HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Union Dues or Taxes -- King George is Exactly Right!
Date: 17 Apr 92 00:11:30 GMT
	<1992Apr16.061751.26248@wdl.loral.com> <rdippold.703406570@maui>
Organization: The World


From: rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
>As long as unions get special preference from government, they
>shouldn't be too outraged to find out that they end up paying the
>piper.   Otherwise I'd agree.

What special preference is that? Most of the regulations I know of
(e.g. the NLRB) were set up to keep unions at bay and put strict
limitations on their ability to engage in things like job actions etc.



--
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: right to bear arms
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 15:06:27 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc


In <alberti.702715886@ux.acs.umn.edu> Timothy Fay states:

|I think it is outrageous that there are people out in the woods teaching
|bears to shoot at defenseless hunters...  Next thing you know, they'll be
|giving pistols to deer, and uzis to squirrels...

|What?  What's that...?  The right to bear arms, not arm bears...?
|Oh, sorry...

SO! The Animal Liberation Front (AFL) is being aided and abetted not
only by homo sapien traitors, but by homo sapien fellow-travlers as
well. Certainly explains wy the anti-gun people are also misanthropes
as well.
-- 
"When in doubt, shoot it out." -- From David Letterman's "Technical
Corner," the character holding a MAC-10 SMG.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17354 soc.culture.canada:3231
From: easchwei@eos.ncsu.edu (ERIC ARNOLD SCHWEITZ)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,rec.sport.hockey
Subject: NHL Season is over.
Date: 8 Apr 92 14:28:11 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: NCSU Project Eos

In today's paper it says that the owners final offer was turned down
by the players union, and the owners therefore have decided to cancel
the rest of the season.  The spokesman was quoted as saying that,
"We hope the players have a nice summer."

This really stinks since the only real losers are the fans.  The owners
will still be rich no matter what happens, and the players will still
feel like they are mistreated and not getting their due no matter
the outcome.

It seems the biggest lesson one can learn from the model league -- the 
NBA -- is that strikes are dumb.  Both sides need to sit down and agree
on what "equitable profit sharing" means to them.  Sure the owners
don't deserve to get ALL the money, nor do the players.  Some compromise
needs to be reached.  I for one hope that this strike doesn't degenerate
the league to the level of MLBaseball.  I can never remember who plays
for which team nor what play so-and-so made that entitles him to $10
million even though he's sitting on the bench.

It'll be interesting to see how this all turns out.  No matter what
though, hockey fans get the shaft.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17413 ca.politics:3379 ba.politics:2613 alt.politics.homosexuality:1864 soc.motss:19636
From: djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 92 12:12:07 PDT
Distribution: world
Organization: NMS&Systems Engineering

fierro@uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro) writes:

>   Well, according to that philosophy, religion is a crime against humanity;
> it is 'inflicting' a lifestype upone someone who has no choice.
> 
>    Doug
> -- 
>                                                      Doug Fierro


Kind of hard to equate the two subjects. There is a 
difference.

-djk

--- Daniel J. Karnes / WA6NDT --------------------------------------
--- NMS&Systems Engineering ----------------------------------------
--- Djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM / ..CtEdge!Nitro!Djk ----------------------
-- 'innovative solutions for modern problems' ----------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: AIESEC - Ohio State <aiesecrs@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 05:00:04 GMT

ty
Organization: The Ohio State University
Cc:
Bcc:

In article <1992Apr13.005652.16242@amhux2.amherst.edu> you write:>

>>[Fairly humorous comment on living hell deleted]
>
>I do not know how you can extrapolate from a single example to the
>rest of society.  Because you once saw a mother who appeared to be a
>lesbian who you thought was raising her child inappropriately, you
>conclude that no homosexual should have children?  You still seem to
>think that it is all right for women to have children.  Growing up in
>Brooklyn, I was mugged several times by young black men who lived in
>our area.  I was intelligent enough, however, to realize that this
>kind of behavior was not in any way representative of black people.
>[Fairly humorous comment about equivelancy exam deleted]

Are you kidding?  Have you ever seen the inside of a prison?  What about
today's great black heroes like Malcom "white devil" X.  (He was killed by
another black militant).  Do you think the "stop the violence" campaigns by at
least semi-responsible blacks (I would call them African-Americans, but since
they were not born in Africa. . . they call me white, I call them black, no
harm done) is without substance?  Unfortunately, violence is an all together
great problem in the black community.

R. Scharfy
From: ocb@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (owen.c.brennan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Bush a failed President
Keywords: No principles
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:14:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbfsb.1992Apr9.171441.23941
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T


George Bush has proven in less than 4 years what was always rumored about
him.  The wimp image has always been there because he's always been known
to sacrifice his thoughts and feelings for political gain.  Bush is a failed
President not just because of the economy which is not entirely his fault.
He's a failure because of his inability to act on issues as they arise and
to deal with them the way he feels they should be dealt with.

This Presidency has been instead led by a chief of staff (Sununu) who felt
that he was the domestic President while the two secretaries of state
(Bush and Baker) would take care of their more cherished role in foreign
policy.

In 1980 Bush ran as the Republican who supported abortion and now he must
feel he can get votes as pro-life candidate Bush or he will quickly 
change his mind again.  He doesn't worry about the people involved, just
the votes.

"READ MY LIPS, NO NEW TAXES!"  	No candidate has ever laid out a mandate
like that and gone against it so quickly.  All candidates make promises
that they don't keep but this was his pledge and his platform that he
felt would mark his Presidency.  Now that it is going to come back and
bite him, Bush says he's sorry but it's Congress's fault.  At the same
time he says this he submits HIS BUDGET to Congress and it calls for 
a $400 BILLION DEFICIT.  Each year Congress has had to cut and redistribute
Bush's out of control spending.  Bush is just a closet liberal and you
never know when he'll jump out with a new suit on.

SAY NO TO FOUR MORE YEARS!

Owen Brennan                  
ZZ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: Richard Boddie for US Senate Reception
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 18:43:20 GMT

In article <2091.29E19A70@kennel.FIDONET.ORG>,
Mark.Hinkle@f6.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Mark Hinkle) writes:
>
>
>       YOU ARE CORDIALLY INVITED TO A RECEPTION
>
>                 IN HONOR OF
>
>         RICHARD BODDIE FOR U.S. SENATOR
>
>                     AT
>
>             L'HORIZON RESTAURANT
>
>1250 Aviation Avenue (near the San Jose Airport)
>Take the Column Exit off of Hwy. 880 and go north
          ^^^^^^

I believe that should be "Colman"

>to Aviation Avenue (a.k.a. San Jose Jet Center)
>
>DATE: April 10, 1992 -- TIME: 7:30 to 10 P.M.
>COST: $5 to cover hor d'oeuvres and room rental
>
>FYI.............Mark Hinkle, mark.hinkle@f6.n143.z1.fidonet.org
>
>--
>Mark Hinkle
>UUCP: uts.amdahl.com!kennel!6!Mark.Hinkle
>INTERNET: Mark.Hinkle@f6.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG
>"The views expressed above are those of Mark Hinkle only."
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17125 alt.politics.elections:490 misc.taxes:2137 alt.society.civil-liberty:3272
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,misc.taxes,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS
Date: 6 Apr 92 20:03:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: cancun.rdippold.702590624
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:
>In <1992Apr4.085611.8063@eskimo.celestial.com> Corner.Core.Cafe writes:
>+>     The Libertarian Party is America's third largest and fastest growing
>+>political party. Libertarians believe "That government is best which governs
>+>least." The party supports civil liberties, a free market economy, and a
>+>non-interventionist foreign policy.

>	The party also supports the "right" of private discrimination in
>employment, housing, and "service".  
>	They believe that it is wrong to
>have laws that require doctors to help at the scene of an accident or
>an emergency.
>	They believe in repealing the various neutrality acts that prevent
>corporations from forming and supporting armies aboard and overthrowing
>governments abroad.
>	They believe in repeal of the child labor laws and the minimum wage.
>They believe in repeal of compulsory vaccination laws and in the establishment
>of a free market for human body parts.
>	They oppose laws requiring either air-bags or seat belts to be 
>provided as standard equipment in cars. 
>	In regard to the environment they believe that "strict liability, 
>not government agencies should regulate pollution."  They do not speak of
>what happens when the liable entity has ceased to exist through bankruptcy,
>disillusion or lack of funds.


Yes, notice all those "requirings" and "forcings" and "mandatings?"
Vaccination and child labor are the responsibility of the parents.
What you do with your own body parts is your own choice.  Whether you
want to work for someone at their wages is your choice.  Whether you
help at an accident is your own choice.  Whether you use air-bags or
seatbelts is your own choice.  Whether you deal with someone else or
another country is your own choice.

The same claims about pollution occur to the current system as well.
As well as the question, What happens when you convince your senator
to lean on the EPA and let you off the hook, and it's cheaper in the
long run to pollute public land/property because the EPA is such a joke?
-- 
New:  Different color from previous model.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker)
Subject: Re: FW: Plain text version of World's Smallest Political Quiz
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 10:10:10 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.060129.23140@eskimo.celestial.com> delisle@eskimo.celestial.com (Ben Delisle) writes:
>  +--------------------------------------------------------------+
>  |             The World's Smallest Political Quiz              |
>  |  (originally designed by the Advocates for Self Government)  |
>  +--------------------------------------------------------------+

>5.  People should have the right to travel,      Y       M       N
>    immigrate, and emigrate freely.

What if 500 million more people want to immigrate to the US?

>8.  End taxes.  Replace them with voluntary      Y       M       N
>    payment for services.

What about the government services that are public goods?
From: philip@reed.edu (Philip Moore)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Ross Perot
Summary: Perot + Libertarians
Keywords: pragmatic election strategy
Date: 7 Apr 92 00:57:33 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Reed College, Portland OR

In article <1992Apr4.020107.16938@morrow.stanford.edu> GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
>
>On this at least I have to agree with you.  Perot has given the
>system a good hard shake and I'm glad of it.  But to accomplish real
>change we have to move beyond just upsetting the apple card.  We
>need to put a full system is place which will return to people
>control of their own lives.  The Libertarian Party is doing that by
>offering candidates at all levels of government.  Perot is just one
>man trying to do it all from the top and his "all" has some highly
>questionable aspects to it.
>
>By all means, go out and help Perot get on the ballot.  Then vote
>for Marrou and the other LP candidates if you want sustainable
>long term change.  If everyone who is thinking about voting for
>Perot just because they *think* he has a real chance would decide
>to vote for Marrou then Marrou would have a real chance too.
>Ultimately real change depends on people voting for what they want
>rather than for what they think they have to settle for.
>
>/June

I have a realistic suggestion.  I know this will be anethma to some of the
ideologic libertarians who frequent the net but here goes anyway.

Perot has the necessary and sufficient funding to win the presidency.  
Marrou doesn't. (Period)

Perot doesn't have a national well organized political party to help get
him elected, or candidates running for Congressional seats to help effect
necessary changes in the government once he is elected.
Marrou does.

Libertarians, yoo hoo, wake up and smell the mixed metaphor.  Use the voter's
new willingness to vote outside of the traditional two party system bought
with Perot's money to get your legislators elected, then try to get an
executive elected based on their performance.

A pragmatic allegiance (called a coalition in parliamentary governments) is
the ONLY WAY to dislodge the Republicrats.  

Anectdotal stories about Perot's off the cuff comments regarding violent
neighborhoods may make your libertarian ideologies flare into full flame,
but are you willing to sacrifice any hope of ever really making a difference
by directing your rhetorical skills against a fellow challenger of the
status quo?
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17355 alt.activism:7376 alt.news-media:173 alt.censorship:3191
From: blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu (Danger)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,misc.entrepreneurs,alt.individualism,comp.sys.next.misc
Subject: Re: Perot for President
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:18:11 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: UB

In article <22572@goofy.Apple.COM> earlw@Apple.COM (Earl Wallace) writes:

[Perot bashing deleted]
>
>Like we have a zillion choices here.  Talk about drawing a bad hand.  Can I
>get a new set of cards (candidates) please?

Consider Andre Marrou  -Libertarian


To other Libertarians reading the Net listen good!

There is a tendency among people unfamiliar with the party
to see the first 5 letters and nothing more.

It is very very wrong to see Libertarians in the same light as
Liberals!!!!!!!!

We are being slandered as Liberal puke.  Be wary of it in your
encounters.

Libertarians want to deregulate the ownership of guns to the
extent they were _intended_ to be.

And that ain't all!

Marrou/Lord in '92
-- 
************************************************************************
Thaddeus Krag Blayda blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu, v063j3h4@ubvms.buffalo.edu
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Caution : DANGER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I may be crazy...But it might just be a lunatic you're looking for
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,rec.sport.hockey
From: lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor)
Subject: Re: Greedy Athletes
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 17:01:26 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.150817.23201@cs.dal.ca> johnston@ug.cs.dal.ca (geoff) writes:
>True, but after all, they are the owners.  THEY are the ones who
>have to weigh risks and pay the consequences in millions of
>dollars.  
Tell me an owner who have paid the consequences in millions of dollars.

Get real. If (a big IF) the revenue increases, why are the owners the only 
party entitled to the increased profit?

And we haven't talked about the capital appreciation of the franchise yet.

>Whereas the players, well, play hockey.  And they
>are very well paid for it.
Whereas the owners, well, just own. And they are much better paid for it.

-- 
                                          Edward Lor
                                          lor@cbnewsk.att.com
                                          
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17942 soc.culture.african.american:4527
From: dc4l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Dean Calloway)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Blacks Are Not Cost Effective
Date: 12 Apr 92 19:41:17 GMT
  <1992Apr8.162200.10488@sequent.com>
	<57105@cup.portal.com>
Organization: Masters student, Urban and Public Affairs, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts From Captions of netnews.soc.culture.african.american:
 8-Apr-92  Re: Blacks Are Not Cost Eff..  Arthur_T_Hu@cup.portal.c (1493)   
>not commit more crimes. (OK, OK, it's a social and income thing, not a
>race thing, but crimes is still correlated with some races even if race
>is not the cause)

But if you graphed this, for blacks and whites separately, using crime
rates as the y axis and income as the x axis, there would be no
correlation; in fact, you would find mirror images for the graphs, crime
(at least those we think of as traditionally criminal...assault, drugs,
burglary, etc.) decreasing as income decreases.  This is not a
correaltion between race and crime.  It is a correaltion between crime
and socioeconomic status.


> 
>Charging only males for crime wouldn't work since most women are
>married to men, and we're all in this thing together. I would take the
>position that the way to prevent more crime is to have stronger fathers.
>As much as Ice-T says things which are pretty silly, I do agree that
>a lack of strong male role models because of a welfare society that
>encourages fatherless families is a primary cause of exploding crime
>rates among males (lately the ladies have been catching up though, let's

How would you expain the S & L scandal; the HUD improprieties; Iran
Contra; Leona Helmsley; junk bond scandals?  (etc.)  

The society is not disintegrating because of welfare systems and a lack
of strong male role models.  The extent and intensity of crime among all
groups (black, white, rich, poor, male, female) is increasing and is
fueled by a society which emphasizes making a buck. Impropriety is
becoming the thing to do, only being wrong if you get caught.

DCAL 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker)
Subject: Re: Tax zap cap
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 04:01:52 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.190940.27233@hellgate.utah.edu> tolman%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Kenneth Tolman) writes:
>
>Therefore any particular individual who began
>to have a large amount of resources on hand for personal pleasure would
>basically be detrimental to society.

Huh? Why?

>So why don't we cap incomes at some
>very high number, say 1,000,000 dollars a year.

Why would (say) Michael Jackson want to keep working so hard if he didn't
get paid for it?  *I* wouldn't care if he cancelled all his concerts, but his
fans might.  If you want to argue for raising the top tax rate to 50% or
60%, fine; I would be against it, but at least it is plausible.  But
raising it to 100% would kill the productivity of some of the most productive
members of our society.  (Actually, it might just lead them to move their
domicile elsewhere, and then the government would lose bit, but that's
another matter.)

>No person can possibly use more money than this.

Why not?  Watch _Lifestyles of the Wealthy and Obnoxious_ sometime (or
whatever it is called).

>  Or the cap could be a straight one, with the govt taking anything more
>than that in taxes.  The extra money would be kept in the corporation, to
>be spent on whatever (research and development, which could burn that
>cash fast)

But the purpose of R&D is to increase your future profits.  What good is
this if you can never access these profits?

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,tx.politics,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politic.theory
From: mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee)
Subject: 44% slaves
Organization: NEC America, Engineering & Support Division
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 21:19:06 GMT

From article <1992Apr9.211816.6115@cs.ucla.edu>, by frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Frazier):

> Mugging?  No, taxes.  You don't like taxes - tough nookies.

You don't like being a slave?  Tough.

Many Blacks were 100% slaves in 1860.

We are 44% slaves.

Medievel serfs were only 33% slaves.


> I have little respect for libertarians who make tax elimination
> their top priority.  Work for personal freedom, a more just
> society, etc. - leave the tax elimination for the last step
> in the evolution.


The government uses the money it collects from taxpayers to abridge
personal freedoms.  Protecting personal freedom is important.

That's a good reason to reduce taxes - so they can infringe on fewer
freedoms.


---------------------------------------------------------
I prefer a small government which may permit some evil to
a large government which promotes evil at my expense.
---------------------------------------------------------

Michael Lee
mlee@esd.dl.nec.com
214-518-3807
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Subject: Re: Brown crushes Clinton; Bush camp in disarray
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 21:39:01 GMT

In article <adams.702654511@spssig>
adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
 
>pjl2@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Paul J Landsberg) writes:
>>Jim McMaster writes:
>>>Look at what Ronnie & George have done to the
>>>Supreme Court!  Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and (whatever-his-
>>>name-is) Kennedy are disasters to the freedom of all Americans.
>
>Looks like Thomas might not be...he was on the correct side of the
>government entrapment case decided yesterday...
>
> -Steve
>
>--
> The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
>                        -------------------
>     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
>     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
 
I noticed that and was amazed.  After his opinion in the
prisoner-beating case a few weeks ago, I assumed he was on the losing
side in this case, until I read the news stories.  You never can tell
how a justice will vote on anything, but it's scary to think he could
have swung the decision the other way.
 
Jim McMaster
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc