Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #521822 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-18 10:50 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-09-23 05:47 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 138 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-18 10:50 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 14:53 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 15:33 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-18 20:03 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 18:03 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> - 2015-09-18 17:13 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 04:06 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 23:04 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-19 04:48 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 04:08 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-19 13:22 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-19 13:43 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-19 13:54 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> - 2015-09-19 15:51 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-21 20:54 +0200
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-21 14:03 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-21 14:45 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-22 05:43 +0200
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-21 22:16 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-22 01:29 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> - 2015-09-19 09:35 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-19 18:12 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 13:22 -0500
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-19 18:42 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 13:58 -0500
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-19 20:13 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> - 2015-09-19 12:54 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 16:30 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> - 2015-09-19 13:22 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-19 22:23 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> - 2015-09-19 17:10 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-20 01:15 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-19 22:33 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-20 03:09 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 00:45 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> - 2015-09-19 20:17 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-20 05:35 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2015-09-20 00:20 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-20 01:20 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2015-09-20 15:28 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-20 17:22 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2015-09-20 18:18 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> - 2015-09-20 11:31 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-20 18:50 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-20 19:06 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2015-09-20 20:49 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-20 18:46 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2015-09-20 20:53 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-20 21:31 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 19:08 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-20 23:17 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2015-09-20 23:36 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2015-09-20 23:34 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-21 00:00 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2015-09-21 00:06 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-21 02:16 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2015-09-21 02:42 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-21 04:57 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2015-09-21 05:23 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-21 06:13 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2015-09-21 13:18 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-21 14:21 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 18:24 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics csampson@inetworld.net (Charles H. Sampson) - 2015-09-19 00:46 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 04:09 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics csampson@inetworld.net (Charles H. Sampson) - 2015-09-19 11:57 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 16:23 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 17:43 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Rhino <no_offline_contact_please@example.com> - 2015-09-19 18:00 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 18:59 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Rhino <no_offline_contact_please@example.com> - 2015-09-20 15:11 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-20 15:24 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 18:44 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-20 18:40 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 19:18 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 15:54 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Rhino <no_offline_contact_please@example.com> - 2015-09-20 17:17 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 19:05 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-09-20 20:30 -0600
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> - 2015-09-20 16:03 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Rhino <no_offline_contact_please@example.com> - 2015-09-20 17:22 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 18:51 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-29 03:20 +0200
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 00:29 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-19 23:17 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> - 2015-09-19 23:19 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-19 23:57 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-20 00:01 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-20 00:06 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> - 2015-09-20 08:24 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> - 2015-09-20 08:29 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 12:04 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> - 2015-09-20 16:00 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 07:42 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> - 2015-09-20 15:57 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 18:48 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-20 23:27 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-20 23:33 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 17:25 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-09-20 10:52 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> - 2015-09-20 08:30 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> - 2015-09-19 09:33 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics csampson@inetworld.net (Charles H. Sampson) - 2015-09-19 11:57 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> - 2015-09-19 13:07 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-19 16:13 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 16:21 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> - 2015-09-19 13:33 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 20:17 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> - 2015-09-19 17:28 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 00:54 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> - 2015-09-19 22:32 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Mike M <mike@xenocyte.com> - 2015-09-20 06:01 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-20 11:47 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics BTR1701 <address_is@invalid.invalid> - 2015-09-20 15:51 -0500
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> - 2015-09-20 16:55 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2015-09-20 23:56 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-20 23:35 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 03:31 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-19 23:09 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-19 20:34 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-21 06:26 +0200
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-23 07:15 +0200
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics csampson@inetworld.net (Charles H. Sampson) - 2015-09-21 01:22 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Rhino <no_offline_contact_please@example.com> - 2015-09-19 17:51 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-18 12:59 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-09-18 13:10 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> - 2015-09-18 17:14 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-18 22:41 +0200
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-18 23:03 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-21 05:54 +0200
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-21 01:06 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-21 07:42 +0200
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-21 02:02 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-21 20:32 +0200
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-21 16:49 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-22 06:02 +0200
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Persecute Global Warming Skeptics Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> - 2015-09-22 19:48 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-23 05:47 +0200
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-21 13:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mtp03g$1g9$6@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #522461 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <t4l0dc-5jh.ln1@mail.specsol.com>,
>>>>>>>>>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > In article <p26vcc-boc.ln1@mail.specsol.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Not quite, for instead of some convoluted interpretation
>>>>>>>>>of the RICO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> act, the charge would be something along the lines of
>>>>>conspiracy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> to deprive constitutional rights.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > By doing nothing more than saying stuff that's unpopular.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > The Court would have to overturn almost 200+ years of 1st
>>>>>>>>>Amendment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > jurisprudence to uphold the notion that the state can
>>>>>>>validly hold
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > people criminally liable for deprivation of civil rights
>>>>>>>>>merely for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > saying "bad" stuff.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That would highly depend on exactly who said what and
>to whom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true.
>>>>>>>>>This is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ordinary course in a free society. The response to the
>>>>>>>>>>>unreasoned is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rational; to the uninformed, the enlightened; to the
>>>>>>>>>straight-out lie,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simple truth. See Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357,
>>>>>>>377 (1927)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Brandeis, J., concurring) ("If there be time to
>expose through
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the
>>>evil by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more
>>>>>>>speech, not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enforced silence").
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The theory of our Constitution is "that the best test of
>>>>>>>truth is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> power of the thought to get itself accepted in the
>>>>>>>competition of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> market," Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S. 616, 630 (1919)
>>>>>>>>>>>(Holmes, J.,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dissenting).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The 1st Amendment itself ensures the right to respond to
>>>>>>>speech we do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not like, and for good reason. Freedom of speech and thought
>>>>>>>>>flows not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the beneficence of the state but from the inalienable
>>>>>>>>>>>rights of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person. And suppression of speech by the government can make
>>>>>>>>>>>exposure of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> falsity more difficult, not less so. Society has the right
>>>>>>>and civic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> duty to engage in open, dynamic, rational discourse. These
>>>>>>>>>ends are not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well served when the government seeks to orchestrate public
>>>>>>>>>discussion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through content-based mandates.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> U.S. vs. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. at 2550
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "How can you develop a reputation as a straight shooter if
>>>>>>>>>lying is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an option? Even if untruthful speech were not valuable for its
>>>>>>>>>>>own sake,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its protection is clearly required to give breathing room to
>>>>>>>truthful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-expression, which is unequivocally protected by
>the First
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Amendment."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> United States v. Alvarez, 638 F.3d 666, 675 (9th Cir. 2011)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The person doing the tipping in an insider trading case
>>>who does no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>trading can be prosecuted even though the tipster has
>done nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>but speak.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Under United States Code Title 18, Section 871 a person can be
>>>>>>>>>prosecuted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>for nothing more than speech.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You made me look it up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not just any speech; it has to be mailed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 18 U.S.C. Sec. 871
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Threats against President and successors to the Presidency
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in
>>>>>>>>>the mail or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier
>>>>>>>any letter,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any
>>>>>>>>>threat to take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the
>>>President
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice
>>>>>President or other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> officer next in the order of succession to the office of
>>>>>>>>>President of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and
>>>>>willfully
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise makes any such threat against the President,
>>>>>>>President-elect,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vice President or other officer next in the order of
>>>>>succession to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined
>>>>>>>under this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nope; "or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hate statutory construction. You sure that's not meant to
>>>>>broaden out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what was being threatened, instead of relating to mailing?
>>>If that was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meant to be any threat, what the hell is the point of addressing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the issue of mailing it in the first place?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>As people HAVE been convicted for what they said, but not
>mailed, yes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>As to why it was worded that way, likely because when it was enacted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>in 1917 mail was a common form of communications.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You're missing my point: If it's a criminal threat in ANY method of
>>>>>>>>>>>> communication, then there's no purpose in mentioning the mails
>>>>>at all. The
>>>>>>>>>>>> statute would attempt to make the letter illegal before it's
>>>mailed the
>>>>>>>>>>>> moment ink is on paper.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>You're missing my point: How that hell would anyone know what
>>>the thinking
>>>>>>>>>>>was behind the wording 98 years later other than making a guess?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Try reading the words for comprehension, like anything else.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Bullshit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>If it were that simple there would be no court cases attempting to
>>>>>>>>>determine the intent of the original authors, and there have been
>>>>>>>>>a LOT of those.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>An excellent example is the amount of effort in determining the intent
>>>>>>>>>of the framers in "A well regulated Militia".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The words "well regulated" and militia had far different meanings 230
>>>>>>>>>years ago.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, they didn't. It's merely an old-fashioned term. It had a legal
>>>meaning,
>>>>>>>> and quite a bit of discussion from Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 29
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If it was cut and dry why any discussion at all?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The meaning of "well-regulated militia" wasn't the controversial part of
>>>>>> the amendment. The legal controversy was whether "the right to bear arms"
>>>>>> had to be read together with "well-regulated militia". It really was a
>>>>>> case of poorly executed legal drafting, sorry, Mr. Madison.
>>>>>
>>>>>So thus we have come full circle, through a long and arduous path, to
>>>>>intent of the author.
>>>>>
>>>>>Q.E.D.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sorry, but the intent of the author doesn't mean shit. Clearly,
>>>> Scalia ignored it, paid attention to what he could make of the
>>>> language instead in the Heller decision.
>>>
>>>And what does all this have to do with my original statement that
>>>courts having to determine the intent of the author is not a rare
>>>thing?
>>
>> It means EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. The "well-regulated militia" phrase
>> refers to the militia clauses in the main body of the Constitution; that's
>> not controversial either. Madison's intent was to link the right of the
>> people to keep and bear arms to the formation of the militia, without
>> addressing the keeping and bearing of arms for any other purpose.
>>
>> But that ain't what he wrote, is it. It's critical to convey meaning
>> when drafting legislation; the Second Amendment was a failure due to
>> its ambiguity. Thanks to Scalia's opinion in Heller, it's no longer ambiguous.
>
>Your fixation on the 2nd Amendment and it's interpretation has already
>been noted.
You brought it up, dude.
>>>Take carefull note that in this I said "courts", NOT Supreme Court
>>>nor did I offer a particular case involing the 2nd Amendment as
>>>anything other than one fairly well known example and NOT an exhaustive
>>>list of such cases.
>>It doesn't matter if it's at trial court or appellate court level. The
>>judge says what the law is. Legislative intent can come up at trial.
>Good.
>I'm glad you agree with me.
I don't. You talk at cross purposes and you don't make your point, you
raise a term from the Second Amendment then deny you were using it as
an example. If you believe I agreed with you, then it was with a valid,
pursuassive argument that you didn't actually make on Usenet.
>>In fact, both sides are usually required to make all arguments at trial
>>in order to have something to appeal if the trial judge rules against their
>>side. Senate and House committees often include guidance to courts that
>>they call "legislative intent", written at the direction of the committee
>>chairman and not necessarily the opinion of the member of Congress or
>>Senator that actually drafted the language. It's not precedent and
>>it can certainly be ignored. Sometimes it discusses aspects of the law
>>that never made it into the actual bill.
>>They're legislators. If they wanted the law interpreted in a specific
>>manner, it had to be drafted in the legislation itself; opinions that
>>"Apply provision A in these circumstances but not in the following
>>circumstances" stated as legislative intent don't actually guide courts.
>>I have no idea when Congress started issuing "intent" to guide courts;
>>I suppose in the 1930s. My state legislature doesn't do anything like that.
>>The more traditional way of determining legislative intent is to read
>>arguments in support and oppose made on the floor and possibly in committee.
>>You may have to look for debate on the provision from a previous session,
>>given how common it is that provisions from bills that died get
>>reintroduced in identical language in subsequent sessions.
>Your fixation on Federal law is noted.
You brought it up, dude. At this point, you're just trolling.
>>>I'm sure with a bit of digging I can find a case where the intent of
>>>the author was subject to interpretation in a traffic case.
>That you ramble on and on about Federal law and totally ignore the
>last sentence is noted.
Uh, you DIDN'T make a point and you DIDN'T find an example of any point
you claimed you might make. What point that you failed to make, what was
it that you didn't write did you wish me to comment on?
I'm out.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-21 14:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mtp3pb$8b0$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #522461 |
jimp wrote: > That you ramble on and on about Federal law and totally ignore the last > sentence is noted. 13 KB quote of nothing. You must be crazy, my dear friend. Stop doing it, per favour.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-18 18:24 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mti2qh$bng$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #521858 |
On 2015-09-18 20:03:13 +0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com said: > In sci.physics FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 2015-09-18 18:53:35 +0000, benj <nobody@gmail.com> said: >> >>> You said it Starmaker. Hey censorship of political speech as well as >>> political prisoners is the traditional way of all Banana Republics, of >>> which we have obviously become one. As I understand it, the favored >>> method is dropping deniers out Helicopters >> >> You DO realize that being ASKED to do something isn't the same as >> actually DOING it, right? > > You DO realize that being ASKED to stifle free speech is abominable, right? Yeah, I do. More than that, it's unconstitutional. i realize it, and so does the White House... that's the point. -- "Two people can see the same thing, disagree, and yet both be right. It's not logical; it's psychological." - Stephen R. Covey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | csampson@inetworld.net (Charles H. Sampson) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-19 00:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1maz02q.bglsl6byw589N%csampson@inetworld.net> |
| In reply to | #521850 |
FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2015-09-18 18:53:35 +0000, benj <nobody@gmail.com> said: > > > You said it Starmaker. Hey censorship of political speech as well as > > political prisoners is the traditional way of all Banana Republics, of > > which we have obviously become one. As I understand it, the favored > > method is dropping deniers out Helicopters > > You DO realize that being ASKED to do something isn't the same as > actually DOING it, right? Has anybody actually looked at the two-page petition (one-page plus signatures) cited by the OP? It doesn't ask Obama to prosecute anybody. It is a petition in support of an action proposed by a Senator: to conduct a RICO investigation of groups denying climate change to see if they are obfuscating established science for their profit and to the detriment of people in general. as the tobacco companies did. If the investigation concludes that that's what they're doing, prosecution can follow. I have no idea how Starmaker came up with the hodge-podge of newsgroups for this thread. Since that's where the discussion seems to be taking place, I've left them unchanged. Charlie -- Nobody in this country got rich on his own. You built a factory--good. But you moved your goods on roads we all paid for. You hired workers we all paid to educate. So keep a big hunk of the money from your factory. But take a hunk and pay it forward. Elizabeth Warren (paraphrased)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-19 04:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3066e260dc94457c989b42@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #521953 |
In article <1maz02q.bglsl6byw589N%csampson@inetworld.net>, csampson@inetworld.net says... > > FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 2015-09-18 18:53:35 +0000, benj <nobody@gmail.com> said: > > > > > You said it Starmaker. Hey censorship of political speech as well as > > > political prisoners is the traditional way of all Banana Republics, of > > > which we have obviously become one. As I understand it, the favored > > > method is dropping deniers out Helicopters > > > > You DO realize that being ASKED to do something isn't the same as > > actually DOING it, right? > > Has anybody actually looked at the two-page petition (one-page plus > signatures) cited by the OP? It doesn't ask Obama to prosecute anybody. > It is a petition in support of an action proposed by a Senator: to > conduct a RICO investigation of groups denying climate change to see if > they are obfuscating established science for their profit and to the > detriment of people in general. as the tobacco companies did. If the > investigation concludes that that's what they're doing, prosecution can > follow. > > I have no idea how Starmaker came up with the hodge-podge of newsgroups > for this thread. Since that's where the discussion seems to be taking > place, I've left them unchanged. > > Charlie If there's no intent to prosecute then why investigate? RICO is a witch-hunting tool. Once the investigation starts they're going to find a witch whether there is one or not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | csampson@inetworld.net (Charles H. Sampson) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-19 11:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1mazvbx.9pua2ougtjk2N%csampson@inetworld.net> |
| In reply to | #521956 |
J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > In article <1maz02q.bglsl6byw589N%csampson@inetworld.net>, > csampson@inetworld.net says... > > > > FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 2015-09-18 18:53:35 +0000, benj <nobody@gmail.com> said: > > > > > > > You said it Starmaker. Hey censorship of political speech as well as > > > > political prisoners is the traditional way of all Banana Republics, of > > > > which we have obviously become one. As I understand it, the favored > > > > method is dropping deniers out Helicopters > > > > > > You DO realize that being ASKED to do something isn't the same as > > > actually DOING it, right? > > > > Has anybody actually looked at the two-page petition (one-page plus > > signatures) cited by the OP? It doesn't ask Obama to prosecute anybody. > > It is a petition in support of an action proposed by a Senator: to > > conduct a RICO investigation of groups denying climate change to see if > > they are obfuscating established science for their profit and to the > > detriment of people in general. as the tobacco companies did. If the > > investigation concludes that that's what they're doing, prosecution can > > follow. > > > > ... > > If there's no intent to prosecute then why investigate? They obviously intend to prosecute if the investigation turns up useful evidence of wrongdoing. Otherwise, as you say, why prosecute? > RICO is a witch-hunting tool. Once the investigation starts they're > going to find a witch whether there is one or not. A pretty cynical assessment. RICO was enacted as a tool against organized crime. It was subsequently discovered that it could be used in other areas. Such uses have withstood the test of time. Charlie -- Nobody in this country got rich on his own. You built a factory--good. But you moved your goods on roads we all paid for. You hired workers we all paid to educate. So keep a big hunk of the money from your factory. But take a hunk and pay it forward. Elizabeth Warren (paraphrased)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-19 16:23 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <qvjLx.16451$sa4.10466@fx09.iad> |
| In reply to | #522069 |
On 09/19/2015 02:57 PM, Charles H. Sampson wrote:
> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <1maz02q.bglsl6byw589N%csampson@inetworld.net>,
>> csampson@inetworld.net says...
>>>
>>> FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2015-09-18 18:53:35 +0000, benj <nobody@gmail.com> said:
>>>>
>>>>> You said it Starmaker. Hey censorship of political speech as well as
>>>>> political prisoners is the traditional way of all Banana Republics, of
>>>>> which we have obviously become one. As I understand it, the favored
>>>>> method is dropping deniers out Helicopters
>>>>
>>>> You DO realize that being ASKED to do something isn't the same as
>>>> actually DOING it, right?
>>>
>>> Has anybody actually looked at the two-page petition (one-page plus
>>> signatures) cited by the OP? It doesn't ask Obama to prosecute anybody.
>>> It is a petition in support of an action proposed by a Senator: to
>>> conduct a RICO investigation of groups denying climate change to see if
>>> they are obfuscating established science for their profit and to the
>>> detriment of people in general. as the tobacco companies did. If the
>>> investigation concludes that that's what they're doing, prosecution can
>>> follow.
>>>
>>> ...
>>
>> If there's no intent to prosecute then why investigate?
>
> They obviously intend to prosecute if the investigation turns up useful
> evidence of wrongdoing. Otherwise, as you say, why prosecute?
>
>> RICO is a witch-hunting tool. Once the investigation starts they're
>> going to find a witch whether there is one or not.
>
> A pretty cynical assessment. RICO was enacted as a tool against
> organized crime. It was subsequently discovered that it could be used in
> other areas. Such uses have withstood the test of time.
>
> Charlie
Cynical? What I call cynical is your assessment that using a law passed
to fight organized crime to attack corporations selling a legal
federally regulated product like tobacco or guns to further some leftist
Lib agenda isn't a witch-hunt and abuse of power. The fact that you
commies have managed to "get away" with your "we know what is best for
you" agenda in no way changes how dishonest it is.
Lefties Love Tyranny.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-19 17:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3067a115e0d60fe7989b4b@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #522087 |
In article <qvjLx.16451$sa4.10466@fx09.iad>, none@gmail.com says... > > On 09/19/2015 02:57 PM, Charles H. Sampson wrote: > > J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> In article <1maz02q.bglsl6byw589N%csampson@inetworld.net>, > >> csampson@inetworld.net says... > >>> > >>> FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 2015-09-18 18:53:35 +0000, benj <nobody@gmail.com> said: > >>>> > >>>>> You said it Starmaker. Hey censorship of political speech as well as > >>>>> political prisoners is the traditional way of all Banana Republics, of > >>>>> which we have obviously become one. As I understand it, the favored > >>>>> method is dropping deniers out Helicopters > >>>> > >>>> You DO realize that being ASKED to do something isn't the same as > >>>> actually DOING it, right? > >>> > >>> Has anybody actually looked at the two-page petition (one-page plus > >>> signatures) cited by the OP? It doesn't ask Obama to prosecute anybody. > >>> It is a petition in support of an action proposed by a Senator: to > >>> conduct a RICO investigation of groups denying climate change to see if > >>> they are obfuscating established science for their profit and to the > >>> detriment of people in general. as the tobacco companies did. If the > >>> investigation concludes that that's what they're doing, prosecution can > >>> follow. > >>> > >>> ... > >> > >> If there's no intent to prosecute then why investigate? > > > > They obviously intend to prosecute if the investigation turns up useful > > evidence of wrongdoing. Otherwise, as you say, why prosecute? > > > >> RICO is a witch-hunting tool. Once the investigation starts they're > >> going to find a witch whether there is one or not. > > > > A pretty cynical assessment. RICO was enacted as a tool against > > organized crime. It was subsequently discovered that it could be used in > > other areas. Such uses have withstood the test of time. > > > > Charlie > > Cynical? What I call cynical is your assessment that using a law passed > to fight organized crime to attack corporations selling a legal > federally regulated product like tobacco or guns to further some leftist > Lib agenda isn't a witch-hunt and abuse of power. The fact that you > commies have managed to "get away" with your "we know what is best for > you" agenda in no way changes how dishonest it is. You know that calling them "commies" is an insult to commies don't you? Talk to some people who grew up under Communism (half the people I work with did) and you'll find that oppressive as it was, it didn't have the kind of individualized micromanagment that the US seems to be bent on implementing (they micromanaged themselves to destruction, but it was micromanagement on a grand scale, not the "mow your lawn or we'll throw you in jail" kind that is becoming popular in the US). We think we're "better" than they were because we don't shoot dissidents (we apparently reserve that for unarmed teenagers). But we have a higher percentage of our population locked up than the Soviets or the Chinese ever managed and nobody seems to see anything wrong with that except the people who are locked up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rhino <no_offline_contact_please@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-19 18:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mtklqb$ucr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #522102 |
On 2015-09-19 5:43 PM, J. Clarke wrote: > In article <qvjLx.16451$sa4.10466@fx09.iad>, none@gmail.com says... >> >> On 09/19/2015 02:57 PM, Charles H. Sampson wrote: >>> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> In article <1maz02q.bglsl6byw589N%csampson@inetworld.net>, >>>> csampson@inetworld.net says... >>>>> >>>>> FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 2015-09-18 18:53:35 +0000, benj <nobody@gmail.com> said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> You said it Starmaker. Hey censorship of political speech as well as >>>>>>> political prisoners is the traditional way of all Banana Republics, of >>>>>>> which we have obviously become one. As I understand it, the favored >>>>>>> method is dropping deniers out Helicopters >>>>>> >>>>>> You DO realize that being ASKED to do something isn't the same as >>>>>> actually DOING it, right? >>>>> >>>>> Has anybody actually looked at the two-page petition (one-page plus >>>>> signatures) cited by the OP? It doesn't ask Obama to prosecute anybody. >>>>> It is a petition in support of an action proposed by a Senator: to >>>>> conduct a RICO investigation of groups denying climate change to see if >>>>> they are obfuscating established science for their profit and to the >>>>> detriment of people in general. as the tobacco companies did. If the >>>>> investigation concludes that that's what they're doing, prosecution can >>>>> follow. >>>>> >>>>> ... >>>> >>>> If there's no intent to prosecute then why investigate? >>> >>> They obviously intend to prosecute if the investigation turns up useful >>> evidence of wrongdoing. Otherwise, as you say, why prosecute? >>> >>>> RICO is a witch-hunting tool. Once the investigation starts they're >>>> going to find a witch whether there is one or not. >>> >>> A pretty cynical assessment. RICO was enacted as a tool against >>> organized crime. It was subsequently discovered that it could be used in >>> other areas. Such uses have withstood the test of time. >>> >>> Charlie >> >> Cynical? What I call cynical is your assessment that using a law passed >> to fight organized crime to attack corporations selling a legal >> federally regulated product like tobacco or guns to further some leftist >> Lib agenda isn't a witch-hunt and abuse of power. The fact that you >> commies have managed to "get away" with your "we know what is best for >> you" agenda in no way changes how dishonest it is. > > You know that calling them "commies" is an insult to commies don't you? > Talk to some people who grew up under Communism (half the people I work > with did) and you'll find that oppressive as it was, it didn't have the > kind of individualized micromanagment that the US seems to be bent on > implementing (they micromanaged themselves to destruction, but it was > micromanagement on a grand scale, not the "mow your lawn or we'll throw > you in jail" kind that is becoming popular in the US). We think we're > "better" than they were because we don't shoot dissidents (we apparently > reserve that for unarmed teenagers). But we have a higher percentage of > our population locked up than the Soviets or the Chinese ever managed > and nobody seems to see anything wrong with that except the people who > are locked up. > Have you read Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago? He states clearly that only 1 in 7 of the people who were sent to the gulag survived their sentences. In another book, Under the Rubble, written with a fellow political prisoner named Igor Shafarevich, he writes that he is absolutely CERTAIN 20 million people were sent to the Gulag and thinks it may well have been as many as 120 million people. If you then apply the 6-in-7 death rate, then AT LEAST 17 million people died there and as many as 102 million people. Do you *seriously* mean to tell me that the US has more than 20 million people locked up, let alone 120 million? If so, you are in serious need of some reading time to bone up on your facts. -- Rhino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-19 18:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3067b2dabd7c0ca989b4d@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #522107 |
In article <mtklqb$ucr$1@dont-email.me>, no_offline_contact_please@example.com says... > > On 2015-09-19 5:43 PM, J. Clarke wrote: > > In article <qvjLx.16451$sa4.10466@fx09.iad>, none@gmail.com says... > >> > >> On 09/19/2015 02:57 PM, Charles H. Sampson wrote: > >>> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> In article <1maz02q.bglsl6byw589N%csampson@inetworld.net>, > >>>> csampson@inetworld.net says... > >>>>> > >>>>> FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 2015-09-18 18:53:35 +0000, benj <nobody@gmail.com> said: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> You said it Starmaker. Hey censorship of political speech as well as > >>>>>>> political prisoners is the traditional way of all Banana Republics, of > >>>>>>> which we have obviously become one. As I understand it, the favored > >>>>>>> method is dropping deniers out Helicopters > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You DO realize that being ASKED to do something isn't the same as > >>>>>> actually DOING it, right? > >>>>> > >>>>> Has anybody actually looked at the two-page petition (one-page plus > >>>>> signatures) cited by the OP? It doesn't ask Obama to prosecute anybody. > >>>>> It is a petition in support of an action proposed by a Senator: to > >>>>> conduct a RICO investigation of groups denying climate change to see if > >>>>> they are obfuscating established science for their profit and to the > >>>>> detriment of people in general. as the tobacco companies did. If the > >>>>> investigation concludes that that's what they're doing, prosecution can > >>>>> follow. > >>>>> > >>>>> ... > >>>> > >>>> If there's no intent to prosecute then why investigate? > >>> > >>> They obviously intend to prosecute if the investigation turns up useful > >>> evidence of wrongdoing. Otherwise, as you say, why prosecute? > >>> > >>>> RICO is a witch-hunting tool. Once the investigation starts they're > >>>> going to find a witch whether there is one or not. > >>> > >>> A pretty cynical assessment. RICO was enacted as a tool against > >>> organized crime. It was subsequently discovered that it could be used in > >>> other areas. Such uses have withstood the test of time. > >>> > >>> Charlie > >> > >> Cynical? What I call cynical is your assessment that using a law passed > >> to fight organized crime to attack corporations selling a legal > >> federally regulated product like tobacco or guns to further some leftist > >> Lib agenda isn't a witch-hunt and abuse of power. The fact that you > >> commies have managed to "get away" with your "we know what is best for > >> you" agenda in no way changes how dishonest it is. > > > > You know that calling them "commies" is an insult to commies don't you? > > Talk to some people who grew up under Communism (half the people I work > > with did) and you'll find that oppressive as it was, it didn't have the > > kind of individualized micromanagment that the US seems to be bent on > > implementing (they micromanaged themselves to destruction, but it was > > micromanagement on a grand scale, not the "mow your lawn or we'll throw > > you in jail" kind that is becoming popular in the US). We think we're > > "better" than they were because we don't shoot dissidents (we apparently > > reserve that for unarmed teenagers). But we have a higher percentage of > > our population locked up than the Soviets or the Chinese ever managed > > and nobody seems to see anything wrong with that except the people who > > are locked up. > > > Have you read Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago? He states clearly that > only 1 in 7 of the people who were sent to the gulag survived their > sentences. > In another book, Under the Rubble, written with a fellow political > prisoner named Igor Shafarevich, he writes that he is absolutely CERTAIN > 20 million people were sent to the Gulag and thinks it may well have > been as many as 120 million people. If you then apply the 6-in-7 death > rate, then AT LEAST 17 million people died there and as many as 102 > million people. > > Do you *seriously* mean to tell me that the US has more than 20 million > people locked up, let alone 120 million? If so, you are in serious need > of some reading time to bone up on your facts. So 120 million people were sent to the Gulag? Quite a trick when the entire population in 1950 was 180 million. I admit I'm engaging in a bit of hyperbole here--the current US figure is about half the peak Soviet figure. But it's still on the order of 10 times what any other civilized nation has locked up. Note that the Soviet Union has fallen and the people who made it fall have gone through the records and released the numbers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rhino <no_offline_contact_please@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-20 15:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mtn09i$84s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #522113 |
On 2015-09-19 6:59 PM, J. Clarke wrote: > In article <mtklqb$ucr$1@dont-email.me>, > no_offline_contact_please@example.com says... >> >> On 2015-09-19 5:43 PM, J. Clarke wrote: >>> In article <qvjLx.16451$sa4.10466@fx09.iad>, none@gmail.com says... >>>> >>>> On 09/19/2015 02:57 PM, Charles H. Sampson wrote: >>>>> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In article <1maz02q.bglsl6byw589N%csampson@inetworld.net>, >>>>>> csampson@inetworld.net says... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2015-09-18 18:53:35 +0000, benj <nobody@gmail.com> said: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You said it Starmaker. Hey censorship of political speech as well as >>>>>>>>> political prisoners is the traditional way of all Banana Republics, of >>>>>>>>> which we have obviously become one. As I understand it, the favored >>>>>>>>> method is dropping deniers out Helicopters >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You DO realize that being ASKED to do something isn't the same as >>>>>>>> actually DOING it, right? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Has anybody actually looked at the two-page petition (one-page plus >>>>>>> signatures) cited by the OP? It doesn't ask Obama to prosecute anybody. >>>>>>> It is a petition in support of an action proposed by a Senator: to >>>>>>> conduct a RICO investigation of groups denying climate change to see if >>>>>>> they are obfuscating established science for their profit and to the >>>>>>> detriment of people in general. as the tobacco companies did. If the >>>>>>> investigation concludes that that's what they're doing, prosecution can >>>>>>> follow. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ... >>>>>> >>>>>> If there's no intent to prosecute then why investigate? >>>>> >>>>> They obviously intend to prosecute if the investigation turns up useful >>>>> evidence of wrongdoing. Otherwise, as you say, why prosecute? >>>>> >>>>>> RICO is a witch-hunting tool. Once the investigation starts they're >>>>>> going to find a witch whether there is one or not. >>>>> >>>>> A pretty cynical assessment. RICO was enacted as a tool against >>>>> organized crime. It was subsequently discovered that it could be used in >>>>> other areas. Such uses have withstood the test of time. >>>>> >>>>> Charlie >>>> >>>> Cynical? What I call cynical is your assessment that using a law passed >>>> to fight organized crime to attack corporations selling a legal >>>> federally regulated product like tobacco or guns to further some leftist >>>> Lib agenda isn't a witch-hunt and abuse of power. The fact that you >>>> commies have managed to "get away" with your "we know what is best for >>>> you" agenda in no way changes how dishonest it is. >>> >>> You know that calling them "commies" is an insult to commies don't you? >>> Talk to some people who grew up under Communism (half the people I work >>> with did) and you'll find that oppressive as it was, it didn't have the >>> kind of individualized micromanagment that the US seems to be bent on >>> implementing (they micromanaged themselves to destruction, but it was >>> micromanagement on a grand scale, not the "mow your lawn or we'll throw >>> you in jail" kind that is becoming popular in the US). We think we're >>> "better" than they were because we don't shoot dissidents (we apparently >>> reserve that for unarmed teenagers). But we have a higher percentage of >>> our population locked up than the Soviets or the Chinese ever managed >>> and nobody seems to see anything wrong with that except the people who >>> are locked up. >>> >> Have you read Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago? He states clearly that >> only 1 in 7 of the people who were sent to the gulag survived their >> sentences. >> In another book, Under the Rubble, written with a fellow political >> prisoner named Igor Shafarevich, he writes that he is absolutely CERTAIN >> 20 million people were sent to the Gulag and thinks it may well have >> been as many as 120 million people. If you then apply the 6-in-7 death >> rate, then AT LEAST 17 million people died there and as many as 102 >> million people. >> >> Do you *seriously* mean to tell me that the US has more than 20 million >> people locked up, let alone 120 million? If so, you are in serious need >> of some reading time to bone up on your facts. > > So 120 million people were sent to the Gulag? Quite a trick when the > entire population in 1950 was 180 million. > They didn't all get sent to the Gulag in the same year. Lenin and Stalin sent people to the Gulag from 1918 through 1953, which is 35 years. Also, as I said, 120 million was the highest number that Shafarevich, who was a mathematician, thought plausible. He didn't declare categorically that 120 million HAD gone to the Gulag, only that it MIGHT HAVE BEEN that many. > I admit I'm engaging in a bit of hyperbole here--the current US figure > is about half the peak Soviet figure. But it's still on the order of 10 > times what any other civilized nation has locked up. > As I understand, the US has about 2 million people in prison. > Note that the Soviet Union has fallen and the people who made it fall > have gone through the records and released the numbers. > The numbers remain disputed. There are the "big numbers" historians like Rummel who cite very large numbers indeed and there are the "small numbers" historians like Conquest. There's one other crucial difference between the Soviet experience and the American one: the vast majority of people in the Gulags were not guilty of anything that any reasonable person would call a crime. The vast majority of people in the US prison system are actually guilty of serious crimes like murder, rape, etc. Some examples of Soviet citizens who went to the Gulag that are etched in my brain from reading Solzhenitsyn and Conquest: - A man had to move a heavy bust of Stalin from one spot in a large building to another spot in the same building. There was no one to help him and no lifting equipment. He could barely move the bust but eventually determined that if he fashioned a sling from his belt and looped it around the bust, he could put it over his back and get it to where it needed to go. While he was moving the bust, someone came in and saw him at work. They noticed that the belt went around the bust's neck and since the bust was Stalin, they drew the "obvious" conclusion that the man was symbolically hanging Stalin and was guilty of "counter-revolutionary activity". The secret police were called and the man was sent to the Gulag. I don't recall the length of the sentence but for several years, the typical sentence for counter-revolutionary activity was 8 years. Later in Stalin's reign of terror, it grew to 25 years. - A tailor in a shop was sewing a garment. He had some pins in his mouth, as tailors often do. Someone came into the shop and he realized that he would need to talk to them so he took the pins out of his mouth and had to park them somewhere until he could deal with the visitor. He stuck them into a newspaper. The caller noticed that, when the newspaper was turned over, there was a picture of the Politburo and that the pins were going into that picture from the opposite side. Clearly, an implied death threat (by voodoo?) against the top leaders of the country and this man too went to the Gulag for counter-revolutionary activity. - A farmer who had relatives who had emigrated to the United States several years before Lenin seized power still kept in touch with them via occasional letters. They would share information on their respective lives. On one occasion, the Soviet farmer asked about grain prices and the reply he got revealed that US farmers got far more than Soviet farmers for their grain. He mentioned the US prices in conversation to some neighbours and got arrested for "counter-revolutionary agitation"; he also got a stretch in the Gulag. - You didn't actually have to do ANYTHING - even something as trivial as I've described in my other examples - to find yourself sentenced to the Gulag. It was also a crime under the criminal code to be RELATED to a criminal. If you were a parent, child, grandparent, first cousin, or in-law of someone who'd been sent to the Gulag, you too could be sent to the Gulag. (If you were a child who was not charged under this provision and all the adults in the family were sent to the Gulag, you'd be sent to an orphanage. Soviet orphanages were notoriously brutal.) We don't even have the concept of doing something like this in our Western legal systems. We wouldn't even conceive of locking up parents, children, in-laws, etc. of notorious criminals like Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer, David Berkowitz, etc. etc. unless they too had participated in the crimes. Stating that the US is WORSE than the Soviet Union or China is a truly preposterous lie. -- Rhino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-20 15:24 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nr1uvahu7nftbhids6tsugfqco6makpp0j@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #522257 |
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 15:11:50 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact_please@example.com> wrote:
>On 2015-09-19 6:59 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> In article <mtklqb$ucr$1@dont-email.me>,
>> no_offline_contact_please@example.com says...
>>>
>>> On 2015-09-19 5:43 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> In article <qvjLx.16451$sa4.10466@fx09.iad>, none@gmail.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On 09/19/2015 02:57 PM, Charles H. Sampson wrote:
>>>>>> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <1maz02q.bglsl6byw589N%csampson@inetworld.net>,
>>>>>>> csampson@inetworld.net says...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2015-09-18 18:53:35 +0000, benj <nobody@gmail.com> said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You said it Starmaker. Hey censorship of political speech as well as
>>>>>>>>>> political prisoners is the traditional way of all Banana Republics, of
>>>>>>>>>> which we have obviously become one. As I understand it, the favored
>>>>>>>>>> method is dropping deniers out Helicopters
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You DO realize that being ASKED to do something isn't the same as
>>>>>>>>> actually DOING it, right?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Has anybody actually looked at the two-page petition (one-page plus
>>>>>>>> signatures) cited by the OP? It doesn't ask Obama to prosecute anybody.
>>>>>>>> It is a petition in support of an action proposed by a Senator: to
>>>>>>>> conduct a RICO investigation of groups denying climate change to see if
>>>>>>>> they are obfuscating established science for their profit and to the
>>>>>>>> detriment of people in general. as the tobacco companies did. If the
>>>>>>>> investigation concludes that that's what they're doing, prosecution can
>>>>>>>> follow.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If there's no intent to prosecute then why investigate?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They obviously intend to prosecute if the investigation turns up useful
>>>>>> evidence of wrongdoing. Otherwise, as you say, why prosecute?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> RICO is a witch-hunting tool. Once the investigation starts they're
>>>>>>> going to find a witch whether there is one or not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A pretty cynical assessment. RICO was enacted as a tool against
>>>>>> organized crime. It was subsequently discovered that it could be used in
>>>>>> other areas. Such uses have withstood the test of time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Charlie
>>>>>
>>>>> Cynical? What I call cynical is your assessment that using a law passed
>>>>> to fight organized crime to attack corporations selling a legal
>>>>> federally regulated product like tobacco or guns to further some leftist
>>>>> Lib agenda isn't a witch-hunt and abuse of power. The fact that you
>>>>> commies have managed to "get away" with your "we know what is best for
>>>>> you" agenda in no way changes how dishonest it is.
>>>>
>>>> You know that calling them "commies" is an insult to commies don't you?
>>>> Talk to some people who grew up under Communism (half the people I work
>>>> with did) and you'll find that oppressive as it was, it didn't have the
>>>> kind of individualized micromanagment that the US seems to be bent on
>>>> implementing (they micromanaged themselves to destruction, but it was
>>>> micromanagement on a grand scale, not the "mow your lawn or we'll throw
>>>> you in jail" kind that is becoming popular in the US). We think we're
>>>> "better" than they were because we don't shoot dissidents (we apparently
>>>> reserve that for unarmed teenagers). But we have a higher percentage of
>>>> our population locked up than the Soviets or the Chinese ever managed
>>>> and nobody seems to see anything wrong with that except the people who
>>>> are locked up.
>>>>
>>> Have you read Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago? He states clearly that
>>> only 1 in 7 of the people who were sent to the gulag survived their
>>> sentences.
>>> In another book, Under the Rubble, written with a fellow political
>>> prisoner named Igor Shafarevich, he writes that he is absolutely CERTAIN
>>> 20 million people were sent to the Gulag and thinks it may well have
>>> been as many as 120 million people. If you then apply the 6-in-7 death
>>> rate, then AT LEAST 17 million people died there and as many as 102
>>> million people.
>>>
>>> Do you *seriously* mean to tell me that the US has more than 20 million
>>> people locked up, let alone 120 million? If so, you are in serious need
>>> of some reading time to bone up on your facts.
>>
>> So 120 million people were sent to the Gulag? Quite a trick when the
>> entire population in 1950 was 180 million.
>>
>They didn't all get sent to the Gulag in the same year. Lenin and Stalin
>sent people to the Gulag from 1918 through 1953, which is 35 years.
>Also, as I said, 120 million was the highest number that Shafarevich,
>who was a mathematician, thought plausible. He didn't declare
>categorically that 120 million HAD gone to the Gulag, only that it MIGHT
>HAVE BEEN that many.
>
>> I admit I'm engaging in a bit of hyperbole here--the current US figure
>> is about half the peak Soviet figure. But it's still on the order of 10
>> times what any other civilized nation has locked up.
>>
>As I understand, the US has about 2 million people in prison.
>
>> Note that the Soviet Union has fallen and the people who made it fall
>> have gone through the records and released the numbers.
>>
>The numbers remain disputed. There are the "big numbers" historians like
>Rummel
>who cite very large numbers indeed and there are the "small numbers"
>historians like Conquest.
>
>There's one other crucial difference between the Soviet experience and
>the American one: the vast majority of people in the Gulags were not
>guilty of anything that any reasonable person would call a crime. The
>vast majority of people in the US prison system are actually guilty of
>serious crimes like murder, rape, etc.
>
>Some examples of Soviet citizens who went to the Gulag that are etched
>in my brain from reading Solzhenitsyn and Conquest:
>
>- A man had to move a heavy bust of Stalin from one spot in a large
>building to another spot in the same building. There was no one to help
>him and no lifting equipment. He could barely move the bust but
>eventually determined that if he fashioned a sling from his belt and
>looped it around the bust, he could put it over his back and get it to
>where it needed to go. While he was moving the bust, someone came in and
>saw him at work. They noticed that the belt went around the bust's neck
>and since the bust was Stalin, they drew the "obvious" conclusion that
>the man was symbolically hanging Stalin and was guilty of
>"counter-revolutionary activity". The secret police were called and the
>man was sent to the Gulag. I don't recall the length of the sentence but
>for several years, the typical sentence for counter-revolutionary
>activity was 8 years. Later in Stalin's reign of terror, it grew to 25
>years.
>
>- A tailor in a shop was sewing a garment. He had some pins in his
>mouth, as tailors often do. Someone came into the shop and he realized
>that he would need to talk to them so he took the pins out of his mouth
>and had to park them somewhere until he could deal with the visitor. He
>stuck them into a newspaper. The caller noticed that, when the newspaper
>was turned over, there was a picture of the Politburo and that the pins
>were going into that picture from the opposite side. Clearly, an implied
>death threat (by voodoo?) against the top leaders of the country and
>this man too went to the Gulag for counter-revolutionary activity.
>
>- A farmer who had relatives who had emigrated to the United States
>several years before Lenin seized power still kept in touch with them
>via occasional letters. They would share information on their respective
>lives. On one occasion, the Soviet farmer asked about grain prices and
>the reply he got revealed that US farmers got far more than Soviet
>farmers for their grain. He mentioned the US prices in conversation to
>some neighbours and got arrested for "counter-revolutionary agitation";
>he also got a stretch in the Gulag.
>
>- You didn't actually have to do ANYTHING - even something as trivial as
>I've described in my other examples - to find yourself sentenced to the
>Gulag. It was also a crime under the criminal code to be RELATED to a
>criminal. If you were a parent, child, grandparent, first cousin, or
>in-law of someone who'd been sent to the Gulag, you too could be sent to
>the Gulag. (If you were a child who was not charged under this provision
>and all the adults in the family were sent to the Gulag, you'd be sent
>to an orphanage. Soviet orphanages were notoriously brutal.) We don't
>even have the concept of doing something like this in our Western legal
>systems. We wouldn't even conceive of locking up parents, children,
>in-laws, etc. of notorious criminals like Charles Manson, Jeffrey
>Dahmer, David Berkowitz, etc. etc. unless they too had participated in
>the crimes.
>
>Stating that the US is WORSE than the Soviet Union or China is a truly
>preposterous lie.
Except for some weed users, all of those
incarcerated in the US are criminals that broke
laws, stealing, dealing drugs, assaulting and
killing people.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-20 18:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.306900c07ba61443989b5d@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #522258 |
In article <nr1uvahu7nftbhids6tsugfqco6makpp0j@4ax.com>, emoneyjoe@iglou.com says... > > On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 15:11:50 -0400, Rhino > <no_offline_contact_please@example.com> wrote: > > >On 2015-09-19 6:59 PM, J. Clarke wrote: > >> In article <mtklqb$ucr$1@dont-email.me>, > >> no_offline_contact_please@example.com says... > >>> > >>> On 2015-09-19 5:43 PM, J. Clarke wrote: > >>>> In article <qvjLx.16451$sa4.10466@fx09.iad>, none@gmail.com says... > >>>>> > >>>>> On 09/19/2015 02:57 PM, Charles H. Sampson wrote: > >>>>>> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> In article <1maz02q.bglsl6byw589N%csampson@inetworld.net>, > >>>>>>> csampson@inetworld.net says... > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 2015-09-18 18:53:35 +0000, benj <nobody@gmail.com> said: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> You said it Starmaker. Hey censorship of political speech as well as > >>>>>>>>>> political prisoners is the traditional way of all Banana Republics, of > >>>>>>>>>> which we have obviously become one. As I understand it, the favored > >>>>>>>>>> method is dropping deniers out Helicopters > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> You DO realize that being ASKED to do something isn't the same as > >>>>>>>>> actually DOING it, right? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Has anybody actually looked at the two-page petition (one-page plus > >>>>>>>> signatures) cited by the OP? It doesn't ask Obama to prosecute anybody. > >>>>>>>> It is a petition in support of an action proposed by a Senator: to > >>>>>>>> conduct a RICO investigation of groups denying climate change to see if > >>>>>>>> they are obfuscating established science for their profit and to the > >>>>>>>> detriment of people in general. as the tobacco companies did. If the > >>>>>>>> investigation concludes that that's what they're doing, prosecution can > >>>>>>>> follow. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> ... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> If there's no intent to prosecute then why investigate? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> They obviously intend to prosecute if the investigation turns up useful > >>>>>> evidence of wrongdoing. Otherwise, as you say, why prosecute? > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> RICO is a witch-hunting tool. Once the investigation starts they're > >>>>>>> going to find a witch whether there is one or not. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> A pretty cynical assessment. RICO was enacted as a tool against > >>>>>> organized crime. It was subsequently discovered that it could be used in > >>>>>> other areas. Such uses have withstood the test of time. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Charlie > >>>>> > >>>>> Cynical? What I call cynical is your assessment that using a law passed > >>>>> to fight organized crime to attack corporations selling a legal > >>>>> federally regulated product like tobacco or guns to further some leftist > >>>>> Lib agenda isn't a witch-hunt and abuse of power. The fact that you > >>>>> commies have managed to "get away" with your "we know what is best for > >>>>> you" agenda in no way changes how dishonest it is. > >>>> > >>>> You know that calling them "commies" is an insult to commies don't you? > >>>> Talk to some people who grew up under Communism (half the people I work > >>>> with did) and you'll find that oppressive as it was, it didn't have the > >>>> kind of individualized micromanagment that the US seems to be bent on > >>>> implementing (they micromanaged themselves to destruction, but it was > >>>> micromanagement on a grand scale, not the "mow your lawn or we'll throw > >>>> you in jail" kind that is becoming popular in the US). We think we're > >>>> "better" than they were because we don't shoot dissidents (we apparently > >>>> reserve that for unarmed teenagers). But we have a higher percentage of > >>>> our population locked up than the Soviets or the Chinese ever managed > >>>> and nobody seems to see anything wrong with that except the people who > >>>> are locked up. > >>>> > >>> Have you read Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago? He states clearly that > >>> only 1 in 7 of the people who were sent to the gulag survived their > >>> sentences. > >>> In another book, Under the Rubble, written with a fellow political > >>> prisoner named Igor Shafarevich, he writes that he is absolutely CERTAIN > >>> 20 million people were sent to the Gulag and thinks it may well have > >>> been as many as 120 million people. If you then apply the 6-in-7 death > >>> rate, then AT LEAST 17 million people died there and as many as 102 > >>> million people. > >>> > >>> Do you *seriously* mean to tell me that the US has more than 20 million > >>> people locked up, let alone 120 million? If so, you are in serious need > >>> of some reading time to bone up on your facts. > >> > >> So 120 million people were sent to the Gulag? Quite a trick when the > >> entire population in 1950 was 180 million. > >> > >They didn't all get sent to the Gulag in the same year. Lenin and Stalin > >sent people to the Gulag from 1918 through 1953, which is 35 years. > >Also, as I said, 120 million was the highest number that Shafarevich, > >who was a mathematician, thought plausible. He didn't declare > >categorically that 120 million HAD gone to the Gulag, only that it MIGHT > >HAVE BEEN that many. > > > >> I admit I'm engaging in a bit of hyperbole here--the current US figure > >> is about half the peak Soviet figure. But it's still on the order of 10 > >> times what any other civilized nation has locked up. > >> > >As I understand, the US has about 2 million people in prison. > > > >> Note that the Soviet Union has fallen and the people who made it fall > >> have gone through the records and released the numbers. > >> > >The numbers remain disputed. There are the "big numbers" historians like > >Rummel > >who cite very large numbers indeed and there are the "small numbers" > >historians like Conquest. > > > >There's one other crucial difference between the Soviet experience and > >the American one: the vast majority of people in the Gulags were not > >guilty of anything that any reasonable person would call a crime. The > >vast majority of people in the US prison system are actually guilty of > >serious crimes like murder, rape, etc. > > > >Some examples of Soviet citizens who went to the Gulag that are etched > >in my brain from reading Solzhenitsyn and Conquest: > > > >- A man had to move a heavy bust of Stalin from one spot in a large > >building to another spot in the same building. There was no one to help > >him and no lifting equipment. He could barely move the bust but > >eventually determined that if he fashioned a sling from his belt and > >looped it around the bust, he could put it over his back and get it to > >where it needed to go. While he was moving the bust, someone came in and > >saw him at work. They noticed that the belt went around the bust's neck > >and since the bust was Stalin, they drew the "obvious" conclusion that > >the man was symbolically hanging Stalin and was guilty of > >"counter-revolutionary activity". The secret police were called and the > >man was sent to the Gulag. I don't recall the length of the sentence but > >for several years, the typical sentence for counter-revolutionary > >activity was 8 years. Later in Stalin's reign of terror, it grew to 25 > >years. > > > >- A tailor in a shop was sewing a garment. He had some pins in his > >mouth, as tailors often do. Someone came into the shop and he realized > >that he would need to talk to them so he took the pins out of his mouth > >and had to park them somewhere until he could deal with the visitor. He > >stuck them into a newspaper. The caller noticed that, when the newspaper > >was turned over, there was a picture of the Politburo and that the pins > >were going into that picture from the opposite side. Clearly, an implied > >death threat (by voodoo?) against the top leaders of the country and > >this man too went to the Gulag for counter-revolutionary activity. > > > >- A farmer who had relatives who had emigrated to the United States > >several years before Lenin seized power still kept in touch with them > >via occasional letters. They would share information on their respective > >lives. On one occasion, the Soviet farmer asked about grain prices and > >the reply he got revealed that US farmers got far more than Soviet > >farmers for their grain. He mentioned the US prices in conversation to > >some neighbours and got arrested for "counter-revolutionary agitation"; > >he also got a stretch in the Gulag. > > > >- You didn't actually have to do ANYTHING - even something as trivial as > >I've described in my other examples - to find yourself sentenced to the > >Gulag. It was also a crime under the criminal code to be RELATED to a > >criminal. If you were a parent, child, grandparent, first cousin, or > >in-law of someone who'd been sent to the Gulag, you too could be sent to > >the Gulag. (If you were a child who was not charged under this provision > >and all the adults in the family were sent to the Gulag, you'd be sent > >to an orphanage. Soviet orphanages were notoriously brutal.) We don't > >even have the concept of doing something like this in our Western legal > >systems. We wouldn't even conceive of locking up parents, children, > >in-laws, etc. of notorious criminals like Charles Manson, Jeffrey > >Dahmer, David Berkowitz, etc. etc. unless they too had participated in > >the crimes. > > > >Stating that the US is WORSE than the Soviet Union or China is a truly > >preposterous lie. > > Except for some weed users, all of those > incarcerated in the US are criminals that broke > laws, stealing, dealing drugs, assaulting and > killing people. And not mowing your lawn . . .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-20 18:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <fcduva18nbmuurr7780h8uknic2ccboeue@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #522339 |
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 18:44:04 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>In article <nr1uvahu7nftbhids6tsugfqco6makpp0j@4ax.com>,
>emoneyjoe@iglou.com says...
>>
>> On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 15:11:50 -0400, Rhino
>> <no_offline_contact_please@example.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On 2015-09-19 6:59 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >> In article <mtklqb$ucr$1@dont-email.me>,
>> >> no_offline_contact_please@example.com says...
>> >>>
>> >>> On 2015-09-19 5:43 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >>>> In article <qvjLx.16451$sa4.10466@fx09.iad>, none@gmail.com says...
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On 09/19/2015 02:57 PM, Charles H. Sampson wrote:
>> >>>>>> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> In article <1maz02q.bglsl6byw589N%csampson@inetworld.net>,
>> >>>>>>> csampson@inetworld.net says...
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On 2015-09-18 18:53:35 +0000, benj <nobody@gmail.com> said:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> You said it Starmaker. Hey censorship of political speech as well as
>> >>>>>>>>>> political prisoners is the traditional way of all Banana Republics, of
>> >>>>>>>>>> which we have obviously become one. As I understand it, the favored
>> >>>>>>>>>> method is dropping deniers out Helicopters
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> You DO realize that being ASKED to do something isn't the same as
>> >>>>>>>>> actually DOING it, right?
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Has anybody actually looked at the two-page petition (one-page plus
>> >>>>>>>> signatures) cited by the OP? It doesn't ask Obama to prosecute anybody.
>> >>>>>>>> It is a petition in support of an action proposed by a Senator: to
>> >>>>>>>> conduct a RICO investigation of groups denying climate change to see if
>> >>>>>>>> they are obfuscating established science for their profit and to the
>> >>>>>>>> detriment of people in general. as the tobacco companies did. If the
>> >>>>>>>> investigation concludes that that's what they're doing, prosecution can
>> >>>>>>>> follow.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> ...
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> If there's no intent to prosecute then why investigate?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> They obviously intend to prosecute if the investigation turns up useful
>> >>>>>> evidence of wrongdoing. Otherwise, as you say, why prosecute?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> RICO is a witch-hunting tool. Once the investigation starts they're
>> >>>>>>> going to find a witch whether there is one or not.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> A pretty cynical assessment. RICO was enacted as a tool against
>> >>>>>> organized crime. It was subsequently discovered that it could be used in
>> >>>>>> other areas. Such uses have withstood the test of time.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Charlie
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Cynical? What I call cynical is your assessment that using a law passed
>> >>>>> to fight organized crime to attack corporations selling a legal
>> >>>>> federally regulated product like tobacco or guns to further some leftist
>> >>>>> Lib agenda isn't a witch-hunt and abuse of power. The fact that you
>> >>>>> commies have managed to "get away" with your "we know what is best for
>> >>>>> you" agenda in no way changes how dishonest it is.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> You know that calling them "commies" is an insult to commies don't you?
>> >>>> Talk to some people who grew up under Communism (half the people I work
>> >>>> with did) and you'll find that oppressive as it was, it didn't have the
>> >>>> kind of individualized micromanagment that the US seems to be bent on
>> >>>> implementing (they micromanaged themselves to destruction, but it was
>> >>>> micromanagement on a grand scale, not the "mow your lawn or we'll throw
>> >>>> you in jail" kind that is becoming popular in the US). We think we're
>> >>>> "better" than they were because we don't shoot dissidents (we apparently
>> >>>> reserve that for unarmed teenagers). But we have a higher percentage of
>> >>>> our population locked up than the Soviets or the Chinese ever managed
>> >>>> and nobody seems to see anything wrong with that except the people who
>> >>>> are locked up.
>> >>>>
>> >>> Have you read Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago? He states clearly that
>> >>> only 1 in 7 of the people who were sent to the gulag survived their
>> >>> sentences.
>> >>> In another book, Under the Rubble, written with a fellow political
>> >>> prisoner named Igor Shafarevich, he writes that he is absolutely CERTAIN
>> >>> 20 million people were sent to the Gulag and thinks it may well have
>> >>> been as many as 120 million people. If you then apply the 6-in-7 death
>> >>> rate, then AT LEAST 17 million people died there and as many as 102
>> >>> million people.
>> >>>
>> >>> Do you *seriously* mean to tell me that the US has more than 20 million
>> >>> people locked up, let alone 120 million? If so, you are in serious need
>> >>> of some reading time to bone up on your facts.
>> >>
>> >> So 120 million people were sent to the Gulag? Quite a trick when the
>> >> entire population in 1950 was 180 million.
>> >>
>> >They didn't all get sent to the Gulag in the same year. Lenin and Stalin
>> >sent people to the Gulag from 1918 through 1953, which is 35 years.
>> >Also, as I said, 120 million was the highest number that Shafarevich,
>> >who was a mathematician, thought plausible. He didn't declare
>> >categorically that 120 million HAD gone to the Gulag, only that it MIGHT
>> >HAVE BEEN that many.
>> >
>> >> I admit I'm engaging in a bit of hyperbole here--the current US figure
>> >> is about half the peak Soviet figure. But it's still on the order of 10
>> >> times what any other civilized nation has locked up.
>> >>
>> >As I understand, the US has about 2 million people in prison.
>> >
>> >> Note that the Soviet Union has fallen and the people who made it fall
>> >> have gone through the records and released the numbers.
>> >>
>> >The numbers remain disputed. There are the "big numbers" historians like
>> >Rummel
>> >who cite very large numbers indeed and there are the "small numbers"
>> >historians like Conquest.
>> >
>> >There's one other crucial difference between the Soviet experience and
>> >the American one: the vast majority of people in the Gulags were not
>> >guilty of anything that any reasonable person would call a crime. The
>> >vast majority of people in the US prison system are actually guilty of
>> >serious crimes like murder, rape, etc.
>> >
>> >Some examples of Soviet citizens who went to the Gulag that are etched
>> >in my brain from reading Solzhenitsyn and Conquest:
>> >
>> >- A man had to move a heavy bust of Stalin from one spot in a large
>> >building to another spot in the same building. There was no one to help
>> >him and no lifting equipment. He could barely move the bust but
>> >eventually determined that if he fashioned a sling from his belt and
>> >looped it around the bust, he could put it over his back and get it to
>> >where it needed to go. While he was moving the bust, someone came in and
>> >saw him at work. They noticed that the belt went around the bust's neck
>> >and since the bust was Stalin, they drew the "obvious" conclusion that
>> >the man was symbolically hanging Stalin and was guilty of
>> >"counter-revolutionary activity". The secret police were called and the
>> >man was sent to the Gulag. I don't recall the length of the sentence but
>> >for several years, the typical sentence for counter-revolutionary
>> >activity was 8 years. Later in Stalin's reign of terror, it grew to 25
>> >years.
>> >
>> >- A tailor in a shop was sewing a garment. He had some pins in his
>> >mouth, as tailors often do. Someone came into the shop and he realized
>> >that he would need to talk to them so he took the pins out of his mouth
>> >and had to park them somewhere until he could deal with the visitor. He
>> >stuck them into a newspaper. The caller noticed that, when the newspaper
>> >was turned over, there was a picture of the Politburo and that the pins
>> >were going into that picture from the opposite side. Clearly, an implied
>> >death threat (by voodoo?) against the top leaders of the country and
>> >this man too went to the Gulag for counter-revolutionary activity.
>> >
>> >- A farmer who had relatives who had emigrated to the United States
>> >several years before Lenin seized power still kept in touch with them
>> >via occasional letters. They would share information on their respective
>> >lives. On one occasion, the Soviet farmer asked about grain prices and
>> >the reply he got revealed that US farmers got far more than Soviet
>> >farmers for their grain. He mentioned the US prices in conversation to
>> >some neighbours and got arrested for "counter-revolutionary agitation";
>> >he also got a stretch in the Gulag.
>> >
>> >- You didn't actually have to do ANYTHING - even something as trivial as
>> >I've described in my other examples - to find yourself sentenced to the
>> >Gulag. It was also a crime under the criminal code to be RELATED to a
>> >criminal. If you were a parent, child, grandparent, first cousin, or
>> >in-law of someone who'd been sent to the Gulag, you too could be sent to
>> >the Gulag. (If you were a child who was not charged under this provision
>> >and all the adults in the family were sent to the Gulag, you'd be sent
>> >to an orphanage. Soviet orphanages were notoriously brutal.) We don't
>> >even have the concept of doing something like this in our Western legal
>> >systems. We wouldn't even conceive of locking up parents, children,
>> >in-laws, etc. of notorious criminals like Charles Manson, Jeffrey
>> >Dahmer, David Berkowitz, etc. etc. unless they too had participated in
>> >the crimes.
>> >
>> >Stating that the US is WORSE than the Soviet Union or China is a truly
>> >preposterous lie.
>>
>> Except for some weed users, all of those
>> incarcerated in the US are criminals that broke
>> laws, stealing, dealing drugs, assaulting and
>> killing people.
>
>And not mowing your lawn . . .
No, that is just a fine, if the city
doesn't have it done and send the bill
or add it on the taxes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-20 19:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.306908c7910e423a989b63@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #522343 |
In article <fcduva18nbmuurr7780h8uknic2ccboeue@4ax.com>, emoneyjoe@iglou.com says... > > On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 18:44:04 -0400, "J. Clarke" > <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > > >In article <nr1uvahu7nftbhids6tsugfqco6makpp0j@4ax.com>, > >emoneyjoe@iglou.com says... > >> > >> On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 15:11:50 -0400, Rhino > >> <no_offline_contact_please@example.com> wrote: > >> > >> >On 2015-09-19 6:59 PM, J. Clarke wrote: > >> >> In article <mtklqb$ucr$1@dont-email.me>, > >> >> no_offline_contact_please@example.com says... > >> >>> > >> >>> On 2015-09-19 5:43 PM, J. Clarke wrote: > >> >>>> In article <qvjLx.16451$sa4.10466@fx09.iad>, none@gmail.com says... > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> On 09/19/2015 02:57 PM, Charles H. Sampson wrote: > >> >>>>>> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> In article <1maz02q.bglsl6byw589N%csampson@inetworld.net>, > >> >>>>>>> csampson@inetworld.net says... > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> On 2015-09-18 18:53:35 +0000, benj <nobody@gmail.com> said: > >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> You said it Starmaker. Hey censorship of political speech as well as > >> >>>>>>>>>> political prisoners is the traditional way of all Banana Republics, of > >> >>>>>>>>>> which we have obviously become one. As I understand it, the favored > >> >>>>>>>>>> method is dropping deniers out Helicopters > >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> You DO realize that being ASKED to do something isn't the same as > >> >>>>>>>>> actually DOING it, right? > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> Has anybody actually looked at the two-page petition (one-page plus > >> >>>>>>>> signatures) cited by the OP? It doesn't ask Obama to prosecute anybody. > >> >>>>>>>> It is a petition in support of an action proposed by a Senator: to > >> >>>>>>>> conduct a RICO investigation of groups denying climate change to see if > >> >>>>>>>> they are obfuscating established science for their profit and to the > >> >>>>>>>> detriment of people in general. as the tobacco companies did. If the > >> >>>>>>>> investigation concludes that that's what they're doing, prosecution can > >> >>>>>>>> follow. > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> ... > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> If there's no intent to prosecute then why investigate? > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> They obviously intend to prosecute if the investigation turns up useful > >> >>>>>> evidence of wrongdoing. Otherwise, as you say, why prosecute? > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> RICO is a witch-hunting tool. Once the investigation starts they're > >> >>>>>>> going to find a witch whether there is one or not. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> A pretty cynical assessment. RICO was enacted as a tool against > >> >>>>>> organized crime. It was subsequently discovered that it could be used in > >> >>>>>> other areas. Such uses have withstood the test of time. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Charlie > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Cynical? What I call cynical is your assessment that using a law passed > >> >>>>> to fight organized crime to attack corporations selling a legal > >> >>>>> federally regulated product like tobacco or guns to further some leftist > >> >>>>> Lib agenda isn't a witch-hunt and abuse of power. The fact that you > >> >>>>> commies have managed to "get away" with your "we know what is best for > >> >>>>> you" agenda in no way changes how dishonest it is. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> You know that calling them "commies" is an insult to commies don't you? > >> >>>> Talk to some people who grew up under Communism (half the people I work > >> >>>> with did) and you'll find that oppressive as it was, it didn't have the > >> >>>> kind of individualized micromanagment that the US seems to be bent on > >> >>>> implementing (they micromanaged themselves to destruction, but it was > >> >>>> micromanagement on a grand scale, not the "mow your lawn or we'll throw > >> >>>> you in jail" kind that is becoming popular in the US). We think we're > >> >>>> "better" than they were because we don't shoot dissidents (we apparently > >> >>>> reserve that for unarmed teenagers). But we have a higher percentage of > >> >>>> our population locked up than the Soviets or the Chinese ever managed > >> >>>> and nobody seems to see anything wrong with that except the people who > >> >>>> are locked up. > >> >>>> > >> >>> Have you read Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago? He states clearly that > >> >>> only 1 in 7 of the people who were sent to the gulag survived their > >> >>> sentences. > >> >>> In another book, Under the Rubble, written with a fellow political > >> >>> prisoner named Igor Shafarevich, he writes that he is absolutely CERTAIN > >> >>> 20 million people were sent to the Gulag and thinks it may well have > >> >>> been as many as 120 million people. If you then apply the 6-in-7 death > >> >>> rate, then AT LEAST 17 million people died there and as many as 102 > >> >>> million people. > >> >>> > >> >>> Do you *seriously* mean to tell me that the US has more than 20 million > >> >>> people locked up, let alone 120 million? If so, you are in serious need > >> >>> of some reading time to bone up on your facts. > >> >> > >> >> So 120 million people were sent to the Gulag? Quite a trick when the > >> >> entire population in 1950 was 180 million. > >> >> > >> >They didn't all get sent to the Gulag in the same year. Lenin and Stalin > >> >sent people to the Gulag from 1918 through 1953, which is 35 years. > >> >Also, as I said, 120 million was the highest number that Shafarevich, > >> >who was a mathematician, thought plausible. He didn't declare > >> >categorically that 120 million HAD gone to the Gulag, only that it MIGHT > >> >HAVE BEEN that many. > >> > > >> >> I admit I'm engaging in a bit of hyperbole here--the current US figure > >> >> is about half the peak Soviet figure. But it's still on the order of 10 > >> >> times what any other civilized nation has locked up. > >> >> > >> >As I understand, the US has about 2 million people in prison. > >> > > >> >> Note that the Soviet Union has fallen and the people who made it fall > >> >> have gone through the records and released the numbers. > >> >> > >> >The numbers remain disputed. There are the "big numbers" historians like > >> >Rummel > >> >who cite very large numbers indeed and there are the "small numbers" > >> >historians like Conquest. > >> > > >> >There's one other crucial difference between the Soviet experience and > >> >the American one: the vast majority of people in the Gulags were not > >> >guilty of anything that any reasonable person would call a crime. The > >> >vast majority of people in the US prison system are actually guilty of > >> >serious crimes like murder, rape, etc. > >> > > >> >Some examples of Soviet citizens who went to the Gulag that are etched > >> >in my brain from reading Solzhenitsyn and Conquest: > >> > > >> >- A man had to move a heavy bust of Stalin from one spot in a large > >> >building to another spot in the same building. There was no one to help > >> >him and no lifting equipment. He could barely move the bust but > >> >eventually determined that if he fashioned a sling from his belt and > >> >looped it around the bust, he could put it over his back and get it to > >> >where it needed to go. While he was moving the bust, someone came in and > >> >saw him at work. They noticed that the belt went around the bust's neck > >> >and since the bust was Stalin, they drew the "obvious" conclusion that > >> >the man was symbolically hanging Stalin and was guilty of > >> >"counter-revolutionary activity". The secret police were called and the > >> >man was sent to the Gulag. I don't recall the length of the sentence but > >> >for several years, the typical sentence for counter-revolutionary > >> >activity was 8 years. Later in Stalin's reign of terror, it grew to 25 > >> >years. > >> > > >> >- A tailor in a shop was sewing a garment. He had some pins in his > >> >mouth, as tailors often do. Someone came into the shop and he realized > >> >that he would need to talk to them so he took the pins out of his mouth > >> >and had to park them somewhere until he could deal with the visitor. He > >> >stuck them into a newspaper. The caller noticed that, when the newspaper > >> >was turned over, there was a picture of the Politburo and that the pins > >> >were going into that picture from the opposite side. Clearly, an implied > >> >death threat (by voodoo?) against the top leaders of the country and > >> >this man too went to the Gulag for counter-revolutionary activity. > >> > > >> >- A farmer who had relatives who had emigrated to the United States > >> >several years before Lenin seized power still kept in touch with them > >> >via occasional letters. They would share information on their respective > >> >lives. On one occasion, the Soviet farmer asked about grain prices and > >> >the reply he got revealed that US farmers got far more than Soviet > >> >farmers for their grain. He mentioned the US prices in conversation to > >> >some neighbours and got arrested for "counter-revolutionary agitation"; > >> >he also got a stretch in the Gulag. > >> > > >> >- You didn't actually have to do ANYTHING - even something as trivial as > >> >I've described in my other examples - to find yourself sentenced to the > >> >Gulag. It was also a crime under the criminal code to be RELATED to a > >> >criminal. If you were a parent, child, grandparent, first cousin, or > >> >in-law of someone who'd been sent to the Gulag, you too could be sent to > >> >the Gulag. (If you were a child who was not charged under this provision > >> >and all the adults in the family were sent to the Gulag, you'd be sent > >> >to an orphanage. Soviet orphanages were notoriously brutal.) We don't > >> >even have the concept of doing something like this in our Western legal > >> >systems. We wouldn't even conceive of locking up parents, children, > >> >in-laws, etc. of notorious criminals like Charles Manson, Jeffrey > >> >Dahmer, David Berkowitz, etc. etc. unless they too had participated in > >> >the crimes. > >> > > >> >Stating that the US is WORSE than the Soviet Union or China is a truly > >> >preposterous lie. > >> > >> Except for some weed users, all of those > >> incarcerated in the US are criminals that broke > >> laws, stealing, dealing drugs, assaulting and > >> killing people. > > > >And not mowing your lawn . . . > > No, that is just a fine, if the city > doesn't have it done and send the bill > or add it on the taxes. You obviously don't live in Texas.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-20 15:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3068d8f1e47426d4989b5c@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #522257 |
In article <mtn09i$84s$1@dont-email.me>, no_offline_contact_please@example.com says... > > On 2015-09-19 6:59 PM, J. Clarke wrote: > > In article <mtklqb$ucr$1@dont-email.me>, > > no_offline_contact_please@example.com says... > >> > >> On 2015-09-19 5:43 PM, J. Clarke wrote: > >>> In article <qvjLx.16451$sa4.10466@fx09.iad>, none@gmail.com says... > >>>> > >>>> On 09/19/2015 02:57 PM, Charles H. Sampson wrote: > >>>>> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> In article <1maz02q.bglsl6byw589N%csampson@inetworld.net>, > >>>>>> csampson@inetworld.net says... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On 2015-09-18 18:53:35 +0000, benj <nobody@gmail.com> said: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> You said it Starmaker. Hey censorship of political speech as well as > >>>>>>>>> political prisoners is the traditional way of all Banana Republics, of > >>>>>>>>> which we have obviously become one. As I understand it, the favored > >>>>>>>>> method is dropping deniers out Helicopters > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> You DO realize that being ASKED to do something isn't the same as > >>>>>>>> actually DOING it, right? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Has anybody actually looked at the two-page petition (one-page plus > >>>>>>> signatures) cited by the OP? It doesn't ask Obama to prosecute anybody. > >>>>>>> It is a petition in support of an action proposed by a Senator: to > >>>>>>> conduct a RICO investigation of groups denying climate change to see if > >>>>>>> they are obfuscating established science for their profit and to the > >>>>>>> detriment of people in general. as the tobacco companies did. If the > >>>>>>> investigation concludes that that's what they're doing, prosecution can > >>>>>>> follow. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> ... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If there's no intent to prosecute then why investigate? > >>>>> > >>>>> They obviously intend to prosecute if the investigation turns up useful > >>>>> evidence of wrongdoing. Otherwise, as you say, why prosecute? > >>>>> > >>>>>> RICO is a witch-hunting tool. Once the investigation starts they're > >>>>>> going to find a witch whether there is one or not. > >>>>> > >>>>> A pretty cynical assessment. RICO was enacted as a tool against > >>>>> organized crime. It was subsequently discovered that it could be used in > >>>>> other areas. Such uses have withstood the test of time. > >>>>> > >>>>> Charlie > >>>> > >>>> Cynical? What I call cynical is your assessment that using a law passed > >>>> to fight organized crime to attack corporations selling a legal > >>>> federally regulated product like tobacco or guns to further some leftist > >>>> Lib agenda isn't a witch-hunt and abuse of power. The fact that you > >>>> commies have managed to "get away" with your "we know what is best for > >>>> you" agenda in no way changes how dishonest it is. > >>> > >>> You know that calling them "commies" is an insult to commies don't you? > >>> Talk to some people who grew up under Communism (half the people I work > >>> with did) and you'll find that oppressive as it was, it didn't have the > >>> kind of individualized micromanagment that the US seems to be bent on > >>> implementing (they micromanaged themselves to destruction, but it was > >>> micromanagement on a grand scale, not the "mow your lawn or we'll throw > >>> you in jail" kind that is becoming popular in the US). We think we're > >>> "better" than they were because we don't shoot dissidents (we apparently > >>> reserve that for unarmed teenagers). But we have a higher percentage of > >>> our population locked up than the Soviets or the Chinese ever managed > >>> and nobody seems to see anything wrong with that except the people who > >>> are locked up. > >>> > >> Have you read Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago? He states clearly that > >> only 1 in 7 of the people who were sent to the gulag survived their > >> sentences. > >> In another book, Under the Rubble, written with a fellow political > >> prisoner named Igor Shafarevich, he writes that he is absolutely CERTAIN > >> 20 million people were sent to the Gulag and thinks it may well have > >> been as many as 120 million people. If you then apply the 6-in-7 death > >> rate, then AT LEAST 17 million people died there and as many as 102 > >> million people. > >> > >> Do you *seriously* mean to tell me that the US has more than 20 million > >> people locked up, let alone 120 million? If so, you are in serious need > >> of some reading time to bone up on your facts. > > > > So 120 million people were sent to the Gulag? Quite a trick when the > > entire population in 1950 was 180 million. > > > They didn't all get sent to the Gulag in the same year. Lenin and Stalin > sent people to the Gulag from 1918 through 1953, which is 35 years. > Also, as I said, 120 million was the highest number that Shafarevich, > who was a mathematician, thought plausible. He didn't declare > categorically that 120 million HAD gone to the Gulag, only that it MIGHT > HAVE BEEN that many. OK, if 120 million went to the Gulag and only 1/7 of them came back that means that 102 million didn't come back. Your numbers still dont' work. As to "might", 10 billion _might_ have gone to the Gulag. We're pretty sure it didn't happen since there aren't that many people on the entire planet, but it _might_ have happened. Don't rely on guesses by people who had a political axe to grind when there are better numbers available. > > I admit I'm engaging in a bit of hyperbole here--the current US figure > > is about half the peak Soviet figure. But it's still on the order of 10 > > times what any other civilized nation has locked up. > > > As I understand, the US has about 2 million people in prison. The Bureau of Justice Statistics, a Federal agency charged with keeping track of such matters, states that "An estimated 6,899,000 persons were under the supervision of adult correctional systems at yearend 2013". > > Note that the Soviet Union has fallen and the people who made it fall > > have gone through the records and released the numbers. > > > The numbers remain disputed. There are the "big numbers" historians like > Rummel > who cite very large numbers indeed and there are the "small numbers" > historians like Conquest. So from what source do they "cite" those numbers? If the citation is from a source other than the official records of the Soviet government then they are at this point questionable. > There's one other crucial difference between the Soviet experience and > the American one: the vast majority of people in the Gulags were not > guilty of anything that any reasonable person would call a crime. Obviously people who thought they were reasonable thought they were guilty of something. Whether we accept their reasoning is another story. > The > vast majority of people in the US prison system are actually guilty of > serious crimes like murder, rape, etc. Less than half the people in prison are charged with violent crimes. > Some examples of Soviet citizens who went to the Gulag that are etched > in my brain from reading Solzhenitsyn and Conquest: > > - A man had to move a heavy bust of Stalin from one spot in a large > building to another spot in the same building. There was no one to help > him and no lifting equipment. He could barely move the bust but > eventually determined that if he fashioned a sling from his belt and > looped it around the bust, he could put it over his back and get it to > where it needed to go. While he was moving the bust, someone came in and > saw him at work. They noticed that the belt went around the bust's neck > and since the bust was Stalin, they drew the "obvious" conclusion that > the man was symbolically hanging Stalin and was guilty of > "counter-revolutionary activity". The secret police were called and the > man was sent to the Gulag. I don't recall the length of the sentence but > for several years, the typical sentence for counter-revolutionary > activity was 8 years. Later in Stalin's reign of terror, it grew to 25 > years. > > - A tailor in a shop was sewing a garment. He had some pins in his > mouth, as tailors often do. Someone came into the shop and he realized > that he would need to talk to them so he took the pins out of his mouth > and had to park them somewhere until he could deal with the visitor. He > stuck them into a newspaper. The caller noticed that, when the newspaper > was turned over, there was a picture of the Politburo and that the pins > were going into that picture from the opposite side. Clearly, an implied > death threat (by voodoo?) against the top leaders of the country and > this man too went to the Gulag for counter-revolutionary activity. > > - A farmer who had relatives who had emigrated to the United States > several years before Lenin seized power still kept in touch with them > via occasional letters. They would share information on their respective > lives. On one occasion, the Soviet farmer asked about grain prices and > the reply he got revealed that US farmers got far more than Soviet > farmers for their grain. He mentioned the US prices in conversation to > some neighbours and got arrested for "counter-revolutionary agitation"; > he also got a stretch in the Gulag. Well, nolw, the thing all of these have in common is that somebody did something that the government determined was unlawful--in other words they, in contradiction of your argument, did in fact commit crimes. They may have been unintentional but that is beside the point. > - You didn't actually have to do ANYTHING - even something as trivial as > I've described in my other examples - to find yourself sentenced to the > Gulag. It was also a crime under the criminal code to be RELATED to a > criminal. If you were a parent, child, grandparent, first cousin, or > in-law of someone who'd been sent to the Gulag, you too could be sent to > the Gulag. (If you were a child who was not charged under this provision > and all the adults in the family were sent to the Gulag, you'd be sent > to an orphanage. Soviet orphanages were notoriously brutal.) We don't > even have the concept of doing something like this in our Western legal > systems. We wouldn't even conceive of locking up parents, children, > in-laws, etc. of notorious criminals like Charles Manson, Jeffrey > Dahmer, David Berkowitz, etc. etc. unless they too had participated in > the crimes. No, we have the concept, in RICO, of being jailed for TALKING to a criminal. > Stating that the US is WORSE than the Soviet Union or China is a truly > preposterous lie. It's bad in a different way. Unfortunately, people like you aren't goign to see it until you get jailed for some trivial offense or your kid gets killed for being the wrong color at the wrong time. Communism is dead. It's _not_ the enemy. Creeping statism is, and always was the enemy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rhino <no_offline_contact_please@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-20 17:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mtn7l3$61a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #522264 |
On 2015-09-20 3:54 PM, J. Clarke wrote: > In article <mtn09i$84s$1@dont-email.me>, > no_offline_contact_please@example.com says... >> >> On 2015-09-19 6:59 PM, J. Clarke wrote: >>> In article <mtklqb$ucr$1@dont-email.me>, >>> no_offline_contact_please@example.com says... >>>> >>>> On 2015-09-19 5:43 PM, J. Clarke wrote: >>>>> In article <qvjLx.16451$sa4.10466@fx09.iad>, none@gmail.com says... >>>>>> >>>>>> On 09/19/2015 02:57 PM, Charles H. Sampson wrote: >>>>>>> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In article <1maz02q.bglsl6byw589N%csampson@inetworld.net>, >>>>>>>> csampson@inetworld.net says... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 2015-09-18 18:53:35 +0000, benj <nobody@gmail.com> said: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You said it Starmaker. Hey censorship of political speech as well as >>>>>>>>>>> political prisoners is the traditional way of all Banana Republics, of >>>>>>>>>>> which we have obviously become one. As I understand it, the favored >>>>>>>>>>> method is dropping deniers out Helicopters >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You DO realize that being ASKED to do something isn't the same as >>>>>>>>>> actually DOING it, right? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Has anybody actually looked at the two-page petition (one-page plus >>>>>>>>> signatures) cited by the OP? It doesn't ask Obama to prosecute anybody. >>>>>>>>> It is a petition in support of an action proposed by a Senator: to >>>>>>>>> conduct a RICO investigation of groups denying climate change to see if >>>>>>>>> they are obfuscating established science for their profit and to the >>>>>>>>> detriment of people in general. as the tobacco companies did. If the >>>>>>>>> investigation concludes that that's what they're doing, prosecution can >>>>>>>>> follow. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If there's no intent to prosecute then why investigate? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> They obviously intend to prosecute if the investigation turns up useful >>>>>>> evidence of wrongdoing. Otherwise, as you say, why prosecute? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> RICO is a witch-hunting tool. Once the investigation starts they're >>>>>>>> going to find a witch whether there is one or not. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A pretty cynical assessment. RICO was enacted as a tool against >>>>>>> organized crime. It was subsequently discovered that it could be used in >>>>>>> other areas. Such uses have withstood the test of time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Charlie >>>>>> >>>>>> Cynical? What I call cynical is your assessment that using a law passed >>>>>> to fight organized crime to attack corporations selling a legal >>>>>> federally regulated product like tobacco or guns to further some leftist >>>>>> Lib agenda isn't a witch-hunt and abuse of power. The fact that you >>>>>> commies have managed to "get away" with your "we know what is best for >>>>>> you" agenda in no way changes how dishonest it is. >>>>> >>>>> You know that calling them "commies" is an insult to commies don't you? >>>>> Talk to some people who grew up under Communism (half the people I work >>>>> with did) and you'll find that oppressive as it was, it didn't have the >>>>> kind of individualized micromanagment that the US seems to be bent on >>>>> implementing (they micromanaged themselves to destruction, but it was >>>>> micromanagement on a grand scale, not the "mow your lawn or we'll throw >>>>> you in jail" kind that is becoming popular in the US). We think we're >>>>> "better" than they were because we don't shoot dissidents (we apparently >>>>> reserve that for unarmed teenagers). But we have a higher percentage of >>>>> our population locked up than the Soviets or the Chinese ever managed >>>>> and nobody seems to see anything wrong with that except the people who >>>>> are locked up. >>>>> >>>> Have you read Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago? He states clearly that >>>> only 1 in 7 of the people who were sent to the gulag survived their >>>> sentences. >>>> In another book, Under the Rubble, written with a fellow political >>>> prisoner named Igor Shafarevich, he writes that he is absolutely CERTAIN >>>> 20 million people were sent to the Gulag and thinks it may well have >>>> been as many as 120 million people. If you then apply the 6-in-7 death >>>> rate, then AT LEAST 17 million people died there and as many as 102 >>>> million people. >>>> >>>> Do you *seriously* mean to tell me that the US has more than 20 million >>>> people locked up, let alone 120 million? If so, you are in serious need >>>> of some reading time to bone up on your facts. >>> >>> So 120 million people were sent to the Gulag? Quite a trick when the >>> entire population in 1950 was 180 million. >>> >> They didn't all get sent to the Gulag in the same year. Lenin and Stalin >> sent people to the Gulag from 1918 through 1953, which is 35 years. >> Also, as I said, 120 million was the highest number that Shafarevich, >> who was a mathematician, thought plausible. He didn't declare >> categorically that 120 million HAD gone to the Gulag, only that it MIGHT >> HAVE BEEN that many. > > OK, if 120 million went to the Gulag and only 1/7 of them came back that > means that 102 million didn't come back. Your numbers still dont' work. > As to "might", 10 billion _might_ have gone to the Gulag. We're pretty > sure it didn't happen since there aren't that many people on the entire > planet, but it _might_ have happened. > You still don't get the concept of "might". Either you are extremely obtuse or you are conjuring up a straw man. Nobody said ANYTHING about 10 billion, which is impossible anyway since the entire population of the earth has never been 10 billion people. > Don't rely on guesses by people who had a political axe to grind when > there are better numbers available. > Has it occurred to you that YOU might be relying on the guess of someone with a political axe to grind when you assert that the US has imprisoned far more people than the Soviet Union or China? >>> I admit I'm engaging in a bit of hyperbole here--the current US figure >>> is about half the peak Soviet figure. But it's still on the order of 10 >>> times what any other civilized nation has locked up. >>> >> As I understand, the US has about 2 million people in prison. > > The Bureau of Justice Statistics, a Federal agency charged with keeping > track of such matters, states that "An estimated 6,899,000 persons were > under the supervision of adult correctional systems at yearend 2013". > >>> Note that the Soviet Union has fallen and the people who made it fall >>> have gone through the records and released the numbers. >>> >> The numbers remain disputed. There are the "big numbers" historians like >> Rummel >> who cite very large numbers indeed and there are the "small numbers" >> historians like Conquest. > > So from what source do they "cite" those numbers? > You should find all the cites you could ever want via this link, which reports on several different estimates: http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm#Stalin Note that this link only covers those who died under Stalin and does NOT count the Russian Civil War (Stalin was in the Politburo at the time but Lenin was in charge) or World War II. The Russian Civil War and WW II are in separate sections of the same page so you'll need to scroll a bit to find those numbers. > If the citation is from a source other than the official records of the > Soviet government then they are at this point questionable. > So the only reliable source is a regime that constituted some of the biggest liars in history? How ironic.... During Stalin's collectivization campaign, life expectancy in the regions worst hit by this entirely man-made catastrophe was as low as 11 years. (In other words, the life expectancy of a newborn in that region was 11 years.) This was clearly going to make the regime look bad so they reported a number in the 60s. The Germans, by all accounts, were notoriously meticulous in their record-keeping. I have never heard any kind of declaration that the Soviets were anywhere near as meticulous. It may well be that they simply "misplaced" a whole lot of people and therefore under-reported the numbers. I've read of incidents where they'd put hundreds of prisoners on a boat, send them down a river, then sink the boat deliberately with all hands. I have no great confidence that such atrocities were recorded in the official records. >> There's one other crucial difference between the Soviet experience and >> the American one: the vast majority of people in the Gulags were not >> guilty of anything that any reasonable person would call a crime. > > Obviously people who thought they were reasonable thought they were > guilty of something. Whether we accept their reasoning is another > story. > Stalin was an intensely paranoid individual. He had a 500 man security detail for himself alone. He refused to allow any draperies or tapestries that went all the way to the floor: he feared assassins hiding behind them so he had all such draperies cut so they wouldn't reach the floor so he and his security team could see a potential assassin's feet. He once confided to Beria, the last of his secret police chiefs that he (Stalin) was worried that he (Stalin) was plotting against HIMSELF. How on earth does that level of paranoia justify putting innocent people in the Gulag? Do you really think we should give him and his minions a pass on the moral aspect of what they did because Stalin was SINCERELY paranoid? >> The >> vast majority of people in the US prison system are actually guilty of >> serious crimes like murder, rape, etc. > > Less than half the people in prison are charged with violent crimes. > >> Some examples of Soviet citizens who went to the Gulag that are etched >> in my brain from reading Solzhenitsyn and Conquest: >> >> - A man had to move a heavy bust of Stalin from one spot in a large >> building to another spot in the same building. There was no one to help >> him and no lifting equipment. He could barely move the bust but >> eventually determined that if he fashioned a sling from his belt and >> looped it around the bust, he could put it over his back and get it to >> where it needed to go. While he was moving the bust, someone came in and >> saw him at work. They noticed that the belt went around the bust's neck >> and since the bust was Stalin, they drew the "obvious" conclusion that >> the man was symbolically hanging Stalin and was guilty of >> "counter-revolutionary activity". The secret police were called and the >> man was sent to the Gulag. I don't recall the length of the sentence but >> for several years, the typical sentence for counter-revolutionary >> activity was 8 years. Later in Stalin's reign of terror, it grew to 25 >> years. >> >> - A tailor in a shop was sewing a garment. He had some pins in his >> mouth, as tailors often do. Someone came into the shop and he realized >> that he would need to talk to them so he took the pins out of his mouth >> and had to park them somewhere until he could deal with the visitor. He >> stuck them into a newspaper. The caller noticed that, when the newspaper >> was turned over, there was a picture of the Politburo and that the pins >> were going into that picture from the opposite side. Clearly, an implied >> death threat (by voodoo?) against the top leaders of the country and >> this man too went to the Gulag for counter-revolutionary activity. >> >> - A farmer who had relatives who had emigrated to the United States >> several years before Lenin seized power still kept in touch with them >> via occasional letters. They would share information on their respective >> lives. On one occasion, the Soviet farmer asked about grain prices and >> the reply he got revealed that US farmers got far more than Soviet >> farmers for their grain. He mentioned the US prices in conversation to >> some neighbours and got arrested for "counter-revolutionary agitation"; >> he also got a stretch in the Gulag. > > Well, nolw, the thing all of these have in common is that somebody did > something that the government determined was unlawful--in other words > they, in contradiction of your argument, did in fact commit crimes. > They may have been unintentional but that is beside the point. > >> - You didn't actually have to do ANYTHING - even something as trivial as >> I've described in my other examples - to find yourself sentenced to the >> Gulag. It was also a crime under the criminal code to be RELATED to a >> criminal. If you were a parent, child, grandparent, first cousin, or >> in-law of someone who'd been sent to the Gulag, you too could be sent to >> the Gulag. (If you were a child who was not charged under this provision >> and all the adults in the family were sent to the Gulag, you'd be sent >> to an orphanage. Soviet orphanages were notoriously brutal.) We don't >> even have the concept of doing something like this in our Western legal >> systems. We wouldn't even conceive of locking up parents, children, >> in-laws, etc. of notorious criminals like Charles Manson, Jeffrey >> Dahmer, David Berkowitz, etc. etc. unless they too had participated in >> the crimes. > > No, we have the concept, in RICO, of being jailed for TALKING to a > criminal. > Let's have some numbers: how many people are in jail ONLY for talking to a criminal, as opposed to talking to him and THEN doing something culpable? Two? Three? Ten billion? >> Stating that the US is WORSE than the Soviet Union or China is a truly >> preposterous lie. > > It's bad in a different way. Unfortunately, people like you aren't > goign to see it until you get jailed for some trivial offense or your > kid gets killed for being the wrong color at the wrong time. > Or daring to dispute any aspect of Global Warming (or whatever it is called this week)? And please don't imply that the numbers of people who are killed "for being the wrong colour at the wrong time" is more than a tiny, tiny number at worst. Not that any unwarranted death is every morally acceptable - it isn't - but let's not try to imply that thousands or even millions of blacks or Hispanics are being shot down in the streets every day. > Communism is dead. It's _not_ the enemy. Creeping statism is, and > always was the enemy. > Communism is just one flavour of statism. Communism is not dead either; try denouncing communism in China and I think you'll be in for a rude surprise. -- Rhino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-20 19:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.306905c8ec4feaeb989b61@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #522295 |
In article <mtn7l3$61a$1@dont-email.me>, no_offline_contact_please@example.com says... > > On 2015-09-20 3:54 PM, J. Clarke wrote: > > In article <mtn09i$84s$1@dont-email.me>, > > no_offline_contact_please@example.com says... > >> > >> On 2015-09-19 6:59 PM, J. Clarke wrote: > >>> In article <mtklqb$ucr$1@dont-email.me>, > >>> no_offline_contact_please@example.com says... > >>>> > >>>> On 2015-09-19 5:43 PM, J. Clarke wrote: > >>>>> In article <qvjLx.16451$sa4.10466@fx09.iad>, none@gmail.com says... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 09/19/2015 02:57 PM, Charles H. Sampson wrote: > >>>>>>> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> In article <1maz02q.bglsl6byw589N%csampson@inetworld.net>, > >>>>>>>> csampson@inetworld.net says... > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On 2015-09-18 18:53:35 +0000, benj <nobody@gmail.com> said: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> You said it Starmaker. Hey censorship of political speech as well as > >>>>>>>>>>> political prisoners is the traditional way of all Banana Republics, of > >>>>>>>>>>> which we have obviously become one. As I understand it, the favored > >>>>>>>>>>> method is dropping deniers out Helicopters > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> You DO realize that being ASKED to do something isn't the same as > >>>>>>>>>> actually DOING it, right? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Has anybody actually looked at the two-page petition (one-page plus > >>>>>>>>> signatures) cited by the OP? It doesn't ask Obama to prosecute anybody. > >>>>>>>>> It is a petition in support of an action proposed by a Senator: to > >>>>>>>>> conduct a RICO investigation of groups denying climate change to see if > >>>>>>>>> they are obfuscating established science for their profit and to the > >>>>>>>>> detriment of people in general. as the tobacco companies did. If the > >>>>>>>>> investigation concludes that that's what they're doing, prosecution can > >>>>>>>>> follow. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> ... > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> If there's no intent to prosecute then why investigate? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> They obviously intend to prosecute if the investigation turns up useful > >>>>>>> evidence of wrongdoing. Otherwise, as you say, why prosecute? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> RICO is a witch-hunting tool. Once the investigation starts they're > >>>>>>>> going to find a witch whether there is one or not. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> A pretty cynical assessment. RICO was enacted as a tool against > >>>>>>> organized crime. It was subsequently discovered that it could be used in > >>>>>>> other areas. Such uses have withstood the test of time. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Charlie > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Cynical? What I call cynical is your assessment that using a law passed > >>>>>> to fight organized crime to attack corporations selling a legal > >>>>>> federally regulated product like tobacco or guns to further some leftist > >>>>>> Lib agenda isn't a witch-hunt and abuse of power. The fact that you > >>>>>> commies have managed to "get away" with your "we know what is best for > >>>>>> you" agenda in no way changes how dishonest it is. > >>>>> > >>>>> You know that calling them "commies" is an insult to commies don't you? > >>>>> Talk to some people who grew up under Communism (half the people I work > >>>>> with did) and you'll find that oppressive as it was, it didn't have the > >>>>> kind of individualized micromanagment that the US seems to be bent on > >>>>> implementing (they micromanaged themselves to destruction, but it was > >>>>> micromanagement on a grand scale, not the "mow your lawn or we'll throw > >>>>> you in jail" kind that is becoming popular in the US). We think we're > >>>>> "better" than they were because we don't shoot dissidents (we apparently > >>>>> reserve that for unarmed teenagers). But we have a higher percentage of > >>>>> our population locked up than the Soviets or the Chinese ever managed > >>>>> and nobody seems to see anything wrong with that except the people who > >>>>> are locked up. > >>>>> > >>>> Have you read Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago? He states clearly that > >>>> only 1 in 7 of the people who were sent to the gulag survived their > >>>> sentences. > >>>> In another book, Under the Rubble, written with a fellow political > >>>> prisoner named Igor Shafarevich, he writes that he is absolutely CERTAIN > >>>> 20 million people were sent to the Gulag and thinks it may well have > >>>> been as many as 120 million people. If you then apply the 6-in-7 death > >>>> rate, then AT LEAST 17 million people died there and as many as 102 > >>>> million people. > >>>> > >>>> Do you *seriously* mean to tell me that the US has more than 20 million > >>>> people locked up, let alone 120 million? If so, you are in serious need > >>>> of some reading time to bone up on your facts. > >>> > >>> So 120 million people were sent to the Gulag? Quite a trick when the > >>> entire population in 1950 was 180 million. > >>> > >> They didn't all get sent to the Gulag in the same year. Lenin and Stalin > >> sent people to the Gulag from 1918 through 1953, which is 35 years. > >> Also, as I said, 120 million was the highest number that Shafarevich, > >> who was a mathematician, thought plausible. He didn't declare > >> categorically that 120 million HAD gone to the Gulag, only that it MIGHT > >> HAVE BEEN that many. > > > > OK, if 120 million went to the Gulag and only 1/7 of them came back that > > means that 102 million didn't come back. Your numbers still dont' work. > > As to "might", 10 billion _might_ have gone to the Gulag. We're pretty > > sure it didn't happen since there aren't that many people on the entire > > planet, but it _might_ have happened. > > > You still don't get the concept of "might". Either you are extremely > obtuse or you are conjuring up a straw man. Nobody said ANYTHING about > 10 billion, which is impossible anyway since the entire population of > the earth has never been 10 billion people. > > > Don't rely on guesses by people who had a political axe to grind when > > there are better numbers available. > > > Has it occurred to you that YOU might be relying on the guess of someone > with a political axe to grind when you assert that the US has imprisoned > far more people than the Soviet Union or China? > > >>> I admit I'm engaging in a bit of hyperbole here--the current US figure > >>> is about half the peak Soviet figure. But it's still on the order of 10 > >>> times what any other civilized nation has locked up. > >>> > >> As I understand, the US has about 2 million people in prison. > > > > The Bureau of Justice Statistics, a Federal agency charged with keeping > > track of such matters, states that "An estimated 6,899,000 persons were > > under the supervision of adult correctional systems at yearend 2013". > > > >>> Note that the Soviet Union has fallen and the people who made it fall > >>> have gone through the records and released the numbers. > >>> > >> The numbers remain disputed. There are the "big numbers" historians like > >> Rummel > >> who cite very large numbers indeed and there are the "small numbers" > >> historians like Conquest. > > > > So from what source do they "cite" those numbers? > > > > You should find all the cites you could ever want via this link, which > reports on several different estimates: > > http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm#Stalin > > Note that this link only covers those who died under Stalin and does NOT > count the Russian Civil War (Stalin was in the Politburo at the time but > Lenin was in charge) or World War II. The Russian Civil War and WW II > are in separate sections of the same page so you'll need to scroll a bit > to find those numbers. > > > If the citation is from a source other than the official records of the > > Soviet government then they are at this point questionable. > > > So the only reliable source is a regime that constituted some of the > biggest liars in history? How ironic.... > > During Stalin's collectivization campaign, life expectancy in the > regions worst hit by this entirely man-made catastrophe was as low as 11 > years. (In other words, the life expectancy of a newborn in that region > was 11 years.) This was clearly going to make the regime look bad so > they reported a number in the 60s. > > The Germans, by all accounts, were notoriously meticulous in their > record-keeping. I have never heard any kind of declaration that the > Soviets were anywhere near as meticulous. It may well be that they > simply "misplaced" a whole lot of people and therefore under-reported > the numbers. > > I've read of incidents where they'd put hundreds of prisoners on a boat, > send them down a river, then sink the boat deliberately with all hands. > I have no great confidence that such atrocities were recorded in the > official records. > > >> There's one other crucial difference between the Soviet experience and > >> the American one: the vast majority of people in the Gulags were not > >> guilty of anything that any reasonable person would call a crime. > > > > Obviously people who thought they were reasonable thought they were > > guilty of something. Whether we accept their reasoning is another > > story. > > > > Stalin was an intensely paranoid individual. He had a 500 man security > detail for himself alone. He refused to allow any draperies or > tapestries that went all the way to the floor: he feared assassins > hiding behind them so he had all such draperies cut so they wouldn't > reach the floor so he and his security team could see a potential > assassin's feet. > > He once confided to Beria, the last of his secret police chiefs that he > (Stalin) was worried that he (Stalin) was plotting against HIMSELF. > > How on earth does that level of paranoia justify putting innocent people > in the Gulag? Do you really think we should give him and his minions a > pass on the moral aspect of what they did because Stalin was SINCERELY > paranoid? > > >> The > >> vast majority of people in the US prison system are actually guilty of > >> serious crimes like murder, rape, etc. > > > > Less than half the people in prison are charged with violent crimes. > > > >> Some examples of Soviet citizens who went to the Gulag that are etched > >> in my brain from reading Solzhenitsyn and Conquest: > >> > >> - A man had to move a heavy bust of Stalin from one spot in a large > >> building to another spot in the same building. There was no one to help > >> him and no lifting equipment. He could barely move the bust but > >> eventually determined that if he fashioned a sling from his belt and > >> looped it around the bust, he could put it over his back and get it to > >> where it needed to go. While he was moving the bust, someone came in and > >> saw him at work. They noticed that the belt went around the bust's neck > >> and since the bust was Stalin, they drew the "obvious" conclusion that > >> the man was symbolically hanging Stalin and was guilty of > >> "counter-revolutionary activity". The secret police were called and the > >> man was sent to the Gulag. I don't recall the length of the sentence but > >> for several years, the typical sentence for counter-revolutionary > >> activity was 8 years. Later in Stalin's reign of terror, it grew to 25 > >> years. > >> > >> - A tailor in a shop was sewing a garment. He had some pins in his > >> mouth, as tailors often do. Someone came into the shop and he realized > >> that he would need to talk to them so he took the pins out of his mouth > >> and had to park them somewhere until he could deal with the visitor. He > >> stuck them into a newspaper. The caller noticed that, when the newspaper > >> was turned over, there was a picture of the Politburo and that the pins > >> were going into that picture from the opposite side. Clearly, an implied > >> death threat (by voodoo?) against the top leaders of the country and > >> this man too went to the Gulag for counter-revolutionary activity. > >> > >> - A farmer who had relatives who had emigrated to the United States > >> several years before Lenin seized power still kept in touch with them > >> via occasional letters. They would share information on their respective > >> lives. On one occasion, the Soviet farmer asked about grain prices and > >> the reply he got revealed that US farmers got far more than Soviet > >> farmers for their grain. He mentioned the US prices in conversation to > >> some neighbours and got arrested for "counter-revolutionary agitation"; > >> he also got a stretch in the Gulag. > > > > Well, nolw, the thing all of these have in common is that somebody did > > something that the government determined was unlawful--in other words > > they, in contradiction of your argument, did in fact commit crimes. > > They may have been unintentional but that is beside the point. > > > >> - You didn't actually have to do ANYTHING - even something as trivial as > >> I've described in my other examples - to find yourself sentenced to the > >> Gulag. It was also a crime under the criminal code to be RELATED to a > >> criminal. If you were a parent, child, grandparent, first cousin, or > >> in-law of someone who'd been sent to the Gulag, you too could be sent to > >> the Gulag. (If you were a child who was not charged under this provision > >> and all the adults in the family were sent to the Gulag, you'd be sent > >> to an orphanage. Soviet orphanages were notoriously brutal.) We don't > >> even have the concept of doing something like this in our Western legal > >> systems. We wouldn't even conceive of locking up parents, children, > >> in-laws, etc. of notorious criminals like Charles Manson, Jeffrey > >> Dahmer, David Berkowitz, etc. etc. unless they too had participated in > >> the crimes. > > > > No, we have the concept, in RICO, of being jailed for TALKING to a > > criminal. > > > Let's have some numbers: how many people are in jail ONLY for talking to > a criminal, as opposed to talking to him and THEN doing something > culpable? Two? Three? Ten billion? > > > >> Stating that the US is WORSE than the Soviet Union or China is a truly > >> preposterous lie. > > > > It's bad in a different way. Unfortunately, people like you aren't > > goign to see it until you get jailed for some trivial offense or your > > kid gets killed for being the wrong color at the wrong time. > > > Or daring to dispute any aspect of Global Warming (or whatever it is > called this week)? > > And please don't imply that the numbers of people who are killed "for > being the wrong colour at the wrong time" is more than a tiny, tiny > number at worst. Not that any unwarranted death is every morally > acceptable - it isn't - but let's not try to imply that thousands or > even millions of blacks or Hispanics are being shot down in the streets > every day. > > > Communism is dead. It's _not_ the enemy. Creeping statism is, and > > always was the enemy. > > > Communism is just one flavour of statism. Communism is not dead either; > try denouncing communism in China and I think you'll be in for a rude > surprise. Look, my interest is not in debating the merits of Communism, it is in fixing the broken political system in the US. If all you want to do is whine about Communism, let me know now so I can killfile you and get on with my life.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-20 20:30 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <d698f3FmrsiU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #522295 |
Rhino <no_offline_contact_please@example.com> wrote: >> Communism is dead. It's _not_ the enemy. Creeping statism is, and >> always was the enemy. >> >Communism is just one flavour of statism. Communism is not dead either; >try denouncing communism in China and I think you'll be in for a rude >surprise. I found it amusing when The Amazing Race, a thoroughly capitalist media presentation had their contestants sing a short song of praise for communism in Vietnamese. I wonder if the contestants would have had more of an issue with it if they had seen the subtitles that the home viewers got? -- We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-20 16:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <u54uva9kobp7obtvon5ntltg60kg3gchg1@reader80.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #522257 |
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 15:11:50 -0400, Rhino <no_offline_contact_please@example.com> wrote: >As I understand, the US has about 2 million people in prison. > >There's one other crucial difference between the Soviet experience and >the American one: the vast majority of people in the Gulags were not >guilty of anything that any reasonable person would call a crime. The >vast majority of people in the US prison system are actually guilty of >serious crimes like murder, rape, etc. No, the majority are guilty of drug-related offenses. Rape and murder are definitely not even close to a majority. -- My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web