The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/g/giwer.matt/1994/giwer_debate_9410


««■■ R_9410 ■■»»
+++■■■■■ r_941001 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2190)
To:      Ed Mathis                              28 Sep 94 03:21:10
Subject: CALIFORNIA PROPOSITION 1               

EM>  MG>  The numbers have NOT reversed.  The same cowardly, whining 
EM>  MG>  1/4 of you, of which you are member, is still out there 
EM>  MG>  whining.  The smokers and the "don't cares" are still the 
EM>  MG>  majority.  But in this day and age minorities such as you 
EM>  MG>  are catered to.  It is the fascist thing to do.

EM>  More namecalling serves no purpose except to harden the 
EM>  opposition, Matt.  The days that you are able to smoke in 
EM>  public wherever you wish are numbered.

     A hardened position gives me a better target.  Where did you 
get the idea I do not know what I am doing?

     As for the numbering of the days, I have yet to hear of a 
police department saying they will respond to any call about a 
smoker.  In fact when such laws were new the police explicitly 
stated it was near the bottom of the list just above spitting on 
the floor.

     What do you think will happen when "civil disobedience" 
becomes the order of the day and the police will not intervene?

EM>  MG>  NEVER pretend you have the authority to speak for the good 
EM>  MG>  of anyone else else you will drown in your own disgusting 
EM>  MG>  sanctimony.

EM> And when, pray tell, were you given the mantle to judge others?

     About 15 years ago in a divine revelation referred to as 
BBSs.  The writing is typical and I have never been wrong at any 
time after having met them in person.

EM>  MG>  Your onion is what you imagine it to be.  You presumption 
EM>  MG>  you can speak for anyone other than yourself bespeaks such 
EM>  MG>  an ego that the word pompous comes to mind.

EM> Ego?  YOU lecture others about excessive ego?

     I do not have an ego.  I am right.  That is difficult for 
many to grasp.

EM>  MG>  That is why it was repealed in some place near LA.  It was 
EM>  MG>  costing business.  But you know that happened.  You know 
EM>  MG>  the loss of business has been proven.  Yet you continue to 
EM>  MG>  pretend it is an unproven case.  Why would you lie by 
EM>  MG>  implication?

EM>  That supposedly 30% loss of business was proved to be 
EM>  baseless.  A couple of real studies that looked at actual 
EM>  restaurant revenues proved otherwise.

     And what organization got businesses to open up their books 
to make this determination?  Please be specific.  BTW:  Revenues 
are not profits.  What is sold is more important than the dollar 
value.  Consider your largest coke at a fast food place has about 
five cents worth of soda product in it.  I would much rather sell 
you a large coke than a cheap burger for the same price.

     Now consider alcohol sales and mark up against food.

EM>  MG> Your lies are your own.  Your pomposity is the issue as is
EM>  MG> your totalitarian leanings.

EM>  More insults and namecalling, Matt.  Can't you argue with 
EM>  facts instead of names?

     As he provides nothing but "Eet Steenks" why should I be the 
first?



---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ All right, Koresh, make my day. -- Reno
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/3 99 201 204 224 246 301 501 601 701 714 724 801 259/98 99
SEEN-BY: 259/532 533 377/5 6 9 15 50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3654/5


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2191)
To:      David Steever                          28 Sep 94 03:32:10
Subject: California Proposition 1               

DS>  DS>> Wrong again guy.  This will take away from the hands of the
DS>  DS>> PC police the power to usurp what is not theirs...private
DS>  DS>> property.

DS>  MG>      That is what all good Nazis are working toward.

DS> Don't forget the Socialist pigs as well in this also.

     How can I tell the difference between a generic socialist 
and a National Socialist, aka Nazi?

DS>  DS>  PS>> * WaveRdr 1.10 [NR] * UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COPY

DS>  DS>> Once more, why am I not surprised at the above...

DS>  MG>      To hell with property if you can steal it.

DS> Really!

     It is the socialist way.


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ "Flame on!" -- Janet "The Torch" Reno
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/3 99 201 204 224 246 301 501 601 701 714 724 801 259/98 99
SEEN-BY: 259/532 533 377/5 6 9 15 50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3654/5


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2192)
To:      Lester Garrett                         28 Sep 94 03:34:10
Subject: Gore Waffles                           

LG>  MG> What did I miss?

LG> From '92:

LG> ┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
LG> │ "On Feb. 2, NASA beat the alarm.  Aircraft measurements       │

LG> │ flacks finally gave in and announced that the Arctic hole     │
LG> │ would not materialize due to unusually warm weather in the    │
LG> │ Arctic.  

     Thank you.  Right, I did miss this year's report.  


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ We are here to help you, Jude, I mean Mr. Koresh.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/3 99 201 204 224 246 301 501 601 701 714 724 801 259/98 99
SEEN-BY: 259/532 533 377/5 6 9 15 50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3654/5


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2193)
To:      Bob Sillyheimer                        28 Sep 94 04:05:10
Subject: HEARING AID                            

BS> MG>      It clearly is.  The Article of Confederation used terms 
BS> MG> like  "in perpetuity" 4 or 5 times.  There are no such words 
BS> MG> in the  Constitution.  No is there any delegated power to 
BS> MG> preserve the  union or that states can not leave.  Secession 
BS> MG> is not even a  reserved power under the 9th and 10th 
BS> MG> amendments.
BS> MG> 
BS> MG>      The deafening silence means there can be no law 
BS> MG> prohibiting  it (there still is not) as Congress only has 
BS> MG> the power to pass  laws that implement th delegated powers 
BS> MG> in the Constitution.   Therefore it can not be made illegal

BS> Hearing aid for the "deafening silence":

BS>    "The ratification of the conventions of nine States shall 
BS>  be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution 
BS>  between the States so ratifying the same."

BS>  -- note that there is no clause for "unratifying" or 
BS>  "unestablishing" the Constitution.

     If you will look up the meaning of the word ratify you will 
find it different than you suppose.  It is not in any manner like 
an oath as in an "irrevocable" decision.  

     The point you just made was only a condition of acceptance 
as are the condition for ratifying amendments.  It is still 
unclear that a state may withdraw the ratification of an 
amendment or resolution.  The cases in point at the moment are 
the states that have withdrawn ratification of the balanced 
budget amendment and the states which have withdrawn from the 
call for a Constitutional Convention.  

     When and if those cases are decided then it will be clear 
whether or not ratification can be withdrawn.  If it can be for 
the two cases in point then it can be for the entire 
constitution.  

     During the Civil War the position of the North was that 
ratification could not be withdrawn under the pretext of the 
slight wording difference between the US and Confederate 
constitutions.  The US says, We the People of the United States, 
while the Confederate said, We the people of the States of the 
United States.  It may appear trivial but the latter holds the 
separate states to be separate nations bound only by mutual 
agreement to a larger entity acting for the best interests of 
that state.

     Under the Civil War contention both the Balanced Budget and 
the ConCon are both only two states away.

     Would you like to play this game further?


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ Waco lesson 1.  Kill them before they burn you alive.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/3 99 201 204 224 246 301 501 601 701 714 724 801 259/98 99
SEEN-BY: 259/532 533 377/5 6 9 15 50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3654/5


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2194)
To:      Lester Garrett                         28 Sep 94 04:16:10
Subject: Invading Haiti                         

LG>  MG>  .  .  .He [Clinton] did not mention the invasion was part of 
LG>  MG>  the deal with the Black Caucus in Congress for their 
LG>  MG>  support of the crime bill.  .  .  .

LG>  Actually, this is at best mis-leading.  As reported in the 
LG>  LA Times, prior to the invasion the Black Congressional 
LG>  Caucus was split about 50/50 over support for the invasion.  
LG>  The Times story (which I don't have handy, went on to 
LG>  mention quite a few names of the opponents of the 
LG>  invasion).

     Actually it was rather clear he made the deal and Rangle, 
its chairman, was the one who demanded the deal.  Remember is 
"cynical" statement that no Haitian was worth the life of one 
white American soldier?  If you missed that you certainly did not 
miss him in a Harlem church the 25th talking about the liberation 
(or whatever he called it) of Haiti.  

LG>  MG> He did not mention that the other justification was an
LG>  MG> attempt to salvage his own credibility. . ..

LG> _That_ is really what this whole thing is about.

     Or as Limbaugh said, the new motto of the country is 
"putting Clinton first."  

LG>  (Meanwhile, the Serbs have reintroduced artillery around 
LG>  Sarajevo and escallated their attacks on the city.  After 
LG>  seriously wounding yet another UN peacekeeper, the UN 
LG>  retaliated by bombing an unmanned Serb Tank and telling 
LG>  those Serbs to cut it out fer Christ's sake!)

     Even I am impressed.


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ Janet Reno, the third best woman for the job.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/3 99 201 204 224 246 301 501 601 701 714 724 801 259/98 99
SEEN-BY: 259/532 533 377/5 6 9 15 50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3654/5


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2195)
To:      John Clifton                           28 Sep 94 04:22:10
Subject: Right conclusion, poor an              

JC> >      Now for the problem of the dollar.  Technically it is a 
JC> >  floating currency, its price determined by what other's 
JC> >  will pay for dollars in other currencies.  In practice it 
JC> >  is backed by oil.

JC>       The dollar is indeed a floating currency and its value 
JC>  is based upon the strength of the U.S.  economy, not the 
JC>  price or availability of oil.

     As the only way you can buy OPEC oil is to offer real US 
dollars in return it appears obvious that oil is the price 
support for the US dollar.  Were it not for oil who would really 
need the US dollar?  Why would Japan insist upon dumping goods 
here for any other reason than to get those dollars to buy oil?  

     Given our balance of trade around the world it is not easy 
to justify that the world wants US dollars to buy US goods.

JC> > If oil is scarce the value of dollars increases, if plentiful
JC> > it decreases.

JC>       What's the value of a currency?  

     [This is the above.  See below]

     For floating currencies it is the value of what it is worth 
in terms of other currencies.

It's what you can buy 
JC>  with it.  When the price of oil dropped during the 1980's, 
JC>  the price of other goods and commodities didn't fall 
JC>  proportionally.

     [This is below, see the above]

     In light of the above note the change in the relative value 
of the dollar and yen during the 80s.  That is what is meant by 
floating.  For floating currencies nothing is universal.  It all 
depends up the particular exchange rate in question.

JC> >  Oil is as good as any other backing for the dollar save for 
JC> >  one thing, the reserves are readily established and it is 
JC> >  consumed.  Even the US has not stockpiled oil according to 
JC> >  a twenty year old plan.  There is no equivalent of Ft.  Knox 
JC> >  in the world.

JC>       America hasn't backed the dollar with gold or any 
JC>  other commodity for decades.

     That is the theory.  I am talking the practice.  A twenty 
dollar bill might as well be imprinted, pay to the bearer on 
barrel of oil upon demand.  

JC> > At first Iran and then with the emergence of OPEC, lead by
JC> > Venezuela of all countries, the producing countries attempted
JC> > to raise prices beyond a true production cost and reasonable
JC> > profit.

JC>      They attempted to restrict production with the expectation
JC> that prices would rise.  Because the demand for oil is relatively
JC> inelastic, they figured (correctly) that a small restriction of
JC> the supply would result in increased revenues and profits.

     That is what I said.

JC> > That resulted in worldwide inflation and major conservation
JC> > measures until OPEC was earning little more than before they
JC> > raised prices.

JC>      It also resulted in many depressed economies which reduced
JC> the demand.  Prices dropped as the reduced demand outpaced the
JC> supply restrictions.

     That is what I said.

JC> > Increase oil production sufficient to decrease the value of the
JC> > dollar 1% and it takes away multiples of 1% of the value of
JC> > every currency of every currency in the world that matters.

JC>      Increasing oil production will make the dollar *more*
JC> valuable.

     The demand as you point out is inelastic.  Cheaper oil does 
not mean more will be bought.  The same amount will be bought for 
less money.


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ Waco lesson 3.  Kill 'til no Fed breaths American air.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/3 99 201 204 224 246 301 501 601 701 714 724 801 259/98 99
SEEN-BY: 259/532 533 377/5 6 9 15 50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3654/5


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2214)
To:      Paul Smith                             28 Sep 94 14:21:10
Subject: CALIFORNIA PROPOSITION 1               

PS> PS> MG >      Rather what right does the government, any government,
PS> PS> MG > have to intrude on a referendum issue?

PS> PS> To what are you referring Matt?

PS> MG >      A simple generic question.  What business does the 
PS> MG > government have expressing an opinion or taking a position 
PS> MG > on any side of a referendum issue?  It strikes me as 
PS> MG > spending tax money to support one side of the issue.

PS>  I agree that the money part could get a bit 'dicey'.  I 
PS>  would, however, think that certain arms of the government 
PS>  might be able to shed some expert testimony on certain 
PS>  subjects and that their opinions would be valid.

     The government's "expert" testimony can only be called upon 
in matters of government.  For example the attorney general or 
state SC could render a pre-emptive opinion on the 
Constitutionality of a referendum issue.  The police could render 
an opinion as to its enforceability.  The tax division could 
render an opinion of the impact upon state revenues.

     It could not render any opinion that tends to support one 
side or the other.  As you would most like, an opinion of the 
medical hazards, that would only be permitted were there a state 
sponsored study and only that study could be addressed as that 
would be within the area of expertise of the government.  The 
government can not be considered expert in any matter that is not 
a function of government.  That is no different that considering 
a doctor an expert upon generating state revenues.

PS> PS>  What an incredible crock of crap this is Matt.  I'm not
PS> PS>  Christian and I know a LOT of smokers who are.

PS> MG >      That has been pointed out to me.  It is puritanical in 
PS> MG > the non-religious sense.

PS> Hahahahahaha.  BS!

     What would you call the assumption of the right to control 
the actions of others because you do not like those actions?  

     No government I am aware of is granted that right.  And 
without the government usurpation of the power it is mano a mano.

PS> PS>  You, of all people, should be dead set against this
PS> PS>  proposition Matt.  Proposition 188 takes away the citizens'
PS> PS>  right to control their government at the local level which
PS> PS>  is the most dynamic and important level of any.

PS> MG >      As I said in the article I am against any such law, 
PS> MG > both the local ordinances or Prop 188.  They are an 
PS> MG > intrusion upon liberty.

PS> Good!  Then I can expect your support in defeating Prop 188.

     Not at all.  I would, however, support the repeal of all 
regulation of smoking as part of a larger policy against all such 
intrusive laws as I support the abolition of abortion laws and 
most all drug laws.

PS> MG >     However, it is not control of the government that interests
PS> MG >you.  It is control of people.  Nothing else could make you
PS> MG >salivate so.

PS>  I salivate out of fear.  

     You must love fear to be consistent with the usage of the 
expression.

I do not want to lose the positive 
PS>  progress we've made toward protecting ourselves and our 
PS>  families from tobacco smoke.

     You are afraid of losing your power over the behavior of 
others.  You have gained nothing whatsoever.     

PS> Californians! Please VOTE 'NO' on Prop 188!!

     It is the fascist thing to do.


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ Welcome to Masada, Texas.  Never again!
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/3 99 201 204 224 246 301 501 601 701 714 724 801 259/98 99
SEEN-BY: 259/532 533 377/5 6 9 15 50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3654/5


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2215)
To:      Jack Wilder                            28 Sep 94 14:33:10
Subject: CANADIAN                               

JW>  -=> Quoting Matt Giwer to Pete Bucy <=-

JW>  MG> Compared to me a cod is rather small.

JW>         Cod help us!  Is this thread going
JW>   to go on forever??(;->*

     That the question all my women ask.


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ We are here to help you, Jude, I mean Mr. Koresh.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/3 99 201 204 224 246 301 501 601 701 714 724 801 259/98 99
SEEN-BY: 259/532 533 377/5 6 9 15 50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 3615/50 51 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3654/5


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

+++■■■■■ r_941008 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2869)
To:      Paul Smith                              4 Oct 94 11:08:10
Subject: CALIF. PROPOSITION 188                 

PS> MG >      And what organization got businesses to open up their 
PS> MG > books to make this determination?  Please be specific.  BTW:  
PS> MG > Revenues are not profits.  What is sold is more important 
PS> MG > than the dollar value.  Consider your largest coke at a fast 
PS> MG > food place has about five cents worth of soda product in it.  
PS> MG > I would much rather sell you a large coke than a cheap 
PS> MG > burger for the same price.

PS>  We've been through this before Matt.  Sales revenue figures 
PS>  from quarterly tax reports a matter of public record and 
PS>  are available from the California Franchise Tax Board.  
PS>  It's easy to look at revenues both prior to and after 
PS>  implementation of a tobacco control ordinance to see what 
PS>  effects the ordinance might have on a particular business.

     And you are saying the state board has the data broken down 
by municipal jurisdiction?  Quite interesting for the state to 
bother doing that.  If not, no one said there was a loss of total 
business only that it was shifting as the restaurant owners said.

PS>  The only businesses that showed losses in revenue after the 
PS>  implementation of a tobacco control ordinance where 
PS>  businesses which already had a downward trend in revenues 
PS>  prior to the ordinance.  i.e.  They were going broke before 
PS>  the ordinance was implemented.

     Now you are saying the state makes public the revenues of 
individual restaurants.  Quite a state you have out there.  No 
wonder you find nothing wrong with government intrusion.

     BTW:  Where is it written the state the right to accelerate 
the rate of bankruptcy?


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ Sometimes the Gov has to kill kids in order to save them.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/3 99 201 204 224 246 301 501 601 701 714 724 801 377/5 6 9
SEEN-BY: 377/15 50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 3615/50 51 3619/25 3654/5


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2870)
To:      Jack Wilder                             4 Oct 94 11:12:10
Subject: CANADIAN                               

JW>  JW>         Cod help us!  Is this thread going
JW>  JW>   to go on forever??(;->*

JW>  MG> That the question all my women ask.

JW>         Bet they call you that old "sew and sew"!(;->*

     A stitch in nine makes for a dull boy.


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ "Flame on!" -- Janet "The Torch" Reno
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/3 99 201 204 224 246 301 501 601 701 714 724 801 377/5 6 9
SEEN-BY: 377/15 50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 3615/50 51 3619/25 3654/5


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2871)
To:      Bob Sillyheimer                         4 Oct 94 11:15:10
Subject: HEARING AID                            

BS> MG>     Would you like to play this game further?

BS> The Constitution gives no procedure for "unjoining".

AMENDMENTS
 
10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the 
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to 
the States respectively, or to the people.

     Thus it is a power reserved to the states.  There is no 
known interpretation of the Constitution holding "if not 
prescribed is proscribed."
     
     In fact it can be clearly held there is no procedure for 
admission to the Union it being left strictly to changeable 
procedures as established by Congress.

Article IV
 
Sect. 3.

1.  New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union;
but no new State shall be formed or erected within the
jurisdiction of any other State, nor any State be formed by the
junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the
consent of the legislatures of the States concerned as well as of
the Congress.

2.  The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all
needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other
property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this
Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of
the United States, or of any particular State.
 
=====

BS>  In the matter of "unratifying" individual amendments there 
BS>  will still be legal distinctions that can be made.  
BS>  Particularly since the cases you mentioned are unsuccessful 
BS>  attempts at amendments.  So I doubt that will settle the 
BS>  question of secession.  In fact, I suspect the court will 
BS>  make its decision in such a way as to insure that it does 
BS>  not support secession.

     If the matter at hand is secession it is not conceivable the 
state(s) having seceded would submit to the US court system as 
secession would include removing itself from all jurisdiction of 
the US government.  The means of resolution would be negotiation 
or war.

=====

     On a related issue, I have just heard that California has 
joined the ranks of the states that have filed a 10th amendment 
resolution with the Federal Government.  That is the one calling 
for a strict interpretation of it.  No "or else" has been 
specified by any state as yet.


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ BATF Motto "Let God sort out the innocent!"
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/3 99 201 204 224 246 301 501 601 701 714 724 801 377/5 6 9
SEEN-BY: 377/15 50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 3615/50 51 3619/25 3654/5


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2875)
To:      All                                     4 Oct 94 12:28:10
Subject: 2 hr Waco report                       

     A couple days ago I forwarded a source for the KPOC-TV two 
hour report "The Waco Incident."  I called today and verified the 
information.

     Credit card 405-767-8827.

     Mail (check)

          KPOC-TV

          114 W. Central
     
          Ponco City, Oklahoma 74601

     Price $23.45 includes S&H.

     One of the items covered is an interview with the Commander 
of Ft. Hood who says the active military was used in Waco and 
that he was ordered by the FBI to shut up or else.

     As a side note, the FCC threatened to pull the license of 
the satellite company originally scheduled to carry it IF they 
carried it.  It was dropped from F-2 transponder 5 because of the 
threat.  It was carried on F-1/18 instead.

     Sounds hot to me.
     

---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ My every message, a conference unto itself.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/3 99 201 204 224 246 301 501 601 701 714 724 801 377/5 6 9
SEEN-BY: 377/15 50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 3615/50 51 3619/25 3654/5


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2878)
To:      Mark Riedel                             4 Oct 94 13:39:10
Subject: Evolution evidence:t                   

MR>   The leg bone in the whale is very good.  I usually just go 
MR>   with the old standby of "Why would an omnipotent and 
MR>   omniscient god would give us a spine so poorly developed 
MR>   for walking upright?".  Heck....who knows...I might even 
MR>   get an answer on here.

     The chiropractors are truly the chosen people.


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ We are here to help you, Jude, I mean Mr. Koresh.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/3 99 201 204 224 246 301 501 601 701 714 724 801 377/5 6 9
SEEN-BY: 377/15 50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 3615/50 51 3619/25 3654/5


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2879)
To:      Lester Garrett                          4 Oct 94 13:42:10
Subject: transporation in Eden                  

LG>  NC> Imagine this: If Adam and Eve had been on rollerskates,
LG>  NC> maybe they would have skated right past that nasty old
LG>  NC> serpent.

LG> That certainly gives a new spin to an old story.

     Or if Adam were into pulling the wings off of flies he might 
have put the serpent on a rollerskate and the entire incident 
might never have happened.  

     Or perhaps he did and after the serpent recovered he took 
revenge.


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ Waco lesson 2.  Obey or die.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/3 99 201 204 224 246 301 501 601 701 714 724 801 377/5 6 9
SEEN-BY: 377/15 50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 3615/50 51 3619/25 3654/5


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2880)
To:      All                                     4 Oct 94 13:44:10
Subject: Waco Report                            

On 09/27/94 BRAD STILES to LESTER GARRETT on Waco Report

BS>      If for some reason you can't, let me know and *I* will.  
BS>  Pending receipt of the ones I don't have, that is.  BTW, 
BS>  I'm missing a few pieces in the middle, and the first 16 as 
BS>  well.

     What was posted is ...

     "The Massacre of the Branch Davidians"

     "A study of Government Violations of Rights, Excessive Force 
and Cover Up"

     January 28, 1994

     by Carol Moore

     Committee for Waco Justice

     P.O. Box 33037
     
     Washington DC 20033

     202-986-1847/202-797-9877

     I can not find the file on the price but I sent $25 knowing 
it was more than required for both the printed copy and a plain 
ASCII copy on disk.  They threw in some other materials for the 
extra.  Extra money goes to support committee activities.

     As duplication and distribution is encouraged, anyone 
wanting to send me a blank disk (any format) with the usual SASE, 
I will load up the ASCII version for you.  

     P.O. Box 82541, Tampa, Florida, 33682-2541, 813-969-0362

     Patience, I only check the box once a week.


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ Let Waco be a lesson to all Americans.  Bill Clinton
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/3 99 201 204 224 246 301 501 601 701 714 724 801 377/5 6 9
SEEN-BY: 377/15 50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 3615/50 51 3619/25 3654/5


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2907)
To:      All                                     5 Oct 94 09:51:10
Subject: The Basis of Law                       

                        The Basis of Law
                               by
                           Matt Giwer (c) 1994 <10/4>

     In determining what is a just and proper law a Constitution
is not required.  That is an incumbrance the people of the
states put upon the have put upon the federal and state
constitutions based upon a well learned distrust of government.
There is another way to approach the passage of laws that does
not need guidelines.
     Laws (or rules or traditions depending upon size) are only
established by groups of people.  It is obvious the only place
laws are needed are when there are groups of people.  And as with
the rules of a family the purpose of laws is to create and
preserve the order of society.
     The preservation of order as the basis for law is certainly
a solid basis.  If the society is not preserved then the benefits
of that society can not continue.  And certainly people must
think there are benefits else they would leave the society.
     The question arises as to how much order is required for
preservation.  Obviously there are societies where everything not
prescribed is proscribed but these tend to dissolve in some form
of revolution.  Societies that are under ordered dissolve into
chaos.
     Thus there is both a minimum and maximum level of ordering
that will preserve a society.  Thus as long as a society falls
within these bounds it will continue and its laws have a sound
basis.
     There can be laws which are not related to the preservation
of society.  What of them?  Generally these are laws which in
some manner or other are perceived as doing some good but have no
direct relation to the preservation of society.
     For example, a law against murder will help preserve the
society as who would choose to live in a society with murder or
put up with it.  A zoning law certainly has no impact upon the
preservation of society.  And thus the question, does a society
have an interest in laws having nothing to do with the
preservation of society?
     Laws which clearly preserve society may work a hardship upon
some but that hardship is clearly the price of membership in that
society even if it should benefit some others.  A law which
simply makes things "nicer" or "better" in the opinion of some is
clearly a law for their benefit without regard to the hardship it
works upon others.  There is clearly no reason to accept the
hardship; merely to tolerate it at best.
     Of course if we are talking of a monarchy or dictatorship
there is little question of who the "better" laws benefit, those
who rule the country.  When it comes a society that has
specifically created the government it becomes a question as to
the validity of one group passing or obtaining a law to its own
benefit at the expense of another group.  It is not clear such a
government differs from a band of random thieves save it is
acting under the color of government.
     This abhorrence of a pure democracy by those who founded this
country was one of the reasons for the elaborate safeguards that
were built into our US Constitution to prevent exactly that.
There was the specific delegation of powers to the government and
if it was not clear enough the 10th amendment was added to say in
a polite manner, and that means ONLY those powers, dummy.
     In order to minimize the chances of there being a private
agreement to subvert the limitations set out in the Constitution
it established three independent branches of government in the
belief they would be be at each other's throats and keep any one
from dominating the government.  It was not their intention that
political parties should subvert that separation of powers.
     Consider a group of people carefully crafting three separate
and equal branches of government as a means of keeping that
government under control.  Imagine their response to a situation
where the mood of many in the country and among many elected
officials to the idea that if one party controls the Executive
and Legislative branches it should pack the Judicial Branch and
pass all the legislation it wishes.
     They included the power of the states to not only elect the
president and appoint Senators to give the states the power
independently limit the power and direction of the federal
government.  The rise of political parties subverted both
controls.  
     As there arose two parties effectively sharing the power of
government the Electoral College election of the President as
members of the College are appointed by the parties. And once
there were parties were established the appointment of Senators
by the state directly mirrored the popular vote.  Thus the direct
election of Senators can be seen as progressive as compared to
direct election of the President which we do not have as both
always mirror the political parties.
     Thus in this country we have lost sight of the concept of
the minimum laws necessary for survival of the our country and
have embraced a policy of promoting the advancement of the
parties.  That we do not see them jackbooting around giving
orders does not change the fact.  It is difficult to impossible
to find a long term politician that is not rich beyond the
possibilities of their official income.  If they had personal or
family money it is certainly impossible to explain their wealth.
     And the citizens, aligned by party, ignore the interests of
the country and vote for their party like they root for their
football team.  It is a fine rallying cry but when important
decisions are before the country, a decision between a necessary
law and an unnecessary law, support is along party lines, not
country lines.
     This may appear a harsh or improper judgement but there is
no way to justify that the best person for a government job
appointment just happens to always have the right party loyalty.
No one can make the case Janet Reno is other than the third best,
democrat woman for the job of Attorney General.
     The party system is not only the reason the country has lost
sight of the concept of necessary laws only but also of the
ability to restrain itself from unnecessary laws.  The ultimate
fate of the country under such a system appears to me to be the
same as that of a monarchy or dictatorship that has created law
for its own benefit.  At some point there will be too much
imposed order and there will be dissolution in rebellion.
That is unfortunate.

                            * * * * *

        Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

    P.O. Box 82541, Tampa, Florida, 33682-2541, 813-969-0362

                  [note new address and phone]



---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ "Bill survives Hil attack, two Sec Service Agents injured."
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/3 99 201 204 224 246 301 501 601 701 714 724 801 377/5 6 9
SEEN-BY: 377/15 50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 3615/50 51 3619/25 3654/5


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2921)
To:      Lou Skimming                            5 Oct 94 13:42:10
Subject: Astronomers Anti-christ?               

LS> MG>      He clearly claims to be the Son of Man and not of god.  
LS> MG> Why anyone would pervert his clear statement into a claim he 
LS> MG> is god or the son of god is beyond me.  Your claim is 
LS> MG> clearly blasphemous from your own citation.

LS>  Dan 3 25  He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, 
LS>  walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; 
LS>  and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

     His name was Yeshua not Dan.  What does this have to do with 
him never making the claim.

LS>  Mat 4 3  And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou 
LS>  be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
LS>  4  But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not 
LS>  live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out 
LS>  of the mouth of God.
LS>  5  Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and 
LS>  setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
LS>  6  And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast 
LS>  thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels 
LS>  charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear 
LS>  thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a 
LS>  stone.
LS>  7  Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not 
LS>  tempt the Lord thy God.

     "If thou be" is a challenge not a temptation.  But even in 
that context first he did nothing to demonstrate any godhood.  
Next he was clearly pointing out the violation of the admonishion 
(that only he is able to find as it is not included in the OT) 
that if he were they were sinning.  That is not personal claim.  
"I am" would be a personal claim.  

LS> Mat 4 7 Says it all, but I'll continue.

LS>  Mat 8 29  And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we 
LS>  to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come 
LS>  hither to torment us before the time?
LS>  30  And there was a good way off from them an herd of many 
LS>  swine feeding.
LS>  31  So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us 
LS>  out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine.

     What he was called by others in no way is a personal claim.  
I said he did not make the claim.

LS>  John 8 16  And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I 
LS>  am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.

     Being sent by another is not the same as being the father 
else one is sending one's self.  Prophets also claimed to have 
been sent by god.  "MY father" rather than "THE father" might 
help your case.  As you note below MOSES made exactly the same 
sent from claim without divinity being attributed to him.

LS>  John 8 58  Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto 
LS>  you, Before Abraham was, I am.
     
     And?  A claim to longevity is not a claim of being god.

LS>  Exo 3 13  And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto 
LS>  the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of 
LS>  your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to 
LS>  me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?
LS>  14  And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, 
LS>  Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath 
LS>  sent me unto you.

LS>  You see Matt I Am was the God of the Bible, the Word.

     "I am that I am" implies self causation.  That a translation 
from Hebrew (Exo) is treated as the same from Sanskrit or Greek 
(John) is of interest given verb tenses in this strange 
construction and the like.  That Moses and Yeshua make the same 
claim of sent from, a common verb and tense, would certainly have 
the greatest weight in absence of a discussion of the original 
words and their meanings.

LS>   2 Tim 1 2  To Timothy, my dearly beloved son: Grace, 
LS>   mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our 
LS>   Lord.

     Clearly "God the Father" and "Christ Jesus our Lord" are 
different people.  Is there a point you are trying to make here?

LS>  Gen 1 2  And the earth was without form, and void; and 
LS>  darkness was upon the face of the deep.  And the Spirit of 
LS>  God moved upon the face of the waters.
LS> 
LS>  The Holy Spirit is not new either.

     As there is a reference to people having body, mind, soul 
and spirit in one of the epistles I do not see that a reference 
to the "spirit of god" has any different meaning simply that the 
soul of god and mind of god are not mentioned in the same manner 
as the spirit and body of god are mentioned.

LS>  Gen 15 15:1  After these things the word of the LORD came 
LS>  unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy 
LS>  shield, and thy exceeding great reward.
LS>  2  And Abram said, Lord GOD, what wilt thou give me, seeing 
LS>  I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer 
LS>  of Damascus?
LS>  3  And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: 
LS>  and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir.
LS>  4  And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, 
LS>  This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth 
LS>  out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.
LS> 
LS>  Christ is the word, he is God, yet he is seperate as well.

     You have not established there is a formal title of word.  
But the "word of the" or "son of the" is not the same as "the."

     And my claim stands, HE did not make the claim.

LS>  Gen 1 26  And God said, Let us make man in our image, after 
LS>  our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of 
LS>  the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, 
LS>  and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that 
LS>  creepeth upon the earth.
LS>  27  So God created man in his own image, in the image of 
LS>  God created he him; male and female created he them.
LS> 
LS>  Our image refers to the God head, God the Father, God the 
LS>  Son, and God the Holy Spirit.  It permeates the entire 
LS>  Bible.

     Whatever "Our image" refers to, it will take more than you 
simple assertion of its meaning to have standing.  AND were you 
to put it in context of the creation story, there are several 
plural references which are clearly to other gods.  It is also 
not clear that a god would refer to himself in the plural as that 
is first recorded to have been done by Queen Victoria, rather a 
bit late for Genesis.



---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ FOIA?  We don't need no stinking FOIA!
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/3 99 201 204 224 246 301 501 601 701 714 724 801 377/5 6 9
SEEN-BY: 377/15 50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 3615/50 51 3619/25 3654/5


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2922)
To:      Lou Skimming                            5 Oct 94 14:19:10
Subject: Astronomers Anti-christ?               

LS> MG>      That there was one person at one time who passed along 
LS> MG> the power to his apostles in his famous "teach all nations" 
LS> MG> speech the issue devolves into who are the legitimate 
LS> MG> inheritors of that power.

LS> What? God's elect are the inheritors, as they always have been.

     Yeshua said something else entirely.  If you are holding he 
got it wrong that is something else entirely.  He certainly said 
nothing about any "elect" being his inheritors.  Perhaps you need 
a copy of the Jefferson Bible.

LS> MG>      When corruption is judged by the translation being 
LS> MG> compliant with a modern day belief structure it is putting 
LS> MG> the cart before the horse.  Today NO religion tracing itself 
LS> MG> back to the Bible is

LS> (Continued next message...)

     It did not come through.
     


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ Sometimes the Gov has to kill kids in order to save them.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/3 99 201 204 224 246 301 501 601 701 714 724 801 377/5 6 9
SEEN-BY: 377/15 50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 3615/50 51 3619/25 3654/5


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2923)
To:      Mike Coulson                            5 Oct 94 14:21:10
Subject: Canadian Gun Control                   

MC> MATT GIWER spoke to MIKE COULSON on 09-27-94.

MC> MG?   Which US are you talking about?

MC>  Canada.  Sure, we have our share of guns.  But when I go 
MC>  out I can be reasonably sure that the majority of the 
MC>  people I come in contact with do not have a gun on them, 
MC>  and do not carry one around in their car.  Even more so as 
MC>  gun control laws get stricter.  The fewer guns on the 
MC>  streets, the safer I will feel.

     As I have pointed out, it is all a matter of race down here.  
You would more rationally feel safer with fewer minorities on the 
street.  As you also know the Florida experience was of a 
decrease in street crime when it encouraged guns being carried on 
the streets.  

     Therefore your "feelings" are contrary to reality.  As 
reality will not adjust to your feelings it is incumbent upon you 
to adjust your feelings to reality.  You may not feel safer but 
you will be safer.  It is a matter of intellect over emotions.

National Review
May 16, 1994
page 44

                 Blacks, Jews, Liberals, and Crime

Ed Koch, former mayor of New York City

[This was the opening article to which several other commentators
responded. The following was the response of Jared Taylor, author
of _Paved With Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations
in Contemporary America_.]


Jared Taylor

  "It has now become acceptable to discuss black crime," writes 
Mr. Koch. I'm not sure this is compliment to those of us who have 
been doing it for years ── Patrick Buchanan, Samuel Francis, and 
especially Professor William Wilbanks of Florida International 
University, to mention just a few. But we welcome Mr. Koch into 
our midst nonetheless.

  In fact, the significance of black crime is even greater than 
Mr. Koch realizes, for without it, the level of violence in the 
United States would not be appreciably greater than that of the 
European nations with which we are most often compared.

  As the chart on the next page shows, Americans as a whole are 
far more violent than Europeans; twice as likely as Frenchmen to 
commit murder and more than five times as likely as Germans to 
commit robbery. However, as is clear from the separate 
calculations for American blacks and whites, it is very high 
rates of violent crimes by blacks ── eight times as high as 
whites for murder and more than ten times for robbery ── that 
yield this result.

  These figures actually overstate the white crime rate, since 
the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports classify Hispanics as "white." 
About 9 per cent of the population is Hispanic, and jurisdictions 
that threat them as a separate category report that they are two 
to six times as likely as whites to commit murder and robbery. 
These figures have a bearing on the debate over gun control. 
White Americans, who have easy access to guns, are less likely to 
kill each other than are the British, who are almost completely 
disarmed. Would gun control be so widely advocated if America 
were less violent than Britain? Of course not. Though they 
probably do not realize it, gun-control advocates propose to 
disarm all Americans because of violent crimes committed by 
blacks. This comparison with Europe suggests that the United 
States

has neither a unique "culture of violence" nor inadequate gun 
laws. It has a high rate of violent crime because it has a large 
number of violent black criminals. Let us hope Mr. Koch will 
agree that it is now respectable to say so.


                         CRIMES PER 100,000 POPULATION

                                                      American  American
            Britain   France  Germany  Italy  U.S.A.   Whites    Blacks
            ───────   ──────  ───────  ─────  ──────   ──────    ──────
Murder        7.4      4.6      4.2     6.0     9.3      5.1       43.4
Robbery      62.6     90.4     47.4    68.6   263.0    126       1343

Source: _Uniform Crime Reports_ for U.S. data, _The Economist_ for
        European data. European data for 1990; American data for 1992.



---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ Waco lesson 1.  Kill them before they burn you alive.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/3 99 201 204 224 246 301 501 601 701 714 724 801 377/5 6 9
SEEN-BY: 377/15 50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 3615/50 51 3619/25 3654/5


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2925)
To:      Pete Bucy                               5 Oct 94 14:30:10
Subject: Canadian piracy                        

PB>  PB>  MG>   There were a few charges of slaughter after surrender but 
PB>  PB>  MG>   they were generally dismissed at the war crimes trials or 
PB>  PB>  MG>   trivial punishments vice executions.

PB>  PB>      There are many Americans who don't think that the
PB>  PB>      Battan death march or the horrible treatment and murder
PB>  PB>      of American POW's was travail.  Nor do the Koreans and
PB>  PB>      Chinese believe that the enslavement and murder of
PB>  PB>      their people's were rare events.

PB>  MG> I believe this discussion was of European wars was it not?

PB>     I don't know if it is about European wars or all wars. If you
PB>     want to stay in Europe, then there is still plenty of
PB>     slaughter, forced labor, and slavery to discuss.

     And I was pointing out the reduction in such unwarranted 
events over the centuries.  Ever hear of blinding the losing 
army?  Executing half of them?  Cutting off their hands? You have 
to go back to Rome to find that sort of thing.


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ Lt. Frank Drebbin was in Charge of Corpus Crispy OPS.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/3 99 201 204 224 246 301 501 601 701 714 724 801 377/5 6 9
SEEN-BY: 377/15 50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 3615/50 51 3619/25 3654/5


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2926)
To:      David Lentz                             5 Oct 94 14:35:10
Subject: Hearing aid                            

DL> In a message of  9/28/1994, you wrote:
DL> MG>       During the Civil War the position of the North was 
DL> MG>  that ratification could not be withdrawn under the pretext 
DL> MG>  of the slight wording difference between the US and 
DL> MG>  Confederate constitutions.  The US says, We the People of 
DL> MG>  the United States, while the Confederate said, We the 
DL> MG>  people of the States of the United States.  It may appear 
DL> MG>  trivial but the latter holds the separate states to be 
DL> MG>  separate nations bound only by mutual agreement to a larger 
DL> MG>  entity acting for the best interests of that state.

DL>  Oh how I envy your library.   I don't have a copy of the 
DL>  Articles of Confederation.

     It is on disk.  Chase files long enough and you collect them 
all.  Up to 28 megs at the moment.  DTSEARCH does the indexing.  
SST does the general searching.

     However the Articles of Confederation preceded the US 
Constitution.  The Constitution of the Confederated States of 
America is something I do not have as yet.  I understand the 
above to be the only difference in wording.  That also leads into 
the 14th amendment creation of citizens of the United States 
rather than citizens of the several states.

DL>  You noted the slightly different words used the 
DL>  Constitution and the Articles.  Might I suggest, that if the 
DL>  Confederacy rewrote the phrase they did so because they 
DL>  felt the need to establish a legal basis for succession in 
DL>  the Articles.  It is only conjecture.

     The basis as I understand it was to clarify that the states 
constituted the United States rather than the people.  In the 
case of secession that means that the states could leave but the 
people of those states maintained a constituting relationship to 
the "north" for lack of a better term.  Remember, there were 
lawyers involved in all of this.  Words were not chosen randomly. 
They were chosen for their meaning.


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ All right, Koresh, make my day. -- Reno
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/3 99 201 204 224 246 301 501 601 701 714 724 801 377/5 6 9
SEEN-BY: 377/15 50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 3615/50 51 3619/25 3654/5


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2929)
To:      John Clifton                            5 Oct 94 14:53:10
Subject: Right conclusion, poor an              

JC> >      As the only way you can buy OPEC oil is to offer real 
JC> >  US dollars in return it appears obvious that oil is the 
JC> >  price support for the US dollar.  Were it not for oil who 
JC> >  would really need the US dollar?  Why would Japan insist 
JC> >  upon dumping goods here for any other reason than to get 
JC> >  those dollars to buy oil?

JC>       Japan needs to import more than oil.  They can't feed 
JC>  themselves and they have virtually nothing in the way of 
JC>  raw materials.

     Japan is quite self sufficient in food simply that a diet of 
rice and fish gets a bit boring after a while.  That they need 
raw materials is another matter but they can be bought with the 
currency of the nation doing the selling.  Unless buying from the 
US that does not impact dollars.

     On a related note, Japan has wanted to buy Alaskan oil from 
the moment it was discovered.  It would be cheaper than Middle 
East oil.  That would have returned most of our out flow dollars 
right back to the US.  Congress, in its infinite wisdom, declared 
Alaskan oil could not be exported.  It is wise legislation like 
that for which they are elected.

JC> >      Given our balance of trade around the world it is not 
JC> >  easy to justify that the world wants US dollars to buy US 
JC> >  goods.

JC>       The U.S.  dollar is a relatively stable 
JC>  medium-of-exchange and there are lots of 'em around.  It's 
JC>  convenient to settle contracts with dollars.

     In a world of floating currencies, the long term stability 
of a currency is not particularly of value save in a currency 
denominated savings account.  People in regular international 
trade have their working capital in the international money 
markets.  

     The body of world monies is more stable than the dollar.  
More practically, given the recent dollar fall against the yen 
the buyer was wiser to have his money in yen and converting 
immediately prior to purchase.

JC>                             * * * * *

JC> >      That is the theory.  I am talking the practice.  A 
JC> >  twenty dollar bill might as well be imprinted, pay to the 
JC> >  bearer on barrel of oil upon demand.

JC>       Nah.  The price of oil is far more volatile than the 
JC>  value of the dollar.

     It has been in the $17/bbl range for years now ten or so.  
As to volatile, as compared to which of the currencies in the 
floating pool?

JC> JC>      Increasing oil production will make the dollar *more*
JC> JC> valuable.

JC> >     The demand as you point out is inelastic.  Cheaper oil does
JC> > not mean more will be bought.  The same amount will be bought
JC> > for less money.

JC>     │               D
JC>   $ │                D
JC>     │                 D                             S
JC>     │                  D                        S
JC>     │                   D                   S
JC>     │                    D              S
JC>  P2 │---------------------D---------X
JC>     │                      D    S   |
JC>  P1 │-----------------------X       |
JC>     │                   S   |D      |
JC>     │               S       | D     |
JC>     │           S           |  D    |
JC>     │       S               |   D   |
JC>     │                       |    D  |
JC>     │                       |     D |
JC>     │                       |       |
JC>     └───────────────────────────────────────────────────────
JC>                             Q1      Q2                  Q

JC>       The problem for OPEC and other oil producers is that 
JC>  the demand for oil is relatively *inelastic* while the 
JC>  supply is relatively *elastic* (in the quantity range where 
JC>  the productive capacity is in place) and the cost of 
JC>  production is quite low.  Thus, the potential profit of 
JC>  producing more oil (marginal revenue less marginal cost) 
JC>  for any producer is a definite incentive to cheat on the 
JC>  cartel.

     When the oil embargo was in force, less was purchased.  It 
sparked energy conservation measures around the world.  After 
enough years the total oil bill for the world was back to about 
where it was before the embargo with fewer barrels being bought 
from OPEC at least.


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ Bureau of Firearms, Alcohol, Religion and Tobacco
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/3 99 201 204 224 246 301 501 601 701 714 724 801 377/5 6 9
SEEN-BY: 377/15 50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 3615/50 51 3619/25 3654/5


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2930)
To:      Shane Gouseman                          5 Oct 94 15:17:10
Subject: SMOKING                                

SG> MG> BS>  Actually the fastest Death cigs are Sofas: light one when
SG> MG> BS>  drunk and fall asleep on the sofa.

SG> MG>       Are YOU implying you have the data to support the 
SG> MG>  cigarette causes of fires?

SG>    It isn't the cigarette's fault, it is the stupid, drunk, 
SG>    slob's fault.

     Good.  For a minute there I thought cigarettes were as evil 
as guns causing all that harm.


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ Waco!  Never again!  Vote Libertarian!
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/3 99 201 204 224 246 301 501 601 701 714 724 801 377/5 6 9
SEEN-BY: 377/15 50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 3615/50 51 3619/25 3654/5


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2935)
To:      Jolene Post                             5 Oct 94 22:35:10
Subject: Haiti (News release)                   

JP>  Gen.  Shelton Says Top Four Haitian 'Thugs' Arrested
JP> 
JP>      NEW YORK (Reuter) - The commander of United States 
JP>  forces in Haiti said Monday that four of the Caribbean 
JP>  nation's "top thugs" were in custody, but efforts to disarm 
JP>  all the country's paramilitary force, known as "attaches," 
JP>  are going slower than planned.

     The top four?  Fascinating that a mere General would 
contradict the CINC by claiming they were in custody when the 
head evil genius, Cedras, still is free.

JP>      Lieutenant General Hugh Shelton told CBS-TV's "This 
JP>  Morning" that: "Here in (Port-au-Prince) the last couple of 
JP>  days we've picked up four of the top thugs or Ninjas or 
JP>  attaches that we were looking for on the street."

     I really do hate political officers.  They deserve what they 
get come the right time.

JP>      Shelton did not identify the detained men, but official 
JP>  U.S.  sources said Sunday night that American troops seized 
JP>  Romeo Haloun, a security adviser to Haitian Lieutenant 
JP>  General Raoul Cedras.

     Gee.  The lieutenant of Cedras is the real bad guy.  I would 
never have guessed.

JP>      In one incident earlier this year, Haloun ordered the 
JP>  disarming of a U.S.  Drug Enforcement Administration 
JP>  official in Haiti.  

     Where do we send congratulations?

In another, a Canadian man was beaten at 
JP>  a roadblock under his control, American sources said.

     And unarmed Canadian alone?  Tell me another story.


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ BBQed Baby Back Ribs, Waco style.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/3 99 201 204 224 246 301 501 601 701 714 724 801 377/5 6 9
SEEN-BY: 377/15 50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 3615/50 51 3619/25 3654/5


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2936)
To:      Michael Pilon                           5 Oct 94 22:49:10
Subject: HAITI INVASION                         

MP>  I don't jsutify the invasdion of Haiti, I am jsut trying to 
MP>  make soem sense of it.  The US has not exactly opposed all 
MP>  dictators in the past so the sudden urge to " free" Haiti 
MP>  is a bit of a puzzle......come on down Marcos, Pinochet 
MP>  etc...

     If we cared about all we would have freed Quebec long ago.  
The only problem would have been the lack of resistance save from 
Quebec.

MP> Mike Arastide

     Even a dentist ...


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ "Flame on!" -- Janet "The Torch" Reno
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/3 99 201 204 224 246 301 501 601 701 714 724 801 377/5 6 9
SEEN-BY: 377/15 50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 3615/50 51 3619/25 3654/5


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2937)
To:      David Lentz                             5 Oct 94 22:58:10
Subject: Morality of war.                       

On 10/01/94 DAVID LENTZ to LINDA TERRELL on Morality of war.

DL> LT>    They were/are BOTH Commander-In-Chief.

DL>  How tall are you?  I will have to make my message a few 
DL>  inches lower, for it sailed right over your head.
DL> 
DL>  I have not disputed the legal authority of the 
DL>  Commander-in-Chief.  What I have questioned was President 
DL>  Clinton's moral authority, which is totally apart from his 
DL>  legal authority.

     It is also of note that impeachment shall only be for high 
crimes and misdemeanors and not for mis or mal feasance nor for 
unethical conduct.  An interesting situation even if his own 
party turns against him.


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ Bill Clinton patented the Opti-grab.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/3 99 201 204 224 246 301 501 601 701 714 724 801 377/5 6 9
SEEN-BY: 377/15 50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 3615/50 51 3619/25 3654/5


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

+++■■■■■ r_941011 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2336)
To:      Jim Sterling                            7 Oct 94 22:18:10
Subject: MEDIA LIES                             

JS>  MG>       In practice at a time in my life when I had zero 
JS>  MG>  income I had no problem whatsoever getting all the medical 
JS>  MG>  care I needed, twice.  The first possibly life threatening, 
JS>  MG>  the second really life threatening.  It is not my theory, it 
JS>  MG>  is fact.

JS>  Ditto.  In my case, definitely not only life threatening, 
JS>  but also threatening to the ultimate integrity of my body.  
JS>  Amputation above the knees was considered.

     And a room mate of mine from around six years ago had next 
to zero income after essentials and got an operation that could 
have been written up for publication in an attempt to save the 
leg that was left -- graft two large veins into an artery and 
hope for enough blood supply.  It worked for two years but 
finally failed.  

     He could offer nothing to pay and nothing was asked other 
than he fill out the forms to get someone else to pay the costs.  
He did.  Not one penny out of his several incomes that were added 
AFTER coming to the attention of the form takers was ever 
attached.  

     Four years later a speeding truck (heart attack) got him.  
That is always the way.

JS> BK>  Since we're already providing it, that's one cost that 
JS> BK>   won't be added to a national   health care plan.

JS>  MG>       IF you had been listening to The Clintons you would 
JS>  MG>  have learned it would have been REPLACED by more expensive 
JS>  MG>  insurance which would not have addressed the problem in the 
JS>  MG>  least.

JS>   As a single parent in my mid-sixties, I draw a minimal 
JS>  combination of Social Security and SSI Disability, with a 
JS>  small monthly supplement for my 6-year old.  While I have a 
JS>  bit of a problem finding a suitable doctor for myself who 
JS>  accepts Medicaid, fortunately for my little boy, the finest 
JS>  pediatrician in town was happy to accept him as a patient.

     Care goes first to the youth when there are finite dollars.  
I could never object to that.  And there are always finite 
dollars.

JS>  Fortunately for me, at the time my disability payment was 
JS>  partially shifted to Social Security, the caseworker 
JS>  advised me NOT to choose the Medicare option and to remain 
JS>  with Medicaid.  Had I accepted the Medicaid option, my 
JS>  recent emergency surgery and implantation of a Pacemaker 
JS>  would have been ruinous to me, even though I'd have been 
JS>  responsible for only 20% of the expenses.  Implementation of 
JS>  the Clinton plan would have been disastrous to me and many 
JS>  like me.

     Any government system is one of increasing costs to the 
user.  We can digress into all the reasons.  We can also accept 
there has never been a government system that has made things 
cheaper.


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ The NRA shot no one in Waco.  Trust the Gov.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/3 99 201 204 224 246 301 501 601 701 714 724 801 377/5 6 9
SEEN-BY: 377/15 50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 3615/50 51 3619/25


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2343)
To:      Ron Buttenham                           7 Oct 94 23:34:10
Subject: Smoker And Individua                   

RB> MG>      The current ALA study says the increased risk can only 
RB> MG> be inferred from the statistics and not measured directly.  
RB> MG> Is that what you mean by shitload?

RB>  About all you can ever do is infer from what is implied 
RB>  from statistics of this kind, so yes.  Hardly a week goes 
RB>  by that I don't read somewhere about, as one example of the 
RB>  statistics that come out, the higher risk of cancers or 
RB>  emphysema in the children of smokers.

     Smoking is in this year as an evil.  A few years ago hardly 
a week went by when ecological catastrophe was not facing all 
life on earth.  

     Eventually the Oprah mentality moves on to a new subject.  

     Consider I can remember being saved from death from gas 
guzzelers in my life time.  I have been save from DDT.  I have 
been saved so many times I owe my life ten times over to the 
Oprahs of the world.  

     Praise Oprah!

RB> MG>RB>   The neat thing about the smoking thing is that natural 
RB> MG>RB>   selection will eventually end the line and smokers will 
RB> MG>RB>   simply become extinct or at best an inferior species.

RB> MG>     Your ignorance of smoking related illness and/or natural
RB> MG>selection is overwhelming.

RB> This time you missed the irony and cynicism.

     When confronted with so much self serving BS it is at times 
difficult.


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ Hil's bill survives Hill attack, Bill survives Hil's attack.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/3 99 201 204 224 246 301 501 601 701 714 724 801 377/5 6 9
SEEN-BY: 377/15 50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 3615/50 51 3619/25


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

+++■■■■■ r_941012 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2163)
To:      All                                     9 Oct 94 00:58:10
Subject: To Err is Required                     

                       To Err is Required
                               by
                           Matt Giwer (c) 1994 <10/09>

     In our system of government and law we hold to many
principles in its execution.  When it comes to criminal matters
where there are penalties involving the loss of liberty if not
life itself, we hold one to be above all else.  It is better for
the guilty to go free than for the innocent to be punished
wrongfully.
     This principle required that if there is to be an error in
judgement that it be in favor of the least harm, that is,
innocence.  This is a reasonable principle.  If there is a
question of guilt or innocence then innocence is the proper
finding.
     Similarly we have enumerated rights and as citizens we have
charged our government with protecting those rights.  Those
rights are as fundamental as our need to be protected from the
power of the state gaining a conviction of the innocent.  Thus it
would appear equally prudent, when there comes a question as to a
right or the extent of that right that there be a similar error
in favor of that right.
     Thus if there is a question of the right to free speech and
the government's obligation to protect that right then it is
clear the government itself, in light of its obligation to
protect that right, is required to start with the assumption that
the question must be decided in the favor of that right lacking
overwhelming government interest an alternate interpretation.
     Is this what we have?  No, it is the opposite of what we
have.  The Supreme Court has held that if a person does not
vigorously speak of a his rights at all points he has lost them.
That is hardly erring on the side of the government's obligation
to protect our specified rights.
     In addition the sequence of the infringement of our rights
has followed from a progression of exceedingly legalistic
convolutions that only a lawyer could love.  When the enumerated
right is freedom from warrantless searches and seizures the
courts have found it a challenge to refine what that really
means.  In cars it is down to the degree of what might be plain
view, in or out of a bag, and whether or not that bag is properly
sealed.
     Were there error on the side of the protected right then all
but waving the item out the car window would be protected.  Such
is not the form of our legal system.
     Our legal system is on the side of meticulously defining via
court precedent only the exact limits of our protections.  There
is no presumption that the rights exist.  The presumption is that
they were defined in the minds of the framers of the Constitution
and must be refined by the courts.
     This ignores on significant point.  The Framers were of the
mind of those who declared our independence and they held ...

             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 -- That to secure these
Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just
Powers from the Consent of the Governed,

     The concept of government is clearly to protect the rights
of men.  This brings up a larger issue.  That the same government
charged with protecting those rights has assumed an adversarial
role in in limiting those rights by intellectual mayhem.  It has
declined to fulfill its defensive roll in the protection of those
rights.
     I grant executing the law and defending rights at the same
time is a difficult position.  That is why the requirement to err
on the side of the right BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH not by the
Judicial Branch is essential.  That is no where in evidence.
     What we have is a government with the largest and most
active branch that is actively hostile to our rights.  The
Executive Branch works to limit those rights contrary to its
constituted obligation.  I see no reason to believe this was the
government that was conceived and constituted for this country.
     There is no reason to permit it to continue.

                            * * * * *

        Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

       P.O. Box 82541, Tampa, Florida, 33613, 813-969-0362

                  [note new address and phone]




---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ Ye shall know them by their personal.dct.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/3 99 201 204 224 246 301 501 601 701 714 724 801 377/5 6 9
SEEN-BY: 377/15 50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 3615/50 51 3619/25


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2238)
To:      Chris Baugh                             8 Oct 94 12:09:10
Subject: 4th out the window  w                  

CB>  A comparison could be made the White House.  Tours are 
CB>  frequently conducted for visitors to see certain parts of 
CB>  the building.  That does not mean that anyone has 
CB>  permission to, at any time, look around to see if there's 
CB>  anything interesting in the President's quarters or 
CB>  office.

     You are getting ahead of me.


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ "Bill survives Hil attack, two Sec Service Agents injured."
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/3 99 201 204 224 246 301 501 601 701 714 724 801 377/5 6 9
SEEN-BY: 377/15 50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 3615/50 51 3619/25


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2239)
To:      Wayne Jones                             8 Oct 94 12:10:10
Subject: CANADIAN                               

WJ>  MG>  Who it could have been handled by and what was in fact the 
WJ>  MG>  most appropriate is a judgement call.  I am only pointing 
WJ>  MG>  out that in dealing with an independent nation there is no 
WJ>  MG>  cause to object to the use of the military.

WJ>  Indeed, but the native lands, are not considered 
WJ>  independent nations in this country.  

     Which answers the question.  Down here they are and the 
courts are finally getting around to admitting they have full 
sovereignty -- given the lack of hostilities for so long that 
breeches of same are no longer justified.


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ Hillary's Army, Looking for a few good lesbians.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/3 99 201 204 224 246 301 501 601 701 714 724 801 377/5 6 9
SEEN-BY: 377/15 50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 3615/50 51 3619/25


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2240)
To:      Wayne Jones                             8 Oct 94 12:12:10
Subject: COUNT YOUR CARS                        

WJ>  MG> It can't happen here.

WJ>  MG> A government panel has convened today, 9/30, to discuss,
WJ>  MG> among other things, limiting the number of cars a family can own.

WJ>  MG> I have a copy of the US Constitution.  Where is it written?

WJ>          Decided this was worth checking on.  Nope, your 
WJ>          constitution, doesn't give you the right to bear 
WJ>          cars.  Sorry you lose.  :-) 

     Read further.

AMENDMENTS
 
9th Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not
be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
 
10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
the States respectively, or to the people.

     So we can all bear cars even those not up to Arnie's 
standards.

Have all the arms you 
WJ>          want, but those drive by shootings will have to 
WJ>          stop, zero tollerance on car ownership.  New bumper 
WJ>          sticker "people don't kill people cars do" , "the 
WJ>          only good Chevy is a dead Chevy".

     That last is the only one that will gain serious support.


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ Broad Based contribution, kick Hillary in the butt.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/3 99 201 204 224 246 301 501 601 701 714 724 801 377/5 6 9
SEEN-BY: 377/15 50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 3615/50 51 3619/25


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2241)
To:      Lester Garrett                          8 Oct 94 12:15:10
Subject: Missing Messages                       

LG>  That said, it could not hurt to try and alert systems 
LG>  upstream from your SysOp's that something appears to be 
LG>  going wrong.  If he can get other sysops in the path to 
LG>  identify where the message has been received, it might help 
LG>  track down the problem.  Unfortunately, I suspect that 
LG>  getting the cooperation of all involved may be a bear of a 
LG>  task.

     And too much of a hassle at this point considering how long 
it has taken me to be certain.  A hassle I will be putting up 
with damn it.


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ Hillary, The World's Greatest Authority on health care.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/3 99 201 204 224 246 301 501 601 701 714 724 801 377/5 6 9
SEEN-BY: 377/15 50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 3615/50 51 3619/25


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

+++■■■■■ r_941013 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2364)
To:      All                                     9 Oct 94 12:05:10
Subject: Kuwait, 9 Oct 94                       

                     Kuwait, 9 October 1994
                               by
                           Matt Giwer (c) 1994 <10/9>

     Whatever Iraq is up to it is apparently not a lightning
strike.  It has given up a 24 hour window in which it could have
moved into Kuwait with no effective opposition.  Rather it has
taken the time to mass (lack of continuous satellite coverage
still hinders a better description than "massing") what is now
estimated to be 60,000 Republican Guard troops.  They are 12
miles from the Kuwaiti border, 2 miles outside the 10 mile wide
demilitarized zone.  (Those distances are English conversions of
metric, 20 km for the DMZ.  Expect variations in the numbers you
hear.)
     Now the US is moving the carrier George Washington into the
area and, although still a long flight, its planes are in
striking distance of any Iraqi advance.  Had Iraq an air defense
capability there might still be time.
     The US ground response is anemic to say the least.  It is
limited to 2,000 Marines and 4,000 Army, RDF.  They have been
ordered to go; there are no press reports of their having left as
of 11:00 am today.  That still gives Iraq 24 hours to move before
facing serious resistance.
     Our troops will arrive (the army at least) to operate tanks
that are prepositioned outside of Kuwait City.  If Iraq can move
fast enough and secure those tanks they have a leg up on retaking
Kuwait.
     A British frigate are whose relevant armament is surface to
air missiles.  Also several US Hawk surface to air batteries have
been moved from Saudi to Kuwait.  It is not apparent what air
assets Iraq still possesses that warrant these actions.
     Another development is the "spontaneous" arrival of up to
20,000 nomads described by Iraq as people forced out of Kuwait
generations ago.  They too are "massing" outside the DMZ but it
convenient to say they are pitching tent.  What part they will
play in Iraq's plan is not apparent at the moment.  It is worth
remembering Iraq sponsored a peace group inside of its defenses
on the Kuwaiti border last time around.  (CNN name these people
"bedoons."  Expect a re-run of the "expert" coverage of the
region we received last time.)
     On the home front the President is rephrasing the statements
he made to Haiti.  His staff is going on talk shows and giving
interviews repeating the same "sound bites" and assuring the
country and the world of the President's resolve.
     The message is "the US is not preoccupied with Haiti."  I
will note this theme appears to assume Iraq somehow believes
Haiti is a Caribbean superpower.  It would appear the
administration is in fact the only group impressed with its
actions in Haiti.
     The UN is posturing as usual with its expression of "grave
concern" and the like that would impress neither a five year old
nor anyone who observed the UN contribution to the first Gulf
War.
     It is now dark in the Middle East and the IR satellite is
not in place as yet.  Keep in mind the time zone differences when
listening to the news.  Some one on Face the Nation said he just
returned from the Kuwait / Iraq border along with stock footage
of daylight something or other, given the fires in the distance
most likely from the last war.

                            * * * * *

                              *****

     The intention of these posts is remain apolitical.  My
apologies to the political conferences.

        Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

       P.O. Box 82541, Tampa, Florida, 33613, 813-969-0362

                  [note new address and phone]



---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ The Constitution is not a technicality.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/3 99 201 204 224 246 301 501 601 701 714 724 801 377/5 6 9
SEEN-BY: 377/15 50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 20050 3615/50 51 3619/25


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2366)
To:      David Lentz                             9 Oct 94 12:42:10
Subject: 4th out the window  w                  

DL> MG>       You appear to be saying that if I give you permission 
DL> MG>  to have access to my property then everyone has such 
DL> MG>  permission.

DL>  But it appears that tours of the Simpson estate were 
DL>  conducted, at least the portion of the estate occupied by 
DL>  Kato Kaelin's bedroom.

     Then the violation was against his privacy not Simpson's.  
As he was not injured by it, his recourse is a trespassing 
complaint.  That Simpson was harmed by the violation of another 
person's privacy has no relevance to Simpson's position.

DL>  I am not arguing that your right of privacy is lost if you 
DL>  grant me premission to enter the vast Giwer Estate.  I am 
DL>  suggesting your right to privacy is lost if you let me make 
DL>  a habit of conducting tours of the Giwer Estate.

     The next time you wander up the stairs at the White House, 
use that argument.


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ Bill Clinton invented the artificial appendix.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/3 99 201 204 224 246 301 501 601 701 714 724 801 377/5 6 9
SEEN-BY: 377/15 50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 20050 3615/50 51 3619/25


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2367)
To:      Chris Baugh                             9 Oct 94 12:49:10
Subject: SMOKING                                

CB>  MG>  Good.  For a minute there I thought cigarettes were as evil 
CB>  MG>  as guns causing all that harm.

CB>  If a gun shot cigarettes, would the BATF or EPA be 
CB>  responsible for banning it?

     Now that some nerf brain judge in California has found its 
gas chamber cruel and unusual the state is considering the use of 
second hand smoke in place of cyanide.  


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ The National Wish List to Santa for Health Care.  HRC
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/3 99 201 204 224 246 301 501 601 701 714 724 801 377/5 6 9
SEEN-BY: 377/15 50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 20050 3615/50 51 3619/25


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2368)
To:      Worden Morrison                         9 Oct 94 12:52:10
Subject: Soldierettes In Haiti                  

WM> MG>      If women are equal to men, where is the press coverage 
WM> MG> of women soldiers in the front lines in Haiti?  Not one word 
WM> MG> in over two weeks.
WM> MG> 
WM> MG>      Be prepared for the press to discover them in a week or 
WM> MG> so when it is save and then for it to fail to mention they 
WM> MG> are recent arrivals after it is considered safe.

WM>       I don't know about you, but I know that women are not 
WM>  equal to men.  Women should only be in the military as a 
WM>  support force.  They should not be fighting.  They are in 
WM>  no way as strong as men.  Maybe a giant woman somewhere, 
WM>  but most women are just women!

     I have no problem with women in the military doing any job 
in the military on condition they pass exactly the same 
requirements as men and live EXACTLY the same as men.  All troops 
are equal.


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ Bill Clinton invented the artificial appendix.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/3 99 201 204 224 246 301 501 601 701 714 724 801 377/5 6 9
SEEN-BY: 377/15 50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 20050 3615/50 51 3619/25


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2377)
To:      Wayne Jones                             9 Oct 94 16:51:10
Subject: Gun Owners Jeer                        

WJ>  CC>  Restricting guns to prevent violence makes as much sense as 
WJ>  CC>  castrating to prevent rape...

WJ>          We don't restrict guns in Canada to prevent 
WJ>          violence, I have never heard of such a thing.  We 
WJ>          restrict guns to cut back on needless deaths that 
WJ>          result from gun violence, we also restrict the type 
WJ>          of guns you can own, and the training required to 
WJ>          own legal firearms.  Your above statement is with 
WJ>          out merit in this case.

     And to prove that is the Canadian reason you will certainly 
be able to cite the gun violence rate going down as the gun 
restrictions have increased.  If you can not demonstrate that has 
occurred then you can not demonstrate that was the reason.  

     No rational country would honestly add restrictions after 
the first set of restrictions fails.  No honest person would 
present that as the real reason.

WJ>          You have to admit, if you don't have a firearm, you 
WJ>          can't shoot someone, right?

     Are you truly holding all Canadians, given no restrictions 
upon gun ownership, would suddenly start killing each other left 
and right?  It must be the cold doing something to your brains.


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ Attila the Hen runs the White House.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/3 99 201 204 224 246 301 501 601 701 714 724 801 377/5 6 9
SEEN-BY: 377/15 50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 20050 3615/50 51 3619/25


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2378)
To:      Michael Pilon                           9 Oct 94 16:58:10
Subject: GUN RIGHTS IN CANADA                   

MP>  JW> In the home, and some keep them loaded.

MP>  I wouold doubt that having a loaded gun would be acceptable 
MP>  to the Swiss.  They' do have the ammo and can be expected to 
MP>  be on 5 minute call up, but loaded ?

     With a five minute call up, be assured the clips are kept 
loaded.  That means seconds between "unloaded" and ready to fire.  
If that is the only question then it is a trivial one.

MP>      The Swiss , a neutral country, also are heavy arms 
MP>  manufacturers, which kind of goes against the squeaky clean 
MP>  image.

     Just who would imagine they have such an image?


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ The National Wish List to Santa for Health Care.  HRC
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/3 99 201 204 224 246 301 501 601 701 714 724 801 377/5 6 9
SEEN-BY: 377/15 50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 20050 3615/50 51 3619/25


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2379)
To:      Michael Pilon                           9 Oct 94 17:01:10
Subject: GUN RIGHTS IN CANADA                   

MP>  Good point Wayne, I also beleive that eay access to guns is 
MP>  going to drive up the murder rate.  Particularly when it is 
MP>  in a violent society, which sadly is what a lot of US inner 
MP>  cities are like.

     Then you are agreeing the US crime problem is purely a race 
problem.  For those who pass the race test there should be no 
issue in having guns.


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ Bill Clinton patented the Opti-grab.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/3 99 201 204 224 246 301 501 601 701 714 724 801 377/5 6 9
SEEN-BY: 377/15 50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 20050 3615/50 51 3619/25


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2380)
To:      Lester Garrett                          9 Oct 94 17:48:10
Subject: This 'N That                           

LG>  TJ> This FIDO mail thing SUX.  . . .

LG> Wasn't that the make of a car in RoboCop?

     A Magnavolt fan.


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ Hill kills Hil's Bill, Hil kills Bill, Dems ill.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/3 99 201 204 224 246 301 501 601 701 714 724 801 377/5 6 9
SEEN-BY: 377/15 50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 20050 3615/50 51 3619/25


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2381)
To:      Lester Garrett                          9 Oct 94 17:49:10
Subject: TOPLESS IN NYC                         

LG> In a message to Bob Klahn, dated 27 Sep 94, Kate Secrest wrote:

LG>  KS> Hmmm...  How 'bout if I just sit here topless and
LG>  KS> post...

LG> Hokay!


LG>  |(.) (.)|
LG>   \     /
LG>    )   (
LG>   /     \
LG>  (  \_/  )
LG>  |   |   |


LG> -={lsg}=-

     Your cellulite is showing.


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ Secret Serv in Prez Bedroom,Fear Battered Husband Syndrome.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/3 99 201 204 224 246 301 501 601 701 714 724 801 377/5 6 9
SEEN-BY: 377/15 50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 20050 3615/50 51 3619/25


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2383)
To:      Hank Peterson                           9 Oct 94 20:59:10
Subject: 4th out the window  w                  

HP>  MG>       Privacy goes with the private person(S).  If you were 
HP>  MG>  not bored to tears you might have heard the hearing on the 
HP>  MG>  privacy issue.  Neither side raised the point you are 
HP>  MG>  raising.
HP>  MG> 
HP>  MG>       You appear to be saying that if I give you permission 
HP>  MG>  to have access to my property then everyone has such 
HP>  MG>  permission.

HP>      I think he is confusing evidence found in a garbage 
HP>      container even if it is under the kitchen sink.  Garbage 
HP>      is public because it has been discarded.

     I am talking principle here.  I refuse to follow the case.  
In fact I mailed the judge my $10 to get the electronic media 
thrown out.  We won!

     Trash, in the case of the glove, is not trash unless placed 
into the proper recepticle.  After that I don't know if there has 
been a test if the trash collector is private as that would be 
delivering it into private rather than public hands.  

     It is also not formal trash until removed to the place of 
pick up.  That is why even private collectors will not come on 
property and pick of from where you ordinarily keep the cans.  
You have to move it to a place where disposal is obviously 
intended.  They are open to an accusation of theft otherwise.  
(Stretching it I know but I have never written a law or made a 
legal decision in my life.  Do not blame me.)

HP>      I would like to introduce a new twist to the Fourth 
HP>      Amendment discussion.  Does the Fourth Amendment and the 
HP>      Fifth Amendment intertwine.  The "unreasonable searches 
HP>      and seizure" condemned in the Fourth Amendment are 
HP>      almost always made for the purpose of compelling a man 
HP>      to give evidence against himself which is condemned in 
HP>      the Fifth Amendment.  Compelling a man "in a criminal 
HP>      case to be a witness against himself" which is 
HP>      condemned in the Fifth Amendment, throws light on the 
HP>      question as to what is an "unreasonable search and 
HP>      seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
HP> 
HP>      The security of one's privacy against arbitrary 
HP>      intrusion by police, which is the core of the Fourth 
HP>      Amendment, is basic to a free society.  It is therefore 
HP>      implicit in "the concept of ordered liberty" and as 
HP>      such enforceable against States through the Due Process 
HP>      Clause.
HP> 
HP>      Presently, a federal proecutor may make no use of 
HP>      evidence illegally seized, but a State's Attorney 
HP>      across the street may, although he supposedly is 
HP>      operating under enforceable disobedience to the Federal 
HP>      Constitution which he is bound to uphold and the judge 
HP>      helps him do it.

     The two are definitely related in that the violation of the 
4th many times implies a violation of the 5th.  Breath tests for 
example.  
     
     This new idea that federal and state laws may overlap, 
covering the same subject in slightly different ways is one that 
introduced in a good cause with the Lindberg kidnapping.  It 
relates quite directly to the King beating, two trials on the 
same facts.  That is quite unacceptable.


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ Gore in '94!
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/3 99 201 204 224 246 301 501 601 701 714 724 801 377/5 6 9
SEEN-BY: 377/15 50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 20050 3615/50 51 3619/25


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2390)
To:      All                                    10 Oct 94 03:58:10
Subject: WHO?!?!? resigns?                      

     Just to get ahead of the Clinton lovers here, as they are 
not permitted an independent thought, let me comment upon the 
Cedras resignation expected today.

     General Noriega did the same thing five years before the 
conquest of Panama just to capture him.

     I note Jimmy Carter was involved in Panama and in Haiti.  

     That Cedras does what Noriega did is meaningless.


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ The only good criminal is a dead criminal.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/3 99 201 204 224 246 301 501 601 701 714 724 801 377/5 6 9
SEEN-BY: 377/15 50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 20050 3615/50 51 3619/25


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

+++■■■■■ r_941017 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2151)
To:      Lou Skimming                           11 Oct 94 22:52:10
Subject: Astronomers Anti-christ?               

LS> MG>      Yeshua said something else entirely.  If you are 
LS> MG> holding he got it wrong that is something else entirely.  He 
LS> MG> certainly said nothing about any "elect" being his 
LS> MG> inheritors.  Perhaps you need a copy of the Jefferson 
LS> MG> Bible.

LS>  Jefferson, being a Deist, removed Christ's deity.  Want to 
LS>  borrow my copy?

     Rather his divinity was added after his death and was not 
based upon any claim that he made.  To understand what was 
reported that he said as a minimum it is necessary to remove what 
he never claimed.



---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ Constitution is not perfect.  It is better than what we have
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 377/5 6 9 15 50
SEEN-BY: 377/54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 20050 3615/50 51 3619/25


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2152)
To:      Sandra Peake                           11 Oct 94 22:55:10
Subject: Eve again             1/2              

SP> MG>      If it had legs at the time there would be no excuse to 
SP> MG> use the word serpent to describe it as with legs it would 
SP> MG> not be a serpent.  It is obvious by inspection.
SP>   Again, you use today's terminology, and the mental 
SP>   pictures it evokes, to describe something you have not 
SP>   seen, and are unfamiliar with.  THe narrator of that 
SP>   account called it a serpent.  I have to use his definition, 
SP>   since that is what it became, regardless if that's what we 
SP>   would have called its legged version.

     If you do not like the idea of the word used then it is just 
as easy, with the rationale you have presented to say it was 
really a horse and the crawling on its belly was an equally bad 
word choice.  On the other hand I have pointed out the universal 
archetype of the winged serpent.  Why you would insist a legged 
serpent is more appropriate than a winged serpent is quite beyond 
me.  
     Perhaps you could explain?

SP> MG>      Talking snakes and magic fruit are but the least of the 
SP> MG> fables Christians would identify as proof of a false 
SP> MG> religion in the legends of any other religion.  "Biblical 
SP> MG> talking animals are proof of the power of Yahweh.  Bhuddist 
SP> MG> talking animals are proof of a false religion."
SP>   THe fruit of itself was not magic, and  the animals that 
SP>   talked had unseen voice projectors.  THis is not a false 
SP>   religion but an explanation.

     Sorry.  It is clear from the words that AFTER eating the 
fruit specifically they covered themselves, they in fact did 
learn something from eating it and from eating it alone.  That 
makes the fruit itself magic, capable of imparting knowledge.  
That is what the words say.  As to any voice projectors there are 
no such words any place to support your conjecture.
     Tell me, why would you insist upon believing something that 
has no basis in the words?  You can only believe something else 
by throwing out the words and forcing the story to fit your 
preconceived ideas that are found NO PLACE in any book of the 
Bible.  
     
     Why would you add to the Bible?

SP> MG>     Then how can a lizard with legs be described as a snake
SP> MG>without legs?
SP>   MAybe because the narrator was more familiar with the 
SP>   concept of vocabulary, since he wrote Genesis centuries 
SP>   after the fact.  If it looks like a snake, moves like a 
SP>   snake, etc..

     Perhaps because everyone knew that before Eden serpents 
flew?  Hint, a narrator can NOT writes centuries after the fact 
unless very long lived.  In practice he was 4004 - 1200 years old 
to be a narrator.

SP> MG>      Excuse me.  Please describe the difference between 
SP> MG> dying after eating that fruit and dying without eating that 
SP> MG> fruit.  Please provide the quotes from Genesis that support 
SP> MG> the difference in the two kinds of death you perceive.
SP>   Very well.  By eating of the fruit, Adam and Eve would die.  
SP>   THis  was a divine curse and a certainty.  THe fruit itself 
SP>   was not poisonous - it was a test of obedience.  I  can 
SP>   prove the fruit wasn't poisonous - Adam was still alive 
SP>   over 900 years after eating it.
SP>   But eventually he did die, paying the divine penalty for 
SP>   disobedience.  

     That was also the result of obedience.  You are not reading 
Genesis.

During this time, he had to work very hard 
SP>   to make a living,(a big change  from the easy pickings in 
SP>   the garden), watched his wife deliver baby after baby in 
SP>   travail, saw his Firstborn slay his brother, and watched 
SP>   the downward spiral of the human race as  it grew with all 
SP>   the worst elements of the greed and selfishness he had 
SP>   loosed upon them.

     None of this was a listed penalty.  Adam was ONLY threatened 
with death in place of death as a penalty.  You have NOT shown 
there is the slightest difference between death and death.  You 
are also ignoring the obvious meaning of the story, man stole 
knowledge from the gods and became as gods.  You force fit the 
words into an idea that did not exist until around 600 AD.  You 
seem to think your explanation existed before that.

SP> MG>      AND it would have made them like the other gods in 
SP> MG> Eden.  I have cited Yahweh God on the subject as you 
SP> MG> recall.
SP>   Only so far as free will went.  THey certainly had their 
SP>   independence from God...  but they were not free henceforth 
SP>   from illness and death.

     That was NOT a penalty, only death which would have happened 
any way.  Yahweh God lied.

SP> MG>      "Now that the man has become like one of us in knowing 
SP> MG> good from evil, he must not be allowed to reach out his hand 
SP> MG> and pick from the Tree of Life too, and eat and live 
SP> MG> forever!"

SP>  Whose tree was it? 

     That is what was said what had happened and what would have 
happened.  As to whose the Tree of Life was, there was NO 
prohibition against eating of that tree.  But sure scared hell 
out of the gods.  As to who was in charge of that tree, it was 
Adam as that was why he was put in the garden, "to dress it and 
keep it" (KJV).

SP> MG>      It was clearly magic as eating it caused them to cover 
SP> MG> themselves, the old fig leaf gambit.  That means it changed 
SP> MG> them in some manner.  That is not a symbol, that is an 
SP> MG> actual change in the people as a direct consequence of 
SP> MG> eating it.  Also see the quotation above, that god says 
SP> MG> something real happened.  There is no hint of symbolism.
SP>   Of course it changed them.  

     Therefore there was a property in and of the fruit that 
conveyed knowledge, therefore magic.

Just as the serpent had stated, 
SP>   they became like gods, and this new knowledge also made 
SP>   them realize they were naked.  Before the fruit, they were 
SP>   truly innocents.  

     And capable of the evil of disobedience.  But then, gods are 
always arbitrary and capricious.  You can never expect them to do 
what they say.  

Physical food causes physical changes in 
SP>   people, including their perceptions.  If you don't believe 
SP>   me, just stand between my  kids and the fridge  when they 
SP>   race in after getting off the school bus! You'd be a 
SP>   snack! :-)

     I presume that was not serious.

SP>   However, in Adam's case, the fruit might even have had 
SP>   hallucinogenic properties,  making him think he was able 
SP>   to control his destiny.  ...Sandra...

     I HOPE that was not a serious suggestion as such things are 
transient and not heritable.

---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ Courts are where Justice is dispensed with. -Mark Twain
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 377/5 6 9 15 50
SEEN-BY: 377/54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 20050 3615/50 51 3619/25


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2153)
To:      Sandra Peake                           11 Oct 94 23:22:10
Subject: Eve again             2/2              

SP> MG>      Please define the difference between your terms.  After 
SP> MG> that please tell me why the quotation says, LIVE FOREVER and 
SP> MG> how that differs from immorality.  If you do not believe 
SP> MG> what Yahweh God said please so state.

SP>   Angels do not get old and die.  THey can live forever...

     Where is this written?

if 
SP>   they do not disobey God's commands.  

     Where is this written?

(But they can be 
SP>   destroyed.) THis is eternal life, but not immortality.  It 
SP>   is conditional.

     Where is this written?

SP>   Jehovah God, and the one he raised to immortal life in the 
SP>   heavens, Jesus, cannot die.  THey have eternal life through 
SP>   immortality.  Their eternal life is unconditional.  No 
SP>   restrictions.  None.

     Where is this written?

     I would hope you would be specific.  I would hope you are 
not simply posting your personal belief system that is 
independent of any Biblical reference or sourcing.

SP> MG>      And how does "live forever" differ from cannot die?  
SP> MG> Please cite C&V to support the difference.

SP>   Adam would have lived forever provided (note condition) he 
SP>   did not disobey God's command to eat the fruit of the 
SP>   tree.  He blew it.  He died.  He didn't meet the conditions 
SP>   for continued existence.  Gen 2: 16 - 17.

     The God lied in saying the penalty for eating the fruit was 
death.  I agree.  That god was lying.  

SP>  Immortality - 1 Timothy 6:16

     As your god lies so does Timothy.  What is your point?  You 
god lies and Timothy swears to it.  It happens all the time.

SP> MG>SP>    Explain the colour yellow to a blind man.  Now, let him 
SP> MG>SP>    feel a spark or a candle flame , and make an image for 
SP> MG>SP>    himself.

SP> MG>      Demonstrate the blind person has it wrong idea or right 
SP> MG> idea for that matter.

SP>   IT is enough that his perceptions are as real to him as 
SP>   your are to you.

     Then your story falls apart.

SP> MG>      What do you mean, thinks?  I am dealing with the 
SP> MG> inerrant word of God as revealed to man in scripture.  If 
SP> MG> there is any criticism you are making it is your god who 
SP> MG> could not do any better than use such allusions.

SP>   Speak the language of the one you address, if you wish to 
SP>   be understood.  Human terms are used for spirit things 
SP>   because  we could not understand the language of angels, 
SP>   nor non-human concepts.

     And if your god could not inspire any better words than it 
did you have a very incompetent god.  Certainly in need of 
replacing.




---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ Hil's bill survives Hill attack, Bill survives Hil's attack.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 377/5 6 9 15 50
SEEN-BY: 377/54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 20050 3615/50 51 3619/25


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2154)
To:      Paul Smith                             11 Oct 94 23:30:10
Subject: Smoking and Fire Deaths                

PS> EM>   The National Fire Protection Association said in 1987 that 
PS> EM>   careless smoking was the cause of 7.1% of all home fires, 
PS> EM>   and those fires caused 31.3% of all home fire deaths, 
PS> EM>   during the period 1981-1985.  I have seen more recent 
PS> EM>   statistics published in the newspaper during the last 3 or 
PS> EM>   4 months that showed that careless smoking was the cause 
PS> EM>   of something like half of all recent fatal fires.  Wish I 
PS> EM>   would have saved the article.

PS> MG >      I frankly have to question that it has gone from 30% to 
PS> MG > 50% in ten years.  Stats generally do not change that fast 
PS> MG > unless there is a definition change.

PS>  I would tend to agree with you Matt.  With the increased 
PS>  use of smoke detectors,shich has resulted from reduced 
PS>  prices and improved reliability, I would expect the death 
PS>  rate to decrease - not increase.  Also, tobacco use has 
PS>  gradually but steadily decreased over the past 10 years 
PS>  which should further reduce that percentage.

     Then you would agree the statistics you present are highly 
suspect to say the least?  


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ Gore in '94!
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 377/5 6 9 15 50
SEEN-BY: 377/54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 20050 3615/50 51 3619/25


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2155)
To:      Ed Mathis                              11 Oct 94 23:31:10
Subject: Smoking and Fire Deaths                

EM>  EM>  The National Fire Protection Association said in 1987 that
EM>  EM>  careless smoking was the cause of 7.1% of all home fires,
EM>  EM>  and those fires caused 31.3% of all home fire deaths,
EM>  EM>  during the period 1981-1985.  I have seen more recent
EM>  EM>  statistics published in the newspaper during the last 3 or
EM>  EM>  4 months that showed that careless smoking was the cause of
EM>  EM>  something like half of all recent fatal fires.  Wish I
EM>  EM>  would have saved the article.

EM>  MG> I frankly have to question that it has gone from 30% to 50%
EM>  MG> in ten years.  Stats generally do not change that fast unless
EM>  MG> there is a definition change.

EM>  You're probably right.  I don't remember what the most 
EM>  recent figures are but I'll be on the lookout for them.

     For what it is worth, BS is the best description.



---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ Broad Based contribution, kick Hillary in the butt.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 377/5 6 9 15 50
SEEN-BY: 377/54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 20050 3615/50 51 3619/25


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2156)
To:      All                                    11 Oct 94 23:32:10
Subject: Abortion positions                     

     "Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its 
people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want.  
This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is 
abortion."
                         -- Mother Teresa, Feb 3, 1994

     "We would like for the right-to-life, anti-choice groups to 
really get over their love affair with the fetus."
                         -- Joycelyn Elders, Jan 18, 1992

     The choice is clear.  Choose nerf brain.  And, she has the 
more amusing pronunciation


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ Hillary, The World's Greatest Authority on health care.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 377/5 6 9 15 50
SEEN-BY: 377/54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 20050 3615/50 51 3619/25


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2220)
To:      Jim Salter                             12 Oct 94 20:14:10
Subject: Astronomers Anti-christ?               

JS>  MG> Particularly to people who would otherwise bemoan the state
JS>  MG> of public education.  It must be everyone else's public
JS>  MG> education.

JS>  JS>          So sorry, Matt.  Next time I'll remember Hanlon's
JS>  JS>          Razor.

JS>  MG> Is that the one to the carotid?

JS>         Well, you asked...

JS>  Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be 
JS>                  adequately explained by stupidity.

     I have never asked who Hanlon is.  I do remember 
popularizing the conspiracy / stupidity version of it.


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ Health Insurance is expensive now.  Wait until it is free.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 377/5 6 9 15 50
SEEN-BY: 377/54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 20050 3615/50 51 3619/25


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2221)
To:      All                                    12 Oct 94 21:20:10
Subject: Crime Law                              

RH> ->    2/3rd to propose, 3/4 to ratify.

RH>         My mistake.

     I posted not so much to point out a mistake as to have an 
opportunity to make this follow up point. 

     Getting a 2/3rds majority in Congress or from the states for 
a Concon is not a trivial matter.  In Congress it takes a lot of 
organization to get 2/3rds in one vote.  With the states for the 
Concon states have voted for and withdrawn their approval (open 
to SC determination at this point) over years.  

     That the states might give 3/4 approval IF they were all 
required to vote on one day is negligable and we might not have 
even the Bill of Rights were that a requirement.  That supporters 
in a state can orchestrate a positive vote for an amendment as is 
done in Congress in proposing an amendment over a period of 
years, if not forever depending upon the conditions on the 
approval process or the lack of same, is perhaps the only reason 
we have amendments to our Constitution.

     This is one of the reasons why social engineering by 
"regulation" rather than prohibition is so popular.  Consider how 
easy it was to make the case for universal franchise for 18 years 
olds based upon military service.  Consider how impossible it 
would have been to prohibit them from drinking at 18 given the 
same argument of military service.

     As it stands amending the Constitution is as much a 
political art form as passing a law such as the Crime Bill.  It 
has little to do with the will of the people.  And that is by 
design, not by chance.


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ Hillary is being sent back to the Mother Ship.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 377/5 6 9 15 50
SEEN-BY: 377/54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 20050 3615/50 51 3619/25


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

+++■■■■■ r_941021 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2310)
To:      Lou Skimming                           17 Oct 94 18:41:10
Subject: Astronomers Anti-christ?               

LS> MG>      Rather his divinity was added after his death and was 
LS> MG> not based upon any claim that he made.  To understand what 
LS> MG> was reported that he said as a minimum it is necessary to 
LS> MG> remove what he never claimed.

LS>  Since we are not going to agree on this may I suggest we 
LS>  drop it?

     I will bring it up every time the absurd claim of divinity 
is made.  The only way it can be "dropped" is for you never to 
respond.


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ First thing we do, we arrest all the hostages.  FBI at Waco.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 377/5 6 9 15
SEEN-BY: 377/50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 20050 3615/50 51 3619/25


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2311)
To:      Wayne Jones                            17 Oct 94 18:43:10
Subject: Gun Owners Jeer                        

WJ>  WJ>           We don't restrict guns in Canada to prevent 
WJ>  WJ>           violence, I have never heard of such a thing.  We 
WJ>  WJ>           restrict guns to cut back on needless deaths that 
WJ>  WJ>           result from gun violence, we also restrict the 
WJ>  WJ>           type of guns you can own, and the training 
WJ>  WJ>           required to own legal firearms.  Your above 
WJ>  WJ>           statement is with out merit in this case.

WJ>  MG>  And to prove that is the Canadian reason you will certainly 
WJ>  MG>  be able to cite the gun violence rate going down as the gun 
WJ>  MG>  restrictions have increased.  If you can not demonstrate 
WJ>  MG>  that has occurred then you can not demonstrate that was the 
WJ>  MG>  reason.

WJ>          I really hate to ask this but what do you think is 
WJ>          our reason, I have given you the reasons as I see 
WJ>          them and the rational of our politicians who persue 
WJ>          such legislation.

     I would suggest your politicians are a stupid as ours merely 
ahead of ours.  

WJ>          Certainly I cannot show the gun violence rate as 
WJ>          going down in this country, I will not even try.  

     And neither can your politicians or ours and therefore 
anything you say about the reason for doing it is a 
rationalization.  You are providing what sounds like a rational 
reason in place of the obvious, it is a politically correct fad.

WJ>          The fact is more weapons are being smuggled in 
WJ>          across our borders than ever before, but I still 
WJ>          don't beleive in arming the rest of the country.  

     Of course you would not support the potential victims being 
able to defend themselves.  That is part of the absurdity of this 
politically correct position.

WJ>          It is not the Canadian way, and most Canadians do 
WJ>          not support it, do what you will in your country, 
WJ>          but we have different ideals in ours.

     And you are merely highlighting your laws being capricious 
as are our gun new laws.

WJ>  MG>  No rational country would honestly add restrictions after 
WJ>  MG>  the first set of restrictions fails.  No honest person 
WJ>  MG>  would present that as the real reason.

WJ>          The restrictions did not fail, cross border illegal 
WJ>          firearms, and use of firearms in the commission of 
WJ>          a crime increased.

     And with increased gun crime caused by smuggling you can not 
stop you insist upon keeping the victims disarmed.  How droll.

WJ>  WJ>          You have to admit, if you don't have a firearm, you
WJ>  WJ>          can't shoot someone, right?

WJ>  MG>  Are you truly holding all Canadians, given no restrictions 
WJ>  MG>  upon gun ownership, would suddenly start killing each other 
WJ>  MG>  left and right?  It must be the cold doing something to 
WJ>  MG>  your brains.

WJ>          That is not my statement and you know it!  

     It is your position if not your statement.  You hold you can 
not stop the smuggled guns and yet you also hold that permitting 
the victims to have guns would increase gun violence.  Are you 
really against violence against criminals?  If so, why?  

     If that is not what you are talking about then you are 
talking about the victims killing each other as your only reason 
for preventing them from having the means of self defense.  As 
you are talking about law abiding Canadians with guns then you 
are saying either 1) they will not harm anyone or 2) they will 
harm each other rather than the criminals.  If 1) there is no 
reason to deny them guns.  If 2) then you are saying they will 
start killing each other if they have guns.

     Please provide a 3) if you have one.

I would 
WJ>          say that with out restrictions on gun ownership, 
WJ>          many more would be involved in gun related 
WJ>          violence.  

     You are then saying 2).  

Indeed my question went unanswered.  
WJ>          Your last line was uncalled for and rather 
WJ>          insulting.  

     It is your attitude as it is the attitude of our gun control 
whackos.  This is also a support for 2).

Canadians think differently than 
WJ>          Americans do it has nothing to do with the cold, 
WJ>          nor our enviroment, it's our history.

     Certainly is is your history.  You can not be trusted with 
guns.


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ All right, Koresh, make my day. -- Reno
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 377/5 6 9 15
SEEN-BY: 377/50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 20050 3615/50 51 3619/25


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

+++■■■■■ r_941023 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2352)
To:      All                                    19 Oct 94 03:01:10
Subject: IMPORT BAN??                           

JA>  Has anyone else heard about this, and if so, *exactly* 
JA>  what's going on here:
JA> 
JA>  Issue 1426-Oct 14:  "As Gun Week goes to press, 
JA>  representatives of firearm importers are meeting to decide 
JA>  what action to take in the face of a virtual halt in all 
JA>  firearms imports into the US that already has been in place 
JA>  for several months.  Officials of the BATF have admitted to 
JA>  importers that the action was based not on any law but on 
JA>  orders straight from the White ehouse.  Importers had hoped 
JA>  to simply work quietly with the BATF to solve the problem, 
JA>  but now it appears they will be forced to go public.  
JA>  Several prominent members of Congress have agreed to 
JA>  spearhead their effort."

     Does anyone have to ask what is going on here?  It is 
exactly what I have been saying for years.  

     This is just another step toward gun confiscation.  If 
anyone doubted it was coming this direct order from the White 
House should remove all doubt.

     This government is intent upon dictatorial control of the 
United States and before that happens it knows it must disarm the 
citizens.

     This ban means all importation is federal felony smuggling 
from now on.

     What to hear the media if the WH is pushed far enough to 
have to comment publically?

=====

     As the Crime bill "cut off" the source of guns to criminals 
Billie Jerk was "forced" to respond to the smuggling of arms to 
baby killing gun users.  He will display dozens of guns his order 
prevented from being smuggled into the country.  

     The media will publically masturbate over his heroic stance 
in the face of the criminal gun lobby.

     The NRA will respond with statistics as usual.

=====

     Like it or not, if true, this is Concord.


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ Reinventing government does not mean pulling it out of a hat
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 377/5 6 9 15
SEEN-BY: 377/50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 20050 3615/50 51 3619/25


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2353)
To:      All                                    19 Oct 94 03:34:10
Subject: WHO WAS TENCH COXE???                  

 █▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀█  Original From: WESLEY JONES
 █ STOLEN █             To: RICH ZUCHOWSKI
 █  STUFF █    Date/Number: 10/13/94 - 0003956
 █▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█             On: GUNTALK - 0007 - LAW
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

RZSG>   "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before t
RZSG>   may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be
RZSG>   occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their powe
RZSG>   the injury of fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next
RZSG>   article in their right to keep and bear private arms."
RZ
RZI would be willing to donate some of my hard earned money towards having
RZa monument erected on the site of the burned out Branch Davidians
RZcompound with these words engraved on it.

Great idea Rich, the words almost seem to have been penned
with Waco in mind.

I'll donate if someone would get it together.

Best,  wes
---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ If you wish peace, prepare for war.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 377/5 6 9 15
SEEN-BY: 377/50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 20050 3615/50 51 3619/25


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2356)
To:      Ron Buttenham                          19 Oct 94 19:17:10
Subject: No Jurisdiction (Xpost)                

RB>  Is there an mechanism in the U.S.  that would be similar to 
RB>  this?  Not that I necessarily think it is totally valid or 
RB>  foolproof here.

     The theory is that the only judges that can be created by 
the federal government are inferior to the Supreme Court and thus 
not separate from it.  And not being separate they all have to be 
governed by the same rules that is, impeachment only for high 
crimes and misdemeanors, otherwise they serve for life.

     The first issue is that the Executive Branch has created 
what are called administrative judges.  They definitely are 
executive employees and subject to civil service rules with some 
sort of guarantees that they are similar to the real judges.  
However, if you read the DC papers they are constantly objecting 
to the way they are really treated and they have in fact 
"unionized."  Their big issue is the compromise of their 
impartiality.

     These judges are the kind you run into for violating 
regulations that have only a fine attached.  The type most people 
are going to run into are IRS judges.  One has no choice of a 
"real" judge.  If found owing money one has to pay every penny 
and all assessments before one can get to a real judge.  Needless 
to say most can not afford that so on a technicality one is 
deprived of the right to trial in accordance with the 
Constitution.  I would presume the rules are the same in all of 
the other administrative agencies.

     The second issue is in fact who the Federal judges work for.  
This has been raised by noting the Constitutional (article 3) 
requirements for judges and finding many of them, entire classes 
of them do not satisfy all of the article 3 criteria.  Whether or 
not this can be held to make a difference these days is another 
question entirely.  

     In this particular case the issue is in fact who they work 
for, are they in the independent judicial branch of government or 
do they work for the executive.  In that case they would not be 
independent.


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ Bureau of Firearms, Alcohol, Religion and Tobacco
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 377/5 6 9 15
SEEN-BY: 377/50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 20050 3615/50 51 3619/25


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2360)
To:      All                                    19 Oct 94 21:33:10
Subject: CA prop 187                            

     Considering all the time we are spending on CA prop 188 is 
it not more interesting to deal with 187?  Throw the illegals out 
of the system?  It sounds like great policy to me.  If they do 
not like it they can go back where they came from and they are 
here illegally in the first place.  

     They are not Americans.  They are Mexican citizens with no 
business here. 

     That the federal government won't do a damn thing about it 
and forces California (and every other state to support them) is 
ludicrous.  And the best opposition to it is to claim everyone 
who is against supporting illegals is a racist.  


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ Janet Reno, the third best woman for the job.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 377/5 6 9 15
SEEN-BY: 377/50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 20050 3615/50 51 3619/25


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2361)
To:      All                                    19 Oct 94 21:44:10
Subject: Militia Question                       

     There is talk of the formation of citizen militias today as 
there never has been since they went out of style.  So I am 
asking for information.  Do you have direct knowledge of any such 
militias (newspaper, TV included)?  Can you give a general idea 
where they are forming and how you heard of it?       


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ BBQed Baby Back Ribs, Waco style.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 377/5 6 9 15
SEEN-BY: 377/50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 20050 3615/50 51 3619/25


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2366)
To:      All                                    20 Oct 94 19:27:10
Subject: KPOC, The Waco Incident                

                       The Waco Incident
                               by
                           Matt Giwer (c) 1994 <10/20>

     This is an unpaid advertisement for a videotape everyone
should have and watch and show to anyone who will sit still long
enough to watch.  The video is entitled, "The Waco Incident."  It
is available from KPOC-TV, 114 West Central, Ponca City,
Oklahoma, 74601, for $23.45 postpaid.
     It tells the clearest and the most damning highlights of the
the Branch Davidians story from the first senseless attack to the
final murders and destruction of the evidence.  What is left out
of the story only supports what is told in 100 minutes.  It is an
excellent use of 100 minutes.
     Those who have been following it are going to see or hear
little new to them.  What they will see is the story put together
from beginning to end in one coherent and very viewable piece of
investigative reporting.  It is not without its human interest
emotional content mixed with its factual content.
     What distinguishes it from other tapes is that it does not
dwell upon the tedious conspiratorial details.  Rather it takes
the network tapes at face value and dwells upon what they mean in
context.
     For example, it does not try to make a case for how the four
BATF agents died or whether or not they were the ones going into
the second floor window or that they were Clinton bodyguards.
Rather it shows the tapes of the attack with a voice over of the
Branch Davidian 911 call that happened at the same time and lets
the viewer judge who is responsible for what.
     It does not pull punches in any respect.  When the
description is murder it uses the word murder.  It does not use
death.  It does not use the passive voice.  In doing so it uses
these terms with reference to supportable points without going
into the details.  It is the kind of blunt talk the rare
references in the mainstream media couch in non-judgmental
terms.
     For example, it uses as a point of departure the known and
established effects of CS gas and its burn products without
digressing into "proving" them.  The fact that the products upon
heating are hydrogen cyanide, hydrogen chloride and carbon
monoxide are matter of factly with the manufacturer as the source
of the information.  It clearly points out the case of autopsy
reports listing the cause of death as smoke inhalation simply
neglects to mention what kind of smoke. 
     It does a matter of fact interview with a retired army
helicopter pilot who was recalled to active duty solely for the
purpose of participating in the BATF with his statement he was
sworn to secrecy regarding what happened in the attack.  Why him?
It is unstated other than that he is a Vietnam veteran and the
tactic in Vietnam was to initiate an attack with helo fire into
the roof of a building prior to the ground attack.  You pick a
reason, you can hear his own words. 
     Following this it carries a taped interview with the
Commanding Officer of Fort Hood recounting the reporters being
stonewalled by the government and pointing out that he is
stonewalling them.  In this case the stonewalling is specifically
the criminal use of the military while the Commanding Officer
reiterates that he follows the law.
     From the reference to the statements of three Texas judges
that the warrant does not satisfy the requirements for such a
warrant to the murderous deviation from the final attack plan the
tape is damning to the government.
     There are no exaggerations here.  There are no conspiracies
here.  There is nothing you are asked to believe that is beyond
what is stated and shown.  It is clear, it is factual, it is all
supported directly or by passing reference. 
     Regarding its value compared to the other tapes.  I had
shown one of them to a person who knew little of the events at
Waco.  That conspiracy tape made little impression.  This one
elicited the comment, "I didn't understand what it was all about
before."  Now she wants us to visit Waco and where the survivors
are imprisoned and conduct interviews.
     If you you want to see it all in one place, if you want
others to see it, this is the tape to have.  If you have local
talk show people who have not seen it, lend them your copy, buy
them a copy of their own.  Above all, advertise it.  Let people
know it exists. 

                            * * * * *

        Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

    P.O. Box 82541, Tampa, Florida, 33682-2541, 813-969-0362

                  [note new address and phone]



---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ Read "Sleeping Your Way to the Top" by Hillary Clinton
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 377/5 6 9 15
SEEN-BY: 377/50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 20050 3615/50 51 3619/25


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2367)
To:      Sandra Peake                           18 Oct 94 13:09:10
Subject: I'm back -again.                       

SP>   OK, Matt, I'm back. Haven't been to the library yet, but that
SP>   pleasure awaits me next week.

SP>   Let the debate continue! (Now, where were we?) :-)
     
     You are late.  Some religious issue if I remember correctly.  
Next time put the "I'll be gone" at the beginning of the first 
response rather than at the end of the last.


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ Linda Thompson, loose cannon on deck.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 377/5 6 9 15
SEEN-BY: 377/50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 20050 3615/50 51 3619/25


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2368)
To:      All                                    19 Oct 94 02:14:10
Subject: MORE BATF                              

 █▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀█  Original From: JIM PADGETT
 █ STOLEN █             To: MATT GIWER
 █  STUFF █    Date/Number: 10/16/94 - 0003909
 █▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█             On: GUNTALK - 0012 - GENPOL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


MG>     No, it is not just the BATF, it is not just the Treasury it
MG>is the entire damned government without exception until this
MG>ceases to occur.

      I won't argue that the "entire damned government" isn't over the line,
      but the BATF is out of control, and is wantonly reckless.  Recently
      in St. Louis a BATF raid at 3:30am on a residence left a woman wounded.
      It seems that when confronted in the hallway by the near NAKED woman,
      who did have a gun, the two agents, who were in full armour and behind
      bullet proof shields, had no alternative? but to shoot her!  WHAT BS!
      To top it all off, the search, which included two other locations
      did not produce any contraband or the named suspect.  Their only
      statement to the media was "He MUST have been tipped off".

      Sound familiar?

      I suggest that every time you run across one of BATF's reckless
      blunders, and there are plenty, write your congressmen and include a
      copy of the press coverage.  They can and should be shutdown.

---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■                Barney Must Die!
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 377/5 6 9 15
SEEN-BY: 377/50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 20050 3615/50 51 3619/25


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2369)
To:      All                                    19 Oct 94 02:15:10
Subject: MORE BATF                              

JP> MG>      No, it is not just the BATF, it is not just the 
JP> MG> Treasury it is the entire damned government without 
JP> MG> exception until this ceases to occur.

JP>        I won't argue that the "entire damned government" 
JP>        isn't over the line, but the BATF is out of control, 
JP>        and is wantonly reckless.  Recently in St.  Louis a 
JP>        BATF raid at 3:30am on a residence left a woman 
JP>        wounded.  It seems that when confronted in the hallway 
JP>        by the near NAKED woman, who did have a gun, the two 
JP>        agents, who were in full armour and behind bullet 
JP>        proof shields, had no alternative? but to shoot her!  
JP>        WHAT BS! To top it all off, the search, which 
JP>        included two other locations did not produce any 
JP>        contraband or the named suspect.  Their only 
JP>        statement to the media was "He MUST have been tipped 
JP>        off".
JP> 
JP>        Sound familiar?

     Were I in a position to make a declaration I would certainly 
proclaim the BATF enemies of the entire US and authorize everyone 
to shoot first.  After all, they are only revenooers.

     Until this wanton slaughter stops, not excuses are 
acceptable.

     In the early 70s Blacks got fed up with cops showing up a 
trouble calls and killing everyone in sight.  They started 
forming bands, all armed, and making trouble calls.  They shot 
every cop that showed up.  After a year of this the cops called a 
truce.  

     There are lessons to be learned from history.  That is one 
of them.

JP>        I suggest that every time you run across one of 
JP>        BATF's reckless blunders, and there are plenty, write 
JP>        your congressmen and include a copy of the press 
JP>        coverage.  They can and should be shutdown.

     I point out that Congress recommended they be disbanded and 
Reagan said it could not be done.

     Therefore we KNOW without question that petition for redress 
of grievance is worthless in this case.  Therefore we need to 
take the necessary actions our government have found itself 
incapable of doing.  We know from history one method that works.


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ "Give Corruption a Chance."  Matt Giwer
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 377/5 6 9 15
SEEN-BY: 377/50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 20050 3615/50 51 3619/25


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2370)
To:      All                                    19 Oct 94 02:59:10
Subject: IMPORT BAN??                           

 █▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀█  Original From: JEFFREY ADKINS
 █ STOLEN █             To: ALL
 █  STUFF █    Date/Number: 10/17/94 - 0001927
 █▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█             On: GUNTALK - 0002 - MEMBER
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Has anyone else heard about this, and if so, *exactly* what's going on
here:

Issue 1426-Oct 14:  "As Gun Week goes to press, representatives of
firearm importers are meeting to decide what action to take in the face
of a virtual halt in all firearms imports into the US that already has
been in place for several months.  Officials of the BATF have admitted
to importers that the action was based not on any law but on orders
straight from the White ehouse.  Importers had hoped to simply work
quietly with the BATF to solve the problem, but now it appears they
will be forced to go public.  Several prominent members of Congress
have agreed to spearhead their effort."
 
... Married.  To the Second Amendment.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
--- MMGR v3.52
 ■ GUN-TALK: NRA MEMBERS ONLY CONFERENCE
                                                                               
                         
---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ Guns cause crime and cars cause vehicular homicide.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 377/5 6 9 15
SEEN-BY: 377/50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 20050 3615/50 51 3619/25


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

+++■■■■■ r_941025 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2247)
To:      David Lentz                             1 Oct 94 13:09:10
Subject: 4th out the window                     

DL>  But was Kato Kaelin a tennant, he paid no rent?   Kaelin 
DL>  was quest, permanent.

          Which makes no difference.  He was in a separate 
     dwelling.  Only if he had been a guest in the same dwelling 
     as OJ could he have given permission to go through that 
     dwelling.


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ Children of Waco, I feel your pain.  Bill Clinton
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 377/5 6 9 15
SEEN-BY: 377/50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 3615/50 51 3619/25 3654/5


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2248)
To:      Lou Skimming                            1 Oct 94 13:35:10
Subject: Astronomers Anti-christ?               

LS> MG>LS>   it becomes obvious which religion they have evolved from, 
LS> MG>LS>   yet they have not evolved into a "Christian" church.  The 
LS> MG>LS>   Pope recently was quoted by the LA Times saying in effect 
LS> MG>LS>   Do not go to God for forgiveness of your sins, come to me.  
LS> MG>LS>   This is blasphemy by Christian doctrine and scripturally.  
LS> MG>LS>   The LA Times, IMO, would not have printed the quote if 
LS> MG>LS>   they realized it's implications.

LS> MG>      You will have to cite chapter and verse to prove 
LS> MG> blasphemy.  The only biblical ceremony I can find involves 
LS> MG> feeling up a sheep (maybe a goat.)

LS> Mark Chapter 2

LS>  7  Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can 
LS>  forgive sins but God only?
LS> 
LS>  8  And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that 
LS>  they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why 
LS>  reason ye these things in your hearts?
LS> 
LS>  9  Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, 
LS>  Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up 
LS>  thy bed, and walk?
LS> 
LS>  10  But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on 
LS>  earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,)
LS> 
LS>  11  I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy 
LS>  way into thine house.
LS> 
LS>  12  And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went 
LS>  forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, 
LS>  and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion.
LS> 
LS>  Since Christ is God, we know only he can forgive sin.

     He clearly claims to be the Son of Man and not of god.  Why 
anyone would pervert his clear statement into a claim he is god 
or the son of god is beyond me.  Your claim is clearly 
blasphemous from your own citation.  

     That there was one person at one time who passed along the 
power to his apostles in his famous "teach all nations" speech 
the issue devolves into who are the legitimate inheritors of that 
power.

LS> MG>sounds
LS> MG>LS>  vaguely like the big bang too, if you see what I mean.

LS> MG>     Not in the least.  Please explain.

LS>  While I doubt it is at all the intent, a tent being set up 
LS>  in this fashion has to expand, so is the universe we are 
LS>  told.

     The bang is not expansion but inflation.

LS> MG>LS>  Flat, square, I think not.  Some of the new bastardized
LS> MG>LS>  versions of the bible will read quite differently than
LS> MG>LS>  this.  The Septuagint was written by the Hebrews for the
LS> MG>LS>  Greeks in Greek about 300 BC It is a genuine article, more
LS> MG>LS>  than can be said of many of the alleged manuscripts bibles
LS> MG>LS>  are said to be translations of.

LS> MG>      And nothing was changed in getting from 300 BC Greek 
LS> MG> into modern English?  Where do you get that idea?

LS>  It is actually the text they are starting with and the 
LS>  liberties they take in translating it.  Most modern bibles 
LS>  are corrupt.  Jay P.  Green Sr.  wrote an excellent book on 
LS>  it; "The Gnostics, the New Versions, & the Deity of God."

     When corruption is judged by the translation being compliant 
with a modern day belief structure it is putting the cart before 
the horse.  Today NO religion tracing itself back to the Bible is 
without serious conflict with all translations and none concur 
with any single translation.  Thus the basis for the claim of 
corruption is groundless.  

     The only way to possibly do it would be to find an expert on 
the Greek of that period who has never heard of Christianity or 
the Bible but who is familiar will all other translations from 
that period and turn him loose.  Upon reading that translation 
complete compliance with it would be required without any effort 
to change the literal English word meanings.

     The classic example of this is baptism, original sin and 
accepting Christ as the greatest perversions of literal words, 
meanings and descriptions in all the many examples of it.


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ First they came for Weaver and I did not speak.  Then they
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 377/5 6 9 15
SEEN-BY: 377/50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 3615/50 51 3619/25 3654/5


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2249)
To:      George Noonan                           1 Oct 94 13:49:10
Subject: Astronomers Anti-christ?               

GN>  MG>       Am I the only person who does not confuse a circle 
GN>  MG>  with a sphere?  It is only fundies who do this?

GN>  MG> ---

GN>  The science that Isaiah was quoting did NOT think of the 
GN>  earth as a plate, but as a solid sphere.  You are confusing 
GN>  poetry with science.

     And you are saying they had a word for sphere but he did not 
use it, preferring the incorrect word, in a work that is clearly 
not an exercise in poetry.  Why would you say a thing like that?


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ Janet Reno, the third best woman for the job.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 377/5 6 9 15
SEEN-BY: 377/50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 3615/50 51 3619/25 3654/5


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2250)
To:      Jim Salter                              1 Oct 94 13:56:10
Subject: Astronomers Anti-christ?               

JS>  MG> What in particular would you like me to back up?

JS>         Hmmm. Let's review your statement:

JS>  JS>  MG>   You really should demand a refund from the schools you 
JS>  JS>  MG>   went to.

JS>          The obvious import of this is that you believe I 
JS>  have an inferior education.  If so, then you should provide 
JS>  evidence that yours was better.  If you can think of a more 
JS>  widely accepted standard for the evaluation of one's 
JS>  education than placement tests, let me know, and I'm sure 
JS>  we can work something out.

     Rather I would have thought you might have brought up the 
particular statement that engendered the refund remark.  

JS>          If, OTOH, you don't wish to got through all this, 
JS>  you have the option of simply refraining from cheap shots 
JS>  at my education that you have neither the basis for nor the 
JS>  guts to back up, and simply refuting points and making 
JS>  counterpoints...  the normal method of debate, last time I 
JS>  checked.

     I had never realized people were so touchy on their 
schooling until I started that using that line.  Frankly I would 
credit my K-12 schools with only causing me quite a bit of time 
and effort to compensate for their efforts and they were quite 
good in standardized test results.


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ Waco lesson 1.  Kill them before they burn you alive.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 377/5 6 9 15
SEEN-BY: 377/50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 3615/50 51 3619/25 3654/5


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2251)
To:      David Lentz                             1 Oct 94 13:59:10
Subject: Conscription                           

DL> MG>       Which country?  We have delegated and charged our 
DL> MG>  government with certain responsibilities "to secure these 
DL> MG>  rights governments are instituted among men."  That our 
DL> MG>  government does what is the reason for its existence 
DL> MG>  requires invokes no social contract.

DL>  See my message to Lester, same subject.  I am making a 
DL>  moral and not a legal point.

     There are no moral points in entering a contract only in 
performing on one.


---
 ■ RM 1.3 01261 ■ God Lord!  It's a cookbook! -- FBI manual
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'i'
 * Origin: T.A.B.B. FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE HST 21.6 813-961-6242(1:377/6)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 377/5 6 9 15
SEEN-BY: 377/50 54 76 396/1 3603/10 20 3615/50 51 3619/25 3654/5


«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate/Poli-Phil - (2258)
To:      All                                     1 Oct 94 20:08:10
Subject: Haiti, Clinton's Playpen               

                    Haiti, Clinton's Playpen
                               by
                           Matt Giwer (c) 1994 <10/1>

     I have refrained for two weeks from commenting upon the
unnecessary and unwarranted invasion of Haiti.  I have done this
to give President Clinton a chance to get his act act together on
the Island.  I am certain he appreciates the breathing space.
     This is called Operation Restore Democracy.  In the two
weeks it appears better named Operation Cry Havoc.  Judging only
by an obviously free press before and after the invasion the
deaths have obviously increased.
     Added to the deaths have been looting, rioting and general
mayhem.  And in this US forces have more or less stood by to
watch.  It is obvious the invasion triggered this increase in the
violence in Haiti and equally obvious the troops directed by the
President are doing nothing about it.
     I have not kept a daily tally but my strong impression is
that the violence is increasing daily.  Also there appear to be
two partisan types of violence, the deaths of Aristide supporters
and looting by Aristide supporters.  I do not wish to be
misunderstood here, there is no connection between the looting
and legitimate shooting looters.
     The acceleration of violence due to the US intervention
appears to be causing a break down in Haitian society.  Of course
I did see some Congressman on the CBS Evening News respond to a
question on violence that he didn't see any.  The CBS reporter
found quite a bit of it.  When asked if he thought the US could
have done something about it (some bludgeoning deaths and
injuries) he pointed out there were US tanks only two blocks
away.
     But then one of the justifications for sending troops that
was repeated even after General Cedras agreed to leave was to
prevent the breakdown of the social order.  Yet there is not the
slightest evidence the US is doing one thing to prevent it.
There is every evidence the US has caused it.
     I am not ready to declare I was correct that the invasion
was a bad idea.  I am going to point out that as the killings,
lootings, and rioting increase that if and when the US moves to
prevent further social breakdown that our troops will be required
to kill more people to do it.  That will make more enemies for
the US.  The more enemies the troops create the more members of
the insurgency, the more people will carry that hatred to their
graves with their actions.
     Had there been a rational plan the first step would have
gone as planned, to secure strategic locations.  The second did
not occur, take control of the government.  The third step would
have been to establish martial law.  The failure to implement the
second and third is inexcusable.
     This was an invasion.  It is an occupation.  It is being
treated as a training exercise.  Funny, I remember calling it
that.  I did make the mistake of saying it would be with
bullets.  As it is they might as well be disarmed.
     Once committed to a course of action it is incumbent upon
the man in charge to act in accordance with that course of
action.  The US clearly is not doing so.
     In failing to do so the US has increased the loss of life.
The US is going to start being the cause of more loss of life in
restoring order.  And there was no reason to have let that order
slip away in the first place.
     Of course slip away is hardly the word for it.  It was
foreseeable to the point where it was an announced objective of
the invasion.  That it has been let happen can not be explained
by anything other than it was only rhetoric and never part of the
plan in the first place.
     In other words, the famous "nothing speech" of President
Clinton to justify contained one more lie, that the occupation
would preserve the social order.  He said it only.  He had no
intention nor were there any plans to do so.  We were sold
another bill of goods.
     This man may or may not loathe the military.  He has
absolutely no conception of what it means to use the military.
He appears to believe the way to do it is the same way he gets
votes, make a speech saying it and then the troops will do it.
     In any event, it has been two weeks of nothing but events
contrary to the announced intentions and purpose of the
occupation.  It is clear that had the US not taken action there
would have been less death and violence than there is now.  It is
also clear that the buck stops in the Oval Office and if the
electorate really beliefs it is in control of the government,
those who voted for William Jefferson Blythe Clinton share the
responsibility.

                            * * * * *

        Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

    P.O. Box 82541

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.