Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rarebird who wrote (1504)	10/7/2000 2:31:13 PM
From: canuck-l-head	Respond to of 10042

Rarebird: With all due respect: 6.12.00 Australian Gun Control Update It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the government more than $500 million dollars. Here are Australian Senator Richardson's claims. Australian-wide: Homicides are up 3.2 percent Australian-wide: Assaults are up 8.6 percent Australian-wide: Armed robberies are up a whopping 44 percent In the state of Victoria Homicides with firearms are up 300 percent Figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms (but increased drastically in the past 12 months) There has been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly. Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been served after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns". canuck-l-head

To: Rarebird who wrote (1504)	10/8/2000 11:30:59 AM
From: long-gone	Respond to of 10042

<<And how many innocent people are killed by those who can buy a gun with no questions asked at their local candy store or gun thrift shop? >> We will never know how many were "innocent" until the gun control lobby stops skewing the data by defining children killed as everyone under 25 killed with a firearm even if they were the bad guys killed breaking into homes. The lies used by your side to win at any cost do nothing to really help or protect the American people.

To: Rarebird who wrote (1504)	11/18/2000 11:24:47 AM
From: long-gone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

Does the end always justify the means? If Al does win, how long until the Stalin style purges begin? Missing Voting Mechanism Recovered Police Say Florida Democrat Had a ‘Votomatic’ in His Car Florida State Rep. Irving Slosberg, a Democrat, holds a copy of the disputed Palm Beach County ballot at a rally in front of the county's elections office, on Nov. 9. (Gary I. Rothstein/AP Photo) By Chris Vlasto and David Ruppe Nov. 15 — Several days after presidential votes were tallied in what has become the hotbed of Florida’s post-election confusion, police in Palm Beach County confiscated a ballot-box mechanism from the car of a well-known local Democrat. The mechanism, called a “Votomatic,” did not contain any ballots. It’s a device used on some types of ballot boxes to punch votes through ballot cards, which are then tallied by computers. According to a police report filed at the Palm Beach County sheriff’s office and obtained by ABCNEWS, Irving Slosberg, 53, pulled the mechanism from his car and handed it over to police on Nov. 11 after denying to a county government employee that he had it. When told of the incident, Palm Beach County’s supervisor of elections, Theresa LePore, declined to press charges, according to the report. “She noted that this incident did occur during the hand count of the presidential election and LePore stated she did not wish to pursue further this matter at this time due to extenuating circumstances,” it said. No further action was taken. (cont) abcnews.go.com

To: Rarebird who wrote (1504)	7/24/2001 3:20:00 PM
From: long-gone	Respond to of 10042

Global Gun Controllers Surrender to U.S Lawrence Auster July 24, 2001 U.S. delegate describes dramatic final hours of closed-door conference "This is not the end. This is the opening skirmish of a war." Thus spoke former U.S. Congressman Charles Pashayan after the conclusion of a grueling two-week-long anti-gun conference in which America held out for its basic gun rights against the entire world — and won. At issue were two paragraphs in the non-binding Program of Action that the United States team had said it would under no circumstances approve. The first of these was the "non-state actors" clause, by which the U.N. member nations would agree "to supply small arms and light weapons only to governments, or to entities duly authorized by governments." The Americans argued that this provision would stop the U.S. from giving military assistance to freedom fighters, to people resisting genocide, or even to a long-time ally such as Taiwan which is not formally recognized as a state. America's other "redline" on which it said no compromise would be accepted was an agreement "to seriously consider legal restrictions on unrestricted trade in and ownership of small arms and light weapons." The Americans viewed this language as a direct attack on the civilian possession of firearms, particularly in light of the fact that many member states have openly stated their desire to turn the non-binding agreement into a legal treaty. The final spurt of negotiations went on until late last Thursday night, then continued all day Friday and all through Friday night, with the delegates meeting in and around Conference Room 4 of the General Assembly building. According to Pashayan, who served as an at-large U.S. delegate, the showdown came in the early hours of Saturday morning, when Canada proposed a watered-down version of the non-state actors clause, "and our delegation did the wise thing in rejecting that." Looking for common ground However, the U.S. was not exactly as isolated as it seemed at this conference. As a European source told NewsMax: "A lot of countries, with which the U.S. would otherwise prefer not to be associated on this issue, are hiding behind the U.S. position on non-state actors. Some Arab countries, as well as the Chinese and Russians, want to continue to sell arms to non-state actors. But since the U.S. took the 'con' position on this clause, those countries haven't had to say anything." African countries in particular insisted on the non-state actors provision because, as a Jamaican delegate told NewsMax, "They are suffering the most from illicit arms." Some observers on the U.S. side suggested a more cynical motive, however: that many of the African governments are dictatorships that don't want anyone else to be in a position to challenge their power. In any case, it cannot be denied that the world's most horrific violence in recent years has occurred in Africa . Asked what sort of compromise was conceivable given the stark differences on the redlined paragraphs, a Slovenian delegate told NewsMax: "They're using lawyer's language that I can't understand." "You mean they're concocting subtle phrases that each side might interpret as it wishes?" "Yes." As the talks ground on through Friday, there were several abortive efforts to find or invent such a non-existent middle ground. In mid-afternoon the anti-gun forces offered a substitute for the civilian ownership clause from which the word "ownership" had been removed. The U.S. rejected this and said that the entire paragraph must be deleted. The conference's president, Camilo Reyes of Colombia, then proposed moving the non-state actors clause into the document's preamble where it would have less force. The Americans opposed this, too. As each effort to find a compromise failed, Reyes would direct the delegates to less troublesome side issues that still needed to be resolved, such as language relating to "national self-determination" which was a sore point between Israel and the Arabs. The U.S. also made one significant concession, agreeing to future conferences to continue the work begun at this conference. Nevertheless, by 4 o'clock Saturday morning the core controversies could be evaded no longer. Several nations made impassioned pleas to the U.S. to accept the two offending paragraphs. Once again, as Pashayan described it, the U.S. stated politely but firmly that it could not yield on these issues, that it had said from the beginning that it would not yield on them. Canada then introduced compromise language to the effect that a nation "has to bear special responsibility when it would send arms to non-state actors." At this point, Pashayan said, the room "fell into a stunned silence because the delegates realized that Canada was pushing the U.S. to the brink. They knew that for the U.S. to say ‘No’ to such watered-down language would make the U.S. really look bad." Canada made it even harder for the U.S. to refuse its offer when it said that it would consent to the deletion of the civilian ownership clause if the U.S. would accept the new language on non-state actors. The U.S. still said no. President Reyes then lambasted the U.S. as the only country that was being obdurate. A break in the meeting was called. During the break some members of the U.S. delegation said the U.S. should hold firm, others said the U.S. should accede to Canada's compromise. The first group replied that although the language was watered down there was some ambiguity in it that could hamper any U.S. President in the future. Pashayan then suggested that the U.S. delegation not do anything for the moment and see what happened next. "I sensed that this body wanted to create a document and the omission of these two things would not kill the document. The U.K. and Canada and Brazil and even Africa were not about to walk out of this conference." When the conference reconvened a few minutes later, it became apparent that a crucial change had occurred on the anti-gun side. The African countries that had been the strongest advocates of the non-state actors clause—including Mozambique, Sierra Leone and South Africa—announced that they would yield to America's demand to delete the paragraph. With this dramatic declaration, Western countries that had been particularly hard core against the U.S. position, including Canada and Great Britain as well as the European Union, said that they would follow the Africans' lead, based on the idea that the African countries were the ones most affected by the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons. In a gracious statement to the Africans, chief U.S. delegate Donald M. McConnell recognized that Africa was not abandoning its principle against trading weapons to non-state actors, but added that the U.S. had its principles too and hoped that Africans would respect them even though they didn't agree with them. After a few hours sleep, the delegates returned to the conference hall to ratify the Program of Action. President Reyes asked if there were any remaining objections. After a few moments of silence had elapsed, he declared that the document was passed by consensus. There then followed a long series of speeches in which delegates congratulated President Reyes and expressed their sorrow that the document had not been much more far-reaching than it was. Charles Pashayan told NewsMax: "It was magnificent to see the U.S. stand up against these forces and not buckle under to what was international political pressure, which was very formidable notwithstanding the fact that the U.S. is the big boy on the block." As for NewsMax's early warnings that the State Department officials on the U.S. delegation might go for a compromise, Pashayan commented: "The people from the State department would have been more inclined to compromise to produce an agreement, that's their business. But they were prepared to follow the directions coming from above to stick with the "redlines" and not go along with watered down language." However, he added, there will be continuing pressure to elevate this Program of Action into a treaty, and also to bring back the issues of private ownership and non-state actors. "All of this has to be understood as part of a process leading ultimately to a treaty that will give an international body power over our domestic laws. That is why we must make sure there is nothing express or implied that would give even the appearance of infringing on our Bill of Rights, which includes the Second Amendment." Lawrence Auster can be reached at lawrence.auster@att.net. newsmax.com

To: Rarebird who wrote (1504)	11/15/2001 1:59:58 PM
From: long-gone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

perhaps you'll like this rarebird: OPEN A SECOND FRONT NOW: STORM THE IVORY TOWERS! By: Rich Smith Despite the rout of Taliban forces in Afghanistan, victory in the war against terrorism can only be achieved by quickly opening up a second front. No, I don t mean an invasion of Iraq or Indonesia or any of a dozen other international safe-havens for bloodthirsty murderers. The second front I m referring to is here on American soil - namely, our college campuses. This is where the minds of helpless, innocent youth are daily butchered by the professor-iate, the shock troops of the Left. This is where the next generation is ruinously indoctrinated in pinko-think. This is where, through speech codes and the systematic elimination of conservative points of view, repression on par with that found in Afghanistan under the Taliban is the order of the day. What s urgently needed in order to stop the terror is an all-out assault on the higher education system, a siege laid against the hallowed halls of learning. However, in storming the universities, it would be a fatal mistake to rely on untrained and ill-equipped 18-, 19-, 20- and 21-year-old conservative students to do the fighting. Those kids are no match for hardened, battle-tested America-haters protected within fortified ivory towers. The better way to vanquish this truculent foe is to send in an army of vast-right-wing-conspiratorial parents and grandparents. They understand the enemy and know how to defeat it. Indeed, many of them once were that enemy. Thus it is that I call upon every able-minded older adult who treasures God, country and Judeo-Christian civilization to enroll in the nearest community college, state-run university or private, elite school and sign up for liberal-arts classes such as women s studies, sociology, English, history and others taught by 60s retread peaceniks or just plain crackpot commies. Once seated in those classrooms, you mature, thick-skinned, can t-be-buffaloed, can t-be-stampeded, B.S.-impervious grown-ups will be in position to arise and smite every bit of pro-Marxist agitprop uttered in the guise of instruction by the professors. Think of how many young, impressionable intellects will be set free by having their intractable conservative elders as comrades in arms inside those education killing-fields. Imagine the resultant moral uplift those kids will experience by observing right-minded Boomers and Jitterbuggers frontally challenging academia s sick orthodoxies with irresistible countervailing opinions and dissenting positions. Happily, the task of quelling the campus Left may be easier than we know. I suspect that at least some rank-and-file professors have no stomach for a fight when their perverse teachings are assailed in a confident, competent manner. I base this supposition on an incident a few weeks ago that involved my daughter. Jennifer, who attends the local college, was given an English-comp assignment to produce an essay on the person who most influenced her life. Naturally, she chose to write about me. Jennifer s gentle essay heaped much praise on Daddy Dearest for my role in making her the contented person that she is. This did not sit well with Jennifer s English prof - a woman in her 50s, a self-avowed hippy feminist, with a love for all things "Native American" and New Age - to whose upside-down sensibilities the essay came across as the rant of a mentally ill girl clearly oppressed and victimized by the patriarchal hegemony. Grade: "non-pass." The paper wasn t poorly written, mind you. We know this because the professor found little to fault in the way of grammar, vocabulary, structure and style. But there was, scribbled in the margins, a warning to Jennifer that she had best figure out fast "what the teacher wants" and "get with the program, or you ll sink your own boat." Jennifer took this to mean don t write so effusively about a man, any man, a father in particular (the same day Jennifer received back her paper, the professor scolded the class about the need to always use gender-neutral, inclusive and non-hurtful words like "chair" in place of "chairman" and "womyn" rather than "woman" - or else). The professor offered Jennifer a chance to make amends: rewrite the essay, make it politically correct, and all will be forgiven. Fearing for her ability to pass this class if she declined the invitation, Jennifer prepared to alter the piece accordingly and mollify the professor. That s where I stepped in. I counseled Jennifer to revise the piece, all right - only this time cast it in even more pro-male terms than before and turn it into a broadside against feminism, leftist professors and those who generally loathe freedom. Jennifer had that same look as a deer caught in a car s headlights. But I managed somehow to convince her it was nobler to stand and fight for traditional values than kowtow to villainous totalitarians like her professor. So, with my insightful guidance, Jennifer proceeded to craft an essay that amounted to one of the coldest slaps of conservative reality ever served up in any lecture hall on this campus. We figured, of course, that Jennifer would be expelled for her in-your-face act of insubordination against the socialist order. Imagine our surprise when the most the professor could manage in retaliation was a few hand-drawn smiley faces on the paper, as if to say "Make Love, Not War." New grade: "pass." For your enjoyment, here are excerpts from the revised essay that so effortlessly caused the raising of the white flag in this one professor s office: "What a guy my dad is. You d like him. He loves to rebel against rigid social and intellectual structures. "...And he s really good at cutting pompous people s pretensions to shreds. For example, if a teacher said to him, Mr. Smith, you must follow the roadmap I have laid out for you, and no deviation will be tolerated, my dad would reply, I was wondering if you could tell the class how many jobs you ve personally created in the last five years by following that roadmap? "...My father showed me how to be self-assured. For example, could I write defiantly like this if I wasn t self-assured? Could I treat the English language like the strong, masculine, testosterone-filled thing that it is instead of the wimpy, neutered, bottle of Prozac the pointy heads in the ivory towers are trying to turn it into? "My father would tell me, Jennifer, the English language is proud and manly. When you use it, think of yourself as Zorro in a sword fight. Use it to carve a big letter J in the shirt of anyone with a pointy head. "Truly, I owe everything to my father. I could never repay him enough for the years of self-sacrifice he invested in me...he saw it as his responsibility as my father to pass along to me, his child, all of the good things about himself that his own father passed to him. The message hasn t changed through the generations. It s still the same. Down with the establishment." Sorry I haven t time to share more of what Jennifer wrote. Gotta hurry over to the enrollment office to sign up for this same class so I can do a little shirt-carving myself.