🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 05 May 1997 21:35:05 GMT, jatkinso@ANTISPAMgmu.edu (John M
Atkinson) wrote:

>Thus Spake klaatu <klaatu@clark.net>:
>
>
>%> I'm not familliar with conspiracy-nut right-wing bullshit.  What's RICO??
>%
>%"Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations." It's a Federal law
>%designed to make it easier to break unions by alleging involvement with
>%organized crime. Actually it has served as a powerful wedge into those
>%unions which _are_ racketeer-influenced. But it's also potentially
>%usable against about anyone for anything. It's a sort of "one bad apple
>%spoils the whole bunch" and my admittedly hazy understanding of this is
>%that one criminal in a targeted organization can be used to take out the
>%entire organization. For instance, one felony conviction of one
>%high-level NORML member could be used as an excuse to have unlimited
>%wiretappings on _all_ NORML members.
>
>Damn, but it sucks when you hire felons. . .  :)

What country do YOU live in?

In the United States, mere MEMBERSHIP in an organization is not a
crime, much less a felony.

>
>%Your ignorance of the existence of this law is astounding, but hardly
>%moreso than your immediate categorization of someone else's awareness of
>%a far-reaching Federal Law as "conspiracy-nut right-wing bullshit".
>
>Take a look at the context.  I had absolutely no idea what the acronym referred
>to, but when a couple of people pointed out the full name, I recalled it.  My
>point is that the conspiracy-nut community has it's jargon and acronyms, and I
>got a legitemate law confused with them.  Hell, OWG threw me for a loop the
>first time I saw it on usenet.
> 
>%The point is that those "fanatics" have the same rights as anyone. Thus,
>%anyone taking _you_ down wouldn't be just cause for a revolt. Or anyone
>%taking down an entire neighborhood because it was "crime-riddled" by the
>%same logic would not be cause for a revolt. Nor would, by extension of
>%this logic, would be the elimination of an entire class, ethnic group,
>%or race.
>%
>%This is called a "slippery slope argument" (or failure to notice that
>
>No, this is called reducto ad absurdum.  If I don't think that taking down the
>Wacko from Waco is just cause for armed rebellion, I'm in favor of ethnically
>based genocide and therefore a racist, and probably a Nazi?  Check your own
>caffine intake.  I thought hurling 'racist' in lieu of argument was a liberal
>tactic.  Scale does make a difference.  If we resorted to shooting up the local
>law enforcement every time someone made a mistake, or got too excited, or just
>came up with a phemomenally stupid policy, we'd be in a constant state of
>anarchy.  

Then your argument is that THEY get to shoot US up, but we have to
just sit and take it?

--
Ask suuty@hotmail.com (Hugh Donald Green) why he says things like:

>  "Did you hear the one about the dirty jew, the welfare queen, and
>the single mother?" - suuty@hotmail.com (Hugh Donald Green)