Impeachment, Here We Come
Al Ridemfi
> From "g.sand" <g.s...@worldnet.att>
> Organization AT&T WorldNet Services
> Date 7 Nov 1996 23:57:36 GMT
> Rich Travsky <rtra...@uwyo.edu> wrote:
> >PanthersNFL wrote:
> >> Just think.....
> >>
> >> Summer of 1997 impeachment hearings.On what charge(s)? I ask this as you'd think in four years if
> >there were something valid to bring charges on it would've been
> >done...
> >
> >Planning on spending another THIRTY MILLION DOLLARS of our tax money
> >on another witch hunt????
> >
> D'Amato says no more Whitewater hearings. You don't have to
> be a Weatherman or a Democrat to know the way the wind blows.
> The people have spoken. They want government, not scandal-
> mongering.
>
> It'll take a few days for the right-wing Usenet crowd to get
> it, but they will.
You mean the people want to forget about abuses of power (ie, the
misuse of the FBI in Travelgate, Craig Livingstone running his mitts
thru 900+ FBI files in Filegate), wholesale violations of campaign
financing (Cabrera, Huang, etc), etc, etc? OK, you win, I'm
convinced. We'll let bygones be bygones. There!
_____________________________________________________________________
... and now, the real fun begins?
Your ultra-liberal Aunty
Al Ridemfi wrote:
>
> > From "g.sand" <g.s...@worldnet.att>
> > Organization AT&T WorldNet Services
> > Date 7 Nov 1996 23:57:36 GMT
>
> > Rich Travsky <rtra...@uwyo.edu> wrote:
> > >PanthersNFL wrote:
> > >> Just think.....
> > >>
> > >> Summer of 1997 impeachment hearings.On what charge(s)? I ask this as you'd think in four years if
> > >there were something valid to bring charges on it would've been
> > >done...
> > >
Bullshit, its the fu*kin' republican's right-wingers, pseudo-racist, rabble rousers who
are at work here. Fu*kin' extremists, fundametalists. They got nothing better to except
create more crap day by day. God damn, can't they get it stright they lost. Its about
time they went back into there shit holes.
> > >Planning on spending another THIRTY MILLION DOLLARS of our tax money
> > >on another witch hunt????
> > >
> > D'Amato says no more Whitewater hearings. You don't have to
> > be a Weatherman or a Democrat to know the way the wind blows.
> > The people have spoken. They want government, not scandal-
> > mongering.
> >
> > It'll take a few days for the right-wing Usenet crowd to get
> > it, but they will.
>
> You mean the people want to forget about abuses of power (ie, the
> misuse of the FBI in Travelgate, Craig Livingstone running his mitts
> thru 900+ FBI files in Filegate), wholesale violations of campaign
> financing (Cabrera, Huang, etc), etc, etc? OK, you win, I'm
> convinced. We'll let bygones be bygones. There!
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
>
> ... and now, the real fun begins?
Yup forget about that, and also forget about all the pseudo-racists in GOP. forget about
the fact that GOP is a rich-white male party only. Forget about Pat Buchanan and his old
fat ass right wing pseudo-racist associate Pat Robertson. By the way, can anyone tell me
where did Pat Buchanan get elected from, so that I make sure that I don't end up in that
shit-hole accidently.
Rockett Crawford
DOLE!
DoeOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHL!!!!!!! DOLE!
(10 minute pause, someone finally shoves him)
I'M GONNA MISS BOB DOLE!!
(Then He falls forward off the stage)
P.S.
Now all we have to laugh at is nude gangreen,
streaker in the house.
ZB
On Fri, 08 Nov 1996 23:40:48 -0800, Al Ridemfi <a...@ibm.net> wrote:
>> From "g.sand" <g.s...@worldnet.att>
>> Organization AT&T WorldNet Services
>> Date 7 Nov 1996 23:57:36 GMT
>
>> Rich Travsky <rtra...@uwyo.edu> wrote:
>> >PanthersNFL wrote:
>> >> Just think.....
>> >>
>> >> Summer of 1997 impeachment hearings.On what charge(s)? I ask this as you'd think in four years if
>> >there were something valid to bring charges on it would've been
>> >done...
>> >
>> >Planning on spending another THIRTY MILLION DOLLARS of our tax money
>> >on another witch hunt????
>> >
>> D'Amato says no more Whitewater hearings. You don't have to
>> be a Weatherman or a Democrat to know the way the wind blows.
>> The people have spoken. They want government, not scandal-
>> mongering.
>>
>> It'll take a few days for the right-wing Usenet crowd to get
>> it, but they will.
>
>You mean the people want to forget about abuses of power (ie, the
>misuse of the FBI in Travelgate, Craig Livingstone running his mitts
>thru 900+ FBI files in Filegate), wholesale violations of campaign
>financing (Cabrera, Huang, etc), etc, etc? OK, you win, I'm
>convinced. We'll let bygones be bygones. There!
>
>_____________________________________________________________________
>
>... and now, the real fun begins?
You lost. Stop your damn whining and get on with your life. As the
above poster states, we've spend enough time and money on politically
motivated investigations and it's time to get on with the business of
the country. If your truly addicted to rumors and unsubstantiated
stories, go buy and Inquirer.
ZB
Repubs who may want to leave the Planet.
1. Phone NASA. The number is 713 483 3111. Explain that
it's very important that you get away as soon as
possible.
2.If they don't cooperate, phone any friend you may have
in the White House 202 456 1414-to have a word on your
behave with the guys at NASA.
3.If you don't have any friends in the White House,
phone the Kremlin (0106 095 295 9051). They don't have
any friends there either, but they do seem to have a
little influence, so you may as well try.
4.If that also fails, phone the Pope for guidance. His
phone number is 011 39 6 6983, and I gather his
switchboard is infallable.
5.If all these attempts fail, flag down a passing flying
saucer and explain that it's vitally important you get
away before your phone bill arrives.
Indiana White Snake
FACE IT!! Clinton is a criminal or is all this shit just a
coincidence? Come on now
Mark Johnson
Your ultra-liberal Aunty <au...@ultra-liberal.org> wrote:
>the fu*kin' republican's right-wingers, pseudo-racist, rabble rousers who
>are at work here. Fu*kin' extremists, fundametalists. They got nothing better to except
>create more crap day by day. God damn, can't they get it stright they lost. Its about
>time they went back into there shit holes.
Another 'soccer Mom' speaks, I guess.
You know I have to say, and it's true, and it's fair, and if I'm
repeating myself, alas . . but . . for all your bitterness and hatred
in this supposed 'victory' (which you clearly don't think it is), I
just want to remind you, and all reading this, that you still got more
class . . . than Clinton.
(ya do! I mean, at least _you're_ not threatening the entire
population of the country to go out and suddenly start practicing
medicine without a license as some kind of hack cancer surgeon)
William Barwell
In article <562rqq$s...@news.ime.net>,
Indiana White Snake <cyb...@ime.net> wrote:
>
>FACE IT!! Clinton is a criminal or is all this shit just a
>coincidence? Come on now
>
>
Accusations without real facts or evidence fanned furiously by
ideologues practicing the politics of personal destruction.
Demogogery, hate and empty charges.
Note how the haters ignored all the shit that went on under
Reagan and Bush. There is not a lick of ethical honesty or moral honesty
or intellectual honesty in a box car load of these hateful and deeply
stupid ideologues.
Integrity and trust are only words to them, weapons to be used tactically
in hypocritical political debate by right wingers who showed themselves as
a class to be utterly unfamiliar with these concepts under Reagan and
Bush's reign of prejury, lies, felonies and open contempt for our
Constitution, laws or basic honesty.
As contemptable a lot of louts and liars as ever debased the
ground they walk on.
They make heros of Reagan and Ollie North for their crimes.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
Rich Travsky
> > >On what charge(s)? I ask this as you'd think in four years if
> > It'll take a few days for the right-wing Usenet crowd to get
> > it, but they will.
> You mean the people want to forget about abuses of power (ie, the
> misuse of the FBI in Travelgate, Craig Livingstone running his mitts
> thru 900+ FBI files in Filegate), wholesale violations of campaign
> financing (Cabrera, Huang, etc), etc, etc? OK, you win, I'm
> convinced. We'll let bygones be bygones. There!
Please list an impeachable offense.
Where are the charges?
Four years and thirty million dollars ago -the right wing version
of the Gettysburg address.
Waiting for your list...
RT
Chris Kramer
Your ultra-liberal Aunty wrote:
>
> Al Ridemfi wrote:
> >
> > > From "g.sand" <g.s...@worldnet.att>
> > > Organization AT&T WorldNet Services
> > > Date 7 Nov 1996 23:57:36 GMT
> >
> > > >>
> > > >> Summer of 1997 impeachment hearings.On what charge(s)? I ask this as you'd think in four years if
> > > >there were something valid to bring charges on it would've been
> > > >done...
> > > >
>
> are at work here. (bleep) extremists, fundametalists. They got nothing better to except
> create more crap day by day. God damn, can't they get it stright they lost. Its about
>
> > > >Planning on spending another THIRTY MILLION DOLLARS of our tax money
> > > >on another witch hunt????
> > > >
> > > D'Amato says no more Whitewater hearings. You don't have to
> > > be a Weatherman or a Democrat to know the way the wind blows.
> > > The people have spoken. They want government, not scandal-
> > > mongering.
> > >
> > > it, but they will.
> >
> > You mean the people want to forget about abuses of power (ie, the
> > misuse of the FBI in Travelgate, Craig Livingstone running his mitts
> > thru 900+ FBI files in Filegate), wholesale violations of campaign
> > financing (Cabrera, Huang, etc), etc, etc? OK, you win, I'm
> > convinced. We'll let bygones be bygones. There!
> >
> >
> > ... and now, the real fun begins?
>
> the fact that GOP is a rich-white male party only. Forget about Pat Buchanan and his old
> where did Pat Buchanan get elected from, so that I make sure that I don't end up in that
Grandma always said talk like that due to lack of a vocabulary or just an empty waggon
rattling.
--
**************************************************
* Chris Kramer ckr...@batelco.com.bh *
*Bahrain..........my little corner of paradise! *
**************************************************
Al Ridemfi
> From Rich Travsky <rtra...@uwyo.edu>
> Organization Banzai Institute
> Al Ridemfi wrote:
> > > Rich Travsky <rtra...@uwyo.edu> wrote:
> > > >PanthersNFL wrote:
> > > >> Summer of 1997 impeachment hearings.
> > > >On what charge(s)? I ask this as you'd think in four years if
> > > [...]
> > > It'll take a few days for the right-wing Usenet crowd to get
> > > it, but they will.
> > You mean the people want to forget about abuses of power (ie, the
> > misuse of the FBI in Travelgate, Craig Livingstone running his mitts
> > thru 900+ FBI files in Filegate), wholesale violations of campaign
> > financing (Cabrera, Huang, etc), etc, etc? OK, you win, I'm
> > convinced. We'll let bygones be bygones. There!
>
> Please list an impeachable offense.
He hasn't committed one--yet. If he pardons the McDougals, or Web
Hubbell, or Livingstone, or any else implicated by Ken Starr, he
could be inviting one, said Trent Lott, Senate Majority leader last
Saturday.
Actually, there is NO "list" of impeachable offenses. Simply put,
Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution states the following:
"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United
States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and
conviction of, treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors."
Clearly the first two items wouldn't apply, but the latter two are
of course open to interpretation. If Congress wanted to, they could
define spitting on the sidewalk as an impeachable offense. Of course,
without a buy-in from public opinion, they'd be committing suicide.
Speaking of the public, let's test their knowledge here: Have any
President(s) ever been impeached, and if so, what was the reason?
Here's a related quiz: which body of Congress can impeach a
President: a) the House; b) the Senate; c) either one.
Jeffrey
Forget the "labels" Republican, Democratic etc. It's the party that
rules, the power behind the throne - the "really special interets" JTS
William Barwell
In article <328696...@pacbell.net>, Jeffrey <arg...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Forget the "labels" Republican, Democratic etc. It's the party that
>rules, the power behind the throne - the "really special interets" JTS
My loyal supporters, your special interests.
Neither side is going to allow any great changes in teh system, unless
they can assure it hurts their opponents and helps them.
There will be no real reform.
Big business owns America and they won't let reform happen either.
Jeffrey
> SubGenius Pope Of Houston
> Slack!
Well said, power corrupts absolutely.. JTS
M Simon
The problem here Al is that if they dig too deep into most of
these scandals the Republicans will be found complicit. It is in
the interest of both parties to put all the scandals to rest.
So we have the new bi-partisan Clinton and 'the investigations
were useless' D'Amato.
But there is leakage. Which will in time turn into a flood.
------------------------------------------------------------
Al Ridemfi <a...@ibm.net> wrote:
>> From "g.sand" <g.s...@worldnet.att>
>> Organization AT&T WorldNet Services
>> Date 7 Nov 1996 23:57:36 GMT
>> Rich Travsky <rtra...@uwyo.edu> wrote:
>> >PanthersNFL wrote:
>> >> Just think.....
>> >>
>> >> Summer of 1997 impeachment hearings.On what charge(s)? I ask this as you'd think in four years if
>> >there were something valid to bring charges on it would've been
>> >done...
>> >
>> >Planning on spending another THIRTY MILLION DOLLARS of our tax money
>> >on another witch hunt????
>> >
>> D'Amato says no more Whitewater hearings. You don't have to
>> be a Weatherman or a Democrat to know the way the wind blows.
>> The people have spoken. They want government, not scandal-
>> mongering.
>>
>> It'll take a few days for the right-wing Usenet crowd to get
>> it, but they will.
>You mean the people want to forget about abuses of power (ie, the
>misuse of the FBI in Travelgate, Craig Livingstone running his mitts
>thru 900+ FBI files in Filegate), wholesale violations of campaign
>financing (Cabrera, Huang, etc), etc, etc? OK, you win, I'm
>convinced. We'll let bygones be bygones. There!
>_____________________________________________________________________
>
>... and now, the real fun begins?
In the end people get the government they deserve.
Read "The Weapon Shops of Isher" by A.E. vanVogt
Simon
John W.Tibbs
Al Ridemfi
> From msi...@rworld.com (M Simon)
> Organization Space-Time Productions
> The problem here Al is that if they dig too deep into most of
> these scandals the Republicans will be found complicit. It is in
> the interest of both parties to put all the scandals to rest.
You mean the Republicans also hired Craig Livingstone?....
And sicced the FBI on people who were fired unjustly to cover
their tracks?....
This could be a real scoop here, folks.
ekim
Mark Johnson (1023...@compuserve.com) wrote:
: Your ultra-liberal Aunty <au...@ultra-liberal.org> wrote:
: >the fu*kin' republican's right-wingers, pseudo-racist, rabble rousers who
: >are at work here. Fu*kin' extremists, fundametalists. They got nothing better to except
: >create more crap day by day. God damn, can't they get it stright they lost. Its about
: >time they went back into there shit holes.
: Another 'soccer Mom' speaks, I guess.
: You know I have to say, and it's true, and it's fair, and if I'm
: repeating myself, alas . . but . . for all your bitterness and hatred
: in this supposed 'victory' (which you clearly don't think it is), I
: just want to remind you, and all reading this, that you still got more
: class . . . than Clinton.
: (ya do! I mean, at least _you're_ not threatening the entire
: population of the country to go out and suddenly start practicing
: medicine without a license as some kind of hack cancer surgeon)
another one rears his flaccid (ditto) head.
--
mike
/
--^^^^
Thomas Steegmann
On Sun, 10 Nov 1996 20:53:25 -0800, Al Ridemfi <a...@ibm.net> scrawled:
>He hasn't committed one--yet. If he pardons the McDougals, or Web
>Hubbell, or Livingstone, or any else implicated by Ken Starr, he
>could be inviting one, said Trent Lott, Senate Majority leader last
>Saturday.
>
>Actually, there is NO "list" of impeachable offenses. Simply put,
>Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution states the following:
>
>"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United
>States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and
>conviction of, treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors."
So in other words you are saying "We know Clinton hasn't actually
done anything illegal, but if he does, he'll be in big trouble." Big
fucking deal. At least you admit that Clinton isn't in any trouble.
Most neo-cons are so sure that he is going to jail in the next 2
weeks, they would bet their houses on it.
>
>Clearly the first two items wouldn't apply, but the latter two are
>of course open to interpretation. If Congress wanted to, they could
>define spitting on the sidewalk as an impeachable offense. Of course,
>without a buy-in from public opinion, they'd be committing suicide.
>
>Speaking of the public, let's test their knowledge here: Have any
>President(s) ever been impeached, and if so, what was the reason?
>
>Here's a related quiz: which body of Congress can impeach a
>President: a) the House; b) the Senate; c) either one.
>
Pretty sure its the Senate.
Tom Steegmann
steegman @ tomcindy rotterdam ny us
netheaven.com/~steegman
Don't bother sending me junk mail. That goes for spammers,
MLM's, gun nutz, and all of you in the Blak Helikopter Krowd
Go Bills!
All Hail the Blak Helikopters!
Thomas Steegmann
On Sun, 10 Nov 1996 11:04:14 -0700, Rich Travsky <rtra...@uwyo.edu>
scrawled:
>Al Ridemfi wrote:
>> > Rich Travsky <rtra...@uwyo.edu> wrote:
>> > >PanthersNFL wrote:
>> > >> Summer of 1997 impeachment hearings.
>> > >On what charge(s)? I ask this as you'd think in four years if
>> > [...]
>> > It'll take a few days for the right-wing Usenet crowd to get
>> > it, but they will.
>> You mean the people want to forget about abuses of power (ie, the
>> misuse of the FBI in Travelgate, Craig Livingstone running his mitts
>> thru 900+ FBI files in Filegate), wholesale violations of campaign
>> financing (Cabrera, Huang, etc), etc, etc? OK, you win, I'm
>> convinced. We'll let bygones be bygones. There!
>
>
>Please list an impeachable offense.
He's a librul! A Librul! he talks to his wife. his daughter goes
to school. some of his friends got in trouble! he's a librul! a
librul!!!
>
>Where are the charges?
>
>Four years and thirty million dollars ago -the right wing version
>of the Gettysburg address.
>
>Waiting for your list...
he's a librul!!!! a librul!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>RT
Lone_Wolf
In <328abe99...@news.netheaven.com> stee...@tomcindy.rotterdam.ny.us (Thomas Steegmann) writes:
#On Sun, 10 Nov 1996 20:53:25 -0800, Al Ridemfi <a...@ibm.net> scrawled:
#>He hasn't committed one--yet. If he pardons the McDougals, or Web
#>Hubbell, or Livingstone, or any else implicated by Ken Starr, he
#>could be inviting one, said Trent Lott, Senate Majority leader last
#>Saturday.
#>
#>Actually, there is NO "list" of impeachable offenses. Simply put,
#>Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution states the following:
#>
#>"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United
#>States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and
#>conviction of, treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors."
# So in other words you are saying "We know Clinton hasn't actually
#done anything illegal, but if he does, he'll be in big trouble." Big
#fucking deal. At least you admit that Clinton isn't in any trouble.
#Most neo-cons are so sure that he is going to jail in the next 2
#weeks, they would bet their houses on it.
#>
#>Clearly the first two items wouldn't apply, but the latter two are
#>of course open to interpretation. If Congress wanted to, they could
#>define spitting on the sidewalk as an impeachable offense. Of course,
#>without a buy-in from public opinion, they'd be committing suicide.
#>
#>Speaking of the public, let's test their knowledge here: Have any
#>President(s) ever been impeached, and if so, what was the reason?
Impeachment vote against one President for firing a cabinet official or some
such failed by one vote, if I recall correctly.
#>
#>Here's a related quiz: which body of Congress can impeach a
#>President: a) the House; b) the Senate; c) either one.
#>
# Pretty sure its the Senate.
Yep. Maximum penalty for impeachment is removal from office anda bar on
holding office in the future, but criminal trial for impeachable offenses is
still available.
James
#Tom Steegmann
#steegman @ tomcindy rotterdam ny us
#netheaven.com/~steegman
#Don't bother sending me junk mail. That goes for spammers,
#MLM's, gun nutz, and all of you in the Blak Helikopter Krowd
#Go Bills!
#All Hail the Blak Helikopters!
william c anderson
Lone_Wolf (gt6...@cad.gatech.edu) wrote:
: In <328abe99...@news.netheaven.com> stee...@tomcindy.rotterdam.ny.us (Thomas Steegmann) writes:
: #On Sun, 10 Nov 1996 20:53:25 -0800, Al Ridemfi <a...@ibm.net> scrawled:
: #>Here's a related quiz: which body of Congress can impeach a
: #>President: a) the House; b) the Senate; c) either one.
: #>
:
:
: # Pretty sure its the Senate.
:
: Yep.
Nope. The house impeaches; the matter then goes to the Senate for
trial.
Bill
James Greif
On Tue, 12 Nov 1996, Thomas Steegmann wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Nov 1996 20:53:25 -0800, Al Ridemfi <a...@ibm.net> scrawled:
>
> >He hasn't committed one--yet. If he pardons the McDougals, or Web
> >Hubbell, or Livingstone, or any else implicated by Ken Starr, he
> >could be inviting one, said Trent Lott, Senate Majority leader last
> >Saturday.
> >
> >Actually, there is NO "list" of impeachable offenses. Simply put,
> >Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution states the following:
> >
> >"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United
> >States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and
> >conviction of, treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors."
>
Lippo Bribery, Obstruction of justice, Sexual Harassment
and all the other politically correct suicide tracing
that this infinitesimal piece of Slick Willy slim has produced.
Kris Lipman
And boring! Don't forget he's unforgivably boring, according to a
respected
Washington jounalist (not Salinger, the other one).
=============================================================================
Kris Lipman "...let facts be submitted to a candid
world."
kali...@up.net -- The Declaration of
Independence
=============================================================================
Al Ridemfi
> From lib...@larry.cc.emory.edu (william c anderson)
> Organization Emory University
> Date 12 Nov 1996 22:50:17 GMT
Bill is correct. It should be noted that under the Constitution,
the Chief Justice presides over the Senate trial.
Al Ridemfi
> From midt...@hooked.net (Garrett Johnson)
> Organization Hooked Online Services
> Date Wed, 13 Nov 96 02:32:02 GMT
> In article <328abe99...@news.netheaven.com>,
> stee...@tomcindy.rotterdam.ny.us (Thomas Steegmann) wrote:
> >On Sun, 10 Nov 1996 20:53:25 -0800, Al Ridemfi <a...@ibm.net> scrawled:
> >
> >>He hasn't committed one--yet. If he pardons the McDougals, or Web
> >>Hubbell, or Livingstone, or any else implicated by Ken Starr, he
> >>could be inviting one, said Trent Lott, Senate Majority leader last
> >>Saturday.
> >>
> >>Actually, there is NO "list" of impeachable offenses. Simply put,
> >>Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution states the following:
> >>
> >>"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United
> >>States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and
> >>conviction of, treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors."
> >
> > So in other words you are saying "We know Clinton hasn't actually
> >done anything illegal, but if he does, he'll be in big trouble." Big
> >fucking deal. At least you admit that Clinton isn't in any trouble.
> >Most neo-cons are so sure that he is going to jail in the next 2
> >weeks, they would bet their houses on it.
> >
> It looks like Newt is gaining ground fast on the impeachment race track.
> In fact, with 15 House Republicans calling for Newt to step down, I would say
> that Newt is closer to being impeached than Clinton. Especially with Starr's
> last trial prosecution failing to get a conviction, and the FBI files not having
> a single top Clinton aid's fingerprints on them (including Hillary).
>
> -GJ
Actually, Starr's findings have sent three people to jail thus far: Mr and
Mrs McDougal (we've all seen the photos of the attractive blonde Susan
McDougal being paraded in the OJ-like orange jumpsuit, shackled both at
the wrists and ankles) and Web Hubbell.
Starr is expected to release his next batch of indictment requests shortly....
As far as Mr. Newt goes, the house rebels are calling for him to be replaced
by Henry Hyde, no less a conservative than Mr. Newt. So I wouldn't get too
excited if I were you.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Al Ridemfi
> From lib...@larry.cc.emory.edu (william c anderson)
> Organization Emory University
> Date 12 Nov 1996 22:50:17 GMT
> Lone_Wolf (gt6...@cad.gatech.edu) wrote:
> : In <328abe99...@news.netheaven.com> stee...@tomcindy.rotterdam.ny.us (Thomas Steegmann) writes:
> : #On Sun, 10 Nov 1996 20:53:25 -0800, Al Ridemfi <a...@ibm.net> scrawled:
>
> : #>Here's a related quiz: which body of Congress can impeach a
> : #>President: a) the House; b) the Senate; c) either one.
> : #>
> :
> :
> : # Pretty sure its the Senate.
> :
> : Yep.
>
> Nope. The house impeaches; the matter then goes to the Senate for
> trial.
>
> Bill
Bill is correct. It should be noted that under the Constitution, the
Chief Justice gets to preside over the Senate trial.
Al Ridemfi
> From yas...@ix.netcom.com(Mary E Knadler )
> Organization Netcom
> Date 12 Nov 1996 21:40:59 GMT
> In <328810...@ibm.net> Al Ridemfi <a...@ibm.net> writes:
> >
> >> From msi...@rworld.com (M Simon)
> >> Organization Space-Time Productions
> >
> >> The problem here Al is that if they dig too deep into most of
> >> these scandals the Republicans will be found complicit. It is in
> >> the interest of both parties to put all the scandals to rest.
> >
> >You mean the Republicans also hired Craig Livingstone?....
> >And sicced the FBI on people who were fired unjustly to cover
> >their tracks?....
> >This could be a real scoop here, folks.
> >
> >> So we have the new bi-partisan Clinton and 'the investigations
> >> were useless' D'Amato.
> >>
> >> But there is leakage. Which will in time turn into a flood.
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Al Ridemfi <a...@ibm.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> From "g.sand" <g.s...@worldnet.att>
> >> >> Organization AT&T WorldNet Services
> >> >> Date 7 Nov 1996 23:57:36 GMT
> >>
> >> >> Rich Travsky <rtra...@uwyo.edu> wrote:
> >> >> >PanthersNFL wrote:
> >> >> >> Just think.....
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Summer of 1997 impeachment hearings.On what charge(s)? I ask
> this as you'd think in four years if
> >> >> >there were something valid to bring charges on it would've been
> >> >> >done...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Planning on spending another THIRTY MILLION DOLLARS of our tax
> money
> >> >> >on another witch hunt????
> >> >> >
> >> >> D'Amato says no more Whitewater hearings. You don't have to
> >> >> be a Weatherman or a Democrat to know the way the wind blows.
> >> >> The people have spoken. They want government, not scandal-
> >> >> mongering.
> >> >>
> >> >> It'll take a few days for the right-wing Usenet crowd to get
> >> >> it, but they will.
> >>
> >> >You mean the people want to forget about abuses of power (ie, the
> >> >misuse of the FBI in Travelgate, Craig Livingstone running his
> mitts
> >> >thru 900+ FBI files in Filegate), wholesale violations of campaign
> >> >financing (Cabrera, Huang, etc), etc, etc? OK, you win, I'm
> >> >convinced. We'll let bygones be bygones. There!
> >>
> >>
> >> In the end people get the government they deserve.
> >>
> >> Read "The Weapon Shops of Isher" by A.E. vanVogt
> >>
> >> Simon
> >
>
> Things have sure changed since the Nixon era! And these people were on
> the impeachment committee. How ironic! yasmin2
And Hillary Rodham (now Mrs. Clinton) and Web Hubbell (now in JAIL) were
*lawyers* for the Democratic majority of that committee (House Judiciary).
Even more irony....
_______________________________________________________________________
Al Ridemfi
> From stee...@tomcindy.rotterdam.ny.us (Thomas Steegmann)
> Organization Altopia Corp. - Affordable Usenet Access - http://www.alt.net
> Date Tue, 12 Nov 1996 18:17:53 GMT
> On Sun, 10 Nov 1996 20:53:25 -0800, Al Ridemfi <a...@ibm.net> scrawled:
>
> >He hasn't committed one--yet. If he pardons the McDougals, or Web
> >Hubbell, or Livingstone, or any else implicated by Ken Starr, he
> >could be inviting one, said Trent Lott, Senate Majority leader last
> >Saturday.
> >
> >Actually, there is NO "list" of impeachable offenses. Simply put,
> >Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution states the following:
> >
> >"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United
> >States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and
> >conviction of, treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors."
>
> So in other words you are saying "We know Clinton hasn't actually
> done anything illegal, but if he does, he'll be in big trouble." Big
> fucking deal. At least you admit that Clinton isn't in any trouble.
> Most neo-cons are so sure that he is going to jail in the next 2
> weeks, they would bet their houses on it.
I don't think ANYBODY seriously believes that the Clintons (either one
of them) is going to jail anytime soon, if for no other reason that the
resources available to them can tie up the legal system for YEARS!
The same is not necessarily true of their pals (three are already in
jail, with others sure to follow before this decade is out).
Nor do I believe that he'll ever be actually impeached--simply because
he could do what Nixon did (resign when the majority of members in the
House are preparing to vote for it).
> >Clearly the first two items wouldn't apply, but the latter two are
> >of course open to interpretation. If Congress wanted to, they could
> >define spitting on the sidewalk as an impeachable offense. Of course,
> >without a buy-in from public opinion, they'd be committing suicide.
> >
> >Speaking of the public, let's test their knowledge here: Have any
> >President(s) ever been impeached, and if so, what was the reason?
Any takers?
> >Here's a related quiz: which body of Congress can impeach a
> >President: a) the House; b) the Senate; c) either one.
> >
>
> Pretty sure its the Senate.
Actually, the President is impeached by the *House*; all this means
is that the President goes on "trial" in the Senate, with the Chief
Justice presiding.
Van
wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) banged out:
The lobbying industry has become a huge, 90,000 employee industry.
Many, many with very high salaries. Many, many former congressmen
making these very high salaries. Hard to see how this is going
change in any meaningful way. Blathering about labor unions is a
rather safe and highly hipocrital tact used by the Republicans. They
have already stopped screaming so loud about foreign soft money,
some backpeddling so fast they are in danger of whip lash.
Van
--
>Pope Charles
>SubGenius Pope Of Houston
>Slack!
************************************************************************
GOPAC SPEAKER: Oh, Lord, deliver us from all evil. Look upon
us with Thy favor. Bless our GOPAC family and all its work.
Bless Speaker Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh and their families.
And now, almighty God, we thank you for the food that is
before us. May it strengthen us to do Thy will. Amen.
Mike R.
James Greif <jgr...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
Perfect justification for refusing to read any more of James Greif's
postings: Greif-o-babble!
Joe Grossinger
>The lobbying industry has become a huge, 90,000 employee industry.
>Many, many with very high salaries. Many, many former congressmen
>making these very high salaries. Hard to see how this is going
>change in any meaningful way. Blathering about labor unions is a
>rather safe and highly hipocrital tact used by the Republicans. They
>have already stopped screaming so loud about foreign soft money,
>some backpeddling so fast they are in danger of whip lash.
And of course, that makes this whole sorry mess OK.
Here is the cure:
NO more mandates from any government to any other.
Reform taxes to this:
Here is my idea for limited taxes. One that would
leave enough money for the governments to do their
jobs, and not much more.
Make all taxes except for the following null and void:
3% maximum on income tax and capital gains on the
federal level.
3% maximum on income tax and capital gains on the
state level.
4% maximum on income tax and capital gains on the
local level, with the voters determining the amounts
for city, county, and in some cases, smaller taxing
entities.
FRIENDS DON'T LET FRIENDS VOTE
FOR DEMONRATS!
Al Ridemfi
> From Kris Lipman <kali...@up.net>
> Organization .
> Date Tue, 12 Nov 1996 22:20:18 -0500
> >
> > On Tue, 12 Nov 1996, Thomas Steegmann wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > >He hasn't committed one--yet. If he pardons the McDougals, or Web
> > > >Hubbell, or Livingstone, or any else implicated by Ken Starr, he
> > > >could be inviting one, said Trent Lott, Senate Majority leader last
> > > >Saturday.
> > > >
> > > >Actually, there is NO "list" of impeachable offenses. Simply put,
> > > >Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution states the following:
> > > >
> > > >"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United
> > > >States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and
> > > >conviction of, treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors."
> > >
> > and all the other politically correct suicide tracing
> > that this infinitesimal piece of Slick Willy slim has produced.
>
> respected
> Washington jounalist (not Salinger, the other one).
But I disagree with Brinkley about the Slickster not having "a creative
bone in his body." Clinton (with a little help from his friends) has
showed us that fund raising doesn't have to be a dry, dreary topic. New
and creative methods were employed during this campaign, many of which
may be outlawed in future campaign reforms.
> =============================================================================
> Kris Lipman "...let facts be submitted to a candid
> world."
> kali...@up.net -- The Declaration of
> Independence
> =============================================================================________________________________________________________________
"We can look forward to four more years of wonderful, inspirational
speeches full of wit, poetry, music, love and affection, plus more
goddamn nonsense."
David Brinkley, ABC News, after Clinton clinched his re-election.
Al Ridemfi
> From midt...@hooked.net (Garrett Johnson)
> Organization Hooked Online Services
> Date Wed, 13 Nov 96 02:32:02 GMT
> In article <328abe99...@news.netheaven.com>,
> stee...@tomcindy.rotterdam.ny.us (Thomas Steegmann) wrote:
> >On Sun, 10 Nov 1996 20:53:25 -0800, Al Ridemfi <a...@ibm.net> scrawled:
> >
> >>He hasn't committed one--yet. If he pardons the McDougals, or Web
> >>Hubbell, or Livingstone, or any else implicated by Ken Starr, he
> >>could be inviting one, said Trent Lott, Senate Majority leader last
> >>Saturday.
> >>
> >>Actually, there is NO "list" of impeachable offenses. Simply put,
> >>Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution states the following:
> >>
> >>"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United
> >>States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and
> >>conviction of, treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors."
> >
> >
> > So in other words you are saying "We know Clinton hasn't actually
> >done anything illegal, but if he does, he'll be in big trouble." Big
> >fucking deal. At least you admit that Clinton isn't in any trouble.
> >Most neo-cons are so sure that he is going to jail in the next 2
> >weeks, they would bet their houses on it.
> >
> It looks like Newt is gaining ground fast on the impeachment race track.
> In fact, with 15 House Republicans calling for Newt to step down, I would say
> that Newt is closer to being impeached than Clinton. Especially with Starr's
> last trial prosecution failing to get a conviction, and the FBI files not having
> a single top Clinton aid's fingerprints on them (including Hillary).
That last point is absolutely and utterly meaningless. Hillary, who not
only is a lawyer, but served as one of the lawyers to the Democratic staff
on the House Judiciary committee during Watergate [what irony] would know
better than to run her fingers thru them. All she had do was to have a
secretary or clerk or aide to photocopy them. Very low tech, but effective.
Brian S. Jenkins
Al Ridemfi wrote:
>
> > From midt...@hooked.net (Garrett Johnson)
> > Organization Hooked Online Services
> > Date Wed, 13 Nov 96 02:32:02 GMT
>
> > In article <328abe99...@news.netheaven.com>,
> > stee...@tomcindy.rotterdam.ny.us (Thomas Steegmann) wrote:
> > >On Sun, 10 Nov 1996 20:53:25 -0800, Al Ridemfi <a...@ibm.net> scrawled:
> > >
> > >>He hasn't committed one--yet. If he pardons the McDougals, or Web
> > >>Hubbell, or Livingstone, or any else implicated by Ken Starr, he
> > >>could be inviting one, said Trent Lott, Senate Majority leader last
> > >>Saturday.
> > >>
> > >>Actually, there is NO "list" of impeachable offenses. Simply put,
> > >>Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution states the following:
> > >>
> > >>"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United
> > >>States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and
> > >>conviction of, treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors."
> > >
> > >
> > > So in other words you are saying "We know Clinton hasn't actually
> > >done anything illegal, but if he does, he'll be in big trouble." Big
> > >fucking deal. At least you admit that Clinton isn't in any trouble.
> > >Most neo-cons are so sure that he is going to jail in the next 2
> > >weeks, they would bet their houses on it.
That's where we stand. If he did something illegal, he's likely out of
office in 1997. If not, he has nothing to worry about. Whether he did
or did not is very much up in the air.
> > It looks like Newt is gaining ground fast on the impeachment race track.
> > In fact, with 15 House Republicans calling for Newt to step down, I would say
> > that Newt is closer to being impeached than Clinton. Especially with Starr's
> > last trial prosecution failing to get a conviction, and the FBI files not having
> > a single top Clinton aid's fingerprints on them (including Hillary).
15 House Republicans out of how many? Assuming worst cases- Dornan
loses, both TX runoffs with party affiliation in doubt break against the
GOP- 224. Not significant. ESPECIALLY since House leadership has
closed ranks behind Gingrich. (As for ancillary effects- how much less
popular could he be than after the media's 24-month nonstop negative
campaign against him?)
By the way, what crime is Gingrich supposed to be guilty of? Or does
the requirement of a conviction only apply to impeachment efforts
against liberals?
> That last point is absolutely and utterly meaningless. Hillary, who not
> only is a lawyer, but served as one of the lawyers to the Democratic staff
> on the House Judiciary committee during Watergate [what irony] would know
> better than to run her fingers thru them. All she had do was to have a
> secretary or clerk or aide to photocopy them. Very low tech, but effective.
Logic 1, Liberals 0.
Who was surprised out there? Anyone?
> ________________________________________________________________
>
> "We can look forward to four more years of wonderful, inspirational
> speeches full of wit, poetry, music, love and affection, plus more
> goddamn nonsense."
>
> David Brinkley, ABC News, after Clinton clinched his re-election.
Brian Jenkins
ma
In article <32895E...@ibm.net>, a...@ibm.net says...
>
>> From lib...@larry.cc.emory.edu (william c anderson)
>> Organization Emory University
>> Date 12 Nov 1996 22:50:17 GMT
>
>> Lone_Wolf (gt6...@cad.gatech.edu) wrote:
>> : In <328abe99...@news.netheaven.com>
stee...@tomcindy.rotterdam.ny.us (Thomas Steegmann) writes:
scrawled:
>>
>> : #>President: a) the House; b) the Senate; c) either one.
>> : #>
>> :
>> :
>> : # Pretty sure its the Senate.
>> :
>> : Yep.
>>
>> Nope. The house impeaches; the matter then goes to the Senate for
>> trial.
>>
>> Bill
>
>Bill is correct. It should be noted that under the Constitution,
>
>_____________________________________________________________________
>
Who cares, just impeach the jerk.
Mitchell Coffey
The people had an opportunity not to elect "the jerk" just last week.
Sorry the people disagree with you; democracy's a bitch.
Mitchell Coffey
--
I once read a book about cognitive dissonance, but it only proved my
point.
George Gehrke/Professional Sportsman
SNipped to Fit:
> > > >>"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United
> > > >>States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and
> > > >>conviction of, treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors."
> > > >_______________DOES THIS INCLUDE DRUG RUNNING OUT OF THE MENA INTERMOUNTAIN AIRPORT IN WESTERN ARKANSAS OR USING ILLEGAL DRUGS WHILE IN THE WHITEHOUSE?
Mr. G.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
snipped to fit question:
Wayne Mann
leo...@gnn.com (Joe Grossinger) wrote:
<SNIP>
>
>And of course, that makes this whole sorry mess OK.
>Here is the cure:
>NO more mandates from any government to any other.
>Reform taxes to this:
>Here is my idea for limited taxes. One that would
>leave enough money for the governments to do their
>jobs, and not much more.
>Make all taxes except for the following null and void:
>
>3% maximum on income tax and capital gains on the
>federal level.
>
>3% maximum on income tax and capital gains on the
>state level.
>
>4% maximum on income tax and capital gains on the
>local level, with the voters determining the amounts
>for city, county, and in some cases, smaller taxing
>entities.
>
and written very well, maybe you can still understand them.
Thank you.
Al Ridemfi
> In article <328B2E5F...@cco.caltech.edu>,
> "Brian S. Jenkins" <bsj...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote:
> >Al Ridemfi wrote:
> >>
> >> > From midt...@hooked.net (Garrett Johnson)
> >> > Organization Hooked Online Services
> >> > Date Wed, 13 Nov 96 02:32:02 GMT
> [...]
> >> > It looks like Newt is gaining ground fast on the impeachment race track.
> >> > In fact, with 15 House Republicans calling for Newt to step down, I would
> say
> >> > that Newt is closer to being impeached than Clinton. Especially with
> Starr's
> >> > last trial prosecution failing to get a conviction, and the FBI files not
> having
> >> > a single top Clinton aid's fingerprints on them (including Hillary).
> >
> >15 House Republicans out of how many? Assuming worst cases- Dornan
> >loses,
>
> He did.
NO, it's still undecided. According to today's (11/14) NY Times, several
thousand "provisional" ballots remain to be counted.
> >both TX runoffs with party affiliation in doubt break against the
> >GOP- 224. Not significant.
>
> Uh, you seem to have forgot - the House Republicans lost about 11 seats
> this year. The Republican majority is now down to less than 10, so if 15
> Republicans don't want Newt then he can't get a majority of the House.
>
> > ESPECIALLY since House leadership has
> >closed ranks behind Gingrich.
>
> I think the fact that there are calls for Newt to step down from inside the
> Republican side of the House proves this claim to be false.
If Mr. Newt steps down, he will only be replaced by another conservative
such as Henry Hyde. This may actually be better for the GOP, as Hyde is
not only a fiscal conservative, but even *more* conservative on social
issues than Mr. Newt. And, of course, much less controversial.
Inasmuch as Mr. Newt is credited with reviving Clinton, unintentionally,
after the '94 GOP revolution, if I was a liberal, I'd be rooting for him
to REMAIN as Speaker.
Lew Glendenning
Don't assume that a vote for Clinton would be a
vote against impeaching him.
Lots of us couldn't vote for Dole. I believed,
preached, and still believe, that if Dole had won,
the drug money corruption and other criminal
interest corruption of the US Government would not
have been uncovered for another 4 years; we would
never again have heard from Mena, Foster's death,
corruption in the FBI/BATF/CIA, Justice Dept,
Commerce Dept, ...
This way, the Republicans have a continuing
incentive to impeach Clinton, and this will
require turning over a lot of rocks.
Now we will see whether the Republicans have any
backbone left.
Robert W Lawrence
Al Ridemfi <a...@ibm.net> wrote:
<>> >Speaking of the public, let's test their knowledge here: Have any
<>> >President(s) ever been impeached, and if so, what was the reason?
<>
<>Any takers?
Andrew Johnson is the only President who was impeached. The senate failed by one
vote to put him out of office. I don't know what the formal reason he was
impeached for but the real reason was disagreement over the way he was handling
reconstruction.
<>> >Here's a related quiz: which body of Congress can impeach a
<>> >President: a) the House; b) the Senate; c) either one.
as noted the house impeaches-the senate conducts the trial, which is presided
over by the Chief Justice of the supreme court.
In Clintons case nothing he did prior to becoming president is an impeachable
offense. He would be open for impeachment if it was found he lied in his
testimony in the two whitewater trials or that he used the FBI or IRS
imprperly(which is alleged in both the Filegate and travelgate matters). If they
can prove he was(is) involved in a coverup that would be obstruction of justice
which is, of course, an impeachable offense.
It is probable that Hillary will be indicted by year end-most likely the charges
will be for obstruction of justice(the mysterious billing records) and perjury.
whether she will be indicted for her work on IDS(casa Blanca) is still up in the
air. Thee is ample evidence she prepared a fraudulent back dated "option" on
this property.
Robert W Lawrence
lawr...@arthes.com
Garrett Johnson
Mark Roth
Al Ridemfi wrote:
>
> > From midt...@hooked.net (Garrett Johnson)
> > Organization Hooked Online Services
>
> > "Brian S. Jenkins" <bsj...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote:
> > >Al Ridemfi wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > From midt...@hooked.net (Garrett Johnson)
> > >> > Organization Hooked Online Services
> > >> > Date Wed, 13 Nov 96 02:32:02 GMT
> > [...]
> > >> > It looks like Newt is gaining ground fast on the impeachment race track.
> > >> > In fact, with 15 House Republicans calling for Newt to step down, I would
> > >> > that Newt is closer to being impeached than Clinton. Especially with
> > Starr's
> > >> > last trial prosecution failing to get a conviction, and the FBI files not
> > having
> > >> > a single top Clinton aid's fingerprints on them (including Hillary).
> > >
> > >15 House Republicans out of how many? Assuming worst cases- Dornan
> > >loses,
> >
> > He did.
>
> >
> > Uh, you seem to have forgot - the House Republicans lost about 11 seats
> > this year. The Republican majority is now down to less than 10, so if 15
> > Republicans don't want Newt then he can't get a majority of the House.
A majority for what? He only needs a majority of the Repubs to remain
of the Speaker of the House. You're adding Democrats where they don't
belong.
As for impeachment, although a simple majority of ALL the
Representatives
is required, you can't assume that the few Repubs that don't want him
to be Speaker would vote against him in impeachment proceedings. That's
a
completely different kettle of fish!
Already, several Repubs have taken back their calls for him to step
down, anyway.
Mark
Michael Schneider
If I concede you the moral authority to steal a nickel from me, I
concede you the moral authority to take everything I own and enslave me as
a beast of burdon.
--
Votescam home page: http://www.copi.com/VOTESCAM/VSCM_01.HTM.
Vote fraud investigations site: http://www.networkusa.org/index.shtml
You've been assimilated by the New World Order: http://image.ucr.edu/~borg/
See subpage http://image.ucr.edu/~borg/jwz/Constitution/resources.htm for
an incedible wealth of data. For info on how your Social Security Number
is the chain binding you into servitude: http://www.mainelink.net/none/
alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater = America's outlet for truth!
Read everything by Michael Rivero, Larry-Jennie, Max Kennedy, Billy Beck.
. . . . o o o o o +----------------------------------+
_____ o | Ready to play 18XX Rails & other |
____==== ]OO|_n_n__][. | board games F2F at the drop of a |
[________]_|__|________)< | hat. Minnesota Twin Cities area! |
oo oo 'oo OOOO-| oo\_ +----------------------------------+
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
"Impending doom takes all the fun out of decadent living!" - Yago
Michael Schneider
> The people had an opportunity not to elect "the jerk" just last week.
> Sorry the people disagree with you; democracy's a bitch.
>
> Mitchell Coffey
Actually, she's a whore.
--
"Impending doom takes all the fun out of decadent living!" - Yago
Votescam home page: http://www.copi.com/VOTESCAM/VSCM_01.HTM.
Vote fraud investigations site: http://www.networkusa.org/index.shtml
You've been assimilated by the New World Order: http://image.ucr.edu/~borg/
See subpage http://image.ucr.edu/~borg/jwz/Constitution/resources.htm for
an incedible wealth of data. For info on how your Social Security Number
is the chain binding you into servitude: http://www.mainelink.net/none/
alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater - America's outlet for truth:
Read everything by Michael Rivero, Larry-Jennie and Billy Beck.
Ready to play 18XX Rails and other boardgames F2F at the drop of a hat.
=> Minnesota Twin Cities metro area.
tom
On Thu, 14 Nov 1996 22:22:30 -0800, Al Ridemfi <a...@ibm.net> scrawled:
>> I think the fact that there are calls for Newt to step down from inside the
>> Republican side of the House proves this claim to be false.
>
>If Mr. Newt steps down, he will only be replaced by another conservative
>such as Henry Hyde. This may actually be better for the GOP, as Hyde is
>not only a fiscal conservative, but even *more* conservative on social
>issues than Mr. Newt. And, of course, much less controversial.
The only reason Hyde isn't controversial is that nobody knows who he
is. He makes Newt look like walter mondale.
>
>Inasmuch as Mr. Newt is credited with reviving Clinton, unintentionally,
>after the '94 GOP revolution, if I was a liberal, I'd be rooting for him
>to REMAIN as Speaker.
If the idea is that an extreme right winger in office helps
Clinton, Hyde is even better than Newt for the democrats. Hyde is
from the "women should be barefoot and pregnant. no abortions ever"
school. He's only going to serve to make the republikans look like a
bunch of raving racist anti-woman lunatics (not a far leap from their
current image).
>________________________________________________________________
>
>"We can look forward to four more years of wonderful, inspirational
>speeches full of wit, poetry, music, love and affection, plus more
>goddamn nonsense."
>
>David Brinkley, ABC News, after Clinton clinched his re-election.
David Brinkley, on his 14th rum and coke. That senile old bastard
shouldn't talk about nonsense. He reminds me of an angry grandpa
simpson.
Tom Steegmann
steegman @ tomcindy rotterdam ny us
netheaven.com/~steegman
Don't bother sending me junk mail. That goes for spammers,
MLM's, gun nutz, and all of you in the Blak Helikopter Krowd
Go Bills!
All Hail the Blak Helikopters!
tom
On Fri, 15 Nov 1996 03:10:23 -0500, msc...@mail.idt.net (Michael
Schneider) scrawled:
Allright!!!! Now we are getting somewhere. OK Mike, now get your
lazy ass up and rake my back yard. Then there is some firewood I need
hauled up front. Then you can sleep on the deck. I'll give you some
bread crusts and water.
Alan Miles
> >concede you the moral authority to take everything I own and enslave > >me as a beast of burdon.
Taxation isn't stealing when it is done through the consent of your
elected representatives. This is why the US had a revolution in 1776.
No one likes taxes. No one like everything his taxes are used for.
It's hard to disagree that the government does some functions that are
vital - e.g. defense - and that couldn't be privatized easily or safely.
Al Ridemfi
> From midt...@hooked.net (Garrett Johnson)
> Organization Hooked Online Services
> Date Fri, 15 Nov 96 01:24:13 GMT
> In article <328B2E5F...@cco.caltech.edu>,
> "Brian S. Jenkins" <bsj...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote:
> >Al Ridemfi wrote:
> >>
> >> > From midt...@hooked.net (Garrett Johnson)
> >> > Organization Hooked Online Services
> >> > Date Wed, 13 Nov 96 02:32:02 GMT
> [...]
> >> > It looks like Newt is gaining ground fast on the impeachment race track.
> >> > In fact, with 15 House Republicans calling for Newt to step down, I would
> say
> >> > that Newt is closer to being impeached than Clinton. Especially with
> Starr's
> >> > last trial prosecution failing to get a conviction, and the FBI files not
> having
> >> > a single top Clinton aid's fingerprints on them (including Hillary).
> >
> >15 House Republicans out of how many? Assuming worst cases- Dornan
> >loses,
>
> He did.
>
> >GOP- 224. Not significant.
>
> this year. The Republican majority is now down to less than 10, so if 15
> Republicans don't want Newt then he can't get a majority of the House.
>
> >closed ranks behind Gingrich.
>
> Republican side of the House proves this claim to be false.
The "calls" for him to step down are mainly coming from ONE (1) maverick,
Peter King of NY, who by some coincidence was one of the few GOP'ers *not*
to be targeted by Big Labor's $35 MILLION dollar campaign. The number of
GOP'ers who might not vote for Newt are estimated to be *less* than 10.
In any event, if a last minute anti-Newt surge materialized, he would only
be replaced by one more conservative, such as Henry Hyde, for example. So
liberals, you're probably better off with Newt as Speaker, distracting
attention from Clinton's pending problems.
Larry-Jennie
In article <328eacf3...@news.netheaven.com> tom @ uFaa.com (Thomas Steegmann) writes:
>>If Mr. Newt steps down, he will only be replaced by another conservative
>>such as Henry Hyde. This may actually be better for the GOP, as Hyde is
>>not only a fiscal conservative, but even *more* conservative on social
>>issues than Mr. Newt. And, of course, much less controversial.
But more indictable than Newt.
>From Mother Jones at http://www.motherjones.com
11-12/96
Tim Anderson: Raising S&L Hell
The S&L bailout will cost taxpayers more than 200 billion dollars. Our
latest Hellraiser wants Republican congressman (and former S&L
director) Henry J. Hyde to pay his fair share of the tab.
By Laura Linden and Leslie Weiss
[INLINE] Nine years ago Tim Anderson was living the American dream --
with a nice house, two cars in the driveway, and a bank consulting
firm bringing in over $150,000 a year.
Now Anderson makes $6.50 an hour at Enterprise rent-a-car, moving
Buicks from lot to lot. A far cry from the day when he had five people
working under him, but the low-pressure job helps him stay focused --
and he's got a lot on his mind.
Since 1987, Anderson, a Libertyville, Illinois banking consultant, has
devoted his life to exposing his state's involvement in the $200
billion savings and loan debacle. Some would call him a hero for
giving up such a big chunk of his life, but he's also been called a
nut, Anderson says, by home-state Republican congressman Henry J.
Hyde, chairman of the powerful Judiciary Committee, whose S&L dealings
Anderson has helped bring to light.
"Illinois was the real center of the savings and loan scandal -- not
Texas," Anderson says emphatically. "Going after Henry has been a way
of getting Congress to pay attention."
In 1993, Anderson, a former member of the GOP, told a presidential
commission what he knew about the 11-term (and running for a twelfth)
Republican's role in the failure of Clyde Federal Savings & Loan in
North Riverside, Illinois. Hyde served as director from 1981 to 1984,
and minutes of board meetings show that Hyde seconded the motions of
some very reckless investments. By the time Clyde closed in 1991, the
thrift had lost $67 million.
Shortly after Anderson's testimony, the Resolution Trust Corporation
decided to sue Henry Hyde and 11 other Clyde directors for the
recovery of bailout costs -- making Hyde the only congressman being
sued by federal bank regulators.
In June, Hyde lost his request to dismiss the $17.2 million lawsuit
and since then he's rejected the government's subsequent attempts to
settle. There is still no date set for the trial.
Keeping the Story Alive
Anderson hoped the Hyde lawsuit would expose the role the Illinois
thrifts played in the national crisis. He hoped to spur the Democrats
and the media into investigating a mess that, to Anderson, appeared to
be bigger than Whitewater (see "Republican Whitewaters," Mother Jones,
July/August 1996). Anderson imagined congressional commissions,
special prosecutors -- the works. And then his job would be done.
But Hyde's lawsuit is three and a half years old, and the S&L bailouts
are even older. To make matters worse, Hyde is now a very powerful and
popular guy in Washington, chairing the platform committee for the GOP
convention in addition to his post on the Judiciary Committee.
"Hyde has gotten a pass from both Democrats and Republicans," says
Anderson. "No one wants to touch him."
Ironically enough, Hyde's Republican Policy Committee has been aiding
the attempt to draw a connection between the Clintons and failed S&L
Madison Guaranty, by releasing a press kit about Whitewater.
Anderson spends hours calling powerful Democrats including Dick
Gephardt and Pat Schroeder as well as badgering newspaper editors --
trying desperately to keep the story alive.
"People don't want to hear what he's talking about," says Edward Kane,
Cleary Professor in Finance at Boston College who has supported
Anderson in his investigations. "But it is important in a
representative democracy to blow the whistle when there is gross
misuse of the taxpayers' money."
"When a congressman is sued by the government, that should be a
story," says Anderson. Although the lawsuit has been reported by Roll
Call, the Washington Times, and The New Republic, he says many
national newspapers won't touch the story: "USA TODAY and The Dallas
Morning News have never acknowledged that Hyde has been sued by his
federal government."
The Investigation
Back in 1987, Anderson thought something was fishy when his hometown
S&L, Libertyville Federal Savings & Loan -- where his mother had money
in CDs -- was on its way under. Anderson was intrigued by the failure
of what he believed to be a conservative institution, but his
questions to the bank regulators down in Chicago went unanswered.
"Basically, their response was 'Mind your own business,'" he recalls.
Anderson used the Freedom of Information Act to get quarterly thrift
reports on a number of institutions, and what he learned wasn't
pretty.
Deregulation had opened a new world of investments to the S&Ls, and
Anderson saw evidence of risky, negligent, and even fraudulent loans
made by S&L directors out to pocket bonuses from front-end loan fees.
This is greed run amuck, Anderson says, adding that he's convinced
Illinois S&L directors and regulators were in bed together in the
mess. Together, Anderson says, they were busy making bad loans to
out-of-state S&Ls -- at least until the whole mess came tumbling down.
Illinois, home of 49 of the 747 S&Ls that failed nationwide, has cost
taxpayers $1.5 billion so far, according to 1995 Resolution Trust
Corp. figures.
"Chicago was just a real powerhouse for the S&L industry," agrees
Stephen Katsanos, a spokesman for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.
Activism or Obsession?
Anderson's S&L work has affected his personal life as well as his
professional life. "Three years ago Christmas, my family's ultimatum
was 'Drop it'," Anderson recalls. "And I did for about two months."
But he begged them to let his work continue. "It's my life."
"It must seem strange that someone would put so much into something
that has no payoff," says Kane. "Except for a strong sense that
justice may be served."
When his quest is finished -- getting back into the banking game may
be difficult. "When you blow the whistle in this industry you're
treated as if you have leprosy," he says "It's a quasi black-balling."
The costly ineptitude and greed of his peers isn't what really gets
Anderson.
"Who are the victims of the scandal?" he asks unrhetorically. "The
people who could have benefited from tax dollars spent on road
repairs, flood victims, AIDS research, and drug rehabilitation. The
bailout money is doing nothing positive for mankind."
When asked if any interest in his past has ever rivaled the Illinois
S&L scandal, Anderson replied, "That's like asking Ralph Nader,
'Before cars...what bothered you?'"
Laura Linden is a MoJo Wire Intern. Leslie Weiss is a free-lance
writer. Photo-illustration by Denise Alvidrez.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$ $$
$$ The CIA cocaine smuggling on behalf of the Contras $$
$$ through Mena, Arkansas corrupted the Presidencies $$
$$ of Bill Clinton, George Bush and Ronald Reagan. $$
$$ For details, see: $$
$$ ftp://pencil.cs.missouri.edu/pub/mena/ $$
$$ $$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Ford
On Fri, 15 Nov 1996 01:19:15 -0800, Mark Roth <pha...@bee.net> wrote:
>Al Ridemfi wrote:
>>
>> > From midt...@hooked.net (Garrett Johnson)
>> > Organization Hooked Online Services
>> > Date Fri, 15 Nov 96 01:24:13 GMT
>>
>> > In article <328B2E5F...@cco.caltech.edu>,
>> > "Brian S. Jenkins" <bsj...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote:
>> > >Al Ridemfi wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> > From midt...@hooked.net (Garrett Johnson)
>> > >> > Organization Hooked Online Services
>> > >> > Date Wed, 13 Nov 96 02:32:02 GMT
>Already, several Repubs have taken back their calls for him to step
>down, anyway.
>
>Mark
>
Maybe there's hope he'll step down on his own, down an open elevator
shaft, with about 500 ft. to allow time for him to accelerate.
ZB
Repubs who may want to leave the Planet.
1. Phone NASA. The number is 713 483 3111. Explain that
it's very important that you get away as soon as
possible.
2.If they don't cooperate, phone any friend you may have
in the White House 202 456 1414-to have a word on your
behave with the guys at NASA.
3.If you don't have any friends in the White House,
phone the Kremlin (0106 095 295 9051). They don't have
any friends there either, but they do seem to have a
little influence, so you may as well try.
4.If that also fails, phone the Pope for guidance. His
phone number is 011 39 6 6983, and I gather his
switchboard is infallable.
5.If all these attempts fail, flag down a passing flying
saucer and explain that it's vitally important you get
away before your phone bill arrives.
Brian S. Jenkins
Al Ridemfi wrote:
>
> > From midt...@hooked.net (Garrett Johnson)
> > Organization Hooked Online Services
> > Date Fri, 15 Nov 96 01:24:13 GMT
>
> > In article <328B2E5F...@cco.caltech.edu>,
> > "Brian S. Jenkins" <bsj...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote:
> > >Al Ridemfi wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > From midt...@hooked.net (Garrett Johnson)
> > >> > Organization Hooked Online Services
> > >> > Date Wed, 13 Nov 96 02:32:02 GMT
> > >> > It looks like Newt is gaining ground fast on the impeachment race track.
> > >> > In fact, with 15 House Republicans calling for Newt to step down, I would
> > say
> > >> > that Newt is closer to being impeached than Clinton. Especially with
> > Starr's
> > >> > last trial prosecution failing to get a conviction, and the FBI files not
> > having
> > >> > a single top Clinton aid's fingerprints on them (including Hillary).
> > >
> > >15 House Republicans out of how many? Assuming worst cases- Dornan
> > >loses,
> >
> > He did.
>
> thousand "provisional" ballots remain to be counted.
True. Then the loser will almost inevitably call for a recount. This
race probably cannot be put in the books for weeks.
> > >both TX runoffs with party affiliation in doubt break against the
> > >GOP- 224. Not significant.
> >
> > Uh, you seem to have forgot - the House Republicans lost about 11 seats
> > this year. The Republican majority is now down to less than 10, so if 15
> > Republicans don't want Newt then he can't get a majority of the House.
They may not want Gingrich, but they want Gephardt or any other Democrat
far, far less than they want Gingrich. Gingrich just has to win the GOP
caucus, and then the vote for Speaker is a formality.
> > > ESPECIALLY since House leadership has
> > >closed ranks behind Gingrich.
> >
> > I think the fact that there are calls for Newt to step down from inside the
> > Republican side of the House proves this claim to be false.
>
> If Mr. Newt steps down, he will only be replaced by another conservative
> such as Henry Hyde. This may actually be better for the GOP, as Hyde is
> not only a fiscal conservative, but even *more* conservative on social
> issues than Mr. Newt. And, of course, much less controversial.
>
> Inasmuch as Mr. Newt is credited with reviving Clinton, unintentionally,
> after the '94 GOP revolution, if I was a liberal, I'd be rooting for him
> to REMAIN as Speaker.
Billy-Boy has already shown in the ten days since his election that he
has little interest in staying "alive": note his opposition to the BBA,
extension of our Bosnian operation through 1998, and commitment of
troops to Zaire. Three nice, big, simple campaign issues right off the
bat. If Billy-Boy wants to sink the Democrats in Congress in 1998,
there's probably nothing Gingrich can do to stop him. :)
Billy-Boy is the best thing to happen to Congressional Republicans in
this century, even without his ethical problems.
> ________________________________________________________________
>
> "We can look forward to four more years of wonderful, inspirational
> speeches full of wit, poetry, music, love and affection, plus more
> goddamn nonsense."
>
> David Brinkley, ABC News, after Clinton clinched his re-election.
Brian Jenkins
Michael Schneider
In article <328caac...@news.netheaven.com>,
stee...@tomcindy.rotterdam.ny.us wrote:
> > If I concede you the moral authority to steal a nickel from me, I
> >concede you the moral authority to take everything I own and enslave me as
> >a beast of burdon.
> >
> >
>
> Allright!!!! Now we are getting somewhere. OK Mike, now get your
> lazy ass up and rake my back yard. Then there is some firewood I need
> hauled up front. Then you can sleep on the deck. I'll give you some
> bread crusts and water.
How 'bout a mercury-tipped hollowpoint to tha noggin and dump ya
somewhere on the back 40?
---------
Socialist: 1. one who believes all persons are or should be equal when
they are not and cannot be; if unable to enrich the poor or educate the
foolish, the socialist will settle for impoverishing the wealthy and
preventing the wise from speaking; 2. a hypocritical malignity who
conceals a nihilism borne of jealousy with hysteria; 3. a thief elected
by the unable to loot the able and distribute the spoils; 4. a common
lout who believes he can achieve greatness by stealing a great man's
possessions; 5. one who views citizens as cows to be milked by the state
so that he may be provded with butter and cheese; 6. the attitude of the
fox, after being denied the grapes (ref. "Aesop's Fables").
--
Votescam home page: http://www.copi.com/VOTESCAM/VSCM_01.HTM.
Vote fraud investigations site: http://www.networkusa.org/index.shtml
You've been assimilated by the New World Order: http://image.ucr.edu/~borg/
See subpage http://image.ucr.edu/~borg/jwz/Constitution/resources.htm for
an incedible wealth of data. For info on how your Social Security Number
is the chain binding you into servitude: http://www.mainelink.net/none/
alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater = America's outlet for truth.
Read everything by Michael Rivero, Larry-Jennie, Max Kennedy, Billy Beck.
. . . . o o o o o +----------------------------------+
_____ o | Ready to play 18XX Rails & other |
____==== ]OO|_n_n__][. | board games F2F at the drop of a |
[________]_|__|________)< | hat. Minnesota Twin Cities area! |
oo oo 'oo OOOO-| oo\_ +----------------------------------+
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
"Impending doom takes all the fun out of decadent living!" - Yago
Michael Schneider
> On Fri, 15 Nov 1996 03:10:23 -0500, msc...@mail.idt.net (Michael
> > Schneider) scrawled:
> >
> > > If I concede you the moral authority to steal a nickel from me, I
> > >concede you the moral authority to take everything I own and enslave
> >me as a beast of burdon.
>
> Taxation isn't stealing when it is done through the consent of your
> elected representatives.
I do not consent to being robbed by elected representatives.
(*Poof* So much for THAT argument.)
> This is why the US had a revolution in 1776.
No. That is merely what you would like to think.
No one actually shot *AT* the British until they attempted to
confiscate the private firearms of the citizens of Concord and Lexington.
Gun control was THE ignition point, not taxation.
But get the following VERY CLEAR in your mind: Both taxation and gun
control are PRIVATE PROPERTY ISSUES. "Thou Shalt Not Steal".
> No one likes taxes.
Horse shit. People who are the recipients of those stolen goods LOVE
taxation, and repeatedly vote for dirtbags who will raise taxes.
> No one like everything his taxes are used for.
> It's hard to disagree that the government does some functions that are
> vital - e.g. defense - and that couldn't be privatized easily or safely.
*Your* inability to exist without a federal tit to suck (that's what it
boils to) does not confer upon you the moral right to STEAL from *me*.
Ford
>In article <328D00...@interport.net>, ami...@interport.net wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 15 Nov 1996 03:10:23 -0500, msc...@mail.idt.net (Michael
>> > Schneider) scrawled:
>
> Horse shit. People who are the recipients of those stolen goods LOVE
>taxation, and repeatedly vote for dirtbags who will raise taxes.
>
>
>> No one like everything his taxes are used for.
>> It's hard to disagree that the government does some functions that are
>> vital - e.g. defense - and that couldn't be privatized easily or safely.
>
>
> *Your* inability to exist without a federal tit to suck (that's what it
>boils to) does not confer upon you the moral right to STEAL from *me*.
>
>--
>
>Votescam home page: http://www.copi.com/VOTESCAM/VSCM_01.HTM.
>Vote fraud investigations site: http://www.networkusa.org/index.shtml
>You've been assimilated by the New World Order: http://image.ucr.edu/~borg/
>See subpage http://image.ucr.edu/~borg/jwz/Constitution/resources.htm for
>an incedible wealth of data. For info on how your Social Security Number
>is the chain binding you into servitude: http://www.mainelink.net/none/
>
>alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater = America's outlet for truth.
>Read everything by Michael Rivero, Larry-Jennie, Max Kennedy, Billy Beck.
>
> . . . . o o o o o +----------------------------------+
> _____ o | Ready to play 18XX Rails & other |
> ____==== ]OO|_n_n__][. | board games F2F at the drop of a |
> [________]_|__|________)< | hat. Minnesota Twin Cities area! |
> oo oo 'oo OOOO-| oo\_ +----------------------------------+
>+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
>
> "Impending doom takes all the fun out of decadent living!" - Yago
Totally take away the "federal tit" and see how long is before someone
starts looking for "your tit", armed to the teeth.
The Generalissimo
Ford wrote:
>
> On Sat, 16 Nov 1996 05:38:34 -0500, msc...@mail.idt.net (Michael
> Schneider) wrote:
>
> >In article <328D00...@interport.net>, ami...@interport.net wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 15 Nov 1996 03:10:23 -0500, msc...@mail.idt.net (Michael
> >> > Schneider) scrawled:
> >
> > Horse shit. People who are the recipients of those stolen goods LOVE
> >taxation, and repeatedly vote for dirtbags who will raise taxes.
> >
> >
> >> No one like everything his taxes are used for.
> >> It's hard to disagree that the government does some functions that are
> >> vital - e.g. defense - and that couldn't be privatized easily or safely.
> >
> >
> > *Your* inability to exist without a federal tit to suck (that's what it
> >boils to) does not confer upon you the moral right to STEAL from *me*.
> >
> >--
> >
> >Votescam home page: http://www.copi.com/VOTESCAM/VSCM_01.HTM
> >You've been assimilated by the New World Order: http://image.ucr.edu/~borg/
> >See subpage http://image.ucr.edu/~borg/jwz/Constitution/resources.htm for
> >an incedible wealth of data. For info on how your Social Security Number
> >is the chain binding you into servitude: http://www.mainelink.net/none/
> >
> >alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater = America's outlet for truth.
> >Read everything by Michael Rivero, Larry-Jennie, Max Kennedy, Billy Beck.
> >
> > . . . . o o o o o +----------------------------------+
> > _____ o | Ready to play 18XX Rails & other |
> > ____==== ]OO|_n_n__][. | board games F2F at the drop of a |
> > [________]_|__|________)< | hat. Minnesota Twin Cities area! |
> > oo oo 'oo OOOO-| oo\_ +----------------------------------+
> >+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
> >
> > "Impending doom takes all the fun out of decadent living!" - Yago
>
> Totally take away the "federal tit" and see how long is before someone
> starts looking for "your tit", armed to the teeth.
So what your saying from your best little liberal mind is that we must pay huge
taxes to avoid "the natives getting restless?" Wow. They are anyway. minority
rioting in the name of injustice (wether it happened or not) goes on all across
the country. Somehow injustice is solved by stealing a sony TV. I don't get
it.
>
> ZB
> Repubs who may want to leave the Planet.
>
> 1. Phone NASA. The number is 713 483 3111. Explain that
> it's very important that you get away as soon as
> possible.
> 2.If they don't cooperate, phone any friend you may have
> in the White House 202 456 1414-to have a word on your
> behave with the guys at NASA.
> 3.If you don't have any friends in the White House,
> phone the Kremlin (0106 095 295 9051). They don't have
> any friends there either, but they do seem to have a
> little influence, so you may as well try.
> 4.If that also fails, phone the Pope for guidance. His
> phone number is 011 39 6 6983, and I gather his
> switchboard is infallable.
> 5.If all these attempts fail, flag down a passing flying
> saucer and explain that it's vitally important you get
> away before your phone bill arrives.
--
"To its committed members ( the democratic party) was still
the party of heart, humanity, and justice, but to those
removed a few paces it looked like Captain Hooks crew --
ambulance chasing lawyers, rapacious public policy grants
persons, civil rights gamesmen, ditzy brained movie stars,
fat assed civil servant desk squatters, recovering alcoholics,
recovering wife beaters, recovering child-buggers, and so forth
and so on, a grotesque line up of ill mannered, self pitying,
caterwauling freeloaders banging their tin cups on the pavement
demanding handouts". (The Washington post, 11/12/94) Nicholas Von Hoffman
Ford
>Ford wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 16 Nov 1996 05:38:34 -0500, msc...@mail.idt.net (Michael
>> Schneider) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <328D00...@interport.net>, ami...@interport.net wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 15 Nov 1996 03:10:23 -0500, msc...@mail.idt.net (Michael
>> >> > Schneider) scrawled:
>> >
>>
>> Totally take away the "federal tit" and see how long is before someone
>> starts looking for "your tit", armed to the teeth.
>
>So what your saying from your best little liberal mind is that we must pay huge
>taxes to avoid "the natives getting restless?" Wow. They are anyway. minority
>rioting in the name of injustice (wether it happened or not) goes on all across
>the country. Somehow injustice is solved by stealing a sony TV. I don't get
>it.
>
>
Your correct, they are anyway, and it can only get worse as the gap
between the haves and have nots continues to wider. Justice?
Injustice? Who knows, I'm only seeing symptoms that could be
foretelling some very unpleasant times in the not too distant future.
Z
Dittoheads are educated beyond their intellectual
capacity.
The Generalissimo
Ford wrote:
>
> On Sat, 16 Nov 1996 14:14:16 -0800, The Generalissimo
> <nic...@vegas.infi.net> wrote:
>
> >Ford wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 16 Nov 1996 05:38:34 -0500, msc...@mail.idt.net (Michael
> >> Schneider) wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <328D00...@interport.net>, ami...@interport.net wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Fri, 15 Nov 1996 03:10:23 -0500, msc...@mail.idt.net (Michael
> >> >> > Schneider) scrawled:
> >> >
> >>
> >> Totally take away the "federal tit" and see how long is before someone
> >> starts looking for "your tit", armed to the teeth.
> >
> >So what your saying from your best little liberal mind is that we must pay huge
> >taxes to avoid "the natives getting restless?" Wow. They are anyway. minority
> >rioting in the name of injustice (wether it happened or not) goes on all across
> >the country. Somehow injustice is solved by stealing a sony TV. I don't get
> >it.
> >
> >
> Your correct, they are anyway, and it can only get worse as the gap
> between the haves and have nots continues to wider. Justice?
> Injustice? Who knows, I'm only seeing symptoms that could be
> foretelling some very unpleasant times in the not too distant future.
Unpleasant? I can hardly wait. Being a person of very modest income,
(since being downsized) I definately in the lower half of income levels
in this country. However I do not proclaim you owe me part of your
paycheck. When the unpleasantness comes, I'll embrace it with open
arms, and rise to the occasion.
>
> Z
> Dittoheads are educated beyond their intellectual
> capacity.
--
"I can maybe work with him, (The
Slickster) but I now know who he is, and what he is. There is nothing
he won't do, he is immune to shame. Move past all the nice posturing
and get really down there in him you find absolutely nothing, nothing
but an appetite."
The Righteous Reverend Jessie Jackson, speaking about the values of
bill clinton.
Papa Budge
Michael Schneider wrote:
> *Your* inability to exist without a federal tit to suck (that's what it
> boils to) does not confer upon you the moral right to STEAL from *me*.
And who do you steal from, sir? Are you so independent, then? A friend of
mine who knew you as a child does not think so. He told me this about you:
You had been crying all night, and your poor mother had been doing her
best to quiet you. She sang to you, she scolded you, she petted and rocked
you; but it was no good.
You must have been teething, and it was a weary night for your whole
family. But now the dawn was coming over the dark trees, and at last you
became quiet. There was a peculiar stillness as the sky grew lighter and
lighter. The dead branches were clear against the sky, slender and naked;
a child called, a dog barked, a bus rattled by, and another day had begun.
Your mother came out carrying you, carefully wrapped, and walked along the
road past your neighbors, where she waited for a bus. Presumably she was
taking you to the doctor. She looked so tired and haggard after that
sleepless night, but you were fast asleep.
So many years ago; will you stay fast asleep?
--
--papa budge
"Ring the bells that still can ring.
Forget your perfect offering.
There is a crack in everything.
That's how the light gets in."
--lc
"I am a liar who always tells the truth."
--jc
ygrenyS
lawr...@arthes.com (Robert W Lawrence) writes:
>Al Ridemfi <a...@ibm.net> wrote:
><>> >Speaking of the public, let's test their knowledge here: Have any
><>> >President(s) ever been impeached, and if so, what was the reason?
><>
><>Any takers?
>Andrew Johnson is the only President who was impeached. The senate failed by one
>vote to put him out of office. I don't know what the formal reason he was
>impeached for but the real reason was disagreement over the way he was handling
>reconstruction.
><>> >Here's a related quiz: which body of Congress can impeach a
><>> >President: a) the House; b) the Senate; c) either one.
>as noted the house impeaches-the senate conducts the trial, which is presided
>over by the Chief Justice of the supreme court.
>In Clintons case nothing he did prior to becoming president is an impeachable
>offense. He would be open for impeachment if it was found he lied in his
>testimony in the two whitewater trials or that he used the FBI or IRS
>imprperly(which is alleged in both the Filegate and travelgate matters). If they
>can prove he was(is) involved in a coverup that would be obstruction of justice
>which is, of course, an impeachable offense.
Any felony Clinton is convicted of, regardless of when he committed it,
is certainly an impeachable offense. He could easily be convicted on
felony conspiracy charges related to several of the crimes he allegedly
participated in.
What you seem to have forgotten is that a convicted felon cannot be
President.
>It is probable that Hillary will be indicted by year end-most likely the charges
>will be for obstruction of justice(the mysterious billing records) and perjury.
>whether she will be indicted for her work on IDS(casa Blanca) is still up in the
>air. Thee is ample evidence she prepared a fraudulent back dated "option" on
>this property.
Heheheh. If Hillary is convicted, it would be fun to watch Slick
flounder around as President with not a clue as to what to do. It's
clear that Hillary makes most decisions for him.
--
<sig>
" To its committed members [the Democrat Party] was still
the party of heart, humanity, and justice, but to those
removed a few paces it looked like Captain Hook's crew --
ambulance-chasing lawyers, rapacious public policy grants
persons, civil rights gamesmen, ditzy-brained movie stars,
fat-assed civil servant desk squatters, recovering alcoholics,
recovering wife-beaters, recovering child-buggers, and so forth
and so on, a grotesque lineup of ill-mannered, self-pitying,
caterwauling freeloaders banging their tin cups on the pavement
demanding handouts."
-- Nicholas von Hoffman (The Washington Post, 94/11/12)
Annoy a Fascist: Just say NO! to gun control. -- Synergy
" Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India,
history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of
arms as the blackest." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Ford
On Sat, 16 Nov 1996 18:12:57 -0800, The Generalissimo
<nic...@vegas.infi.net> wrote:
it.
>> >
>> >
>> Your correct, they are anyway, and it can only get worse as the gap
>> between the haves and have nots continues to wider. Justice?
>> Injustice? Who knows, I'm only seeing symptoms that could be
>> foretelling some very unpleasant times in the not too distant future.
>
>Unpleasant? I can hardly wait. Being a person of very modest income,
>(since being downsized) I definately in the lower half of income levels
>in this country. However I do not proclaim you owe me part of your
>paycheck. When the unpleasantness comes, I'll embrace it with open
>arms, and rise to the occasion.
>
gp
>
>
opt...@mindspring.com
>> >both TX runoffs with party affiliation in doubt break against the
>> >GOP- 224. Not significant.
>>
>> Uh, you seem to have forgot - the House Republicans lost about 11 seats
>> this year. The Republican majority is now down to less than 10, so if 15
>> Republicans don't want Newt then he can't get a majority of the House.
>>
>> > ESPECIALLY since House leadership has
>> >closed ranks behind Gingrich.
>>
>> I think the fact that there are calls for Newt to step down from inside the
>> Republican side of the House proves this claim to be false.
>
>If Mr. Newt steps down, he will only be replaced by another conservative
>such as Henry Hyde. This may actually be better for the GOP, as Hyde is
>not only a fiscal conservative, but even *more* conservative on social
>issues than Mr. Newt. And, of course, much less controversial.
>
>Inasmuch as Mr. Newt is credited with reviving Clinton, unintentionally,
>after the '94 GOP revolution, if I was a liberal, I'd be rooting for him
>to REMAIN as Speaker.
>
>________________________________________________________________
>
>"We can look forward to four more years of wonderful, inspirational
>speeches full of wit, poetry, music, love and affection, plus more
>goddamn nonsense."
>
>David Brinkley, ABC News, after Clinton clinched his re-election.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you not know that newt will servive this and Clinton is on the way
out. The american people deserve a President who has the moral and honor
we want our children to have. I believe that bill and hillary are shaking
in their boots as McDougal begins to sing. No pardon for James
Jim Coffey
In article <msch19-1611...@dial029.skypoint.net>, msc...@mail.idt.net
says...>> (in respones to someone else's):
>> Taxation isn't stealing when it is done through the consent of your
>> elected representatives.
>
>
> I do not consent to being robbed by elected representatives.
>
> (*Poof* So much for THAT argument.)
>
Everytime you use soemthing provided by tax money you consent. By being part
of this country you consent.
>
> No. That is merely what you would like to think.
>
> No one actually shot *AT* the British until they attempted to
>confiscate the private firearms of the citizens of Concord and Lexington.
>Gun control was THE ignition point, not taxation.
>
> But get the following VERY CLEAR in your mind: Both taxation and gun
>control are PRIVATE PROPERTY ISSUES. "Thou Shalt Not Steal".
Hardly. Taxation is a fundamental part of the operation of a government -
something the founding fathers were very careful to put into the constitution.
>
>
>> No one likes taxes.
>
>
> Horse shit. People who are the recipients of those stolen goods LOVE
>taxation, and repeatedly vote for dirtbags who will raise taxes.
>
>
The projects funded via tax money are not stolen goods - they are the goods
that the population decided are worthwhile via their elected reprentatives.
That you don't like how the money is raised and spent doesn't change the fact
that they are lawfully raised.
>
> *Your* inability to exist without a federal tit to suck (that's what it
>boils to) does not confer upon you the moral right to STEAL from *me*.
>
>--
Taxation is not theft.
Ford
On Sun, 17 Nov 1996 01:03:56 GMT, j...@theBschool.edu (Jim Coffey)
wrote:
>
>>
>The projects funded via tax money are not stolen goods - they are the goods
>that the population decided are worthwhile via their elected reprentatives.
>That you don't like how the money is raised and spent doesn't change the fact
>that they are lawfully raised.
>>
>> *Your* inability to exist without a federal tit to suck (that's what it
>>boils to) does not confer upon you the moral right to STEAL from *me*.
>>
>>--
>Taxation is not theft.
>
group.
gp
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has
made a lot of people very angry and been widely
regarded as a bad move....... Douglas Adams
Billy Beck
msc...@mail.idt.net (Michael Schneider) wrote:
>stee...@tomcindy.rotterdam.ny.us wrote:
>> > If I concede you the moral authority to steal a nickel from me, I
>> >concede you the moral authority to take everything I own and enslave me as
>> >a beast of burdon.
>> Allright!!!! Now we are getting somewhere. OK Mike, now get your
>> lazy ass up and rake my back yard. Then there is some firewood I need
>> hauled up front. Then you can sleep on the deck. I'll give you some
>> bread crusts and water.
> How 'bout a mercury-tipped hollowpoint to tha noggin and dump ya
>somewhere on the back 40?
Not a chance in hell, Mike.
The reason is that Steegman will *never* get off his narrow ass to
come and steal your property in *person*. He would never do that
because he understands quite clearly what would happen if he did.
He is quite satisfied to *hire out* his robbery to people far better
armed than you are, to include heavy armor and air-strikes.
Billy
"Anthology"
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/essays.html
Billy Beck
gar...@ix.netcom.com (Ford) wrote:
>Totally take away the "federal tit" and see how long is before someone
>starts looking for "your tit", armed to the teeth.
What's this? Threats? I'm supposed to ransom my life against the
threat of hordes of leeches who would take to the streets in search of
prey...is *that* it?
I say: *bring 'em on*, right fucking now. The sooner we have this
out, the better. If these "oppressed" have a manful bone in their
bodies, they will step up to the challenge of securing my goods.
Otherwise, they may sit down, shut the fuck up, and either bloody
*starve* in the streets or secure productive employment.
To hell with them.
Billy
"Anthology"
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/essays.html
Billy Beck
papa...@aol.com (Papa Budge) wrote:
>Michael Schneider wrote:
>> *Your* inability to exist without a federal tit to suck (that's what it
>> boils to) does not confer upon you the moral right to STEAL from *me*.
>And who do you steal from, sir?
(huh?)
>Your mother came out carrying you, carefully wrapped, and walked along the
>road past your neighbors, where she waited for a bus. Presumably she was
>taking you to the doctor. She looked so tired and haggard after that
>sleepless night, but you were fast asleep.
>So many years ago; will you stay fast asleep?
Eat shit and die puking, Budge.
Your cheesy little equivocation of the relationship between a parent's
chosen responsibility for her child, and a criminal enterprise carried
on in the name of "charity", will not flush. The two are *not* the
same, and if you asked my mother who *I* have "stolen from", her
natural sweetness and grace would leave your *disgrace* to your own
dubious powers of introspection.
If *I* happened to be present, my righteous fury would result in
summary re-arrangement of your facial features.
(If Lynne Murmane is still lurking about: that's a point for *you*
baby.)
Billy
"Anthology"
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/essays.html
Billy Beck
j...@theBschool.edu (Jim Coffey) wrote:
>The projects funded via tax money are not stolen goods - they are the goods
>that the population decided are worthwhile via their elected reprentatives.
>That you don't like how the money is raised and spent doesn't change the fact
>that they are lawfully raised.
And the Jews of Germany were "lawfully" murdered.
It is only the most aggressively mediocre intellect which looks to
"law" for a moral sanction.
>Taxation is not theft.
It very most certainly is. There is no tax in this, or any, country,
which is not levied by force or its immediate threat. This is a
*fundamental* similarity between taxation and ordinary robbery. It is
a fact - undeniably true - and there is no way to smooth it over.
Observe that I have pointed out the *essential* feature of taxation
which is common to every robbery ever committed. This is known as
"evidence" of the contention.
It is also a heluva lot more than *you* bring to bear with your bland
assertions.
Billy
"Anthology"
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/essays.html
Robert Durio
In <32954750...@news.sccsi.com> lawr...@arthes.com (Robert W
the charges
>will be for obstruction of justice(the mysterious billing records) and
perjury.
>whether she will be indicted for her work on IDS(casa Blanca) is still
up in the
>air. Thee is ample evidence she prepared a fraudulent back dated
"option" on
>this property.
>
>
>
>
>lawr...@arthes.com
Actually, it would probably be better to let him stay in office. He has
one term left and then Gore (far more liberal) will have to run. If you
impeach Clinton, Gore will be running for re-election, not election. It
is much easier to get re-elected than elected. Also, he would have 2
terms, as opposed to Clinton's remaining one.
I say, let all the filth that is the heart and soul of the Clintons
(Chelsea and sox excluded) come out and let its stench spread to Gore.
In 2000, put a weakened, non-incumbent Gore in the unemployment lines
and a GOP'er in the White House.
Robert Durio, Los Angeles
aut...@mainelink.net
Time again, agents raiding the premises from which a
genuinely dedicated fool sold guns ro crooks, KKK etc
would find porno material ranging from bondage to
`predephelia among the gun nut's possessions.
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
t.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,talk.politics.theory,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.bob-dole,alt.politics.clinton
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.reform,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,talk.politics,talk.politics.guns,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,talk.politics.theory,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.bob-dole,alt.politics.clinton
References: <328435...@ibm.net> <32844D...@ultra-liberal.org> <328631...@batelco.com.bh> <328696...@pacbell.net> <5666em$9...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> <56afil$2...@news.netusa1.net> <328a084f...@news.gnn.com> <32964b9a...@news.tcsn.n
et> <msch19-1511...@dial002.skypoint.net> <328caac...@news.netheaven.com> <328D00...@interport.net> <msch19-1611...@dial029.skypoint.net>
Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA
Distribution:
Michael Schneider (msc...@mail.idt.net) wrote:
: In article <328D00...@interport.net>, ami...@interport.net wrote:
: > On Fri, 15 Nov 1996 03:10:23 -0500, msc...@mail.idt.net (Michael
: > > Schneider) scrawled:
: > >
: > > > If I concede you the moral authority to steal a nickel from me, I
: > > >concede you the moral authority to take everything I own and enslave
: > >me as a beast of burdon.
: >
: > Taxation isn't stealing when it is done through the consent of your
: > elected representatives.
: I do not consent to being robbed by elected representatives.
Pack your bags and go.
: (*Poof* So much for THAT argument.)
So much for yours.
: > This is why the US had a revolution in 1776.
: No. That is merely what you would like to think.
: No one actually shot *AT* the British until they attempted to
: confiscate the private firearms of the citizens of Concord and Lexington.
: Gun control was THE ignition point, not taxation.
Obviously you never heard of the Boston Tea Party. I guess my taxes were
wasted on your education.
: But get the following VERY CLEAR in your mind: Both taxation and gun
: control are PRIVATE PROPERTY ISSUES. "Thou Shalt Not Steal".
If you want government by theocracy, I can think of some governments in
the Middle East that would just love to have you.
: > No one likes taxes.
: Horse shit. People who are the recipients of those stolen goods LOVE
: taxation, and repeatedly vote for dirtbags who will raise taxes.
What are you doing stealing my guv'mint created Internet services?
: > No one like everything his taxes are used for.
: > It's hard to disagree that the government does some functions that are
: > vital - e.g. defense - and that couldn't be privatized easily or safely.
: *Your* inability to exist without a federal tit to suck (that's what it
: boils to) does not confer upon you the moral right to STEAL from *me*.
Take the next plane out, you whining little pencil-necked geek.
--
Buddy K
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
t.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,talk.politics.theory,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.bob-dole,alt.politics.clinton
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.reform,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,talk.politics,talk.politics.guns,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,talk.politics.theory,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.bob-dole,alt.politics.clinton
References: <328435...@ibm.net> <32844D...@ultra-liberal.org> <328631...@batelco.com.bh> <328696...@pacbell.net> <5666em$9...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> <56afil$2...@news.netusa1.net> <328a084f...@news.gnn.com> <32964b9a...@news.tcsn.n
et> <msch19-1511...@dial002.skypoint.net> <328caac...@news.netheaven.com> <328D00...@interport.net> <msch19-1611...@dial029.skypoint.net> <E0zpM...@midway.uchicago.edu> <56m81a$2...@camel4.mindspring.com>
Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA
Distribution:
Billy Beck (wj...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: j...@theBschool.edu (Jim Coffey) wrote:
: >The projects funded via tax money are not stolen goods - they are the goods
: >that the population decided are worthwhile via their elected reprentatives.
: >That you don't like how the money is raised and spent doesn't change the fact
: >that they are lawfully raised.
: And the Jews of Germany were "lawfully" murdered.
: It is only the most aggressively mediocre intellect which looks to
: "law" for a moral sanction.
If you don't appreciate that this is a government of laws and not of men,
perhaps you should pack your bags also.
: >Taxation is not theft.
: It very most certainly is. There is no tax in this, or any, country,
: which is not levied by force or its immediate threat. This is a
: *fundamental* similarity between taxation and ordinary robbery. It is
: a fact - undeniably true - and there is no way to smooth it over.
: Observe that I have pointed out the *essential* feature of taxation
: which is common to every robbery ever committed. This is known as
: "evidence" of the contention.
Well, you just keep whining while the country keeps robbing, twerp. Theft
is defined by law and tradition just as property is. There is no divine
right of property. Taxation has been going on since humans crawled out of
their caves, but some folks are too stupid to learn a smidgen of history.
: It is also a heluva lot more than *you* bring to bear with your bland
: assertions.
Are you calling the pot black, dumber-than-a-stump?
--
Buddy K
Robert Durio
In <E0zpM...@midway.uchicago.edu> j...@theBschool.edu (Jim Coffey)
writes:
>>> elected representatives.
>>
>>
>> I do not consent to being robbed by elected representatives.
>>
>>
>
being part
>of this country you consent.
>
>>
>>
>> No one actually shot *AT* the British until they attempted to
>>confiscate the private firearms of the citizens of Concord and
Lexington.
>>Gun control was THE ignition point, not taxation.
>>
gun
>>control are PRIVATE PROPERTY ISSUES. "Thou Shalt Not Steal".
>
government -
>something the founding fathers were very careful to put into the
constitution.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Horse shit. People who are the recipients of those stolen goods
LOVE
>>taxation, and repeatedly vote for dirtbags who will raise taxes.
>>
>>
goods
>that the population decided are worthwhile via their elected
reprentatives.
>That you don't like how the money is raised and spent doesn't change
the fact
>that they are lawfully raised.
>>
what it
>>boils to) does not confer upon you the moral right to STEAL from
*me*.
>>
>Taxation is not theft.
>
It is when it is used to fund programs and activities of the Federal
government not authorized by the Constitution, which some estimates
hold to be 50% or more of the budget.
For example, what part of the Constitution authorized federal funding
of welfare, or to set up a national pension system or medical system?
Answer, abolutely nothing in the Constitution authorizes such spending
or could be interpreted, twisted, distorted etc., to make such an
authorization. Nonetheless, expansionist power-mongers set up such
programs building an ever greater central government. It is the
equivilant of using a D-9 bulldozer to clear a few weeds from the
flower garden alongside the house. It costs way too much and botches up
the job.
What this country needs is a return to the principles and specifics set
forth by our founders in the Constitution - specifically the provisions
of Article I, Section 8. I doubt if 10% of our Congresscritters have
the foggiest idea that it exists - much less what it says - despite the
fact that it is the enabling section for Federal jurisdictions.
Robert Durio, Los Angeles
Michael Schneider
Jim Coffey wrote:
>>> (in respones to someone else's):
>>> Taxation isn't stealing when it is done through the consent of your
>>> elected representatives.
>>
>>
>> I do not consent to being robbed by elected representatives.
>>
>> (*Poof* So much for THAT argument.)
>>
>
>Everytime you use soemthing provided by tax money you consent. By being part
>of this country you consent.
Show me where in the Constitution it explains in clear terms that I am
a serf of the state merely because of my presence within a certain
geographical location.
If you could do so, explain why I should adhere to such a reprehensible
concept.
>>
>> No. That is merely what you would like to think.
>>
>> No one actually shot *AT* the British until they attempted to
>>confiscate the private firearms of the citizens of Concord and Lexington.
>>Gun control was THE ignition point, not taxation.
>>
>> But get the following VERY CLEAR in your mind: Both taxation and gun
>>control are PRIVATE PROPERTY ISSUES. "Thou Shalt Not Steal".
>
>Hardly. Taxation is a fundamental part of the operation of a government -
>something the founding fathers were very careful to put into the constitution.
Visit the "...constitutional resource..." web site in my sig which is
at the end of all my posts, and learn exactly why that is totally wrong.
Up to you.
You have just been informed that your zipper is down.
You can pull it up (or at least look), or pretend that nothing is amiss.
>>> No one likes taxes.
>>
>>
>> Horse shit. People who are the recipients of those stolen goods LOVE
>>taxation, and repeatedly vote for dirtbags who will raise taxes.
>>
>>
>The projects funded via tax money are not stolen goods - they are the goods
>that the population decided are worthwhile via their elected reprentatives.
The "population" has no moral right to steal from the individual.
>That you don't like how the money is raised and spent doesn't change the fact
>that they are lawfully raised.
Admiralty war courts are unconstitutional. Their decisions are
unlawful. Any judge who presides over court with full knowledge of what
that gold fringe on the flag in his courtroom means... is a traitor to the
Constitution.
>> *Your* inability to exist without a federal tit to suck (that's what it
>>boils to) does not confer upon you the moral right to STEAL from *me*.
>>
>>--
>Taxation is not theft.
Theft: taking something from someone without their permission.
Quit deluding yourself.
There is going to be a revolution in this country in your lifetime. It
may be peaceful; it may be violent. The crux of the issue will be the
rights of the individual versus the tyranny of the state. Do yourself a
favor and get on the right side.
Mike
--
Votescam home page: http://www.copi.com/VOTESCAM/VSCM_01.HTM.
Vote fraud investigations site: http://www.networkusa.org/index.shtml
You've been assimilated by the New World Order: http://image.ucr.edu/~borg/
See subpage http://image.ucr.edu/~borg/jwz/Constitution/resources.htm for
an incedible wealth of data. For info on how your Social Security Number
is the chain binding you into servitude: http://www.mainelink.net/none/
alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater = America's outlet for truth!
Read everything by Michael Rivero, Larry-Jennie, Max Kennedy, Billy Beck.
. . . . o o o o o +----------------------------------+
_____ o | Ready to play 18XX Rails & other |
____==== ]OO|_n_n__][. | board games F2F at the drop of a |
[________]_|__|________)< | hat. Minnesota Twin Cities area! |
oo oo 'oo OOOO-| oo\_ +----------------------------------+
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
"Impending doom takes all the fun out of decadent living!" - Yago
--
Votescam home page: http://www.copi.com/VOTESCAM/VSCM_01.HTM.
Michael Schneider
In article <papabudge-161...@spr-mo2-14.ix.netcom.com>,
papa...@aol.com (Papa Budge) wrote:
> Michael Schneider wrote:
>
> > *Your* inability to exist without a federal tit to suck (that's what it
> > boils to) does not confer upon you the moral right to STEAL from *me*.
>
> And who do you steal from, sir?
Yo, Pop;
You wouldn't be hypocritically accusing me of hypocrisy, would you?
> Are you so independent, then? A friend of
> mine who knew you as a child does not think so. He told me this about you:
>
> You had been crying all night, and your poor mother had been doing her
> best to quiet you. She sang to you, she scolded you, she petted and rocked
> you; but it was no good.
>
> You must have been teething, and it was a weary night for your whole
> family. But now the dawn was coming over the dark trees, and at last you
> became quiet. There was a peculiar stillness as the sky grew lighter and
> lighter. The dead branches were clear against the sky, slender and naked;
> a child called, a dog barked, a bus rattled by, and another day had begun.
>
>
> Your mother came out carrying you, carefully wrapped, and walked along the
> road past your neighbors, where she waited for a bus. Presumably she was
> taking you to the doctor. She looked so tired and haggard after that
> sleepless night, but you were fast asleep.
>
> So many years ago; will you stay fast asleep?
>
> --
> --papa budge
>
> "Ring the bells that still can ring.
> Forget your perfect offering.
> There is a crack in everything.
> That's how the light gets in."
>
> --lc
>
> "I am a liar who always tells the truth."
>
> --jc
--
Michael Schneider
In article <56m9g3$4...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>,
du...@ix.netcom.com(Robert Durio ) wrote:
> >Taxation is not theft.
> >
> It is when it is used to fund programs and activities of the Federal
> government not authorized by the Constitution....
And it remains theft when authorized by Constitutions.
What the Constitution "allows" is irrelevent in the determination.
James Doemer
Robert W Lawrence wrote:
>
> Al Ridemfi <a...@ibm.net> wrote:
>
> <>> >Speaking of the public, let's test their knowledge here: Have any
> <>> >President(s) ever been impeached, and if so, what was the reason?
> <>
> <>Any takers?
> Andrew Johnson is the only President who was impeached. The senate failed by one
> vote to put him out of office. I don't know what the formal reason he was
> impeached for but the real reason was disagreement over the way he was handling
> reconstruction.
> <>> >Here's a related quiz: which body of Congress can impeach a
> <>> >President: a) the House; b) the Senate; c) either one.
> as noted the house impeaches-the senate conducts the trial, which is presided
> over by the Chief Justice of the supreme court.
>
> In Clintons case nothing he did prior to becoming president is an impeachable
> offense. He would be open for impeachment if it was found he lied in his
> testimony in the two whitewater trials or that he used the FBI or IRS
> imprperly(which is alleged in both the Filegate and travelgate matters). If they
> can prove he was(is) involved in a coverup that would be obstruction of justice
> which is, of course, an impeachable offense.
>
> It is probable that Hillary will be indicted by year end-most likely the charges
> will be for obstruction of justice(the mysterious billing records) and perjury.
> whether she will be indicted for her work on IDS(casa Blanca) is still up in the
> air. Thee is ample evidence she prepared a fraudulent back dated "option" on
> this property.
>
Hmmm... Hillary behind bars for Christmas..... I wonder where I should
address her card?? :>
James Doemer
> >taxation, and repeatedly vote for dirtbags who will raise taxes.
> >
> >
> >> It's hard to disagree that the government does some functions that are
> >> vital - e.g. defense - and that couldn't be privatized easily or safely.
> >
> >
> >boils to) does not confer upon you the moral right to STEAL from *me*.
> >
> >You've been assimilated by the New World Order: http://image.ucr.edu/~borg/
> >See subpage http://image.ucr.edu/~borg/jwz/Constitution/resources.htm for
> >an incedible wealth of data. For info on how your Social Security Number
> >is the chain binding you into servitude: http://www.mainelink.net/none/
> >
> >alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater = America's outlet for truth.
> >Read everything by Michael Rivero, Larry-Jennie, Max Kennedy, Billy Beck.
> >
> > . . . . o o o o o +----------------------------------+
> > _____ o | Ready to play 18XX Rails & other |
> > ____==== ]OO|_n_n__][. | board games F2F at the drop of a |
> > [________]_|__|________)< | hat. Minnesota Twin Cities area! |
> > oo oo 'oo OOOO-| oo\_ +----------------------------------+
> >+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
> >
> > "Impending doom takes all the fun out of decadent living!" - Yago
>
> starts looking for "your tit", armed to the teeth.
>
I would have more respect for such people, at least they didn't hire
government thugs to rob me..... Course, they would have to take the
consequences of their actions, when does the government do so??
Del
Analyzing B. Beck's argument: taxation=theft
Beck says
> Observe that I have pointed out the *essential* feature of taxation
> which is common to every robbery ever committed.
> This is known as "evidence" of the contention.
You are not well grounded in logic, Billy. Now I see why you
refused, previously, to engage me in any sort of defense of
your silly nazi = socialist baloney.
Obviously you don't comprehend the problem with your
argument. (BTW, I hope you don't mind but I've changed the
order of some of your responses to make my dissection of
them more entertaining. A complete version of your response
follows) Your reply to the observation:
> >Taxation is not theft.
Was:
> It very most certainly is. There is no tax in this, or any, country,
> which is not levied by force or its immediate threat. This is a
> *fundamental* similarity between taxation and ordinary robbery.
Notice the flaw here in your unexplained and unjustified
inductive leap from your claim that there is a
"...*fundamental* similarity between... " taxes and theft,
to the conclusion that taxes and theft are "...very most
certainly..." the same thing. This is what happens, Billy,
when ideological wishful thinking supplants the desire for
truth.
To better illustrate the flaw let's point out an *essential*
feature of marriage which is common to every _rape_ ever
committed.... Just as your argument "proves" taxation =
theft it can also "prove" that marriage is rape. Or, if you
prefer, that marriage is prostitution.
>It is a fact - undeniably true - and there is no way to smooth it over.
Likewise, it is a fact, - undeniably true that the
essential feature of marriage is common to every rape - and
there is no way to smooth THIS over either.
Maybe we should back-track Billy, to see just where your
argument went horribly awry
> Billy Beck wrote:
>
> j...@theBschool.edu (Jim Coffey) wrote:
>
> >The projects funded via tax money are not stolen goods - they are the
goods
> >that the population decided are worthwhile via their elected
reprentatives.
> >That you don't like how the money is raised and spent doesn't change
the fact
> >that they are lawfully raised.
>
> And the Jews of Germany were "lawfully" murdered.
Boom. You think your petulance over taxes and the holocaust
are valid analogues. Consider the following:
"But of all the machinery of informal logic, argument by
analogy is the most dangerous. All too often such arguments
persuade only because they mislead and confuse.... "
"An analogue can modify opinion, not by argument, not by
facts, but merely by creating an impression." "If the
secondary subject matter is one of which we disapprove or
one that we find disgusting or reprehensible, then when
similarities are pointed out between it and the primary
subject matter, we are inclined to view the primary subject
the same way."
"Is it any wonder that arguments by analogy are the
dangerous machines they are! The one who offers the argument
has all the advantages on his side. He stresses the
similarities between analogue and primary subject matter,
and usually they are clear enough to be undeniable. Then he
points out a trait and invites us to believe the primary
subject also has it. But does it? "
"If we fall for such tricks we are being played for
suckers."
"It pays to be suspicious of all analogies. In the hands of
the unscrupulous they can be dangerous. The deliberate use
of a misleading analogue is a classic propaganda device and
honest people don't employ such tactics. Yet even honest
people can err...."
- Ronald Munson, The Way of Words, Houghton Mifflin,
Atlanta, 1976, p. 323 - 324
Your above is a text book example of what Mumson was talking
about. Your attempt at drawing a parallel between paying
taxes and genocide was misleading at best. Your second
mistake was attempting to "prove" your argument - that
tax=theft - by _using_ analogy:
> Observe that I have pointed out the *essential* feature of taxation
> which is common to every robbery ever committed.
> This is known as "evidence" of the contention.
Sorry, no: " The analogy is not used to _prove_ anything. It
is merely offered as an aid to understanding" - Ibid. Like
the man said, you cannot use analogy to _prove_ anything.
A subset of this error of reasoning was your attempt at
claiming "*fundamental* similarity" equals "sameness."
Last, and probably least, your final retort was also flawed:
> It is also a heluva lot more than *you* bring to bear with your bland
> assertions.
This is a variant of the appeal to ignorance fallacy. Your
correspondent's "bland assertions" or their absence has zero
effect on the validity of your argument - even if you prefer
assertions full of sound and fury (but ultimately signify
nothing).
>
Next time we'll take a closer look at your premise that
tax=theft.
------------------------------------
Billy Beck says:
>
> j...@theBschool.edu (Jim Coffey) wrote:
>
> >The projects funded via tax money are not stolen goods - they are the goods
> >that the population decided are worthwhile via their elected reprentatives.
> >That you don't like how the money is raised and spent doesn't change the fact
> >that they are lawfully raised.
>
> And the Jews of Germany were "lawfully" murdered.
>
> It is only the most aggressively mediocre intellect which looks to
> "law" for a moral sanction.
>
> >Taxation is not theft.
>
> It very most certainly is. There is no tax in this, or any, country,
> which is not levied by force or its immediate threat. This is a
> *fundamental* similarity between taxation and ordinary robbery. It is
> a fact - undeniably true - and there is no way to smooth it over.
> Observe that I have pointed out the *essential* feature of taxation
> which is common to every robbery ever committed. This is known as
> "evidence" of the contention.
>
> It is also a heluva lot more than *you* bring to bear with your bland
> assertions.
>
> Billy
>
> "Anthology"
> http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/essays.html
Jim Coffey
In article <56m81a$2...@camel4.mindspring.com>, wj...@mindspring.com says...
>
>
>j...@theBschool.edu (Jim Coffey) wrote:
>
>>The projects funded via tax money are not stolen goods - they are the goods
>>that the population decided are worthwhile via their elected reprentatives.
>>That you don't like how the money is raised and spent doesn't change the fact
>>that they are lawfully raised.
>
> And the Jews of Germany were "lawfully" murdered.
>
it.
> It is only the most aggressively mediocre intellect which looks to
>"law" for a moral sanction.
>
>>Taxation is not theft.
>
> It very most certainly is. There is no tax in this, or any, country,
>which is not levied by force or its immediate threat. This is a
>*fundamental* similarity between taxation and ordinary robbery. It is
>a fact - undeniably true - and there is no way to smooth it over.
>Observe that I have pointed out the *essential* feature of taxation
>which is common to every robbery ever committed. This is known as
>"evidence" of the contention.
You have a choice, via your duly elected represenatives, on the types and
nature of the taxes levied. You alos have the option to move to somewhere
where the tax structure is more to your liking. In either case, you can make a
choice, something a robber doesn't give you. Your assertion is simply wrong.
Jim Coffey
In article <56m9g3$4...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>, du...@ix.netcom.co says...
>>
>It is when it is used to fund programs and activities of the Federal
>government not authorized by the Constitution, which some estimates
>hold to be 50% or more of the budget.
>
>For example, what part of the Constitution authorized federal funding
>of welfare, or to set up a national pension system or medical system?
>Answer, abolutely nothing in the Constitution authorizes such spending
>or could be interpreted, twisted, distorted etc., to make such an
>authorization. Nonetheless, expansionist power-mongers set up such
>programs building an ever greater central government. It is the
>equivilant of using a D-9 bulldozer to clear a few weeds from the
>flower garden alongside the house. It costs way too much and botches up
>the job.
>
Article One, section eight:
The Congress shall have the power 1. to lay and collect taxes, duties,
imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence
and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and
excises shall be uniform throughout the United States:
Notice "general welfare",a pretty broad term, is specifically mentioned in the
article.
>What this country needs is a return to the principles and specifics set
>forth by our founders in the Constitution - specifically the provisions
>of Article I, Section 8. I doubt if 10% of our Congresscritters have
>the foggiest idea that it exists - much less what it says - despite the
>fact that it is the enabling section for Federal jurisdictions.
>
See above.
Del
Analyzing B. Beck's argument II: taxation=theft
Beck says
Billy Beck wrote:
>
> papa...@aol.com (Papa Budge) wrote:
>
> >Michael Schneider wrote:
>
> >> *Your* inability to exist without a federal tit to suck (that's
what it
> >> boils to) does not confer upon you the moral right to STEAL from
*me*.
>
> >And who do you steal from, sir?
>
> (huh?)
Do you get paid time and a half for over time? You take it
with out your employer's consent. How can you justify this
theft from your employer? you are in collusion with the
government to steal from your boss. That's conspiracy.
Did you go to public school? Do you have kids that do? How
about your relatives? I suppose you use highways, bridges
and tunnels. How about fire and police protection. How much
would your homeowners or renters insurance be without the
availability of such services? Have you paid for any of
these things? If you haven't isn't that theft?
You can't say that you pay for these things. If they are
stealing your money that isn't paying for it. If a thief
stole money from you, you couldn't steal from him in return.
You would be arrested for theft too. And if you got into the
arrangement of him taking your money and you taking his
goods - like the government and you - that wouldn't be
considered theft. That would be considered a bargain a deal,
an agreement.
If it is truly theft then it is separate and apart from your
free use of government services. So you should be paying for
these things over and above what they steal. That is a
separate issue. If you say that as long as they steal, you
feel justified in using these things then it sounds like a
contract to me. You are acting just as though an agreement
was in effect.
>
> >Your mother came out carrying you, carefully wrapped, and walked along
the
> >road past your neighbors, where she waited for a bus. Presumably she
was
> >taking you to the doctor. She looked so tired and haggard after that
> >sleepless night, but you were fast asleep.
>
> >So many years ago; will you stay fast asleep?
>
> Eat shit and die puking, Budge.
What a sly wit you have, Billy! You ought to be doing stand
up.
> Your cheesy little equivocation of the relationship between a parent's
> chosen responsibility for her child, and a criminal enterprise carried
> on in the name of "charity", will not flush.
As long as you are playing the pedant, see if you can find
your begged question in the above. (* answer below)
> The two are *not* the same,
Billy, Billy, Billy. People who live in glass NewsGroups
and all that...
> and if you asked my mother who *I* have "stolen from", her
> natural sweetness and grace would leave your *disgrace* to your own
> dubious powers of introspection.
----------
Answers:
* Referring to taxation as "a criminal enterprise carried
on in the name of 'charity'" begs the question since it is
the very conclusion your argument must prove.
Michael Zarlenga
aut...@mainelink.net wrote:
: Time again, agents raiding the premises from which a
: would find porno material ranging from bondage to
: `predephelia among the gun nut's possessions.
How often is "time and time again?"
Time and time again, people reading the ramblings of Jim Moore,
a.k.a. aut...@mainelink.net, would find nonsense ranging from
outright lies to half-truths.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
Don't blame me, I voted for Harry Browne.
"Are you freer today than you were 4 years ago?"
Barbara O'Keeffe
Is it possible to keep these discussions to the politcal groups?
Billy Beck
Del <jfa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Analyzing B. Beck's argument II: taxation=theft
>Beck says
>Billy Beck wrote:
>>
>> papa...@aol.com (Papa Budge) wrote:
>>
>> >Michael Schneider wrote:
>>
>> >> *Your* inability to exist without a federal tit to suck (that's
>> >>what it boils to) does not confer upon you the moral right to STEAL from
>> >>*me*.
>>
>> >And who do you steal from, sir?
>>
>> (huh?)
>Do you get paid time and a half for over time?
Never, ever, in my life. Not once.
>Did you go to public school?
Yes. My parents paid dearly for it, and *they still do*, 22 years
after my graduation from high school. (Hint: the property taxes on my
father's land are almost 30% more than I paid in rent for my first
apartment. More than *half* of that is an explicitly listed "school
tax".)
>I suppose you use highways, bridges and tunnels.
Yes, and I pay inordinately high gasoline prices, to include the tax.
>How about fire and police protection.
Never once, although the state of Georgia did "serve" me once in the
case of a drunk driver who destroyed my Harley. They fined this
un-insured and barely employed man $5000 (in a case which witnesses
said should have brought a charge of attempted murder), pocketed the
money, sent him on his way to somehow support a wife and children, and
never so much as nodded in my direction when they dismissed the case.
Question: where did the value of my bike go?
Don't talk to me about "services rendered", Del. I've been there and
hated every minute of it.
>> Eat shit and die puking, Budge.
>What a sly wit you have, Billy! You ought to be doing stand
>up.
Fuck you, too, Del, until you understand that you don't get to stand
there and posit *my* values at the point of a gun.
Billy
"Anthology"
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/essays.html
Billy Beck
Del <jfa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Analyzing B. Beck's argument: taxation=theft
>Beck says
>> >Taxation is not theft.
>Was:
>
>> It very most certainly is. There is no tax in this, or any, country,
>> which is not levied by force or its immediate threat. This is a
>> *fundamental* similarity between taxation and ordinary robbery.
>Notice the flaw here in your unexplained and unjustified
>inductive leap from your claim that there is a
>"...*fundamental* similarity between... " taxes and theft,
>to the conclusion that taxes and theft are "...very most
>certainly..." the same thing. This is what happens, Billy,
>when ideological wishful thinking supplants the desire for
>truth.
>To better illustrate the flaw let's point out an *essential*
>feature of marriage which is common to every _rape_ ever
>committed.... Just as your argument "proves" taxation =
>theft it can also "prove" that marriage is rape. Or, if you
>prefer, that marriage is prostitution.
...except that marriage is a freely joined contract.
>gong<
Thanx for playing.
Billy
"Anthology"
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/essays.html
Billy Beck
j...@theBschool.edu (Jim Coffey) wrote:
>In article <56m81a$2...@camel4.mindspring.com>, wj...@mindspring.com says...
>>
>>
>>j...@theBschool.edu (Jim Coffey) wrote:
>>
>>>The projects funded via tax money are not stolen goods - they are the goods
>>>that the population decided are worthwhile via their elected reprentatives.
>>>That you don't like how the money is raised and spent doesn't change the fact
>>>that they are lawfully raised.
>>
>> And the Jews of Germany were "lawfully" murdered.
>>
>Nice try at a strawman. Your point is so ludicrous I won't even watse time on
>it.
Hey: *I'm* not the one who was referring to "law" for a moral premise.
>You have a choice, via your duly elected represenatives, on the types and
>nature of the taxes levied.
Thanx for delimiting the terms and conditions of my life.
If I came to your home with an armed gang and informed you that I
would steal $x000 of goods from you, but that you could choose the
items, would you be satsified with the "choice"?
>You alos have the option to move to somewhere
>where the tax structure is more to your liking.
I also have the right to live where I have made my home, with my own
efforts.
Don't hand me this refried "love it or leave it" bullshit, Coffey. I
didn't take it from Agnew, and I won't tolerate it from *you*.
Billy
"Anthology"
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/essays.html
Alan Miles
Michael Schneider wrote:
>
> And it remains theft when authorized by Constitutions.
>
> What the Constitution "allows" is irrelevent in the determination.
There are countries with no government and no taxes. Zaire and Somalia
come to mind.
There are countries with governments and taxes. The USA is one. No one
is forcing you to be part of American society. You freely choose to be
part of this society. This entails doing stuff that isn't to your
liking. All Americans face the same issue.
Where you fall down is when you say that you reserve the right to be a
member of American society but somehow make your own rules.
There's a huge diference between saying "I am forced to pay taxes" and
"I choose to live where I am forced to pay taxes."
BTW, you are able, like all the rest of us US citizens, to lobby to
change the tax regime.
ste...@usit.net
Mark Roth <pha...@bee.net> wrote:
>Al Ridemfi wrote:
>>
>> > From midt...@hooked.net (Garrett Johnson)
>> > Organization Hooked Online Services
>> > Date Fri, 15 Nov 96 01:24:13 GMT
>>
>> > In article <328B2E5F...@cco.caltech.edu>,
>> > "Brian S. Jenkins" <bsj...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote:
>> > >Al Ridemfi wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> > From midt...@hooked.net (Garrett Johnson)
>> > >> > Organization Hooked Online Services
>> > >> > Date Wed, 13 Nov 96 02:32:02 GMT
>> > [...]
>> > >> > It looks like Newt is gaining ground fast on the impeachment race track.
>> > >> > In fact, with 15 House Republicans calling for Newt to step down, I would
>> > say
>> > >> > that Newt is closer to being impeached than Clinton. Especially with
>> > Starr's
>> > >> > last trial prosecution failing to get a conviction, and the FBI files not
>> > having
>> > >> > a single top Clinton aid's fingerprints on them (including Hillary).
>> > >
>> > >15 House Republicans out of how many? Assuming worst cases- Dornan
>> > >loses,
>> >
>> > He did.
>>
>> >
>> > Uh, you seem to have forgot - the House Republicans lost about 11 seats
>> > this year. The Republican majority is now down to less than 10, so if 15
>> > Republicans don't want Newt then he can't get a majority of the House.
>A majority for what? He only needs a majority of the Repubs to remain
>of the Speaker of the House. You're adding Democrats where they don't
>belong.
Um... the Speaker of the House is elected by a vote of the complete
house. (or did Newt change those rules?). Get educated, Mark.
If, I think, a dozen Republicans decide Newt as Speaker isn't
the best thing for the GOP, they could block it. But the word
on the street is that it won't happen.
>As for impeachment, although a simple majority of ALL the
>Representatives
>is required, you can't assume that the few Repubs that don't want him
>to be Speaker would vote against him in impeachment proceedings. That's
>a
>completely different kettle of fish!
>Already, several Repubs have taken back their calls for him to step
>down, anyway.
>Mark
-Steve
MAIL: ste...@usit.net
WWW: http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1131/index.html
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, §227,
any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address
is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
Papa Budge
Billy Beck wrote:
> If *I* happened to be present, my righteous fury would result in
> summary re-arrangement of your facial features.
Yes, well it would be hard to keep a straight face in the presence of such
righteous fury, sweetheart.
ste...@usit.net
wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) wrote:
>j...@theBschool.edu (Jim Coffey) wrote:
>>The projects funded via tax money are not stolen goods - they are the goods
>>that the population decided are worthwhile via their elected reprentatives.
>>That you don't like how the money is raised and spent doesn't change the fact
>>that they are lawfully raised.
> And the Jews of Germany were "lawfully" murdered.
> It is only the most aggressively mediocre intellect which looks to
>"law" for a moral sanction.
>>Taxation is not theft.
> It very most certainly is. There is no tax in this, or any, country,
>which is not levied by force or its immediate threat.
What kind of a threat? You'll go to jail. That's hardly comparable
to the Holocost. You insult the victims and survivors.
Look, if you really feel that strongly, Jim, don't pay your taxes, and
go to jail in protest. Like I said, the government isn't going to
shoot you for not paying taxes. I'd like to see more of your
type in jail, and less of you out there whining.
ste...@usit.net
msc...@mail.idt.net (Michael Schneider) wrote:
>Jim Coffey wrote:
>>>> (in respones to someone else's):
>>>> Taxation isn't stealing when it is done through the consent of your
>>>> elected representatives.
>>>
>>>
>>> I do not consent to being robbed by elected representatives.
>>>
>>> (*Poof* So much for THAT argument.)
>>>
>>
>>Everytime you use soemthing provided by tax money you consent. By being part
>>of this country you consent.
> Show me where in the Constitution it explains in clear terms that I am
>a serf of the state merely because of my presence within a certain
>geographical location.
> If you could do so, explain why I should adhere to such a reprehensible
>concept.
That "reprehensible concept" you refer to is called citizenship: a
duty to your country. Your country has provided you, if nothing else,
a place where you can worship freely, own property, say what you want,
sue your neighbor, turn up your stereo, and generally do whatever the
hell you want as long as you're not interefering with someone else.
You are also givena voice in elected representation, regardless of who
you are and whether you own property.
Personally, I'm grateful to live in such a place. I'm sorry you don't
feel the same way I do. But as a good American, I respect your
freedom to feel the way you do. I don't call for or wish for your
ouster as "unpatriotic" like some faux-Americans would.
I just wish people like you wouldn't sap the strength from this great
country.
Jim Coffey
In article <56noq5$u...@camel2.mindspring.com>, wj...@mindspring.com says...
>
>
>j...@theBschool.edu (Jim Coffey) wrote:
>
>>You have a choice, via your duly elected represenatives, on the types and
>>nature of the taxes levied.
>
> Thanx for delimiting the terms and conditions of my life.
Your welcome. Glad I could help.
>
> If I came to your home with an armed gang and informed you that I
>would steal $x000 of goods from you, but that you could choose the
>items, would you be satsified with the "choice"?
If it is a law officer serving a warrant for non-payment of taxes, then it is a
lawful act of governemnet.
If it's some roving bunch of lunatics who decided they want to takes something,
then its robbery.
remember:
taxes=lawful => enforcement=>lawful
robbery=theft => taking=illegal
>
>>You alos have the option to move to somewhere
>>where the tax structure is more to your liking.
>
> I also have the right to live where I have made my home, with my own
>efforts.
And one of the reasons you can enjoy it is because of the taxes payed by
others. It's the way our system works. Our founding fathers were smar tenough
to provide for taxes in the Constitution.
>
> Don't hand me this refried "love it or leave it" bullshit, Coffey. I
>didn't take it from Agnew, and I won't tolerate it from *you*.
>
>
Ah Ted, my former governor...
Brandon Ray
In note <32954750...@news.sccsi.com>, lawr...@arthes.com (Robert W
>Al Ridemfi <a...@ibm.net> wrote:
>
>
><>> >Speaking of the public, let's test their knowledge here: Have any
><>> >President(s) ever been impeached, and if so, what was the reason?
><>
><>Any takers?
>Andrew Johnson is the only President who was impeached. The senate failed by
>impeached for but the real reason was disagreement over the way he was
>handlingreconstruction.
The most important charge was that Johnson violated the Tenure of Office Act
by firing a member of Lincoln's cabinet without permission from Congress. But
you're right...it was really a political dispute between the president and
Congress.
><>> >Here's a related quiz: which body of Congress can impeach a
><>> >President: a) the House; b) the Senate; c) either one.
>as noted the house impeaches-the senate conducts the trial, which is presided
>over by the Chief Justice of the supreme court.
>
>In Clintons case nothing he did prior to becoming president is an impeachable
>offense.
You are mistaken. There is nothing in the Constitution which limits Bills of
Impeachment to matters that occurred during an officeholder's term.
>He would be open for impeachment if it was found he lied in his
>testimony in the two whitewater trials or that he used the FBI or IRS
>imprperly(which is alleged in both the Filegate and travelgate matters). If
>theycan prove he was(is) involved in a coverup that would be obstruction of
>justicewhich is, of course, an impeachable offense.
>
>It is probable that Hillary will be indicted by year end-most likely the
>chargeswill be for obstruction of justice(the mysterious billing records)
>and perjury.whether she will be indicted for her work on IDS(casa Blanca) is
>still up in theair. Thee is ample evidence she prepared a fraudulent back
>dated "option" onthis property.
>
Yup.
>
>
>
>Robert W Lawrence
>lawr...@arthes.com
---
******************************************************************************
"Fifty years ago,when I was born...it was unimaginable that someone like me
could have ever become President of the greatest country in human history."
William Jefferson Clinton, 11/5/96
You said it, Bill -- not me.
******************************************************************************
Del
>
> >Beck says
> >Billy Beck wrote:
> >>
> >> papa...@aol.com (Papa Budge) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Michael Schneider wrote:
> >>
> >> >> *Your* inability to exist without a federal tit to suck (that's
> >> >>what it boils to) does not confer upon you the moral right to
STEAL from
> >> >>*me*.
> >>
> >> >And who do you steal from, sir?
> >>
> >> (huh?)
>
> >Do you get paid time and a half for over time?
>
> Never, ever, in my life. Not once.
>
> >Did you go to public school?
>
> Yes. My parents paid dearly for it, and *they still do*, 22 years
> after my graduation from high school. (Hint: the property taxes on my
> father's land are almost 30% more than I paid in rent for my first
> apartment. More than *half* of that is an explicitly listed "school
> tax".)
>
> >I suppose you use highways, bridges and tunnels.
>
> Yes, and I pay inordinately high gasoline prices, to include the tax.
Quid pro quo. Thank you for admitting it. I appreciate that,
especially since you completely ignored that portion of my
argument that proved it
>
> >How about fire and police protection.
>
> Never once, although the state of Georgia did "serve" me once in the
> case of a drunk driver who destroyed my Harley. They fined this
> un-insured and barely employed man $5000 (in a case which witnesses
> said should have brought a charge of attempted murder), pocketed the
> money, sent him on his way to somehow support a wife and children, and
> never so much as nodded in my direction when they dismissed the case.
>
> Question: where did the value of my bike go?
A simply delightful red herring. Now back to the subject.
Your above implication that only direct intervention by
police or fire services constitutes value is ludicrous, even
for you. If they weren't around, neither would you be.
>
> Don't talk to me about "services rendered", Del. I've been there and
> hated every minute of it.
Since this is not my argument, but rather a convenient straw
man for to use to avoid my argument, I don't feel obligated
to address it further. I will however repost that portion of
my text that _DID_ contain my argument. Here you go:
You can't say that you pay for these things. If they are
stealing your money that isn't paying for it. If a thief
stole money from you, you couldn't steal from him in return.
You would be arrested for theft too. And if you got into the
arrangement of him taking your money and you taking his
goods - like the government and you - that wouldn't be
considered theft. That would be considered a bargain a deal,
an agreement.
If it is truly theft then it is separate and apart from your
free use of government services. So you should be paying for
these things over and above what they steal. That is a
separate issue. If you say that as long as they steal, you
feel justified in using these things then it sounds like a
contract to me. You are acting just as though an agreement
was in effect.
---- End Quote ----
> >> Eat shit and die puking, Budge.
>
> >What a sly wit you have, Billy! You ought to be doing stand
> >up.
>
> Fuck you, too, Del,
Ah yes, we all know how painful the truth can be. And you
seem especially hard hit by it recently. But you know what
they say about heat and kitchens and what to do if you can't
handle it. Why don't you repair to alt.credulious.anarchist
until you are emotionally mature enough to handle honest
debate with adults.
And come back just as soon as you've got that attitude
problem solved.
> until you understand that you don't get to stand
> there and posit *my* values at the point of a gun.
ROFL! Are you a troll? Here I am in the exact same boat as
you. You ADMIT to availing yourself of the services (A
legally binding implied contract) - that my taxes, and maybe
even some of yours, pays for. And you got the fuckin' gall
to say *I'm* holding a gun to *YOUR* head?? Billy you crack
me up!!
What possible rationale could someone use to derive such a
conclusion? Only the elitist, nazi one.
Nobody but an IDIOT would remain in a place where he knew
he was going to get robbed. They steal from you once, Billy,
shame on them. They steal from you twice - shame on you.
This just shows how dishonestly you use words - hyperbole -
that you don't truly believe. If you really thought you were
being robbed, you wouldn't be here!
Why ARE you here? You being born here doesn't mean that
everything changes - where did you get the idea that it
should? "Hey BILLY has arrived! From now on this is the way
it's going to be:
Number 1: you have no RIGHT to tax me!
Number 2: freedom is now defined thus!
And number 94: if you don't like it, GET OFF MY PROPERTY ...."
What an intolerant little nazi you are!! Dig yourself, dOOd!
Clearly you don't believe the majority should be able to
decide how things are run. How should we do it then? The
only possible answer is that you think YOU should decide.
Well I got news for you. Some folks got here before you did,
some time back and set this whole screwy majority thing up.
I know it's pretty wacko, but that's what they decided. They
and their offspring have built the place up over the years
and now rather like it here. They have seniority. You are
welcome to stay if you want. Hell you're even welcome to
jump right on in and try to change the things you don't
like.
But hey, we also know that it isn't for everybody. I'm sure
that we'd ALL like to accommodate you and get out of *your*
way. But it's a funny thing about real estate.
Anyway you sure are welcome to join in on this majority rule
bit. We'll understand if you want to pack your bags and
start your own perfect utopia somewhere else, thought. You see, we
got an exceptional amount of freedom here so don't worry:
we wouldn't try to stop you if you wanted to go.
I got further news for you. That's a pretty God Damned good
deal. If you want to stay you can have a vote - just like
everybody else. You have an equal say in the way things are
run. There are quite a few places that don't do that - nor
are they too accommodating about letting you leave if you
take exception to that fact.
Now let me ask you Billy: do those countries have a right to
do that? Do they? Do they have a right to run their
countries the way they want? I'll give you a hint.
THEY GOD DAMNED SURE AS HELL DO.
And so does the United States. And it's been that way since
long before you arrived and started claiming they didn't.
You say the government doesn't have the right to take your
money and call it taxes? It is actually stealing from you?
Bullshit. You don't even believe it yourself. The government
can do that - and a lot worse. They got seniority and they
got precedent. A lot of it. This is called a "fact of life."
You don't have to like it. You have to accept it. The sooner
you grow up and begin taking some responsibility for
yourself the sooner you'll realize that you do have options.
ADULT OPTIONS. Not your little egocentric "it's gotta be MY
WAY...I'm a victim I'm helpless, why are you doing this to
me, ME, ME!" crybaby crapola. Real life is not about
demanding the world conform to you.
So take a hike. Or stick around - and try to change things.
That's what I'm doing. But either way, spare me the
indignant petulance. It's wearing thin.
Oh, and have a nice day. And for once in your life, why not
reflect on how unbelievably lucky you are that you CAN have
a nice day. You are living a life style very few people in
history ever achieved. Your whining makes you appear the
spoiled little mama's boy.
"Tyranny and anarchy are never far asunder."
- Jeremy Bentham
Del
Taxation and theft are imperfectly analogous. The thief doesn't make
you fill out a form, nor does he negotiate with you over the amount. He
doesn't send you a refund if he has stolen too much. A thief doesn't
have a regular time he collects his tribute. A thief doesn't offer you
a lot of useless services in return for the money he steals. A thief
doesn't let you keep your money if you lose your job and your income
falls below a certain amount. A thief doesn't curry your favor so he can
remain your thief. A thief doesn't respond to the will of the a
majority of voters. A thief does not give you an accounting of his
booty. A thief will not support you - however imperfectly - if you are
without funds temporarily. A thief could never deficit spend the way
the government does. A thief DOES HAVE a guilty mind or mens rea,
and an evil purpose - the requirements for a crime such as theft to be
a crime. A politician and the IRS never has mens rea. And finally:
"A crime is not such until it is recognized as a crime by law." -
Criminal Law Procedure p.2
Max Kennedy
hkil...@osf1.gmu.edu (HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.) wrote:
>: I do not consent to being robbed by elected representatives.
>Pack your bags and go.
I will uphold the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence,
and will not go. I will kick you and yours out. This country is for
citizens who believe in the Constitution.
>: (*Poof* So much for THAT argument.)
>So much for yours.
Pack up your bags and go, and btw, I'm holding a gun, and don't take
kindly to your intiation of threats.
>What are you doing stealing my guv'mint created Internet services?
Time to sell of the .edu services, I see.
>: *Your* inability to exist without a federal tit to suck (that's what it
>: boils to) does not confer upon you the moral right to STEAL from *me*.
>Take the next plane out, you whining little pencil-necked geek.
If you get shot one of these days, because people get sick of the
lying oath breakers, and government by deception, *I* will not cry.
How much evil you must have caused already in this world.
Max Kennedy
Max Kennedy
j...@theBschool.edu (Jim Coffey) wrote:
>Article One, section eight:
>The Congress shall have the power 1. to lay and collect taxes, duties,
>imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence
>and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and
>excises shall be uniform throughout the United States:
>Notice "general welfare",a pretty broad term, is specifically mentioned in the
>article.
That's a sentence particle, idiot. It goes on listing exactly and
specifically what FOR.
Hint: Sentence particles end in :, ;, and the paragraphs below
continue with For...this and For...that.
This is the result of more government education. How shocked! I am
that the school system pushes such poor reasoning. It's only in their
interest to do so, wrong as it may be.
Max Kennedy
Max Kennedy
j...@theBschool.edu (Jim Coffey) wrote:
>You have a choice, via your duly elected represenatives, on the types and
>nature of the taxes levied. You alos have the option to move to somewhere
>where the tax structure is more to your liking. In either case, you can make a
>choice, something a robber doesn't give you. Your assertion is simply wrong.
Pardon me, but my State Constitution, and other founding documents
recoginize other natural right.
To abolish the government, and create anouther one, *AT ANY TIME*
deemed necessary.
If the government will not obey the document that created it, the
government shall not be.
Max Kennedy