HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: m15133@mwvm.mitre.org (Graham K. Glover)
Subject: Re: "American Ideals" (was: AMERICA IN DECLINE)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 22:21:41 GMT

In article <10896@platypus.uofs.uofs.edu>, bill@prijat.cs.uofs.edu (Bill 
Gunshannon) writes:

>In article <1992Jul20.221851.2401@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil>, perez@mgr.uucp 
(Charles >Perez) writes:
>|> 
>|> Hey, wasn't the old USSR sitting on more natural resources than the
>|> USA? That's right! The USSR was the preeminant world power of its time!
>|> The US couldn't hold a candle to it. Its people were the wealthiest
>|> in the world. The Ukraine was such a breadbasket, the USSR didn't
>|> know what to do with all that grain.
>|> 
>|> The above was just to point out the collossal fallacy of believing
>|> that wealth=natural resources.
>|> 
>
>No, what the above shows is that no matter what or how much resources 
>you have a government couched in corruption can still lead you to total 
>collapse.

I contend that it shows both.

>Anyone who believes that the USSR really practiced "communism" is very
>naive.  They had a larger separation in classes than even the US.  They
>had rich and poor, but no middle class.  You were either a member of the 
>ruling class or you were a peasant.  This is what came of the lofty ideas
>of communism and socialism.  

Come, come now.  Yes, they practiced communism.  They may not have 
achieved an absolute communist system, but they were pretty close to it.  
They took the maxim, "From each according to his ability, to each 
according to his need" toward its logical conclusion.

If you want to rephrase your statement to say, <Anyone who believes that 
the USSR really achieved the Marxist ideals of "communism" is very 
naive.>, I'll go along with that.  Of course, that would then require a 
discussion of the oxymoron, "Marxist ideals".

>It's too bad the US didn't learn anything from the recent collapse of the
>USSR.

What we learned from the recent collapse of the USSR was to get ABC's, 
CBS's, and NBC's television cameras in place before CNN could get there -- 
there's a ratings war out there!

By the turn of this century, we forgot how to read the words, "Congress 
shall make no law ...".  During the Great Depression, we had a President 
who would not allow the US Government to interfere.  No, this was not the 
one in the 1930s, and it certainly wasn't FDR.  It was the one in the 
1890s, and the President was Grover Cleveland.  After the turn of the 
century, all that changed.  Today, Government is taken to be the cure for 
all ills.  National health.  Tax the rich.  Save the failed banks/car 
manufacturers/television industry.  Please take care of us, Uncle Sam!  
The concept of individual responsibility still exists in varying degrees 
with some people in our country, but it is not the dominant concept.

In order to learn, one must WANT to learn.  Many probably do want to 
learn.  Some don't.  Some even refuse to learn.

"Though the people support the government, the government should not 
support the people."  --  Grover Cleveland

DISCLAIMER:  THESE ARE MY IDEAS, NOT MITRE'S.

----------------
Graham K. Glover
----------------
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Adios, Smith Corona
Date: 23 Jul 1992 17:51:08 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

In article <l6tjkmINN85b@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu>, sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
|> In article <l6rn7qINN955@spim.mips.com>, mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
|> |> |> -- 
|> |> |> Richard Crisp         Cupertino, Ca.         crisp@netcom.com
|> |> |> (415) 903-3832 wk    "what, me worry?"    (408) 253 4541 fax
|> |> |> 
|> |> |> To say that Bill Clinton's alleged successes as Governor of Arkansas
|> |> |> qualify him to be President of the US is like saying the shoeshine
|> |> |> stand operator in the airport is qualified to be CEO of IBM.
|> |> 
|> |> To say that Bushs experience as an oilman in Texas when money was
|> |> growing on trees qualifies him to be president ....
|> 
|> Half-truths, half-truths...
|> 
|>  Bush is also a former Congressman, Ambassador to China, Chairman
|> of the GOP, UN Permanent Representative and Director of the CIA. Certainly
|> a longer (and more distinguished) resume than the one you put out. He was
|> also on the short-list for Vice-President when Ford stepped up to be
|> President after Nixon's quitting.
|> 
|> |> 
|> |> To say that Reagan's alleged successes as an actor or the head of the
|> |> screen actors guild qualified him to be president ...
|> 
|> Reagan was also a two-term Governor of California, and by most objective
|> judgements, a fairly successful one. Again, a better resume than the one
|> you put out. He also damn nearly beat Ford for the GOP nomination in 1976.
|> 
REagan was a successful governer, but not a good one.

You are right, I left out many parts of their resumes.  Even with all of
the additions, they were still lousy presidents.  Maybe it isn't
qualifications at all.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Perot's October Surprise
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 22:40:10 GMT

pearsodc@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Douglas C. Pearson) writes:
>Is it conceivable, folks, that Mr. Perot is going to return to the  
>campaign after these raving mad supporters of his get him on the ballot in  
>all 50 states, just like they were commissioned to do?

How about if he just sits back as the ultimate lobbyist, and uses the
power of his millions of supporters and his organization to finagle
lots of government contracts and breaks?  I don't know if it's what he
planned, but it's got to be his best move at this point.


>Comments, questions, doubts, fears, anxieties?

Is he still teaching physics?
-- 
Your fly might be open (but don't check it just now).
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:36720 ca.politics:6183
From: manley@optilink.UUCP (Dave Manley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: aids conference in cuba
Date: 30 Jul 92 20:40:05 GMT
Organization: DSC/Optilink Access Products

In article <1992Jul29.220053.1324@dazixca.ingr.com> ronp@dazixca.ingr.com (Ron Phillips) writes:

+Sadly, as each day passes, AIDs continues to spread.  In the not
+too distant future, IMHO mainly because what is being done today
+is not having any positive effect, some not-so-welcome actions are 
+going to be taken to stem the tide.  And, again IMHO, if Tipper
+Gore and Hillary Clinton have any say in the matter, it will come
+with the blinding speed of a runaway locomotive.

What are Tipper Gore and Hillary Clinton saying?


--
manley@optilink.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: sullivan@dalek.mcs.anl.gov (Ms. Wendy Sullivan)
Subject: Re: Which of you is 'good enough' ?
Organization: C. S. U.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:55:16 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.173756.4585@rei2.uucp> fox@rei2.uucp (Fuzzy Fox) writes:
>Interesting questions.  Apparently what the people want in the
>Presidency office is a shining white knight to solve our problems.  I
>believe this is impossible, so what we really (pragmatically) need to
>ask ourselves about a candidate is:
>
>	1.  What does the government need to be doing?
>
>	2.  Is this candidate a person who could get it done?
>
>I think Perot was this sort of person, but that's another newsgroup.
>
>-- 
>#ifdef TRUE         | Fuzzy Fox                  fuzzy@netcom.com
>#define  TRUE   0   | a.k.a. David DeSimone      an207@cleveland.freenet.edu
>#define  FALSE  1   |          "This article was probably generated
>#endif              |                  by a buggy news reader."

What about Gore??  The only problem is getting rid of Clinton--
                                                 any volunteers?
                 :-)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
From: kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack)
Subject: Re: Militia
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 05:45:19 GMT

The folk on talk.politic.misc are likely getting sick of this thread, so 
I'll just make one quick comment.  (Follow-ups to talk.politics.guns.)  


In article <1992Jul16.131948.6682@linus.mitre.org> jmeritt@rod.mitre.org (Jim Meritt) writes:
- The US Constitution says:
- >      Article I.
- >      Sect. 8. The Congress shall have power     
- >      ...
- >      To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of 
- >      the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.; 
- 
- How does congress call forth people whom it does not know i.e. have 
- unregistered arms?

	I think you've answered your own question below: 
- 
- >      To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, 
                                    ^^^^^^ 

	When the government sees fit to issue me an M-14, I'll be 
   happy to bring it along when I report for militia duty.  Any 
   other firearms I possess are no business of the federales.  The 
   Tenth Amendment and Article I, Section 8 are very clear on this. 
   

-- 
 Jordan M Kossack  |  "Don't dial 911;    
 kossack@rice.edu  |   Dial M1911A and let it ring seven times." 
  +1 713 240 2073  |         -- sybok@m37-332-1.MIT.EDU (The Terminator)
  
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:35883 soc.history:6667 soc.culture.usa:6207
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Friday, 24 Jul 1992 15:59:20 MST
From: <ATERO@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.history,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Greatest President Since Teddy Roosevelt
 <1992Jul7.133758.2656@desire.wright.edu>
 <1992Jul8.043601.3903@news.columbia.edu> <1992Jul11.202549.4542@anasazi.com>

>>No, we can borrow money to spend on consumption.  This would create
>>jobs.  The money would have been more constructively used to build
>>highways and educate the population, but such things were not on the
>>Reagan administration's priority list.  An individual can borrow money
>>to start a business, or improve the driveway.  Such things may lead
>>to longer term prosperity.  Or that individual can spend the money on
>>Rolexes or caviar.  This won't lead to greater prosperity.
>>
Tell this to the producers of Rolexes and caviar.
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Libertarian Platform
Date: 24 Jul 1992 18:03:20 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

In article <NELSON.92Jul23211846@sun.clarkson.edu>, nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) writes:
|> In article <1992Jul22.002733.21858@tss.com> burke@tss.com (Jim Burke) writes:
|> 
|> >In article <BrqnvK.H59@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
|> 
|> >|>   Would you agree to holding parents responsible for the actions
|> >|>   of their children, then?  I.e., subjecting them to whatever
|> >|>   penalties would accrue to their children for doing some hurtful
|> >|>   thing?
|> 
|> >Naw, the Libertarians wouldn't go for that.  Each individual must be 
|> >responsible for his/her own actions.  If a little kid gets drunk and then
|> >does something stupid that kills somebody, Libertarian doctrine would 
|> >require you to lock up the little kid.  Kids have full rights and full
|> >responsibilities according to these guys.  
|> 
|> I believe that some libertarians believe that.  Many more do not.  Libertarians
|> are a diverse group.

But what is the party line (platform) on this issue.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: Republican Party Platform
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 20:28:31 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.180310.3393@oakhill.sps.mot.com>,
amym@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Amy Moseley Rupp) writes:
>I managed to collect copies of the Libertarian and Democratic
>platforms thanks to the folks at the compuserve e-mail addresses
>for Clinton and Marrou.  Now I still need the Republican platform!
>Please reply via e-mail if possible.

Amy, since the Republicans haven't had their convention yet they
technically don't have a 1992 platform yet.  You might try asking
again in a couple of weeks.  Unlike the Libertarian Party, the
Democrats and Republicans pretty much re-write their platforms from
scratch every four years so getting their 1988 plat form won't help
much.

/June
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Libertarian Platform
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:58:14 GMT

In article <l6trcbINNqgp@spim.mips.com> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:

>T. Archer writes:
>|> Michael Polen writes:
>|> 
>|> 
>|> >|> I wouldn't have any problem with that, other than that if she abused
>|> >|> it then my introducing her to responsible drinking had failed, and
>|> >|> that she was disobeying me.  That's our problem, not his.  In either
>|> >|> case, legislation isn't going to stop it.
>|> >|> 
>|> >So you can't concieve of a case where you would rather not have someone
>|> >pressing alcohol or drugs on your children before you have developed them
>|> >to the point where the can be responsible.
>|> 
>|> Sure.  But if my children are in a situation where they are getting access 
>|> to alcohol or drugs before they are able to be responsable, then I am not 
>|> supervising them closely enough, and it is MY fault.  I maintain that it is 
>|> a parent's responsability to raise children, not the state's.
>|> 
>Have you raised children to the age of responsibility?  The only way to
>"supervise them closely enough" is to be a jailor, not a parent.  Not
>on my watch.

Whether or not I have raised children is irrelivant to the issue of where 
the responsaiblity for it lies.  By being unwilling to supervise ones 
children closely enought to prevent them from being abused abrogates ones 
responsibility to the state, where it does not belong.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:36538 ca.politics:6131
From: rtener@pyrman2.mis.pyramid.com (Rex Tener)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Homeless
Date: 29 Jul 92 23:20:31 GMT
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA
Originator: daemon@sword.eng.pyramid.com

In article <1992Jul28.180632.2990@dazixca.ingr.com> ronp@dazixca.ingr.com (Ron Phillips) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.152534.2936@aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>>
>>It seems to me that the main reason insurance companies get away with this
>>is a matter of relative economic and legal power.
>
>You are making the assumption that "insurance companies get away with this".

You are making the assumption that "insurance companies don't get away with
this".  I guess I must be special because I know of two cases like this.

My old roomate was HIV+.  When he developed full blown aids, his company's
insurance company dropped him.  In this case, his company's legal eagles
ripped the insurance company a new one.  After two months, the insurance
company added him back to his company's medical plan.  His doctors allowed
him to delay payment until his fight with his insurance company was over.
What would have happened if his company had just shrugged their shoulders?

>In most states, including California, any attempts of an insurance company
>to engage in such practice is highly illegal.  They cannot raise your

The state of California told him this happens "all of the time to aids
patients".  No action was taken by the state against the insurance company.

My mother was going through the disability process with IBM for 
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS).  IBM had just started paying her disability
when they decided as a company they were not going to cover CFS.
They revoked her disability and then fired her.  This case is pending
in court.  In the mean time, my parents are chewing through their retirement
savings while waiting for their day in court.  They have been waiting for
two years so far, and their lawyer thinks it will probably be another
five years before they are done.  I hope their savings last until then.

I believe Hewlett Packard has a similar policy wrt to CFS.

>by the same rate.  In fact, for long term illness and/or disability,
>most insurance policies have an inclusion which actually pays the 
>premiums while you are incapacitated.  As long as the premiums are paid,
>they cannot cancel your policy.  Any attempts of them doing otherwise 
>would be greeted with the entire state's Unemployment/Disability legal 
>eagles staff knocking at their door threatening to close them down and 
>keep them in court for years.

Did you catch the 60 Minutes story on this issue?  I think they said not
one insurance company in California in the last ten years has been
disciplined for this crap.

>************************************************************
>*Ron Phillips                        ronp@dazixca.ingr.com *

Rex Tener                                                 rtener@pyramid.com
Pyramid Technology                                            A.M.A. #580669 
"Radical is a man with both feet firmly planted in the air." - F.D.R. (1944)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Which of you is 'good enough' ?
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 13:10:44 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.022146.11007@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:

>I've never cheated on my SO without permission.

If you have permission, it ain't cheatin', it's sharin'.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: exujeff@exu.ericsson.se (Jeff Thompson)
Subject: WHAT DO I DO??
Keywords: VOTE
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 21:40:57 GMT

|What do I do on Election day...
|Sell me...I am really up in arms
|A second chance?
|Or a change for the sake of change and *hope* for the best
lost in TEXAS
============================================================================
Jeff Thompson M/S B-07     || DAoubULLS                 || YOU CAN'T HEAR
Ericsson Network Systems   || TWIN for the TWINS in '92 ||    IF YOUR
P.O. BOX 833875            || PURPLE IS IN              ||    LIPS ARE
Richardson, TX. 75083-3875 || WOLVES ARE CHRISTIANs TOO ||     MOVING
============================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco)
Subject: Re: What kind of recession we're in
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:11:02 GMT

burke@tss.com (Jim Burke) writes:

>I will
>bet a whole bunch of money to anyone interested that this country will not
>be in recession in 1994.  I don't care who is elected, Bush or Clinton, this
>will be true.  I stated on the net, and everywhere else I happened to 
>have the chance, in 1988 that who ever was elected, Bush or Dukakis, was
>going to inherit a recession.  The timing of the cycle was right and 
>the historical cycle never varies more than a couple of years.  We were
>in the longest expansion period in history, so it had to come.  It was not
>Bush's fault.

I agree that no one knows how to prevent recessions, but I definitely
believe we know how to get out of them. That is why Reagan wasn't blamed
for the 1982 recession. Bush knows what needs to be done for this one, too,
but the media created a panic last fall, which created the "double dip"
that we're in right now. 

On the other hand, certain policies prolong a recession - or depression.
Roosevelt's policies actually worsened the depression, to the point where
it was so bad that only World War II could get us out of it. With Clinton's
messianic "New Covenant," we may slip into the same sort of depression
that Roosevelt presided over.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:35560 alt.politics.clinton:461
From: johnf@uhheph.phys.hawaii.edu (John Flanagan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Which of you is 'good enough' ?
Date: 23 Jul 92 10:20:54 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Hawaii, Dept. of Physics & Astronomy

In article <vhfmzz-.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.223738.6179@athena.cs.uga.edu> heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath) writes:
>>>   elected president ?
>>
>>Well I have two strikes against me. I'm black. I'm gay. I think its
>
>Save it for Donohue we don't need it here.
>
>Richard Crisp         Cupertino, Ca.         crisp@netcom.com

Ah, yes, the famed Republican reputation for tolerance.  Or is that
not a "family value"?

--John
-- 
John Flanagan                          ||
johnf@uhheph.phys.hawaii.edu           ||"Don't worry, honey, 
U. of Hawaii, Dept. of Physics & Astro.|| our skirts are clean."
2505 Correa Rd., Honolulu, HI 96822    ||
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:35135 sci.econ:6506
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
Subject: Re: The Moral Basis of Property   was Libertarian history
Date: 21 Jul 92 17:03:09 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Jul20.221800.11204@clipper.ingr.com>, ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
> In article <1992Jul09.220038.6438@bmerh85.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) Many:
# #writes people were trying to justify
# #private property on the basis of morality and on the basis of
# #some economic formulation showing how ya gotta have private
# #property or no one will work (suddenly, apparently, nobody gets
# #hungry). I argued that the ONLY justification for p-p was
# #by the use of force (ie I am taking this and I will fight to 
# #keep it from you, etc.)
# 
# Well, like Mao said, all political power stems from the end of
# a gun, and he was right.  There is no doubt that property arrangements are 
# kept in place by the threat of force.  But that is not their moral
# justification.  The reason that property is good is that it
# "works," it makes it possible for the vast majority to get
# a piece of the rock and live in harmony with each other.
# 
# Now, some of my libertarian friends can make a case for property
# as a natural right, but the problem with natural rights arguments is that
# they become religious in nature, and I want to avoid that.

There's also a problem with absolutist views of private property
that some of the more doctrinaire libertarians espouse -- such
libertarians like to quote from Locke and Jefferson in defense of
such an absolutist position, contrary to what both Locke and Jefferson
wrote on the subject.  Because Locke's support of property rights
was based in Christian theology, the right to private property was
not absolute, but was subject to the reasonable demands of 
commonwealth.  Unfortunately, a legitimate idea -- that a person
charging unconscionable prices for bread during a famine is subject
to governmental confiscation -- has been used by liberals to justify
various forms of socialism and fascism.  Sorry, but while food
is a necessity of human existence, cable television is not.
(And yes, I've seen a member of the Los Angeles City Council
justify regulation of cable TV rates because cable TV was a
necessity of human existence).

# --Al Date


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"Well, maybe the Holocaust was right *for that culture*." -- a moral relativist
with whom I work.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc