From: "Ramey, Robert" email@example.com
Well, I never got a response, which leads
me to three possible conclusions;
1) I whipped you. This is not reasonable.
You're too kind
2) You are too busy. I hope this is it.
3) You have decided that I am evil and you
will not waste your time.
I hope this is not it, as it is unreasonable.
I do want to challenge a few of your positions this time.
Robert, good to hear from you.
I love a post with numbers!!!
1. Hate. The dems spew venom endlessly.
They demagogue all that disagree
with them, thus the ridiculous use of the terms "racist, homophobe, uncle Tom", etc..
Whenever anyone disagrees, or more commonly wins an argument
with a liberal, these names are thrown out. Examples. Kay B. Hutchinson is
called an "imposter" woman by the left. C. Thomas is called an Uncle Tom.
"The new KKK doesn't wear robes, they call for tax cuts." Do you remember
these examples? The problem with the "tolerant left" is that they think it
is fine to use these tactics. Classic hypocrisy!!!
Both sides are guilty of name-calling.
It's just that our side doesn't condemn blacks, gays, the poor, immigrants,
teachers, intellectuals, gypsies etc.
I confess I don't know a lot about KB Hutchifelon,
but Clarence Thomas is definitely an Uncle Tom.
Do me a favor: ADMIT that he was
chosen because he was black.
Bush had to appoint someone black to replace Thurgood Marshall,
and he couldn't find any qualified black judges who thought like him,
so he brought up an unqualified man - just because he was black.
I don't think everyone who calls for a tax
cut is in the KKK.
But you have to admit the KKK votes GOP constantly,
at least since George Wallace back in the 60's.
The GOP is also the home of David Duke, Pat Buchanan,
Mark Fuhrman, Tim McVeigh and those whites-only militia groups.
You can't deny that, can you?
By the way, did you see where some top Republicans gathered to
the best ways to rollback the air quality standards if Bush gets elected?
If Bush were elected, and rolled back the air quality standards,
would we be "spewing venom" if we said you guys wanted dirtier air?
2. Intolerance. Again, when the left forces
its views it is called
tolerance, or a civil rights issue. That is why when they litigate against
the boy scouts they are fighting for civil rights. They don't see this for
what it really is, intolerance. They refuse to accept that some people
DISAGREE. They don't see that as they continue their thought police that
slowly ELIMINATE DIVERSITY. But once again, to the left, tolerance
means eliminating those that they cannot refute.
I don't mind that people disagree.
But if a guy hangs a "No Niggers Served" sign in his restaurant,
we're waaaaaay past his right to associate with whom he pleases.
If that's not where you were going, forgive
But banning gays or blacks is something that will get a fight from us.
3. The homosexual issue. List one republican law that takes rights away from gays.
In Oklahoma, they recently passed a "hate crimes" law that adds extra penalties
if the crime was committed for issues concerning race, or sex, or religion,
but the OK GOP specifically refused to add "sexual orientation" to the wording.
The GOP uses the Bible as their main reason to hate.
I think that's awful.
"Why do you hate them?
"The Bible says I must!"
Don't even go to the marriage issue, as
many dems voted with the
right. Also, this is an invalid example because the defense of marriage act
did take away a single right. Yes, it prevented new rights, but the left
has supported this type of legislation all over America.
I have a feeling if it was you and me, we
could agree & make this go away.
I can't speak for gays, but I don't think they're hung up on the word "marriage."
We could agree on a "companion law" where medical benefits and
"family only" issues could be addressed. If two men are together for
30 years and one needs surgery, his partner might be banned from the
hospital because it's "family only."
As far as divorce and stuff, work it like
One union at a time, registered with City Hall, and if the couple splits,
they split the assets and move on, like any couple would.
Take religious insanity out of the equation
and who would argue with
any proposal I've made on this issue?
Refute this!! Christians do not hate gays!!
If they did they would not
tell them to repent. If they repented guess who would be in heaven with
Christians, GAYS!! If Christians hated gays they would say nothing and
allow them to perish. To try to convert would only guarantee ridicule and a
place in heaven for gays. These motives are not consistent with hate.
Please, refute the reasoning. Nobody ever has.
Sure, I can refute that - in a Steve Adler
I don't have a lot of experience with non-religious gay hate, but the
Christians hide behind that "Hate the sin, love the sinner" bullshit.
Why is it so necessary to hate that particular "sin?"
Because the Bible said so?
The Bible is a joke book, written by 4th century idiots.
Nobody should use a 1600-year old joke book to justify their hate.
My bottom line with gay hate is there's
nothing to justify the time
and effort spent to hate those two guys standing over there.
All they've ever asked for is to be treated like everyone else and left alone.
Your side isn't content to let them be.
Your side jumps on a soapbox, and asks for donations to stamp out
the "gay menace" before they drag our children away.
I have a feeling if you were born with a
you'd want to be treated like any other law-abiding American,
not hated by money-grubbing whores of the Christian right.
4. Taxes. Taxing the rich excuses the left
from guilt. Sure, they think they are
compassionate, but how can one be compassionate with other peoples' money?
This is how the left convinces people they care.
"I will take from one and give to another."
Yet they go on living comfortable lives.
To have ANY credibility they would live at the poverty line, giving away all
excess to help the poor. But noooo, they give away other peoples money.
I don't see it that way.
Nobody in America wants higher taxes.
(Nobody in America wants abortions, either)
Let me try it this way:
When a guy like Reagan or Bush retires, they go live in a gated community.
This community has clean streets, exteremely high property values,
a private police force, strict building codes, strict noise ordinances,
perhaps their own medical center or at least instant ambulance service etc.
In other words, they are willing to pay
tons and tons of money to have
cleaner streets, better cops, better health care etc,
but they're not willing to pay higher taxes so everyone can have
cleaner streets, better cops and better health care.
If that's not selfishness, what do you call
I got mine - fuck those other people.
If people like Reagan and Bush moved to
a nice cabin in the woods,
I might buy their "less taxes" philosophy, but nooooooooooo.
They want nice for themselves and screw the others.
That doesn't seem very American to me.
Now, compare the left's view on taxes and
abortion. Abortion should be
legal because it allows a woman to decide what to do with her own body.
She must have reproductive freedom (this argument is so illogical it is
laughable, easily refuted by a ninth grade logic student).
For a guy who wants "less government," how can you allow the federal
government to interfere with the most personal decision possible?
I thought you were for smaller government.
The truth is, sometimes you WANT bigger government - admit it.
You talk about a "slippery slope."
If you give that fetus rights, every miscarriage would have to be investigated
as a possible homicide. The phrase "didn't realize she was pregnant" sounds
too much like, "I didn't realize the gun was loaded."
That means every woman of child-bearing
age must be inspected monthly.
How else will your government know if a woman miscarries a month-old fetus?
If we did things your way, we'd need a million "uterus police."
Sounds like a nightmare, doesn't it?
Yet, while fighting for "private property"
(body), they force their ways into
other peoples pocketbooks. To be consistent here they would have to
stay out of the bedroom and out of the pocketbook.
Do you have running water in your house?
Taxes enabled the city to construct a water system that benefits all.
Sure, you could have a private well on your land, but it wouldn't be
very practical. Pooling our money for a water system is, technically
"socialized water," but it works, and it works pretty well.
Yes, you were "forced" to pay for that water, but if you lived in a cabin
in the country, you wouldn't have to pay for those fancy liberal services.
Look at it like fireworks.
If you want to shoot roman candles, fine, but not in the city.
Buy some property in the woods and shoot till you have eight fingers.
5. Safety net. The left does not want a
safety net, they want a stretcher.
(That's a good line.)
That way they can promise to take care of our needs and retain their power.
I come from a welfare family. We all voted for the person that promised more.
I got wise and saw this as a scam.
I'm pretty sure the welfare rolls have shrunken
like crazy in the last 8 years.
Having a Democrat control the economy does wonders for job hunters.
Since 20 million more people are working now than in 1992, those people
are paying taxes. They are contributing instead of draining the coffers.
It is simple.
I see the left as a group of people that want to eliminate freedom.
Aw, now, that's
He doesn't mean it.
He's getting paid $2,000,000 a month to say that crap.
You don't mean that, do you?
Take away my right to visit with the people I wish to be with.
That's horse hockey.
If you want to visit cousin Ned in Chicago, who will stop you?
You must've meant something other than what you wrote.
If you want a "whites-only" hotel or restaurant, we have a problem.
Take my money so I have to work more hours.
I'll give you that one.
That's called "society."
We'll take your house, too, if we need an Interstate Highway
to run through your property.
If you know of a tax-free city, let us in on it.
Tell me, do you get upset when you have
to work longer hours to pay for
an $88,000,000 Osprey helicopter that the Pentagon doesn't want?
Your Republican congress has ordered 300 of those non-flying bastards,
even tho our soldiers continue to die in them.
If you want to rail against something real, rail against that.
Stifle my freedom of thought so there are
no challenges to their views.
Fire student journalists from campus newspapers that challenge the
elitist views of the left so that there is only one viewpoint taught.
You're slipping into something uncomfortable.
Bart, I do not doubt you passion for a just
You are sincere, sincerely wrong.
Label me the same way, as misguided, wrong, I do not care.
But please, stop attributing such things as racism, homophobia, and other
things that have no place in my life or the majority of republican's lives.
Show me a black or gay Republican electee
and I'll believe you.
(Uncle OJ Watts doesn't count - he was a football hero.)
Consider that we simply disagree. There
is plenty of evidence to support the
views of either side. The question is, will you and the left continue to demagogue
us or will you finally see that you are not the anointed position.
Yes, there is room for disagreement.
It is called tolerance.
It is called respect.
It is called diversity.
I have these things.
Your side won't vote for a black man or
a gay man,
but we're supposed to think you're tolerant and diverse?
You can claim any position you want.
But until you send blacks and gays to congress,
we will know you're kidding yourself.
If you walk in the same donut shop for 40
years and order
a grape-jelly donut, we're going to giggle when we hear you claim,
"I enjoy eating all kinds of donuts."
I had fun.
Let's do it again,