Liberalscum.com's Rational Hate Mail

Hate Mail (Rational)

Rational Hate mail

From: Declan [mailto:sendemailtodeclan@gmail.com]
Sent: Wed 9/7/2005 5:52 PM
To: Opinions Mailbox
Subject: Re: NAACP

1. The NAACP Has Sold Out Its Original Intent: "Where the
organization once sought to give black Americans a helping hand,
today the NAACP is squandering their mantle of leadership through
petty, partisan and even racist activities and speech."

Last I checked, Calling someone a racist and being a racist are two very different things. He's saying that you are Nazis. I am too.

2. Absent Fathers: "The suicide rate for young black males aged
ten to nineteen increased by 114% since 1980. Where are black
fathers, and where is the NAACP?"

Where's research that says having a father around prevents suicide? I don't see the connection. I'm a "bleeding heart liberal" and proud of it, but I grew up without my dad around and I'm the least suicidal person you'll ever meet. (By the way, I'm white. That probably makes a difference to you.)

3. Out of Wedlock Births: "Over 70% of black babies are born out
of wedlock, compared to 26% of white babies. Where is the outcry
from the NAACP?"

Why does it matter? Having children while married is a religious value, not a law. The NAACP is a secular organization. The GOP, however is not. Seperate the church and state. (If you don't believe in that, then you have no right to criticise Yassar Arafat.)

4. Abortion: "Black women are three times more likely than white
women to have an abortion. There are 1,452 black children aborted
every day. What is the NAACP doing about this?"

Abortion isn't murder.

5. Education: "Forty four percent of black Americans over the
age of fourteen cannot read. Sixty percent of black fourth graders
cannot do basic mathematics. Calling the NAACP!"

That is a lie. According to the census, America was over 12% black in 2000, and I believe that percentage is increasing. Anyway, if about one third (estimation) cannot read, that would make the literacy rate below 96%.

6. Crime: "Murder is the leading cause of death for black men
between the age of fifteen and thirty four, and 90% of these murders
are committed by other blacks. Where is the NAACP?"

It's busy speaking out against drugs, the leading cause of violent crime.

7. Illegal Immigration: "Has exploded in the United States in
recent years, pushing blacks out of their neighborhoods, schools, and
jobs. The NAACP refuses to take action against this."

"Pushing blacks out" is an interesting way to put it. I bet it goes something like this

Setting: An elementary school on a beautiful sunny Texas morning...

Teacher : Good morning class.

Class: Good morning, Mrs. Johnson

Teacher: I'd like to intoduce you to our new student, who somehow registered for school even though he immigrated illegally. This is Paco"

Class: Hi Paco.

Teacher: Ok, Paco, you can take Jamal's desk. Jamal, go home, we have no more room for black students here because of illegal immigration.

Oh wait, the schools in Texas are already overcrowded anyway...

8. Voting Rights for Violent Offenders: "The NAACP is in favor
of restoring voting 'rights' for millions of murderers, rapists, and
other violent criminals!"

I can't argue there. Unless there's a fact I'm not being told, which I can almost guarantee there is. The republican party is so strong because your propaganda is so simple! Democrats have to explain to people what they stand for.

9. Dangerous Alliances: "The NAACP consistently aligns itself
with political parties and politicians who work against the best
interests of the black community."

Like the Republican party? Oh wait, they don't support them, that's why they are being criticized.

10. Guns and Blacks: "The NAACP has filed a class-action lawsuit
against gun manufacturers, in effect blaming them for black on black
crime, but statistics show guns don't kill black people, other blacks
do."

It'd be interesting to read the exact charges. Maybe it had something to do with requiring background checks on gun purchasers. You can't argue with that, supporting both the Patriot act and a lifestyle in which you would do absolutely nothing questionable.

Anyway, I support your freedom of speech, as long as I in turn have the freedom to call you an idiot.

rom: Marc Cittone [mailto:mcittone2@hotmail.com]
Sent: Mon 6/6/2005 6:20 PM
To: Web Master
Subject: Questions about accuracy

No doubt you have received this type of email before, but I am curious as to why the statistics are still on your webpage regarding the murder rate in so-called "Bush" vs. so-called "Gore" counties, both of which are located in the USA. I simply quote for I have not checked these facts either:

"According to the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ), in the year 2000 the national murder rate was about 5.5 per 100,000 residents. Homicide data by county for 1999 and 2000 can be downloaded from the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NAJCD), and the counties won by Gore and Bush can be identified using the county-by-county election results made available by CNN. (The NACJD provides not only the number of reported murders for each county, but also the population for each.) The average murder rate in the counties won by Gore vs. the rate in the counties won by Bush can be determined from this data.

By calculating the murder rate for each county and then taking the averages, we find a murder rate (defined as number of murders per 100,000 residents) of about 5.2 for the "average" Gore county and 3.3 for the average Bush county. But since people, rather than counties, commit murders, a more appropriate approach is to calculate the total number of murders in the counties won by each candidate and divide that figure by the total number of residents in those counties. This more appropriate method yields the following average murder rates in counties won by each candidate:

Gore: 6.5

Bush: 4.1

There is a distinct difference between these two numbers, but it is nowhere near as large as the quoted e-mail message states (i.e., 13.2 for Gore vs. 2.1 for Bush). Note that the average of these two figures is 5.3, which, as expected, is very close to the reported national murder rate of 5.5."

As the American Mark Twain once said, you're entitled to your opinions but not your facts. has anyone fact-checked this? Or is that not necessary?

Further, I must ask: given your views expressed towards Canada on your website, how do we explain that the murder rate in Canada is 20-30% that in the US depending on the year? I know some will use race as an explanation; well, white Americans commit murder at rate approximately 2-3 times that of ALL Canadians! And Canada is a diverse nation (17% are foreign-born vs. 11% in the US, for example). If the "red" vs. "blue" murder rates were extrapolated to Canada, one would expect Canada to be among the most violent nations on earth, not among the safest. And please let's not forget those Canadians who died fighting in Afghanistan in response to an attack on the U.S. -- in my book, we should thank our allies.

Feel free to publish all or part of this on your website -- I look forward to a reasoned answer.

Sincerely,

An American

rom: Athan Jons [mailto:athanjons@yahoo.com]
Sent: Mon 5/30/2005 3:17 PM
To: Opinions Mailbox
Subject: You're Wrong

I'm sure you range the gambit regarding emails, and
this one probably won't be any different. You should
know however, that you're wrong.

This email is mostly for my own peace of mind, in
knowing that I've responded to someone who owns a
domain like "liberalscum.com" to let them know that
they are a huge part of what's currently wrong with
this country. I say currently, because things change,
and right now (during a time of war) conservatives
such as yourself are trying hard to divide a diverse
nation of individuals from any kind of progress.

To say that the democratic party has a history of
racist ideals is true in the same way you could say
that the republican party has. America as a whole has
been a racist nation for a very, very long time.
Remember slavery? You can't use a political device
like party affiliations to make a judgement about
individuals or the culture of an entire nation. I'm
sure you've already miscontrued the majority of what
I've said, which is another problem.

Democrats have often been seen as "Intellectuals," for
better or worse. What this means to me however, is
that I can hear a view that dissents from my own and
not go "completely apeshit" about it. Like I said,
this message is for my own peace of mind, to know that
I've been able to calmy assert, with just as much
truth and correctness as you have, that you are very,
very wrong.

Liberals aren't scum any more than conservatives are.
Jesus was a liberal. The founding fathers were
liberal. It's called "progressive" for a reason - not
because it's trying to destroy a delicate social
fabric established over the years - but because there
are a great many improvements that need to be had
before a document like the US Constitution can reach
everyone equally.

Regards,
Athan Jons

From: My3bsj@aol.com [mailto:My3bsj@aol.com]
Sent: Thu 4/14/2005 8:10 PM
To: Opinions Mailbox
Subject: Chante Mallard

When you write a story like this about someone you should know all the facts. I actually set in on the trial and most of what you heard is untrue. First of all, she did not have sex with her boyfriend when she got home. She didn't even stay at the house that night. She called a friend (female) to pick her up and she returned the next day with an ex-boyfriend to find that the man was already dead and then he disposed of the body. Second, she never went to a party and said she hit a white man. That story was made up by an ex friend who wanted to get the reward money.Last, she was not a nurse. She was a nurse aid. There is a huge difference. The only thing she is guilty of is making a wrong decision which was the decision not to call for help for Mr.Biggs. I'm pretty sure the fact that she was on Ecstasy and Marijuana had a lot to do with the way she acted after this tragic accident. Drugs are a terrible thing and although I feel Chante should be punished for her actions, Murder should not have been part of the case.

From: jennifer thompson [mailto:jennifer_thompson52@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thu 1/13/2005 9:41 PM
To: Opinions Mailbox
Subject: The right answerswer

Understandably the Democratic Party is flawed, but the Party is not supporting a redneck in the white house. I agree with many of your views, but I also have a daughter fighting a war in Iraq that was totally unnecessary. I have a grandson who is 5 months old and has all ready been predicted to serve a certain amount of his life in jail according to the current statistical studies by the government's justice department. I have another daughter who graduated with a college degree and is being asked to choose a stock option over social security. I am not necessarily convinced that bigots -- black and white or Republican or Democrat -- are a thing of the past. What you fail to realize is that these earlier groups of politicians had children who also had children who are trying to hold on to their ideologies, even though the policies they develop are injurious to the rest of us.

America is not as informed about its history or its politics with other nations as it should be. Therefore, I cannot totally agree with your sentiments, but I at least decide for myself what is best for my circumstances. Racism is big business and discrimination is raging in all of the institutions of America, and Bush continues to seat hostile individuals in positions intent on reversing progressive attempts to balance the power of white and black Americans.

In my opinion, neither party is distinctive, but still very much alike in terms of supporting white privilege. If that was your point, then salute. But America and its mythology of democracy is not a marketable ideal these days. It has become destructive and demeaning.

From: Ian Beeuwkes [mailto:Ian_Beeuwkes@umit.maine.edu]
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 11:45 PM
To: Opinions Mailbox
Subject: Mr. Millers Article on why he is not a liberal.

Dear Mr. Miller
I would like to counter your article on why you are not a liberal.
First of all, if you do believe that Liberals (and i use the term loosely since a liberal can belive in many different things) are sincere and honost, why post your article on a website called Liberalscum? We are scum? And honost and sincere at the same time? Isn't that a contradiction? Second of all, you associate Democrats with liberals. This is a common misconception many make. In fact, Democrats used to be much more conservative then Republicans, especially in the Bible belt (middle America). The terms Republican and Democrat are culturally handed down.
You say "Liberalism is simplistic. Whenever there is a problem, liberals define it as a tragedy of the commons or an example of the private sector under providing public goods, or make it an issue of rights.
The solution, of course, is to make it government's job to provide the good or protect the newly minted right. " On what evidence do you base your opinion that we define problems as tragic? I don't. And making something an issue of rights? Let me take the example of gay marrage (for the purpose of my argument. I don't care whether you believe in it or not, it is irrelevant) If someone doesn't make it an issue of rights, then that means they won't try and put it into law that gays can't marry, right? Then you say that liberals make it the governments job to provide. Lets use gay marrage again. If you believe that the government shouldn't get involved in this, then why try and make the amendment?
The ever-increasing financial demands of their utopian vision will suck up all the surplus from our miracle market, increase the yearly interest payments on the debt, and necessitate more taxes.
What is it about people not liking high taxes? To lower taxes, Bush is employing a "reganomics" economic plan. The idea is that you lower taxes for the really really outrageously rich people so that there money will Trickle down to the lesser poeple. Then this is SUPPOSED to spur business. What happens instead is that the upper 1% decide not to expand too much, and keep the money saved in the tax break.

"Ln the long term, the liberal vision is only sustainable if they succeed in raising the already immorally large tax burden."
Taxes are immoral? I believe there are more important issues to be worried about. You could argue that lower taxes might help the poor, but with bushes tax break, that won't happen. Liberals more socialistic ideals about money certainly seem to be holding up in other places of the world...certainly longer then the US, which is a relatively new country. You could say that we are the most powerful, but I think that viewpoint makes us look like the egotistical assholes that we are. Most everybody else seems to believe that aswell.
"Liberal rhetoric is too shrill. If liberalism has an answer to poverty and you have a different one, you are labeled `anti-poor people'. If liberalism wants to tax pollution but you think the rate is too high, you are personally responsible for the deaths of 6,484 small children somehow directly attributable to that specific pollutant. "It's like you pulled the trigger yourself, man."
Liberalism defines every issue around saving lives and enhancing
liberty: it isn't dramatic or activist enough to say that we are simply reducing risks and preserving stability." --- I question your logic here. I also question your evidence. Also, you are labeling yourself by writing this article, which accuses people of labeling....

"Liberalism is hypersensitive, waging an unwinnable eternal revolution against the smallest evil. Liberal causes these days are puny: let us make sure we use `she' for a hypothetical person instead of always using `he'; let us narrow the income gap between the richest country's rich people and the richest country's poor people (the richest poor in the world); let us give everyone a right not to be subject to a certain level of pollution (lowering my risk of cancer
from one in a million to one in two million). " ---- I am not hypersensitive. Also, 1 in a million is less of a risk of cancer then 2 in a million, so again i question your logic. also, our "richest poor" means that they have the greates
poersonal wealth of other poor. you don't count the fact that other countries have social programs, such as free health care, that benefit greatly. These high taxes might prevent you from becomeing rich, but that might be a good thing. (matter of
opinion)

You say this --- "Instead of heeding the historical truth that humans and their
institutions in every age will always find ways to perpetuate evil, liberals blindly listen to the music of political scientists, economists, psychologists, sociologists, and anthropologists who lie and say they have discovered the laws of human behavior, and that with the right institutional manipulation we can cancel out our vices and live in harmony forever."
you have already said this ---- "The left is naïve. Liberals act indignantly shocked to find injustice, poverty, hypocrisy, or oppression. There is really nothing new about those evils at all. "It is the 20th Century, for crying out loud!" The most barbaric century yet, they seem to forget. "This isn't the Middle Ages!" As if that was the only or the worst age of ignorance, vice, and malice."------- You have no basis for calling me naive. That is essentially calling half the country uneducated. I know many educated liberals. They most certainly don't blindley believe people just because it supports there cause. And do this for me, name a couple of anthropologists, political scientists, psychologists, and economists that you accuse of lying. Make sure they are legit (not found in some bogus paper) and list there ideals, and what they have to say.
Then tell me, off the top of your head, whether Chiropractors are real doctors.

"Which brings us to the worst crime of liberal ideology. The left behaves as if the human spirit did not exist. Liberals and their social scientists treat humans like object of the scientific method:
predictable, responding to stimuli like animals, obeying laws.
Liberals believe that hard circumstances like poverty, discrimination, or oppression cause people to believe and behave in certain ways, with little or no choice of their own. They do not expect people to rise above their circumstances or live above their material reality."---- I will come right out and say that this is your most bogus argument. First of all, liberals do not treat others as objects. You go on to say that liberals treat humans like animals. This is extremely ethnocentric. Humans are animals, how can you not treat them as such? And you are certainly not being respectful of Liberals, even though you think we are generally nice but still scumbags. Yes, we are genuine. If our ideals are so bad, then they wouldn't be practised anywhere. Yet Clinton got our economy to the highest its ever been while getting rid of the deficit. Clinton was more conservitive then some, but in fact he represents your average liberal in the US. Bush now has a mediocre economy and a huge trillion dollar deficit, which he wants to push more. Also, to get back on track, most liberals consult scietific evidence because, du da du DUUHHHH, they want to help. You are labeling them as fakes, just like you said liberals label everyone else.
And even Bush belives that changing conditions warrant a change in behavior..... "'If you change their heart, then they change their behaviour. I know,"

Finally, although I know that this is off topic, but I would like to point out that those responsible for attacking America said that they were charged by god to do so. What did Bush say to this? "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them." Aren't you at least a little scared by that? I am.

Sincerely,
Ian Beeuwkes

From: steph [mailto:dancindiva4life@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 12:37 PM
To: Opinions Mailbox
Subject: Liberalscum.com rocks!

Webmaster,

Hello I am a conservative from Canada. I have been reading your site and I am disgusted with the way you have portrayed the Muslim people and their religious beliefs.

Not all Muslims are fundamentalists and seek to harm Americans. You are a very ignorant person who has skewed views on what is going on. If I were in George Bushes Administration I would be called a "Hawk". I believe in all the new foriegn policy stands for, and strongly believe in preemptive action. These terrorists wants to kill freedom, and those people who enjoy it. I do acknowlegde that we need to find them and destroy them all. But to say that you need to destroy the entire middle East is wrong. If you had any knowledge of the world and other believes besides those of your own, maybe your head would not be so far up your ass. Muslims are a gentle people. It is the hardliners who are conveying the message that all people of the Muslims ways are against America. This is wrong. The majority of the people inside the middle east feel that they are oppressed and their leaders are causing all the problems.

It is thickheaded Americans like you that fuel the belief that Americans hate Islam. Dont hate Islam hate Fundamental Islam, and those who support it which ironicly doesn;t have much support outside the terrorist regimes.

Get all the information you can on the world then make judgements and decisions. I am not a person of one thinking I take many practices into account but I however believe in the American way. But to go around and preaching hate, which is what your doing is not right. We must be tolerant, while steadfast in our mission to destroy terrorism, we must embrace the muslim people but remove, destroy, kill or whatever it takes to remove hardliners from power. Saddam needed to go, and I thank God for George W Bush everyday. But I need to emphazise that you need to grow up and see the world with new eyes sort of speak because the world has changed is continuing to change. Knowledge is power, propaganda is ignorant.

From: Andrew Entin [mailto:entinor@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 1:21 AM
To: Opinions Mailbox

I'm a liberal, and while I understand your thoughts; we are not all pansy, overly PC wimps who whine at the slightest provocation. I am a chain smoking, red meat eating, hard drinking person with a dirty and sometimes offensive mouth... and a liberal. Just to let you know, you are no more American than me or any other citizen of this country. Just because you support the president and his policies wholeheartedly does not necessarily make you more of an "American" than I. I doubt you supported the Clinton presidency, so would that make you less American than I? I think not.

Andrew Entin

E-MAIL THIS LINK
Enter recipient's e-mail:

Back to Hate Mail Directory

Let me know your thoughts.

Back to Liberalscum.com

Legal Crap

No information contained in the website has been verified, confirmed or likewise legally bound to accuracy. All text contained herein is protected speech by the first amendment of the constitution of The United States of America. If you wish to dispute any information contained herein please send an email to webmaster@LiberalScum.com. Be forewarned that any email sent to this address or to opinions@liberalscum.com may be posted in their entirety's. Emailing to these address constitutes your consent to be published. All Rights Reserved. All other copyrights remain property of their respective owners.