No Subject

I most likely will get toasted for this, but here goes:

I notice tons of fear and loathing, and this feeling of 1984 is upon us, etc.

I seriously wonder who is trying to create a repressive government.  Clinton
cannot pass a simple crime bill, much less become Big Brother.  Congress
has to do tons of head butting to vote for a pay raise, much less turn
the US into a totaliarian society.

I DO agree on one thing.  If there is something st00pid proposed, like
Clipper, etc., then people have all rights to toast the puppy, but
I don't think we have an Outer Circle/Inner Circle just yet.

(From a lowly prole,)

> 
> 
> I most likely will get toasted for this, but here goes:
>
[Not at all!]
 
> I notice tons of fear and loathing, and this feeling of 1984 is upon us, etc.
>
[Indeed yes!]
 
> I seriously wonder who is trying to create a repressive government.  Clinton
> cannot pass a simple crime bill, much less become Big Brother.  Congress
> has to do tons of head butting to vote for a pay raise, much less turn
> the US into a totaliarian society.
>
[Does 'the death of a thousand cuts' come to mind?]
 
> I DO agree on one thing.  If there is something st00pid proposed, like
> Clipper, etc., then people have all rights to toast the puppy, but
> I don't think we have an Outer Circle/Inner Circle just yet.
> 
> (From a lowly prole,)
> 
> 
> 
Certainly NOT a flame, but I guess I see it differently...
the 'simple' crime bill is not simple..quite the contrary,
it is a complex piece of legislation!  Quite aside from the
AW provision, there are big reasons to question it.  For
example, I just learned that the bill only pays for 25,000
police officers;  the other 75,000 officers are *_mandated_*
expenditures for local governments.  However, if the funding
is NOT used for police officers, then the funds don't impose
a mandate!

Going to guns;  originally, they wanted to limit magazine
capacity to 5 rounds;  they compromised to 10.  It is a
slow grinding away of rights.  May I quote Lenin?
"Probe as with a knife.  Press forward when you feel
flesh, withdraw when you touch bone."  Apologies to Lenin,
since I don't happen to have his books at hand!   :-)

I suspect part of the problem is a steady increase in 
regulations.  Not so long ago, you could buy a firearm
through the mail..not any more.  Waitresses weren't
targeted by the IRS for failure to report tip income...
they are now.  Scanners weren't at risk of being banned;
clipper wasn't even imagined; warrants were required for
searches (they aren't in public housing, now)...I think
I perceive a trend!

As for inner & outer circles...well, I suspect that the
folks who donate $10,000 per year get a *_tad_* more
respect than I do!!

Regards,

Dave

In article <9408240204.AA21095@runner.utsa.edu>,
Douglas R. Floyd <dfloyd@runner.jpl.utsa.edu> wrote:
>
>I most likely will get toasted for this, but here goes:

Naw...

>I seriously wonder who is trying to create a repressive government.  Clinton
>cannot pass a simple crime bill, much less become Big Brother.

Oh?  Just wait and see... Now it just has to get past a Republican
 point of order (it breaks the Budget Act) that requires 60%.  Once
 past that, it's home-free.

Even if he can't pass the Crime Bill (which I think is one of the most
 frightening pieces of legislation in a long time: 2nd Amendment right
 to violent revolution aside, it includes a measure which requires
 anybody *accused* of a "sex crime" to be tested for HIV, at the
 alleged victim's demand), think of it as a sort of "Pascal's Wager."

I'd far rather be wrong about this country getting dangerously 
 oppresive than be wrong about it being just fine, business as usual.
 YM, of course, MV.
-- 
L. Todd Masco  | "Large prime numbers imply arrest."  - Previously meaningless
cactus@bb.com  |   grammatically correct sentence.  Now...