From: dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)
Subject: Re:  Are Republicans Evil?
Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 18:12:14 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.195208.25490@wixer.cactus.org>, lazarus@wixer.cactus.org (Michael Lax) writes:
> 

I send an e-mail message in response but I will also state some of my opinions
here for the group:

> 
> I do _not_ use the analogy to Hitler and fascism lightly - I am Jewish and
> generally agree with Mr. Palmrose that it can be counterproductive to compare a
> leader with Hitler just on one or two points.  However, Bush and Quayle have
> repeatedly and deliberately excluded, amongst others, gays and lesbians from
> being full and equal citizens.  We are not to be trusted in the military, we
> are not to be trusted as parents, etc.  Other groups - atheists, for example -
> have also been told they are not "real" Americans.  Isn't that part of how
> fascism works?  It makes the majority feel superior by undermining the
> minority.  Another aspect of fascism is that otherwise rational people follow
> along so readily - how do you think Hitler became so popular?  As for calling
> comparing a person to Hitler just because I disagree with them - I hope you
> realize how ridiculous that sounds.  
> 

Unfortunately, there are people who are intollerant of others and it does not
matter if they are on the left or right.  This has gone on throughout our 
history.  Two examples of attacks:  1950's :  McCarthy-ism attack anybody who
disagrees with policy toward communism as being communist themselves.  Many
people have their careers ruined.  Late 1960's early 1970's:  Leftist call 
someone who fought or supported the Vietnam War as "baby killers", many vets
and active-duty military people are spat upon, physically  or verbally 
assaulted.

It does not matter what side of the political spectrum one is one, each of 
their radical elements have resorted to fascim-type tactics to prevent others
of the opposite view from speaking.

Michael brings up several other points that basically revolve around a debate
of why homosexuals need the extra legal protection that Bush does not want
to give them.  I have deleted these sections because I am not concerned about
a debate on this subject but rather how that debate is conducted.

The Constitution does not give any specifics on how any particular group is
to be treated (IMO).  It rather delineates how individual freedom is to be
protected and/or limited, how government is to be organized, etc.  It does
not say that hetrosexuality is it.  Morality has always played a part in the
writting of specific local, state, and federal laws.  If you have a problem 
with that, so be it.  If Bush feels that morality is important that still 
does not make him a Hitler.

> 
> What are "lifestyle" rights?  The Constitution mentions "Life, Liberty
> and the pursuit of Happiness."  I am, in many states, denied "Liberty" because
> I am labeled a criminal because I love a man.  If "lifestyle" rights means
> being able to marry, not worry that I will be denied housing or a job because
> I'm gay, then, yes, I want "lifestyle" rights.  Yet by this definition _YOU_
> have lifestyle rights.  I assume (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that when
> you say "arguments for" you mean that by asking for equal protection and rights
> I am somehow asking for the government to "promote" homosexuality.  If so, I'd
> like to hear how you came to this conclusion.
> 
> As for the "Hitler" label - I did not call you Hitler, and would not compare
> someone to Hitler for disagreeing with me.  As regards this example, however,
> is in the way that Hitler repressed the Jews - and the Turks, Gypsies, and, of
> course, homosexuals.  He took away their rights.  He then claimed they had no
> claim on "special" rights.  And while Bush has not put us in camps yet, Pat
> Robertson and the like wish to "convert" us.
>

Again, Bush has not taken away any of your rights under the Constitution and
the Bill of Rights.  If you think he has, then take him and the federal 
government to court.  Hitler said that those he persecuted had NO rights not
special rights.  Again, this does not make Bush a Hitler.

> 
> While Carter, Johnson & Kennedy may not have actively supported the gay
> community, they did not go out of their way - as the Bush administration has -
> to attack it.  Also, it is my understanding (sorry, I don't have specific
> quotes handy) that Bush _supports_ sodomy laws - or at least the state's right
> to enact them.
> 

Supporting sodomy laws does not make a person a Hitler, just shows their
belief that certain moral values should be in the law for the protection of
everyone (for example children from child abusers).


> 
> But Bush has repeatedly stated that homosexuality is not "moral and right." 
> Some Republicans have gone so far as to say that gays that get bashed _deserve_
> it.  As for his opposing hate crimes - I have not seen it.  And, as I stated
> previously, police and the military _DO_ use force against gay people.  And
> yes, not everything that happened to the Jews, Turks, Gypsies and homosexuals
> under Hitler are happening to us under Bush - but a lot of the injustice and
> promotion of hatred _IS_.
>

Police and military do use force against gays?  This sounds like basic
violations of the Constitutional Rights by the way you word this.  Again, 
the courts are the best source for resolution of this matter.  Has Bush given
specific orders that such action be taken?  The answer is an resounding NO!
Again, because some lower-level government people might do this, do not mean
that Bush condones it and does not make him Hitler.
 
> Again, HUH?  How is not wanting to be forced or coerced into a "conversion" a
> "lifestyle right"?  Do you have people telling you that the way you love is
> wrong and evil?  Yet I would tend to agree with your statement that a single
> disagreement is not reason to compare someone to Hitler.  The Bush
> administration, however, has provided numerous comparisons to fascism - if not
> Hitler, than perhaps Mussolini.  He has essentially made gays, lesbians,
> atheists, single mothers, et al., second class citizens.  When they ask to be
> "first class" citizens, they are seeking "special rights."  
> 

This is again your personal viewpoint.  Because Bush disagrees with that
viewpoint does not again make him a Hitler.

> 
>      I know you will not change your viewpoint on homosexuality and it is not
>                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>      my desire to change it.
> 
> I realize you probably do not realize just _how_ offensive this statement is. 
> My "viewpoint" on homosexuality is that I'm gay.  Because I am sexually and
> romantically attracted to men - not a choice (did you choose to be attracted to
> the opposite sex?) I am subjected to all sorts of abuse.  My being gay is not
> an "opinion" which I can detach myself from.  It is, essentially, who I am.
>

I do not care what your sexual preference is, it is immaterial to me to this
topic of equating Bush to Hitler.  That was the whole purpose of that 
statement.  Your being gay is basically unimportant to me and you do not
deserve all sorts of abuse.  If I see any abuse against you for being gay,
I will equally critize that author of hate.  As someone said: " I will defend
to the death your right to disagree with me...."

I would also like to note that if Bush was like Hitler to gays then he would
not have made AIDs the number one disease to be fought by the federal 
government.  Again, you may disagree with him by wanting more, but again that 
does not make him a Hitler.

> 
> I also try to keep the debate on this topic from getting outrageous.  My
> comparison of Bush to Hitler was, mostly, hyperbole.  Although this method may
> be stronger than you like, it can be quite effective.  I have no animosity
> towards you, even though we disagree with each other.  You have made some
> interesting points - and I agree that being reminded not to offend is an
> excellent one.  I don't think my previous post was a personal attack (I didn't
> call you names, etc.), and I will continue to be careful with what I say.  
> 
>
> Michael Lax, 12514 Esplanade St., #B, Austin, TX  78727-4409
> 
> 

I agree it is hyperbole and can be effective, but that does not make it right
nor proper in a free country.  I object to smear campaigns against those of
opposite views no matter where the smear comes from (left or right).  I hope
that any discussions can be kept level-headed and with respect to the views 
of others.  I feel that the nature of your attack is extremely dangerous.
I have tried to keep my thoughts on that method of attack and not to 
personnally attack you.  As with everyone, I only wish you the best in your
life no matter how you choose to live it as long as it respects the rights
and is considerate of others.

Don Palmrose






========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh