On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 12:43:19 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 02:13:32 -0600, "XeNO" <xeno6696@god.cox.net>
wrote:

But to correct you, white people do want to adopt black children.
They aren't allowed to because black children have a real tendency to
commit suicide when raised in a white family. There are strict rules
that keeping an adoptive family the same race as the child to reduce
this problem. Even so, what the real problem is, is that there are
not lots of adoptable babies out there. There are very very few. The
only children up for adoption that aren't being immediately snapped up
are those who are older and have some real health or psychological
problems.

I really wasn't aware of the last part of this issue... I knew about the
regulations but I honestly thought it was just beauracracy. Thanks for
enlightening me Kate! Though you'd have to work on me more to have me
believe that there is a stampeded of white people wanting to adopt black
babies... I live in a corporate yuppieville where everyone has friends that
"happen to be black," if you catch my meaning.

I have my doubts about the 'commit suicide' routines.
IIRC, Stephen Spielberg has adopted two black sons.

I'm aware of one case (don't ask for a cite) where an adoptive white
family was sued by a black organization and the adoption was blocked
on the basis the child wouldn't know his/her heritage if the adoption
was allowed.

The rules only apply to people who go through adoption agencies. If
you go through your own lawyers you can pretty much do as you like,
but that's an extremely expensive option.

Adoption agencies can pretty much pick or choose who they want for any
healthy child that is a baby (age 3 and under). That's why so many
people go out of the country to adopt. The rules don't apply for that
option either.

"Rump Ranger" <buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1103996002.616500.282350@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

XeNO wrote:

"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.12.24.18.30.18.512616@stopspam.net...

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 02:58:39 -0600, XeNO wrote:

It seems to me that conservatism in america stems entirely from
selfishness. They don't want to pay taxes for the public good,

because

they want to hoarde all the money for themselves. They want new
technology but don't want the science and the questioning of

religion

that
goes along with it--because it challenges "the way things ought to

be."

They want smaller government, but at the same time they want

government

to
sponsor their moral agenda, an agenda that spawns from their

singular

view
of the world.

In short, they want to have nothing to do in regards to public

good,

except perhaps by profiting from it.

They don't want to do anything that reaps a benefit for the

maximum

amount
of people involved, basically they judge purely from an emotional
standpoint instead of a logical one. (stem cell research.) Hell

even

abortion applies here... one of the biggest arguments is that

"there are

tons of people willing to adopt..." Well the truth is here in

america,

most of the people who get abortions, are minorities. Most of the

people

who adopt, are white people. Most white people, do not want to

adopt

black children. So then most of these kids end up in one way or

another

in the care of the state, thusly increasing the size of the

government

that they so wish to make smaller.

Yes this is a rant, feel free to join in...

You are confusing "conservatism" with the policies of the current
administration. The Republicans are currently under the control of
evangelical theocrats. When the Repubs were not in power, they

complained

about the liberal policies of the Dems. Now that they are in

power, the

Repubs are eschewing conservatism themselves.

--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)

I guess I can agree with that simply in all the legislation that bush

wants

to work on, tax reform, etc... I recently read that alot of repubs

aren't

planning on backing bush b/c they ran on smaller gov't tickets and

most of

what bush is wanting to work on, I.e. social security and welfare-->

are

only going to serve to make government bigger. At this juncture, I

agree

with them, None of the changes that bush plans are what I would

consider

intelligent... basically investing social security money serves to

make rich

richer and has even more risk of being taken advantage of. Most of

the

people who invest don't know alot about it or you wouldn't have had

the

horror stories like Enron employees losing all their nestegg.

To make matters worse, most of those who invest their money into
accounts like Enron had no control over it. Now, to respond to what
you're saying: a lot of traditional Republicans are going against Bush
because he's a big government proponent. Not all Republicans have been
conservative (witness that a majority of libertarians used to vote
strictly Repub. They're not "liberals" and they're certainly not
conservatives). Bush's doctrine seems to summed up with one word:
domination. Both here and abroad. A lot of conservatives are scared
that such a doctrine endangers our civil liberties and security from
foreign attack.

I have to keep in mind that I largely became politically aware in the

90's,

and this is the first repub administration that I've lived through

that I've

truly been able to understand... I was ages 1-12 for reaan and bush

Sr.

There's more than enough out there to read about those administrations.
Reagen was a war criminal who should have been impeached over the
Iran-Contra scandal. For Republicans to say they've always been
"strong against terrorism" while Democrats have "appeased" them is
grossly dishonest. Reagen's most foolish beliefs about the world were
curtailed by political realists who realized that much of his rhetoric
wasn't going to get him anywhere. Bush Sr. was even more of a realist
than Reagen. He realized that in international politics, even the
world's only superpower had to respect world opinion in foreign
affairs. Where he failed is that he had no domestic agenda worth
anything.

Well, lets remember here that this I also place part of the blame on the
reagan administration for 9/11... If Osama had never recieved CIA training
we likely wouldn't have quite been in the same boat. But that's all done
and over with now...

"Rump Ranger" <buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1103996002.616500.282350@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

XeNO wrote:

"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.12.24.18.30.18.512616@stopspam.net...

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 02:58:39 -0600, XeNO wrote:

It seems to me that conservatism in america stems entirely from
selfishness. They don't want to pay taxes for the public good,

because

they want to hoarde all the money for themselves. They want

technology but don't want the science and the questioning of

religion

that
goes along with it--because it challenges "the way things ought

be."

They want smaller government, but at the same time they want

government

to
sponsor their moral agenda, an agenda that spawns from their

singular

view
of the world.

In short, they want to have nothing to do in regards to public

good,

except perhaps by profiting from it.

They don't want to do anything that reaps a benefit for the

maximum

amount
of people involved, basically they judge purely from an

standpoint instead of a logical one. (stem cell research.)

even

abortion applies here... one of the biggest arguments is that

"there are

tons of people willing to adopt..." Well the truth is here in

america,

most of the people who get abortions, are minorities. Most of

people

who adopt, are white people. Most white people, do not want to

adopt

black children. So then most of these kids end up in one way

another

in the care of the state, thusly increasing the size of the

government

that they so wish to make smaller.

Yes this is a rant, feel free to join in...

You are confusing "conservatism" with the policies of the

administration. The Republicans are currently under the control

evangelical theocrats. When the Repubs were not in power, they

complained

about the liberal policies of the Dems. Now that they are in

power, the

Repubs are eschewing conservatism themselves.

--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all

I guess I can agree with that simply in all the legislation that

wants

to work on, tax reform, etc... I recently read that alot of repubs

aren't

planning on backing bush b/c they ran on smaller gov't tickets and

most of

what bush is wanting to work on, I.e. social security and

are

only going to serve to make government bigger. At this juncture,

agree

with them, None of the changes that bush plans are what I would

consider

intelligent... basically investing social security money serves to

make rich

richer and has even more risk of being taken advantage of. Most

the

people who invest don't know alot about it or you wouldn't have

the

horror stories like Enron employees losing all their nestegg.

To make matters worse, most of those who invest their money into
accounts like Enron had no control over it. Now, to respond to

you're saying: a lot of traditional Republicans are going against

because he's a big government proponent. Not all Republicans have

conservative (witness that a majority of libertarians used to vote
strictly Repub. They're not "liberals" and they're certainly not
conservatives). Bush's doctrine seems to summed up with one word:
domination. Both here and abroad. A lot of conservatives are

that such a doctrine endangers our civil liberties and security

foreign attack.

I have to keep in mind that I largely became politically aware in

90's,

and this is the first repub administration that I've lived through

that I've

truly been able to understand... I was ages 1-12 for reaan and

Sr.

There's more than enough out there to read about those

Reagen was a war criminal who should have been impeached over the
Iran-Contra scandal. For Republicans to say they've always been
"strong against terrorism" while Democrats have "appeased" them is
grossly dishonest. Reagen's most foolish beliefs about the world

curtailed by political realists who realized that much of his

wasn't going to get him anywhere. Bush Sr. was even more of a

than Reagen. He realized that in international politics, even the
world's only superpower had to respect world opinion in foreign
affairs. Where he failed is that he had no domestic agenda worth
anything.

Well, lets remember here that this I also place part of the blame on

reagan administration for 9/11... If Osama had never recieved CIA

we likely wouldn't have quite been in the same boat. But that's all

and over with now...

The current Bush administration has the worst characteristics of

Republican party with none of the reasonable advisors to keep him

check. Bush is not a realist. He believes he can run rough-shod

the world and that in the end the world will have to accept that.

stupid because the US is the world's largest debtor and it will

a point where foreign governments might just stop buying T-bills to
fund Bush's immense deficits. The dollar is already shrinking in
might. Not only is Bush arrogant, he's also ignorant about a lot

things. It wouldn't be so bad but for one thing: he doesn't want

learn anything about that which he is ignorant.

The neo-cons have a habit of "creating" reality (in denial of facts
they don't like) instead of dealing with it.

I just feel so defeated. I'm not a democrat--and never will be.

prefer

George Washington's Ideal of Government.) I have in general a

for

humanity and it seems so stifled and on the brink of extinction

someone

in power that is so.... well... backwards and self-righteous.

All people who crave power are by definition backwards and
self-righteous. Governments are evil. Period. Thomas Paine once
wrote something along the lines that "Government at it's best is a
necessary evil; at it's worst it's an intolerable one." He wrote

when the US Constitution was new and those running the USG were
concerned on curtailing government's power. That spirit is gone

will never be back. Our government will always crave more and more
power.

Democracy has always been a myth.

It sure feels like it. I think that's more or less due to

business interests though. If one could devise a model system that

keep business interests out of politics... not in my life time.

I still feel like crap that bush won again.