Brent Spiner - Republican
John P. LaRocque
today, there's an interview with Brent Spiner (Lt. Cmdr. Data).
Looks like he wants to follow other professional entertainers
(Fred "Love Boat" Grandy, Sonny Bono) as a Republican politician!
Here's a portion of the interview:
"Right now, really, I haven't decided whether to continue as
an actor or to run for Congress... My feelings about politics
is that people tend to vote for who they know. I come from
Texas and the people who are running for Congress I don't think
anybody has ever heard of, so i think I've got a pretty good shot.
Spiner is told by the interviewer that George Takei (Hikaru Sulu
of the "classic Trek") has made forays into politics as a Democrat.
"Well, if after Congress, I ever run for President, George will
*definitely* not be my running mate. I'll be happy to give his
number to be my opponent."
Let's here it for President Data! Make it so!
--
|----\___ John P. LaRocque (lar...@gaul.csd.uwo.ca)
********]|-----|___\__________
********]|_______>___________/ "There are those who believe
|_____ / that life here began out there..."
--
|----\___ John P. LaRocque (lar...@gaul.csd.uwo.ca)
********]|-----|___\__________
********]|_______>___________/ "There are those who believe
|_____ / that life here began out there..."
Jennifer Basil
Nah...Spiner's a Democrat...campaigned for Clinton and talks about being
raised with 'good ole fashioned liberal values'.
Jenny
--
Jennifer Basil (ba...@bio.bu.edu) Has angst, will travel.
Soy milk is PEOPLE!! Peeeeeeeeeeepuuuuuuuuuuuuhllll!!
Lukas Hauser
wrote:
> Nah...Spiner's a Democrat...campaigned for Clinton and talks about being
> raised with 'good ole fashioned liberal values'.
He was just joking about that Takei thing... I've read the "good ol
fashioned *liberal* values" too.
Sorry, all you Limbaugh fans, Trek is liberal show with a socialist captain
and a liberal second officer.
(I wouldn't be surprised if Sirtis and Dorn were conservative, though.)
--
__________________________________________________________________________
Lukas Hauser || "We must strive to be more than we are.
Brown University '98 || It does not matter if we reach our
|| ultimate goal. The effort yields its
beast...@brown.edu || own rewards."
Luk...@aol.com || -- Data
Lukas_...@brown.edu ||
Jamie Plummer
subtle (eg TOS Vietnam/Klingon episode). The ones where the
liberal worldview is blatant I find preachy and poorly done (eg
Greenhouse/warp corridor and gay rights/Riker loves androgynous
alien eps of TNG). I haven't seen every episode of either
series, but I do consider myself a fan.
>with a socialist captain and a liberal second officer.
Picard & Riker or Kirk & Spock or Stewart & Frakes or Shatner &
Nimoy? where did you get this from?
> (I wouldn't be surprised if Sirtis and Dorn were conservative, though.)
why not? what makes you think this?
--
"more cunning than a fox appointed Professor of Cunning at Oxford University"
n26 e36 m41 br109 lbi30 ACU100 prop187 SW4] Jamie Plummer
I am not a MSTie number, I am a free man! ] jc...@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU
Speaker Gingrich: Deal with it, pinko boy.] Push the button... someone :(
Dixie L. Peterson
lar...@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (John P. LaRocque) writes:
> In Starlog's "Star Trek: Generations" magazine, which I bought
> today, there's an interview with Brent Spiner (Lt. Cmdr. Data).
> Looks like he wants to follow other professional entertainers
> (Fred "Love Boat" Grandy, Sonny Bono) as a Republican politician!
Brent was clearly kidding in this interview. Will Rogers used to be
fond of saying, "I'm a member of no organized political party. I'm a
Democrat." He was kidding, too.
Dixie
Balaji
^^^^^
>You misspelled 'totalitarian'.
You misspelled Dork.
--
Balaji
To see the beauty of Laila, requires the eyes of Majnu.
Janis Maria C. C. Cortese
>br...@freenet3.scri.fsu.edu (Brian Gallagher) writes:
> ^^^^^
>
>>You misspelled 'totalitarian'.
>
>You misspelled Dork.
>--
>Balaji
You misspelled "jackass who forgets to edit his damned newsgroups line."
Like I CARE about your little tete-a-tete.
Regards,
Janis the net.proud.hussy
Janis Cortese || President and Founder: SEFEB, and The ||
cor...@netcom.com || Society of People Who Would Love to ||
Net Loudmouthed Bitchy || Shove a Stick Up Rush Limbaugh's Ass; ||
Renaissance Woman and || and Member of The Star Fleet Ladies' ||
General All-Around Hussy || Auxiliary and Embroidery/Baking Society ||
=====================================================================||
I used to be a bitch and just thought it was my problem. ||
Now, I've learned to make it everyone else's problem, too. ||
======================== Zbovyvf va Zbovyr! =========================||
Brian Gallagher
: In article <3a0mr1$3...@news.bu.edu>, ba...@bio.bu.edu (Jennifer Basil)
: wrote:
: > Nah...Spiner's a Democrat...campaigned for Clinton and talks about being
: > raised with 'good ole fashioned liberal values'.
: He was just joking about that Takei thing... I've read the "good ol
: fashioned *liberal* values" too.
: Sorry, all you Limbaugh fans, Trek is liberal show with a socialist captain
: and a liberal second officer. ^^^^^^^^^
You misspelled 'totalitarian'.
--
[|( | |[|) (martes pennanti) [ br...@freenet.scri.fsu.edu ]
|| )|~|[|\
"Grant us the luxury, 'cause all our heroes are bastards
Grant us the luxury, 'cause all our heroes are thieves."
Binesh Bannerjee
: In article <balaji.7...@nexus.yorku.ca> bal...@nexus.yorku.ca (Balaji) writes:
: >br...@freenet3.scri.fsu.edu (Brian Gallagher) writes:
: > ^^^^^
: >
: >>You misspelled 'totalitarian'.
: >
: >You misspelled Dork.
: >--
: >Balaji
: ^^^^^^
: You misspelled "jackass who forgets to edit his damned newsgroups line."
: Like I CARE about your little tete-a-tete.
: Regards,
: Janis the net.proud.hussy
^^^^^
You misspelled "bitch who doesn't realize that on netnews, the prevailing
theme is if you don't CARE about the little tete-a-tete then move the fuck
on... that's what N is for..."
Binesh
: Janis Cortese || President and Founder: SEFEB, and The ||
: cor...@netcom.com || Society of People Who Would Love to ||
: Net Loudmouthed Bitchy || Shove a Stick Up Rush Limbaugh's Ass; ||
: Renaissance Woman and || and Member of The Star Fleet Ladies' ||
: General All-Around Hussy || Auxiliary and Embroidery/Baking Society ||
: =====================================================================||
: I used to be a bitch and just thought it was my problem. ||
: Now, I've learned to make it everyone else's problem, too. ||
: ======================== Zbovyvf va Zbovyr! =========================||
--
* Will sit by a pool and relax and have fun for money. *
Hey... it's going to work someday...
Balaji
>In article <balaji.7...@nexus.yorku.ca> bal...@nexus.yorku.ca (Balaji) writes:
>>br...@freenet3.scri.fsu.edu (Brian Gallagher) writes:
>> ^^^^^
>>
>>>You misspelled 'totalitarian'.
>>
>>You misspelled Dork.
>>--
>>Balaji
> ^^^^^^
>You misspelled "jackass who forgets to edit his damned newsgroups line."
>Like I CARE about your little tete-a-tete.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You misspelled "I'm so busy putting on my hussy face that I forgot I
didn't need to read a thread that's off-topic."
>Regards,
>Janis the net.proud.hussy
Lloyd Sargent
>Lukas Hauser (Lukas_...@brown.edu) wrote:
>: In article <3a0mr1$3...@news.bu.edu>, ba...@bio.bu.edu (Jennifer Basil)
>: wrote:
>: > Nah...Spiner's a Democrat...campaigned for Clinton and talks about
being
>: > raised with 'good ole fashioned liberal values'.
>
>: He was just joking about that Takei thing... I've read the "good ol
>: fashioned *liberal* values" too.
>
>: Sorry, all you Limbaugh fans, Trek is liberal show with a socialist
captain
>
> You misspelled 'totalitarian'.
You misspelled 'communist pinko'.
Lloyd
"Left is my favorite direction!"
Todd Vaziri
You guys are all nuts.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| Todd Vaziri tva...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu |
| |
| "Your mother wears very expensive combat boots." |
| *Mash* |
| |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
George Washington
Lukas_...@brown.edu (Lukas Hauser) wrote:
> In article <3a0mr1$3...@news.bu.edu>, ba...@bio.bu.edu (Jennifer Basil)
> wrote:
>
> > Nah...Spiner's a Democrat...campaigned for Clinton and talks about being
> > raised with 'good ole fashioned liberal values'.
>
> He was just joking about that Takei thing... I've read the "good ol
> fashioned *liberal* values" too.
>
> Sorry, all you Limbaugh fans, Trek is liberal show with a socialist captain
> and a liberal second officer.
>
> (I wouldn't be surprised if Sirtis and Dorn were conservative, though.)
> --
Picard a socialist? Socialists believe in not individuality but
collectivism. See "Measure of a man" or "I, Borg"... Picard is an
individual who can work in a team, not a socialist.
And Brent (Not Data, though Data's character shows strong traits of
individuality in several shows) can be whatever alignment he wishes to be
politically. It's cool that he is a Republican. If he wishes a political
career later in life, as he has obvious presence and intellignece to make
it in the field, that's his choice. All the better for him (And if he wins,
all the better for his constituency.)
Jon Knight
Socialism does not preclude individuality. Maybe extreme communism
does. Are all conservatives nazis?
llj
__
Condome - Unicon 16. July 14-16th 1995. New Hall, Cambridge, UK.
E-mail...@cam.ac.uk This space is vacuous
WWW: http://myrddin.chu.cam.ac.uk/condome/ unlike this post.
Kyle Smith
>
>Socialism does not preclude individuality. Maybe extreme communism
>does. Are all conservatives nazis?
>
Yes. Just listen to them. Er, is this a trick question?
Kyle
Pete.Ramsden
>From: george_w...@washcoll.edu (George Washington)
>Subject: Re: Brent Spiner - Republican
>Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 04:47:25 +0500
i don't even know who brent spiner is.
aceman
David N. Triglianos
>> Sorry, all you Limbaugh fans, Trek is liberal show
Who cares? Almost every TV show on the air is made by liberals and have
liberal overtones. So what? No big news here.
>>with a socialist captain and a liberal second officer
>Picard & Riker or Kirk & Spock or Stewart & Frakes
or Shatner &>Nimoy? where did you get this from?
Patrick Stewart is a flaming liberal. I would expect Frakes to be liberal, as
are almost all mediocre actors. (Yes he is - don't flame on this) Again, who
cares?
- dave trig
Eugene P. Glover
> Is this person insane? Not only does socialism preclude individuality, it
> REQUIRES that individuality be sacrificed. The whole idea is to think of
> yourself was part of a mob, not an individual.
>
> Are all conservatives nazis? I don't think that's possible, since Nazism is
> based on socialism. Thus the term "National Socialism" from which "Nazi" is
> derived.
It was just low-brow humour, I'm sure.
David N. Triglianos
>>Socialism does not preclude individuality. Maybe extreme communism
>>does. Are all conservatives nazis?
>>
Is this person insane? Not only does socialism preclude individuality, it
- dt
Jon Knight
Triglianos) writes:
>
>>>Socialism does not preclude individuality. Maybe extreme communism
>>>does. Are all conservatives nazis?
>>>
>
>Is this person insane? Not only does socialism preclude individuality,
>it
Not at the moment, though I may have been.
>REQUIRES that individuality be sacrificed. The whole idea is to think
>of
>yourself was part of a mob, not an individual.
>
>Are all conservatives nazis? I don't think that's possible, since
>Nazism is
>based on socialism. Thus the term "National Socialism" from which
>"Nazi" is
>derived.
What is it in the american pysche that causes it to deal so much in
black and white, and really not appreciate that there may be subtle
shades of grey.
Arthur F. Mcgrath-Iii
: >> > Nah...Spiner's a Democrat...campaigned for Clinton and talks about
: >being
: >> > raised with 'good ole fashioned liberal values'.
Isn't liberal and values in the same sentence contradictory? ;-)
: >>
: >> He was just joking about that Takei thing... I've read the "good ol
: >> fashioned *liberal* values" too.
: >>
: >> Sorry, all you Limbaugh fans, Trek is liberal show with a socialist
: >captain
: >> and a liberal second officer.
: >>
: >> (I wouldn't be surprised if Sirtis and Dorn were conservative,
: >though.)
Do you mean the characters or the actors? If you mean the characters I
don't see how a touchy-feely politically correct counsellor could qualify
as conservative.
Star Trek a liberal show? Well, yes, though the new show much more so than
the old show. As for the captains and first officers, the philosophies that
Kirk and Spock espouse (and it seems the societies they came from) are more
individualistic and concerned with individual freedom and responsibility
than the Picard/Riker pair and the society that built the late ;-) ;-) U.S.S
Enterpise-D. The new series lost something when it became overtly
preachy.
: >> --
: >
: >Picard a socialist? Socialists believe in not individuality but
: >collectivism. See "Measure of a man" or "I, Borg"... Picard is an
: >individual who can work in a team, not a socialist.
: Socialism does not preclude individuality. Maybe extreme communism
: does. Are all conservatives nazis?
No, how could they be? The Nazis were socialists, if you recall.
Conservatism, at least in the U.S. is a philosophy of
individuality and small government.
Arthur F. Mcgrath-Iii
: In article <george_washington-171194044725@rh_cullen_133.washcoll.edu>,
Arthur F. Mcgrath-Iii
Distribution:
Jon Knight (jm...@cus.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
: >REQUIRES that individuality be sacrificed. The whole idea is to think
: >of
: >yourself was part of a mob, not an individual.
: >
: >Are all conservatives nazis? I don't think that's possible, since
: >Nazism is
: >based on socialism. Thus the term "National Socialism" from which
: >"Nazi" is
: >derived.
: What is it in the american pysche that causes it to deal so much in
: black and white, and really not appreciate that there may be subtle
: shades of grey.
To see those subtle shades of grey means that one knows what is black and
what is white. To point out the base essence of socialism is not a
problem in the "American" psyche.
This is really off track now, I thought we were discussing how Trek
reflects various philosophies, or it seemed that's where we were heading
after the debate about Spiner/"Data."
Nadia Dez
: >>Socialism does not preclude individuality. Maybe extreme communism
: >>does. Are all conservatives nazis?
: >>
: Is this person insane? Not only does socialism preclude individuality, it
: REQUIRES that individuality be sacrificed. The whole idea is to think of
: yourself was part of a mob, not an individual.
Since almost all European countries have something that
looks like socialism, do you mean they all are drones ;
take your US prejudice and stick it in your butt...
MICHAEL E GIBSON
: i don't even know who brent spiner is.
: aceman
Are you in the wrong group, this is rec.arts.startrek.*? Or are you one
of those people that thinks that asks questions like, "What is it like to
be beamed?" at cons, and think that Trek is reality?
--
/// C= Amiga | Mike Gibson
/// The Computer for the Creative Mind | gib...@eng.utah.edu
\\\/// Home of the Video Toaster | UofU Marching Band (Tenor Sax)
\XX/ And the 1st Multimedia Computer | Trekkie Extraordinaire
Kyle Smith
>Pete.Ramsden (Rams...@micr.unp.ac.za) wrote:
>: i don't even know who brent spiner is.
>: aceman
>
>
>Are you in the wrong group, this is rec.arts.startrek.*? Or are you one
>of those people that thinks that asks questions like, "What is it like to
>be beamed?" at cons, and think that Trek is reality?
>
Perhaps a better response would have been:
"I don't even care who Brent Spiner is."
That would describe my feelings adequately. As long as he plays a good
Commander Ryker, I don't care who he votes for.
Kyle
Maelstrom
: You guys are all nuts.
Isecondthat!
cris
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
L'etat c'est moi! Je pisse sur les droites d'homme!
I may not agree with what you have to say but I will do everything in my
power to defend your right to say it. -Indirectly quoted from Voltaire
How are you?Ni hao ma? Comment ca va? Cristobal Cardona
Come stai? Como estas? Mit{ kuuluu? ccar...@mail.sas.upenn.edu
Wie geht's? Annyong haseyo? Nasilsin? "Mael, Altaic"
Teah sagh tuku sed guille? Li ho-boh? Hvordan g{r det? Hoe gaat het met U?
Hvordan har de det?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Maelstrom
: In article <Lukas_Hauser...@poncho-slip16.cis.brown.edu>,
: Lukas_...@brown.edu (Lukas Hauser) wrote:
Are androids allowed to vote?
Stephen Notley
: Picard a socialist? Socialists believe in not individuality but
: collectivism. See "Measure of a man" or "I, Borg"... Picard is an
: individual who can work in a team, not a socialist.
That is socialism, the belief that individuals benefit from the
recognition of collective obligation and virtue.
Which makes it all the more ironic is that while "I, Borg" preaches about
the value of being an individual, what actually *happens?* Hugh goes back
to the Borg, essentially sacrificing himself for the greater good. A
*collective* virtue. I was impressed with the implicit statement of
collective virtue even as I was irritated at the narrowness of the
explicit statement of individual virtue.
For an episode widely attacked for pussifying the Borg, it's one of the
most complex things they've ever done-- perhaps even more complex than
they know or intended.
Stephen
sno...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
"Yeah, well, I'm not too thrilled about my User ID either..."
John R. Jorgensen
Are you trying to be funny, or are you just an ignoramus?
Jim_...@transarc.com
> >>does. Are all conservatives nazis?
> >>
>
> Is this person insane? Not only does socialism preclude individuality, it
> REQUIRES that individuality be sacrificed. The whole idea is to think of
> yourself was part of a mob, not an individual.
You are confusing socialism with communism. They are not the same
thing. The vast majority of socialists no more believe that
individuality must be sacrificed to the mob than the vast majority of
capitalists believe that the poor should be ground up to make
crackers.
(Note that I don't necessarily agree with either, but if you
are going to argue with a philosophy, you should at least no the
basics of what that philosophy stands for.)
>
> Are all conservatives nazis? I don't think that's possible, since Nazism is
> based on socialism. Thus the term "National Socialism" from which "Nazi" is
> derived.
Sorry, but you are wrong. Just because the Nazis used "socialist" as
part of the party name, does not mean that they were in any way
socialists.
******************************************************************
Jim Mann jm...@transarc.com
Transarc Corporation
The Gulf Tower, 707 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 338-4442
WWW Homepage:
file://grand.central.org/afs/transarc.com/public/jmann/html/Home.html
Football players, somewhere back in their phylogenic development,
learned how to talk like football coaches. ("Our goals this week were
to contain Dickerson and control the line of scrimmage.") Baseball
players say things like, "This pitcher's so bad that when he comes in,
the grounds crew drags the warning track."
-- Tom Boswell, "99 Reasons Why Baseball Is Better than Football"
Iain McKay (PhD Research)
>
> >>Socialism does not preclude individuality. Maybe extreme communism
> >>does. Are all conservatives nazis?
> >>
>
> Is this person insane? Not only does socialism preclude individuality, it
> REQUIRES that individuality be sacrificed. The whole idea is to think of
> yourself was part of a mob, not an individual.
>
According to who? Rand? Look at, for example, Bakunin or Kropotkin both
anarchist socialists who considered that socialism would lead to more
individuality than capitalism.
How, exactly, can people develop their individuality if they have to work
8+ hours aday doing boring jobs, being told what to do by a boss?
Socialism is about individuality plus solidarity. Its about not scarificing
yourself or your individuality to the mindless competition of capitalism
or the hierarchy associated with it.
However, if like Rand, you define the ideas you claim to attack, then I can
see your point. Unfortunately reality is somewhat different.
> Are all conservatives nazis? I don't think that's possible, since Nazism is
> based on socialism. Thus the term "National Socialism" from which "Nazi" is
> derived.
In that case why did US capitalists increase their investment in that country?
Why did the Nazis not get rid of the wages system?
Why did the rich get richer and the poor poorer under the Nazis?
The fact is that Hilter used the term "socialist" in order to get power. This
was due to the size of the socialist movement in Germany before and directly
after the war. Simple as that.
All across the world right wingers supported the Nazis. No socialists ever did.
For obvious reasons, the Nazis were not socialists, or could claim to be
socialists (unlike the dictatorship in Russia which fooled so many people
with its claim to be socialist - although it never fooled the anarchists, eg
Goldman and Berkman).
Iain
Christopher John Davison
: In article <1994Nov18....@midway.uchicago.edu>,
The far right of the political spectrum is fascism. Fascist
groups throughout history include the Nazis, Mussolini's
government and the Reform Party of Canada. The far left does not
exist anywhere in its original intended form. True communism
gives the government control of distributing wealth, etc, with
the goal being to have equal amounts of material goods and
freedom for all citizens(communal living.) Marx and Engels failed
to notice that people are self-serving and greedy when they
formulated their utopian ideas. "Communist" and "socialist"
governments everywhere took control of distributing wealth, etc,
but didn't exactly get around to handing out the money(e.g. look
at China's Shenzen Province.) The characters on TNG and, even
moreso, on DS9 are moderate liberals(just to the left of center.)
Whether or not the actors in real life are liberals or
conservatives remains to be seen.
Keith Glass
Dennis Sadberry <sde...@primenet.com> wrote:
Re: Hugh the Borg and Collectivism versus Individuality
>You sure he didn't go back to instill the concept of individuality, thus
>weaking the Borg's mindless collectivism?
As I recall, Picard sent Hugh back with the hopes that individuality
would infect the Borg like a virus. Hmm.... maybe WE all got it,
instead, looking at the recent elections. . .;-)
Besides, if you wanted mindless Collectivism, the Borg are not the
example to use: Barney the Dinosaur is...
Keith
Dennis Sadberry
>Which makes it all the more ironic is that while "I, Borg" preaches about
>the value of being an individual, what actually *happens?* Hugh goes back
>to the Borg, essentially sacrificing himself for the greater good. A
>*collective* virtue. I was impressed with the implicit statement of
>collective virtue even as I was irritated at the narrowness of the
>explicit statement of individual virtue.
You sure he didn't go back to instill the concept of individuality, thus
Arthur F. Mcgrath-Iii
: > Is this person insane? Not only does socialism preclude individuality, it
: > yourself was part of a mob, not an individual.
: You are confusing socialism with communism. They are not the same
: thing. The vast majority of socialists no more believe that
: individuality must be sacrificed to the mob than the vast majority of
: capitalists believe that the poor should be ground up to make
: crackers.
What is communism but socialism taken to its logical extreme, or as the
cliche goes, "communists are socialists in a hurry."
: (Note that I don't necessarily agree with either, but if you
: are going to argue with a philosophy, you should at least no the
: basics of what that philosophy stands for.)
I think he does understand; perhaps you don't like implications of what
he was pointing out.
: >
: > Are all conservatives nazis? I don't think that's possible, since Nazism is
: > based on socialism. Thus the term "National Socialism" from which "Nazi" is
: > derived.
: Sorry, but you are wrong. Just because the Nazis used "socialist" as
: part of the party name, does not mean that they were in any way
: socialists.
In what weren't they socialists? Along with racial ideology and
nationalism (thus National Socialism) socialism was at the center of
their world view. True, they kept much industry private to an extent,
but only for short-teerm efficiency. They were practical in instituting
socialistic reforms, knowing, or thinking rather, that they had the time to
thoroughly permeate society. There was a war to prepare for and they
didn't want to disrupt the country too much.
David Wetzel
> >>Socialism does not preclude individuality. Maybe extreme communism
> >>does. Are all conservatives nazis?
> >>
>
> Is this person insane? Not only does socialism preclude individuality, it
> REQUIRES that individuality be sacrificed. The whole idea is to think of
> yourself was part of a mob, not an individual.
Okay folks... this has exceed the bounds of rationality. Socialism,
Communism, and Capitalism are ECONOMIC systems not philosophic ones. They
talk about who owns material goods, not who's allowed to express their
Self.
Socialism and Communism only suppress individuality for those who are so
shallow that they can't seperate their identity from what they own.
By now of course we've ranged far afield from Trek or SF, though
Republican might be appropriate to r.a.sf.tv since they appear on tv and
speak fantasy ;^) I wonder if we should consolidate these two lists [for
the humor impaired this is known as a joke].
--
thanks,
Dave_...@vos.stratus.com
Standard Disclaimer applies...
Debbie Dula
Good grief. Why don't we just start throwing rocks at each other?
p.s. I took r.a.s.current and r.a.s.fandom out of the newgroups list.
--
Debbie Dula Bell-Northern Research, Richardson, Texas
email: vio...@bnr.ca (standard disclaimers apply)
Arthur F. Mcgrath-Iii
Distribution:
David Wetzel (Dave_...@vos.stratus.com) wrote:
: Okay folks... this has exceed the bounds of rationality. Socialism,
: Communism, and Capitalism are ECONOMIC systems not philosophic ones. They
: talk about who owns material goods, not who's allowed to express their
: Self.
Of course they do, for they encompass both economics and philosophy. How
one is "allowed" to conduct oneself in the economic sphere and express
onself philosophically is part of these systems. The word "allowed" is
loaded in this context. Part of the debate between the three systems is
whether government can "allow" someone to do anything, because to say that
means that government grants power to the individual. For the communists
and socialists, government grants power to the people, in capitalism it is
the other way around. Capitalists believe that we the people grant the
government a certain amount of power and allow IT to do certain things.
Of course our government has run amuck and ignores this fact, but this
does not change the premise.
: Socialism and Communism only suppress individuality for those who are so
: shallow that they can't seperate their identity from what they own.
Yes, it certainly is shallow to want an opinion of my own and not one the
government thinks I should have, or to own property which by my own labor
I have earned and would like to keep, free from governmental theft.
: By now of course we've ranged far afield from Trek or SF, though
: Republican might be appropriate to r.a.sf.tv since they appear on tv and
: speak fantasy ;^) I wonder if we should consolidate these two lists [for
: the humor impaired this is known as a joke].
Well the Republicans should get their say in SF also, shouldn't they?
(watch the Left come out against free speech, as usual, in response to
this) I mean, the Left has the Next Generation, don't we get our turn? :)
Of course, the Right can console itself with TOS, which is more
sympathetic to them, but it is 30 years old.
Bye people. I'm off for Thanksgiving break and won't be able to
respond for a couple days. For those of you in the U.S., have a good
Thanksgiving!
James R McCown
In article <EioA5LGSM...@transarc.com>, <Jim_...@transarc.com> wrote:
>dt...@pcnet.com (David N. Triglianos) writes:
>>
>> Are all conservatives nazis? I don't think that's possible, since Nazism is
>> based on socialism. Thus the term "National Socialism" from which "Nazi" is
>> derived.
>
>Sorry, but you are wrong. Just because the Nazis used "socialist" as
>part of the party name, does not mean that they were in any way
>socialists.
>
The Nazis were socialists in fact as well as in name. The essence of socialist
philosophy and practice were all present in Nazi Germany: government control of
the economy, suppression of civil liberties, and extreme corruption on the part
of government officials. Hitler referred to capitalism as a "Jewish
conspiracy".
jim
Frank Lazar
: Are all conservatives nazis? I don't think that's possible, since Nazism is
: based on socialism. Thus the term "National Socialism" from which "Nazi" is
: derived.
Another person not seeing the package for the packaging. Just because
someone uses the word "Socialism" doesn't mean they're a Marxist. I
doubt that even Rush Limbaugh would have called Adolph Hitler a
"left-wing" liberal. Point of hitorical fact, the German left movement
was an ardent OPPONENT of the Nazi movement, a pure incarnation of the
extremes of teh far RIGHT.
Tom Brown
>
>Of course they do, for they encompass both economics and philosophy. How
>one is "allowed" to conduct oneself in the economic sphere and express
>onself philosophically is part of these systems. The word "allowed" is
>loaded in this context. Part of the debate between the three systems is
>whether government can "allow" someone to do anything, because to say that
>means that government grants power to the individual. For the communists
>and socialists, government grants power to the people, in capitalism it is
>the other way around. Capitalists believe that we the people grant the
>government a certain amount of power and allow IT to do certain things.
That will be news to the capitalistic despots around the globe. Surely
you must be aware that there have been numerous authoritarian regimes
that operated a capitalist economy? I think you're confusing capitalism
with democracy.
Frank Lazar
: The Nazis were socialists in fact as well as in name. The essence of socialist
: philosophy and practice were all present in Nazi Germany: government control of
: the economy, suppression of civil liberties, and extreme corruption on the part
: of government officials. Hitler referred to capitalism as a "Jewish
: conspiracy".
The NAZI party didn't materialise out of thin air, it was backed by
German CAPITALISTS who wanted government policy (and labor laws) suborned
to their own interests. The creation of a slave labor class (mostly Jews
and Poles that weren't already sent to death camps) worked to swell
private bank accounts. The Nazi econocmic policy towards Big Buisness
was more akin to the American "laisse faire" approach mixed in with
Southern style slavery. The NAZI's did not nationalise industry, even
weapons industry, something you might have picked up on if you saw
"Schindler's List."
Jim_...@transarc.com
> The Nazis were socialists in fact as well as in name. The essence of socialist
> philosophy and practice were all present in Nazi Germany: government control of
> the economy, suppression of civil liberties, and extreme corruption on the part
> of government officials. Hitler referred to capitalism as a "Jewish
> conspiracy".
>
Only the first point (control of the economy) is a defining part of
socialism. Socialist governments do not necessarily involve supression
of civil liberties. Some do, but then again, so do some capitalist
countries.
Mr M D Warren
: jmc...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James R McCown) writes:
: > The Nazis were socialists in fact as well as in name. The essence of socialist
OK...a very interesting discussion ..BUT WHAT has it to do with star-trek?..
(i know the original post was about brent spiner..but now its not about trek
at all...)
Mike Warren.
David Wetzel
(Arthur F. Mcgrath-Iii) wrote:
> David Wetzel (Dave_...@vos.stratus.com) wrote:
> : Okay folks... this has exceed the bounds of rationality. Socialism,
> : Communism, and Capitalism are ECONOMIC systems not philosophic ones. They
> : talk about who owns material goods, not who's allowed to express their
> : Self.
>
> Of course they do, for they encompass both economics and philosophy. How
> one is "allowed" to conduct oneself in the economic sphere and express
> onself philosophically is part of these systems.
Errrt. Wrong. Expressing oneself philosophically can be as free in both.
More below...
> The word "allowed" is
> loaded in this context. Part of the debate between the three systems is
> whether government can "allow" someone to do anything, because to say that
> means that government grants power to the individual. For the communists
> and socialists, government grants power to the people, in capitalism it is
> the other way around.
Wrong. You're confusing totalitarism with communism and capitalism with
democrocy. Obviously you've learned your definition of these terms from
conservative propaganda. Here's the real definitions (from the American
Heritage Dicitionary -- any typos are mine):
Communism: A social system characterized by the absence of classes and by
common ownership of the means of production and subsistence.
Capitalism: An economic system characterized by freedom of the market with
increasing concentration of private and corporate ownership of production
and distribution means, proportionate to increasing accumulation and
reinvestment of profits.
Nothing in either supports your claim. A commune can easily be a pure
democrocy and a capitalistic society could easily be authoritarian.
[snip]
> : Socialism and Communism only suppress individuality for those who are so
> : shallow that they can't seperate their identity from what they own.
>
> Yes, it certainly is shallow to want an opinion of my own and not one the
> government thinks I should have, or to own property which by my own labor
> I have earned and would like to keep, free from governmental theft.
I'm glad you agree about property. I assume by now you're disabused of
the notion that communism deprives one of the freedom of opinion.
> : By now of course we've ranged far afield from Trek or SF, though
> : Republican might be appropriate to r.a.sf.tv since they appear on tv and
> : speak fantasy ;^) I wonder if we should consolidate these two lists [for
> : the humor impaired this is known as a joke].
>
> Well the Republicans should get their say in SF also, shouldn't they?
> (watch the Left come out against free speech, as usual, in response to
> this)
Sure, go ahead write, produce, direct, and televise whatever you like. I
might even watch.
> I mean, the Left has the Next Generation, don't we get our turn? :)
> Of course, the Right can console itself with TOS, which is more
> sympathetic to them, but it is 30 years old.
Geez, you have Rush Limbaugh, Newt "the Gingrich Who Stole Christmas",
Jessie Helms, Phil Gramm, Strom Thormund, etc. how much more fantasy do
you need? :^)
> Bye people. I'm off for Thanksgiving break and won't be able to
> respond for a couple days. For those of you in the U.S., have a good
> Thanksgiving!
Hey, happy thanksgiving to you too.
Tom Brown
>
>i don't even know who brent spiner is.
>aceman
He appears to be one of those spineless liberal dummycrats,
whatever that means. Let me know if you find out.
Greg_Walra...@notes.worldcom.com
- these are better or worse than mediocre actors? I hope you're not making
some broad generalization based on politics . . .
Andy
: >> Sorry, all you Limbaugh fans, Trek is liberal show
: Who cares? Almost every TV show on the air is made by liberals and have
: liberal overtones. So what? No big news here.
: >>with a socialist captain and a liberal second officer
: >Picard & Riker or Kirk & Spock or Stewart & Frakes
: or Shatner &>Nimoy? where did you get this from?
: Patrick Stewart is a flaming liberal. I would expect Frakes to be liberal, as
Patrick Stewart is a supporter of the Labour Party (UK)... that would
make him a socialist.
: are almost all mediocre actors. (Yes he is - don't flame on this) Again, who
: cares?
: - dave trig
--
==============================================================================
The opinions expressed are those of the individual posting. Comments,
criticisms and lawsuits should be addressed to 3a...@qlink.queensu.ca.
Queen's University, its departments and employees have no legal responsibility
for the opinions expressed above. Mail is welcome.
Tom Brown
Worse than mediocre. Where are all the talented conservative thespians?
My guess is they're waiting for a cure for Alzheimers.
Dixie L. Peterson
tbr...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Tom Brown) writes:
Brent Spiner was born and raised in Houston, Texas -- hardly a breeding
ground for left-wing liberal thought. However, he grew up in Texas at
a time when the Republican party was almost non-existant in that state
and the Democratics ruled. But a Texas Democrat is a different breed
of cat. They're moderates -- less liberal than say, a northeastern
Democrat; and less conservative than what used to be a Deep South
Democrat (Dixiecrat) or a Midwestern Republican.
And now I have a request. Although this thread originated as being
Star Trek related, it has now evolved in to one almost strictly about
politics. Could people please edit their newsgroup lines so that their
discussions will be posted in the appropriate places? Discussions
about Brent Spiner are welcome in the Star Trek groups, even
encouraged. :) But the discussions regarding Nazisim, Communism, etc,
don't belong here and should be confined to the appropriate newsgroup.
Thanks!
Dixie
Arthur F. Mcgrath-Iii
: In article <1994Nov22....@emba.uvm.edu>, amcg...@moose.uvm.edu
: (Arthur F. Mcgrath-Iii) wrote:
: > David Wetzel (Dave_...@vos.stratus.com) wrote:
: > : Okay folks... this has exceed the bounds of rationality. Socialism,
: > : Communism, and Capitalism are ECONOMIC systems not philosophic ones. They
: > : talk about who owns material goods, not who's allowed to express their
: > : Self.
: >
: > Of course they do, for they encompass both economics and philosophy. How
: > one is "allowed" to conduct oneself in the economic sphere and express
: > onself philosophically is part of these systems.
: Errrt. Wrong. Expressing oneself philosophically can be as free in both.
: More below...
Uh, right.
: Wrong. You're confusing totalitarism with communism and capitalism with
: democrocy. Obviously you've learned your definition of these terms from
: conservative propaganda. Here's the real definitions (from the American
: Heritage Dicitionary -- any typos are mine):
And you don't look beyond the textbook definitions to see the logical
outcome of those definitions.
I'm not confusing totalitarianism with communism; they are one and the
same as has been shown by the communists themselves in action.
: Communism: A social system characterized by the absence of classes and by
: common ownership of the means of production and subsistence.
Analysis:
1. "absence of classes" : forced equality, usually at the point of a gun.
Those who disagree will be forced to agree. So much for still having an
opinion outside of the group.
2. common "ownership" of the etc, etc. : theft of the means of
production from the previous owners which is then passed on to the
"collective," the merry band of inefficient theives.
: Capitalism: An economic system characterized by freedom of the market with
: increasing concentration of private and corporate ownership of production
: and distribution means, proportionate to increasing accumulation and
: reinvestment of profits.
: Nothing in either supports your claim. A commune can easily be a pure
: democrocy and a capitalistic society could easily be authoritarian.
And neither would be free.
The definition of communism certainly supports my claim.
I will admit here that I was a little broad in my defintion of
capitalism and was giving it some of the traits of a free society. A free
society needs capitalism though capitalism can exist in an authoritarian
society. I didn't use the term democracy because I wanted to highlight
that fact, not because I was confused by what they were. Also, I don't
think the term, democracy, is necessarily accurate here because the
majority in a democracy can be as tyrannical to the minority in a country
as any despot (Tyranny of the majority: 51% of the country can tell 49%
what to do on a whim). A laissez-faire, representative democracy
is what I had in mind when I said "capitalism" earlier, but that
certainly is a mouthful, and the term, "free-society" was too vague.
Sorry about the confusion.
: > Yes, it certainly is shallow to want an opinion of my own and not one the
: > government thinks I should have, or to own property which by my own labor
: > I have earned and would like to keep, free from governmental theft.
: I'm glad you agree about property. I assume by now you're disabused of
: the notion that communism deprives one of the freedom of opinion.
It cannot survive without depriving a person of the freedom of opinion or
stealing his property, which really, are one and the same.
: Sure, go ahead write, produce, direct, and televise whatever you like. I
: might even watch.
Ok, why not?
: Geez, you have Rush Limbaugh, Newt "the Gingrich Who Stole Christmas",
: Jessie Helms, Phil Gramm, Strom Thormund, etc. how much more fantasy do
: you need? :^)
Just to balance out all the role playing games that the President and
her husband have been playing since Jan. 20, 1993. ;) The country and
the world have seen enough tricks played on them by the game master and
her puppet. :)
: > Bye people. I'm off for Thanksgiving break and won't be able to
: > respond for a couple days. For those of you in the U.S., have a good
: > Thanksgiving!
: Hey, happy thanksgiving to you too.
Thanks. How was yours?
Angus Johnston
>re: National Socialism
>
>>Sorry, but you are wrong. Just because the Nazis used "socialist" as
>>part of the party name, does not mean that they were in any way
>>socialists.
>>
>
>the economy, suppression of civil liberties, and extreme corruption on the part
>of government officials. Hitler referred to capitalism as a "Jewish
>conspiracy".
>
Saying it don't make it so, Jim. Let's take a look at your claims one at a
time, shall we?
"government control of the economy"
This is such an oversimplification as to be meaningless. As William Shirer has
written, Nazi economic policy involved "greatly expanded public works and the
stimulation of private enterprise." Big business was given tremendous support
by the Nazis, who eliminated labor unions and held wages down. Yes, the
government increased its involvement in economics, but no, it wasn't because
they were following any socialist model.
"suppression of civil liberties, and extreme corruption on the part of
government officials"
Neither of these things has anything to do with socialism. Government
corruption and suppression of people's rights aren't the sole domain of any
economic system.
"Hitler referred to capitalism as a "Jewish conspiracy"."
Hitler said a great many things, Jim, some of which he even believed. The fact
is, though, that Hitler wasn't the architect of Nazi economic policy. He had
relatively little to do with that side of government, and his ravings shouldn't
be taken as evidence of government policy (even leaving aside the question of
whether you would want to believe ANYTHING a Nazi said).
I know this is all off topic in a big way, but the Nazis are invoked far too
often by people who don't know much about them as a means of attacking anyone
they don't agree with. The Nazis crimes against humanity should not be reduced
to a cheap debating tool by anyone anywhere on the political spectrum.
_________________________________________________________________________
Angus Johnston, CUNY Graduate Center, New York (ang...@eworld.com).
The opinions expressed above are my own, and I'd be more than a little
surprised if they were shared by CUNY administration.
_________________________________________________________________________
Jamie Plummer
> The NAZI party didn't materialise out of thin air, it was backed by
> German CAPITALISTS who wanted government policy (and labor laws) suborned
> to their own interests. The creation of a slave labor class (mostly Jews
> and Poles that weren't already sent to death camps) worked to swell
> private bank accounts. The Nazi econocmic policy towards Big Buisness
I don't call anyone who messes with the free-enterprise system
like that a capitalist. Fascism involves a close alignment of
business and government. Nazism was fascism combined with
subordinating the individual to the race, and mass execution
and persecution thrown in.
substitute state for race,
eliminate mass execution,
you get the Clinton Administration.
:) sorta.
--
"more cunning than a fox appointed Professor of Cunning at Oxford University"
n26 e36 m41 br109 lbi30 ACU100 prop187 SW4] Jamie Plummer
I am not a MSTie number, I am a free man! ] jc...@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU
Speaker Gingrich: Deal with it, pinko boy.] Push the button... someone :(
Jamie Plummer
> In article <1994Nov22....@emba.uvm.edu>, amcg...@moose.uvm.edu
> (Arthur F. Mcgrath-Iii) wrote:
>
> > David Wetzel (Dave_...@vos.stratus.com) wrote:
> > : Okay folks... this has exceed the bounds of rationality. Socialism,
> > : Communism, and Capitalism are ECONOMIC systems not philosophic ones. They
> > : talk about who owns material goods, not who's allowed to express their
> > : Self.
> > Of course they do, for they encompass both economics and philosophy. How
> > one is "allowed" to conduct oneself in the economic sphere and express
> > onself philosophically is part of these systems.
> Errrt. Wrong. Expressing oneself philosophically can be as free in both.
my favorite) then come back and tell me that.
> Dave_...@vos.stratus.com
Iain McKay (PhD Research)
> Really? Read We the Living or any Ayn Rand. (Atlas Shrugged is
> my favorite) then come back and tell me that.
Yeah, if Rand said it, it must be true!!!!!
Well, I'm convinved. Just the rest of the planet....
Iain : Knows bs when he sees it. And thats Rand in a nutshell (emphasis on *nut*)
David Wetzel
jc...@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Jamie Plummer) wrote:
> Dave_...@vos.stratus.com writes:
> > > Of course they do, for they encompass both economics and philosophy. How
> > > one is "allowed" to conduct oneself in the economic sphere and express
> > > onself philosophically is part of these systems.
> > Errrt. Wrong. Expressing oneself philosophically can be as free in both.
> Really? Read We the Living or any Ayn Rand. (Atlas Shrugged is
> my favorite) then come back and tell me that.
Here's a thought -- Ayn Rand was full of crap.
I'm glad someone mentioned Rand though, it brings this discussion back to
SF, though not TV. I guess it's about time we drop the SF lists from this
discussion... Of course that means I'll be droping out as well, but that's
okay.
Arthur F. Mcgrath-Iii
: Here's a thought -- Ayn Rand was full of crap.
Never read her, huh? Well, your response was positively brilliant and
insightful; always a good comeback when you have nothing insightful to say.
: I'm glad someone mentioned Rand though, it brings this discussion back to
: SF, though not TV. I guess it's about time we drop the SF lists from this
: discussion... Of course that means I'll be droping out as well, but that's
: okay.
It sure is ok if that's the best you can say. Enough of lobbing insults.
I know you meant it sarcastically, but Rand's fiction could be SF in the
same vein as Brave New World, Orwell, etc since it describes futuristic
society gone mad.
We are way off Star Trek though, yet we keep going...
Jamie Plummer
> In article 4...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU, jc...@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Jamie Plummer) writes:
> > Really? Read We the Living or any Ayn Rand. (Atlas Shrugged is
> > my favorite) then come back and tell me that.
> Yeah, if Rand said it, it must be true!!!!!
Soviet oppression of thought. If you don't like Rand, read some
Solzhenitsyn or something.
> Iain : Knows bs when he sees it. And thats Rand
> in a nutshell (emphasis on *nut*)
Rand is not bs. But from what I've read of her personal life,
I've gotta agree about the *nut* part.
--
SOFT DRINKS. SOFT DRINKS. SOFT DRINKS. SOFT DRINKS. SOFT DRINKS. SOFT DRINKS.
soda is lame. pop is worse. don't even bother with tonic. SOFT DRINKS.
only Coca-Cola Classic is "Coke". to call anything else "coke" is an insult
to men and women of taste and refinement everywhere. SOFT DRINKS. SOFT DRINKS
John E. Harrington
>: does. Are all conservatives nazis?
>
> No, how could they be? The Nazis were socialists, if you recall.
> Conservatism, at least in the U.S. is a philosophy of
>individuality and small government.
This is propagandistic historical revisionism. Conservatives have always been
obsessed with the control and temperance of individual freedoms. They've just
realized that arguing for property rights is a pretty nifty way of having their
fascistic cake and eating it too. And they think it makes them look like the
protectors of the Rights-o-Man. Sure it does to THEM, but then from far right
field the whole world looks skewed.
One need only look to the history of conservatism in the US. The greatest threats
to individual liberty came from cold-war era suppression of dissent,
specifically the McCarthy hearings and HUAC. Add to that their fanatical devotion
to god, their insistance that school children recite a pledge to the flag, their
desire to throw flag burners in jail, to curb the definition of free speach, to
narrowly define the rights in the constitution, to demand loyalty oaths (like the
one I was forced to recite when I got a University lab job in 1989), their knee-jerk
tendancy to defend the police in brutality cases and you have people who are
basically in love with authority and the supremacy of the state.
Except, of course, when it comes to the property rights of millionaires.
As to the crackpot "Nazis were liberals" theory: if that were true, why is it that
prominant American Nazis and Nazi-sympathizers have ALWAYS come from conservative
side of the political spectrum?
I'm thinking of people like G. Gordon Liddy (who expressed admiration for Nazism in
his book "Will"), Henry Ford (whose antisemetic writings were quoted by Hitler),
Errol Flynn (who flew a Nazi flag in his back yard and campaigned for the America
Firsters), Lindberg (who visited Nazi Germany and spoke to the SS, praised Hitler
and also supported the Firsters), Ezra Pound (who broadcast pro-Mussolini propaganda
over the Italian airwaves).... All of these people in one way or another were deeply
entrenched in the mainstream conservative movements of their time.
--John
--
*******************************************************************************
* DISCLAIMER: Unless indicated otherwise, everything in this note is *
* personal opinion, not an official statement of Biosym Technologies, Inc. *
*******************************************************************************
Dean Esmay
was basically a liberal. The usual saw was/is, "If he hadn't had this
thing about the Jews, he would have been a great man," followed by
admiration for the nationalized industries and whatnot that Hitler was so
big on.
The Nazis were socialists, always were. But the left has always
worshipped state power, so it's nothing new.
I don't know any conservatives that want to curb individual rights. Do
know some who are tired of certain invented rights taking precedence over
older, more established rights, and the damage this does. (Property
rights of millionaires? How about MY property rights? I ain't no
millionaire.)
I'm happy to be a conservative... a former liberal turned conservative in
fact... and it's precisely because of my belief in individualism and my
rejection of collectivism that I made that change.
Jamie Plummer
> over the Italian airwaves).... All of these people in one way or another were deeply
> entrenched in the mainstream conservative movements of their time.
> --John
uh-huh. now for the political realities of today...
alan wertsching
: > >i don't even know who brent spiner is.
: > >aceman
< Brent Spiner is the actor that plays Data on the Star Trek NG
< series.
< As far as if he is a Repubican look on your coke can to
< find out.
< Neither party should have many defenders these
< days and I doubt anyone would proudly proclaim
< themselves Repubican.
Brian T. Halonen
(John E. Harrington) wrote:
"Cold-war era suppression of dissent." An interesting assertion, given
that nothing so accurately characterizes the peak of the cold war (the
'60s) as does widespread popular dissent.
Errol Flynn as a conservative? A famous hard-drinking, lecherous, grade-B
actor (much like Ted Kennedy), but conservative? On what do you base this
assertion? My impression is that he was nearly apolitical in his
hedonism. His personal conduct is very much like that of Ted Kennedy,
whose conservatism has been greatly exaggerated.
And Lindberg as a conservative? In what universe? He was absolutely in
the vanguard of 'America first', but only in so far as he wanted America
to avoid foreign entanglements (I seem to recall seeing that 'avoid
foreign entanglements' phrase somewhere before...).
And while we're blasting the right-wing for their oppression, let's not
forget that world-renowned conservative Joseph Kennedy, who stumped for
the Nazis and frustrated his political aspirations by so doing.
Or the ultra-conservative academic administrators and faculty behind the
numerous hate speech codes on contemporary college campuses.
Or those champions of conservative thought in the federal regulatory
agencies who, though unelected, mandate the parameters of individual
choice in most dimensions of life in the US - and always curtail that
choice to a greater degree in doing so. Like our esteemed attorney
general, who saw fit to snuff those fools in Waco for being too religious,
or our treasury secretary who believes that only he is fit to decide which
kind of firearm the private citizen ought to own.
And we must not forget those notorious right-wingers from whom the
benefits of political correctness flow on a daily basis.
That there are fools in all political camps is obvious; that there are
more in the ranks of political conservatives is a specious assertion.
If the fog around you ever lifts, take a look at the sources of
abridgement of your freedom of choice and action in this country. They
are almost exclusively from the liberal left-wing: unconditionally
pro-government, anti-business, thought-policing, they-know-better-than-you
extremists. Their sole conserative impulse is to conserve their empires.
I'm hardly a member of Liddy's fan club. However, it was clearly asserted
in his book 'Will' that his admiration of the Nazis was limited to their
elevation of personal discipline and its social extension to government.
He has repeatedly asserted his fundamental disdain for the actions they
took and their institutional discrimination against non-Aryans. Of
course, you neglected to cite these aspects of his world view, what with
their being inconsistent with your position.
The Nazis were unequivocally socialists. They placed the State above the
individual in all things. They differed from communists primarily in
their recognition of individuals' limited ownership of private property.
However, they grossly expanded the role of government in people's private
lives, promulgating government agencies and regulations at nearly the rate
of our Democratic congresses of the last half-century. No American
conservative wants to do that.
Setting up good ol' Joe McCarthy as your straw man is a vacant maneuver.
There was widespread fear of communist influence in our government in the
'50s, and not just among those holding government office. The HUAC was
anomalous only in that it received unprecedented public attention and was
administered by a zealot (who, it must be recalled, drew enormous heat
from the rest of the elected government for conducting the hearings as he
did, effectively ending his political career). Information coming out of
the former Soviet nations appears to bolster the case that such communist
influence in the US was greater, not weaker, than previously thought.
When the US government and society made its giant left-turn in the '60s,
it's hardly surprising that a figure such as McCarthy came to personify
'all that is bad' in America.
In case you hadn't noticed, however, our society is in the midst of a
similarly dramatic right turn. Fifty years of obscenely expensive,
clearly socialistic, but largely unsuccessful social engineering has had
that as its primary effect. The biggest obstacle to society getting what
it wants is probably the milquetoast nature of the old guard Republicans
that are now part of the congressional majority, to whom compromise is a
superior course of conduct than adherence to principle. Such people
deserve, and will receive, the contempt of the populace when they subvert
the popular will. The social pendulum continues its oscillation, and its
current course is clearly to the right. Deal with it.
Fundamentally, liberalism consists of an elitist set of guidelines for
other people to follow, at their expense, without their consent.
Conservatism embraces the political philosophy expressed in our
Constitution. The authors of that document were clearly anti-government.
It has been the diligent work of social meddlers over the years, primarily
Democrats, that has invented out of thin air those pseudo-Constitutional
rights to which you allude, in opposition to the clear intent of the
nation's founders. Conservatism elevates the cause of the individual, not
its suppression. That has been the domain of the American left-wing.
Propogandistic historical revisionism, indeed. Where would the liberal
left be without it?
--
"Talent does what it can; genius does what it must."
Unknown
jcgu...@eos.ncsu.edu
There is only one thing I want to mention about this thread:
Why are conservatives Star Trek fans?
ST:TNG is blatantly socialistic. There are thousands of times when they talk
about how money means nothing, war means nothing(in the Federation planets),
and people are free to pursue what they want. Conservatives should shudder
at the thought that the future might hold a society where they can't use
money as a substitute for intelligence, political power, and exploitation of
the common man. The ideals put forth by Star Trek are that we are all equal
and no one should be exploited in any way(biggie--> PRIME DIRECTIVE).
The Republicans and conservatives have historically been associated with
the use of business(read WORKERS) as a way to get rich at all costs.
It started with Hamiltonian Federalists/National Republicans/Whigs who
wanted a national bank that would make loans to business(in fact later
Republican party members funded the building of the Transcontinental
Railroad with government monies and allowed big business to get rich off it),
It was common knowledge in the early 19th century that this party didn't
even believe that normal Americans could be trusted to make their own
decisions in voting. Today we see the same thing, Republicans want to revoke
the capital gains tax (a rich tax), they want to give a tax break to RICH
social security drawers(people who ought to have enough backbone to give up \
such a small amount for the benefit for poor elderly), and they want to
increase military spending while simultaneously complaining about using
the military to protect democracy in the world. Or maybe they want a big
military for reasons other than protecting democracy, like killing abortion
doctors, killing homosexuals, and anybody else who doesn't bow down
and rip their lungs out in a hot factory for some executive Republican.
The bad thing is, the republicans will say I'm here to protect family values,
Well one family value they seem to have forgotten is honest wage for honest
work.
I saw this paraphrased statistic in Time over the Summer:
1983 Average Executive Salary:$380,000 Avg. Blue Collar:19,200
1994 " ":$1.3 mil " ":$26,000
Can you say almost 3:1!
Trickle down didn't work!
It just got rich "conservatives" used to buying more Jags.
Probably a little more than my $.02
Sincerely,
ed accounts
: Fundamentally, liberalism consists of an elitist set of guidelines for
: other people to follow, at their expense, without their consent.
: Conservatism embraces the political philosophy expressed in our
: Constitution. The authors of that document were clearly anti-government.
: It has been the diligent work of social meddlers over the years, primarily
: Democrats, that has invented out of thin air those pseudo-Constitutional
: rights to which you allude, in opposition to the clear intent of the
: nation's founders. Conservatism elevates the cause of the individual, not
: its suppression. That has been the domain of the American left-wing.
Forgive me for not quoting your entire post, but this paragraph seemed to
sum up (for me anyway) your position. I respectfully disagree. You seem
to have fallen into the same trap as many do nowadays, wondering "where
in the Constitution does it say you can do that?" The founding fathers
fought bitterly about whether to include a Bill of Rights for precisely
the reason that folks such as yourself, or more dangerously the
government itself, would think that if a right does not appear in the
Bill of Rights then it doesn't exist. That's why there was no Bill of
Rights when the Constitution was first adopted. You are correct that the
founding fathers were anti-government. Indeed, that's why the
Constitution is structured so that the burden rests on the government to
prove that it has the "right" to do something rather than on the
individual to prove that the government does not have such a right. This
reversal of the founding fathers' intent is, undeniably and
unequivocally, the fault of conservativism and NOT liberalism.
Mark
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark J. Rosen "Keep looking up!" -- Jack
m...@netaxs.com Horkheimer, Star Hustler
Brian T. Halonen
of lines were lost during transmission. Sorry.
> In article <3bnpia$k...@netaxs.com>, m...@netaxs.com (ed accounts) wrote:
> >
> > Forgive me for not quoting your entire post, but this paragraph seemed to
> > sum up (for me anyway) your position. I respectfully disagree. You seem
> > to have fallen into the same trap as many do nowadays, wondering "where
> > in the Constitution does it say you can do that?" The founding fathers
> > fought bitterly about whether to include a Bill of Rights for precisely
> > the reason that folks such as yourself, or more dangerously the
> > government itself, would think that if a right does not appear in the
> > Bill of Rights then it doesn't exist. That's why there was no Bill of
> > Rights when the Constitution was first adopted. You are correct that the
> > founding fathers were anti-government. Indeed, that's why the
> > Constitution is structured so that the burden rests on the government to
> > prove that it has the "right" to do something rather than on the
> > individual to prove that the government does not have such a right. This
> > reversal of the founding fathers' intent is, undeniably and
> > unequivocally, the fault of conservativism and NOT liberalism.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Mark J. Rosen "Keep looking up!" -- Jack
> > m...@netaxs.com Horkheimer, Star Hustler
>
I do not require that the Constitution specifically address an issue for
that issue to be appropriately subject to the Constitution. On the other
hand, I don't think that the federal judiciary should capriciously invent
out of whole cloth Constitutional bases on which to impose their personal
preferences on the nation. And that's what's been done since the
Depression.
Yes, there was bitter contention about whether or not a Bill of Rights was
necessary, the primary argument being that the rights it enumerated were
already recognized by the balance of the Constitution. You will notice,
however, that there IS a Bill of Rights, nonetheless, suggesting that
those that suspected the government would be able to subvert those
recognized rights without a specific safeguard against such encroachment
perceived things accurately. It's no coincidence that those natural
rights recognized in the Bill of Rights are still the subject of intense
political controversy, with the government reliably trying to reduce their
integrity. Given how far those rights have been eroded despite this
safeguard, those who insisted on including the Bill of Rights appear to
have been right. Absent that Bill, do you think that our rights would be
anywhere near their current status? Would you and I even be able to
debate one another in this medium, or any other for that matter?
You stated that the reversal of the founders' intent was "undeniably and
unequivocally, the fault of conservatism and NOT liberalism." OK, so now
I know your position, but have no inkling of the reasoning behind it.
Defend it.
Or merely settle for my equally gratuitous response: "No, it isn't."
<<<Sorry about having to re-post.>>>
Brian T. Halonen
I do not require that the Constitution specifically address an issue for
that issue to be appropriately subject to the Constitution. On the other
hand, I don't think that the federal judiciary should capriciously invent
out of whole cloth Constitutional bases on which to impose their personal
preferences on the nation. And that's what's been done since the
Depression.
Yes, there was bitter contention about whether or not a Bill of Rights was
necessary, the primary argument being that the rights it enumerated were
already recognized by the balance of the Constitution. You will notice,
however, that there IS a Bill of Rights, nonetheless, suggesting that
those that suspected the government would be able to subvert those
recognized rights without a specific safeguard against such encroachment.
Given how far those rights have been eroded despite this safeguard, those
who insisted on including the Bill of Rights appear to have been right.
Absent that Bill, do you think that our rights would be anywhere near
their current status? Would you and I even be able to debate one another
in this medium, or any other for that matter?
You stated that the reversal of the founders' intent was "undeniably and
unequivocally, the fault of conservatism and NOT liberalism." OK, so now
I know your position, but have no inkling of the reasoning behind it.
Defend it.
Or merely settle for my equally gratuitous response: "No, it isn't."
--
had...@aqu028.mlo.dec.com
>
>There is only one thing I want to mention about this thread:
>Why are conservatives Star Trek fans?
>
>ST:TNG is blatantly socialistic. There are thousands of times when they talk
>about how money means nothing, war means nothing(in the Federation planets),
>and people are free to pursue what they want. Conservatives should shudder
>at the thought that the future might hold a society where they can't use
>money as a substitute for intelligence, political power, and exploitation of
>the common man. The ideals put forth by Star Trek are that we are all equal
>and no one should be exploited in any way(biggie--> PRIME DIRECTIVE).
That is a misconception. Please, keep an open mind as you grow up so
that you can be a more well-rounded individual.
First of all - the basics of a "Conservative" are that no outside
influence should mandate the actions of a group. Now - that may sound
a little general but it's basic to most humans that I've talked with.
Socially:
Conservatism means that the social entity should evolve in it's own methods.
Basically, there should be no laws that mandate actions unless those actions
are a detriment to the society. An example is that a societal block should not
have a charactaristic that allows one group to subject another group to
sub-human actions (i.e.: Alabama/Mississippi in the early '60s). That society
has a right to evolve in it's own way, under it's own guidelines, etc.
Liberalism means that a central entity decides how the societal block is
to evolve and controls that evolution.
Both philosophies are valid from their own perspective. The perspective
of the Conservative philophers is that of the societal block. The Liberals
is that of the central entity. Please note that the Conservative elements
of South Africa are drastically different from that of the United States.
There are many examples of this.
>
>The Republicans and conservatives have historically been associated with
>the use of business(read WORKERS) as a way to get rich at all costs.
>It started with Hamiltonian Federalists/National Republicans/Whigs who
>wanted a national bank that would make loans to business(in fact later
>Republican party members funded the building of the Transcontinental
>Railroad with government monies and allowed big business to get rich off it),
>It was common knowledge in the early 19th century that this party didn't
>even believe that normal Americans could be trusted to make their own
>decisions in voting. Today we see the same thing, Republicans want to revoke
>the capital gains tax (a rich tax), they want to give a tax break to RICH
>social security drawers(people who ought to have enough backbone to give up \
>such a small amount for the benefit for poor elderly), and they want to
>increase military spending while simultaneously complaining about using
>the military to protect democracy in the world. Or maybe they want a big
>military for reasons other than protecting democracy, like killing abortion
>doctors, killing homosexuals, and anybody else who doesn't bow down
>and rip their lungs out in a hot factory for some executive Republican.
You have no facts to back up anything like what you propose. Please provide
more than the samples of salaries you provided.
Economically:
Conservatives believe that the market should be guided by supply and demand.
The economic model would be controlled by supply and demand.
Liberals believe that a central entity should control the supply and codify
demand. This will control the economic model.
Again - the difference is the preposition of the motivators. Neither "side"
is right or wrong so long as the entity of concern (social or economic)
accept the control. There are times when both socially and economically
control from without is necessary. There are times when the entity must
continue under it's own momentum. I submit we are at a crossroads where
the entities must now continue under their own momentum but the playing
field they all frolic in (the larger economic model they exist in) must
be addressed.
The concept of "trickle down" regarded the money for social programs. What
was said was that if the US government demand a smaller percentage of your
money, then you will have more of it to spend in your own envinronment. This
would lead to greater profits in your home town thus - more jobs. THAT WORKED!
>
>The bad thing is, the republicans will say I'm here to protect family values,
>Well one family value they seem to have forgotten is honest wage for honest
>work.
>
>I saw this paraphrased statistic in Time over the Summer:
>
>1983 Average Executive Salary:$380,000 Avg. Blue Collar:19,200
>1994 " ":$1.3 mil " ":$26,000
>
>Can you say almost 3:1!
Please define what the Executive is! I am one. I make no where near what
you have here. Now - if that's corporate CEO salaries, then YES - that is
accurate. You should then define the range of what you call Blue Collar.
What are the boundries?
>Trickle down didn't work!
>It just got rich "conservatives" used to buying more Jags.
There are more rich Liberals in the United States political arena than
there are rich Conservatives! The data for this came from the release
of tax returns during the last decade. Now - the democrats won't ask the
press to advertize this because it goes against their propoganda. Since
the democrats are/were in power and the press is motivated to sell as
much press as they possibly can, it's OK for the democrats to avoid asking
it be aired. Now - the press may or may not be moral (they're more
conservative than you would possibly imagine!) but that's not the point.
The democrats are simply using the tools at their disposal.
>
>
>
>Probably a little more than my $.02
>
>Sincerely,
>
>jcgu...@eos.ncsu.edu
Don't confuse the themes of period movies with the motivations of the society
they purport to represent. They are just entertainment. Star Trek is
just entertainment. Pure and simple. If you think that those that brought
you Star Trek (from The Great Bird on down to the set janitors) really believed
that socialistic crap they spewed out, just try and take some of that
irrelevant money from them!
Bruce
Jim Brownfield
Note Followups to
talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
[munch]
> The founding fathers fought bitterly about whether to include a
> Bill of Rights for precisely the reason that folks such as yourself,
> or more dangerously the government itself, would think that if a
> right does not appear in the Bill of Rights then it doesn't exist.
> That's why there was no Bill of Rights when the Constitution was
> first adopted. You are correct that the founding fathers were
> anti-government. Indeed, that's why the Constitution is structured
> so that the burden rests on the government to prove that it has
> the "right" to do something rather than on the individual to prove
> that the government does not have such a right.
I agree completely.
> This reversal of the founding fathers' intent is, undeniably and
> unequivocally, the fault of conservativism and NOT liberalism.
Only if you're talking about 19th century (classical) liberalism which today
would be called libertarianism. Modern liberals and conservatives are
*equally* responsible for violating the intent of the constitution. Liberals
are willing to take every dollar you earn to spend it in a way *they* consider
moral even if it means condemning vast numbers of people to poverty.
Conservatives are willing to break down every door and, if necessary, kill
large numbers of people to ensure that you aren't going to ingest some chemical
they disapprove of or have sex in one of the unapproved positions (note that 70
years ago, they at least went to the trouble of passing a Constitutional
Amendment to prohibit alcohol -- today noone bothers even worrying about the
Constitution). Laughably, Consevatives want to pass a constitutional amendment
for prayer in public schools when federally funded public schools are so
obviously unconstitutiional to begin with! (see 10th Amendment to the
Constitution)
Liberals want to be your mommy. Conservatives want to be your daddy.
Libertarians want you to run your own life.
--
Jim Brownfield (Jim_Bro...@Radical.Com) NeXTmail accepted
Radical System Solutions, Inc.
System/Network/Database Design, Development, Consulting
rad i cal \'rad-i-kel\ n -- a basic principle: FOUNDATION
Christopher Bradford Stone
>It was common knowledge in the early 19th century that this party didn't
>even believe that normal Americans could be trusted to make their own
>decisions in voting.
Check out some of the political threads on alt.politics.clinton,
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, and some of the other newsgroups. They almost
make one think that the folks back in the 19th century were right. :(
--
////// // // ////// // ////// Christopher B. Stone
// ////// ///// // ///
// // // // // // /// "Consensus is the negation
////// // // // // // ////// of leadership." -Margaret Thatcher
jcgu...@eos.ncsu.edu
In article <3bnsbg$n...@peavax.eng.pko.dec.com>, had...@aqu028.mlo.dec.com wrote:
.In article <3bnhnv$c...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu>, jcgu...@eos.ncsu.edu writes:
.>
.>There is only one thing I want to mention about this thread:
.>Why are conservatives Star Trek fans?
.>
.>ST:TNG is blatantly socialistic. There are thousands of times when they talk
.>about how money means nothing, war means nothing(in the Federation planets),
.>and people are free to pursue what they want. Conservatives should shudder
.>at the thought that the future might hold a society where they can't use
.>money as a substitute for intelligence, political power, and exploitation of
.>the common man. The ideals put forth by Star Trek are that we are all equal
.>and no one should be exploited in any way(biggie--> PRIME DIRECTIVE).
.
.That is a misconception. Please, keep an open mind as you grow up so
.that you can be a more well-rounded individual.
It is NOT a misconception is based on my experience with people as I have
grown up. I have even gotten some of my conservative friends(thats right
I have conservative friends, I am opened minded enough to allow people
to have their own opinion without it interfering with our friendship)to say
that if people can't succeed financially then that's too bad they'll just die
from starvation and prevent more welfare recipiants.
.
.First of all - the basics of a "Conservative" are that no outside
.influence should mandate the actions of a group. Now - that may sound
.a little general but it's basic to most humans that I've talked with.
Oh, so that's why they believe in mandating no abortion, death penalty,and
prayer in schools to the group known as THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. The basics of
conservatism are just what the dictionary defines conservative to be:
resistant to change. So if that is basic to most humans you talk to, then
why do we teach our children a different definition in school?
Maybe Merriam -Webster needs to poll the population.
.
.Socially:
.Conservatism means that the social entity should evolve in it's own methods.
.Basically, there should be no laws that mandate actions unless those actions
.are a detriment to the society. An example is that a societal block should not
.have a charactaristic that allows one group to subject another group to
.sub-human actions (i.e.: Alabama/Mississippi in the early '60s). That society
.has a right to evolve in it's own way, under it's own guidelines, etc.
.
.Liberalism means that a central entity decides how the societal block is
.to evolve and controls that evolution.
Sorry that just doesn't hold water,
Your very definition means that conservatives get to legislate according
to their own personal beliefs. This has been shown. And if Conservatism truly
believe that laws should be there to stop detriment to our society, then
why do they resist gun control? Liberalism does not mean the above, that is the definition
of socialism and in its worst form fascism. Liberalism is really "do what you
want", this is the Libertarian party, there are however LIBERAL-MINDED
individuals that hold SOME of the liberal views, ex. lots of Democrats.
.
.Both philosophies are valid from their own perspective. The perspective
.of the Conservative philophers is that of the societal block. The Liberals
.is that of the central entity. Please note that the Conservative elements
.of South Africa are drastically different from that of the United States.
.There are many examples of this.
.
.>
.>The Republicans and conservatives have historically been associated with
.>the use of business(read WORKERS) as a way to get rich at all costs.
.>It started with Hamiltonian Federalists/National Republicans/Whigs who
.>wanted a national bank that would make loans to business(in fact later
.>Republican party members funded the building of the Transcontinental
.>Railroad with government monies and allowed big business to get rich off it),
.>It was common knowledge in the early 19th century that this party didn't
.>even believe that normal Americans could be trusted to make their own
.>decisions in voting. Today we see the same thing, Republicans want to revoke
.>the capital gains tax (a rich tax), they want to give a tax break to RICH
.>social security drawers(people who ought to have enough backbone to give up \
.>such a small amount for the benefit for poor elderly), and they want to
.>increase military spending while simultaneously complaining about using
.>the military to protect democracy in the world. Or maybe they want a big
.>military for reasons other than protecting democracy, like killing abortion
.>doctors, killing homosexuals, and anybody else who doesn't bow down
.>and rip their lungs out in a hot factory for some executive Republican.
.
.You have no facts to back up anything like what you propose. Please provide
.more than the samples of salaries you provided.
Try picking up a copy of a high school U.S. history book.
Or better yet an outline of U.S. History will even state these things.
and no the history isn't slanted, the people of the time said so in their
own handwriting. Read some Alexander Hamilton.
.
.Economically:
.
.Conservatives believe that the market should be guided by supply and demand.
.The economic model would be controlled by supply and demand..
.
.Liberals believe that a central entity should control the supply and codify
.demand. This will control the economic model.
Here again, I'm not so sure that liberals believe this. Non-conservatives, however,
do believe in controlling big business for the good of the lower class, since
throughout history they have been taken advantage of.
.
.Again - the difference is the preposition of the motivators. Neither "side"
.is right or wrong so long as the entity of concern (social or economic)
.accept the control. There are times when both socially and economically
.control from without is necessary. There are times when the entity must
.continue under it's own momentum. I submit we are at a crossroads where
.the entities must now continue under their own momentum but the playing
.field they all frolic in (the larger economic model they exist in) must
.be addressed.
.
.The concept of "trickle down" regarded the money for social programs. What
.was said was that if the US government demand a smaller percentage of your
.money, then you will have more of it to spend in your own envinronment. This
.would lead to greater profits in your home town thus - more jobs. THAT WORKED!
So is that why more people starve per population today than before Reagan?
.
.
.>
.>The bad thing is, the republicans will say I'm here to protect family values,
.>Well one family value they seem to have forgotten is honest wage for honest
.>work.
.>
.>I saw this paraphrased statistic in Time over the Summer:
.>
.>1983 Average Executive Salary:$380,000 Avg. Blue Collar:19,200
.>1994 " ":$1.3 mil " ":$26,000
.>
.>Can you say almost 3:1!
.
.Please define what the Executive is! I am one. I make no where near what
.you have here. Now - if that's corporate CEO salaries, then YES - that is
.accurate. You should then define the range of what you call Blue Collar.
.What are the boundries?
I don't know the boundaries, but I'm certain that the boundaries didn't
from 1983 to 1994. It still compares apples to apples and supports the
statistics that state 2% of our population possesses 80% of the wealth.
Government controls are not the bane to capitalism, GREED is. It lowers
the velocity of money and causes capalistic cycles to gain amplitude, thus
creating longer periods of economic despair. Conservatives protect
the greedy, and thus destroty the very capitalism they wish to protect.
.
.>Trickle down didn't work!
.>It just got rich "conservatives" used to buying more Jags.
.
.There are more rich Liberals in the United States political arena than
.there are rich Conservatives! The data for this came from the release
.of tax returns during the last decade. Now - the democrats won't ask the
.press to advertize this because it goes against their propoganda. Since
.the democrats are/were in power and the press is motivated to sell as
.much press as they possibly can, it's OK for the democrats to avoid asking
.it be aired. Now - the press may or may not be moral (they're more
.conservative than you would possibly imagine!) but that's not the point.
.The democrats are simply using the tools at their disposal.
As you said with me , WHERE IS THE PROOF? This is conservative propaganda.
.
.>
.>
.>
.>Probably a little more than my $.02
.>
.>Sincerely,
.>
.>jcgu...@eos.ncsu.edu
.
.Don't confuse the themes of period movies with the motivations of the society
.they purport to represent. They are just entertainment. Star Trek is
.just entertainment. Pure and simple. If you think that those that brought
.you Star Trek (from The Great Bird on down to the set janitors) really believed
.that socialistic crap they spewed out, just try and take some of that
.irrelevant money from them!
I agree ST is entertainment. But the creator: GENE RODDENBERRY,
held some of these socialistic ideas. So yes he believed in it, because he
hated to think that society really wanted to be downright DOOMED to
flush itself down the toilet because everybody wanted to be RICH!
.
.Bruce.
Jonas
Chris M Neary
>From: ia...@cad.strath.ac.uk (Iain McKay (PhD Research))
>Subject: Re: Brent Spiner - Republican
>Date: 28 Nov 94 13:25:14 GMT
Thanks for the thoughtful insights Iain.
If you don't have time to put together a well-supported argument to persuade
us your conclusions are correct, how about just sparing the bandwidth?
Chris Neary (knows b.s. when he smells it)
cm...@pge.com
<<Speaking for myself only>>
diagonal flying
Actually, we didnt buy Jags, Mercs and BMW's are preferable
W. Perry Bullock
Is he or isnt he? (Brent Spiner a Republican?)
--
Walter Perry Bullock
John E. Harrington
>j...@iris77.biosym.com writes:
>> over the Italian airwaves).... All of these people in one way or another were deeply
>> entrenched in the mainstream conservative movements of their time.
>> --John
>
>uh-huh. now for the political realities of today...
Yep. More of the same fascist BS, cloaked in the tearful cause of property
rights for millionaires.
It's called having your cake and eating it, too.
The American people will be as slow to wise up as the German people were.
John E. Harrington
>First of all - the basics of a "Conservative" are that no outside
>influence should mandate the actions of a group. Now - that may sound
>a little general but it's basic to most humans that I've talked with.
>
>Socially:
>
>Conservatism means that the social entity should evolve in it's own methods.
>Basically, there should be no laws that mandate actions unless those actions
>are a detriment to the society.
Uh huh,
anti-abortion laws
school prayer and the pledge of allegience
flag burning amendment
sodomy and oral copulation laws
propositions that demand teachers teach homosexuality is wrong
In the past:
HUAC
FBI
COINTELPRO
> An example is that a societal block should not
>have a charactaristic that allows one group to subject another group to
>sub-human actions (i.e.: Alabama/Mississippi in the early '60s). That society
>has a right to evolve in it's own way, under it's own guidelines, etc.
>
>Liberalism means that a central entity decides how the societal block is
A central entity known as "the individual" rather than "the corporation".
How evil we all are.
>to evolve and controls that evolution.
>
>Both philosophies are valid from their own perspective. The perspective
>of the Conservative philophers is that of the societal block. The Liberals
>is that of the central entity. Please note that the Conservative elements
>of South Africa are drastically different from that of the United States.
>There are many examples of this.
How about the "conservative elements" of America which came breathtakingly close
to electing a neo-Nazi to the governorship of Louisianna?
Or the conservative elements of Britain which support the BNP, a well-known
front for racists, who believe in the exportation of every non-white British
citizen while rallying against the "rise of Liberalism".
(source: a 60 minutes program, winter 1994)
>Economically:
>
>Conservatives believe that the market should be guided by supply and demand.
>The economic model would be controlled by supply and demand.
>
>Liberals believe that a central entity should control the supply and codify
>demand. This will control the economic model.
Bullshit. Name a single American liberal who believes this. American liberalism
desires an appropriate balance between big business and big gov't. You can
check the record of the ACLU, which has been equally vigilant against both these
enemies.
Your argument is nothing but a feeble strawman.
>The concept of "trickle down" regarded the money for social programs. What
>was said was that if the US government demand a smaller percentage of your
>money, then you will have more of it to spend in your own envinronment. This
>would lead to greater profits in your home town thus - more jobs. THAT WORKED!
The "concept of "trickle down"" was bankrupt long before the 1980's. Herbert
Hoover tried it and succeeded only in a tragic stockmarket crash which gave
us 15 years of depression. FDR, by spending massive amts of gov't money and
taxing revived the economy and kicked off 30 years of economic prosperity the
likes of which have never been witnessed in the history of the world. This
golden age was dominated by presidents who would be ridiculed today as tax and spend
liberals: Truman, Ike (who launched one of the most massively expensive gov't programs
in history to build a system of highways and 10s of thousands of public
schools), JFK, LBJ.
>>I saw this paraphrased statistic in Time over the Summer:
>>
>>1983 Average Executive Salary:$380,000 Avg. Blue Collar:19,200
>>1994 " ":$1.3 mil " ":$26,000
>>
>
>Please define what the Executive is! I am one. I make no where near what
>you have here.
Somebody needs to explain to this "executive" what an average is.
>Don't confuse the themes of period movies with the motivations of the society
>they purport to represent. They are just entertainment. Star Trek is
>just entertainment. Pure and simple.
Rush Limbaugh is entertainment too.
alan wertsching
jerks. In the pursuit of more money people in general take a
back seat. Orange County is a simple example more tax breaks
for rich folks now means less well off people may not get some
vital services. This era we live in is insane, children are poorest
group in this country and if you dare talk of tax increases to pay
for more supplies for the school district you're labeled a liberal
tax and spend gay sodomy loving sicky. Come on we should be liberal
with our money when it comes to children. If being conservative
means being greedy and being liberal means being soft hearted then
I vote liberal.
Mak Knighton
Moderate, though.
Arthur F. Mcgrath-Iii
: From: jc...@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Jamie Plummer)
: >j...@iris77.biosym.com writes:
: >> over the Italian airwaves).... All of these people in one way or another were deeply
: >> entrenched in the mainstream conservative movements of their time.
: >> --John
: >
: >uh-huh. now for the political realities of today...
: Yep. More of the same fascist BS, cloaked in the tearful cause of property
: rights for millionaires.
Fascist? Oh come on, is that the best you can do is scream the term fascist
where it has no application?
: It's called having your cake and eating it, too.
: The American people will be as slow to wise up as the German people were.
Maybe not, they voted the Republicans in. There is hope that the
collectivists (or "fascists" to use your term) will be turned back.
This election shows the first glimmers of light in this country for years.
Arthur F. Mcgrath-Iii
: Uh huh,
: anti-abortion laws
: school prayer and the pledge of allegience
: flag burning amendment
: sodomy and oral copulation laws
: propositions that demand teachers teach homosexuality is wrong
Liberal guilt:
Federal involvement in the abortion issue, which should be a state one
Not letting local school boards decide on school prayer for their districts
flag burning is not a right/left issue. There probably shouldn't be an
amendment because of the free speech issue but why are people so anxious
to burn it? That question concerns me more.
Propositions that demand teachers teach homosexuality is right, over
the objections of the parents
: In the past:
: HUAC
McCarthy? How about Roosevelt court packing, The New Deal, the Great
Society, Anita Hill hearings, or the reason that HUAC was called in the
first place: the close connections of the American Left at the time to
international communism. HUAC probably wasn't the answer but there was a
real problem to respond to.
: FBI
How about the FBI, DEA, BATF today? Not much conservative support for
these today but as for the liberals...
: COINTELPRO
Liberal administrations get as involved in this as anyone.
: >
: >Liberalism means that a central entity decides how the societal block is
: A central entity known as "the individual" rather than "the corporation".
: How evil we all are.
A liberal defending the individual? I never thought I would see this. You
are alone among your political friends I fear. Group rights are what's
important today, remember? HillBill himself was saying not too long ago
that in our modern society, the rights of the individual must be
subservient to the needs of the group and sharply cut back. Typical.
For example:
speech codes.
gun control.
"progressive" taxes.
violation of private property rights (EPA, i.e.).
discussion to make the modern means of communication easier to monitor.
federal mandates on states: seat belt laws, drinking age, Brady Bill.
"Hate" Crimes (punished for how you think, not just act).
: >to evolve and controls that evolution.
: >
: >Both philosophies are valid from their own perspective. The perspective
: >of the Conservative philophers is that of the societal block. The Liberals
: >is that of the central entity. Please note that the Conservative elements
: >of South Africa are drastically different from that of the United States.
: >There are many examples of this.
: How about the "conservative elements" of America which came breathtakingly close
: to electing a neo-Nazi to the governorship of Louisianna?
How about a former draft-dodger who attended OVERSEAS protests against his
country who now has the gall to give orders to the military?
: Or the conservative elements of Britain which support the BNP, a well-known
: front for racists, who believe in the exportation of every non-white British
: citizen while rallying against the "rise of Liberalism".
Or Jesse Jackson, perennial presidential candidate, who openly associates
with racists such as Farrakhan and Leonard Jeffries.
: >Economically:
: >
: >Conservatives believe that the market should be guided by supply and demand.
: >The economic model would be controlled by supply and demand.
: >
: >Liberals believe that a central entity should control the supply and codify
: >demand. This will control the economic model.
: Bullshit. Name a single American liberal who believes this. American liberalism
: desires an appropriate balance between big business and big gov't. You can
: check the record of the ACLU, which has been equally vigilant against both these
: enemies.
The emphasis in your statement is "big." Big business and big goverment,
which liberals are avid supporters of. Hillary Clinton made
statements against small business during the health care debate. Not much
support for small business, the largest employer in the country, from
liberals.
: Your argument is nothing but a feeble strawman.
No, I don't think so.
: The "concept of "trickle down"" was bankrupt long before the 1980's.
Funny how it worked in the '80s producing the biggest peacetime economic
boom ever in this country.
: FDR, by spending massive amts of gov't money and
: taxing revived the economy and kicked off 30 years of economic prosperity the
: likes of which have never been witnessed in the history of the world.
You will not find many historians or economists to support this claim.
FDR ended the depression? World War II ended the depression. You can make a
good claim that he dragged us into WW II but I hardly think that the best
way to cure a country's economic ills is to start a war.
Think about what you said: massive amounts of gov't spending and taxing.
What taxes are good for business or individuals? Not many, and the higher
they are the worse they are. Sure the defense spending got companies
going and contracts from around the world helped those companies also but
they had limited value. The country moved on after (though defense
spending never shrank back to its previous level).
During the Depression itself, Roosevelt created "make-work" positions.
It kept people busy digging ditches and building roads so they wouldn't
be on the streets formenting revolution. In this he was more or less
successful. Other than that, government CREATES NOTHING really. It is a
leech whose only real purpose is to maintain law and order through the
courts and limited police powers, and to maintain the military to protetc
the country. (in my libertarian/conservative opinion, of course.)
:This
: golden age was dominated by presidents who would be ridiculed today as tax and spend
: liberals: Truman, Ike (who launched one of the most massively expensive gov't programs
: in history to build a system of highways
Those highways were part of the civil defense network. We did reap the
benefits from those, it is true. Funny you call it a golden age, most
liberals make fun of those "Ozzie and Harriet" days. However, the
percentage of federal spending in those days was much less that now, and
the percentage of people working for the Federal government was much smaller.
It wasn't "massive" proportionally by today's standards.
and 10s of thousands of public
: schools), JFK,
Just an aside, JFK ran for office promising a tax cut. He would be called
conservative by todays standards economically. He still wasn't much of a
president though. Thanks for Vietnam, Jack!
{average salaries cut here....}
: Somebody needs to explain to this "executive" what an average is.
As you know, any statistics can be twisted around. One has to be careful
comparing different statistics.
: >Don't confuse the themes of period movies with the motivations of the society
: >they purport to represent. They are just entertainment. Star Trek is
: >just entertainment. Pure and simple.
: Rush Limbaugh is entertainment too.
It's intended to be, but that's because the people in the news are so
entertaining (Jocelyn Elders, HillBill, etc) ;)
Just a final note here. The term liberal could apply to all of the
arguments made on both sides here. It depends on how you define it. The
point of view I have been coming from could be called a "classical
liberal" position, known today as libertarian, a philosophy that many
conservatives subscribe to (some more, some less unfortunately) today.
The Libertarian Party is consistent on these views, while the Republicans
and consevatives are not though they are starting to sound like it. This
is a position a previous poster mistakenly confused (when he said that
the liberals were the "do what you want party, the libertarian party") with
the modern "Liberal" or Democratic (the party) position, which is the tax
and spend, big government, group rights, government should be your mother
and father from cradle to grave. While the conservatives are not always
consistent that are closer OVERALL to the libertarian position with the
exceptions of some of the religious right and the neo-conservatives, who
resemble the Liberals in too many ways.
To bring this back to Star Trek:
Spock: "You came back for me. Why?"
Kirk: "Because the needs of the one out-weigh the needs of the many."
Last scene of ST 3
Gharlane of Eddore
j...@iris77.biosym.com (John E. Harrington) writes:
>
...<deletia, several points of which I agree with>
>
> The "concept of "trickle down"" was bankrupt long before the 1980's.
> Herbert Hoover tried it and succeeded only in a tragic stockmarket
> crash which gave us 15 years of depression.
You should take another look at the Constitutional Amendment which
was passed in 1917, and the economic results of it moving several
major industries "underground," with the profits going entirely to
organized crime instead of paying interstate transport taxes.
The illegal passage of the 16th Amendment in 1913 had also caused major
economic dislocations, temporarily masked by the wartime economy of WWI.
The primary contributors to the Economic Nosedive of 1929 were the loss
of tax revenues and increase of crime caused by the Volstead Act and
the Income Tax.
> FDR, by spending massive amts of gov't money and taxing revived the
> economy and kicked off 30 years of economic prosperity the likes of
> which have never been witnessed in the history of the world.
Incorrect. By getting the "Social Security Act" (actually, a better
name for it would be the "Anti-Social In-Security TAX") into place,
FDR arranged for a major chunk of money to be taken from the American
people without their consent, and made available for public programs.
The 1933 reversal of the "Prohibition" legislation put a large portion
of the economy back on an above-board, taxable, basis, and increased
available public funds, but not to pre-Prohibition levels, since
Prohibition had created an ecological niche for large-corporation
organized crime, which had grown healthy enough to survive in the
absence of Prohibition.
When this proved insufficient, FDR and his advisors managed to apply
sufficiently throttling economic and territorial strictures to
Japan, to pressure them into a desperate frame of mind, and then
consciously delayed the Japanese delivery of their formal declaration
of war until *after* Pearl, so he could call it a "Sneak Attack" and
get the largely isolationist U.S. into the war, giving us a hugely
active wartime economy, at the expense of later resource and production
capacity.
> This golden age was dominated by presidents who would be ridiculed today
> as tax and spend liberals: Truman, Ike (who launched one of the most
> massively expensive gov't programs in history to build a system of
> highways and 10s of thousands of public schools), JFK, LBJ.
It wasn't a "golden age," it was a continuation of the Democratic Party's
"Spend Our Future" program, which kept borrowing on the future riches of
our nation, at the expense of the next generations. Truman had walked
into an impossible situation, knew he wasn't going to be able to get
re-elected, and tried to do the best job he could in the face of
impossible corruption and control by political elements which were only
partly apparent.
Ike went for highway construction in lieu of massive welfare legislation.
In hindsight, he'd probably have been better advised to invest our efforts
in railroads and public transport, but the liberal Democrats had gotten
everyone to live at a reduced level for a decade by promising a "cars in
every garage," as though individual automobiles were something we actually
needed. The wartime production corporations needed to switch into
peacetime production and did NOT want to cut back to pre-war production
levels, and pressured for automobile-style highways, to facilitate
disposition of their product.
If you want to make a difference, find a way to eliminate Detroit,
Congress, and most of our current federal tax structure, and cancel
our current version of "Prohibition," which is providing an excuse
for heavy funding for things like the DEA and the BATF, neither of
which would be necessary in an economically healthy country.
You might also investigate whether it's possible to try government
officials for murders and assaults committed by federal agents under
their supervision.
John Soo-Hoo
I've tried to follow this thread. But this discussion has evolved from
whether or not Brent Spiner is a Republican to what a Repubican/Democrat
is or is not.
I just want the question answered. Is Brent Spiner a Republican or not?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!!!
John McEnroe
Jet Silverman
Thank you!
Brent is a Democrat. He did campaign work for Clinton.
John Soo-Hoo (jso...@netcom.com) wrote:
: I've tried to follow this thread. But this discussion has evolved from
Jack Haddon
: Thank you!
: Brent is a Democrat. He did campaign work for Clinton.
Ahh! No! What is the final frontier coming to. :(
--
Jack Haddon
Student for Freedom
Jet Silverman
Can't you rename this thread "Boring, long political tirades"?d
had...@hps126.mlo.dec.com
... and no sooner were the Republicans in charge than Socialism 101 (taught
by Professor Baron von Munchausen) was cancelled!!
Bruce
p.s. - it doesn't matter that it's not really true! Like a good little
socialist, reality does not matter. What matters is how well I can distort
the truth!
John E. Harrington
>: From: jc...@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Jamie Plummer)
>: >j...@iris77.biosym.com writes:
>: >> over the Italian airwaves).... All of these people in one way or another were deeply
>: >> entrenched in the mainstream conservative movements of their time.
>: >> --John
>: >
>: >uh-huh. now for the political realities of today...
>
: Yep. More of the same fascist BS, cloaked in the tearful cause of property
>: rights for millionaires.
>
>
>Fascist? Oh come on, is that the best you can do is scream the term fascist
>where it has no application?
David Duke, the supremacy of property rights over all others, Flag Burning
amendments, gag orders, attempts to outlaw abortion rights, the "rights" of
corporations to...you name it (pollute, terminate contracts arbitrarily,
strike break), state amendments to force school teachers to teach that
homosexuality is wrong, school prayer, the "pledge of allegience"....on
and on and on.
Not to mention history: HUAC, McCarthy, the FBI, the CIA.
Same ol', same ol'. Protecting the "rights" of wealthy white Americans who have the
correct political and religious views.
>
>: It's called having your cake and eating it, too.
>
>: The American people will be as slow to wise up as the German people were.
>
>Maybe not, they voted the Republicans in. There is hope that the
>collectivists (or "fascists" to use your term) will be turned back.
There are no "collectivists" left in the country. They were purged in the McCarthy
era. You think Democrats are collectivists because you don't know any better.
>This election shows the first glimmers of light in this country for years.
Yeah, but the disturbing thing is that the light is coming from the villagers'
torches.