HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Still Blasting Bush (Was: Clinton's flip-flop on Haitians!)
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 25 Jan 93 10:23:54 CST


In article <ATAYLOR.93Jan22142614@gauss.nmsu.edu>, ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
> In article <randall.727665720@seashore> randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea) writes:
> 
> 	[a long tirade about how naughty Georgie Bush was].
> 
> 
> 	Earth to Rhea: Bush ain't President anymore. You wanted
> 	"change", you got it. 
> 
> 	Of course, the kind of "change" we (and the Haitians) have
> 	seen so far may not be what SOME folks had in mind....

The "change" Bill just signed repealing the "gag rule", restrictions
on abortions at military bases, & allowing fetal research is exactly
what Bill promised and "SOME folks had in mind...".

I'm sure you're happy that Bill kept his word...

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
From: sals@deirdre.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
Date: 25 Jan 93 00:40:22 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <C1Br9z.8J5@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill  
Hallam-Baker) writes:

> If you examine your history you will find that it was the Tory,  
reationary,
> protectionist cause that opposed the involvement of the government in  
social
> affairs, the Liberal position was very different.

I have read many  classical liberal writers and I fail to see the fraud  
you accuse the libertarian movement of. Can you do more then flame and  
maybe just show us this fraud directly.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: zygote@cs.uiuc.edu (The seed of all life)
Subject: Re: State's Rights
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:48:52 GMT

colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:

>>That's bullshit and you know it.  What I said is that Washington played
>>an ACTIVE part in slavery, not a passive one like you claimed.  You are
>>just making accusations to create a distraction from the obvious.

>It may be bullshit, but I wouldn't say it if I thought it was.  You
>defend the rights of people to own slaves since it is up to their

No I did not.

>state to decide if it was legal or not.  As for Washington's active
>role - it was not active at all.  They accepted it IN THE STATES
>THAT HAD IT. They did not mandate it and they did not force anyone
>to have it.

What I said is that the Fed. govt. nor any state govt. forced anyone
to own slaves, but both ACTIVELY protected the practice.  If the
Fugative Slave Act is not an active Federal protection, then what the
hell is it?

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Fear, hate, and the eternal companion, hate
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 06:51:28 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.010519.8037@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>In article <lm0nu9INN9jt@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> flar@bendenweyr.Eng.Sun.COM (Jim Graham) writes:
>    >The Colorado law also prohibits laws that prevent
>    >discrimination against homosexuals, but it does not prohibit
>    >laws that prevent discrimination against heterosexuals.
>
>It dioes no such thing.

Oh, this ought to be good.

>It prevents laws from being passed which have the
>effect of granting "new [supposed] rights" to minority, such "rights"
>being usable ONLY by initiation of coercion against other people.

I'm sorry, could you say that again?  In English this time?

>Coloradans can still discriminate against me, by say, refusing to rent to
>people taller than 6'2".

But they would not be discriminating against you on the basis of your
sexual orientation, which is the WHOLE FUCKING POINT.

Good heavens, Phil.  Is this the dark glass through which you view
anti-discrimination laws?  No wonder you are so dead-set against them.
You're opposing laws which no one supports.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Freedom of Religion
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 05:51:01 GMT


Now let us turn to this matter of 'Freedom of Religion'
and its implications for the Roman Catholic 
Church and Other Such Groups as May Be Fetal Idolators.

Are we to Allow 'Freedom of Religion' to be USED
as a Cover for Blood Rituals and Cannibalism?


Mind you be careful how you answer this.


ciao
drieux


ps: pytor now don't bugger this one for the
kiddies who read slowly....


-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 

sometimes, a thing will happen after another thing, 
and they may not be connected..... 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69548 alt.conspiracy:14568 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13705
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Privatization
Date: 24 Jan 1993 20:00:28 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) says:

>>Oh? If you see Bill Clinton as the epitome of Political Correctness, then
>>you'd have to admit that 43% of the American people (53%, if you count
>>Clinton-leaning Perotistas) like Political Correctness and the evil
>>leftist ideologies that come with it, and God-fearing anti-PC'ness is
>>in the definite, unpopular minority in America.
>
>Of course, Clinton was hardly the politically correct candidate, while
>the PC candidate, Jerry Brown, was deservedly wiped out in the primaries.
>
>Your results may be different if you simply define "PC" as "people I don't
>agree with."

     PC as a methodology, not ideology.  I suspect you'll have a 
     hard time grasping this one, though.

     Darling, Darling


     The economy's going nowhere slowly
         And we don't know how long it'll last
     There's nothing wrong with going nowhere, baby
         But we show be going nowhere FAST! 

     Everybody's going nowhere slowly
         They're only fighting for the chance to be taxed
     There's nothing wrong with going nowhere, baby
         But we should be going nowhere FAST!

     It's so much better going nowhere FAST!

     And I don't know 
        Where I ever 
          Got the bright idea
            That I could succeed

     So productive and independant
        But I'm depending on Bill now
     And he'll always be
        The only one
           That I just can't be without

     And I'm out for Freebies tonight
       I'm going after Freebies tonight!


>ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
>standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
>the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
>
From: doli@troi.cc.rochester.edu (David Oliver)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Statement of President Clinton on Health Care Reform Task Force
Date: 28 Jan 93 16:11:28 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)

In article <2689@blue.cis.pitt.edu> pmmst8+@pitt.edu (Makala P Mweene) writes:
>>In article <C1H6AK.2In@umassd.edu> pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU writes:
>>>Yeah, that's right. The government should steal money from those who 
>>>have it and give it to those who don't...
>>
>
>Is it not the case that the rich got so by taking money from those who 
>are now poor and giving it to themseleves...
>
>
>makala

NO

-David Oliver (doli@troi.cc.rochester.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.medicine,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.african.american,sci.med
From: brandon@caldonia.nlm.nih.gov (Brandon Brylawski)
Subject: Re: Statement of President Clinton on Health Care Reform Task Force
Organization: National Library of Medicine
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 16:32:27 GMT

timothy@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Tim Bates) writes:

: If doctors didn't have the support of the government in preserving their
: monopoly on health, penicillin would be virtually free in medicinal doses
: available from your local dairy.
: 
Come, let us be reasonable. The price of medications is set by market and legal
factors involving pharmaceutical companies;  doctors have no say nor role in what 
drugs cost, and if you could buy them over the counter they would not cost any
different. Penicillin, at any rate, is dirt cheap (pennies per pill). Perhaps you
are arguing that there is no reason to pay a doctor when you should be able to 
buy medications on your own, when you think you need them. That's an interesting 
notion, but in my experience very few patients could do so for themselves
competently. When a patient comes to see me, he is paying me for my expertise; I make
nothing off of the medications I prescribe. Further, I always try to prescribe
the cheapest medicine that works well for any condition. If a particular patient's
problem is well known to me and he merely needs another course of some medicine that
has worked well for him in the past, or if he needs a refill and there is no reason
to think that he requires another examination, then I will prescribe over the 
phone, at no cost to the patient for my service. What system would you prefer?

Brandon Brylawski

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: True federalism means competition in government (was State's Rights)
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 03:46:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.135414.13055@cbfsb.cb.att.com> colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
>In article <C150EL.H8A@newsserver.technet.sg>, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>> I'm sure the citizens of Utah are all teary-eyed at your concern for their
>> welfare but, frankly, I don't think you are getting the point. If the
>> state of Utah became an oppressive socialist state, the victims could simply
>> pack up and leave (as they are doing from the Northeastern states now). The
>> fact is that the most effective way to vote is with your feet.
>> 
>
>Well, whether or not the people of Utah are teary eyed at my concern,
>you are wrong.  If Utah became an oppressive Fascist state you are saying
>that everyone who didn't like it could just pick up, leave all their property`
>behind and move.  Where?  To another state that could do that same thing?

Dur, how about to a state which doesn't.

The bottom line is that federalism, true federalism, means competition in
government. It means that people can sort themselves out according to the
kind of place they want to live.

It means having a choice.

>Not much of a system.  My people did that for 2000 years and it didn't work
>very well.  Under the kind of system we are discussing they could even
>prevent you from leaving - or living.

Well, certainly there have been nations (on the left side) which did this.
But the closest thing you will find to this in America is slavery which has
been outlawed for some time now.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70488 alt.atheism:27215 talk.religion.misc:27818
From: max@admin.mport.COM (Max)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: ted (joe mcarthy) kkkaldis: the last real 'murkin
Date: 28 Jan 93 21:20:49 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Microport Inc., Scotts Valley, CA 95066 US of A

kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:


>In article <C19pC5.1rxt@austin.ibm.com> frank@austin.ibm.com (F. Karner) writes:

>> Theodore A. Kaldis:

>>> This is America here.  In this country, the word is spelled "tire".

[stuff deleted, but still teddy-girl writing]

>"perceived" intellect?  I often perceive at the very least ignorance,
>if not outright stupidity in many of the posts here.  (And where do
>you suppose that you might fit in?)  The only thing I find heartening
>in this sad state of affairs is that (by far and away) most of these
>aforementioned posters happen to be leftists/liberals.  So let's not
>call them "American" posters -- in fact, "unAmerican" happens to be a
>much more appropriate term.

>The views expressed herein are   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis

ah, the great phrase "un-american". you know ted, you would fit right in
with good ol' joey mcarthy. now there was a REAL amerikkkan (not!). 

so other than watching rush l. and sending love letters to the american
nazi party, what have you dome that qualifies you to dredge up the old red
scare bullshit? 

but hey, all that tv in the service of your country must count for
something right?

-max

=====================================================================
  \\\///   | 		             | the above represents my 
  //@@\\   | yet another nude biker  | opinion only, and is subject
  // \ \   | 		             | to change. 
  // - \   ----------------------------------------------------------  
    """    | max@mport.com | dod:234 | protect the bill of rights
=====================================================================
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70226 talk.politics.theory:5792 talk.philosophy.misc:3469 sci.philosophy.tech:5006 sci.econ:9919 sci.philosophy.meta:3176
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Enforcing U.N. sanctions
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1993 17:33:13 GMT

In <73903@cup.portal.com> L-Bueno@cup.portal.com (Louis Alberto Bueno) writes:
>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>>L-Bueno@cup.portal.com (Louis Alberto Bueno) writes:

>>>	In case people have forgotten, there's also a 'no-fly' zone 
>>>over Bosnia-Herzegovina as well.  But it's not being enforced at all,
>>>despite the multiple violations from Serbian aircraft.

>>The reason for not having shot down any Serbian (federal Yugoslav)
>>aircraft is because United Nations personnel are a small number
>>and thick in the middle of the crowd ... they'd be taken hostage
>>or slaughtered brutally on-the-spot.

>	This is a mere repetition of what our State Department has told us.

No, it's what the UN personnel on the ground have told us.

> It is obvious that if enforcing a 'no-fly' zone were in the best interests
>of the U.S., we would ensure the safety of the U.N. troops beforehand, or,
>at the very least, pull them back strategically.  Want some 'thought food'
>on this?  Access the facts concerning the no-fly zone in northern Iraq. 
>When this zone was implemented, there certainly were a good number of U.S.
>troops there.  And yes, now there happen to be U.N. troops (but only about
>50 or so, last I read).  The Kurds there  (the reason for the no-fly zone,
>in case anyone has forgotten) still receive aid.  Now, given your above
>'fact' concerning Serbia, this should not be possible.  Conclusion?  :-)

If the two situations had anything in common, there might be a
conclusion you could come to.  But in one case, there were Kurds on the
ground, who supported the no-fly zone, and in the other case, there are
Serbs on the ground, which don't.

>	Let's say that the facts I have in front of me are, at best, faulty
>data.  

Okay.

>      Given the nature of the Balkan conflict along the lines that your
>above statement outlines, the very *existence* of the no-fly zone should
>have been enough to compel the nationalist Serbs to strike out at the U.N.,
>or any other foreign power, to proclaim their sovereignty over their
>airspace.  Indeed, the U.N. is being treated with extreme hostility and
>disregard now.  Observe that Britain is now sending over more troops to
>reinforce their part of the U.N. battalions.

Why should the existence of a no-fly zone which isn't being enforced,
over disputed land, cause Serbs to attack the UN? 

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | "We don't need anymore [sic] wretched refuse.  It's 
niepornt@phoenix.    |  time to send the Statue of Liberty somewhere else"
   princeton.edu     |      -- Jack "Not a bigot" Schmidling, 1/7/93
Baltimore Orioles 93 |
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: Privatization
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: The Bates Motel
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:27:30 GMT

golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>>
>>>Britain is privatising its electric industry.  We can't -- it's 
>>>already private.
>>
>>Except for being private, ConEd and LILCo seem to stumble and bumble
>>MUCH worse than Ontario Hydro or Hydro Quebec ... and note that in the
>>latter cases, their limited markets (Canada's two *largest* provinces;
>>barely midsized on a US scale) would be unprofitable to anyone who'd
>>risk dumping a lot of capital into buying them ...
>
>Ontario Hydro and Hydro Quebec once served useful purposes...but
>now both are cancerous bureaucracies eating away at the health of
>the Canadian economy.  A good thing often is not a good thing forever,
>and the electric utilities in Central Canada need a massive
>restructuring...and this should have been done during the good times
>of the late eighties...now it will be much more painful to do.

By the way, I'm not against the privatization of Ontario Hydro or
Hydro Quebec; I was pointing out that even private operations will
have executional negatives like those expected of a public one; if
private power utilities were plum for Ontario and/or Quebec, there'd
have been maneuvering as had been happening with challenges to Telecom
Canada in the long distance field ... 

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.EDU 		Carnaval de Quebec (City)
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			February 4 - 14
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 20:56:23 GMT

In article <2211@celia.UUCP>, steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:

|>In article <2207@celia.UUCP> celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree) writes:
|>>In article <90425@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM
|>(Mark Wilson) writes:
|>
|>>>I read this three times, and I still do not understand how you got the IE
|>>>out of the given paraphrase.  I would also like to see the original
|>>>quote before commenting further.
|>
|> My paraphrasing was rough to say the least. Here are the actual quotes 
|>which might seem timely now. 
|> From "In the Words of Adam Smith" by Edward W, Ryan  1990
|>
|> quotes from "An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations"
|>             "The Wealth of Nations" for short.
|>
|>    Author  Adam Smith  1776
|>                   note - This book was written during the economic period
|>                          known as Mercantilism. Which developed out of the
|>                          Feudalism of the Middle Ages.
|>
|>  page 421 (The Wealth of Nations)
|>
|> "Every Individual is continually exerting himself to find out the most
|>advantageous employment for whatever capital he can command. It is in his 
|>own advantage, indeed, and not that of the society which he has in view.
|>But the study of his own advantage naturally, or rather necessarily leads
|>him to prefer that employment which is most advantageous to the society."
|>                       
|>  page 423 (The Wealth of Nations)
|>
|> "By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society
|>more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." 
|> 
|> Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.

Yep, they were not the views of Adam Smith then we take it?

The reverence which the free-marketeers (sounds like a Dumas novel pronounced
with a lisp), hold Adam Smith is very close to that with which the Trotts hold
their prophet Marx. I would have thought that the very idea that it was possible
to predict the ideal society that the inductrial revolution makes possible would
be thought incredible by most normal people. The idea that it could be predicted
in advance of it is of cause absurd.

--

Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
From: rjwade@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade)
Subject: Re: Reality is a b!tch
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 21:39:10 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.164612.25132@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = (Gary Blumenstein) writes:
>
>[...]
>>Bush was right, Clinton's character is 
>>personified by his draft dodging coverup.  Not on the issue of whether or not 
>>he was willing to serve his country, but by his failure to simply face himself 
>>and come clean with the American people.  Bill Clinton knows in his heart who 
>>he is.  
>
>60% of draft age men did something to dodge the draft.  (This from a
>book by Margaret Tuchman.)  Clinton indeed knows who he is.  The
>American people voted Clinton into office knowing damn well his actions 
>concerning the draft.
>
>After all, that's all Quayle (draft dodger) and Bush could talk about the 
>entire campaign, a big reason why they lost. 
>
>I hated the goddam Vietnam war.  If people are already forgetting
>history, the U.S. government was so devious, so evil, and so STUPID in
>their conducting of the war that no intelligent individual who did
>anything to avoid it should be mocked, but rather PRAISED.
>
>It's about time we have a president that doesn't blindly genuflect to
>the American flag.

just to be sure...i hope everyone knows that contrary to what we read in our
history books in school...north vietnam *never* attacked our ships in the golf
of tonkein(sp?)...*our* government lied to us so it could have an excuse 
to bomb n.v.  also we had the south vietnam leader assinated and put in the 
guy we wanted(our puppet..so to speak).  makes you wonder what we do and 
don't know about the iraqi war????>
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69733 soc.motss:58395
From: bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (BOUCHER DAVID            )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss
Subject: Yuppie Vacation Bill (WAS Re: Family Leave Bill
Date: 25 Jan 1993 21:01:45 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada

In article <9301222329.AA29961@client.its.rpi.edu> buckmr@rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire) writes:

>        A family leave bill vetoed by President Bush is being brought back to
>life under the new administration. [...]

>        The family leave bill would establish a national policy for Millions
>of working families. The bill [...]
>would allow a worker to take up to 12 weeks of
>UNpaid leave per year for the birth or adoption of a child... [or for
 ^^^^^^
"illness" of a family member]

And just who, do you suppose, can AFFORD to take 12 weeks of unpaid leave?
None of the "working families" I know of can afford a three-month unpaid
leave of absence.  They should call this bill the "Yuppie Vacation Bill".

"Grandma's sick again! Pack your bags for Hawaii, we'll stop and see her
on the way to the airport!"   ;)
 
And the cost in lost productivity will naturally be borne by everyone.

- db 
   


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: an3205@anon.penet.fi (ROI)
Subject: MEMO TO PRESIDENT CLINTON
Organization: Anonymous contact service
X-Anonymously-To: talk.politics.misc
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 02:34:56 GMT


              READ MY LIPS...  THE ECONOMY, STUPID!


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind system, any replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70109 alt.politics.clinton:21378