Re: oppose nomination of John Ashcroft
"Me" <commerce@home.com> wrote:
I'm not trying to get people into any arguments here.. I
----- Original Message ----- From: "sparky" <sparky@suba.com> thought this
might be appropriate since people here are concerned with civil rights.
Quite right, I am very concerned.
Lets examine the page:
"He has voted against affirmative action and anti-discrimination laws, against a crucial AIDS provision."
Hmmmm... "Ashcroft has been hailed as an ally by the NRA, voting against trigger locks and the assault weapons ban while supporting conceal and carry laws and gun show loopholes to regulation."
Excellent, he is clearly a firm supporter of civil liberties.
Might I second that, in this case. Gee, maybe this website should be named <http://www.supportashcroft.com/>; I was feeling kinda lukewarm about his nomination until I saw it. Thanks, sparky!
Unfortunately, I don't see any place on your web page to voice my support for his nomination?
"In 1999, Ashcroft recorded radio ads urging Missouri voters to support an NRA-sponsored ballot initiative that would have allowed almost anyone - including convicted child molesters and stalkers - to carry concealed guns in Missouri." Maybe I should move to Missouri. I've always wanted to shoot a child molester.
On 16 Jan 2001, at 19:54, Anonymous wrote: > "Me" <commerce@home.com> wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "sparky" <sparky@suba.com> > > > http://www.opposeashcroft.com > > > > > > I'm not trying to get people into any arguments here.. I > > thought this > > > might be appropriate since people here are concerned with civil > > > rights. > > > > Quite right, I am very concerned. > > > > Lets examine the page: > > > > "He has voted against affirmative action and anti-discrimination > > laws, against a crucial AIDS provision." > > Hmmmm... "Ashcroft has been hailed as an ally by the NRA, voting > against trigger locks and the assault weapons ban while supporting > conceal and carry laws and gun show loopholes to regulation." > > > Excellent, he is clearly a firm supporter of civil liberties. > > Might I second that, in this case. Gee, maybe this website should be > named <http://www.supportashcroft.com/>; I was feeling kinda lukewarm > about his nomination until I saw it. Thanks, sparky! Hey, don't mention it. But don't miss the other areas of his policies, like women's rights, and such as the following: "He supports limits on free speech over the Internet. He supported legislation, later held unconstitutional, that sought to censor communications over the Internet. And he supported legislation to require mandatory use of filtering on all computers used by schools and libraries receiving federal e-rate assistance." Of course I realize that the freedom of citizens to bear arms is going to be near and dear to many if not all participating in this list. But one has to balance one issue against others. I feel that women's rights are especially important in a democratic society, and I also feel that anyone who supports the right to bear arms but also supports the removal of separation of church and state, and the impositions against your speech over the internet to which such a postion leads, is not worth your time. I personally would want to find a better figure to symbolize and speak for my right to arm myself. sparkane > > > Unfortunately, I don't see any place on your web page to voice my > > support for his nomination? > > "In 1999, Ashcroft recorded radio ads urging Missouri voters to > support an NRA-sponsored ballot initiative that would have allowed > almost anyone - including convicted child molesters and stalkers - to > carry concealed guns in Missouri." > > Maybe I should move to Missouri. I've always wanted to shoot a > child molester. > > > >
----- Original Message ----- From: "sparky" <sparky@suba.com>
"He supports limits on free speech over the Internet. He supported
This is bad. But damage control is good. If I recall, there were only 16 senators who voted against the CDA, and most of them were in other ways broken (e.g. Ted K.). Luckily these things keep getting tossed by the courts before the first assault team can be assembled. On the other hand, he has been a strong (as it gets) voice for things such as encryption.
also supports the removal of separation of church and state, and
Your separation of church and state is imaginary. The 1st Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In two of the three anti-Ashcroft points listed on your website, school vouchers and social service privitization/contracting, the claim is silly; the ultimate recipients of funds may be religious, but that occurs either by private choice or by judging a religious organization by the same criteria as any other and ignoring its theo-aspects. Religion neutral. Courtside, e.g.: Witters v. Washington D.S.B. or Zobrest v. Catalina F.S.D., etc. The third point is Ashcroft's support of a measure that would allow individual students to, of their own choice, volition, and organizing pray in school (or before a school football game?). I can't understand how the courts can accept the gov't compelling students to attend gov't educational installations for most of the day for the first xx-years of their life by force of law, and order them by the same to ignore the Great Pumpkin and stop that free-exercise, without violating #1. Go Ashcroft.
I personally would want to find a better figure to symbolize and speak for my right to arm myself.
The chance of getting John Lott nominated is pretty slim; roll the dice again and we'll probably end up with the senior Senator from Utah. I've become resigned to speaking for my own right to bear arms, symbolizing it would be good too.
Me wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "sparky" <sparky@suba.com>
also supports the removal of separation of church and state, and
Your separation of church and state is imaginary. The 1st Amendment states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Rastafarians, Hindus, Native Americans, and all followers of shamanic religions are certainly persectired under the multitude of laws now "prohibiting the free exercise thereof.", and being the reknowned, rabid anti-drug warrior that AssKrof is, that will only escalate under his hand. Asskroft is not only a confirmed fascist, but also a blatant Kristian bigot as well. Son of a Pentacostal (Holy Roller) minister, he himself is a Holy Roller minister. Ayatollah Asskroft. No doubt Ayatollah Asskroft will seek the guidance of his god, be slain in the spirit (fall on the floor in a trance) and issue orders in tongues when sending out his jackbooted thugs to burn witches and rastas.
Me wrote:
I personally would want to find a better figure to symbolize and speak for my right to arm myself.
The chance of getting John Lott nominated is pretty slim; roll the dice again and we'll probably end up with the senior Senator from Utah.
I've become resigned to speaking for my own right to bear arms, symbolizing it would be good too.
Just heard Asskroft on the radio during the hearings affirming his support for the assault weapon ban ( and Herr Busch's support of same) and their intention to reimplement that ban when it sunsets. So much for his being against guncontrol -- he made it pretty clear that he believes the 2nd is about sporting arms, not military weapons.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Harmon Seaver" <hseaver@harmon.arrowhead.lib.mn.us>
Just heard Asskroft on the radio during the hearings
affirming
his support for the assault weapon ban ( and Herr Busch's support of same) and their intention to reimplement that ban when it sunsets. So
Yep; he is a slimy bastard trying to get his nomination confirmed. Thankfully, he didn't hold these opinions when he was a Senator. Who is the absolutist and unwavering pro-drug, pro-economy, pro-life, pro-2nd-amendment, pro-1st-amendment, pro-freedom candidate that will be stepping in after Ashcroft is defeated?
On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 01:29:28PM -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote:
Just heard Asskroft on the radio during the hearings affirming his support for the assault weapon ban ( and Herr Busch's support of same) and their intention to reimplement that ban when it sunsets. So much for his being against guncontrol -- he made it pretty clear that he believes the 2nd is about sporting arms, not military weapons.
Yeah, and they made him apologize for telling the tired old joke about how the only thing found in the "middle of the road" are moderates and dead skunks. Sounds like everyone's taking this process real seriously. Confirmation is more like a ritual hazing and has absolutely nothing to do with a candidate's fitness for the job. We've survived Ed Meese and Janet Reno, we'll survive John Ashcroft, too. -- Greg Broiles gbroiles@netbox.com PO Box 897 Oakland CA 94604
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 -Declan On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 01:18:32PM -0800, Greg Broiles wrote:
On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 01:29:28PM -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote:
Just heard Asskroft on the radio during the hearings affirming his support for the assault weapon ban ( and Herr Busch's support of same) and their intention to reimplement that ban when it sunsets. So much for his being against guncontrol -- he made it pretty clear that he believes the 2nd is about sporting arms, not military weapons.
Yeah, and they made him apologize for telling the tired old joke about how the only thing found in the "middle of the road" are moderates and dead skunks. Sounds like everyone's taking this process real seriously. Confirmation is more like a ritual hazing and has absolutely nothing to do with a candidate's fitness for the job. We've survived Ed Meese and Janet Reno, we'll survive John Ashcroft, too.
-- Greg Broiles gbroiles@netbox.com PO Box 897 Oakland CA 94604
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. 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. 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? Who cares. Nothing short of a libertarian (small l) renessaince will stop the tide of fascism that continues to reverberate through our body politic. Someone needs to register www.slavestate.org and have a real time track of the level of subjugation on this land of ours. (Hint: The DEA wants to put people in prison for possessing hemp soap. Its totally out of control.) jim
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'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. Reese
In my opinion, anyone that doesn't burn little children in
----- Original Message ----- From: "Reese" <reeza@flex.com> 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.
Well, as long as she had a good reason...
At 02:46 AM 1/19/01 -0500, Me wrote:
From: "Reese" <reeza@flex.com>
I hate Outlook, OExpress is worse. Doesn't the below look much easier to read?
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.
Well, as long as she had a good reason...
Now that we've established that you think there are good reasons to burn children in their church, what do you recommend for a marinade? Napalm?
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
At 01:52 PM 1/19/01 -0600, Jim Burnes wrote:
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.
Then why were the troops laying siege to the compound, instead of snatching koresh when he made one of his frequent trips into town? And _you_ think _I've_ bought into a statist line.
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.
Indeed. Reese
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 04:13:32PM -1000, Reese wrote:
Then why were the troops laying siege to the compound, instead of snatching koresh when he made one of his frequent trips into town?
Because sometimes a show of force is perceved as necessary. Heck, employers do it to employees all the time. We do it to our pets when teaching them a lesson. Why should cops be any different?
And _you_ think _I've_ bought into a statist line.
Um, sure. -Declan
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Heck, employers do it to employees all the time. We do it to our pets when teaching them a lesson. Why should cops be any different?
You fucking self-centerd ego-maniacal animal abuser. You NEVER have to use fear with pets. If you have to use fear it is your failing, not the pets. Do the animal a favor get rid of the pet, you're not fit for it. I hope the next time you use fear on your pets somebody comes along and teaches you the lesson, a 2x4 up your ass seems suitable. Do your kids a favor, don't have any. ____________________________________________________________________ Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it. "Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Coupla things: a. What the hell has this got to do with John Ashcroft? b. Doncha think that reaction's a little strong to an offhand comment? c. Alright, three things: You've never said "NO!" to a pet? MacN On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Heck, employers do it to employees all the time. We do it to our pets when teaching them a lesson. Why should cops be any different?
You fucking self-centerd ego-maniacal animal abuser. You NEVER have to use fear with pets. If you have to use fear it is your failing, not the pets. Do the animal a favor get rid of the pet, you're not fit for it.
I hope the next time you use fear on your pets somebody comes along and teaches you the lesson, a 2x4 up your ass seems suitable.
Do your kids a favor, don't have any.
____________________________________________________________________
Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it.
"Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Mac Norton wrote:
Coupla things:
a. What the hell has this got to do with John Ashcroft?
A thesis was made and an example to support it was offered. The example is flawed (not to mention demonstrating a massive lack of emotional maturity on the part of the author/animal abuser).
b. Doncha think that reaction's a little strong to an offhand comment?
Abusing animals is NEVER offhanded.
c. Alright, three things: You've never said "NO!" to a pet?
Animals don't fear 'no', they fear what you'll do to them. And you don't have to use it to teach them what it means either. How do you teach an animal 'fear'? One way and one way only, abuse. ____________________________________________________________________ Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it. "Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I think animals fear the tone in your voice when you say "NO!" as contrasted with the usual tone in your voice. That shouldn't be accompanied by a beating, but a smart two-fingered tap on the muzzle during housebreaking, followed by promptly putting the pup outside or on the newspaper, is not abuse in my book. Is it in yours? Of course it's pretty well proven that reward works better--as it does on humans--for more sophisticated training but, again as with humans, it takes some discipline to instill basic behaviors. MacN On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Mac Norton wrote:
Coupla things:
a. What the hell has this got to do with John Ashcroft?
A thesis was made and an example to support it was offered. The example is flawed (not to mention demonstrating a massive lack of emotional maturity on the part of the author/animal abuser).
b. Doncha think that reaction's a little strong to an offhand comment?
Abusing animals is NEVER offhanded.
c. Alright, three things: You've never said "NO!" to a pet?
Animals don't fear 'no', they fear what you'll do to them. And you don't have to use it to teach them what it means either. How do you teach an animal 'fear'? One way and one way only, abuse.
____________________________________________________________________
Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it.
"Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
[ WARNING: Use of 3rd person referentials. Not necessarily meant as a personal indicative.] On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Mac Norton wrote:
Well, I think animals fear the tone in your voice when you say "NO!" as contrasted with the usual tone in your voice.
That's not fear, that's respect of the pecking order (I assume you speak of dogs since most other animals couldn't give a fuck less about your tone of voice unless you're yelling). Fear is an entirely different matter from respect. More people should understand this distinction. Hell, most people shouldn't even have pets.
That shouldn't be accompanied by a beating, but a smart two-fingered tap on the muzzle during housebreaking, followed by promptly putting the pup outside or on the newspaper, is not abuse in my book. Is it in yours?
Don't know about abuse but it's crappy training technique (and I say that from raising dogs for 37 years). Also, abuse is about more than simply striking them. It includes negligence as well. It means not doing what you should be doing. No, you shouldn't be tapping them on the nose or otherwise physically striking them. If you wait around until the animal has to take a crap in the floor then YOU have failed in the training. The goal is to teach the animal to ask to go out. That means YOU have to learn the animals schedule and use it to teach them the expected behaviour. That means YOU have to follow the feeding schedule and time the animals bowl rate. It means YOU have to set the alarm clock to take the animal out (or on the paper, and sit there till IT's done not until your patience runs out) BEFORE they can't hold their bladder any longer (which is after all the true goal we're after here at least). That means it's YOUR responsibility to take them out regularly every 2-3 hours or so (and that means at nite when you'd rather be sleeping too) when they're puppies. Basically it means YOU have to get off your ass and quite asking the animal to do it for you. It means when the animal come at 4am and asks to go out you get your lazy butt out of bed and take them outside. Basically YOU need to be doing this before you ever give the puppy to the new owner (which shouldn't happen prior to 8 weeks anyway). YOU need to teach the new owner and if they show ANY hesitency then don't give them the animal, they'll only abuse it. Dogs are genetically wired for this training. When young pups prior to eye opening use the bathroom the mother eats the crap and piss (hence pottie training a dog prior to ~8 weeks is a waste of time for all concerned). As they age she pays attention to their feeding cycle and physically takes them out of the den when she knows it's pottie time. They connect 'go outside den' with 'my bladder is uncomfortable'. When you first get your pup expect piss and shit everywhere for the first week. Take the dog out every two hours irrespective of badder/bowel movement. And don't react to the bowel/bladder movement at all with respect to 'punishing' (what a fucking power mad concept) the dog. Just clean it up. After that they'll start putting 2 and 2 together on their own. It usually take from between 3 and 6 weeks for them to figure it out and be reliable [there are exception, I have a wolf hybrid it took 6 months - wolves don't pottie train well at all. I was prepared for it to never learn. Really it doesn't care, another difference many miss. I have a domestic dog now who doesn't care for fences or gates. I have to keep her behind a 6ft fence on 3/4 in aircraft cable] and I was prepared to keep cleaning it up and to take it out every two hours irrespective. It has to do with a slightly different territory sense between wolves and domesticated dogs.). Sticking their nose in piss, yelling at them because they couldn't hold their bladder (think of how you feel after a six hour car drive and no rest stop) or whacking them with a rolled up newspaper (I dare you to strike a wolf hybrid) ain't the way any more than sitting around on your ass drinking beer and watching TV until the animal shits in the floor and then you yell at it and drag it around pointing at newspaper (like a puppy has any clue what paper is) is the way or it's supposed to read your mind. (After all, if you're so smart how come you didn't recognize the pup was in distress in the first place?) Now this should not be interpreted to mean that no physical contact is required. For example the best way to teach dogs not to rush the door is to pin them in it. If a dog pushes you and you don't want then push it away hard enough to put it on the ground (similar to a 'alpha roll', and if you don't know what a 'alpha roll' is or how to use it you know nothing about training dogs). If you teach them 'back up' and they don't you alpha roll them on their back. As to demanding respect from dogs, you don't do it with your voice. You do it with your eyes (another sign of inexperience is this common mistake, even a lot of 'professionals' make it). In addition you shouldn't play 'tug of war' with it and you should NEVER let a puppy/dog get on top of a child or person, EVER!!!!! There are some monks who raise German Shephards, they write some excellent books. Anyone raising any sort of canine should read at least one of them. With cats the usual failure is insufficient handling in the first 4 weeks after birth (raised tradition, applehead, Siamese for nearly 20 years). If this isn't done the animal will never be settled. In the case of cats that don't receive any human contact in that first 4 weeks, they'll never be domesticated. And yelling 'NO' at a cat is a fruiteless exercise in ego. And Ferrets are a whole other ball of wax entirely. Yell at a cow or a sheep and you're just as likely to be sitting on your ass with a broken hip. Yell at or strike a horse and it'll shy from you till the day you die. (And despite what a lot of 'trainers', really people who want to be well know in the competitive ring, might say; never keep your dog crated.) Bottem line, if an animal fails in its behavior it rests on one set of shoulders and one set of shoulders only, the owner. It is NEVER the animals fault. Raising a pet isn't about what you the owner want, it's about what the animal needs. It's about 'caring' not 'ownership' (which is one reason among many PETA is a bunch of fucked up assholes). And anyone who buys a pet after watching a movie, for a holiday present, or because they think it would be 'cool' needs to review this point in a serious fashion. Anyway, good luck with your pet. Over and out. ____________________________________________________________________ Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it. "Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
your tone of voice unless you're yelling). Fear is an entirely different matter from respect.
As in my previous message, it depends on how you're defining fear in this application. Can a dog not fear disappointing its owner?
More people should understand this distinction. Hell, most people shouldn't even have pets.
With that, I agree.
Don't know about abuse but it's crappy training technique (and I say that from raising dogs for 37 years). Also, abuse is about more than simply striking them. It includes negligence as well. It means not doing what you should be doing.
I was always told that the only form of physical admonishment one should ever employ with a dog is a swift jerk at the scruff of the neck (apparently imitating mother/puppy behavior). I don't particularly see this being useful, however. The urge to react physically to undesirable behavior is a failing in the human trainer. (Likewise, when your child accidently steps on your dog's tail, you want the dog to yelp rather than bite.) [snip accurate description of the ordeal of housebreaking dogs] One method that has worked for me, in addition to everything you've said, is the repetition of a phrase while waiting for the dog to do his business. I've spent many a night standing in my back yard saying "hurry-up" in the sweetest voice imaginable to my puppies, and then telling them how much of a good dog they are when they pee. Makes the neighbors think I am batty, but they eventually equate "hurry-up" with "take a leak", and I can get them to urinate on command.
then you yell at it and drag it around pointing at newspaper (like a puppy has any clue what paper is) is the way or it's supposed to read your mind. (After all, if you're so smart how come you didn't recognize the pup was in distress in the first place?)
"If you point at a dog, he'll look at your finger..."
Now this should not be interpreted to mean that no physical contact is required. For example the best way to teach dogs not to rush the door is to pin them in it. If a dog pushes you and you don't want then push it away hard enough to put it on the ground (similar to a 'alpha roll', and if you don't know what a 'alpha roll' is or how to use it you know nothing about training dogs). If you teach them 'back up' and they don't you alpha roll them on their back.
Jim, most people on here won't know what an alpha roll is.
As to demanding respect from dogs, you don't do it with your voice. You do it with your eyes (another sign of inexperience is this common mistake, even a lot of 'professionals' make it). In addition you shouldn't play 'tug of war' with it and you should NEVER let a puppy/dog get on top of a child or person, EVER!!!!!
By extension, if you're ever in a situation where you fear you may be attacked by a dog, avert your eyes. A staring contest with a strange dog may end up with bloodshed.
There are some monks who raise German Shephards, they write some excellent books. Anyone raising any sort of canine should read at least one of them.
The Monks of New Skete.
Bottom line, if an animal fails in its behavior it rests on one set of shoulders and one set of shoulders only, the owner. It is NEVER the animals fault.
Absolutely. Alex
Sparring with Choate is about as useful as beating oneself with a rubber baton, just far less rewarding. I never said animals should be trained to fear an owner or any other human; to say otherwise is simple Choatian exaggeration. But my "show of force" point is perfectly reasonable, and I stand by it. -Declan PS: I don't have pets. I travel too much. I had a fish once. On Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 12:59:36AM -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
[ WARNING: Use of 3rd person referentials. Not necessarily meant as a personal indicative.]
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Mac Norton wrote:
Well, I think animals fear the tone in your voice when you say "NO!" as contrasted with the usual tone in your voice.
That's not fear, that's respect of the pecking order (I assume you speak of dogs since most other animals couldn't give a fuck less about your tone of voice unless you're yelling). Fear is an entirely different matter from respect.
More people should understand this distinction. Hell, most people shouldn't even have pets.
That shouldn't be accompanied by a beating, but a smart two-fingered tap on the muzzle during housebreaking, followed by promptly putting the pup outside or on the newspaper, is not abuse in my book. Is it in yours?
Don't know about abuse but it's crappy training technique (and I say that from raising dogs for 37 years). Also, abuse is about more than simply striking them. It includes negligence as well. It means not doing what you should be doing.
No, you shouldn't be tapping them on the nose or otherwise physically striking them. If you wait around until the animal has to take a crap in the floor then YOU have failed in the training. The goal is to teach the animal to ask to go out. That means YOU have to learn the animals schedule and use it to teach them the expected behaviour. That means YOU have to follow the feeding schedule and time the animals bowl rate. It means YOU have to set the alarm clock to take the animal out (or on the paper, and sit there till IT's done not until your patience runs out) BEFORE they can't hold their bladder any longer (which is after all the true goal we're after here at least). That means it's YOUR responsibility to take them out regularly every 2-3 hours or so (and that means at nite when you'd rather be sleeping too) when they're puppies. Basically it means YOU have to get off your ass and quite asking the animal to do it for you. It means when the animal come at 4am and asks to go out you get your lazy butt out of bed and take them outside. Basically YOU need to be doing this before you ever give the puppy to the new owner (which shouldn't happen prior to 8 weeks anyway). YOU need to teach the new owner and if they show ANY hesitency then don't give them the animal, they'll only abuse it.
Dogs are genetically wired for this training. When young pups prior to eye opening use the bathroom the mother eats the crap and piss (hence pottie training a dog prior to ~8 weeks is a waste of time for all concerned). As they age she pays attention to their feeding cycle and physically takes them out of the den when she knows it's pottie time. They connect 'go outside den' with 'my bladder is uncomfortable'. When you first get your pup expect piss and shit everywhere for the first week. Take the dog out every two hours irrespective of badder/bowel movement. And don't react to the bowel/bladder movement at all with respect to 'punishing' (what a fucking power mad concept) the dog. Just clean it up. After that they'll start putting 2 and 2 together on their own. It usually take from between 3 and 6 weeks for them to figure it out and be reliable [there are exception, I have a wolf hybrid it took 6 months - wolves don't pottie train well at all. I was prepared for it to never learn. Really it doesn't care, another difference many miss. I have a domestic dog now who doesn't care for fences or gates. I have to keep her behind a 6ft fence on 3/4 in aircraft cable] and I was prepared to keep cleaning it up and to take it out every two hours irrespective. It has to do with a slightly different territory sense between wolves and domesticated dogs.).
Sticking their nose in piss, yelling at them because they couldn't hold their bladder (think of how you feel after a six hour car drive and no rest stop) or whacking them with a rolled up newspaper (I dare you to strike a wolf hybrid) ain't the way any more than sitting around on your ass drinking beer and watching TV until the animal shits in the floor and then you yell at it and drag it around pointing at newspaper (like a puppy has any clue what paper is) is the way or it's supposed to read your mind. (After all, if you're so smart how come you didn't recognize the pup was in distress in the first place?)
Now this should not be interpreted to mean that no physical contact is required. For example the best way to teach dogs not to rush the door is to pin them in it. If a dog pushes you and you don't want then push it away hard enough to put it on the ground (similar to a 'alpha roll', and if you don't know what a 'alpha roll' is or how to use it you know nothing about training dogs). If you teach them 'back up' and they don't you alpha roll them on their back.
As to demanding respect from dogs, you don't do it with your voice. You do it with your eyes (another sign of inexperience is this common mistake, even a lot of 'professionals' make it). In addition you shouldn't play 'tug of war' with it and you should NEVER let a puppy/dog get on top of a child or person, EVER!!!!!
There are some monks who raise German Shephards, they write some excellent books. Anyone raising any sort of canine should read at least one of them.
With cats the usual failure is insufficient handling in the first 4 weeks after birth (raised tradition, applehead, Siamese for nearly 20 years). If this isn't done the animal will never be settled. In the case of cats that don't receive any human contact in that first 4 weeks, they'll never be domesticated. And yelling 'NO' at a cat is a fruiteless exercise in ego. And Ferrets are a whole other ball of wax entirely. Yell at a cow or a sheep and you're just as likely to be sitting on your ass with a broken hip. Yell at or strike a horse and it'll shy from you till the day you die.
(And despite what a lot of 'trainers', really people who want to be well know in the competitive ring, might say; never keep your dog crated.)
Bottem line, if an animal fails in its behavior it rests on one set of shoulders and one set of shoulders only, the owner. It is NEVER the animals fault.
Raising a pet isn't about what you the owner want, it's about what the animal needs. It's about 'caring' not 'ownership' (which is one reason among many PETA is a bunch of fucked up assholes). And anyone who buys a pet after watching a movie, for a holiday present, or because they think it would be 'cool' needs to review this point in a serious fashion.
Anyway, good luck with your pet. Over and out.
____________________________________________________________________
Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it.
"Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
At 04:20 AM 1/21/01 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Sparring with Choate is about as useful as beating oneself with a rubber baton, just far less rewarding.
Strangely enough, I agree. I thought he went to far.
I never said animals should be trained to fear an owner or any other human; to say otherwise is simple Choatian exaggeration. But my "show of force" point is perfectly reasonable, and I stand by it.
"Show of Force" is what one nation does for benefit of others. Perhaps you might recognize the phrase "sabre rattling". "Great White Fleet"??? A religious wacko who might be taking liberties does not need a show of force, he needs an expenses paid escort to a padded room. Your "show of force" point is not reasonable, and you are a fool to stand by it.
-Declan PS: I don't have pets. I travel too much. I had a fish once.
Your loss. You should settle down and get a cat. Reese
One thing: who asked you? At 10:56 PM 1/19/01 -0600, Mac Norton wrote:
Coupla things:
a. What the hell has this got to do with John Ashcroft?
b. Doncha think that reaction's a little strong to an offhand comment?
c. Alright, three things: You've never said "NO!" to a pet?
MacN
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Heck, employers do it to employees all the time. We do it to our pets when teaching them a lesson. Why should cops be any different?
You fucking self-centerd ego-maniacal animal abuser. You NEVER have to use fear with pets. If you have to use fear it is your failing, not the pets. Do the animal a favor get rid of the pet, you're not fit for it.
I hope the next time you use fear on your pets somebody comes along and teaches you the lesson, a 2x4 up your ass seems suitable.
Do your kids a favor, don't have any.
____________________________________________________________________
Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it.
"Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Heck, employers do it to employees all the time. We do it to our pets when teaching them a lesson. Why should cops be any different?
You fucking self-centerd ego-maniacal animal abuser. You NEVER have to use fear with pets. If you have to use fear it is your failing, not the pets. Do the animal a favor get rid of the pet, you're not fit for it.
I think this is a bit overly broad. (Declan's statement was in reference to "a show of force" which is what I think you are onjecting to here. With that, I totally agree.) One should never use violence to instill fear; in fact, instilling fear in an animal is simply a bad idea. But, with higher intelligence animals such as dogs, you may find it unavoidable. I've come home to find my dog slinking around the house, avoiding eye-contact with me, and generally looking scared and guilty. (Then I discover my slippers gnawed on or the trash turned over.) I've never struck her. I rarely yell at her. She is, however, afraid of making me mad. It's all in how you want to structure your training of the animal. The positive reinforcement approach requires more patience and time initially, but the results are much better than if you use punishment. Alex
On Friday 19 January 2001 22:50, Jim Choate wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Heck, employers do it to employees all the time. We do it to our pets when teaching them a lesson. Why should cops be any different?
You fucking self-centerd ego-maniacal animal abuser. You NEVER have to use fear with pets. If you have to use fear it is your failing, not the pets. Do the animal a favor get rid of the pet, you're not fit for it.
I hope the next time you use fear on your pets somebody comes along and teaches you the lesson, a 2x4 up your ass seems suitable.
Do your kids a favor, don't have any.
damn, choate. Remember? Your pills! jim
At 11:54 PM 1/19/01 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 04:13:32PM -1000, Reese wrote:
Then why were the troops laying siege to the compound, instead of snatching koresh when he made one of his frequent trips into town?
Because sometimes a show of force is perceved as necessary.
oh geez. Why was it necessary to bring in tanks, special forces and gunships for overflights? Why, when if all they wanted was koresh, all they had to do was wait for him to go to town again, and snatch him off the street as he walked down the sidewalk? Who benefited from this "necessary" show of how forcefully Reno et al. could burn wooden buildings with people inside them? Yeah-yeah, the evidence is contested, re: who started the fires. What isn't contested is the armored vehicles poking gun muzzles through the walls. Reese
Reno probably didn't expect the situation to, um, blow up in her face. It is also undisputed that if they wanted to avoid a show of force, they could have nabbed Koresh during his jogs around the property line or whatnot in the morning. Reese, you blather too much. -Declan At 09:19 PM 1/19/01 -1000, Reese wrote:
At 11:54 PM 1/19/01 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 04:13:32PM -1000, Reese wrote:
Then why were the troops laying siege to the compound, instead of snatching koresh when he made one of his frequent trips into town?
Because sometimes a show of force is perceved as necessary.
oh geez. Why was it necessary to bring in tanks, special forces and gunships for overflights? Why, when if all they wanted was koresh, all they had to do was wait for him to go to town again, and snatch him off the street as he walked down the sidewalk?
Who benefited from this "necessary" show of how forcefully Reno et al. could burn wooden buildings with people inside them? Yeah-yeah, the evidence is contested, re: who started the fires. What isn't contested is the armored vehicles poking gun muzzles through the walls.
Reese
At 9:00 AM -0500 1/20/01, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Reno probably didn't expect the situation to, um, blow up in her face.
It is also undisputed that if they wanted to avoid a show of force, they could have nabbed Koresh during his jogs around the property line or whatnot in the morning. Reese, you blather too much.
I also believe that neither Waco nor Ruby Ridge were expected to go down as they did. Neither Reno nor Clinton gained anything from these debacles. What I fault is the general trend toward "militarizing the police," especially the trend toward using federal police instead of local sheriffs and law enforcement. In both cases, Waco and Ruby Ridge, local law enforcement was bypassed, even "kept out of the loop." This should not be acceptable in a constitutional republic consisting of states. There are also fundamental problems with the War on Some Weapons, the War on Some Drugs, and the War on Some Religions. Claims that Randy Weaver had sawed an inch or so off a shotgun, part of an entrapment by Feds who wanted his cooperation in other matters, tell us how close we are coming to being a police state (though we are not yet there in any plausible sense). Claims that David Koresh was mingling in unapproved ways with young women, or was selling weapons illegally (never proved, even after the ashes had been sifted), should have been handled locally, not by calling in federal ninjas. As for Ashcroft, we'll see. Bush won, so Bush gets to appoint his staff. The whole "review by the Senate" thing is a relic of the McCarthy era, actually, and should be done away with. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001, Tim May wrote:
As for Ashcroft, we'll see. Bush won, so Bush gets to appoint his staff. The whole "review by the Senate" thing is a relic of the McCarthy era, actually, and should be done away with.
Advice and consent of the Senate as to federal officers has been in the Constitution from the outset, and the only time an appointee to an incoming President's cabinet was rejected was John Tower, long after the McCarthy era. MacN
At 09:00 AM 1/20/01 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Reno probably didn't expect the situation to, um, blow up in her face.
It is also undisputed that if they wanted to avoid a show of force, they could have nabbed Koresh during his jogs around the property line or whatnot in the morning.
I said something to that effect, yesterday. Missed it, did'ja?
Reese, you blather too much.
Blather? As opposed to what you do? I think it's preferable. Reese
At 10:52 AM 1/20/01 -1000, Reese wrote:
It is also undisputed that if they wanted to avoid a show of force, they could have nabbed Koresh during his jogs around the property line or whatnot in the morning.
I said something to that effect, yesterday. Missed it, did'ja?
Pardon me if I don't pay terribly close attention to your deathless prose.
Reese, you blather too much.
Blather? As opposed to what you do? I think it's preferable.
But I get paid by the word for mine, generally speaking. -Declan
William Jennings McCullagh wrote:
But I get paid by the word for mine, generally speaking.
Those are speaking words did you not say a few days ago, now worth more than wired fool's nuggets. Who's your agent for priceless yarp, and what's her cut? These questions are aimed at learning how to peddle air, ragh, harrup, spittle to the left, spittle to the right, pause, sip, shuffle notes, crack a lame one, hunch your back, peer into the future, a thoughtful wrinkle, lose your train, go blank, blink, cough, grind teeth, stare at the blurred sheets, bowels rumble, pucker up, gasp what was in that curry. A panicked recall: laptop left in the loo, DeCSSed DVD XXX cropped to hit highspots. Big ID blares: this belongs to Today's Speechifier, if found dispose, do not, please, slashdot it.
At 06:53 PM 1/20/01 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Pardon me if I don't pay terribly close attention to your deathless prose.
It was in a post you replied to. If you troubled yourself enough to reply, one would think you were aware of what you were replying to.
But I get paid by the word for mine, generally speaking.
Know yourself, know your inner whore. Reese
-- On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 04:13:32PM -1000, Reese wrote:
Then why were the troops laying siege to the compound, instead of snatching koresh when he made one of his frequent trips into town?
At 11:54 PM 1/19/2001 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Because sometimes a show of force is perceved as necessary.
Heck, employers do it to employees all the time.
I cannot recall any employer ever calling security to stick guns in my face. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG iCxkx21+FVbibGkdmGLg+GOp5FnkCEqa5WWtRYLx 4gWZz2su4zhtKT0NT8JNfB8Wd7KuZUGecno53JZfh
On Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 08:32:14AM -0800, James A. Donald wrote:
-- On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 04:13:32PM -1000, Reese wrote:
Then why were the troops laying siege to the compound, instead of snatching koresh when he made one of his frequent trips into town?
At 11:54 PM 1/19/2001 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Because sometimes a show of force is perceved as necessary.
Heck, employers do it to employees all the time.
I cannot recall any employer ever calling security to stick guns in my face.
You're thinking too literally. Show of force: When an employer reminds a slacker that having a job is not a right. -Declan
At 04:22 AM 1/21/01 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 08:32:14AM -0800, James A. Donald wrote:
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 04:13:32PM -1000, Reese wrote:
Then why were the troops laying siege to the compound, instead of snatching koresh when he made one of his frequent trips into town?
Because sometimes a show of force is perceved as necessary.
Heck, employers do it to employees all the time.
I cannot recall any employer ever calling security to stick guns in my face.
You're thinking too literally. Show of force: When an employer reminds a slacker that having a job is not a right.
It wasn't a right for the what, 40,000 in flint michigan, either, was it? Reese
At 12:07 AM 1/21/01 -1000, Reese wrote:
It wasn't a right for the what, 40,000 in flint michigan, either, was it?
It's called at-will employment: You keep your employer happy, you get your job. (I'm starting to think you're not only very educated, but not very educable. I'd love for you to prove me wrong; that would likely involve refraining from mouthing off.) -Declan
At 09:47 AM 1/21/01 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
At 12:07 AM 1/21/01 -1000, Reese wrote:
It wasn't a right for the what, 40,000 in flint michigan, either, was it?
It's called at-will employment: You keep your employer happy, you get your job. (I'm starting to think you're not only very educated, but not very educable. I'd love for you to prove me wrong; that would likely involve refraining from mouthing off.)
I've encountered a number of people with education approaching, or beyond their ability to comprehend. They tend to be verbose, and nonsensical. Take your statement above, for example. I'm not only very educated, but not educable? Well, knock me over with a feather. As for what might be proved by remaining silent, fuck that. Fuck you too. Reese
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
You're thinking too literally. Show of force: When an employer reminds a slacker that having a job is not a right.
That's just shit rolling downhill. How long is a manager going to have his job if he *doesn't* fire slackers? Or how long can an employer continue to make a profit and thus remain in business if they never clear "dead-weight" employees out of the company? Reminding a slacker of this fact is merely a reality check. Now, if it were an attractive member of the appropriate sex who was refusing to have sex with the employer, *that* would be a pure show of force... Bear
-- On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 04:13:32PM -1000, Reese wrote:
Then why were the troops laying siege to the compound, instead of snatching koresh when he made one of his frequent trips into town?
At 11:54 PM 1/19/2001 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Because sometimes a show of force is perceved as necessary.
Heck, employers do it to employees all the time.
James A. Donald:
I cannot recall any employer ever calling security to stick guns in my face.
Declan McCullagh:
You're thinking too literally. Show of force: When an employer reminds a slacker that having a job is not a right.
That is not force. Should I accept that staying alive is not a right? --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG Hh0851UqR4pqR7U8SqUI15fO96OtxYw7dA3BzahK 4iHD7AKFu9kHGsyJsnoeKKJZrzdhEgcXfErZYk9H2
-- On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 04:13:32PM -1000, Reese wrote:
Then why were the troops laying siege to the compound, instead of snatching koresh when he made one of his frequent trips into town?
At 11:54 PM 1/19/2001 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Because sometimes a show of force is perceved as necessary.
Heck, employers do it to employees all the time.
I cannot recall any employer ever calling security to stick guns in my face.
We did the reverse to the CEO today. He joking claimed he was going to fire the Ops and IT departments. The four of us, comprising about 1/2 the Ops/IT staff, including one of the directors cheered. The look on his face couldn't be purchased with MasterCard. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ********************************************** "As someone who has worked both in private industry and in academia, whenever I hear about academics wanting to teach ethics to people in business, I want to puke."--Thomas Sowell.
At 01:29 PM 1/17/01 -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote:
Just heard Asskroft on the radio during the hearings affirming his support for the assault weapon ban ( and Herr Busch's support of same) and their intention to reimplement that ban when it sunsets. So much for his being against guncontrol -- he made it pretty clear that he believes the 2nd is about sporting arms, not military weapons.
Remember - Republicans aren't against Gun Control or Wiretapping, they're just against Democrats, so they've been using these things as excuses to beat up Democrats. Now that it's their turn in power, of course they're in favor of things that will make it harder to shoot people in power and easier to catch people who do... Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
I've written about Ashcroft's mixed records on tech issues: http://www.politechbot.com/cgi-bin/politech.cgi?name=ashcroft On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 07:54:00PM -0800, Anonymous wrote:
"Me" <commerce@home.com> wrote:
I'm not trying to get people into any arguments here.. I
----- Original Message ----- From: "sparky" <sparky@suba.com> thought this
might be appropriate since people here are concerned with civil rights.
Quite right, I am very concerned.
Lets examine the page:
"He has voted against affirmative action and anti-discrimination laws, against a crucial AIDS provision."
Hmmmm... "Ashcroft has been hailed as an ally by the NRA, voting against trigger locks and the assault weapons ban while supporting conceal and carry laws and gun show loopholes to regulation."
Excellent, he is clearly a firm supporter of civil liberties.
Might I second that, in this case. Gee, maybe this website should be named <http://www.supportashcroft.com/>; I was feeling kinda lukewarm about his nomination until I saw it. Thanks, sparky!
Unfortunately, I don't see any place on your web page to voice my support for his nomination?
"In 1999, Ashcroft recorded radio ads urging Missouri voters to support an NRA-sponsored ballot initiative that would have allowed almost anyone - including convicted child molesters and stalkers - to carry concealed guns in Missouri."
Maybe I should move to Missouri. I've always wanted to shoot a child molester.
participants (17)
-
Alex B. Shepardsen -
Anonymous -
Bill Stewart -
Declan McCullagh -
Greg Broiles -
Harmon Seaver -
James A. Donald -
Jim Burnes -
Jim Choate -
John Young -
Mac Norton -
Me -
petro -
Ray Dillinger -
Reese -
sparky -
Tim May