Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 5 Sep 1992 00:35:00 EST
From:         Tyrone Slothrop <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: democratic platform

From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET
Subject:      RE: democratic platform

 >>      too late.  they already admire him, without the efforts of the
 >>      NCA.

 >>      so homosexuality is the *origin* of AIDS?  wow.
 >>      ...deleted

        deleted?  aww, come on.  you can come up with a better response
        than that.

 Yes, many do/did admire him through his public image as a sports hero of sorts.
 That's not my point.  Have we reached a point where it is impossible to lose
 one's self respect, or the expectation of respect from others?  Does our
 conduct no longer matter *after* we've achieved a certain popularity?  Many
 also admired Swaggart, Bakker and Ollie North.  Did their conduct not make
 any difference to most Americans?  I think it did.  What about George Bush?
 Has he not lost the trust and respect of many due to his waffling on a
 promise?  I say that respect/admiration must be earned and it must be
 constantly maintained.  For anyone to continue promoting Magic as some sort
 of national hero after what he has admitted to, is somewhat insulting.  We
 can appreciate his accomplishments but that doesn't mean he belongs on a
 pedestal to be idolized and emulated by our youth.

        so, uh, the guy is idolized for his basketball playing ability,
        yes?  basketball playing ability has nothing to do with promiscuity,
        so his promiscuity should not impact the respcet people have
        for him as a basketball player.

        bakker was idolized for his fundamentalist xtian morality.
        his promiscuity was in direct conflict with the ideals that
        he was pawning off on his lemmings, i mean, uh, flock.

        see the difference?

 > equal rights for homosexuals.  This is just plain sick.

 >>      why?  they are persons, are they not?  the only way to legitimately
 >>      deny them equal rights is to show that they are not persons,
 >>      (unlike us heterosexuals, who are persons).  i think that you
 >>      may find it difficult to prove this.

 I would think that it's generally accepted that one's rights stop where
 another's begin.  You are correct in that they are people and they do have
 rights.  You are NOT correct if you say those rights extend to the point
 that I must place my children at risk.  It seems to me that we have
 transcended the mere level of rights and have embarked upon some level of
 special privilege when my rights have actually been deemed of lesser import
 than someone else's.  Rather than take the initiative and responsibility to
 deal with the problems of homosexuality/drug addiction/AIDS we have instead
 taken the course of the ostrich.  Our society has become so preoccupied with
 the fear of offending someone that it is paralyzed when confronted with
 a basic challenge to decency.

        i think that it is impossible to find any solid line where
        one person's rights start and the other's stops.  for example, a
        certain jay steven sultan claimed that having homosexuals around
        was an infringement of his right to not be offended at the
        workplace.  however, by not allowing homosexuals to work there, jay
        was infringing on their right to hold a job according to the a
        ability to do the job, not some outside criterion.

        also, your children are in no more danger from homosexual teachers
        than they are from heterosexual teachers.  less, actually, since the
        backlash would be much more severe in the case of homosexual
        harassment or molestation than in het harrassment or molestation,
        which is considered more "natural."

 > recognition of education as the core of our society.  A fool's paradise.
 > Even our Declaration of Independence recognizes the existence of our creator.
 ...deleted

 >>      sure.  eliminate education.  churches should take responsibility
 >>      for creating our future workforce, our electrical engineers, our
 >>      computer scientists, our hairdressers.  certainly an omnipotent
 >>      and benevolent God will divinely inspire the local pastors with
 >>      all the relevant info.  yes, i am certainly looking forward to
 >>      the golden days of the 12th century, where God was the core, and
 >>      the life was wonderful.

 Eliminate education, by returning it to the roots from which it came?  Hmmm.
 It seems to me that we eliminated education when we allowed the government to
 take control of it.  Our public schools have discarded their original mission,
 education, and have undertaken a new one, social engineering.  Doesn't this
 bother you?  One state, no I don't remember which, recently circulated a
 document that said the public schools were not in business to disseminate
 facts.  Great, we're really on a roll now!

        i think that it is more a problem of creating a bunch of rules
        and then neglecting the schools for years and years.  i wonder
        if a student who graduates and is still illiterate could sue
        the govt for criminal negligence.

 > gun control.  This agenda has absolutely no justification in fact.
  ...deleted

 >>      it would be an interesting excercise to replace the word "guns"
 >>      with the word "drugs" in the above sentence.

 It would also be interesting to use "dream about" instead of "right" in
 the first amendment.  If you cannot see that an attack on a right as basic
 as your ability to fight tyranny is more significant than your drugs
 then I can't help you.

        its you and me against the world, sprg.  you want the uzi or the
        m-16?  there's no way a tyrannical government could stop us:
        we got guns.


 > public funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.  This is without
 > any restriction!  Just what we need, more taxpayer funds being spent to
 > purchase bullwhips to shove up the rears of Mapplethorpes (sp) models.  As
 > has been stated too many times to remember, REAL ART doesn't need artificial
 > support!  Taxes  Taxes  Taxes

 >>        when was the last time you bought art supplies?
 >>        and btw, i think the piece that you are refering to is a self-
 >>        portrait.

 Well that makes it all better.  We're not only funding his *art*, we're also
 buying his sexual pleasure enhancement devices.  I also think that Judge
 Garth would take exception to Rowdy and the boys using the ranch supplies
 in such a fashion.

        chances are he already had the whip.  we only supplied the
        lighting, camera and developing equipment and supplies, and
        the k-y.

        its a pretty neat piece, btw.  if a mapplethorpe exhibit ever
        comes to tulsa, i strongly recommend that you go see it.  he
        was a fantastic photographer.

 > VOTE NO.  DEMAND THAT BOTH MAJOR PARTIES SUBMIT ACCEPTABLE CANDIDATES.

 >>        i bin demanding that for years.  people keep telling me that
 >>        i'm unpatriotic for it, tho.  i wonder what that means?

 It means that *way too many* people believe in party loyalty above their
 patriotic duty.  It means there are still those that demand buttons or boxes
 for voting a straight party ticket. You would think they would care enough
 to learn the names of who they are voting for.

 I wouldn't call it unpatriotic to expect *patriots* instead of *politicians*.

  ---Robert

        i've never met a patriot that i liked.  but then again, i'm only
        going by what they mean by patriotism: "do what the president says."

        brni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU