The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/a/anderson.steven.malcolm/anderson.1196


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Sat Nov  2 10:48:48 PST 1996
Article: 497895 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!gatech!csulb.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!feed1.news.erols.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!news.tacom.army.mil!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.current-events..usa,
Subject: Re: "ABOUT HARNESSING THE SUPREME COURT"
Date: 1 Nov 1996 06:25:44 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 86
Message-ID: <55c558$d3f@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>
References: <326F9119.2289@express-news.net>  <556ru9$ooo@news.tamu.edu> <32778638.542F@express-news.net>   <55anrs$cob@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> <55bd05$165@nntp1.best.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca4-09.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Thu Oct 31 10:25:44 PM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.usa.constitution:99047 talk.politics.misc:497895 talk.abortion:190476 alt.politics.usa.republican:318512

In <55bd05$165@nntp1.best.com> kkelly1@nntp.best.com (Kevin Kelly)
writes: 
>
>Steven Malcolm Anderson (sma4@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>:  Papa Jack:
>:  Specifically, which SC decisions are you objecting to, other than
Roe
>: vs. Wade?: Brown vs. Board of Education? Griswold vs. Connecticut?
>: Stanley vs. Georgia? Hint: all of these decisions protected our
>: PERSONAL FREEDOMS. OK, Bowers vs. Hardwick was lousy, but your
proposed
>: remedy would hardly fix that.
>:  Mr. Kelly asked you this exact same question and you just called
him
>: names and ran away without answering it. If you fail to answer this
>: question, to clarify your stand on our PERSONAL FREEDOMS, then I
will
>: be forced to conclude what others have concluded about you. 
>
>It's quite unlikely jack will answer. It would only highlight the fear
>that those who call themselves conservatives have of personal freedom.

>Indeed it's my beleif that those like jack who call themselves
>conservative are perverting the word.

 Quite true.

 What makes it most amusing is that
>they praise people like Scalia yet he authored an opinion that's a
>trampling of the freedom of religion.

 I remember that one all too well.

 jack whines about the commerce
>clause yet is silent when it used to outlaw a form of abortion he
doesn't
>like. Clearly these people's only interest in these issues is in
seeing
>their morality enforced by the state.

 All too true.

>I am also amused at the talk of appointing SC judges who support what
they
>claim to be the original intent of the Constituion as if they know it
yet
>ignore some of the things stated by the founding fathers.

 True.

>"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem
>them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They
ascribe
>to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose
what
>they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand
in
>hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more
>developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions
>must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well
>require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as
>civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their
barbarous
>ancestors. "
>- Thomas Jefferson

 Let's not pretend to revere our Constitution while rendering our
courts unable or unwilling to uphold it!

>--
>If there is a God, atheism must strike Him
>as less of an insult than religion.
>--Edmond and Jules De Goncourt

 All too true, in many ways.

 Well, Papa Jack, are going to come over here and take a stand on our
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS or are you going to run away and hide from the _real_
issues?

-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Sat Nov  2 10:48:50 PST 1996
Article: 498269 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!btnet!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,alt.support.abortion,talk.abortion,us.politics.abortion,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Emma  Covers Kennemur's
Date: 2 Nov 1996 03:37:12 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 92
Message-ID: <55efl8$3kn@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
References: <324E05ED.1B9C@express-news.net> <541jfh$co@nntp1.best.com> <5430of$ntp@news.tamu.edu> <54377j$ncc@nntp1.best.com> <543cje$1s0@news.tamu.edu> <543mvh$cf@nntp1.best.com> <326f894c.11202667@netnews.worldnet.att.net>  <3268c232.27058306@netnews.worldnet.att.net> <3270406c.19590828@netnews.worldnet.att.net> <3268D1DE.317@express-news.net> <54att8$5ea@nntp1.best.com> <3276e476.51741547@netnews.worldnet.att.net> <326D40B9.21EB@express-news.net> <54n144$b5p@ultra.sonic.net> <3270F155.3E2F@express-news.net> <54unvd$m1c@ultra.sonic.net> <3274F706.43CC@express-news.net> <5542dn$q8h@ultra.sonic.net> <32763810.7DE8@express-news.net> <55dma5$vqj@ultra.sonic.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca6-18.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Fri Nov 01  9:37:12 PM CST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.abortion.inequity:60316 talk.abortion:190512 talk.politics.misc:498269

In <55dma5$vqj@ultra.sonic.net> minxs@sonic.net (M. Grey de Shirland)
writes: 
>
>Papa Jack  wrote:
>
>>M. Grey de Shirland wrote:
>>              =================================================
>>> MINX wrote:           
>>> You documented nothing.  You merely pasted stuff from several
>>> biblically-oriented pro-life sites, some of which I could tell 
>>> just by skimming it was more of the same confabulated pro-lie 
>>> nonsense.  Then there's the site that exposes the secret plot 
>>> of eugenicists to control American policy...
>
>>            =================================================
>>Papa Jack responds:
>>Just skim reading and passing instant judgement is much easier
>>than actually discussing the issues, isn't it?  Makes you sort
>>of feel godlike, huh?
>
>Actually, I more than skimmed the American Eugenics Database.  This
>page is part of www.africa2000com:
>
>                     THE AFRICA 2000 WEB PAGE IS A COMPREHENSIVE 
>                 INTERNET REFERENCE SOURCE LINKING THE USER TO AN 
>                   EXTENSIVE VARIETY OF RESEARCH MATERIALS ABOUT 
>                       FOREIGN AID PROGRAMS, POLICY OBJECTIVES, 
>                        POLITICAL INTERVENTION, MILITARY AFFAIRS, 
>                  COVERT OPERATIONS, PROPAGANDA, AND POPULATION 
>                         ACTIVITIES IN THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE. 
>
>Links from here posit that:
>
>The AIDS virus was created by the US government to exterminate the
>Black population.  So is the measles vaccine.  (From Conscious Rasta
>Perspective: africa2000.com/CNDX/cndx.htm and Special Documents
>Collection: africa2000.com/SNDX/sndx.htm)
>
>Colin Powell is a war criminal, based on his activities in Vietnam and
>the Gulf War.  (/CNDX/cndx.htm)

 Was General Patton a war criminal? George Washington? Joan of Arc?

>The practices known as Female Genital Mutilation are culturally
>appropriate and attempts by the West to stop them are just more
>cultural genocide.

 A total lie! Utter garbage! These practices (and all who thus argue
for them) are unutterably loathsome and DESPICABLE and we MUST stop
them at all costs!

>Capitalism is a crime.  Poverty is not the problem; wealth is.  There
>is no need to worry about population as the coming redistribution of
>assets and production will provide plenty for everyone.

 More lies.

>Due to past and ongoing exploitation, the West needs to give its
>ill-gotten money back to Africa while stopping its racist attempts to
>dictate uses of this money.  (All the above linked from
>africa2000.com/SNDX/sndx.htm to various sites at junius.co.uk and
>oneworld.org)

 No fucking way!!

>Etc.
>
>Basically, the idea is that everything in the West is just one big
>plot to rape and destroy Africa and people of African descent wherever
>they may be.  That is the raison d'etre of all Western policy and all
>Westerners are engaged in a conspiracy to hide these facts.

 Pure b.s..

>And this is Jack's source for "documentation" that Margaret Sanger was
>a racist?  Why are we not surprised?
                         
 A more ridiculous "source of information" could not be found.

>M. Grey de Shirland, M.D.
>
>"When short-term pharmacological illusions are substituted for
long-term
> religious delusions, all is lost sooner rather than later."
>

-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Sat Nov  2 10:48:52 PST 1996
Article: 498303 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!btnet!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.current-events..usa,
Subject: Re: "ABOUT HARNESSING THE SUPREME COURT"
Date: 2 Nov 1996 03:42:08 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 331
Message-ID: <55efug$3on@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
References: <326F9119.2289@express-news.net>  <556ru9$ooo@news.tamu.edu> <32778638.542F@express-news.net>   <55anrs$cob@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> <55bd05$165@nntp1.best.com> <55c558$d3f@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com> <3279A35C.5884@express-news.net> <55e435$bac@nntp1.best.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca6-18.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Fri Nov 01  9:42:08 PM CST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.usa.constitution:99185 talk.politics.misc:498303 talk.abortion:190514 alt.politics.usa.republican:318913

In <55e435$bac@nntp1.best.com> kkelly1@nntp.best.com (Kevin Kelly)
writes: 

 An excellent analysis of Papa Jack's unfortunate circumlocutions and
evasions on this most crucial issue of judicial protection of our
individual rights.

>Papa Jack (papajack@express-news.net) wrote:
>: Steven Malcolm Anderson wrote:
>: >
>
>Now read as jack descends into the paranoid delusions of the senile
>conservative.
>
>:          
============================================================
>: Papa Jack comments:
>: Allow me to address the last part of your post first.  Are you some 
>: kind of shill for "Mr. Kelly?"  KK gets folks involved in
neverending 
>: flame wars.  I consider flames to be like spices.  Used in
moderation, 
>: they improve the flavor of a dish.  Used to excess, and they ruin
the 
>: whole meal.  I've played KK's stupid game before.  I found both the
>: game and KK to be terribly childish and boring.
>
>BullshittoReality converter:
>
>Jack's flames good, others bad. 
>
>Poor jack runs away from hard questions whining about flames and
engages
>in them as he does above. It's one of those reasons he's known as a
>flaming hypocrite. But I do love his new rationalization about flames
>above. 
>
>: I challenged KK to discuss the issues without flames 
>
>IN a post where he was flaming me. His hypocrisy knows no bounds. His
>dishonesty about ain't exactly limited either.
>
>:-- just the 
>: issues -- and I would do the same.  He replied almost immediately 
>: with a string of flames -- his usual crap.   
>
>Poor jack, you can stop lying as people can read. You avoided the
>difficult quesions as they show you to be an enemy of liberty and
personal
>freedom.
>
>: Now you come along admiring the great KK, which makes me greatly 
>: suspect your integrity.
>
>What an intersting world view. Your integrity is suspect because you
raise
>a question that another has and like their viewpoint on personal
freedom.
>Shall we judge your non-existent integrity based on Bork? Or how about
the
>other scoundrels you cite? 
>
>: Your:
>
>:    If you fail to answer this question, to clarify your stand 
>:    on our PERSONAL FREEDOMS, then I will be forced to conclude 
>:    what others have concluded about you.
>
>: is totally sleazy.  
>
>Hardly as you ran and continue to run from the question. 
>
>: Look, little boy, you conclude whatever you want to conclude.  Now
>: run home and sit at KK's feet and admire your hero.  
>
>Poor jack, your obvious outburst of anger at a valid question only
>confirms what people have thought.
>
>: If that is unfair, you tell me why.
>
>:          
============================================================
>: > Steven Malcolm Anderson wrote:
>: > Papa Jack:
>: > Specifically, which SC decisions are you objecting to, other than 
>: > Roe vs. Wade?: Brown vs. Board of Education? Griswold vs. 
>: > Connecticut?  Stanley vs. Georgia? Hint: all of these decisions 
>: > protected our PERSONAL FREEDOMS. OK, Bowers vs. Hardwick was
lousy, 
>: > but your proposed remedy would hardly fix that.
>
>: > Mr. Kelly asked you this exact same question and you just called 
>: > him names and ran away without answering it. If you fail to answer

>: > this question, to clarify your stand on our PERSONAL FREEDOMS,
then 
>: > I will be forced to conclude what others have concluded about you.

>
>:          
============================================================ 
>: Papa Jack comments:
>: I am not protesting specific decisions,
>
>BullshittoReality Converter:
>
>I know they are doing something wrong but I really can't tell you what
it
>is. 
>
>If Jack wishes to convince anyone that his whining on the subject is
>anything but him following the lead handed to him by his
arch-conservative
>leaders he needs to provide some specific examples that outlign the
>problem he claims exists.
>
>: but an overall power grab
>: by the SC.  I am most concerned about Mulford v. Smith and U.S. v.
>: Darby (1941) which killed the 10th Amendment.  
>
>Specifics Jack. Case cite, ruling, and vote. In addition other cases
that
>draw on this decision as the basis of subsequent decisisons. Otherwise
I
>am hardly convinced of your claim as to what has been done. ANd be
>specific as to what the ruling has done. Or you can run away yet
again. 
>
>: Do you understand?  They took oaths to support and defend the 
>: Constitution,
>
>And they do so. You waving your hands up and down and claiming
otherwise
>is hardly convincing yet typical of you.
>
>: and then wiped out one of the 10 amendments which 
>: make up our Bill of Rights!!!  Remember what they taught us about 
>: the Bill of Rights way back yonder in Civics?  The cornerstone 
>: of our freedoms and all that "stuff."  
>
>Yeah and have you heard of the ninth amendment? Do you know what it
means?
>Do you not understand the purpose of the tenth amendment? 
>
>: Now here you are yipping about the group who is taking away our 
>: Bill of Rights as the ones who would protect Personal Freedom???
>: If they can reduce the 10th to rubble, why can't they invalidate
>: the 1st Amendment or the 4th or ....?  
>
>But you've failed to demonstrate that the tenth has been reduced to
>rubble. Do so. 
>
>: Brown vs. Board of Education?  I support that decision completely --
>: it was clearly grounded in the Constitution and the 14th Amendment.
>: What are you trying to make me appear to be some sort of right-wing
>: racist?  No thank you.
>
>: Griswold vs. Connecticut (concerning "an uncommonly silly law" as
>: Justice Stewart termed it).  This is the one where the decision 
>: contained Justice Douglas' famous gobbledegook sentence:  
>
>:    ...specific guarantees...have penumbras, formed by emanations 
>:    from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.
>
>Gobbledegook? Get a dictionary twit and learn to understand what you
>complain about. 
>
>: While I agree that the Connecticut law was a stupid one, I shudder
>: at the legal arguments the Court used to arrive at their decision.
>: Bottom line:  they made up new laws not previously found.  Then they
>: quibbled among themselves over what they had done.  Read it.
>
>They made no laws jack. They have no ability to do so. Aren't you
aware of
>the powers of the court? Next I do love that you shudder at the
concept of
>privacy, after all you probably think that unless the right is
>specifically outlined in the Constitution it does not exist. If this
is
>the case and I am sure it is then you have a piss poor understanding
of
>what the Constituion is.
>
>: Stanley vs. Georgia?  In Osborn v. Ohio (1990) Justice Byron White 
>: for the Court held Stanley inapplicabe to private possession of
>: child pornography and warned that Stanley should not be read too
>: broadly.  It was also undercut by Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) which
>: allowed State regulation of private sexual conduct.
>
>Regurgitating text from a book is hardly impressive jack. If you can;t
>actually formulate an opinion for yourself and express it why bother
>posting?
>
>Now watch as jack confirms that his real objection to the SC is they
>decided for abortion against his wishes. Also note that he can't point
out
>what's wrong with the decision.
>
>: How about:
>
>: DOE v. BOLTON (1973) --decided with Roe v. Wade.
>
>: NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN v. SCHEIDLER -- the Racketeer Influ-
>: enced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) act applied to the Pro-Life 
>: Action Network (PLAN) and others anti-choice clinic blockaders.
>
>: HODGSON v. MINNESOTA (1990) -- parential notification prior to 
>: abortion for minors.
>
>: PLANNED PARENTHOOD ASSOCIATION OF KANSAS CITY, MO. v. ASHCROFT
(1983) 
>: Invalidated a Missouri law requiring second-trimester abortions be 
>: done in a hospital.
>:         
>: MADSEN v. WOMEN'S HEALTH CENTER, INC. -- upheld a Florida injunction

>: that created a 36-foot buffer zone outside the entrance to a "chop 
>: shop"and (2) prohibited Pro-Life protesters from making noise heard 
>: by patients in the clinic.
>
>: PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL MISSOURI v. DANFORTH (1976) -- the 
>: Court invalidated a Missouri statute requiring a woman to get her 
>: husband's consent before an abortion; prohibited saline amniocen-
>: tesis as a method of abortion;  required physicians to preserve 
>: the life and health of the fetus at every stage of pregnancy; and
>: a number of other provisions.
>
>: COLAUTTI v. FRANKLIN (1979) invalidated a Pennsylvania law requiring
>: physicians to use the method and "degree of care" most likely to 
>: preserve the life and health of the fetus if the physician
determined 
>: the fetus was viable or had "sufficient reason to believe that the 
>: fetus may be viable." 
>
>: BELLOTTI v. BAIRD (1979)  invalidated a Massachusetts law requiring 
>: minors to have both parents' consent before an abortion. Four
Justices 
>: found the law unconstitutional because it gave a parent or a judge
an 
>: absolute veto over a minor woman's abortion decision. 
>
>: CITY OF AKRON v. AKRON CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH (1983) 
>: invalidated a city ordinance requiring physicians to give their
>: patients abortion facts; a 24-hour waiting period; performance
>: of all abortions after the first trimester; and disposal of fetal
>: remains in a "humane and sanitary manner." 
>:  
>
>
>: THORNBURGH v. AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS AND GYNECOLOGISTS
(1986)
>: invalidated parts of a Pennsylvania law requiring doctors to give 
>: patients abortion information and photos;  and requiring physicians 
>: performing post-viability abortions to use the "degree of care"
required 
>: to preserve the life and health of any unborn child intended to be
born 
>: and to use the abortion methods most likely to preserve the life of
the 
>: fetus.
>
>Now point out specifically what's wrong with the descisons and how
they
>are supportive of your point. Or run away. Your choice.
>
>: Again, my concern is with the SC changing the very fabric of our 
>: nation.
>
>Yeah how dare they support individual liberty. After all jack and his
ilk
>know better for us what we should be doing with our lives. But come on
>jack show them doing what you claim. Your empty handwaving is hardly
>convincing. 
>
>:  The question is NOT whether their various decisions did
>: good.  The question is whether they exceeded their authority.
>
>And is clear they have not. Prehaps one day you might even understand
what
>it is you are carping about. Today is not that day.
>
>:  Are
>: the SC like a group of vigilantes -- their original intent to stop
>: clearly evil people or event is good, but as time goes on they 
>: become worse than the conditions they originally fought
>: against?                     
>
>How is the broadening of personal freedom against the intrusions of
the
>state a bad thing jack? What we have seen through the first two
hundred
>years plus of this country is the government (state and federal)
>attempting to control the lives of it's citizens, by passing laws that
>make the concept of rights a mockery. And those actions are supported
nby
>people like you jack. And when the balance tips towards the people as
it
>should and as it was intended to, you whine because the SC is doing
it's
>job.
>
>: In his First Inaugural Address, Abraham Lincoln said:
>
>:   The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the
>:   Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people
>:   is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme
>:   Court...the people will have ceased to be their own rulers,
>:   having to that extent practically resigned their Government
>:   into the hands of that eminent tribunal.
>
>: Isn't that exactly what has happened?
>
>Nope.
>
>:  Is that what we really
>: want?
>
>Well I doubt any sane adult wants what you want in it's place.
>
>--
>If there is a God, atheism must strike Him
>as less of an insult than religion.
>--Edmond and Jules De Goncourt
>

-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Sat Nov  2 10:48:53 PST 1996
Article: 498477 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!swrinde!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!btnet!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.current-events..usa,
Subject: Re: "ABOUT HARNESSING THE SUPREME COURT"
Date: 2 Nov 1996 03:23:12 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 253
Message-ID: <55eer0$aqb@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>
References: <326F9119.2289@express-news.net>  <556ru9$ooo@news.tamu.edu> <32778638.542F@express-news.net>   <55anrs$cob@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> <55bd05$165@nntp1.best.com> <55c558$d3f@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com> <3279A35C.5884@express-news.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca6-18.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Fri Nov 01  7:23:12 PM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.usa.constitution:99238 talk.politics.misc:498477 talk.abortion:190536 alt.politics.usa.republican:319078

In <3279A35C.5884@express-news.net> Papa Jack
 writes: 
>
>Steven Malcolm Anderson wrote:
>>
>          ============================================================
>Papa Jack comments:

 First things first: flame Kelly, THEN address issues of substance.

>Allow me to address the last part of your post first.  Are you some 
>kind of shill for "Mr. Kelly?"

 Anybody I agree with I must be a shill for? If I agreed with you,
would I be a "shill" for you? Is this idiocy or what?

  KK gets folks involved in neverending 
>flame wars.  I consider flames to be like spices.  Used in moderation,
>they improve the flavor of a dish.  Used to excess, and they ruin the 
>whole meal.  I've played KK's stupid game before.  I found both the
>game and KK to be terribly childish and boring.

 Yeah, it is, but you're obviously addicted to it.

>I challenged KK to discuss the issues without flames -- just the 
>issues -- and I would do the same.  He replied almost immediately 
>with a string of flames -- his usual crap.   

 Which is exactly what you're doing now.

>Now you come along admiring the great KK, which makes me greatly 
>suspect your integrity.

 I don't give a shit. The feeling's mutual.

>Your:
>
>   If you fail to answer this question, to clarify your stand 
>   on our PERSONAL FREEDOMS, then I will be forced to conclude 
>   what others have concluded about you.
>
>is totally sleazy.  

 Asking you to take a stand for personal freedoms is totally sleazy?
Then what isn't?

>Look, little boy, you conclude whatever you want to conclude.  Now
>run home and sit at KK's feet and admire your hero.  

 Your endless and contentless quarrel with Kelly reminds me of two-year
olds throwing sand in each others' faces. It's time for _you_ to grow
up, don't you think?

>If that is unfair, you tell me why.

 If you think it unfair that you be judged by your stand on personal
freedom, tell me why.

>          ============================================================
>> Steven Malcolm Anderson wrote:
>> Papa Jack:
>> Specifically, which SC decisions are you objecting to, other than 
>> Roe vs. Wade?: Brown vs. Board of Education? Griswold vs. 
>> Connecticut?  Stanley vs. Georgia? Hint: all of these decisions 
>> protected our PERSONAL FREEDOMS. OK, Bowers vs. Hardwick was lousy, 
>> but your proposed remedy would hardly fix that.
>
>> Mr. Kelly asked you this exact same question and you just called 
>> him names and ran away without answering it. If you fail to answer 
>> this question, to clarify your stand on our PERSONAL FREEDOMS, then 
>> I will be forced to conclude what others have concluded about you. 
>
>          ============================================================

>Papa Jack comments:
>I am not protesting specific decisions, but an overall power grab
>by the SC.  I am most concerned about Mulford v. Smith and U.S. v.
>Darby (1941) which killed the 10th Amendment.  
>
>Do you understand?  They took oaths to support and defend the 
>Constitution, and then wiped out one of the 10 amendments which 
>make up our Bill of Rights!!!  Remember what they taught us about 
>the Bill of Rights way back yonder in Civics?  The cornerstone 
>of our freedoms and all that "stuff."  

 Yup. That's precisely what I'm talking about.

>Now here you are yipping about the group who is taking away our 
>Bill of Rights as the ones who would protect Personal Freedom???
>If they can reduce the 10th to rubble, why can't they invalidate
>the 1st Amendment or the 4th or ....?  

 They already _have_ reduced the 2nd Amendment nearly to rubble by
allowing gun control, as well as the 1st by allowing censorship of
"obscenity". And then there's the 9th, which your pal Bork hates so
much. Why aren't you flaming _that_ jerk instead of Kelly?

>Brown vs. Board of Education?  I support that decision completely --
>it was clearly grounded in the Constitution and the 14th Amendment.
>What are you trying to make me appear to be some sort of right-wing
>racist?  No thank you.

 Complaints about the alledged "tyranny" of the judiciary vs. "states'
rights" largely started with with that one.

>Griswold vs. Connecticut (concerning "an uncommonly silly law" as
>Justice Stewart termed it).  This is the one where the decision 
>contained Justice Douglas' famous gobbledegook sentence:  
>
>   ...specific guarantees...have penumbras, formed by emanations 
>   from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.
>
>While I agree that the Connecticut law was a stupid one, I shudder
>at the legal arguments the Court used to arrive at their decision.

 You shudder at the idea of the right to privacy? Is that it? Damn good
decision, I say.

>Bottom line:  they made up new laws not previously found.

 No, they struck down a lousy law that violated the most basic personal
freedoms. That's what we pay them for, not to play tiddleywinks.

  Then they
>quibbled among themselves over what they had done.  Read it.

 I have.

>Stanley vs. Georgia?  In Osborn v. Ohio (1990) Justice Byron White 
>for the Court held Stanley inapplicabe to private possession of
>child pornography and warned that Stanley should not be read too
>broadly.

 A bad decision for precisely that reason.

  It was also undercut by Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) which
>allowed State regulation of private sexual conduct.

 Yup. An even worse decision. The Dred Scott ruling of the 20th
century. I say homosexuals have the same rights you and I have. Period.

>How about:
>
>DOE v. BOLTON (1973) --decided with Roe v. Wade.
>
>NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN v. SCHEIDLER -- the Racketeer Influ-
>enced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) act applied to the Pro-Life 
>Action Network (PLAN) and others anti-choice clinic blockaders.

 Insofar as RICO infringes on free speech and association, it's a bad
law and should be struck down.

>HODGSON v. MINNESOTA (1990) -- parential notification prior to 
>abortion for minors.
>
>PLANNED PARENTHOOD ASSOCIATION OF KANSAS CITY, MO. v. ASHCROFT (1983) 
>Invalidated a Missouri law requiring second-trimester abortions be 
>done in a hospital.
>        
>MADSEN v. WOMEN'S HEALTH CENTER, INC. -- upheld a Florida injunction 
>that created a 36-foot buffer zone outside the entrance to a "chop 
>shop"and (2) prohibited Pro-Life protesters from making noise heard 
>by patients in the clinic.

 Agree that pro-lifers should have the same free speech rights as
pro-choicers.

>PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL MISSOURI v. DANFORTH (1976) -- the 
>Court invalidated a Missouri statute requiring a woman to get her 
>husband's consent before an abortion; prohibited saline amniocen-
>tesis as a method of abortion;  required physicians to preserve 
>the life and health of the fetus at every stage of pregnancy; and
>a number of other provisions.
>
>COLAUTTI v. FRANKLIN (1979) invalidated a Pennsylvania law requiring
>physicians to use the method and "degree of care" most likely to 
>preserve the life and health of the fetus if the physician determined 
>the fetus was viable or had "sufficient reason to believe that the 
>fetus may be viable." 
>
>BELLOTTI v. BAIRD (1979)  invalidated a Massachusetts law requiring 
>minors to have both parents' consent before an abortion. Four Justices
>found the law unconstitutional because it gave a parent or a judge an 
>absolute veto over a minor woman's abortion decision. 
>
>CITY OF AKRON v. AKRON CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH (1983) 
>invalidated a city ordinance requiring physicians to give their
>patients abortion facts; a 24-hour waiting period; performance
>of all abortions after the first trimester; and disposal of fetal
>remains in a "humane and sanitary manner." 
>
>THORNBURGH v. AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS AND GYNECOLOGISTS
(1986)
>invalidated parts of a Pennsylvania law requiring doctors to give 
>patients abortion information and photos;  and requiring physicians 
>performing post-viability abortions to use the "degree of care"
required 
>to preserve the life and health of any unborn child intended to be
born 
>and to use the abortion methods most likely to preserve the life of
the 
>fetus.

 If you want to argue for 14th Amendment protection for the fetus, go
ahead. That position, though I disagree with it, does at least have
intellectual coherency. But, outside of that premise, a woman's body
and life belong to herself and not to state legislatures.

>Again, my concern is with the SC changing the very fabric of our 
>nation.  The question is NOT whether their various decisions did
>good.  The question is whether they exceeded their authority.  Are
>the SC like a group of vigilantes -- their original intent to stop
>clearly evil people or event is good, but as time goes on they 
>become worse than the conditions they originally fought
>against?                     

 No, it's not going far enough at all in upholding our individual
rights.

>In his First Inaugural Address, Abraham Lincoln said:
>
>  The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the
>  Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people
>  is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme
>  Court...the people will have ceased to be their own rulers,
>  having to that extent practically resigned their Government
>  into the hands of that eminent tribunal.
>
>Isn't that exactly what has happened?  Is that what we really
>want?

 I don't want to pay them with _my_ tax money to sit around and do
nothing to protect _my_ individual freedoms any more than I would pay
the fire department to sit around and do nothing while my house is
burning down.  

>-- 
>{               Papa Jack
>{
>{               http://www.express-news.net/papajack
>
>	"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all
>	 men are created equal; that they are endowed by
>	 their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that
>	 among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
>	 happiness."          --Thomas Jefferson

-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Sat Nov  2 10:48:54 PST 1996
Article: 498644 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.mag-net.com!aurora.cs.athabascau.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!news.bc.net!info.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!news.sgi.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,wash.politics,us.politics.bob-dole,us.politics.abortion,tx.politics,talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics,seattle.politics,scruz.politics,ri.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,nj.politics,ne.politics,mn.politics,dfw.politics,dc.politics,co.politics,ca.politics,ba.politics,az.politics,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.usa,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.media,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics,alt.current-events
Subject: Re: misleading analogies
Date: 2 Nov 1996 01:10:43 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <55e72j$kr0@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>
References: <327404E7.26BB@apc.net> <3276A5FF.689B@dlcc.com> <55ao92$2nl@gw.PacBell.COM> <32792DB7.7F8@dlcc.com>  <55d31g$dg5@camel4.mindspring.com> <55dcd3$92c@darla.visi.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca6-18.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Fri Nov 01  7:10:43 PM CST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.abortion:190551 talk.politics.theory:88568 talk.politics.misc:498644 talk.politics.libertarian:138910 alt.politics.usa.republican:319261 alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich:91743 alt.politics.usa.misc:123663 alt.politics.usa.constitution:99281 alt.politics.usa.congress:77614 alt.politics.reform:109586 alt.politics.radical-left:130925 alt.politics.perot:62413 alt.politics.media:16946 alt.politics.libertarian:228510 alt.politics.elections:86665 alt.politics.democrats.d:143705 alt.politics.correct:150983 alt.politics.clinton:323640

In <55dcd3$92c@darla.visi.com> olegv@gw.ddb.com (Oleg "American" Volk)
writes: 
>
>jmturner@atl.mindspring.com (Joe M. Turner) wrote:
>
>>consensual sex; i.e., a *choice* to engage in an activity for which
>>one possible known outcome is the creation of a new person.  Their
>>appearance is not thrust upon you through their own will; they appear
>>based on YOUR will.  In an analogy, you might say that you opened the
>>door of your business and put out a sign reading OPEN FOR BUSINESS.
>
>Not quite. Consensual sex is quite similar to leaving a porch door
>open at night: lets in fresh air (enjoyment) but may invite burglars
>(or pregnancies). While the wizdom of enjoyment must be weighted
>against consequences, failure to prevent problems doesn't mean that
>one need or even may not try and solve them.

 Excellent analogy.

>Oleg Volk
>
>VolkStudio Advertising Graphics
>http://www.ddb.com/olegv
>
>UPDATED on Halloween - "Renaissance"
>Over 30 new photographs
>

-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Sun Nov  3 08:44:30 PST 1996
Article: 498951 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!laslo.netnet.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-5.sprintlink.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!arclight.uoregon.edu!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.current-events.usa
Subject: Re: KEV KELLY BUSTED IN AN OBVIOUS LIE, YET AGAIN
Date: 3 Nov 1996 01:09:04 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <55grbg$ctb@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>
References: <326F9119.2289@express-news.net> <55ecuk$ggd@nntp1.best.com> <55em5t$hmc@news.tamu.edu> <55g485$8j4@nntp1.best.com> <55gfrc$dv8@news.tamu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca3-11.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sat Nov 02  7:09:04 PM CST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.usa.constitution:99354 talk.politics.misc:498951 talk.abortion:190575 alt.politics.usa.republican:319567 alt.current-events.usa:33936

 Papa Jack wrote:

>>:     While I agree that the Connecticut law was a stupid one, I
shudder
>>:     at the legal arguments the Court used to arrive at their
decision.
>>:     Bottom line:  they made up new laws not previously found.

 Papa Jack:
 Given your premises: 1) that the Connecticut law was a stupid law
(i.e., a bad law, a law that violated the most basic rights of privacy)
and should have been repealed, and 2) that the function of the
judiciary is to sit around and play checkers rather than to strike down
such laws, and that protection of our individual rights should be left
entirely to legislatures -- were you, or any of the other critics of
Griswold vs. Connecticut, doing anything AT THAT TIME to oppose that
law (or any similar laws) and get it repealed through the legislature? 

-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Sun Nov  3 08:44:32 PST 1996
Article: 499278 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.mag-net.com!aurora.cs.athabascau.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!news.bc.net!info.ucla.edu!nnrp.info.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!news.sgi.com!howland.erols.net!feed1.news.erols.com!news.enteract.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.current-events..usa,
Subject: Re: "ABOUT HARNESSING THE SUPREME COURT"
Date: 3 Nov 1996 02:11:28 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <55gv0g$htc@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
References: <326F9119.2289@express-news.net> <3279A35C.5884@express-news.net> <55e435$bac@nntp1.best.com> <55efug$3on@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <55gpdk$iut@news.tamu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca3-11.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sat Nov 02  8:11:28 PM CST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.usa.constitution:99438 talk.politics.misc:499278 talk.abortion:190592 alt.politics.usa.republican:319910

In <55gpdk$iut@news.tamu.edu> kjackson@cs.tamu.edu (Keith E Jackson)
writes: 
>
>In article <55efug$3on@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
>Steven Malcolm Anderson  wrote:
>>In <55e435$bac@nntp1.best.com> kkelly1@nntp.best.com (Kevin Kelly)
>>writes: 
>
>> An excellent analysis of Papa Jack's unfortunate circumlocutions and
>>evasions on this most crucial issue of judicial protection of our
>>individual rights.
>
>[ 325 lines in which Stevie doesn't make any additional statements
snipped ]
>
>Well, Steve, now we see you worship Kev Kelly.

 Do you worship Papa Jack? Kenneth Gore? Milton Wong? Do you pray to
them when you go to bed at night?

  You should know that
>your idol has demonstrated an utter lack of any standards -- attacking
>people with perversion and suggestions that they get debilitating
>diseases.  I'm wondering if the boy will stoop to anything?  Is there
>anything which is too low for him?

 I'm not interested in your sandbox fight. "You're a liar!" "No, you're
a liar!" "Is too!" "Is not!" "Liar, liar, pants on fire!" "So's your
mother!" Grow up and address real issues. All of you. 

>And, of course, I have demonstrated that Kev Kelly is an enemy of
personal
>liberty using the same tactics that he used to conclude the same about
Papa
>Jack.  Of course, I did so in sarcasm, knowing that such techniques
are
>without merit.  But, it's interesting that you now choose to shill for

 Agree with = "shill for"?

 a
>guy who, by his own arguments, is an enemy of personal liberty.

 What do _you_ think of Griswold vs. Connecticut? Stanley vs. Georgia?
Bowers vs. Hardwick? Where do _you_ stand on personal liberty?

>-- 
>Keith
>
>  Kev Kelly  wrote:
>  >The fact is only Jack and whatever God he worships knows if he
>  >intended to hurt or not, but as far as I am concerned given the
spew he's
>  >posted here he was trying to hurt Osmo.

-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Mon Nov  4 06:55:02 PST 1996
Article: 499826 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.mag-net.com!freenet.unbc.edu!news.scn.org!news.abs.net!aplcen.apl.jhu.edu!cpk-news-feed3.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.impeach.clinton,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.religion.christian
Subject: Re: National Clergy Council Clinton Report!
Date: 3 Nov 1996 21:59:18 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <55j4jm$pc9@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>
References: <846657155.21748@dejanews.com>  <55evnc$ntt@kruuna.Helsinki.FI>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca2-08.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun Nov 03  1:59:18 PM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.impeach.clinton:66305 alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater:52091 alt.politics.clinton:324596 alt.politics.elections:87065 talk.politics.misc:499826 talk.abortion:190641 alt.abortion.inequity:60362 alt.religion.christian:144506

In <55evnc$ntt@kruuna.Helsinki.FI> ronkanen@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo
Ronkanen) writes: 
>
>In article ,
>Chris Lyman  wrote:
>>odonnell@nauticom.net wrote:
>>
>># The eccumenical National Clergy Council will release its report
>># on the Clinton Presidency on Thursday.  It is an exhaustively
>># researched work which you will not want to miss.  
>>
>>There are a number of problems with this "eccumenical" (sic)
>>report.  First of all, it has a social and theological slant which
>>is unmistakably fundamentalist and extremely conservative.
>>Some of its pronouncements go against the teachings of the
>>Catholic and mainstream Protestant denominations.
>>
>
>I wonder can the person who wrote that be serious. Can anyone be so
full
>of hate that he could seriously write following:
>
> [INLINE] While the administration attempted to present this support
as
> a simple fight against discrimination, it was actually much more. The
>    legislation involved "seeks to defend not status but particular
>    behavior and declare that behavior to be both irrelevent to the
>   employer's business and superior to the employer's and customer's
> interest." 135 ENDA, if enacted, would force proprietors of
businesses
> to effectively disregard their religious convictions about homosexual
>      behavior by requiring that businesses allow those engaged in
>    homosexual practices to represent them in business negotiations,
>                public relations, and personal matters.
>
>Can someone hate a fellow human being so much that he would support
the
>idea of discrimination on basis of sexual orientation?
>
>Osmo

 Unfortunately, yes, there are a lot of despicable bigots running
around who hate everybody who is different in any way.

-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Mon Nov  4 06:55:03 PST 1996
Article: 499851 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.mag-net.com!freenet.unbc.edu!news.scn.org!news.abs.net!news.bconnex.net!feed1.news.erols.com!panix!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.impeach.clinton,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.religion.christian
Subject: Re: National Clergy Council Clinton Report!
Date: 4 Nov 1996 01:38:04 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <55jhds$cu3@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com>
References: <846657155.21748@dejanews.com> <55i65i$q5b@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <01bbc9e2.04199d40$29d5bbcd@netscape>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca7-32.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun Nov 03  5:38:04 PM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.impeach.clinton:66310 alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater:52097 alt.politics.clinton:324614 alt.politics.elections:87073 talk.politics.misc:499851 talk.abortion:190644 alt.abortion.inequity:60364 alt.religion.christian:144533

In <01bbc9e2.04199d40$29d5bbcd@netscape> "Vasile Aciobanitei"
 writes: 
>
>> 
>> Rev. Robert Shenck is president of the National
>> Clergy Council.
>> 
>> In 1992, Rev. Robert Shenck adopted the 
>> tactic of shadowing abortion providers. The
>> campaign included making and distributing
>> handbills that stated "Dr. X Kills Children" as
>> well as red banners emblazoned with "Abortionists
>> Eat Here" for use at restaurants targeted doctors
>> frequented. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Pat
>> 
>> 
>### As I see this kind of thinking is a case of rectocranial inversion
and
>this Rev. have a Standard of Anal Thinking. I propose this Rev. to
raise
>his head from his arse and see the reality. His report is pure fart
and is
>better to be smelled between the members of Farting Clergy Council and
not
>to be farted in any publication or ng.

 You said it!


-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Mon Nov  4 06:55:04 PST 1996
Article: 499898 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!gatech!csulb.edu!newshub.csu.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.enteract.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,wash.politics,us.politics.bob-dole,us.politics.abortion,tx.politics,talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics,seattle.politics,scruz.politics,ri.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,nj.politics,ne.politics,mn.politics,dfw.politics,dc.politics,co.politics,ca.politics,ba.politics,az.politics,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.usa,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.media,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics,alt.current-events
Subject: Re: Kevorkian & Respect For Life?
Date: 3 Nov 1996 21:54:21 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <55j4ad$app@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>
References: <327404E7.26BB@apc.net> <32792DB7.7F8@dlcc.com>  <327A5024.2A4B@dlcc.com>  <327D00EF.137A@ns.net> <55ivfh$1vg_008@evrwrite.electriciti.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca2-08.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun Nov 03  1:54:21 PM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.abortion:190648 talk.politics.theory:88957 talk.politics.misc:499898 talk.politics.libertarian:139438 alt.politics.usa.republican:320490 alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich:92166 alt.politics.usa.misc:124068 alt.politics.usa.constitution:99595 alt.politics.usa.congress:78158 alt.politics.reform:110138 alt.politics.radical-left:131368 alt.politics.perot:62714 alt.politics.media:17102 alt.politics.libertarian:229101 alt.politics.elections:87083 alt.politics.democrats.d:144488 alt.politics.correct:151536 alt.politics.clinton:324645

In <55ivfh$1vg_008@evrwrite.electriciti.com>
evrwrite@powergrid.electriciti.com (Ed Redondo) writes: 
>
>In article <327D00EF.137A@ns.net>, Melanie  wrote:
>
>>Kevorkian is not respecting either.  He has assisted in the killing
of
>>several individuals who were not terminally ill, and assisted in
killing
>>a man with pancreatic cancer.  Now pancreatic cancer can be one of
the
>>most painful, I'm told, but I also know that the pain is treatable. 
I
>>know this because a friend of mine's mother died from it, and she
spent
>>her last days relatively pain-free because she had some nerves
clipped.
>>As a result she was able to travel with her daughter in her last
days.
>>Do you suppose Kevorkian counseled this guy in this way?
>
>Do *you* know for a fact that Kevorkian did not counsel this man about
this 
>option?  Just because *you* or your mother chose this option does
*not* 
>mean that another person, facing the same circumstances, would make
the 
>choice you did.
>
>The question is just who defines what *is* a "quality life" for a
given 
>individual.  You?  Me?  Government?  I, for one, say it *is* the
individual 
>person's choice.  I personally know of many people who do *not* define

>living a "quality life" as *only* having a heart beat or brain wave 
>activity, regardless of what current law says.  The decision to
continue 
>living is, as far as I and others are concerned, one of our
inalienable 
>rights.  The decision is an individual's; *not* yours, *not* mine,
*not* 
>the governments, to be made for others.

 I read a very interesting interview with Dr. Kevorkian in the August
1996 issue of "George". He is a consistent defender of individual
freedom and opponent of totalitarianism. Incl., he totally opposes gun
control. He also favors capital punishment. My kind of man!

>=== Ed Redondo ===========================================
>The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its
>credibility.  And vice versa.
>
>Religious practice is an individual's right; *not* a right
>of the public to be imposed on other individuals.
>

-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Tue Nov  5 07:19:10 PST 1996
Article: 500521 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.win.hookup.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!gatech!csulb.edu!news.sgi.com!howland.erols.net!feed1.news.erols.com!news.enteract.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.current-events..usa,
Subject: Re: "ABOUT HARNESSING THE SUPREME COURT"
Date: 3 Nov 1996 05:45:00 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 453
Message-ID: <55hbgs$ln8@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>
References: <326F9119.2289@express-news.net> <55c558$d3f@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com> <3279A35C.5884@express-news.net> <55eer0$aqb@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> <55h2fo$n39@news.tamu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca3-11.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sat Nov 02 11:45:00 PM CST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.usa.constitution:99739 talk.politics.misc:500521 talk.abortion:190708 alt.politics.usa.republican:321049

In <55h2fo$n39@news.tamu.edu> kjackson@cs.tamu.edu (Keith E Jackson)
writes: 
>
>In article <55eer0$aqb@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>,
>Steven Malcolm Anderson  wrote:
>>In <3279A35C.5884@express-news.net> Papa Jack
>> writes: 
>>>Steven Malcolm Anderson wrote:
>>>Papa Jack comments:
>>>Allow me to address the last part of your post first.  Are you some 
>>>kind of shill for "Mr. Kelly?"
>
>> Anybody I agree with I must be a shill for? If I agreed with you,
>>would I be a "shill" for you? Is this idiocy or what?
>
>Steve obviously wants us to ignore statements like :
>
>    In article <550spp$20l@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
>    Steven Malcolm Anderson  wrote:
>    >In <54r5sn$eq@nntp1.best.com> kkelly1@nntp.best.com (Kevin Kelly)
>    >writes: 
>    > One excellent post! You said it all, Mr. Kelly. We need men and
women
>    >like you on our courts standing up for our personal freedoms.
>
>Now, it's one thing to agree with people, but to suggest they belong
on
>the bench is pushing it.  You're obviously a weak-minded simpleton if
you
>actually meant what you wrote.
>
>Or were you just kidding?

 I'm not kidding when I say that we need men and women who will stand
up for our personal freedoms.

>>  KK gets folks involved in neverending 
>>>flame wars.  I consider flames to be like spices.  Used in
moderation,
>>>they improve the flavor of a dish.  Used to excess, and they ruin
the 
>>>whole meal.  I've played KK's stupid game before.  I found both the
>>>game and KK to be terribly childish and boring.
>
>> Yeah, it is, but you're obviously addicted to it.
>
>So, why avoid the subject, Steve?

 Because it got boring a long time ago.

  How do you feel about KK's exclusive
>use of flames?  Does that inspire you as someone who belongs in a
black
>robe, officiating over life-and-death cases which potentially affect
the
>lives of millions?

 A dog would be far better than someone like Bork, Scalia, etc., who
think "states' rights" supersede individual rights.

>Or were you just kidding?

 I'm not kidding about the need for judicial protection of our
individual rights.

>>>I challenged KK to discuss the issues without flames -- just the 
>>>issues -- and I would do the same.  He replied almost immediately 
>>>with a string of flames -- his usual crap.   
>
>> Which is exactly what you're doing now.
>
>Do you think he's wrong?  Address the issue of whether KK is obsessed
with
>flames.  Forget PJ for a moment.  Address that issue.  Or run away. 
Your
>choice.

 He is. You are. Papa Jack is. "You're a liar!" "You're another!" "So's
your mother!" That stuff ceases to interest me after a century or so.

>If PJ says that KK cannot resist flaming, and KK cannot resist
flaming,
>then what PJ said is true.  Distracting from that *FACT* by whining
>"but, you do it! wahhhh!" doesn't erase the fact, does it?
>
>Address that issue.  Or run away.  Your choice.

 OK. He can't resist flaming. So what?

>>>Now you come along admiring the great KK, which makes me greatly 
>>>suspect your integrity.
>
>> I don't give a shit. The feeling's mutual.
>
>Gee, Steve, I don't see PJ nominating some flame compulsive nitwit for
a
>position in the nation's highest court.  I see *YOU* making such
ridiculous
>comments.

 PJ thinks a man had a right to be on the SC who doesn't believe I have
a right to privacy.

>>>Your:
>
>>>   If you fail to answer this question, to clarify your stand 
>>>   on our PERSONAL FREEDOMS, then I will be forced to conclude 
>>>   what others have concluded about you.
>
>>>is totally sleazy.  
>
>> Asking you to take a stand for personal freedoms is totally sleazy?
>>Then what isn't?
>
>WHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPP!
>
>WHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPP!
>
>WHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPP!
>
>Strawman alert!
>
>Steve, if your "challenge" was reasonable, then I'm Bill Clinton.
>
>It's obvious by your statement that you don't care about facts, just
>about attacking PJ. You're concocting a false dilemma to give yourself
>an excuse to declare what it's obvious you've already concluded
anyway.

 No, I want to know where he stands on substantive issues of individual
rights. I want to know why he thinks judicial protection of
individual rights is tyranny. I want to know what mechanism he would
substitute for judicial review to protect individual rights. That's
more important than whether he dislikes Kelly, IMO.

>>>Look, little boy, you conclude whatever you want to conclude.  Now
>>>run home and sit at KK's feet and admire your hero.  
>
>> Your endless and contentless quarrel with Kelly reminds me of
two-year
>>olds throwing sand in each others' faces. It's time for _you_ to grow
>>up, don't you think?
>
>Hmm, so you want to put the other half of this pair of "two-year olds
>throwing sand in each others' faces" on the bench of the highest court
>in the lands?  Is that what you're saying?
>
>Or maybe you didn't mean what you said?

 I mean that, if he would protect your rights and mine to flame him on
the net, then he would be far better than those currently sitting on
the bench of that court who would abridge our rights in the name of
some "public morality". Go ahead and flame Kelly all you like. Just
don't expect me to.

>>>If that is unfair, you tell me why.
>
>> If you think it unfair that you be judged by your stand on personal
>>freedom, tell me why.
>
>Steve, respond to this article in five minutes after it's posted or I
will
>be forced to conclude that you want to impose Stalinist tyranny on
America.

 Ridiculous and infantile. I set no five minute demand wrt Papa Jack.
Nor have I yet made any conclusive judgement on his views. I would like
to know more. Where _does_ he stand on censorship? Privacy? Gun
control?

>;^)
>
>>>> Steven Malcolm Anderson wrote:
>>>> Papa Jack:
>>>> Specifically, which SC decisions are you objecting to, other than 
>>>> Roe vs. Wade?: Brown vs. Board of Education? Griswold vs. 
>>>> Connecticut?  Stanley vs. Georgia? Hint: all of these decisions 
>>>> protected our PERSONAL FREEDOMS. OK, Bowers vs. Hardwick was
lousy, 
>>>> but your proposed remedy would hardly fix that.
>
>>>> Mr. Kelly asked you this exact same question and you just called 
>>>> him names and ran away without answering it. If you fail to answer
>>>> this question, to clarify your stand on our PERSONAL FREEDOMS,
then 
>>>> I will be forced to conclude what others have concluded about you.

>
>>>Papa Jack comments:
>>>I am not protesting specific decisions, but an overall power grab
>>>by the SC.  I am most concerned about Mulford v. Smith and U.S. v.
>>>Darby (1941) which killed the 10th Amendment.  
>
>>>Do you understand?  They took oaths to support and defend the 
>>>Constitution, and then wiped out one of the 10 amendments which 
>>>make up our Bill of Rights!!!  Remember what they taught us about 
>>>the Bill of Rights way back yonder in Civics?  The cornerstone 
>>>of our freedoms and all that "stuff."  
>
>> Yup. That's precisely what I'm talking about.
>
>He takes issue with an erosion of the rights enumerated in the Bill of
>Rights, yet you are ready to jump on him as anti-freedom?
>
>Please back up your a priori judgment or admit that you were rash.  Or
run
>away.  Your choice.

 I'm still not clear on where he stands on the issue of judicial
protection of individual rights. Mr. Kelly has made his stand clear.

>>>Now here you are yipping about the group who is taking away our 
>>>Bill of Rights as the ones who would protect Personal Freedom???
>>>If they can reduce the 10th to rubble, why can't they invalidate
>>>the 1st Amendment or the 4th or ....?  
>
>> They already _have_ reduced the 2nd Amendment nearly to rubble by
>>allowing gun control,
>
>I agree.

 Good.

>>as well as the 1st by allowing censorship of "obscenity".
>
>I'm curious.  What limits would you put on pornography?

 Damned few where consenting adults are concerned.

  Would you put
>limits on child pornography?

 Actual use of children should be illegal, but writings, drawings,
etc., should certainly not be. 

  Would you put limits on broadcasting over
>public airwaves?

 No.

  How about displaying images in public?

 Some limits there to protect the rights of the non-consenting.

  How about any
>limitations on the locations of businesses selling pornography?

 Some possibly.

>I'm just trying to gauge what you consider the boundaries of the 1st
>amendment.

 I don't have a right to read military secrets, OK. I damn well do have
the right to read, write, paint, photograph, talk, and think as I
please about sex, religion, politics, or anything else.

>>And then there's the 9th, which your pal Bork hates so
>>much. Why aren't you flaming _that_ jerk instead of Kelly?
>
>Do you have citations to show that Bork hates this amendment?  I'm no
>fan of his for his compliance with Nixon's orders, but I'd like to see
>something substantive to justify your allegation.

 See "The Rights Retained By The People: The History and Meaning of the
Ninth Amendment" (2 volumes) by Randy E. Barnett (1989, 1993, George
Mason University Press).

>Remember that rights are not *GIVEN* by the Constitution, but rather
>protected.  These rights exist whether or not a piece of paper says
they
>do.

 Absolutely.

>The only problem is how do we know the SC is going to correctly
identify
>what are truly rights rather than making grevious errors?

 Only by appointing men and women with a clear understanding of the
concept of individual rights. Not socialism and not moral
majoritarianism.

>>>Brown vs. Board of Education?  I support that decision completely --
>>>it was clearly grounded in the Constitution and the 14th Amendment.
>>>What are you trying to make me appear to be some sort of right-wing
>>>racist?  No thank you.
>
>> Complaints about the alledged "tyranny" of the judiciary vs.
"states'
>>rights" largely started with with that one.
>
>But, gee, PJ says he supports the decision completely, and that it was
>clearly grounded in the Constitution.  Nice try.  No cigar.

 I wasn't accusing him of racism. I wanted to know his stand on it. OK.
(What he thought of it AT THE TIME would be interesting to know,
however.)

>>>Griswold vs. Connecticut (concerning "an uncommonly silly law" as
>>>Justice Stewart termed it).  This is the one where the decision 
>>>contained Justice Douglas' famous gobbledegook sentence:  
>
>>>   ...specific guarantees...have penumbras, formed by emanations 
>>>   from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.
>
>>>While I agree that the Connecticut law was a stupid one, I shudder
>>>at the legal arguments the Court used to arrive at their decision.
>
>> You shudder at the idea of the right to privacy? Is that it? Damn
good
>>decision, I say.
>
>There you go again, putting words in his mouth.  Where did he say he
>shuddered at the idea of the right to privacy?  I see him saying the
>law was stupid!  I see him saying he shudders at the "arguments" which
>sound more to me like an acid trip than a SC justice.
>
>Is this the best you can do, Steve?

 It would be interesting to what he thought of it AT THE TIME. We know
that his friend Bork thought it was just peachy.

>>>Bottom line:  they made up new laws not previously found.
>
>Hmm, exactly how is this making a new *LAW*, rather than overturning
one?
>
>> No, they struck down a lousy law that violated the most basic
personal
>>freedoms. That's what we pay them for, not to play tiddleywinks.
>
>>  Then they
>>>quibbled among themselves over what they had done.  Read it.
>
>> I have.
>
>I'm just amazed that Douglas would talk about "emanations" and
>"penumbras".  With landmark cases, we need clear decisions based
solidly on
>clear reasoning.

 Far better than the notion that we don't have a right to privacy
because the Bill of Rights doesn't explicitly use the word "privacy".
We need more Douglases, Blackmuns, and Blacks, and fewer Rhenquists,
Scalias, etc., on the SC.

>>>Stanley vs. Georgia?  In Osborn v. Ohio (1990) Justice Byron White 
>>>for the Court held Stanley inapplicabe to private possession of
>>>child pornography and warned that Stanley should not be read too
>>>broadly.
>
>> A bad decision for precisely that reason.
>
>Hmm, so what is your position on the boundary here?  What should be
>protected, and what should not?

 A person has the right to read and fantasize about sex in his or her
own home. Period.

>>  It was also undercut by Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) which
>>>allowed State regulation of private sexual conduct.
>
>> Yup. An even worse decision. The Dred Scott ruling of the 20th
>>century. I say homosexuals have the same rights you and I have.
Period.
>
>Notice also that the Georgia law could apply to a man and his wife
engaging
>in oral sex.

 All too true.

>>>How about:
>
>>>DOE v. BOLTON (1973) --decided with Roe v. Wade.
>
>>>NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN v. SCHEIDLER -- the Racketeer Influ-
>>>enced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) act applied to the Pro-Life 
>>>Action Network (PLAN) and others anti-choice clinic blockaders.
>
>> Insofar as RICO infringes on free speech and association, it's a bad
>>law and should be struck down.
>
>Not to mention how it has been misused to punish without conviction.
>
>[snip cases]
>
>> Agree that pro-lifers should have the same free speech rights as
>>pro-choicers.
>
>[snip cases]
>
>> If you want to argue for 14th Amendment protection for the fetus, go
>>ahead. That position, though I disagree with it, does at least have
>>intellectual coherency. But, outside of that premise, a woman's body
>>and life belong to herself and not to state legislatures.
>
>Well, at least you're not whining about him being an "enemy of
personal
>freedom" here like your hero, Kev.
>
>>>Again, my concern is with the SC changing the very fabric of our 
>>>nation.  The question is NOT whether their various decisions did
>>>good.  The question is whether they exceeded their authority.  Are
>>>the SC like a group of vigilantes -- their original intent to stop
>>>clearly evil people or event is good, but as time goes on they 
>>>become worse than the conditions they originally fought
>>>against?                     
>
>> No, it's not going far enough at all in upholding our individual
>>rights.
>
>Perhaps.  It's definitely not doing it's job on the First, Second, and
>Tenth amendments.
>
>>>In his First Inaugural Address, Abraham Lincoln said:
>
>>>  The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the
>>>  Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people
>>>  is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme
>>>  Court...the people will have ceased to be their own rulers,
>>>  having to that extent practically resigned their Government
>>>  into the hands of that eminent tribunal.
>
>>>Isn't that exactly what has happened?  Is that what we really
>>>want?
>
>> I don't want to pay them with _my_ tax money to sit around and do
>>nothing to protect _my_ individual freedoms any more than I would pay
>>the fire department to sit around and do nothing while my house is
>>burning down.  
>
>I see the First, Second, and Tenth amendments going up in smoke. 
Where
>is the SC?

 Not doing its job.

>-- 
>Keith
>
>  Kev Kelly  wrote:
>  >The fact is only Jack and whatever God he worships knows if he
>  >intended to hurt or not, but as far as I am concerned given the
spew he's
>  >posted here he was trying to hurt Osmo.

-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Thu Nov 14 08:52:13 PST 1996
Article: 506475 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!van.istar!west.istar!n1van.istar!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!nntp.portal.ca!news.bc.net!info.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!newspump.sol.net!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.current-events..usa,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: The Fears of Robert Bork (Was: Supreme Court)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 03:22:33 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 222
Message-ID: <568qhp$a4i@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>
References: <326F9119.2289@express-news.net> <326FDEF7.56EB@cannet.com> <54qsen$dv8@news4.snfc21.pacbell.net> <54sj8f$ok5@kruuna.Helsinki.FI> <5532mb$88t@news2.snfc21.pacbell.net> <3275765A.1F30@express-news.net> <555hkv$jb6@news4.snfc21.pacbell.net> <327 <568ggq$s5o@nntp1.best.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca7-45.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon Nov 11  9:22:33 PM CST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.politics.misc:506475 talk.abortion:191346 alt.politics.usa.republican:326984 alt.politics.usa.constitution:101340


 How TERRIBLE it was of us to have denied Bork his RIGHT (superseding,
of course, any rights that you or I may claim, such trivialities as
privacy in our homes or freedom of speech on the net) to A SEAT ON THE
SUPREME COURT. Why, soon we may end up denying Ralph Reed, Pat
Robertson, etc., a seat on the Supreme Court as well! Who knows where
it will end? We may end up with only 9 people on the court out of the
whole country!

In <568ggq$s5o@nntp1.best.com> kkelly1@nntp.best.com (Kevin Kelly)
writes: 
>
>Papa Jack (papajack@express-news.net) wrote:
>: qlhong@kub.nl wrote:
>
>[...]
>: > It is useful to be reminded of the fact that Bork's
>: > nomination has been, indeed, overwhelmingly rejected
>: > by the Senate, a political institution whose members
>: > are very much accountable to the voters. Why do
>: > Bork's supporters want to impose Bork's legal views
>: > upon the American people if their elected representatives
>: > have decided to reject him?
>
>:           ==========================================================
>: Papa Jack comments:
>: 58 to 42 can hardly be described as overwhelming -- particularly
>: after the shameful propaganda campaign of the entire radical 
>: liberal establishment againt Bork.  
>
>Yeah how dare they confront him with his opinions. How dare they do
their
>job. Bad radical liberal establishment. And when the conservatives
launch
>their campaigns it's what jack? What is interesting is that Bork
confirms
>with his writing the very things that were said about him.
>
>------
>by Ira Glasser, ACLU Executive Director
>
>     November 3, 1996
>
>     Masks Off, Gloves Off: The Return of Robert Bork
>
>     On All Hallow's Eve, I opened my door to ghouls, witches,
vampires,
>ghosts, and even Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. And I gave them candy.
Kids
>in masks don't scare me, although I'm happy to go along with the
spirit of
>the day and pretend that they do.
>
>     What really scares me is the return of Robert Bork. This
one-time,
>failed nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court is back, and what he's got
in
>store for America is no treat.
>
>     In 1987, we narrowly escaped a major constitutional disaster when
the
>U.S. Senate rejected Bork's nomination by a 58-42 vote. At the time,
Bork
>denied the ACLU's charge that he opposed the very concept of a Bill of
>Rights that limits legislative authority and is enforced by
independent
>federal courts. But in his new book, Slouching Towards Gomorrah, Bork
>takes off his mask and reveals himself for what he really is: the most
>dangerous judicial extremist in the country. He admits to the charge
by
>actually proposing a constitutional amendment that would allow
Congress,
>by a simple majority vote, to override any Supreme Court decision it
>didn't like. 
>
>     This is an extraordinary proposal. If such an amendment were to
pass,
>every one of our basic individual rights would be in mortal danger. A
>woman's right to reproductive freedom, an author's right to free
>expression, a family's right to freedom of religion, a racial
minority's
>right to be free of discrimination -- all of these rights would be
subject
>to Congressional vote; all could be taken away. It was precisely to
avoid
>such a result that the Bill of Rights was adopted in the first place.
And,
>as Thomas Jefferson pointed out, the Bill of Rights would not work
without
>an independent court system to enforce it. 
>
>     Now comes Robert Bork to destroy that constitutional structure
and
>place all rights at the whim of momentary majorities. To those of us
who
>tremble at such a prospect -- we have, after all, had much experience
with
>what happens when the rights of blacks are dependent upon white
majorities
>-- Bork offers this not very convincing assurance: "This is a
civilized
>nation; there is no reason to suppose that the citizens of some
benighted
>town would suddenly become fascists and return to a regime of racial
>segregation." There isn't? 
>
>     What about that "benighted town" in Nebraska where a 16-year- old
>pregnant girl was abducted from her parents by the police, taken to
court
>and held by the local judge in custody until her parents agreed not to
>permit her to have an abortion? 
>
>     What about that "benighted town" in Mississippi where a young
couple
>and their children were threatened and harassed for refusing to say
>prayers different from their own in public school? 
>
>     And what about that "benighted town" called Washington, where
>Congress recently passed a law imposing sweeping and unprecedented
>censorship on the Internet, a law swiftly struck down as
unconstitutional
>by a three-judge federal court? 
>
>     All of these cases, and countless others, are currently in the
>federal courts. If Bork's proposal passed, the courts would find
>themselves without the authority to remedy these violations of
>constitutional rights. 
>
>     But can Bork's proposal actually pass? 
>
>     Well, a movement to strip the federal courts of their
independence,
>and to allow the legislative branch to impose its will unchecked is
>already underway. This past year, Congress passed and President
Clinton
>signed a series of bills that take away the power of federal courts to
>remedy constitutional violations of the rights of the most unpopular
and
>politically powerless groups -- immigrants, prisoners, welfare
recipients,
>the poor and the disabled. Since Congress and the President have
already
>conceded the principle, Bork's proposal has a leg up.  What can be
done to
>the least of us can in principle be done to any of us. 
>
>     Moreover, the Christian Coalition has already put its vast
resources
>and political clout behind Bork's proposal.  Ralph Reed, the Christian
>Coalition's executive director, gives Slouching Towards Gomorrah an
>enthusiastic endorsement which appears on the book's cover. And Pat
>Robertson, the founder and head of the Coalition, recently brought
Bork
>onto his television show as a star guest and signaled a new regrouping
of
>the religious right in the wake of Dole's expected defeat. 
>
>     Also, do not be surprised if the Bork amendment, along with some
of
>his other ideas, like government censorship of popular culture,
"starting
>with the obscene prose and pictures available on the Internet," show
up as
>part of the political agenda in the next few years. 
>
>     And do not be lulled by the prospect of a Clinton victory on
November
>5. In 1992, after Clinton beat Bush, many people concerned about civil
>liberties relaxed. But Clinton's victory turned out to be the
beginning of
>an organizing effort by the forces of intolerance and
authoritarianism,
>which resulted in the Gingrich Revolution of 1994 and the most
repressive
>Congress in decades. And as President, Clinton acquiesced in much of
that
>repressive legislation. 
>
>     A Clinton victory on November 5 will similarly provoke a renewed
>response by the forces of intolerance, and Bork's new proposal will be
>their rallying point.
>
>     Plenty to be scared about this Halloween.
>-----
>
>: Never before had America seen such a mean-spirited display of raw 
>: hatred for a man of the academic world.  Bork had the audacity to 
>: challenge the liberal shibboleths from his positions as a professor 
>: at Yale, the U.S. Solicitor General, and a Federal judge.  They 
>: could not forgive him for repeatedly proving their most treasured 
>: principles to be wrong. 
>
>Bet's are being taken as to the colour of the sky in Jack's world. 
>
>: Bork's rejection was NOT the American people speaking -- most did
>: not even understand the true nature of the points at issue.  It
>: was a victory of the radical liberals in smearing an honorable
>: man of great intellect.
>
>A man of intellect who advocates a destruction of the checks and
balances
>and advocates practices that would threaten the liberty of Americans.
We
>can do without man like this regardless of the claims of a loon as to
his
>intellect. I must say it's quite entertaining to watch Bork prove by
his
>writing that he indeed was unfit to sit on the SC. It's somehow
fitting.
>
>--
>If there is a God, atheism must strike Him
>as less of an insult than religion.
>--Edmond and Jules De Goncourt
>

-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Thu Nov 14 08:52:16 PST 1996
Article: 506478 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!peerfeed.internetmci.com!howland.erols.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.current-events..usa,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: The Fears of Robert Bork (Was: Supreme Court)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 19:36:02 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 95
Message-ID: <56ajj2$5ru@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>
References: <326F9119.2289@express-news.net> <326FDEF7.56EB@cannet.com> <54qsen$dv8@news4.snfc21.pacbell.net> <54sj8f$ok5@kruuna.Helsinki.FI> <5532mb$88t@news2.snfc21.pacbell.net> <3275765A.1F30@express-news.net> <555hkv$jb6@news4.snfc21.pacbell.net> <327 <568ggq$s5o@nntp1.best.com> <568q0o$h3a@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com> <32881DDA.20CE@express-news.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca4-10.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue Nov 12 11:36:02 AM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.politics.misc:506478 talk.abortion:191348 alt.politics.usa.republican:326988 alt.politics.usa.constitution:101341

In <32881DDA.20CE@express-news.net> Papa Jack
 writes: 

>Papa Jack asks:
>Are you KK's cousin or something?  All you do is follow your great
>hero,

 He _is_ a hero, esp. compared to you, since he defends the personal
freedoms you attack.

 KK around and make sympathetic comments to whatever he
>comments on.  I think you even recommended him for the Supreme 
>Court.

 And then there's the miserable scumbag _you_ wanted on the SC. KK
_would_ be infinitely better than him or you.

  Maybe you're just KK's puppy dog.
>
>You really ought to learn to stand on your own two feet like a big
>boy, Steve.

 You're the one who follows the Party Line. Unless you're flaming
somebody, I've never seen you but regurgitate whatever your "opinion
molders" tell you. You would have been a perfect Communist. Conversely,
_I_ think for myself. Always have. Always will. Too fucking bad if you
don't like it. 

  KK may be a miserable cur, but at least he knows how
>to make up insults on his own.

 If I'm a dog, then you're a flea. Or maybe you're a worm, since you
wiggle out of things all the time. Better beware, though, remember what
they say about the early bird...

>Your attempt at "cute" sarcasm is a miserable failure.

 Nope. It still stands. Your friend Keith Jackson thinks I've been
terribly unfair to you by asking where you stand on personal freedoms.
Well, now I know all too well from reading your most recent posts. I
was willing to reserve final judgement, but you've revealed your true
character long ago. From now on, your name is: Jack Shit. Too bad.

>Have a nice day.

 Have a nice day yourself.

>          ===========================================================
>> Steven Malcolm Anderson wrote:
>> Now, now, Kevin Kelly, you musn't dare to question the wisdom of the
>> Great Papa. If he wants to shred the Bill of Rights (for our own
good,
>> of course -- Daddy knows best) who are we, in our ignorance, to
>> criticize? And (gasp!) how could you be so CRUEL as to say one word
in
>> criticism of The Great Martyr (sob! sob!) Bork, who was SO
HEARTLESSLY
>> (shudder!) denied a seat on the Supreme Court (and not even offered,
to
>> my knowledge, the chairmanship of the board of a Fortune 500
company,
>> in compensation for this terrible loss! Oh, pitiless world!). How
can
>> you DARE to speak of freedom of religion, right to privacy, freedom
of
>> expression, and other such trivialities in the face of such a
fiendish
>> atrocity as this: a man who advocates abrogating these little
>> technicalities BEING DENIED A SEAT ON THE SUPREME COURT! Have you no
>> COMPASSION? How EVIL, how WICKED we must be TO HAVE DENIED HIM A
SEAT
>> ON THE SUPREME COURT!
>
>
>> In <568ggq$s5o@nntp1.best.com> kkelly1@nntp.best.com (Kevin Kelly)
>> writes:
>
>[...]
>-- 
>{               Papa Jack
>{
>{               http://www.express-news.net/papajack
>
>	"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all
>	 men are created equal; that they are endowed by
>	 their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that
>	 among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
>	 happiness."          --Thomas Jefferson

-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Thu Nov 14 08:52:17 PST 1996
Article: 506492 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!winternet.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.current-events..usa,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: The Fears of Robert Bork (Was: Supreme Court)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 19:39:32 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <56ajpk$ndg@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>
References: <326F9119.2289@express-news.net> <326FDEF7.56EB@cannet.com> <54qsen$dv8@news4.snfc21.pacbell.net> <54sj8f$ok5@kruuna.Helsinki.FI> <5532mb$88t@news2.snfc21.pacbell.net> <3275765A.1F30@express-news.net> <555hkv$jb6@news4.snfc21.pacbell.net> <327  <3287BB76.69AA@express-news.net> <3288E380.46CE@ns.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca4-10.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue Nov 12 11:39:32 AM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.politics.misc:506492 talk.abortion:191351 alt.politics.usa.republican:327010 alt.politics.usa.constitution:101352

In <3288E380.46CE@ns.net> Melanie  writes: 
>
>Papa Jack wrote:
>> 
>> qlhong@kub.nl wrote:
>> >
>> > In article <328377D0.2072@express-news.net> Papa Jack
 writes:
>> >
>> > >    As University of Texas law professor Lino Graglia aptly put
it,
>> > >    law professors were "overwhelmingly -- one could almost say
>> > >    hysterically -- in opposition" to Judge Bork's
confirmation....
>> >
>> > ------------------------
>> >
>> > It is useful to be reminded of the fact that Bork's
>> > nomination has been, indeed, overwhelmingly rejected
>> > by the Senate, a political institution whose members
>> > are very much accountable to the voters. Why do
>> > Bork's supporters want to impose Bork's legal views
>> > upon the American people if their elected representatives
>> > have decided to reject him?
>> 
>>           ==========================================================
>> Papa Jack comments:
>> 58 to 42 can hardly be described as overwhelming -- particularly
>> after the shameful propaganda campaign of the entire radical
>> liberal establishment againt Bork.
>> 
>> Never before had America seen such a mean-spirited display of raw
>> hatred for a man of the academic world.  Bork had the audacity to
>> challenge the liberal shibboleths from his positions as a professor
>> at Yale, the U.S. Solicitor General, and a Federal judge.  They
>> could not forgive him for repeatedly proving their most treasured
>> principles to be wrong.
>> 
>> Bork's rejection was NOT the American people speaking -- most did
>> not even understand the true nature of the points at issue.  It
>> was a victory of the radical liberals in smearing an honorable
>> man of great intellect.
>> 
>> Have a nice day.
>> --
>> {               Papa Jack
>
>Papa Jack, I agree on this one.  How many Supreme Court Justice
Nominees
>have been subjected to advertising campaigns opposing them.  I can
only
>think of Bork and Thomas.  Are there any others?

 sob! sob! (Screw _our_ rights, of course!)

>--Melanie

-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Thu Nov 14 08:52:18 PST 1996
Article: 506503 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!winternet.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.enteract.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.current-events..usa,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: The Fears of Robert Bork (Was: Supreme Court)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 20:10:55 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <56alkf$fa1@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>
References: <326F9119.2289@express-news.net> <326FDEF7.56EB@cannet.com> <54qsen$dv8@news4.snfc21.pacbell.net> <54sj8f$ok5@kruuna.Helsinki.FI> <5532mb$88t@news2.snfc21.pacbell.net> <3275765A.1F30@express-news.net> <555hkv$jb6@news4.snfc21.pacbell.net> <327 <569vkg$9a4@nntp1.best.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca4-10.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue Nov 12 12:10:55 PM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.politics.misc:506503 talk.abortion:191353 alt.politics.usa.republican:327022 alt.politics.usa.constitution:101354

In <569vkg$9a4@nntp1.best.com> kkelly1@nntp.best.com (Kevin Kelly)
writes: 
>
>Most interesting, jack who claims he won't follow me up does so
>again. Medication not working again jack?
>
>Papa Jack (papajack@express-news.net) wrote:
>: Kevin Kelly wrote:
>: > 
>: > Papa Jack (papajack@express-news.net) wrote:
>: > : qlhong@kub.nl wrote:
>: > 
>: > [...]
>: > : > It is useful to be reminded of the fact that Bork's
>: > : > nomination has been, indeed, overwhelmingly rejected
>: > : > by the Senate, a political institution whose members
>: > : > are very much accountable to the voters. Why do
>: > : > Bork's supporters want to impose Bork's legal views
>: > : > upon the American people if their elected representatives
>: > : > have decided to reject him?
>:  
>:             
==========================================================
>: > : Papa Jack comments:
>: > : 58 to 42 can hardly be described as overwhelming -- particularly
>: > : after the shameful propaganda campaign of the entire radical
>: > : liberal establishment againt Bork.
>: > 
>: > Yeah how dare they confront him with his opinions. How dare they
do their
>: > job. Bad radical liberal establishment. And when the conservatives
launch
>: > their campaigns it's what jack? What is interesting is that Bork
confirms
>: > with his writing the very things that were said about him.
>
>ANd look poor jack can't refute it.

 

 He can't, so he just flames and runs. Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle. I
disagree with you on one point, though, Mr. Kelly. I refuse to let Papa
Jack (Shit?) and those like him set the terms of this debate. This is
not a war between "liberals" vs. "conservatives", but between
totalitarians vs. individualists.
-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Thu Nov 14 08:52:18 PST 1996
Article: 506551 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!van.istar!west.istar!n1van.istar!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!nntp.portal.ca!news.bc.net!info.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!newspump.sol.net!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!btnet!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.current-events..usa,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: The Fears of Robert Bork (Was: Supreme Court)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 03:13:28 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 229
Message-ID: <568q0o$h3a@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>
References: <326F9119.2289@express-news.net> <326FDEF7.56EB@cannet.com> <54qsen$dv8@news4.snfc21.pacbell.net> <54sj8f$ok5@kruuna.Helsinki.FI> <5532mb$88t@news2.snfc21.pacbell.net> <3275765A.1F30@express-news.net> <555hkv$jb6@news4.snfc21.pacbell.net> <327 <568ggq$s5o@nntp1.best.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca7-45.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon Nov 11  7:13:28 PM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.politics.misc:506551 talk.abortion:191360 alt.politics.usa.republican:327076 alt.politics.usa.constitution:101375


 Now, now, Kevin Kelly, you musn't dare to question the wisdom of the
Great Papa. If he wants to shred the Bill of Rights (for our own good,
of course -- Daddy knows best) who are we, in our ignorance, to
criticize? And (gasp!) how could you be so CRUEL as to say one word in
criticism of The Great Martyr (sob! sob!) Bork, who was SO HEARTLESSLY
(shudder!) denied a seat on the Supreme Court (and not even offered, to
my knowledge, the chairmanship of the board of a Fortune 500 company,
in compensation for this terrible loss! Oh, pitiless world!). How can
you DARE to speak of freedom of religion, right to privacy, freedom of
expression, and other such trivialities in the face of such a fiendish
atrocity as this: a man who advocates abrogating these little
technicalities BEING DENIED A SEAT ON THE SUPREME COURT! Have you no
COMPASSION? How EVIL, how WICKED we must be TO HAVE DENIED HIM A SEAT
ON THE SUPREME COURT!

In <568ggq$s5o@nntp1.best.com> kkelly1@nntp.best.com (Kevin Kelly)
writes: 
>
>Papa Jack (papajack@express-news.net) wrote:
>: qlhong@kub.nl wrote:
>
>[...]
>: > It is useful to be reminded of the fact that Bork's
>: > nomination has been, indeed, overwhelmingly rejected
>: > by the Senate, a political institution whose members
>: > are very much accountable to the voters. Why do
>: > Bork's supporters want to impose Bork's legal views
>: > upon the American people if their elected representatives
>: > have decided to reject him?
>
>:           ==========================================================
>: Papa Jack comments:
>: 58 to 42 can hardly be described as overwhelming -- particularly
>: after the shameful propaganda campaign of the entire radical 
>: liberal establishment againt Bork.  
>
>Yeah how dare they confront him with his opinions. How dare they do
their
>job. Bad radical liberal establishment. And when the conservatives
launch
>their campaigns it's what jack? What is interesting is that Bork
confirms
>with his writing the very things that were said about him.
>
>------
>by Ira Glasser, ACLU Executive Director
>
>     November 3, 1996
>
>     Masks Off, Gloves Off: The Return of Robert Bork
>
>     On All Hallow's Eve, I opened my door to ghouls, witches,
vampires,
>ghosts, and even Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. And I gave them candy.
Kids
>in masks don't scare me, although I'm happy to go along with the
spirit of
>the day and pretend that they do.
>
>     What really scares me is the return of Robert Bork. This
one-time,
>failed nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court is back, and what he's got
in
>store for America is no treat.
>
>     In 1987, we narrowly escaped a major constitutional disaster when
the
>U.S. Senate rejected Bork's nomination by a 58-42 vote. At the time,
Bork
>denied the ACLU's charge that he opposed the very concept of a Bill of
>Rights that limits legislative authority and is enforced by
independent
>federal courts. But in his new book, Slouching Towards Gomorrah, Bork
>takes off his mask and reveals himself for what he really is: the most
>dangerous judicial extremist in the country. He admits to the charge
by
>actually proposing a constitutional amendment that would allow
Congress,
>by a simple majority vote, to override any Supreme Court decision it
>didn't like. 
>
>     This is an extraordinary proposal. If such an amendment were to
pass,
>every one of our basic individual rights would be in mortal danger. A
>woman's right to reproductive freedom, an author's right to free
>expression, a family's right to freedom of religion, a racial
minority's
>right to be free of discrimination -- all of these rights would be
subject
>to Congressional vote; all could be taken away. It was precisely to
avoid
>such a result that the Bill of Rights was adopted in the first place.
And,
>as Thomas Jefferson pointed out, the Bill of Rights would not work
without
>an independent court system to enforce it. 
>
>     Now comes Robert Bork to destroy that constitutional structure
and
>place all rights at the whim of momentary majorities. To those of us
who
>tremble at such a prospect -- we have, after all, had much experience
with
>what happens when the rights of blacks are dependent upon white
majorities
>-- Bork offers this not very convincing assurance: "This is a
civilized
>nation; there is no reason to suppose that the citizens of some
benighted
>town would suddenly become fascists and return to a regime of racial
>segregation." There isn't? 
>
>     What about that "benighted town" in Nebraska where a 16-year- old
>pregnant girl was abducted from her parents by the police, taken to
court
>and held by the local judge in custody until her parents agreed not to
>permit her to have an abortion? 
>
>     What about that "benighted town" in Mississippi where a young
couple
>and their children were threatened and harassed for refusing to say
>prayers different from their own in public school? 
>
>     And what about that "benighted town" called Washington, where
>Congress recently passed a law imposing sweeping and unprecedented
>censorship on the Internet, a law swiftly struck down as
unconstitutional
>by a three-judge federal court? 
>
>     All of these cases, and countless others, are currently in the
>federal courts. If Bork's proposal passed, the courts would find
>themselves without the authority to remedy these violations of
>constitutional rights. 
>
>     But can Bork's proposal actually pass? 
>
>     Well, a movement to strip the federal courts of their
independence,
>and to allow the legislative branch to impose its will unchecked is
>already underway. This past year, Congress passed and President
Clinton
>signed a series of bills that take away the power of federal courts to
>remedy constitutional violations of the rights of the most unpopular
and
>politically powerless groups -- immigrants, prisoners, welfare
recipients,
>the poor and the disabled. Since Congress and the President have
already
>conceded the principle, Bork's proposal has a leg up.  What can be
done to
>the least of us can in principle be done to any of us. 
>
>     Moreover, the Christian Coalition has already put its vast
resources
>and political clout behind Bork's proposal.  Ralph Reed, the Christian
>Coalition's executive director, gives Slouching Towards Gomorrah an
>enthusiastic endorsement which appears on the book's cover. And Pat
>Robertson, the founder and head of the Coalition, recently brought
Bork
>onto his television show as a star guest and signaled a new regrouping
of
>the religious right in the wake of Dole's expected defeat. 
>
>     Also, do not be surprised if the Bork amendment, along with some
of
>his other ideas, like government censorship of popular culture,
"starting
>with the obscene prose and pictures available on the Internet," show
up as
>part of the political agenda in the next few years. 
>
>     And do not be lulled by the prospect of a Clinton victory on
November
>5. In 1992, after Clinton beat Bush, many people concerned about civil
>liberties relaxed. But Clinton's victory turned out to be the
beginning of
>an organizing effort by the forces of intolerance and
authoritarianism,
>which resulted in the Gingrich Revolution of 1994 and the most
repressive
>Congress in decades. And as President, Clinton acquiesced in much of
that
>repressive legislation. 
>
>     A Clinton victory on November 5 will similarly provoke a renewed
>response by the forces of intolerance, and Bork's new proposal will be
>their rallying point.
>
>     Plenty to be scared about this Halloween.
>-----
>
>: Never before had America seen such a mean-spirited display of raw 
>: hatred for a man of the academic world.  Bork had the audacity to 
>: challenge the liberal shibboleths from his positions as a professor 
>: at Yale, the U.S. Solicitor General, and a Federal judge.  They 
>: could not forgive him for repeatedly proving their most treasured 
>: principles to be wrong. 
>
>Bet's are being taken as to the colour of the sky in Jack's world. 
>
>: Bork's rejection was NOT the American people speaking -- most did
>: not even understand the true nature of the points at issue.  It
>: was a victory of the radical liberals in smearing an honorable
>: man of great intellect.
>
>A man of intellect who advocates a destruction of the checks and
balances
>and advocates practices that would threaten the liberty of Americans.
We
>can do without man like this regardless of the claims of a loon as to
his
>intellect. I must say it's quite entertaining to watch Bork prove by
his
>writing that he indeed was unfit to sit on the SC. It's somehow
fitting.
>
>--
>If there is a God, atheism must strike Him
>as less of an insult than religion.
>--Edmond and Jules De Goncourt
>

-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Thu Nov 14 08:52:20 PST 1996
Article: 506633 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.win.hookup.net!hookup!news.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!news.enteract.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.current-events..usa,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: The Fears of Robert Bork (Was: Supreme Court)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 20:35:37 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <56an2p$a3v@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>
References: <326F9119.2289@express-news.net> <326FDEF7.56EB@cannet.com> <54qsen$dv8@news4.snfc21.pacbell.net> <54sj8f$ok5@kruuna.Helsinki.FI> <5532mb$88t@news2.snfc21.pacbell.net> <3275765A.1F30@express-news.net> <555hkv$jb6@news4.snfc21.pacbell.net> <327 <569vkg$9a4@nntp1.best.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca4-10.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue Nov 12  2:35:37 PM CST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.politics.misc:506633 talk.abortion:191368 alt.politics.usa.republican:327171 alt.politics.usa.constitution:101404


>Papa Jack (papajack@express-news.net) wrote:

 

>: (3) Gays in the Military -- Lesbian and Gay Rights Project obtained 
>:      a preliminary injunction from a federal District Court in New 
>:      York blocking the government's discharge of six service members
>:      who are plaintiffs in an ACLU challenge to the "Don't Ask,
Don't
>:      Tell" policy. 

 Papa Jack reveals his true character in this post. Like his pal Milton
Wong and so many others like him, Papa Jack just can't stand those
"**gg**s". The fact that he hates "**gg**s" so much that he wants them
kicked out of the military doesn't make him a b*g*t, now does it?
Though his friend Keith Jackson thinks I'm terribly unfair in not
regarding him as a valiant defender of individual rights, I must call
the shots as I see them. No wonder he is known as: Jack Shit. 

-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Thu Nov 14 08:52:21 PST 1996
Article: 507002 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!winternet.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.current-events..usa,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: The Fears of Robert Bork (Was: Supreme Court)
Date: 13 Nov 1996 01:33:22 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <56b8h2$3th@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>
References: <326F9119.2289@express-news.net> <326FDEF7.56EB@cannet.com> <54qsen$dv8@news4.snfc21.pacbell.net> <54sj8f$ok5@kruuna.Helsinki.FI> <5532mb$88t@news2.snfc21.pacbell.net> <3275765A.1F30@express-news.net> <555hkv$jb6@news4.snfc21.pacbell.net> <327  <3287BB76.69AA@express-news.net> <3288E380.46CE@ns.net> <3288BFA4.619C@express-news.net> <56ashc$j8g@newshost.cyberramp.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca4-10.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue Nov 12  5:33:22 PM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.politics.misc:507002 talk.abortion:191401 alt.politics.usa.republican:327577 alt.politics.usa.constitution:101524


>In article <3288BFA4.619C@express-news.net>, Papa Jack
 wrote:
>
>}
>}When Bork was "Borked,"

 i.e., denied a seat on the Supreme Court because of his totalitarian
views.

-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Thu Nov 14 08:52:22 PST 1996
Article: 507037 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!laslo.netnet.net!node2.frontiernet.net!news.texas.net!news1.best.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!feed1.news.erols.com!news.enteract.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.current-events..usa,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: The Fears of Robert Bork (Was: Supreme Court)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 19:59:31 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 214
Message-ID: <56akv3$q8b@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com>
References: <326F9119.2289@express-news.net> <326FDEF7.56EB@cannet.com> <54qsen$dv8@news4.snfc21.pacbell.net> <54sj8f$ok5@kruuna.Helsinki.FI> <5532mb$88t@news2.snfc21.pacbell.net> <3275765A.1F30@express-news.net> <555hkv$jb6@news4.snfc21.pacbell.net> <327 <569vkg$9a4@nntp1.best.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca4-10.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue Nov 12 11:59:31 AM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.politics.misc:507037 talk.abortion:191406 alt.politics.usa.republican:327619 alt.politics.usa.constitution:101533

In <569vkg$9a4@nntp1.best.com> kkelly1@nntp.best.com (Kevin Kelly)
writes: 

 Another good one. Let's see Papa Jack (Shit?) wiggle out of _this_
one. Remember: "The early bird catches the worm."

>Most interesting, jack who claims he won't follow me up does so
>again. Medication not working again jack?
>
>Papa Jack (papajack@express-news.net) wrote:
>: Kevin Kelly wrote:
>: > 
>: > Papa Jack (papajack@express-news.net) wrote:
>: > : qlhong@kub.nl wrote:
>: > 
>: > [...]
>: > : > It is useful to be reminded of the fact that Bork's
>: > : > nomination has been, indeed, overwhelmingly rejected
>: > : > by the Senate, a political institution whose members
>: > : > are very much accountable to the voters. Why do
>: > : > Bork's supporters want to impose Bork's legal views
>: > : > upon the American people if their elected representatives
>: > : > have decided to reject him?
>:  
>:             
==========================================================
>: > : Papa Jack comments:
>: > : 58 to 42 can hardly be described as overwhelming -- particularly
>: > : after the shameful propaganda campaign of the entire radical
>: > : liberal establishment againt Bork.
>: > 
>: > Yeah how dare they confront him with his opinions. How dare they
do their
>: > job. Bad radical liberal establishment. And when the conservatives
launch
>: > their campaigns it's what jack? What is interesting is that Bork
confirms
>: > with his writing the very things that were said about him.
>
>ANd look poor jack can't refute it.
>
>:          
===========================================================
>: > Kevin Kelly wrote:
>: > by Ira Glasser, ACLU Executive Director
>
>:             
==========================================================
>: Papa Jack comments:
>: IRA GLASSER!!!!! The ED of the ACLU ---- that's YOUR "authority" in
>: comments against Robert Bork?  BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.  How about Gus
>: Hall?  Don't you have something by Gus Hall too, KK?  His Home Page
is:
>
>What's interesting jack is that you deleted his comments and cannot
offer
>a refutation of what he said. Your little boy bravado to cover that
would
>embarrass an adult if he did it, but you seem to be untouched. 
>
>: 	http://www.hartford-hwp.com/cp-usa/index.html
>
>: BWHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!  You are a hoot.  
>
>: For example, the ACLU brags of winning court cases on:
>
>Now let's look at the cases that the ACLU won that jack mentions and
show
>his obvious disdain of personal rights.
>
>
>: (1) Drug Testing on Campus -- defeated requirement at the U. of 
>:      Colorado's requirement that all students wanting to participate

>:      in intercollegiate athletics submit to urinalysis at their
annual 
>:      physical, as well as to random urine tests 
>
>Randon urine tests imply all are guilty until proven innocent. IN this
>country there are still some of us who hold dear the concept of
innocent
>till proven guilty. But you conservatives don't seem to think so.
Given
>your attitudes it's not a surprise though. 
>
>:      On May 5, the ACLU of Oregon won vindication under the Fourth 
>:      Amendment for James Acton, who was dismissed from his JUNIOR
HIGH 
>:      SCHOOL football team two years ago for refusing a drug test. 
>
>Bravo. James Acton stood up for his rights and should be commended.
>
>: (2) Mother-To-Be Rescued -- Superior Court of Pennsyvania threw out 
>:      criminal charges brought against Michelle Kemp for delivering a

>:      controlled substance to her fetus. 
>
>IN this country you are the master of your own body jack. If you think
the
>fetus should take precedence over the woman in this regard what's to
stop
>others taking precedence over you with respect to your body? You don't
>need both kidneys jack. 
>
>: (3) Gays in the Military -- Lesbian and Gay Rights Project obtained 
>:      a preliminary injunction from a federal District Court in New 
>:      York blocking the government's discharge of six service members

>:      who are plaintiffs in an ACLU challenge to the "Don't Ask,
Don't
>:      Tell" policy. 
>
>Oh boy a serious crime letting Americans serve in the military. Just
>because you are a bigot you cannot expect federal institutions to
share
>that bigotry. There have been gays in the military since their has
been a
>military jack. But how dare the ACLU stand up against dicrimination.
It's
>no ones business who you screw jack if it is consenusal. You might
like to
>think it is, but you are mistaken.
>
>: (4) Prisoners' Rights -- National Prison Project reached an historic

>:      settlement in a Rhode Island lawsuit initiated in 1974. The
set-
>:      tlement compels the state to bring conditions in its prisons up

>:      to constitutional standards. 
>
>Does the phrase cruel and unusual punishment mean anything to you? Do
you
>think that federal and state prisions are a country club jack. I' make
a
>case that the conditions still aren't up to constituional standards.
>
>: (5) Freedom for "Mariel Cuban" -- Alexis Barrera- Echavarria was
>:      refused repatriation by the Cuban government and wasconsidered 
>:      "dangerous" by the U.S., although he had not been charged with 
>:      a crime.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held 
>:      that even excludable aliens are entitled to due process and
can-
>:      not be preventively detained for long periods without trial. 
>
>Geeez can't have  that due process thing get out of hand jack. I note
that
>the person had not committed a crime. Geez jack does that mean nothing
to
>you. Oh but I bet you would like to expel all the "dangerous" types
eh? 
>
>: (6) Abortion Funding In Idaho -- A state trial court declared uncon-
>:      stitutional, under Idaho's constitution, a rule that prohibited

>:      state funding for abortions unless two physicians certified
that 
>:      the procedure was necessary to save a woman's life. 
>
>Now this is the only thing you might have a point on given the nature
of
>state funding. However while births would be covered I beleive that
>abortions should be as well.
>
>: Source:  ACLU Home page.  See:
>
>: 		http://www.aclu.org/court/wewon.html
>
>: Your authorities are sooooo impressive, KK.
>
>INdeed they are. They have stood up for the constituion in the face of
>people like you who think personal freedom is somehow wrong.
>
>:  BWHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!!!!
>
>Ahhh the cackeling of the demented conservative.
>
>:      [...]
>:          
===========================================================
>: > : Papa Jack wrote
>: > : Never before had America seen such a mean-spirited display of
raw
>: > : hatred for a man of the academic world.  Bork had the audacity
to
>: > : challenge the liberal shibboleths from his positions as a
professor
>: > : at Yale, the U.S. Solicitor General, and a Federal judge.  They
>: > : could not forgive him for repeatedly proving their most
treasured
>: > : principles to be wrong.
>
>: [...]
>
>: > : Bork's rejection was NOT the American people speaking -- most
did
>: > : not even understand the true nature of the points at issue.  It
>: > : was a victory of the radical liberals in smearing an honorable
>: > : man of great intellect.
>:  
>: [...]
>
>--
>If there is a God, atheism must strike Him
>as less of an insult than religion.
>--Edmond and Jules De Goncourt
>

-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Fri Nov 15 07:05:43 PST 1996
Article: 49379 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!clicnet!news.clic.net!news.bconnex.net!news.supernet.net!news.magicnet.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-atl-21.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-hub.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,wash.politics,us.politics.bob-dole,us.politics.abortion,tx.politics,triangle.politics,talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.crypto,talk.politics,seattle.politics,scruz.politics,ri.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,nj.politics,ne.politics,mn.politics,dfw.politics,dc.politics,co.politics,ca.politics,ba.politics,az.politics,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.usa,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.media,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.immigration,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.greens,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.datahighway,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics,alt.politics.nationalism.texas,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice WOMEN: IT"S NOT YOUR BODY!!! and It's NOT YOUR DNA!!!
Date: 14 Nov 1996 20:15:22 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 85
Message-ID: <56fukq$7m0@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
References: <3274F416.4F29@judithlitght.com> <327a6f36.80480613@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <327791a8.14459670@news.airmail.net> <55imd3$aj0@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com> <327e188f.248769426@news.mbay.net> <327E3536.37A3@dlcc.com> <327e7684.272825482@news.mbay.net> <3280C0AD.29DF@wcuvax1.wcu.edu> <3280D5EC.E41@ianet.net> <3282BA3A.5DC6@provide.net> <5606gn$7i@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>  <32840394.17A9@earthlink.net>  <568g9e$ruu@kirin.wwa.com> <328c8ebb.949433@news.novagate.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca6-20.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Thu Nov 14  2:15:22 PM CST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.abortion:191481 talk.politics.theory:91588 talk.politics.misc:507935 talk.politics.libertarian:143712 talk.politics.guns:342022 talk.politics.crypto:14984 alt.politics.white-power:49379 alt.politics.usa.republican:328568 alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich:95367 alt.politics.usa.misc:126981 alt.politics.usa.constitution:101771 alt.politics.usa.congress:81155 alt.politics.reform:113667 alt.politics.radical-left:134554 alt.politics.perot:64824 alt.politics.media:17940 alt.politics.libertarian:233278 alt.politics.homosexuality:125080 alt.politics.greens:20917 alt.politics.elections:89552 alt.politics.democrats.d:149786 alt.politics.datahighway:20336 alt.politics.correct:155545 alt.politics.clinton:331447 alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater:55888

In <328c8ebb.949433@news.novagate.com> jbigge@novagate.com (Jerome
Bigge) writes: 

 An excellent post! (My comments follow.) In response to...

>On Tue, 12 Nov 1996 00:27:08 GMT, msimon@rworld.com (M Simon) wrote:

 ...another irrefutable post! Let's see Papa Jack try to wiggle out of
_this_ one.

>>Ray,
>>
>>   Assume the pro-lifers get what they want. How will it be
>>enforced? Menstrual police? Daily urine samples from all women
>>10 to 55.

 And don't forget denying passports to all pregnant women, so they
can't leave the country and get abortions. Also supervising them so
they don't smoke, drink, have sex, etc., on the grounds that these
activities, too, might be bad for the fetus.

>>How will they prevent drugs from getting to women who want them?
>>How will they prevent the teaching of 'menstrual extraction' in
>>the living rooms of the commited?

 Since Papa Jack denies that we have a right to privacy, I have no
doubt that he _does_ advocate all this.

>>The problem here is that pro-lifers want to end abortion but
>>they are unwilling to pay the price. So they need police. And
>>jails, and courts, and secret police. And they want us all to
>>pay to support their hobby.

 _I_ refuse to!

>>You are quite correct. Their position is morally bankrupt. And
>>it should be pointed out at every opportunity.
>>
>>Don't tell me you are pro life. Tell me how many children you
>>adopted.

 If a million are aborted each year, as pro-lifers like Papa Jack like
to point out with horror, then an equal number will have to be adopted
by those same pro-lifers. That's a lot of adoptions!  

>>In the end people get the government they deserve.
>>
>>Read "The Weapon Shops of Isher" by A.E. vanVogt
>>
>>Simon
>>
>One issue that has never been considered by the Pro-life people is
>that abortion has been legal long enough now for people to consider it
>as being a "civil right".  And if the Pro-lifers were to ever win on
>this, the most likely consequence might be massive civil disobience in
>reply.  With a feminist "underground" that would be much like what we
>have now with drugs, like what we had when they tried to "outlaw"
>alcohol.  Getting a law passed is one thing, being able to get popular
>acceptance is something else entirely.  I remember what it was like
>before Roe vs Wade.  And the feminists haven't gone away either.

 We're not going to quietly bow down and obey, Papa Jack. We're going
to resist.

>Jerome Bigge (jbigge@novagate.com) NRA Life Member
>
>THE SECOND ADMENDMENT:  OUR INSURANCE POLICY!

 Always good to find a _consistent_ defender of our individual
freedoms. Unlike Papa Jack and so many others.

>*********************************************
>My Warlady novels are available on my web page.
>Please go to "http://www.novagate.com/~jbigge"
>(they are all "zipped" and about 300K each)
>A total of 9 are available to read...
>Tales of adventure in a future dark age.
>A time when the sword once again "ruled"!

-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Fri Nov 15 08:23:49 PST 1996
Article: 507539 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.mag-net.com!freenet.unbc.edu!news.scn.org!news.abs.net!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.impeach.clinton,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.religion.christian
Subject: Re: National Clergy Council Clinton Report!
Date: 14 Nov 1996 11:07:03 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <56eugn$2rv@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>
References: <846657155.21748@dejanews.com>  <55evnc$ntt@kruuna.Helsinki.FI> <327F6712.7A4B@cannet.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca2-18.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Thu Nov 14  3:07:03 AM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.impeach.clinton:68339 alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater:55693 alt.politics.clinton:331099 alt.politics.elections:89449 talk.politics.misc:507539 talk.abortion:191451 alt.abortion.inequity:60515 alt.religion.christian:148287


>Cheryl Morris  wrote:
> Those
>>claims that if homosexuals teach your kids you have to be worried
make
>>about as much since as if heterosexuals teach your kids you have to
be
>>worried.  
>
>>Cheryl

 Thank you, Cheryl!
-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Tue Nov 19 07:42:16 PST 1996
Article: 49494 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!sunqbc.risq.net!news1.bellglobal.com!news.sprintlink.net!news-pen-14.sprintlink.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.mathworks.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!news.tacom.army.mil!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,wash.politics,us.politics.bob-dole,us.politics.abortion,tx.politics,triangle.politics,talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.crypto,talk.politics,seattle.politics,scruz.politics,ri.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,nj.politics,ne.politics,mn.politics,dfw.politics,dc.politics,co.politics,ca.politics,ba.politics,az.politics,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.usa,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.media,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.immigration,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.greens,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.datahighway,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics,alt.politics.nationalism.texas,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice WOMEN: IT"S NOT YOUR BODY!!! and It's NOT YOUR DNA!!!
Date: 16 Nov 1996 19:10:47 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <56l3jn$kti@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com>
References: <3274F416.4F29@judithlitght.com> <327a6f36.80480613@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <327791a8.14459670@news.airmail.net> <55imd3$aj0@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com> <327e188f.248769426@news.mbay.net> <327E3536.37A3@dlcc.com> <327e7684.272825482@news.mbay.net> <3280C0AD.29DF@wcuvax1.wcu.edu> <3280D5EC.E41@ianet.net> <3282BA3A.5DC6@provide.net> <5606gn$7i@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>  <32840394.17A9@earthlink.net>  <568g9e$ruu@kirin.wwa.com> <328c8ebb.949433@news.novagate.com> <56fub0$8d6@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com> <328D357B.3E9@provide.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca1-08.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sat Nov 16 11:10:47 AM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.abortion:191541 talk.politics.theory:91828 talk.politics.misc:508667 talk.politics.libertarian:144167 talk.politics.guns:342592 talk.politics.crypto:14998 alt.politics.white-power:49494 alt.politics.usa.republican:329340 alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich:95631 alt.politics.usa.misc:127236 alt.politics.usa.constitution:102006 alt.politics.usa.congress:81458 alt.politics.reform:113935 alt.politics.radical-left:134804 alt.politics.perot:64990 alt.politics.media:18023 alt.politics.libertarian:233721 alt.politics.homosexuality:125352 alt.politics.greens:21031 alt.politics.elections:89749 alt.politics.democrats.d:150272 alt.politics.datahighway:20359 alt.politics.correct:155914 alt.politics.clinton:332019 alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater:56190

In <328D357B.3E9@provide.net> James Doemer  writes:

>
>Lucile V. Wilson wrote:
>> 
>> In <328c8ebb.949433@news.novagate.com> jbigge@novagate.com (Jerome
>> Bigge) writes:
>> >
>> >On Tue, 12 Nov 1996 00:27:08 GMT, msimon@rworld.com (M Simon)
wrote:
>> >
>> >>Ray,
>> >>
>> >>   Assume the pro-lifers get what they want. How will it be
>> >>enforced? Menstrual police? Daily urine samples from all women
>> >>10 to 55.
>> >>
>> >>How will they prevent drugs from getting to women who want them?
>> >>How will they prevent the teaching of 'menstrual extraction' in
>> >>the living rooms of the commited?
>> >>
>> >>The problem here is that pro-lifers want to end abortion but
>> >>they are unwilling to pay the price. So they need police. And
>> >>jails, and courts, and secret police. And they want us all to
>> >>pay to support their hobby.
>> >>
>> >>You are quite correct. Their position is morally bankrupt. And
>> >>it should be pointed out at every opportunity.
>> >>
>> >>Don't tell me you are pro life. Tell me how many children you
>> >>adopted.
>> >>
>> >>I am Pro-Life and I have two adopted children.  Now what?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>
>
>This is where their aurgument falls apart, many pro-life people do
adopt, 
>count me in for 1....

 OK, but then there's 1,000,000 more to go every year. And you didn't
even begin to answer the question about all those police, secret
police, and government bureaucrats you'll need to supervise all girls
and women of childbearing age in order to keep them all barefoot and
pregnant and make sure no harm comes to their unborn "babies" (fetuses,
embryos, zygotes) from smoking, drinking, etc..
-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Wed Nov 20 08:07:20 PST 1996
Article: 508627 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!van.istar!west.istar!n1van.istar!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.msfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.current-events..usa,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: The Fears of Robert Bork (Was: Supreme Court)
Date: 16 Nov 1996 21:26:22 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <56lbhu$on6@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com>
References: <326F9119.2289@express-news.net> <327  <328CB006.40C6@express-news.net> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca1-08.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sat Nov 16  1:26:22 PM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.politics.misc:508627 talk.abortion:191535 alt.politics.usa.republican:329282 alt.politics.usa.constitution:101992

In  ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes: 
>
>Papa Jack   wrote:
>>No nomination ever threatened the radical left as much as Bork.
                                ^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^

 "the radical left", i.e., all defenders of individual rights such as
privacy and free speech. 

>>He is a man of great intellect and unblemished integrity.

 He's a totalitarian scumbag.

>I'm sure that such an endorsement from you will convince many people.
>
>Convince them of what, though ...

 That Papa Jack is either an idiot or a liar or both.

>-- 
>Ray Fischer
>ray@netcom.com

-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Wed Nov 20 08:07:22 PST 1996
Article: 508660 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.win.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.current-events..usa,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: The Fears of Robert Bork (Was: Supreme Court)
Date: 16 Nov 1996 20:15:25 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <56l7ct$gb0@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>
References: <326F9119.2289@express-news.net> <326FDEF7.56EB@cannet.com> <54qsen$dv8@news4.snfc21.pacbell.net> <54sj8f$ok5@kruuna.Helsinki.FI> <5532mb$88t@news2.snfc21.pacbell.net> <3275765A.1F30@express-news.net> <555hkv$jb6@news4.snfc21.pacbell.net> <327  
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca1-08.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sat Nov 16  2:15:25 PM CST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.politics.misc:508660 talk.abortion:191539 alt.politics.usa.republican:329324 alt.politics.usa.constitution:101999

In  gorl@flash.net (Tom Wright) writes: 
>
>
> >Papa Jack comments:
> >58 to 42 can hardly be described as overwhelming -- particularly
> >after the shameful propaganda campaign of the entire radical 
                                                        ^^^^^^^
> >liberal establishment againt Bork.   
   ^^^^^^^

 "radical liberal", i.e., pro-individual.

>16 votes is a HUGE margin, and all but the most masochistic would have
>withdrawn their name rather than go down in such ignominious defeat.  
>
>As has been said by others, the irony is that Borks's recent writings
are
>the best justification for the result, albeit ex post facto.

 Quite true. He's a totalitarian jerk who denies individual rights, and
the 42 who voted in his favor were either deluded fools or jerks just
like him. 
-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Wed Nov 20 08:07:23 PST 1996
Article: 508681 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.win.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!winternet.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.idt.net!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.current-events..usa,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: The Fears of Robert Bork (Was: Supreme Court)
Date: 16 Nov 1996 23:39:22 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <56ljba$521@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>
References: <326F9119.2289@express-news.net> <326FDEF7.56EB@cannet.com> <54qsen$dv8@news4.snfc21.pacbell.net> <54sj8f$ok5@kruuna.Helsinki.FI> <5532mb$88t@news2.snfc21.pacbell.net> <3275765A.1F30@express-news.net> <555hkv$jb6@news4.snfc21.pacbell.net> <327   <328DB43B.491D@earthlink.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca1-08.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sat Nov 16  3:39:22 PM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.politics.misc:508681 talk.abortion:191543 alt.politics.usa.republican:329359 alt.politics.usa.constitution:102011

In <328DB43B.491D@earthlink.net> Del  writes: 
>
>Tom Wright wrote:
>> 
>>  >Papa Jack smears his opponents without saying anything
substantive:
>>  >58 to 42 can hardly be described as overwhelming -- particularly
>>  >after the shameful propaganda campaign of the entire radical
                                                          ^^^^^^^
>>  >liberal establishment againt Bork.
     ^^^^^^^

 "radical liberal", i.e., pro-free speech and pro-privacy. 

>Bork has said the First Amendment's protection of free speech should 
>apply only to speech that "contributes" to the "political process." 
>
> "There is no basis for [the courts] to protect any other form of 
>expression, be it scientific, literary, or that variety of expression
we 
>call obscene or pornographic."
>
> And even in the category of political speech he would deny protection
>to anyone advocating the violation of ANY LAW.

 I told you so! _This_ is the totalitarian scumbag Papa Jack wants on
the Supreme Court. Wiggle out of _this_ one, Papa Jack. Wiggle, wiggle,
wiggle like a worm.
-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Wed Nov 20 08:07:24 PST 1996
Article: 508710 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!winternet.com!visi.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.current-events..usa,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: The Fears of Robert Bork (Was: Supreme Court)
Date: 16 Nov 1996 20:27:47 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 115
Message-ID: <56l843$rvb@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>
References: <326F9119.2289@express-news.net> <326FDEF7.56EB@cannet.com> <54qsen$dv8@news4.snfc21.pacbell.net> <54sj8f$ok5@kruuna.Helsinki.FI> <5532mb$88t@news2.snfc21.pacbell.net> <3275765A.1F30@express-news.net> <555hkv$jb6@news4.snfc21.pacbell.net> <327 <56j5td$47b@nntp1.best.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca1-08.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sat Nov 16 12:27:47 PM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.politics.misc:508710 talk.abortion:191548 alt.politics.usa.republican:329395 alt.politics.usa.constitution:102022

In <56j5td$47b@nntp1.best.com> kkelly1@nntp.best.com (Kevin Kelly)
writes: 

 Another excellent post on this subject. Mr. Kelly, you and I seem to
be the only ones here with a clue.

>Alan Bomberger (alan@oes.amdahl.com) wrote:

 Idiocy almost on the level of Papa Jack's 

>: In article , qlhong@kub.nl wrote:
>
>: >
>: > If Rose Bird is crazy, Robert Bork is certainly extremist.
>: > In 1985 he told a college audience: <: > that a prior court has misread the Constitution, I think it's
>: > your duty to go back and correct it...I dont think precedent
>: > is all that important.>> (The New York Review of Books, February
2,
>: > 1995)
>: > 
>
>: My God the extremism!  If some court in the past made a stupid
>: ruling 
>
>A ruling against the principles of some that call themselves
>conservatives you mean. 

 I'm proud to be an extremist in the defense of the Constitution.

>: based on a false interpretation of the Constitution 
>
>Only what some conservatives claim is the "real" interpretation of the
>Constitution is permitted you mean.

 They're not conservatives. They're totalitarians.

>: we 
>: should overturn it and return to the Constitution.  My God, we
>: can't have that!  Imagine actually defending the Constitution.

 Yeah, Imagine that! What would Papa Jack say? Horrors!

>Hmmm please explain how Bork who wishes to remove one of the prime
checks
>and balances against tryranny of the majority is actually a defender
of
>the constituion? I am sure the leaps in logic will be entertaining.
Are
>you a supporter of Bork's plan to allow congress to overrule decisions
of
>the SC?

 I, for one, oppose any such thing. Let's keep our Constitution the way
it is!

>: That is the key!  The left cannot abide by the Constitution as
>: written because it does not allow for the left's agenda of
>: control and redistribution of wealth.
>
>Funny I would argue that it is the  right or rather a small part of it
>who cannot abide by the Constitution because it allows for the
practices
>of morality that they don't aproove of.

 Exactly.

 Hense Bork's push for a gutting of
>the powers of the SC because he does like things like persoanl freedom
or
>the right of privacy.

 Precisely.

>
>:  Anyone that supports
>: and defends the COnstitution is an extremist. 

 I'm proud to be an extremist.

>Nah just those like Bork who want it to be a reflection of their right
>wing paranoid vision of what America should be. You know like the
>CHristain Coalition who are big supporters of Bork.
>
>: What have we
>: come to?  Why bother with a Constitution? 
>
>Why to prevent the tyranny advocated by social conservatives and other
>nut bags of course. I know you support the notion of government not
>minding my personal affairs correct? Like who I screw, who I read,
what I
>say, who I associate with, what I do to my body? Right?

 Absolutely. _I_ will not surrender _my_ rights to any government or
so-called "moral majority".

>: We know what is
>: right!  Lock up dissenters.
>
>No thank you.

 That's exactly what Bork and the Bible-bigots would do.

>--
>If there is a God, atheism must strike Him
>as less of an insult than religion.
>--Edmond and Jules De Goncourt
>

-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Wed Nov 20 08:07:25 PST 1996
Article: 508838 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!van.istar!west.istar!uniserve!news.sol.net!newspump.sol.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.current-events..usa,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: The Fears of Robert Bork (Was: Supreme Court)
Date: 16 Nov 1996 03:07:07 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 68
Message-ID: <56jb4r$ju6@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>
References: <326F9119.2289@express-news.net> <326FDEF7.56EB@cannet.com> <54qsen$dv8@news4.snfc21.pacbell.net> <54sj8f$ok5@kruuna.Helsinki.FI> <5532mb$88t@news2.snfc21.pacbell.net> <3275765A.1F30@express-news.net> <555hkv$jb6@news4.snfc21.pacbell.net> <327  <328CB006.40C6@express-news.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca7-47.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Fri Nov 15  9:07:07 PM CST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.politics.misc:508838 talk.abortion:191563 alt.politics.usa.republican:329543 alt.politics.usa.constitution:102058

In <328CB006.40C6@express-news.net> Papa Jack
 lies again: 
>
>qlhong@kub.nl wrote:
>
>          ========================================================= 
>> >Papa Jack comments:
>> >58 to 42 can hardly be described as overwhelming -- particularly
>> >after the shameful propaganda campaign of the entire radical
>> >liberal establishment againt Bork.
>
>> >Never before had America seen such a mean-spirited display of raw
>> >hatred for a man of the academic world.  Bork had the audacity to
>> >challenge the liberal
                  ^^^^^^^

 i.e., anti-totalitarian (incl. genuine conservative)

 shibboleths from his positions as a professor
>> >at Yale, the U.S. Solicitor General, and a Federal judge.  They
>> >could not forgive him for repeatedly proving their most treasured
                                                 ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
>> >principles to be wrong.
    ^^^^^^^^^^

 These most treasured principles being our individual rights, e.g.,
privacy and free speech. Of course, Papa Jack doesn't dare spell this
out too clearly. And how, pray tell, were these principles proved
wrong? Papa Jack doesn't tell us, of course. Just more lies here.

>     -------------------------------
>> Q.L. Hong wrote:
>> Once again, it is useful to be reminded of some facts:
>
>> 1. The Bork nomination was rejected by a margin of
>> 16 votes: no nominee has ever been defeated by as a
>> large margin as Bork.
>
>          ========================================================= 
>Papa Jack replies: 
>No nomination ever threatened the radical left as much as Bork.
>He is a man of great intellect and unblemished integrity.

 He's a totalitarian jerk.

  They
>tried to find dirt on him and failed, so they had to use blatent
>propaganda tactics to misrepresent his views as a legal scholar
>to the American people.

 More lies.

  The "grassroots" propaganda effort to
>"Bork" Bork was indeed clearly a shameful exercise in demagogy by
>the radical left of the American legal system.  Law professors 
>at "leading" American Law Schools were among the most threatened.

 All of this is pure b.s.. By "radical left", Papa Jack means all
advocates of individual freedom and limited government. We must be
bomb-throwing anarchists! Papa Jack just wiggles away from these issues
of personal freedom and continues to smear all defenders of our
precious freedoms. Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a worm, Papa Jack.
-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Wed Nov 20 08:07:27 PST 1996
Article: 508854 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!winternet.com!visi.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,wash.politics,us.politics.bob-dole,us.politics.abortion,tx.politics,talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice and proud of it
Date: 16 Nov 1996 03:16:00 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 84
Message-ID: <56jblg$sd7@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>
References: <55vpin$mdg@newsgate.sps.mot.com> <5600lk$t7v@cronkite.ocis.temple.edu> <5683h3$jcb@camel0.mindspring.com> <568fni$ruu@kirin.wwa.com> <3288146 <56i058$i8@brtph500.bnr.ca> <56i3la$7jc@sol.caps.maine.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca7-47.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Fri Nov 15  7:16:00 PM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.abortion:191565 talk.politics.theory:91888 talk.politics.misc:508854 talk.politics.guns:342758

In <56i3la$7jc@sol.caps.maine.edu> scotterb@maine.maine.edu writes: 
>
>Hi Al
>
>Did you see my response to your response to my earlier post?  My
system 
>doesn't cross post to all the groups, so if you are reading this from 
>somewhere like talk.politics.guns (which may be the case given the
content 
>below in this post), then maybe you didn't see my post on abortion. 
I'm 
>sending this to talk.politics.guns just in case.
>
>In article <56i058$i8@brtph500.bnr.ca>, ingraih@bnr.ca says...
>>
>
>>And don't you folks see the incredible inconsistency in this
dicotomy? For
>>Clinton to go on and on about being Pro-choice and defending a
womans' right
>>to control her body and then to turn right around and be Anti-choice 
>>regarding a womans' (or mans') right to control their bodies/lives
through 
>>the selective use of firepower is simply playing to two different
groups to 
>>garner their support/votes.
>
>Hmmmm.  By your logic above, being 'pro-choice' in one thing means
that you 
>have to be pro-choice in every issue.  Pro-choice in controlling one's
own 
>body seems different than being free to choose any tool you might want
to use 
>to protect yourself your achieve your goals.  One brings in outside
materials 
>(e.g., guns), the other is a sovereign right over one's own biological
being. 
>The two seem different.  By your logic, it seems that any government
law at 
>all is an infringement on a right to choose, and therefore only an
anarchist 
>can be pro-choice without having an "incredible inconsistency."
>
>However, if one is precise about what is being chosen, that
"inconsistency" 
>disappears.
>
>> As Dole said, character counts. He's no better since he plays
>>the very same game, reversed...reversed.
>
>Dole and Clinton are both politicians, after all!
>
>But I don't see it necessarily inconsistent to be pro-choice on
abortion, and 
>pro-gun control, depending on how you define the issue.  The two are 
>qualitatively different issues.
>
>> A politician with character would 
>>demonstrate some spine and say that they are pro-choice or
anti-choice and
>>REMAIN BLOODY CONSISTENT. 
>
>Again, by your definition it would be either that one wants anarchy
(no laws, 
>since they limit choice) or laws on everything.  You aren't asking for
>consistency, you're asking for rigidity along a dichotomous choice. 
That 
>doesn't seem logical.  In fact, it seems a bit contrived.
>-scott
>

 You're almost as bad as Papa Jack. Here's a clue: If you don't believe
a woman should be able to choose to have an abortion, then you're not
pro-choice, OK? If the _only_ choice you defend is the choice of
whether or not to have an abortion, then you're not pro-choice either.
If you go around advocating gun control, censorship of pornography,
etc., and yet call yourself "pro-choice" because of your stand on
abortion, then you're not pro-choice, but a fool or a hypocrite.
-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Wed Nov 20 08:07:28 PST 1996
Article: 508880 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!winternet.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,wash.politics,us.politics.bob-dole,us.politics.abortion,tx.politics,talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice and proud of it
Date: 17 Nov 1996 02:11:15 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 65
Message-ID: <56ls83$5a3@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>
References: <55vpin$mdg@newsgate.sps.mot.com> <5600lk$t7v@cronkite.ocis.temple.edu> <5683h3$jcb@camel0.mindspring.com> <568fni$ruu@kirin.wwa.com> <3288146 <56jblg$sd7@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com> <56kmjl$upu@sol.caps.maine.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca1-08.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sat Nov 16  6:11:14 PM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.abortion:191572 talk.politics.theory:91900 talk.politics.misc:508880 talk.politics.guns:342791

In <56kmjl$upu@sol.caps.maine.edu> scotterb@maine.maine.edu writes: 
>
>In article <56jblg$sd7@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>, sma4@ix.netcom.co
says...
>
>> You're almost as bad as Papa Jack. Here's a clue: If you don't
believe
>>a woman should be able to choose to have an abortion, then you're not
>>pro-choice, OK? If the _only_ choice you defend is the choice of
>>whether or not to have an abortion, then you're not pro-choice
either.
>
>Frankly, that's stupid.
>
>So if I don't think that a person should have the right to kill the 
>President, then I'm not pro-choice.  If I don't think a person should
have 
>the right to sell drugs at school, then I'm not pro-choice?

 Idiotic strawman. I didn't say that and neither did anybody else here.
Learn to read. 

>How idiotic can you be.

 That's what I'm wondering.

  Face it: pro-choice is a position defined by the 
>abortion issue.

 Wrong again. After you learn to read, look up choice in any dictionary
and see if it says anything about "applies only to the abortion issue".

  Guns are another issue (which I haven't even stated a 
>position on).  So get a clue and don't try to pretend that it's the
same 
>thing.

 This is exactly like saying, e.g., "Freedom of religion applies only
to the Baptist church. If you want to join a Catholic church, then
don't even try to pretend that it's the same thing." Get a clue
yourself.

  What planet are you from?  Geez.

 A planet where languages other than Newspeak are spoken and words have
meanings.

>>If you go around advocating gun control, censorship of pornography,
>>etc., and yet call yourself "pro-choice" because of your stand on
>>abortion, then you're not pro-choice, but a fool or a hypocrite.
>
>In your bizarre fantasy land.
>
>Luckily, most of us find your position to be one of a fool.
>
>Live well in your strange little world, my little friend.

 I don't think you have the intelligence to be a liar like Papa Jack.

-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Wed Nov 20 08:07:29 PST 1996
Article: 508999 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!winternet.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.couples,rec.org.mensa,soc.women,alt.feminism,alt.mens-rights,alt.politics.sex,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Female Rapists
Date: 17 Nov 1996 08:46:57 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <56mje1$o3q@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>
References: <535ooq$7tj@apcserv2.apcnet.com>  <53eqnc$6n1@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com> <53gbi0$j0f@leas <568c48$lsu@sjx-ixn7.ix.netcom.com> <1996Nov12.190804.13507@atl.com> <56f9vd$sq6@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com> <328BAE33.7512BD2D@screaming.org> <328C01AD.347E@mpx.com.au> <328D646E.283A@ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca1-08.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun Nov 17 12:46:57 AM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.child-support:29953 soc.men:126203 soc.couples:26943 rec.org.mensa:81959 soc.women:125854 alt.feminism:132676 alt.mens-rights:22428 alt.politics.sex:17494 talk.politics.misc:508999 talk.religion.misc:161224 talk.origins:163723

In <328D646E.283A@ix.netcom.com> Jubal Harshaw 
writes: 

>Rape is a crime of violence and not sex.  It is about power and
>subjugation of one person by another.  In my view, it is most often
>associated with men, because of an excess of testosterone in their
>systems.  Women do not often have an excess of testosterone.
>
>Jubal
>
>--

 If testosterone makes men violent, then estrogen makes women violent.
Both sexes can be violent.
-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Wed Nov 20 08:07:32 PST 1996
Article: 509517 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.current-events..usa,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: The Fears of Robert Bork (Was: Supreme Court)
Date: 18 Nov 1996 03:11:36 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 127
Message-ID: <56ok58$ihs@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com>
References: <326F9119.2289@express-news.net> <326FDEF7.56EB@cannet.com> <54qsen$dv8@news4.snfc21.pacbell.net> <54sj8f$ok5@kruuna.Helsinki.FI> <5532mb$88t@news2.snfc21.pacbell.net> <3275765A.1F30@express-news.net> <555hkv$jb6@news4.snfc21.pacbell.net> <327   <328DB43B.491D@earthlink.net> <328E75F9.7B59@express-news.net> <328F6C86.6D2A@earthlink.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca3-10.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun Nov 17  7:11:36 PM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.politics.misc:509517 talk.abortion:191652 alt.politics.usa.republican:330276 alt.politics.usa.constitution:102247

In <328F6C86.6D2A@earthlink.net> Del  writes: 
>
>Papa Jack wrote:
>> 
>> Del wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Bork has said the First Amendment's protection of free speech
should
>> > apply only to speech that "contributes" to the "political
process."
>> 
>>          
============================================================
>> Papa Jack replies:
>> No, I don't think Judge Bork said this -- or, perhaps he said
something
>> which you have taken out of context and distorted.
>
>Well the argument from incredulity is always good for a 
>laugh. Rely on it much, do you?   
>
>
>> If you believe you are correct,
>
>You see, this is your fundamental (excuse the pun) error. 
>You project your evidentiary standards on moi. I don't rely 
>on "belief" as a reliable measure of accuracy. I rely on 
>facts. I recommend it highly. 
>
>
> please provide full documentation that
>> can be checked out (publication/book, author, publishing house,
date,
>> pages where quote is found, etc.).
>
>Are you struggling to express your desire for a citation? I 
>applaud your skepticism. It is virtually commendable.  I 
>would be more impressed however if you applied such rational 
>impulses to your own claims, and if this present 
>demonstration wasn't so obviously an attempt to sand bag me. 
>
>For the record, I personally  don't expect anyone to take my 
>word for anything. (Such is unnecessary when you rely on 
>facts). 
>
>>          
============================================================
>> > Del wrote:
>> >  "There is no basis for [the courts] to protect any other form of
>> > expression, be it scientific, literary, or that variety of
expression
>> > we call obscene or pornographic."
>> 
>>          
============================================================
>> Papa Jack replies:
>> No, I don't think Judge Bork said this -- or, perhaps he said
something
>> which you have taken out of context and distorted.
>
>Well that's what _really_ counts, isn't it: what you 
>_believe_. 
>
>>          
============================================================
>> > Del wrote:
>> > And even in the category of political speech he would deny
protection
>> > to anyone advocating the violation of ANY LAW.
>> 
>>          
============================================================
>> Papa Jack replies:
>> No, I don't think Judge Bork said this -- or, perhaps he said
something
>> which you have taken out of context and distorted.
>
>Wow, you said this three times. Does that means it's now 
>true?
>
>> IOW, put up or shut up.
>> 
>
>Gosh ,you say that like you don't think I can, scout. Are 
>you projecting again?  Anyway, ever hear of the Federalist 
>Society for Law and Public Policy Studies? Check out their 
>Annotated Bibliography on Conservative and Libertarian Legal 
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^

 That's not what Bork is! He's a _totalitarian_ radical!

>Scholarship at: 
>
>http://www.nationalreview.com/federalist/biblio.html
>
>Here, I'll save you the trip (that's the kind of guy I am)
>
>"Robert H. Bork, Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment 
>Problems, 47 Ind. L.J. 1 (1971). The first half of this 
>article builds on Herbert Wechsler's call for 'neutral 
>principles' in Supreme Court adjudication (see supra p. 25), 
>extending the doctrine to the definition and derivation of 
>principles as well as their application. The Court is found 
>lacking. Judge Bork then attempts to derive some neutral 
>principles in the free speech area, concluding that 
>'[c]onstitutional protection should be accorded only to 
>speech that is explicitly political' and excepting speech 
>that advocates the overthrow of government or other 
>violations of the law." 
>
>---- End Quote ----
>
>Next time maybe you should try to learn something about your 
>candidates for hero-worship _before_ you knee-jerk net-wide, 
>hmmmm? 
>
>Now since you haven't put up anything what-so-ever does this 
>mean you are now going to shut up?

 Let's see how Papa Jack wiggles out of _this_ one.
-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Wed Nov 20 08:07:33 PST 1996
Article: 509780 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.mag-net.com!aurora.cs.athabascau.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!tribune.usask.ca!decwrl!spool.mu.edu!newspump.sol.net!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.current-events..usa,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: The Fears of Robert Bork (Was: Supreme Court)
Date: 16 Nov 1996 23:58:02 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <56lkea$4ca@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>
References: <326F9119.2289@express-news.net>   <328DB43B.491D@earthlink.net> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca1-08.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sat Nov 16  3:58:02 PM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.politics.misc:509780 talk.abortion:191692 alt.politics.usa.republican:330539 alt.politics.usa.constitution:102329

In  petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
writes: 
>
>In article <328DB43B.491D@earthlink.net>, Del  
wrote:
>>Tom Wright wrote:
>
>>>  >Papa Jack comments:
>>>  >58 to 42 can hardly be described as overwhelming -- particularly
>>>  >after the shameful propaganda campaign of the entire radical
>>>  >liberal establishment againt Bork.
>
>>Bork has said the First Amendment's protection of free speech should 
>>apply only to speech that "contributes" to the "political process." 
>
>> "There is no basis for [the courts] to protect any other form of 
>>expression, be it scientific, literary, or that variety of expression
we 
>>call obscene or pornographic."
>
>> And even in the category of political speech he would deny
protection 
>>to anyone advocating the violation of ANY LAW.
>
>	And Bork's ideological soulmates claim to want "less government"?
>
>	Sheesh.

 I agree. What utter hypocrites. Wiggle out of this one, Papa Jack.
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a worm.

>-- 
>Loren Petrich				Happiness is a fast Macintosh
>petrich@netcom.com			And a fast train
>My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
>Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
>
>

-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Wed Nov 20 08:07:34 PST 1996
Article: 509906 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!gatech!csulb.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.current-events..usa,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: The Fears of Robert Bork (Was: Supreme Court)
Date: 18 Nov 1996 20:36:56 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <56qhd8$31m@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
References: <326F9119.2289@express-news.net> <326FDEF7.56EB@cannet.com> <54qsen$dv8@news4.snfc21.pacbell.net> <54sj8f$ok5@kruuna.Helsinki.FI> <5532mb$88t@news2.snfc21.pacbell.net> <3275765A.1F30@express-news.net> <555hkv$jb6@news4.snfc21.pacbell.net> <327   <328DB43B.491D@earthlink.net> <328E75F9.7B59@express-news.net> <328fe084.444137085@news.galenalink.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca1-07.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon Nov 18  2:36:56 PM CST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.politics.misc:509906 talk.abortion:191712 alt.politics.usa.republican:330676 alt.politics.usa.constitution:102374

In <328fe084.444137085@news.galenalink.com> hhartley@galenalink.com
(Harry Hartley) writes: 
>
>Papa Jack  wrote:
>
>>IOW, put up or shut up.
>
>Okay one who is loud and hostile, what do you say now?  Your
>statements are contradictory when you juxtapose the cherished freedoms
>(mine too) against quotations from your hero. So the 'put up' has
>occurred, are you 'shut[ting] up' now, or just hiding. You wouldn't
>have enough character to admit you were wrong would you? Wouldn't it
>be enlightening for everyone to admit that issues go a little deeper
>than 'liberal' and 'conservative' *labels*.

 "...I suggest to you that there is no left or right, only an up or
down. Up to the maximum of individual freedom consistent with law and
order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism..." -Ronald Reagan,
1964
 I totally agree. _That_ is the issue. Or, as Barry Goldwater put it in
1993: "Government should stay out of people's private lives."

>But please do not answer this post. Try answering Del or KK's posts,
>they're the ones who have material deserving of your attention.

 Yes, don't wiggle out of it this time. Confront the issue head-on.
-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Wed Nov 20 08:07:35 PST 1996
Article: 509940 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.win.hookup.net!hookup!news-dc.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news-stock.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!snunews.snu.ac.kr!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!uunet!in3.uu.net!newsgate.compuserve.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.current-events..usa,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: More on Bork
Date: 19 Nov 1996 06:01:56 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <56rigk$qo6@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>
References: <326F9119.2289@express-news.net> <326FDEF7.56EB@cannet.com> <54qsen$dv8@news4.snfc21.pacbell.net> <54sj8f$ok5@kruuna.Helsinki.FI> <5532mb$88t@news2.snfc21.pacbell.net> <3275765A.1F30@express-news.net> <555hkv$jb6@news4.snfc21.pacbell.net> <327   <328DB43B.491D@earthlink.net> <328E75F9.7B59@express-news.net> <328F6C86.6D2A@earthlink.net> <3290166A.56CC@express-news.net> <3290E296.1F82@earthlink.net> <32911859.4A85@earthlink.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca6-58.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue Nov 19 12:01:56 AM CST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.politics.misc:509940 talk.abortion:191718 alt.politics.usa.republican:330714 alt.politics.usa.constitution:102386

In <32911859.4A85@earthlink.net> Del  writes: 
>
>For Papa Jack

 One more excellent post from you, Del. The 2nd and 1st Amendments are
inseparable. _Both_ must be defended without compromise. Try and wiggle
out of _this_ one, Papa Jack!

>>   ...by 1969 a unanimous Court could dash off a short, unsigned
>>   opinion in Brandenburg v. Ohio: "[T]he constitutional guarantees
>>   of free speech and free press did not permit a state to forbid or
>>   proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except
>>   where such advocacy was directed to inciting or producing imminent
>>   lawless action and was likely to incite or produce such action.
>> 
>>   There is no reason whatever to throw constitutional protection
>>   around such speech except to protect the enjoyment of the indi-
>>   viduals speaking or hearing the words. 
>
>Doesn't that give you the chills PJ? Consider the 
>rationale conservatives use concerning the 2nd Amendment. 
>It is a hedge against government tyranny AND was intended 
>to be such by the founders. Agree with this? What Bork is 
>saying is that the Founders NEVER intended for the 1st 
>Amendment to protect these other kinds of speech - 
>especially speech that advocated violence. You see the 
>problem?  The founders wanted people to have guns to 
>protect themselves from government - _but_ they didn't want 
>them to publicly talk about using them?? 
>
>I want to know if you see the conflict here or not. 
>
>
>Ciao

-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Wed Nov 20 08:07:36 PST 1996
Article: 510295 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!van.istar!west.istar!uniserve!news.sol.net!newspump.sol.net!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.current-events..usa,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: The Fears of Robert Bork (Was: Supreme Court)
Date: 19 Nov 1996 22:47:29 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <56tde1$pqd@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>
References:  <328DB43B.491D@earthlink.net>   <56silm$4if@newshost.cyberramp.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca3-16.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue Nov 19  4:47:29 PM CST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.politics.misc:510295 talk.abortion:191741 alt.politics.usa.republican:331124 alt.politics.usa.constitution:102487

In <56silm$4if@newshost.cyberramp.net> holman@cyberramp.net (Mitchell
Holman) writes: 
>
>In article , best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
wrote:
>
>}>
>}>       And Bork's ideological soulmates claim to want "less
government"?
>}
>}One of the more insipid comments you'll find on a subject as highly
>}charged as this.  Less government doesn't mean no government and it
>}is not a proof of hypocrisy to site one example of regulation that
>}conservatives might be in favor of and extrapolate that to mean 
>}conservatives are in favor of more government.  
>
>     Oh, puh-leeze. 
>
>     Conservatives are the *first* ones to use government as a tool
>  to enforce their agenda. Just look at the record of the ultimate 
>  "get the government off our backs" advocate, Ronald Reagan. 
>
>    No sooner was he in office than he doubled the number of federal
>  wiretaps, demanded "no-knock" entry laws, demanded warrantless
>  searches of law abiding Americans (drug courier profile, anyone?),
>  started seizures of property from people not even *accused* of
>  breaking the law if that property "might" be drug related, sent his
>  AG Meese on a pointless anti-pornography crusade, demanded
>  drug tests on people not even suspected of using drugs, and set
>  limits on what doctors could tell their patients about their birth 
>  control options.
>
>     Sound like "less government" to you?

 No!! 

>       Mitchell Holman
>
>   "Air pollution has been substantially controlled"
>    Ronald Reagan, campaigning in 1980. Three days later his plane
>    had to be diverted from landing in Los Angeles due to one of 
>    the worst smog alerts in the city's history.  

-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Wed Nov 20 08:07:37 PST 1996
Article: 510307 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!winternet.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.current-events..usa,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: The Fears of Robert Bork (Was: Supreme Court)
Date: 20 Nov 1996 01:51:05 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <56to69$grh@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>
References: <326F9119.2289@express-news.net> <326FDEF7.56EB@cannet.com> <54qsen$dv8@news4.snfc21.pacbell.net> <54sj8f$ok5@kruuna.Helsinki.FI> <5532mb$88t@news2.snfc21.pacbell.net> <3275765A.1F30@express-news.net> <555hkv$jb6@news4.snfc21.pacbell.net> <327   <328DB43B.491D@earthlink.net> <328E75F9.7B59@express-news.net> <328fe084.444137085@news.galenalink.com> <3290E478.7D3A@express-news.net> <56sqaj$koa@news4.snfc21.pacbell.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca3-16.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue Nov 19  7:51:05 PM CST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.politics.misc:510307 talk.abortion:191742 alt.politics.usa.republican:331137 alt.politics.usa.constitution:102489

In <56sqaj$koa@news4.snfc21.pacbell.net> ramirez1@pacbell.net (Albert
Ramirez) writes: 
>
>In article <3290E478.7D3A@express-news.net>, Papa Jack
 wrote:
>
>>          ==========================================================
>>Papa Jack replies:
>
>
>You still haven't replied to my post papa jack.  I assume its because
you 
>cannot rebut my arguments that Bork is just a bitter old man that is
trying to 
>get revenge on the Court.

 No, he was cruelly denied a seat on that court because he denied that
you and I have a right to privacy and free speech. Therefore, he's a
martyr. (like Pontius Pilate)

>Albert Ramirez, J.D.               : Rush Limbaugh - For people who
can't 
>ramirez1@pacbell.net             : think for themselves.
>"Trucha con la lucha"              :

-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Wed Nov 20 08:07:38 PST 1996
Article: 510309 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!winternet.com!visi.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.current-events..usa,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: The Fears of Robert Bork (Was: Supreme Court)
Date: 20 Nov 1996 02:02:08 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <56tor0$d7f@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>
References: <326F9119.2289@express-news.net> <326FDEF7.56EB@cannet.com> <54qsen$dv8@news4.snfc21.pacbell.net> <54sj8f$ok5@kruuna.Helsinki.FI> <5532mb$88t@news2.snfc21.pacbell.net> <3275765A.1F30@express-news.net> <555hkv$jb6@news4.snfc21.pacbell.net> <327   <328DB43B.491D@earthlink.net> <328E75F9.7B59@express-news.net> <328F6C86.6D2A@earthlink.net> <3290166A.56CC@express-news.net> <56srq2$pb6@tor-nn1-hb0.netcom.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca3-16.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue Nov 19  8:02:08 PM CST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.politics.misc:510309 talk.abortion:191743 alt.politics.usa.republican:331140 alt.politics.usa.constitution:102491


>In <3290166A.56CC@express-news.net> Papa Jack
> writes, in part: 

 

>>  The freedom of speech guaranteed by the amendment was long 
>>  thought by the Court to be speech about ideas, but that is not 
>>  the Court's view today.  Today, the Court reads the speech 
>>  clause as a protection of self-expression, personal autonomy, 
>>  or individual gratification.

 I'll write the following _idea_: Hostility to self-expression,
personal autonomy, and individual gratification is a central to
totalitarian ideology and has nothing whatsoever to do with the
Constitution.
-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Wed Nov 20 08:07:39 PST 1996
Article: 510508 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.mag-net.com!aurora.cs.athabascau.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!news.bc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.current-events..usa,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: The Fears of Robert Bork (Was: Supreme Court)
Date: 18 Nov 1996 19:41:34 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 79
Message-ID: <56qe5e$cr@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
References: <326F9119.2289@express-news.net> <326FDEF7.56EB@cannet.com> <54qsen$dv8@news4.snfc21.pacbell.net> <54sj8f$ok5@kruuna.Helsinki.FI> <5532mb$88t@news2.snfc21.pacbell.net> <3275765A.1F30@express-news.net> <555hkv$jb6@news4.snfc21.pacbell.net> <327  <328E73F1.E3A@express-news.net> <328FA2D5.4E23@earthlink.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca1-07.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon Nov 18  1:41:34 PM CST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.politics.misc:510508 talk.abortion:191760 alt.politics.usa.republican:331366 alt.politics.usa.constitution:102564

In <328FA2D5.4E23@earthlink.net> Del  writes: 
>
>Hey Pops, where did ya go? Maybe you want to rationalize how cool the 
>following position by Bork is. 

 I told you so! _This_ is the totalitarian scumbag Papa Jack praises so
much. Try and wiggle out of _this_ one, Papa Jack!

>Senators Questions Bork About Privacy 
>
>Hearings Before the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 
>100th Cong., 1st Sess. 
>(Part I) 114-17, 182-83 (1987) 
>
>CHAIRMAN [Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.)]: In your 1971 article, "Neutral 
>Principles and Some First Amendment Problems," you said that the right

>of married couples to have sexual relations without fear of unwanted 
>children is no more worthy of constitutional protection by the courts 
>than the right of public utilities to be free of pollution control 
>laws. 
>
>You argued that the utility company's right or gratification, I think 
>you referred to it, to make money and the married couple's right or 
>gratification to have sexual relations without fear of unwanted 
>children is no more worthy of constitutional protection by the courts 
>than the right of public utilities to be free of pollution control 
>laws. 
>
>It appears to me that you are saying that the government has as much 
>right to control a married couple's decision about choosing to have a 
>child or not, as that government has a right to control the public 
>utility's right to pollute the air. Am I misstating your rationale 
>here? 
>
>Judge [Robert] BORK. With due respect, Mr. Chairman, I think you are. 
>I was making the point that where the Constitution does not 
>speak-there is no provision in the Constitution that applies to the 
>case-then a judge may not say, I place a higher value upon a marital 
>relationship than I do upon an economic freedom. Only if the 
>Constitution gives him some reasoning. Once the judge begins to say 
>economic rights are more important than marital rights or vice versa, 
>and if there is nothing in the Constitution, the judge is enforcing 
>his own moral values, which I have object to. Now, on the Griswold 
>case itself- 
>
>CHAIRMAN. So that you suggest that unless the Constitution, I believe 
>in the past you used the phrase, textually identifies, a value that is

>worthy of being protected, then competing values in society, the 
>competing value of a public utility, in the example you used, to go 
>out and making money-that economic right has no more or less 
>constitutional protection than the right of a married couple to use or

>not use birth control in their bedroom. Is that what you are saying? 
>
>Judge BORK. . . .[A]ll I am saying is that the judge has no way to 
>prefer one to the other and the matter should be left to the 
>legislatures who will then decide which competing gratification, or 
>freedom, should be placed higher. 
>
>CHAIRMAN. Then I think I do understand it, that is, that the economic 
>gratification of a utility company is as worthy of as much protection 
>as the sexual gratification of a married couple, because neither is 
>mentioned in the Constitution. 
>
>Judge BORK. All that means is that the judge may not choose. 
>
>CHAIRMAN. Who does? 
>
>Judge BORK. The legislature.
>

-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Mon Nov 25 06:58:48 PST 1996
Article: 36420 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.axionet.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants,alt.discrimination,alt.feminism,alt.mens-rights,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.psychology,alt.psychology.personality,alt.renewing.american.civilization,alt.sci.sociology,alt.society.conservatism,alt.society.mental-health,sci.psychology.misc,soc.men,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,uk.legal,us.legal
Subject: Re: Females are This, That, and The Other Thing
Date: 19 Nov 1996 19:34:56 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <56t250$28q@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
References: <32919E76.11F3@fed_up.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca3-16.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue Nov 19  1:34:56 PM CST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.computer.consultants:19301 alt.discrimination:56559 alt.feminism:133024 alt.mens-rights:22697 alt.politics.correct:157510 alt.politics.economics:78232 alt.politics.nationalism.white:36420 alt.politics.white-power:49924 alt.psychology.personality:10022 alt.sci.sociology:2594 alt.society.conservatism:61753 alt.society.mental-health:1531 sci.psychology.misc:2314 soc.men:126367 talk.politics.libertarian:145637 talk.politics.misc:511415 talk.politics.theory:92813

In <32919E76.11F3@fed_up.org> FED UP  writes: 
>
>Females are This, That, and The Other Thing

 

>Females are much more sexually decadent than the male.

 That's my favorite part by far! Vive la decadence!                    
 
-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Mon Nov 25 06:58:49 PST 1996
Article: 36531 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.mag-net.com!aurora.cs.athabascau.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!info.ucla.edu!agate!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants,alt.discrimination,alt.feminism,alt.mens-rights,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.psychology,alt.psychology.personality,alt.renewing.american.civilization,alt.sci.sociology,alt.society.conservatism,alt.society.mental-health,sci.psychology.misc,soc.men,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,uk.legal,us.legal
Subject: Re: Females are This, That, and The Other Thing
Date: 21 Nov 1996 20:46:27 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <572f33$s7m@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>
References: <32943F04.6684@fed_up.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca7-20.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Thu Nov 21  2:46:27 PM CST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.computer.consultants:19311 alt.discrimination:56640 alt.feminism:133121 alt.mens-rights:22772 alt.politics.correct:157768 alt.politics.economics:78338 alt.politics.nationalism.white:36531 alt.politics.white-power:50018 alt.psychology.personality:10032 alt.sci.sociology:2600 alt.society.conservatism:61872 alt.society.mental-health:1540 sci.psychology.misc:2320 soc.men:126424 talk.politics.libertarian:145936 talk.politics.misc:511888 talk.politics.theory:92957

In <32943F04.6684@fed_up.org> FED UP  writes: 

>Females are wicked.
>
>Females are evil.

 "Evil, be Thou my Good." -Nietzsche
-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Mon Nov 25 06:58:49 PST 1996
Article: 36612 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!winternet.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news.mathworks.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!news.fido.net!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants,alt.discrimination,alt.feminism,alt.mens-rights,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.psychology,alt.psychology.personality,alt.renewing.american.civilization,alt.sci.sociology,alt.society.conservatism,alt.society.mental-health,sci.psychology.misc,soc.men,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,uk.legal,us.legal
Subject: Re: Females are This, That, and The Other Thing
Date: 23 Nov 1996 06:17:05 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <5764t1$c5c@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>
References: <3295D4E4.3F58@fed_up.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca4-20.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Fri Nov 22 10:17:05 PM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.computer.consultants:19321 alt.discrimination:56694 alt.feminism:133157 alt.mens-rights:22799 alt.politics.correct:157910 alt.politics.economics:78411 alt.politics.nationalism.white:36612 alt.politics.white-power:50088 alt.psychology.personality:10041 alt.sci.sociology:2607 alt.society.conservatism:61952 alt.society.mental-health:1548 sci.psychology.misc:2327 soc.men:126449 talk.politics.libertarian:146106 talk.politics.misc:512168 talk.politics.theory:93031

In <3295D4E4.3F58@fed_up.org> FED UP  writes: 

 

 Why don't you get to the point?: "Women's place isn't in the kitchen
-- it's in the oven." (Note: _I_ don't believe that myself, but _IF_ I
_WAS_ a misogynist like Mr. "FED UP" [rather than a feminist, as I am
instead], then _that's_ what I _WOULD_ say.)
-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Mon Nov 25 06:58:50 PST 1996
Article: 36709 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!hookup!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants,alt.discrimination,alt.feminism,alt.mens-rights,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.psychology,alt.psychology.personality,alt.renewing.american.civilization,alt.sci.sociology,alt.society.conservatism,alt.society.mental-health,sci.psychology.misc,soc.men,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,uk.legal,us.legal
Subject: Re: Females are This, That, and The Other Thing
Date: 23 Nov 1996 22:11:03 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <577spn$3ot@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
References: <3296F774.5622@fed_up.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca3-14.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sat Nov 23  4:11:03 PM CST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.computer.consultants:19327 alt.discrimination:56771 alt.feminism:133253 alt.mens-rights:22881 alt.politics.correct:158168 alt.politics.economics:78507 alt.politics.nationalism.white:36709 alt.politics.white-power:50164 alt.psychology.personality:10048 alt.sci.sociology:2613 alt.society.conservatism:62068 alt.society.mental-health:1555 sci.psychology.misc:2334 soc.men:126511 talk.politics.libertarian:146404 talk.politics.misc:512701 talk.politics.theory:93172

In <3296F774.5622@fed_up.org> FED UP  writes: 
>
>And more Postscript:

 

>Females are ruining the nation.
>
>Females are ruining the planet.
>
>Females are pushy yet they can't comprehend the concept of
>a backlash.

 You want a backlash, huh? I've pointed out in a very recent post the
logically necessary conclusion of your gynophobic ideas. Are you ready
for that?

-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Mon Nov 25 06:58:51 PST 1996
Article: 36760 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.mag-net.com!aurora.cs.athabascau.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!news.bc.net!info.ucla.edu!agate!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants,alt.discrimination,alt.feminism,alt.mens-rights,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.psychology,alt.psychology.personality,alt.renewing.american.civilization,alt.sci.sociology,alt.society.conservatism,alt.society.mental-health,sci.psychology.misc,soc.men,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,uk.legal,us.legal
Subject: Re: Females are This, That, and The Other Thing
Date: 23 Nov 1996 22:07:21 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <577sip$n36@sjx-ixn7.ix.netcom.com>
References: <3296F774.5622@fed_up.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca3-14.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sat Nov 23  2:07:21 PM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.computer.consultants:19331 alt.discrimination:56806 alt.feminism:133302 alt.mens-rights:22917 alt.politics.correct:158297 alt.politics.economics:78575 alt.politics.nationalism.white:36760 alt.politics.white-power:50219 alt.psychology.personality:10051 alt.sci.sociology:2617 alt.society.conservatism:62134 alt.society.mental-health:1558 sci.psychology.misc:2337 soc.men:126539 talk.politics.libertarian:146536 talk.politics.misc:512993 talk.politics.theory:93265

In <3296F774.5622@fed_up.org> FED UP  writes: 

 

>Females give alluring glances at meetings.

                              "at me" sounds better.

>Females give wicked glances at meetings.

                            "at me" sounds better.

 Evil, wicked, alluring, etc., females. Is there a cure for gynophilia?
(Hope not.) 

-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Mon Nov 25 07:03:40 PST 1996
Article: 49870 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!news.bctel.net!news.mag-net.com!aurora.cs.athabascau.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!news.bc.net!info.ucla.edu!nnrp.info.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!news.sgi.com!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,wash.politics,us.politics.bob-dole,us.politics.abortion,tx.politics,triangle.politics,talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.crypto,talk.politics,seattle.politics,scruz.politics,ri.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,nj.politics,ne.politics,mn.politics,dfw.politics,dc.politics,co.politics,ca.politics,ba.politics,az.politics,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.usa,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.media,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.immigration,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.greens,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.datahighway,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics,alt.politics.nationalism.texas,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice WOMEN: IT"S NOT YOUR BODY!!! and It's NOT YOUR DNA!!!
Date: 20 Nov 1996 07:02:36 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <56uaec$hi6@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com>
References: <3274F416.4F29@judithlitght.com> <327a6f36.80480613@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <327791a8.14459670@news.airmail.net> <55imd3$aj0@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com> <327e188f.248769426@news.mbay.net> <327E3536.37A3@dlcc.com> <327e7684.272825482@news.mbay.net> <3280C0AD.29DF@wcuvax1.wcu.edu> <3280D5EC.E41@ianet.net> <3282BA3A.5DC6@provide.net> <5606gn$7i@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>  <32840394.17A9@earthlink.net>  <568g9e$ruu@kirin.wwa.com> <328c8ebb.949433@news.novagate.com> <56fub0$8d6@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com> <328D3531.1BF7@provide.net> <56teru$3kt@madrid.visi.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca3-16.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue Nov 19 11:02:36 PM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.abortion:191854 talk.politics.theory:92710 talk.politics.misc:511141 talk.politics.libertarian:145435 talk.politics.guns:344514 talk.politics.crypto:15067 alt.politics.white-power:49870 alt.politics.usa.republican:331963 alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich:96704 alt.politics.usa.misc:127897 alt.politics.usa.constitution:102748 alt.politics.usa.congress:82245 alt.politics.reform:114915 alt.politics.radical-left:135836 alt.politics.perot:65461 alt.politics.media:18273 alt.politics.libertarian:234961 alt.politics.homosexuality:126282 alt.politics.greens:21260 alt.politics.elections:90277 alt.politics.democrats.d:151909 alt.politics.datahighway:20452 alt.politics.correct:157358 alt.politics.clinton:333882 alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater:57363

In <56teru$3kt@madrid.visi.net> "Rev. Donald Spitz" 
writes: 
>
>If you murder your unborn baby you are a murderess. How can a woman 
>murder her own unborn baby? How heartless can a woman be? 

 That's what I like to see! Keep it up! Keep posting this shit! har!
har!
 "Evil, be Thou my Good" -Nietzsche

-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Mon Nov 25 07:12:19 PST 1996
Article: 111879 of alt.conspiracy
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!winternet.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.feminism,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.society.conservatism,soc.women
Subject: Re: Nazi is short for National SOCIALIST (and don't you forget it)
Date: 19 Nov 1996 18:58:07 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <56svvv$9en@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>
References: <56dl6v$p43@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu> <56fnqt$gfv@news4.snfc21.pacbell.net>  <56oa8n$blh@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <56ocko$j9j@camel4.mindspring.com>  <01bbd5ca$511ebe60$646464b5@JRS486.wmt.com> <56rsup$6or@camel1.mindspring.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca3-16.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue Nov 19 12:58:07 PM CST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.activism:97534 alt.conspiracy:111879 alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater:57185 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:413953 alt.feminism:132936 alt.politics.radical-left:135662 alt.politics.usa.republican:331585 alt.society.conservatism:61561 soc.women:126268

In <56rsup$6or@camel1.mindspring.com> wjb3@mindspring.com (Billy Beck)
writes: 
>
>
>"JR Shiflett"  wrote:
>
>>Here are some helpful clues:
>
>>Our Founding Fathers discussed the political spectrum as reaching
from
>>centralized "Ruler's Law" on the left, to balanced "People's Law" in
the center, to
>>anarchistic "Lawlessness" on the right.
>
>	*Cite*, please.

 That's a very interesting spectrum, but actually, historically, the
terms "Left" and "Right" first came into use during the French
Revolution, rather than our own, and I very seriously doubt that anyone
at that time, anywhere, would have thought of placing monarchy
("Ruler's Law") on the "Left" or anarchy ("Lawlessness") on the
"Right". Quite the reverse, I would think.

>Billy
>
>"Anthology"
>http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/essays.html
>

-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Mon Nov 25 07:12:20 PST 1996
Article: 113201 of alt.conspiracy
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.win.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.games.duke3d,alt.journalism,alt.sex,news.groups,alt.sex.masturbation,alt.censorship,alt.drugs.pot,alt.drugs,alt.hemp,alt.sex.anal,alt.sex.breast,alt.sex.erotica,alt.sex.first-time,alt.sex.gangbang,alt.sex.girls,alt.sex.movies,alt.sex.oral,alt.sex.wanted,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex.magazines,alt.sex.marketplace,alt.sex.necrophilia,alt.sex.orgy,alt.beer,talk.philosophy.humanism,talk.rape,talk.abortion,alt.party,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.skinheads,uk.politics,alt.sex.services,alt.games.apogee,alt.2600,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.activism,alt.aol-sucks,alt.business,alt.censorship,alt.christnet,alt.conspiracy,alt.cult-movies,alt.dear.whitehouse,alt.feminism,alt.forsale,alt.misc,alt.personals,alt.president.clinton,alt.punk,alt.showbiz.gossip,talk.abortion,talk.origins
Subject: Re: HOMO's There may be a CURE for you Gays!!!!!!
Date: 24 Nov 1996 03:47:00 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <578gfk$cpd@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
References: <53p6s2$38k_002@asd123.enter.net> <53pbff$pq1@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com> <53qdkr$cd9@news.e-tex.com> <326528ba.144124376@news.netonecom.net> <53ttlj$pnb@news.mcn.net> <323BE2B3.1966@ping.be> <326516E9.C31@mail.usask.ca> <3265ACAD.D47@tiger.lsu.edu> <32665A2B.307B@ix.netcom.com> <32668F62.1CEB@ix.netcom.com>  <32673DE3.68CC@ix.netcom.com> <547q1i$f8m@gcsin3.geccs.gecm.com> <3267A152.3809@ix.netcom.com> <3267B537.2803@ix.netcom.com> <549c39$htv@news1-alterdial.uu.net>  <54b0js$9i4@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com> <328760b0.0@news.turk.net> <56dqac$71j@news.dx.net> <56f6f8$r4a@news.mel.aone.net.au> <328C0F7A.10DB@paradise.net> <3296535E.28C5@gte.net> <57897h$b1i@madrid.visi.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca7-52.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sat Nov 23  9:47:00 PM CST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.journalism:62541 alt.sex:191071 news.groups:167366 alt.sex.masturbation:44995 alt.censorship:110084 alt.drugs.pot:32535 alt.drugs:119885 alt.hemp:26179 alt.sex.anal:14639 alt.sex.breast:23156 alt.sex.first-time:4527 alt.sex.movies:65106 alt.sex.wanted:48367 talk.politics.misc:512778 alt.sex.magazines:6787 alt.sex.necrophilia:2307 alt.beer:27846 talk.philosophy.humanism:8980 talk.rape:20262 talk.abortion:192104 alt.party:4634 alt.politics.homosexuality:126890 alt.skinheads:43572 alt.sex.services:23606 alt.games.apogee:4748 alt.2600:112533 alt.abortion.inequity:60645 alt.activism:98745 alt.aol-sucks:35286 alt.business:12626 alt.christnet:128125 alt.conspiracy:113201 alt.cult-movies:81122 alt.dear.whitehouse:33828 alt.feminism:133270 alt.forsale:5887 alt.personals:121525 alt.president.clinton:111680 alt.punk:43969 alt.showbiz.gossip:33767 talk.origins:165540

In <57897h$b1i@madrid.visi.net> "Rev. Donald Spitz" 
writes: 
>
>  Only Jesus Christ can cure a homo. If a homo dies without turning
>from  
>his wicked filthy sins he will spend eternity in conscious torment in 
>God's Lake of Fire. 
>  Everyone who continues in sin and rejects the clear teaching of the 
>Holy Scripture will spend eternity in eternal consious torment in the 
>Lake of Fire. Turn from your sins and beg Jesus to forgive you, turn
to 
>Jesus Christ to be saved.

 Keep it up, Spitz. Keep posting this shit. har! har!

-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Mon Nov 25 08:07:19 PST 1996
Article: 512269 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,wash.politics,us.politics.bob-dole,us.politics.abortion,tx.politics,triangle.politics,talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,ta
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice and proud of it
Date: 23 Nov 1996 10:03:47 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <576i63$98c@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>
References: <55vpin$mdg@newsgate.sps.mot.com> <56sviq$i0g@clark.zippo.com> <570ado$vos@ultra.sonic.net> <5725nb$85v@clark.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca7-14.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sat Nov 23  2:03:47 AM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.abortion:192019 talk.politics.theory:93051 talk.politics.misc:512269

In  ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes: 
>
>Ron Chandonia  wrote:
>
>>Do we value human life as little as our abortion laws (or the absence
>>of meaningful regulation) suggests?
>
>We value people and human rights more than we value human life.
>That has been true of this country since its inception.  It
>is written into the Constitution and the Declaration of Independance.
>
>You may wish to live in a fascist state where liberty and freedom are
>disposed of in favor of preserving life at all costs, but and most
>people consider liberty to be of prime importance.
>
>-- 
>Ray Fischer
>ray@netcom.com

 I absolutely agree. "Better to die on your feet than to live on your
knees." "Give me liberty or give me death." Etc...
-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Mon Nov 25 08:07:21 PST 1996
Article: 512329 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.current-Events..usa,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: The Fears of Robert Bork (Was: Supreme Court)
Date: 23 Nov 1996 08:22:39 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <576c8f$gvi@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>
References: <32915790.450C@earthlink.net> <32937F80.4F81@cwo.com> <3295482E.48ED@earthlink.net> <01bbd8aa$c46f77a0$b04392cf@sid>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca7-14.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sat Nov 23 12:22:39 AM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.politics.misc:512329 talk.abortion:192025 alt.politics.usa.republican:333110 alt.politics.usa.constitution:103132

In <01bbd8aa$c46f77a0$b04392cf@sid> "Sid" 
writes: 
>
>
>
>Aren't we lucky that a bitter man like Bork did not get on the court!
>-- 
>Sid9
>

 Yup. We've still got a Bill of Rights.
-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Mon Nov 25 08:07:22 PST 1996
Article: 512439 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!news.bctel.net!news.mag-net.com!freenet.unbc.edu!news.scn.org!news.abs.net!in1.nntp.cais.net!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.msfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion,dc.politics,nc.general,talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion,talk.religion.misc,triangle.general,triangle.politics,us.politics.abortion
Subject: Re: Religion and Law (Was: Pro-Choice and proud of it)
Date: 23 Nov 1996 10:16:01 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 8
Message-ID: <576it1$nq1@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>
References: <01bbd87f$494c3d40$018f4ba8@neill> <574g87$49o@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com> <574kju$sn2@nrtphc11.bnr.ca> <57560k$a8k4@bingnews.binghamton.edu> <575hhd$asp@taco.cc.ncsu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca7-14.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sat Nov 23  2:16:01 AM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.abortion:3144 talk.abortion:192040 talk.politics.misc:512439 talk.religion:1489 talk.religion.misc:162583

 Anybody who doesn't know the difference between the Bible and the
Constitution is suffering from severe cranio-rectal impaction.
-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Mon Nov 25 08:07:23 PST 1996
Article: 512631 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!news.bctel.net!news.mag-net.com!freenet.unbc.edu!news.scn.org!news.u.washington.edu!uw-beaver!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: seattle.general,or.politics,talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: if abortion is murder, it's murder
Date: 23 Nov 1996 20:06:11 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <577lfj$huj@sjx-ixn7.ix.netcom.com>
References: <56b03h$pgh@news.jf.intel.com>   <328BF162.32CF@express-news.net> <328CF59A.578A@ctc.edu> <328E9037.26A9@express-news.net> <328EC1C0.196B@mmmm.donuts> <328F54F3.4713@express-news.net> <56nvef$ed0@eve.speakeasy.org> <328FCB00.210@express-news.net> <3291D58F.49A0@exesolutions.com> <329344E2.56D8@express-news.net> <56vnms$ft3@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net> <3296B69F.7A2D@prodigy.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca3-14.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sat Nov 23 12:06:11 PM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca seattle.general:6951 talk.abortion:192077 talk.politics.misc:512631

In <3296B69F.7A2D@prodigy.net> TINGSTER  writes: 

>I think everyone is missing the point here, what happened to morals? 
>I'm from Generation X and if you're willing to do the crime (have sex)
                           ^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^^^  ^^^^ ^^^
>you have to be willing to do the time (be responsible).
 ^^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^^  be pregnant

 This says it all about the real agenda of many pro-lifers: sex is a
crime and pregnancy is its punishment. 
-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Mon Nov 25 08:07:24 PST 1996
Article: 512735 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!hookup!swrinde!news-relay.us.dell.com!natinst.com!cs.utexas.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.current-Events..usa,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: The Fears of Robert Bork (Was: Supreme Court)
Date: 24 Nov 1996 05:39:44 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <578n30$h25@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>
References: <32915790.450C@earthlink.net> <32937F80.4F81@cwo.com> <3295482E.48ED@earthlink.net> <01bbd8aa$c46f77a0$b04392cf@sid> <576c8f$gvi@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com> <3297BA51.1A02@express-news.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca7-57.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sat Nov 23  9:39:44 PM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.politics.misc:512735 talk.abortion:192096 alt.politics.usa.republican:333483 alt.politics.usa.constitution:103275

In <3297BA51.1A02@express-news.net> Papa Jack
 writes: 
>
>Steven Malcolm Anderson wrote:
>> 
>
>> In <01bbd8aa$c46f77a0$b04392cf@sid> 
>    "Sid"  writes:
>> >Aren't we lucky that a bitter man like Bork did not get on the
court!
>
>          ==========================================================
>>  Steven Malcolm Anderson wrote:
>>  Yup. We've still got a Bill of Rights.

 Barely.

>          ==========================================================
>Papa Jack laughs:
>Well we do except for the 10th which was thrown out by the Supreme
>Court in Mulford v. Smith (1939) and U.S. v. Darby (1941).
>
>And, then, in Carolene Products Co v. U.S. (1944) the court created
>the presumption of constitutionality that upholds government action
>unless it violates an identifiable fundamental right.  Which fuzzed
>up the previous interpretations of the Ninth Amendment.  

 Your pal Bork doesn't seem to care too much for that pesky 9th. It
limits government too much for his tastes. And emphasizes the
individual as primary.

>But, we still have the First Amendment -- unless you are religious.

 Or like sex.

>The Second Amendment hangs by a string as liberals chip away at 
>the American's constitutional right to own and bear arms.

 Has Bork done much to oppose gun control?

>We still have the others, er, I think, but it's difficult to 
>tell with some of the modern "interpretations" by the courts. 
>You know, we have all these "penumbras" with their "emanations."

 Yeah, that dirty right to privacy.

>Have a nice day.
>-- 
>{               Papa Jack
>{
>{               http://www.express-news.net/papajack
>
>	"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all
>	 men are created equal; that they are endowed by
>	 their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that
>	 among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
>	 happiness."          --Thomas Jefferson

-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Mon Nov 25 08:07:25 PST 1996
Article: 512783 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: seattle.general,or.politics,talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: if abortion is murder, it's murder
Date: 24 Nov 1996 02:01:21 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <578a9h$8pd@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>
References: <56b03h$pgh@news.jf.intel.com>   <328BF162.32CF@express-news.net> <328CF59A.578A@ctc.edu> <328E9037.26A9@express-news.net> <328EC1C0.196B@mmmm.donuts> <328F54F3.4713@express-news.net> <56nvef$ed0@eve.speakeasy.org> <328FCB00.210@express-news.net> <3291D58F.49A0@exesolutions.com> <329344E2.56D8@express-news.net> <56vnms$ft3@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net> <3296B69F.7A2D@prodigy.net> <32973E80.6ABA@7.eleven>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca7-52.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sat Nov 23  6:01:21 PM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca seattle.general:6953 talk.abortion:192107 talk.politics.misc:512783

In <32973E80.6ABA@7.eleven> occifer@7.eleven writes: 
>
>TINGSTER wrote:
>> 
>> I think everyone is missing the point here, what happened to morals?
>> I'm from Generation X and if you're willing to do the crime (have
sex)
>
>sex is a 'crime'?!?

 Well, is it?
-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Mon Nov 25 08:07:26 PST 1996
Article: 512784 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.mag-net.com!freenet.unbc.edu!news.scn.org!news.abs.net!aplcen.apl.jhu.edu!cpk-news-feed3.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion,dc.politics,nc.general,talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion,talk.religion.misc,triangle.general,triangle.politics,us.politics.abortion
Subject: Re: Religion and Law (Was: Pro-Choice and proud of it)
Date: 23 Nov 1996 20:57:00 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 85
Message-ID: <577oes$9c0@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>
References: <01bbd87f$494c3d40$018f4ba8@neill> <574g87$49o@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com> <574kju$sn2@nrtphc11.bnr.ca> <57560k$a8k4@bingnews.binghamton.edu> <575hhd$asp@taco.cc.ncsu.edu> <576it1$nq1@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com> <5777fd$26d@camel0.mindspring.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca3-14.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sat Nov 23 12:57:00 PM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.abortion:3161 talk.abortion:192108 talk.politics.misc:512784 talk.religion:1506 talk.religion.misc:162732

In <5777fd$26d@camel0.mindspring.com> scoundrl@mindspring.com (Tom
Gauldin) writes: 
>
>sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson) wrote:
>> Anybody who doesn't know the difference between the Bible and the
>>Constitution is suffering from severe cranio-rectal impaction.
>
>Yes, there is a difference, but there is also a common thread AND a
lot of
>similarities as well.
>
>Since I'm an atheist, I fail to see how the two differ in their
impact.  The
>Constitution was drawn as a statement for the relationship of people
within
>our nation, but the basic  tenets were drawn from the bible.  So what?
 The
>bible and the most basic tenets of the major religions are simply
practical
>guidelines for the relationships of people.  The folks who drafted the
>Constitution were Christians and that found its way into their
thoughts and
>writings.
>
>Consider JUST the main commandments, for a moment.
>
>Would you like to live in a society where people could be killed at
will by
>anyone?  How long would a society like that last?  Would it flourish? 
Even
>the bloodthirsty central/south American Indian societies only killed
ritually,
>I suspect.  

 Which proves that laws/rules/taboos against murder, theft, rape, etc.,
long predated and were in no sense derived from the Bible. See, e.g.,
the Egyptian "Negative Confession".

>Honoring a father and mother- well, if the kids behave, the parents
are more
>likely to have MORE kids. . . and will probably keep them at home
longer.  

 The Chinese honored their parents and ancestors long before they ever
heard of the Bible.

>Heck- even the bit of having just ONE god- and not a bunch.  That cuts
down on
>the competition.  As that religion and society grows, it becomes the
>intolerant (one God, remember?) and dominant society, thus enforcing
the other
>9 commandments.

 Actually, there are about 600 commandments in the Old Testament.
You've just proved my point. The First Amendment, as opposed to the
First Commandment, protects our right to worship any God or Gods we
choose.

>If you cut the mumbo-jumbo of a mythical "god" out of the old
testament, you
>have a darn good underpining for society.

 I myself am a polytheist, but I will defend to the death your right to
be an atheist, agnostic, monotheist, polytheist, or whatever you want
to be. Freedom of religion. Our Constitutional government was
established to protect our rights to life, liberty, and property --
_not_ to punish adulterers, homosexuals, witches, Sabbath-breakers,
etc.. My statement still stands: The Constitution and the Bible have
nothing to do with each other.

>Tom
>Tom Gauldin          Here's to the land of the longleaf pine,
>Raleigh NC           The Summerland,where the sun doth shine.
>fax 919-676-1404     Where the weak grow strong,and the strong grow
great,
>                     Here's to Downhome,the Old North State.
>
>

-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Mon Nov 25 08:07:27 PST 1996
Article: 512950 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.mag-net.com!freenet.unbc.edu!news.scn.org!news.u.washington.edu!news.uoregon.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!hunter.premier.net!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: seattle.general,or.politics,talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: if abortion is murder, it's murder
Date: 24 Nov 1996 06:56:29 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <578rit$df9@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>
References: <3293D9BA.4C91@express-news.net> <329625C2.720B@express-news.net> <577giq$24p@nntp1.u.washington.edu> <3297C9FA.4D57@express-news.net> <578lrm$dph@nntp1.u.washington.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca7-57.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun Nov 24 12:56:29 AM CST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca seattle.general:6958 talk.abortion:192138 talk.politics.misc:512950

In <578lrm$dph@nntp1.u.washington.edu> duniway@u.washington.edu (Robert
Duniway) writes: 
>
>In article <3297C9FA.4D57@express-news.net>,
>Papa Jack   wrote:

 

>[snip]
>>Which side are you on, Robert?
>
>Why hoping for the Godless communist revolution to resume its
inevitable
>course toward world communism, of course.  Why would you bother asking
>such a silly question.

 Then you should be pro-life. When you deny choice, you approach
communism.
-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Mon Nov 25 08:07:28 PST 1996
Article: 513183 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!van.istar!west.istar!n1van.istar!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.msfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.current-Events..usa,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: The Fears of Robert Bork (Was: Supreme Court)
Date: 24 Nov 1996 23:34:54 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <57am2u$sos@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>
References: <32915790.450C@earthlink.net> <32937F80.4F81@cwo.com> <3295482E.48ED@earthlink.net> <01bbd8aa$c46f77a0$b04392cf@sid> <576c8f$gvi@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com> <3297BA51.1A02@express-news.net> <578n30$h25@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> <579trn$o4d@newshost.cyberramp.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca4-08.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun Nov 24  5:34:54 PM CST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.politics.misc:513183 talk.abortion:192184 alt.politics.usa.republican:333953 alt.politics.usa.constitution:103415

In <579trn$o4d@newshost.cyberramp.net> holman@cyberramp.net (Mitchell
Holman) writes: 
>
>In article <578n30$h25@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>,
sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson) wrote:
>
>}
>}>The Second Amendment hangs by a string as liberals chip away at 
>}>the American's constitutional right to own and bear arms.
>}
>} Has Bork done much to oppose gun control?
>}
>      
>     Hardly. He supported both the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons
>  Bill.

 That's what I would expect from a boot-licking government lackey like
him.

 He was on Larry King with Warran Burger a few years ago and
>  it was interesting to watch both of them take issue with the NRA and
>  their convoluted reading of the Second Amendment.

 It's obvious that the NRA is doing a good job defending our gun rights
since the gun control lobby hates it so much.

 If Bork sees no
>  problem with government banning birth control, it is predictable
that
>  he would have no problem with government banning guns.

 Absolutely true. To stay free, we must consistently defend _all_ our
freedoms. We must defend guns _and_ privacy _and_ free speech (incl.
porn) _and_ free religions, etc., without compromise.
-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Mon Nov 25 08:07:28 PST 1996
Article: 513349 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.mag-net.com!freenet.unbc.edu!news.scn.org!news.abs.net!aplcen.apl.jhu.edu!night.primate.wisc.edu!news.he.net!uwm.edu!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,rec.org.mensa,alt.religion.christian,alt.christnet
Subject: Re: "Pro LIfers" declare intention to commit murder
Date: 25 Nov 1996 02:00:22 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <57aujm$3ut@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>
References: <3292DB86.7D1D@ix.netcom.com> <19961122.140038.994877.NETNEWS@WVNVM.WVNET.EDU> <579eig$cgj@lothar.scs.unr.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca4-08.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun Nov 24  6:00:22 PM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.religion.misc:163022 talk.politics.misc:513349 talk.abortion:192209 rec.org.mensa:82530 alt.religion.christian:152313 alt.christnet:128470

In <579eig$cgj@lothar.scs.unr.edu> bob@pogonip.scs.unr.edu (Bob Haynes)
writes: 

>Door-to-door bible-thumpers who wake a person up on Saturday morning
>should be executed, their bodies ground up and used as bonding 
                                                        ^^^^^^^
material in
>asphalt.   8^)

 Great! I love bondage!

> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
>| Bob Haynes - WGLA - University & Community College System of Nev.|
>| Computing Services - Tech Consultant - My bosses have heard my   |
>| opinions on a regular basis.  I can safely state, based on their |
>| usual reaction, that I speak only for myself and not my employer.|
>|         Pro-choice                   Anti-guncontrol             |
           I agree!                     I agree with that too!

>|    Very militant atheist operating under the BAAWA banner.       |
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

      I'm a polytheist myself, but I will defend to the death your
right to be an atheist.

-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Tue Nov 26 09:37:44 PST 1996
Article: 513700 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!laslo.netnet.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-5.sprintlink.net!voskovec.radio.cz!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!feed1.news.erols.com!news.idt.net!enews.sgi.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,wash.politics,us.politics.bob-dole,us.politics.abortion,tx.politics,triangle.politics,talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,ta
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice and proud of it
Date: 25 Nov 1996 22:22:21 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <57d66t$icv@sjx-ixn7.ix.netcom.com>
References: <55vpin$mdg@newsgate.sps.mot.com> <5600lk$t7v@cronkite.ocis.temple.edu> <3287C48C.794B@wse.com> <568lsr$1n7c@sol.caps.maine.edu> <328B7550.31DF@wse.com> <56ghc9$vbu@sol.caps.maine.edu> <56hb44$2hd@clark.zippo.com> <56jeob$bhe@nntp1.best.com> <56l3eu$iab@clark.zippo.com> <56miki$5uh@nntp1.best.com> <56nq23$61v@clark.zippo.com> <56rejf$s4k@nntp1.best.com> <56sviq$i0g@clark.zippo.com> <570ado$vos@ultra.sonic.net> <5725nb$85v@clark.zippo.com> <575ql8$ptq@ultra.sonic.net> <57a9og$jed@clark.zippo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca7-19.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon Nov 25  2:22:21 PM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.abortion:192255 talk.politics.theory:93505 talk.politics.misc:513700

In <57a9og$jed@clark.zippo.com> madprof@mindspring.com (Ron Chandonia)
writes: 
>
>minxs@sonic.net (M. Grey de Shirland) wrote:
>
>>Those who want to reduce
>>abortion are going to have to go back to the drawing board too.
>>Threats, instructions about duty and morals, lectures about the
>>sanctity of life, just won't work.  
>
>Serious question:  What do you personally think would work?
>
>- Ron Chandonia

 The best way to reduce (not eliminate -- go to another planet for
that) the need for abortion is through far more consistent use of
contraceptives. For those of us who don't want _any_ kids, vasectomies
are quite useful. Abolish all this crap that we have some sort of duty
to breed, breed, breed "for the good of society", whether we like it or
not. If we don't want kids, we have a right not to have any. If you
want them, fine. Freedom of choice.

-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Tue Nov 26 09:37:45 PST 1996
Article: 514006 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.mag-net.com!aurora.cs.athabascau.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!news.bc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.current-events..usa,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: The Fears of Robert Bork
Date: 26 Nov 1996 00:51:22 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <57deua$kv2@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>
References: <32972217.7D59@express-news.net> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca7-19.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon Nov 25  4:51:22 PM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.politics.misc:514006 talk.abortion:192319 alt.politics.usa.republican:334772 alt.politics.usa.constitution:103663

In  qlhong@kub.nl writes: 

 

>So, when the majority of Americans declined to support Bork,
>it was not merely because they were ignorant about his views,
>but - possibly - because they did not share his view on radical 
>majority rule.

 Ironic, is it not? The majority opposed radical majority rule. (So we
still have a Bill of Rights -- barely.)

>                                       \ | /     
>                                       (o o)     
>+----------------------------------o00--(_)--00o-------------+
>|Q.L. Hong                           |There is a lot of dirty|
>|Department of Jurisprudence         |work to be done here.  |
>|Tilburg University, The Netherlands | - Richard Nixon -     |
>+------------------------------------+-----------------------+

-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Thu Nov 28 09:47:16 PST 1996
Article: 514443 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.mag-net.com!freenet.unbc.edu!news.scn.org!news.abs.net!aplcen.apl.jhu.edu!night.primate.wisc.edu!news.he.net!news.nacamar.de!uunet!in3.uu.net!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc-e!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: dc.politics,talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,talk.religion,talk.religion.misc,triangle.politics,tx.politics,us.politics.abortion,us.politics.bob-dole,wash.politics
Subject: Re: Who is God?
Date: 27 Nov 1996 05:38:19 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <57gk4b$j8s@sjx-ixn7.ix.netcom.com>
References: <01bbd7c0$d97c1120$028f4ba8@neill> <578nqk$1j9@triglav.iwaynet.net> <32986809.401A@pacbell.net> <329A7602.3708@pcisys.net> <329A9E55.7EC4@ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca7-54.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue Nov 26  9:38:19 PM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.abortion:192396 talk.politics.misc:514443 talk.politics.theory:93699 talk.religion:1560 talk.religion.misc:163512

In <329A9E55.7EC4@ix.netcom.com> LaraL@ix.netcom.com writes: 
>
>Edward J.Gordon wrote:
>
>> 
>> God is the creator of the universe, the one who saves men from
>> non-existence, the father of spirits and the one who is with you
when you
>> are alone.
>
>You forgot the mother.  How can you have a father without a mother?

 I agree with that. As Steve McNallen once put it: "A religion without
a Goddess is half-way to atheism."
 However, if anyone wants to worship only a male God, that, too, is
their right -- as long as they don't try to impose it on me.

>L.Lasner
>
>"You told him about the Statue?" Star Trek "First Contact"

-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Thu Nov 28 09:47:17 PST 1996
Article: 514495 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Ray's confusion about the second amen
Date: 27 Nov 1996 08:39:13 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 160
Message-ID: <57gunh$2dt@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>
References: <329A67DC.5825@express-news.net> <57fhio$qe0@rap.SanDiegoCA.NCR.COM>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca7-54.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Wed Nov 27 12:39:13 AM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.politics.misc:514495 talk.abortion:192402 talk.politics.guns:346880

In <57fhio$qe0@rap.SanDiegoCA.NCR.COM> be1@ElSegundoCA.NCR.COM (Bruce
Erickson) writes: 

 Another good pro-2nd Amendment post:

>In article 5825@express-news.net, Papa Jack
 () writes:
>>Keith          
======================================================= 
>>> 
>>> Note followups
>>> 
>>> In article <3299CA15.14DC@express-news.net>,
>>> Papa Jack   wrote:
>>> >Ray Fischer wrote:
>>
>>          ======================================================= 
>>> >> > Steven Malcolm Anderson  wrote:
>>> >> > The NRA is, I think, doing a good job defending the 2nd
>>> >> > Amendment.  NOW's position on the 1st wrt porn is not good.
>>
>>          =======================================================  
>>> >> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>> >> It's almost like the NRA defending teflon-coated bullets and
>>> >> fully automatic "assault" weapons so that they can keep hunting
>>> >> deer.
>>
>>          ======================================================= 
>>> Keith E. Jackson wrote:  
>>> Psst, Ray!  Perhaps you would like to explain to the audience the
>>> significance of a "teflon-coated" bullet?  Feel free to cite any
>>> *OBJECTIVE* reports on what they can and cannot do.  (This should
>>> be interesting.)
>> 
>>> Next, define "assault weapon" and explain why your definition,
>>> unlike the legal definition, includes automatic weapons.  Free clue
:
>>> the "assault weapons" in the recent ban were not fully automatic at
>>> all, but rather semi-automatic weapons which "looked scary".
>> 
>>> Now, I disagree with the NRA's tactics on some items, but certainly
>>> not on these issues.
>> 
>>> Furthermore, the second amendement has *NOTHING* whatsoever
>>> to do with hunting.
>>
>>          =======================================================  
>>> >Papa Jack laughed:
>>> >Now you two cut that out.  You're supposed to always write dumb
>>> >stuff I disagree with.  But, when you two disagree, that means I
>>> >must agree with one of you -- and that hurts my feelings. ;>)
>> 
>>> >I hate to say it, but Ray is right -- the NRA has done great
>>> >damage to themselves with their radical stand on automatic
>>> >weapons.
>>
>>          ======================================================= 
>>> Keith E. Jackson wrote:   
>>> Why is it a "radical stand" to stick up for the second amendment?
>>
>>> Can you tell us of any example of a legal owner of an automatic
>>> weapon using it to commit a crime?  Can you tell us how often
>>> automatic weapons are used to commit crimes?
>> 
>>> Is there a rational basis for this fear of guns which fire fast?
>>
>
>One more: What is the "radical" position of the NRA wrt automatic
firearms?
>
>BTW: NONE of the firearms named in the '94 Crime Bill are automatic!
>
>>          =======================================================  
>>Papa Jack replied:
>>Now where did I say it was a "radical stand" to stick up for the 
>>Second Amendment?  I stick up for the Second Amendment.  
>>
>>However, I do think the government can and should place some 
>>outside limits on the types of weapons which private citizens 
>>may own.  The most obvious example is atomic/nuclear weapons.
>>I would also get a bit nervous if my neighbor had a tank or
>>certain types of artillery.
>>
>>I know the Second Amendment didn't make allowances for such 
>>limitations, but my common sense also tells me that the 
>>Founding Fathers didn't envision A-bombs either when they
>>wrote it.  Instead, they envisioned the sort of militia that
>>had just won the Revolution -- thousands of individuals grab-
>>bing their own single shot rifles off the mantelpiece and 
>>answering the call of patriotism.
>
>You mean private citizens owned the same state of the art weapons
>issued to the army?  Shocking...
>
>>
>>You made a very good point to Ray.  Some assault weapons were 
>>included in the law because the looked scary.  When you look
>>at the firing capacity of some of those weapons it is obvious
>>they didn't belong on the list.  It is also obvious that many
>>legislators voted in ignorance.
>>
>>No, I cannot tell you an example of a LEGAL owner of an automatic
>>weapon using it to commit a crime?   That's because I don't know
>>whether those gang members who do the drive by shootings with
>>Uzis are the "legal owners" of the weapons.  Also, I don't know if
>>the drug runners who carry automatic weapons are the "legal" owners
>>of those weapons.  I do know, however, that when police with
>>semi-automatic weapons go up against such folks, the police are at
>>a disadvantage.  
>>
>>My main complain against the NRA is that they come across as radicals

>>at a time when they needed to be building respectability.  This
causes 
>
>You do understand the opponents of the NRA want a complete ban on
firearms
>and are painting the NRA as radicals, don't you?
>
>Check-out the "Association of Bay Area Governments" and their comments
on
>Handgun Control Inc. (the web page was named in a different thread on
tpg).
>
>>them to lose political clout when we need them to be acting a a
primary 
>>spokesman for those of us who believe in the Second Amendment.  If 
>>we're not careful, one of these days the radical left will be sending

>>jackbooted thugs into our homes to confiscate ALL guns of any sort.  
>
>Are you saying the people who legally own semi-automatic AR-15 should
>be willing to sacrafice their property to the government so hunters
>will be spared the indignity of having their sniper-rifles taken?
>
>>And, the Supreme Court will be helping them justify their actions by
>>some sort of "emanations of penumbras."
>>
>>Have a nice Thanksgiving.
>>-- 
>>{               Papa Jack
>>{
>>{               http://www.express-news.net/papajack
>>
>>	"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all
>>	 men are created equal; that they are endowed by
>>	 their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that
>>	 among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
>>	 happiness."          --Thomas Jefferson
>
>
>
>

-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Thu Nov 28 09:54:42 PST 1996
Article: 346880 of talk.politics.guns
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Ray's confusion about the second amen
Date: 27 Nov 1996 08:39:13 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 160
Message-ID: <57gunh$2dt@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>
References: <329A67DC.5825@express-news.net> <57fhio$qe0@rap.SanDiegoCA.NCR.COM>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca7-54.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Wed Nov 27 12:39:13 AM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.politics.misc:514495 talk.abortion:192402 talk.politics.guns:346880

In <57fhio$qe0@rap.SanDiegoCA.NCR.COM> be1@ElSegundoCA.NCR.COM (Bruce
Erickson) writes: 

 Another good pro-2nd Amendment post:

>In article 5825@express-news.net, Papa Jack
 () writes:
>>Keith          
======================================================= 
>>> 
>>> Note followups
>>> 
>>> In article <3299CA15.14DC@express-news.net>,
>>> Papa Jack   wrote:
>>> >Ray Fischer wrote:
>>
>>          ======================================================= 
>>> >> > Steven Malcolm Anderson  wrote:
>>> >> > The NRA is, I think, doing a good job defending the 2nd
>>> >> > Amendment.  NOW's position on the 1st wrt porn is not good.
>>
>>          =======================================================  
>>> >> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>> >> It's almost like the NRA defending teflon-coated bullets and
>>> >> fully automatic "assault" weapons so that they can keep hunting
>>> >> deer.
>>
>>          ======================================================= 
>>> Keith E. Jackson wrote:  
>>> Psst, Ray!  Perhaps you would like to explain to the audience the
>>> significance of a "teflon-coated" bullet?  Feel free to cite any
>>> *OBJECTIVE* reports on what they can and cannot do.  (This should
>>> be interesting.)
>> 
>>> Next, define "assault weapon" and explain why your definition,
>>> unlike the legal definition, includes automatic weapons.  Free clue
:
>>> the "assault weapons" in the recent ban were not fully automatic at
>>> all, but rather semi-automatic weapons which "looked scary".
>> 
>>> Now, I disagree with the NRA's tactics on some items, but certainly
>>> not on these issues.
>> 
>>> Furthermore, the second amendement has *NOTHING* whatsoever
>>> to do with hunting.
>>
>>          =======================================================  
>>> >Papa Jack laughed:
>>> >Now you two cut that out.  You're supposed to always write dumb
>>> >stuff I disagree with.  But, when you two disagree, that means I
>>> >must agree with one of you -- and that hurts my feelings. ;>)
>> 
>>> >I hate to say it, but Ray is right -- the NRA has done great
>>> >damage to themselves with their radical stand on automatic
>>> >weapons.
>>
>>          ======================================================= 
>>> Keith E. Jackson wrote:   
>>> Why is it a "radical stand" to stick up for the second amendment?
>>
>>> Can you tell us of any example of a legal owner of an automatic
>>> weapon using it to commit a crime?  Can you tell us how often
>>> automatic weapons are used to commit crimes?
>> 
>>> Is there a rational basis for this fear of guns which fire fast?
>>
>
>One more: What is the "radical" position of the NRA wrt automatic
firearms?
>
>BTW: NONE of the firearms named in the '94 Crime Bill are automatic!
>
>>          =======================================================  
>>Papa Jack replied:
>>Now where did I say it was a "radical stand" to stick up for the 
>>Second Amendment?  I stick up for the Second Amendment.  
>>
>>However, I do think the government can and should place some 
>>outside limits on the types of weapons which private citizens 
>>may own.  The most obvious example is atomic/nuclear weapons.
>>I would also get a bit nervous if my neighbor had a tank or
>>certain types of artillery.
>>
>>I know the Second Amendment didn't make allowances for such 
>>limitations, but my common sense also tells me that the 
>>Founding Fathers didn't envision A-bombs either when they
>>wrote it.  Instead, they envisioned the sort of militia that
>>had just won the Revolution -- thousands of individuals grab-
>>bing their own single shot rifles off the mantelpiece and 
>>answering the call of patriotism.
>
>You mean private citizens owned the same state of the art weapons
>issued to the army?  Shocking...
>
>>
>>You made a very good point to Ray.  Some assault weapons were 
>>included in the law because the looked scary.  When you look
>>at the firing capacity of some of those weapons it is obvious
>>they didn't belong on the list.  It is also obvious that many
>>legislators voted in ignorance.
>>
>>No, I cannot tell you an example of a LEGAL owner of an automatic
>>weapon using it to commit a crime?   That's because I don't know
>>whether those gang members who do the drive by shootings with
>>Uzis are the "legal owners" of the weapons.  Also, I don't know if
>>the drug runners who carry automatic weapons are the "legal" owners
>>of those weapons.  I do know, however, that when police with
>>semi-automatic weapons go up against such folks, the police are at
>>a disadvantage.  
>>
>>My main complain against the NRA is that they come across as radicals

>>at a time when they needed to be building respectability.  This
causes 
>
>You do understand the opponents of the NRA want a complete ban on
firearms
>and are painting the NRA as radicals, don't you?
>
>Check-out the "Association of Bay Area Governments" and their comments
on
>Handgun Control Inc. (the web page was named in a different thread on
tpg).
>
>>them to lose political clout when we need them to be acting a a
primary 
>>spokesman for those of us who believe in the Second Amendment.  If 
>>we're not careful, one of these days the radical left will be sending

>>jackbooted thugs into our homes to confiscate ALL guns of any sort.  
>
>Are you saying the people who legally own semi-automatic AR-15 should
>be willing to sacrafice their property to the government so hunters
>will be spared the indignity of having their sniper-rifles taken?
>
>>And, the Supreme Court will be helping them justify their actions by
>>some sort of "emanations of penumbras."
>>
>>Have a nice Thanksgiving.
>>-- 
>>{               Papa Jack
>>{
>>{               http://www.express-news.net/papajack
>>
>>	"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all
>>	 men are created equal; that they are endowed by
>>	 their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that
>>	 among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
>>	 happiness."          --Thomas Jefferson
>
>
>
>

-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Sat Nov 30 11:30:09 PST 1996
Article: 82813 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Gore with the ultimate anti-Semitism.....
Date: 30 Nov 1996 08:40:07 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <57ort7$1a5@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>
References: <57bhvc$jj3@usenet80.supernews.com>  <329B0D94.B0C@ns.net> <57ibs1$2jl@usenet80.supernews.com> <329CDC5D.6CB5@ianet.net>  <329DC623.6F6E@internetMCI.com>  <329E9748.588C@internetMCI.com>  <329EFA36.22D8@internetMCI.com>  <329F4EDB.6A88@internetMCI.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca6-51.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sat Nov 30 12:40:07 AM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.abortion:192558 alt.abortion.inequity:60792 alt.revisionism:82813

 Bruce Forest:
 Milton Wong is viciously bigoted against homosexuals. What makes you
think he would oppose any other bigotry?

-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Sat Nov 30 11:30:09 PST 1996
Article: 82866 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news.uoregon.edu!hunter.premier.net!hammer.uoregon.edu!csulb.edu!news.sgi.com!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Gore with the ultimate anti-Semitism.....
Date: 30 Nov 1996 04:01:28 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <57obio$ihb@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>
References: <57bhvc$jj3@usenet80.supernews.com>  <329B0D94.B0C@ns.net> <57ibs1$2jl@usenet80.supernews.com> <329CDC5D.6CB5@ianet.net>  <57j7sc$q94@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>  <57ltq7$2hi@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca6-51.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Fri Nov 29  8:01:28 PM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.abortion:192569 alt.abortion.inequity:60797 alt.revisionism:82866


>In 
>bforest@mindspring.com (Bruce Forest) writes: 
>
>>I have repeatedly asked him why he never mentions Pol Pot, or Idi
                                  ^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^
>>Amin, or Mao, or Stalin, or Torquemada. He never replies; he only 
        ^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^
call
>>me 'Goebbels' and keeps making allusions to the Nazis.

 I find it interesting that Mr. Gore has not, as far as I can recall,
condemned or made analogies (however false) to Communist murders. 
-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Sat Nov 30 11:44:41 PST 1996
Article: 44238 of alt.skinheads
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.mag-net.com!aurora.cs.athabascau.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!news.bc.net!nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.msfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.atheism.satire,alt.apocalypse,alt.anarchism,alt.bible.prophecy,alt.blasphemy,alt.divination,alt.evil,alt.feminism,alt.feminazis,alt.feminism.individualism,alt.politics.homosexual,alt.messianic,alt.parenting.spanking,alt.philosophy.debate,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.polyamory,alt.religion,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.gnostic,alt.religion.mormon,alt.religion.sexuality,alt.religion.universal-life,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.satanism,alt.skinheads
Subject: Re: This homophobe bullwacky
Date: 28 Nov 1996 22:03:21 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <57l279$c5q@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
References: <3251E95C.6E1B@paranoia.com> <32555B67.5E17@access.usa.net> <32625BCF.A9A@mail.orci.com> <53vdul$r0m@synthemesc.insync.net> <54al5n$1m2@news4.digex.net> <326c1101.13749941@news.zip.com.au> <326C60F9.6D69@speednet.com.au> <326D73D3.29E3@nwi.net> <32698C67.B45@sfsu.edu> <54ott5$15o2$1@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <3276C2DF.53D3@cyberport.net> <55ckdc$497@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <327b1bbe.21681967@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <55f9j6$2eb@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <328a9251.25822207@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <3284B290.669E@liar.com> <3287B429.38C1@usa.net> <328AAE4F.2E6F@ibm.net> <328D4460.6533@inet1.inetworld.net> <56mcjp$32@news2.tds.net> <328F0178.23CC@interport.net> <32901953.1942@metronet.com> <5777fe$nm6@news.xs4all.nl> <578bci$i3d@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> <3299CDEE.439D@ibm.net> <57i2gn$6a0@news.cdsnet.net> <329DEF2E.6EC@ibm.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca6-18.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Thu Nov 28  4:03:21 PM CST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.atheism:68394 alt.atheism.satire:12543 alt.bible.prophecy:15547 alt.divination:5532 alt.evil:24957 alt.feminism:133572 alt.feminazis:8440 alt.feminism.individualism:7196 alt.messianic:39074 alt.philosophy.objectivism:92670 alt.polyamory:29411 alt.religion.christian:153729 alt.religion.gnostic:4477 alt.religion.mormon:81498 alt.religion.sexuality:14177 alt.religion.universal-life:2519 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:418319 alt.satanism:34988 alt.skinheads:44238

In <329DEF2E.6EC@ibm.net> Dave  writes: 
>
>cc16712@cdsnet.net wrote:
>> 
>> Dave  wrote:
>> 
>> >Go back to core values. Don't "live and let live". There ARE
certain
>> >moral absolutes. Stand by them. This country WAS founded on
>> >Judeo-Christian beliefs - Christians avoiding religious persecution
in
>> >England - so let's try to get back some of what we lost.
>> 
>> Core values?  Murder? Torture? Genocide?  Those are the core
results.
>> No, we don't want to go back to a total lack of ethics.
>
>Genocide?? Where? Only when it was in opposition to God. Murder?? In
>war?? Turture? Where? Stonings? That was a justifiable punishment for
>sin in Hebrew society. Not the norm. And what's the fear anyways. Are
>you afraid of justice?? Obviously we, as a society today are as
>evidenced by our total joke of a penal system, too few prisons, too
many
>criminals, incredibly short parole times, etc., etc., etc.
>> 
>> This country was NOT founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs.  The
>> separation of church and state is a prime indicator of that.
>
>Thomas Jefferson coined the term. But that is hardly proof of your
>statement. And sorry, it was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics. Does
the
>term Pilgrim ring a bell? Especially today. They left England and went
>to Holland to escape religious persecution. That's why they cruised
>here!

 G. K. Chesterton once noted that we Americans have a Thanksgiving to
celebrate the arrival of the Puritans here -- and suggested that the
English have a Thanksgiving to celebrate their leaving England. har!
har! My sentiments exactly. Happy Thanksgiving!
-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Sun Dec  1 16:07:51 PST 1996
Article: 82889 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.erols.net!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Gore with the ultimate anti-Semitism.....
Date: 30 Nov 1996 19:23:54 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <57q1ka$alr@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>
References: <57bhvc$jj3@usenet80.supernews.com> <57o832$gl1@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca1-16.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sat Nov 30 11:23:54 AM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.abortion:192579 alt.abortion.inequity:60804 alt.revisionism:82889

In  olk@login.dknet.dk (Ole Kreiberg)
writes: 
>
>In article <57o832$gl1@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>, Steven Malcolm Ande
wrote:
>>
>> Crawl back into your hole, Nazi scum.
>>
>I am not a nazi, and I have never been.

 You might as well be, the way you talk about Jews.

 But anyway, why should I pay the 
>victims of Adolph Hitler more respect than the victims of Djengis
Khan?

 For the same reason you don't laugh at a funeral. Many of their
relatives are still alive and still mourning over the loved ones they
lost in the camps. 

>--
>Ole Kreiberg  http://login.dknet.dk/~olk

-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Sun Dec  1 16:07:53 PST 1996
Article: 83000 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.mag-net.com!aurora.cs.athabascau.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!news.bc.net!info.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!news.sgi.com!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Gore with the ultimate anti-Semitism.....
Date: 30 Nov 1996 03:01:54 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <57o832$gl1@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>
References: <57bhvc$jj3@usenet80.supernews.com>  <329B0D94.B0C@ns.net> <57ibs1$2jl@usenet80.supernews.com> <329CDC5D.6CB5@ianet.net>  
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca6-51.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Fri Nov 29  7:01:54 PM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.abortion:192602 alt.abortion.inequity:60819 alt.revisionism:83000

In  olk@login.dknet.dk (Ole Kreiberg)
writes: 
>
>In article ,
Bruce Forest wrote:
>>
>>So, legal safe abortion is worse than the Shoah. In addition to
obviously
>>knowing NOTHING about the Holocaust, you have just offended million
of
>>people, and insulted the memory of millions more.
>>
>>You have no right to post obscenity like that, and I will prevent you
from
>>doing so.
>>
> Hey I do not owe the alleged victims of the socalled holocaust
anything.
>I could not care less if some Jews get offended or feel that some
memory 
>is insulted. I think that time has come for the world to forget the 
>holocaust, whether it happened or not. The Jews and Germans can
remember it 
>but not the rest of the world. One thing is certain, more human beings
have 
>been exterminated by abortion than by the alleged holocaust.

 Crawl back into your hole, Nazi scum.

>--
>Ole Kreiberg  http://login.dknet.dk/~olk

-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Sun Dec  1 16:07:54 PST 1996
Article: 83009 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!chi-news.cic.net!in1.nntp.cais.net!tezcat!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!arclight.uoregon.edu!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Gore with the ultimate anti-Semitism.....
Date: 1 Dec 1996 07:35:38 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <57rcga$1fc@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>
References: <57bhvc$jj3@usenet80.supernews.com>  <329B0D94.B0C@ns.net> <57ibs1$2jl@usenet80.supernews.com> <329CDC5D.6CB5@ianet.net>  <329f22dc.5340961@news.gte.net>  <32a04054.68081404@news.gte.net> <32A09FBB.9C@mindspring.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca7-04.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun Dec 01  1:35:38 AM CST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.abortion:192606 alt.abortion.inequity:60823 alt.revisionism:83009

In <32A09FBB.9C@mindspring.com> Amazon  writes: 

 

>So if the Hebrews did NOT build the pyramids, what was the racial
>make-up of the slaves that did build the pyramids?

 The Egyptians were very mixed racially. The pyramids were not built by
slaves, but by farmers during the flood seasons. And the pyramids were
ancient by the time the Hebrews (along with some other peoples) made
their appearance in Egypt. Don't get your history from Hollywood.

>Amazon

-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Sun Dec  1 16:07:54 PST 1996
Article: 83011 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Gore with the ultimate anti-Semitism.....
Date: 1 Dec 1996 07:38:04 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <57rcks$82m@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>
References: <57bhvc$jj3@usenet80.supernews.com>  <329B0D94.B0C@ns.net> <57ibs1$2jl@usenet80.supernews.com> <329CDC5D.6CB5@ianet.net>  <329f22dc.5340961@news.gte.net>   
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca7-04.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sat Nov 30 11:38:04 PM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.abortion:192607 alt.abortion.inequity:60824 alt.revisionism:83011

In 
schwartz@infinet.com (Sara aka Perrrfect) writes: 
>
>In article ,
Robert@cartel.westfalen.de
>(Robert) wrote:
>
>> >"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded
on the
>> >Christian religion."
>> >       George Washington, 1796
>> What a priceless qoute;)..(but denying the fact that the US SOCIETY
>> makes up the US State;)
>
>What in goodness' name is the US State?
>
>> 
>> btw..where did you find that;) could you point me to the excact
>> quote;)?
>> 
>> 
>> Greetings from Germany
>> 
>> Robert
>
>I've seen this quote in various places. My specific source is _Ain't
>Nobody's Business if you Do_ by Peter MacWilliams. It's also quoted in
>Frank Zappa's autobiography. I do not know specifically where
Washington
>said it.

 He wrote it in a letter on the treaty with Tripoli.
 
>Sara
>
>-- 
>"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on
the
>Christian religion."
>       George Washington, 1796

-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Sun Dec  1 16:07:55 PST 1996
Article: 83015 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.erols.net!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Gore with the ultimate anti-Semitism.....
Date: 1 Dec 1996 08:12:19 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 81
Message-ID: <57rel3$9fl@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>
References: <57bhvc$jj3@usenet80.supernews.com> <57o832$gl1@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>  <57q1ka$alr@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca7-04.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun Dec 01 12:12:19 AM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.abortion:192609 alt.abortion.inequity:60825 alt.revisionism:83015

In  olk@login.dknet.dk (Ole Kreiberg)
writes: 
>
>In article <57q1ka$alr@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>, Steven Malcolm Ande
wrote:
>>In  olk@login.dknet.dk (Ole
Kreiberg)
>>>>
>>>> Crawl back into your hole, Nazi scum.
>>>>
>>>I am not a nazi, and I have never been.
>>
>> You might as well be, the way you talk about Jews.
>
> Criticising the Jews or failing to symphatizing with them are the
same 
>as being a nazi in your opinion.

 Criticizing Jews as individuals is not the same as attacking "the
Jews" as a group, as you do. The latter _is_ bigotry. If you don't want
to be a bigot, then learn to judge people as individuals. 

 Did the Palestinians become "nazis" after 
>the zionists had grabbed their country?

 Are you referring to the 1967 war when the Arab nations attacked
Israel and lost? A nation, such as Israel, has every right to defend
itself, and to take steps, as did Israel, to prevent such an attack in
the future.

>> For the same reason you don't laugh at a funeral. Many of their
>>relatives are still alive and still mourning over the loved ones they
>>lost in the camps. 
>>
> I could not care what the Jews are doing over their past.

 I think you do care or you wouldn't post this crap.

 I do not
>expect the Jews to pay any particular respect for my dead relatives
>that died more than fifty years ago, even if they were murdered by
somebody.

 If they showed the same disrespect to you that you show to them, you'd
be pissed as hell.

>Why do the Jews keep bothering the world with their holocaust story
after
>all these years?

 Because they don't want it repeated.

>Returning to the subject. What is a fetus? A human being or a subhuman
>being? If it you consider it a subhuman being, does that give you the
right
>to kill it?

 I do not regard a fetus as human. There is no comparison whatever
between what a woman decides to do with her own body and its contents
and what went on at Auschwitz or any other concentration camp, Nazi or
Communist. 

> And please do not call be a nazi just because I refuse to believe in
>the holocaust.

 I call you a Nazi because of your hateful in-your-face attitude toward
Jewish people. You certainly do have the right to express your beliefs
or disbeliefs or, in this case, your obvious hatred for "the Jews",
just as a Communist has the right to burn the American flag. But, like
the flag-burning Communist, you can damn well expect other people to be
pissed as hell at you.

>--
>Ole Kreiberg  http://login.dknet.dk/~olk

-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Sun Dec  1 16:07:56 PST 1996
Article: 83060 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!chi-news.cic.net!mr.net!news-out.microserve.net!news-in.microserve.net!news.sgi.com!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Gore with the ultimate anti-Semitism.....
Date: 30 Nov 1996 18:35:05 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 9
Message-ID: <57puop$5da@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>
References: <57bhvc$jj3@usenet80.supernews.com>  <329B0D94.B0C@ns.net> <57ibs1$2jl@usenet80.supernews.com> <329CDC5D.6CB5@ianet.net>  <329DC623.6F6E@internetMCI.com>  <329E9748.588C@internetMCI.com>  <329EFA36.22D8@internetMCI.com>  <329F4EDB.6A88@internetMCI.com>  <57ort7$1a5@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca1-16.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sat Nov 30 12:35:05 PM CST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.abortion:192616 alt.abortion.inequity:60827 alt.revisionism:83060

 There is no comparison whatever between what a woman decides to do
with her body and its contents and what went on at Auschwitz or any
other concentration camp, Nazi or Communist.
-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Sun Dec  1 16:07:57 PST 1996
Article: 83158 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Gore with the ultimate anti-Semitism.....
Date: 1 Dec 1996 19:18:43 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <57slmj$6mq@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>
References: <57bhvc$jj3@usenet80.supernews.com>  <329B0D94.B0C@ns.net> <57ibs1$2jl@usenet80.supernews.com> <329CDC5D.6CB5@ianet.net>  <329f22dc.5340961@news.gte.net>  <32a04054.68081404@news.gte.net> <32A09FBB.9C@mindspring.com> <57rcga$1fc@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca6-15.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun Dec 01 11:18:43 AM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.abortion:192648 alt.abortion.inequity:60845 alt.revisionism:83158

In 
Harvin Queen  writes: 
>
>On 1 Dec 1996, Steven Malcolm Anderson wrote:
>
>> >So if the Hebrews did NOT build the pyramids, what was the racial
>> >make-up of the slaves that did build the pyramids?
>> 
>>  The Egyptians were very mixed racially. The pyramids were not built
by
>> slaves, but by farmers during the flood seasons. And the pyramids
were
>> ancient by the time the Hebrews (along with some other peoples) made
>> their appearance in Egypt. Don't get your history from Hollywood.
>
>1.  *Ahem* not to quibble too much, but slaves DID build the pyramids.

 No, they didn't.

>2.  As far as the pyramids being ancient by the time the Hebrews
>appeared??  Uhhmmmm... exactly WHO do you believe lived in Egypt to
build
>the pyramids??

 EGYPTIANS!!!!

>Please o please o please dont follow the Charleton Heston movies. 
Please
>dont give me a tale about the "Great White

 As I said, the Egyptians were very mixed racially.

 Exodus" from Egypt, followed by
>the mass Pilgrimage TO Egypt by the Hebrews who inherited empty cities
and
>pyramids in the distance?

 The Hebrews didn't appear in Egypt until the Empire (New Kingdom) or
the Hyksos interregnum at the very earliest. That's a long time after
the pyramids were built (Old Kingdom). As I said, READ some history.
You can't get it from movies. 

>- Harv (hoping he wont hear anything too outlandish)
>
>

-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Sun Dec  1 16:07:58 PST 1996
Article: 83179 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!hookup!chi-news.cic.net!feed1.news.erols.com!phase2.worldnet.att.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Gore with the ultimate anti-Semitism.....
Date: 1 Dec 1996 21:04:10 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <57srsa$ah6@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>
References: <57bhvc$jj3@usenet80.supernews.com>  <329B0D94.B0C@ns.net> <57ibs1$2jl@usenet80.supernews.com> <329CDC5D.6CB5@ianet.net>  <329f22dc.5340961@news.gte.net>  <32a04054.68081404@news.gte.net> <32A09FBB.9C@mindspring.com> <32a0c82d.1614026@news.gte.net>  <32a1a09c.17926970@news.gte.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca6-15.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun Dec 01  1:04:10 PM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.abortion:192658 alt.abortion.inequity:60851 alt.revisionism:83179

In <32a1a09c.17926970@news.gte.net> PJO@is.back (Leprechan) writes: 

>	It is not a good reflection upon the college (or the IQ test for
>that matter) that it turns out people who believe the hebrews built
>the pyramids or that the hebrews were ever in Egypt.  

 The Hebrews did come under the domain of the Egyptian empire (New
Kingdom) and may have migrated into Egypt, along with other peoples,
during the Hyksos interregnum. They were not in Egypt earlier (e.g.,
during the Middle Kingdom) and certainly not during the time when the
pyramids were being built (Old Kingdom).

>
>	So it is quite clear, there was never a Moses, no Commandments,
no
>relationship with a god, no Mosaic Law, no dietary laws, no foundation
>for being Jewish other than primitive tribal superstition regarding
>events that never happened to people who never existed.  

 Any religion is a matter of faith and can be neither proved nor
disproved. Whatever you want to believe or not out of the Bible (Old or
New Testament) or out of any other book you hold sacred, the Vedas, the
Eddas, or the Egyptian Book Of The Dead, is your own business. Just
don't confuse it with the Constitution! Read the 1st Amendment. You're
free to exercise your religion and I'm free to exercise mine and the
government stays out of it altogether.

>	Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?   

 

 It seems we have people on all sides trying to re-write history:
people who get their history from Hollywood and want to believe that
the pyramids were built by enslaved Hebrews or by extraterrestials or
whatever (anybody but the Egyptians themselves, apparently!) -- and
professional Jew-haters/racists who want to believe that Hebrews/Jews
accomplished nothing significant in history and suffered only minor
inconveniences during World War II.  
-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia


From sma4@ix.netcom.com Sun Dec  1 16:07:59 PST 1996
Article: 83198 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.erols.net!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: sma4@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Gore with the ultimate anti-Semitism.....
Date: 1 Dec 1996 23:23:33 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <57t41l$h8r@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>
References: <57bhvc$jj3@usenet80.supernews.com> <57o832$gl1@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>  <57q1ka$alr@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>   
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca2-15.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun Dec 01  5:23:33 PM CST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.abortion:192661 alt.abortion.inequity:60852 alt.revisionism:83198

In  olk@login.dknet.dk (Ole Kreiberg)
writes: 
>
>In article ,
Bruce Forest wrote:
>
>>To prevent asssholes like you from trying to convince the world the
Shoah
>>never happened. You are a well known anti-semite on alt.revisionism.
>>
> Because I dare to disagree with the Jews I am supposed to be an 
>anti-semite :-D :-D
>--
>Ole Kreiberg  http://login.dknet.dk/~olk

 If you attack "the Jews" as a group, rather than simply disagree with
particular Jews as individuals, then, yes, you _are_ bigoted. And, yes,
if you have an agenda of minimizing the suffering of Jews during World
War II, then that also shows that you are bigoted. 
-- 
sma4@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
 wanting to be by oneself,
 being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia



Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.