HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dlaro@lonestar.utsa.edu (David O. Laro)
Subject: Re: 3 Cheers for Colorado "Extremists"
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 06:42:27 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.223233.8367@news.eng.convex.com> foster@convex.COM (Harry Foster) writes:

>>
>John Stuart Mill argued a century ago that:
>
>	Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate
>	is not enough, there needs to be protection also against the
>	tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feelings; against the
>	tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil
>	penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct
>	on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development,
>	and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality
>	not in harmony with its ways.
>
>IMHO, history has shown the effects of the "prevailing opinions" and
>the generally accepted social morality when left unchecked.  Recall
>Germany and its treatment of Jews.  Recall our own country and the
>treatment of blacks in the not too distant past.

Okay, so far, you have invoked the name of John Stuart Mill, and later,
you provide a particularly great quote from Oliver W. Holmes, but your
allusion to the Nazi regime begins to concern me.  Where, precisely, do
you lead us with this impressive array of intellectual accomplishment?

>
>Fundamental human rights should not be up for debate, or left to
>a majority vote.

Ah.  Let's not let the majority _vote_ on what "fundamental human rights"
include.  Now it sounds like we're moving from Nazi Germany to the U.S.S.R.?
(I understand they didn't care much for the majority vote, at one time in the
not too distant past.)

I am still puzzled, though. Exactly who do _you_ propose we permit to
make that decision.  Or, do we all just "agree" on it?    (sounds like
we're faced with either a majority opinion, or a decision handed down
from 'on high' from the cabal.)

My point here:  your statement about "fundamental human rights...." is
much too abstract for me.  I lack the intellect to accurately decipher such
broad and sweeping expressions.   I can better understand concepts and
principles when they are expressed in more specific terms.

So!  Exactly how do _you_ propose we go about the establishment of
fundamental human rights at this particular time in history?  Or, just
what _are_ you suggesting?

>--
>Harry Foster			                            foster@convex.com
>	The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye, the more light
>	you pour upon it, the more it will contract.
>						-Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

David
A man's got to know his limitations.
          --Clint Eastwood




Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.misc:778 alt.politics.sex:593
From: clements@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.sex
Subject: Re: 3 Cheers for Colorado "Extremists"
Date: 11 Jan 93 11:21:34 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <1993Jan7.173546.26893@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, noyes@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (tom noyes 283-4177) writes:

[most of diatribe deleted]

> Now Mr. Arnold can argue that Amendment 2 was a product of the homophobic,
> religious right, just as I can argue that his views are an outgrowth of
> a theophobic, aetheistic, socialist. The fact is that the majority rules
> in a democratic form of government, and the majority is christian and
> heterosexual. Thus the majority has a somewhat homogeneous set of values,
> and morals.

What you, and many others who have commented, don't seem to understand is that
there are some values and priciples which should come above democracy. This is
because it is too easy for the generally ill informed electorate to be
manipulated by unscrupulous extereists. I shall provide a couple of examples:

(1) Hitler originally came to power through democratic elections and imposed
the death camps, etc etc. all with that democratic justification, and the
acquiesence of the majority of Germans.

(2) Ayotollah Khomeni (sp?) rose to power in Iran on a vast popular wave of
support. All that has been imposed since then - the subjugation of women, the
barbarrities of Koranic law, have 'democratic' support.

If you thnk the mob rule of a blind electorate led by their nose with
propaganda is a good 'democracy' then I'm glad I don't live in the same state
or country as you.


-- 
================================================================================
Dave Clements, Oxford University Astrophysics Department
================================================================================
clements @ uk.ac.ox.vax			|  Umberto Eco is the *real* Comte de
dlc      @ uk.ac.ox.astro		|           Saint Germain...
================================================================================
From: asuncion@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc
Subject: MEMO to the President
Date: 6 Jan 93 16:22:04 -0400
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada


                           Memorandum
To: Bill C. 
From : me

Diplomacy: Much Ado About Nothing

Did it ever work ? Even if it did, it was probably an exception to the rule.
This is why the EC's diplomatic sideshow is so amusing...and a bit annoying.
Not only is such foolishness pointless, it is also rather dangerous. In fact,
more people seem to die during ceasefires in Bosnia than before or after them
since it is an ideal moment for tit-for -tat via sniper turkey shoots and
smashing mortar successes.What about the diplomats themselves ? Have they no
shame ? Apparently not. Why else would they continue to smile, line their
pockets and turn a rather blind eye ?

U.S. Intervention: Nibbling on half-baked powder cakes

 George Bush says that intervention in Somalia is justified whereas such zeal
in Bosnia would be reckless. Why ? Quite simply, the rule is : no intervention
unless we can cash in and win big. Thus, yes to the Gulf War (oil), no to the
Iraqi Kurds (fear of the Ayatollah's boys), no to Bosnia (too many
headaches),and yes to Somalia (smiling faces + disarmed, unemployed gun-
toters= media coup).However, in each case of intervention, the eventual
outcome has usually been less than expected (i.e., Saddam still smilin', Bush
to take a very long fishing trip).Moreover, it usually amounts to mopping up
after the big arms bash. Who armed who ? Even worse, when the Yanks go home,
who will sit on the rice bags ? The U.N. ? The U.N. couldn't 
Fear not, it's the new world order.


ciao.
Ross.  
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.misc:779 alt.politics.sex:595
From: cmb@epcc.ed.ac.uk (C M Brough)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.sex
Subject: Re: 3 Cheers for Colorado "Extremists"
Date: 12 Jan 93 14:00:14 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh Parallel Computing Centre

Commenting on what Tom Noyes had said,  clements@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
> What you, and many others who have commented, don't seem to
> understand is that there are some values and priciples which should
> come above democracy. 

Absolutely.

> This is because it is too easy for the
> generally ill informed electorate to be manipulated by unscrupulous
> extereists. 

This pre-supposes a set of principles that are in some sense absolute
- most people in this group seem to refer to them as basic human
rights. The question is really "How do we go about defining these?" As
a Christian I would argue that they can only sensibly derive from a
holy, just and loving God, one who created both us and our
environment, and who retains an interest in our welfare. Other people
will disagree, but I have difficulty in understanding the authority
for any set of principles that do not depend on some outside force. If
this universe is a closed system, and in particular if the moral
judgements that the human brain comes up with are simply responses
(perhaps exceedingly complex ones) to that brain's environment, then I
can see no sense in which any human has 'rights.'

My own feeling is that democracy is the best of a bad bunch of methods
for regulating the affairs of large groups of humans and allowing them
to exist together in communities - even when that democracy makes
decisions that I would disagree with. Christians (or members of any
other religious grouping) who have the arrogance to suggest that they
can force, by law, their beliefs on others, have learned little of the
fallability of even the best intentioned humans.

> I shall provide a couple of examples: 
> 	[ ... deleted ... ]
> If you thnk the mob rule of a blind electorate led by their nose with
> propaganda is a good 'democracy' then I'm glad I don't live in the same state
> or country as you.

Again, I agree wholeheartedly - but I would rather strive for a
genuinely good democracy, where each person has their say, where the
electorate is kept informed by a balanced and independent media, and
where the power granted to those elected does not allow them to
overstep their electoral promises.

Pipe-dream? Probably. Goal? Definitely!

__________________________________________________________________________
Colin Brough    cmb@epcc.ed.ac.uk      Edinburgh Parallel Computing Centre
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.sex
From: heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath)
Subject: Re: 3 Cheers for Colorado "Extremists" 
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:27:40 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.173546.26893@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> noyes@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (tom noyes 283-4177) writes:
>In the article posted by Edward R. Arnold for his group "Freedom Watch",
>he deplores the use of misleading language in Amendment 2 by its authors.
>
>   "using confusing language and voter-negative buzzwords such as "quotas,  
>   protected class, minority status"." 
>
>I contend that Mr. Arnold is also using negative language. 
>
>  COLORADO EXTREMISTS - I belive this refers to the majority of people that
>                        passed Amendment 2. 
>
>Now Mr. Arnold advocates use of a boycott of the state of Colorado, to
>influence the states' citizens views on the issue at hand. Well I believe 
>that voters within a state have the right to choose their laws within
>the frame provided to the states under the consitution. Why should I
>penalize voters who are willing to break the glass house of political
>correctness. If Colorado's citizens feel the need to make laws to
>protect their citizens and businesses from the moral decay of modern society, 
>or if they feel the need to impart socially acceptable values in
>their schools than good for them. 

	Granted. The voter's of Colorado have a right to decide what
they think is best for their state. However, I also have a right to
choose not to support what I believe is bigotry with my good American
dollars. If that means boycotting the state of Colorado, then so be
it. They can do what they like in their own state, but they can do it
without my financial support.
	Good conservative folk should be well accquainted with the
idea of accepting responsibility for their action, and bearing the
consequences of their actions without complaint. It happens that there
are a number of people in this country who believe what happened in
Colorado should not have happened.  Some of these people would have
been disposed to contributing to Colorado's economy before hand, but
have since decided to spend their money elsewhere.  I believe the
statee's tourist industry will suffer, but even more it convention
industry has already lost money.  Haven't some large groups already
canceled conventions that had been scheduled in Colorado? If the
citizens of that state wish to accept that there may be less money in
their state and in their wallets following the vote. So be it.
	What the boycott boils down to for me is that I do not want to
feed my enemy.  I do not want to put food on his table.  I do not want
to feed his children. I don't want to do anything that will make him
stronger, to fight against me more effectively.   
	The people of Colorado have made their decision. Let them live
with what happens next. 




-- 
"Black men loving black men is THE revolutionary act!"
			-Joseph Beam_
Terrance Heath 
heath@athena.cs.uga.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Proposed ban on Presidential pardon for own appointees
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:11:45 GMT

In article <C03F4M.Kq1@demon.co.uk> gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.182632.15252@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>:The long term effect on the Presidency
>:could very well be such that it curtails the ability of the executive branch
>:to take action.  I, like the founders, believe that a weak government is a
>:greater threat to liberty than a tyrant and that to vitiate the foreign policy
>:perogatives of the executive branch is to weaken it.
>
>If you really believe that, we've nothing more to discuss.  If you're happy
>to hand over democracy to a tyrant, as you seem to have done, you'll get
>the government you deserve.

Tyranny is an awfully strong term to use here, I believe that it hurts your
credibility.  

And yes I do believe that weak government is a greater threat to liberty 
than a strong government.  Furthermore, the Founders also believed this
as is well documented in the Federalist papers.  I wonder if you have read them.

For the last time, we are not a democracy.  If you care to understand the
difference between democracy and democratic federal republicanism (which is
what we really have) then perhaps you would not be talking in such extremes
as tyranny and democracy.

Mike Best
From: tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony Zugates)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: John Birch Society
Date: 6 Jan 93 00:59:06 GMT
Organization: the HP Mtn.View Resp. Cntr.

In article <1iabr7INNpbf@im4u.cs.utexas.edu> lwb@cs.utexas.edu (Lanc
) writes:

>                             The Insiders
>                                  by
>                            John F. McManus

>             Copyright (c) 1992 by The John Birch Society

>As communism continues to advance toward total world domination, as
>America's place in the world slips from undisputed leadership to
>second-rate status

Add:  Purity of Essence
      Peace on Earth
	POE
	OPE
    "Flouridation of our drinking water, Mandrake"
    "shoot the bloody lock off, that's what the gun's for you bloody twit!"
    "Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the War Room!"
    "I'll get that bomb loose if it hairlips ever'body on Bear Creek"
    etc. etc. etc....



    all disclaimers apply
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Proposed ban on Presidential pardon for own appointees
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:46:40 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.183907.27907@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>
>In article <1992Dec30.182632.15252@anasazi.com>, 
>best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) said:
>
>> I do, however, believe that this investigation is an attempt to
>> criminalize what was, inarguably, bad policy and is therefore
>> misguided.
>
>Why do you believe this?  Because George Bush said so?

Because I believe that the whole thing is a political issue that is intended
to keep the Republicans feet to the fire.  I also am of the opinion that 
Congressional power is out of balance with respect to the executive and 
that this is a cause of _most_ of our problems in government.  Generally,
I respect Congress less than I do the Executive regardless of which political
party controls the White House.

>Like it or not, the basis of the investigation and of the criminal
>charges was not "These guys allegedly planned and implemented bad
>policy."  It was "These guys allegedly broke various federal laws."
>Recognizing that a person committed a crime is not equivalent to
>"criminalizing" his actions.  Despite what George Bush might have you
>believe to the contrary.

What you state is a supposition and not a fact.  The guys who did break
the law (poindexter and north for example) were convicted then the 
convictions overturned.  If George Bush gave the orders to take actions 
which as the VP seems highly unlikely, that were known to be illegal
then that would be wrong.  However, all I have heard of is that the 
policy was discussed in meetings.  To discuss a policy should not be
criminalized because it paralyzes action and discourages the free flow
of ideas.

>> The long term effect on the Presidency could very well be such that
>> it curtails the ability of the executive branch to take action.
>
>Interesting.  How do you get from "might curtail the ability of the
>executive branch to break the law" to "might curtail the ability of
>the executive branch to take action"?  Do you _want_ the executive
>branch to be able to violate or ignore federal law with impunity?

If policy is criminalized rather than actions then we are putting 
shackles on the Executive.  This weakens the Executive and thus weakens
this nation in relation to others (right or wrong).

Mike Best
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Proposed ban on Presidential pardon for own appointees
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:34:56 GMT

In article <C0312H.8Dz@chinet.chi.il.us> prb@chinet.chi.il.us (Paul Botts) writes:
>In article <C01v1F.C8L@demon.co.uk> gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:
>>
>>:  The founders argued in favor of the energetic executive
>>:and I would like for you to address this issue.
>
>COme again? Which founders are you referring to? The ones who wrote our
>Constitution were very leery of a really strong executive, and took
>pains to try to prevent one from developing. Indeed, throughout the
>first 120 years or so of this nation's history, presidents with one
>notable exception were treated and thought of very much as the mayor in
>a "strong-council, weak-mayor" municipal government (see your favorite
>poly sci textbook for an explanation). You might want to spend some time
>with the Federalist Papers and/or the proceedings of the Constituional
>Convention. The modern idea of an "Imperial Presidency" is very much a
>modern idea.

I _am_ referring to my favorite poli-sci book on this matter, the Federalist
Papers (around number 69 and on).

The founders did not want an imperial presidency but neither did they want
a weak executive that would be unable to defend his office against the 
intrusions of the other branches.  In particular, the founders intended to 
avoid the well known diseases that all republics suffer from and among the
most detrimental of these is the tendency of the legislature to usurp the 
powers of the other branches.  IMO, this whole affair is yet another 
intrusion of the legislature into the powers that should belong to the
executive.  Regardless of who is in office, this is a political issue
as much as it is a legal one and that makes me suspicious.

Look, I am not trying to infer that the President was intended to have 
imbalanced powers in relation to the other two branches.  Your link between
a strong executive and an imperial presidency is not necessary in this
case for I am not arguing in favor of such.  I am arguing for us to 
take into consideration the effect on the balance of power if we pass
an ammendment to limit the presidential pardoning power.  From all I can
find in the Federalist Papers they only speak of limiting this power in
cases of treason or impeachment and I am not aware that that is the case
with Bush.

Mike Best
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Proposed ban on Presidential pardon for own appointees
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:57:30 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.213241.5118@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.182632.15252@anasazi.com>, best@anasazi.com
>(Mike Best) writes:
>
>> I, like the founders, believe that a weak government is a
>> greater threat to liberty than a tyrant and that to vitiate the foreign policy
>> perogatives of the executive branch is to weaken it.
>
>I'm afraid you've got it backwards, here.  The Founders *feared* a strong
>government.  They had just revolted against one strong, centralized,
>tryannical government, and weren't about to let it happen again (in fact,
>see my .sig below for Jefferson's views...).

Well, much of the early part of the Federalist Papers is an indictment
against the former Articles of Confederation which they described as
weak government and a greater threat to individual liberty than a strong
government.  That is, given a choice between the two.

However....  

While it is true that they feared a strong central government that is quite
a different thing that what I am talking about.  I am referring to the
requisite powers that the Founders intended for the Executive to act
as a check against the known diseases of republican government - the 
tendency of the legislature to usurp the powers of the other branches.
A strong executive is necessary to curb the natural tendency of the
legislature.  To limit the pardoning power is to change the rules of
the game and I am concerned that we are too blithely approaching this issue.

>Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>"...when all government... in little as in the great thing, shall be
>drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render
>powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will
>become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we
>separated."  Thomas Jefferson, 1821

So how does this quote equate to the "tyrany" of a strong executive?
It would appear to me that the real problem is before your very eyes
though you do not recognize it - an imperial congress which has, 
as the founders knew they would try, usurped the authorities of the
other branches whenever it can.  Also, federalism is not respected
by the Congress and yet it is one of the key concepts in the Constitution.

Go Huskies!

Mike Best
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: rusty@b23a.b23a.ingr.com (Rusty Puckett)
Subject: U.S. constitution
Keywords: constitution
Organization: Intergraph
Distribution: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 19:18:41 GMT

If anyone has an electronic version of the U.S. constitution could you please
email it to me?  I know this would be quite lengthy and don't expect someone
to type it in and send it.  I just would like to save myself a trip to the 
library since I am working a whole lot of overtime for the next 2 months.

Any portions of it would also be appreciated if someone has part of it, but not 
the whole thing.

thanks
Rusty

rusty@rp8399.b23a.ingr.com
From: Bruce.Baugh@p23.f79.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Bruce Baugh)
Sender: postmaster@therose.pdx.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: John Birch Society
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1993 23:29:04 -0700


On (06 Jan 93) Fragano Ledgister wrote to (crosspost 1) All...

 A > >With reguard to the Soviet Union.  I believe, and I think there is
 A > ample
 A > >evidence, that the removal of the Berlin Wall and the "collapse" of
 A > the
 A > >Soviet Union, were events that have been carefully planned out to
 A > lull
 A > >the American public into believing that the problem is gone.  This
 A > >is a very old tactic, I hope you won't fall for it.
 A >
 A > I see. And the Moldavian conflict, the dispute between Russia and
 A > Ukraine, the Karabakh war, the events in Tadzikistan, the
 A > Czech-Slovak split, the various armed conflicts in what used to be
 A > Yugoslavia, these are all parts of this same plan 'to lull the
 A > American public'?

Yes. You see, the true center of Bolshevik power is in Latvia. All the
reset is decoys. :-)

Newsgroups: alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality