HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jws@billy.mlb.semi.harris.com (James W. Swonger)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,soc.culture.usa,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Kulturkampf
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:10:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Harris Semiconductor, Melbourne FL

In article <1992Aug27.144823.13623@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>
>I find it fascinating that the libertarian mob here will
>strain at the NEA and swallow Buchanan.
>
>Libertarian, indeed.

 "Swallow"? 

 What leads you to believe anyone who sees themself as {L,l}ibertarian takes
"Pat Answer" Buchanan seriously? As a flack for CorporateAmericaAndTheGod-
LovingFreedomHatingPrinciplesForWhichItStands, maybe. As a spokesman, hell no.
Real libertarians (note juxtaposition of capitals) want no part of his brand
of statism, just as they want no part of "Liberal" statism. No Big Brother,
no Big Father and no Big Mother thank you very much. Mandatory attendance
sucks, whether it's the Easter Morality Play or performance art with leather-
trimmed kitchen appliances. 

 Paying artists to express themselves is like paying politicians to lie. It
was going to happen anyway; all you do is increase the numbers. Real artists
will find a way regardless of funding. Hogs will crowd the trough. As one who
had quite a bit of art exposure as a child (sans NEA funding) and generally
ignores it as an adult, I see little benefit to funding grandiose displays
of mediocre art with "public" money. All I see is corruption of the artistic
community. I don't miss the $1 as much as, say, the money I dump down the
SS black hole every paycheck. But my opinion is that true art stands on its
own merits and government-funded art therefore is largely masturbation-in-oils.

 Sanctimony doesn't cut it with me either. Every demagogue needs foremost to 
convince the people of their sole and exclusive posession of the Truth. 
Plenty of 'em giving the pitch, to be sure. At least one on every channel,
several at once on CNN. But I know they're lying, because it's mine! Mine,
I say! Send me money, put me in ofice and I'll prove it! Or abscond to
Costa Rica, and then you'll know for sure I'm right.
 
-- 
##########################################################################
#Irresponsible rantings of the author alone. Any resemblance to persons  #
#living or dead then yer bummin. May cause drowsiness. Alcohol may inten-#
#sify this effect. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Billy!#
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Call for transcripts Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 20:22:16 GMT

elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>That's not fair.  Segretti actually felt remorse for what he did later on.  He
>also had a lot more to work with in Nixon.  You shouldn't compare him to
>someone as cynical and ignorant as Matalin.

True, but Matalin may have her day. Well, probably not. I read a blurb in some
magazine that when she was told that her paramour James Carville was going to
work on Clinton's campaign, she excused herself and literally threw up.

---
Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41836 misc.headlines:5934 alt.activism:15407 sci.econ:7132
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,alt.activism,sci.econ
From: radford@cs.toronto.edu (Radford Neal)
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revolution, part 2: Seven more years?
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 25 Aug 92 22:53:18 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.143712.3735@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:

>  If you want accuracy, the unemployment (or rather employment) shoud be
>  measured as "full time equivalent" positions.  With positions without 
>  benefits being worth only .7 of the same position with benefits. (Or 
>  some other mulitplier.)

The last provision seems pretty silly. I was once offerred the option
by my employer of receiving certain benefits, or several thousand dollars
more in salary. I took the later. Did that make me 30% unemployed?

You seem to want to evaluate not only whether the person was employed,
but also how good a job it was. In that case, surely one of the most
important qualities would be the pay?

    Radford Neal
From: lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com (Len Bucuvalas)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: My Purpose In Getting NAMBLA Shunned
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:13:31 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc., San Jose, CA

In article <BtLzyr.GKA@NCoast.ORG> cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton) writes:
>As quoted from <1992Aug25.104706@wsl.dec.com> by gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil):
>
>> In article <11846@optilink.UUCP>, manley@optilink.UUCP (Dave Manley) writes:
>> |> Question: If these statements do in fact represent the beliefs of the
>> |> people, both hetero- and homosexual alike, how can anyone who opposes
>> |> child molestation find a way to support NAMBLA - when they refuse to
>> |> moderate their position to at least exclude prepubescent children? 
>> |> 
>> 
>> I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of NAMBLA :-)
>> 
>> I do, however, think that they have the right to exist.
>> 
>> Period.
>
>As do others have a right to publicly revile and despise them, a position
>which I strongly endorse.
As well do I. But the existence of NAMBLA in no way reflects the
majority opinion of the gay community.
>
>
>-- 
>------------------------------------------------------------------  
>
>"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
>------------------------------------------------------------------  

Len
--
*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
The accountability of government has gone to the point where the very
use of the law is the instrument of illegality.
		-- Ralph Nader @ Harvard Law School, 1/15/92
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Endorsement
Organization: LLNL
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 23:03:22 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.075111.10934@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
@  Loren I. Petrich

@  Some of the self-proclaimed Libertarians on this net come off as obnoxious
@  right-wingers.

>  Care to name names?

	They know who they are (tm) :-)

	I have in mind more specifically those who never tire of
accusing university folk and others of being left-wingers and
statists and enemies of civilization.

	Especially those in university positions who admire
steelworkers, yet who do not try to join them.
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The Claytoon on the Couch (was Re: Stereotyping)
Date: 28 Aug 92 18:20:13 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <94736@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
> In article <11901@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >#not being a full-time housewife goes against a woman's most
> >#fundamental nature. [Marilyn Quayle]
> 
> >I happen to agree with Ms. Quayle on that.  So do most women I
> >know, not all of whom have the luxury of raising their own kids.
> 
> You know, after seeing this, I can't believe you (and Ronzone) had
> the nerve to accuse me of sexism in wishing June Genis well in her
> struggle to get rid of the old-boy system in the Senate...
> 
> kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,

Why?  There are women who have no interest in raising their own
children.  They should do what they want.  Being a parent is
hard enough even when you want to do it.  I would oppose any
law that prevented a woman from making that choice of whether
to raise children, work full-time, or any combination of the
two.  But simply because the government doesn't belong in this
decision, doesn't mean that there aren't values that Americans
have that cause them to make a choice.  Most women I know with
kids would much prefer a situation where they could raise their
kids at home.

My wife tells me that when women she meets find out that she
gets to stay home and raise her own kids, most get green with
envy.




-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Subject: What if America were a direct democracy?
Organization: Clarkson University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 02:31:33 GMT

Well, I guess the subject is pretty self-explainitory (sic?). The proposition
was brought up in my American politics class. most people including the
prof seemed to think it was a good idea. The idea was to have both sides
of an issue presented on the 6:30 news. The news would bring in two debaters
(one from each side) and they would slug it out. It was use technology so
that Americans would be allowed to cast their vote afterwards by pressing
a thing that came up ont heir tv screen afterwards. I brought up the obvious
question about voter fraud. The class thought that there had to be some way
to do this (ie have everyone type in ss number or something like that). I still
don't think it's feasible nor do I think it's a very good idea. I don't think
that the concept of direct democracy is going to help the country. When I vote
for someone, I do so with the understanding that he/she may not agree with me
on every single issue but I take the good with the bad and choose the one
how most closely represents my views. The opposite argument is that in a direct
democracy, your views are even more directly represented. I'm sure there must
be some thoughts on that, pro and con. Please email me.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL			      	   "Read my lips -- no new ideas!"
CLARKSON '95				   --George Bush's apparent motto
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU 
A PC-HATING, PRO-LIFE, LIBERAL CARD-CARRYING ACLU MEMBER
						
"Is it inconsistent to chide Hillary Clinton's support of legal
rights of children, and then demand that unborn children have
legal rights over their mothers?  Is this what the Republican
party is promoting?"	---Mike Polen (alt.activism user)

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Why I cannot vote Democratic
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 17:52:11 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

 rab@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Bickford) writes:
> No, if you want a real change you'll have to support candidates (and
> parties) who have a track record of *cutting* government spending at
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> every opportunity.  You'll have to work to build enough support for
> them that they can get elected at the statewide level (which only
> rarely happens now).  Only a strong grassroots movement will cause
> The Powers That Be to pull their snouts out of the trough and run for
> cover, while the *real* visionaries take care of cleaning up their
> mess after them.
> 
> In short, you need to support the Libertarian Party and their candidates.

  "Track record"??  The libertarians have no track record at the
  national level, and not enough sample size at the state level to 
  qualify for a track record either.    

  Anyway, it has nothing to do with political parties.  As a recent poll
  posted here on Usenet, and plenty of others have shown, big government
  programs are what the voters WANT!   They demand that their elected 
  officials "bring home the bacon" and this alone is the metric by 
  which they judge and elect them.  Why can't you guys get this through
  your thick heads?


---peter

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42007 talk.abortion:33528 alt.politics.bush:2947
From: kristyp@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kristy Patterson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 26 Aug 92 15:34:17 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <1992Aug26.023229.6076@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.205721.9905@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> kristyp@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kristy Patterson) writes:
>>Of course, I don't agree at all with the principle that consent to sex =
>>consent to bear a child, in the case of contraceptive failure or even in
>>the case of not using contraception. So we're probably arguing from opposite
>>viewpoints.
>>
>
>Perhaps I didn't word it right.  I didn't really mean to say that 'consent
>to sex = consent to bear a child.'  Maybe it is more like 'consent to
>sex = being responsible to any consequence of your actions.'  
>
>So this means that if you have sex and use contraceptives trying not to have
>a baby, then the contraceptives fail, then that means that you should still
>be held accountable for your actions. 

I guess I'm really missing what you're driving at. You "didn't really mean to
say that 'consent to sex = consent to bear a child.'  Maybe it is more like
'consent to sex = being responsible to any consequence of your actions.'"
If the consequence of your action is pregnancy, and your definition of being
responsible includes not aborting, then these strike me as functionally the
same.  To reword, you seem to be saying "consent to sex = not aborting (being
responsible) a fetus (to any consequence of your actions)." Is there a dis-
tinction I'm missing?  Does your definition of responsible include abortion?

I don't see why having an abortion is not a responsible action. My working
definition of responsibility includes accepting a problem and coming up with
the most workable solution to it. If the problem is unwanted pregnancy, the
most workable and effective solution is abortion. How is it irresponsible?
It's not as if, in the case of pregnancy, you can opt to do nothing. You may
not like what a woman does, but that doesn't mean it's irresponsible.

-Kristy
-- 
 +==========================+================================================+
 |Kristy Patterson          | Nothing really rocks, and nothing really rolls,|
 |kristyp@mac.dartmouth.edu | & nothing's ever worth the cost.      -Meatloaf|
 +==========================+=================================Bat Out of Hell+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 03:58:11 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.165544.30083@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In  <Bt0JvF.46G@news.cso.uiuc.edu>  tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug15.040109.38620@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes
>> >>
>> >> Here you have a problem.  The argument being considered is predicated on
>> >> the assumption that the fetus is a human being.
>> >
>> >The Model Penal Code, upon which many states base their criminal codes,
>> >defines "human being" as "a person who has been born and is alive."
>> >(Section 210.0(1))
>> >
>> >Does the argument now fall apart?  Or are you discussing moral rather
>> >than legal issues?
>>
>> Larry, you are one of the more erudite members of this group
>
>You seem to be a perceptive chap.  :-)
>
>> We were not discussing any current legal considerations.  This
>> discussion dealt with the consistency of arguments given certain
>> assumptions.  Some have come into this in midstream but this is not
>> now and has not been a pro/con abortion discussion.
>
>That was the purpose of my question.  As long as people aren't going to
>attempt to turn their personal moral beliefs into law, I'm not
>interested in pointing out inconsistencies in their personal beliefs.

All changes in law stem from moral beliefs, the only question being how
subjective those beliefs are. As far as quoting the model penal code, I find
that rather pointless, since after all its just a model (shades of Monty
Python there :-), and most legislation doesn't go into great depth about
its underlying principles. It's probably just as well -- most legislation
is just a patchwork of compromises and shortcuts when you get right down
to it anyway...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: UnPleasant Analogies
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 20:09:59 GMT

chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

Mr. Lyman has laid out many Unpleasant Analogies
attempting to imply the Republicans are Heartless
and insensitive to the economic plight of others.

Why Many republicans understand hard times....

I know some who are down to little more than
a gardener and a maid, neither of whom are well off...

So Don't You GO ON about how we do not understand
the savages of poverty.....

ciao
drieux


-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42973 alt.politics.elections:12037 talk.politics.theory:3952
From: rab@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Bickford)
Subject: Re: Were Nazis socialist?
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 17:11:26 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.184028.29365@dscomsf.desy.de>,
 Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>
>           This fringe is no more part of the general socialist movement
>than the Libertarians and Birchers are the mainstream of the Republican
>party.

Since you have been so adamant that USAians should avoid gross
misunderstandings of Europeans and their politics, I'll take this
opportunity to remind you to extend us the same courtesy.  In
particular, while the Birchers may be a part of the Republican party,
to lump the Libertarians into the same category with them is just
plain crazy; the Birchers love authoritarianism and militarism (they
just hate communism/socialism) and Libertarians hate both.  Also, the
idea of being lumped in with Republicans frankly makes my stomach
turn; they (Reps) are dishonest demagogues who occasionally steal our
rhetoric but who have *never* lived up to any of it (here I'm
referring to matters of economics and fiscal responsibility), while at
the same time abusing their (governmental) power in the name of
"family values" with results that are indistinguishable from nazism
from where I sit.

I realize that you may not have very much good information over there
upon which to form an opinion of the various parties here in the USA
(we seem to have much the same problem with regard to Europe) so I
hope that this will help you a little: don't confuse the Libertarians
with the Republicans, they're *VERY* different.  Granted, there is
some common ground, but the same is true of us and the Democrats.
Granted, there is a "Republican Liberty Caucus" group that (supposedly)
is trying to get the Reps to be more like us, but that's just their
crazy idea; many (most?) libertarians find the idea frankly repugnant.
The gulf between us is somewhat wider than the way you've described
(for example) the gulf between "socialists" and "communists" (using
your definitions in both cases), since (in our case) there is very
little overlap of either methods or goals.

BTW, the way you seem to be using the word "capitalism" appears to me
to actually refer to what I call "corporate socialism" (American usage
of 'socialism' here) and not at all to what I or other Libs would mean
by the word.  We try to avoid it and refer instead to "free markets".
Our emphasis is very definitely on the individual.  You mentioned
cooperatives -- such are *very* libertarian.

--
        Robert Bickford                       rab@well.sf.ca.us
 Vice-Chair, Libertarian Party    /-------------------------------------\
      of Marin County (CA)        | Don't Blame Me: I Voted Libertarian |
                                  \-------------------------------------/
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43153 ca.politics:7326 ba.politics:4953
From: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: GOP headquarters burned!
Date: 1 Sep 92 17:59:34 GMT
Reply-To: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

In article <12018@optilink.UUCP>, Clayton Cramer writes:
>Which other groups in America are noted for equating the Republican
>Party to Nazis, and have recently shown a willingness to engage
>in wanton vandalism and destruction when they don't get their way?

The New Alliance Party (at least by calling Repubs. Nazis, though they haven't rioted 
yet)
The Populations of L.A., Chicago, San Francisco, etc.
That guy in Idaho
Operation Rescue and the Lambs of Christ

But in any event, calling people Nazis and engaging in Civil Disobedience or even
rioting does not imply that any organized fascistic cadres are about to be formed. 

I think you lose all perspective and mental equilibrium on this issue, Clayton. 
Keep a handle on it, or you'll end up as a street lunatic. 

JZ
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41746 ca.politics:7030
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Stereotyping
Date: 25 Aug 92 18:03:01 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

In article <11838@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
|> Nothing's wrong with it -- it just illustrates my point -- that 
|> homosexuality isn't just a different sexual preference, but a group
|> of pathological problems, not all of which are shared by every
|> homosexual.
|> 
|> The current flamefest started when I posted one of Le JoJo's 
|> S&M postings from soc.motss.  I made the point that S&M and other
|> manifestations of pain, suffering, humiliation, and other types
|> of power games, makes me suspect that I'm right about the connection
|> between child molestation and adult homosexuality.  This may surprise
|> you, but MOST people don't have sex and pain or sex and domination
|> conflated.  Yet, it seems to be a big part of the homosexual 
|> lifestyle.  Why?

OK Claytoon, do we all have to start posting strayt S&M stuff
here to disprove your point, or will you go and read it yourself.

-- 
To fathom hell, or soar angelic, take a pinch of psychedelic.
				Dr. Osmond
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: The politics of Andrew
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Distribution: talk
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 02:31:57 GMT

dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:


>"If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem."

>Governor Chiles of Florida waited until *Thursday* of last week to request
>help from the federal government for the victims of Hurricane Andrew.

>On the TV news today, it showed people in south Florida who were trying
>to offer help but were held in a dead stop in traffic.  The reason:
>George Bush was paying a visit into the area, and apparently officials
>decided it was more important that his motorcade went unimpeded than the
>victims actually getting the supplies they needed.  Seems to me that if
>he had taken a helicopter instead, he still would have been able to survey
>the damage.  And if he needed to be on the ground, he could just land
>there.  In either case, the same objectives would have been accomplished,
>and it would have been considerably less disruptive.

>Bill Clinton is planning a trip there this week, too.  Would someone please
>explain *one* good reason why the residents of that area need him there?

>Why can't these people just get the f*ck out of the way?

Good points.  I saw an interview with Marylin Quayle tonite on CNN.  She
has been in Florida since Sunday and apparently nobody in the media knew
she was there.  When asked why she was keeping a "low profile", she
said, "I was working.  You can't get much done with a entourage from the
press around you all the time."
-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire