Documents

Article 3-2, Anderson Steven Malcolm

Kevin Kelly writes:
In <[email protected]> [email protected]
>
>Most interesting, jack who claims he won’t follow me up does so
>again. Medication not working again jack?
>
>Papa Jack ([email protected]) wrote:
>: Kevin Kelly wrote:
>: > 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.
>
>ANd look poor jack can’t refute it.
He can’t, so he just flames and runs. Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle. I
disagree with you on one point, though, Mr. Kelly. I refuse to let Papa
Jack (Shit?) and those like him set the terms of this debate. This is
not a war between “liberals” vs. “conservatives”, but between
totalitarians vs. individualists.
—
[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 08:52:18 PST 1996
Article: 506551 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!
nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!van.istar!
west.istar!n1van.istar!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!nntp.portal.ca!news.bc.net!
info.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!
newspump.sol.net!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!btnet!netcom.net.uk!
ix.netcom.com!news
From: [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 03:13:28 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 229
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 7:13:28 PM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.politics.misc:506551 talk.abortion:191360
alt.politics.usa.republican:327076 alt.politics.usa.constitution:101375

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

In <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

From [email protected] Thu Nov 14 08:52:20 PST 1996
Article: 506633 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!
nic.win.hookup.net!hookup!news.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!feed1.
news.erols.com!news.enteract.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [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 20:35:37 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 26
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-ca4-10.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue Nov 12 2:35:37 PM CST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.politics.misc:506633 talk.abortion:191368
alt.politics.usa.republican:327171 alt.politics.usa.constitution:101404

>Papa Jack ([email protected]) wrote:

>: (3) Gays in the Military — Lesbian and Gay Rights Project obtained
>: a preliminary injunction from a federal District Court in New
>: York blocking the government’s discharge of six service members
>: who are plaintiffs in an ACLU challenge to the “Don’t Ask,
Don’t
>: Tell” policy.
Papa Jack reveals his true character in this post. Like his pal Milton
Wong and so many others like him, Papa Jack just can’t stand those
“**gg**s”. The fact that he hates “**gg**s” so much that he wants them
kicked out of the military doesn’t make him a b*g*t, now does it?
Though his friend Keith Jackson thinks I’m terribly unfair in not
regarding him as a valiant defender of individual rights, I must call
the shots as I see them. No wonder he is known as: Jack Shit.

From [email protected] Thu Nov 14 08:52:21 PST 1996
Article: 507002 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.
net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!
ott.istar!istar.net!winternet.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!
nntp.primenet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!
cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!
ix.netcom.com!news
From: [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: 13 Nov 1996 01:33:22 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 16
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]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca4-10.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue Nov 12 5:33:22 PM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.politics.misc:507002 talk.abortion:191401
alt.politics.usa.republican:327577 alt.politics.usa.constitution:101524

>In article <[email protected]>, Papa Jack
wrote:

>}When Bork was “Borked,”
i.e., denied a seat on the Supreme Court because of his totalitarian
views.
[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 08:52:22 PST 1996
Article: 507037 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!
laslo.netnet.net!node2.frontiernet.net!news.texas.net!news1.best.com!
www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!feed1.news.erols.com!
news.enteract.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [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 19:59:31 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 214
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-ca4-10.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue Nov 12 11:59:31 AM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.politics.misc:507037 talk.abortion:191406
alt.politics.usa.republican:327619 alt.politics.usa.constitution:101533

In <5[email protected]> [email protected] (Kevin Kelly)
writes:

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

>Most interesting, jack who claims he won’t follow me up does so
>again. Medication not working again jack?
>
>Papa Jack ([email protected]) wrote:
>: Kevin Kelly wrote:
>: >
>: > 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.
>
>ANd look poor jack can’t refute it.
>:
===========================================================
>: > Kevin Kelly wrote:
>: > by Ira Glasser, ACLU Executive Director

==========================================================
>: Papa Jack comments:
>: IRA GLASSER!!!!! The ED of the ACLU —- that’s YOUR “authority” in
>: comments against Robert Bork? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. How about Gus
>: Hall? Don’t you have something by Gus Hall too, KK? His Home Page
is:
>
>What’s interesting jack is that you deleted his comments and cannot
offer
>a refutation of what he said. Your little boy bravado to cover that
would
>embarrass an adult if he did it, but you seem to be untouched.
>
>: http://www.hartford-hwp.com/cp-usa/index.html Page doesn`t exist anymore
>
>: BWHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! You are a hoot.
>
>: For example, the ACLU brags of winning court cases on:
>
>Now let’s look at the cases that the ACLU won that jack mentions and
show
>his obvious disdain of personal rights.
>
>
>: (1) Drug Testing on Campus — defeated requirement at the U. of
>: Colorado’s requirement that all students wanting to participate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From [email protected] Fri Nov 15 07:05:43 PST 1996
Article: 49379 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!
nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!clicnet!news.clic.net!news.bconnex.net!
news.supernet.net!news.magicnet.net!news.sprintlink.net!
news-atl-21.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-hub.sprintlink.net!
news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!howland.erols.net!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected](Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,wash.politics,us.politics.bob-dole,us.politics.abortion,
tx.politics,triangle.politics,talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,
talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.crypto,
talk.politics,seattle.politics,scruz.politics,ri.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,
nj.politics,ne.politics,mn.politics,dfw.politics,dc.politics,co.politics,
ca.politics,ba.politics,az.politics,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.usa.
republican,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.
constitution,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.usa,alt.politics.reform,
alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.media,
alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.immigration,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.
politics.greens,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.
democrats.d,alt.politics.datahighway,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.clinton,
alt.politics,alt.politics.nationalism.texas,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice WOMEN: IT”S NOT YOUR BODY!!! and It’s NOT YOUR DNA!!!
Date: 14 Nov 1996 20:15:22 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 85
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<327[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<3282BA[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca6-20.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Thu Nov 14 2:15:22 PM CST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.abortion:191481 talk.politics.theory:91588
talk.politics.misc:507935 talk.politics.libertarian:143712 talk.politics.guns:
342022 talk.politics.crypto:14984 alt.politics.white-power:49379
alt.politics.usa.republican:328568 alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich:95367
alt.politics.usa.misc:126981 alt.politics.usa.constitution:101771
alt.politics.usa.congress:81155 alt.politics.reform:113667
alt.politics.radical-left:134554 alt.politics.perot:64824 alt.politics.media:
17940 alt.politics.libertarian:233278 alt.politics.homosexuality:125080
alt.politics.greens:20917 alt.politics.elections:89552 alt.politics.democrats.d:
149786 alt.politics.datahighway:20336 alt.politics.correct:155545
alt.politics.clinton:331447 alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater:55888

In <3[email protected]> [email protected] (Jerome
Bigge) writes:

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

>On Tue, 12 Nov 1996 00:27:08 GMT, [email protected] (M Simon) wrote:
…another irrefutable post! Let’s see Papa Jack try to wiggle out of
_this_ one.
>>Ray,
>> Assume the pro-lifers get what they want. How will it be
>>enforced? Menstrual police? Daily urine samples from all women
>>10 to 55.

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

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

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

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

_I_ refuse to!

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

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

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

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

>Jerome Bigge ([email protected]) NRA Life Member
>
>THE SECOND ADMENDMENT: OUR INSURANCE POLICY!

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

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

From [email protected] Fri Nov 15 08:23:49 PST 1996
Article: 507539 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.mag-net.com!
freenet.unbc.edu!news.scn.org!news.abs.net!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!www.nntp.primenet.
com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.
net!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [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: 14 Nov 1996 11:07:03 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <846657[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca2-18.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Thu Nov 14 3:07:03 AM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.impeach.clinton:68339 alt.current-events.clinton.
whitewater:55693 alt.politics.clinton:331099 alt.politics.elections:89449
talk.politics.misc:507539 talk.abortion:191451 alt.abortion.inequity:60515
alt.religion.christian:148287

>Cheryl Morris wrote:
> Those
>>claims that if homosexuals teach your kids you have to be worried
make
>>about as much since as if heterosexuals teach your kids you have to
be worried.
>>Cheryl
Thank you, Cheryl!
[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 19 07:42:16 PST 1996
Article: 49494 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!
nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!sunqbc.risq.net!news1.bellglobal.com!
news.sprintlink.net!news-pen-14.sprintlink.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!
nntp.primenet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!
news.mathworks.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!news.tacom.army.mil!news.webspan.net!
ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected](Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,wash.politics,us.politics.bob-dole,us.politics.
abortion,tx.politics,triangle.politics,talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,
talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.crypto,talk.politics,
seattle.politics,scruz.politics,ri.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,
nj.politics,ne.politics,mn.politics,dfw.politics,dc.politics,co.politics,
ca.politics,ba.politics,az.politics,alt.politics.white-power,
alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,
alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.congress,
alt.politics.usa,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.perot,
alt.politics.media,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.immigration,
alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.greens,alt.politics.equality,
alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.datahighway,
alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics,alt.politics.nationalism.
texas,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice WOMEN: IT”S NOT YOUR BODY!!! and It’s NOT YOUR DNA!!!
Date: 16 Nov 1996 19:10:47 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<327[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<3282BA[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<328c8ebb.949433@news.novagate.com> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca1-08.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sat Nov 16 11:10:47 AM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.abortion:191541 talk.politics.theory:91828
talk.politics.misc:508667 talk.politics.libertarian:144167 talk.politics.guns:
342592 talk.politics.crypto:14998 alt.politics.white-power:49494
alt.politics.usa.republican:329340 alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich:95631
alt.politics.usa.misc:127236 alt.politics.usa.constitution:102006
alt.politics.usa.congress:81458 alt.politics.reform:113935
alt.politics.radical-left:134804 alt.politics.perot:64990
alt.politics.media:18023 alt.politics.libertarian:233721
alt.politics.homosexuality:125352 alt.politics.greens:21031
alt.politics.elections:89749 alt.politics.democrats.d:150272
alt.politics.datahighway:20359 alt.politics.correct:155914
alt.politics.clinton:332019 alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater:56190

In <[email protected]> James Doemer writes:

>Lucile V. Wilson wrote:
>>
>> In <3[email protected]> [email protected] (Jerome
>> Bigge) writes:
>> >
>> >On Tue, 12 Nov 1996 00:27:08 GMT, [email protected] (M Simon)
wrote:

>> >>Ray,

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

>> >>How will they prevent drugs from getting to women who want them?
>> >>How will they prevent the teaching of ‘menstrual extraction’ in
>> >>the living rooms of the commited?
>> >>
>> >>The problem here is that pro-lifers want to end abortion but
>> >>they are unwilling to pay the price. So they need police. And
>> >>jails, and courts, and secret police. And they want us all to
>> >>pay to support their hobby.
>> >>You are quite correct. Their position is morally bankrupt. And
>> >>it should be pointed out at every opportunity.
>> >>Don’t tell me you are pro life. Tell me how many children you
>> >>adopted.
>> >>I am Pro-Life and I have two adopted children. Now what?
>This is where their aurgument falls apart, many pro-life people do
adopt,
>count me in for 1….

OK, but then there’s 1,000,000 more to go every year. And you didn’t
even begin to answer the question about all those police, secret
police, and government bureaucrats you’ll need to supervise all girls
and women of childbearing age in order to keep them all barefoot and
pregnant and make sure no harm comes to their unborn “babies” (fetuses,
embryos, zygotes) from smoking, drinking, etc..

From [email protected] Wed Nov 20 08:07:20 PST 1996
Article: 508627 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.mtl.
hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!van.istar!
west.istar!n1van.istar!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!
news.msfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!
ix.netcom.com!news
From: [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: 16 Nov 1996 21:26:22 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <327
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca1-08.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sat Nov 16 1:26:22 PM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.politics.misc:508627 talk.abortion:191535
alt.politics.usa.republican:329282 alt.politics.usa.constitution:101992

In [email protected] (Ray Fischer) writes:
>
>Papa Jack wrote:
>>No nomination ever threatened the radical left as much as Bork.
^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^

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

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

He’s a totalitarian scumbag.

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

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

>Ray Fischer
>[email protected]

From [email protected] Wed Nov 20 08:07:22 PST 1996
Article: 508660 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!
nic.win.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [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: 16 Nov 1996 20:15:25 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <326[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <327
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca1-08.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sat Nov 16 2:15:25 PM CST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.politics.misc:508660 talk.abortion:191539
alt.politics.usa.republican:329324 alt.politics.usa.constitution:101999

In [email protected] (Tom Wright) writes:

> >Papa Jack comments:
> >58 to 42 can hardly be described as overwhelming — particularly
> >after the shameful propaganda campaign of the entire radical
^^^^^^^
> >liberal establishment againt Bork.
^^^^^^^

“radical liberal”, i.e., pro-individual.

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

Quite true. He’s a totalitarian jerk who denies individual rights, and
the 42 who voted in his favor were either deluded fools or jerks just
like him.
—
[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] Wed Nov 20 08:07:23 PST 1996
Article: 508681 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!
nic.win.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!
n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!winternet.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!
nntp.primenet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!
news.idt.net!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [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: 16 Nov 1996 23:39:22 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 34
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-ca1-08.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sat Nov 16 3:39:22 PM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.politics.misc:508681 talk.abortion:191543
alt.politics.usa.republican:329359 alt.politics.usa.constitution:102011

In <[email protected]> Del writes:
>
>Tom Wright wrote:
>>
>> >Papa Jack smears his opponents without saying anything
substantive:
>> >58 to 42 can hardly be described as overwhelming — particularly
>> >after the shameful propaganda campaign of the entire radical
^^^^^^^
>> >liberal establishment againt Bork.
^^^^^^^
“radical liberal”, i.e., pro-free speech and pro-privacy.

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

I told you so! _This_ is the totalitarian scumbag Papa Jack wants on
the Supreme Court. Wiggle out of _this_ one, Papa Jack. Wiggle, wiggle,
wiggle like a worm.
—
[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] Wed Nov 20 08:07:24 PST 1996
Article: 508710 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!
nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!
winternet.com!visi.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!
howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [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: 16 Nov 1996 20:27:47 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 115
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-ca1-08.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sat Nov 16 12:27:47 PM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.politics.misc:508710 talk.abortion:191548
alt.politics.usa.republican:329395 alt.politics.usa.constitution:102022

In <5[email protected]> [email protected] (Kevin Kelly)
writes:

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

>Alan Bomberger ([email protected]) wrote:

Idiocy almost on the level of Papa Jack’s

>: In article , [email protected] wrote:

>: > If Rose Bird is crazy, Robert Bork is certainly extremist.
>: > In 1985 he told a college audience: <: >
that a prior court has misread the Constitution, I think it’s
>: > your duty to go back and correct it…I dont think precedent
>: > is all that important.>> (The New York Review of Books, February
2,
>: > 1995)

>: My God the extremism! If some court in the past made a stupid
>: ruling
>
>A ruling against the principles of some that call themselves
>conservatives you mean.

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

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

They’re not conservatives. They’re totalitarians.

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly.

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

Precisely.

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

I’m proud to be an extremist.

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

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

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

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

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

From [email protected] Wed Nov 20 08:07:25 PST 1996
Article: 508838 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!
nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!van.istar!
west.istar!uniserve!news.sol.net!newspump.sol.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!
nntp.primenet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [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: 16 Nov 1996 03:07:07 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 68
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-ca7-47.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Fri Nov 15 9:07:07 PM CST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.politics.misc:508838 talk.abortion:191563
alt.politics.usa.republican:329543 alt.politics.usa.constitution:102058

In <[email protected]> Papa Jack
lies again:
>
>[email protected] wrote:
>
> =========================================================
>> >Papa Jack comments:
>> >58 to 42 can hardly be described as overwhelming — particularly
>> >after the shameful propaganda campaign of the entire radical
>> >liberal establishment againt Bork.
>
>> >Never before had America seen such a mean-spirited display of raw
>> >hatred for a man of the academic world. Bork had the audacity to
>> >challenge the liberal
^^^^^^^

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

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

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

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

He’s a totalitarian jerk.

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

More lies.

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

All of this is pure b.s.. By “radical left”, Papa Jack means all
advocates of individual freedom and limited government. We must be
bomb-throwing anarchists! Papa Jack just wiggles away from these issues
of personal freedom and continues to smear all defenders of our
precious freedoms. Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a worm, Papa Jack.-
[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] Wed Nov 20 08:07:27 PST 1996
Article: 508854 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!
nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!
winternet.com!visi.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!
cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!
ix.netcom.com!news
From: [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.guns
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice and proud of it
Date: 16 Nov 1996 03:16:00 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 84
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<568fni$ruu@kirin.wwa.com> <3288146 <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca7-47.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Fri Nov 15 7:16:00 PM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.abortion:191565 talk.politics.theory:91888
talk.politics.misc:508854 talk.politics.guns:342758

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

You’re almost as bad as Papa Jack. Here’s a clue: If you don’t believe
a woman should be able to choose to have an abortion, then you’re not
pro-choice, OK? If the _only_ choice you defend is the choice of
whether or not to have an abortion, then you’re not pro-choice either.
If you go around advocating gun control, censorship of pornography,
etc., and yet call yourself “pro-choice” because of your stand on
abortion, then you’re not pro-choice, but a fool or a hypocrite.
—
[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] Wed Nov 20 08:07:28 PST 1996
Article: 508880 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!
nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!
winternet.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!
cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!
ix.netcom.com!news
From: [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.guns
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice and proud of it
Date: 17 Nov 1996 02:11:15 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 65
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <3288146 <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca1-08.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sat Nov 16 6:11:14 PM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.abortion:191572 talk.politics.theory:91900
talk.politics.misc:508880 talk.politics.guns:342791

In <56[email protected]> [email protected] writes:
>
>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says…
>
>> You’re almost as bad as Papa Jack. Here’s a clue: If you don’t
believe
>>a woman should be able to choose to have an abortion, then you’re not
>>pro-choice, OK? If the _only_ choice you defend is the choice of
>>whether or not to have an abortion, then you’re not pro-choice
either.
>
>Frankly, that’s stupid.
>
>So if I don’t think that a person should have the right to kill the
>President, then I’m not pro-choice. If I don’t think a person should
have
>the right to sell drugs at school, then I’m not pro-choice?

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

>How idiotic can you be.

That’s what I’m wondering.

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

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

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

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

What planet are you from? Geez.

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

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

I don’t think you have the intelligence to be a liar like Papa Jack.
—
[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] Wed Nov 20 08:07:29 PST 1996
Article: 508999 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!
nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!
winternet.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!
cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!
ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected](Steven Malcolm Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.couples,rec.org.mensa,
soc.women,alt.feminism,alt.mens-rights,alt.politics.sex,talk.politics.misc,
talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Female Rapists
Date: 17 Nov 1996 08:46:57 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<53gbi0$j0f@leas <[email protected]>
<1996Nov12.19[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<328B[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca1-08.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun Nov 17 12:46:57 AM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.child-support:29953 soc.men:126203
soc.couples:26943 rec.org.mensa:81959 soc.women:125854 alt.feminism:132676
alt.mens-rights:22428 alt.politics.sex:17494 talk.politics.misc:508999
talk.religion.misc:161224 talk.origins:163723

In <[email protected]> Jubal Harshaw
writes:

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

If testosterone makes men violent, then estrogen makes women violent.
Both sexes can be violent.

From [email protected] Wed Nov 20 08:07:32 PST 1996
Article: 509517 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.
internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!
ix.netcom.com!news
From: [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: 18 Nov 1996 03:11:36 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 127
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <326[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <327 <[email protected]>
<328E75[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca3-10.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun Nov 17 7:11:36 PM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.politics.misc:509517 talk.abortion:191652
alt.politics.usa.republican:330276 alt.politics.usa.constitution:102247

In <[email protected]> Del writes:
>Papa Jack wrote:
>> Del wrote:
>> > Bork has said the First Amendment’s protection of free speech
should
>> > apply only to speech that “contributes” to the “political
process.”

============================================================
>> Papa Jack replies:
>> No, I don’t think Judge Bork said this — or, perhaps he said
something
>> which you have taken out of context and distorted.

>Well the argument from incredulity is always good for a
>laugh. Rely on it much, do you?

>> If you believe you are correct,
>
>You see, this is your fundamental (excuse the pun) error.
>You project your evidentiary standards on moi. I don’t rely
>on “belief” as a reliable measure of accuracy. I rely on
>facts. I recommend it highly.

> please provide full documentation that
>> can be checked out (publication/book, author, publishing house,
date,
>> pages where quote is found, etc.).
>
>Are you struggling to express your desire for a citation? I
>applaud your skepticism. It is virtually commendable. I
>would be more impressed however if you applied such rational
>impulses to your own claims, and if this present
>demonstration wasn’t so obviously an attempt to sand bag me.
>
>For the record, I personally don’t expect anyone to take my
>word for anything. (Such is unnecessary when you rely on
>facts).

============================================================
>> > Del wrote:
>> > “There is no basis for [the courts] to protect any other form of
>> > expression, be it scientific, literary, or that variety of
expression
>> > we call obscene or pornographic.”
============================================================
>> Papa Jack replies:
>> No, I don’t think Judge Bork said this — or, perhaps he said
something
>> which you have taken out of context and distorted.
>
>Well that’s what _really_ counts, isn’t it: what you
>_believe_.

============================================================
>> > Del wrote:
>> > And even in the category of political speech he would deny
protection
>> > to anyone advocating the violation of ANY LAW.

>> IOW, put up or shut up.

>Gosh ,you say that like you don’t think I can, scout. Are
>you projecting again? Anyway, ever hear of the Federalist
>Society for Law and Public Policy Studies? Check out their
>Annotated Bibliography on Conservative and Libertarian Legal
^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^

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

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

Let’s see how Papa Jack wiggles out of _this_ one.
—
[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] Wed Nov 20 08:07:33 PST 1996
Article: 509780 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.mag-net.com!
aurora.cs.athabascau.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!tribune.usask.ca!decwrl!
spool.mu.edu!newspump.sol.net!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [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: 16 Nov 1996 23:58:02 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <326F91[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca1-08.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sat Nov 16 3:58:02 PM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.politics.misc:509780 talk.abortion:191692
alt.politics.usa.republican:330539 alt.politics.usa.constitution:102329

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

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

>Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
>[email protected] And a fast train
>My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html-Page doesn`t exist anymore
>Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html-Page doesn`t exist anymore

From [email protected] Wed Nov 20 08:07:34 PST 1996
Article: 509906 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!
gatech!csulb.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!
howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [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: 18 Nov 1996 20:36:56 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 32
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-ca1-07.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon Nov 18 2:36:56 PM CST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.politics.misc:509906 talk.abortion:191712
alt.politics.usa.republican:330676 alt.politics.usa.constitution:102374

In <32[email protected]> [email protected]
(Harry Hartley) writes:
>
>Papa Jack wrote:
>
>>IOW, put up or shut up.
>
>Okay one who is loud and hostile, what do you say now? Your
>statements are contradictory when you juxtapose the cherished freedoms
>(mine too) against quotations from your hero. So the ‘put up’ has
>occurred, are you ‘shut[ting] up’ now, or just hiding. You wouldn’t
>have enough character to admit you were wrong would you? Wouldn’t it
>be enlightening for everyone to admit that issues go a little deeper
>than ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ *labels*.

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

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

Yes, don’t wiggle out of it this time. Confront the issue head-on.
—
[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] Wed Nov 20 08:07:35 PST 1996
Article: 509940 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!
nic.win.hookup.net!hookup!news-dc.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news-stock.gsl.net!
news.gsl.net!snunews.snu.ac.kr!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!
howland.erols.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!uunet!
in3.uu.net!newsgate.compuserve.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [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: More on Bork
Date: 19 Nov 1996 06:01:56 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <326[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <327 <[email protected]>
<328E75[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<329016[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca6-58.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue Nov 19 12:01:56 AM CST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.politics.misc:509940 talk.abortion:191718
alt.politics.usa.republican:330714 alt.politics.usa.constitution:102386

In <[email protected]> Del writes:
>
>For Papa Jack

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

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

>Ciao

From [email protected] Wed Nov 20 08:07:36 PST 1996
Article: 510295 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!
nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!van.istar!
west.istar!uniserve!news.sol.net!newspump.sol.net!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.
internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [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: 19 Nov 1996 22:47:29 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <328DB43B.[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca3-16.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue Nov 19 4:47:29 PM CST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.politics.misc:510295 talk.abortion:191741
alt.politics.usa.republican:331124 alt.politics.usa.constitution:102487

In <56si[email protected]> [email protected] (Mitchell
Holman) writes:
>
>In article , [email protected] (Mike Best)
wrote:

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

No!!

> Mitchell Holman

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

From [email protected] Wed Nov 20 08:07:37 PST 1996
Article: 510307 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.mtl.
hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!winternet.com!
www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!
news.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [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: 20 Nov 1996 01:51:05 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 31
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]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca3-16.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue Nov 19 7:51:05 PM CST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.politics.misc:510307 talk.abortion:191742
alt.politics.usa.republican:331137 alt.politics.usa.constitution:102489

In <56sq[email protected]> [email protected] (Albert
Ramirez) writes:
>
>In article <[email protected]>, Papa Jack
wrote:
>
>> ==========================================================
>>Papa Jack replies:
>
>
>You still haven’t replied to my post papa jack. I assume its because
you
>cannot rebut my arguments that Bork is just a bitter old man that is
trying to
>get revenge on the Court.

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

>Albert Ramirez, J.D. : Rush Limbaugh – For people who
can’t
>[email protected] : think for themselves.
>”Trucha con la lucha” :

From [email protected] Wed Nov 20 08:07:38 PST 1996
Article: 510309 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.
mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!winternet.com!
visi.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.
erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [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: 20 Nov 1996 02:02:08 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <326[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <327 <[email protected]>
<328E75[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<3290166A.56[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hay-ca3-16.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue Nov 19 8:02:08 PM CST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.politics.misc:510309 talk.abortion:191743
alt.politics.usa.republican:331140 alt.politics.usa.constitution:102491

>In <[email protected]> Papa Jack
> writes, in part:

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

I’ll write the following _idea_: Hostility to self-expression,
personal autonomy, and individual gratification is a central to
totalitarian ideology and has nothing whatsoever to do with the
Constitution.
–
[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] Wed Nov 20 08:07:39 PST 1996
Article: 510508 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.mag-net.com!
aurora.cs.athabascau.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!news.bc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!
news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.
internetmci.com!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [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: 18 Nov 1996 19:41:34 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 79
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-ca1-07.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon Nov 18 1:41:34 PM CST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.politics.misc:510508 talk.abortion:191760
alt.politics.usa.republican:331366 alt.politics.usa.constitution:102564

In <[email protected]> Del writes:
>
>Hey Pops, where did ya go? Maybe you want to rationalize how cool the
>following position by Bork is.

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

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

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

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

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

[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 08:52:18 PST 1996
Article: 506503 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!
nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!
winternet.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.enteract.com!
ix.netcom.com!news
From: [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 20:10:55 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 51
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-ca4-10.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue Nov 12 12:10:55 PM PST 1996
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.politics.misc:506503 talk.abortion:191353
alt.politics.usa.republican:327022 alt.politics.usa.constitution:101354

The Aktion Reinhard Death Camps

Auschwitz Birkenau

Bergen-Belsen

Buchenwald

Chelmno

Dachau

Maidanek (Majdanek)

Mauthausen

Nordhausen

Belzec

Treblinka

Mittelbau Dora

Gusen

Westerbork

Matthias Giwer

John Hron

Ken McVay

Steve Thomas

Fairview Technologies

Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Muslim Brotherhood: Islamic Extremists and the…

The Heritage Front

The Anti-Defamation League

Article 3-2, Anderson Steven Malcolm

Latest article

Who’s On First: The Fairview Server

Fairview Technologies: BC Response

Fairview Technologies

The History of Lies

Materials