HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Subject: Re: Dumb, Sheltered College Puke
Keywords: WRONG NEWS GROUPS....
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 19:56:24 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.102052.842@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>
>In article <1992Apr13.225311.12105@kpc.com>, emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff) writes:
>> In article <3697@winnie.fit.edu> la049137@zach.fit.edu (David Rackmales (HCX Lab/SU90)) writes:
>> >Nope. You're wrong.
>> >
>> >Make drugs legal, yes.  I'd rather have that than have the cops
>> >beating up people.
>> >
>> >DO NOT MAKE TREATMENT A RESONSIBILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT!
>> >Hey, I didn't force you to smoke that joint!
>> 
>> 	This is what scares me about legalization. It's very possible
>> we'll have Joe Camel and Spuds McKenzie selling crack to our kids.
>
>What scares me about the current drug prohibition is that kids
>can make more money selling drugs than they can at legal work.
>(The Bloods & Crypts are winning because they are much better 
>financed than parents, schools and churches).  And once kids 
>start making money they have to arm themselves to protect it 
>(you can't exactly call the police if someone steals your drug 
>profits).  And as the gang arms race excellerates, there's no
>way of preventing innocent people from getting caught in the
>crossfire.
>
	It scares me, too.

>I don't like the idea of Joe Camel and Spuds McKenzie selling 
>crack to our kids (I think drugs should be legalised and regulated
>like alcohal and cigarettes), but it sure sounds safer than the
>open warfare resulting from drug prohibition.
>
	I think, that if drugs are legalized, they should be 
regulated more then alcohol and cigarettes, probably more like
prescription drugs are currently regulated.

>-- 
>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!)


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17294 alt.activism:7350
From: harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (Harel Barzilai)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: AGRAN, Democracy, and UseNet (I)
Date: 8 Apr 92 06:10:45 GMT
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB


I will attempt to set the record straight to counteract some truly
remarkable distortions perpetrated here.

The level of intellectual honesty (or lack thereof) one fails to
appreciate to the fullest when one has been away from the UseNet for
some time. Correspondingly, when people talk about

"Agran's supporters" disrupting Clinton's Speech

and

"Now of course, you disagree with Clinton, so it's ok to disrupt him right?"
                ^^^presumably meaning, "Agran"
		or else a personal attack which is entirely baseless,
			in fact, counter my previous include-everyone stands

after I post that:
	-- It was FULANI and her supporters who disrupted
and	-- Agran condemned it

is the normal level of honesty, and it is not worthwhile to read and
reply to further posts here. Rather, I will set the record straight
and leave it at that. Those who have honest questions can email me,
and for those who will lie again, I will be re-posting the basic facts
and analysis revealing the lies and hatred of democracy (respectively)
on a periodic basis for all to see.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17979 alt.politics.elections:832
From: manis@cs.ubc.ca (Vincent Manis)
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Organization: Institute for Pure and Applied Eschatology
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 01:53:48 GMT

In article <wmNyiB6w164w@Nitro.CtEdge.COM> djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM writes:
>fierro@uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro) writes:
>>   Well, according to that philosophy, religion is a crime against humanity;
>> it is 'inflicting' a lifestype upone someone who has no choice.
>Kind of hard to equate the two subjects. There is a 
>difference.

Much like the difference between djk and a gopher with a combination of
dysentery and an attitude problem which causes it to vomit all over the
shoes of everyone it encounters. There is a difference, no matter how
hard it might be to detect.


--
\    Vincent Manis <manis@cs.ubc.ca>      "There is no law that vulgarity and
 \   Department of Computer Science      literary excellence cannot coexist."
 /\  University of British Columbia                        -- A. Trevor Hodge
/  \ Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1W5 (604) 228-2394
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17247 alt.activism:7341
From: harryo@cbnewse.cb.att.com (harold.r.holm)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: The Decline of America: Priorities: S&L Scandal (I)
Summary: Get real vis-a-vis the federal budget
Date: 8 Apr 92 01:39:05 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <9204020500.AA00912@tba.msi.cornell.edu>, harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (Harel Barzilai) writes:
> 
> 
> The Decline of America: Priorities: S&L Scandal (I)
> 
> 
>       "Last year, in order to benefit the rich and the
>       powerful, the U.S.  Congress and the President passed
>       legislation which is probably the biggest single rip-off
>       in the history of this country -- the bailout of the
>       crooks and swindlers who destroyed the American savings
>       and loan industry. How ironic that the congress was able
>       to find $500 billion in order to bail out the real estate
>       speculators and junk bond dealers, but the same Congress
>       can find no money for out children, for the environment,
>       for health care or for the needs of our senior citizens."
> 
> 	-- Bernie Sanders, the first independent-socialist Congressman
>  	in 60 years [Quoted in The Nation, June 11, 1990.
> 

This illustrates the type of loony leftist that is creeping into 
Congress.  What does this bubblehead call Aid to Dependent Children,
Medicare, and Superfund?   It was illustrated on network news the
other night how at least half of the federal budget is given over
to entitlements, while only one fifth is military spending (granted,
not the issue in the above, but what the heck, it's the left's 
favorite whipping boy, anyway).  And it is entitlement spending that
has grown--consistently--the most over the last decade.  But the 
left wing think tanks and pundits always seem to have fun trying
to make it look like military spending is the big bugaboo culprit
in the national debt.  A contributory source, granted, but not the 
biggest-monster-under-the-bed it's made out to be. 

Not that the S&L scandal is any help, of course.  But it's clearly
being used here as just another shopworn, tired scapegoat for the 
government must spend-to-solve approach of the "reordered priorities"
crowd, whose basis has its roots in the Robin Hood School of 
Economic Wealth-Redistribution-By-Stickup. 

                                             H.R. Holm
                               ********************************************
                               Revenoooers!  Get m' shotgun, Jed!!
                                             -Granny Clampett
                               ********************************************
**comment my own
disclaimers, etc.
reply to the group
 only, please.**
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17901 alt.activism:7584
From: harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (Harel Barzilai)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: emacs RMAIL error
Date: 12 Apr 92 05:03:23 GMT
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB

this is quite a rare thing, but has happened to a a few times since I
edit large messages using rmail's "w" option:

if you use "narrow-to-region" and then "widen" rmail is confused about
reading the "babyl"-format file and you're suddently editing the whole
thing in your buffer.

I just "save-buffer", kill it, and re "M-x rmail <return>"


Harel

--
Please CC any responses to harelb@math.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (James Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Ozone problem burns Politically Correct
Organization: Space Systems/Loral
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 06:22:00 GMT

In article <4APR199219110535@zeus.tamu.edu>, pac9897@zeus.tamu.edu (PHIL CARNEY) writes:
|> Your crass "crisis, what crisis" type remarks may seem somewhat less funny
|> when Americans begin to risk cancer as a result of this complacency.

Cancer risk? Try crop damage. Plants don't wear sunscreen and sombreros
and grow indoors.

You gotta get these people where they live.

-- 
James Woodyatt  Space Systems/Loral   Palo Alto, CA   bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com

``And when he dreamed his ears drooled thirty weight engine oil
He took personality tests and stapled them to his lower lip''
				    --Stan Ridgway,
				      `Jack Talked (Like A Man On Fire)'
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17047 ca.politics:3332 ba.politics:2583 alt.politics.homosexuality:1771 soc.motss:19369
From: djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 92 19:17:38 PDT
Distribution: world
Organization: NMS&Systems Engineering

mike@batpad.lgb.CA.US (Mike Batchelor) writes:

> > Sure did.. So normal couples with dysfunctional reproductive
> > systems could bear children.. Not so that un-natural sexual
> > practices could be 'legitimized' by faking a process that is
> > impossible under NORMAL circumstances.
> 
> Nevertheless, gay couples use it to bear their own progeny.  I bet you
> can't stand that, huh?
> 
> QUEERS HAVE KIDS.
> QUEERS HAVE KIDS.
> QUEERS HAVE KIDS.
> QUEERS HAVE KIDS.
> QUEERS HAVE KIDS.
> QUEERS HAVE KIDS.
> QUEERS HAVE KIDS.
> QUEERS HAVE KIDS.

Poor kids. :(
Poor kids. :(
Poor kids. :(
Poor kids. :(
Poor kids. :(
Poor kids. :(
Poor kids. :(
Poor kids. :(

> And there's nothing you can do about it.  Neener neener.
> 

Sure there is. Plant a flower for each hunted looking little
child I see being drug around like a prize puppy dog by some
swaggering snorting 'queer lady'.

To inflict that life on someone who has no choice is a crime
against humanity.

-djk

--- Daniel J. Karnes / WA6NDT --------------------------------------
--- NMS&Systems Engineering ----------------------------------------
--- Djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM / ..CtEdge!Nitro!Djk ----------------------
-- 'innovative solutions for modern problems' ----------------------
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17360 alt.drugs:7333 misc.legal:9013
From: tjc50@ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.drugs,misc.legal
Subject: Re: 60 Minutes piece on the Forfeiture Law
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:48:26 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Apr8.125249.11360@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <lxqj#6f.bprofane@netcom.com> bprofane@netcom.com (Gert Niewahr) writes:
>>Don't count on Thomas, either.  He said a lot of "liberal" things
>>before and during his confirmation; if you took him at his word,
>>you'd have had to count him as a liberal.  As we all suspected,
>>however, once he got his butt in the door he's voted like Atilla
>>the Hun.  Worse, he seems to have a taste for Scalia's more bizarre
>>extremes.
>
>Well, Thomas just voted with White, Blackmun, Souter, and Stevens to
>quash a child pornography conviction obtained through a six-year 
>entrapment effort.  That's the second time he's dissented from Scalia;

Ummm...  Hey, Ted, if at least four other justices agreed with him, I
don't think it's a dissent.  (It's fun to catch you on things.  Keeps us
sharp.)  :-)
-- 
The above is my thoughts, not Amdahl's;   |  Terry Carroll  408/992-2152
The above is not legal advice;            |  Senior Computer Architect
All models over 18 years of age;          |  Amdahl Corporation
Contents sold by weight, not by volume;   |  tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com
Your mileage may vary.                    |  tjc50@amail.amdahl.com
From: matthews@ial7.jsc.nasa.gov (Michael C. Matthews)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Ross Perot
Date: 6 Apr 92 21:21:41 GMT
Reply-To: matthews@ial7.jsc.nasa.gov
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.0

In article <morrow.1992Apr3.215126.23623>, GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu
(June Genis) writes:
>In article <rie81INN2ar@matt.ksu.ksu.edu>, strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve
Davis) writes:
>>GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
>>>Pete, are you really willing to vote for someone who will drive
>>>right over the constitution,
>>
>>With what do you substantiate the claim that this is what H. Ross Perot
>>would do?
>
>There have been several posting on this subject already which
>together tell me that Perot is willing to tolerate gross violation
>of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th amendments. 

PWEEEEEEET!  Logical foul, begging the question.  Fifteen yard penalty!

You can't validate one specious statement by citing another series of 
unsubstantiated claims.  I've been watching this newsgroup since I 
heard of Perot's possible candidacy, and I've seen several such "postings 
on this subject" but they've all been of the heresay and inuendo variety. 
I have yet to see any "real" references indicating Perot's supposed
weak stance on the Bill of Rights.

Of course, if I've missed something (like a newspaper article or a TV 
program that you can cite), then I'm sure you'll enlighten me.
--
Mike Matthews         matthews@ial7.jsc.nasa.gov
Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company, Houston, Texas
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17918 misc.legal:9178
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Noriega
Keywords: extraterritoriality, sham, trial
Date: 11 Apr 92 12:39:26 GMT
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

In article <kubnfbINNk6j@news.bbn.com>, rnewman@bbn (Ron Newman) writes:
>  - The King of Saudi Arabia, angry that someone has smuggled U.S. beer
>    into the country, sends a divison to invade and loot St. Louis, Missouri
>    while searching for the president of Anheuser-Busch Corporation.  
>    When this person is found, he is brought back to Saudi Arabia 
>    and charged with violating Islamic prohibitions on alcohol, 
>    and is put to death.

I think this is not quite the right analogy - as the legality of beer
in USA no doubt makes the smuggling easier (beer is more available),
the Saudi Arabian government would invade Washington and arrest the
head of the U.S. regime (George Bush) and take him to trial and
charged with participating in a conspiracy of large-sale drug
smuggling into Saud Arabia.  I'm not sure about the laws but
considering the scale of the drug trade and how hard and harmful a
drug alcohol is the punishment might well be death.

//Jyrki
From: jduffin@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Joshua Duffin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A flat tax is too progressive (was Jerry's Tax)
Date: 16 Apr 92 21:00:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: orbit.7493
Organization: People-Net [pnet51], Minneapolis, MN.

john@anasaz (John Moore) writes:
>In article <1992Apr15.132855.5410@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> weverka@spot.Colorado.EDU (Robert T. Weverka) writes:
>]Let's see...  National budget -a few trillion
>]              # of people     -quarter billion
>]
>]only $8000 each.
>]Yes, Lets have a head tax of $8000 each.  Anybody that can't pay
>]we will throw in jail.  
>]At my income level I just have to give up the rice and beans and maybe
>]move into that spot under the bridge.  I'm sure the other homeless
>]people there will make room (or maybe they'll be tossed in jail for
>]not paying head tax, that'll make room for me)
>
>This is a pretty good reason for reducing federal spending, not
>making the taxes more unfair.

Well, also, unless the government just expanded to take on the entire GNP
while I wasn't looking, the budget is around 1 trillion, not several trillion.
 That would be about $4000 per person.  However, Libertarians also advocate
reducing government spending drastically--to a level more around $1000 per
person.  That is quite a bit less than most people pay now--whether or not
they have a lot of money.


UUCP: {crash, kksys}!orbit!pnet51!jduffin    | Life is complex.  It's made
ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!jduffin@nosc.mil    | up of real and imaginary
INET: jduffin@pnet51.orb.mn.org              | parts.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker)
Subject: Re: The Libertarian Platform, Part 1 of 10
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 09:37:37 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.160829.843@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>Statement of Principles                    (1) ...
> 
> 
>We support full restitution for all loss suffered by persons arrested,
>indicted, tried, imprisoned,  or otherwise injured  in the  course  of
>criminal  proceedings  against  them  that  do  not  result  in  their
>conviction....

An intriguing idea, but how much would it cost (both in restitution
payments, and in legal/administrative overhead)?  I have a suspicion
that this would not be a practical scheme.  Also, this might provide
an incentive for someone to "frame" himself by planting circumstantial
evidence or intentionally acting in a suspicious manner.  It might also
doubly reward criminals who get acquitted when the evidence is only
(say) 85% against them.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,soc.motss
From: rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Subject: Re: It can HAPPEN in *IOWA* [gay rights law]
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 23:05:51 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.150213.21035@queernet.org> rogerk@QueerNet.ORG (Roger B.A. Klorese) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.055551.11041@midway.uchicago.edu>, rivk@ellis.uchicago.edu
>(nora gayle rivkis) writes:
>
>|> >|> Oseh shalom b'imromav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu v'al kol yisrael.
>|> >
>|> >A most unusual quote, considering the topic.
>|> 
>|> I didn't pick it for this topic. I picked it because I'm saying
>|> Kaddish for the victims of the Israeli embassy bombing in Argentina
>|> a few weeks ago -- and will be for Arafat, if he's found dead; I do
>|> not like the man or his politics, but I'm praying for his safety --
>|> and the sentiment was on my mind. Are you saying a prayer for peace
>|> is inappropriate to *any* serious or contested time or conversation?
>
>No, I'm saying that your notion of religious identification being independent
>of beliefs seems ironic (not completely inconsistent, but somewhat ironic)
>next to a prayer for "kol yisrael".

"Kol yisrael" isn't a religious concept in my case, Roger; 
it's a nationalist one. But I don't think it would be out of 
place even if it were; I can disagree with some or all of a 
group of people about religion, in a number of different ways,
and still have an emotional interest in their survival.

>ROGER B.A. KLORESE                                

-- 
Oseh shalom b'imromav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu v'al kol yisrael.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,rec.sport.hockey
From: lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor)
Subject: Re: Greedy Athletes
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 23:19:21 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.211027.27993@oz.plymouth.edu> m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier) writes:
>>Get real. If (a big IF) the revenue increases, why are the owners the only 
>>party entitled to the increased profit?
>
>Sure.  Not as if the salaries havent been spiraling upward the past 2 years.
So? the salaries still have to spiral upwards to a point that it's
fair for both parties.

The revenue has also been spiraling upward in leaps and bounds in the
past decade. Look at the expansion fees of the Caps/Isles in the early
70s. Look at the fee of the Lightning/Senators.

The question is, why did you consider the athletes greedy in your
original article but not the owners? If you are sick of the athletes'
big fat salaries, it means you are comfortable with the owners making
big profits. There is no two ways about it.

And don't tell me the fans get screwed by the high ticket prices
again. We have already gone thru' that 2 weeks ago. 

-- 
                                          Edward Lor
                                          lor@cbnewsk.att.com
                                          
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: Social Spending Constitutional?
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 10:06:57 EDT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <16APR199218230666@oregon.uoregon.edu>, cwinkler@oregon.uoregon.edu (Celia Winkler) writes:
|> In article <35144@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu>, daj@reef.cis.ufl.edu (David A. Johns) writes...
|> >In article <1992Apr12.091843.2210@agora.uucp> robart@agora.uucp (Robert Barton) writes:
|> > 
|> ># >>   Congress shall have the power:
|> ># >>      1.  To collect taxes "to pay the debts and provide for the common
|> ># >>              defense and general welfare of the United States".
|> ># >       .
|> ># >       .
|> ># >
|> ># >       How doesn't urban infrastructure, job training, drug rehab, etc,.
|> ># >       fit under the 'general wlefare [sic] of the United States?'
|> >#
|> >#   Whether it "fits" or not is irrelevant, since Congress is not
|> ># given power in those specific areas.
|> > 
|> >Ah, I get it.  "General welfare" has some mysterious meaning that
|> >excludes things that most of us think of as general welfare.  OK.
|> 
|> This was settled a LONG TIME ago, and unless Mr. Barton wishes to overturn
|> 50 years of S.Ct. decisions...  In dicta, U.S. v. Butler 297 US 1 (1936);
|> Social Security--Helvering v. Davis 301 US 619 (1937).
|> 

Given the nature of some of these decisions this wouldn't be a bad
idea.  The Constitution is basically a toothless document when it
comes to controlling government, thanks to many of those decisions.

|> Basically, these cases say that "general welfare" is anything that Congress 
|> says it is.  (But see discussions on arbitrariness, burdening fundamental 
|> rights, and invidious classifications.)
|> 

A perfect case in point.  This is clearly not what was intended.  The
founders were very specific in detailing the powers granted to Congress.
If they meant the clause to be interpreted in the way it currently
is there would have been no point in spelling out other powers.  In
fact, they could have stopped with the Preamble and saved themselves
a great deal of time.  Check out Madison's perspective on this
issue in Federalist 41.  The misinterpretations of the "general welfare"
clause and the "commerce" clause have given us the bloated, intrusive
government we have today.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc