From: Sea Queen Area: THE_OASIS To: Michael Lee 30 Sep 92 22:14:00 Subject: Re: FASCISM U.S.A. Rec'd UpdReq > "Special Interests", radical feminist included, are missing the > point. I > don't give a rat's ass whether my representative is a woman, a man, > our a one eyed, three-legged extra-terrarestial transvestite; Give > me a person who > thinks what I think, beleives what I beleive, feels how I feel. > > So do I. However, the current conservative, macho, war mongering, male-minded system does not represent what I think, believe, or feel. And that would include women who subscribe to the current system. If I decide to vote for a person who is more concerned with preventing war, cleaning up the environment, day care, health care, women's rights, education, odds are I'll have to vote for a woman, because the current system labels these "women's issues" and puts them on the back burner. And unfortunately, the men in power have very little concern for these things. We've become a nation of tribes: Women, Blacks, Hispanics, Gays, > etc. all > after their "representative" share of the pie. Let's get the best > _person_, > not the best woman/african american/native > american/hispanic/whatever. > > I agree it is silly for minorities and women (who are a majority), to be squabbling over the left over scraps of the pie. White men own the bulk of property, business, resources, and (probably MOST important) power in this country. No wonder the white male system has to invent derrogotory names for the groups of people who threaten their monopoly on the "American Dream". This system doesn't care if black folks fight hispanic folks for the left overs, but let black folks and hispanics say, "Hey! I'm entitled to the same inalienable rights as the white guys!" and it's called "reverse discrimination". See? When peoples' demands for equality and their fair share of what the system SAYS it offers, the people holding on to it get threatened. And, of course, resorts to name calling. >SQ> I'm not saying that congress whould be 51% women, but if they >SQ> want to convince me, the numbers would have to be a lot closer than >SQ> THAT that people are considering women as something more than an >SQ> after thought. > > But you _are_ saying that the simple accident of gender plays a role > in > your decision. Now tell me, how is that different than me > _refusing_ to > vote for a african american lesbian with no legs? Both are basing a > decision on irelevancies. Not at all. I'll vote for a man who's pro-choice over a woman who isn't. I'll vote for a woman who supports daycare for parents on welfare who are trying to go to school or hold down jobs over a man who whines about "welfare bitches" and cuts AFDC.... again. To me a politician is a politician.... male or female. And frankly, until more women are available to serve in public office, I won't really have that big a choice, even if I wanted it. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Sea Queen Area: THE_OASIS To: Gerald Del Campo 30 Sep 92 23:24:02 Subject: Re: RE. HERBAL FREEDOM UpdReq > > Can you think of any other way to do balance the budget? Since we > have no REAL enemies at this time (war on drugs and the Moslem > Fundamentalists are make-believe threats to justify spending) why > NOT cut military spending? Because this country makes money from > war. It's time to look for another job; maybe in the information > gathering field. > > Sorry, but at the current level of indebtedness, just cutting the budget won't get it. It's gonna mean more taxes. :( > The have a very good platform. Most people know very little about > their views because they don't get equal air-time, nor do they have > millions to properly run a campaign. They call themselves > Libertarians because they want to bring Liberty back to the people. > > I am very familiar with the Libertarian point of view. I am familiar enough with it to recognize a very serious flaw in their philosophy. And it's NOT their idealistic view of liberty. It is that if institutionalized as policy, who would run it? It is my opinion that we would be looking at "1984" where "all pigs are created equal, but some pigs are more equal than others" and there is no one else around to say differently. It is the job of government to keep that from happening. If the government is so disassembled as to be ineffective in protecting the people from each other, then who will? It is the peoples' responsibility to keep government in check, not obliterated. If you will remember in "1984", the establishmennt of the original system was VERY libertarian. It just didn't work out that way by the end. In George Orwell's book, the animals revolted against a repressive, self-serving system ( as the libertarians would like to do), and completely disassembled the system of human domination. They installed a system of egalitaran rule, but because there was no external presence to prevent it, the rebels then installed themselves in the place of the humans (as the libertarians would like to do -- metaphorically speaking), and were every bit as corrupt, power hungry and self serving as the humans. And that is what I think will happen with the libertarians being institutionalized. I agree with several of their points, but as a national policy.... no thanx! >SQ> And since it is the business of government to protect >SQ> the people (from foreign powers as well as each other), who would >SQ> protect us from each other? How would decisions be made? They would >SQ> be mad by the loudest, meanest, most corrupt, coercive folks around. > > Ultimately, WE have to be responsible for all of those things. WE who? Will you decide for me? Where will the courts get their judges? Who will controll the police? Who will protect my rights? You? All of these decisions ARE made by the loudest, meanest, most corrupt, > coercive folks around. You are describing the present situation. > > My point exactly. I see very little difference between the system the libertarians would set up and the current system, except that currently there is at least some system that keeps me safe from my fellow human being. >SQ> Let's face it. If we were left to ourselves, we'd all be at each >SQ> others throats. That's what happened in the civil war. > > The Civil War was for many reasons. One of which was freedom. Hardly. The civil war was fought for a lot of reasons. Money mostly, but hardly freedom. And if you bring up slavery, you haven't studied your history. Self impossed discipline is all people need; and a means to deal with > individuals who overlook other people's rights. > >> And if the people either refuse or are unable to discipline themselves (As is the current state of affairs, IMHO)? Then what? Are the libertarians going to discipline them til they get it right? I have been called paranoid for believing that the "burning times" >> are coming. People will be helpless against the government with the >> big guns, as they taken all of the real effective weapons away from >> the citizen; a good first move for a government which is heading >> towards totalitarianism. > >SQ> Frankly, I am more afraid of the self-righteous, largely >SQ> ignorant, paranoid gnn-toting NRA individuals doing the same things >SQ> they bitch about the government doing...looking out for me and mine! > > You have just described the Bush administration ;). Again, my point exactly. Seems to me it's just a matter of deciding who's more equal than whom (to continue the metaphor). I protect the right to bear arms because it is a constitutional right specifically design to prevent a government from becoming so powerful that it > cannot be removed if it was to become corrupt. Our present > condition is a sad state of affairs. > > Actually, it was to allow the militia to defend the people (against the British, originally). I am not gay, yet I am very active with the gay rights movement. It > is a matter of principle. You don't have to be a gun totting > redneck to advocate the right to bear arms. If you stop defending > the rights of minorities simply because you do not belong to that > particular group, who will help you when YOU no longer fit some > pre-determined socially correct mold? > > I am currently active in several political minority groups some of which apply to me and some who don't. I don't see the correlation between political activism and not wanting gun-toting, largely ignorant right wing extremists to run any system that would exercise control over this society. SQ> When the government does it it's called beaurocracy. When the NRA >SQ> types do it it's called individual rights and personal freedom. It >SQ> boils down to the same temper tantrum. "I want it! I want it! It's >SQ> MINE!" > > Hey, I am ultimately responsible for my own actions. No one has the > right to tell me I can't own a gun (especially since it is my > constitutional right), especially when my government is so well > armed. It is not a tantrum to practice ones Freedom. > > Yes, but it IS a tantrum to insist on having your way, your things, etc. at other peoples' expense. The whole "MINE!" attitude of the libertarians (and other right-wing reactionary conservatives) is really hard to swallow. Particularly when they refuse to show compassion, or extend themselves beyond their own interests. SQ> I have YET to hear one of these paranoid gun folks talk >SQ> about the COMMON good they hope to accomplish by stockpiling >SQ> weapons, and ammo. No, I hear them talk about what they will get for >SQ> THEMSELVES. Protection, food, safety, revenge. FOR THEMSELVES. Now >SQ> that's really something to build a society on, huh? > > You keep describing the same thing. Apply the statement above to > our government and you will see that there is NO difference. Exactly. You got my point. No difference. > >SQ> I think it can be safely agrued thet the current system SUCKS! But >SQ> let's carefully think about what to replace it with. > > Hehe. No argument here. I think that trying to design the perfect > government is a never ending process composed mainly of information > gathered in "trial and error" situations. There is no perfect way > to do this, but if we don't try because we fear change we will never > be free. Well, lest you think I'm in favor of the CURRENT system...... I would personally like to see the abolishon of countries, and the establishment of clans and tribes as the basis for a loose confederation throughout the world. Naieve? Definitely. Optimistic? More than likely. Practical? Probably not. Oh well.... just my idea of Nirvana. ;) 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Narthoniel Area: THE_OASIS To: Sea Queen 2 Oct 92 13:38:54 Subject: MALE PREJUDICES UpdReq I hope you're protecting yourself from all the virulence on this board, Sea Queen. I just want to let you know that I agree with you 100% on just about everything you've said here. As a man I'd like to say that men's opinions are typically thoughtlessly presented as the ONLY valid viewpoint and that is why men get us into so much trouble with wars, etc. If they only conceeded to not knowing half as much as they claim to know we'd all be better off. Given the choice between a male and a female candidate, I vote for the woman unless I have good reason to disqualify her. Another random thought -- most of the people I know who get upset by "political correctness" (like objections to terms like "feminazi") are those who lack the inner character to perform serious self-examination and those without the Will to grow. Hmmm...anything more? No -- that's enough for now. Be safe, Sea Queen. Patriarchy: The Great Phallusy 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Frater Almost Area: THE_OASIS To: Vitriol 2 Oct 92 23:50:42 Subject: Re: WIDOW'S SON Rec'd UpdReq I don't know. I'll look it up. For helpers, try looking in Chpt. 1 to 3 of Pike's _Moral's and Dogma_. :) Jackal Laughs. 93 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Michael Lee Area: THE_OASIS To: Narthoniel 3 Oct 92 16:46:44 Subject: MALE PREJUDICES Sent UpdReq N> I hope you're protecting yourself from all the N> virulence on this board, Sea Queen. ROFL! Soooo sorry for offending! (ROFL again!). N> As a man I'd like to say that men's opinions are N> typically thoughtlessly presented as the ONLY N> valid viewpoint and that is why men get us into so N> much trouble with wars, etc. If they only N> conceeded to not knowing half as much as they N> claim to know we'd all be better off. Spoken like a true man! (You know, the one who thinks that his viewpoint is the ONLY valid viewpoint.) You're "enlightenment" is a self-contradiction. Although you said "If they only conceeded to not knowing half as much as theyy claim..." what you reall mean is "If they only coneeded to knowing half as much as Narthoniel." N> Given the choice between a male and a female N> candidate, I vote for the woman unless I have N> good reason to disqualify her. I suppose that's your perogative. However, let me put the shoe on another foot. Let's say I said "Given the choice between a male and a female candidate, I'd vote for the man unless I had good reason to disqualify him." The thing that's so upsetting to me, is that the people who say its perfectly OK, perhaps even desirable, to make a choice for a female simply because of her gender, _also say_ that it's not OK to make a choice for a man simply because of his gender. It's the same sort of mentality that condems (rightly) a Davide Duke, but extolls the virtues of a Sister Souljah or a Rev. Farrakahn. N> Another random thought -- most of the people I N> know who get upset by "political correctness" N> (like objections to terms like "feminazi") are N> those who lack the inner character to perform N> serious self-examination and those without the N> Will to grow. If your argumants weren't so ridiculous, I'd really be pissed off. As it is I'm still somewhat frustrated. It's not everyday someone says I lack "inner character" or the "Will to grow." My "objections" to PC is based on it's logical inconsistencies, some of which I've already touched on (most of which I haven't even begun to discuss). Another element of PC that disturbs me is the absolute, and total, self-rightouness the "true-beleivers" bring to the "cause" (as shown, with utmost clarity, by your last post). Terms like "Feminazi" are used as a weapon against this self-rightousness. It's offensive to those I'm targeting (and the first rule of PC is not to offend, unless of curse it's one of the poor neanderthal creatures they're trying to get rid of); the term is descriptive (of philosophy and tactics); and it's clever. It's not often one can get so much out of one word. Let me leave you with a couple of thoughts. "A life not tested, is a life not worth living." "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything." "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won the war by making the other poor sob-of-a-bitch die for his." "War is the remedy our enemy chose. I say let's give him plenty of remedy." 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: VITRIOL Area: THE_OASIS To: Michael Lee 2 Oct 92 18:22:32 Subject: Re: Fascism U.S.A. Sent UpdReq -=> Michael Lee sent a message to Vitriol on Mon 28 Sep 92 14:40 <=- -=> Re: Re: Fascism U.S.A. <=- V> Adolf Hitler? ML> Not quite. He never stood for reelection. ML> Care to try again? Aah... I missed the "reelection" proviso. Richard Nixxon? ... If the Sun and Moon should doubt, they'd immediately Go out. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Frater O.A. Area: THE_OASIS To: VITRIOL 30 Sep 92 00:56:28 Subject: Re: Fascism U.S.A. Sent UpdReq -=> Quoting VITRIOL to James Beno <=- JB> Jerry Brown for president!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :) V> Wasn't he Shirley MacLaine in his last life? No, "I" was Shirley MacLaine...I have proof too! ;) (all please note the handle change...James Beno -> Fra O.A...danka) ... Where is Lee Harvey Oswald now that we need him? 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718