Gays and Jews question

Andrew Rothman

October 28, 2003, 12:23 AM

Speaking as an ethnic Yid who never really bought into any religion much...

Anti-Semitism still exists, but it has a different profile than, say, racism agaist blacks.

Racism can be said to be institutional -- a black person has a harder time getting a job, a house, a promotion, or even a taxi.

Anti-Semitism, it seems to me, is not really institutionalized, because Jews have risen to senior levels in much of the "establishment." (And yes, we do run Hollywood. What else would explain Jason Alexander's success? ;) )

Instead, it is fringe groups that feel disenfranchised that tend to blame convenient scapegoats (like the Jews, or the Mexicans...) for their problems. Good old fashioned kluckers, neo-Nazis, skinheadas, etc.

As far as getting physically bashed, I'm glad that I only look Jewish, not gay.

(But I think that shooting with the Pink Pistols would be a blast!)

But I think that the JPFO has the right idea -- that "never again" is a call to action, not just a fond wish.

But most people pick up their political views as a package deal.

There's the Conservative, God-and-Country, Prayer-in-the-Schools, End-Abortion, Stop-the-Welfare, From-My-Cold-Dead-Hands, Get-Out-Of-My-Wallet, Yay-USA Republicans,

or the Tolerant, Cultural-Pluralism, ACLU, Pro-Choice, Welfare-Rights, Brady-Bunch, United-Nations, Never-Met-A-Spending-Program-They-Didn't-Like Democrats.

(A few brave souls actually think for themselves and go libertarian. :) )

Jews and gays tend to fit better in the second group, and pick up hoplophobia by osmosis.

I have a very "anti" family. They have no idea I've been packing for the last six months whenever they see me. Snicker.

One by one I'll bring `em around. Well, maybe half of them.

twoblink

October 28, 2003, 12:30 AM

The part I try to explain to the liberal jews I know is "Never Again!" is pretty lame when you are empty handed and they have Mausers... wouldn't you say?

The polarization of political parties and issues has forced a lot to choose restricted diets as far as agendas...

Don Galt

October 28, 2003, 01:10 AM

I've known many gay people in my life... they are not generally wanting to be victims, but they are actual victims because they are a group that is targetted by people for beatings. Literally, kids from the suburbs would come into the gay neighborhood, and find some queers to bash.

So, in many cities, they developed something like the Guardian Angels to patrol the areas where this happend-- often after someone got killed and brought attention to the issue. These Q Patrols, are often unarmed, relying on numbers and cellphones and a good relationship with local Law enforcement when things get rough. Usually numbers are enough. That's pro-active.

But the opposition comes across, to them, as a unified front of militia/christian republicans who are very anti-gay because of their religious views, and pro-gun. So the reflex is to see them as all being the same (just as people here see liberals as all being the same) and to associate the pro-gun stance with Pat Robertsons call for the death penalty for homosexuals.

But there is some real truth to that-- many of the discussion boards in the gun culture are full of anti-gay bigots, and while on the internet nobody knows your sexual orientation, without an organization like Pink Pistols, there's no clear place for them to go to get educated.

Frankly, I was surprised as I got to know people in the gun culture that they weren't anti-gay. I was one with the same assumption (Though it was a life-long NRA member who was very conservative, who introduced me to firearms-- we disagreed on politics greatly, but were friends anyway. ) And yet there are people like John Ross, who I consider a generally decent guy, yet still makes claims such as that Gay people have hundreds of partners a year. (Which is not the case.)

"Never Again" has not sunk into jewish culture, it seems, as much as one would expect. And yet, the message should be even more relevant to gay people. In the holocaust jews were sent to camps, and many of them killed, but gays were generally shot on the spot. (After the Nazis got the mailing lists of german gay organizations and went house to house finding the members.) The mortality rate for gays was higher than jews, though more total numbers of jews were killed.

But those facts aren't really discussed in gay circles. They have taken the nazis pink triangle as their symbol, but forgotten the history behind it. They associate anti-naziism with anti-racism, and that leads them down the path to the democrats who profess to be anti-racism (despite economic policies that are damaging to minorities.)

I think any conservative who takes the time to talk to a gay person, and doesn't act like a homophobic jerk, who tells him about the Nazis and why guns are important, is going to find fertile soil for a convert from liberalism. Its just that there are very few such conservative people.

I myself have a big question in my mind as to whether most conservatives are bigots or not. Listening to AM Radio, its clear at least that those people are bigots, and how can you trust someone who claims to be a constitutionalist, yet supports the prohibition of gay marriage?

The republicans chose to link thier issues into a set, as do the democrats. Since most people do not go the third way (libertarianism) the see only two choices. IF you weren't exposed to guns as a kid, and don't have any, its fairly easy to miss the significance of the gun issue and end up being a democrat.

There's a real opportunity here to turn both jews and gays to a more libertarian ideology if pro-gun organizations would market to them and show that racism and homophobia do not go hand in hand with the right to keep and bear arms. It may seem silly to make that characterization to you guys, but its the one they see.... and its the one presented to them repeatedly by the media and liberal figures. (And unfortunately, it has too much truth to it.)

zastros

October 28, 2003, 01:46 AM

There's a real opportunity here to turn both jews and gays to a more libertarian ideology if pro-gun organizations would market to them and show that racism and homophobia do not go hand in hand with the right to keep and bear arms. It may seem silly to make that characterization to you guys, but its the one they see.... and its the one presented to them repeatedly by the media and liberal figures. (And unfortunately, it has too much truth to it.)
_____________________

Well stated, Mr. Galt.

As someone who has worked in "the Theatre" for almost twenty years and now works at the New Jewish Theatre in St. Louis, I am intimately(?) acquainted with both groups. By and large, both groups are VERY liberal. It was always my opinion, that a lot of the jewish people that fled to this country were communists and over a couple of generations this has watered down to liberalism. With most of the gays that I know, it is more of a, "If that's what conservatives are like then, hunh uh Baby! I don't THINK so!"

It may be that now that gays are out of the closet and into the living room, there may be room for divergent opinions to bloom. I only know that when I joined the Pink Pistols chapter in St. Louis, that 2/3 of the members I knew were straight. ( Considering that, counting me, there were only 3 members makes this a much less important statistic. Or at least that's what I'm telling my wife. ;-} )

zastros

Oleg Volk

October 28, 2003, 01:51 AM

My guess is that both gays and jews have been excluded from military service and, in some places, from owning weapons...so they may have rationalized not doing something they were not permitted to do anyway. Then again, we may be looking at wishful thinking by would-be bashers and not the reality...except for the really loudmouth oxygen thieves like the Anti-Defamation Laague, few Jews I know oppose gun ownership, and also few gays. We might be buying into the anti propaganda more than seeing reality.

StonerStudent

October 28, 2003, 01:39 PM

Most LGBT, are like most people they believe what they read in the press. The mainstream LGBT groups [HRC,GLAAD etc] are very tried to the Dems. And of course don't really know what to do about the Pistols and are hoping we just go away. Most str8 gunowners are ok with us as gunowners. but get all screwed up with the GAY ADGENDA stuff and think that we are just trying to get guns for gay people only [really] I am out on another board and most are freindly, some are not

spacemanspiff

October 28, 2003, 01:47 PM

What else would explain Jason Alexander's success?
i suppose we should determine how 'success' is defined.... :D
kfc commercials dont quite spell 'successful career' in my book.:neener:

Sean Smith

October 28, 2003, 01:54 PM

Sadly, THR is the exception, not the rule, when it comes to internet forums being relatively gay or minority friendly. I was threatened with getting booted from a major gun board because I complained about how the site tolerated folks who made posts fantasizing about beating up gays. I'm not gay, and I don't even know (or more accurately, know that I know :D ) anybody who is, but I don't like hanging around thuggish morons. The mods somehow took exception to that fact and threatened to boot me.

Would it surprise you that the gay-basher guy is still there (at least last I looked, which ain't often), and I'm the one who left? :rolleyes:

Bottom line is, the folks who objectively need guns the most (women, gays, jews, etc.) are most likely to be alienated by the major political pary that, at least in theory, supports RKBA, and are most likey to encounter offensive behavior from the "gun community." Plain and simple truth, and it sucks. :mad:

MrAcheson

October 28, 2003, 02:24 PM

Frankly I think most gay and jewish groups are anti-RKBA by association. Both tend to vote democrat.

I think you will find the Jews drifting towards the right more and more as the left enforces societal secularization. With that drift will come changes in the Jewish organizations' political outlook. I know several socially conservative Jews (like my girlfriend's whole family) who are voting Republicans. Thou shalt vote Democrat is becoming a weaker 11th commandment by the day.

I don't see that change happening with the gay lobby though (although they might go libertarian) since the religious conservatives aren't going anywhere.

Hutch

October 28, 2003, 05:52 PM

Might also be: Jews and gays have been promised protection from abuse and guarantees of equitable treatment by The Guvmint. The Evil party is viewed as the party most disposed to greater government intervention and involvement. Therefore, they are safer, better protected, and more equitably treated when the Evil party hold power.

Another thought. The Evil party has a power base of a bunch of non-mainstream grievance groups, be they ethnic minorities, females, LGBT's, eco-extremists, homeless advocates, ad nauseum . The Stupid/Gutless party is less dependent on the support of such groups. Therefore, the place where ANY small victim-advocacy group gets attention and patronage is from the Evil party.

Just a thought, and I mean no offense to anyone in my very general characterizations above.

Monkeyleg

October 28, 2003, 06:10 PM

The gays I know who object to Republican/conservative policies have one major issue they object to: the refusal to acknowledge gay marriages. For some, it's a matter of principle, but for many it's a matter of economics.

For example, my wife's uncle lived with his boyfriend for over twenty years. They were as much, or more, "husband and wife" than many straight couples I know. Yet, when the boyfriend died, the uncle didn't receive any of the boyfriend's social security payments (they were both in their 60's) or any other monies that a widow or widower would receive.

This uncle, by the way, served with honor in Korea and is very familiar with guns.

Joe Demko

October 28, 2003, 06:14 PM

Which Evil Party did you mean? From my point of view, there is Evil Party D and there is Evil Party R. Both D and R are primarily concerned with increasing their level of control over my life. Neither of them is truly in favor of my right to bear arms and neither is truly in favor of real freedom for the citizens of this country.

Dave Markowitz

October 28, 2003, 08:12 PM

Jews in this country have traditionally been members of the Democrat party. This is in large measure due to the Democrats embracing immigrants more than the Republicans did, back in the late 19th/early 20th Centuries. Most Jews in the US are descended from immigrants who arrived during that period.

Also, Jews tended to settle in more urban settings, where firearms were not such a part of daily life. Thus, they developed a fear of them based on ignorance. This was only encouraged by the propaganda emanating from the Democrats.

Somehow, Ron in PA realized that the Democrat party was full of it, and developed a healthy interest in guns even though he lived in NY and was Jewish. Thankfully he and my mother got the heck out of that state before I was born. :D So he and I are a couple of armed-to-the-teeth Hebes who take Never Again a bit more seriously than most.

Thanks Dad!

ARperson

October 28, 2003, 09:26 PM

Anti-Semitism is alive and well across the world. This little place called Israel could tell you all about. Just about every individual in the Middle East, eastern Europe, hell, Western Europe, and the entire former Soviet Union who isn't Jewish or Christian (and I'm not sure about all of them) is usually blatantly anti-Semitic. I'd go as far as saying that aside from Britain, everything east of the Atlantic, west of the Pacific, and north of the Indian are anti-Semitic, if not in policy, then at least in mentality.

AnklePocket

October 28, 2003, 10:56 PM

Many feel that the mind is the most effective weapon. Certainly true most of the time, but there are times when it's not. As my ancestors in 1930's Germany said, "...couldn't happen here. I'm a German first, Jew second." Well, history does have a way of repeating itself and whoever coined "Never Again" is probably sick to his or her stomach. 1930 wasn't all that long ago and human nature probably hasn't changed much in that time.
All hope is not lost. Many feel that "we're" above violence. That's a good thing, but one must be ready or at least allow others to be ready should they choose to. It's fine to not be ready as long as you don't deny others that basic human right.
9/11 has brought "readiness" alive to a degree. Times are changing for the better although slowly and many really are "with the program".
By the way, I know a gay Jew who's 100% in favor of the RKBA. He doesn't own a gun, but supports those who do.

twoblink

October 28, 2003, 11:51 PM

I pretty much take (what I think to be the general THR stance) I could care less if you feel like smoking 80 packs of cigarettes a day while sitting naked watching porn. I could care less if you are gay and your favorite food is ice cream on your hotdog. It makes no difference.. and the best part is.. IT'S NONE OF MY BUSINESS..

Just like my preferences in firearms and more to the point, my ownership of firearms is pretty much nobody else's business. If everybody took that view, the law books would be all empty and we'd live freer lives..

The gays seem to have issues with the gay marriage... I have issues with the "government granted privileges" of marriage. I think if you got rid of that, then marriage is nothing more than mutually agreed contracts, and then gays would have nothing to gripe about because you can then contract to marry anybody. Once again, the problem is with government, not really certain political parties..

As for the "Evil Parties"..

Who's evil? The Republicrats, or the Democans?

Yeah.. That's what I thought too..

jimpeel

October 29, 2003, 12:46 AM

a. The ADL is made up of the same people who, throughout history, have told the Jews "Don't make waves, blend in; and they'll leave us alone." and have been historically wrong every time.

b. There are three segments of society who are easy to lure into seclusion where nefarious deeds may be perpetrated upon them.

The first is children. Because of their trusting nature, and willingness to be helpful, children are easy to distract and lure using excuses as simple as helping the perpetrator to find their "puppy".

The second is Prostitutes. Because of the nature of their business and the privacy in which most people want them to perform their services, it is easy to lure a prostitute into seclusion. This is the reason that prostitutes are the favorite target of heterosexual mass murderers like Jack the Ripper.

The third is Gays. Because of the nature of their sexual desires, and the privacy these acts require, it is easy to lure a gay person into seclusion. This is what happened to Matthew Shepard in Wyoming. This is why homosexuals are one of the favorite targets of heterosexual and homosexual serial killers like Randy Kraft, and Jeffrey Dahmer.

This is why Gays should be armed and why the Pink Pistols are a necessary component of the gay lifestyle. If Matthew Shepard had been armed, he likely never would have been beaten to death. It's a little hard to beat someone who is holding his attackers at bay with a firearm.

BigG

October 29, 2003, 02:39 AM

"The U.S. has two major parties: the Evil Party and the Stupid Party. The Evil Party is actively trying to institute socialism; the Stupid Party is trying to fine-tune it." Dr. Yuri Maltsev

Anybody who claims to see no difference is either naive or pursuing a hidden agenda.

AnklePocket

October 29, 2003, 07:29 AM

Republicans - personal responsibility, accountability and self reliance
Democrats - guidance, regulation and entitlement

The problems arise when Republicans compromise their values to get votes and when Democrats use their platform to entice certain groups (another form of compromising values). All is well when Republicans are Republicans and Democrats are Democrats. Both working together is what is required. It's kinda rare around here, but I've heard that it does happen in some areas.

MrAcheson

October 29, 2003, 11:17 AM

Sorry but the Big 2 parties are different. If this was not the case you would not see one or the other crying and gnashing their teeth after every election. Unless everyone that doesn't think like you are sheep... :rolleyes:

sw442642

October 29, 2003, 11:26 AM

It is very simple.

It is unfortunate but Jews and Gays have good evidence to regard many Conservatives as bigots and their enemies. Certainly current rhetoric and past history suggest that this is a reasonable position.

Conservatives also like guns - thus guns become a marker for the conservative position. So if bigots rave about having guns, it seems a reasonable thing to oppose such folks having lethal weapons.

What about guns for self-protection?

It may seem not a good strategy. A conservative government might support gun rights but still be a government that uses the force of the state to harm gays and jews. Thus, it is better to have a more friendly government even if it means some crackers don't have guns.

One can see a conservative government forcing Christianity as the approved state religion, legalizing discrimination against gays, etc. We can see that rhetoric slipping out once in awhile. Look at the crazed general Bonkin.

So that's why guns aren't a high priority. They don't correlated well with respect for other liberties. Too many gun fascists around.

cordex

October 29, 2003, 11:40 AM

Anybody who claims to see no difference is either naive or pursuing a hidden agenda.
They both want a very large, powerful government.
What they do with that power is slightly different.
Neither is particularly appealing to me.

Sam Adams

October 29, 2003, 06:19 PM

I'm another descendant of Abraham who is the antithesis of the stereotypical anti-gun Jew. One need not be Albert Einstein to figure out that if only 10% of those Jews murdered in Europe during WW2 had taken out one German or Ukranian or Polish or whatever soldier/cop/goon, then some 600,000 would have died trying to perpetrate Hitler's fiendish plans. Of course, at such a ratio the whole process would have stopped well short of 6 million murdered Jews for 1 of 2 reasons: 1) Hitler and his minions would have realized that it was too expensive to fight a war and murder the Jews simultaneously and, therefore, it would have stopped or 2) the murders would have continued, along with the German, etc. casualties, leading to a faster conclusion to the war due to a lack of manpower on the Axis side, thereby leading to less murders (e.g. maybe the 500,000 Hungarian Jews shipped off to the gas chambers in January 1945 wouldn't have been, because the Russians would have already owned Berlin).

However, as the old Yiddish saying goes (translated into English): "IF your grandmother had balls, she'd be your grandfather." IF is a big word, and my distant relatives and co-religionists in Europe 2 generations ago didn't, in fact, take up arms in large numbers. Why so many of those left - at least in the US and in Europe - haven't learned the lesson is quite beyond me. I certainly have, and I'll only be disarmed when I'm dead. My wife (not the typical "J.A.P.") knows how to shoot and will be doing lots more as time goes by. Our children will be trained from pups to respect and use firearms, and be intellectually armed against the insidious rantings of the uber-Lefty anti-gunners.

BTW, my wife's uncle, who not only saw his father and brother killed in front of him but was a "guest" in Auschwitz and 3 other similarly luxurious resorts so kindly provided by the Nazis, owns machine guns and numerous other fun toys. He'll also be disarmed only when dead.

Those who think that all Jews are anti-gun should try meeting my friends and family - some are anti-gun (not the friends, since I can choose them), but most are not. I make fun of the rest regularly, and love to spoil their preconceptions by telling them after a day or weekend of fun that they just experienced a miracle - they were in the presence of an armed gun nut and didn't even know that a gun was present, let alone get shot 57 times by the concealable, full-auto revolver that shoots armor-piercing hollow-points that can take out airliners from 5 miles away without aiming. :p Seriously, it does pay to burst bubbles, and it is also fun to see the bug-eyes and slack-jaws that the announcement of a nearby loaded weapon brings.

twoblink

October 29, 2003, 08:33 PM

Sam Adams,

I have to say; most TFL and THR'ers are the EXCEPTION and not the rule. You think you see the likes of Kaylee, Tamara, Runt walking down the street everyday? (If you do, post their pics and contact info!! I'm sure there'll be plenty of THR'ers who'd be interested in dating them!!)

So you my friend, are definitely the exception, and not the rule. (Congrats, you aren't a listed moron who knowns no history)

I have a few friends who are JEWS (I mean the hat, the beard, the pickles, the works) and for some reason... Even after reading the history, they feel that Jews shouldn't have even tried to resist.. :cuss: :banghead:

I told him, if that's your stance, then you will be hearing "Get in the Shower!!" instead of "Never Again!!".

It seems the rampid movement of personal security and liberty as a shift in responsibility to the Gov'ment just sickens me..

Sam, I look forward to the day I can meet your family and you can meet my gf. (Hopefully by then, my wife)

MrAcheson

October 30, 2003, 09:08 AM

they feel that Jews shouldn't have even tried to resist.

Those Jews really need to re-read Esther. Why was there no Jewish Holocaust under the Medo-Persians? Because Xerxes allowed the Jews to band together and fight back. If that isn't a Biblical precident I don't know what is.

cloudkiller

October 30, 2003, 10:50 AM

Anti-Semitism is alive and well across the world. This little place called Israel could tell you all about. Just about every individual in the Middle East, eastern Europe, hell, Western Europe, and the entire former Soviet Union who isn't Jewish or Christian (and I'm not sure about all of them) is usually blatantly anti-Semitic.

Sadly this is true. Ironically in the United States, conservative Christians have a love hate relationship with Jews. For the apocalyptic/millenial visions of many evangelicals to come true, they rely on the existence of the nation of Israel. However, conservative Christian conspiracy theories are horrendously anti-semitic. Pat Robertson's writings are rampant with anti-jewish sentiment as well.

Wildalaska

October 30, 2003, 12:50 PM

You think you see the likes of Kaylee, Tamara, Runt walking down the street everyday? (If you do, post their pics and contact info!! I'm sure there'll be plenty of THR'ers who'd be interested in dating them!!)

Come to Alaska, girl gunners all over the place (although not quite as attractive as our own here I may add)....

WildiimportedonethoughAlaska

braindead0

October 30, 2003, 01:15 PM

I think the problem lies with the 'leaders' and not necessarily the followers. Same with African Americans... The so called 'leaders' need victims in order to increase their power, without these 'victims' they would be just ordinary joes.

So they get up on their soapbox and rail against 'the man', 'homophobes' etc and demand the government do something about it, they get free press and I'm sure gobs of money from the sheeple.

It's pretty simple, follow the money.. and you'll find the problem.

CMichael

October 30, 2003, 01:45 PM

I am Jewish. Jews have been traditionally democrats. The reason for that is in the past the democrat party has championed civil rights. The problem is once they achieved their goals they went to the other extreme such as racial preferences.

Many Jews see the democrat party as still being leaders of civil rights. They have not really realized how much the party has changed. So since the democrat party is traditionally anti gun ownership rights so many of the Jews who support the democrat party are anti gun ownership rights.

Obviously I don't share this view.

cadfael

October 30, 2003, 02:26 PM

Being Jewish is one of the major reasons that I decided to take a more active role in protecting myself from harm.

There are many people who want to do me harm because of what I believe, not what actions I take. Unfortunately, I'm in the extreme minority in my family.

Adam

jimpeel

October 30, 2003, 03:34 PM

The reason for that is in the past the democrat party has championed civil rights. ...

Many Jews see the democrat party as still being leaders of civil rights. As usual they got it wrong. The Democrats were the ones standing in the schoolhouse doors. the Democrats, including Al Gore's father, voted in droves against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

How people are able to be fooled so easily is beyond me. Perhaps it is those empty promises and filling of the outstretched palm that makes them so.

sw442642

October 30, 2003, 04:54 PM

How silly and simplistic. Those Democrats were the Southern Dems who inherited the racist mantle of Jim Crow after the Civil War and would not identify with the GOP, the party of Lincoln.

At the time of Goldwater, there was a major shuffle with Southern Dems going to the GOP and most liberal Republicans shifting to the Democrats.

It was the liberals of both parties that championed Civil Rights. Most Jews lived not in the South and maintained a liberal Democratic orientation.

One cannot avoid that the dark side of the conservative movement (racist, antigay, antisemitic) drove those folks away from whatever positive value conservatives might have. Again, as gun rights were seen as a rural or southern value, correlated with evil - they were suspect. They were not seen as true protectors of equal rights.

Gun rights for minorities was not respected by conservatives until recently and the racists that still surface on gun lists defile the RKBA.

Let's make some sense of history, shall we?

jimpeel

October 30, 2003, 06:10 PM

Let's make some sense of history, shall we?Okay, let's.

From http://www.houstonreview.com/articles/48.html

Congressional Quarterly reported that, in the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as opposed to 80% of Republicans (138 for, 38 against). In the Senate, 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Act while 82% of Republicans did (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democrats voted against the Act.

and

From http://www.congresslink.org/civil/essay.html

Senate Floor Debate: Leadership Strategy

When the House-passed bill reached the Senate floor in March 1964, three groups of senators formed: pro-civil rights Democrats, southern Democrats opposed to the bill, and Republicans. Senator Hubert H. Humphrey led the Democrats who supported the bill and worked actively for its passage. As Senate majority whip, Humphrey enjoyed the support of Mike Mansfield, Senate majority leader. Together they were determined to pass the legislation and even arranged grueling twelve-hour daily sessions to wear down the opposition. Humphrey's task was to line up supporters to defend the bill in debate, to persuade reluctant members of his party to vote for passage, to encourage publicity, and to count votes. The Senator from Minnesota labored hard for passage and sought cooperation from many sources, including the Republicans.

Senator Richard Russell, Democrat from Georgia, led the so-called opposition forces. The group was also known as the "southern bloc." It was composed of eighteen southern Democrats and one Republican, John Tower of Texas. Although a hopeless minority, the group exerted much influence because Senate rules virtually guaranteed unlimited debate unless it was ended by cloture. The "southern bloc" relied on the filibuster to postpone the legislation as long as possible, hoping that support for civil rights legislation throughout the country would falter. The Democratic leadership and Humphrey could not control the southern wing of the party.

Russell's forces disliked civil rights legislation for several reasons. Many feared that their southern constituents would vote them out of office if, as senators, they voted for equal rights for African Americans. The "southern bloc" held up consideration of the bill from March into June hoping that presidential candidate George Wallace, a segregationist from Alabama, would do well in the early presidential primaries. If Wallace seemed popular, Russell would argue that the nation as a whole did not support federal civil rights legislation and that the Senate should not pass an unwanted bill. For Senator Russell s letter to the president, click here. Southern senators could not compromise. Only by forcing cloture could they demonstrate to their constituents that they had fought to the end against hopeless odds.

twoblink

October 30, 2003, 10:08 PM

It seems that the sheeple are being led like Cortez by the prospect of gold and fountain of youth at the end of the Democratic party road..

I know shrewd Jews who scrutinize everything; ... except the democratic party and it's planks..

Sean Smith

October 31, 2003, 09:48 AM

It is pretty amazing how the Democratic Party was able to mutate itself from the party of the white sheet and the lynch mob to the party that reflexively gets virtually all of the black, gay, jewish, and female votes...

Joe Demko

October 31, 2003, 09:52 AM

Yeah, you guys got it all figured out. Gays, Jews, Blacks, et. al. just aren't smart enough to be Republican. Otherwise, they'd see through all that Democaratic chicanery.:rolleyes:

Sean Smith

October 31, 2003, 10:18 AM

Not really, the Republicans made a point of welcoming all the disaffected Southern Democrats with open arms, and they got the smell that went along with it. You can't take Strom Thurmond's votes for your party on one hand, without getting the guilt by association on the other.

jimpeel

October 31, 2003, 10:29 AM

Yeah, you guys got it all figured out. Gays, Jews, Blacks, et. al. just aren't smart enough to be Republican. Otherwise, they'd see through all that Democaratic chicanery.The Democratic party exists as the party of welfare; the party of Socialism; the party of the outstretched palm; the party of taxation; the party of increasingly larger government.

For our mutual edification, perhaps you would be so kind as to enlighten us as to the real reason that the aforementioned groups demonstrate such unbridled fealty to a party that has done nothing more than make unfulfilled promises; with the exception of opening the public coffers to generalized looting.

Can you explain why the Jewish vote in NY went to Hillary Clinton even in the face of her kissy-face huggy-huggy session with Raisa(sp?) Arafat and her declarations about the Palistinian state?

Can you explain why Blacks continue to vote for the Democratic party even though none of the promises they make year after year -- vote for me and I'll set you free -- remain unfulfilled; and the only result has been the destruction of the Black family in America?

Why the same laments are raised year after year by the same Black "leaders" of the unfulfilled promises and the continued racism in America?

What has this blind allegiance to the Democratic party brought to these groups?

As for Gays, they are just starting to be courted by the divide-and-conquer democrats and are being used as a cudgel against anyone who expresses anything that doesn't march lockstep. They will use the Gays in the same manner they have used the Jews and the Blacks.

Joe Demko

October 31, 2003, 11:32 AM

Jim Peel,
We'll just take it as read that your rather red-faced and spitting screed about the Democrats is completely true and that the Republicans are their polar opposites. Since the Democrats are evil and mendacious and the Republicans are sweetness and light why do you think that the various ethnic and social minorities that vote as a bloc for the Democrats do so? It couldn't possibly be that the Democrats did a better job of representing those people in their own opinion (rather than yours), now could it? No, it must be that those people simply aren't intelligent enough to vote Republican.

jimpeel

October 31, 2003, 12:20 PM

... red-faced and spitting screed ...BWAAAAAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Since the Democrats are evil and mendacious and the Republicans are sweetness and light why do you think that the various ethnic and social minorities that vote as a bloc for the Democrats do so?If I was asking for a question in answer to my questions, I would have asked "What question would you pose to me on the reasons the aforementioned groups continue to exhibit unfettered fealty to the Democratic party?" now, wouldn't I?

You are attempting to avoid having to actually answer my interrogatories by doing so. Anyway, in your vaunted opinion, I already have all of the answers -- so what are yours? Need I repost the questions again?

No, it must be that those people simply aren't intelligent enough to vote Republican.Again, this was the opinion you gave that caused me to ask the questions I asked in the first place; and which, I must remind you, you have yet to answer. Need I repost the questions again?

Avoidance is futile. You will admonished.

Cosmoline

October 31, 2003, 03:17 PM

"The Democratic party exists as the party of welfare; the party of Socialism; the party of the outstretched palm; the party of taxation; the party of increasingly larger government."

Agreed! And the GOP exists as the party of welfare, the party of Socialism, the party of the outstreched palm, the party of taxation, and the party of increasinly larger gov'ment. The difference is, with the GOP the welfare goes to mega corporations, the taxation falls on the poor, and different parts of the gov'ment get bigger.

I look at the bottom line, not the label. Clinton ended welfare as we know it. GW is overseeing the largest increase in the size and power of the federal gov'ment since WWII. He's created a whole new section--the Dept of Fatherland Security.

I dislike both parties intensely, and will vote for anyone who promises to make the federal government go away and not come back.

jimpeel

October 31, 2003, 06:33 PM

Clinton ended welfare as we know it.AHEM!!! Don't you mean that he signed the legislation brought to his desk by the Republican led Congress -- the third time it was submitted?

Cosmoline

October 31, 2003, 06:53 PM

The end results are all that matter. Whatever GHWB said, he still took away post-ban high caps. That bill has had a much greater impact on my life and RKBA than Klinton's AWB, which frankly is so poorly written it has had no impact at keeping me from buying all the AK's and SKS's I want at low prices.

Maybe GW will let the AWB sunset, but if he signs its renewal as I suspect he will I will see no difference between him and Clinton, other than he made the fed. gov'ment a lot larger than Clinton ever did. Labels and rhetoric don't matter, in other words.

jimpeel

October 31, 2003, 07:25 PM

Agreed! And the GOP exists as the party of welfare, the party of Socialism, the party of the outstreched palm, the party of taxation, and the party of increasinly larger gov'ment. The difference is, with the GOP the welfare goes to mega corporations, the taxation falls on the poor, and different parts of the gov'ment get bigger.Where to begin, where to begin ...

The democrats exist as the new Massahs and the Democratic party as the new plantation. They want to tax everyone who they consider "rich" to give those funds to those they consider "poor". They are buying the "poor" vote just as surely as if they were handing out a check with every vote cast.

The "poor" in America own cars, TVs, VCRs, computers, washers and dryers, and live in some kind of housing. The poor (not the "poor") in other nations have none of the above including the housing. They live in shantys built of corrugated sheet metal that every time there is a storm the death toll is mainly attributable to the sheet metal flying about.

Taxing the rich is a disincentive to them to expand their businesses, hire those "poor" people, and stifles their creativity. Giving the monies gleaned to the "poor" is a disincentive to them to attempt to better themselves as all they have to do is sit back and wait for the mailman.

How many jobs have you gotten from a "poor" guy?

The Ultimate Solution is here

But let's be fair, shall we? Let's do the following so everyone will be equal and the upper and lower classes will be eliminated forever.

Let's have legislation that everyone in America, from the oldest to the youngest, will receive $100,000 per year, tax free, every year, year-after-year. Anyone who earns over $100,000 per year would have all of those excess funds confiscated by a 100% tax. Anyone who earns anything less than $100,000 per year -- from $0 to $99,999 -- would be subsidized the entire amount lacking -- up to $100,000.

What could be fairer than that? Everyone has the same amount of money. Everyone has the same opportunities. Everyone can own what they really want. A just born child could look forward to having his/her first $100,000 on their first birthday. By college, they would have $1,800,000 for college. Everyone would drive a new car. Everyone would live in their own home. Everyone could aford prescriptions and medical care.

Wouldn't they?

OF COURSE NOT!

The earners would have no incentive to earn if they will get what those who sit on their a-- and produce nothing get. They could sit on their a-- and get the same thing.

Manufacturers would go bankrupt as the workforce pared off to their new Lazy-Boy anf watched TV all day. Management would see no benefit in making the company more profitable.

Stores would have no goods to sell as the manufacturers fell by the wayside. Those stores would close their doors as what's the use of investing their $100,000 in goods to sell if all they can earn back from those goods is their original investment?

And that kid with the $1.8 Million for college? S/he would have no incentive to go to college. What's the use? College used to be so you could earn a bigger paycheck and live better than those not so inclined. Now they don't have to go to college. They can just sit home and wait for the mailman like everyone else.

So when you cheer against the producers in the name of the "little guy", there are consequences to be met. When the takers of the largess exceed the producers of the largess you are finished.

There is a great quote by Alexander Tyler: A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy....

The world’s great civilizations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence back again into bondage.

-- Alexander Tyler, Scottish historian (c 1770)We are somewhere between complacency and apathy now. Selfishness came with the Great Society.

jimpeel

October 31, 2003, 07:39 PM

The end results are all that matter. A far cry from what you posted.
Whatever GHWB said, he still took away post-ban high caps.Imported post ban hi-caps as I recall.
Maybe GW will let the AWB sunset, but if he signs its renewal as I suspect he will I will see no difference between him and Clinton, other than he made the fed. gov'ment a lot larger than Clinton ever did.I'll take a wait-and-see on that one. I believe he will crap on anything that is not the exact same law without revision. that way, he gets to say that he was for the ban but not the expanded version presented to him. He gets to smile out of both sides of his mouth that way.

As for the government expansion, I have a similar problem with that. It is too close to "Der Fatherland" for my liking. T.H.E.P.A.T.R.I.O.T.A.C.T. is the worst piece of slime written in this nation since the Alien and Sedition Act. Hopefully, it meets the same fate.

Cosmoline

October 31, 2003, 07:48 PM

Jimpeel--I AGREE with you that the Democratic party is a disgusting joke. So what? So is the GOP. They always have been. Frankly the best thing that could happen to this country is to eliminate both major parties. The ORIGINAL GW--George Washington--warned us all to avoid faction. Instead, we revel in it. Or rather, a small percentage of partisan players revel in faction. The rest of us don't even bother voting half the time.

jimpeel

October 31, 2003, 08:45 PM

The Dems exist as a party of division. The Republicans exist as a party of cowards.

One is bent on the destruction of the other. The other is bent on getting along with their destroyers.

One is bent on the socialization of America. The other is bent on going along if it means getting along.

One calls the other names like Homophobes, Nazis, Racists, etc. The other snivels "They're calling us names!"

The debate has come down to"

"Uh-huh!"

"Nuh-uh!"

"Uh-huh!"

"Nuh-uh!"

"Uh-huh!"

"Nuh-uh!"

We should revel in the fact that the revolution is coming. Hopefully, it comes in the form af a libertarian style party that will displace at least one of the current players.

Dilettante

October 31, 2003, 09:05 PM

(Hutch) (my emphasis)
The Evil party has a power base of a bunch of non-mainstream grievance groups, be they ethnic minorities, females, LGBT's, eco-extremists, homeless advocates, ad nauseum. The Stupid/Gutless party is less dependent on the support of such groups.
Wow, I must be confused. :confused:

I thought Republicans were Evil, and Democrats were Stupid and Gutless. ;)

Monkeyleg

October 31, 2003, 11:23 PM

Jimpeel, you are either rich, honest, or both. You are definitely not a politician, though (and I mean that as the highest form of praise).

Great post!

Sarge

October 31, 2003, 11:37 PM

The Democratic Party has become a sanctuary for the weird, warped and freakish because they are willing to sell their souls for a vote. They'll throw in with anybody, because as a party they have no core values whatsoever. They have become desensitized to right and wrong, for the sake of numerical advantage. Thanks to their darling Kommandante Klinton, the rest of the nation is becoming desensitized as well.

Gunners have fallen into this trap right along with everyone else. Just because something is no longer illegal, doesn't mean that it isn't still a crime against nature. This all-inclusive, politically-correct BS is for the birds. What's next? The "Shooter's Society of Not Quite Convicted Child Molestors"? NAMBLA is working their tails off to help us out there. Or maybe "The Sportsmen's Alliance of Streetcorner Pushers"? Gee, NORML is really breaking a sweat for us there, too. You see, all we gotta do is make all kinds of previously abhorrent conduct legal , and look at the numerical advantage we can gain!

Of course, our personal honor ceases to exist- and we eventually become a hollow, gutted shell of humanity, which collapses without a moral framework to hold it upright. Look what it's done for the Democratic Party.

Your religion is your own business, and I'll not sit back and watch any human harmed- but I'll also not throw in with any organization which compromises the moral fiber that made this a free country in the first place. I have fought this battle for 30 years without them, and I don't need them now. The fact is that people who continually throw their bent sexual preferences in your face are probably single-issue voters anyway. When it comes down to bare knuckles, they're gonna vote for any morally-bankrupt politician that supports their cause. Guess what the odds are that those politicians are supporters of your Second-Amendment rights?

About zero.

I have kept quiet on this issue long enough. I came here to discuss firearms. I am sick of hearing about abnormal sexual behavior, and why we should embrace it's practicioners on the remote possibility that one of them might vote for a pro-gun candidate or cause. Do whatever you want with my registration. If this is what the High Road is all about, then I don't fit here anyhow.

CaesarI

November 1, 2003, 01:16 AM

Jimpeel:
I researched the Tytler quote a few weeks ago. The book some people claim it comes from doesn't exist, and reputable quote books have it listed as unverified. Its sentiments may be correct, but its inaccuracy harms the message.

-Morgan

jimpeel

November 1, 2003, 01:35 AM

I notice you consistently spell the name Tytler. Is the name Tyler or Tytler? I notice that some quotes attribute Tytler while others attribute Tyler.

Perhaps this is why there is such confusion:The author was Alexander Fraser Tytler, a.k.a. Lord Woodhouselee, Scottish professor of history at Edinburgh University.

jimpeel

November 1, 2003, 02:45 AM

Bu bye.

Mark Tyson

November 1, 2003, 08:30 AM

Your religion is your own business

So is someone's sexuality(and yours is your own business as well).

What's next? The "Shooter's Society of Not Quite Convicted Child Molestors"?

Equating consenting adults with child molesters is despicable.

Gee, NORML is really breaking a sweat for us there, too.

Actually a lot of people on this board, me included, favor an end to the drug war.

I have fought this battle for 30 years without them, and I don't need them now.

And we've been losing for 30 years. If we're going to win we've got to address new poiltical realities. The reality is that gays are politically powerful, especially in liberal circles. If we can recruit them to our cause then we have gained a powerful ally. If we let personal prejudices get in the way of our fight for our freedom,then don't be surprised when we lose.

Edited for spelling

Art Eatman

November 1, 2003, 10:41 AM

Mark, remember the adage, "Politics makes for strange bedfellows."?

Sorry; couldn't help it. Just another one of my character defects. :D

Art

CaesarI

November 1, 2003, 05:20 PM

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42460&perpage=25&pagenumber=2

Alexander Fraser Tytler was a real person who existed in the 18th century. He even fits the bill as the sort of person to make such a quote, only the evidence for it is lacking.

If you can find any Alexander Tyler's writing in the 18th century I'm all ears. I'd love for the quote to be verified, but "Respectfully Quoted" has prolly already done more research on it than we'll ever know, on account of the book was compiled by folks workin' for the Congressional research service.

-Morgan

jimpeel

November 1, 2003, 07:22 PM

If you can find any Alexander Tyler's writing in the 18th century I'm all ears.

There seems to be much confusion on the name, Tytler vs Tyler, but one thing that is agreed to in commonality is that the name of the author is also Lord Woodhouslee.

http://www.electricscotland.com/history/men/tytler_alexander.htm

TYTLER, ALEXANDER FRASER, usually styled Lord Woodhouselee, was born in Edinburgh, on the 15th of October, 1747.There is, however, in this treatise no mention of "The decline and fall of the Athenian Empire".

There is a writeup at http://www.usmedicine.com/column.cfm?columnID=127&issueID=49 to which I wrote the author asking where one might access a copy of "The decline and fall of the Athenian Empire". Should be interesting to see the answer.

jimpeel

November 1, 2003, 07:35 PM

During my searches for the works of Lord Woodhouselee I found the most extraordinary site on eighteenth century works

http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/18th/

By adding <alpha>.html to the url, you can see a page dedicated to just those names starting with that character. Example:

http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/18th/w.html

which is where Woodhouselee would be. The searches on authors also take you to those pages.

Definitely a keeper.

jimpeel

November 1, 2003, 08:27 PM

Still waiting.

Need I repost the questions again?

StonerStudent

November 2, 2003, 12:39 AM

Well Sarge

How are gay people compromising honor?

And I have fought for the rights of good and honorable people for just about 30 years myself.

And it's opinions like the NAMBLA crack that gay people end up voting for people like the Clintons and run from the NRA types like myself.

Joe Demko

November 2, 2003, 12:12 PM

Jim Peel,
I already answered your question in my original post. They vote Democratic because they perceive the Democrats as better representing their interests. Whether you agree with those intersts or not, or whether you consider the Democrats evil isn't germane. My rhetorical question about them not being smart enough to vote Republican may have you confused. Let me put it a different way. Tell me one thing you believe that you know is wrong, but you believe it anyway.

CaesarI

November 2, 2003, 06:54 PM

The Library of Congress spells it Tytler, so does a very well put together, and researched biography on the man. Therefore I am confident his name is Tytler, and not Tyler.

I presume you read my earlier post and that is the source of the electric scotland link.

As far as collections of 18th century authors, as noted in the post I made a while back, the Library of Congress has NO entry for "Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic" by this author. In general, if a book doesn't exist in the Library of Congress, it doesn't exist, or has been lost to modern society. Dr. Koenig, is sadly arguing for the truth with a bad weapon. Much like the

The "Universal History" book, is likely a later edition of the "Elements of general history, ancient and modern." I mentioned in my previous post.

Anyone wishing to verify the authenticity of this quote, may read through the book, I am going to place my faith in the Congressional research service which indicates the quote is unverified.... OK... so I started reading through it...

in regards the Spartans:
A communion of property, such as that we have mentioned, is totally adverse to the manners of a savage people, whose characteristic feature is predominant seflishness, and where the notions of the individual with respect to the property he possesses are obstinately repugnant to all communication. - pgs 88-89
A paragraph or two later:
We discover not in barbarous tribes any thing analogous to the oath of government, which, at Sparta, was annually renewed between the kings and people. The king swore to rule according to the laws, and the people took a solemn oath, by the mouth of their magistrates, to be faithful and obedient, on that condition, to their government. -pg 89 (italics HIS).

.... still reading/skimming.

-Morgan

CaesarI

November 2, 2003, 08:52 PM

OK, I skimmed/read through sections I thought might contain the quote, most of which were very good. I then did a search for the terms "public treasury" and found it in 5 instances in the first volume, and 0 instances in the second volume. In none of these instances was the phrase used as part of this broader quote.

The closest to the quote:
There is no maxim more common among the political writers, nor any which is generally received with less hesitation, than this, that the constitution of every empire, like that of the human body, has necessarily its successive periods of growth, maturity, decline, and extinction. The fate of all the ancient nations whose annals are recorded in history has led to the adopting of this as an axiom, for which, independent of experience, it is not very easy to assign a reasonable foundation.- Pg 470 Vol. 1 Book 4 Chapter 6

Finally, in the cover of the book, the name is spelled Tytler. Lest any confusion be still existent, his name is Tytler, not Tyler. And the quote in question does not appear in any part of Alexander Fraser Tytler's book.

I'm done with the matter. The quote's a fake, and I'm satisfied that it is a fake. Anyone wishing to prove otherwise had best provide a book, author, and chapter (preferably page number). For those wishing to do more work than I have already done, I suggest finding an earlier version of his history of the world, perhaps around 1801, that seems to me the most likely, though I doubt it exists even there. Tytler seems largely concerned with immorality being the downfall of civilizations.

-Morgan

CaesarI

November 2, 2003, 08:59 PM

Tytler makes frequent mention of the essay: "Essay on the History of Civil Society" by Dr Adam Fergusson

This may also be a potential source.

Tytler is, however, the author of a very famous quote indeed:

"a republic not of men, but of angels." - pg 219 Vol. 1 Book 2 Chapter 6
in regards to the attempts of men at "perfect" governments.

-Morgan

jimpeel

November 3, 2003, 03:20 AM

Tell me one thing you believe that you know is wrong, but you believe it anyway. :confused:

Should I file that in the drawer marked "What the Hell was that about"? :what:

Perhaps these guys could help you with that: http://www.flat-earth.org/

I believe that there is a Flat Earth Society; and I know that they are wrong; but I believe they exist anyway.

How'd I do? :neener:

jimpeel

November 3, 2003, 03:43 AM

Thank you for your effort. Few make an effort at all, let alone the amount to which you have gone.

I do believe, without reservation, that the quote is indeed a fake; not only from your research but from my own. I, too, was unable to find any reference to a work entitled "The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic" at any level. I also checked the Library of Congress and was unable to find any reference to this imaginary tome.

The portion you posted from Pg 470 Vol. 1 Book 4 Chapter 6 "There is no maxim more common ..." does sound like it may have been where the unknown author of the "quote" metamorphosed it from.

I have also not yet heard from the person I e-mailed.

I was also unable to ascertain what the earliest date might have been that the quote was used.

It is, indeed, a great saying. I guess the attribution will remain unknown and will take its place alongside the likes of the "famous" Hitler quote on gun control.

Thanks again,

J

Mark Tyson

November 3, 2003, 07:44 AM

The flat Earth society? They still around? And on the net ?

Tell me one thing you believe that you know is wrong, but you believe it anyway.

I think he was talking about something that you have no evidence for but believe out of faith. I think.

jimpeel

November 3, 2003, 10:02 AM

I think you maybe might be perhaps kinda right -- I think.

Believing in something that one knows is wrong is not belief. Faith in something that is wrong is not faith. Hitler believed in the wrong he did and considered it right.

To say that, as an example, "I believe in God even though in my heart of hearts I also believe that He doesn't exist" is insanity at its very finest most shining moment.

The question is ludicrous at best; and it is poorly crafted in its composition and is a contradiction in terms. It calls for a negative response; with the exception of the Hitlerian types, of course.

Algebraically the question is ((-1 + 1) + -1) = -1 (I'm wrong)

In Hitler's world, the question would have been ((1 + -1) + 1) = 1 (I'm right)

jimpeel

November 3, 2003, 10:38 AM

Dr. Koenig replied to my e-mail. He is in Argentina and picked up his mail at an Internet cafe. His research materials are at home.

Don Galt

November 3, 2003, 05:14 PM

Well, after many dozens of posts of opinions, I think Sarge cut thru the BS And answered the question in a single post.

The reason gays and jews are democrats is, you can't be a republican without running into people like Sarge all the time.

Its as simple as that.

After 1996 and the "Defense of Marriage" act, which Clinton signed and 2/3 of congressional democrats voted for, I realized the democratic party did not stand for what they claimed. Obviously they couldn't care less about gay rights.

So, I went thru a process of questioning my political views, and long story short, came out of it an anti-tax, pro-capitalism, pro-gun rights, pro-human rights, minimal government advocate.

Which is exactly the position the republicans CLAIM to hold. But it doesn't take long before you notice that they don't vote consistent with that position (hell, even more of them voted against human rights in1996) and you can't go too long in republican circles til you run into someone like Sarge-- an old school religious or racial bigot who has no clue about logic, reason, and what Liberty is. Note, I said, someone "like Sarge". I'm not attacking Sarge. He's just the closest local example of the type of person I'm describing that we've all met.

So those in this thread who have heaped abuse upon the Demoncratic party, recognize that as long as bigotted personalities are prevelent and tolerated in the republican party, gays and jews will choose the supposed protection of the democrats over the promised gas chamber of the republicans. And its not like the republicans dont' vote along the lines consistent with these bigoted views-- the campaign to criminalize homosexuality, porn, out of marriage sex, birth contorl, are all examples that go against the republican alleged principles, but are consistent with the religious agenda.

If the republicans were serious about what they claim, they would REJECT the christian movement. Christians are at their heart socialists (eg: we owe duty to god/the state, and to serve our fellow man). A secular Republican party could stand behind the constitution, not in opposition to it, as it rejects the religiously inspired bad ideas that plague it currently: the persecution of drug users, intolerance towards gays, jews, etc, the pro-military adventurism in defense of Isreal, etc.

Actually, if they were to make this seperation-- and they might if the libertarians become strong enough that they want to coopt them-- then they could become a party that gays, jews ,and all pro-human rights, pro-constitution people could support.

Ironically, this means, that if you believe in the ideology the republicans profess, the best thing you could do is vote libertarian and make the libertarians strong enough to force the republicans to merge with them, or coopt the positions.

But listening to AM radio you find yourself agreeing with much of the positions, and then startled and alarmed when a religiously bigoted, or anti-gay screed comes out of the guys mouth filled with hatred, intolerance and ignorance.

Gays and Jews arent' duped by the democrats lies-- they just don't see an alternative.

Sean Smith

November 3, 2003, 07:13 PM

So those in this thread who have heaped abuse upon the Demoncratic party, recognize that as long as bigotted personalities are prevelent and tolerated in the republican party, gays and jews will choose the supposed protection of the democrats over the promised gas chamber of the republicans. And its not like the republicans dont' vote along the lines consistent with these bigoted views-- the campaign to criminalize homosexuality, porn, out of marriage sex, birth contorl, are all examples that go against the republican alleged principles, but are consistent with the religious agenda.

Comical hyperbole equating Nazis with Republicans aside (stupid on several levels, BTW), your point is quite valid. When the "God Hates Fags" crowd stumps for Bush, who should we expect gays to vote for?

Don Galt

November 3, 2003, 07:56 PM

No, I stand behind the statement. There are republicans on record-- Pat Robertson for one-- calling for the death penalty for homosexuality.

Furthermore, the Nazis were the nationalist socialist party. The republican party is both nationalist and socialist. They profess support for the constitution, but still support the unconstitutional war on drugs. And many of them support the death penalty for drug dealers.

The death penalty for drug dealers is just as immoral as a death penalty for gays or jews.

Its worth noticing that the democrats tend towards state ownership of the means of production style socialism... while republicans want private ownership of the means of production, but with state authority over it. This is the economic definition of facism.

And generally, the republicans actions are pro-authoritarianism. On social issues, they are strongly authoritarian, and on economic issues, their actions are authoritarian, though their rhetoric claims support for smaller taxes, etc.

Look at Reagan's asset forefieture laws, look at the broad support for "law and order" -- concepts not related to justice, and concepts the Nazis embraced to the exlcusion of justice.

Neither party is a pure expression of any of the isms... but calling liberals socialists, is just as much an exageration as calling conservatives fascists.

I think that unfortunately, many conservatives have not reconciled their professed support for economic freedom, liberty and the constitution with their support for the war on drugs, war in the middle east and christian values. But those things are in direct conflict.

jimpeel

November 3, 2003, 08:17 PM

The Democrats are bigots, too. They just don't act the part because they are using the <enter group> for their own personal and party gain. They have become the new Massah on the Democratic plantation. They enslave these groups through broken promises, vote buying through the welfare system, other handouts, and the destruction particularly of the Black family in America through the use of all of the preceding.

Blacks are once again at the back of the bus as the Democratic party now begins to shift its attention to the new voting block they wish to schmoose for their votes. Consider this:

Blacks did the dying, the marching, endured the water cannons, the lynchings, the shootings, and the beatings; and they never let their eyes fall from the prize. Their moment came in 1964 as Democratic resistance fell by the wayside. It was only after this time that the Democratic party became their defenders and started to buddy up to their leaders. Then came "The Great Society" -- the most damaging and demeaning concept, besides slavery, ever to confront Black society.

But, at about this same time, other groups who had not had to endure the water cannons, the lynchings, the shootings, and the beatings started seeing the largess of the "Great Society" and they wanted their piece of the action. "We're minorities too" they said, and the government went along with that. The march to the back of the bus began. Seat by seat they were shoved back by the ever increasing number of groups claiming -- no, demanding -- minority status; and the Democrats gleefully complied.

It was also at about this time that the Vietnam war was winding down and the influx of even more "minorities" landed on our shores. Southeast Asian immigrants, because of their displaced status, were given low interest loans for starting businesses and buying homes that Blacks had never gotten and could never qualify. One more step to the rear, please.

The Democrats made promise after promise to Blacks as the unwed birthrate escalated, fathers fled the home, and Black leaders shifted gears from decreasing racism to promoting it for their own self aggrandizement and monetary gain. Those same Black leaders clove themselves to the Democratic party and encouraged their followers to do the same.

Since that time, Black leaders and their minions have continued to encourage fealty to the Democratic party; and, in true Democratic Party form, call any Blacks who are Republicans "Uncle Toms", "House ******s" and the like. Yet they complain about the same things year after year. Unfulfilled promises, "rampant" racism, disenfranchisement, vote blocking, minority hiring practices, and the like. At the same time, they shake down business enterprises for all they can get using White guilt as their truncheon.

All of the above, witnessed by me over many years was the primary cause I left the Democratic party. They are a sham party pulling the wool over the eyes of those they enslave through their increasingly expensive and failed government programs. They will do anything for a vote. They are a party that stands as the antithesis of the founding documents. Even their name is antithetical to the thinking of the founders of this nation. Those fine men rejected democracy for what it is -- mob rule of the masses. Yet Democrats daily tell us about the fine democracy we live in where the "will of the people" be done. Bull.

In the meantime, the Republican party walks around with both hands clamped firmly over their a$$e$. They are cowards of the worst sort, choosing consensus and compromise over courage.

Don Galt is not generally incorrect in his assessment of them.

They daily make nice to those bent on their destruction because they don't want people to think them incompassionate. They will go along to get along because they are scared to death of being called a name -- any name. They are in constant CYA mode.

"Oh. please Mr. Democrat, please don't call me a racist/homophobe/misogynist/anti-Semite/Nazi or any other name. I'll do anything, anything at all if you will just please not call me a name! I'll sponsor your bill that will bankrupt the country; but please don't call me a name!"

The Democrats ruled the country for sixty years and honed their political skills to a keen edge. The Republicans have no political skills beyond sliding down that keen edge a$$ first.

Look at what they have for "leaders" -- Frist, Lott, et al. They stand at the ready, falling on bended knee with ready apology for whatever the latest accusation -- real or imagined -- might be flung at them.

The entire mess needs to be scrapped and restarted in "safe mode" like some vast national Windows program. If the Libertarians could get their s--- together and stop wasting money on unviable candidates and untenable platforms, we might -- MIGHT -- just be able to save this nation. God (if we are ever again allow to acknowledge Him) help us all in the absence thereof.

CaesarI

November 3, 2003, 09:38 PM

OK Gents...

In the original copy of the text, which I presumed to be authoritative, the source listed was NOT the Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic (which I knew to be a sham as it is an obvious plagiarism of Gibbon's classic work), rather it cited "an 1801 collection of his lectures"

Now... Low and Behold! I found "Plan and Outline Of A Course Of Lectures On Universal History, Ancient and Modern" Delivered in the University of Edinburgh. 1782!!!

Unfortunately... they won't send it to the local Library. It's at the University of Washington, and for local use only. Ugh! (I might drive down there and read through it over some weekend)

His Elements of General History is available however, and will be here post haste. I've ordered the earliest versions I could find, the 1820, and 1823 versions. The earlier ones are on microform, and not available for library transfer.

From what I can gather by the large, vast quantity of versions, and revisions of this text, it was a fairly widely used university text, and it can be surmised that many Americans in the early 19th century were educated by this particular text, though... a curious version
to which are added, a succinct history of the United States ; with additions and alterations by an American gentleman ; supplying important omissions, bringing down the narration of events to the beginning of the present year, and correcting many passages relating to the history of this country ; with an improved table of chronology ; a comparative view of ancient and modern geography ; and questions on each section ; adapted for the use of schools and academies, by an experienced teacher

:-) took offense to Tytler's views of the American colonies, and made a post-mortem revision (I don't think Alex would approve).

A lot of people made additions to the book as Tytler got out of date, all the way into the 1850's at least. As is noted in his biography, Tytler was well thought of when he was lecturing at the time of the birth of our nation.

-Morgan

Joe Demko

November 4, 2003, 10:51 AM

Mr. Peel,
Apparently, then, you don't believe in anything that you know isn't true. Are you, therefore, 100% right about everything?

Sean Smith

November 4, 2003, 01:46 PM

No, I stand behind the statement.

That's nice, but you are a few Republican-sponsored death camps short of having a point... :rolleyes:

Paraphrasing (not even quoting) a statement by one fruit loop who votes Republican hardly constitutes evidence of impending mass murder or grounds for Nazi-invoking hysterics.

Sean Smith

November 4, 2003, 01:48 PM

Apparently, then, you don't believe in anything that you know isn't true.

Talk about an illogical statement... If you know something isn't true, how can you believe in it? Down the rabbit hole we go... :rolleyes:

cordex

November 4, 2003, 02:00 PM

Apparently, then, you don't believe in anything that you know isn't true. Are you, therefore, 100% right about everything?
That is the most laughable conclusion I've seen drawn in a long time.

For your original question, did you mean to say "Do you believe anything you don't have proof for?" or "Do you believe anything you don't know for certain is true?" ...?

Think about what you're saying ...
"If you know something is false, can you believe it?"
"If you respond 'No', then you must be claiming to be infallible."

Joe Demko

November 4, 2003, 02:15 PM

Quite right. Most people do believe themselves to be infallible, though they don't admit it even to themselves. The point I am working towards is that nobody involved really wants debate. What everybody wants is to convert the other guy. Trouble is, the other guy believes himself to be just as infallible as you.

jimpeel

November 4, 2003, 02:24 PM

Apparently, then, you don't believe in anything that you know isn't true. Are you, therefore, 100% right about everything?Another ludicrous question.

Let's look at how this thing is crafted and then maybe you can give me an example of what you are trying to Dig out of the morasse.

"you don't believe" This means that one has doubt; or one is in possession of the knowledge that that which is on the table is untrue; or is of such sufficient doubt of its veracity or existence that true belief cannot exist.

be·lieve
v. be·lieved, be·liev·ing, be·lieves
v. tr.
To accept as true or real: Do you believe the news stories?
To credit with veracity: I believe you.
To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly.

v. intr.
To have firm faith, especially religious faith.
To have faith, confidence, or trust: I believe in your ability to solve the problem.
To have confidence in the truth or value of something: We believe in free speech.
To have an opinion; think: They have already left, I believe.

Idioms:
believe (one's) ears
To trust what one has heard.
believe (one's) eyes
To trust what one has seen.

"in anything" To break that down: any thing. So that means that there is an all inclusive (any) reference to all entities (thing) without exception.

anything

\A"ny*thing\, n. 1. Any object, act, state, event, or fact whatever; thing of any kind; something or other; aught; as, I would not do it for anything.

"that you know isn't true" To break this down to its basic principles:

"know" This would mean that I would have extant knowledge of whatever was on the table. I could swear to the veracity or existence of that entity because I know. There are those who know, those who know not, and those who think they know.

know
v. knew, (n, ny) known, (nn) know·ing, knows
v. tr.
To perceive directly; grasp in the mind with clarity or certainty.
To regard as true beyond doubt: I know she won't fail.
To have a practical understanding of, as through experience; be skilled in: knows how to cook.
To have fixed in the mind: knows her Latin verbs.
To have experience of: “a black stubble that had known no razor” (William Faulkner).

To perceive as familiar; recognize: I know that face.
To be acquainted with: He doesn't know his neighbors.
To be able to distinguish; recognize as distinct: knows right from wrong.
To discern the character or nature of: knew him for a liar.
Archaic. To have sexual intercourse with.

v. intr.
To possess knowledge, understanding, or information.
To be cognizant or aware. [/i]

"isn't true" The opposite of "is true" or "untrue". That which is untrue is a lie, a prevarication.

un·true
adj. un·tru·er, un·tru·est
Contrary to fact; false.
Deviating from a standard; not straight, even, level, or exact.
Disloyal; unfaithful.

So if one were to believe in what one knows is untrue but takes that untruth as the truth; that person is delusional. That person would be prone to being convinced of the veracity or truth of any thing, regardless of stripe, and would believe that untruth to be true in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Thus my answer concerning the Flat Earth Society.

I believe they exist; I believe they are wrong; but I still believe they exist anyway.

THAT'S AS CLOSE AS ANYONE CAN GET TO AN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION!

Perhaps you could enlighten the assemblage here gathered as to something that YOU believe in that you know to be untrue; but you believe in that something anyway.

YOUR TURN

Don Galt

November 4, 2003, 05:47 PM

Its good to know we can count on Sean's support when people are actually being rounded up for death camps! :D

The Nazis were still Nazis before they started building the death camps.

Fascism comes in many forms. To say that only people who heard massive numbers of jews into death camps are fascists is to... change the definition of fascism.

Joe Demko

November 4, 2003, 06:39 PM

Jim Peel,
Nobody believes anything they know to be untrue. Everything you believe, you are convinced is true. Everything the people who disagree with you believe, they are convinced is true. Darned few people are interested in finding out who is really in possession of the truth; if, in fact, anybody is. The main point of all the wrangling back and forth seems to be to make the other guy concede that you (rhetorical you, not you personally) are right and he is wrong. Not only does that ignore the very real possibility that both guys erroneously believe in untruths, it just plain isn't bloody likely to happen.
Internet threads perfectly illustrate the point. Both sides argue endlessly back and forth about a point. Maybe throw in a few ad hominem attacks and a little sarcasm. Get a few people from both sides who couldn't find their a$$es in a dark room with both hands and a flashlight to jump in and say "Yeah! What HE said! With knobs on it!" Get distracted into side arguments like this one for a while. No matter what else happens, though, neither side is going to ever say "You're right, I'm wrong" on any matter that is at essentially belief-based. That means religion and politics in particular. Heck, look at the arguments that go on for pages and pages, often angrily, over matters that are comparatively fact-based, like cartridge performance or the history of some weapons system.
There's no answer you'll accept from me for the "Gays and Jews Question" other than "JimPeel, you were dead right and I was wrong."
But since I, like you, don't believe anything I know to be untrue, that is an answer you won't get.

DRC

November 4, 2003, 07:03 PM

Hello Don,

I assume by the posts you've written in this thread and one other that you are either gay yourself or a gay rights activist and I have no problem with either. In another post I corrected a statement that you made basing it on scripture and did search and found much on the subject but we won't get into that.

What I want to say is this: Get done with your pitty party and learn to understand debate and information! I have a few gay friends and the one thing that always holds true for each is when you start talking about something they don't like you're automatically "gay bashing" if you offer a different point of view. It's just information for consideration dude. Get over yourself!

The definition of a hypocrite would be a couple of posts I've seen here. When did being or voting Republican become synonymous with hearding people into death camps? You're gonna have to do better than just saying it's so bud.

"There are republicans on record-- Pat Robertson for one-- calling for the death penalty for homosexuality."

I did a search (I do this quite often) on Pat Robertson and and the death penalty for homosexuality and surprisingly (not to me that's sarcasm) there are references to Pat Robertson, his views on the death penalty and his disdain for homosexuality. The only references I can find regarding this subject in particular say that the Christian Coalition was instrumental in getting several people elected with strong religious beliefs and some were for the death penalty for homosexuality (but, of course, no reference to who specifically. What a surprise to me)

There are some here that have an aversion to homosexuality no doubt and I believe it to be immoral but I don't "gay bash." I find it hypocritical of you to make accusations of the sort about me and or others all the while bashing Christians. Alls fair in love and war dude so if you've taken offense to some of the things you think I or others have said about homosexuality just know that we Christians have taken offense to your Christian bashing.

I'm a Christian and am proud of it. What I believe and what you believe may be different but that's your choice as well as mine. I believe in what I believe and haven't seen anyone trying to force their beliefs down your throat (as you said) in anyway. If you've been oppressed take it up with your oppressors (the real ones not the ones you've created)

Anyway, have a nice day and take care,

DRC

jimpeel

November 4, 2003, 07:05 PM

Nobody believes anything they know to be untrue.Is that kinda like"Yeah! What HE said! With knobs on it!" ?But since I, like you, don't believe anything I know to be untrue, that is an answer you won't get.THANK YOU!

Ya gotta admit, though, that the Flat Earth answer was a pretty good one :D :D :D

At the now-defunct time.com Pathfinder boards, we were in a harangue about whether Clinton would do something sneaky like use some emergency or other to dodge giving up the throne (9-11 would likely have answered that question if it had happened one year earlier). I brought up the Presidential Executive Orders (PEOs) that give near monarchical power to the likes of FEMA et al in the event of a national emergency. I listed those PEOs and we had quite a discussion about them.

One guy posted the site where all PEOs and their text are posted. He showed me, to my satisfaction, that those PEOs had been cancelled and superceded. After I investigated the site, I was convinced that my premise was wrong. I then posted on the board that, in the face of uncontrovertible proof to the contrary -- to which I concurred -- that I conceded the debate.

The moderator posted that he thought it quite gentlemanly of me to do so and how rare such an instance is on posting boards.

There are those of who will, upon being convinced, admit that our former position was flawed or just plain wrong.

Sarge

November 4, 2003, 08:25 PM

So far I have been called ‘despicable’, and an "old school religious or racial bigot who has no clue about logic, reason, and what Liberty is." Someone actually asked me with a straight face what is dishonorable about homosexuality. Perhaps worst of all, it has been inferred from what I wrote that I am a Republican! This obviously calls for a clarification.

Despicable, for my comment about NAMBLA? Perhaps, but I call them like I see them. In my experience, a significant percentage of the people who commit sex crimes against children have bisexual or homosexual tendencies. It is a percentage which we could do without. The crimes themselves are classified according to the specific acts committed- so people aren’t getting charged with ‘sodomy’ for committing rape. Sex crimes against children are particularly heinous, and offenders of any stripe should be punished severely enough that they are deprived of the chance to offend again- ever. Read into that whatever you want.

I am old school, allright- but my mother was pounding "Fight for the underdog!" into my head from the Cuban missile crisis forward. The seeds she planted led me to a profession where we actually DO something about it, instead of just debating the subject endlessly. PS- I have a pretty good idea of what Liberty is, too, and I didn’t learn it ‘political science, 301". Liberty begins where you can step outside your door and walk the streets free of fear, regardless of your race, color, religion or ethnic group. Liberty’s teeth are the means by which you may secure this freedom on an individual basis, without government’s permission or intervention. Liberty extends to being able to state your opinions in a public forum, regardless of whether they are politically correct or not. Liberty ends where the consensus of popular opinion inhibits your ability to do these things. Liberty does not require a majority to exist.

"Religious" bigot? My religious beliefs and practices are similar to those of the Jews, who were the other half of the original question. The significant difference is that I acknowledge Christ as the Savior. If the conservatives were really "down" on the Jews, Israel would have ceased to exist a long time ago. Unless, of course you are one of those zealots who believe they were God’s chosen people. Count me among them.

"Racial" bigot? I am married to a lovely girl who is a member of the most disaffected minority in the United States- the American Indian. Once her Apache/Commanche temper subside over the insults you have hurled at me, she will have a good laugh at the sheer inanity of the accusation. I have no quarrel with any ethnic group, other than the one which is bent upon erasing us from the earth at this particular moment in time. Perhaps we should resolve our differences for a little while and make sure that they don’t succeed.

And finally, my comment regarding the erosion of personal honor which logically follows the degradation of moral fiber. In my obsolete world, moral fiber and honor go hand in hand. Lillian Hellman stated my case clearly enough when she said "I will not cut my conscience to fit the fashion of the times." There are absolutes of right and wrong, and all the blogging in the world won't change that. I simply choose to acknowledge this as a fact.

The point that I set out to make in my original post was that the homosexual vote is already committed to those in politics who will support the remodeling of society to fit their lifestyle- and that the odds practically zero that they will vote for the conservatives who typically support second amendment issues. It is a moot point, and yes I do sometimes get tired of hearing about it. Apparently some here inferred that I am a hard-line Republican from what I said. Wrong again. I have always voted for whatever candidate had the best record of supporting my right to keep and bear arms, and had the best chance of winning- so long as they do not blantantly compromise the moral foundation upon which this nation was built. I see nothing in politics today which convinces me that this is no longer a valid approach to the problem.

I had seriously considered pulling up stakes here, but you folks obviously need an opinion based in reality once in a while. The mods have been kind and utterly unbiased on this subject, and for this I offer them my sincere appreciation.

Anybody wanna talk about guns???

KeysBear

November 4, 2003, 09:34 PM

I posted here about my real world experiences working with Republicans of all faiths, minorities, and sexual orientations, but found it to be a waste of time so I'm editing it all. Apparently I am a very naive person who just doesn't understand the reasons for hatespeak against people like myself. I see all people as equal and worthy of my respect as human beings. I love my country, vote Republican, and am a Southern Baptist. I am sick of liberal anti-American agendas, but I don't hate the human beings who vote according to their own liberal values. I am astonished at the hateful attitudes toward people like me who have never personally wished any ill toward a person of any minority, faith, lack of faith, or personal sexual orientation. Perhaps a few classes in tolerance would be in order for some of you who are crying about how oppressed you are. I am sure that your hateful feelings come from years of feeling considerable pain, but projecting your hate upon decent loving people is not right.

Regards, Keys :cool:

Mark Tyson

November 4, 2003, 09:48 PM

Sarge I didn't call you as a person despicable. I said the comparison of gays to child molesters was despicable. If a lot of murders are commited by people using guns, we don't tar all gun owners for those crimes, do we?

Liberty begins where you can step outside your door and walk the streets free of fear, regardless of your race, color, religion or ethnic group.

Noble sentiment - why not add sexual orientation to that list? It's as personal a matter as religion.

Cosmoline

November 4, 2003, 09:56 PM

I vote basically as Sarge does--regardless of political party. But the reality is, parties matter. And there is no doubt that most in the GBLT, etc. community are Democrats. Many are LOYAL Democrats. And of course the Democrats for the most part have long embraced an anti-gun agenda. This is all the more reason to be inclusive. One way to break up the power of the Democrats is to steal their core. To the extent loyal Democrats can be alienated from their party on the issue of guns, this will benefit the RKBA. It might not benefit the GOP, since these folks may go to third parties. But from our perspective it will be a positive move. Take out one loyal die-hard Democratic activist over the RKBA and make them a libertarian and you've
done a great deal to help the cause.

jimpeel

November 4, 2003, 10:24 PM

Anybody wanna talk about guns???The General Discussion forum is limited to discussions on guns. In fact the rules for the forum state explicitly "Posts must be related to firearms.". The Legal and Political forum is not.

If you want to talk guns, guns, and only guns, the General Discussion forum is for you.

If you want to discuss the Legal and Political issues of the day, and sometimes have your sensibilities offended, then you are in the right forum.

Derek Zeanah

November 4, 2003, 11:44 PM

And finally, my comment regarding the erosion of personal honor which logically follows the degradation of moral fiber2 questions for you:

1) Were the Spartans a people known for their "honorable" qualities?

2) Was homosexual activity mandatory in that society?

Just checking to see if any cognitive dissonance is going on....

CaesarI

November 5, 2003, 04:42 AM

The Spartans were quite honourable. However the mandation of homosexuality, is something you've conused with the Sacred Band of Thebes. There is no contemporary source, nor archaeological evidence that the Spartans practiced widespread homosexuality. Xenophon (considered the best source on ancient Sparta) denies it explicitly. Aristotle, in explaining the power of women in that society, noted that such was typical in militaristic societies that lacked a strong emphasis on male homosexuality... however Aristotle thought this was a reason the Spartans were so messed up :-) . There is neither Laconian, nor Spartan poetry with explicit homosexuality, and further the state considered bachelorhood a disgrace, and any man who failed to father sons was looked down upon.

dulce et decorum est pro patria mori (but only if your patria is a FREE patria i.e. it would be inappropriate for a Chinaman to mori* for his patria)

-Morgan

* yes I'm aware that mori is already in the infinitive, but give the non-classicists in attendance a break!

Joe Demko

November 5, 2003, 07:52 AM

Spartans honorable? Ask the people they enslaved.

Mark Tyson

November 5, 2003, 10:04 AM

Spartans honorable? Ask the people they enslaved.

Slavery was practiced by most major civilizations in ancient times. Plus, I think the posters are referring exclusively to the Spartan qualities of military courage.

Derek Zeanah

November 5, 2003, 10:06 AM

However the mandation of homosexuality, is something you've conused with the Sacred Band of Thebes.Hey, I was quoting from a PBS special I saw a few months back. :o

Spartans honorable? Ask the people they enslaved.Yeah. Kinda like those dishonorable "founding fathers" I hear so much about. They probably didn't let their women work, or even own property either (insert appropriate George Washington/Martha marriage windfall quote here).

:rolleyes:

Sean Smith

November 5, 2003, 10:25 AM

When did being or voting Republican become synonymous with hearding people into death camps? You're gonna have to do better than just saying it's so bud.

Bingo. And I don't even LIKE the Republican party.

Joe Demko

November 5, 2003, 10:51 AM

Derek,
Whatever martial virtues the Spartans may have had do not make them an admirable society from my point of view. Slavery and infanticide were integral parts of their way of life. They systematically oppressed an entire segment of their population. Once, they even called upon that segment to help them in war and then proceeded to systematically murder them afterward. Their stand against the Persians was brave, epic even. There were also brave Nazis, brave Soviet Commissars, and so forth. That didn't make them honorable.
As for the founding fathers, they had some excellent ideas which they didn't in all cases live up to. Since I don't deify them in the first place, it doesn't distress me to know that every last one of them was a flawed human being who did things wrong. Just like you. Just like me.

Derek Zeanah

November 5, 2003, 12:47 PM

Whatever martial virtues the Spartans may have had do not make them an admirable society from my point of view. And you're welcome to that point of view, and I don't disagree with you. That was posted for Sarge who is arguing what my neighbor calls pollution -- that private behavior can't help but affect society as a whole.

Others who believe as he does value many of the "spartan" ideals. I was looking for his response on this particular issue.

As for the founding fathers, they had some excellent ideas which they didn't in all cases live up to.Which, by your statements above, also makes them fall into the "dishonorable" category. Which is fine, but I might ask just which societies, historically, you do believe were "honorable?" If you can't come up with a solid, not-attackable example, does that mean that "honor" doesn't exist in the real world?

Joe Demko

November 5, 2003, 12:54 PM

I'm not even sure an honorable society exists, as such, because I don't know of any society that has ever lived up (as a society) to its own ideals. There can be, and have been, honorable individuals. Even then, no mere mortal man ever lives up to his own ideals 100% of the time. Can a concept like honor even be applied to a society rather than an individual?

Edited to add: It is not impossible,would you say, that the founding fathers (as individuals) behaved honorably in some circumstances and dishonorably in others?

Andrew Rothman

November 5, 2003, 06:53 PM

In my experience, a significant percentage of the people who commit sex crimes against children have bisexual or homosexual tendencies

First, your alleged experience has led you to a false conclusion.

The overwhelming majority of pedophiles are male
(http://www.childlures.com/research/molester.asp)

1 in 3-4 girls is sexually abused before age 18.
1 in 6-8 boys is sexually assaulted by age 18.
(http://www.childlures.com/research/statistics.asp)
A second problem concerns terminology. Sexual abuse of male children by
adult men1 is often referred to as "homosexual molestation," which implies
that the perpetrator is himself gay or has a homosexual orientation.
Usually, however, the adjectives "homosexual" and "heterosexual" really
refer to the victim's gender in relation to that of the perpetrator, not to
the perpetrator's sexual orientation.

The distinction between gender of victim and sexual orientation of
perpetrator is important because many child molesters have never developed
the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men
or women. Recognizing this fact, Finkelhor and Araji (1986) proposed that
discussions of the sexual attractions of perpetrators should be
conceptualized along a continuum ranging in degrees from exclusive interest
in children to exclusive interest in adult partners.

Similarly, Groth and Birnbaum (1978) categorized child molesters as either
fixated or regressed (see also Groth, Hobson, & Gary, 1982). Fixated
offenders never developed an adult sexual orientation of any sort, whereas
regressed molesters have done so. Thus, regressed molesters can be adult
homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals. But it is meaningless to speak of
fixated molesters in these terms - they are attracted to children, not to
men or women.

Using this distinction, Groth and Birnbaum (1978) found that none of the
175 adult males in their sample - all of whom were convicted in
Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child - had an exclusively
homosexual adult sexual orientation. 83 of the men (47%) were classified as
"fixated;" 70 others (40%) were classified as regressed adult
heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as regressed adult
bisexuals. Of the last group, Groth and Birnbaum observed that "in their
adult relationships they engaged in sex on occasion with men as well as
with women. However, in no case did this attraction to men exceed their
preference for women....There were no men who were primarily sexually
attracted to other adult males..." (p.180).

Another researcher took a different perspective. Dr. Carole Jenny reviewed
352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen
in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children's hospital
during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester
was a gay or lesbian adult in only 2 of the 269 cases in which an adult
molester could be identified (less than 1% of the cases).
(http://surge.ods.org/idle/homosexual/fact_mol.htm)

Second, consider this sentence:

"A significant percentage of people who commit violent crimes own handguns."

People call you bigoted because you demonstrably are. Sorry.

BigG

November 5, 2003, 07:54 PM

As long as individuals prefer to characterize themselves as victims the Democratic party will have lots of willing minions.

Sarge

November 5, 2003, 08:57 PM

Mark-

I didn’t add sexual orientation because, as you said, it is in fact “as personal a matter as religion.” The difference is, that religion is routinely practiced in public. Most decent folk do not make a public spectacle of their sexuality, unless of course they are trying to bludgeon the rest of society into validating it as morally acceptable.

Jim- I stand corrected. It’s a wonder the moderators didn’t raise this issue themselves. Don’t fret about my sensibilities; I’ll be OK.

Derek- How on earth I would be able to answer either of those questions, I’ll never know. I’m not interested in accepting homework assignments but if you’re interested in researching it yourself, I do have a once-read copy of “The Greek Histories” I’d let you have for $20.00. PM me if you’re interested. In my childhood the Spartans were held up as sterling examples of physical fitness and goal orientation. In this regard they have served admirably. As individual people I’m sure they were subject to the same failings that we all are, myself included.

Mpayne- I see this type of thing offered up all the time as rebuttal evidence. You can find an expert or author to support any argument you wish to offer. They are referred to in legal circles as “prostitute witnesses”- anything offered for a price. Among other failings with the ‘research‘, it is ridiculous to infer that hospital personnel are investigating and identifying the sexual preferences of offenders! Anyone who has worked in these settings simply knows better. My ‘alleged’ experience has been from dealing directly with these crimes, and these victims, and putting the offenders where they belong. I cited my own experience, and did not profess to be the central repository of national statistics on the subject. As I also clearly stated, there is no problem with the crimes themselves being charged incorrectly. The sexual orientation of the offender is never a factor in proving the prohibited act(s), and gaining a conviction. It often becomes apparent, however, during the course of the investigation. Most people understand that to the offender, the majority of sex crimes are crimes of violence, crimes of power, as opposed to being crimes motivated by the need for sexual gratification. But they are both to the victims, many of whom are emotionally scarred for life as a result of the experience.

And finally, your bit about "A significant percentage of people who commit violent crimes own handguns." Wrong, and not even remotely relevant to the discussion except for one point. A significant number of people who commit violent crimes possess handguns, and often illegally. It is not the tool itself that causes the crime- it is the misuse of it.

Make what you will of that.

Don Galt

November 6, 2003, 12:50 AM

I think this proves my point-- the subject of gays cannot come up in a gun forum without a variety of people spewing hatred all over. I don't have to quote Phil Gramm advocating concentration camps for gays (to stop the spread of AIDs of course).... there are 20 years of public comments from republicans who advocate political views based on their religion-- political views contrary to the constitution.

When you say "I don't hate gays", but at the same time, give lots of religious excuses for your support for the unconstitutional ban on gay marriage, it becomes very obvious that if you really don't hate gays, you simply don't think they are human. (Or you don't support the constitution).

Attempts to force others to live according to your personal tastes are immoral. It doesn't matter what your religion is-- and when your religion advocates this, then your religion is immoral.

By the way, the vast majority of child molestation is done by straights. Linking that topic with gays is proof positive that someone can't talk about the subject while remaining rational.

But, since many people let religion set their politics-- and religion is based on faith-- by definition their politics are irrational. Faith is the rejection of reason. This is not a personal attack (for all the professional "I'm a persecuted christian" victims)... this is a matter of definition.

And of course, DRC chimes in with the standard "if you don't hate gays, you must be gay" line. IF you want to have a discussion with someone, you would do better to make an argument, rather than starting off by ASSuming something about your opponent and then mischaracterizing them. Unless a flamefest is what you want-- and those aren't appropriate here.

The constitution is clear on these topics-- they are all retained by the people, and the states, and are out of the jurisdiction of the federal government.

You want gays and jews (And other liberals-- hell, half the straight liberals in the country are that way because they view republicans as homophobic or racist) to support gun rights, get over your hatred and start supporting human rights and the constitution.

It would be the christian thing to do.