HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gt6367c@prism.gatech.EDU (DEAL, DOUGLAS WAYNE)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Quayle's a liar!
Date: 15 Oct 92 05:48:44 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <1biufaINNahu@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes:
>goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman) writes:

>>    Gore did call for an enviromental Marshall plan in his book.
>>    The Republicans say the M. plan cost $100B in today's money,
>>    therefore...

>Dear asshole:  Even your own pathetic argument is self-contradictory.
>Even your pitiful brain should be able to tell the difference between
>"an environmental Marshall plan", and "the Marshall plan".

Dear drooling cretin:  Your simple-mindedness shows when you have to resort
to such an ignorant tactic of debate.  Ah, lets see how insulting we can
be.  That will show him, ha ha ha ha ha.  Next time you leave your house
to pick up your food stamps, try selling for a couple of quarters so you
can buy a newpaper and perhaps gain some clue, which you may be able to use
in future posts.  .

>Get a grip.

My point exactly.

>Stratocaster
>-- 
>	   Steve Davis (I'm a democrat, not a smartperson!)
>      strat@cis.ksu.edu - Kansas State University - Manhattan KS
>				   


-- 
Douglas Wayne Deal
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt6367c
Internet: gt6367c@prism.gatech.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: juphoff@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (The Road Warrior)
Subject: Re: State by State Poll Results
Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Socorro NM
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 02:05:42 GMT

Would someone please e-mail me the state by state poll results if they
have them?  I missed the initial post here.  Thanx in advance.

 
-- 
Jeff Uphoff -- "Uppie"     |  The post office raises the price of stamps,
                           |  becomes a paying sponsor of the olympics,
juphoff@astro.phys.vt.edu  |  then purcahses ad time on tv to brag about it.
juphoff@zia.aoc.nrao.edu   |    Is this a great country or what?
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Term Limits are Constitutional, Study Shows
Date: 16 Oct 92 15:54:33 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In article <1992Oct13.162743.12212@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>>But these "old" biases are ones to which the people have formally
>>consented (by ratifying the Constitution or its Amendments.) They
>>are not biases imposed by the whim of nine old, unelected men. 
> 
>Everyone  who ever formally consented (through ratification) is dead.

>Why in the world would anyone today consent to old biases?


Under this logic why do we bother having a constitution at all.
We can just let the Supreme Court toss out or accept any law that suits
their fancy.  After all since these guys were appointed by current
politicians then they obviously represent the modern biases.

The constitution must mean what it meant when it was ratified. (Subject
to more recent amendments of course.)

If you do not like what the constitution says then amend it.  Why
do you have a problem with this process?

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: visser@convex.com (Lance Visser)
Subject: Looking for Libertarian info
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 01:46:45 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

	Can someone point me to where the Libertarian stuff is archived
on the net (if the archive still exists).  I'm specifically looking
for interview transcripts, party positions...etc.



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Women as inventors
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 03:39:01 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.103114.27244@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
    >In article <1992Oct12.171002.4763@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com
    >(Phil Ronzone) writes:
    >>I just finished Sandra Kurtzigs book -- on how she built a
    >>multi- hundred million dollar company from scratch, while
    >>raising a family. She doesn't think that any lack of sucess
    >>was from any male conspiracy. Any lack of success she had
    >>she'd blamed on the right source -- herself.
    >>
    >>Must be a scary thought for you, eh? No one to blame except
    >>yourself.
    >>
    >And yet, you didn't comment on this:
    >
    >Dr. Gertrude Elion...won a Nobel Prize in 1988 for developing
    >drugs to fight herpes, cancer and other diseases.
    >
    >Since 1937, when she was refused a laboratory job because she
    >was "too cute" and threatened to distract the other workers,
    >Elion has patented 45 of her discoveries.
    >
    >Wouldn't you say that her being refused a lab job because she
    >was "too cute" was an obstacle?

Yep.

And being Jewish back then had an obstacle too -- quotas limiting
Jews even getting into the Universities in the first place (that's
why the SATs came about).

And Asians as well -- with a differnt racial appearance, they were
subject to fierce discrimnation -- IMHO even worse than faced
by blacks.

Yet neither group wasted much time "whining" -- they just went out
and accomplished.

In areas not so "scientific", groups such as the Irish and Italians
went through a generation or three of intense discrimination, yet
in the end, perserved and become known for doing well and not
whining.




-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

If all the contributions of Dead White Males, a.k.a. Dead White Loathsome
Oppressors, were to vanish, you'd have the Politically Correct(tm) Loathsome
Oppressors using dull rocks to hunt and the Politically Correct Women of
Vision and Strength(tm) using leaves for tampons.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Subject: Re: Media coverage for Marrou/Lord (call these #'s!)
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA
	<1992Oct5.200227.16334@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> <BvrLyq.MLG@apollo.hp.com>
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:26:11 GMT

In article <BvrLyq.MLG@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter
Nelson) writes:

      I have no idea where this idea came from but it's very widespread
      on Usenet and shows the degree of economic ignorance here.   It 
      should be noted that hust as a democracy cannot function without 
      a basic understanding of politics and legislation, neither can a 
      free market economy function without a basic understanding of simple
      economic concepts.

      In *any* enterprise the *customer* is the one who pays the money
      for whatever product or service is being rendered, in return for
      that product or service.   The radio listener or TV viewer is
      not the customer, he is the PRODUCT!   The advertiser is the 
      is the customer; he pays the station to deliver to him a qualified
      audience of a certain size.   

This is simply yet another simplification.  Regarding the viewer or
the advertising purchaser as the "customer" is a simplification of the
actual situation.  As in many transactions, the roles here are not
uniquely partitionable into customer and seller.

The advertiser pays for access to viewers, and is thus a customer who
pays in money.  The viewer pays for access to programs, and pays not
in money, but in viewing the commercials involved (and if you don't
think that is a reciprocal service, think again).  The TV station
itself is a general public provider, under the laws set up by the FCC,
and is thus a seller to the public in general; it pays in public
service (such as PSAs and the like) for access to a limited resource,
communications bandwidth.  And I am not even sure that this is all.

For a given situation, any one of these buyer/seller relationships can
be selected as a simplification; however, this is only done at some
risk.  A TV station which deletes a program because it offends a
specific advertiser (a common business courtesy) risks offending his
"other customer set", which are the viewers.  As a result, he has
fewer "viewer hours" to sell, which reduces his viability to the
advertiser customer set.  And so on.

In general, each business has many customer and provider sets.  Where
transactions are independent, the multiple nature of these
relationships can be ignored.  Where they are related in some way,
the intermingled relationships must be taken into account.

Learn some elementary economics yourself.  Your simplification is no
better than the original poster's.  Using one or the other does not
necessarily show economic ignorance, merely the purpose of the
speaker's use of the relationship.

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Subject: The Decline of America: PRIORITIES: Bombs, not Food for 3rd World
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 04:00:09 GMT

The Decline of America: PRIORITIES: Bombs, not Food for 3rd World

        Four months after Bush attended a World Summit for Children at
which he and 70 other heads of state pledged to make meaningful
efforts to provide the relatively small amount ($2.5 billion per year)
needed worldwide to save the lives of 150 million children in the
developing world from hunger and preventable diseases in this decade,
now he wants to reduce the contribution to UNICEF from $75 million to
$55 million.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sources for information cited here include the 1989 Report of
the Coalition of Mayors and The State of America's Children
(1991), published by the Children's Defense Fund.

From "Suffer the Little Children" by Anne Marie Palmer, Lone Star
Socialist.  The Lone Star Socialist is published by the Socialist
Party of Texas and they can be reached at P.O. Box 2640, Austin, TX
78768.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: The Games are Over, and Clinton is Going to Win BIG!!
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 16:50:18 GMT

In article <adams.719246053@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>
>>In article <adams.719178972@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>
>>>PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>>>
>>>>In article <adams.719167533@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>If you accept that Clinton is going to win, then why don't you tone down the
>>>>>>abusive rhetoric a little and give him a chance?  
>>>>>
>>>>>Just like the left toned down all of their screeching during Reagan and
>>>>>Bush's Presidencies?
>>>>
>>>>     Y'know, "They started it," just doesn't impress me.
>>>>
>>>The issue here is wanting a double standard.  It's ok for the left to
>>>screech all they want when the White House is under control they don't
>>>like.  But conservatives are supposed to tone down and give the opposition
>>>a chance.
>>>
>>>Typical liberal/left double standard.
>>
>>     Who said it was ok?  The misdeeds of one party doesn't excuse the 
>>misdeeds of the other.
>>
>>     These people want to be leaders?  Fine.
>>
>>     They can start by leading by example.
>
>Of course.  THEY can start.  How about the LEFT starting?  No?  Of course
>not.  Once again, double standard.

     What the *left* does, is *irrelevent* to what the right.  Whether
the left wants to start leading or not makes *no* difference if the right 
wants to make a go at it.

     It's time both sides quite blaming the other for their own failings.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  Information Services Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Commies, Nazis, Dems & GOPs  (The Same Old Party-Line)
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 22:03:22 GMT


In article <5OCT199210134171@utarlg.uta.edu>, 
b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) said:

> While you're worrying about Ross Perot, the rest of us are going to
> take apart the Pork-Party -- slab by slab. I *just* *don't*
> *understand* how you can support continuing the abuse of your
> neighbors and other Americans in good conscience?!

[ * * * ]

> Deal with fact. The fact is that there is a large and growing number
> of just plain Americans who are fed up with party politics forcing
> them to overspend money on matters that are not needed and for which
> we will never get anything back from. It sucks.

Okay, there's the problem.  Assuming, arguendo, that your view of
affairs is correct, now what?  What solutions do you offer that people
can implement in a voting booth on November 3rd?

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51826 alt.politics.clinton:10480
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Raving a bit, aren't we?
Date: 10 Oct 1992 02:33:16 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbang.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Oct9.164353.4663@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:

>	When freed of culpable deniability, consumers take it upon themselves
>to regulate economic concerns.  Yes, without OSHA supposedly doing the job,
>there would be workplace watchdog groups.

OSHA is quite a new program (1960s, yes?), so you won't have any trouble
naming, say, five such watchdogs from pre-OSHA days.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Below list what these groups did historically
if manufacturers denied them access.

1.

And last, explain below why workplace injuries and fatalities appear to
have dropped after OSHA.

1.

See, Stupes, just fill in the blanks.

andy

PS The closest I could come up with was Kosher food inspectors. And
they're looking out for the CUSTOMERS, not the safety of the workers.

PPS Don't bother listing Consumer Reports again either. Remember, they
support OSHA. They think workplace safety is government's concern.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo)
Subject: Re: Am I unpatriotic?
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Labs
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:22:28 GMT

In article <CINDY.92Oct13123610@solan10.solan.unit.no> cindy@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf) writes:
>
>In short:  If you march in front of an embassy with a sign saying
>"STOP THE WAR!"  or "FREE POLITICAL PRISONERS", you are expressing
>your opinion that that country should end a war it is involved in, or
>free its political prisoners, or whatever.  It does not mean you think
>the country is evil, has no right to exist, or should be bombed
>back into the stone age.
>

besides, the embassy is officially part of the USA.
so protesting at the embassy is equivalent to protesting
in the USA, as far as i'm concerned.

-- 
-- Pat Monardo
-- pjm@cshl.org
From: usenet@transfer.stratus.com (Mr. Network News)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: What's wrong with line-item veto?
Date: 16 Oct 92 22:20:57 GMT
Reply-To: Dave_Wetzel@vos.stratus.com
Organization: Dave_Wetzel

In article <92290.111411U53903@uicvm.uic.edu> U53903@uicvm.uic.edu writes:

> 1)  It will disrupt the checks and balances between the legislative and
> executive branches of Congress.
> 
>      Why is this necessarily the case?  The checks and balances system
> will still be in place; if the President vetos a portion of a bill, the
> Congress can always go back and try to override that veto.  Why do we
> constantly have good legislation sunk because of all the extras attached
> to it?

Again (just like term limits), why are we trying to fix a perceived 
problem with bizare regulations?  If the problem is riders on bills, why 
not prohibit adding non-related riders to bills?

--------------
Dave_Wetzel@vos.stratus.com
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Bad aim
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:28:03 GMT
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In <1992Oct7.143931.7449@ra.msstate.edu> cea1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Carolyn E. Adams-Price)

>John Moore of Scottsdale, Arizona writes that he is not against all
>federal regulations, but .....
>
>Perhaps you should die because the FDA doesn't approve a medication needed
>for your treatment.
>Perhaps you should lose your job because of unnecessary environmental standards.
>Perhaps you should starve because the minimum wage is raised too much by 
>a Democratic congress.
>
>I am glad that Moore recognizes that not all regulations are unnecessary.
>Some people seem to believe that they are.  I am merely suspicious of
>business groups who are on the warpath to elminate regulations that
>they think harm them.  For example, logging groups who want the right
>to log giant redwoods as they see fit.  Whose interests are they looking
>out for?  

	Loggers.

>I am also concerned about groups that would keep the minimum wage
>unreasonably low.  How long was it at around $3.00/hour?  
>When the minimum wage is that low, there is no motivation to
>get off welfare.  The minimum wage needs to be marginally livable.

	Unreasonably low?  How about not having one at all!  The market has
consistently exceeded minimum wage for years now.  McDonalds, et al. started
offering $1 more per hour in the 80s, and are currently offering $5/hour.  So
much for minimum wage.

>This country has a lot of problems, but business and industry have
>done a pretty good job on their own in lobbying congress to 
>eliminate unnecessary regulations.  I simply object to
>people who think that regulations are the big problem in this country,
>(and that seems to be the only problem Bush can see), instead of
>education, poverty, health care, crime, justice, etc.

	Regulations *are* a problem, as John pointed out.  Do you have access
to RU-486?  Why not?  Do the letters FDA have anything to do with it? 
Politically motivated regulations, perhaps?

	Education:  Hmm. how about barriers to entry ("certification"),
inability to fire poor workers, weird alternative studies/programs *mandated*
by the state, instead of teaching math, science, language, geography, etc.

	Poverty: government sponsered hand-outs instead of education and
job-training programs, once again, *mandated*.

	Health care: Hmm, VA, Medicare, Medicaid.  Next?

	Crime: The war on rights...err... drugs.  Nice bit of
un-constitutionality that.  Same with justice.

	So, now, what exactly are your objections to the Libertarian Party,
which wants to fix the above?

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.environment,talk.environment
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:48:18 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Oct13.171625.6654@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
>In article <Bw2ArH.9Mo@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct13.000811.5263@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
>
>    [ ... wherein we both write of food production ... ]

>			  that's 21.5 weeks, or 215 hours.  At $20
>>   /hour (the low end of what a software engineer can make) that 
>>   still works out to $4300.   This would be WAY more than I spend
>>   on food for a whole year.  And this assumes there are no other
>>   costs such as seeds, fertilizers, etc.  I do "organic" gardening
>>   but that doesn't mean it's cost-free -- seeds, blood-meal (N),
>>   tools, fencing, canning lids, etc)
>
>Your figures are about right. However, I simply don't agree with the
>basic tenet of this kind of analysis of "worth". 

  Understood.  But my choice of this metric was to employ something
  that allows us to try to compare the benefits of your choice in
  a more universal way.    

>I'm trying to maximise happiness,

  Understood, but since you posted this to a widely read newsgroup
  I thought you were trying to make a broader point than "this makes
  Paul Barton-Davis happy".

  I.e., if you're going to *advocate* something, it helps to put it in
  terms where it can be externalized to others.  Merely discussing
  what makes us, as individuals, happy makes it impossible to 
  compare organic gardening to, say, having season's tickets to
  the Seahawks on the 50 yard line.   They both make certain individuals
  happy.


---peter





Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Robert Stephen Rodgers)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 23:52:07 GMT

In article <5947@news.duke.edu> lanier@acpub.duke.edu (Dustin Lanier) writes:
>too bad there isn't someone around to individually photograph the 1.4 
>million abortions done in this country every year ... you my do more
>than want to cry.

	Yeah, it might make me want to go fetch some chips and dip from the 
	kitchen.  

	Oh, did you say photograph?  Nevermind.  Might make a pretty good 
	coffee table book, tho.

--------------------------rsrodger@wam.umd.edu----------------I-want-.QWK!!--
Please god, just let me graduate.. let me graduate... unnnghhnn.. ... 
ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz... i'll do it in the morning.. the morning... ZZzzzz...
-------->Titania:  Pray thee gentle mortal, sing again.<---------------------