From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bob Hooker's possibly fraudulen (was Re: Trickle Down Economics)
Summary: Where is the hate.
Keywords: hate
Date: 18 Dec 92 17:03:26 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Distribution: usa
Organization: HALF, Beaverton, OR

[Again, sorry to take so long to respond to this.  I have been having
disk problems on my computer.]

In article <1992Nov24.231006.4454@Princeton.EDU>
niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>In article <1146@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov13.163316.14270@llyene.jpl.nasa.gov>
>>julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) writes:
>>|In article <1126@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>>|>What's wrong with Pat?
>
>>|As a *moderate* Republican I see a lot wrong with Buchanan and I
>>|don't like being lumped in with whackos.  I think that the 
>>|economic problems have forced a lot of slugs out from under the rocks.  
>
>>|Buchanan, Limbaugh, and Duke are hate-mongers.
>
>>I'll agree with you on Duke, but why to you think Buchanan and Limbaugh
>>are hate-mongers?  You never explained that.
>
>Limbaugh and his "Femi-nazi" comments are insensitive, if nothing else.

Rush uses this term to refer to people with particular (intolerant)
political views.  To claim this shows possible racism, sexism, or
hatred is asinine.

>But Buchanan?   He's an out-and-out racist and anti-semite.  

No one who knows him has said that, and many have come forward to
defend him, including Michael Kinsley, whom you quoted.  He has known
Pat for years and says he is definitely not an anti-semite.

>Like where he explained that the only ones favoring the gulf war were
>the Israeli defense Ministry and its Amen Corner in the US.  Then
>citing out four Jewish columnists who favored war, ignoring all the
>non-Jews who did the same.

I don't agree with nor defend these statements.  I think they are out of
line.  However, I don't think they prove anti-semitism.

>Like where he defended accused Nazis.  *Only* Nazis.  Criminal rights
>are not his favorite American institutions, except when they help
>accused Nazis.

Now wait a minute.  The only case I know of Demjanjuk (SP?).  And this
is an irregular case.  Buchanan isn't defending him as a Nazi, but
rather is saying he may not be a Nazi, or at least innocent of what he
is charged with.  Buchanan is hardly alone in thinking that.

>"In a recent interview with the Sunday Telegraph in London, the
>conservative challenger to the President complained that his wife
>Shelley had been walking down Connecticut Avenue in downtown Washington
>'and these guys were sitting on the corner playing bongo drums.  I mean,
>this is the town I grew up in.'"

I don't know what to make of this statement or what he meant by it.

>Like when he explained that the difference between a few people getting
>shot in Lithuania and a major massacre in Burundi was that Lithuanians
>are white, like us.

Woa!  If he really said that, then you have something, but I doubt he
really said or meant it like that.

>He used the America First! slogan, which was associated with the
>pro-Nazi faction in the US before WW2.

This is ridiculous.  You're grasping at straws.  In the first place,
associating Buchanan's use of the term with the first group is
questionable at best.  And secondly, "America First!" was used by a
peace group that wanted the U.S. to stay out of the war in Europe.  It
was a very diverse group, with about equal numbers of people from both
the far-left and the far-right and some people in between.  It was not
pro-Nazi in general (although, no doubt some of the members were).

>William F. Buckley, who agrees with him ideologically, even admits that
>he's an anti-semite.

You better read that piece again ("National Review", December 30, 1991) --
that isn't what Buckley said.  He said that some of what Buchanan has said
could reasonably be taken as anti-semitic, and he should apologize for
those statements (which he hasn't done -- something I view as a character
flaw), but that he doesn't think that Buchanan himself is anti-semitic.

...
>>|It is wrong.  There is a difference between saying "80% of the USA is
>>|Christain" and "the USA is a Christian nation".  The first one is
>>|a statistic (I'm not sure of the number) and the second implies one
>>|religion being placed above the rest.  When that is done it is
>>|very easy to put pressure on others to conform and the right of freedom 
>>|of religion and freedom from religion could be lost or seriously
>>|damaged.  I much prefer my government to remain secular.  
>
>>So do I.  I didn't hear anyone argue otherwise at the convention.  What
>>did you hear that makes you think otherwise?
>
>When they call the US a Christian nation, they are *not* pointing out
>that the US is mostly Christian.  They're saying they want the US run by
>the Bible, and that other religions aren't real Americans.

Where in the world do you get that?  Why do you think they want the
government run by the Bible?  I'm curious exactly what horrors you think
would result from that in any case.

>As my .sig asks, would you think that saying the US should be a White
>nation was just taking notice of the fact that the US is mostly white,
>or would it sound like it was telling all minorities that they aren't
>welcome?

Look up "nation" sometime.  It refers to the people, not the laws or
government, of a geographic area.*  Usually it is used to refer to
ethnicity or language, e.g. "Germany and Austria are German nations.",
"Japan is a Japanese nation.", or "Yugoslavia is not a nation, but a
collection of them.", but it can and is used to refer to other
characteristics, like religion.  For example, Iran is referred to as a
"Moslem nation", and was even before it had a Moslem government.  I've
never heard Bahais' or Jews (who live there in some numbers) take
offense at or dispute such a statement.**  In this context, the
Governor's remark could be taken simply as a statement of (indisputed)
fact.

Of course, when most people say we are a Christian nation, they aren't
talking about people's religion, but rather our culture, our
Judeo-Christian heritage, and it's considerable influence on this country's
founding, and the ideas, ideals, and values that have held us together as a
nation for most, if not all, of our history.  Chief among these are
Equality, Self-reliance, and Tolerance.  Usually when this is brought up it
is in the context that we have strayed from these ideals and we should get
back to them.  Well, I agree.

Some people seem to take statements like "Christian nation" as a call
to, by force, impose Christianity on people.  I don't know why they
think that.  I haven't heard such a call.  I don't know where this
notion comes from.  Of course I would be against this, but I think so
would Pat Buchanan, et al.

* I know that "nation" and "state" are often used interchangeably in
casual use, but their proper meanings are quite different.

** I have Bahai friends who escaped Iran to avoid persecution and death
from the Moslem government of Iran, so don't think I don't know about
that.  The mother of a friend and classmate of mine in college was
killed by the government in Iran basically for her religion.

...
>>|Every group has dangerous fanatics and I am very upset they were
>>|allowed at the convention.  ...
>
>>Who and why do you think so?
>
>George Bush, "I don't atheists are citizens or patriots."

Frankly, I don't know what to think about this comment, or how seriously
to take it, given Bush's propensity for mistatement (which you leftists
have so much fun making fun of).  Do you really think George Bush is a
"dangerous fanatic" and are you really upset he was "allowed at the
convention"?  That's what the question was about.

In any case, assuming Bush was serious and meant what he said, exactly
what is your concern and why?  Do you think he isn't entitled to such a
belief?  What actions are you afraid he will take based on this brief?

I'm not making an argument here, I'm just trying to find out what you
think.

...
>>That doesn't answer that question.  Why do you think Pat is a
>>hate-monger? What exactly was wrong with his speech at the convention? 
>>What did he say that make you think he was appealing to hate?  I am
>>truly interested in your answer.  I have the text of his speech and
>>could email it to you if it would help.
>
>At the convention?

Yes.

>Where he attacked gays & women,

What did he say that you took as an attack on gays & women?

>and explained that using the army was the way to solve racial riots?

He didn't say that.  Are you saying they shouldn't have used troops in LA?

>Like where he called for a religious crusade in this country?

a) Where did he call for that?

b) Why do you think that is an appeal to hate?
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64849 alt.current-events.somalia:676