From: vaccaro@novavax.UUCP (N. Trafford Vaccaro)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: What are those Negroes doing with guns?
Summary: Just my 2 cents
Date: 26 Sep 92 09:41:21 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Nova University, Fort Lauderdale, FL

I'm not going to pretend that I have a brain like Sean, but I wanted
to respond anyway. So there!


In article <68555@hydra.gatech.EDU>, gt7994a@prism.gatech.EDU (ORMOND,SEAN PATRICK) writes:
> In article <1992Sep20.181435.14791@cbnewse.cb.att.com> gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:
> >In article <1992Sep20.023934.9250@umbc3.umbc.edu> williamf@umbc4.umbc.edu (TheBigBopper) writes:
> >> Yes!  I plan to vote for the Democratic Party this vote.  I don't
> >> believe there is a Socialist party in the USA.
> >You've made a mistake here.  Should I rant and rave like a child?
> 
> Socialism is alive and well in this country and it lurks within the 
> Trojan Horse known as the Democratic Party.  Obviously, democracy and
> socialism are not identical, but it is impossible for someone to consider
> himself a Democrat and not subscribe to some basic socialist ideals.  Take
> the most basic socialist tenet - NOT that we are entitled to equality of
> opportunity, but that we are entitled to equality of RESULT.  The belief that
> all citizens are entitled to an equitable share of goods, services, and 
                                                            ^^^^^^^^^ 
> welfare benefits is socialism, by definition.  Can you not see the obvious
  ^^^^^^^^

(Dana Carvey doing Bush voice:)

"Those things are bad, THEY'RE BAD!"


> similarity to the Democratic program of increasing taxation to the rich
> so as to provide even more services to those who refuse to provide for
                                                   ^^^^^^

"I 'refuse' to ask one of my rich daddy's rich friends for a high paying
position with a large company."

> themselves.  In short, they would like to pull up our "lows" by pulling
> down our "highs" - the result: mediocrity is encouraged, success is punished,
> and failure is rewarded!  Furthermore, socialism is to come about as the 
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

For example, Congressional raises, CEO's making millions and having
layoffs, and moving companies to Mexico and Singapore for inexpensive
labor. 

> result of a revolution by the proletariat over their bourgeoisie oppressors.
> If you replace "proletariat" with the lower class, the blue-collar workers,
                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> and welfare recipients, and replace the "bourgeoisie" with the upper class,
> scientists, engineers, doctors, corporate executives, and others who WORK
                                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Oh, I get it. When I was a blue-collar worker I didn't WORK for a
living, unlike the scientists, choo choo train drivers, and corporate
executives that do indeed WORK for a living.

> for a living - you have the Democratic system in America.  Liberal Democrats
> can hardly open their mouths without fanning the flames of class-warfare 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(Voice of Mister Rogers):

"Can you say, 'Generalizations'".



> in this country.  Their entire platform is based, in varying ways, on telling
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^etc.
> the middle and lower class that their "suffering" is due to others and that
> those others - the rich and successful - should be punished!  There are 
Unlike the Republican platform, which is based on, (nasal whine)
"Family Values".


> differences between Democracy and socialism, but ignore their similarities
> at your peril.

"The Commies are coming. Help me! Help me!".

> 
> >>Hmm, forgive me if I am wrong but *I* think it was a foolish comment
> >>about Oprah.  And it was remisniscent of Slimeball Limbaugh's comments.
> >>Seemed quite an appropriate comment to me.
> 
> If you choose to disagree with my "foolish comment" then I appreciate your
> opinion - such comments are made to elicit discussion on a given topic.
> When such discussion turns to juvenile name-calling over a spelling error,
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^    
Hmmm...wasn't something mentioned earlier in his posts about "Liberal
Democrats" and (see below) "liberal femistists"?


> the critic has all but admitted he has NO arguments in his defense and
> must, therefore, resort to character assassination.  Noting the Big Bopper's
> spelling error above, should I assume he's an idiot and his comments are
> not worth noting?  No - instead, I would ask Mr. Bopper in what ways he 
> disagrees with Rush Limbaugh.
> 
> Regarding Oprah: She is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, a card-carrying liberal,
> and would admit as much if asked.  This does not preclude her from being
> warm, entertaining, and well-intentioned, which she frequently is.  
> Nevertheless she comes from the left and often uses her show as a forum
> for blatant white-male bashing.  She simply caters to the majority of her 
> viewers - liberal feminists.  Further, her idea of educating blacks - her
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> "Racism in 1992" series - as expected, teaches blacks that their every
> failure is due to the racism of white males.  I can provide some very 
> specific examples, if you're really a glutton for punishment.

(Voice of Dr. Smith): "Spare me your sarcasm, you defective detective".


> 
> >> Its very hard to be dispassionate about politics.  Why weren't you
> >> balanced in *your* flame?  You clearly favored one kind of political
> >
> >There is no hidden meaning in what I say.  My complaint was with the
> >overemotional and childish name-calling.  The fact that it is hard to
> >be dispassionate about politics is a good reason why so many stupid
> >and illogical decisions are made.  One could, instead, be passionate and
> >think at the same time.  Your assumption about what I "clearly favored" is
> >only that.  This isn't the first time someone has been illogical, and
> >not the first time it's been pointed out.  And it is worth pointing that out.
> 
> Face it, Gilbert!  Without hypersensitive, overemotional, and completely
> irrational arguments, the liberals would hardly have any arguments at all!
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I guess (in three dimensional block lettering) "T H E  L I B E R A L S"
would have to rely on the economy, Iranscam, BCCI, bank failures,
layoffs, blaphada blaphada bla bla bla.

> How else can one argue that it's equitable to punish success (via taxation)
> and reward failure (via welfare)?  Take, for example, a student who graduates
> high school and goes on to 12+ years of college and med-school.  He is now
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If you only went for two, four, or six years, it doesn't count.

> forced through our system to pay more and more to support bums who have
> dropped out of school and refuse to work.  One person made the right 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Oh, you mean BUMS like me, that have to work two jobs to pay for the
lowly B.S. I received. I should not have "dropped out", I should
have stayed on to get my Ph.D., there are always my rich parents to
support me.

> decisions, took advantage of the system, and worked hard, the other took
> the easy way out and made all the wrong decisions.  The liberals would argue
> that the former should be LEGALLY FORCED to compensate the latter!  Further,
> look at many current welfare systems that reward having babies, 
> unemployment,
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Is this guy for real? Everyone chose to be unemployed, right? We all
wanted our credit ruined forever, right? We wanted to lose our homes and
cars, RIGHT???

> and staying single.  And let's not forget that of the money that is allocated
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Let's have forced marriage! We can't reward those "wild and crazy"
bachelor(ettes) out there!

> for welfare, only TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT survives the government bureaucracy!
> To locate that missing 75%, you would have to look no further than the 
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
We would have to use the patented MSPL, or "Missing Seventyfive Percent
Locator".


> liberals in government who are screaming the loudest for increased wealth
> redistribution!
> 
> these posts will disappear as if they were never here.

What was your little post doing in rec.arts.movies, anyway?

> 
> Sean
> 
> Clinton/Gore '92: "We've got what it takes to take what you've got!"
> -- 



Nick


Bush/Quayle in '92: "Three more months!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies