>>"Son, sometimes you can learn as much about a man from the >>way he argues his point as you can from the point he's >>trying to make."
Fair enough. I'd apologise if you find my `directness` distasteful or unnerving - but then I know life becomes very boring if we all start acting like sisters in agreement.
>>That goes along with some other things he said to me like >>"Words are just wind and some folks blow real hard but you >>find the truth of a man in his actions."
In the words of the Saturday Night Live parody of the 2nd Pres. Debate..."I Agree"
>>As racial issues have been a large part of the pot >>stirring that has been taking place is anyone here aware >>of what a "racial covenant" is? Chavez and Powell could >>be invited to join his cabinet but they sure as hell could >>not live in his home.
It's interesting that the left (forgive the generalisation) expect to be able to judge the private life of a right-wing politician. Yet when the right-leaning hacks start harping on the compromises in the lives of Bill/Hill/Gore/Jesse Jackson/Sharpton all of a sudden it's a debate that's based on the `supposed` racist/sexist/mean spirited (delete as applicable) leanings of the said hacks.
If a certain code is good for one side then it should be good for the other. In the same way that the Rep. attack dogs went after the Clinton's - you can expect the Dem. attack dogs to go after Bush. Fair enough. In the way that certain figurehead Rep's backed down when it came to impeachement - Tom Daschle (very commendably) said that before Bush gets into office they won't try and railroad anything into law. In his own words there won't be "13 days that shock the world" - he has got his `troops` to show good faith to the incoming administration.
Going back to your point, I could understand individuals who wish to dish every piece of dirt on Bush - but I'm sure you know there's plenty in Clinton and Gore's background's to nail them up as sad impressions of former `great leaders`. On the subject of racial pot-stirring, Al Gore Snr was at one time a big proponent of racial segregation. Did he actually do anything substantive to move away from that, or did Junior dupe the black churches when they let him speak? Normally racists sons often don't fare well in those kinds of places, for obvious reasons.
>>I could also point out things like on Junior's watch no >>less than 8 state funded schools for people of "color" >>were denied funds and forced to close. You can spend time
>>rationalizing away reasons why these colleges were closed >>but I think these actions paint an interesting picture of >>the man.
I could also point out that as my wife teaches high-school in Texas I know some of the politics behind schools closing, I would be willing to bet that the school's were just not performing. What is the rationalization?
Or would your conscience feel appeased to know that average schools were being bankrolled because "we don't want to upset or offend the people of color"? It's idealistic to think that we can be totally colorblind, but we'll be having this converstaion in 20 years time if we don't give everyone a chance from the start. I know it's really stirring the PC- pot to suggest that crap high schools should be closed so that every child is on a level standing from day one.
>>I don't want to to enter into arguements about Bush or >>Ashcroft or any of that puke Goldberg or any of those >>other hacks spew because they disgust me. Sure you can >>take David's advice and follow the money or if you can >>stomach it you can read the record and follow their >>actions. They do speak louder than words.
Those `other hacks` are just frames of reference, they're either right or wrong and we weigh up the evidence as we go. The (projected) fact that the mainstream media is 70% plus Democrat makes me spew because it just isn't representative.
I know you don't want to talk about Aschcroft, but why are Pentecostals in governement a `big threat` to all free-thinkers yet when certain Muslims show up in DC mob handed advocating inverted *apartheid* the same (supposed) free-thinkers bleat `freedom of speech`?
It was Bruce Cockburn who said that the 80's was a hotbed of the ultra-conservative and the 90's was a hotbed of the ultra-liberal. Then, Andrew Stephen said in the New Statesman that "my sneaking belief is that those who pursue PC laws and rules most avidly are, subconciously, often not seeking justice and fairness at all; they are usually from the complacent middle classe, comfortable with the status quo and merely seeking gratification that they are conforming to notions of equality and fairness for all. The wheel turns full circle, with the truly oppressed remaining opressed while the consciences of those who could do something about it are appeased"
Finally Mick Hume (also from the New Statesman) said, in reviewing the book `Trust No One` "Conspiracy thinking is, in essence, an intellectual endorsment of ignorance, fear and powerlessness".
*I* would conclude that Mr Hume's comment is the reason I am in this kind of forum. If I can't change the world, at least I can make waves with other people and we can remain static or be moved as we see fit. So much is made of `free speech` and the gifts it brings, I would suggest freedom of thought is far more important.
Richard
to clarify - pt 2
R
richard
(view)
>>"Son, sometimes you can learn as much about a man from the >>way he argues his point as you can from the point he's >>trying to make."
Fair enough. I'd apologise if you find my `directness` distasteful or unnerving - but then I know life becomes very boring if we all start acting like sisters in agreement.
>>That goes along with some other things he said to me like >>"Words are just wind and some folks blow real hard but you >>find the truth of a man in his actions."
In the words of the Saturday Night Live parody of the 2nd Pres. Debate..."I Agree"
>>As racial issues have been a large part of the pot >>stirring that has been taking place is anyone here aware >>of what a "racial covenant" is? Chavez and Powell could >>be invited to join his cabinet but they sure as hell could >>not live in his home.
It's interesting that the left (forgive the generalisation) expect to be able to judge the private life of a right-wing politician. Yet when the right-leaning hacks start harping on the compromises in the lives of Bill/Hill/Gore/Jesse Jackson/Sharpton all of a sudden it's a debate that's based on the `supposed` racist/sexist/mean spirited (delete as applicable) leanings of the said hacks.
If a certain code is good for one side then it should be good for the other. In the same way that the Rep. attack dogs went after the Clinton's - you can expect the Dem. attack dogs to go after Bush. Fair enough. In the way that certain figurehead Rep's backed down when it came to impeachement - Tom Daschle (very commendably) said that before Bush gets into office they won't try and railroad anything into law. In his own words there won't be "13 days that shock the world" - he has got his `troops` to show good faith to the incoming administration.
Going back to your point, I could understand individuals who wish to dish every piece of dirt on Bush - but I'm sure you know there's plenty in Clinton and Gore's background's to nail them up as sad impressions of former `great leaders`. On the subject of racial pot-stirring, Al Gore Snr was at one time a big proponent of racial segregation. Did he actually do anything substantive to move away from that, or did Junior dupe the black churches when they let him speak? Normally racists sons often don't fare well in those kinds of places, for obvious reasons.
>>I could also point out things like on Junior's watch no >>less than 8 state funded schools for people of "color" >>were denied funds and forced to close. You can spend time
>>rationalizing away reasons why these colleges were closed >>but I think these actions paint an interesting picture of >>the man.
I could also point out that as my wife teaches high-school in Texas I know some of the politics behind schools closing, I would be willing to bet that the school's were just not performing. What is the rationalization?
Or would your conscience feel appeased to know that average schools were being bankrolled because "we don't want to upset or offend the people of color"? It's idealistic to think that we can be totally colorblind, but we'll be having this converstaion in 20 years time if we don't give everyone a chance from the start. I know it's really stirring the PC- pot to suggest that crap high schools should be closed so that every child is on a level standing from day one.
>>I don't want to to enter into arguements about Bush or >>Ashcroft or any of that puke Goldberg or any of those >>other hacks spew because they disgust me. Sure you can >>take David's advice and follow the money or if you can >>stomach it you can read the record and follow their >>actions. They do speak louder than words.
Those `other hacks` are just frames of reference, they're either right or wrong and we weigh up the evidence as we go. The (projected) fact that the mainstream media is 70% plus Democrat makes me spew because it just isn't representative.
I know you don't want to talk about Aschcroft, but why are Pentecostals in governement a `big threat` to all free-thinkers yet when certain Muslims show up in DC mob handed advocating inverted *apartheid* the same (supposed) free-thinkers bleat `freedom of speech`?
It was Bruce Cockburn who said that the 80's was a hotbed of the ultra-conservative and the 90's was a hotbed of the ultra-liberal. Then, Andrew Stephen said in the New Statesman that "my sneaking belief is that those who pursue PC laws and rules most avidly are, subconciously, often not seeking justice and fairness at all; they are usually from the complacent middle classe, comfortable with the status quo and merely seeking gratification that they are conforming to notions of equality and fairness for all. The wheel turns full circle, with the truly oppressed remaining opressed while the consciences of those who could do something about it are appeased"
Finally Mick Hume (also from the New Statesman) said, in reviewing the book `Trust No One` "Conspiracy thinking is, in essence, an intellectual endorsment of ignorance, fear and powerlessness".
*I* would conclude that Mr Hume's comment is the reason I am in this kind of forum. If I can't change the world, at least I can make waves with other people and we can remain static or be moved as we see fit. So much is made of `free speech` and the gifts it brings, I would suggest freedom of thought is far more important.
Richard
Fair enough. I'd apologise if you find my `directness` distasteful or unnerving - but then I know life becomes very boring if we all start acting like sisters in agreement.
>>That goes along with some other things he said to me like >>"Words are just wind and some folks blow real hard but you >>find the truth of a man in his actions."
In the words of the Saturday Night Live parody of the 2nd Pres. Debate..."I Agree"
>>As racial issues have been a large part of the pot >>stirring that has been taking place is anyone here aware >>of what a "racial covenant" is? Chavez and Powell could >>be invited to join his cabinet but they sure as hell could >>not live in his home.
It's interesting that the left (forgive the generalisation) expect to be able to judge the private life of a right-wing politician. Yet when the right-leaning hacks start harping on the compromises in the lives of Bill/Hill/Gore/Jesse Jackson/Sharpton all of a sudden it's a debate that's based on the `supposed` racist/sexist/mean spirited (delete as applicable) leanings of the said hacks.
If a certain code is good for one side then it should be good for the other. In the same way that the Rep. attack dogs went after the Clinton's - you can expect the Dem. attack dogs to go after Bush. Fair enough. In the way that certain figurehead Rep's backed down when it came to impeachement - Tom Daschle (very commendably) said that before Bush gets into office they won't try and railroad anything into law. In his own words there won't be "13 days that shock the world" - he has got his `troops` to show good faith to the incoming administration.
Going back to your point, I could understand individuals who wish to dish every piece of dirt on Bush - but I'm sure you know there's plenty in Clinton and Gore's background's to nail them up as sad impressions of former `great leaders`. On the subject of racial pot-stirring, Al Gore Snr was at one time a big proponent of racial segregation. Did he actually do anything substantive to move away from that, or did Junior dupe the black churches when they let him speak? Normally racists sons often don't fare well in those kinds of places, for obvious reasons.
>>I could also point out things like on Junior's watch no >>less than 8 state funded schools for people of "color" >>were denied funds and forced to close. You can spend time
>>rationalizing away reasons why these colleges were closed >>but I think these actions paint an interesting picture of >>the man.
I could also point out that as my wife teaches high-school in Texas I know some of the politics behind schools closing, I would be willing to bet that the school's were just not performing. What is the rationalization?
Or would your conscience feel appeased to know that average schools were being bankrolled because "we don't want to upset or offend the people of color"? It's idealistic to think that we can be totally colorblind, but we'll be having this converstaion in 20 years time if we don't give everyone a chance from the start. I know it's really stirring the PC- pot to suggest that crap high schools should be closed so that every child is on a level standing from day one.
>>I don't want to to enter into arguements about Bush or >>Ashcroft or any of that puke Goldberg or any of those >>other hacks spew because they disgust me. Sure you can >>take David's advice and follow the money or if you can >>stomach it you can read the record and follow their >>actions. They do speak louder than words.
Those `other hacks` are just frames of reference, they're either right or wrong and we weigh up the evidence as we go. The (projected) fact that the mainstream media is 70% plus Democrat makes me spew because it just isn't representative.
I know you don't want to talk about Aschcroft, but why are Pentecostals in governement a `big threat` to all free-thinkers yet when certain Muslims show up in DC mob handed advocating inverted *apartheid* the same (supposed) free-thinkers bleat `freedom of speech`?
It was Bruce Cockburn who said that the 80's was a hotbed of the ultra-conservative and the 90's was a hotbed of the ultra-liberal. Then, Andrew Stephen said in the New Statesman that "my sneaking belief is that those who pursue PC laws and rules most avidly are, subconciously, often not seeking justice and fairness at all; they are usually from the complacent middle classe, comfortable with the status quo and merely seeking gratification that they are conforming to notions of equality and fairness for all. The wheel turns full circle, with the truly oppressed remaining opressed while the consciences of those who could do something about it are appeased"
Finally Mick Hume (also from the New Statesman) said, in reviewing the book `Trust No One` "Conspiracy thinking is, in essence, an intellectual endorsment of ignorance, fear and powerlessness".
*I* would conclude that Mr Hume's comment is the reason I am in this kind of forum. If I can't change the world, at least I can make waves with other people and we can remain static or be moved as we see fit. So much is made of `free speech` and the gifts it brings, I would suggest freedom of thought is far more important.
Richard
