HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: brownfield!jbrow (Jim Brownfield)
Subject: Re: RE:  Nazis (radical or conservative)
Reply-To: <jbrow@glv.com>
Organization: Encompass
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 23:20:02 GMT

In article <BtC45L.526@cs.dal.ca> kumar@ug.cs.dal.ca (kumar yelubandi) writes:
> >From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
> >Subject: Nazis: Radicals or Conservatives? (was Re: On having a mixed ...)
> 
> >They overthrew these institutions because they were radical totalitarians.
> >It means nothing that conservatives might have made some changes to Weimar
> >- and I disagree with you that conservatives would have anyway, since
> >Weimar was hardly ultra-liberal (what with Junkers like Hindenberg in  
power).
> >You can't simply make Nazi's equal to cultural conservatives simply
> >because they were not liberals.  The *Communists* would
> 	
> 	The Nazis were not liberals.  They were not conservatives.
> 	They were radical fascists.  The overlap between
> 	conservatism and fascism is real to the extent it serves
> 	fascist ideology.  The overlap between liberals and fascists
> 	is defined, mathematically anyways, as the null set.  
> 

If you are talking about "classical" liberals (19 century liberals, or  
libertarians), I agree.  However, modern day liberals prefer a heavily  
controlled economy, which is an overlap with facism (and communism).  In  
Hayek's book, _The Road to Serfdom_, he outlines how extremes to the right and  
left are essentially the same thing (i.e. a circle instead of a line), both  
must essentially control everything for their government to exist.


> >have done the same thing the Nazis did. In fact, one might argue
> >that the Russian Communists provided a model in so many ways
> >for the Nazis: politicizing the armed forces, concentration camps,
> >youth corps indoctrinated with the dominant ideology, etc.
> 
> 	Yes.  And one might argue the "Russian Communists" provided a
> 	model for US slavery, ie. all slaves were considered equal
> 	and all were employed.  But chronology tells us otherwise. 
> 	You can't blame the communists for everything. 
> 		Politicized armed forces, concentration camps, 
> 	youth corps indoctrinated with the dominant ideology:  I suspect
> 	these things are standard operational procedures in any war
> 	perpetrated by single-minded, slightly-crazed megalomaniacs,
> 	ie. Caesar, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Hitler, Lenin-Stalin, 
> 	    Saddam; to name a few. 	 
> 

According to Paul Johnson in _Modern Times_, Hitler was very facinated with  
Stalin, and he modeled many of his pratices of population control after Stalin  
(Hitler was also impressed with Roosevelt, BTW).  Stalin was also very  
impressed (early on, anyway) with Hitler.  What a club :->

[stuff deleted]

> -- 
>    Kumar Yelubandi 

Jim Brownfield
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,misc.education
From: pas@kepler.unh.edu (Paul A Sand)
Subject: Re: US Public Schools: Get Rid of All the Bureaucrats!
Organization: University of New Hampshire
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 02:14:39 GMT

ek: Emmett Kilfariff

ek: What does "Pre-K" mean? Is this the amount spend on all US child
    care for children before they reach school age, or is it something
    meaningful?

Pre-K means pre-Kindergarten. I presume that to be classified as
education spending, the purpose of such spending would need to be other
than baby-sitting. 
-- 
-- Paul A. Sand           | God has to have a bang path.
-- Univ. of New Hampshire | A *big bang* path.
-- pas@kepler.unh.edu     | 	(Craig Dowell, in rec.arts.books)
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush on Abortion (was Another good reason not to vote for Bush)
Date: 13 Aug 92 14:46:08 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

(Michael Polen) writes:
:cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:
:|> rone@girtab.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri) writes:
:|> 
:|> > 	HOUSTON (UPI) -- A Republican platform subcommittee overwhelming-
:|> > ly passed a plank calling for a constitutional amendment banning all abor-
:|> > tions, endorsing the policy of President Bush. 
:|> 
:|> Does Bush make an exception where the life or health of the mother is
:|> in jeopardy?  I know that parliamentary tricks were used to prevent a
:|> vote on a plank allowing abortion in the cases of rape or incest.
:1	No parlimentary *tricks* were used to prevent the vote by the
:	platform committee.
:
:2	Bush makes an exception, but the platform does not.
:
:3	Bush says he supports the platform as is, although it is stronger
:	than his own beliefs
:
:4	Bush has a different standard for his family than for your family.

Oh, so you're against government dictating the moral standards for
individuals, but cry hypocrisy if government dictates uniform standards
for families? And you can't concede that perhaps George Bash [sic] loves
his family? If you say he should also love yours, why do you want some
stranger who works in the government -- much less the government itself
-- to love and take care of your family?
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Duke football? What's that?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu (Josh Smith)
Subject: Re: Private Discrimination (was: Libertarians and big tits)
Originator: irilyth@fenris
Organization: HMC Academic Computing Services
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 21:53:58 GMT

In a prior article, Theo Hong (thong@husc.harvard.edu) writes:
> You live in a small rural town that has two grocery stores.  Both store 
> owners decide that they don't want to sell to people whose last name 
> begins with an "E"; the rest of the population doesn't care (no one else's 
> name begins with "E").  What do you do?

I quote from Tim Freeman's signature file:

When they took the fourth amendment, I was silent because I don't deal drugs.
When they took the sixth amendment, I kept quiet because I know I'm innocent.
When they took the second amendment, I said nothing because I don't own a gun.
Now they've come for the first amendment, and I can't say anything at all.

The assertion is that the rest of the population shouldn't be uncaring,
because supporting the principle of discrimination opens the possibility
that one will be discriminated against later, and reduces one's ability to
fight it when that happens. Moral of the story: fight against discrimination,
or you may find that you've become the target sooner than you'd like.
Libertarian corollary: since the initiation of force is a no-on, "fight" by
protesting the object of your disapproval, not by banning it.
-- 
original text by Josh Smith    ::   Comments, questions, etc. welcomed
irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu   ::   #include <std.disclaimer>
"If you ever fall off the Sears Tower, just go real limp, because maybe you'll
look like a dummy and people will try to catch you because, hey, free dummy."
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40514 ca.politics:6933 ba.politics:4658
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: The rights of an employer .vs. an employee wrt free speech
Date: 19 Aug 92 02:35:58 GMT
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA

In article <y#!nay.phil@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
> In article <onsvef0@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>     >If any anti-abortion group wanted to put fliers all over the
>     >SGI cafeteria announcing their existance, I would support
>     >them in this right.
> 
> Do you then believe that the right of an employee take priority over
> the right of the employer (to say yea or nay on any such flyers)?
> 
> Doesn't a company have a right to say no?

  So just what *is* your point then Phil? If SGI wants to allow the 
pro-choice people to put stuff up to the exclusion of the Lambs of Jesus
isn't that their right? Right? You better get this right Phil; hypocrisy
is not becoming.
  On the off chance you that you do get it right, what is the point of
your whines about _National Coming Out Day_ being announced at SGI? This
is their right to promote what they see fit isn't it? If you don't like
it maybe you should go find a job at Sheldon's TVC where they celebrate
_National Bigot Day_ and _Back in the Closet Day_.
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: cobarruvias@asd2.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: More Rep Conv Comments
Organization: NASA/JSC
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 14:13:00 GMT

Well OK so in a nutsell heres what Bush/Quayl have to offer:

Continue fighting with Congress. It is very obvious that Bush cannot and has
not worked well with those damn Democrats in Congress. He blamed everything
that he didn't get accomplished on Congress including the raise in taxes. It
seems that since Congress is voted in by the American taxpayers and are suppose
to represent the views of the taxpayers, then doesnt that mean that Bush's
plans were voted down by the taxpayers? So I guess it is my fault that he
raised taxes. 

No new taxes. Well, I mean, "lower taxes across the board". Based upon his
record with Congress, does anyone believe this will happen? Heck does anyone
believe him anyway?

Check the box to reduce the deficit. Brilliant gimmick. Just how many will bite
on this? Lets just say that everyone does contribute 10% of their tax dollars
to the deficit reduction. What current services will be cut? How about NASAs
budget of .7% of the total tax dollars? Only 9.3% left to cut...

Clinton Bashing. If Bush and Quayl win, will he continue bashing Clinton? Or
will he finally get down to business and talk about the vision for the country?


Well based upon the above, and the Republican Convention, I think Ross is
kicking his butt for pulling out after the Democrat convention thinking that it
was a 2 way race. He was right, it could have been Ross .vs. Clinton.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 16:38:39 GMT
Distribution: na
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug18.122649.25649@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>  decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> There is a distinct
> possibility, which I will not debate, that we do need higher
> taxes in this country in order to reduce or eliminate the federal
> deficit and manipulate the economy for the ultimate purpose
> of expanding that economy (and if the boot-lickers in Wasington
> into alternative energy), but you won't catch too many
> politicians saying that because the folks who vote won't stand
> for it.

So you mean they say things like, "Read my lips - no new taxes" and then
after being elected turn around and raise taxes?  Well, hopefully people
who vote won't stand for it a second time.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 18 Aug 92 17:16:30 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Wes Orr {Academic Computing}) writes:

>I suppose if we withheld food and water from a newborn it
>wouldn't be murder either, hmmm.

Of course it would be murder.  In any state in the USA.  What _is_ your
point?

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 06:18:44 GMT

In article <Bt07FC.ABD@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
>In article <1992Aug14.121734.13578@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>>In article <Bsy8DI.4xG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
>>> 
>>
[..]
>>Rights in the United States are not at all based on what most of
>>us in society hold.
>
>I disagree with this statement.  Majority rule is the basis of any
>democratic republic.  The Supreme Court is there to make sure that the
>rights that the majority agree to are fairly distributed.  But the
>rights exist because of majority opinion.
	Wrong.  They are guaranteed by the constitution and bill of rights
and are specifically NOT subject to majority rule.  The majority may not,
for example, decide to establish a State religion and ban all other forms
of religious expression.  It may NOT vote to censor all news media on the
basis of political content.  And so on.  

>>
>Tim

Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no fooliln'


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Listing the good reasons to vote for Bush
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 23:26:42 GMT

Would the re-election of Bush/Quayle so that late-night talk show
hosts have a continuous supply of material be Welfare for Stand-Up
Comics?


--
But this is.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39553 ca.politics:6759
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Guy at Sun who got fired for nasty pos
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:26:07 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Aug12.083955@wsl.dec.com>, gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil) writes:
> In article <11706@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# |# Imagine if the Republican Party Convention upcoming had people
# |# holding up signs for the KKK, or Aryan Nations.  "By not completely
# |# ostracizing racists, the Republican Party keeps the fringe of
# |# 'acceptable' political expression on the fringe.  If racists are
# |# completely ostracized, then the people attacking racism will go
# |# after Christians (or pro-lifers or small business owners)."
# |# Do you see the silliness of this argument?  Would you consider the
# |# presence of such signs and groups at the RNC to be evidence of
# |# something terribly sick?
# |# 
# Ahh the GOP, you mean the people who first ran Willy Horton ads and

If Willie Horton had been white, it would have changed nothing.

# then decided to try to dump David Duke when the pressure got too
# hot?  The GOP, who got a president elected who appointed a

David Duke never had any support from the Republican Party, and has
always had considerable opposition.

# memeber of the KKK to the Supreme Court?

Which one was that?  Oh, you mean a FORMER member of the KKK.
The Democrats did so likewise.  They appointed Hugo Black to the
Supreme Court, in spite of his former KKK membership.
 
# |# "By having a fringe group of racists -- and they are an extremely
# |# fringe group -- we can keep mainstream Republicanism out of it."
# |# You can't keep your foot out of dogshit by rubbing the edge of
# |# your sole in it.
# |# 
# I'd be very surprised to find that the GOP did not think this way.

I will be watching my TV carefully to see if I see any signs from
racist groups at the Republican Convention.  They at least know
that racism is not acceptable in America, and tell people like
David Duke where to go.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
When the government wins the War on Drugs, they are welcome to try their
gun control snake oil.
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 01:09:31 GMT

In article <l8lkp2INNo7j@spim.mips.com> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>|> Tim Buckley) writes:
>|> >>OK, Tim:
>|> >>So, *if* the woman has rights that can be violated, what happens to those
>|> >>rights if we decide a fetus has individual rights?
>|> >
>|> >Sorry Adrienne but again this is simple.  If one believes that the fetus
>|> >is a human being then the issue is clear.  The right to life takes
>|> >precedence over other rights.              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>|>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^             
>|> 
>So the death penalty, declaring war on Iraq, all go away.  The right
>to life takes precedence over public safety, economic interests,
>etc.
>
You have an incorrect understanding of what is meant by the term "right".
There has been a proliferation of "rights" and we now seem to have a 
rights industry.  Homosexual rights, Animal rights, Women's rights are
all more common examples of this problem.  The problem being that they
describe group rights which are antithetical to the concept of individual
rights as understood by the Founders.  You have a right to your life, your
body, but there is no such thing as a group body.  Or take, for example,
the UN list of Human Rights which includes the right to marriage!  This
means that someone has the obligation to marry you.  Rights entail duties.

Obviously, the right to life argument, when used in favor of the fetus, 
would only apply if you believed the fetus to be a human life.  I, for one,
suspect that it is not - it is probably some form of canine or arachnid.

>Is this the same right to live the president and the republican 
>party support?

Not the way you stated it.  There is no natural right to war nor is there
a natural right to public safety.  There is a natural right to property
so your statement about economic interests applies but only if you do so
on an individual person basis.  


Mike Best {mcdphx|asuvax}!anasaz!best

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: bmb@bluemoon.rn.com (Bryan Bankhead)
Subject: Christianity Flawed
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 19:41:23 EDT

Christians make much of the value of Judeo-christian values, yet the fact 
is that we already have seen the experiment of an entire culture, namely 
mideval Europe for a thousand years.  The result was 
stagnation,intolerance,superstition and madness.
The fact is that christianity, for all it's talk of love and forgiveness 
is a pretty terrible religion.  Basically it postulates a checer game 
between a supposedly omnipotent god and the devil.  God sent some kind of 
extrusion of himself down to be tortured, for reasons never adequately 
explained.  Anybody who doesn't believe in this will b e condemmed to 
eternal punishment.  
The whole relationship between the christian and his god is the might make 
s right paradigm of the dysfunctional parent.  The  the many conflicts of 
interest between the human and the god are resolved by the submission of 
the human.  The human has no option but to participate in this insane 
charade.  All of this is hung with the crepe of hypocritcal christian 
touchy feely AGAPE which for many hides the stark horror of it all.

Being trapped in this madhouse can literally drive you crazy with fear if 
you belive it hard enough.  Some resolve this by groveling masochistically 
and reveling in fantasies of apocalypse. Others turn this outward into 
obnoxious proselytyzing or outright persecution of some scapegoat.  And 
since anything you do to them is not a patch on what god will, if is has a 
chance of saving their souls it's alright.
Of cours all this occurs in the environment of the willfull intellectual 
blindness necessary to ignore the zillions of absurdities,atrocities,and 
contradictions in the belief structure.

 This is from
     bmb@bluemoon.rn.com
who doesn't have his (or her) own obnoxious signature yet
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40203 talk.abortion:32130 alt.politics.bush:1877
From: orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing})
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 17 Aug 92 16:41:20 GMT
Organization: Grand Valley State University, Allendale MI

Just to let you know I am pro-life after eight weeks and believe
in this for non-religious reasons.  I believe the pro-life stance
meaning the belief that life has intrinsic value of its own, even
in the womb (human life at that), is logically consistent and 
DOES NOT require a religious theology.

Wes

-- 
Wes Orr, Dude
GVSU
orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu           I love Bugs Bunny!
--------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Inflation and Carter?
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 21 Aug 92 11:29:54 EST
Distribution: usa
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Aug21.042023.27253@pony.Ingres.COM>, garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
> In article <1992Aug20.231603.5717@oakhill.sps.mot.com>, pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick writes...
>>In article <64289@cup.portal.com> ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes: 
>>>Yet, I seem to recall Nixon and Ford having massive problems with
>>>inflation -- with Nixon having to introduce price controls, and
>>>Ford coming out with WIN buttons ("Whip Inflation Now").
>>>Am I misremembering?  I don't recall things being as bad under Carter
>>>as far as inflation goes as they were with Nixon and Ford.
>> 
>>Ford (or perhaps the Fed Reserve) brought inflation down.
>>This was apparently unacceptable to Carter.
> 
> *sarcasm on
> 
> I think you're on to something now! Carter wanted inflation. Of course!
> I'm also sure that the Republican's voted against deregulating oil
> prices (which caused the inflation). The Republican's would never vote
> for something that would cause inflation. 

	Deregulating oil prices had nothing to do with it.  The OPEC nations
decided they once again wanted a lot more money for their oil.  How is the US
supposed to regulate that, short of bombing them and taking over?

	In addition, inflation was welcomed by the tax and spend proponents. 
With high inflation, the deficit/debt shrink because inflated dollars can be
used to pay it off.

	Of course what they failed to recognize was that in the meantime, the
economy goes to hell.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40021 ca.politics:6849