HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 12 Dec 1992 01:30:53 CST
From:         Titivillus <T9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: the way dull tv ought to be
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >Guess I'm really going to show my ignorance here, but, erm....who is Rush
> >Limbaugh?  I've seen references to radio programs, comparisons to McCarthy,
>
> Limbaugh has a radio programme (did I spell that right for your
> side of the lake?).  He also has a television show.

I think the McCarthy comparisons are unfair. A better comparison is to
Father Coughlin.

> You know:  I used to assume that all the whining about Rush Limbaugh
> was just a bunch of liberal whining.  Let's admit it, liberals do
> sometimes whine.  Heck, I've got one famous friend who won't even
> READ Dinesh D'Souza's book.  He just ASSUMES that it would be awful,
> I guess.
>
> But I saw a few minutes of Limbaugh's show the other night.  It was
> disgusting.  The man is a dangerous fascist pig.

I've only seen his show once (thank Jah). It is the most *BORING*
"comedy" shows I've seen. He's SUPPOSED to be funny? In which universe?

His criticism SEEMED to be somewhat based on reality, but the charts
he broadcast only covered two dates, and with inflation and other
variables, I don't know that his data was comparable.

I do not agree with him. I find his 'humor' hateful and aggressive in
its lack of humanity, not to mention humor. His fans are called
'dittoheads' from what I have heard, and the name fits. A 'head' is
an addicted person, who has given a chunk of his self in order to
satisfy a craving. 'Ditto' implies complete agreement, and those who
don't listen ironically (rtf listens ironically) often don't make
any critical judgement of the work. I find the trends Rush rides very
dangerous, but Rush is only riding this tsunami - he didn't generate
it, and the damage caused should not be placed on his shoulders only.

> --Jimbo

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
Anyone can become ANGRY. That is easy. But to be angry with the
right person, to the right degree, at the right time, for the right
purpose and in the right way - that is not easy.
              --Aristotle

Disclaimer:  The opinions contained in this post are not the
opinions of the Administration, Faculty or Student Body of
South Dakota State University.  Hell, they might not even
be mine.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 14:09:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: I'm Baaack!! (and starting to regret it)
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>

Welcome back, Ramon!  It's good to hear from you again.

And if you think this is bizarre, you should have been here a few
weeks ago.

Best,
Peter
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:27:16 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      Re: rightist
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              wales" at Dec 17, 92 7:13 am

jimmy donal wales pisze:
>> >The correction: (on calling Nazis rightist)
>> >
>> >"this terminology has been accepted only by the leftist media and some
>> > of those who listen to the media stated"
>> >
>> >Better?

Lets look at the facts:

Leftist media      - accepted
Rightist media     - rejected
Leftist audience   - accepted
Rightist audience  - rejected
Undecided audience - accepted or "I'm not interested in politics"




>>
>> Not much, no.  It seems much more sensible to say that "this terminology
>> has only been rejected by people who don't understand their historical
>> context very well."


What is that "historical context"? You are still feeding us with slogans.

Caius.
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Re: NORNAL
Date: 18 Dec 1992 20:57 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <9212181559.AA11461@infoserv.ii.uj.edu.pl>,       
  Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL> writes...
>Have you seen, or heard of, any society (lasting longer that 100
>years) based on homosexuality?

FLAME ON!!!
Nobody ever said that the entire population had to be gay!
FLAME OFF!!!

Besides, there is such a thing as artificial insemination.  The first recorded
case was in the 18th century.

							Dan, ad nauseum
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:13:54 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Diversity of Views at Clinton's Summit?
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>My question is how diverse were the opinions?
>Was there anyone there saying the 16th Amendment should be repealed? that we
>should go to a flat tax? a 50% top rate?, etc.
>
>just wondering,
> - David

        Diverse--for a group of Keynsians :).

        I didn't notice any supply-siders or libertarians or even goldbugs
there.
        But then again, I don't have cable :).

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:20:01 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: your mail
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>Atheists - strange but not dangerous

        Why thank you.  Most non-athiests classify us a mortal threat :).

        I've always considered myself unaverage, but what else do you expect
from an athiest-libertarian-free market-white/native
Am.-hetero-married-suburban-evolutionist-pro space-pro choice-pro freedom-pro
democracy-progressive?

Brett'
(All that in just one (count 'em :) personality!)
Two
No, one.
Two!
It's one!
Is not!
Is too!
Not!
Too!
NOT!
TOO!
NOTNOTONTONTONTONTONTONTONTOTNOTNOTNTONT#$!@$!)*04t=0934y--disconnect...
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 15:14:56 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: NORMAL

From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>

> .......... Have you seen , or heard of, any society (lasting longer that 100
> years) based on homosexuality?

> Caius.

Have YOU seen, or heard of, any society (lasting longer more than 100
year) based on Catholic Priests?

Actually, I could have asked the same question even if I change 100
years to 100 milliseconds?  So what?  Where is the relevance of this
100 years period?

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 12:35:56 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Look Back in Anger, part 1: Missed Opportunities

andy f. says:

>Not so fast.  We've seen home and property ownership stats for people
>who are officially below the poverty level.

I then humbly implore you to repost them. thanks

>-andy

-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: @POL
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 19 Dec 1992 14:56:04 -0600
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      Best wishes ...

to all you, whatever holiday you observe! Here's hoping 1993 is a good year
for all of you! I will not be on vacation, so look to see me lurking here
throughout the holiday season. With best regards, Val
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 12:52:01 EST
From:         Doctor Pizz <jdt10@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Some replies...
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Jimbo

An earlier post asked me if it should be legal for employers to
stipulate that giving him sex at lunch, or kickbacks of his salary
would be permissible in a contract, as long as it was stipulated up
front.  I said I thought not, since both are essentially illegal
activities in most of the country.

As for prostitution, yes, I think it might be better if it was legal,
but strictly monitored, to prevent disease, and help the government
collect taxes on it.  I feel similarly about some drugs, although
again, the government should have tight regulation over it, and charge
VERY high taxes on it.  Then, slowly phase them out, as a means of
controlling the problem.  Still, in the short term, it would end
druglords control of my neighborhood (Washington Heights, NY), and it
would make the streets more safe from the 1 murder every 3 days we have
in my neighborhood alone, mostly due to the drug trade here.

Pizz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:07:43 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Home ownership among the poor es
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>>        When you give a bureaucracy N billion, it will spend N billion whether
>>it can find N billion worth of recipients or not.
>
>Can you provide some meaningful stats that will show that a significant
>amount of money appropriated by congress to be paid as income support
>is being diverted by agencies to other purposes? (By this I mean are
>agencies using targetted funds for things in-house other than for which
>they were intended, salaries, supplies, office redecoration, etc.)

        Of course not, no one keeps stats like that, or issues reports on how
much they diverted :).

        However, you can look at

        1) The increase in bureaucrats per recipient
        2) Wether the problem is being alieviated
        3) How much fraud, waste and abuse is found eventually

        Given that an audit of 15 hospitals yielded $42 million in fraud, I
think there's considerable reason to suspect the amount being wasted/misused is
in the billions.

>>        Which leads certain hospitals to spend medicaid dollars on Super Bowl
>>tickets....
>
>As I understand it medicaid is paid out on a per-use basis, not as a
>general lump sum aid to facilities, which would allow a discretionary
>use of funding. What I am driving at is that there are no over-allocation
>of funds that causes a surplus that the hospitals find they need to
>"use or lose;" what we are talking about is the presentation of
>fraudulent claims.

        What happens is that people bill non-medicare/caid patients and
procedures throught medicare/caid, increasing the number of "recipients".

>If this fraud is as widespread as you intimate
>then the FBI ought to get on it and start busting some hospital
>administrators and doctors, right? Who knows, maybe it would
>revolutionize the prison health care system...not to mention
>all of those community service hours that could be put to good
>use by VA hospitals and inner city clinics... B)
>
>-other Andy

        The government can't even enforce the terms of it's medical school
programs, I doubt whether they will move against the insurance/AMA/etc. front.

        But getting back to my main point: such things indicate that what we
need is a more efficient system, and not more money.

Brett'
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Followup to MMORSE
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 22:34:59 GMT

Michael Morse apparently has some difficulty with the distinction between
that which is permissible, and that which is morally right.  

He wasn't addressing me, but I'll just jump in here uninvited.  I'm
like that.

>  If you truly believe in a democratic society, and are not beholden to
>Biblical hogwash in your principles, I think you owe it to yourself to
>ask yourself honestly what grounds you have for disapproving of or
>disliking homosexuality. If such a practice is an inalienable right,
>which as you agree should not be abridged by law, doesn't this already
>suggest that there might BE no basis for condemning it?

This doesn't exactly follow very well.  There are plenty of things
for which I think there is perfectly sound basis for condemnation,
but which yet do not justify intervention by the law.  One example
is the smoking of cigarettes, a practice I think is fairly objectively
bad for you (and hence, I think, worthy of condemnation) -- yet I
don't think that intervention by the law is the proper approach.

Nozick calls this kind of thing 'moral space' for the individual.
The idea here (mine, maybe Nozick's, I can't quite recall) is that
a certain degree of 'space' in the form of individual rights is
a necessary condition for human flourishing, but of course not sufficient.

There are times when we should protect people's right to do something,
even if we think that that something is disgusting or immoral.

> Have you honestly
>considered this possibility? I should mention that the behaviour of the
>gay-bashers on this tends to confirm, spectacularly sometimes, the
>idea that many men hate homosexuality because they have gay inclinations
>of their own which they cannot deal with, and invert into hatred.

This, dearest Michael, runs dangerously close to poisoning the well.
Poisoning the well is a kind of ad hominem fallacy that consists in
trying to refute an argument by showing that the speaker has a nonrational
motive for adopting it.  The reason I'm letting you off the hook,
and only calling this a 'close call' is that I don't believe the 
other fellow in this discussion has GIVEN any arguments.

--Jimbo
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN::"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:33:14 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      what's missing?
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Good afternoon!
The last final is history (until I sit down to grade the silly things).
This is Kerry's brain.  This is Kerry's brain during final's week.
Heeheehee.

Anyway -- I've been watching throughout the day for the barrage of hatred
Robert predicted would be directed toward Caius in response to his
allegation that homosexuals are not "normal."  Aside from a polite request
from KAT to define his terms, I haven't seen it.

I wonder if that means anything?

Kerry
off for a well-deserved period of deep vegetation over a trashy novel.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 13:21:12 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: your mail

From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>

> If there is a place in the Universe where homosexuals are considered normal
> let's send them there!

> Caius

(Isn't that what Hitler did to Jews?...)

When Caius first said homosexuals are "unnormal" my ONLY reaction
was to ask him how he defines "unnormal."  I did not follow up on
his definition much in a way of complaining because I agreed with Joe
on this one: Caius's definition was not "bad" per se.

But the above statement shows Caius's true "color."  *Now we know
what Caius implies when he says a certain group are "abnormal."

Now I sympathize with the other poster who early on demanded an
apology from Caius.

Let's see if he gets one.

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 13:12:27 EST
From:         Joseph D Terwilliger <jdt10@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: the way dull tv ought to be
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Spike Lee also has said, and I quote, Only White people can be
racist...", because only they control the power.  Hence, by his
argument, he could say whatever he wanted to, and never fear being
racist...

Hence, I submit that HE IS RACIST, by my definition and anyone's who
think it means judging or treating people differently based on their
race.

--Dr. Pizz--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: York University
            <92350.214735MMORSE@YORKVM1.BITNET>
            <BzDIqC.9EE@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:20:27 EST
From:         MMORSE@YORKVM1.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Followup to MMORSE

Dear Jimbo,
  With respect, I don't believe you quite took my distinction between
tolerance and discrimination. All I meant to say is that if a behaviour
is legally unobjectionable, i.e. in *principle* not to be subjected to
legal interference unless it makes its way into the public sphere (viz.
screwing on the job or in public, as per my example), then it MAY be that
there are no other reasonable grounds to *condemn* it. And, again, I say
"condemn" as opposed to "dislike" or "feel kinda funny about". And, since
this distinction in turn depends upon recognizing the impact of personal
and subjective sensations, I made them a part of the argument. I disagree
with your assessment of ad hominem in this case: I said that many of the
attacks (I meant to specify "on the list," but didn't) on homosexuals/
-ity show what to Freud was evidence of latent homosexuality. If you'll
recall, that thread led nowhere but to the land of acrimonious deafness
last time 'round, so I'll leave it aside this time, save to dust it off
long enough to exonerate myself from the charge of logical fallacy. My
case is this: is it plausible to talk about the politics of a subjective
inclination, i.e. sexuality, without talking about the processes and
grounds of subjective inclination? I hardly think so. If bringing forward
the relevant and appropriate considerations runs afoul of Aristotle, so
much the worse, I'm afraid, for Aristotle. Serious philosophy, not to
mention art, has been poking holes in the Organon for two millenia, and
it is hardly an authority to be invoked as definitive.
  But there is further material for my distinctions in the very example
you cite: it would have been almost unthinkable to legislate smoking
behaviour twenty years ago (although many private organizations such as
schools and churches had sanctions on their own authority). Now, with
tobacco de facto accepted as a noxious substance, the law (here at least)
is very much an active field for the social intercourse around the stuff.
While it was "unthinkable" before, it could have and, so to speak,
"should have" been predicted, on the very principles the good Doctor
has advanced: unless something messes with you, it ain't the law's to
play with. Since it could have been seen theoretically that cigarette
smoke did this (or, indeed, practically), since it physically invades
the public space, it is an example of what I meant by "subject to law".
As long as sexual behaviour does NOT invade the public space (and, by the
way, it is entirely consistent with this principle to say that the sexual
exploitation of the pre-consensual does just this), then it is and should
be out of the hands of the law. And, I wanted to say, of self-appointed
vigilantes, too. Okay?
Cheers,
MWM
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 09:23:56 EST
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Discrimination of various kinds
              17 Dec 1992 07:39:43 GMT from <jwales@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU>

Jimbo,
  Does infinity count as a number, or do you consider it a concept.

Evelyn
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 13:32:15 EST
From:         Doctor Pizz <jdt10@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: NORNAL [i.e. normal]
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Joe

The criteria I listed in my post were direct quotes of a definition
from the Random House Dictionary.  Then, I merely tried to explain how
they applied to Homosexuality.  Again, what is wrong with being
abnormal?  I am admittedly considered abnormal by many of my friends.
The point is that it is fine to be different, but I do not expect other
people to think I am normal, and I do not think other people should be
compelled to like or dislike me on that basis.  If they choose not to
associate with me or to work with me because of it, that is their
prerogative, as long as I am in the private sector.  In the public
sector, there must be 100% tolerance for the abnormal, as long as they
fit the predefined qualifications for any given job better than
evreyone else who applies!

Pizz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:20:02 EST
From:         Doctor Pizz <jdt10@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: the way dull tv ought to be
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Ellen,

     Do you think the majority should not hold power?  Our constitution
guarantees minority rights against the "tyranny of the majority" but
who protects the majority from the rampant anti-majority migotry that
pervades our society.  All society's problems are being blamed on
Whitey, and this is unfair.  Equality must begin by affording equal
opportunity to all to advance from their current condition.  This
exists.

     Racism, you seem to believe, has to involve people in power.  I
contest this allusion.  Does the word not imply making judgments and
evaluations of people based on their race?  If so, then Affirmative
Action Quota programs are racist, minority scholarship rograms are
racist, and the like.  Further, all of these situations involve power
being used to enforce racist policy....  Hmmmm


Pizz
From: andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: gold advantage
Date: 15 Dec 92 17:59:33 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

>Advantages of 100 percent specie standard (in short):
>
>- Money free from govt manipulation. Government limited to obtaining funds
>through borrowing or taxation, not money-creation.

Wrong.  Changing the amount made is only one way to manipulate money.

>- Provides legal rights of depositors, where ownership of funds remains in
>hands of depositors.

Doesn't depend on the standard used.

>- Elimination of government-induced inlation as well as business cycle,
>internation monetary crises, balance of payments deficits.

Nope.  (Inflation is too much money chasing too little stuff.
Destroying stuff causes inflation too, and govts are great at that.
There are similar problems with the other examples.)

-andy
--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU