ddw@cornell.UUCP (David Wright) (08/07/83)
From: ddw (David Wright)
To: net-politics
Okay, rabbit!jj, to quote our wonderful president, "there you go again."
I especially like the way you get your innings in and then announce you
are signing off the discussion. God forbid that you should have to read
any differing opinions; after all, you're \right/ and have no need to
pay attention to anyone else...
Also nifty was jj's accusation that the Republicans and their defenders
use "facts and logic" but the Democratic people simply "call the Republicans
a bunch of bad names" and then "proclaim their intrangensence" [sic] by
declaring they'll never vote for Reagan. (What the hell are they supposed
to do, announce what a nincompoop Reagan is and then say that they're
voting for him?) The best part of this is the idea that the Republican
side wouldn't stoop to insults. Please keep this in mind while reading
the quotations below.
<I think their ingtrangescence [sic] shows why their arguments
should be ignored, since they aren't going to change their mind,
they just want a chance to work on people's emotions.>
I think that the style of argument can only lead to one
decision by any reasonable person, namely that Democrats are deluded,
they deliberately use emotion instead of logic to decieve those less
intellegent, and thus manage to be the REAL opressors [sic] of the middle
and lower class by the simple method of destroying freedom in the
name of "justice". A good set of cases to point this out are the
multitude of counter-productive social programs that encourage people
to waste rather than produce, or to stay unemployed, merely because
there is NO INCENTIVE whatsoever to get a lower class job, as they
can keep the same lifestyle, using welfare perks.
If they're such a good set of cases, how about a few examples? Not just
the programs, examples of people who are so affected and evidence that your
cases are not isolated examples. Also, I'd like some examples of freedom
being curtailed in the name of "justice."
Undoubtedly the Democratic response is that I want to starve the poor
so that they don't exist. This respose is nothing but a deliberate
lie (and a knowing one) designed to manipulate lower class voters
into voting democrat, even though the democrats only extend their
slavery to the dole. (For those who don't call it slavery, I suggest
any one of a bunch of books on hopelessness, and the results of a
lack of self-respect.)
Is rabbit!jj actually George Gilder's secret identity?
What most democrats seem to deliberately not understand is that
the Republican position is that there is already enough for everyone,
if they're willing to work TOGETHER to get it.
This may be the position, but that doesn't mean there's anything behind
it other than hot air from people who have theirs and don't want to lose
it. Also, how much is enough, and who decides? Does a Rockefeller decide
that I have enough once I'm making $25000 per year? Suppose that there's
only going to be X dollars of national wealth in the next few decades, and
current distribution won't pull many people above the poverty line. What
do we do then?
While the word together
may seem to be counter to the anti-discrimination policies of a republican
administration, I reply that the policies that support understanding rather
than hate are much more effective in creating a stable equality, and that
forcing individuals (including those who do not need to be forced) to
be inferior because they are not a minority is NOT a way to maintain
either a stable or safe situation.
I doubt that anyone would disagree. The key question: are the policies of
the current administration leading us in the right direction or are we headed
the other way? It's a cinch that the 10 million or so people unemployed are
having a tough time working their way up. And I've seen few claims that
the administration's policies are leading us to "a stable equality." Certainly
in foreign policy "supporting understanding rather than hate" is not the
first concept that leaps to mind when I consider Reagan's course so far.
Bye-bye. I'm not going to bother following this discussions because
I know that you democrats out there will just slobber all over in your
haste to use quotes from this note that are extracted from context to
demonstrate just the kind of emotional lie that you are expert in.
I think I'm safe here. I've quoted the whole thing.
I also know that (like the third law says) truth is easier to corrupt
than falsehood, and representation much easier to destroy than
deliberate misrepresentation, merely because detecting misrepresentation
requires intellegence [sic] and training, which have been so lacking in the
last 20 years <including my school year> in the public schools.
Well, the number of spelling, etc. errors in his message certainly bear
out the last sentence. Oh, hush my mouth, I just insulted him. Guess that
sends anything I might have to say down the tubes after the calm, reasoned
stuff jj is putting out.
I must say that I greatly resent the Democratic (and sometimes
Republican) use of emotion to sway those who are less able to
protect themselves. I think it reflects badly on both parties,
but especially the Democrats, that they try to use ignorance,
rather than try to ELIMINATE it.
Let's not forget which party supports aid to education in this Congress...
By the way, does this last quotation mean that it's less offensive when
Republicans use emotion to sway people?
I at first thought his whole message was a parody, but decided it isn't.
He may be going on vacation, but I'm mailing him a copy of this in case he
unsubscribes to net.politics...
David Wright (a registered Republican)
{vax135|decvax|ihnss}!cornell!ddw
ddw.cornell@udel-relay
ddw@cornell
p.s. All flames about [sic]'s in the above will be ignored. Bonus question:
find at least five errors I didn't [sic].