Re: oppose nomination of John Ashcroft
On Thursday 18 January 2001 23:00, Reese wrote: At 11:56 AM 1/18/01 -0600, Jim Burnes wrote: On Thursday 18 January 2001 10:15, Declan McCullagh wrote: Quite right. Ashcroft is objectionable, as is any candidate George W. would propose, but he is arguably less objectionable than Reno. Here's what he said yesterday about Microsoft: http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,41264,00.html To all the people who find Ashcroft objectionable, let me concur with Declan that there is no one they will not find objectionable. In my opinion, anyone that doesn't burn little children in their churches is at least an order of magnitude better than Janet Reno. Reno burned little kids in their church, because of the FIREARMS held or believed to be held somewhere on or around the compound. You might want to reappraise. I've appraised the Waco scenario more than most. You might want to do a little digging before you trumpet the statist line. I don't know if you're a US citizen Reese, but owning firearms in Texas is not a reason to burn and gas people alive. Go get informed. I'd also like to point out that anything he says in the confirmation hearings is likely to be whatever he thinks the questioner wants to hear. Agree, but - He will whisper sweet nothings into Dianne Feinstein's ear about his new plans for the fascist state if he thinks it will turn Feinswein's vote. Do you really think Feinswein will vote for him? - asskrack is on record about firearms, elsewhere. If firearms are as large an issue to her as they are to others, probably. Unlikely. My guess is that his so-called record, while not stellar A+ NRA material, is certainly a lot better than most. He is almost certainly telling Feinswein exactly what she wants to hear. His most egregious downfall is his position on the drug war. This is the most critical of all positions and the one that the media is curiously un-interested in. -- Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
Re: As Dot-Coms Go Bust in the U.S., Bermuda Hosts a Little Boomlet
On Wednesday 10 January 2001 05:29, Ken Brown wrote: ... The sun still doesn't set on the British Empire (not while we have Pitcairn!), London is still the heart of darkness, it is is still the place where the money is (most of the money in the world, by orders of magnitude, is in meaninglessly large dollar accounts in databases owned by London banks, representing currency trades), and if you think you can trust these guys to do anything other than act in the interests of their own profits you are making a big mistake. Their interests are in making capital grow and prosper. These are diametrically opposed to the interests of high taxation and socialism. I don't think the Bermuda dot-coms are worried about these guys acting in their own interests. I think they are banking on it jim -- Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
Re: Bell Case Subpoena
On Monday 08 January 2001 16:09, John Young wrote: You are also commanded to bring with you the following document(s) or object(s): Please provide any and all documents, papers, letters, computer disks, photographs, notes, objects, information, or other items in your possession or under your control, including electronically stored or computer records, which: 1. Name, mention, describe, discuss, involve or relate to James Dalton Bell, a/k/a Jim Bell, or 2. Were previously possessed, owned, created, sent by, transported, or oftherwise affiliated with James Dalton Bell, a/k/a Jim Bell, or How would you know if it was sent by him unless it had a digital signature that you are willing to testify in court was know to belong to him and had not been comprimised? jim -- Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
Re: A very brief politcal rant
On Wed, 08 Nov 2000, R. A. Hettinga wrote: At 10:36 AM -0500 on 11/8/00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the citizens of Missouri chose to elect a deceased person as Senator, I think that's exactly what they should get. Would that we were all so fortunate. Imagine, a whole senate full of dead people. Well... empty seats representing dead people. Or something. Missouri, the show me state, indeed. I can hear the stand up comics now The new motto of Missouri Democrats... "I see dead people..." Now dead democrats can vote for dead democrats I gotta get out of this state. Nevada is sounding pretty cool and I wouldn't have to fly to DEFCON. (hear that Steve?) jim -- Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
Re: Meth bill resurfaces on Capitol Hill
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Declan McCullagh wrote: http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=00/09/22/0247244mode=thread Methamphetamine Bill Resurfaces on Capitol Hill posted by cicero on Saturday September 23, @04:43AM from the accelerating-speed-bill dept. Everyone thought the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act had died this summer, but a source close to the issue tells us the Senate has resurrected this nasty bit of legislation. Among other things, the bill would ban links to drug-related websites. It didn't quite get enough momentum on its own, so some of our more censorhappy congresscritters attached it to the entirely unrelated Bankruptcy Reform Act, ...etc You know, I hope it passes. No, I haven't taken leave of my senses. I've just had it up to *here* with gradualism. I'm really reaching the point of morbid curiosity to see exactly what the sheeple will tolerate. I know the constitution is practically dead anyway, but just how much abuse can the sheeple take before they wake up? Maybe making links to football, "professional wrestling" and Jerry Springer websites can be made illegal because of their "violent" content. Now that would get their attention. While you are at it make firearm ownership completely illegal. I know that will get someone's attention. A friend of mine in college said that his job in life was to do everything he could to increase entropy. I didn't understand what why he chose that path. I do now. The United States is sick. Intoxicated on its own power, it has a serious case of the the bed spins. Sometimes when you are that drunk the quickest way to solve the problem is to stick your fingers down your throat and heave. The only reason gradualism works is because it operates below the noise floor. The noise floor in this country is full bellies and unlimited entertainment. Bread and circuses. Decrease the noise floor and increase the rate of change. I think I'll be voting democrat this season. jim -- Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
Re: AOL and hate speech
On Fri, 11 Aug 2000, Thomas B. Roach wrote: AOL deciding what its users can write about makes about as much sense as the company that manufactures paper telling you what you can write on it, or Intel telling you what data your PC can compute. While I agree with Tom that AOL sucks rocks etc etc, you paper analogy isn't quite correct -- or at least its incomplete. If I sell you paper and find out your printing racist drivel with it, it's perfectly within my rights to stop selling you paper. Of course you could always buy paper from someone else or make your own. jim Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
Re: AOL and hate speech
On Fri, 11 Aug 2000, T. Bankson Roach wrote: Am I missing something? A paper company sells paper. It, unlike "Assholes on Line" management, doesn't review what individual people write on it. Of course not. Like an ISP, the paper company sells you packets. The data you put on the purchased packets are yours to send to whereever. If the paper compay (say Israeli Consolidated Paper) finds out you are printing holocaust-denial tracts it is perfectly within their rights to refuse to do business with you. If nothing else simply by freedom of association. (You did read the bill of rights before subscribing to the internet, right?) Maybe you're not from the US. (not that we have a unique claim to that right) Of course, you are perfectly free to use the pad of paper/packets you purchased from them. course if you are a stupid paper manufacturer with a "conscience" you could stop selling paper all together. Or, you could write something like a software licensing requirement and only lease the paper, and then only if it is used for pleasant and uncontroversial thoughts. I don't think you understand the idea that paper is packets. Think. Deny all legal responsibility for what your customers write on your paper. Maybe that will stop those nasty people from expressing their noxious thoughts. Still, if like a gun manufacturer, some dimbulb uses your product to do something nasty, the government may sue you. Thomas Jefferson is probably puking in his grave if the psychics have contacted him with what our beloved country has descended to. TJ believed in freedom of association. Thats pretty clear. I think its also pretty clear by reading his letters that he would never have forced anyone to do business with anyone else. (never mind the slavery issue -- that is a complex issue regarding TJ. All this makes him a very enigmatic and complex person) Meanwhile, following your logic, I guess it is best for all us "freedom of speech" types to start our own ISP. Nothing wrong with that. Better yet, go find one that believes in it and support them. I think you need to revisit some of your arguments and clarify your logic. Good luck, jim --- Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
RE: Hi
On Wed, 28 Jun 2000, Tim May wrote: Unfortunately, cops are exempt from the laws when they solicit for sex, offer child porn, sell drugs to people, plan break-ins, and even arrange bombings. "Entrapment," hell, they are often the _ringleaders_ in planning terrorist activities! No doubt. Any extensive analysis of the Oklahoma City bombing starts dovetailing into FBI/ATF and intelligence circle provocation. An excellent book for background information is The Secret Life of Bill Clinton by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard. That title is something of a misnomer. The first part of it details OKCity. Pritchard says that one of the main organizers of the group directly attributed with the OK bombing (Andreas Strassmeir) is directly traceable to German military intelligence. What German MI has to do with this is anyone's guess. On loan to FBI? Something wierd and larger? Either it was a redo of the burning of the Reichstag or it was a setup that got out of control. Who knows? I wish I could contact Evans-Pritchard. He mentioned that the head of the FBI, Louis Freeh was also a highly-placed member of Opus Dei -- a shadowy and dangerous radical Catholic group that almost brain-washed me as a young boy. Luckily, my deep immersion in computers, electronics etc threw off not only their programming but all religious programming. jim
Corrupt Waco Investigation
Anonymous wrote: Negatives from film shot at Waco are missing, U.S. says By WILLIAM H. FREIVOGEL and TERRY GANEY St. Louis Post-Dispatch April 18, 2000 - The Justice Department admits it can't not find the original negatives of an important roll of film taken on the last day of the siege of the Branch Davidians' complex. But it says it hasn't tampered with those photos or with infrared and electronic surveillance tapes of the 1993 episode that left about 80 Branch Davidians dead. And if you believe that, I have a large suspension bridge to sell you in the bay area. Everyone who I've talked to that has viewed the FLIR footage (some ex- special forces) have agreed that the bursty/periodic flashes must be automatic weapons fire. It matches exactly pre-recorded FLIR footage of nighttime special forces raids as well as having frequencies that correspond exactly to known automatic weapons fire. Its been identified by British SAS experts as full auto weapons fire. Its been identified by ex-combat applicatons group (delta) members as full-auto weapon fire. In the latest "Waco: A New Revelation" its blatantly obvious that two man-sized images roll off the tank and lie in the grass. Bursty flashes then commence from where they lie in the grass. This is a typical ground support manuever. Of course nothing will ever come of this. No one in the justice department is going to prosecute the justice department. No one the justice department appoints will prosecute the justice department. Danforth's lead investigator of this tragedy is the formal federal prosecutor for eastern Missouri who fought our concealed carry passage with every dollar of tax-payer money he could find. (free 800 taxpayer funded 800 numbers, stationary, speaking engagements against concealed carry during business hours etc). Of course he has been acquitted of any wrong doing by (you guessed it), the justice department. Freedom is Slavery Love is Hate War is Peace The Justice Department jim btw: what the hell does the St. Louis Post Dispatch (my hometown rag -- we call it the post disgrace) get off being the last ditch apologists for the J Dept criminals? Could it be because the Danforths have friends in very high places in St. Louis? I think his brother runs Washington University (or something like that). Anyway, Wash U (of wuarchive.wustl.edu, wuftp fame), that bastion of freedom and free-thought was also the place where the establishment had the libertarian protesters detained by SS soldiers with MP5s and really big german shepherds. All we wanted was Harry Browne to say a few words at the debates. Naw. No connection. Shades of the WTO protesters?
Re: Microsoft: A Day Of Satisfaction As CorporateBullyGetsComeuppance
"Colin A. Reed" wrote: As opposed to the US, which still hasn't ratified the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty that it negotiated and shoved down the throats of the rest of the world. And still hasn't paid it's back UN dues. And is currently planning to violate the ABM treaty. I can't think of the last time a socialist, or even communist country violated treaty provisions. On the other hand, I'm an insular american, so I never bothered to pay attention, either. Quie right. Try China on for size. I think they have violated the nuclear test ban trety multiple times. jim
