Kevin Kelly writes:
In <[email protected]> [email protected]
>
>Steven Malcolm Anderson ([email protected]) wrote:
>: Papa Jack:
>: Specifically, which SC decisions are you objecting to, other than
Roe
>: vs. Wade?: Brown vs. Board of Education? Griswold vs. Connecticut?
>: Stanley vs. Georgia? Hint: all of these decisions protected our
>: PERSONAL FREEDOMS. OK, Bowers vs. Hardwick was lousy, but your
proposed
>: remedy would hardly fix that.
>: Mr. Kelly asked you this exact same question and you just called
him
>: names and ran away without answering it. If you fail to answer this
>: question, to clarify your stand on our PERSONAL FREEDOMS, then I
will
>: be forced to conclude what others have concluded about you.
>
>It’s quite unlikely jack will answer. It would only highlight the fear
>that those who call themselves conservatives have of personal freedom.
>Indeed it’s my beleif that those like jack who call themselves
>conservative are perverting the word.
Quite true.
What makes it most amusing is that
>they praise people like Scalia yet he authored an opinion that’s a
>trampling of the freedom of religion.
I remember that one all too well.
jack whines about the commerce
>clause yet is silent when it used to outlaw a form of abortion he
doesn’t
>like. Clearly these people’s only interest in these issues is in
seeing
>their morality enforced by the state.
All too true.
>I am also amused at the talk of appointing SC judges who support what
they
>claim to be the original intent of the Constituion as if they know it
yet
>ignore some of the things stated by the founding fathers.
True.
>”Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem
>them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They
ascribe
>to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose
what
>they did to be beyond amendment… laws and institutions must go hand
in
>hand with the progress of the human mind… as that becomes more
>developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions
>must advance also, to keep pace with the times…. We might as well
>require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as
>civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their
barbarous
>ancestors. ”
>- Thomas Jefferson
Let’s not pretend to revere our Constitution while rendering our
courts unable or unwilling to uphold it!
>If there is a God, atheism must strike Him
>as less of an insult than religion.
>–Edmond and Jules De Goncourt
All too true, in many ways.
Well, Papa Jack, are going to come over here and take a stand on our
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS or are you going to run away and hide from the _real_
issues?
[email protected]
“The concept of ‘greatness’ entails being noble,
wanting to be by oneself,
being capable of being different, standing alone…” -Friedrich Nietzsche
“Identity is shaped through confict and opposition.” -Camille Paglia
From [email protected] Sat Nov 2 10:48:48 PST 1996
Article: 497895 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!gatech!
csulb.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!
nntp.primenet.com!feed1.news.erols.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!news.tacom.army.mil!
news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected](Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,
alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.current-events..usa,
Subject: Re: “ABOUT HARNESSING THE SUPREME COURT”
Date: 1 Nov 1996 06:25:44 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 86
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <326[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<32778638.542[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca4-09.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Thu Oct 31 10:25:44 PM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.usa.constitution:99047 talk.politics.misc:
497895 talk.abortion:190476 alt.politics.usa.republican:318512
From [email protected] Sat Nov 2 10:48:50 PST 1996
Article: 498269 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!btnet!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected](Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,alt.support.abortion,talk.abortion,
us.politics.abortion,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Emma Covers Kennemur’s
Date: 2 Nov 1996 03:37:12 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 92
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <324[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<326D4[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<3270F[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<3274F[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<32763[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca6-18.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Fri Nov 01 9:37:12 PM CST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.abortion.inequity:60316 talk.abortion:190512
talk.politics.misc:498269
In <55dm[email protected]> [email protected] (M. Grey de Shirland)
writes:
>
>Papa Jack wrote:
>
>>M. Grey de Shirland wrote:
>> =================================================
>>> MINX wrote:
>>> You documented nothing. You merely pasted stuff from several
>>> biblically-oriented pro-life sites, some of which I could tell
>>> just by skimming it was more of the same confabulated pro-lie
>>> nonsense. Then there’s the site that exposes the secret plot
>>> of eugenicists to control American policy…
>
>> =================================================
>>Papa Jack responds:
>>Just skim reading and passing instant judgement is much easier
>>than actually discussing the issues, isn’t it? Makes you sort
>>of feel godlike, huh?
>
>Actually, I more than skimmed the American Eugenics Database. This
>page is part of www.africa2000com:
>
> THE AFRICA 2000 WEB PAGE IS A COMPREHENSIVE
> INTERNET REFERENCE SOURCE LINKING THE USER TO AN
> EXTENSIVE VARIETY OF RESEARCH MATERIALS ABOUT
> FOREIGN AID PROGRAMS, POLICY OBJECTIVES,
> POLITICAL INTERVENTION, MILITARY AFFAIRS,
> COVERT OPERATIONS, PROPAGANDA, AND POPULATION
> ACTIVITIES IN THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE.
>Links from here posit that:
>The AIDS virus was created by the US government to exterminate the
>Black population. So is the measles vaccine. (From Conscious Rasta
>Perspective: africa2000.com/CNDX/cndx.htm and Special Documents
>Collection: africa2000.com/SNDX/sndx.htm)
>Colin Powell is a war criminal, based on his activities in Vietnam and
>the Gulf War. (/CNDX/cndx.htm)
Was General Patton a war criminal? George Washington? Joan of Arc?
>The practices known as Female Genital Mutilation are culturally
>appropriate and attempts by the West to stop them are just more
>cultural genocide.
A total lie! Utter garbage! These practices (and all who thus argue
for them) are unutterably loathsome and DESPICABLE and we MUST stop
them at all costs!
>Capitalism is a crime. Poverty is not the problem; wealth is. There
>is no need to worry about population as the coming redistribution of
>assets and production will provide plenty for everyone.
More lies.
>Due to past and ongoing exploitation, the West needs to give its
>ill-gotten money back to Africa while stopping its racist attempts to
>dictate uses of this money. (All the above linked from
>africa2000.com/SNDX/sndx.htm to various sites at junius.co.uk and
>oneworld.org)
No fucking way!!
>Etc.
>Basically, the idea is that everything in the West is just one big
>plot to rape and destroy Africa and people of African descent wherever
>they may be. That is the raison d’etre of all Western policy and all
>Westerners are engaged in a conspiracy to hide these facts.
Pure b.s..
>And this is Jack’s source for “documentation” that Margaret Sanger was
>a racist? Why are we not surprised?
A more ridiculous “source of information” could not be found.
>M. Grey de Shirland, M.D.
>
>”When short-term pharmacological illusions are substituted for
long-term
> religious delusions, all is lost sooner rather than later.”
[email protected]
“The concept of ‘greatness’ entails being noble,
wanting to be by oneself,
being capable of being different, standing alone…” -Friedrich Nietzsche
“Identity is shaped through confict and opposition.” -Camille Paglia
From [email protected] Sat Nov 2 10:48:52 PST 1996
Article: 498303 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!btnet!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected](Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,
alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.current-events..usa,
Subject: Re: “ABOUT HARNESSING THE SUPREME COURT”
Date: 2 Nov 1996 03:42:08 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 331
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <326[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<32778638.542[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<55bd05$1[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<3279[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca6-18.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Fri Nov 01 9:42:08 PM CST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.usa.constitution:99185 talk.politics.misc:
498303 talk.abortion:190514 alt.politics.usa.republican:318913
In <5[email protected]> [email protected] (Kevin Kelly)
writes:
An excellent analysis of Papa Jack’s unfortunate circumlocutions and
evasions on this most crucial issue of judicial protection of our
individual rights.
>Papa Jack ([email protected]) wrote:
>: Steven Malcolm Anderson wrote:
>: >
>
>Now read as jack descends into the paranoid delusions of the senile
>conservative.
>
>:
============================================================
>: Papa Jack comments:
>: Allow me to address the last part of your post first. Are you some
>: kind of shill for “Mr. Kelly?” KK gets folks involved in
neverending
>: flame wars. I consider flames to be like spices. Used in
moderation,
>: they improve the flavor of a dish. Used to excess, and they ruin
the
>: whole meal. I’ve played KK’s stupid game before. I found both the
>: game and KK to be terribly childish and boring.
>
>BullshittoReality converter:
>
>Jack’s flames good, others bad.
>
>Poor jack runs away from hard questions whining about flames and
engages
>in them as he does above. It’s one of those reasons he’s known as a
>flaming hypocrite. But I do love his new rationalization about flames
>above.
>
>: I challenged KK to discuss the issues without flames
>
>IN a post where he was flaming me. His hypocrisy knows no bounds. His
>dishonesty about ain’t exactly limited either.
>
>:– just the
>: issues — and I would do the same. He replied almost immediately
>: with a string of flames — his usual crap.
>
>Poor jack, you can stop lying as people can read. You avoided the
>difficult quesions as they show you to be an enemy of liberty and
personal
>freedom.
>
>: Now you come along admiring the great KK, which makes me greatly
>: suspect your integrity.
>
>What an intersting world view. Your integrity is suspect because you
raise
>a question that another has and like their viewpoint on personal
freedom.
>Shall we judge your non-existent integrity based on Bork? Or how about
the
>other scoundrels you cite?
>
>: Your:
>
>: If you fail to answer this question, to clarify your stand
>: on our PERSONAL FREEDOMS, then I will be forced to conclude
>: what others have concluded about you.
>
>: is totally sleazy.
>
>Hardly as you ran and continue to run from the question.
>
>: Look, little boy, you conclude whatever you want to conclude. Now
>: run home and sit at KK’s feet and admire your hero.
>
>Poor jack, your obvious outburst of anger at a valid question only
>confirms what people have thought.
>
>: If that is unfair, you tell me why.
============================================================
>: > Steven Malcolm Anderson wrote:
>: > Papa Jack:
>: > Specifically, which SC decisions are you objecting to, other than
>: > Roe vs. Wade?: Brown vs. Board of Education? Griswold vs.
>: > Connecticut? Stanley vs. Georgia? Hint: all of these decisions
>: > protected our PERSONAL FREEDOMS. OK, Bowers vs. Hardwick was
lousy,
>: > but your proposed remedy would hardly fix that.
>
>: > Mr. Kelly asked you this exact same question and you just called
>: > him names and ran away without answering it. If you fail to answer
>: > this question, to clarify your stand on our PERSONAL FREEDOMS,
then
>: > I will be forced to conclude what others have concluded about you.
============================================================
>: Papa Jack comments:
>: I am not protesting specific decisions,
>
>BullshittoReality Converter:
>
>I know they are doing something wrong but I really can’t tell you what
it
>is.
>If Jack wishes to convince anyone that his whining on the subject is
>anything but him following the lead handed to him by his
arch-conservative
>leaders he needs to provide some specific examples that outlign the
>problem he claims exists.
>
>: but an overall power grab
>: by the SC. I am most concerned about Mulford v. Smith and U.S. v.
>: Darby (1941) which killed the 10th Amendment.
>
>Specifics Jack. Case cite, ruling, and vote. In addition other cases
that
>draw on this decision as the basis of subsequent decisisons. Otherwise
I
>am hardly convinced of your claim as to what has been done. ANd be
>specific as to what the ruling has done. Or you can run away yet
again.
>
>: Do you understand? They took oaths to support and defend the
>: Constitution,
>
>And they do so. You waving your hands up and down and claiming
otherwise
>is hardly convincing yet typical of you.
>
>: and then wiped out one of the 10 amendments which
>: make up our Bill of Rights!!! Remember what they taught us about
>: the Bill of Rights way back yonder in Civics? The cornerstone
>: of our freedoms and all that “stuff.”
>
>Yeah and have you heard of the ninth amendment? Do you know what it
means?
>Do you not understand the purpose of the tenth amendment?
>
>: Now here you are yipping about the group who is taking away our
>: Bill of Rights as the ones who would protect Personal Freedom???
>: If they can reduce the 10th to rubble, why can’t they invalidate
>: the 1st Amendment or the 4th or ….?
>
>But you’ve failed to demonstrate that the tenth has been reduced to
>rubble. Do so.
>
>: Brown vs. Board of Education? I support that decision completely —
>: it was clearly grounded in the Constitution and the 14th Amendment.
>: What are you trying to make me appear to be some sort of right-wing
>: racist? No thank you.
>
>: Griswold vs. Connecticut (concerning “an uncommonly silly law” as
>: Justice Stewart termed it). This is the one where the decision
>: contained Justice Douglas’ famous gobbledegook sentence:
>
>: …specific guarantees…have penumbras, formed by emanations
>: from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.
>
>Gobbledegook? Get a dictionary twit and learn to understand what you
>complain about.
>
>: While I agree that the Connecticut law was a stupid one, I shudder
>: at the legal arguments the Court used to arrive at their decision.
>: Bottom line: they made up new laws not previously found. Then they
>: quibbled among themselves over what they had done. Read it.
>
>They made no laws jack. They have no ability to do so. Aren’t you
aware of
>the powers of the court? Next I do love that you shudder at the
concept of
>privacy, after all you probably think that unless the right is
>specifically outlined in the Constitution it does not exist. If this
is
>the case and I am sure it is then you have a piss poor understanding
of
>what the Constituion is.
>
>: Stanley vs. Georgia? In Osborn v. Ohio (1990) Justice Byron White
>: for the Court held Stanley inapplicabe to private possession of
>: child pornography and warned that Stanley should not be read too
>: broadly. It was also undercut by Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) which
>: allowed State regulation of private sexual conduct.
>
>Regurgitating text from a book is hardly impressive jack. If you can;t
>actually formulate an opinion for yourself and express it why bother
>posting?
>
>Now watch as jack confirms that his real objection to the SC is they
>decided for abortion against his wishes. Also note that he can’t point
out
>what’s wrong with the decision.
>
>: How about:
>
>: DOE v. BOLTON (1973) –decided with Roe v. Wade.
>
>: NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN v. SCHEIDLER — the Racketeer Influ-
>: enced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) act applied to the Pro-Life
>: Action Network (PLAN) and others anti-choice clinic blockaders.
>
>: HODGSON v. MINNESOTA (1990) — parential notification prior to
>: abortion for minors.
>
>: PLANNED PARENTHOOD ASSOCIATION OF KANSAS CITY, MO. v. ASHCROFT
(1983)
>: Invalidated a Missouri law requiring second-trimester abortions be
>: done in a hospital.
>:
>: MADSEN v. WOMEN’S HEALTH CENTER, INC. — upheld a Florida injunction
>: that created a 36-foot buffer zone outside the entrance to a “chop
>: shop”and (2) prohibited Pro-Life protesters from making noise heard
>: by patients in the clinic.
>
>: PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL MISSOURI v. DANFORTH (1976) — the
>: Court invalidated a Missouri statute requiring a woman to get her
>: husband’s consent before an abortion; prohibited saline amniocen-
>: tesis as a method of abortion; required physicians to preserve
>: the life and health of the fetus at every stage of pregnancy; and
>: a number of other provisions.
>
>: COLAUTTI v. FRANKLIN (1979) invalidated a Pennsylvania law requiring
>: physicians to use the method and “degree of care” most likely to
>: preserve the life and health of the fetus if the physician
determined
>: the fetus was viable or had “sufficient reason to believe that the
>: fetus may be viable.”
>
>: BELLOTTI v. BAIRD (1979) invalidated a Massachusetts law requiring
>: minors to have both parents’ consent before an abortion. Four
Justices
>: found the law unconstitutional because it gave a parent or a judge
an
>: absolute veto over a minor woman’s abortion decision.
>
>: CITY OF AKRON v. AKRON CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH (1983)
>: invalidated a city ordinance requiring physicians to give their
>: patients abortion facts; a 24-hour waiting period; performance
>: of all abortions after the first trimester; and disposal of fetal
>: remains in a “humane and sanitary manner.”
>: THORNBURGH v. AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS AND GYNECOLOGISTS
(1986)
>: invalidated parts of a Pennsylvania law requiring doctors to give
>: patients abortion information and photos; and requiring physicians
>: performing post-viability abortions to use the “degree of care”
required
>: to preserve the life and health of any unborn child intended to be
born
>: and to use the abortion methods most likely to preserve the life of
the
>: fetus.
>
>Now point out specifically what’s wrong with the descisons and how
they
>are supportive of your point. Or run away. Your choice.
>
>: Again, my concern is with the SC changing the very fabric of our
>: nation.
>
>Yeah how dare they support individual liberty. After all jack and his
ilk
>know better for us what we should be doing with our lives. But come on
>jack show them doing what you claim. Your empty handwaving is hardly
>convincing.
>
>: The question is NOT whether their various decisions did
>: good. The question is whether they exceeded their authority.
>
>And is clear they have not. Prehaps one day you might even understand
what
>it is you are carping about. Today is not that day.
>
>: Are
>: the SC like a group of vigilantes — their original intent to stop
>: clearly evil people or event is good, but as time goes on they
>: become worse than the conditions they originally fought
>: against?
>
>How is the broadening of personal freedom against the intrusions of
the
>state a bad thing jack? What we have seen through the first two
hundred
>years plus of this country is the government (state and federal)
>attempting to control the lives of it’s citizens, by passing laws that
>make the concept of rights a mockery. And those actions are supported
nby
>people like you jack. And when the balance tips towards the people as
it
>should and as it was intended to, you whine because the SC is doing
it’s
>job.
>
>: In his First Inaugural Address, Abraham Lincoln said:
>
>: The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the
>: Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people
>: is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme
>: Court…the people will have ceased to be their own rulers,
>: having to that extent practically resigned their Government
>: into the hands of that eminent tribunal.
>
>: Isn’t that exactly what has happened?
>
>Nope.
>
>: Is that what we really
>: want?
>
>Well I doubt any sane adult wants what you want in it’s place.
>If there is a God, atheism must strike Him
>as less of an insult than religion.
>–Edmond and Jules De Goncourt
[email protected]
“The concept of ‘greatness’ entails being noble,
wanting to be by oneself,
being capable of being different, standing alone…” -Friedrich Nietzsche
“Identity is shaped through confict and opposition.” -Camille Paglia
From [email protected] Sat Nov 2 10:48:53 PST 1996
Article: 498477 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!swrinde!
howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!btnet!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected](Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,
alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.current-events..usa,
Subject: Re: “ABOUT HARNESSING THE SUPREME COURT”
Date: 2 Nov 1996 03:23:12 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 253
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <326[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<32778638.542[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<55bd05$1[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca6-18.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Fri Nov 01 7:23:12 PM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.usa.constitution:99238 talk.politics.misc:
498477 talk.abortion:190536 alt.politics.usa.republican:319078
In <[email protected]> Papa Jack
writes:
>
>Steven Malcolm Anderson wrote:
>>
> ============================================================
>Papa Jack comments:
First things first: flame Kelly, THEN address issues of substance.
>Allow me to address the last part of your post first. Are you some
>kind of shill for “Mr. Kelly?”
Anybody I agree with I must be a shill for? If I agreed with you,
would I be a “shill” for you? Is this idiocy or what?
KK gets folks involved in neverending
>flame wars. I consider flames to be like spices. Used in moderation,
>they improve the flavor of a dish. Used to excess, and they ruin the
>whole meal. I’ve played KK’s stupid game before. I found both the
>game and KK to be terribly childish and boring.
Yeah, it is, but you’re obviously addicted to it.
>I challenged KK to discuss the issues without flames — just the
>issues — and I would do the same. He replied almost immediately
>with a string of flames — his usual crap.
Which is exactly what you’re doing now.
>Now you come along admiring the great KK, which makes me greatly
>suspect your integrity.
I don’t give a shit. The feeling’s mutual.
>Your:
>
> If you fail to answer this question, to clarify your stand
> on our PERSONAL FREEDOMS, then I will be forced to conclude
> what others have concluded about you.
>
>is totally sleazy.
Asking you to take a stand for personal freedoms is totally sleazy?
Then what isn’t?
>Look, little boy, you conclude whatever you want to conclude. Now
>run home and sit at KK’s feet and admire your hero.
Your endless and contentless quarrel with Kelly reminds me of two-year
olds throwing sand in each others’ faces. It’s time for _you_ to grow
up, don’t you think?
>If that is unfair, you tell me why.
If you think it unfair that you be judged by your stand on personal
freedom, tell me why.
> ============================================================
>> Steven Malcolm Anderson wrote:
>> Papa Jack:
>> Specifically, which SC decisions are you objecting to, other than
>> Roe vs. Wade?: Brown vs. Board of Education? Griswold vs.
>> Connecticut? Stanley vs. Georgia? Hint: all of these decisions
>> protected our PERSONAL FREEDOMS. OK, Bowers vs. Hardwick was lousy,
>> but your proposed remedy would hardly fix that.
>
>> Mr. Kelly asked you this exact same question and you just called
>> him names and ran away without answering it. If you fail to answer
>> this question, to clarify your stand on our PERSONAL FREEDOMS, then
>> I will be forced to conclude what others have concluded about you.
>
> ============================================================
>Papa Jack comments:
>I am not protesting specific decisions, but an overall power grab
>by the SC. I am most concerned about Mulford v. Smith and U.S. v.
>Darby (1941) which killed the 10th Amendment.
>
>Do you understand? They took oaths to support and defend the
>Constitution, and then wiped out one of the 10 amendments which
>make up our Bill of Rights!!! Remember what they taught us about
>the Bill of Rights way back yonder in Civics? The cornerstone
>of our freedoms and all that “stuff.”
Yup. That’s precisely what I’m talking about.
>Now here you are yipping about the group who is taking away our
>Bill of Rights as the ones who would protect Personal Freedom???
>If they can reduce the 10th to rubble, why can’t they invalidate
>the 1st Amendment or the 4th or ….?
They already _have_ reduced the 2nd Amendment nearly to rubble by
allowing gun control, as well as the 1st by allowing censorship of
“obscenity”. And then there’s the 9th, which your pal Bork hates so
much. Why aren’t you flaming _that_ jerk instead of Kelly?
>Brown vs. Board of Education? I support that decision completely —
>it was clearly grounded in the Constitution and the 14th Amendment.
>What are you trying to make me appear to be some sort of right-wing
>racist? No thank you.
Complaints about the alledged “tyranny” of the judiciary vs. “states’
rights” largely started with with that one.
>Griswold vs. Connecticut (concerning “an uncommonly silly law” as
>Justice Stewart termed it). This is the one where the decision
>contained Justice Douglas’ famous gobbledegook sentence:
>
> …specific guarantees…have penumbras, formed by emanations
> from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.
>
>While I agree that the Connecticut law was a stupid one, I shudder
>at the legal arguments the Court used to arrive at their decision.
You shudder at the idea of the right to privacy? Is that it? Damn good
decision, I say.
>Bottom line: they made up new laws not previously found.
No, they struck down a lousy law that violated the most basic personal
freedoms. That’s what we pay them for, not to play tiddleywinks.
Then they
>quibbled among themselves over what they had done. Read it.
I have.
>Stanley vs. Georgia? In Osborn v. Ohio (1990) Justice Byron White
>for the Court held Stanley inapplicabe to private possession of
>child pornography and warned that Stanley should not be read too
>broadly.
A bad decision for precisely that reason.
It was also undercut by Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) which
>allowed State regulation of private sexual conduct.
Yup. An even worse decision. The Dred Scott ruling of the 20th
century. I say homosexuals have the same rights you and I have. Period.
>How about:
>
>DOE v. BOLTON (1973) –decided with Roe v. Wade.
>
>NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN v. SCHEIDLER — the Racketeer Influ-
>enced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) act applied to the Pro-Life
>Action Network (PLAN) and others anti-choice clinic blockaders.
Insofar as RICO infringes on free speech and association, it’s a bad
law and should be struck down.
>HODGSON v. MINNESOTA (1990) — parential notification prior to
>abortion for minors.
>
>PLANNED PARENTHOOD ASSOCIATION OF KANSAS CITY, MO. v. ASHCROFT (1983)
>Invalidated a Missouri law requiring second-trimester abortions be
>done in a hospital.
>
>MADSEN v. WOMEN’S HEALTH CENTER, INC. — upheld a Florida injunction
>that created a 36-foot buffer zone outside the entrance to a “chop
>shop”and (2) prohibited Pro-Life protesters from making noise heard
>by patients in the clinic.
Agree that pro-lifers should have the same free speech rights as
pro-choicers.
>PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL MISSOURI v. DANFORTH (1976) — the
>Court invalidated a Missouri statute requiring a woman to get her
>husband’s consent before an abortion; prohibited saline amniocen-
>tesis as a method of abortion; required physicians to preserve
>the life and health of the fetus at every stage of pregnancy; and
>a number of other provisions.
>
>COLAUTTI v. FRANKLIN (1979) invalidated a Pennsylvania law requiring
>physicians to use the method and “degree of care” most likely to
>preserve the life and health of the fetus if the physician determined
>the fetus was viable or had “sufficient reason to believe that the
>fetus may be viable.”
>
>BELLOTTI v. BAIRD (1979) invalidated a Massachusetts law requiring
>minors to have both parents’ consent before an abortion. Four Justices
>found the law unconstitutional because it gave a parent or a judge an
>absolute veto over a minor woman’s abortion decision.
>
>CITY OF AKRON v. AKRON CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH (1983)
>invalidated a city ordinance requiring physicians to give their
>patients abortion facts; a 24-hour waiting period; performance
>of all abortions after the first trimester; and disposal of fetal
>remains in a “humane and sanitary manner.”
>
>THORNBURGH v. AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS AND GYNECOLOGISTS
(1986)
>invalidated parts of a Pennsylvania law requiring doctors to give
>patients abortion information and photos; and requiring physicians
>performing post-viability abortions to use the “degree of care”
required
>to preserve the life and health of any unborn child intended to be
born
>and to use the abortion methods most likely to preserve the life of
the
>fetus.
If you want to argue for 14th Amendment protection for the fetus, go
ahead. That position, though I disagree with it, does at least have
intellectual coherency. But, outside of that premise, a woman’s body
and life belong to herself and not to state legislatures.
>Again, my concern is with the SC changing the very fabric of our
>nation. The question is NOT whether their various decisions did
>good. The question is whether they exceeded their authority. Are
>the SC like a group of vigilantes — their original intent to stop
>clearly evil people or event is good, but as time goes on they
>become worse than the conditions they originally fought
>against?
No, it’s not going far enough at all in upholding our individual
rights.
>In his First Inaugural Address, Abraham Lincoln said:
>
> The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the
> Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people
> is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme
> Court…the people will have ceased to be their own rulers,
> having to that extent practically resigned their Government
> into the hands of that eminent tribunal.
>
>Isn’t that exactly what has happened? Is that what we really
>want?
I don’t want to pay them with _my_ tax money to sit around and do
nothing to protect _my_ individual freedoms any more than I would pay
the fire department to sit around and do nothing while my house is
burning down.
>{ Papa Jack
>{
>{ http://www.express-news.net/papajack -Page doesn`t exist anymore
>
> “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all
> men are created equal; that they are endowed by
> their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that
> among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
> happiness.” –Thomas Jefferson
–
[email protected]
“The concept of ‘greatness’ entails being noble,
wanting to be by oneself,
being capable of being different, standing alone…” -Friedrich Nietzsche
“Identity is shaped through confict and opposition.” -Camille Paglia
From [email protected] Sat Nov 2 10:48:54 PST 1996
Article: 498644 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.mag-net.com!
aurora.cs.athabascau.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!news.bc.net!info.ucla.edu!
csulb.edu!news.sgi.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!tank.news.pipex.net!
pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected](Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,wash.politics,us.politics.bob-dole,
us.politics.abortion,tx.politics,talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,
talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics,seattle.politics,scruz.politics,
ri.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,nj.politics,ne.politics,mn.politics,
dfw.politics,dc.politics,co.politics,ca.politics,ba.politics,az.politics,
alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.
usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.congress,
alt.politics.usa,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.perot,
alt.politics.media,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.equality,
alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.correct,
alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics,alt.current-events
Subject: Re: misleading analogies
Date: 2 Nov 1996 01:10:43 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<55d31g[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca6-18.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Fri Nov 01 7:10:43 PM CST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.abortion:190551 talk.politics.theory:88568
talk.politics.misc:498644 talk.politics.libertarian:138910 alt.politics.usa.
republican:319261 alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich:91743 alt.politics.usa.misc:
123663 alt.politics.usa.constitution:99281 alt.politics.usa.congress:77614
alt.politics.reform:109586 alt.politics.radical-left:130925
alt.politics.perot:62413 alt.politics.media:16946 alt.politics.libertarian:228510
alt.politics.elections:86665 alt.politics.democrats.d:143705
alt.politics.correct:150983 alt.politics.clinton:323640
In <[email protected]> [email protected] (Oleg “American” Volk)
writes:
>
>[email protected] (Joe M. Turner) wrote:
>
>>consensual sex; i.e., a *choice* to engage in an activity for which
>>one possible known outcome is the creation of a new person. Their
>>appearance is not thrust upon you through their own will; they appear
>>based on YOUR will. In an analogy, you might say that you opened the
>>door of your business and put out a sign reading OPEN FOR BUSINESS.
>
>Not quite. Consensual sex is quite similar to leaving a porch door
>open at night: lets in fresh air (enjoyment) but may invite burglars
>(or pregnancies). While the wizdom of enjoyment must be weighted
>against consequences, failure to prevent problems doesn’t mean that
>one need or even may not try and solve them.
Excellent analogy.
>Oleg Volk
>
>VolkStudio Advertising Graphics
>http://www.ddb.com/olegv Page doesn`t exist anymore
>
>UPDATED on Halloween – “Renaissance”
>Over 30 new photographs
[email protected]
“The concept of ‘greatness’ entails being noble,
wanting to be by oneself,
being capable of being different, standing alone…” -Friedrich Nietzsche
“Identity is shaped through confict and opposition.” -Camille Paglia
From [email protected] Sun Nov 3 08:44:30 PST 1996
Article: 498951 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!
laslo.netnet.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-5.sprintlink.net!
www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!arclight.uoregon.edu!
dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected](Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,
alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.current-events.usa
Subject: Re: KEV KELLY BUSTED IN AN OBVIOUS LIE, YET AGAIN
Date: 3 Nov 1996 01:09:04 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <326F[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca3-11.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sat Nov 02 7:09:04 PM CST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.usa.constitution:99354
talk.politics.misc:498951 talk.abortion:190575 alt.politics.usa.republican:319567
alt.current-events.usa:33936
Papa Jack wrote:
>>: While I agree that the Connecticut law was a stupid one, I
shudder
>>: at the legal arguments the Court used to arrive at their
decision.
>>: Bottom line: they made up new laws not previously found.
Papa Jack:
Given your premises: 1) that the Connecticut law was a stupid law
(i.e., a bad law, a law that violated the most basic rights of privacy)
and should have been repealed, and 2) that the function of the
judiciary is to sit around and play checkers rather than to strike down
such laws, and that protection of our individual rights should be left
entirely to legislatures — were you, or any of the other critics of
Griswold vs. Connecticut, doing anything AT THAT TIME to oppose that
law (or any similar laws) and get it repealed through the legislature?
[email protected]
“The concept of ‘greatness’ entails being noble,
wanting to be by oneself,
being capable of being different, standing alone…” -Friedrich Nietzsche
“Identity is shaped through confict and opposition.” -Camille Paglia
From [email protected] Sun Nov 3 08:44:32 PST 1996
Article: 499278 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.mag-net.com!
aurora.cs.athabascau.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!news.bc.net!info.ucla.edu!
nnrp.info.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!news.sgi.com!howland.erols.net!feed1.news.erols.com!
news.enteract.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected](Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,
alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.current-events..usa,
Subject: Re: “ABOUT HARNESSING THE SUPREME COURT”
Date: 3 Nov 1996 02:11:28 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <326F9119.[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<55e435$bac@nntp1.best.com> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca3-11.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sat Nov 02 8:11:28 PM CST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.usa.constitution:99438 talk.politics.misc:
499278 talk.abortion:190592 alt.politics.usa.republican:319910
In <55g[email protected]> [email protected] (Keith E Jackson)
writes:
>
>In article <[email protected]>,
>Steven Malcolm Anderson wrote:
>>In <5[email protected]> [email protected] (Kevin Kelly)
>>writes:
>
>> An excellent analysis of Papa Jack’s unfortunate circumlocutions and
>>evasions on this most crucial issue of judicial protection of our
>>individual rights.
>
>[ 325 lines in which Stevie doesn’t make any additional statements
snipped ]
>
>Well, Steve, now we see you worship Kev Kelly.
Do you worship Papa Jack? Kenneth Gore? Milton Wong? Do you pray to
them when you go to bed at night?
You should know that
>your idol has demonstrated an utter lack of any standards — attacking
>people with perversion and suggestions that they get debilitating
>diseases. I’m wondering if the boy will stoop to anything? Is there
>anything which is too low for him?
I’m not interested in your sandbox fight. “You’re a liar!” “No, you’re
a liar!” “Is too!” “Is not!” “Liar, liar, pants on fire!” “So’s your
mother!” Grow up and address real issues. All of you.
>And, of course, I have demonstrated that Kev Kelly is an enemy of
personal
>liberty using the same tactics that he used to conclude the same about
Papa
>Jack. Of course, I did so in sarcasm, knowing that such techniques
are
>without merit. But, it’s interesting that you now choose to shill for
Agree with = “shill for”?
a
>guy who, by his own arguments, is an enemy of personal liberty.
What do _you_ think of Griswold vs. Connecticut? Stanley vs. Georgia?
Bowers vs. Hardwick? Where do _you_ stand on personal liberty?
>Keith
> Kev Kelly wrote:
> >The fact is only Jack and whatever God he worships knows if he
> >intended to hurt or not, but as far as I am concerned given the
spew he’s
> >posted here he was trying to hurt Osmo.
[email protected]
“The concept of ‘greatness’ entails being noble,
wanting to be by oneself,
being capable of being different, standing alone…” -Friedrich Nietzsche
“Identity is shaped through confict and opposition.” -Camille Paglia
From [email protected] Mon Nov 4 06:55:02 PST 1996
Article: 499826 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.mag-net.com!
freenet.unbc.edu!news.scn.org!news.abs.net!aplcen.apl.jhu.edu!cpk-news-feed3.
bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.
bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected](Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.impeach.clinton,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,
alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,
alt.abortion.inequity,alt.religion.christian
Subject: Re: National Clergy Council Clinton Report!
Date: 3 Nov 1996 21:59:18 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <846657[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca2-08.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun Nov 03 1:59:18 PM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.impeach.clinton:66305 alt.current-events.clinton.
whitewater:52091 alt.politics.clinton:324596 alt.politics.elections:87065
talk.politics.misc:499826 talk.abortion:190641 alt.abortion.inequity:60362
alt.religion.christian:144506
In <[email protected]> [email protected] (Osmo
Ronkanen) writes:
>
>In article ,
>Chris Lyman wrote:
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>># The eccumenical National Clergy Council will release its report
>># on the Clinton Presidency on Thursday. It is an exhaustively
>># researched work which you will not want to miss.
>>
>>There are a number of problems with this “eccumenical” (sic)
>>report. First of all, it has a social and theological slant which
>>is unmistakably fundamentalist and extremely conservative.
>>Some of its pronouncements go against the teachings of the
>>Catholic and mainstream Protestant denominations.
>>
>
>I wonder can the person who wrote that be serious. Can anyone be so
full
>of hate that he could seriously write following:
>
> [INLINE] While the administration attempted to present this support
as
> a simple fight against discrimination, it was actually much more. The
> legislation involved “seeks to defend not status but particular
> behavior and declare that behavior to be both irrelevent to the
> employer’s business and superior to the employer’s and customer’s
> interest.” 135 ENDA, if enacted, would force proprietors of
businesses
> to effectively disregard their religious convictions about homosexual
> behavior by requiring that businesses allow those engaged in
> homosexual practices to represent them in business negotiations,
> public relations, and personal matters.
>
>Can someone hate a fellow human being so much that he would support
the
>idea of discrimination on basis of sexual orientation?
>Osmo
Unfortunately, yes, there are a lot of despicable bigots running
around who hate everybody who is different in any way.
—
[email protected]
“The concept of ‘greatness’ entails being noble,
wanting to be by oneself,
being capable of being different, standing alone…” -Friedrich Nietzsche
“Identity is shaped through confict and opposition.” -Camille Paglia
From [email protected] Mon Nov 4 06:55:03 PST 1996
Article: 499851 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.mag-net.com!
freenet.unbc.edu!news.scn.org!news.abs.net!news.bconnex.net!feed1.news.erols.com!
panix!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected](Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.impeach.clinton,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,
alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,
alt.abortion.inequity,alt.religion.christian
Subject: Re: National Clergy Council Clinton Report!
Date: 4 Nov 1996 01:38:04 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <846657155.217[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<01bbc9e2.04199d40$29d5bbcd@netscape>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca7-32.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun Nov 03 5:38:04 PM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.impeach.clinton:66310 alt.current-events.clinton.
whitewater:52097 alt.politics.clinton:324614 alt.politics.elections:87073
talk.politics.misc:499851 talk.abortion:190644 alt.abortion.inequity:60364
alt.religion.christian:144533
In <01bbc9e2.04199d40$29d5bbcd@netscape> “Vasile Aciobanitei”
writes:
>> Rev. Robert Shenck is president of the National
>> Clergy Council.
>>
>> In 1992, Rev. Robert Shenck adopted the
>> tactic of shadowing abortion providers. The
>> campaign included making and distributing
>> handbills that stated “Dr. X Kills Children” as
>> well as red banners emblazoned with “Abortionists
>> Eat Here” for use at restaurants targeted doctors
>> frequented.
>> Pat
>### As I see this kind of thinking is a case of rectocranial inversion
and
>this Rev. have a Standard of Anal Thinking. I propose this Rev. to
raise
>his head from his arse and see the reality. His report is pure fart
and is
>better to be smelled between the members of Farting Clergy Council and
not
>to be farted in any publication or ng.
You said it!
–
[email protected]
“The concept of ‘greatness’ entails being noble,
wanting to be by oneself,
being capable of being different, standing alone…” -Friedrich Nietzsche
“Identity is shaped through confict and opposition.” -Camille Paglia
From [email protected] Mon Nov 4 06:55:04 PST 1996
Article: 499898 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!gatech!
csulb.edu!newshub.csu.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.enteract.
com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected](Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,wash.politics,us.politics.bob-dole,us.politics.abortion,
tx.politics,talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.libertarian
talk.politics,seattle.politics,scruz.politics,ri.politics,or.politics,
ny.politics,nj.politics,ne.politics,mn.politics,dfw.politics,dc.politics,
co.politics,ca.politics,ba.politics,az.politics,alt.politics.usa.republican,
alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.
usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.usa,alt.politics.reform,
alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.media,
alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.elections,
alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics,
alt.current-events
Subject: Re: Kevorkian & Respect For Life?
Date: 3 Nov 1996 21:54:21 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca2-08.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun Nov 03 1:54:21 PM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.abortion:190648 talk.politics.theory:88957
talk.politics.misc:499898 talk.politics.libertarian:139438 alt.politics.usa.
republican:320490 alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich:92166 alt.politics.usa.misc:
124068 alt.politics.usa.constitution:99595 alt.politics.usa.congress:78158
alt.politics.reform:110138 alt.politics.radical-left:131368 alt.politics.perot:
62714 alt.politics.media:17102 alt.politics.libertarian:229101
alt.politics.elections:87083 alt.politics.democrats.d:144488
alt.politics.correct:151536 alt.politics.clinton:324645
In <[email protected]>
[email protected] (Ed Redondo) writes:
>
>In article <[email protected]>, Melanie wrote:
>
>>Kevorkian is not respecting either. He has assisted in the killing
of
>>several individuals who were not terminally ill, and assisted in
killing
>>a man with pancreatic cancer. Now pancreatic cancer can be one of
the
>>most painful, I’m told, but I also know that the pain is treatable.
I
>>know this because a friend of mine’s mother died from it, and she
spent
>>her last days relatively pain-free because she had some nerves
clipped.
>>As a result she was able to travel with her daughter in her last
days.
>>Do you suppose Kevorkian counseled this guy in this way?
>
>Do *you* know for a fact that Kevorkian did not counsel this man about
this
>option? Just because *you* or your mother chose this option does
*not*
>mean that another person, facing the same circumstances, would make
the
>choice you did.
>
>The question is just who defines what *is* a “quality life” for a
given
>individual. You? Me? Government? I, for one, say it *is* the
individual
>person’s choice. I personally know of many people who do *not* define
>living a “quality life” as *only* having a heart beat or brain wave
>activity, regardless of what current law says. The decision to
continue
>living is, as far as I and others are concerned, one of our
inalienable
>rights. The decision is an individual’s; *not* yours, *not* mine,
*not*
>the governments, to be made for others.
I read a very interesting interview with Dr. Kevorkian in the August
1996 issue of “George”. He is a consistent defender of individual
freedom and opponent of totalitarianism. Incl., he totally opposes gun
control. He also favors capital punishment. My kind of man!
>=== Ed Redondo ===========================================
>The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its
>credibility. And vice versa.
>
>Religious practice is an individual’s right; *not* a right
>of the public to be imposed on other individuals.
[email protected]
“The concept of ‘greatness’ entails being noble,
wanting to be by oneself,
being capable of being different, standing alone…” -Friedrich Nietzsche
“Identity is shaped through confict and opposition.” -Camille Paglia
From [email protected] Tue Nov 5 07:19:10 PST 1996
Article: 500521 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!
nic.win.hookup.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!gatech!csulb.edu!news.sgi.com!
howland.erols.net!feed1.news.erols.com!news.enteract.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected](Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,
alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.current-events..usa,
Subject: Re: “ABOUT HARNESSING THE SUPREME COURT”
Date: 3 Nov 1996 05:45:00 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 453
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <326F9119.2289@express-news.net> <[email protected]>
<3279A35C.588[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca3-11.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sat Nov 02 11:45:00 PM CST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.usa.constitution:99739 talk.politics.misc:
500521 talk.abortion:190708 alt.politics.usa.republican:321049
In <55h[email protected]> [email protected] (Keith E Jackson)
writes:
>
>In article <[email protected]>,
>Steven Malcolm Anderson wrote:
>>In <[email protected]> Papa Jack
>> writes:
>>>Steven Malcolm Anderson wrote:
>>>Papa Jack comments:
>>>Allow me to address the last part of your post first. Are you some
>>>kind of shill for “Mr. Kelly?”
>
>> Anybody I agree with I must be a shill for? If I agreed with you,
>>would I be a “shill” for you? Is this idiocy or what?
>
>Steve obviously wants us to ignore statements like :
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Steven Malcolm Anderson wrote:
> >In <[email protected]> [email protected] (Kevin Kelly)
> >writes:
> > One excellent post! You said it all, Mr. Kelly. We need men and
women
> >like you on our courts standing up for our personal freedoms.
>
>Now, it’s one thing to agree with people, but to suggest they belong
on
>the bench is pushing it. You’re obviously a weak-minded simpleton if
you
>actually meant what you wrote.
>
>Or were you just kidding?
I’m not kidding when I say that we need men and women who will stand
up for our personal freedoms.
>> KK gets folks involved in neverending
>>>flame wars. I consider flames to be like spices. Used in
moderation,
>>>they improve the flavor of a dish. Used to excess, and they ruin
the
>>>whole meal. I’ve played KK’s stupid game before. I found both the
>>>game and KK to be terribly childish and boring.
>
>> Yeah, it is, but you’re obviously addicted to it.
>
>So, why avoid the subject, Steve?
Because it got boring a long time ago.
How do you feel about KK’s exclusive
>use of flames? Does that inspire you as someone who belongs in a
black
>robe, officiating over life-and-death cases which potentially affect
the
>lives of millions?
A dog would be far better than someone like Bork, Scalia, etc., who
think “states’ rights” supersede individual rights.
>Or were you just kidding?
I’m not kidding about the need for judicial protection of our
individual rights.
>>>I challenged KK to discuss the issues without flames — just the
>>>issues — and I would do the same. He replied almost immediately
>>>with a string of flames — his usual crap.
>
>> Which is exactly what you’re doing now.
>
>Do you think he’s wrong? Address the issue of whether KK is obsessed
with
>flames. Forget PJ for a moment. Address that issue. Or run away.
Your
>choice.
He is. You are. Papa Jack is. “You’re a liar!” “You’re another!” “So’s
your mother!” That stuff ceases to interest me after a century or so.
>If PJ says that KK cannot resist flaming, and KK cannot resist
flaming,
>then what PJ said is true. Distracting from that *FACT* by whining
>”but, you do it! wahhhh!” doesn’t erase the fact, does it?
>
>Address that issue. Or run away. Your choice.
OK. He can’t resist flaming. So what?
>>>Now you come along admiring the great KK, which makes me greatly
>>>suspect your integrity.
>
>> I don’t give a shit. The feeling’s mutual.
>
>Gee, Steve, I don’t see PJ nominating some flame compulsive nitwit for
a
>position in the nation’s highest court. I see *YOU* making such
ridiculous
>comments.
PJ thinks a man had a right to be on the SC who doesn’t believe I have
a right to privacy.
>>>Your:
>
>>> If you fail to answer this question, to clarify your stand
>>> on our PERSONAL FREEDOMS, then I will be forced to conclude
>>> what others have concluded about you.
>
>>>is totally sleazy.
>
>> Asking you to take a stand for personal freedoms is totally sleazy?
>>Then what isn’t?
>
>WHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPP!
>
>WHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPP!
>
>WHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPP!
>
>Strawman alert!
>
>Steve, if your “challenge” was reasonable, then I’m Bill Clinton.
>
>It’s obvious by your statement that you don’t care about facts, just
>about attacking PJ. You’re concocting a false dilemma to give yourself
>an excuse to declare what it’s obvious you’ve already concluded
anyway.
No, I want to know where he stands on substantive issues of individual
rights. I want to know why he thinks judicial protection of
individual rights is tyranny. I want to know what mechanism he would
substitute for judicial review to protect individual rights. That’s
more important than whether he dislikes Kelly, IMO.
>>>Look, little boy, you conclude whatever you want to conclude. Now
>>>run home and sit at KK’s feet and admire your hero.
>
>> Your endless and contentless quarrel with Kelly reminds me of
two-year
>>olds throwing sand in each others’ faces. It’s time for _you_ to grow
>>up, don’t you think?
>
>Hmm, so you want to put the other half of this pair of “two-year olds
>throwing sand in each others’ faces” on the bench of the highest court
>in the lands? Is that what you’re saying?
>
>Or maybe you didn’t mean what you said?
I mean that, if he would protect your rights and mine to flame him on
the net, then he would be far better than those currently sitting on
the bench of that court who would abridge our rights in the name of
some “public morality”. Go ahead and flame Kelly all you like. Just
don’t expect me to.
>>>If that is unfair, you tell me why.
>
>> If you think it unfair that you be judged by your stand on personal
>>freedom, tell me why.
>
>Steve, respond to this article in five minutes after it’s posted or I
will
>be forced to conclude that you want to impose Stalinist tyranny on
America.
Ridiculous and infantile. I set no five minute demand wrt Papa Jack.
Nor have I yet made any conclusive judgement on his views. I would like
to know more. Where _does_ he stand on censorship? Privacy? Gun
control?
>;^)
>
>>>> Steven Malcolm Anderson wrote:
>>>> Papa Jack:
>>>> Specifically, which SC decisions are you objecting to, other than
>>>> Roe vs. Wade?: Brown vs. Board of Education? Griswold vs.
>>>> Connecticut? Stanley vs. Georgia? Hint: all of these decisions
>>>> protected our PERSONAL FREEDOMS. OK, Bowers vs. Hardwick was
lousy,
>>>> but your proposed remedy would hardly fix that.
>
>>>> Mr. Kelly asked you this exact same question and you just called
>>>> him names and ran away without answering it. If you fail to answer
>>>> this question, to clarify your stand on our PERSONAL FREEDOMS,
then
>>>> I will be forced to conclude what others have concluded about you.
>
>>>Papa Jack comments:
>>>I am not protesting specific decisions, but an overall power grab
>>>by the SC. I am most concerned about Mulford v. Smith and U.S. v.
>>>Darby (1941) which killed the 10th Amendment.
>
>>>Do you understand? They took oaths to support and defend the
>>>Constitution, and then wiped out one of the 10 amendments which
>>>make up our Bill of Rights!!! Remember what they taught us about
>>>the Bill of Rights way back yonder in Civics? The cornerstone
>>>of our freedoms and all that “stuff.”
>
>> Yup. That’s precisely what I’m talking about.
>
>He takes issue with an erosion of the rights enumerated in the Bill of
>Rights, yet you are ready to jump on him as anti-freedom?
>
>Please back up your a priori judgment or admit that you were rash. Or
run
>away. Your choice.
I’m still not clear on where he stands on the issue of judicial
protection of individual rights. Mr. Kelly has made his stand clear.
>>>Now here you are yipping about the group who is taking away our
>>>Bill of Rights as the ones who would protect Personal Freedom???
>>>If they can reduce the 10th to rubble, why can’t they invalidate
>>>the 1st Amendment or the 4th or ….?
>
>> They already _have_ reduced the 2nd Amendment nearly to rubble by
>>allowing gun control,
>
>I agree.
Good.
>>as well as the 1st by allowing censorship of “obscenity”.
>
>I’m curious. What limits would you put on pornography?
Damned few where consenting adults are concerned.
Would you put
>limits on child pornography?
Actual use of children should be illegal, but writings, drawings,
etc., should certainly not be.
Would you put limits on broadcasting over
>public airwaves?
No.
How about displaying images in public?
Some limits there to protect the rights of the non-consenting.
How about any
>limitations on the locations of businesses selling pornography?
Some possibly.
>I’m just trying to gauge what you consider the boundaries of the 1st
>amendment.
I don’t have a right to read military secrets, OK. I damn well do have
the right to read, write, paint, photograph, talk, and think as I
please about sex, religion, politics, or anything else.
>>And then there’s the 9th, which your pal Bork hates so
>>much. Why aren’t you flaming _that_ jerk instead of Kelly?
>
>Do you have citations to show that Bork hates this amendment? I’m no
>fan of his for his compliance with Nixon’s orders, but I’d like to see
>something substantive to justify your allegation.
See “The Rights Retained By The People: The History and Meaning of the
Ninth Amendment” (2 volumes) by Randy E. Barnett (1989, 1993, George
Mason University Press).
>Remember that rights are not *GIVEN* by the Constitution, but rather
>protected. These rights exist whether or not a piece of paper says
they
>do.
Absolutely.
>The only problem is how do we know the SC is going to correctly
identify
>what are truly rights rather than making grevious errors?
Only by appointing men and women with a clear understanding of the
concept of individual rights. Not socialism and not moral
majoritarianism.
>>>Brown vs. Board of Education? I support that decision completely —
>>>it was clearly grounded in the Constitution and the 14th Amendment.
>>>What are you trying to make me appear to be some sort of right-wing
>>>racist? No thank you.
>
>> Complaints about the alledged “tyranny” of the judiciary vs.
“states’
>>rights” largely started with with that one.
>
>But, gee, PJ says he supports the decision completely, and that it was
>clearly grounded in the Constitution. Nice try. No cigar.
I wasn’t accusing him of racism. I wanted to know his stand on it. OK.
(What he thought of it AT THE TIME would be interesting to know,
however.)
>>>Griswold vs. Connecticut (concerning “an uncommonly silly law” as
>>>Justice Stewart termed it). This is the one where the decision
>>>contained Justice Douglas’ famous gobbledegook sentence:
>
>>> …specific guarantees…have penumbras, formed by emanations
>>> from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.
>
>>>While I agree that the Connecticut law was a stupid one, I shudder
>>>at the legal arguments the Court used to arrive at their decision.
>
>> You shudder at the idea of the right to privacy? Is that it? Damn
good
>>decision, I say.
>
>There you go again, putting words in his mouth. Where did he say he
>shuddered at the idea of the right to privacy? I see him saying the
>law was stupid! I see him saying he shudders at the “arguments” which
>sound more to me like an acid trip than a SC justice.
>
>Is this the best you can do, Steve?
It would be interesting to what he thought of it AT THE TIME. We know
that his friend Bork thought it was just peachy.
>>>Bottom line: they made up new laws not previously found.
>
>Hmm, exactly how is this making a new *LAW*, rather than overturning
one?
>
>> No, they struck down a lousy law that violated the most basic
personal
>>freedoms. That’s what we pay them for, not to play tiddleywinks.
>
>> Then they
>>>quibbled among themselves over what they had done. Read it.
>
>> I have.
>
>I’m just amazed that Douglas would talk about “emanations” and
>”penumbras”. With landmark cases, we need clear decisions based
solidly on
>clear reasoning.
Far better than the notion that we don’t have a right to privacy
because the Bill of Rights doesn’t explicitly use the word “privacy”.
We need more Douglases, Blackmuns, and Blacks, and fewer Rhenquists,
Scalias, etc., on the SC.
>>>Stanley vs. Georgia? In Osborn v. Ohio (1990) Justice Byron White
>>>for the Court held Stanley inapplicabe to private possession of
>>>child pornography and warned that Stanley should not be read too
>>>broadly.
>
>> A bad decision for precisely that reason.
>
>Hmm, so what is your position on the boundary here? What should be
>protected, and what should not?
A person has the right to read and fantasize about sex in his or her
own home. Period.
>> It was also undercut by Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) which
>>>allowed State regulation of private sexual conduct.
>
>> Yup. An even worse decision. The Dred Scott ruling of the 20th
>>century. I say homosexuals have the same rights you and I have.
Period.
>
>Notice also that the Georgia law could apply to a man and his wife
engaging
>in oral sex.
All too true.
>>>How about:
>
>>>DOE v. BOLTON (1973) –decided with Roe v. Wade.
>
>>>NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN v. SCHEIDLER — the Racketeer Influ-
>>>enced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) act applied to the Pro-Life
>>>Action Network (PLAN) and others anti-choice clinic blockaders.
>
>> Insofar as RICO infringes on free speech and association, it’s a bad
>>law and should be struck down.
>
>Not to mention how it has been misused to punish without conviction.
>
>[snip cases]
>
>> Agree that pro-lifers should have the same free speech rights as
>>pro-choicers.
>
>[snip cases]
>
>> If you want to argue for 14th Amendment protection for the fetus, go
>>ahead. That position, though I disagree with it, does at least have
>>intellectual coherency. But, outside of that premise, a woman’s body
>>and life belong to herself and not to state legislatures.
>
>Well, at least you’re not whining about him being an “enemy of
personal
>freedom” here like your hero, Kev.
>
>>>Again, my concern is with the SC changing the very fabric of our
>>>nation. The question is NOT whether their various decisions did
>>>good. The question is whether they exceeded their authority. Are
>>>the SC like a group of vigilantes — their original intent to stop
>>>clearly evil people or event is good, but as time goes on they
>>>become worse than the conditions they originally fought
>>>against?
>
>> No, it’s not going far enough at all in upholding our individual
>>rights.
>
>Perhaps. It’s definitely not doing it’s job on the First, Second, and
>Tenth amendments.
>
>>>In his First Inaugural Address, Abraham Lincoln said:
>>> The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the
>>> Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people
>>> is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme
>>> Court…the people will have ceased to be their own rulers,
>>> having to that extent practically resigned their Government
>>> into the hands of that eminent tribunal.
>>>Isn’t that exactly what has happened? Is that what we really
>>>want?
>> I don’t want to pay them with _my_ tax money to sit around and do
>>nothing to protect _my_ individual freedoms any more than I would pay
>>the fire department to sit around and do nothing while my house is
>>burning down.
>I see the First, Second, and Tenth amendments going up in smoke.
Where
>is the SC?
Not doing its job.
>Keith
> Kev Kelly wrote:
> >The fact is only Jack and whatever God he worships knows if he
> >intended to hurt or not, but as far as I am concerned given the
spew he’s
> >posted here he was trying to hurt Osmo.
[email protected]
“The concept of ‘greatness’ entails being noble,
wanting to be by oneself,
being capable of being different, standing alone…” -Friedrich Nietzsche
“Identity is shaped through confict and opposition.” -Camille Paglia
From [email protected] Thu Nov 14 08:52:13 PST 1996
Article: 506475 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!
nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!van.istar!
west.istar!n1van.istar!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!nntp.portal.ca!news.bc.net!
info.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!
newspump.sol.net!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!
ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected](Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.usa.republican,
alt.current-events..usa,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: The Fears of Robert Bork (Was: Supreme Court)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 03:22:33 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 222
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <326[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <327 <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca7-45.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon Nov 11 9:22:33 PM CST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.politics.misc:506475 talk.abortion:191346
alt.politics.usa.republican:326984 alt.politics.usa.constitution:101340
How TERRIBLE it was of us to have denied Bork his RIGHT (superseding,
of course, any rights that you or I may claim, such trivialities as
privacy in our homes or freedom of speech on the net) to A SEAT ON THE
SUPREME COURT. Why, soon we may end up denying Ralph Reed, Pat
Robertson, etc., a seat on the Supreme Court as well! Who knows where
it will end? We may end up with only 9 people on the court out of the
whole country!
In <5[email protected]> [email protected] (Kevin Kelly)
writes:
>
>Papa Jack ([email protected]) wrote:
>: [email protected] wrote:
>
>[…]
>: > It is useful to be reminded of the fact that Bork’s
>: > nomination has been, indeed, overwhelmingly rejected
>: > by the Senate, a political institution whose members
>: > are very much accountable to the voters. Why do
>: > Bork’s supporters want to impose Bork’s legal views
>: > upon the American people if their elected representatives
>: > have decided to reject him?
>
>: ==========================================================
>: Papa Jack comments:
>: 58 to 42 can hardly be described as overwhelming — particularly
>: after the shameful propaganda campaign of the entire radical
>: liberal establishment againt Bork.
>
>Yeah how dare they confront him with his opinions. How dare they do
their
>job. Bad radical liberal establishment. And when the conservatives
launch
>their campaigns it’s what jack? What is interesting is that Bork
confirms
>with his writing the very things that were said about him.
>
>——
>by Ira Glasser, ACLU Executive Director
>
> November 3, 1996
>
> Masks Off, Gloves Off: The Return of Robert Bork
>
> On All Hallow’s Eve, I opened my door to ghouls, witches,
vampires,
>ghosts, and even Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. And I gave them candy.
Kids
>in masks don’t scare me, although I’m happy to go along with the
spirit of
>the day and pretend that they do.
>
> What really scares me is the return of Robert Bork. This
one-time,
>failed nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court is back, and what he’s got
in
>store for America is no treat.
>
> In 1987, we narrowly escaped a major constitutional disaster when
the
>U.S. Senate rejected Bork’s nomination by a 58-42 vote. At the time,
Bork
>denied the ACLU’s charge that he opposed the very concept of a Bill of
>Rights that limits legislative authority and is enforced by
independent
>federal courts. But in his new book, Slouching Towards Gomorrah, Bork
>takes off his mask and reveals himself for what he really is: the most
>dangerous judicial extremist in the country. He admits to the charge
by
>actually proposing a constitutional amendment that would allow
Congress,
>by a simple majority vote, to override any Supreme Court decision it
>didn’t like.
> This is an extraordinary proposal. If such an amendment were to
pass,
>every one of our basic individual rights would be in mortal danger. A
>woman’s right to reproductive freedom, an author’s right to free
>expression, a family’s right to freedom of religion, a racial
minority’s
>right to be free of discrimination — all of these rights would be
subject
>to Congressional vote; all could be taken away. It was precisely to
avoid
>such a result that the Bill of Rights was adopted in the first place.
And,
>as Thomas Jefferson pointed out, the Bill of Rights would not work
without
>an independent court system to enforce it.
> Now comes Robert Bork to destroy that constitutional structure
and
>place all rights at the whim of momentary majorities. To those of us
who
>tremble at such a prospect — we have, after all, had much experience
with
>what happens when the rights of blacks are dependent upon white
majorities
>– Bork offers this not very convincing assurance: “This is a
civilized
>nation; there is no reason to suppose that the citizens of some
benighted
>town would suddenly become fascists and return to a regime of racial
>segregation.” There isn’t?
> What about that “benighted town” in Nebraska where a 16-year- old
>pregnant girl was abducted from her parents by the police, taken to
court
>and held by the local judge in custody until her parents agreed not to
>permit her to have an abortion? >
> What about that “benighted town” in Mississippi where a young
couple
>and their children were threatened and harassed for refusing to say
>prayers different from their own in public school?
> And what about that “benighted town” called Washington, where
>Congress recently passed a law imposing sweeping and unprecedented
>censorship on the Internet, a law swiftly struck down as
unconstitutional
>by a three-judge federal court?
> All of these cases, and countless others, are currently in the
>federal courts. If Bork’s proposal passed, the courts would find
>themselves without the authority to remedy these violations of
>constitutional rights.
> But can Bork’s proposal actually pass?
> Well, a movement to strip the federal courts of their
independence,
>and to allow the legislative branch to impose its will unchecked is
>already underway. This past year, Congress passed and President
Clinton
>signed a series of bills that take away the power of federal courts to
>remedy constitutional violations of the rights of the most unpopular
and
>politically powerless groups — immigrants, prisoners, welfare
recipients,
>the poor and the disabled. Since Congress and the President have
already
>conceded the principle, Bork’s proposal has a leg up. What can be
done to
>the least of us can in principle be done to any of us.
>
> Moreover, the Christian Coalition has already put its vast
resources
>and political clout behind Bork’s proposal. Ralph Reed, the Christian
>Coalition’s executive director, gives Slouching Towards Gomorrah an
>enthusiastic endorsement which appears on the book’s cover. And Pat
>Robertson, the founder and head of the Coalition, recently brought
Bork
>onto his television show as a star guest and signaled a new regrouping
of
>the religious right in the wake of Dole’s expected defeat.
>
> Also, do not be surprised if the Bork amendment, along with some
of
>his other ideas, like government censorship of popular culture,
“starting
>with the obscene prose and pictures available on the Internet,” show
up as
>part of the political agenda in the next few years.
>
> And do not be lulled by the prospect of a Clinton victory on
November
>5. In 1992, after Clinton beat Bush, many people concerned about civil
>liberties relaxed. But Clinton’s victory turned out to be the
beginning of
>an organizing effort by the forces of intolerance and
authoritarianism,
>which resulted in the Gingrich Revolution of 1994 and the most
repressive
>Congress in decades. And as President, Clinton acquiesced in much of
that
>repressive legislation.
>
> A Clinton victory on November 5 will similarly provoke a renewed
>response by the forces of intolerance, and Bork’s new proposal will be
>their rallying point.
>
> Plenty to be scared about this Halloween.
>: Never before had America seen such a mean-spirited display of raw
>: hatred for a man of the academic world. Bork had the audacity to
>: challenge the liberal shibboleths from his positions as a professor
>: at Yale, the U.S. Solicitor General, and a Federal judge. They
>: could not forgive him for repeatedly proving their most treasured
>: principles to be wrong.
>
>Bet’s are being taken as to the colour of the sky in Jack’s world.
>
>: Bork’s rejection was NOT the American people speaking — most did
>: not even understand the true nature of the points at issue. It
>: was a victory of the radical liberals in smearing an honorable
>: man of great intellect.
>
>A man of intellect who advocates a destruction of the checks and
balances
>and advocates practices that would threaten the liberty of Americans.
We
>can do without man like this regardless of the claims of a loon as to
his
>intellect. I must say it’s quite entertaining to watch Bork prove by
his
>writing that he indeed was unfit to sit on the SC. It’s somehow
fitting.
>If there is a God, atheism must strike Him
>as less of an insult than religion.
>–Edmond and Jules De Goncourt
[email protected]
“The concept of ‘greatness’ entails being noble,
wanting to be by oneself,
being capable of being different, standing alone…” -Friedrich Nietzsche
“Identity is shaped through confict and opposition.” -Camille Paglia
From [email protected] Thu Nov 14 08:52:16 PST 1996
Article: 506478 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
news-out.internetmci.com!peerfeed.internetmci.com!howland.erols.net!
www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!
netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected](Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.usa.republican,
alt.current-events..usa,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: The Fears of Robert Bork (Was: Supreme Court)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 19:36:02 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 95
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <326[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <327 <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca4-10.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue Nov 12 11:36:02 AM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.politics.misc:506478 talk.abortion:191348
alt.politics.usa.republican:326988 alt.politics.usa.constitution:101341
In <[email protected]> Papa Jack
writes:
>Papa Jack asks:
>Are you KK’s cousin or something? All you do is follow your great
>hero,
He _is_ a hero, esp. compared to you, since he defends the personal
freedoms you attack.
KK around and make sympathetic comments to whatever he
>comments on. I think you even recommended him for the Supreme
>Court.
And then there’s the miserable scumbag _you_ wanted on the SC. KK
_would_ be infinitely better than him or you.
Maybe you’re just KK’s puppy dog.
>
>You really ought to learn to stand on your own two feet like a big
>boy, Steve.
You’re the one who follows the Party Line. Unless you’re flaming
somebody, I’ve never seen you but regurgitate whatever your “opinion
molders” tell you. You would have been a perfect Communist. Conversely,
_I_ think for myself. Always have. Always will. Too fucking bad if you
don’t like it.
KK may be a miserable cur, but at least he knows how
>to make up insults on his own.
If I’m a dog, then you’re a flea. Or maybe you’re a worm, since you
wiggle out of things all the time. Better beware, though, remember what
they say about the early bird…
>Your attempt at “cute” sarcasm is a miserable failure.
Nope. It still stands. Your friend Keith Jackson thinks I’ve been
terribly unfair to you by asking where you stand on personal freedoms.
Well, now I know all too well from reading your most recent posts. I
was willing to reserve final judgement, but you’ve revealed your true
character long ago. From now on, your name is: Jack Shit. Too bad.
>Have a nice day.
Have a nice day yourself.
> ===========================================================
>> Steven Malcolm Anderson wrote:
>> Now, now, Kevin Kelly, you musn’t dare to question the wisdom of the
>> Great Papa. If he wants to shred the Bill of Rights (for our own
good,
>> of course — Daddy knows best) who are we, in our ignorance, to
>> criticize? And (gasp!) how could you be so CRUEL as to say one word
in
>> criticism of The Great Martyr (sob! sob!) Bork, who was SO
HEARTLESSLY
>> (shudder!) denied a seat on the Supreme Court (and not even offered,
to
>> my knowledge, the chairmanship of the board of a Fortune 500
company,
>> in compensation for this terrible loss! Oh, pitiless world!). How
can
>> you DARE to speak of freedom of religion, right to privacy, freedom
of
>> expression, and other such trivialities in the face of such a
fiendish
>> atrocity as this: a man who advocates abrogating these little
>> technicalities BEING DENIED A SEAT ON THE SUPREME COURT! Have you no
>> COMPASSION? How EVIL, how WICKED we must be TO HAVE DENIED HIM A
SEAT
>> ON THE SUPREME COURT!
>> In <5[email protected]> [email protected] (Kevin Kelly)
>> writes:
>{ Papa Jack
>{
>{ http://www.express-news.net/papajack Page doesn`t exist anymore
> “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all
> men are created equal; that they are endowed by
> their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that
> among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
> happiness.” –Thomas Jefferson
[email protected]
“The concept of ‘greatness’ entails being noble,
wanting to be by oneself,
being capable of being different, standing alone…” -Friedrich Nietzsche
“Identity is shaped through confict and opposition.” -Camille Paglia
From [email protected] Thu Nov 14 08:52:17 PST 1996
Article: 506492 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!
nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!
winternet.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!dispatch.news.demon.net!
demon!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected](Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.usa.republican,
alt.current-events..usa,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: The Fears of Robert Bork (Was: Supreme Court)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 19:39:32 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <326[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <327 <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca4-10.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue Nov 12 11:39:32 AM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.politics.misc:506492 talk.abortion:191351
alt.politics.usa.republican:327010 alt.politics.usa.constitution:101352
In <[email protected]> Melanie writes:
>
>Papa Jack wrote:
>>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>> >
>> > In article <[email protected]> Papa Jack
writes:
>> > > As University of Texas law professor Lino Graglia aptly put
it,
>> > > law professors were “overwhelmingly — one could almost say
>> > > hysterically — in opposition” to Judge Bork’s
confirmation….
>> > It is useful to be reminded of the fact that Bork’s
>> > nomination has been, indeed, overwhelmingly rejected
>> > by the Senate, a political institution whose members
>> > are very much accountable to the voters. Why do
>> > Bork’s supporters want to impose Bork’s legal views
>> > upon the American people if their elected representatives
>> > have decided to reject him?
>>
>> ==========================================================
>> Papa Jack comments:
>> 58 to 42 can hardly be described as overwhelming — particularly
>> after the shameful propaganda campaign of the entire radical
>> liberal establishment againt Bork.
>>
>> Never before had America seen such a mean-spirited display of raw
>> hatred for a man of the academic world. Bork had the audacity to
>> challenge the liberal shibboleths from his positions as a professor
>> at Yale, the U.S. Solicitor General, and a Federal judge. They
>> could not forgive him for repeatedly proving their most treasured
>> principles to be wrong.
>>
>> Bork’s rejection was NOT the American people speaking — most did
>> not even understand the true nature of the points at issue. It
>> was a victory of the radical liberals in smearing an honorable
>> man of great intellect.
>>
>> Have a nice day.
>> —
>> { Papa Jack
>
>Papa Jack, I agree on this one. How many Supreme Court Justice
Nominees
>have been subjected to advertising campaigns opposing them. I can
only
>think of Bork and Thomas. Are there any others?
sob! sob! (Screw _our_ rights, of course!)
>–Melanie
