From: lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com (Len Bucuvalas)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss,ba.motss
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: 15 Sep 92 20:00:52 GMT

In article <_svn4fn.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <v=vn+#m.rich@netcom.com> rich@netcom.com (Richard Poppen) writes:
>    >You're absolutely right, this is a grave danger. Why, look
>    >what happened in the sixties. The negro fascist lobby used
>    >the government's power to force people to hire and rent to
>    >negroes against their will, and look where it's taken us.
>    >People treat them as though they were human! Boy, Clayton, I
>    >wish you had been around then. You could have helped us
>    >prevent special rights for negroes.
>    >
>    >--Rich, who can no longer contain his disgust
>
>Sorry you can't contain your disgust (does this mean you are disgusting?).
Really Phil...but I suppose this is better than *that* post!

>
>Perhaps if you got a few facts straight, you'd sleep better!
You should do the same...get your facts straight that is.
>
>First, it wasn't the "negro fascist lobby", but rather what we might call the
>rich, white, guilt-laden knee-jerk liberal lobby that got those laws passed.
>
Wrong...it was actually internationalists appointed to the
Lincoln adminstration through whom laws were enacted that
would promote a seperatist philosophy.

>And please note, even today, those laws and laws like them do NOT apply
>(specifically do NOT apply) to the coercive organization that made them --
>the U.S. Congress.

The US Congress is bought and paid for via money or damaging
persal information. Either way this statement is moot.

>
>Now of course, some people, you for one it seems, believe it is a good
>thing to have a law comabtting their private wacked out fantasy (evil
>leering red neck landlord denying, with pleasure, afforable housing
>to decent hard working black family).

Absolutely guy...other wise a landlord might read your
postings and decide that he didnt want you for a neighbor, not
that I would blame him for feeling that way, but he would be
wrong to discriminate agianst you renting his unit(s) IF you
had good references AND the money to back the rent.
>
>However noble your end, you should consider that nice conclusions do NOT
>justify coercive laws. How many people could be "saved" if we changed
>the law to allow the police to use no knock, no search warrant searches
>in say, suspected drug use cases?

You should start reading more...this is called "the good faith
ruling" enacted by the Supreme Court around 2-3 years ago that
enables police to search a vehicle, person, or home/building
under the "good faith" that something illegal is going
on...and this so called "good faith" can be anything from hard
evidence to an anonymous phone call.
>
>Sure, the law would "save" a lot of people and/or catch a lot of
>druggies, but you know, it is a bad law. And so are the "anti-discrimination"
>laws, which of course, merely codify racial presence into law.
>
I agree with you here...you know it is amazing how intelligent
you can sound (is this real) when you tone it down a bit. Anti
discrimination laws do "codify a racial presence" into law.
But what else can be done when other bills and laws have
"codified a racial seperation" into law? And this by all
"under the skin" definition is wrong.....and absolute wrong.
We all bleed, we all cry, we all laugh, we all love and
die,,,,,, we all are human.
>
>
>-- 
>phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
>
>"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
>"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone
>
>These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Len .... for once I was interested in your
opinions....hmmmm...maybe I've got the flu?!?! ;^)

DISCLAIMER: My opinions not my employer's

--
*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
The accountability of government has gone to the point where the very
use of the law is the instrument of illegality.
		-- Ralph Nader @ Harvard Law School, 1/15/92
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45556 ca.politics:7810 ba.politics:5337