Liberals *MORE* Equal
Duncan Idaho
Remember the bad old days of Soviet communism, where the Communist leadership
claimed itself "more equal" than the rest of its citizens?
Well, we've got the same thing here in the US. After all, how could Rostenkowski
D-Il claim he's getting "equal" treatement RE: his "impending" inditement of
embezzling federal funds.
After all, which one of us could get the President to fire all the US District
attorneys, including the one who'd planned on inditing you in 93. And, then
give you the opportunity to plead down, vis a vis the successor US DIstrict
attorney, so you could keep your job in Congress. Pleading down from
embezzling, when you're the Chair of the Ways and Means Committee. Of course,
too, in the meantime, Rosty got the opportunity to re-pay, read this as
retribution, for 89,000$ of US Treasury money that somehow got used to buy
"specially monogrammed office furniture" for Rosty's private office in Chicago.
Now, that's what I call "ways and means", as in ANY means to any liberal end.
Of course, in the meantime, Rosty's on the UP side of winning his Democratic
primary. Again, thanks to some more direct Clinton appearances with Rosty on
the stump. ANd, because of ther clout in getting all those Ways and Means to
roll your way. Being *MORE* equal and all. ALl of which would have been a
*LITTLE* more difficult if he had been indited, as originally planned, in
93.
ANd hey, then there's Hillary's brokerage accounts and getting ethics
committees and the Federal courts to rule that concurrently she was/is
both not a member of the excutive branch and a member of the executive
branch.
Yup, Virginia, I sure hope you grow up to be a liberal, as in the famous
"All Things Considered" model....
- D
Henry Tudor
> Liberals *are* more Equal, after all.
>
> Remember the bad old days of Soviet communism, where the Communist leadership
> claimed itself "more equal" than the rest of its citizens?
>
> Well, we've got the same thing here in the US. After all, how could
Rostenkowski
> D-Il claim he's getting "equal" treatement RE: his "impending" inditement of
> embezzling federal funds.
>
> After all, which one of us could get the President to fire all the US
District
> attorneys, including the one who'd planned on inditing you in 93. And, then
> give you the opportunity to plead down, vis a vis the successor US DIstrict
> attorney, so you could keep your job in Congress. Pleading down from
> embezzling, when you're the Chair of the Ways and Means Committee. Of course,
> too, in the meantime, Rosty got the opportunity to re-pay, read this as
> retribution, for 89,000$ of US Treasury money that somehow got used to buy
> "specially monogrammed office furniture" for Rosty's private office in
Chicago.
>
> Now, that's what I call "ways and means", as in ANY means to any liberal end.
>
>
> - D
Methinks you are upset that Clinton is not handling this the
proper, "conservative", law 'n order GOP way -
with a PARDON
~~~~~~
No, he is just not conservative enough for you.
Just look at the record -
- No appointees indicted for felonies committed
while in office
- No pardons handed out while he talks about
being "tough on crime"
- No invasions of foreign countries to boost
his ratings
- No vetoes of anti crime bills
- Signing into law more anti-crime legislation
in 2 years than Bush did in his entire term.
No, he just doesn't measure up to Republican standards....
Henry Tudor
"Captains log: computer, make a note - no Romulan ale
to be served at diplomatic dinners" James T Kirk
Duncan Idaho
you were quoting me here. Have anything else to hide?
In article <2rgo7r$d...@news.onramp.net>, Henry Tudor <thom...@onramp.net> wrote:
>
>> Liberals *are* more Equal, after all.
>>
>> Remember the bad old days of Soviet communism, where the Communist leadership
>> claimed itself "more equal" than the rest of its citizens?
>>
>> Well, we've got the same thing here in the US. After all, how could
>Rostenkowski
>> D-Il claim he's getting "equal" treatement RE: his "impending" inditement of
>> embezzling federal funds.
>>
[snipping all my points about ROSTY, which WAS my subject]
> Methinks you are upset that Clinton is not handling this the
> proper, "conservative", law 'n order GOP way -
>
> with a PARDON
Bzzt. All you've attempted here is to beg the question: Rosty is getting a
liberal deal. I notice NOT ONE WHIT, not one PEEP on that subject.
Again proving that liberal ARE more equal. They're above the law.
>
> No, he is just not conservative enough for you.
> Just look at the record -
> - No appointees indicted for felonies committed
> while in office
No. Just a suicide with a note saying "no one will believe the CLintons
innocent." How prophetic and appropos a warning.
No. Just a President being sued for exposing himself, soliciting oral sex.
No. Just a first Lady who was sued for breaching freedom of INformation
acts, as well as a number of Federal codes RE: the legislative process. In
that suit she won DE FACTO FEDERAL EMPLOYEE status, whereas the US Ethics
Office now ignores when "ruling" that HRC was not a EXECUTIVE BRANCH
employee when she was involved in talking down the drug stock sector by
70G$ all the while selling short in those stocks.
> - No pardons handed out while he talks about
> being "tough on crime"
NO. And Nixon didn't hand out any pardons either. IN fact, U may recall,
the main premise of the infamous March 23rd Dean meeting was to
steadfastly resist Hunt's request for a Watergate pardon. Which Nixon
insisted was WRONG.
> - No invasions of foreign countries to boost
> his ratings
Really. What about the Hatians waving bayonnets, and thereby turning the
Marines away from landing.?
But then we *really* saw Clinton's leadership when those Rangers were
being dragged naked through the Somolian streets.
> - No vetoes of anti crime bills
Esp. this years whihc includes putting RACIAL BASED QUOTA on the death
penality. Incredibly some GOP actually voted for this.
> - Signing into law more anti-crime legislation
> in 2 years than Bush did in his entire term.
Really? Then why has Federal law enforcement funding under CLinton been CUT
across the board?
>
> No, he just doesn't measure up to Republican standards....
Bloody FUCKING RIGHT there, bud!
- D
Keith Braunwalder
: > Liberals *are* more Equal, after all.
: >
: > Remember the bad old days of Soviet communism, where the Communist leadership
: > claimed itself "more equal" than the rest of its citizens?
: >
: > Well, we've got the same thing here in the US. After all, how could
: Rostenkowski
: > D-Il claim he's getting "equal" treatement RE: his "impending" inditement of
: > embezzling federal funds.
: >
: > After all, which one of us could get the President to fire all the US
: District
: > attorneys, including the one who'd planned on inditing you in 93. And, then
: > give you the opportunity to plead down, vis a vis the successor US DIstrict
: > attorney, so you could keep your job in Congress. Pleading down from
: > embezzling, when you're the Chair of the Ways and Means Committee. Of course,
: > too, in the meantime, Rosty got the opportunity to re-pay, read this as
: > retribution, for 89,000$ of US Treasury money that somehow got used to buy
: > "specially monogrammed office furniture" for Rosty's private office in
: Chicago.
: >
: > Now, that's what I call "ways and means", as in ANY means to any liberal end.
: >
: >
: > - D
: Methinks you are upset that Clinton is not handling this the
: proper, "conservative", law 'n order GOP way -
: with a PARDON
: ~~~~~~
Just wait a while. Does Dan Lassiter ring a bell ? History is on Bill's side
when it comes to pardons. Too bad he can't pardon himself, resignation will
be his way out.
: No, he is just not conservative enough for you.
: Just look at the record -
: - No appointees indicted for felonies committed
: while in office
Yet. His term is not even half over. The body count is higher than most
presidencies though.
: - No pardons handed out while he talks about
: being "tough on crime"
And talk is all he does about this. Taking guns from honest citizens
is not anti-crime. More cops *might* be if the states can afford them and
the cops don't waste taxpayer $$ busting hookers and drug users.
: - No invasions of foreign countries to boost
: his ratings
Yet.
: - No vetoes of anti crime bills
No anti-crime bills passed either, just a pork-laden feel good bill that
satisfies the media and their lemmings.
: - Signing into law more anti-crime legislation
: in 2 years than Bush did in his entire term.
Why compare him to Bush, arguably one of the least productive presidents
in history?
: No, he just doesn't measure up to Republican standards....
Yup. He's in a class all by himseslf.
:
: Henry Tudor
:
: "Captains log: computer, make a note - no Romulan ale
: to be served at diplomatic dinners" James T Kirk
Keith
Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer
Nixon didn't hand out any pardons either. IN fact, U may recall,
> the main premise of the infamous March 23rd Dean meeting was to
> steadfastly resist Hunt's request for a Watergate pardon. Which Nixon
> insisted was WRONG.
> But then we *really* saw Clinton's leadership when those Rangers were
> being dragged naked through the Somolian streets.
>
> > - No vetoes of anti crime bills
>
> Esp. this years whihc includes putting RACIAL BASED QUOTA on the death
> penality. Incredibly some GOP actually voted for this.
>
> > - Signing into law more anti-crime legislation
> > in 2 years than Bush did in his entire term.
>
> Really? Then why has Federal law enforcement funding under CLinton been CUT
> across the board?
>
> >
> > No, he just doesn't measure up to Republican standards....
>
> Bloody FUCKING RIGHT there, bud!
Well you are right about one thing.
Nixon didn't hand out any pardons -
He only ACCEPTED one.
It was left for BUSH to set the record
for the number of pardons handed out to
indicted felons that happened to be friends
of his.
And as for Somalia - just WHICH lame duck
president sent our troops there in the first
place?
Anti-crime: just why DID Bush claim to be so
"tough on crime" and then veto the only crime
package to cross his desk?
Opps - I forgot - it didn't meet with the approval
of the NRA, which of course is more important than
the needs of the public.
Oh, and speaking crime.
Didn't Bush spend a lot of campaign time ranting
about that "criminal's lobby" the ACLU - and then
appoint as his first Attorney General a member of
board of directors of that same ACLU?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Politician to the core.
Henry Tudor..............
"If I knew the truth for you
I would stand and shout it
If I knew what was right for you
You would not be without it
There's better things that you can be
There is no doubt about it."
Roky Ericson
Joshua Simer
: Well you are right about one thing.
: Nixon didn't hand out any pardons -
: He only ACCEPTED one.
:
: It was left for BUSH to set the record
: for the number of pardons handed out to
: indicted felons that happened to be friends
: of his.
And happened to have broken a law which was unconstitutional anyway....
: And as for Somalia - just WHICH lame duck
: president sent our troops there in the first
: place?
YEs, but in case you didn't notice, Bush sent them in to protect
food shipments, and Aidid welcomed the troops. Then Clinton decided
we had to make Somalia safe for democracy and save them from
themselves and we had to arrest Aidid. Bush initiated DEFENSIVE
actions. Clinton initiated OFFENSIVE actions, to "save" Somalia
and, one could possibly infer, raise his poll ratings. Nothing like
a just war to do that.
: Anti-crime: just why DID Bush claim to be so
: "tough on crime" and then veto the only crime
: package to cross his desk?
: Opps - I forgot - it didn't meet with the approval
: of the NRA, which of course is more important than
: the needs of the public.
The NRA IS the public. It has something on the order of
3-5 million members, and is growing at the rate of 2,000 per day.
That constitutes a significant constituency of honest, law-abiding,
voting citizens in my book. And if you count all gun owners as part
of the constituency that Bush was listening to, you have millions
more. Oh, but these people probably don't count.
: "If I knew the truth for you
: I would stand and shout it
: If I knew what was right for you
: You would not be without it
: There's better things that you can be
: There is no doubt about it."
: Roky Ericson
What a perfect liberal quote. If I think I know what's
best for YOU, I'll tell you once and then keep my mouth shut. Rather
than have the goverment force you to do it.
Speaking of being more equal, I sure wish *I* could get the Justice
Department to file a brief on my behalf to say that I'm immune to
lawsuits. Of course - Clinton is infallible. Or is he such a godsend
that we can't let his brilliant mind be distracted by something as
trivial as an allegation of severe sexual impropriety and abuse of power?
--
**************************************************************************
\ _ / "All that is necessary for
\ /_\ / the impossible to become
____________\___/_._\___/____________ possible is for someone
\ \ / / to do it."
\__/\_/\__/ - Joshua M. Simer
Ten decades of aviation - 1903-1994 Wright flyer-Lockheed F-22A Lightning
**************************************************************************
Dick Adams
> Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer (thom...@onramp.net) wrote:
>> Well you are right about one thing.
>> Nixon didn't hand out any pardons -
>> He only ACCEPTED one.
What about Jimmy Hoffa???
>> It was left for BUSH to set the record
>> for the number of pardons handed out to
>> indicted felons that happened to be friends
>> of his.
What happened to that bleeding heart liberal trash about the rights
of the accused or is that just for your liberal confederates??
>> And as for Somalia - just WHICH lame duck
>> president sent our troops there in the first place?
And which lame duck president escalated the problem by turning it
into an offensive action??
>> Anti-crime: just why DID Bush claim to be so
>> "tough on crime" and then veto the only crime
>> package to cross his desk?
>> Opps - I forgot - it didn't meet with the approval
>> of the NRA, which of course is more important than
>> the needs of the public.
> The NRA IS the public. ...
Unfortunately that response will fall upon deaf ears. This neanderthal
thinks the public is represented by the ACLU - which by the way is best
known as the legal representative of both the Klu Klux Klan and the
American Nazi Party.
>> "If I knew the truth for you, I would stand and shout it.
>> If I knew what was right for you, you would not be without it.
>> There's better things that you can be, there is no doubt about it."
>> Roky Ericson
> What a perfect liberal quote. ...
Of course it is; why it's the morning prayer of every liberal. Instead of
being a productive member of society, let me spend my day telling others
how to live their lives.
> Speaking of being more equal, I sure wish *I* could get the Justice
> Department to file a brief on my behalf to say that I'm immune to
> lawsuits. Of course - Clinton is infallible. Or is he such a godsend
> that we can't let his brilliant mind be distracted by something as
> trivial as an allegation of severe sexual impropriety and abuse of power?
It's just another version of the "divine rights of kings." When Nixon
tried to do it, liberals called him a fascist. But, William Jefferson
Clinton tries it, that same liberal trash says it's in the best interest
of the country.
However, I am not worried. The hidden taxation of variable rate mortgages
is going to change the political attitudes of those who purchased homes in
the last three years. Slick Willie and the party of high taxes, high
interest rates, and high unemployment will get their butts kicked in 1996.
All disclaimers apply
Andrew Hall
Joshua> The NRA IS the public. It has something on the order of
Joshua> 3-5 million members, and is growing at the rate of 2,000 per day.
Joshua> That constitutes a significant constituency of honest, law-abiding,
Joshua> voting citizens in my book. And if you count all gun owners as part
Joshua> of the constituency that Bush was listening to, you have millions
Joshua> more. Oh, but these people probably don't count.
Talk about bullshit. 80% of americans favor
stronger gun control. So the NRA is the public?
Give it a rest. The NRA fanatics are just that
--- fanatic. They will try to vote out a candidate
on their position on gun control. The other 80%
of us don't hold it as the #1 issue and therefore
a vocal minority hold far greater power over law
than their numbers warrant.
ah
John Linkous
>Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer (thom...@onramp.net) wrote:
>: Well you are right about one thing.
>: Nixon didn't hand out any pardons -
>: He only ACCEPTED one.
>:
>: It was left for BUSH to set the record
>: for the number of pardons handed out to
>: indicted felons that happened to be friends
>: of his.
> And happened to have broken a law which was unconstitutional anyway....
Hmm... to which law(s) are you referring? SEC trade regulations? Racketeering?
Or perhaps other white collar crime that people like to call "unconstitutional",
simply because they don't involve as much violence?
While it is certainly not uncommon for presidents to pardon criminals,
using the excuse "the law was unconstitutional, yadda, yadda, yadda..."
does not exhonorate the criminal. Using that logic pattern, one could
easily say that since yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater is unconstitutional
since it restricts First Amendment rights, any person who breaks this law on
the grounds that it is unconstitutional has done nothing wrong. For the record,
I think that _any_ president who pardons a convicted criminal (unless that criminal
can be absolved of guilt through prima facie evidence) has no right to talk
about being "tough on crime."
>: And as for Somalia - just WHICH lame duck
>: president sent our troops there in the first
>: place?
> YEs, but in case you didn't notice, Bush sent them in to protect
>food shipments, and Aidid welcomed the troops. Then Clinton decided
>we had to make Somalia safe for democracy and save them from
>themselves and we had to arrest Aidid. Bush initiated DEFENSIVE
>actions. Clinton initiated OFFENSIVE actions, to "save" Somalia
>and, one could possibly infer, raise his poll ratings. Nothing like
>a just war to do that.
I agree. I think Bush's use of restraint in both Somalia and the carefully
planned manner in which he handled the Kuwait-Iraqi War clearly demonstrated
his effective foreign policy leadership. While I believe in giving a president
a chance to prove himself, to date Clinton has provided little effective
leadership in international affairs; to his credit, I will say that issues
involving Haiti and Bosnia are _tough_ decisions. I wouldn't want to be in
his shoes.
>: Anti-crime: just why DID Bush claim to be so
>: "tough on crime" and then veto the only crime
>: package to cross his desk?
>: Opps - I forgot - it didn't meet with the approval
>: of the NRA, which of course is more important than
>: the needs of the public.
> The NRA IS the public.
Bullshit. The NRA itself represents people with very different views on
the role of guns in society. The NRA leadership, however, funds a group
of highly zealous lobbyists, whose agenda is to exhert the Second Amendment
above the body of all other amendments and the Constitution itself. Charlton
Heston does _not_ represent the majority of NRA members, nor is there any
evidence to support your claim that the NRA represents a majority of the
American opinion of firearms.
I support much of what the NRA does, and it is obvious that entities such as
HCI and many members of congress don't give a damn about the 2nd Amendment
rights clearly spelled out in the Constitution. Unfortunately, their zealousness
and fervor over minute points of legislation, and their paranoid belief that
the government is intentionally removing gun ownership rights in order to more
easily subdue the population is paranoid, unsubstantiated, and just plain dumb.
>It has something on the order of
>3-5 million members, and is growing at the rate of 2,000 per day.
>That constitutes a significant constituency of honest, law-abiding,
>voting citizens in my book. And if you count all gun owners as part
>of the constituency that Bush was listening to, you have millions
>more. Oh, but these people probably don't count.
They count: they just might not represent the majority of the population
that is the most important element in a democratic society.
>: "If I knew the truth for you
>: I would stand and shout it
>: If I knew what was right for you
>: You would not be without it
>: There's better things that you can be
>: There is no doubt about it."
>: Roky Ericson
> What a perfect liberal quote. If I think I know what's
>best for YOU, I'll tell you once and then keep my mouth shut. Rather
>than have the goverment force you to do it.
> Speaking of being more equal, I sure wish *I* could get the Justice
>Department to file a brief on my behalf to say that I'm immune to
>lawsuits. Of course - Clinton is infallible. Or is he such a godsend
>that we can't let his brilliant mind be distracted by something as
>trivial as an allegation of severe sexual impropriety and abuse of power?
I agree. Many people who support Clinton use the excuse, "We never scrutinized
Bush and Reagan this way, so scrutinizing Clinton is unfair." The flaw
in this argument of false alternatives is clear. In reality, abuse of power
should be (IHNSHO) akin to treason. However, "sexual impropriety" (besides
being a vague term) has little to do with a person's ability to be a successful
leader. History is riddled with great leaders who had voracious sexual appetites.
John Linkous
jlin...@ccmail.gsfc.nasa.gov
---
The opinions expressed above are exactly that, and they're my own.
Karni06
(Andrew Hall) wrote:
> >>>>> Joshua Simer writes:
>
> Joshua> The NRA IS the public. It has something on the order of
> Joshua> 3-5 million members, and is growing at the rate of 2,000 per day.
> Joshua> That constitutes a significant constituency of honest, law-abiding,
> Joshua> voting citizens in my book. And if you count all gun owners as part
> Joshua> of the constituency that Bush was listening to, you have millions
> Joshua> more. Oh, but these people probably don't count.
>
> Talk about bullshit. 80% of americans favor
> stronger gun control.
No, 80% of Americans favor certain limitations on cetain types of guns. The
Democrats would do well not to confuse that distinction or it will cost
them politically.
> So the NRA is the public?
> Give it a rest. The NRA fanatics are just that
> --- fanatic. They will try to vote out a candidate
> on their position on gun control.
Probably a wasteful political position, and they will realize it's so when
the Democrats not only take away their guns but tax them out of existence
as well.
> The other 80%
> of us don't hold it as the #1 issue and therefore
> a vocal minority hold far greater power over law
> than their numbers warrant.
>
> ah
But a majority of Americans also not want to see gun ownership eliminated
either. Therefore, your statement is somewhat inaccurate.
The pro-gun control crowd has made some claims and gotten some of their
desired policies written into law. Now it is time to sit back and see if it
works as they predicted.
Karni06
Keith Braunwalder
: >>>>> Joshua Simer writes:
Where does this 80% figure come from ? And we are not getting gun 'control'
(whatever that is), we are getting gun bans. How many Americans favor
elimination of guns (which is the HCI plan) ? And this, of course, is
only the elimination of guns from honest, law-abiding citizens. BTW, the HCI is
1 million strong, so the 'radicals' in the NRA outnumber the 'radicals' who
oppose the NRA...... And thank god the NRA are fanatically opposing the
destruction of the bill of rights. Whether they have their 'agenda' or not,
they are trying to protect the 2nd amendment for all of us.
: ah
Keith
Keith Braunwalder
: In article <AHALL.94M...@slothrop.fmrco.com>, ah...@fmrco.com
: (Andrew Hall) wrote:
But they won't. The HCI's 'secret' agenda (which isn't very secret anymore)
includes:
1. Ban on all manufacturing in counties with a population over 200k.
2. Ban of all military style firearms.
3. Ban the carrying of a firearm except between the home and the firing
range. (can you say defenseless?)
4. Elimination of all 'curio/relic' firearms (read: antiques).
5. Control of ammunition.
and..........
6. the Eventual ban on handgun possession. They think that this is possible
in the next 5 years.
7. The eventual ban of all military 'acoutrements' (youknow, camouflage
clothing, etc.) I have the feeling we are being set up for something here.
So, don't think for a minute that Sara Brady and clan will wait to see if
their fabulous social experiment will work. They are proceeding blindly.
Keith
: Karni06
Mark Klemkosky~
You are full of --it. Where the hell did you get this 80% number
from. I'de really love to see the reference. If you do have
documentation supporting this (which I really doubt), then I'de
have to ask the exact wording of the question. If someone asked
me, "Do you favor stronger gun control?" I would, as would a large
percent of the U.S. say, NO. If they asked, "Would you favor
laws that prevent criminals/gangs from getting guns?" I would
say YES... ...as long as it doesn't interfere with the way things
already work.
--
All opinions presented are my own and do not
necessarily reflect the views of my company.
"Looks like it's amateur night in the White House again."
- John McCain, Arizona Senator in reference to
the Clinton administration's foreign policy.
"Impeach Clinton and her husband..."
- Rush "I'm laughing my way to the bank" Limbaugh
"I want to use Hillary's commodity investor..."
- Me
I R A Aggie
> Talk about bullshit. 80% of americans favor
> stronger gun control.
Wasn't there a poll that showed that a significant (like 70%)
favored press control, too? Would you like that?
James
Duncan Idaho
Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer <thom...@onramp.net> wrote:
>
> Nixon didn't hand out any pardons either. IN fact, U may recall,
>> the main premise of the infamous March 23rd Dean meeting was to
>> steadfastly resist Hunt's request for a Watergate pardon. Which Nixon
>> insisted was WRONG.
>
> Well you are right about one thing.
> Nixon didn't hand out any pardons -
> He only ACCEPTED one.
And, that is his right as an AMerican Citizen. Just as it was Clinton's right
to grant immunity to his buddy convicted of criminal management RE: that
bogus investment firm ... partnered with the Clintons in AR.
>
> It was left for BUSH to set the record
> for the number of pardons handed out to
> indicted felons that happened to be friends
> of his.
Really? GUess what? I'll bet you can't NAME any or one convicted felon,
from Bush's administration, who was pardoned by Bush.
>
> And as for Somalia - just WHICH lame duck
> president sent our troops there in the first
> place?
It was Bush, and per my posts on this group, it's clear that Bush rejcted
any UN attempts to re-invent Somalia. And this policy was successful. It
was CLinton's blunder no to continue that policy, and to mismange the
support structure, that led to the Somolia fiasco.
>
> Anti-crime: just why DID Bush claim to be so
> "tough on crime" and then veto the only crime
> package to cross his desk?
I guess he felt that it was a BAD LAW, huh?
> Opps - I forgot - it didn't meet with the approval
> of the NRA, which of course is more important than
> the needs of the public.
No, see you're thinking liberal. See the COnstitution's supposedly
invarient of whether you're a liberal or conservative citizen. Trampling
over the constitutional provision ala Ammendment #2 is something that Bush
and CLinton is sworn to prevent.
Of course, too, it's the liberal DEMS like "Pete" Du Pont, who say over
and over "I don't care if the American people are gonna get ..." The
latest is Health Care.
> Oh, and speaking crime.
> Didn't Bush spend a lot of campaign time ranting
> about that "criminal's lobby" the ACLU - and then
> appoint as his first Attorney General a member of
> board of directors of that same ACLU?
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THis I don't know about. But I think it far more interesting to note that
Clinton appointed all HRC's Rose partners to be directly involved in overseeing
Banking interests in Justice and in the WHite House. Parnerss who all had a
hand in the Rose's law firm representatin and then prosecution of McDougle
S&Ls.
- D
Paul H. Henry
You appear to be missing the point here. There is no reason to believe
that an idea is right simply because a large number of people support
it. I have many political opinions that I know are very unpopular in
this country, and I accept that for the time being.
But a lot of Republicans seem to be laboring under the delusion that
they speak for The People. You get these morons who make outlandish
statements like "The American people are tired of Bill Clinton and big
government and argle bargle blargh," etc. These people have of course
not polled the American people to determine if we indeed think this
way; they just assume that, because they have an opinion, then
everyone else must share this opinion.
The gun nuts always try to portray the gun control struggle as big
government vs. the real people. Common, decent, hard working people.
Amurr'cans! They would have you believe that the NRA speaks for a
great majority of the people, and they base the legitimacy of their
arguments on this supposed fact. Yet poll after poll shows that the
American people FAVOR gun control legislation, and that only a tiny
minority agrees with the NRA's lobbying efforts.
The Republicans are not being asked to admit that they are wrong. I
would just like to hear them admit that they do not speak for the
American people.
Cheerio,
--
=============================================================================
_ Internet: phe...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
|_)
| aul H. Henry - University of Kansas - Lawrence, KS
=============================================================================
"It's weird out there, man." --George Bush
=============================================================================
j...@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Uh, we NRA members *pay* them to fight ridiculous anti-gun
legislation. Fanatics, no - lobbyists, yes. As for trying
to vote-out candidates which do not support ones POV, well
that's called DEMOCRACY ... you make it sound un-American.
As for that alleged 80%, I think you will find that many
want OTHER PEOPLES guns controlled but want free access
for themselves. The generic term is *hypocrite*, although
the idea of getting an advantage the next guy does not
have is just human nature I suppose.
Never forget though, that to everyone else, YOU are the
'next guy', one of the 'other people'. Screw 'them' and
you inevitibly screw yourself.
I R A Aggie
phe...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Paul H. Henry) wrote:
> In article <stricher-2...@aggie.ocean.fsu.edu>, stri...@masig.fsu.edu (I R A Aggie) writes:
> > In article <AHALL.94M...@slothrop.fmrco.com>, ah...@fmrco.com
> > (Andrew Hall) wrote:
> >
> >> Talk about bullshit. 80% of americans favor
> >> stronger gun control.
> >
> > Wasn't there a poll that showed that a significant (like 70%)
> > favored press control, too? Would you like that?
>
> You appear to be missing the point here. There is no reason to believe
> that an idea is right simply because a large number of people support
> it. I have many political opinions that I know are very unpopular in
> this country, and I accept that for the time being.
No, I believe it is *YOU* who are missing the point. But you make my
point quite clear. Thanks.
James
Doug Andersen
Dick Adams <eaj...@ube.ubalt.edu> wrote:
>
>> The NRA IS the public. ...
>Unfortunately that response will fall upon deaf ears. This neanderthal
>thinks the public is represented by the ACLU - which by the way is best
>known as the legal representative of both the Klu Klux Klan and the
>American Nazi Party.
Its interesting that someone who is apparently an advocate for the 2nd
Amendment doesn't understand the need to protect the 1st, even when
it's unpopular. I guess that pretty much puts you in the same boat as
the ACLU, since they defend the 1st but not the 2nd Amendments.
--
Doug Andersen
do...@eskimo.com
"Do not be timid and squeamish about your actions.
All life is an experiment." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Andrew Hall
Mark> (Andrew Hall) writes:
>> >>>>> Joshua Simer writes:
>>
Joshua> The NRA IS the public. It has something on the order of
Joshua> 3-5 million members, and is growing at the rate of 2,000 per day.
Joshua> That constitutes a significant constituency of honest, law-abiding,
Joshua> voting citizens in my book. And if you count all gun owners as part
Joshua> of the constituency that Bush was listening to, you have millions
Joshua> more. Oh, but these people probably don't count.
>>
>> Talk about bullshit. 80% of americans favor
>> stronger gun control. So the NRA is the public?
>> Give it a rest. The NRA fanatics are just that
>> --- fanatic. They will try to vote out a candidate
>> on their position on gun control. The other 80%
>> of us don't hold it as the #1 issue and therefore
>> a vocal minority hold far greater power over law
>> than their numbers warrant.
>>
>> ah
Mark> You are full of --it. Where the hell did you get this 80% number
It was in the NY Times last week. They did not report
the exact wording of the questions. They did say that
the figure was the result of multiple polls. I believe
that the article was on the front page.
ah
Andrew Hall
Karni06> (Andrew Hall) wrote:
>> >>>>> Joshua Simer writes:
>>
Joshua> The NRA IS the public. It has something on the order of
Joshua> 3-5 million members, and is growing at the rate of 2,000 per day.
Joshua> That constitutes a significant constituency of honest, law-abiding,
Joshua> voting citizens in my book. And if you count all gun owners as part
Joshua> of the constituency that Bush was listening to, you have millions
Joshua> more. Oh, but these people probably don't count.
>>
>> Talk about bullshit. 80% of americans favor
>> stronger gun control.
Karni06> No, 80% of Americans favor certain limitations on cetain types of guns. The
Karni06> Democrats would do well not to confuse that distinction or it will cost
Karni06> them politically.
That isn't stronger gun control?
>> So the NRA is the public?
>> Give it a rest. The NRA fanatics are just that
>> --- fanatic. They will try to vote out a candidate
>> on their position on gun control.
Karni06> Probably a wasteful political position, and they will realize it's so when
Karni06> the Democrats not only take away their guns but tax them out of existence
Karni06> as well.
>> The other 80%
>> of us don't hold it as the #1 issue and therefore
>> a vocal minority hold far greater power over law
>> than their numbers warrant.
>>
>> ah
Karni06> But a majority of Americans also not want to see gun ownership eliminated
Karni06> either. Therefore, your statement is somewhat inaccurate.
Where did I say that a majority of Americans want to see gun
ownership eliminated? Stop attacking straw men.
Karni06> The pro-gun control crowd has made some claims and gotten some of their
Karni06> desired policies written into law. Now it is time to sit back and see if it
Karni06> works as they predicted.
Very few. How did they predict it would work?
Karni06> Karni06
Thomas Grant Edwards
>The gun nuts always try to portray the gun control struggle as big
>government vs. the real people. Common, decent, hard working people.
>Amurr'cans!
Hey, I'm a common, decent, hard-working person, and the government is
trying to drastically limit the firearms I can own, if any at all.
So the statement you deride _is_ true.
>They would have you believe that the NRA speaks for a
>great majority of the people, and they base the legitimacy of their
>arguments on this supposed fact.
This is of course a weak argument. A lot of decent, hard-working
Amurr'cans _have_ been duped by a small, corporate-financed group
called HCI into believing that gun control is a great crime
control method (even as good as "drug control"!) Just because
they're in the majority doesn't mean they are right, and it also
doesn't mean that I, along with 3.4 million other americans,
can't do our damnedest to fight gun control by a $25 contribution
to the NRA.
>Yet poll after poll shows that the
>American people FAVOR gun control legislation, and that only a tiny
>minority agrees with the NRA's lobbying efforts.
This is true, but if those polled people would show up at the polls
that count, there wouldn't be any opposition to gun control, now
would there be?
>The Republicans are not being asked to admit that they are wrong. I
>would just like to hear them admit that they do not speak for the
>American people.
Well, I'm not a Republican, and neither are the Democrats for the
Second Amendment.
-Thomas
Robert Lewis Glendenning
Andrew Hall <ah...@fmrco.com> wrote:
<deletions by Lew>
>I was just trying to refute the absurd claim that "The NRA IS the public".
>The NRA is a minority special interest that is trying hard to push
>its agenda on others. They have had success because of the fanaticism
>of their members.
>
Hard to tell why the successes or why the failures. In any poll,
the American people don't generally support the Bill of Rights:
they view it as too radical, call it communist, etc.
So, from this point of view, the ACLU is perhaps also a minority special
interest group that is trying hard to push its agenda on others.
Ditto the reason for their success?
You could also account for the success of both groups (the NRA is
much less successful than it should be, IMHO) by the fact that
they are both dedicated to upholding the Bill of Rights.
Lew
--
Lew Glendenning rlgl...@netcom.com
"Perspective is worth 80 IQ points." Niels Bohr (or somebody like that).
Andrew Hall
jrm> (Andrew Hall) writes:
>>>>>>> Joshua Simer writes:
>>
Joshua> The NRA IS the public. It has something on the order of
Joshua> 3-5 million members, and is growing at the rate of 2,000 per day.
Joshua> That constitutes a significant constituency of honest, law-abiding,
Joshua> voting citizens in my book. And if you count all gun owners as part
Joshua> of the constituency that Bush was listening to, you have millions
Joshua> more. Oh, but these people probably don't count.
>>
>> Talk about bullshit. 80% of americans favor
>> stronger gun control. So the NRA is the public?
>> Give it a rest. The NRA fanatics are just that
>> --- fanatic. They will try to vote out a candidate
>> on their position on gun control. The other 80%
>> of us don't hold it as the #1 issue and therefore
>> a vocal minority hold far greater power over law
>> than their numbers warrant.
jrm> Uh, we NRA members *pay* them to fight ridiculous anti-gun
jrm> legislation. Fanatics, no - lobbyists, yes. As for trying
Fanatics on this issue.
jrm> to vote-out candidates which do not support ones POV, well
That is what I mean. The 20% is more committed to their position
than the 80% is to theirs. That is what give the 20% power beyond
their numbers.
jrm> that's called DEMOCRACY ... you make it sound un-American.
I didn't mean to. It is fair enough and in a close election may
make the difference.
jrm> As for that alleged 80%, I think you will find that many
jrm> want OTHER PEOPLES guns controlled but want free access
jrm> for themselves. The generic term is *hypocrite*, although
jrm> the idea of getting an advantage the next guy does not
jrm> have is just human nature I suppose.
No, most people, whether right or wrong, are opposed to easy
access to guns.
jrm> Never forget though, that to everyone else, YOU are the
jrm> 'next guy', one of the 'other people'. Screw 'them' and
jrm> you inevitibly screw yourself.
I was just trying to refute the absurd claim that "The NRA IS the public".
The NRA is a minority special interest that is trying hard to push
its agenda on others. They have had success because of the fanaticism
of their members.
ah
Kirt Mackintosh
<stricher-2...@aggie.ocean.fsu.edu>
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever
In article <stricher-2...@aggie.ocean.fsu.edu>
stri...@masig.fsu.edu (I R A Aggie) writes:
>In article <AHALL.94M...@slothrop.fmrco.com>, ah...@fmrco.com
>(Andrew Hall) wrote:
>
>> stronger gun control.
>
>favored press control, too? Would you like that?
>
Actually, it is the polls that are usually bullshit. When a pollster
asks "would you favor a law that got the guns off the street" and 80% of
the population answers "yes", the anti-gun folks go crazy, and of course
all of the networks lead off with something like "in a recent poll, 80
percent of americans favor some type of gun control", when in actuality,
folks just plain want the gun-toting punks off the street.
Secondly, folks who have never handled a firearm, including almost all
of our elite press corps, CONSTANTLY spout inaccuracies and lies of
omission. The Seattle Times recently reported a shooting in the central
district with an "automatic handgun". That's a MACHINE GUN folks! This
kind of ignorant reporting does nothing more than fuel the hysteria
surrounding firearms, and plant the false idea that almost all guns
"spray" bullets by the hundreds like the old Thompson sub-machine gun.
(see, there's another one....how many of you non-gun owners know the
difference between a sub-machine gun and a machine gun??)
For the most part, politicians are just plain ignorant as to the effects
of the laws they pass, and unfortunately a good portion of Americans are
just as ignorant and apathetic. When we consider a 60% election turnout
"excellent", something is dangerously wrong.
Just how many Americans are aware that the rate of violent crime has
actually *decreased* in the past 10 years? You'd never know it from the
nightly news broadcasts. They start off their broadcast by telling you
to be afraid, be very afraid, cause there's lots of violence out there,
and then interviewing some anti-gun activist or feel-good politician
telling us that in order to *not* be afraid, we must rescrict the rights
of our citizens. The lemming-americans follow all too willingly,
blissfully unaware of what their ignorance and apathy will do.
Regards,
Kirt Mackintosh
--
Kirt P. Mackintosh - Mfg Manager - Universal Avionics Group
Internet - ste...@eskimo.com Duvall, Washington, USA
\ "The strongest reason for the people