Clinton Says: F**k The Poor (was Clinton wants CHA-style sweeps nationwide
Aldo Tartaglini
>:The president said he directed advisers to craft a policy allowing police
>:to search public housing for weapons in the wake of a federal court order
>:barring Chicago officials from conducting sweeps without search warrants.
>Sounds as though he knows helpless victims when he sees 'em,
>though I'm pleased to see that he *was* dealt a setback in court.
>In a country where, increasingly, you have all the rights you
>can pay for, this may become a make-or-break political talent.
>I'll bet that there are still gangs and drug dealers after those
>sweeps, and that they still have guns...
- Without a doubt. And now anyone who looks to Uncle Sam for housing
assistance will find themselves minus a few civil rights, a prospect that
doesn't trouble elitists like Clinton in the least.
[Notice: the following excerpts are from copyrighted articles; they are
posted here under the "fair use" doctrine of U.S. copyright law.]
___
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 94 18:50:23 PDT
Subject: New Gun Search Policy Eyed
"WASHINGTON (AP) -- To avoid judges' objections to warrantless
police sweeps for guns in public housing, tenants should be
required to sign leases approving the sweeps, administration
officials proposed Friday."
As usual, when he can't do things in a straightforward manner, the
Unctuous One has to resort to tricks and deception. Now poor people
will be obliged to sign away their rights for the privilege of
receiving the benefits of the government's largesse.
"The new policy was proposed to President Clinton by Attorney
General Jane Reno and Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros, said
administration officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity."
It figures that the mass murderer Reno would have a hand in devising
a scheme for making sure there will be more efficient Waco massacres
in the future. Imagine if Koresh had signed a lease authorizing
warantless searches of his home on the slightest suspicion of illegal
activity - this would have saved the government much in the way of
time, trouble, and embarrassment.
"At issue is last week's ruling declaring that the Chicago
Housing Authority's search policy violated the 4th Amendment of the
Constitution, which protects citizens against ``unreasonable
searches and seizures.''"
Well it looks like Slick and his bunch of nazi stormtroopers have got
that one licked. After all, it ain't rape if the victim "asked for it."
"The president earlier had lauded the apartment-to-apartment
sweep policy and had hoped it could be applied nationally."
Hell, why not? The Clintons should stop trying to maintain the appearance
of fairness and just declare martial law. That way, they can simply
imprison all social deviants (defined any way they choose) and save
the taxpayers (those that haven't been jailed or shot) a lot of money.
"He called the appeals court ruling a setback to efforts to get
guns out of public housing projects."
Well it didn't take long to figure a way around the judge's ruling
once ole Bloody Janet got on the case, now did it?
"Reno and Cisneros told Clinton in an April 14 letter that leases
in public housing projects should be modified to include a clause
giving police advance authorization for sweeps for guns, the
officials said."
The lease could also be modified to include a lot of other things,
as the follow-up article makes clear.
Such a clause would be ``effective and constitutionally valid,''
the two officials told Clinton, the sources said.
So I guess they've found a way to render the Bill of Rights
"inoperative," at least for the poor (we're next).
"Reno and Cisneros also recommended that housing authorities do
more to secure building entrances and lobbies, be more vigilant in
searching common areas and vacant apartments, and that police be
encouraged to stop and frisk suspicious people."
Welcome to the United Police States of America!
___
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 94 23:40:10 PDT
Subject: Clinton Unveils Anti-Crime Plan for Public Housing
"WASHINGTON (Reuter) - President Clinton Saturday announced a
new policy aimed at helping residents of crime-ridden public
housing projects ``take back their homes'' from gangs and drug
dealers."
I.e., the policy will do nothing about crime and will inevitably
hurt innocent people...
"``Every law-abiding American, rich or poor, has the right to
raise children without the fear of criminals terrorizing where
they live,'' Clinton said in his national weekly radio address,"
Do we not also have the right to raise our children without the fear
of the GOVERNMENT terrorizing where we live?
"``Today I am announcing a new policy to help public housing
residents take back there homes,'' Clinton said."
Right, so the government nazi goons can come crashing through the
door and kill innocent people any time they feel like it...
"The Clinton plan informs operators of public housing that
they can legally search common areas and vacant apartments
without a warrant, and that police or security guards can frisk
people for weapons if they believe they are involved in criminal
activity and are armed."
Like many policies proposed by this creep and his henchpersons, it
sounds reasonable - until you read the fine print:
"It also says housing authority officials may conduct
warrantless searches of individual units where there is
justification for a search, but insufficient time to obtain a
judicial warrant."
And just how would "justification" be defined? The same way it was
defined by the BATF at Waco?
"Clinton said tenant associations will be asked to put
clauses in their leases allowing searches when crime conditions
make it necessary."
People on this newsgroup and elsewhere have been maintaining that
Clinton would use the War on Crime as an excuse to abridge our rights.
The CHA plan is proof positive that our worst fears about this president
are about to come true.
"In addition, the policy includes a major effort to secure
building entrances and lobbies because ``in some high-rise
public housing projects, gang members effectively control access
to the buildings,'' according to a letter from Reno and Cisneros
outlining their recommendations."
"Fences may be erected, identification cards issued to
tenants and metal detectors installed at building entrances,
they said. Guards should be authorized to search packages and
clothing."
Achtung! Place you hands behind your heads! Do not resist the guards
as they search you or you will be shot!
``We'll put more police in public housing, crack down on
illegal gun trafficking and fill vacant apartments where
criminals hide out,'' Clinton said. ``And we'll provide more
programs, like midnight basketball leagues, to help our young
people say no to gangs and guns and drugs.''
How will we help them say no to fascist pigs?
A.T. <disclaimer: these opinions are mine, not my employer's>
======================================================================
"And we should -- then every community in the country could then start
doing major weapon sweeps and then destroying the weapons, not selling
them." - William J. Clinton, President, sworn defender of the U.S.
Constitution
======================================================================
aldo j tartaglini
prohibiting warrantless searches in public housing projects, it seemed
pretty clear that the Unctuous One was intent on going far beyond his
stated goal of wanting to rid the projects of crime.
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 94 11:50:11 PDT
Subject: Clinton Taps Gun-Search Plan
"WASHINGTON (AP) -- Gang-infested public housing could be searched
for guns without violating the Constitution if tenants agree,
President Clinton said Saturday, announcing a new plan to make
housing projects safer.
``We're going to work with residents in high-crime areas to
permit the full range of searches that the Constitution does allow
-- in common areas, in vacant apartments and in circumstances where
residents are in immediate danger,'' Clinton said in his weekly
radio address."
As usual, Clinton leaves out the damning details. In this case, his
proposal would allow warrantless searches "when crime conditions
make it necessary." It would also allow "weapons frisks of suspicious
persons." I thought this was supposed to be an anticrime proposal, not
just another excuse for oppressive gun control. But Clinton doesn't
give a damn about protecting the poor from criminals, as the following
makes clear.
``We will empower residents to build safe neighborhoods, and
we'll help to organize tenant patrols to ride the elevators and
look after the public spaces in these high-rise public housing
units,'' Clinton said."
Sounds reasonable, right? Now read the fine print and ask yourself,
will Clinton allow those tenant patrols (and tenants in general) to
arm themselves so they can have a fighting chance against the well-armed
thugs that prowl their neighborhoods? Is he really interested in
"empowering" people, or is this yet another cover for more abuse of
the governed by it alleged servants?
"Cisneros said the policy will enlist tenant associations to
write leases permitting police searches for guns and drugs as part
of a multifaceted attack on crime and violence in housing projects.
"And he said discussions are taking place within the government
on whether to try to ban guns outright in all federally assisted
public housing units."
There you have it, folks. The honest residents of housing projects
across the land will lose their 2nd Amendment rights simply because
they are misfortunate enough to have Uncle Sam as their landlord.
Clinton's definition of "empowerment" is rather curious, for it involves
stripping people of the most basic human and Constitutional rights,
the most fundamental of which is the right to self-defense.
[Given the criminal's talent for murder and mayhem, effective
self-defense necessarily involves firearms, Mr. President.
But you and Hillary already knew that, which is why your SS
protects you day and night with handguns and assault weapons -
things you would just as soon have us little people do without. It's ok
if we don't have guns, you say. We can live without them. Fine, then
you do the same or stop being such a flaming hypocrite and let honest
Americans enjoy the same right of armed self-defense that you and
yours enjoy.]
"Tenant patrols"? How quaint and civic-minded that sounds. But
without the right to defend themselves in an effective manner
(i.e., without the right to keep and bear arms), such patrols
are nothing but paper tigers; they will certainly pose no threat
to criminals who will definitely find some way of keeping their
guns no matter what that pack of lying socialist frauds down in D.C.
decides to do.
If the right to keep and bear arms becomes illegal for the anyone
living in public housing, what's the next logical step? What's
nazi Schumer's wet dream? Total civilian disarmament - for our own
good, and with notable exceptions, of course, for individuals
deemed worthy enough to deserve the most effective means of
self-defense (e.g., the rich, politicians, movie stars). The rest
of us will be reduced to using fists and knives and rocks. Meanwhile,
the well-armed thugs who prowl our streets will have a field day
robbing, raping, and murdering all us folks the government
"empowered" (i.e. disarmed) for our own good. Thanks a lot, Slick.
I feel more powerful already.
A.T. <lib...@panix.com>
JIM GRAHAM
Won't work. The fourth amendment prevents this and Clinton knows it.
>of a multifaceted attack on crime and violence in housing projects.
>
> "And he said discussions are taking place within the government
>on whether to try to ban guns outright in all federally assisted
>public housing units."
>
> There you have it, folks. The honest residents of housing projects
> across the land will lose their 2nd Amendment rights simply because
Not just their 2nd amenmdment rights but the 4th as well.
Seems like they're opening themselves up to big-time lawsuits and
litigation.
I hope so.
> they are misfortunate enough to have Uncle Sam as their landlord.
>
> Clinton's definition of "empowerment" is rather curious, for it involves
> stripping people of the most basic human and Constitutional rights,
Well, it's a right that is to be taken by the individual and as such
cannot be taken from the individual unless they allow it.
> the most fundamental of which is the right to self-defense.
>
> [Given the criminal's talent for murder and mayhem, effective
> self-defense necessarily involves firearms, Mr. President.
> But you and Hillary already knew that, which is why your SS
> protects you day and night with handguns and assault weapons -
> things you would just as soon have us little people do without. It's ok
> if we don't have guns, you say. We can live without them. Fine, then
> you do the same or stop being such a flaming hypocrite and let honest
> Americans enjoy the same right of armed self-defense that you and
Be patient. 1996 is on the way.
> decides to do.
>
> If the right to keep and bear arms becomes illegal for the anyone
> living in public housing, what's the next logical step? What's
> nazi Schumer's wet dream? Total civilian disarmament - for our own
> good, and with notable exceptions, of course, for individuals
> deemed worthy enough to deserve the most effective means of
Civilian disarmament will result in major bloodshed. Not a good idea
if you want to remain a hero in the public eye.
> self-defense (e.g.,
Jim Graham
--
"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest
reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is
as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
-Thomas Jefferson
Jim Graham
Office: gra...@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
Home : jgraham%dol...@moose.cs.indiana.edu
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.3a
mQCNAi1tSu4AAAEEAMU2NpCwXJ7ODUpZrUKlthNm9RiZLwgfPOpdo6D76LpX3u/G
bf4DeFBjHjxM0+NxRYJ0fkq2r4skSBXzQD7OASoAp3kTdylW20qfroGGWRupCBUC
LQmOdSOmt7K9px7l1mj5GrunoI0+VhohlW8SycL4Se4N8+cWQHi5zoqATiNZAAUT
tDVKYW1lcyBSLiBHcmFoYW0gPGpncmFoYW0lZG9sbWVuQG1vb3NlLmNzLmluZGlh
bmEuZWR1Pg==
=Pt/y
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Ed Stone
restrooms, public parks, rather it is given to private individuals for their
use, often for decades, and is simply paid for by the public. Why shouldn't
the owners of a property be able to prohibit any thing they choose from
being brought onto their property. If you can say "no pets" why not "no guns"?
This is not an issue about the right to keep and bear arms, even in public"
rather it is an issue of the owner's right to control the use of rented or
"granted" dwellings.
--
-- ----------------------------
Ed Stone
est...@Jabba.Cybernetics.NET
----------------------------
John Birge
>The vocabulary may be confusing. "Public Housing" is not public like public
>restrooms, public parks, rather it is given to private individuals for their
>use, often for decades, and is simply paid for by the public. Why shouldn't
>the owners of a property be able to prohibit any thing they choose from
>being brought onto their property. If you can say "no pets" why not "no guns"?
>This is not an issue about the right to keep and bear arms, even in public"
>rather it is an issue of the owner's right to control the use of rented or
>"granted" dwellings.
Pecisely the point. Fuck the poor! They got no rights, they left them at
the door to this federal housing complex......%^}
John
Dan Pickersgill
>The vocabulary may be confusing. "Public Housing" is not public like public
>restrooms, public parks, rather it is given to private individuals for their
>use, often for decades, and is simply paid for by the public. Why shouldn't
>the owners of a property be able to prohibit any thing they choose from
>being brought onto their property. If you can say "no pets" why not "no guns"?
>This is not an issue about the right to keep and bear arms, even in public"
>rather it is an issue of the owner's right to control the use of rented or
>"granted" dwellings.
You can say 'no pets', however it must be applied equally to all units.
And that is permitted as a protection of property value. The simple
existance of firearms does not intrinsically(sp) reduce property value.
(Yes, I know, I am a landlord.)
Now as to the rest, we are discussing CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. Not having a
pet. More spicifically, we are talking about forcing the poor to give up
Constitutional Rights to have affordable housing.
(Interesting how it is Conservitives (ME and others) argueing for the
rights of the poor and the Liberals (Billerary and others) taking their
civil and constitutional rights AWAY!)
Dan (Conservitive, NOT Republican.)
--
The president [Clinton - Sworn Defender of the US Constitution] said he
directed advisers to craft a policy allowing police to search public
housing for weapons in the wake of a federal court order barring Chicago
officials from conducting sweeps without search warrants.
-Source AP/Chicago Tribune 4/10/94
William Davenant
aldo j tartaglini <lib...@world.std.com> wrote:
>Once Clinton announced his intention to find a way around a judge's ruling
>prohibiting warrantless searches in public housing projects, it seemed
>pretty clear that the Unctuous One was intent on going far beyond his
>stated goal of wanting to rid the projects of crime.
Rather than eliminating personal liberty, let's just eliminate "public"
housing.
--
<'D / C /
()-^ --+-\\ L'epigramme est un jeu d'escrime.
/ > | \ LEBRUN
Aldo Tartaglini
>The vocabulary may be confusing. "Public Housing" is not public like public
>restrooms, public parks, rather it is given to private individuals for their
>use, often for decades, and is simply paid for by the public. Why shouldn't
>the owners of a property be able to prohibit any thing they choose from
>being brought onto their property. If you can say "no pets" why not "no guns"?
The trouble with this sort of logic is, where does it end? If I am a
property owner, you say it's ok for me to forbid my tenants from bringing
pets and guns onto my property. Fine. If I happen to have certain
political views, can I forbid my tenants from bringing written materials
that contradict my views onto my property? If I am radically anti-choice,
can I prohibit women who live on my property from having abortions? Can I
prohibit my tenants from engaging in sexual practices I don't condone?
There are many other possible examples but the point is, being a property
owner and landlord does not give one the right to abridge fundamental
human and Constitutional rights. The right to keep and bear arms (ergo the
right to self-defense) is one such right. Infringe upon the right to keep
and bear arms and all other rights are fair game for similar treatment.
>This is not an issue about the right to keep and bear arms, even in public"
>rather it is an issue of the owner's right to control the use of rented or
>"granted" dwellings.
The rights of property owners to control the use of their property must
not infringe upon an individual's rights as enumerated or implied in the
Constitution. If I wanted to make sure none of my tenants were engaging in
illegal activities on my property, it might be helpful to install
listening and other surveillance devices in all my housing units. Would
you condone this? Insisting on warrantless searches and frisking of all
"suspicious" persons is consistent with mandatory surveillance - they are
philosophically compatible, so if you support one, there is no logical
reason for not supporting the other.
If you think we need to use police state tactics to fight crime, you are
wrong. All we need do is enforce the laws we already have, keep repeat
offenders in jail for life, and take the stigma and aura of criminality
away from the honest citizen's desire to protect himself and his property
using the most efficient means possible (i.e., stop punishing people for
the legitimate exercise of their RKBA)
A good first step would be a national concealed weapons license -- a real
one, designed with the NRA's input, not some Schumeresque attempt at
civilian disarmament disguised as a licensing law -- and laws which
support the civilian use of deadly force where necessary to protect life
and property. And if Clinton thinks Tenant Patrols are a good idea, why
not go the whole nine yeards and allow these patrols to be armed? Before
we had organized police forces, there were Vigillance Committees -- long
devalued by statists, who coined the term "vigilante" to express their
disdain of the notion of people taking responsibility for their own
protection -- and the crime rate of the legendary "Dodge City" (used as a
metaphor by the gun-grabbers for what would happen in the absence of gun
control) was lower than many of our modern-day cities.
If we did these things, Slick Willie and his goon squad tactics (which
succeeded so brilliantly in Waco) would not be necessary. But then,
making people more responsible for themselves would tend to obviate
the need for elitist politicians like Clinton and his ilk.
Nosy
<>The vocabulary may be confusing. "Public Housing" is not public like public
<>restrooms, public parks, rather it is given to private individuals for their
<>use, often for decades, and is simply paid for by the public. Why shouldn't
<>the owners of a property be able to prohibit any thing they choose from
<>being brought onto their property. If you can say "no pets" why not "no guns"?
<>This is not an issue about the right to keep and bear arms, even in public"
<>rather it is an issue of the owner's right to control the use of rented or
<>"granted" dwellings.
Why not "No Bibles", "No Korans" as well?
Can Stone explain how any landlord, even Uncle Sam,
has the right to "request" that tenants give up
their rights to privacy under the 4th Amendment,
as a condition of tenancy?
We're not discussing the right of a landlord to enter
a dwelling to fix a leaky faucet, let's recall,
we're discussing "requesting" that tenants sign
a waiver which will allow police officers to search
their dwellings *without a warrant* at any time of
the day or night.
It's not just about the 2nd, it's about the 4th
and probably the 14th as well.
This is the face of modern "liberalism"?
William R. Cummins
(Couple of frightening articles on state terror tactics and critique of
same deleted)
: ``We'll put more police in public housing, crack down on
: illegal gun trafficking and fill vacant apartments where
: criminals hide out,'' Clinton said. ``And we'll provide more
: programs, like midnight basketball leagues, to help our young
: people say no to gangs and guns and drugs.''
: How will we help them say no to fascist pigs?
Round them up like cattle, stuff them in cramped apartments, and violate
them every-which-way. Remember when 'Vince the Prince' wanted to move
everyone out of Cabrini because it was an unsafe enviroment? Remember
how he wanted the 'dangerous, crime infested high-rises' turned into
condominums for his Developer (spelled 'gentirification') pals to sell?
Growing up in CHA is a lot like being born in prison. Only the meals
aren't so regular. I guess the way to help the youth of today say no to
facism is to make sure the road from public housing to prision to the
grave is as speedy and efficient as possible.
: A.T. <disclaimer: these opinions are mine, not my employer's>
: ======================================================================
: "And we should -- then every community in the country could then start
: doing major weapon sweeps and then destroying the weapons, not selling
: them." - William J. Clinton, President, sworn defender of the U.S.
: Constitution
: ======================================================================
Bill
--
William R. Cummins
w...@wwa.com
Brandon Ray
Stone) writes:
>The vocabulary may be confusing. "Public Housing" is not public like public
>restrooms, public parks, rather it is given to private individuals for their
>use, often for decades, and is simply paid for by the public. Why shouldn't
>the owners of a property be able to prohibit any thing they choose from
>being brought onto their property. If you can say "no pets" why not "no guns"?
>This is not an issue about the right to keep and bear arms, even in public"
>rather it is an issue of the owner's right to control the use of rented or
>"granted" dwellings.
>
welfare benefits, may require recipients to forfeit their constitutional
rights....such as the right to be secure against warrantless searches.
Rob Morrone
Ed Stone <est...@jabba.cybernetics.net> wrote:
>The vocabulary may be confusing. "Public Housing" is not public like public
>restrooms, public parks, rather it is given to private individuals for their
>use, often for decades, and is simply paid for by the public. Why shouldn't
>the owners of a property be able to prohibit any thing they choose from
>being brought onto their property. If you can say "no pets" why not "no guns"?
This is an inane argument. There is no mention in the Constitution
that the right to keep pets shall not be infringed. There is however
an inalienable right to keep and bear arms in defense of one's self,
others and property.
>This is not an issue about the right to keep and bear arms, even in public"
>rather it is an issue of the owner's right to control the use of rented or
>"granted" dwellings.
Wrong! This is about the violation of the Constitution. Those people
living in public have the right and the need to protect themselves.
The same way that the landlord cannot deny a person housing based on
race, religion or national origin, landlords cannot deny or restrict
housing based on a person's keeping and bearing arms on that property.
Start thinking for a moment! Would a landlord be allowed to add to
a tenant's lease a clause stating that the tenant would not be allowed
to practice a particular religion or to marry and cohabitate with
a person of specified national origin? NO WAY ON HELL!!!
Mark Klemkosky~
Amusing how Clinton fools people into voting for him just before
he tries to stick a knife in their back. No one (no one with any
brains) is going to vote for this bozo next time. Why doesn't he
just get tough on crime instead of this crap...
--
All opinions presented here are my own.
All standard disclaimers apply. I want
to use Hillary's commodities investor.
Democrats confuse those who are wealthy
with those who are in the middle class.
Andrew Betz
> ``We will empower residents to build safe neighborhoods, and
>we'll help to organize tenant patrols to ride the elevators and
>look after the public spaces in these high-rise public housing
>units,'' Clinton said."
>
> Sounds reasonable, right? Now read the fine print and ask yourself,
> will Clinton allow those tenant patrols (and tenants in general) to
> arm themselves so they can have a fighting chance against the well-armed
> thugs that prowl their neighborhoods? Is he really interested in
No weapons. He suggested radios. So a typical transmission
would go something like this,
"Base this is Unit 2."
"Unit 2. Base. go."
"I've got the drop on 3 armed drug dealers. If I had
a pistol this would be a breeze."
"Stay concealed, Unit 2! If they see you..."
"Oh, shit...*BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM...Base!!! I'm HIT!!!"
"Stay put Unit 2. We have 911 on the line now...remember,
YOU'RE EMPOWERED, UNIT 2!"
I think I'm gonna puke.
Drew
--
be...@gozer.idbsu.edu
*** brought into your terminal from the free state of idaho ***
*** where guns are cash & carry and crime rates are really low ***
*** "The new Gestapo in America" - Gerry Spence on the BATF ***
Pat Myrto
>In article <2ornbl$q...@jabba.cybernetics.net>,
>Ed Stone <est...@jabba.cybernetics.net> wrote:
>>The vocabulary may be confusing. "Public Housing" is not public like public
>>restrooms, public parks, rather it is given to private individuals for their
>>use, often for decades, and is simply paid for by the public. Why shouldn't
>>the owners of a property be able to prohibit any thing they choose from
>>being brought onto their property. If you can say "no pets" why not "no guns"?
>
> This is an inane argument. There is no mention in the Constitution
> that the right to keep pets shall not be infringed. There is however
> an inalienable right to keep and bear arms in defense of one's self,
> others and property.
And it aint' even about that - one has certain rights in ones home that
one doesnt have out on the street. 'Course, those stupid colored folk
and other trashy folk in those projects don't need no rights... kick
in their doors, keep them totally dependent in ALL aspects on the lovely
STATE...
Could Clinton really be a Dave Duke down deep?
>>This is not an issue about the right to keep and bear arms, even in public"
>>rather it is an issue of the owner's right to control the use of rented or
>>"granted" dwellings.
>
> Wrong! This is about the violation of the Constitution. Those people
In just about every way possible. Makes a mockery of aobut every item
in the Bill of Rights, for a starter. But Clinton has shown his contempt
for that document before he even got the chair in the Oval office warm.
> living in public have the right and the need to protect themselves.
> The same way that the landlord cannot deny a person housing based on
> race, religion or national origin, landlords cannot deny or restrict
> housing based on a person's keeping and bearing arms on that property.
>
> Start thinking for a moment! Would a landlord be allowed to add to
> a tenant's lease a clause stating that the tenant would not be allowed
> to practice a particular religion or to marry and cohabitate with
> a person of specified national origin? NO WAY ON HELL!!!
But THAT'S DIFFERENT - that has been deemed to be Politically Correct
rights... very much in fashion...
And when a person pays the rent, that apartment becomes their HOME, as
in HOUSE. ANd they have all the rights ANYBODY has in their home.
Including the right to PRIVACY and FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND
SEIZURE. A renter does not become 'less equal' because they aren't
flush enough to buy a house outright (except, apparantly, in the
Clintonista New Order Utopia).
Or have the elitist statists decreed that those who are not wealthy
enought to buy their home outright have no rights? Perhaps next it
will be those whose homes are 'owned' by the holder of the mortgage
also lose THEIR rights to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure,
as well, and their privacy...
As far as I can see, Clinton violated his oath of office the second he
OPENLY CONSPIRED with his staff to fabricate an end-run around the
document he was SWORN TO UPHOLD AND DEFEND. Conspiracy. Nothing else
to call it. A blatant conspiracy to avoid the Fourth and Second
Amendments, and probably others, as well. He should be brought up on
charges for that. He is so goddamned arrogant to not even try to clean
it up, his comfort on his hold on power is that bad.
Might be worthwhile to point that out to ones congresscritters. I would
love to see impeachment hearings. And violating ones oath of office
is a crime, is it not? Otherwise, why bother with an oath?
--
pat@rwing [If all fails, try: rwing!p...@ole.cdac.com] Pat Myrto - Seattle WA
"No one has the right to destroy another person's belief by demanding
empirical evidence." -- Ann Landers, nationally syndicated advice columnist
and Director at Handgun Control Inc.
William Davenant
Nosy <ata...@nmsu.edu> wrote:
>
> Why stop there?
>
> Why not "No Bibles", "No Korans" as well?
>
>
> Can Stone explain how any landlord, even Uncle Sam,
> has the right to "request" that tenants give up
> their rights to privacy under the 4th Amendment,
> as a condition of tenancy?
>
> We're not discussing the right of a landlord to enter
> a dwelling to fix a leaky faucet, let's recall,
> we're discussing "requesting" that tenants sign
> a waiver which will allow police officers to search
> their dwellings *without a warrant* at any time of
> the day or night.
>
> It's not just about the 2nd, it's about the 4th
> and probably the 14th as well.
>
> This is the face of modern "liberalism"?
Yes. Pretty frightening isn't it.
Brandon Ray
Social prophyllaxis with a human face.....
Paul Havemann
> In <2ornbl$q...@jabba.cybernetics.net> est...@jabba.cybernetics.net (Ed Stone) writes:
>
>>The vocabulary may be confusing. "Public Housing" is not public like public
>>restrooms, public parks, rather it is given to private individuals for their
>>use, often for decades, and is simply paid for by the public. Why shouldn't
>>the owners of a property be able to prohibit any thing they choose from
>>being brought onto their property. If you can say "no pets" why not "no guns"?
The easy answer, of course, is that the Constitution does not include
"the right to keep and bear pets" as an inalienable right.
> The trouble with this sort of logic is, where does it end? If I am a
> property owner, you say it's ok for me to forbid my tenants from bringing
> pets and guns onto my property. Fine. If I happen to have certain
> political views, can I forbid my tenants from bringing written materials
> that contradict my views onto my property? If I am radically anti-choice,
> can I prohibit women who live on my property from having abortions? Can I
> prohibit my tenants from engaging in sexual practices I don't condone?
Not in California. In a much-publicized 1992 case, an elderly landlady
sought to prevent an unmarried couple from renting an apartment on
religious grounds, but the courts ruled against her.
And, of course, let us not forget the various and sundry anti-
discrimination laws; many of these are not enumerated in the
Constitution, but have been discovered in various and sundry "auras" and
"penumbras" thereof.
> There are many other possible examples but the point is, being a property
> owner and landlord does not give one the right to abridge fundamental
> human and Constitutional rights. The right to keep and bear arms (ergo the
> right to self-defense) is one such right. Infringe upon the right to keep
> and bear arms and all other rights are fair game for similar treatment.
>
>>This is not an issue about the right to keep and bear arms, even in public"
>>rather it is an issue of the owner's right to control the use of rented or
>>"granted" dwellings.
>
> The rights of property owners to control the use of their property must
> not infringe upon an individual's rights as enumerated or implied in the
> Constitution. If I wanted to make sure none of my tenants were engaging in
> illegal activities on my property, it might be helpful to install
> listening and other surveillance devices in all my housing units. Would
> you condone this? Insisting on warrantless searches and frisking of all
> "suspicious" persons is consistent with mandatory surveillance - they are
> philosophically compatible, so if you support one, there is no logical
> reason for not supporting the other.
>
> If you think we need to use police state tactics to fight crime, you are
> wrong. All we need do is enforce the laws we already have, keep repeat
> offenders in jail for life, and take the stigma and aura of criminality
> away from the honest citizen's desire to protect himself and his property
> using the most efficient means possible (i.e., stop punishing people for
> the legitimate exercise of their RKBA)
Yes. A good place to start would be with the bevy of often conflicting
laws which -- unless they've been changed recently -- prevent the
eviction of tenants from public housing once they've been convicted of
drug dealing and various felonies. As it stands (stood?), eviction can
take several years -- and may not succeed.
> A good first step would be a national concealed weapons license -- a real
> one, designed with the NRA's input, not some Schumeresque attempt at
> civilian disarmament disguised as a licensing law -- and laws which
> support the civilian use of deadly force where necessary to protect life
> and property. And if Clinton thinks Tenant Patrols are a good idea, why
> not go the whole nine yeards and allow these patrols to be armed? Before
> we had organized police forces, there were Vigillance Committees -- long
> devalued by statists, who coined the term "vigilante" to express their
> disdain of the notion of people taking responsibility for their own
> protection -- and the crime rate of the legendary "Dodge City" (used as a
> metaphor by the gun-grabbers for what would happen in the absence of gun
> control) was lower than many of our modern-day cities.
>
> If we did these things, Slick Willie and his goon squad tactics (which
> succeeded so brilliantly in Waco) would not be necessary. But then,
> making people more responsible for themselves would tend to obviate
> the need for elitist politicians like Clinton and his ilk.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Paul Havemann (pa...@hsh.com) Resident Cynic, a.f.d-q
"The No. 1 bumper sticker on the digital highway for the foreseeable
future will read: ''WELCOME TO THE INTERNET. NOW GO HOME.''
-- "System Overload: The Masses Are Streaming Onto The
Once-Exclusive Internet -- And The Old Guard Isn't Pleased"
San Jose Mercury News, 4/5/94
Mark O. Wilson
|In note <2ornbl$q...@jabba.cybernetics.net>, est...@jabba.cybernetics.net (Ed
|Stone) writes:
|>The vocabulary may be confusing. "Public Housing" is not public like public
|>restrooms, public parks, rather it is given to private individuals for their
|>use, often for decades, and is simply paid for by the public. Why shouldn't
|>the owners of a property be able to prohibit any thing they choose from
|>being brought onto their property. If you can say "no pets" why not "no guns"?
|>This is not an issue about the right to keep and bear arms, even in public"
|>rather it is an issue of the owner's right to control the use of rented or
|>"granted" dwellings.
|>
|No it isn't. It is a matter of whether the gov't, as a condition of providing
|welfare benefits, may require recipients to forfeit their constitutional
|rights....such as the right to be secure against warrantless searches.
That depends on whether you think welfare receipients are entitled to
those checks.
Since they aren't, the government can put any restrictions and conditions
they want onto accepting the money.
--
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark....@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Broward Horne
In a previous article, p...@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) says:
>
>And it aint' even about that - one has certain rights in ones home that
>one doesnt have out on the street. 'Course, those stupid colored folk
>and other trashy folk in those projects don't need no rights... kick
>in their doors, keep them totally dependent in ALL aspects on the lovely
>STATE...
I hope Bill gives the public housing tenants a better deal
than he gave the Bosnians. :)
--
For Sale: one slightly used Rhodes warrior; good with kids
and crowds, need money for legal fees, asking $99K.
Allan Best
: In a previous article, p...@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) says:
: I hope Bill gives the public housing tenants a better deal
: than he gave the Bosnians. :)
I'm surprised BC hasn't sent in the "Butcher of Waco" to bring this
whole situation to a roaring conclusion.
albergo
Mark O. Wilson
|In <2ornbl$q...@jabba.cybernetics.net> est...@jabba.cybernetics.net (Ed Stone) writes:
|>The vocabulary may be confusing. "Public Housing" is not public like public
|>restrooms, public parks, rather it is given to private individuals for their
|>use, often for decades, and is simply paid for by the public. Why shouldn't
|>the owners of a property be able to prohibit any thing they choose from
|>being brought onto their property. If you can say "no pets" why not "no guns"?
|The trouble with this sort of logic is, where does it end? If I am a
|property owner, you say it's ok for me to forbid my tenants from bringing
|pets and guns onto my property. Fine. If I happen to have certain
|political views, can I forbid my tenants from bringing written materials
|that contradict my views onto my property? If I am radically anti-choice,
|can I prohibit women who live on my property from having abortions? Can I
|prohibit my tenants from engaging in sexual practices I don't condone?
Yes.
|There are many other possible examples but the point is, being a property
|owner and landlord does not give one the right to abridge fundamental
|human and Constitutional rights. The right to keep and bear arms (ergo the
|right to self-defense) is one such right. Infringe upon the right to keep
|and bear arms and all other rights are fair game for similar treatment.
Why not?
|>This is not an issue about the right to keep and bear arms, even in public"
|>rather it is an issue of the owner's right to control the use of rented or
|>"granted" dwellings.
|The rights of property owners to control the use of their property must
|not infringe upon an individual's rights as enumerated or implied in the
|Constitution.
It's your property, if they want to live on it they have to follow your
rules.
|If I wanted to make sure none of my tenants were engaging in
|illegal activities on my property, it might be helpful to install
|listening and other surveillance devices in all my housing units.
Only if you had spelled out in the lease that you were going to do this.
Mark O. Wilson
|And when a person pays the rent, that apartment becomes their HOME, as
|in HOUSE.
When a person signs a lease, that apartment becomes their home, persuant
to any limitations in the lease.
|ANd they have all the rights ANYBODY has in their home.
From the police, not the landlord. Unfortunately in this case, the police
are the landlord.
Mark O. Wilson
|In article <2ornbl$q...@jabba.cybernetics.net>,
|Ed Stone <est...@jabba.cybernetics.net> wrote:
|>The vocabulary may be confusing. "Public Housing" is not public like public
|>restrooms, public parks, rather it is given to private individuals for their
|>use, often for decades, and is simply paid for by the public. Why shouldn't
|>the owners of a property be able to prohibit any thing they choose from
|>being brought onto their property. If you can say "no pets" why not "no guns"?
| This is an inane argument. There is no mention in the Constitution
| that the right to keep pets shall not be infringed. There is however
| an inalienable right to keep and bear arms in defense of one's self,
| others and property.
The constitution says that government may not restrict the right to
bear arms. It says nothing about individuals.
|>This is not an issue about the right to keep and bear arms, even in public"
|>rather it is an issue of the owner's right to control the use of rented or
|>"granted" dwellings.
| Wrong! This is about the violation of the Constitution. Those people
| living in public have the right and the need to protect themselves.
| The same way that the landlord cannot deny a person housing based on
| race, religion or national origin, landlords cannot deny or restrict
| housing based on a person's keeping and bearing arms on that property.
A landlord should be able to determine who is going to live on his
property, regardless of what criteria he uses.
| Start thinking for a moment! Would a landlord be allowed to add to
| a tenant's lease a clause stating that the tenant would not be allowed
| to practice a particular religion or to marry and cohabitate with
| a person of specified national origin? NO WAY ON HELL!!!
Why not?
Brandon Ray
COM (Mark O. Wilson) writes:
>In <76664512...@chop.isca.uiowa.edu> Brandon Ray <Pub...@chop.isca.
uiowa.edu> writes:
>
>|In note <2ornbl$q...@jabba.cybernetics.net>, est...@jabba.cybernetics.net (Ed
>|Stone) writes:
>|>The vocabulary may be confusing. "Public Housing" is not public like public
>|>restrooms, public parks, rather it is given to private individuals for their
>|>use, often for decades, and is simply paid for by the public. Why shouldn't
>|>the owners of a property be able to prohibit any thing they choose from
>|>being brought onto their property. If you can say "no pets" why not "no
guns"?
>|>This is not an issue about the right to keep and bear arms, even in public"
>|>rather it is an issue of the owner's right to control the use of rented or
>|>"granted" dwellings.
>|>
>|No it isn't. It is a matter of whether the gov't, as a condition of
providing
>|welfare benefits, may require recipients to forfeit their constitutional
>|rights....such as the right to be secure against warrantless searches.
>
>That depends on whether you think welfare receipients are entitled to
>those checks.
>
>Since they aren't, the government can put any restrictions and conditions
>they want onto accepting the money.
This is a non sequitur. The Bill of Rights does not make any mention of its
protections being conditional. The gov't is bound to abide by those
restrictions in all its dealings.
William R. Cummins
(Deleted stuff about Clinton's cradle-to-grave imprisonment plan)
: Amusing how Clinton fools people into voting for him just before
: he tries to stick a knife in their back. No one (no one with any
: brains) is going to vote for this bozo next time. Why doesn't he
: just get tough on crime instead of this crap...
Oh, he's getting tough on crime...Violent crime, non-violent crime, Crime
against Property, Victimless Crime, Potential Crime...
Now if only we could get some sort of official 'war on ethics' started to
match the 'war on us'.
Bill
: --
: All opinions presented here are my own.
: All standard disclaimers apply. I want
: to use Hillary's commodities investor.
: Democrats confuse those who are wealthy
: with those who are in the middle class.
--
William R. Cummins
w...@wwa.com
William R. Cummins
(Lots of Documentation of the new happy-face facism deleted)
: And it aint' even about that - one has certain rights in ones home that
: one doesnt have out on the street. 'Course, those stupid colored folk
: and other trashy folk in those projects don't need no rights... kick
: in their doors, keep them totally dependent in ALL aspects on the lovely
: STATE...
: Could Clinton really be a Dave Duke down deep?
The Demopublicans seem to be turning into a Monty Python sketch, where
first we drive the poor into the streets with bombs and rockets, and then
mow them down with machine guns. Then, I guess we release the vicious dogs.
: In just about every way possible. Makes a mockery of aobut every item
: in the Bill of Rights, for a starter. But Clinton has shown his contempt
: for that document before he even got the chair in the Oval office warm.
'It's not the economy, Bill. It's the future of economic violence you
want to insure..'
I find it hard to believe that this is all really happening. I mean,
it's so OBVIOUS. Unwarranted sweeps of peoples homes. This is the
issue. And it's not EVERYONE's home. Not even everyone who rents'
home. It's the people who can't afford shelter...not a huge class of
people, but a pretty well-defined class here in Chicago. Does the
presidential limo have a 'Kill the Poor' bumpersticker on it like Daley's
limo does?
: And when a person pays the rent, that apartment becomes their HOME, as
: in HOUSE. ANd they have all the rights ANYBODY has in their home.
: Including the right to PRIVACY and FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND
: SEIZURE. A renter does not become 'less equal' because they aren't
: flush enough to buy a house outright (except, apparantly, in the
: Clintonista New Order Utopia).
Perhaps getting federal subsidies is a contract with satan. But, then
again, getting a 10% senior citizen discount at McDonaldz doesn't
necessarily mean they reserve the right to spit on your burger.
: Or have the elitist statists decreed that those who are not wealthy
: enought to buy their home outright have no rights? Perhaps next it
Yes. A while ago.
: will be those whose homes are 'owned' by the holder of the mortgage
: also lose THEIR rights to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure,
: as well, and their privacy...
Well, if the logic holds, abuse it!
: As far as I can see, Clinton violated his oath of office the second he
: OPENLY CONSPIRED with his staff to fabricate an end-run around the
: document he was SWORN TO UPHOLD AND DEFEND. Conspiracy. Nothing else
: to call it. A blatant conspiracy to avoid the Fourth and Second
: Amendments, and probably others, as well. He should be brought up on
: charges for that. He is so goddamned arrogant to not even try to clean
: it up, his comfort on his hold on power is that bad.
Him and all those political things holding office over us. The Ruling
Court for the last few hundred years has left an increasing amount to be
desired.
Bill
Brandon Ray
COM (Mark O. Wilson) writes:
>
>|In article <2ornbl$q...@jabba.cybernetics.net>,
>|Ed Stone <est...@jabba.cybernetics.net> wrote:
>|>The vocabulary may be confusing. "Public Housing" is not public like public
>|>restrooms, public parks, rather it is given to private individuals for their
>|>use, often for decades, and is simply paid for by the public. Why shouldn't
>|>the owners of a property be able to prohibit any thing they choose from
>|>being brought onto their property. If you can say "no pets" why not "no
guns"?
>
>| This is an inane argument. There is no mention in the Constitution
>| that the right to keep pets shall not be infringed. There is however
>| an inalienable right to keep and bear arms in defense of one's self,
>| others and property.
>
>The constitution says that government may not restrict the right to
>bear arms. It says nothing about individuals.
>
does not protect the right of individuals to bear arms (I don't think that's
what you meant, but if so, you are wrong), or that the Constitution does not
prevent individuals from infringing the rkba? If the latter, let us recall
that we are talking about apartment complexes owned and operated by the gov't,
which would seem to put them under the Bill of Rights.
Omri Schwarz
|> In note <CoIxw...@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwi...@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.
|> COM (Mark O. Wilson) writes:
|> >In <CoGK...@eskimo.com> rmor...@eskimo.com (Rob Morrone) writes:
|> >
|> >|In article <2ornbl$q...@jabba.cybernetics.net>,
|> >|Ed Stone <est...@jabba.cybernetics.net> wrote:
|> >|>The vocabulary may be confusing. "Public Housing" is not public like public
|> >|>restrooms, public parks, rather it is given to private individuals for their
|> >|>use, often for decades, and is simply paid for by the public. Why shouldn't
|> >|>the owners of a property be able to prohibit any thing they choose from
|> >|>being brought onto their property. If you can say "no pets" why not "no
|> guns"?
|> >
|> >| This is an inane argument. There is no mention in the Constitution
|> >| that the right to keep pets shall not be infringed. There is however
|> >| an inalienable right to keep and bear arms in defense of one's self,
|> >| others and property.
|> >
|> >The constitution says that government may not restrict the right to
|> >bear arms. It says nothing about individuals.
|> >
|> I am not sure which meaning you have in mind....do you mean the Constitution
|> does not protect the right of individuals to bear arms (I don't think that's
|> what you meant, but if so, you are wrong), or that the Constitution does not
|> prevent individuals from infringing the rkba? If the latter, let us recall
|> that we are talking about apartment complexes owned and operated by the gov't,
|> which would seem to put them under the Bill of Rights.
But just because they don't allow guns in those tenements doesn't an abridgement
make. You don't *have* to live there.
Brandon Ray
Schwarz) writes:
>In article <76681846...@chop.isca.uiowa.edu>, Brandon Ray <Publius@chop.
Feh. The people living in those complexes, most of them, have no realistic
alternative. For whatever reason, they are faced with no shelter whatsoever
and this complex. I call that a decision made under durress.
James Buster
>lib...@panix.com (Aldo Tartaglini) sez:
>The easy answer, of course, is that the Constitution does not include
>"the right to keep and bear pets" as an inalienable right.
That would be the easy answer, but it would also be the *wrong* answer.
Check out Amendments 9 & 10.
--
James Buster
bit...@netcom.com
Broward Horne
In a previous article, w...@gagme.wwa.com (William R. Cummins) says:
>I find it hard to believe that this is all really happening. I mean,
>it's so OBVIOUS. Unwarranted sweeps of peoples homes. This is the
>issue. And it's not EVERYONE's home. Not even everyone who rents'
>home. It's the people who can't afford shelter...not a huge class of
>people, but a pretty well-defined class here in Chicago. Does the
>presidential limo have a 'Kill the Poor' bumpersticker on it like Daley's
>limo does?
No, the presidential bummersticker says,
" Negotiate a Peace Settlement for the Poor "
Or maybe it was
" I Brake for Serbs "
It keeps changing, I can't remember now.
--
For Sale: one slightly used Rhodes warrior; good with kids
and crowds, need money for legal fees, asking $99K.
Contact: Cow...@BigHouse.gov
Broward Horne
In a previous article, w...@gagme.wwa.com (William R. Cummins) says:
>Now if only we could get some sort of official 'war on ethics' started to
>match the 'war on us'.
You know, this isn't a bad idea. NOT at all. I mean, if gays
get special rights, women get special rights, old people get
my social security money, blacks get settlements from the L.A.P.D.
perhaps it would be in my best interest to get MYSELF re-defined
as an American Serb, and have Bill make war on me. Then I could
march into S.F. and TAKE what I wanted.
William Davenant
Ha. Right. The ideal "Clinton/Reno" solution would be not to
send the police in per se, but merely burn down the premises.
This would eliminate the criminal element and help cut down
the overhead of maintaining the project etc. thus aiding the
deficit reduction.
Guy E Wheelock
>In article <2ornbl$q...@jabba.cybernetics.net>,
[stuff on lease restrictions on guns deleted]
> Start thinking for a moment! Would a landlord be allowed to add to
> a tenant's lease a clause stating that the tenant would not be allowed
> to practice a particular religion or to marry and cohabitate with
> a person of specified national origin? NO WAY ON HELL!!!
Actually; this has come up. There was a case here in Mpls. a couple of years
ago. Landlord tried to prohibit "cohabitation" (claimed it was against HIS
religion to rent to unmarrieds). He was sued for violating the fair housing
act & lost. (Sorry; I dont have a specific citation.)
Peter K. Boucher
|> In article <2p1ak7$k...@hp-col.col.hp.com>, Allan Best <a...@col.hp.com> wrote:
|> >I'm surprised BC hasn't sent in the "Butcher of Waco" to bring this
|> >whole situation to a roaring conclusion.
|>
|> Ha. Right. The ideal "Clinton/Reno" solution would be not to
|> send the police in per se, but merely burn down the premises.
|> This would eliminate the criminal element and help cut down
|> the overhead of maintaining the project etc. thus aiding the
|> deficit reduction.
"Besides, we suspected that some of the children in there were being
abused by their parents..."
--
Peter K. Boucher
--
DISCLAIMER: I am solely responsible for the contents of this message,
which should not be misconstrued as being in any way related
to the opinions of my employer.
Brice Dowaliby
|>
|> In a previous article, w...@gagme.wwa.com (William R. Cummins) says:
|>
|> >Now if only we could get some sort of official 'war on ethics' started to
|> >match the 'war on us'.
|>
|>
|> You know, this isn't a bad idea. NOT at all. I mean, if gays
|> get special rights, women get special rights, old people get
|> my social security money, blacks get settlements from the L.A.P.D.
Awww. Is the middle class white male feeling put upon? That's
weird. *I'm* a middle class white male, and I don't feel
especially put out that sexual discrimination and beating
the shit out of civilians rather than just arresting them
is frowned upon.
--
Brice Dowaliby, Fluent Inc., 10 Cavendish Court, Lebanon, NH 03766
b...@fluent.com
I don't speak for them, they don't speak for me
Broward Horne
In a previous article, bou...@csl.sri.com (Peter K. Boucher) says:
>In article <2p3nr3$9...@access1.digex.net>, will...@access1.digex.net (William Davenant) writes:
>|> In article <2p1ak7$k...@hp-col.col.hp.com>, Allan Best <a...@col.hp.com> wrote:
>[deletia...]
>|> >I'm surprised BC hasn't sent in the "Butcher of Waco" to bring this
>|> >whole situation to a roaring conclusion.
>|>
>|> Ha. Right. The ideal "Clinton/Reno" solution would be not to
>|> send the police in per se, but merely burn down the premises.
>|> This would eliminate the criminal element and help cut down
>|> the overhead of maintaining the project etc. thus aiding the
>|> deficit reduction.
>
>"Besides, we suspected that some of the children in there were being
>abused by their parents..."
Heh, that's good. I sure hope Bill gives public housing
tenants a better deal than he gave Koresh.
--
For Sale: one slightly used Rhodes warrior; good with kids
and crowds, need money for legal fees, asking $99K.
Contact: Cow...@BigHouse.gov
Broward Horne
In a previous article, b...@fluent.com (Brice Dowaliby) says:
>In article <2p3mp1$m...@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, an...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>|>
>|> In a previous article, w...@gagme.wwa.com (William R. Cummins) says:
>|>
>|> >Now if only we could get some sort of official 'war on ethics' started to
>|> >match the 'war on us'.
>|>
>|>
>|> You know, this isn't a bad idea. NOT at all. I mean, if gays
>|> get special rights, women get special rights, old people get
>|> my social security money, blacks get settlements from the L.A.P.D.
>
>Awww. Is the middle class white male feeling put upon? That's
>weird. *I'm* a middle class white male, and I don't feel
>especially put out that sexual discrimination and beating
>the shit out of civilians rather than just arresting them
>is frowned upon.
Speaking as a middle class white male who DID get the shit
beat out of him by the LAPD, well, no, it was only a bop
on the head, I can only wish that I, too, had been black.
The lawyer told me, "Son, you don't have case. You're the
wrong color".
I think it's great that Rodney King got $3.8 million.
I want some, too. Let's go!
Jim Grunewald
|> In note <2ornbl$q...@jabba.cybernetics.net>, est...@jabba.cybernetics.net (Ed
|> Stone) writes:
|> >restrooms, public parks, rather it is given to private individuals for their
|> >use, often for decades, and is simply paid for by the public. Why shouldn't
|> >the owners of a property be able to prohibit any thing they choose from
|> >being brought onto their property. If you can say "no pets" why not "no guns"?
|> >rather it is an issue of the owner's right to control the use of rented or
|> >"granted" dwellings.
|> >
|> welfare benefits, may require recipients to forfeit their constitutional
|> rights....such as the right to be secure against warrantless searches.
According to the Constitution, the right to be secure from
warrantless searches is inalienable, ie. not to be taken
away without due process.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Jim Grunewald Speaking | When buying and selling are controlled by |
|only for himself. | legislation, the first things to be bought and |
|7422...@compuserve.com | sold are legislators. -P.J. O'Rourke |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd D. Ellner
>Amusing how Clinton fools people into voting for him just before
>he tries to stick a knife in their back. No one (no one with any
>brains) is going to vote for this bozo next time. Why doesn't he
>just get tough on crime instead of this crap...
It's amazing. I've been waiting since the Carter years for a liberal
to inhabit the White House. What I've gotten is a George Bush in a
donkey suit. In his first year Clinton has sold out:
Women, what's left of the Left, Labor, Civil Libertarians, the Poor,
Gays and Lesbians, Privacy Advocates, Environmentalists, and more, I'm
sure.
It doesn't matter whether one likes the 'agendas' of any of the above
groups. The fact is that Bill relied on these people for support and
then betrayed their trust in him at the first opportunity. God help
me I voted for him, and I bitterly repent me of my vote.
Todd
--
Todd Ellner | Your 'reality' Sir is lies and balderdash, and I am
rigel.cs.pdx.edu | happy to say I have no grasp of it whatsoever
| -Baron Munchausen
Broward Horne
In a previous article, tel...@cs.pdx.edu (Todd D. Ellner) says:
>It doesn't matter whether one likes the 'agendas' of any of the above
>groups. The fact is that Bill relied on these people for support and
>then betrayed their trust in him at the first opportunity. God help
>me I voted for him, and I bitterly repent me of my vote.
I almost feel sorry for you.
G. Gordon Liddy may have broken the law, but at least he
stood by his partners. If I remember correctly, he went
to jail, refusing testify, no?
I even almost feel sorry for Melinda Shore and William Starr,
almost pathetically in need of some kind of hero who can
surmount society.
In fact, I almost feel sorry for Lloyd Parker, except he's
a mite more able to take care of himself than I thought.
I *do* feel sorry for Lynn Wallace.
I don't feel sorry for Joe Knapp. :) Here's hoping Bill
sells out whatever *his* secret agenda is!
James F Johnson
Broward Horne <an...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> wrote:
>
>In a previous article, w...@gagme.wwa.com (William R. Cummins) says:
>
>>match the 'war on us'.
>
>
> get special rights, women get special rights, old people get
> my social security money, blacks get settlements from the L.A.P.D.
> as an American Serb, and have Bill make war on me. Then I could
> march into S.F. and TAKE what I wanted.
Uhhhhh, I think he said 'ethics', not 'ethnics'........
Jim Johnson
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD secretary Henry Cisneros on gangs and the guns they use:
" I mean, a 30-06 deer rifle with a scope is the kind of weapon that's
in use and the kind of weapon that was confiscated the other night."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
FULLER M
>It's amazing. I've been waiting since the Carter years for a liberal
>to inhabit the White House. What I've gotten is a George Bush in a
>donkey suit. In his first year Clinton has sold out:
That's funny. I thought George Bush WAS a liberal.
Malcolm Fuller, Surveying Engineering, University of New Brunswick
mal...@atlantic.cs.unb.ca or j9...@jupiter.csd.unb.ca }>:-)> --->
__________________ The Second Amendment is Dumbo's feather _________________
James F Johnson
Mark O. Wilson <mwi...@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> wrote:
>That depends on whether you think welfare receipients are entitled to
>those checks.
>
>Since they aren't, the government can put any restrictions and conditions
>they want onto accepting the money.
Neat system there, Mark. Remember that when Billary's Health Care
Pogrom requires that you give up meat, guns, motorcycles, sex, leaving
your home after sundown, speech, etc. in exchange for the government
provided healthcare that you are not entitled to but can't get anywhere
else.
You are either the same 'pro-government' type that you accuse the rest of
us of being, or you are too goodam stupid to know when you are being
duped by those that are.
Broward Horne
In a previous article, un...@selway.umt.edu (James F Johnson) says:
>In article <2p3mp1$m...@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>,
>Broward Horne <an...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> wrote:
>>
>>In a previous article, w...@gagme.wwa.com (William R. Cummins) says:
>>
>>>Now if only we could get some sort of official 'war on ethics' started to
>>>match the 'war on us'.
>>
>>
>> You know, this isn't a bad idea. NOT at all. I mean, if gays
>> get special rights, women get special rights, old people get
>> my social security money, blacks get settlements from the L.A.P.D.
>> perhaps it would be in my best interest to get MYSELF re-defined
>> as an American Serb, and have Bill make war on me. Then I could
>> march into S.F. and TAKE what I wanted.
>
>Uhhhhh, I think he said 'ethics', not 'ethnics'........
Ethics, smethics, I want my free stuff.
All the other kids are getting free stuff, Dad.
I want some, too.
Man. And to think I actually worked my butt off
for almost 15 years, averaged almost 60 hours
a week for ten of them, so that Bill and Pals
could all whine about inequities, and steal
what little stuff I have.
What about my TOOTH, Melinda? What about the
TOOTH I'm missing because the Army YANKED IT?
Where's my FREE STUFFF?????
Broward Horne
In a previous article, un...@selway.umt.edu (James F Johnson) says:
>In article <CoIKB...@ncratl.atlantaga.ncr.com>,
>Mark O. Wilson <mwi...@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> wrote:
>
>>That depends on whether you think welfare receipients are entitled to
>>those checks.
>>
>>Since they aren't, the government can put any restrictions and conditions
>>they want onto accepting the money.
>
>Neat system there, Mark. Remember that when Billary's Health Care
>Pogrom requires that you give up meat, guns, motorcycles, sex, leaving
>your home after sundown, speech, etc. in exchange for the government
>provided healthcare that you are not entitled to but can't get anywhere
>else.
Has ANYONE bothered to look at the cultural aspects of these
"free health care" systems? No. And I HAVE looked through
several of the "informed opinions" supporting them.
People in collectivist countries are RAISED to put family and
culture first. They're RAISED not to take advantage of the
system.
Virtually ALL of our extra costs can be tied back to FREEDOM.
Freedom to eat meat, ride motorcycles, etc.
When Bill's system fails, as it is virtually guaranteed to,
( although it might *appear* to be successful for several years,
like Hawaii's and Canada's system did. Notice how nobody
talks about these "sucesses" anymore. ) the government will
be required to impose drastic standards on EACH of us in order
to "reduce costs".
God. It's just unbelievable. There are a TON of cures for
disease, just waiting to be unleased. Within a few more years,
health care costs would stagnate, and begin to fall.
Man. You guys. I came here for some laughs.
Carry on.
Brice Dowaliby
|> In article <ATAYLOR.94...@gauss.nmsu.edu>,
|> Nosy <ata...@nmsu.edu> wrote:
|> >
|> > Why stop there?
|> >
|> > Why not "No Bibles", "No Korans" as well?
|> >
|> >
|> > Can Stone explain how any landlord, even Uncle Sam,
|> > has the right to "request" that tenants give up
|> > their rights to privacy under the 4th Amendment,
|> > as a condition of tenancy?
|> >
|> > We're not discussing the right of a landlord to enter
|> > a dwelling to fix a leaky faucet, let's recall,
|> > we're discussing "requesting" that tenants sign
|> > a waiver which will allow police officers to search
|> > their dwellings *without a warrant* at any time of
|> > the day or night.
|> >
|> > It's not just about the 2nd, it's about the 4th
|> > and probably the 14th as well.
|> >
|> > This is the face of modern "liberalism"?
|>
|> Yes. Pretty frightening isn't it.
Bill Clinton and Janet Reno are no more the face of modern
liberalism than David Duke is the face of modern conservatism.
Paul Havemann
> Paul Havemann <pa...@hsh.com> wrote:
>>lib...@panix.com (Aldo Tartaglini) sez:
>>The easy answer, of course, is that the Constitution does not include
>>"the right to keep and bear pets" as an inalienable right.
>
> That would be the easy answer, but it would also be the *wrong* answer.
> Check out Amendments 9 & 10.
Can this possibly be correct? If so, this will come as a rude shock to
landlords and tenants in most states, which seem to have ignored this
newly-discovered Constitutional infringement.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Paul Havemann (pa...@hsh.com) Resident Cynic, a.f.d-q
"The No. 1 bumper sticker on the digital highway for the foreseeable
future will read: ''WELCOME TO THE INTERNET. NOW GO HOME.''
-- "System Overload: The Masses Are Streaming Onto The
Once-Exclusive Internet -- And The Old Guard Isn't Pleased"
San Jose Mercury News, 4/5/94
G. Thomas Rush
>In <34...@rwing.UUCP> p...@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:
>
>|And when a person pays the rent, that apartment becomes their HOME, as
>|in HOUSE.
>
>to any limitations in the lease.
>
>|ANd they have all the rights ANYBODY has in their home.
>
>are the landlord.
We seem to have a bit of a problem here.
On the one hand, some of us favor the ability of a landlord to
place limits on the use of the owner's property, and believe that
government restrictions on such are an unjust infringement on
property rights. For example: an Orthodox Jew _ought_ to be able
to rent only to Orthodox Jews, and be secure in the knowledge
that they will not deface the owner's property by bringing in
pork.
On the other hand, we also believe that the government has no
business running subsidized housing projects. _Maybe_ to members
of the armed services, but not as some sort of general 'welfare'
package.
But I'm not fooled into thinking that we're in any way discussing
landlord's rights, and the freedom of tenants to sign restrictive
leases. We're talking about a government power grab, here. We're
watching as the government takes one more step down the slippery
slope of totalitarianism.
Today, it's welfare recipients in public housing. Soon, it will
be any tenant, with the landlord encouraged to put the 'search'
clause in the lease as a requisite to favorable tax treatment (or
even just to get the current deductions!). Then, a few years
after that, it's the mortgage that will be written so that the
buyer must agree to no-cause searches as a condition of getting
the mortgage.
And none of this even requires 'coercion' in the purest sense.
Just the elimination of tax deductions for those who don't
'cooperate'. I'm scared.
Seig Heil!
--
thomas rush compaq computer corporation
tho...@cpqhou.compaq.com their employee, not their opinions.
It's time to tell President Clinton to cut spending _first_. Write him
at Pres...@WhiteHouse.Gov. Please do it today (and tomorrow and...).
Broward Horne
In a previous article, tho...@cpqhou.sys.hou.compaq.com (G. Thomas Rush) says:
>
>And none of this even requires 'coercion' in the purest sense.
>Just the elimination of tax deductions for those who don't
>'cooperate'. I'm scared.
What are you scared for, Thomas, we're still doing way, way
better than Canada. :) Thanks for the info.
I'm really going to miss the Net. I sure hope the Feds really
*do* have a net connection for me.
My project is in the field and flying. :) Come on, Wild Bill!
To think, I owe my success, such that it is to Bill. You'd
think I'd be more loyal, huh?
Like father, like son. :)
--
" Bill Clinton is not a criminal "
- Lynn Wallace
Aldo Tartaglini
[...]
>But I'm not fooled into thinking that we're in any way discussing
>landlord's rights, and the freedom of tenants to sign restrictive
>leases. We're talking about a government power grab, here. We're
>watching as the government takes one more step down the slippery
>slope of totalitarianism.
I have long considered Clinton a fascist in New Democrat's clothing. He is
quite adept at promoting superficially reasonable proposals that, upon
closer scrutiny, are nothing more than semi-clever attempts to
dramatically expand the scope of the government's influence in our lives
(c.f. his health care proposal, the Clipper initiative, his enthusiastic
support for gun bans, etc.). Clinton, like all "stealth" fascists,
operates very much like a virus, infiltrating and subverting the political
machinery in order to remake the government in his own pathological image.
>Today, it's welfare recipients in public housing. Soon, it will
>be any tenant, with the landlord encouraged to put the 'search'
>clause in the lease as a requisite to favorable tax treatment (or
>even just to get the current deductions!). Then, a few years
>after that, it's the mortgage that will be written so that the
>buyer must agree to no-cause searches as a condition of getting
>the mortgage.
If leases can serve as the vector by which warrantless searches become
a common feature of American life, one shudders to think where this will lead.
I addition to the horrors you describe, will it be long before random
searches of all persons and vehicles using public roadways becomes acceptable?
Will audiovisual surveillance become as common in the home as it is down
at the local mall? Will all electronic communications be subject to government
scrutiny? How long before we are all tatooed and given brain implants to
ensure we are all behaving in a manner that is in the best interests of
the almighty collective?
>And none of this even requires 'coercion' in the purest sense.
>Just the elimination of tax deductions for those who don't
>'cooperate'. I'm scared.
>Seig Heil!
Hitler did not seize power all at once. He stole it in small quantities until
he had the German people completely enthralled. We may or may not be
witnessing yet another case of a seemingly uneluctable phenomenon, the
tendency for governments to grow until they threaten the well-being of the
governed. I believe this to be the case and until this cancer is arrested, it
will simply become bigger and more dangerous over time. The trouble with
political trends is that they are often too insidious for enough people to
become alarmed and take timely action. The fact that Clinton hasn't already
been driven out of office in disgrace is not a good sign. Politicians who
behave as he has behaved should be unacceptable to anyone who values freedom.
Maybe a lot of Americans would rather be "safe" than free.
<lib...@panix.com>
the clintons are crooks the clintons are crooks the clintons are crooks
"[Flowers] could suck a tennis ball through a garden hose" - slick w.
Christopher Morton
> And it aint' even about that - one has certain rights in ones home that
> one doesnt have out on the street. 'Course, those stupid colored folk
> and other trashy folk in those projects don't need no rights... kick
> in their doors, keep them totally dependent in ALL aspects on the lovely
> STATE...
>
> Could Clinton really be a Dave Duke down deep?
Is a carp a fish? I don't know.
Maybe you should ask a Haitian refugee....
> > Start thinking for a moment! Would a landlord be allowed to add to
> > a tenant's lease a clause stating that the tenant would not be allowed
> > to practice a particular religion or to marry and cohabitate with
> > a person of specified national origin? NO WAY ON HELL!!!
>
> But THAT'S DIFFERENT - that has been deemed to be Politically Correct
> rights... very much in fashion...
Don't be so sure. I doubt it would take much for Richie Daley to talk
Jethro into it. There's no difference in racial climate between '90s
Chicago and '40s Arkansas.
--
=====================================================================
"Your grammer and spelling are reflective of your intellect." --
Dungeon Master
Christopher Morton
> >Yes. Pretty frightening isn't it.
>
> Social prophyllaxis with a human face.....
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hey, at least credit the originator!
William Davenant
>|> > It's not just about the 2nd, it's about the 4th
>|> > and probably the 14th as well.
>|> >
>|> > This is the face of modern "liberalism"?
>|>
>|> Yes. Pretty frightening isn't it.
>
>Bill Clinton and Janet Reno are no more the face of modern
>liberalism than David Duke is the face of modern conservatism.
Well, I'm glad you're able to realize the above are an
equivalence class.
Brandon Ray
>As quoted from <76674001...@chop.isca.uiowa.edu> by Brandon Ray
<Pub...@chop.isca.uiowa.edu>:
>
>> >Yes. Pretty frightening isn't it.
>>
>> Social prophyllaxis with a human face.....
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Hey, at least credit the originator!
>
Clayton Cramer
>| that the right to keep pets shall not be infringed. There is however
>| an inalienable right to keep and bear arms in defense of one's self,
>| others and property.
>
>The constitution says that government may not restrict the right to
>bear arms. It says nothing about individuals.
It says "right of the people" and the Supreme Court agrees that the
phrase means the same thing in the Second Amendment that it does
elsewhere in the Constitution -- it is an individual right of American
citizens, those who are legal residents of the United States, and
those who have some attachment or association with the United States.
And that's the RESTRICTIVE view of "right of the people"!
>| Wrong! This is about the violation of the Constitution. Those people
>| living in public have the right and the need to protect themselves.
>| The same way that the landlord cannot deny a person housing based on
>| race, religion or national origin, landlords cannot deny or restrict
>| housing based on a person's keeping and bearing arms on that property.
>
>A landlord should be able to determine who is going to live on his
>property, regardless of what criteria he uses.
If he's a private landlord. The government is somewhat different
because of its monopoly power and taxing authority. It is restricted
by the Bill of Rights.
--
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer My opinions, all mine!
Information Superhighway Engineer -- please slow down when you see the
orange safety vest.
Nosy
< In article <2p4buk$j...@cs.pdx.edu> tel...@cs.pdx.edu (Todd D. Ellner) writes:
<, >It's amazing. I've been waiting since the Carter years for a liberal
< >to inhabit the White House. What I've gotten is a George Bush in a
< >donkey suit. In his first year Clinton has sold out:
< That's funny. I thought George Bush WAS a liberal.
Bingo. Wake me when BushClinton is history.
Pat Myrto
"I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) to support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic.
I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. I take this oath freely,
with no purpose of evasion or mental reservations. I will well and
faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter,
so help me God."
I dunno about other folks, but it seems pretty clear to me!!
How can one reconcile openly devising end-runs around the Constitution
with this oath? I bet even the knee-jerk Clinton supporters have a
rough time with this one.
--
pat@rwing [If all fails, try: rwing!p...@ole.cdac.com] Pat Myrto - Seattle WA
"No one has the right to destroy another person's belief by demanding
empirical evidence." -- Ann Landers, nationally syndicated advice columnist
and Director at Handgun Control Inc.
Broward Horne
In a previous article, p...@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) says:
>Just for the helluvit, here is the oath of office those politicians take:
>
> Oath of Office deleted
>with this oath? I bet even the knee-jerk Clinton supporters have a
>rough time with this one.
Hmm. I haven't seen any postings by Joe Knapp lately. But
in all fairness to the Clinton supporters, Bob Dole is just
as bad:
_Idaho Press Tribune_ April 22, 1994 Pg 5A
Senate Agrees with Warrantless Searchs
"A non-binding resolution, offered by SEnate Republican leader
Bob Dole of Kansas and adopted by voice vote Thursday,
endorsed the policy..."
These guys have got to go.
Christopher Morton
> |> > It's not just about the 2nd, it's about the 4th
> |> > and probably the 14th as well.
> |> >
> |> > This is the face of modern "liberalism"?
> |>
> |> Yes. Pretty frightening isn't it.
>
> Bill Clinton and Janet Reno are no more the face of modern
> liberalism than David Duke is the face of modern conservatism.
But all too many "liberals" are defending them come what may.
Ask Michael Moriarty about the price of swimming against the tide....
--
=====================================================================
The Clinton Administration - Social prophylaxis with a human face.
Janet Reno - An Ilsa Koch for the '90s.
Christopher Morton
> >But just because they don't allow guns in those tenements doesn't an
> abridgement
> >make. You don't *have* to live there.
> >
> "The law forbids the rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges."
>
> Feh. The people living in those complexes, most of them, have no realistic
> alternative. For whatever reason, they are faced with no shelter whatsoever
> and this complex. I call that a decision made under durress.
>
EXACTLY. And of course the question inevitably arises, "Does Chicago have
vagrancy laws?" If so, if you DON'T have the means to live anywhere else,
they are in effect REQUIRING you to live there, on pain of arrest....
Christopher Morton
> In article <2oudpm$4...@chnews.intel.com>,
> >Amusing how Clinton fools people into voting for him just before
> >he tries to stick a knife in their back. No one (no one with any
> >brains) is going to vote for this bozo next time. Why doesn't he
> >just get tough on crime instead of this crap...
>
> It's amazing. I've been waiting since the Carter years for a liberal
> to inhabit the White House. What I've gotten is a George Bush in a
> donkey suit. In his first year Clinton has sold out:
No, what you've gotten is NIXON in a donkey suit, minus ANY personal integrity.
> Women, what's left of the Left, Labor, Civil Libertarians, the Poor,
> Gays and Lesbians, Privacy Advocates, Environmentalists, and more, I'm
> sure.
>
Hey, don't forget Haitian refugees and American Blacks in general.
> It doesn't matter whether one likes the 'agendas' of any of the above
> groups. The fact is that Bill relied on these people for support and
> then betrayed their trust in him at the first opportunity. God help
> me I voted for him, and I bitterly repent me of my vote.
>
A pathological liar doesn't quibble over his audience....
Christopher Morton
> In note <Con7o...@NCoast.ORG>, cm...@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton) writes:
> >As quoted from <76674001...@chop.isca.uiowa.edu> by Brandon Ray
> <Pub...@chop.isca.uiowa.edu>:
> >
> >> >Yes. Pretty frightening isn't it.
> >>
> >> Social prophyllaxis with a human face.....
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> >Hey, at least credit the originator!
> >
> If I new who the originator was, I would be happy to.
It was ME, you brewinite! I used this years ago in FidoNet. :)
Brandon Ray
>As quoted from <76703812...@chop.isca.uiowa.edu> by Brandon Ray
<Pub...@chop.isca.uiowa.edu>:
>
>> In note <Con7o...@NCoast.ORG>, cm...@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
writes:
>> >As quoted from <76674001...@chop.isca.uiowa.edu> by Brandon Ray
>> <Pub...@chop.isca.uiowa.edu>:
>> >
>> >> >Yes. Pretty frightening isn't it.
>> >>
>> >> Social prophyllaxis with a human face.....
>> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >
>> >Hey, at least credit the originator!
>> >
>> If I new who the originator was, I would be happy to.
>
>It was ME, you brewinite! I used this years ago in FidoNet. :)
>
information.
FULLER M
(Broward Horne) writes:
>
> Hmm. I haven't seen any postings by Joe Knapp lately. But
> in all fairness to the Clinton supporters, Bob Dole is just
> as bad:
>
> _Idaho Press Tribune_ April 22, 1994 Pg 5A
>
> Senate Agrees with Warrantless Searchs
>
> "A non-binding resolution, offered by SEnate Republican leader
> Bob Dole of Kansas and adopted by voice vote Thursday,
> endorsed the policy..."
Just when the Galactic Hero turns so outrageous that I begin to question
my voting for the Libertarian last election, along come the Republicans
to set my conscience at ease.
> These guys have got to go.
But they aren't going to. Pretty depressing, isn't it?
Malcolm Fuller, Surveying Engineering, University of New Brunswick
mal...@atlantic.cs.unb.ca or j9...@jupiter.csd.unb.ca }>:-/> --->
Robert Plamondon
>Ed Stone <est...@jabba.cybernetics.net> wrote:
>>The vocabulary may be confusing. "Public Housing" is not public like public
>>restrooms, public parks, rather it is given to private individuals for their
>>use, often for decades, and is simply paid for by the public. Why shouldn't
>>the owners of a property be able to prohibit any thing they choose from
>>being brought onto their property. If you can say "no pets" why not "no guns"?
Or the old standbys, "No Blacks" and "No Jews."
Clinton is taking the old reactionary standby -- deed restrictions and
lease restrictions -- and using it for its original purpose -- oppressing
the poor. His stance is that house-to-house warrantless searches are
okay if the victims of such searches are members of an oppressed underclass;
specifically, those who live in public housing.
Thus, a President who is nominally a liberal is moving quickly to
overturn 40 years of civil rights progress.
What does the Congressional Black Caucus think of this? I expect
their reaction to contain the word "genocide," and, you know, I'm
not sure they're wrong.
-- Robert
--
Robert Plamondon * WEITEK Corporation * Home of SPARC Power uP (TM)
80 MHz clock-doubled SPARC processor upgrade for the SPARCstation 2 or IPX
FAX-back info line: (800) 827-8708 or (408) 522-7525
Info by ftp: in pub/weitek on netcom.com * Info by email: cpu-u...@weitek.com
Christopher Morton
> >> >> Social prophyllaxis with a human face.....
> >> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> >
> >> >Hey, at least credit the originator!
> >> >
> >> If I new who the originator was, I would be happy to.
> >
> >It was ME, you brewinite! I used this years ago in FidoNet. :)
> >
> So sorry; I do not hang out on Fidonet. However, thank you for the
> information.
I'd like to know the route it took prior to reaching you.
I think it could catch on, especially in regard to the current Mussolini
administration.... :)
William Davenant
>an...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
[deletions]
>Awww. Is the middle class white male feeling put upon? That's
>weird. *I'm* a middle class white male, and I don't feel
>especially put out that sexual discrimination and beating
>the shit out of civilians rather than just arresting them
>is frowned upon.
Btw, how do you feel about the police arbitrarily bursting
in on law-abiding blacks just because they happen to live
in a project? Or do you think they're all criminals?
Just curious.
Brice Dowaliby
|> Brice Dowaliby <b...@fluent.com> wrote:
|> >an...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
|>
|> [deletions]
|>
|> >Awww. Is the middle class white male feeling put upon? That's
|> >weird. *I'm* a middle class white male, and I don't feel
|> >especially put out that sexual discrimination and beating
|> >the shit out of civilians rather than just arresting them
|> >is frowned upon.
|>
|> Btw, how do you feel about the police arbitrarily bursting
|> in on law-abiding blacks just because they happen to live
|> in a project?
I am strongly against it. I think it's a gross
violation of their right to privacy, and I wouldn't
have any problem with any of those tenants shooting
at the marauding goosteppers, assuming that they did
not anounce themselves as police first, and suing the hell
out of them if they *did* announce who they were first.
|> Or do you think they're all criminals?
Just a random implication I'm a racist, or do you
have some reason for asking your question that way?
BTW (since you seem to be new here) although I am
strongly pro-RKBA, in general I am a liberal. I
don't equate "poor" with "criminal".
|> Just curious.
Have I answered your question?
William Davenant
Hmmm. Another "want your cake and eat it, too" type.
Erik T. Thompson
: In article, William Davenant writes:
: |> Brice Dowaliby <b...@fluent.com> wrote:
: |> >an...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
: |>
: |> [deletions]
: |>
: |> >Awww. Is the middle class white male feeling put upon? That's
: |> >weird. *I'm* a middle class white male, and I don't feel
: |> >especially put out that sexual discrimination and beating
: |> >the shit out of civilians rather than just arresting them
: |> >is frowned upon.
: |>
: |> Btw, how do you feel about the police arbitrarily bursting
: |> in on law-abiding blacks just because they happen to live
: |> in a project?
: I am strongly against it. I think it's a gross
: violation of their right to privacy, and I wouldn't
: have any problem with any of those tenants shooting
: at the marauding goosteppers, assuming that they did
: not anounce themselves as police first, and suing the hell
: out of them if they *did* announce who they were first.
:>>> More impit is a violation of the Fourth Amendment:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.
The only group's you are likely to see raising hell about this are the
ACLU, and possibly the more liberal wing of the Libertarian party.
: |> Or do you think they're all criminals?
: Just a random implication I'm a racist, or do you
: have some reason for asking your question that way?
: BTW (since you seem to be new here) although I am
: strongly pro-RKBA, in general I am a liberal. I
: don't equate "poor" with "criminal".
:>>>This really is a load of shit! Any time someone advaocates
eliiminating certain types of weapons they get called a racist or a Nazi.
There is never the assumption that we would just like to see large numbers
of people not have to die at the hands of law abiding citizens gone nuts.
I could just as easily imply that pro-gunners don't want a ban on say AW's
be cause it's a good way to get rid of all those inner-city minority kids.
: |> Just curious.
Nosy
< Amendment IV
< The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
< papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
< shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon
< probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and
< particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
< persons or things to be seized.
< The only group's you are likely to see raising hell about this are the
< ACLU, and possibly the more liberal wing of the Libertarian party.
ACLU has filed suit, amazingly enough, but on the net
there have been damned few liberals denouncing this and
NO persons further to the left.
Silence isn't assent, but it also isn't dissent.
< : |> Or do you think they're all criminals?
< : Just a random implication I'm a racist, or do you
< : have some reason for asking your question that way?
< : BTW (since you seem to be new here) although I am
< : strongly pro-RKBA, in general I am a liberal. I
< : don't equate "poor" with "criminal".
< :>>>This really is a load of shit! Any time someone advaocates
< eliiminating certain types of weapons they get called a racist or a Nazi.
Uh, the subject here is "sweeps for weapons in peoples homes
without a warrant" and "people" in this case just happens
to be poor black folks in Chicagao; Chitown cops are not
exactly known for their tenderness towards folks that have
a bit too much melanin.
So what we're on about here is 10 or 15 cops busting down
some poor black divorced woman's door and tearing her
apartment to bits, with the blessing of the KKKlintoon
administration...because she lives in public housing.
Now, that may not seem racist or Nazilike to some folks,
but the shoe sure looks like it fits to me.
< There is never the assumption that we would just like to see large numbers
< of people not have to die at the hands of law abiding citizens gone nuts.
< I could just as easily imply that pro-gunners don't want a ban on say AW's
< be cause it's a good way to get rid of all those inner-city minority kids.
It's been said. Scratch a gunbanner, you find a racist, more
often than not.
Bill Anderson
: < Amendment IV
: < The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
: < papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
: < shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon
: < probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and
: < particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
: < persons or things to be seized.
: < The only group's you are likely to see raising hell about this are the
: < ACLU, and possibly the more liberal wing of the Libertarian party.
:
: ACLU has filed suit, amazingly enough, but on the net
: there have been damned few liberals denouncing this and
: NO persons further to the left.
What a surprise - Nosy, wrong. Who'da thunk it?
I'm further to the left, most of the time.
I've denounced it.
I do find rather odd, though, the contention that one must
rush right down to one's keyboard and go on record with one's
fellow net.denizens on every substantial issue, or be held
responsible for the collapse of democracy. Is Nosy on record
as opposing the Hutu slaughter of their Tutsi countrymen in
Rwanda, or is he a supporter of mass murder?
Bill
Nosy
< Nosy (ata...@nmsu.edu) wrote:
< : ACLU has filed suit, amazingly enough, but on the net
< : there have been damned few liberals denouncing this and
< : NO persons further to the left.
<
< What a surprise - Nosy, wrong. Who'da thunk it?
Not being a "liberal", I make no claims of infallibility,
therefore I have no problem with admitting error..unlike
certain notable net.personalities.
<I'm further to the left, most of the time.
<I've denounced it.
Wunnerful; that makes B. Anderson the first person
left of liberal that's done so to my imperfect knowledge.
<I do find rather odd, though, the contention that one must
<rush right down to one's keyboard and go on record with one's
<fellow net.denizens on every substantial issue, or be held
<responsible for the collapse of democracy.
Really? Yet I see the net.left doing exactly that all the
time, "Where were *YOU* when Oliver North ordered
100 million body bags for Central America" and so forth.
Obviously I missed all of Anderson's postings in which
he chastised his brothers and sisters in socialism
for such an underhanded tactic; could he forward them
to me from his archives?
Thanks, in advance.
Frankly, the reaction of the Left in general and the
net.left in particular to KKKlintoon's racist attack
on the Bill of Rights looks to me to have been one
primarily of embarrassed silence. The nonreaction to
my posting "Silence of the Net.Left" bears this out;
the most thoughtful response was from Starr, who suggested
that perhaps they are just too burned out from "the last
12 years".
Hmm.
Would Anderson care to speculate what reaction an identical
policy move by, say, Bush would have prompted from the Left,
both online and offline?
No?
I believe I've already done so; we'd be seeing postings
equating the President with Hitler, Mussolini, etc.
combined with furious calls for impeachement, now
wouldn't we?
So it seems to me that the Left's defense of the Bill of
Rights is conditional, depending on who is attacking it.
Which makes the Left just a wee bit hypocritical, now
doesn't it? While that's hardly news, it bears pointing
out early and often, because the Left is quite fond
of making the claim that leftists are "more moral",
"more caring" and "feel the pain of others" to a
much greater extent than anyone else.
Outside of the ACLU, I don't see many liberals or leftists
who seem to "feel the pain" of the folks in Chitown
public housing that have lost part of their civil rights;
in fact, I can name about 5 online....out of *how* many?
< Is Nosy on record
< as opposing the Hutu slaughter of their Tutsi countrymen in
< Rwanda,
Gosh, I thought that interfering in the internal affairs
of 3rd World countries was "imperialism" and that "we must
never, ever again intervene in a civil war that is none of our
business" and even that "well, maybe it is a part of their
cultural heritage and it would be cultural genocide to
intervene from our Eurocentric White Male point of view",
so I figgered that since I'm not nearly sensitive enough
nor moral enough to be a "liberal", let alone a real
live Leftist I wasn't entitled to an opinion on it.
Shucks, has the Left changed all the rules of political
decorum *again*?
How can I subscribe to get regular updates on this, please?
<or is he a supporter of mass murder?
Does Anderson have one standard for his political allies
and a very different standard for those that don't share
his politics, or does it just look that way?
Bill Anderson
: <In article <2qel7i$o...@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu> lib...@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu (Bill Anderson) writes:
: < Nosy (ata...@nmsu.edu) wrote:
: < : ACLU has filed suit, amazingly enough, but on the net
: < : there have been damned few liberals denouncing this and
: < : NO persons further to the left.
: <
: < What a surprise - Nosy, wrong. Who'da thunk it?
:
: Not being a "liberal", I make no claims of infallibility,
: therefore I have no problem with admitting error..unlike
: certain notable net.personalities.
If that's me you're talking about, I'm flattered to be called
"notable"; I seem to spend an inordinate amount of time admitting
error, though, so I'll have to assume you're talking about somebody
else.
: <I'm further to the left, most of the time.
: <I've denounced it.
: Wunnerful; that makes B. Anderson the first person
: left of liberal that's done so to my imperfect knowledge.
: <I do find rather odd, though, the contention that one must
: <rush right down to one's keyboard and go on record with one's
: <fellow net.denizens on every substantial issue, or be held
: <responsible for the collapse of democracy.
: Really? Yet I see the net.left doing exactly that all the
: time, "Where were *YOU* when Oliver North ordered
: 100 million body bags for Central America" and so forth.
:
: Obviously I missed all of Anderson's postings in which
: he chastised his brothers and sisters in socialism
: for such an underhanded tactic; could he forward them
: to me from his archives?
Since I don't feel obliged to respond to everything, as noted
above, I didn't neglected to respond to those posts. In fact,
I don't even remember them. If Nosy will forward them to me,
I'll try to come up with an appropriate response.
: Thanks, in advance.
De nada. Anytime.
: Frankly, the reaction of the Left in general and the
: net.left in particular to KKKlintoon's racist attack
: on the Bill of Rights looks to me to have been one
: primarily of embarrassed silence. The nonreaction to
: my posting "Silence of the Net.Left" bears this out;
: the most thoughtful response was from Starr, who suggested
: that perhaps they are just too burned out from "the last
: 12 years".
: Hmm.
: Would Anderson care to speculate what reaction an identical
: policy move by, say, Bush would have prompted from the Left,
: both online and offline?
:
: No?
Well, I was going to; this prememptive rhetorical device, however,
is so very clever that I hate to spoil it. THe floor is yours,
Mr. Taylor.
: I believe I've already done so; we'd be seeing postings
: equating the President with Hitler, Mussolini, etc.
: combined with furious calls for impeachement, now
: wouldn't we?
Oh, almost certainly. I'm glad we agree on that.
: So it seems to me that the Left's defense of the Bill of
: Rights is conditional, depending on who is attacking it.
As is almost everyone's; see Nat Hentoff's wonderful book "Freedom
of Speech for Me, but not for Thee", for examples from all the
sectors of the political rainbow.
: Which makes the Left just a wee bit hypocritical, now
: doesn't it? While that's hardly news, it bears pointing
: out early and often, because the Left is quite fond
: of making the claim that leftists are "more moral",
: "more caring" and "feel the pain of others" to a
: much greater extent than anyone else.
All of which claims, although made less frequently than you
pretend, are entirely absurd--just as absurd as when they are made
by people like noted leftist Pat Buchanan.
: Outside of the ACLU, I don't see many liberals or leftists
: who seem to "feel the pain" of the folks in Chitown
: public housing that have lost part of their civil rights;
: in fact, I can name about 5 online....out of *how* many?
Not many, in this group. I don't frequent many lefty groups, so
I can't comment on the activity there.
: < Is Nosy on record
: < as opposing the Hutu slaughter of their Tutsi countrymen in
: < Rwanda,
: Gosh, I thought that interfering in the internal affairs
: of 3rd World countries was "imperialism" and that "we must
: never, ever again intervene in a civil war that is none of our
: business" and even that "well, maybe it is a part of their
: cultural heritage and it would be cultural genocide to
: intervene from our Eurocentric White Male point of view",
: so I figgered that since I'm not nearly sensitive enough
: nor moral enough to be a "liberal", let alone a real
: live Leftist I wasn't entitled to an opinion on it.
: Shucks, has the Left changed all the rules of political
: decorum *again*?
: How can I subscribe to get regular updates on this, please?
Does the straw get down your shirt and bother you when you do that,
Mr. Taylor, or have you been arguing with strawmen long enough to
get the knack of it? Besides, I didn't ask you to intervene; only
to denounce.
: <or is he a supporter of mass murder?
: Does Anderson have one standard for his political allies
: and a very different standard for those that don't share
: his politics, or does it just look that way?
Just looks that way, Mr. Taylor. Do you plan to continue to use
"the nasty lefties did it first" as your main line of defense here,
or are you going to mix it up a little?
Bill
Zac Thompson
>
> Frankly, the reaction of the Left in general and the
> net.left in particular to KKKlintoon's racist attack
> on the Bill of Rights looks to me to have been one
> primarily of embarrassed silence. The nonreaction to
> my posting "Silence of the Net.Left" bears this out;
> the most thoughtful response was from Starr, who suggested
> that perhaps they are just too burned out from "the last
> 12 years".
Well, if it is "embarrassed silence" then they are obviously
embarrassed. Someone they supported has let them down. So they are
sulking. Yippededee. I haven't heard anyone defending it either...
although I have heard the "net.right" defend some undefendable
positions in their time. They do it all the time here in Canada,
at least.
>
> So it seems to me that the Left's defense of the Bill of
> Rights is conditional, depending on who is attacking it.
>
> Which makes the Left just a wee bit hypocritical, now
> doesn't it? While that's hardly news, it bears pointing
> out early and often, because the Left is quite fond
> of making the claim that leftists are "more moral",
> "more caring" and "feel the pain of others" to a
> much greater extent than anyone else.
>
Yipededee. ObRush: Anyone notice that he never supports
anyone remotely to the left... anymore? Anyone notice that he
never attacks anyone remotely to the right... anymore? Rush used
to at least have his own opinions. So we don't care more than
you or even feel pain at all. If that were true, would it make a
difference? All that you're saying is that the left are starting
to act a little more one-sided. Well, it has happened before, it
will happen again, but it is no more one-sided than the politics
of this group's guest of honour.
> < Is Nosy on record
> < as opposing the Hutu slaughter of their Tutsi countrymen in
> < Rwanda,
>
> Gosh, I thought that interfering in the internal affairs
> of 3rd World countries was "imperialism" and that "we must
> never, ever again intervene in a civil war that is none of our
> business" and even that "well, maybe it is a part of their
> cultural heritage and it would be cultural genocide to
> intervene from our Eurocentric White Male point of view",
> so I figgered that since I'm not nearly sensitive enough
> nor moral enough to be a "liberal", let alone a real
> live Leftist I wasn't entitled to an opinion on it.
I may not agree with what you say, but you have the right to
say it. The point (which you missed... sigh) was that you can't
spend your whole day taking public stands on every issue. Note that
YOU AGREE WITH A LEFTIST ON THIS SUBJECT (horror of horrors) but
have only admitted so in the most roundabout of ways. Good to see
that you "feel the pain" of Rwanda. Isn't the fact that you agree
on this Bill of Rights issue a GOOD thing? Doesn't that just make
it clear that Billie really fucked up here?
>
> <or is he a supporter of mass murder?
>
> Does Anderson have one standard for his political allies
> and a very different standard for those that don't share
> his politics, or does it just look that way?
>
Neither! Christ! That whole paragraph was sarcastic! He
doesn't expect you to have publicly denounced it, nor does he think
you privately support it, but YOU expect HIM to have taken a stand
on ... Oh forget it.
Zac (just wasted his time...)
Mark O. Wilson
| According to the Constitution, the right to be secure from
| warrantless searches is inalienable, ie. not to be taken
| away without due process.
It can't be taken away, but it can be traded away.
--
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.O...@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Nosy
< In article <ATAYLOR.94...@gauss.nmsu.edu>, ata...@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
< >
< > Frankly, the reaction of the Left in general and the
< > net.left in particular to KKKlintoon's racist attack
< > on the Bill of Rights looks to me to have been one
< > primarily of embarrassed silence. The nonreaction to
< > my posting "Silence of the Net.Left" bears this out;
< > the most thoughtful response was from Starr, who suggested
< > that perhaps they are just too burned out from "the last
< > 12 years".
< Well, if it is "embarrassed silence" then they are obviously
< embarrassed.
But are they? I'm not even sure of that...
<Someone they supported has let them down. So they are
<sulking. Yippededee. I haven't heard anyone defending it either...
Do those nasty right-wingers at "The New York Times" count?
The newspaper of record is on record as defending this
racist, unConstitutional policy.
And how about all those Republicans that run "The
Washington Post" editorial page? If memory serves,
the DC company newspaper decided it was ok for poor
black folks to permanently waive their 4th Amendment
rights, too.
< although I have heard the "net.right" defend some undefendable
< positions in their time. They do it all the time here in Canada,
< at least.
Hmm. So stupid positions taken by some Canadian right-
wingers somehow justifies the total absence of any
protest by the Left in the US?
I don't understand how this particular game works,
please explain it to me.
< > So it seems to me that the Left's defense of the Bill of
< > Rights is conditional, depending on who is attacking it.
< >
< > Which makes the Left just a wee bit hypocritical, now
< > doesn't it? While that's hardly news, it bears pointing
< > out early and often, because the Left is quite fond
< > of making the claim that leftists are "more moral",
< > "more caring" and "feel the pain of others" to a
< > much greater extent than anyone else.
< >
< Yipededee.
Great response. Care to try for something more
substantial?
<ObRush: Anyone notice that he never supports
< anyone remotely to the left... anymore? Anyone notice that he
< never attacks anyone remotely to the right... anymore? Rush used
< to at least have his own opinions.
Not particularly, since I don't listen to talk radio.
<So we don't care more than you or even feel pain at all.
Hmm? Then what about all these claims I've heard,
literally all my life, from various leftists ranging
from Clean Gene McCarthy to various Kennedy-types to
Jimmy Carter to KKKlintoon that they are, unlike the
Evil Moneygrubbing GOP, "more sensitive", "more moral",
etc.?
<If that were true, would it make a difference?
Well, just *claiming* it seemed to help get the
current President elected, so..
<All that you're saying is that the left are starting
<to act a little more one-sided.
No, I'm saying that the Left is acting as one-sided
as they ever have, but it is much more blatant than
ever before.
< Well, it has happened before, it
< will happen again, but it is no more one-sided than the politics
< of this group's guest of honour.
Hmm? Who *is* the guest of honor of talk.politics.misc
or talk.politics.guns, for that matter?
< > < Is Nosy on record
< > < as opposing the Hutu slaughter of their Tutsi countrymen in
< > < Rwanda,
< >
< > Gosh, I thought that interfering in the internal affairs
< > of 3rd World countries was "imperialism" and that "we must
< > never, ever again intervene in a civil war that is none of our
< > business" and even that "well, maybe it is a part of their
< > cultural heritage and it would be cultural genocide to
< > intervene from our Eurocentric White Male point of view",
< > so I figgered that since I'm not nearly sensitive enough
< > nor moral enough to be a "liberal", let alone a real
< > live Leftist I wasn't entitled to an opinion on it.
< I may not agree with what you say, but you have the right to
< say it.
Thanks. I sincerely mean that, no sarcasm is intended or
implied; down here in the US, it seems like more and more
speech is being regulated.
<The point (which you missed... sigh) was that you can't
<spend your whole day taking public stands on every issue.
I caught that. The point that both Anderson and Thompson
are missing is that some points *are always worth a
public stand*, and when the President of the US decides
to directly attack the Constitution, it's time to take
a stand *for* the Constitution.
The Left is missing from this fight, quite conspicuously,
with the notable and noteworthy exception of the Chicago
ACLU.
<Note that
<YOU AGREE WITH A LEFTIST ON THIS SUBJECT (horror of horrors)
Hmm. More precisely, a leftists has *finally* agreed
with me on the 4th Amendment; I've been right 'here',
supporting the concept that poor folks have civil rights,
while the Left is out to lunch.
<but have only admitted so in the most roundabout of ways. Good to see
< that you "feel the pain" of Rwanda.
Thompson missed the point, again. The Left wants the US
to intervene in Haiti and to a certain extent in the Balkans;
the same people that held teachins for years on the evils
of intervening in a civil war in Southeast Asia want us
to intervene in a civil war in the Caribbean and in the
Balkans.
Now, doesn't that strike the casual observer as just a bit
passing strange?
< Isn't the fact that you agree
<on this Bill of Rights issue a GOOD thing? Doesn't that just make
<it clear that Billie really fucked up here?
Yes, it does. But considering the amount of work it
took to get *one* Leftist to agree on the one point
(and it's rather a clear point, given the text of the
4th), I have to wonder what it is going to take to
get any other persons of the Left to agree on *this*
point, let alone the not-so-clear-to-some issues
such as 2nd.
< > <or is he a supporter of mass murder?
< >
< > Does Anderson have one standard for his political allies
< > and a very different standard for those that don't share
< > his politics, or does it just look that way?
< >
< Neither! Christ! That whole paragraph was sarcastic!
Yes, I saw that. So?
< He doesn't expect you to have publicly denounced it, nor does he think
< you privately support it, but YOU expect HIM to have taken a stand
< on ...
On the Constitution of the United States, which is currently
under attack by the President of the United States.
Like it or not, that attack affects Anderson and all the
rest of the US posters one hell of a lot more than a
civil war in Africa.
<Oh forget it.
Nope, sorry, I cannot just forget the document that the
President took an oath to uphold.
Bill Anderson
: Do those nasty right-wingers at "The New York Times" count?
: The newspaper of record is on record as defending this
: racist, unConstitutional policy.
The newspaper of record is, in fact, on record as opposing the
policy; in an unsigned editorial published on April 20, the
editors of the NYT call the policy "of extremely dubious
constitutionality", and denounce it roundly. In signed editorials
(which are explicitly not indicative of the opinion of the
editorial board) published in other issues, the policy has been
supported by the cretinous Abe Rosenthal, and also by the chairman
of the Chicago Housing Authority and a writer for a magazine on
local government issues; it has been denounced in the pages of the
NYT by Ira Glasser of the ACLU and two professors from Harvard's
Criminal Justice Institute. Opinion on the editorial page has
been evenly divided on the issue, but the paper itself is
explicitly and unequivocally opposed.
Would Mr. Taylor like to retract, or have I missed something?
Bill
page been evenly divided about the is,
Roy S Rapoport
-> Wunnerful; that makes B. Anderson the first person
-> left of liberal that's done so to my imperfect knowledge.
I'm not sure what "left of liberal" is, but I'm probably included.
-> I believe I've already done so; we'd be seeing postings
-> equating the President with Hitler, Mussolini, etc.
-> combined with furious calls for impeachement, now
-> wouldn't we?
Possibly; I suspect quite a few people are more partisan than patriotic,
unfortunately. Let me go on record, though, as a liberal (maybe even more
left than a liberal) and say that in my humble opinion, Clinton has
committed treason and should not only be impeached, but be found guilty of
treason and given whatever sentence it is you get these days.
-> So it seems to me that the Left's defense of the Bill of
-> Rights is conditional, depending on who is attacking it.
What's "the left"? I mean, I hear of this amorphoeous movement, this 'left'
creature. I've never talked with someone who said they were "speaking for
the left." Does the left release press statements? Who speaks for them/us?
-roy
Roy S. Rapoport -- 510-601-8356 -- r...@soda.berkeley.edu -- RSRSODA@UCBOCF
ObDisclaimer: I may change my opinion in five or ten years.
finger r...@soda.berkeley.edu for PGP public key
Lee Razer
In a previous article, r...@soda.berkeley.edu (Roy S Rapoport) says:
>Nosy <ata...@nmsu.edu> wrote:
>
>-> Wunnerful; that makes B. Anderson the first person
>-> left of liberal that's done so to my imperfect knowledge.
>
>I'm not sure what "left of liberal" is, but I'm probably included.
I know I am. What was it that B. Anderson did that he was the first
person left of liberal to do? I guess I missed it, and am quite curious
now to know what it was. Maybe I can do it too! :-)
>-> I believe I've already done so; we'd be seeing postings
>-> equating the President with Hitler, Mussolini, etc.
>-> combined with furious calls for impeachement, now
>-> wouldn't we?
>
>Possibly; I suspect quite a few people are more partisan than patriotic,
>unfortunately. Let me go on record, though, as a liberal (maybe even more
>left than a liberal) and say that in my humble opinion, Clinton has
>committed treason and should not only be impeached, but be found guilty of
>treason and given whatever sentence it is you get these days.
I've been sitting here racking my brain to figure out what Clinton did that
could be considered treason, and I can't think of anything. Can anyone help
me out?
BTW, Isn't the penalty for treason death?
>-> So it seems to me that the Left's defense of the Bill of
>-> Rights is conditional, depending on who is attacking it.
>
>What's "the left"? I mean, I hear of this amorphoeous movement, this 'left'
>creature. I've never talked with someone who said they were "speaking for
>the left." Does the left release press statements? Who speaks for them/us?
The left is not one big group of people who all agree with each other. The
left, in this country, is made up of many small groups who share many common
ideals, but also disagree with each other on many points. It is impossible
for one group or one person to speak for all the left.
>-roy
>
------------------
Lee Razer
Tiocfaidh ar La/ !