HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tuesday, 14 Apr 1992 15:08:28 EDT
From: <JDW116@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Airline- cost of

While it is true that you may pay more or less now when you buy a ticket,
people who have never bought a ticket spend money everyday on air travel
related things without even knowing it.  We all do.

It would take a great investigation by all of you to find a figure for that
amount, and what you came up with would probably be wrong anyway.

Your getting all upset about something without reason.  Unfortunately,
there may be a good reason for you to do so and no one will ever know for
sure.

My advice:  Have a stiff drink and worry about more important things.
            Tell your family and friends how much you appreciate them.
            Don't stress yourself out over this.

Love typing to you here,


    JOHN       JDW116@psuvm.psu.edu
From: mikea@psdslc3.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "Government is not the solution, government is the problem!"
Date: 17 Apr 92 00:22:27 GMT
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA

In article <9204121917.AA19534@bottom.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> aiesecrs@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (AIESEC - Ohio State) writes:

>The first representitive government in 2000 years.  The most obese poor people 
>in the world.  The best standard of linving in the world.  When are people like
>you going to join us among the thinking?
>
>R. Scharfy
>Ohio State

[and then again!!!!!]

>No, their is a whole group of the.  They call themselves Democrats.
>
>R. Scharfy
>Ohio State

I know spell-flames aren't nice, but this moron continues to spout his
Republican (or whatever the hell it is) rhetoric using words I can
barely recognize. 

Hey Scharfy, you potato-brained freeze-dried dog stool, why don't you
call your governor to find out if there are any libraries in your state.
If there are, go there and ask for a "dictionary."

And the Rush Limbaugh-ism of the electorate continues...

********************************************************************************

"Scharfy, the twit who loves 'murika 'cause the poor people are obese."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Subject: Re: Polling Fraud?
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 00:46:24 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.214146.3820@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.201855.8190@kpc.com> emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff) writes:
>>	I didn't mean vote fraud. I meant fraud involved in the many
>>Polls taken by Harris and others, that tell us before the election,
>>who is going to win.
>
>Do you have any examples of the "many" instances of polling fraud?
>-- 

No. That's what bothers me. It seems like polls are the only US business
that has no trace what so ever of any dishonest/unethical behavior. It's
very strange. As far as I know, It's not regulated. What's to stop Rev. 
Moon from conduting a Washinton Times Poll to further his own agenda?



Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17632 alt.individualism:2370
From: peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Drug Legalization. Was: College Was: Perot
Date: 10 Apr 92 03:41:51 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: dopey.crhc.uiuc.edu

dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson) writes:

| Further, if legalized, the big pharmaceutical companies would take
| over.  They would develop drugs, which are 90%-95% addicting 
| on the first try.

You know, I let this go by because so many people were responding to the
rest of the post.  But the more I see it, the more infuriating I find it.

1)  If a drug company were able to find a drug so addictive, they would
either have to boldly advertise its addictive qualities or find themselves
being sued from San Juan to Point Barrow.

2)  People do not want to get addicted.  Given this, they would not
purchase a drug with any addiction rate if they could help it.  The
successful drug company would be the one which provided a product that
(a) was not addictive, (b) had very predictable effects, (c) had a definite
wearoff period, or perhaps had an included antidote.  The recreational drug
companies would target those people who wanted to take a drug for an
evening and be fit for work in the morning, or who wanted to use it over
a weekend and be fit for work on Monday.

3)  The drugs reputable firms would try to design would look like Tootsie
Roll Pops next to alcohol and tobacco:  no hangover, no addiction, perhaps
a fast-acting antidote.

I am no pharmacologist:  I do not know what would be possible in future
drug development.  But I do know that a known company cannot sell
something known to be injurious without telling the purchaser.  I also
know that people, given the choice, would rather not be injured.  It only
follows that recreational drug companies would do _exactly the opposite_
of what you say they would.

Recognizing these facts makes the current illegality of drugs seem rather
inhuman, wouldn't you say?

Mike Peercy
peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18614 alt.politics.elections:1059 misc.taxes:2321 alt.society.civil-liberty:3533
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,misc.taxes,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: What keeps me from being Lib. (was Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS)
Date: 17 Apr 92 20:18:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: adobe.1992Apr17.201817.811
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

In article <RJC.92Apr14143327@brodie.cstr.ed.ac.uk> rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley) writes:
>There are however laws which ensure that a parent allows their
>children to breath.

No, there are laws which punish parents who do not provide for their
children's ability to breath. Laws don't ensure much of anything.

-- 
My opinions are my own.
From: cts@dragon.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: AGRAN Exclusion -- BROWN Hypocrisy
Date: 15 Apr 92 16:26:44 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Computer Projects Unlimited

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are not all these people who seem to feel 
Agran is being denied free speech the same crowd that wants to see
Duke and Buchanon silenced for what they consider racist positions?
The same crowd who wants to enshrine a right to freedom from offense?

It cuts both ways, guys.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.men,soc.women,alt.politics.correct
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Men Are Not Cost Effective
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 21:40:58 GMT

In article <4600@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes:
)bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
)# In article <4591@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> jxxl@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil writes:

)# )  Excerpted from Napa Writer Blames Maleness for Crime
)# )  by Ron Sonenshine
)# )  San Francisco Chronicle (April 6, 1992)
)# )  --
)# )  A Napa author has filed another salvo in the battle between the sexes,
)# )  arguing in a new book that the nation's annual $300 billion crime tab
)# )  is exclusively a masculine problem for which men alone should pay.

)# /* set parody on */

)Won't work. You commented it out.

Yes it will.  It's just aimed at an 'old-fashioned' compiler that doesn't
understand the new ANSI #pragma syntax, so it issues compiler 
directives in comments, the good ole old-fashioned way. :-)

)# A usenet author has filed another salvo in the battle between the
)# sexes, arguing in a new post that the nations annual $xxxx billion
)# welfare tab for supporting single mothers is exclusively a feminine problem
)# for which women alone should pay.
)
)Stephenson, author of the above-mentioned book, would probably say that
)the abondonment by men of the mothers is what usually makes them single,
)therefore it is not an exclusively female problem.
)

She might well do that, though it is hard to say for sure, since neither
one of us is the author.

If she was actually looking at costs, though, and who was getting what
(as her title implies - cost effectivness) it would be a relevant point.
However,if what she is actually doing is Pointing The Finger Of Blame
(using the 'worst-looking' statistics she can find, naturally) she'd 
probably choose the later tack.

Men don't get very much money out of welfare system (in the US) compared to
women from what I've read - it is aimed at families (or directly at women
and children), not single men.  So the primary benificiaries (and cost
burden) of welfare is women and children.  This is actually somewhat of
a problem for men, as homeless men (making up the majority of the homeless)
do not get adaquate support out of the system.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Libertarians (Was: Ross Perot)
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 18:13:14 GMT

baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker) writes:
>In article <rdippold.702686879@cancun> rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>>Yeah, but if all Libs cared about was winning, they would have allied
>>with one of the major parties, probably within the republicans (social
>>policy varies more within the parties than fiscal policy does,
>>allowing more leeway on those issues).  This baffles those who say the
>>LP is a joke because it doesn't do just that, but Ls just don't want
>>to give up their principles for expediency.  How could a libertarian
>>even admit to being in the same party as George Bush or Bill Clinton?

>On second thought, the Libertarian Party isn't a joke; it seems to be
>something analogous to vanity publishing.

Are the concepts of honor and principle _completely_ foreign to you?
It would be a lot easier to just join one of the two big parties and
make my decision based on which candidate I thought would promise me
the most goodies from other people's money.

Fighting the mob is usually a losing situation as well, but it's not
an excuse to just go along with them.  The idea is to slowly increase
the influence of the Libertarian party, as is happening now, to the
point where either one of the major parties incorporates its planks or
it becomes a real force by itself.
-- 
What would happen in a battle between an Enterprise security team, who
always get killed soon after appearing, and a squad of Imperial
Stormtroopers, who can't hit the broad side of a planet? -- Tom Galloway
From: mitja@hera.Berkeley.EDU (Mitja Baumhackl)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: ACLU
Date: 6 Apr 92 23:50:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.rqo3nINN6sl
Organization: University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: hera.berkeley.edu
Originator: mitja@hera.Berkeley.EDU

Sorry to break the news, but communities DON'T have rights.  Read the
Bill of Rights and I don't think it talks about groups but instead
defines rights for individuals.

You cannot assume that because someone is homeless that they don't pay
taxes.  Many homeless people these days are employed full time.  Besides,
the amount of taxes someone pays is between them and the IRS.  To my
knowledge, the WSJ articles and other papers made no mention of the
person's tax liabilities, so that's an assumption on your part.

The Wall Street Journal articles, and many other articles discussing the
case, did not delve into the issue of civil liberties.  They instead
kept it on the level of "Well imagine that!"

The main complaints about the fellow were that he had bad body odor and
he persistently stared at other patrons.  I'm sorry to break it to you,
but these aren't crimes.  Had the patron broken any laws, the library
would have had the proper recourse.  The fine line in creating regulations
is enabling the library to exclude persons, but not to exclude groups.

If you'd like to carry on an intelligent conversation, you have to hold up
your end.  When you're presented with facts, it's just plain silly to
dismiss the reply with "then there are loony lawyers and loony judges"
(paraphrased).  Why don't you instead point out what you think is
faulty in the judgement?

If someone of Middle Eastern ancestry is found guilty of terrorism, is it
okay to interrogate all airline passengers of Middle Eastern countries?
(Some airlines think so).  If gangs wear jumpsuits and gold chains, is
it okay to question any wearing such items if they're walking through
a train station?  (Port Authority police thought so).

The issue at stake here is not how public money should be spent and
how you would like libraries to be operated.  The issue at stake here
is not how much taxes someone pays (because there are many millionaires
who don't pay either).  The issue is under what circumstances can
someone be excluded from an institution that, as it is presently run,
is open to the entire public.  If this guy should have been ousted,
how could the library have done it without threatening the rights of
other patrons?

Or do you believe that "All people are created equal but some are more
equal than others"???

--------------------------
mitja@hera.berkeley.edu
Mitja C. Baumhackl
Berkeley, California
ACLU member
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,rec.sport.hockey
From: ARBOGASTW@vaxb.gbus.virginia.edu (Warren Arbogast)
Subject: Re: Greedy Athletes
Organization: Darden Center, University of Virginia
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 13:39:37 GMT

In article <1992Apr5.181541.13187@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>In article <1992Apr5.143730.22889@oz.plymouth.edu> m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier) writes:
>> I'm sick of greedy athletes.  Return to the ice and get the playoffs going.

>You don't think greedy owners have anything to do with it?  An owner makes
>a million dollars per playoff game, and each player gets under $800 to play
>in a horrific playoff schedule.

No, the players are paid their full salaries during the regualr season.  The 
up to $800 you talk about is playoff bonus money.  When I get a bonus at 
work for doing a special project, I don't look at it as "Gee, I worked all 
this OT on this really important project for a measily $800."  I tend to 
appreciate it more than that. The company makes more than the bonus money 
they pay me and others (they are in the business to make money).  

Sometimes it may seem like the bonus is not enough, and in the NHL players 
case, perhaps it isn't.  But that in NO way means the players aren't paid 
for playoff games.
From: frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Frazier)
Subject: Re: 44% slaves
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 16:41:56 GMT

mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee) writes:

>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.

Thanks for starting my day with a good laugh.

>> 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.

Malarky.  The gov't does lots of things with your taxes.  You
perceive some of them as violating your personal freedoms -
do something about them.  You want to get rich, become an
investment banker, or maybe a corporate lawyer.

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

That's a lousy reason - it puts the cart before the horse.
First item on the agenda is to clean up gov't.  Get rid
of special interest maneuvering and back-room dealing.
Reduce spending, particularly by reducing gov't involvment
in areas that it doesn't belong.  Second item on the agenda,
which will hopefully have been solved by hitting the first
item, is reducing the deficit.  Finally, when the house is
in order, taxes can be reduced.
-- 


Greg Frazier	frazier@CS.UCLA.EDU	!{ucbvax,rutgers}!ucla-cs!frazier
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Elections in the Mother Country ...
Date: 10 Apr 92 16:32:06 GMT
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: Curious Goods (formerly Louis Vendredi Antiques)

juphoff@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (Jeff Uphoff) writes:
>sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
>>
>>Is Democrat == Labour; Perot == Liberal; Bush == Conservative 
>>(no matter how laughable that sounds) equation a valid comparison?
>
>If you consider Perot a liberal, you are making a grave mistake...

I'm trying to figure out if Srinivas means ...

a) Perot is a 3rd party entry, small potatoes in terms of numbers, or

b) Using the non-American, European definition of the word it would
still not fit with ...

>How about "Radical Centrist?"  (Not to be confused in any way with
>moderate or middle-of-the-road.)

... but the latter that Jeff pointed out.  By the way, this is not in
any way the tradition that Libertarians are trying to appropriate; the
Euro-liberal tradition is as much responsible for universal health
insurance as for the Common Market, and is also a guide for politics
in Canada, Australia and New Zealand ...

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare				U.S. Elections 1992, Vote Now:
> gld@cunixB.cc.columbia.EDU		a) Elvis 50's stamp, or
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			b) Elvis 70's stamp?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: What keeps me from being Lib.
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 20:43:58 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.195137.27840@cs.ucla.edu>,
frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Frazier) writes:
>GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
>>By it's very nature libertarianism is *not*
>>something that can be imposed, even democratically imposed.  To
>>work, people must believe that it works as well.
>
>Sounds like marxist communism to me (i.e. for it to work,
>everybody must believe, and it will only come about by
>revolution) - what is needed is a system that is stable
>enough to sustain the weight of non-believers and can be
>incrementally implemented.  Mind you, a libertarian society
>may fit the bill (it has always struck me so, I don't know
>why you said what you said).

When a society attempts to implement as law any moral principle (and
I do think that Libertarianism is a moral principle) which is not
held by an overwhelming large percentage of the population, it will
have to spend an unacceptably large portion of it's resources to
enforce those laws.  We have had reasonable success with laws
against murder because it is widely believed by everyone that murder
is wrong.  I am very disturbed that this seems to be changing.

The lack of hope and general despondency of life in our inner cities
has now reached such levels that life really is cheap.  This is a
very dangerous turn of events.  We must restore to these people a
belief that life does have something to offer them, and I firmly
believe that only the program offered by the Libertarian Party has
the potential to do that.

>Greg Frazier    frazier@CS.UCLA.EDU     !{ucbvax,rutgers}!ucla-cs!frazier

/June
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Date: 15 Apr 92 22:51:52 GMT
Organization: Centre for Speech Technology Research

In article <o5DaJB8w164w@Nitro.CtEdge.COM>, djk  (d) writes:

d> 'Bigotry' in itself is not bad. 

The whole of Daniel's posting history boilded down into one sentence.
Perfect. 

d> You might call learning that cars will squish you and avoiding them
d> 'bigotry'

Well, _you_ might.

d>  with as much imagination as it takes to label dislike of the gay
d> 'lifestyle' bigotry.

No one has called dislike of a gay lifestyle bigotry. I dislike the
middle class suburban lifestyle, that's not bigotry, that's a matter
of taste. However, saying that a gay lifestyle is wrong is bigotry.
Saying that being gay is wrong is bigotry heading towards insanity.
The kind of frothing paranoia exhibited by you and Clayton is
pathetic.

Of course, all of that begs the question of what on earth `the gay
lifestyle' might be. So far as I can see it is a figment of the
imagination of sad cases like djk and cc.

d> Just don't call me names when I call a spade a spade.

A spade is indeed a spade. A bigot is, by the same token, a bigot, so
don't call people names when they say so.

--
rjc@cogsci.ed.ac.uk			_O_
					 |<
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17011 misc.headlines:3192
From: ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: right to bear arms
Date: Thu,  9 Apr 92 20:24:17 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>1) it guarantees your right to own a musket.  (that's all the firearms they had
>back then)

Care to apply this same "reasoning" to, say, the First Amendment?

						Tim Smith
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17730 talk.politics.guns:11525 misc.entrepreneurs:1509 alt.individualism:2384
From: hberg@polisci.pol.umn.edu (Bob Hammarberg)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,misc.entrepreneurs,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Perot for President
Date: 10 Apr 92 19:30:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: polisci.hberg.89
Distribution: usa
Organization: Department of Political Science, University of Minnesota

In article <1992Mar26.030528.9335@bluemoon.rn.com> grant@bluemoon.rn.com (Grant DeLorean) writes:

> I don't know what "extreme meaning" you refer to, but the 2nd recognizes
>the right of individual Americans to own and carry arms.
> The Supreme Court of the U.S. supports that meaning as well.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Is that so??!! Could you please cite the case!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,misc.taxes,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: pete@helena.rice.edu (Louis Wu)
Subject: Re: What keeps me from being Lib. (was Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS)
Organization: Whatsamatta U
	<1992Apr7.193628.24602@cs.ucla.edu>
	<1992Apr9.005720.5461@igor.tamri.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 04:45:06 GMT


donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:
> In article <1992Apr7.193628.24602@cs.ucla.edu> frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu
> (Greg Frazier) writes:
> >If there was a little less "purity" in libertarianism and a little
> >more interest in taking the current system and, by small modifications,
> >gradually make it more libertarian, I'd be into it.  Trying to
> >re-structure society in one fell swoop just doesn't cut it for me
> >(call me chicken).
> 
> Here here.

This isn't really a valid point. There is no way in hell that anyone
running on the libertarian platform is going to become president.  However,
this doesn't mean that there is no point voting libertarian. Voting for the
major parties says that incremental changes to the system are enough. They
aren't.

I wouldn't want to live in "Libertaria" any more than you do, but a
significant Libertarian vote would move the big parties in the direction
that I want to go. This is a far more important statment for me to make
than choosing between the Republicrats for president.


--
=============================================================================
Pete Keleher   "Relax! Don't worry! Have a homebrew!"        pete@cs.rice.edu
=============================================================================

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17135 alt.individualism:2304