!THE PSYCHOLOGY OF CONSERVATIVE RAGE 2: The Party of Hate
John Q. Public
Hanson wrote:
>
> CONSERVATIVE RAGE 2:
> The Party of Hate.
>
> Monday, March 18, 1996
>
>
> Whence the derision, the name calling, the intolerance?
John Q. Public
Hanson wrote:
>
> In <314D8D...@inxpress.net> "John Q. Public"
> Well, most of it's coming from you, John.
>
"You sir are a moron. On the side you've chosen to stand, morons have
enormous value regardless of their age." -- R. Hanson, 3/19/96
Hanson
The Party of Hate.
Monday, March 18, 1996
ONE OF THE MOST interesting comments I found in the whole
of the article in the Journal of Psychohistory on Conservative
Rage involved a seemingly small thing. Having grown up in the
era of Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon, I've noted for some
time now that, unlike these two avowed conservatives, the latest
incarnation of the New Right has developed a seeming speech
impediment. This affliction apparently makes it difficult for
conservatives to pronounce the "ic" ending on the word
"democratic" as in "Democratic Party," "Democratic Caucus,"
"Democratic congress," etc. Older conservatives not so given to
bending with the current wind as Bob Dole can actually
remember when it was not so, some of them still give the
opposing party the dignity of calling it by its given name. Some of
the worst offenders occasionally make the mistake of forgetting to
drop the ending, but all in all it's become pretty consistent to use
this small and fairly immature slur of referring to the Democratic
Party as the "Democrat Party."
Regardless of how we might have felt about their politics, Barry
Goldwater didn't need to employ so small a slight and neither did
Nixon. They had ideas and issues. Of course, round about the
time of Richard Nixon, things began to change and conservatism
became more and more about divisiveness, less and less about
ideas. Pat Buchanan's historic memo to Attorney General John
Mitchell addressed such notions. He and Paul Weyrich were the
modern era originators of a new politics of division that would
work well for Nixon before he ultimately went into self-destruct
mode. "If we tear the country in two," wrote Buchanan, "we can
walk away with the bigger half." That same idea still works
today, much magnified and more obvious. One sees it in the
invective of Rush Limbaugh, the almost daily "Clinton as traitor"
speeches in the House Well of Rep. Bob Dornan, the murder
accusations aimed at the "liberal welfare state" by House Speaker
Newt Gingrich.
As the presidential campaign moves on, we can expect to hear
much more of this. William Kristol has sent out a general call for
more of the same derisive rhetoric. Bill Clinton will be called
many names this year. Those who post faintly liberal or
progressive sentiments in these groups will be called the same
names or worse. We will be called socialist, statist, communist,
Marxist, nihilist, fascist, reactionary, homosexual, bisexual,
non-sexual, immoral, amoral, even "right wing" by a few
conservatives who feel they get more points by pretending to a
liberalism they neither truly espouse nor understand. Why is this?
One can understand the politics of division, but what we now
have from the conservative right wing is more the politics of
derision.
Part of it, I believe, is a operational necessity. There's an old
legal maxim that goes something like this: "if you can't argue the law,
argue the facts. If you can't argue the facts, argue the law. If you
can't argue the facts or the law, call the other lawyer names."
The necessity of calling the other party names when your involved
in defending or advancing the conservative cause seems pretty
clear. The New Right's biggest new idea is to dismantle popular
and largely successful programs and return America to an
economic idea discredited in the Coolidge administration. Their
economic ideas have had a little more than a decade to work
their magic through the Reagan/Bush administrations and have left
the country with a three trillion dollar debt. This is not an easy
idea to defend. Their social ideas are even worse and on the face
of it are capable of getting past the voters only if the majority of
Americans choose to drug themselves into a stupor on election
day. Under these circumstances, loud invective may be the only
hope. The plan here is, if the Democratic Party --- excuse me, I
mean the "Democrat Party" --- can be tied up defending absurd
charges and wiping mud off its collective face, maybe it won't
have the time to explain to the voters just how big a con the
Contract with America really is.
But there's more to it than that. The posters on these groups are
not paid political hacks, though we often act like it. No one really
hopes to sway the opposition with what passes for argumentation
in these forums. The invective here is too often very real. And
that means that conservatism's grand plan has worked far too
well --- better, in fact, than it's originators would have wanted.
Already we see the GOP candidates wrestling with the wages of
the sin of summoning up a religious vote that wants and
increasingly expects total political control of the GOP. And we
have seen the dangers growing from groups pandered to by the
racial and religious bigotry preached by Pat Buchanan. We have
seen and continue to see the growth of a political cult of
punishment, vengeance, hatred. And we see the rise of
Farrakhan type reactions to it, the frightening spread of hatred as
a thinly disguised philosophy, as a way of life.
Whence the derision, the name calling, the intolerance? As
children we all went through it, boys or girls. Who among us has
not come up with a joke at the expense of those who were
different? We grew out of it. Except that some of us did not. As
a child, who hasn't experienced anger toward a parent? Who
hasn't for at least a moment wanted to hurt back? We hope to
grow out of such things, and largely we do. Except some do not
grow out of the urge to hurt back. The new right offers appealing
targets, those who are not like the rest of "us." It asks that same
question which was first ask by the American Nativist movements
and is being asked again in groups like these: "who are the REAL
Americans?" Such questions and the easy targets of the poor, the
sick, the elderly, and those of differing religion, race, and sexual
orientation have led to an increase in the level of insult that shows
no signs of lessening. Lionel Trilling once wrote: "Conservatives
don't really have ideas, they have irritable mental gestures that
substitute for ideas." A political ideology that is based more on a
reaction to the philosophy of liberalism than on any philosophy of
its own is bound to produce tense and grumpy adherents Add to
this the takeover of the conservative movement by its most
extreme end and you have a recipe for boiling-point hostility.
I wish there were easy answers to such things. Liberalism is a
rationalistic political philosophy and rationality seems to be one of
the elements of liberalism rejected by its staunchest foes. Thus
one can on these groups see individuals hurling lies, insults, and
misrepresentations only to blithely refer to such stratagems as
"rational discourse." That we, as progressives and liberals
recognize demagoguery for what it is does not change the effect
regardless of how many times we call attention to it.
So what is the answer? To look at the extreme ends of the hard
right wing agenda, one sees a small but viciously vocal minority
that will be satisfied with nothing else but their own complete
victory. Consensus with such a group would be clearly
impossible, primarily because it would be impossible to cede to
them all that they demand. Like children who have become
addicted to some powerful drug, they seem to have lost all sense
of self-control, and have begun --- especially with regard to the
Whitewater issue --- to resemble nothing so much as the images
summoned up by a study of the Salem witch trials.
Yet I have gotten many encouraging responses on these groups
and letters from many lurkers honestly interested in the issues. So
the attempts go on. Progressives will continue to post primarily
as an alternative to the one-sidedness and intolerance of so many
of the groups. We error most where we seek to persuade rather
than to simply present. Fanaticism cannot be reasoned with, only
transformed from one target to another. Today it is Bill and
Hillary Clinton, and welfare mothers, tomorrow it will be
homosexuals or those of some other faith, and the day after the
intolerant will find someone or something else. Russell said that
liberalism was not so much 'what' liberalism believes but 'how'
liberalism believes, and perhaps that is the best defense we have
against the extremism of the right wing. Perhaps it is not so much
the truth about this or that subject that counts, but the very act of
attempting to keep an open mind that makes the final difference.
RH
--
"It is commonly urged that, in a war between Liberals and fanatics,
the fanatics are sure to win, owing to their more unshakable belief
in the righteousness of their cause. This belief dies hard, although
all history, including that of the last few years is against it. Fanatics
have failed, over and over again, because they have attempted the
impossible; they have failed also because they roused the hostility
of those whom they wished to coerce."
Bertrand Russell
Martin Anderson
is Mein Kampf.
Martin
In <4il9na$m...@dfw-ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> rha...@ix.netcom.com(Hanson
Hanson
writes:
>
><whitewater ng removed from header>
>
>
>Hanson wrote:
>>
>> In <314D8D...@inxpress.net> "John Q. Public"
>> <capm...@inxpress.net> writes:
>> >
>> >The voice of the hypocrite; the trick of the propagandist.
>> >
>> >
>> >Hanson wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The Party of Hate.
>> >>
>> >> Monday, March 18, 1996
>> >>
>> >
>> >>
>>
>>
>
>"You sir are a moron. On the side you've chosen to stand, morons have
>enormous value regardless of their age." -- R. Hanson, 3/19/96
--
Hanson
writes:
>
><whitewater ng removed from header>
>
>
>Hanson wrote:
>>
>> In <314D8D...@inxpress.net> "John Q. Public"
>> <capm...@inxpress.net> writes:
>> >
>> >The voice of the hypocrite; the trick of the propagandist.
>> >
>> >
>> >Hanson wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The Party of Hate.
>> >>
>> >> Monday, March 18, 1996
>> >>
>> >
>> >>
>>
>>
>
>"You sir are a moron. On the side you've chosen to stand, morons have
>enormous value regardless of their age." -- R. Hanson, 3/19/96
Nicely done, John. I don't think I could have defined you better
myself. :)
Nancy K
>In <314D9E...@inxpress.net> "John Q. Public" <capm...@inxpress.net>
>writes:
>>
>><whitewater ng removed from header>
>>
>>
>>Hanson wrote:
>>>
>>> In <314D8D...@inxpress.net> "John Q. Public"
>>> <capm...@inxpress.net> writes:
>>> >
>>> >The voice of the hypocrite; the trick of the propagandist.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Hanson wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> CONSERVATIVE RAGE 2:
>>> >> The Party of Hate.
>>> >>
>>> >> Monday, March 18, 1996
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> Whence the derision, the name calling, the intolerance?
>>>
>>> Well, most of it's coming from you, John.
>>>
>>
>>"You sir are a moron. On the side you've chosen to stand, morons have
>>enormous value regardless of their age." -- R. Hanson, 3/19/96
>Nicely done, John. I don't think I could have defined you better
>myself. :)
>--
>"It is commonly urged that, in a war between Liberals and fanatics,
>the fanatics are sure to win, owing to their more unshakable belief
>in the righteousness of their cause. This belief dies hard, although
>all history, including that of the last few years is against it. Fanatics
>have failed, over and over again, because they have attempted the
>impossible; they have failed also because they roused the hostility
>of those whom they wished to coerce."
> Bertrand Russell
So... there's two choices huh? ... Liberals and fanatics. My this
sure sounds like a voice of reason, now doesn't it? Since you have
chosen this quote for your sig, it follows that you agree with it.
One wonders why you feel it necessary to attempt to categorize people
in this fashion. Frankly, I find it curious that you have the
audacity to accuse *others* of "derision, ... name calling, ... (and)
intolerance".
Nancy K
Hanson
The Party of Hate.
Monday, March 18, 1996
ONE OF THE MOST interesting comments I found in the whole
Part of it, I believe, is a operational stance. There's an old legal
maxim that goes something like this: "if you can't argue the law,
argue the facts. If you can't argue the facts, argue the law. If you
can't argue the facts or the law, call the other lawyer names."
The necessity of calling the other party names when your involved
in defending or advancing the conservative cause seems pretty
clear. The New Right's biggest new idea is to dismantle popular
and largely successful programs and return America to an
economic idea discredited in the Coolidge administration. Their
economic ideas have had a little more than a decade to work
their magic through the Reagan/Bush administrations and have left
the country with a three trillion dollar debt. This is not an easy
idea to defend. Their social ideas are even worse and on the face
of it are capable of getting past the voters only if the majority of
Americans choose to drug themselves into a stupor on election
day. Under these circumstances, loud invective may be the only
hope. The plan here is, if the Democratic Party --- excuse me, I
mean the "Democrat Party" --- can be tied up defending absurd
charges and wiping mud off its collective face, maybe it won't
have the time to explain to the voters just how big a crock the
RH
--
John Q. Public
> =
> In <4in3f4$s...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> rbo...@ix.netcom.com(Roger B
> Olsen) writes:
> >
> >In <4ilngk$s...@news2.realtime.net> nan...@bga.com (Nancy K) writes:
> >>
> >>rha...@ix.netcom.com(Hanson ) wrote:
> >>
> >
> >>>"It is commonly urged that, in a war between Liberals and fanatics,
> >>>the fanatics are sure to win, owing to their more unshakable belief
> >>>in the righteousness of their cause. This belief dies hard,
> although
> >>>all history, including that of the last few years is against it.
> Fanatics
> >>>have failed, over and over again, because they have attempted the
> >>>impossible; they have failed also because they roused the hostility
> >>>of those whom they wished to coerce."
> >>> Bertrand Russell
> >>
> >>
> >> So... there's two choices huh? ... Liberals and fanatics. My
> this
> >> sure sounds like a voice of reason, now doesn't it? Since you
> have
> >> chosen this quote for your sig, it follows that you agree with
> it.
> >> One wonders why you feel it necessary to attempt to categorize
> >people
> >> in this fashion. Frankly, I find it curious that you have the
> >> audacity to accuse *others* of "derision, ... name calling, ...
> >(and)
> >> intolerance".
> >>
> >> Nancy K
> >>
> >
> >
> >Another classic conservative response. Why do conservative always
> think
> >and interpret in terms of black and white, right or wrong, either this
> >way or that way. There is nothing in the quote that says "there=92s two
> >choices". You have interpreted it that way.
Yes, the disease is in you, says Hanson, and thus you are
a "Right Winger" unable to discriminate between black and white.
Never mind that that is precisely what he wrote. In Hanson's
deranged universe, it is what he has in his heart that counts,
the fact that he "cares" lin the same way Ms. Hillary "cares",
all the while she destroys lives to further her crusade
of "caring." Hanson is the man who has no mirror.
He is the Self Made Man, who can determine meanings of
language to suit his own purposes. You do not count, Nancy,
because you are not real to Hanson.
> =
> Part of it is an obsessive concern over established "rules."
> Ideological rules encourage a black/white view of life and discourage
> consensus. By ignoring the panorama of real human concerns, ideas are
> distilled down to simple chunks, easily digested by the conservative
> mind. Hence, for many conservatives, people are either "conservative"
> or "wrong." =
"Right Wingers" are bad, right, pig?
> They don't see the spectrum of possible beliefs and
> legitimate concerns. Part of it is also the drive to the extreme right
> wing. Once one gets to the very edges of ideology, less and less
> informed opinion and real knowledge energize one's beliefs. The
> extreme ideologue has to believe that "it's either my way or the
> highway," because the extremist ideologue has no room left to maneuver.
> =
> RH
The mundane musings of the fanatic statist pig Hanson, an attempt
at camoflaging the hatred inside, warm and moderate platitudes
to hide his contempt for common people. In Hanson's operationalized =
worldview, as opposed to this smokescreen
pap he produces for public consumption, "self-interest" has
come to mean that which the elitists determine is good for
ordinary, less special people.
The voice of the "liberal" has spoken, again.
Paul Gallagher
>>"It is commonly urged that, in a war between Liberals and fanatics,
>>the fanatics are sure to win, owing to their more unshakable belief
>>in the righteousness of their cause. This belief dies hard, although
>>all history, including that of the last few years is against it. Fanatics
>>have failed, over and over again, because they have attempted the
>>impossible; they have failed also because they roused the hostility
>>of those whom they wished to coerce."
>> Bertrand Russell
> So... there's two choices huh? ... Liberals and fanatics. My this
> sure sounds like a voice of reason, now doesn't it? Since you have
> chosen this quote for your sig, it follows that you agree with it.
> One wonders why you feel it necessary to attempt to categorize people
> in this fashion. Frankly, I find it curious that you have the
> audacity to accuse *others* of "derision, ... name calling, ... (and)
> intolerance".
Come on! What's worse than the gentlemen who engage in "derision...name
calling...(and) intolerance" are the apologists for them. And what really
stupefies me is that they don't seem even dimly aware that there's something
seriously strange about what they're doing. Nancy K doesn't notice anything
odd about someone who posts:
LOVE OF COUNTRY IS A LIBERAL ABSTRACTION ALIEN TO YOUR BLACK FASCIST
HEART, ISN'T IT HANSON?
yet takes great offense if someone calls that same person a fanatic.
But keep it up - it's an entertaining little show you have here!
Paul
"Russell, you know, would scorn a little loutish pipsqueak like Hanson.
He saw through Stalin and he would see through bully-boy Hanson."
-anderso1
Message-ID: <4ij068$n...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
John Q. Public
many words in between your computer screen and your brain:
Hanson wrote:
Q.> "Whence the derision, the name calling, the intolerance?"
A.> "You sir are a moron." -- R. Hanson, 3/19/96
James C. Harrison
35 years old. It was part of the verbal behavior of Republican pols. I
was a Republican then myself, indeed, the president of the local TARS,
and neither I nor anybody else in the party had any doubt as to the
meaning of the gesture, which was about as ambiguous as giving somebody
the finger. Can it be that Mr. Williams is being the tensiest bit
disingenuous about this issue?
hexis
Michael Williams
> ONE OF THE MOST interesting comments I found in the whole
> of the article in the Journal of Psychohistory on Conservative
> Rage involved a seemingly small thing. Having grown up in the
> era of Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon, I've noted for some
> time now that, unlike these two avowed conservatives, the latest
> incarnation of the New Right has developed a seeming speech
> impediment. This affliction apparently makes it difficult for
> conservatives to pronounce the "ic" ending on the word
> "democratic" as in "Democratic Party," "Democratic Caucus,"
> "Democratic congress," etc. Older conservatives not so given to
> bending with the current wind as Bob Dole can actually
> remember when it was not so, some of them still give the
> opposing party the dignity of calling it by its given name. Some of
> the worst offenders occasionally make the mistake of forgetting to
> drop the ending, but all in all it's become pretty consistent to use
> this small and fairly immature slur of referring to the Democratic
> Party as the "Democrat Party."
Do you really consider this to be a slur? An intentional
effort on the part of Republicans to insult members of the
opposition? When you speak of "offenders" and disregarded
"dignity", you're blowing a pretty insignificant course of
events--even if substantiated--completely out of proportion.
The environment here in Washington does suffer from a lack
of civility, but it's not remedied by drawing attention to
imagined and unimportant slights.
------
Michael Williams
Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service
Georgetown University
will...@gusun.acc.georgetown.edu
Roger B Olsen
>
>>"It is commonly urged that, in a war between Liberals and fanatics,
>>the fanatics are sure to win, owing to their more unshakable belief
>>in the righteousness of their cause. This belief dies hard, although
>>all history, including that of the last few years is against it. Fanatics
>>have failed, over and over again, because they have attempted the
>>impossible; they have failed also because they roused the hostility
>>of those whom they wished to coerce."
>> Bertrand Russell
>
>
> So... there's two choices huh? ... Liberals and fanatics. My this
> sure sounds like a voice of reason, now doesn't it? Since you have
> chosen this quote for your sig, it follows that you agree with it.
> One wonders why you feel it necessary to attempt to categorize
people
> in this fashion. Frankly, I find it curious that you have the
> audacity to accuse *others* of "derision, ... name calling, ...
(and)
> intolerance".
>
> Nancy K
>
Another classic conservative response. Why do conservative always think
and interpret in terms of black and white, right or wrong, either this
way or that way. There is nothing in the quote that says "there’s two
choices". You have interpreted it that way.
RBO
Martin Anderson
Rave on Hanson!
Martin
In <4imi4e$7...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> rha...@ix.netcom.com(Hanson )
writes:
Roger B Olsen
This is very well put. The right wing will not have the vaguest idea
what you have said because it is not mired in details but presents a
very broad overview, something the right wing has a lot of difficulty
understanding. It does take some effort to see the big picture and that
is something they are unwilling to do, perhaps because it is difficult.
The Newt and the Republican freshmen are a prime example. They could
have, with Clinton's help, gone much further reducing spending if they
were not so intent on a tax cut for the wealthy. Clinton has done a lot
to cut spending and the right could have gotten even more had they not
insisted on the all or none attitude.
RBO
Hanson
<capm...@inxpress.net> writes:
>
>The voice of the hypocrite; the trick of the propagandist.
>
>
>Hanson wrote:
>>
>> The Party of Hate.
>>
>> Monday, March 18, 1996
>>
>
>>
Well, most of it's coming from you, John.
RH
Hanson
Olsen) writes:
>
>In <4il9na$m...@dfw-ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> rha...@ix.netcom.com(Hanson
>) writes:
>
>This is very well put. The right wing will not have the vaguest idea
>what you have said because it is not mired in details but presents a
>very broad overview, something the right wing has a lot of difficulty
>understanding. It does take some effort to see the big picture and
that
>is something they are unwilling to do, perhaps because it is
difficult.
>The Newt and the Republican freshmen are a prime example. They could
>have, with Clinton's help, gone much further reducing spending if they
>were not so intent on a tax cut for the wealthy. Clinton has done a
lot
>to cut spending and the right could have gotten even more had they not
>insisted on the all or none attitude.
Agreed. As a result of the invective and extortion campaign, Newt has
singlehandedly engineered one of the least effective congresses in
history.
RH
Hanson
Olsen) writes:
>
>In <4ilngk$s...@news2.realtime.net> nan...@bga.com (Nancy K) writes:
>>
>>rha...@ix.netcom.com(Hanson ) wrote:
>>
>
>>>the fanatics are sure to win, owing to their more unshakable belief
>>>in the righteousness of their cause. This belief dies hard,
although
>>>all history, including that of the last few years is against it.
Fanatics
>>>have failed, over and over again, because they have attempted the
>>>impossible; they have failed also because they roused the hostility
>>>of those whom they wished to coerce."
>>> Bertrand Russell
>>
>>
this
>> sure sounds like a voice of reason, now doesn't it? Since you
have
>> chosen this quote for your sig, it follows that you agree with
it.
>> One wonders why you feel it necessary to attempt to categorize
>people
>> in this fashion. Frankly, I find it curious that you have the
>> audacity to accuse *others* of "derision, ... name calling, ...
>(and)
>> intolerance".
>>
>> Nancy K
>>
>
>
>Another classic conservative response. Why do conservative always
think
>and interpret in terms of black and white, right or wrong, either this
>way or that way. There is nothing in the quote that says "there’s two
>choices". You have interpreted it that way.
Part of it is an obsessive concern over established "rules."
Ideological rules encourage a black/white view of life and discourage
consensus. By ignoring the panorama of real human concerns, ideas are
distilled down to simple chunks, easily digested by the conservative
mind. Hence, for many conservatives, people are either "conservative"
or "wrong." They don't see the spectrum of possible beliefs and
legitimate concerns. Part of it is also the drive to the extreme right
wing. Once one gets to the very edges of ideology, less and less
informed opinion and real knowledge energize one's beliefs. The
extreme ideologue has to believe that "it's either my way or the
highway," because the extremist ideologue has no room left to maneuver.
RH
>
>RBO
Hanson
>> of the article in the Journal of Psychohistory on Conservative
>> Rage involved a seemingly small thing. Having grown up in the
>> era of Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon, I've noted for some
>> time now that, unlike these two avowed conservatives, the latest
>> incarnation of the New Right has developed a seeming speech
>> impediment. This affliction apparently makes it difficult for
>> conservatives to pronounce the "ic" ending on the word
>> "democratic" as in "Democratic Party," "Democratic Caucus,"
>> "Democratic congress," etc. Older conservatives not so given to
>> bending with the current wind as Bob Dole can actually
>> remember when it was not so, some of them still give the
>> opposing party the dignity of calling it by its given name. Some of
>> the worst offenders occasionally make the mistake of forgetting to
>> drop the ending, but all in all it's become pretty consistent to use
>> this small and fairly immature slur of referring to the Democratic
>> Party as the "Democrat Party."
>
Yes.
An intentional
>effort on the part of Republicans to insult members of the
>opposition?
Yes. And an inability to bring themselves to grant the opposition
party the dignity of a word to which the GOP pays lip service.
When you speak of "offenders" and disregarded
>"dignity", you're blowing a pretty insignificant course of
>events--even if substantiated--completely out of proportion.
How so?
>
>The environment here in Washington does suffer from a lack
>of civility, but it's not remedied by drawing attention to
>imagined and unimportant slights.
I imagine the "unimportant" aspect would be in the eye of the beholder.
RH
>
>
>
>------
>Michael Williams
>Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service
>Georgetown University
>will...@gusun.acc.georgetown.edu
>
--
Archibald "Archie" Bunker
hand with the extremism of the right.
Remember the assasination of Yitzhak Rabin and how they told you he was killed by
Israeli rightists. In Israel, their right wing is the same as our left wing. How
odd that none of the major media pointed out that little fact.
Both sides of the political spectrum in this nation are scumbuckets. We need all of
the government (don't forget the BUREAUCRATS either) changed.
If you can't see this, then you are a Sleeple or a Sheeple plain and simple.
Find some real truth for a change, not what you manufactured for yourself, or
some other idiot made up for you.
Arch
Nancy K
>In <4ilngk$s...@news2.realtime.net> nan...@bga.com (Nancy K) writes:
>>>"It is commonly urged that, in a war between Liberals and fanatics,
>>>the fanatics are sure to win, owing to their more unshakable belief
>>>in the righteousness of their cause. This belief dies hard, although
>>>all history, including that of the last few years is against it. Fanatics
>>>have failed, over and over again, because they have attempted the
>>>impossible; they have failed also because they roused the hostility
>>>of those whom they wished to coerce."
>>> Bertrand Russell
>> So... there's two choices huh? ... Liberals and fanatics. My this
>> sure sounds like a voice of reason, now doesn't it? Since you have
>> chosen this quote for your sig, it follows that you agree with it.
>> One wonders why you feel it necessary to attempt to categorize people
>> in this fashion. Frankly, I find it curious that you have the
>> audacity to accuse *others* of "derision, ... name calling, ... (and)
>> intolerance".
>Come on! What's worse than the gentlemen who engage in "derision...name
>calling...(and) intolerance" are the apologists for them. And what really
>stupefies me is that they don't seem even dimly aware that there's something
>seriously strange about what they're doing. Nancy K doesn't notice anything
>odd about someone who posts:
>LOVE OF COUNTRY IS A LIBERAL ABSTRACTION ALIEN TO YOUR BLACK FASCIST
>HEART, ISN'T IT HANSON?
Actually, I never saw a post that had this in it. If I had, I would
have said something about it.
>yet takes great offense if someone calls that same person a fanatic.
I responded to the post that I saw. You know, the one whose text I
read into my reply...
>But keep it up - it's an entertaining little show you have here!
Indeed.
Nancy K
Nancy K
>In <4in3f4$s...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> rbo...@ix.netcom.com(Roger B
>Olsen) writes:
>>
>>In <4ilngk$s...@news2.realtime.net> nan...@bga.com (Nancy K) writes:
>>>
>>>rha...@ix.netcom.com(Hanson ) wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>>"It is commonly urged that, in a war between Liberals and fanatics,
>>>>the fanatics are sure to win, owing to their more unshakable belief
>>>>in the righteousness of their cause. This belief dies hard,
>although
>>>>all history, including that of the last few years is against it.
>Fanatics
>>>>have failed, over and over again, because they have attempted the
>>>>impossible; they have failed also because they roused the hostility
>>>>of those whom they wished to coerce."
>>>> Bertrand Russell
>>>
>>>
>>> So... there's two choices huh? ... Liberals and fanatics. My
>this
>>> sure sounds like a voice of reason, now doesn't it? Since you
>have
>>> chosen this quote for your sig, it follows that you agree with
>it.
>>> One wonders why you feel it necessary to attempt to categorize
>>people
>>> in this fashion. Frankly, I find it curious that you have the
>>> audacity to accuse *others* of "derision, ... name calling, ...
>>(and)
>>> intolerance".
>>>
>>> Nancy K
>>>
>>
>>
>>Another classic conservative response. Why do conservative always
>think
>>and interpret in terms of black and white, right or wrong, either this
>>way or that way. There is nothing in the quote that says "there’s two
>>choices". You have interpreted it that way.
>Part of it is an obsessive concern over established "rules."
Do you mean my preference over rule by law versus rule by majority?
>Ideological rules encourage a black/white view of life and discourage
>consensus.
Actually, there are many times that consensus is not the appropriate
course to take. For example, one can consider the foundation of this
country. As you know, we were established as a Republic, not a
Democracy. We as citizens weren't to reach "consensus" regarding
whether or not we were to follow a particular law. You know, if we
all got together and decided it would be a good idea to rob you... it
still wouldn't be alright. In other words, if we required *every*
decision to be made by consensus, individual rights would be
threatened. I happen to believe that an individual's rights should
be protected from the force of the majority. Don't you?
> By ignoring the panorama of real human concerns,
Oh PLEASE... What in the heck are you talking about?
> ideas are
>distilled down to simple chunks, easily digested by the conservative
>mind.
There you go again with the categorization.... ;-)
> Hence, for many conservatives, people are either "conservative"
>or "wrong."
I get it now. Either someone agrees with you, or they get
labeled...conservative.
>They don't see the spectrum of possible beliefs and
>legitimate concerns.
I'm listening. What are they?
> Part of it is also the drive to the extreme right
>wing.
Here you go again. Do you have an argument, or are you just going to
continue to babble?
>Once one gets to the very edges of ideology, less and less
>informed opinion and real knowledge energize one's beliefs. The
>extreme ideologue
And again... You must really feel threatened, don't you?
>has to believe that "it's either my way or the
>highway," because the extremist ideologue has no room left to maneuver.
And again, huh? Possibly you might want to look in the mirror if
you're looking for a narrow mind. ;-))
Nancy K
Ken Ehrett
>In <314D8D...@inxpress.net> "John Q. Public"
><capm...@inxpress.net> writes:
>>
>>The voice of the hypocrite; the trick of the propagandist.
>>
>>
>>Hanson wrote:
>>>
>>> CONSERVATIVE RAGE 2:
>>> The Party of Hate.
>>>
>>> Monday, March 18, 1996
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> Whence the derision, the name calling, the intolerance?
>Well, most of it's coming from you, John.
>RH
>--
>"It is commonly urged that, in a war between Liberals and fanatics,
>the fanatics are sure to win, owing to their more unshakable belief
>in the righteousness of their cause. This belief dies hard, although
>all history, including that of the last few years is against it. Fanatics
>have failed, over and over again, because they have attempted the
>impossible; they have failed also because they roused the hostility
>of those whom they wished to coerce."
> Bertrand Russell
Perhaps you could explain the difference between a liberal and a
fanatic. From what I've seen they're one and the same.
Thomas F Brown
>
>>"It is commonly urged that, in a war between Liberals and fanatics,
>>the fanatics are sure to win, owing to their more unshakable belief
>>in the righteousness of their cause. This belief dies hard, although
>>all history, including that of the last few years is against it. Fanatics
>>have failed, over and over again, because they have attempted the
>>impossible; they have failed also because they roused the hostility
>>of those whom they wished to coerce."
>> Bertrand Russell
>
>Perhaps you could explain the difference between a liberal and a
>fanatic. From what I've seen they're one and the same.
Yeah, Bertrand, I'd like to see you explain that too. Don't try
to weasel out of it on account of being dead either.
Hanson
<capm...@inxpress.net> writes:
>Yes, the disease is in you, says Hanson, and thus you are
>a "Right Winger" unable to discriminate between black and white.
>Never mind that that is precisely what he wrote. In Hanson's
>deranged universe, it is what he has in his heart that counts,
>the fact that he "cares" lin the same way Ms. Hillary "cares",
>all the while she destroys lives to further her crusade
>of "caring." Hanson is the man who has no mirror.
Yeah, yeah...sure, sure.
Will you ever have anything to say that's on subject, John? The ad
hominems are great (a little repetitious, though) and we now know
you're fond of the word 'pig,' but can you actually address the
subject?
Not so far.
RH
--
_________________________________________________________
"The moment a mere numerical superiority by either states or voters
in this country proceeds to ignore the needs and desires of the minority,
and for their own selfish purpose or advancement, hamper or oppress
that minority, or debar them in any way from equal privileges and
equal rights--that moment will mark the failure of our
constitutional system."
Franklin D. Roosevelt Radio Broadcast: Oct 26, 1939
_________________________________________________________
Hanson
>
>rha...@ix.netcom.com(Hanson ) wrote:
>
>>In <314D8D...@inxpress.net> "John Q. Public"
>><capm...@inxpress.net> writes:
>>>
>>>The voice of the hypocrite; the trick of the propagandist.
>>>
>>>
>>>Hanson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> CONSERVATIVE RAGE 2:
>>>> The Party of Hate.
>>>>
>>>> Monday, March 18, 1996
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Whence the derision, the name calling, the intolerance?
>
>>Well, most of it's coming from you, John.
>
>>RH
>
>>--
>>"It is commonly urged that, in a war between Liberals and fanatics,
>>the fanatics are sure to win, owing to their more unshakable belief
>>in the righteousness of their cause. This belief dies hard, although
>>all history, including that of the last few years is against it.
Fanatics
>>have failed, over and over again, because they have attempted the
>>impossible; they have failed also because they roused the hostility
>>of those whom they wished to coerce."
>> Bertrand Russell
>
>Perhaps you could explain the difference between a liberal and a
>fanatic. From what I've seen they're one and the same.
Perhaps you could explain the belief that liberalism and fanaticism are
the same....
Hanson
<cam...@eden.com> writes:
>
>How conveniently you always forget about the extremism of the left
that goes hand in
>hand with the extremism of the right.
And like most apologists for the right, you've failed to actually
address the subject. Coming up with counter-examples only solidifies
the original point, I'm afraid.
Woody Emanuel
>In <4ine54$3...@boris.eden.com> Archibald \"Archie\" Bunker
><cam...@eden.com> writes:
>>
>>How conveniently you always forget about the extremism of the left
>that goes hand in
>>hand with the extremism of the right.
>And like most apologists for the right, you've failed to actually
>address the subject. Coming up with counter-examples only solidifies
>the original point, I'm afraid.
You should know, RH, that's exactly what you do. Ecerybody else knows too.
Carry on.
RHA
Hanson <rha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <4in39f$c...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> rbo...@ix.netcom.com(Roger B
>Olsen) writes:
>>
>>In <4il9na$m...@dfw-ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> rha...@ix.netcom.com(Hanson
>>) writes:
>>
>>This is very well put. The right wing will not have the vaguest idea
>>what you have said because it is not mired in details but presents a
>>very broad overview, something the right wing has a lot of difficulty
>>understanding. It does take some effort to see the big picture and
>that
>>is something they are unwilling to do, perhaps because it is
>difficult.
>>The Newt and the Republican freshmen are a prime example. They could
>>have, with Clinton's help, gone much further reducing spending if they
>>were not so intent on a tax cut for the wealthy. Clinton has done a
>lot
>>to cut spending and the right could have gotten even more had they not
>>insisted on the all or none attitude.
>
>Agreed. As a result of the invective and extortion campaign, Newt has
>singlehandedly engineered one of the least effective congresses in
>history.
"...least effective"? Depends on what Gingrich wanted. Legislation,
nope. Points of contention, yup. The idea was to get a republican
president elected. Almost worked, until they actually submitted
a budget taking $270M out of medicare and handing it to the
wealthy. They just couldn't wait until after 1996 to start trying
to dole out the goodies. Can you say "Oink, oink"?
--
rha
Hanson
(RHA) writes:
>
>In article <4in4hc$s...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
>Hanson <rha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> nope. Points of contention, yup. The idea was to get a republican
> president elected. Almost worked, until they actually submitted
> a budget taking $270M out of medicare and handing it to the
> wealthy. They just couldn't wait until after 1996 to start trying
> to dole out the goodies. Can you say "Oink, oink"?
Well put. And the current assault weapon vote was more of the same.
We should all be extremely grateful for the basic lack of self-control
that is the hallmark of right wing extremism. With 70% of the public
in favor of gun control, the right wing bellies up to the NRA trough
and pulls their forelock.
It's this kind of flagrant disregard for the will of the public that
will have these boys and girls on the way back to their districts for
good come the next congressional elections.
RH
>--
>rha
Dan Thornsberry
>
>Hanson's patented psychbabble continues.
>
>Rave on Hanson!
>
>Martin
>
Ahh, psycho-babble, a LImbaugh favorite term for anything
he doesn't understand.
Martin, can you say dittos?
--
"Give any senile old fool a credit card and he can
give you the illusion of prosperity" - Ronald Reagan
"Mommie, did the astrologer OK the press conference?" R. Reagan
"I might not be good enough for the US, but I'm
still good enough for Texas" - Phil Gramm
"The guvermint spens two much on edjication" - The GOP
"Come here little girl, I have something for you" - D. Koresh
"I am the NRA" - Timothy McVeigh
"OK son, If you see anyone coming, blast away" - R. Weaver
"Is the cash in the envelope?" - Newt Gingrich
"Yes sir, Mr. Gambino" - Alfonse D'Amato
"Yes sir, Mr. D'Amato" - Kenneth Starr
"When your fans are idiots, facts don't matter" - Rush Limbaugh
"Elect me because I'm too old to try later" - Bob Dole
"Yassuh Boss" - Clarence Thomas
============================================================
| | The GOP wants more guns |
| Dan Thornsberry | |
|tbe...@computek.net | and less education!!! |
| | |
============================================================
The victors called the revolution a triumph of liberty;
but now and then liberty, in the slogans of the strong,
means freedom from restraint in the exploitation of the
weak. -Will Durant
Nancy K
<snip>
>Well put. And the current assault weapon vote was more of the same.
>We should all be extremely grateful for the basic lack of self-control
>that is the hallmark of right wing extremism. With 70% of the public
>in favor of gun control, the right wing bellies up to the NRA trough
>and pulls their forelock.
What's the matter? Do you have a problem with the 2nd Amendment?
>It's this kind of flagrant disregard for the will of the public
You see, this is the neat thing about having a Constitution. You
know, rule by law, not rule by mob.
> that
>will have these boys and girls on the way back to their districts for
>good come the next congressional elections.
Yes, there are a lot I'd like to going back home too. It's equal
opportunity too... Republicans and Democrats alike, that don't find
it compelling to vote Constitutionally.
John Q. Public
>
> In article <4imvtd$e...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>, ande...@ix.netcom.co says...
> >
> >
> >Rave on Hanson!
> >
> >Martin
> >
>
> he doesn't understand.
>
> Martin, can you say dittos?
>
Why not send him an email threat, Danielle?
tehuti
>
> In <4ine54$3...@boris.eden.com> Archibald \"Archie\" Bunker
> <cam...@eden.com> writes:
> >
> >How conveniently you always forget about the extremism of the left
> that goes hand in
> >hand with the extremism of the right.
>
> And like most apologists for the right, you've failed to actually
> address the subject. Coming up with counter-examples only solidifies
> the original point, I'm afraid.
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________
>
> "The moment a mere numerical superiority by either states or voters
> in this country proceeds to ignore the needs and desires of the minority,
> and for their own selfish purpose or advancement, hamper or oppress
> that minority, or debar them in any way from equal privileges and
> equal rights--that moment will mark the failure of our
> constitutional system."
>
> Franklin D. Roosevelt Radio Broadcast: Oct 26, 1939
> _________________________________________________________
Besides which, the extremism of the right (ex. Pat "The Constitution only
applies to Chrsitians" Robertson) is given an honored and powerful place
in the Republican Party, while extremists on the "left" ?(Louis
Farakkhan) are constantly denounced by the Democrats. As for real
leftists in the traditional economic sense, they are completely invisible
politically. Can any right wingers actually point to a prominent figure
in the Democatic party who advocates state ownership of the means of
production? The idiotic contention that any regulation constiutes
"ownership" doesn't count unless said conservatives are willing to
dispense with all morals regulation all enforcement of contracts etc,
etc.
Billy Beck
rha...@ix.netcom.com(Hanson ) wrote:
>It's this kind of flagrant disregard for the will of the public that
>will have these boys and girls on the way back to their districts for
>good come the next congressional elections.
It's this kind of rampant political fiction ("will of the people")
that would have this boy on his way to the gas chamber and oven if
enough people voted in that direction.
Live & die by the same sword, Hanson.
Your time will come.
Billy
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/free.html
"Rant" updated 2/19/96
Art Marriott
>In article <4in4hc$s...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
>Hanson <rha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>singlehandedly engineered one of the least effective congresses in
>>history.
>
> nope. Points of contention, yup.
Uh-huh. Also depends on what the people who elected them wanted. Seems
to me these dorks forgot that it's their *job* to legislate, and legislate
stuff that'll stand a chance of getting signed into law (even by *this*
President) and have some significant and lasting effect. Instead, they're
going for sound bites.
> The idea was to get a republican
> president elected. Almost worked, until they actually submitted
> a budget taking $270M out of medicare and handing it to the
> wealthy. They just couldn't wait until after 1996 to start trying
> to dole out the goodies. Can you say "Oink, oink"?
Not to mention the assault-weapons ban repeal bill. Now wait, before
you all get ready to start throwing things, I'm not trying to make a
statement about the pros and cons of gun control, except to point out
(as Mike Reagan did on his program last week) that while it might be
a perfectly fine conservative cause, it's not exactly universally accepted
by all the voters. If you ask most moderates, even "liberals" if
they'd like to see their taxes lowered, or less government pork spent
on somebody else, they'll most likely say yes. On the other hand, there
are lots of folks out there who have a strong emotional dislike of guns.
These people are going to view this as the new Republicans (and the old
ones too, for that matter) running a payback to their benefactors in the
NRA, and they'll still be pissed off in November.
_______________________________________________________________________________
|
AXENHAMMER SYSTEMS | Arthur R. Marriott
--Applied Technology-- | ar...@eskimo.com
|
_______________________________________|_______________________________________
If we're not supposed to see boobs exposed on television,
I guess they're going to have to pull the plug on C-SPAN...
_______________________________________________________________________________
Hanson
nan...@bga.com (Nancy K) wrote:
> Actually, there are many times that consensus is not
the appropriate
> course to take. For example, one can consider the
foundation of this
> country. As you know, we were established as a
Republic, not a
> Democracy.
It's always interesting to witness the way the idea of a
democracy always seems to catch halfway down the throat of
conservatives. Little wonder that they still haven't quite
been able to accept the idea of one man/one vote. The
conservative attempts to rewrite the constitution to get
away from this nasty little problem of democracy isn't hard
to understand in light of this vast fear of people with the
power to vote.
RH
Woody Emanuel
>RH
Dream on, RH. You should know what you are talking about before
making a fool of yourself.
Robert Snower
>rha...@ix.netcom.com (Hanson) writes:
>>RH
RH is not making a fool of herself. The American heritage of
democracy and one man-one vote is tremendously important and must be
preserved. Yet the rage of the conservatives is justified.
Immigration IS a problem. Welfare IS a problem. The deficit plus
high taxes IS a problem. The environment IS a problem. Ethnic and
racial discrimination IS a problem. And most of all, the frustration
of many to find reward for their hard work and ability IS a problem,
particularly iwhen confronted with the rewards received for lack of
hard work and little ability.
And this list of problems will not find their solutions solely in the
one man-one vote oversimplification, nor in the milk-of-human-kindness
doctrine. You will find the beginnings of answers in some April
articles in alt.politics.economics: TAXES AND THE NEW FAIRNESS, and
Immigration and FEAR and Taxes. Let me know what you think. Thanks.
John Q. Public
I think that this doesn't have anything to do with Whitewater
or the Arkansas Horrors, so I've snipped the whitewater ng
from the header.
Nancy K
>In article <4it5pt$g...@news3.realtime.net>,
> nan...@bga.com (Nancy K) wrote:
>> Actually, there are many times that consensus is not
>the appropriate
>> course to take. For example, one can consider the
>foundation of this
>> country. As you know, we were established as a
>Republic, not a
>> Democracy.
>It's always interesting to witness the way the idea of a
>democracy always seems to catch halfway down the throat of
>conservatives.
Gosh it seems as if the idea of democracy stuck "halfway down the
throat" of our Founding Fathers (and others of the time) too. ;-)
"The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated
never possessed one good feature of government. Their character was
tyranny; their figure deformity."
- Alexander Hamilton
"The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy. The
people do not want (that is, do not lack) virtue; but are the dupes
of pretended patriots."
- Elbridge Gerry (Delegate to the Convention)
It had been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable
would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no
position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which
the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of
government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.
- Alexander Hamilton (Speech, June 21, 1788)
"We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in
despotism or in the extremes of Democracy."
- Alexander Hamilton
"Remember, Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and
murders itself! There never was a democracy that 'did not commit
suicide."
- Samuel Adams
" . . . democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and
contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security,
or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their
lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
- James Madison
> Little wonder that they still haven't quite
>been able to accept the idea of one man/one vote. The
>conservative attempts to rewrite the constitution
Hhmmm.... it sounds to me like it's the other way around.
Nancy K
>b...@world.std.com (Woody Emanuel) wrote:
>>rha...@ix.netcom.com (Hanson) writes:
>>>In article <4it5pt$g...@news3.realtime.net>,
>>> nan...@bga.com (Nancy K) wrote:
>>>> Actually, there are many times that consensus is not
>>>the appropriate
>>>> course to take. For example, one can consider the
>>>foundation of this
>>>> country. As you know, we were established as a
>>>Republic, not a
>>>> Democracy.
>>>It's always interesting to witness the way the idea of a
>>>democracy always seems to catch halfway down the throat of
>>>conservatives. Little wonder that they still haven't quite
>>>been able to accept the idea of one man/one vote. The
>>>conservative attempts to rewrite the constitution to get
>>>away from this nasty little problem of democracy isn't hard
>>>to understand in light of this vast fear of people with the
>>>power to vote.
>>>RH
>>Dream on, RH. You should know what you are talking about before
>>making a fool of yourself.
>RH is not making a fool of herself. The American heritage of
>democracy
Where are you getting the idea that America has a heritage of
Democracy? It was in fact not founded as such.
>and one man-one vote is tremendously important and must be
>preserved. Yet the rage of the conservatives is justified.
>Immigration IS a problem. Welfare IS a problem. The deficit plus
>high taxes IS a problem. The environment IS a problem. Ethnic and
>racial discrimination IS a problem. And most of all, the frustration
>of many to find reward for their hard work and ability IS a problem,
>particularly iwhen confronted with the rewards received for lack of
>hard work and little ability.
>And this list of problems will not find their solutions solely in the
>one man-one vote oversimplification, nor in the milk-of-human-kindness
>doctrine. You will find the beginnings of answers in some April
>articles in alt.politics.economics: TAXES AND THE NEW FAIRNESS, and
>Immigration and FEAR and Taxes. Let me know what you think. Thanks.
> RS rs...@idir.net
Hanson
>
>rha...@ix.netcom.com (Hanson) wrote:
>
>> nan...@bga.com (Nancy K) wrote:
>>> Actually, there are many times that consensus is not
>>the appropriate
>>> course to take. For example, one can consider the
>>foundation of this
>>> country. As you know, we were established as a
>>Republic, not a
>>> Democracy.
>
>>It's always interesting to witness the way the idea of a
>>democracy always seems to catch halfway down the throat of
>>conservatives.
>
>throat" of our Founding Fathers (and others of the time) too. ;-)
Nope. Not the idea of democracy as we have always known it, only
against the idea of the people being in control of every decision that
would have to be made to run a government, thus leading to the present
government the conservatives seem to have such a problem with. The
founding fathers had no problem with the representative democracy they
themselves created.
RH
Hanson
>> nan...@bga.com (Nancy K) wrote:
>>> Actually, there are many times that consensus is not
>>the appropriate
>>> course to take. For example, one can consider the
>>foundation of this
>>> country. As you know, we were established as a
>>Republic, not a
>>> Democracy.
>
>>It's always interesting to witness the way the idea of a
>>democracy always seems to catch halfway down the throat of
>>been able to accept the idea of one man/one vote. The
>>conservative attempts to rewrite the constitution to get
>>away from this nasty little problem of democracy isn't hard
>>to understand in light of this vast fear of people with the
>>power to vote.
>
>>RH
>
>Dream on, RH. You should know what you are talking about
before
>making a fool of yourself.
Right. Since you don't take the time to refute any of it, I
guess that would make you a much greater fool than I.
RH
Nancy K
>In <4jvhla$b...@news3.realtime.net> nan...@bga.com (Nancy K) writes:
>>
>>rha...@ix.netcom.com (Hanson) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <4it5pt$g...@news3.realtime.net>,
>>> nan...@bga.com (Nancy K) wrote:
>>>> Actually, there are many times that consensus is not
>>>the appropriate
>>>> course to take. For example, one can consider the
>>>foundation of this
>>>> country. As you know, we were established as a
>>>Republic, not a
>>>> Democracy.
>>
>>>It's always interesting to witness the way the idea of a
>>>democracy always seems to catch halfway down the throat of
>>>conservatives.
>>
>>Gosh it seems as if the idea of democracy stuck "halfway down the
>>throat" of our Founding Fathers (and others of the time) too. ;-)
>Nope. Not the idea of democracy as we have always known it, only
>against the idea of the people being in control of every decision that
>would have to be made to run a government, thus leading to the present
>government the conservatives seem to have such a problem with. The
>founding fathers had no problem with the representative democracy they
>themselves created.
Explain these then...
Hanson
Try reading Madison's work in The Federalist 10. What all
these writers were worried about was the factionalism they
feared would arise from a direct democracy.
RH
>
>
Woody Emanuel
>In article <DpAv3...@world.std.com>,
> b...@world.std.com (Woody Emanuel) wrote:
>>rha...@ix.netcom.com (Hanson) writes:
>>
>>>In article <4it5pt$g...@news3.realtime.net>,
>>> nan...@bga.com (Nancy K) wrote:
>>>> Actually, there are many times that consensus is not
>>>the appropriate
>>>> course to take. For example, one can consider the
>>>foundation of this
>>>> country. As you know, we were established as a
>>>Republic, not a
>>>> Democracy.
>>
>>>It's always interesting to witness the way the idea of a
>>>democracy always seems to catch halfway down the throat of
>>>conservatives. Little wonder that they still haven't quite
>>>been able to accept the idea of one man/one vote. The
>>>conservative attempts to rewrite the constitution to get
>>>away from this nasty little problem of democracy isn't hard
>>>to understand in light of this vast fear of people with the
>>>power to vote.
>>
>>>RH
>>
>>Dream on, RH. You should know what you are talking about
>before
>>making a fool of yourself.
>Right. Since you don't take the time to refute any of it, I
>guess that would make you a much greater fool than I.
>RH
When I have taken the time to refute you, you avoid it. Remember
"the era of BIG government has ended." Were still waiting for your
answer, RH. Now who is the fool?
Pat Kelso
>> nan...@bga.com (Nancy K) wrote:
>>> Actually, there are many times that consensus is not
>>the appropriate
>>> course to take. For example, one can consider the
>>foundation of this
>>> country. As you know, we were established as a
>>Republic, not a
>>> Democracy.
>
>>It's always interesting to witness the way the idea of a
>>democracy always seems to catch halfway down the throat of
>>conservatives.
>
>throat" of our Founding Fathers (and others of the time) too. ;-)
>
> never possessed one good feature of government. Their character was
> tyranny; their figure deformity."
> - Alexander Hamilton
>
>
> "The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy. The
> people do not want (that is, do not lack) virtue; but are the dupes
> of pretended patriots."
> - Elbridge Gerry (Delegate to the Convention)
>
>
> It had been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable
> would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no
> position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which
> the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of
> government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.
> - Alexander Hamilton (Speech, June 21, 1788)
>
>
> despotism or in the extremes of Democracy."
> - Alexander Hamilton
>
>
> "Remember, Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and
> murders itself! There never was a democracy that 'did not commit
> suicide."
> - Samuel Adams
>
>
> " . . . democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and
> contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security,
> or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their
> lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
> - James Madison
>
>
>
>
>
>>been able to accept the idea of one man/one vote. The
>>conservative attempts to rewrite the constitution
>
>
>
>>away from this nasty little problem of democracy isn't hard
>>to understand in light of this vast fear of people with the
>>power to vote.
>
>>RH
>
>
was with a pure democratic form of government vs. a representative form
of government. Voting, per se, was not the issue. It was: do the populace
vote on every issue of government or do they vote for representatives to
do it for them.
Hanson
b...@world.std.com (Woody Emanuel) wrote:
>rha...@ix.netcom.com (Hanson) writes:
>
>>In article <DpAv3...@world.std.com>,
>> b...@world.std.com (Woody Emanuel) wrote:
>>>rha...@ix.netcom.com (Hanson) writes:
>>>
>>>> nan...@bga.com (Nancy K) wrote:
>>>>> Actually, there are many times that consensus is not
>>>>the appropriate
>>>>> course to take. For example, one can consider the
>>>>foundation of this
>>>>> country. As you know, we were established as a
>>>>Republic, not a
>>>>> Democracy.
>>>
>>>>It's always interesting to witness the way the idea of a
>>>>democracy always seems to catch halfway down the throat
of
>>>>been able to accept the idea of one man/one vote. The
hard
>>>>to understand in light of this vast fear of people with
the
>>>>power to vote.
>>>
>>>>RH
>>>
>>before
>>>making a fool of yourself.
>
>>Right. Since you don't take the time to refute any of it,
I
>>guess that would make you a much greater fool than I.
>
>>RH
>
>When I have taken the time to refute you, you avoid it.
Remember
>"the era of BIG government has ended." Were still waiting
for your
>answer, RH. Now who is the fool?
Well....You are, of course.
What? Did you think something had changed? You have never
even once successfully refuted anything! You just don't like
the answers...that's not quite the same thing.
RH
Woody Emanuel
>Well....You are, of course.
>RH
Hanson, you are a blind fool. We are still waiting for your answers,
weeks later. It is YOU that has to refute my challenge, not the
other way around. Caught in the corner, you have done nothing but
arrogantly dodge it.
Now if you have any integrity whatsoever you will try to refute
me. Is that so hard?
William House
LUCAS...@mediaform.com (Lucas Stults) writes without facts:
>William House wrote with facts:
>>sniped ???
>> >On 3 Apr 1996, William House wrote facts:
>> If you care about murders,
>> then Stop the Government Violence of the Drug War.
>Also, if you're worried about theft, stop the Government Violence of
>War on Jaywalking.
I agree - too many paternalistic laws out there ;-)
>> >> The ten years Prohibition Prohibition
>> >> preceding begins 1920 ends 1933
>> >> Prohibition
>> >>
>> >> 1910 - 4.6 1920 - 6.8 1933 - 9.7
>> >> 1911 - 5.5 1921 - 8.1 1934 - 9.5
>> >> 1912 - 5.4 1922 - 8.0 1935 - 8.3
>> >> 1913 - 6.1 1923 - 7.8 1936 - 8.0
>> >> 1914 - 6.2 1924 - 8.1 1937 - 7.6
>> >> 1915 - 5.9 1925 - 8.3 1938 - 6.8
>> >> 1916 - 6.3 1926 - 8.4 1939 - 6.4
>> >> 1917 - 6.9 1927 - 8.4 1940 - 6.3
>> >> 1918 - 6.5 1928 - 8.6 1941 - 6.0
>> >> 1919 - 7.2 1929 - 8.4 1942 - 5.9
>> >> 1930 - 8.8 1943 - 5.1
>> >> 1931 - 9.2 1944 - 5.0
>> >> 1932 - 9.0
>William, does the term "post hoc ergo propter hoc" mean anything to
>you?
No, please explain.
>Note that the above doesn't prove or disprove anything. It's a
>classic misdirection. It's like saying "No cases of breast cancer
>were documented before the mamogram. Therefore, breast examinations
>cause cancer. There's absolutely no scientific way to show that
>these statistics are related.
It is related, becuase the violence of the underground market fueled
the murder rates.
Without prohibition, no underground market violence, no Government
Violence, no Inquisition of Citizens.
It was the case then:
--------------------
The History of Alcohol Prohibition
http://www.calyx.net/~schaffer/LIBRARY/studies/nc/nc2a.html
The early experience of the Prohibition era gave the government a
taste of what was to come. In the three months before the 18th
Amendment became effective, liquor worth half a million dollars was
stolen from Government warehouses. By midsummer of 1920, federal
courts in Chicago were overwhelmed with some 600 pending liquor
violation trials (Sinclair, 1962: 176-177). Within three years, 30
prohibition agents were killed in service.
Other statistics demonstrated the increasing volume, of the bootleg
trade. In 1921, 95,933 illicit distilleries, stills, still works and
fermentors were seized. in 1925, the total jumped to 172,537 and up to
282,122 in 1930. In connection with these seizures, 34,175 persons
were arrested in 1921; by 1925, the number had risen to 62,747 and to
a high in 1928 of 75,307 (Internal Revenue, Service, 1921, 1966, 1970:
95, 6, 73). Concurrently, convictions for liquor offenses in federal
courts rose from 35,000 in 1923 to 61,383 in 1932.
And it is the case now:
----------------------
Justice Information Center (NCJRS): Research and Evaluation
http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/psycho.txt
Psychoactive Substances and Violence
by Jeffrey A. Roth
Discussed in the Research in Brief: The current status of research on
the links connecting violence to alcohol and illegal psychoactive
drugs, and evaluations of interventions to prevent violence related to
these substances.
Key issues: Correlations between violence and psychoactive
substances; the social, economic, cultural, psycho-social,
neurobehavioral, and other factors that explain the correlations; and
prevention strategies for reducing the violence associated with these
substances.
Key findings:
o Research has uncovered strong correlations between violence and
psycho-active substances, including alcohol and illegal drugs, but the
underlying relationships differ by type of drug.
o The links between violence and psychoactive substances involve broad
social and economic forces, the settings in which people obtain and
consume the substances, and biological processes that underlie all
human behavior. These factors interact in chains of events that may
extend back from an intermediate triggering event such as an argument
to long-term predisposing processes that begin in childhood.
o Of all psychoactive substances, alcohol is the only one whose
consumption has been shown to commonly increase aggression. After
large doses of amphetamines, cocaine, LSD, and PCP, certain
individuals may experience violent outbursts, probably because of
preexisting psychosis. Research is needed on the pharmacological
effects of crack, which enters the brain more directly
than cocaine used in other forms.
o Alcohol drinking and violence are linked through pharmacological
effects on behavior, through expectations that heavy drinking and
violence go together in certain settings, and through patterns of
binge drinking and fighting that sometimes develop in adolescence.
o Illegal drugs and violence are linked primarily through drug
marketing: disputes among rival distributors, arguments and robberies
involving buyers and sellers, property crimes committed to raise drug
money and, more speculatively, social and economic interactions
between the illegal markets and the surrounding communities.
Illegal drug markets.
Illegal drug markets operate outside the world of contract law, courts
and mediators for resolving disputes, and business customs that
distinguish socially acceptable from unac-ceptable approaches to
buying and selling. Illegal markets often develop substitute
mechanisms that involve the threat or actual use of violence. Examples
include:
o Violence by drug distributors in the course of territorial disputes
between rival organizations, threats of violence to make "staff" obey
organizational rules, violent punishment of rulebreakers to keep the
threats credible, battles with police, and protection of sellers or
drugs on the street.
o Violence between buyer and seller during a drug transaction, caused,
for example, by attempted robbery of one or the other, failure to hand
over drugs or money, or "honest" misunderstandings of local rules of
the game on the part of buyers and sellers.
o Violence involving people other than buyers and sellers who are
found around drug markets--third parties such as innocent bystanders
and people operating in related illegal markets for "protection,"
guns, or prostitution.
As places where violence tends to occur for the reasons listed above,
illegal drug markets may also serve as "magnets." As such, they
attract valuable drugs and cash, weapons, and people who are
accustomed to violence. The mix of these ingredients creates hazardous
conditions for robberies and other forms of violence that may not be
directly related to drugs.
>However, it's *easy* to prove that they're *not* related:
I thought you said the facts forementioned didn't `prove or disprove'?
Make up your mind.
>The very fact that murder rates have continued to rise *despite* the
>fact that prohibition was repealed, a fact that William and Andrew
>conviently and consistantly ignore.
Prohibition ended in 1933, the murder rates began to fall - the chart
shows clearly you are wrong.
>Further: Note that the murder rate stays fairly constant through
>prohibition,
Murder rates rose during prohibition, from 6.8 in 1920, to 9.7 in
1933.
Again, the chart shows clearly you are wrong.
>and in fact raises differs only 1.8 per 100,000 at the end of
>prohibition from what it was in the last year of the "Golden Era"
>BEFORE Prohibition.
Now, you ignore the fact that many States had implemented alcohol
prohibition _before_ the National Prohibition.
In 1907, when Georgia and Oklahoma made the manufacture, sale, or
transportation of intoxicating liquors illegal state wide, the
homicide rate in the United States was 1 person per 100,000 per
year.
By 1913, nine states were under stateside prohibition. In 31 other
states, local option laws were in effect. By reason of these and other
variants of regulatory schemes, more than 50% of the United States
population was then under prohibition.
Before the end of the decade, 13 states plus Alaska, Puerto Rico and
the District of Columbia had gone dry.
By 1919--when the 18th amendment was passed, making alcohol use
illegal nationwide--the homicide rate had grown to 7.2 per 100,000.
>Also, the two highest rates of murder occured in *non-prohibition*
>years. All of this means nothing, because there is no scientific way
>to relate the two facts. The chart shows no economic factors, no
>other social factors.
I agree that poverty has great influences on underground markets, as
underground markets serve as a lure for poverty-stricken people - or
otherwise people who would make a quick buck.
As for poverty rates, the 20's were a boom period, where in 1929
started the depression - this did not change the chart as it continued
it's drug war induced murder rate.
As for the two years following prohibition, you mean the two years
after the Amendment for Repeal was passed right?
What you again must understand, is that it took 4 years after the
Federal Government Repealed the Amendment, for all the States to end
Prohibition:
The History of Alcohol Prohibition
http://www.calyx.net/~schaffer/LIBRARY/studies/nc/nc2a.html
Congress officially adopted the 21st Amendment to the Constitution on
December 5, 1933.
Within three weeks of taking office, President Roosevelt witnessed the
first sales of 3.2 beer, following a redefinition by statute of the
terms "intoxicating liquors." The more popular, higher alcohol-content
beer was relegalized by Congress under the Cullen-Harrison Act. Sale
of beer became legal on April 7, 1933, in the District of Columbia and
the 20 states where state laws did not prohibit its sale. During the
next four years the remaining states changed their laws to permit its
sale, with Alabama and Kansas in 1937, as the last to join the legal
sale ranks.
>> 6. The Deterrence Argument
>>
>> Scientific studies have consistently failed to find convincing
>> evidencethat the death penalty deters crime more effectively
>> than other punishments.
>No duh. It can't be proven that *any* punishment deters *any* crime.
>Where is it written that one punishment has to 'deter more' than
>another?
So, you agree that Life without parole is just as effective as the
Death Sentence in detering overall crime - at least.
It proves my point, the Death Sentence provides no deterent effect.
Add to the facts it makes us via the Government murderers of innocent
people, it is racially and poverty biased, and it costs too much - it
serves no purpose than vengeance.
>> "This research has failed to provide scientific proof that
>> executions have a greater deterrent effect than life
>> imprisonment. Such proof is unlikely to beforthcoming.
>The point being? They didn't prove it was any LESS of a deterent,
>now did they?
Actually yes.
In the case of people killing to be killed, as well in some studies
comparing abolision states with dp states:
The Case Against the Death Penalty
http://www.bdt.com/home/mwood/deathpen.html
Furthermore, cases have been clinically documented where the death
penalty actually incited the capital crimes it was supposed to deter.
These include instances of the so-called suicide-by-execution syndrome
-- persons who wanted but feared to take their own life and committed
murder so that society would kill them.(14)
(14)West, Solomon, and Diamond, in Bedau and Pierce, eds., Capital
Punishment in the United States (1976).
(a) Death-penalty states as a group do not have lower rates of
criminal homicide than non-death penalty states. During the
1980s, death-penalty states averaged an annual rate of 7.5
criminal homicides per 100,000 of population; abolition states
averaged a rate of 7.4.(4)
(b) Use of the death penalty in a given state may increase the
subsequent rate of criminal homicide in that state. In New
York, for example, between 1907 and 1964, 692 executions were
carried out. On the average, over this 57-year period, one or
more executions in a given month aided a net increase of two
homicides to the total committed in the next month.(5)
(4)Uniform Crime Reports, annually, 1980-1989.
(5)Bowers and Pierce, "Deterrence or Brutalization," in Crime &
Delinquency (1980).
>Tell me, if convicts don't fear the DP any more than they fear LWOP,
>why do they try so hard to have their sentances commuted?
Wouldn't you?
Besides, convicts also appeal their sentences that aren't death
sentences. One difference is, these are not automatic appeals.
>> The evidence as a whole still gives no positive support to
>> the deterrent hypothesis." (References: AI,When the State
>> Kills,
>Nor does it disprove it. Once again, you've failed to prove anything
>at all.
You've failed to prove the Death Sentence is justice.
Shouldn't the ultimate penalty deserve the ultimate proof of Justice
and Infallability?
Shouldn't we be more concerned about what causes murder in the first
place, such as the Drug War?
Shouldn't we be more concerned about what causes crimes, and our
bulgeoning prison population such as the Drug War?
Shouldn't we be concerned with the `speck in our own eye'?
>> 1. Any punishment can be an effective deterrent only if it is
>> consistently and promptly employed.
>It's not employed promptly because of the appeals process. Would it
>make you happier if the judge shot the convicted person in the head
>the second the Guilty verdict was read?
I am opposed to the Death Sentence peroid - comprende?
Many Death Sentence supporters support reducing the appeals process,
I'm glad you don't - we agree there.
>> Only a small proportion of first-degree murderers is sentenced
>> to death, and even fewer are executed.
>Not exactly the Great American Holocaust you'd have us believe then,
>is it?
To an innocent man killed, what is a holocaust?
For a brutal policy, what is a holocaust?
For the Death Sentence which serves no purpose, what is a holocaust?
For Injustice, brutality, and oppression, what is a holocaust?
People are crying for expanding the Death Sentence - I oppose it's
very existance.
>Maybe you haven't noticed, but first degree murder doesn't equal the
>DP. The law isn't set up that way.
Isn't that what the article said:
The Case Against the Death Penalty
http://www.bdt.com/home/mwood/deathpen.html
Only a small proportion of first-degree murderers is sentenced to
death, and even fewer are executed. Although death sentences since
1980 have increased in number to about 250 per year, (1) this is
still only 1 per cent of all homicides known to the police.
(2) Of all those convicted on a charge of criminal homicide, only 2
percent -- about 1 in 50 -- are eventually sentenced to death.(3)
(1)See U.S. Dept. Justice, Capital Punishment, annually, 1980 et
seq.
(2)See Uniform Crime Reports, annually, 1980 et seq.
(3)See Uniform Crime Reports.
>> The sobering lesson is that we can reduce such delay and costs
>> only by abandoning the procedural safeguards and constitutional
>> rights of suspects, defendants, and convicts, with the attendant
>> high risk of convicting the wrong person and executing the
>> innocent.
>Excuse me, but are you saying you'd feel better about the DP if we
>stopped following the safeguards?
Excuse me, but don't you remember I'm the one who opposes the Death
Sentence - ENTIRELY???
>> 2. Persons who commit murder and other crimes of personal violence
>> either premeditate them or they do not. If the crime is
>> premeditated, the criminal ordinarily concentrates on escaping
>> detection, arrest, and conviction. The threat of even the
>> severest punishment will not deter those who expect to escape
>> detection and arrest.
>Gee, maybe you DO understand. You really ought to read the above
>paragraph until you finally comprehend what it's saying: NOTHING is
>a 'deterent' to violent crime. All we can do is punish.
And the form of punishment is what is in question.
I'm glad you don't agree that the Death Penalty is a deterrent.
Now, if we can agree to strive for Justice, and a humane policy, we
wouldn't have a murderous Government.
>-Legalize Drugs rant snipped, since it had Jack to do with the topic
>at hand-
Other than if we End The Drug War, we would have less murders.
Do you care about lowering the violence and murder rate?
If so, end the Government's Violence of the Drug War.
>> 3. If, however, severe punishment can deter crime,
>What?!? You just spent your whole post telling us it ISN'T a
>deterent! What the hell? Are we really supposed to take your wild-
>assed guesses, non-sequitor semi-facts, and evasive tail chasing
>seriously?
You're not debating in context what-so-ever.
(maybe because the preceeding paragraph illuded to the fact that the
Drug War causes violence.)
Further proof of the irrationality of Death Sentence Preachers.
Besides, I have shown studies and facts, you have shown assumptions and
refused to admit the Death Penalty is Injustice.
The Case Against the Death Penalty
http://www.bdt.com/home/mwood/deathpen.html
The attempt to reduce murders in the illegal drug trade by the
threat of severe punishment ignores this fact: Anyone trafficking
in illegal drugs is already betting his life in violent competition
with other dealers. It is irrational to think that the death
penalty--a remote threat at best -- will deter murders committed in
drug turf wars or by street-level dealers.
3. If, however, severe punishment can deter crime, then long term
imprisonment is severe enough to cause any rational person not to
commit violent crimes. The vast preponderance of the evidence shows
that the death penalty is no more effective than imprisonment in
deterring murder and that it may even be an incitement to criminal
violence in certain cases.
>> then long term imprisonment is severe enough to cause any
>> rational person not to commit violent crimes. The vast
>> preponderance of the evidence shows that the death penalty is no
>> more effective than imprisonment in deterring murder and that it
>> may even be an incitement to criminal violence in certain cases.
>-More crap than anyone should have to wade through snipped, because
>it was copied verbatim from various web anti-DP sources in a vain
>attempt to look informed-
Now, tell me just how does one become informed - by not reading?
Or, should I only read _your_ letters for all my education?
>There's only one fact that your titanic waste of bandwidth proved:
>
>The DP isn't any better or worse of a deterent than any OTHER type of
>punishment.
..And murder rates go up under prohibition.
Seek Peace,
Not War.
Matthew 5:9
Blessed [are] the peacemakers:
for they shall be called the children of God.
It's not the Fear of God that's missing today,
It's the Love of God that we should display more often.
Reporters and Researchers are welcome at the world's largest
on-line library of drug policy material at:
Worlds' Largest Drug Information (5 of the MAJOR `MAJOR' LINKS!)
http://www.druglibrary.org
SEE ALSO:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~mlap
http://www.paranoia.com/drugs/
http://hyperreal.com/drugs/
Information on the Fully Informed Jury Association,
and the Amendment they propose:
http://sunsite.unc.edu/fija/fijahome.htm
http://intele.net/~harald/fija/fija_us.htm
http://www.calyx.com/~fija/
http://www.primenet.com/~slack/fija/fija.html
Vote Anti-Prohibition:
Grassroots Party of Minnesota Home Page
http://www.winternet.com/~grp/
Libertarian Harry Browne for President in 1996
http://www.HarryBrowne96.org/
Hanson
Asked and answered long ago.
Like I said. The fact that you don't like the answers doesn't mean
they haven't been made. And it doesn't mean that they aren't right.
John Q. Public
>
> Asked and answered long ago.
>
Post it.
John Q. Public
> deal with reality, and got the same response. With me, it was the
> assertion by one of them - I forget which, and it doesn't matter - that
> Vince Foster had committed suicide because of unfriendly editorials in
> the WSJ. I asked the poster if he really meant that - that's all I did.
> And for days I tried to get him to answer, with no luck. Finally, in
> response to my last attempt to elicit a response, he posted exactly the
> same phrase: "Asked and answered long ago." It is instructive, to say
> the least, to observe these Clintonites when pinned down, but it's also
> pretty ugly. And it ought to teach anyone who hasn't yet put two and two
> together that they're not here to debate, but to disrupt.
>
> Tim Watson
A larger question is if there is an orchestrated effort on
the part of a political organization, like the DNC, or the
White House, to disrupt discussions of the Arkansas Horrors.
Woody Emanuel
>Asked and answered long ago.
That's very interesting, RH. After weeks of ducking my repeated
requests for an answer - after all, why would I repeatedly ask
if I had an answer to begin with - we now are told you have
answered it! Wonder of wonders!
How should we characterize your 'answer?' As ephemeral?
(Ah, yes, RH, let me take the required definition break. My
dictionary defines 'ephemeral' thusly: "Lasting for a brief
time; short-lived, transitory.") Perhaps you posted it, then
cancelled the post? What should one think?
Unfortunately, I think this proves an axiom of the less credible
of Liberals, the 'left-wing apologists', as you would say:
"truth is irrelevant, appearances are everything."
It also suggests your problem to begin with: you cannot defend
liberalism as it exists today, you can only try to legitimize it by
contrasting Liberlism with the extreme of your opponents. It
is interesting how you, Voltaire, and the ubiquitous Rack Jite
operate on this same principle. In fact, you don't live up
to true Liberal ideals - you destroy them.
>Like I said. The fact that you don't like the answers doesn't mean
>they haven't been made. And it doesn't mean that they aren't right.
The fact that you haven't given answers doesn't mean they exist.
Only dreamers would think so, and wish they were right.
Tim Watson
Hanson
"John Q. Public" <capm...@inxpress.net> wrote:
>Hanson wrote:
>
>>
>> Asked and answered long ago.
>>
>
>Post it.
As my friend Al D'Amato is fond of saying: "I will not be
diverted.
_______________________________
CONSERVATIVE RAGE 2:
The Party of Hate.
ONE OF THE MOST interesting comments I found in the whole
of the article in the Journal of Psychohistory on
Conservative Rage involved a seemingly small thing. Having
grown up in the era of Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon,
I've noted for some time now that, unlike these two avowed
conservatives, the latest incarnation of the New Right has
developed a seeming speech impediment. This affliction
apparently makes it difficult for conservatives to pronounce
the "ic" ending on the word "democratic" as in "Democratic
Party," "Democratic Caucus," "Democratic congress," etc.
Older conservatives not so given to bending with the current
wind as Bob Dole can actually remember when it was not so,
some of them still give the opposing party the dignity of
calling it by its given name. Some of the worst offenders
occasionally make the mistake of forgetting to drop the
ending, but all in all it's become pretty consistent to use
this small and fairly immature slur of referring to the
Democratic Party as the "Democrat Party."
Regardless of how we might have felt about their politics,
Barry Goldwater didn't need to employ so small a slight and
neither did Nixon. They had ideas and issues. Of course,
round about the time of Richard Nixon, things began to change
and conservatism became more and more about divisiveness,
less and less about ideas. Pat Buchanan's historic memo to
Attorney General John Mitchell addressed such notions. He
and Paul Weyrich were the modern era originators of a new
politics of division that would work well for Nixon before he
ultimately went into self-destruct mode. "If we tear the
country in two," wrote Buchanan, "we can walk away with the
bigger half." That same idea still works today, much
magnified and more obvious. One sees it in the invective of
Rush Limbaugh, the almost daily "Clinton as traitor"
speeches in the House Well of Rep. Bob Dornan, the murder
accusations aimed at the "liberal welfare state" by House
Speaker Newt Gingrich.
As the presidential campaign moves on, we can expect to hear
much more of this. William Kristol has sent out a general
call for more of the same derisive rhetoric. Bill Clinton
will be called many names this year. Those who post faintly
liberal or progressive sentiments in these groups will be
called the same names or worse. We will be called socialist,
statist, communist, Marxist, nihilist, fascist, reactionary,
homosexual, bisexual, non-sexual, immoral, amoral, even
"right wing" by a few conservatives who feel they get more
points by pretending to a liberalism they neither truly
espouse nor understand. Why is this? One can understand the
politics of division, but what we now have from the
conservative right wing is more the politics of
derision.
Part of it, I believe, is a operational stance. There's an
old legal maxim that goes something like this: "if you can't
argue the law, argue the facts. If you can't argue the
facts, argue the law. If you can't argue the facts or the
law, call the other lawyer names." The necessity of calling
the other party names when your involved in defending or
advancing the conservative cause seems pretty clear. The New
Right's biggest new idea is to dismantle popular and largely
successful programs and return America to an economic idea
discredited in the Coolidge administration. Their economic
ideas have had a little more than a decade to work their
magic through the Reagan/Bush administrations and have left
the country with a three trillion dollar debt. This is not
an easy idea to defend. Their social ideas are even worse
and on the face of it are capable of getting past the voters
only if the majority of Americans choose to drug themselves
into a stupor on election day. Under these circumstances,
loud invective may be the only hope. The plan here is, if
the Democratic Party --- excuse me, I mean the "Democrat
Party" --- can be tied up defending absurd charges and wiping
mud off its collective face, maybe it won't have the time to
explain to the voters just how big a crock the Contract with
America really is.
But there's more to it than that. The posters on these
groups are not paid political hacks, though we often act like
it. No one really hopes to sway the opposition with what
passes for argumentation in these forums. The invective here
is too often very real. And that means that conservatism's
grand plan has worked far too well --- better, in fact, than
it's originators would have wanted. Already we see the GOP
candidates wrestling with the wages of the sin of summoning
up a religious vote that wants and increasingly expects total
political control of the GOP. And we have seen the dangers
growing from groups pandered to by the racial and religious
bigotry preached by Pat Buchanan. We have seen and continue
to see the growth of a political cult of punishment,
vengeance, hatred. And we see the rise of Farrakhan type
reactions to it, the frightening spread of hatred as
a thinly disguised philosophy, as a way of life.
Whence the derision, the name calling, the intolerance? As
children we all went through it, boys or girls. Who among us
has not come up with a joke at the expense of those who were
different? We grew out of it. Except that some of us did
not. As a child, who hasn't experienced anger toward a
parent? Who hasn't for at least a moment wanted to hurt
back? We hope to grow out of such things, and largely we do.
Except some do not grow out of the urge to hurt back. The
new right offers appealing targets, those who are not like
the rest of "us." It asks that same question which was first
ask by the American Nativist movements and is being asked
again in groups like these: "who are the REAL Americans?"
Such questions and the easy targets of the poor, the
sick, the elderly, and those of differing religion, race, and
sexual orientation have led to an increase in the level of
insult that shows no signs of lessening. Lionel Trilling
once wrote: "Conservatives don't really have ideas, they have
irritable mental gestures that substitute for ideas." A
political ideology that is based more on a reaction to the
philosophy of liberalism than on any philosophy of
its own is bound to produce tense and grumpy adherents Add
to this the takeover of the conservative movement by its most
extreme end and you have a recipe for boiling-point
hostility.
I wish there were easy answers to such things. Liberalism is
a rationalistic political philosophy and rationality seems to
be one of the elements of liberalism rejected by its
staunchest foes. Thus one can on these groups see
individuals hurling lies, insults, and misrepresentations
only to blithely refer to such stratagems as "rational
discourse." That we, as progressives and liberals
recognize demagoguery for what it is does not change the
effect regardless of how many times we call attention to it.
So what is the answer? To look at the extreme ends of the
hard right wing agenda, one sees a small but viciously vocal
minority that will be satisfied with nothing else but their
own complete victory. Consensus with such a group would be
clearly impossible, primarily because it would be impossible
to cede to them all that they demand. Like children who have
become addicted to some powerful drug, they seem to have lost
all sense of self-control, and have begun --- especially with
regard to the Whitewater issue --- to resemble nothing so
much as the images summoned up by a study of the Salem witch
trials.
Yet I have gotten many encouraging responses on these groups
and letters from many lurkers honestly interested in the
issues. So the attempts go on. Progressives will continue
to post primarily as an alternative to the one-sidedness and
intolerance of so many of the groups. We error most where we
seek to persuade rather than to simply present. Fanaticism
cannot be reasoned with, only transformed from one target to
another. Today it is Bill and Hillary Clinton, and welfare
mothers, tomorrow it will be homosexuals or those of some
other faith, and the day after the intolerant will find
someone or something else. Russell said that liberalism was
not so much 'what' liberalism believes but 'how'
liberalism believes, and perhaps that is the best defense we
have against the extremism of the right wing. Perhaps it is
not so much the truth about this or that subject that counts,
but the very act of attempting to keep an open mind that
makes the final difference.
RH
Hanson
>It also suggests your problem to begin with: you cannot
defend
>liberalism as it exists today, you can only try to
legitimize it by
>contrasting Liberlism with the extreme of your opponents.
I have no problem "defending" liberalism. It exists now as
it has always existed, as a legitimate means of effecting the
public good which I have written about at length without
reference to conservatism as an alternative.
Although I must admit Liberalism looks even better
contrasted with the extremism of its current political
opponents.
RH
Hanson
Tim Watson <tim...@cei.net> wrote:
>"John Q. Public" <capm...@inxpress.net> wrote:
>>Hanson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Asked and answered long ago.
>>>
>>
>>Post it.
>
>
>the least, to observe these Clintonites when pinned down,
but it's also
>pretty ugly. And it ought to teach anyone who hasn't yet
put two and two
>together that they're not here to debate, but to disrupt.
>
>Tim Watson
>
Even more instructive to watch the work of the konspiracy
ghoul squad as they look for even more dead bodies upon which
to foist their hate campaign against the Democratic party.
All things considered, it is far better to disrupt than to be
here solely to destroy.
RH
Hanson
>>
>> "John Q. Public" <capm...@inxpress.net> wrote:
>> >Hanson wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Asked and answered long ago.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Post it.
>>
these guys to
>> deal with reality, and got the same response. With me, it
was the
>> assertion by one of them - I forget which, and it doesn't
matter - that
>> Vince Foster had committed suicide because of unfriendly
editorials in
>> the WSJ. I asked the poster if he really meant that -
that's all I did.
>> And for days I tried to get him to answer, with no luck.
Finally, in
>> response to my last attempt to elicit a response, he
posted exactly the
>> the least, to observe these Clintonites when pinned down,
but it's also
>> pretty ugly. And it ought to teach anyone who hasn't yet
put two and two
>> together that they're not here to debate, but to disrupt.
>>
>> Tim Watson
>
>
>the part of a political organization, like the DNC, or the
>White House, to disrupt discussions of the Arkansas Horrors.
Yes, John. They're all terrified that you, Wayne and Martin
will gang up on them and tear the White House down.
Get over yourself. I and others like me will occasionally
correct your more egregious lies for the sake of neatness and
justice. But no one with any real rationality could possibly
take your "facts" any more seriously than they could take
you.
Rh
Patrick J. McGuinness
>Subject: When the Government Kills Twice: DP and Drug Wars.
>
>LUCAS...@mediaform.com (Lucas Stults) writes without facts:
>>William House wrote with facts:
>>>sniped ???
>>> >On 3 Apr 1996, William House wrote facts:
>
>>> If you care about murders,
>>> then Stop the Government Violence of the Drug War.
Especially the tyranny of the FDA's Drug Approval Process
(aka War on Drug Cures). Right?
Letting people suffer and die because their drug cures have not been
approved yet is an act of violence.
--
Observe -> Understand -> Direct -> Act
^_______________________________/
Charles Held
p...@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) wrote:
=>>> If you care about murders,
=>>> then Stop the Government Violence of the Drug War.
=
=
=Especially the tyranny of the FDA's Drug Approval Process
=(aka War on Drug Cures). Right?
Both.
John Q. Public
> >"John Q. Public" <capm...@inxpress.net> wrote:
> >>Hanson wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Asked and answered long ago.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Post it.
> >
> >
> >the least, to observe these Clintonites when pinned down,
> but it's also
> >pretty ugly. And it ought to teach anyone who hasn't yet
> put two and two
> >together that they're not here to debate, but to disrupt.
> >
> >Tim Watson
> >
Post it or shut up, Hanson.
Dave Bartlow
> Even more instructive to watch the work of the konspiracy
> ghoul squad as they look for even more dead bodies upon which
> to foist their hate campaign against the Democratic party.
> All things considered, it is far better to disrupt than to be
> here solely to destroy.
>
> RH
I would't worry about finding more dead bodies. There are as many
future dead bodies as there are *undesireable whitnesses* with the
potential to embarass Clinton or his administration. There are a few
less today than when he took office.
--
**********************************************
** Dave Bartlow (DrNybble) **
** My opinions are just that --- MINE! **
**********************************************
John Q. Public
>
> In article <316AEE...@inxpress.net>,
> "John Q. Public" <capm...@inxpress.net> wrote:
> >Hanson wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Asked and answered long ago.
> >>
> >
> >Post it.
>
> As my friend Al D'Amato is fond of saying: "I will not be
> diverted.
>
A response that is not quite among the same class as those
of Susan Thomases, the FLOTUS, the Boy Who Lied to his Diary,
and others, but not bad.
Post it. "Asked and answered" it was, eh?
Post it, you simpering twit.
John Q. Public
>
> Get over yourself. I and others like me will occasionally
> correct your more egregious lies for the sake of neatness and
> justice. But no one with any real rationality could possibly
> take your "facts" any more seriously than they could take
> you.
>
Hanson bays at the moon in his head.
The self destruction continues.
Tim Watson
>>
>> "John Q. Public" <capm...@inxpress.net> wrote:
>> >Hanson wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Asked and answered long ago.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Post it.
>>
>> deal with reality, and got the same response. With me, it was the
>> assertion by one of them - I forget which, and it doesn't matter - that
>> Vince Foster had committed suicide because of unfriendly editorials in
>> the WSJ. I asked the poster if he really meant that - that's all I did.
>> And for days I tried to get him to answer, with no luck. Finally, in
>> response to my last attempt to elicit a response, he posted exactly the
>> the least, to observe these Clintonites when pinned down, but it's also
>> pretty ugly. And it ought to teach anyone who hasn't yet put two and two
>> together that they're not here to debate, but to disrupt.
>>
>> Tim Watson
>
>
>the part of a political organization, like the DNC, or the
>White House, to disrupt discussions of the Arkansas Horrors.
I am as practical as it gets, and as far from being a conspiracy theorist
as its possible to be. I follow Occam's Razor, and it usually works.
But I've observed Bill Clinton at work politically for years. He has no
equal, now or ever in American history, at the art of pure politics. The
reason is simple, and two-fold: he has a burning desire to win, and he is
a sociopath, by which I mean he is unfettered by any moral limitations.
He will quite literally do and say whatever he thinks is necessary to win
the next election. And he's been extraordinarily successful with this
formula.
So, yes, it is highly likely that as a part of his re-election strategy,
he has orchestrated an assault on discussion groups like this one. I
would be surprised if he had not.
Tim Watson
1
Hanson
Woody Emanuel
>In article <316AEE...@inxpress.net>,
> "John Q. Public" <capm...@inxpress.net> wrote:
>>Hanson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Asked and answered long ago.
>>>
>>
>>Post it.
>As my friend Al D'Amato is fond of saying: "I will not be
>diverted.
>_______________________________
>CONSERVATIVE RAGE 2:
>The Party of Hate.
>ONE OF THE MOST interesting comments I found in the whole
>of the article in the Journal of Psychohistory on ......
(snip)
Nice try, Hanson.
You and I know this has has nothing to do with what
I asked you.
Now everyone else does too. Why are you so afraid?
Woody Emanuel
>>It also suggests your problem to begin with: you cannot
>>defend liberalism as it exists today, you can only try to
>>legitimize it by contrasting Liberlism with the extreme
>>of your opponents.
>I have no problem "defending" liberalism. It exists now as
>it has always existed, as a legitimate means of effecting the
>public good which I have written about at length without
>reference to conservatism as an alternative.
That's the problem in a nutshell, RH, "..a legitimate means
of effecting the public good." We will do without the benefit
of your definition of "legitimate means" and "the public good"
since the classic liberal problem - one with which the rest of
us deal with on a daily basis - is the abandon with which
"legitimate means" and "the public good" is defined by your
like-minded friends. "Public good" is what you wish it to be,
"legitimate means" is a euphemism for "principles don't
matter."
>Although I must admit Liberalism looks even better
>contrasted with the extremism of its current political
>opponents.
As I said before, that is how you legitimize Liberalism.
>RH
But lets get back to the main event. The point of this
continuing exercise is your determined avoidance of answering
a direct question. It is interesting that you have continued to
avoid it by: 1) not responding to the first part of the above post
which dealt with it , and 2) trying to divert attention by re-posting
your CONSERVATIVE RAGE 2:The Party of Hate. You and I
both know that is not an answer to my question. Continual avoidance.
Now, when will you answer my question directly, RH?
Diane Mathews
[rather large amount of snipping]
>>A larger question is if there is an orchestrated effort on
>>the part of a political organization, like the DNC, or the
>>White House, to disrupt discussions of the Arkansas Horrors.
Well, then, it's a good thing this isn't posted to alt.conspiracy.
>I am as practical as it gets, and as far from being a conspiracy theorist
>as its possible to be. I follow Occam's Razor, and it usually works.
>
>But I've observed Bill Clinton at work politically for years. He has no
>equal, now or ever in American history, at the art of pure politics. The
>reason is simple, and two-fold: he has a burning desire to win, and he is
>a sociopath, by which I mean he is unfettered by any moral limitations.
>He will quite literally do and say whatever he thinks is necessary to win
>the next election. And he's been extraordinarily successful with this
>formula.
>
>So, yes, it is highly likely that as a part of his re-election strategy,
>he has orchestrated an assault on discussion groups like this one. I
>would be surprised if he had not.
>
>Tim Watson
mgwoatsi
I am amazed. Next you'll be telling me that Clinton has been paying
the Unabomber all of these years, and he's one of the "witnesses"...
Oh, that's right, you're not a conspiracist.
--
Diane Mathews
FSDM #0.1/2 Komrade Snapperhead, 2nd Mate
"Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things." JDQ
Hanson
b...@world.std.com (Woody Emanuel) wrote:
>rha...@ix.netcom.com (Hanson) writes:
>
>>>It also suggests your problem to begin with: you cannot
>>>defend liberalism as it exists today, you can only try to
>>>legitimize it by contrasting Liberlism with the extreme
>>>of your opponents.
>
>>I have no problem "defending" liberalism. It exists now as
>>it has always existed, as a legitimate means of effecting
the
>>public good which I have written about at length without
>>reference to conservatism as an alternative.
>
>That's the problem in a nutshell, RH, "..a legitimate means
>of effecting the public good." We will do without the
benefit
>of your definition of "legitimate means" and "the public
good"
>since the classic liberal problem
Actually, it seems to be more of a conservative problem
lately....
- one with which the rest of
>us deal with on a daily basis - is the abandon with which
>"legitimate means" and "the public good" is defined by your
>like-minded friends.
Yes, well, this IS a democracy, hard though that may be for
the public to accept. Keep voting conservative...the
freshmen congressmen are still working on getting rid of a
lot of that pesky legislation voted into existence by popular
demand.
"Public good" is what you wish it to be,
>"legitimate means" is a euphemism for "principles don't
>matter."
Only in the play-dough world of your propagandistic rhetoric.
RH
Opalecky Robert V
...
> Yes, well, this IS a democracy, hard though that may be for
> the public to accept. Keep voting conservative...the
> freshmen congressmen are still working on getting rid of a
> lot of that pesky legislation voted into existence by popular
> demand.
...
>
> Only in the play-dough world of your propagandistic rhetoric.
>
> RH
>
>
Are we really a democracy? Will of the majority?
I thought we were a federal republic that was designed to prevent the
types of awful atrocities that democracies were prone to.
There is, in fact, no worse form of goverment than democracy.
Why does it come up so often that people who want to defend the status
quo of the inefficiency and intusivness of our government point to
a form of goverment we do not use as if to say: it's your fault, as it
was your responsibility.
Our responsibility is to send the jerks to Washington. What they do there
often is both unpopular and hard to repeal (especially in the face of an
obstuctionist presidency).
Get your own rhetoric straight, before one of the mobs of peasants you
love so comes for you with thier burning torches.
----------
Woody Emanuel
>Yes, well, this IS a democracy, hard though that may be for
>the public to accept. Keep voting conservative...the
>freshmen congressmen are still working on getting rid of a
>lot of that pesky legislation voted into existence by popular
>demand.
> "Public good" is what you wish it to be,
>>"legitimate means" is a euphemism for "principles don't
>>matter."
>Only in the play-dough world of your propagandistic rhetoric.
>RH
As I said before, that is how you legitimize Liberalism.
(This gets easier and easier. All I have to do is repeat my post
to show how you avoid issues that you can't deal with. Reality
exists, Hanson. Get used to it.)
But lets get back to the main event. The point of this
continuing exercise is your determined avoidance of answering
a direct question. It is interesting that you have continued to
avoid it by: 1) not responding to the part of the above post
which dealt with it , and 2) trying to divert attention by re-posting
your CONSERVATIVE RAGE 2:The Party of Hate. You and I
both know that is not an answer to my question.
Now, when will you answer my question directly, RH?
Tim Watson
>>But I've observed Bill Clinton at work politically for
>years. He has no
>>equal, now or ever in American history, at the art of pure
>politics. The
>>reason is simple, and two-fold: he has a burning desire to
>win, and he is
>>a sociopath, by which I mean he is unfettered by any moral
>limitations.
>
>Sounds a whole lot more like Newt Gingrich.
>
>RH
Nope. Not even close. It's Slick Willie all right. Fits him to a "T".
Tim Watson
John Q. Public
>
> In article <4khl39$e...@ren.cei.net>, Tim Watson <tim...@cei.net> wrote:
> >"John Q. Public" <capm...@inxpress.net> wrote:
>
> [rather large amount of snipping]
>
> >>A larger question is if there is an orchestrated effort on
> >>the part of a political organization, like the DNC, or the
> >>White House, to disrupt discussions of the Arkansas Horrors.
>
> Well, then, it's a good thing this isn't posted to alt.conspiracy.
>
> >I am as practical as it gets, and as far from being a conspiracy theorist
> >as its possible to be. I follow Occam's Razor, and it usually works.
> >
> >equal, now or ever in American history, at the art of pure politics. The
> >reason is simple, and two-fold: he has a burning desire to win, and he is
> >a sociopath, by which I mean he is unfettered by any moral limitations.
> >the next election. And he's been extraordinarily successful with this
> >formula.
> >
> >So, yes, it is highly likely that as a part of his re-election strategy,
> >he has orchestrated an assault on discussion groups like this one. I
> >would be surprised if he had not.
> >
> >Tim Watson
>
> mgwoatsi
>
> I am amazed. Next you'll be telling me that Clinton has been paying
> the Unabomber all of these years, and he's one of the "witnesses"...
> Oh, that's right, you're not a conspiracist.
>
due to the clusterfucked style of writing you employ.
Try posting something straightforward once in a while.
John Q. Public
>
> rha...@ix.netcom.com (Hanson) writes:
>
> >In article <316AEE...@inxpress.net>,
> > "John Q. Public" <capm...@inxpress.net> wrote:
> >>Hanson wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Asked and answered long ago.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Post it.
>
> >As my friend Al D'Amato is fond of saying: "I will not be
> >diverted.
>
> >_______________________________
>
> >CONSERVATIVE RAGE 2:
> >The Party of Hate.
>
> >ONE OF THE MOST interesting comments I found in the whole
>
> (snip)
>
> Nice try, Hanson.
>
> You and I know this has has nothing to do with what
> I asked you.
>
> Now everyone else does too. Why are you so afraid?
Consider the possibility that he's just too damned thick
to recognize what you're asking for. Also consider the
possibility that he's being compensated for being
disruptive to the whitewater ng. Also, consider the
possibility that both are true.
Hanson
"John Q. Public" <J...@globaldialog.com> wrote:
>Diane Mathews wrote:
>>
>> In article <4khl39$e...@ren.cei.net>, Tim Watson
<tim...@cei.net> wrote:
Don't be thrown off balance by this comment. John Q. has
also accused me of being clusterfucked. Read "you don't
agree with me" everytime you see the word and you'll be all
right.
John has a low tolerance for dissent....zero, actually.
RH
Gail Thaler
>Well, then, it's a good thing this isn't posted to alt.conspiracy.
>
>Actually, it's posted on alt.alien.visitors and
alt. elvis sightings.
>I am amazed. Next you'll be telling me that Clinton has been paying
>the Unabomber all of these years, and he's one of the "witnesses"...
>Oh, that's right, you're not a conspiracist.
>
>Diane, obviously you are new. The correct spelling is
Klinton. And yes, Clinton, sorry Klinton, had Ron Brown
murdered and Foster too. And Hillary planted the bomb.
And Chelsea is a dog. Welcome.
Wayne Mann
alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater that have absolutely NOTHING to
do with that Newsgroup and since this has been going on for months now
and since he has been asked several times by several people and since
he absolutely refuses to NOT continue to crosspost everyone of his
posts to a.c-e.c.w, and in fact insists that he will continue to do it
because it is his "right" there appears to be only two alternatives
left to be able to have a newsgroup without having him posting 80% of
the posts and ruining the newsgroup. Either all of the other
newsgroups can cooperate and trim the headers so we do not get
everyone's response to everyone of his posts to our group, and not
putting our group in your crossposts. I have written to many of the
people responding to all of these crossposts and asked if they would
help us, and have received virtually no help. If newsgroups can't be
restricted to some type of subject control, then there is NO need for
more than ONE newsgroup. That way everyone will post to one group and
everyone will get every post. Of course it should be obvious to
everyone that that is not a satisfactory answer. SO that leaves the
choice of have on-subject posts ONLY to each newsgroup. Therefore
people like Hanson and several others are ruining the groups for most
of us.
Like all things, when something like this is being abused, then
someone somewhere will know the right person who knows the Congressman
or whoever and the first thing you know there will be a law regulating
the Internet. The ONLY way to prevent that is for the users to work
together to NOT respond to people that crosspost and post off-subject
posts. I realize there are a VERY few people that have the distorted
idea that for anyone to suggest that posts should be on-subject is to
them as a red flag of a censor, but that is just ignorance. It would
only be censoring if there was a law that made it illegal. To not do
something by consensus is NOT censoring anyone.
Path: ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!ix-or12-04
From: rha...@ix.netcom.com (Hanson)
Newsgroups:
alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.newt-gingrich,alt..fan..rush-limbaugh,alt..fan..dan-quayle,alt..politics..usa..republican,alt..politics..democrats..d,alt..dear..whitehouse,alt..president..clinton,alt..activism
Subject: Re: !THE PSYCHOLOGY OF CONSERVATIVE RAGE 2: The Party of Hate
Date: 12 Apr 1996 02:05:28 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 68
Message-ID: <4kkdp8$f...@cloner2.ix.netcom.com>
References: <4il9na$m...@dfw-ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>
<DpHyt...@world.std.com> <4kc9s1$c...@reader2.ix
<4khl39$e...@ren.cei.net> <4kivsd$e...@hpscit.sc.hp.com>
<316D98...@globaldialog.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-or12-04.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Thu Apr 11 7:05:28 PM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #3
Xref: ix.netcom.com talk.politics.misc:497885
alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater:41144
alt.fan.newt-gingrich:44152 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:496765
alt.fan.dan-quayle:68580 alt.politics.usa.republican:233660
alt.politics.democrats.d:88549 alt.dear.whitehouse:24112
alt.president.clinton:82790 alt.activism:180684
In article <316D98...@globaldialog.com>,
"John Q. Public" <J...@globaldialog.com> wrote:
>Diane Mathews wrote:
>>
>> In article <4khl39$e...@ren.cei.net>, Tim Watson
<tim...@cei.net> wrote:
>> >"John Q. Public" <capm...@inxpress.net> wrote:
>>
>> [rather large amount of snipping]
>>
>> >>A larger question is if there is an orchestrated effort
on
>> >>the part of a political organization, like the DNC, or
the
>> >>White House, to disrupt discussions of the Arkansas
Horrors.
>>
>> Well, then, it's a good thing this isn't posted to
alt.conspiracy.
>>
>> >I am as practical as it gets, and as far from being a
conspiracy theorist
>> >as its possible to be. I follow Occam's Razor, and it
usually works.
>> >
>> >But I've observed Bill Clinton at work politically for
years. He has no
>> >equal, now or ever in American history, at the art of
pure politics. The
>> >reason is simple, and two-fold: he has a burning desire
to win, and he is
>> >a sociopath, by which I mean he is unfettered by any
moral limitations.
>> >He will quite literally do and say whatever he thinks is
necessary to win
>> >the next election. And he's been extraordinarily
successful with this
>> >formula.
>> >
>> >So, yes, it is highly likely that as a part of his
re-election strategy,
>> >he has orchestrated an assault on discussion groups like
this one. I
>> >would be surprised if he had not.
>> >
>> >Tim Watson
>>
>> mgwoatsi
>>
>> I am amazed. Next you'll be telling me that Clinton has
been paying
>> the Unabomber all of these years, and he's one of the
"witnesses"...
>> Oh, that's right, you're not a conspiracist.
>>
>It's difficult to know if a nerve's been struck, or not,
>due to the clusterfucked style of writing you employ.
>
>Try posting something straightforward once in a while.
Don't be thrown off balance by this comment. John Q. has
also accused me of being clusterfucked. Read "you don't
agree with me" everytime you see the word and you'll be all
right.
John has a low tolerance for dissent....zero, actually.
RH
\\/ayne //\ann
If we taxed every single person in the US worth $500,000
and up at 100% tax rate, it would not pay for the federal
government's operations for three days. (CBO, 1993)
John Q. Public
> he has a burning desire to
> win, and he is
> >a sociopath, by which I mean he is unfettered by any moral
> limitations.
>
>
> RH
That's the way it sounds to an advocate of murder and
repression.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Prediction of the decade: "The public will never believe the
innocence of the Clintons & their loyal staff." -- author unknown
FizzTwo
Hanson wrote:
> he has a burning desire to
> win, and he is
> >a sociopath, by which I mean he is unfettered by any moral
> limitations.
>
> Sounds a whole lot more like Newt Gingrich.
Isn't it bizarre that an amoral fanatic like Gingrich-- commonly known as
"a bomb-thrower" for years (AMONG HIS GOP House colleagues!!)-- is
now almost considered "moderate" among the nuts and lunatics that
make up the Republican Party?!?!?!?!!!!!!!?
Nancy K
Gosh Fizz, we agree on something.... (Gingrich talks a good game, but
his rhetoric does not match his actions).
FizzTwo
>fiz...@aol.com (FizzTwo) wrote:
Don't flatter yourself, right-wing dim-wit. We differ greatly on
Gingrich (and other fascist-leaning politicians). I see his wild
right-wing rhetoric as a threat to our great country. You seem to wish
his reputation as a proverbial bomb-thrower was replaced by a reputation
as a literal bomb-thrower-- just like the loons in Montana you've been
defending.
John Q. Public
FizzTwo wrote:
>
> nancyk writes:
>
> >fiz...@aol.com (FizzTwo) wrote:
>
> >>Hanson wrote:
> >>> he has a burning desire to
> >>> win, and he is
> >>> >a sociopath, by which I mean he is unfettered by any moral
> >>> limitations.
>
> >>> Sounds a whole lot more like Newt Gingrich.
>
> >>Isn't it bizarre that an amoral fanatic like Gingrich-- commonly known
> >>as
> >>"a bomb-thrower" for years (AMONG HIS GOP House colleagues!!)-- is
> >>now almost considered "moderate" among the nuts and lunatics that
> >>make up the Republican Party?!?!?!?!!!!!!!?
>
> >Gosh Fizz, we agree on something.... (Gingrich talks a good game, but
> >his rhetoric does not match his actions).
>
> Don't flatter yourself, right-wing dim-wit. We differ greatly on
> Gingrich (and other fascist-leaning politicians). I see his wild
> right-wing rhetoric as a threat to our great country.
I see murder, political repression, abuse of power, demagoguery,
and sociopathic lying as a threat to our great country,
particularly when it occupies the White House.
Billy Beck
Wotta Jerk. Truly. How rare it is to observe a human being so
flagrantly and consistently removed from concepts and their
relationship to language. There are many idiots in Usenet, these
days, and I suppose that is to be expected. After all, it's a
(relatively) free country (so far), and any geek who can manage an
Edison AC connector and a phone jack gets to screech the most random
freeform jazz throughout the world...and, thus, mortify the very idea
of rational discourse. However, most of them are content to play a
mad sort of "telecom roullette"; a drive-by here, a disjoint dozen
words without quoting the replied-to post over there...and then off
they ricochet to fart in someone else's face: the readers of
comp.dcom.videoconf or humanities.language.sanskrit probably have days
when they wonder "who'll stop the rain" of one-off creepery.
To observe such *dedication* to epistemic white-noise, however, is
really something quite terribly special.
Hanson's performance is become epic. One wonders how, given the
world-view manifested in his posts, he is able to make it through his
day without instantly killing himself (accidently, McP) by *acting*
with his awesome disregard for reality and thought.
Witness:
rha...@ix.netcom.com (Hanson) wrote:
>Now I'm an advocate of murder and repression!!!!
(etc.)
>I also don't go around spreading BS about how likely it is
>that Bill and/or Hillary Clinton arranged or participated in
>the "murders" of Vince Foster and Ron Brown.
>You and your buddies DO!
>How's THAT for being an advocate of murder?
By this logic, the very act of *charging* a murder represents
"advoca[cy]".
I realize, of course, that such an elegant concretization of The
Hanson Effect, fraught, as it is, with implicit definitions and
conceptual integrations, bears absolutely no possibility of sinking to
his level of understanding. The scope of my twelve word observation
is quite beyond his ability to grasp.
I do not write this, however, for his edification.
This soak of bandwidth is offered to at-large readers, and merely my
own illustration of the fact that we are in the presence of something
powerfully stupid.
That concept, in itself, is shattering and spellbinding, at once.
Billy
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/free.html
"Rant" updated 2/19/96
Billy Beck
wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) puzzled:
>In article <4kq56r$o...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
>Hanson <rha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>Look at it this way. I may be a lot of things but I don't go
>>around telling people that "hundreds" of babies are found
>>dead in dumpsters every day in Washington D.C., discarded by
>>"Welfare Mothers."
>>
>>Newt HAS!
>Oh, Geeeze! I missed THIS one. Where? When?
Qualified observers plotted this transient vortex of the Hanson Effect
as a localized thin-air disturbance of the iwannasphere at
06:15:55zulu / 14 Apr 1996. Experts immediately agreed that
white-noise level averages will not be significantly displaced by the
disturbance.
*****
"It's the same as it ever was."
(Talking Heads - "Stop Making Sense")
Nancy K
>nancyk writes:
>>fiz...@aol.com (FizzTwo) wrote:
>>>Hanson wrote:
>>>> he has a burning desire to
>>>> win, and he is
>>>> >a sociopath, by which I mean he is unfettered by any moral
>>>> limitations.
>
>>>> Sounds a whole lot more like Newt Gingrich.
>>>Isn't it bizarre that an amoral fanatic like Gingrich-- commonly known
>>>as
>>>"a bomb-thrower" for years (AMONG HIS GOP House colleagues!!)-- is
>>>now almost considered "moderate" among the nuts and lunatics that
>>>make up the Republican Party?!?!?!?!!!!!!!?
>>Gosh Fizz, we agree on something.... (Gingrich talks a good game, but
>>his rhetoric does not match his actions).
>Don't flatter yourself, right-wing dim-wit.
Getting frustrated Voltaire? I can always tell... you start with the
insults when you don't have a leg to stand on. '-)
>We differ greatly on
>Gingrich (and other fascist-leaning politicians
Well, if we differ, that must mean that you like them, and I don't.
>). I see his wild
>right-wing rhetoric as a threat to our great country.
Tell me Voltaire, in your opinion, what is it that makes this country
great? Yes, I'm really interested. You see, I'm curious because you
don't seem to think to much of the jury system, the Constitution,
etc. So... I'm just a bit curious.
>You seem to wish
>his reputation as a proverbial bomb-thrower was replaced by a reputation
>as a literal bomb-thrower-
No. How about his stance on the Anti-terrorism bills? How about his
stance on GATT?
>- just like the loons in Montana you've been
>defending.
Well, yes, I would like to see them make it to a trial. They very
well might be loons, but you see that doesn't matter. They are still
Americans with Constitutional rights. You see Voltaire, I personally
think *you* are a loon, but I would defend to the end your right to
arrive to a trial alive, if you were ever in the same situation.
Nancy K
Hanson
"John Q. Public" <J...@globaldialog.com> wrote:
>Hanson wrote:
>> he has a burning desire to
>> win, and he is
>> >a sociopath, by which I mean he is unfettered by any
moral
>> limitations.
>>
>> Sounds a whole lot more like Newt Gingrich.
>>
>
>That's the way it sounds to an advocate of murder and
>repression.
oOOOOOOOOh!!!!
Now I'm an advocate of murder and repression!!!!
Gee, and it was just a few days ago that your were wimpering
about how sad it was that you were a spineless coward posting
under an alias and so couldn't sue ME for defamation.
Look at it this way. I may be a lot of things but I don't go
around telling people that "hundreds" of babies are found
dead in dumpsters every day in Washington D.C., discarded by
"Welfare Mothers."
Newt HAS!
How's THAT for being an advocate of murder?
I also don't go around spreading BS about how likely it is
that Bill and/or Hillary Clinton arranged or participated in
the "murders" of Vince Foster and Ron Brown.
You and your buddies DO!
How's THAT for being an advocate of murder?
BTW: You're a blithering moron.
RH
John Q. Public
>
> In article <316FF6...@globaldialog.com>,
> "John Q. Public" <J...@globaldialog.com> wrote:
> >Hanson wrote:
> >> he has a burning desire to
> >> win, and he is
> >> >a sociopath, by which I mean he is unfettered by any
> moral
> >> limitations.
> >>
> >> Sounds a whole lot more like Newt Gingrich.
> >>
> >> RH
> >
> >That's the way it sounds to an advocate of murder and
> >repression.
>
> oOOOOOOOOh!!!!
>
> Now I'm an advocate of murder and repression!!!!
>
Self recognition for Hanson, at last.
John Q. Public
Hanson wrote:
>
> In article <316FF6...@globaldialog.com>,
> "John Q. Public" <J...@globaldialog.com> wrote:
> >Hanson wrote:
> >> he has a burning desire to
> >> win, and he is
> >> >a sociopath, by which I mean he is unfettered by any
> moral
> >> limitations.
> >>
> >> Sounds a whole lot more like Newt Gingrich.
> >>
> >> RH
> >
> >That's the way it sounds to an advocate of murder and
> >repression.
>
> oOOOOOOOOh!!!!
>
> Now I'm an advocate of murder and repression!!!!
>
> Gee, and it was just a few days ago that your were wimpering
> about how sad it was that you were a spineless coward posting
> under an alias and so couldn't sue ME for defamation.
>
> Look at it this way. I may be a lot of things but I don't go
> around telling people that "hundreds" of babies are found
> dead in dumpsters every day in Washington D.C., discarded by
> "Welfare Mothers."
>
> Newt HAS!
>
> How's THAT for being an advocate of murder?
>
> I also don't go around spreading BS about how likely it is
> that Bill and/or Hillary Clinton arranged or participated in
> the "murders" of Vince Foster and Ron Brown.
>
> You and your buddies DO!
>
> How's THAT for being an advocate of murder?
>
Well, now, I've not really participated much in either of those
threads. In fact, I can't really recall seeing a thread about
Gingrich that's similar to the one you describe. However, I'd like
to point out that Hanson ) either has no notion of what the word
"advocate" means, or 2) is purposefully misusuing it to forward
his beloved "liberal" agenda, which has evolved to the point
that it allows for the practice and defense of political
murder and other crimes in the United States of America.
Hanson's campaign to "civilize" political debate is a sham
that has been picked apart endlessly. His true objectives
are known; they have oozed forth out of the heaping mounds
of fascist-statist garbage that he have posted month
after month. He defends murderers and political repression;
he advocates the major tenets of statism; he tries to
shame people who have the courage to call a spade a spade
into "moderation" to further that agenda.
William Barwell
Hanson <rha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <316FF6...@globaldialog.com>,
> "John Q. Public" <J...@globaldialog.com> wrote:
>>Hanson wrote:
****************** Deleted ******************
>
>Look at it this way. I may be a lot of things but I don't go
>around telling people that "hundreds" of babies are found
>dead in dumpsters every day in Washington D.C., discarded by
>"Welfare Mothers."
>
>Newt HAS!
>
Oh, Geeeze! I missed THIS one. Where? When?
Has anybody started a collection of insane Nut Gangrene quotes?
This could possibly rival the now infamous Dan Quayle quote file.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
Jim Kennemur
>nancyk writes:
>
>>fiz...@aol.com (FizzTwo) wrote:
>
>
>>>Hanson wrote:
>>>> he has a burning desire to
>>>> win, and he is
>>>> >a sociopath, by which I mean he is unfettered by any moral
>>>> limitations.
>
>>>> Sounds a whole lot more like Newt Gingrich.
>
>>>Isn't it bizarre that an amoral fanatic like Gingrich-- commonly known
>>>as
>>>"a bomb-thrower" for years (AMONG HIS GOP House colleagues!!)-- is
>>>now almost considered "moderate" among the nuts and lunatics that
>>>make up the Republican Party?!?!?!?!!!!!!!?
>
>
>>Gosh Fizz, we agree on something.... (Gingrich talks a good game, but
>>his rhetoric does not match his actions).
>
>Don't flatter yourself, right-wing dim-wit. We differ greatly on
>Gingrich (and other fascist-leaning politicians). I see his wild
>right-wing rhetoric as a threat to our great country. You seem to wish
>his reputation as a proverbial bomb-thrower was replaced by a reputation
>as a literal bomb-thrower-- just like the loons in Montana you've been
>defending.
But only the 95% of her who agrees with the john Birch Society.
Jim
"Out of respect for the memory of Ron Brown and his grieving family, I am not anxious
to prolong this story. Like most people, I had hoped that decency would prevail over
politics. Those involved will have to live with the truth."
Bryant Gumbel
Hanson
wdm...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne Mann) wrote:
> Since Hanson is crossposting anywhere from 100 to 200
posts per day
That's a lie,,,,but most of you are aware of this.
to
>alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater that have absolutely
NOTHING to
>do with that Newsgroup
Which I have in common with 80% of the left and the right
wing posters to that group.
and since this has been going on for months now
>and since he has been asked several times by several people
and since
>he absolutely refuses to NOT continue to crosspost everyone
of his
>posts to a.c-e.c.w,
And since Wayne does EXACTLY the same thing when it suits his
purposes.
and in fact insists that he will continue to do it
>because it is his "right" there appears to be only two
alternatives
>left to be able to have a newsgroup without having him
posting 80% of
>the posts
Same lie
> and ruining the newsgroup.
Many would say this has happened already.
Either all of the other
>newsgroups can cooperate and trim the headers so we do not
get
>everyone's response to everyone of his posts to our group,
and not
>putting our group in your crossposts. I have written to
many of the
>people responding to all of these crossposts and asked if
they would
>help us, and have received virtually no help.
Probably because there isn't a quorum of individuals willing
to buy into the idea of a hypocritical liar like Wayne being
"Mr. Internet."
If newsgroups can't be
>restricted to some type of subject control, then there is NO
need for
>more than ONE newsgroup. That way everyone will post to one
group and
>everyone will get every post.
Especially since, if Wayne doesn't like your articles he'll
thoughtfully attempt to flood your e-mail with multiple
copies.
Of course it should be obvious to
>everyone that that is not a satisfactory answer. SO that
leaves the
>choice of have on-subject posts ONLY to each newsgroup.
Therefore
>people like Hanson and several others are ruining the groups
for most
>of us.
Wayne is actually taking himself a bit TOO seriously here,
but when you've decided you're the only thing standing
between the free world and Bill Clinton, delusions like this
can happen.
> Like all things, when something like this is being
abused, then
>someone somewhere will know the right person who knows the
Congressman
>or whoever and the first thing you know there will be a law
regulating
>the Internet.
Translation: I've tried every dirty trick in the book and
Hanson is still walking around as a free man.
Here's the deal. OUT OF RESPECT FOR THE OTHER GROUPS, I will
confine my replies to a.c-e.c.w. if that's where the article
originates. My original postings will continue to be posted
to NGs where I feel they should be posted, and that decision
is not based on Wayne's ideas of what should go where.
I will also take great personal pains to make sure that where
an origin NG for an article exists, I will post replies to
that group AND a.c-e.c.w. as I actually have no desire to
SPAM any other group.
Because the right wing posters in a.c-e.c.w are a bunch of
flaming hypocrites, liars, and political thugs, I will
continue to make sure that each and every reply of mine finds
its way to that group.
Also where the folks in a.c-e.c.w have taken pains to cross
post their insults to me to other groups, I will have to ---
regretfully --- also xpost to those groups. This way,
interested parties will at least be able to go back and check
on who started the whole thing.
As always, whoever wants to reply can reply. If you don't
want to, ignore it.
And Wayne...you can go to hell.
RH
RHA
Billy Beck <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> Wotta Jerk. Truly. How rare it is to observe a human being so
>flagrantly and consistently removed from concepts and their
>relationship to language. There are many idiots in Usenet, these
>days, and I suppose that is to be expected. After all, it's a
>(relatively) free country (so far), and any geek who can manage an
>Edison AC connector and a phone jack gets to screech the most random
>freeform jazz throughout the world...and, thus, mortify the very idea
>of rational discourse. However, most of them are content to play a
>mad sort of "telecom roullette"; a drive-by here, a disjoint dozen
>words without quoting the replied-to post over there...and then off
>they ricochet to fart in someone else's face: the readers of
>comp.dcom.videoconf or humanities.language.sanskrit probably have days
>when they wonder "who'll stop the rain" of one-off creepery.
>
> To observe such *dedication* to epistemic white-noise, however, is
>really something quite terribly special.
>
> Hanson's performance is become epic. One wonders how, given the
>world-view manifested in his posts, he is able to make it through his
>day without instantly killing himself (accidently, McP) by *acting*
>with his awesome disregard for reality and thought.
>
> Witness:
>
>rha...@ix.netcom.com (Hanson) wrote:
>
>
>
>>I also don't go around spreading BS about how likely it is
>>that Bill and/or Hillary Clinton arranged or participated in
>>the "murders" of Vince Foster and Ron Brown.
>
>>You and your buddies DO!
>
>>How's THAT for being an advocate of murder?
>
>"advoca[cy]".
>
>
> I realize, of course, that such an elegant concretization of The
>Hanson Effect, fraught, as it is, with implicit definitions and
>conceptual integrations, bears absolutely no possibility of sinking to
>his level of understanding. The scope of my twelve word observation
>is quite beyond his ability to grasp.
>
> I do not write this, however, for his edification.
>
> This soak of bandwidth is offered to at-large readers, and merely my
>own illustration of the fact that we are in the presence of something
>powerfully stupid.
How true, how true. Now log off and the average IQ of the
remaining readership will rise by one hundred points.
--
rha
Hanson
fiz...@aol.com (FizzTwo) wrote:
>
>Hanson wrote:
>> he has a burning desire to
>> win, and he is
>> >a sociopath, by which I mean he is unfettered by any
moral
>> limitations.
>>
>> Sounds a whole lot more like Newt Gingrich.
>
>Isn't it bizarre that an amoral fanatic like Gingrich--
commonly known as
>"a bomb-thrower" for years (AMONG HIS GOP House
colleagues!!)-- is
>now almost considered "moderate" among the nuts and lunatics
that
>make up the Republican Party?!?!?!?!!!!!!!?
Bizarre AND frightening.
RH
William Barwell
Hanson <rha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <4kndek$o...@cloner2.ix.netcom.com>,
> wdm...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne Mann) wrote:
>posts per day
>
Justout of curiosity, i read this and punched out of AFDQ and went over
to AC-ECW just to see what was going on. 640 posts.
Now if this was three days worth of posts, Hanson should then have
300 - 600 posts there.
Not even close.
Not even close.
Maybe 40 total out of 640.
Mann speaketh not the truth.
Or is in need of counting lessons.
I do not know much about Mann, but he seems to be not very
trustworthy and pretty hysterical sort of guy.
Hmmmphhh!
Kurt Nicklas
>From: rha...@ix.netcom.com (Hanson)
>Subject: Re: !THE PSYCHOSIS OF CONSERVATIVE RAGE 2: The Party of Hate
>Date: 14 Apr 1996 07:39:29 GMT
>Bizarre AND frightening.
>RH
By which I take it you mean that you're frightened that the Congress is
going to deconstruct your precious welfare state under the leadership
of Mr. G.?? I say time's a-wasting - let's get about it. Give 'em hell, Newt!
--> Kurt Nicklas (tibe...@rbdc.rbdc.com)
--> *************************************
--> Programmer (C/C++,Windows, OS/2)
--> Army Vet. (80-85:INSCOM,108 MI BN)
--> NRA member (since '93)
-->--------------------------------------
--> Non nobis domine: sed nomini Tuo da
--> gloriam.
wlfmn
>Isn't it bizarre that an amoral fanatic like Gingrich-- commonly known as
>"a bomb-thrower" for years (AMONG HIS GOP House colleagues!!)-- is
>now almost considered "moderate" among the nuts and lunatics that
>make up the Republican Party?!?!?!?!!!!!!!?
Not at all. It's a standard propaganda technique.
Make the radicals look moderate and the kooks look more mainstream.
Liberals fight back!
wlfmn
Trickle down, didn't!