Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 10:29:00 EST
From:         MING the Destroyer <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: questions for tkidd

From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: questions for tkidd

On Sun, 26 Jul 1992 14:32:00 EST the anti-elvis <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET> said
:
> From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
> Subject:      Re: questions for tkidd
>
> On Thu, 23 Jul 1992 08:41:11 CDT fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET> said:
> Did your wife have a FUCKING good reason for a divorce?  If not then
>                      ^^^^^^^such LANGUAGE! and from a good christian
>         boy, too.  this country's going down the tubes.
Huh??  Did I ever mention Christian in any of my posts??  I believe in
morality.  I said nothing about Christianity.  For the record, I be-
lieve in Christianity, but I would hardly go so far as to say I am the
most devout Cristian that ever was.

        yeah.  i think you have.  also, the morality that you believe in
        (and want the states, not the feds, to enforce ;) is the judeo-
        christian moral tradition.  there are other moral systems and
        standards out there, but people like yourself tend to equate
        morality and christianity, and then claim that those operating
        on some other morality are in actuality immoral.

> the divorce should never happen.  Assuming you were at fault and she had
> good reason for a divorce, then an appropriate jail term for each con-
> viction would be 30 days, I suppose.  But our society and our children
> simply can't afford to pay the price for the 1/2 of marriages that end
> in divorce.  Adultery should be a jailable offense, and in a civil di-
> vorce suit, there should be STRONG preponderance of the evidence point-
> ing to adultery or another good cause for divorce.
>
>         what constitutes a good reason?  how about "we simply don't love
>         each other anymore.  we tried to make it work, but it didn't."?
>         or would one of them have to beat the other or cheat on the other
>         and accept the jail term so that they could get divorced?
Well, I won't go into the technicalities of what is a good reason and
what is not.  But I will say that your reason is not a good one.  Hey--
you made the vows "for better or for worse"--now you must live by them.

        so you would rather have unhappy couples and emotionally tortured
        children than divorced and happier people.  sounds charitable.
        also sounds like a good way to promote mental instability.
        all for promoting *your* moral agenda, which is better than mine.

>         making alcohol illegal didn't keep people from drinking it.  making
>         pot illegal hasn't kept people from smoking it.  making the speed
>         limit 55mph hasn't kept people from driving faster.  making the
>         drinking age 21 hasn't kept 18 year olds from drinking.  do you
>         think that this will really affect people's behavior?  or just lead
>         to more corruption?
Making murder illegal hasn't kept people from killing.

        murder, unlike the things listed above, is an action which
        significantly intrudes on anothers' rights and freedoms.  as such,
        the state needs to protect those rights.  someone posted something
        much more eloquent about this when the infamous jay steven sultan
        was comparing murder and homosexuality.

> > 2. What was anita hill's motive for lying?
> Doesn't she get tens of thousands of dollars for speaking engagements???
>
>         you seem to have a skewed concept of causality.
Someone asked for a motive, I gave one.

> > 3. Are you willing to live in a society where the thought police follow
> > you around to be sure that you are not thinking unclean thoughts?
> No.  Everyone has a right to their thoughts.  Actions are another
> matter.
>
>         thats like saying that everyone has a right to think about
>         voting independant, as long as they actually vote republican
>         or democrat.
What I meant was, people don't NECESSARILY have a right to their ac-
tions.  They may in some instatances.

        they may in SOME instances?  i would say that they do in ALL
        instances, unless a damn good reason can be found for restricting
        it.

> > 4. How would you handle sex in advertising?
> Hmmmmmm....well first of all, there is really no "sex" in advertising.
> But I do think it is wrong for a beer commercial (or any other type of
> commercial--beer is most prominent) to suggest that you will get girls
> if you drink Bud Light.  Why can't they tout their product's good
> qualities???  Perhaps because it has none.
>
>         so you don't like bud lite.
I have yet to taste an alcoholic drink that tastes good.  And no play-
ing mix-and-match--I can do that with Kool-aid.

        try Mead (its a wine made with honey instead of grapes).  its
        hard to find, tho.

> > You seem to be missing a very basic point: The child's accusation must
> > have a basis in law or it will be thrown out of court. I assume that you
> > are pro-life and want a judge to make sure that the baby is born but then
> > the parent's can do whatever they want. I'm afraid that sane, normal,
> > educated parents are probably a minority. The number of children living
> > in poverty is pushing 20%.
> And probably children of single parents who had sex outside of marriage.
>
>         often.  now who gets to take care of the kids while mom is
>         in jail?
Adoptive parents, foster parents, or the state.

        so not only do the few of us, well, the few of you, who will
        remain out of jail have to pay higher taxes to support all
        the people having sex outside of marriage, but you also have to
        pay all the child care costs too?

        can you say 80% income tax?
        sure, i knew you could.  i LIKE the way you say that.

> > Do you happen to remember a little incident involving the poisoning of
> > hundreds of children by their parents because they thought some guy
> > was showing them the path to enlightenment in jonestown?
> Well, that was in another country.  I will let Guyana make its own laws,
> in the hopes that they would agree with me.
>
>         from what i remember, tho, they weren't native guyanans...
But they were in Guyana, and subject to the laws and jurisdiction
thereof.

>         brni
-Travis

        were yoiu the one who claimed that we were justified in
        kidnapping that guy from mexico?  or was that someone else?
        how do you feel about our kidnapping of noriega from his country,
        where he was under the jurisdiction of the laws of panama,
        but has been tried under the laws of the us?  just curious...

        brni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU