From: julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas)
Subject: Re: Bob Hooker's possibly fraudulen (was Re: Trickle Down Economics)
Keywords: hate
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 16:33:16 GMT

In article <1126@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
><
><Ymu know, one of the problems with today's Republican party is that it
><has become so extreme that it is very difficult nowadays to tell the
><difference between parody and reality.
><
><When somebody like Pat Buchanan is treated as a respected statesman,
>
>What's wrong with Pat?

As a *moderate* Republican I see a lot wrong with Buchanan and I
don't like being lumped in with whackos.  I think that the 
economic problems have forced a lot of slugs out from under the
rocks.  

Buchanan, Limbaugh, and Duke are hate-mongers.  They try to
bring about unity of a small select group by inciting hatred
against others not in that small select group.  This should
not be a part of the Republician party.  Either the party
has to get these guys to shut up or the party could be split.
I'm not sure if this (the split) would be a good or bad thing.
It would be good in that the right-wingers would finally be
separate from us moderates.

>
><when delegates at the Republican convention say that the United States
><should be a Christian nation,
>
>What's wrong with that?  The USA *is* a Christian nation by virtue of
>the fact that 80% of Americans are Christians (according to polls I've
>seen).  Before you blast me, I'm not part of that 80%.

It is wrong.  There is a difference between saying "80% of the USA is
Christain" and "the USA is a Christian nation".  The first one is
a statistic (I'm not sure of the number) and the second implies one
religion being placed above the rest.  When that is done it is
very easy to put pressure on others to conform and the right of freedom 
of religion and freedom from religion could be lost or seriously
damaged.  I much prefer my government to remain secular.  

>
><then why shouldn't we believe that a racist extremist means what he
><says? What reason is there to think that this is anything outside the
><accepted spectrum of discourse in the Republican party?

Excuse me, this is not part of the accepted spectrum of discourse.
Many in the Republican party, as I am, are disgusted by racism and
the racist extremists.  

I'm very tired of being labelled a hate monger/racist/etc just for
being Republican.  Every group has dangerous fanatics and I am
very upset they were allowed at the convention.  But in difficult
times, crazies of all types appear.  (Doesn't make it right though).

>
>Could you please give us some examples of racist discourse inside the
>accepted spectrum of discourse in the Republican party?

Any group with a large enough amount of people will produce the
crazy.  I'm sure the Democratic party has their fair share too.

>
><We're not going to have that if we keep electing the party of David
><Duke and Pat Buchanan.

I object to this too.  I consider Duke and Buchanan to be crazies
that say they are Republicans.  They are not representative of
the party.  Tell me, are Democrats one large monolithic block of
opinion?  They have fanatics, moderates, and all types in between too.

>
>Ym> put these two together as if they are equivalent.  Why do ymu think
>they are?

One's a bit more extreme than the other but they're cut from a similiar
cloth.  As I said before, they're both hate mongers.


Julie
DISCLAIMER:  All opinions here belong to my cat and no one else


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,ca.politics,ba.politics,misc.legal