Interesting: "Left wing hate groups?" Are there any?
Rev Fredric L. Rice
Amusingly enough, the nutter couldn't offer any names of "left wing hate
groups." It seems that only right-wing hate groups exist in America.
-=-
From: ...cuts...
To: <fr...@linkline.com>
Subject: hate groups?
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 16:12:31 -0600
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
X-RCPT-TO: <fr...@linkline.com>
I notice you have a list of organizations that you describe as right
wing hate groups. Why not be complete in your exposes and list the LEFT
WING hate groups. That list is easy to compile. Start with the opposite
number of the Religious Right, i.e, the Pagan Left. After that obvious
choice for a left wing hate group it only requires a short perusal of
the writings of the print-media leftist elites. Way up at the top of the
list are the leftist electronic-media haters. One can readily recognize
that the lawyers for the Democrat Party have demonstrated their propensity
to lie using hate speech. We saw that over and over again in the
Florida election. And then there's the Congressional Black Caucus. And
Al Sharpton. He's a beauty if there ever was one. And don't forget the
Rainbow Coalition. Jesse Jackson lies with a perfect straight face. He
does it under the protection of the leftist media and gets away with it.
Why don't the Republican Party leaders say something? Why don't they call
him on his lies and make him prove them? I think one reason is that most
of the Republican politicians are too well-mannered to do that
right now they don't have time for it. They also know that you and the
rest of the Pagan Left will do your best to nail them to the barn door
and use the fact that they ARE well-mannered to attack them without any
risk. Why not be a well-rounded hater? Give us both sides!
...cuts...
---
Send information concerning incidents of racketeering and
terrorism by the Scientology cult to the Domestic Terrorism
Task Force at nor...@fbi.gov http://www.skeptictank.org/
For psychological assistance check: http://www.shrinktank.com/
Lou Minatti™
>
> Amusingly enough, the nutter couldn't offer any names of "left wing hate
> groups."
The Democratic Party.
--
Watching You Dot Com
http://www.watchingyou.com
raven1
wrote:
>Rev Fredric L. Rice wrote:
>>
>> Amusingly enough, the nutter couldn't offer any names of "left wing hate
>> groups."
>
>The Democratic Party.
The Democratic party would be considered Right-of-center in any
country outside the US.
Kerry
From where I stand I cannot see the difference
between the US and China. There is only one
interest represented, and the public do not
have a choice at all. They just think they do.
The power's held by those at the right end of the gun.
Kerry
aa #1773
tim gueguen
"raven1" <psyched...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:nt4p7tklveprk6ndn...@4ax.com...
> On 03 Feb 2001 22:34:35 GMT, Lou MinattiT <loumi...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Rev Fredric L. Rice wrote:
> >>
> >> Amusingly enough, the nutter couldn't offer any names of "left wing
hate
> >> groups."
> >
> >The Democratic Party.
>
> The Democratic party would be considered Right-of-center in any
> country outside the US.
>
each. However I have no trouble imagining Bill Clinton as leader of the
Progressive Conservative party in Canada, or being on the right wing of the
Liberal party. The idea of Clinton as a member of Canada's democratic
socialist party, the NDP, is silly.
tim gueguen 101867
PETER BUONO
PFB
"Rev Fredric L. Rice" <fr...@skepticNOEATSPAMtank.org> wrote in message
news:t7om4pb...@corp.supernews.com...
Jim Fay
All governmental power ultimately relies on force. No matter how many
courts, laws, and constitutions you throw at it, it all comes down to
"We are stronger than you, so you do what we say."
Jeff
Sharpton, et al. Similarly, there is Louis Farrakhan, in the past there was
the Black Panthers and so on. On the Animal liberation front there are
numerous groups, including Peta. Outside the US numerous Communist parties
could be considered hate groups.
Any idea when extended far enough becomes exclusionary and therefore hostile
in nature. Case and point: lesbian feminist separatists.
But then another question is: what is "really" left wing as opposed to right
wing. Why is Stalin left-wing and Hitler right wing when their actions and
views were rather similar? Similarly, why are black hate groups left wing,
but neo-nazi groups right wing? Oh well.
Jeff
"Rev Fredric L. Rice" <fr...@skepticNOEATSPAMtank.org> wrote in message
news:t7om4pb...@corp.supernews.com...
>
Fred Stone
I must disagree.
Legitimate government power is derived from the common agreement of it's citizens
to live and work within a framework of laws, which are established by the
representatives of those citizens. Force is only applied to those who cannot or
will not abide by those laws.
The difference between China and the US is that the US is still mostly governed by
law.
--
Fred Stone
Life's a beach - then you dive.
Jim Fay
Exactly. Nobody needs control to make people do what they want to do
anyhow. That is not government. Under complete anarchy, people could
willingly choose to do wht they wanted and not be punished for it.
Government is the process of using force to make people do what others
want them to do, not what they themselvves want to do. You said the same
above.
> The difference between China and the US is that the US is still mostly governed by
> law.
China is governed by law as well. Just a more harsh series of laws that
often violate what Americans see as fundemental rights. But laws
nonetheless. The only difference between the two is how agreeable people
see the laws they enforce to be.
Rev Fredric L. Rice
>Rev Fredric L. Rice wrote:
>>
>> Amusingly enough, the nutter couldn't offer any names of "left wing hate
>> groups."
>The Democratic Party.
How utterly insane, yeah.
Rev Fredric L. Rice
>Jim Fay wrote:
>> Kerry wrote:
>>> raven1 wrote:
>>>> On 03 Feb 2001 22:34:35 GMT, Lou Minatti™ <loumi...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>>>>>Rev Fredric L. Rice wrote:
>>>>>> Amusingly enough, the nutter couldn't offer any names of "left wing hate
>>>>>> groups."
>>>>>The Democratic Party.
>>>> The Democratic party would be considered Right-of-center in any
>>>> country outside the US.
>>> From where I stand I cannot see the difference
>>> between the US and China. There is only one
>>> interest represented, and the public do not
>>> have a choice at all. They just think they do.
>>> The power's held by those at the right end of the gun.
>> All governmental power ultimately relies on force. No matter how many
>> courts, laws, and constitutions you throw at it, it all comes down to
>> "We are stronger than you, so you do what we say."
>I must disagree.
>Legitimate government power is derived from the common agreement of it's citizens
>to live and work within a framework of laws, which are established by the
>representatives of those citizens. Force is only applied to those who cannot or
>will not abide by those laws.
There are notable exceptions. Fascist, Totalitarian, and Authoritarian
dictators ultimately hold control of their populace through force of
weapons and fear. A small minority can run a nation when the small group
controls the military.
Rev Fredric L. Rice
>PeTA is a left wing terrorist organization/hate group.
No they're not. Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front would
be "left wing" terrorist groups with a hatred for the fur, vivisectionist,
logging et al. industry. PETA are just ineffectual airheads who lack even
the political power of the Sierra Club.
Doug Berry
Kerry <"cleanair "@aircleanse.com.au>, wrote thusly:
>From where I stand I cannot see the difference
>between the US and China. There is only one
>interest represented, and the public do not
>have a choice at all. They just think they do.
>The power's held by those at the right end of the gun.
You can't see the difrerence?
here's an idea.. go to Washington, and march up and down in front
of the White Hopuse with a sign reading "Bush is a Traitor,
Impeachment now!" and see what happenes.
Try the same trick in Bejing, with a sign stating "Deng is a
Traitor to the Revolution."
I think you'll see the difference.
--
Douglas E. Berry grid...@mindspring.com
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
tim gueguen
"Doug Berry" <grid...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:4i3r7t87n6mra7ggs...@4ax.com...
> And lo, it came to pass on Sat, 03 Feb 2001 23:49:25 GMT that
> Kerry <"cleanair "@aircleanse.com.au>, wrote thusly:
>
> >From where I stand I cannot see the difference
> >between the US and China. There is only one
> >interest represented, and the public do not
> >have a choice at all. They just think they do.
> >The power's held by those at the right end of the gun.
>
> You can't see the difrerence?
>
> here's an idea.. go to Washington, and march up and down in front
> of the White Hopuse with a sign reading "Bush is a Traitor,
> Impeachment now!" and see what happenes.
>
> Try the same trick in Bejing, with a sign stating "Deng is a
> Traitor to the Revolution."
>
> I think you'll see the difference.
>
Beijing: any nearby law enforcement officers will laugh at you before they
knock you over the head with their batons and arrange for you to be hauled
off by the secret police.
tim gueguen 101867
Chris Nelson
news:3A7C87...@yahoo.com...
> Rev Fredric L. Rice wrote:
> >
> > Amusingly enough, the nutter couldn't offer any names of
"left wing hate
> > groups."
>
> The Democratic Party.
Please enlighten us - how does the Democratic Party hate?
--
Chris Nelson
"The preceding collection of books is a work
of fiction and is not to be taken seriously."
-- Revelation 22:22
Chris Nelson
news:5U6f6.3153$uH6.8...@news.uswest.net...
> Hate exists on both sides of the spectrum. He does
mention a couple: Al
> Sharpton, et al.
Does Sharpton hate whites, or preach hatred against whites?
> Similarly, there is Louis Farrakhan,
Does he preach hatred against whites?
> in the past there was
> the Black Panthers
Now defunct...
> and so on. On the Animal liberation front there are
> numerous groups, including Peta.
Does PETA preach hatred or violence? They may be loons, but
I've seen no hatred come from them.
There are certainly hateful wackos on the left, and also
some terrorist organizations, like the environmental group
that burns down buildings. But the examples provided above
are not good ones. And right-wing hate groups far outnumber
and have greater political clout than left-wing ones.
Jim Fay
Chris Nelson wrote:
>
> "Jeff" <pitsaregrea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:5U6f6.3153$uH6.8...@news.uswest.net...
> > Hate exists on both sides of the spectrum. He does
> mention a couple: Al
> > Sharpton, et al.
>
> Does Sharpton hate whites, or preach hatred against whites?
Not especially, although his relationship with the Jewish community is
not altogether pleasant.
> > Similarly, there is Louis Farrakhan,
>
> Does he preach hatred against whites?
Oh yeah. And Jews, Asians, and a variety of other groups. He is not a
very nice person.
> > in the past there was
> > the Black Panthers
>
> Now defunct...
And despite the rhetoric, not really a hate group. Just a militant group
in support of equal rights.
> > and so on. On the Animal liberation front there are
> > numerous groups, including Peta.
>
> Does PETA preach hatred or violence? They may be loons, but
> I've seen no hatred come from them.
Not PETA. But there are some (I saw Fred Rice had posted a couple
above).
> There are certainly hateful wackos on the left, and also
> some terrorist organizations, like the environmental group
> that burns down buildings. But the examples provided above
> are not good ones. And right-wing hate groups far outnumber
> and have greater political clout than left-wing ones.
Well the right has more clout in this country regardless. People
complain about Communists trying to take away their rights, but
Communism is a criminal offense here (Espionage Act, if anyone is
interested. Also banned Anarchism and some terrorist groups like the
Klan, but was not very well enforced except for Communists and
Anarchists).
Matt Kriebel
Nelson" <c...@chrisnelsonREMOVETHIS.net> wrote:
> "Jeff" <pitsaregrea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:5U6f6.3153$uH6.8...@news.uswest.net...
> > Hate exists on both sides of the spectrum. He does
> mention a couple: Al
> > Sharpton, et al.
>
> Does Sharpton hate whites, or preach hatred against whites?
>
> > Similarly, there is Louis Farrakhan,
>
> Does he preach hatred against whites?
Does anti-semitism count?
Does having one's doctrine involving UFO's coming to wipe out all white
people count as hate?
--
Matt Kriebel * The Hessian Page
got...@netaxs.com * http://www.netaxs.com/~gothic/Hessian.html
*********************************************************************
CAL-I-FOR-NYA Here I Co..******RECOVERY FROM POWER FAILURE*******
Chris Nelson
message news:gothic-072D60....@news.netaxs.com...
> In article
<nrhf6.228830$iy3.53...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com>, "Chris
> Nelson" <c...@chrisnelsonREMOVETHIS.net> wrote:
>
> > "Jeff" <pitsaregrea...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
> > news:5U6f6.3153$uH6.8...@news.uswest.net...
> > > Hate exists on both sides of the spectrum. He does
> > mention a couple: Al
> > > Sharpton, et al.
> >
> > Does Sharpton hate whites, or preach hatred against
whites?
> >
> > > Similarly, there is Louis Farrakhan,
> >
> > Does he preach hatred against whites?
>
> Does anti-semitism count?
>
> Does having one's doctrine involving UFO's coming to wipe
out all white
> people count as hate?
Is that true? He sounds like a loon if that's the case.
Kerry
>
> And lo, it came to pass on Sat, 03 Feb 2001 23:49:25 GMT that
> Kerry <"cleanair "@aircleanse.com.au>, wrote thusly:
>
> >From where I stand I cannot see the difference
> >between the US and China. There is only one
> >interest represented, and the public do not
> >have a choice at all. They just think they do.
> >The power's held by those at the right end of the gun.
>
> You can't see the difrerence?
>
> here's an idea.. go to Washington, and march up and down in front
> of the White Hopuse with a sign reading "Bush is a Traitor,
> Impeachment now!" and see what happenes.
>
> Try the same trick in Bejing, with a sign stating "Deng is a
> Traitor to the Revolution."
>
> I think you'll see the difference.
Of course there is a difference at what is/isn't tolerated
by 'the power' that controls either nation. The relevance
in what I wrote is that in China you can only vote for the
communist candidates in their elections, and in the United
States you can only vote for the representatives already
chosen by what 'to me' is an indistinguishable system that
is already in place in the same way. When has there been a
tolerance in the USA for a communist party?
When in the last 50 years has there been a tolerance of
capitalist interests in China? The fact now that the
president has been appointed by the apparatus that represents
the controlling interests, and not the result of the actual
vote means something has gone screwy somewhere. It's not the
will of the people, its the will of the entrenched power.
An 'appointed' leader, not a chosen one. Your situation is
not much different in fact than when Germany was taken over
by certain interests back in January 1933, and if you doubt
the significance of that I suggest a search of the events on
the day of March 9, 1933 and why your nation (USA) has been in
"state of national emergency" for the unbroken time since then,
for a very uncomfortable clue. Your president can and already is,
as his predecessors have, ruling by decree. The elected
representatives are window dressing only, as they don't even
need to be asked, as Executive Orders such as Bush has already
signed do pass into law without any ratification at all.
As an outsider, I feel very deeply for the ordinary citizen
of the USA because most of the 'rights' have been removed bit
by bit, and as the supreme court has shown, they are beholden
to the power, and no longer the people. I hope it's not too late.
Kerry
aa #1773
Dominion
Tho I can agree (somewhat) with some of your points, on the whole, you
are really showing your ignorance of the American Government if you
think the president rules by decree. :) I mean really, one of the
major problems in this country is the ideological blockage the
government finds itself in. There is no such thing as bipartisanism,
no one really cares about the "good of the country" nearly as much as
they worry about what is good for their ideology! "It's a
right-wing/left wing conspiracy" and everyone it seems wants to jump
on the band wagon. Even a guy I usually admire blows it big time when
equating the Democratic party with a "Hate Group". You want to see
hate groups? Visit
http://us-israel.org/jsource/anti-semitism/hate.html
or better yet
http://www.bcpl.net/~rfrankli/hatedir.htm
To equate the Democratic party with such is simply being inflammatory
for no good reason and a really good example of why we can't seem to
get anything done in this country.
Your right that we have found a reduction in individual freedoms but
you also have to understand that it is mostly self-inflicted. I don't
blame the government for reducing our freedom when it becomes clear
that we are not interested in preserving them. Governments do what
they do. It is up to us to prevent this erosion, but as long as we are
going to claim that either party is a hate group, there is little
chance of us being able to agree on just what rights are being eroded!
In fact, I find the whole debate to be depressing. It reflects badly
on America that we behave in this manner. It is no wonder most the
world thinks of us as a bunch of inbred rednecks. As much as I love
this country I really have to wonder if the rest of the world is not
on to something!
In any case, believe me when I say that no one is running anything by
decree!
---
Dominion
Debate. Create. Participate.
The Skeptical_Wiki
http://www.wikiweb.com/CENSORED BY URI GELLER
On 11/6/2000 Uri Geller
Successfully Censored This Site!
Thanks for your Moral Courage
Mr Monty Kamath Prez of Wikiweb.com
Dubitando ad veritatem venimus.
By doubting we come to the truth
Matt Kriebel
Nelson" <c...@chrisnelsonREMOVETHIS.net> wrote:
> > > > Similarly, there is Louis Farrakhan,
> > >
> > > Does he preach hatred against whites?
> >
> > Does anti-semitism count?
> >
> > Does having one's doctrine involving UFO's coming to wipe
> out all white
> > people count as hate?
>
> Is that true? He sounds like a loon if that's the case.
Pretty much. The whole 'Nation of Islam' took on a ghostdance style
theme in the past few years with this idea that the great brothers in
the sky are going to come down and put things to right (ie. put the
black people back 'in charge' whatever that means). They try to keep
quiet about that aspect of it, but it gets mentioned a lot when they get
heated up.
This in addition to a lot of "afro-centric" movements that take a few
simplistic ideas to extremes, such as the idea that white peopl are
mutants, etc.
Al Sharpton is just a bigot.
Jeff
Jeff
"Matt Kriebel" <got...@UNSPAMunspamnetaxs.com> wrote in message
news:gothic-434A09....@news.netaxs.com...
Jeff
"Chris Nelson" <c...@chrisnelsonREMOVETHIS.net> wrote in message
news:ulhf6.228813$iy3.53...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
> "Lou MinattiT" <loumi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3A7C87...@yahoo.com...
> > Rev Fredric L. Rice wrote:
> > >
> > > Amusingly enough, the nutter couldn't offer any names of
> "left wing hate
> > > groups."
> >
> > The Democratic Party.
>
> Please enlighten us - how does the Democratic Party hate?
Actually, I think that the Republican party would qualify more than the
Democrats for that. The Democrats are around the middle of the political
spectrum, while the Repubs are generally far right. That typically evolves
hate for abortion, secularism, freedom and so on...
Jeff
Jim Phillips
So getting someone to prevent others from hitting me in the head
with a blunt instrument is "using force to make people do what others want
them to do"? If so, hurrah for Government!
snip
--
Jim Phillips, jphi...@bcpl.net
"If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten." -- George Carlin
Jim Phillips
> "Jeff" <pitsaregrea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:5U6f6.3153$uH6.8...@news.uswest.net...
> > Hate exists on both sides of the spectrum. He does
> mention a couple: Al
> > Sharpton, et al.
>
> Does Sharpton hate whites, or preach hatred against whites?
>
> > Similarly, there is Louis Farrakhan,
>
> Does he preach hatred against whites?
>
> > in the past there was
> > the Black Panthers
>
> Now defunct...
>
> > and so on. On the Animal liberation front there are
> > numerous groups, including Peta.
>
> Does PETA preach hatred or violence? They may be loons, but
> I've seen no hatred come from them.
>
> There are certainly hateful wackos on the left, and also
> some terrorist organizations, like the environmental group
> that burns down buildings. But the examples provided above
> are not good ones. And right-wing hate groups far outnumber
> and have greater political clout than left-wing ones.
We shouldn't confuse "hate groups" with "really angry groups"--
environmental extremists strike me as "really angry", the democratic party
as "angry", but neither one comes close to "hate". How does one define a
"hate group", anyway?
Jim Phillips
> Doug Berry wrote:
> >
> > And lo, it came to pass on Sat, 03 Feb 2001 23:49:25 GMT that
> > Kerry <"cleanair "@aircleanse.com.au>, wrote thusly:
> >
> > >From where I stand I cannot see the difference
> > >between the US and China. There is only one
> > >interest represented, and the public do not
> > >have a choice at all. They just think they do.
> > >The power's held by those at the right end of the gun.
> >
> > You can't see the difrerence?
> >
> > here's an idea.. go to Washington, and march up and down in front
> > of the White Hopuse with a sign reading "Bush is a Traitor,
> > Impeachment now!" and see what happenes.
> >
> > Try the same trick in Bejing, with a sign stating "Deng is a
> > Traitor to the Revolution."
> >
> > I think you'll see the difference.
>
> Of course there is a difference at what is/isn't tolerated
> by 'the power' that controls either nation. The relevance
> in what I wrote is that in China you can only vote for the
> communist candidates in their elections, and in the United
> States you can only vote for the representatives already
> chosen by what 'to me' is an indistinguishable system that
> is already in place in the same way. When has there been a
> tolerance in the USA for a communist party?
It exists now, doesn't it? It's just not very popular.
Oh, and thanks for clarifying your "I can't see the difference
between the US and China"--it made you look loony.
> When in the last 50 years has there been a tolerance of
> capitalist interests in China? The fact now that the
> president has been appointed by the apparatus that represents
> the controlling interests, and not the result of the actual
> vote means something has gone screwy somewhere. It's not the
> will of the people, its the will of the entrenched power.
> An 'appointed' leader, not a chosen one. Your situation is
> not much different in fact than when Germany was taken over
> by certain interests back in January 1933, and if you doubt
> the significance of that I suggest a search of the events on
> the day of March 9, 1933 and why your nation (USA) has been in
> "state of national emergency" for the unbroken time since then,
> for a very uncomfortable clue. Your president can and already is,
> as his predecessors have, ruling by decree. The elected
> representatives are window dressing only, as they don't even
> need to be asked, as Executive Orders such as Bush has already
> signed do pass into law without any ratification at all.
Oh, never mind--I see you are a loon, after all. I'll just smile
and back away slowly...
Paul Murray
news:3A7C9773...@aircleanse.com.au...
> From where I stand I cannot see the difference
> between the US and China. There is only one
> interest represented, and the public do not
> have a choice at all. They just think they do.
> The power's held by those at the right end of the gun.
It has always been like this, everywhere.
--------------------------------------------------------------
0x29A - opcode of the beast!
http://www.users.bigpond.com/pmurray
ICQ: 26066755
Paul Murray
news:3A7CFEE8...@earthlink.net...
> I must disagree.
> Legitimate government power is derived from the common agreement of it's
citizens
> to live and work within a framework of laws, which are established by the
> representatives of those citizens.
And this "common agreement" happens in school, where kids voluntarily and
consensually repeat the oath of allegiance.
Dominion
<pitsaregrea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Chris Nelson" <c...@chrisnelsonREMOVETHIS.net> wrote in message
>news:ulhf6.228813$iy3.53...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
>> "Lou MinattiT" <loumi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:3A7C87...@yahoo.com...
>> > Rev Fredric L. Rice wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Amusingly enough, the nutter couldn't offer any names of
>> "left wing hate
>> > > groups."
>> >
>> > The Democratic Party.
>>
>> Please enlighten us - how does the Democratic Party hate?
>
>Actually, I think that the Republican party would qualify more than the
>Democrats for that. The Democrats are around the middle of the political
>spectrum, while the Repubs are generally far right. That typically evolves
>hate for abortion, secularism, freedom and so on...
Arrrggg! As long as we are going to accuse one or the other party of
being a "Hate Group" (and certainly as a person that has debated
individuals in REAL hate groups, I really wish you would learn the
definition) there is little hope that anything can get done in this
country.
If you want to learn what a REAL hate group is visit
http://us-israel.org/jsource/anti-semitism/hate.html
or better yet
http://www.bcpl.net/~rfrankli/hatedir.htm
or one of my favs
The Republican's are no more a hate group than the Democrats. You may
disagree with their policy and that is one thing. You can point to
individuals as not quite savory, but one or eight people do not make
the Republican party (nor the Democrats for that matter).
Using such inflammatory words only dilute the meaning of the term. To
those of us that are concerned with the rise of REAL HATE GROUPS, this
sucks.
Jeff
news:9AE85DF038988287.D1371C0F...@lp.airnews.net...
> On Sun, 4 Feb 2001 22:35:15 -0600, "Jeff"
> <pitsaregrea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Chris Nelson" <c...@chrisnelsonREMOVETHIS.net> wrote in message
> >news:ulhf6.228813$iy3.53...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
> >> "Lou MinattiT" <loumi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:3A7C87...@yahoo.com...
> >> > Rev Fredric L. Rice wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Amusingly enough, the nutter couldn't offer any names of
> >> "left wing hate
> >> > > groups."
> >> >
> >> > The Democratic Party.
> >>
> >> Please enlighten us - how does the Democratic Party hate?
> >
> >Actually, I think that the Republican party would qualify more than the
> >Democrats for that. The Democrats are around the middle of the political
> >spectrum, while the Repubs are generally far right. That typically
evolves
> >hate for abortion, secularism, freedom and so on...
>
> Arrrggg! As long as we are going to accuse one or the other party of
> being a "Hate Group" (and certainly as a person that has debated
> individuals in REAL hate groups, I really wish you would learn the
> definition) there is little hope that anything can get done in this
> country.
Okay, then please provide the definition of a hate group. A list is not
sufficient, I want a real, working definition.
Jeff
Dominion
wrote:
Damnit Jim, I am glad you asked.
I find this definition to be pretty handy:
(A Hate Group) advocate violence against, separation from, defamation
of, deception about, or hostility toward others based upon race,
religion, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation.
http://www.bcpl.net/~rfrankli/hatedir99.htm
My OHO is that the advocation of violence is the deciding feature of
all of what I would consider to be hate groups. If you don't avocate
violence then you are a "really angry group" and not a "hate group".
Just my 2 cents
Xcott Craver
>
>Actually, I think that the Republican party would qualify more than
>the Democrats for that. The Democrats are around the middle of the
>political spectrum, while the Repubs are generally far right.
"Far" right? Far right would be the John Birch society, at
least in my opinion. Republicans attempt just as much as
Democrats to woo moderate voters, and will choose policy to
maximize their chances. Hence Democrats that are "tough on
crime," and Republicans offering "compassionate conservatism."
>That typically evolves hate for abortion, secularism, freedom and
>so on...
"Hate for" abortion, eh? I don't suppose you intended to
merely write "opposition to?" Um, sure the Republican party
is a hate group, why, they have ... hate for higher taxes.
And, can the bit about "freedom." Oh, of course, clearly
this party is for freedom, and the other party is anti-
freedom. Clearly. Half the country just doesn't realize this.
And it's your party that's pro-freedom, right?
Just like everyone claims to be the TRVE defenders of the Bill
of Rights from the evil Other Party, while somehow nobody
seems to be happy with all the Amendments. Just like everyone
claims to be anti-censorship...except not counting Sex on TV.
Or violence on TV. Or certain words on TV.
>Jeff
-S
Dominion
(A Hate Group) advocate violence against, separation from, defamation
of, deception about, or hostility toward others based upon race,
religion, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation.
http://www.bcpl.net/~rfrankli/hatedir99.htm
My OHO is that the advocation of violence is the deciding feature of
all of what I would consider to be hate groups. If you don't avocate
violence then you are a "really angry group" and not a "hate group".
---
Chris Nelson
news:vouf6.5906$Nx3.1...@typhoon2.ba-dsg.net...
Actually, yes. The Republcians oppose reproductive rights,
separation of church and state, religious freedom for those
who are not Judeo-Christians, free speech, gay rights, civil
rights, flag burning, and many other freedoms. Their
legislative ideas frequently include measures to restrict
freedom rather than expand it. The freedoms we've gained
over the last 40 years are chielfy the work of the left.
Anyone who opposes abortion is anti-freedom, to say the
least. Guess which party anti-abortionists overwhelmingly
support?
--
Chris Nelson
Over 400 failed doomsday prophecies!
http://www.chrisnelson.net
Jeff
Well, then left wing groups like the Animal Liberation Front WOULD qualify
as a hate group, wouldn't they?
Jeff
Jeff
Jeff
"Chris Nelson" <c...@chrisnelsonREMOVETHIS.net> wrote in message
news:Tdyf6.234479$iy3.53...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
Jim Fay
Paul Murray wrote:
>
> "Fred Stone" <fsto...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3A7CFEE8...@earthlink.net...
>
> > I must disagree.
> > Legitimate government power is derived from the common agreement of it's
> citizens
> > to live and work within a framework of laws, which are established by the
> > representatives of those citizens.
>
> And this "common agreement" happens in school, where kids voluntarily and
> consensually repeat the oath of allegiance.
Because kids are always allowed to sign legally binding contracts ;-)
It never fails to amaze me that we are told that there is a legitimate
basis for power in a piece of paper signed by a bunch of people we
didn't know or grant power of attorney to a long time before we were
born.
Rev Fredric L. Rice
>"Fred Stone" <fsto...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:3A7CFEE8...@earthlink.net...
>> I must disagree.
>> Legitimate government power is derived from the common agreement of it's citizens
>> to live and work within a framework of laws, which are established by the
>> representatives of those citizens.
> And this "common agreement" happens in school, where kids
> voluntarily and consensually repeat the oath of allegiance.
My sons refuse to. They recognize the absurdity of praying at cloth.
---
Send information concerning incidents of racketeering and
terrorism by the Scientology cult to the Domestic Terrorism
Task Force at nor...@fbi.gov http://www.skeptictank.org/
For psychological assistance check: http://www.shrinktank.com/
Jim Fay
Yes. But then you don't need government for that either, you can just
use force yourself. There is no question that there is a right to self
defense. The real question is whether we have a right to force others to
abide by drug laws, tax laws, and other "civic regulations" simply
because of where they are born.
Jim Fay
There are communist-oriented parties (although socialist ones are more
common and often confused for the same thing), but the Communist Party
itself was outlawed in 1917 (the date should tip the hat as to why,
although they were also starting to poll much better than the other 3rd
parties at the time).
> > When in the last 50 years has there been a tolerance of
> > capitalist interests in China? The fact now that the
> > president has been appointed by the apparatus that represents
> > the controlling interests, and not the result of the actual
> > vote means something has gone screwy somewhere. It's not the
> > will of the people, its the will of the entrenched power.
> > An 'appointed' leader, not a chosen one. Your situation is
> > not much different in fact than when Germany was taken over
> > by certain interests back in January 1933, and if you doubt
> > the significance of that I suggest a search of the events on
> > the day of March 9, 1933 and why your nation (USA) has been in
> > "state of national emergency" for the unbroken time since then,
> > for a very uncomfortable clue. Your president can and already is,
> > as his predecessors have, ruling by decree. The elected
> > representatives are window dressing only, as they don't even
> > need to be asked, as Executive Orders such as Bush has already
> > signed do pass into law without any ratification at all.
>
> Oh, never mind--I see you are a loon, after all. I'll just smile
> and back away slowly...
In a sense he is right. The President can issue executive orders over
many areas where he has oversight, without asking Congress. Then you
have the War Powers Act. Adn there is even an executive discretionary
fund, which Pres. Clinton used to help bail out debt in Mexico (I
believe). As for an unbroken state of emergency, I don't know about that
one.
Doug Berry
Kerry <"cleanair "@aircleanse.com.au>, wrote thusly:
>Of course there is a difference at what is/isn't tolerated
>by 'the power' that controls either nation. The relevance
>in what I wrote is that in China you can only vote for the
>communist candidates in their elections, and in the United
>States you can only vote for the representatives already
>chosen by what 'to me' is an indistinguishable system that
>is already in place in the same way. When has there been a
>tolerance in the USA for a communist party?
It has been around for decades, and occasionally wins an election
somewhere.
The difference is that in China the kind of media attention
Clinton suffered through is unthinkable. You do not have any
right to know what is happening, and the Party decides what is
good for you. Here, you have a voice.
>When in the last 50 years has there been a tolerance of
>capitalist interests in China?
LOL!! You really need to read a newspaper.. China is a
capitalist state dressed in revolutionary red!
>As an outsider, I feel very deeply for the ordinary citizen
>of the USA because most of the 'rights' have been removed bit
>by bit, and as the supreme court has shown, they are beholden
>to the power, and no longer the people. I hope it's not too late.
We're still very free.
--
Douglas E. Berry grid...@mindspring.com
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
Doug Berry
Jim Fay <gt4...@prism.gatech.edu>, wrote thusly:
>There are communist-oriented parties (although socialist ones are more
>common and often confused for the same thing), but the Communist Party
>itself was outlawed in 1917 (the date should tip the hat as to why,
>although they were also starting to poll much better than the other 3rd
>parties at the time).
I imagine this news will be a shock to the Communist Party, USA.
I did a little checking, and I can't find any law on the books
outlawing the Communists. Blatant violation of the First
Amendment aside, you think either side wanted to set a precednt
for outlawing parties?
Jim Phillips
But what if there are more bad guys than just little old me? If
I band together with my neighbors to keep them away, isn't that a form of
government? If not, where's the dividing line?
> The real question is whether we have a right to force others to
> abide by drug laws, tax laws, and other "civic regulations" simply
> because of where they are born.
I don't think that an anarchy is a realistic form of government
once the population grows past a certain size (no, I don't know what that
size is). There are real, practical problems when you're dealing with
large numbers of people; a common solution to those problems is a set of
rules and a mechanism to enforce them. There's no way all of the rules
will be accepted by all of the people, but there needs to be something
in place, otherwise there's anarchy (which is not a good thing, since
the strong will inevitably rule the weak--what's to stop them?). Don't
like the rules? Work to change them. Don't want to? Move somewhere else,
and leave the rest of us in peace.
Dominion
<pitsaregrea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
If they avocate violence then yes they would. What part of my post are
you not getting?
I am not talking about the Animal Liberation Front. I am talking about
dunderheads claiming that the two major parties in this country
qualify as "Hate Groups". Do YOU think that the Democratic Party is a
Hate Group? Do you think the Republican's are?
Boy you try to stay focused...
Fred Stone
Jim Fay wrote:
"We the people..." have delegated the use of force to the police and to the military.
> The real question is whether we have a right to force others to
> abide by drug laws, tax laws, and other "civic regulations" simply
> because of where they are born.
Again, "We the people..." have assigned that right to the Government. Not
everyone agrees with all of those things, but we have collectively agreed to
abide by laws in order to get along as a society.
Personally, I don't agree with the drug laws, and I wish they didn't exist,
but then I also wish that I'd never heard of cocaine either.
--
Fred Stone
aa # 1369
Life's a beach - then you dive.
Jim Fay
There isn't one. Therein lies the problem. If a governemnt has the same
right to coerce people into submission as a collection of neighbors,
then why are governmental powers so broad? And why do they automatically
apply to anyone born in certain geographic boundaries?
> > The real question is whether we have a right to force others to
> > abide by drug laws, tax laws, and other "civic regulations" simply
> > because of where they are born.
>
> I don't think that an anarchy is a realistic form of government
> once the population grows past a certain size (no, I don't know what that
> size is).
35 ;-)
> There are real, practical problems when you're dealing with
> large numbers of people; a common solution to those problems is a set of
> rules and a mechanism to enforce them.
Look at a corporation though. Same idea, but if you don't like the rles
you can leave. You can work for someone else. You can decide to provide
the same products or services the company provides with your own
company.
So governmental structure is not the only way to accomplish those means.
> There's no way all of the rules
> will be accepted by all of the people, but there needs to be something
> in place, otherwise there's anarchy (which is not a good thing, since
> the strong will inevitably rule the weak--what's to stop them?). Don't
> like the rules? Work to change them. Don't want to? Move somewhere else,
> and leave the rest of us in peace.
But you can't always do that. And why should you have to move because
you don't like the laws of X government? Why do they have the right to
tell you what to do just because you were born in a certain place?
Jim Fay
Quite. The question is can we extend to those agencies powers which we
ourselves do not have?
And who is this "We the people?" I never signed that piece of paper. I'm
betting you didn't either. As a matter of fact, only a tiny fraction of
the people alive at the time of that signing, let alone all people bound
by it, had anything to do with it whatsoever. It's like saying you have
power of attorney over someone you've never met without them assigning
it to you.
> > The real question is whether we have a right to force others to
> > abide by drug laws, tax laws, and other "civic regulations" simply
> > because of where they are born.
>
> Again, "We the people..." have assigned that right to the Government.
See above.
> Not
> everyone agrees with all of those things, but we have collectively agreed to
> abide by laws in order to get along as a society.
Oversimplification. The fact that we have to agree on some things to get
along does not give the right to legislate anything. and the fact we
have to agree on some things to get along doesn't even mean we have to
agree on those things. It just means that if we don't we aren't going to
be able to cooperate with each other in an effective manner.
> Personally, I don't agree with the drug laws, and I wish they didn't exist,
> but then I also wish that I'd never heard of cocaine either.
Therein lies the problem. You think drug laws are not justified. But if
you get caught breaking them, a group of heavily armed people will come
to your home, drag you forcibly off to jail, take your stuff, and hold
you in a cell against your will for years. Where did they get the right
to do that? "We the people" don't have the right to show up at your door
and do that.
So how did we assign that right to someone else? Simple. Because we as a
group have the necessary force to do that to the number of people who
get the short end of the stick. That is the basis of government. Not
rights, not laws, but rather sufficient force.
Jim Fay
Doug Berry wrote:
>
> And lo, it came to pass on Mon, 05 Feb 2001 10:34:52 -0500 that
> Jim Fay <gt4...@prism.gatech.edu>, wrote thusly:
>
> >There are communist-oriented parties (although socialist ones are more
> >common and often confused for the same thing), but the Communist Party
> >itself was outlawed in 1917 (the date should tip the hat as to why,
> >although they were also starting to poll much better than the other 3rd
> >parties at the time).
>
> I imagine this news will be a shock to the Communist Party, USA.
>
> http://www.cpusa.org/cp-usa/
Interesting. I see the enforcement is getting lax enough that th elaw is
starting to be ignored now.
Check into the Espionage Act. It was the basis from which McCarthy
derived his powers, and is still on the books AFAIK.
> I did a little checking, and I can't find any law on the books
> outlawing the Communists. Blatant violation of the First
> Amendment aside, you think either side wanted to set a precednt
> for outlawing parties?
Yes. Especially third parties. Look at the campaign finance laws. They
are designed to prevent anybody but the two main parties from receiving
significant funds. You think that was a happy coincidence?
Jim Fay
Doug Berry wrote:
>
> And lo, it came to pass on Sun, 04 Feb 2001 23:41:28 GMT that
> Kerry <"cleanair "@aircleanse.com.au>, wrote thusly:
>
> >Of course there is a difference at what is/isn't tolerated
> >by 'the power' that controls either nation. The relevance
> >in what I wrote is that in China you can only vote for the
> >communist candidates in their elections, and in the United
> >States you can only vote for the representatives already
> >chosen by what 'to me' is an indistinguishable system that
> >is already in place in the same way. When has there been a
> >tolerance in the USA for a communist party?
>
> It has been around for decades, and occasionally wins an election
> somewhere.
>
> The difference is that in China the kind of media attention
> Clinton suffered through is unthinkable. You do not have any
> right to know what is happening, and the Party decides what is
> good for you. Here, you have a voice.
Or more specifically, the teeny amount of publishers that control the
vast majority of newspapers make that decision.
> >When in the last 50 years has there been a tolerance of
> >capitalist interests in China?
>
> LOL!! You really need to read a newspaper.. China is a
> capitalist state dressed in revolutionary red!
Always has been really. Even the USSR was largely a capitalist state
economically for almost all of its history. In both cases a few inroads
at collectivism were made onto the capitalist system.
As for the totalitarian aspects of the China and the USSR, they weren't
exactly freewheeling anything-goes countries before their revolutions
anyways. Say what you will about Castro, he's not any worse than
Batista, and in many ways he's a huge improvement.
> >As an outsider, I feel very deeply for the ordinary citizen
> >of the USA because most of the 'rights' have been removed bit
> >by bit, and as the supreme court has shown, they are beholden
> >to the power, and no longer the people. I hope it's not too late.
>
> We're still very free.
Comparitively.
Fred Stone
I am no political scientist. My own view on this is that the agreement is implicit
in living in the territory claimed by the government in question. In other words,
if you really can't stand it, move somewhere else. The US obviously isn't perfect
nor is anywhere else. But I live here and I'm satisfied with the accomodation that
I have made with the system.
> > > The real question is whether we have a right to force others to
> > > abide by drug laws, tax laws, and other "civic regulations" simply
> > > because of where they are born.
> >
> > Again, "We the people..." have assigned that right to the Government.
>
> See above.
>
> > Not
> > everyone agrees with all of those things, but we have collectively agreed to
> > abide by laws in order to get along as a society.
>
> Oversimplification. The fact that we have to agree on some things to get
> along does not give the right to legislate anything.
But it does, as in the delegation of the "right of self-defense."
> and the fact we have to agree on some things to get along doesn't even mean we have to
> agree on those things. It just means that if we don't we aren't going to
> be able to cooperate with each other in an effective manner.
If only everyone could be tolerant of others behavior, you'd be right.
> > Personally, I don't agree with the drug laws, and I wish they didn't exist,
> > but then I also wish that I'd never heard of cocaine either.
>
> Therein lies the problem. You think drug laws are not justified. But if
> you get caught breaking them, a group of heavily armed people will come
> to your home, drag you forcibly off to jail, take your stuff, and hold
> you in a cell against your will for years. Where did they get the right
> to do that? "We the people" don't have the right to show up at your door
> and do that.
> So how did we assign that right to someone else? Simple. Because we as a
> group have the necessary force to do that to the number of people who
> get the short end of the stick. That is the basis of government. Not
> rights, not laws, but rather sufficient force.
You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In an ideal society, indeed
the government would only exist to prevent it's citizens from using force
against one another, and to prevent other societies from using force against
the whole.
Nowhere on earth does this ideal society exist. Once we granted society the
power to enforce the law, we implicitly granted the right to make the law.
This includes the right to make bad law. And the right to campaign to get
bad law changed. Without the use of force.
Again, I am not a political scientist. I'm sure that some poli-sci major
could state what I've said more clearly.
Jim Fay
Perfectly understandable. My point was brought up when someone claimed
that the difference in the use of power by the US and China had
something to do with a difference in the basis of power.
> > > > The real question is whether we have a right to force others to
> > > > abide by drug laws, tax laws, and other "civic regulations" simply
> > > > because of where they are born.
> > >
> > > Again, "We the people..." have assigned that right to the Government.
> >
> > See above.
> >
> > > Not
> > > everyone agrees with all of those things, but we have collectively agreed to
> > > abide by laws in order to get along as a society.
> >
> > Oversimplification. The fact that we have to agree on some things to get
> > along does not give the right to legislate anything.
>
> But it does, as in the delegation of the "right of self-defense."
Ah, but that is one specific instance. The right to self defense is
something we have regardless of government, it is just exercised more
effectively through government. But government claims powers that the
individuals who created that government do not have.
Rights like self defense derive from the right to control one's own
life. If someone wants to do something to you, and you don't want them
to do it, your desire has higher priority because it is your life.
> > and the fact we have to agree on some things to get along doesn't even mean we have to
> > agree on those things. It just means that if we don't we aren't going to
> > be able to cooperate with each other in an effective manner.
>
> If only everyone could be tolerant of others behavior, you'd be right.
Well if everyone would decide not to kill anyone else we wouldn't need
laws against murder.
> > > Personally, I don't agree with the drug laws, and I wish they didn't exist,
> > > but then I also wish that I'd never heard of cocaine either.
> >
> > Therein lies the problem. You think drug laws are not justified. But if
> > you get caught breaking them, a group of heavily armed people will come
> > to your home, drag you forcibly off to jail, take your stuff, and hold
> > you in a cell against your will for years. Where did they get the right
> > to do that? "We the people" don't have the right to show up at your door
> > and do that.
> > So how did we assign that right to someone else? Simple. Because we as a
> > group have the necessary force to do that to the number of people who
> > get the short end of the stick. That is the basis of government. Not
> > rights, not laws, but rather sufficient force.
>
> You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In an ideal society, indeed
> the government would only exist to prevent it's citizens from using force
> against one another, and to prevent other societies from using force against
> the whole.
> Nowhere on earth does this ideal society exist. Once we granted society the
> power to enforce the law, we implicitly granted the right to make the law.
> This includes the right to make bad law. And the right to campaign to get
> bad law changed. Without the use of force.
Ah, but there is no such clause to prevent the use of force in upholding
bad laws.
Xcott Craver
>> And it's your party that's pro-freedom, right?
>
>Actually, yes. The Republcians oppose reproductive rights,
>separation of church and state, religious freedom for those
>who are not Judeo-Christians, free speech,
Stop there. Both those parties oppose free speech. It just
depends on the kinds of speech. And conservatives could just as
likely compose such a laundry list for liberals (the second
amendment springs to mind.) Neither party seems happy with _all_
the rights in the Bill of Rights.
Further, the Democratic party's record for being pro-freedom gets
significantly worse if the Clinton administration are counted as
Democrats. They pushed for extended wiretap powers and encryption
regulation (remember the "Clipper chip?") They opposed research
on medicinal aspects of marijuana.
Clinton was also happy to sign into law the Communications Decency
Act, perhaps the most sweeping ban of literature in US history (and
written by a Democrat, Sen. Exon,) as well as the Digital Millenium
Copyright Act, which gives amazing powers to big media companies
over consumers. It even apparently grants the power to suppress
academic research on encryption. Ooh, thank goodness the Dems were
in office protecting my First Amendment rights. I guess I'm going
to study some other subject now.
> The freedoms we've gained over the last 40 years are
> chielfy the work of the left.
The freedoms we've gained are chiefly the work of groups such as
the ACLU, who are neither left nor right, but enemies of both.
The ACLU is as willing to defend Klan members' right to burn
crosses as they are to oppose challenges to separation of church
and state.
<flamebait> And I can't help but notice that you are doing a
lil' bait-and-switch here, talking about "the left" rather than
"the Democratic Party." Trying to take credit for the work of
REAL liberals?</flamebait>
>Anyone who opposes abortion is anti-freedom, to say the least. Guess
>which party anti-abortionists overwhelmingly support?
Well, you convinced me. I guess the anti-abortion, war-on-drugs,
free-trade party is pro-freedom, whilst the pro-choice,
war-on-drugs, free-trade party is anti-freedom.
Trust me, the political landscape is much more complicated than
"one party good, other party bad." For instance, there are more
than two parties. And some of those parties are not moderate!
>Chris Nelson
-S
Xcott Craver
>
> Well, you convinced me. I guess the anti-abortion, war-on-drugs,
> free-trade party is pro-freedom, whilst the pro-choice,
> war-on-drugs, free-trade party is anti-freedom.
Woops! Sorry, I got pro and anti flipped around. I apologize:
clearly Chris is positing that the anti-abortion, war-on-drugs,
free-trade party is ANTI-freedom, whilst the pro-choice,
war-on-drugs, free-trade party is PRO-freedom.
Honestly, I don't know why I confused the two parties.
> -S
-S
Chris Nelson
Obviously, where the Dems and Pubs agree, we can essentially
ignore those issues and focus on where they differ. Neither
party is great when it comes to freedom, but they are all we
have. And Dems certainly are much better than the
Republicans WRT freedom, so I vote Democrat.
The Communications Decency Act is the kind of thing that
would have been signed by a Republican president too.
Despite the fact that Clinton signed it (and I was dismayed
when he did), I still supported him because he was better
than the Republicans overall.
By the way, how do Democrats oppose free speech (ignoring
ways in which both parties agree, of course)?
--
Chris Nelson
"The preceding collection of books is a work
of fiction and is not to be taken seriously."
-- Revelation 22:22
Lou Minatti™
>
> Lou Minatti™ <loumi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Rev Fredric L. Rice wrote:
> >>
> >> Amusingly enough, the nutter couldn't offer any names of "left wing hate
> >> groups."
>
> >The Democratic Party.
>
Democrats have drawn a sharp line in the sand over the past decade.
There can no longer be simple political disagreements. You must either
believe as a liberal Democrat believes, or you are The Enemy. If you
don't believe as liberal Democrats believe, you are a "KKK member"
(Jesse Jackson); you are a member of "the Nazi party" (Congressman Tom
Lantos), "a bunch of dictators" (Congressman Sam Gibbons), or "the real
threat" (Mario Cuomo). Of course, they're all professional politicians,
spouting off for the cameras. They're paid to be assholes. What about
Usenet?
For some reason, liberal Democrats constantly post their petty political
opinions into off-topic newsgroups. They demand that others not only
tolerate their petty political opinions, but agree with them as well.
Their definition of tolerance is unique: If you don't agree with them,
their Democrat Label Gun comes out in a jiffy (they wear it in a
holster.)
It's hard to understand. Why do liberal Democrats "feel the urge" to
force their petty opinions on others, when there are more appropriate
venues like talk.politics.misc? Do they suffer from a type of missionary
zeal that can only be fulfilled if they're out trying to convert the
unwashed masses? Or are they simply frustrated assholes who think
they'll change the course of an election if only they could post lots of
messages to newsgroups that have nothing to do with politics?
I don't much care for zealots, Fred, whether it's Giwer spouting his
hatred of Jews, or tightly wound politicos spouting their hatred of
others because of honest political differences.
--
Watching You Dot Com
http://www.watchingyou.com
Kevin Burnett
wrote:
>"Matt Kriebel" <got...@UNSPAMunspamnetaxs.com> wrote in
>message news:gothic-072D60....@news.netaxs.com...
>> In article
><nrhf6.228830$iy3.53...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com>, "Chris
>> Nelson" <c...@chrisnelsonREMOVETHIS.net> wrote:
>>
>> > "Jeff" <pitsaregrea...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>message
>> > news:5U6f6.3153$uH6.8...@news.uswest.net...
>> > > Hate exists on both sides of the spectrum. He does
>> > mention a couple: Al
>> > > Sharpton, et al.
>> >
>> > Does Sharpton hate whites, or preach hatred against
>whites?
>> >
>> > > Similarly, there is Louis Farrakhan,
>> >
>> > Does he preach hatred against whites?
>>
>>
>> Does having one's doctrine involving UFO's coming to wipe
>out all white
>> people count as hate?
>
>Is that true? He sounds like a loon if that's the case.
Another doctrine is that whites are the product of an experiment by an evil
scientist named "Yacub".
--
Kevin Burnett http://www.catnip.org/
Rev Fredric L. Rice
>On Sun, 4 Feb 2001 22:35:15 -0600, "Jeff"
><pitsaregrea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>"Chris Nelson" <c...@chrisnelsonREMOVETHIS.net> wrote in message
>>news:ulhf6.228813$iy3.53...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
>>> "Lou MinattiT" <loumi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:3A7C87...@yahoo.com...
>>> > Rev Fredric L. Rice wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > Amusingly enough, the nutter couldn't offer any names of
>>> "left wing hate
>>> > > groups."
>>> >
>>> > The Democratic Party.
>>> Please enlighten us - how does the Democratic Party hate?
>>Actually, I think that the Republican party would qualify more than the
>>Democrats for that. The Democrats are around the middle of the political
>>spectrum, while the Repubs are generally far right. That typically evolves
>>hate for abortion, secularism, freedom and so on...
>Arrrggg! As long as we are going to accuse one or the other party of
>being a "Hate Group" (and certainly as a person that has debated
>individuals in REAL hate groups, I really wish you would learn the
>definition) there is little hope that anything can get done in this
>country.
>If you want to learn what a REAL hate group is visit
>http://us-israel.org/jsource/anti-semitism/hate.html
>or better yet
>http://www.bcpl.net/~rfrankli/hatedir.htm
>or one of my favs
>http://www.nizkor.org.
http://www.godhatesfags.org/ -- The Republican party used to be worth
something. Now it's filled with nothing but insane cultists screaming
about fags and abortion.
Rev Fredric L. Rice
>"Dominion" <dominion@take_this_out.pdq.net> wrote in message
>> (A Hate Group) advocate violence against, separation from, defamation
>> of, deception about, or hostility toward others based upon race,
>> religion, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation.
>> http://www.bcpl.net/~rfrankli/hatedir99.htm
>> My OHO is that the advocation of violence is the deciding feature of
>> all of what I would consider to be hate groups. If you don't avocate
>> violence then you are a "really angry group" and not a "hate group".
> Well, then left wing groups like the Animal Liberation
> Front WOULD qualify as a hate group, wouldn't they?
ALF would classify as a hate group which has an ideology focused toward a
particular industry, not a racial or national attribute. I'd class the ALF
and the ELF as hate groups however I would differenciate the focus of what
they hate -- the horrid way humans treat animals (non human) and the planet
-- from the religion-motivated hate groups (Focus on the Family, Operation
Rescue et al.)
Rev Fredric L. Rice
>Jeff <pitsaregrea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>That typically evolves hate for abortion, secularism, freedom and
>>so on...
> "Hate for" abortion, eh? I don't suppose you intended to
> merely write "opposition to?" Um, sure the Republican party
> is a hate group, why, they have ... hate for higher taxes.
I think that it qualifies as hatred against women, actually. Certainly
by personally being on clinic defense I observed that the hatred within our
honorable Christian opposition on the front lines was focused upon the desire
to suppress and oppress women as their primary focus. Opposition to abortion
was secondary to the nuts blockaiding family planning clinics.
And I'd hazard to suggest that the Christians that shoot medical doctors
hold oppression and suppression of women as a higher ideal than they hold
anti-choice ideaology.
Rev Fredric L. Rice
>"Xcott Craver" <Caj@B_r_a_i_n_H_z.c_o_m> wrote in message
>news:vouf6.5906$Nx3.1...@typhoon2.ba-dsg.net...
>> Jeff <pitsaregrea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >Actually, I think that the Republican party would qualify more than
>> >the Democrats for that. The Democrats are around the middle of the
>> >political spectrum, while the Repubs are generally far right.
>> "Far" right? Far right would be the John Birch society, at
>> least in my opinion. Republicans attempt just as much as
>> Democrats to woo moderate voters, and will choose policy to
>> maximize their chances. Hence Democrats that are "tough on
>> crime," and Republicans offering "compassionate conservatism."
>> >That typically evolves hate for abortion, secularism, freedom and
>> >so on...
>> "Hate for" abortion, eh? I don't suppose you intended to
>> merely write "opposition to?" Um, sure the Republican party
>> is a hate group, why, they have ... hate for higher taxes.
>> And, can the bit about "freedom." Oh, of course, clearly
>> this party is for freedom, and the other party is anti-
>> freedom. Clearly. Half the country just doesn't realize this.
>> And it's your party that's pro-freedom, right?
>Actually, yes. The Republcians oppose reproductive rights,
>separation of church and state, religious freedom for those
>who are not Judeo-Christians, free speech, gay rights, civil
>rights, flag burning, and many other freedoms. Their
>legislative ideas frequently include measures to restrict
>freedom rather than expand it. The freedoms we've gained
>over the last 40 years are chielfy the work of the left.
Indeed the Republican Party routinely expresses the desire to impliment
policies and law which seek to not only violate people's rights but to
increase the size of government and to increase the intrusion of government
agencies into the lives of everyone. Case in point is the euphemistically
named "school vouchers" and "school prayer." Two insane (not to mention
unconstitutional) measures which would create two more layers of government
waste, corruption, and inefficient yet constant monitoring of civilian
schools -- and for absolutely _zero_ benefit to anyone but their own
re-election campaigns.
>Anyone who opposes abortion is anti-freedom, to say the
>least. Guess which party anti-abortionists overwhelmingly
>support?
Amen, Brother Chris.
Kevin Burnett
<fr...@skepticNOEATSPAMtank.org> wrote:
>Lou Minatti™ <loumi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Amusingly enough, the nutter couldn't offer any names of "left wing hate
>>> groups."
>
>>The Democratic Party.
>
Are you trying to prove his point for him?
You use the word "insane" so much in your posts that it has become little
more than a childish insult.
Kevin Burnett
What a nice, sweeping generalization. Your remarks can be applied equally
as well to conservative Republicans. If you don't believe me, go have a
look at alt.true-crime.
Jim Fay
"Lou Minatti™" wrote:
>
> Rev Fredric L. Rice wrote:
> >
> > Lou Minatti™ <loumi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Rev Fredric L. Rice wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Amusingly enough, the nutter couldn't offer any names of "left wing hate
> > >> groups."
> >
> > >The Democratic Party.
> >
> > How utterly insane, yeah.
>
> Democrats have drawn a sharp line in the sand over the past decade.
> There can no longer be simple political disagreements. You must either
> believe as a liberal Democrat believes, or you are The Enemy. If you
> don't believe as liberal Democrats believe, you are a "KKK member"
> (Jesse Jackson); you are a member of "the Nazi party" (Congressman Tom
> Lantos), "a bunch of dictators" (Congressman Sam Gibbons), or "the real
> threat" (Mario Cuomo). Of course, they're all professional politicians,
> spouting off for the cameras. They're paid to be assholes. What about
> Usenet?
Quite frankly, that's no worse than the bipartisanship people are
constantly praising. Political parties are supposed to represent
disparate interests and factions, not just say exactly what the 50th
percentile thinks. They SHOULD be disagreeing and fighting to get
different ideas promoted. Of course that's what happens when the entire
system is structured to restrict power to the two parties.
Doug Berry
Jim Fay <gt4...@prism.gatech.edu>, wrote thusly:
>Doug Berry wrote:
>> I imagine this news will be a shock to the Communist Party, USA.
>>
>> http://www.cpusa.org/cp-usa/
>
>Interesting. I see the enforcement is getting lax enough that th elaw is
>starting to be ignored now.
>
>Check into the Espionage Act. It was the basis from which McCarthy
>derived his powers, and is still on the books AFAIK.
http://www.ukans.edu/carrie/docs/texts/esp1918.htm
I don't see anything in here that even mentions communism, or
prohibits membership in the CPUSA.
It does prohibit all sorts of things, but could be applied to
nazis, communists, or left-handed smoke-shifters with equal ease.
>Yes. Especially third parties. Look at the campaign finance laws. They
>are designed to prevent anybody but the two main parties from receiving
>significant funds. You think that was a happy coincidence?
No, good politics. But consider.. Let's say that in 2002 the
Democrats get enough votes to overturn vetoes and pass
legislation outlawing membership in the Republican Party. Bush
vetoes it, Congress overrides, and suddenly the GOP is a thing of
the past.
Jim Fay
Doug Berry wrote:
>
> And lo, it came to pass on Mon, 05 Feb 2001 15:34:04 -0500 that
> Jim Fay <gt4...@prism.gatech.edu>, wrote thusly:
>
> >Doug Berry wrote:
>
> >> I imagine this news will be a shock to the Communist Party, USA.
> >>
> >> http://www.cpusa.org/cp-usa/
> >
> >Interesting. I see the enforcement is getting lax enough that th elaw is
> >starting to be ignored now.
> >
> >Check into the Espionage Act. It was the basis from which McCarthy
> >derived his powers, and is still on the books AFAIK.
>
> http://www.ukans.edu/carrie/docs/texts/esp1918.htm
>
> I don't see anything in here that even mentions communism, or
> prohibits membership in the CPUSA.
>
> It does prohibit all sorts of things, but could be applied to
> nazis, communists, or left-handed smoke-shifters with equal ease.
Quite so. Anyone who is considered an enemy of the United States because
of their views. But you should read up on how it has been applied over
the years.
> >Yes. Especially third parties. Look at the campaign finance laws. They
> >are designed to prevent anybody but the two main parties from receiving
> >significant funds. You think that was a happy coincidence?
>
> No, good politics. But consider.. Let's say that in 2002 the
> Democrats get enough votes to overturn vetoes and pass
> legislation outlawing membership in the Republican Party. Bush
> vetoes it, Congress overrides, and suddenly the GOP is a thing of
> the past.
Why deal with that case? We already have a case where such behavior has
occured. What you propose is good politics as well.
satyr
Rice) wrote:
>
>And I'd hazard to suggest that the Christians that shoot medical doctors
>hold oppression and suppression of women as a higher ideal than they hold
>anti-choice ideaology.
In one confrontation with anti-abortion picketers, one of them said to me,
"You're treating babies like niggers." I couldn't believe what he had just said
so he repeated it for me. It was no surprise upon further questioning that he
though abortions were OK for black women.
Of course, not all anti-abortion fanatics are racists. Some are anti-semites,
some are retarded and some are just thugs.
Xcott Craver
>
>Obviously, where the Dems and Pubs agree, we can essentially
>ignore those issues and focus on where they differ. Neither
>party is great when it comes to freedom, but they are all we
>have.
I *beg* your pardon? Those two parties are all we have?!
Nor do I think it is obvious that we can ignore issues
where Dems and Reps agree; if the claim at hand is that
Reps are hateful and enemies of freedom, then it would be
very important if Dems shared some of those policies, yes?
>And Dems certainly are much better than the Republicans WRT
>freedom, so I vote Democrat.
I can't vote Republican in good conscience, either.
Nor could I vote Democrat this election, however, because
after the CDA I pretty much promised myself I wouldn't vote
for Gore if he ran. Woulda voted for Bradley, maybe.
>The Communications Decency Act is the kind of thing that
>would have been signed by a Republican president too.
Exactly my point. When it all boiled down to it, neither
party seemed to care that they were banning scads of
literature from the Canterbury Tales onward. There didn't
seem to be anything noticeably right-wing about this massive
ban, nor anything noticeably left-wing about opposition to
it (Carol Mosely Braun opposed the act. So did Newt
Gingritch.)
And by your admission that "neither party is great when it
comes to freedom," it is clear that you must agree that
neither one is simply pro-freedom vs anti-freedom; but rather
that both have opposed bits of the Bill of Rights at various
times.
>By the way, how do Democrats oppose free speech (ignoring
>ways in which both parties agree, of course)?
I don't see why it doesn't count when both Dems and Reps favor
censorship, but I guess the general example is censorship of
mass media. Conservatives tend to want to censor sexually
explicit content on TV, whereas violence is OK (war movies,
etc.) Liberals are more likely to want to censor violence,
on the grounds that guns on TV might make kids act out that
violence in real life.
That is quite a simplification, of course. My older brother
is clearly a Republican, but also clearly pro-choice, and a
staunch opponent of censorship of *any* kind.
>Chris Nelson
-S
Xcott Craver
>
>Quite frankly, that's no worse than the bipartisanship people are
>constantly praising. Political parties are supposed to represent
>disparate interests and factions, not just say exactly what the 50th
>percentile thinks. They SHOULD be disagreeing and fighting to get
>different ideas promoted.
These days, however, the dark art of getting elected
requires a party to cater to the views of the middle, and
maybe steal some support from the other side of the middle.
Further, any *real* disagreement, say in a presidential debate,
requires candidates to expose stances which might alienate crucial
voters. Candidates now find it better to avoid discussion of
those issues altogether, a recent example being Bush's evasion of
abortion issues during the campaign.
The tragic limit of this process, in case you haven't guessed,
is an election almost evenly split between two parties
advertising nearly identical platforms.
-S
Yang
wrote:
>Rev Fredric L. Rice wrote:
>>
>> Lou Minatti™ <loumi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Rev Fredric L. Rice wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Amusingly enough, the nutter couldn't offer any names of "left wing hate
>> >> groups."
>>
>> >The Democratic Party.
>>
>> How utterly insane, yeah.
>
>Democrats have drawn a sharp line in the sand over the past decade.
>There can no longer be simple political disagreements. You must either
>believe as a liberal Democrat believes, or you are The Enemy.
And that's different from the GOP how? According to GOPer's such as
Pat Robertson, you must either believe as a right wing Christian
conservative Republican of you are the anti-Christ.
Xcott Craver
>Lou Minatti™ <loumi...@yahoo.com>
>
>>Democrats have drawn a sharp line in the sand over the past decade.
>>There can no longer be simple political disagreements. You must either
>>believe as a liberal Democrat believes, or you are The Enemy.
>
>And that's different from the GOP how? According to GOPer's such as
>Pat Robertson, you must either believe as a right wing Christian
>conservative Republican of you are the anti-Christ.
I don't suppose we could all just agree that:
o Members of the Republican party vary a good deal in
political opinions (fiscal/social conservatives, groups like
the Log Cabin Republicans)
o So do members of the Democratic party
o Both support some rights outlined in the Bill of Rights,
and oppose others in certain circumstances (Right to bear
arms? Separation of Church and State?)
o Neither can be seriously referred to as a Hate Group, even
though some hate groups lean strongly to the right.
(Republican Party != godhatesfags.com; Democratic party
!= Louis Farrakhan. There are an awful lot of moderates
in the country, trust me.)
o This is all very much wasted bandwidth, while we could be
focussing our attention on groups that advocate violence
literally and actually, rather than in some figurative,
Freudian sense.
o ?
-S
Xcott Craver
>
>policies and law which seek to not only violate people's rights but to
>increase the size of government and to increase the intrusion of government
>agencies into the lives of everyone.
-S
Xcott Craver
>
>> "Hate for" abortion, eh? I don't suppose you intended to
>> merely write "opposition to?"
>
>by personally being on clinic defense I observed that the hatred within our
>honorable Christian opposition on the front lines was focused upon the desire
>to suppress and oppress women as their primary focus. Opposition to abortion
>was secondary to the nuts blockaiding family planning clinics.
Please keep in mind that this hateful opposition does not equal
the Republican Party, any more than the Animal Liberation Front
equals the Democratic party.
-S
Lou Minatti™
So let me ask you, Kevin. When a Republican does this, what do you
think? Does it annoy you? Do you ask yourself, "Why is this asshole
posting his petty political beliefs here?"
Dominion
wrote:
>Dominion wrote:
>
>> You have had nothing bad to say about anyone but liberals.
>
>Really? That's probably news to Matt Giwer, VonRoach, Tracy Levin and
>Doc Tavish, all frequent right-wing spammers.
>
>Sad to say, you've also dropped down a few more notches on the respect
>meter.
<click> <click> <click> once again Lou. First for snipping the
majority of my post without answering it. Surprising behavior from a
regular in sci.skeptic.
Second for acting dumb. Of course I am talking about in this thread.I
am quite aware of your valuable contribution to fighting neo-Nazi's on
this group. Which makes it even more puzzling that you would choose to
attempt to label the Democratic Party a "Hate Group". I would think
you would realize the difference between a REAL hate group and a
political group you do not care for.
Since I am sure that you would never behave as a paranormalist, allow
me to restore that which I am sure you accidently snipped. Perhaps you
would care to respond to the rest of the post Lou.
------Restore-------------
On 06 Feb 2001 01:57:31 GMT, Lou Minatti™ <loumi...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>Rev Fredric L. Rice wrote:
>>
>> Lou Minatti™ <loumi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Rev Fredric L. Rice wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Amusingly enough, the nutter couldn't offer any names of "left wing hate
>> >> groups."
>>
>> >The Democratic Party.
>>
>> How utterly insane, yeah.
>
>Democrats have drawn a sharp line in the sand over the past decade.
>There can no longer be simple political disagreements. You must either
>believe as a liberal Democrat believes, or you are The Enemy. If you
>don't believe as liberal Democrats believe, you are a "KKK member"
>(Jesse Jackson); you are a member of "the Nazi party" (Congressman Tom
>Lantos), "a bunch of dictators" (Congressman Sam Gibbons), or "the real
>threat" (Mario Cuomo). Of course, they're all professional politicians,
>spouting off for the cameras. They're paid to be assholes. What about
>Usenet?
<click><click><click> There goes Lou. Down a few more notches on the
respect meter!
Would you like me to post similar speech from the Republican side of
the aisle? Maybe some choice words from Rush Limbaugh? Damn Lou as a
person I like to think of as skeptic, you sure seem to be falling into
some of the same fallacies that we see crop up here so often. Do you
really need to have it explained to you that the words of people that
identify themselves as Democrats do NOT equate the platform of the
Democratic Party? Do you think you can really defend the idea that the
Democratic party is a Hate Group???
Did you not have a debate with P.Z. about lumping all people in a
group under one label? What am I to think of this Lou?
>For some reason, liberal Democrats constantly post their petty political
>opinions into off-topic newsgroups. They demand that others not only
>tolerate their petty political opinions, but agree with them as well.
>Their definition of tolerance is unique: If you don't agree with them,
>their Democrat Label Gun comes out in a jiffy (they wear it in a
>holster.)
LOL. And do you think Dr. Don Drake (I would kill protesters that
disagree with me) is a liberal? How about Uncle Al? What do you say
about the words of Pat Robinson, and his insistence that if your not
politically conservative your going to hell. How about Jerry Falwell?
Rush Limbaugh. Kent Lott? Hell David Duke Lou. He was at one time a
Grand Wizard of the KKK and he was elected to office as a Republican!
Does this make the Republican party racist?
Once again Lou, do you really think you can defend the idea that the
Democrats are a Hate Group?
>It's hard to understand. Why do liberal Democrats "feel the urge" to
>force their petty opinions on others, when there are more appropriate
>venues like talk.politics.misc? Do they suffer from a type of missionary
>zeal that can only be fulfilled if they're out trying to convert the
>unwashed masses? Or are they simply frustrated assholes who think
>they'll change the course of an election if only they could post lots of
>messages to newsgroups that have nothing to do with politics?
And there has never been a conservative or libertarian that has posted
to a ng that had nothing to do with politics. How cute Lou, you make
the mistake of thinking that sci.skeptic is the whole of usenet. Have
you ever read or posted to sci.environment? Or sci.ag?
>I don't much care for zealots, Fred, whether it's Giwer spouting his
>hatred of Jews, or tightly wound politicos spouting their hatred of
>others because of honest political differences.
And yet what am I supposed to think about a person that would lump all
Democrats into one neat package, then brand that package a Hate Group?
How can I tell your actions from any other zealot Lou? If it were
really an issue of not caring for those "tightly wound politicos
spouting their hatred of others" you would not be concentrating on
only the Democrats.
Gee Lou, seems to me that you are nothing more than a political
zealot. Why if you are a "liberal" then you stand accused of all sorts
of "Lou crimes". If your liberal then you MUST "spout your hatred"of
others, because Lou says it's so. You must "feel the urge to force
[your] petty opinions on others", to "suffer from a type of missionary
zeal that can only be fulfilled if they're out trying to convert the
unwashed masses", they must be "simply frustrated assholes who think
they'll change the course of an election if only they could post lots
of messages to newsgroups that have nothing to do with politics". Why?
Because Lou says so. Note that you never get those qualities from a
Republican, or a conservative....
Tell me something Lou, what is the difference between a "tightly wound
politicos spouting their hatred of others because of honest political
difference" and someone that would accuse the Democratic party of
being a Hate Group? I mean beside the fact that you are not a
"politico".
It sure seems to me Lou, that you are engaging in exactly the type of
"Hate Crime" that you accuse those nasty liberals of engaging in.
---
Dominion
Debate. Create. Participate.
The Skeptical_Wiki
http://www.wikiweb.com/CENSORED BY URI GELLER
On 11/6/2000 Uri Geller
Successfully Censored This Site!
Thanks for your Moral Courage
Mr Monty Kamath Prez of Wikiweb.com
Dubitando ad veritatem venimus.
By doubting we come to the truth
Dominion
>In article
><C9DB063892307467.29A6DC33...@lp.airnews.ne
> t>, dominion@take_this_out.pdq.net wrote:
>
>> On 06 Feb 2001 01:57:31 GMT, Lou Minatti™
>> <loumi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Rev Fredric L. Rice wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Lou Minatti™ <loumi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Rev Fredric L. Rice wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Amusingly enough, the nutter couldn't offer any names of
>> >> >> "left wing hate groups."
>> >>
>> >> >The Democratic Party.
>> >>
>> >> How utterly insane, yeah.
>> >
>> >Democrats have drawn a sharp line in the sand over the past
>> >decade. There can no longer be simple political
>> >disagreements. You must either believe as a liberal Democrat
>> >believes, or you are The Enemy. If you don't believe as
>> >liberal Democrats believe, you are a "KKK member" (Jesse
>> >Jackson); you are a member of "the Nazi party" (Congressman
>> >Tom Lantos), "a bunch of dictators" (Congressman Sam
>> >Gibbons), or "the real threat" (Mario Cuomo). Of course,
>> >they're all professional politicians, spouting off for the
>> >cameras. They're paid to be assholes. What about Usenet?
>>
>> <click><click><click> There goes Lou. Down a few more notches
>> on the respect meter!
>>
>> Would you like me to post similar speech from the Republican
>> side of the aisle? Maybe some choice words from Rush Limbaugh?
>> Damn Lou as a person I like to think of as skeptic, you sure
>> seem to be falling into some of the same fallacies that we see
>> crop up here so often. Do you really need to have it explained
>> to you that the words of people that identify themselves as
>> Democrats do NOT equate the platform of the Democratic Party?
>> Do you think you can really defend the idea that the
>> Democratic party is a Hate Group???
>>
>> Did you not have a debate with P.Z. about lumping all people
>> in a group under one label? What am I to think of this Lou?
>
>I don't recall that Lou was particularly vociferous in that set
>of exchanges. Of course, it was pretty inane of some people to
>even try to suggest that saying 'you have to be pretty dumb to
>believe in astrology' is a hate crime.
Nor did I accuse him of being "particularly vociferous". What I do
remember of the conversation ( and if I make any mistakes I will
"vociferously" apologize) is that he was not happy with you because
you do indeed label those that believe in astrology as "kooks". You
were pointing out that he did the same thing on his website WRT
Wiccans. I admit that I did not follow the debate very closely but it
seems very strange that he would feel uncomfortable with your label,
but then feel very comfortable labeling every member of the Democratic
party a members of a "Hate Group".
>> >For some reason, liberal Democrats constantly post their
>> >petty political opinions into off-topic newsgroups. They
>> >demand that others not only tolerate their petty political
>> >opinions, but agree with them as well. Their definition of
>> >tolerance is unique: If you don't agree with them, their
>> >Democrat Label Gun comes out in a jiffy (they wear it in a
>> >holster.)
>>
>> LOL. And do you think Dr. Don Drake (I would kill protesters
>> that disagree with me) is a liberal? How about Uncle Al? What
>> do you say about the words of Pat Robinson, and his insistence
>> that if your not politically conservative your going to hell.
>> How about Jerry Falwell? Rush Limbaugh. Kent Lott? Hell David
>> Duke Lou. He was at one time a Grand Wizard of the KKK and he
>> was elected to office as a Republican! Does this make the
>> Republican party racist?
>>
>> http://davidduke.com/
>>
>> Once again Lou, do you really think you can defend the idea
>> that the Democrats are a Hate Group?
>
>Even more ironic is that fact that he's complaining about people
>expressing a political opinion while expressing one of his own.
Well again I think politics is fair game and quite OT in sci.skeptic
so I won't complain about anyone bringing in politics. In fact it sure
seems to me that those on the extreme end of the political spectrum
argue much like your every day paranormalist. ;)
>I would suggest that what is going on here is something very
>obvious: there has been a recent political change. Those of us
>who have any liberal bent at all (heck, I'd say those of us who
>have any sense at all) are rather outraged at the incompetent
>boob who has just hoisted himself into power here in the US, and
>we've been saying so. Lou had better get used to it: if these
>first few weeks in power are any measure, the vocal protests
>against GW Bush are only going to increase over time.
I ran across a most interesting article on the race.
http://thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010205&s=bugliosi
Titled "None Dare Call It Treason" it was written by none other than
Vince Bugliosi. Wow, talk about feeling some rightous rage. ;) Nor can
you accuse Vince of being a "bleeding-heart" liberal. As a reminder to
those that might not remember or younger than I (ug) "Vincent Bugliosi
successfully prosecuted 105 out of 106 felony jury trials as a Los
Angeles deputy district attorney, including twenty-one murder
convictions without a single loss. His prosecution of Charles Manson
was the basis for his true-crime bestseller, Helter Skelter (Bantam).
He is also the author of Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O.J. Simpson
Got Away With Murder (Island)."
http://thenation.com/directory/view.mhtml?handle=bugliosi_vincent
>All I've got to say is that it is about time that liberals spoke
>up with a bit more vigor. I also think it perfectly appropriate
>that *some* of this discussion occur in sci.skeptic -- we
>skeptics should have an interest in pushing back ignorance, and
>we now have a president in the US who represents interests that
>value eviscerating education and promoting superstition. I think
>that is entirely on topic.
I don't mind anyone speaking out, as long as they can defend their
position. ;)
Dominion
wrote:
>Dominion wrote:
>>
>> On 06 Feb 2001 01:57:31 GMT, Lou Minatti™ <loumi...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Rev Fredric L. Rice wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Lou Minatti™ <loumi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Rev Fredric L. Rice wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Amusingly enough, the nutter couldn't offer any names of "left wing hate
>> >> >> groups."
>> >>
>> >> >The Democratic Party.
>> >>
>> >> How utterly insane, yeah.
>> >
>> >Democrats have drawn a sharp line in the sand over the past decade.
>> >There can no longer be simple political disagreements. You must either
>> >believe as a liberal Democrat believes, or you are The Enemy. If you
>> >don't believe as liberal Democrats believe, you are a "KKK member"
>> >(Jesse Jackson); you are a member of "the Nazi party" (Congressman Tom
>> >Lantos), "a bunch of dictators" (Congressman Sam Gibbons), or "the real
>> >threat" (Mario Cuomo). Of course, they're all professional politicians,
>> >spouting off for the cameras. They're paid to be assholes. What about
>> >Usenet?
>>
>> <click><click><click> There goes Lou. Down a few more notches on the
>> respect meter!
>
>Oh well. Maybe I'd better just shut up because my opinions differ from
>yours.
First off, my deepest apologies for thinking you snipped this post.
Allow me to ask again Lou, do you really think you can defend the idea
that the Democratic party is a hate group.
Also understand that my loss of respect for you comes not from a
difference of opinion. But you knew that, didn't you.
>> Would you like me to post similar speech from the Republican side of
>> the aisle? Maybe some choice words from Rush Limbaugh? Damn Lou as a
>> person I like to think of as skeptic, you sure seem to be falling into
>> some of the same fallacies that we see crop up here so often. Do you
>> really need to have it explained to you that the words of people that
>> identify themselves as Democrats do NOT equate the platform of the
>> Democratic Party? Do you think you can really defend the idea that the
>> Democratic party is a Hate Group???
>
>I don't notice you objecting to those applying that label to my
>political party.
Then hopefully when you see my reply to Fred trying to tie the
Westboro Baptis Church to the Republican party you will be as quick to
apologize as I was when I mistakenly thought you snipped this post.
>> Did you not have a debate with P.Z. about lumping all people in a
>> group under one label? What am I to think of this Lou?
>
>PZ personally attacked a lot of decent people. I got to know the people
>on alt.astrology. They are not all "frauds" as PZ says. The vast
>majority of them are very kind-hearted people who have rather harmless
>woowoo beliefs.
So then let me understand this. It is only bigotry when you get to
know the people as "kind-hearted" people. It is perfectly ok to lump
them into one group and label it as you please, as long as you don't
know the personally?
>> >For some reason, liberal Democrats constantly post their petty political
>> >opinions into off-topic newsgroups. They demand that others not only
>> >tolerate their petty political opinions, but agree with them as well.
>> >Their definition of tolerance is unique: If you don't agree with them,
>> >their Democrat Label Gun comes out in a jiffy (they wear it in a
>> >holster.)
>>
>> LOL. And do you think Dr. Don Drake (I would kill protesters that
>> disagree with me) is a liberal? How about Uncle Al? What do you say
>> about the words of Pat Robinson, and his insistence that if your not
>> politically conservative your going to hell. How about Jerry Falwell?
>> Rush Limbaugh. Kent Lott? Hell David Duke Lou. He was at one time a
>> Grand Wizard of the KKK and he was elected to office as a Republican!
>>
>> Does this make the Republican party racist?
Absolutely not Lou, as I have consistantly said all along. I don't
equate the members of the Republican party with the platform of the
Republican party. That IS my point. Just because you don't like
liberals, or don't like Democrats, it hardly gives you the right to
label all such people the member of a "Hate Group". Especially when
YOU KNOW what a REAL hate group is. This is the point that disappoints
the most Lou.
>I could also point out that there is still a former Klansman sitting in
>the U.S. Senate. Does this make the Democratic Party racist? After all,
>I never did hear demands from Robert Byrd's fellow Democrats that he
>step down for his hateful past. I did hear from the Republican Paty
>regarding Duke, though. They said piss off.
See above Lou. You are creating a strawman to avoid the real point in
all this.
>> Once again Lou, do you really think you can defend the idea that the
>> Democrats are a Hate Group?
>
>I'm seeing a lot of hate right here on this newsgroup. What I don't see
>is a lot of Republicans come in to sci.skeptic day after day posting
>hundreds of messages that belong on a political newsgroup.
Once again you mistake sci.skeptic as the whole of usenet. If you
think that other ngs don't suffer conserative assholes as much as we
might suffer liberal assholes, then you don't get around usenet much.
Nor can you blame someone like Devin on the Democrats or liberals.
Once again Lou, that would mean that the Republicans ARE assholes for
people like David Duke and Rush Limbaugh. I don't believe that. Do
you?
>> >It's hard to understand. Why do liberal Democrats "feel the urge" to
>> >force their petty opinions on others, when there are more appropriate
>> >venues like talk.politics.misc? Do they suffer from a type of missionary
>> >zeal that can only be fulfilled if they're out trying to convert the
>> >unwashed masses? Or are they simply frustrated assholes who think
>> >they'll change the course of an election if only they could post lots of
>> >messages to newsgroups that have nothing to do with politics?
>>
>> And there has never been a conservative or libertarian that has posted
>> to a ng that had nothing to do with politics. How cute Lou, you make
>> the mistake of thinking that sci.skeptic is the whole of usenet. Have
>> you ever read or posted to sci.environment? Or sci.ag?
>
>I never claimed this. Please don't claim that I did.
Try again Lou. Read what you wrote above. It is not just "liberal
Democrats" that ""feel the urge" to force their petty opinions on
others". For you to even imply that this is so is wrong.
>> >I don't much care for zealots, Fred, whether it's Giwer spouting his
>> >hatred of Jews, or tightly wound politicos spouting their hatred of
>> >others because of honest political differences.
>>
>> And yet what am I supposed to think about a person that would lump all
>> Democrats into one neat package, then brand that package a Hate Group?
>> How can I tell your actions from any other zealot Lou? If it were
>> really an issue of not caring for those "tightly wound politicos
>> spouting their hatred of others" you would not be concentrating on
>> only the Democrats.
>
>IOW, it's OK to see message after message from numerous people here
>tying my political party with hate groups. If I turn things around, I'm
>stepping over the line. I get it now.
Lou since when did two wrongs make a right?
>> Gee Lou, seems to me that you are nothing more than a political
>> zealot. Why if you are a "liberal" then you stand accused of all sorts
>> of "Lou crimes". If your liberal then you MUST "spout your hatred"of
>> others, because Lou says it's so. You must "feel the urge to force
>> [your] petty opinions on others", to "suffer from a type of missionary
>> zeal that can only be fulfilled if they're out trying to convert the
>> unwashed masses", they must be "simply frustrated assholes who think
>> they'll change the course of an election if only they could post lots
>> of messages to newsgroups that have nothing to do with politics". Why?
>> Because Lou says so. Note that you never get those qualities from a
>> Republican, or a conservative....
>>
>> Tell me something Lou, what is the difference between a "tightly wound
>> politicos spouting their hatred of others because of honest political
>> difference" and someone that would accuse the Democratic party of
>> being a Hate Group? I mean beside the fact that you are not a
>> "politico".
>>
>> It sure seems to me Lou, that you are engaging in exactly the type of
>> "Hate Crime" that you accuse those nasty liberals of engaging in.
>
>I think you finally understand.
<click> <click> <click> Lou. If that is really your game then your
nothing more than a hypocite, and I certainly hope that is not the
case. Certainly I don't want to believe it of you.
Dominion
Craver) wrote:
>Dominion <dominion@take_this_out.pdq.net> wrote:
>>
>>How sad that a couple of great skeptical minds like yours and Lou
>>can't see beyond this petty crap.
>
> Especially since this attitude is the seed of just about all
> atrocity in the world, religious and non-religious. First,
> characterize a large group of people using a faceless stereotype,
> effectively stripping away their individual human identities.
> The less human they seem, the more brutally people will be willing
> to treat them, since the necessary lack of empathy is easier.
> Second, get a lot of people convinced that this group is vile
> and wrong, and that this attitude is right, not a matter of opinion.
>
> This strategy is so basic that it lies in the core rhetoric of
> any (real) hate group; one need not even apply it consciously,
> it seems: it is the basis for everyday casual animosity to ANY
> group, from lawyers ("all the lawyers should be lined up and shot,"
> angrily said a friend of mine last year. Holy CRAP!) to homosexuals.
> Everyone, including you, thinks like this every now and then,
> by virtue of being human being; and this is why it is incredibly
> dangerous to convince yourself that your way of thinking is right!
Indeed I am well aware of the danger. Which is why I very carefully
always fail to take myself too seriously. :)
I am sure that by virture of my postings people could find areas where
I could be accused of lumping a group together for mutual scorn. In
fact, I don't really care for people that listen to country music
(strange for a person in Texas I know). Now this is not really fair to
them, I am sure that there are lots of very intelligent and
"kind-hearted" people that listen to C&W. Hell most of my family
listen to it. Still I can't help but feel a bit of "ug how dumb" when
talking to an obvious fan.
The difference (I hope) is that I don't think my opinion of C&W mean
squat outside my brain. Certainly because I think it is dumb does not
actually make it dumb. One of my best friends in the world, and a
great guitarist made the decision to go C&W some years ago. When I
teased him about it he quite seriously pointed out that he had a
family to feed, and here in Houston, C&W butters the bread. Now that
was not the comment of a dumb guy, no matter what I might personally
feel about his choice.
It would be a great deal better for this country if both the far left
and far right tried to keep such things in mind when deciding things
for this country.
Chris Nelson
> Chris Nelson <c...@chrisnelsonREMOVETHIS.net> wrote:
> >"Xcott Craver" <Caj@B_r_a_i_n_H_z.c_o_m> wrote in message
> >>
have?!
> >
killed
> >off by Pat Buchanan. The Greens only succeeded in getting
> >Bush elected, and the remainder are all less than 1%.
>
> Ah, then clearly they don't exist.
They exist, but why vote for a party you know hasn't a ghost
of a chance of winning, when doing so would only increase
the chance of the greater of evils coming to power?
> To some, you know, the purpose
> of voting is to have one's opinion counted, not just to
win. I
> can see how some will cast a vote to support the lesser of
two
> evils, but I can also see why some will vote for the party
in
> which they believe, period.
>
> If somehow Bush was sure to win this election by a
landslide, would
> you have voted for him instead? If he was the only one
with a chance
> of winning, I mean?
Nope, because Bush is so evil that I would still vote for
his strongest opposition.
> Finally, Nader did not get Bush elected.
If only 1000 Florida Greens cast their vote for Gore,
women's abortion rights would be safeguarded for generations
to come due to judicial nominations. Now, abortion rights
are in severe danger.
> Gore got Bush elected,
> by alienating those liberals with his not-so-liberal
platform.
By becoming more liberal, he would have alienated even more
centrists. Bush won by tricking people into believing he's a
centrist. Now that he's <ahem> "president", we can clearly
see that he is not a centrist - he's a right-wing extremist.
His very actions on abortion prove that point.
> And maybe supporting a war on drugs disqualifying hordes
of
> voters in Florida.
You think Bush is friendlier toward drugs? Sorry, but
liberals are more likely to end a war on drugs than
conservatives.
> Of course, Bush got Bush elected too, by
> avoiding any mention of abortion in the debates.
That was a mistake Gore made. He should have brought out
abortion as one of his top issues.
> Half of those
> undecided women voters are feeling pretty duped right
about now, eh?
Yup. Bush can lie with the best of them.
> > Ergo I vote for the pro-choice, pro-separation of church
> >and state, pro-environment party in such a case: the
Dems.
>
> Pro-environment my ass. Didn't the Clinton administration
argue,
> at a recent global climate summit, that the US is meeting
its
> environmental obligations just by having lots of trees,
because
> trees absorb some pollution?
Who do you think has a better environmental record, Clinton
& Gore, or any on of Reagan, Bush & Bush?
> BTW, a pro-free-trade policy is considered by many to be
> damaging to the environment. And to human rights.
And you think the Republicans would be better?
Sorry, but when given a choice between a) imperfect good and
b) evil of any kind, I'd choose the former in a heartbeat.
> >It's not good when Democrats champion conservative ideas
> >like censorship.
>
> If both Dems and Reps advocate censorship, how do you know
> it's Dems taking on conservative ideas rather than Reps
> taking on liberal ideas? Censorship of violence on TV,
for
> instance, is not at all a conservative idea.
Censorship is a conservative ideal. True liberalism abhors
censorship.
> >So you have no choice but to choose the lesser of two
evils.
> >Any other choice only causes greater harm.
>
> In your opinion. In my opinion, following that strategy
prevents
> third parties from gradually accumulating support from
term to term.
Third parties must start growing on the grassroots level,
not at the top. I have supported 3rd party candidates in
local elections. The Reform Party was doing very well, even
electing a governor, until Perot stupidly allowed Buchanan
to destroy his party by turning it from a centrist party to
a party of right-wing loons. (I suspect Buchanan joined the
Reform Party for the express purpose of destroying it and
thereby increasing the Republicans' chances in the 2000
elections.)
> >> That is quite a simplification, of course. My older
brother
> >> is clearly a Republican, but also clearly pro-choice,
and a
> >> staunch opponent of censorship of *any* kind.
> >
> >Then he should switch parties. Republicans are bigger
> >censors than Democrats, and they are anti-choice.
>
> Ah. So I provide an example of a Republican not meeting
your
> stereotype, and you simply declare him not a Republican,
because
> he does not meet that stereotype.
He does not believe what the Republicans believe, so why is
he a Republican? Why would a pro-choicer vote for the very
enemy of choice? Hopw does he feel now that Bush has
launched an all-out war on one of our most precious rights?
--
Chris Nelson
Over 400 failed doomsday prophecies!
http://www.chrisnelson.net
Doug Berry
Jim Fay <gt4...@prism.gatech.edu>, wrote thusly:
>Doug Berry wrote:
>> You quite specifically stated that membership in the Communist
>> Party was against the law in the United states, and had been for
>> a very long time. The law you refer does not mention communism,
>> nor does it prohibit political affiliation, just a set of
>> *actions* that are deteremental to the good of the state during
>> wartime. I have to do a little more digging, but I have to
>> believe that a few of these points are unconstitutional.
>
>The law mentions anyone avowing support of a hostile foreign power. And
>as I've said, the law was later extended to peace time, though that
>addendum was retracted during the Kennedy presidency.
That still doesn't make membership in the Party illegal!
>> Then why hasn't it happened? There is no law in the US
>> prohibiting membership in the Communist Party. Just admit the
>> mistake and move on.
>
>There is a law which allows prohibition to be carried out against
>political organizations which has been used to outlaw the Communist
>Party. In my mind that is the same thing. If you feel my language was
>misleading then I apoligize, but I don't tend to dwell on such fine
>distinctions. If someone passed an amendment saying it was okay to
>discriminate based on skin color, then used that amendment to start a
>crackdown on black people, I would see that as legislation aimed at
>discriminating against black people.
There is no law on the books right now that I csn find that makes
membership in the Communist Party illegal. Your interpatation of
the law aside, there is a Communist Party in the US, and they
have a small but loyal following.
Jim Fay
Doug Berry wrote:
>
> And lo, it came to pass on Tue, 06 Feb 2001 12:36:47 -0500 that
> Jim Fay <gt4...@prism.gatech.edu>, wrote thusly:
>
> >Doug Berry wrote:
>
> >> You quite specifically stated that membership in the Communist
> >> Party was against the law in the United states, and had been for
> >> a very long time. The law you refer does not mention communism,
> >> nor does it prohibit political affiliation, just a set of
> >> *actions* that are deteremental to the good of the state during
> >> wartime. I have to do a little more digging, but I have to
> >> believe that a few of these points are unconstitutional.
> >
> >The law mentions anyone avowing support of a hostile foreign power. And
> >as I've said, the law was later extended to peace time, though that
> >addendum was retracted during the Kennedy presidency.
>
> That still doesn't make membership in the Party illegal!
What is it that you think makes something illegal? What costitutes a
ban? Is it a specific set of language in a piece of legislation, or is
it people showing up at your door and arresting you and those who think
like you based on interpretation of that legislation?
> >> Then why hasn't it happened? There is no law in the US
> >> prohibiting membership in the Communist Party. Just admit the
> >> mistake and move on.
> >
> >There is a law which allows prohibition to be carried out against
> >political organizations which has been used to outlaw the Communist
> >Party. In my mind that is the same thing. If you feel my language was
> >misleading then I apoligize, but I don't tend to dwell on such fine
> >distinctions. If someone passed an amendment saying it was okay to
> >discriminate based on skin color, then used that amendment to start a
> >crackdown on black people, I would see that as legislation aimed at
> >discriminating against black people.
>
> There is no law on the books right now that I csn find that makes
> membership in the Communist Party illegal. Your interpatation of
> the law aside, there is a Communist Party in the US, and they
> have a small but loyal following.
Thank you for ignoring what I said completely. It's always nice to see
that someone out there is striving to be the smaller person.
PZ Myers
<5E7EF4B17B1A133C.E6EBDDE4...@lp.airnews.ne
t>, dominion@take_this_out.pdq.net wrote:
You are right. I had forgotten.
Yeah, it's an interesting article. And I will confess: I remember
the Manson murders, although I was pretty young at the time.
>
> >All I've got to say is that it is about time that liberals
> >spoke up with a bit more vigor. I also think it perfectly
> >appropriate that *some* of this discussion occur in
> >sci.skeptic -- we skeptics should have an interest in pushing
> >back ignorance, and we now have a president in the US who
> >represents interests that value eviscerating education and
> >promoting superstition. I think that is entirely on topic.
>
> I don't mind anyone speaking out, as long as they can defend
> their position. ;)
Well, gosh, that leaves the reactionary conservatives right out
then, doesn't it?
--
PZ Myers
PZ Myers
wrote:
> Dominion wrote:
>
> > You have had nothing bad to say about anyone but liberals.
>
> Really? That's probably news to Matt Giwer, VonRoach, Tracy
> Levin and Doc Tavish, all frequent right-wing spammers.
Careful there. I would not have lumped Giwer and Tavish in with
political conservatives -- they are extremist flakes and
incompetents with genuinely evil views. Do you really want to
imply that you think those cockroaches share your end of the
political spectrum, and suggest that by criticizing them you are
showing impartiality?
Even I, liberal as I am, don't think that GW Bush has very much
in common with Matt Giwer. Even if I were as conservative as
George Will I wouldn't hesitate to condemn Tavish. Do you think
otherwise? Are conservatives even more evil than I had thought?
>
> Sad to say, you've also dropped down a few more notches on the
> respect meter.
--
PZ Myers
PZ Myers
wrote:
> Dominion wrote:
[snip]
> > Did you not have a debate with P.Z. about lumping all people
> > in a group under one label? What am I to think of this Lou?
>
> PZ personally attacked a lot of decent people. I got to know
> the people on alt.astrology. They are not all "frauds" as PZ
> says. The vast majority of them are very kind-hearted people
> who have rather harmless woowoo beliefs.
Whoa there. Absolutely false.
I said that you had to be pretty stupid or ignorant to believe in
astrology...and that's true.
I never said they were all frauds. That is a plain lie. In fact,
I said several times that I believed very few could be frauds,
and that the majority were simply deluded. I also said that I had
no disagreement with astrologers being decent people -- but you
can't deny that they've got a bit of a problem upstairs if they
are going to believe in a bunch of inane medieval superstitions.
The real issue is that you made friends with some woo-woos, and
now on purely personal grounds you are unwilling to criticize
them. That's a shame. It demonstrates a lack of objective rigor,
you know.
[snip]
--
PZ Myers
PZ Myers
Caj@B_r_a_i_n_H_z.c_o_m (Xcott Craver) wrote:
> Chris Nelson <c...@chrisnelsonREMOVETHIS.net> wrote:
[snip]
> > Ergo I vote for the pro-choice, pro-separation of church
> >and state, pro-environment party in such a case: the Dems.
>
> Pro-environment my ass. Didn't the Clinton administration argue,
> at a recent global climate summit, that the US is meeting its
> environmental obligations just by having lots of trees, because
> trees absorb some pollution?
>
> BTW, a pro-free-trade policy is considered by many to be
> damaging to the environment. And to human rights.
Yes. One thing that really bugs me is this whole
misrepresentation that you find in the media that Clinton and
Gore and the current policies of the Democrats are *liberal*.
They aren't. They are somewhat less conservative than the
Republicans, and that's about it.
Out there in Real Life I tend to associate with a bunch of
tree-hugging (OK, here on the plains it's more grass- and
wetlands-hugging) ecologists. If you want to hear real bitching
and moaning about politics, that's the group to hang out with.
They uniformly and without question voted for Gore as by far the
lesser of two evils, but they damn 'em both as earth-raping
slash-and-burn bastards.
[snip]
--
PZ Myers
Jim Phillips
> Dominion wrote:
> >
> > On 06 Feb 2001 01:57:31 GMT, Lou Minatti™ <loumi...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Rev Fredric L. Rice wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Lou Minatti™ <loumi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >Rev Fredric L. Rice wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Amusingly enough, the nutter couldn't offer any names of "left wing hate
> > >> >> groups."
> > >>
> > >> >The Democratic Party.
> > >>
> > >> How utterly insane, yeah.
> > >
> > >Democrats have drawn a sharp line in the sand over the past decade.
> > >There can no longer be simple political disagreements. You must either
> > >believe as a liberal Democrat believes, or you are The Enemy. If you
> > >don't believe as liberal Democrats believe, you are a "KKK member"
> > >(Jesse Jackson); you are a member of "the Nazi party" (Congressman Tom
> > >Lantos), "a bunch of dictators" (Congressman Sam Gibbons), or "the real
> > >threat" (Mario Cuomo). Of course, they're all professional politicians,
> > >spouting off for the cameras. They're paid to be assholes. What about
> > >Usenet?
> >
> > <click><click><click> There goes Lou. Down a few more notches on the
> > respect meter!
>
> Oh well. Maybe I'd better just shut up because my opinions differ from
> yours.
>
> > Would you like me to post similar speech from the Republican side of
> > the aisle? Maybe some choice words from Rush Limbaugh? Damn Lou as a
> > person I like to think of as skeptic, you sure seem to be falling into
> > some of the same fallacies that we see crop up here so often. Do you
> > really need to have it explained to you that the words of people that
> > identify themselves as Democrats do NOT equate the platform of the
> > Democratic Party? Do you think you can really defend the idea that the
> > Democratic party is a Hate Group???
>
> I don't notice you objecting to those applying that label to my
> political party.
I'm pretty sure he's condemned everyone who's been calling dems
and reps hate groups.
> > Did you not have a debate with P.Z. about lumping all people in a
> > group under one label? What am I to think of this Lou?
>
> PZ personally attacked a lot of decent people. I got to know the people
> on alt.astrology. They are not all "frauds" as PZ says. The vast
> majority of them are very kind-hearted people who have rather harmless
> woowoo beliefs.
And you, by labelling the democrats a hate group, have also
attacked a lot of decent people. Don't you see that?
> > >For some reason, liberal Democrats constantly post their petty political
> > >opinions into off-topic newsgroups. They demand that others not only
> > >tolerate their petty political opinions, but agree with them as well.
> > >Their definition of tolerance is unique: If you don't agree with them,
> > >their Democrat Label Gun comes out in a jiffy (they wear it in a
> > >holster.)
> >
> > LOL. And do you think Dr. Don Drake (I would kill protesters that
> > disagree with me) is a liberal? How about Uncle Al? What do you say
> > about the words of Pat Robinson, and his insistence that if your not
> > politically conservative your going to hell. How about Jerry Falwell?
> > Rush Limbaugh. Kent Lott? Hell David Duke Lou. He was at one time a
> > Grand Wizard of the KKK and he was elected to office as a Republican!
> >
> > Does this make the Republican party racist?
>
> I could also point out that there is still a former Klansman sitting in
> the U.S. Senate. Does this make the Democratic Party racist? After all,
> I never did hear demands from Robert Byrd's fellow Democrats that he
> step down for his hateful past. I did hear from the Republican Paty
> regarding Duke, though. They said piss off.
So that makes it okay for you to do exactly what they do? Why
are you complaining about something they do that you also do?
> > Once again Lou, do you really think you can defend the idea that the
> > Democrats are a Hate Group?
>
> I'm seeing a lot of hate right here on this newsgroup. What I don't see
> is a lot of Republicans come in to sci.skeptic day after day posting
> hundreds of messages that belong on a political newsgroup.
No Lou, you're seeing anger--hate's a lot worse. And again, if
it's okay for you to do it, why isn't it okay for them to do it?
> > >It's hard to understand. Why do liberal Democrats "feel the urge" to
> > >force their petty opinions on others, when there are more appropriate
> > >venues like talk.politics.misc? Do they suffer from a type of missionary
> > >zeal that can only be fulfilled if they're out trying to convert the
> > >unwashed masses? Or are they simply frustrated assholes who think
> > >they'll change the course of an election if only they could post lots of
> > >messages to newsgroups that have nothing to do with politics?
> >
> > And there has never been a conservative or libertarian that has posted
> > to a ng that had nothing to do with politics. How cute Lou, you make
> > the mistake of thinking that sci.skeptic is the whole of usenet. Have
> > you ever read or posted to sci.environment? Or sci.ag?
>
> I never claimed this. Please don't claim that I did.
But when you constantly harp on democrats doing it and ignore
when republicans do it, it looks suspicious.
> > >I don't much care for zealots, Fred, whether it's Giwer spouting his
> > >hatred of Jews, or tightly wound politicos spouting their hatred of
> > >others because of honest political differences.
> >
> > And yet what am I supposed to think about a person that would lump all
> > Democrats into one neat package, then brand that package a Hate Group?
> > How can I tell your actions from any other zealot Lou? If it were
> > really an issue of not caring for those "tightly wound politicos
> > spouting their hatred of others" you would not be concentrating on
> > only the Democrats.
>
> IOW, it's OK to see message after message from numerous people here
> tying my political party with hate groups. If I turn things around, I'm
> stepping over the line. I get it now.
The difference is that when you see someone whose opinion you
respect using the unpleasant tactics of rat-bastards, you mention it.
Don't lower yourself to their level!
>
> > Gee Lou, seems to me that you are nothing more than a political
> > zealot. Why if you are a "liberal" then you stand accused of all sorts
> > of "Lou crimes". If your liberal then you MUST "spout your hatred"of
> > others, because Lou says it's so. You must "feel the urge to force
> > [your] petty opinions on others", to "suffer from a type of missionary
> > zeal that can only be fulfilled if they're out trying to convert the
> > unwashed masses", they must be "simply frustrated assholes who think
> > they'll change the course of an election if only they could post lots
> > of messages to newsgroups that have nothing to do with politics". Why?
> > Because Lou says so. Note that you never get those qualities from a
> > Republican, or a conservative....
> >
> > Tell me something Lou, what is the difference between a "tightly wound
> > politicos spouting their hatred of others because of honest political
> > difference" and someone that would accuse the Democratic party of
> > being a Hate Group? I mean beside the fact that you are not a
> > "politico".
> >
> > It sure seems to me Lou, that you are engaging in exactly the type of
> > "Hate Crime" that you accuse those nasty liberals of engaging in.
>
> I think you finally understand.
So why is it okay for you to do it but not okay for them to do it?
--
Jim Phillips, jphi...@bcpl.net
"If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten." -- George Carlin
Lou Minatti™
>
> In article <3A80B8...@yahoo.com>, loumi...@yahoo.com
> wrote:
>
> > Dominion wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > Did you not have a debate with P.Z. about lumping all people
> > > in a group under one label? What am I to think of this Lou?
> >
> > PZ personally attacked a lot of decent people. I got to know
> > the people on alt.astrology. They are not all "frauds" as PZ
> > says. The vast majority of them are very kind-hearted people
> > who have rather harmless woowoo beliefs.
>
> Whoa there. Absolutely false.
>
> I said that you had to be pretty stupid or ignorant to believe in
> astrology...and that's true.
>
> I never said they were all frauds. That is a plain lie. In fact,
> I said several times that I believed very few could be frauds,
> and that the majority were simply deluded. I also said that I had
> no disagreement with astrologers being decent people -- but you
> can't deny that they've got a bit of a problem upstairs if they
> are going to believe in a bunch of inane medieval superstitions.
You said much more than that.
"(Astrologers) are peddling ignorance and fraud. The fact that some of
them might be sweet little old ladies or naive teenagers or charming Old
World gentlemen doesn't change that -- they are just as guilty as the
slimiest petty kook you can find on usenet."
http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=663346396&fmt=text
"And I see no difference here between Stapleton and the other
astrologers you seem to want to defend."
http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=663721717&fmt=text
"Is there anyone who claims to actively believe in astrology whose
opinion you would respect? I can't."
http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=536479652&fmt=text
Does anyone in your family hold a superstitious belief, PZ? Anyone who
believes in astrology? I bet there are some. Are they slimy petty kooks
whose opinion you don't respect?
> The real issue is that you made friends with some woo-woos,
The real issue is many skeptics can publicly disagree with them and
remain friends. And that drives you up the wall.
> and
> now on purely personal grounds you are unwilling to criticize
> them. That's a shame. It demonstrates a lack of objective rigor,
> you know.
Every single regular on alt.astrology is aware of my opinion. Despite
that, they have been kind and respectful. OTOH, you've dropped to Ed
Wollman's level on the Respect Meter with both skeptics and believers.
It's not a mere coincidence that you and Ed, the two least respected
people on the alt.astrology, are also known as the group's bitterest
assholes, is it?
Lou Minatti™
It's clear that you're highly agitated by someone stating a political
opinion that differs from your own. Maybe now you can understand why
politics belongs on a political newsgroup.
Xcott Craver
>> Levin and Doc Tavish, all frequent right-wing spammers.
>
>Careful there. I would not have lumped Giwer and Tavish in with
>political conservatives -- they are extremist flakes and
>incompetents with genuinely evil views. Do you really want to
>imply that you think those cockroaches share your end of the
>political spectrum, and suggest that by criticizing them you are
>showing impartiality?
Indeed, it is a mistake to treat the political spectrum
as some kind of number line. Libertarians, for instance,
can't be classified on either side.
>PZ Myers
-S
Xcott Craver
>
>They exist, but why vote for a party you know hasn't a ghost
>of a chance of winning, when doing so would only increase
>the chance of the greater of evils coming to power?
The second half of this sentence is your opinion. I opine, rather,
that supporting the party in which you believe will in the long run
have a positive effect.
Just look at this election, for example. Now, Your Lesser of Two
Evils Party knows that it's not just gonna automatically get the
liberal vote regardless of platform; they're going to have to be less
"evil" to get those votes. If the Dems figured they could support
free trade and adopt a Reaganesque stance to the environment and it
wouldn't matter to voters, well, they know better now.
>> Finally, Nader did not get Bush elected.
>
>If only 1000 Florida Greens cast their vote for Gore, women's abortion
>rights would be safeguarded for generations to come due to judicial
>nominations. Now, abortion rights are in severe danger.
Therefore it's their fault? How about the people who voted
for Bush? Or the thousands who voted for other third parties?
Or thousands of democrats who could have moved to Florida?
This is just the fallacy of the balance sheet, mixed with
bitterness.
In any case, it was Al Gore who alienated all those voters with
8 years of pretty conservative Democratic rule. It's pathetic to
blame this on Nader: oh, damn that huge barrage of Nader
commercials that made people switch! The guy effectively did not
campaign at all relative to the Big Two, and got those votes.
Hey, and there'd be thousands more voters for Gore if only
there was a shred of opposition for the war on drugs.
>> And maybe supporting a war on drugs disqualifying hordes of
>> voters in Florida.
>
>You think Bush is friendlier toward drugs? Sorry, but liberals are
>more likely to end a war on drugs than conservatives.
I didn't say that. Simply, that the democrats suffered because
of all those people disqualified to vote due to the WOD.
If only there was stronger opposition to it, there would
be more voters in Florida. The Dems were beaten by their
own faux liberalism.
>> Of course, Bush got Bush elected too, by
>> avoiding any mention of abortion in the debates.
>
>That was a mistake Gore made. He should have brought out
>abortion as one of his top issues.
Oh, definitely. I also couldn't help but suspect that the media
could have and should have pressed Bush for an answer to that
question. He didn't answer it in the debates even when asked a
very specific question point-blank; in fact, he gave one of
the dumbest non-answers I heard.
>> Pro-environment my ass. Didn't the Clinton administration argue,
>> at a recent global climate summit, that the US is meeting its
>> environmental obligations just by having lots of trees, because
>> trees absorb some pollution?
>
>Who do you think has a better environmental record, Clinton
>& Gore, or any on of Reagan, Bush & Bush?
Fact remains, Gore lost too much of the environmentalist vote
for a reason. No, not because environmentalists are evil and
short-sighted or victims of deception.
>> If both Dems and Reps advocate censorship, how do you know
>> it's Dems taking on conservative ideas rather than Reps
>> taking on liberal ideas? Censorship of violence on TV, for
>> instance, is not at all a conservative idea.
>
>Censorship is a conservative ideal. True liberalism abhors
>censorship.
Anyone can say that about any party. "True conservatism," for
instance, abhors big government intervention of any kind.
So-called "social conservatives" are different, in that they
advocate censorship and restrictions on abortion. So-called
fiscal conservatives, however, have no reason to support
such invasiveness, and prefer less government.
>> Ah. So I provide an example of a Republican not meeting your
>> stereotype, and you simply declare him not a Republican, because
>> he does not meet that stereotype.
>
>He does not believe what the Republicans believe, so why is
>he a Republican?
Again, your stereotype. Only some varieties of conservative
are anti-abortion. Some don't think government should
intervene in any such thing.
>--
>Chris Nelson
-S
PZ Myers
wrote:
Tsk, tsk, Lou. Editing out important context? For shame.
What was I saying that they were guilty of? It's in the few
sentences just before the ones you quoted up there.
"Oh, piffle. I didn't say they couldn't be decent people in my
original comment: I pointed out that they *are* evasive and
believe in a lot of made-up nonsense."
Astrologers *are* guilty of peddling ignorance and fraud, and of
being evasive when confronted with the facts, and in believing a
lot of made up nonsense -- just like the slimy petty kook (in
this case, Pete Stapleton) that you were cussing out for
believing in that stuff.
>
> "And I see no difference here between Stapleton and the other
> astrologers you seem to want to defend."
> http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=663721717&fmt=text
Context, context, context. What was the difference "here" that I
was talking about? You were jumping all over Pete Stapleton for
making ridiculous claims about the efficacy of astrology and his
usual tirades about the JREF challenge. What is remarkable is
that the astrologers you call friends make *effectively
identical* statements all the time...without a peep from you.
Don't you find that a bit odd? Shouldn't you criticize people's
ideas on the basis of those ideas, not just whether they happen
to be nice to you in other ways?
>
> "Is there anyone who claims to actively believe in astrology whose
> opinion you would respect? I can't."
> http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=536479652&fmt=text
Amazing. Why are you posting just those two sentences out of that
post? A little farther down, you would have found me saying
exactly what I claimed above: "I'd rather think that they were
ignorant dullards who are a victim of a lot of wishful thinking
than that they are charlatans."
It's rather obvious that you are doing some seriously selective
quoting here.
But it is true. I do not respect the opinion of anyone who would
claim to actively believe in astrology. Neither would I respect
the opinion of someone who said the earth was flat, that they
could cure people of cancer by laying on of hands, or who claimed
to have visited Arcturus with the purple saucer people. Would you?
>
> Does anyone in your family hold a superstitious belief, PZ?
Yes. Several still go to church. Of course, most religions are
not subject to disproof as are some superstitions (like
astrology), so I can't disagree with them on that.
> Anyone who believes in astrology?
No.
> I bet there are some. Are they slimy petty kooks
No. Of course, I haven't said that all astrologers are "slimy
petty kooks". That's your invention. I think most are ignorant or
deluded.
> whose opinion you don't respect?
There are a few family members (fortunately, a bit distant) whose
opinions I thoroughly disrespect. There aren't any astrologers
among them, but there are a couple of followers of John Birch and
a few gun nuts.
If there were family members who believed in that astrology crap,
yes, you are correct: I would NOT respect their opinions.
Are you saying that if someone in *your* family held some utterly
bizarre, destructive, worthless belief (say they were a New Age
wacko, a follower of Elizabeth Clare Prophet, and an applied
kinesiology practitioner), you would still respect their
opinions? Don't you find that a little inconsistent? I mean,
just because someone happens to be your Aunt Matilda does not
mean you have to think their beliefs are peachy-keen.
>
> > The real issue is that you made friends with some woo-woos,
>
> The real issue is many skeptics can publicly disagree with
> them and remain friends. And that drives you up the wall.
It does? Not at all. Go ahead. Be friends with lots and lots of
woo-woos.
If it drove me up the wall, and if I were sufficiently deranged,
I suppose I would show it by pursuing your posts all over usenet,
and every time you said something friendly or sociable to one of
your pals, I could tell you to "go get a room". Or maybe I could
make up fantasies about you having sex together. Or maybe I could
just get really pissed off and announce that you ought to be
murdered. *That* would be a sign that the idea that you would
have friends on usenet is driving me up the wall. Have I been
doing that?
Perhaps you could rummage around in that usenet archive and find
a few posts where I expressed my deep resentment that you could
be friends with someone.
>
> > and now on purely personal grounds you are unwilling to
> > criticize them. That's a shame. It demonstrates a lack of
> > objective rigor, you know.
>
> Every single regular on alt.astrology is aware of my opinion.
> Despite that, they have been kind and respectful. OTOH, you've
> dropped to Ed Wollman's level on the Respect Meter with both
> skeptics and believers.
Haven't you realized yet that alt.astrology is one of the nastier
sewers on usenet? Telling me that I'm not loved there is about as
hurtful as telling me that the losers of alt.hackers.malicious or
the snuh loons don't like me much. I would rather *not* have the
respect of vermin like anonym or roachclip, if you don't mind.
> It's not a mere coincidence that you
> and Ed, the two least respected people on the alt.astrology,
> are also known as the group's bitterest assholes, is it?
No, it's not. It's because there is a certain rather rabid
lunatic who has been making dishonest assertions about me thick
and fast...and you are one of a number of alt.astrology cultists
who accept his lies without question. In that sense, it is no
coincidence that you believe what you claim.
--
PZ Myers
Kevin Burnett
>Dominion wrote:
[snip a bunch of questions Lou dodged]
>> <click> <click> <click> Lou. If that is really your game then your
>> nothing more than a hypocite, and I certainly hope that is not the
>> case. Certainly I don't want to believe it of you.
>
>It's clear that you're highly agitated by someone stating a political
>opinion that differs from your own. Maybe now you can understand why
>politics belongs on a political newsgroup.
LOL! Lou, you're the one who originally got his panties in a twist in
this thread over political opinions that differed from your own.
--
Kevin Burnett http://www.catnip.org/
Dominion
wrote:
No Lou, what is clear is that you can't answer one point in this post,
so I stand accused of being agitated. What a chickenshit response Lou.
I am not going to snip it either, in the hopes that when you read this
you will feel the proper shame. The truth be known Lou, I am not
agitated as much as horrified and disgusted that someone who's opinion
I valued and who's intelligence I admired could be this god-awful
stupid.
You know, when I first pointed out that it was probably a mistake to
call the Democrats a hate group, I really did think you would reply
"Yah I know, I was just mad", or "Yah, I know, I was just joking
around" or "Yah I know, I was on the rag" or ANYTHING besides trying
to defend yourself. So I guess I am also shocked. And surprised. And
really really disappointed.
You lost any moral ground you might have had Lou. That IS a shame. How
can anyone take your broadsides at Matty and Tavish seriously now? Oh
sure they are very obvious bigots, but then, you have just proven to
be too. Sure you don't hate Jews, would never think of calling a black
"nigger" or a Hispanic "mexican" but still, you ARE willing to paint
every Democrat in this country a member of a "Hate Group". Nor can you
even pretend to defend the idea, as this post amply proves. All you
can do is accuse a guy that wants an explanation for such intolerance
of being "agitated".
Once again Lou, I hope you feel the proper shame in this sorry excuse
of a response. You have left me no choice but to conclude that you are
indeed a bigot and a hypocrite. Good job Lou....damn good job!
pz
k...@usenet.catnip.org (Kevin Burnett) wrote:
Yeah...I'm used to seeing irony meters burst into flames over a Winston
Wu post, or any of the other woo-woo's diatribes, but not a Lou Minatti
post. That was really high-grade irony, though.
--
pz
Paul Murray
news:jgk28t0l02s691rfq...@4ax.com...
> >The law mentions anyone avowing support of a hostile foreign power. And
> >as I've said, the law was later extended to peace time, though that
> >addendum was retracted during the Kennedy presidency.
>
> That still doesn't make membership in the Party illegal!
"Support" is a pretty broad term, and is up for grabs. If the govt decides
that being in the Communist party is supporting a hostile power, then they
very easily can throw your ass in jail.
--------------------------------------------------------------
0x29A - opcode of the beast!
http://www.users.bigpond.com/pmurray
ICQ: 26066755
Kevin Burnett
>Lou Minatti
> <loumi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Rev Fredric L. Rice wrote:
>> >
>> > Lou Minatti™ <loumi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >Rev Fredric L. Rice wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> Amusingly enough, the nutter couldn't offer any names of "left wing hate
>> > >> groups."
>> >
>> > >The Democratic Party.
>> >
>> > How utterly insane, yeah.
>>
>> Democrats have drawn a sharp line in the sand over the past decade.
>> There can no longer be simple political disagreements. You must either
>> believe as a liberal Democrat believes, or you are The Enemy.
>
As opposed to the right wing of the Republican party?
>
>If you
>> don't believe as liberal Democrats believe, you are a "KKK member"
>> (Jesse Jackson); you are a member of "the Nazi party" (Congressman Tom
>> Lantos), "a bunch of dictators" (Congressman Sam Gibbons), or "the real
>> threat" (Mario Cuomo). Of course, they're all professional politicians,
>> spouting off for the cameras. They're paid to be assholes. What about
>> Usenet?
>
>But what the real kick in the nuts is, is that the Democratic Party has
>these extremist jackoffs as their spokespeople.
Perhaps you could present an example of an "extremist" who *is* a
spokesperson for the Democratic Party?
>
>They are the ones with their mugs on the TV screen, on the front page of
>the newspaper, on radio news clips, all that shit.
>
>During the failed election theft, who's face was up on screen the most,
>after algore? Jesse Jackson, flashing his race-card and baiting people
>for pandemonium.
If Jesse Jackson is a spokesman for the Democratic Party, Pat Robertson is
a spokesman for the Republican Party. Are you happy with that?
>
>And the even sadder part is that the Dem Party actually run their
>policies to cater to these fringe groups, almost completely slashing
>away at the people in the middle who thought that they'd be in the
>thick.
Which "fringe groups" are those, roachie? C'mon, I want to see some
specifics.
Do you mean the *real* supporters of the Democratic Party, i.e. stock
and bond traders, parts of the tech and telecommunications industries,
etc, or some Republican fantasy?
>
>> For some reason, liberal Democrats constantly post their petty political
>> opinions into off-topic newsgroups. They demand that others not only
>> tolerate their petty political opinions, but agree with them as well.
>> Their definition of tolerance is unique: If you don't agree with them,
>> their Democrat Label Gun comes out in a jiffy (they wear it in a
>> holster.)
>
>They forget that most conservatives (of both parties) could give two
>fucks less about their petty opinions. Both knowing that the opinions
>are petty, and also, that the entire discussion is petty.
Pot/Kettle/Black.
Xcott Craver
[El Snippo Gordo]
>It's clear that you're highly agitated by someone stating a political
>opinion that differs from your own. Maybe now you can understand why
>politics belongs on a political newsgroup.
It is clear that some unsavory individual has either gained
access to Lou's account, or some way to forge articles to
make him look like a silly person.
-S
[Especially after he quotes a nearly 200-line article in
full to add 3 lines at the end.]
Kevin Burnett
>Kevin Burnett <k...@usenet.catnip.org> wrote:
>
>I refuse to fall into this troll.
>
>Simple answers:
>
>Robertson isn't on TV pushing Republican agenda every time you turn
>around, like Jackson is for Democratic. Or at least, the Ministry of
>Propaganda and Enlightenment isn't showing Robertson (which was the
>case, dunno now).
>
>Hell, even the majority of the Reps denounce Robertson. Unlike the Dems.
>
>Extremist spokespersons, well, even though they don't wear the DNC
>patch, it's intentioned. Patricia Ireland, Jesse Jackson, any Sierra
>Club asshole, to name a few. Just turn on CNN and there's at least one
>an hour from any respective group.
>
>The real supporters of the Democratic party are the rich and elite.
>CONTRARY to the notion that the Republicans are all big business and for
>the rich.
>
>It just helps them set up their Marxist state.
>
>Fringe groups-
>
>Anyone that is to the left or right of center, in the opinion realm of
>the ENTIRE country, not the opinion of people in one state or on one
>coast or one city.
>
>And sad to say, that across the fruited plain, the leftist agenda is out
>of vogue. In the cities, the leftist agenda breathes heavily. But not
>out in the world where people still fear their god, have a sense of
>morals, and distrust government and people trying to push them around.
>
>but I don't expect anyone to understand this, cos they're mostly all
>wearing rose colored glasses.
>
ROFLMAO!
That was an exceptional example of an unhinged, delusional rant, roachie!
Setting up a Marxist state, indeed. HA!
pz
k...@usenet.catnip.org (Kevin Burnett) wrote:
And the *Democrats* are for the rich and elite? Has anyone looked at how
Bush's proposed tax cuts are stacked?
And how does Roach simultaneously balance this idea of "The real
supporters of the Democratic party are the rich and elite" and the
Democrats are trying to "set up their Marxist state"?
I'd like to see an example of a Democrat supporting Pat Robertson. He
certainly was condemned by everyone with the slightest liberal bent,
although now he just seems to be an old, faded has-been. A more au
courant example would be Bob Jones, the conservative atavism that every
Republican was busy sucking up to in the last election.
--
pz