Mystery Guest
dks
And now, Our Mystery Guest will deal with six of
| Rush Limbaugh's 35 Undeniable Truths
As opposed to Rush Limbaugh's Countless "Deniable Truths," of course.
Anyway...
| Q1: What are the "Undeniable Truths"?
| A1: They were part of an article he wrote for the
| Sacramento Union back in 1988. [...]
Note the date: 1988. Bear it in mind while you consider the following:
| 1) The greatest threat to humanity lies in the nuclear arsenal
| of the USSR.
|
| 2) The greatest threat to humanity lies in the USSR.
|
| 8) Peace cannot be achieved by developing a "understanding" with
| the Russian People.
|
| 10) Communism Kills.
|
| 15) The Peace Movement in the US, whether by accident or design,
| is pro-Communist.
|
| 26) The only difference between Mikhail Gorbachev and previous
| Soviet leaders, is that Gorbachev is alive.
These, then, are some of Limbaugh's Undeniable Truths. But back in 1986,
two years before these Truths were Revealed, someone else was asked how
we should deal with the Soviets, and here's what he said:
Let's make an effort to get along. I'd even go so far
as to say, 'What is there we might be able to do to
help you?' I no longer say let's destroy the communists.
So who was this fool? Some Pathetic Liberal Jerk who didn't appreciate
Ronnie's Heroic Crusade Against The Evil Empire? Some Wimpy Leftist who
Believed in Coddling the Soviets? Yeah. His name was Barry Goldwater.
Dhanesh
Keith: Make that *five* years on Ronnie's account...
Todd Andrew Simpson
And now, Our Mystery Guest will deal with six of
| Rush Limbaugh's 35 Undeniable Truths
As opposed to Rush Limbaugh's Countless "Deniable Truths," of course.
["truths" deleted]
[...] back in 1986, two years before these Truths were Revealed,
someone else was asked how we should deal with the Soviets, and
here's what he said:
Let's make an effort to get along. I'd even go so far
as to say, 'What is there we might be able to do to
help you?' I no longer say let's destroy the communists.
So who was this fool? Some Pathetic Liberal Jerk who didn't appreciate
Ronnie's Heroic Crusade Against The Evil Empire? Some Wimpy Leftist who
Believed in Coddling the Soviets? Yeah. His name was Barry Goldwater.
Yeah, Barry Goldwater.... It seems to me that few other conservative
politicians have stuck to their principles as much as Goldwater, and
look what he has to show for it. I recall reading a letter to the
Washington Post some time recently by a woman (I assume it was a
woman - her first name was Bobbie but I don't remember the last name)
who'd just been defeated in her bid to become Republican candidate for
Lieutenant Governor of Virginia. Evidently the Republican Party
there has been all but taken over by right-wing Christians, some
of whom dismissed Barry Goldwater (who had endorsed this woman who
wrote the letter) as a "pro-choice liberal". It's not been thirty
years since his extreme right-wing views caused him to lose a
Presidential election, and now the right wing has left him behind.
Far behind....
Todo
Eric Sieferman
>
(snip)
>Note the date: 1988. Bear it in mind while you consider the following:
>
> | 1) The greatest threat to humanity lies in the nuclear arsenal
> | of the USSR.
> |
> | 2) The greatest threat to humanity lies in the USSR.
> |
> | 8) Peace cannot be achieved by developing a "understanding" with
> | the Russian People.
> |
> | 10) Communism Kills.
> |
> | 15) The Peace Movement in the US, whether by accident or design,
> | is pro-Communist.
> |
> | 26) The only difference between Mikhail Gorbachev and previous
> | Soviet leaders, is that Gorbachev is alive.
>
>two years before these Truths were Revealed, someone else was asked how
>we should deal with the Soviets, and here's what he said:
>
> Let's make an effort to get along. I'd even go so far
> as to say, 'What is there we might be able to do to
> help you?' I no longer say let's destroy the communists.
>
>So who was this fool? Some Pathetic Liberal Jerk who didn't appreciate
>Ronnie's Heroic Crusade Against The Evil Empire? Some Wimpy Leftist who
>Believed in Coddling the Soviets? Yeah. His name was Barry Goldwater.
But there was no money to be made by opinions like Goldwater's; can you
imagine people hearing an opinion like that and calling up to say "ditto
... ditto". Rush knows too well the demographics and political tastes of
talk-radio junkies. Remember: Rush == Marketing.
--
--- As Seen In talk.origins: "Spoken speech begins after the flood
with the final breakdown of the old electromagnetic system.
Antediluvian communications were telepathic in nature." - Ted Holden.
Mike Best
> [...] back in 1986, two years before these Truths were Revealed,
> someone else was asked how we should deal with the Soviets, and
> here's what he said:
>
> Let's make an effort to get along. I'd even go so far
> as to say, 'What is there we might be able to do to
> help you?' I no longer say let's destroy the communists.
>
> So who was this fool? Some Pathetic Liberal Jerk who didn't appreciate
> Ronnie's Heroic Crusade Against The Evil Empire? Some Wimpy Leftist who
> Believed in Coddling the Soviets? Yeah. His name was Barry Goldwater.
>
>Yeah, Barry Goldwater.... It seems to me that few other conservative
>politicians have stuck to their principles as much as Goldwater, and
>look what he has to show for it.
>
Yer not in Kansas anymore are you? Let me tell you what has happend to BG's
conservative "principles". He is a supporter of a woman's right to choose
(in place of the child's) and he supports full gay rights. And this is only
the stuff that has received press here in Arizona ...
Mike Best
dks
be...@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
> p...@math.psu.edu (Todd Andrew Simpson) writes:
> >Yeah, Barry Goldwater.... It seems to me that few other conservative
> >politicians have stuck to their principles as much as Goldwater, and
> >look what he has to show for it.
>
> happend to BG's conservative "principles". He is a supporter
> of a woman's right to choose (in place of the child's) and he
> supports full gay rights. And this is only the stuff that has
> received press here in Arizona ...
That's the whole point, Mike. Goldwater's views on these matters are
true to the best conservative traditions. The fact that some so-called
"conservatives" may think otherwise is simply an indictment of their
perverted brand of alleged "conservatism." They seem to be confusing
"fundamentalist Christian beliefs" for "Conservative principles" and,
in the process, they are only doing harm to both Christianity and
Conservatism. Who profits? Who loses? You be the judge.
Dhanesh
Of course, there will be some who blame Goldwater's views
on Jimmy Carter or the Congress or the Evil Liberal Media.
And *that's* what I call Comedy with a capital C.
Jason Christian
Kindly advise when and where Barry Goldwater has shifted his principles.
The stuff you cite strikes me as consistent with a belief that
government ought not to interfere excessively in private decisions,
which I have heard is a principle held dear by many conservatives.
...and on a related subject:
Did someone ask for a dribbly shot-glass? We're working on it...
Skoal!
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Christian Agricultural Economics
ja...@primal.ucdavis.edu University of California, Davis
Office:(916)752-1357 FAX:(916)752-5614 Davis, CA 95616
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Christian Agricultural Economics
ja...@primal.ucdavis.edu University of California, Davis
Office:(916)752-1357 FAX:(916)752-5614 Davis, CA 95616
Michael R Conners
tes:
>In article <CCMq8...@cse.psu.edu> p...@math.psu.edu (Todd Andrew Simpson) wri
tes:
>> someone else was asked how we should deal with the Soviets, and
>> here's what he said:
>>
>> Let's make an effort to get along. I'd even go so far
>> as to say, 'What is there we might be able to do to
>> help you?' I no longer say let's destroy the communists.
>>
>> So who was this fool? Some Pathetic Liberal Jerk who didn't appreciate
>> Ronnie's Heroic Crusade Against The Evil Empire? Some Wimpy Leftist who
>> Believed in Coddling the Soviets? Yeah. His name was Barry Goldwater.
>>
>>Yeah, Barry Goldwater.... It seems to me that few other conservative
>>politicians have stuck to their principles as much as Goldwater, and
>>look what he has to show for it.
>>
>
>Yer not in Kansas anymore are you? Let me tell you what has happend to BG's
>conservative "principles". He is a supporter of a woman's right to choose
>(in place of the child's) and he supports full gay rights. And this is only
>the stuff that has received press here in Arizona ...
>
said all of that stuff, and more (as Mr.Best notes above).
The thing is that people's ideologies change over a period of time- and
Goldwater is no exception. When I saw him on Donahue/Posner, he sounded more
like a Libertarian than a traditional Conservative- which is fine. He can
change his mind/re-evaluate his beliefs if he wants to.
I'm just not so sure that he still holds to the tenets of Conervatism, that's
all.
--
*** Michael Conners - THE Ohio State University ***
"The merest glance at the federal budget is enough to convict the government
of perjury, extortion, and fraud." - P.J. O'Rourke
Kevin Podsiadlik
>
> be...@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
> > Yer not in Kansas anymore are you? Let me tell you what has
> > happend to BG's conservative "principles". He is a supporter
> > of a woman's right to choose (in place of the child's) and he
> > supports full gay rights. And this is only the stuff that has
> > received press here in Arizona ...
>
>true to the best conservative traditions. The fact that some so-called
>"conservatives" may think otherwise is simply an indictment of their
>perverted brand of alleged "conservatism." They seem to be confusing
>"fundamentalist Christian beliefs" for "Conservative principles" and,
>in the process, they are only doing harm to both Christianity and
>Conservatism. Who profits? Who loses? You be the judge.
Okay, now let me understand this. First you hoist Goldwater
up as one who no longer believed in fighting Communism. As
far as that goes, it is admittedly a good counterpoint to
Rush's JFK interview, with the main exception that Rush was
quoting a JFK in his prime, while you quote a Goldwater with
one foot in the grave and long removed from public relevency.
But now you go on to say that Goldwater's views are "true to the best
conservative traditions". When you combine that with your
original premise, you get the patently absurd conclusion
that fighting communism is not "traditional conservatism."
The only thing you've really proven is that either a) Goldwater
has changed his views over time, or b) Goldwater has lost
his fighting spirit over time. Considering Goldwater's age,
I am inclined think b) is the case, though Mike's statements
make a) a real possibility.
At any rate, if your original intent was to say the Communism
wasn't such a bad thing after all (since you seem to be
taking issue with all of Rush's anti-Communist Truths),
remember that we still have Cuba to remind us...
--
Kevin J. Podsiadlik |
Vaporware Engineer On Steroids | "This is the Mac -- it's SUPPOSED to be fun."
Cognito Ergo Ditto |
E-mail: ham...@umcc.umich.edu |
dks
ham...@umcc.umcc.umich.edu (Kevin Podsiadlik) writes:
> dks <d...@MIT.EDU> wrote:
> > be...@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
> > > Yer not in Kansas anymore are you? Let me tell you what has
> > > happend to BG's conservative "principles". He is a supporter
> > > of a woman's right to choose (in place of the child's) and he
> > > supports full gay rights. And this is only the stuff that has
> > > received press here in Arizona ...
> >
> >That's the whole point, Mike. Goldwater's views on these matters are
> >true to the best conservative traditions. The fact that some so-called
> >"conservatives" may think otherwise is simply an indictment of their
> >perverted brand of alleged "conservatism." They seem to be confusing
> >"fundamentalist Christian beliefs" for "Conservative principles" and,
> >in the process, they are only doing harm to both Christianity and
> >Conservatism. Who profits? Who loses? You be the judge.
>
> Okay, now let me understand this. First you hoist Goldwater
> up as one who no longer believed in fighting Communism.
If Barry Goldwater's words aren't "conservative" enough for you,
don't blame me. Just think about it and deal with it.
> As far as that goes, it is admittedly a good counterpoint to
> Rush's JFK interview, with the main exception that Rush was
> quoting a JFK in his prime, while you quote a Goldwater with
> one foot in the grave and long removed from public relevency.
The fact that self-professed "conservatives" dismiss the views of
people like Barry Goldwater as being no longer relevant is just
more evidence of the point I was making: some "conservatives" don't
even know what "conservatism" is, let alone anything else.
As for "Rush's JFK interview," I have no idea what you're talking
about. What interview is this? Are you referring to the alleged
"posthumous comedy" that he spat up recently? In any case, what
does it have to do with Limbaugh's "Undeniable Truths" from 1988?
> But now you go on to say that Goldwater's views are "true to the
> best conservative traditions". When you combine that with your
> original premise, you get the patently absurd conclusion
> that fighting communism is not "traditional conservatism."
Your first statement is false. Your combining it with what you call
the "original premise" is a mistake. Thus, your "patently absurd
conclusion" is your own red herring, not mine. Keep it to yourself.
When I said that "Goldwater's views ON THESE MATTERS are true to the
best conservative traditions," I was simply pointing out to my
esteemed correspondent, Mr. Best, that "conservative principles" are
consistent with a woman's right to control her own body, and with the
rights of all adults to engage in consensual sexual behavior. And
"liberal principles" are consistent with these rights as well. You
see, given our Constitution, these aspects of human life should not
be the basis of any particular political persuasion. Only those who
can't tell the difference between the Bible and the Constitution
seem to have trouble with this proposition.
Remember, I didn't bring up the rights of women or homosexuals in
this thread. Mr. Best did. Presumably, he thought he was calling
Barry Goldwater's "conservative" credentials into question. Funny
stuff. Not as funny as blaming Jimmy Carter for Goldwater's views,
but still quite funny.
> The only thing you've really proven is that either a) Goldwater
> has changed his views over time, or b) Goldwater has lost
> his fighting spirit over time. Considering Goldwater's age,
> I am inclined think b) is the case, though Mike's statements
> make a) a real possibility.
Talk to Goldwater some time. If you do, you'll learn a few things
about what "conservatism" used to mean before it was hijacked by
self-professed "fundamentalist Christians."
One thing, though: I advise you against telling Senator Goldwater
that he has "lost his fighting spirit."
And as for Goldwater's views of communism, yes, they have changed
over time. By 1986, he saw enough change in the Soviet leadership
that he was willing to entertain the thought of cooperation. Did
this mean capitulation? No. Did it mean abandoning the "Soviet"
people forever to their "Soviet" fate? No. It meant working with
new "Soviet" leaders to effect change, rather than working against
them and giving them yet another reason not to change.
Now, realize that Goldwater was thinking this way in 1986, whereas
Limbaugh was churning out his Undeniable Garbage in 1988 and shows
no sign of stopping even today. As Todd Simpson suggested earlier,
the relative "popularity" of Goldwater and Limbaugh among today's
alleged "conservatives" is evidence that "thinking conservatism"
has become an oxymoron.
And while I'm dropping names, Jason Christion posted an article
a few weeks ago in which he asked "conservatives" to defend their
intellectual traditions. No one responded worth a damn. And now,
here we are, with *me* telling *you* about Barry Goldwater. Are
you worried yet? If not, you should be.
> At any rate, if your original intent was to say the Communism
> wasn't such a bad thing after all (since you seem to be
> taking issue with all of Rush's anti-Communist Truths),
> remember that we still have Cuba to remind us...
Again, keep your red herrings to yourself.
My "original intent" was simply to point out that Barry Goldwater in
1986 was a much more informed and intelligent and decent human being
than Rush Limbaugh in 1988 or 1993. Of course, you don't have to
agree with me. As I said before, I'm sure that there are people who
think that Senator Goldwater sold out to Jimmy Carter and Congress
and the Evil Liberal Media...
Dhanesh
Eric Sieferman
Michael R Conners <mcon...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>
>The thing is that people's ideologies change over a period of time- and
>Goldwater is no exception. When I saw him on Donahue/Posner, he sounded more
>like a Libertarian than a traditional Conservative- which is fine. He can
>change his mind/re-evaluate his beliefs if he wants to.
In the 60's, conservatism had a much more libertarian bent than it does
today. This is why Goldwater appealed to me in 1964, certainly much more
than that pathological liar LBJ. However, over the 1960's and 1970's, the
conservative wing of the Republican party became increasingly occupied by
former southern dixiecrats, who brought different perspectives on matters
of religion, race, and human rights.
Goldwater has changed, too, but not as much as the Republican Party.
>I'm just not so sure that he still holds to the tenets of Conervatism, that's
>all.
He does.
--
"A true believer will never be evil. Forgivable sins a true beleiver
may committ, and will ask for forgivenss, but unforgiveable sins (rape
and slaughter, opression, those said in the Quran, etc...) a believer
will never committ." - Bobby Mozumder.
Bill Anderson
Why, that dirty little bastard! He sounds almost like a... a
libertarian, or something!
Bill
t
Todd Andrew Simpson
>>
>>Yeah, Barry Goldwater.... It seems to me that few other conservative
>>politicians have stuck to their principles as much as Goldwater, and
>>look what he has to show for it.
>>
>>Todo
>
>Yer not in Kansas anymore are you? Let me tell you what has happend to BG's
>conservative "principles". He is a supporter of a woman's right to choose
>(in place of the child's) and he supports full gay rights. And this is only
>the stuff that has received press here in Arizona ...
Personally I'd like to give unborn children the right to choose, I know
I didn't have it at that stage of my life (I tried to convince Mom to
stop smoking, but....)
I watched BG on the Donahue/Posner Communist Hour in early June. Yep, he
said all of that stuff, and more (as Mr.Best notes above).
Did Barry Goldwater abandon conservatism, or vice versa? I may want
to look into this question a bit more, on account of the responses
I've gotten to my original post. Then again, I may decide not to.
But one thing I'm curious about here is this TV show, the
Donahue/Posner Communist Hour. Where in the United States can one
watch this show? Has Goldwater moved so far to the left that he
appears on Communist programs now? (That's much farther than most
pro-choice liberals....) Is "Donahue" Phil? Which network produces
it? (I assume it's on the public broadcasting network, coz who'd
run commercials on such a show....)
(You can tell I don't own a TV set....)
The thing is that people's ideologies change over a period of time- and
Goldwater is no exception. When I saw him on Donahue/Posner, he sounded more
like a Libertarian than a traditional Conservative- which is fine. He can
change his mind/re-evaluate his beliefs if he wants to.
Sure. I said that he seemed to me to have adhered to his principles
more than many other conservatives did. There is a difference between
principles and opinions - he may have changed some of his opinions
without giving up on his principles. Another distinction is that
everyone has opinions, but some people don't seem to have much by
way of principle.
I'm just not so sure that he still holds to the tenets of Conervatism, that's
all.
Neither am I. I can't say for sure - I'm not qualified to pass judgment
here; but again, did Goldwater change, or are the tenets of conservatism
not what they once were? (The answer may be "Both".)
Todo
Emil T. Chuck
Not that I don't believe you, but where'd you find this quote?
This brings up an interesting point. It seems that Barry Goldwater or Pat
Buchanan or Ronald Reagan are used by many liberals to conservatives in a
manner of, "See how stupid you are. Even your _idol_/founder of your
movement thinks contrary to your position." I'm sure the converse is also
true using John Kennedy, FDR, or George McGovern.
The only thing I say is it's true, but that's one person's opinion. There
are a few things I'm sure I could find in opposition to Rush's opinions
(undeniable truth about Pittsburgh Steelers being one, the role of the UN
being another). What's more important than what the "leadership" thinks,
though it can be an important persuasion point, is the resulting opinion of
the individual deciding his/her position.
--
etc
The Clinton Economic Plan looks a lot like BU--SH--!
Emil Thomas Chuck e...@po.CWRU.edu
Biomedical Scientist Training Program - CWRU School of Medicine
dks
e...@po.CWRU.Edu (Emil T. Chuck) writes:
> d...@MIT.EDU (dks) says:
> >And now, Our Mystery Guest will deal with six of
> > | Rush Limbaugh's 35 Undeniable Truths
> >As opposed to Rush Limbaugh's Countless "Deniable Truths," of course.
> >
> >
> >These, then, are some of Limbaugh's Undeniable Truths. But back in 1986,
> >two years before these Truths were Revealed, someone else was asked how
> >we should deal with the Soviets, and here's what he said:
> >
> > Let's make an effort to get along. I'd even go so far
> > as to say, 'What is there we might be able to do to
> > help you?' I no longer say let's destroy the communists.
> >
> >So who was this fool? Some Pathetic Liberal Jerk who didn't appreciate
> >Ronnie's Heroic Crusade Against The Evil Empire? Some Wimpy Leftist who
> >Believed in Coddling the Soviets? Yeah. His name was Barry Goldwater.
>
> Not that I don't believe you, but where'd you find this quote?
Congratulations, Emil! You're the first person to ask me to back up
that assertion. And I think you are *absolutely correct* to do so.
If only you and your fellow (self-professed) Dittoheads would be just
as willing to challenge alleged "information" that seems to fit within
your existing world-view...
Now, as to your question, I shall not answer it head-on. Instead, I
shall tell you where *you* can find a record of Goldwater having made
the statement exactly as I have presented it. Look at the article
that begins on p. 27 of the _Newsweek_ issue dated September 29, 1986.
> This brings up an interesting point. It seems that Barry Goldwater
> or Pat Buchanan or Ronald Reagan are used by many liberals to
> conservatives in a manner of, "See how stupid you are. Even your
> _idol_/founder of your movement thinks contrary to your position."
No, Emil, that was not the point I was making. I was simply showing
you that Limbaugh's alleged "Undeniable Truths" were too silly even
for Barry Goldwater. *Your* intelligence or stupidity was not at
issue in that post -- for that matter, neither was Limbaugh's. For
what it's worth, I don't think even *he* believes most of the garbage
that he spews. He only spews it because it sells. As for the people
who pay him good money for the privilege of being hoodwinked, well...
> I'm sure the converse is also true using John Kennedy,
> FDR, or George McGovern.
You mean that there are statements made by these people that *I* would
disagree with? Of course. And not only statements but actions as well.
And that, Emil, is what troubles me most about Dittoheads. After all,
you know what "megadittoes" means, don't you? It's pathetic.
> The only thing I say is it's true, but that's one person's
> opinion. There are a few things I'm sure I could find in
> opposition to Rush's opinions (undeniable truth about Pittsburgh
> Steelers being one, the role of the UN being another). What's
> more important than what the "leadership" thinks, though it can
> be an important persuasion point, is the resulting opinion of the
> individual deciding his/her position.
I have no opinion on the Steelers. On *everything else* in your
paragraph, I tend to agree. Not that it matters, of course.
Dhanesh
Eric Sieferman
Emil T. Chuck <e...@po.CWRU.Edu> wrote:
(snip)
>
>This brings up an interesting point. It seems that Barry Goldwater or Pat
>Buchanan or Ronald Reagan are used by many liberals to conservatives in a
>manner of, "See how stupid you are. Even your _idol_/founder of your
>true using John Kennedy, FDR, or George McGovern.
Normally, arguments like this are only used around here when an
unrepentant Reaganite stumbles in to tell us of the wisdom of their idol.
If someone wants to believe that the ReaganBushQuayl administration made
important achievements, even though Ronnie was a somnambulistic dolt,
that's ok. If the argument is that RR or OurBoy is a genius, then the
quotation wars will commence.
I don't know that the last sentence has to do with anything, but for the
record (IMNSHO): John Kennedy was a great speaker and a mediocre
president, FDR was probably the most effective US President of all time
and the most important US political leader in this century, and George
McGovern is a babbling idiot. So, what "movement" does this make me a
member of?
dks
sief...@stein2.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
> I don't know that the last sentence has to do with anything, but
> for the record (IMNSHO): John Kennedy was a great speaker and a
> mediocre president, FDR was probably the most effective US
> President of all time and the most important US political leader
> in this century, and George McGovern is a babbling idiot. So,
> what "movement" does this make me a member of?
Since I am an Evil Liberal and love Recursion, Self-Reference, Paradox,
Meta-Analysis, and all other Evil Liberal Mind-Games, I offer the
following Evaluation of Recent Presidents by ... Barry Goldwater:
Truman: Probably the best president of the century.
Eisenhower: Coming up very fast on Truman.
Kennedy: Had the chance of being one of the best presidents
ever. Just didn't live long enough.
Johnson: I don't think he was a good president. I don't
think anybody trusted him.
Nixon: Wouldn't trust Nixon from here to that phone.
Ford: Gerald wasn't President long enough for me to tell.
Carter: Jimmy did his level best. He just wasn't the man
to be president.
Again, these are Goldwater's stated opinions, circa 1986. A statement
of his current view of the Reaganbush presidencies is left for the reader
as an exercise in research, deduction, and speculation.
Cheers,
Dhanesh
Merlyn LeRoy
...
>Please keep in mind that the so called religious right was created when
>liberals succeded in pushing the following agendas: school prayer, abortion,
>and pornography. Through unprecedented judicial activism the courts found
>that they could destroy what formerly was state and local prerogatives.
Are you seriously suggesting that states should have the power to
require schoolchildren to pray to whatever god(s) the government wants?
Or to have an "official" god to pray to?
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Chris Holt
...
>I don't know that the last sentence has to do with anything, but for the
>record (IMNSHO): John Kennedy was a great speaker and a mediocre
>president, FDR was probably the most effective US President of all time
>and the most important US political leader in this century, and George
>McGovern is a babbling idiot. So, what "movement" does this make me a
>member of?
Well, on the one hand FDR defused the socialist movement that had
been building up over the previous couple of decades; and on the
other hand McGovern was condemned as a raving Leftie because he
supported a negative income tax, as recently endorsed by Milton
Friedman. So I don't think it shows much of anything, other than
that you have a tendency to worship the distant over the recent
past. }d-Q
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris...@newcastle.ac.uk Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
One half of the world cannot understand the Weltanschauung of the other.
Emil T. Chuck
> > d...@MIT.EDU (dks) says:
> > >And now, Our Mystery Guest will deal with six of
> > > | Rush Limbaugh's 35 Undeniable Truths
> > >As opposed to Rush Limbaugh's Countless "Deniable Truths," of course.
> > >
> > >two years before these Truths were Revealed, someone else was asked how
> > >we should deal with the Soviets, and here's what he said:
> > >
> > > Let's make an effort to get along. I'd even go so far
> > > as to say, 'What is there we might be able to do to
> > > help you?' I no longer say let's destroy the communists.
> > >
> > >So who was this fool? Some Pathetic Liberal Jerk who didn't appreciate
> > >Ronnie's Heroic Crusade Against The Evil Empire? Some Wimpy Leftist who
> > >Believed in Coddling the Soviets? Yeah. His name was Barry Goldwater.
> >
> > Not that I don't believe you, but where'd you find this quote?
>
>Congratulations, Emil! You're the first person to ask me to back up
>that assertion. And I think you are *absolutely correct* to do so.
>If only you and your fellow (self-professed) Dittoheads would be just
>as willing to challenge alleged "information" that seems to fit within
>your existing world-view...
The fun thing is that most of the other liberals on this network do
precisely that. Of course such challenges also include a criticism of the
source we use. One of my favorites was an editorial I wrote from the Duke
_Chronicle_ last year. Someone posted publicly that I must have typed said
editorial from Duke's "ultra-conservative" newspaper. Of course, that
poster was totally wrong; it's the student daily paper and, when I showed
the quote to my friends around Duke, including some of my friends who write
for the _Chronicle_, the conservative friends were rolling on the floor,
and the liberal friends were outraged that they were still perceived to be
"conservative." :)
>Now, as to your question, I shall not answer it head-on. Instead, I
>shall tell you where *you* can find a record of Goldwater having made
>the statement exactly as I have presented it. Look at the article
>that begins on p. 27 of the _Newsweek_ issue dated September 29, 1986.
Okay.
> > This brings up an interesting point. It seems that Barry Goldwater
> > or Pat Buchanan or Ronald Reagan are used by many liberals to
> > conservatives in a manner of, "See how stupid you are. Even your
> > _idol_/founder of your movement thinks contrary to your position."
>
>No, Emil, that was not the point I was making. I was simply showing
>you that Limbaugh's alleged "Undeniable Truths" were too silly even
>for Barry Goldwater. *Your* intelligence or stupidity was not at
>issue in that post -- for that matter, neither was Limbaugh's. For
>what it's worth, I don't think even *he* believes most of the garbage
>that he spews. He only spews it because it sells. As for the people
>who pay him good money for the privilege of being hoodwinked, well...
Sorry, that was my point that your post kinda brought up in my mind.
As for not believing the stuff he says, I don't quite know if I could keep
up such a charade after being on the air for 5 years and rise to the
pinnacle of success in the talk radio world. Besides, with the multimedia
success he is becoming (#1 radio talk show, bestselling book, #3 late-night
TV, and popular magaziner (wrt newsletter & US News)), the paper trail is
rather extensive to document his opinions and how they develop.
> > I'm sure the converse is also true using John Kennedy,
> > FDR, or George McGovern.
>
>You mean that there are statements made by these people that *I* would
>disagree with? Of course. And not only statements but actions as well.
>And that, Emil, is what troubles me most about Dittoheads. After all,
>you know what "megadittoes" means, don't you? It's pathetic.
But that assumes that all dittoheads unequivocally will believe anything
that Rush or any other conservative says. Maybe to some extent it's true,
but even the term "Limbot" is extended to Ken Barnes, and I am pretty sure
there are a few things he disagrees with Rush about. Rush can be considered
a bit at odds with his friend Pat Buchanan wrt NAFTA now. And his view
about treating hate crimes differently from normal crimes differs with many
conservatives on the Supreme Court who believe differently. And just
because the Rehnquist court disagreed with Rush in its ruling, you don't
see dittoheads running around the street outraged.
Dan Day
>
>Truely you could argue in a simplistic sense that homosexuality is
>private and conservative principles should apply. Having recently
>been approached in the shower at the health club I belong to I am
>somewhat jaundiced about how far this should extend.
Yeah, really. Next thing you know men will be approaching women
in public. Where will it end? Let's get the government to crack
down on those nasty heterosexual men, shall we?
>No they won't, rights without responsibilities are the liberal credo.
Quotes, please? "Rights without responsiblities" isn't
the liberal credo, it's a conservative smear tactic.
>Of course, this is predicated on my belief that the
>fetus is human and distinct from the mother.
Odd, I thought that making a fetus "distinct from the mother"
was the whole purpose of an abortion.
Howard D Lewis
>
> ham...@umcc.umcc.umich.edu (Kevin Podsiadlik) writes:
> > dks <d...@MIT.EDU> wrote:
>
>When I said that "Goldwater's views ON THESE MATTERS are true to the
>best conservative traditions," I was simply pointing out to my
>esteemed correspondent, Mr. Best, that "conservative principles" are
>consistent with a woman's right to control her own body, and with the
>rights of all adults to engage in consensual sexual behavior. And
>"liberal principles" are consistent with these rights as well. You
I don't remember Barry Goldwater being anointed as the pope of conservatism.
His opinions are his and don't necessary represent the views of conservatives
today. There is no authoritative conservative doctrine. People who call
themselves conservative are those who define what the term means. This means
that *gasp* conservatives can disagree with each other. Of course after a
point the disagreements can become so severe as to label someone not a
conservative but it is a fuzzy logic thing rather than some notion of a
conservative orthodoxy with which no one can diverge without being a
heretic. Goldwater is entitled to his views on the Soviet leadership. But
remember that these are his views and they are not infallible and binding on
all conservatives. Political ideologies do change. Witness the word "liberal." Thank goodness that it is being replaced by "progressive."
Mike Best
> be...@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
> > p...@math.psu.edu (Todd Andrew Simpson) writes:
> > >Yeah, Barry Goldwater.... It seems to me that few other conservative
> > >politicians have stuck to their principles as much as Goldwater, and
> > >look what he has to show for it.
> >
> > Yer not in Kansas anymore are you? Let me tell you what has
> > happend to BG's conservative "principles". He is a supporter
> > of a woman's right to choose (in place of the child's) and he
> > supports full gay rights. And this is only the stuff that has
> > received press here in Arizona ...
>
>That's the whole point, Mike. Goldwater's views on these matters are
>true to the best conservative traditions. The fact that some so-called
>"conservatives" may think otherwise is simply an indictment of their
>perverted brand of alleged "conservatism." They seem to be confusing
>"fundamentalist Christian beliefs" for "Conservative principles" and,
>in the process, they are only doing harm to both Christianity and
>Conservatism. Who profits? Who loses? You be the judge.
True conservatism aside (ie. classic liberalism as defined during the
Enlightenment), I was simply pointing out that BG has not remained true
to his principles, at least not his principles as a public figure. The
examples I've cited are in direct contrast to his previous positions.
Do you disagree with this?
I consider myself a classic liberal, modern conservative, in that I
believe that individual rights are derived from the nature of man and
not from government and that limited government is the best we can hope
for. BG's position on gays and abortion could be argued to be in line
with this concept if it were true that he didn't want the Feds involved
in paying for abortions either.
Please keep in mind that the so called religious right was created when
liberals succeded in pushing the following agendas: school prayer, abortion,
and pornography. Through unprecedented judicial activism the courts found
that they could destroy what formerly was state and local prerogatives.
Judicial _activism_ is inconsistent with the design of our system and
actually increases the power and influence of the central government.
To be a conservative is not to be an anarchist. To have positions on
these issues does not make one a statist in favor of consuming control
over individuals. To murder is wrong (IMO) and is also a religious
belief (see Moses) but to have such an opinion does not make me a
statist. On the contrary, it is the liberal philosophies which
make individuals dependent on the government at the ultimate expense
of their individual freedoms.
Mike Best
PS. One of the most influential groups guilty of mixing christianity
with conservatism is in fact the media, and they don't mind implying it.
Karl Dussik
>The fact that self-professed "conservatives" dismiss the views of
>people like Barry Goldwater as being no longer relevant is just
>more evidence of the point I was making: some "conservatives" don't
>even know what "conservatism" is, let alone anything else.
Well, making a political ad for one Republican saying "The last thing we
need is another Democrat in Congress" (or something close to that), and
then endorsing a liberal Democrat over a conservative Republican is not
even sanity, much less conservatism. (Incidentally, both Democrats won,
not surprisingly, given Goldwater's schizophrenia in the matter.)
>
>When I said that "Goldwater's views ON THESE MATTERS are true to the
>best conservative traditions," I was simply pointing out to my
>esteemed correspondent, Mr. Best, that "conservative principles" are
>consistent with a woman's right to control her own body [ stuff deleted ]
True, but the woman in question is attempting to control another body as
well as her own. And at that point the government has an interest.
Karl Dussik
--
The good news: Clinton plans to make U.S. Education even more respected
around the world than the U.S. Military after Desert Storm.
The bad news: He'll do it by making our military less respected than Iraq's.
Mike Best
>In article <1993Aug31....@anasazi.com> be...@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>>In article <CCMq8...@cse.psu.edu> p...@math.psu.edu (Todd Andrew Simpson) writes:
>>>Yeah, Barry Goldwater.... It seems to me that few other conservative
>>>politicians have stuck to their principles as much as Goldwater, and
>>>look what he has to show for it.
>>>
>>conservative "principles". He is a supporter of a woman's right to choose
>>(in place of the child's) and he supports full gay rights. And this is only
>>the stuff that has received press here in Arizona ...
>>
>The stuff you cite strikes me as consistent with a belief that
>government ought not to interfere excessively in private decisions,
>which I have heard is a principle held dear by many conservatives.
It was just in the last 2 years I believe and has been somewhat of a
shock to we here in Arizona. It also seems to coincide with his
romance with his new wife although I don't know what that could mean.
Government actually ought not interfere within reason with private
matters. Unfortunately, those who abuse their priveledges in these
matters always turn to the government (my tax money) to help them.
Truely you could argue in a simplistic sense that homosexuality is
private and conservative principles should apply. Having recently
been approached in the shower at the health club I belong to I am
somewhat jaundiced about how far this should extend. So let me ask
this, when homosexuals engage in promiscuous and dangerous sexual
behavior (many partners, anal sex) and get AIDS are they going to
take the conservative approach and take the responsibility that
goes hand in hand with the right to their freedom?
No they won't, rights without responsibilities are the liberal credo.
As for abortion, since a DNA check of the fetal tissue would conclusively
prove that the fetus is human and is not part of the mothers body (different
DNA don'tcha know) then I consider the alliance between the religious
groups and conservatives wholly just. They are fighting for the rights
of the individual. Of course, this is predicated on my belief that the
fetus is human and distinct from the mother.
MB
Chris Woodard
Please, read some history. One book I especially recommend is "The Party of
Fear", by David H. Bennett (Vintage Books, ISBN 0-679-72861-9), which gives
the history of the antialien and nativist movements, and clearly shows that
the "religious right" has been around in one form or another for the last
hundred years. To claim that it is a new invention, rather than a recycling
of old anti-everything themes is incorrect.
What it has managed to do is pick up stray ideas so that a conservative of
say, fifty years ago would not recognize someone who called themself a
conservative today.
>that they could destroy what formerly was state and local prerogatives.
>Judicial _activism_ is inconsistent with the design of our system and
>actually increases the power and influence of the central government.
>
If judicial activism is inconsistent with the design of our system, then why
was our Constitution written so that the Supreme Court has the authority it
has?
>To be a conservative is not to be an anarchist. To have positions on
>these issues does not make one a statist in favor of consuming control
>over individuals. To murder is wrong (IMO) and is also a religious
>belief (see Moses) but to have such an opinion does not make me a
>statist. On the contrary, it is the liberal philosophies which
How? Since this appears to be theoretically unprovable, how about providing
some examples to empirically support your thesis?
>make individuals dependent on the government at the ultimate expense
>of their individual freedoms.
>
>Mike Best
>
>PS. One of the most influential groups guilty of mixing christianity
>with conservatism is in fact the media, and they don't mind implying it.
"The media"? That monolithic (NOT), homogeneous (NOT), and all-powerful
(NOT,NOT) influencer of morals? Really, you give it too much credit for power
that it doesn't have. It does, however, make a convenient whipping boy for
the shortcomings of a rigid ideology like neoconservatism.
Chris Woodard
>In article <CCn90...@ucdavis.edu> ja...@primal.ucdavis.edu (Jason Christian) writes:
>>In article <1993Aug31....@anasazi.com> be...@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
[ much third-generation thread removed so people won't skip this post ]
>
>As for abortion, since a DNA check of the fetal tissue would conclusively
>prove that the fetus is human and is not part of the mothers body (different
>DNA don'tcha know) then I consider the alliance between the religious
>groups and conservatives wholly just. They are fighting for the rights
>of the individual. Of course, this is predicated on my belief that the
>fetus is human and distinct from the mother.
>
>MB
This is true. However, I think that the DNA samples from mother and child
would match very closely, since that's the basis for DNA testing to establish
paternity (and maternity, as in the Kimberly Mays baby-swap case). In that
case, your belief that the fetus is human and distinct from the mother suddenly
loses its supporting evidence.
You are also correct, but only accidentally, that the alliance between the
"religious groups" and "conservatives" is wholly just. Both groups are using
the other for their own purposes, since many in the "religious right" believe
in turning America into a sort of Christian Iran, complete with morality
police and bugged bedrooms and many conservatives consider them lowbrow
tub-thumpers who can be easily controlled. They can deliver some votes,
although not enough to be effective (as seen in their 1986 and 1992
legislative defeats). So, maybe the alliance is just in the sense that both
groups will get what they deserve.
dks
be...@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>
> [R]ights without responsibilities are the liberal credo.
Translation: Assertions without meaning are the conservative credo.
Dhanesh
dks
be...@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
> True conservatism aside (ie. classic liberalism as defined during the
> Enlightenment), I was simply pointing out that BG has not remained true
> to his principles, at least not his principles as a public figure. The
> examples I've cited are in direct contrast to his previous positions.
> Do you disagree with this?
Nope. Nor do I agree. Remember, *I* was simply pointing out that
he was making statements about the USSR in 1986 that were completely
at odds with Limbaugh's "Undeniable Truths" of 1988. You brought up
Goldwater's views on the rights of women and homosexuals. I didn't.
If his views on those issues have changed, just as his views on how
to deal with "Russia" have changed, perhaps it is not because he is
abandoning his principles, but because he is applying the very same
principles to a changing world. [ Just my guess, of course. Far
be it from me to know how the "conservative" mind works. ]
> I consider myself a classic liberal, modern conservative, in that I
> believe that individual rights are derived from the nature of man
> and not from government and that limited government is the best we
> can hope for. BG's position on gays and abortion could be argued
> to be in line with this concept if it were true that he didn't
> want the Feds involved in paying for abortions either.
You can consider yourself whatever you like. It's fine by me.
Rights in the USA are not derived from government. I agree.
Government should be no "bigger" than it needs to be. You bet.
Goldwater's "position on gays and abortion" is in line with the
best "individual rights" traditions. Yes.
I disagree with the rest of your paragraph, but it's a matter
of opinion, and disagreeing on matters of opinion is fine by me.
> Please keep in mind that the so called religious right was created
> when liberals succeded in pushing the following agendas: school
> prayer, abortion, and pornography.
You know, Mike, you're at your best when you're talking about your
own "conservatism." But when you start prattling about "the liberal
agendas," citing such absurdities as the above, then you're really
not at your best. Why do you do it? Do you really think I am
pushing pornography? Do you really think I am against your right
to pray with neither support nor constraint from government? Do you
really think I spend my time kidnapping women and forcing them to
have abortions?
IF you think any of the above, then you need to think again. And again.
And as for when exactly the "religious right" was created,
I haven't the foggiest idea. Apparently, neither do you.
> Through unprecedented judicial activism the courts found that they
> could destroy what formerly was state and local prerogatives.
> Judicial _activism_ is inconsistent with the design of our system
> and actually increases the power and influence of the central
> government.
The only thing worse than a self-appointed economist is a
self-appointed constitutional lawyer. (I know someone who is
*both*, and he must be a real charmer at family reunions, but
let's not drag his name into this.)
"Judicial activism" is a *relative* legal concept, with no
particular ideological content. "Judicial activism" can be used
to enhance the power of the states, or it can be used to reduce
the power of the states. It can be used to enhance individual
rights, or it can be used to curtail individual rights. The
opposite of "judicial activism" is not "Judicial Conservatism,"
it is "judicial self-restraint," or "judicial deference."
Deference to what? Go and ask Nino Scalia about the problem of
"majoritarianism." Better still, since Scalia is only half-
brilliant, go and read Justice Hugo Black's words of warning
in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (if you'd like the
full case citation, let me know). Even better, read anything
you can find about Joseph Lochner and his little bakery in
up-state New York. If you do, you'll begin to understand why
"Lochnerism" means "conservative judicial activism." Got
that, Mike? "Lochnerism" means CONSERVATIVE JUDICIAL ACTIVISM,
and it's *not* a contradiction in terms. And it happens.
In short, Mike, "judicial activism" is "activism" relative to
the *legal* _status_quo_. That you don't realize this is simply
an indication that you've been listening to too much demagoguery.
But don't let me get in the way of your speculation. It seems
that you need to paint complex constitutional questions in
simplistic ideological colors. Go right ahead: I like to watch.
> To be a conservative is not to be an anarchist. To have positions
> on these issues does not make one a statist in favor of consuming
> control over individuals. To murder is wrong (IMO) and is also a
> religious belief (see Moses) but to have such an opinion does not
> make me a statist.
Again, when you are talking about your own views, you make sense.
I resist labels myself, so I have only sympathy for your having to
defend against labels that you do not like. Remember, I never
called you an "anarchist" or a "statist." I don't know who did,
but I know I didn't.
> On the contrary, it is the liberal philosophies which make
> individuals dependent on the government at the ultimate expense
> of their individual freedoms.
And again, when you are talking about "the liberal philosophies,"
you make no sense whatsoever. For the sake of conversation, why
don't you kick the habit? Feel free to proceed with your prattling,
but I can't take you seriously if do. It's hard to stop laughing.
> PS. One of the most influential groups guilty of mixing
> christianity with conservatism is in fact the media, and they
> don't mind implying it.
I am not inclined to defend the mass media. If you have a problem
with their methods and products, you should take it up with them.
For what it's worth, I think you're right that the media is (only)
*partly* at fault for "mixing Christianity and conservatism." But
they do it because it sells. Just as they make up fictitious
stories about air-planes circling over LAX to sell their "news."
Just as they exaggerate incidents involving super-market scanners
to show how profoundly they can analyze a politician's mind. It's
all done in the name of making a buck. If you go and talk to them
about it, don't tell them I sent you: it won't win you any friends.
Cheers,
Dhanesh
dks
e...@po.CWRU.Edu (Emil T. Chuck) writes:
> d...@MIT.EDU (dks) says:
> >Congratulations, Emil! You're the first person to ask me to back up
> >that assertion. And I think you are *absolutely correct* to do so.
> >If only you and your fellow (self-professed) Dittoheads would be just
> >as willing to challenge alleged "information" that seems to fit within
> >your existing world-view...
>
> The fun thing is that most of the other liberals on this network do
> precisely that.
Do precisely what?
> Of course such challenges also include a criticism of the source
> we use. One of my favorites was an editorial I wrote from the Duke
> _Chronicle_ last year. Someone posted publicly that I must have
> typed said editorial from Duke's "ultra-conservative" newspaper.
> Of course, that poster was totally wrong; it's the student daily
> paper and, when I showed the quote to my friends around Duke,
> including some of my friends who write for the _Chronicle_, the
> conservative friends were rolling on the floor, and the liberal
> friends were outraged that they were still perceived to be
> "conservative." :)
Anyone who makes silly assumptions about other people deserves to be
shown that they are wrong. Whoever it was that presumed to tell you
where you got that editorial deserves to find out where you *really* got
it. Your story is a good example of people making silly (and probably
quite unnecessary) assumptions.
> >No, Emil, that was not the point I was making. I was simply showing
> >you that Limbaugh's alleged "Undeniable Truths" were too silly even
> >for Barry Goldwater. *Your* intelligence or stupidity was not at
> >issue in that post -- for that matter, neither was Limbaugh's. For
> >what it's worth, I don't think even *he* believes most of the garbage
> >that he spews. He only spews it because it sells. As for the people
> >who pay him good money for the privilege of being hoodwinked, well...
>
> Sorry, that was my point that your post kinda brought up in my mind.
>
> As for not believing the stuff he says, I don't quite know if I
> could keep up such a charade after being on the air for 5 years
> and rise to the pinnacle of success in the talk radio world.
That's the point. You may not be able to do what he is doing, and that's
why you aren't making money that way. He can do it, and he is. There's
no business like show business. I don't argue that he should be "stopped."
I argue that people shouldn't put their brains in neutral every time he
issues an "Undeniable Truth," or every time he criticizes someone else.
> Besides, with the multimedia success he is becoming (#1 radio talk
> show, bestselling book, #3 late-night TV, and popular magaziner
> (wrt newsletter & US News)), the paper trail is rather extensive
> to document his opinions and how they develop.
Tell me about it.
> > > I'm sure the converse is also true using John Kennedy,
> > > FDR, or George McGovern.
> >
> >You mean that there are statements made by these people that *I* would
> >disagree with? Of course. And not only statements but actions as well.
> >And that, Emil, is what troubles me most about Dittoheads. After all,
> >you know what "megadittoes" means, don't you? It's pathetic.
>
> But that assumes that all dittoheads unequivocally will believe
> anything that Rush or any other conservative says. Maybe to some
> extent it's true,
Right, and to the extent that it is true, I deplore it.
But worse than blindly believing Limbaugh is the act of blindly
*disbelieving* everyone criticized by Limbaugh. You guys keep
that up much longer and you'll begin to regret it in the long run.
> but even the term "Limbot" is extended to Ken Barnes, and I am
> pretty sure there are a few things he disagrees with Rush about.
Good for Ken Barnes.
> Rush can be considered a bit at odds with his friend Pat Buchanan
> wrt NAFTA now.
Let's not talk about Buchanan for now.
> And his view about treating hate crimes differently
> from normal crimes differs with many conservatives on the Supreme
> Court who believe differently.
So you're telling me that some "conservatives" on the Supreme Court
are not "dittoheads"? Well, THAT's a relief.
But wait! Are you telling me that some of them *are* "dittoheads"?
> And just because the Rehnquist court disagreed
> with Rush in its ruling, you don't see dittoheads
> running around the street outraged.
Oh, how *nice* of the "dittoheads", to abide by the law of the land.
What will they think of next? Not running a red light?
What's your point? Unless those "dittoheads" are telling Limbaugh
that *he* is wrong, no one is making any progress.
Dhanesh
dks
ho...@athena.mit.edu (Howard D Lewis) writes:
> d...@MIT.EDU (dks) writes:
> >When I said that "Goldwater's views ON THESE MATTERS are true to the
> >best conservative traditions," I was simply pointing out to my
> >esteemed correspondent, Mr. Best, that "conservative principles" are
> >rights of all adults to engage in consensual sexual behavior. And
> >"liberal principles" are consistent with these rights as well. You
>
> I don't remember Barry Goldwater being anointed as the pope of
> conservatism.
And I don't remember saying any such thing, either,
so we're both doing fine, memory-wise.
> His opinions are his and don't necessary represent the views
> of conservatives today.
I never claimed otherwise. I simply pointed out that they
were in direct contrast to some "Undeniable Truths."
> There is no authoritative conservative doctrine.
Tell that to Rush Limbaugh. You seem to be ignoring the inconvenient
fact that *Limbaugh* wrote "Undeniable Truths." I didn't. The point
of my post was simply to contrast Limbaugh's ridiculous notion of
"Undeniable Truths" and Goldwater's -- what? you tell me -- let's
call them "opinions," OK?
Also, there is nothing authoritative about "conservative doctrine,"
but I doubt that's the interpretation of your statement that you'd
like us to make.
> People who call themselves conservative are those who define what
> the term means. This means that *gasp* conservatives can disagree
> with each other. Of course after a point the disagreements can
> become so severe as to label someone not a conservative but it is
> a fuzzy logic thing rather than some notion of a conservative
> orthodoxy with which no one can diverge without being a heretic.
> Goldwater is entitled to his views on the Soviet leadership. But
> remember that these are his views and they are not infallible and
> binding on all conservatives. Political ideologies do change.
> Witness the word "liberal." Thank goodness that it is being
> replaced by "progressive."
An ironic paragraph. You begin by telling us that "conservatives"
get to define the label for themselves, and you end by pontificating
on the meaning of the word "liberal." Much to your surprise,
apparently, the "liberals" are doing just fine, thank you very much.
Dhanesh
dks
> >private and conservative principles should apply. Having recently
> >been approached in the shower at the health club I belong to I am
> >somewhat jaundiced about how far this should extend.
>
> in public. Where will it end? Let's get the government to crack
> down on those nasty heterosexual men, shall we?
But that's different. If you'd only turn out the lights and look at
just the right verses in the Bible, you'd see that it is Obviously
and Clearly Different.
> > No they won't, rights without responsibilities are the liberal credo.
>
> Quotes, please? "Rights without responsiblities" isn't
> the liberal credo, it's a conservative smear tactic.
You want quotes? Simple -- he'll just quote himself. Or Limbaugh.
Dhanesh
Eric Sieferman
Chris Holt <Chris...@newcastle.ac.uk> wrote:
>sief...@stein2.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>
>...
>>I don't know that the last sentence has to do with anything, but for the
>>record (IMNSHO): John Kennedy was a great speaker and a mediocre
>>president, FDR was probably the most effective US President of all time
>>and the most important US political leader in this century, and George
>>McGovern is a babbling idiot. So, what "movement" does this make me a
>>member of?
>
>Well, on the one hand FDR defused the socialist movement that had
>been building up over the previous couple of decades;
... and also convinced large business enterprises that the government
could be their friend ...
> and on the
>other hand McGovern was condemned as a raving Leftie because he
>supported a negative income tax, as recently endorsed by Milton
>Friedman.
>So I don't think it shows much of anything, other than
>that you have a tendency to worship the distant over the recent
>past. }d-Q
I offer my recent negative comments about Lincoln, and my
lavish praise of Oprah, in my defense!
--
- As Seen In t.r.m: These ideals of equality and feminism are against God's
order of creation, as he made men UNEQUAL. Furthermore, it can be said that
all authority comes from God, while all equality and liberalism come from
the DEVIL. Yep, thats right... Lucifer(Satan) was the first Liberal.
Eric Sieferman
I thought that the conservative credo was: Responsibility without rights.
Bill Anderson
: --
: order of creation, as he made men UNEQUAL. Furthermore, it can be said that
: all authority comes from God, while all equality and liberalism come from
: the DEVIL. Yep, thats right... Lucifer(Satan) was the first Liberal.
Eric, this is a most amazing discovery. This quote, no doubt
unearthed at great personal risk, is the very quintessence of
everything we valiant buccaneers have sworn to oppose, through
thick and thin, light and dark, and yes, even with blood coming
out. Dare I say it? I think you may have found the secret,
arcane file server which feed the RRWTRN (althought the topology
may require some adjustment.) Don't hold out on your comrades
in arms, matey - WHO IS THIS EVIL BEING?
Bill
.
DT
Bill
We thought you knew. It's the one and only: Ted Kennedy
You know his slogan: "A Blond in Every Pond"
Don't you remember him? How soon we forget. We were just discussing him
and "EVIL" only a week ago.
Regards
DTetreault
(my opinions)
Eric Sieferman
>sief...@stein1.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>: --
>: - As Seen In t.r.m: These ideals of equality and feminism are against God's
>: order of creation, as he made men UNEQUAL. Furthermore, it can be said that
>: all authority comes from God, while all equality and liberalism come from
>: the DEVIL. Yep, thats right... Lucifer(Satan) was the first Liberal.
>
>Eric, this is a most amazing discovery. This quote, no doubt
>unearthed at great personal risk,
I am dedicated to the edification of my fellow humans, regardless of the
risk. What more can a pirate do?
is the very quintessence of
>everything we valiant buccaneers have sworn to oppose, through
>thick and thin, light and dark, and yes, even with blood coming
>out. Dare I say it? I think you may have found the secret,
>arcane file server which feed the RRWTRN (althought the topology
>may require some adjustment.) Don't hold out on your comrades
>in arms, matey - WHO IS THIS EVIL BEING?
I could rummage through my archives to get a name, but why bother? This
attitude is not uncommon on talk.religion.misc and soc.religion.christian;
soc.religion.islam has an even wider array of demonized ideas and persons.
The token is passed so often that it is hopeless to keep up.
But, if I find anymore Clinton == Antichrist posts, I'll send them over to
a.f.d-q.
Mike Best
>In article <1993Sep3.1...@anasazi.com> be...@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>>
>>Truely you could argue in a simplistic sense that homosexuality is
>>private and conservative principles should apply. Having recently
>>been approached in the shower at the health club I belong to I am
>>somewhat jaundiced about how far this should extend.
>
>Yeah, really. Next thing you know men will be approaching women
>in public. Where will it end? Let's get the government to crack
>down on those nasty heterosexual men, shall we?
You should've left that idea in your head to bake a little longer.
If you would agree that men do not have the opportunity to approach
women they don't know in the shower of a public facility as I was
approached by a homosexual then you'll see my meager side point.
>>No they won't, rights without responsibilities are the liberal credo.
>
>Quotes, please? "Rights without responsiblities" isn't
>the liberal credo, it's a conservative smear tactic.
Quotes are not necessary or pertinent, this is a philosophical point.
Please consider the following. Some people want sexual freedom
but do not want to have the responsibility for the consequences (children,
diseases such as AIDS). So we all have literally to pay for these rights.
It is a general Liberal phenomena which accepts and condones all types of
anti-social behavior from crime to drugs to sexuality on any basis
except individual responsibility. Remember, we've got to "feel their rage"?
How about, do you think Reagan is to blame for AIDS? This is all blame
shifting from the shoulders of the individuals who should at least bear some
responsibility for their actions.
Do you believe that rights entail duties or not? Does my right to through
my fist entail the duty that I not hit you with it?
Mike Best
Mike Best
>In article <1993Sep3.1...@anasazi.com> be...@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>>Please keep in mind that the so called religious right was created when
>>liberals succeded in pushing the following agendas: school prayer, abortion,
>>and pornography. Through unprecedented judicial activism the courts found
>
>Please, read some history. One book I especially recommend is "The Party of
Please, have some compassion - I was educated by the public school system
before school choice was made available to the middle and poor class.
>Fear", by David H. Bennett (Vintage Books, ISBN 0-679-72861-9), which gives
>the history of the antialien and nativist movements, and clearly shows that
>the "religious right" has been around in one form or another for the last
>hundred years. To claim that it is a new invention, rather than a recycling
>of old anti-everything themes is incorrect.
ISBN number at hand, this must be a pet peeve of yours :) I would argue that
religious right vs liberal left political arguments have been going on for
longer than a mere hundred years. However, the latest incarnation of
religious right activity has been largely inflamed by the activist liberal
agenda. Certainly there have been other religious based movements but in
a world governed by cause and effect there must be a cause. Is the current
religious right movement influenced by the same issue that moved it, as you
claim it existed, one hundred years ago?
>What it has managed to do is pick up stray ideas so that a conservative of
>say, fifty years ago would not recognize someone who called themself a
>conservative today.
True, but it is the liberals who have turned the words around. They control
the academia, the public schools, the legislature, the press, shall I go on?
I am a classic liberal in the sense that the word is derived from the root
liber meaning free. Modern liberals believe in big government which is not
consistent with freedom.
>>that they could destroy what formerly was state and local prerogatives.
>>Judicial _activism_ is inconsistent with the design of our system and
>>actually increases the power and influence of the central government.
>>
>If judicial activism is inconsistent with the design of our system, then why
>was our Constitution written so that the Supreme Court has the authority it
>has?
Explain this. I understand the intented role of the Court to interpret the
Constitution and not to find "emmanations of penumbras" (whispers of
shadows???) to just do what seems to be right. If the Constitution is
wrong we should revise it (that process is constitutional). If it is not
then to interpret it "free form" is a dangerous precedent that invites abuse.
>"The media"? That monolithic (NOT), homogeneous (NOT), and all-powerful
>(NOT,NOT) influencer of morals? Really, you give it too much credit for power
>that it doesn't have. It does, however, make a convenient whipping boy for
>the shortcomings of a rigid ideology like neoconservatism.
I do not mean to say that if I am right that this is an intolerable power
that the media enjoy. However, it is real and it has influence (try the
Rodney King videotape on for size and see how it fits in your theory, talk
about fanning the flames as it were).
I think I know why you think of conservatism as rigid, because it does not
possess the 'moral relativism' so conveniently employed by liberalism to
avoid facing responsibility for unplanned pregnancies, heinous crimes,
and personal failures (due to laziness or foolish choices or other
self-induced causes).
As for shortcommings of neo-conservatism, I don't know your definition
for this. Are you implying that neo-conservatism is really the religious
right's approach to politics? Or is it that the politics of limited
constitutional government is inconsistent with the liberal approach of
massive statist intrusions into individual lives (the more the government
does for you the less control you yourself maintain and one day I
guarantee you that this control will be used to coerce some behavior from
you!).
Mike Best
Mike Best
>be...@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>>liberals succeded in pushing the following agendas: school prayer, abortion,
>>and pornography. Through unprecedented judicial activism the courts found
>>that they could destroy what formerly was state and local prerogatives.
>
>Are you seriously suggesting that states should have the power to
>require schoolchildren to pray to whatever god(s) the government wants?
>Or to have an "official" god to pray to?
Please control your leaps of illogic, I have simply stated that the so-called
religious right is a natural effect initiated by the activist liberal agenda.
Not all liberal activities were IMO bad at that time (civil rights for one)
but once the agenda met some legitimate goals it went to seed. Now the
liberal leadership is arguably wack-o in such instances as teaching
homosexuality to young children in NYC, preventing the use of school
premises for religous after school meetings, speech codes on campuses, etc.
No, there must never be an 'official' religious denomination of the govern-
ment but that is quite different than tolerating religious activities
on government premises. I find it mildly amusing that GALA can recruit
freshman during orientation at SUNY Cortland (defended vehemently by
liberals) and yet religious groups must be wary of doing likewise. What a
twisted logic the liberals must defend intellectually !
Mike Best
Mike Best
>
> > [R]ights without responsibilities are the liberal credo.
>
>Translation: Assertions without meaning are the conservative credo.
I would agree with you IF it were true that liberals defended the
rights of people to engage in high risk sex AND liberals insisted
that people take individual responsibility for their actions.
I would agree with you IF it were true that liberals defended the
rights of people to have sex and to take responsibility for the
child rather than cop out with an abortion.
Would you for a moment not dodge the question and answer for us all
whether you agree that rights and responsibilities are tied together?
For bandwith's sake this post stops here.
Mike Best
Mike Best
> > True conservatism aside (ie. classic liberalism as defined during the
> > Enlightenment), I was simply pointing out that BG has not remained true
> > to his principles, at least not his principles as a public figure. The
> > examples I've cited are in direct contrast to his previous positions.
> > Do you disagree with this?
>
>If his views on those issues have changed, just as his views on how
>to deal with "Russia" have changed, perhaps it is not because he is
>abandoning his principles, but because he is applying the very same
>principles to a changing world. [ Just my guess, of course. Far
>be it from me to know how the "conservative" mind works. ]
[Rest of ad hominem post deleted]
And I pointed out that he has abandoned many of his principles in his
old age and that this has perplexed the local Arizonans in a mild way.
I discredit your point on the basis that Goldwater's inconsistency
on these issues makes him unreliable. How seriously would we take
you if you started sounding like a conservative and spouted quotes
from Locke or Montesquiue or Madison?
Of course, some people find Clinton's inconsistencies a strength.
Extend the influence of the government!
Mike Best
Mike Best
> d...@se.houston.geoquest.slb.com (Dan Day) writes:
> > be...@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
> > >Truely you could argue in a simplistic sense that homosexuality is
> > >private and conservative principles should apply. Having recently
> > >been approached in the shower at the health club I belong to I am
> > >somewhat jaundiced about how far this should extend.
> >
> > Yeah, really. Next thing you know men will be approaching women
> > in public. Where will it end? Let's get the government to crack
> > down on those nasty heterosexual men, shall we?
>
>But that's different. If you'd only turn out the lights and look at
>just the right verses in the Bible, you'd see that it is Obviously
>and Clearly Different.
Ah yes, liberal attack plan number one - ridicule rather than debate.
Perhaps you would care to debate why it is just for a homosexual male
to have access to the mens shower (among heterosexual men to whom
they are attracted simply because they are men) and it is not just for
a heterosexual male to have access to the women's shower?
My position is that I don't give a darn what people do in private but
I do have a right to privacy in the shower from women or from homosexual
males.
>> > No they won't, rights without responsibilities are the liberal credo.
>>
>> Quotes, please? "Rights without responsiblities" isn't
>> the liberal credo, it's a conservative smear tactic.
>
>You want quotes? Simple -- he'll just quote himself. Or Limbaugh.
"We've got to understand their rage" ...
You're a smart person, you know who has said this.
Mike Best
"Truth is great and will prevail" -Jefferson
Mike Best
>In article <930907115...@mit.edu>, dks <d...@MIT.EDU> wrote:
>>
>> > [R]ights without responsibilities are the liberal credo.
>>
>>Translation: Assertions without meaning are the conservative credo.
>>
>>Dhanesh
>
>I thought that the conservative credo was: Responsibility without rights.
Quotes please.
>- As Seen In t.r.m: These ideals of equality and feminism are against God's
>order of creation, as he made men UNEQUAL. Furthermore, it can be said that
The 'ideals of equality'? This is not the same as equal treatment under
the law nor the same as the equality all men enjoy in the state of nature
is it? This is the equality of sameness, of bringing all to the same level
by reducing humanexcellence. In this sense is it evil and your reference
to Satan seems strangely appropriate.
Mike Best
Chris Woodard
>In article <26gm02$d...@suntan.eng.usf.edu> woo...@figment.tmc.edu (Chris Woodard) writes:
>>In article <1993Sep3.1...@anasazi.com> be...@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>>>Please keep in mind that the so called religious right was created when
>>>liberals succeded in pushing the following agendas: school prayer, abortion,
>>>and pornography. Through unprecedented judicial activism the courts found
>>
>>Please, read some history. One book I especially recommend is "The Party of
>
>Please, have some compassion - I was educated by the public school system
>before school choice was made available to the middle and poor class.
>
So, for that matter, was I. I grew up in a small town in centeral Florida
with only one public library and only one school, but I managed to cultivate a
love of reading and learning.
>>Fear", by David H. Bennett (Vintage Books, ISBN 0-679-72861-9), which gives
>>the history of the antialien and nativist movements, and clearly shows that
>>the "religious right" has been around in one form or another for the last
>>hundred years. To claim that it is a new invention, rather than a recycling
>>of old anti-everything themes is incorrect.
>
>ISBN number at hand, this must be a pet peeve of yours :) I would argue that
No, I just got it off my library shelves so y'all would have less trouble
getting it from your local B. Dalton's. But it *is* a pet peeve of mine.
>religious right vs liberal left political arguments have been going on for
>longer than a mere hundred years. However, the latest incarnation of
>religious right activity has been largely inflamed by the activist liberal
>agenda. Certainly there have been other religious based movements but in
Hah! So the "activist liberal agenda" is responsible for the push for
Creationism as a "science" in the public schools, the wave of censorship
attempts sponsored by the religious right, and the other axes that are being
ground?
>a world governed by cause and effect there must be a cause. Is the current
You are apparently unaware of (a) quantum mechanics and (b) chaos theory, both
of which put the validity of linear cause-and-effect in doubt. If you want, I
can give you some references (with ISBN's too) on them.
>religious right movement influenced by the same issue that moved it, as you
>claim it existed, one hundred years ago?
>
>>What it has managed to do is pick up stray ideas so that a conservative of
>>say, fifty years ago would not recognize someone who called themself a
>>conservative today.
>
>True, but it is the liberals who have turned the words around. They control
>the academia, the public schools, the legislature, the press, shall I go on?
>I am a classic liberal in the sense that the word is derived from the root
>liber meaning free. Modern liberals believe in big government which is not
>consistent with freedom.
>
This is pretty clever. This forum and the RL show are the only place that
I've seen implicit circular reasoning. The tautology seems to go like this:
1) Liberals are bad because they believe in large government.
2) How can you tell a liberal? They believe in large government.
>
>>>that they could destroy what formerly was state and local prerogatives.
>>>Judicial _activism_ is inconsistent with the design of our system and
>>>actually increases the power and influence of the central government.
>>>
>>If judicial activism is inconsistent with the design of our system, then why
>>was our Constitution written so that the Supreme Court has the authority it
>>has?
>
>Explain this. I understand the intented role of the Court to interpret the
>Constitution and not to find "emmanations of penumbras" (whispers of
>shadows???) to just do what seems to be right. If the Constitution is
>wrong we should revise it (that process is constitutional). If it is not
>then to interpret it "free form" is a dangerous precedent that invites abuse.
>
>>"The media"? That monolithic (NOT), homogeneous (NOT), and all-powerful
>>(NOT,NOT) influencer of morals? Really, you give it too much credit for power
>>that it doesn't have. It does, however, make a convenient whipping boy for
>>the shortcomings of a rigid ideology like neoconservatism.
>
>I do not mean to say that if I am right that this is an intolerable power
>that the media enjoy. However, it is real and it has influence (try the
>Rodney King videotape on for size and see how it fits in your theory, talk
>about fanning the flames as it were).
>
>I think I know why you think of conservatism as rigid, because it does not
>possess the 'moral relativism' so conveniently employed by liberalism to
>avoid facing responsibility for unplanned pregnancies, heinous crimes,
>and personal failures (due to laziness or foolish choices or other
>self-induced causes).
>
The reason I think of conservatism as rigid is because it *is* rigid. In its
reaction against the "liberal agenda", the purveyors of conservatism have
become strident and obnoxious (Pat Buchanan, John Sununu, George Will, Mona
Charen, Cal Thomas, and others). The thing that scares me is that along with
this rigidity comes inflexibility and inability to compromise, and when you
couple that with the desire of not a few Religious Right activists to put
police and cameras into people's bedrooms, I get terrified.
Now let me make a couple of points of agreement. I *do* believe in personal
freedom coupled with personal responsibility. If you want to have sex with a
dog, or a chicken, or four members of different sexes or whatever, that's your
business. But, don't do it where I can see it. And if you catch some disease
from doing it, don't expect me to pay for it.
I also believe in the right of someone to wear as little as they want to,
although with some of the bodies out there you could make a case against
"aesthetic violence".
I also believe in the right of people to grow and smoke their own marijuana,
and brew and drink their own beer or wine, and relax any damn way they want
to. But when you're driving down a road I might be on, you'd better be sober.
In other words, I believe in the things that lots of people that call
themselves conservatives believe in. That is, Live and Let Live. It's too
bad that other people calling themselves conservatives don't seem to believe
that.
>
>As for shortcommings of neo-conservatism, I don't know your definition
>for this. Are you implying that neo-conservatism is really the religious
>right's approach to politics? Or is it that the politics of limited
Actually, neo-conservatism is an ad-hoc term that is used to cover a variety
of philosophical viewpoints, most of them having only "anti-liberal" as a
common feature. There are classical (moderate) conservatives, who believe in
limited government and lots of personal freedom - when taken to the Nth
degree, they're called "Libertarians". Then there are the social
conservatives, who would love nothing better than to force a return to the
social mores of the early 1950's or Victorian England, and they'd like to do
it through passing restrictive laws. These are the ones that bother me.
>constitutional government is inconsistent with the liberal approach of
>massive statist intrusions into individual lives (the more the government
>does for you the less control you yourself maintain and one day I
>guarantee you that this control will be used to coerce some behavior from
>you!).
This I don't argue with. However, you've got to realize that you've got
statist conservatives too.
Spencer V. PriceNash
>>In article <1993Sep3.1...@anasazi.com> be...@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>>>
>>>Truely you could argue in a simplistic sense that homosexuality is
>>>private and conservative principles should apply. Having recently
>>>been approached in the shower at the health club I belong to I am
>>>somewhat jaundiced about how far this should extend.
>>
>>Yeah, really. Next thing you know men will be approaching women
>>in public. Where will it end? Let's get the government to crack
>>down on those nasty heterosexual men, shall we?
>
>You should've left that idea in your head to bake a little longer.
>If you would agree that men do not have the opportunity to approach
>women they don't know in the shower of a public facility as I was
>approached by a homosexual then you'll see my meager side point.
Well, I don't know about you, but I thought there were two ways to look
at this. 1) it's uncool to be approached by a stranger who's obviously
after something you don't want to provide right now (or at all), 2) it's
uncool to be "approached" in the shower (yeah, we know what you mean).
When I've talked to complaining straightboys who can't handle getting
"approached", I ask them if any females they know have dealt with that
from males. Strangely enough, they don't get it. I find that odd.
It's very possible you were "approached" by somebody who is mostly a
stupid jerk. When dealing with jerks, orientation doesn't matter much.
In this case, talking about "conservative principles" might apply, but
at the bottom of a very long list.
--
Spencer PriceNash spe...@spencer.ann-arbor.mi.us spe...@umcc.umich.edu
The Official Internet Quayle Quote files, last updated July 14, 1993, are
available via anon ftp from umcc.umich.edu, in pub/quayle. Get the 2 files.
GIFs are available in pub/quayle/GIF. Eleven of Dan and one of Marilyn.
Bob Smart
(Howard D Lewis) writes:
>
> There is no authoritative conservative doctrine.
Is there a "gay agenda" or a "gay lifestyle?"
> People who call
> themselves conservative are those who define what the term means.
Rush doesn't seem to believe that "people who call themselves feminists
are those who define what the term means," though, does he? Pat
Buchanan and David Duke call themselves conservatives; are they "those
who define what the term means?"
Enquiring minds WANT TO KNOW!
---------
A fanatic is someone who does what he knows that God would do if God knew the
facts of the case.
Some mailers apparently munge my address; you might have to use
bsm...@bsmart.tti.com -- or if that fails, fall back to
72027...@compuserve.com. Ain't UNIX grand?
dks
be...@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
Yeah, right. What's the problem?
Dhanesh
If your head hurts, Mike, it isn't because anyone hit you.
Previous post attached below. Kindly show us what "ad hominem" means.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: d...@MIT.EDU (dks)
Subject: Re: Mystery Guest
Organization: The Trilateral Commission
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 93 06:07:56 EST
Lines: 140
be...@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
> True conservatism aside (ie. classic liberalism as defined during the
> Enlightenment), I was simply pointing out that BG has not remained true
> to his principles, at least not his principles as a public figure. The
> examples I've cited are in direct contrast to his previous positions.
> Do you disagree with this?
Nope. Nor do I agree. Remember, *I* was simply pointing out that
he was making statements about the USSR in 1986 that were completely
at odds with Limbaugh's "Undeniable Truths" of 1988. You brought up
Goldwater's views on the rights of women and homosexuals. I didn't.
If his views on those issues have changed, just as his views on how
to deal with "Russia" have changed, perhaps it is not because he is
abandoning his principles, but because he is applying the very same
principles to a changing world. [ Just my guess, of course. Far
be it from me to know how the "conservative" mind works. ]
> I consider myself a classic liberal, modern conservative, in that I
> believe that individual rights are derived from the nature of man
> and not from government and that limited government is the best we
> can hope for. BG's position on gays and abortion could be argued
> to be in line with this concept if it were true that he didn't
> want the Feds involved in paying for abortions either.
You can consider yourself whatever you like. It's fine by me.
Rights in the USA are not derived from government. I agree.
Government should be no "bigger" than it needs to be. You bet.
Goldwater's "position on gays and abortion" is in line with the
best "individual rights" traditions. Yes.
I disagree with the rest of your paragraph, but it's a matter
of opinion, and disagreeing on matters of opinion is fine by me.
> Please keep in mind that the so called religious right was created
> when liberals succeded in pushing the following agendas: school
> prayer, abortion, and pornography.
You know, Mike, you're at your best when you're talking about your
own "conservatism." But when you start prattling about "the liberal
agendas," citing such absurdities as the above, then you're really
not at your best. Why do you do it? Do you really think I am
pushing pornography? Do you really think I am against your right
to pray with neither support nor constraint from government? Do you
really think I spend my time kidnapping women and forcing them to
have abortions?
IF you think any of the above, then you need to think again. And again.
And as for when exactly the "religious right" was created,
I haven't the foggiest idea. Apparently, neither do you.
> Through unprecedented judicial activism the courts found that they
> could destroy what formerly was state and local prerogatives.
> Judicial _activism_ is inconsistent with the design of our system
> and actually increases the power and influence of the central
> government.
The only thing worse than a self-appointed economist is a
For what it's worth, I think you're right that the media are (only)
*partly* at fault for "mixing Christianity and conservatism." But
they do it because it sells. Just as they make up fictitious
stories about air-planes circling over LAX to sell their "news."
Just as they exaggerate incidents involving super-market scanners
to show how profoundly they can analyze a politician's mind. It's
all done in the name of making a buck. If you go and talk to them
about it, don't tell them I sent you: it won't win you any friends.
Cheers,
Dhanesh
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
dks
> > > >private and conservative principles should apply. Having recently
> > > >been approached in the shower at the health club I belong to I am
> > > >somewhat jaundiced about how far this should extend.
> > >
> > > Yeah, really. Next thing you know men will be approaching women
> > > in public. Where will it end? Let's get the government to crack
> > > down on those nasty heterosexual men, shall we?
> >
> >just the right verses in the Bible, you'd see that it is Obviously
> >and Clearly Different.
>
>
[ Rest of Mike's _ad_hominem_ post deleted. ]
Regards,
Dhanesh
Gee, Mike, it works! You're a bloomin' genius!
John Sims
|> In article <1993Sep7.2...@anasazi.com> be...@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
|> >In article <26bv95$h...@sndsu1.sinet.slb.com> d...@se.houston.geoquest.slb.com (Dan Day) writes:
|> >>In article <1993Sep3.1...@anasazi.com> be...@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
|> >>>
|> >>>Truely you could argue in a simplistic sense that homosexuality is
|> >>>private and conservative principles should apply. Having recently
|> >>>been approached in the shower at the health club I belong to I am
|> >>>somewhat jaundiced about how far this should extend.
|> >>
|> >>Yeah, really. Next thing you know men will be approaching women
|> >>in public. Where will it end? Let's get the government to crack
|> >>down on those nasty heterosexual men, shall we?
|> >
|> >You should've left that idea in your head to bake a little longer.
|> >If you would agree that men do not have the opportunity to approach
|> >women they don't know in the shower of a public facility as I was
|> >approached by a homosexual then you'll see my meager side point.
|>
|> Well, I don't know about you, but I thought there were two ways to look
|> at this. 1) it's uncool to be approached by a stranger who's obviously
|> after something you don't want to provide right now (or at all), 2) it's
|> uncool to be "approached" in the shower (yeah, we know what you mean).
|>
|> When I've talked to complaining straightboys who can't handle getting
|> "approached", I ask them if any females they know have dealt with that
|> from males. Strangely enough, they don't get it. I find that odd.
|>
|> It's very possible you were "approached" by somebody who is mostly a
|> stupid jerk. When dealing with jerks, orientation doesn't matter much.
Yeah, I'm completely convinced that if he'd decked the guy for approaching
him in the shower, the entire gay community would have rallied around him and
applauded him for dealing with a stupid jerk.
John
Spencer PriceNash
I'm not sure if I should repeat
>|> When I've talked to complaining straightboys who can't handle getting
>|> "approached", I ask them if any females they know have dealt with that
>|> from males. Strangely enough, they don't get it. I find that odd.
Or laugh my ass off.
Emil T. Chuck
In a previous article, d...@MIT.EDU (dks) says:
> e...@po.CWRU.Edu (Emil T. Chuck) writes:
> > d...@MIT.EDU (dks) says:
> > >Congratulations, Emil! You're the first person to ask me to back up
> > >that assertion. And I think you are *absolutely correct* to do so.
> > >If only you and your fellow (self-professed) Dittoheads would be just
> > >as willing to challenge alleged "information" that seems to fit within
> > >your existing world-view...
> >
> > The fun thing is that most of the other liberals on this network do
> > precisely that.
>
>Do precisely what?
Challenge sources from which assertions or quotes are made whether we're
talking abortion stats or education or the federal budget.
--
etc
The Clinton Economic Plan looks a lot like BU--SH--!
Emil Thomas Chuck e...@po.CWRU.edu
Biomedical Scientist Training Program - CWRU School of Medicine
mike...@austin.ibm.com
One of our ladies here at work drop-kicked a guy's nuts to ward off unwanted
attention. Is that what you were talking about?
--
Michael (Mike) C. Dean
IBM - Advanced Workstation and Systems Division
Austin, Texas.
Disclaimer - The opinions expressed in this append are mine alone.
Mike Best
>In article <1993Sep7.2...@anasazi.com> be...@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>>Please, have some compassion - I was educated by the public school system
>>before school choice was made available to the middle and poor class.
>
>So, for that matter, was I. I grew up in a small town in centeral Florida
>with only one public library and only one school, but I managed to cultivate a
>love of reading and learning.
Do you think that I could learn to cultivate such tastes too? Wait 'til my
parents (who both have degrees that warrant the title Dr.) find out about this!
>>religious right vs liberal left political arguments have been going on for
>>longer than a mere hundred years. However, the latest incarnation of
>>religious right activity has been largely inflamed by the activist liberal
>>agenda. Certainly there have been other religious based movements but in
>
>Hah! So the "activist liberal agenda" is responsible for the push for
>Creationism as a "science" in the public schools, the wave of censorship
>attempts sponsored by the religious right, and the other axes that are being
>ground?
Please restrain yourself, I have said no such thing. What I am saying is that
activists on the left energize activists on the right. I have the impression
that it was the left which energized the right during the middle part of this
century to today. Also, I am not defending all that religious activists
support nor would I limit cencorship to the right (read the fairness doctrine).
>>a world governed by cause and effect there must be a cause. Is the current
>
>You are apparently unaware of (a) quantum mechanics and (b) chaos theory, both
>of which put the validity of linear cause-and-effect in doubt. If you want, I
>can give you some references (with ISBN's too) on them.
I am aware of both and the analogy is applicable to macro models. Further,
quantum mechanics have little to do with political philosophy although I
will grant you that chaos theory could be applied to Clinton's approach.
>>True, but it is the liberals who have turned the words around. They control
>>the academia, the public schools, the legislature, the press, shall I go on?
>>I am a classic liberal in the sense that the word is derived from the root
>>liber meaning free. Modern liberals believe in big government which is not
>>consistent with freedom.
>
>This is pretty clever. This forum and the RL show are the only place that
>I've seen implicit circular reasoning. The tautology seems to go like this:
>
>1) Liberals are bad because they believe in large government.
>2) How can you tell a liberal? They believe in large government.
I think you see my point. Would you care to explain why it was that the
Founders believed that limited government was better than large government
at protecting the rights of individuals? Not that the regime cannot be
strong but rather that if it is so then that the people are strong enough
to maintains sovereign control over the regime.
Please refer to "The Framers and Fundamental Rights", Chapter 3.
ISBN 0-8447-3788-7
Mike Best
[I just deleted the rest because I found it reasonable!]
Bob Smart
si...@ipcsun4.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (John Sims) writes:
>
> Yeah, I'm completely convinced that if he'd decked the guy for approaching
> him in the shower, the entire gay community would have rallied around him and
> applauded him for dealing with a stupid jerk.
Is that how heterosexuals usually respond to unwanted advances--by
"decking" each other? Would that be the appropriate response when some
panting, drooling straight boy "approaches" a straight female who simply
isn't interested? Should she "deck" him? Or would a simple "no, thank
you" be a more appropriate first response? When a man is the target of
an unwanted "advance" from a woman (I know it's unlikely, but it might
happen occasionally that a straight man would choose to decline sex), is
the accepted rejection a punch in the face? It's so hard to keep up,
these days, with all these "family values" flying past my ears at high
velocity.
Jim Halat
> >Yeah, I'm completely convinced that if he'd decked the guy for approaching
> >him in the shower, the entire gay community would have rallied around him and
> >applauded him for dealing with a stupid jerk.
Do you advocate decking anybody who acts like a jerk or just a man
who comes on too strong to another man? What's wrong with saying,
No thanks?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
jim halat e-mail: ha...@bear.com
OPIRG
>In article <26m0gr$s...@suntan.eng.usf.edu> woo...@figment.tmc.edu (Chris Woodard) writes:
>>In article <1993Sep7.2...@anasazi.com> be...@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>>>I am a classic liberal in the sense that the word is derived from the root
>>>liber meaning free. Modern liberals believe in big government which is not
>>>consistent with freedom.
You mean, on principle? I know of no reason to believe this. I
suspect most feel (much as many conservatives seem to feel) it is an
unavoidable byproduct of modern society - a 'necessary evil', to be
cliche. It'd be nice to have town-hall democracy, but I doubt NYC has
a hall big enough for everyone in Manhattan.
>>This is pretty clever. This forum and the RL show are the only place that
>>I've seen implicit circular reasoning. The tautology seems to go like this:
>>
>>1) Liberals are bad because they believe in large government.
>>2) How can you tell a liberal? They believe in large government.
>
>I think you see my point. Would you care to explain why it was that the
>Founders believed that limited government was better than large government
>at protecting the rights of individuals? Not that the regime cannot be
>strong but rather that if it is so then that the people are strong enough
>to maintains sovereign control over the regime.
Do you object to big business on similar grounds? Corporations are
created by our laws to serve our goals, yet have grown to be
notoriously difficult to keep under the sovereign control of the
people. What do you think the Founders would have thought of the idea
of corporations, especially *multinational* corporations?
Reid Cooper
Dan Day
>activists on the left energize activists on the right. I have the impression
>that it was the left which energized the right during the middle part of this
>century to today.
I think any kind of "either-or" analysis on this issue is doomed
to fail. You could also make a case that most of the activities of the
left were "energized" by the actions of the right. For example,
if there wasn't much open hostility and intolerance towards gays,
you wouldn't have gay-pride parades, "gay-ed" promoted in schools,
or proposed civil-rights laws to protect them.
This may have not been the best example in the world, but it's
the first that came to mind at this late hour. In any case,
I think the action/reaction/re-reaction cycle has been going on
for just about forever, and takes place continuously and on
both sides.
Spencer V. PriceNash
above. Maybe this should be taken out of a.f.d-q; Limbaugh fans (and
Reagan fans?) seem to like this sort of thing, so they can keep it.]
In article <CD3sx...@austin.ibm.com> mike...@austin.ibm.com writes:
>spe...@montego.umcc.umich.edu (Spencer PriceNash) writes:
>> John Sims <si...@ipcsun4.NoSubdomain.NoDomain> wrote:
[no subdomain, no domain...cough]
>>spe...@spencer.ann-arbor.mi.us (Spencer V. PriceNash) writes:
>> >|>be...@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>> >|> >d...@se.houston.geoquest.slb.com (Dan Day) writes:
>> >|> >>be...@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
[haven't trimmed much text. Can't think of a way to do it without
losing (that's "loosing" for some) context or strength of argument]
>> >|> >>>Truely you could argue in a simplistic sense that homosexuality is
>> >|> >>>private and conservative principles should apply. Having recently
>> >|> >>>been approached in the shower at the health club I belong to I am
>> >|> >>>somewhat jaundiced about how far this should extend.
>> >|> >>
>> >|> >>Yeah, really. Next thing you know men will be approaching women
>> >|> >>in public. Where will it end? Let's get the government to crack
>> >|> >>down on those nasty heterosexual men, shall we?
>> >|> >
>> >|> >If you would agree that men do not have the opportunity to approach
>> >|> >women they don't know in the shower of a public facility as I was
>> >|> >approached by a homosexual then you'll see my meager side point.
>> >|>
>> >|> 1) it's uncool to be approached by a stranger who's obviously
>> >|> after something you don't want to provide right now (or at all), 2) it's
>> >|> uncool to be "approached" in the shower (yeah, we know what you mean).
>> >|>
>> >|> When I've talked to complaining straightboys who can't handle getting
>> >|> "approached", I ask them if any females they know have dealt with that
>> >|> from males. Strangely enough, they don't get it. I find that odd.
>> >|>
>> >|> It's very possible you were "approached" by somebody who is mostly a
>> >|> stupid jerk. When dealing with jerks, orientation doesn't matter much.
>> >
>> >Yeah, I'm completely convinced that if he'd decked the guy for approaching
>> >him in the shower, the entire gay community would have rallied around him and
>> >applauded him for dealing with a stupid jerk.
>>
>> I'm not sure if I should repeat
>> >|> When I've talked to complaining straightboys who can't handle getting
>> >|> "approached", I ask them if any females they know have dealt with that
>> >|> from males. Strangely enough, they don't get it. I find that odd.
>> Or laugh my ass off.
>
>One of our ladies here at work drop-kicked a guy's nuts to ward off unwanted
>attention. Is that what you were talking about?
No.
That's assault. It's applicable only under specific circumstances.
Maybe it'd be warranted if the approacher just keeps coming back.
Definitely it'd be wise if the approacher assaults the target. A curt
answer, delivered with style and/or vigor, usually does the trick,
unless one is dealing with a stupid jerk.
Spencer V. PriceNash
>Spencer PriceNash (spe...@montego.umcc.umich.edu) wrote:
>
> > >Yeah, I'm completely convinced that if he'd decked the guy for approaching
> > >him in the shower, the entire gay community would have rallied around him and
> > >applauded him for dealing with a stupid jerk.
>
>Do you advocate decking anybody who acts like a jerk or just a man
>who comes on too strong to another man? What's wrong with saying,
>No thanks?
Whoa, Jim, I didn't write any of the above.
> jim halat e-mail: ha...@bear.com
Chris Woodard
First of all, I hope you forgive me for reformatting so my primitive
newsreader can deal with the line length. Content is unchanged.
>
> find out about this!
>>>religious right vs liberal left political arguments have been going on for
>>>longer than a mere hundred years. However, the latest incarnation of
>>>religious right activity has been largely inflamed by the activist liberal
>>>agenda. Certainly there have been other religious based movements but in
>>
>>Hah! So the "activist liberal agenda" is responsible for the push for
>>Creationism as a "science" in the public schools, the wave of censorship
>>attempts sponsored by the religious right, and the other axes that are being
>>ground?
>
>Please restrain yourself, I have said no such thing. What I am saying is that
>activists on the left energize activists on the right. I have the impression
>that it was the left which energized the right during the middle part of this
>century to today. Also, I am not defending all that religious activists
>support nor would I limit cencorship to the right (read the fairness doctrine).
Well, in a sense you *are* defending the religious right-handers by blaming
their emotional outbursts on the ascendancy of the "left". As a conservative,
and someone who is aware of chaos theory, you should be careful about making
attributions like that. The most unpredictable thing in the cosmos is
humanity, and it's the least easily controlled (as the US found out in Vietnam
and the Soviets found out in Afghanistan).
The only thing we've got control of is the way we react to events and other
people, and blaming our actions and reactions on someone else's actions is
often naive.
>
>>>a world governed by cause and effect there must be a cause. Is the current
>>
>>You are apparently unaware of (a) quantum mechanics and (b) chaos theory, both
>>of which put the validity of linear cause-and-effect in doubt. If you want, I
>>can give you some references (with ISBN's too) on them.
>
>I am aware of both and the analogy is applicable to macro models. Further,
>quantum mechanics have little to do with political philosophy although I
>will grant you that chaos theory could be applied to Clinton's approach.
>
Quantum mechanics governs the fundamental impossibility of full measurement of
a physical phenomenon, and chaos theory takes that essential imprecision and
extends it to destroy the idea of linear causality. As far as applying it to
Clinton's approach, it's far more applicable to Rush's show. There are no
rules, measurement (verification of facts) is intermittent and random, and
there is no real connection between the callers and reality.
>>>True, but it is the liberals who have turned the words around. They control
>>>the academia, the public schools, the legislature, the press, shall I go on?
>>>I am a classic liberal in the sense that the word is derived from the root
>>>liber meaning free. Modern liberals believe in big government which is not
>>>consistent with freedom.
>>
>>This is pretty clever. This forum and the RL show are the only place that
>>I've seen implicit circular reasoning. The tautology seems to go like this:
>>
>>1) Liberals are bad because they believe in large government.
>>2) How can you tell a liberal? They believe in large government.
>
>I think you see my point. Would you care to explain why it was that the
>Founders believed that limited government was better than large government
>at protecting the rights of individuals? Not that the regime cannot be
>strong but rather that if it is so then that the people are strong enough
>to maintains sovereign control over the regime.
>
I'm relatively sure you don't see mine, which was that it's really easy to
label someone and attribute beliefs to them that they don't hold. For
instance, I've been called a "liberal" on this forum on the basis of my
pointing out a real absurdity in some sophomore's post. If people take this
seriously, then they might think that I support the right to abortion (I do),
the rights of animals to not serve in lab experiments (I don't), government
controls on speech to keep minorities from getting their feelings hurt (I
don't), and a whole laundry list of things that have fallen under the rubric
"liberal" that I may or may not agree with.
As far as the Fathers go, they believed limited government was better than
large government but I don't think they thought it was possible to keep it
limited. So, they designed it the way they did so that there would be tension
and competition among the different branches and between political parties so
that it would burn up lots of its energy in internecine power squabbles and
have less energy left over for oppression and censorship. It hasn't always
worked out this way, but that's what I think they intended. I will, however,
do some further reading.
>
>Please refer to "The Framers and Fundamental Rights", Chapter 3.
>ISBN 0-8447-3788-7
>
Thanks for providing the ISBN#. If I get the chance, I'll check it out.
>Mike Best
>[I just deleted the rest because I found it reasonable!]
Awwww! You didn't want to show us in violent agreement?
David Bernstein
>> I don't know that the last sentence has to do with anything,
>> but for the record (IMNSHO): John Kennedy was a great speaker
>> and a mediocre president, FDR was probably the most effective
>> US President of all time and the most important US political
>> leader in this century,
I havent't listened to FDR (except "the only thing we
have to fear...") but perhaps he was a better speaker than JFK.
On the other hand Roosevelt's inept fiscal policies
prolonged the Great Depression by extra six years; while
Kennedy's 1963 tax cuts (enacted in 1964, partly out of
respect for the martyred president) caused the longest economic
expansion then on record (about six years).
The results would have been even more impressive, had
the "deficit worries" not caused the spending cuts (1.2% of
GNP), which reduced the demand side stimulus.
David.
Brett J. Kottmann
That's because the guy obviously wasn't good looking enough!
:)
Brett
Mike Best
>In article <1993Sep9.1...@den.mmc.com>,
>si...@ipcsun4.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (John Sims) writes:
>>
>> Yeah, I'm completely convinced that if he'd decked the guy for approaching
>> him in the shower, the entire gay community would have rallied around him and
>> applauded him for dealing with a stupid jerk.
>
>Is that how heterosexuals usually respond to unwanted advances--by
>"decking" each other? Would that be the appropriate response when some
>panting, drooling straight boy "approaches" a straight female who simply
>isn't interested? Should she "deck" him? Or would a simple "no, thank
>you" be a more appropriate first response? When a man is the target of
>an unwanted "advance" from a woman (I know it's unlikely, but it might
>happen occasionally that a straight man would choose to decline sex), is
As a straight and married male I find this comment unwarranted.
Your point is not germane, the issue is that I should not have my privacy
infringed by someone who found me attractive in the shower. I do not
have access to the women's showers and the same reasoning should apply
homosexuals having access to the men's showers. If you disagree with
this then you must also argue that heterosexual men should have access
to the women's showers or the integrity of your argument would fail.
Mike Best
Mike Best
>
>>>Yeah, I'm completely convinced that if he'd decked the guy for approaching
>>>him in the shower, the entire gay community would have rallied around him and
>>>applauded him for dealing with a stupid jerk.
>
>Do you advocate decking anybody who acts like a jerk or just a man
>who comes on too strong to another man? What's wrong with saying,
>No thanks?
That is essentially what I said. Now tell me why he should be allowed to
view me naked...
Mike Best
Mike Best
>In article <1993Sep9.1...@anasazi.com> be...@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>You mean, on principle? I know of no reason to believe this. I
>suspect most feel (much as many conservatives seem to feel) it is an
>unavoidable byproduct of modern society - a 'necessary evil', to be
>cliche. It'd be nice to have town-hall democracy, but I doubt NYC has
>a hall big enough for everyone in Manhattan.
Don't kid yourself, a town-hall democracy would be tantamount to burning
the Constitution. Pure democracy is inconsistent with our system and
with the protection of minority rights.
>>I think you see my point. Would you care to explain why it was that the
>>Founders believed that limited government was better than large government
>>at protecting the rights of individuals? Not that the regime cannot be
>>strong but rather that if it is so then that the people are strong enough
>>to maintains sovereign control over the regime.
>
>Do you object to big business on similar grounds? Corporations are
>created by our laws to serve our goals, yet have grown to be
>notoriously difficult to keep under the sovereign control of the
>people. What do you think the Founders would have thought of the idea
>of corporations, especially *multinational* corporations?
Huh? I think that the Founders would have found that corporations are the
property of the shareholders since the Founders were students of Locke
(from whom we derived the individual rights: to life, liberty, property).
I do not think they would agree, as you imply, that they are created by
government to serve our goals for the reason that they believed in limited
government. Such control "to serve our goals" is not within the text of
the Constitution as I understand it.
And I am certain that they would not find any reason for these corporations
to be under the sovereign control of the people. C'mon now, only the regime
is under such control (or used to be). I think the model you are thinking
of is totalitarian or at least statist and though Clinton is the president
I do think you are jumping the gun.
Look, I am making the point that liberals believe in big government and
that big government is not only inconsistent with the Founders but is
also a threat to individual liberty. The more control you capitulate
to the Feds the more feeble you become at controlling your own destiny.
Of course, liberals might be the kind of people who don't have the guts
to take such chances.
Mike Best
Mike Best
>First of all, I hope you forgive me for reformatting so my primitive
>newsreader can deal with the line length. Content is unchanged.
Of course.
>Well, in a sense you *are* defending the religious right-handers by blaming
>their emotional outbursts on the ascendancy of the "left". As a conservative,
>and someone who is aware of chaos theory, you should be careful about making
>attributions like that. The most unpredictable thing in the cosmos is
>humanity, and it's the least easily controlled (as the US found out in Vietnam
>and the Soviets found out in Afghanistan).
I think that applying chaos theory and quantum mechanics to social phenomena
is incorrect. Peoples thoughts and desires are not subject to the laws of
physics which is why sociology, psychology, and political sciences are
merely pseudo sciences.
>The only thing we've got control of is the way we react to events and other
>people, and blaming our actions and reactions on someone else's actions is
>often naive.
Yet here we are reacting to one another :)
>Quantum mechanics governs the fundamental impossibility of full measurement of
>a physical phenomenon, and chaos theory takes that essential imprecision and
>extends it to destroy the idea of linear causality. As far as applying it to
>Clinton's approach, it's far more applicable to Rush's show. There are no
>rules, measurement (verification of facts) is intermittent and random, and
>there is no real connection between the callers and reality.
Now, now. I have to agree that Rush's show is not, nor is it intended to be,
an academic excersize. However, he does indeed present facts and quotations
to which he mentions sources etc. Obviously science is his weakest subject
but in political/social subject he excels.
>>I think you see my point. Would you care to explain why it was that the
>>Founders believed that limited government was better than large government
>>at protecting the rights of individuals? Not that the regime cannot be
>>strong but rather that if it is so then that the people are strong enough
>>to maintains sovereign control over the regime.
>
>I'm relatively sure you don't see mine, which was that it's really easy to
>label someone and attribute beliefs to them that they don't hold. For
>instance, I've been called a "liberal" on this forum on the basis of my
I'm sure I'm guilty of this here and elsewhere - apologies to all.
Mike Best
Spencer V. PriceNash
In article <1993Sep10.2...@anasazi.com> be...@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>In article <1993Sep10.0...@ttinews.tti.com> bsm...@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart) writes:
>>In article <1993Sep9.1...@den.mmc.com>,
>>si...@ipcsun4.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (John Sims) writes:
>>>
>>> Yeah, I'm completely convinced that if he'd decked the guy for approaching
>>> him in the shower, the entire gay community would have rallied around him and
>>> applauded him for dealing with a stupid jerk.
>>
>>Is that how heterosexuals usually respond to unwanted advances--by
>>"decking" each other? Would that be the appropriate response when some
>>panting, drooling straight boy "approaches" a straight female who simply
>>isn't interested? Should she "deck" him? Or would a simple "no, thank
>>you" be a more appropriate first response? When a man is the target of
>>an unwanted "advance" from a woman (I know it's unlikely, but it might
>>happen occasionally that a straight man would choose to decline sex), is
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> As a straight and married male I find this comment unwarranted.
It looked like wry humor to me.
>Your point is not germane, the issue is that I should not have my privacy
>infringed by someone who found me attractive in the shower.
Or a bathroom, or your car, or your private home. When such a thing
happens, the issue is your privacy. I get the impression that shower
you're speaking of wasn't as private as your car or your private home,
though.
>I do not
>have access to the women's showers and the same reasoning should apply
>homosexuals having access to the men's showers.
Actually, the only thing preventing you from entering unlocked and
unguarded women's showers is your own discretion.
>If you disagree with
>this then you must also argue that heterosexual men should have access
>to the women's showers or the integrity of your argument would fail.
Oh poo. Unacceptable behavior in private places is unacceptable
behavior in private places. You're trying to turn it into another issue
altogether.
I'm ignorant of the specific details of this approach you received, but
maybe you got an awful pickup line from a complete jerk in the wrong
place and just didn't know how to handle it. The most solid presumption
I can think of is that you were dealing with some fool using the
scattershot method, but you never heard his gun fire. Had he done this
to someone else before you, or were you the first target?
(Here's a parenthetical, as GHWB might say. For my part, I find what
works best is research or friends-of-friends, and to always take it slow
at first. That works well with whatever one's orientation is -- I'm
het, and some gays/lesbians/bis I know think the same way. Not all of
them. Those who don't agree, well, this is a dangerous age, and all
that. I think you were dealing with a dangerous twit. But this isn't
the newsgroup for that. To continue:)
The game is always afoot. We should play as fairly as we possibly can.
If you didn't want to play the game right then, or not at all, you could
have just said so.
I suppose you could have complained to whoever runs this shower
facility, but that hasn't been mentioned. You could have loudly
proclaimed you didn't want his advances, but that wasn't mentioned.
You could have told him what you have been saying above, and though it
wouldn't have necessarily been on target, it would have gotten the point
across -- you didn't want any. Real simple.
Spencer V. PriceNash
Hold on a second. Edit attributions more carefully. I didn't write any
of the above. (We seem to be having this problem lately.)
But hey, I feel invited. There's my name, after all.
So. As for "essentially what I said", what essentially did you say?
Which question above are you agreeing with?
As for why he should be allowed to view you naked, I guess it'd be the
same reason he'd be allowed to view you clothed.
OPIRG
>In article <CD4E7...@cunews.carleton.ca> wcs...@superior.carleton.ca (OPIRG) writes:
>>In article <1993Sep9.1...@anasazi.com> be...@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>>You mean, on principle? I know of no reason to believe this. I
>>suspect most feel (much as many conservatives seem to feel) it is an
>>unavoidable byproduct of modern society - a 'necessary evil', to be
>>cliche. It'd be nice to have town-hall democracy, but I doubt NYC has
>>a hall big enough for everyone in Manhattan.
>
>Don't kid yourself, a town-hall democracy would be tantamount to burning
>the Constitution. Pure democracy is inconsistent with our system and
>with the protection of minority rights.
Whether or not you are right about the constitutionality of town-hall
democracy, my point is that 'big govt' is not something liberals would
want on principle. Bureaucracy is not a principle of liberalism, only
an unavoidable part of running a country with over 270 million people
and an advanced economy.
>>>I think you see my point. Would you care to explain why it was that the
>>>Founders believed that limited government was better than large government
>>>at protecting the rights of individuals? Not that the regime cannot be
>>>strong but rather that if it is so then that the people are strong enough
>>>to maintains sovereign control over the regime.
>>
>>Do you object to big business on similar grounds? Corporations are
>>created by our laws to serve our goals, yet have grown to be
>>notoriously difficult to keep under the sovereign control of the
>>people. What do you think the Founders would have thought of the idea
>>of corporations, especially *multinational* corporations?
>
>Huh? I think that the Founders would have found that corporations are the
>property of the shareholders since the Founders were students of Locke
>(from whom we derived the individual rights: to life, liberty, property).
But, as the battle over slavery shows, it was by no means clear that
everyone agreed on what should be considered property. There have
been many different conceptions of property in the history of
humanity. More to the point, would the Founders have felt something
as abstract and artificial as a corporation was not just property, but
a suitable institution in a democracy? I don't know about the US, but
I know that the modern idea of corporations was controversial when it
was introduced in the UK (and Canada) - it took a precedent-setting
case to establish the idea of the corporation as a separate legal
personality.
People today often seem to forget that corporations are created by
law. They don't exist without the govt, and are (IMHO) probably the
single greatest intrusion by the govt into the marketplace, allowing
for a concentration of wealth (and economic power) otherwise
impossible. When I hear some high-powered executive talking about how
he wants govt to stop regulating the market place, my first thought
is, "guy, are you sure you want to repeal the Business Corporations Act?"
>I do not think they would agree, as you imply, that they are created by
>government to serve our goals for the reason that they believed in limited
>government. Such control "to serve our goals" is not within the text of
>the Constitution as I understand it.
The Founders saw that concentrated power is dangerous to democracy.
Corporations have made possible a tremendous concentration of power (I
suppose this point might be more obvious to you if you lived in a
country more vulnerable to the whims of large multinationals). Is it
healthy for a democracy to have a handful of unaccountable people in
control of organizations so large they have a tremendous influence on
the country?
In short, if big govt is bad because it hurts democracy,
wouldn't big business be bad for the very same reason?
>And I am certain that they would not find any reason for these corporations
>to be under the sovereign control of the people. C'mon now, only the regime
>is under such control (or used to be). I think the model you are thinking
>of is totalitarian or at least statist and though Clinton is the president
>I do think you are jumping the gun.
My model is "totalitarian" or "statist"? How so?
Why should "corporations be under the control of the people"? There
are a few ways you might mean this. If you think I'm saying the govt
should take control over corporate boards, you've misunderstood me.
However, the same authority (and responsibility) which allowed our
elected representatives to pass laws creating the framework for
corporations would also authorize (and perhaps require) the govt to
put limits on corporations, or even rethink the whole idea of
corporations if need be. I am pointing out that the Founders may have
thought that corporations would be so great a threat to democracy that
they would not have allowed them to exist in the form they take today.
>Look, I am making the point that liberals believe in big government and
>that big government is not only inconsistent with the Founders but is
>also a threat to individual liberty. The more control you capitulate
>to the Feds the more feeble you become at controlling your own destiny.
>Of course, liberals might be the kind of people who don't have the guts
>to take such chances.
I am saying liberals *don't* believe in big govrnment per se; I myself
am a big fan of decentralization. I am also saying that your points
about big govt may be equally applicable to big business.
Reid Cooper
William C. Barwell
> In article <1993Sep9.1...@anasazi.com> be...@anasazi.com (Mike Best) wr
> >
> >What I am saying is that
> >activists on the left energize activists on the right. I have the impressio
> >that it was the left which energized the right during the middle part of thi
> >century to today.
>
> I think any kind of "either-or" analysis on this issue is doomed
> to fail. You could also make a case that most of the activities of the
> left were "energized" by the actions of the right. For example,
> if there wasn't much open hostility and intolerance towards gays,
> you wouldn't have gay-pride parades, "gay-ed" promoted in schools,
> or proposed civil-rights laws to protect them.
>
> This may have not been the best example in the world, but it's
> the first that came to mind at this late hour. In any case,
> I think the action/reaction/re-reaction cycle has been going on
> for just about forever, and takes place continuously and on
> both sides.
And the sixties were an reaction to the reactionary era before it, the
repression, the racism, the redbaiting, ect. A whole generation
seemingly wanted a change, desperately. I did. The Summer Of Love was a
mighty sea change wasn't it? I hope for one soon when we are all tired
to death of neoconservatives and the Reagan era and the Christian
Coalition. I am heartened by noticing that college radio on the whole
seems to be going in quite the opposite way than Rush Limbaugh. There is
some hope.
Pope Charles
Todays neocons listened to classic rock. Tomorrow's liberals are
listening to alternative music today. Negativland rules OK!
--
po...@unkaphaed.jpunix.com (William C. Barwell)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 481-3763
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
Don McGregor
William C. Barwell <po...@unkaphaed.jpunix.com> wrote:
>
> The Summer Of Love was a
>mighty sea change wasn't it? I hope for one soon when we are all tired
>to death of neoconservatives and the Reagan era and the Christian
>Coalition.
I think the Summer of Love was a catastrophe for the less educated
and lower economic classes. It's one thing for a bright college
student with a support structure to get pregnant and raise a kid
on her own. It's something very different for a 17-year-old
lower middle class high school student, let alone an inner
city kid, to face the same thing.
Dan Quayle was right.
>I am heartened by noticing that college radio on the whole
>seems to be going in quite the opposite way than Rush Limbaugh. There is
>some hope.
>
Always been that way. Back in the heart of the Reagan days the
Clash, V. Femmes, X, and the rest were big.
"The world's a mess, it's in my kiss...."
Ah, those were the days.
Reagan even had a great _soundtrack_ to his administration! The guy
was amazing. I'm hoping they'll put him next to Lincoln on
Rushmore. Putting him next to Washington wouldn't give him
the proper prominence.
--
Don McGregor | POOR IMPULSE CONTROL
mcg...@prism.cs.orst.edu|
Karl Dussik
>
>Hah! So the "activist liberal agenda" is responsible for the push for
>Creationism as a "science" in the public schools, the wave of censorship
>attempts sponsored by the religious right, and the other axes that are being
>ground?
>
The only censorship in the schools since the 60's is censorship of any
positive portrayal of the role of religion on this country's history.
Even the left-wing People for the American Way concede that. That and
censorship of traditional moral values. The fruits of this are being
harvested today.
>
>This is pretty clever. This forum and the RL show are the only place that
>I've seen implicit circular reasoning. The tautology seems to go like this:
>
>1) Liberals are bad because they believe in large government.
>2) How can you tell a liberal? They believe in large government.
>
Let me state it differently. (Modern) Liberals believe in big government.
Big government is bad. Liberals believe in bad things.
>
>The reason I think of conservatism as rigid is because it *is* rigid. In its
>reaction against the "liberal agenda", the purveyors of conservatism have
>become strident and obnoxious (Pat Buchanan, John Sununu, George Will, Mona
>Charen, Cal Thomas, and others).
More than 50 years of being out of power and seeing everything you believe
in undermined can do that to you.
Karl Dussik
--
You have to hand it to Bill Clinton - who ever thought anyone would make
Richard (Tricky Dick) Nixon look like an honest man - much less a President?
Dan Day
>I would agree with you IF it were true that liberals defended the
>rights of people to engage in high risk sex AND liberals insisted
>that people take individual responsibility for their actions.
...and IF "liberals" were a group of people with a single
worldview who all acted and thought alike...
In any case, don't your hypothetical stereotypical liberals want
people to have sex-ed classes so that they'll know the risks of sex,
and act accordingly, and to be able to reduce that risk with
abstinence, non-insertion sex, condoms, and birth control? Isn't
this encouraging individual responsibility for their actions?
>I would agree with you IF it were true that liberals defended the
>rights of people to have sex and to take responsibility for the
>child rather than cop out with an abortion.
When have liberals, even in your stereotype, *not* defended the
rights of people to take responsibility for the child? Or did
you word that badly and not imply this (it's hard to tell)?
In any case, many people consider an abortion to *be* taking
responsibility for their actions.
Oh, by the way, conservatives have abortions too.
>Would you for a moment not dodge the question and answer for us all
>whether you agree that rights and responsibilities are tied together?
I can't answer for the other poster, but I'll agree that they are.
I don't know of anyone who doesn't. I'll bet you can't find anyone
who wouldn't agree also, although surely what they consider relevant
responsibilities may differ from yours, but this occurs even among
fellow conservatives, so it's bound to occur across even wider
political gulfs. Only thick-headed narrow-minded people (and you
know who you are) see this as a sign of wild irresponsible hedonism,
instead of the honest differences in beliefs that it is.
Brad Wilson
> (Mike Best) writes:
>> I would agree with you IF it were true that liberals defended the
>> rights of people to engage in high risk sex AND liberals insisted
>> that people take individual responsibility for their actions.
[...]
> In any case, don't your hypothetical stereotypical liberals want
> people to have sex-ed classes so that they'll know the risks of sex,
> and act accordingly, and to be able to reduce that risk with
> abstinence, non-insertion sex, condoms, and birth control? Isn't
> this encouraging individual responsibility for their actions?
No, they don't! There's not a "hypothetical liberal" who wants this!
(a) "Abstinence is morally and politically incorrect, naive and damaging
to our youth; it's the conservatives trying to trick our youths into thinking
sex is bad for them" - Planned Parenthood; (b) "reduced risk" is not "safe",
but that's what we teach kids anyways; "Practice safe sex; use a condom";
the liberal lie!
You think that telling kids -- who, by all respects in this country, cannot
make any legal decisions for themselves -- that sex is "okay as long as
you wear a condom" is dangerous, stupid and an outright lie. Instead,
we should teach them not to have sex. Is this view naive? Only you
think so. Tell them, "Listen, the HIV virus is orders of magnitude smaller
than the pores on a condom, not to mention the 20% condom failure rate.
Would you get into a car if you knew that one out of every five times you
did you'd get into an accident? Safe sex is a lie, and the truth is,
with or without a condom, having sex CAN KILL YOU." As adults in this
world, it's our responsibility not to LIE to our children and say, "oh
well, kids will be kids."
>> I would agree with you IF it were true that liberals defended the
>> rights of people to have sex and to take responsibility for the
>> child rather than cop out with an abortion.
>
> When have liberals, even in your stereotype, *not* defended the
> rights of people to take responsibility for the child? Or did
> you word that badly and not imply this (it's hard to tell)?
His wording was bad. Abortions are birth control for 97% of this
country. We tell people -- just like we tell kids -- go ahead, have
sex ... we'll abort the baby if you don't want it. Don't you worry
about any sort of responsibility for having sex.
> In any case, many people consider an abortion to *be* taking
> responsibility for their actions.
Ex post facto responsibility ... and a bad choice at that.
> Oh, by the way, conservatives have abortions too.
So? Does this make it magically okay? My view has nothing to do with
conservative or liberal, except for the fact that -- for the most part --
liberals advocate and conservatives condemn abortions.
>> Would you for a moment not dodge the question and answer for us all
>> whether you agree that rights and responsibilities are tied together?
>
> I can't answer for the other poster, but I'll agree that they are.
Then why don't people take responsibility when excercising their right?
They have sex, make a child, and responsibility comes into the picture.
> I don't know of anyone who doesn't.
1.5 million times per year people don't.
> Only thick-headed narrow-minded people (and you
> know who you are) see this as a sign of wild irresponsible hedonism,
> instead of the honest differences in beliefs that it is.
Damaging your credibility with stupid name calling belittles this issue.
Get your fists out of the mud.
--
Brad Wilson My opinions. MINE! #include <std/joke>
(508) 685-4000 You unna'stand? #include <witty/saying>
wil...@ftp.com "Gun control means hitting what you're aiming at"
Euphamisms? I'm a "Displaced European-American-Michigander"
David Budd
>d...@se.houston.geoquest.slb.com (Dan Day) writes:
>
>> In article <1993Sep9.1...@anasazi.com> be...@anasazi.com (Mike Best) wr
>> >
>> >What I am saying is that
>> >activists on the left energize activists on the right. I have the impressio
>> >that it was the left which energized the right during the middle part of thi
>> >century to today.
>>
>> I think any kind of "either-or" analysis on this issue is doomed
>> to fail. You could also make a case that most of the activities of the
>> left were "energized" by the actions of the right. For example,
>> if there wasn't much open hostility and intolerance towards gays,
>> you wouldn't have gay-pride parades, "gay-ed" promoted in schools,
>> or proposed civil-rights laws to protect them.
>>
>> This may have not been the best example in the world, but it's
>> the first that came to mind at this late hour. In any case,
>> I think the action/reaction/re-reaction cycle has been going on
>> for just about forever, and takes place continuously and on
>> both sides.
>
>
>And the sixties were an reaction to the reactionary era before it, the
>repression, the racism, the redbaiting, ect. A whole generation
>seemingly wanted a change, desperately. I did. The Summer Of Love was a
>mighty sea change wasn't it?
Oh, and what a positive influence this change had on us.
Th rise of instant gratification, an almost ttotal collapse
of morality that has given rise to unwanted pregnancies, social
diseases, divorce, single parents, drug addiction at record
levels, and on and on. Every time I here one of these leftovers
from the 1960's it makes me ill. You selfish, 'me-first,
if it feeels good, dammit, I am going to do it regardless
of how it affects anyone else' children are a disgrace.
Peace, love, dope. From every mountain side, let
hedonism ring, brother.
> I hope for one soon when we are all tired
>to death of neoconservatives and the Reagan era and the Christian
>Coalition. I am heartened by noticing that college radio on the whole
>seems to be going in quite the opposite way than Rush Limbaugh. There is
>some hope.
This is posted from someone who appears unfamilliar with the
trends on college campuuses in the 80's. As one who was there,
I suggest that colleg radio never was going the way
of Rush Limbaugh. Despite what you may have heard from
the left's talking heads about reactionary college campuses,
you have no fear. The liberal masses are still and have always beeen
firmly in control.
norman nithman
Mike Best <be...@anasazi.com> wrote:
>
>I think you see my point. Would you care to explain why it was that the
>Founders believed that limited government was better than large government
>at protecting the rights of individuals? Not that the regime cannot be
>strong but rather that if it is so then that the people are strong enough
>to maintains sovereign control over the regime.
>
>Please refer to "The Framers and Fundamental Rights", Chapter 3.
>ISBN 0-8447-3788-7
>
--
Norman Nithman n...@chinet.com
"I, myself, look forward to a violent death." GG Allin
norman nithman
Mike Best <be...@anasazi.com> wrote:
>
>That is essentially what I said. Now tell me why he should be allowed to
>view me naked...
>
>Mike Best
Who's making you go to a public shower?
Spencer V. PriceNash
>In article <0T6P0B...@unkaphaed.jpunix.com> po...@unkaphaed.jpunix.com (William C. Barwell) writes:
>>
>>And the sixties were an reaction to the reactionary era before it, the
>>repression, the racism, the redbaiting, ect. A whole generation
>>seemingly wanted a change, desperately. I did. The Summer Of Love was a
>>mighty sea change wasn't it?
>
>Oh, and what a positive influence this change had on us.
>Th rise of instant gratification, an almost ttotal collapse
>of morality that has given rise to unwanted pregnancies, social
>diseases, divorce, single parents, drug addiction at record
>levels, and on and on. Every time I here one of these leftovers
>from the 1960's it makes me ill. You selfish, 'me-first,
>if it feeels good, dammit, I am going to do it regardless
>of how it affects anyone else' children are a disgrace.
>Peace, love, dope. From every mountain side, let
>hedonism ring, brother.
You make it seem as if this rise in immorality is quite sudden. Sorry,
but it's been going on for a long, long time.
Talk to people who've done in-depth studies of their family histories.
There's lots of those folks around. Each person who does that I've
spoken to has mentioned "unwanted pregnancies, social diseases, divorce,
single parents, drug addiction, and on and on". These things happen,
and have been happening for a long time.
In the seventies, one friend went to a nursing home where three of her
great-aunts were, and found out one of her great-uncles had this thing
about getting a relative pregnant then moving west to an area that
wasn't yet a state. He'd done this three times. This accounted for
people she'd been unable to confirm were branches of her family.
Our data collection efforts are more efficient and more pervasive than
ever, and the numbers we are getting are better and better as a result.
This makes it *look* like "things are getting worse". Along with that,
people are getting braver about publicizing their "sins", and our
society is looking a lot more amorphous. (Look at all these credit
cards and television sets. Hell, even the local grocery stores take
Visa nowadays.)
I don't think society has really changed all that much. It just looks
that way.
There's no real data to back this up, but you could ask researchers.
They'll always say there's more people getting data, so there's more
people talking. There's more of everything to talk about. That doesn't
necessarily mean there's more morality or immorality. There's just more
stuff to look at.
If nothing else, the Summer of Love was publicized well, and showed
people that there was definitely a new generation alive and active.
What I think most people don't realize is that part of that new
generation was in the media, telling us about the Summer of Love.
So what if Dan Quayle smoked pot? many of us in a.f.d-q have written.
What got us was that the guy who said he sold pot to Quayle was put into
solitary confinement, and we still don't know what happened to him.
Actually, I hope Quayle didn't smoke pot, take acid, etc., because if he
did, people might point to him as an example of what happens if you take
drugs, and I'm having a hard time typing this paragraph because I'm
laughing so hard.
Anyway. Societal changes don't suddenly happen. It's like discovering
ants in the attic. They've always been in the neighborhood. It just
took a matter of time for them to find your house, and then, for you
to find them.
>> I hope for one soon when we are all tired
>>to death of neoconservatives and the Reagan era and the Christian
>>Coalition. I am heartened by noticing that college radio on the whole
>>seems to be going in quite the opposite way than Rush Limbaugh. There is
>>some hope.
>
>This is posted from someone who appears unfamilliar with the
>trends on college campuuses in the 80's. As one who was there,
>I suggest that colleg radio never was going the way
>of Rush Limbaugh. Despite what you may have heard from
>the left's talking heads about reactionary college campuses,
>you have no fear. The liberal masses are still and have always beeen
>firmly in control.
What you write partially confirms what the Pope was saying, and what
I've written above.
marcus dolengo
> In article <1993Sep10...@anasazi.com>,
> Mike Best <be...@anasazi.com> wrote:
> >
> >That is essentially what I said. Now tell me why he should be allowed to
> >view me naked...
> >
> >Mike Best
>
> Who's making you go to a public shower?
His DI would if he was in Marine Boot Camp, or if there were no private
showers in the barracks he lived in...
> --
> Norman Nithman n...@chinet.com
>
> "I, myself, look forward to a violent death." GG Allin
100% DAV
Keep America competitive! Export Liberalism!
ho...@phantom.com
"that was cool huh huh, when we killed that from, huh huh. It won't croak
again."
David Liebman
: >
: >And the sixties were an reaction to the reactionary era before it, the
: >seemingly wanted a change, desperately. I did. The Summer Of Love was a
: >mighty sea change wasn't it?
:
:
: Oh, and what a positive influence this change had on us.
which good, solid, moral capitalist workers assist in providing,
: an almost ttotal collapse
: of morality that has given rise to unwanted pregnancies
Infanticide was a rather common solution to unwanted
pregnancies in pre-18th century europe.
: social diseases,
like syphilis, which I hear used to be an awful problem during
the Victorian Era -- unless you're talking about television?
: divorce,
which typically happens when two people don't like each other
very much,
: single parents,
A friend of mine is a single mom; they live in a city co-op,
another one of those horrid social diseases of the sixties --
and are both very happy and nourished.
: drug addiction at record levels,
what with the discovery of beer and wine in '67,
: and on and on.
I'll say.
: Every time I here one of these leftovers
: from the 1960's it makes me ill.
Twinkies have a shelf life of seventy-five years.
: You selfish, 'me-first,
: if it feeels good, dammit, I am going to do it regardless
: of how it affects anyone else' children are a disgrace.
The accusation of choice for every political and philosophical
persuasion.
: Peace, love, dope. From every mountain side, let
: hedonism ring, brother.
I find "sir" to be a far more ludicrous appellation.
pardon me,
dave
Jeffrey Shallit
Karl Dussik <ka...@anasazi.com> wrote:
>In article <26m0gr$s...@suntan.eng.usf.edu> woo...@figment.tmc.edu
(Chris Woodard) writes:
>>
>>Hah! So the "activist liberal agenda" is responsible for the push for
>>Creationism as a "science" in the public schools, the wave of censorship
>>attempts sponsored by the religious right, and the other axes that are being
>>ground?
>>
>
>The only censorship in the schools since the 60's is censorship of any
>positive portrayal of the role of religion on this country's history.
This comment exhibits either a contempt for the truth or a vast
amount of ignorance--I don't know which.
Censorship in the schools is studied extensively by the American
Library Association (ALA), a non-partisan group. Each year they
publish "Banned Books Week", a publication listing efforts at censorship
in the schools.
This year's issue lists literally *hundreds* of censorship efforts.
And even a cursory glance at the listing will prove beyond a shadow
of a doubt that the vast majority of censorship efforts are from
the Religious Right. In fact, I'll just pick a page at random
from the 1993 edition, say page 13, and count:
Censorship by the religious right: 19
Censorship by the left: 0
Non-partisan censorship: 8
>Even the left-wing People for the American Way concede that.
People for the American Way is more centrist than left wing.
In any event, what they "concede" is that the role of religion in
the founding of the US has been underplayed in some school textbooks.
This is probably true, but does not necessarily constitute "censorship".
Evolution has also been underplayed in school textbooks, primarily because
textbook manufacturers have been bullied by the religious right. That
saddens me, but I wouldn't call that "censorship", either,
>That and
>censorship of traditional moral values. The fruits of this are being
>harvested today.
Please define "traditional moral values". I would have thought that
"truth" was a "traditional moral value"--why don't you adhere to it?
Actually, I think what is being "harvested" today is 12 years of neglect
of the cities, the poor, and the disadvantaged. (Not to mention 12
years of lies and contempt for the law by Republican administrations.)
>Let me state it differently. (Modern) Liberals believe in big government.
>Big government is bad. Liberals believe in bad things.
How wonderful it must be to have such a simplistic view of the world!
It must make decision-making a lot simpler for you. The rest of us,
however, are willing to examine the world more realistically.
>>
>>The reason I think of conservatism as rigid is because it *is* rigid. In its
>>reaction against the "liberal agenda", the purveyors of conservatism have
>>become strident and obnoxious (Pat Buchanan, John Sununu, George Will, Mona
>>Charen, Cal Thomas, and others).
>
>More than 50 years of being out of power and seeing everything you believe
>in undermined can do that to you.
Funny, I heard *exactly* the same sentiment expressed by neo-Nazis in
Germany just last week.
>Karl Dussik
>--
>You have to hand it to Bill Clinton - who ever thought anyone would make
>Richard (Tricky Dick) Nixon look like an honest man - much less a President?
Jeff Shallit
--
You don't have to be a foaming-at-the-mouth right winger to work for
Anasazi, Inc.
But it helps!
Herbert Rutledge
|> That is essentially what I said. Now tell me why he should be allowed to
|> view me naked...
Next time, try saltpeter.
--
_________________________________________________________________________
| | |
| Herbert Rutledge, aka Train | |
| Unisys Government Systems Group | "To post is human; to flame, divine." |
| Valley Forge Engineering Center | |
| P.O. Box 517, Paoli, PA 19301 | ---Alexander Pope |
| Internet: tr...@vfl.paramax.com | |
|_________________________________|_______________________________________|
Jim Halat
> In article <32...@ursa.bear.com> ha...@panther.bear.com (Jim Halat) writes:
> >Spencer PriceNash (spe...@montego.umcc.umich.edu) wrote:
> >
> > > >Yeah, I'm completely convinced that if he'd decked the guy for approaching
> > > >him in the shower, the entire gay community would have rallied around him and
> > > >applauded him for dealing with a stupid jerk.
> >
> >Do you advocate decking anybody who acts like a jerk or just a man
> >who comes on too strong to another man? What's wrong with saying,
> >No thanks?
> Whoa, Jim, I didn't write any of the above.
You are so right. Apologies.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
jim halat e-mail: ha...@bear.com
Jim Halat
> That is essentially what I said. Now tell me why he should be allowed to
> view me naked...
Because he has just as much of a right to be in a public shower as any
other man, and when you come right down to it, it is your hang-up and
not his. You have been in showers with gay men your whole life. The
only thing that is different now is that *you* are aware of it.
Herbert Rutledge
|> In article <0T6P0B...@unkaphaed.jpunix.com>,
|> William C. Barwell <po...@unkaphaed.jpunix.com> wrote:
|> >
|> > The Summer Of Love was a
|> >mighty sea change wasn't it? I hope for one soon when we are all tired
|> >to death of neoconservatives and the Reagan era and the Christian
|> >Coalition.
|>
|> I think the Summer of Love was a catastrophe for the less educated
|> and lower economic classes. It's one thing for a bright college
|> student with a support structure to get pregnant and raise a kid
|> on her own. It's something very different for a 17-year-old
|> lower middle class high school student, let alone an inner
|> city kid, to face the same thing.
Why do I get the feeling that Don McGregor wouldn't be able to tell
us *which* summer was the Summer of Love because he wasn't even alive
at the time?
|> Dan Quayle was right.
About what? Canals on Mars?
|> >I am heartened by noticing that college radio on the whole
|> >seems to be going in quite the opposite way than Rush Limbaugh. There is
|> >some hope.
|> >
|> Always been that way. Back in the heart of the Reagan days the
|> Clash, V. Femmes, X, and the rest were big.
Sorry to burst your bubble, Don, but these groups made it big while Jimmy
Carter, Jimmy Jimmy Carter, was president.
|> Reagan even had a great _soundtrack_ to his administration!
But don't hold your breath waiting for it to be released by K-Tel.
|> The guy
|> was amazing. I'm hoping they'll put him next to Lincoln on
|> Rushmore. Putting him next to Washington wouldn't give him
|> the proper prominence.
A juxtaposition with James Buchanan is probably more fitting. You guys
can harp on this Reagan on Mt. Rushmore theme all you like, but it ain't
gonna happen. Wanna know why? Much of the source material that will form
history's judgement of the man and his presidency will come from the flood-
tide of kiss 'n' tell books written by the members of his own administration.
Think about it - these books started coming out during his first term (Al
Haig), and have continued unabated until this day (George Schultz). There
simply is no parallel in American history for anything like it. You ought
to read 'em sometime. They paint a pretty uniform picture of Reagan. And
it ain't flattering.
|> --
|> Don McGregor | POOR IMPULSE CONTROL
And it's not getting any better.
Brian Mullaney
>Actually, I think what is being "harvested" today is 12 years of neglect
>of the cities, the poor, and the disadvantaged. (Not to mention 12
>years of lies and contempt for the law by Republican administrations.)
and Bill 'because he believes in it' will fix it, right?
with the money the fed gov't has spent in the cities, you would think
everything would be great right now.
Brian
--
Brian Mullaney | NRA N-SSA | Battery B, 1st NJLA
Internet:bmul...@ultrix.ramapo.edu, @njcc.wisdom.bubble.org
Chris Woodard
Because you're THUCH a thavage, Mike. No, really, you're getting all worked
up abou nothing. When I was an undergraduate, I went into the men's room to
take a leak. A man came up to the urinal next to me and started fondling
himself energetically. Rather than become flustered, or even noticing him
overtly, I finished what I was doing and left.
A truly secure heterosexual male will not find an advance by a homosexual to
be so threatening that they have to give a violent reaction. He will either
ignore the approach (as I did) or respond with a firm but polite, "No thanks,
I'm straight." The naked (sic) truth about the visceral reaction of a lot of
heterosexual males is that they're afraid they'll get aroused or flattered by
the attention (which is a perfectly normal human reaction). This threatens
them, and they respond out of all proportion to the actual event.
Sound like anyone we know? Hmmmm?
Chris Woodard
>is incorrect. Peoples thoughts and desires are not subject to the laws of
>physics which is why sociology, psychology, and political sciences are
>merely pseudo sciences.
>
Hmpfh! Applying chaos theory to social phenomena is a perfectly valid way of
analyzing human behavior. If you understood a little more about chaos, you'd
understand that one of its main points is the fundamental unpredictability of
nonlinear recursive systems with closed-form linear models. PLEASE don't lump
psychology in with sociology and political science, since psychologists at
least have an experimental methodology to work with. (At least the best ones
do ... I'm not talking about mail-order psychologists with MA's in counseling,
but real honest-to-god working scientists).
>
>>The only thing we've got control of is the way we react to events and other
>>people, and blaming our actions and reactions on someone else's actions is
>>often naive.
>
>Yet here we are reacting to one another :)
And your point is ... ?
>
>>Quantum mechanics governs the fundamental impossibility of full measurement of
>>a physical phenomenon, and chaos theory takes that essential imprecision and
>>extends it to destroy the idea of linear causality. As far as applying it to
>>Clinton's approach, it's far more applicable to Rush's show. There are no
>>rules, measurement (verification of facts) is intermittent and random, and
>>there is no real connection between the callers and reality.
>
>Now, now. I have to agree that Rush's show is not, nor is it intended to be,
>an academic excersize. However, he does indeed present facts and quotations
>to which he mentions sources etc. Obviously science is his weakest subject
>but in political/social subject he excels.
>
If you think that Rush is really good at political and social subjects, then I
see where you get your apparent contempt for psychology. Rush is a simpleton,
and he borrows most of his analyses from commentators who are more educated
than he. It's kind of like a sixth-grader who's managed to memorize an essay
on the central limit theorem explaining it to a roomful of relatives who never
graduated from junior high school. There very little originality, lots of
repetition and only (at best) very spotty understanding.
jeff wilder
|Todays neocons listened to classic rock. Tomorrow's liberals are
|listening to alternative music today. Negativland rules OK!
I beg your pardon--/I/ listen(ed) to classic rock, and I listen to some
alternative. Hasty generalization, Yer Eminence. :-)
--
==============================================================================
| Jeff W uk0...@ukpr.uky.edu | Meddle not in the affairs of cats, for they |
| Wilder & wil...@mik.uky.edu | are subtle, and will piss on your cyberdeck.|
==============================================================================
Herbert Rutledge
|> The naked (sic) truth about the visceral reaction of a lot of
|> heterosexual males is that they're afraid they'll get aroused or flattered by
|> the attention (which is a perfectly normal human reaction). This threatens
|> them, and they respond out of all proportion to the actual event.
|>
|> Sound like anyone we know? Hmmmm?
I guess that this goes to show that if you're going to do impressions,
Tucker Quayle is probably a bad choice.
Bill Anderson
: In article <26m0gr$s...@suntan.eng.usf.edu> woo...@figment.tmc.edu (Chris Woodard) writes:
: >
: >Hah! So the "activist liberal agenda" is responsible for the push for
: >Creationism as a "science" in the public schools, the wave of censorship
: >attempts sponsored by the religious right, and the other axes that are being
: >ground?
: >
:
: The only censorship in the schools since the 60's is censorship of any
: positive portrayal of the role of religion on this country's history.
: Even the left-wing People for the American Way concede that. That and
: censorship of traditional moral values. The fruits of this are being
People for the American Way concedes... what? That there is no
censorship in the schools, other than of religion? I doubt that,
since they would be obviously and unequivocally wrong. The
religious right spends an awful lot of time attmepting to get
certain books out of school libraries, and they are frequently
successful.
Bill
btw, I agree that the entirely justified removal of
government-sponsored prayer has led to a tendency to avoid
the issue of religion altogether in the public schools. This
is deplorable.
Mike Best
>[Interesting that I'm in the References: list, but my text is gone.]
apologies...
>>Your point is not germane, the issue is that I should not have my privacy
>>infringed by someone who found me attractive in the shower.
>
>Or a bathroom, or your car, or your private home. When such a thing
>happens, the issue is your privacy. I get the impression that shower
>you're speaking of wasn't as private as your car or your private home,
>though.
True, and I am not explaining this well...
What I can't get anyone to admit is that the same social reasons we have
separate showers for women should be applied to hetero and homosexual men.
My experience would be equivalent to a man/woman approaching another of
the opposite sex in their shower.
Mike Best
Frank Pittel
: sha...@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit) writes:
: >Actually, I think what is being "harvested" today is 12 years of neglect
: >of the cities, the poor, and the disadvantaged. (Not to mention 12
: >years of lies and contempt for the law by Republican administrations.)
: and Bill 'because he believes in it' will fix it, right?
: with the money the fed gov't has spent in the cities, you would think
: everything would be great right now.
Slick Willie will fix it because he feels your pain, and he cares
about you. Of course taxing the rich until they're poor will also go
along way towards helping the poor. I can't begin to tell you how much
better my life is because the rich are going to get their taxes
raised.
: Brian
: --
: Brian Mullaney | NRA N-SSA | Battery B, 1st NJLA
: Internet:bmul...@ultrix.ramapo.edu, @njcc.wisdom.bubble.org
--
-----------------------------------
Frank Pittel f...@fwpbbs.mcs.com
Paul Havemann
>Karl Dussik <ka...@anasazi.com> wrote:
>>woo...@figment.tmc.edu >(Chris Woodard) writes:
>>>
[...]
>Censorship in the schools is studied extensively by the American
>Library Association (ALA), a non-partisan group. Each year they
>publish "Banned Books Week", a publication listing efforts at censorship
>in the schools.
If they call themselves "non-partisan", one has cause to doubt it,
as seen below:
>This year's issue lists literally *hundreds* of censorship efforts.
>And even a cursory glance at the listing will prove beyond a shadow
>of a doubt that the vast majority of censorship efforts are from
>the Religious Right. In fact, I'll just pick a page at random
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>from the 1993 edition, say page 13, and count:
>
> Censorship by the religious right: 19
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Censorship by the left: 0
> Non-partisan censorship: 8
Hmmm. If this "cursory glance" resembles the wording of the report, I'd
say they forfeited any claim to a 'non-partisan' label. OTOH, if that's
_your_ special spin, you'd do well to admit as much. Certainly, you
wouldn't want to fog the issue and impeach a source... ;)
Too, for the benefit of those of us who have not seen the study, perhaps
an extract (verbatim?) of their definition of 'censorship' would be
instructive, too. Would it include, say, attempts to re-write the role
of Columbus from "explorer" to "genocidal slave-trading destroyer of
Paradise"?
>>Even the left-wing People for the American Way concede that.
>
>People for the American Way is more centrist than left wing.
>In any event, what they "concede" is that the role of religion in
>the founding of the US has been underplayed in some school textbooks.
>This is probably true, but does not necessarily constitute "censorship".
>
>Evolution has also been underplayed in school textbooks, primarily because
>textbook manufacturers have been bullied by the religious right. That
>saddens me, but I wouldn't call that "censorship", either,
Though, again, it would depend upon one's definition.
>Actually, I think what is being "harvested" today is 12 years of neglect
>of the cities, the poor, and the disadvantaged. (Not to mention 12
>years of lies and contempt for the law by Republican administrations.)
Does "neglect" equate to "slashed spending on education"?
>>Let me state it differently. (Modern) Liberals believe in big government.
>>Big government is bad. Liberals believe in bad things.
>
>How wonderful it must be to have such a simplistic view of the world!
>It must make decision-making a lot simpler for you. The rest of us,
>however, are willing to examine the world more realistically.
Yep, you'll be tripped up every time by such simplistic thinking.
Case in point:
>>>The reason I think of conservatism as rigid is because it *is* rigid. In its
>>>reaction against the "liberal agenda", the purveyors of conservatism have
>>>become strident and obnoxious (Pat Buchanan, John Sununu, George Will, Mona
>>>Charen, Cal Thomas, and others).
>>
>>More than 50 years of being out of power and seeing everything you believe
>>in undermined can do that to you.
>
>Funny, I heard *exactly* the same sentiment expressed by neo-Nazis in
>Germany just last week.
Yep: another example of simplistic thinking.
How quickly one can move into one's very own glass house!
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Paul Havemann (pa...@hsh.com) Resident Cynic; part-time ship's cook
"If you think the problem is bad _now_, just wait
'til we've solved it." -- Arthur Kasspe
Dan Day
>> In any case, don't your hypothetical stereotypical liberals want
>> people to have sex-ed classes so that they'll know the risks of sex,
>> and act accordingly, and to be able to reduce that risk with
>> abstinence, non-insertion sex, condoms, and birth control? Isn't
>> this encouraging individual responsibility for their actions?
>
>No, they don't! There's not a "hypothetical liberal" who wants this!
Not one?? What planet do *you* live on?
>(a) "Abstinence is morally and politically incorrect, naive and damaging
>to our youth; it's the conservatives trying to trick our youths into thinking
>sex is bad for them" - Planned Parenthood;
I'd love to see this in context, but I guess that's too much to
ask, isn't it? If, as I believe is the case, this is speaking of
preaching abstinence in the absence of additional factual information
about sex, I think this remark is on the money. Whenever I've
heard "liberals" griping about teaching abstinence, it's not that
they mind the virtues of abstinence being taught, it's that they
object to "teaching abstinence (alone) is the only answer".
And yes, there really are conservative groups who want just that,
with *no* other sex education. I even heard a suggestion on the
radio here a few months ago from a woman who wanted the teaching
of abstinence dropped also, on the grounds that *any* talk about
sex to teenagers encouraged them to go out and experiment!
>(b) "reduced risk" is not "safe",
>but that's what we teach kids anyways; "Practice safe sex; use a condom";
>the liberal lie!
Who's "we" in this sentence? Sex education should include information
on all aspects of sexuality (abstinence included), and the risks
and consequences involved, and instruction in the proper use and
failure rates of condoms and other birth control devices. Most
programs do indeed do all this, although it's hard to fit it on
a twenty-second public service commercial or a pamphlet or a
billboard. There, at least you can encourage people who aren't
using *any* precautions to improve their chances.
>You think that telling kids -- who, by all respects in this country, cannot
>make any legal decisions for themselves -- that sex is "okay as long as
>you wear a condom" is dangerous, stupid and an outright lie. Instead,
>we should teach them not to have sex. Is this view naive? Only you
>think so.
Now this is interesting. I haven't made any comments about what
I think about teaching abstinence. The post you're responding to
was one in which I took issue with overgeneralizations and silly
stereotypes. In fact, I did mention abstinence, but in the context
of a viable way to avoid the risks of sex (see the passage you quoted
from me above). I suggest that your anti-liberal slavering is getting
in the way of your critical faculties.
>Tell them, "Listen, the HIV virus is orders of magnitude smaller
>than the pores on a condom, not to mention the 20% condom failure rate.
>Would you get into a car if you knew that one out of every five times you
>did you'd get into an accident?
If you had had better sex education yourself, you wouldn't make silly
statements like this. The failure rate of condoms is not measured
per use. I forget the exact statistical measurement, but it's
something like X% failure *per year* of average use. Also, sex ed
classes teach the proper use of a condom, since failures occur almost
exclusively due to improper use.
>Safe sex is a lie, and the truth is,
>with or without a condom, having sex CAN KILL YOU." As adults in this
>world, it's our responsibility not to LIE to our children and say, "oh
>well, kids will be kids."
"Kids will be kids" isn't a philosophy, it's a fact of life.
What would *you* suggest we do, given the fact that regardless
of all the abstinence preaching in the world, vast numbers of
teenagers are going to have sex anyway? At least some of us
are pragmatic enough to make sure some of them don't die in the
process, or get pregnant unnecessarily.
I went to high school in a town where the private Catholic school was
larger (by about 20%) than the public school. The public school
had a decent sex ed class, with no preaching for abstinence (this
was before AIDS). The Catholic school had no sex ed, but constantly
drilled the kids in abstinence until marriage, and added a layer
of "God will be displeased" on top of that. How do you account
for the fact that substantially more of the Catholic students
became pregnant than students in the public school?
>His wording was bad. Abortions are birth control for 97% of this
>country.
I'd love to see this number substantiated. Go for it, I'll wait.
First, though, you'll have to tell us exactly what you mean by
"are birth control for 97% of this country". 97% of women
have had an abortion? Nah. 97% of the country has unprotected
sex until they become pregnant, then have an abortion? I don't
think so. 97% of women will have an abortion if their birth
control fails? That's silly too. Hmmm. Maybe you just *made
up* a number? Now *that* I can believe.
>We tell people -- just like we tell kids -- go ahead, have
>sex ... we'll abort the baby if you don't want it. Don't you worry
>about any sort of responsibility for having sex.
Yeah, like a surgical procedure and X hundred dollars isn't
a consequence worth considering... You're a paternal,
condescending bastard, aren't you? You see everyone as
either dangerously irresponsible or hopelessly incapable of
making rational decisions. Try actually *talking* to people
sometime, and listen to them without trying to interpret
everything as the result of a single-digit IQ.
>> Oh, by the way, conservatives have abortions too.
>
>So? Does this make it magically okay? My view has nothing to do with
>conservative or liberal, except for the fact that -- for the most part --
>liberals advocate and conservatives condemn abortions.
Well, I was responding to Mike Best, and my comment was relevant in
that context, which you deleted. He gave his opinion that liberals
cop out on responsibilities with abortions, so I just pointed out
that conservatives seem to do the same thing. I was curious to
hear how he rationalized that one.
Even your statement is a bit ludicrous -- it may be accurate, but
only marginally, unless you automatically label everyone who
believes abortion should be legal "liberal" and everyone who
opposes it "conservative". My point is that there is a very wide
range of views on both sides of the political spectrum, and
the label "liberal" or "conservative" is so broad as to be nearly
meaningless -- certainly so when making statements like "liberals
do this" or "conservatives believe that".
>Then why don't people take responsibility when excercising their right?
>They have sex, make a child, and responsibility comes into the picture.
Most do, except in your view of the world as full of irresponsible
children.
>>>Would you for a moment not dodge the question and answer for us all
>>>whether you agree that rights and responsibilities are tied together?
>>
>> I don't know of anyone who doesn't.
>
>1.5 million times per year people don't.
1.5 million people don't what? Gosh, have they actually had
studies on how many people per year don't agree that rights and
responsibilities are tied together? What are you counting?
>> Only thick-headed narrow-minded people (and you
>> know who you are) see this as a sign of wild irresponsible hedonism,
>> instead of the honest differences in beliefs that it is.
>
>Damaging your credibility with stupid name calling belittles this issue.
>Get your fists out of the mud.
What's the matter, did you feel included in the category or something?
Other than the pejorative adjectives, do you disagree with my
statement that these are honest differences in beliefs, and that
it takes a narrow-minded person to dismiss such as wild hedonism?
Bob Smart
Best) writes:
> In article <1993Sep10.0...@ttinews.tti.com>
bsm...@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart) writes:
> >
> >(I know it's unlikely, but it might
> >happen occasionally that a straight man would choose to decline sex), is
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> As a straight and married male I find this comment unwarranted.
Oh, write and tell my mama.
> Your point is not germane, the issue is that I should not have my privacy
> infringed by someone who found me attractive in the shower.
No, you sterling example of the flower of manhood--the ISSUE is whether
a punch in the face is an appropriate response to an initial overture.
You don't have "privacy" in a public shower--that's why they're called
"public" showers.
If it's appropriate for a straight man to resort to violence at the
first invitation, then presumably it's also quite proper for women to
"deck" pushy men (or perhaps shoot them, if there's too great a
disparity in physical strength?) in defense of their "privacy." "Gee,
Cindy, I'd really like to buy you a drink, sometime." "PIG! <Blam!>"
My, what a charming world you wish to inhabit.
I know you'd rather change the subject, but the simple fact is that
sexual violence and exploitation are much more prevalent among straight
men than in any other population. Is that why you're so afraid of women
and gays? Are you secretly terrified that, given half a chance, we'll
all resort to behaving just as badly as your kind do?
> I do not
> have access to the women's showers and the same reasoning should apply
> homosexuals having access to the men's showers. If you disagree with
> this then you must also argue that heterosexual men should have access
> to the women's showers or the integrity of your argument would fail.
Are you telling us that it's necessary to segregate straight boys in
separate showers because they can't or won't control their peckers?
Foolish me, I thought a shower was for getting clean, not for getting
"access" to anything besides soap and water.
---------
A fanatic is someone who does what he knows that God would do if God knew the
facts of the case.
Some mailers apparently munge my address; you might have to use
bsm...@bsmart.tti.com -- or if that fails, fall back to
72027...@compuserve.com. Ain't UNIX grand?
Bob Smart
Best) writes:
>
> Now tell me why he should be allowed to view me naked...
First, tell me why you think anyone is particularly INTERESTED in
viewing you, naked or otherwise. Could it be that gay guys in the
shower might be there for reasons of personal hygiene, not related to
the fabulous, once-in-a-lifetime chance for a glimpse of the utterly
unremarkable?
Bob Smart
nithman) writes:
> In article <1993Sep10...@anasazi.com>,
> Mike Best <be...@anasazi.com> wrote:
> >
> >That is essentially what I said. Now tell me why he should be allowed to
> >view me naked...
> >
> >Mike Best
>
> Who's making you go to a public shower?
My guess: it's his Evil Serpent of Temptation, calling to him, cajoling
him to stand there soaping and soaping that special, unspeakable place,
over and over again until his feet are wrinkled and his nipples are raw.
"Go to the showers, you bad boy!" commands his tiny, hideous Staff of
Satan, "Show them all what a dirty boy you are!" And so he washes and
washes, blushing all the while with shame and excitement while an
endless parade of disinterested strangers file in and out.
It could be worse. At least this exhibitionistic little fantasy doesn't
seem to involve anyone climbing a tower with a rifle. Whether it
actually involves Mr. Best, of course, is purely a matter of conjecture.
valin...@hal.hahnemann.edu
>>Or a bathroom, or your car, or your private home. When such a thing
>>happens, the issue is your privacy. I get the impression that shower
>>you're speaking of wasn't as private as your car or your private home,
>>though.
>
>True, and I am not explaining this well...
>
>What I can't get anyone to admit is that the same social reasons we have
>separate showers for women should be applied to hetero and homosexual men.
>My experience would be equivalent to a man/woman approaching another of
>the opposite sex in their shower.
Mike, I get your point. While it could be flattering to have someone
find you attractive, it could also be disturbing to be approached. There
are important issues here... you're using this argument to
suggest that gays don't have a right to your space first off...
While I missed the earlier thread, I would suggest that gays have
always shared that space with you (I was a cop for years before
doing an about face into medicine and I know I spent alot of time in
the showers with heterosexual men, many of which knew full well
I was gay... you're not my friend if I have to lie to keep you...
but I digress) and have been since you started to shower in public places.
The compromise should have focused on the rights of all people to
be who they are. The government forces people to live lies, it forces
people to play a charade. It doesn't matter if the soldier can keep
a secret... just don't inconvenience US with the truth. <sigh>
IMHO, it would be fine for the government to build new shower facilities
but then you'll get the opposition carrying banners with dollar signs on
them, "Them Queer Showers Is Too Expensive".
Fact is that even if you built those special showers, few men would use
them as there would still be bias against those individuals. As the
"compromise (make me puke blood)" stands, you'll be standing next to
the queers in the shower still... they just won't tell you that they're
there.
+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+
\ John Valincius III % Don't JUST bitch about it.
/\ valin...@hal.hahnemann.edu % "To laugh often and much..." Emerson
/ \ braw...@aol.com % Hawaii.. SAME SEX MARRIAGES! YEA!
HOMO POB 421, Eagleville, PA 19408 % Practice random acts of kindness.
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
Chris Woodard
>In article <26m0gr$s...@suntan.eng.usf.edu> woo...@figment.tmc.edu (Chris Woodard) writes:
>>
>>Hah! So the "activist liberal agenda" is responsible for the push for
>>Creationism as a "science" in the public schools, the wave of censorship
>>attempts sponsored by the religious right, and the other axes that are being
>>ground?
>>
>
>The only censorship in the schools since the 60's is censorship of any
>positive portrayal of the role of religion on this country's history.
>censorship of traditional moral values. The fruits of this are being
>
Please supply me with a quote on that, with a source.
>>
>>This is pretty clever. This forum and the RL show are the only place that
>>I've seen implicit circular reasoning. The tautology seems to go like this:
>>
>>1) Liberals are bad because they believe in large government.
>>2) How can you tell a liberal? They believe in large government.
>>
>
>Let me state it differently. (Modern) Liberals believe in big government.
>Big government is bad. Liberals believe in bad things.
What defines "big"? Do all modern liberals believe in big government? Does
the (unsupported) assertion that liberals believe in one bad thing imply that
they all believe in multiple bad things? If I had handed my undergraduate
logic professor a syllogism like that, he'd have laughed me out of the
classroom.
>
>>
>>The reason I think of conservatism as rigid is because it *is* rigid. In its
>>reaction against the "liberal agenda", the purveyors of conservatism have
>>become strident and obnoxious (Pat Buchanan, John Sununu, George Will, Mona
>>Charen, Cal Thomas, and others).
>
>More than 50 years of being out of power and seeing everything you believe
>in undermined can do that to you.
>
More than fifty years? The conservatives have been out of power since
Eisenhower, and were out of power during the Nixon and Reagan years? That
must mean that Ike and Tricky Dick and Raygun Ronnie were ... l-l-liberals!
Oh, woe is me!
>Karl Dussik
>--
>You have to hand it to Bill Clinton - who ever thought anyone would make
>Richard (Tricky Dick) Nixon look like an honest man - much less a President?
Actually, the honor for this achievement goes to Ronald Reagan.