ramey410

Subject: Picking up where we left off

Bart,
*I will defend the "hate the sin, love the sinner" position. This is
perhaps the easiest of all positions. It is the definition of tolerance.
Love those with whom you disagree. I can only assume you do the same.
I am sure you love your brother or child even when they are misbehaving.

Misbehaving?
Robert, gays aren't misbehaving.
They are merely existing.
Sure, it's easy to suggest they just become celibate, but if priests and
our military cannot remain celibate, why expect gays to?

This is a necessary position for a peaceful society. It is when we legislate or
force our views that we have problems. For example, if I supported laws
that prevented a person from employment because of my views, I would be
intolerant.

So, using your example, you either support gay teachers and gay scout leaders
or you are intolerant. I was unable to determine which position you have taken.
If you can clarify, please do.

On the other side, if I force my way into a group (I do not mean country clubs),
that does not want me then I am intolerant.

Whoa!
What if they don't want you because you're black?
Or Jewish?
Or female?
Or gay?

We must respect the difference between discrimination and the right to
associate with like minded people.

Wait - what if a restaurant owner wants to serve whites only?
Do you support his right to associate with like-minded people?

A tough task, but important.
The right is wrong when they want to prevent gays from serving in the military.
The left is wrong when they sue the boy scouts.

How are those two different?
Why not give people the freedom to join, regardless?
That's how the Democrats would handle it.

*Affirmative action. You built one heck of a straw man here. Other than a
wacko or two, no republican is actively seeking to destroy blacks.
We reject AA because it simply transfers discrimination.

I think you have been duped.
Your party has one elected official in Washington, yet you expect us
to believe that the Republicans want to eliminate discrimination?
Your votes prove that's not true.

With one black man in your party, how can you expect to sell the idea
that all you want is for race to be a non-factor?
I'm not calling you a racist, Robert, but lately, your party has elected one black,
and that's because he's a football hero. If JC Watts had been a fumbler,
your party would be absolutely lily-white, instead of 99 percent.

Call my Korean buddies in California for proof. Talk about getting screwed!
And no, we do not propose a replacement because one is not needed.

Whoa!
It seems you have just declared blacks "equal."
If that is true, why does your party reject them at the polls?
Forgive me, but the black people will tell us when they have been
completely accepted. I don't think we whites can make that determination.

The black middle class was growing before AA and it has continued to do so.

I find fault in that statement.
If there were 400 lynchings last year, and only 380 this year,
you could say, "Things are getting better, and will continue to do so," right?

AA implies blacks cannot compete.

No, the GOP proves they cannot compete.
Without AA, the GOP would not hire a black person any more than they'd
consider voting for one. Your side might need fifty blacks elected before
we accept their word that "race doesn't matter to a Republican."

Sure, there are those that discriminate because of skin color, but they are far
fewer than you believe (probably more than I believe though). To solve this
we need to nail those that break current laws, not continue with one that
discriminates against other minorities.

Thank you for not quoting MLK.
Rush does that constantly, and the unspoken message is,
"Niggers are too stupid to realize what MLK really wanted."

Or are Asians not minorities? If we continue with AA I propose it is based
on poverty, not race. Otherwise certain minorities will benefit, such as an
upper class black, while a more deserving poor white, will suffer.
A poverty based system would not be racially motivated.

True, it's my opinion the GOP hates the poor, but they can start hating
a black man while he's 100 yards away. They have to wait until a poor white
guy is much closer before they can begin hating him.

*We hate the poor? Well, if that means we want people to keep what they
earn, then I guess I do. This is another straw man. We simply believe
money is better GIVEN away by us, the earners.

Again, I am in your debt.
This is usually the point in the discussion where I have to endure
the "teach a man to fish," analogy.

To claim that TAKING it and redistributing it is compassionate is simply untrue.

When the Democrats want to spend money on a shelter for batterred women
or inner-city job training, the GOP screams "big government."
Explain how voting, "No," on those kinds of bills is compassionate.
My point is, it costs money to teach a man to fish, and your side
thinks that money would do more good in the rich man's pocket.

In the business world, they don't mind spending billions on research and
development, but in real life, they don't see the need. That's all we're trying to do:
increase spending on R&D. Democrats want better schools, higher pay for teachers,
more judges, more cops, more coroners and detectives, more meat inspectors, etc.,
but the GOP says "Government is the problem."

I'll plead guilty to the charge that I want more tax money spent on that list
I just gave you, but then you'll have to admit you want fewer cops,
fewer judges and coroners and meat inspectors.

If you researched the many fine charitable organizations, many faith based,
you would see that America is a generous country. We simply believe that the
government is not the best form of charity. Note, I am not anti government.

I submit "more cops and more meat inspectors" is not charity.
neither is day care, job training or women's shelters.

...and I enjoyed the argument.

Robert Ramey

BartCop