Conference back40::soapbox

    politician or journalist? you decide.

    attention seeker, self-proclaimed moral arbiter, isolationist, radical,
    key reason the right gets a bad name.

    
    My choice for Prez. so far.
    I've always enjoyed listening to him on the talking heads show
    and generally agree with most of his views.
    Contrary to popular revisionism, I thought his convention speech
    in 92 was brilliant and courageous (so called code words be damned).
    I think he's the only one out there who could revive and
    restore the Reagan Revolution, as it's called.
    
    Admittedly some of his views are quite radical and I do not agree
    with some but I would expect congress to moderate him if elected.
    But then, I don't think he stands a chance at present.
    
    						Hank

>    key reason the right gets a bad name.

My sentiments precisely. His name immediately pops to mind when the phrase
"legislate morality" is mentioned.

>    But then, I don't think he stands a chance at present.

Thank goodness for small favors.

    I've read his '92 speech in its entirety more than once, and I simply
    don't see what all the hubub is about.  I've also seen him speak on
    more than one occation.  I tend to agree with a lot that he says.  Some
    views may be a bit radical, but if they were equally radical from the
    liberal side of things, he would not be getting bad press.
    
    The press will continue to wrongfully demonize him, simply because they
    are in bed with the "business as usual" politicians.  If you need an
    example, look at how the media hyped up the GOP's suggested cola decrease 
    in Medica**.  ANY program/politician that attempts to bring government
    under REAL control of the people, will get thoroughly trashed in the
    media.  Buchanan is one candidate that I believe would put forth such
    an effort.
    
    Too bad he hasn't a snow-ball's chance in hell of winning.  The press
    did a number on him long ago, and that reputation will stick with him. 
    In actuality, he is probably the best candidate for the
    re-establishment of constitutional authority in America.
    
    Next time you watch him, ignore your preconceived notions and media
    hype, listen to what he actually says.
    
    
    -steve
    

        <--- So, do you use pocket new testaments for blinders?

    Glenn, I corroberate Steve's claims.  The hubub regarding Buchanan's
    speech is total nonsense.
    
    

 I'm with Misters Modica, Leech and Martin.  Much of what Buchanan says is
 taken out of context and twisted.  Of all the candidates I've heard/seen
 he makes the most sense to me and is the only one whom I believe will do
 what he says.

 Unfortunately, he doesn't stand a chance, but he will get my vote in the
 NH primary.



 Jim

Speaks his mind, calls a spade a spade. Provides good basis for his positions. 
Sturdy character, you can trust he means what he says.

Potential to make a good leader (whether you agree with his positions or not).

Glad to have him around as, at the very least, a sanity check.

    A couple of weeks ago in some other topic I'd asked if anyone knew
    exactly what Buchanan has said that has caused him to be slammed by
    just about everybody.  I haven't followed him very closely, so I'd
    be curious to know if the general autonomic reaction to him is
    justified.
    
    I've heard a little on his "isolationist" views, and that much
    I like (surprise!).  I don't know where he stands on other areas.
    He doesn't seem to get much press, probably intentionally.
    
    Chris

    Chris, maybe this will help.
    
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
Here is the text of a speech prepared for delivery to the
Republican National Convention Monday by Patrick J. Buchanan: 
   
   Well, we took the long way home, but we finally got here. 
   And I want to congratulate President Bush, and remove any doubt about where
we stand: The primaries are over, the heart is strong again, and the Buchanan
Brigades are enlisted -- all the way to a great comeback victory in November. 
   Like many of you last month, I watched that giant masquerade ball at Madison
Square Garden -- where 20,000 radicals and liberals came dressed up as moderates
and centrists -- in the greatest single exhibition of cross-dressing in American
political history. 
   One by one, the prophets of doom appeared at the podium. The Reagan Decade,
they moaned, was a terrible time in America; and the only way to prevent even
worse times, they said, is to entrust our nation's fate and future to the party
that gave us McGovern, Mondale, Carter and Michael Dukakis. 
   No way, my friends. The American people are not going to buy back into the
failed liberalism of the 1960s and '70s -- no matter how slick the package in
1992. 
   The malcontents of Madison Square Garden notwithstanding, the 1980s were not
terrible years. They were great years. You know it. I know it. And the only
people who don't know it are the carping critics who sat on the sidelines of
history, jeering at one of the great statesmen of modern time. 
   Out of Jimmy Carter's days of malaise, Ronald Reagan crafted the longest
peacetime recovery in U.S. history -- 3 million new businesses created, and 20
million new jobs. 
   Under the Reagan Doctrine, one by one, the communist dominos began to fall.
First, Grenada was liberated, by U.S. troops. Then, the Red Army was run out of
Afghanistan, by U.S. weapons. In Nicaragua, the Marxist regime was forced to
hold free elections - by Ronald Reagan's contra army -- and the Communists were
thrown out of power. 
   Have they forgotten? It was under our party that the Berlin Wall came down,
and Europe was reunited. It was under our party that the Soviet Empire
collapsed, and the captive nations broke free. 
   It is said that each president will be recalled by posterity -- with but a
single sentence. George Washington was the father of our country. Abraham
Lincoln preserved the Union. And Ronald Reagan won the Cold War. And it is time
my old colleagues, the columnists and commentators, looking down on us tonight,
from their anchor booths and sky boxes, gave Ronald Reagan the credit he
deserves -- for leading America to victory in the Cold War. 
   Most of all, Ronald Reagan made us proud to be Americans again. We never felt
better about our country; and we never stood taller in the eyes of the world. 
   But, we are here, not only to celebrate, but to nominate. And an American
president has many, many roles. 
   He is our first diplomat, the architect of American foreign policy. And which
of these two men is more qualified for that role? George Bush has been U.N.
ambassador, CIA director, envoy to China. As vice president, he co-authored the
policies that won the Cold War. As president, George Bush presided over the
liberation of Eastern Europe and the termination of the Warsaw Pact. And Mr.
Clinton? Well, Bill Clinton couldn't find 150 words to discuss foreign policy in
an acceptance speech that lasted an hour. As was said of an earlier Democratic
candidate, Bill Clinton's foreign policy experience is pretty much confined to
having had breakfast once at the International House of Pancakes. 
   The presidency is also America's bully pulpit, what Mr. Truman called,
"pre-eminently a place of moral leadership." George Bush is a defender of right
to life, and life-long champion of the Judeo-Christian values and beliefs upon
which this nation was built. 
   Mr. Clinton, however, has a different agenda. 
   At its top is unrestricted abortion on demand. When the Irish-Catholic
governor of Pennsylvania, Robert Casey, asked to say a few words, on behalf of
the 25 million unborn children destroyed since Roe v. Wade, he was told there
was no place for him at the podium of Bill Clinton's convention, no room at the
inn. 
   Yet, a militant leader of the homosexual rights movement could rise at that
convention and exult: "Bill Clinton and Al Gore represent the most pro-lesbian
and pro-gay ticket in history." And so they do. 
   Bill Clinton supports school choice -- but only for state-run schools.
Parents who send their children to Christian schools, or Catholic schools, need
not apply. 
   Elect me, and you get two for the price of one, Mr. Clinton says of his
lawyer-spouse. And what does Hillary believe? Well, Hillary believes that
12-year-olds should have a right to sue their parents, and she has compared
marriage as an institution to slavery -- and life on an Indian reservation. 
   Well, speak for yourself, Hillary. 
   Friends, this is radical feminism. The agenda Clinton & Clinton would impose
on America -- abortion on demand, a litmus test for the Supreme Court,
homosexual rights, discrimination against religious schools, women in combat --
that's change all right. But it is not the kind of change America wants. It is
not the kind of change America needs. And it is not the kind of change we can
tolerate in a nation that we still call God's country. 
   A president is also commander-in-chief, the man we empower to send sons and
brothers, fathers and friends, to war. 
   George Bush was 17 when they bombed Pearl Harbor. He left his high school
class, walked down to the recruiting office, and signed up to become the
youngest fighter pilot in the Pacific War. And Mr. Clinton? When Bill Clinton's
turn came in Vietnam, he sat up in a dormitory in Oxford, England, and figured
out how to dodge the draft. 
   Which of these two men has won the moral authority to call on Americans to
put their lives at risk? I suggest, respectfully, it is the patriot and war
hero, Navy Lt.j.g George Herbert Walker Bush. 
   My friends, this campaign is about philosophy, and it is about character; and
George Bush wins on both counts -- going away; and it is time all of us came
home and stood beside him. 
   
   As running mate, Mr. Clinton chose Albert Gore. And just how moderate is
Prince Albert? Well, according to the Taxpayers Union, Al Gore beat out Teddy
Kennedy, two straight years, for the title of biggest spender in the Senate. 
   And Teddy Kennedy isn't moderate about anything. 
   In New York, Mr. Gore made a startling declaration. Henceforth, he said, the
"central organizing principle" of all governments must be: the environment. 
   Wrong, Albert! 
   The central organizing principle of this republic is freedom. And from the
ancient forests of Oregon, to the Inland Empire of California, America's great
middle class has got to start standing up to the environmental extremists who
put insects, rats and birds -- ahead of families, workers and jobs. 
   One year ago, my friends, I could not have dreamt I would be here. I was then
still just one of many panelists on what President Bush calls, "those crazy
Sunday talk shows." 
   But, I disagreed with the president; and so we challenged the president in
the Republican primaries, and fought as best we could. From February to June, he
won 33 primaries. I can't recall exactly how many we won. 
   But, tonight, I want to talk to the 3 million Americans who voted for me: I
will never forget you, nor the great honor you have done me. But, I do believe,
deep in my heart, that the right place for us to be now -- in this presidential
campaign -- is right beside George Bush. This party is our home, this party is
where we belong. And, don't let anyone tell you any different. 
   Yes, we disagreed with President Bush, but we stand with him for
freedom-of-choice religious schools, and we stand with him against the amoral
idea that gay and lesbian couples should have the same standing in law as
married men and women. 
   We stand with President Bush for right to life, and for voluntary prayer in
the public schools -- and against putting American women in combat. And we stand
with President Bush in favor of the right of small towns and communities to
control the raw sewage of pornography that pollutes our popular culture. 
   We stand with President Bush in favor of federal judges who interpret the law
as written, and against Supreme Court justices who think they have a mandate to
rewrite our Constitution. 
   My friends, this election is about much more than who gets what. It is about
who we are. It is about what we believe, it is about what we stand for as
Americans. There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of
America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day
be -- as was the Cold War itself. And in that struggle for the soul of America,
Clinton & Clinton are on the other side, and George Bush is on our side. And,
so, we have to come home -- and stand beside him. 
   My friends, in those six months -- from Concord to California -- I came to
know our country better than ever before in my life, and I collected memories
that will be with me always. 
   There was that day-long ride through the great state of Georgia in a bus Vice
President Bush himself had used in 1988 -- a bus they called Asphalt One. The
ride ended with a 9 p.m. speech, in front of a magnificent Southern mansion, in
a town called Fitzgerald. 
   There were the workers at the James River Paper Mill, in the frozen North
Country of New Hampshire, hard, tough men, one of whom was silent, until I shook
his hand. Then, he looked up in my eyes, and said, "Save our jobs!" 
   There was the legal secretary at the Manchester airport on Christmas Day, who
told me she was going to vote for me, then broke down crying, saying, "I've lost
my job, I don't have any money; they're going to take away my daughter. What am
I going to do?" 
   My friends, even in tough times, these people are with us. They don't read
Adam Smith or Edmund Burke, but they came from the same schoolyards and
playgrounds and towns as we did. They share our beliefs and convictions, our
hopes and our dreams. They are the conservatives of the heart. They are our
people. And, we need to reconnect with them. We need to let them know we know
they're hurting. They don't expect miracles, but they need to know we care. 
   There were the people of Hayfork, the tiny town high up in California's
Trinity Alps, a town that is now under a sentence of death, because a federal
judge has set aside 9 million acres for the habitat of the spotted owl --
forgetting about the habitat of the men and women who live and work in Hayfork.
And there where the brave live the family values we treasure, and who still
believe deeply in the American dream. 
   Friends, in those wonderful 25 weeks, the saddest days were the days of the
bloody riot in L.A., worst in our history. But even out of that awful tragedy
can come a message of hope. 
   Hours after the violence ended I visited the Army compound in south L.A.,
where an officer of the 18th Cavalry, that had come to rescue the city,
introduced me to two of his troopers. They could not have been 20 years old. He
told them to recount there story. 
   They had come into Los Angeles late on the second day; and they walked up a
dark street, where the mob had looted and burned every building but one, a
convalescent home for the aged. The mob was heading in, to ransack and loot the
apartments of the terrified old men and women. When the troopers arrived, M-16s
at the ready, the mob threatened and cursed, but the mob retreated. It had met
the one thing that could stop it: force, rooted in justice, backed by courage. 
   Greater love than this hath no man than that he lay down his life for his
friend. Here were 19-year-old boys ready to lay down their lives to stop a mob
from molesting old people they did not even know. And, as they took back the
streets of Los Angeles, block by block, so we must take back our cities, and
take back our culture, and take back our country. 
   God bless you, and God bless America. 

    I will concur with the assessment that he is a straight shooter but his
    ideas are too far to the right for most, IMO and in this I take
    comfort.  Hopefully some of what he has to offer will pop-up and be
    adopted in milder forms.  If elected however, I fear his leadership
    would bring the dark ages to modern times.  One step closer to a
    theocratic fundamentalist state.  
    
    Brian

Not exactly a speech which rings with tolerance for those who don't
necessarily share his views on "morality", is it?

Look - I'm no liberal, but as a devout atheist, I've got every right to
be pissed when I think about someone with their feet as deeply embedded
in the religious right as this guy is holding the highest position in
the country.

Fortunately, enough people are of like mind to ensure that this clown
will never sit in the Oval office.

    re: .11
    
    Thanks very much for posting that, Hank.
    
    So, *this* is the "hate-filled" and hated speech I've been
    hearing so much about?  What's the biggie?  He's stated the
    usual conservative views on political and social issues, and
    in a relatively mild manner at that.  I've seen more "fire and
    brimstone" right here in this conference.
    
    I was more surprised at what he didn't say:  if he mentioned
    the Gulf War, I missed it; he didn't mention our "role" in the
    world (i.e., isolationist positions), and he didn't say anything
    about immigration, legal or otherwise.  He also didn't go much
    into the expected religious and moral issues, other than the
    predictable anti-porn stuff that we're now getting anyway from
    the Slick admin regarding the Internet.  His anti-abortion,
    anti-gay-marriage, anti-other-liberal-stuff positions were predictable
    and not particularly vehement.
    
    I didn't get the impression that he was going to run around the
    country gripping Bibles in both hands and with fire shooting out
    of every body orifice.  I guess I must've missed something.  :-)
    
    Chris

    He's got my vote on Feb 20th.
    
    
    Regardless of the primary outcome, Clinton will never get my vote
    under any circumstance. I'll hold my nose and vote for whoever
    becomes the repub candidate.

 Mr. Buchanan will be on with Claptrap and Witless tomorrow morning sometime.
 I'm sure Claptrap will be her usual charming tolerant self.


 Pat's been on Howie Carr's show several times, and has handled the challenges
 from callers quite well.


 Jim

One step closer to a theocratic fundamentalist state.

Pass.

    Hey! I said that!  Get your own diatribe. :-)

The best form of flattery.

    .13 & .17
    
    I see that neither of you are particularly concerned with dealing with
    facts, just a bit of mudslingging and name calling without any basis.
    
    So many of your ilk have cited his speech at the Republican Convention
    as a a clear indictment of his intolerance.  Well, having heard the
    speech and now re-reading it, I would like to see how anyone can attach
    the labels to Buchannan that he currently carries.
    
    This si just another pathetic move by the liberal/socialist wing to
    stop anyone who would challenge the failed politics, policies and views
    of the past 40 years.
    
    It is so much easier to ceaselessly and baselessly castigate someone
    than to try and carry on a rational discussion about the positions one
    holds.
    
    

 He did a fine job on Howie's show yesterday and handled Claptrap rather
 well this AM.



 Jim

	 i tuned in to Howie a couple of weeks ago when there was
	 a guy talking - i thought it was a caller - and i was thinkin'
	 gee! this guy makes a lot of sense.  it were Pat.

    has he a comely voice?

>    This si just another pathetic move by the liberal/socialist wing to

Well, I suppose it would be if I were a liberal socialist, Al, but, as you
should know by now, I ain't - I'm a Conservative Republican. What I'm not,
is part of the Religious Right, which I don't want governing my country
and oppressing those who don't buy the agenda.

    
      The funny thing is, it's more the WAY Buchanan delivered this
     speech than the words themselves, which spelled so much '92
     trouble.  The trouble is, you just have to be able to laugh,
     tell self-deprecating jokes, be at peace with yourself.  Reagan
     had this quality, to the greatest extent of any candidate since
     mebbe FDR.  Buchanan sounds so "angry" that, even when saying
     something reasonable, he SOUNDS scary.
    
      bb

    An article I was reading last night in the New Republic said Buchanan
    is actually very good with people, even while "demonizing
    everone in the world excett his mythic American working man" (or
    something like that.)
    
    I remember the '92 speech though, and his manner was indeed militantly
    self-righteous.  The speech itself was a sort of call to cultural war
    -- not to repentance or reformation, but to reclaim the country for
    righteousness, as represented by the Republican party.  The model for
    this fight being the soldiers who helped put down the L.A. riots.
    
    -Stephen
    
    

    .24
    
    It was not a direct reflection to you, but rather the label given to
    Buchannan.  I do disagree with your contention that the Religious Right
    would run the country if Buchannan is elected.  I believe he has many
    of the same values espoused by these folks, but does not buy in to
    every position.
    
    I think that too much is made of the religious right, particularly from
    the point of view that an awful lot of people feel that the problems
    faced by this country are directly related to the liberal social
    policies now in place.  There are some extremists in that camp, but the
    basic message is one that I beleive is the heartfelt opinion of the
    majority of Americans.  Unfortunately too few will express it and are
    intimidated by the liberal media and the label of a radical.
    

    "Tell me about the good ole days"
    
    when the line between right and wrong wasn't hazy,
    when promises made were kept not just said,
    

RE: 635.28 by USAT05::HALLR "Come to the Throne of Grace"

> "Tell me about the good ole days"

You mean when slaves and women knew their place?

When failing to go to church was against the law?


Phil

    
    
    That's a common ploy of the liberals.  If some was bad, it all was bad. 
    We can keep the good and leave the trash behind.  
    
    
    hth,

RE: 635.30 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "be nice, be happy"

> That's a common ploy of the liberals.

Name calling,  five yards and loss of down.


> We can keep the good and leave the trash behind.

A good idea.  Shall we disucss what's good and what's trash?


Phil

    
    
    Name calling?  Nice stretch, Phil.  Tell me where I have stated
    something that wasn't true.  Where's the name calling?  
    
    
    Yup, let's discuss it instead of trashing everything about the past
    because of some deplorable things which went on.  
    
    
    Mike

RE: 635.32 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "be nice, be happy"

> Where's the name calling?

"That's a common ploy of the _____".


Does not matter how you fill in the blanks.


Phil

    
    
    
    Name calling?  I know you're tall, Phil, but that's a big stretch even
    for you.......

|> "Tell me about the good ole days"
|
|You mean when slaves and women knew their place?
|
|When failing to go to church was against the law?
|
|
|Phil

 Phil, could you explain what it is you are trying to say here and how it
might relate to PB?

Doug.

    Mike, the point made with that so called liberal ploy is, the lines
    between right and wrong were always hazy. If people couldn't figure out
    what the trash was in the good ole days, why should they know what the
    current trash looks like? Every generation has its trash they think is
    right. This will never change.

    And that's all I have to say about that.

    re: .29
    
    How predictable.

    .29 .36
    
    Very poor attempt to demonize those who speak out about what's wrong
    with society.
    
    Also, the line between right and wrong, despite what the wonderful
    social liberals would like everyone to bel;ieve, is not hazy but quite
    clear.  The social liberals are the ones who want to make it hazy so
    any activity is just fine.
    
    

    what's wrong with being social?  i think we should all get to
    know one another, don't you?

    .38
    
    > the line between right and wrong, despite what the wonderful
    > social liberals would like everyone to bel;ieve, is not hazy but quite
    > clear.
    
    Demonstrate for us all, if you please, what is SOCIALLY wrong with a
    loving homosexual partnership.  That, or admit that homosexuality is
    not, in and of itself, even when physically practiced, evil.

    
    
    Dick,
    
    What was socially wrong with it for all those hundreds and hundreds of
    years??
    
     Neanderthal ignorance??
    

    Well, there wasn't anything wrong with slavery for thousands of years.
    Now there is. So, what does that mean?
    
    

    
    > Neanderthal ignorance??
    
    Mebbe that's why Neanderthal man became extinct.

    
    I'm sorry.... I don't recall the embracing of homosexuality in the
    Emancipation Proclamation...
    

    
    re: .43
    
    Take a stab at the first part of the reply...
    

    OK, which period of hundreds of years?   The ancient Greeks didn't have a
    problem with it.  Is this one of those "History started in 1775"
    viewpoints?

    
    
    Oh.. I'll let you decide... 
    
    and... how about society as a whole rather than just an anomaly...
    

  .41  What was socially wrong with women being treated as second
       class citizens?  Neanderthal ignorance?  Yes, that could be it,
       I suppose.

    <-----

    See? That's more liberal smoke screening.

    Always throwing the baby out with the bath water you liberals are.

    
    re: .48
    
    Di,
    
     You are equating treating women as second class citizens with the
    castigation of homosexuality?
    
    
    Glenn,
    
      Your suspenders are still a wee bit tight, I think...

    I'll take Nazi Germany in the 30s & 40s, Alex.  2600 Polish Catholic
    priests were put to death in the same concentration camps as thousands
    of homosexuals.  When you start to deal with "anomalies" it's tough to
    know when to stop.  Better not to start.

    treating someone as a second-class citizen is not castigation?

    I obviously do. Makes me see right and wrong in relative terms. And it
    causes chafing.

><<< Note 635.50 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Too many politicians, not enough warriors." >>>
    
>     You are equating treating women as second class citizens with the
>    castigation of homosexuality?

	"equating" it?  no, i'm not equating it.  i'm trying to point
	out that saying "gee, we always did that before without a problem,
	what's all the hullabaloo now?" is quite a silly argument.
 

    
    re: .54
    
    Of course it's a silly argument!!!
    
    
    Where did I pose that type of argument???

    
    re: .52
    
    >treating someone as a second-class citizen is not castigation?
    
    
    Not necessarily...

    
    re: .51
    
    
    You've completely lost me... 
    
    
    anomaly does not equate to anecdote...
    

    RE: .55

>    Where did I pose that type of argument???

    I believe .41 can easily give that impression.

    -- Dave

    
    Dave,
    
     I asked a question... 
    
    Dick Binder asked why it shouldn't be socially acceptible and I asked
    the question why society didn't accept it before...
    
    
    
    It was taboo before... and now, we're "enlightened"??

    re: .58
    
    I'd say it successfully gives that impression.

    If you believe right and wrong is cast in stone and never changes, then
    it shouldn't. If the slightest bit of it changes, even a scintilla, and
    you claim that it is still unchangeable and immovable, then you are
    blind to the fact that you're changing it as you go along. It's all
    relative.

  .60  very deep, Zippy.  ;>

    
    > You've completely lost me... 
    
    Well I was bound to.  I introduced a gray area.  Try and follow along
    now and I'll keep it simple.
    
    You start by identifying a behaviour as different, bad, socially
    unacceptable.  Any behaviour you like.   Identify that behaviour as
    socially unacceptable and label it, then proceed to demonize it.
    
    Pretty soon you can treat its practitioners any way you please.  After
    a while, perhaps after you've killed or locked them all up, you start
    to see other groups as being different.  Before you know it, anyone
    "different" is fair game.
    
    The Nazis started out with Jews, Gypsies, Gays, U-name-it, but the same
    mechanism was used to systematically murder any group perceived as a
    threat.  You may see this as an anecdote, but it reality it's the
    end-point of any divisionary, exclusive ideology.
    
    (And if you don't know that the Nazis murdered about 2600 Polish
    Catholic priests just for being Polish Catholic priests then check out
    the new memorial in Boston.)
    
    Can't happen here of course.
    
    Colin
    

    .41
    
    > Neanderthal ignorance??
    
    Neandertal.  No "h".
    
    Ignorance is part of it, most assuredly.  And because we fear what we
    do not know, we wish to make it go away.  One way to lend force to a
    position is to claim that it came from the mouth of one's deity.  Sound
    familiar?

    
    	The dictionary says there's an "h" in that word.
    

    .64
    
    Your dictionary is behind the times.  The name is German, given for the
    Neander valley where the first specimens of H. neandertalensis were
    found.  ("Neandertalensis" is a Latin/German construct - hi, Di - that
    means "from the Neander Valley.")  In 19th-century German, there was a
    silent "H" and the name was given as H. neanderthalensis.  Modern
    German does away with the silent "H" as a rule, and the scientific
    community has done so in this case.

    
    	that Binder is one scary dude....:)
    
    

    
    	Hey, I use the AHD ... if it's good enough for Digital, it's good
    	enough for me.
    

To 99% of Americans "Neanderthal" is a word that essentially means "caveman"
and is pronounced with the "th" sound, even though that sound doesn't
exist in German.  Good luck getting _them_ to drop the 'h'...  And if this
succeeds, I guess it's time to update all the words English has borrowed from
French etc. in the middle ages to the modern French or whatever spellings.

    
    	Like "coupon"?
    

    8)
    
    Shawn, I saw right through that one.

    
    Noone is saying they want to demonize homosexuals or homosexuality
    (with a few exceptions cited here as the rule), what is being said is
    that they should not get special privledges under AA.  What I go
    against is not homosexuality, but irresposible and permiscuous sex of
    both heterosexuals and homosexuals. That is what causes some of the 
    problems that face our society.  It isn't easy resisting the urge which
    we are all givenm that being sexual desire.  Whereas I don't understand
    homosexuality, it is not my place to judge another for whom it seems
    right.  What we have to do is learn not to give in to our physical
    temptations, the instant gratification that seems to rule society
    today.  I want it and I want it now.  
    
    
    Mike    

>    Noone is saying they want to demonize homosexuals or homosexuality
>    (with a few exceptions cited here as the rule), what is being said is
>    that they should not get special privledges under AA.  

    Can you provide any examples where special privledges are being
    demanded for homosexuals?  I have not heard of any movement
    to get them included in AA, just that they be included in the
    list of 'not to be discriminated against'.

    Do you consider it a 'special privledge' that it is illegal
    for someone to discriminate against another just because they
    are homosexual?
    bob

    
    
    The homosexuals that I know are not discriminated against.  That's not
    to say that they have never been harassed, but just about everyone has
    been harassed for one reason or another.  Of course the gay folks I
    know don't wear on their sleeves either, it's part of what they are and
    they don't feel the need to flaunt it.  
    
    And, yes, I have been harassed because of my race and because I am short.  
    I have also been harassed by homosexuals before.  An incident when I
    was in junior high school where I would recieve obscene phone calls
    from someone who saw me in the gym locker room and wanted to do all
    kinds of things to me which he would graphically describe.  This went
    on for a few months.  I would hang up when I found out who it was (not
    the identity, but that it was "him".  Another instance was when my car
    broke down late one night (I was around 18 or 19).  A "good samaritin
    picked me up and he put the moves on me (tried to grab me and grab at
    my groin).  I punched the guy and got out of the car at the earliest
    opportunity.  I understand that these people are not representative of 
    all gays, just a few nuts who are out there in every segment of our
    society.  We have examples in this forum of people who are gay and who
    are fine, outstanding people.
    
    
    Cheers,
    
    Mike

    
    re: .63
    
    Neanderthal vs. Neandertal
    
    My Webster's shows both words:
    
    Neanderthal, also Neandertal
    
    
    >No "h". 
    
     You should be careful about being so definitive...
    
    >Ignorance is part of it, most assuredly.
    
    What's the other part(s) Dick? 
    
    Can you list any (some) reasons why it was so throughout the ages? 
    
    ("homophobia" doesn't count.)

    Tell it to the Cracker Barrel employees that were fired because someone
    thought they "acted homosexual" whatever the heck that means.  Tell it
    to the thousands of others who can't even post a picture of their loved
    one in the same way a heterosexual person can, tell it to those who
    were and are tossed out of the military with no reason other than they
    find a satisfying relationship with the opposite sex to be impossible.  
    Tell it to the teens who commit suicide rather than admit to thkeir
    families that they are "different."  Tell it to men and women who have
    lost custody of their children for the same reasons.  
    
    Tell it to someone who can't protect their loved ones and themselves
    with in the same fashion that a another coupld can.  Then tell me that
    Pat doesn't want to continue this sort of crap.  His speaches sure seem
    to point to continuing this.
    
    meg

    paddy came in first in a straw vote up in alaska.
    

    
      Logically, the difference is that the body parts used by
     heterosexuals, are clearly intended for the function performed,
     while the parts used in homosexual sex clearly aren't.  Now there
     are all sorts of examples of "secondary uses" of things primarily
     used for something else - a dentist's drill is sometimes used in
     printed wiring board repair.  On the other hand, eating spaghetti
     with a Philips screwdriver is not very effective.  In the adult
     world, we have learned to ignore silly behavior that occurs all
     around us, so we can concentrate on what matters to us.  America
     has become a very impractical place in many ways, so if you are
     logical, you don't engage in pointless absurdity, but you ignore
     it in others.  The only problem comes with your children, who are
     learning what things are for not by examining them in the cold
     light of reason, but by copying grown-ups even when their behavior
     appears bizarre.  Since they have not learned how to cope, there is
     reason to suppose temporarily shielding them is reasonable, like
     training wheels on a bike, or double-runner skates.
    
      I have said many times in here that I think we all have to learn to
     live with screwballs, of many varieties, and it is pointless to
     persecute them.  Just eschew the behavior yourself.  The exception
     would be if there is danger to yourself.  I fail to see any danger
     to a heterosexual adult from homosexual people.  Leave them alone,
     and try not to laugh at them, although that is not always possible.
    
      bb

    A hand is often used as a substitute for other things, yet it clearly
    is not a reproductive organ. Of course, any good heterosexual doesn't
    masturbate.

    
      re, .78 - Your first sentence is correct, but your second does
     not logically follow.  If I'm on my roof hammering nails, and I
     drop my hammer, I might use another less effective tool, like a
     heavy screwdriver, to continue hammering, rather than expend a
     great effort to retrieve the proper instrument.  If two adults,
     attracted to each other, mated and coresident, prepare for sexuality,
     but one chooses to masturbate instead, it would not be viewed as
     functional behavior by the other.  I imagine homosexual behavior
     is most common in male prisons, male schools, monastaries, all-male
     crews on long ocean voyages, etc.  (I don't know this).  Similarly,
     in the absence of a partner, I would imagine masturbation would be
     far more frequent. (I don't know that either).
    
      bb

    .79
    
    You have failed to make the leap of faith that would be required of us
    if we were to buy the crap in .77 about homosexuality's being wrong
    because the body parts used for the sex act clearly weren't intended
    therefor.  By your twisted argument in .77, a "Belgian burger" is wrong
    because the area between a woman's breasts is not, despite the fact
    that the thing is a heterosexual act, designed for copulation.  And
    similarly for masturbation - the hand is not a sex organ.
    
    Get a clue, won't you?  It'd really help you be a little more
    convincing.  Free hint:  You admit that we sometimes use an
    "inappropriate" tool, and that's okay.  Carry that to its logical
    conclusion.

    belgian burger?  belgian waffle, yes.  burger, no.

  er, pat buchanan, people, pat buchanan?

| <<< Note 635.78 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Captain Dunsel" >>>

| A hand is often used as a substitute for other things, yet it clearly
| is not a reproductive organ. Of course, any good heterosexual doesn't
| masturbate.

	I wonder how many heterosexuals can say they have never done that??? :)

    That would be the heterosexual with no arms and no legs who can swim
    the English Channel.

    his name is bob.

    <- Bwahahahahahahahaha

    
      re, .80 - buy a clue yourself, Blinder.  You've presented no logic
     at all, except raw assertion and bluster.  I try to reason things
     out.  I've yet to see any reasoning from you in this file.
    
      I have no idea what a Belgian thingy is, and if you tell me, I'll
     promptly forget it, like I do most new stuff.
    
      I DO think of the consequences of using objects for other than their
     primary purpose.  The rectum is a VERY bad choice for sex - it has
     a very thin skin and is easily damaged, unlike the vagina.  It is a
     passageway for fecal matter.  It bleeds easily.  And it has few
     sensory nerves, no large associated sensory area in the cerebral
     cortex.  It is on the wrong side from the source of orgasm.  Very
     stupid choice.
    
      The mouth makes more sense - at least it has the proper sensory
     mechanisms, and it is structurally sound. Furthermore the tongue
     adds possibilities of manipulation, which the rectum lacks.
    
      But it is obvious what is the most effective sex.  Find the clitoris,
     use the penis.  Adolescents and young adults fool around with all
     sorts of positions and techniques, some of them intended as humor.
     But the body is constructed in a way that makes it's purpose obvious,
     if you leave your utterly rigid biases aside while you examine it.
    
      bb

    Wrong, his name is not bob.

    .87
    
    Try leaving YOUR utterly rigid biases aside, and learn a few facts
    while you do so:
    
    > I have no idea what a Belgian thingy is...
    
    So forget it.  But know before you do that it involves a penis and a
    woman's breasts.  Unfit for the sex act?
    
    > The rectum is a VERY bad choice for sex - it has
    > a very thin skin and is easily damaged, unlike the vagina.  It is a
    > passageway for fecal matter.  It bleeds easily.  And it has few
    > sensory nerves, no large associated sensory area in the cerebral
    > cortex.
    
    The vagina has a very thin skin and is easily damaged - that's how men
    get AIDS from having sex with infected women; the vagina bleeds easily.
    The vagina has few sensory nerves and no large associated sensory area
    in the cerebral cortex.  That bundle of nerves you're thinking of is
    associated with the clitoris, which - according to Gray's Anatomy - is
    located in the anterior region of the vulva, OUTSIDE the vagina and in
    fact separated from it by the urethra.  Remember that:  OUTSIDE the
    vagina.
    
    > But it is obvious what is the most effective sex.  Find the clitoris,
    > use the penis.
    
    Finding the vagina with the penis makes for the highest probability of
    conception.  Finding the clitoris has NOTHING to do with conception,
    and in fact the clitoris can be manipulated, and offer great pleasure
    to the woman, with the hand.  Either partner's hand.  But of course
    that's wrong, because the hand isn't a sex organ.
    
    As for the mouth, i'm SHOCKED!  The mouth is not a sex organ; by your
    logic it is wholly inappropriate and just as evil as the rectum.

    Admittedly this is a fun subject, but we are straying just a tiny bit
    afield here.

    Let's get Pat's opinion on all this.

    
    	There's a good chance Pat is a pervert, too, so this could be
    	considered a sort of "complementary character reference".
    

Meg's .75 is spot on with respect to the issues relative to Buchanon's
vitriol. Any claims regarding the "unnaturalness" of the activities
of homosexuals don't appear to do much in the way of justifying Pat's
illogic. 

    RE: .72

>    I have not heard of any movement to get them included in AA, 

    The LAPD has held a few AA recruiting drives aimed at homosexuals.

    RE: .75

>    tell it to those who
>    were and are tossed out of the military with no reason other than they
>    find a satisfying relationship with the opposite sex to be impossible.  

    Should women be forced to share close living quarters (same barracks,
    side by side bunks or in the navy "warm bunks") and same showers as men
    in the military?  If not, why not?  Does the same logic apply over to
    homosexuals?

    -- Dave

    
    I like his ideas on the Second Ammendment.  He said something like:
    
    	If it doesn't need a crew to fire, it doesn't need a permit.
    
    Now there's a proper 'tude on this gun control nonsense.
    
    	Skip

    I support Pat. I like what he stands for. I'm dead against GATT, NAFTA.
    Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Doyle, they all sold out America a
    long time ago by supporting GATT and NAFTA. Has it created any good
    jobs in America? No way, the sucking sound of jobs leaving this country
    is tremendous.
    
    What about the thousands of illegal immigrants in this country on the
    welfare.
    
    I want this country out of NATO, out of the UN, out of Europe, out of
    Asia, out of the business of being a police department for other
    countries when those other countries should help them selves.
    
    Pat doesn't stand a chance, but he speaks the truth to my mind. I don't
    consider him a radical I consider him a true patriot because he cares
    about this country and the rest of the flock doesn't.
    
    America has never been perfect, and never will be but we can always
    strive to make it better. I remember when we manufactured everything.
    We were self sufficient, we didn't rely on other countries for our
    existence, but it has come to it.
    
    I could go on and on, but I won't.
    
    I like Pat and will support him.
    
    Cheers,
    Rich

  .94  good grief.  _please_ take it to the gay issues topic or
       whatever.

    
    >good grief.
    
    
    
    Hmmmmm.... is that the correct punctuation for a sentence like that??
    
    
    Curious minds and all...
    

    >I support Pat. I like what he stands for. I'm dead against GATT, NAFTA.
    >Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Doyle, they all sold out America a
    >long time ago by supporting GATT and NAFTA. Has it created any good
    >jobs in America? No way, the sucking sound of jobs leaving this country
    >is tremendous.
    
     Without NAFTA, GATT, etc, the "sucking sound" is delayed for a short
    while, then gets much louder as we find ourselves unable to compete in
    the world market. If you are satisfied with fewer choices as a
    consumer, lower quality and higher prices, (along with long term
    unemployment) then isolationism is custom made for you.
    
    

    I hate Pat.

    
    re, .89 - "evil" is pointless in this discussion - I doubt we'd
    agree on either a definition or a basis for recognizing it.  I
    wouldn't and didn't use the word evil here.
    
      Pat Buchanan struck a nerve with his statements because attempts
     are being made to teach children that anal intercourse is just
     another choice, as good as any other.  He disagrees, and so do I,
     although for different reasons.  The "vitriol" pretty much comes from
     his opposition, not from Pat.  Look at your own notes, for example.
     There's more hatred in them than in Pat's '92 speech.  Surprisingly
     (or perhaps not), little of this hatred comes from homosexuals
     themselves - it seems to come from liberal Democrats, most of them
     quite heterosexual.
    
      I can find the clitoris quite well, thank you.  And I congratulate
     you on using at least SOME explanation, no matter how brain dead,
     to justify your position.  Yes, I have biases - I'm an engineer.
     I don't believe you can tell the best uses for things by looking
     them up in the Encyclopedia, or the Bible.  You learn by observing
     and experimenting, and discarding the useless, like anal intercourse.
    
      There are reasons why conformism exists in societies.  Look at the
     social insects.  Compare Japan and the USA.  There are occassional
     situations where NON-conformism works out best, but they are less
     common than the opposite.  The USA has gone on a generational binge
     of "do your own thing".  As a result, our society is failing
     everywhere, who are losing the capacity for purposive teamwork.
    
      Perhaps it is a boon that there are a few goofballs who use Apple
     MacIntosh's.  Perhaps the few homosexuals serve to give our society
     some advantage.  But I've yet to see it, and I know it would be no
     help to anyone if children are taught the exceptions before the rules.
    
      Buchanan appeals to a deep feeling among traditional people that
     their society has been taken from them by vocal, hostile freak.  He
     plays to that audience.  Did you see where he leads the latest poll
     in the Alaska Republican caucus ?  This is his second time around,
     and in smaller states he will get some delegates.  In Massachusetts
     he'll get none.
    
      bb

Buck has spoken..... 

    >You learn by observing and experimenting, and discarding the useless, 
    >like anal intercourse.
    
     That you experimented with and found no useful purpose for anal
    intercourse is utterly irrelevant. Maybe you weren't asking the right
    question. Given your apparent attitude about usefulness, one would
    conclude that you'd have likely thrown out penicillin 100 times
    without discovering a use for it. This conformity of thought thing is
    stifling, though no doubt it makes for a very predictable life.

 Pat Buchanan, People, Pat Buchanan!

    
    	Who's he ... a ballplayer or something?
    

 Z   Ignorance is part of it, most assuredly.  And because we fear what we
 Z   do not know, we wish to make it go away.  One way to lend force to
 Z   a position is to claim that it came from the mouth of one's deity. 
 Z   Sound familiar?
    
    Dick, you make it sound as though the Word of God has no creedance at
    all in the molding of national character.  Even the founding Fathers
    who were for the most part deists and agnostics recognized the validity
    of scripture in how we are to conduct ourselves.
    
    I'm honestly not trying to make this a thumper note so I will turn this
    more into a cultural reply.  The United States HAS an identity Dick. 
    For the most part, America is currently built upon Eurocentric
    ideas...THIS is America's identity in this point in history.  Make no
    mistake Dick, a culture cannot survive without an identity which is why
    I believe multiculturalism stinks...always have.  Diversity is one
    thing, multiculturalism is something else.  A multicultural society
    will crumble.
    
    My point...Christianity is a a core element of Eurocentrism.  You see
    it as those damn thumpers and their bigoted thinking while we see it as
    you asking people to compromise their convictions.  Sorry but it is not
    my duty or responsibility to conform Dick.  Fornication is fornication
    right?  This is what the foundation of the faith of our culture and the
    Judeo-Christian ethic identifies as wrong.  
    
    In summary:
    
  -  We live in a Eurocentric culture.
  -  Christianity/Judaism is a core element of that culture.
  -  Multiculturalism will fail, therefore I cling to Eurocentrism.
  -  Fornication is spoken of as sin in both the New Testament and the 
     Hebrew Scriptures.
  -  I as a believer am under no obligation to value differences here.
    
    One final note.  Privatize our school system as much as possible then
    people like Pat Buchanan won't have a squak!  After all, the brunt of
    his pissing and moaning is in regards to the cultural war our children
    are facing!
    
    -Jack

    re: .100
    
    Who was that masked man?
    
    8)z

    .101
    
    This is in re your attitude on conformity or the lack thereof; after
    this reply I won't argue with you any more because it's less useful
    than beating my head against a brick wall.
    
    > Perhaps it is a boon that there are a few goofballs who use Apple
    > MacIntosh's [sic].
    
    Perhaps?  I invite you to challenge, in a valid way, the contention
    that were it not for the trememdous pressure put on Microsoft by
    Apple's easy-to-use operating system and far superior hardware
    performance, you and your happy happy DOS clan would be exactly that: 
    a DOS clan.  Windows would never have come into existence; Microsoft
    and its huge coterie of third-party companies were doing just fine
    selling nothing but DOS programs until the Macintosh showed people, real
    people, that there was something a lot better.  And now, 11 years
    later, Windows95 is a poor, poor second to the Macintosh user
    experience.
    
    You, and your apparent love for Pat Buchanan's tunnel-visioned views of
    the human species, are welcome to sit in a cave and engage in frontal
    intercourse to the exclusion of all other forms of sexual pleasure. 
    We, the rest of the world, have brains and intend to use them for
    purposes other than parroting ill-informed paranoid crap.

Leave it to Our Jack Martin to enter into a discussion about
the political and social aspects of a presidential candidate
and focus right in on the key issue -



		FORRRRRRRRniKashun!!!!!!

    re: .96
    
    > I don't consider him a radical, I consider him a true patriot...
    
    Just remember one thing.  In America today, being a true patriot makes
    one a radical.  Nothing the media likes better than to demonize a
    patriot who makes no qualms about supporting the Constitution as
    written and intended.
    
    
    -steve

    Do all true patriots have the same political views?
    
    -Stephen

    
    >Do all true patriots have the same political views?
    
    
    
    No... but most can tell which end of the horse is which...

    
      Frontal works fine in my cave, Dick - you should try it.  (Hint :
     sitting doesn't work so well. hth).
    
      Anyways, pb won't be my choice in the primaries.  But versus Sliq
     in the election, he would be, if that were the choice.
    
      Buck (shouldn't that by Buch, Glen ?) at least means about what
     he says.  Sliq means nothing of what he says.
    
      bb

    
      Quick trivia :  If Pat were elected, he'd be the second President
     Buchanan, joining 4 other pairs of prexies sharing last names.
    
      How fast can you think of the other 4 ?
    
      bb

    roosevelt
    adams

    harrison & johnson

    
     yup
    
     bb

ZZ    Leave it to Our Jack Martin to enter into a discussion about
ZZ    the political and social aspects of a presidential candidate
ZZ    and focus right in on the key issue -
    
    
ZZ                    FORRRRRRRRniKashun!!!!!!
    
    I see how you would get this but what I was hoping to communicate is
    that we live in a Eurocentric culture to which Christianity and Judaism
    is a part of that identity.  As a member of this culture, it is not my
    obligation to conform to others cultures and hence practices like
    "loving" homosexual relationships which do not conform to sanctified 
    life choices...it is NOT something I am obliged to recognize as good. 
    
    Now one might argue it is none of my business...fair enough.  Release
    from me the burden of supporting the school establishment and I
    promise...not another word!
    
    -Jack

Well then why the hell do you keep bringing up that silly "FORRRniKashun"
argument?

	Fornication, noun. Sexual intercouse between persons not 
	married to each other.

Hmmm. In some places, homosexuals can be legally married. I guess they aren't
guilty of "FORRRRniKashun, then.

Sounds like heterosexual premarital or extramarital sex is also FORRRniKashun.
Even though it's _EXACTLY_ the same physical act that you can legally carry
out within the bounds of your religion and society's allowances. What the
hell is the sense of making this distinction about one being FORRRniKashun
and the other not, if the only distinction is some silly piece of paper
indicating that the artificial manmade institution of "society" has "granted"
your union and the artificial manmade institution of your religion has
"blessed" it?

Tell me, the atheist, why there's any validity to this FORRRniKashun foil,
why don't you?

Help me see the light here, Jacko.

    
    
    >Help me see the light here...
    

    
    Um, usually, yes.
    

    
    
    Well of course fockers fly in groups......

    So did the Fokkers.

    
    Hey Dick, take that letter opener and jab it into your head a few
    times.  You'll never fit out the door like that......

Z Well then why the hell do you keep bringing up that silly "FORRRniKashun"
Z argument?

It is not my desire to prolong the discussion of fornication as I know the 
concept of fornication as a bad thing is more or less ridiculed in our general
society.  As I mentioned before, many of our forefathers were agnostics yet 
they recognized scripture as a valued and viable source for setting a 
standard in Godly living.  It would seem Dick poo poo's this and that is what
prompted me to bring it up.

Z Hmmm. In some places, homosexuals can be legally married. I guess they aren't
Z guilty of "FORRRRniKashun, then.

No...but then we go back to the question.  Is same gendered intercourse 
considered a sanctified act in the eyes of God?  My understanding from both 
old and new testament teachings as well as church history leads me to say no;
and apparently it was understood this way within our civil laws throughout the 
last 200 years.  Keep in mind Jack that atheism or fundamentalism is exclusive
from the fact...Christian principles ARE paramount to the survival of a 
Eurocentric culture.

Z Sounds like heterosexual premarital or extramarital sex is also FORRRniKashun.
Z Even though it's _EXACTLY_ the same physical act that you can legally carry
Z out within the bounds of your religion and society's allowances. What the
Z hell is the sense of making this distinction about one being FORRRniKashun
Z and the other not, if the only distinction is some silly piece of paper
Z indicating that the artificial manmade institution of "society" has "granted"
Z your union and the artificial manmade institution of your religion has
Z "blessed" it?

You are exactly right on your first point.  I think however there has to be a 
distinction between legality and correctness.  As humans with free will, we are
legally within our rights to fornicate.  Fornication has been established as 
wrong within the Jewish faith; I know of very few practicing Jews who would 
boast of their fornicating.  Within the context of the New Testament, 
fornication is poo poo'd there as well.  Therefore, as one who would submit to
the authority of the church, one who does so must recognize that promoting a
sinful lifestyle would not be in harmony with Christian principles.  As an
atheist, I wouldn't expect you to relate with my feelings on this.  I do 
however stand by the belief that as a member of a Eurocentric culture, it is 
not my responsibility to compromise convictions on matters of faith.  It isn't
Pat Buchanan's either.

I feel you give this guy far too much creedance in a government with the checks
and balances we have.  Right now we have Bill Clinton who even for a two year
period was kept in check.  I have learned that it is the congress that actually
wields the power in this country, and I don't believe they are going to let
the Religious Right get away with anything the populace doesn't want them to...
particularly if Pat Buchanan is in office.  In closing I will say this for the
guy.  At least he has the balz to speak his convictions which is alot more
than I can say for the others.


-Jack

    Jack Martin is right, FWIW

Yes. Far Right.

    Your forgetting Jack, that I do have libertarian views and that I
    celebrate first ammendment rights for all groups.  I just don't happen
    to believe everybody has the right to be heard...INCLUDING the gay
    lobby, the militias, the multiculturalist crowd, the sensitivity crowd, 
    the Affirmative Action reprehensibles, the National Education
    Association, or any other group with an elitist attitude.
    
    -Jack 

| <<< Note 635.107 by SCASS1::BARBER_A "i was up above it" >>>

| re: .100

| Who was that masked man?

	April.... that is the most famous hit and run noter in box history! He
is a classic!

>I feel you give this guy far too much creedance in a government with the checks
>and balances we have.  Right now we have Bill Clinton who even for a two year
>period was kept in check.  I have learned that it is the congress that actually
>wields the power in this country, and I don't believe they are going to let
>the Religious Right get away with anything the populace doesn't want them to...
>particularly if Pat Buchanan is in office.

In this, you are partially correct. I think we've observed for the past year 
and a bit that a good opposing congress can do much to make a chief executive 
nothing more than so much irrelevent baggage.

That, however, isn't exactly my idea of how to get anything worthwhile
accomplished in this country while you and I pay the bills. Placing someone
as far to the right as Buchanan is in the White House and trusting that
"the checks and balances" will "keep him in tow" is rather a counterproductive
course upon which to embark.

Not to mention which, why the hell should people vote for someone whose
principles and ideals they find so out of whack with their own? Why give
him even the slightest opportunity to push things down the slippery slope?

But it was a nice try, Jack - no doubt you can convince a few folks that
"there's nothing to be scared of here."

| <<< Note 635.129 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Bye Bye Mrs. Dougherty!" >>>


	When this:


| Your forgetting Jack, that I do have libertarian views and that I
| celebrate first ammendment rights for all groups.  

	is followed by this:

| I just don't happen to believe everybody has the right to be heard...INCLUDING
| the gay lobby, the militias, the multiculturalist crowd, the sensitivity 
| crowd, the Affirmative Action reprehensibles, the National Education 
| Association, or any other group with an elitist attitude.

	you know it is a Jack Martin note! I have to admit, Jack.... this is
one of your funnier ones. The only ones who have the right to be heard are the
people who Our Jack Martin finds acceptable..... but he celebrates the 1st
ammendment rights for all groups. Uh huh......



Glen

Z    Not to mention which, why the hell should people vote for someone whose
Z    principles and ideals they find so out of whack with their own? Why give
Z    him even the slightest opportunity to push things down the slippery slope?
    
    Ohh...they shouldn't!  In the elections, one should vote the candidate
    that best represents their interests.  As an example, I will not be
    voting for Buchanan because of his isolationist views on trade.  I
    believe this would hurt our economy.  
    
Z    But it was a nice try, Jack - no doubt you can convince a few folks
Z    that "there's nothing to be scared of here."
    
    So far we have a president who claims to have nominated a cabinet that
    best represents America.  What we really have however is a consortium
    of low rent Arkansas hacks, an abismal picture of the virtues of
    Affirmative Action, and a decent percentage of potential felons.  Now
    you compare this reality Jack with the possible but improbable dangers
    of Buchanan bringing us down a slippery slope.  I would say your
    potential fear overshadows the harsh sobering reality of nincompoops.
    In short, I would say your fear is unfounded.
    
    -Jack

    Glen, I don't believe ANYBODY has the right to be heard.  This right
    has to be earned through respect.  The particular groups I referred to
    happen to feel they DO have a right to be heard and that's why I
    brought them up!!
    
    -Jack

>    So far we have a president who claims to have nominated a cabinet that
>    best represents America.  What we really have however is a consortium
>    of low rent Arkansas hacks, an abismal picture of the virtues of
>    Affirmative Action, and a decent percentage of potential felons.  Now
>    you compare this reality Jack with the possible but improbable dangers
>    of Buchanan bringing us down a slippery slope.  I would say your
>    potential fear overshadows the harsh sobering reality of nincompoops.
>    In short, I would say your fear is unfounded.

Good point, now that you mention it. I can just imagine the sorts of folks 
Buchanan might like to appoint to the cabinet. Secretary of Defense - one
of his isolationist cronies. Secretary of State - another of same. Secretary
of HEW - some Religious Right whacko with all sorts of nifty plans for
our schools systems, our housing projects and our health programs. Secretary
of the Interior - - - - 

    Need I go on? You think, perhaps, that Pat is going to populate the
   Cabinet with moderates? You think perhaps, that his RR buddies aren't
   going to be carefully and cogently placed into cabinet positions where
   they can do the most damage as quickly as possible? They'll look all
   good and proper when they come up for confirmations before congress,
   but wait'll they hit the fan, amigo.

    Why, they'll be folks right after your own heart, Jack.

    Nice defense of the 1st there Jack.  

| <<< Note 635.134 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Bye Bye Mrs. Dougherty!" >>>

| Glen, I don't believe ANYBODY has the right to be heard.  This right
| has to be earned through respect.  The particular groups I referred to
| happen to feel they DO have a right to be heard and that's why I
| brought them up!!

	Jack, you were the one who started that note off saying you celebrate
the 1st ammentment for all groups, and ended it with saying certain groups
shouldn't be heard. 

	I like the respect part...uh huh..... the final word on respect, by
O.J. Martin.

    
    	Actually, I think he said
    
    	"You celibate [the 1st Amendment].  Some groups shouldn't be hard."
    

re: .126, OJM

>It is not my desire to prolong the discussion of fornication as I know the 
>concept of fornication as a bad thing is more or less ridiculed in our general
>society.

As well it should be, in my opinion, Jack. How many millions upon millions
of people in the world today fit your sick definition of "dirty Fornikaturs"
who happen to be, if you hadn't noticed, upstanding productive members of 
society who make valuable contributions and happen to agree with a lot of your
less puritanical ideals. People who don't, in any way, other than in the
warped recesses of yours and Steve Leech's mind, characterize the epitome
of the impetus behind the downfall of society as we know it.

What purpose is served by demonizing these people and by championing these
crackpot wingnuts like Buchanan who share your views, other than to alienate 
them? You think, perhaps, that they're going to miraculously see the error
of their ways and fall in with you doing a twostep behind your god? Why do
I doubt it? It's pretty evident that they've had that opportunity and chosen
otherwise.

And it's similarly obvious that it isn't they that you should be railing 
against, and that FORRRniKashun isn't the problem with society.

Why don't you call a goddam spade a spade, and attack the real problem, which
is those who choose to act irresponsibly and cause problems as a result of 
their behavior-which-doesn't-jibe-with-your-ideals, rather than simply
attacking all those who walk the walk?

And if you're just going to respond with your typical "moral decadence"
garbage, a) you didn't read what I just wrote, and, b) save your keystrokes,
as you know damn well I won't bother boring myself to death, yet again, 
reading it.

  (the following is from "The Joy of Sex : A Gourmet Guide to Lovemaking,
   by Alex Comfort, MD, DSc, 1974, 1986, 1987, Pocket Books, Simon&Schuster,
   ISBN 0-671-64876-4.  It remains the single best heterosexual love
   manual in print, for clarity, conciseness, completeness, enthusiasm
   for the subject, and the superb line drawings.  I used it in my marriage,
   and to teach all of my children when teenagers.  If you use a competing
   sex manual, however, look up "Anal Intercourse" in it - you will find
   similar information in all of them.  I highly recommend this book - bb)

   Anal Intercourse.  In the light of present knowledge (1987), this is
  best avoided altogether.  It is something many couples try once, and a
  few stay with it, either because the woman finds it gives her intenser
  feelings than the normal route, or because it is pleasantly tight for
  the man.  But it is also the preferred method of catching, or transmitting
  the virus of AIDS, as well as hepatitis, cytomegalovirus, and intestinal
  infections, and it can cause mechanical damage.
    Attempts, chiefly by male homosexuals, to render anal intercourse
  safer by using a condom have proved unreliable because the thin condoms
  designed for vaginal use tend to tear under the increased pressure and
  friction of a canal primarily engineered for other purposes.  So long as
  AIDS remains incurable, it's too risky.  This is one of the few cases
  in which we have had to update the information originally given in this
  book in view of changed circumstances and new information.
    The reason that AIDS is more easily transmitted anally than vaginally
  is that the rectal mucosa is not designed for friction and bleeds easily,
  so that semen can enter the bloodstream, and the rectum lacks the
  infection-resisting mechanisms of the vagina.
    Anal sex has a chequered history.  Regarded as an abomination because of
  its association with homosexuality (though by no means all gays made use
  of it even before AIDS arrived), it has always been around.  The Roman
  poet Martial threatened to divorce his wife for refusing, unlike other
  Roman matrons, to cooperate : in the nineteenth century anal intercourse
  was a popular working-class contraceptive.  How far the hazard element is
  due to a new virus and how far it was always present we do not know.  It
  is certainly present now.  There are not many popular sexual practices that
  are physically dangerous, but recent circumstances and the most recent
  medical knowledge indicate that this is one of them.  When a hazard as
  serious as AIDS appears there is plenty of scope to avoid it by altering
  your sexual repertoire.

Z    Jack, you were the one who started that note off saying you celebrate
Z    the 1st ammentment for all groups, and ended it with saying certain
Z    groups shouldn't be heard.
    
    Glen, I get pissed sometimes at your misconscrewing of information.  I
    didn't say that a group shouldn't be heard.  I SAID that no group has
    THE RIGHT to be heard...there is a very big difference.  Billy Graham
    for example has NO Constitutional right to be heard.  Billy Graham is
    widely heard because Billy Graham has merited the respect of society. 
    Perhaps some day left wing idealogues will also merit that right. 
    Right now they are noisemakers.
    
    -Jack  

    re: .139
    
    What did *I* do?  I'm not even involved in this exchange and I get
    my position misinterpreted.  Sheesh.

Z    As well it should be, in my opinion, Jack. How many millions upon millions
Z    of people in the world today fit your sick definition of "dirty Fornikaturs"
Z    who happen to be, if you hadn't noticed, upstanding productive members of 
Z    society who make valuable contributions and happen to agree with a lot
Z    of your less puritanical ideals.
    
    Jack, you will be happy to know that I include myself in the midst of
    the guilty.  The only reason I brought this up wasn't so much regarding
    the Pat Buchanan discussion but because Dick asked why homosexuals
    can't enjoy a normal happy life together in our society.  I was giving
    him the quick and dirty answer.  Christianity is an integral part of
    our Eurocentric culture and homosexuality is resisted pretty much
    within Christian circles.  In short, you can't fit a square peg in a
    round hole so to speak. 
    
    Jack, I have no problems with people making their own decisions so long
    as they're willing to accept the consequences, which many people are
    not.  I see the schools of today used as a propoganda tool for people
    who want to promote diversities that I DON'T have to nor care to value,
    and this is the cultural war I believe Buchanan is speaking of.  If we
    all want to be fornicators or whatever vice you want to put, then fine
    but don't use the schools to teach something is right when it in fact
    may be wrong..this is the point I'm trying to make.  
    
    -Jack

    You only have one point, Jack.   It's on the top of your head.

    re: .143
    
    >Jack, I have no problems with people making their own decisions so long
    >as they're willing to accept the consequences, which many people are
    >not.  
    
    Ah yes, those blacks lynched for demanding their civil rights during
    the 50's should have simply accepted the consequences of their actions
    for demanding civil rights, and the women who had the nerve to wear
    revealing clothes while walking down the street, deserved to be raped.
    
    Thank you, it's all clear now.
    
    Bob
    

    <----  If I understand things correctly, this is what's known as a
    liberal smoke screen. Also known as a "typical" response.

    It seems as if the attacks on Buchannan fall into the same category as
    those which attack any person who stands up for what's right and what's
    wrong.  As soon as anyone says that soemthing is wrong, the liberal
    side starts bringing up all sorts of nonsense about who has the right
    to make values etc.
    
    Well I prefer someone who is willing to put a stake in the ground and
    clearly state what they stand for.  I detest anyone who wants to live
    under situational ethics.  More importantly you have a generation
    growing up asking for direction and limits and the liberal mantra
    responds, "If it feels good, then do it."  Sorry, doesn't wash in my
    book.
    

    yup.  got all the markings of a sissfickslud.

    Pat is quite capable of whining and making his vioice heard about his
    vision of moral decay all he wants.  However, the thought of him in a
    position where he could help engineer laws that could result in the
    loss of my children leaves me cold.  
    
    meg

    
      Now, it's true that Pat more likely got his strong opposition
     from Genesis, while mine comes from The Joy of Sex (not to mention
     the NE Journal of Medicine, a more technical and wordier source,
     with similar data).  But Yahweh & the Hebrews knew this caused
     death, just like tainted pork.  No fools, they.
    
      Teaching that anal intercourse is just an alternative style of sex
     is like teaching that cigarette smoking is just an alternative style
     of breathing in Health class, or drunkeness an alternative driving
     style in Driving.  It's plain negligent homicide, and the teacher's
     pay should be put in escrow to partially defray the burial costs
     of the students.
    
      For speaking the truth, that this has no place in public school
     sex education, except as a no-no, he is accused of "hatred and
     bigotry".  And much of the rest of the reaction to him is similar.
    
      Pat has a thick skin, and takes it.  He knows he doesn't speak
     to everybody, and it gives him a sharp edge that "be everything"
     candidates like Clinton and Dole lack.  The liberals fear him.
     That's the best thing I could say about him.  It's a shame he
     wouldn't run for a lower office and win it, first.
    
      bb

    fortunately, he doesn't have a snowball's chance in heck of 
    getting nominated.  i wonder if he really believes all that
    stuff he spouts on about?

    .141
    
    > I didn't say that a group shouldn't be heard.  I SAID that no group has
    > THE RIGHT to be heard...there is a very big difference.  Billy Graham
    > for example has NO Constitutional right to be heard.
    
    What am I missing here?  A group is composed of individual people, and
    according to the First Amendment CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAWS ABDRIDGING
    THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH.  In my book, the freedom of speech equates to
    the right to be heard.
    
    There is a difference between the right to be heard and the right to
    force people to listen.  You have the right to prattle on about your
    pointy-headed ideas and agenda, and we all have the right to ignore
    you.  But we don't - I guess it must be more fun to ridicule you.

    >or drunkeness an alternative driving style in Driving.  
    
    ahem.

 ZZ     You only have one point, Jack.   It's on the top of your head.
    
    Oh..yes very good...clap clap clap....that's rich I'll say!
    
    Re: consequences, perhaps I wasn't clear.  I believe strongly in the
    right to dissent, to protest, and to picket.  I believe in peaceful
    protest and boycotting, and I value anybody who endures the wrath of
    authority for standing up for what they believe.  When I said people
    are not willing to accept the consequences for their actions, I am
    speaking of this kind of scenario....
    
    Jack:  Charlie, I would strongly recommend you change your lifestyle
    here because man your going to catch HIV and frig up your life
    permanently.
    
    Charlie:  Eff You Jack, mind your business you nosey bastid you...I can
    poke anybody I want as long as they're willing to do it with me. 
    Besides, I use condoms anyway so piss off maggot.
    
    This is typically what I hear, maybe in different words but you get the
    idea.  Consequently, Charlie has in fact caught the clap on numerous
    occasions and is now HIV positive.  So where is Charlie now?  Well,
    Charlie is now an angry young man, pissed at the world and feeling like
    society owes him for this great injustice.  Moral of the
    story...Charlie even at the mature age of 22 was too immature to handle
    responsibility and has absolutely no concept of propriety.  
    
    Now you people can all claim that I have a pointy head and this may
    sound a little crass; however, the way I see society today is I'm on
    the outside looking in.  I don't do stupid things that will cause death
    for me and heartbreak for the family...and I watch the news and see the
    younger generation dropping like flies.  I think the sooner we smarten
    up and come to grips with causality here, the better off we'll be.  You
    may think Buchanan is a dangerous type, and that's your right.  But for
    the love of God keep the Jocelyn Elders types out of there as well. 
    The condom queen isn't exactly doucing the free sex mentality either!
    
    -Jack

>In my book, the freedom of speech equates to the right to be heard.
    
    While you must be allowed to speak, no one may be forced to listen.

    re: .146
    
    Awwww.  You beat Jack to it:-)
    
    Bob

    >  Pat has a thick skin
    
    Prolly won't bleed so easy then.  He shouldn't have to worry about
    getting one up the dirtbox.

    oooooohhhhh!

    .156
    
    Read the last paragraph of .153.

| <<< Note 635.141 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Bye Bye Mrs. Dougherty!" >>>

| Glen, I get pissed sometimes at your misconscrewing of information.  I
| didn't say that a group shouldn't be heard.  I SAID that no group has
| THE RIGHT to be heard...there is a very big difference.  Billy Graham
| for example has NO Constitutional right to be heard.  Billy Graham is
| widely heard because Billy Graham has merited the respect of society.
| Perhaps some day left wing idealogues will also merit that right.
| Right now they are noisemakers.

	Jack, you're still saying the same thing. You say all groups, then you
turn around and say only those who have earned respect. You can't have both.

| <<< Note 635.147 by ACISS1::ROCUSH >>>

| It seems as if the attacks on Buchannan fall into the same category as
| those which attack any person who stands up for what's right and what's
| wrong.  As soon as anyone says that soemthing is wrong, the liberal
| side starts bringing up all sorts of nonsense about who has the right
| to make values etc.

	Glenn Richardson beat you to it in his note before yours! The man is
very bright....he must have known you were coming. :-)

	It's funny.... both sides of the coin stand up for what they believe is
the correct thing. If you're to the left, you're considered a liberal and your
views aren't cared for by those who are not. If you're to the Right, you're a
whole host of nasty things, and your view is not cared for by those of the
Left. Funny how that works, huh? Maybe we ALL (yes, me as well) should just
look at the opinions and deal with them on that level, and not throw the same
liberal/Right crap at each other. Cuz when we do, we tend to have lost the view
being discussed.




Glen

    Let's make it even easier Glen.  Left ideas usually cost people more
    money and that's what pisses people off.  Lefties are very good at
    spending other peoples money.

    Liberal
    
    Believes any problem can be solved with enough money
    
    conservative Believes this is only true for law enforcement and
    military expenditures

     Z   conservative Believes this is only true for law enforcement and
     Z   military expenditures
    
    Meg, pain and fear are international languages.  I'll go with you on
    white collar welfare, i.e. $1K for military toilet seats but I believe
    there are alot of programs we are forced to support that are
    unconstitutional.  The military is constitutional.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 635.163 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Bye Bye Mrs. Dougherty!" >>>

| Let's make it even easier Glen.  Left ideas usually cost people more
| money and that's what pisses people off.  Lefties are very good at
| spending other peoples money.

	Spending more money is something bad. The other end of the spectrum
seems to want to cut the world down to nothing. What we need is a happy medium.

    
    >Let's make it even easier Glen.  Left ideas usually cost people more
    >money and that's what pisses people off.  Lefties are very good at
    >spending other peoples money.
    
    From where I sit, the right is just as good.  How much was spent on the
    foolish War on Drugs?  How much was spent on the invasion and
    occupation of Panama?  How much is being spent on weapon systems the
    DoD didn't even ask for?  The list is nearly endless.
    
    Both the left and the right grab money first and then try to convince
    you that you don't need the money nearly as much as the government.
    
    	Skip

 Z   From where I sit, the right is just as good.  How much was spent on the
 Z   foolish War on Drugs?  
    
    Too much perhaps.  Would you say drugs are a threat to our National
    Security?  
    
 Z   How much was spent on the invasion and
 Z   occupation of Panama?  
    
    The way I see it, if the canal is vital to our national interest, then
    it was worth spending.  I believe it was more costly to our country
    when Carter relinquished the rights to the canal in the year 2000? 
    Otherwise, another banana republic.  
    
 Z   How much is being spent on weapon systems
 Z   the DoD didn't even ask for?  The list is nearly endless.
    
  Again, white collar welfare to which I agree with you.  The only notable
    value to white collar welfare is that it creates employment and gives
    us something tangible in return.  I'll take 5 well paid Martin Marietta
    engineers over Mrs. Swartz, the lefty Brookline social worker any day.
    
    -Jack 

    Jack,
    
    How come all your sterotypes have ethnic names like Yossarian
    and not good anglo-saxon names like Cathcart or Smith? This is
    far too multicultural.
    

	Jack... not sure if it is meant this way or not, but have you noticed 
that everytime you talk about someone negative on the liberal side, it almost
always is a woman?

	Wow.... notes collision.... one ethnic, one women. But both observances
about Jack. :-)

    Ban ethnic women!

| <<< Note 635.172 by SMURF::WALTERS >>>

| Ban ethnic women!


	I wonder if Pat would ever say that? 

    Excuse me???  Like...look at my set personal guys.  Don't worry...the
    Irish nincompoops are in bed with the Eastern European types...don't
    worry about that!  Don't worry Glen, I have my own affirmative action
    program for nincompoop women in the world!  They all get equal billing. 
    However, you have made a good point about the gender thing.  Thanks for
    posting it!!!!
    
    -Jack

    re: .174
    
    I hope you don't consider *all* Irish women nincompoops.
    I wasn't exactly named Mary-Michael because my father was
    from Germany, y'know :-) :-)
    
    

re .174

	You never cease to amaze me, Jack.

    Okay...this is why I did it.
    
    Guidance counselor at Farley Junior High in Framingham.
    
    Mrs. Swartz...a real treasure I would like to bury.  She caused more
    trouble for me than she was worth.  She left the school system for the
    Brookline area and I will say that was the perfect mecca of leftist
    thought for her.  Good riddance!

    re: .151
    
    A very good angle on this issue.  

    A rather obtuse one, if you ask me.

    
      By the way, the J of S by Dr. Comfort contains no instances of the
     word "Belgian".  Perhaps the sequel (More J of S), which I found
     too tedious and never finished, contains it.
    
      bb
    

    So maybe the author of J of S knows said activity under another name. 
    Or perhaps he or she is world-view challenged.  That doesn't make him
    or her a bad person.  It also doesn't mean that the term is not used.

    You know, if I didn't know better, bb, I'd swear you have something
    against anal sex.

    I believe the term `anal sex' is misnomer. I have never seen anuses
    having sex. Not that I was on such a quest or anything.

| <<< Note 635.177 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Bye Bye Mrs. Dougherty!" >>>

| Guidance counselor at Farley Junior High in Framingham.
| Mrs. Swartz...a real treasure I would like to bury.  She caused more
| trouble for me than she was worth.  She left the school system for the
| Brookline area and I will say that was the perfect mecca of leftist
| thought for her.  Good riddance!

	Oh.... so because of this, whenever you think of someone in a bad
light, you tie it into ethnic women? If this is true Jack, then I would seek
some help, and fast. Because what you are doing is wrong.



Glen

    
      It's dangerous, that's all.  More than other sex.
    
      By the way, since I brought this in in order to show the medical
     reasons why, I've been glancing at the pictures, which bring back
     fond memories.  Of course, I mostly just read the articles...
    
      In another section, I recall the part about couples who find
     violence stimulating as foreplay.  He recommends gentle spanking
     by either partner as a safer alternative.
    
      bb

Z     Oh.... so because of this, whenever you think of someone in a bad
Z    light, you tie it into ethnic women? 
    
    Oh Glen..
    
    Will
    
    
       You 
    
    
    
    	  Shut.....
    
    
    
    		Up!!!!
    
    
    Damn...you and your victim mentality or trying to instigate trouble...I
    don't know which it is...probably the latter.
    
    Okay everybody....For Glen's sake let's check the record.
    
    
    I pick on mother n law from time to time.  Her name is DeNisco.  She's
    obviously Italian so I pick on the Italians.
    
    Mrs. Dougherty...atypical of the old Irish lady with blind
    faith...Kennedy bumb kisser from Dorchester.  Who else....oh of
    course...
    
    Mrs. Swartz, the brain dead leftist social worker from Brookline.  She
    covers the Jewish/Yiddish/Russian/Eastern European Segment.
    
    I have listed a cross section of victims from both Western and Eastern
    Europe.  Notice I haven't picked on African/Asian cultures but mainly 
    European ethnicity.  Can all you nice people out there please provide
    me a new list of alter egos so we can make Glen happy.  Thanks.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 635.185 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Bye Bye Mrs. Dougherty!" >>>

| Damn...you and your victim mentality or trying to instigate trouble...

	Jack, just stating my observations. In fact, you even thanked me for
the woman one. 

| Okay everybody....For Glen's sake let's check the record.

	Yeah, your notes. 

| I have listed a cross section of victims from both Western and Eastern Europe.

	Jack, you have still hit the ethnic part of it. Why can't you see it?



Glen

    >  It's dangerous, that's all.  More than other sex.
    
     That's a far cry from being useless. Racing a 12 meter yacht is much
    more dangerous than plodding along in a Junk, but that doesn't mean
    that there's nothing to be said for it. So it's more dangerous, BFD.
    Nobody's telling _you_ to do it. Some people do it and enjoy it. I find
    that your passing judgment on such people to be a bit much.

    .185
    
    Jack, nobody cares why you use these insulting and degrading
    stereotypes.  We don't want to know who Mrs Swartz and the other women
    you so casually drag through the mud are or were, and why you hate or
    despise them so.  The very fact that you use these epithets at all is
    offensive.

.166> What we need is a happy medium.

Perhaps we can get Jeanne Dixon - I don't think she's particularly busy these
days.

    martin,
              Show me one other note where you used the name DeNisco and
    referenced that she was Italian. Show me one other note where you used
    the name Swartz and referenced that she was Jewish. You have slandered
    the name of Mrs Dougherty for the last time. You will regret ever using
    her name in this file.  
    
    "Bye Bye Mrs. Dougherty!"         Bye bye Jack

| <<< Note 635.189 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

| Perhaps we can get Jeanne Dixon - I don't think she's particularly busy these
| days.


	HAAAA HAAAA HAAA!!!!  Very funny, Jack! Please come clean my screen of
Diet Pepsie!

 ZZ   CONSLT::MOYNIHAN                                      8 lines 
    
    
   ZZ         Bye bye Jack
    
    No...don't leave the file on account of me.  Blame Mrs.
    Dougherty...it's her fault!  
    
    I took the Valuing Diversity course at LKG a few years ago.  The
    discussion came up about how if a member of an ethnic group is insulted
    by an outsider, then this is a devaluing of ones race or ethnicity. 
    However, if one who for example...is Irish says something disparaging
    about somebody of the same group...hmmmm...kind of like me and this
    Mrs. Dougherty thing, then this is considered to be kosher...so to
    speak.  I don't seem to recall the teacher contesting this.  
    
    But for what it's worth.  My disparaging remarks toward Mrs. Dougherty
    don't focus so much on the fact that she's Irish.  It focuses more on
    the fact that she is so blinded by her heritage she was willing to
    compromise all decency by voting in a man into the Senate...who
    happened to get all his wealth through illegal means...who for all
    intents and purposes murdered a young lady...who got caught cheating at
    Harvard...who stands against almost every precept of the Roman Catholic
    Church...But...ALAS...He's a Kennedy and his womanizing brother was
    president!  Bless his heart.
    
    That's why I'm pissed at Mrs. Dougherty.  Has nothing to do with her
    heritage but has to do with heritage blinding her common sense!
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 635.192 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Bye Bye Mrs. Dougherty!" >>>

| No...don't leave the file on account of me.  

	Gee... I took it someone was planning on making u leave.

| Irish says something disparaging about somebody of the same group...hmmmm...
| kind of like me and this Mrs. Dougherty thing, then this is considered to be 
| kosher...so to speak.  

	Jack, you're an Irish woman?

| Has nothing to do with her heritage but has to do with heritage blinding her 
| common sense!

	Jack..... then it has to do with her heritage..... 

    A few hundred years of being shat upon by English landlords does
    tend to make you a tad careless about where you place your political
    loyalties.
    

    
    <---------
    
    
    
    Is that why they drink so much???

    .192
    
    > I took the Valuing Diversity course at LKG a few years ago.
    
    And you apparently didn't learn a bleedin' thing about valuing
    diversity.  If you had done, you would have discovered that it's not
    hard to phrase disparaging remarks without having to call ethnic-
    sounding names into play.  Your precious "Mrs. Dougherty" could simply
    be "somebody whose tunnel vision keeps getting the upper hand."  No
    name, no gender, no ethnic attack.  But the message comes across
    anyway, I do believe.  If you cared to see beyond your nose, then
    people might stop referring to the fact that your tunnel vision keeps
    getting the upper hand in the things you write here.

>                     <<< Note 635.194 by SMURF::WALTERS >>>

>    A few hundred years of being shat upon by English landlords does
>    tend to make you a tad careless about where you place your political
>    loyalties.

    puts you in the book of world records, too, i reckon.
    

    Dick:
    
    Perhaps it varies from class to class.  I can tell you what my
    experience was.  There was pretty much an equal mix of genders and 2/3
    mix of white, 1/3 black.  There were actually a few good things I
    gleaned from the class but much of it was an exercise in bickering and
    whining over multicultural issues from both sides.  It was about as
    useful as being in a living Soapbox so to speak.
    
    Nevertheless, I believe my point was made about this Dougherty thing
    and to belabor it any further would add no value to the discussion.
    My apologies to anybody out there who might have been offended by my
    comments, it wasn't meant to disparage ethnicity of any kind.  
    
    Glen, it will indeed be a treat for us when you have a consistent
    philosophy or ideology.  Feel free to share it with us when you have
    figured it out.  You
    Reagan/Clinton/Reagan/Clinton/Reagan/Clinton/Infinity....supporter.
    Kind of like determining the value of Pi...eh????
    
    
    -Jack

	Jack, that might be one of your problems. You can't seem to see that
things change over time. So if you keep a set philosophy, or idealogy, you
never get to grow as a person. It would explain a lot about you, though.

    CULTURAL WAR SNARF!!!

    
    re: .198
    
    >...supporter
    
    Jack,
    
     I do believe the only thing he is, is an athletic supporter...
    
    
    Hth...
    

Z    things change over time. So if you keep a set philosophy, or idealogy,
Z    you never get to grow as a person. 
    
    Thanks for recognizing and revealing the true faults of the president a
    few years ago.  I'm glad you finally evolved with the rest of us!!!
    
    -Jack

	Jack, growing as a person is a good thing. When you're a child, you
learn speech, to walk, etc. But if you had a closed mind, you would not learn
anything. As an adult, growing as a person can help you keep from being a
bigot.

    Glen:
    
    Try to realize something here.  I am NOT admitting I am a bigot.  I
    don't think I am.  I am apologizing to those who can't understand what
    I am trying to communicate and hope they don't go away frazzled and
    offended.  If I apologize, it is either due to my inability to
    communicate or it is an attempt to appease my weaker brother.  
    
    Your forgetting my friend that the AA crowd and the lefty goo goo's
    represent the pinnacle of racism and bigotry in this country.  I wish
    you had the wisdom to understand this.
    
    -Jack

    .204
    
    > I am NOT admitting I am a bigot.  I
    > don't think I am.
    
    You went two words too far with the second sentence there.

    Ho ho!!

Pardon my having timed out for a while -

   Am I correct in concluding that the reason we've headed off on the
   issues from bb regarding the inherent lack of goodness in anal
   intercourse, is that that inherent lack of goodness is the focal
   point of Buchanan's direction against societal acceptance of the
   gay lifestyle?

   I'm trying to understand only because the discussion has become
   so diverse that it's difficult to tell from a general review without
   understanding the intent of various participants.

   Is that the cornerstone upon which Pat justifies his stand? Or at least
   a major portion of his impetus?

    
    
    How about all those religious fanatics... rednecks... bigots and
    general freaks up Alaska.. huh???
    
    Straw Poll up there won by Pat gave him 33% of the vote...
    
    
    Must be the cold air and oil affecting their brains...

 Well, I just happen to have some campaign literature from Pat Buchanan
 here at work, and no where in it do I see "anal intercourse", "gay lifestyle",
 "homosexuality" or anything that can be construed as such.



 Jim

So, mebbe Mr. Braucher will tell us why he raised the issue in here.

	Might have to do with the '92 repub convention speech he gave?????

    
    
    Which we've been over and has been proven to have little to none of the
    "hate speech" that has been asserted.
    
    
    Mike

        All this vitriol because he cut his toe off?

    Mike,
    
    I am one of the people he is after in the "cultural war" thank you very
    much, but I think he is deadly dangerous to those of us with
    alternative families.  

    Gregg Allman shot hisself in the foot to get 4F'd.
    
    

    Seems that everyone has a lame excuse.

    As has been pointed out a few years later Pat joined the joggin fad and
    was running 5 mile/day.  

 I believe Buchanan was classified 4F well before the escalation of the
 war in Vietnam.  He was born in 1939, and would have been of draft age/
 eligibility in 1957.




 Jim

>	Might have to do with the '92 repub convention speech he gave?????

Well, anything's possible, I suppose, although I didn't see the phrase
"anal intercourse" in the text of the speech.

I'm assuming Mr. Braucher sees a connection between Buchanan's view of
homosexuals as a group and his (bb's) opinions on AI. I just want to
be sure if such a connection exists.

| <<< Note 635.212 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "be nice, be happy" >>>



| Which we've been over and has been proven to have little to none of the
| "hate speech" that has been asserted.

	When was this proven, Mike? In your own mind?

    Now he's against artificial intelligence?

 re .220
 


 The only "hate" speech I've seen has come from the anti Buchanan crowd,
 .100 in particular.




 Jim

>    As has been pointed out a few years later Pat joined the joggin fad and
>    was running 5 mile/day.  


  And the relevance to his draft classification is what?




 Jim

    .218
    
    Born in 1939 means he'd have been eligible until his 26th birthday, in
    1965, unless he had received a deferment, such as for college, in which
    case he'd have been eligible until his 35th birthday, in 1974.
    
    When did he receive a 4-F classification?  He could have arranged to
    have his classification changed from 1-A to 4-F when it looked as if
    there was a chance he'd get called.  Lots of others did.

 Call his headquarters and find out for yourself.




 Jim

    Glen:
    
    His speech was not a hate speech.  You've been molded by the paranoids
    in the media to look for a boogeyman behind every tree.
    
    -Jack

    
    Does Buchanan meet the hawk requirement even?  Seems pretty
    isolationist and anti-interventionist to me.

| <<< Note 635.221 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Captain Dunsel" >>>

| Now he's against artificial intelligence?


	Hee hee hee

| <<< Note 635.226 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| His speech was not a hate speech.  You've been molded by the paranoids
| in the media to look for a boogeyman behind every tree.

	No, Jack, I have not been molded by the media. The man is just not
good, in my book. I'm not asking you to believe as I do. But I am telling you
how I feel.

 Pat Buchanan spent 3.5 years in the Army ROTC, with the goal of a commission\
 as a 2nd lieutenant.

 As a child he had arthritic knees and had surgery in 1958.  In December of
 1959 he was called for a physical at Walter Reed Army Hospital in Washington,
 DC and was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis, was classified as 4F,ineligble
 for military service.  According to the campaign worker to whom I spoke,
 himself a military veteran, once someone is classified as 4F, there is
 no review of that classification.

 

 Jim

 

>                        According to the campaign worker to whom I spoke,
> himself a military veteran, once someone is classified as 4F, there is
> no review of that classification.

I find this hard to believe.  It's also irrelevant that the informant
was a veteran.                         

 Yeah, I guess it is irrelevant.




 Jim

>  <<< Note 635.232 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>

>It's also irrelevant that the informant
>was a veteran.                         

	er, well he probably knows more about it than i do, for instance. ;>

Most veterans know very little about the draft.  It would be more believable
if the guy had been a draft dodger.

So once again we have a clear case of a conservative on the public dole.
Buchanan was 19 and already signing up for Federal money.

TTom

 .235  oh.  okay then.

    
      Jack - sorry not to respond earlier.  Buchanan (and I) never
     advocated (so far as I know) anything that could remotely be
     called homophobia.  For example, there is no anti-sodomy law
     in Massachusetts, as in some other states, and I'm glad there
     isn't.  Digital doesn't care what your sex life is, and that's
     fine with me.  I do not eschew the company of gay people, except
     on those occassions when I'm foregoing company altogether.
    
      But Buchanan (and I, though obviously just in here), have been
     called hateful and bigotted because we oppose a very militant
     agenda of a group of Democratic activists who attack traditional
     values wherever they find them, and some (though not all) of these
     groups that attack (and heckle) Pat are militant gay action groups.
    
      Pat opposes much of the public school curriculum changes these
     people advocate, and has indeed argued against such things as
     "promiscuity".  Remember, Pat is a Catholic.  I'm not, but I very
     much sympathize.  There is a very unreasonable group on the left in
     America, who respond to all opposition with namecalling.  I cannot
     see any other means of dealing with this but confrontation.  But it
     puts a hard edge on Pat, which hurts him with reasonable centrists,
     who characterize him as farther right than he seems to me.
    
      As to a 4F in 1959, who cares ?  That was the old peacetime brown
     shoe army.  Personally, I enlisted (barely passing the physical),
     and went to the war, not so much out of patriotism, but because
     Viet Nam seemed more appealing than Texas (which it is).  Yet one
     of my longest standing friends was a conscientious objector, who did
     alternative service with the criminally insane in NYC (he's Quaker).
    
      They really didn't want me, as I was over 20, and would have used
     any excuse to not take Pat.  The ideal private is 18, just out of
     high school.  Older is worse - they run less, and think too much.
    
      bb

>                                                               Yet one
>     of my longest standing friends was a conscientious objector, who did
>     alternative service with the criminally insane in NYC (he's Quaker).

Got a job as a subway conductor, eh?

    
      A little research indicates Binder started the rathole with his
     .40 responding to .38.  It lured me in because it asked a question,
     "what's socially wrong with".  Of course, relationships are
     different - there might be nothing wrong.  Or it could be lethal,
     without the participants even knowing it.  There are sex acts which
     please people very much and kill them dead.
    
      Nature was not created for our benefit.  There is no reason to
     suppose things work just because they seem right or natural to us.
     On the contrary, some innocent-seeming things are fatal to us and
     to others.  Tradition has purpose in a dangerous world - it helps
     us avoid what is known not to work.  Ignoring it is like running
     red lights.  Sometimes you should, but mostly it's better to stop.
    
      bb

    Still tossing out the penicillin, eh, Browk?

>          <<< Note 635.240 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "Welcome to Paradise" >>>

    
>      A little research indicates Binder started the rathole with his
>     .40 responding to .38.

	I knew that.  But I figured he'd jump down my throat if I
	said anything about it. ;>

    There are many behaviours which can be harmful. I'll bet smoking is way
    more harmful and dangerous than anal sex, yet it is socially acceptable
    to smoke.

    You draw the line here because it's something you don't like.

    .... now I'm wondering about second hand anal sex.

    
    	As far as I know, no one's ever boinked a smoker and caught an
    	STD, and then passed it onto other boinkees.
    

What about the minute hand and hour hand varieties?

>    	As far as I know, no one's ever boinked a smoker and caught an
>    	STD, and then passed it onto other boinkees.

So smoking is a prophylactic?

	Herr Braucher seems to me to be making a lot of sense,
	unpopular though the opinion might be.

    re: .247
    
    Nope, no STDs.  Just asthma, bronchitis, bronchiolitis,
    and emphysema.  It's still Russian Roulette, you've just
    changed weapons.
    
    Mary-Michael
    

    |So smoking is a prophylactic?
    
    yup, as far as shawn knows.

    
    >       As far as I know, no one's ever boinked a smoker and caught an
    >       STD, and then passed it onto other boinkees.
    
    
    
    Say huh?  Is this a good reason to keep smoking, I won't ever catch an
    STD?  Gee! Wait till I tell the local STD control people this one.

    
    	Eesh, by the time I re-read the wording on that there was another
    	reply and I wasn't going to bother changing the grammar.  But now
    	I have no choice:
    
        As far as I know, smoking is not responsible for the transfer of
    	an STD from boinker to boinkee, etc., etc.
    

    This conversation now hedges on a silly rathole.

| <<< Note 635.235 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>

| Most veterans know very little about the draft.  It would be more believable
| if the guy had been a draft dodger.

	Gerald...you're not being fair. Why should Jim have to call Clinton?

| <<< Note 635.242 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "person B" >>>


| But I figured he'd jump down my throat if I said anything about it. ;>

	And that's a bad thing, right? ;_)

| <<< Note 635.244 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Captain Dunsel" >>>

| .... now I'm wondering about second hand anal sex.

	SCCRREEAAMMMMMM!!!!!!  Get your butt down here and clean my screen!

    
        Come on Glen, you don't really want your screen cleaned!

    
    	I think he just wants Glenn's butt down there.
    

	Ok... so Shawn got it right....

I quit smoking. You can't quit HIV.

Art

>I quit smoking. You can't quit HIV.

    A person can quit AI, can you quit lung cancer and emphysema?

    -- Dave

    Apparently, several children HAVE quit HIV.
    
    You can quit smoking, yes, but you can't quit the damage that has been
    done. It's pretty hard to quit lung cancer once it starts.

    I can quit my job but I'll still have to pee someday!

| <<< Note 635.262 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Captain Dunsel" >>>

| You can quit smoking, yes, but you can't quit the damage that has been
| done. It's pretty hard to quit lung cancer once it starts.

	In some cases you can quit smoking, take out the damage that was done,
and then start smoking again. 


Glen

| <<< Note 635.263 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| I can quit my job but I'll still have to pee someday!

	Just don't take us there! :-)

    
    RE:235
    
     Once someone has been drafted and served in the armed forces aren't
    they consider a veteran upon discharge?
    
    Dave

    
    	I believe you have to be put on Active Duty 1st.
    
    	My 10th grade social studies teacher told us he was put on act-
    	ive duty hours before the Korean/Vietnam [not sure which] War
    	ended, and thus never actually served any real time but was
    	considered a veteran.
    

re:          <<< Note 635.240 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "Welcome to Paradise" >>>

Thanks for the connection.

Now, in .40, Dick said -

>    Demonstrate for us all, if you please, what is SOCIALLY wrong with a
>    loving homosexual partnership.

To which you responded with all of the stuff about the evyls of AI.

There seems to be a problem here, though.

It would appear to me that something less than 50% of homosexuals engage
in AI in any fashion. My next conclusion is that something MORE than 50%
of homosexuals fail to engage in anything which you would judge socially
wrong.

So my next question becomes, what justification has Mr. Buchanan for
taking a stance against homosexuals as a class if only a minority of them 
can be shown to engage in evyl activities?

Here's where I see the hate in Buchanan's '92 address. For the most part,
I wouldn't honestly be able to classify it as "hate", but it sure as hell is
intolerance no matter how I look at it. Give me a meaningful difference
between hate and intolerance and we'll talk.

>   The presidency is also America's bully pulpit, what Mr. Truman called,
>"pre-eminently a place of moral leadership." George Bush is a defender of right
>to life, and life-long champion of the Judeo-Christian values and beliefs upon
>which this nation was built. 

OJM's complaints aside, there are millions of folks in this country who don't
happen to have Judeo-Christian leanings. I'll wager the above doesn't sit well
with them. Hell - it doesn't sit well with me. I don't care to be reminded by
politicians about the abstractions of faiths not my own.

>   At its top is unrestricted abortion on demand.

Hyperbole doesn't normally engender those opposed to the viewpoint. Alienation
is more likely to be the outcome. Those who are thus alienated normally don't
feel that tolerance abounds.

>   Yet, a militant leader of the homosexual rights movement could rise at that
>convention and exult: "Bill Clinton and Al Gore represent the most pro-lesbian
>and pro-gay ticket in history." And so they do. 

If this isn't intolerance, I don't know what is. Who's going to tell me that
Pat isn't clearly, by these words, finding fault with the gay rights movement?

>   Friends, this is radical feminism. The agenda Clinton & Clinton would impose
>on America -- abortion on demand, a litmus test for the Supreme Court,
>homosexual rights, discrimination against religious schools, women in combat --
>that's change all right. But it is not the kind of change America wants. It is
>not the kind of change America needs. And it is not the kind of change we can
>tolerate in a nation that we still call God's country. 

Let's see, since I've just recently been accused of invoking the Dictionary
of Inflammatory Terms, so I must be an expert on the content of said volume -
  - abortion on demand
  - homosexual rights
  - discrimination against religious schools

All nice little ideals around which to enrage folks. Damn - if he'd had a few
books on hand, I betcha he could have gotten a nice bonfire going.

>   Yes, we disagreed with President Bush, but we stand with him for
>freedom-of-choice religious schools, and we stand with him against the amoral
>idea that gay and lesbian couples should have the same standing in law as
>married men and women. 

This is the gem, of course. If it's not hate, and it's not intolerance, then
by what moral stance does this bastard have any right to disparage the rights
of homosexuals, not to mention why he's got any right to judge their goals as 
amoral?

>   We stand with President Bush in favor of federal judges who interpret the law
>as written, and against Supreme Court justices who think they have a mandate to
>rewrite our Constitution. 

I was literally flabbergasted to find out that the SCOTUS has been rewriting
the Constitution. OK - it's not hate or intolerance, but it sure exposes
this airhole as a goober.

>   My friends, this election is about much more than who gets what. It is about
>who we are. It is about what we believe, it is about what we stand for as
>Americans. There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of
>America. 

So we've come full circle [and accomplished nothing, Mr. Buchanan.] We're
back to the religious theme. Well, not only did you miss me by a mile, but
you offended me by making statements about how I should-really_oughta-wanta
believe in the same bullchite you do. Kiss off, airhole.

    if you served you're a verteran of the military.
    
    if you served in VN you're a VN veteran.
    
    if you served during the VN conflict (but not in VN) you're VN Era
    veteran.
    
    i believe that's how it goes.

    =I was literally flabbergasted to find out that the SCOTUS has been
    =rewriting the Constitution. OK - it's not hate or intolerance, but it sure
    =exposes this airhole as a goober.
    
     Where've you been? SCOTUS rulings have effectively rewritten the
    Constitution for decades. Rulings which are based on political
    sentiment and newfound ideals vs what is actually written in the
    Constitution (also known as 'legislating from the bench') effectively
    rewrite the Constitution. What Buchanan is complaining about is the
    abandonment of "original understanding," and there's really no
    intellectually honest way to disagree with that position. The premise
    of "original understanding," by the way, is that the meaning of any
    particular part of the Constitution is what was commonly understood to
    be the meaning by those who actually wrote and passed it, not a "new
    and improved" interpretation which may be at odds with the original
    understanding. 

re:             <<< Note 635.271 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "memory canyon" >>>

Of course SCOTUS rulings change the interpretation and application of
the principles in the Constitution. And in another 50 years a different
set of judges may well turn things 180 degrees from the way they are 
interpreted today. But the constitution remains the same, lacking a 
Constitutional convention. It's the very fact that the document remains
the same which allows for the changes in interpretion to continue to
take place. I don't disagree with you, but it seems that Buchanan's 
rhetoric on the matter is a bit exaggerated, at least in my opinion. 
A minor point, in any event, given the rest of the speech.

I still say he's an airhole.

    >And in another 50 years a different set of judges may well turn things 180 
    >degrees from the way they are interpreted today. 
    
    Precisely the reason that original understanding is the only
    intellectually sound method of interpreting the Constitution.
    
    >I don't disagree with you, but it seems that Buchanan's 
    >rhetoric on the matter is a bit exaggerated, at least in my opinion. 
    
     I'd venture to guess that the fact that he genuinely turns you off
    strongly influences your perception here. He's on the money on this
    one.
    

    
      I don't think I have to say anything about the smoking/anal
     intercourse analogy, except that I regret I didn't make it myself.  The
     issues are almost EXACTLY the same, and the magnitudes of the
     problems are only different because more Americans smoke.  As to
     "social acceptability", it's on the decline in both cases, as are
     both practices themselves.  Good.  We live with ordered liberty -
     nobody will arrest you for behavior which is a primary disease
     vector if you do it privately.  But we will nag you.  Resistance is
     futile - smokers, and unsafe lovers, must expect to be nagged from
     now on.  There is no escape.
    
      As to Pat, yes, he opposes the "agenda" of gay rights groups, and
     Clinton supports it.  That agenda contains items I oppose myself,
     particularly in the public schools.  Examining the charge of bigotry
     as regards myself, I try not to be irate, nor give in automatically,
     but to consider the question logically.  I fail to see any reason
     why my view is bigotted.  It just seems like common sense to me.
    
      bb

    
    
    bb???
    
     Can you look into that Joy of Sex manual and see if they have anything
    under the "New and exciting things to try" about Golden Showers at rest
    stops??
    
     Thanks
    

 Z   This is the gem, of course. If it's not hate, and it's not intolerance,
 Z   then
 Z   by what moral stance does this bastard have any right to disparage the
 Z   rights
 Z   of homosexuals, not to mention why he's got any right to judge their
 Z   goals as amoral?
    
    Jack, in our society today it is in vogue to live by the old..."ouu...I
    never judge people."  Now you surely must realize what a disingenuous 
    statement this is.  Anybody who actually lives by this rule in my
    opinion is a non thinker, and quite frankly, there are enough sheep in 
    our country as it is.  Key rule when entering a conversation with
    anybody.  EVERYBODY is discriminatory in their thinking.  All the way
    from the employer to the woman who goes to the farmers market.  I
    believe standards are the core to the survival of a culture.  Pat
    Buchanan is appealing to those who think in this way.
    
    I think where you and I differ is not the hate aspect but the
    intolerance aspect.  Since you tend to think on a more humanistic level
    than I do, you seem to go by this notion that all intolerance is bad
    bad bad!  However, tolerance and intolerance are subjective to the 
    standards of society.  We are not at that level and in my opinion, I
    hope we never reach it.  I believe intolerance can be destructive, but
    it can also be a restrainer.  I wish there had been more intolerance in
    the late 60's, then maybe half the kids who are frigged up today
    wouldn't be and many of the X generationers would actually know who
    their daddy's were/are. 
    
    Intolerance - To eschew a specific idea or set of standards.
    Hate - To completely lack regard, love, or compassion for a person or a
    thing.  An allegiance more than a feeling.
    
    I believe the two are mutually exclusive.  There are certain behaviors
    I will not tolerate in my home, but love abounds.
    
    -Jack

     >Examining the charge of bigotry
     >as regards myself, I try not to be irate, nor give in automatically,
     >but to consider the question logically.  
    
     One wonders if your approach to actual physical relations is as
    calculated and clinical. Do you don a white lab coat, latex gloves, etc
    and take her to a cold lab? :-)
    
     While I don't discount your logical process in terms of determining
    that anal intercourse is not for you, I do question the authority by
    which you proclaim it be not for anyone else, either. If risk avoidance
    were the sole determinant of any human behavior, we'd be tremendously
    limited in the scope of our choices. Recreation would be pretty much
    out- especially the most fun kinds. Personal powered transportation
    would be out as well- it's simply too dangerous to risk allowing
    everyone to drive themselves around. It's best left to seasoned
    experts. Risk is a part of life, and there are means to increase the
    safety of inherently risky activities. If Braucher's rule of risk
    avoidance were strictly adopted, there would be no power tools,
    chainsaws, etc, because such things are inherently more dangerous than
    hand tools designed to perform the same functions. But that's clearly
    silly- risk is not the sole determinant of human behavior (at least,
    not in healthy individuals). Other factors come into play. To you,
    simply presenting these other factors is tantamount to advocating
    unsafe practices. That's an unreasonable position, IMO. To me it is far
    preferable to present the maximum information possible and allow people
    to come to their own conclusions than to censor information in order to
    program people to behave like automatons. How else can we claim to have
    anything even approaching a free society? I think you'd be happiest in
    an Orwellian society, where independent thought were discouraged and
    adherence to rules paramount. At least, that's the impression you
    give. Which only makes me wonder why you issue a wounded cry of
    "bonapartiste!" at every moderator action in here; by all indications that
    would seem to be right up your alley.

>             <<< Note 635.277 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "memory canyon" >>>
> I think you'd be happiest in
> an Orwellian society, where independent thought were discouraged and
> adherence to rules paramount. At least, that's the impression you
> give.

	That's not the impression he gives me - at all.  He strikes
	me as someone with an objective eye, who considers the many
	facets of an issue before reaching a conclusion, and is
	more likely to rail against pre-established "rules" or patterns
	of thought than most.  

	Not that anyone asked.

    
    
    Jack,
    
    
    Allow me to split a hair..... :')
    
    Judeo Christian values and Judeo Christian laenings are not one in the
    same.  Of course they could probably be called something else, but I
    think you would agree with quite a few of them.  Not stealing, not
    killing, etc.  There is a list that should be acceptable to all. 
    Personally, the way I look at things is your rights end where mine
    begin (your and my being generic terms).  I think the only stickler
    that you and I might have is the case of abortion.  This issue I look
    at, not so much as a religious issue, but as a right of the unborn
    child.  I know you see it differently, and that's okay too, but until
    someone can prove to me that the child is not human, this will be my
    view.  Maybe we can call these values "do the right thing" or
    something.  
    
    
    Mike

re .266:

Dave, draftees who serve are indeed veterans.  The fact that they were drafted,
however, doesn't make them experts on the draft.  Many draft dodgers became
experts on the draft in order to dodge it.  The issue is whether "once a 4F,
always a 4F" is true.  As I mentioned, I was classified 4F due to an easily
cured condition.  If the draft hadn't been cancelled shortly thereafter, I
would have become an expert on whether I could be reclassified.  This is
because I was a [potential] draft dodger.

    
      re, .278 - great - i may need a fan in the imperial environs..:-)
    
      Doc makes a good point, though, that risk has to be balanced against
     return.  If you go mountain climbing, you might die, and there is
     no necessity about climbing peaks.  Yet some do it, including me.
    
      The Reading school system has an optional intro to rock climbing.
     Other towns have voted this idea down.  I think I'm with the latter,
     even though I do it myself.
    
      And anyway, what's the benefits of butts (either kind) ?
    
      bb

    re: Di
    
    >	That's not the impression he gives me - at all.  He strikes
    >	me as someone with an objective eye, who considers the many
    >	facets of an issue before reaching a conclusion, and is
    >	more likely to rail against pre-established "rules" or patterns
    >	of thought than most.  
    
     What explains, then, his heavy reliance on tradition and historical
    peculiarities? Maintaining traditions certainly doesn't tend to
    indicate a questioning nature. To be honest, it appears to me that Bill
    came to his conclusion first and then assembled justifying datapoints.
    
    re: Bill
    
    >  Teaching that anal intercourse is just an alternative style of sex
    > is like teaching that cigarette smoking is just an alternative style
    > of breathing in Health class, or drunkeness an alternative driving
    > style in Driving.  
    
     This is a false analogy, of course. Anal intercourse IS, in point of
    fact, an alternative style of sex. It is a sex act practised by untold
    numbers of people without harmful side effects. However, it is
    inherently more dangerous than vaginal sex, for the very medical
    reasons you state. What it is not is a guaranteed transmitter of HIV,
    nor is it responsible for more transmissions of HIV than vaginal sex.
    If sex education is going to be undertaken at all, then coverage should
    be given to the major acts involved, in a clinical rather than
    lascivious way. One suspects that if anal sex is simply not mentioned
    in sex education, then oral sex cannot be far behind on the "thou shalt
    pretend it doesn't exist and hope for the best" list.
    
    > It's plain negligent homicide, and the teacher's
    > pay should be put in escrow to partially defray the burial costs
    > of the students.
    
    This is a non-sequitur, though I can imagine you beating breast in your
    cube as you advance this righteous sounding proposal. First of all,
    nobody's talking about advocating anal sex (or any other kind of sex)
    in sex education class. Second of all, presenting the information
    _including the medical issues, dangers and risks involved_ is perfectly
    responsible; indeed, withholding such information could prove deadly
    for some unsuspecting kid.

>             <<< Note 635.282 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "memory canyon" >>>
    
>    Maintaining traditions certainly doesn't tend to
>    indicate a questioning nature. 

	Questioning traditions (which, by their very nature, often
	have some merit), does not always have to result in adopting
	a non-traditional view, does it?  If I read Billbob's notes
	correctly, and perhaps I don't, who knows, I conclude that
	he is not one to have his opinions dictated to him - and yet not
	one to discard conventional wisdom just for the sake of doing so.

    >	Questioning traditions (which, by their very nature, often
    >	have some merit), does not always have to result in adopting
    >	a non-traditional view, does it?  
    
    Of course not.
    
    >    If I read Billbob's notes
    >	correctly, and perhaps I don't, who knows, I conclude that
    >	he is not one to have his opinions dictated to him - and yet not
    >	one to discard conventional wisdom just for the sake of doing so.

    What's the point of "discard[ing] conventional wisdom just for the sake of
    doing so"? Do you find that anyone has advocated that in this
    discussion? Why, then, did you bring it up?

re: .276

Doesn't it say in the Bible, Judge not, least ye be judged, or something 
like that.

By the way Jack, I agree with you, but it seems contrary to Christian thinking.
Making rational Judgements is a human survival tool.

>    What's the point of "discard[ing] conventional wisdom just for the sake of
>    doing so"? Do you find that anyone has advocated that in this
>    discussion? Why, then, did you bring it up?

	I was making an observation about how I think Billbob operates,
	in general.  Sorry if I gave you too much information.
	I'll try not to bring up anything in the future.

| <<< Note 635.269 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>


	Jack, see the anger of your note? I did. I felt a lot of the same anger
when he went on with his speech. Now think of those who supported his views.
Think of how happy they were. Now think of how it strengthened their position
on the big evils of the world (in their minds, anyway). From that speech, how
much hate do you think it generated? From that speech, how much more do you
think he "didn't" say?


Glen

| <<< Note 635.275 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Too many politicians, not enough warriors." >>>

| Can you look into that Joy of Sex manual and see if they have anything under 
| the "New and exciting things to try" about Golden Showers at rest stops??

	Leave it to Andy to go for obscurity....

 Z   Doesn't it say in the Bible, Judge not, least ye be judged, or
 Z   something like that.
    
    No, not in the context to which you are applying it.
    
    -Jack

 Z   Jack, see the anger of your note? I did. I felt a lot of the same anger
 Z   when he went on with his speech.
    
    I realize you are speaking to Jack D., Glen.
    
    Glen, I'm going to use the term "you" in the general sense so that you
    will not think I'm directing at you personally.  Sure, politicians say
    things that make us angry, that's life...get used to it.  Gephardt for
    example makes me angry evertime he says something because I know in my
    heart he is making fools out of you and I can't stand that.  I don't
    like to see the word sucker stamped on your forehead..it angers me.
    
    I see Buchanans speech as a counter attack Glen.  As far as I can see,
    the public school system HAS been down the poop chute for many years
    now and I blame left wing ideology for it, no mistake about that one.  
    Therefore, if you feel a sense of anger, maybe you better take a good
    look in the mirror because it just might be the likes of you that
    caused this cultural war in the first place.  
    
    -Jack

    
    > Leave it to Andy to go for obscurity....
    
    
    Only to you... 
    

>	Jack, see the anger of your note? I did. I felt a lot of the same anger
>when he went on with his speech. Now think of those who supported his views.
.Think of how happy they were. Now think of how it strengthened their position
>on the big evils of the world (in their minds, anyway). From that speech, how
>much hate do you think it generated? From that speech, how much more do you
>think he "didn't" say?


Well, I know I'm full of hate from it.  I (and all the folks I know who
support Buchanan) are so full of hate that we stand around gnashing our teeth,
rattling our sabres and screaming at each other.  Why, we look for cars with
pink triangles on them and run them off the road, we look for Pro choice
bumper stickers and toss eggs at the cars, we look for homes where men and
women live together without being married and toss rocks at their windows..
We just can't wait for the day when Pat is elected and we can declare war
on our own people..



Jim

    jack,
    
    Take it to the schools topic.  
    
    As has been pointed out to many you get out of public schools what you
    put into them.  volunteer and get busy, and help kids get a good
    education or leave it alone.
    

    re .293
    
    Jim,
    
    So you and your friends were the ones who tried playing bumper-tag with
    my vehicle for the "Hate is not a family value" bumper sticker, until
    you saw the NRA decal.  Was it that or the "Guns don't kill religious
    fanatics do"  That had you and yours shrieking "queen(sic) lover" at me
    and telling me I was going to hell for my attitudes?
    
    meg

>    Allow me to split a hair..... :')

I'd really prefer that you didn't, Michael - mine are thin enough already.
    
> Maybe we can call these values "do the right thing" or something.  

And I think that if Buchanan had chose a less culturo-centric term, he
might have gotten a few more points.

 Of course if you know me and have read my notes on such nonsense you'
 know that I, nor any of my "friends" would participate in such deplorable
 activity.



 Jim

 ZZ   Take it to the schools topic.  
    
    The crux of Buchanan's speech had to do with reclaiming the public
    school system.  Therefore, my comments are within proper context.
    
    As far as leaving it alone, shouldn't have to.  I spend 3.2K annually
    for those claptraps.
    
    -Jack

    What a lousy night.  Maybe a ....

    
			  (__)
                          (oo)
                   /-------\/ 
                  / |     || \ 
                 *  ||W---|| ...SNARF will make me feel better. 
                    ~~    ~~  

    

>    What a lousy night.

Cold out there in Topaz heaven, Steve?

    Indeed.  They are still cold, in fact (not much change at all since I
    snarfed on Friday night). 

    
    re: .295
    
    Methinks meg needs to get her sarcasm-meter re-calibrated...
    

    Heard on NPR Nooze this a.m. that Buchanan took 12 of 21 delegates
    in the Louisiana caucus.  A lot of folks thought Gramm would win.
    

    
      How Pat Buchanan must be loving it today !  To find such refreshing
     candor anywhere else on the US political scene, you need either
     a highly principled loser such as Lugar, or a leftist out on the
     wing of the Democratic party.  Buchanan wants to send a message,
     by winning a couple of hundred (out of 2000) delegates, and my
     guess is, he will.  He wants to address the convention and thunder
     anathema on everything modern, and my guess is, he will.  Unconcerned
     about alienating those who disagree with him, he is free to preach
     to the faithful.  It would be a shame if he had a chance to win,
     because then he'd have to lie like the others.
    
      bb

    
    Politics as entertainment, alas.

    Given (a) that the Republican party wants to win the presidency and (b) 
    that Pat Buchanan would probably not swing the moderate vote, does
    anyone here believe that the Republican convention would ever nominate 
    Buchanan even if he won the primaries of all fifty states?  If they 
    wouldn't, then isn't all this talk of Early Momentum pretty irrelevant?
    

    
      Um, if Pat B (or for that matter, you, Forsberg) wins 50% + 1
     of the 2000+ delegates, yes, they will be the nominee, whether
     they can win any votes in the election, or not.
    
      bb

>      Um, if Pat B (or for that matter, you, Forsberg) wins 50% + 1
>     of the 2000+ delegates, yes, they will be the nominee, whether
>     they can win any votes in the election, or not.

    I'm not familiar with the rules, but are the delegates required to vote
    for their designated candidate on the first round of balloting and then
    whomever they wish?  

    One year Jesse Jackson was trying to get the delegates to vote for him
    on the first round of balloting (to show their conscience) and then for
    who they were supposed to represent on the second round (didn't work
    out too well for Jackson).

    I know with the general elections, the electoral college delegates are
    free to vote for whomever they want.  Party pressure usually keeps
    strick control over electoral college delegates, but at least one
    delegate in recent times cast his vote for (I believe) Yogi Beara.

    -- Dave

>    I'm not familiar with the rules, but are the delegates required to vote
>    for their designated candidate on the first round of balloting and then
>    whomever they wish?  

I think it varies from state to state.

    
      Yup, varies.  The most common arrangement is to require the
     vote for the designated candidate on the first ballot only.
     But since the candidates pick their own slates of delegates
     they tend to swing the way a withdrawing candidate says.
    
      By the way, it has also changed through history.  In the old
     days before my birth, 50%+1 was not enough - Republican rules
     required a 2/3 majority to nominate, which led to some marathons
     of 50 ballots.  There is also precedent for factions to walk out
     of the convention and nominate their own guy - happened in 1860
     to the Democrats, 1912 to the Republicans, in each case causing
     the party to lose.
    
      In 1964 the Republicans, and in 1972 the Democrats, nominated
     people who had almost no chance of winning, and nearly lost every
     state.  But the nominee remained the nominee, right through the
     catastrophic election.  If Buchanan were nominated, he would carry
     several southern and smaller states, and do better than Landon,
     Goldwater, McGovern, or Mondale.  But I think he would lose, and
     it wouldn't be very close.  In fact, I'm not sure anybody can beat
     Clinton this year.  He says what people want to hear, and does the
     exact opposite.  This is often a winning strategy - I could give
     plenty of examples from both parties.
    
      bb

>In fact, I'm not sure anybody can beat Clinton this year.  
    
     Seems that way, but it looked like Bush would be a shoo-in the year
    before the election. Stranger things have happened. Besides,
    investigators could finally get some answers in some of the Whitewater
    investigations. An indictment for Clinton or Hillary at the right time
    could create just enough turmoil to derail the juggernaut.
    
    >He says what people want to hear, and does the exact opposite.  
    
     Absolutely. The republicans will have to capitalize on that if they
    are to unseat him.

    
    Buchanan, at this point in time, is probably not electable
    due to the way he's been portrayed. But most people, once they've
    had a chance to listen to him, find they agree with much of what
    he says or at least respect the fact he states what he believes in
    in a very straight forward way.
    
    I tend to think he'd fare very well if Clinton had the courage
    to engage him in a series of debates. 
    
    As for >I'm not sure anybody can beat Clinton this year.
    I see your point. But IF, and I stress IF, the repubs don't
    beat the hell out of each other in the primaries and IF they
    mount a campaign highlighing the hypocricy, sleaze, and lies
    that characterize the present administration, they can indeed
    sway public opinion on the Clintons. The campaign need not be
    dirty either. Simply state the facts using quotes and accurate
    examples with the general theme of asking if anyone knows
    what the Clintons stand for.  

RE: 635.313 by HANNAH::MODICA "Journeyman Noter"

I guess I'm not most people.


Phil

>    Given [...] that Pat Buchanan would probably not swing the moderate vote, does
>    anyone here believe that the Republican convention would ever nominate 
>    Buchanan even if he won the primaries of all fifty states?

IF Buchanan were to win the primaries in all 50 states, I think it would be
already demonstrated that he COULD swing the moderate vote. Moderates also
participate in the primaries.

But, he can't, and he won't.

    
      Dole's going to win Ia tonight.  But the news story is that PB
     will give Forbes a charge for second, with Gramm nowhere.
    
      I think the right of the GOP is starting to coalesce to Pat.  Don't
     be surprised if he does well in NH next week, either.
    
      And surprisingly, Buchanan's campaign has been the least negative !
     He hardly ever criticizes a fellow Republican, promises to support
     whoever gets the nomination, and sets his speeches to lambasting
     Clinton and everything Democratic.
    
      The themes are the same as last time : cut government, isolationism,
     family values, right-to-life, stop all gun control, cut taxes,
     cancel affirmative action.  There is no compromise in the man, nor
     will he mollify his views in trying to win.  He openly says, "If
     you don't agree with me, vote for somebody else."  He isn't going
     to go for any "gimmicks" like the flat tax.
    
      The other Republicans are going to be tugged towards the Conservative
     side by the force of this candidacy.  I think Slick likes it.  But
     then, Carter thought Reagan could be beaten as an extremist and lost
     as a result.  Do not underestimate Buchanan's appeal.
    
      bb

Say what you will about i'm but Pat Buchanan continues to come off as
about the onliest guy up there who actually believes the stuff he says.

Gramm has been shown to be the opportunistic charlatan that he is.
Forbes, after starting strong, is losing support about as fast as he's
gaining it. Dole grabs the imagination of no one.

The problem with a Buchanan nomination is that it would be tantamount to
handing the whole thang back to Slick. 

Can you imagine what a lame duck Clinton might try?

TTom

> Gramm has been shown to be the opportunistic charlatan that he is.

Do you have any clear examples of this? He's been pretty consistent
even back in the days when he was a member of the democratic party.

Doug.

Actually, the one that comes to mind now is his claims about shrinking
the government and being a major supporter of spending billions on NASA
in his home state. Don't get me wrong. I'm all in favor of NASA but pork
is pork, dontcha know.

Then there's his current propensity to skip most of the votes going on in
the Senate. He's certainly showing us strong leadership, not.

I got nothing personal against the guy it's just that he comes across to
me as the typical politician that would say anything he thought you might
wanna hear. In that regard, he seems about as sincere as Slick.

In any case, at least looking at the polls, Gramm would be even easier for
Clinton to beat. I caint see the RR jumping on his bandwagon.

TTom

    re: .319
    
    I think that anyone running for a political office should be required
    to resign from any current office before running for the new office.
    
    Bob

    Z     The themes are the same as last time : cut government, isolationism,
    Z     family values, right-to-life, stop all gun control, cut taxes,
   Z      cancel affirmative action.  There is no compromise in the man, nor
    Z     will he mollify his views in trying to win.
    
    Sounds perfect to me...except for the isolationism issue.

    
      A surging Pat Buchanan is now certain to go on to the Convention.
    
      He is the choice of the religious right, a quarter of Republicans.
    
      bb

	I have to admit, he has been much calmer this time around. It would
seem that he learned something from last time.

	From the tv this morning they were talking to him. They said how he has
been quiet, and so most people have not seen the change. Most people still view
him as the guy who made the speech at the convention. I'm beginning to think
that this might not be true.... 


Glen

    Glen: 
    
    Put your fears to rest.  I was watching CNN and he was being
    interviewed.  I channel surfed and guess what...he was on NBC at the
    exact same time.  Now if you go back into your history, Hitler utilized 
    the new technology to be in one place and have a taped message playing
    someplace else...giving the impression he is a god of some such. 
    Therefore, YOU Glen Silva now have good fodder against Pat Buchanan. 
    He was on 2 networks at the same time, therefore, he must be the
    AntiChrist.  I'm ascared!!!!

:-)

    
    	The scary part is, Jack uses logic like that quite often.
    
    	The only difference is that THIS time he's kidding.
    

    Bubble headed boobey!!!

 I've been invited to attend a gathering for Mr. Buchanan tonight.  Hopefully,
 I can make it.




 Jim

    Re: .325
    
    Gee, and I thought *I* was the only person who ever used the names
    Hitler and Pat Buchanan in the same paragraph!
    
    8^)

 I attended the gathering for Mr. Buchanan tonight.  Was kinda fun.  Took my
 son Scott along and he enjoyed seeing all the TV people and related equipment,
 as well as me pointing out Al Franken and a couple other celebs.  Scott came
 away with a bunch of Buchanan posters, pins and bumper stickers.

 This is the first time I've attended one of these things and it was great.  Pat
 gave a brief speech, cracked a few good one liners and sent us off encouraged.

 

 Jim

    
      He was on Larry King.  LK asked about "hate".  PB : "Oh, you
     can't be President of the United States and hate anybody."
    
      Whatsis, a kinder-gentler PB ?
    
      bb

    
    
    Here's something to chew on.  A person can disagree with another or an
    ideology and not hate the person or persons.
    
    
    Mike

    
    
>    Here's something to chew on.  A person can disagree with another or an
>    ideology and not hate the person or persons.
    
    
  unless they are a republican and/or Chrisitan.




 Jim

	Jim, it's unless you're a far right republican and/or Christian. :-)

      
       just what I thought. 300 replies and NO substance !!!!
    
        not much better than the media !!!  
    
    btw, because I knew I couldn't  rely on the media for the truth,,, 
    I went for a walk down Elm St. in Manchester NH. Stopped by the
    repuplican storefronts for some lit on the issues.
    
     It's amazing what you can find out that way !!!!
    
      and also, C-SPAN TV is a good source.  
    
     So, from all the info gathering.  I've decided to support Buchanan !!!
    
    Jack
    
    
     

 Great!


 CSPAN has done a great job, btw.




 Jim

 Was talking to a friend yesterday about political rallies.  The last one
 he attended was for George McGovern back in '72 (whom he supported).  
 Yesterday he was on his way to one for Buchanan (whom he now supports).


 What a difference 24 years makes..




 Jim

    Just what the GOP does not need: a NH victory by a right-wing
    Christian bigot who doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning
    nationally.
    
    

    
    Yea, really, who cares what the voters want.
    
    ed

      Hey, John,  he is NOT a bigot !
    
      ...and he DOES have a chance nationaly !!!
    
      Ever hear the phase "Bible Belt" ?
    
    

| <<< Note 635.341 by MKOTS3::FLATHERS >>>

| Ever hear the phase "Bible Belt" ?

	Is that the thing some parents use on their kids while reciting various
people from the Bible? 


Glen

    
    	Only if they don't answer the questions correctly.
    

 Z   Just what the GOP does not need: a NH victory by a right-wing
 Z   Christian bigot who doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of
 Z   winning nationally.
    
    I've heard much of this bigot charge against Buchanan.  Could somebody
    please point out to me where this was the case?  
    
    I find it interesting that under the Nixon Administration, Senator
    Moynihan, a democrat from New York, issued a report regarding the
    plight of black Americans in urban areas.  He said something to the
    effect that if we didn't do something about the urban problems now,
    that in 20 years the problems would be irreversible.  Patrick Moynihan
    was accused of racism and the report was apparently disregarded.  
    
    Mr. Griffin, I think your emotions are getting the best of you and you
    need to THINK logically and stop mimicking brainless bitheads from
    Sunday morning talk shows.
    
    -Jack

PAT,PAT,PAT,PAT,PAT,PAT,PAT,PAT   HELP, SOMEBODY STOP ME!!!!!

    Can someone please help me understand Buchanan's background?  Has he
    ever held a public office?  Any experience in national politics other
    than as a commentator?  Any foreign policy type mileage?  

    Speech wirter for Richared Nixon

 Speech writer/advisor to Nixon and Reagan.




 Jim

    Hmmm, was he wirt it?

    Okay, thanks.  What are his qualifications then besides being
    opinionated?  What is his background, education, business experience
    etc?  

    as near as I can tell, Buchanan has no relevant experience. It would
    appear that his qualifications consist of his being an ideologue.

    Brian:
    
    The president is more or less an administrative figurehead and a
    statesman.  What I commonly ask is will the candidate be able to
    surround him/herself by the most qualified individuals possible in
    order to successfully manage foreign and domestic policy?  Racism and
    all the other labels not withstanding, Bill Clinton proved he is
    incapable of performing such a task.  He brought his Arkansas
    government mentality to Washington and what's more,he appointed some of
    his ghastly affirmative action appointees not to mention others who
    were merely criminal or incompetent.  George Bush might not have been
    the most charismatic leader, but the guy for the most part was very
    successful in surrounding himself with well rounded intelligent
    individuals in his cabinet.  
    
    Buchanan's opinions tell me he is more apt to stand for my interests
    than the others who have a shot at this.  If in fact Buchanan does by
    some fluke with the presidency, keep in mind that is wasn't merely
    whitey who got him in there.  Much of it can be attributed to the
    electorates propensity to get sold a bill of goods...like in 1992 for
    example.  You put a schlep in there, chances are it may trigger an even
    worse schlep in the next election.  In other words, the Mrs. D's of the
    country shot themselves in the perverbial foot.
    
    -Jack
    

 Buchanan's homepage is at http://www.buchanan.org





 Jim

    I love it when you talk Yiddish.

    
    re .350
    
    His qualifications are that he is an American born citizen of
    sufficient age. 
    
    ed

 *gasp*

    Jack thanks for adding your already known opinions but really, it
    doesn't help.  I already know why you like him.  I want to know what
    qualifications make him fit for being the president.  What qualifies
    him to be an adminstrator of national policy?  What practical military
    experience does he have?  What is his educational background?  What
    leadership experience does he have?  
    
    All of the other candidates at least have played roles on the local and
    national level as elected officials of one sort or another.  Buchanan
    hasn't from what folks in here have shared.  At this point, all Buchanan 
    has to offer is an agenda.  I am wondering if that passes as being 
    qualified for the position.  
    
    Brian

 Z   All of the other candidates at least have played roles on the local and
 Z   national level as elected officials of one sort or another. 
 Z   Buchanan hasn't from what folks in here have shared.  At this point, all
 Z   Buchanan has to offer is an agenda.  I am wondering if that passes as being 
 Z   qualified for the position.
    
    OK, I understand.  I will say this for Bill Clinton.  He proved to
    America that in this country, one can aspire for something and become
    whatever they want if the goal is truly important to them. 
    Unfortunately, he also proved that anybody with enough intelligence can
    be president if they want to be...considering he has been in a virtual
    safety net as governor throughout his career.  
    
    Woodrow Wilson, although a democrat, was a man of high ideals.  He was
    president of Princeton University and was a Chemist by trade.  It is
    quite possible that one in the private sector can in fact be an
    effective president...provided they have the health to do it.  
    
    -Jack

    
      Well, Jack, I think you are being true to your nature in going
     with Pat B.  I hope you understand why many others of Republican
     persuasion cannot actually go with "cultural war", even as a phrase.
    
      bb

    Like I said, the cultural war was started by a different camp, not
    mine.  Secondly, I haven't fully determined who I'm voting for but it
    will likely be Alan Keyes or Pat Buchanan.  I have come to the
    realization that Bob Dole will eventually win the whole thing anyway.  
    He will probably get California and Texas and they are the ones that
    count right??  
    
    Problem is you have been the victim of the cultural war much of your
    life but you are so used to it, you have become neutral to its effects.
    
    -Jack

Re: .352, Jack

    >What I commonly ask is will the candidate be able to
    >surround him/herself by the most qualified individuals possible in
    >order to successfully manage foreign and domestic policy?  

He can just take the entire Board of Directors of The 700 Club and turn it into
his Cabinet. Who could ask for better qualifications??   :)

    Thanks Jim for reposting Buchanan's homepage.  Ed, that may be all the
    qualification one needs to run but I doubt it will get him elected. 

    Re: .358
    
    >> ..., although a democrat, was a man of high ideals.
    
    ah yes, hardly ever do you see those two go hand in hand.
    
    -- Jim

    .363
    
    >>> [.358  >> ..., although a democrat, was a man of high ideals.]
    
        ah yes, hardly ever do you see those two go hand in hand.<<<
    
    Take it one step nearer the truth--a politician, a man of high ideals.  
    
    Hardly ever do you see those two go hand in hand either!

    
    re. Buchanan on Women
    
    From yesterady's Boston Globe ... "Dole last week begain airing ads ...
    In the ad, Buchanan is quoted as saying, 'Women are simply not endowed
    by nature with the measure of single-minded ambition and the will to
    succeed'.  Buchanan, who has said he regrets the wording of his
    comments about women ..."
    
    That's not exactly the thoughts of the guy I want impacting the lives of
    my daughter, wife, sister, mother, and most of my best friends.
                                            
    Greg
                                                               

	Surprisingly, from the Boston Globe, 2-20-96.
	Reproduced without permission...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
	by Thomas Oliphant in Nashau NH
	
	THE SMEAR AGAINST BUCHANAN: GUILT BY ASSOCIATION

		This needs to come from the Left, and shame on liberals for not
	rising to the occasion:

		The fact is that Pat Buchanan has been smeared by three of
	the ugliest words in public discource - guilt be association.

		Just as unconscionable is the fact that two of the most
	serious charges that can be thrown at a person - racist and anit-semite
	- have been hurled at Buchanan without the slightest confirming
	evidence of their accuracy.

		To nearly all so-called mainstream Republicans and
	Democrats, this appears to be a tolerable perversion of acceptable
	politics because Buchanan is a figure of the Far Right.

		But of all people, liberals should be the first to understand
	that the imperative of exposing smears is at it's greatest
	when the target is "controversial".

		Sifting through the sad spectacle of Bob Doles name-calling
	campaign down the stretch of this fourth rate primary campaign,
	it's most telling feature has been an abject unwillingness to take
	specific and detailed issue with Buchanan on major policy questions.

		Does Dole have a problem with Buchanans flat out opposition
	to gun control? To his opposition to abortion even after rape and
	incest? To building a security fence along the Mexican border or halting
	even legal immigration for five years? To ending all affirmative 
	action efforts? Why do you thnk he lamely apes Buchanans concern
	about working families' economic anxieties and avoids defense
	of trade agreements like GATT and NAFTA?

		As Buchanan himself put it mockingly to a boisterous
	rally here on Sunday, "Who does Bob Dole most sound like these days?"

		As his sister and campaign manager,Bay, puts it, the smears
	are a transparent cover ffor an unwillingness to defend positions
	that too many Republicans oppose.

		Bay Buchanans right-on accuracy is illustrated by Doles choice
	of attack lines. His negative commercial last week was a two-
	ingredient mudpie, since withdrawn, that took a few words from 
	an old Buchanan column out of context to paint him as a 
	misogynist and then directly misstated his views on nuclear
	proliferation.

		This was not done to separate Dole from Buchanan
	on any issue. Instead it was done because most of the undecided
	voters today are female. What a lofty example of Dole's leadership,
	probity and experience as a man of concensus.

		Dole's next manuever was to pour oil on the Larry Pratt fire.
	Nothing helped build the story more than Dole's calculated
	call for dismissal of the Buchanan campaign co-chair and head of
	the Gunowners of America.

		This issue should be a slam-dunk for liberals. There
	is not one shred of evidence that Pratt has ever uttered
	one bigoted or anit_semetic word in his life. But because he has 
	attended meetings or appeared on television with people who have,
	Pratt has been tarred with their views and this tar is now applied
	to Buchanan. What this amounts to as a matter of logic and fact, is 
	guilt by the associations of one's associate.

		This should make any civil libertarian howl. Throughout
	this century, thousands of Americans had their lives ruined bacause
	they attended meetings or demonstrations os igned petitions
	in support of causes that attracted a wide variety of organizations,
	some of them communist. For liberals to be silent simply because
	this filth is being directed at a creature of the Right who happens
	to be on a political role is intolerable.

		Since the Pratt story broke, it has been
	open season, with an ethically challenged press now fanning the flames.

		In the face of no evidence, Buchanan isnow blamed for the 
	fact that a self-selected volunteer in Florida turned out to be an 
	active racists; he is belatedly required to disavow a vicious pamphlet
	from Louisiana. And David Duke is even being thrown at him, despite
	the fact that he disavowed Dukes' support at last months Republican
	convention on New Orleans. Piled-on charges, no evidence, and suddenly
	the stenographic press is writing that Buchanan's campaign
	is "plagued by accusations of bigotry"; this is precisely how we made
	Jow McCarthy happy 45 years ago.

		On Sunday, Dole stood by in silence whil ehis new buddy, Phil 
	Gramm, stirred the filth some more. No place for racism in the Dole
	campaign, he said, before opining that you know people through
	their "friends".

		The fact is that people have a better glimpse of
	Buchanan this primary morning through his opponents desperation.
	For those Republicans who still despise guilt by association
	and have been disgusted by the bilge of the past week, there is an 
	easy way to show it when they vote today.	

    |Buchanan is quoted as saying, 'Women are simply not endowed
    |by nature with the measure of single-minded ambition and the will
    |to succeed'.
    
    ambition is hard.  will to succeed is hard.

    Buchanan has taken many positions that enable anyone to take a potshot
    at him.  He has identified some issues with Corporate America which has
    always been the supposed sacred cow of Republicans.  He has identified
    many issues related to the basic fabric of society that have led
    directly to the ills currently faced by America.
    
    Those who oppose him are the same ones that yell and scream whenever
    someone has the temerity to tell them NO.  All sorts of mud and
    smearing come out to discredit them, such as the prior statement that
    the 700 Club would be a good choice for Buchanan's Cabinet.  Such silly
    and stupid comments tend to show the true attitudes of the writer than
    of the candidate.
    
    Also, the question about Buchanan's qualification are a real strawman. 
    Does anyone really believe that being governor of Arkansas is a
    reasonable qualification for President.  Particularly when the status
    of Arkansas in terms of education, economy, health and quality of life
    did not improve under his administration.  I believe you can find that
    Arkansas was and is consistently rated anywhere from 45-50 in any
    meaningful category.  this sure is a strong recomendation for
    President.
    
    Personally, I would prefer a candidate that identifies what his agenda
    is, whether or not that agenda is acceptable and will not waffle.
    

If women aren't endowed with the will to succeed, Buchanan's candidacy is
doomed.  His sister is his campaign manager.  BTW, what kind of name is Bay?

    >Buchanan is quoted as saying, 'Women are simply not endowed
    >by nature with the measure of single-minded ambition and the will
    >to succeed'.

	i've been seeing that ad too.  is that something cooked up
	as part of the "smear campaign" too, Hank?  or don't you know?
	if it's an exact quote, then i'd be surprised if you support
	him.  not only is it a ridiculous assertion, but there's the
	fact that he was boneheaded enough to actually utter it.

    
>    Personally, I would prefer a candidate that identifies what his agenda
>    is, whether or not that agenda is acceptable and will not waffle.
    

     precisely. 



 Jim

    |Personally, I would prefer a candidate that identifies what his
    |agenda is, whether or not that agenda is acceptable and will not waffle.
    
    Me too.  That's why I'm voting for Benito Mussolini.

    Tim Russert was on NBC this morning and met Buchanan in the hallway of
    a building in Manchester.  Tim mentioned that Gingrich is concerned
    that if Buchanan wins the nomination, the House may lose Repub control
    and Newt will not be speaker.  Buchanan's answer was, "Newt...Deal With
    It!!"

>    Me too.  That's why I'm voting for Benito Mussolini.

   aagagagag.

    
    Re: .370
    
    Lady Di,
    
    	As mentioned in the article I entered by, of all people
    Thomas Oliphant of the Globe, the quote is out of context
    from an old Buchanan column. 
    
    	Out of context, it is indeed damning. I wish I had the column
    containing the quote. Still, we need to see how it was used
    to fully know. 
    
    	What I find telling is that a true unabashed liberal,
    Oliphant, is condemning the quote and Dole for using it as he did.
    Seems to me that Oliphant would jump at the chance to
    accurately portray Buchanan as a misogynist.
    
    Something to think about....
    
    							Hank
    
    	 

	taken out of context?  you mean, like, he might actually have
	said, "Some idiot just told me that women are simply not endowed
	by nature with the measure of single-minded ambition and the will
	to succeed.  How absurd."  or something like that?

	yes, i suppose it's possible. ;>

    
    	Re: .376
    
    	Lady Di,
    
    		I suppose that's possible. Hard to say given
    	the info available. 
    
    	   	By the same token, someone could now state that 
    	I wrote the same phrase by virtue of my previous note.
    
    		More importantly in the article I entered
    	was what this all says about Dole.
    
    						Hank

    
>    		More importantly in the article I entered
>    	was what this all says about Dole.

	that he's running a negative campaign?  that he's
	feeling the pressure?  that's not exactly news.  that
	presidential hopefuls are more than willing to distort the
	truth or pull skeletons from closets with wild abandon,
	and Dole is no exception?  knew that.

	i'd like to know in what context Buchanan made the remark
	about women.  that's purty darn important, to moi.  as it 
	would be if he had made as unfounded a remark about men.

    
    I agree Di, but with the paper trail that Buchanan has,
    I doubt we'll ever be able to find it.

    After listening to him on the tube last night, reading his web page,
    and the discussion in here I can honestly say Buchanan will not be 
    getting my vote in the primary.  This is quite the dilemma though.  
    Pat seems to be the most upfront about what he believes in but I find 
    his agenda to be unpalatable at best.  I would have a very difficult 
    time siding with Lucky Jack on the "at all costs" approach to getting 
    Clinton and Co. out if it is Buchanan on the other side of the ticket. 
    I would want to know who his cabinet members would be, now.  
    
    Brian
    
    

    >	What I find telling is that a true unabashed liberal,
    >Oliphant, is condemning the quote and Dole for using it as he did.
    >Seems to me that Oliphant would jump at the chance to
    >accurately portray Buchanan as a misogynist.
    
     Except that liberals (like Oliphant) WANT Buchanan to take the
    nomination, because they figure that'll skeer moderate voters into
    repeating the Clinton victory as a vote against Buchanan candidate. So
    perhaps Oliphant gets to kill two birds with one stone.

    .381
    
    Exactly!
    
    Oliphant's musings on any of the Republicans are suspect.

    Oliphant is smooth, but not absolutly.

    
    Re: .381
    
    I'll admit Doc, I wondered the same thing.
    

    Di, the quote WAS NOT taken out of context as has been suggested. I don't
    have the column were it came from, but i've followed PB's "career" for a
    couple of years and this particular quote comes up OFTEN when
    discussing his various less than tolerant remarks. As has been
    suggested by (Mark?), Tom's agenda is questionable.
    Peter

  thanks for the info, petey pie.

    I also take exception to Oliphant's allegation that Buchanan has been
    smeared as an anti-semite 'with absolutely no evidence' or however he
    worded it.  The evidence presented years ago convinced me at the time.
    If Oliphant wasn't paying attention that's an indictment of him, not
    me.
    
    DougO

    If Buchanan is the GOP candidate for prez, we're stuck with 4 more
    years of Sliq :-(
    

    On the other side, if Dole wins we will probably get another democrat
    in four years.

    
    If old Pat gets the nod, it means that he has a constituency.
    If that consituency is enough to take him to the nomination,
    it could take him all the way.
    
    I don't know who they ask the questions to when they take polls
    (they certainly never asked me), but in the coffee and doughnut
    shops of America (or at least the ones where I've gone), Slick
    is toast... and it doesn't matter much whether the Republicans
    pick Gomer Pyle... enough people still hate that lying snake in
    the grass on Penn Ave enough to vote against him and return
    him to gainful unemployment.
    
    -b
    

Brian, Buchanan has very high negatives in the polls (> 50%).  I don't like
Clinton, but I don't think much of any of the Republicans who stand a chance
of getting the nomination.  I might be persuaded to vote for one of them,
but I'd never vote for Buchanan.

    
    I disagree with Pat on many things. I'm pro-choice, he says he'd
    be the most pro-life president in history. I'm pro-trade, he's
    definitely an isolationist. There are MANY differences between
    us. On the other hand, Pat Buchanan is the one person that I
    know is the "real thing". There's no mystery about Pat, and in
    my opinion the one thing that makes him an attractive candidate
    is that I KNOW what I see is what I get. I think Congress pretty
    much holds the president in check, and the real power of the
    president is the people he surrounds himself with. On many
    things that are VERY important to me (such as his attitude
    torward the role of the federal government in our lives), Pat
    scores well. I'm seriously considering voting for Pat myself,
    and it's not because I'm some xenophobic frothing lunatic.
    It's because I believe that most of Pat's agenda will fall
    flat, but at least we'll have someone in the White House who
    is brutally and impeccably honest... something that we haven't
    had in my memory...
    
    -b

    pat's the "real thing" because he can afford to be the
    "real thing".  what's he got to lose?  things would 
    change considerably for ol' pat if he became a pubic
    official, you can count on it.

                             

                     Why Pat Buchanan is not a Fascist

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

  1. Fascism and Intolerance are Different -- Mr. Buchanan is often called
     a fascist by the left wing because of his intolerance for other
     religous, moral, and ethical values. Just because Mr. Buchanan has a
     strong belief that his way of life is the only morally defensible one
     does not make him a fascist.

  2. Elitism is not Fascism -- Once again the left wing twists the meaning
     of words. Mr. Buchanan thinks that only qualified, morally upright
     citizens should be allowed to govern the country. Because this clearly
     excludes gays, women, and atheists (who make up the left wing), Mr.
     Buchanan's philosophy of government by a moral elite is often
     incorrectly called Fascism.

  3. Morality is not Fascism -- Mr. Buchanan believes that many Americans
     have strayed from the Lord's path, and his efforts to bring them back
     in line have often been criticized. But enforcing moral righteousness
     on a decadent society is not fascism.

  4. Buchanan supports the lower class -- for years now, Mr. Buchanan has
     prayed for those less fortunate than himself. Mr. Buchanan is
     confident that those who deserve it will find God and improve
     themselves.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tom, was this generated by someone on the Clinton campaign or
    excerpted?

    RE: .390   -b

    / I don't know who they ask the questions to when they take polls
    / (they certainly never asked me), but in the coffee and doughnut
    / shops of America (or at least the ones where I've gone), Slick
    / is toast... and it doesn't matter much whether the Republicans
    / pick Gomer Pyle... enough people still hate that lying snake in
    / the grass on Penn Ave enough to vote against him and return
    / him to gainful unemployment.

    Clinton's approval ratings are higher than any of the Republican
    candidates' ratings (last I heard.)   Also, polls of GOP voters
    indicated (a week or so ago) that they believed that NONE of the 
    top Republican candidates could beat Clinton.

    You may despise Clinton, but I think you're fooling yourself if you
    believe that he can't possibly be re-elected.  I've seen plenty of
    conservatives RIGHT HERE express the fear that Clinton will indeed
    be elected again in November.  

    >Tom, was this generated by someone on the Clinton campaign or
    >excerpted?

http://www.clinton96.org is NOT pro Clinton. Everyone who can should check 
this site out. It is a very well done webpage. IMO it is anti-political- 
candidates in general. The Background to the Buchanan section is subtle 
and funny. Be careful if you link to Hillary, make sure no one is standing 
behind you.

        From reading much of the smarmy doggerel in here, it is obvious
        that the right does not have a monopoly on hate and intolerance.
        Hate speech and intolerance from the left is seldom identified as
        such.

	Peace,
		Tony
		

    >On the other side, if Dole wins we will probably get another democrat
    
     If Dole wins he's going to need a VERY strong running mate. If he can
    convince his friend Colin Powell to take the job, you have a
    potentially winning ticket. And Dole will only serve 4 years, so Powell
    would be essentially running as an incumbent.

                      -< assuming Dole beats Clinton... >-

With Powell as a running mate, it's not at all infeasible.

    >                  -< assuming Dole beats Clinton... >-
    
     No sher <ordure>lock.

I think the Dole-Powell ticket may be the best chance for the GOP.

It may keep Perot off the ballot and may help satisfy some of the
expected backlash from the RR for Dole getting the nod.

Another combo on the wish list might be Alan Keyes. 'Twould certainly be
interesting...

One suggestion to Dole to not pick as a running mate: Quayle.

TTom

>Another combo on the wish list might be Alan Keyes. 'Twould certainly be
>interesting...
    
    He's a great choice for a running mate for Lamar (who is seen as being
    more moderate, while Keyes is more conservative.)

Of all of 'em running in N.H. I'm most impressed with Keyes.

I don't think he has a snow ball's chance in Key West (a lot like Hell)
of winning but that wouldn't stop me from voting for him.

TTom

    
    ...BOOB CAMP?
    
    

    When African-Americans were polled (during Colin Powell's potential
    candidacy) about who they would pick between Clinton and Powell,
    they chose Clinton at the rate of 75-80% over Powell (for President.)

    Powell was heavily favored over Dole when he was considering running
    for President.  Why on Earth would Powell pass up the chance to be
    President and go for Vice-President (to someone he could have beaten
    for the nomination) instead?

    As for satisfying the RR, Powell is adamantly pro-choice.  I think
    the RR would be furious to have a strong pro-choice candidate on the
    Republican ticket (in the second spot behind a 72 year old man in
    the first spot.)

    but on the other hand, by taking the vp position,
    powell would get his "feet wet" in politics (on a
    somewhat superficial level, yes).  but still, he
    would have national exposure for the next four 
    years...during which he could determine whether he
    had the stomach to run for the presidency.  

    If Powell wanted to run in this election, I doubt he would want to
    take a back seat to someone who is a far weaker Presidential candidate
    than he would have been himself.

    As for Dole, it would be like having a healthy Ronald Reagan as his 
    running mate.  He'd be outshone by the more popular guy in the 'second 
    spot'.  Dole will have problems enough running with his lack of charisma
    as it is (if he gets the nomination.)  Having a more charismatic running
    mate next to him will make him look even worse.

    Colin Powell has all the exposure he needs to run for President when
    and if he decides to do so.  Spending four years in a superficial
    position doesn't sound like his style, IMO.

    The people who want to be President should not be allowed be become
    President. There is obviously something wrong with such a person.

    .394
    
    > Mr. Buchanan is
    > confident that those who deserve it will find God and improve
    > themselves.
    
    "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."
    
    				- Romans 3:23
    
    Apparently, for a Bible-thumping Christian fundamentalist, Mr, Buchanan
    lacks a certain conviction in the words of that Bible.  No one deserves
    to find God.  It's a free gift.

    > Apparently, for a Bible-thumping Christian fundamentalist, Mr, Buchanan
    > lacks a certain conviction in the words of that Bible.  No one deserves
    > to find God.  It's a free gift.
    
    Except that Mr. Bachanan didn't say that. Someone attempting to
    parody Mr. Buchanan said it...
    
    -b

    Z    > Mr. Buchanan is
    Z    > confident that those who deserve it will find God and improve
    Z    > themselves.
    
    "This book of the law shall not depart from thy mouth, but thou shalt
    meditate upon it therein day and night and be careful to do everything
    in it.  Then thou shalt be prosperous and have success."

>but thou shalt meditate upon it therein day and night and be careful to 
>do everything in it. 

Standard brainwashing technique.

    He won new hampshire.
    
    Like it or not, he's kicking ass.  Against the media who is STILL
    chitting on him, calling him an extremist, still spinning it that
    Dole is the front runner, he's winning.
    
    They try to "conviniently" trash him with the larry pratt deal, and
    then that person in florida, still he wins.
    
    You know how he will be stopped.  "by accident".
    
    MadMike

    record turnout in NH. estimates are around 75% of the eligible voters.

    >He won new hampshire.
    
    >Like it or not, he's kicking ass.  
    
     He's "kicking ass" against a split moderate vote. Now that we're down
    to three real contenders we'll see that that the vote dilution will be
    lessened, and Pat's ability to win by a plurality will be similarly
    diminished. When it's down to Pat and one other candidate (in a couple
    of weeks, by the end of March at the latest) we'll see that Pat's under
    30% of the vote will be edging up into perhaps the mid 30s and his
    opponent will be taking over 50%.

    RE: -1
    
    	I wish I had your crystal ball.
    
    Joe

    I hope pat does win the republiKKKan nomination, because I'd be
    very happy if it came down to Buchanan vs. Clinton in the elections.

    *splat*

    
      Pat Buchanan is now a major force in the Republican party.
    
      He got LOTS of votes, not just the religious right.  He appealed
     to blue collar workers, to small business people, to everybody
     very angry at Washington DC.
    
      Unlike the others, he says things plain.  He is not favored by
     Gingrich and the Republican Congress, by the 30 Republican governors,
     most of them moderate, or by GOP strategists, who foresee a possible
     disaster.
    
      Except, nobody told the people.  When Pat gets up and talks about
     "Clinton and the Congress moving your jobs to Mexico", he touches
     a deep chord in many people.  Do NOT underestimate this guy.
    
      bb

I wonder what the results would have been if it hadn't been so easy to
cross over.  It would make sense for Clinton-supporting Democrats to
cross over and vote for Buchanan, who's arguably the most beatable Republican
(who stands a chance of nomination -- Morry Taylor's more beatable in absolute
terms).

    In the end, Pat has the power to single handedly destroy the party.  He
    will be the cause of another 4 years of a Democratic admin.  If he is
    ousted from the party, his supporters will lean toward Ross and a third
    party further, fragmenting the party and solidifying the Dems for the
    rest of the century.  If he gets the nomination, Clinton will win 48
    states, by a landslide at that.  None of the candidates kicked anything 
    but the stuffing out of the party.  Pat is his own accident.  Why
    should anyone bother with him?  Oh, I see.  I forgot about the secret
    gov't shaping the policies of the country.  

>I wonder what the results would have been if it hadn't been so easy to
>cross over.  
    
     Good question. Anybody know what the effect of having democrats write
    in Buchanan's name is? Were those numbers added to his total? I heard
    this morning that he got 2000 write ins by democrats that voted as
    democrats.

    
      They count as votes, but votes for Buchanan to be the Democratic
     nominee.  They are not counted in the totals in the Republican
     primary.
    
      Wouldn't it be strange if he won some delegates to the Democratic
     convention as well ?  Do you think he'd insist on giving a speech
     there as well ?
    
      bb

I'm not talking about write-ins.  It was possible to go to the polls, change
your registration to Republican, vote in the GOP primary, and then change it
back to Dem/independent on the way out.  Lots of non-Republicans voted in
the Republican primary.

BTW, Pat Paulsen came in 2nd in the Dem primary.  Gramm got more votes than
Dornan.

    >BTW, Pat Paulsen came in 2nd in the Dem primary.  
    
     Wrong. Former DEC employee Carmen Chimiento (sp) took that dubious
    honor.

<<< Note 635.424 by CONSLT::MCBRIDE "Keep hands & feet inside ride at all times" >>>

>   In the end, Pat has the power to single handedly destroy the party.

I agree.  So do most of the people from NH that I have talked to in the
last few days.  He doesn't even have to win the nomination.  The longer
Buchanan stays in the race gaining delegates, the louder he will be at 
the convention.  I believe that it was Buchanan who set the tone for the
last Repuplican convention, a convention that left the GOP looking like 
fascists, advocating positions that the majority of the American people
will not support and energizing a united Democratic Party.

And if the GOP establishment attacks him and costs him the nomination, an 
angry Pat Buchanan will go to the convention and pull the walls down.

On a slightly different subject . . . 

The polls show that NH voters don't think that any of the GOP candidates 
can beat President Clinton.  I don't think that that exactly tells the 
whole story.  In talking to people in the last week or so, there is a 
feeling of resignation in NH.  Just about every single person has said that 
Clinton's re-election is in the bag.  It's only a question of how many 
congressmen and senators he will bring with him.

Doctah, do you have final tallies?  This morning's Globe had Paulsen at 863
votes and Chimento at 755 for 288 out of 300 precincts.  BTW, who's this
Roger who got 11 votes in the GOP primary?  He must have a small family.

>Doctah, do you have final tallies?  This morning's Globe had Paulsen at 863
>votes and Chimento at 755 for 288 out of 300 precincts.
    
    Nope. Just going by the radio news briefs on the ride in (2 different
    stations.)

Chimento was a contractor, rather than an employee, no?

> 			It was possible to go to the polls, change
>your registration to Republican, vote in the GOP primary, and then change it
>back to Dem/independent on the way out.

Are you sure about this, Gerald? Not being interested in party-swapping,
I never investigated the mechanism to determine if it could be done this
easily, however I know that when I arrived at the polling place in Mont Vernon
yesterday AM, I announced my name to the overseer of the checklist who
found me on the roll with an "R" next to my name and announced "pink ballot"
to the assistant to her right - no mention of options to change party 
affiliation, and no apparent mechanism in place to do so, unless they
were simply going to cross out the "R" and write in a "D". In any event,
there isn't any need in New Hampshire to change registration from
independent - an independent in NH can vote in either primary. This is
the equivalent of being "unenrolled" or whatever they call it in the PRM.

That's the impression I got from NPR.  I could have misheard, or they could
be wrong.  I next-unseened most of the newspaper coverage.

    A friend who used to live in NH said that if you register Independent
    then you can switch just before voting.  He also said that there are a
    lot of "Independent" voters so that they can switch parties.

    YMMV,

    -- Dave

        <<< Note 635.433 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>> 			It was possible to go to the polls, change
>>your registration to Republican, vote in the GOP primary, and then change it
>>back to Dem/independent on the way out.
>
>Are you sure about this, Gerald?

Yes, this is correct.

You register as an independent, show up at the primary, and announce which
party you intend to declare.  After you vote, you can change back to an
independent.  It used to be that you had to go to city hall before the next
primary, but thanks to the motor-voter bill, representatives from the 
election commission are at the voting place.  So you can re-register on the
before you leave.

    You gotta admire a guy who tries to make isolationism sound good. In
    the world economy of today it makes no sense at all. From last night:
    he "jokingly" said the great wall of China was a good model to use for
    the Canadian border. Having just yesterday lost 300 jobs at a wire factory
    that is "consolidating" manufacturing in the US, that protectionist wall
    would have saved 300 Canadian jobs. The Canadian economy has taken a butt
    kicking because of the "global economy", but to prosper into the next
    century, it has to be done. If America sticks it's collective head in
    the sand it (IMO) would be making a big mistake. The man would not get
    my vote even if he could keep his religious bias to himself.
    
    							Derek.

re:  <<< Note 635.436 by STAR::OKELLEY "Kevin O'Kelley, OpenVMS DCE Security" >>>

I'll have to look into this further. They really _WERE_NOT_ set up to handle
that level of record keeping/recording/processing in Mont Vernon yesterday.
I know that in the past, my ex-, who was registered independent, never
did anything special at the polling place on primary day but request the
ballot of her choice.

Colin Powell says he wouldn't vote for Buchanan.  I guess that means he's
not going to be Pat's running mate.

  .439  Pat hopes he'll "reconsider" that. ;>
 

    Perhaps it was all the nice things he said about Hitler that helped him
    make up his mind.

Pat was the guy behind Reagan's Bitburg fiasco.

 ZZ   Perhaps it was all the nice things he said about Hitler that helped him
 ZZ   make up his mind.
    
    I would like you to qualify this a little bit.  I have often heard from
    scholars that Adolph Hitler was the most influencial man of the 20th
    century.  Consider the scorn attached to such a name, it does in fact
    seem reasonable that he was.  Does this mean all the scholars said nice
    things about Hitler as well?

Well, he certainly was a master at the propaganda game. You could say he
influenced people.

So was Machiavelli. He wrote the book {thud}. Does this mean he was a nice
guy? I doubt it.

    If he can see the nice side of Hitler, why can't he see the nice side
    of homosexuals?

    Re .445:
    
    > If he can see the nice side of Hitler, why can't he see the nice side
    > of homosexuals?
    
    Hitler's dead.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

                     Of Truth and Tolerance....at Easter
                           by Patrick J. Buchanan

April 3, 1994

"Truly, this was the Son of God." So spoke the Roman sentry on Calvary on
that first Good Friday as he saw the heavens darken at the death of the Man
on the Cross.

That soldier uttered the greatest truth ever spoken. He had looked up and
seen in that agonized face the answer to the question Pontius Pilate had
posed only hours before, on sentencing Christ to His death on the cross:
"What is truth?"

For two millennia, Christians have sought to conform their lives to the
truths revealed by Christ. None since has done so perfectly, but many have
suffered martyrdom rather than deny those truths.

Yet, for decades now, in this country to whose greatness and goodness
Christianity has contributed so much, it has been a violation of the
Constitution to teach these truths to children in public schools, or to pay
homage in our public square to the Man who taught us how to live. Indeed,
under our First Amendment, fallacies and falsehoods are guaranteed the same,
in some cases superior, protection to the truths of the New Testament.

Consider the folly of what we have attempted.

We would not deny children the healthiest and most nutritious foods, lest
their growth be stunted, and permanent damage be done. Yet, by court order,
we starve them of a diet of the greatest truths ever taught We may instruct
them in good manners in school, but not in the greatest moral code ever put
down on paper.

Because teaching them the truth would violate their rights.

Outside public schools, in the market place of ideas, morally ruinous dogmas
from racism to rancid pornography are accorded the same protection as the
Gospels. Indeed, for the American Civil Liberties Union, the defense of
pernicious dogma has become an obsession.

What is the effect of this doctrine of the moral equivalence of all ideas --
except religious ideas -- on society? It is like granting polluters the same
right to dump sewage into the main water supply as we grant the men who put
in the chlorine that purifies it.

For generations now, we have denied the food of revealed truth to our
children; and we have permit the moral polluters to dump their garbage into
our culture with abandon. Why then, are we surprised that ours has become a
stunted and sick society?

Under the hallowed doctrine of "academic freedom," all ideas are to be
accorded equal access to the university. Why? Because, or so we are told,
competition of ideas is the best way to discover truth. Fine. But, what do
we do when we find the truth? Do we yet continue to allow the propagation of
falsehoods? If so, why? When men learned the Earth was round, did they allow
their geographers to continue to teach that it was flat?

Comes the answer: Well, in matters of science we may know truth, but in
matters of morality we can never know. In this realm, one man's opinion is
as good as another, and no one has the right to impose his morality on
someone else. And any attempt to give the moral code of Christianity
superior status is "intolerance."

Six decades ago, a great moral teacher saw it all coming. In a provocative
1931 essay, "A Plea for Intolerance" Fulton J. Sheen wrote, America it is
said is suffering from intolerance. It is not. It is suffering from
tolerance, tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil,
Christ and chaos. Our country is not nearly so over run with the bigoted, as
it is over run with the broadminded.

What is true tolerance? "Tolerance," wrote Msgr. Sheen, is "an attitude of
reasoned patience towards evil . . .a forbearance that restrains us from
showing anger or inflicting punishment. Tolerance applies only to
persons...never to truth. Tolerance applies to the erring, intolerance to
the error.... Architects are as intolerant about sand as foundations for
skyscraper as doctors are intolerant about germs in the laboratories." And
just as those who build skyscrapers and perform surgery must be intolerant
of foolish and false ideas so too, must those who would build nations -- or
preserve societies.

"Tolerance does not apply to truth or principles. About these things we must
be intolerant, and for this kind of intolerance, so much needed to rouse us
from sentimental gush, I make a plea. Intolerance of this kind is the
foundation of stability."

"If you would see his monuments, look about you! is the epitaph chiseled on
the tomb of London's master builder, Christopher Wren. If you would see the
monuments of a society that has come to consider the truths that Jesus
Christ taught as one among an indefinite variety of moral codes by which to
live, look around you.

Amen, and Happy Easter

> When men learned the Earth was round, did they allow their geographers
    to continue to teach that it was flat?
    
    What is Pat's view on Creationism?
                             

>    What is Pat's view on Creationism?

"Look, my view is, I believe God created Heaven and earth. I think this: What
ought to be taught as fact is what is known as fact. I don't believe it is
demonstrably true that we have descended from apes."

/john

    Ah, I see - he only relies on scientific evidence when it supports his
    interpretation of truth.                         
    

    Good catch.  One wonders if Covert was even aware of the irony when he
    offered up two such neatly contradictory quotes.  Pat thinks what ought
    to be taught is only what is known to be true.  Yet he also fulminates
    about not teaching what he earnestly labels 'revealed truth', as if
    the Constitution did not gracefully protect all of us from being forced
    to choke down the religious myths of others, earnest though they might
    be.  Is this guy clueless or what?
    
    On second thought, I'd bet Covert didn't even notice.  Brother zealots
    have these blind spots for each other.
    
    DougO

    
    re: .451
    
    >Is this guy clueless or what?
    
    >Brother zealots have these blind spots for each other.
    
    
    Hmmm... musta been a lotta clueless brother zealots out here in NH the
    other day...
    
    But whadya expect from some back-water hick state... wot??
    

    Not only that, but the irony that Pat should invoke the name of Wren.
    Wren, as a contemporary of Robert Hooke, Isaac Newton, and Edmund Halley
    was very much against similar cant and dogma.  It was the work of these
    men that provided the mathematical and scientific proof that completely
    and finally refuted the claims of Catholicism as to the nature of the
    (then) universe.
    
    Colin
    

    He said "wot" and I am deeply offended by this.

    .449
    
    >                      -< Evolution is a theory >-
    
    BZZZZTTT!!!  But thank you for playing.  Evolution by speciation is a
    documented, proven fact.  The mechanisms that cause it are the subject
    of several theories, of which one is Darwin's.
    
    People who say evolution, in and of itself, is not fact are either
    misinformed or liars.

The last time I checked (30+ years ago), the Roman Catholic Church didn't
condemn the theory of human evolution, nor did it discourage members of
the Church from study of it or belief in it. I specifically recall
both priests and nuns stating that the evolutionary theories of Darwin
and others could quite well have been the means by which god brought man
to be, that the biblical account of Genesis was to be taken only figuratively,
and that the telling difference between mankind and lower life forms was
strictly in his posession of an immortal soul. In a word, scientific 
creationism wasn't the recommended belief of the Church.

Has this changed, or is this simply Pat's personal belief as opposed to
something that he believes because it's a conviction of his established
faith?

    re .452, Andy, how predictable that you would spring to the defense of
    zealotry without addressing the specifics of the complaint.  Go ahead,
    tell us why Pat Buchanan's "revealed truths" are worthy of public
    classrooms, when the "revealed truths" of Zen Bhuddism are not, and
    then reconcile this gyration with Pat's protestation that what ought to
    be taught in classrooms is what is known to be true.
    
    I'll be along to help you remove your other foot from your mouth in a
    few hours.
    
    DougO

    
    
    re: .457
    
    My foot???
    
    > Andy, how predictable that you would spring to the defense of
    >zealotry without addressing the specifics of the complaint. 
    
    Pray tell... where do you see any sort of "defense" in my response...
    
    I made a statement... about a number of people, certainly a somewhat
    large percentage of voters, that ***YOU*** , by association put into
    the Buchanan camp. I was not defending him or his "zealotry", but the
    good people of New Hampshire.
    
    Did I presume too much?? Are they not also "zealots" for voting for
    him??
    
    >I'll be along to help you remove your other foot from your mouth...
    
    
    Er... does "pompous ass" ring a bell???

    Dick:
    
    How are the two realities of evolution and entropy in harmony with one
    another?

    .459
    
    Jack, we've gone through this before at least twice.  Entropy applies
    to a closed system.  The earth's ecosystem is NOT a closed system.

    Entropy is a much tougher problem for religious philosophy, Jack.
    Why would God make a system that is essentially doomed to run down
    eventually?

    Andy, there you go again, ignoring the specifics of the case.
    
    Hint for you: if you want to challenge the conclusions of .451 than you
    had best begin by explaining what's wrong with the specifics of the
    argument that supports that conclusion.  And by the way, no, I'm not
    saying the people of NH are zealots.  The only way I would characterize
    them, the 28% of 75% of eligible GOP-registered voters, is to say that
    they voted for a zealot.  You seem to have missed the reason I brought
    up the word zealot in the first place- it was a passing observation on
    how Covert, of all people, was able to provide two quotes with such
    ironic contradictions.  Which brings us back to the specifics you have
    yet to address- the contradiction between Pat saying he wants only what
    is known to be true taught in schools, and Pat also saying he wants one
    flavor (christianity's) of "revealed" truth taught in the schools
    (refusing to acknowledge that just as the constitution protects him
    from being forced to learn the "revealed truths" of other traditions, 
    so it protects the rest of us from christianity's.)  Should you
    continue to dodge the point, we'll take it as moot acknowledgement that
    you can't, in fact, reconcile Pat's contradictions.
    
    DougO

    
    liar, liar, pants on fire.
    

 ZZ    Jack, we've gone through this before at least twice.
    
    Sorry.  I guess I'm still not fully grasping it.
    
    If you hold an ice cube in your hand, its propensity is to melt.  If
    you put a car in the junk hard, it is going to corrode.  Stars turn
    into novas and the universe is certainly an open system.
    
    -Jack

    
      Jack - entropy is energy dissipation, and in the universe, it
     is unstoppable.  But we stop it LOCALLY all the time, by putting
     in more energy than is coming out.  So your house is dis-entropic,
     "enthalpic" if you will.  The Earth is, too, because the sun is
     putting in more energy than the Earth is giving off.  Of course,
     to do this, the sun is dreadfully entropic.  It squanders vast
     quantities of energy into nowhere.  Got it ?
    
      bb

    
    re: .462
    
    >Andy, there you go again, ignoring the specifics of the case.
    
    I don't give a hoot (therefore it's moot?) about specifics..
    
    I didn't vote for the man, nor do I believe that he's correct on this
    issue.
    
     I am not a catholic, so I don't know what's going on inside his
    head...
    
     If your focus was on John Covert, then my deepest and humblest
    apologies..
    

    Got it!

| <<< Note 635.445 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Trembling Liver" >>>

| If he can see the nice side of Hitler, why can't he see the nice side
| of homosexuals?

	Because he doesn't have to deal with Hitler.

Buchanan does a 69 snarf with Hitler

    .464
    
    > If you hold an ice cube in your hand, its propensity is to melt.
    
    The tendency of an ice cube to melt is not entropy.  Entropy is the
    measure of the amount of energy that is not available for work - but
    only in a *closed* system.  Liquid water is not less orderly than solid
    water on the molecular level - and it *is* more energetic, which is
    contrary to what "entropy" would lead you to believe if you buy into
    the limited "disorder" verbiage.
    
    > Stars turn into novas...
    
    ...which subsequently, over a *long* time, turn into other stars and
    planets.
    
    > ...the universe is certainly an open system.
    
    Proof?  According to Einstein, the Universe is a closed system.  It
    curves back upon itself; there is no such thing as a straight line.

    >Liquid water is not less orderly than solid water on the molecular level
    
    what?
    
    in what sense are you using the word 'orderly'?
    
    DougO

re .470:

> Liquid water is not less orderly than solid water on the molecular level -

It certainly is!  Solid water has its molecules in neat orderly crystals
(look at a snowflake with a magnifying glass), liquid water has its molecules
jumbled up and sliding around but still sticking together, while vapor (a
gas) is the most disordered, with the molecules moving randomly and not
sticking together.

> > and it *is* more energetic, which is
>    contrary to what "entropy" would lead you to believe if you buy into
>    the limited "disorder" verbiage.

"More energetic" in that it takes energy to convert ice to water.  Even
though this process of melting ice absorbs heat and thus would appear to
lower the entropy of the environment it's in, the increased entropy of the
liquid water itself more than cancels this out.
    
>    > Stars turn into novas...
>    
>    ...which subsequently, over a *long* time, turn into other stars and
>    planets.

Yet the "burned" fuel of stars is no longer available to fuel future stars.
Eventually the hydrogen will be gone and the universe will be cold and dark.
    

    I don't agree with all of Buchanan's views or positions.  what I do
    respect about him. as opposed to all others including Clinton, is that
    he is willing to present his ideas and views and have a debate about
    them.  No one else has been willing to do so.
    
    What, unfortunately happens, is that he is attacked personally as
    opposed to the errors of his views, or why they won't work, etc.
    
    I have  a lot of respect for him being willing to put forward the
    proposition that the willingness of our society, through it's
    legislators and judicial system, to tear away at the fabric and
    foundation of this country have been responsible for the degeneration
    we currently face.
    
    Without exception, as far as I have seen, not one other candidate has
    been willing to do anything but cast aspersions at Buchanan.  they are
    more than willing to bury their collective heads in the sand and call
    names than enter into a dialogue about the problems.
    
    Buchanan may not be right and his "solutions" may be unworkable, but at
    least he is willing to start the dialogue.  when someone else is
    willing to do so, then I might be willing to look at them as something
    other than simple political opportunists.
    
    Go, Pat, Go.  Keep the discussion going.
    

    pat buchanan people pat buchanan

    RE: .473
    
    Look at topic 654.* (Predictions) where people are explaining the
    problems with some of Buchanan's ideas.
    
    If his ideas are wrong and dangerous, then it would be a mistake
    to listen to him simply because he's willing to stand up for them.
    
    What if he wanted to burn the whole country down but was willing
    to stand up for this idea?
    
    Look at what he's saying (not just how brave he is for saying it.)

    I'm not a pat buchanan person.

re: .472

>Yet the "burned" fuel of stars is no longer available to fuel future stars.
>Eventually the hydrogen will be gone and the universe will be cold and dark.
 
unless someone intervenes   

    
    	I must admit to skipping over most of the last 20 or so replies,
    	but could someone explain the transition between Pat Buchanan
    	and astro physics?
    

Pat is boring??

  .478  evolution

Pat doesn't want "the teaching of godless evolution in our public schools". 
"Godless evolution" takes us to "godless thermodynamics" to "godless
astrophysics",  and probably on to "godless geography",  as the "godless"
think the world is round.  The Earth can't be round as the Bible clearly
states it has four corners. 

Pat wants Known Facts taught like that God created the Heavens first and
then the Earth.  And that the Earth was created first,  and then the
Heavens.


Phil

    Oh, well then, he has my vote!

Just one?

    Hey, getting one vote would be a feet in itself.

    
    I voted with my feet once in a cinema.
    

> Hey, getting one vote would be a feet in itself.

Wouldn't that be a "foot in itself"?


Phil

    Well, it could be.

    
>    Look at what he's saying (not just how brave he is for saying it.)



   Better yet, *listen* to what he's saying (not what the media says he is
   saying).




 Jim

    I have listened to what Pat is saying.  The man wants to destroy my
    family as far as I can tell.  

    Jim, I've listened to what Pat (HIMSELF) is saying, too.
    As Colin Powell said last night, Pat's message is wrong
    (and I *have* heard precisely what Pat's message is.)
    
    I don't care how 'brave' he is to say such things.

    David Duke was "brave" for some of the statements he has made in the
    past.  
    
    I put Pat Buchanon and Louis Farrakan in the same camps.  They are
    racist, homophobic, anti-woman, isolationist,anti-choice and
    anti-semitic in many of the same ways.  There is only one difference
    between the two that I can see.  
    
    malcom and Orville faubus should be proud
    
    

Charges that Pat Buchanan is racist or anti-Semitic are slanderous lies.

/john

    
    Well if you say so John.  Thanks for clearing this up...

>He simply views other people as imperfect...

And you don't view all people as imperfect?

Mighty high opinion of yourself.

/john

    
    Sorry, all people who don't think/look like himself are flawed...

RE: 635.492 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert"

> and the other charges are matters of opinion

Pat's statements on godless evolution and that every child should study the 
Bible were on nationwide TV,  "This Week with David Brinkley".

Of course,  those that want a theocratic state may approve of these
statements.  That _is_ a matter of opinion.


Phil

    Even Rush is shunning Buchanon.  

    Giving him the bumbs Rush eh?

    .491
    
    As I stated in previous replies, please stop repeating garbage that has
    been claimed, but cite specific examples of what Buchanan has said that
    you claim is racist, sexist, etc.
    
    It seems as if it is so much easier to charge someone with something,
    but then there is no need to support the charge.
    
    I beleive that many, many of the issues Buchanan has brought up deserve
    an honest discussion, and I'm not so sure that he is really that
    radical in the overwhelming number of positions.
    

 Snarf Pat snarf!

    After having read his Webpage, my feelings about Pat have turned from
    mild curiosity to abject fear.  He is bad news.  His is a
    destructionist.  I am surprised you conspiracy folks haven't asked the
    question whether the fences he will put up are for keeping folks out or
    keeping us in.  If it were Clinton or anyone else for that matter, the
    nutters would be all over the motives behind the ideas.  Hey nutters! 
    Why the silence?  

    .501
    
    Which fences are you talking about?  The theoretical ones regarding
    foreign trade or the literal ones to attempt to reduce illegal
    immigration?
    
    Either one of these, if proposed by Clinton, would get my support, or
    at least a willigness to see exactly what is included in the proposal.
    
    Once again, I see a simple attack and the "fear" idea being trotted out
    without anything to support it.  Atleast put some facts behind your
    statements, or identify them as thoughtless hysteria.
    

    >Which fences are you talking about?  The theoretical ones regarding
    >foreign trade or the literal ones to attempt to reduce illegal
    >immigration?
    
    Both.  Why not go for the whole shebang?  
    
    >Once again, I see a simple attack and the "fear" idea being trotted
    >out without anything to support it.  Atleast put some facts behind your
    >statements, or identify them as thoughtless hysteria.
    
    Thoughtless hysteria?  Ho Ho!  That is rich indeed.  Since when have 
    facts counted for anything in conspiracy theories?  Go straight to the
    P&K note, do not pass go, do not stop to vote.  Fences work both ways. 
    They keep things out and they keep things in.  
    
    My question remains.  Why are folks not questioning motive with this
    guy?  Why the silence of the nutters?  Take a real close look at your 
    pal Pat.  BTW I no longer fear Pat the Destroyer as a viable candidate.  
    He is unelectable.  He will however sunder the party and spin us further 
    down the tubes.  He can fan the flames of racial, social, and economic 
    discord.  Just what we need, a revolution.  The next one will be factional 
    fighting however and the big losers will be the American people.  
    
    Brian

    .503
    
    I have never been a conspiracy theorist so I couldn't care less about
    your strawman about conspiracies.  Also, I have a fence around my yard
    to keep people and animals out of my yard.  Gee, is this a bad thing?
    
    If you want to talk about conspiracies, let's see.  we put up barriers
    to reduce as much as possible the illegal aliens coming into this
    country.  NOw this is translated into an elimination of the
    Constitutional protections of the American citizens.  Gee, I see the
    connection here.  I suppose the next thing will be a requirement that
    you have proper "papers" in order to travel outside of this country. 
    Oh, wait a minute, that's called a passport, and boy has that led to
    the elimination of the Constitution.
    
    Once again, if you don't like the guy, fine, but don't make up facts,
    or take a simple idea and expand it to it's illogical conclusion.
    

    If you read your passport and visa, you'll find its purpose is to help
    you to enter other countries - not to prevent you from leaving your own.
    

    
    
    Colin...
    
     I have no love for PB... but for the love of Pete!!! Where did you
    extrapolate that?????
    

    .505
    
    Thank you, exactly.  If Pat were to propose using passports today how
    many of the nuts out there would be claiming that he's trying to keep
    people in, even though the purpose is to allow you easier travel.
    
    BTW, I do agree that the in-fighting going on is not helping the GOP to
    win.
    

                            The Top Ten List

            "Ways Buchanan Celebrated His Victory"

As presented on the 02/21/96 broadcast of LATE SHOW with DAVID LETTERMAN




10. Beer and pizza with the Grand Wizard






9. Chased a group of Canadian tourists back across the border




8. Fended off the advances of a drunk Elizabeth Dole




7. Threw confetti made from the Bill of Rights




6. Went down to the college quad and whipped himself some hippie ass




5. Drank bottle of victory champagne from Mark Fuhrman




4. Invaded a Polish restaurant




3. Wrote some new lyrics for "God Bless America" (roll VT of Buchanan)




2. Attended an early victory party for Bill Clinton




1. When asked what he's going to do now, shouted, "I'm gonna bomb the
crap outta Disneyworld!"

    From reading my wife's US passport, my British passport.  You only have
    to show your passport to get in to a country, which is when it gets
    stamped. The reason they ask for a passport & visa when you leave is simply
    to make sure that you won't be refused entry when you arrive at your
    destination.  I don't think that we eve had to show our passports
    when we entered Canada last year.  Only when coming back to the US.
    Even then, they were more interested in my immigration status than
    my nationality.  

    Sorry you do not like the idea of someone else questioning motive.  I
    find it incongruous that there isn't more scrutiny being given to
    motivation.  What could be the motivation be that drives someone to
    want to bring the country to its knees?  BTW, I haven't made anything 
    up but merely proposed an alternative possible viewpoint as unpalatable
    as it may be.  Maybe this will be disallowed in the future with Pat 
    as well.  
    

Andy, if I remember correctly, the only people who ask for your passport
when you leave the U.S. are the airline agents.

>The reason they ask for a passport & visa when you leave

"They" is the airlines; the U.S. government has no right to ask anyone
anything at all as they leave.  The airlines ask because their landing
agreements with other countries require them to take anyone refused
entry back to their point of origin.

>I don't think that we eve had to show our passports when we entered Canada
>last year.  Only when coming back to the US.

The Canadians rarely ask for anything but name and citizenship when you
enter by land.  More formal documentation is required if you arrive by
air or if you are a citizen of certain countries other than the U.S.

The U.S. government may not require U.S. citizens to show any identification
when returning from Canada by land unless there is good reason to suspect
that the person is not a citizen.  More formal documentation is required
when you return by air.

/john

>The Canadians rarely ask for anything but name and citizenship when you
>enter by land.  More formal documentation is required if you arrive by

 They do, however, ask for presentation materials.




 Jim

    
    I'm waiting for the guy at the Vermont/Qu�bec border to ask me for a
    date.  Every time I go through he remembers me 8^).
                                                       

    He asked me for a date.
    

    
    Braggart.
    

    He did - he asked me for the date that I would be returning to the USA.

                     
                                         ,.','.,'.,
                                 ,'.'.,''.,'.',''  "
    			,.''.,.','.,' ,.',.',.',..,'',.',.',.'
    	               ,'.,'.',,.''.,'.,'.','.,'.,"'.,'.',.'
                              ,.',.',,.',.',.'.' ,.',.
    8^pPppPPppPppPpPppPppPpPppPPpP,.',.',.',.',.'",..,
                        ,.',.'.'.','.,'.,',.',.',.',.' ,.','.,'.
                                    ,. ' ,.,.',.',"
                                        ,.',.',.',.',.'
                                        	,.',.','.,
    					,.',.
    					     ,.',.',.',

    
    re: .514
    
    >I'm waiting for the guy at the Vermont/Qu�bec border to ask me for a
    >date. 
    
    
    Ahhh.... so now we know the reason for the {waiting} comment in the
    other note!!
    
     Thanks for the clarification!!
    

    
    I appear to be in a permanent state of wait today 8^).
    

You have a wait problem?  Join Wait Watchers.

    
    Or as my mother always tells me, "if you don't watch your figure,
    nobody else will either" 8^).
    

    Once again I am amazed by the selective nature of those who want to go
    after Buchanan.  The entry about how he was going to shred the
    Constitution seems to very studiously ignore the attacks on the
    Constitution by the Democrats and liberals over the past decades.
    
    All you need to do is look at the gun control laws, social spending,
    land grabs and restrictions by environmentalists, quotas, the list is
    almost endless.  Just about everyone of these lacks any basis in
    Constitutional law.
    
    Now along comes someone that says maybe we need to figure out how to
    re-energize this country to make it the economic and moral leader in
    the world and wackos start worrying about the Constitution.  why no
    such concerns when the Constitution was shredded for years in the name
    of liberal ideology?
    
    Oh, I get it.  If someone wants to talk about how to stop the bleeding
    then he has to be an anti-Constitution wacko.
    

    This debate is not about liberals and liberal policy.  It is about 
    Pat Buchanan's alleged ability lead the country and the possible 
    outcome of that unlikely eventuality.  
    
    You want facts?  Go look at and read his webpage.  If you are a
    supporter, these may seem to be good things.  If you are a concerned 
    citizen for the long and short term health of the country, these will 
    be bad things.  IMO of course.  Change is good, and change is necessary,
    but changing does not have to include doing irreparable harm to our 
    economy and entrenching ourselves in a self destructive enclave.  I
    want change and I want reform.  I do not want Pat's brand of either.  
    Pat offers no middle ground or compromise.  Bully for him and his
    tenacity in holding to his convictions.  Bully for us that he will 
    never make it to the White House as an elected official.  Bad for us
    that there are no viable candidates running that offer a vision other
    than "I'm not as extreme as he is."  Lucky Jack's luck will come up
    short this time around.
    	

    .525
    
    I didn't think that we elected a Monarch.  I thought that we elected a
    President who espouses and tries to implement his agenda.  what usually
    comes out of the process is some watered down version of the intended
    agenda.
    
    If Pat is that radical, and I agree that a lot of what he says is
    farther to the right than I am, it will never make it through intact. 
    What I would like to see is someone like Pat that says, "Hey, you guys
    never want to negotiate fair trade agreements, well you outta here." 
    What ultimately comes out will be a lot less than that, but perhaps our
    trading "partners" will get the idea that werenot going to roll over
    and just keep going as we have.
    
    So, yeah, he talks in absolutes, but the Congress will actually set the
    legislation.  My belief is that it will be a lot less than Buchanan
    would want, but a lot more than we would get under a wishy-washy
    compromiser.
    

.526

	The president of the US is the head of the organization that does ALL 
of the IMPLEMENTATION, not the congress.  The dept of War reports to the
President as do all the dept.  The Pres has a lot more discretionary power than
you seem to give him credit for.

 Clue:  We haven't had a department of war for at least 50 years.




 hth.

    8^)
    
    I love doin' the robot. Try it on a dance floor sometime. 

 re .527


 Have you ever heard of "checks and balances"?




 Jim

	Deb, everyone watches yours. :-)  So your mother does know best!

re: .528

	OOOPS!!

re: .530

	Checks and balances?

	Clinton just kept the government open against congress's wishes.  A
large part of the budget is "discretionary funding".  Bush and Regan both ran
military operations without advise or consent until after the fact.

	

    .527
    
    Please explain how the President can close our borders, for any
    extended period of time, to foreign imports.  As a point of reference,
    please review what happened to the 100% tax om luxury foreign cars.
    
    Do you really believe that Buchanan can somehow change the process and
    make royal decrees that will just make things happen.
    
    Get a clue and get a grip.  He may have a radical agenda, but if he can
    get any major portion of it through, it would be a miracle.
    
    Once again I go back to my primary point.  He can start the discussion
    around foreign trade, immigration, AA, foreign entanglements, etc.  I
    don't expect him to get elected, but I really want to see where the
    rest of the field, including Clinton, stand on these points.
    
    so far everyone just wants to call him names and hope that they don't
    have to talk about these things.
    
    Go, Pat, Go.  Keep the discussion going and force them to talk about
    it.
    

    .533
    Reagan
    
    nnttm

    Could have been Donald Regan!

    re: .451
    
    How about we teach neither?  Since we cannot know for a fact how we
    came to be, why not place such things in philosophy class, leaving
    debate open for all views?
    
    -steve

    pat should take some ballet lessons.

    
      "What ought to be taught as fact is what is known as fact." - PB
    
      Look at that carefully - it is classic PB.  You think he said
     something divisive, until you read it a second time, and then
     you see he said something innocuous, making it sound belligerent.
    
      As I've said all along, it's not the words themselves that get
     everybody excited.  It's the manner.  He does it on purpose.
    
      bb

    >"What ought to be taught as fact is what is known as fact." - PB
    >
    >      Look at that carefully - it is classic PB.
    
    Look carefully also at what he said, in the other quote
    Covert provided, about what he wants *specifically* taught
    in schools - the 'revealed truths' of christianity.  
    
    > You think he said something divisive, until you read it a second time, 
    > and then you see he said something innocuous, making it sound belligerent.
    
    What he actually said were two contradictory things.
    
    DougO

    >How about we teach neither? 
    
    eh?  Teach neither what is known to be true, nor what Pat calls
    revealed truth?  what purpose schooling?
    
    The hook upon which Andy wriggled for three notes yeterday is that Pat
    wants it both ways.  He wants us to teach by some vague feel-good
    precept "teach what is known to be true" AND he wants us to teach
    specifically what may generously be called "revealed" truth, of one
    flavor and one flavor only (Pat's).  
    
    If you want to jump up upon Andy's hook, address the points with a bit
    more deliberation than a handwaved "teach neither".
    
    DougO

From:	US2RMC::"Donald_Topaz/CAM/[email protected]" 
 "Donald Topaz/CAM/Lotus" 26-FEB-1996 07:27:30.52
To:	delbalso <molar::delbalso>
CC:	
Subj:	Condolences...

...on the passing of the vehicle.  It lived a full, rich, and extremely 
well-traveled life.  

Let's do get together for lunch or drinks sometime/anytime.  Scheuling is very 
occasionally a problem (unlike some parts of my former place of employ, people 
actually work here -- it's even re-invigorating to do so.)

Here are a few comments to the Editor of Soapbox:


It was during a drunken stupor this past weekend that an ephemeron passed 
through the remnants of my mind, and I couldn't help but wonder if it were some 
sort of spiritual coincidence marking the Annual Neuro-Synapse of Your Jack, 
the Simple Sap of Soapbox.  Your Jack surely must be giddy with the ascension 
of that fine American, the much-belov'd Buchanan, riding herd on God's Chariot 
to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.   

Now that we know a bit more about Pat, we have a better idea of where YJ gets 
some of his ideas.  Pat doesn't have a biased bone in his body, and neither 
does Jack.  It's just that Pat says that English immigrants woud fit in better 
than "Zulu" immigrants, and that we oughtta build a wall across the Mexican 
border (but not the Canadian border -- I wonder why?).  No doubt Pat would be 
upset no end if, God forbid, waiters in a Chinese restaurant spoke to each 
other in ... Chinese.

But I digress, and my mood is too good to conceal.  The greed-sucking 
hatemongers know that the bill is on the table, and it is about to be marked 
"Overdue."  It should have been easy to see that the Republican Party would be 
in shambles (an obvious consequence of a socio-political ethos based on greed 
and robbing from the middle class and poor), but who could have predicted that 
New Hampshire would have been exposed so well to the Nation as the reprobate 
backwater that it has always been?  National networks aired interview after 
interview of NH citizens, all of them the result of generations of in-breeding, 
providing an inescapable Q.E.D. that N.H. is on a cultural/intellectual par 
with Alabama, Idaho, Arizona, and a few dozen others that lie south of Mason
-Dixon and between the Rockies & Appalachians.  (Ohio, of course, is in a 
league of its own.)  New Hampshire has become the pariah of New England, like 
the evil and smelly aunt who married in to the family and keeps showing up 
uninvited at Thanksgiving even though she's been widowed for years (to the 
eternal relief of her late husband).

And yet again I become carried away in my exultation.  Warm regards to all of 
the 'Box who deserve them.

--Mr Topaz

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail11.digital.com by us2rmc.zko.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA20671; Mon, 26 Feb 96 07:16:58 -050
% Received: from lotus.com by mail11.digital.com (5.65v3.2/1.0/WV) id AA15947; Mon, 26 Feb 1996 07:14:34 -050
% Received: from internet1.lotus.com (crd2.lotus.com) by lotus.com (4.1/SMI-4.10801.1994) id AA02051; Mon, 26 Feb 96 07:19:57 ES
% Received: by internet1.lotus.com (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA00476; Mon, 26 Feb 1996 07:06:34 -050
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>
% Received: by Lotus (Lotus Notes Mail Gateway for SMTP V.03 Beta) id 0F75810970C64641852562D90052152B; Mon, 26 Feb 96 07:06:33 ES
% To: delbalso <molar::delbalso>
% From: Donald Topaz/CAM/Lotus <Donald_Topaz/CAM/[email protected]>
% Date: 26 Feb 96  7:14:39 EST
% Subject: Condolences...
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% Content-Type: Text/Plain

    
    
    	Well, it's nice to know that Topaz hasn't changed. :)
    
    
    jim

    .542
    
    now _that's_ a thrashing.

    
    
    	I'll bet all the Nude Hampster residents are steamin' up their
    glasses right about now. :)
    
    jim

    What, no slam against Ohio?

>    What, no slam against Ohio?

	it's in there.

    I guess I read through it too quickly.  I should've known he wouldn't
    leave out the great state of Ohio in his monologue.

    
    well I have to agree with Topaz regarding Buchanan. The man is not
    playing with a full deck. I mean the wall around mexico and guarding
    it with troops, does make you wonder. He is also not going to win the
    nomination, thank god... New Hampshireites seem to like him, wonder
    why?

    Is he still pissed at me???

    
      Think again : he doesn't say you shouldn't teach what you don't
     know to be true - you and I only think he did, on first reading.
     What he actually said is compatible with teaching evolution as a
     theory not yet proved, but he said this in a way that will appeal
     to the RRR.  All I was trying to do was show the cleverness of PB.
     He knows perfectly well that evolution will continue to be taught
     in public science classes, whether he is elected or not.  He also
     counts the votes in key primary states.  Not quite as adept at varying
     the message by geography as Clinton, the acknowledged current champ,
     but it is a display of the kind of two-speak the Presidency seems
     to currently require.  It is not actual "lying".  "Wordsmithing ?"
    
      bb

    speaking with forked tongue?

    
    Gee....
    
    I guess an entry by Topaz is okay.... but Oppelt is verbotten...
    
    
    My.. my... I guess he's still "One of those that count..." even in
    absentia..
    
    

    That may be because Topaz is a super gal with fragile lips expecting
    aloe doses!

    re: .541
    
    >The hook upon which Andy wriggled for three notes yeterday
    
    Your ego is still patting itself on the back, is it??
    
    My contention was that you denigrated PEOPLE.. (other than PB), whether
    it was consciously or subconsciously...
    
    You want to keep pulling straws? Go right ahead... Your ego deserves no
    less...
    

    
      PB didn't do well in Az.  Partly, this may be a perception of bigotry
     from Hispanics.  But there is also another factor.  Pat was parading
     around in a string tie and cowboy hat, waving a rifle over his head
     with one arm, etc.  It was hoaky, didn't fit his accent, and didn't
     sell.  Remember, he hasn't got the bucks, and it shows in some of
     his more amateurish stunts.  Wonder what he'll try in SC.  Too late
     to grow a goatee and practice a drawl.
    
      bb

    There was an interesting profile done on PB's campaign headquarters the
    other night on NPR.  Armed guard(s) from the local militia movement 
    because you just never know.  One worker (campaign leader?) was 
    interviewed and stated he was for Pat because he felt he would bring 
    about a whiter america and by God white americans were just prettier to 
    look at than Americans of color, especially the children.  Pat is
    unelectable, thankfully.  

    NPR?  National Pinko Radio?  why they were probably just
    trying to slur poor pat.  he's a stand-up american, he is.

    William Safire on the subject of Buchanan's anti-Semitism
    (paraphrased):
    
    "On a scale of 1 to 10, Hitler being a 10, Farrahkan being an
    8, I would say that Buchanan is a 4."
    
    Is that like being a little bit pregnant?

<----:-)  too funny!

    Brian:
    
    He may be unelectable, but he has proven one thing.  He's proven that
    by standards of goody goodies in this country, race relations
    apparently isn't at the top of anybody's list, considering the
    primaries he's won!
    
    -Jack

    |race relations apparently isn't at the top of anybody's list
    
    oh, but jack it apparently is.  in a different way though.

    Sad isn't it?

    I apologize if I missed the reference, but would someone please post a
    quotation by Pat that displays his anti-semitism?

    In a way, it is sad.  I think however you confuse race relations with
    the common dismay of programs attempting to social engineer race
    relations...which of course has actually stagnated race relations in my
    book.
    
    I believe what Pat Buchanan is attacking is more the goody goody
    programs which in themselves are bigoted...attempting to promote
    "feelgood" throughout society.  What they have actually done is
    stagnate relations and have caused business into a spiral of
    mediocrity.  Just take a good look at Clintons cabinet as a pinnacle of
    example.  It's a disaster fer crying out loud.  Racism???Far from it.
    More like placement of individuals based on faulty criteria, but
    everybody is sooooo afraid to admit it.  It would be racist to even
    infer such a thing!
    
    -Jack
    

    
    re: .564
    
    Don't hold yer breath....
    

   Z  I apologize if I missed the reference, but would someone please post a
   Z  quotation by Pat that displays his anti-semitism?
    
    "I believe Damjanuk is innocent and will be acquitted of all charges."

Pat is the guy who arranged the Bitburg fiasco, wherein Reagan laid a wreath
at the graves of Waffen SS officers and said that they were as much victims
as those who died in the Holocaust.  He also uses lots of anti-Semitic
code words.  He opposed the denaturalization of people who had lied about
their Nazi past.  He's not stupid enough to say anything flagrantly
anti-Semitic.

    
    <-----
    
    Gerald...
    
    >He opposed the denaturalization of people who had lied about
    >their Nazi past.
    
    Because??
    
    Didn't he want them to be tried here in the USA first rather than, what
    he thought was sure death, "back in the USSR!"?

A fact that many people don't realize about Pat is that he had 
relatives in concentration camps.


They were guards :-)

daryll

| <<< Note 635.561 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| He may be unelectable, but he has proven one thing. He's proven that by 
| standards of goody goodies in this country, race relations apparently isn't 
| at the top of anybody's list, considering the primaries he's won!

	Jack, if you take everyone who voted for someone else, it far exceeds
his vote count. How can you say the above and expect to be taken seriously?


Glen