The Rampant, Irresponsible Political Thread

[Dr Maturin]

This thread is for the purpose of continuing the political discussion started in the TMoS speculation thread in the Babylon 5 forum.

Gkar4ever, if there were six middle-eastern men in their backyard standing in a circle talking about something and you kept hearing them make explosion sound effects and hand gestures as if something were going up from a blast, wouldn't you think that even slightly suspicious? For that matter, what if you thought some white trash on the other side were dealing in dope? Wouldn't you call the police? My kids are important enough to me that I would.

JMS used some pseudonyms for the writers in that one episode (was it TIOT?) where they admitted they were wrong. Did you know the real people were confirmed members of the American Communist party? JMS has some bad stuff to say about HUAC (House Unamerican Activities Commitee) but did you know that they uncovered numerous plots within our own government to topple democracy? Alger Hiss, the greatest traitor in US history (and not coincidentally one of the founders of the globalist UN) was found out by them. He was also one of the main people responsible for giving concessions to the USSR after WW2. Poland was handed over to Stalin. Not only was Hiss a traitor to the US, he was a traitor to humanity. And we don't have a right to protect ourselves from people of this mold? We don't have a right to minimally observe people who are not only potentially antagonistic to our country, but LIKELY to be antagonistic to our country?

What is more Nightwatchish to me are things like acts to ban "hate speech," which would make preaching on Sunday against male/male or female/female relationships a crime. The liberal Thought Police are the true Nightwatch. The liberal crusade to disarm civilians also cries of Nightwatch. Look at the UK and what happened there when they banned guns. Government mandated "smoke free" zones, arresting people for praying at a public school, socialized health care...all of this REEKS of Nightwatch way more than the Patriot Act does.

[colonyearth]

Ok...Sig Hail!...Sig Hail! Ve must have our Hate Speech! Kill de Jews und de homosexuvals! Zay are evil und ve must rise to arrayan power!

Ok, ZD, you simply frighten the fuck out of me. 'Nough said.

I'm someone that someone like you would call a "stupid faggot."

How can someone who claims to be intelligent, claims to like B5, have such views? It simply boggles the mind.

I will not respond any further, for to me it is beneath my dignity to respond to such arrant nonsense as what you've stated in the previous post. I simply pity such closed minded people as you, and hope God, the universe, finds some way to enlighten you.

CE

[OmahaStar]

It amuses me that someone would associate themselves with the dwellers of Z'Ha'Dum. Now that this poster has shown its political leanings, I find myself rather unsurprised.

Whether you are aware of this or not, this site was created to house the postings of jms, the creator of Babylon 5. The people who post in this forum are fans of his, and through the decade plus since The Gathering, he has earned the right to give his opinions of world events.

You have not. You have come here with only one intention, and that is to stir up trouble and piss off as many people as you can, and then claim you don't know how they could possibly feel that way.

If you wish to continue posting here, you will need to dial it back. You will need to behave yourself.

[Jan]

Gkar4ever, if there were six middle-eastern men in their backyard standing in a circle talking about something and you kept hearing them make explosion sound effects and hand gestures as if something were going up from a blast, wouldn't you think that even slightly suspicious? For that matter, what if you thought some white trash on the other side were dealing in dope? Wouldn't you call the police? My kids are important enough to me that I would.

<snip rest of nonsense>

Of all the intolerant, prejudiced, ignorant arrant stupidity! I'm going to ignore this thread from now on, folks. ZD has just proven that he's not my social equal and no longer deserves any modicum of respect from me.

Jan

[Dr Maturin]

<<I wiill not respond any further, for to me it is beneath my dignity to respond to such arrant nonsense as what you've stated in the previous post. I simply pity such closed minded people as you, and hope God, the universe, finds some way to enlighten you.>>

I doubt there are too many serious preachers out there who would utter the word you used. Saying someone is wrong for doing something and then berating them with slurs is another.

[Dr Maturin]

<<It amuses me that someone would associate themselves with the dwellers of Z'Ha'Dum. Now that this poster has shown its political leanings, I find myself rather unsurprised.

Whether you are aware of this or not, this site was created to house the postings of jms, the creator of Babylon 5. The people who post in this forum are fans of his, and through the decade plus since The Gathering, he has earned the right to give his opinions of world events.

You have not. You have come here with only one intention, and that is to stir up trouble and piss off as many people as you can, and then claim you don't know how they could possibly feel that way.

If you wish to continue posting here, you will need to dial it back. You will need to behave yourself.>>

Omaha, calm down. Obviously you were far more energized than I was when I wrote my post. The problem with liberal elitism is that you have no tolerance for any other view. You simply say "you're wrong" and that is that. Do you see the hypocrisy in your final paragraph? Behaving myself means not going against the status quo? Man. Now THAT is Nightwatch incarnated.

On your line about JMS earning the right to give his opinions as I have not...that is utter horse manure. Did you know there is actually a movement out there to allow only "enlightened" (read: Harvard, Berkely, etc. grads) to vote? In this country, we ALL have a right to an opinion. My pissing people off is not a desired end, but it is inevitable. Technically, the things you say "piss me off" but I can be more civil about it and argue my points. I am not claiming to be better than you in that, but I hope to encourage you to debate, not sling mud. I am smiling as I write this, and not in a derisive way. I enjoy debate, but I don't like it when someone says I have to tone down my views because it may offend somebody. That is un-American.

[Dr Maturin]

<<Of all the intolerant, prejudiced, ignorant arrant stupidity! I'm going to ignore this thread from now on, folks. ZD has just proven that he's not my social equal and no longer deserves any modicum of respect from me.>>

Jan, with all due respect it sounds like you are the one who is intolerant. You claim I am a subhuman and not at your level of existence because I don't believe the way you do. Where is your argument? And with more due respect than you have given me, Jan, I never stated my goal was to earn your respect.

Now, what was intolerant? Prejudiced? Ignorant? Stupid? I would love to hear your opinions, even if I am not your social equal.

[Radhil]

Gkar4ever, if there were six middle-eastern men in their backyard standing in a circle talking about something and you kept hearing them make explosion sound effects and hand gestures as if something were going up from a blast, wouldn't you think that even slightly suspicious? For that matter, what if you thought some white trash on the other side were dealing in dope? Wouldn't you call the police? My kids are important enough to me that I would.

It would depend on how long it's been since the last Vin Diesel and/or Will Smith movie.

[Capt.Montoya]

specious speculation

And if you saw six WASP men in their backyard talking secretly and making explosion sounds would you be just as suspicious and would you denounce them to the authorities equally?

Whatever good the McCarthy committees did (and that is questionable) do not deny the fact that it became a witch hunt that damaged many people unfairly. Your view of McCarthyism is not shared by many:

http://www.english.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/schrecker-legacy.html

You also seem to forget that the US Senate censured him officially for his conduct during the HUAC hearings and removed him from the committee. Not to mention that his original sensationalist statement of a list of hundreds of Communists infiltrated in the State Department never produced an actual list of names... none, zilch, nada, he never produced those names. His own zeal and lack of results discredited him.
It is also uncertain now whether Alger Hiss was really an spy or just a scapegoat, see here:

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/home.html

You mentioned Jose Padilla in the original thread, he is a US citizen, and his civil rights have been negated in the name of the Patriot Act. He may be guilty, but without charges and a trial he has lost the right to prove his innocence that any US citizen has. Is that American?

Since you are into hypothetical cases instead of presenting facts here's one hypothetical case for you of what can happen with the (un)Patriot Act:

http://bushin30seconds.org/view/2802_small.shtml

A few words for you, from the German Pastor Martin Niem÷ller:

"When Hitler attacked the Jews I was not a Jew, therefore I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned. Then Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church ù and there was nobody left to be concerned."

Which is also quoted as:

ôFirst they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.ö


I think that the starting post of this thread really lives up to its title. It's rampant and irresponsible political speculation.

[colonyearth]

Re: specious speculation

Originally posted by Capt.Montoya
And if you saw six WASP men in their backyard talking secretly and making explosion sounds would you be just as suspicious and would you denounce them to the authorities equally?

Whatever good the McCarthy committees did (and that is questionable) do not deny the fact that it became a witch hunt that damaged many people unfairly. Your view of McCarthyism is not shared by many:

http://www.english.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/schrecker-legacy.html

You also seem to forget that the US Senate censured him officially for his conduct during the HUAC hearings and removed him from the committee. Not to mention that his original sensationalist statement of a list of hundreds of Communists infiltrated in the State Department never produced an actual list of names... none, zilch, nada, he never produced those names. His own zeal and lack of results discredited him.
It is also uncertain now whether Alger Hiss was really an spy or just a scapegoat, see here:

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/home.html

You mentioned Jose Padilla in the original thread, he is a US citizen, and his civil rights have been negated in the name of the Patriot Act. He may be guilty, but without charges and a trial he has lost the right to prove his innocence that any US citizen has. Is that American?

Since you are into hypothetical cases instead of presenting facts here's one hypothetical case for you of what can happen with the (un)Patriot Act:

http://bushin30seconds.org/view/2802_small.shtml

A few words for you, from the German Pastor Martin Niem÷ller:

"When Hitler attacked the Jews I was not a Jew, therefore I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned. Then Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church ù and there was nobody left to be concerned."

Which is also quoted as:

ôFirst they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.ö


I think that the starting post of this thread really lives up to its title. It's rampant and irresponsible political speculation.

Beautifully said, Capt.!

[Dr Maturin]

<<You also seem to forget that the US Senate censured him officially for his conduct during the HUAC hearings and removed him from the committee. Not to mention that his original sensationalist statement of a list of hundreds of Communists infiltrated in the State Department never produced an actual list of names... none, zilch, nada, he never produced those names. His own zeal and lack of results discredited him.>>

HUAC was a house committee, and McCarthy was a Senator.

As for the hearings on him, they gay-baited him (his majordomo was gay, this was before the Democrat Party was accepting of gays and blacks) and harassed him, and he responded to all of the questions like a dignified man. I admit he may have gotten a bit carried away, which the media has grossly exagerrated over the decades, but his intentions were good, and as for his success...because the Senate would not grant him more power to investigate the administration, the military conducted a top secret project to decrypt Soviet spy cables. Venona was made public in 1995 and a huge percentage of the people HUAC and McCarthy suspected did indeed turn out to be spies. Chambers. The Rosenburgs (sp?).

One of the reasons he is looked upon in a bad light is that his suspicions enflamed the racist south into a red scare. This was not his intention by no means whatsoever. Just as Rodney King did not intend for people to riot in LA. People use things for their own ends. The whole Venona thing has largely been ignored save for a few small stories at the time of its release, so I can see why McCarthy looks bad, but he wasn't nearly as bad as anyone thinks.

[Dr Maturin]

Also, Capt. Montoya, I didn't mean to leave out that I did check out your sources. Check the date on the second link. It was put out a year before the Venona revelation.

[Dr Maturin]

colonyearth, apparently we are having a more-than-slight miscommunication. I don't know how old you are, but you seem to be quite young and idealistic. I understand that college professors frequently cast conservatives in a bad light, grouping all of us with Far Right whackos that live in the hills and want to kill everyone that doesn't agree with them.

Quite frankly, you know nothing of me. Just because I am a conservative does not mean I am a racist or that I am intolerant of anyone. Would it surprise you to know that I am a WASP? Probably not. But would it surprise you to know that my best friend in the world is black (and a US MARINE!) and two other of my five closest friends are black (two conservative, other not into politics). My wife is Hispanic, and a Hispanic immigrant, to boot. In college, 80% of the time I hung out with a group of Arabic, Pakistani and Indian kids (some American, some not) and we all had different religions (Jehovah's Witness, Protestant Christian, Sikh, Muslim).

I am against gay marriage, but I do support civil unions. This is my belief. It does not make me a "hatemonger" or any other kind of monster. The thing is--and I will give you this as genuine advice-- you won't get anywhere demonizing those with views that oppose yours. Booker T made more progress than W.E.B. Dubois, King more than Malcom X. Berating conservatives is only going to make them likely berate you back. You should strive to win them over with logical and convincing arguments, not just dismiss them as not your social equal (I know you didn't say that). The main problem with many people who tend to stereotype people, both right and left, is that they are preaching to the choir too often. They hang with the same old crowd, so they can't grasp the concept that someone may have a different view.

There are shortwave radio shows in this country that portray gays and minorities (and whites who mingle with them) as evil people who must be wiped from the Earth. Nowhere did I say that I agree with these sentiments, nor anything close to them. But true hate speech is one thing and a preacher teaching his congregation something from the Word that has been taught for centuries is entirely another. That is why I put quotes on "hate speech" in my original post in this thread. Even so, I don't think we should stop even the whackos from saying these things, because like you feel about the PatAct, so I feel about freedom of speech. Once you curtail someone's rights (and no one has the right to plot against our peace, regarding the PatAct) then yours are at risk. The recent FCC thing on radio shows is BS, in my opinion and in people like Rush Limbaugh's, as well. If you don't like what you hear, then turn the channel. One of the reaons Rush is so successful is that appeals to liberals, too, because unlike Michael Savage, he argues his points and doesn't vehemently attack liberals. He may make jokes and call names, but not in a hateful and not without arguing a point.

So, in closing, please, don't judge me because of my stances. I am a decent person and don't deserve that. It's not a personal insult as I don't know you, but it's just not a good precedent to start. Just argue yours points before putting others down because they view things differently than you. Then your put-downs will be legitimate.

Also, just to show I am not an anti-gay hatemonger, check out this: http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue353/letters.html

I wrote the "Color Blind" letter. Feel free to e-mail me if you don't believe it. And yes, in the series of fictional books I plan on writing and have been planning for some years now, one of the main characters is homosexual. Man, what a terrible, wicked Republican I am.

[colonyearth]

ZHDD, I posted much of my reply to all of this over at the "Two things never to talk about..." thread. I love arguing and talking viewpoints. And I'm not a little kid in college. I'm 37, well educated, a filmmaker, writer, well read...and yes, gay and HIV positive as well.

Having been on the receiving end of Bush's "compassionate conservatism" as well as the majority of the GOP's members "views on values," please forgive me if I'm a bit sensitive to what appears to be extreme right-wing, overly religious rhetoric. It's a knee-jerk reaction. If you are more open-minded, that's great...you're a rare breed in your party, I hope you know that.

Personally, if you're going to put a gay character in your story, well, how do I put this...either don't, or let someone who's lived it make sure you're depicting the character and feelings of someone who's gay correctly. It's like in the old days when they only showed stereotyped blacks on films...yeah, I don't need a wrong view out there...we have enough to overcome already.

And as for Gay Marriage and Civil Unions: you're only arguing semantics you do realize that, right? Marriage has an historically religious connotation to it...thus the big hoopla about it. But this country is founded on the basis of seperation of church and state. That was put into place so people could be free to worship -- or not -- as they wished, without fear of retribution (not that that has worked out that well historically). It also was to protect the citizens from having extreme religious views forced upon them by one religion or another. The religious context of marriage in my opinion has NOTHING to do with the United States federal institution of marriage. Consider it this way. Let's use a capital "M" to begin the word in reference to the religious ideal, and use a lower case "m" to begin the word in reference to the federal and state recognition of a couple and their rights under the law.

Does the word change? No...only your connotation of that word changes. If they pass Civil Unions, then a gay minister wants to be able to legally perform the ceremony by law, is he allowed to? Or do gay people have to go to a judge or something. We can't get -- what? -- "Civil-unionized?" in our church?

Isn't it the religious entity in one's life that defines what Marriage is? The rest is law. Ok, so let's simply change the way that the federal government and states name something. Every citizen from now on will get a "civil union." You will file your joint "civil union" tax returns, etc. The term for Marriage is now recognized only as a religious term. If you, in your church wish to call it Marriage, then that's what you call it. But wait, if I want to call mine a Marriage, then I can as well. Oh, but wait, now we're right back where we used to be. Damn.

You see, it's all semantics and connotation. Seperate but equal was thrown out 40 years ago. And you do not amend the Constitution to deny people civil liberty...that was only done once with prohibition and we all know how well that one worked.

To amend the Constitution is to stop the process in its tracks. People argue about the liberal judges making law. They're answering the questions brought before them as they were intended to do by law. 4 out of 3 judges say this...well I didn't write the damn law, the founding fathers did. That is the system...you have allow the system to work as it was meant to.

The judicial influence on the making of law has been there throughout our history. It was set in place because sometimes -- and I'm convinced the founders of this nation saw this problem -- the masses are not right. If the majority were always correct then we would still have slavery, women wouldn't be able to vote, interracial Marriage (I'm hearing the same arguments now that were touted then by the way) would be illegal, there would be no civil rights -- the list goes on. In these cases it took either men of great fortitude to stand up for what was right or it took the judicial system to interpret the right of law and thus by doing so set law and equality.

We have right now a man who thinks not of his political career but of doing what is right...great fortitude...the Mayor of SanFrancisco. Is he really much different than Sheridan? Is he not using the same argument? Think about it. He's saying that the law of CA and of this great land is to treat all men/women as equals, and anyone telling him not to rise to the higher purpose is no better than Clark and nightwatch, asking their people to arrest or kill those who would not comply.

It is so difficult to bring enlightenment to straight people on this issue...because you've had these rights all along...you don't know what it's like on the other side...and you can't because you're not gay.

All I ask is an open mind.

CE

[Jan]

CE,

That was the *best* essay on just about any controversial subject I've ever read.

Thanks.
Jan