Flare Sci-Fi Forums: "U.S. out of..." taken to its logical conclusion

This is topic "U.S. out of..." taken to its logical conclusion in forum The Flameboard at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/11/294.html

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Or.. what if all those people who want us out of Kosovo had been around in 1941? :P
www.slate.com/Features/Buchanan/Buchanan.asp

------------------
"We shall not yield to you, nor to any man." -- Freak, The Mighty.

Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :

I'm outta time, but I book marked it for later reading!

------------------
Outside of a dog, a book is a mans best friend. Inside of a dog, it's to dark to read. Groucho Marx

Posted by HMS White Star (Member # 174) on :

Actually there were a lot of people in 1939 that didn't support the America going to Europe to fight Hilter (and we didn't) and the US tried to stay out of this European mess, which WWI was and they assumed WWII would have been. However from 1939 to 1941 public opinion slowly changed until there was quite a bit of support for going to war with Germany, however until December 7, 1941 there still wasn't enough that FDR could feel comformable enough to declare War. After Pearl Harbor, almost all resistance to going to War ceisted virtually overnight and even people who strongly opposed going to war sided in declaring war with Japan (btw Germany declared war on us, we didn't declare war on Germany)[only 1 person voted against going to war with Japan]. Pearl Harbor changed it from a war over there to a war right here.

------------------
HMS White Star (your local friendly agent of Chaos and a d*mn lucky b*st*rd:-) )

Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :

I don't think we will have to worry about Pat being elected. He's so sure of himself, that he thinks he can say anything, but people are listening.

------------------
Outside of a dog, a book is a mans best friend. Inside of a dog, it's to dark to read. Groucho Marx

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

Pat's a fathead who wouldn't know history if it fell on his head.

------------------
I took in a movie. An appalling little piece of filth. Its leading lady was a blonde harlot who spent half the film strolling around naked as a jaybird! No, just give the Great Unwashed a pair of oversized breasts and a happy ending, and they'll oink for more every time.
~C. Mongomery Burns

Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :

We don't have to worry about Buchanan because he's too radical...

I think the only person who can stand up to Bush's popularity is Bradley, who seems to be quite a different politician than we're used to...

I'm gonna watch Bradley very carefully over the next few months...

------------------
"Freedom is best, I tell thee true, of all things to be won. Then never live within the bond of slavery, my son." - The real William Wallace

Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :

Scratch that...I've just finished the article, and I think that Buchanan is more than a radical...he's f***ing nut case. My lord, if people believe in his warped sense of history, we would go straight down the tubes.

------------------
"Freedom is best, I tell thee true, of all things to be won. Then never live within the bond of slavery, my son." - The real William Wallace

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

You know, this entire discussion is based on a false premise. Buchanan never said that we should have stayed out of Europe. He simply raised the question of whether the millions that died under Stalin's rule would have died if Hitler had been allowed to defeat Russia. The article is wrong. It's similar to that Regan biography calling Regan an "airhead", when what he actually said was "apparent airhead", but that he changed his mind when he got to know Regan.

I'm not worried about Buchanan being elected. Of course he can't win. I'm worried about him screwing up a close race between Bush and Bradley, and getting Bradley elected, like Perot did in '92. Then there would be a good chance that liberals would gain the House of Representatives. I don't think the country can afford that. Especially since the next president will be appointing FOUR Supreme Court Justices. If those justices are conservative, they can kick out all these laws and programs we have that violate the tenth ammendment, whereas if we end up with liberal justices, we'll be stuck with them for the next fourty years or so.

------------------
For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
- H. L. Mencken

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

*Is a registered Republican, who just normally votes for whichever person the Christian Coalition likes least.*

I'm thinking about becoming a Libertarian, though.

Of course, I still want to be Dictator.

------------------
"We shall not yield to you, nor to any man." -- Freak, The Mighty.

Posted by Xentrick (Member # 64) on :

Pat's single best function is to piss-off the Press, an assignment that he alone has the nerve to take and for which I congratulate him on a job well done...

...but if he does a Ross Perot impression and the election goes to Algore, I'll be at the head of the angry "Get Pat" lynch mob.

local talkradio host was scheduled a few days ago to have Pat Buchanan on for a live phone interview, but both Pat's people and the host cancelled the gig when Pat's people learned the host---a hardcore conservative--- totally disagreed with PB's take on a little thing called World War Two.

There then followed two hours of pro-Pat and anti-host calls. Are all these people really Buchanan Brigades, or are some of them Democrats who want Pat to take votes away from GW Bush?

Posted by Jaresh Inyo on :

To quote Ghostbusters, "What an asshole."

------------------
"I promise you, Wilma, that not one man on this force will rest until the criminal scum that did this are behind bars. Now let's go get a bite to eat." - Frank Drebbin, Detective Lieutenant in Police Squad

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

As one of them thar "liberals" I can only hope that the infighting between all the fascist Republicans works to the advantage of humanity and they all go down in flames.

[This message has been edited by Jay (edited September 30, 1999).]

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

As if we needed proof that Buchanan is a raving loon? I'd rather vote for the Natural Law party than vote for him.

------------------
I do indeed and shall continue
Dispatch the shiftless man to points beyond
--
Soul Coughing

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Buchanan doesn't seem like a nut to me. He's done some questionable things, though, like jumping the Republican party and trying to commondere the Reform party, with whom he has even MORE disagreements than the Republicans (pro-life stance, mainly). He's also abandoned one of the basic tennants of conservatism: SMALLER GOVERNMENT! The government has no business passing half the laws it passes, and a good number of its departments should not exist. This stupid health care plan that would FORCE you to get health care for your children violates the tenth ammendment. If the constitution doesn't say that the national government can do a thing, then the national government can NOT do that thing without passing an ammendment.

Xentrik:

Rush Limbaugh has been theorizing the same thing when the Buchanan Brigadeers call his show. Of course, I presume you already knew that by the way you spelled Algore. You don't actually think that he'll get the Democratic nomination, do you? Gore has the charisma of a stump. Too bad he's coming here to Nashville. No, it's gonna be the three B's: Bradley, Buchanan, and Bush.

Jay:

Tell me: you're a liberal, right? Does that mean that you would be in favor of more powerful health care systems and social security and welfare et al.? If so, doesn't that seem to you like such programs would just be making people more and more dependant on the national government, which, taken to it's logical conclusion, would be socialism? I remind you that socialism failed miserably in the defunct U.S.S.R.

(Before I begin this tirade, I presume you're talking about the system of government in which the government takes over businesses. If not, my apologies in advance.)

Fascists!? Conservatives are Fascists!? Ha! We're not the ones who placed restrictions on who businesses can hire or not hire, or who universities can and can not admit! True conservatism is getting the government OUT of our lives and businesses, whereas liberalism generally favors BIGGER government with MORE power and MORE taxes to fund it! So tell me, who's really Fascist?

------------------
For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
- H. L. Mencken

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

I hadn't planned on getting involved in this discussion, rather than engaging in a little light Buchanan bashing fun...maybe a few Perot jokes. Still, I'm a stubborn fool, so why not poke my nose in?

So what part of the Buchanan=total raving nutcase doesn't hold true for you? Sure, I disagree with...well, everything to ever come out of his mouth. But he's also simply wrong about some stuff.

"In his book, Buchanan says that Hitler offered �no physical threat to the US� as of late 1940, after his defeat in the Battle of Britain. Buchanan questions whether Hitler sought war with the West or was driven to it. �Hitler made no overt move to threaten US vital interests� after his initial victories across Europe, Buchanan writes. Americans had no choice but to fight once Hitler declared war on the US, but Hitler was primarily interested in building an empire to the East, not westward..." From the New York Times.

So, uh, I take it Mr. Buchanan isn't familiar with the German program to develop long-range bombers capable of striking targets all along the Eastern Seaboard? Or does he seriously believe that old Adolf was just a misunderstood ally of anticommunists everywhere? Heck, that whole invasion of free nations throughout Europe was just a fluke? Perhaps his real order had been "enjoy European democracy" and his generals simply misunderstood it to be "destroy European democracies". Yeah, I can buy that.

"Buchanan said America needs leaders who will �halt illegal immigration cold at our borders even if we have to have troops. We need to repair, rebuild and restore the melting pot.�" From the Associate Press.

Rebuild the melting pot...just get rid of all the ingredients, and make sure none of the dirty foriegn influence gets in. Lovely picture of America.

I'm going to use some strong language here, but only because I feel strongly about this.

Buchanan is a closet fascist and a borderline anti-semite (Though such noted conservative high-ups as William F. Buckley go so far as to say that he is well over the border, with a documented hatred of Jews and other minorities.)

His vision of the United States boils down to an extremist right-wing Christian theocracy, with freedom for white males. I am personally convinced that if Pat were to ever gain the presidency he would not stop until he had declared himself president for life.

Suffice it to say, the day Buchanan is elected President is the day I get as far away from North America as possible. I simply won't be welcome in a post-Buchanan society.

I could go on, of course. Mention how he routinely hires staff members who have ties to such groups as the Klan and Christian Identity. Or how he has long been a proponent of Holocaust revisionism. Or how his friend and campaign supporter Saumuel Francis is on the record as calling for a "white reconquest of the United States". Blah blah blah, company you keep, etc.

------------------
I do indeed and shall continue
Dispatch the shiftless man to points beyond
--
Soul Coughing

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Jeepers, I failed to address the rest of your post, Omega. Sorry. I got distracted.

*ahem* Where was I? Ah yes, health care.

"This stupid health care plan that would FORCE you to get health care for your children violates the tenth ammendment."

Uh...huh. Health care for children equals bad. Righto. Are you also against any invasion of parental rights? For instance, shall we abolish the crime of child abuse? After all, I have a God-given right to beat my child with this baseball bat, don't I? And what about my right to refuse medical care of any kind for my children? By God my child was meant to die from encephalitis, and die they shall!

"Tell me: you're a liberal, right? Does that mean that you would be in favor of more powerful health care systems and social security and welfare et al.?"

Being a rather good friend of Mr. Jay's, I think I can say that you're phrase is a little odd. What, pray tell, is the problem with health care. Most people seem to think that health is a good thing, and caring for it is even better. But hey, if I can't afford to pay 3/4's of my monthly income on pills, that's my fault, right?

"If so, doesn't that seem to you like such programs would just be making people more and more dependant on the national government, which, taken to it's logical conclusion, would be socialism? I remind you that socialism failed miserably in the defunct U.S.S.R."

You are, of course, aware that we live in a society, yes? Perhaps you'd like to fill me in on what a society should be doing that isn't social. And hence socialist. I remind you that such nations as Canada and Britain have some of these evil programs, but they seem to be getting along rather well. Is it perfect? Gosh no. I for one don't want a Canadian-style system in place here. But I would like to see one that works to provide affordable health care to everyone.

"True conservatism is getting the government OUT of our lives and businesses, whereas liberalism generally favors BIGGER government with MORE power and MORE taxes to fund it! So tell me, who's really Fascist?"

Er...no, not really. Conservatism is the belief that existing social institutions are the best. Liberalism is the belief that social institutions must change to deal with new situations. Most everyone in D.C., Democrat or Republican, is a conservative. They just have faith in differing institutions.

------------------
I do indeed and shall continue
Dispatch the shiftless man to points beyond
--
Soul Coughing

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

Sol, your a wonder, but the way I figure it why waste my breath. But nevertheless....

Oooo, scary liberals trying to turn America into the Soviet Union. (note to self, take Stalin out of closet and place in car for "liberal" carpool violations.)

Ahhh, national health care them thar poor immigants are going to be stealin' all my money with their welfare stealin', baby makin', no tax payin', lounge on their bon bons eatin' wide ass while sittin' on the couch they bought with food stamps.

Shudder, limits on the way business can screw their employees. That the backs of labor needs to have something to say about the capital made from their collective sweat. The business of America ain't only about business but the people who live there too. Workers rights? Oh silly "liberal" stuff.

And finally, damn it if ain't about humanity when the evil, bad government steps in and tell the Univiersity of Alabama that it needed to let blacks attend school.

However, lest I waste any more of my breath, I'll stop now. But before I go, I'll call Montana for ya and make reservations for a nice comfy shack with room for an ammo bunker in the back.

[This message has been edited by Jay (edited October 01, 1999).]

Posted by HMS White Star (Member # 174) on :

Well Pat's a nut, Buchanan that is, the good news is he is out of the Republican party Whoohoo, yes thank God (HA, Ha he's not our problem anymore the 3rd party can have him)! Well I don't really like a lot of government, but I don't see what's wrong with national health care, except the government would likely screw it up more than it is now (don't say they can't do it, the government has a way of doing seemingly impossible stuff like that all the time). Honestly I can't stand the part of the Republican party that supports universal Christian ideas, I want to stay out of people's bedrooms and not care what people do it private. What I do care about is paying off the national debt (you remember the 5 trillion or so that we have borrowed). I have always thought of myself as a Republican, I guess I am a wierd ass moderate.

------------------
HMS White Star (your local friendly agent of Chaos and a d*mn lucky b*st*rd:-) )

Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :

I listened to Limbaugh yesterday, for the first time in about a year. I don't agree with a lot of what he says, but one thing he was on about was interesting.

He says that Jesse Ventura won't let Pat take the (Whatever it's called) party nomination without a fight. Ventura has some waco ideas of his own, but has said he doesn't want to be president. It will be interesting to see what happens if Pat trys to get that partys nomination. Limbaugh is also an extremist, but he has a good feel for these things, and I wouldn't be surprised if he was right about this one.

------------------
Outside of a dog, a book is a mans best friend. Inside of a dog, it's to dark to read. Groucho Marx

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

From what I've seen of them, BOTH sides seem to have fallen into the trap of trying to legislate morality.. just morality of different sorts.

The Dem/Libs want everybody to be nice and happy and equal. Which is nice, except that some of them take it too far. Nobody's really equal, and those that excel should be allowed to do so without hindrance.

The Rep/Cons, on the other hand, want to legislate primarily Judeo-Christian morality. Naturally, I have a problem with THAT, too. Sure, they'll get government off your backs... but it'll be coming around to your bedroom real soon now.

Anyways, After hearing about the Jesse Ventura Playboy interview "organized religion is a crutch for weak-minded people," I think I know who _I'M_ writing in.

ElectionMania 2000! OUR Head of State can beat up YOUR Head of State!

*chuckles*

------------------
"We shall not yield to you, nor to any man." -- Freak, The Mighty.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Sol:

"Uh...huh. Health care for children equals bad. Righto."

That's why I put emphasis on FORCE. If your children don't have health insurance, the government would provide it under this proposed program, whether you want it or not, and we'd all have to pay for it. First, this is NOT in the perview of the national government. The constitution never said anything about providing health insurance. Second, it would be, yet again, the government getting in our back pocket, taking more money to fund a program that shouldn't exist in the first place. Third, the last time I checked, if you go to a hospital and need medical treatment, you're gonna get treatment, whether you can afford it or not. You wouldn't need insurance. The example you gave would have nothing to do with the program, as far as I can tell. If you wanted to let your kids die, you'd need court-ordered psychological treatment, not money.

"What, pray tell, is the problem with health care."

Again, the problem is that it is not in the perview of the national government. If the individual states wanted to set up a health care system themselves, that would be fine by me, but the national government HAS NOT the authority.

"Er...no, not really. Conservatism is the belief that existing social institutions are the best. Liberalism is the belief that social institutions must change to deal with new situations. Most everyone in D.C., Democrat or Republican, is a conservative. They just have faith in differing institutions."

To quote you: Er... no. The definition I gave of conservatism is correct. And those differing institutions: the differences are that creating the institutions liberals believe in would involve increasing the powers of the national government, whereas conservatives wish no institutions created, as they believe the government is far too large already.

Jay:

"That the backs of labor needs to have something to say about the capital made from their collective sweat."

IIRC, isn't that what unions are for?

"Workers rights? Oh silly "liberal" stuff."

Businesses also have rights, you know. Might I suggest that they be allowed to hire people based on ABILITY, instead of being sued if a person who can't do the job and just happens to be black gets fired?

"And finally, damn it if ain't about humanity when the evil, bad government steps in and tell the Univiersity of Alabama that it needed to let blacks attend school."

Again, IT'S NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS who a university admits. Universities should be allowed to admit people based on their academic skill, with no discrimination based on race or gender. Something Pat Buchanan pointed out that I actually agree with: at a particular university, the most underrepresented group are white catholics, so why not establish a quota on them, too? If, by some strange coincidece, 98% of the population of a school was white, would you call it a racial prejudice? I'd just say that 98% of the people that had good enough grades to get in happened to be white. It IS possible that there is a prejudice, but if there is, it's still none of the national government's business, unless it violates the constitution.

"But before I go, I'll call Montana for ya and make reservations for a nice comfy shack with room for an ammo bunker in the back."

No, thanks. If you know a good PR man, though, I could use him. I've been thinking of going into politics when I'm old enough. We need SOMEONE that actually does what they think is right.

H.M.S.:

I wouldn't be celebrating. Buchanan could do less damage in the Republican party. He couldn't run next year. Now he'll be running against Bradley and Bush, and could well screw up the election and get Bradley elected. I get the impression that, even if the Reform party won't accept him, he'll run anyway as an independant.

"I can't stand the part of the Republican party that supports universal Christian ideas"

I've heard of these people, but I've never heard what they believe in implementing. Could you tell me?

1of2:

"The Rep/Cons, on the other hand, want to legislate primarily Judeo-Christian morality."

Hey, now! Just because some Republicans want it doesn't mean that ALL Republicans want it. You can't judge a whole group by some of its members. If that were true, we could say that all liberals are lying, cheating, power-abusing, ill-tempered, drug-using mental cases. And not all Republicans are conservative. What laws does this group you're talking about want to pass, anyway? I can't really tell if their ideas are conservative or not without knowing.

"ElectionMania 2000! OUR Head of State can beat up YOUR Head of State!"

*LOL*

------------------
"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people . . ." To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."
- Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1791

Posted by The First One (Member # 35) on :

As the historian here, I'd just like to point out that most of Stalin's victims died during the purges of the 1930's, before the war.

Current estimates of the Soviet deathtoll this century:

20 Million in WW1 and the Revolution
20 Million during Lenin's collectivisation
20 Million during Stalin's purges
20 Million during WW2

In other words, the massive deathtoll that the Soviet Union brought up to justify their every act during the Cold War was but a fraction of the total, and shows that the worst enemy of the Russion people has always been the Communists. But to say that Hitler would have prevented such loss of life if he'd been allowed to conquer Russia is the act of a Galaxy-class shithead.

Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :

One of the things that bothers me about Ventura is an idea he has for eleminating one of the houses of government. I'm not sure which one he has in mind, but I like the two house system.(Senate/Representatives)

It cost so much more to buy people in both houses.

There was a bill before the West Virginia legislature a couple of years ago. It would have allowed companies to run test on equipment, and keep the results confidential, even from us(Regulators). The bill was under a lot of public scrutiny, and appeared to dry up and go away. At five minutes to midnight, on the last day the Leg was in, I turned on Public TV, and much to my surprise, the bill was being passed in one house. A runner took the bill to the other house, but the speaker let time run out, and never brought the bill up for a vote.

------------------
Outside of a dog, a book is a mans best friend. Inside of a dog, it's to dark to read. Groucho Marx

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Eliminate one of the houses!?!?!? Like he could possibly get that ammendment passed! This system has worked for two centuries (there are exceptions, but they involve unconstitutional laws). I don't see how he could possibly believe that eliminating one of the houses could have a GOOD effect on ANYTHING.

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

I'll respond to some of this because it pissed me off.

"Again, IT'S NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS who a university admits. Universities should be allowed to admit people based on their academic skill, with no discrimination based on race or gender."

In reference to the admission of blacks to the University of Alabama, I couldn't disagree with that piece of divel less. The state of Alabama did discriminate aginst a segment of the population and did deny an education based on the single determination of race.

And a government of the people has every right to step in a restore the civil rights of that segment of the people.

"It IS possible that there is a prejudice, but if there is, it's still none of the national government's business, unless it violates the constitution."

And in case you are wondering, that kind of racist crap, oh seperate but equal and keeping citizens from the use of public facilities based on race or gender is un-constitutional.

If you would like to reference the 14th Amendment to the Constitution:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Guess you missed that part.

Posted by Diane (Member # 53) on :

Omega: Are you really that oblivious to the racism and bigotry in this country? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're probably a white male from a bourgeois family and taught fundamentalist Christianity from age zero. You've never been part of anything but the majority. Your idea of admitting students based only on merit is all fine and dandy, but the reality is that if (assuming there were) white supremacists in a university didn't have to admit black students, they wouldn't no matter how well the students do. If a white business isn't forced to hire minorities, it won't. On your point that if a black happened to be fired on poor performance, this would be an observable event with evidence and witnesses, in which case it wouldn't even go into the subject of racism (unless a white person did the samething and didn't get fired).

On health care:
Omega said that hospitals care for you whether you have money or not. I'm just gonna say that it's not always the case. I can't really cite any specific instances off the top of my head, but it would be ignorant to assume that all hospitals operate on ethics and not on money. But it's not just that. Even if they don't charge you right away, you're gonna get billed eventually if you don't have some sort of health care to pay for the treatments. Poor families can't pay for treatment of cancer, AIDS, or any long-term illnesses, and most likely the hospitals would kick these patients out. What parents in their right mind would not want healthcare for their children? The problem is that a number of them can't pay for it.

On businesses:
If the government didn't regulate businesses, we'd have monopolies running around, uninspected food or drugs, poisoned rivers and ocean, expanding deserts, etc. It'd probably look like Ferenginar, essentially.

Heck, if you don't like communism or Evolution, why are you still watching Star Trek?

------------------
--Then, said Cranly, do you not intend to become a protestant?
--I said that I had lost the faith, Stephen answered, but not that I had lost self-respect. What kind of liberation would that be to forsake an absurdity which is logical and coherent and to embrace one which is illogical and incoherent?

James Joyce, A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man.

Posted by Curry Monster (Member # 12) on :

quote:
And in case you are wondering, that kind of racist crap, oh seperate but equal and keeping citizens from the use of public facilities based on race or gender is un-constitutional.

Sounds like apartheid.

------------------
"Diplomacy is the art of Internationalising an issue to your advantage"

Field Marshal Military Project
http://fieldmarshal.virtualave.net

Posted by HMS White Star (Member # 174) on :

To Tora: Does agreeing with Omega's opinion (which I may or may not) automatically make me and I quote "a white, male from a bourgeois family and taught fundamentalist Christianity from age zero. You've never been part of anything but the majority." Which I don't agree with everything Omega says on this (however I really don't agree with anyone on everything), I just don't like people being called stuff (btw if he were all of the above he would actually be a very small part of the minority

Here's something else I don't like "Heck, if you don't like communism or Evolution, why are you still watching Star Trek?".

I don't know, he watches because its about hope for the future and mankind loving each other, or perhaps a Communist system that actually works (so called Marxist Communism was had only a passing relation to what Marx stated as the perfect Communist system, honestly I would prefer the Star Trek type Communism to current Capitalism, but it ain't going happen). Or perhaps he doesn't watch Star Trek and likes to talk about stuff about Trek. I know I don't watch Trek anymore, but I still go around here (the evil thing called "Real Life" happened). Anyway why do people have to have reasons for watching Trek that are exactly what the productors wanted, I thought Trek was about individuality too, or do we exactly have to have the opinions that Trek has just to watch it.

------------------
HMS White Star (your local friendly agent of Chaos and a d*mn lucky b*st*rd:-) )

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

Daryus, from the end of the American Civil War (and I use the date of the ratification of the 14th Amendment as the end of slavery), there were many southern states that had a institutional form of segregation. As a side note this does not let the rest of the country off the hook for poor treatment of people of color. However the several of the most vociferous the racists including organizations who lynched blacks and those with policies of complete exclusion remained in the south.

With the rise in power of organizations like the Klan, there were concerted efforts to remove the black from public mixture with whites. Going to the extent of revocation of voting rights, exclusion from public universities of note, and segration in the public elementary schools (the now famous seperate but equal way of learning). In a very real sense the south had an instituted, however informal, policy of apartheid.

This county has struggled since its inception with the far reaching inclusion of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and the equality stated in documents of the like, and the irrational hatred of the so called hyphenated Americans or those who are non white, non anglo, jewish, or too Catholic. The twisted minds of some of our best hatemongers have always reserved the most hostility for those members of our society on the margins.

Today, the movement of such organizations has come to include a distrust and animosity not only toward those marginalized groups and towards the Government itself. Moreover, they have started to couch their rhetoric in ultra-nationalistic terms. Like say, oh Pat Buchanan.

------------------
Oh, meltdown. It's one of those annoying buzzwords. We prefer to call it an unrequested fission surplus.
~C. Mongomery Burns

[This message has been edited by Jay (edited October 02, 1999).]

Posted by Diane (Member # 53) on :

"Does agreeing with Omega's opinion (which I may or may not) automatically make me and I quote "a white, male from a bourgeois family and taught fundamentalist Christianity from age zero. You've never been part of anything but the majority." Which I don't agree with everything Omega says on this (however I really don't agree with anyone on everything), I just don't like people being called stuff"

Geez, do I really have to spell everything out so that someone doesn't reply on the stuff that doesn't really matter? I avoided stating the obvious, which is that he'd probably never experienced being part of the minority (and it's the experience that counts, not the fact that he'd be a minority if he qualified for all of those). I was pointing out the fact that he wouldn't know what it's like to live without health care or decent living conditions or among people who think he don't belong in this country.

James Joyce, A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man.

[This message has been edited by Tora Ziyal (edited October 02, 1999).]

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

I suppose it's only a matter of time before someone starts trying to organize the proletariat in here.

I do find it interesting that no one has bothered to respond to any of my comments regarding Mr. Buchanan.

------------------
I do indeed and shall continue
Dispatch the shiftless man to points beyond
--
Soul Coughing

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

Power to the people!!!

------------------
Oh, meltdown. It's one of those annoying buzzwords. We prefer to call it an unrequested fission surplus.
~C. Mongomery Burns

Posted by bryce (Member # 42) on :

Everyone might find it amusing that First of Two and I usually vote for the same kind of Republican candidate!

Thank you to the person who mentioned the four court justices bit, I know who I am voting for now.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Yes, the 14th ammendment does say that no state can make a law that discriminates between citizens, but there's a big difference between a state passing a law and a private institution denying entry. I'd suggest that if someone can proove in a court of law that they were denied entry to a school based solely on race, THEN the government can force the school to let them in.

Ziyal:

"Are you really that oblivious to the racism and bigotry in this country?"

I'm aware that it's there, but I'm also aware that it's dying. I've met more black people that are racist than white people. Heck, I've only met ONE racist white man (my grandfather, ironically). There are always going to be a few people that hates another group of people for no reason whatsoever.

"You've never been part of anything but the majority."

Me, accepted into a majority? Ha! I'm probably the least popular person you'll ever meet. Even my best friend doesn't seem to want to spend time with me (of course, that may have something to do with the fact that I told her I loved her, but...).

Reguarding health care: The problem with all these systems is that they all make the people that use them more and more dependant on the government. If you really want to help someone, help them to get back on their feet so they can help themselves. You know, "Teach a man to fish..." I'd suggest a government program that, instead of paying people who don't work, helps those people find jobs. Say one agent for ten people. Get their qualifications, then locate a job that they can do. Maybe even provide clean clothes and baths if needed to obtain the job. Then they'll have an income and can take care of themselves. If they have emergency medical expences, how about a low or no intrest loan? The government would eventually get the money back, and the person still gets the treatment they need.

As for businesses, I'd have to agree with the environmental laws and monopoly laws, but those are the limits. Telling a business that it has to tell you who it hires and when, and things like that, are crossing the line.

I do still watch Star Trek, but only because it presents a positive view of the future. Well, that, Nicole deBoer, and Jeri Ryan.

*wipes drool off keyboard*

H.M.S.:

You seem to keep defending me. Thanks again.

"the evil thing called 'Real Life' happened"

You have a life!? I guess I now have to agree with the second part of your sig!

Bryce:

You're welcome, and may I ask who?

Posted by bryce (Member # 42) on :

Whoever the top (R) is most likely.

------------------
With 17 hours of class, guess where I'm at. ;)

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

One thing I'd like to see is a better integration of sound into the internet. That way you could hear the thunderous noise my eyes made while blinking in awestruck wonder at the following words.

"I'm aware that it's there, but I'm also aware that it's dying. I've met more black people that are racist than white people. Heck, I've only met ONE racist white man (my grandfather, ironically)."

I scarcely know where to begin. First of all we have the extremely disturbing implication that whites are in fact the ultimate victims of racism these days. I would laugh if I weren't crying. Racism is dying? I've used that same argument before. But I think I see the difference between us. I think racism is dying because it no longer serves any evolutionary purpose. There's no need to preserve ourselves from the culture of the outsider because we're rapidly approaching a planet with just one culture. But we're talking hundreds of years for that to show up as any noticable effect. Racism is no longer an issue in today's society? Just this morning there was an article in the paper about a study regarding the widespread effects of racism in modern life.

You seem to suggest that because minorities are racist too, that makes it ok. Allow me to express my feelings towards the validity of that viewpoint by chuckling loudly for several minutes.

Regarding the rest, well...I take it you are opposed to the interstate highway system? A Federal project which makes people very reliant on the State.

------------------
I do indeed and shall continue
Dispatch the shiftless man to points beyond
--
Soul Coughing

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

Hell, I ain't had this much fun since DT left the boards to seek fame and fortune elsewhere.

A quote from above:

"but there's a big difference between a state passing a law and a private institution denying entry. I'd suggest that if someone can proove in a court of law that they were denied entry to a school based solely on race, THEN the government can force the school to let them in."

Alas, institutions like, oh say the University of Alabama are indeed public institutions paid for in taxes by the very segment of the population (blacks) that was not allowed entry.

Therefore, it becomes clear that this was a violation of the civil rights of citizens of Alabama. The state showed that it had no interest in granting a section of its population its right to attend school; consequently it was the right and the duty of the U.S. government to step in and restore to those citizens the rights denied.

Now, to that other part. Is racism dying? God I hope so, but the slanderous statments of the fatheads like Pat Buchanan show me that it is alive and well. Further, I offer you a visit to my little hamlet of Los Angeles where you can see racism's ugly head most every week. Does the recent shooting of children at a jewish day care center ring a bell? How about the recent death sentence for dragging a black man to death BEHIND A FREEKING TRUCK. No, these events tell me that the monster is here, lurking in America's social conscience.

------------------
Oh, meltdown. It's one of those annoying buzzwords. We prefer to call it an unrequested fission surplus.
~C. Mongomery Burns

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Sol:

"First of all we have the extremely disturbing implication that whites are in fact the ultimate victims of racism these days."

Admitedly, black people don't treat white people as badly as was vice versa fifty years ago, and I've met many nice people of all races (all races that I've met, not all races that exist), but I've run into black people that treat white people the same way that some white people treat black people.

"You seem to suggest that because minorities are racist too, that makes it ok."

Uh, no. My point was that, in any given group of any appreciable size, there will always be SOME members that hate members of another group. (Unless, of course, being a member of said group precludes hating someone, as most religions do.) Racism can never be killed completely, but it can be reduced to minimal levels.

"I take it you are opposed to the interstate highway system?"

Well, I'd never thought about that before, but now that you mention it, I'm not sure the government was given that authority in the consitution, either. Article I, section VIII says that the government has the authority "To establish Post Offices and post Roads" (capitalization in original). I suppose that you could get by by saying that the interstates are designed for the use of the postal service, but the public is allowed to use them, but that's a bit of a stretch. So, the national government could get away with interpreting the constitution that way, but if it were me, I'd turn control of the interstates over to the states themselves.

Jay:

Should I ask who DT is?

"Alas, institutions like, oh say the University of Alabama are indeed public institutions paid for in taxes by the very segment of the population (blacks) that was not allowed entry."

For state-run institutions, I'd have to agree, but even there, the government has no business implementing quotas. If it can be shown that a student was denied entry based solely on the factor of race, then the government can step in (assuming the case reaches a national level, of course). For private institutions, like, oh, say, David Lipscomb University, the government can't do anything even if the sole factor can be shown to be race. It would be a sad thing, yes, but the government has not the authority.

For your examples of racism, one man is dead, the other will be. Again, there will always be that segment that hates another segment. It can be reduced to a minimum, which, admitedly, we have not reached, but, unfortunately, never eliminated.

Posted by Jaresh Inyo on :

Is it possible to eliminate racism? Probably. Is is feasible? Definately not.

Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :

DT hated the US with all his heart and soul, and went off about it on occation. Strangly enough, he was here getting his education. Can't recall where he was from.

------------------
Outside of a dog, a book is a mans best friend. Inside of a dog, it's to dark to read. Groucho Marx

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Actually, DT just likes a good row.

But we're getting off topic.

The topic, of course, being that the interstate highway system was built to ensure that the Rooskies couldn't take out our transportation system.

Of course, now I've got to go put some eyedrops in, because my eyes have turned to saucers. Be back in a jif.

Ah, that's better. Once more unto the...post.

"Unless, of course, being a member of said group precludes hating someone, as most religions do."

I'm starting to run out of ways to creatively express my shocked surprise. "Sol System's brains ooze out through tiny holes in his skull and congeal in a puddle on his blue carpet." Too icky. "Sol System stands gobsmacked." Too esoteric. And it sounds like something that only mommies and daddies can do.

My writer's block aside, I have two words for you. Please show me how they fit into the above statement. Crusade. Jihad.

Your interpretation of the Constitution is a bit unnerving, to say the least. First of all, so far as I know, the American ideal is not "as many rights as the states can grab!" It is, instead, the rights of the individual that are paramount. In the service of that ideal, I will support whatever branch of government provides the best option. There is nothing inherently "good" about giving power to a smaller section of government. Example? Jim Crow laws. Quite simply, I don't place my trust in a branch of government simply because it is small. Better a decent U.S. Marshal than a corrupt Sheriff. Better the FBI than the LAPD.

Secondly, the primary purpose of any society is to do for the community what the individual cannot. As much as we might like, my neighbors and I cannot construct a dam. Or fight a war. Or send humans to the moon.

The Constitution was not meant to provide a detailed list of every possible power every person anywhere in the government could ever utilize in any situation. Rather, it is a foundation for other laws. As such, just because the document never says "Congreff shall have the right to declare October 17th National Jeri Ryan Day", it doesn't mean they can't.

Were we talking about something that actually mattered, of course, it would be different. Congress cannot wage war, for example, and the President cannot declare it. If you were to say that such wars as Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, the Persian Gulf, etc, where unconstitutional, I might be more inclined to agree with you.

(On a case by case basis, of course. I'm not saying that I think every conflict listed was either right or wrong.)

------------------
I do indeed and shall continue
Dispatch the shiftless man to points beyond
--
Soul Coughing