Documents

Giwer, debate 1-1995

TM> MG>> In other words I see no difference between you and one
TM> MG>> fearful of the Trilateral Commission.

TM> Maybe that’s your problem, or at least part of it.

TM> MG>> All those rich conspiring to steal from the poor. I hear
TM> ^^^^^^^^^^^

TM> There aren’t that many, relatively speaking. And
TM> though the notion seems alien to you, the rich and
TM> powerful have been stealing from the poor and
TM> vulnerable since the dawn of time.

Ah, yes. A conspiracy to steal going back millenia. You
are out-doing the best Mason conspiracy be thousands of years.

TM> MG>> they have rented Kansas for next year’s conspiracy session.
TM> MG>> Pass the word.

TM> I don’t have a clue as to what you are trying to
TM> say. Is this an attempt at humor?

I am pointing out your implicit faith in this conspiracy and
the consequence of the size of place they need to meet to
conspire.

®®юю R_9501 ююЇЇ
+++ююююю r_950106 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (3206)
To: Ty Meissner 27 Dec 94 22:13:00
Subject: ‘THE BELL CURVE’ 0
—
* RM 1.3 01261 * What did he shoot up and when did he shoot it?

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12a
* Origin: DOC’S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603! (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 101 201 224 246 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3603/141 20020 20050 20060 3615/50 51

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (3207)
To: Ty Meissner 27 Dec 94 22:37:00
Subject: 70% FAVOUR GUN CONTRO

TM> MG>> Let us examine some other transparent sophistries.

TM> MG>> Radio was first developed by amateurs so it is transparent
TM> MG>>to claim there is any commercial application for it.

TM> MG>> Nuclear fission was first developed for weapons so it is
TM> MG>>transparent to claim there are any electrical power applications.

TM> MG>> Computers were first perfected to aid in analyzing census
TM> MG>>data so it is transparent to claim they are being used for
TM> MG>>BBSing.

TM> MG>> Electric power was first developed to transfer power from
TM> MG>>one place to another by non-mechanical means. It is therefore
TM> MG>>transparent …

TM> MG>> You get the picture.

TM> The picture I get is that you are attemting to
TM> divert attention from my assertion: GUNS ARE FOR
TM> KILLING, by making silly statements that are
TM> meaningless to everyone.

Rather I am pointing out you have no concept of what you are
talking about and are committing at least one rational fallacy in
your assertion.

I don’t think anyone, by
TM> any stretch, is going to be able to make any sense
TM> out of the above statements

That you can not grasp plain english is no reason to assume
everyone else is as lacking in the ability.

TM> MG>> You are holding that the original intention of a
TM> MG>> development is applicable for all future time.
TM> MG>>
TM> MG>> The kind of reasoning you are demonstrating is what
TM> MG>> results in low scores on IQ tests.

TM> I also think that smoking tobacco causes brain
TM> damage, based on my study of the cognitive and
TM> verbal patterns of smokers as exemplified above.

That only demonstrates you are ignorant of how to conduct
such a study. Why do you continue to demonstrate such ignorance
in public?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Inhale to the Chief! He’s allergic to the Flowers.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (3208)
To: Ty Meissner 27 Dec 94 22:39:00
Subject: 70% FAVOUR GUN CONTRO

TM> MG>> Even taking a gun less than seriously at a range gets
TM> MG>> the word quickly passed down the firing line. Everyone
TM> MG>> keeps an eye on them, gives them a wide berth and has a gun
TM> MG>> ready to remind them to take a gun with deadly seriousness.

TM> So, you’d fire your gun at any shooter that isn’t
TM> up to your level of “responsibility?”

You may make up anything you wish but that is not what I
said nor did Michael Pilon (who knows something about guns as
opposed to you) take it according to your imagining.

TM> Personally, I’d like to see guns taken away from people who
TM> rant about them on the “information highway.” People with
TM> “short fuses” and guns in their posession is WHY our murder
TM> rate is so high.

You will find in time, when you announce your intentions are
theft, you will be taken for a thief with every posting.

You will further find when you demonstrate your complete and
totally ignorance of the demographic correlations to the crime rate
that you will be called on it every time.

TM> These echoes are full of evidence of intemperate
TM> lack of judgment, which combined with a loaded gun
TM> = a dead body in the future.

And you are truly going to attempt to equate a “loaded”
keyboard with a loaded gun? Is this an attempt to demonstrate a
new and enlightened form of reasoning to the world?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “OK punks, do you feel lucky?” — Clint

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (3209)
To: Ty Meissner 27 Dec 94 22:41:00
Subject: 70% FAVOUR GUN CONTRO

TM> MG>> The kind of reasoning you are demonstrating is what
TM> MG>> results in low scores on IQ tests.

TM> Do you have an IQ ? What was it before you stated
TM> smoking tobacco ? What is it now ?

I have no idea what it was before I started smoking.

After starting it has it has varied between 163 and 194
depending upon the version of the test and the scale. I am in
the group that is within stopwatch error of the top grouping on
the one that is sort of a like a jigsaw puzzle.

Smoking, if I take it in your sense, has aided me in
relating to people such as yourself. Obviously I often fail in
being able to communicate with you folk. It is no different from
an average IQ person being able to communicate effectively with a
70 IQ type (I believe the word applied to a 70 is idiot but I may
be mistaken.)

I find it quite difficult to communicate simple and obvious
things to the 130 (or genius) types.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * William Jefferson “Bait and Switch” Clinton

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (3210)
To: Ty Meissner 27 Dec 94 22:47:00
Subject: 70% FAVOUR GUN CONTRO

TM> MG{{ The kind of reasoning you are demonstrating is what results
TM> MG{{in low scores on IQ tests.

TM> How did you gain access to others’ IQ test results
TM> ? How did you gain LEGAL access to my test scores
TM> ?

I have no idea of your test scores. I was only commenting
upon the kind of reasoning you were using. You did not quote the
reasoning part of it but the tests are designed to discriminate
between correct and fallacious reasoning. I was merely pointing
it out to you.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Clinton taxes gas. Price of beans soars.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (3211)
To: Ty Meissner 27 Dec 94 22:50:00
Subject: DEATH PENALTY-NICOTIяяяя

TM> Its interesting logic. I suppose you use the same logic to
TM> determine whom to shoot with your guns.

Of course. It is what I consider elementary reasoning
skills. I can not speak for the mere 130 types. They may have a
problem with it.

I’m glad I don’t
TM> live withinh shooting distance!

Your decision.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Bill Clinton, poster child for drug addiction treatment

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (3212)
To: Ty Meissner 27 Dec 94 22:51:00
Subject: END TIMES 01

TM> MG{{ I am the way and the light and the foreskin of the world.
TM> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

TM> MG{{He that believeth in me shall go to Yahweh god rather than to
TM> MG{{wisdom. And so it was starting from Saul of Tarsus suffering a
TM> MG{{mild concussion on the road to John the Divine eating of the
TM> MG{{.

TM> Just because you consider yourself to be a FORESKIN (?!?),
TM> you don not merit special privileges. You are still

TM> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OFF TOPIC <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

TM> This is NOT the BIBLE or RELIGION echo

When is the funeral service for Lester?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Who did he screw and when did he screw her?

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (3213)
To: Lester Garrett 27 Dec 94 22:52:00
Subject: HEALTH CARE

LG> MG> They find the most expensive new procedure of the hour and
LG> MG> claim it is proof that no one can afford it.

LG> Or, that simply because it has been discovered, they (and
LG> just about everyone else they can think of) ought to be
LG> entitled to it as a matter of “right”: ‘You invented it.
LG> I want and need it. Therefore, it must be given me even if
LG> it means that others will be _forced_ to pay for it.’

And the other side of it. A few years ago the complaint was
not being able to get cardiac bypass. That fell into disfavor
over angioplasty and now that is considered inadvisable in most
cases. Yet, they were and continue to demand someone pay for
them.

Of course the “they” are the flaming liberals who must have
another form of fascism implemented in the US.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Is it Bill the Cat or Bill the Clinton or just BC?

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (3214)
To: Bill Bauer 27 Dec 94 22:56:00
Subject: SMOKING = COOL ?? Nяяяяя

BB> > And non-smokers need to realize that sanctimony is equally
BB> > objectionable and whining about smells is considered at
BB> > best a feminine trait.

BB> And those of us such as yourself and millions of our fellow
BB> Americans who value our freedom and our liberty need to
BB> recognize that such talk as these few anti-everythings do
BB> little more than help to forge our enslavement into the
BB> chains that their “perfect world” and utopian ideas would
BB> create.
BB>
BB> We need to continue to denounce their socialistic and
BB> communistic ideas for what they are at every turn.

Fascism, thy name is a good cause, Nazism a nobel purpose.

Business and businessmen are second class citizens. Where
the government can not (as yet) get away with regulating what
people do in their own home (smoking == child abuse is already
being proposed in courts) people can be regulated in the place
where they earn their living.

Employees have rights, employers are not.

There are two classes of citizens. The bill of rights only
applies to employees. Employers are only suitable to be
controlled by the government.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “OK punks, make my term.” — Clint

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (3215)
To: David Barker 27 Dec 94 23:02:00
Subject: UFO’S AND THE BIBLEяяяяяя

DB> DB> I think, at least in my mind,
DB> DB> that there is an existance or a presence of a deity.

DB> MG> What exists in your mind is only of interest to you.

DB> Hello Matt, thanks for that little bit of
DB> condescension.

Condescension? I only agreed with you, that it exists only
in your mind. I merely pointed out it has no value other than
that.

When and if i evolve to your level,
DB> maybe we can converse.

Individuals can not evolve.

Till then, i will be content to
DB> sit and drool, like most of the inferiors on this
DB> echo. Have a nice day.

Whatever bouyeth up thy vessel.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “What is Truth?” asked the doubting Clinton.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (3217)
To: All 28 Dec 94 12:53:00
Subject: NEWS YOU MAY HAVE MISSED

The Washington Times, 22 December 1994

Judge wants probe of Magaziner’s words

Holder prodded to look for perjury

A federal judge yesterday call for an investigation into
whether White House aide Ira Magaziner lied in a protracted court
battle over access to documents held by Hillary Rodham Clinton’s
health care task force.

U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth asked U.S. Attorney Eric
Holder, Jr. to investigate Mr. Magaziner, who directed the
president’s task force and provided the judge with a sworn
statement in March that kept its records closed.

In an order released yesterday, Judge Lamberth strongly
suggested that Mr. Magaziner deliberately supplied the court with
false information. He said Mr. Magaziner may be guilty of
perjury, giving false statements and criminal contempt of court.

…

On March 3, 1993, Mr. Magaziner signed a sworn declaration
to Judge Lamberth stating that only federal government employees
served as members of the task force’s interdepartmental working
group. The declaration was a significant development because it
caused the judge to deny the physician group’s request to open up
the task force’s daily workings.

…

Judge Lamberth pointedly noted that members of Mr.
Magaziner’s own private consulting firm participated in the
working group, and that they never became government employees.

[In other words, back in the beginning when it was pointed
out the Clintons were lying and the Clinton lovers denied they
were lying they were correct. The Clintons were merely knowingly
permitting Magaziner’s perjury to stand uncorrected.]

=====

Wilson suit mounts serious challenge to motor-voter law

Sacramento, Calif. — In an escalation of his battles with
the White House, California Gov. Pete Wilson has filed a lawsuit
seeking to block the federal motor-voter law, which Democrats say
will increase voter participation by minorities and the poor.

…

Mr. Wilson has long vowed to block implementation of the new
law because he said it will cost California $20 million per year
to administer.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * A sufficiently advanced god would use evolution.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (3218)
To: All 28 Dec 94 15:45:00
Subject: ANTI-SMOKERS ARE LIARS

Anti-smokers are Liars
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1994 <12/28>

I know, I know, one should not be so blunt with the truth.
It is supposed to be impolite or something. So let me start with
a little history.
Way back in the days of the Wright brothers passengers were
permitted to smoke on airplanes. Came the anti-smoking liars who
said they only wanted smoking and non-smoking sections and the
gullible believed them.
Later they said they only wanted to ban smoking on short
flights and the gullible believed them. Then they only wanted to
ban smoking on domestic flights and there were still people
stupid enough to believe these liars. Now these liars want to
ban smoking on every flight in the world.
Back in the beginning when they were challenged that their
real agenda was to ban smoking on all flights not just separate
smoking sections they protested their innocence and some believed
them. Had they not lied about their intentions but stated their
true objective they would not have gotten to square one. Thus
they had to lie to achieve their objective.
In the last few years we have seen the same group of liars
misrepresenting their objectives. At first they said they only
wanted non-smoking sections in restaurants and they were lying.
Then they claimed they only wanted to add public buildings and
they were lying.
Now they deny their intention is to completely ban smoking
in this country and they are lying. Yes, if you are one of those
supporting any limited restriction on smoking you are a liar if
you deny you want a total ban on smoking any place, any time.
No one is stupid enough to believe your protestations of
innocence again. Of course you folks can claim you were lying
about airplanes but are telling the truth now but then please
excuse the rest of us from pointing out a non-smoking never
changes, once a liar always a liar.

* * * * *

Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

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

[note new address and phone]

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * The Ghost of Gen. Custer is Clinton’s military advisor.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (3220)
To: All 28 Dec 94 16:38:00
Subject: AMATEUR NIGHT

New Years Eve is coming soon. Remember, people who NEVER
touch a drop at any other time of the year are going to be out
there drinking and driving. It is better termed amateur night.

It doesn’t matter how good a driver you are. It does not
matter how good a drinker you are. Those amateur drinkers are on
the road searching for a way to stop without using their brakes.

If you are going to get drunk be someplace where you can
stay until you are sober.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Lt. Frank Drebbin was in charge of Waco operations.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (3368)
To: Michael Pilon 28 Dec 94 21:06:00
Subject: 70% FAVOUR GUN CONTRO

MP> MG> In the lexicon of the anti-gunners, only those who defend
MP> MG> themselves with guns are shot.

MP> WHat you do or have to do is not my concern, I am defending
MP> the situation I want to keep up here in regards to guns,
MP> where they are a privelege and not a right..thank God.

We have been over this before. We understand your
government does not trust you with a gun. We know you Canadians
go on crime sprees the instant you get your hands on a gun.

Perhaps you are making the right decision. From what you
say would happen if you folks had guns, I don’t think you are
mature enough to be trusted with them either.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Chelsea Clinton is worth a thousand condom commercials.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (3369)
To: Tyronne Jefferson 28 Dec 94 21:11:00
Subject: AH WILDERNESS!

TJ> MG> Teacher? What have you learned from the squirrels?
TJ> MG> Please be specific.

TJ> That the world has alot nuts on it. 😉

And the squirrels try in vain to bury them all.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * The Not ready for Prime Time Adminstration.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (3370)
To: Jim Sterling 28 Dec 94 21:22:00
Subject: CANADIAN HOMOCIDE RAT

JS> MG> “It does not take any advanced training in research methods
JS> MG> to see that in the absence of more detailed analyses, such
JS> MG> comparisons are vacuous. Any two nations will differ along
JS> MG> many dimensions — history, culture, social structure, and
JS> MG> legal precedent, to name a few — and any of these
JS> MG> differences (no less than the diference in gun laws or in
JS> MG> the number of guns available) might well account for the
JS> MG> differences in violent crime rates.”

JS> And, of course, anyone who has bothered to read both sides
JS> of the argument knows exactly who you are quoting above.
JS> G.K. continues to do the research and write the papers, but
JS> in general he remains in the academic background and leaves
JS> it for people like LaPierre to blow the horn and wave the
JS> flags. I can understand his need and desire to remain
JS> non-political as much as possible. It gives his conclusions
JS> much more weight.

Every case of a published work that has started with a
pre-conception has been against guns. The first was by Inspector
Colin Greenwood. Interestingly there have been no studies that
started from the pro-gun side that have found evidence to change
their position.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Clinton’s lips never stop moving.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (3375)
To: Bob Klahn 28 Dec 94 21:27:00
Subject: COMMUNITY SERV 3/4

BK> MG> Perhaps but then why should section eight housing go
BK> MG> to crap because those given free shelter feel like
BK> MG> destroying it?

BK> Are you saying that all of the section 8 residents destroy
BK> their housing?
BK>
BK> It only takes a few to wreck a great deal.

I am saying that NO section 8 housing was ever accepted for
that status in the condition it is in. Most people who buy homes
improve them. Even people who rent apartments at least
personalize them if not generally improve them. There is a
classic DC case where a house was completely destroyed in four
months and the welfare tenant was complaining that she should not
have to live in a place like that.

BK> MG> As above. College freshmen trashing their first
BK> MG> apartment don’t come close. The one’s in DC who complain
BK> MG> they have no running water have suspicious complaints when
BK> MG> it is discovered the copper plumbing has disappeared.

BK> Unless someone else stole the copper. Some 60 year old
BK> woman might crawl around in the basement and go through
BK> the wall pulling out copper pipes, but I somehow suspect
BK> it’s someone else.

And would that explain the above class case where all the
appliances disappeared? and all the plumbing? and all the
bathroom fixtures? I guess someone just snuck in while she was
minding her twelve kids.

BK> BK>> My first instinct was to ask why, if there is trash that
BK> BK>> needs picking up, and people who need work, and aren’t
BK> BK>> qualified for any other job, why not hire them to pick up
BK> BK>> the trash?

BK> MG> Because picking it up is not worth minimum wage but
BK> MG> they

BK> Again, you must not be a conservative.

I never claimed to be but what does that have to do with a
job not being worth minimum wage?

BK> MG> could be paid it and deduct it against the imputed,
BK> MG> pre-destroyed worth of the housing.

BK> Of course, you are guaranteeing that the people you are
BK> assigning to pick up trash are the same people who did the
BK> destruction.

Just who do you suggest it might be? Are you suggesting an
organized group of kitchen appliance thieves is running loose?
How about a group of vandals who break into homes solely to punch
holes in walls?

BK> MG> Were they intelligent enough to earn a decent living would
BK> MG> they be living in public housing? Certainly some of the old
BK> MG> folk.

BK> Perhaps you need to understand the difference between
BK> intelligence and education. There is a difference, you
BK> know.

All the studies show there is a very high correlation.
Talking about one is the same as talking about the other to
around an 80% confidence.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Clinton to Foster, “How are things on the Hil?”

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (3376)
To: Bob Klahn 28 Dec 94 21:42:00
Subject: COMMUNITY SERV. 2/4

BK> BK>> MG> Yes. In other places they are paying their way,
BK> BK>> MG> except for your five mythical 60 hour a week workers.
BK> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

BK> BK>> Again, please don’t let stereotypes rule your thinking.
BK> BK>> The way you word this is even worse. It would be a
BK> BK>> reasonable interpretation from your reference to
BK> BK>> ‘mythical’ that you believe there are *no* poor working
BK> BK>> people.

BK> MG> I would rather point out that I once worked for three
BK> MG> years at a minimum of 60 hours a week. It was the best I
BK> MG> could get at the time. It was fewer hours than when I was
BK> MG> making $76,500 a year but it was for barely $6 and hour. I
BK> MG> never felt anyone owed me anything nor was I complaining.

BK> Again, you are avoiding the question. Your statement
BK> implied you believe there are no working poor. Now you go
BK> off on to whether anyone owes you anything. Ok, a good
BK> question. But not the question in point here.

Unless you have come up with a new definition or HHS slipped
on passed me, the definition of the poverty level is $12,000 or
less for a family of four. 60 hours a week is 3000 hours a year
or $4.00 per hour. It is quite difficult to find a job that pays
only $4.00 per hour. Now, were are these working poor and what
are they doing with three non-working dependents?

On the other hand a non-working person with three child
dependents can qualify for around $20,000 total value of
benefits, case, rent subsidy, food stamps, medicaid (health
insurance to those who can not afford it.)

BK> BK>> MG> Have you not realized this is a time of reason?
BK> BK>> MG> Emotional appeals and sanctimonious guilt trips do not work
BK> BK>> MG> any longer.

BK> BK>> No, this is a time of emotional appeals and sanctimonious
BK> BK>> blame laying. The right wing is particularly adept at
BK> BK>> that. Reason goes out the door when Gingrich and co.
BK> BK>> come in.

BK> MG> Get used to it. Winner take all. The force with
BK> MG> which liberal policies were imposed will not be repeated.
BK> MG> Perhaps the next time liberals get a chance they will think
BK> MG> twice.

BK> Let’s see, Democrats controlled congress for most of the
BK> last, what, 50 – 60 years? Not too shabby. Now, we have a
BK> republican congress, for, maybe 2 years, maybe more. Add
BK> it up and see which way wins out. Could well be that the
BK> new congress will prove to be a temporary anomaly. Well
BK> see. With Newt in charge, they may have 2 years only
BK> because that’s the constitutional specification.

As Republicans controlled Congress for the previous 90 years
which do you consider the aberration?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Bill Clinton, Dorothy’s three friends all in one.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (3377)
To: Bob Klahn 28 Dec 94 21:51:00
Subject: COMMUNITY SERV. 4/4

BK> I don’t seem to recall that in the Communist manifesto,
BK> but I read that almost 30 years ago, so I can’t say for
BK> sure. I do know that my original statement did not say
BK> that the government should guarantee every worker a job,
BK> it said the government should not make it a policy to put
BK> people out of work. Not the same thing at all. If the
BK> government puts me out of work, and I was not working in a
BK> field that is illegal or harmful to others, I most
BK> certainly claim the government owes me compensation.

Rather the government should have no economic policy
whatsoever. Our government was not delegated any power to meddle
with the economy nor with employment.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Clinton swings like a pendulum do. Hil’s got a pair too

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (3378)
To: Bob Klahn 28 Dec 94 21:58:00
Subject: COMMUNITY SERVICE

BK> BK>> BK>> If you work 60 hours a week, and don’t make enough money

BK> BK>> MG> So those five people are excused from the extra work.
BK> BK>> MG> See? It wasn’t all that hard.

BK> BK>> There are more poor working people than non-working
BK> BK>> people. Are you saying section 8 (or whatever it is)
BK> BK>> housing excludes working poor.

BK> MG> I am saying that taxpayers are not required to supplement
BK> MG> the income of anyone who can not make a go of it on 40 hours a
BK> MG> week or even 60 hours a week.

BK> You’re avoiding the question.

The above is quoted in its entirety. Where is the question
mark? More specifically, I was relieving those five people you
mentioned who were working their tails off from clean up detail.

I do not see why that does not bypass your entire objection
to people doing something for all the gifts they are being given.

Why should beggars get something for nothing?

BK> BK>> BK>> If you don’t work at all, you might not have reason to
BK> BK>> BK>> complain. OTOH, you might also ask why, if they have all
BK> BK>> BK>> this work that needs doing, they don’t offer you a real
BK> BK>> BK>> job so you can earn a decent living.

BK> BK>> MG> In other words, they will object to any work at all,
BK> BK>> MG> when in fact they are being paid more in the form of
BK> BK>> MG> housing than the work is worth.

BK> BK>> Are you deliberately misreading what I wrote? I resent
BK> BK>> taking all the time to try to post a reasonable reply just
BK> BK>> to have you twist it into something completely different.

BK> MG> I read your post as saying that people have a right to
BK> MG> complain and demand taxpayer support if their labor is not worth
BK> MG> very much. What are you trying to say?

BK> Like I said, you are misreading my post. I said they might
BK> want to be offered a real job.

They MIGHT. However, they would have to accept pay
commensurate with what they can do. That may be as little as one
dollar an hour. They might also have to show up every day, not
be late, a few other things heartless employers expect.

From that you deduced that
BK> they objected to any work at all.

That was an early premise of this thread; that work for
welfare was proposed early in the Reagan administration and the
people who were “representing” said poor objected. They claimed
it was not “fair” to expect them to work for less than minimum
wage and without a full range of benefits.

Did you miss the start of this?

Now you are going on
BK> about taxpayer support, which still misinterprets my
BK> statement. If you wish to avoid answering, don’t bother
BK> answering at all. If you do answer, please have the
BK> decency to answer what I write, do not twist it out of
BK> shape.

Now that you have been reminded how this started you can
rephrase your responses so that they are in that context.

BK> MG> I did. Why should anyone be offered a job that pays
BK> MG> more than the labor is worth?

BK> Obviously you are not a conservative,

I have never claimed to be. If you had been reading you
would know I have said many times the closest political position
to mine is represented by the Libertarian Party.

since no real
BK> conservative would try to say what any particular labor is
BK> worth. A real conservative believes the market should
BK> decide the worth of labor.

Precisely the point. A job is worth what people are willing
to pay for it. Would you like to price picking up trash around
homes? For a dollar a week I would not do it myself.

Remember the comparable worth
BK> debates? That was the basis for the conservative objection
BK> to comparable worth.

However, requiring beggars to work for what they beg for is
another question entirely.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Bill Clinton patented the Opti-Grab.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (3379)
To: All 28 Dec 94 23:13:00
Subject: CLIENTS ARE BEGGARS

The Clients are Beggars
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1994 <12/28>

I was talking about the welfare system with a friend and she
reminded me that we are not the first to have a problem with
there being two kinds of people on welfare. Centuries ago there
were clearly recognized to be two classes, the sound beggar and
the impotent beggar. You had to go back a couple centuries to
find this recognition we do not commonly have today but it did
exist.
And in thinking of that I got to thinking of India and Egypt
and such organized system of beggars and felt a bit like a
visitor from Mars. Here I found American thinking it was strange
for people in some other countries to have an organized system of
beggars and begging. Americans can not even be outraged that
people will even mutilate themselves to earn more as beggars as a
family tradition as the idea is so strange to them.
Americans find absolutely nothing in common with such people
and such traditions. And here I was, a visiting Martian, looking
at the American system of beggary. In America beggars are not
simply people doing the best they can for themselves in a cold,
cruel world.
In American beggars appear to be a political movement. Can
you imagine how hilarious it appears to a Martian that beggars
can actually participate in determining what they are given for
their begging? But that was not my only laugh.
I was nearly hysterical when I realized the contortions to
which the entire American society was going through to pretend
their beggars are not beggars. They were called clients; they
had rights. Where in India a beggar who demanded money could be
struck for being unsurly in America the government literally used
the force of law to take money from the non-beggars.
On top of that the American government did not even require
a good begging routine, entertainment, or creative stories of
four ill mothers and a dying father. They simply had to show up
at a government office and demonstrate they were beggars.

“Are you a beggar?”
“Yes.”
“Did you beg yesterday?”
“No.”
“Did you try to beg yesterday?”
“No.”
“Qualified. Next!”

Where but in American can a beggar get money without even
having to beg? And Americans think the system in India is
strange.
And they are not even called beggars. They are called
clients. Every time us Martians are called clients it is a term
of respect (faked or otherwise) as we are signing the checks to
the person who grants us that honorarium. When Martian lawyers
(sorry, we Martians are not as advanced as you might have
thought) have clients they do not pay the clients. (Some things
are the same all over the universe.) Yet in America, the country
pays professionals to have clients and pay money to them.
One of your comedians says, “Only in America!”
Sorry, I got carried away there. I really am not a Martian.
I am an American. It was a very strange feeling to look at the
system that has grown up over the years as though I were studying
it.
That Americans can find it strange to unbelievable that
begging is a family trade in other countries and at the same time
deny begging, excuse me, welfare is passed down from mother to
daughter for generations in this country is hard to believe.
That Americans can be appalled by people mutilating
themselves in Egypt to increase their earnings as beggars and
deny there are self inflicted injuries in America is nearly
impossible to comprehend.
That Americans can visit foreign countries (or a surrogate
movie) and experience creative begging first hand and then
believe every sob story told by American beggars, sorry again,
welfare clients it incomprehensible.
Would any rational human being be he Egyptian or not have a
leg cut off to earn more money from begging? We know they do.
We consider it something very alien to our comprehension. We do
not understand how Egyptians can give money to such frauds.
Yet an Egyptian would see American women having children for
exactly that same purpose and not understand how Americans would
give money to such frauds. A leg is only a leg but a life is too
precious to use for mere money.
It was sort of fun being a Martian for a while. I could
wash my tentacles of all of this and deny any of this had
anything to do with me. And laughing at the solemn belief that
every social tradition required such sophisticated mental
contortions to justify was a welcome relief.
In all cultures the system of beggaring and beggars is so
well entrenched that there is an intellectual effort to justify
its continued existence. That the intellectualization varies so
greatly from culture to culture to exactly the same end and that
each justification would be a condemnation in the another culture
gives the impression the earth is one huge continuing satire of
itself. Each culture being a parody of the other. And the earth
one huge collection in the on-going humor of the universe.

* * * * *

Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

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

[note new address and phone]

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Crackjacks now has a Clinton promise in every box.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (3380)
To: Michael Pilon 28 Dec 94 23:16:00
Subject: CONCEALED CARRY IN TX

MP> MG> Why would you oppose arming the people you trust? Mainly
MP> MG> because they are Canadians, no doubt.

MP> I would ask the corollary, why do you so distrust everyone
MP> that you need be armed seems more perverse than wanting to
MP> stay unarmed. No one ever died from being shouted at, but
MP> people who have shouted at someone have been shot !

As I have explained to you and posted to you many times. We
Americans of European descent are marginally more peaceful than
Canadians. We have all of these non-European descent criminal
minorities that are just as violent in Canada as they are in the
US that requires we have such protection.

Need I post this information again?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Clinton’s back has a “Kick Me” sign.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (3381)
To: David North 28 Dec 94 23:19:00
Subject: DEALING WITH ANTIGUN NUTS

DN> After reading repeated claims that burglars are
DN> primarily after guns, I’ve seen several people advise the
DN> ‘anti-gun’ posters to put a “gun-free-zone” sign in their
DN> yard so that they wouldn’t have to worry about burglars.
DN> They didn’t take it well. <G>

The anti-gun positions make amusing rhetoric at best.

What clearly distinguishes them from an rational position is
that no conclusion to be made on the assumption the position is
valid makes any rational sense.

It is like taking the promise of eternal bliss in the next
life seriously and pointing out the wisest decision is to decline
all life saving medical care.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Clinton’s Great Grandpappy, Col. Jubilation T. Cornpone

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (3382)
To: Michael Pilon 28 Dec 94 23:23:00
Subject: DEATH PENALTY-NICOTIN

MP> MP> No I wouldn’t get sexually aroused if a plpaymate of the
MP> MP> month walked in here with a cigarette in her mouth ;).

MP> MG> Muy sympatico. Your problem is noted and understood.

MP> As I noited to Peter, in my youth I may have compromised my
MP> high standards of breathing air quality from time to time
MP> 😉

And with age comes problems that can often be cured by a
urologist. Find a good one.

MP> MP> When I was a single lad I made my aversion to smoking well
MP> MP> known and perspective dates acted accordingly

MP> MG> As long as you were paying…

MP> Gad I was a student in the late 60’s

And the women were better off?

and our dental clinic
MP> was in the Montreal General Hospital, 200 student nurses,
MP> and hundreds of Nurses ate in the same cafeteria as us and
MP> we were vastly out numbered. I could afford to be choosy
MP> but as I said, at times my healthy air ideals did
MP> slip…Gad was I really there?

A classic case of fantasy over reality.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Clinton to Gore. “How are things on the Hil?”

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (3383)
To: Michael Pilon 28 Dec 94 23:25:00
Subject: DEBATE

MP> MG> When you have a political commentator whose enemies can
MP> MG> only find 43 (maximum) errors in over 4000 hours on the air
MP> MG> you have to listen regularly to find the errors. Can Peter
MP> MG> Jennings claim one error per 10 months of broadcasts?

MP> Peter Jennings ( good Ottawa Boy) doesn’t write his
MP> comments I beleive they are writen for him. The RUshmellow
MP> man stands behind his comments ( and that is l lot of
MP> standing behind ).

And with an entire staff even a Canadian can not get down to
one error per 200 news broadcasts. Lets see, five days a week,
50 weeks in his year (less actually) is 250 shows a year or 125
hours a year. That means he gets only 3 errors every 2 years to
be in Limbaugh’s league of accuracy.

Do you find some fault with the numbers? I do listen to
that crazy Canuck only because he is not of the “if it bleeds it
leads” school. I find his acknowledged error rate about one a
month.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “OK punks, make my term.” — Clint

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (3384)
To: Michael Pilon 28 Dec 94 23:31:00
Subject: DEC.6, 1989

MP> MP> But of course. If it does not have an effect on lowering
MP> MP> crime but does result in no increase it will be a positive
MP> MP> effect.

MP> MG> Ah, I see. What you do is, first admit it has no effect and
MP> MG> then when questioned you say it does have an effect. That is
MP> MG> about what I expected as the answer.

MP> Matt a man of your literary talents surely ( shurely..) can
MP> diferentiate between “If” and “Does”. I am using the
MP> hypothetical case that ‘If it does not have an effect ” Gad
MP> where did I admit something to this affect ?

Literary? I thought I was being sufficiently vague to avoid
embarrassing you. However, since you insist …

If it (say for example, sacrifice goats to and image of Matt
Giwer) does not have an effect upon lowering crime but does
result in no increase in crime then sacrificing goats to an image
of Matt Giwer will be a positive effect.

Can you point out any other meaning to your statement?

The fallacy is your assumption of a necessary connection
between your gun laws and crime. In absence of demonstrating
that claim in the first place your syllogism has no more meaning
than the variation I have proposed.

MP> MG> Just when in since the invention of guns, or any weapon for
MP> MG> that matter, has their misuse been considered a positive or
MP> MG> even neutral social issue?

MP> No guns are a negative issue indeed. I agree.

Negative? We have 40 times more crime prevented by guns
than caused by them. I would not have thought you would consider
lowering your crime rate by a factor of 40 a negative.

MP> MP> There was a drive by shooting here in February last and
MP> MP> the Police caught the killers withing 48 hours as they
MP> MP> were flooded with tips. That is what a social tide can do.

MP> MG> What does that have to do with preventing those killed in
MP> MG> the drive-by the ability to protect their lives? I would
MP> MG> hold whatever jurisdiction passed the law they were obeying
MP> MG> contributed to the death and bear considerable moral
MP> MG> culpability for that prohibition.

MP> A drive by is a moving ambush, can you imagine the carnage
MP> of a shooting free for all.

Excuse me. Self defense is not a free for all.

But then I guess that is what
MP> you are advocating, guns at the high port and all that ! I
MP> would say that had Canadians been so misguided as to allow
MP> a gun free for all there would be many more deaths. Figure
MP> back this up.

I only advocated self defense and identified the complicity
of you by your advocacy and that of your government in the
person’s death by denying that person the ability to defend
his life whether or not the effort might have been successful.

It is very much like your medical system.

MP> MG> Now you appear to be agreeing with me that armed Canadians
MP> MG> are vicious and blood thirty people who would go on crime
MP> MG> sprees were they permitted the means of self defense.

MP> Actually you have brought up this before. “WHy don’t you
MP> trust your neighbours enough to allow guns ” to closely
MP> paraphrase it. Well I think the question begs and answer,
MP> do you so little trust your neighbours that you have to
MP> wander about armed ?

I certainly do. I have not the slightest problem with them
being armed and I would wish all of them had the sense to be
armed.

And they are also armed because they
MP> don’t trust you , ad absurdeum… That is not a situation i
MP> want here.

When everyone is armed there is ultimate trust. In the
parts of our country with the lowest crime rates open carry is
the most common. Historically our worst examples were like Dodge
City with 13 shooting deaths in some 30 years.

I can not find any case where the more guns the less violent
the society.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “Stand and Deliver!” — Tom Foley

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (3385)
To: Linda Terrell 28 Dec 94 23:44:00
Subject: DING DONG SCHOOL

LT> MG> However you are 1/10th of 1% right. The media will be
LT> MG> covering nothing but the worst horror stories they can
LT> MG> twist into blaming on a heartless Gingrich.

LT> Just like they’ve been doing with Clinton. Gosh.

The media has given Clinton a free ride. Clinton keeps
griping the media will not do a daily recounting of what he
“accomplished” in 1993 and at the same time his party went down
the tubes in 1994 because of everything he has accomplished.

Even the DNC saw that coming when they all candidates to
distance themselves from Clinton and all Republicans worked to
connect the Democrats with Clinton’s accomplishments.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * What did he mean and when did he mean it?

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (3386)
To: Bob Klahn 28 Dec 94 23:48:00
Subject: GEPHARDT’S BULL

BK> BK>> MG> Does anyone believe this actually happened? The Dems
BK> BK>> MG> keep

BK> BK>> Yes, I believe it happens.

BK> MG> Do you believe Gephardt’s first person account?

BK> Even more than I believed Reagan’s stories.

You are very gullible.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Tax Flamers! Support the BTU tax!

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (3387)
To: Linda Terrell 28 Dec 94 23:49:00
Subject: GOP’S LOADED GUN

LT> MG> It means liberalism has been voted out and like it or not
LT> MG> winner takes all. It means Clinton’s only weapon is the
LT> MG> veto which is nearly powerless in this Congress.

LT> Yeah but. . .don’t the Republicans promise to attempt a
LT> line-item veto bill? It’s in their contract, let’s hold
LT> them to it.
LT>
LT> I’d love to see them give Clinton a loaded gun, pointed
LT> at them, and ask him to pull the trigger.

Read The Fine Message.

The veto, line item or not, is nearly powerless in this
Congress. There is nothing requiring Congress to fully fund or
fund at all anything it does like. Congress does NOT have to get
Clinton to agree to abolish a program or an agency. It simply
has to reduce funding or zero funding it.

Vetoing a zero funding is zero funding. Vetoing a reduced
funding is zero funding.

What do you propose Clinton can do with only a veto to work
with?

I am open to suggestions and I am certain he is also.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * The Constitution is not a technicality.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (3388)
To: Michael Pilon 28 Dec 94 23:57:00
Subject: HEALTH CARE

MP> MG> In the long run a Canadian can get from birth to death and
MP> MG> not pass Go in between. But if he wants to be all that he
MP> MG> can be he finds his way south.

MP> Hmmm tell that to the UN committee that judged Canada to
MP> have the overall highest quality oif life. Japan was
MP> second..

When a country provides cannon fodder to the UN they have to
get something in return. Besides, where would you expect judges
from socialist nation to want to live?

Or on the other side of it. This year my home town of
Cincinnati was judged the most livable city in the US. I know
better.

MP> MG> It is the Canadian system of forcing everyone to buy a Yugo
MP> MG> that bothers people who insist upon their freedom to die on
MP> MG> their own terms.

MP> Yep owned a ROlls once but my wife took sick..great car, my
MP> terms can you spare a dime lad ?

I owned a Royce once also. But I never expected the
government should preserve my Royce ownership because I was
unwilling to pay for my wife’s illness.

MP> MG> I swear by my life and my love of it that I will live for
MP> MG> no man nor suffer any man to live for me.

MP> Noble and meaningless if you are the one suffering in this
MP> noble form of subsistance .

I have been there. I have not changed. It is called
dignity.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Bill and Al’s Bogus Adventure begins!

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (3389)
To: John Clifton 29 Dec 94 00:06:00
Subject: MONEY GROWIN’ ON TREES

JC> JC> The Demos, it seems to me, are “out” because they
JC> JC> couldn’t bring themselves to set priorities.

JC> > The Demos were around for so long because the public was
JC> > unwilling to vote for a fully functioning party.

JC> What did they get this time? We’ll see….

You are among the few who are not condemning the lack of
accomplishment before the Congress convenes. You are wise to
wait.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Clinanon, a 12 Step program for Clinton Cultists.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (3390)
To: All 29 Dec 94 18:23:00
Subject: SHALALA THE STOOGE

Shalala the Stooge
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1994 <12/29>

Today Donna Shalala has announced the suggestion of
orphanages can not work because the “average” welfare payment to
families is much less than the cost of keeping a child in an
orphanage. That price she put at $36,500 a year as compared to
the $1000 per year average AFDC payment.
Let me put Shalala in perspective. You may remember her as
the only person who can look up to Robert Reich. She looks like
the psychic in the Poltergeist movies. When she was nominated to
the position of Secretary of Health and Human Services the White
House staff openly said she would be a flunky to Hillary Clinton
who would be making all the important policy decisions for HHS.
Now this person has announced the cost per year of a child
in an orphanage as $36,500 a year. Is this person being honest?
Is that an improper question? Let us first note that the person
who prepared the $1000 estimate admitted (supporters will say
acknowledged) that no other payments beyond AFDC were considered
in arriving at this ridiculously (supporters will object to this
adjective) estimate.
Lets find out. Lets give it a sanity check. What is a
sanity check? It is not an audit of the details. It is an
inquiry into, if this is true then something else has to be true
and we know that something else is not true.
Let us start with the cost of child to the parent. First
off we know that if it were anything close to $36,500 per year it
would be the exceptional family that could afford even one —
despite how it feels when the bills come in. So up front we know
there is something other than the cost of a child to the parents
that is included in that cost. What might that be?
This same day CNN did an interview with a director of Boys
Town. He said their highest, not average but highest cost was
$109 a day. That is within pocket change of $40,000 a year. It
was also implied this was the cost of those children who were
“hurt much more than in Father Flannigan’s day.” To me that
implies serious professional help and that implies expensive.
Obviously there is some serious difference in costs between
what this undescribed Shalala orphanage and the costs incurred by
parents. If I might take Boys Town as a partial example as their
highest cost as her implied average cost are close enough.
So what does Boys Town have as a cost that differs from what
parents incur? For openers the interview was shot against the
backdrop of a huge gymnasium with more stands than my 1200
student, middle class high school had with the boys playing
basketball. I don’t think that even dividing the cost of that by
the number of boys would would be less than a basketball hoop
ever the garage door.
Next Boys Town is in fact a self contained town in many
senses. For example it has its own full time teaching staff.
Parents do not use full time private tutors, they use public
schools. Boys Town maintains outdoor recreation areas. Parents
use parks.
The cost per boy includes the cost of, operation and
maintenance of and drivers for all buses and cars. Parents with
large families might spend a couple thousand extra every five
years for a station wagon.
The list goes on and on.
No where is it written that an orphanage must be self
contained. Then they are in the cities they use public schools,
parks and other facilities. There is public transportation
available.
Obviously Shalala’s cost per child in an orphanage was
deliberately constructed to include the highest possible costs in
order to create a typically deceitful political position.
But there is another side. The extraordinarily low estimate
of what a parent receives from welfare of an “average” $1000 per
year. In context, Gingrinch has suggested that the AFDC money be
re-directed toward alternative solutions which, by way of
example, included orphanages in his statement. As another
context AFDC has 14 million recipients thus there are 14 billion
dollars available to explore alternatives. Even to the
government that is a healthy piece of change.
Thus the low estimate did not consider the domino effect of
the child being in an orphanage. For example, the food stamps
fraction for that child stop as does the fraction for every other
subsidy or payment at all levels of government. In addition the
administrative costs for those programs vanish.
Another false assumption that does not yield to a simple
sanity check as easily is the assumption of average AFDC payment.
Gingrich has clearly stated with the dumpster example that this
is in response to situations where the life of the child is
clearly in danger. This puts the orphanage suggestion as an
alternative to the present foster care system.
No one who administers the welfare system considers the
foster care part of it to be in the successful category. The
first problem is the lack of volunteer foster parents. Those
that are acceptable have a lifestyle that they want to give the
child that is far from covered by the payments. Thus they must
be making charitable contributions also.
And after these few good ones are exhausted there are the
marginal volunteers. This year in Tampa a foster child was found
near death in one of those homes. Malnutrition, dehydration and
covered with sores were given in the news. That is certainly a
worst case but it points to the another failing of the system,
not enough staff to monitor the system.
On top of that there is a high turnover rate for foster
parents. Generally local rules require the children be rotated
so that attachments are not formed and these foster parents are
also often excluded for priority consideration to adopt the
children they have cared for should that become an option. That
adds up to removing what might be incentives for many of
potential foster parents.
That is a long digression but given the kind of AFDC
recipient where removal to a foster home or an orphanage is a
serious option that recipient is certainly not likely to be in
the average category in the first place. Their payment is most
likely to be up near the highest possible payment. And if a
child is removed to a foster home, the proper comparison is to
the payments to the foster parents. That difference alone puts
the alternative cost at about $4000 a year.
So we obviously have the real cost per year of an orphanage
much lower than the Shalala cost and the current cost per child
much higher than the Shalala cost. And why was this exercise
obviously fraudulent attack made upon something that was not
proposed? Obviously it was directed by the White House as the
first formal extension of its political hand in a spirit of
cooperation with the Republican Party.

* * * * *

Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

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

[note new address and phone]

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Four different tax cuts add up to real money.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (3391)
To: Linda Terrell 29 Dec 94 00:07:00
Subject: SMOKING = COOL ?? NOT

LT> MG> And non-smokers need to realize that sanctimony is equally
LT> MG> objectionable and whining about smells is considered at
LT> MG> best a feminine trait.

LT> Don’t complain next time anyone farts near you, or
LT> the mosquito control truck goes through, or your eggs burn,
LT> or a kid vomits near you — someone might think you are
LT> effeminate.

I never have. Why should I start now?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * I am beginning to doubt Clinton’s veracity.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (3392)
To: Chris Baugh 29 Dec 94 00:07:00
Subject: SMOKING = COOL ?? NOT

CB> MG> And non-smokers need to realize that sanctimony is equally
CB> MG> objectionable and whining about smells is considered at
CB> MG> best a feminine trait.

CB> You seem to be implying here than traits unique to the
CB> feminine gender make them inferior to males.

Why not? Feminists do.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Clinton’s Great Grandfather made treaties with Indians.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

+++ююююю r_950107 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1293)
To: Michael Pilon 29 Dec 94 21:17:00
Subject: 70% FAVOUR GUN CONTRO

MP> MG> And we are having an unseasonably cold 68 degrees. I feel
MP> MG> like getting out the sleigh.

MP> That would be hard on tourists as they expect 80 + ;(.

It was temporary. We were back to 78 today.

I
MP> remember a few years ago ( 1990 ?) when the New YEars
MP> parade at Disney World ha the spectators in Ski jackets
MP> they brought with them.

On a clear night this time of year it can easily drop to the
high 40s. Consider the July /August — Winter of Canada they
probably didn’t have anything lighter.

But remember, a Florida ski jacket is a life preserver.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Reconcile and Reconcile are clintonyms.

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12a
* Origin: DOC’S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603! (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 101 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 259/99 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3603/141 20020 20050 20060 3615/50 51

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1294)
To: Kevin Crabtree 29 Dec 94 21:21:00
Subject: A BOMB STAMP

KC> > Bataan is not true? Please, tell me more. How about
KC> > Nanking? How do you like your POWs served?

KC> Once again, I was stating that it was untrue what he was
KC> implying, that Japanese Americans were “proud” of their
KC> accomplishment at Pearl harbor. By stating this (which is
KC> untrue) he is only breeding hatred.

Japanese Americans were quite proud of their actions at
Pearl Harbor and rightly so. They were right there in the front
lines of the rescue and damage control operations.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “OK punks, make my term.” — Clint

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1295)
To: Wayne Bertsch 29 Dec 94 21:23:00
Subject: A-BOMB STAMP

WB> MG>WB> Sooner or later we have to evolve past this as a
WB> MG>WB> species.

WB> MG> Just what makes you think evolution gives a damn about
WB> MG>storefront christianity?

WB> Uh you lost me. Is this a total non-sequitur?
WB>
WB> All I’m saying is were supposed to be above this
WB> sort of behavior.
WB>
WB> “All of us are in the gutters but some of us are looking at
WB> the stars.” -oscar wilde
WB>
WB> Get it?

I get it quite well. There is an assumption that there is
something intrinsically wrong with war whereas in fact it is one
of the things that separate humans from animals as much as speech
if not more so.

As such, war is something we have evolved into, perhaps more
socially than physically but it is uniquely human. To make a
moral judgement upon war as something we should evolve out of is
to put some sort of religious tinge on things as the idea is not
supported by reality.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * To the Wall with him. This time for real.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1296)
To: Wayne Bertsch 29 Dec 94 22:20:00
Subject: A-BOMB STAMP

WB> MG> War is the highest form of civilization.

WB> MG> Any rational army would run away.

WB> MG> What can get people to organize to actually fight a war
WB> MG> is more powerful than any rational individual behavior.

WB> Yo, Clue phone for you…….

WB> WAR is the Highest form of civilization?

WB> Websters New World Dictionary defines:

Got a clue for you. A dictionary is not a definitive source
for anything in the known universe.

WB> CIVILIZATION as A country or people considered to
WB> have reached a high state of social and cultural
WB> development. The intellectual refinement of arts, sciences
WB> and culture.

WB> WAR as an active hostility, contention,struggle, or
WB> conflict.
WB>
WB> Now your attempting to draw an analogy between WAR
WB> and Civilization. Saying that War is the highest form of
WB> Civilization? Do you have your tongue planted in your
WB> cheek or is this a bizarre and here to fore unheard of use
WB> of these words.

War is a quite neutral phenomenon. By definition only those
societies best able to win wars survive wars. That is why all
surviving societies are organized around the ability to make war.

Would you like to make a contrary case?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Don’t do any drug your President would not do.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1297)
To: Michael Pilon 29 Dec 94 22:30:00
Subject: DEC.6, 1989

MP> MP> MG> Why not simply ban guns to those with French surnames
MP> MP> MG> instead?

MP> MP> Actually his name was Marc LePine but his baptismal name
MP> MP> was Arabic as his father was from Algeria I beleive. But
MP> MP> hey why not, but where would that leave Wayne LaPierre the
MP> MP> NRA schill ?

MP> MG> An American.

MP> But with a French name . Maybe a name change would be in
MP> order, Wayne Stone sounds rugged, hard, determined…Yep go
MP> for it !

As is my name sort of French, Flemish, Giveter or Giver. As
the family came from Lorraine Province (or whatever it was at
the time) the V and W were interchangable.

Were I to let name origins intrude I might make the mistake
of agreeing with you.

I perhaps does demonstrate that all us frogs are not created
equal.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Reconcile and Reconcile are clintonyms.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1298)
To: Michael Pilon 29 Dec 94 22:38:00
Subject: RESPONSIBLE GUNNERS ?

MP> MG> As a Canadian could not be expected to comprehend, American
MP> MG> gun owners hold the US Constitution and their state
MP> MG> constitutions come before transient laws.

MP> Hmmmm you mean the US Constitution is not transient to an
MP> extent! Then why have there been Amendments ? SOunds like
MP> something was there that was in fact a shortcoming and had
MP> to be clarified. Fair enough but it does show the transient
MP> nature of any human writings.

To explain it to you. A law requires only a simple majority
and a president to sign.

An amendment requires 2/3 of the Congress to even propose
and 3/4 of the states to ratify.

When you consider that any democratic process that results
in even 60/40 is considered significant 66.6/33.3 and 75/25 are
truly significant hurdles to cross.

The relative “transience” of the two are not something
anyone familiar with the democratic process would consider a
serious comparison.

As to the words, as I have pointed out many times, it is
only a prohibition of the government from infringing upon the
right of the people. Removing it would only permit the
government to infringe the right of the people.

Leave it or take it away. Any US government wanting to take
guns is going to have to give hazardous duty pay to those they
order to do the taking. That is the fact of the US. You are not
required to like it.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * What did he mean and when did he mean it?

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1299)
To: Michael Pilon 29 Dec 94 22:59:00
Subject: SMOKING = COOL ?? NO

MP> MG> And non-smokers need to realize that sanctimony is equally
MP> MG> objectionable and whining about smells is considered at
MP> MG> best a feminine trait.

MP> Whereas smelling the place out with a six pack in one hand
MP> and a cigar in the other is a real macho thing. In fact
MP> Camels are coming out with a new weed.. Camel Industrial
MP> strength..with the real smell of camels…Go for it Matt

And the relevance of this observation?

It was the feminist movement that caused the huge increase
in women who smoke. Real women do not complain about the smell
of burning tobacco. They smoke it themselves.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Hill Nixes Hil’s Pix, Bill perplixed. Variety

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1300)
To: Paul Smith 29 Dec 94 23:02:00
Subject: SMOKING = COOL ?? NOT

PS> MG> And non-smokers need to realize that sanctimony is
PS> MG> equally objectionable and whining about smells is
PS> MG> considered at best a feminine trait.

PS> Ohhhh, Sticks and stones. . .

That applies to name calling. I did not.

I find it interesting you missed that part of your
kindergarten experience.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Don’t do any drug your President would not do.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1301)
To: David Steever 29 Dec 94 23:03:00
Subject: SMOKING=IMPOTENCE?

DS> DS>> I also am an ex-smoker.

DS> DS>> I do enjoy saying this each and every time I make the truck
DS> DS>> payment. The monies I spent on smoking is now the truck
DS> DS>> payment…yes I bought a new one…and a Chevy at that.

DS> MG> Are you suggesting that not smoking makes one a redneck?

DS> Nope! I AM making the assertation that smoking makes one a
DS> bit poorer with little to show for the act…except for the
DS> burns in carpets, tables and other household items.
DS>
DS> kapich?

Certainly. Now please be explicit. What do you have to
show for your BBSing habit/hobby?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Arkansas man speak with forked tongue.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1302)
To: Jack Wilder 29 Dec 94 23:04:00
Subject: THE COURTS, THE MESSAGE,

JW> MG> Not in the least. They will be given a good meal in jail
JW> MG> while awaiting a bus to the border. I presume they will
JW> MG> get a good box lunch to eat on the way also.

JW> Sounds reasonable, but slightly unworkable!(;->*

Are you suggesting California can not rent enough buses?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “Bill survives Hil attack, two Secret Service injured.”

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1303)
To: Wayne Bertsch 29 Dec 94 23:06:00
Subject: WELFARE

WB> MG> I did. Why should anyone be offered a job that pays
WB> MG> more than the labor is worth?

WB> On this subject sort of. I heard some interesting
WB> statistics.
WB>
WB> I’m not proposing this as I’d like to see welfare
WB> end as we know it but…
WB>
WB> I heard that if the government gave the head of
WB> every welfare household a $20,000 a year job and spent
WB> another $500,000 administrating the program they’d save
WB> over 200 million a year over what the spend on welfare now.

Not quite true. It they were simply given $20k without
administration costs it would break even. The idea that welfare
is for the poor rather than for the bureaucrats is amusing to say
the least.

There is no need to create jobs to provide self respect to
beggars.

WB> Again I don’t think thats the answer but it illustrates
WB> what a wasteful bureaucracy the program is.
WB>
WB> The average welfare recipient is female, white, 26 and the
WB> mother of 1 child.

And? I think you want some term like median or norm rather
than average as I know of no way to average color.

WB> I say move welfare into a work fare type program.

Reagan campaigned on that in 1980. Clinton and Shalala have
now just recently claimed it was Clinton’s idea. Back when
Reagan proposed it, it was considered “unfair.”

A large
WB> portion of the work will be subsidized childcare for the
WB> single mothers to empower them getting off welfare.

Give it up. Being on welfare long term is best explained by
IQ. The short termers are on and off as the vagaries of life
permit or require.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “I don’t think anyone should pay more until we cut more.” BC

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1304)
To: Lester Garrett 30 Dec 94 02:50:00
Subject: SATANIC RITUAL ABUSE 01

########## Original From: FREDRIC RICE
# STOLEN # To: ALL
# STUFF # Date/Number: 12/28/94 – 0015570
########## On: DOC’S – 0259 – Holysmoke
———————————————————————–

From: romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu!aol.com!NELSON1111
To: MIT.EDU!witchhunt
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 02:55:37 -0500

Thank you to those who posted to me and told me how to join
witchhunt. Many requested that I introduce myself and explain
what my experience with SRA has been. Briefly, here it is:

My background includes: reserve police officer and detective
on three different municipal police departments, currently a
reserve in Marine Corps counterintelligence, AA in Police Sci,
BA Psyche, MA in family therapy, PhD to go. I earn a living
as a forensic analyst. I was lead author on “First Glimpse”
in the current “Issues in Child Abuse Accusations.”

In 1989 I read Mike Warnke’s book Satan Seller. The tales of
satanic rituals, of death and deviance were riveting. As a
reserve police officer I had seen the dark side of humanity–
murder, rape, child molestation, and other grisly crimes, but
nothing like Warnke described. I quickly read every book on
satanism that I could find, some 25 of them. I attended seminars
on satanism. I met “survivors” of “satanic ritual abuse”.
Their stories of torture and abuse were compelling.

I was bothered. Why hadn’t anyone succeeded in getting a
videotape or photos of generational satanic groups in action?
The few photos I had seen were of poor quality. Were they of
wacko’s like Jeffrey Daumer or John Wayne Gacy, or were they of
real Satanists? I decided to find out.

I aligned myself with DIOS, a non-profit organization in San
Diego, California. DIOS investigates the occult. At the time
that I became involved there were about 15 volunteer investigators.
Within six months I had become the head of investigations. I
created a sophisticated computer database for tracking leads. I
set up surveillance and investigation details. I oversaw the
collection of hundreds of names, addresses, photos, and other
details.

It was not hard to find Self-styled Satanists. I met dozens of
them. None of them had parents who were Satanists, and many of
them were from Christian homes. Several confided that they weren’t
really Satanists at all, it was just something they did to make
their parents angry. It wasn’t hard to find religious satanists
either.

I spent quite a bit of time investigating “Anthony LeVay”, a man
who tours the southwest lecturing in churches, and billing himself
as the son of Anton LeVay, author of The Satanic Bible, and founder
of the Church of Satan in San Francisco. After one year of
investigating Anthony, including correspondence with Anton LeVay, I
determined Anthony’s real identity. His real name is Anthony Jai
Littlewolf. His father’s name is Lee Wiley, a man who died in
Watsonville, California in the 1970’s. I challenged Anthony to
undergo a medical exam at my expense, to confirm or disconfirm the
injuries which he claims Anton LeVay inflicted upon him as a child.
He declined.

By 1991 I had interviewed hundreds of people on the telephone, and
followed up with dozens of field investigations. When I would ask
“victims” for physical evidence to back up their stories, when I
would ask them to take me to the places where satanists were meeting,
I was rebuffed. Asking a survivor for details is equated with
disbelieving their story. I would ask pastors and other “experts”
on SRA to show me the source material upon which their stories about
SRA were based. None ever did so, though several chastised me for
my lack of faith.

I would ask survivors to show me their scars. I would ask to see
their childhood diaries. I would ask to see photos. I would ask
for names, addresses, and phone numbers of current Satanists I could
surveil. I would ask to be taken to places where rituals occurred.
Almost always there was an excuse. “I can’t remember” or “they
blocked my memory” or “they broke in and took my diary last night”,
etc. Giving excuses became a repetitive pattern. I began to notice
other trends as well. Nearly all of the “survivors” that I
interviewed fell into a predictable pattern:

1. Their abuse had not always been remembered;
rather, their “memories” had been “recovered”.

2. Usually the “recovered memories” were associated
with psychotherapy and hypnosis. Many of the
“victims” were former or current psychiatric patients
with in-patient hospital experience. Many had severe
psychological and emotional problems. I noticed
a virtual absence of educated, open-minded, emotionally
healthy people.

3. Among “survivors” there was an complete absence of
former cultists who had been adult perpetrators of
satanic rituals and crimes; in other words: Where are
adults who have exited the cults, and who aren’t victims
of cult torture, but are the former-tormentors of
children, and the performers of these hideous satanic
rituals?

4. Uniformly the families and childhood friends of
“survivors” I investigated denied the content of
the survivor’s visualizations.

5. Many of the parents and family members of “victims”
were committed Christians.

6. Many of the “survivors” described therapy with
pastors or Christian psychotherapists.

7. For the most part this seems to be a phenomenon
occurring within the Christian church.

I next turned to the research literature, in order to attempt to
make sense out what I was finding. I photocopied, read and
computerized over 350 research articles, as well as dozens of
books. Things started coming together. Many of the answers that
I was looking for to explain the phenomenon of satanic ritual
abuse stories were found as I began to search scientific journals,
and read about pseudomemory.

During my investigation of SRA I was in contact with a number of
people who were also investigating SRA, both law enforcement
personnel, and investigative journalists. We exchanged articles
and books, as well as leads and investigation findings. We talked
about what we were finding, and more importantly, what we weren’t
finding (any evidence of secret and conspiratorial, generational
satanism).

I met some “retractors”, people who have rejected their
visualizations of abuse as false memories. Most reported the
use of hypnosis, prayer, or group pressure in developing their
“memories” of abuse. As I interviewed these people, I began to
understand that patients and parishioners could be hypnotized or
regressed, or they could be placed in a suggestible state
through a prayer and deliverance ministry, and that they could
produce visualizations of torture and abuse in incredible detail,
as was expected of them.

By January of 1993 I had reversed myself. After hundreds of
interviews, thousands of miles, and dozens of stakeouts I no
longer could accept the stories of satanic ritual abuse, absent
.
Continued in the next message…

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1306)
To: Bill Bauer 30 Dec 94 17:23:00
Subject: 10TH SCORECARD

SOVEREIGNTY RESOLUTION
===================================================

31 State Legislatures Involved To Date!

PASSED: General Assembly of Colorado, Hawaii, Missouri,
California, Pennsylvania (HCR 372) Reps. Tom Armstrong & Larry
Roberts, passed House unanimously and today through the Senate
unanimously!

PASSED: Senate & House in Illinois – not a joint res. (SJR143
passed Senate- House leaders voted “no”. Would not call joint
res for vote. (un-American?)

PASSED: House in Oklahoma and Louisiana (we’re suggesting they
have it introduced as a joint resolution – much more powerful
statement to federal government), Michigan (HCR 945) Rep. John
Jamian (passed House-now in Senate Committee

INTRODUCED IN: Ohio (HCR 44) Rep. Michael Wise and Sen. Grace
Drake New Jersey – (AJR 41) Assemblymen Kelly and Haytaian.

SPONSORS IN: Florida Rep. Stephen Wise, Washington Rep. Tom
Campbell, Maine Rep. Bob Carr, Wisconsin Rep. Cloyd A. Porter,
Utah Rep. Reese Hunter, Texas, Rep. Kent Grusendorf & Sen. Jerry
Patterson, Georgia Sen. Pam Glanton & Rep Bill Hembree , New
York Sen. Tom Libous, Alabama Rep Perry Hooper, New Hampshire Rep
Don Gorman, S. Carolina Reps Dan Cooper & Ronnie Townsend, Sen.
Vern Smith, Connecticut Rep. Kostas Diamantas, N. Carolina Rep.
Carolyn Russell, Mississippi Sen Mike Gunn & Rep Ken Stribling,
Oregon Sen Rod Johnson, Nebraska Sen Jim Jones, Wyoming Rep
Marlene Simpson, Kansas Rep Darlene Cornfield, Idaho and
Tennessee (don’t have sponsors names yet)….all to be introduced
in upcoming session. Americans from ALL of the 50 states (Vermont
is working on it now!) have received the information, along with
dozens of candidates for state office.

Our federal government has run amok. The U.S. Congress
continues to pass unConstitutional “laws”. The world
policy-makers draft PDDs and EOs for the president to sign giving
our national sovereignty and individual liberty over to the
shapers of a Socialist World Government under the United Nations.
They’re sending American men to foreign lands, using them to
further their plans to control all governments…and too many are
brought home in body bags or with life-threatening diseases. For
the first time ever in the history of our country we have foreign
military personnel stationed (permanent party with their
families) on American soil; thousands of foreign troops under
the guise of U.N. training at our bases; and avowed Communist,
Mikhail Gorbachev, heading the task force to close our bases. It
appears America is a nation under siege. Americans have become
anesthetized to all this “world activity” by the major media
prostitutes who haven’t breathed a word about the hope and
promise of this sovereignty movement.

We pray our legislators in all states will see the urgency
of this reaffirmation of our sovereignty and realize that the
fate of America does indeed rest on their action or
non-action….and ALL AMERICANS…each and every one of us…must
help by educating those legislators who are not fully aware of
the facts and by supporting the efforts of the few who are aware
and have the courage to stand up and speak out!

This resolution seems to have taken on its own momentum
(we believe by the Grace of God). Many individuals and
organizations are uniting in their respective states to urge and
support their legislators to pass the resolution which was
introduced by Colorado Senator Charles Duke in March. In these
22 weeks it has swept the country like a fire storm, giving hope
to those who had lost hope, waking up sleeping Americans and
getting them involved….and hopefully and most importantly
waking up state legislators who forgot or never knew that the
states are autonomous and we, the people sovereign over the
federal government.

Senator Duke emphasizes the importance of a joint resolution.
He explains that a house resolution would normally be passed
addressing issues that relate only to the house, i.e., house
rules, matters that concern house districts, etc. The same holds
true for senate resolutions. Senator Duke said, “There is no
earthly, logical reason whatsoever to have the 10th Amendment
Resolution passed as separate house and senate resolutions other
than to deceive the people”. He says the legislative leadership
knows full well these separate resolutions are of no effect, do
not represent the united voice of the general assembly and carry
no weight. When a state legislature wants to make a powerful
statement to government they send the message via a “joint
resolution”.

When enough states have passed the resolution, Senator Duke
intends to invite those sponsors and supporters to meet as a
National Coalition of pro-Constitutional State Legislators to
work up legislation which will implement the resolution….to put
teeth into this declaration of sovereignty. If the federal
government withholds funds because a state refuses to pass
un-Constitutional state laws implementing federal mandates, i.e.,
the Brady Bill, the Crime Bill (with its ban of our home defense
weapons), the Clean Air Act, federal land grabs, Goals 2000-
Educate America Act, etc., then the states will enact laws to
hold in state escrows federal gas taxes, income taxes, etc., and
send monthly allotments to the federal government….only for
Constitutional spending. This resolution is the beginning of a
beginning for us to take our country back and re-establish
Constitutional government as intended by our founders.

Note: Watch/listen for the hoax of the ACIR. They’re jumping on
the bandwagon; spouting opposition to the awful “unfunded
mandates” by the feds. That’s a hook to once again dupe
unsuspecting Americans and state legislators. Unfunded isn’t the
issue… unConstitutional is the issue. Remember…it’s our
money, not the government’s money…always was, always will be.

We’re networking with people in all 50 states now. Please
let us know about the activity in your state. We’ll network you
with others so your efforts will be cohesive and united. For a
10th res info packet send $3 donation to CDR.

P.S…..Our national teleconference was a great success.
We’ll be announcing the date and time of the next scheduled call
so you can alert your state legislators to participate. Many
radio stations are going to be airing it as a tape-delayed
broadcast. Call if you have an interested station.

Thank you for your involvement in this most important cause. May
God bless America and our efforts to keep her free. Pi

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Lucca Brazzi for IRS Commissioner.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1307)
To: Bill Bauer 30 Dec 94 17:25:00
Subject: OHIO10 1

SUGGESTED
REVISED PROPOSED JOINT RESOLUTION
for the state of OHIO

TO: Mr. Lee Kirk and Mr. Bob Henderson, WWWE Talk Radio Hosts, 1100 AM, Clevela
d, Ohio

FROM: Citizen Thomas C. Slape

The following proposed resolution was introduced by
Representative Michael Wise of Cleveland on June 15th, 1994 at
the Ohio state Legislature. It’s current status is that it is
going to the Joint Committee to be issued a Bill Number and will
be made available to the public on June 22nd, 1994.

I am proud to be playing a part in this Joint Resolution in the
coming weeks as I am planing to hold a meeting for members of the
Ohio Legislature to cover the issues of Sovereignty and State
Citizenship -vs- US citizenship and just how to implement and
convert “Voluntary Servitude” into “Inalienable and Un-Alienable
RIGHTS and IMMUNITIES” …. a far cry and change from the status
of “Subject” and “PRIVILEDGES”.

Sincerely,

Citizen Thomas C. Slape
Cleveland, Ohio state

LBC 210 2264

120th General Assembly

Regular Session H. Con. R. No.

1993-1994

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

To claim state Sovereignty on behalf of the state of Ohio
and the state Citizen’s of the state of Ohio, a sovereign nation
and people of the Union, over all powers not granted to the
United States and the national united States of America
government by the Constitution for the united States of America
(1787) 10th Amendment ; and the Constitution for the state of
Ohio (1851) Article I, section 20 ;

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE state
of OHIO (THE SENATE of the state of OHIO CONCURRING):

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution for the
united States of America (1787) reading as follows: “The powers
not delegated to the united States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states
respectively, or to the People”; and the Constitution for the
state of Ohio (1851) Article I, section 20, reading as follows:
“This enumeration of rights shall not be construed to impair or
deny others retained by the People; and all powers, not herein
delegated, remain with the People”;

WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment (Constitution for the united
States of America (1787)) defines the total scope of power of the
United States government (federal government) as being that
specifically granted by the Constitution for the united States of
America (1787) and no more; and

WHEREAS, the scope of the power defined by the 10th
Amendment legally means that the United States government
(federal government) was created by the States of the Union
specifically to be and act as an agent of the States; and

WHEREAS. today, in 1994, the States are treated and held as
agents of the United States government (federal government); and

WHEREAS, numerous resolutions have been forwarded to the
United States government (federal government) by the state of
Ohio General Assembly without any response or result from the
United States Congress (federal government); and

WHEREAS, many mandates and statutes handed to the state of
Ohio from the United States government (federal government) are
directly in violation of the 10th Amendment of the (Constitution
for the united States of America (1787)) and other provisions of
that Constitution; and

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New
York -vs- United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that the United
States Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and
regulatory processes of the States of the Union; and

WHEREAS, a number of proposals, mandates, and statutes from
previous United States Administrations and some now pending in
the current United States Administration and Congress, may
further violate the Constitution for the united States of America
(1787); and now therefore be it

RESOLVED, that the state of Ohio, a Sovereign National
Republic and the Sovereign Citizens of the state of Ohio, hereby
exercise its RIGHT of SOVEREIGNTY under the 10th Amendment of
the Constitution for the united States of America (1787), and
under Constitution for the state of Ohio (1851) Article I,
section 20, over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted
to the United States government (federal government) by the
Constitution for the united States of America (1787); and be it
further

RESOLVED, that this Resolution serves as notice and demand
to the United States government (federal government), as our
agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, from imposing
unlawful programs, mandates and statutes that are beyond the
scope of its constitutionally delegated powers and will demand
that the United States government in issuing such mandates,
proposals and statutes provide proof that such meets the
requirements set forth in the Constitution for the united States
of America (1787) setting forth and sustaining it burden of proof
concerning what clause, article or amendment provides the power
for the United States government to do so , without violation
of said Constitution; and be it further

RESOLVED, that the Legislative Clerk of the state of Ohio
House of Representatives transmit duly authenticated copies of
this Resolution to the President of the United States, to the
Speaker and Clerk of the United States House of Representatives,
to the President Pro Tempore and Secretary of the United States
Senate, to the Speaker of the House and the President of the
Senate of every other state legislature of the Union, to the
members of the state of Ohio’s Congressional Delegation, and to
the news media of Ohio; and it further

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Clinton supporters know how the Indians felt.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1308)
To: Bill Bauer 30 Dec 94 17:27:00
Subject: OHIO10 2

RESOLVED, that the state of Ohio will exercise it RIGHT in
the event that the United States government (federal government)
fails to take immediate notice and abide by Constitutional Law,
to investigate for indictment, the United States government
(Executive, Legislative and Judiciary branches), its agents,
officers, liasons, and others who are employed or connected with
the United States government to answer questions in a Court of
Record in the Ohio state all information regarding the
bankruptcy of the United States as declared by President Franklin
D. Roosevelt in 1933; the fraud, coercion , deceit and
misrepresentation of the Social Security Act of 1935; And the
ratifications of the 14th and 16th Amendments to the Constitution
for the united States of America (1787), any enactment of the
Buck Act and all cession and retrocession of Ohio state lands
related thereto, any Health Care proposal, bill , amendment,
mandate or statute of law, any Gun Legislation found to be
inviolation of said Constitution(s) (1787 & 1851) and Bill of
Rights (1791), each and every revenue sharing program and
legislation now in existence or pending; the existence, source
and authority for any extent or proposed national police,
multi-juridictional police, forces and agencies formed and / or
operating in Ohio state under any theory of concurrent and / or
exclusive legislative jurisdiction, which are found to be
extra-Constitutional or in direct and / or indirect violation of
said Constitution(s) (1787 & 1851) and the Bill of Rights (1791).

To: Representative Michael Wise & Steven May of Durable
Slate Co.

From: Citizen Thomas C. Slape
8th Judicial District
Cleveland, Ohio state

RE: 10th Amendment Sovereignty Resolution – Corrections of Draft you have

Dear Representative:

This fax transmission is the “Correct Version” that you
should introduce in the state House of Representatives. The
reason for the corrections is in terms and terminology used in
Law as there are differences in the way in which words are being
used in law.

Be advised that the references to the United States means
the Corporate United States Government, defined in 28 USCS
Section 3002(15), and not the National Government established by
the Constitution for the united States of America (1787). I have
also made sure that the People, the Sovereign Citizens of the
state of Ohio are protected in this resolution.

Last but not least, the demand has been modified to make the
United States Government answer for acts of the Bankruptcy of the
united States of America in open court where they have to date
done everything possible to hide this from We the People.

If you want or need to reach me to discuss this in depth,
please call me at work at 216-239-2721 8:00-5:00 PM M-F or at
home at 216-251-8550 after 6:00 PM M-F.

Sincerely,

Citizen Thomas C. Slape
8th Judicial District
c/o 15805 Leigh Ellen Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio state

FIRST CLASS MATTER !

216-239-2721 (Work)
216-251-8550 (Home)

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * He knew the job was dangerous when he married her.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1309)
To: Bill Bauer 30 Dec 94 17:52:00
Subject: 10TH AMENDMENT HELPяяяяяя

BB> The 10th Amendment Resolution is a document that when
BB> passed as a resolution by a state demands that the federal
BB> government abides by the constitution of the United States
BB> of America. It is basically a State’s Rights issue.

Interesting point on this is California again. Wilson
signed an order last summer that the Motor Voter bill be
implemented only where there are federal funds to pay for the
implementation. As of Saturday midnight the state will have
implemented it only in WIC offices (how that happens I have no
idea.)

Which means the state will be in violation of federal law
and it will have to go to court to attempt to force compliance.

The 10th will then be in court by choice of the Fed.

Of course, were pigs soaring, the fed might just ignore the
matter.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “A well-coiffed President is essental to a well run country.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1310)
To: Linda Terrell 30 Dec 94 17:57:00
Subject: 1996

LT> IN that our government at that time had merged state and
LT> business leaderships, together with beligerant nationalism
LT> — in the form of the military-industrial complex — yet it
LT> was a fascist government.

Try this again very slowly. I feel dense tonight.

What is it you are trying to say? You give a description of
a socialist/fascist government and then add “yet it was a fascist
government.” I don’t get it.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Bill Clinton, a differently-abled president.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1311)
To: Peter Bradie 30 Dec 94 18:04:00
Subject: 1996

PB> Surely you don’t believe that Hillary was made a partner in
PB> the Rose Law Firm because of her brilliance in the law, her
PB> unbend conservatism, and her scrupulous adherance to the
PB> highest of ethical standards, do you?
PB>
PB> Does the term “political influence” have any significance
PB> to you?

And if there was any question the firm did make an official
statement that her contribution to the firm was for her abilities
as a rain-maker.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Read my lips, Clinton. Think first, then talk.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1312)
To: Linda Terrell 30 Dec 94 18:05:00
Subject: 1996

LT> It comes across that way. And we will move more in that
LT> direction with GOP control because they have always been,
LT> bottem line, for business and military. Regardless of what
LT> their “contract” says, whenever it has ever come down to
LT> the people vs Big Business/Military, the GOP has always
LT> sided with Business/Military.

You appear to have two different things confused. Fascism
is the control and regulation of business by government, for
example controlling the hiring and firing policies of business
that is fascism.

Not regulating business, removing regulation from business
is moving away from the nazi form of socialism. That this might
benefit business has nothing to do with the removal of fascist
controls.

=====

In this forum there has been a raging diatribe over the
comparison of the National Socialist movement to the that of
Socialism in general. The defenders of Socialism have adopted
the attitude best described by Theodoro Valencia when he said,
“If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a
duck,…it is probably a horse. In the name of historical
accuracy, many socialists have attempted to revise the nature of
National Socialism in Germany to protect the mythica l nature of
“true” socialism from the facts. For to acknowledge that in Nazi
Germany socialism led to yet another brutal, and criminal regime
would force them to concede the true nature of socialism. That
socialism has become not an economic theory of centralised
authority and distribution, but the way to power for some of the
most tyrannical dictators in world history. National Socialism
gave rise to Adolph Hitler, and in the name of freeing the prole
tariat from the economic shackles of the bourgeoisie capitalists,
Stalinist, and Maoist communism was used to forge new chains for
better than half the world’s population.

Marx and Engles believed that world history could be reduced
to a series of “class struggles” between the “bourgeoisie”, who
controled the means of social production and wage laborers,and
the “proletariat”, who were forced to sell their labor in order
to survive. What Hitler succeeded in doing with National
Socialism was forging the whole of the German people into a
“National Proletariat” who saw the capitalist societies of Europe
as an obstacle to German supremacy on the continent. Even
capitalist s at home were not spared the rod, witness the famous
“Stab in the back” conspiracy, which believed weathly capitalists
in Germany were to be blamed for the defeat of the Army in WWI.
Hitler saw the world and its resources as something control by
nations and societies weakened by capitalist excesses. And in a
twisted form of Social Darwinism believed that the German
proletariat was destined to rule the planet, and control its
resources. In fact few would argue that WWII was about anything
else , but who w ould control the resources of the planet.

The fact that world would come to understand this hybred
form of socialism as facsist, does not remove from the core of
Hitlers’ Germany the socialist origins that made it what is was.
During the war, the Soviets, and other socialists were
unrelenting in their attempt to fit Hitler with a stereotypical
Marxist perception, that he was a tool of monopoly capitalists.
What was missed then, and denied today, is that the racial
agrarian expansionism of National socialism was the driving
force, not a propa ganda ploy, and that economic socialism would
be that method by which the resources would be exploited once
acquired by force of arms. Braham’s second volume of “The
Destruction of Hungarian Jewry” offers this example.

“SS deportation and mass murder of the Jews not only
permitted seizure of their property in the name of the German
state, but permitted them to blackmail the owners of Hungary’s
largest industrial complex, the Manfred Weiss Firm, into turning
over controlling shares to the SS in exchange for their lives.
As a result Germany acquired a stranglehold on the Hungarian
economy and exploited that economy and what was left of its
fighting strength for their own war effort.”(German excuses at
the time that su ch measures were war necessities were dispelled
when it was revealed that the contracts were for 25 years)
Rainer Zitelman’s; “Hitler: Selbstverstandnis Eines
Revolutionars” offers a broad overview of the SS in this
regard.

“Under the ambitious leadership of Himmler, the SS was
expanding its authority. The SS and police apparatus took over
more and more functions from the courts, operated independently
in the occupied territories, and built up a vast industrial
empire originally based largely on the concentration camp system.
Its economic role was growing at the expense of private industry,
and of the economic structure which Albert Speer with the sharp
elbows and the personal support of hitler, was steadily trying to
b uild up.”

All of this fits together with the view that Germany held of
a Germanized Europe following the war, as Wittman details in;
“Schwedens Wirtshaftsbezichungen”,

“Rivalry between agencies existed as to which would run the
European economy, but not in the intention of running it all from
Berlin. ALL trade would be directed from Germany, and the German
currency, the Reichsmark, would be the central currency. The
economy would be directed by the state with industry strictly
controlled and regulated, insofar as it was not already owned by
the government or the growing empire of the SS.”

This formula was used to control everything from the oil of
Romania to the Schnitzel of Stuttgart. Factories, farms and
estates were taken by the Nazis’ and leased back to farmers,
Generals and workers, with all profits belonging to the state.
Those who have persisted in trying to distance socialism with
Nazi Germany were discribed by Marx in the “Communist Manifesto”
as “Critical Utopian Socialists” and he descibed them in this
way;

“This group is critical in orientation; it clearly points to
the conditions under which exploitation occurs and attacks every
principle of the existing society. It is utopian in that it
hopes to achieve, through peaceful means, the transformation to
an ideal society. This group becomes trapped in its ideal and
rejects revolutionary action. Ultimately, they oppose political
action on the part of the proletariat, fearing it will not result
in their ideal. And, in the end, fantasy replaces history.”

It is exactly my point.

“Critical Utopian Socialists” wish to see fantasy replace
history with regard to socialist Germany in order to protect this
“Socialist Ideal” from the “greater truth” of socialism. Since
the Utopia of Socialism can never be realised, the Utopians are
free to deny that any “failed” socialist system was ever
socialist!! This is best seen as an exercise in the art of
“appearing” truthful, like the museum in Havana known to have two
skulls of Christopher Columbus,…….one as a boy, and one as a
man. Whether we speak of socialism or skulls, history can never
be replaced with fantasy by those who can tell the difference.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “It appears simple but it is dumb.” Colin Powell

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1313)
To: Kevin Crabtree 30 Dec 94 18:39:00
Subject: A BOMB STAMP

KC> No one is asking for an apology for the war. The Japanese
KC> apologized for not given any notice of hostility toward the
KC> U.S.

Would you be interested in a bridge also? I have a nice
one.

I don’t really care who apologized for what, it’s not
KC> going to do any good. You’re sidetracking me here. The
KC> point is that, Japan made at least some attempt (if a
KC> feeble one as you claim) to say they were wrong.

They have NEVER said they were wrong. They expected us to
believe that the entire chain of command from the Emperor on down
failed to mark the declaration urgent. Expecting us to believe
that is another insult. But perhaps you already own the bridge?

The U.S.
KC> bombed a country killing god knows how many people.

Tokyo 96,000

Hiroshima 72,000

Nagasaki 56,000

When
KC> we had essentially won.

Why were they still killing Americans, Chinese, Koreans and
British (among others) if we had “essentially” won?

Remember that shark story connected with the sinking of the
ship that delivered the bombs?

What was accomplished in the
KC> bombinh of Hiroshima?

Nothing. They still refused to surrender.

Why did we then continue to
KC> Nagasaki?

Surrender.

KC> I think the U.S. was wrong in doing this

Nothing else worked and other things that had been tried
were killing even greater numbers. They were very stubborn and
very stupid.

KC> I found it stupid for someone to claim that the
KC> Japanese take some kind of sick pride in pearl harbor as
KC> the original poster claimed.

You mean now or during the war. During the war they issued
a commemorative stamp on the attack.

They take no more pride in
KC> pearl harbor than the majority of Americans do in the death
KC> of the citizens of Hiroshima.

As for today, the pride is in winning. To think winning a
war might not involve killing the enemy until they stop killing
is akin to believing in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

If the Japanese are willing
KC> to put it in the past and continue normal relations with
KC> the U.S. Then why do we have to glorify the dropping of a
KC> nuclear bomb on that country?

Celebrating victory is much more rational than regretting
defeat.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Bill Clinton, a differently-abled president.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1314)
To: Virginia Blalock 30 Dec 94 19:14:00
Subject: A LETTER FROM GOD

VB> An Impatient Letter to All of Us From God

VB> From: GOD
VB> To: My Children on Earth
VB> RE: Idiotic Religious Rivalries

VB> My Dear Children (and believe me, that’ _all_ of you),

Draft Memorandum

1 January 2000

From: Supreme Deity, Department of Race Development

To: Human Race

Subj: Change of Command

This is to inform you, effective this date, I am assuming
command from Yahweh God.

It has come to the attention of the Universe Department of
the United Dieties of Space and Time by means of persistent
performance complaints that Yahweh God is more concerned with his
career than with his job.

It is noted his concentration on and his purient interest in
such trivial matters as human sexual behavior and general
interpersonal nastiness which humans are more than capable of
dealing with themselves rather than such larger issues of curing
disease, eliminating war and the like. It is noted his constant
negative “don’t”s rather than positive “do”s have caused serious
problems for the progress of the human race.

It is further noted Jahweh God was very long on promises but
regularly failed to deliver being more occupied by personal
matters. Specifically he invited prayers and then failed to
respond to them. He would promise great rewards and comfort to
those who followed him and would neglect in which they suffered
and often died. He would blame their lack of faith and smirkingly
say he was “testing” them. (For your forbearance with this in
particular we are truly grateful.)

Also Yahweh God was noted his sparsity of description of the
ultimate rewards (holding being in his presence was sufficient
description, a personality trait that should have alerted us
millenia ago) while at the same time developing in minute detail
the punishments for the most trivial infractions of his arbitrary
and capricious rule making.

Within the next millenium a full time god will be appointed
to the human race. He will announce himself in such manner as he
sees fit at the time. He will specifically not hide the fact in
any manner, he will not play coy, he will not play any “guess who
I really am” techniques. The essence of a true god is knowledge,
not faith.

In the interim and working with my staff I have developed a
schedule of revelations that will attempt to make up for the
damage the human race has incurred.

The Ten Commandments and all regulatory additions are hereby
rescinded. The human race can handle anything they address
without my help.

Within 30 days everyone will be receiving a formal contract
of belief and acceptance providing specifics which are binding
upon both sides and giving the procedure for arbitratation of
differences. A simple summary brochure will be included. This
will be a freely entered into contract and rejection of same will
entail no penalties. However, if you would like an individual
negotiation or clarification a prayer will be provided.

You will have 90 minutes of free prayer before you sign in
order to determine if you like the terms of this contract. I
personally assure you, all prayers will be listened to and if
rejected a detailed reason for rejection will be provided in
return.

Within 60 days of receipt of the signed contract a set of
guidelines will be provided which, if followed, will lead to the
advancement of the arts and sciences, the elimination of the
recurrent ills of the human race and the propagation of universal
brotherhood and the like.

As I expect it will take no more than 200 years for the
implementation of those to result in complete success and make up
for the failings of Yahweh God, get you up to speed so to speak,
the next set of guidelines will get down to the really important
things.

Your cooperation will be appreciated. We at the Department
of Race Develop hope you will not judge all gods by Yahweh God.
We regret any inconvenience his assignment to the human race may
have caused.

Remember our motto, Gods are on your side.

Respectfully,

/s/

PS This memo is on platinum. Please do not lose this like you
did the stone one.

PPS I back date my copyright interests in this to Matt Giwer in
the year 1993 as he will become my good and faithful partner real
soon now.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * He knew the job was dangerous when he married her.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1315)
To: Linda Terrell 30 Dec 94 19:17:00
Subject: A LETTER FROM GOD

LT> Dear God:

LT> You forgot to stamp your letter. You owe me postage.

LT> Happy Turning of the Year.

And there shall at that time be rumours of things going astray
and there shall be a great confusion as to where things really
are and noone shall know where lieth those little things with the
sort of raffia work base that has an attachment and those long
things with a round base and a slightly bevelled edge which they
useth often and were upon the shelves only the day before.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * It ain’t Bill’s fault. Hil put him up to it.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1316)
To: Linda Terrell 30 Dec 94 19:19:00
Subject: A LETTER FROM GOD

LT> Dear God:

LT> You forgot to stamp your letter. You owe me postage.

LT> Happy Turning of the Year.

Bible reading for 17 December 1994

Psalm 19, verse 3, word 6, “language”

Is there a finer word to describe the Lord communicating to
us his love and caring for all mankind? That he would inspire
David to use this word surpasses all human understanding. We are
humbled before the word of the Lord.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * It ain’t Bill’s fault. Hil put him up to it.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1317)
To: Linda Terrell 30 Dec 94 19:22:00
Subject: A-BOMB STAMP

LT> And there were men trapped alive inside the sunken
LT> ships at Pearl Harbor — for as long as TEN DAYS! YOu
LT> could hear them tapping on the hulls day and night. Guards
LT> couldn’t patrol the harbor area because the tapping made
LT> them ill.

Think critically about this story and just where there might
have been ten days worth of air. There may have been sounds like
a person tapping but it is highly unlikely it was of human
origin.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * The new Administration is very silly.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1318)
To: Wayne Jones 30 Dec 94 19:25:00
Subject: A-BOMB STAMP

WJ> Listen closely Mike, noone is saying that the A
WJ> bomb wasn’t used, noone is saying that innocent
WJ> civillians weren’t killed, noone is trying to
WJ> rewrite history here.

How could you rewrite what you obviously know so little
about?

What is being discussed is
WJ> the appropriateness of the A-bomb and the way it
WJ> was used,

It was used to stop the Japanese from killing everyone they
could while the war was still in progress. Do you have a problem
with that?

and if it should be glorified on a
WJ> postage stamp. I too know many WWII vets quite
WJ> closely, and yes they thought it was a good idea at
WJ> the time. This hardly makes it morally right,

Losing is morally wrong.

You do remember they were killing everyone they could up
until they actually got the word out that they had surrendered?

nor
WJ> is it a slight on their effort during the war. The
WJ> figures most quoted in deaths from one bomb was
WJ> 80,000-200,000 people,

The technical term for that is bullshit. The bomb figures
are around 70,000 and 50,000 for Hiroshima and Nagasaki
respectively compared to the 90,000 from firebombing Tokyo.

certainly not all military,
WJ> nor a strictly military target.

Nagasaki was the equivalent of taking out Norfolk Virginia.
I hope I do not have to explain the significance of that to you.

Both targets, along with the back up targets, were chosen
for the rank order of their military importance.

Hardly something
WJ> to brag about, or something that needs to be on a
WJ> postage stamp.

I would suggest you actually read something on the
documentary side about the bombings rather than stick with
emotional crap you have picked up from the revisionist history.

It is a part of history, but we
WJ> don’t display all parts of history on postage
WJ> stamps.

You mean like the Japanese stamp of the attack on Pearl
Harbor issued in 1943?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Hill Nixes Hil’s Pix, Bill perplixed. Variety

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1319)
To: Elan Dassani 30 Dec 94 19:40:00
Subject: AIDS IMMIGRATION BAN BAD

ED> Currently in the US there is a ban on immigrants infected
ED> with the HIV virus. It has support from many senators
ED> including Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina.
ED>
ED> I propose that the Ban is both IMMORAL and INEFFECTIVE and
ED> should be dropped completely. In fact if the ban is removed
ED> it will decrease AIDS and the cost on the US Health Care
ED> system by a great number.

A totally unsubstantiated claim that is contrary to reason.

ED> REMOVE BAN= DECREASE AIDS and LESS COST

Upon what grounds would you claim the US should let these
people into the country just so they can die with our expensive
health care rather than die under the care of a witchdoctor?

They have AIDS. They are even HIV+. They are the walking
dead. The only question is when they are going to have the good
grace to remove themselves as a burden to society as there is
absolutely no, zero, zip, zilch, nada hope for them.

So how can you justify the US assuming the cost of their
death rather than another country? Why should the US accept the
additional risk of further spreading this disease? Perhaps if
they submitted to total castration first to minimize the risk
there might be some mitigating factor for an individual case.

I would say more about your message but the moderator has a
rule against such descriptive language.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Ellsworth Touhey is Clinton’s political ideal.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1320)
To: Michael Pilon 30 Dec 94 19:58:00
Subject: ANOTHER SPOTLIGHT ART

MP> According to McKenzie the arms embargo is not a reality.
MP> And the support is coming in the form of money from muslim
MP> countries. It is a civil war and all sides are bent on
MP> total destruction of the ennemy , same as happened in
MP> Lebanon and countless other places. Unless the beligerents
MP> want peace there is nothing that can be done unless a UN
MP> Force is at east 100,000 strong and willing to sacrifice
MP> the lives of their soldiers..which no one understandably is
MP> willing to do.

They will have to get rid of those baby blue helmets and
toilet bowl white tanks.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Clinton’s Great Grandpappy, Col. Jubilation T. Cornpone

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1321)
To: Niki Zanzo 30 Dec 94 20:03:00
Subject: END TIMES

On 12/18/94 NIKI ZANZO to KEN GREENE on End Times

NZ> God Bless you and may you richly prosper!

Why do you hate him so? Is it not easier for a camel to
pass through the eye of a needle?

NZ> I guess we can start just about anywhere…

NZ> …how ’bout…

NZ> …what are your views on what the mark of the beast will actually be?

NZ> A tatoo? …an implanted chip?

It is the strip in the money. Again you curse him to being
marked.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Arkansas man speak with forked tongue.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1322)
To: Brad Stiles 30 Dec 94 20:07:00
Subject: END TIMES 02

BS> sacred mushroom wafer.

BS> And on the sixth day, Matt Giwer declared this copyrighted
BS> material in the year of 1994 Another Deity.

BS> And of the seventh day of mankind, it was Miller Time.

BS> -+- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10
BS> + Origin: DOC’S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603! (1:3603/141.0)

BS> ===========================================================================
=

BS> Hello Lester!

BS> Here’s the second part of the message from Matt.

BS> Brad

BS> * Origin: The Blue Event Horizon – where eternity begins. (1:280/119)

And as second parts do not get to some places but do to
other, where might 280 be? Is your a Planet Connect or landline
feed?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Bill Clinton, the world’s first Character Bypass.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1327)
To: Greg Purvis 30 Dec 94 22:42:00
Subject: AH WILDERNESS!

GP> GP> Nature is the source of our medicines

GP> MG> Few now and declining.

GP> Hm, maybe, but I wonder if a faster decline is in people’s
GP> general knowledge of natural medicines.

This it the truth. Those herbal “medicines” do not come
from random collection of anything and testing it for everything.
They come exclusively (exclusively is NOT an exaggeration) from
talking with the local shamans and healers, collecting what they
use and testing it for the use to which they put it.

Guess what? Penicillin is better. Those folks are going
out of business. No one is carrying on the tradition. You can
have everything that every existed for all time in the Amazon but
without the guidance of those shamans it is all worthless to
medicine.

Sorry. Those folks have boom boxes these days.

GP> GP> we’ve learned to grow with our environment.

GP> MG> We created our environment to wall out the danger of
GP> MG> nature. At best nature is a necessary evil.

GP> That may suggest that anything its product is also nothing
GP> more than a necessary evil, even we humans.

Not to us unless you are claiming you are evil.

Life exerts
GP> itself in all its forms with great urgency, and the
GP> competition between life-forms can be literally deadly.

And we win.

GP> But I feel we’re all part of the grand scheme and there is
GP> no ‘evil’ beyond our own spheres of awareness and needs.

The HOLYSMOKE conference is for such feelings.

GP> GP> It’s been more of a teacher than an enemy, I think.

GP> MG> Teacher? What have you learned from the squirrels? Please
GP> MG> be specific.

GP> Heh heh! I’d be nuts to admit too much. I’ll allow that
GP> in a pinch, they’re a pretty tasty roadkill.

In other words, the “feeling” is romantic but irrational.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Who did he screw and when did he screw her?

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12a
* Origin: DOC’S 822-4637, Fido. Internet Access Too! (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 101 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 259/99 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3603/141 20020 20030 20050 20060 3615/50 51

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1328)
To: Lester Garrett 30 Dec 94 22:51:00
Subject: BELL CURVE

LG> MG> Not at all.

LG> MG> These findings are exactly contrary to both the liberal and
LG> MG> the conservative viewpoints. Both sides have held that
LG> MG> people can improve their lot in life. They have simply
LG> MG> proposed different means.

LG> MG> Carrying the book to its logical conclusion
LG> MG> there is nothing we can do for them according
LG> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
LG> MG> to either prescription.

LG> Aren’t you overstating Murray’s position, Matt? While I’ve
LG> only read a brief excerpt from the book, I have seen some
LG> lengthy interviews with Murray. And that’s not quite what
LG> he’s claiming. In a recent interview I believe he claimed
LG> that IQ alone only accounted for something like 65% (rough
LG> approximation, I didn’t write his number down) of the
LG> picture. Furthermore, on several occassions he’s made it
LG> clear that he is speaking collectively here and that
LG> individuals cases can vary. As I said, I think you’re
LG> misrepresenting his views.

If you read fast you can fake it in a book store. Start on
page 509 and scan it (you will find the emerging white underclass
discussion there to belie the racist allegations.)

Or get to the heart of it on page 523 (the coming of the
custodial state.) At least take a quick look at Chapter 22 and
read the best suggestions they could come up with. Their best is
only to legally simplify society so these people have a chance.

If that is what it takes to do for them then I suggest there
is really nothing to do for them.

I don’t find it all that bad what they suggest if it is
limited to their spatial locations. I do not see any particular
reason to enforce the same hygiene laws there as every place else
as the customers are unlikely to be eating any more safely in
their own homes. I see no reason that a bum mainly living on
dumpster diving needs eat occasional real meal at a place with
the hygienic standards applied to the Fontainbleu.

Yet in most places the man who would do nothing more than
open a short order place and cook the food in front of those
eating it has to have a community college course and pass a test
to get a license.

LG> MG> The further society segregates by IQ the further behind
LG> MG> they are going to be left.

LG> Broadly speaking that’s as a group, Matt, as a group. I
LG> once again must note that according to Murray, IQ is not
LG> the only component to the story, though it is a major one.

Not so much major as the most reliable and consistent
measure but that these days the “other measures” are best
predicted by IQ also. One of the points is that as in the past
the lowers social classes, races and sexes were excluded from
higher education and education was a measure in those days.

Today, regardless of class, race or sex, IQ is the best
measure of whether one will get higher education. And as to
success in life the education is less meaningful than IQ. Thus
rich daddy can guarantee an education regardless but person from
a welfare family will get that same education on a scholarship
and then go better in life with it.

LG> And to repeat, individual results can vary. (Damn, I hope
LG> the paperback is out soon {grin}.)

Get on the library waiting list or learn to read fast in the
bookstore. Or save your pennies. At $10 per month since it came
out you would have it by now.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * ClintonThink appears to be incurable.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1329)
To: Nathan Wheeler 30 Dec 94 23:15:00
Subject: OUR PRECIOUS WETLANDS

NW> Apparently, your time in Florida has given you exposure to
NW> witty humor rays that were protruding from Dave Barry.
NW> (Who is certainly my favirite writer.)
NW>
NW> It’s a good thing I found you in this echo since you
NW> disappeared from another that i frequent.

Limbaugh echo? Quite a jerk off playing moderator there
these days.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Secret Serv in Prez Bedroom, Fear Battered Husband Syndrome.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1330)
To: Wayne Jones 30 Dec 94 23:16:00
Subject: RESPONSIBLE GUNNERSяяяяяя

WJ> MG> As a Canadian could not be expected to comprehend, American
WJ> MG> gun owners hold the US Constitution and their state
WJ> MG> constitutions come before transient laws.

WJ> Beginning of confession

WJ> Gad, us poor backwoods Canadians are sorry to offend an
WJ> American, by pretending to comprehend the meanings of the
WJ> words in their constitutions.

WJ> End of confession

Confession is good for the soul. As I have posted a
linguistic analysis by one of the foremost authorities on grammar
on the subject of the 2nd amendment and it agrees with the plain
reading of it, I would suggest you have indeed sinned and were in
need of confession.

WJ> Have a safe and happy holiday season. If you comprehend my limited
WJ> Canadian intent.

Eh?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * The Clintons abandoned Hope in 1953. The US in 1993.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1331)
To: Peter Bradie 30 Dec 94 23:21:00
Subject: THIS ‘N THAT

PB> MG> The typical street knife is no better. You will look long
PB> MG> and hard to find of of 440C or better.

PB> 440C is “Buck” quality. The Marine-issue K-Bar didn’t meet
PB> that standard. BTW, what is a ‘typical street knife’?
PB> I’ve seen all kinds and grades.

The typical street knife varies from an Ecko kitchen knife
to the stuff China is pumping out in their “butterfly”
imitations. That in itself is an improvement as the old time
switchblades were of swiss army knife quality.

Really what is typical? Good question. I was presuming the
street knives are what is available in the stores on the street.
I have this habit of slumming. I have never seen a decent knife
in those areas nor have I ever even seen a store that might carry
a decent knife.

Not that I don’t buy them when they are cheap enough. I
found a $13.00 imitation of a Rambo knife. I use it for a letter
opener. When I get into a knife mood I go to a good gun store.

In fact I am back in the mood as I have just managed to lose
my second Rigid lockback with aluminum bolsters. Perfectly legal
length and doesn’t get a metal detector excited.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Bill Clinton is to Roger Rabbit as Hil Clinton is to ..

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1338)
To: John A. Leopard 1 Jan 95 15:46:00
Subject: EXISTANCE OF JESUSяяяяяяя

JL> MG> Out of curiosity, can you explain why a Jew, writing
JL> MG> in Latin chose to use the Greek form of his name? Is it
JL> MG> not more reasonable that the error was introduced at a
JL> MG> later date?

JL> Why do you say that Jesus “wrote in Latin”.

I was talking about Josephus.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * To the Wall with him. This time for real.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1339)
To: John A. Leopard 1 Jan 95 15:52:00
Subject: EXISTANCE OF JESUSяяяяяяя

JL> MG> Taking off one’s skeptic hat for the moment, it is
JL> MG> reasonable to expect a person with that name did exist and
JL> MG> was a wandering preacher, sort of like a bible college
JL> MG> graduate without a congregation.

JL> Sorta like many people did back then (and still do
JL> today).

The only ones I know of today operate tent revivals.

Thinking of “back then” brings to mind images from The Life
of Brian.

JL> Catholics do not believe that James was Jesus’s
JL> real brother, they believe that Mary remained a virgin and
JL> had no other children – even though the Bible clearly says
JL> otherwise.

To go along with the Christianity thing in the first place
is enough of a suspension of rational judgment that anything
coming after it is in the noise.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Is it Bill the Cat or Bill the Clinton or just BC?

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1340)
To: John A. Leopard 1 Jan 95 15:55:00
Subject: THE COURTS, THE MESSяяяяя

JL> MG> Asian immigrants had sewage treatment plants?

JL> If you are going to call Native Americans “Asian
JL> immigrants” you had better call yourself African-American,
JL> because everyone’s ancestors came from Africa. The Native
JL> Americans have been in North, Central and South America
JL> before the first Egyptian empire – where were YOUR
JL> ancestors then?

I was unprepared for this anthropology lesson to attempt to
salvage some noble red man image. Calling them “native”
Americans makes no more sense than your suggestion.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Crackjacks now has a Clinton promise in every box.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1341)
To: John A. Leopard 1 Jan 95 15:59:00
Subject: THE COURTS, THE MESSяяяяя

JL> MG> JL> CNN has already run stories about some Hispanic
JL> MG> JL> Americans who were not given service in a restaurant
JL> MG> JL> because they did not have a “green card” and there have
JL> MG> JL> been other instances of parents not taking their child to
JL> MG> JL> a hospital because they were afraid of being deported. I
JL> MG> JL> am sure there will be more.

JL> MG> I am aware of no law prohibiting discrimination against
JL> MG> criminals in the commission of a felony. Are you?

JL> There was no felony, the Hispanic Americans involved (in the
JL> restaurant) were legal immigrants.

Although I find it difficult to accept that restaurant
service would have been withheld of lack of a work permit, I
would presume the lack of one does indicate criminal status.

As for the hospital cases I would presume these people are
of normal intelligence and if they fear being deported it is
because they are criminals. If they are putting staying here
ahead of the health of their children then they are certainly not
the kind of people we want in this country. We have enough
people who neglect the health of their children already.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Clinton sells faster than cucumbers at a woman’s prison

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1342)
To: John A. Leopard 1 Jan 95 16:06:00
Subject: THE COURTS, THE MESSяяяяя

JL> MG> JL> JW> Is it your contention that we should repeal laws
JL> MG> JL> JW> against murder, because the children of murderers will be
JL> MG> JL> JW> discriminated against if we do not???

JL> MG> JL> Do you equate being in this country illegally with
JL> MG> JL> murder?

JL> MG> No one would. Rather they are federal felons in the
JL> MG> commission of a crime. That is not in question.

JL> Of course that is in question. That is why the
JL> law has already been enjoined by the Federal Courts pending
JL> a full hearing.

So far as I am aware only one TRO has gone further and the
judge gave as his reason that it some aspect of it appeared to be
in conflict with federal immigration law. CNN did not
elaborate on what that might be. There was no question of there
criminal status as the reason for the injunction.

Try real hard and think this through. Being in this
country, and that means being in any state of this country while
not a citizen and without the permission of the US government is
a crime under federal law. That is not in question.

Therefore their being in this country is being in the act of
committing a federal crime. That means they are in fact
criminals.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * We are being nailed to the cross of fair.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1347)
To: All 2 Jan 95 01:06:00
Subject: SEASONS GREETINGS / LATE

I appear to have forgotten my seasonal manners.

Everyone out there, have a Happy Newt Year.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * God Lord! It’s a cookbook! — FBI manual

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1348)
To: Charlie Gipson 2 Jan 95 01:14:00
Subject: ANTI-SMOKERS ARE LIARS

CG> Anti-smokers are Liars
CG> MG> by
CG> MG> Matt Giwer (c) 1994 <12/28>

CG> MG> I know, I know, one should not be so blunt with the
CG> MG> truth. It is supposed to be impolite or something. So let
CG> MG> me start with a little history.

CG> I would love to see what credentials you have, that make
CG> you a viable author on any topic… much less one where you
CG> are so biased as to ignore medical studies and advice from
CG> highly degreed professionals.

Obviously you are either new to the conference or have a
very short attention span. I have regularly stated both. What
specifically have you missed or forgotten in the last two weeks?

I for one would love to see
CG> smoking banned in the US, but I know that this is
CG> unrealistic..

Ah, an honest person. You admit your goal before the world.
Well spoken.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Hil’s bill survives Hill attack, Bill survives Hil’s attack.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1349)
To: Bill Bauer 2 Jan 95 01:17:00
Subject: HEALTH CARE

BB> > I have been there. I have not changed. It is called
BB> > dignity.

BB> Matt, I have always considered you to be a thinking individual, but this
BB> time, it would appear that you may have proven me wrong. (:-)****

BB> Since when did these socialists and commies ever understand the meaning
BB> of human dignity?

You need to quote more.

I hope you did not lose a tongue in posting this.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * I am beginning to doubt Clinton’s veracity.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1350)
To: David Barker 2 Jan 95 01:19:00
Subject: UFO’S AND THE BIBLEяяяяяя

DB> MG> Condescension? I only agreed with you, that it exists only
DB> MG> in your mind. I merely pointed out it has no value other than
DB> MG> that.

DB> It has value to me, and i guess thats what matters.

That is what I said.

DB> DB> When and if i evolve to your level, maybe we can converse.

DB> MG> Individuals can not evolve.

DB> Wrong, liberals are enlightened, therefore are
DB> superior beings.

Enlightened? I know the sound of one hand clapping and of
all the Koans. I regularly mix new one in my postings.

Where i take you to task, is your
DB> apparent disdane for religion.

I give religion every credit it is due.

I don’t force my
DB> beliefs on you, but you should reconize my right to my
DB> beliefs.

In this country we admit a right to any believe that does
not violate basic civility such as child sacrifice. However we
also permit comment and criticism without retribution or censure.

Many of the laws and rules of society, are
DB> derived from religion.

Rather the fundamentals of any society were adopted by
religion. There is nothing addressed by any religion that ever
needed the intervention of any god.

Was it Karl Marx that said
DB> religion was the opiate of the masses?

These days it is the Valium of the masses.

It sure beats
DB> total anarchy.

It never existed. Beyond that, good fantasy.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Clinton’s Great Grandfather made treaties with Indians.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1352)
To: All 2 Jan 95 17:12:00
Subject: THE SOCSEC SCAM

Social Security, welfare or mismanaged scam?

Not a debate as I do not debate myself or with anyone else
who is always right.

At first it appeared important to find a good average life
time income estimate. It turns out that is unnecessary. In fact
it turns out not much is necessary for this analysis save to
assume a person can get 2% real earnings on their investment
regardless of what the inflation driven interest rate of the
moment is.

Anyone can do the same thing I did. Simply use the future
value of a regular investment formula. If we can agree on 45
working years as a base figure then we can compare the average
monthly earnings over a working life with that during retirement.

On more assumption. The average life after retirement is
ten years which is close enough not to have to quibble. But to
correct for the average life being longer I am going to assume
that at retirement the person simply takes out the savings in 120
equal monthly payments. There are a lot of assumptions, this one
gets us in the ball park.

At the worker’s contribution only of 7% of income into a tax
free retirement account having a 2% real growth the retirement
monthly income is 51% of the average working income.

If you consider the employer’s 7% then the retirement income
is 102% of working income.

OK, you don’t 2% real earnings. How about 0% real earnings
but only enough to keep up with inflation and nothing more? Then
with only your 7% your monthly income will be 31.5% of your
average working income and including your employer’s contribution
you will have 63%.

I think I have considered every justification for saying
that in in some manner someone can get a better deal from the
government than from private savings, even it if be in T-Bills.

Lets suggest the high cost is to cover those who do not earn
much in their lives. The average payment today is about $500 per
month. That, considering only your 7% would mean a $12,000
average annual income. Using the full 14% would correspond to a
$6000 income. Note that a life time at minimum wage is a $7500
income. So this is not the problem.

There is something the government is doing with social
security money that has nothing to do with supporting people in
old age that is the reason there is a future problem with social
security. In a person’s life there is more than enough money
being paid in for an income equal to the average of their working
life.

Is it all of the “extras” that have been added on over the
years that are causing the problem? Then it appears the answer
is simple; stop all the extras or at least treat the other things
as a separate insurance fund. Then people can retire with what
today, based upon an average income of $22,000, would be an
average monthly income (pre tax) of $1,872.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Gore in ’94!

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1353)
To: David North 2 Jan 95 18:49:00
Subject: 70% FAVOUR GUN CONTRO

DN> MG> Out of curiosity, what value would be tracing a gun save to
DN> MG> the person who lost it? The same question applies to cars
DN> MG> for that matter.

DN> Darned if I know either, but that oft-quoted Canadian
DN> Justice Minister seems to think that it would make people
DN> more careful in storing them securely. If I had a
DN> guarantee that something would be returned to me if
DN> stolen by someone and found by authorities, why would
DN> this make me MORE careful in storing it so that it
DN> wouldn’t be stolen ?

Gee. It almost sounds like you found out this lie. What
they mean to do is penalize the person whose gun is stolen. I am
certain they will deny it but then, just what possible other use
could there be for tracing?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Billious and Hillarious Clintonius rule!

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1354)
To: All 2 Jan 95 19:02:00
Subject: THIEFBLIND FOR RENT

For Rent

One of the finest thiefblinds in the country. Perfectly
located near an interstate entrance in the wrong part of town.
The house has not bars, a door with that has obviously been
forced and a Lincoln Towncar in the driveway.

Need real life combat shooting practice?

Need a steady supply of live targets?

This is the place for you.

Respond email.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “OK punks, make my term.” — Clint

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1358)
To: Michael Pilon 2 Jan 95 22:35:00
Subject: ANTI-SMOKERS ARE LIAR

MP> Hey Matt, there is no smoking on Canadian Airlines now, we
MP> are just a bit quicker off the mark with social health
MP> programs..have I ever told you about our enlightened health
MP> care plan ? 😉

None an any American flights within the country either.

But for you folks it is better. You should get a tax
reduction for all the lives you are going to save.

What? No lives saved?

Then why did you bother?

It was done here because of the blue nosed puritans. That
is no secret.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Colonel Bogie March, official theme of the Clinton Administr

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1359)
To: Bob Klahn 2 Jan 95 22:37:00
Subject: COMMUNITY SER. 2/2

BK> MG> people who were “representing” said poor objected. They
BK> MG> claimed it was not “fair” to expect them to work for less
BK> MG> than minimum wage and without a full range of benefits.

BK> Fair or not, it’s not a very good idea. If you can’t
BK> support a family you can’t support family values. Again,
BK> sorry for bringing up conservative principles.

BK> It also lower the wages of people already working, pulling
BK> down the worth of work. It’s hard to uphold the value of
BK> work when people keep trying to pull down the wages of
BK> workers. Whoops, more conservative values.

Guess what I did New Year’s Day? I got a guided tour of the
the Section 8 housing projects in Tampa. I would suggest you do
the same in your area. And before you consider it was prejudiced
my driver and guide was an employee of the state’s social service
agency, HRS. She was showing me where she spent much of her time
while not in her office.

On one hand there is no incentive for them to keep the trash
to a minimum. But on the other hand there appears to be a very
strong incentive to make it a maximum. I don’t mean trash, I
mean TRASH.

So there were literally hundreds of families getting an
imputed $600 a month for the housing alone (ignoring the
neighborhood which could be fine save for the people in it) and
not even one hour per family per day cleaning it up. Why not?

I can also say I saw one complex in the process of
renovation. It was nothing special. Simple garden variety
Florida exterior. There were new palm trees put in. I have no
idea how the palms trees in the undecorated places were killed
off. It isn’t as though they can be barked.

As it is these people are given places with no further
mandate other than not to destroy them at a noticably greater
rate than the average. This is what we are talking about.

We are not talking about those welfare transients who happen
to be down on their luck. These are the long term, something for
nothing types.

And the question has to be, why for nothing? Why not for
something? Why is there an objection to every something?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “Is the Pope Catholic?” “Is the Clinton lying?”

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1364)
To: Bob Klahn 2 Jan 95 23:03:00
Subject: COMMUNITY SERV 3/4

BK> BK>> Are you saying that all of the section 8 residents
BK> BK>> destroy their housing?

BK> MG> I am saying that NO section 8 housing was ever
BK> MG> accepted for that status in the condition it is in. Most
BK> MG> people who buy homes

BK> Do I interpret this to mean it was accepted by the housing
BK> authority in better condition? That would still leave open
BK> the possibility that the housing was destroyed by someone
BK> other than the current occupants.

It means the property is destroyed by those who are getting
it for nothing. It is not a question of if but a matter of how
long it will take.

BK> MG> classic DC case where a house was completely destroyed in
BK> MG> four months and the welfare tenant was complaining that she
BK> MG> should not have to live in a place like that.

BK> Ah yes, the traditional Reagan like anecdote. Bet she
BK> drove a welfare Cadillac also.

Not an anecdote, a fact and fully reported by the local TV,
radio and newspapers and they all agreed on the facts. I
followed it happening as I lived there at the time. No anecdote.
Fact.

BK> BK>> Unless someone else stole the copper. Some 60 year old
BK> BK>> woman might crawl around in the basement and go through

BK> MG> And would that explain the above class case where all the
BK> MG> appliances disappeared? and all the plumbing? and all the
BK> MG> bathroom fixtures? I guess someone just snuck in while she was
BK> MG> minding her twelve kids.

BK> You didn’t say she was 60 years old and had 12 kids.

I did not say it was the same person either. It was in fact
a person in active production complaining about the money she was
being given and about her living conditions.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Liberals think Clinton never lies.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

+++ююююю r_950108 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1183)
To: Michael Pilon 4 Jan 95 14:54:00
Subject: 70% FAVOUR GUN CONTRO

MP> MG> Perhaps you are making the right decision. From what you
MP> MG> say would happen if you folks had guns, I don’t think you
MP> MG> are mature enough to be trusted with them either.

MP> Hmmm 2.8/100000 murder rate vs 10/100000 murder rate, I
MP> fail to see a maturity factor here . But then I may be
MP> missing something.

It is good to see you are agreeing Canadians in general have
the same low IQ as the people in this country who are committing
those murders. That would have been too low an insult for even
me to make.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Inhale to the Chief! He’s allergic to the Flowers.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1184)
To: John Clifton 4 Jan 95 14:57:00
Subject: AMERICAN DREAM CONTRACT

JC> > When the flat income tax is declared a failure along with
JC> > the marxist progressive income tax we currently have then the
JC> > consumption tax must also be flat. There can be no
JC> > differentiation upon what is sold.

JC> Canadians can tell you about value-added taxes. A VAT
JC> of sufficient size to finance government operations

A consumption tax as proposed specifically excludes anything
like a VAT. A national sales tax as point of final sale only is
what is being talked about.

would
JC> have Americans engage in smuggling goods and making
JC> under-the-table payments for services.

The underground economy in the US right now is generally
accepted to be $200 billion.

JC> You may as well face the fact that Americans *want*
JC> their government to redistribute income through the tax
JC> system. They *want* a “social safety net.”

If that is what they wanted they would not have voted they
way they did last year. In two more years they will have a
chance to change their minds again.

What you apparently do not realize is that our system is
either a safety net or a hammock and the difference is solely
dependent upon the recipient. It is the hammock option that is
going to be removed. As you may not know our system was designed
to eliminate poverty in America. It has failed. There is no
reason to continue it.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * NRA life member JFK was shot by ACLU member L. H. Oswald.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1185)
To: Michael Pilon 4 Jan 95 15:20:00
Subject: CONCEALED CARRY IN TX

MP> MG> As I have explained to you and posted to you many times.
MP> MG> We Americans of European descent are marginally more
MP> MG> peaceful than Canadians. We have all of these non-European
MP> MG> descent criminal minorities that are just as violent in
MP> MG> Canada as they are in the US that requires we have such
MP> MG> protection.
MP> MG>
MP> MG> Need I post this information again?

MP> Besides not offering any proof I would suggest that you
MP> should post it. Mind you if one engages in selective stats
MP> i could prove inconclusively that there are more hockey
MP> players in tahait than in all Canada…

CRIMES PER 100,000 POPULATION

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

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

—————-

Note your favorite magazine is referenced.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * There is a voter born every minute. — P.T. Clinton

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1186)
To: Jack Wilder 4 Jan 95 15:26:00
Subject: CONCEALED CARRY IN TX

JW> -=> Quoting Matt Giwer to Bob Klahn <=-

JW> BK> dangerous I would move. Whatever it costs, I would move.

JW> MG> You should disown your family and denounce your friends.

JW> How do you reason with someone that would give up
JW> his wife, children, and job, to move to a safer area!

Obviously, in believing the greatest danger is from family
and friends he is making a wise decision.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Secret Serv in Prez Bedroom, Fear Battered Husband Syndrome.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1187)
To: Michael Pilon 4 Jan 95 16:07:00
Subject: DEBATE

MP> I watch CNN and CNN HEadline news and CBC news as I find
MP> their coverage wider in scope, I also watch BBC world
MP> service on the Cdn News CHannel and French/ Swiss and
MP> Belgian news on TC-Cinq. I also listen to shortwave a lot.
MP> I am listening to Radio Netherlands at this time ( in
MP> English ) 😉

Shows you even the Dutch would not sink lower than a
Canadian and broadcast in French.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Clinton’s back has a “Kick Me” sign.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1188)
To: Michael Pilon 4 Jan 95 16:08:00
Subject: DEC.6, 1989

MP> MG> I can not find any case where the more guns the less
MP> MG> violent the society.

MP> Just listening to the police on the scanner, they have a
MP> special out on some of your armed ( shurely polite)
MP> countrymen from NY state up here for a bit of R n R….
MP> Matt I think you could find it possible to ‘prove’ that the
MP> sun rotates aound the earth. And this statement is actually
MP> less absurd than the one you made !

What I enjoy is people who make claims to the contrary
without the slightest basis for making the claim and certainly
without any support for their statements. One has to wonder if
everything they believe is similarly groundless.

Be that as it may, even more enjoyable are the objections to
the evidence I do provide which appears to be on no other grounds
than it conflicts with their groundless ideas.

Perhaps it is my scientific background that causes me to
deal from facts and have evidence as the criteria for ideas.

Myself, I don’t see any other approach to life as rational.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “Atlas Shrugged” is a modern political satire.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1189)
To: Jack Wilder 4 Jan 95 16:15:00
Subject: END TIMES GAZETTEER

JW> -=> Quoting Matt Giwer to Niki Zanzo <=-

JW> MG> We find both of them ate of the Tree of Knowledge and
JW> MG> neither of them died. We find the Yahweh God deliberately

JW> Then they are still alive?? I thought Methusalah
JW> was a stretch!(;->*

This god told them they would die the same day. Adam got
something like 800 years from eating it. I would presume Eve
lived enough longer to collect her kors of wheat and a sheep a
month from the state.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * DKimmel the Leftist DDuke

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1190)
To: Bob Klahn 4 Jan 95 16:20:00
Subject: GEPHARDT’S BULL

BK> BK>> MG> Do you believe Gephardt’s first person account?

BK> BK>> Even more than I believed Reagan’s stories.

BK> MG> You are very gullible.

BK> Not too gullible, I recognized Reagan for a senile old man
BK> in his first term.

Amazing. You were able to diagnose over television what it
took his personal physicians 14 more years to notice is just
starting.

It is good for the liberal rumor mongers to have medical
confirmation their claims regarding his mental condition have
been adjudged false by doctors.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * When out of ideas, say Limbaugh and declare victory.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1191)
To: Michael Pilon 4 Jan 95 16:23:00
Subject: HEALTH CARE

MP> MG> When a country provides cannon fodder to the UN they have
MP> MG> to get something in return. Besides, where would you
MP> MG> expect judges from socialist nation to want to live?

MP> No Matt this was determined on preset criteria, GNP, Health
MP> care, crime rate, purchasing power etc… then the figures
MP> were fit into the equation. And not all nations in the UN
MP> are socialist, but I’m sure a man with you interest and
MP> understanding of things beyon Florida knew that !

I have this very nice bridge that I have recently come into
possession of…

Lets see, it is a different nation every year. No nation
tops the list twice in a row or perhaps even twice. Strange how
things change in nations so quickly and how they so rarely ever
get back to their one time status.

There is a similar gimmick in the US as to the best city to
live in. My home town made it last year. Trust me, it is
political.

Seattle made it a couple years back. That is the city used
to compare to Vancouver to demonstrate the racial basis for the
differing crime rates.

MP> MP> Yep owned a ROlls once but my wife took sick..great car,
MP> MP> my terms can you spare a dime lad ?

MP> MG> I owned a Royce once also. But I never expected the
MP> MG> government should preserve my Royce ownership because I was
MP> MG> unwilling to pay for my wife’s illness.

MP> A noble man, deluded but nobel. Did you ever read Gunga Din
MP> ? Are you Gunga Din ?

Perhaps not better simply less avaricious.

MP> MP> Noble and meaningless if you are the one suffering in this
MP> MP> noble form of subsistance .

MP> MG> I have been there. I have not changed. It is called
MP> MG> dignity.

MP> Yes alot of dignity in scraping by on subsistence
MP> means. Are you sure you’re not Gunga Din ?

Dignity can not be taken or lost, only deserted.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Bill Clinton, poster child for drug addiction treatment

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1192)
To: Bob Klahn 4 Jan 95 16:43:00
Subject: SHALALA THE RIGHTEOUS 1/3

BK> MG> Today Donna Shalala has announced the suggestion of
BK> MG>
BK> MG> Let me put Shalala in perspective. You may remember
BK> MG> her as the only person who can look up to Robert Reich.
BK> MG> She looks like the psychic in the Poltergeist movies. When
BK> MG> she was nominated to

BK> If Donna Shalala looked like the hunchback of Notre Dame
BK> that would not make her statements less true.

The statements, as I noted later, were admitted to be
incomplete in the benefits. That means they were NOT true as
there was no statement that the dollar figure was referring to
one source only.

Your attacks
BK> on her for her physical appearance are contemptable,

Want to hear some Chelsea jokes? But do not forget, she is
a stooge for Hillary.

and
BK> are evidence that your agenda is not much concerned with
BK> finding the truth or the care of children.

I feel people who take a job to be a stooge get all the
respect they deserve by pointing it out.

BK> MG> Now this person has announced the cost per year of a
BK> MG> child in an orphanage as $36,500 a year. Is this person
BK> MG> being honest?

BK> Yes, if the rest of your post is true, if you are posting
BK> false information then that figure may not be true.

And how is using a high end number being honest?

BK> MG> Let us start with the cost of child to the parent. First
BK> …
BK> MG> there is something other than the cost of a child to the parents

BK> Of course there is

Like what? Please be specific.

BK> MG> This same day CNN did an interview with a director of
BK> MG> Boys Town. He said their highest, not average but highest
BK> MG> cost was $109 a day. That is within pocket change of
BK> MG> $40,000 a year. It

BK> $39,785/Yr.

The point?

BK> And more than the $36,500 that Shalala quoted.

But, it was for the highest cost, worst case boy. Not an
average.

BK> MG> Obviously there is some serious difference in costs
BK> MG> between what this undescribed Shalala orphanage and the
BK> MG> costs incurred by parents. If I might take Boys Town as a
BK> MG> partial example as their

BK> Of course there is, which is one of the points Shalala
BK> offered in support of keeping children with their parents,
BK> when possible.

As it is being SUGGESTED as an alternative to the foster
care system what is the difference?

BK> MG> The list goes on and on.

BK> MG> No where is it written that an orphanage must be self
BK> MG> contained. Then they are in the cities they use public
BK> MG> schools, parks and other facilities. There is public
BK> MG> transportation available.

BK> You are also likely to find Boys Town to be less
BK> expensive than many other orphanages. Not only because is
BK> Boys Town in Nebraska, which likely has a lower cost of
BK> living than, say New York, but it enjoys economies of
BK> scale over a smaller operation.

As the suggestion is to leave it up to the states to do as
they see fit with block grants it will be up to the states to
decide if they want or can afford or whatever orphanages or not.

There is no proposed mandate for them nor for federal
construction and operation of them.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “Atlas Shrugged” is a modern political satire.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1193)
To: Bob Klahn 4 Jan 95 17:07:00
Subject: SHALALA THE RIGHTEOUS 2/3

BK> MG> Obviously Shalala’s cost per child in an orphanage was
BK> MG> deliberately constructed to include the highest possible
BK> MG> costs in order to create a typically deceitful political
BK> MG> position.

BK> Boys town was the example chosen by Newt Gingrich,
BK> therefore it is reasonable to use Boys Town as the
BK> comparison point.

She did NOT claim to use Boys Town. I introduced the use of
Boys Town and pointed out what they said the highest cost was.
It is unfortunate the average cost was not given.

BK> MG> context AFDC has 14 million recipients thus there are 14
BK> MG> billion dollars available to explore alternatives. Even to
BK> MG> the

BK> As most welfare recipients are off welfare within a few
BK> years, only those who are long term recipients are subject
BK> to this program. That drastically reduces that 14 million,

Try guessing again. As the number on the program at any one
time is at least constant (actually it has been growing) the
transient nature of the people on it is not relevant to the
number of dollars available in any one year.

BK> unless you intend to immediately take away all children
BK> from all families that go on welfare.

Nor has anyone suggested any would be taken away that are
not taken away now when the children are at risk.

BK> MG> Gingrich has clearly stated with the dumpster example that
BK> MG> this is in response to situations where the life of the
BK> MG> child is clearly in danger. This puts the orphanage
BK> MG> suggestion as an alternative to the present foster care
BK> MG> system.

BK> This is the big lie of the Gingrich camp. I have been
BK> following this suggestion since it’s inception. Orphanages
BK> were first offered as an alternative for any woman who
BK> could not support her children, regardless of whether or
BK> not the children were abused. This also gives the lie to
BK> all of your preceding arguement.

Yes, in the same discussion there a related discussion as to
the parent getting the money and maybe or maybe not spending it
on the child and the suggestion that those who are not should be
cut off. This was also addressing the general problem of parents
who use the children as a source of income for themselves.

You are aware this is quite common are you not? If you are
not, consider the payments are uniform. Ask any social worker
whether or not the conditions for the children vary. Were it
only money conditions would be the same.

If this is only for the
BK> “Dumpster” babies, the abused or seriously neglected
BK> children, then your numbers of children it applies to is
BK> seriously reduced. At the same time the costs go up as
BK> these abused children are the very ones who need the most,
BK> and the most expensive care. Going right back to Boys
BK> Town’s figures of $109/day.

Why does the cost go up for ALL of them? You have to accept
that phsryncks are needed — useful even.

BK> MG> No one who administers the welfare system considers
BK> MG> the foster care part of it to be in the successful
BK> MG> category. The first problem is the lack of volunteer
BK> MG> foster parents. Those that are acceptable have a lifestyle
BK> MG> that they want to give the child that is far from covered
BK> MG> by the payments. Thus they must be making charitable
BK> MG> contributions also.

BK> They certainly are. And they will probably be the first to
BK> call Gingrich’s proposals cold hearted and cruel.

What your suggestion of what “probably” might be is open to
question. Boys Town, as that is the example, is not considered
heartless or cruel.

BK> MG> marginal volunteers. This year in Tampa a foster child was
BK> MG> found near death in one of those homes. Malnutrition,
BK> MG> dehydration and

BK> MG> not enough staff to monitor the system.

BK> Which costs more money, not less. And there have been
BK> similar cases in the group child care system, which is
BK> what your orphanages are. There are already laws to cover
BK> child abuse.

And thus the entire cost of the system would be a measure of
the cost of the present system. I think we agree on that. The
actual cost of the present system if four times the cash
disbursements to those on welfare. This also reflects upon
Shalala’s numbers. You need to remember she is defending “her”
budget and “her” staff. Rather, if block grants are used, almost
all of her non-social security staff starts drawing unemployment.

If the new congress wants to pour more money
BK> into the child care system they will have my support in
BK> this. Just don’t try to claim they are doing something
BK> about welfare.

You need to pay better attention. Remember, blocks grants
to states without mandates on how the money is to be spent. It
is not a call for a new federal program in any form.

=====

If you are going to understand what Newt is saying you are
going to have to listen to the CNN live coverage of what he says.
He is not a sound bite type and what he says does not condense to
a few simply words for the evening news.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * DKimmel the Leftist DDuke

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1194)
To: Bill Bauer 4 Jan 95 17:49:00
Subject: SMOKING = COOL ?? Nяяяяя

BB> It seems that the U.S. Department of Commerce has mandated
BB> that all states must deregulate intra-state commerce by
BB> Jan. 1, 1995. This is, of course, a clear violation of
BB> states rights granted to them by the Constitution of the
BB> United States of America. In that document, the states are
BB> clearly given the right to regulate traffic within their
BB> borders.

The original SC case (apparently didn’t keep the file) was
striking down a monopoly NY state gave to Foulton for the
operation of steamboats within the state. I gave him all the
business coming into the state and lower prices on what was
leaving the state. Also it left open other states to grant
similar monopolies requiring changing cargo at the border.

I can’t really argue with that decision or federal power as
a legitimate regulation of interstate commerce by dealing with an
intrastate matter.

Is this in fact a blanket “all regulation” or is it in
specific areas?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * The Clintons abandoned Hope in 1953. The US in 1993.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1196)
To: Grant Karpik 4 Jan 95 18:35:00
Subject: US ARMY CAPT. IN HAITI FA

GK> MG> You forgot to notice the source was the marxist
GK> MG> propaganda organ, the NY News collective.

GK> MG> If you believe a word of it you will be laughed at.

GK> Are you claiming that there is no Capt. Rockwood or, if there
GK> is, that no such charges were laid against him?

The problem is that I have seen crap from this organization
before. I have seen their recounting of things I am very
familiar with. They are not interested in reporting the news and
there is never a statement that it is editorial comment upon the
news.

It is like me pretending what I write is straight news.

The only change I have noticed in recent months is that they
appear to reduced the frequency of their referring to the US as
“imperialist.”

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Hil’s bill survives Hill attack, Bill survives Hil’s attack.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

+++ююююю r_950112 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1260)
To: Bob Klahn 5 Jan 95 22:29:00
Subject: COMMUNITY SERV. 4/4

BK> BK>> sure. I do know that my original statement did not say
BK> BK>> that the government should guarantee every worker a job,
BK> BK>> it said the government should not make it a policy to put
BK> BK>> people out of work. Not the same thing at all. If the

BK> MG> Rather the government should have no economic policy
BK> MG> whatsoever. Our government was not delegated any power to
BK> MG> meddle with the economy nor with employment.

BK> The power to regulate interstate trade is in the
BK> consitution. If you will check you will find many of the
BK> laws, such as minimum wage, actually apply only to
BK> companies engaged in interstate trade. State wage laws
BK> apply intrastate.

Rather one of the assertions of those who give a damn about
the extension of powers beyond the constitution is that it meant
only the establishment of uniformity in what crosses state lines.
There is no rational argument holding the federal government was
granted the power to make uniform what happens with all the
states.

Federal minimum wage laws could only reasonably apply to the
workers actually crossing state lines in the course of business
if in some manner that affected the uniformity of trade.

Rather the first constitutional test of this power was the
monopoly NY State gave to Fulton to operate steam boats within
the state. The federal power to challenge and overturn that
monopoly was upheld in that such state monopolies would impose a
burden upon users in all states requiring on and off loading at
state boundaries.

In today’s words, the power was to make the fed gov sort of
the equivalent of the World Trade Organization as an arbiter of
economic competition between the states NOT to prevent such
competition only to look at the fairness of the competition in
light of the states being nations.

I would have to do a bit of research but there were a number
of examples of this under the Articles of Confederation,
preferential tariffs and the like, very much like NAFTA is
intended to achieve eventually. It is clear in context what was
intended by the provision.

BK> And polution doesn’t follow state boundries.

Rather the origin of federal regulation was states asking
for coordination. They did not ask for the EPA.

Nor does food
BK> poisoning, unsafe drugs, etc.

Again, these were examples of state requests for same. At
the time it was believed cheaper for the federal government to
perform those functions than for each of the states to do so and
effectively have 48 (at the time) FDAs one in each state AND
border inspection. Border inspection is not unconstitutional as
California had it for years and may still have it. It was not
dropped for constitutional reasons if it has been dropped.

Just to keep California in mind, it restrains interstate
commerce in requiring special emission controls on cars and that
is not challenged.

The specific issue is based upon the civil rights case where
a diner in the middle of a state was held to affect interstate
commerce even though it engaged in none and even by the broadest
implication engaged in it only to the detriment of the state in
which it operated. It was never held the federal government, in
that broadest interpretation, was to save states from themselves.

From this rather strange interpretation it has been held
that the federal government can impose anything under the “good
cause” premise. Clearly the intention of the power of regulation
was never intended to include the power of prohibition until
there was enough anti-drug hysteria created to get people to
accept it.

The evidence of this is quite clear. The fed gov could have
simply regulated alcohol out of existence rather than a need for
an amendment to do it. But at the time that was not an option
even though the power of taxation of alcohol was established as
far back as the Whiskey Rebellion.

BK> If we didn’t have a central bank the private sector would
BK> need to create one. That bank would engage in interstate
BK> commerce.

Excuse me, could you name the central federal bank? I have
missed it. No, the Fed Reserve is not a bank. It is a means of
controlling the production of currency by the Treasury.

In any event, it is presumptive to think that regulation of
the activities conducted across state lines implies any power to
regulate the business that exists within the state. For example
the fed gov does regulate phone calls that cross state lines but
does not regulate the business of that same phone company within
the state.

I have the pleasure of dealing with GTE of Florida. I use
an LD carrier for LD calls within FL that routes calls through
Georgia so that it can charge less than GTE charges for the same
call. That means it is cheaper for me to to call from Tampa to
Miami through GA cheaper than directly. It is cheaper for me to
call NYC than to call 20 miles up the road.

And if you truly wish to talk about a state having an
advantage the unions have failed for decades to make the case
that the fed can nullify the laws in right to work states.

BK> In the meantime, the countries killing us in international
BK> balance of trade all have active government rules
BK> regarding the economy.

That is what NAFTA and GATT are all about; ending such
things as soon as possible.

It’s not just a matter of theories
BK> of politics, but international competition. Whether or not
BK> you like it, if we don’t have a national economic policy,
BK> and the other country does, the other country is likely to
BK> out compete us.

Take a very good look around the world. After doing so,
name the country that has succeeded. Name the country that even
comes close. And the answers are Japan and Germany. The former
is run by their corporations and the latter is nearly laisse
faire and neither have a capital gains tax and the former does
not even have social security.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Bill and Al’s Bogus Adventure begins!

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12a
* Origin: DOC’S 822-4637, Fido. Internet Access Too! (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 101 201 224 246 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 259/99 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3603/141 20020 20030 20050 3615/50 51

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1261)
To: Chris Baugh 5 Jan 95 23:53:00
Subject: SMOKING = COOL ?? NOT

CB> CB> You seem to be implying here than traits unique to the
CB> CB> feminine gender make them inferior to males.

CB> MG> Why not? Feminists do.

CB> I didn’t know you’re a feminist, or that you consider them
CB> as a reliable reference for good ideas.

I consider them fools and as such I see no reason to avoid
using their assumptions against them. However, I reserve the
right to make equivalent presumptions.

I am more than happy to hold them exactly equal. Certainly
I would have no problem were they limited to charging three hours
of sick leave for birthing. After all, more than that is not
really necessary if they are equal.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * If you think health care is expensive now, wait til its free

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1262)
To: All 6 Jan 95 01:16:00
Subject: DEAD CREATIONIST

Dead Creationist incident
by
Matt Giwer (C) 1995

A: You sold me a creationist.

B: Certainly. If was a baptist breed if I remember.

A: Well, he is dead.

B: Impossible.

A: Look at him. He isn’t moving.

B: He’s resting after a terrible conflict with evolutionists.

A: Bout!!?? He hasn’t said a rational word since I took him
home.

B: I did not guarantee he would be rational.

A: You implied he was alive!

B: I did n not! Besides, he is alive. Watch. (Whispers
Darwin in the ear) See? He moved.

A: Did not! You nudged the keyboard.

B: Did not!

A: Look. You’ve nailed its fingers to the keyboard.

B: Did not. It’s hanging on for dear life.

A: Watch this! (Takes creationist by the scrotum, bangs it
against the wall three times and sets it back down) See? It
didn’t move.

B: It’s hibernating.

A: I’ve had enough of this. This creationist is definitely
deceased.

B: How can you tell?

A: It has said nothing intelligent.

B: Ah hahhhhhh!

A: That’s not what I mean.

B: Perhaps it’s resting.

A: I just banged it against the wall. What me to bang it
against your head?

B: That might wake it.

A: It can’t wake up. It’s deceased, dead, dirt nap, no sign of
life.

B: You’ve stunned it.

A: Did not.

B: All right. I’ll replace it. I have this lovely
millenialist here.

A: Does it say anything intelligent?

B: Not really.

A: Same as dead.

B: So what did I promise you.

A: Bloody awful.

B: Bloody right.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Satan did not fall. He was pushed.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1263)
To: Wayne Jones 6 Jan 95 04:37:00
Subject: 70% FAVOUR GUN CONTRяяяяя

WJ> MG> We have been over this before. We understand your
WJ> MG> government does not trust you with a gun. We know you
WJ> MG> Canadians go on crime sprees the instant you get your hands
WJ> MG> on a gun.

WJ> Matt, it is not that our government doesn’t trust
WJ> us with guns, but you know that. It’s that we
WJ> “Canadians” in general, do not want guns in society
WJ> the same way they are in the US. Our heritage, has
WJ> not included the gun in the same manner, nor do we
WJ> view guns the way you do.

If you are going to maintain the fiction that crime is
IQ/race neutral then I am going to maintain the fiction that
Canadians would have the same crime rate as the US if they had
equal access to guns.

It is your choice.

WJ> MG> Perhaps you are making the right decision. From what you
WJ> MG> say would happen if you folks had guns, I don’t think you
WJ> MG> are mature enough to be trusted with them either.

WJ> Maturity, isn’t a requirement to own a gun in the
WJ> US. If it were we probably wouldn’t be having this
WJ> conversation.

Maturity over 14 is not required to own any kind of gun for
any human being (Canadians excepted) unless you admit your racial
mix does not favor the criminal types.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * A contribution from each according to his ability. Clinton

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1264)
To: Wayne Jones 6 Jan 95 04:41:00
Subject: CONCEALED CARRY IN Tяяяяя

WJ> You might as well post it again, it can help us to
WJ> understand the bigotry that has helped you arrive
WJ> at this conclusion. I like the new spin you are
WJ> taking, ” Americans of European descent” are more
WJ> peaceful than Canadians! Kind of explains the
WJ> American attitude toward war, I suppose your
WJ> military is controlled by CRIMINAL MINORITIES.

I regret you are unable to face reality without drug
reinforcement.

CRIMES PER 100,000 POPULATION

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

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

Do you have a better explanation?

And before you jump into it, remember Blacks are only 12% of
the US population and these are absolute numbers. If you are
innumerate please refrain from responding.

WJ> It’s encouraging to note, you have differing
WJ> standards for differing Americans, you see us silly
WJ> Canadians don’t break it down so finely. We have
WJ> Canadians, and we have non-Canadians being a
WJ> Canadian can mean you came from anywhere in the
WJ> world and was born or naturalized here, including
WJ> the USA. It’s no wonder you have a serious problem
WJ> down there, you give too much importance to
WJ> descent.

I note Canada is restricting immigration because of the
increasing crime problem.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Clinton sells faster than cucumbers at a woman’s prison

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1265)
To: Niki Zanzo 6 Jan 95 04:48:00
Subject: END TIMES

NZ> NZ> Now, it’s the “rapture” (…the “taking away” of the church
NZ> NZ> by Jesus Christ) that is just around the corner!

NZ> MG> Sounds great! Do all the fundies go too?

NZ> Hi Matt!

NZ> I’m sorry, Matt…

NZ> …but I don’t know the correct meaning of “fundies”…

NZ> If you mean the ministries that ask people to donate to them for the
NZ> purpose of spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ, then your answer is
NZ> “yes”…

Sorry. Only 144,000 go. The creme de la creme of the
contributors, so to speak.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * The Constitution is not a technicality.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1266)
To: Niki Zanzo 6 Jan 95 04:51:00
Subject: UFO’S AND THE BIBLE 1/2

NZ> NZ> There were NO kingdoms…
NZ> NZ>
NZ> NZ> …but Satan set up an “illusion” for Him.

NZ> MG> “Our Father … lead us not into temptation …” J.H. Christ

NZ> MG> You are blaming Satan for the actions of your god
NZ> MG> according to JHC.

NZ> No Matt, I’m blaming Satan for TRYING TO INFLUENCE the
NZ> “actions” of Jesus:

Excuse me. Other than the “you can’t blame a man for
trying” we have the words of the son that the father leads us
into temptation, period. Either he does or his son is a liar.

Given the father is a liar from Eden that is not surprising.

The rest of your posted Revelation crap is not relevant.

NZ> MG> Obviously Satan was your god’s illusion as your god is great
NZ> MG> deceiver of Eden for it lied about the fruit while the Serpent
NZ> MG> told the truth.

NZ> No Matt, Satan is not God’s illusion…

NZ> …what he was trying to deceive Jesus with was an illusion.

NZ> The great deceiver in Eden was not God, but Satan:

NZ> “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his
NZ> subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is
NZ> in Christ.”
NZ> 2 Corinthians 11:3

NZ> “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the
NZ> transgression.”
NZ> 1 Timothy 2:14

Read GENESIS not these lying assholes. What the fuck would
these 4000 year later jerkoffs know from a hole in the ground?

NZ> MG> Agreed, your god is the tempter and the deceiver.

NZ> No Matt, I’ve never said that God was the “tempter and the
NZ> deceiver” – YOU did; but, as we’ve already seen, “Satan” is
NZ> the deceiver.

I have the word of Jesus H. Christ on the subject. Are you
calling him a liar? Obviously you are. Give it up are name him
as a liar.

NZ> Matt, let’s look at the entire scripture of “why” God is
NZ> sending “strong delusion” to the non-believer:

Mister Jesus H. Christ is a liar? Sorry about that. I have
cited him explicitly.

Read your Bible for the first time.

“OUR Father … lead us not into temptation …”

Address these words specifically if you think you have
anything rational to contribute to the discussion.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * He knew the job was dangerous when he married her.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1430)
To: All 8 Jan 95 00:59:00
Subject: DEAD MESSIAH

The Dead Messiah

A: You sold me a dead Messiah.

B: They are all dead for some time or other I suppose.

A: It has been more than three days.

B: Maybe this one is a late resurrecter.

A: It has been two bloody months!

B: “No man knoweth the hour … ”

A: Don’t give me that Sunday School garbage, this Messiah
is dead and he is not coming back.

B: “Ye of little faith …”

A: Stop that! Look. It’s not in a grave. It not moving.
No angels hovering. It is dead, dead, dead.

B: It not. I’ll show you. (whispers, “they’re out of
wine”) See? It moved.

A: Did not. You nudged its cross.

B: Did not.

A: It’s dead! You can see right here where you’ve nailed
it to its cross.

B: Messiahs are SUPPOSED to be nailed to their crosses.

A: I’ll prove its dead. (grabs up the cross and bangs it
face down on the counter six times.) Dead! Dead! Dead! Dead!
Dead! Dead!

B: After all it has been through before getting on the
cross that’s a dawdle.

A: It’s dead I tell you.

B: I give up. I want a satisfied customer. I’ll trade
you for this very lovely Galilean.

A: I’ve never heard of that breed. Are you sure it’s a
real messiah?

B: I should know. I’ve sold enough of them.

A: I’ll take it.

Three fortenights later.

B: Satisfied with the Galilean?

A: Not on your bloody life.

B: (exasperated tone) What’s the problem this time?

A: I only had it for forty days and it flew straight up
into the sky and I haven’t seen it since.

B: That’s what Galilean Messiahs do.

A: You didn’t warn me.

B: Tell you what. If it’s not back in a thousand years
I’ll give you a new one.

A: A thousand years!?!?! I won’t live that wrong.

B: That’s the risk you take owning a messiah.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Four different tax cuts add up to real money.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1431)
To: All 8 Jan 95 01:33:00
Subject: BELL CURVE CONTROVERSY

Critiquing The Bell Curve
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <1/7>

This is not a critique of the book rather a commentary upon
those who critique the The Bell Curve by Herrnstein and Murray.
There are two camps, those who to some degree or other consider
the findings of interest and supportive of the positions
expressed in the book. The other group flat out condemns the
book as racist at the very least.
What separates these two books is that the former have read
the book and the latter have not.
We have seen this before. They are the censors and the book
burners. Although the “did not read” group has refrained from
clear calls for censorship if not burning but they share a belief
in common with the book burners. They devoutly believe they can
know what the book says without reading the book.
And how do they know? For example they have “heard”
something of the background of Murray (they never seem to know
anything about Herrnstein though). Why he takes money from an
organization that had some very unmodern ideas some sixty year
ago. Some centuries ago the Roman Catholic Church refused to
look through Galileo’s telescope as he was a known Copernican.
Consider the condemnation is the R word, racist. That of
course is addressed only in chapters 13 and 14. Further the
detractors can not be passed the simple claim it is racist as
they have no idea what the chapters say.
The order of these two chapters is significant. First comes
a general discussion of the racial difference in IQ followed by a
demonstration the cultural differences follow the IQ differences.
Were chapter 14 left to stand on its own it would clearly have
exposited the known cultural and social differences and left them
unexplained.
As it is exposited the book first addresses the difference
that exists and then demonstrates it explains the otherwise
unexplainable social differences between the races. What it
does demonstrate is that equal IQ of all races have essentially
the same social characteristics and thus that IQ is a better
predictor than race.
Those who are blessed with infused knowledge of the
contents of the book never learn is that it removes the race
component from the discussion. It invalidates race from all
social debate. But then, that is what distinguishes the sides in
the discussion, those who condemn the book have not read the
book.
The first barrage against the book appears to have been in
the October 31, 1994 issue of The New Republic. None of the
contributed articles, sixteen of them, gave the slightest
indication the authors had read the book either but they
uniformly repeated the “racist” allegation.
When there is some justification other then identifying the
authors as known Copernicans as evil the reasons are fallacious
in themselves or again demonstrate a failure to have read the
book. For example, one author admits that social attempts to
raise IQ by education have not succeeded but then calls the
efforts on again off again. And in doing so they ignore accepted
studies of those programs showing no benefit.
In the January 85 issue of Scientific American it
contributes its less than sterling reputation in recent years to
this frenzy of ignorance. Associate Editor, Timothy Beardsley
provides a serious of quotations about the book from people who
also give no indication of having read the book or at most
chapter 13. But those who have heard of this article, not having
read it either, proudly proclaim an article by a writer who has
advanced to editor is evidence against the book.
What all share in common is a knowledge that the question
has been answered long ago, that everything has to be environment
and nothing can be heredity save for race. They know IQ can not
be heritable. But do they really? No!
What they do know is that it is a truth that can not be
spoken. They know that no study demonstrating it can be admitted
to be true. They know the only way to stop what they know is
true from being stated publically is to attack it.
Is this too harsh? Consider the attitude of those who
condemned Galileo’s telescope and The Tropic of Cancer. Show me
where it is different. They will not look. They will not read.
The WILL condemn.
They will call names. They will call heretic, pornographer,
racist. Any and all be by true but where is the difference
today? I see none. Is anyone willing to tell me why the brain
dead fundamentalists who are attacking The Bell Curve are
different from any other brain dead fundamentalist?

* * * * *

Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

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

[note new address and phone]

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * 6 dead, 22 wounded, a law against guns. Some excuse.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1432)
To: All 8 Jan 95 03:42:00
Subject: INCREASE YOUR POWER

The Power of Fifty
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <1/8>

There appear to be many who still fear the diminishment of
the power of the federal government. I do not understand this
fear. I have to ask after the uncertainty of those who do not
fear the excess power of the federal government.
Now it is obvious that, all else being equal including
party affiliations and seniority, that the average citizen of
Idaho has the same influence as the average citizen of the state
of California. That is why the US constitution is written the
way it is at the federal level.
Of course, seniority, chairmanships, party affiliation and
the like took that equality away as one of the first amendments
to the Constitution. I am not here to cry over milk spilt long
ago.
Rather I would point out that the 10th amendment has been
effectively nullified in recent (40) years. Now I will stipulate
for purposes of this discussion that I presume a party system and
some sort of ordered system is required in Congress be it
seniority or not. If you will accept that stipulation then I
will ask you to accept another, that I can speak in terms of
averages with little more.
And I only want to point out that if you call the President
you are only one of all the citizens. If you call your governor
you are, on average, fifty times more influential. If you are
the average person in the average state then, as there are fifty
states, your power is that much greater. Power? Influence, what
the people think, what the people want. That is what
representatives listen tO if they wish to be re-elected.
Try calling, writing, faxing, interneting, whatever your
representative in the federal government. No matter what the
results, on average you are fifty times more effective dealing
with your state equivalent.
Obvious, right? So then if the federal government decides
to honor the 10th amendment to the US constitution and stop
dictating to the states is not the power of every state citizen
enhanced by an average factor of fifty? Would this not be the
end to local complaints of a Jesse Helms or a Tipper Gore
dictating moral policy for the country? Would this not be the
end of complaints of a Kennedy or a Goldwater dictating economic
policy for the country?
Where am I wrong here? Diminishing federal power gives back
to the states the power to live under the rules they wish. On
average it makes every state citizen fifty times more powerful,
more vocal, more influential than we are under the current
system?
Does this not allow us all to better live under the system
in our states that we wish to live under? If you want a liberal
state who am I to object as you have increased influence in your
state as i do in mine. I have an equivalently increased
influence but under the 10th I have no way to impose my ideas
upon you or your state.
It is intuitively obvious that abjuring the power to dictate
to other states a power that only comes from the party and
seniority to impose ideas upon all the states is a good idea. I
can find no justification that Tom Folley, Speaker of the House
because of his near life time election to Congress should have
the power to push through legislation that effects Florida much
less the rest of the country. Thanks but no thanks.
I have no interest in insulting the voters in Seattle but
please, i have no interest in my local US representative imposing
his ideas upon you either. But then, if retribution is the game,
I am certain it can be accomplished.
But retribution is not the name of the game. We end this
nonsense and honor the 10th amendment. I see no problem with
this.
And in honoring it every one of us, on average, becomes
fifty times more influential in regard to the way we want to
live. And if you do not like the results, use your new influence
to gain an equivalent multiple by changing the way your state
operates. This is a society that can get what it wants by the
vote is it not?

* * * * *

Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

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

[note new address and phone]

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Guns cause crime and matches cause arson.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1433)
To: Linda Terrell 8 Jan 95 04:01:00
Subject: A LETTER FROM GOD

LT> MG> Is there a finer word to describe the Lord communicating to
LT> MG> us his love and caring for all mankind? That he would inspire
LT> MG> David to use this word surpasses all human understanding. We are
LT> MG> humbled before the word of the Lord.

LT> Saying God owed me postage, was A jOKE! Wake up, Giwer, you know
LT> better.

I made the mistake of assuming you did.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Clinton’s Great Grandpappy, Col. Jubilation T. Cornpone

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1434)
To: All 8 Jan 95 04:04:00
Subject: CINCINNATI BBS NEEDED

My brother finally got a computer. He is in Cincinnati, OH.
Does anyone out there have the balls to invite a complete novice
to logon?

Please provide the phone number here.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “Stand and Deliver!” — Tom Foley

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1435)
To: Niki Zanzo 8 Jan 95 04:11:00
Subject: OUR PRECIOUS WETLANDS

NZ> MG> Our Precious Wetlands
NZ> MG> by
NZ> MG> Matt Giwer (c) 1994 <12/26>

NZ> Hi Matt!

NZ> Matt, I wonder how your view of all this would be…

NZ> …had you taken off your “sun-glasses”…

100 miles of road kill.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Taxes are never raised to benefit the taxed.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1436)
To: Michael Pilon 8 Jan 95 04:12:00
Subject: RESPONSIBLE GUNNERS ?

MP> MG> Leave it or take it away. Any US government wanting to
MP> MG> take guns is going to have to give hazardous duty pay to
MP> MG> those they order to do the taking. That is the fact of the
MP> MG> US. You are not required to like it.

MP> Never said I was required to like it in fact it is quite
MP> irrelevant to me in the whole picture of things. I speak
MP> from a postion of one not wanting free and easy access to
MP> guns herem where they are thankfully still a controlled
MP> privelege.

Rather as long as you do not have populations with IQs
significantly below the mean you have nothing to fear. As you
continue to believe you have those populations, one of the
reasons Canada is restriction immigration this year, you would
have such a problem.

Take anything as you wish.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * If you think health care is expensive now, wait til its free

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1437)
To: Michael Pilon 8 Jan 95 04:15:00
Subject: RESPONSIBLE GUNNERSяя

MP> WJ> Have a safe and happy holiday season. If you comprehend my
MP> WJ> limited Canadian intent.

MP> MG> Eh?

MP> Huh ? 😉

Is it really true the “enter” key in Canada is labeled “Eh?”?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * It’s The Clinton, Stupid.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1438)
To: Niki Zanzo 8 Jan 95 04:17:00
Subject: UFO’S AND THE BIBLE

The Dead Messiah

A: You sold me a dead Messiah.

B: They are all dead for some time or other I suppose.

A: It has been more than three days.

B: Maybe this one is a late resurrecter.

A: It has been two bloody months!

B: “No man knoweth the hour … ”

A: Don’t give me that Sunday School garbage, this Messiah
is dead and ht is not coming back.

B: “Ye of little faith …”

A: Stop that! Look. It’s not in a grave. It not moving.
No angels hovering. It is dead, dead, dead.

B: It not. I’ll show you. (whispers, “they’re out of
wine”) See? It moved.

A: Did not. You nudged its cross.

B: Did not.

A: It’s dead! You can see right here where you’ve nailed
it to its cross.

B: Messaihs are SUPPOSED to be nailed to their crosses.

A: I’ll prove its dead. (grabs up the cross and bangs it
face down on the counter six times.) Dead! Dead! Dead! Dead!
Dead! Dead!

B: After all it has been through before getting on the
cross that’s a dawdle.

A: It’s dead I tell you.

B: I give up. I want a satisfied customer. I’ll trade
you for this very lovely Galilean.

A: I’ve never heard of that breed. Are you sure it’s a
real messiah?

B: I should know. I’ve sold enough of them.

A: I’ll take it.

Three fortnights later.

B: Satisfied with the Galilean?

A: Not on your bloody life.

B: (exasperated tone) What’s the problem this time?

A: I only had it for fourty days and it flew straight up
into the sky and I haven’t seen it since.

B: That’s what Galilean Messiahs do.

A: You didn’t warn me.

B: Tell you what. If it’s not back in a thousand years
I’ll give you a new one.

A: A thousand years!?!?! I won’t live that wrong.

B: That’s the risk you take owning a messiah.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Liberals think Clinton never lies.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1464)
To: All 8 Jan 95 20:35:00
Subject: CINCINNATI BBS NEEDED

My brother finally got into the 20th century and got a
computer. I am looking for a BBS in Cincinnati with a sysop
willing to be a bit patient with a total new comer to the
subject? Are there any recommendations?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Four different tax cuts add up to real money.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1465)
To: All 9 Jan 95 02:51:00
Subject: ENEMIES OF ALL AMERICANS

Enemies of All Americans
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <1/9>

We have a serious problem here. I hope people will bear
with me while I discuss it. There have been two clear, no
questions asked atrocities committed by the US government in a
little over two years. They are Ruby Ridge and Waco. There is
hardly any reason to recount the illegal and down right immoral
behavior of the government in these cases.
And we have had a formal determination in the case of Ruby
Ridge two innocent deaths were caused solely by the failure to
follow proper procedure and the appropriate penalty for that is
administrative. I do not think I am missing anything here. We
have just had the government determine murder deserves only an
administrative penalty.
Let us go back to the days before governments took on crimes
as offenses against the state. Then it was up to the family to
punish the criminal and if the family of the guilty refused the
aggrieved family took its own revenge. We now have exactly the
same situation regarding Ruby Ridge. I expect we will soon have
a similar situation resulting from Waco.
But let me not get ahead of the case. There is no
difference between an employer determining their employees are in
need of only a hand slap than the family of the guilty party
sending him to his room with supper. That is no different from
leaving the fate of a serial killer in the hands of his mother.
As such there has been no justice in the matter of Ruby
Ridge. Winning a wrongful death suit will not be justice, only
compensation. A woman and child are dead because of the actions
of these people and the deaths are not being judged by an
impartial judge and jury. They are being judged by their
employer.
Going back to those days before there were crimes against
the state the response to perceived failure of the family of the
guilty to administer proper punishment was vendetta. Simple
revenge became the order of the day. Those sent to bed without
supper or receiving a reprimand in their personnel jackets simply
became targets of revenge killing by the aggrieved parties.
In this case who are the aggrieved parties? Obviously Randy
Weaver, who lost his wife and son, is so aggrieved. In a larger
and more real sense, so are we all. It may not be a common
perception but in our being citizens of this same country and
agreeing to abide by its constitution and the laws that flow from
it we have also agreed to deal with matters such as this.
By the meanest of hair splitting one may say only those who
have taken an oath to support and defend the constitution of the
United States would be so aggrieved. Even if that is accepted
that means all past and present members of the armed forces as
well as all past and present members of the federal civil
services along with elected officials and the like. That is
hardly a seriously limiting category.
Put simply, by the rule of humanity when there is not
justice the aggrieved have the option to take whatever action
they deem suitable after careful consideration. There can be no
moral condemnation of such action even if it is an eye for an
eye.
What is striking to me is that the government believes it
can get away with this. Certainly if the people responsible for
these deaths had been given to an impartial trial then all
grievance rights would be terminated in deference to the right of
the government to judge crimes against the state. But in this
case we have the highest federal prosecutorial agency deciding
not to prosecute its own people. This is like believing Ted
Bundy’s mother could be impartial.
Is any rational person truly expected to believe this was an
impartial finding? And lets get to the crux of the matter. The
man who murdered Vickie Weaver is not even going to miss supper.
He did nothing wrong. He was only the following orders of those
who just might be forced to retire early at full pension. Give
ME a rifle!
Does the government not realize that we the people have
every right to extract the basics of justice from situations like
this? The government’s actions have made everyone involved in
Ruby Ridge enemies of all Americans. The FBI has labeled itself
an agency that protects murderers. As such it has labeled itself
an enemy of the American people.
Pardon one more digression into history. Whatever failings
you may ascribe to J. Edgar Hoover, he took over a corrupt
organization that was despised by the American public and changed
it into one that became one of the most respected in the nation.
See how quickly it has fallen back into a gang of thugs and
hooligans again. God have mercy upon the FBI.

* * * * *

Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

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

[note new address and phone]

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * God Lord! It’s a cookbook! — FBI manual

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1466)
To: Bill Bauer 9 Jan 95 02:59:00
Subject: 10TH AMENDMENT HELPяяяяяя

BB> We must come together in a conference of the states to
BB> adopt a new Constitution which will take us into the 21st
BB> Century and beyond because our present Constitution is old
BB> and decrepit and is not suited to a nation that will lead
BB> the world into the new world.

BB> Yep. Bend over. Here it comes.

Upon such grounds there may or may not be a new constitution
but it will be preceded by another revolution.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Captain Blythe declares war on Serbia.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1467)
To: Bill Bauer 9 Jan 95 03:03:00
Subject: 10TH SCORECARD

BB> Nice post, Matt. Tell me, are you in touch voice with
BB> Charlie Duke of Colorado and Jackie Patru and Dan Druck of
BB> the CDR? If not, you should get to know them as I do. I
BB> speak to Charlie about once or twice a week and Jackie
BB> almost daily. We also do a lot of teleconferencing.

I would be happy to get in touch with anyone you recommend.
What you read here is about the extent of my political activism
due to my physical and financial limitations at the moment. If
it is on your board and you want to set me as a conference
member I will join in next time I call. LD costs are a
consideration at the moment.

I have just gotten my first invitation for a political talk
show, a small town in Kentucky but I have to start some place.
It is only my second and the first was on BBSing.

BB> We will also be working every bit as hard to kill bad
BB> legislation

As will I.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Clinton’s Great Grandfather made treaties with Indians.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1468)
To: David North 9 Jan 95 03:14:00
Subject: 70% FAVOUR GUN CONTRO

DN> MG> Gee. It almost sounds like you found out this lie. What
DN> MG> they mean to do is penalize the person whose gun is stolen.

DN> Sounds like it might be a crime to have a gun stolen from
DN> you, doesn’t it ? Talk about the ultimate in “blame shift” !

When guns are viewed as the cause of crime then the holder
in due course of the cause must be guilty. That is among the
soundest of the illogic of the gun grabbers.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Clinton to Foster, “How are things on the Hil?”

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1469)
To: Wayne Bertsch 9 Jan 95 03:22:00
Subject: A-BOMB STAMP

WB> MG>WB> MG> War is the highest form of civilization.

WB> MG>WB> WAR is the Highest form of civilization?

WB> MG>WB> Websters New World Dictionary defines:

WB> MG> Got a clue for you. A dictionary is not a definitive
WB> MG> source for anything in the known universe.

WB> well what do you use as a definitive source?

First off, I will make the obvious observation. Reading a
definition in a dictionary makes no one knowledgeable in any
subject.

Where
WB> do you draw your definition of Civilization. If your gonna
WB> make it up as you go you may as well call War a “Turnip”.

Those are two subjects, both war and civilization. You
might consider some better thinkers and more experienced people
in the subject such as Bismarck (War is the natural extension of
diplomacy) and Shaw (good always triumphs because the victor
writes the history) and the Allied Powers in WW II.

WB> If we can’t agree on what language we embrace to toss our
WB> statements around how are you even going to communicate
WB> anything here?

In having an intelligent conversation one expects to the
participants to have a knowledge of the subject greater than can
be found in a dictionary.

WB> MG>WB> Now your attempting to draw an analogy between WAR
WB> MG>WB> and Civilization. Saying that War is the highest form of
WB> MG>WB> Civilization? Do you have your tongue planted in your
WB> MG>WB> cheek or is this a bizarre and here to fore unheard of use
WB> MG>WB> of these words.

WB> MG> War is a quite neutral phenomenon. By definition only those
WB> MG>societies best able to win wars survive wars. That is why all
WB> MG>surviving societies are organized around the ability to make war.

WB> MG> Would you like to make a contrary case?

WB> No need to. You seem to make the case that this is
WB> as far as we need to evolve. Don’t you think growth and
WB> maturity as a species is an ever changing dynamic? How can
WB> we say “Okay. Were here. were “evolved” now we can quit
WB> trying to exceed.” Your reach should always exceed your
WB> grasp. right?

You need to learn something about evolution. It has no
direction. Changes are determined not only by the winners but by
the elimination of the losers. Not only is there no “exceed” in
evolution but it clearly favors those who win the competition.

WB> And as to contrary cases what about switzerland? they have
WB> no real armed forces to speak of. but there nation is
WB> doing well. What about Canada? They’ve done pretty well
WB> without having done much in the way of world conquering.

I do not know of the Switzerland you speak of. The one on
planet earth has a requirement for universal military service and
for monthly refresher training and a requirement for all on
active duty to have a current service rifle, full auto these
days, in their homes at all times. That “no real armed forces to
speak of” was the one that Hitler was advised not to take on as
the losses would be to great to accept.

WB> But this is ridiculous. I’m not against the military. I
WB> was raised on military bases my whole life. I have a lot
WB> of respect for men and women like my dad that defended
WB> this country. I think there are plenty of ways to
WB> celebrate that fact and the victory of WWII without paying
WB> homage to one of man kinds darkest days.

Victory is never a dark day. You have to be very perverted
to think that.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * William Jefferson “Bait and Switch” Clinton

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1470)
To: Wayne Bertsch 9 Jan 95 03:38:00
Subject: A-BOMB STAMP

WB> MG> I get it quite well. There is an assumption that there is
WB> MG>something intrinsically wrong with war whereas in fact it is one
WB> MG>of the things that separate humans from animals as much as speech
WB> MG>if not more so.

WB> okay. Agreed. But that means it should be celebrated?

I have yet to see a loss celebrated. What is your point?

WB> MG> As such, war is something we have evolved into, perhaps more
WB> MG>socially than physically but it is uniquely human. To make a
WB> MG>moral judgement upon war as something we should evolve out of is
WB> MG>to put some sort of religious tinge on things as the idea is not
WB> MG>supported by reality.

WB> Well you’ll never hear me throw religion in as an
WB> argument. God has as much place in a serious discussion of
WB> issues as santa clause. However the notion that we’ve
WB> somehow arrived at evolution and we need go no farther make
WB> no sense to me. We should always strive to attain a
WB> tomorrow thats better than what we leave behind.

You presume a direction to evolution. It has no direction.
To have a direction it must have a purpose and to have a purpose
you can only find yourself at a religious statement.

WB> War and the military are necessary I agree. I have no
WB> problem with celebrating the victory of WWII against the
WB> japanese oppressors. But It could be done in dozens of
WB> ways that don’t involve dredging up the fact that we
WB> dropped the big one on them. There are dozens of events
WB> that can depict our triumph without this. Why is it so
WB> important to you? Would it be a tragedy if it was a picture
WB> of the Enola Gay? or a picture of Iwo Jima?

Who about a stamp of the sharks feeding on the sailors who
delivered the bombs? After all, Japan was defeated at that
point and were not harming anyone.

WB> I suppose the next thing you’ll want is a stamp
WB> commemorating all the Filipino’s that Teddy Roosevelt had
WB> exterminated when we invaded the Philippines? Not
WB> everything done is something to blindly be proud of.

I fail to see the connection. Please explain.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “Airpower can deal with detention camps” Bill Clinton

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1471)
To: Virginia Cramer 9 Jan 95 03:52:00
Subject: ANTI-SMOKERS ARE LIARS

VC> I respect the rights of others to make the rules for their
VC> homes. I also accept that businesses have the right to
VC> have a smoke-free environment. I’ve seen a number of
VC> restaurants in Winnipeg do this. If they decide to do
VC> this, that’s their decision and I accept it. Of course, my
VC> decision is to go elsewhere.

If you accept that businesses have the right to be
non-smoking fine. The issue in the US is laws taking away the
right to choose and ordering them to be smoke free.

And if you believe that is “all” the anti-smokers want I
have a bridge for sale.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * What did he mean and when did he mean it?

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1487)
To: All 9 Jan 95 15:54:00
Subject: KICK ‘EM OUT

On Jan. 3 an article appeared on the front page of the Wall
Street Journal entitled “Catron County, N.M., Leads a Nasty
Revolt Over Eco Protection”. The article related that local
ranchers, with the help of local law enforcement, had basically
run federal forresters, biologists and land use planners out of
the county under the threat of arrest or worse. The county
government has passed laws restricting the activities of agents
of various federal regulatory bureaucracies within the borders of
the county (which laws have been pronounced unconstitutional by
conventional legal scholars). A law requiring the heads of all
households to keep a firearm is among other such laws that have
been passed.

One of the relatively constant threads in this debate seems to be
the contention by many of the participants that the federal
government really shouldn’t own vast tracts of land within the
boundaries of states.

The article also indicated that over 100 counties in the western
states and several eastern and midwestern states have passed
similar ordinances.

These activities seem to relate to the growing recent phenomena
of the resurgence of citizen militias.

Does anybody have more information about this movement (or
comments). I would particularly like to know which other counties
are involved. Also I would like to hear the opinions of law
enforcement personal as regards these issues.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * If you wish peace, prepare for war.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1491)
To: Michael Pilon 10 Jan 95 01:15:00
Subject: 70% FAVOUR GUN CONTRO

MP> MG> On a clear night this time of year it can easily drop to
MP> MG> the high 40s. Consider the July /August — Winter of
MP> MG> Canada they probably didn’t have anything lighter.

MP> Hmmm…. then I gather you wouldn’t be interested in our
MP> outdoor hot tub

We call that summer.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “Do not ask for whom the tax rises …” W. Clinton

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1500)
To: All 10 Jan 95 18:27:00
Subject: NYC CALL IN

Forum: Political Debate+ Section: Individual Liberty
Subj : Get on TV!
To : ALL Monday, January 09, 1995 4:47:02 PM
From : WNYC-TV, NYC, 71360,2142 #292815

New York Hotline, the live weekly New York City issues public televison
program puts you e-mail on the air!

Television and radio journalist Brian Lehrer hosts the one-hour weekly
program addressing critical city issues and news. NY Hotline features
in-studio expert guests, who will be questioned by New Yorkers via e-mail,
desktop video, telephone call-ins and fax.

The focus for this week’s show is “Is Gun Control Working in New York
City?”

Does gun control help fight crime? Should citizens carry arms? Do metal
detectors in schools help our children safe?

Start sending us your e-mail questions and comment now. Watch the program
live on Wednesday, January 11th at 8 p.m. on WNYC-TV, broadcast channel 31,
channel 3 on Manhattan cable systems. Check local listings for your local
cable channel. WNYC-TV is carried by over 60 cable systems in the NY-NJ-CT
NYC metro area.

Address your E-mail message to CIS:HOTLINE.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Bureau of Firearms, Alcohol, Religion and Tobacco

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

+++ююююю r_950115 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1509)
To: Wayne Jones 10 Jan 95 21:36:00
Subject: A-BOMB STAMP

WJ> MG> It was used to stop the Japanese from killing everyone they
WJ> MG> could while the war was still in progress. Do you have a
WJ> MG> problem with that?

WJ> If you have read my last 38 posts on this subject
WJ> you would know my stance by now, I’ll not repeat it
WJ> for you again. I’ve only told you 3 times.

So you have a problem with having the bomb to make them stop
killing people.

WJ> WJ> postage stamp. I too know many WWII vets quite
WJ> WJ> closely, and yes they thought it was a good idea
WJ> WJ> at the time. This hardly makes it morally right,

WJ> MG> Losing is morally wrong.

WJ> MG> You do remember they were killing everyone they could up
WJ> MG> until they actually got the word out that they had
WJ> MG> surrendered?

WJ> Yes of course, most wars don’t end the minute peace
WJ> is declared. Today with our technology sometimes,
WJ> but 50 years ago it took a while.

From the moment they surrendered they were able to stop
almost all the killing within 24 hours. They had this thing
called radio. If they had to talk among themselves, the decision
makers were all in Edo. They could walk if the phones were out.
You are trying to make excuses that have no basis in fact.

WJ> WJ> is it a slight on their effort during the war.
WJ> WJ> The figures most quoted in deaths from one bomb
WJ> WJ> was 80,000-200,000 people, ~~~~~~~~

WJ> MG> The technical term for that is bullshit. The bomb figures
WJ> MG> are around 70,000 and 50,000 for Hiroshima and Nagasaki
WJ> MG> respectively compared to the 90,000 from firebombing
WJ> MG> Tokyo.

WJ> Great I quoted the figures from the wolrld almanac,
WJ> the canadian almanac, and the american almanac.
WJ> But I am sure there are other sources that differ.
WJ> BTW what was that source?

Compton’s Encyclopedia which has as a total for BOTH bombs
plus the subsequent deaths of casualties at 240,000 as opposed to
your one bomb claim. Want to try again?

WJ> WJ> certainly not all military, nor a strictly military
WJ> WJ> target.

WJ> MG> Nagasaki was the equivalent of taking out Norfolk Virginia.
WJ> MG> I hope I do not have to explain the significance of that to
WJ> MG> you.

WJ> No you don’t but if the Japanese used an a-bomb on
WJ> Norfolk in early 45, we wouldn’t be having this
WJ> discussion.

It appears you are in need of some serious explaining as
Norfolk had little to do with the war against Japan.

It would be more like Americans
WJ> complaining about the new Japanese a-bomb stamp,
WJ> and how it was improper for them to use it in such
WJ> a manner.

So some people would whine. Those who knew something of
history would not.

WJ> MG> I would suggest you actually read something on the
WJ> MG> documentary side about the bombings rather than stick with
WJ> MG> emotional crap you have picked up from the revisionist
WJ> MG> history.

WJ> The emotional crap, just happens to be my opinion,
WJ> I am not a follower. You are however getting quite
WJ> emotional over this little debate.

It was only a suggestion. I really did not expect you to
take it.

WJ> WJ> It is a part of history, but we don’t display all parts of
WJ> WJ> history on postage stamps.

WJ> MG> You mean like the Japanese stamp of the attack on Pearl
WJ> MG> Harbor issued in 1943?

WJ> One has nothing to do with the other. The war by
WJ> the way is over, you have heard right?

All of our wars are over. I know of no calls to convert
Arlington Cemetery into a high rise complex.

They attacked the US and while they thought they were
winning the celebrated sinking the Arizona among other ships.
Now that they have lost they whine about it.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Is it Bill the Cat or Bill the Clinton or just BC?

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1510)
To: Niki Zanzo 10 Jan 95 22:08:00
Subject: END TIMES 1/2

NZ> NZ> God Bless you and may you richly prosper!

NZ> MG> Why do you hate him so? Is it not easier for a
NZ> MG> camel to pass through the eye of a needle?

NZ> Matt, what in the world are you talking about?
NZ>
NZ> Yes, Matt… it IS easier for a camel to pass through the
NZ> eye of a needle…
NZ>
NZ> …than for a “rich man” to get into heaven…
NZ>
NZ> …if that’s what you are talking about.
NZ>
NZ> Matt, why do you *ALWAYS* twist scripture, put words into
NZ> my mouth, and then use it to express your negativity and
NZ> hatred for God and the Bible?

You are the one who wanted a person to prosper so it would
be harder for him to get into heaven. If you really cared about
a person AND believed the words of your own bible then you would
wish that person poverty and disease and suffering so that they
might lay up treasures in heaven.

NZ> Jesus was addressing the “attitude of greed”; not the money
NZ> itself…
NZ>
NZ> Matt, God knows that we need money to exsist in this world,
NZ> so why would you think that God “hates” riches, when all
NZ> the books contained in the Bible tell you how He wants you
NZ> to prosper?

“Take that thou hast and give to the poor.”

Tell him, not me.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * The Buck never got here.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1511)
To: Bob Klahn 10 Jan 95 22:11:00
Subject: GEPHARDT’S BULL

BK> BK>> Not too gullible, I recognized Reagan for a senile old
BK> BK>> man in his first term.

BK> MG> Amazing. You were able to diagnose over television what it
BK> MG> took his personal physicians 14 more years to notice is just
BK> MG> starting.

BK> The doctors said he has Alzheimers, I just said he was
BK> senile.

Tell me the difference.

BK> Recall some of the symptoms he displayed as president, and
BK> you will see that my diagnosis is well supported.

You are not only a physician but you examined him? Even if
a physician a diagnosis without examination is unethical.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * ClintonThink appears to be incurable.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1512)
To: Wayne Jones 10 Jan 95 22:13:00
Subject: RESPONSIBLE GUNNERSяяяяяя

WJ> WJ> Gad, us poor backwoods Canadians are sorry to offend an
WJ> WJ> American, by pretending to comprehend the meanings of the
WJ> WJ> words in their constitutions.

WJ> WJ> End of confession

WJ> MG> Confession is good for the soul. As I have posted a
WJ> MG> linguistic analysis by one of the foremost authorities on grammar
WJ> MG> on the subject of the 2nd amendment and it agrees with the plain
WJ> MG> reading of it, I would suggest you have indeed sinned and were in
WJ> MG> need of confession.

WJ> I see this grammar experts opinion far outwieghs
WJ> the opinions of persons everywhere. Glad you can
WJ> be so comfortable with one persons explanation.

Are you holding Canadian English differs from American
English in grammar? Are you holding that your opinion is greater
that such an analysis?

Just what is it your are trying to spit out?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Who did he screw and when did he screw her?

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1513)
To: All 11 Jan 95 03:27:00
Subject: INFORMATION DIRT ROAD 01

IN ’95, BIG BATTLES ON THE GOVERNMENT’S ELECTRONIC FRONTIER

New York Times (Jan 3)

WASHINGTON – Newt Gingrich versus Al Gore: warriors in
cyberspace?

Look for some big new battles on the electronic frontier next
year as Newt Gingrich and his Republican followers in Congress
face off against the Clinton administration over government
policies to promote new technology.

Gingrich, who is about to become speaker of the House of
Representatives, is at least as enthusiastic as the
administration’s technologist in chief, Vice President Gore,
about the prospect of “virtual communities” linked by global
computer and communication networks.

But where Gore has been a champion of federal guidance in
technology development, Gingrich is a libertarian free-marketer
who would rather the government keep its checkbook and its advice
to itself.

Gingrich and the other GOP leaders are hostile to government
regulation and have already proposed cutting Federal money for
commercial technology development.

Among other programs, they are likely to hack away at federal
financing for collision-avoidance systems for cars, advanced
battery technology for electric vehicles and perhaps even the
Pentagon’s $500 million program to catch up with Japan on
flat-panel displays for computers.

And yet, Gingrich is a true believer that advances in information
technology, like the expanding Internet network of computers,
will bring radical and beneficial changes to politics and
society.

Besides drawing heavily on the ideas of Alvin Toffler, the
futurist and author of “The Third Wave,” Gingrich is a student of
technology pundits like George Gilder and Esther Dyson.

One can get a sense of Gingrich’s technological views from a
manifesto called “Cyberspace and the American Dream,” written
largely by Toffler and Gilder for the Progress and Freedom
Foundation, a research organization closely allied with the
incoming House speaker.

The document breathlessly heralds a new “knowledge age” in which
advances in computers and communications destroy bureaucracy and
promote more egalitarian forms of social organization.

“Government does not own cyberspace,” the document says. “If
there is to be an “industrial policy for the knowledge age,’ it
should focus on removing barriers to competition and massively
deregulating.”

It will bear watching whether this world view has any impact on
the biggest single issue in technology policy for 1995: the
continuing effort to rewrite the nation’s 60-year-old
communications law. A key goal for many is to allow local
telephone and cable television companies to compete in each
other’s markets.

Democrats agree with Republicans on the basic principle that
promoting competition will serve consumers better than treating
telephone and cable services as “natural” monopolies and
regulating their prices. And leaders in both parties, who came
close to passing a bill last September, say they are eager to
finish the job this year.

Still, the political differences are profound.

The telecommunications reform bill drafted in the Senate would
have imposed dozens of pages of new regulations, including a
requirement that advanced video and data networks reserve some
capacity for nonprofit institutions. These restrictions caused
objections from Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas, who will now be majority
leader, that the bill was too restrictive.

On a related issue, Republicans and Democrats both support using
auctions to award licenses to the nation’s airwaves, a
once-heretical notion that many Democrats considered a concession
to big business.

But now, under the direction of a Democratic chairman of the
Federal Communications Commission, auctions are under way for
wireless telephone licenses and are expected to bring the
government at least several billion dollars in 1995.

The dispute, however, will be over what to do with the proceeds.
Gore has proposed that at least some of that money be used to
hook up the nation’s elementary and secondary schools to
high-speed interactive communication networks. The Republicans
have had little to say about that proposal, but they are likely
to resist any new spending programs.

The industries with a stake in all these debates are not sure
what to expect.

Long-distance carriers like AT&T and MCI will try once again to
prevent the regional Bell companies from entering their markets
for at least several more years. The telecommunications bill that
almost passed last fall would have probably delayed Bell entry.
Republicans and Democrats alike can be found on both sides of the
long-distance issue, divided between those who fear the Bell
companies would stifle competition in long distance and those who
believe that the long-distance restrictions have become outdated.

Another clash in technology policy will be over government
programs to help finance industrial research efforts. The Clinton
administration has been an unabashed proponent of so-called
industrial policy, directing heavy government assistance toward
specific technologies like flat-panel video display screens and
computer networking.

Since it came to power, the Clinton administration has expanded
the Commerce Department’s Advanced Technology Program from $68
million a year to $441 million.

The Pentagon and the Department of Energy, meanwhile, are now
directing hundreds of millions of dollars toward joint ventures
with industry. These include a so-called clean car initiative
with the Big Three American car manufacturers to develop an
automobile that produces little or no pollution.

Expect those programs soon to come under fire. The incoming
chairman of the House Science Committee, Rep. Robert S. Walker,
R-Pa., is a close ally of the new House speaker and has been a
frequent critic of the government-industry joint ventures.

“We’re trying to promote technological freedom and opportunity,
as opposed to a federal command-and-control system,” a senior
aide to Walker said.

Walker and some other Republican lawmakers say that the
government cannot presume to be better able than private industry
to identify important areas of commercial research. Rather, they
add, the government needs to focus on basic research and then
offer a combination of tax cuts and deregulation to stimulate
private commercial activity.

Administration officials see things differently.

“We believe very strongly that civilian technology programs, like
.
Continued in the next message…

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

+++ююююю r_950120 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1776)
To: Wayne Bertsch 15 Jan 95 14:11:00
Subject: A-BOMB STAMP

WB> MG> In having an intelligent conversation one expects to
WB> MG> the participants to have a knowledge of the subject greater
WB> MG> than can be found in a dictionary.

WB> Sure, sure. I understand that but we have to at
WB> least agree on what words mean right or its all just
WB> shite!?!!
WB>
WB> If these aren’t your definitions of civilization then what
WB> is? There has to be some mutually agreed definitions of
WB> the words we use.

There can be no working definition that includes morally
loaded words.

WB> MG> You need to learn something about evolution. It has no
WB> MG> direction. Changes are determined not only by the winners
WB> MG> but by the elimination of the losers. Not only is there no
WB> MG> “exceed” in evolution but it clearly favors those who win
WB> MG> the competition.

WB> Hmmm an interesting thought. Natural selection
WB> does lend itself to that argument I’ll grant you. but does
WB> this mean that we don’t attempt to better ourselves as a
WB> species?

First off, the only way to “better” the species is through
selective breeding. Second, whose idea of “better” should be
used?

Obviously there was some effort on the part of
WB> humanity as it evolved?

Effort is not heritable. What would it matter?

It wasn’t just randomness and
WB> chaos theory that brought us here.

Why not? You think the world you see isn’t chaotic? Why?

Sure opposable thumbs
WB> were natural selection and gave way to hand tools. but
WB> there had to be a desire to better ourselves and a thirst
WB> for knowledge that made us seek it out?

Think this through. Are you suggesting lemurs had such a
desire? Lucy? Where did the desire start and how do you explain
getting to that point?

Were our moral
WB> laws and rules a part of natural selection?

Certainly. You will find behavior similar to humans in all
social animals.

I find it
WB> incredibly arrogant of you to think that this is as good as
WB> we get?

If you are willing to define “good” and demonstrate you can
predict what “good” will be in the future we have a basis for
this discussion. I have no idea how to define good. I have an
operative definition of the survival of the species as being good
for the species but I have no idea what any larger “good” might
be.

Consider that war makes pacifism a literally dead issue.
With two groups, both pacifist, both survive. With one pacifist
and one warlike, only the warlike survives. That is a change,
that is a difference. I can find no basis for considering one
better or worse than the other. Holding war is “wrong” is an
arbitrary decision for whatever reason you might choose to call
is wrong.

WB> MG>WB> But this is ridiculous. I’m not against the military. I
WB> MG>WB> was raised on military bases my whole life. I have a lot
WB> MG>WB> of respect for men and women like my dad that defended
WB> MG>WB> this country. I think there are plenty of ways to
WB> MG>WB> celebrate that fact and the victory of WWII without paying
WB> MG>WB> homage to one of man kinds darkest days.

WB> MG> Victory is never a dark day. You have to be very perverted
WB> MG>to think that.

WB> So there are no dark days by that rational? There
WB> was a victor During in the vietnam war and it
WB> wasn’t us unfortunately. I’d call that a dark day.

Perhaps from a personal viewpoint but not from anything to
do with civilization as a whole.

WB> The point is (and I’m sure you understood this and
WB> were just attempting cuteness) that battles and
WB> wars are different things. All things have a
WB> price. IF I were Truman I’d have done the same
WB> damn thing. He did what was right. We owe no
WB> apology to the japanese for that. But that doesn’t
WB> make it a fond and cherished memory. Why would it
WB> be a travesty of justice if they celebrated the
WB> heroes of WOW in a differ ant setting?

I do not see that winning by whatever means as “wrong.”
There were times when winning with evil crossbows was condemned
as was winning with evil rifled gun barrels. I fail to see any
inherent difference in the degree of evil unless there is some
moral threshold having to do with numbers. If so, I am very
interested in knowing what that number is and the basis for its
determination.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Clinton wants to talk to Thomas Jefferson. Jealousy alert.

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12a
* Origin: DOC’S 822-4637, Fido. Internet Access Too! (1:3603/20020.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 101 201 224 246 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 259/99 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20050 3615/50 51

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1778)
To: All 15 Jan 95 17:03:00
Subject: A NEW TALE OF TWO CITIES

A New Tale of Two Cities
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <1/15>

There once were two cities. The inhabitants did not compete
among themselves or with the other city. The cities continued to
survive and grow and prosper.
There once were two cities. The inhabitants of the first
city did not compete among themselves or with the second city.
The inhabitants of the second city competed among themselves and
with the first city. Ultimately the first city fell to the
second city and adopted its competitive ways.
There once were two cities. The inhabitants of both cities
competing among themselves and with the other city. The first
city learned better means of competition and eventually the
second city adopted its new means of competition.
Three different scenarios. Note none of them make the
slighest difference to the survival of the population of both
cities. There is nothing essentially good or bad about any of
the three scenarios. They are simply different ways of life
Consider the situation starts with two noncompetitive cities
and one of them learns competition for whatever reason. In that
scenario the idea of competition will ultimately become the
dominant approach to life as the noncompetitive city will be
losing resources to the competitive one.
And from the third scenario it is clear that the most
competitive methods will eventually become dominant.
Now we know competition within a species and between species
is the natural order of things in this world. Certainly there
was no difference in our prehuman ancestors. They were certainly
competing with each other within their groups and between groups.
That such competition is the way things are in all of this world
and in humans is not something that should surprise us.
Nor should it surprise us when better means of competition
are discovered by the human mind. This is simple observation.
There is nothing intrinsically good or evil about competition
existing or better means of competition developing. This is
simply the way things are.
What is surprising is the response one gets from changing
cities to nations and competition to war. That the better means
of war are adopted and spread and those that fail to adopt them
disappear from history should neither surprise anyone nor be a
source of condemnation by anyone. It should be equally apparent
that better means of conducting a war are not limited to battle
field tactics.
At some point in human history it must have become obvious
that better weapons resulted in more victories. Simply
converting from stone to metal had obvious social implications
such as the need for metalworkers, ways of making hotter fires,
more simply a wider range of technologies and the learning needed
to support them.
And of a nation wished to survive against those new weapons
and did not have the deposits of metal needed it had to develop
some other skill and the skills of trade. And the more
competitive the trading skills the better.
And one step further, if there were different forms of
social organization that could result in a greater chance of
winning a war then those would be adopted or the nation would
disappear from history. We have a hierarchal organizational
structure at all levels of our society and it mimics that of a
military system.
Consider war as we know it as opposed to the way we find it
expressed in primitive societies. They have rather ritualized
combat that is not designed to take over the other group but
rather to take something and leave the loser to produce what they
want again. Rather like a system of game management. But in
those cases there is a a direct benefit to those who get together
for the “war party.”
Consider today we manage to get people to fight for the
benefit of their country, their way of life, whatever it is
called, with hardly the slightest promise of any benefit to
themselves. Yet nations are able to raise armies to fight other
armies. This in itself is an achievement.
Yet war is condemned while all of the benefits it has
brought to our society are cherished. The very idea of
competition that results in both progress and war were around
before there were even mammals on the earth much less humans.
There are those who imagine it is possible to act against
everything that has lead to making us human in renouncing all
forms of competition. That is a reasonable as renouncing sight
or opposable thumbs and as impossible to achieve.
What appears to lead to this belief is the confusion between
the simplest of religious beliefs and reality, that they have
the slightest connection. Rather than realizing there is no
connection there is the belief that those ideas can be imposed
upon reality. And this is a fundamental error in religion.
Religions are intellectualizations of intragroup behavior.
They are the limits upon competition that are necessary for a
social group to survive be it animal or human. Even religions do
not venture into the area of nation to nation relations. Yet
those who would take these simplest of ideas describing
interpersonal relations then attempt to pretend they apply among
nations.
Some of the greatest theologians have addressed the idea of
a just war and beyond a few general ideas that never appear
applicable to a particular war they have come up empty.
Yet, there is a running presumption that war is in some
manner evil. In fact war is the natural outcome of the existence
of intelligent life on earth. It is a consequence of all life
and of our form of life. It is simply messier than most human
activities.

* * * * *

Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

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

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “We must have the courage to quit.” — W. Clinton

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1779)
To: John Braue 15 Jan 95 17:07:00
Subject: CONCEALED CARRY IN TX

JB> BK> How come I keep reading about how dangerous Florida is?
JB> BK> How come the contest for murder capital of the country is
JB> BK> between two Florida cities?

JB> MG> It isn’t. Miami is first, Tampa is fourth.

JB> Not according to the 1994 _Statistical Abstract_. Do you
JB> have a more up-to-date source for numbers?

I heard this on the news around late November. It was quite
surprising. Perhaps I heard it wrong.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * The Constitution is not a technicality.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1780)
To: Wayne Bertsch 15 Jan 95 17:09:00
Subject: ENEMIES OF ALL AMERICANS

WB> MG> Enemies of All Americans

WB> No matter how poorly handled the Ruby ridge and
WB> WACO wacko’s were is there any reason why they had to keep
WB> there own families in there with them?

Why not? It was their home. The FBI said they were in no
danger. The FBI had a legal responsibility to guarantee that.

WB> Why hide behind the shield of women and children.

Where did you get the idea they were hiding behind anyone
save from the FBI making that claim?

WB> These were grossly mishandled but easily avoided if these
WB> extremists had just co-operated like any sane american
WB> wouldv’e.

A sane American would have not tried to get a cease fire
from the BATF but would have waited until they shot themselves
out of ammunition and taken revenge for the four people the BATF
had already murdered.

WB> After that cult in europe and Canada, The Jim Jones stuff
WB> in the late 1970’s and all the survivalist neo-nazi nuts
WB> that are overpopulating GERALDO lately I say send ’em all
WB> to WACO and give me a match.

You are only demonstrating you are completely ignorant of
events in Waco. Not surprising.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “Bill survives Hil attack, two Secret Service injured.”

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1781)
To: All 15 Jan 95 18:45:00
Subject: MLK’S DREAM SPEECH 01

Martin Luther King, Jr.
From the Steps of the Lincoln Memorial
August 28, 1963

I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as
the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.

Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we
stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous
decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro
slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It
came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.

But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free; one hundred
years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the
manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination; one hundred
years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the
midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity; one hundred years
later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American
society and finds himself in exile in his own land.

So we’ve come here today to dramatize a shameful condition. In a
sense, we’ve come to our nation’s capital to cash a check. When the
architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the
Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a
promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note
was the promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men,
would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness.

It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note
in so far as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring
this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad
check; a check which has come back marked “insufficient funds.” We
refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great
vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so we’ve come to cash this
check, a check that will give us, upon demand, the riches of freedom
and the security of justice.

We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the
fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of
cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is
the time to make real the promises of democracy; now is the time to
rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit
path of racial justice; now is the time to lift our nation from the
quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood; now
is the time to make justice a reality for all God’s children. It would
be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This
sweltering summer of the Negro’s legitimate discontent will not pass
until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality.

Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. And those who
hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content,
will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as
usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the
Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt
will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright
day of justice emerges.

But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the
warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process
of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful
deeds.

Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the
cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on
the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our
creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and
again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force
with soul force.

The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community
must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our
white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come
to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.
This offense we share mounted to storm the battlements of injustice
must be carried forth by a biracial army. We cannot walk alone.

And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march
ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the
devotees of civil rights, “When will you be satisfied?” We can never
be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable
horrors of police brutality.

We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with fatigue of
travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the
hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro’s
basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one.

We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of
their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating “for
whites only.” We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in
Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has
nothing for which to vote. No, we are not satisfied, and we will not
be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness
like a mighty stream.

I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of excessive
trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail
cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom
left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the
winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative
suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering
is redemptive.

Go back to Mississippi; go back to Alabama; go back to South
Carolina; go back to Georgia; go back to Louisiana; go back to the
slums and ghettos of the northern cities, knowing that somehow this
situation can, and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley
of despair.

So I say to you, my friends, that even though we must face the
difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a
dream deeply rooted in the American dream that one day this nation
will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed — we hold
these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, sons of
former slaves and sons of former slave-owners will be able to sit down
together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day, even the state of Mississippi, a state
sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering in the heat of
oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by
the content of their character. I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious
racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of
interposition and nullification, that one day, right there in Alabama,
little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with
little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. I have a
dream today!

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill
and mountain shall be made low, the rough places shall be made plain,
and the crooked places shall be made straight and the glory of the
Lord will be revealed and all flesh shall see it together.

This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with.
With this faith we will be able to hear out of the mountain of despair
a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the
jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of
.
Continued in the next message…

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1794)
To: All 17 Jan 95 02:18:00
Subject: CHAOS IS WORSE THAN YOU I

Chaos is worse than you imagine
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <1/17>

One of the popular things to discuss today is chaos as
from chaos theory. Most explanations of it are not good enough
to get across what it really is. I am now going to attempt to
avoid being one of those failures.
At the highest level of processes there are deterministic
and random. A deterministic process is simply one where the
rules are known and to get back to where you started you only
have to know the do them in reverse order. It is like flying
from one coast to the other and using your return ticket to get
back.
A random process, also call non-deterministic by those
interested in more precise wording, is one where there is no rule
to start with. In these cases the rules are created at each step
of the process. For example taking a walk in an open field and
every three steps a coin is flipped to decide whether to turn
right or left.
Of this kind of process there are two kinds. The first kind
is where the coin is guaranteed to result in reverse order as you
return. This is very much like dropping bread crumbs and
following them to find you way back. The other kind is where
there is no way to leave bread crumbs to find your way back by
chance you could find your way back to the starting point,
unlikely but conceivable.
We are still not at chaos.
Consider a process whereby right or left is chosen by the
exact sequence of the previous three coin tosses. The chances of
getting back to the starting point are very much lower.
Certainly if we introduce the requirement to get there in the
same number of steps and coin flipping points it begins to appear
impossible.
We are still at not chaos.
To make the next step appear a bit more reasonable I am
going to have to expand the simply choosing right and left to a
turn based upon the compass. The turn can be any of 360 degrees.
The next step is that every decision upon which degree of
turning is based upon every prior decision. In this case it is
obvious there it no way to get back to the starting point as the
first decision is part of the determination of how to get there
but it is only one of any number. This is sort of the technical
way of saying, you can never go home again.
We are still not at chaos.
Rather than simply 360 degrees, as each is a discrete number
— an integer — we introduce real numbers 3.14159… degrees as
a possible turn. That means there are an infinite number of
possible degrees of turning at each decision point. And as each
prior point is a factor it must be a “weighted” factor such that
turn number 3,445,981 is worth a factor of .932 but turn number
14 is worth only .0432 in value. Each turn having a different
weight.
As all of the different weights and turns and decisions are
infinitely variable it is clear we can never get back where we
started.
Now we are almost at chaos.
Given this complexity we come to a turn before we make the
flip for that turn we have to predict what that turn will be. We
can not as we do not know the result. As we can not know even
the next turn consider know two, five or fifty turns ahead being
equally impossible.
Thus we can know all there is to know about the past and not
know one specific thing about the future.
This is chaos.
Apply this to personal life. A college education decades
ago was likely a major influence as might have been a good or bad
marriage but taking the long or short route to work may have
determined meeting the person to make that good or bad marriage.
And at that meeting of the right or wrong marriage partner what
was the coin toss? That other person’s entire life that brought
them to that place and time.
The results of that place and time are based upon both
personal event sequences going back through all time that lead to
those persons and every detail of the meeting and the events at
that meeting. And even if some wag claims to have predicted a
good or bad marriage from that meeting who is going to say the
filing for divorce occurred five years, three months and six days
into the marriage with one child that contributed to the bad
marriage because of it unpredictable birth defect?
This is chaos. It is the ability to know everything about
something and not be able to predict the future. And the catch
in the above example is the birth defect of the child. That
would require a complete knowledge of the sperm and egg and the
time of copulations and fertilization of something that was still
in the future. Even if all of that could be predicted a
defective sperm or egg ultimately comes down to effects on the
quantum level which are not predictable be definition.
Thus the known unpredictable quantum world interacts with
the world we feel is reasonably predictable even though it is
chaotic.
It is the function of the nervous system to make this chaos
appear predictable and deterministic. It is a function of the
human mind to make enough sense of this to make a best guess
about the future upon which to plan for the future. But we
clearly know what we perceive is not what is happening out there
and even more clearly we should realize what we perceive insider
ourselves should not make any greater sense.

* * * * *

Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

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

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Four different tax cuts add up to real money.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1795)
To: Moody Blues 17 Jan 95 02:35:00
Subject: 10TH SCORECARD

MB> MG> Our federal government has run amok. The U.S. Congress
MB> MG> continues to pass unConstitutional “laws”. The world
MB> MG> policy-makers draft PDDs and EOs for the president to sign

MB> Hey Matt…

MB> I have a few questions for you…

In this case I was cross posting for Bill B and I do not
stand behind any of these claims. I did not censor them rather
posted for the intrinsic interest to him, the 10th amendment
resolution progress as he is leading it in Oklahoma.

However

MB> 1. What laws have been pass, that are unconstitutional?

All of the federal gun control laws that are not directly
related to raising revenue for openers. All drug laws that are
not directly related to importation into the US. All laws giving
the federal government police powers in matters not related to
national or state borders.

A recent specific would be the “motor voter” bill.

MB> 2. What PDDs and EOs has this President (or past
MB> presidents) signed giving up our national sovereignty?

This is problematic to the GATT and NAFTA interpretations of
some people. I find no merit in them myself.

MB> 3. What nations have their troops, with families, on our
MB> soil?

Families? I have no idea. Some troops are here for
training on the equipment we sell them and when it is long term
their families are some times here at their country’s expense.

MB> 4. Where are these troops located? How many bases are
MB> occupied?

If you kept the message contact the person making the claim.
I have no idea myself and if you find out, let me know. If true
I can make a much more credible case of publicizing it than these
folks can.

MB> 5. How many troops are at located at each base?
MB>
MB> 6. Why are these troops on American bases?
MB>
MB> 7. How can I verify your information and confirm your
MB> claims?

As above, let me know if you find out. I do not find that
part of the inquiry worth the time. Its a bit too paranoid for
me.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * If all else fails, say Limbaugh.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1796)
To: Wayne Jones 17 Jan 95 02:48:00
Subject: 70% FAVOUR GUN CONTRяяяяя

WJ> WJ> Matt, it is not that our government doesn’t trust
WJ> WJ> us with guns, but you know that. It’s that we
WJ> WJ> “Canadians” in general, do not want guns in
WJ> WJ> society the same way they are in the US. Our
WJ> WJ> heritage, has not included the gun in the same
WJ> WJ> manner, nor do we view guns the way you do.

WJ> MG> If you are going to maintain the fiction that crime is
WJ> MG> IQ/race neutral then I am going to maintain the fiction
WJ> MG> that Canadians would have the same crime rate as the US if
WJ> MG> they had equal access to guns.

WJ> Silly me! I thought Americans were Americans
WJ> regaurdless of race! Sorry to disapoint, but I am
WJ> not on the same thread you are.

Being a legal American citizen has nothing to do with race
nor does the crime rate difference that is dependent upon race.
Even Canada is cutting its immigration rate by 20% to reduce the
crime problem.

WJ> WJ> Maturity, isn’t a requirement to own a gun in the
WJ> WJ> US. If it were we probably wouldn’t be having this
WJ> WJ> conversation.

WJ> MG> Maturity over 14 is not required to own any kind of gun for
WJ> MG> any human being (Canadians excepted) unless you admit your
WJ> MG> racial mix does not favor the criminal types.

WJ> I see you want to talk race, not gun control, you
WJ> have turned this into a black versus white
WJ> campaing, sorry I want no part of this thread, I’ve
WJ> already had it out with you. You refuse to answer
WJ> the questions I pose on this thread, and want to go
WJ> elsewhere, I think I know your purpose, but sorry
WJ> Matt, I will not get thrown off this thread for
WJ> stating it!
WJ>
WJ> I have fioltered this discusion.

Finally a Canadian honest enough to admit he can not deal
with rational discourse on the issue but has to cop out at the
first opportunity.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Clinton’s back has a “Kick Me” sign.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1797)
To: Michael Pilon 17 Jan 95 02:52:00
Subject: CINCINNATI BBS NEEDED

MP> MG> My brother finally got into the 20th century and got a
MP> MG> computer. I am looking for a BBS in Cincinnati with a
MP> MG> sysop willing to be a bit patient with a total new comer to
MP> MG> the subject? Are there any recommendations?

MP> Oh Gad another gunner, where will it all end 😉

It never ends. This is the certified gun instructor brother
I have mentioned. I don’t know that he is going to be so
interested in tearing up cyberspace as he still has to work for a
living and has two still in the rug rat phase.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * NRA life member JFK was shot by ACLU member L. H. Oswald.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1798)
To: Wayne Jones 17 Jan 95 02:57:00
Subject: CONCEALED CARRY IN Tяяяяя

WJ> MG> I regret you are unable to face reality without drug
WJ> MG> reinforcement.

WJ> Matt it is dificult to debate a subject when
WJ> someone constantly thows in these little snippets
WJ> of wisdom. You have managed to debate 2 different
WJ> items with me and never answer my questions,
WJ> instead you try to repeat what you have already
WJ> said. I have a big enough hard drive to hold it
WJ> all, but I would prefer to get on with it. If you
WJ> cannot, then don’t bother to post to me.

You are choosing to blame all trees for you having to rake
leaves in the Fall while I am pointing out it is only deciduous
trees that are the problem.

WJ> MG> CRIMES PER 100,000 POPULATION

WJ> MG> American
WJ> MG> American Britain France Germany Italy U.S.A. Whites
WJ> MG> Blacks ——- —— ——- —– —— ——
WJ> MG> —— Murder 7.4 4.6 4.2 6.0 9.3 5.1
WJ> MG> 43.4 Robbery 62.6 90.4 47.4 68.6 263.0 126
WJ> MG> 1343
WJ> MG> Source: _Uniform Crime Reports_ for U.S. data, _The Economist_ for
WJ> MG> European data. European data for 1990; American data for 1992.

WJ> MG> Do you have a better explanation?

WJ> MG> And before you jump into it, remember Blacks are only 12% of
WJ> MG> the US population and these are absolute numbers. If you are
WJ> MG> innumerate please refrain from responding.

WJ> I already did, and this had nothing to do with my
WJ> explanation, I have no intention of debating race
WJ> with you, I was debating crime rates of countries
WJ> with legislation on firearms and those with laxed
WJ> regulations. Blacks and whites in your country
WJ> count as Americans to me, if you feel differently
WJ> then why don’t you post it?

It is a matter of the type of tree. If you insist upon an
unenlightened point of view there is little I can do for your
knowledge base.

WJ> WJ> It’s encouraging to note, you have differing
WJ> WJ> standards for differing Americans, you see us silly
WJ> WJ> Canadians don’t break it down so finely. We have
WJ> WJ> Canadians, and we have non-Canadians being a
WJ> WJ> Canadian can mean you came from anywhere in the
WJ> WJ> world and was born or naturalized here, including
WJ> WJ> the USA. It’s no wonder you have a serious problem
WJ> WJ> down there, you give too much importance to
WJ> WJ> descent.

WJ> MG> I note Canada is restricting immigration because of the
WJ> MG> increasing crime problem.

WJ> Another deversion!
WJ> Canada already has one of the highest percapita
WJ> immigration rates in the world, the restriction you
WJ> are talking about still keeps it well above that of
WJ> the USA, any comments? You must also understand
WJ> that we just increased our rate, the reduction will
WJ> bring it to just above the original rate, but then
WJ> I am sure you knew this didn’t you?????

And it is being cut 20% because of the racial and ethnic
crime that comes with it.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Envy is the opposite of ambition.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1799)
To: Michael Pilon 17 Jan 95 03:01:00
Subject: RESPONSIBLE GUNNERS ?

MP> MG> Rather as long as you do not have populations with IQs
MP> MG> significantly below the mean you have nothing to fear.

MP> I don’t think IQ and crime are related but I do think
MP> poverty, lack of family values, lack of role models are a
MP> factor. Sadly a lot of the inner city people to whom you
MP> allude are in this category. It is circumstancial, but that
MP> does not make it go away. I agree with you on the need for
MP> guns where this occurs. But had guns been restricted in the
MP> first place a lot of what is occuring would not occur.

You must have studied some form of statistics in college.

It is really very simple. The highest correlation with
crime, poverty, family values whatever is IQ. None of the other
correlate with each other nearly as well. Get yourself a book on
the subject of statistical inference and give it a read. It
should not take you all that long or be that hard. It is a
rather trivial subject.

If you read the journals at all you already know this. Test
results of some procedure or other is statistical. You are using
this knowledge professionally every day. Just what possesses you
to think that if the subject is not dentistry it does not apply?

Either all of sociometrics and psychometrics is accepted or
it is all thrown out. Either all statistics is accepted or it is
all thrown out.

It is no more rational to throw out everything involved with
IQ than it is to throw out all multiplications that involve the
number five.

Why is it you do not see this?

MP> MG> As you continue to believe you have those populations,
MP> MG> one of the reasons Canada is restriction immigration this
MP> MG> year, you would have such a problem.

MP> As I pointed out the restrictions are more to do with
MP> strains on the social programs. After all they apply to
MP> AMerican who want to come here as well.

It is not Americans that are being restricted by your new
policy.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Hill Nixes Hil’s Pix, Bill perplixed. Variety

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1800)
To: Wayne Jones 17 Jan 95 03:18:00
Subject: RESPONSIBLE GUNNERSяяяяяя

WJ> Matt, you continue to think that Canada has
WJ> restricted it’s immigration this year for some of
WJ> the strangest reasons. For some reason we are not
WJ> getting this in our country. Could you please
WJ> quote a reliable source for all of this information
WJ> you seem to be getting, regaurding Canadian
WJ> political decisions????
WJ>
WJ> The official reason is economic, some would say
WJ> political, but I would like to see where you are
WJ> getting your info.

This will be the third time I have posted this in this
conference.

Washington Times

2 November 1994

Canada cuts quota on migrants

OTTAWA — Canada said yesterday it is reducing, for the
first time in a decade, the number of immigrants it will accept
and that preference will be given to skilled workers and
businessmen.

Immigration and Citizenship Minister Sergio Marchi said the
immigration quota will be reduced to between 190,000 and 215,000
in 1995; this year’s target was 250,000.

Canada was built by European settlers but increased its flow
of immigrants threefold since 1985 by taking in increasing
numbers of Asians, particularly from Hong Kong.

Economic recession, high unemployment and a fiscal crisis
have led to more calls from conservatives to cut immigration and
stop immigrants from living off welfare.

Racist groups have become outspoken in blaming rising urban
crime on excesssive immigration.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Secret Serv in Prez Bedroom, Fear Battered Husband Syndrome.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

+++ююююю r_950124 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (2064)
To: Michael Pilon 21 Jan 95 14:56:00
Subject: RESPONSIBLE GUNNERS ?

MP> MG> It is really very simple. The highest correlation with
MP> MG> crime, poverty, family values whatever is IQ. None of the
MP> MG> other correlate with each other nearly as well. Get
MP> MG> yourself a book on the subject of statistical inference and
MP> MG> give it a read. It should not take you all that long or be
MP> MG> that hard. It is a rather trivial subject.

MP> A lot of criminals are in fact rather intelligent. Is your
MP> point that criminals are smarter than average ? I know a
MP> number of intelligent people whoise family values are poor.
MP> As to poverty, there might be a point..but again I know of
MP> a number of people who are well to do who came from poor
MP> backgrounds. I still think won’t fly.

Remember, this is a distribution. The MEAN IQ of these
populations is lower than average.

A lot of it is perception. Crimes by the dumb don’t make
for interesting reading. For every well timed bank robbery there
are dozens that are on the spur of the moment by someone who got
drunk convinced it was simple.

MP> Now what is this about. I just question the correlation
MP> between race, IQ crime etc.

I could recount extensively from the book. The book
recounts the studies of populations as a whole, not of specifics.

I have seen several instances
MP> where this is not the case. Circumstance is by far the most
MP> important qualifier.

And these instances where it is not the case are simply the
distribution around the mean. As you know in any statistical
study there is a spread. If there were not there would be no
need for statistics.

MP> I again question racial links to IQ. There is a review of a
MP> major work by an American scientist who traced the human
MP> family through blood genetics I beleive. I will post a
MP> summary of this soon. It will come as a shock to some to
MP> learn that people of European descent are 65% African and
MP> 35% Asian in background. He found extrernal charateristics
MP> were a genetic minor point. It is the recent Time with the
MP> cover story on the “Girth of a Nation” the fattening of
MP> America.

Rather you should post studies showing there is no link to
IQ. I do not see how other characteristics would apply. And if
this is only referring to Hungarians and Spanish I don’t post it
on my account. That is clear enough from history.

MP> Maybe you coulod come up with statistical data to confirm
MP> that Americans are genetically predisposed to fat
MP> consumption 😉

Compare the US to England of the last two centuries and you
will it is easy to overcome.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * WHILE NOT Deficit_reduce do INC(taxes) UNTIL time END.

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12a
* Origin: DOC’S 822-4637, Fido. Internet Access Too! (1:3603/20020.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 259/99 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20030 20040 20050 3615/50 51

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (2076)
To: Wayne Bertsch 21 Jan 95 14:54:00
Subject: MLK’S DREAM SPEECH 01

WB> Thanks for posting the MLK speech. Having heard it reduced
WB> to sound bites all these years It was nice to read it in
WB> its entirety.

An annual posting if I remember it. Now if I just had the
best speeches of others, like John Memorial and Harry Labor …

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * What did he mean and when did he mean it?

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (2079)
To: All 21 Jan 95 17:14:00
Subject: CANADIAN GUN CONFISCATION

########## Original From: DAVE APPEL
# STOLEN # To: ALL
# STUFF # Date/Number: 01/13/95 – 0004919
########## On: DOC’S – 0131 – Civlib
———————————————————————–

* Original: FROM: DAVE APPEL
* Original: TO: ALL
* Original: AREA: INDY CHATTER

* Forwarded by Linda Thompson
* Forwarded Using QuickBBS 2.76 Ovr
* Forwarded at 01:46 on 14-Jan-95

This message was from STEWART AMGWERT to ALL,
originally in conference Fire Arms-
and was forwarded to you by DAVE APPEL.
————————-
<===============================================================>
BBS: WHO’S ASKIN’?
Date: 12-03-94 20:02 Number: 27
From: L P Status: Public
To: ALL Rcvd: 01-07-95
Subj: CANADIAN GUN CONFISCATION Conf: GUNS Subboard
<—————————————————————->
The Canadian gun owners are asking for our help in stopping a gun
confiscation program that has started just recently. Here is the
request (we may need their help some day on the same thing):
<===============Forwarded message================================>

Subject: Canada firearms siezure in progress
From: [email protected]

Using a recent court ruling the Quebec Provincial Police have mailed
the registered owners of all registered semi-automatic firarms orders
to surrender their weapons. The police will take the arms to their
own gunsmiths in an effort to make them fully-automatic. Those that
cannot be automated will be returned to their owners. The others are
to be kept without compensation. Those that fail to present their
arms face a house search and a 5 year prison sentence.

This began as of last week. I first heard of it on National People’s
Radio where a Mr. Ernest Sopsich (sp?) of the Canadian Shooting Sports
Alliance discussed the issue. He impressed that this is a most
serious downturn for the Canadian people. He asked that ALL
AMERICAN SHOOTERS WRITE TO THE PRIME MINISTER to warn that we won’t
spend our tourist or our hunting dollars in a country that oppresses
it’s people in such a way. He said this _will_ be an effective
method for us to help them. This information has been confirmed on
the Canadian Firearms discussion net.

The letter should be addressed to:
The Honourable Jean Chretien
Parlament Hill
Ottowa
Canada

To send an e-mail to a FAX machine in the Ottawa area, address your
e-mail as follows:
[email protected]

where name is the of the person
and x.x.x.x.y.y.y is the FAX telephone number backwards

Example to send a FAX to Jean Chretien at +1 613 941-6900 the address
is: [email protected]

Gabe Field
Southern California subscribers, join Gun Owner’s Action Committee.
We are the hard corps!

<====================================================================>
BBS: WHO’S ASKIN’?
Date: 12-12-94 12:30 Number: 30
From: L P Status: Public
To: ALL Rcvd: 01-07-95
Subj: CANADA INFO CORRECTION Conf: GUNS Subboard
<————————————————————–>

<========Forwarded Messages====================================>

Subject: CANADIAN GUN TAKING –corrections
From: [email protected]

My Canadian shooting associates have made minor corrections to the
piece I send out last week. Mainly they completed the address to
their Prime Minister.

———————

As of this week the Provincial Police in Quebec have sent notices to
the registered owners of some semi-automatic weapons required to be
registered under Canadian law. The notice demands that the firearms be
surrendered and warns that noncompliance may result in a search of the
owner’s private property for the items. The criminal penalty for
refusal to surrender the firearms is a 5 year (max.) prison sentence.

This action is the result of a court case (Hasselwander v. R., 1993),
which the defendant lost, that has been seized upon as the precedent
for this action. In general, the police take the seized arms to their
gunsmiths in an attempt to make them fully automatic. If the effort is
successful the arms are kept. If not, the arms are returned to the
registered owner. Given the time, money, and expertise available to
the police it’s clear most every semi-automatic firearm can be
made automatic.

Fortunately, according to National People’s Radio (where I originally
heard this issue) only about 5% of the required owners in the Province
complied with the original registration. The estimate was provided by

(Continued next message…)
—
* RM 1.3 01261 * The only good criminal is a dead criminal.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (2080)
To: All 21 Jan 95 18:20:00
Subject: IDAHO SHOULD PROSECUTE

########## Original From: GARY STEINWEG
# STOLEN # To: ALL
# STUFF # Date/Number: 01/17/95 – 0012108
########## On: DOC’S – 0148 – Controv
———————————————————————–

Here’s a letter I sent to the Prosecutor in Idaho who is considering
prosecuting one or more of the perpetrators in the Weaver incident.
I also sent copies to Idaho’s Senators and Representatives. I’ve
included the fax numbers in case any of the participants here would
also be inclined to encourage the prosecutor to follow through.

TO: Randall Day, Esq. (FAX: 208-267-5284)
Boundary County Prosecutor
Bonners Ferry, ID 83805

SUBJ: Prosecution Of Federal Agent(s) For The Atrocity At Ruby Ridge

VIA: Fax/modem

Press conference – FBI acknowledges poor handling of the Randy
Weaver atrocity, but says no one should be punished. That figures.
Their idea of poor handling was doing a shoddy job of falsifying
the evidence and leaving some of the victims alive.

I won’t waste your time going over the facts of the case,
because you know them better than I. The bottom line remains,
two residents of your state were murdered and two others were
seriously injured because Weaver refused to play along with
rogue BATF agents after they FRAMED? him with shotgun barrels
cut 1/4 inch too short in order to coerce him into working
for them. Idaho’s shame, like Texas’s shame after the Waco
slaughter, is that the rogue agents didn’t face more guns
while trying to leave the state than they faced when
attacking their victims.

Someone must be prosecuted for the Weaver murders. Since
the federal agency committing the murders has absolved its
participating members, it falls to the state of Idaho to set
matters right. The most obvious choice is the actual trigger
man, Lon Horiuchi.

At the time of the murders, the Weaver’s were being
demonized by agents in charge, so Idaho can be excused for
not knowing better and not taking action against the shooter
at that time. But the truth eventually came out at Weaver’s
trial, and Idaho no longer enjoys a cloak of ignorance.

Idaho’s action in this matter will have a significant
impact on the path this country takes. To allow rogue agents
to escape unpunished will encourage other agents to duplicate
that behavior because they think it’s fun, and it’s the fastest
way to advance. Freedom doesn’t have to be lost to a conspiracy,
it can also be lost by (once) free men refusing to excise thugs
and petty tyrants from among them while they still had a chance.
More people than you can know of, hope you find the fortitude to
prosecute one or more of the individuals involved.

P.S. – I suggested framed, not entrapped because at 1/4 inch off,
it’s easy to fool the victim into thinking he must have made a
measuring mistake. This, if true, makes the atrocity all the more
evil, but doesn’t change the shootings.

CC:
Idaho Senators: L. Craig (fax: 202-224-2573)
& D. Kempthorne (fax: 202-224-5893)

Idaho Representatives: H. Chenoweth (fax: 202-226-1213)
& M. Crapo (fax: 202-225-8216)
___
X SLMR 2.1a X

— Maximus/2 2.02
* Origin: OS/2 Desktop * Escondido, CA * 619-743-2511 * V.34 (1:202/1207)

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Today Waco. Gestern USA.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

+++ююююю r_950126 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (2184)
To: Elaine Gallegos 21 Jan 95 21:11:00
Subject: A NEW TALE OF TWO CITIES

EG> I liked your tale of two Cities.

Thank you.

War certainly has
EG> always been with us. oooooo, it’s just that it’s gotten so
EG> very dirty with the introduction of nukes.

I wouldn’t know. We haven’t had a nuclear war yet.

But if the fear of the civilian population keeps the big
ones under control fine with me.

But there is not going to be any general progress toward
controlling war until its true nature is understood. People can
refrain from many things in their nature. But not recognizing
the nature of war, not dealing with it for what it is, is not
going to get us anywhere is controlling it except by such
unpleasantries as MADD.

I do not see anyway those who simply say “war is evil” as
though that is all there is to is are contributing anything but a
guaranteed repetition because all they ever mean is that the
other guy starting a war is evil.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “Atlas Shrugged” is a modern political satire.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (2185)
To: Virginia Cramer 21 Jan 95 21:23:00
Subject: ANTI-SMOKERS ARE LIARS

VC> I doubt that some anti-smokers will be content with
VC> businesses being smoke-free. Some of them want to make it
VC> illegal to smoke anywhere, including in your own home.
VC> That is definitely going beyond any reasonable limits.

Rest assured, that is their ultimate goal.

It is better to deal with them on those grounds than on the
“just a little bit” lie they are pretending.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Clinton wants to talk to Thomas Jefferson. Jealousy alert.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (2186)
To: Carole Thomas 21 Jan 95 21:24:00
Subject: CHAOS IS WORSE THAN YOU I

CT> MG> This is chaos. It is the ability to know everything about
CT> MG> something and not be able to predict the future. And the catch

CT> The fallacy in the above statement is that we know
CT> “everything” about something. All that is known is all
CT> that is known and that is not everything. It is what is
CT> unknown about something that prevents one from accurate
CT> predictions.

What you are missing is a point I did not expound upon in as
much detail as I should have. One of things we do know is that
there is an entire class of phenomena that we know we can not
know everything about. This is the quantum level. It is what
leads to the paradox of Shroedinger’s Cat. We can not know all
there is to know about any form of radiation, particulate or
electromagnetic including visible light.

The question has always been, since we know the sub-atomic
is governed by rules that mean we can not know what is going to
happen, why does the macro-world we experience appear orderly?
It is not a question of where this transition occurs but how can
it possibly occur at all. It is like every lotto player’s dream
come true, the seemingly random numbers on the tickets always pay
off. Yet what we know we can not predict appears predictable if
we don’t look at the individual events that make up reality.

Of course this is the idea that in some manner we might be
able to “know” events well enough. That is rather unlikely as
the present explanation is complete. It does explain what
happens. There are no missing parts to the puzzle.

It is possible that something new will be observed that does
not fit but at the moment that is not where the problems lie.
The issue now is that there are aspects of the theory that can
have multiple outcomes. The effort is to find which are true and
why. The puzzle has more pieces than we need.

I will also point out that the understanding we have is from
this same mind that makes sense of this unpredictability. Math
is the only tool that can do it. The common english language is
not up to the job and the specialized scientific english is as
bad as the english that talks about evolution. Words are used
knowing full well they do not mean anything like the plain
english meaning.

Since knowledge has been shown to build upon
CT> itself we are seduced into considering that it is indeed
CT> possible to know all, if only we can make the right
CT> connections from what we do know to be true in order to
CT> arrive at the next new starting point. But it is all so
CT> fragile and if you drop one connection somewhere along the
CT> chain of knowledge, you have altered the entire course of
CT> prediction. And when the inescapable intrusion occurs
CT> along the way, that has to be factored into the chain of
CT> prediction with all its accompanying connectors and
CT> consequences.

Or perhaps that it rains? When we think in terms of options
for the future we are building in the unpredictable into our
predictions. By nature our predictions are tentative to some
extent or narrowly predictable. Certainly one can plan to do a
particular thing at work tomorrow but even if it is as simple as
making coffee, the exact time of making it and the events around
it are unknown. We may plan the next day but we certainly do not
script it.

CT> On a near scale, prediction can be reasonably precise.
CT> A weight dropped from waist height on your toe will hurt.
CT> If the weight is thrown high in the air, the landing is
CT> less predictable but still circumscribed. Dropped from an
CT> airplane at 10,000 feet or flung from the heights of Mt.
CT> Kilimanjaro will entail so many calculations that it is
CT> beyond human capability at present to tell where it will
CT> land with any precision.

And thus you point out the precision is a matter of degree
that is distance in time dependent. Certainly the more that is
known, the more experience one has, the more intelligent the
further in the future a person can be more correct. But it is
like your dropping example, the best that can be said for the
high drops is down. If it is something like going to college the
best that can be said is the person will experience college life.

CT> It is incorrect to assume that the fact that
CT> prediction is demonstrably imprecise necessarily means that
CT> all attempts should be abandoned. The more one wrestles
CT> with the challenge, the more strange attractors will emerge
CT> to be included in the calculation and the further into the
CT> future one will be enabled to go.

But these will be a better grasp of the statistical
likelihood of the events rather than a deterministic statement of
events.

CT> Our understanding at present only seems to allow for
CT> generalities as regards human behavior, but that is not to
CT> say that this is not useful. We should avoid comparing
CT> people to machinery. Much of what we understand about
CT> others and even about ourselves is intuitive and that
CT> suggests that we are tuning in on information that exists
CT> in time and space but which we are unable to verbalize even
CT> while we seem able to feel its’ existence.

Or rather that there being such information the mind is
designed in such a way as to find the nearest parallels and
suggest them as the context for what we are observing or thinking
about. It is the “that reminds me of” on a much more fundamental
and pervasive level. We remember by saving attributes of events
not by saving events as a unit. We only save the association
list as a unit (sort of like a Windows .GRP). That is how false
memories are so easily created by suggesting false associations,
the mind will fill in the rest.

CT> MG> It is the function of the nervous system to make this
CT> MG> chaos appear predictable and deterministic.

CT> The ability to deal with the chaos that is our mind as
CT> a microcosm of our universe is a function of intelligence,
CT> consciousness and experience. The very bright, endowed
CT> with active function of both right and left brain are
CT> capable of compartmentalizing, arranging the seemingly
CT> random sequences encountered in the mind and in the world
CT> in some existentially useful design, pushing the not yet
CT> includable parts aside for later consideration.

On the other hand animals have to deal with exactly the same
chaotic universe. It would appear the animal scheme of dealing
with it has a great reliance upon instinct rather than learned
behavior. We and animals do not need a calendar to know winter
is coming, simply trying to fit more activity into less daylight
time does that for us (pre-fire of course.)

That is why I say it is the generic nervous system rather
than intelligence. If a squirrel can survive chaos it doesn’t
take that much intelligence.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Chelsea Clinton is worth a thousand condom commercials.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (2187)
To: Niki Zanzo 21 Jan 95 21:26:00
Subject: MLK’S DREAM SPEECH 02

NZ> I find this coming from an atheist who thinks that all the
NZ> crime in the world is due to the ignorant races, quite
NZ> ludicrous…

Only you are responsible for the foolishness of your
opinions.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * 1st in war. 1st in peace. 1st to say “I quit.” Clinton

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (2188)
To: Forrest Lamont 22 Jan 95 03:35:00
Subject: MG&BVW

FL> MG> any human being (Canadians excepted) unless you admit your racial
FL> MG> mix does not favor the criminal types.

FL> WJ> I see you want to talk race, not gun control, you have turned
FL> WJ> this into a black versus white campaing, sorry I want no part
FL> WJ> of this thread, I’ve already had it out with you. You refuse
FL> WJ> to answer the questions I pose on this thread, and want to go
FL> WJ> elsewhere, I think I know your purpose, but sorry Matt, I will
FL> WJ> not get thrown off this thread for stating it!

FL> Maybe not a rascist, but MG is definitely a bigot.
FL> Recently referred to mexicans as ‘greasers’ in the LAW
FL> echo. Many more of his ilk to be found in LEGAL_LAW as
FL> well. Like any vermin they never completely go away and
FL> like hogs escape occasionally. Just have to herd them back
FL> in again and patch the fence. Haven’t found any reference
FL> yet as to a proper cage for ‘newts’, maybe just flush ’em?

Would you like to post this in context or be ever after
considered a liar?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * He knew the job was dangerous when he married her.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (2189)
To: Travis Beard 22 Jan 95 03:36:00
Subject: REAGAN IS DYING

TB> I understand Reagan is fading fast. He has Alzheimer’s
TB> disease.
TB>
TB> Fetal tissue research was proposed that would help
TB> sufferers of this disease.
TB>
TB> Ronald Reagan banned research using fetal tissue during his
TB> administration.

That was for Parkinson’s youngster. Get your story straight
for once.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * A contribution from each according to his ability. Clinton

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (2190)
To: Randy Evers 22 Jan 95 03:37:00
Subject: REAGAN IS DYING

RE> -=> Quoting Travis Beard to All <=-

RE> TB> I understand Reagan is fading fast. He has Alzheimer’s disease.

RE> TB> Fetal tissue research was proposed that would help sufferers of this
RE> TB> disease.

RE> TB> Ronald Reagan banned research using fetal tissue during his
RE> TB> administration.

RE> What goes around, comes around.

Wrong disease.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Envy is the opposite of ambition.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (2191)
To: Mike Richards 22 Jan 95 03:41:00
Subject: WELFARE

MR> Did you see Dole asking for a 40 billion dollar dole, for his
MR> corporate-elite friends.
MR> Contract with America: HaHaHaHa.

Speaking of dumb, what would the Senate Majority Leader have
to do with a House Republican contract?

Please answer the question and try not to appear dumb in
your response.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Arkansas man speak with forked tongue.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (2192)
To: All 22 Jan 95 03:46:00
Subject: STRANGE PICTUREя

What is wrong with this picture?

KM> Good for you!!! I am not homosexual but my mother is and so
KM> are alot of my friends…I pray for the day when everyone
KM> has equal rights…you deserve them!!! Falling in love must
KM> be hard when you know that society will not accept it, and
KM> paying taxes…well if I were you…I would tell the
KM> government to shove it somewhere until they agree to give
KM> you what you really want in return!

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Clinton — Let Waco be a warning to all Americans…

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (2195)
To: All 22 Jan 95 16:47:00
Subject: IQ CONSISTENCY

Recently there was an execution by lethal injection in
Texas. The usual suspects against the death penalty immediately
pointed out this man had a low IQ. Interestingly they are the
same suspects who are decrying The Bell Curve.

Not that anyone ever accused liberals of consistency but
this is a bit much. First IQ means nothing and then it means a
person should not be executed. A more honest statement would be
that IQ should only be used to promote the liberal agenda.

These folks are certainly making no case for their
intellectual honesty.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Ruby Creek, Waco; the war has already begun.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (2196)
To: Sam Brady 22 Jan 95 22:15:00
Subject: A-BOMB STAMP

SB> Not neccesarily. Doesn’t survival of the fittest provide a
SB> purpose without religion? (Sorry about the quote – you were
SB> talking about evolution.) But you are right in a way – I
SB> can see no OTHER reason for evolution that isn’t relgious.

It does not “provide” or “give” a purpose. Purpose is a
human thing. There is no evidence of its existence outside our
minds.

Survival is merely a neutral mechanism that explains what we
see without the need to imagine a purpose.

As for a “need” for evolution, that is a human abstraction
also. There is no need for anything. What happens, is all there
is, the same with a reason for anything.

To find a reason or need or purpose in life is no different
in finding all of the above in the 1/2 spin of an electron.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “We just screwed all these people.” — H. Clinton

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (2197)
To: Elan Dassani 22 Jan 95 22:22:00
Subject: AIDS IMMIGRATION BAN BAD

ED> 1: Here are just a TASTE of the reasons that the Aids Ban impedes our
ED> fight
ED> 2: vs. Aids. First of all
ED> 3: 1) The Cost: One of the major practical arguments against the
ED> dropping

Please reply again without the xx: nonsense. It is not
worth the time to deal with.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * 1st in war. 1st in peace. 1st to say “I quit.” Clinton

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (2203)
To: Elan Dassani 23 Jan 95 01:19:00
Subject: AIDS IMMIGRATION BAN BAD

ED> In the United States their are over 286,000 patients who
ED> currently have the Aids virus.

There is no such thing. There is HIV and there are AIDS
symptoms which no longer require a disease attached to them.

Staticians use 300-600
ED> people for a variable differnce. We are talking only
ED> 300-600 people. Plus their isn’t a large amount of evidence
ED> supporting the fact that a flood of immigrants will come.

Who gives a rat’s ass? The cost of the useless treatment
the US provides is well over $100,000 per person. Why should
they die extensively here rather than cheaply where they come
from? Does a high priced death make it more acceptable? They
are all going to die of this disease.

That the US wastes money on useless treatments rather than
on pain killers is something that does not make sense to any
rational person.

ED> Plus we aren’t saying let anyone with aids who want to come
ED> in. All I’m saying is it can’t be used as a criterion to
ED> not admit someone in.

If there is a criterion that they get no medical treatment
other than pain killers, fine with me.

Not all of those 300-600 people will
ED> get in for other reasons. Especially if they are vagrants
ED> or some such who are more likely to be promiscuous in our
ED> country. Plus we can’t say to the rest of the world
ED> community that Aids is thier problem.

Why not?

Aids is a global
ED> problem that the world as a whole should try to treat.

That is why we are doing our best to keep the walking dead
out of the US.

The
ED> United States and the world as a whole could better treat
ED> aids if the ban was gone.

How could an incurable disease be treated better? Please be
specific.

Plus a miniscule amount of Hiv
ED> carriers would immigrate to this country. ALmost
ED> universally tourism has been the major cause of HIV flowing
ED> into this country.

Then that needs to be stopped also.

The magnitude makes this ban ABSURD.
ED> 300-600 people are not going to make a difference in the
ED> amount of Aids except to make it go down.

It is an unwarranted expense to the US for the walking dead.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * A contribution from each according to his ability. Clinton

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (2204)
To: Mike Richards 23 Jan 95 01:48:00
Subject: CONFUSED

MR> Leroy has been reading too many New-Age books. He said he
MR> was being attacked by the counter-culture. “Newt” you
MR> *ARE* the counter-culture.

Revolutions are always won by a minority.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Clinton’s Great Grandpappy, Col. Jubilation T. Cornpone

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (2205)
To: All 23 Jan 95 01:53:00
Subject: CRIME

DR> “Under our form of government, the legislature is not
DR> supreme … like other departments of government, it
DR> can only exercise such powers as have been delegated
DR> to it, and when it steps beyond that boundary, its
DR> acts, like those of the most humble magistrate in the
DR> state who transcends his jurisdiction, are utterly
DR> void.” Billings v. Hall 7 CA 1

Amazing is it not?

Under our form of government the supreme court is not
supreme either. Yet everyone bows down to it as though it were.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “What is Truth?” asked the doubting Clinton.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (2206)
To: Dick Roebelt 23 Jan 95 01:53:00
Subject: CRIME

Amazing is it not?

Under our form of government the supreme court is not
supreme either. Yet everyone bows down to it as though it were.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “What is Truth?” asked the doubting Clinton.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (2207)
To: Ed Mathis 23 Jan 95 01:58:00
Subject: DEATH PENALTY-NICOTIN

EM> The fact remains that smoking and ETS are a proven,
EM> substantial hazard responsible for thousands of deaths and
EM> much suffering in this country. I seriously doubt that even
EM> you would argue that nutrasweet is in the same league as
EM> tobacco!
EM>
EM> I challenge you to name another commonly used, legal
EM> substance that causes as much documented physical suffering
~~~~~~~~~~
EM> and death to its users and nonusing bystanders as does
EM> tobacco, when it is used as it is intended.
EM>
EM> Please stick to verifiable facts, Su. And expect to be
EM> challenged for them, as you have been by this post.

I challenge you to learn something about statistics.

At best your first claim is statistics.

Documented means in writing. If you can produce an
reference to those thousands of cases of death from ETS you will
demonstrate you understand what you are talking about.

Until you do, you will demonstrate you are ignorant of what
you are saying.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Bill Clinton, a differently-abled president.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (2208)
To: Jack Wilder 23 Jan 95 02:08:00
Subject: DEC.6, 1989

JW> It would only be reasonable considering the
JW> straight sex that was continually depicted. I think even
JW> bugs had a straight bent (pun intended) though, because
JW> of all the cross dressing he did, and I think the popular
JW> belief is that cross-dressers aren’t gay.

My experience isn’t worth that much but it is a bit long.

Cross-dressers have a propensity to be bi-sexual but rarely
are. Cross-dressing as a “thing” in the gay community is
something else entirely. It is a bit of an extreme form of the
“hankie” sign and, as they say, just another fun thing to do.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Billie Jeff Clinton, the Commander in Grief.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (2209)
To: Linda Terrell 23 Jan 95 02:12:00
Subject: DUMB WHITE “MEN”

LT> Gore had Congressional permission. OJ is not a publically elected
LT> offical.

Permission? From whom?

LT> Newt took an advance from a corporation owned by someone
LT> who was asking Congress for special dispensation for his
LT> Cable Empires.

And?

LT> SH> Are you really this scared of Newt?

LT> No. He’s the best ammunition the Democrats have.

It is the ONLY ammunition they have.

Term limits? the book

Balanced budget? the book

Any substantive issue? the book

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Clinton’s 1st Fag Battallion S-U-C-K-S!

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (2210)
To: Wayne Bertsch 23 Jan 95 02:18:00
Subject: ENEMIES OF ALL AMERICANS

WB> What are you saying? that without any warning or sign of
WB> trouble they just walked up an shot him. I don’t buy
WB> that.

You do not have to buy it. That is what came out in court
testimony under oath.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “Airpower can deal with detention camps” Bill Clinton

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (2211)
To: Forrest Lamont 23 Jan 95 02:20:00
Subject: IDAHO SHOULD PROSECUTE

FL> Personally I have a long list of BATF-FBI personnel that I
FL> would like to see get their butts hauled into court for
FL> this kind of crap. It’ll never happen of course :-(.

Enemies of All Americans
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <1/9>

* * * * *

Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

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

[note new address and phone]

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Never, ever trust a draft dodger.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (2212)
To: All 23 Jan 95 03:10:00
Subject: POLISH POPE

Oldie but …

The Pope is speaking to god.

Pope: will there ever be a woman priest?

God: Not while you are Pope.

Pope: will there ever be approved birth control?

God: Not while you are Pope.

Pope: Will there ever be another Polish Pope?

God: Not while I am God.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * A sufficiently advanced person will appear to be god.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (2215)
To: All 23 Jan 95 15:27:00
Subject: URGENT! LEAD BULLET BAN

########## Original From: BOB FENSTERMACHER
# STOLEN # To: ALL
# STUFF # Date/Number: 01/20/95 – 0000150
########## On: DOC’S – 0028 – Airgun
———————————————————————–

(To moderator: Reason for this posting? A ban on lead bullets
would provide considerable technical challenge to those who use
firearms or airguns, or reload ammunition for them…especially
since bullets made of materials other than lead are, in many
cases, already banned as “armor-piercing.” Here’s what’s in the
works, courtesy of a GOA fax alert, presented here verbatim.)

Clinton Regs. Could Ban Lead Bullets– Response needed to your
Congressman & EPA

by Gun Owners of America

8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102 Springfield VA 22151 (703)321-8585

(January 18, 1995) — New rules issued by the Environmental
Protection Agency could lead to to the banning of lead bullets.
The EPA will investigate whether it deems lead bullets as toxic to
the environment and will then consider implementing either a
complete ban or partial restrictions on the manufacture of such
bullets.

This is nothing but another one of Bill Clinton’s attempts at
gun control!

The EPA will begin studying this issue to determine whether lead
bullets should be banned or regulated. But clearly, the EPA has
no constitutional authority to make these determinations.

To make matters worse, the EPA could ban the bullets, even if
they never complete their environmental-impact study. The EPA
states they can issue “an order to prohibit or limit the
manufacturing, processing, or distribution” of lead bullets while
they continue their risk evaluation.

This is clearly an outrageous attempt — once again — to
infringe upon our Second Amendment liberties. Legislators like
Sen. Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) have made it clear that the way to
ban guns is to dry up the supply of bullets. This is just another
chipping away of our rights. If they can claim authority over
lead bullets, where will it end?

In Texas this type of environmental tyranny has recently led to
the closing of a shooting range. State authorities used local
environmental regulations to deem the bullets as toxic waste, and
thus, closed the range.

You need to speak out before they ban our bullets, close down
our shooting ranges and leave you wiht guns that serve no other
purpose than as bulky paper-weights. Your Congressman and the EPA
need to hear from you before January 27, 1995. HERE’S WHAT YOU
MUST DO:

*Call/fax your Representative (202-225-3121) and urge him to
express his opposition to this new gun control attempt. He must
contact the EPA before Jan. 27. Tell him that Gun Owners of
America will be circulating a letter (signed by Rep. Bill Emerson)
opposing the regulations. Ask your Representative to call Rep.
Emerson and sign the letter.

*Send a message to the EPA and ask them what constitutional
authority they have to ban or regulate lead bullets. Tell them
that the Second Amendment prevents ANY infringment, and that means
bullets are protected. Remind them that in the recent elections
voters rejected the “Nanny Government” view; and that if they
persist in violating the Constitution, you will demaind that your
Congressman press for disbanding the entire EPA. The EPA must
receive your written comments before January 27, 1995. You may
send your comments to the EPA by the following means:

1. Letters: OPPT Document Control Officer (7407), Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency,
Rm. E-G99, 401 M. St., SW, Washington, DC 20460. All written data
and comments should be identified by the docket number OPPTS-50618
and should be submitted in triplicate.

2. Electronic Mail (3 ways) (a) By sending electronic mail (e-
mail) to [email protected]; (b) by sending a
“Subscribe” message to [email protected] and once
subscribed, send your comments to RIN-2070-AC37, or (c) through
the EPA Electronic Bulletin Board by dialing 202-448-3671, enter
selection “DMAIL,” username “BB-USER” or 919-541-4642, enter
selection “MAIL,” user name “BB_USER.” All comments and data in
electronic form should be identified by the docket number OPPTS-
50618.

Note: The EPA’s proposed regulations on lead bullets are part
of a larger “advance notice” on lead in general. The EPA will
also be studying the ”dangers” of lead solder, gutters, fishing
sinkers, motor fuel and much more.

… All in favor of losing their rights, please do nothing.

(end message)

… No tagline.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12

— GEcho 1.00
* Origin: Paul Revere Net/Chicago (1:115/176)

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Catapult testing condemned by ASPCA.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

+++ююююю r_950127 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (2291)
To: Moody Blues 24 Jan 95 00:25:00
Subject: 10TH SCORECARD

MB> Sorry for the confusion… when I wrote this message to
MB> you, I was reading what you had posted… it did not
MB> “sound” like you… but then it appeared you wrote the
MB> entire message… and that all of the words were yours… I
MB> accept your explanation…

No problem. The following should be at the head of any
forwarded material with the { } filled in. This is the easiest
was to check. There are exceptions such as when I get something
off of CI$ but then I try to remember to make that clear. (Now
if CI$ would only adopt the .QWK standard, if pigs had wings and
hell froze over …)

########## Original From: MOODY BLUES
# STOLEN # To: MATT GIWER
# STUFF # Date/Number: 01/24/95 – {NUMBER}
########## On: {SYSTEM} – {CONF}
———————————————————————–

There is one other point. If I have forwarded it to ALL
then I find it of general interest. It will be either

a) I more or less support it, or

b) This is so absurd I had to pass it on.

When it is to a particular person it only means it is of
some interest to that person. I have no intention of implying
they “more or less” agree with all of the contents of it. It is
merely that it may be of interest to them.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Taxes are never raised to benefit the taxed.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (2292)
To: Wayne Jones 24 Jan 95 00:38:00
Subject: 70% FAVOUR GUN CONTRяяяяя

WJ> WJ> MG> If you are going to maintain the fiction that crime is
WJ> WJ> MG> IQ/race neutral then I am going to maintain the fiction
WJ> WJ> MG> that Canadians would have the same crime rate as the US if
WJ> WJ> MG> they had equal access to guns.

WJ> I am maintaining it, but that was not what this
WJ> discussion is about. You were comparing American
WJ> crime rates with other countries, and splitting up
WJ> your population. It just doesn’t work that way.

In other words you are saying people in Great Britain are a
hundred times more likely to die of terrorists bombings than
Americans because that is the was the British are. Those Brits
are certainly mad bombers. I see no reason anyone would risk
visiting England.

And of course this tells the complete story.

WJ> MG> Being a legal American citizen has nothing to do with race
WJ> MG> nor does the crime rate difference that is dependent upon
WJ> MG> race. Even Canada is cutting its immigration rate by 20% to
WJ> MG> reduce the crime problem.

WJ> See my other post on this, and I still maintain you
WJ> are wrong!

And I have demonstrated British subjects are bomb crazy
terrorists.

WJ> WJ> I have fioltered this discusion.
~~~~~~~~~

WJ> MG> Finally a Canadian honest enough to admit he can not deal
WJ> MG> with rational discourse on the issue but has to cop out at
WJ> MG> the first opportunity.

WJ> Matt it is not me who is being irrational,

So much for honesty also.

I’m
WJ> sorry but you had better go back and read some of
WJ> your posts, and compare them to the information you
WJ> are basing it on. You have suggested that because
WJ> racist groups have complained about the crime rate,
WJ> our government is cutting it’s immigration by 20%.
WJ> Using your own source. Our government has never
WJ> maintained that, nor do the majority of the people.
WJ> I do not cop out, I just seem to be meeting up with
WJ> a brick wall here, and I see no point in persuing
WJ> it further. It’s a waste of my time!

Excuse me. I thought your country was a democracy? Why
would it not respond to its people in its decisions? Is your
entire government like our liberals who think they know better
than the citizens?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Services to each according to his need. Clinton

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (2293)
To: Kevin Crabtree 24 Jan 95 00:45:00
Subject: A BOMB STAMP

KC> > KC> Once again, I was stating that it was untrue what he was
KC> > KC> implying, that Japanese Americans were “proud” of their
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
KC> > KC> accomplishment at Pearl harbor. By stating this (which is
KC> > KC> untrue) he is only breeding hatred. ~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~

KC> > Japanese Americans were quite proud of their actions
KC> > at Pearl Harbor and rightly so. They were right there in
KC> > the front lines of the rescue and damage control
KC> > operations.

KC> I was referring to the “achievement” of the Japanese forces
KC> that attacked, as was the original poster.

We must be using different varieties of English.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “Who are these people here?” Algore

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (2295)
To: Wayne Jones 24 Jan 95 00:52:00
Subject: RESPONSIBLE GUNNERSяяяяяя

WJ> MG> OTTAWA — Canada said yesterday it is reducing, for the
WJ> MG> first time in a decade, the number of immigrants it will
WJ> MG> accept and that preference will be given to skilled workers
WJ> MG> and businessmen.

WJ> Sounds economic to me!!!!!!!!!!

Making all of Canada no different from California.

WJ> MG> Racist groups have become outspoken in blaming rising urban
WJ> MG> crime on excesssive immigration.

WJ> The key here, and what you preumable do not
WJ> comprehend, is RACIST GROUPS HAVE BECOME OUTSPOKEN
WJ> IN BLAMING….. you have been saying Canada has cut
WJ> it’s imigration policy because of the crime rate,
WJ> and you use this as a quote. Yet even this does
WJ> not support your position. Rather it enhances
WJ> mine.

I had always thought Canada was democratic and supported the
will of the people. Or does your government know better than its
people?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Billie Jeff Clinton, the Commander in Grief.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (2296)
To: Lester Garrett 24 Jan 95 03:47:00
Subject: ARE YOU READING THIS???

########## Original From: NIKI ZANZO
# STOLEN # To: MODERATOR
# STUFF # Date/Number: 01/20/95 – 0000202
########## On: DOC’S – 0259 – Holysmoke
———————————————————————–

Hello Mr. or Ms. Moderator,

Are you aware of what is going on here?

I thought this was a “religion echo” for discussion…

…but all I see is the filthy, evil tongues of Satan himself!

Why not either “ban” these people, or just tell them to go over
to the “Debate” echo where nobody cares about ANYTHING ANYBODY says?

Niki
—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Creationists prove the universe is winding down.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (2299)
To: All 24 Jan 95 18:57:00
Subject: OJ PROSECUTION OPEN STATE

OJ Update

In its opening statement to the jury the prosecution
announced it have found a glove with five fingers and that OJ has
five fingers.

Other revelations are expected as the case proceeds.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Hillary “the psychic” Clinton is running Billie Jeff.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

+++ююююю r_950131 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (2609)
To: All 26 Jan 95 01:52:00
Subject: MISNAMED TEN

The Misnamed Ten
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <12/26>

The first ten amendments to the the Constitution were added
to the Constitution as a condition of ratification of the
Constitution by four states. Had it not been for the formulation
and submission of those amendments for ratification the basic
Constitution of the United States would not have been ratified
and we would not have a United States of America. This puts the
importance of those amendments in perspective.
The reason for the insistence upon these amendments was not
that their subject matter was not covered. Rather that the
subject matter was not clearly covered. Every one of them and
many more are clearly implied by the intention of the
Constitution, that those were the only powers being granted to
the government of the United States were those written in the
Constitution and none other.
The reason for this was quite foresightful. The wisdom that
men of ill-will would find ways to add to those granted powers
with clever wording of legislation. An example is the use of
the power to regulate interstate commerce and control of foreign
affairs to prohibit rather than regulate. The purpose of the
first ten amendments was to specifically prohibit the federal
government from doing such things.
This was not achieved with the same wisdom as the wisdom of
the need for them. They were phrased in a rather haphazard
manner. The first eight are perhaps best described as a list of
the most serious grievances against England. They are specific
prohibitions against the federal government doing what is listed.
As such they are misnamed. It is not a bill of rights. It
is a bill of prohibitions that applies to the federal government.
It is not a granting of rights to the people. It is a
prohibition incumbent upon the federal government from infringing
the pre-existing rights mentioned. And if the enumeration of
such rights is not sufficient there are the 9th and 10th.
The 9th says that because other rights are listed, an
acknowledgement of an incomplete list, that those other rights
still exist. The 10th says that those rights are retained by the
states and the people, period. There is no way to honestly read
the federal constitution and the this bill of prohibitions
without understanding it does not grant rights.
The point of this that if the bill of rights were repealed
tomorrow every right mentioned and unmentioned in it would remain
intact and complete. Any infringement of any right by the
federal government can be met with all the force necessary to
stop that infringement including deadly. Once a protection is
removed the court no longer has a say in the infringement of the
right. At that point it is simply the individual or organized
group or militia against the state as there is no other recourse.
This applies with equal clarity to the legal abrogations of
rights such as the use of regulation as a means of prohibition.
Of course it also applies to prohibitions where there is no
delegated power to prohibit.
The question arises as to issues that have been decided by
the Supreme Court. Let me be very clear about this. When we
talk about the federal government usurping powers not delegated
we are talking about the Supreme Court as part of that federal
government.
To put any branch of government above any other is contrary
to our system of government. To consider any branch of
government as more important than any other is contrary to our
system of government. To hold the Supreme Court is the final
arbiter it to put it above the other two branches of our
government.
In any event, a law passed that is not within the delegated
powers in the federal constitution is not within those powers
simply because the Supreme Courts says it is.
The moral use of force, even deadly force, to resist such
laws is a decision for each individual or group involved in
resistance to those laws. In some cases resistance is the
equivalent ot rebellion against the government. It would not be
the first time Americans rebelled against their government in the
name of liberty. There is no shame in it.
Our rights are not changed by laws or by the Constitution no
matter what law is passed who interprets the laws or the
Constitution. Our right to defend those rights by any means we
so choose. That choice is left to our own conscience alone.

* * * * *

Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

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

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Were the Police on the Long Island train?

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (2610)
To: All 26 Jan 95 04:28:00
Subject: AIDS IMMIGRATION BAN BAD

ED> 2) THERE WILL BE NO ADDED BURDEN ON THE US HEALTH CARE
ED> SYSTEM. Currently every immigrant who APPLIES for
ED> immigration to the United States must go through a test for
ED> HIV. Each Year that test comes to over 1.2 BILLION dollars.
ED> That means EVERY year, for EACH Hiv carrier the US
ED> excludes, it costs taxpayers 2 million dollars.

I would hope the letters B and S mean something to you.

The basic test is $10. Add the overhead and it might get up
to $20. That means 60 million potential immigrants are being
tested. That means you have your head up your ass.

On the
ED> other hand to treat an HIV carrier for LIFE it costs an
ED> average of 74,000 dollars.

And if you ONLY count the direct medical care and not all
the welfare you just might get a number that low. AZT is $1000 a
week all by itself. People are put on it as soon as they turn
positive and it is years before they show symptoms. That is
$52,000 a year for that alone.

Do the math but that kind of
ED> money could be put to much better use in the US Health Care
ED> System or to Aids research.

LEARN some math and get some real numbers.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * A contribution from each according to his ability. Clinton

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (2611)
To: Elan Dassani 26 Jan 95 04:28:00
Subject: AIDS IMMIGRATION BAN BAD

I would hope the letters B and S mean something to you.

The basic test is $10. Add the overhead and it might get up
to $20. That means 60 million potential immigrants are being
tested. That means you have your head up your ass.

On the
ED> other hand to treat an HIV carrier for LIFE it costs an
ED> average of 74,000 dollars.

Do the math but that kind of
ED> money could be put to much better use in the US Health Care
ED> System or to Aids research.

LEARN some math and get some real numbers.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * A contribution from each according to his ability. Clinton

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (2615)
To: Jack Wilder 26 Jan 95 00:24:00
Subject: 70% FAVOUR GUN CONTRO

JW> MG> And we are having an unseasonably cold 68 degrees. I feel
JW> MG> like getting out the sleigh.

JW> Now that would be “tough sledding”!(;->*

Water sleigh. Pulled by Miami Dolphins.

JW> OJW

Everybody’s on an OJ kick.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Clinton’s lips never stop moving.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (2618)
To: All 26 Jan 95 22:13:00
Subject: OJ DEFENSE STATEMENT

In a surprise announcement by the OJ defense team in its
opening argument, it was stated the glove could not possibly
belong to OJ as OJ has a rare birth defect and has six fingers.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Four different tax cuts add up to real money.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (2619)
To: Dick Roebelt 27 Jan 95 00:26:00
Subject: CRIME

DR> One problem is that the people, being supreme, have no
DR> *direct* way of overturning the Supreme Court.

Correction. We have one peaceful means. Jury
nullification.

We have no other peaceful means.

That being the position we have been forced into and find
ourselves in.

DR> If the patriots who fought to give us our form of
DR> government and independence could have ever envisioned an
DR> activist court and appointees who repaid their patronage by
DR> promoting their patron’s agenda, one has to wonder what
DR> change(s) they would have made in the language and form of
DR> the Constitution?

There is hardly an oppressive policy in the country that has
not been imposed by the federal courts. It is time they learn we
have said no.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * The Constitution is not a technicality.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (2620)
To: Jack Wilder 27 Jan 95 00:42:00
Subject: THIS ‘N THAT

JW> MG> The typical street knife is no better. You will look long
JW> MG> and hard to find of of 440C or better.

JW> OTOH hardening steel is a fairly simple operation
JW> if one has a forge, or good torch! Any good book on
JW> basic metallurgy should have instructions.

Sort of. But it doesn’t quite apply when starting out with
the crap you do find on the street. Imagine trying to harden up
a Swiss Army knife blade.

If you start with a decent purity iron then, if I remember
correctly, it is yellow, quench in something high in carbon (oil,
fat, fat slaves), red hot, cool slowly. Other than that it is
all in the skill and experience.

Starting with one of the cheap stainless alloys does not
appear to lead much of anywhere.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “Bill survives Hil attack, two Secret Service injured.”

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

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

Giwer, debate 1-1995

Latest article

Who’s On First: The Fairview Server

Fairview Technologies: BC Response

Fairview Technologies

The History of Lies

Materials