Dole is the Nominee! Stocks and Bonds Crash!
Jim Brody
> Stock and Bond prices both crashed today. Listening to the media you would
> think it was from the 'excellent jobs data' released today.
Actually, it was. Economic news doesn't drive the stock market,
self-interest drives the stock market. Stocks are their own little
world, and the narcissistic concern of marketeers is that good economic
news will prevent the Fed from cutting interest rates, which is something
that they truly enjoy.
>
>
> 'Bob Dole has it clinched. The rest of the field should just give up!'
> paraphrasing George Pataki, Gov of NY. 'Bob Dole can absolutely beat Bill
> Clinton in a debate!' gushes Rep NY Rep Susan Molinari!
>
> And a good *jobs* report caused the stock and bond market crash? Hmmmmm?
Are you suggesting the the prospect of Bob Dole as the Republican nominee
caused the market to drop (that, by the way, was no crash. 1987 was a
crash)? That's absurd, and I'll tell you why:
1. Clinton has led Dole in the polls consistantly for at least a year
now.
2. Do you think that if the market was worried by a Dole nomination, it
would have dropped when it looked like Dole had no opposition?
3. Don't you think that a Buchanan nomination would worry them even
more, since he is almost certain to lose against Clinton? Did the market
nosedive for a week after the New Hampshire primary? Nope.
4. Could it be that the market doesn't really care if Clinton gets
re-elected or Dole is President instead because that doesn't really
effect the value of stock directly? Gee -- I guess pragmatic reality
hurts sometimes.
>
> They recognize that this election has been lost to Bill Clinton if the
> recent Repub primary results _are_ indicative of the nominee (Bob Dole).
> It's four more years of Clintonomics! Doesn't that make more sense than 'a
> good jobs report'? Think about it.
You are presuming that because you don't like Clinton, that the majority
of the business community feels the same way you do. You have confused
your *opinion* with facts. When people try to impose their *opinion* on
others you get organizations like the Christian Coalition and the Moral
Majority doing nothing but dividing the country.
I suggest you rethink your skewed analytical abilities before you even
attempt to post anything masquerading as analysis in this newsgroup
again.
> JimB
Pudge
> +But Keyes has legitimized it.
>
> Let me just say (as a pro-choice Democrat :-)) that I really, truly
> hope Keyes (and Buchanan) force Republicans to take seriously their
> long-standing platform plank. So seriously that the majority of
> Republicans -- who oppose that plank, but don't want to destroy the
> party over it -- can no longer live with their hypocrisy on the issue.
Look, this country cannot survive as we know it with abortion legal. This country in its founding
document de-legitimized abortion when it said all men are created equal. Either we throw out the
declaration or we make abortion illegal. One of the two has to happen. I am becoming more and more
convinced that people who support abortion in the face of the declaration are truly anti-America.
Tell me, how in the world can you reconcile abortion in the face of the Declaration without throwing
out the Declaration and thereby throwing out America's reason, values, principles and foundation?
> +Keyes has tremendous power and influence over the people's views,
>
> "The people's views"????? *What* people's views?
Rational people. :)
People who are conservative and who honor the Declaration and the Family and American values. In
other words, mainstream America.
--Pudge
ch...@isaac.biola.edu
http://www-students.biola.edu/~chris/
Ned Kelly
: Yes. That's exactly why. Because it means no cut in interest rates. The
: Stock Market is the place to be in when interest rates are declining and
: you are looking for better returns.
Close. While you have it right about the jobs bit, it's more like the
investors are angry that wealth might trickle down! And you CAN'T have
that! That's an abomination in their utopia of an economy where the few
control the many. When I see a homeless investor telling me a "I lost my
portfolio in the Crash" sob story, I'll tell the moron, with full accent
invoked:
Get a bloody job, you lazy bastard.
Then kick him in the teeth, knowing that he won't be able to afford
dental work, like the workers he impoverished before the crash.
Let them eat their portfolios.
--
Ned Kelly Lives!!!!!!
PGP Public Key coming to a keyserver near you. Now beta testing Strine
for Yanks, version 2.0 (with bug fixes for ver. 1.2).
.
I support Patrick Buchanan - becuse of the Vladamir Zirinowski Endorsement!
Andrew Hall
Dan> Stock and Bond prices both crashed today. Listening to the media you would
Dan> think it was from the 'excellent jobs data' released today.
Dan> Since I hadn't heard of that report yet, I was thinking, 'What happened to
Dan> cause the stock and bond markets _both_ to slump.' What I had been watching
Dan> last night occurred to me.
Dan> 'Bob Dole has it clinched. The rest of the field should just give up!'
Dan> paraphrasing George Pataki, Gov of NY. 'Bob Dole can absolutely beat Bill
Dan> Clinton in a debate!' gushes Rep NY Rep Susan Molinari!
Dan> And a good *jobs* report caused the stock and bond market crash? Hmmmmm?
Dan> Don't you just love it when people tell you bald-faced lies like that? The
Dan> people who recognize what's really happening decided it was time to cash-in.
Dan> Now.
Dan> They recognize that this election has been lost to Bill Clinton if the
Dan> recent Repub primary results _are_ indicative of the nominee (Bob Dole).
Dan> It's four more years of Clintonomics! Doesn't that make more sense than 'a
Dan> good jobs report'? Think about it.
Dan> And if Dole *does* choose a pro-choice running mate (Powell or Whitman), it
Dan> GUARANTEES a Pat Buchanan third-party race.
Dan> See my post on the Usenet PAT BUCHANAN IS BILL CLINTON'S PATSY and see if
Dan> you think it is any closer to coming true.
Dan> Pray for Forbes to stay in the race. Otherwise Alan won't be heard. That
Dan> is the new plan to squelch Keyes. If Forbes goes out, who is going to
Dan> debate Alan? Buchanan? Wouldn't attract any media interest and wouldn't be
Dan> good for two pro-life candidates to beat each other up in a debate now would
Dan> it?
Dan> Think people.
The bond market always reacts negatively to higher
than expected employment numbers. Bond yields
are driven almost entirely by inflation expectations
of bond market investors and traders. Higher employment
is considered inflationary.
It had nothing to do with Dole and a whole lot to do
with a 705k job report when the norm is
100-200k and the highest expectations were about 350k.
ah
Michael John Falkner
: Look, this country cannot survive as we know it with abortion legal.
: This country in its founding
: document de-legitimized abortion when it said all men are created equal.
: Either we throw out the
: declaration or we make abortion illegal. One of the two has to happen.
Makes sense, except I don't believe that many actually believe that to be
true.
: I am becoming more and more
: convinced that people who support abortion in the face of the declaration
: are truly anti-America.
It'd be nice to think that, but I don't think you can convince many people
at all anymore that all are created equal.
: Tell me, how in the world can you reconcile abortion in the face of the
: Declaration without throwing
: out the Declaration and thereby throwing out America's reason, values,
: principles and foundation?
Welcome to 1996 America. You just realized the problem.
==========================================================================
Mike Falkner, mfal...@csd.uwm.edu Milwaukee, Wisconsin
"The Electric Youth Renegade" D.G.I.F. #10769
WWW: http://www.uwm.edu/~mfalkner No quotes. (No room!! =))
==========================================================================
evil Beavis
>
> Michael L. Siemon wrote:
> > +But Keyes has legitimized it.
> >
> > Let me just say (as a pro-choice Democrat :-)) that I really, truly
> > hope Keyes (and Buchanan) force Republicans to take seriously their
> > long-standing platform plank. So seriously that the majority of
> > Republicans -- who oppose that plank, but don't want to destroy the
> > party over it -- can no longer live with their hypocrisy on the issue.
>
> document de-legitimized abortion when it said all men are created equal. Either we throw out the
> convinced that people who support abortion in the face of the declaration are truly anti-America.
> out the Declaration and thereby throwing out America's reason, values, principles and foundation?
This must be a joke right?!! I thought the U.S. was supposed to be about
freedom of choice - and you want to force women to have children regardless
of the circumstances?? And as far as all men being created equal - that was a
perversion from the first moment on considering the people forced to live in
slavery when that document was written.
eB
Chris Nandor
>
> Pudge wrote:
> > Tell me, how in the world can you reconcile abortion in the face of the Declaration without throwing
> > out the Declaration and thereby throwing out America's reason, values, principles and foundation?
>
> This must be a joke right?!! I thought the U.S. was supposed to be about
> freedom of choice - and you want to force women to have children regardless
> of the circumstances?? And as far as all men being created equal - that was a
> perversion from the first moment on considering the people forced to live in
> slavery when that document was written.
>
> eB
I don't see what your problem is. You stated yourself you believe that the Declaration is false.
So, you want to throw out the Declaration of Independence. That was one of the choices you had,
and you took it. You act like you disagreed with me. You do not. You took one of the
choices I offered. Now, of course, you will have to try and explain how America can exist
without the Declaration, but that is just details.
But if you want to change your position and keep the Declaration, you must reconcile how to keep
abortion legal in light of that wonderful document.
No, America is not about freedom of choice, by the way. It is about liberty. They are two
different things. One requires nothing of the individual; the other requires the individual to
protect the liberty of his neighbor.
--
Pudge
ch...@isaac.biola.edu
http://www-students.biola.edu/~chris/
Think On (McClellan clan motto)
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,chi.politics,alt.society.sovereign,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.fan.alan-keyes
References: <4hr30c$b...@ionews.ionet.net> <AHALL.96M...@remus.cs.uml.edu>
Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA
Distribution:
Andrew Hall (ah...@cs.uml.edu) wrote:
: The bond market always reacts negatively to higher
: than expected employment numbers. Bond yields
: are driven almost entirely by inflation expectations
: of bond market investors and traders. Higher employment
: is considered inflationary.
Which just shows the disconnect between Wall Stree and Main Street.
: It had nothing to do with Dole and a whole lot to do
: with a 705k job report when the norm is
: 100-200k and the highest expectations were about 350k.
Yeah. Only on Wall Street is good news turned into bad news.
--
Buddy K
Thomas M. Buccelli
} fb...@ionet.net (Dan Hughes) wrote:
} >Stock and Bond prices both crashed today. Listening to the media you would
} >think it was from the 'excellent jobs data' released today.
} >Since I hadn't heard of that report yet, I was thinking, 'What happened to
} >cause the stock and bond markets _both_ to slump.' What I had been watching
} >last night occurred to me.
The total drop was what, something like 3%? Big deal. It was about time
for a bit of a downturn anyway. Back when the dow was in the 2000's, a
drop like this would be significant, now, not even in the top 100.
Tom
--
Thomas M. Buccelli (t...@idm.com)
#include <std_disclaimer.h>
Steve Adams
>: The bond market always reacts negatively to higher
>: than expected employment numbers. Bond yields
>: are driven almost entirely by inflation expectations
>: of bond market investors and traders. Higher employment
>: is considered inflationary.
>Which just shows the disconnect between Wall Stree and Main Street.
No disconnect at all. IF more people are employed, there is a smaller pool
of unemployed to draw from. This causes employers to offer higher salaries
to get the best people. This translates to higher prices. Hence, it is
true on Main Street *and* Wall Street that higher employment is a signal of
some level of inflation.
Not to mention the fact that the employment numbers signal that the Fed
isn't going to cut interest rates (which would spur the economy) in the
near term. When rates are trending up, interest bearing securities are
better than stocks. Opposite is true when rates are trending down.
>: It had nothing to do with Dole and a whole lot to do
>: with a 705k job report when the norm is
>: 100-200k and the highest expectations were about 350k.
>Yeah. Only on Wall Street is good news turned into bad news.
Nobody said it was bad news. What happened is how the market works.
-Steve
----
The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS Inc.
---NASCAR-#7-#28-#51---
ad...@spss.com Soli Deo Gloria Phone: (312) 329-3522
Steve Adams "Space-age cybernomad" Fax: (312) 467-5249
Frank Palmer
Fb> would think it was from the 'excellent jobs data' released today.
It was from fear of the Federal Reserve response to the good economic news.
This means no lower, maybe even higher, interest rates. Greenspan
is utterly committed to high unemployment. The only way for the interest
yield on issued bonds to rise is for their prices to fall. With bond yields
higher, stock prices also fell.
Fb> Since I hadn't heard of that report yet, I was thinking, 'What
Fb> happened to cause the stock and bond markets _both_ to slump.' What I
Fb> had been watching last night occurred to me.
Both?? They often move together. The surprises are the few occasions when
they don't.
Fb> 'Bob Dole has it clinched. The rest of the field should just give
Fb> up!' paraphrasing George Pataki, Gov of NY. 'Bob Dole can absolutely
Fb> beat Bill Clinton in a debate!' gushes Rep NY Rep Susan Molinari!
Fb> And a good *jobs* report caused the stock and bond market crash?
Fb> Hmmmmm?
Fb> Don't you just love it when people tell you bald-faced lies like that?
Fb> The people who recognize what's really happening decided it was time
Fb> to cash-in. Now.
Fb> They recognize that this election has been lost to Bill Clinton if the
Fb> recent Repub primary results _are_ indicative of the nominee (Bob
Fb> Dole). It's four more years of Clintonomics! Doesn't that make more
Fb> sense than 'a good jobs report'? Think about it.
[Much deleted]
Having had three years of economic growth and deficit whittling
under Clinton, having soared because of those conditions, the stock market
is supposed to tumble when they realiza that it will continue.
Ignore that Dole is the most electable of the
candidates actually running. Ignore that he was the conventional-wisdom
shoo-in not long ago. The market took a nose dive because he
looks more certain of the nomination than he did last week.
--
Frank Palmer
flpa...@ripco.com
James L. Coffey
(discussion of inflationary pressure on bond prices snipped)
: Which just shows the disconnect between Wall Stree and Main Street.
hardly. Wall Street realizes lower unemployement means a tightening
labor market and upward pressure on wages. That is inflationary, and the
logical response is to bid down bond prices in order to keep yields at a
desired level. Similarly, higher wagesmay result in lower profits (or
less sales if prices go up), lowering the value of a company.
: : It had nothing to do with Dole and a whole lot to do
: : with a 705k job report when the norm is
: : 100-200k and the highest expectations were about 350k.
: Yeah. Only on Wall Street is good news turned into bad news.
No, they just reacted in a logical manner.
--
"Installation was just as easy as, if not easier than, doing it on a Mac"
---MacWorld, February, 1996 on Windows 95 Installation Wizards
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
References: <4i4jbj$1...@portal.gmu.edu> <4i4t11$l...@netsrv2.spss.com>
: Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA
Distribution:
Steve Adams (ad...@spss.com) wrote:
: hkil...@osf1.gmu.edu (HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.) wrote:
: >Andrew Hall (ah...@cs.uml.edu) wrote:
: >: The bond market always reacts negatively to higher
: >: than expected employment numbers. Bond yields
: >: are driven almost entirely by inflation expectations
: >: of bond market investors and traders. Higher employment
: >: is considered inflationary.
: >Which just shows the disconnect between Wall Stree and Main Street.
: No disconnect at all. IF more people are employed, there is a smaller pool
: of unemployed to draw from. This causes employers to offer higher salaries
: to get the best people. This translates to higher prices. Hence, it is
: true on Main Street *and* Wall Street that higher employment is a signal of
: some level of inflation.
This is a little too simplistic, which is the problem with static partial
equilibrium analysis. More people working mean more people to buy the goods and
services that are being produced which translates into higher profits which means
more expansion out of retained earnings rather than debt. It also means you can
produce further down your cost curve, taking advantage of increased economies of
scale and scope as well as dynamic increasing returns.
Also, higher debt costs don't hurt if you can sell more product. On the whole,
companies (almost by definition) do worse when we have recessions and interest
rates drop sharply.
: Not to mention the fact that the employment numbers signal that the Fed
: isn't going to cut interest rates (which would spur the economy) in the
: near term. When rates are trending up, interest bearing securities are
: better than stocks. Opposite is true when rates are trending down.
The main problem in the bond markets is the coupon clippers' dream - Alan
Greenspan.
: >: It had nothing to do with Dole and a whole lot to do
: >: with a 705k job report when the norm is
: >: 100-200k and the highest expectations were about 350k.
: >Yeah. Only on Wall Street is good news turned into bad news.
: Nobody said it was bad news. What happened is how the market works.
It doesn't always work this way. If you had your money in the stock market as long
as I have, you would understand this. It is very shortsighted for those lemmings
who run the mutual funds to react negatively to every little interest rate bump.
But one day of market news doesn't mean much. As someone said last Friday, the
market dropped to its lowest point in 33 days. And it's back up agin this week.
--
Buddy K
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
p
References: <4i4jbj$1...@portal.gmu.edu> <AHALL.96M...@remus.cs.uml.edu>
Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA
Distribution:
Andrew Hall (ah...@cs.uml.edu) wrote:
: Good news for the job market has historically led to
: bad news in inflation. This should not surprise an
: economist.
But inflation (at least at low levels) has historically lead to increased
profits. This should not surprise someone on Wall Street.
--
Buddy K
Michael K. Ross
unelected role in government, I have the following questions:
1) If Bob Dole is elected, what will Elizabeth's role be?
2) If Bay Buchanan is elected, he has said his wife "will not be in
charge of health care". But what will Bay's role be? How is being
the president's sister different for these purposes that being the
president's wife?
3) If you are one of those who criticized Hillary for wanting to be
called "Hillary Rodham", how does that square with Bay Buchanan's
name?
Just wondering...
- Mike Ross
Nancy K
>For all you people who have criticized the Clintons for Hillary's
>unelected role in government, I have the following questions:
>1) If Bob Dole is elected, what will Elizabeth's role be?
I would be against her taking on a role such as Hillary's too.
>2) If Bay Buchanan is elected, he has said his wife "will not be in
>charge of health care". But what will Bay's role be?
I don't know, do you?
>How is being
>the president's sister different for these purposes that being the
>president's wife?
Now aren't you attempting to say that these people are guilty before
they have committed any crime, so to speak? The facts are that
neither of the people above have as yet taken on an unelected role,
such as Hillary has *already* done.
>3) If you are one of those who criticized Hillary for wanting to be
>called "Hillary Rodham", how does that square with Bay Buchanan's
>name?
What's wrong with Bay Buchanan's name? I don't get your point? She
has a first and last name... don't you?
>Just wondering...
Nancy K
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
p
References: <4i7jdd$m...@portal.gmu.edu> <AHALL.96M...@remus.cs.uml.edu>
Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA
Distribution:
Andrew Hall (ah...@cs.uml.edu) wrote:
: >>>>> HENRY E KILPATRICK writes:
: HENRY> Andrew Hall (ah...@cs.uml.edu) wrote:
: >> Good news for the job market has historically led to bad news in
: >> inflation. This should not surprise an economist.
: HENRY> But inflation (at least at low levels) has historically lead
: HENRY> to increased profits. This should not surprise someone on
: HENRY> Wall Street.
: Inflation does not cause profits. Often inflation accompanies
: a recovery, so they are correlated.
People getting jobs doesn't cause inflation either.
--
Buddy K
Andrew Hall
Followup-To> alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,chi.politics,alt.society.sovereign,alt.politics.white-power,alt.
HENRY> p
References> <4i4jbj$1...@portal.gmu.edu>
References> <AHALL.96M...@remus.cs.uml.edu>
Organization> George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA
Distribution>
HENRY> Andrew Hall (ah...@cs.uml.edu) wrote:
>> Good news for the job market has historically led to bad news in
>> inflation. This should not surprise an economist.
HENRY> But inflation (at least at low levels) has historically lead
HENRY> to increased profits. This should not surprise someone on
HENRY> Wall Street.
Inflation does not cause profits. Often inflation accompanies
a recovery, so they are correlated.
ah
John Stone
>In article <4i7f86$o...@mpls2.mn.uswest.net>, mr...@dcc.com says...
>>
>>For all you people who have criticized the Clintons for Hillary's
>>unelected role in government, I have the following questions:
>>
>>1) If Bob Dole is elected, what will Elizabeth's role be?
>
>currently on leave from that post to help her husband become our next
>President)
>
>>
>>2) If Bay Buchanan is elected, he has said his wife "will not be in
>>the president's sister different for these purposes that being the
>>president's wife?
>
>would probably have some capacity in the White House, since she is serving as
>campaign mgr. & most winning campaign mgrs. usually find themselves serving the
>administration as well.
>
>>
>>3) If you are one of those who criticized Hillary for wanting to be
>>called "Hillary Rodham", how does that square with Bay Buchanan's
>>name?
>
>until after she & Bill got into the White House? Because it shows a feminist
>side that would have turned away many voters. The fact that she waited until
>she was in the White House shows the Clinton's "chameleon-like" nature to
>appeal to as many people as possible on the campaign trail.
>
>Just my opinion, but you've read it...
>Gopper
>
Not that it was worth reading but thanks anyway. John S.
Steve Isham -Gopper
NobHillSF
- Mike Ross wrote:
>3) If you are one of those who criticized Hillary for wanting to be
>called "Hillary Rodham", how does that square with Bay Buchanan's
>name?
Angela "Bay" Buchanan (Bay is nickname since childhood) is divorced, and
no longer uses her husband's name. This seems quite different from the
HRC case.
___________________________________________
Lewis Shepherd
San Francisco New Democrat
Jim Glass
>
>For all you people who have criticized the Clintons for Hillary's
>unelected role in government, I have the following questions:
>
>1) If Bob Dole is elected, what will Elizabeth's role be?
>
>charge of health care". But what will Bay's role be? How is being
>the president's sister different for these purposes that being the
>president's wife?
>
>called "Hillary Rodham", how does that square with Bay Buchanan's
>name?
Bay Buchannan is not running for office.
Ignorance of this magnitude makes a serious response to your
silly questions un-necessary.
Jim Glass
Cy Stanton
>
> Fb> Stock and Bond prices both crashed today. Listening to the media you
> Fb> would think it was from the 'excellent jobs data' released today.
>
> It was from fear of the Federal Reserve response to the good economic news.
>
> This means no lower, maybe even higher, interest rates. Greenspan
> is utterly committed to high unemployment. The only way for the interest
> yield on issued bonds to rise is for their prices to fall. With bond yields
> higher, stock prices also fell.
Besides which, it wasn't really a crash at all. Considering the level of the
market, it was only a 3-percent adjustment--not anything near a crash. An
adjustment was overdue for some time.
Cheers, Cy
Chris Nandor
>>>>> Pudge writes: Pudge> Look, this country cannot survive as we know it with
Pudge> abortion legal. This country in its founding document
Pudge> de-legitimized abortion when it said all men are created
Pudge> equal. Either we throw out the declaration or we make
>>It did say men, not fetuses. The writer owned slaves. Sorry,
>>but you are out to lunch here.
So men are not created as fetuses? Tell me, Einstein, what are men when they are created if not
fetuses? Are they created 6-2 with facial hair?
Pudge> abortion illegal. One of the two has to happen. I am
>>You can not "throw out" the DOI, it is not law.
Actually, it is.
1.) The Ninth Amendment preserves the rights we hold that are not enumerated in the
Constitution, esp. those in the DOI.
2.) The courts have consistently ruled that our rights in the DOI are our legal rights, and any
law that breaks those rights in the DOI is subsequently overturned.
3.) The DOI has been the foundation for almost all civil rights legislation.
4.) The DOI is _the_ foundation for the existence of the Constitution, and the USA could not
exist without it.
Pudge> becoming more and more convinced that people who support
Pudge> abortion in the face of the declaration are truly
Pudge> anti-America. Tell me, how in the world can you reconcile
Pudge> abortion in the face of the Declaration without throwing out
Pudge> the Declaration and thereby throwing out America's reason,
Pudge> values, principles and foundation?
>>Easy, fetuses are not human beings, as they do not have
>>any hint of consciousness.
THAT is your definition of human being? What about an man with a concussion? What about a woman
in a coma? Think, please.
>>Keyes impassioned arguments make no sense if the premise
>>(that a early term fetus is a human being with full rights
>>of an born human) is false. Most Americans do not
>>believe his premise, so his arguments hold no weight.
You are wrong. Most Americans do believe it. the surveys all show that while Americans believe
that people should be allowed to choose to have an abortion, most Americans personally believe
abortion is wrong. Think on.
Chris Nandor
Cubbybear
>unelected role in government, I have the following questions:
>
>1) If Bob Dole is elected, what will Elizabeth's role be?
>
Red Cross, the first first lady to hold an unrelated paying job.
Cubbybear
"Anticipate charity by preventing poverty; assist the reduced fellowman,
either by a considerable gift, or a sum of money, or by teaching him a
trade, or by putting him in the way of business, so that he may earn an
honest livelihood, and not be forced to the dreadful alternative of
holding out his hand for charity." Maimonides
Norman Nithman
comment on this?
In article <3149CD...@isaac.biola.edu>,
Chris Nandor <ch...@isaac.biola.edu> wrote:
>ah writes:
>
>>>You can not "throw out" the DOI, it is not law.
>
>Actually, it is.
>1.) The Ninth Amendment preserves the rights we hold that are not enumerated
>in the Constitution, esp. those in the DOI.
>2.) The courts have consistently ruled that our rights in the DOI are our
>legal rights, and any law that breaks those rights in the DOI is subsequently
>overturned.
>3.) The DOI has been the foundation for almost all civil rights legislation.
>4.) The DOI is _the_ foundation for the existence of the Constitution,
>and the USA could not
>exist without it.
>
> Pudge> becoming more and more convinced that people who support
> Pudge> abortion in the face of the declaration are truly
> Pudge> anti-America. Tell me, how in the world can you reconcile
> Pudge> abortion in the face of the Declaration without throwing out
> Pudge> the Declaration and thereby throwing out America's reason,
> Pudge> values, principles and foundation?
>
--
Norman Nithman n...@tezcat.com
Normcam! - http://www.tezcat.com/~nrn/normcam.shtml
Michael Zarlenga
: 1) If Bob Dole is elected, what will Elizabeth's role be?
Dole has repeatedly stated that, if elected, his wife will go to work
full-time for the American Red Cross. She will not be involved in the
daily operations of the executive branch.
: 3) If you are one of those who criticized Hillary for wanting to be
: called "Hillary Rodham", how does that square with Bay Buchanan's
: name?
Did Bay start using a different name during the campaign? Hillary did.
During the campaign she was Mrs. Clinton or Hillary Clinton. She was
the demure, intelligent, soft-spoken woman behind the candidate. The
week after the election she became Hillary Rodham Clinton, the arrogant,
pompous attorney and shrew we've all come to know. Then, about 12 months
ago she became the lying, arrogant, pompous attorney and shrew.
Therein lies your answer.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
Dole for President. NBC in 1996 : No more Bullshit from CLinton.
finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP Public key and killfile
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
After the "crash" the market was at its lowest point in 33 days.
--
Buddy K
Joseph G. Adams
The Pinhead <zi...@hairball.ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
>> tru...@albany.net (David W. Truland) writes:
> While the principles espoused in the Declaration of Independence
> are certainly relevant to arguments about our system of
> governance, the document itself is not a part of our system of
> laws, any more than are the Federalist Papers, etc.
>
>So, you're saying that no US court has ever taken judicial notice of
>our independence from England or quoted from the Federalist Papers to
>prop up it's judicial positions?
No. He's saying that it isn't part of our system of laws. Read what
he wrote.
Courts are prone to a "kitchen sink" mentality, where they toss in
any and every quote that could conceivably support what they're saying
for rhetorical effect. The mere fact that something is quoted in a court
opinion does not make it the law. I've also seen quotes from Lewis
Carroll, G.K. Chesterton, and Aristotle in judicial decisions.
Discerning "the law" in judicial opinions requires a close reading
to ascertain the holding. I've never seen a holding which had as its
rationale the Declaration of Independence. If you've seen one, please
point me to it.
--
Joseph G. Adams
Stanford Law School, 2L
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jgadams/
David W. Truland
>Crossposted to misc.legal - any of you legal eagles want to
>comment on this?
>In article <3149CD...@isaac.biola.edu>,
>Chris Nandor <ch...@isaac.biola.edu> wrote:
>>ah writes:
>>
>>>>You can not "throw out" the DOI, it is not law.
>>
>>Actually, it is.
While the principles espoused in the Declaration of Independence
The Pinhead
While the principles espoused in the Declaration of Independence
are certainly relevant to arguments about our system of
governance, the document itself is not a part of our system of
laws, any more than are the Federalist Papers, etc.
So, you're saying that no US court has ever taken judicial notice of
our independence from England or quoted from the Federalist Papers to
prop up it's judicial positions?
--
Ronald Cole E-mail: ron...@ridgecrest.ca.us
Software Architect zi...@ecst.csuchico.edu
"You cannot propel yourself forward by patting yourself on the back."
David W. Truland
>The Pinhead <zi...@hairball.ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
>>> tru...@albany.net (David W. Truland) writes:
>> While the principles espoused in the Declaration of Independence
>> are certainly relevant to arguments about our system of
>> governance, the document itself is not a part of our system of
>> laws, any more than are the Federalist Papers, etc.
>>
>>So, you're saying that no US court has ever taken judicial notice of
>>our independence from England or quoted from the Federalist Papers to
>>prop up it's judicial positions?
>No. He's saying that it isn't part of our system of laws. Read what
>he wrote.
>Courts are prone to a "kitchen sink" mentality, where they toss in
>any and every quote that could conceivably support what they're saying
>for rhetorical effect. The mere fact that something is quoted in a court
>opinion does not make it the law. I've also seen quotes from Lewis
>Carroll, G.K. Chesterton, and Aristotle in judicial decisions.
Even the Bible gets an occasional reference.
>Discerning "the law" in judicial opinions requires a close reading
>to ascertain the holding. I've never seen a holding which had as its
>rationale the Declaration of Independence. If you've seen one, please
>point me to it.
___________________________________________
David W. Truland tru...@albany.net
http://www.albany.net/~truland/
Michael L. Siemon
zi...@hairball.ecst.csuchico.edu (The Pinhead) wrote:
+In article <4ik59j$7...@lori.albany.net> tru...@albany.net (David W.
Truland) writes:
+ While the principles espoused in the Declaration of Independence
+ are certainly relevant to arguments about our system of
+ governance, the document itself is not a part of our system of
+ laws, any more than are the Federalist Papers, etc.
+
+So, you're saying that no US court has ever taken judicial notice of
+our independence from England or quoted from the Federalist Papers to
+prop up it's judicial positions?
It is a real pity that they no longer teach reading in our schools...
Anyway; no that is *not* what he is saying. Neither the Federalist
Papers, nor the DofI, nor Franklin's autobiography, nor 20th century
sociological treatises have the authority of law, despite the use of
them in judicial rhetoric and explanation of decisions *about* the
law. All of them have been used that way, to good effect at times.
Since everything in the universe is interconnected, it is not a big
surprise that interpretation of the Constitution sometimes hangs on
what the framers of that document, or its defenders, said *about* it.
But (as continues, luckily, to be the case today) what legislators
or others *say* about the law does not constitute the law of the land.
Sociological argumentation had a great deal to do with the decision
in Brown versus the Board of Education of Topeka. I will note (as
again I fear you may be unable to figure this out yourself, given
the poor reading skills exhibited in your response above) that you
are arguing for an equivalent authority of these sociological state-
ments and the statements adduced in judicial decisions from the
Federalist Papers. I am sure that the original poster will assent
to this equivalence. I think, however, it may not be *quite* the
point you intended?
--
Michael Siemon "We must know the truth, and we must love
m...@panix.com the truth we know, and we must act
according to the measure of our love."
-- Thomas Merton
Voltaire
wrote:
>I don't criticize her for changing her surname preference, but why did she wait
>until after she & Bill got into the White House? Because it shows a feminist
>side that would have turned away many voters. The fact that she waited until
>she was in the White House shows the Clinton's "chameleon-like" nature to
>appeal to as many people as possible on the campaign trail.
>
>Just my opinion, but you've read it...
>Gopper
Nice attempt at an argument Steve. The only problem is that you have
your facts mixed up. Ms. Clinton used her maiden name as a part of her
name even when she was First Lady of Arkansas. She didn't change it
after Bill was elected President. She has always used it. Nice try,
but no banana......
Do conservative men hate Hillary because they fear a strong
intelligent woman or just because they have Vagina Envy???
Voltaire
Loren Petrich
And as to the God bit in the Declaration of Independence, I'm
sure that a lot of right-wing authoritarian disciplinarians would foam at
the mouth if it was not in the DoI -- that is because they'd be foaming
at the mouth that it pictures God as granting rights without
responsibilities, and also that it pictures God as endorsing unlimited
hedonism and self-indulgence.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
William R. Discipio Jr
: Do conservative men hate Hillary because they fear a strong
: intelligent woman or just because they have Vagina Envy???
Good question, Reactionary Jim. <g> Let me try now... Do you still beat
your kids?
: Voltaire
--
crl23% finger volt...@chelsea.ios.com
Login: voltai29 Name: Jim KennemurXAXX
Directory: /u/u9/voltai29 Shell: /usr/local/bin/tcsh
No Mail.
Zepp
>It was an official act of the Continental Congress, the federalist papers
>were not. It has at the LEAST as much legal authority as our modern day
>"resolutions", and you'd be suprised at how much authority seems to be
>given to resolutions these days...
That's because some people will mindlessly follow anything that sounds like
it might have some authority and answer all their questions for them. We
call 'em "Dittoheads".
*********************************************************************
Unrestrained capitalism -must- eventually result in the gas chambre.
At best, it results in beggers in the town square as the superfluous
are pushed out of the mainstream of society. In any given society,
25-75% of the citizenry are just not cost-effective, and must be
eliminated.
*********************************************************************
Dave Brickner
I don't hate anyone...but I dislike Hillary because she is a devious socialist
liar! Simple.
Max Kennedy
: Not to provide legal justification. The present United States government
: was created by the Constitution of the United States.
Nothing before is relevant, except in the case that the Constitution
and U.S. law are silent on a subject, in which case English common law
may be brought into play.
This is completly false. First, the present United States government
preceded the US Constitution, and there is a direct legal chain between
the Continetal Congress, the Articles of Confederation, and the
Constitution. The Constitution changed HOW the United States
government was run. Second, treaties and laws that existed by Congress
before the Constitution still existed after the Constitution.
Furthermore, the acts of Congress authorizing the Constitutional Convention
under the Articles of Confederation would seem to have some legal bearing on
the question of rather this is a valid legal document of the government, or
some wording by a bunch of yahoos. Furthermore, the colonies kept their legal
precedents at the State level; contracts, obligations, and land patents
were still valid, and it isn't ENGLISH common law, but common law.
It is traced back to English common law, but American precedents make it
different.
: You need to learn to distinguish between legal prescedent and the "dicta,"
: the part of a Supreme Court opinion that is explanatory, and carries no
: legal weight. The D of I and the Federalist are valuable insughts into the
: moivations of the Founders, and make for a persuasive argument. They are
: not, and never have been, legal prescedents.
Yes, the Federalist is a private document that provides insight into what the
men who wrote the Constitution thought they were writing, but no, the
Declaration of Independence is not a private document, it is an act of
Congress. The 'Continental' Congress, and is still just as legally valid
as a Declaration now as it was then. It has never been repealed.
If you're not exactly sure what a declaration, proclamation, or even
resolution is, perhaps you should look it up. A re-study of American
history might also be useful.
Max Kennedy
Andy Walton
zi...@hairball.ecst.csuchico.edu (The Pinhead) wrote:
:In article <4ik59j$7...@lori.albany.net> tru...@albany.net (David W.
Truland) writes:
: While the principles espoused in the Declaration of Independence
: are certainly relevant to arguments about our system of
: governance, the document itself is not a part of our system of
: laws, any more than are the Federalist Papers, etc.
:
:So, you're saying that no US court has ever taken judicial notice of
:our independence from England or quoted from the Federalist Papers to
:prop up it's judicial positions?
Not to provide legal justification. The present United States government
was created by the Constitution of the United States. Nothing before is
relevant, except in the case that the Constitution and U.S. law are silent
on a subject, in which case English common law may be brought into play.
You need to learn to distinguish between legal prescedent and the "dicta,"
the part of a Supreme Court opinion that is explanatory, and carries no
legal weight. The D of I and the Federalist are valuable insughts into the
moivations of the Founders, and make for a persuasive argument. They are
not, and never have been, legal prescedents.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The original seven words were, fuvg, cvff, shpx, phag, pbpxfhpxre,
zbgureshpxre, and gvgf. Those are the ones that will curve your spine,
grow hair on your hands and (laughter) maybe, even bring us, God help
us, peace without honor (laughter) um, and a bourbon."
--George Carlin
From FCC V. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Walton * att...@mindspring.com * ROT-13
http://www.mindspring.com/~atticus/
Max Kennedy
: n...@tezcat.com (Norman Nithman) wrote:
: >>>>You can not "throw out" the DOI, it is not law.
: >>
: >>Actually, it is.
: While the principles espoused in the Declaration of Independence
: are certainly relevant to arguments about our system of
: governance, the document itself is not a part of our system of
: laws, any more than are the Federalist Papers, etc.
It was an official act of the Continental Congress, the federalist papers
were not. It has at the LEAST as much legal authority as our modern day
"resolutions", and you'd be suprised at how much authority seems to be
given to resolutions these days...
Max Kennedy
Frank R. Hipp
>From: Dave Brickner <dave...@brutus.bright.net>
>Subject: Re: Questions for Hillary-Haters
>Date: Wed, 20 Mar 96 01:27:44 PDT
>I don't hate anyone...but I dislike Hillary because she is a devious socialist
>liar! Simple.
Don't forget her arrogance.
Frank
Zepp
>Andy Walton (att...@mindspring.com) wrote:
>
>: Not to provide legal justification. The present United States government
>: was created by the Constitution of the United States.
> Nothing before is relevant, except in the case that the Constitution
> and U.S. law are silent on a subject, in which case English common law
> may be brought into play.
>
>preceded the US Constitution, and there is a direct legal chain between
>the Continetal Congress, the Articles of Confederation, and the
>Constitution. The Constitution changed HOW the United States
>government was run.
Part of that "legal chain" was the dissolution of the Continental
Government. While all treaties and debts incurred under the old goverment
were honored, that legal authority for that stems, not from anything the
Continental Congress did, but from it being so stipulated in the new
Constitution. The Constitution didn't elaborate on the old government
(which didn't have the DOI as a legal document either, incidently), but
rather, it replaced it entirely.
Second, treaties and laws that existed by Congress
>before the Constitution still existed after the Constitution.
No, that's not true. For instance, under the old government, the state
government decided how much tax should be paid to Philadelphia. Obviously,
that law was changed. States were previously allowed to set tarriffs at
state lines, conduct foreign policy, and mint their own coins. Obviously,
these are all laws that didn't survive the change in governments.
>Furthermore, the acts of Congress authorizing the Constitutional Convention
>under the Articles of Confederation would seem to have some legal bearing
on
>the question of rather this is a valid legal document of the government, or
>some wording by a bunch of yahoos.
Oh, the Continental government was deemed valid. That's not the issue. The
issue is that after the Constitution, it was no longer valid.
Furthermore, the colonies kept their legal
>precedents at the State level; contracts, obligations, and land patents
>were still valid, and it isn't ENGLISH common law, but common law.
>It is traced back to English common law, but American precedents make it
>different.
Sorry, but Common Law is English. What significant changes exist now, 220
years later?
>Yes, the Federalist is a private document that provides insight into what
the
>men who wrote the Constitution thought they were writing, but no, the
>Declaration of Independence is not a private document, it is an act of
>Congress. The 'Continental' Congress, and is still just as legally valid
>as a Declaration now as it was then. It has never been repealed.
>
The Federalist papers, with many authors, were from public debate, mostly in
the newspapers of the day. And, like the DOI, they have no legal bearing.
>If you're not exactly sure what a declaration, proclamation, or even
>resolution is, perhaps you should look it up. A re-study of American
>history might also be useful.
Max, you just got done identifying the Federalist papers as a single,
private document. I suggest you do a little "re-studying" of your own.
William R. Discipio Jr
: Two Words: Vagina Envy!
We know, Jim. Nobody wanted to make an issue of it. Thanks for filling
us all in on your little secret.
William R. Discipio Jr
: Two words: Tiny Penis!
Once again, Jim, USENET appreciates your frankness and courage
discussing what is bothering you.
(You *do* know why you are called DoLTaire.)
Chris Nandor
> And as to the God bit in the Declaration of Independence, I'm
> sure that a lot of right-wing authoritarian disciplinarians would foam at
> the mouth if it was not in the DoI -- that is because they'd be foaming
> at the mouth that it pictures God as granting rights without
> responsibilities, and also that it pictures God as endorsing unlimited
> hedonism and self-indulgence.
Ummmm .... the DOI endorses hedonism and no responsibilities? Do you
believe that, or am I misunderstanding you? I'd like to think it is the
latter.
mark edward balcom
>indeed, has held a Cabinet-Level position (Sec'y of Transportation)?
>
There is nothing wrong with that because she was occupying an actual
appointed possition with accountability for whatever authority she
exercised. She was responsible for her actions and had to answer to
someone. It was a position that she could be removed from if she screwed
up.
Mark
Max Kennedy
: I said paperS, not paper. I suggest you look up the meaning of tacking
: the word S on the end, and also a little logic in debate, to see how what
: I am saying is substantial changed by this revelation.
^^
NOT
Max Kennedy
: In article <DoK5x...@iglou.com>, mken...@iglou.com (Max Kennedy) wrote:
: >Andy Walton (att...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: >
: >: Not to provide legal justification. The present United States government
: >: was created by the Constitution of the United States.
: > Nothing before is relevant, except in the case that the Constitution
: > and U.S. law are silent on a subject, in which case English common law
: > may be brought into play.
: >
: >This is completly false. First, the present United States government
: >preceded the US Constitution, and there is a direct legal chain between
: >the Continetal Congress, the Articles of Confederation, and the
: >Constitution. The Constitution changed HOW the United States
: >government was run.
: Part of that "legal chain" was the dissolution of the Continental
: Government. While all treaties and debts incurred under the old goverment
: were honored, that legal authority for that stems, not from anything the
: Continental Congress did, but from it being so stipulated in the new
: Constitution. The Constitution didn't elaborate on the old government
: (which didn't have the DOI as a legal document either, incidently), but
: rather, it replaced it entirely.
: Second, treaties and laws that existed by Congress
: >before the Constitution still existed after the Constitution.
: No, that's not true. For instance, under the old government, the state
Yes it is. As an example, article 6 of the Constitution, all treaties
made or shall be made.. Or the mere fact that the Paris Peace treaty was
still a valid and working treaty, amoung other things.
: government decided how much tax should be paid to Philadelphia. Obviously,
: that law was changed. States were previously allowed to set tarriffs at
Yes, but I wasn't saying laws didn't change per Constitutional mandate, I
was saying that there were existing laws by the US Congress that still
existed after passage of the Constitution. I was driving home the point
that the Congress existed before the Constitution, in opposition to the
ideas presented in the article I was responding to. George Washington
wasn't our first president either.
: state lines, conduct foreign policy, and mint their own coins. Obviously,
: these are all laws that didn't survive the change in governments.
: >Furthermore, the acts of Congress authorizing the Constitutional Convention
: >under the Articles of Confederation would seem to have some legal bearing
: on
: >the question of rather this is a valid legal document of the government, or
: >some wording by a bunch of yahoos.
Oh, the Continental government was deemed valid. That's not the issue.
The issue is that after the Constitution, it was no longer valid.
This isn't an issue, it isn't true.
: Furthermore, the colonies kept their legal
: >precedents at the State level; contracts, obligations, and land patents
: >were still valid, and it isn't ENGLISH common law, but common law.
: >It is traced back to English common law, but American precedents make it
: >different.
: Sorry, but Common Law is English. What significant changes exist now, 220
: years later?
Actually, many European countries had their own common laws, it is not
"English". The English and American versions of common law are different,
because common law grows and changes by precedents. One such change
shortly after the American revolution was the meaning "soveriegn". The
people became the sovereigns, and there is the most significant
difference between English and American common law.
Neverless, there is many archaic forms of common law still in existence
straight back to the days in England, including the prosecutor that was
challenged to "trial by combat" in Virgina.
: >Yes, the Federalist is a private document that provides insight into what
: the
: >men who wrote the Constitution thought they were writing, but no, the
: >Declaration of Independence is not a private document, it is an act of
: >Congress. The 'Continental' Congress, and is still just as legally valid
: >as a Declaration now as it was then. It has never been repealed.
: >
: The Federalist papers, with many authors, were from public debate, mostly in
: the newspapers of the day. And, like the DOI, they have no legal bearing.
: >If you're not exactly sure what a declaration, proclamation, or even
: >resolution is, perhaps you should look it up. A re-study of American
: >history might also be useful.
: Max, you just got done identifying the Federalist papers as a single,
: private document. I suggest you do a little "re-studying" of your own.
I said paperS, not paper. I suggest you look up the meaning of tacking
the word S on the end, and also a little logic in debate, to see how what
I am saying is substantial changed by this revelation.
Max Kennedy
Max Kennedy
: >It was an official act of the Continental Congress, the federalist papers
: >"resolutions", and you'd be suprised at how much authority seems to be
: >given to resolutions these days...
: That's because some people will mindlessly follow anything that sounds like
: it might have some authority and answer all their questions for them. We
: call 'em "Dittoheads".
Actually, we call them socialists, and it just so happens that alot of our
current "laws" are actually resolutions posing as such.
Max Kennedy
The Pinhead
No. He's saying that it isn't part of our system of laws. Read what
he wrote.
I did. And so I asked about the implication of what he wrote. And
now I ask you: are you saying that judicial decisions aren't part of
our system of laws?
Discerning "the law" in judicial opinions requires a close reading
to ascertain the holding. I've never seen a holding which had as its
rationale the Declaration of Independence. If you've seen one, please
point me to it.
Ah, I see your confusion. I believe that we aren't talking about "the
law" proper, but rather "the system" of laws. Since no evidence to
the contrary has been presented, I believe that "the system" includes
judicial decisions, and there are several judicial decisions which
quote from the Declaration of Independence; ergo, the DofI has become
a "part of our system of laws".
If he had meant to say that "the DofI is not a part of our canon of
laws", I'm sure he would have said it.
Andy Walton
zi...@hairball.ecst.csuchico.edu (The Pinhead) wrote:
:Ah, I see your confusion. I believe that we aren't talking about "the
:law" proper, but rather "the system" of laws. Since no evidence to
:the contrary has been presented, I believe that "the system" includes
:judicial decisions, and there are several judicial decisions which
:quote from the Declaration of Independence; ergo, the DofI has become
:a "part of our system of laws".
Not really. Again, you need to learn to distinguish between the meat of a
legal opinion, and the "obiter dicta", or "other words".* One provides the
legal rationale for a decision, the other a rhetorical justification. When
the Supreme Court laid out the legal justification for forced
sterilization of the mentally retarded, that was precedent; when the
justice writing the opinion said that "three generations of imbeciles is
enough," that was not.**
The Declaration of Independence is not legally binding. It has been
mentioned in legal opinions, and is instructive as a statement of
principle; but if you are going to stretch the definition of "our system
of laws" so far as to include the Declaration, it must also include parts
of the Bible, Hobbes, Locke, Poor Richard's Almanac, Hustler (Falwell v.
Hustler, 1989) and the works of George Carlin (in my .sig, quoted from the
addenda to a Supreme Court case).
------------
*from the World Wide Legal Information legal dictionary
(http://www.islandnet.com/~wwlia/dict-no.htm#O)
Obiter dictum
Latin: an observation by a judge on a matter not specifically before
the court; a side opinion which does not form part of the judgment for
the purposes of stare decisis.
** This decision has since been overturned. I forget the case, and may
have botched the exact quote -- it's just included as the most glarign
example that sprung to mind.
------------
Voltaire
<dave...@brutus.bright.net> wrote:
>I don't hate anyone...but I dislike Hillary because she is a devious socialist
>liar! Simple.
Two Words: Vagina Envy!
Voltaire
Voltaire
>In article <NEWTNews.8273141...@davebrik.bright.net> Dave Brickner <dave...@brutus.bright.net> writes:
>>From: Dave Brickner <dave...@brutus.bright.net>
>>Subject: Re: Questions for Hillary-Haters
>>Date: Wed, 20 Mar 96 01:27:44 PDT
>
>
>>I don't hate anyone...but I dislike Hillary because she is a devious socialist
>>liar! Simple.
>
>Don't forget her arrogance.
Two words: Tiny Penis!
Joseph G. Adams
The Pinhead <zi...@hairball.ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
>> jga...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Joseph G. Adams) writes:
> No. He's saying that it isn't part of our system of laws. Read what
> he wrote.
>
>I did. And so I asked about the implication of what he wrote. And
>now I ask you: are you saying that judicial decisions aren't part of
>our system of laws?
No, but you misunderstand what that means.
> Discerning "the law" in judicial opinions requires a close reading
> to ascertain the holding. I've never seen a holding which had as its
> rationale the Declaration of Independence. If you've seen one, please
> point me to it.
>
>Ah, I see your confusion. I believe that we aren't talking about "the
>law" proper, but rather "the system" of laws.
The system of laws I was referring to is the set of rules which have
legal force, i.e. they impose penalties for not conforming your actions
to their dictates. They may take the form of constitutions, statutes,
administrative regulations, judicial opinions, etc. However, not every
word in a judicial opinion has legal force.
>Since no evidence to
>the contrary has been presented, I believe that "the system" includes
>judicial decisions, and there are several judicial decisions which
>quote from the Declaration of Independence; ergo, the DofI has become
>a "part of our system of laws".
But those parts don't have legal force any more than than nursery
rhymes, songs, and poetry which has been quoted in judicial opinions.
These decisions carefully articulate the *legal* basis for the
decision, but frequently toss in nonlegal rhetoric, including the
D of I. This nonlegal rhetoric is not part of the system of laws.
--
Joseph G. Adams
Stanford Law School, 2L
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jgadams/
Mr. Sam
>On Wed, 20 Mar 96 01:27:44 PDT, Dave Brickner
><dave...@brutus.bright.net> wrote:
>>I don't hate anyone...but I dislike Hillary because she is a devious socialist
>>liar! Simple.
>Two Words: Vagina Envy!
One word: Loser.
--
Mr. Sam: member, talk.politics.misc troll patrol
channel operator, #Sci-Fi - Undernet IRC sci-fi/fantasy channel
http://www.cyberstorm.com/~rockd/sci-fi.html
_____________________________________________________________________________
"Government is not a solution to our | "First of all, keep in mind that most
problem, government IS the problem." | of our problem is with working
-- R. Reagan. | Americans." -- B. Clinton.
_____________________________________|_______________________________________
Mr. Sam
>On Wed, 20 Mar 1996 06:57:32, f...@tamu.edu (Frank R. Hipp) wrote:
>>In article <NEWTNews.8273141...@davebrik.bright.net> Dave Brickner <dave...@brutus.bright.net> writes:
>>>From: Dave Brickner <dave...@brutus.bright.net>
>>>Subject: Re: Questions for Hillary-Haters
>>>Date: Wed, 20 Mar 96 01:27:44 PDT
>>
>>
>>>I don't hate anyone...but I dislike Hillary because she is a devious socialist
>>>liar! Simple.
>>
>>Don't forget her arrogance.
>Two words: Tiny Penis!
One word: Loser.
Clell A. Harmon
: >Two Words: Vagina Envy!
:
: One word: Loser.
The name associated with all three words, Idiot: Sam.
Loren Petrich
Chris Nandor <ch...@isaac.biola.edu> wrote:
>Loren Petrich wrote:
>> And as to the God bit in the Declaration of Independence, I'm
>> sure that a lot of right-wing authoritarian disciplinarians would foam at
>> the mouth if it was not in the DoI -- that is because they'd be foaming
>> at the mouth that it pictures God as granting rights without
>> responsibilities, and also that it pictures God as endorsing unlimited
>> hedonism and self-indulgence.
>Ummmm .... the DOI endorses hedonism and no responsibilities? Do you
>believe that, or am I misunderstanding you? I'd like to think it is the
>latter.
One can certainly argue about that, but I believe that to the
average right-wing professional moralist, the idea that people have a
God-given right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" would
seem like support of responsibility-less hedonism.
Joseph G. Adams
The Pinhead <zi...@hairball.ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
>> jga...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Joseph G. Adams) writes:
>
> D of I. This nonlegal rhetoric is not part of the system of laws.
>
>You deleted my pertinent statement in your response, so here it is
>again:
>
>"I'm sure if he had meant to say `canon of laws', he would have."
>
>Surely you're not going to tell me that "system" is synonymous
>with "canon"... Are you?!?
No, just entirely irrelevant to the discussion.
The relevant word in "system of laws" or "canon of laws" is "laws."
A law, in its most basic form, is a known, properly enacted rule enforced
by the government. If you use "system," you have an interacting group
of legally enforceable rules. As the D of I is not a legally enforceable
rule, it does not belong in the "system of laws." A canon is a body of
established principles and rules. A "canon of laws" is the body which
contains legally enforceable rules which are established. As the D of I
is not a legally enforceable rule, it does not belong in the "canon of
laws."
Now, the question becomes, why did you insist on this meaningless
distinction?
The Pinhead
No, but you misunderstand what that means.
The misunderstanding is yours, Joe.
The system of laws I was referring to is the set of rules which have
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's your problem, Joe. My argument was directed toward DrLaz's
reference. That you've now made it your own and put your own twist
on it changes things, doesn't it Joe?
D of I. This nonlegal rhetoric is not part of the system of laws.
You deleted my pertinent statement in your response, so here it is
again:
"I'm sure if he had meant to say `canon of laws', he would have."
Surely you're not going to tell me that "system" is synonymous
with "canon"... Are you?!?
--
Norman Nithman
>
>Yes, the Federalist is a private document that provides insight into what the
>men who wrote the Constitution thought they were writing, but no, the
>Congress. The 'Continental' Congress, and is still just as legally valid
>as a Declaration now as it was then. It has never been repealed.
>
I think that it's pretty safe to say that we are still independant
from England, but it's quite a stretch to use a reference to the
"Creator" to back one's right-wing agenda - especially with regards
to banning abortion.
--
Norman Nithman n...@tezcat.com http://www.tezcat.com/~nrn
Damion Schubert
>
>One word: Loser.
We're making progress. Sam has finally convinced us that he can count
all the way up to one.
--damion
---
Damion Schubert
c...@cyberramp.net
"Get outta here, and take your guide dog with you."
- D. Letterman
Mr. Sam
>Mr. Sam (mr...@soho.ios.com) wrote:
I see that we're still desperately searching for some substance. Keep
looking, sir. Eventually you'll get a clue.
Scott Matteson
: >Mr. Sam (mr...@soho.ios.com) wrote:
: >: >Two Words: Vagina Envy!
: >:
: >: One word: Loser.
: > The name associated with all three words, Idiot: Sam.
: I see that we're still desperately searching for some substance. Keep
: looking, sir. Eventually you'll get a clue.
I couldn't resist this one: searching for substance, are you, Mr. Sam?
Is that why you've taken it upon yourself to criticize other people for
typing errors? Where is your substance, and your debate formulated on
facts and reason? ;-)
Clell, don't pay attention to Parrot Sam. As I've pointed out in another
thread, he speaks a different language than we do. "Get a clue" merely
is an acknowledgement of your score against him and the statement that
Sam doesn't have anything to attack other than your alleged ignorance.
Someone ought to compile one of those Berlitz language guides to see
through Sam's blanket statements. ;-)
--
Scott Matteson |"Motel, Money, Murder, Madness... let's change
colo...@crl.com | the mood from glad to sadness."
Boston, Massachusetts | -Jim Morrison, The Doors
Thank God I'm an atheist. "L.A. Woman," 1971
Gail Thaler
Socialist?
Voltaire
wrote:
>Mr. Sam (mr...@soho.ios.com) wrote:
>
>: >Two Words: Vagina Envy!
>:
>: One word: Loser.
>
> The name associated with all three words, Idiot: Sam.
He is pretty damn stupid isn't he?
Voltaire
Clell A. Harmon
:
: >: >Two Words: Vagina Envy!
: >:
: >: One word: Loser.
:
: > The name associated with all three words, Idiot: Sam.
: looking, sir. Eventually you'll get a clue.
Oh you mean like the substance filled message from you that
proceded mine Idiot:?
So hostile Idiot:, you probably weren't breast fed were you?
That's probably why you hate women so much........
Don't worry Idiot: Somewhere out there is a woman with standards
so low that even you will get a date...... Not a second one, but a date.
pyo...@serdp20f.ciesin.org
>
> David W. Truland (tru...@albany.net) wrote:
> : n...@tezcat.com (Norman Nithman) wrote:
>
> : >>>>You can not "throw out" the DOI, it is not law.
> : >>
> : >>Actually, it is.
>
> : While the principles espoused in the Declaration of Independence
> : are certainly relevant to arguments about our system of
> : governance, the document itself is not a part of our system of
> : laws, any more than are the Federalist Papers, etc.
>
> It was an official act of the Continental Congress, the federalist papers
> were not. It has at the LEAST as much legal authority as our modern day
> "resolutions", and you'd be suprised at how much authority seems to be
> given to resolutions these days...
>
> Max Kennedy
>
But Max, what you seem to be forgetting, is that the actual
declaration, the part that might, if your argument were correct, have
some force of law, comes only in the last paragraph:
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in
General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the
world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by
Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and
declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free
and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to
the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and
the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and
that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War,
conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all
other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And
for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the
protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our
Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
The rest of the document is used only to provide reasons to the rest
of the world for the action being taken by the CC, the action of
declaring independence. I don't think you'll find anyone denying that
the several states should be independent of the State of Great
Britain.
I am curious, though. Do you believe, as stated in the DofI that God
belongs to Nature? Does Mr. Keyes believe that?
--
S. Shawn S.
> There's something wrong with being an arrogant, lying, devious
> Socialist?
You got me? What is it? Oh yeah they wanna destroy the burger flipping
jobs.
Shawn
ssh...@ccsi.com
http://www.ccsi.com/~sshawns
**-**-*-*-**-*-*-**-*-*-**-*-*-**-*-*-**-*-*-**-*-*-**-*-*-**-*-*-**-*-*-**-**
"I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution,
the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution."
--Ms. Barbara Jordan, during the Nixon inquiry.
eyl...@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu
Nithman) wrote:
Especially since the other mention of 'the creator' in the document
in question refers to 'nature's God' which was the Deists precise
phrase for their 'creator' i.e. the distant rather abstract Deity who
got things started and pretty much checked out -- the God who really
has no consuming interest in sparrows and probably even less in our
sexual habits, arrangements for providing medical care, abortion laws,
assault weapons laws or capital gains tax policies.
j
Loren Petrich
Norman Nithman <n...@tezcat.com> wrote:
>I think that it's pretty safe to say that we are still independant
>from England, but it's quite a stretch to use a reference to the
>"Creator" to back one's right-wing agenda - especially with regards
>to banning abortion.
Especially when totally unbiblical views are attributed to said
being (where in the Bible does it state that God has granted people the
rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?) -- and views
which these people would foam at the mouth over as promoting unlimited
hedonism and self-indulgence without any sense of responsibility?
Mr. Sam
>Mr. Sam (mr...@soho.ios.com) wrote:
>:
>: >: >Two Words: Vagina Envy!
>: >:
>: >: One word: Loser.
>:
>: > The name associated with all three words, Idiot: Sam.
>:
>: I see that we're still desperately searching for some substance. Keep
>: looking, sir. Eventually you'll get a clue.
> Oh you mean like the substance filled message from you that
>proceded mine Idiot:?
Yes. Dolty is an even more of a loser than you.
> So hostile Idiot:, you probably weren't breast fed were you?
>That's probably why you hate women so much........
I see that we're still in the middle of the endless search. The recycled
'hate women' cliche is the evidence. Let me know when you come up with some
new drivel to rant with.
> Don't worry Idiot: Somewhere out there is a woman with standards
>so low that even you will get a date...... Not a second one, but a date.
The only idiot around here is someone who claims to know the social life of
some other personality across the world, whom he never me, and does not know
personally at all. That is a tell-tale mark of an idiot, and, unfortunately,
you qualify very well.
Mr. Sam
>On 22 Mar 1996 01:19:35 GMT, cl...@woodtech.com (Clell A. Harmon)
>wrote:
>>Mr. Sam (mr...@soho.ios.com) wrote:
>>
>>: >Two Words: Vagina Envy!
>>:
>>: One word: Loser.
>>
>> The name associated with all three words, Idiot: Sam.
>He is pretty damn stupid isn't he?
Folks, we're about to be treated to a remarkable event: two losers trying to
out-lose each other. Please, everyone, don't interfere. This one's for the
history books. Let's see how long these two can keep this thread going.
Mr. Sam
>There's something wrong with being an arrogant, lying, devious
>Socialist?
Yes.
That job's already filled by the current occupant of the White House.
Mr. Sam
>Mr. Sam (mr...@soho.ios.com) wrote:
>: In <4isv77$g...@news.paonline.com>, cl...@woodtech.com (Clell A. Harmon) wrote:
>: >Mr. Sam (mr...@soho.ios.com) wrote:
>: >: >Two Words: Vagina Envy!
>: >:
>: >: One word: Loser.
>: > The name associated with all three words, Idiot: Sam.
>: I see that we're still desperately searching for some substance. Keep
>: looking, sir. Eventually you'll get a clue.
>I couldn't resist this one: searching for substance, are you, Mr. Sam?
Yes. I obviously failed with Clell's post.
>Is that why you've taken it upon yourself to criticize other people for
>typing errors? Where is your substance, and your debate formulated on
>facts and reason? ;-)
Their typing errors were a fact.
>Clell, don't pay attention to Parrot Sam.
Scott, the loser, failed once again, and Mr. Clell's rantings are next in my
spool file. You are a loser even when you try not to.
> As I've pointed out in another
>thread, he speaks a different language than we do.
Yes. It's called "truth".
> "Get a clue" merely
>is an acknowledgement of your score against him and the statement that
>Sam doesn't have anything to attack other than your alleged ignorance.
No, I see really no reason to use some convoluted statement where a short one
will suffice. "Get a clue" simply means that, get a clue. And if you can't
figure it out yourself, get a clue of your own.
>Someone ought to compile one of those Berlitz language guides to see
>through Sam's blanket statements. ;-)
Not necessary. Simple English will suffice in understanding it.
Norman Nithman
<snip>
>Actually, many European countries had their own common laws, it is not
>"English". The English and American versions of common law are different,
>because common law grows and changes by precedents. One such change
>shortly after the American revolution was the meaning "soveriegn". The
>people became the sovereigns, and there is the most significant
>difference between English and American common law.
>
This brings up another interesting point. The ultra-right likes
to throw the terms "sovereign" and "common law" around pretty
loosely. For example, Buchanan refers to "sovereignty" in just
about every speech and Keyes every once in a while regarding GATT/NAFTA.
Poking about in alt.society.sovereign, I've seen some questionable
arguments regarding land titles and establishment of "common law juries"
that would "try" law enforcement officials, etc.
While some of the militia crowd is claiming that they want to re-establish
the original order of things, it seems to me that the average informed person
would reject these theories. In my opinion, a lot of what the far right
is talking about are revolutionary acts. If that's the case, why bother
twisting up a bunch of hare-brained constitutional arguments? Just
state the case for revolution and go for it when the time comes!
Michael Schearer
> On Wed, 20 Mar 96 01:27:44 PDT, Dave Brickner
> <dave...@brutus.bright.net> wrote:
>
>
> >I don't hate anyone...but I dislike Hillary because she is a devious socialist
> >liar! Simple.
>
>
> Two Words: Vagina Envy!
>
> Voltaire
>
Your response is:
1. totally unappropriate.
2. unprofessional.
3. irresponsible.
4. unwarranted in these newsgroups.
Either stop or post to alt.politics.crybabies.
If you can't contribute, then stop flooding the group with your mindless
gook.
Zepp
>Yes it is. As an example, article 6 of the Constitution, all treaties
>made or shall be made.. Or the mere fact that the Paris Peace treaty was
>still a valid and working treaty, amoung other things.
I believe I mentioned that exception myself.
>
>: government decided how much tax should be paid to Philadelphia.
Obviously,
>: that law was changed. States were previously allowed to set tarriffs at
>
>Yes, but I wasn't saying laws didn't change per Constitutional mandate, I
>was saying that there were existing laws by the US Congress that still
>existed after passage of the Constitution. I was driving home the point
>that the Congress existed before the Constitution, in opposition to the
>ideas presented in the article I was responding to. George Washington
>wasn't our first president either.
If you want to say that some STATE laws prexist the Constitution, I'll
agree with you. Massachussetts has valid code dating back to 1636 or
something like that. But as far as I know, the first valid federal law of
the US was AB3, signed in 1790 by Geo. Washington, dealing with federal
domain over inland waterways. There is, so far as I know, no valid Federal
code that predates that. If you have any examples, I'll be happy to review
them.
>
>Actually, many European countries had their own common laws, it is not
>"English". The English and American versions of common law are different,
>because common law grows and changes by precedents. One such change
>shortly after the American revolution was the meaning "soveriegn". The
>people became the sovereigns, and there is the most significant
>difference between English and American common law.
>
It's called "English Common Law because it was the first, and the model
that all the others are based upon. BTW, I hate to ruin your day, but the
notion that the people are sovereign isn't exactly a refutation of English
law--the only difference is that in England, sovereignty is shared. And
THAT dates back to 1215.
*********************************************************************
Unrestrained capitalism -must- eventually result in the gas chambre.
At best, it results in beggers in the town square as the superfluous
are pushed out of the mainstream of society. In any given society,
25-75% of the citizenry are just not cost-effective, and must be
eliminated.
*********************************************************************
Brendan
>There's something wrong with being an arrogant,
Tell me with a straight face that Rush Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan,
and Newt Gingrich are not arrogant. I dare you.
> lying, devious
Unproven allegations at this point. And need I remind you of Iran-Contra
and Watergate (not to mention all the other little swindles conservatives
pull)
>Socialist?
No, there's nothing wrong with being a Socialist, though it's not my ideology
personally. Why do you ask?
>
>
>
-Brendan
____________________________________
"the dullard sees no eros in fine
champagne; the sorcerer can
fall intoxicated on a glass of
water"
-Hakim Bey
"If thou cans not please all men by thine
actions and by thine art, then please the
few; it is bad to please the many"
-Johann Christoph Friedrich von Schiller
Nancy K
>Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com> wrote:
>>There's something wrong with being an arrogant,
>Tell me with a straight face that Rush Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan,
>and Newt Gingrich are not arrogant. I dare you.
Yes, they're arrogant too, in my opinion. What's your point?
>> lying, devious
>Unproven allegations at this point. And need I remind you of Iran-Contra
>and Watergate (not to mention all the other little swindles conservatives
>pull)
Two wrongs make a right? Is that your point?
>
>>Socialist?
>No, there's nothing wrong with being a Socialist, though it's not my ideology
>personally. Why do you ask?
Yes, anyone has a right to be a socialist if they so choose.
However, I take issue with your statement about nothing being wrong
with it. There's nothing wrong with it, unless you care nothing
about the principles upon which this country was founded. I for one,
would prefer if we didn't have socialists, who would inherently do
not agree with our Constitution, in our government supposedly abiding
by it's principles.
We've apparently all become so wimpy (politically correct) that we're
afraid to stand up anyone who pushes a politically-correct button.
Nancy K
Jefferson
>On 22 Mar 1996 01:19:35 GMT, cl...@woodtech.com (Clell A. Harmon)
>wrote:
>
>>Mr. Sam (mr...@soho.ios.com) wrote:
>>
>>: >Two Words: Vagina Envy!
>>:
>>: One word: Loser.
>>
>> The name associated with all three words, Idiot: Sam.
>
>
>
Hillery Clinton symbolizes the decline in white male power in
America. It is no wonder that thouse who see their status falling
despise her (a woman who has far more infulence than they
ever hope to achieve) Jefferson
Zepp
c...@cyberramp.net (Damion Schubert) wrote:
>We're making progress. Sam has finally convinced us that he can count
>all the way up to one.
>
>--damion
>
I think you're being an optimist. I've seen him "make progress" before,
but he always backslides.
William R. Discipio Jr
: volt...@chelsea.ios.com (Voltaire) wrote:
: >On 22 Mar 1996 01:19:35 GMT, cl...@woodtech.com (Clell A. Harmon)
: >wrote:
: >
: >>Mr. Sam (mr...@soho.ios.com) wrote:
: >>
: >>: >Two Words: Vagina Envy!
: >>:
: >>: One word: Loser.
: >>
: >> The name associated with all three words, Idiot: Sam.
: >
: >He is pretty damn stupid isn't he?
: >
: > Voltaire
: >
: Hillery Clinton symbolizes the decline in white male power in
: America.
<snicker> Is that why she rode a white man's penis into the Whitehouse?
: It is no wonder that thouse who see their status falling
: despise her (a woman who has far more infulence than they
: ever hope to achieve) Jefferson
You'd have intercourse with Bill Clinton just to gain power?!
--
crl23% finger volt...@chelsea.ios.com
Login: voltai29 Name: Jim KennemurXAXX
Directory: /u/u9/voltai29 Shell: /usr/local/bin/tcsh
No Mail.
Voltaire
Lookie here boys and girls. Michael is embarrassed by the word VAGINA!
I guess we had all better stop using it because it makes
him.....uncomfortable.
A word of advice Michael. Unless you want to turn out like the
slobbering idiots who Netscab on a regular basis around here (Hi
Willie!) you had better write the following down close to your
computer:
(1) These groups are unmoderated which means your points 1-4 are
non-germane.
(2) If you don't like what someone posts just don'd read their
messages. You can set up a kill-file or just sort by name and zap them
before you read the newsgroups.
(3) Best get a sense of humor. You can rent one at several web-sites.
(4) Some day you will not be as upset by certain words. Until then,
try not to annoy others by whining.
Anytime.
Voltaire
Mr. Sam
wrote:
>Jefferson (ran...@flash.net) wrote:
>: volt...@chelsea.ios.com (Voltaire) wrote:
>: >On 22 Mar 1996 01:19:35 GMT, cl...@woodtech.com (Clell A. Harmon)
>: >wrote:
>: >
>: >>Mr. Sam (mr...@soho.ios.com) wrote:
>: >>
>: >>: >Two Words: Vagina Envy!
>: >>:
>: >>: One word: Loser.
>: >>
>: >> The name associated with all three words, Idiot: Sam.
>: >
>: >He is pretty damn stupid isn't he?
>: >
>: > Voltaire
>: >
>: Hillery Clinton symbolizes the decline in white male power in
>: America.
><snicker> Is that why she rode a white man's penis into the Whitehouse?
Bill has a penis?
Mr. Sam
>Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com> wrote:
>>There's something wrong with being an arrogant,
>Tell me with a straight face that Rush Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan,
>and Newt Gingrich are not arrogant. I dare you.
Rush Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan, and Newt Gingrich are not arrogant. Happy?
Scott Matteson
: Brendan,
: I accidentally came across postings between men giving their opinions of
: Hillary Clinton. As you can see from the other postings in this group,
: the people I agree with and the people I disagree are both pretty
: raunchy.
: I attempted to lighten the mood with a joke from one of my favorite
: Seinfelds. An NYU student reports that Jerry and George are lovers--NOT
: THAT THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT.
: Scott Mattson said he didn't hate HRC because she was a powerful woman
: he disagrees with. He said he hated her because she was a lying
: Socialist.
Get your facts straight, please, Gail, with who said what and who is on
what side. I never said I hated Hillary. Someone else made the so-very
intellectual "lying Socialist" comment. I like and respect her. You've
got the wrong guy and I'd appreciate an apology. ;-)
--
Scott Matteson |"Look out of any window - any morning, any evening,
colo...@crl.com | any day."
Boston, Massachusetts | -The Grateful Dead
Thank God I'm an atheist. 1970
Gail Thaler
I accidentally came across postings between men giving their opinions of
Hillary Clinton. As you can see from the other postings in this group,
the people I agree with and the people I disagree are both pretty
raunchy.
I attempted to lighten the mood with a joke from one of my favorite
Seinfelds. An NYU student reports that Jerry and George are lovers--NOT
THAT THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT.
Scott Mattson said he didn't hate HRC because she was a powerful woman
he disagrees with. He said he hated her because she was a lying
Socialist. Then someone else said she was an arrogant lying socialist.
I don't know if she is arrogant. She probably lies a lot less than some
of the people who criticize, and she is not a Socialist. Her health
care plan was big government but a single-player plan would be more
acceptable to a Socialist.
Gail
Joseph G. Adams
The Pinhead <zi...@hairball.ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
>> jga...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Joseph G. Adams) writes:
> A law, in its most basic form, is a known, properly enacted rule enforced
> by the government. If you use "system," you have an interacting group
> of legally enforceable rules. As the D of I is not a legally enforceable
> rule, it does not belong in the "system of laws."
>
>Sorry, Joe, as Ted has pointed out many times, given "if X then
>Y", then "if NOT X then NOT Y" is a logical fallacy. We may have to
>ask you for your TFSOL diploma.
My statement is not of the form "if X then Y." I defined A as the
set of B. Because I was making a definition, the "not-B" was implicit.
To define is to "determine the essential qualities" and to "fix or
mark the limits." I was not saying A includes Bs, I was saying that
A *is* the set of B.
In other words, the system of laws is the set of legally enforceable
rules. By defining it in this way, I exclude nonenforceable rules
and nonrules. The D of I is not a legally enforceably rule, so it does
not belong in the system of laws, as defined above.
It escapes me how you can be so pedantic while also making blatantly
illogical assertions, like your contention that anything which a court
mentions to "prop up it's [sic] judicial opinions" is included in
the "system of laws."
--
Joseph G. Adams
Stanford Law School, 2L
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jgadams/
The Centurion
>volt...@chelsea.ios.com (Voltaire) wrote:
>>On 22 Mar 1996 01:19:35 GMT, cl...@woodtech.com (Clell A. Harmon)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Mr. Sam (mr...@soho.ios.com) wrote:
>>>
>>>: >Two Words: Vagina Envy!
>>>:
>>>: One word: Loser.
>>>
>>> The name associated with all three words, Idiot: Sam.
>>
>>He is pretty damn stupid isn't he?
>>
>> Voltaire
>>
>Hillery Clinton symbolizes the decline in white male power in
>despise her (a woman who has far more infulence than they
>ever hope to achieve) Jefferson
>
influence" will go to the grave with him. She's basically a whore who's
ridden the coattails of her long-term trick into the driver's seat.
--
AVE ATQVE VALE
CENT...@hooked.net
The Pinhead
A law, in its most basic form, is a known, properly enacted rule enforced
by the government. If you use "system," you have an interacting group
of legally enforceable rules. As the D of I is not a legally enforceable
rule, it does not belong in the "system of laws."
Sorry, Joe, as Ted has pointed out many times, given "if X then
Y", then "if NOT X then NOT Y" is a logical fallacy. We may have to
ask you for your TFSOL diploma.
--
Ronald Cole E-mail: ron...@ridgecrest.ca.us
Software Architect zi...@ecst.csuchico.edu
"You cannot propel yourself forward by patting yourself on the back."
Gina
think that Hilary Clinton is a very strong role modle for young women
to look up to-she in no way kisses men's butts. She has the right idea
toward humanity, too-she cares about people that we should all care
about, because if we refuse to help, it will come back at us some day.
I think that most men have a problem with her because she frightens
them. She is a strong, independent woman with ideas of her own, and we
can only beneifit from her insight. I am not saying that she has all
the answers, but then again, who does? If you think it is that Nazi
Buchanan, I feel terribly sorry for you.
Gina
f...@tamu.edu (Frank R. Hipp) wrote:
>In article <NEWTNews.8273141...@davebrik.bright.net> Dave Brickner <dave...@brutus.bright.net> writes:
>>From: Dave Brickner <dave...@brutus.bright.net>
>>Subject: Re: Questions for Hillary-Haters
>>Date: Wed, 20 Mar 96 01:27:44 PDT
>>I don't hate anyone...but I dislike Hillary because she is a devious socialist
>>liar! Simple.
>Don't forget her arrogance.
>Frank
Dan Thornsberry
Speaking of whores, how's your mom? Finally on her back
again? Is she bringing your daughter into the business?
--
"Give any senile old fool a credit card and he can
give you the illusion of prosperity" - Ronald Reagan
"Mommie, did the astrologer OK the press conference?" R. Reagan
"I might not be good enough for the US, but I'm
still good enough for Texas" - Phil Gramm
"The guvermint spens two much on edjication" - The GOP
"Come here little girl, I have something for you" - D. Koresh
"I am the NRA" - Timothy McVeigh
"OK son, If you see anyone coming, blast away" - R. Weaver
"Is the cash in the envelope?" - Newt Gingrich
"Yes sir, Mr. Gambino" - Alfonse D'Amato
"Yes sir, Mr. D'Amato" - Kenneth Starr
"When your fans are idiots, facts don't matter" - Rush Limbaugh
"Elect me because I'm too old to try later" - Bob Dole
"Yassuh Boss" - Clarence Thomas
============================================================
| | The GOP wants more guns |
| Dan Thornsberry | |
|tbe...@computek.net | and less education!!! |
| | |
============================================================
The victors called the revolution a triumph of liberty;
but now and then liberty, in the slogans of the strong,
means freedom from restraint in the exploitation of the
weak. -Will Durant
Joseph G. Adams
>I don't remember if it was Time or Newsweek but one of them hit the nail
>right on the head when they explained the basic reason why Alan Keyes is
>"running for President," instead of looking for a job so he can pay back
>the money he owes to the small businesses he bilked when he ran for the
>Senate in Maryland. Although he is still declaring he won't pay anyone
>back and that the money is owed by his old "campaign" and not by him, the
>"run" for the presidency will boost he speaking fees so when he gets up in
>front of a group of imbeciles who want to hear his impassioned drivel, he
>will be able to charge more. This will help him in his quest to never have
>to get a real job.
There was an article in Time describing how running for president improved
the financial situation of the candidates. However, the article neither
singled out Alan Keyes (Pat Buchanan was featured much more prominently)
nor suggested that money was his sole or even primary reason for running.
FizzTwo
Marc H. Pinsonneault
>
> In article <4j45qj$4...@nntp.flash.net>, Jefferson <ran...@flash.net> wrote:
> >>On 22 Mar 1996 01:19:35 GMT, cl...@woodtech.com (Clell A. Harmon)
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>Mr. Sam (mr...@soho.ios.com) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>: >Two Words: Vagina Envy!
> >>>:
> >>>: One word: Loser.
> >>>
> >>> The name associated with all three words, Idiot: Sam.
> >>
> >>He is pretty damn stupid isn't he?
> >>
> >> Voltaire
> >>
> >America. It is no wonder that thouse who see their status falling
> >despise her (a woman who has far more infulence than they
> >ever hope to achieve) Jefferson
> >
> Yeah, sure. If Slick Willy's heart stops beating tomorrow her "power and
> influence" will go to the grave with him. She's basically a whore who's
> ridden the coattails of her long-term trick into the driver's seat.
>
> --
> AVE ATQVE VALE
> CENT...@hooked.net
who ride the coattails of their long-term tricks into the drivers seat?
The Hillary-haters are a disgrace to the GOP as surely as the Nancy
Reagan-haters did no good for the Democrats.
Marc Pinsonneault
Jim Hurd
He is in the grand old American political tradition, simply a rip-off.
He'd be waving the red flag if it would bring in a buck.
On 26 Mar 1996, Joseph G. Adams wrote:
> In article <4j93t2$b...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, FizzTwo <fiz...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> There was an article in Time describing how running for president improved
> the financial situation of the candidates. However, the article neither
> singled out Alan Keyes (Pat Buchanan was featured much more prominently)
> nor suggested that money was his sole or even primary reason for running.
>
> --
> Joseph G. Adams
> Stanford Law School, 2L
> http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jgadams/
>
>
///\\///\\\///-----JIM HURD-----///\\\///\\\//
(305)-663-0856 (h&w) jh...@indiana.edu
http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~jhurd/home.html
Gail Thaler
instead of yours and had to apologize to him. Mr. Thornsberry was made
a sexist remark about me because I insulted Mr. Hanson.
I am sorry if I get all you guys mixed up. Let me see, Mr.Sam is the
troll hunter, you like the Grateful Dead, Hansberry is liberal and
Hanson is the expert on Whitewater.
Part of the problem is that you guys just are too wordy. You quote each
other and repeat yourselves.
I privately and personally apology to Scott Matteson for saying he's a
Hillary hater.
He's wrong on just about everything else though.
Gail
----Haven't figured out what really really clever thing I'm going to say
down at the bottom, but I will.