From : johnbrandee
Subject : good website (14 November 2001)
just wanted to say that I really appreciate what I've seen of your website so far. especialy your CSA page. I totally agree with you about slavery and the civil war the war was all about states rights and eliminating big government!
thanks
From : "Robert Young"
Subject : Franklin Quote" (4 October 2001)
This was the first thing I saw on your webpage, and I was delighted!
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety, and in the long run shall have neither."
--- Right-wing extremist Benjamin Franklin.
I'm so glad you oppose the Bush/Ashcroft attempt to deprive us of our freedoms in order to fight the Reagan/Bush creation, Osama bin Laden, whose faith-based initiative cost so many lives. You may or may not know that Franklin's grandson, Benjamin Bache, died in prison for violating the Alien and Sedition Acts, promulgated by reactionary enemy of freedom, John Adams. Thank you for joining the fight against illegitimate "president" Bush! After all, how can you defend democracy when you don't practice it?
Solidarity, brother,
Robert Young Cincinnati, OH
This is my reply:
Thank you for your letter, I always welcome comments good or bad. First item of business is I do not consider President Bush to be illegitimate. The Constitution gives the power to select the president to the States and they in turn have decided to let the people chose with a popular vote. But the State is not obligated by the Constitution to listen to their voters. The Constitution requires that only the electoral college decides who will be president and vice-president and the Florida legislative decided to certify Bush's electors. So blame Florida and all the other States that voted for him, not Bush.
Second item is how do you blame Osama bin Laden on Presidents Reagan and Bush the elder? You think Reagan and Bush are responsible for those airplane attacks? Are you allowing the freedom-hating liberal history rewriters to think for you? Ever read "1984" by George Orwell, the job of the hero in the book was to go back through old newspapers and change stories to support and match the current official government version of the truth and history.
However I do agree with you that we need to let our leaders, Republican or DemocRAT or whatever, know that we are watching what they are doing. I have jumped on Republicans even harder than on DemocRATs. After all, you expect that DemocRATs are interested in oppressive bigger government and lessor freedoms. Republicans should know better than that and every so often try to outdo the DemocRATs in taking more of my money and freedom. As I have stated many times I do not vote Republican because I love them more DemocRATs but because I hate them less. They are the only game in town now and to vote with a third party is just as bad as not voting at all.
From : "pierre lepine"
Subject : So called "War on drugs" (19 July 2001)
Sir,
Congratulations for an exellent website!...I am an avid follower of ABC's Pollitically Incorrect (Although I'm starting to believe that show is much sensored)...In a way, this is why I will repeat my views here in which my original comments were published (On B.Mayer's Web site) but subsequent debates with others weren't...I also i'm not sure if you cover specific topics like these but anyway here goes:
The 'machine' that was slowly built around the war on drugs has become so huge and powerful that it is now inconceivable (By this nation's corrupt goverment anyway) to shut it down. This 'war' is now more detrimental to it's citizen's well being than the actual drugs themselves! :
-The massive system of law and related others (Lawyers,judges,construction of prisons,cops,border patrols, tobacco and alcool inds etc....) are again'st legalizing any or all drugs (In my opinion 'all' would be best) for job security!
- The underworld dreads even the though of legalisation (That would be their apocalypse!)...They probably are the best at financing any campain for the war on drugs (so again'st legalisation!)
THE BENEFITS OF LEGALIZING AND/OR:
1st: The goverment should take over (The underworld's lucrative market) by controlling the purchase, quality , distribution & price thus;
- Crime reduction at home: The hard users would much less be inclined (or need) to commit crime to nurture their habit.
- Violence not to mention the unsitly view they project on our street's would be much eliminated thus:
- Ilegal gun trafficing and the blood baths they create is mostly gone............ Even the NRA would be for this as the 'Heat' for better gun control laws would eaze!
- Some of the returns could be invested in:
- Monitor and help (To those who ask for it only) the hard users (Heroin,crack)
- Massive R&D on the side effects and more so the addictive properties of certain drugs to genetically modify them so they become non addictive.
- The pain & suffering from abroad (Asian,Mexican,South american "farmers") would now be free from abuse from the underworld & their goverments. Not to mention the new/real jobs created.
- Innocent Americans being jailed for consumming...Gone (It is inconceivable that we are still doing this for even pot smokers; Our forefathers, yes even some of the ones that wrote the constitution grew and consummed!)
- Burden on the American tax payers to support this loosing war...Gone.
PROHIBITION NEVER WORKED.........IF THERE'S A DEMAND,THERE'S GOING TO BE A SUPPLIER NO MATTER WHAT!
NOW LET'S TALK ABOUT PROSTITUTION.........
Please reply and/or let me know your views or comments to: peppy9@cyg.net
Thank You!
This is my reply:
Thank you for your visit and your time to send me an e-mail. I have not addressed the war on drugs much on this website except where too zealous law enforcement abuses the rights of all the people. I think that legalization of drugs will create more problems then it solves but federal laws pertaining to all drugs, legal and illegal and except at points of entry to the US, should be repealed because the Constitution does NOT give that power to the Federal Government. Each State has to decide how they will deal with their drug problems and if a State wants to legalize some classes of drugs they have the power under the Ninth and Tenth Amendment.
Subject: The New Constitution (27 June 2001)
You have this written:
4. To make laws that prohibit women from combat where they would be required to seek out, close with, and destroy an enemy. Women will be excluded from all combat aircraft, warships, direct front-line combat, special-elite military forces, and combat support units that has a high risk of direct contact with an enemy.
I must ask why, when it has been proven that women are as capable as men?
While I agree with the majority of what you say, I do find this against equality. So again I ask why?
Carl Pelleg
This is my reply:
Thank you for your message, please feel free to write me anytime. That clause came from either the VFW or American Legion, I forget which because I picked it up years ago. True that women are equal to men in many ways, even superior in some situations except when it comes to physical strength and endurance. Discounting female athletes, which is a small percentage of all woman, women are generally smaller and weaker than. men. I have been associated with the military since 1972, active duty, reserve, and civil service and I can cite many examples of women who could not physically do the job without help. Not just extreme combat type activities, but something just as simple as lifting a heavy toolbox from a truck to a high aircraft door that is expected to be part of their job.
I am not against woman in the military, in fact 95% or more of all occupations in the military are open to woman. The 5% that is not is the direct combat arms. From day one woman have signed up in the military not to fight, but to free a man to fight. Woman take over those jobs such as administration and supply as a force multiplier, the less men you have in the rear, the more men you have on the front line.
In real life, a military unit is only as strong as the weakest link and is based on trust and fighting not for God and country, but because you do not want to let your buddies down. If an individual in the unit can not or will not pull their weight, military efficiency suffers and can cost lives in combat. For example, soldiers have to be able to drag a wounded man and their equipment out of danger. That is where trust comes in, we take care of each other. What happens if a member of the unit can't perform that? Not just women, but also smaller and weaker men. I simply think and know from experience that woman should not be sent into actual combat where they can be a hazard to themselves or others. I have the same feeling towards weak men.
In closing, I always finish this type of debate with this story I was told by a former pilot from Vietnam. He was shot down, bailed out, and landed in a muddy rice paddy with a broken ankle. A helicopter landed near him and a pararescue man leaps out and landed in mud up to his knees. He was a big man and he ran across the paddy as if it was flat and dry pavement, kicking up a trail of mud. He took the pilot in one hand and tossed him over his shoulder and ran back to the helicopter without missing a beat, There he threw the pilot inside like he was a sack of potatoes. The whole thing just took seconds. Name me one woman that you think could do that.
Subject: John's Politically Incorrect Page. (13 May 2001)
At last! I have finally found a website that completely reflects my political beliefs. I agree with everything Lyn nofziger said, except the part about hanging a member of congress each year. I believe a good beating would sufffice. In all seriousness, I am so happy to find a truly partiotic website, one dedicated to the restoration of lost liberties. Our freedoms are under constant assault these days. It is time to fight back. I am not advocationg violence, but only defense of liberty. I am unalterably opposed to choosing evils means to achieve good ends. Siuch a position is not morally defensible. That said, I am willing to do what is necessary to restore and preserve our freedoms, from a government that would steal them. Expect me to visit again soon.
Terry Boettcher
Subject: Do you think the Liberals want to take away our freedom. (11 May 2001)
I share some of your view points only I hold more christian aspect of it. I can't help but think that people who blindly support Liberal agenda don't truly have a real foundation for their unquestioned loyaltie.
Rhiannon Love
Thank you for your e-mail. No I don't think the libs are out to take away all of our rights. What they are after is the Constitution and the Bills of Rights because it stands in the way of the "utopia" they hope to create in this country. For some reason they think they can avoid the errors that the late The Soviet Union and all the other socialist countries made on their way to pure communism. What "rights" remain will be those the central government grants us. Of course, that those "rights" can be taken away if the elites decide they are not in the best interests of society at large. Hillary's book "It Takes A Village" is just one example of how liberals think that individual rights, wealth, and private interests must becomes subordinate to society, even if it means hundreds of Wacos and Ruby Ridges.
Subject: What are your views towards liberal Feminists. (11 May 2001)
Do you think Liberal Feminists are misguided. I do. Especially when Al Gore's Daughter thoughtlessly backed up her father on the abortion issue. She didn't even question that abortion could have resulted in her life being nonexistent now. Alot of Liberal Feminists just follow the leader like lemmings toward the sea to drown.
Rhiannon Love
This is my reply:
They sure are. You know, the original 19th and early 20th century feminists were very anti-abortion, being wives and mothers came first so husbands could support their families. That changed in the 1960s when the modern radical feminist movement decided that the only way they could compete with men was to be like men, even in sexual matters. After all, woman now had the pill and, if that failed, Roe vs. Wade gave a new government granted "right" to unlimited and unregulated abortions. Like men, their careers came first could they not be bothered with such trivial as taking time out from their careers to raise children.
Subject: No Subject. (15 April 2001)
interesting site, but i just wanted some clarification.
it seems all well and good that you're convinced you're right about everything, and while i'm sure that you're quite well-educated and all, i wonder if it's really "fair" (you seem to like fairness, when it comes to less government) to only give all this freedom you cry for to people that think like you do, but not to, say, those really evil blacks, jews, gays, women, hispanics, northerners, liberals, immigrants and pretty much every one else in the nation.
see, it doesn't make sense to me that freedom from the evil empire of government should only be given to folks like you. is that your idea of an ideal world, one filled with only gun-toting conservatives? sounds kind of boring to me - i kinda like diversity, personally. but god forbid i spew that kind of bleeding heart liberal speak! oh no!
but again, you're entitled to your opinion, so good luck to you on your... "interesting" crusade. carry on.
GGoofy10@aol.com
This is my reply:
Thank you for writing. I really appreciate you taking the time to write and giving me a chance to explain my positions.
I have never referred to certain classes of people as "evil" for who they are, how they worship, or what they believe. There are Jews in my family through my mother so I am technically a Jew by their law even through I do not practice it. What makes this country great IS diversity, many Americans like me can trace their ancestors from multiple countries of the Old World and all have contributed their individual values and inventions for the greater good of the country.
What I object to is the type of diversity that leads to those you call themselves Something-American that puts their heritage before being an American citizen. That leads to a "them vs. us" mentally and leads to a breakdown in society, self segregation, and violence such that is going on in Cincinnati right now. To me, the evil people in this country are those who are actively fostering, mostly for personal gain and political power, the politics of extremist self-serving diversity, hate and intolerance. They are the Je$$ie Jack$on types who see discrimination everywhere. If what he saids is true, then why are there many Blacks in high positions of power in business, government, military, and courts? They would still be on the plantations.
All I want is a return to the Constitution and the republic as set up by our founding fathers. That is reflected in my proposed Amendment to return the power to the people and force the national government to discharge only those powers that the Constitution grants them. Failing that, then the only other alternative is to simply divide up the country and let the Constitutionists and the Socialists go their own way. That is why a part of my site supports secession and the old Confederacy that saw the dangers of the unconstitutional growing of the national government. Two completely opposite forms of government can not exist in the same place at the same time and one or the other will have to go.
I try to keep hate out of my website, even towards those who I think is the enemy. If you see it please let me know where and I will review and change it if need be.
Subject: Your very conservative website from a democratic socialist.... (12 April 2001)
Greetings,
My name is Melvin Little. I am a democratic socialist, a civil libertarian, a a secular humanist, and a labour union shop steward. Your website really puzzles me, but that's because we are worlds apart in opinion. Take a look at my website, abd you'll know and realize that Socialism is the purest form of democracy. I am NOT a communist nor a capitialist. The Soviet Union lost the Cold War, and the US really lost it to. The only winters are nations in western Europe that voted for the Labour, Socialist, and Social Democratic parties. Socialism really works because they are the majority party in all these countries which has an electoral system more democratic than the United States.
In Left Unity,
Melvin Little
My website: The Melvin Little Socialist Home Page
I believe in Socialism because I believe in humanity.
-Eugene V. Debs (1855-1926)
This is my reply:
Thank you for your e-mail. First of all, the United States is not a democracy run by mob rule but a Republic where the people vote for their representatives. In a true democracy the majority can force their views of social justice and equality on the majority. Personal wealth, property, and profits can be all taken by the State if the majority approves of it, the rich always a being a minority. It is like the old democracy joke of three men and two women where the men vote for raping the women and the women vote against it. Sorry ladies, but the majority rules and while it may not be right it is now legal.
There are checks and balances in our constitution keeps any one branch of the government from getting stronger than the other two. There are no such safeguards in a democracy or, more importantly, the rule of law that can not be easily changed. For example, what good are law of contracts or tort law in a democracy if the rules can be changed by the whim of the people? What about the Bill of Rights that limits the power of the central government? Will a democracy that follows only the whim of the people at the moment allow freedom of press and expression, freedom of religion, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms?
As for the real winners of the Cold War being the "Labour, Socialist, and Social Democratic parties"of Western Europe the last time I looked many of these pro-democracy political parties are losing power and governments, the next victim appearing to be Tony Blair of Great Britain. No, I like the republican government of the United States just the way it is, warts and all. It may not pretty sometimes but in the long run it works and does the right thing for all the people of the United States.
This is his reply, in italics:
Thank you for your e-mail. First of all, the United States is not a democracy run by mob rule but a Republic where the people vote for their representatives.
We are both a democracy and a republic. We are a democracy because we elect officials to the US House by the majority in proportion to the population in each state. We "balance" it the US Senate that provides two Senators from each state. The House was supposed to be for "the common man (or woman) whereas the US Senate was specifically made for the elite of our society. The very notion that democracy means "mob rule" is ridiculous. Nations that are full fledge democracies has checks and balances as well. Besides, the modern concept of democracy is not the same as the Greek meaning of the majority.
In a true democracy the majority can force their views of social justice and equality on the majority. Personal wealth, property, and profits can be all taken by the State if the majority approves of it, the rich always a being a minority.
I don't think that the rich would be stripped away of everything if America was a democracy. But it is ironic here that conservatives would claim "victim" for the rich, but recent it when the underclass or a mistreated group whines or complain. I'm not playing the tune of Political Correctness here because some of the far left's antics of complaining "victimhood" is annoying to me to.
It is like the old democracy joke of three men and two women where the men vote for raping the women and the women vote against it. Sorry ladies, but the majority rules and while it may not be right it is now legal.
You are comparing apples and oranges. Also, here is another area where conservatives miss the point. I am opposed to the death penalty, yet conservatives will tell me that it is too bad because the majority of Americans overwhelmingly support it.
There are checks and balances in our constitution keeps any one branch of the government from getting stronger than the other two.
I'm for keeping the safeguards. Democracies do have safeguards.
There are no such safeguards in a democracy or, more importantly, the rule of law that can not be easily changed. For example, what good are law of contracts or tort law in a democracy if the rules can be changed by the whim of the people?
Are you telling me that there is a mob rule mentality in western Europe?
What about the Bill of Rights that limits the power of the central government? Will a democracy that follows only the whim of the people at the moment allow freedom of press and expression, freedom of religion, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms?
Yes.
As for the real winners of the Cold War being the "Labour, Socialist, and Social Democratic parties"of Western Europe the last time I looked many of these pro-democracy political parties are losing power and governments, the next victim appearing to be Tony Blair of Great Britain.
Really? The last time I checked there were 14 out of 19 NATO countries that had socialist parties as the governing parties. I'm opposed to NATO, but that's another debate. In fact, Labour will win the election in Britain the next time around. Why? Because the British people do not want to go back to the dark days of the Thatcher years. The British people are fortunate enough to have a National Health Service, powerful (but not as powerful as they were) labour unions, a strong welfare state, and the death penalty abolished (in which even many Conservative Party MPs are NOT in favor of reinstating). Socialism is alive and well in western Europe.
No, I like the republican government of the United States just the way it is, warts and all. It may not pretty sometimes but in the long run it works and does the right thing for all the people of the United States.
Actually, I am a fan of the French, Italian, and Israeli parliamentary systems. Those countries can end up with as many as 25-30 political parties in the parliament. It would be a great day for America if we could have Proportional Representation.
Until next time, cheers.
Melvin Little
This is my second reply:
True democracy is found in the United States in the old cities and towns of New England. In those places, all the citizens votes on issues that effect the city. If there was no checks or balances they could vote that all Blacks have to be out of town by midnight. That majority vote against a minority of Blacks would not be carried out because the checks and balances of the State and US Constitution will not allow that. But if there was not a higher State or national government, what would stop the majority from running Blacks out of town? Like the three men and two women it may not be right, but it would be the law.
Throughout the Federalist Papers are the thoughts of the founding fathers why a true democracy is not desirable for a country founded on individual freedoms and responsibilities of living in a free country. The Constitution, as originally written, was a compromise on how the people would be represented at the central government. As you said, representatives are directly elected by the people. The senate was made up of members appointed by the State Legislatives anyway they wanted to. The president was to be elected by a sort of joint method (for lack of a better term) by the States and central government through the Congress.
The 2000 election was an ideal learning experience for the country why the Constitution was written as it was by the far seeing founding fathers. Supporters of Vice-President demanded that he become the president because he had more popular votes. Supporters of Governor Bush said that only Electoral Votes count in accordance with the Constitution and certified by the individual States chooses the president. If the Florida Legislative wanted to, it could throw out both Gore and Bush electors and certify their own. They could pick 24 Barbers if they wanted to or the first 24 people that passed by the Florida State House. What surprised me was that are no US laws or conditions in the Constitution that states how the members of the Electoral College were chosen, it is completely up to the State Legislatives. By custom the individual States will usually allow the popular vote of the State to dictate which candidates are awarded their electoral votes.
If you wait a few more years the United States will be a democracy and all of the chaos that goes with. Senators are now elected by popular votes and because of the last presidential election the Electoral College may disappear soon. If another Adolph Hitler manages to whip a majority of the people into a frenzy you can kiss the Constitution good-bye because it would not be the law of the land anymore because it gets in the way of the "will" of the people. Be careful for what you wish for because you just may get it.
This is his second reply, in italics:
True democracy is found in the United States in the old cities and towns of New England. In those places, all the citizens votes on issues that effect the city. If there was no checks or balances they could vote that all Blacks have to be out of town by midnight.
Nice argument, but aren't most supporters of a "republic" supporters of state's rights? State rights usually means that the majority ruules in that state in a way.
That majority vote against a minority of Blacks would not be carried out because the checks and balances of the State and US Constitution will not allow that.
A democracy would have some those "checks and balances." You make "democracy" sound like "anarchy" base on that "mob rule" mentality. I think you are confusing it with the term "direct democracy" which is different from "represenatative democracy."
But if there was not a higher State or national government, what would stop the majority from running Blacks out of town? Like the three men and two women it may not be right, but it would be the law.
Apples and oranges once again.
Throughout the Federalist Papers are the thoughts of the founding fathers why a true democracy is not desirable for a country founded on individual freedoms and responsibilities of living in a free country. The Constitution, as originally written, was a compromise on how the people would be represented at the central government. As you said, representatives are directly elected by the people. The senate was made up of members appointed by the State Legislatives anyway they wanted to. The president was to be elected by a sort of joint method (for lack of a better term) by the States and central government through the Congress.
Without getting into the rediculous antics of "political correctness" practiced by many on the hard left, I will say that many of the Founding Fathers of this country had as their aim to defend their priviledge ruling class from the ordinary man and woman.
The 2000 election was an ideal learning experience for the country why the Constitution was written as it was by the far seeing founding fathers.
The election was a sham, and I am not a supporter of Al Gore. I voted for David McReynolds and Mary Cal Hollis of the Socialist Party USA. Besides, I don't think that we have a very good electoral system.
Supporters of Vice-President demanded that he become the president because he had more popular votes. Supporters of Governor Bush said that only Electoral...
Well Gore would have won if Kathleen Harris wasn't so connected with the Bush campaign along with Governor Jeb Bush.
...Votes count in accordance with the Constitution and certified by the individual States chooses the president. If the Florida Legislative wanted to, it could throw out both Gore and Bush electors and certify their own. They could pick 24 Barbers if they wanted to or the first 24 people that passed by the Florida State House. What surprised me was that are no US laws or conditions in the Constitution that states how the members of the Electoral College were chosen, it is completely up to the State Legislatives. By custom the individual States will usually allow the popular vote of the State to dictate which candidates are awarded their electoral votes.
I believe in Proportional Representation because it will not alienate all alternative voice as it does presently in America with the "winner take all."
If you wait a few more years the United States will be a democracy and all of the chaos that goes with.
There will be no chaos, but democracy would be nice;- )
Senators are now elected by popular votes and because of the last presidential election the Electoral College may disappear soon.
I hope that the Electoral College disappears. I also wish that there will be a uniform standard across the nation takes place which would allow minor parties easier ballott access which would make the election of third parties easier.
If another Adolph Hitler manages to whip a majority of the people into a frenzy you can kiss the Constitution good-bye because it would not be the law of the land anymore because it gets in the way of the "will" of the people. Be careful for what you wish for because you just may get it.
That is pretty alarmist even by my standards. And I just disagree with that analogy. Why? Because as I said, you do have many safe guards in a representative democracy
Cheers,
Melvin Little
This is my third reply:
Are you a fruit dealer, apples and oranges? What is the difference between 3 men and 2 woman or 3000 men and 2000 woman? Three million men and two million womane? If a true democracy approves by 51% that it is all right for men to rape women or order all blacks out of the city by midnight. That is the democratic will of the people and, right or wrong, the law of the land.
The labor Party of Great Britain, in violation of centuries of English law starting with the Magna Charta, took away the right of their people of self defense, to keep and bear arms. Now the honest but unarmed "subjects" (not armed "citizens" anymore) are at the mercy of armed criminals and the government. What good were the centuries of safeguards (you hope are respected) if 51% of the people vote to take them away? What about if 51% of the people say that they don't like the Bill of Rights and vote it out? What safeguards are there in a free wheeling democracy to prevent this? None.
State Rights are not the same as democracies, there are rules and procedures in their individual Constitutions to safeguard rights and set down procedures to pass laws, to do otherwise would run afoul of the US Constitution that guarantees the States a Republican form of government. Before a State can be admitted into the Union it had/has to ratify the US Constitution and their State Constitution has to be approved by Congress as a condition to join. The Tenth Amendment gives the States the rights to pass law and regulations in the areas that the federal government are not authorized to do. For example, murder is not a federal crime but a State crime. The Oklahoma City bombers were not convicted for murder per say but for the killing of federal law enforcement agents. Terry Nickles is now in Oklahoma City awaiting trail for 168 State counts of murder. State laws must pass muster with the US Constitution which is why Jim Crow laws which were legal in many southern State laws were overturned by the Federal Courts. That is why laws that say it is Ok to rape women and all Blacks have to leave town by midnight.
I think you are confused by terms, true democracy is what the ancient Greeks advocated. One Greek philosopher wrote that a democracy should be large enough to fit in the local amphitheater. What he means by this that true democracy works well only if every citizen participates. You said you are an advocate of "representative democracy." Well, that is what a republic is, it is called that in the papers of the founding fathers when the Constitution was written. We the people vote for our representatives in the City, County, State, and Federal offices in a democratic fashion.
I also disagree with you that the Constitution was written to keep the elite and privilege in control of the new country. If that was so then why did they not set up another monarchy like the British Crown as was offered to George Washington, a slaveholder? Some of the delegates to the constitution convention wanted to import a king from Europe to rule. Or if royalty still carried a bitter taste why not a Roman Style dictatorship that was set up after the French Revolution and the European Axis powers before World War two? Those dictatorships plunged Europe into the Dark Ages the Napoleonic wars, World War Two, and the rise of the Soviet Union as a great superpower.
I also do not want to re-fight the arguments that Al Gore would have won if Kathleen Harris wasn't so connected with the Bush campaign. If you want to say that then what about the Florida State Attorney, whose name I can't recall, who was connected with the Al Gore campaign and filed numerous state and federal lawsuits to try to give the election to Al Gore? If you can find it, the liberal press recounted all questionable ballots and found that no matter which way you sliced it, Bush beat Gore by a large margin. Except in one case where Gore would of won by three votes, ironically that was in the case that Bush supporters called for; only clean card punches were counted, no hanging chads or dimples. The strict standards that the politically biased Florida Supreme Court tried to overturn.
I do not know where you are learning your history but it does not seem to be the same history I learned when I was your age. All I ask of you is to read the federalist papers and see what the founding fathers were trying to create then I am sure that you will see what you are arguing about is what we already have.
This is my final reply, just not getting anywhere with him:
The Old World has had a history of being ruled by kings, queens, czars, dictators (left and right) and an assortment of thugs, strongmen, and madman. For Europe a social democracy is a step up for them but for the United States would be a step back. Unlike them the United States has a history of self-government that goes back way before this country was created. The Mayflower Compact comes to mind. The early colonists had to create self government because if they asked the mother country for advice on every issue it would take weeks or months to get an answer, if ever. That is the root of our Republic, trying to keep decisions and powers as locally as possible.
You can't seem to accept that "representative democracy" is what we already have in the form of the Constitution. We vote for all our representatives at all levels of government to include who will be our president. What is wrong with that? And, in my opinion. Unions are the most undemocratic institutions in the US, 45% of their members vote Republican but the Unions ignore them and support DemocRATs almost 100%. If you believe in representative democracy why do you work there?
Subject: No Subject. (24 March 2001)
See If You Can Figure This Out (Copied Here Exactly As Sent):
how can you people have the intro you have if you are just white supremesistcy ignorant people? Isnt this supposed to be all about america? i am a WHITE PROTESTANT female, appoled at the way our government treats us as apposed to the minorities, but we are a melting pot.anyone who says they are a white american are lying!you have ancestrey from somewhere and it is not here unless you are an american indian and i am thinking most of you are not!! WAKE UP!!!!!!!i am too are sick of the"united Nigro College Funds" and section 8's i think if you deserve a scholorship you should get it no matter what your race and as soon as i see a "caucasion fund" i will be happy to oblidge but you people have no right to stereo type any one when you are not 100% american yourselves. it is "ignorant" and if you look that word up in the thesaursis it will say "nigger"
This is my reply:
Pardon me but I do not recall anywhere in my website advocating white supremacy or even mention the Negro College Fund. I do mention Section 8 housing because I do not want to share my neighborhood with people who has the values of the streets and will bring those values to my schools and. I did not object on the grounds of sex, race, color etc. I consider myself an American and all people born or naturalized my fellow Americans. It pains me to hear phases like "African-American", "Mexican-American" and even "Irish-American" or "Italian-American".
In fact, I am not even sure what you are complaining about and what do you mean "you people"? Who or what do I think I am?
His Or Her Reply:
i am not saying you in general, but the mail i have readd as soon as i got on to your web site bothered me. i am sorry if i did not read further into it, or maybe i was too, ignorant to to the web sight. i appoligize if i was too forwardd and jumped the gun on you.i hope my appoligy is acceped. i promise to read on.
o andd by the way i mentionedUnited Negro College Fund. i dont believe in it and i am not saying you do or you do not. i did not read far enough into your mail to even know if you mentioned section eights and i think i probably agree w/ you on most things. but the first things on your web sight other than the "quotes" seem like they are from people who do not relize they are living in a worl other than pedegrees
 |
|
|
|
 |
