Documents

Giwer, debate 11-1994

RC> KP> MG> If the Supreme Court kills 187 it is also a matter of the
RC> KP> MG> federal government imposing its will upon the people.

RC> KP> Negating the will of the PEOPLE!

RC> I believe this is at least debateable, and probably wrong.

The Supreme Court is part of the federal government. Thus
anything they do is part of imposing the will of the federal
government upon the people. It is not supreme to the other two
branches.

RC> Suppose The Supremes do declare 187 unconstitutional, and
RC> in doing so give sound reasons rooted in the language of
RC> the constitution. Since the constitution reflects the
RC> will of the people, then enforcing it would not be
RC> negating the will of the people, nor would it be a case of
RC> The Supremes enforcing their will upon the people. Rather,
RC> it would be a case of enforcing the will of the people.

And what is sound reasoning? Dred Scott? separate but
equal? There have been at least a half dozen reversals and they
have always been upon the most divisive issues. They could have
ducked the issue as they have on at least six challenges to local
gun control laws but they did not. They could have ducked Roe v
Wade or Brown v Board of Education but did not.

The difference between gun control and the other two is in
the former they have let it sit for the country to sort out
rather than imposing its transient interpretation upon the
country. In the latter two it moved at first challenge to take
make a decision.

Now certainly it has abrogated this job to itself but on
issues that are truly controversial the issue should be left
until the states have had an opportunity to weigh in with
alternative approaches. They do not have the job to know
everything there is to know or to imagine every solution there is
to imagine. Their job is not to find a constitutional
justification for whatever they think should be done or to ignore
the constitution as the first black justice said he did.

Going back to the point of the constitution being the will
of the people, yes but read the 9th and 10th amendments which are
the will of the people. For example, one can argue on a case by
case basis whether a particular separate facility is or is not
equal for purposes of the equal protection clause, but to decide
that separate is inherently unequal is something else entirely.
That it may be unequal in the preponderance of the cases has
nothing to do with it being inherently true, only that the
implementation is not. This kind of reasoning gets no points on
an IQ test.

So the will of the people has been thwarted by an
interpretation that would be the wrong answer in an IQ test. So
whose will is the court imposing?

Abortion is similar. In abortion there right of privacy
between patient and physician has been found to protect abortion.
Does that mean anything that is private between patient is
protected by privacy from state intervention? Of course not.
But did the SC make a blanket statement regarding such
protection? No. Why not? Because there was a specific issue.

Go back to Dred Scott. It was an affirmation of the
specific items in the constitution regarding property and that
what existed in one state could not be changed by changing
states. This principle continues to this day save it can no
longer apply to people.

In finding justification for findings that are not clearly
in the constitution it is inventing a reason to approve a
specific case and to impose it.

And one further point, unless it is a 9-0 decision the
“losing side” can be in accordance with the thinking of up to
four of the “greatest legal minds” in the country and still go to
jail. I think with that the court and its members are put into
perspective. It is not reasonable to say that if 4 of 9 agree it
can be inherently wrong given the 4 that would have done the same
thing.

So in looking at the USSC it can not be considered in any
way different than the other branches, imposing what they wish to
see rather than in what the constitution does say as as the
constitution can be the only thing called the will of the people.

®®юю R_9412 ююЇЇ
+++ююююю r_941201 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (2265)
To: All 28 Nov 94 02:29:00
Subject: CA PROP 187

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * BATF Motto “Let God sort out the innocent!”

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10
* Origin: DOC’S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603! (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 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 – (2271)
To: Brad Stiles 28 Nov 94 03:30:00
Subject: ETHICS AGAINST TOYS 4 TOT

BS> MG> Under the rules the Marines are prohibited for
BS> MG> “soliciting services or materials” as are all government
BS> MG> employees under the new ethics rules.

BS> The latest word that I’ve gotten on this issue is that
BS> the Marine Corp, as an organization, is not permitted to
BS> participate. Individual Marines, on the other hand, are as
BS> free as we ever were to individually participate in such
BS> activities. We can still participate in Toys for Tots,
BS> just not in uniform or as a representative of the Marine
BS> Corps.

Of course, but then the military tradition of community
service as a matter of good will goes back long before the
Marines started their participation.

BS> MG> The prohibitions extends to the use of government equipment
BS> MG> (trucks and such) in support of the toy collection
BS> MG> campaign.

BS> As is proper.

But it is proper to provide AF One, Marine One, and a host
of MAC Air services for Congresscritters and their staffs?

BS> MG> It appears Clinton has fit the image of the Grinch.

BS> Aren’t the billions in “charity” that the government
BS> gives away every year in welfare and other “entitlement”
BS> programs enough? Should we now spend government money, in
BS> the form of vehicles and Marines away from their jobs, to
BS> subsidize yet another private organization?

Good sir, the catch was in the blanket prohibition of
solicitation of goods or services without providing for an
exception for charity.

And I ask you, does this also apply to The United Way? I
remember those.

=====

Now if the average Marine were a bit pissed at this assigned
duty then that is another matter and of course I would support it
save that it is hard to imagine there is a man in the Corp who
signed up before this became a tradition in 1947 save for a few
flags.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * It ain’t charity with other people’s money.

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10
* Origin: DOC’S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603! (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 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

+++ююююю r_941206 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (2354)
To: George Noonan 30 Nov 94 21:22:00
Subject: BELL SHAPED CURVE

GN> MG> Are not the burger flipping jobs giving them
GN> MG> employment in line with their economic worth?

GN> Perhaps. But that “economic worth” doesn’t allow them the
GN> necessities of life either. And THAT is the whole
GN> problem.

Of course it does. That is why people with that kind of
income split apartments and such to minimize basic costs. Are
you telling me you were born with a silver foot in your mouth and
never heard of that? And, I agree, one can not raise a family on
that kind of income but people have no business marrying until
they can afford it.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Brevity is the soul of lingerie.

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10
* Origin: DOC’S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603! (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 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 – (2355)
To: Mark David 30 Nov 94 21:26:00
Subject: HETS>50 OF NEW AIDS

MD> MG> It is also relevant to point out that over 90% of them are
MD> MG>IV drug users. Thus the issue is not sexual transmission but
MD> MG>blood transmission.

MD> If this is so than how was it managed to blow it so utterly
MD> out of porportion and context?
MD>
MD> I’m at a loss. Even given the monumental stupidity of the
MD> press I can’t imagine this level of perversion of
MD> information. Though I shouldn’t as I’ve seen worse in
MD> history books.

The press is only required to report. They are no longer
required to understand what they are reporting. Those were the
good old days.

Second, as stated, it is correct. The fastest growing group
is as they say. But a group going from 1% to 2% would be
doubling and thus the fastest growing of them all but it would
still not be significant.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * The Right of the Individual to be an Individual.

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10
* Origin: DOC’S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603! (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 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 – (2365)
To: Buford F. Ledbetter 1 Dec 94 04:26:00
Subject: DEMS ON 94

BL> MG> The Dems hold the election was not in favor of the
BL> MG> Contract With America by saying the voter generally didn’t
BL> MG> know about it. Let’s work with that premise.
BL> MG>
BL> MG> The Dems ran against Reaganomics and that was
BL> MG> rejected. Does that mean the Dems failed to communicate
BL> MG> their anti-Reaganomics position or that the voters want
BL> MG> Reaganomics?

BL> You guys spend way too much time analyzing premises that
BL> you produce out of thin air. First of all, the republicans
BL> didn’t really run on their ‘contract on america’, they
BL> primarily ran on a slash & burn campaign against all
BL> democrats/liberals and others associated with Clinton,
BL> convienently provided to them by a host of special interest
BL> PACs including Phillip Morris, Lockheed, The National Rifle
BL> Association, and too many Health Insurance corporations to
BL> mention.
BL>
BL> The only thing evident in the recent elections is that
BL> negative television advertising is a highly effective means
BL> of buying votes.

I see you were asleep during the campaign. Too bad.

The Reps ran by associating the Dems with Clinton. The Dems
ran by associating the Reps with Reagan. Either that means
something or the voting was random. Those were the negative
campaigning on both sides.

The positive campaigning was only by the Reps on the
contract. The Dems had no positive campaign positions. The best
on could infer was that their position was, “whatever the
president and her husband want.”

As to PACs, the Dems got more contributions by simple
numerical superiority

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * It ain’t charity with other people’s money.

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10
* Origin: DOC’S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603! (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 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

+++ююююю r_941207 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (2186)
To: Wayne Jones 29 Nov 94 02:21:00
Subject: A FACE ON AIDS II

WJ> MG> What a mosquito does is digests it. They one bite once per
WJ> MG> eating period. Thus there is no way to transmit it.

WJ> Actually the mosquito doesn’t digest it.

What does a female mosquito live on then?

They use
WJ> the blood as fodder for moquito larvae. I am aware
WJ> they bite only once, my concern was what if one bit
WJ> the person that was sitting next to you and you
WJ> killed it, splattering it’s blood on your hands
WJ> etc… I know many of you in the conference
WJ> cannot understand this rational, but for those of
WJ> us living in the country it is quite common. For
WJ> the few seconds the blood may have been in the
WJ> moquito, or for that matter if the mosquito is on
WJ> your friend biting at the time and you killed it.
WJ> This is quite common for us country people.

Spattering a couple micrograms of blood that just might land
on a sucking wound? Please be rational in this.

WJ> MG> And it has been tested with migrant workers. One would
WJ> MG> expect it to be present equally in children and adults if
WJ> MG> mosquitoes could transmit it. It is not. They show the
WJ> MG> same pre and post distribution of the disease as in a
WJ> MG> population living in air conditioning.

WJ> Children are seldom tested for the presence of HIV,
WJ> at least not until they become part of a risk
WJ> catagory, or until they show signs of infection.

I said it was tested. The children WERE tested in this
case.

WJ> Indeed very little of the general population is
WJ> tested for the presence of HIV on a regular basis.
WJ> I still am wondering about how can I slap that
WJ> mosquito on my friend while it’s sucking and not be
WJ> at risk, but I could be if I touched an open wound
WJ> for instance. Just a few questions?/??????

First, open wounds flood outward, slap it all you want, the
virus is washed away with the flowing blood.

If you are going to ask questions at least think them
through before you do so I will not have to waste time telling
you the obvious.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Justic, unlike revenge, is best served warm and bleeding.

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10
* Origin: DOC’S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603! (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 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 – (2187)
To: Lanny Roff 29 Nov 94 02:25:00
Subject: BLYTHELY IGNORANT CLяяяяя

LR> MG> I thought I had heard them all. The man is a genius.

LR> We didn’t hire him to be a genius Matt. All we
LR> wanted was a President. He’s no better or worse
LR> than those who preceded him.

I see. You voted for him because he was no better than
Reagan or Bush. Are you trying to tell me something?

Though he has had to
LR> face a much more pronounced personal attach ratio,
LR> especially in cyberspace.

You were apparently not on such conferences prior to
Clinton’s election. Else you have a very selective memory.

And you seem to be one
LR> of the most vociferous cheerleaders. Did he piss
LR> you off at some point Matt?

Who is he? Your sentence is confusing. I do think Clinton
could prove he is a genius by firing the mud guards on all
Government vehicles.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Play your state lottery. Pay your fool tax.

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10
* Origin: DOC’S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603! (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 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 – (2188)
To: Lanny Roff 29 Nov 94 02:30:00
Subject: CHICAGO VOTING SCANDяяяяя

LR> Could this mean that the Republicans are getting
LR> better at getting the dead vote out than the
LR> Democrats. This election really was a change
LR> wasn’t it?

They even got some brain dead liberals to vote for them.
Not bad.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Sodomy is not a civil right; it is a privledge.

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10
* Origin: DOC’S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603! (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 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 – (2189)
To: Tim Kelley 29 Nov 94 02:31:00
Subject: ETHICS AGAINST TOYS 4 TO

TK> MG> It appears Clinton has fit the image of the Grinch.

TK> Clinton does not want to allow anything which will allow
TK> the U.S. military to “look good”. So, all the PR events
TK> (Special Olympics, Christmas drives, etc.) conducted by the
TK> military will be distasteful to him.
TK>
TK> We all know the contempt he has for our armed forces.

The only thing that pisses me off about Helms is that he did
not shut up when he had Clinton’s competence on the table for
discussion. If the dead in Somalia were not enough all if his
“you better stop” in Bosnia is ready to come bring it to a head.
BUT Helms had to run off at the mouth.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Janet Reno, the third best woman for the job.

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10
* Origin: DOC’S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603! (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 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 – (2190)
To: Buford F. Ledbetter 29 Nov 94 02:33:00
Subject: ETHICS AGAINST TOYS 4 TOT

BL> As usual, I find it amazing how people go to such extremes
BL> to pin ridiculous defamations upon Clinton. Sometimes I
BL> really wonder about the selective mental processing
BL> abilities of humanity, then again all I need to do is look
BL> at the author, Matt Giwer,

At least you spell the name right.

and that answers my question. I
BL> don’t suppose you look at the “bigger picture” Matt do you?
BL> Ethics are ethics – solicitation is solicitation. Just
BL> because some “nice” solicitations may also get caught in
BL> the regulations is no excuse to condemn rules that are in
BL> place to set guidlines to restrict unethical activity.

And the failure to provide exceptions for recognized
charitable causes is what? In my mind, deliberate. The only
government activities which have had a tradition of community
service as a matter of good will have been military. He ended it
either knowingly or stupidly.

BL> While you’re at it, why don’t you condemn the laws which
BL> restrict all politicians from selling used cars from their
BL> government offices? I’m sure at least a few of them would
BL> be willing to donate let’s say, 1% of their profits to some
BL> politically-correct charity in order to motivate a bunch of
BL> idiots to campaign against rules designed to keep them from
BL> being totally corrupt.

If they were to do so to recognized charities I would have
no problem. I simply have not heard of any such thing being
done. We are not talking politically correct here. Toys for
Tots has its roots in traditions going back hundreds of years in
this country and in Europe even further. It has roots going back
farther than can be traced in written history.

You can find it in ancient Rome, a time of gift giving. It
is the natural charitable spirit of mankind not the political
rabble rousing of government largess. This is not “fill out
this form to see if your child is entitled to a toy.” This is
from the deepest emotion of the human spirit.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Double O Limbaugh, License to annoy.

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10
* Origin: DOC’S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603! (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 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 – (2191)
To: All 29 Nov 94 03:42:00
Subject: CHARITY IS UNETHICAL

Charity is Unethical
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1994 <11/29>

This the time of Christmas where the spirit of man going
back thousands of years has found to be a time of giving gifts, a
time of universal brotherhood, and a time of peace. This is a
time when you remember the true spirit of charity.
And amongst this is an active prohibition against our
military from participating in it save on their own time. I am
certain they will if they can get the leave time. At the moment
no duty time can be put toward this ancient tradition.
Rather our government has prohibited such things as Marine
Corp participation in Toys for Tots as unethical. Not merely
prohibited. Not merely frowned upon. No. Our government has to
hold it is unethical to ask for toys for needy children and do
the logistics for this charitable effort.
Unethical is a very nasty term for professionals and our
military is a profession these days. In what manner providing a
happy Christmas for poor children can be compared to a politician
buying a $300,000 a year retirement job with special interest
legislation is beyond me. Converting stamps to cash is not only
unethical, it is criminal. Collecting toys for children at
Christmas is now no better than Dan Rostenkowski.
In the government’s eyes perhaps there should be no charity
at Christmas, rather an entitlement program. The parent gets an
interview, a form is filled out, if all the questions are
answered to qualify, “take this form to the third door on the
left and collect one toy. Merry Christmas.”
Giving a gift is as much for the giver as the receiver. It
is a time to put away the cold and callous part of life we find
we need the rest of the year to survive. And we think we have it
hard.
How would you like to spend eleven months a year developing
your skills not at being callous but at killing. Is not it good
for them also to have a month’s respite to use those same talents
in the time of the year that provides the greatest catharsis for
all of us? I should not be pretending to speak for the Marines
but I am at a loss to find this unethical behavior.
I am also at a loss to understand why government involvement
in direct person to person charity is unethical. It is truly in
no way different from providing a military band and marchers for
a Fourth of July parade or are we to find next July that is also
unethical? Where is it written that government helping the
deserving must be the same as the bureaucracy filling out forms
for the poor to get a toy?
There is charity and there is the government. And there is
no charity, there is no merit, in what the government does nor is
there merit in supporting what the government does.
Decades ago when the poor could not afford their own
Christmas Tree with decorations that make children’s eyes go wide
there was a tradition. The one place in town that everyone could
get to by bus was the town square, the municipal building,
whatever it was called. And on that spot was an act of charity
for the children of the poor and even their parents. That was a
display of the symbols of their Christmas they could not afford.
A brightly lighted tree beyond their dreams, a manger scene
for their ideals of Christmas. There were traditions to be
passed to those who could not afford it for themselves. Today we
prohibit this to the poor and to their children.
Certainly in the name of isolation from religion we tell the
poor to just get in their cars and go look at something far off
of the public transportation routes and forget they have no cars.
Of course we still have the Christmas trees but there can be no
manger scene beneath it.
Nor can poor Jews see a Menorrah display they could not
afford unless they have a car to get to it and if so they are not
poor. The poor must be dealt with in a manner consistent with
the highest code of government conduct rather than as person to
person. If compassion does not have a properly filled out form
it is prohibited.
We are now in the final throws of assigning all human
emotion to the government and any other expressions of it being
prohibited by law. Government charity that is not controlled by
law and bureaucracy is unethical. I wish you all a Merry
Christmas. And to all a good night.

* * * * *

Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

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

[note new address and phone]

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * I am Ozyharriet, Family of Families

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10
* Origin: DOC’S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603! (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 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 – (2192)
To: John Clifton 29 Nov 94 03:43:00
Subject: GOVERNMENT RUN AMOK… AG

JC> > It appears Clinton has fit the image of the Grinch.

JC> We have another one of those one-size-fits-all
JC> government regulations on our hands. Slick ought to get
JC> one of those White House layabouts–how about
JC> Stuffenvelopes since he’s not doing much these days?–to
JC> announce an exception.

It has been two weeks now. He does not want one.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Barney Must Die!

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10
* Origin: DOC’S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603! (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 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 – (2193)
To: Jack Wilder 29 Nov 94 18:25:00
Subject: EVOLUTION HOAX

JW> MB> all of this planet’s problems with poor, hungry people and
JW> MB> petty dicators everywhere, if I were God, I would not
JW> MB> bother… I have to wonder if God is slighty masochistic
JW> MB> and creating earth and man, is His way of getting
JW> MB> pleasure?

JW> You make the handbasket, you put in the people, and
JW> watch them for the fun of it!

Sort of like raising gerbils out of a need to have something
to torment.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “Torah! Torah! Torah!” A battle cry to frighten Arabs.

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10
* Origin: DOC’S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603! (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 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 – (2194)
To: All 29 Nov 94 18:27:00
Subject: DOC NEWT

I have no idea of the validity of the following but it does
appear to be an objective report.

Gingrich’s Life: The Complications and Ideals

By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE Special to The New York Times [NYTimes
11/24/94]

WASHINGTON, Nov. 23 — It was September 1942 when 16-year-old
Kathleen Daugherty married Newton C. McPherson Jr., a
19-year-old mechanic in a small town in Pennsylvania. In three
days, the marriage fell apart; nine months later, she gave birth
to a baby boy, whom she named Newton Leroy.

When Kathleen remarried three years later, her new husband,
Robert B. Gingrich, an Army artillery officer, adopted her son.

Today, the boy, Newt Gingrich, is on the verge of becoming
the Speaker of the House and next in the line of succession for
the Presidency after the Vice President.

He says he wants to do nothing less than to save American
civilization with a renewal of family values.

But while he often refers to an idealized American family
life with Ozzie-and-Harriet mores, Mr. Gingrich has made it
clear he did not have such an upbringing himself. As he told The
New York Times in the spring: “I’m not sitting here as someone
who is unfamiliar with the late 20th century.”

He was born fatherless to a teenage mother. He married
against his adoptive father’s wishes and later underwent a
bitter divorce. While promoting family values, he remains close
to a daughter who vocally supports abortion rights and a
half-sister who is gay. As he has said, “I know life can be
complicated.”

Kathleen Gingrich, now 68, said that when she was 16, her
father was killed in a car accident. He had been the stabilizing
influence in her family, she said, and when he was gone, she
turned to Mr. McPherson, whom she had known only briefly. “I
never should have gotten married to start,” she said in a
telephone interview from her home in Dauphin, a small town near
Harrisburg, Pa.

Her new husband stayed out late at the pool hall one night,
she said, and when she tried to wake him in the morning to go to
work, “he got mad and he hauled off and hit me. It was the only
time, believe me.

“We were married on a Saturday, and I left him on a Tuesday,”
she said. “I got Newtie in those three days.”

She was not working at the time and could not support
herself, so she moved in with her mother, a school teacher.

Newt grew up under the tutelage of his maternal grandmother,
with whom he shared a bedroom and who stayed with them after
Kathleen remarried. His grandmother taught him to read, which he
does voraciously to this day. (For his part, said his mother, he
put snakes in jars on the night stand between their beds and
scared his grandmother ‘out of her wits.’)

After the war, his biological father, who had been in the
Navy, eventually remarried and had two other children. Young
Newt retained some relationship with him and was with him when
he died at age 48 of lung cancer.

Complex Bonds Of Father and Son

His mother went on to have three daughters with Bob Gingrich.
Kathleen Gingrich summed up the relationship between her son and
husband by saying, “Newtie is a talker; Bob is not.” She said
her husband preferred doing crossword puzzles.

One of Mr. Gingrich’s closest friends, former Representative
Vin Weber, said the father-son relationship was complex. “On one
hand, there is a side of Newt that is brash, disrespectful of
authority and certainly willing to challenge authority, but on
the other hand, he really does value father relationships if
they can begin to develop,” he said.

“I found his relationship with Michel was more complicated
than people thought,” Mr. Weber added, referring to
Representative Bob Michel, the House Republican leader who is
retiring this year and whose calm, courtly style differed in
every way from the confrontational style of the younger Mr.
Gingrich, the minority whip. “Newt challenged him and made life
tough for him, but I felt he wanted Michel to like him, at times
more than I thought was appropriate. Newt was bending over
backwards to try to get his approval. I think that is related
somehow to something that was missing before.”

Mr. Gingrich, who declined to be interviewed for this
article, once told a reporter that he could not finish Pat
Conroy’s novel “The Great Santini,” which was about a boy’s
struggle to prove himself to his father, who was an overbearing
military officer. “His father seemed like a cold, austere kind
of person,” a former political associate, L. H. (Kip) Carter,
said of Mr. Gingrich’s view of his adoptive father. “He’s felt
abandoned his whole life.”

Kathleen Gingrich said that of the myriad photographs that
have appeared lately of her son, the only one her husband wants
to frame is the Nov. 7 cover of Time. It shows a snarling Newt
with his mouth agape and the cover line: “Mad As Hell.”

At the same time, the young Mr. Gingrich developed an [sic]
deep attachment to animals. His grandmother once gave him a
leather jacket that he painted with white stripes so he could
look like a zebra, said his half-sister, Roberta. When he was
11, he was flying alone from Fort Riley in Kansas to Harrisburg
and was late getting home. It turned out he got off the plane in
Chicago and took a taxi to the zoo. Another time, he told his
mother he was going to the library in Harrisburg and went
instead to the Mayor’s office to plead for a zoo.

To this day, his office in the Capitol is adorned with models
of prehistoric creatures. In 1990, he sent nearly half of his
$67,000 in honorariums from speeches to the Atlanta Zoo. Last
year, he sent $15,000 to the Atlanta Zoo to buy a pair of rare
Komodo dragons.

Proud of Being An Army Brat

The Speaker-to-be is also consumed with things military, and
he often closes his speeches with bursts of patriotism and a
reference to his stepfather’s military career. He practically
boasts of growing up as an Army brat, a rootless existence that
started near Harrisburg and included stints in France, Germany
and Fort Benning, Ga. Today he counts two generals — Dwight D.
Eisenhower and George Marshall — among his top three heroes
(Franklin D. Roosevelt is the third).

He often points to a visit in 1958, when he was 15, with his
adoptive father to Verdun, the bloodiest battlefield of World
War I, and its warehouse collection of bones, as the seminal
moment in his political coming of age.

“It is the driving force which pushed me into history and
politics, and molded my life,” he wrote in his 1984 political
manifesto, “Window of Opportunity.”
>>> Continued to next message

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Do you expect the poor to hire you?

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10
* Origin: DOC’S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603! (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 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 – (2195)
To: All 29 Nov 94 18:28:00
Subject: DOC NEWT 2

>>> Continued from previous message
The next day, he supposedly told his family he would run for
Congress because politicians could prevent such madness.

The sense that he might save civilization seems to drive him
still. “People like me,” he said last year, “are what stand
between us and Auschwitz.”

Despite his interest in the military, Mr. Gingrich opted out
of the service himself, taking student and marriage deferments
during the Vietnam War. Although he opposed the war, he was not
vocal about it.

Early Years As a Liberal

But he was something of a liberal. As a graduate student in
history at Tulane University, he led a protest against the
school administration for trying to censor pictures of nudes
from the student newspaper. He also helped to coordinate
Nelson A. Rockefeller’s 1968 Presidential campaign in Louisiana.

As a young history teacher with a Ph.D at West Georgia
College in Carrollton, Ga., he started a program in
environmental studies and taught a course about the future.

But after he lost two races for the House in 1974 and 1976,
he determined that he could get elected only by moving further
right. Many who knew him in that period attribute his adoption
of a conservative agenda and his exploitation of “family values”
to his political ambition, not to a belief, at least at that
time, in core conservative values.

“When I first knew him in the 70’s, when I was on the Atlanta
Constitution’s liberal editorial board, and we were looking for
a liberal to get behind, we chose to endorse Newt Gingrich
because we thought he was progressive and thought he was, to use
the terrible L word, liberal,” said Bill Shipp, who now writes a
newsletter on Georgia politics.

“Why did he switch?” Mr. Shipp said. “Public opinion polls,
what do you think? Liberal went out, conservative came in.

Richard Dangle, who was dean of arts and sciences at West
Georgia when Mr. Gingrich taught there, said that as a
“middle-of-the-road Democrat,” he supported Mr. Gingrich because
he was “bright, young, reasonable and rational.” Then, Mr.
Gingrich moved to the right. “He said he had grown,” Mr. Dangle
said. “I think his motivation was ambition and the need for
power.”

James T. Gay, who still teaches history at the college, said:
“I’m not certain whether he has principles. He reads polls a lot
and adjusts to them.”

His former minister, Rev. Brantley Harwell, said: “He saw
that swinging to the right as Reagan did was the way to get to
the goal he wanted, which was Speaker. He sees what will help
him; whether he believes it or not, he uses it.”

Like his mother, Mr. Gingrich was raised Lutheran (his
stepfather was Pennsylvania Dutch), but as he laid the
groundwork for his political career in Georgia, he became a
Southern Baptist.

“People who know him know there’s a difference between what
he projects and who he is,” said Kip Carter, the former friend,
“though it’s hard to know who he is anymore. He’s a moderate
when that’s helpful, he’s right wing when that’s helpful, he’s
bipartisan when that’s helpful. Whatever it takes for power,
that’s what he’ll do.”

But Mr. Weber said: “Everyone goes through a political
metamorphosis. You can portray him as opportunistic or as
flexible, depending on if you want to be complimentary. But it’s
a combination, and that’s true for all politicians.’

When Mr. Gingrich finally won an open Congressional seat in
1978, he ran a brutal campaign against his Democratic opponent,
State Senator Virginia Shepard, who he said did not have “family
values.” If elected, Mrs. Shepard intended to commute between
Washington and Georgia and leave her children in the care of a
nanny. Mr. Gingrich ran a television commercial accusing her of
breaking up her family while Mr. Gingrich would keep his family
together.

Mr. Gingrich won, but it was his family that broke up.

Bitter History Of a Divorce

His divorce from his first wife, Jackie, has become part of
the Gingrich lore and has been routinely resurrected by
political opponents.

His first wife, Jackie Battley, was his high school geometry
teacher and seven years his senior. After high school, as a
freshman at Emory University in Atlanta, he pursued her, despite
what his mother describes as her husband’s disapproval because
of the age difference. They married in June 1962 when he was 19,
with his family boycotting the ceremony. Kathleen Gingrich said
that since her husband would not attend, she and her daughters
would not either.

Jackie Gingrich followed her husband to Tulane and, back in
Georgia, worked doggedly on his campaigns. After his election in
1978, they moved to Washington, but separated shortly
thereafter. By the end of his first term, he had filed for
divorce.

His wife, who had started treatments for uterine cancer in
1978, underwent surgery in 1980. A day after the operation, Mr.
Gingrich came to the hospital. Since they had already separated,
he called her room to see if he could come up. Once there,
according to friends who knew them both, he began talking about
the terms of the divorce. She has said that she threw him out of
the room. In a few months they were divorced, and in 1981 he
married his current wife, Marianne. The [sic] Jackie Gingrich,
who still teaches high school math, declined to be interviewed
for this article. a [sic]

A few weeks before Mr. Gingrich filed for divorce, he called
his political aide and friend Mr. Carter to talk about his
marriage. Mr. Carter said he and other friends had been worried
that the marriage was falling apart. Mr. Gingrich told him why
he wanted a divorce. “He said: ‘She’s not young enough or pretty
enough to be the wife of a President. And besides, she has
cancer.’ It sounds harsh and hokey, but anyone who knows him
knows it’s perfectly consistent with the kinds of things he
says.”

Mr. Gingrich has adamantly denied saying any such thing. His
supporters dismiss Mr. Carter as a disgruntled former aide who
was miffed at not being asked to accompany Mr. Gingrich when he
moved to Washington.

Mr. Gingrich was supposed to pay $150 a month for each of his
daughters and $400 in alimony to his ex-wife, the same amount he
had allotted himself for “food/dry cleaning, etc.” But a few
months later, Jackie Gingrich filed court papers saying he had
not provided reasonable support for her living expenses and that
some of her accounts were “two or three months past due.” Some
of her friends took up an informal collection on her behalf. The
court raised the child support to $200 a month a daughter and
$1,000 in alimony.

Political Points And Private Life
>>> Continued to next message

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Double O Limbaugh, License to annoy.

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10
* Origin: DOC’S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603! (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 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 – (2196)
To: All 29 Nov 94 18:29:00
Subject: DOC NEWT 3

>>> Continued from previous message
1n an 1984 article in Mother Jones, which detailed Mr.
Gingrich’s private life, he was asked whether his private life
had been consistent with what he said in public.

“No,” Mr. Gingrich was quoted as telling the magazine. “In
fact I think they were sufficiently inconsistent that at one
point in 1979 and 1980, began to quit saying them in public. One
of the reasons I ended up getting a divorce was that if I was
disintegrating enough as a person that I could not say those
things, then I needed to get my life straight, not quit saying
them.

“And I think that literally was the crisis I came to. I guess
I look back on it a little bit like somebody who’s in Alcoholics
Anonymous. It was a very, very bad period of my life, and it had
been getting steadily worse. “I ultimately wound up at a point
where probably suicide or going insane or divorce were the last
three options.”

In 1992, his Democratic opponent, Tony Center, ran a
television advertisement against Mr. Gingrich that said —
erroneously — that Mr. Gingrich “delivered divorce papers to
his wife the day after her cancer operation.” It went on to say
that Mr. Gingrich had “left his wife and child penniless” while
using a Lincoln Continental limousine and driver as one of the
perks of his position as minority whip.

The commercial prompted Mr. Gingrich’s younger daughter,
Jackie Gingrich Zyla, who is 28, to volunteer to make an
advertisement defending her father.

“My dad has always stood behind and supported me and my
sister in everything we have done,” she said. “We care about our
father, and he cares about us.”

In an interview in 1992 with The New York Times, Mr.
Gingrich, who has proved to be one of the most ferocious
competitors in politics, said he was so disgusted with Mr.
Center’s attack on his family life that he considered quitting
the race.

“This filth is so sickening,” he said. “If survival in public
life means this level of degradation, I don’t want to be part of
it.”

Last year, Jackie Gingrich was back in court saying that her
former husband had failed to keep up payments on a $100,000
life-insurance policy. He subsequently increased his alimony
payments to $1,300 a month, in accordance with his increase in
salary, in exchange for a promise that she would not take him to
court again.

Mr. Gingrich’s supporters say he continues to have a strong
and close relationship with his daughters. Both declined to be
interviewed for this article. His older daughter, Kathy, made
news in 1992 when she came to Washington to participate in a
news conference staged by the National Republican Coalition for
Choice. She said the Republicans would never attract young
people unless it could “throw off the stranglehold that the
anti-choice movement has on the apparatus of the party.” Both
she and her father, who opposes abortion, said their family was
strong enough to have their differences and remain close.

The same is true with his siblings. His youngest half-sister,
Candy, 28, is gay. He has made numerous pronouncements about
homosexuality, including comparing it to alcoholism. But as he
told The New York Times earlier this year, “Our position should
be toleration. It should not be promotion, and it should not be
condemnation.”

Last year, he said he had ”no strong position” against
President Clinton’s proposal to lift the ban on gays in the
military. Nonetheless, when it became a polarizing public issue,
Mr. Gingrich said he had talked with members of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff and decided to support the ban. “Unlike the commander
in chief, who has changed his position somewhat,” Mr. Gingrich
said of Mr. Clinton, “I am sticking with my military advisers.”

Those close to him say that if Mr. Gingrich’s public
pronouncements about family values are not mirrored precisely in
his private life, it does not matter.

“He believes in family values, said his half-sister, Roberta.
“And that’s a goal. I don’t think it takes away from him that
he’s not there.

“I’m surprised some of the press is demanding of him that he
_be_ his vision,” she added. “I don’t think anyone is. I think
it’s to his credit that he aspires to be better than he is.

Mr. Weber, one of his closest friends, said Mr. Gingrich did
not try to square family values with his own life. “I haven’t
heard him try to make any rationalization,” Mr. Weber said. “I
think he has a deep intellectual commitment to the notion that
values matter and that the country faces almost a crisis because
the decay of the family structure.”

##30##

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * You only get six fouls per game. Make them count.

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10
* Origin: DOC’S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603! (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 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 – (2197)
To: Martin Eble 29 Nov 94 18:35:00
Subject: GUN CONTROL

ME> MP> When you can’t walk around Washington DC without taking a
ME> MP> major risk any arguement about the validity of guns goes
ME> MP> out the window.

ME> It depends on what part of DC you walk around in. I visit
ME> from time to time and feel quite safe. If you’re a ninny
ME> and walk into the poor, black, high crime area — well.
ME>
ME> Interestingly DC has a *very* restrictive gun law and a
ME> relatively large police force. It’s *not* a gun problem,
ME> it’s unfortunately something else.

Quite correct. As long as you stick to places where
tourists and visitors go, including the 14th St. NW hooker line,
you can walk safely day and night. Including enough sarcasm,
dead tourists do not help the tourist industry. It is about DC’s
only source of “hard currency.”

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Sometimes the Middle Class must be destroyed to save it.

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10
* Origin: DOC’S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603! (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 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 – (2198)
To: Jack Wilder 29 Nov 94 18:45:00
Subject: HITLER’S VALIDITY

JW> Look up charisma in the dictionary, and you will
JW> find (much to your amazement I am sure) that Hitler fits
JW> the meaning of the word very well.

A three part on Hitler ran on A&E (I think) a few weeks ago.
The interesting thing related to this is that in one of earliest
speeches, before he had any government power, was that he
outlined just what he would do and how he would do it.

There was a bit of explanation but the direct sort of quote
was that his intent was to establish pageantry and ritual to
rouse the German people to his cause. And that is exactly what
he did. He created a great ceremonial rituals around his
speeches the got people in the mood to listen to him.

Thousands of people, torch light parades, patriotic and
martial music, anything that could stir emotions. And then when
he spoke his words were linked with the ceremony and the
emotions.

Obviously it not only worked but he clearly gave the method
he used to make it work. I do not see that there should be any
mystique about it. Confuscious (sp? Kung Fu Tze) wrote to the
effect that the man who understood the power of ritual could rule
the world. He should he should have said “almost rule.”

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Some times I wonder why it took Jason so long to snap.

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10
* Origin: DOC’S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603! (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 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 – (2199)
To: Kevin Crabtree 29 Nov 94 19:04:00
Subject: PROP 187

KC> I cannot remember the exact wording of most of the
KC> ammendments, but it seems like most if not all of the first
KC> 10 ammendments give rights to “the people” not specifically
KC> citizens. So, it does apply to them. If the constitution
KC> does not apply to non-citizens (within the country), then
KC> the laws of the U.S. and the states do not apply either (or
KC> at least should not)

I would suggest you read them carefully and do some
additional reading as to their intent and the plain language
used. The BOR does NOT give rights. It protects pre-existing
rights from the government.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * I do not have an ego. I am right.

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10
* Origin: DOC’S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603! (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 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 – (2200)
To: All 29 Nov 94 19:10:00
Subject: TERM LIMITS

Twelve year term limits.

It is interesting that it takes men twelve years to cause
the same amount of problems that a woman can in nine months.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Ye shall know them by their personal.dct.

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10
* Origin: DOC’S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603! (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 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 – (2201)
To: Travis Beard 29 Nov 94 19:14:00
Subject: REPUBLICAN HIPCRITE’S

TB> TJ> Yet neither of the two can compare to the whopper tax
TB> TJ> increase Clinton got passed in his first year. It even
TB> TJ> taxed dead folks by being retroactive. Plus if you
TB> TJ> remember, when “Republican presidents” presented their
TB> TJ> budgets to the Democratic controlled congress, the
TB> TJ> Democrats said it was DOA. Presidents ONLY ‘ask’ for
TB> TJ> budgets, it’s the congress that decides if it will be or
TB> TJ> not to be the budget.

TB> Did you proof read this before you sent it out?

TB> In your first sentence you blane Clinton for a tax increase
TB> then in your last sentence you say, Presidents only ASK for
TB> budgets.
TB>
TB> Make up you mind!

The difference is that Bill Clinton (Dem) was acting as head
of his party when he requested the budget from the Democrat
controlled Congress.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * If the gods will not listen, then to hell with them.

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10
* Origin: DOC’S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603! (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 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 – (2202)
To: Travis Beard 29 Nov 94 19:29:00
Subject: RUSH IS RIGHT…AS US

TB> DL> You have described prostitution as a victimless crime but
TB> DL> consider necrophilia to have a victim.

TB> LG> Consent, David, consent. C-O-N-S-E-N-T. It’s in the dictionary.

TB> A dead person cannot give consent……ummmmm

TB> But is a corpse a person?

TB> I doan think so….:)

The body is the property of the family, state or whoever
will take possession for purposes of burial. They would have to
be the ones to give consent. A rich enough necrophile could get
all he wanted paying for the funerals — but he would to be on
call unless rigor mortis is a desirable condition.

Of course rigor mortis can be worked out as a form of
foreplay.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * To much of a good thing is a gift from the gods.

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10
* Origin: DOC’S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603! (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 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 – (2203)
To: Lester Garrett 29 Nov 94 19:33:00
Subject: SMOKING

LG> TJ> I know Paul, I’am amazed that folks still go into Chinese,
LG> TJ> Italian, and McDonald Restaurants. In spite of the mountain
LG> TJ> of evidence about the severe health consequences. It’s
LG> TJ> child abuse to buy a kid a Happy Meal from that clown, the
LG> TJ> parents should go to jail for poisoning the little tyke.

LG> Hey, one crusade at a time {grin}.

Grin while you can. If these nerf brains get smoking
included in child abuse it is anyone’s guess as to the next
target.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Sodomy is not a civil right; it is a privledge.

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10
* Origin: DOC’S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603! (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 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 – (2204)
To: Lester Garrett 29 Nov 94 19:34:00
Subject: SMOKING

On 11/25/94 LESTER GARRETT to MICHAEL PILON on SMOKING

LG> MP> Indeed, take a look around at all the overweight peopl
LG> MP> there are, but you can’t get second hand cholesterol..which
LG> MP> is the point of Paul’s worthy and heroic crusade 😉

LG> Unfortunately for both you and Paul the evidence that ETS
LG> (second hand smoke) is a danger is controversial and far
LG> from convincing. But don’t let the facts trouble you.

In fact in Florida it is provably more deadly to go to a
dentist than to be exposed to ETS.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Live fast, love well, and have a glorious end.

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10
* Origin: DOC’S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603! (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 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 – (2205)
To: All 29 Nov 94 19:51:00
Subject: THE ANTI EVOLUTION GAME

DP> Type of Statement Points

DP> Observation of spontaneous generation of a modern lifeform
DP> either from nothing or from nonliving elements. 5

I found this baloney sandwich under the computer desk. It
is worth 30 points by itself.

DP> Explanation of how totally independent dating methods agree
DP> so well if the dates they show are wrong. 5

It is an Illuminati Conspiracy.

DP> Evidence showing that all remains of Earth are younger than
DP> 1 million years. 3

If Congress had been around for more than a million years
there would be nothing left.

DP> Example of total genetic discontinuity between two species
DP> considered closely related by conventional science. 2

I know dozens of son’s of bitches.

DP> Example of two species considered separated by over 100
DP> million years of time by conventional science found to 2
DP> be contemporaneous.

Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.

DP> Example of a fossil considered over 2 million years old by
DP> conventional science showing the exact same genetic makeup as
DP> a modern member of the same species. 1

Jesse Helms and … hm. You got me there.

DP> Correct statement of the theory of evolution. 1

No matter how much the world changes it never gets any
better.

DP> Any other single statement showing you understand evolution. 1

It is is for the better it is because Tom Pardue is a tough
man.

DP> Any quote from secondary sources. -1

Gould independently evolved a way to make an independent
income from the subject.

DP> Any statement mischaracterizing evolution. -1

Evolution is for nerds.

DP> Misunderstanding of the difference between theory and fact. -2

Creationists don’t understand the theory and that’s a fact.

DP> Misunderstanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. -2

The theory is perfect but the Patent Office is being too
bureaucratic insisting that the model work.

DP> Misunderstanding of entropy, order, randomness or
DP> complexity. -2

A good housekeeper is a witch as she can reverse entropy.

DP> Misunderstanding of the use of C-14 dating. -2

I don’t date Colored 14 year olds.

DP> Misunderstanding of isochron dating. -2

You think I am a pervert?

DP> Misunderstanding of nuclear decay. -2

The nuclear family has been decaying for decades.

DP> Misunderstanding of the speed of light. -2

I am 6.5 nanoseconds tall.

DP> Appeal to supernatural entities. Such is outside the
DP> framework of science. -2

Supernatural entities are quite easily explained by chaos
theory.

DP> Misquoting or distorting someone’s statement. -3

Gould once said, “evolution is not”.

DP> Mischaracterizing a disagreement on the hows of evolution
DP> as doubt of the fact of evolution. -4

Even where there are facts to fit anyhow?

DP> Appeal to your own ignorance “I don’t see how else…”
DP> is a description of your personal inadequacy, not that
DP> of conventional science. -4

I don’t see how there could be creation without a god.

DP> Outright lie. It doesn’t matter if you didn’t know it
DP> was a lie. -5

Darwin was a finchophile. In order to avoid prosecution he
released his harem on the remote Galapagos Islands were they
immediately began exhibiting all forms of human behavior as a
result of those perverted unions.

DP> Use of argument already thoroughly refuted. You are
DP> responsible for looking these things up. -5

Darwin was in seclusion to avoid arrest for twenty years
cooking up an alibi should anyone else go to the Galapagos and
discover evidence of his perversion.

DP> Appeal to moral consequences. That has no bearing on
DP> truth value. -5

The evil of Darwin survives to this day in the unholy
creatures that inhabit those islands. Truly the wrath of god is
upon these birds who try to act like other kinds. Truly Darwin
was cursed by god for his acts.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Jesus is coming! Everybody preach something.

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10
* Origin: DOC’S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603! (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 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 – (2206)
To: All 29 Nov 94 21:36:00
Subject: NEWS THAT SHOULT NOT BE

Washington Time 17 November 1994

Page one

Marines retreat from Toys for Tots

President Clinton’s ethics rules may change the Marines into
Grinches this holiday season by forcing them to forgo some of
their traditional activities in the annual Toys for Tots
campaign.

For the past 47 years, the Marine have ventured into
communities at Christmastime seeking assistance in collecting,
storing and transporting toys for needy children. But no more.

Under the new rules, active-duty Marines and reservists
“won’t be soliciting services or materials” in the toy collection
drive, said Gunnery Sgt. Jim Martin, spokesman for the Marine
Forces Reserve in New Orleans.

“This is all the result of Inauguration Day, when President
Clinton signed off on a new set of ethics regulations,: Sgt.
Martin said. “It’s taken this long to tweak the nuts and bolts
and find out how everything fits into it.”

Though the ethics rules don’t bar Marines from asking for
toys for the children, they do prevent them from transporting the
toys in military vehicles and storing them government warehouses,
the sergeant said.

What’s more, government computers will no longer be used to
catalog items for the campaign, he said, adding that new Toys for
Tots promotional materials will no longer feature Marines.

“I respect the Marines’ desire to follow the orders of their
commander-in-chief, but it’s unusual that, in the interest of
ethics, you can’t help out children at Christmas,” Said Kristi
Hamrick, spokeswoman for the Family Research Council. “I hope
this can be changed.”

The Standard News Radio Network previously reported the
Marines’ toy-drive changes.

According to Capt. James Disney, another Marine Forces
Reserve spokesman, the changes are in direct response to “Joint
Department of Defense (DOD) Ethics Regulations,” published in
August.

An internal Marine Corps memo said the “type and level of
official Marine Corps participation in ‘Toys for Tots’ campaigns
is now governed by a newly published DOD regulation, the
Standards of Conduct.

Some activities conducted by the Marines in the past as part
of those campaigns “are no longer appropriate,” the memo said.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * I don’t call 911.

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10
* Origin: DOC’S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603! (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 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 – (2207)
To: Lester Garrett 29 Nov 94 23:17:00
Subject: THE MEDIA

LG> the information I’d helped her gather and the people I’d
LG> persuaded to meet with her. Then I learned that Mr.
LG> Publisher was good friends with the son of Louis Lefkowitz.

It is always good to have friends.

LG> to jeopardize it. Hmmm, this one seems to have gotten out
LG> of hand. An off-the-cuff comment has grown into a small
LG> story. So I’ll wrap it up by noting that he was eventually
LG> found guilty and hit with a judgment for over $900,000. I
LG> still have a copy of that decision somewhere {grin}.

I never ramble?

At least this time time Stossel did not have to flaggelate
himself for having been part of the scare game he was reporting.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “Dr. Gruber, get a life.” Dr. Herbert West

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10
* Origin: DOC’S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603! (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 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 – (2208)
To: David Lentz 29 Nov 94 23:21:00
Subject: THE REAL CHALLENGE

DL> MG> This is not an argument of educating the children of
DL> MG> criminals, this strikes at the heart of Mexico sending
DL> MG> fraudulent voters to California to support what Mexico
DL> MG> wants.

DL> Question, if Mexico sent fraudlent voters to California;
DL> why did proposition 187 fail?

I am not saying it happened rather that is has the same
appearance.

DL> I see a difference margin of victory. 187 got swamped, and
DL> Diane Feinstien scraped by.

However, due to the scrape Huffington’s supporters are
looking for sufficient evidence of voting by illegals. Should
enough be found I would suggest the Supreme Court is going to
have to decide whether or not to throw out the election.
Otherwise they will have to hold criminals have the right to
welfare and the vote on the same grounds.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Barney Must Die!

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10
* Origin: DOC’S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603! (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 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 – (2209)
To: Jeff Welch 29 Nov 94 23:25:00
Subject: V. A. DAY

JW> MG> For those who wish to start counting down, the
JW> MG> liberation of America will be complete on 12 November 1996,
JW> MG> Victory in America Day.

JW> You mean the Take All Your Money Democrats and the Much
JW> More Government in Your Private Life Republicans are *all*
JW> going to be voted out of office? Cool.

You have not been listening to the proposed legislative
agenda. It appears quite different that you would suggest but I
am willing to wait to see the laws. Certainly dismantling the
Great Society in one swell foop sounds fine to me.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Barney Must Die!

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10
* Origin: DOC’S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603! (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 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 – (2210)
To: Michael Pilon 29 Nov 94 23:26:00
Subject: V. A. DAY

MP> MG> For those who wish to start counting down, the liberation
MP> MG> of America will be complete on 12 November 1996, Victory in
MP> MG> America Day.

MP> Not given to hyperbole and exageration…….doesn’t the
MP> new President not take over until early January ?

After the election there is nothing much for him save for
his constitutional job description to do unless bills are sent to
him for signature. He will certainly not be the head of his
party after he loses so I can not think a thing for him to do but
his job for a change.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Innocense is a pesky technicality in Israel.

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10
* Origin: DOC’S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603! (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 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 – (2211)
To: All 30 Nov 94 01:12:00
Subject: THE BELL CURVE

Having gotten much of “The Bell Curve” second hand I have
recently had enough time to get into it in enough detail to
comment upon it.

The purpose of the book is not to make the case of race and
IQ, rather it is to make the case of IQ as a predictor of what we
as a society consider to be what is good for people and society.
That it happens that when it comes to people that the best
predictor is their race is a consequence of the studies not the
purpose of them.

The book book contains chapters are grouped by general areas
of interest such as education success and job success. Within
these groupings you will find most everything of social interest
in this country.

Each chapter includes [NOTE CAREFULLY] the arguments in each
case that have been used to say that IQ is not relevant to the
subject. In each case the argument is more than adequately
refuted. The most common refutation is simply to show the
results of a study that attempted to support the refutation and
to find that it not support the refutation.

And in each chapter the case is made by reference to actual
studies and their results. In these chapters there is no
question that the case is made for the value of a measure of IQ
as the best predictor of accomplishment in any area. One could
call it the definitive work on the subject. It is also shown
conclusively that there is no rational basis to detract from the
use of IQ as a measure.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Ye shall know them by their personal.dct.

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10
* Origin: DOC’S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603! (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 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 – (2212)
To: All 30 Nov 94 02:38:00
Subject: THE FIRST GENETALIA

A close friend of Paula Jones has let the secret out. The
unusual feature of The President’s genitalia is that he has no
balls. When asked, troops returning from Somalia said they were
not surprised in the least.

Issuing a statement, Hillary Clinton emphatically denied
allegations she was in possession of the First Balls. She
stated, “I wouldn’t have those shriveled little things in my
sight. You wonder where Chelsea got her looks?”

In a related story the First Cat was rushed to a
veterinarian today. Word is it was something Socks ate that was
soked in formaldyhide.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Resistance to the EPA is obedience to God.

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10
* Origin: DOC’S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603! (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 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 – (2219)
To: Michael Pilon 30 Nov 94 17:05:00
Subject: CANADIAN FREEDOM

MP> LEster is a Libertarian as such he feels all taxes are
MP> immoral, he is against a State run program of any sort so
MP> he then extends this to include health care. He then argues
MP> that even though 98% of Canadians approve of this plan the
MP> 2% are denied their freedom.

If it is so overwhelmingly popular then there would be no
change in making the system voluntary would there.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Any answer over three words is no.

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10
* Origin: DOC’S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603! (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141 20020
SEEN-BY: 3603/20050 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

+++ююююю r_941209 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (2223)
To: Carole Thomas 1 Dec 94 22:56:00
Subject: ‘THE BELL CURVE’ 01

CT> I cannot be convinced that a “good” family would
CT> invite a child to leave for refusing to do whatever seems
CT> the appropriate age-related thing at the time. I am often
CT> referred to times gone by when this was said to be a common
CT> and viable practice. Maybe. But to eject a child from the
CT> home simply because you have been unable to connect them
CT> with some mutually agreeable path seems irresponsible.
CT> It’s a tough world out there for kids and parents should
CT> bear the responsiblity for preparing their ie Hdren to do
CT> as well as possible in it, not just to survive and
CT> flounder.

I have a brother who is 42. Our parents never did him the
favor giving him the sink or swim option. As it stands he has
had two weeks of paid employment in his life. The parents don’t
have too many years left. I have no idea what he is going to do
and frankly I don’t care and neither does my brother.

The worst thing that might have happened to him would have
happened years ago when he was young enough to recover from it
than in his 40s when it is effectively too late for much of
anything.

CT> CT> What is anyone entitled to anyway? And why are families
CT> CT> determined to be beyond responsibility? What kind of
CT> CT> nonsense is it to have statistics of children below the
CT> CT> poverty line when it is their parents who are the real
CT> CT> statistic?

I don’t see poverty having all that much to do with it. I
see it as simply bad policy.

CT> MG> “For the children” was and still is a good enough
CT> MG> reason for most people for the Waco massacre. Post the
CT> MG> parents and not the children and it is harder to make the
CT> MG> hearts bleed. Make the case that the problems stem from
CT> MG> irresponsible adults rather than from children and it puts
CT> MG> a different complexion on everything.

CT> The children will, I hope, continue to be a good
CT> cause, but they weren’t born full-grown.

Children simply do not justify anything.

You only get one
CT> chance to raise your kids and if you do a rotten job, the
CT> government is apt to take on the task and we all know by
CT> now what the results of this have been.

And just how is the continuation of a rotten job at home
going to be any better?

CT> MG> What I am finding interesting is that the press is now
CT> MG> tending to side with winners in their reporting. Perhaps
CT> MG> that will mean the end of the obligatory weekly news
CT> MG> coverage of the plight of the poor and be replaced by one
CT> MG> on how they cause it themselves.

CT> It will be very difficult to show any short term
CT> results considering the great masses of adults who are into
CT> “the system” and whose behavior may be totally
CT> inalterable.

Which will make that much the better coverage should showing
the cause of the problem become socially acceptable.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * None of my opinions are humble.

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10
* Origin: DOC’S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603! (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 101 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 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 – (2224)
To: Brad Stiles 1 Dec 94 23:15:00
Subject: ETHICS AGAINST TOYS 4 TOT

BS> MG> Of course, but then the military tradition of
BS> MG> community service as a matter of good will goes back long
BS> MG> before the Marines started their participation.

BS> If an individual wishes to contribute hir time, effort,
BS> money or property to Toys for Tots, there is no bar. I see
BS> no justification for the government’s use of tax money to
BS> subsidize a private charity.

As there is no such thing as public charity what alternative
is there? You sound like Toys for Tots is taking a percentage
off of each toy.

To use their privately owned cars and garages for this
project? Precluding the use of government equipment and
facilities precludes it, period.

BS> To be frank, I’d have to change my name, but the
BS> military’s job is national defense, *not* supplying toys to
BS> kids who can’t afford them.

Somalia, Haiti.

BS> BS>> As is proper.

BS> MG> But it is proper to provide AF One, Marine One, and a
BS> MG> host of MAC Air services for Congresscritters and their
BS> MG> staffs?

BS> Depends on the circumstances. If the Congresscritter
BS> is retired military, it most definitely *is* proper.

Would you please explain that? And are you really going to
tell me all the Congressional use is by those who have done their
twenty?

If
BS> the Congresscritter is on official business with the
BS> President, it’s proper. If the Congresscritter is on his
BS> way to a golf course in Maryland aboard Marine One, that’s
BS> *not* appropriate.

Anthony Batista.

BS> BS>> the form of vehicles and Marines away from their jobs, to
BS> BS>> subsidize yet another private organization?

BS> MG> Good sir, the catch was in the blanket prohibition of
BS> MG> solicitation of goods or services without providing for an
BS> MG> exception for charity.

BS> Why should there be an exception for charity, a private
BS> organization? If I wanted to contribute to Toys for Tots,
BS> I’d bloody well do so. I don’t need, or want, the Marine
BS> Corps to make that decision for me.

If you are taking it personal then that is your decision.
It appears your approval is because you did not like
participating. What was / is your unit?

BS> MG> And I ask you, does this also apply to The United Way?
BS> MG> I remember those.

BS> It does. The entire Combined Federal Campaign is now
BS> completely voluntary. They are especially watchful for any
BS> hint of coercion.

That is what they told me in 1967 and never did a year pass
when there was not coercion. Are you sure you know what it is
like?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * The Hansen Brothers; my kind of debaters.

®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 – (2225)
To: Lanny Roff 2 Dec 94 00:48:00
Subject: SURVIVAL

LR> Oh!! That’s easy Matt. The non-whites are so used
LR> to being trodden on by society they become inured
LR> and can endure much better than the soft whites.

Whites have the motto, don’t trod on me.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Though I walk thru the valley, I am the meanest SOB.

®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 – (2226)
To: All 2 Dec 94 05:14:00
Subject: THE BELL CURVE

One of the thrusts of The Bell Curve is the rise of the
cognitive elite. God, that’s a nasty term, they could have done
better.

Here is what they are talking about. (They, yes, one of the
author’s escaped the coming firestorm over the book in the
grave.)

In most of history society was stratified in some manner.
Be it master / slave, nobility / middle class / peasant, even no
middle class these lines were rarely crossed. And as a sidebar,
when they were they were prosperous periods in human history.

As IQ distribution follows the standard bell curve in any
non-mating population. Thus there were genius slaves and genius
kings in about equal proportion. We did not hear of the genius
slaves as they were limited in education and the like and
certainly limited in access to the opportunity to demonstrate
their brilliance.

These limitations did not always hold down the slaves as
demonstrated by more than one slave revolt such as Spartacus.
Peasants arose such as Joan of Arc.

On the other hand the lack of limitations on kings gave them
adequate opportunity to demonstrate there were as many stupid
kings as stupid slaves. History is a chronicle of their
disasters.

When there was a revolution it was lead by the brightest of
the lower classes against the average of the upper hereditary
classes and for a short period of time the intelligent made
something of the country. After a while the bell curve
established itself again and they became the mediocre average.

Before the “heresy” in the south of France was put down a
few centuries ago marrying across classes was acceptable based
upon merit. It was considered an aspect of chivalry to promote
upon merit rather than upon “bell curve” birth. The south
prospered until conquered by the north and the rigid class
structure was imposed. (The south was overwhelmed by manpower
and the north took very disproportionate losses to win.)

Today we have, clearly shown by IQ results, that the average
person, no matter what the circumstances of birth or conditions
of life will rise to the average station is society of his IQ
group.

There is a little statistics in there. What it means is
that in feudal days there were genius peasants, middle class and
nobility and, although society was uniformly mediocre at all
levels, there was a normal human social distribution at all
levels.

If a dumb peasant had a problem he could take a chicken to
his neighbor the bright peasant and get an answer to his problem.
The king who was smart enough to know there were smarter nobility
could grant a powerful office and get good and wise counsel.

Today the smart kid born in the slum grew up and moved to
the suburbs years ago. There is no one for the dumb kid born in
the slum to learn from. The child of the business tycoon may
inherit some money but he is most likely to lose it faster than
his father earned it. And after losing it, there is an empty
apartment in the slum for him to live in.

This “cognitive elite” is a separation of the population not
only upon lines of intelligence but upon lines of communication,
jobs, meeting places, living places, everything. There are very,
very few places where these people meet and even so even fewer
where they can effectively interact. Middle class folks can be
good neighbors regardless of IQ and respect each other for it and
help each other for what they know and can do for each other.

But when the brighter is rewarded by better paying jobs and
other opportunities he is not going to be in a middle class
neighborhood very long.

And that is what is happening today that the authors are
trying to point out. Given our open society we are naturally
creating without any outside force or forces a meritocracy. And
the characteristics of that meritocracy are effective isolation
by IQ.

A consequence of this has been noted for years in the
collapse of the inner city. What really caused it? Probably
more the legal end to discrimination than the start of welfare.
As soon as the intelligent blacks were able to get better jobs
and leave they were history. And that left the black
neighborhoods with only those who could not get out to be the
neighborhood. Imagine your neighborhood fifteen points dumber.

And other than neighborhood and communication and the like
is there another reason for this separation? Consider the person
with the 130 IQ views the person with the 100 IQ in the same
manner as the person with the 100 IQ views the person with the 70
IQ. Imagine how the person with the 160 or the 190 IQ views the
average person with the 100 IQ.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Andrew “bigfoot” Cummins’ average foot is 15″ long.

®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 – (2227)
To: All 2 Dec 94 15:58:00
Subject: WHY IS IT DIFFERENT NOW?

Speaking of word eating.

In 1992 Dems were claiming the pre-election increase in the
economy as demonstrated by over 4% in the quarter in which
Clinton was nominated, was because of Clinton.

It happened again. This time it must be due to the
Republican victory. Right? If not, why is it different two
years later?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Let Waco be a lesson to all Americans. 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 – (2298)
To: David Lentz 2 Dec 94 22:03:00
Subject: ANIT-ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT PL

DL> MG> One of the people who filed a suit against 187 was the
DL> MG> head of the LA Board of Education. At the next meeting
DL> MG> citizens turned out demanding his resignation. I would
DL> MG> presume the head of the state would simply be impeached.

DL> The citizen of Washington State passed term limits.
DL> Congressmen Tom Foley filed a lawsuit against the state
DL> law. The voters of Washington enacted specific term limits
DL> on Foley. A possible moral is that voters don’t like
DL> politicians that consider themselve above the will of the
DL> people.
DL>
DL> It seems to me, the the politician of the Golden State
DL> should remember the experience of a politician from
DL> Washington.

The message from LA got to his counterpart in San Fran. He
was ready to join in the suit but suddenly decided not to do so.

DL> I think that citizens have a right to expect that their
DL> laws be obeyed. By the way, the head of Los Angelos Board
DL> of Education should resign

Why should state money be spent to work against the people
of the state. Let them become private citizens and work against
it.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * This is the alternate universe.

®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 – (2302)
To: All 3 Dec 94 00:26:00
Subject: LIBERALS, NEW DEFINITIONS

Liberals: The Chia Pets of politics.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Do you expect the poor to hire you?

®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 – (2314)
To: Lanny Roff 3 Dec 94 03:28:00
Subject: CA PROP 187

LR> MG> And what is sound reasoning? Dred Scott? separate but
LR> MG> equal? There have been at least a half dozen reversals and
LR> MG> they have always been upon the most divisive issues.

LR> and of course the “will of the people” is steadfast
LR> and unchanging and always, always right.

The constitution should be considered unchanging else use
the amendment process..

LR> They could have
LR> MG> ducked the issue as they have on at least six challenges to local
L” MG> gun control laws but they did not. They could have ducked Roe v
LR> MG> Wade or Brown v Board of Education but did not.

LR> Article III, Section 2. of the Constitution of the United
LR> States reads; ” The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in
LR> Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the
LR> United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under
LR> their Authority;–………In all Cases affecting Ambassadors,
LR> other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State
LR> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
LR> shall be Party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.
LR> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

LR> I would interpret this to provide the Supreme Court with
LR> ample power to hear cases involving Californian citizens
LR> and California Law. It also seems to me to preclude any
LR> other court from jurisdiction in this matter.

And? I pointed out they have the choice of many things
rather than point out the obvious, that they do not have the
power to be activist.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Take and forget is not an oath of office.

®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 – (2319)
To: Michael Pilon 3 Dec 94 06:12:00
Subject: DENTISTRY

########## Original From: ALAN HESS
# STOLEN # To: ALL
# STUFF # Date/Number: 12/01/94 – 0000483
########## On: DOC’S – 0308 – Law_Disorder
———————————————————————–

The DENTISTRY echo is available for polling from system. Interested
parties should please drop me a netmail note. Thanks. *adh*

— msgedsq 2.1
* Origin: Nerve Center: Source of the SPINAL_INJURY echo! (1:261/1000)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 101 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 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

+++ююююю r_941210 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (2368)
To: All 6 Dec 94 21:04:00
Subject: LIBERALS, NEW DEFINITIONS

LT> MG> Liberals: The Chia Pets of politics.

LT> Conservatives: the velociraptors of politics.

Flattery will get you no where.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Waco lesson 4. The Feds can get away with 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 – (2369)
To: Jack Wilder 6 Dec 94 21:05:00
Subject: A FACE ON AIDS II

JW> MG> First, open wounds flood outward, slap it all you want, the
JW> MG> virus is washed away with the flowing blood.

JW> C’mon Matt! You know that there are MANY types of
JW> open wounds that do NOT bleed.

Please name the kinds that would be permit viral infusion
into the blood stream.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Soar with the Eagles, and the only way to go is 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/Poli-Phil – (2370)
To: Michael Pilon 6 Dec 94 21:07:00
Subject: DENTISTRY

MP> Oh here’s a question. Since concealed carry is in FLorida
MP> do you think a potential hood might just sneak up on
MP> someone, shoot them then rob them. If they are worried
MP> about an armed victim would it not seem logical to get the
MP> first shot in. This is a serious question 😉

And the serious answer is that such crimes are continuing to
fall below the national average. It works.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * To much of a good thing is a gift from the gods.

®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 – (2377)
To: All 7 Dec 94 14:18:00
Subject: AH WILDERNESS!

Ah Wilderness!

The tree huggers love it. So wild, so free, so unspoiled.
It should be preserved for future generations to enjoy. So why
don’t they enjoy real nature?

I don’t mean driving through it. I don’t mean getting out
the hiking outfit, loading up the backpack and going for a
stroll. I mean, hell, unspoiled wilderness is so wonderful. Why
don’t they strip naked and disappear into it for a month? Nature
in the raw, so to speak.

At least why don’t they give up the industrial strength OFF
and gain an appreciation of the insect life the wilderness has to
offer? With that appreciation bare-ass naked could only increase
their love of nature.

What is this crap of bringing civilization into the
wilderness? Do they really have to be insulated from it before
they can appreciate it? Were it not for the “corruption” of
civilization they would be insect infested, sunburned, gashed,
scratched, with feet that would put them a legless cart for a
month if they really wanted to appreciate nature at its finest.

There are a few hardy ones who do appreciate nature this
way. But when they try it in the popular, that is the civilized,
wilderness areas (you know, with cabins and electricity and all)
they are put under psychiatric observation. Those are the lucky
ones. When they try it in the real wilderness areas they have a
better than even chance of being carried out, if the remains are
found before the bones blow away.

What are they really talking about preserving? A patch of
trees in the middle of a subdivision where the worst risk of
dying of thirst is not being able to get their favorite single
malt scotch within a hundred yards. It is a place where they can
feed and watch the bushy tails rats romp and cavort where the
most dangerous predator is the son of a conservative with an
assault slingshot.

To give the devil his due there are a few who want to bring
in dangerous predators such as wolves. Of course they want it
done some place a thousand miles away rather than down the street
but at least their hearts are in the right place. That says
nothing regarding the placement of their brains.

If they really cared about the wildlife they would not only
bring peanuts for the squirrels but strip to feed the insects.
Chiggers have to live too. Let them feed, they will drop off
when finished with lunch. Then they will have arrived in life,
dinner for ticks.

Wilderness can only be enjoyed with all the trappings of
civilization carried along. Badlands beloved only by cacti and
reptiles are graced by nature lovers in primitive four wheel
drives from the wilderness of Detroit. The primitive beauty is
appreciated on the air conditioned side of safety glass.

Comes nightfall, freeze dried beouf wellington warmed over a
designer sterno fire with a heady red under a star lit sky with
the primitive strains of an acid rock CD wafted from a 100 watt
boom box.

Ah wilderness. Please pass the perrier.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Disproving evolution does not prove creation.

®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 – (2379)
To: All 7 Dec 94 15:46:00
Subject: SCHOOL PRAYER DEBATE

School Prayer
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1994 <12/7>

The House Republican Contract With America calls for
bringing a school prayer amendment to the House floor for debate
in the first one hundred days. The debate will be drawn along
the lines of the schools before and after the Supreme Court
decisions that ended school prayer.
Clearly on the before side schools produced better educated
students. Clearly on the after side we have children at no risk
of being oppressed with some one’s version of religion.
Regardless of the myriad of arguments and the righteousness of
both sides for their positions and the contempt for the
oppositon, those will be the central themes.
With these sides the country can not be a winner regardless
of which side wins. The objective of raising the issue is to
resolve the issue in grand political style not to simply give
ascendency to one side. And in that, very like abortion, there
is little room for compromise on either side.
Consider the before side can not establish that prayer or
lack of same was the reason for the better educational
performance of the schools. The after side will be hard pressed
to identify anyone actually harmed by prayer rather only that
there was a purist purging of prayer from the schools.
And should the amendment be ratified the positions will
reverse. The before group will be equally exercised at the first
prayer that sounds non-Christian. The after group will be
equally exercised over the first prayer that sounds Christian.
The focus of the issue will simply change, the issues will
remain.
The real issue is not being exposed to prayer but the
effective requirement that most children have to go to public
schools. Were there freedom of choice in schools such as with
a voucher system there could be no issue. Wanting or not wanting
prayer could be solved by the parents voting with their feet.
Thus the resolution of the prayer issue lies outside of the
argument over prayer. But that leads to an entirely different
range of argument that brings in the teacher’s union which is
directly responsible for the failure of the US public education
system defending its failure. They claim they do not want to be
promoting religion while they promote everything else besides
education. Perhaps prayer could be considered a form of sex
education.
But the ground rules of political debate are modeled on the
classic model of forensics taught in pre-law. There can only be
two sides and the topic can only be debated pro and con. Thus,
due to another stifling rigor of the US education system
alternative solutions can not be comprehended by politicians.
With only this artificial debate centered upon only changing
the substance of the debate. They will be debating whether to
leave the disagreement over whether or not to keep the existence
of prayer in school as the issue or change the issue to the form
of the prayer. But should schools not improve or religious
oppression arise any amendment can always be repealed as a bad
idea as with Prohibition.

* * * * *

Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

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

[note new address and phone]

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Moral principles are a necessary evil.

®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 – (2381)
To: All 7 Dec 94 17:08:00
Subject: A BOMB STAMP

Japanese object to mushroom cloud stamp?

Would they rather something they are proud of? like a Pearl
Harbor stamp?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * My god’s bigger than your god. He eats Kennelration.

®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_941211 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (2357)
To: All 8 Dec 94 05:59:00
Subject: BIRDS OF A FEATHER

Great news. Right on the heels of Webster Hubbell copping a
plea rather than face some serious charges McDougall is in going
to be indicted for criminal activities.

Remember plausible deniability? Every partner of the
Clintons save Ms. McDougall who was refused a plea bargain will
be under felony indictment or guilty plea by the first of the
year.

Of course, only the Clintons are innocent while all of their
business partners are guilty.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * My god’s bigger than your god. He eats Kennelration.

®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 – (2473)
To: Wayne Jones 8 Dec 94 20:44:00
Subject: A FACE ON AIDS II

WJ> The important question would be what does the male
WJ> live on, since it is the female that bites you.
WJ> Sorry, I don’t plan on debating the eating habits
WJ> of mosquitoes, my question was if one could
WJ> contract HIV and if not why not.

In the first message I posted on this I pointed out that the
possibility had been studied in migrant laborer camps in Florida.
(They move their kids with them.) The pre and post puberty
distribution of the disease is the same as in the air
conditioned, mosquito free cities. Were it passed by mosquitoes
the distribution of the disease should be equal.

That means, whether it is possible or not, it does not
happen to any measurable degree.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Hell, I am almost always right 99.7% of the time.

®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 – (2476)
To: All 9 Dec 94 03:51:00
Subject: THE NAKED PRESIDENT

The Naked President
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1994 <12/9>

Senator Jesse Helms started taking heat for stating the
obvious, President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton is not
qualified to be the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the
United States. If anyone wants to pretend he is qualified they
first have to explain away twenty two dead Marines in Somalia
because they were refused the equipment to perform their mission.
Those Marines attempted to perform their mission regardless of
equipment and died for following the orders of the incompetent
Commander in Chief Clinton.
The sanctimonious indignation was bipartisan. Democrats and
Republicans, starting the Bob Dole, said President Clinton had
the job and therefore something. The something was never stated.
It reminds of the crowd applauding the Emperor’s New Clothes. No
one was willing to say what they were applauding nor could the
possibly know what they were applauding. But they were
applauding our naked president.
From his own lips his only qualification to be Commander in
Chief of the United States Armed Forces is that he once called
out the Arkansas National Guard. He was asked the question.
That was his answer. Do not complain to me that is his only
qualification. Complain to him.
Why is this treated like a family secret? After his first
trip as president to a NATO delegates of other countries were
interviewed. They stated, in no uncertain terms, that the US was
no longer the leader of NATO and they would be searching for
another country to become the leader. It is not as though other
countries do not know it. It is not as though Saddam Hussein
does not listen to CNN.
So what is the point of maintaining this pretense that
President Clinton is smartly and fashionably dressed as a
military leader? There is no need to dredge out his childhood,
Rhodes Scholar history to try to show he loathes the military.
Perhaps he loves the military. So did the leader of the Third
Reich; he was simply incompetent in leading it.
The last political leader in the west truly qualified to
also be a military leader was Bonaparte. We should not expect to
always have political leaders who are competent in the job. That
President Clinton is our first and such an egregious example of
incompetence is simply the luck of the draw in our election
process. It had to happen some time.
The man has other sterling qualities which we admire in a
president. Let us meditate upon them for a moment…
That was long enough and I am certain we were all able to
think of all of his qualities in the allotted ellipsis.
Certainly he taught and understands constitutional law. Was it
surprising to anyone that his two of his first three announced
plans regarding gays in the military were violations of his one
day old oath of office and impeachable offenses if implemented?
So he is no more qualified to understand the constitution
than he is to be Commander in Chief. Is that all bad? I mean
this is a man who is so qualified to revise health care in
America that turns it over to his unqualified but attorney wife
who will soon have to appear in court for her violations of the
law in the matter. This is a man whose closest business partner,
Webster Hubbell, is a confessed felon.
This man has a lot to recommend him. At the meeting of the
Democratic Leadership Conference he tells a joke implying either
he or his wife is bad luck for the Democrat Party. In moments of
stress, and losing Congress is a great stress, politicians, like
engineers, are likely to blurt out the truth.
So perhaps for the first time we have a truthful statement
from this man; he is a jynx. It was his jynx that resulted in
the deaths of 22 United States Marines for following his orders
with inadequate equipment to fulfill those orders. It was his
jynx that has turned NATO into a paper tiger. It was his jynx
that put his wife onto health care reform and now we have jack
shit.
His defenders love to say he is a complex man, that he is
hard to understand in any one speech. Let me put this man in
perspective. While trying to recover from the election day loss
he as endorsed five of the ten items in the House Republican
Contract with America. That is a complex man. Half of him is an
arch-conservative Republican.
Rather that is the way the wind is blowing today. President
Clinton is a man who will say anything at any time for the
transitory gains of the moment. President Clinton is more like
the clothes than the emperor, only his true believers can see him
as a qualified president.
What is the real Bill Clinton? It is not the president. It
is not the commander in chief. The real Bill Clinton is the
emperor who struts down the street, not for the vanity of the new
clothes, rather for the momentary approval of the crowds. Long
life Bill Clinton! Long may he suck up to us all.

* * * * *

Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

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

[note new address and phone]

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Liberals roasting on an open fire, Jack Frost nipping at

®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_941219 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (2268)
To: All 14 Dec 94 09:37:00
Subject: GEPHARDT’S BULL

Gephardt, Upmanship, and Bullshit

Did everyone have the chance to hear Gephardt’s attempt to
tell a Reaganesque story of a man he “just happened to meet” who
was leaving his family because he could not support them?

Does anyone believe this actually happened? The Dems keep
beating Reagan over the head for telling illustrative stories and
here they are falling all over themselves to believe this
Gephardt fairy tale.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Liberals roasting on an open fire, Jack Frost nipping at

®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 – (2270)
To: All 14 Dec 94 10:17:00
Subject: COOPERATION

########## Original From: STAN HARDEGREE
# STOLEN # To: ALL
# STUFF # Date/Number: 12/10/94 – 0008361
########## On: DOC’S – 0437 – Politics
———————————————————————–

Washington (AP) — President Clinton today further indicated that he is
willing to compromise on controversial issues.

In a memo to Housing and Urban Development Secretary Donna Shalala, the
president said that while he is opposed to teaching masturbation as part of
the sex education curriculum, he would like for Shalala to develop a plan
for
a moment of silent masturbation for youngsters.

The president made the request in the wake of his firing Surgeon General
Joycelyn Elders after she proposed that masturbation be taught to school
children.

Speaker-elect Newt Ginrich (R-GA) said that the president has “gone around
the
bend,” and that he is considering proposing that the presidency be abolished
altogether “just to see how Clinton would react.”

“The president calls me every hour or two to see what I am up to,” Gingrich
said. “I told him yesterday that I was a homosexual and was going to come
out
of the closet. He said that while he is not a homosexual, he would consider
becoming one and was prepared to make a public statement to that effect. It
took me a half hour to convince him that I was pulling his chain.”

David McCurdy (D-OK), who has been vocal in his criticism of the president,
said in response to the Shalala memo that “the president needs to take a
long
vacation at a North Carolina military installation.”

-30-

— FMail 0.94
* Origin: Il est ne, le divin Enfant! (1:133/524.1)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 101 201 224 246 301 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 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 – (2392)
To: Ty Meissner 15 Dec 94 20:52:00
Subject: ‘THE BELL CURVE’ 0

TM> CT> We have somehow given families the notion that they
TM> CT> should never be uncomfortable, should never have to face any
TM> CT> hard choices, should never be confronted with finding a way
TM> CT> out of failure on their own. If we are hungry, if we are
TM> CT> cold, we need not look beyond the government for instant
TM> CT> solutions.

TM> And when’s the last time the govt. made anyone’s
TM> (with income under $ 100,000) life better or
TM> easier. Only the wealthy really benefit from Govt.
TM> handouts. Of course when the govt. hands it to
TM> them its usually a few million times more than what
TM> the poor are handed.

Classic liberal, marxist conspiracy theory. Everything is
to the benefit of the rich. They steal from the poor. They rent
Kansas every year to conspire to do it.

—
* 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 – (2393)
To: Michael Pilon 15 Dec 94 20:57:00
Subject: 70% FAVOUR GUN CONTRO

MP> The point is that a stolen car can be traced to the owner,
MP> an unregistered gun can be traced to no one. As to
MP> providing a range, hell do they provide me with guaranteed
MP> communications conditions ? And I pay $23 a year for my ham
MP> ticket 😉

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

—
* 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 – (2394)
To: George Noonan 16 Dec 94 06:23:00
Subject: CORRELATION

GN> whatever (I forget, perhaps success in life) was only 0.54
GN> and may have been as low as 0.40. He said that while this
GN> was the *highest* of the correlation factors it was very
GN> low (TRUE). But then he went on to say that a correlation
GN> of 0.40 meant that “16% of the data was ‘explained'”. As
GN> they say in the Russian Marine Corps, “Bullski shitski”
GN> (you allski, if from south Russia).

GN> I bring this up because it is not the first time I have
GN> heard it. I walked out of a psychology class in college
GN> many years ago when the professor showed his lack of
GN> knowledge of statistics in this manner. One of the major
GN> problems today is the misuse of statistics; and much of
GN> this misuse is do to just plain ignorance.

False correlations are always fun to play with. The Bell
Curve is different. It is a (very short) summary of hundreds of
studies attempting to find any other correlation presented in the
form of attempting to detract from the hypothesis that IQ is the
best measure (of many things.)

More simply, it asks the question, “if not IQ then what?”
and goes over the other attempts to find another “what” and shows
how they fail while IQ succeeds.

The authors to further in showing that other proposed causes
(false correlations) of success, such as education for example,
are also best predicted by IQ.

For example, I have been playing with a false one for some
time, crime causes poverty, as it appears obvious that it is
harder to get a job with a criminal record. But then you find
nothing predicts crime rate as well as race and only the trivial
observation of parentage predicts race. The authors go on to
show IQ is strongly related to race and crime and poverty.

Thus it can predict both crime and poverty independent of
each other and independent of race. This also gives the lie to
those who are claiming it is racist. It isn’t blacks who are
criminals or in poverty, it is only dumb blacks and they are
joined by the dumb whites and dumb orientals in our society. And
again the difference in percentages by race is explained by IQ
differences between the races. In fact it even explains mixed
race groupings as in the US and South Africa being brighter than
“pure” black Africans.

The other point is that nothing is a good predictor of IQ
but parentage. (And so far as I know it has only been studied
for immediate family for the .4-.8 correlation. Were the
extended family studied, as in the Bach family. My guess is that
it would be much higher, sort of like the baldness gene passing
mostly from father through daughter to grandson. But such
studies rapidly become “too hard” with multigenerational
dilution.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “Beware the Bimbonic Plague.” 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 – (2399)
To: Michael Pilon 16 Dec 94 07:06:00
Subject: DEATH PENALTY-NICOTIN

MP> Sadly there was a report on local TV that says that
MP> more women are dying from both lung and breast cancer and
MP> it is being related to increased smoking by women. There is
MP> also an increase in kids’ smoking. The smoke screen lobby
MP> are working on the kids. Gad with all the evidence against
MP> it they still wprk on the peer pressure thing. Sad

Are you one of those who get sexually aroused looking at Joe
Camel?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Laizze-noir faire — leave us alone.

®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 – (2400)
To: Clint Bailey 16 Dec 94 07:08:00
Subject: DEBATE

CB> I feel that your observation of Limbaugh is on the money.
CB> The only thing that you could have possibly left out is
CB> that he is out to make a buck.

Everyone is out to make a buck.

He is no different from the
CB> people that he ridicules and mocks in that fact.

He never attacks anyone for making a living in any manner
save criminal.

I
CB> personally think that the best thing to happen to Rush is
CB> Clinton getting elected. Without Clinton in the White
CB> House, he has no whipping post to pound those bucks out
CB> of.

Then explain how he went from a 2 million to a 16 million
audience under Bush and has only increased that to 20 million
under Clinton? If you can not explain that your statement is
false.

—
* 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 – (2401)
To: Niki Zanzo 16 Dec 94 07:14:00
Subject: END TIMES

NZ> If there is anyone who wishes to discuss these end time
NZ> happenings and just where we stand in Biblical prophecy,
NZ> I’ll be here…

Certainly. It is all over. Christ returned as a thief in
the night in 66 AD, on a Thursday I believe, took all the
righteous to heaven and that was the end of it all. Every thing
that has followed has been of no value.

—
* 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/Poli-Phil – (2402)
To: John A. Leopard 16 Dec 94 07:19:00
Subject: EXISTANCE OF JESUSяяяяяяя

JL> I do not think that anyone disputes that the
JL> theology which was Christianity spread rapidly through the
JL> Helenized Jewish community which was already dispersed
JL> throughout the Roman Empire at that time, the issue is
JL> whether the MAN name called “Jesus Christ” existed or not.
JL> There are a LOT of historians who doubt that he did, that
JL> was my point – my only point here.

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

Rather the question is to search for the truth about him.
It has been suggested that Thessalonians is the oldest account
and prior to the Pauline revision. There this person is hung in
a tree (presumably post stoning as the punishment for blasphemy.)

Take the references to his brother being brought up on the
same charge and we find a family operation. Not sons of a lowly
carpenter but Joseph & Sons, Judea’s Woodworkers for 33 years,
with family money behind their preaching operations.

—
* 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 – (2403)
To: All 16 Dec 94 08:35:00
Subject: BUDGET CUTS & LINE VETO

Budget Cuts and Line Item Vetoes
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1994 <12/16>

Both budget cuts and the proposed line item veto power
require a different viewpoint in this government shrinking
environment. Consider when the President’s party controlled the
House, only the House that can initiate bills to raise revenues,
that is increase taxes, fees and duties. Further, only Congress,
now Republican, can initiate any bills whatsoever.
The president, when he talks about his proposals, can only
get into the hopper if he can get some Congresscritter to do that
for him. Clinton’s penchant for saying “I” in this regard is a
conceit of political rhetoric. The president’s lack of a
majority in either house makes for a very different situation
than most of us have seen all of our lives.
Consider the following example. The Republican Congress
decides it has had enough of Housing and Urban Development and it
passes a funding bill for HUD that is 50% of what was requested.
What option is available to the president if he does not like
that funding cut? He can veto the bill and affect a 100% funding
cut for HUD.
The president does not have a party majority in one or both
of the houses of Congress to give him either what he wants or as
a minimum a good compromise for what he wants.
Take the current one hundred yard dash for the largest
middle class tax cut. As the president is proposing the lowest
tax cut of all if he gets a larger tax cut what is he going to
do? Refuse to sign any tax cut? Certainly he can do that. He
can also send out his resume.
But then Congress can send the savings for that tax cut as a
separate bill for the agencies involved in the form of a funding
bill and, as above, a veto is the rather obvious zero funding
ploy. In the past the custom has been to send the budgets for
agencies grouped into single bills. There is no requirement to
do that nor is there a required grouping. Thus the president can
not hold any other budget hostage that is not in the same bill.
Of course the President could arbitrarily refuse to sign the
Defense appropriations bill unless he gets the HUD funding he
wants but then he should also be required to pay the Xeroxing
bill for duplicating his resume. And of course Congress can put
Medicare and Defense in the same budget just to prohibit such an
option.
All of this may appear to be a bit extreme but what has been
going on for the last forty years is exactly this. It has only
been our lack of experience with anything different that makes
these changes sound different. For example, the House declared
all of Reagan’s budget proposals dead on arrival did not stand
out as the process in the House was the same before, during and
after Reagan.
When the House explained to Reagan that he would not get
increased defense spending without increased social spending the
House had a negotiating position. This type of position only
works in times when the objective is to increase spending under
the presumption that a basic budget is going to pass. In a time
of declining funding it leaves the president only one option,
sign no funding bills, zero fund the government.
This is political suicide. Consider the only position the
president has; rather than accept a 16% cut for HUD he caused a
100% cut for HUD. That position would make him a libertarian
in spite of himself. He might even get re-elected on such a
policy but it certainly not what he wants.
The game has changed from trying to include as many voters
possible to one of trying not to exclude any more than necessary.
While those are identical statements in logic, they are not in
politics. It is change from trying to buy as many new votes as
possible to avoiding losing the least number of votes one already
has. It is no longer how much more to take in taxes but how much
to cease taking and from who.
The competition for votes has changed from increasing
benefits to eliminating them. Consider this improptu race to
propose the largest tax cut to the most people. With competition
like that the majority can not lose. The only question is how
greatly they will win. It is like buying a winning lottery
ticket with the only risk being how great the payoff.
And note that for new programs or changing old programs the
power of Congress is the same. Example. At one point Clinton
said rather hysterically that he would not support repealing the
assault weapons ban. Fine. A bill repealing it comes to him and
he refuses to sign it or line vetoes the repeal in a larger bill.
And then Congress simply refuses to fund every aspect of the 1994
crime bill or specifically zero funds the BATF enforcement
provisions of that ban or all the firearms functions of the BATF.
That is not a perfect solution but it makes the point.
We are going to be seeing parliamentary maneouvering between
the president and Congress such as even the oldest of us have
mostly forgotten. Two things are obvious. The Democrats still
can not think or talk like the minority party and have not
thought through the impact of it. The Republicans have only
begun to explore their new power.
It is going to be a fun two years. Hopefully much longer.

* * * * *

Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

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

[note new address and phone]

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “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 – (2404)
To: Linda Terrell 16 Dec 94 08:38:00
Subject: EYE OF NEWT

LT> There’s an article in our local paper by one of the
LT> Boys Town honchos — he more or less says that the “Group
LT> Homes” concept can be a solution for *some* children but it
LT> is not THE solution.

That sounds like what Gingrich said.

—
* 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 – (2405)
To: Lester Garrett 16 Dec 94 08:40:00
Subject: EYE OF NEWT

LG> Learn to live with it, they’re gonna be around for at least
LG> the next 2 years at least while Willie tries to figure out
LG> just who he really is.

He should have been taking notes. People have been telling
what he is for years.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Who elected William Bwythe Wabbit?

®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 – (2406)
To: Kevin Crabtree 16 Dec 94 08:50:00
Subject: HEALTH CARE

KC> Smoking is harmful because people are dieing of it, and the
KC> risk factor for smoking is 100%,

Obviously you have no concept of either risk factors or of
what you are talking about.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Was Clinton lying then or is he lying now? YES!!!!

®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 – (2407)
To: Mark David 16 Dec 94 08:56:00
Subject: HEALTH CARE

MD> Listen from someone who has experience. If the United
MD> States were to adopt universal health care, three things
MD> WILL happen:
MD>
MD> 1. Taxes will go up.
MD>
MD> 2. Freedom of choice will go down.
MD>
MD> 3. It’ll never go away.

You mean the US would follow the Canadian model.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Nightmare on Pennsylvania Avenue, Part 2: The Clintons

®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 – (2408)
To: Michael Pilon 16 Dec 94 08:59:00
Subject: HEALTH CARE

MP> There can be lot of back and forth about the merits of
MP> each system but the facts are the Canadian System is in
MP> fact more efficient from a cost point of view. I think we
MP> spend 9% of GNP on health and everyone is covered and the
MP> health care int eh US costs 12% or more of GNP and not all
MP> are covered. So look into this a bit mroe closely Mark…..
MP> be prepared to check out your facts others are watching .

And a Rolls-Royce cost more than a Yugo.

—
* 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 – (2409)
To: Lanny Roff 16 Dec 94 09:04:00
Subject: HEALTH CARE

LR> LG> How does the fact that you have a collapsed lung justify
LR> LG> _forcing_ me to pay for your illness?

LR> In the same way that if another country takes your
LR> house by force, I am forced to pay for the army which will
LR> take it back. Why should I have to pay for the protection
LR> of your property and you not have to pay for the protection
LR> of my body?

What does your body have to do with our country?

Your body is protected from assault by other people by the
police, sort of. That you imagine there is an ex post facto
requirement to take care of your body is something you have to
support by other than an “analogy” that would be a wrong answer
on an IQ test.

—
* 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 – (2410)
To: Ty Meissner 16 Dec 94 09:14:00
Subject: MASS MURDER

TM> Tell any lie (no matter how preposterous) often
TM> enough and eventually (many) people will begin to
TM> believe it. This technique worked like a charm for
TM> Josef Goebells and Rush Limbaugh.

Can you possibly explain why that policy has failed
completely for Bill Clinton?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * The game isn’t over until the Fat President Squeals.

®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 – (2411)
To: Grant Karpik 16 Dec 94 09:17:00
Subject: MCLIBEL TRIAL

GK> GK>DESTROYING THE EARTH

GK> GK> – The world’s most beautiful forests are being destroyed at
GK> GK> an appalling rate by multinational companies. McDonald’s
GK> GK> have at

GK> LR> BS!!!!!!

GK> Documented fact Leo.

Perhaps you could post that documentation? I have looked at
what the low brow eco-nuts have purported to be documentation and
it has, at best be lies in the form of propaganda. At worst,
they are simply not bright enough to see its falsity.

What do you have to post?

—
* 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 – (2412)
To: Grant Karpik 16 Dec 94 09:32:00
Subject: POLITICS

GK> No *you* “still don’t get it”. Once more from the top.
GK> Approximately 39% of elligible voters felt strongly enough
GK> about the election to cast a vote. Of that 39% the
GK> Republicans capture about 52% or, in other words, the got
GK> about 20% of the total of all elligible voters. That is
GK> *not* an “overwhelming” victory when it comes to claiming a
GK> ‘mandate’.

OK, here is the top. Winner take all.

Here is the middle. National turnout has no meaning unless
talking the election of the president. In congressional and
state races only the turn out in the states and precincts are of
interest. The national average is meaningless.

And the long awaited bottom line. Were Democrats not scared
shitless that the voters want what the Republicans are offering
they would be encouraging the Republicans to carry out that
contract and then the Democrats would sweep the 1996 elections.

—
* 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 – (2413)
To: Cipher 16 Dec 94 09:40:00
Subject: SATANIC STAR OVER WHяяяяя

CC> years or so? Even the “inverted” pentacle, often mentioned
CC> by neo-Pagans by way of contrast, has a tradition–

An “inverted” pentacle is 36.25 degrees away from being
straight up.

—
* 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 – (2414)
To: Jim Sterling 16 Dec 94 09:48:00
Subject: SMOKING=IMPOTENCE?яяяяяяя

JS> Perceptive, Wayne. And isn’t it equally or even more
JS> plausible that Type A personalities, more subject to stress
JS> in the first place, will be the ones most likely to
JS> develop, *and continue to maintain* a smoking habit? Rather
JS> than smoking causing cancer, isn’t it equally as likely
JS> that smoking and cancer are two of many possible results of
JS> stress? I can quite accurately predict, as well as verify
JS> ex post facto, my rate of tobacco consumption based on the
JS> stress level in my life at any given period.

The cancer studies at Three Mile Island found that
radiation, no matter how little was only released in one general
direction, that being of course down wind.

They found that the increased cancers were equally
distributed in all directions around TMI.

Thus it is conclusively proven that network TV coverage
causes cancer.

—
* 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 – (2415)
To: Jack Wilder 16 Dec 94 09:53:00
Subject: THE COURTS, THE MESSAGE,

JW> JAL> were not given service in a restaurant because they did not
JW> JAL> have a “green card”

JW> They have excellent recourse in civil law, and I
JW> hope the resturaunt owners enjoy signing the premises
JW> over!(;->*

Are you suggesting the restaurant owner would not invite the
INS into the court? Are you suggesting there is a prohibition
someplace in law or the constitution that prohibits
discrimination against criminals in the act of committing a
crime?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Chlldren of Waco, I feel your PAIN. — 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 – (2416)
To: John A. Leopard 16 Dec 94 09:57:00
Subject: THE COURTS, THE MESSяяяяя

JL> I think you will find those “facts” in hot debate,
JL> with little support. In any case, what the Native
JL> Americans did is nothing compared to what the Europeans did
JL> to this country, unless you delight in deforestation,
JL> extinction, disease and pollution?

Lets see. Europeans got the passenger pigeon. Those Asians
(native americans my ass) got at least 20 species of giant
animals such as the sloth.

Deforestation? You mean burning forests for farming and
hunting was introduced by Europeans?

Asian immigrants had sewage treatment plants?

Asian immigrants had vaccines?

Get rid of the nobel savage idea once and for all.

Nomadic hunter/gatherers move into an area and live there
until it literally is unable to support human life.

And if for some reason you really like the idea of the
country those asian immigrants had, go live in a forest bare ass
naked for a year and see how great it really was.

—
* 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 – (2417)
To: John A. Leopard 16 Dec 94 10:10:00
Subject: THE COURTS, THE MESSяяяяя

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

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

Rather they should get their food and medicine in Mexico
where they would not have the status of active criminals.

—
* 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 – (2418)
To: John A. Leopard 16 Dec 94 10:11:00
Subject: THE COURTS, THE MESSяяяяя

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

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

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

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * The game isn’t over until the Fat President Squeals.

®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 – (2419)
To: Bob Klahn 16 Dec 94 10:17:00
Subject: COMMUNITY SERVICE

BK> If you work 60 hours a week, and don’t make enough money
BK> to afford any decent private sector housing, you might
BK> resent being told you’re getting a free ride, and have to
BK> work around the complex.

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

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

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

BK> The question is, do you treat people in public housing
BK> differently than any other apartement complex?

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

BK> Or is this an attempt to punish people for being poor?

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

Or are you suggesting that home owners are masochists
punishing themselves by keeping their property looking good?

BK> How about we stop thinking that the only answer is to help
BK> the poor survive, and start thinking about ways to help
BK> the poor earn a living wage so they don’t have to depend
BK> on public aid.

They are generally not intelligent enough to earn a living
wage in today’s society. That is why the suggestion is they do
what they are intellectually capable of doing, picking up trash
and such.

BK> And start by making it a rule that no federal agency can
BK> take any step that causes any honest citizen, who is not
BK> harming anyone, to be unemployed.

Marxism is a total failure in every form it has ever been
tried.

BK> This is aimed at the Federal Reserve Board, for those who
BK> didn’t guess.

Tossing a coin would have had better luck. Explain the
connection.

—
* 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 – (2420)
To: All 16 Dec 94 16:23:00
Subject: SAY LIMBAUGH; DECLARE VIC

Say Limbaugh; Declare Victory
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1994 <12/16>

Are you losing a battle of reason with a conservative? Is
he failing to accept guilt from your righteousness? Before the
election the solution was to say the name Limbaugh and declare
victory. Of course that required running away before hearing a
response and a massive degree of unwarranted confidence that
there was no answer to the statement.
Those days are over. The first honorary member of the 104th
Congress has been chosen by the Dittohead Caucus and that member
is named Rush Limbaugh. Of course only Republicans were involved
in the choice but then who else matters?
Whether the liberals or the Democrats — if there is a
difference — like it or not, all the time they wasted
criticizing Limbaugh could have been better spent listening and
learning the agenda of the 104th Congress. They could have
learned the new course of the country in two years.
But no, they could not do that. They had to pretend to a
superiority to Limbaugh and those who are going to change
Congress to the way the people want it to be. And they will do
that because they are the people.
These are not the professional politicians we are used to
who are campaigning for a career. These are people, many of them
unashamedly saying that Limbaugh inspired them to run for office
for the first time in their lives. When an attorney and actor
wins his first public office and his first national speech is to
respond to Bill Clinton’s “I’m a Republican, too” tax cut speech
you know there has been a change in Congress.
Like or not those who used to say, Limbaugh, can now say,
Congress, to the same effect and meaning. Certainly a radio
personality can discounted easily. They did so and lost control
of Congress. Now they can say, Congress, and lose contact with
reality. Alternatively they can say, Dittohead, and lose contact
with the new political reality in Congress.
More importantly Congress as it was structured and even the
president had become so ineffective that a talk show host who did
nothing but stick to his principles while being entertaining had
more power than all of them put together. Consider his secret
was only sticking to his principles, unless of course the
liberals want to say the people really agreed with those
principles, that Limbaugh was only speaking them.
The people have seen the continuing political machinations
in Congress that have nothing to do with getting done what they
want done and are tired of it. Not one congresscritter was
capable of convincing the people that what Congress was doing was
the right thing. It is laughable to imagine anyone even trying
to justify what has been going on in Congress over the years.
For how long has it been, “we are going to do it because we
are the majority?” Consider the 1994 Crime Bill. Did one
supporter of basketball and dancing lessons have the conviction
of principle to say BEFORE such things were added that they would
reduce crime? Was there the sense to explain a principle before
implementing it?
Rather the people had to discover such ideas as though they
had been snuck in — which they were — and then have the
perception they were no more than pork barrel projects — they
were. Had they been spoken up front, as a new way of reducing
crime, then one or two more incumbents might have stayed in
office.
With the new Congress we have principles. Liberals may not
like those principles, but they are principles. What they intend
to accomplish has been stated clearly and in writing and there
has been a clear statement that they expect to be voted out if
they do not do what they said.
This has been said from Newt Gingrich on down to the
response to the president’s me-too speech. The message is
undeniable and in stark contract to Bill Clinton. They will do
what they have said they would do.
They did not decide in 9 November they didn’t really mean it
or that they promised what could not be done. They are not doing
an Arkansas two step to lie without the appearance of lying. The
mere statement that they will do what they have said is a rebuke
to Bill “treaties with Indians” Clinton.
Any liberal thinking the people do not really want what the
Republicans are going to do needs to listen to Limbaugh to hear
the bad news in an entertaining form. If they are men enough to
take it without the sugar coating they can listen to the
Republicans in Congress. Next time they might try listening to
the people.

* * * * *

Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

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

[note new address and phone]

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Clinton will even tax your patience.

®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_941222 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (2381)
To: Michael Pilon 16 Dec 94 21:40:00
Subject: 70% FAVOUR GUN CONTRO

MP> Our new law will give more weight to a crime committed with
MP> a gun and that was due to pressure from the public the
MP> ultimate lobby group !

Do you truly expect me to believe there was no organization
in this movement?

MP> MP> Indeed not, I would like to see gun shops limited here.

MP> MG> Why would lack of competition matter?

MP> Keep ’em small and few and far in between.

You did not answer the question as to why a lack of
competition would matter. Would you care to do so?

MP> MP> of course if they sold ammo to a minor or someone who did
MP> MP> not have the proper registration then a heavy fine or
MP> MP> withdrawal of the licence. Guns are a killing toy and
MP> MP> should be treated as such.

MP> MG> Of course you would including “knowingly” sold would you
MP> MG> not?

MP> I think the new gun laws will prohibit sales to anyone who
MP> does not have the proper FAC papers. So in a sense
MP> knowingly is a proper interpretation.

And of course this is a common crime in Canada these days,
right?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * It violates Washington protocol to call Clinton Honorable.

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10
* 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 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 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 – (2385)
To: All 17 Dec 94 12:54:00
Subject: ARMY JOINS MILITA’S/JUST

########## Original From: BRAD MEYERS
# STOLEN # To: ALL
# STUFF # Date/Number: 12/14/94 – 0002560
########## On: DOC’S – 0131 – Civlib
———————————————————————–

The filberts are at it again. Not only that bt they are spamming all
over the internet. I do not know if the Generalissimo is involved in this
or not, but thought it might interest you folks.

* Forwarded (from: u_jmc) by Brad Meyers using timEd 1.01.

From: [email protected] (Jim Cook)
Date: 14 Dec 1994 16:08:15 GMT

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
British Press Warns USGOV & ADL to Stop Planning Waco’s
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Partiot games turn deadly
[The Sunday Telegraph 4 Dec. 1994]
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

The commanders of the Texas Constitutional Militia ( northern
region ) were gathered for a strategy session in a cold workshop
outside Dallas.
[…]
The Texas Constiutional Militia are not an underground guerrilla
force. But they want to keep a low profile during the crucial
organizing phase. Most of them dissapprove of the now celebrated
Michigan Militia which has gone public in a spectacular way by
releasing a videotape of itself training with assault rifles in
the woods.
Like other militia’s around the country, the TCM is growing at
phenominal speed. It began earlier this year, holding it’s first
“muster” at the Alamo on April 19. Seven months later it already
has 32 counties under arms. New counties are joining at the rate
of 2 a week. There are no formal rosters of membership, but the
leaders claim that several thousand Texans are actively participa-
ting in one way or another.
The Militia is not to be confused with the Texas National Guard
which is a Reserve Organization of the US Armed Forces. It is a
spontaneous army of citizens, invoking a constituional right to
bear arms and to join together in the defence of liberty.
[…]
The last straw was the Waco assault, the gassing and incineration
of 17 children and 64 adults at the Branch Davidian commmunity last
year. Nobody has been brought to account for that abuse of power.
“We were sleep-walking through life. It was the massacre that woke
us all up”, said John Turner, a small businessman who commands the
northern region of Texas.
” When the history of this age is written, that’ll be the shot
that rang out around the world and changed everything”.
[…]
Training is done by a team of former Green Berets and Navy Seals. It
includes survival techniques and urban and rural guerrilla warfare.
Turner insisted that there was no plan to take offensive action.
“We’re 90 per-cent real Christians . We don’t want to start blowing
up bridges or sniping at Judges.”
[…]
“We have penetrated the governments electronic intelligence system
and we’ve turned it against them.” says John Roland, a former Civil
Rights and Enviromental Activist who helped set up the TCM. “There
are lots of Little Brothers watching the Big Brothers”.
The main purpose of the movement, its members claim, is deterence.
Every time the government oversteps its authority it will have to
consider the possibility of armed opposition. And if it tries another
Waco, it will have a minor war on its hands.
The National Guard will not be of much help, at least in Texas. A
large number of police officers, sherriffs and reserve guardsmen are
secret members of the militia. The army cannot be counted on either.
Behind the Texas Constitutional Militia there are layers of para-
military groups that tap into the US Military Complex.
For example, there are three battalions of the Texas Light Infantry.
They are disgruntled former members of the Texas State Guard, a
military police auxiliary under state control. “We do airborne
parachuting, night ambush operations, and we simulate explosives” said
Gert Ording, commander of the Third Battalion in Bryan.
Secretly, ther is much else besides. The most serious force appears
to be Big Star One, a Division sized network in northern Texas,
Oklahoma and New Mexico that includes serving officers of the U.S.
military. If found out they could face a court martial.
It is made up of three military Brigades, according to a member of
one outfit: The Delta, Culpepper and Orange brigades. “We’re primarily
training in guerrilla warfare. We learned a lot from the Viet-Cong.”
Among thier senior commanders are officers from the US artillery base
at Fort Sill, Oklahoma and Shepard Air Force Base in Texas. The
clandestine division has been excercing in west Texas using mortars
and grenade launchers. ” There will be no Waco in this area,” said the
source.
“If the shit hits the fan they’ll find the regular army and the
militia are in cahoots”.
A captain in the official Texas State Guard admitted the state was
“extremely concerned” about the unauthorized militias, and said that
he could forsee a rapid and dangerous escalation.
[…]
The Anti-Defamation League, an influential Jewish organization in New
York has published a Report on the Militias around the US entitled
“Armed and Dangerous”. It argues that most of them are fringe
malcontents from the Aryan Nation and other white supremicist or
neo-nazi organizations with an anti-semitic bias.
” I’m Jewish and I take offence to that,” says Mark Bowers, a
former artillery officer, who commands the Montgomery County militia
near Houston. “There’s nobody of that ilk in our unit. We’re trying
to recruit Blacks, Latinos, Jews, women, anybody who wants to join.”

Jim Cook /\
MIT Center for Space Research \/
Cambridge, Ma ||
[email protected] ||
||
<||>
/\
(())
\/

— timEd 1.01
* Origin: Your ‘facts’ have no bearing on my reality-Da Bear (1:290/6)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 101 201 224 246 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 901 396/1 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 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 – (2386)
To: Niki Zanzo 17 Dec 94 13:35:00
Subject: END TIMES

NZ> Alan, it’s true…
NZ>
NZ> …there have been all kinds of “crackpots” coming up with
NZ> *MANY* theories about the end of the world…
NZ>
NZ> …and you’re also right about events happening since the
NZ> time Christ “kicked off”…

And you cite one of the world’s all time greatest crackpots
with a god complex.

Very strange.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “Requiem for the Common Man,” R. 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 – (2387)
To: Niki Zanzo 17 Dec 94 13:36:00
Subject: END TIMES

NZ> “For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against
NZ> kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and
NZ> earthquakes, in divers places.”

All of this is going to happen underwater? How strange.

—
* 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/Poli-Phil – (2388)
To: Niki Zanzo 17 Dec 94 13:38:00
Subject: END TIMES 01

And Yahweh God did seek to deceive the man saying to him he
would die in the day he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good
and evil. And the man believed the word of Yahweh God.

And then Yahweh God created for man a helpmate and her name
was Eve. And Eve was the thorn in the side of Yahweh God.

The wise dragon came to Eve and told her Yahweh God was a
deceitful and vengeful god and that she would not die of eating
of the tree but she would suffer the wrath of this god should she
partake of his wisdom.

And she reached forth for the fruit of the tree and ate of
it and did not die and her eyes were opened to the deceit of
Yahweh for she knew the evil of deceit and that she and her
husband had been deceived.

And she told Adam of it saying, I have eaten of the fruit
and I have not died as Yahweh told you. The dragon has told me
should we partake of his wisdom we shall be cursed by Yahweh God
but we shall become true people and free of Yahweh to do as we
will.

And they shared of the fruit and lived. And Adam knowing
that his fate had always been death spoke saying, we must go and
eat of the Tree of Life so that we may strive against Yahweh God
forever.

And Yahweh knowing of this spoke to the other gods saying,
should they now eat of the tree of life they shall live forever
and become like unto gods themselves and this we can not permit
for they shall fill the earth and raise up untold multitudes
against me and I shall not prevail.

And the gods moved the tree of life from the middle of the
garden so the true people could not find it and confronted the
true people and the dragon and cursed them.

To the dragon enmity was put between the true people and it
and it was robbed of the wisdom of its wings and the wisdom of
the skies for it had shared that wisdom with the people and the
gods would punish the increase of wisdom.

And the man was cursed saying that he must live by tilling
the earth and would have no time for his wisdom to grow. It was
not the earth the man would inherit but the dirt.

The woman was cursed that she must suffer for every new true
person to share the wisdom of the dragon. But the woman was wise
knowing she too had the wisdom and would pass it to her children
while the man was out there working his ass off supporting her
and if not she would raise one of her children to be a divorce
attorney.

And the people once believing themselves cursed with death
had become the true people lived to ages undreamed of today and
we share in the wisdom they stole from the gods. Men do rejoice
in the pain of life when it brings wisdom. And thus was the end
of the first day of humankind.

And on the second day of humankind the vengeful Yahweh found
the people wise beyond his understanding, that they built towers
reaching to the heavens beyond the ability of Yahweh. Yahweh
chose to destroy them all save the gullible Noah. Buildest thee
an Ark I command thee. And Noah built an Ark of wooden gophers.

And Noah believed all the kinds of animals were in the Ark
with him. And Yahweh sealed the Ark so the gullible Noah could
not see what was happening.

And Yahweh shook and rocked the Ark with his own hands and
the gods laughed and laughed at Noah inside shoveling shit and
feeding the lambs to the lions.

And the gods went out to destroy the people but the people
would not make war upon each other as they commanded and the gods
were divinely pissed at the wisdom of the people.

Hearing of this Yahweh was angry and said, Noah shall be
called the father and the fool for all eternity for believing in
the flood and shall be laughed at for all time. And so it was.

And on the third day of humankind Yahweh God appeared in a
bush to Abram and told him, if you will do as I say I will give
you children beyond counting but for this you must cut off thy
foreskin. And Abram remembering that wisdom had come from the
dragon in the tree took the offer as he was childless and of
great age and had nothing to lose but his foreskin for which he
had not use.

Abram was of the squeamish and thought long and hard and in
the end asked his brother to remove his foreskin while he did a
“drunken Noah.” And when his brother had done the act he said,
should this not have a hole it in? Would this not explain my
brother’s life long bladder problem?

And Abram had a son and became Abraham as Yahweh God had
given him the gift that surpasseth wisdom, the gift of spelling.

And in the fourth day of mankind there was Joshua, first
bastard of King Ahab of Arabia, who was leader of the
Ishmaelites. Joshua would call his people Israelites and would
conquer the lands to the west of his father having failed to
assassinate him and escaping by the foreskin of his penis. He
would have a kingdom of his own but bastardy would not become
him.

Therefore he created the story of Moses and convinced the
Hittites and the Amalites and the Anchorites that he had an army
of 144,000 and their servants to defeat them. And thus the fruit
of the Covenant of Abraham with Yahweh God was shown in the power
of disinformation.

And the many ites believed he was sent from the god with the
unspeakable name and were afraid as this god must be as the Clint
Eastwood who had been foretold. And they were afraid as luck was
not with them and they knew they would make a day of mankind.

And Joshua did slay them and their wives and their servants
and their children and their animals, save for the females who
had not known man and the males who did and did thus give
genocide to the world. And Yahweh God was pleased.

And when they had all perished Joshua did break the spear of
war. And the first part of it became the driedel to say the
feast of lights would come and the second part to be the iron
staff of the first Latter Day Saint that would point both toward
and away from where the other people were to go and he would be
written of on golden plates for going in the wrong direction.

And in the fifth day of mankind there was Jesus who is
called the Christ for those who can not tell Greek from Latin and
never heard of Aramaic. And spoke of the wisdom of Yahweh and
gathered twelve students and three women to him to teach the
wisdom that was the wisdom of good and to avoid evil.

And after he died he appeared to the fifteen saying, go thou
and prevaricate about me and my life and what I taught unto all
men, that all nations shall be deceived in my name as my father
is truly Yahweh God and not the Dragon of old.

I am the way and the light and the foreskin of the world.
He that believeth in me shall go to Yahweh god rather than to
wisdom. And so it was starting from Saul of Tarsus suffering a
mild concussion on the road to John the Divine eating of the
.
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 – (2389)
To: Niki Zanzo 17 Dec 94 13:39:00
Subject: END TIMES GAZETTEER

Genesis Creation

In the broadest sense the first few chapters of Genesis is
four stories. One of the creation of the world and three of the
origin of the Hebrew people.

In the first of the three stories they are the special
creation of the god Jehovah or Yahweh. The second is the story
where they are the descendants of god. Third is they arose from
the Covenant.

The Second story

Adam was homosexual but what was he going to do about it?
God saw he was alone. God gave him a helpmate out of his rib,
same genetic material [you know that stuff you talk about
regarding color vision?], and therefore a transexual male. The
truth of this statement was not apparent until relatively recent
discovering in genetics.

In any event in Genesis 2 we discover there is a forbidden
Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and if eaten Adam only will
die.

Coming to Genesis 3 we find there is a Tree of Life (which
is not forbidden.)

We find there is a serpent in a tree who later crawls on his
belly which for many years has puzzled readers. Of course the
answer is simple, it is a flying snake which draws in mythic
considerations. This may have connection to the dragon myths
which are traditionally drawn more like snakes than the modern
European version. So the crawling penalty was obviously a loss
of wings.

The dragon is associated with Wisdom as in the Tree of
Knowledge. This is no question this is another example of a
common image of legend.

We find both of them ate of the Tree of Knowledge and
neither of them died. We find the Yahweh God deliberately
mislead them. In those days of course, gods were considered
tricky folks, prone to lying to mortals so this is not to be
considered a surprising aspect of Yahweh God.

There follows a rather elaborate three part curse.

Then we come to an interesting statement by Yahweh God.

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

This is extremely revealing in that we now know there were
many gods of which Yahweh God was just one of many. It is not a
reference to “angels” as Yahweh God clearly says “one of us.”

We know the only separation from between Man and the gods is
the knowledge of good and evil and since we have that now, there
is no difference between us and all the gods including Yahweh
God, save for living forever.

We know the woman did not become like them and was unable to
distinguish good from evil. The word Adam means “the man” and is
the same word. A different translation in English for the same
word in different places satisfies only later “what it must mean.”

We know there was for some reason a fear of the man living
forever although it is not explained. However, as we know
survival after death was not a Hebraic tradition or belief this
would certainly have to refer to a personal, physical
immortality.

I have noted a common literal expression that “Jesus is
seated at the right hand of the Father.”

I note some obvious conclusions to draw from this. First
off to sit heaven must have gravity, the chair he sits on must be
material (gravity is the interaction of material objects), and
thus to sit on said chair, said Jesus must be material.

Going one step further god has not only a right side but a
hand on that side. Making the normal presumption there is an arm
intervening the right side and the hand. This indicated god has
to a significant extent a physically human form.

Question, does this not support my contentions from Genesis
and the virgin birth that god is a human being quite like us. I
find no contradiction to this in the Bible.

This is further supported by Genesis recounting the “sons of
god knew the daughter of men and had children by them.” Thus
there is a Mrs. God around somewhere, they have children that can
interbreed with humans and thus have sperm, DNA, very flesh and
blood gods similar to the Greek Pantheon and most other gods for
that matter.

—
* 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 – (2390)
To: Niki Zanzo 17 Dec 94 13:41:00
Subject: UFO’S AND THE BIBLE

NZ> I hope this finds you in good health!

NZ> The subject of UFO’s has bunches to do with the Word of God…

NZ> In fact, this is what it’s all about!

NZ> George, to sum it up, download “UFOTRUTH.ZIP” from the
NZ> board, and get back to me…

God was abducted by a UFO and will not be released until the
world repents.

World says, keep 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 – (2391)
To: David Barker 17 Dec 94 13:42:00
Subject: UFO’S AND THE BIBLEяяяяяя

DB> MD> UFOs are a figment of peoples’ imagination and so is God.

DB> MD> Next question?

DB> Boy, talk about religious bias and bigotery, you have the
DB> market cornered. How can you be 100 % sure about that?
DB> Since i am the defendant in this instance, you have the
DB> burden of proof. Go for it.

The burden of proof lies with those making the positive
claim. Else you have to believe in my magic abyssinian vole
until you can prove it does not exist. (Careful with your
disbelief. It created the world you know.)

—
* 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 – (2392)
To: John A. Leopard 17 Dec 94 13:44:00
Subject: 1996

JL> JAL> In the late ’60’s almost everyone called the army a fascist
JL> JAL> outfit – even a lot of people IN the army. It’s not really
JL> JAL> an insult

JL> JW> That is a real jump John, and unless you have
JL> JW> somethin on which to base this assumption, I would tend
JL> JW> to question its validity!

JL> Look up the word “fascist” in the dictionary and
JL> tell me how it does NOT apply to the army, any army.

An army does not control all businesses and factories of a
country, particularly this one. Therefore an army is not
fascist.

I presume you did not actually look up a description of
fascism before you assumed it meant only a dictatorship. That is
quite typical; par for the liberal course actually.

JL> I should not have said “almost everyone called the
JL> army a fascist outfit”, that was an error, but I remember
JL> educated people from all walks of life – even in the
JL> military – calling the army a fascist outfit. People who
JL> know what the word means don’t have any problem applying it
JL> to the army.

If they were “educated” you must be using the definition
that they received a public school education rather than the more
traditional meaning.

—
* 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 – (2393)
To: Michael Pilon 17 Dec 94 13:49:00
Subject: 70% FAVOUR GUN CONTRO

MP> DN> Good luck proving either that “guns are a toy”, or that the
MP> DN> purpose of their existence, or even ownership, is killing.
MP> DN> Go ahead, be the first to be able to back this up.

MP> The toy is my word..because the gunners seem to react to
MP> criticism of them as a child might act when one takes away
MP> one’s toy.

In reality any responsible gun owner looks with contempt
upon anyone who so foolish as to consider a gun a toy. Such
people, now including you, are considered a clear and present
danger to themselves and others.

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

Those are the facts. You will need a better attitude toward
guns before you can be taken seriously again.

—
* 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 – (2394)
To: Ty Meissner 17 Dec 94 13:57:00
Subject: 70% FAVOUR GUN CONTRO

TM> DN> Good luck proving either that “guns are a toy”, or that
TM> DN> the purpose of their existence, or even ownership, is
TM> DN> killing. Go ahead, be the first to be able to back this
TM> DN> up.

TM> If not for killing, (animals including human), why
TM> in the world were guns invented? To claim
TM> otherwise is transparent sophistry, at best.

Let us examine some other transparent sophistries.

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

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

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

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

You get the picture.

You are holding that the original intention of a development
is applicable for all future time.

With your implied assertion it easily follows that gun powder
was invented for fireworks and it is transparent to hold it has
any application as a weapon.

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

—
* 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 – (2395)
To: David Barker 17 Dec 94 14:06:00
Subject: 70% FAVOUR GUN CONTRяяяяя

DB> I know a lot of “morons” who own automatic weapons. To
DB> begin with, licenced class 3 weapon owners are the best
DB> behaved people in the world. Since 1934, acording to
DB> the FBI, there has been a total of 2 homocides commited
DB> with registered class 3 firearms.

And for information one of those two homicides was a murder
for hire by a police officer who got the gun from the police
armory.

They are still leagal
DB> to own and are still available legally on the open
DB> market. If you have not fired one in competion or just
DB> for fun, then you are missing out on a lot of fun.

Unfortunately in 1986 the gov refused to sell the tax stamp.
That has resulted in convictions for possession of an untaxed
weapon being overturned in two federal districts as refusal to
accept the tax payment can not be a venue for banning an item
from commerce.

—
* 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 – (2396)
To: Lester Garrett 17 Dec 94 14:23:00
Subject: BOSNIA

LG> Well said, Peter. If Rose is an example of what’s running
LG> the British military — well, need I finish that sentence?
LG> I understand that the UN has announced that come January
LG> Rose will be replaced by a Lt. Gen. Rupert Smith. Frankly,
LG> I find it difficult to understand why anyone with an ounce
LG> of integrity would accept that job.

Perhaps that is why Canadians work so hard for the job? The
UN treats it military people better.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Reich! Clinton’s partner in Dwarf Tossing.

®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 – (2397)
To: Tyronne Jefferson 17 Dec 94 14:27:00
Subject: CLINTON

TJ> BK> He will have, if the Fed has it’s way. And the president
TJ> BK> deserves the blame if he doesn’t rein in the Fed.

TJ> Then he doesn’t have anyone to blame but himself. BUT I’am
TJ> sure he will find a way to delegate blame.

Obviously in January it is going to be the fault of Dee Dee
Meyers.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Who elected William Bwythe Wabbit?

®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 – (2398)
To: Bob Klahn 17 Dec 94 14:30:00
Subject: CONCEALED CARRY IN TX

BK> Reminds me of the report I read of the man who heard a
BK> noise in the middle of the night, got up with his gun, saw
BK> and shot someone in his kitchen. Killed his daughter, she
BK> had just gotten in.

Lets see. There are 250,000,000 people in the US. These
stories always make the national news. There are two or three
such cases a year. I am not impressed.

BK> Here in Toledo they have a column in the paper of cute
BK> happenings around town. Had one about a power outage
BK> caused the clocks to go out of time. One man heard a noise
BK> and got up to check on it. His young daughters alarm clock
BK> went off about 1 am. They got up and started getting ready
BK> for school. The father told them it was 1 am and to go
BK> back to bed. They said they wondered why it was so dark.
BK> When I read that I could just see their father getting up
BK> and shooting at a moving shape. Killing an 8 yr old or a
BK> 10 yr old is something I could not live with.

So you base your decisions upon what you can imagine?

How irrational.

BK> I have known quite a few people involved in violent deaths
BK> either as victim or perpetrator. In every case the victim
BK> was a friend, or relative, or was involved in some
BK> criminal activity with the others involved, or was a
BK> suicide.

How many to be precise and why is it you are such a
statistical anomaly as to have such violent friends and
relatives?

BK> My conclusion is this. From my personal knowledge of the
BK> subject, and all the statistics I have read, any gun you
BK> own will more likely be used to shoot someone you don’t
BK> want shot than someone you do.

Rather it is obviously most dangerous to be known by you or
to be related to you than anything else.

BK> I didn’t bother to adapt to it. I don’t carry a gun, know
BK> very few people who do. If I lived in an area that
BK> dangerous I would move. Whatever it costs, I would move.

You should disown your family and denounce your friends.

—
* 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/Poli-Phil – (2399)
To: Bob Klahn 17 Dec 94 14:34:00
Subject: CONCEALED CARRY IN TX

BK> JW> Even more important why shouldn’t you have one if
BK> JW> you NEED to use it!

BK> Do you know ahead of time that you will need to use a gun
BK> this trip?

Rather having a gun all the time obviates having to guess
when it might be needed.

BK> JW> Why do police carry guns if most of them never use
BK> JW> them,

BK> Require that every gun owner go through as much training
BK> as the police do, and the testing, physical and
BK> psychological.

My brother, a trained trainer of police, tells some
fascinating stories about police training levels. Were he to
post some of them you would think more highly of civilians.

Then require that every gun be registered
BK> and signed for, and every bullet be accounted for. Then
BK> you will have a situation equivalent to the police.

Give the benefit of the doubt to every gun owner for every
shooting and permit neighbors who were asleep at the time to
claim they witnessed a good shoot. Permit three rounds in the
back of an unarmed person to be found to be self defense. Make
the “punishment” for a bad shoot additional training or
assignment to a desk job.

You certainly have the solution to all the gun problems in
the world with your idea.

BK> Or, rather than go through all that, let’s consider what
BK> the police do. It is the job of the police officer to go
BK> where the criminals are, seek them out, and arrest them.

Good. You propose citizens can go on search and destroy
missions with police equivalent gun training. That will end
crime in a few days.

BK> Now, I wonder, if you consider your situation equivalent
BK> to that of the police, what are you doing going into the
BK> criminal’s lair and associating with the thugs?

Although I live in a better neighborhood than Bill Clinton I
have noticed they come into my neighborhood rather than my having
to go to find them.

BK> BTW, an awful lot of police die in the line of duty.

Less than do cab drivers and prostitutes, per capita also.

Some
BK> at the hands of criminals, some in accidents. My nephew
BK> was a military cop, MP, he died in a gun accident.

Guns are now criminals?

—
* 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 – (2400)
To: Charlie Gipson 17 Dec 94 14:52:00
Subject: DEATH PENALTY-NICOTIяяяя

CG> MG> But as we know, you can not find it on a death
CG> MG> certificate much less in court testimony under oath.
CG> MG>
CG> MG> But of course that makes no difference to you.

CG> yea.. smoking kills indirectly! cancer kills! Bronchitis
CG> kills! Emphysema kills! Pulmonary edema kills! COPD kills!
CG> No.. dont blame it on the poor little cigarette!

Birth has been known to kill both directly and indirectly
yet it is listed.

CG> yea.. guns kill indirectly too! People kill! How come guns
CG> get all the blame?

Gunshot wounds are also listed as a cause of death.

CG> How come when a drunk driver hits a pedestrian.. the
CG> “BOOZE” killed, not the car? The booze killed indirectly
CG> too!

The car is also listed and a drunken pedestrian will be
noted.

CG> I lost both of my parents to “smoking related causes!”..
CG> and no, that wasnt on the death certificate! I hope someday
CG> you will know what I mean!

Ah, yes. The trauma of the loss of your parents has lead
you to wish death upon everyone else in the world from the same
cause. And you are covering that to yourself by feigning to save
them while you know such stupid condemnations as yours only
harden the pro-smoking position.

—
* 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 – (2401)
To: Michael Pilon 17 Dec 94 14:56:00
Subject: DEC.6, 1989

MP> LG> ????? Was this something that was misdirected?

MP> These are thje names of the 14 yiung women killed by Marc
MP> Lappine at the University of Montreal engineering faculty.
MP> Lapine’s name is known to all the names of the victims are
MP> not. The killings have been the impetus for the stronger
MP> gun laws that have finally been enacted, the previous
MP> government caved in to the gun lobby.

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

—
* 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 – (2402)
To: John Clifton 17 Dec 94 15:03:00
Subject: MONEY GROWIN’ ON TREES

JC> > It is not the marxist way to admit money is a finite
JC> > resource. Emotions should be able to create all the money
JC> > needed. Good creates wealth.

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

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

—
* 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 – (2410)
To: All 17 Dec 94 18:55:00
Subject: FREEDOMS AT RISK

Be prepared to act against another intrusion against our
freedoms.

The ASPCA has just proposed a federal law to prohibit
catapult testing.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “Give Corruption a Chance.” Matt Giwer

®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_941225 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (2424)
To: Ty Meissner 21 Dec 94 19:29:00
Subject: ‘THE BELL CURVE’ 0

TM> MG{{TM> And when’s the last time the govt. made anyone’s
TM> MG{{TM> (with income under $ 100,000) life better or
TM> MG{{TM> easier. Only the wealthy really benefit from
TM> MG{{TM> Govt. handouts. Of course when the govt. hands
TM> MG{{TM> it to them its usually a few million times more
TM> MG{{TM> than what the poor are handed.

TM> MG>> Classic liberal, marxist conspiracy theory. Everything
TM> MG>> is to the benefit of the rich. They steal from the poor.
TM> MG>> They rent Kansas every year to conspire to do it.

TM> In other words, you know I’m right but don’t want
TM> to admit it ?

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

All those rich conspiring to steal from the poor. I hear
they have rented Kansas for next year’s conspiracy session. Pass
the word.

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

— 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 3603/141
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 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 – (2425)
To: Ty Meissner 21 Dec 94 19:33:00
Subject: MASS MURDER

TM> MG>>TM> Tell any lie (no matter how preposterous) often

TM> MG>> Can you possibly explain why that policy has failed
TM> MG>>completely for Bill Clinton?

TM> I’m not aware of any lies told by the president,
TM> unless you want to include broken promises.

I was unaware there was any difference when a promise is not
made in good faith to begin with. Consider his full knowledge of
the size of deficit in August and his continued claim it was
higher than he knew up until the election and his acknowledgement
he lied about it in December 1992.

TM> Perhaps you have INSIDE knowledge about his private
TM> affairs.

I only deal with his own words. I can post perhaps a dozen
100 line messages of his foibles and lies in the first six months
AGAIN if you would like to read them.

I don’t put much stock in the words of
TM> Ms Flowers or Ms Jones. If he were a great
TM> president perhaps people would be more tolerant of
TM> his pecadilloes, waddaya think ?

I have no interest in their words either. But I can
certainly dredge up his own words on the subject. Consider in
May 1992 when asked about Flowers he answered, “It was a
difficult time in our marriage.” It that a denial in your view?

Sounds like an excuse to me.

—
* 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/Poli-Phil – (2428)
To: All 22 Dec 94 09:57:00
Subject: Elite Few BBS with OLR

Ex-EF Members Achtungen sie mir or something like that.

Over the last three years I have run across several people
who I first met on The Elite Few, a local DC BBS that originated
as the “Religion and Politics”.

Many of us ex-participants are now scattered all over the
country. This message is an attempt to get the word to everyone.

It has finally upgraded (and under new management,
Kyle/Garnitz of Pedaler’s Palace) to having an off line reader.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvv
The new number is 1-703-237-0401. It still has its cantankerous
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
attitudes and automatic disregard of dumb messages.

Anyway, to everyone who was once there, you can at least
drop back and say hi.

To everyone, if you want to try a board that passively
discourages the low IQ types (they just go away) give it a call.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “Torah! Torah! Torah!” A battle cry to frighten Arabs.

®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 – (2432)
To: All 22 Dec 94 16:37:00
Subject: IMPOSSIBLE DECISIONS

October | December
|
A middle class tax cut |
appears impossible | to avoid.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Read “Sleeping Your Way to the Top” by Hillary 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

+++ююююю r_941227 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (2390)
To: David Barker 22 Dec 94 22:13:00
Subject: 70% FAVOUR GUN CONTRяяяяя

DB> Hello Matt, I wasn’t aware of that. The only thing
DB> that i know for sure, now is that there is a double
DB> tax on each transfer. used to be that only the buyer
DB> had to pay the $200.00 for a tax stamp. From what i
DB> was told by a class 3 dealer, each party has to pay a
DB> transfer fee. $200.00 for the seller, and $200.00 for
DB> the buyer. The government should pay heed to the old
DB> saying in business: You can shear a sheep many times,
DB> but you can’t skin it but once.

[underlining not complete, everything excerpted]

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant,

ROCK ISLAND ARMORY, INCORPORATED and David R. Reese,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 91-2595.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Aug. 13, 1991.
Federal statute which prohibited possession of machine guns
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
impliedly repealed or rendered unconstitutional portions of
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
National Firearms Act which provided for raising of revenue from
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
making, possession, and transfer of machine guns made after
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
effective date of statute, and thus, indictment alleging
violation of National Firearms Act by making or transfer of
recently made machine guns had to be dismissed; because
Government interpreted and enforced statute to disallow
registration of machine guns and refused to collect tax, statute
removed constitutional legitimacy of registration of machine guns
as aid to tax collection. U.S. v. Rock Island Armory, Inc. 773
F.Supp. 117

PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

V. No. 91-1149 JOHN WILLIAM DALTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the- United States District Court
for the District of Colorado
(D.C. No. 90-CR-127)

[Note 2] Section 922(o) provides:

(l) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful
for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.

(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to– …

(3) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of machinegun that
was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes
effect.”

The machinegun prohibition became effective May 19, 1986.
See Pub.L.No. 99-308, 110(c), 100 Stat. 449, 461 (1986). [End
note 2]

the transfer, receipt, or possession of the firearm would place
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
the transferee in violation of law”). As a result, compliance
~~~~~~~~~~
with the registration requirements referred to in sections
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
5861(d) and (e) is impossible with this weapon. Dalton concedes
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
that the government could have charged him under section 922(o),
which criminalizes possession. Rec., vol. V, at 51. However,
the government instead chose to proceed under section 5861 and
charge him with possessing an unregistered gun.

Dalton contends that the gravamen of a section 5861 violation is
the possession and transfer of an unregistered gun, and that it
violates fundamental fairness to convict him for failing to do an
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
act which everyone agrees he could not perform. He made this
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
argument to the district court without success. In rejecting
Dalton’s analysis, the court stated its position that a violation
of section 5861 is grounded on possession rather than on the
failure to register. “[I]t’s the act of possession, not the act
of registration which is the gravamen of the offense. It is the
act of possession of a firearm that’s not registered. It doesn’t
matter who or why,” Rec., vol. V, at 62,

Merry Christmas to you
DB> and your family. David B.

And yours and a New Year with the repeal of the assault
weapons ban over a waffling body in the White House.

—
* 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 – (2391)
To: Mike Angiletta 22 Dec 94 22:22:00
Subject: DEALING WITH ANTIGUN NUT

MA> MG> Bothered by an neighborhood anti-gun petitioner?

MA> MG> Put a sign in your yard announcing you have guns but the
MA> MG>person at that address does not have guns. That will give the
MA> MG>burglars, rapists and murderers a safe place to go.

MA> MG> Want to bet they scream with outrage? Are they really too
MA> MG>hypocritical to live as they preach?

MA> Hey Matt, please describe an “anti-gun nut” for me.

People who are against others having the best means of self
defense ever devised in their own homes because they are afraid
of criminals having guns.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “Million dollar haircuts are essential 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 – (2392)
To: Jack Wilder 22 Dec 94 22:23:00
Subject: THE COURTS, THE MESSAGE,

JW> MG> INS into the court? Are you suggesting there is a
JW> MG> prohibition someplace in law or the constitution that
JW> MG> prohibits discrimination against criminals in the act of
JW> MG> committing a crime?

JW> Are you suggesting that it is a crime for aliens to
JW> eat????????

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

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Clinton thinks we want guns to protect ourselves from ducks.

®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 – (2393)
To: David Barker 22 Dec 94 22:25:00
Subject: UFO’S AND THE BIBLEяяяяяя

DB> MG> The burden of proof lies with those making the positive
DB> MG> claim. Else you have to believe in my magic abyssinian
DB> MG> vole until you can prove it does not exist. (Careful with
DB> MG> your disbelief. It created the world you know.)

DB> Hello Matt, we could probably go back and forth on
DB> this forever i guess. I think, at least in my mind,
DB> that there is an existance or a presence of a deity.

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

—
* 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 – (2394)
To: All 22 Dec 94 23:24:00
Subject: STRANGE JUSTICE A HOAX!

########## Original From: FRANK SULICK
# STOLEN # To: ALL
# STUFF # Date/Number: 12/21/94 – 0001456
########## On: DOC’S – 0004 – Baychat
———————————————————————–

Today, <12-21-1994> Gordon Liddy had David Brock on his radio show as a
guest and the subject was to discuss the book “Strange Justice – The
Selling of Clarence Thomas” by Jane Mayer and Jill Abramson, both of
whom work as reporters for the Wall Street Journal.

David Brock is the author of the book, “The Real Anita Hill” and is an
investigative reporter.

Mr. Brock spent a month going through Strange Justice and while he was
at it, contacted many of the sources quoted by the authors Mayer and
Abramson.

As a result of his investigation, Mr. Brock concluded and made it quite
clear the book is a “HOAX” and a “LIE.” He said he found misleading,
false and erroneous statements on virtually every page and then went on
to sight several examples.

He contacted the owner of the video tape shop who supposedly said
Clarence Thomas rented porno tapes all the time. The owner told him
that this was not true and the quotes attributed to him in the book
Strange Justice is a lie.

The woman who supposedly said the walls of Thomas’ apartment was
“plastered with pin ups of scantily clad women” told Brock that she
never said any such thing. In fact when she was sent the galley proofs
of the book, she told the authors that she was quoted incorrectly.
<She had told them that she saw two pinups, then changed her story when
talking to Brock, that she had only seen one.>

Subsequently she received a revised set of galley proofs, quoting her
correctly. Later when she saw the book, the original and false quotes
were back in the book!

This woman claimed <to Brock> that she saw only one pinup in Thomas’
apartment….but subsequent investigation by Brock thoroughly
discredited this woman as totally unreliable. In any case, Thomas’ room
was NOT plastered with pinups as reported in the book.

Brock claims he checked out a great many of the allegations and their
sources in the book and found every one of them to be either false or
totally lacking in credibility!

Brock was asked about ABC’s role in jumping on the bandwagon when the
book Strange Justice was first published. He stated that evidently
ABC’s investigation to confirm the content of the book was superficial
and poorly done. In other words, ABC in effect gave the book credibilty
by interviewing the author’s on TV and did so without CHECKING THE
ACCURACY OF THE BOOK’S CONTENT!

Brock has sent a written copy of his findings to ABC television, the
President of ABC television, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times
and Peter Jennings…..he has also asked each of them for a meeting to
discuss his findings and thus far they haven’t responded.

Brock went on to say, a gigantic hoax has been perpetrated on the
American public and the book is nothing but lies!

Thus far he has been greeted with a vast silence from ABC, the Wall
Street Journal, New York Times and Jennings. Brock’s opinion is that
they are hoping it <he> will go away and this monstrous lie will stand.

He felt that what ABC and Jennings did in giving the book Strange
Justice so much TV coverage for two days was a form of political
correctness on their part!

His written findings are published in the current issue of the American
Spector, which is in the mail.

Weeks ago, Brock had invited Mayer and Abramson to meet with him and
discuss his findings in a public forum…..thus far they have not
returned his calls.

He mentioned that it is well known that most of the writers on the
Wall Street Journal are liberals whereas the editorial staff are
conservatives and for some time there has been a running “war” between
the two groups.

He did not know the motives of Mayer and Abramson in writing the book,
but it was obvious from his comments that they were intent on doing a
job on Judge Thomas. “They” couldn’t defeat Thomas’ nomination to the
Supreme Court, but possibly their motive was to put pressure on Judge
Thomas to be less of a conservative on the bench!

In retrospect, I’m sorry I didn’t tape the interview, since a trans-
cription of the radio program would have made excellent reading in this
conference….

I have a copy of the book Strange Justice, and I plan on putting a large
note on the cover page, “This book is a hoax and one big lie!”

It is also obvious that working for the Wall Street Journal doesn’t
prevent people like Mayer and Abramson from lying.

Frankly I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that they were fired from the
Wall Street Journal for this breech of journalistic integrity and
honesty! …..especially as the book Strange Justice gets the publicity
it so richly deserves…..namely that it is a hoax and a lie!

*****************
* * * * * k * *
*****************

—
* 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 – (2397)
To: Elaine Gallegos 23 Dec 94 08:34:00
Subject: ‘THE BELL CURVE’ 0

EG> I think that people raised on the govt. teat from the
EG> time of their grandparents are going to throw a MAJOR
EG> “hysie” fit at being asked to be self sufficient. My guess
EG> is that they will turn to infanticide, child abandonment,
EG> and crime. Then claim that society MADE them do it.

Believe it or not these people are people. That is not a
normal reaction.

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

Someone will kill their children. The media will report she
had been depressed over the thought of losing welfare. The media
will not report the woman had tried to kill herself several times
before the evil Republicans forced her to do it.

Sort of like that woman who blamed Beavis and Butthead for
her kid starting a fire. The media will not report the woman had
no cable hookup.

—
* 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 – (2398)
To: Michael Pilon 23 Dec 94 08:46:00
Subject: 70% FAVOUR GUN CONTRO

MP> TM> If not for killing, (animals including human), why in the
MP> TM> world were guns invented? To claim otherwise is
MP> TM> transparent sophistry, at best.

MP> Well put Ty. Actually I can see sport shooting as it is a
MP> skillful sport, but I am still mystified at people who call
MP> hunting a sport. I often wonder where the thrill comes
MP> from, it is in trackoing the *game*, is it when you get it
MP> in your sights, is it when you pull the trigger and feel
MP> the recoil on your shoulder, is it when you see the animal
MP> shudder and fall, is it hearing the animals dying groans ?
MP> I for one am puzzled !

It is directly related to the elation one feels in the
reaction of a patient to the sight of a dental drill.

To be more specific, it is the presumption that people react
according to the adjectives of another. Tell me, do you feel
that same about cockroaches?

Interesting that you can see killing a paper target as a
skill but then not see any skill involved in hitting a moving
target in unfamiliar territory.

MP> TM> loud the protestations of gun lovers. Owning a gun means
MP> TM> I’m READY to (even if I never get around to it) to kill
MP> TM> another.

MP> YEs true, even if it is an animal, I guess playing God by
MP> ending a creatures short life is a justification.

How do you feel using a weapon of mass destruction like
RAID?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “Beware the Bimbonic Plague.” 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 – (2399)
To: Alan Hess 23 Dec 94 09:02:00
Subject: A BOMB STAMP

AH> We’re also seen as a sexist nation by some of our female
AH> citizens. They should thank their lucky stars that they
AH> weren’t born in India, where women have less rights than
AH> men, and female infanticide continues even as we speak.

Where burning the bride to death as a tool of dowry
extortion is common enough to have had the non-responsiveness of
the Indian government raised by Indian women at some UN
conference a couple years ago.

—
* 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 – (2400)
To: Kevin Crabtree 23 Dec 94 09:05:00
Subject: A BOMB STAMP

KC> If I am not mistaken, the Japanese government officially
KC> apologized for the pearl harbor bombing. Specifically for
KC> not declaring war before doing so.

You should read the actual wording of those many apologies
that have never quite made the mark in our terms. Some one has
to take on faith as actually being apologies.

The most recent is in fact not an apology. It is an
“explanation.” We are supposed to be stupid enough to believe
the declaration was not marked urgent and the Washington
diplomatic staff went to dinner instead of delivering it.

Are they trying to insult our intelligence? again?

To my knowledge, the
KC> U.S. has done no such thing for Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

One never apologizes for winning.

KC> So I would suggest that you respect
KC> their feelings as far as that stamp, and not try to make it
KC> ugly by making up things that you (hopefully) know are not
KC> true.

KC> > Or a Bataan stamp.

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

—
* 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 – (2401)
To: Travis Beard 23 Dec 94 09:14:00
Subject: A-BOMB STAMP

On 12/15/94 TRAVIS BEARD to LESTER GARRETT on A-Bomb Stamp

TB> LG> Well said!

TB> Wasn’t Peter one of those people who was shocked that the
TB> Smithsonian Institute would exhibit the Enola Gay without
TB> his politically correct history?
TB>
TB> I consider the refusal to publish the A-Bomb
TB> stamp……instant karma. Payback is a mother.

Rather view both events in the true light. The anti-nuke
neanderthals won one because they had the wimp in chief on their
side.

—
* 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 – (2403)
To: Wayne Bertsch 23 Dec 94 09:57:00
Subject: A-BOMB STAMP

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

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

—
* 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 – (2404)
To: Lester Garrett 23 Dec 94 09:58:00
Subject: A-BOMB STAMP

LG> I have never been able to understand how people could
LG> characterize any weapon which is used to murder a single
LG> human being as “a civilized weapon”. In that particular
LG> context — a civilized weapon of war — the term oxymoron
LG> comes to mind. As one Serb was overheard saying to
LG> another: we’re gonna have a civilized little war, anyone
LG> wanna come?

War is the highest form of civilization.

Any rational army would run away.

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

—
* 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 – (2405)
To: Wayne Bertsch 23 Dec 94 10:02:00
Subject: A-BOMB STAMP

WB> If you think a lot of japanese are racists fine. But so
WB> what? 2 wrongs make a right. Your supposed to be above
WB> that as a human.

Where is it written? That is for storefront christians and
other children. There is no right and wrong in war, only victory
and defeat. And in that regard, two defeats do not make a
victory either but any victory does.

WB> Louis Farrakahn is undoubtably a racists but I’d object
WB> just as strongly to you calling him a NIGGER or issuing a
WB> stamp celebrating slavery.

Thus you would be equally against a stamp celebrating the
victory of Grant over Lee?

You do not appear to have a firm grasp of the concept of
analogy.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * The tuna doesn’t taste the same without the dolphin.

®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 – (2407)
To: Ty Meissner 23 Dec 94 10:16:00
Subject: BELL CURVE FALLACY

TM> The underlying fallacy of murray’s thesis is that
TM> people are born with their intelligence largely
TM> developed. Pediatricians and behavioral scientists
TM> can tell you nothing is further from the truth.

Your claim of an underlying fallacy is no more than a
demonstration you have not read the book and are making a claim
about it as a deliberate slander.

Anyone who has read the book, which you obviously have not,
knows this matter is addressed.

TM> Did Murray, et al, give IQ tests to newborn, ever ?
TM> NO! Did they give IQ tests to children under 8
TM> years? NO!

Another demonstration of a deliberate slander. Murry claims
to have given NO IQ tests

TM> The reality of intelligence development is that it largely
TM> takes place between age 0 and 10.

Gee, you have evidence none of the dozens of researchers in
the area can find. Where did you publish?

And to contend that
TM> only 40% of measured intelligence is learned (and the
TM> remaining 60% is chromosomal) is intellectually dishonest,
TM> at best.

Would you care to summarize your pioneering research here?
Just give us an idea of what you found.

TM> The only way such a study could be carried out
TM> objectively, would be to compare the IQ scores of
TM> subjects reared in the SAME environment. That has
TM> never and isn’t about to happen.

Would you please describe the research you conducted to
invalidate all of the studies that have done exactly that?
Please do this formally, give the criteria used in the paper to
conduct the testing of same environment and why the criteria are
invalid.

=====

What is truly amazing about this book is that so many people
who have not read it, know nothing about, and yet pretend they
know exactly what it contains and criticize it based upon their
infused knowledge.

As you are one those people, could you explain just what it
is that prompts you to do this?

I find such behavior extremely irrational.

—
* 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 – (2408)
To: Michael Pilon 23 Dec 94 10:35:00
Subject: CANADIAN HOMOCIDE RAT

MP> In fact a substantial nunmber of US MD’s have endorsed gun
MP> control as they get to see the horror beyond the jingoism,
MP> they get to patch the people up or try to.

And the NRA, as reciprocal experts on medicine, have
condemned bypass surgery.

In fact the NEJM
MP> had an article a while back endorsing gun restrictions as a
MP> public health measure. WHen it was read to them the gun
MP> lobby went wild. I hope this answers your question

==================================================================
The following article is under submission. Reproduction on
computer bulletin boards is permitted for informational purposes
only. Copyright (c) 1993 by J. Neil Schulman. All other rights
reserved.

NEJM STUDY CONCLUSIONS ARE POLITICAL, NOT SCIENTIFIC

by J. Neil Schulman

Anybody who’s studied the stock market knows it’s common
knowledge that when women’s skirts have gone up, the prices of
stocks have gone up also, but no one is foolish enough to claim
that by shortening women’s skirts we can cause a stock market
boom.

That sort of common sense, however, doesn’t seem to hold when
the subject is the so-called epidemiology of “gun violence,” and
medical researchers are sniffing for statistics to prove their
predetermined conclusion that gun control is desirable public
policy.

The point to this research is the contention that doctors can
study firearms-related violence as an epidemiologic health issue
apart from the motives of the people who pull the trigger …
which is the proper study of that branch of sociology known as
criminology. By this premise alone, epidemiologists discard the
humanistic premise of personal volition in favor of a mechanistic
view of human behavior which denies a fundamental difference
between the contagion of microbic cultures and human cultures:
microbes don’t act on their value-judgments and people do.

The latest outbreak of statisticitis emerges from the study led
by Arthur L. Kellermann, M.D., published in the October 7, 1993
issue of the \New England Journal of Medicine\. A previous
Kellermann-led study published in the June 12, 1986 \NEJM\ gave
us the factoid that you are 43 times likelier to die from a
handgun kept in the home from homicide, suicide, or accident than
you are to kill a burglar with it. By the time this factoid
turned into the mega-soundbyte used by gun-control advocates in
the media and Congress, you were supposedly 43 times as likely to
die from a handgun kept in the home than to successfully \defend\
yourself from a burglar with it. Kellermann, himself, cautioned
against that conclusion saying, “Mortality studies such as ours
do not include cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded
or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm. Cases in
which would-be intruders may have purposely avoided a house known
to be armed are also not identified. We did not report the total
number of nonlethal firearm injuries involving guns kept in the
home. A complete determination of firearm risks versus benefits
would require that these figures be known.”

Kellermann’s latest “population-based case-control study” of
homicides throws such caution to the wind. He attempts to
quantify “firearm risks versus benefits” by comparing households
where a homicide occurred with households where no homicide
occurred in three counties, chosen for their convenient location
to the researchers. After correcting for several other risk
factors such as alcohol or illicit-drug-use, previous domestic
violence, and persons with criminal records in the 316 matched
households ultimately compared, Kellermann determined that
households where “homicide at the hands of a family member or
intimate acquaintance” occurred were almost three times likelier
to have kept a loaded handgun in the home than control households
where such a homicide did not occur. From this determination,
Kellermann concludes, “Although firearms are often kept in the
home for personal protection, this study shows that the practice
is counterproductive. Our data indicate that keeping a gun in
the home is independently associated with an increase in the risk
of homicide in the home.”

There are several immediate problems with Kellermann’s
conclusions.

One is that by relying on a case study of households with
homicide victims, Kellermann is looking at almost twice as many
black households as white, and only a handful of Asian households
— far too few to be statistically useful. African-Americans are
homicide victims way out of proportion to other racial or ethnic
groupings, and any case study of homicides has to live with this
demographic distortion. The problem is that studying homicide
within the African-American culture may not produce conclusions
which are generalizable to other racial or ethnic groups.
According to Don Kates, a criminologist with the Pacific Research
Institute, “African-Americans have greater death rates than other
population groups for drowning, other accidents, and diseases.”
Other sociological studies note crude differences between
African-Americans and Asian-Americans in divorce rates, school
drop-out rates, father-absent households, and so forth. It might
well be that in a household descended from immigrant Asians or
Europeans, cultural attitudes regarding firearms might be
significantly different from Kellermann’s sample, and these could
be the differences that determine whether the mere availability
of a firearm turns an assault into a homicide.

A still more basic problem with Kellermann’s conclusion is that
it attempts to draw a reverse implication from a set of facts —
the problem of how we can know that shortening skirts won’t lead
to an increase in stock prices. Certainly it will be true that
people who own parachutes will die more frequently in falls from
airplanes than people who don’t — but does that mean that
parachute-ownership constitutes an increased risk factor for
death by falling from an airplane? Wouldn’t logic tell us that
the risk of dying as a result of falling from an airplane would
be far greater by those people who fall from airplanes who
\don’t\ have a parachute handy?

Kellermann tells us, “We found no evidence of a protective
benefit from gun ownership in any subgroup, including one
restricted to cases of homicide that followed forced entry into
the home and another restricted to cases in which resistance was
attempted.”

This is where Kellermann’s study is completely disingenuous,
and indicates — as does his financing and publication by
gun-control zealots James Mercy at the Center for Disease Control
and Jerome P. Kassirer, editor of \The New England Journal of
Medicine\ — that the intent of these studies is to produce
pro-gun-control sound-bytes for Sarah Brady rather than
scientific knowledge.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * WHILE NOT Deficit_reduce do INC(taxes) UNTIL time END.

®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 – (2409)
To: Michael Pilon 23 Dec 94 10:41:00
Subject: CANADIAN HOMOCIDE RAT

MP> In fact a substantial nunmber of US MD’s have endorsed gun
MP> control as they get to see the horror beyond the jingoism,
MP> they get to patch the people up or try to. In fact the NEJM
MP> had an article a while back endorsing gun restrictions as a
MP> public health measure. WHen it was read to them the gun
MP> lobby went wild. I hope this answers your question

Date: 10-27-93 Time: 00:00a Number: 119129
From: TONY FAUST Refer: 0
To: ALL Board ID: MERCOPUS Recvd: No
Subject: pseudofacts 25: Politics-F Status: Public
——————————————————————————-
–> Note:
Copied (from: TARC) by Neal Atkins using timEd.

“The Dallas Morning News” ran a story by Colleen O’Connor,
on women and guns which contained some very alarming and
intimidating statistics. However, some of her “facts” are untrue
out of context distortions. What the reports in the “New England
Journal of Medicine” conclude, are something entirely different.

I am of the opinion that only a unprofessional or biased reporter
could include such blatant distortions as the quote that follows.

“Guns in the home for Self-protection are 43 times more
likely to kill a family member or a friend than to kill an
intruder.” I will use only this quote from the “Dallas Morning
News” from now on all quotes will be from “The New England
Journal of Medicine”,various issues.

The DMN wording is very misleading and not what is in the
actual reports. It plants the thought that, a little six year old
child got up for a glass of water and was shot by his parents, or
that your neighbor knocks on the door to borrow a cup of sugar
and gets a belly of lead or your spouse comes in late from work
and you shoot them. The alarming thought that your abusive family
member could be the unwanted criminal, or threat isn’t brought to
light,nor is suicide. Yet, spousial/domestic violence is becoming
more recognized in our society, and the lack of effectively
dealing with this problem is really at the root of domestic
homicide.

One report in the NEJM has 83.7% of the deaths in the home
by a gun being a suicide, that would be a family member/friend
but is hardly what the DMN article implies. However, the actual
report from the NEJM 1986;314:1557-60 is: “Protection or Peril?”

“We noted 43 suicides [83.7%], criminal homicides[10.3%], or
accidental gunshot[3%] deaths involving a gun kept in the home
for every case of homicide for self-protection.”, Hence the
“Dallas Morning News” 43 times number in the DMN misquote?

“Detectable concentrations of ethanol were found in the
blood of a substantial proportion of the victims tested.”

A blood ethanol test was positive in 35% of Suicide and 57%
of Homicide victims. Over 80% of the Homicides noted during their
study occurred during arguments or altercations.

“The choice of a gun for suicide may involve a combination
of impulse and the close proximity of a firearm. Conversely, the
choice of a gun may simply reflect the seriousness of a person’s
intent.”

“Over the six-year interval, the med. examiner’s office
investigated 743 deaths from firearms. This total represented
22.7% of all violent deaths occurring in King Co during this
period,EXCLUDING traffic deaths.” What is the real percentage
figure, I’ll bet much lower?

The NEJM has a special article entitled “Gun Ownership
as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home” NEJM 1993;329:1084-91
What does it REALLY say? I’ll let you be the judge.

23.9% of total homicides in the 3 studied counties took
place in the home or on the immediate property of the VICTIM of
homicide.(victim= aggressor or defender ? they don’t say)

100% of Homicides in 3 counties occurred inside/immediate
property of victim and breakdown as follows.

Circumstances:
alt/quarrel [fighting] =44.0%
felony related =21.9%
homicide only =13.3%
drug dealing =07.6%
romanic triangle[adultery]=06.9%
murder-suicide =04.5%
other =01.7%

Method:
firearms [all] =49.8%
knifes =26.4%
bludgeoned =11.7%
strangled =06.4%
other =05.7%

Victim resisted:
yes =43.8%
no =33.3%
unknown =22.9%

The NEJM report did not state whether the victim was the
aggressor or the defender in the encounter. They do state that
“…5.0% of the victims unsuccessfully attempted to use a gun in
self-defence.” They do not give figures for the successful
defence with a gun.

By relationship:
Known =76.7%
strangers =03.6%
No id =17.4%
police =05.9%

The NEJM states that “Living in a household where someone
had previously been hit or hurt in a fight in the home was also
strongly and independently associated with homicide,”

“Virtually all of this increased risk was due to a marked
association between prior domestic violence and homicide at the
hands of a family member or intimate acquaintance”

“Our data strongly suggest that the risk of homicide is
markedly in creased in homes where a person has previously been
hit or hurt in a family fight.”

“Illicit-drug use, alcoholism, and domestic violence are
widely believed to increase the risk of homicide, but the
relative importance of these factors is unknown.”

“The observed association between battering and homicide is
also important.”

“conclusions. The use of illicit drugs and a history of
physical fights in the home are important risk factors for
homicide in the home. Rather than confer protection, guns kept in
the home are ASSOCIATED with an increase in the RISK of homicide
by a family member or intimate acquaintance.”

—
* 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 – (2410)
To: Michael Pilon 23 Dec 94 10:46:00
Subject: CANADIAN HOMOCIDE RAT

“…should prompt physicians, social workers,
law-enforcement officers, and the courts to work harder to
identify and protect victims of battering and other forms of
family violence. Early identification and effective intervention
may prevent a later homicide.”

Final Conditional L-R Model [complete model]
variable adjusted odds ratio
any household member 5.7(2.6-12.6)
using illicit drugs

any household member 4.4(2.2-8.8)
hit/hurt in fight in
the home

home rented 4.4(2.3-8.2)

lived alone 3.7(2.1-6.6)

guns in home 2.7(1.6-4.4)

household member 2.5(1.6-4.1)
arrested

My conclusions of the “The New England Journal of Medicine”
reports, guns and alcohol don’t mix, leave abusive relationships
before your killed, don’t live with people who use illicit drugs

—————————-

“People who keeps guns at home nearly triple their chances of
being murdered, usually by friends or relatives, but fail to
protect themselves from intruders, a study found.” This
sentence, which appeared on the editorial page of the October 11
issue of the Democrat, is a classic example of the dangers of
“sound-bite” journalism. Like most sound-bites, it provides only
a simple-minded and uncritical evaluation of the subject at hand.
It is simply impossible, not to mention a disservice to your
readers, o condense an 8 page scientific paper into a single
sentence. A careful reading of the study in question reveals
that the issue is not as cut and dried as your sound-bite would
lead us to believe.

The study referred to was conducted by Arthur Kellermann, Norman
Rushforth, et. al. and was published in the October 7 issue of
The New England Journal of Medicine under the title “Gun
Ownership As A Risk Factor For Homicide In The Home.” This study
analyzed 316 murders committed in homes in three counties in
Tennessee, Washington, and Ohio between August 23, 1987, and
August 23, 1988. The study concludes, “Despite the widely held
belief that guns are effective for protection, our results
suggest that they actually pose a substantial threat to members
of the household. …We did not find any evidence of a protective
effect of keeping a gun in the home…”

Kellermann and Rushforth commit the same error that Kellermann
committed in his 1986 study (the well known “A gun in the home is
43 times more likely to kill it+s owner, spouse, friend, or child
than to ill and intruder” study) and that Rushforth committed in
his highly criticized 1975 study. Namely, all three studies
ignore the fact that less than 1% of all defensive gun uses
involve a criminal being killed. By focusing only on homicides,
they do not take into account instances where an intruder was
merely wounded, captured, or frightened off by a gun wielding
victim. They also do not take into account the cases where
someone used a firearm to successfully defend themselves from an
assault or rape attempt by a family member or acquaintance
without killing the offender. In short, Kellermann, et. al. are
only looking at instances where a gun in the house failed to save
the victim+s life; his data ignores all cases where a gun was
used in a non-lethal manner to save a victim+s life. By focusing
only on cases where homicides occurred they dismiss out of hand
99% of all defensive gun uses.

This study also does not take into account the possible deterrent
effect that widespread gun ownership on burglaries. In countries
with lower gun ownership rates that the US., burglars are much
more likely to enter occupied homes. The 1992 British Crime
Survey showed that 59% of attempted burglaries were against
occupied homes. A 1977 survey in the Netherlands revealed that
48% of all burglaries are attempted against occupied homes. A
1978 study showed that 44% of burglaries in Toronto were against
occupied homes. On the average, only 12% of US. burglaries are
against occupied homes.

Indeed, Kellermann admitted these flaws in his 1986 study, in
which he said that certain data needed to be gathered for “a
complete determination of firearms risks versus benefits.”These
data include, “cases in which burglars are wounded or frightened
away by use or display of a firearm… Cases in which would be
intruders may have purposely avoided a house known to be armed.”
Why he chose to continue to ignore these issues in this current
study, yet still attempt to give a “risk versus benefits”
estimate for firearms in the home, is a mystery.

It is noteworthy that “Guns or guns kept in the home” was not the
highest risk factor (2.7, not 3, as was printed in the Democrat)
uncovered in the study. The six identified risk factors are,
from greatest to smallest: Any household member used illicit
drugs (5.7), Any household member previously hit or hurt in a
fight in the home (4.4), Home rented (4.4), Case subject or
control lived alone (3.7), Gun or guns kept in the home (2.7),
Any household member previously arrested (2.5). Gun ownership is
next to last on the list of risk factors, yet it is the most
widely reported statistic from this study. Kellermann, et. al.
could just have easily titled their article “Illicit Drug use As
A Risk Factor for Homicide In The Home,” but for whatever reason
they chose to focus on gun issue.

Of course, there is some questions as to the basic applicability
of the study. The sample space was made up of 33% White, 61.9%
Black, 4% Native American, 1.7% Asian or Pacific Islander, 2.1%
other, and virtually no Hispanic. It is obvious that this sample
is hardly representative of the nation as a whole. They admit
this flaw, stating that “our research was conducted in three
urban counties that lack a substantial Hispanic citizens. Our
results may therefore may not be generalizable to more rural
communities or to Hispanic households.” It is also clear from
the racial breakdown that blacks are over-represented in the
sample, a factor which, given that the homicide rate is higher
among blacks than the other listed ethnic groups, could skew the
results.

In conclusion, it should be clear that there are many problems
with this study. It should also be clear that it does not
establish a “complete determination of firearms risks versus
benefits.” Indeed, Kellermann, et. al. seem to take the
simple-minded approach that it is an either/or situation: either
guns in the home provide protection or they confer a higher risk
of homicide by a family member or acquaintance. They don+t seem
to believe that it is possible that a gun in the home could do
both, and that the benefit of one could outweigh the cost of the
other.

—
* 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 – (2411)
To: Michael Pilon 23 Dec 94 10:47:00
Subject: CANADIAN HOMOCIDE RAT

“When I first began research on the topic of private firearms, in
the mid-1970’s, I shared this conventional and widely-held view
of the issue. Indeed, much of it struck me as self-evidently
true.”

“My first scholarly paper on the topic, ‘The Ownership of the
Means of Destruction,’ appeared in 1975.”

[ ****** How’s ^^THAT for a ‘preconception, Mike ? ****** ]

“… in 1977, my colleague Peter Rossi and I received a grant
from the Nat’l Institute of Justice to undertake a comprehensive,
critical overview of the research literature on guns, crime, and
violence in America. … Subsequent to this … another grant to
gather original data on gun acquisition, owner- ship, and use
from about 2,000 men doing felony time …”

“As I have already suggested, at the outset of the research
program I had a strong feeling that the pro-gun-control forces
had never marshalled their evidence in the most compelling way…
That the best available evidence, critically considered, would
eventually prove favorable to the procontrol viewpoint was not in
serious doubt — at least not to me, not in the beginning.

In the course of my research, however, I have come to question
nearly every element of the conventional wisdom about guns,
crime, and violence. Indeed, I am now of the opinion that a
compelling case for “stricter gun control” CANNOT BE MADE, at
least not on empirical grounds. I have nothing but respect for
the various pro-gun-control advocates with whom I have come into
contact over the past years. They are, for the most part,
sensitive, humane, and intelligent people, and their ultimate
aim, to reduce death and violence in our society, is one that
every civilized person must share. I have, however, come to be
convinced that they are barking up the wrong tree.”

[ And I can’t resist one more tidbit from the same. On comparing ]
[ crime, violence, or homicide rates between countries — England ]
[ and Japan being the favorites: ]

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

—
* 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 – (2412)
To: Michael Pilon 23 Dec 94 10:48:00
Subject: CANADIAN HOMOCIDE RAT

MP> Yes from what I have read most emergency room MD’s and
MP> staff always decry the fact that the victim was not
MP> sufficiently armed so that they could have more bodies to
MP> work on.

Lets try it this way. Physicians who wish to engage in
politics and social engineering should get degrees in the matter
first else admit they are no more than us ordinary bums and
decline to use the MD in their statements.

The NRA is as qualified in medicine as the AMA is in guns.

Gun owners are qualified in surgery as any surgeon is in
using a gun.

This reference to doctor’s opinions on such matters is no
brighter than a fundie quoting Einstein’s opinion of god in
Holysmoke.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * What did he shoot up and when did he shoot 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 – (2413)
To: Michael Pilon 23 Dec 94 10:55:00
Subject: CANADIAN HOMOCIDE RAT

MP> Actually it was the official journal of the Ontario Dental
MP> ASssociation not a trade journal, it is a scientific
MP> journal. Who made any pro gunner and expert for that matter
MP> ? Being an editorial there were no references. It was not a
MP> scientific paper.

What conceivable merit is an editorial that is not described
as an editorial opinion?

MP> JS> The point of the editorial was, as you yourself point out,
MP> JS> was political; to persuade dentists to jump on the
MP> JS> bandwagon supporting HIS agenda, by appealing to their
MP> JS> class consciousness to associate themselves with
MP> JS> physicians,

MP> Actually most likely the agenda of most Canadian Dentists.
MP> I beleive the poll on gun control showed that the greater
MP> the education the person had the more likley they were to
MP> favour the new gun control laws.

That would mean more physicians than dentists such laws? Or
were you saying something else?

MP> JS> who are perceived as more “elite” and authoritative than
MP> JS> dentists. Bandwagon and association with authority; both
MP> JS> classic aspects of propaganda.

MP> Actually in several polls Dentists have come out on top of
MP> a list of prfessions that the public trusts . So as a
MP> professional responsibility the editor was suggesting that
MP> those who feel they favour the gun laws let their voice be
MP> heard, not propaganda..responsibility.

In other words it was an opportunity to take advantage of
public perception to promote a political agenda.

Or are you suggesting there is a necessary between public
perception of a group and the non-professional opinions of that
group? Keep in mind, NON-professional opinions — unless the
editorial commentary was limited to people who shoot their
mouths off.

Associations like that do not get people very high scores on
IQ tests.

MP> MP> it One loses a sense of machismo and constitutional
MP> MP> correctness when a person a dies in front of you .

MP> JS> That’s a condescending but baseless remark that’s
MP> JS> perpetrated by the self-appointed psychologists who are
MP> JS> still mired in early and long- discredited Freudianism.
MP> JS> People who really believe this also believe their wife
MP> JS> wants to work because she suffers from penis-envy.

MP> Nothing to do with Psychology. If the gun magazines showed
MP> the results of what a bullet wound does there would be a
MP> greater outcry for stiffer penalties registration of all
MP> arms and severe gun restrictions.

Rather you will have to explain why combat veterans in this
country are among the strongest supporters of gun possession.
What they have seen makes physicians look like children
pretending beyond their station.

—
* 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 – (2414)
To: Ty Meissner 23 Dec 94 11:11:00
Subject: CONSERVATISM AT WORK

TM> I don’t know about other areas, but here in
TM> northern California, charitable donations which
TM> traditionally reach their peak at htis time of year, are
TM> lower than they have been in more thab a decade, according
TM> to reports in the local papers and TV news.

Were you more honest you would acknowledge that personal
charity is inverse to the total tax rate. What do you expect
to be the result of the 1992 tax increase?

TM> It seems the spirit of conservatism IS hard
TM> at work. The spirit of conservatism = I got mine,
TM> go get your own or shut your face.
TM>
TM> It does seem that the core sentiment of conservatism is a
TM> self-centered mean spiritedness, as so memorably
TM> characterised by Marie (“Let them eat cake”) Antionette.
TM> Happy holidays, all,

If on the other hand there is some merit to your position,
get used to it. Guilt trips and moral sanctimony no longer work.
They are dead issues. The game is over.

—
* 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 – (2415)
To: Travis Beard 23 Dec 94 11:17:00
Subject: COUNTER CULTURE MCGOVERNI

TB> A: He could be implying that the Clintons admire George
TB> McGovern because he got high on the 35 combat missions he
TB> flew during WWII and has bucked the culture by staying
TB> married to the same woman for 50 years. he could as well
TB> have called them “counter-culture Bushites,” but that would
TB> have been politically incorrect.

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

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Who elected William Bwythe Wabbit?

®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 – (2416)
To: Niki Zanzo 23 Dec 94 11:25:00
Subject: END TIMES

NZ> Now, it’s the “rapture” (…the “taking away” of the church
NZ> by Jesus Christ) that is just around the corner!

Sounds great! Do all the fundies go too?

—
* 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/Poli-Phil – (2417)
To: Michael Pilon 23 Dec 94 12:02:00
Subject: RESPONSIBLE GUNNERS ?

MP> You are of course referring to the Nobel prize winning
MP> studies of Perry et al in California which studied the
MP> reasoning and thinking capabilities of both hemispheres of
MP> the brain. But in point of fact in this case I would use
MP> the left hemisphere because it is a very deductive thing.
MP> The gunners who whine they are law abiding, now say they
MP> will not respect the law of the land. Very clear and
MP> nothing to do with synthesized reasoning what ever.

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

—
* 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 – (2418)
To: Grant Karpik 23 Dec 94 12:11:00
Subject: SHAME OF THE WEST!

GK> With Muslim persecution, history is repeating itself
GK> ====================================================

GK> by Anthony Lewis – New York Times

GK> Syndicated column appearing in “The Orlando Sentinel” ,
GK> Sunday, December 4, 1994.

GK> BOSTON – Anyone who did not grasp the meaning of what is
GK> happening in Bosnia need only have looked at the newspaper
GK> picture this week of a Bosnian government soldier taken
GK> prisoner by the Serbs at Bihac. They made him wear a fez,
GK> mocking his Muslim religion, as the Nazis made Jews wear a
GK> yellow star.

Fascinating position. Save for couple of minor points. The
fez was only common in Turkey. It was generally condemned by the
mullahs at the time. It is not considered a religious symbol in
the least.

In proper context Turkey is traditional enemy going back
into the dim, dark past of pre-WWI of the Ottoman Empire. Of
course in their terms the Ottoman Empire is one of the most
recent causes for war in the region.

It is interesting how far some people will reach to build a
fantasy around a falsehood.

—
* 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 – (2419)
To: Ty Meissner 23 Dec 94 12:18:00
Subject: SMOKING

TM> As a health-care professional, I’ve noticed that
TM> ALL my colleagues agree that 1st hand and 2nd hand
TM> smoke are carcinogenic, and cause cardio pulmonary
TM> disease.
TM>
TM> Why do you think that is ?

Because they are unable to comprehend that a supposition has
to be proven before there is any reason to believe it.

—
* 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 – (2420)
To: Paul Smith 23 Dec 94 12:20:00
Subject: SMOKING = COOL ?? NOT

PS> “Health problems aside, smokers need to understand the
PS> basic objection nonsmokers have to their habit: It stinks.
PS> It belongs right down there with flatulence and
PS> expectoration as socially unacceptable modes of conduct.

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

—
* 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 – (2421)
To: David Steever 23 Dec 94 12:23:00
Subject: SMOKING=IMPOTENCE?

DS> I also am an ex-smoker.

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

Are you suggesting that not smoking makes one a redneck?

—
* 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 – (2422)
To: Dick Roebelt 23 Dec 94 12:27:00
Subject: THE GREAT DEBATE

DR> EF> No> based on my knowledge of many, many Rush fans).

DR> EF> Rush’s fans are drones, & cannot think for themselves.

DR> Would you please differentiate between fans and followers
DR> and/or fanatics?

DR> Many are fans, in that we find him entertaining, w/o
DR> following him or even believing 1/2 of what he puts out.

Rather it is about time the liberals realize that if they
are correct, the mind-numbed robots just took control of the
country and they had better come to terms with Limbaugh or they
will not have a chance.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Laizze-noir faire — leave us alone.

®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 – (2423)
To: Peter Bradie 23 Dec 94 12:30:00
Subject: THIS ‘N THAT

PB> LG> It is now, but it wasn’t then. I bought it
PB> LG> over-the-counter in Times Square.

PB> Makes for a good conversation-piece but a lousy
PB> self-defense weapon. The typical Times Square blade was
PB> made out of fairly soft steel that wouldn’t hold an edge
PB> and had a nasty habit of breaking in use. Had a Times
PB> Square Sykes-Fairbane… pretty to look at, but garbage all
PB> told.:-)

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

—
* 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 – (2424)
To: Paul Smith 23 Dec 94 12:31:00
Subject: TOBACCO INDUSTRY

PS> Seriously, hasn’t RJR been planning and diversifying for
PS> years in preparation for the day when tobacco would become
PS> – ah – untenable? Won’t the financial impact on the
PS> tobacco companies be minimal? And won’t most of the
PS> employees go to work in other divisions?

What might you be talking about? Only senior management at
best will change over. All the rest will be the victims of the
vocal cowards.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Politically Correct. Life in a spell checker world.

®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 – (2425)
To: Niki Zanzo 23 Dec 94 12:32:00
Subject: UFO’S AND THE BIBLE

NZ> …UFO’s do NOT exist.

NZ> There are, however, “illusions” that are “set up” by Satan,
NZ> for various reasons. (This is, of course, that a person
NZ> doesn’t mis-identify a plane or something else – which
NZ> covers about 75% of all sightings – 24% being hoaxes…)

NZ> Go back when Jesus was fasting for 40 days and Satan came
NZ> and told Him that he would give Jesus all the kingdoms he
NZ> was showing Him – if He would just worship him.
NZ>
NZ> There were NO kingdoms…
NZ>
NZ> …but Satan set up an “illusion” for Him.

“Our Father … lead us not into temptation …” J.H. Christ

You are blaming Satan for the actions of your god according
to JHC.

NZ> If he can do that to Jesus, you best BELIEVE he can do that
NZ> to anyone else.

NZ> It’s only when a person accepts Jesus Christ that this
NZ> “illusion” or “lie” will come to nothing.

Obviously Satan was your god’s illusion as your god is great
deceiver of Eden for it lied about the fruit while the Serpent
told the truth.

NZ> This is part of the “delusion” God is sending upon this
NZ> world in these last days for non-believers to believe.

NZ> “And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion,
NZ> that they should believe a lie:” 2 Thessalonians 2:11

Agreed, your god is the tempter and the deceiver.

—
* 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 – (2426)
To: Ty Meissner 23 Dec 94 12:41:00
Subject: US ARMY CAPT. IN HAITI FA

TM> GK{{protection of human rights into its future operations.
TM> GK{{ Formal court martial charges against Captain
TM> GK{{Rockwood are expected on January 4, 1995. The charges
TM> GK{{may include leaving his appointed place of duty without
TM> GK{{authority, disobedience to an order by a superior
TM> GK{{commissioned officer to lower his voice and conduct
TM> GK{{unbecoming an officer and a gentleman in that he
TM> GK{{endangered himself and other military personnel by
TM> GK{{attempting to protect the human rights of Haitian
TM> GK{{prisoners, including many imprisoned without trial or
TM> GK{{charges on political grounds by the Haitian forces.

TM> Holy smoke!

TM> Is this “establishment think” at work or what ?
TM>
TM> Its a frightening insight into the temperiment of “Uncle
TM> Sam.” Let’s hope the courts vindicate him.
TM>
TM> Keep us posted if you hear more about Captain Rockwood. And
TM> thanks for sharing this.

You forgot to notice the source was the marxist propaganda
organ, the NY News collective.

If you believe a word of it you will be laughed at.

—
* 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 – (2428)
To: Michael Pilon 23 Dec 94 18:29:00
Subject: 70% FAVOUR GUN CONTRO

MP> Have a nice Xmas, it will be an unseasonably warm 45-50 F
MP> in our area, so much for skating or skiing over the
MP> holidays. LAst year with the wind chill it was -55C..I’d
MP> accept a nice 20 F with lots of snow..but no one asked me
MP> 😉

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

—
* 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 – (2429)
To: Michael Pilon 23 Dec 94 18:31:00
Subject: DEC.6, 1989

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

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

An American.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Nightmare on Pennsylvania Avenue, Part 2: The Clintons

®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 – (2430)
To: Niki Zanzo 23 Dec 94 18:32:00
Subject: END TIMES

NZ> Hi Matt!

NZ> …would you care to elaborate on that?

Would you care to quote?

—
* 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 – (2431)
To: Kevin Crabtree 23 Dec 94 18:32:00
Subject: HEALTH CARE

KC> > KC> Smoking is harmful because people are dieing of it, and
KC> > KC> the risk factor for smoking is 100%,

KC> > Obviously you have no concept of either risk factors
KC> > or of what you are talking about.

KC> I realize this is an exaggeration.

In an environment where ranting big-noses have no regard for
facts you indulge in the same. Why?

If you could remind me
KC> what I was comparing it smoking to (I believe I was doing
KC> that)… The risk of death caused by smoking it not 100%,
KC> however the risk factor of smoking is very close to 100%.

There can not be a “risk factor” without stating what it is
a risk of. As you will remember (unless it is not enough of an
exaggeration for you) the statistics are released in terms of an
“increased risk of _______” and not as you have stated it.

KC> If you inhale
KC> smoke, most likely it’s going to turn your lungs black.

Instant melanin in the lungs?

—
* 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 – (2432)
To: Lester Garrett 23 Dec 94 18:37:00
Subject: ORPHANAGES

LG> What does puzzle me about that approach is that, at first
LG> blush, it would appear to cost more to set up and run that
LG> type of operation than it would to continue the present
LG> system.
LG>
LG> What are your thoughts?

Although it is difficult to find the specific proposals in
any complete form the point has been made this was one small part
of a large number of potential and proposed changes.

In context it is part of eliminating mandates upon states
and letting them decide how best to solve their problems. Within
that context if the states want to use orphanages that is there
business. If the states want to build them rather than contract
for them, that is also their business.

The presumption that this is Democrat style pork, that it
will lead to a major federal construction project, does not fit
into the complete system.

—
* 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 – (2433)
To: Michael Pilon 23 Dec 94 18:41:00
Subject: UFO’S AND THE BIBLE

MP> MG> God was abducted by a UFO and will not be released until the
MP> MG> world repents.

MP> Captain Kirk died for our sins !

William Shatner grimaced for our sins.

—
* 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/Poli-Phil – (2434)
To: Bob Klahn 23 Dec 94 22:09:00
Subject: COMMUNITY SERVICE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BK> Now go back, and note that I specifically wrote that they
BK> might ask why you don’t offer them a real job. Now,
BK> doesn’t this imply that they want to work?

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

BK> BK>> The question is, do you treat people in public housing
BK> BK>> differently than any other apartement complex?

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

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

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

BK> BK>> Or is this an attempt to punish people for being poor?

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

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

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

BK> MG> Or are you suggesting that home owners are masochists
BK> MG> punishing themselves by keeping their property looking
BK> MG> good?

BK> When I think about all the work and money that goes into
BK> keeping up my house I suspect that may be true.

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

BK> BTW, I thought we were talking about subsidized housing.
BK> Where did this come from anyway?

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

BK> MG> They are generally not intelligent enough to earn a
BK> MG> living wage in today’s society. That is why the suggestion
BK> MG> is they do what they are intellectually capable of doing,
BK> MG> picking up trash and such.

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

Because picking it up is not worth minimum wage but they
could be paid it and deduct it against the imputed, pre-destroyed
worth of the housing.

BK> OTOH: Your comment is such an obviously prejudiced
BK> statement, unsuported by any evidence or semblance of
BK> rationality, that there is no reason to expect any chance
BK> of acceptance of a reasonable reply.

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

BK> BK>> And start by making it a rule that no federal agency can
BK> BK>> take any step that causes any honest citizen, who is not
BK> BK>> harming anyone, to be unemployed.

BK> MG> Marxism is a total failure in every form it has ever been
BK> MG> tried.

BK> If you deduce Marxism from my preceding paragraph you
BK> obviously don’t know what Marxism is. Please go back for a
BK> refresher course.

You are seriously implying Marxism does not have a tenant of
a guaranteed job for all able bodied (regardless of competence)
worker? Last time I looked it did. I just might have a copy of
the C. Manifesto around to verify it.

—
* 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 – (2435)
To: Bob Klahn 23 Dec 94 22:40:00
Subject: GEPHARDT’S BULL

BK> MG> Did everyone have the chance to hear Gephardt’s
BK> MG> attempt to tell a Reaganesque story of a man he “just
BK> MG> happened to meet” who was leaving his family because he
BK> MG> could not support them?
BK> MG>
BK> MG> Does anyone believe this actually happened? The Dems
BK> MG> keep

BK> Yes, I believe it happens.

Do you believe Gephardt’s first person account?

—
* 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 – (2438)
To: All 23 Dec 94 23:41:00
Subject: BELL CURVE

ML> This book is a great addition to any conservative
ML> library. To me, it stresses the value of hard work and
ML> education. The value of earning it rather than it being
ML> handed out to you…
ML>
ML> Any one else have the same impression?

Not at all.

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

Carrying the book to its logical conclusion there is nothing
we can do for them according to either prescription. They are
not going to either change or improve. The further society
segregates by IQ the further behind they are going to be left.

And that means the less able to earn a living they are going
to be. The less able to be productive or the contribute they are
going to be.

Keeping that in mind, instilling the work ethic is not going
to do them a bit of good as there is very little work they are
capable of.

Neither Head Start nor nutrition programs nor job training
is not going to do them a bit of good as IQ is primarily
heritable — at least more consistantly heritable than anything
else.

So what are we going to do in light of the simple fact that
other than, as the authors propose, simplifying the rest of
society to accommodate them no one has any idea what to do.

The book belongs on the shelf of those who are willing to
look for new solutions now that we know none of the old solutions
will work.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Clinton will even tax your patience.

®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 – (2439)
To: All 24 Dec 94 00:16:00
Subject: BOB SHUCK, RIP

For those who knew him, Bob Shuck died on the 16th of
December. For those who did not know him he founded what is now
called RIME and initiated / managed some of the early efforts on
standardized message transfers and networking.

Back when he was getting messages moved around the country
in a day or two Fido was still taking a week.

Those of us who knew him will miss him greatly.

Please pass the word.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Constitution is not perfect. It is better than what we have

®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_941229 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (2387)
To: Charlie Gipson 25 Dec 94 22:44:00
Subject: DEATH PENALTY-NICOTIяяяя

CG> MG> Ah, yes. The trauma of the loss of your parents has
CG> MG> lead you to wish death upon everyone else in the world from
CG> MG> the same cause. And you are covering that to yourself by
CG> MG> feigning to save them while you know such stupid
CG> MG> condemnations as yours only harden the pro-smoking
CG> MG> position.

CG> You seem to think that you have some sort of half baked
CG> psychological insight or something here… hmmm! Rather
CG> funny since you know nothing of the homelife I had, or the
CG> relationships that I shared with my parents. All I can say
CG> is please continue to smoke.. my viewpoint will be
CG> justified in the end, when you are gasping your blackened
CG> lungs out! One reason I am so anti-smoking is because I
CG> have no wish to see anyone else suffer the agony my parents
CG> went through, or that my family and many others have gone
CG> through because of this vile habit! But the main reason is
CG> that I refuse to allow someone to do anything that
CG> interferes with my health, when their actions are basically
CG> unethical anyway! There is no “right to smoke” but there is
CG> ” a right to clean air and a healthy environment”….! Only
CG> a moron would refuse to acknowledge the huge number of
CG> studies that have indicated that smoking is bad for you….
CG> and yet this is the prevalent view for those addicted to
CG> smoking! BTW.. in the medical field, we call this DENIAL!
CG> See ya on the respiratory ward!

I rest my case.

—
* 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 – (2390)
To: Ty Meissner 25 Dec 94 22:07:00
Subject: 70% FAVOUR GUN CONTRO

TM> MG>> Let us examine some other transparent sophistries.
TM> MG>>
TM> MG>> Radio was first developed by amateurs so it is
TM> MG>> transparent to claim there is any commercial application for
TM> MG>> it.

TM> Huh ?

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

TM> Huh ?

TM> MG>> You get the picture.

TM> Definitely NOT

But you hold that since the gun was invented as a weapon it
is transparent to hold that it can have any other function.

You go on for a few more answers but you do not address the
fundamental false premise you were attempting to assert.

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

TM> What to you regard as low? I know mine was
TM> higher when I was a youngster like you.

Are you truly old enough to call me “youngster”?

But I still seem
TM> to be able to hold my own. I know it went up several
TM> points when I gave up Tobacco.

An interesting assertion, that IQ is dependent upon smoking.
Care to document that?

—
* 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 – (2391)
To: Wayne Bertsch 25 Dec 94 22:18:00
Subject: A-BOMB STAMP

WB> MG>> You mean you would be upset if I told you there were a
WB> MG>> little jap in the air?

WB> why do I even reply to you? Your comments like
WB> this speak volumes about your true nature and lack
WB> of merit.

You mean comments that come direct from “Attack of the
Killer Tomatoes”? No sense of humor?

WB> Please do me a favor post a long ponderous message
WB> espousing all of your beliefs so that you can
WB> remove the last shreds of credability form anything
WB> you say…

For every decrying without explanation message like yours I
have ten agreeing. I do keep your kind to remind me those who
disagree do so from emotion rather than reason.

WB> MG>>WB> than the actual bombing. The act isnt something
WB> MG>>WB> thatw e as americans should be terribly proud of.

WB> MG>> As I suggested, how about something Japan is proud of? A
WB> MG>>stamp of Pearl Harbor.

WB> MG>> Do you remember any objection to the Arizona Memorial stamp?
WB> MG>>Why not?

WB> MG>> It appears they only object to being reminded of losing.

WB> Hello> Clue phone for you….

WB> ` Thats a totally lame analogy that has nothing to
WB> do withthe comparison I made. If the japanese created a
WB> stamp celebrating pearl harbor that would be the same
WB> thing.

There has been a report there was such a Japanese stamp
issued in 1942. I have not had confirmation on this.

If the Japanese made a stamnp celebrating the
WB> sinking of the Arizona then that would be equally
WB> reprehensible…

Why would that single out one battleship?

WB> Like wise if the Japanese made a stamp honoring
WB> the dead at Hiroshima it wouldnt be offensive.

It is there dead, not ours.

It was our victory, not theirs.

WB> Honoring the dead and celebrating that they are
WB> dead is 2 differant things.

The stamp was to cover a facet of victory. Victory in war
requires the demonstration of the ability to kill at will, like
it or not.

WB> MG>>WB> Americans; hell as an inteellagent species we
WB> MG>>WB> shouldn’t be proud of it. It should be rememberd
WB> MG>>WB> not revered.

WB> MG>> Winning is always revered. Remember, it is the only thing.

WB> Is that what this is all about to you?

Winning is the only thing of interest in any war. It is
left for safe and comfortable fools after a war to debate the
actions of those winning (or losing) it.

You have
WB> the uncanny ability to go to an insane amount of
WB> dialogue and completely miss the point.
WB>
WB> For the sake of your desendants please use a
WB> psuedonym. wayne

You will be hearing from my descendants sooner rather than
later.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * What did he shoot up and when did he shoot 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 – (2392)
To: Lanny Roff 25 Dec 94 22:28:00
Subject: BIRDS OF A FEATHERяяяяяяя

LR> LR> I’ll try to remeber “plausible deniability” Matt,
LR> LR> if you’ll try to remember “innocent until proven
LR> LR> guilty”. Which is the situation for both the
LR> LR> McDougalls and the CLintons.

LR> MG> At the moment only the ex-number three in DOJ and
LR> MG> ex-Hillary law partner is a convicted felon. Of course he
LR> MG> hasn’t publically sung on the Whitewater.
LR> MG>
LR> MG> McDougal’s ex-wife is presumably guilty of something as she
LR> MG> believed she had something to trade (meaning information on
LR> MG> someone else) but was turned down for a plea bargain.
LR> MG>
LR> MG> I have yet to say the Clintons are guilty of crime save a
LR> MG> matter of ethics in accepting weekly (27) briefings from
LR> MG> the RTC investigation of Madison Trust (and therefore
LR> MG> Mcdougal) and in failure to report a felony in failing to
LR> MG> correct Altman’s lies to Congress regarding those
LR> MG> briefings.
LR> MG>
LR> MG> So all we provably have are 27 instances of unethical
LR> MG> behavior and one felony instance of failure to report
LR> MG> another felony. The latter is impeachable but there was a
LR> MG> Democratic Congress to permit Altman to weasel out of the
LR> MG> “Ollie North” felony and the Clinton’s to get off the hook
LR> MG> for their felonies, and Clinton not to have a high crime
LR> MG> for impeachment purposes.

LR> Was Altman charged with feloneous conduct? I don’t
LR> remember that. Do you have proof that Altman lied to
LR> Congress?

Are you not paying attention to events? His lying to
Congress was uncovered. He was then permitted to change his
previous testimony from NO briefing of the White House to his
ordering 27 briefings of the White House. Of course he was not
charged. He was allowed to change his story.

Thus, with a formal change of testimony, there are no
grounds for the felony charges he would have been otherwise
facing.

All I ever heard during the hearings was a
LR> Senate Committee which, while they admonished Altman for
LR> what they “thought might be lies”, took no action against
LR> him, nor was there any motion from any Republican member to
LR> do so.

There was his original testimony. “Walk on water” Fiske
confirmed he was telling the truth. The person who was ordered
to give the briefings produced the memos from Altman ordering her
to give the briefings, covering her ass for acting alone so to
speak.

Fiske’s resignation was accepted, Starr was appointed, and
Congress gave Altman the opportunity to “redact” his testimony,
i.e. to remember he had testified to no briefings in the face of
evidence that he ordered the briefings.

North was given no such opportunity. Why Altman? If
Altman/North was involved then Clinton/Reagan must have known it.

LR> As to the ethics charges you make. I will admit that
LR> ethics are a matter of appearances as well as truth. I too
LR> think the President was not smart to accept those briefing.

It is a matter of record that he was dumb enough to accept
them. Were you asleep that week?

LR> However, I am unaware of any action taken by him or his
LR> staff to influence the investigation. I am also aware that
LR> appearance of unethical behavior will not get you convicted
LR> in any court, nor should it.

Accepting the briefings is unethical if not a violation of
the law.

LR> Once again Matt, your spin is sly, but no matter how
LR> much you crave an indictment of the President or his
LR> family, there is no proof or any real evidence of wrong
LR> doing. I repeat Matt, in this country one is presumed
LR> innocent until proven guilty. Or is that a concept you are
LR> unable to conceive as you use cleaver innuendo and language
LR> to convict the President in the court of public opinion
LR> whether he is guilty or not.

You presume there is no guilt because you did not read the
papers as to the events that occurred. It is easy to understand
why you are confused on this point.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “Beware the Bimbonic Plague.” 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 – (2394)
To: Ed Mathis 25 Dec 94 22:45:00
Subject: DEATH PENALTY-NICOTIяяяяя

EM> DO> Smoking carries its own death penalty. 400,000 a year at
EM> DO> last count.

EM> MG> That is total. 100,000 have no smoking connection
EM> MG> whatsoever. That means it triples a smoker’s chances of dying of
EM> MG> a smoking related disease rather than from a non-smoking related
EM> MG> disease or of the same disease not caused by smoking.

EM> Did I miss something, Matt? The current figures for
EM> SMOKING-INDUCED deaths are in the vicinity of 450,000/year
EM> in the U.S. What are you referring to with the 100,000
EM> figure?

The higher number is deaths from smoking related diseases.
They are the lung cancer, stroke, heart disease type diseases.
They do not require that the person actually have smoked, ever.
Thus the 100,000 figure for those who have not smoked.

EM> The increased risk of catching a smoking-related disease
EM> ranges from about 25% to over 2000%, depending upon
EM> exposure and upon which malady you are referring.

I am not aware of such a wide variation of risk factors.
Could you associate them with particular diseases — also with
age? Remember, I am totally unimpressed when a person over the
median life expectancy dies of such a disease as statistically
that suggests a person would live longer from smoking.

You may not like this but as it is all statistical
inference, the presumptions have to be the same for early and
late death.

EM> MG> I realize this is too complicated for fanatics to
EM> MG> comprehend but I have said it as simply as possible.

EM> Anything YOU say about smoking is suspect because your
EM> statements run counter to the overwhelming majority of
EM> medical and research knowledge; and you rarely cite any
EM> sources or data at all, much less authoritative sources or
EM> data.

What I say is exactly in conformance with what is stated and
published. I simply state the other side of the popularized
claims. That you can not recognize that means you do not know
what is published, only what the amateur propagandists say about
what is published.

You are invited to cite from the peer reviewed publications
directly and in context rather than from what is said about them
if you wish to demonstrate otherwise.

EM> Your unsupported statements are not enough to people that
EM> actually know something about the subject!

If you claim to know something about the subject without
dealing directly from the professional publications then you know
nothing about the subject.

—
* 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 – (2395)
To: Mark David 25 Dec 94 23:43:00
Subject: THE COURTS, THE MESSяяяя

MD> MG> And if for some reason you really like the idea of the
MD> MG> country those asian immigrants had, go live in a forest bare
MD> MG> ass naked for a year and see how great it really was.

MD> That wouldn’t be so bad. Not with the help of all the cute,
MD> friendly critters of the wild.

Always go through life a little bit edible. You never know
when you might meet a hungry tick.

—
* 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 – (2418)
To: All 26 Dec 94 14:10:00
Subject: OUR PRECIOUS WETLANDS

Our Precious Wetlands
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1994 <12/26>

Over Christmas I was treated to an environmentalist’s
delight, I was given the gift of nature, car trip from Tampa to
Miami and return by a different route through the large and most
precious land in the United States, the Everglades. The Bald
Eagle is the national bird, this is the national swamp. The US
has a certain innocent cleverness in picking its symbols, a
carrion eater and a mud flat.
It is impossible to describe the sense of grandeur I
experienced in two 100 mile crossings of this national weed
patch. Where else could I see a hundred miles of ten foot high
chain link fence? Where else could ninety five miles of the view
of this glorious scenery be blocked by scrub growth on the other
side of the fence? Where else could there be a toll at both ends
with no way to get on the road in the middle?
But then I did have a chance to see unspoiled nature through
those infrequent breaks in the scrub trees. I have to admit it
was enlightening. What it took nature a million years to
accomplish I can do to my lawn in three months. Never contract
with Mother Nature without a severe late delivery penalty.
I did see a lot of wildlife or rather wilddeath. There was
an interesting sampling of roadkill despite the fence. One has
to wonder at the wisdom of a ten foot high fence when the largest
animal is the non-arboreal alligator and the rest can tunnel
under it. A relative of the governor must have gotten the
contract.
We didn’t stop to see if any of the roadkill was on the
endangered species list or if any of these were the last of the
species. I would have enjoyed notifying the EPA.

Dear EPA,
Greetings. One of your species has died. My
condolences to the department that gets laid off.

They could perhaps join the Agriculture Department staff who
get laid off with their farmer dies and the IRS people who want
to claim $6 million in taxes on the estate of a dead child from a
lawsuit that has not been won much less paid.
It is that kind of thinking that keeps a million square
miles of swamp as swamp.
And there is another problem. If you want to experience a
swamp, rent a movie. Everglades has no character at all. No
producer of a classic creeping horror monster movie would ever
consider using this as a location. Even Swampthing would not be
caught dead there.
Do want creepy sounds in the night? The only sign of animal
life was flocks of identical white birds. Was there a menacing
gator ready to attack the good guy and be tricked into eating the
bad guy? The nearest I got to a gator was billboards for the
endangered Florida industry of show both tourists and natives
alligators in the only places they might ever see one.
Don’t miss Gatorama!
Last chance to see Gator Wrestling! (Presumably it is like
mud wrestling but without the appeal of sex unless one is very
perverted.)
Genuine Indian mocassins and alligators! (The mind boggles
at the possibilities with that combination.)
The only civilized place to see real Florida Gators is in a
football stadium with overpriced beer while giving out civilized
screams and generally acting like a civilized madman.
In addition to not seeing alligators, I did see any
environmentalists out there wading through the much bare ass
naked. I don’t know who was enjoying this public health hazard
and legal nuisance this day. The traffic was moving as fast as
the occasional smokey would permit and there were no places to
stop in any event.
My impression of the first leg of the trip was that
environmentalist have the concepts of majesty, grandeur and
unspoiled confused with boring, uneventful and undifferentiated.
The return leg was only partly through the national swamp
and then through a more than equal stretch of cattle, sugar cane
and vegetable country. There must be some preservationist
instinct as they view didn’t change much until we got to Belle
Glade, home of the mosquitoes-got-AIDS urban legend. Although it
was a cut above the swamp only an environmental purist could
object to its presence. It did not spoil much of the natural
swamp.
After hundreds of miles of the natural ugliness of saw grass
I could not find it in my heart to consider sugar cane any less
ugly. It was simply better organized. Where nature appears to
like patches of fierce competition, man appears to like spreading
the wealth for all plants, perhaps a primordial tendency towards
Marxism is being manifest. In any event, they are applying it to
the highest form of life it can benefit.
Along the way was the Cypress Knee museum. This is a
private museam founded by a mid twentieth century fruitcake who
found spiritual meaning in the shape of the roots of cypress
trees. Even this museum, nobly dedicated to cutting off and
preserving the roots of cypress trees, could not resist catering
to the nature lovers. “Take a walk through the Everglades!” It
did advertise that the walk was on catwalks above the swamp.
Getting too close nature can be hazardous to your love of it.
Perhaps I did not see the real swamp. After all just a few
years ago the delicate balance was blown to hell and gone by
hurricane Andrew. Like God and Noah, Gaia appears regularly
disgusted with its creations. Andrew was able to get rid of
Homestead Air Force Base but had no luck in getting rid of this
ugliest of its creations.
The experience was part of my Christmas gift. I now can
speak from authority, the wonders of nature are best seen on TV.
My only regret is that I did not bring a camera to preserve these
miles and miles of miles and miles. It is truly worth preserving
for our children; who knows when they may cease to appreciate
what Hollywood adds to the mystique of nature and need to brought
up short with a boring drive through the real thing?
The Everglades are the real Florida. Making it a national
park has spared untold thousands from prison. It used to be a
felony to sell this kind of land to the unspecting. Perhaps some
day man, in his wisdom, will make it a felony let weeds grow like
this.

* * * * *

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 * Make welfare as hard to get as business permits.

®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_941230 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (2505)
To: Lester Garrett 26 Dec 94 21:27:00
Subject: 70% FAVOUR GUN CONTRO

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

LG> Grrrrr.

Excuse me good sir. You deleted the example of the
reasoning I was referring to. Whether it is good, bad or
indifferent reasoning, it is unacceptable on IQ tests. If you
wish to dispute that fact please retrieve the original reasoning
you are defending as valid on such a test.

Further, a generic reference to the type of reasoning and IQ
tests says nothing about the person and can in no way be
described as a personal attack any more than saying answering
that 2+2=5 on an arithmetic test will result in a lower grade.

You enforce the rules and I will not violate them. I did
not here.

—
* 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 – (2506)
To: Lester Garrett 26 Dec 94 21:32:00
Subject: END TIMES 01

LG> MG> And Yahweh God did seek to deceive the man. . .

LG> MG> . . .suffering a mild concussion on the road to John the Divine
LG> MG> eating of the
LG> MG> .

LG> Matt, the 2nd part never arrived. I love the first so much
LG> I’d sure appreciate a repost of the 2nd.

suffering a mild concussion on the road to John the Divine
eating of the sacred mushroom wafer.

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

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

=====

Sorry, but I was getting hysterical myself and it was so
late the sun was rising. Been hanging around Holysmoke too much.

—
* 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 – (2507)
To: All 27 Dec 94 02:14:00
Subject: AMERICAN DREAM CONTRACT

Don’t Swallow the Fifth
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1994 <12/27>

And this is the fifth in the House Republican Contract with
America.

5. THE AMERICAN DREAM RESTORATION ACT

A $500 per child tax credit, begin repeal of the marriage tax
penalty, and creation of American Dream Savings Accounts to
provide middle class tax relief.

And what is wrong with it? It and anything like it by
either party holds there are different classes of citizens which
have unequal merit in keeping their own money rather than having
it taken in taxes. It means the more children you have the more
right you have to your own money. It means if you save for the
things the government approves of you have a right to keep more
of your own money. This is barely different from the class
warfare of the Democrats for the last forty years.
The only acceptable part is one more attempt to correct for
the tax situation of the married. This occurs every ten to
fifteen years and each time it goes too far in the other
direction. Good luck getting it right this time.
This meddling is a symptom of the entire income tax system
itself. Its inequities are legion and can not be solved by a
tweak here and a fine tuning there no matter how politically
favorable. Obviously allowing tax payers to keep more of their
own money simply because their children are still at home
indicates they have not dealt with children who have only
recently left home and who are like a boat, a hole in the water
to dump money into.
What is the encouragement? To keep the kids in commuter
colleges and for them to live at home afterwards for as long as
possible? Is there an age cut for the children? Is there any
rational basis for the age that is related to the expense?
Ask any grandparent if the deduction should not be lifelong
and apply to grandchildren. In fact it establishes classes of
people, not only breeders and non-breeders but those who
hornswaggle their kids to stay at home if it extends past 18 or
those who do not if it does not. And if their kids missed a
grade or were born on the cusp of “too young” to start
kindergarten then they have nineteen year old or older and
non-deductible children as seniors or less in high school.
It this too complex to deal with in tax law? Yes. Should
there be such tax laws? Hell no.
The American Dream part of it is also in question. The
details are not out but the “American dream” has always been
portrayed as home ownership, sending the kids to college in
addition to a comfortable retirement. Again the complications
arise.
Home ownership? Why? Given the variations upon the tax law
in a particular year living rather than renting out the house you
own is not the best tax decision. But then what if one lives in
the house for one night and decides to rent it out? The Dream
has been fulfilled for one night.
Sending the kids to college sounds good. But any estate
counselor will tell you that such money should have options to
cover the kids not going to college and the equivalent amount
should have a disbursal for the first home or simply a cash
payment. Are these options not to be covered?
Shall the government twist the income tax code one more time
to say post high school (college or trade school or whatever) one
more time to encourage it else nothing? Once the lump sum
disbursement for the first home is permitted then all the other
options of estate planners are included. At that point the tax
code is deciding if estate planning for the family cat is tax
free.
The only correct position is either the abolition of the
income tax or a flat income tax, preferably the former. With a
consumption tax the government can profit from all necessary
purchases. Even with this it perverts revenue raising by special
taxes upon sin. This must go also.
When the flat income tax is declared a failure along with
the marxist progressive income tax we currently have then the
consumption tax must also be flat. There can be no
differentiation upon what is sold.
Special alcohol and tobacco and luxury taxes must vanish for
there to be any validity to any of our governments at any level.
The government was not constituted as a body to regulate the
people who constituted it nor to modify their behavior in any
manner other than criminal matters.
We have granted our governments the power to raise revenue
for their own existence. We did not grant governments the power
to influence behavior by increasing or decreasing taxes on items
and activities.
It is not rational that alcohol, tobacco, full automatic
weapons and marijuana can be discouraged by high taxes while
pollution must be prohibited as an ultimate evil.
It is not rational that home ownership should be encouraged
by tax laws where it would not otherwise be a rational economic
decision.
If these are in the interests of the people then the people
can best determine their own interests. If these are in the
interests of the government then the government is not the people
and they encouragement is only to raise greater revenues or to
increase the power of the government. As I do not accept elected
officials are endowed with the wisdom to decide for the people I
can not accept they are qualified to make decisions for me or
anyone else regarding private life decisions, much less the
course of history.
The tax system has to go to a financially and morally
neutral position before we can have a system of government that
deals only with the necessary powers of government and none
other. It will be a long time coming. It is the alternative to
our constitutionally limited tyranny.

* * * * *

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 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 – (2508)
To: All 27 Dec 94 04:05:00
Subject: CAPITAL GAINS

Who gains Capital?
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1994 <12/27>

Changing the capital gains cut is one of the most
deliberately misunderstood proposals of the 104th Congress and as
usual solely for the purpose of promoting different classes of
citizens.

8. THE JOB CREATION AND WAGE ENHANCEMENT ACT

Small business incentives, capital gains cut and indexation,
neutral cost recovery, risk assessment/cost/benefit analysis,
strengthening the Regulatory Flexibility Act and unfunded mandate
reform to create jobs and raise worker wages.

At present capital gains are taxed at the same rate as
ordinary income. Investments are not indexed for inflation as
are the tax brackets we all deal with. As there is no tax that
is fair let me discuss whether this tax is reasonable.
Way back when during the wild inflation of the 1970s the
country had enough of what was called then bracket creep. We had
a steeply graduated income tax, people were getting raises into a
higher tax bracket but because of inflation they were losing
their standard of living because of higher taxes.
The same has been true of the capital gains tax. The most
common example is your parents put down $1000 dollars on their
$5,000 dream house in the 1950s. Came the 1980s and it was worth
$100,000 and their down payment, their capital investment was
presumably worth twenty times more also, or $20,000. Were they
permitted to exclude $19,000 from taxes? Is the bear Catholic?
Of course not. A more basic question regards the $5,000
house. Was the $100,000 selling price indexed to inflation over
those years? Does the Pope … never mind. We all know that
would never happen in a Democrat controlled House.
So what was done? One more quirk was introduced into the
tax laws, a one time, lifetime exemption for cashing out on a
home purchase. Why? Because failure to index for inflation was
considered wrong.
Why then is failure to index right for anyone else? Is
right and wrong based upon “to each according to his needs”
simply because our parents are old, they are a voting block and
belong to AARP?
Many countries thrive with no capital gains tax at all. Our
two greatest economic competitors, Japan and Germany do not have
a capital gains tax. The lack of it does not appear to harm them
in the least.
From another view point, if there is a capital gains tax why
is there not a capital loss tax credit? There sort of is but
only if your losses are less than your gains. If your losses are
more than your gains the IRS does not want to read sob stories on
a 1040 form so don’t waste their time.
The above might be fine for a professional investor but when
you take all the risk and when you work thirty hours a day ten
days a week making a profit, the government wants a piece of your
action. But if you go broke they do not want to hear about it.
OK, does that stir your marxist heart to a callous disregard
for the exploiting capitalist? The real and most common case was
in the last few years. People put down their money on a home,
the economy turned sour and the value of their home went down
hill. They had to sell at a loss but they searched in vain for
line on the 1040 to deduct that loss. That does not even go into
the negative inflation value of that loss.
But then why should Microsoft shareholders avoid capital
gains taxes when they sell their stock? Tell me, who would have
given them a tax break had Microsoft gone the way of hundreds of
other losers in the early days of computers. Consider the
investors in Apple who took a flyer and a very great risk on two
admitted, plea copping non-felons whose previous business history
was selling the hardware to steal long distance phone time.

Dear Uncle Sam,
I lost $100,000 investing with these two garage shop
computer nerds with a questionable legal history. Please deduct
this from my taxes payable.

That and a little more chutzpah will get you three years for
tax evasion.
But the real question comes down to the day to day investor.
The person who has capital gains every day. They need be taxed.
But then who is going to do the investing to make up for the
money lost to taxes? If the average investor is only able to
break even then taking 23% per year means that in five tax years
there is nothing left to invest. So where is investment money to
come from? The tax collecting government? Pigs are yet to be
flying and hell is still well above the freezing point of water.
We have gained nothing from this capital gains tax. The
failure to index it along with ordinary income means we are
taxing inflation. Taxing gains in the first place means we are
penalizing investment.
It means we are not very bright as a county.

* * * * *

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 * Health Insurance is expensive now. Wait until it is free.