HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: What keeps me from being Lib.
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 23:34:44 GMT

rnewman@bbn.com (Ron Newman) writes:
>But June, what does Libertarianism really have to offer these
>people?  For the most part, as presented here on the Net,
>it's a philosophy that lets the rich get richer and 
>doesn't give much thought to the poor at all.

It offers them more jobs, it offers them more opportunities to go into
business for themselves, more opportunities for self-sufficiency.  The
rich get richer partly because they've got the government on their side, no
matter how much congress attempts to soak the rich.  Government makes
it tough to pull yourself up, and it really makes it hard to get over
the middle class hump (now you're suddenly nailed with all these
taxes, and if you run a successful business it's even worse).
Government regulates to make it harder to enter business, get jobs,
find housing, and more.

>If you want more Libertarians, you need to study why
>adherents of Libertarianism are rarely found in these
>inner city areas, and come up with a program that attracts
>these people.

I can think of two reasons.  The first is that many well-educated
people don't know who libertarians are, and victims of inner city
schooling often have trouble reading and finding the USA on a world
map, much less knowing who the libertarians are.

The other reason is that libertarians advocate the removal of direct
transfer payments.  Welfare and the like.  I can't see people wanting
to give up monthly payments from the government for the promise of
more jobs and more opportunities in the future.  On the other hand,
it's tough to taxes and get that economic stimulation without cutting
entitlements.  Perhaps if social security and unreasonable barriers to
employment and business creation went first.

>If Libertarians can come up with a plan to bring business
>and industry to inner cities, a lot more people will
>listen to you.

Cut laws limiting employment and making it so expensive and full of
red tape to start businesses.  The inner city is a vast market waiting
to be tapped, especially for such things as grocery stores.  However,
adding the increased risk of robberies and vandalism to the problems
of getting the land, permits, building it, and then havinging a huge
chunk of your profits taken away from you just isn't worth it.
Assuming that zoning and other laws let them do it in the first place.
Industry?  Forget it, that's even worse.

One other problem is that the cities with the worst inner cities tend
to have the worst taxes and stifling regulations. (And they see no
relationship here...)  Again, this makes it worthwhile to open a store
in a middle to upper-class neighborhood, but not worth the risk in a
low-income neighborhood.
-- 
You still need the last file you removed.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17121 soc.culture.canada:3204
From: ddc1@jaguar.uofs.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,sci.econ,alt.activism
Subject: Re: "Government is not the solution, government is the problem!"
Date: 12 Apr 92 09:44:35 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: University of Scranton

In article <1992Apr8.054420.25066@nuscc.nus.sg>, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
> 
> 
>   "Reagan Was Right: Government Is the Problem"
>   by Charlton Heston

	Great another actor who thinks he knows how to fix the gov't! Who's
next? Tom Sellack?!?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave D. Cawley		   |	Where a social revolution is pending and,
University Of Scranton	   |	for whatever reason, is not accomplished,
ddc1@jaguar.uofs.edu	   |	reaction is the alternative.
ddc1@SCRANTON		   |				-Daniel De Leon
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,rec.sport.hockey
From: allan@cs.UAlberta.CA (Allan Sullivan)
Subject: Re: Greedy Athletes
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 07:29:23 GMT

snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes:

>In article <1992Apr8.130714.12076@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>And marketing has nothing to do with it -- to get a big TV contract,
>>it has to be sold to a *national* audience, and over half of the
>>country has no interest in ever seeing a hockey game.  The first
>>three sports mentioned are all sports that that anybody can play
>>any time, but hockey requires ice, and there's a solid chunk of the
>>television market that sees icy weather maybe once every three years.

>I disagree strongly, Ted.  Marketing *does* have a lot to do with it.  I
>don't believe that it is a requirement that you live in an icy clime to
>have a successful hockey team.  The San Jose Sharks are in an area where
>ice is unheard of, and they sold every game this season.  

Please don't draw any conclusions on the basis of the Shark's current
success. After all, they are an expansion team, they are new, and
hockey is a fad in California (Partly due to the presence of 
Wayne Gretzky in LA). Instead, wait for about 5-10 years, when
Gretzky is gone, and the California hockey fad is over, THEN you can
draw conclusions from their attendance. (Remember, a few years
ago the Kings were only drawing around 13,000 fans. And remember,
the American media is also hockey ignorant.)

I do agree that marketing is important, and the NHL does a poor
job of selling themselves.

Who knows? Maybe hockey will catch on in the southern states.
I hope it does. But lets wait and see how the franchises do
in the long run. (And for goodness sake, lets not change hockey
just to cater to an unproven fan base.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   \  \                   |Allan Sullivan (allan@cs.ualberta.ca)
    \  \                  |Department of Computing Science,
     \  \_______          |University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
      \    ###  \     _   |---------------------------------------------------
       \___###___\   (_)  |My opinions are mine and mine alone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is amazing how much can be accomplished if no one cares who gets the
 credit..."          - U. of A. Golden Bears Hockey Motto (C. Drake)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18545 alt.politics.elections:1032 misc.taxes:2306 alt.society.civil-liberty:3524
From: lbr@holos0.uucp (Len Reed)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,misc.taxes,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: What keeps me from being Lib. (was Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS)
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:18:11 GMT
Organization: Holos Software, Inc.

In article <1992Apr10.220819.10816@esd.dl.nec.com>, Michael Lee (ml) writes:

Mr. Lee is writing about whooping cough vaccination.

> The risk is paralysis and/or death.  Your doctor should be able to
> tell you how many children die each year from whooping cough
> vaccinations.

Yeah, a few.  Very few, and what in life is risk free?  Is the risk
worth it for an individual child?  Maybe, maybe not.

>ml> My children are vaccinated.  I decided the benefit was worth the
>ml> risk.  The risk does exist.  I am informed about the risk.  You
>ml> clearly are not.

Fine, but this simply cannot be a individual decision.  That is because
vaccination programs target public, not individual, health.  The risk
to any individual may literally be higher in getting the vaccine than
the risk of the disease.  That is, if everyone else's kids are vaccinated,
then mine are better of without the vaccine because they're not going
to come in contact with the disease.  The rest of the population is
immune, so the disease never gets a foothold, and the few individuals
who are not immune never get the disease.  This is called herd immunity.

But the only reason that the the risk of the vaccination can be
considered comparable to the risk of getting the disease is that most
persons have been immunized.  Saying that I can opt my children out of
the program based on such an accessment of the risks is outrageously
unfair.  It says, "The rest of you have borne their risk."  It is not unlike
saying, "Everyone else is paying taxes, my contribution wouldn't be
much, so I'll just opt out."

>ml> And YOU want to tell ME how to take care of MY children?

I do.  If you don't want to live on a mountaintop, if you want
them to associate with others in this society, then they need to be
vaccinated.  Unvaccinated, they are a public health threat, or at best
they are leaching off the risks borne by others.  If enough selfish
bastards opt out of the immunity program, then herd immunity is lost and
we're back to the days when whooping cough was a serious problem.
There is already concern among public health officials that polio
vaccination rates have become so low in some places that herd immunity
is threatened.  An outbreak of polio is not a pretty sight.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Actors for Presidents unlimited
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 10:58:01 GMT


In article <1992Apr14.164226.11084@husc3.harvard.edu>, 
koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis) said:

> Arnie S. was called in by Bush for the recent NH primary...

[stories of Bush's utter cluelessness with regards to doing
_anything_ that he hasn't rehearsed and debugged in private
through at least two iterations deleted]

> ...It was during his I care campaing trip that Arnie S appeared
> with him.

Arnie also campaigned actively for Candidate Bush back in '88.  I
remember a clip of him telling a crowd that "Michael Dukakis would
be the real terminator..."

On the other side of the campaign trail, I remember John Laroquette
(sp?) of "Night Court" coming up with the most accurate line of the
campaign while stumping for Dukakis: "Listen, folks, Dukakis and
Bensten may not have all the answers, but Bush and Quayle are
_bozos_..."  Pretty much summed it all up nicely, I thought.

By the way, Arnie S is married -- happily, apparently -- to Maria
Shriver, whose father, Sargent (sp?) Shriver is a Kennedy-in-law.
Maria is a television personality who appears on one of those
two-hour news-and-entertainment shows for people who aren't lucky
enough to be able to sleep late ("Today" on NBC, I believe), and I
think she's also a vampire.

(Okay, not really... but when she and Arnie got married, there was
one post-ceremony photo of the happy couple that ran in a lot of the
print media, and in this photo Maria was sporting a _big_ open-
mouthed, upper teeth-exposed, lower-teeth-covered-by-lower-lip
smile the likes of which the world hadn't seen since the days of
Bela Lugosi.  Made quite an impression on me. :-)

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18318 alt.society.civil-liberty:3476 alt.individualism:2468
From: bprofane@netcom.com (Gert Niewahr)
Subject: Re: 60 Minutes piece on the Forfeiture Law
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 92 08:17:27 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <1992Apr7.174346.4247@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del Vecchio) writes:
[...]
>I'd bet that guy's airplane that Thomas would rule it unconstitutional.
>There's an interview a few years back where he refers to RICO and that
>sort of thing as totalitarian.  In fact,the fact that Thomas is very
>pro-property rights is probably one of the big reasons that Bush wanted
>to get him in.   There are a few other pro-property rights people on
>the court.   I dont' know where the scale is tipped today, but if the
>kind of law you mention can't be struck down today, it will just come
>back after the next appointment to tryn.

True, property rights is one of the few areas in which conservative
justices pretend that they are libertarians, but almost always
their expansive definition of governmental powers overrides those
views.  I think Scalia and Rehnquist are already in the books with
opinions validating  the state's right to do just about anything it
wants to with your property, except for a narrow "takings"
protection.

Don't count on Thomas, either.  He said a lot of "liberal" things
before and during his confirmation; if you took him at his word,
you'd have had to count him as a liberal.  As we all suspected,
however, once he got his butt in the door he's voted like Atilla
the Hun.  Worse, he seems to have a taste for Scalia's more bizarre
extremes.

As to why Bush nominated him, I don't think there's any doubt it
was because he was the most prominent black conservative jurist
they could find.  His views on property probably never came into
it.  In fact, I doubt they looked at his writings for more than
hidden bombshells about the right to privacy cases.
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Want facts?  "WHO RUNS THE MEDIA?  The Alarming Facts"
Date: 10 Apr 92 16:39:57 GMT
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: Curious Goods (formerly Louis Vendredi Antiques)

ghassoun@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (George Hassoun) writes:
>
>In Paris, people would confront you in the streets with very detailed
>questions reflecting well informed opinions while in Columbus (for
>example), people were full of curiosity but at the same time they
>were, most of the time, displaying an almost inacceptable degree of
>ignorance (regarding this matter again).

The answer to this is quite simple; France has had much contact with
the Arab world through its colonial history in Lebanon and Northern
Africa.  The Americans have had little contact other than images of
the Gulf Arabs with whom they deal for oil, and the ones you see in
the News right now.  Another analogy would be talking to someone in
Australia (where you are) about the British Commonwealth, and then
talking someone from Tennessee about it ("What's that?").  Simple not
been part of their relevant history.  That doesn't excuse ignorance
but you can't expect to know everything ...

(Hey, I have the same problem talking to other English-Canadians
about La Francophonie ... that's the French Commonwealth.)

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare				U.S. Elections 1992, Vote Now:
> gld@cunixB.cc.columbia.EDU		a) Elvis 50's stamp, or
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			b) Elvis 70's stamp?
From: falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Ozone hole farce? (was Re: Ozone problem burns Politically Correct)
Date: 10 Apr 92 03:04:16 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: peregrine

In article <Apr.9.14.07.05.1992.6616@math.rutgers.edu> cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:
>
>Could you please give us references to where you found this "news
>report" and who these "scientists" are?

Probably research chemists for somebody who makes CFC's.

>Also, please try to avoid confusion between ozone depletion and global
>warming.  They are two entirely different issues.

Whenever you see somebody make that confusion, you already know you've
got someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.

		-ed falk, sun microsystems
		 sun!falk, falk@sun.com
	That's one thing about going against the flow:  there's
	less traffic in that direction.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass)
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 08:11:07 GMT

In article <ZRF9iB3w164w@Nitro.CtEdge.COM> djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM writes:
>elf@polari.com writes:
>
>>    Anyway, Phil... that's good gasoline.  And no you don't have to like
>> it, but you haven't the right to interrupt or interfere with it.  Trust
>> me on this one, I've seen relationships like the one you describe, and
>> they're very loving.  And certainly a lot more stable than your typical
>> spouse-beating relationship.
>> 
>> >phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
>> 
>>       Elf !!!  (Who knows LOTS of gay people at netcom.com...)
>> 
>
>If you consider ten new partners a nite and four or five new
>'relationships' a year stable.  :-!


Where did you get these numbers from?  I live in a house
with four gay men, two who have been lovers for close to ten
years, the second hasn't had sex in 7 years and I have only been
with another man twice these past 18 months or so.  And then you
have Magic Johnson and Wilt Chamberlain, both fine examples of
how "heterosexuals really are"!  The average gay relationship last
close to five years, just two years short of the average straight 
marriage.  The reason you have two years on us is because heterosexual
women are more dependent on thier husbands, they cannot get out as 
easily, they are usually legally bound, so the process of getting 
divorced takes longer, and they have children, which is a stupid reason
to stay together.

And have you ever been to a heterosexual meeting place, the bars.  Talk
about tramps and sluts (both the men and women)!

Now what was that about glass  houses and stones?

Bil Snodgrass III

>
>-djk
>
>--- Daniel J. Karnes / WA6NDT --------------------------------------
>--- NMS&Systems Engineering ----------------------------------------
>--- Djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM / ..CtEdge!Nitro!Djk ----------------------
>-- 'innovative solutions for modern problems' ----------------------


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: elf@polari.com
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Organization: Seattle Online Public Access Unix
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 08:59:16 GMT

In article <BVNyiB8w164w@Nitro.CtEdge.COM> djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM writes:

>mike@batpad.lgb.CA.US (Mike Batchelor) writes:
>
>> djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM writes:

>> > Sure there is. Plant a flower for each hunted looking little
>> > child I see being drug around like a prize puppy dog by some
>> > swaggering snorting 'queer lady'.
>> 
>> A bare garden, indeed, since you have never seen any such thing, and
>> never will.
>
>Yes I have. Several times. Kid was being treated like a g-d damn
>puppy dog and the 'husband' (a big fat ugly thing with a screwed
>up face who acted macho and antagonistic towards males) was
>the best argument for 'homophobia' I've ever seen.

   Demonstrate the woman was a lesbian.  Go on, provide documentation.
Did you *ask*.  I dare say I've seen a lot of women like the one you
describe at Operation Rescue events.

   Your illustrated stereotype exists, but I bet she's not a dyke in
bed.  She probably hates men, by your description, but that doesn't
make her a lesbian.  She probably hates women too... carry it one step
further, and she hates everybody, even her kid.

>I have never taken you seriously. :-)

   Obvious, Karnes.

>-djk

         Elf !!!
--
Civilization has branded you.  You will never be free unless you view
everyone and everything as suspect.  Food.  Drink.  Speech.  All
society's tools.  Everyone lined up and accounted for.  In formation.
                                          -- Number Six, The Prisoner
Elf Sternberg    elf%polari@uunet.uu.net  <-- checked twice daily.
elf@halcyon.com  elf@seanews.uucp  elf@pismo.uucp
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Subject: Re: What keeps me from being Lib. (was Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS)
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 16:25:42 GMT

In article <rdippold.703367531@cancun> rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>Well, we don't believe big government is necessary today or otherwise.
>It's not a matter of needing it as transitional form, it's a matter of
>exactly of having to work with congress as well.  You can bet that if
>suddenly there was a L president and congress you'd see income taxes
>gone like that <*snap*>, and spending as well.  As it is, since that

Are you serious? IF by some stroke of magic it did happen government
spending would be gone overnight. I am appalled.

Think what might happen if the L's are successfull in their campaigns.
They gradually get more and more individuals in Congress. They don't
yet have a majority in either House or Senate. They don't have the
Presidency. They being a minority have not been able to pass any
Libertarian legislation. Thay have only been able to impede the
Ds and Rs. Then one election, things are going bad in the country,
the L's gain the White Housse, and control of both the Senate and
the House.

Then if you are correct in what the L's would do, they would stop
all income taxes and all government spending <*snap*>. What is next.

I suggest that there would be chaos, worse than what is now happening
in The ex Soviet Union. Millions of people without jobs. A stock 
market that no longer functions, no more defense capability, etc. There would
be coups, revolutions, insurecctions, riots, or you name it. The marches 
on the White House after WWI, the riots of the 60s would be like 
firecrackers compared to nukes as compared to what would happen if
the L's did as you suggest.

Yes, perhaps, we can eliminate a lot of what the government does. But surely
some thinking regarding the process is in order.

Richard Foy           Standard Disclaimer












Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17295 alt.activism:7351
From: harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (Harel Barzilai)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: AGRAN, Democracy, and UseNet (II)
Date: 8 Apr 92 06:19:25 GMT
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB

[see part (I)]

[...]

Re the lies and hatred of democracy, here are the facts and analysis:

** Agran is a "tiny mayor of a tiny city"

I could answer that that city and Agran's record there is quite
impressive, citing, for example, that Agran

    * Authored the nation's strongest and most comprehensive municipal
    ordinance to eliminate chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other
    compounds destroying the Earth's ozone layer, for which the city
    was honored with the United Nations Environment Programme's
    coveted award for environmental achievement.

Irvine was among a handful (5 or 6 as I recall) recipeints world-wide,
and the only one in the US.

But giving that answer would concede to the fervently anti-demoratic
sentiments implied: if you're "only" a mayor, part of The System --
meaning one of the 150-person elite in the entire US of Senators or
Governors (or perhaps a larger pool of still under 600 people) -- you
do not deserve to be President, in fact, you do not deserve to be
heard by the people, in fact, you do not deserve to be taken
seriously, no matter your record or your positions, since you are a
"tiny mayor or a tiny city" (Irvine is the country's largest
master-planned city, 110,000 -- but again that answer would have
missed the point).
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18230 alt.politics.elections:920 misc.taxes:2258 alt.society.civil-liberty:3458