HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,alt.activism
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 22 Jul 92 23:31:53 GMT
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.202834.16597@pony.Ingres.COM> rogerl@Ingres.COM (Roger Leuthner) writes:
>>In article <nkghems@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>>>libertarianism would give white heterosexual males the freedom to return
>>>to the exploitive days of the past.
>>
>>This has nothing to do with race, gender, sexuality.  It is becoming rather
>>typical that this particular group is blamed for anything bad that
>>was/is/will-be.

>"This particular group" is generally the group who has never
>experienced any kind of institutionalized discrimination

Never?  Not in the form of appearance, dress, or political
discrimination?  Race isn't the only visible thing that can be
discriminated on.   And "this particular group" is indeed experiencing
institutionalized discrimination - quotas.  Certainly nothing to the
extent that blacks used to, or Jews and Italians and others before
them.  Then again, how far are those of us who are, um, fashion
impaired, going to get in this society?
-- 
Only fools are quoted. -- Anonymous
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bring Bush Down
Date: 21 Jul 1992 19:17:26 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

Don M. Gibson) writes:
|> John R. Moore) writes:
|> 
|> >I consider this a good reason to vote for Bush. Quayle at least has an agenda,
|> >and an idea of what we should be doing in this country. Furthermore, as
|> >a former Senator, he understands congress (does Bill Clinton?).
|> 
|> isn't there some kind of assumption in the above statement about DQ's 
|> intelligence and ability to understand?
|> 
Quayle indeed has an agenda -- to get his boss re-elected.  His marching
orders are to convince the far religions and conservative right that Bush
cares about them and their issues.

Bush, Clinton, and Dole also have agendas, not dissimlar.

The question is if you agree with the agenda, believe the candidate will
indeed support the agenda, and believe the candidate can implement the
agenda.  In Quayle's case I go one for three.  I believe Qualye will continue
to support the agenda -- not effectively, fortunately.

My best thoughts on Quayle come from the last campaign.  I was the only 
person in my neighborhood with a yard sign supporting the democratic candidates.
There were many supporting the republican candidates.  I was also the
only person in my neighborhood whose yard signs had the VP candidate's name
on it.
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Fear or loathing?  So what?
Date: 29 Jul 92 17:42:30 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <ns6ev0s@fido.asd.sgi.com>, dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
> In article <qgmmfq#.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
# #Of course, you are still unable to face the fact that some people (if polls
# #are to be believed, about 60% of "some" people) do not like homosexuals and
# #homsexuality.
# 
# I think your "polls" are full of shit.  I look around on the net, and I see
# you and claytoon ranting against homosexuals.  I periodically see a neo-nazi
# like ronniejr ranting against homosexuals.  Everyone else seems to be willing
# to live and let live.  You, claytoon and the other fools out there do not
# even come close to 60%....

I get a LOT of fan mail from people saying, "Keep it up.  It's not 
safe for me post anything about this though..." and, "I wish I could
tell the net about this, but it's too painful."  "Here's something
for you to use, but DON'T use my name.  I'm worried about losing
my job."  And my favorite example was from someone who is definitely
"homophobic."  He was molested by a homosexual as a child, and is
still in too much emotional pain about it to talk about it publically.

# #But most of those are perfectly willing to live and let live, something
# #that if the net is to be believed (to be a represenative sample of all
# #homosexuals, which I doubt) homosexuals are not prepared to do.
# 
# Not prepared to do?  We are not the ones denying your right to exist...
# 
# FWA

But you are the ones denying our right to choose who to associate with.
I'm prepared to live and let live.  You aren't, you want the government
brought in to tell me who to rent to, who to hire.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"Well, maybe the Holocaust was right *for that culture*." -- a moral relativist
with whom I work.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Subject: Re: Libertarian Platform
Reply-To: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Organization: Teknekron Software Systems. Inc.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 18:45:01 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.035612.20705@ncar.ucar.edu>, gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:

|>    Children should always have the right to establish their maturity
|>    by assuming administration and protection of their own rights,
|>    ending dependency upon their parents or other guardians and
|>    assuming all the responsibilities of adulthood."
|> 
|>   Now, where Jim gets the idea that child-abuse laws will be repealed is
|>   by a libertarian society is beyond me. Perhaps he can explain further.
|>   BTW, the LP doesn't want to repeal laws against rape either.

Where I got the idea was from the Libertarian platform that states (in 
paraphrase) that all laws based upon a person's age should be rescinded.
Therefore, it would be impossible to pass a law preventing an adult from
having sex with a child based upon the child's age.  I presume what Gary
is pointing out is that if a child is allowed to establish their maturity
legally, then they have the right to sexual consent, whatever their age.
It would seem that under such a scenario, every single person would have
to, at some point in their lives, prove that they possessed the maturity
to be declared an "adult".  Until that point, they are subject to parental
control, not government control.  This makes "non-mature" children basically
the property of their parents.  Can any 3 year old consent to sex?  I 
don't think so.  Can the government ban sex with a 3 year old?  Not under
the Libertarian platform.  Who can prevent or grant this consent on behalf
of the child?  The parent.  And what if it is the parent who wants to have
sex with the child?  Who then protects the child's rights?  The government?
On what basis?  Not age, according to the Libertarian platform.  So, some
"maturity" test would determine whether the child was able to consent.
And if the child was not able to consent, then I suppose the government
could do something.  However, when it comes to children around the age
of puberty, say eleven to fifteen, I can see the court battles raging.


Establishing maturity by non-age based means will require some other 
objective criteira for assessing a person's maturity.  What such objective
criteria exist?  Would a parent be able to control the life of a 20 year
old person if they were as irresponsible and immature as most 12 year olds?
Again, I can see all the court battles brewing now.  This whole approach will
not work, in my opinion.  

-- 

	Jim Burke	"Life is uncertain - eat dessert first!"
	Teknekron Software Systems		... burke@tss.com
  	phone:(415) 617-2432			... uunet!tekbspa!burke
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:36470 misc.invest:10059
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.invest
Subject: Re: FACTOID: BANKS HAVE MORE MONEY IN US BONDS THEN LOANS
Date: 29 Jul 1992 17:06:16 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

John R. Scott) writes:
|> 
|> >(reprinted without permission from the Boston Globe, July 28, 1992)
|> >-------------------------------------------------------------------
|> >           BANKS HAVE MORE MONEY IN US BONDS THEN LOANS
|> >                        by William Goodwin
|> >                          AMERICAN BANKER
|> 
|> >NEW YORK - For the first time in 27 years banks have more goverment
|> >securities on their books than business loans.
|> 
|> >...
|> 
|> This seems to explain why the banks are not making any private business 
|> loans.  It appears to me that the long range effect of this type of banking 
|> activity will be a major decrease in banking as an influence on the private 
|> sector.  I say this because corporations will probably turn more to non-
|> banking methods of raising cash, on a permanent basis, if this banking 
|> investment trend continues.
|> 
Could it be the other way around?  My favorite banker suggested that 
more money is being put into bonds because business loans are very high
risk these days.  With the Gov't shutting down banks left and right 
because of the riskiness of their portfolios (past and present), banks
are forced to be more conservative today.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:36430 alt.politics.elections:9320 alt.conspiracy:9443
From: dbushong@wang.com (Dave Bushong)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Perot....GONE, and good riddens!
Keywords: Dont let the door hit you from behind!
Date: 29 Jul 92 11:34:44 GMT
Organization: Wang Labs, Lowell MA, USA

mgm@clipper.ingr.com (Mike Marfell) writes:

>   Perots gone and he does *NOT* deserve the bandwidth people are giving 
        ^^
>him. There's he can say that will bring his credibility back. 
            ^^^
>    So GOOD RIDDENS, Ya big eared bonehead quitter, go buy someone else.
             ^^^^^^^

Boy, talk about a lack if credibility!  Well, let's see how you do:

Q:  What do you call someone who takes cheap sniper shots from the
    gutter using personal attacks (e.g., "Ya (sic) big eared bonehead") 
    and use of the English language typical of a third-grader?

A:
>Mike Marfell                                      mgm@clipper.ingr.com


Hey, not bad!

-- 
==========================================================================
Dave Bushong, KZ1O@K1UGM.MA         +    No .sig, no tattoo, 
Wang Laboratories, Inc.             +        no bald spot, no nothin!!
Internet: dbushong@wang.com         +-------------------------------------
Project leader, OCR Products        + (reserved for future expansion)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: barrett@cloudgen1.gatech.edu (James Barrett)
Subject: Re: Question about Clinton's "didn't inhale" remark
Organization: Georgia Tech College of Computing
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 14:31:49 GMT

ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:

><In article <45552@shamash.cdc.com> paul@svl.cdc.com (Paul Kohlmiller) writes:
><   rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:

><   >king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King) writes:
> < Well, let's think about this for a minute. The Postal Service comes
> <  pretty close to paying for itself and it does a good job compared to
> <  other countries postal systems. 
>	On which planet, please? In the U.S. (on Earth), the
>	Postal Service has never paid for itself, has cut service
>	year after year and is slower than the Italian postal
>	service.
Huh?  The USPS gets no taxpayer money, so if it isn't supporting itself,
where does it's support come from?

><Per item mailed it does pretty good
><   compared to private industry (like UPS) in terms of lost mail, etc.
>	Huh? I have NEVER heard of any parcel sent via UPS being
>	lost; on the other hand, a postcard from UPS sent to
>	my Post Office box took 5 days to travel 1,000 yards
>	not too long ago. 

You must be deaf, then.  UPS drivers are heavily encouraged to be as fast as 
possible and when they can cut corners, they certainly do.  They 
*routinely* ignore call tags because UPS gets paid regardless of whether
the item is picked up or not and the drivers simply write "customer refused
to give item" on the sheet without going anywhere near the pick-up site.
(I work for a company which does warranty repair service through UPS 
delivery.)  I have certainly seen UPS lose many, many parcels.


---------------------OS/2 v2.0 -- It's heeeeerrrreee!!!!!-----------------------
James C. Barrett (barrett@cc.gatech.edu)| "I'm speechless...               
Georgia Tech College of Computing       |      I am without speech." - George
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Adios, Smith Corona
Date: 25 Jul 1992 16:33:58 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <=hjm8zn.jimb47@netcom.com>, jimb47@netcom.com (Jim Budler) writes:
|> In article <1992Jul22.144047.17337@tc.cornell.edu> shore@tc.cornell.edu writes:
|> >[]
|> >Smith Corona has announced that it's shutting the doors on
|> >its Cortland, NY plant and moving all of its manufacturing
|> >operations to Mexico.  There will be *no* typewriter
|> >manufacturing left in the U.S. after the move occurs.
|> >
|> >Thanks, George.
|> >-- 
|> >       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
|> 
|> Well, I'll be sarcastic, and risk the flames.
|> 
|> Who uses a typewriter anymore?
|> 
|> Why blame George?

i) He's there.

ii) It's convenient.

iii) It's the fashionable thing to do.

-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these opinions, he deserves them.
********************************************************************************
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:35696 alt.politics.elections:9056
From: wcs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Electoral College w/o Perot
Date: 24 Jul 92 01:04:21 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs Random Organization Name Generator

In article <archer.107@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
]In article <1992Jul20.235330.10636@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> wcs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs) writes:
]>Any time you vote Democrat or Republican, the Government gets re-elected.
]>Sure, they'd rather have Bush than Clinton, but they're both better
]>for the Status Quo party than Perot, and he would be a lot better for
]>them than the Libertarians (or the New Alliance, or the US Taxpayers Party,
]>or the America First Populist Party (David Duke's old cronies), or
]>just about anybody else.)

]Why?

Any of the minor parties would do significant damage to the Civil
Service and/or Military bureaucracy.  Since the President is
commander-in-chief, he/she *can* substantially influence what they do,
though obviously CONgressional spending influences it a lot.
But even in the civilian side the Administration has a lot of control,
especially in deciding which big pork-barrel projects get "priority".
Different parties would obviously cause different flavors of chaos :-)

Perot at least takes positions that the government is significantly wasteful,
and sounds like he'd do something about parts of it, and his position
on Desert Scam suggests he'd be less likely to have the CIA and
military intervening all over the world as much as they do now.
Similarly, his position on US troops in rich countries 
"we'll get them to pay for it" sounds like he might bring them home if
they *don't* hire us as mercenaries.
-- 
				Pray for peace;      Bill
#Bill Stewart +1-908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs AT&T Bell Labs 4M312 Holmdel NJ
If you're reading this in *.politics.*, I'll try to keep up with the discussion,
but any good insults should be sent by email so I'll be sure to see them.
From: tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Dole attack backfires
Date: 25 Jul 92 22:41:44 GMT
	<1992Jul25.174605.23258@cbnews.cb.att.com>
	<l736boINNd7p@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu>
Organization: Harris Computer Systems Division

Dole was also urging the Bush campaign to do something dramatic in order to
get back on track.

I dunno, I think losing the election will be plenty dramatic enough :-).
--
======================================================================
domain: tahorsley@csd.harris.com       USMail: Tom Horsley
  uucp: ...!uunet!hcx1!tahorsley               511 Kingbird Circle
                                               Delray Beach, FL  33444
+==== Censorship is the only form of Obscenity ======================+
|     (Wait, I forgot government tobacco subsidies...)               |
+====================================================================+
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:34980 alt.politics.clinton:125
From: tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: What kind of recession we're in
Date: 21 Jul 92 17:45:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <1992Jul21.161102.22960@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:
>burke@tss.com (Jim Burke) writes:
>
>>I will
>>bet a whole bunch of money to anyone interested that this country will not
>>be in recession in 1994.  I don't care who is elected, Bush or Clinton, this
>>will be true.  I stated on the net, and everywhere else I happened to 
>>have the chance, in 1988 that who ever was elected, Bush or Dukakis, was
>>going to inherit a recession.  The timing of the cycle was right and 
>>the historical cycle never varies more than a couple of years.  We were
>>in the longest expansion period in history, so it had to come.  It was not
>>Bush's fault.
>
>I agree that no one knows how to prevent recessions, but I definitely
>believe we know how to get out of them. That is why Reagan wasn't blamed
>for the 1982 recession. Bush knows what needs to be done for this one, too,
>but the media created a panic last fall, which created the "double dip"
>that we're in right now. 
>
>On the other hand, certain policies prolong a recession - or depression.
>Roosevelt's policies actually worsened the depression, to the point where
>it was so bad that only World War II could get us out of it. With Clinton's
>messianic "New Covenant," we may slip into the same sort of depression
>that Roosevelt presided over.

Hmmmmm, interesting remark, although it's not certain that Clinton would be
knocked over by the big spender.  However, probability is that he will. 
With language such as reinvestment and higher taxes, there's bound to be
much more spending than there is now.  Clinton's cuts in defense and gov.
waste are not going to help much.  Now, with Perot's idea of a 10% across
the board cut, with a halt to increase in entitlements--that's not a
politician's proposal.

If Clinton is elected, be sure to see another recession, companies laying
off more workers, and the debt skyrocketing.. Not that Clinton is all bad,
this is just what is going to happen.  Now, if Robert Reich could sanely
lead and be given authority to head the economic team, possibly a disaster
could be headed off.  W'ell see.

t.k.
From: harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (Harel Barzilai)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: G.A.T.T. FACTS (1)
Date: 30 Jul 92 08:44:09 GMT
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB


 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Excerpted from
[The following article was taken from the _Covert Action_ Spring 1992
article by Terry Allen entitled "In GATT They Trust"(p.60-65)]
which we hope to obtain permission to post in full soon]
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

====================================
The Final Stage of the Uruguay Round
====================================

George Bush understands, as have most of his predecessors, the utility
of trade policies both to subdue domestic opposition and to undermine
foreign resistance to the presidential will.  While the Gulf War
established U.S.  military dominance in Bush's New World Order, the
economic front is problematic.  Domestic recession coupled with
increasing clout of the European and Asian economic blocs, have
challenged the abuility of the U.S.  to maintain the advantage it
institutionalized after World War II.

Enter GATT, the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade.  This complex
and seemingly obscure set of trade negotiations has been seized by the
Bush administration to put real economic teeth into its New World
Order.  The current and 7th round, begun in Punta del Este, Uruguay in
1986, and therefore known as the Uruguay Round, is struggling to reach
a conclusion.  The final draft proposal, presented to negotiating
governments by GATT director General Arthur Dunkel on December 20,
1991, was over 500 tediously technical pages long.  Buried in the
poderous language are a number of extemely far-reaching policy changes
that would, if approved by Congress, dramatically distort the shape of
democracy as we know it in the United States today.  If President Bush
gets his way in these GATT talks, it will also profoundly affect -in
ways that could rival the impact of Columbus' arrival-the lives of
indigenous and other Third World peoples.

===============================
The Dunkel Draft:  U.S.  Impact
===============================

First, under the Dunkel draft proposal, federal law would preempt any
state and local laws that had even minor bearing on trade.  The impact
could extend to such diverse areas as evironmental policy, food safety
regulations, worker rights, and social policy.  It would also include
many laws that control or regulate the flow of capital, such as
anti-hostile takeover laws and regulations contolling foreign
ownership of farmland, airlines, or the media.
From: jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Ross is Gone!
Date: 29 Jul 92 04:35:54 GMT
Organization: CSE Department, UC San Diego

Well, I'm back from the land of the strike, the land down under.

It was interesting watching Perot's campaign come apart while I
was down there, but unfortunately I think much of what was
said at that time seems to have expired off my system. What happened
to the Perotistas? Pye and Davis, the worst of that bunch, seem to
have disappeared off the net altogether, or at least out of this newsgroup.
Did they have any comments on Perot's move? Both of them claimed
that they were in a movement for which Perot was an incidental 
candidate. Any sign of a resurgence with a different candidate?

-- 
Michael Lodman	Department of Computer Science Engineering
	University of California, San Diego
jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu		      (619) 455-1500 x2627
	        Ross Perot for Messiah
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.censorship