HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: No on 9
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 20:34:25 GMT

In article <1aij51INN4fs@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU () writes:
    >In article <1992Oct2.212215.12961@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com
    >(Phil Ronzone) writes:
    >
    >>Well, would you rather get beaten with bruises, or lose all
    >>your property (house, car, money, clothes) with no chance of
    >>insurance or recompense?
    >>
    >>Sometimes physical violence is less awful than property loss.
    >>
    >>
    >That is interesting philosophy- it appears that in the
    >materialistic world of today that we have put the value of
    >property ahead of people. And we certainly see this day after
    >day by the way people live and corporate act.
    >
    >If someone is assaulting me because they want my property, I
    >will say take it and enjoy it. It just isn't worth it.
    >Property is replaceble, expendible, etc.
    >
    >But that is definitely a viewpoint that many people hold. I
    >suppose it arises from insecurity and the need of feeling
    >selfworth based upon the collection of material things.

And of course, it is noteworthy that the NUMBER ONE idealogical
concept that ALL totalitarian states attack FIRST is that of property,
private property, property not owned by the State.

Why is that?



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48364 alt.rush-limbaugh:6089 alt.politics.elections:14525 alt.politics.clinton:7604 alt.politics.bush:7016
From: anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Answer the question, John (was Re: Bush is a Mass Murderer (was Re: Bush's Accomplishments))
Date: 29 Sep 92 02:41:50 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Sep28.184343.20065JPII@tygra.Michigan.COM> jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes:
>In article <1992Sep26.164938.25855@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>"In article <1992Sep23.192155.7282@tygra.Michigan.COM> jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes:
>">
>">He could have done that by going after the SOB Hussein and sparing
>">the innocent 250,000 that he killed.
>"
>""Innocent" 250,000? Uniformed thugs and looters caught trying to
>"escape Kuwait in their stolen autos stuffed with loot is more like
>"it. There were civilian casualties of the bombing campaign, and that's
>"an unfortunate fact of war, but the bulk of the dead were on the road
>"out of Kuwait and in the entrenchments *inside* Kuwait and southern
>"Iraq.
>"
>
>FALSE! The majority of those who died were civilians who died as a result
>of our bombing sewerage treatment plants and water plants. See RED CROSS
>reports.

I'm amazed that you still have the audacity to post after your lies.  Why
don't you address the question?  Neither Amnesty International or
Red Cross *ever* claimed that the U.S. killed 250,000 innocent people.

Furthermore, you've lied again.  The majority of Iraqi civilians who died
died after the war during the uprisings and Saddam Husseins brutal 
crackdown to stop them.  This included aerial bombardment and armoured
attacks by the remnants of the Iraqi army and a program of blockades 
BY THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT which prevents the shipment of emergency food 
and medical supplies to a majority of Iraq's population, namely the Shi'a
and Kurds.

But as you seem to predicate the majority of your posts on this bogus
number you've whipped out of god-knows-where, why don't you start out
by pointing out where in these various reports it blames the U.S. for
250,000 deaths (an incredibly inflated number, but that's another debate).

>
>Palmer


-- 
Anwar Mohammed                FREE       Graduate Student
anwar+@cs.cmu.edu              THE       School of Computer Science
Voice: +1 412 268 3043     KUWAITI       Carnegie-Mellon University
Fax:   +1 412 681 5739        POWS       Pittsburgh, PA  15213-3890
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: barrett@terminus.gatech.edu (James Barrett)
Subject: Re: Clinto ad lies
Organization: Georgia Tech College of Computing
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 03:43:06 GMT

mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:

>A 30-second Clinton ad airing in targeted states accusses President Bush
>of failing to understand the nations economic woes.  But the ad
>manipulates Bush's statements.  For example, the ad shows the statistic
>'March 1992 - Jobless rate hits a six year high'  followed by Bush saying
>'the economy is strengthening.'  But Bush made that comment in October
>1991 when unemployement had held steady for three months.

I just saw the ad, and the statistics are meant to reflect Bush's *previous*
statements.  Hence, Bush's comment on "The economy is strengthening" is
followed by the fact that Bush vetoed Extended unemployment benefits.
The March 1992 fact was after Bush saying "The economy isn't in 
a recession" in Nov. 1991.


------------------OS/2 v2.0 -- Why settle for anything less?--------------------
James C. Barrett (barrett@cc.gatech.edu)|"If your so damned smart, why are
Georgia Tech College of Computing       |  you doing what you're doing, and I'm
                                        |  president of the U.S.?" - G.Bush
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: All deficits are not created equal.
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 17:04:00 GMT
X-Posted-From: utarlg.uta.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Oct5.022741.29579@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes...
>In article <3OCT199215413892@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:

>>This notion that someone else should be trusted to spend (up to half)
>>of our money (and more because of debt) -- is simply a con job.
> 
>The government hasn't come close to spending half of our money since
>World War II.

generally: 28% income tax + 7% social security + 7% sales tax + property 
tax + sin tax + ...

Or perhaps we should also examine how each time a product is moved, from 
raw material compilation through manufacture to disposal, how repeated
sales taxes, gas taxes, and such add to the cost.

Or likley the most direct analysis is to take federal, state, and local 
taxes as a ratio of national income. 

Pick which course you'd care to examine. Or perhaps you'd prefer to 
explain why we should trust *any* of our income to government without
some formal legal contract as to how it's to be used.

>ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu 

-- Stephen    

"News quote: The voters in Ft. Worth have registered in record numbers."
 [Texas registration closed yesterday (cards in the mail by the 4th)]

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49735 ca.politics:8475 ba.politics:5892
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Some more about 'RIGHTS'
Date: 6 Oct 92 17:18:58 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <26654@dog.ee.lbl.gov> mike@inti.lbl.gov (Michael Helm) writes:
alias rn rn -i=50
    >Phil Ronzone writes:
    >>Well, then, per your post, PROVE IT. I have a dictionary of
    >>Rand's terms, and it has 350+ pages in it. And she has at
    >>least a dozen books that substantiate her philosophy.
    >>
    >Sorry, y'all, but I just had to see this reposted, all by
    >itself. It's priceless. I haven't had such a good laf in
    >months.

Aye, 'tis good to see a man (?) so easily amused -- all he doth require
is a mirror.

In any case, you've made the ludicrous assertion that Rand does not define
her terms nor has she substantiated her philosophy.

Wrong on both counts.


You know, inflation is a very nasty thing to have. Very corrosive
economically. Doesn't is surprise you that with todays massive
government spending and huge debt that we have some very low
interest rates AND very very low inflation?

The last two are the major goals of the Federal Reserve system.

Many people are (still) amazed at how extremely well the Fed has done
in these crazed (politically speaking) times.

I'm not.

The Fed is run by a Rand disciple. One of the earliest and one of the best.



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.elections
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Perot: If He Runs, I Will Support Him... and hope for the best
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 12:44:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.191049.391@cbnews.cb.att.com>, nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N.
Richard Caldwell) writes:

|>From article <visser.717436799@convex.convex.com>, by visser@convex.com (Lance
|>Visser):

|>> 	Nearly 1/7th of the money that he is going to raise to close
|>> the deficit is supposed to come from European and Asian countries.
|>> Anyone who knows anything about these countries knows that it would 
|>> be political suicide for ANY government to propose a transfer payment
|>> to the US military of 100 billion dollars. 
|>
|>Now you're being foolish.  No government is going to have to make a
|>transfer payment of 100 billion dollars.  It's 100 billion dollars
|>over five years divided over numerous western european and asian
|>countries.  They can invest it in their own military or pay for ours.
|>Their choice.

Oh thats mighty big of you to allow us "choice" in how we pay tribute!

Fact is that here in Europe we already pay rather more than we care for in
defense already. As a proportion of GNP the UK spends more on genuinely defense
related spending. The US has for years used the military budget to subsidize
industry and buy pork barrel votes for senators.

In fact the Perot $100 billion tribute plan is rather down on the original sum
which was $200million per annum. I'm not going to bother to read the book to
find out the latest figure for the simple reason that if I want to read the
ramblings of a demagogue I can read Mein Kampf and if I want some ammusement I
can read the treaty of Mastricht.

One thing is certain. There is no place in politics for a quitter with a thin
skin. His approach to foreign policy is quite easy to predict. First he would
demand the tribute, then on failing to get it start a trade war. This would
destroy the US ecconomy, a situation that tin pot demagogues such as Perot
traditionaly solve by starting a small war.


--

Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.activism.d
From: bmcbean@nyx.cs.du.edu (Brian McBean)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 06:33:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.180123.18903@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.uts
.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>I just wonder how rational some people are when they make that decision.
>What about making a choice for life??
>
>
>Simon


I imagine that being these people (not sure who we're talking about)
were making a *choice* they considered at least 2 possibilities.
When the question is whether to abort or not, then I imagine most
people making the choice *will* consider the choice of life,
if it is not completely out of the question.  Lots of people
choose life.  My fiancee is one of them, but that doesn't
change the fact that she is happy to be able to make that
choice and she is happy other people are able to make that
choice.  Sound fair?  Does to me.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48497 alt.politics.bush:7094 alt.politics.clinton:7700 alt.politics.elections:14593 talk.abortion:39258 alt.sex:31265 alt.rush-limbaugh:6143
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:42:36 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Netcom San Jose

note followup.

ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz) writes ...
>Excerpts from netnews.alt.sex: 29-Sep-92 Re: rights and responsibili..
>by rocker@aix.rpi.edu 
>> To whit, it is incredibly arrogant, as well as wrong, for you to
>> dismiss the very real physical and emotional risks of pregnancy
>> as merely inconvenient.
>
>This is a common arguement. Why is it that often people forget the 
>'very real physical and emotional risks of' abortion?
>
>Having one or more abortions has the possibility of causing women
>(especially young women) to become infertile and have multiple mis-
>carraiges (sp?) in later life. Why is it that many pro-choicers

Giving birth has the possibility of causing women to die.  So?
What's your point?  That abortion is better because one only risks
a slight change of infertitlity?   :-)

If you have evidence, post it.  Many of us have already heard the 
pro-life propaganda, and much of it clearly indicates no commitment
to the truth.  So many pro-lifers exagerate and distort so much
that some in this forum refer to it as the "pro-lie" movement.

>argue for sex education, but education about abortions risks isn't
>considered as important?  I'm not saying that this is the way you
>feel. But it seems to simply be neglected by the pro-choice pamphlets
>and information. If they're *really* pro-choice, why doesn't their

I don't know anyone who's had an abortion and not known the risks.
Most other people don't _need_ to know this information since most 
people aren't getting an abortion.

>agenda include this type of education? If it's only through education
>that people can make 'responsible' choices, then why is the most 
>important part of the information, the risks of the abortion, left
>out, ignored and neglected.

Maybe the risks are not significant enough to get much attention?  If
you have some information the indicates abortion has risks we don't 
already know about, perhaps you should post it rather than making
unsupported allegations?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:47971 alt.rush-limbaugh:5890 alt.politics.bush:6729
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.
Subject: Re: Ah, the truth is out!  (was Re: rights and responsibilities)
Date: 25 Sep 92 20:38:11 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson in North America.
              The opinions expressed are strictly those of the user and
              not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <1992Sep25.071101.8649@nntp.uoregon.edu> eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:
>From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
>Subject: Re: Ah, the truth is out!  (was Re: rights and responsibilities)
>Date: Fri, 25 Sep 92 07:11:01 GMT

>>In article <1992Sep24.015639.28562@news.acns.nwu.edu>
>>     dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
>>
>>>I tend to believe that sex needs a deterent, and pregnancy seems to be
>>>a good one to me.

>Gee...just the thought of the mess alone always worked for me...


Finally, an honest woman!
//////////////////////////////////////
/* Kenny  *   Welcome to Mind Wars! */
//////////////////////////////////////
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.singles,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.bizarre
From: TMCCART3@ua1vm.ua.edu
Subject: Re: I hereby declare...
Organization: The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:21:57 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.071914.1089@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
 
>
>I hereby declare drieux the winner of the
>  Person who has created the most 'threads' or new subject headings in
>     the last few days.
>
And I hereby declare that drieux's postings make the least sense.
 
 
 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49496 alt.politics.perot:1851 alt.politics.elections:15134
From: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: All deficits are not created equal.
Date: 5 Oct 92 14:35:23 GMT
Reply-To: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Center

In article <1992Oct5.022548.29499@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@quads.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct3.133846.9484@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> walker@superman.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker) writes:
|> >>There is nothing inherently wrong with a deficit; it
|> >>depends upon how the deficit is funded and what the
|> >>money is spent on.
|> >>[...]
|> >>
|> >>I could provide some references to back this up,
|> >>but I'm not in graduate school anymore.
|> >>
|> >>No kidding.  
|> >>
|> >Well, unless you can find me some references, or something more
|> >substantial to back up your statements I don't think you have many valid
|> >points.  
|> 
|> It's a shame, because he's right.
|> 
|> If you want references, I'd recommend Eisner's work out of Northwestern
|> University.
|>  
|> -- 

   Now that paying the interest on the debt is the largest item in the
   budget I am wondering this:  Could the government get funding to buy
   a home?  Let's look at the criteria:

	1) The house payment cannot be more than 28% of your monthly
	income.

	2) The house payment plus all your other debt payments cannot
	exceed 33% of your monthly income.

   Obviously with the first criteria the US could afford a really big
   house.  However the second criterion shoots that right out of the
   water.  Not to mention that the US only pays the interest on its
   debts, not principal.  If I did thisa they would come and take away
   my car, my house, and anything else I had bought on credit.

   BTW, that is a REAL specific refrence.  I'll look in my wallet and
   see if I have a copy.


   Now don't get me wrong I don't think that getting rid of the deficit
   and the debt will fix our current economic problems.  They have very
   little to do with the current deficit and debt.  But why should that
   excuse this generation to squander money and create the next
   generations economic problems?

   I think this is what Perot has been saying.  Getting people back to
   work and fair trade practices are what will cure our current
   problems.  The debt and the deficit are our childrens problem, that
   we should not allow.

   Doug
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48973 ca.politics:8342 ba.politics:5775
From: lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com (Len Bucuvalas)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: From CDC Summary 8/4/92 and 9/21/92
Date: 1 Oct 92 19:41:48 GMT

In rebuttal to Mr. Cramer's blatent anti-homosexual
campaign...I post the following. You'd best start teaching
your kids Cramer and forget this stupid war of yours.
****************************************************************

"Teenagers and AIDS" Newsweek (08/03/92) Vol. 120, No. 5, P.
45
(Kantrowitz, Barbara et al.)
     Teenagers are becoming increasingly at risk for HIV
infection resulting from ignorance about the disease.  A congressional
report released in April cautioned that HIV is "spreading  unchecked
among the nation's adolescents, regardless of where  they live or their
economic status."  More than 5,000 children  and young people have died
of AIDS since the beginning of the  epidemic, and the disease is now
the sixth leading cause of death among those aged 15-24.  Within the
past three years, the total  of those aged 13-24 diagnosed with 
AIDS rose 77 percent. U.S.Surgeon General Antonia Novello said that the
ratio of female to  male AIDS patients has doubled in the last four
years.  Females  accounted for 39 percent of adolescent cases last
year, up from 17 percent 1987.Even frank discussion of AIDS has not been
effective for teens because they still feel they are not at risk. While
many adolescents say they use condoms, a congressional  report
showed that only 47 percent of females and 55 percent of  males used
condoms the first time they had intercourse.  AIDS  educators emphasize
first-person testimony to teach teens about the epidemic, but teens also
need careful instruction in how to  avoid the deadly virus.
		--------------------------
AND JUST HOW DO WE PROMOTE SAFER APPROACHES TO THE AGE OLD
ACTIVITY WITH THE ATTITUDES DESCRIBED IN THE FOLLOWING
FROM CDC SUMMARY 9/21/92

"Condom Shop Causes Alarm in Baltimore" Washington Post
(09/21/92), P.
B4
     Baltimore's approval to allow a condom shop in the trendy
district of Fells Point has prompted outrage among merchants who  are
concerned that it will deter tourists.  A total of eight  store owners
have appealed the occupancy permit.  The condom shop owner, Jeanne
Brown of Lutherville, Md., said her store, The  Rubber Tree, should not
offend anyone.  "It's not a sex shop.   I'm not into sleaze at all,"
she said.  "It's going to be  presented in a very tasteful, masculine
format.  Nothing  offensive, no nudity, no battery-operated anything."
Fells Point merchants believe the store might bother older people
and families they are trying to lure to the waterfront
neighborhood."We have enough things in Fells Point to appeal 
to people who like to imbibe," said Linda Lowe, general manager 
of Henderson's Wharf.  A
hearing before the Board of Municipal Zoning Appeals  will be
held in October or November.


--
*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
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,talk.abortion,alt.activism.d
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 22:51:25 GMT

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) wrote (in article <1992Oct2.180123.18903@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>):
>I just wonder how rational some people are when they make that decision.
>What about making a choice for life??

Simon, your naivite' is refreshing, but when it gets in the way of
people trying to figure out what the heck you're talking about, it's
not a good thing.  I don't know what 'decision' you mean.

Please include a few lines from whatever post you're responding to in
order to remind us what the subject is.  If you don't know how, find
someone else at your university to show you.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
                             Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
                                                                 -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.singles,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.bizarre