't that what this newsgroup is all about?
>>
Robert D. Wilkens
No.. He's simply stating the way he feels about liberals.
Though I'm not saying I agree 100% (only about 5o%, I believe liberals
have good intentions, but too often they take them too far)
Kirsten Kappenberg
: >hasn't.
: History? Yes! But how about recently?
: How would you feel if I started:
: The NAAWP?
: The United Whitey College Fund?
: Or whatever else..
Depends. Yes, there definitely is a double standard. Anything that is
all white is usually "bad". It's because a group composed of minorities is
viewed as promoting the minority while a group composed of whites is viewed as
oppressing the minorities rather that promoting whites (which is also viewed as
evil anyway). I think that I have enough intelligence to view the facts on an
individual case-by-case basis and make my own decision.
So go ahead, start your group. And I'll see how you run it.
Kirsten
Emil T. Chuck
Right.
--
Fuggi i precetti di quelli speculatori che le loro ragioni non sono
confermate dalla isperienza. -Leonardo da Vinci (thanks Robert!)
Emil Thomas Chuck e...@po.CWRU.edu
Biomedical Scientist Training Program - CWRU School of Medicine
Emil T. Chuck
>>>(Alan Gindlesperger) says:
>>>>In a previous article, kir...@exg106.rh.psu.edu (Kirsten Kappenberg) says:
>>>> I personally feel immensly disgusted to live in the same country as
>>>>RushLimbaugh. He is a Nazi and a pig. If I ever saw him in person, I'd
>>>>Ok, PROVE he is a NAZI and a PIG! Give me one anti-semetic <SP>
>>>>statement, and one statement that degrades women (the anti-feminist
>>>>statements don't count, I want a statement that says women are
>>>>lower-class citizens!).
>>> Okay, I remember distinctly this past summer, when he showed a clip
>>> from a woman in legislation (need help here, can't remember her name)
>>> saying how "the year of the woman has gone down the tubes" or some
>>> such statement. Then the camera cut to Rush going "Yes!" with a
>>> clenched fist. (It actually came across even more infantile than this
>>> description of his action probably sounds) Then the show ended.
>>> As a free thinker who usually leans toward the left side, (oh no,
>>> here come the flames again.) I wonder how any self-respecting
>>> conservative woman can watch Rush without strong feelings of disgust.
>>>
>>> Any women care to comment?
>>
>>That's probably because you have a close mind. You are unable to see any
>>viewpoints but your own. Pretty typical for a "free thinker who usually
>>leans toward the left side".
>
> Sigh. Explain to me, oh righteous John, how it follows from the above
> that I am closed-minded. If I were truly closed-minded, would I be
> reading this newsgroup, or watching Rush nearly every chance I get?
> (This is just another case of: I'm right, and you're wrong,so,there!)
>
> Sean (the closed-minded, wet-behind-the-ears, newbie.)
I may have you confused with another "rookie" from Penn State, but didn't you
state earlier that you didn't have to prove that Rush is always wrong?
JEFF KILLEEN
>>Nope - The KKK has routinely used murder as a means in its history. The NAACP
>>hasn't.
>
> History? Yes! But how about recently?
The Nazi haven't started any wars lately either but they are still despicable.
The KKK lack of violence was more to do with the FBI than a change of mindset
in their organization.
Jared Dahl
In article <1993Nov16.1...@hubcap.clemson.edu>, rwi...@hubcap.clemson.edu (Robert D. Wilkens) writes:
|>
|> >BS!! The Klan promotes and encourages this type of behaviour,
|> >even if it doesn't plan it outright. NAACP has never advocated
|> >violence against anyone.
|>
|> Still, in principle, their ideas are the same as the KKK.
No they aren't. The NAACP does not encourage violent behavior.
The KKK does. End of story.
|> And I know
|> people who have been severely beaten up for promoting whites. Not
|> necessarily members of the NAACP, but darker skinned gentlemen.
So what? They do not represent all blacks or the NAACP,
so how does this reflect negativly on the NAACP? If they
did it for racist reasons, then they are racists, but it
does not prove your point one bit. I am curious, however,
at the phrase "promoting whites", since this has come many
times before as a cover for white supremacy. What exactly
were these people promoting that got them beaten?
|> >|> Just as the NAACP as an organization
|> >|> doesn't kill, steal, and riot -- but they all but endorsed it last spring
|> >|> as a threat if Clinton's jobs bill didn't pass (it didn't).
|>
|> >What you hear as a threat, I hear as a warning.
|>
|> Threat=Warning.
If I tell you that a tornado is coming, am I threatening you?
|> >NAACP
|> >"If you don't do something, things could get really bad."
|>
|> >KKK
|> >"If you don't do something, we are gonna kick your ass."
|>
|> >See the difference?
|>
|> No, There is none. KKK is being straight forward. NAACP is saying the
|> same thing, but using careful wording.
Horse-shit! You are reading between the lines where there
is no message. The KKK message is plain and simple: "Jews,
blacks, catholics, and foreigners are sub-human, and whites
are supreme." Nowhere will you hear this from the NAACP.
|> >|> The NAACP lives on class and racial segregation -- they create it rather
|> >|> than eliminate it.
|>
|> >Never seen it.
|>
|> Really? Must be blind, I guess..
Example please. Quotes from a charter or organizational document
that shows that the NAACP stands for segregation will suffice.
|> >|> > Pushed to make other humans a sub-class?
|> >|>
|> >|> Daily, my friend.
|>
|> >Give an example (much like when someone claims Rush is a
|> >racist).
|>
|> Promoting Quotas.. That causes employers to hire a dark skinned fellow
|> because while the light skinned fellow may be more qualified, the dark
|> skinned man is "better" for having dark skin.
They never claimed that the minority person was "better" for
the job. Their intent is to "level the playing field" (whether
this works is debatable).
Jared Dahl
In article <1993Nov16.1...@hubcap.clemson.edu>, rwi...@hubcap.clemson.edu (Robert D. Wilkens) writes:
|>
|> >In article <2c8psd...@dns1.NMSU.Edu>, eta...@nmsu.edu (Edward B. Taylor)
|> >says:
|> >>Just proves Rush's point. Liberals aren't smart enough to deal with the
|> >>issues and facts. They have to resort to name calling.
|>
|> > And Rush is so "mature" as to have on his set a trash can with
|> > the word "Liberals" on its side.
|>
Feminazi, Eco-Freak, "LIBERAL", Robert "Reisssssssccccchhhhh",
Algore, on and on and on ....
Just proves my point. Rush isn't smart enough to deal with the
issues and facts. He has to resort to name calling.
|> Though I'm not saying I agree 100% (only about 5o%, I believe liberals
|> have good intentions, but too often they take them too far)
Well, thanks for letting us pave the road to hell for you.
Mark Shaw
[snip]
> How would you feel if I started:
>
> The NAAWP?
> The United Whitey College Fund?
>
> Or whatever else..
How about:
The Congressional White Caucus?
White Entertainment Television?
The National Association of White Engineers?
---
Mark Shaw
mn...@dalsol.rtc.sc.ti.com
"All we are, basically, is monkeys with car keys."
Lance Franklin
}
}>|> Just as the NAACP as an organization
}>|> doesn't kill, steal, and riot -- but they all but endorsed it last spring
}>|> as a threat if Clinton's jobs bill didn't pass (it didn't).
}
}>What you hear as a threat, I hear as a warning.
}
}Threat=Warning.
}
}>NAACP
}>"If you don't do something, things could get really bad."
}
}>KKK
}>"If you don't do something, we are gonna kick your ass."
}
}>See the difference?
}
}No, There is none. KKK is being straight forward. NAACP is saying the
}same thing, but using careful wording.
BUSH
"If you elect Clinton, the US is going to go right into the Dumper!"
Ohmygod! Bush is causing the US to go into the Dumper!!! Something
MUST be done!
Jeeze...don't they teach ANYTHING useful in college these days?
There is a difference between a warning of the consequences of an
action and the threat of a consequence if an action is taken.
Does the warning "If you have sex, you could get pregnant" mean
the person giving the warning is going to knock you up?
Lance
--
Lance T. Franklin +----------------------------------------------+
(l...@ncmicro.lonestar.org) | "You want I should bop you with this here |
NC Microproducts, Inc. | Lollipop?!?" The Fat Fury |
Richardson, Texas +----------------------------------------------+
lmac
> You have obviously misinterpreted what he was implying. He was
> that women don't deserve special treatment in government. They are all
> equal. Most feminists merely whine about being treated unfairly, with
> no basis. He is merely pointing out that they should stop demanding
> special treatment. Quotas are a badddddd thing. Can you argue that, I
> think not.
> There's my comment, Any Replies?
My, you read an entire treatise into a raised fist! I'm impressed!
For the record, neither women nor any minority groups are actively seeking
special rights; that's a charge that's been leveled by the Right, which
CLAIMS that these groups ask for special rights ... then refuses to define
what is meant by "special rights."
All such groups would be MORE than happy if the laws currently in place
against discrimination were enforced, but they are not. All of the "special
rights" legislation people point to is simply legislation aimed at enforcing
what is CLAIMED already exists, and which exists indeed in law but not in
substance.
I have worked in lawfirms which have defended large companies against charges
of discrimination ... and in every case I am aware of, research showed that
the companies were guilty of precisely the discriminatory practices they were
accused of.
lmac
> Promoting the NAACP is like promomting the KKK,
> Anyone care to Coment?
Sure.
The NAACP has never burned crosses on the lawns of peaceful white homeowners.
The NAACP has never beaten black men and women for entering the "wrong part
of town."
The NAACP has never advocated killing or deporting all non-blacks.
The NAACP, as founded by W.E.B. DuBois, has always been a non-violent
organization, as distinguished from the KKK, which has never disavowed its
violent past, some of which is not ALL that far "past."
The NAACP has attempted to educate non-blacks to the goals and aspirations of
black people; the KKK has in the past claimed that blacks could not be
educated, and that to attempt to do so was criminal.
If you would like other examples, I'd be happy to furnish them. Thanks for
asking.
-- Loren MacGregor
Homi!
>Re: Re: Rush is a swine.
>
>> >is racist, he is simply against the liberalism the NAACP engenders.
>> Promoting the NAACP is like promomting the KKK,
>> Anyone care to Coment?
>> Robert
>
>Sure.
>
>The NAACP has never burned crosses on the lawns of peaceful white homeowners.
>
>The NAACP has never beaten black men and women for entering the "wrong part
>of town."
>
>The NAACP has never advocated killing or deporting all non-blacks.
>
>The NAACP, as founded by W.E.B. DuBois, has always been a non-violent
>organization, as distinguished from the KKK, which has never disavowed its
>violent past, some of which is not ALL that far "past."
Perhaps someone could remind us Ben Chavis's remarks regarding the
Revolution of April 29, 1992 when an outraged community revolted against
the oppressive government in a large west coast city?
>The NAACP has attempted to educate non-blacks to the goals and aspirations of
>black people; the KKK has in the past claimed that blacks could not be
>educated, and that to attempt to do so was criminal.
>
>If you would like other examples, I'd be happy to furnish them. Thanks for
>asking.
--
100%DAV ho...@panix.com
"The guy blows $5 billion on a Seawolf submarine and can't spend a few d
dollars to fly in protection." -- An unnamed Lt. Col. on Aspin's Somalia
decisions, as quoted by NEWSWEEK's David Hackworth, 10/18 issue.
Homi!
Jared Dahl <jd...@rchland.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>In article <1993Nov16.1...@hubcap.clemson.edu>, rwi...@hubcap.clemson.edu (Robert D. Wilkens) writes:
>|> jd...@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
>|>
>|> >BS!! The Klan promotes and encourages this type of behaviour,
>|> >even if it doesn't plan it outright. NAACP has never advocated
>|> >violence against anyone.
>|>
>|> Still, in principle, their ideas are the same as the KKK.
>
>No they aren't. The NAACP does not encourage violent behavior.
>The KKK does. End of story.
Can someone remind us all Benjamin Chavis's words on the Great Black
revolutionaries action on that great day of April 29, 1992 when a large
city on the west coast of the US was beset by revolutionaries attempting
to free themselves from the shackles of slavery set upon them by a racist
white society?
>|> >|> Just as the NAACP as an organization
>|> >|> doesn't kill, steal, and riot -- but they all but endorsed it last spring
>|> >|> as a threat if Clinton's jobs bill didn't pass (it didn't).
>|>
>|> >What you hear as a threat, I hear as a warning.
>|>
>|> Threat=Warning.
>
>If I tell you that a tornado is coming, am I threatening you?
If I warn you, say you're my neighbor & we're arguing about your dog
digging up my garden, "one day that dog's gonna get hurt" is that a threat
or a warning?
Kurt Ludwick
>> How would you feel if I started:
>> The NAAWP?
>> The United Whitey College Fund?
>How about:
>The Congressional White Caucus?
>White Entertainment Television?
>The National Association of White Engineers?
I'm partial to the League of Men Voters, myself... :-)
Sorry, wrong "underrepresented group." My mistake.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt E. Ludwick | If PRO is the opposite of CON, then
- - - - - - - -|
kel...@psuvm.psu.edu | what's the opposite of Progress...?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert D. Wilkens
How about the L.A.Riots. If you can condemn ALL KKK members for what
they did in the past, why can't someone else condemn all blacks for what
they did.
I do not condemn anyone for the riots (well, not as a group), but I'm
just pointing out your hypocracy.
Robb Topolski KJ6YT
the NAACP and the KKK. Both are despicable organizations to me. As to
which is more despicable, I'd have to say the KKK because I am white and
they embarrass me. If I was black, then I'd see it differently.
JEFF KILLEEN
> kil...@eisner.decus.org (JEFF KILLEEN) writes:
>
>>In article <1993Nov16.1...@hubcap.clemson.edu>, rwi...@hubcap.clemson.edu (Robert D. Wilkens) writes:
>>>>Nope - The KKK has routinely used murder as a means in its history. The NAACP
>>>>hasn't.
>>>
>>> History? Yes! But how about recently?
>
>>The Nazi haven't started any wars lately either but they are still despicable.
>
>>The KKK lack of violence was more to do with the FBI than a change of mindset
>>in their organization.
>
> How about the L.A.Riots. If you can condemn ALL KKK members for what
> they did in the past, why can't someone else condemn all blacks for what
> they did.
The difference is the L.A. Riots the were not initiated by the NAALCP as a
matter of policy. No matter how much you want to suggest the NAALCP
encouraged or justified the riots NAALCP members were _not_ the folks who
started the riots. KKK "knights" encouraged, justified, initiated, and
executed violate acts.
Give it up - the KKK was founded as a vigilante group - the NAACP was founded
as lobbying group. They just aren't the same and trying use this line of
thinking to discredit the NAALCP ends up discrediting yourself. The NAALCP is
a bunch of buffoons who can easily be discredited as a bunch lobbyist for the
poverty industry without bring the KKK into this.
Robert D. Wilkens
They are both evil groups, you should give it up. And I never said the
NAALCP initiated them.. I'm just saying that since blacks caused the
riots, why shouldn't we blame all blacks! (I don't agree with that
position, but that's what your saying with KKK -- The KKK does not
promote violence, if they do officially, I'd like you to prove it)
-Rob
Jared Dahl
|> In article <1993Nov16.2...@rchland.ibm.com>,
|> Jared Dahl <jd...@rchland.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
|> >
|> >
|> >No they aren't. The NAACP does not encourage violent behavior.
|> >The KKK does. End of story.
|>
|> Can someone remind us all Benjamin Chavis's words on the Great Black
|> revolutionaries action on that great day of April 29, 1992 when a large
|> city on the west coast of the US was beset by revolutionaries attempting
|> to free themselves from the shackles of slavery set upon them by a racist
|> white society?
I would like to see the quote. Even if it is bad, one guy
says one thing, that is all you can find, and you rate them
as the equals of the KKK? Come on.
|> >If I tell you that a tornado is coming, am I threatening you?
|>
|> If I warn you, say you're my neighbor & we're arguing about your dog
|> digging up my garden, "one day that dog's gonna get hurt" is that a threat
|> or a warning?
A threat, because you intend to hurt the dog.
The NAACP has no such intent.
The KKK does.
Jared Dahl
In article <1993Nov17.0...@hubcap.clemson.edu>, rwi...@hubcap.clemson.edu (Robert D. Wilkens) writes:
|> kil...@eisner.decus.org (JEFF KILLEEN) writes:
|>
|> >The KKK lack of violence was more to do with the FBI than a change of mindset
|> >in their organization.
|>
|> How about the L.A.Riots. If you can condemn ALL KKK members for what
|> they did in the past, why can't someone else condemn all blacks for what
|> they did.
|>
|> I do not condemn anyone for the riots (well, not as a group), but I'm
|> just pointing out your hypocracy.
None of us are condoning the riots. But, they were riots. They
happened. No plans. No organizations running them. There may
have been individual acts of racism on the part of blacks, but
that is for those individuals to deal with. The NAACP had no
hand in organizing or planning riots.
The KKK, on the other hand, has planned, organized, and encouraged
violence against blacks for the last 130 years. The individuals
who committed these acts did them as part of the KKK. You cannot
say the same about the NAACP and the LA Riots, unless you can
prove that all the blacks involved were part of the NAACP.
Sgt. Pepper (M)
>Re: Re: Rush is a swine.
>
>> You have obviously misinterpreted what he was implying. He was
>> that women don't deserve special treatment in government. They are all
>> equal. Most feminists merely whine about being treated unfairly, with
>> no basis. He is merely pointing out that they should stop demanding
>> special treatment. Quotas are a badddddd thing. Can you argue that, I
>> think not.
>> There's my comment, Any Replies?
"Special treatment" is often misinterpreted. Outside of Affirmative Action,
a protected group means that the factor that makes a person a member of that
group should not be taken into consideration. For example, an employer
cannot say "I'm firing you, not because you're incompetatant, but because
you're Jewish" because Jews are a protected group. In the case of
homosexuals, as the law now stands, an employer can say "I'm firing you for
no other reason than that you're gay." Under the law, the homosexual would
have no case in court, because what the employer did was legal under the
law. I think that's wrong. Forgive me.
>--
Sgt. Pepper
Jared Dahl
In article <1993Nov17.1...@hubcap.clemson.edu>, rwi...@hubcap.clemson.edu (Robert D. Wilkens) writes:
|> kil...@eisner.decus.org (JEFF KILLEEN) writes:
|>
|> >The difference is the L.A. Riots the were not initiated by the NAALCP as a
|> >matter of policy. No matter how much you want to suggest the NAALCP
|> >encouraged or justified the riots NAALCP members were _not_ the folks who
|> >started the riots. KKK "knights" encouraged, justified, initiated, and
|> >executed violate acts.
|>
|> >Give it up - the KKK was founded as a vigilante group - the NAACP was founded
|> >as lobbying group. They just aren't the same and trying use this line of
|> >thinking to discredit the NAALCP ends up discrediting yourself. The NAALCP is
|> >a bunch of buffoons who can easily be discredited as a bunch lobbyist for the
|> >poverty industry without bring the KKK into this.
|>
|> They are both evil groups, you should give it up.
On what basis? All the "evidence"(poor comparisons between the NAACP
and the KKK) you have presented has been demonstrated false. You have
not presented a single shred of evidence that even stands other than
your opinion that they are evil. They are nothing like the KKK.
|> And I never said the
|> NAALCP initiated them.. I'm just saying that since blacks caused the
|> riots, why shouldn't we blame all blacks! (I don't agree with that
|> position, but that's what your saying with KKK -- The KKK does not
|> promote violence, if they do officially, I'd like you to prove it)
History son, history. The KKK has the history of violence, and I
doubt that while the organization can not openly advocate violence
like it did in the past, it is still encouraged at very protected
and hidden levels of the organization. Just because the dog quit
barking doesn't mean he won't bite!
If you want to be foolish enough to believe what the KKK tells you,
then go right ahead.
MRD...@psuvm.psu.edu
>
>In article <2c8psd...@dns1.NMSU.Edu>, eta...@nmsu.edu (Edward B. Taylor)
>says:
>>Just proves Rush's point. Liberals aren't smart enough to deal with the
>>issues and facts. They have to resort to name calling.
>
> And Rush is so "mature" as to have on his set a trash can with
> the word "Liberals" on its side.
>
> silly, right?
That's right, Sean. Wake up and smell the real world!!!
"You must have the courage to face the truth!" -- Rush Limbaugh
Rush was talking to people like YOU, Sean, when he made that statement!
Wade Hines
>"Special treatment" is often misinterpreted. Outside of Affirmative Action,
>a protected group means that the factor that makes a person a member of that
>group should not be taken into consideration. For example, an employer
>cannot say "I'm firing you, not because you're incompetatant, but because
>you're Jewish" because Jews are a protected group. In the case of
>homosexuals, as the law now stands, an employer can say "I'm firing you for
>no other reason than that you're gay." Under the law, the homosexual would
>have no case in court, because what the employer did was legal under the
>law. I think that's wrong. Forgive me.
Or I'm taking your kid away from you because you had oral sex.
Or was it because she was gay?
Or was it because she had oral sex with someone of the same gender?
But wait, isn't taking away a kid because someone is gay special
bad treatment. I think people would settle for no special good
treatment if it also meant no special bad treatment.
--Wade
SXL...@psuvm.psu.edu
>
>In article <93319.202...@psuvm.psu.edu>, <SXL...@psuvm.psu.edu> says:
>>
>>In article <2c8psd...@dns1.NMSU.Edu>, eta...@nmsu.edu (Edward B. Taylor)
>>says:
>
Sigh. Check it out => a sophomore telling me about the "real" world?
>
>"You must have the courage to face the truth!" -- Rush Limbaugh
>
>Rush was talking to people like YOU, Sean, when he made that statement!
Oh, do tell. Tell me about the truth...can you tell me why it is that
if a person is liberal, many conservatives on this newsgroup tell you
that you "need to face the truth", "are infantile", etc...
And just which "truth" was that? One of Rush's "undeniable" (ha!)
truths, like the existence of God? How can that be undeniable?
If *is* undeniable, I'd be interested to hear Mr. Limbaugh's, or
anyone else's for that matter, proof...
(Now *this* outta be good!)
Sean
JEFF KILLEEN
> They are both evil groups, you should give it up. And I never said the
> NAALCP initiated them.. I'm just saying that since blacks caused the
> riots, why shouldn't we blame all blacks! (I don't agree with that
> position, but that's what your saying with KKK -- The KKK does not
> promote violence, if they do officially, I'd like you to prove it)
The Nazis never officially acknowledged they were engaged in wide spread
genocide - but we all know it was their policy. Actions speak louder than
words.
No group is going to come out an declare their purposes when their purposes
are illegal. The KKK's actions through out history define the organization.
The KKK we see today is the result of the FBI and not a change in organization
that has to hide its "knights" behind hoods and cloak itself in secrecy.
The KKK is a wholly despicable organization that no matter where you are on
the political spectrum you should denounce as a uniquely evil organization in
U.S. history.
The NAALCP has become a pitiful lobbying group full of apologists. But it is
not a source of evil in our society - only a tragedy.
JEFF KILLEEN
same side of an issue on the net as me ;-)
Maybe this can be the start of a new line of thinking for Jared...
--
Jeff Killeen - Email:kil...@eisner.decus.org
Clinton - I feel your pain - I spend your money
Homi!
Jared Dahl <jd...@rchland.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>In article <2ccdtr$6...@panix.com>, ho...@panix.com (Homi!) writes:
>|> In article <1993Nov16.2...@rchland.ibm.com>,
>|> Jared Dahl <jd...@rchland.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>|> >
>|> >
>|> >No they aren't. The NAACP does not encourage violent behavior.
>|> >The KKK does. End of story.
>|>
>|> Can someone remind us all Benjamin Chavis's words on the Great Black
>|> revolutionaries action on that great day of April 29, 1992 when a large
>|> city on the west coast of the US was beset by revolutionaries attempting
>|> to free themselves from the shackles of slavery set upon them by a racist
>|> white society?
>
>I would like to see the quote. Even if it is bad, one guy
>says one thing, that is all you can find, and you rate them
>as the equals of the KKK? Come on.
As head of the NAACP, it appears that he speaks for the organization, no?
I've read numerous quotes from him about the "revolution" and he justified
the actions of those who burned LA.
>|> >If I tell you that a tornado is coming, am I threatening you?
>|>
>|> If I warn you, say you're my neighbor & we're arguing about your dog
>|> digging up my garden, "one day that dog's gonna get hurt" is that a threat
>|> or a warning?
>
>A threat, because you intend to hurt the dog.
>
>The NAACP has no such intent.
>
>The KKK does.
"You convict the LA 4 and LA will burn again"
"You niggers come here & try to reach this poll and someone's gonna get hurt."
Josh Kaderlan
Benjamin Chavis) > >As head of the NAACP, it appears that he speaks for the
organization, no? >I've read numerous quotes from him about the
"revolution" and he justified >the actions of those who burned LA.
Chavis speaking in a personal role or in his role as the head of the NAACP?
This makes a big difference (to me, at least).
>>|> >If I tell you that a tornado is coming, am I threatening you?
>>|>
>>|> If I warn you, say you're my neighbor & we're arguing about your dog
>>|> digging up my garden, "one day that dog's gonna get hurt" is that a
threat>>|> or a warning?
>> >>A threat, because you intend to hurt the dog.
>> >>The NAACP has no such intent.
>> >>The KKK does.
> >"You convict the
LA 4 and LA will burn again"
> >"You niggers come here & try to reach this
poll and someone's gonna get hurt."> >
But was Chavis making a threat, or was he just stating the situation as he
saw it? I was living in LA at the time of the riots, and from what I saw
the riots were not a "race thing," they were a "class thing." It wasn't just
blacks out there looting and burning; it was people of every race. Having
seen what happened in April '92, I would tend to agree with Chavis (to the
extent that I understand his statements; does anyone have the full text?).
At that time, I would have said that if the LA 4 were convicted, the city
WOULD burn again. Thankfully, I was wrong.
Josh
Robb Topolski KJ6YT
to compare the KKK and NAACP is going to end up validating one group above
the other. While there are many similarities where it counts, there are
also historical and contemporary differences. Neither group deserves to
be validated by this argument. They BOTH should go away.
Jared Dahl
|> Robert you realize you have put Jared Dahl in the position of being on the
|> same side of an issue on the net as me ;-)
|>
|> Maybe this can be the start of a new line of thinking for Jared...
I thought it was the other way around... :)
|> --
|> Jeff Killeen - Email:kil...@eisner.decus.org
|>
|> Clinton - I feel your pain - I spend your money
Packwood - I feel your bottom
Jared Dahl
In article <2cf3or$c...@panix.com>, ho...@panix.com (Homi!) writes:
|> In article <1993Nov17....@rchland.ibm.com>,
|> Jared Dahl <jd...@rchland.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
|> >
|> >I would like to see the quote. Even if it is bad, one guy
|> >says one thing, that is all you can find, and you rate them
|> >as the equals of the KKK? Come on.
|>
|> As head of the NAACP, it appears that he speaks for the organization, no?
|> I've read numerous quotes from him about the "revolution" and he justified
|> the actions of those who burned LA.
One apologist does not make a KKK out of them.
|> >A threat, because you intend to hurt the dog.
|> >
|> >The NAACP has no such intent.
|> >
|> >The KKK does.
|>
|> "You convict the LA 4 and LA will burn again"
A realistic possibility. The NAACP does not condone it, though,
and are not organizing it.
|> "You niggers come here & try to reach this poll and someone's gonna get hurt."
Organization and intent to cause harm are evident in the KKK
message. It is not in the NAACP message.
Robert D. Wilkens
>If you want to be foolish enough to believe what the KKK tells you,
>then go right ahead.
If you only read. I do not condone, or even support the position of the
KKK. I just believe the NAACP serves just as evil as a purpose. If
there was a NAAWP, how do you think they would react? Seriously?
John A Shaffer
There is (was) such a thing. Founded by KKK wizard/Republican
representative David Duke.
What is so evil about the goal of equal rights/access for minorities?
P.S. Don't say affirmative action (or some other knee-jerk right wing
response) because I'm talking about GOALS, not means to achieving goals.
Compare that to the goal of the KKK.
--
David Rukshin
>Oh, do tell. Tell me about the truth...can you tell me why it is that
>if a person is liberal, many conservatives on this newsgroup tell you
>that you "need to face the truth", "are infantile", etc...
>And just which "truth" was that? One of Rush's "undeniable" (ha!)
>truths, like the existence of God? How can that be undeniable?
>If *is* undeniable, I'd be interested to hear Mr. Limbaugh's, or
>anyone else's for that matter, proof...
> (Now *this* outta be good!)
The United States of America was based on the existance of God, (have you ever took a close look at any dollar bills?) Have you ever read the constitution?
If you are a heretic and atheist it may be deniable to you. But to the majority of law abiding and respecting citizens who believe in God, that's undeniable. The fact that liberals like you deny this fact is that reason we have this totally immoral society of ours. Killing a person used to carry a punishment with it. Today, we see the Reginal Denny and other trials in connection with Crown Heights riots and all of the killers are let go free. And then you liberals go "Oops! Well, that Denny guy shoul
dn't have stopped there in the first place." Doesn't it sound ridiculous. Yet we hear statements like this, if not in the same wording, on tv being made everyday. You liberals are supposed, according to your claims, be tolerant, yet NONE of you are tolerant of the conservative views. Ever heard of a saying "If it ain't broke don't fix it."? Well, if you think something may not be just and fair doesn't mean it's broke. It may mean that if it has operated fine for many years then perhaps that's not only
Sorry if this sounds like a flame, but it is!
Liberals like you should look at all the bad the left theory of thought have done to societies all over the world in the last 30 years. Even the honorable ideas were totally screwed up by incompetent ass kissing beuracrats that you have created!
David
--
| David (Dmitry) Rukshin | The amount of work to be done increases in |
| Rutgers College | proportion to the amount of work already |
| ruk...@gandalf.rutgers.edu | completed. |
| RUCS-US-CACC-Consultant | Vail's Second Axiom |
Robert D. Wilkens
>What is so evil about the goal of equal rights/access for minorities?
There is *nothing* wrong, but it seems many of them are trying to make
them have more equal right than anyone else. Oh, I don't really care,
You win, NAACP is fine by me. I never had a problem with them. I'm
just trying to point out that if (*a non KKK member*) someone decided to
start a white organization, the NAACP will demand equal access to it.
When Blacks start an all-black thing, it's ok by the rest of us, and you
don't hear anyone whining (except a few radicals)
>P.S. Don't say affirmative action (or some other knee-jerk right wing
>response) because I'm talking about GOALS, not means to achieving goals.
>Compare that to the goal of the KKK.
>
Goals: No problem
Means: That's the problem. Does the end justify the means with stuff
like affirmative action.
Jared Dahl
This post was munged somewhere along it's path. I have
repaired it partially. If you feel that I have altered
the meaning of it, please let me know.
In article <Nov.18.14.31....@gandalf.rutgers.edu>, ruk...@gandalf.rutgers.edu (David Rukshin) writes:
|>
|> The United States of America was based on the existance of God, (have you
|> ever took a close look at any dollar bills?) Have you ever read the
|> constitution?
Plenty of falacies here.
1. How can the US be based on the existence of God when God by
definition will not reveal his existence until the end of the
world? You could base it on faith in his existence, but not on
existence that cannot be proven.
2. "IGWT" has been on and off of money for the last 130 years.
It was formally added to all money in the 1950's. Jefferson
(I think it was him) was opposed to the creation of a connection
between God and mammon(money).
3. There is no mention of God or any creator in the constitution.
Have you ever read it?
|> If you are a heretic and atheist it may be deniable to you. But to the
|> majority of law abiding and respecting citizens who believe in God, that's
|> undeniable.
Heretics and atheists abide by the laws as often as the religious
folk do.
Undeniable is a bull-shit word. I can certainly deny the existence
of God and you cannot prove that he does exist. How can something
be truth if you cannot prove it as such?
|> The fact that liberals like you deny this fact is that reason we
|> have this totally immoral society of ours.
To quote a senile old fool: "There you go again". If the existence
of God is a fact, prove it. It should be easy to prove such a well
known fact.
PS: There are plenty of religous liberals and conservative atheists.
|> Killing a person used to carry
|> a punishment with it.
It still does.
|> Today, we see the Reginal Denny and other trials in
|> connection with Crown Heights riots and all of the killers are let go free.
The defendent in the RD trial did not go free. They were convicted,
just not of attempted murder.
|> And then you liberals go "Oops! Well, that Denny guy
|> dn't have stopped there in the first place." Doesn't it sound ridiculous. Yet
|> we hear statements like this, if not in the same wording, on tv being made
|> everyday.
Where? I have never, ever heard anyone berate Denny for stopping
his truck and not running over a bunch of pedestrians (comedy shows
not counting).
|> You liberals are supposed, according to your claims, be tolerant, yet
|> NONE of you are tolerant of the conservative views.
I am tolerant of many conservative views. I am intolerant of
those who cannot be tolerant. I'm not perfect.
|> Ever heard of a saying "If
|> it ain't broke don't fix it."? Well, if you think something may not be just and
|> fair doesn't mean it's broke. It may mean that if it has operated fine for many
|> years then perhaps that's no
|>
|> Sorry if this sounds like a flame, but it is!
|> Liberals like you should look at all the bad the left theory of thought have
|> done to societies all over the world in the last 30 years. Even the honorable
|> ideas were totally screwed up by incompetent ass kissing beuracrats that you
|> have created!
Open your eyes. Everyone in this country, liberal or conservative,
is to blame for our problems, not one side or the other. Quit
looking for a scapegoat. There are plenty of people pointing
fingers in this country, and no-one trying to fix the problems.
lmac
> >The NAACP, as founded by W.E.B. DuBois, has always been a non-violent
> >organization, as distinguished from the KKK, which has never disavowed its
> >violent past, some of which is not ALL that far "past."
> Perhaps someone could remind us Ben Chavis's remarks regarding the
> Revolution of April 29, 1992 when an outraged community revolted against
> the oppressive government in a large west coast city?
The KKK was compared to the NAACP. Both are groups with a widespread
membership; what happened in Los Angeles, as far as I can see, did not
involve people who were members of any organization ... and I do not recall
defending what happened in Los Angeles, either. (My local office in LA has a
front door facing downtown, and the beautiful Bonadventure Hotel; the rar
entrance faces the edge of the riot area, and still looks like a war zone.)
Unless you are saying ALL black men who are violent belong to the NAACP, your
comment is nonsensical and irrelevant.
Further, if you're going to include rioting as a criteria for membership in
the NAACP, I would point out that many American cities historically have had
riots, and many of those riots have primarily involved white citizens. Will
you now equate these as being members of the KKK?
I would be interested in your response.
JEFF KILLEEN
>
>What is so evil about the goal of equal rights/access for minorities?
The NAALCP has gone beyond equal opportunity and now is believes anything less
than equal out come is discrimination. It was very interesting read Lani G's
comments in weekly news magazines when her nomination was withdrawn by Bill
Clinton. She very clearly believes that all that is needed for proof of
discrimination is the failure of a minority group to achieve at the levels
that would be representative of their percentage of population. Of course the
only way you could address this is with defacto quotas. While she claims not
to believe in quotas she would never directly answer the question wouldn't an
out come based discrimination test lead to quotas. She ducked the issue in
one of the magazines and she ducked it on Nightline. What does this have to
do with the NAALCP - she was or is their chief consul. The NAALCP is no
longer about equal opportunity - they want guaranteed results.
The DUP!
ruk...@gandalf.rutgers.edu (David Rukshin) says:
>
>SXL...@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>
>>Oh, do tell. Tell me about the truth...can you tell me why it is that
>>if a person is liberal, many conservatives on this newsgroup tell you
>>that you "need to face the truth", "are infantile", etc...
>>And just which "truth" was that? One of Rush's "undeniable" (ha!)
>>truths, like the existence of God? How can that be undeniable?
>>If *is* undeniable, I'd be interested to hear Mr. Limbaugh's, or
>>anyone else's for that matter, proof...
>> (Now *this* outta be good!)
>
>The United States of America was based on the existance of God, (have you ever
>took a close look at any dollar bills?) Have you ever read the constitution?
>majorit
>of law abiding and respecting citizens who believe in God, that's undeniable.
>The fact that liberals like you deny this fact is that reason we have this
>totally immoral society of ours. Killing a person used to carry a punishment
>with it. Today, we see the Reginal Denny and other trials in connection with
>Crown Heights riots and all of the killers are let go free. And then you
>liberals go "Oops! Well, that Denny guy shoul
>dn't have stopped there in the first place." Doesn't it sound ridiculous.
>Yet
>we hear statements like this, if not in the same wording, on tv being made
>ye
>NONE of you are tolerant of the conservative views. Ever heard of a saying
>"If
>an
>fair doesn't mean it's broke. It may mean that if it has operated fine for
>many
>years then perhaps that's not only
>
>Sorry if this sounds like a flame, but it is!
>Liberals like you should look at all the bad the left theory of thought have
>done to societies all over the world in the last 30 years. Even the honorable
>ideas were totally screwed up by incompetent ass kissing beuracrats that you
>have created!
>David
>
>--
>| David (Dmitry) Rukshin | The amount of work to be done increases in
>|
>| Rutgers College | proportion to the amount of work already
>|
>| ruk...@gandalf.rutgers.edu | completed.
>|
>| RUCS-US-CACC-Consultant | Vail's Second Axiom
>|
I couldn't have put it better. In fact, this followup was so good, I don't nee
d to say anything else except.. AMEN!
Thank you, David. I hope that this puts the argument to rest...
RUSH LIMBAUGH RULES!!!
"You must have the courage to face the truth!"
^^^^^^ -- RUSH LIMBAUGH
Flame away,
The "DUP!"-ster
Robb Topolski KJ6YT
> But was Chavis making a threat, or was he just stating the situation as he
> saw it? I was living in LA at the time of the riots, and from what I saw
> the riots were not a "race thing," they were a "class thing."
The riots were a "values thing." Good people of all races and classes
stayed home and protected themselves and their kids. The only difference
between themselves and the ones out their looting were their values.
css_j...@msuvx1.memst.edu
> In <1116199...@tatertot.com> lm...@tatertot.com (lmac) writes:
>
>>Re: Re: Rush is a swine.
>>
>>> You have obviously misinterpreted what he was implying. He was
>>> that women don't deserve special treatment in government. They are all
>>> equal. Most feminists merely whine about being treated unfairly, with
>>> no basis. He is merely pointing out that they should stop demanding
>>> special treatment. Quotas are a badddddd thing. Can you argue that, I
>>> think not.
>>> There's my comment, Any Replies?
>
> "Special treatment" is often misinterpreted. Outside of Affirmative Action,
> a protected group means that the factor that makes a person a member of that
> group should not be taken into consideration. For example, an employer
> cannot say "I'm firing you, not because you're incompetatant, but because
> you're Jewish" because Jews are a protected group. In the case of
> homosexuals, as the law now stands, an employer can say "I'm firing you for
> no other reason than that you're gay." Under the law, the homosexual would
> have no case in court, because what the employer did was legal under the
> law. I think that's wrong. Forgive me.
people are fired for another reason and they are sued for firing a person
just because of their race. I think that the problem is not the law, but
the people. Making a law to protect groups causes even more problems because
it infuriates those that hate that group all the more.
SHANNON LEIGH
will you please stop saying you liberals like we were all
damned to hell?!? I'm a christian of deep faith but a liberal
also....I'm tired of everyone picking labels for others...if you're a
christian, you work with others, not separate and condemn....clean up
your act before you go on here claiming to be a christian, you give us
a bad rep.
p.s. I'm still new to this so I can't tell who was the liberal and who
was the conservative...if I sent this to the wrong person, I apologize.
From:shannon le...@starlink.com