From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: Flush Limburger
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 16:55:29 GMT

Patrick L Humphrey (patrick@is.rice.edu) wrote:
: In article <1992Dec17.205113.19375@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
: >
: >(bovine excrement claiming that Rush is today's Archie Bunker deleted)
: >
: >Liberals post this fertilizer comparing Conservatives to racists and Nazis
: >and then wonder why we want a moderated newsgroup for conservative discussions.
: >
: >I think it's been mentioned before, but when one goes around calling people
: >racists and Nazis for no reason, they trivialize the real meaning of those
: >terms.
: 
: Very true -- of course, some of the self-styled conservatives seem to think
: it's perfectly okay to describe anyone not sharing their opinions as
: "wacko", "subversive", or "Communist", but I guess that's okay, eh?
:

This is a gimme.  I am as conservative as they come, and am well known in this
group as a conservative.  Calling a conservative a racist is a projectsion
(pshych 101 term) by the REAL racists.  I can use two great examples to
illustrate how this works...  First, the Willie Horton ad - I've never met
a conservative who saw a black man in the ad, just a criminal.  Calling the
ad racist made a racist issue instead of the real issue it was (for those
of you in Rio Linda, the issue was that Dukakis let the man out on furlough
to commit a horrible crime).  Second, I've never known a conservative to
suggest that denying equal OPPORTUNITY for everyone should be promoted - in
fact, the opposite is true.  To suggest that conservatives are racist again
brings out the racist instincts in those who hear the claim.

Calling someone a Nazi, who is not, is a hate crime in and of itself.  It
suggests that the person believes in race superiority, extermination of 
inferior races, and the seeking of world domination.  In what way does
this describe conservatism?  NONE.  However, certain feminists, and this is
well documented in their writings, do make statements that women are superior
to men, attack the male ego, and seek domination of government policy.  Rush
documents one such woman, in particular, who teaches a university course in
which it is taught that heterosexual foreplay is rape.  To dignify such a
person by calling her a feminist does not make sense, but feminazi fits...

Wacko?  Never heard conservatives, or Rush call anyone that.  On the other
hand, evironmentalwacko is a term I've heard.  What can you say about someone
who would spike a tree, threatening human life, for the sake of saving a tree?
Or someone who would take away the land and livelyhood of families that owned
and worked that land for centuries to save a single species of fish?  Or
someone who would destroy the economic viability of three of the nation's
top 10 corporations with unrealistic and imposing governmental regulations?

Subversive?  That sounds more like a word that would describe conservatives,
because we would subvert the government as we have known it for the last
half of this century.  However, we would do this only to allow the American
way of life to flourish and grow well beyond the artificial limits placed
upon it by uncontrolled activiism.  

Communist?  Why should a person who honestly believes in socialistic prinicples
promoted by liberals be ashamed by such a term?  I am not ashamed of being
called a Conservative!  The only thing that is inaccurate about the term
Communist is that Communism implies state ownership of all property.  But
given NO conservative opposition to our one-party form of government, it is
not clear that the state would not eventually own all property...

Let me introduce one more term that is typically used, wrongfully, to describe
conservatives - fascists.  Fascism more accurately describes Democratic Party
politics than it does conservatism.  Fascism is a one-party form of government
where the one party maintains control of government by strong-arm tactics,
including military force.  Take a look at how the Democrats have controlled
congress over the last 40 years, and often all three branches of government!
And to maintain control, they legislate in such a way that it is nearly
impossible for an incumbent to lose, short of committing serious crimes.  And
even when they commit serious crimes, as in the Keating 5 case, they manage
to be reelected (consider the Chappequidik coverup and Barney Frank running
a prostitution ring from his home, too, as well as the house bank and house
post office scandals).  I can recall two times in the last 33 years when
the government used military force against US citizens to enforce policy -
in the 60's, JFK used the National Guard to force integration, and in the
late 80's, the national guard was used to arrest anti-abortion protesters
in Wichita.  Add to this the use of inuendo (the supposed October Suprise)
the use of unlimited government resources to persecute conservatives
(independant prosecutor for Iran-Contra, digging up dirt against Clarence
Thomas) and the use of McCarthy-like congressional hearings against almost
every single conservative nomination to various appointments.  Who are the
fascists?

(sorry for the misspellings, etc...  vi says it all :)

: --PLH, glad he's Libertarian and outside the whole sorry label war
: 
: 
: 
: --