irwin@uiucdcs.cs.uiuc.edu (10/13/86)
>"mindless crusade", "mindless dingbat", "stinking load of crap", "two >operational brain cells", "perverted, distorted, primitive, dichotic, >neurotic"...... Such dribble, you sure know how to describe youself! >"one peasant who isn't that ignorant"...... I have my doubts about that! >"spoil the child"...... Couldn't spoil you, you are already spoiled, and yes, you are still a child! >"liberty"...... You do not know the meaning of the word!
jeffw@midas.UUCP (10/14/86)
In article <449@tekgen.UUCP> stever@tekgen.UUCP writes: >but we should be sorry for Ron and Nancy, and understand that they are >trying to project their idea of family values on the nation as a whole >because of their own lack of ability to have and hold a real family themselves > >we should also be sorry for the author who needs vast more help than >Ron and Nancy will ever need, I recommend that he/she seek counseling >of some sort to find out why he needs to project such hate to Nancy Except for the slight problem that John, like you and I, is just another folk spouting off on a network, and Ron and Nancy are running the country. They need all the help they can get; unfortunately, I don't think they would be willing to accept the kind of help I would recommend. I personally have no trouble understanding why someone would hate advocacy of mindless and dangerous crusades, especially coming from a person with her influence. I also find it grimly humorous that, after years of tweaking liberals for blaming crime on anything but the criminal, suddenly we are hearing that drugs are the problem. From the nominal, if not intellectual, head of conservatism in this country. Good joke, Ron. What's next, gun control? But the person I feel most sorry for in this exchange is the one who forgot about capitalizing the beginnings of sentences and putting periods at their ends. As well as (just) a few other details. :-) Mahler is legal, why not cocaine? Jeff Winslow
mhb@mtx5a.UUCP (q) (10/14/86)
> WASHINGTON (AP) - First lady Nancy Reagan urged parents Thursday > to push their anti-drug message until they make people ``very, very > uncomfortable.'' ... > And then we can proceed to persecute this minority. Let's > connect libertarianism to subversive activity. Anyone who believes > in civil rights is a national threat to security. We are the majority, > let's not lose our power to push around minorities.... ... > Mrs. Reagan was interrupted by applause several times as she told > members of the National Federation of Parents for Drug-Free Youth > that parents have to send a message to drug dealers: ... > ``The parents throughout the world are going to drive you out of > business. We're the ones who are going to be the pushers from now > on. We're going to push you out - push you out of schools, out of > neighborhoods, out of our communities and out of existence.'' ... > This clinches it. NOW I PUSH BACK, BITCH. How dare you tell > me what to do with my life. Your days are numbered. You declare war > against civil liberty, and you are doomed to failure. You will never > get away with this outright attempt to deprive me of my rights. This > is only a last ditch attempt to manifest an authoritarian society. I > accuse you of outright ignorance. I accuse you of outright propaganda. > I accuse you of using terror to meet your own particular ends... ... > Stiff and bittle as an ancient tree, ready to topple at the first > hints of unseasonable weather. You are right that the battle has only begun, but I'm afraid that you do not truly understand your enemy. You seem to think that People like me will be terrorized and intimidated by your mindless crusade. There is one thing you forgot. I don't need you. You think you're some exclusive dispenser of human dignity, but all you do is make a mockery of justice. Your greedy overinflated ego will not let you accept any of the fault. You blind us with ambition. You manipulate us with fear. You cut off escape so you can apply more pressure. I am convinced that the only type of human potential you are concerned with is what can be exploited for the better interest of taxible qualities. In other words, you have too much goddamn power. I would rather die than live in your perverted, distorted, primitive, dichotic, neurotic, version of reality. You make a mockery of everything liberty stands for. I'm one peasant who isn't that ignorant. > > Here's a hearty FUCK YOU. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** I must admit that I do feel certain uncomfortable vibes when listening to such speeches as the one given that night on the war against drugs by the President and his wife ... HOWEVER, I also get strongly uncomfortable vibes from listening to such extremely libertarian trash raving as what appears above. On the other extreme, you become just as fanatical as Hitler, by the way. And by pushing civil rights too far, you justify and in fact help to sustain nazi brownshirt marches in American cities and KKK cross burnings in the American countryside. Here in the rave above, you are actually helping to justify and sustain drug pushers. You would probably defend the right of a child sex abuser to molest little girls, if you had the chance. YOU are just as much a danger to my personal freedom as an extreme right winger ... because you are a fanatic... and any fanatic is equally as dangerous. And by the way, although you may not be ignorant (this is debatable), you are most certainly crude. I have never witnessed such foul language on the net before, but of course, you would defend this as your right ... your right to be trash. -mhb
wex@milano.UUCP (10/14/86)
In article <586@astroatc.UUCP>, krs@astroatc.UUCP (Keith R. Scidmore) writes: > ... I fail to understand why people like [John Williams] can't see > how irrational their views appear when they are couched in such > emotional text. Mr. Williams completely obliterated his credibility > in the opening line of his artical. > > This type of attitude seems to be common among people with far left > and far right political views. Perhaps irrationality is a prerequisite > to those political positions. No. I wouldn't call it irrationality. I would attribute it to frustration. It seems to me that people with extreme views (political, personal, religious, etc.) have those views in part because they seem "obvious". That is, the ideas that John expressed (Mrs. Reagan's hypocrisy, reductions of our freedoms, etc.) must, to him, seem to be quite obvious and beyond argument. Since they think that their ideas are obvious, they spend a great deal of time and effort trying to convince others of the obviousness. They very much want others to see things their way and act according to that way. When that doesn't happen, they become frustrated. This frustration and irritation leads to rage and outbursts. In addition, it often seems that others' refusal is *directly* harming the dedicated individual. For example, putting myself in John's shoes, I can see how the fact that you have acquiesced to a drug test reduces *my* liberties. Thus, if we assume John likes enjoying the maximum freedom that America provides, it is easy to see how he feels that Nancy Reagan (and others) are directly harming him. NOTE: THIS IS NOT AN ATTACK ON JOHN WILLIAMS OR ANYONE ELSE. I am only trying to share with the curious (like Mr Skidmore) some understanding that I have come to over the years. Please forgive me if I have misrepresented anyone's position herein. -- Alan Wexelblat ARPA: WEX@MCC.ARPA or WEX@MCC.COM UUCP: {seismo, harvard, gatech, pyramid, &c.}!ut-sally!im4u!milano!wex "I'm a peeping-tom techie with x-ray eyes"