From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Subject: Re: Connecting 2 threads (Was Re: Principles, principles, principles)
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 18:27:28 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.031915.4292@midway.uchicago.edu> wag5@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <g61dk49@Unify.Com> ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
>>
>>A liberal is capable of acknowleging the merits of more than one side of an
>>argument.
>
>Yes. But you can only consider one idea at a time.

Wrong.  You have no idea what a human being is capable of, because you're
afraid that it might challenge a world view that requires that everyone be
at least as limited as you are.

>You would play with all your crazy ideas

Whoops!  You just claimed that I can only handle one idea at a time!  The
problem with falsehood is that it's so easy for lies to contradict each
other.  One must craft one's falsehood carefully to eliminate contradiction
not only within itself but also (if you're *really* clever) to eliminate
contradiction with easily perceived reality.  I don't envy you your task.

> on the American public through the goons with guns government,

Wrong. The goons with guns government is the conservative one.

>one idea at a time.

You really have to decide whether liberals are single-issue people or not.
This waffling back and forth does not make you look good.

> You love your goddamn 

The Republican candidate for president seems to think that all good conserva-
tives are wrapped up in God.  Are you opposed to the Republican candidate for
president?  Is that why you are cursing and taking God's name in vain?

> stupid ideas,

"There you go again" (Reagan).  Am I capable of only one idea, or of several?
Get your story straight!  You clearly have no idea what my idea(s) is/are.
You can't even figure out whether I have one or more ideas.  How could you
possibly know whether any of the ideas I have are stupid?  

> and that's why we think you are wrong.

You don't even know what I could be right or wrong about.  You are totally
clueless, according to your own words above.

>>A conservative is incapable of acknowleging the merits of any side but his
>>own.
>	Yes,

Agreed.  You have certainly proved it above.

> well, when your legislation,

Which legislation?  I haven't prompted any legislation that I'm aware of.
William Jennings was a distant cousin whose common relative died in 1550.
Do you mean his legislation?  By the way, WJB was as conservative as they
come.

> governmental action is going to have the effect of putting a .38 special to
> >200 million people's heads

Wrong:  the conservatives are the gun nuts.

> you better be damn sure 

The conservatives are the ones who claim to have God's full and unconditional
support.  What's with all the cursing?

> your idea 

You waffled again, saying I'm back to one idea.

> isn't some cockamamy intellectual party.

The party I'm giving on Sunday isn't particularly intellectual, nor is it
cockamamie.  I do think of things other than this party (there's the 3 quilt
blocks I owe people, the quilt I'm making for a fundraiser later this month,
the biography and the Vatican II Conciliar documents I'm reading, my vacation
next spring to research, Christmas gifts to shop for, the rehearsal tonight,
campaign work due Thursday, and the ideas I use in my work, for instance).

> We take ourselves seriously.

Is that why you curse and take God's name in vain?

> You may think we are stupid,

I only view the evidence you submit.

> but we would call ourselves 'prudent'

Is *that* why you curse and take God's name in vain?

> and call you folks 'irresponsible,'

From the "I've got mine, the h--- with the rest of you" faction, that's rich.

> 'uncaring,'

From the "I've got mine, the h--- with the rest of you" faction, that's rich.

> 'frivolous,'

You're just saying that because you can't come to my idea -- er, intellectual
party -- this Sunday.

> or 'suicidal.'

My party Sunday isn't suicidal.  The three quilt blocks aren't suicidal.  The
quilt isn't suicidal.  Reading isn't suicidal.  My upcoming vacation has an
element of danger (might fall off the horse) but it's a bit extreme to call
it suicidal.  None of the Christmas gifts I've bought so far are suicidal,
nor do I expect to buy any that promote any form of violence.  Music is not
suicidal.  Reading and clipping news articles isn't suicidal.  Software qua-
lity assurance is not suicidal.

You claim that I have a suicidal idea, or that I'm planning to host a sui-
cidal party (you're not exactly clear on this).  What idea (or party) is this
that you claim that I entertain?  What evidence do you have that I entertain
it?  What is the source of this evidence?

Since you will refuse to answer these truthfully, I will:  you are making
them up out of whole cloth (not unlike my quilt).  You are lieing.  You lie
and you curse and you take God's name in vain, and then you call *my* idea(s)
'suicidal'!  What planet *are* you from?

>>(That's why conservatives think liberals are wrong, and liberals think
>>conservatives are stupid, as someone else posted.)
>
>(Anyone can think whatever they want; 

That's because liberals and moderates have so far prevented the conservatives 
from forcing everybody else to join their selfish narrow-mindedness.


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244		--------------------+
| "Other sports exist only to keep you occupied until baseball season comes |
| around again."					- Dave Barry	    |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8587 alt.politics.bush:7810 alt.politics.marrou:1440 alt.politics.correct:5609