From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: "One Nation, Indivisible"
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 10:22:15 PST

In <oyT7wB5w165w@unkaphaed.gbdata.com>, William C. Barwell writes:

Well Tim, (ya little twerp), It IS my business when the president is
>involved in lawbreaking, lying, felonies, coverups, and the continues the
>coverup by misusing his pardon powers.  Don't you want an honest
>governement where the highest officials do not break their oaths to
>follow the constitution and faithfully foolow the laws of our land?

Yes, but I'm not talking about the pardons themselves.  I mention that it
seems like all of the people (usually Democrats) who complain the loudest about
the pardons tend to overlook transgressions by Democrats.  I want 'em ALL
to be held accountable.  Equal protection under the law?  Yeah, right.

Maybe they were guilty and needed to be punished.  But I happen to think that
ALL who break the law should be held accountable--not just the ones I disagree
with.

Oh, and "twerp?"  Congratulations on your mastery of ad-hominem name calling.
'Tis the favored Usenet debating technique, y'know.  I think you've mastered
the name calling and are ready for promotion to the third grade now.

>  You don't SEEM to!  And yes, it IS my business, it is all of our
>business!  Including you!  You're falling down on your end there, boy.
>Imagine, being for massive coruption and coverup!   And thinking that we
>should not speak out about this or demand changes in the laws that allow
>this to happen and continue unchecked.  Do you really like seeing these
>creeps get away with their felonies and perjuries?

I'm not a Republican and I didn't vote for Reagan or Bush, so don't lump me
in with them.  You're making a lot of wrong assumption here, pal.  I don't
defend them--nor do I demand that all political foes be destroyed while my
favored politicians flourish.  That's what Nixon wanted.  It's not what I
want--all of your assumptions about my politics notwithstanding.

>As to your creep lil tirade about "welfare' ect.
>  Yeah, yeah.   Let 'em die in the streets.  SOCIAL DARWINISM.  the
>pseudoconservatists stock idea.

Ah, yes.  Everyone who ever voted Republican doesn't give a shit about anyone.
Sorry, I forgot about that.

There is a difference between compassion and forced compassion.  Some liberals
have encouraged some degree of "social Darwinism" with their laws--some of
which discourage employment of the poor, and some which make certain amenities
accessible only to the upper-middle and upper-classes.  The minimum wage law
in D.C. is $5.25 per hour.  Do you know what the unemployment rate is for
black teens in D.C.?  Over 50%!  That is no doubt (at least *partially*)
due to the minimum wage law.  The liberals in Congress--the "defenders of the
downtrodden"--won't let them work for under $5.25.  So they turn to gangs and
drugs instead.  The Davis-Bacon Act requires government contractors to pay
union wages.  That reduces the number of people that can work since the amount
that businesses can pay for wages is limited.  Better to have 100 employed at
$10 per hour (and 50 unemployed) than 150 employed at $10, isn't it?

There are legitimate uses of government as protectors of the underprivileged.
In many cases, though, the zero-sum economists are dead wrong about what needs
to be done in order to protect them.

I just said something substantive which was civilized and without one iota of
name-calling.  I challenge you to do the same.

>  Let the elderly, the sick, the very young who are having hard times die
>in the streets.  Fuck 'em!  That's the American way, yes Tim?  Fine
>Christian American attitude you have there.  Yeah, i know the next step,
>so don't even bother.  You'll take some extreme case of misuse of welfare
>ect, and claim directly or indirectly that this is the norm, the way all
>welfare is misused, not even thinking that welfare is a minor part of all
>of this and that abuse of our nation's resources in this fashion are a
>result of a useless system that is set up to fail.   Sen. Patrick
>Moynihan suggested reforms two decades ago, but Nixon decided instead
>that the official way of dealing with this would be "Benign neglect".

You don't know that I'm Christian.  You don't know that I'm conservative.  Just
because I see hypocrisy in some liberals (and yes, some conservatives too)
doesn't mean that I am of any particular ideology.  And I certainly don't
defend Nixon.  Are you assuming that I am?  Oh yes, you assumed that if I
attack hypocrisy on the left, then I *must* be a conservative Republican.
You're full of shitty and incorrect assumptions, aren't you?

Yeah.  Fuck the sick, the weak and the infirm.  Fuck 'em all.  That's why I'm
writing off $2000 in charity for 1992.  Fuck 'em indeed.  If I really cared,
I'd give 'em every penny I had until I was also in the same position.  For if
I really *cared*, I'd show it by taking a vow of poverty.  Excuse me while I
remove one of my arms and intentionally acquire HIV.  Isn't that the only way
to prove that I care?

>So here we are.    Two deacdes of republican conservative leadership, two
>decades of failure.  And there you are truculently ignoring all of this
>while slimy neiocon catchphrases pour from your ugly lips.  It's YOUR
>guys that have run things for 2 decade and are responsible as any, bud
>and don't you forget it.

You focus on the White House while ignoring Capitol Hill.

You're assuming a lot of stuff.  And I wanted an intelligent debate, but you
are being a complete asshole.  I won't waste my time.

I'm not a "neiocon" or even a neocon.  I have voted for Democrats before and
will sometimes continue to do so--provided that they don't have a stick up
their ass like you seem to.  What's the matter, Billy Boy (or is it Chuckie)?
Can't handle honest debate without mud slinging?

>And this is MY business too!   Two decades of problems unsolved, while
>the pricks who did not solve them use these problems they sre more than a
>little responsible fore to stir up resntment and political polarization
>by egging on little creeps like you!

For someone who is throwing out so many fighting words, you seem strangely
concerned about people who stir up resentment and polarization, don't you
think?  By your own words above, doesn't that make you a prick too?

>Yeah. Timmmy.  you're a big conservative aren't you?

Nope.  And I'm not big, either.  I'm 5'8".  Another incorrect assumption.

>Pope Charles   SubGenius Pope Of Houston   Wake up you Timmy!

I'll wake up when you *grow* up.

Are we supposed to take this clown seriously?


Tim Irvin
*****************************************************************************
"In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that
 for religious rights." -- James Madison, Federalist #51
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc