HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 01:16:21 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.001952.1452@spdcc.com>, dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
> In article <1992Jul22.230654.26367@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
> It seems to me that by your standards, the laws and court decisions
> which are on the books now and have been for the past 50 years are
> more than enough to justify your claim of "slave pen".  Gosh, firms
> have to hire black people if they're otherwise qualified, women constitute
> a protected category, making hiring decisions based on someone's
> religion is illegal, you can't decide only to serve white people or
> black people or whoever at your lunch counter, and it's getting to
> the point when you won't even be able to evict a lesbian or gay person
> from their apartment because of all these "special rights" they're
> claiming.  Aaauggh!  Deliver us from this slavery!

  Hardly. The America is a mixed economy, mixed enough that it undoubtably
drives both of us crazy trying to seperate the wheat from the chaff.
The XSSR was a slave pen, as was Nazi Germany and many others as well.
America does not even come close.

> >  So Steve, just here to take pot shots, or would you like to
> >answer the various things that you dodged in yesterday's post?
> 
> Simply pot shots.  I didn't dodge the "things" in your article
> yesterday.  I thought they weren't worth addressing (not even
> worth finishing reading, actually.)  They were just loud rhetorical
> diversions whose point was unimportant; vehicles for that frathouse
> outrage that folks like you are so good at dishing out.  "Slave pen"
> indeed...

  Bwahahahah. Read: I didn't have anything better to say, and I couldn't
figure out how to weasle out of direct questions. Rhetorical diversions
indeed.
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
From: Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Vulnerable Poor Pitted Against Each Other
Organization: Echo Beach
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 00:22:50 GMT

Press release from American Association of Retired Persons
 Vulnerable Poor Pitted Against Each Other in Domestic Spending 
Bill According to AARP 
 To: National Desk 
 Contact: Peter Ashkenaz of American Association of Retired 
          Persons, 202-434-2594 
 
   WASHINGTON, July 28 /U.S. Newswire/ --  The American Association 
of Retired Persons (AARP) expressed alarm over proposed spending 
cuts in the Federal Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program 
(LIHEAP) by the U.S. House of Representatives today. 
   LIHEAP, which helps eligible low income families pay their 
energy bills, is one program included in the FY 1993 Labor, Health 
and Human Services appropriations bill. 
   "Today's action by the House, and the administration's budget 
request early this year, may result in the end of heating or 
cooling assistance for millions of low income households," said 
John Rother, director of legislation and public policy.  "Congress 
and the administration must strike a more equitable balance in 
funding programs for vulnerable Americans." 
   Fiscal year 1992 funding for LIHEAP is $1.5 billion.  President 
Bush's FY93 budget proposed a $435 million cut to the program.  The 
House bill cuts the program even more deeply -- by $609 million. 
   LIHEAP benefits are particularly critical for low-income 
families and elderly on fixed incomes or public assistance, LIHEAP 
benefits average about 20 percent of a family's annual energy bill, 
however they make a tremendous difference in the family's ability 
to meet other basic needs such as food, housing, and medical care. 
   "Drastic cuts in LIHEAP funding like those requested by the 
White House and provided by the House bill cannot be justified if 
this nation truly wants to provide a safety net for its most 
vulnerable families," said Rother. 
   The U.S. Senate is expected to take up the House bill in 
September. 
   AARP is the nation's leading organization for people 50 and 
older.  It serves their needs and interests through legislative 
advocacy, research, informative programs and community services 
provided by a network of local chapters and experienced volunteers 
throughout the country.  The organization also offers members a 
wide range of special benefits, including Modern Maturity and the 
monthly Bulletin. 
 -30- 

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 23 Jul 1992 17:26:24 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: oogoody.corp.sun.com

In article 10925@platypus.uofs.uofs.edu, bill@falcon.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) 
>I personally find it hard to believe that anyone would "choose" to live in
>a place that was likely to be openly hostile to them.
>

What happens if there is no where else to run? Or doesn't your system handle
this situation. I think it does. You would say live a miserable life, not
my problem. Why should someone have to run to be treated like human being?
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13278 soc.motss:32159 talk.politics.misc:35328 alt.individualism:4423
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 22 Jul 1992 21:15:42 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

T. Archer writes:
|> 
|> >>I've finally found what doesn't click with Libertarianism
|> >>and me: a belief that people are guided by rationale,
|> >>maximalisation of happiness, and concious thinking about the
|> >>cutting edges of judgements in life, with total disregard of
|> >>things like peer-pressure, basic mine-is-mine
|> >>like-me-not-like-me instincts.  People aren't rational.
|> 
|> >Bingo!
|> >Well said and said well.
|> 
|> So, you anti-liberty types don't believe that individual people are capable 
|> of acting in an enlightened manner, and must be forced to do so by a benign 
|> statist government.
|> 
|> I am sorry, but I am not willing to accept that.

The Libertairian Party has a 12000+ word platfor to carefully outline their
unique meaning of the word "liberty."  You then proceed to label anyone
who doesn't agree with that very complex definition as anti-liberty.

How about I tell you I have a different definition of liberty, and if you
believe in the LP's version, you are the one that is anti-liberty?  Isn't
semantics wonderful?
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13606 alt.rush-limbaugh:3142 talk.politics.misc:36226
From: pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Media bias
Keywords: bias
Date: 28 Jul 92 00:25:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU

In article <1992Jul27.005959.4228@anomaly.sbs.risc.net> kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan (KD1HZ)) writes:
>
>Ah. You have an "Al Gore Degree In Scientific Studies", eh?
>
>MD
>-- 
>--  Dr. Michael P. Deignan (deg.pend.)      /   "Its okay dear,
     ^^^                     ^^^^^^^^^
And just what exactly does this mean?  To me it looks like you're trying
to make yourself out to be something more than you are.

Paul.
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 08:02:22 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.072220.21631@amhux2.amherst.edu> twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
}A bunch of pseudo-arguments attempting to refute the statement "People
}aren't rational" deleted.  This kid needs to buttress his Poli Sci
}classes with a few Logic courses.

If you can guess my age, you're pretty good.  If you can guess how much I
know about logic, you're even better.  Seems to me like you're just committing
an ad hominem, following Cicero's advice to abuse the plaintiff in lieu of
having a case to present.

And I have to learn logic?  Such nonsense is beneath contempt.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: rravelo@asturias.acs.uci.edu (Ray Ravelo)
Subject: Re: HISTORY LESSON: Chomsky on Cuba
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.latin-america
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 30 Jul 92 18:19:38 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.081153.202154@uctvax.uct.ac.za> vhspet01@uctvax.uct.ac.za (Peter van Heusden) writes:
>article <1992Jul28.193602.4123@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

>Because the SA people clearly rose up! They were crushed, that is true, but
>is there any Cuban analogy to Soweto 76? The action of 85,86? Sharpeville in
>1961? The Cuban people may resent their leaders, but it doesn't show nearly as
>much as in South Africa.

 Maybe "it doesn't show nearly as much as in SA" because the extreme
 repression and lack of international media attention that exist in Cuba.
 
 There was a big riot in Cuba a couple of years ago when thousands of
 people tried to get political asylum in the Spanish and Peruvian embasies.
 There was hardly a line about that in the "Western" press.
--
Ray I. Ravelo                 "We're your opposition, Mr. Castro, we 10 million
Office of Academic Computing.  Cubans who look around us in terror"
UC, Irvine.                    from the open letter to Castro by M.E. Cruz-Varela
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Do libertarians assume everyone is rational?
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 13:56:35 GMT

In article <15520@star.cs.vu.nl> fjvwing@cs.vu.nl (FJ!!) writes:
>I've finally found what doesn't click with Libertarianism and me: a
>belief that people are guided by rationale, maximalisation of
>happiness, and concious thinking about the cutting edges of judgements
>in life, with total disregard of things like peer-pressure, basic
>mine-is-mine like-me-not-like-me instincts. People aren't rational.

We don't assume that everyone is rational. All we assume is that, on
the balance, most people behave in a self interested manner. Evolution
has indeed made people that way; those that don't try to survive
rarely leave offspring. Overall, we've got lots of empirical evidence
for our positions, so it seems like a good bet.
--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
		  Just say "NO!" to death and taxes.
			 Extropian and Proud.
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Global Warming, again (was Re: Media bias)
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 644-8135
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 11:15:32 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.221331.18729@seq.uncwil.edu> session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:

>Proponents of Global Warming claim that urban heat islands are contributing
>factors to the heating up of the earth.

Ha ha!  This is a beauty.  The proponents from the Greenpeace or
Earth First!, perhaps?

Legitimate climatologists are concerned about the impact of greenhouse
gases such as water, CO2, CFCs, and methane.  The contribution of 
industrial heat generation is quite insignificant, except for the
local measurements near urban areas, which throw off determination
of the actual global average.

>Also, the data I have quoted which was from the Unversity of East
>Anglia, took the concept of heat islands into account and compensated
>the data appropriately. It still showed an unexplained half degree C
>increase over ther last 100 years. 

This is smaller than the margin of error between measuring instruments,
and could easily be due to ocean current cycles, solar cycles, glacial
trends, or other non-greenhouse causes.

>(See Sep 1989 Scientific American, page 72, article by Dr. Stephen 
>Schneider who is head of the National Center for Atmospheric 
>Research's interdisiplinary climate-systems program)

Ah yes, Stephen Schneider, who urged climatologists to exagerate global
warming so they could get attention.  He recently quit pretending to
study the climate and has now decided to go torment biology and some other
field (sociology?).  He is a quack political activist, not a respectable
climatologist.

>[Science articles on global warming] have been numerous one over the past 
>decade. And, just as you'd imagine, not all of them agree with each other. 
>But approximately 70% of them DO feel that global warming is happening.

But 0% of these have actually provided successful predictions of
the climate.   This may change in the next decade as more information
is gathered and models improve.  However, the most important task is
getting rid of the political activists and restoring scientific
debate on models that have _not_ been empirically demonstrated, ie
restoring the ability of scientists to publish new models that disagree 
with the current given wisdom of the Scheideristas, who have made
up their minds and feel like their God-given task is to enlighten
the world about their computer-generated "discoveries", abandoning the
scientist's task to search for the truth.


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81) 
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
From: kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack)
Subject: Re: Guns Permits and NRA Perceptions (Re: Media bias)
Followup-To: you decide, so don't blame me for inappropriate follow-ups
Keywords: bias
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 01:43:47 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.131129.7738@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
|>If one is willing to live with having to get
|>a driver's license in order to drive a car, then I don't see why we
|>can't have some system of gun permits. 

	We have such already.  They're called hunting licenses.  


In article <veal.110@utkvm1.utk.edu> veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal) writes:
-      You misunderstand both what gun permits would mean and what driver's 
- licenses are.  You don't need a driver's license to either own a gun or 
                                        [ nor a car :-)  -- JK ]---^^^
- to drive one on public property.  (This is by *far* the most common 
- situation with gun owners.)
-  
-      You only need a license, and a vehicle registration, if you plan to use 
- your vehicle on public property.  Further, minors, felons, and mental 
- patients can own cars, but not guns.
- 
-      A system *like that used for cars* would be widely accepted by gun 
- owners.  However, this has *never* been proposed.  *All* such proposals have 
- been universally *far, far* more stringent than those which applies to cars, 
- because most people don't realize exactly *what* the laws on automobiles 
- entail.


-- 
 Jordan M Kossack  |  "Don't dial 911;    
 kossack@rice.edu  |   Dial M1911A and let it ring seven times." 
  +1 713 240 2073  |         -- sybok@m37-332-1.MIT.EDU (The Terminator)
  
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:2526 alt.rush-limbaugh:3119 talk.politics.misc:36053
From: amiano@music.Kodak.COM (Mitch Amiano)
Subject: Re: Media bias
Keywords: bias
Organization: Eastman Kodak Co., Rochester, NY
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 13:14:37 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.164951.22822@umbc3.umbc.edu>, alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
|> In article <1992Jul22.143241.13229@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
|> 
|> >Why do you think Rush Limbaugh is so popular? 
|> 
|> 	Just a guess, but maybe for the same reason that Larry King is
|> so popular? Must be the far right politics that they both preech, huh?
                                                             ^^^^^^
What does "preech" mean ?  You must mean "preach".

|> 
|> >  Unfortunaltely, journalism is still a magnet for liberals.
|> 
|> 	Yup. It's not the liberals fault that they're just more talented
|> then conservatives, though. If conservatives could spell better, then
   ^^^^                        ----------------------------------- 
The word is 'than', not 'then'.          (forgot the smileys ! :-)

|> maybe there would be more conservative writers.
|> 
|> 	Seriously: Why are reporters/editors so "liberal". Were they 
|> brainwashed? Are conservatives really just morons? Maybe Elvis comes
|> down in a spaceship and touches journalists on the forehead, pushing
|> them leftward.
|> 
|> 	This is better then the JFK assasination - maybe you can get
                       ^^^^         ^^^^^^^^^^^^
                      "THAN" !!!    Really assassinated that one.

|> some right wing director to make it into a hit movie?
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> -- 
|> Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.
|> 
|> 					Alex Crain
|> 					UMBC Academic Computing Services

I kan tell bi yor speling, yuu must bee won uv tham reelee write-wing koncervitifs. 

:-)

Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:2485 soc.motss:32451 talk.politics.misc:35819 alt.individualism:4555
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: What's libertarianism?
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:47:49 GMT
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93

In article <2535@nlsun1.oracle.nl>, 
jdurbin@nl.oracle.com (Jason Durbin) said:

> Yes the activities of the various factions in the former Yugoslavia
> are quite rational, as are those of the Khmer Rouge, the Shining
> Path guerillas in Peru, etc. The actions are obscenely destructive,
> but quite rational from their points of view. Somehow the
> libertarian ideal of giving free reign to this "rationality" doesn't
> give me comfort.

and in article <2536@nlsun1.oracle.nl>, 
jdurbin@nl.oracle.com (Jason Durbin) said:

> Are you old enough to remember when two white men and a black man
> were buried alive fighting for the right to be free of the
> discriminations you'd like to see allowed?

[...]

> This is what I don't understand about the libertarian mindset. This
> "life ain't fair, so let's just let everyone do as they want and,
> since good always wins out over evil, everything will be just great
> someday".

I don't think that what you call libertarianism matches up very well
with what most self-defined libertarians believe.  My understanding of
it, simplified incredibly so as to fit into one sentence, is that
libertarians believe that people should have the right to do whatever
they damn well please as long as they don't violate the rights of
other individuals.  Killing someone without his consent is generally
viewed as a violation of that person's rights.

There seems to be a widespread belief that libertarianism equals
anarchy, that the libertarian ideal is a non-state with no government,
no laws, no police, etc.  I don't think that that's the ideology of
any libertarians except those on the outer fringe.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:2534 alt.rush-limbaugh:3141 talk.politics.misc:36225
From: pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Name-calling in the abortion battle (media bias?)
Keywords: bias
Date: 28 Jul 92 00:22:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU

>In article <1992Jul24.191756.11280@kadsma.kodak.com>, pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>
>|> Also, people in the news media are *very* pressed for time, and must keep
>|> their word counts as low as possible. The phrase 'anti-abortion' manages
>|> to convey a lot more, and requires less interpretation, than 'pro-life'.
>|> After all, hearing 'anti-abortion', you know that a) the subject is
>|> abortion, and 2) the person described is against it. 'Pro-life' is not
>|> nearly as succinct.
>
I heard John Sununu use the term 'anti-abortion' on Crossfire the other
night so it must not be that big a deal.  I don't think too many people
would accuse Sununu of being a Liberal.

Paul.
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain)
Subject: Re: Media bias
Keywords: bias
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 02:24:19 GMT

In article <4018@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

>>	Yup. It's not the liberals fault that they're just more talented
>>then conservatives, though. If conservatives could spell better, then
>>maybe there would be more conservative writers.
>	I can't help but say that you're no National Champion in
>Spelling yourself.

	I'm impressed by the number of people here who absolutly cannot 
take a joke. I assert that not only was that humor, it was pretty funny.

>	That could be an idea, but I think you'd be afraid that we'd
>paint JFK into someone who SHOULD be assassinated. We'd never get any
>funding for that. On the other hand, if you made a movie mocking Ronald
>Reagan as a stupid buffoon who SHOULD be assassinated, you probably
>would get $1M+ for "special effects." :)

	Funny you should mention funding, because it drives home a point:
Oliver Stone may be incredably liberal (not to mention heavy handed with
the melodrama), but he is making a scad of money with his pictures, and
not becuase of any federal funding. People really like his films, and
pay lots of money to see them. JFK made a couple hundred million, and
nobody was forced into the theatre.

	Its there because it sells, period.
-- 
Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.

					Alex Crain
					UMBC Academic Computing Services
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,talk.politics.misc