ADOLF HITLER: LEFTIST or OF THE RIGHTWING
Georges Skorpios
>Does it really matter whether Hitler was leftist or rightist? He was a
>monster just like any other dictator. He's gone, thank God.
>--
>"Look down, and show some mercy if you can! Look down, look down upon
>your fellow man!" -- ("Les Miserables" Musical)
>It only matters today in that the devious, sinister left continues
to perpetuate the fiction that Hitler and his National SOCIALIST
or fascist, Nazi Party were right wing when they were actually
left wing. They were socialists and Marxists basically. We have
proved that. History proves it.
Also today the dissembling leftists will attack liberal democrats
like Thatcher, Reagan, Gingrich, Preston Manning, Mike Harris and Ralph
Klein by saying that these politicians are "just like Hitler", they
are nazis. In the twisted logic of the left, anyone who desires less
government is a fascist or a Nazi; he is like Hitler. This is absurd.
Any racist, anarchist or so-called neo-nazi to them is right wing.
This is a distortion and lie. I defy them to prove that Ernst Zundel
or Timothy McVeigh are of the right. Socialists, Marxists, and
communinists can be racist and undemocratic too.
The most egregious example of the left's duplicity was seen when the
Soviet Union was collapsing a few years ago.
The "liberals" in the media kept referring to the old Stanlinists and
hard line
communists as "conservatives" or right wingers. Well, they have
been doing something very similar to that in calling Hitler's Third
Reich conservative, capitalistic and right-wing when the opposite was
true. These despicable leftists have put
genuine right-wingers today on the defensive with their Machiavellian
stategy. In our postings we have been trying to expose this big lie of
and hoax of the left.
Today,as in the early part of the twentieth century, if there is
a threat to democracy it comes from the left, which is collectivist,
not the right, which champions individual freedom with responsiblity
and less government.
Georges Skorpios
>In article <4d3cls$q...@news1.sympatico.ca> Georges Skorpios <skor...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>
>>cap...@cuug.ab.ca wrote:
>>>Does it really matter whether Hitler was leftist or rightist? He was a
>>>monster just like any other dictator. He's gone, thank God.
>>>--
>>>"
>
>> to perpetuate the fiction that Hitler and his National SOCIALIST
>> or fascist, Nazi Party were right wing when they were actually
>> left wing. They were socialists and Marxists basically.
>
>
>>
>You obviously have an ulterior motive in perversely persisting,
in your fallacious claim that Hitler was somehow right wing and not a
socialist and collectivist. There are many different people
on the Net who recently have written postings and followups helping to
destroy your fiction and lie.
As for Rush Limbaugh, he shows a hell of a lot more intelligence
in his books than you have displayed on the Internet. And when Rush
Limbaugh refers to the radical, leftist feminists as "feminazis"
he is right on. They are extremists and socialists just like Hitler's
National Socialist Party was. We have seen how undemocratic and
intolerant these feminists are at their meetings.
David Reilley
>cap...@cuug.ab.ca wrote:
>>Does it really matter whether Hitler was leftist or rightist? He was a
>>monster just like any other dictator. He's gone, thank God.
>>--
>>"Look down, and show some mercy if you can! Look down, look down upon
>>your fellow man!" -- ("Les Miserables" Musical)
>>It only matters today in that the devious, sinister left continues
> to perpetuate the fiction that Hitler and his National SOCIALIST
> or fascist, Nazi Party were right wing when they were actually
> left wing. They were socialists and Marxists basically.
No they weren't. They were facists. Big difference
> We have proved that.
Only to yourselves.
>History proves it.
History shows that hitler never adopted Marx' class analysis, and never
confiscated the "means of production" from the capitalist owners (unless they
were Jewish, in which case their "crime" in Nazi eyes was based on rase, not
on economic class). These elements are the core beliefs of Narxism, and
Hitler never instituted them, and it is riduculous to say history proved
hitler was a Marxist when in fact history proves nothing of the sort.
Harry Fulton
waves his right hand it appears to me to be waving on the left of my
vision. Maybe this whole left-right thing is just a matter of
*perspective*.
Harry.
John Angus
Georges Skorpios <skor...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>cap...@cuug.ab.ca wrote:
>>Does it really matter whether Hitler was leftist or rightist? He was a
>>monster just like any other dictator. He's gone, thank God.
>
> to perpetuate the fiction that Hitler and his National SOCIALIST
> or fascist, Nazi Party were right wing when they were actually
> proved that. History proves it.
>
this is nonsense. The fact that they called themselves socialists
means nothing. All the communist regimes prided in calling themselves
democrats, after all.
> Also today the dissembling leftists will attack liberal democrats
> like Thatcher, Reagan, Gingrich, Preston Manning, Mike Harris and Ralph
> Klein by saying that these politicians are "just like Hitler", they
> are nazis. In the twisted logic of the left, anyone who desires less
> government is a fascist or a Nazi; he is like Hitler. This is absurd.
I agree.
> Any racist, anarchist or so-called neo-nazi to them is right wing.
> This is a distortion and lie. I defy them to prove that Ernst Zundel
> or Timothy McVeigh are of the right. Socialists, Marxists, and
> communinists can be racist and undemocratic too.
The last sentence is certainly true. However, Zundel's politics (dunno
McVeigh) are definately on the far right.
> The most egregious example of the left's duplicity was seen when the
> Soviet Union was collapsing a few years ago.
> The "liberals" in the media kept referring to the old Stanlinists and
> hard line
> communists as "conservatives" or right wingers. Well, they have
In the topsy turvy world of communism I suppose up is down and left
is right. The old guard were conservatives if you consider the essence
of being a conservative is clinging to tradition and opposing change.
> been doing something very similar to that in calling Hitler's Third
> Reich conservative, capitalistic and right-wing when the opposite was
> true.
I always think of politics as a circle. The further you get to the
left (or right) the closer you get to your polar opposites. Perhaps
that's where you're confused. The Nazis were right wing, but so far
to the right they had many similiarities to the extreme left.
> Today,as in the early part of the twentieth century, if there is
> a threat to democracy it comes from the left, which is collectivist,
> not the right, which champions individual freedom with responsiblity
> and less government.
>
Sometimes. There are a good many right-wingers, however, who believe
deeply in government interferance with private behaviour, especially
when they dissaprove of the morality or perceived morality of what
other people are doing. Ie, abortion, pornography, sexual behaviour.
(much of the right, come to think of it, is pretty hung up on sex)
JA
--
John D Angus | We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeaouring
Ottawa, Ontario | to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure,
CANADA | stifling it would be an evil still
-John Stuart Mill
David Reilley
>> What annoys us on the political right is that
Geroges/John/Joe/Cerise/afraid-to-use-your-real-name
You are not on the right. The right thinks you are crazy.
You are out there on the fringe, along with people who define Marc Lepine as a
"freedom fighter".
Georges Skorpios
> Or in baseball why does a lefthanded batter hit from the right hand
side of the plate (i.e. from the catcher's or home plate ump's
perspective).
> What annoys us on the political right is that for decades "liberals",
leftists and Marxists have maligned right-wingers by deviously
associating them with fascism and Hitler's atrocities by
perpetuating the fiction that Hitler was of the extreme right, when
all the time he was a socialist and leftist.
Joe Sorrento
>Another pack of fantasy and lies from Cerise (not her real name) Lopez.
>
>==================================================================
>
>In article <DL2oGF.nK7...@news.enterprise.ca> Cerise Lopez
><cobra2@enterprise.c> writes:
>
>>It does matter a great deal. The left in our society today use Hitler as
>>a scapegoat for all the evil that Marxism, communism and socialism has
>>caused in the 20'th century. They will begrudgingly admit that Marxism has
>>caused some deaths through Stalin
>
>Begrudgiing??? Even Kruschev admitted that.
>Please name one person living in North America who is begrudging in admitting
>that Stalin was a mass murderer.
>If you go back and read carefully what was said it is that Hitler has
been demonized far, far more than Stalin, Lenin or Mao all of whom had their
own holocausts and genocides to answer for.
Just recently a leftist U.S congressman called Newt Gingrich a modern-day
Hitler for trying to reduce government spending. Why did he make a reference
to Hitler and not Stalin or Mao? This is not an isolated incident; it happens all
the time. And you know it.
>
>Where do you get this stuff -- are these the bits that Rish Limbuagh decided
>not to use because they were too ridiculus even for him? I haven't heard such
>nonensnse since the Trots used to stand up on tables and give speeches in at
>the student union building in the sixties.
>
>
>
>>For example, compare the large number of Hollywood movies
>>or TV presentations on Hitler's evil Nazis (and they were monstrously
>>evil, no question) and those few movies decrying Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol
>>Pot, Kim IL Sung, Castro, etc.
>
>You really ARE a nincompoop, aren't you? Tens of millions of people from
>democratic countries fought Hitler or endured his reign. This was became part
>of our collective experience, and remains so, two generations later. How many
>people in the movie viewing audience (North America and Western Europe) had
>direct experience with the evil of stalin? A very small proportion of the
>number who had direct experience with the evil of hitler. That's why we have
>movies about Naziism - not because of some left wing conspiracy.
>
>Are you implying that unless one has direct experience with a particular
evil in the world that it is therefore less evil? Very few people alive
today have had direct experience with either Stalin's or Hitler's regimes, yet it is
always Hitler who is demonized with Stalin hardly ever mentioned. And one reason is,
that our historians , media , Hollywood, academics and many teaches are "liberals" and through
ignorance or ideological reasons persist in designating Hitler as right wing and Stalin as a
socialist who went wrong. Just as in Orwell's "Animal Farm" the propagandists reitered the
slogan "four legs good; two legs bad", with our "liberals" it is leftwing good; rightwing bad"
and they continue to perpetuate the fiction, myth and lie that Hitler was rightwing.
>If you get much furher out there on the edge, you're going to fall off.
>
>
>
>>"This guy is right wing. We had watch him. He is
>>a potential fascist. If we are not careful, we will end up with another
>>Hitler and more holocausts".
>
>Who is saying that?? Name names.
>Name one North American publication with a circulation over 5,000 which has
>said this. Name one TV commentator. Name one academic journal.
>You are so full of bullshit.
>
>
>
> ... blah blah blah ...
David Reilley
begin the discussionby making ridiculous statementws about Hitler and Marxism.
I challenged her in a second post.
Then Lambourn, operating under a second pseudoname (Sorrento) jumps in and
defends this other phony name (Lopez) trying to make it look like there is
more than one person argunig his goofy right-wing theories.
Pathetic, isn't it.
==========================================================================
In article <4d8pf2$e...@steel.interlog.com> gi...@interlog.com (Joe Sorrento)
writes:
>drei...@pinc.com (David Reilley) wrote:
>>Another pack of fantasy and lies from Cerise (not her real name) Lopez.
>>In article <DL2oGF.nK7...@news.enterprise.ca> Cerise Lopez
Mark Mushet
>In this thread we see John Lambourn, operating under the name Cerise Lopez,
>begin the discussionby making ridiculous statementws about Hitler and Marxism.
>I challenged her in a second post.
>Then Lambourn, operating under a second pseudoname (Sorrento) jumps in and
>defends this other phony name (Lopez) trying to make it look like there is
>more than one person argunig his goofy right-wing theories.
>Pathetic, isn't it.
Yes. And not a denial in sight, this time. So has John "Cherry"
Lambourn ever posted as himself, in your view?
MRM
David Reilley
>Subject: Re: ADOLF HITLER: LEFTIST or OF THE RIGHTWING
>Date: Sat, 13 Jan 96 18:17:21 GMT
>drei...@pinc.com (David Reilley) wrote:
>>Another pack of fantasy and lies from Cerise (not her real name) Lopez.
>>
>>==================================================================
>>
>>In article <DL2oGF.nK7...@news.enterprise.ca> Cerise Lopez
>><cobra2@enterprise.c> writes:
>>
>>>It does matter a great deal. The left in our society today use Hitler as
>>>a scapegoat for all the evil that Marxism, communism and socialism has
>>>caused in the 20'th century. They will begrudgingly admit that Marxism has
>>>caused some deaths through Stalin
>>
>>Begrudgiing??? Even Kruschev admitted that.
>>Please name one person living in North America who is begrudging in admitting
>>that Stalin was a mass murderer.
>>If you go back and read carefully what was said it is that Hitler has
> been demonized far, far more than Stalin, Lenin or Mao all of whom had their
> own holocausts and genocides to answer for.
Move your eye three paragraphs up.
The words were"They will begrudgingly admit that Marxism has
caused some deaths through Stalin" My question again: Pleasename one person
living in North America who is begrudging in admittingthat Stalin was a mass
murderer.
>>>For example, compare the large number of Hollywood movies
>>>or TV presentations on Hitler's evil Nazis (and they were monstrously
>>>evil, no question) and those few movies decrying Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol
>>>Pot, Kim IL Sung, Castro, etc.
>>
>>You really ARE a nincompoop, aren't you? Tens of millions of people from
>>democratic countries fought Hitler or endured his reign. This was became part
>>of our collective experience, and remains so, two generations later. How many
>>people in the movie viewing audience (North America and Western Europe) had
>>direct experience with the evil of stalin? A very small proportion of the
>>number who had direct experience with the evil of hitler. That's why we have
>>movies about Naziism - not because of some left wing conspiracy.
>>Are you implying that unless one has direct experience with a particular
> evil in the world that it is therefore less evil? Not at all. Iam saying
(not implying) that the evil of Hitleer is much more real to the audience for
Hollywood movies because they have had direct exoerience with this evil, where
this aydience has not (to anywhere the same extent) had direct experience
with the evil of Stalin. So Hollywood chooses the villan "close to home"
because the audience has a connection which makes brings them to the theatre.
YOU SAID THAT CRITICS OF THE AMERICAN RIGHT SAY:
>>>"This guy is right wing. We had watch him. He is
>>>a potential fascist. If we are not careful, we will end up with another
>>>Hitler and more holocausts".
I CHALLENGED YOU TO BACK UP THAT STATEMENT:
>>Who is saying that?? Name names.
>>Name one North American publication with a circulation over 5,000 which has
>>said this. Name one TV commentator. Name one academic journal.
>>You are so full of bullshit.
THIS WAS YOUR WAY OF BACKING UP YOUR NONESENSE:
> ... blah blah blah ...
Which just about sums up ALL of your ridiculous argument.
Mike Dickson
drei...@pinc.com "David Reilley" writes:
> In this thread we see John Lambourn, operating under the name Cerise Lopez,
> begin the discussionby making ridiculous statementws about Hitler and Marxism.
>
> Pathetic, isn't it.
It's also stunningly tedious. If you insist on pandering to this lunatic
by answering his/ever every post then at least have the decency to trim
the newsgroup list. Preferably leaving alt.politics.british out of it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dickson, Black Cat Software Factory, Musselburgh, Midlothian, Scotland
mi...@blackcat.demon.co.uk - Fax 0131-653-6124 - Columnated Ruins Domino
David Reilley
gi...@interlog.com (Joe Sorrento - not his real name) writes:
>Yes, it matters a great deal, Cabrina. There is a titanic
>ideological struggle going on
>in N.A. at the present time between
>the left and the right. The left continues to attack
>the right by charging them, whenever the right attacks
>socialist policy and social engineering, for being "fascist",
>and "just like Hitler"
Could we have several examples of this.
Please cite anyone invol;ved with a major "liberal" political party, or any
major "liberal" media whic has resorted to this hyperbole.
The last time I asked you to get specific with this accusation, your answer
was, and I quote, "blah, blah,blah"
You really *are* just a gasbag aren't you.
Joe Sorrento
>Does it really matter whether Hitler was leftist or rightist? He was a
>monster just like any other dictator. He's gone, thank God.
>"Look down, and show some mercy if you can! Look down, look down upon
>your fellow man!" -- ("Les Miserables" Musical)
Yes, it matters a great deal, Cabrina. There is a titanic
ideological struggle going on
in N.A. at the present time between
the left and the right. The left continues to attack
the right by charging them, whenever the right attacks
socialist policy and social engineering, for being "fascist",
and "just like Hitler". It is just intolerable for lefists, "liberals"
socialists and Marxists, whatever they call themselves, when
it is correctly pointed out that their favourite demon, Adolph
Hitler--they never mention Lenin, Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot--
was really a socialist and leftist just lilke them.
So the next time you hear a" liberal" academic, media
or Hollywood personality or leftist politician refer to
Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Phil Gramm, Preston
Manning, Ralph Klein or Mike Harris as a fascist or
Hitler-like, say to yourself that this is unfair,
and a distortion of history as Hitler was a socialist
and not a right-winger.
David Reilley
(Terry Johnson) writes:
>In <4dbpba$q...@steel.interlog.com,
>gi...@interlog.com (Joe Sorrento - not his real name) writes:
>>So the next time you hear a" liberal" academic, media
>>or Hollywood personality or leftist politician refer to
>>Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Phil Gramm, Preston
>>Manning, Ralph Klein or Mike Harris as a fascist or
>>Hitler-like,
>Give me one example of a credible politician, academic
>or journalist who equated the ideas of any of these men
>with Adolph Hitler's, and I'll give you three who equated
>the ideas of democratic socialists with Pol Pot's and
>Stalin's. That's a challenge.
I have made the same challenge to Sorrento (not his real name) several times
when he has made this ridiculous accusation. As usual, he has no facts and
no real evidence to back up his gasbag rhetoric.
Mike Dickson
cobra2@enterprise.c "Cerise Lopez" writes:
> Why should "alt.politics.british" be left out of these threads
> discussing the evil that socialism, Marxism, communism and fascism have
> caused to Western civilization?
Mostly because you are an extremely irritating bore with far too much
free time on his/her hands, who never seems to know what name you are
going to post under...
> In his great book, "The Road to Serfdom" F. A. Hayek worries
...and who appears to have read one book and one book only.
Terry Johnson
>
>Yes, it matters a great deal, Cabrina. There is a titanic
>ideological struggle going on
>in N.A. at the present time between
>the left and the right. The left continues to attack
>the right by charging them, whenever the right attacks
>socialist policy and social engineering, for being "fascist",
>and "just like Hitler". It is just intolerable for lefists, "liberals"
>socialists and Marxists, whatever they call themselves, when
>it is correctly pointed out that their favourite demon, Adolph
>Hitler--they never mention Lenin, Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot--
>was really a socialist and leftist just lilke them.
>
to demonize their opponents.
Lazy thinkers also ignore all evidence that might contradict
their pet beliefs. It's only through wilful ignorance that
anyone could equate political ideologies so disparate as
fascism and socialism.
>So the next time you hear a" liberal" academic, media
>or Hollywood personality or leftist politician refer to
>Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Phil Gramm, Preston
>Manning, Ralph Klein or Mike Harris as a fascist or
>Hitler-like, say to yourself that this is unfair,
>and a distortion of history as Hitler was a socialist
>and not a right-winger.
Give me one example of a credible politician, academic
or journalist who equated the ideas of any of these men
with Adolph Hitler's, and I'll give you three who equated
the ideas of democratic socialists with Pol Pot's and
Stalin's. That's a challenge.
The difference between the "left" and the "right" is
that the left has to a great extent come to an understanding
of the danger totalitarianism poses within their own ranks.
That's because what unites the left is a belief in the
commonality of man. The right, for the most part, has
continued to whitewash its own totalitarian impulses.
How many leading conservative thinkers, for example,
condemned the support the American government gave
to the death squads in El Salvador and the murderous
gangs of thugs that preyed on Nicaragua? Christ, the
conservative movement in the US still acts as if their
country were the victim of their invasion of Vietnam.
The left boasts men like Orwell and Koestler who were
willing to scold the totalitarians who marched along
with them. Where are the Orwells and Koestlers of the
right? There aren't any.
------------------------------------------------
Terry Johnson \\ It's not that we're on Marx's side. It's
a...@ccinet.ab.ca \\ that Marx was on our side--E.P. Thompson
Georges Skorpios
Okay, Mike, I'll give you the titles of some other good books to read
as a corrective to the socialist garbage that has polluted your mind:
"Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith
"To Renew America" by Newt Gingrich
"The Trouble with Canada" by William Gairdner
"Losing Ground" by Charles Murray
"Free to Choose" by Milton Friedman
"The Bell Curve, Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life"
by Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein
David Reilley
>From: Cerise Lopez <cobra2@enterprise.c>
>Subject: Re: ADOLF HITLER: GOEBBELS WOULD BE PROUD OF LAMBOURN
>Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 14:15:10 GMT
>Mike Dickson <Mi...@blackcat.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <dreilley.17...@pinc.com>
>> drei...@pinc.com "David Reilley" writes:
>>
>>"Goebbels would be proud..."
> Did you know that Hitler and Goebbels
> learned the importance of propaganda, its techniques and its political
> effectiveness from Lenin and his Bolsheviks.
And he borrowed certain radio and film techniques from the Americans. This
neither made him and American or a Bloshevik. Is this really your idea of
logic?
> The early Bolsheviks
> had a world-wide network for their communist propaganda and it was very
> effective in spreading Marxist ideology in the U.S. in the 1920s
> and 1930's.
And in 1995 YOU have a world-wide network (the Internet) for spreading YOUR
goofy propaganda. (The rest of us think of it as a world wide humour
network.) What's your point?
> Of course, in the 1940s Stalin was still affectionately
> known as "Uncle Joe".
To whom? This is a pretty lame argument.
David Boothroyd
In article <DL87LB.o1w...@news.enterprise.ca>, John Lambourn
>
> Why should "alt.politics.british" be left out of these threads discussing
> the evil that socialism, Marxism, communism and fascism have caused
> notorious London School of Economics where communist Harold Laski
> (1893-1950) and his academic successors and disciples
> brainwashed hundreds of North Americans like Pierre Trudeau, David
> Lewis and Bill Clinton making them even more Marxist than they would
> ordinarily have been?
The LSE is hardly 'notorious' even among right-wingers. It has produced
many right-wing graduates and has (even now) a sizable and active Conservative
organisation.
Harold Laski was no communist either. He was on the left-wing of the Labour
Party and a democratic socialist.
Parties of the far right and far left do badly in British elections. The
last time a Communist was elected to parliament was 1945, and the last
truly far right MP was Commander Maule Ramsay who was imprisoned during
the war under Defence Regulation 18b. Ramsay was a Conservative MP.
--
\/ David "electionibo" Boothroyd (Associate Editor PMS Parliamentary Companion)
I wish I was in North Dakota. * http://nyx10.cs.du.edu:8001/~dboothro/home.html
The House of Commons now : C 324, Lab 270, L Dem 25, UU 9, PC 4, SDLP 4, SNP 4,
UDUP 3, Ind C 1, Ind UU 1, Vac 2, Spkrs 4. C overall majority 3. Tel. Tate 6125
Mike Dickson
skor...@sympatico.ca "Georges Skorpios" writes:
> Okay, Mike, I'll give you the titles of some other good books to read
> as a corrective to the socialist garbage that has polluted your mind:
Your poor over-wrought and permanently dimmed intellect seems to assume
that anyone who takes a contrary stance to the shit you are pumping on a
daily basis has to be a socialist. I'm not and never have been. I just
have the ability recognise an outright fuckwit when I hear one.
Cerise Lopez
>In article <4dh171$j...@news1.sympatico.ca>
> skor...@sympatico.ca "Georges Skorpios" writes:
>
>> Okay, Mike, I'll give you the titles of some other good books to read
>> as a corrective to the socialist garbage that has polluted your mind:
>
>Your poor over-wrought and permanently dimmed intellect seems to assume
>that anyone who takes a contrary stance to the shit you are pumping on a
>daily basis has to be a socialist. I'm not and never have been. I just
>have the ability recognise an outright fuckwit when I hear one.
>
a socialist I'm sure you wouldn't be all worked up by our postings.
The problem is with a lot of you assholes, you have have been so
conditioned and brainwashed that you actually believe you are not
leftists. I'll bet you go around calling yourself a "moderate", right?
You have certainly shown that you are not going to open up your mind
by venturing to read a right-wing book. But obviously you don't have
a mind.
Cerise Lopez
left. Socialists like David Rielley or Terri Johnson could have written
that.
Communists, Marxists and socialists in North America and Great Britain
almost never have the decency or honesty to admit their true political
and ideological affiliation. In the U.S. they make up a big proportion
of the Democratic Party referring to themselves as "liberals" or
"moderates".They even sometimes infilrate the Republican
Party. In Canada they long ago took over the federal conservative Party,
changing its name to the Progressive (i.e.socialist) Conservative Party.
Such P.C politicians as Bill Davis, Joe Clark, Brian Mulroney, Dalton
Camp, Larry Grossman, Kim Campbell have all been very left of centre
Red Tories. Both the Liberal and NDP parties are socialist.
Look, you cannot have a nation in which
51% of the national income is confiscated by government and call it
anything else but socialist. I believe it is much the same in the U.K
even after Margaret Thatcher as in the U.S. government still is taking
over 40% of national income well after the Reagan Revolution.
of national income.
So just because there are no politicians running as Marxists or
commies in our democracies doesn't mean a thing.
Mike Dickson
cobra2@enterprise.c "Cerise Lopez" writes:
> >Bullshit your not a socialist. Scotland is full of them. If you weren't
> a socialist I'm sure you wouldn't be all worked up by our postings.
I see. So your horribly limited intellect has an equally horrible view
of what politics is Scotland is like and has an equally limited view of
what 'logic' is. I turn the tables of you; America is 'full of' black
people, ergo you must be black and no amount of refutation or proof from
you will alter that fact.
My source of irritation isn't a function of me (supposedly) being a
socialist. My source of irritation is with you knowingly posting typical
revisionist lies under several assumed names. So much for your
convictions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dickson [Team OS/2], Black Cat Software Factory, Musselburgh, Scotland
mi...@blackcat.demon.co.uk - Fax 0131-653-6124 - Columnated Ruins Domino
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
: >Bullshit your not a socialist. Scotland is full of them. If you weren't
: a socialist I'm sure you wouldn't be all worked up by our postings.
: The problem is with a lot of you assholes, you have have been so
: conditioned and brainwashed that you actually believe you are not
: leftists. I'll bet you go around calling yourself a "moderate", right?
: You have certainly shown that you are not going to open up your mind
: by venturing to read a right-wing book. But obviously you don't have
: a mind.
Are you Cerise, Joe, or Charlie? Don't you have anything better to do
with your time?
--
Buddy K
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
: What you have written is just more devious, specious claptrap of the
Who the hell are you to tell us what labels we have to pin on ourselves?
--
Buddy K
Georges Skorpios
By the way do you know Jason Kodish from Edmonton, Alberta?
You are both congenital leftists and too often lead with your chins.
But it is so easy to demolish leftists as your ideological position
is so weak and indefensible. For example, how on earth could one
defend Michael Dukakis, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Barney Frank,
Ted Kennedy, Mario Cuomo or Bill and Hillary Clinton? I know you try,
but your efforts always seem to end in miserable, pathetic failure
and embarrassment.
David Reilley
>Cerise Lopez (cobra2@enterprise.c) wrote:
>: So just because there are no politicians running as Marxists or
>: commies in our democracies doesn't mean a thing.
>Who the hell are you to tell us what labels we have to pin on ourselves?
"She" is really John Lambourn, who also has other phony names which he uses
to create the false impression that a gang of people are supporting goofy
theories which are in reality supported by a collective of one.
He is also God.
He is also in charge of arbitrarily re-defining the meaning of words in the
English Language.
(For example, as of today, the word "socialist" now means "anyone who doesn't
believe in the death penalty." I don't know where this leaves Stalin, who
certainly DID believe in capital punishment, or Jesus Christ, who certainly
didn't: "... let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone.".)
Georges Skorpios
>In article <DLHopC.oqt...@news.enterprise.ca> Cerise Lopez <cobra2@enterprise.c> writes:
>>From: Cerise Lopez <cobra2@enterprise.c>
>>Subject: Re: ADOLF HITLER: GOEBBELS WOULD BE PROUD OF LAMBOURN
>
>>What you have written is just more devious, specious claptrap of the
>>left. Socialists like David Rielley or Terri Johnson could have written
>>that.
>
>>Communists, Marxists and socialists in North America and Great Britain
>>almost never have the decency or honesty to admit their true political
>>and ideological affiliation. In the U.S. they make up a big proportion
>>of the Democratic Party referring to themselves as "liberals" or
>>"moderates".
>
on national TV before the 1993 federal election. To Margaret
Thatcher she would be a "wet". You know that.
> On national TV Kim made the incredibly stupid statement that she
didn't believe in capital punishment, you know, euthanizing brutal
murderers like Clifford Olsen or Paul Bernardo because it is not
a deterrent. She said she knows it is not a deterrent because they
have it (sic) in the U.S. and it doesn't work.
Well Kim, they don't have de facto
capital punishment in the U.S. at all. I believe there has been
something like 250,000 murders in the U.S. and only about 70
executions since 1972. THAT IS NOT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. Murderers have
about a much chance as getting a reasonable hasty execution in
the U.S. as you or I would of winning a lottery grand prize, Zilch.
David Reilley
>>>From: Cerise Lopez <cobra2@enterprise.c>
>>>Communists, Marxists and socialists in North America and Great Britain
>>>almost never have the decency or honesty to admit their true political
>>>and ideological affiliation. In the U.S. they make up a big proportion
>>>of the Democratic Party referring to themselves as "liberals" or
>>>"moderates".
>>
>> Come on, Dave, Bill Vander Zam called Kim Campbell a Red Tory
Nice dishonest editing of followups here Georges (not your real name):
You edit out oput the part where you cal;led Kim Campbell a socialist, and you
edited out the part where I responded and said that I knew Kim Campbell, that
she was fiercely opposed to socialism and that she would kick your butt if you
were stupid enough to say this nonesence to her face.
If you think Bill Vander Zalm is a credible source, this is more a comment on
you than on Kim Campbell. Vander Zalm is the laughing stock of B.C. Politics
(the same niche you occupy on the USENET), and the last thing any of the
"anti-socialist" politicians in BC want is his endorsement: it is the kiss of
death. He was forced to resign after the legislature's Conflict of Interest
commissioner (definately not a SOCIALIST) found him in conflict of interest.
Vander Zalm also hated Campbell because she disagreed with him -- publicly --
on abortion, and resigned her seat while a member of his caucus. Also at the
leadership convention where vander Zalm was elected party leader she made an
implicit reference to Zalm which fillowed him for years: "Charisma without
substance is a dangerous thing...."
The fact remains that Campbell dislikes socialism as much as you, and for you
to call her a "socialist" just shows how unbalanced your view of the world has
become.
>> On national TV Kim made the incredibly stupid statement that she
> didn't believe in capital punishment, you know, euthanizing brutal
> murderers like Clifford Olsen or Paul Bernardo because it is not
> a deterrent. She said she knows it is not a deterrent because they
> have it (sic) in the U.S. and it doesn't work.
> Well Kim, they don't have de facto
> capital punishment in the U.S. at all. I believe there has been
> something like 250,000 murders in the U.S. and only about 70
> executions since 1972. THAT IS NOT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. Murderers have
> about a much chance as getting a reasonable hasty execution in
> the U.S. as you or I would of winning a lottery grand prize, Zilch.
What the HELL does this have to do with whether or not Kim Campbell is a
socialist? Uhhhh.... Earth to Georges? Are you there???
(This HAS to be a joke, right?)
Mark Mushet
snip
> Well Kim, they don't have de facto
> capital punishment in the U.S. at all. I believe there has been
> something like 250,000 murders in the U.S. and only about 70
> executions since 1972. THAT IS NOT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. Murderers have
> about a much chance as getting a reasonable hasty execution in
> the U.S. as you or I would of winning a lottery grand prize, Zilch.
More poorly researched SHIT from Lambourn as "Skorpios". There have
been over 200 executions in the US since 1976 when the Death penalty
was reinstated. In addition, there are at least 20 cases wherein death
sentences were commuted, retrials ordered, or persons acquitted
because evidence subsequently surfaced that revealed perjured evidence
(sometimes involving the police), tampering with evidence (sometimes
by the police), political interference, OR THE REAL MURDERER WAS
FOUND. And this DESPITE the lengthly and cumbersome appeal processes.
And, to boot, these are the only KNOWN cases of improperly ordered
executions.
Go do your homework, little boy.
Mark Mushet
>sut...@portal.ca (Mark Mushet) wrote:
>>Georges Skorpios <skor...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>snip
>>
>>>
>>More poorly researched SHIT from Lambourn as "Skorpios". There have
>>been over 200 executions in the US since 1976 when the Death penalty
>>was reinstated.
>>
>>Go do your homework, little boy.
>>
>>What a useless followup you have written here. Two hundred executions
> since 1976. That's about 10 a year. Do you know that there are
> about 25,000 or more homicides each year in the U.S.? Of the 10
> executions, the murders probably took place about 9 or 10 years earlier
> on average. That is not really capital punishment. How the hell could
> that ever be an effective deterrent?
Name one study that has concluded that capital punishment is, in fact,
a deterrent. Would you really want "the state" to run a more
"efficient" killing machine? That's a slippery slope, John Lambourn.
> I did not take the time to look up the exact statistics for my
> original post, but the thrust of my argument is intact.
But elsewhere, one of your alter egos claims that you all check and
review each "others" posts before they go out. If you had to look up
those facts, then you don't know much about the issue. These are basic
facts that are common knowledge to anyone who has a real interest in
the subject.
> Capital punishment was a big issue in New York state in the last
> election and fortunately it got rid of Cuomo as governor.However, now
> that Pitacki has had capital punishment reinstated we learn that no
> one will be executed if he or she pleads guilty at the outset.
> And they are going to pretend that that is capital punishment?
> Ridiculous. However, I just heard that the murder rate for this
> year is way,way down in New York State. So even that weak and
> flawed law is apparently having a deterrent effect.
Why do you choose to invest the state with the power over life and
death in the complex matter of pursuing what we might call "justice"?
In Canada, the death penalty might have taken the lives of three men
(Morin, Milgaard, Marshall, two of whom were innocent of murder, the
other was convicted under considerable doubt) and left Clifford Olson
alive. If a psychopath like Olson faced death, what would the
likliehood of his revealing the additional bodies (saving untold
amounts of tax money and police effort and ensuring his permanent,
isolated incarceration) be?
I don't care if people like Olson, Bundy et al die. But if you
actually knew anything about the processes involved, you'd know that
the risks are too great that innocent people would die or that factors
other than the pursuit of justice will enter into the decisions over
who swings and who doesn't.
Georges Skorpios
The majority of Canadians are for capital punishment. Most philosophical
right-wing people are also for effective law enforement and capital
punishment. However, there are inconstitencies here as Margaret
Thatcher a good conservative was against the death penalty and Bill
Clinton, a liberal is for it. However, Margaret Thatcher had many
other good right-wing principles,and a high homicide rate is not
yet a serious problem in the U.K.
But Canada is a different story. There is now almost a murder or
attempted murder every day in Toronto alone. Montreal is almost as
bad. For Kim Campbell to have made that inane statement about
the death penalty in the U.S. (which is very rarely carried out in the
U.S relative to the high number or murders, and
then only after a delay of about
10 to 15 years after the crime was committed) not being a deterrent--
no self respecting right-winger or conservative could vote for her.
She showed that that in addition to being a wimpish Red Tory, she
was unforgivably naive and stupid. It had been reported that Kim
had a high I.Q. We find this hard to believe for someone so clueless.
So Dave Reilley, it is sad that you are so undiscerning that you
cannot discriminate between a leftist or liberal and a right-winger even
in your own province of Canada.
Again this proves you really know nothing about politics so therefore
how can you presume to understand what was really going on in
Germany in the period from 1840 to 1945?
Georges Skorpios
>Georges Skorpios <skor...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>snip
>
>>
>More poorly researched SHIT from Lambourn as "Skorpios". There have
>been over 200 executions in the US since 1976 when the Death penalty
>was reinstated.
>
>Go do your homework, little boy.
>
>What a useless followup you have written here. Two hundred executions
since 1976. That's about 10 a year. Do you know that there are
about 25,000 or more homicides each year in the U.S.? Of the 10
executions, the murders probably took place about 9 or 10 years earlier
on average. That is not really capital punishment. How the hell could
that ever be an effective deterrent?
I did not take the time to look up the exact statistics for my
original post, but the thrust of my argument is intact.
Capital punishment was a big issue in New York state in the last
David Reilley
> Capital punishment was a big issue in New York state in the last
> election and fortunately it got rid of Cuomo as governor.However, now
> that Pitacki has had capital punishment reinstated we learn that no
> one will be executed if he or she pleads guilty at the outset.
> And they are going to pretend that that is capital punishment?
> Ridiculous. However, I just heard that the murder rate for this
> year is way,way down in New York State. So even that weak and
> flawed law is apparently having a deterrent effect.
It is also down in many other states which have not changed.
Where is your eveidence of the causal relationship you claim, or is this just
more idealogical hot air?
John Alway
> Georges Skorpios <skor...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > What a useless followup you have written here. Two hundred executions
> > since 1976. That's about 10 a year. Do you know that there are
> > about 25,000 or more homicides each year in the U.S.? Of the 10
> > executions, the murders probably took place about 9 or 10 years earlier
> > on average. That is not really capital punishment. How the hell could
> > that ever be an effective deterrent?
Worse, the average time served for murder is a mere 8
years [See World Almanac 1995]. If that's no clear
evidence of the leniency of our system, I don't know
what is? If the state would simply incarcerate very
violent criminals for life that'd take care of a great
deal of the problem, since there are so many repeat
offenders.
> Name one study that has concluded that capital punishment is, in fact,
> a deterrent. Would you really want "the state" to run a more
> "efficient" killing machine? That's a slippery slope, John Lambourn.
Okay, I'll quote directly from the book "Guns, Crime
and Freedom" by Wayne LaPierre:
"The death penalty--properly assessed and implemented--
serves both of hese just goals. Indeed, a study by
Stephen K. Layson appearing in a 1985 edition of the
Southern Economics Journal estimated that each execution
in the United States deters approximately eighteen murders.
"In a well-known 1961 California case of People v. Love...,
police files and other sources of convicts' statements
indicated that their decisions to use toy guns during
felonies rather than real firearms, and not to kill
hostages, were motivated by fear of the death penalty."
[page 149]
>... snip ...<
> Why do you choose to invest the state with the power over life and
> death in the complex matter of pursuing what we might call "justice"?
Death for murder is justice. That's why its worth
to push such an idea. There are legitimate arguments
against it. Well, there is one I know of, and that
is the fact that you might get the wrong man. Its
a strong argument. However, the argument gets its
power from the fact that its put up as a defense for
the innocent.
>... snip ...<
> likliehood of his revealing the additional bodies (saving untold
> amounts of tax money and police effort and ensuring his permanent,
> isolated incarceration) be?
Tax money is no substitute for justice.
And, if you want to save tax money, then the answer
is to legalize drugs, prostitution and other victimless
crimes. People who are a physical threat to others
are the ones that the gov't should deal with.
...John
--
___________________________________________________________________
\_The most formidable weapon against errors of any kind is Reason._\
/_I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall.__________/
\_____________________________________________________Thomas Paine_\
/__John Alway jal...@icsi.net______________________________________/
Mark Devlin
>Mark Mushet wrote:
[...]
>> Name one study that has concluded that capital punishment is, in fact,
>> a deterrent. Would you really want "the state" to run a more
>> "efficient" killing machine? That's a slippery slope, John Lambourn.
>
> Okay, I'll quote directly from the book "Guns, Crime
> and Freedom" by Wayne LaPierre:
I would point out that LaPierre is a high official of the National Rifle
Association in the US; it might have been better had you identified him as
such. I do not insinuate that, because LaPierre is a spokesman for the NRA,
he must therefore be lying. In its advocacy of handgun rights, however, the
NRA must address the fact that the US, where access to handguns is fairly
easy, has a high rate of violent crime committed with such weapons, whereas
many countries where access to handguns is highly restricted but which are in
other ways similar to the US have much lower rates of such crime. Advocates
of handgun restriction draw the conclusion that crime rates will go down if
the weapons used to commit the crimes are not easily available. The NRA
disagrees, arguing that the US crime rate is high because American culture is
a violent one, pointing to Switzerland, which has a low crime rate although
almost all adult males keep (indeed, are required to keep) firearms. The NRA
also argues that the solution to crime is not to make handguns unavailable,
but to punish severely those who use them in crimes. LaPierre's argument for
capital punishment is probably quite sincere; but it also reflects the agenda
of the organisation that employs him.
LaPierre, by the way, is not a "gun nut". Rather, he is a professional
lobbyist. I recall reading (was it in the NRA article in the NY Times
Magazine?) that LaPierre, before he was hired by NRA, had never owned a gun
and was in fact rather uncomfortable around them. One presumes he has
overcome his discomfort.
As to the deterrent effect of capital punishment: there can be no doubt that
it is quite a splendid *specific* deterrent. The executed won't kill (or do
anything else) again. The "deterrency" debate is on the efficacy of capital
punishment as a *general* deterrent. That is, will the thought that they
could be killed for the crime deter potential murderers from murdering? The
evidence in the US certainly does not suggest so, but for reasons discussed
below, nor does this evidence provide conclusive proof that capital
punishment could *not* work as a general deterrent.
The "justice" argument for capital punishment is very different. I studied
criminal law under a teacher who deeply disapproved of capital punishment.
Although she did not accept any argument for capital punishment, she did
think that one was legitimate and worthy of respect, namely, the "justice"
argument. This she characterised as the state saying, "We value human life
very highly; to show our commitment to this value, we will deprive you of
your life if you unlawfully and maliciously deprive another of his". What's
more, she said, if you accept this proposition as a justification for capital
punishment, then you ought to advocate capital punishment even if it does not
deter.
I don't know that I agree with her. If capital punishment were shown to be a
highly effective general deterrent, and if no less harsh measures could
provide a comparable deterrent effect, that would be a pretty good argument
for capital punishment. Personally, I believe less harsh measures would be
effective. I think the knowledge that convicted murderers, without
exception, would disappear into a prison where they would have no human
contacts save with the warders and from which they would emerge, if at all,
only when very old and enfeebled, would give sufficient potential murderers
pause to lower the murder rate, without requiring the state to extinguish a
life. Of course, that's not what happens to convicted murderers in the US.
But nor is capital punishment, as administered in the US, likely to have a
deterrent effect. Very few of those convicted of murder are sentenced to
death (and only those convicted of certain classifications of murder *can*
sentenced to death), very few of these are executed, and then only after long
delays. For all that capital punishment isn't carried out very often, when
it is, it is carried out with great spectacle. It may be difficult for
readers outside the US to conceive, but many American political candidates
make their enthusiasm for capital punishment a "selling point" - and it often
works. But the same goes on as before. A handful of convicted murderers,
ordinarily minorities or "white trash" who had no effective legal counsel at
trial, are executed with great fanfare, but the bulk of murderers are out of
prison in a relatively brief time. These politicians seem to be less
interested in lowering crime rates than in being seen by a fearful populace
to be "tough on crime". One may debate whether capital punishment should be
implemented as a deterrent or as retributive justice; but I think that no
serious person on either side of the death penalty debate could approve of
capital punishment as bread & circuses.
--
Mark Devlin <mde...@bu.edu> Boston, USA
=====================================================================
"Faulheit und Feigheit sind die Ursachen, warum ein so grosser Theil
der Menschen, nachdem sie die Natur laengst von fremder Leitung frei
gesprochen, dennoch gerne zeitlebens unmuendig bleiben; und warum es
Anderen so leicht wird, sich zu deren Vormuendern aufzuwerfen. Es ist
so bequem, unmuendig zu sein." -- I. Kant, _Was ist Aufklaerung?_
=====================================================================
Mark Mushet
>Mark Mushet wrote:
> If the state would simply incarcerate very
> violent criminals for life that'd take care of a great
> deal of the problem, since there are so many repeat
> offenders.
Agreed.
>> Name one study that has concluded that capital punishment is, in fact,
>> a deterrent. Would you really want "the state" to run a more
>> "efficient" killing machine? That's a slippery slope, John Lambourn.
> Okay, I'll quote directly from the book "Guns, Crime
> and Freedom" by Wayne LaPierre:
> "The death penalty--properly assessed and implemented--
> serves both of hese just goals. Indeed, a study by
> Stephen K. Layson appearing in a 1985 edition of the
> Southern Economics Journal estimated that each execution
> in the United States deters approximately eighteen murders.
>
> "In a well-known 1961 California case of People v. Love...,
> police files and other sources of convicts' statements
> indicated that their decisions to use toy guns during
> felonies rather than real firearms, and not to kill
> hostages, were motivated by fear of the death penalty."
> [page 149]
Unfortunately there are far more studies that suggest that it is not a
deterrent. It is also helpful to include many other factors in the
analysis. In Canada, for example, the per cap. murder rate has
declined somewhat since the abolition of the death penalty. However,
it would be foolish to make the claim that this is due to its
abolition. There are myriad other factors that come into play.
Thankfully, Canada is STILL very different to the U.S. in matters of
"crime and punishment"
We can also see, from statements made by many death row inmates over
the years, that their executions were not only not feared but DESIRED!
Of course, Gary Gilmore's "Let's do it!" satisfied not only those who
sought vengence, but Gilmore himself. It cuts both ways. Personally,
in terms of clear, pre-meditated murder, it would probably dissuade
you or I but then we are (I presume) normal well adjusted people.
Now, if you've ever visited a maximum security penitentiary (as I have
on more than one occasion and no, not as an inmate!) or been to a
death row cell block and gallows (as I have), you may indeed come to
the conclusion that it is better to die a quick and painless death
than be subject to life in isolation (I've been in Clifford Olson's
old Oakalla cell BTW and I'd take a noose over a lifetime of that
anyday).
>> Why do you choose to invest the state with the power over life and
>> death in the complex matter of pursuing what we might call "justice"?
> Death for murder is justice. That's why its worth
> to push such an idea.
So is cutting peoples hands off for stealing. Sorry, but suddenly
switching from incarceration/rehab. to the "eye for an eye" principle
for one crime doesn't cut it. What about GBH resulting in permanent
suffering on the part of the victim, when their life has been made
miserable by a viscious rape or assault (but they didn't die)? What
then?
Consider this: an 18 year old piece of white trash gets involved in a
botched hold-up in the American south, shoots someone and, because of
the number of blacks who are clearly "over represented" on death row,
and because the local politicians want their "justice" system to
appear unbiased in capital cases, gets the death penalty. So, the
victim takes a bullet very quickly and the culprit gets to possibly
take fifteen minutes to be incinerated in the electric chair. Justice?
Another reason to abolish it, of course, is the inconsistency and lack
of reliability of the methods of execution. It's not easy to kill
someone. If you make it "humane" (ie. lethal injection) then you run
the risk of enticing those are truly desperate to possibly consider
killing where they hadn't before.
The public at large is having its hysteria fuelled by the amount of
media coverage given to violent crime and the relatively rare cases of
nutcases being allowed to walk (John Lambourn are you listening? You
haven't taken off your electronic bracelet have you?)
I would caution any citizen who has recently been swayed towards
supporting the death penalty to look at some cases, visit a max. sec
prison (incuding the iso pens), visit the execution chambers, and
generally reflect on and properly research the subject. Naturally not
everyone will have those opportunities but it's not an opinion to be
expressed lightly, in my view.
There was a community newspaper that, until a few years ago, ran
stories of horiffic crimes (murder/dismemberments etc.) but waited
until the end of the story to reveal that it had been taken from
police records a century ago. That kind of perspective is lacking in
todays paper and TV news selling approach to crime coverage.
BTW in looking at old TV news footage of the "Son of Sam" coverage
from the seventies, it is interesting to see that, among those
"streeters" that were done at the time, there were very few calls for
the return of the death penalty, even from friends and family of the
victims. Now, as everyone seems to be scared and frustrated, those
calls would probably come fast and furious in the wake of a similar
set of killings.
> There are legitimate arguments
> against it. Well, there is one I know of, and that
> is the fact that you might get the wrong man. Its
> a strong argument. However, the argument gets its
> power from the fact that its put up as a defense for
> the innocent.
> Tax money is no substitute for justice.
> And, if you want to save tax money, then the answer
> is to legalize drugs, prostitution and other victimless
> crimes. People who are a physical threat to others
> are the ones that the gov't should deal with.
Very true. And I guess we should thank John Lambourn for spurring us
to debate! No, forget I said that.
MRM
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
: Be careful Buddy K, you are apparently looking for a good flaming.
Well, John, I don't have to create 3 additional aliases and lie in order to make
my points. And I'm not so stupid as to think that this ideological crusade you
are pushing will amount to a hill of beans.
--
Buddy K
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
: drei...@pinc.com (David Reilley) wrote:
: >In article <DLHopC.oqt...@news.enterprise.ca> Cerise Lopez <cobra2@enterprise.c> writes:
: >>From: Cerise Lopez <cobra2@enterprise.c>
: >>Date: Sat, 20 Jan 1996 17:03:12 GMT
: >
: >>What you have written is just more devious, specious claptrap of the
: >>left. Socialists like David Rielley or Terri Johnson could have written
: >>that.
: >>Communists, Marxists and socialists in North America and Great Britain
: >>almost never have the decency or honesty to admit their true political
: >>and ideological affiliation. In the U.S. they make up a big proportion
: >>of the Democratic Party referring to themselves as "liberals" or
: >>"moderates".
: >
: > Come on, Dave, Bill Vander Zam called Kim Campbell a Red Tory
: > On national TV Kim made the incredibly stupid statement that she
: didn't believe in capital punishment, you know, euthanizing brutal
: murderers like Clifford Olsen or Paul Bernardo because it is not
: a deterrent. She said she knows it is not a deterrent because they
: have it (sic) in the U.S. and it doesn't work.
: Well Kim, they don't have de facto
: capital punishment in the U.S. at all. I believe there has been
: something like 250,000 murders in the U.S. and only about 70
: executions since 1972. THAT IS NOT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. Murderers have
: about a much chance as getting a reasonable hasty execution in
: the U.S. as you or I would of winning a lottery grand prize, Zilch.
You're lying through your teeth.
--
Buddy K