HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Libertarianism...
Date: 12 Jan 93 16:43:57 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:

>In article <1993Jan11.073351.27541@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>	Some kinds of monopoly are difficult to avoid, it must be
>>conceded.

>There are such things as "natural monopolies", if you look sufficiently
>narrowly at an industry. But...

>1) Such monopolies are the exception, not the rule. It is pattently absurd to
>base public policy on the exceptional; to treat the exception as the rule.

How about a public policy that treats natural monopolies as natural
monopolies, and natural free markets as natural free markets?

>2) Such monopolies are extremely rare, historically, as compared to the
>monopolies created by government regulation.

How about looking at the causal relationships between the monopolies
and the regulation?  [Hint: the latter didn't always cause the former.]

>3) Such monopolies are increasingly on the defensive as technology destroys
>the natural basis of the monopolies.

Hmm.  How many cable tv companies are there in a given area?  How
many companies in toto make VCRs?  How does technology affect the
monopolistic nature of running water provision?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Some ideas are frost giants: pouring cold water on them helps them to grow.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:67243 alt.war.vietnam:773
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.war.vietnam
Subject: Re: Somalia invades America (Re: perspective check
Date: 12 Jan 93 10:17:11 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS) writes:

] In article <1993Jan10.100702.12803@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)                    writes...
] > 
] >The Recent Invasion of Somalia by the 
] >WhiteRacistGenocidalWarMongers of the
] >Bush Regime proves that:
] > 
] >1. Somalia is of strategic importance to the USA.
] > 
] >2. Somalia is a Threat to the USA.
] > 
] Holy Cow, Batman! Does this mean that Somalia was about to invade 
] America! ;^)
] 	I can hear it now: "First Mogadishu, then Addis Addab, then
] Main Street USA."

Well its Clear that them Thar EastCoastWimpLiberalMeadiaMongers
have been trying to hide something that the Red Menace was up to
as they spent the better part of last year trying to Lull 
everyone into a False Sense of Security about the Threat of
International Kommunism.....

ciao
drieux

ps: Pinko's, They're a Tricky Lot you know....


-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 
Just because you are a homicidal maniac
doesn't mean you don't have a sense of humor.
		- Barry Sadler
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 5 Jan 93 15:59:47 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1993Jan4.171221.8778@nntpserver.chevron.com> jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros) writes:

|How about Repugnants? :-)

How about Democraps? ;^)
-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:67130 alt.president.clinton:1496
From: randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Is the media liberal-biased? (was: Weinberger Pardon)
Date: 8 Jan 93 23:31:29 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

csmith@anaconda.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith) writes:
>Americans did not find this incident [Iran-Contra] nearly as scandalous 
> as the liberal media
>did. The constant barrage of the media has shaped public opinion somewhat (just
>as it has made Anita Hill a martyr when the real martyr is Judge Thomas) but
>Americans still don't think it is that much of a scandal.


The charge of "liberal bias" is often made against "the media."  Is it
true? 

It is true that TV and newspaper reporters tend to be liberal.  A reporter 
friend of mine says: "Reports are more liberal. That's because we're the 
best informed."    Whether this leads to bias in reporting is another
question.  Reporters usually don't choose their own stories: they
are assigned them.

To counter the liberal leanings of the reporters, we have these facts:

1) In every Presidental election since 1944, more newspapers endorsed
the Republican than endorsed the Democrat.  (I do not know what the figures
are for 1992.)  

2) Most radio and TV talk show hosts (the ones who discuss politics)
are conservative.  The only exception on the national scale is
Larry King.  (Note than some talk show hosts do not discuss politics at
all, or simply blast anyone who is currently in office.)

3) Most TV stations, radio stations, and newspapers are owned by
Republicans.

4) Editorial writers in major newspapers, as well as TV editorial
commentators, tend to be conservative.


In other words, I think that things are balanced.  The reporters
tend to be liberal, but their bosses tend to be conservative.  I find
that news reporting tends to be balanced, not favoring one side or
the other.   Whatever liberal bias there is in reporting is balanced
by conservative bias in the media ownership and editorializing.

I do not believe that the extensive coverage of Iran-Contra had anything
to do with "liberal bias".   In the aftermath of Watergate, the
media tends to cover political scandals with greater vigor.  They
feel (as we do) a sense of resentment that the government lied
to us about Vietnam, Watergate, and the various scandals since then.
They feel it is their job to report the truth, and they feel
quite understandably that goverment officials sometimes lie, so they
need to dig very deep to get the truth.  If you recall, Jimmy Carter
was lambasted by the media over the Burt Lance affair, Billy, the Iran
hostage crisis, the economy, etc.  Media coverage of the economy
was very similar in the last year of the Carter administration to
the last year of the Bush administration.  If the media did in
Bush, then they also did in Carter.







-- 

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Randall Rhea                                        Informix Software, Inc. 
Project Manager, MIS Sales/Marketing Systems    uunet!pyramid!infmx!randall
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:67433 alt.activism:20516
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS)
Subject: Re: Communism is SO hideous that we must shudder with dread...
Summary: My knowledge  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 11 Jan 93 21:07:25 GMT

In article <73269@cup.portal.com>, L-Bueno@cup.portal.com (Louis Alberto Bueno)                writes...
>csmith@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith) writes:
> 
>[incorrect assumptions of the role of the executive branch omitted]
> 
>>Congress had not forbidden the sale of arms to Iran (which I
>>do not totally agree with either), but the sale was done through an
>>intermediary. The profits from the intermediary went to the contras.
>>I was in favor of funding the contras, since the Sandinistas were as much,
>>if not more, terrorist as the contras. Were you aware that the Sandanistas
>>where carrying out Genocide on the Mosquito Indians? No, not many did, since
>>the liberals who control the media did not consider it important.
> 
What's interesting is that much more Mosquito Indians died at the hands
of the Contras than from the Sandinistas. If you really care about the native
Latin American Indians than you would support the communist Guatamalan rebels
who are fighting the biggest butchers of Indians on the American continent 
(after the U.S. and old Spain, of course).

>Regards,
> 
>--Louis

-GARRETT
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1if0m5INN1dc@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
	<1993Jan6.195439.10094@nntpserver.chevron.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 21:44:32 GMT

<In article <1993Jan6.195439.10094@nntpserver.chevron.com> jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros) writes:

<>It sickened me last night to see that Clinton doesn't even have to defend
<>himself on this - CBS was doing all his spin control for him!
<>
<>Richard Mulac                                       ck347@cleveland.freenet.edu

<   My advice Richard:  Seek professional help for this problem.  Learn to
<   get past the anger stage.  You look like you've made it past denial.


	The only good "cure" can't happen until 1996.



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nfs@volkl (Norbert Schlenker)
Subject: Re: Colorado Springs Extremists (part 1 of 2)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Princeton University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 19:21:57 GMT

In article <C0GIJ6.82r@csn.org> era@teal.csn.org (Edward R. Arnold) writes:
[an amazingly long 1/2 of a Citizens Project newsletter, in which is contained:]

>NEWS BRIEFS OF INTEREST  
>=======================================================================  
>...
>
>     TEACHERS UPHELD.  Arbitration over the cancellation of gay and  
>pagan panelists in School District 11's "Diversity Symposium" last  
>April took place November 9.  This arbitration was between the  
>teachers and the school administration on the issue of cancellation  
>of the panel members.  The result: the rights of teachers to bring  
>controversial panelists into the school was reaffirmed, consistent  
>with the school district's written guidelines...
>
>     GETTING THE CHRISTIAN MESSAGE ACROSS.  The November issue of  
>Focus On The Family's teacher magazine Teachers in Focus has an  
>article on how teachers can make use of Thanksgiving to present to  
>students the American values of biblical beliefs, the Ten  
>Commandments, prayer, and hymns.  The article is titled "A Journey  
>To American Values: Mapping a Course For Thanksgiving".   "Use the  
>spiritual values of the Pilgrims"  the article says, to teach kids  
>"in need of a life preserver."  To avoid church-state problems, the  
>article advocates using direct quotes: "By citing original sources,  
>you are less likely to receive criticism."  

From the tenor of the rest of the article, one assumes that the
Citizens Project approves of the first item and disapproves of the
second.  I find it remarkable that a group dedicated to "preventing
extremists from eliminating our fundamental freedoms" can argue for
the right of teachers to bring panellists advocating paganism into
schools while simultaneously arguing against the right of teachers
to mention biblical beliefs.  It seems, rather, that the Citizens
Project is dedicated to "preventing SOME extremists from eliminating
our fundamental freedoms".

Norbert
nfs@cs.princeton.edu

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Dismissal)
Subject: Re: Libertarian heaven
Summary: No really, your logic and stamina are irrefutable.
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords: Really. It's yours.
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 23:38:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.072957.16969@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, 
colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes...

Well mc. You win. I've had enough. 

From a bumper sticker:

	And now that you've won, I hope you're happy with
	what you got. <picture of jack ass here>

No reflection on you personally intended, marc.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:66532 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11782 alt.rush-limbaugh:13187 alt.politics.bush:15646
From: rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Rich Schwartzman)
Subject: Re: One Simple Question for the Libertarians...
Organization: Sometimes
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 23:27:44 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.201735.18614@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> prs9k@brain.med.virginia.edu (Phil Scarr) writes:
}One simple question.  No embelishments, no rhetoric.  I just want a
}clear, concise answer to this question:
}
}Where does individualism come from (and as a corrolary, where do
}individuals come from)?
}
}Now, to clarify, I am not talking about basic reproductive biology here.
}I think we can all agree on THAT process.  What I want to know is where
}does this amorphous entity called "the individual" come from?
}
}Let's work this one over for awhile.
}
}	-Phil

The individual is the core unit of the grossly amorphous blob called
society.



-- 
   ---------------------------------------------
  | Richard B. Schwartzman, RBS Communications  |
  |  Media Coordinator, DE. Libertarian Party   |
  |         rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu            |
  |              (302) 455-0354                 |
   ---------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS)
Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
Summary: Industrial Revolution  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 12 Jan 93 01:54:30 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.092637.7245@microsoft.com>, leecr@microsoft.com (Lee Crocker)                           writes...
>In article <1993Jan10.101347.23800@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>>Well, this is where Libertarianism is weak.  It argues that there is no
>>force except what humans do.  If I eat food, this is by "choice," though
>>my other option is starving to death.  Thus, if you offer me a job in
>>extremely extremely hazardous conditions, with just enough pay to keep
>>me from starving to death, and that's my ONLY job offer, I'm freely
>>choosing to take this job, and you're not exploiting me.
> 
>While many Libertarians, myself included, are guilty of prophecying
>contrived wonderful free-trade societies that we think would result
>from our policies, our opponents always drag out these contrived
>counterexamples that also have no basis in reality.  It is pointless
>to use "what if that's my _only_ choice" as an argument because it
>presumes two things: first, that such a situation could actually
>exist, and second, that a non-libertarian world would somehow make
>the situation more tolerable than a Libertarian one would.
> 
You seem to have forgotten the whole reason and cicumstances for the
labor movement during the Industrial Revolution (when America was more
Libertarian than at any other time).

>Lee Daniel Crocker    | Free minds; free bodies; free trade.
>leecr@microsoft.com   | Libertarian Party  1-800-682-1776

-Garrett
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:66493 ca.politics:10531 ba.politics:8109
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Speaking ill
Keywords: AIDS HIV molest
Date: 7 Jan 93 00:27:22 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1ifd7dINN300@spim.mti.sgi.com> dauber@tattoo.mti.sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
    >If a group calling itself the "Republican National Policy"
    >says that all homosexual are sinners, and there are no
    >outcries of repudiation, would it be reasonable for people to
    >think that all republicans are homophobes? No, there is not.

It would a good "nail in the coffin". And indeed, the lack of repudiation
of the Republican party on the religious fascists is a good reason to
not like the Republicans.

    >|> >So, Phil, was does most of the public not like lesbians?
    >|> |> I don't know if they do or not. Do they?
    >
    >
    >You do seem to think that the public does not like gay men,
    >why don't you ask your source of information for that
    >statement about it?

My source was the Newsweek issue that commisioned Roper & Gallup polls.

But if I am wrong about "most" (most >= 51%) people not liking homosexuals
in one fashion or another, then, what the hell are we arguing about???




-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
From: markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 16:21:35 GMT

In <1993Jan4.160441.28047@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

>In article <1993Jan4.081741.27819@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>>What was novel about it was the placement of the burden of proof on the
>>prosecution to show that the testimony wasn't tainted, rather than the 
>>defense having to show that the testimony was.

>Just so. By requiring the prosecution to "prove a negative," the appellate
>court guaranteed that there would be no new trial.

Quit snivelling, boys! The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the prosecution --
entirely in keeping with the principle, "Innocent til proven guilty."

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten)
Subject: Re: Bush really IS a wimp
Summary: Turn it around
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:01:44 GMT

In article <markp.725932134@dragonfly.wri.com>, markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
> In <1993Jan1.015738.25289@netcom.com> nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd) writes:
> 
> >If Weinberger and
> >Bush are really innocent, then they have nothing to fear from a jury of
> >12 good men and women--the truth will out. Or is that what the little
> >sh*t was afraid of?
> 
> I think he wished to avoid (though not "afraid of") years and megabucks 
> wasted fighting a witchhunt, while the media and other leftists dragged 
> his name through the mud, with the best possible conclusion being "not
> proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." I think he did the best thing 
> for himself, his fellow patriots --and the country.
> 

Please!  Turn it around and let a Democratic president decide,
for the judge, the jury and the country that a trial was a 
witchhunt and let the person go, and see the Republican's howl.

marc colten


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: visser@convex.com (Lance Visser)
Subject: Re: Bush leaves a little something for Clinton under the tree: new budget projections
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 06:58:38 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1993Jan7.135630.27893@novell.com> bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:

+>I heard last night on NPR and read in this morning's paper that the
+>White House has released new budget projections which, not
+>surprisingly, project larger deficits for 1994 and on than previously
+>thought.

+>According to NPR, in order for Clinton to meet his goal of halving the
+>deficit in 4 years, he'll need to raise taxes or cut spending by 150
+>billion.  Surprise, surprise.  The Bush campaign team had this number
+>before the election but for some reason didn't have the projections.

	What Clinton and friends are doing is trying to back away from
any promises they made with regard to defict reduction.  They are doing
this probably becauase they never seriously intended to cut the deficit
anyway.

	Since the election, they have been pushing the ideas that "growth" 
and "lower unemployment" are the solution to the deficit.  I believe that
both the administration and congress are intrested in spending lots of
money and little else.  

	This phony crisis over the deficit numbers is just one more means
to their end.   In my experence, WHATEVER numbers any adminisration publishes
for the long-term deficit, they are going to be wrong anyway.

	The other thing that strikes me as funny is that the democrats in
congress have the Congressional Budget Office in their pocket.  Does the
CBO, with all its resources, NOT do deficit projections?


+>The paper mentioned that 1998's deficit is projected to be 48 billion
+>higher than the White House' projection of just _5_ months ago.
+>Richard Darman explains that the science of macro-economics is highly
+>fallible and mistakes are made.  Well sure, but wouldn't it help to use
+>some reasonable assumptions?  (In fairness, yes, I know both Repubs.
+>and Demos. are guilty of this).

	The whole budget process and all the numbers generated are 
generally worthless, but reforming those methods is just not very 
intresting to anyone.  

	I think the only way to even start to fix things is to get somebody
outside the government to start publishing independent and sensibly 
constructed figures for things like the deficit.  The basic data should 
be available in some form.
	I have no idea who could play this sort of role.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: The less government the better??? (was Re: Execute Amy Fisher!!!)
Organization: LLNL
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 09:38:49 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.082453.18783@news.acns.nwu.edu> dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
>In article <145664@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> ed@wente.llnl.gov (Ed Suranyi) writes:
: In article <1ilcd8INNc7@im4u.cs.utexas.edu> lwb@cs.utexas.edu (Lance W. Bledsoe) writes:
: 
: What a ridiculous point!  You won't find any mention of "North American
: Free Trade Agreement", "Head Start", "Environmental Protection Agency",
: "SALT Agreement", "Strategic Defense Initiative", etc. in the Constitution,
: either!  The Constitution can't mention every political issue or
: organization that is of interest.  What the Constitution does do, is allow you
: to vote for the people who do make these decisions.  
>
>These items and many more have pretty much vaporized our beloved 10th
>amendment.  Long Live State's Rights!  Let's hear it for amendment number 9 as
>well!  Rights retained by the people?  Oh, hell, I'm still living in the
>past......

	And let's go even further.

	Let's abolish the Federal Government, and break the United
States up into 50 separate nations (more than 50 if one counts
territories like Puerto Rico).

	And let's abolish state governments, county governments, and
city governments also.

	Let's get rid of all that g-thing and have ... ANARCHY!!!
-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:66677 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11897 alt.rush-limbaugh:13301
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Basic Rights for Gays? (was Re: Your own words, of course != bigot)
Date: 6 Jan 93 16:10:01 GMT
Distribution: usa, world
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1993Jan4.190122.14670@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:

>    So what?  Does the fact that homosexuality does affect interpersonal
>interaction mean that gays should not have basic rights?

I think this statement points out the basic disagreement (or misunderstanding) 
between the two sides when considering homosexuality.  To the one side, it 
is a given that gays do not have basic rights, and will not get them without 
legislation.  The other side looks at the history of legislatively protecting 
"minorities" and does not think that this "protection" is warranted concerning 
gays.  (Whether we see it as warranted for other "minorities" is another 
question.)

Comments?

Ted

-- 
So the Maples formed a union, and demanded equal rights, "The Oaks are just 
too greedy.  We will make them give us light!"  Now there's no more Oak 
oppression, for they passed a noble law.  And the trees are all kept equal, 
by hatchet, axe and saw.     -  Rush, The Trees
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh