HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: school choice (Was: Is this a socialist country?)
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 17:46:53 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.235629.11339@mumbo.apple.com> wilkes@apple.com (John Wilkes) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.173409.20184@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>> In article <veal.196@utkux1.utk.edu> veal@utkux1.utk.edu (David L. Veal) writes:
>> >In article <1992Aug10.165705.23891@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>> >>In article <1992Aug10.014900.1240@access.digex.com> steve-b@access.digex.com (Steve Brinich) writes:
>> >
>> >>>  You, of course, have the right not to answer that question.  Others, of
>> >>>course, have the right to draw what conclusions they will from that refusal.
>> >>>
>> >
>> >>The question asked about what *I* do with *MY* money.  Being a
>> >>libertarian, you have already demonstrated that you are a hypocrite by
>> >>asking it.  
>> >
>> >     Why?  Nobody is forcing you to respond.
>> 
>> Because as a libertarian, what *I* do isn't germane and is my affair.
>> Implying otherwise is hypocritical for a libertarian.
>
>And whose definition of libertarianism would that be?
>
>Libertarians believe that you should be free to do as you please, so long as
>you do not infringe on the right of others to do as they please.  This does
>not imply that a lack of curiousity is required.  Asking you how you spend
>your money does not infringe on your right to do as you please.  

However, attempting to impute that what I do with my money is somehow
'meaningful' to the original discussion seems to be pretty
hypocritical for a libertarian to do, wouldn't you say?

>Declining
>to answer such questions is entirely within your rights, as is arguing about
>it and turning the whole thing into a pissing contest.

Well, that was your intention, was it not?  You had no factualy
argument, so you changed things to the basis of 'libertarians spend
their own money on this, that, and the other; do you?'.

>
>If you are interested in learning more about libertarianism, I can recommend
>some good books to get you started.

I already know more than enough about libertarian philosophy.  You
shouldn't assume that because someone finds it simplistic and
inadequate that their attitude is the result of ignorance.  Perhaps I
should suggest a much better grounding in real economic theory for
libertarians, instead?


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2529 tx.politics:4359
From: lrk@k5qwb.lonestar.org (Mr. Lyn R. Kennedy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Convention review
Date: 22 Aug 92 16:21:02 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Radio Amateur k5qwb

richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy) writes:

> Family values...yea, we're all for 'em. The negative stuff
> I think will back fire. The arrogance was heavy. Look, the
> people really don't like any politicians very much these days.
> Trying to put horns on the demos and halos on the republicans
> is just down right dishonest. 

I got the same impression: Bush blaming the Democats, not just the 
Democrat's leaders. That could backfire because the Republicans need 
those Democrats who sometimes vote for Republicans, especially for 
president. I think they may take offense at statements that they have 
no values or want to trash the country.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 
73,            internet     | lrk@k5qwb.lonestar.org
Lyn Kennedy    packet radio | K5QWB @ N5LDD.#NTX.TX.US.NA
               pony express | P.O. Box 5133, Ovilla, TX, USA 75154

-------------- "We have met the enemy and he is us."  Pogo --------------
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1249 alt.politics.marrou:728 talk.politics.misc:39118 alt.politics.elections:10331 talk.politics.theory:3626
From: ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Private vs Public schools (was: Is this a socialist county?
Keywords: individual,collective,polity,society,sovereignty
Date: 14 Aug 92 01:32:09 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

In article <1992Aug8.174849.3097@eskimo.celestial.com> kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum) writes:



>Question for philosophers: are there *any* emergent properties of
>collectivities (the whole of such emergent properties we might give
>the label "society") which an individualist might regard as beneficial?
>-- 

Well, what about *families?*

I have no problem with collectives, as long as they are voluntary.
It is coercion which is ugly, not collectives. 
Parenting is a collective venture; it works better that way.
Of course I agree that society is better off respecting the autonomy of
its individual *adult* members, and of its individual family units. 

It seems that collectives and individuals are
symbiotically dependent on each other.  
In order to have a healthy society, we need strong individuals who can
handle responsibility.  In order to have healthy
individuals, we need strong families to raise 'em proper.  
So why are we doing everything
possible to destroy the family structure?   [rhetorical question]

Or am I to gather that you were born at the age of 21, 
with fully developed rationality, a
complete list of chosen premises, a mission in life, and no relatives?  (8-)


--Al Date

Genis for Senate
Pro-choice; pro-taxpayer
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1885 alt.politics.elections:10723
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: BUSH-QUAYLE '92 CAMPAIGN NUMBERS
Date: 17 Aug 92 20:57:24 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

For your information:

Bush-Quayle '92 Campaign
1030 15th Street NW
Washington DC 20005

Phones:	202-336-7080	or	1-800-551-BUSH (2874)
FAX:	202-336-7117

Contact 1-800 number for info on campaign paraphrenalia.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Duke football? What's that?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews)
Subject: Re: FAQ: The Record Thing
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Clara Division
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 14:52:52 GMT

>> Anyone who believes that a Democratic President and a Democratically-controll
>> Congress will keep a lid on spending is fooling themselves.

One of the problems w/Rep vs. Dem spending analyses is that the hidden costs
are not seen.  The Dem's have traditionally spent visible money, where as
Rep's like GB spend money on the Gulfthing where not all of the costs are in
yet.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1761 alt.politics.marrou:797 talk.politics.misc:40039 alt.politics.elections:10666
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 18:22:41 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

jfreter@triton.unm.edu (The Myth) writes:
> Now I see the humor in this thread.  There are idiots on the net that
> don't know the difference between a SENATOR and a GOVENOR.  I think the
> confusion is due to Clinton's and Quayle's looking slightly alike and due
> to their both being from fairly unimportant states (i.e. Arkansas and Indi-
> ana).

Actually, on reflection you're probably absolutely right.  I had
inadvertently mistaken the right-wing idiot showroom dummy for the right-wing
idiot showroom dummy.  I apologize for my confusion over this matter.


mathew
[ "US politics for beginners" ]
-- 
"Even the most bizarre of the unions (probably that between a cat's gall
 stone and a single note 'G' from CNN's ident theme) managed to convey a
 sense of rampant impropriety."  -- 'Fortran Five', Simon G. Lawrence Leonard

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Campbell theory of abortion
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 17:39:09 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug19.210114.29012@ncsu.edu>  dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
> Not at all, I was pointing out that the original poster was
> using euphemisms to describe abortion procedures.  An abortion
> kills a human being,

It kills a human fetus; it is not a human being in the normal sense of
the term.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
From: carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll)
Subject: Re: Is this a socialist county?
Organization: Technophiles Inc. - Engineers with Attitude
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 20:04:34 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.171753.1021@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> It is 'different' because in the situation we have right now you are
> not faced with having to send your child to a school with mandatory
> classes in a religion which potentially conflicts with yours.

This is simply not true. If one is religious, then the instruction
received (specifically excluding religion) in most public schools is
in conflict. If your religion believes that education should be
religiously based, then the public schools represent a constraint on
the free exercise of your religion.

-- 
Alan M. Carroll          "Weren't there yams involved, too?" - J. Ockerbloom
Epoch Development Team   
Urbana Il.               "I hate shopping with the reality-impaired" - Susan
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
From: jacksonk@gehrig.cs.rpi.edu (Keith Jackson)
Subject: Re: Anti-religious fanatics (Was Re: School Choice )
Organization: Resttecyoh Pininustnal Itlrecese, Troy, NY
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 19:37:24 GMT

In article <24947@castle.ed.ac.uk> fofp@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes) writes:
>ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
>No such argument from me. It's pretty obvious that socialism is a
>dangerous creed too. The difference I feel is that I'd generally expect
>political creeds to cause this sort of thing.

What you have in so-called communist countries is  nothing  more  than
brutal dictatorships with bad economic ideas -- thus the ideas of com-
munism cannot be tied to the brutal  acts  which  have  happened  when
despots  claim  to  follow these ideas.  Similarly, you cannot tie the
ideas of any religion to the people who claim to follow  those  ideas.
Invariably, people try to rationalize some justification for their ac-
tions.

>Claims have been made of
>christianity though, that it makes for a better world.

Claims by whom?  Also, what religion or set of `ideals' hasn't made such a
claim?

>The historical
>evidence seems to negate this claim and lead rather to the conclusion
>that christianity is significantly worse than other religions in terms
>of contribution to murder.

Wrong!  You can't tie a religion to acts of violence, unless of course
it  specifically  calls for violence.  To claim that Christianity does
so is pure silliness.  The only major religion I've heard of doing  so
is  Mohammadism,  which  claims  that killing the enemy in a Jihad, or
holy war, is justified (also, if you die in such a war,  you  will  go
immediately to paradise.)

Furthermore, you cannot quantify the amount of good or evil  that  any
religion  (or  set of ideals) has on history as you can't know all the
effects, and you certainly cannot attribute the causes  of  all  these
effects.  Any such attempt is bound to be pissing in the wind and com-
pletely clouded by personal biases.

>I'd be more impressed if you could quote
>instances of genocide for say buddhism, taoism, shinto, or even the
>scientologists. 

How about what the Japanese did during WW II?  What about the brutal
animosity between India and Pakistan?  What about the Chinese genocide of
their neighbors in the Himalayas (Nepal, I think?)  Of course the Chinese
are officially atheists (Hmm, so was Stalin.  Looks like those Atheists are
the worst offenders in history ;^) )
-- 
            ^  >
            O o                                                 \_O
           >=-=<        Keith Jackson == jacksonk@cs.rpi.edu      |O
             U                                                  _/ \_
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2479 talk.politics.misc:41225 alt.politics.elections:11253 alt.politics.clinton:2564
From: ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Loomis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Date: 22 Aug 92 03:46:03 GMT
	<1992Aug21.140140.14981@husc3.harvard.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

In article <1992Aug20.205954.6555@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (M
ark Taylor Evert) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.173307.25429@aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) 
>writes:
>> Barbara Bush asked "Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?"
>> She weasled out of that question by talking about changes in XUSSR.
>
>Labor Secratary Lynn Martin asked that question, not Barbara Bush.
>
>> I am planning a foreign vacation. It will now cost me a substantially
>> larger per centage of my income than it would have 4 years ago.
>
>But I guarentee the airfair will be cheaper than 12 years ago if you 
>adjust for inflation due to deregulation under Reagan..
>


The major act of airline deregulation--the elimination of the CAB and
its rules occurred during the Carter Administration and not under the
Reagan administration.  This was well-thought act of deregulation and
seems to have been successful.

Deregulating well is an important task for the next president whether it
be Bush or Clinton.  Quayle is Bush's deregulation czar.  Quayle equates
deregulation with anti-enviromentalism.  Clinton gets my vote.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2301 talk.politics.misc:40906 alt.politics.clinton:2376 alt.politics.elections:11095
From: duke@valentine.ics.uci.edu (Duke P. Hong)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Reply-To: duke@ics.uci.edu (Duke P. Hong)
Organization: Univ. of Calif., Irvine, Info. & Computer Sci. Dept.
Date: 12 Aug 92 18:25:09 GMT

Regarding Bush's interview on NBC last night, while I'm not
a Bush supporter by any means, I'll come to his defense ever
so mildly for this one.

In the first part of the question, he replied that if his grandaughter
came sobbing saying that she had done a terrible thing, then he would
support her (as would any parent of a drunk driving teenager that killed
someone for example).  What he did not say was if his granddaughter chose
freely with no regret to have an abortion, he would still support her
in the same way. This situation was not brought up.  I think the media
has screwed up in twisting what he said to what they though or wanted him
to say.

However, in the second part, he did say 'in the end it was the woman's
decision, who else's would it be?' (paraphrased) which sounds to me
like pro-choice. It seems like his previously public pro-choice half of
his brain is showing through


--
Duke P. Hong
duke@valentine.uci.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2520 alt.politics.elections:11295 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2856
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Congress Bashing
Date: 22 Aug 92 20:37:04 GMT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

> No, Republicans can't stand that decisions that should be made by
> families are being subverted or superseded by the "authority" of the
> government. School choice gives more options with regards to where the
> parents believe would be a better learning environment. Many parents
> currently do not have the choice to send their children from a school
> filled with crime, drugs, or gangs; this plan allows for that.

'School choice' is the '90s version of white flight.  Time was that white folks
were willing to pay taxes and still send their kids to private schools,
essentially paying double to keep their kids from having to mingle with black
kids.  Times are getting harder now, and those white parents are having a
tougher time paying both tuition and property taxes.  So, they want the
government to subsidise their racism, in the form of 'school choice.'  Listen
to Duke and Buchannan, they'll explain it in detail to you.  'Rubbers' Bush
probably has no clue, since he went to and sent his kids to private prep
schools.




|Edward J. Branley                         elendil@mintir.New-Orleans.LA.US|
|Seashell Software                                UUCP:  rex!mintir!elendil|
|3508 North Woodlawn Avenue                          Compu$erve: 71237,2227|
|Metairie, LA   70006       voice: +1-504-455-5087     bbs: +1-504-455-8665|
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
From: mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee)
Subject: Re: Anti-religious fanatics (Was Re: School Choice )
Organization: NEC America, Engineering & Support
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 23:37:44 GMT

From article <24957@castle.ed.ac.uk>, by fofp@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes):
> 
> Ah, but I submit that the people in charge of the Crusades, The Spanish
> Inquisition, the witch burnings, the murder of the incas and so on *did*
> believe that they were truely following the teachings of Christ.

MOVE THIS "DISCUSSION" TO talk.religion.

Thanks.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: Convention review
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 19:58:33 GMT

In article <92234.144439JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu>
<JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
 
    [...]
>The United States went from the greatest creditor nation in the world to
>the greatest debtor nation in the world under a Republican Executive and
>a Republican Senate.
>
This absolute nonsense. I believe I've already posted an explaination of
how US investment overseas is grossly undervalued on the books. The US is
not a net debtor nation.
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Joseph Edelman           Wayne State University
 medelma@cms.cc.wayne.edu         Computing & Information Technology
 mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu        Detroit, Michigan
 medelma@waynest1.bitnet          (313) 577-0742
 KE8YY
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 18:55:37 GMT

In article <BsvuuI.E84@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
>
>Having said that, can you substantiate your claim that Bush has shown
>AGAIN and AGAIN that he is above the law?  Sounds like a bunch of biased
>rhetoric to me.  I challenge you to produce instances where he has
>broken the law.  

For starters, he did 70 on the Beltway in 1990.

More later....



--
This is not a .signature
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2516 talk.politics.misc:41289 alt.politics.clinton:2595 alt.politics.elections:11292
From: dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Date: 21 Aug 92 14:49:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Clara Division

>>substantially greater percentage of my time worrying about ozone holes etc.
>>than I did 4 years ago.
 
>Which tells me you're reading the wrong sages again. The word from the
>arctic climitologists is that the much-ballyhooed "ozone hole" is nothing
>new or scary. The artic is the natual ozone sink, where ozone breaks down
>owing to lower UV levels. It is primarily created in the tropics. There
>was some variation, mainly attributed to Cl emissions from the volcano
>eruption in the arctic that year.

And what if it is natural?  Would you care to explain why the affects from
it now are more numerous than scientists can find in their digs? i.e. -
explain why the hole is bigger than it "probably" has ever been before.
If that one is too vague for you, then try this - why is there an ozone
hole on the north end now?    If the South Pole is a sink for ozone...

- standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley)
Subject: Re: Abortion is Stealing! (was Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!)
Organization: Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 18:58:40 GMT

In article <Bt37sz.9Ep@acsu.buffalo.edu> v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff) writes:
>Like I said before, it's very simple.  The conclusion follows logically from 
>the premises.  While he hasn't insisted on the death penalty for those who have
>abortions, consistency demands this conclusion.  You can't have it both ways:
>claim that abortion is murder, demand that murderers be executed, and then 
>"coddle" the murderer of unborn babies without being properly labeled a 
>hypocrite.

Mike, I think you are forgetting a few things.

First, only first degree murder is punishable by death and this is only
true in some states (and in very specific instances in some states e.g.,
for killing a policeman in the commission of another felony -- NY at
least when I lived there).  Therefore one can certainly call someone a
murderer (even in the first degree) without calling for their death.
Many do.  If one were to follow your logic then a state like NY which
allows the death penalty only in specific cases is a state filled with
hypocrites (or at least hypocritical lawmakers) because some people are
murderers and they are not subject to the death penalty.  The main point
is that our society views different types of murder differently.

Second, it would be hard to prove first degree murder because one could
always argue that the state of mind of the mother did not let her
understand that her action is murder.  This is especially true when the
act is currently legal.  It is also true because the mother is often
sedated in some way for the abortion. Therefore your argument has no
logical foundation.

Third, if the mother doesn't actually do the abortion herself (and they
almost never do) that would also raise legal questions concerning her
degree of culpability.  That is why some states have chosen to go after
the abortionist rather than the mother.  The legal issues are more
clear.  And the chance of conviction is greater.

As I think you can see from these three points there is no inconsistency
in calling the act murder but not in seeking the death penalty for the
mother.  Not that it is important to the argument but some people oppose
BOTH abortion and the death penalty with equal vigor.

Tim


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc