HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Libertarians
Date: 12 Jan 93 21:40:21 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <ARCHER.730.726862937@utkvm1.utk.edu> ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:

|In article <90224@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
|>there is nothing in libertaria that would prevent groups of people from
|>banding together in order to sell their labor.  (IE labor unions)
|>

|Isn't that a coercive monopoly, though?

Only if there were only one labor union and you were required to join that
union in order to work or hire from that union to get employees.

Without government backing labor unions are no more or less likely to
become monopolies than are companies.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: jpsb@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (Jim Shirreffs)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Organization: JJ Software
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:42:02 GMT

In article <0DkZwB1w165w@fennec.com> flash@fennec.com writes:
>>You have GOT to be kidding! Do you seriously expect anyone with a BRAIN 
>> ...
>>Homosexuality is NOTHING MORE than a behavior. One chooses to exercise 
>>that behavior.
>> ...
>>is only my BEHAVIOR which places me in either category. Any other 
>>definition is indefensible.

>Whoop! Whoop! Excessive Use of Capitals Alert!

>This is a man with an overwhelming insecurity and desire to express himself
>with lots of CAPITAL LETTERS so that we KNOW that what HE says is the
>ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

>Shame he talks utter rubbish of course...

>Dave

Why don't you try addressing the content of his post instead of
posting boring brain dead observations.


jim shirreffs

i speak for myself and only myself
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Re: national debt? why?
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 06:36:38 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.043353.25398@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>In article <visser.726710302@convex.convex.com>, visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:
>
>|> 	The way giant debts such as ours are typically forgiven is via 
>|> inflation and/or devaluation of the currency.  This method is preferable
>|> in that it works as an invisible side-effect, rather than an explicit 
>|> action like forgiveness of the debt. 

Bear in mind that both inflation and devaluation of the currency
affect dollar- based arrangements, in general, and not just the debt
of the federal government. A far more focused means of eliminating the debt,
and one that would be far more politically palletable, would be to simply
default on it.

Another possiblity is to privatize federal assets to pay down the debt (e.g.,
sell NASA, the national parks, the federal highways, etc.)

>|> 	I dont believe that there is a will out there to solve the deficit.
>|> 	What people want is the federal government to spend more funny-money.
>|> 
>|> 	Clinton and company talk about "growth" solving the deficit and how
>|> 	cutting "unemployment" is more important than cutting spending in 
>|> 	reducing the deficit.  I believe that means inflationary policies,
>|> 	more taxes, and huge amounts of new spending.  At best, it means
>|> 	probably doing nothing to cut spending.
>
>Brace yourself for "Weimar America."  Inflating away $4trillion in debt is
>going to make for the mother of all "economic corrections."

Precisely. Anyone who actually expects this to happen should
IMMEDIATELY run out and borrow huge sums of cash. These debts could
then be repaid in worthless, inflated, dollars. Conversely, only a fool
would save during an inflationary period. Take your paycheck and buy, buy,
buy (DMs, Yen, real estate, gold, or whatever the government can't inflate).


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:67219 misc.legal:22388
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Date: 12 Jan 93 00:02:47 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1993Jan7.184341.24169@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
> In article <1993Jan7.140514.9595@rpp386> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
# #In the Newsweek issue after the election special issue, one writer said
# #that it was no wonder Clinton was elected - the media elected him.
# 
# The same media, no doubt, that published story after story about his
# "character problems" and unelectability during the primary season.
# 
# Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution

Because he wasn't far enough left for them.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
From: 00rdharringt@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Rob Harrington)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Pardon stuff..Define please
Date: 11 Jan 93 20:06:32 GMT
Organization: Ball State University

In article <1993Jan11.154056.4660@ncsu.edu>, storrs@eos.ncsu.edu (JERRY STORRS) writes:
> 
> All this talk of pardon's, and I see that many of the replies are not related
> anymore, I thought I'd ask a simple question to reinforce/teardown something
> I was once told.
> 
> I have been told that to receive a pardon, one must admit guilt.   OR is it 
> truly a method of legally covering one's own tracks.....

well a pardon is forgiving a person or group of people of a crime.  Now the
question I have is Weinberger (or Nixon for that matter) was never convicted
of a crime and there for they were pardoned to a crime the _may_ have
committed.  So in a sense they're saying "I don't care if you did it or
not, I'll pardon you."

-- 
/---------------------------------------v-------------------------------------\
|  Rob Harrington                       |              Ball State University  |
|  Department of History                |               Muncie, Indiana, USA  |
|  Vax--00RDHARRINGT@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu  |       Unix--herring@bsu-cs.bsu.edu  |
>---------------------------------------^-------------------------------------<
|                  Ball State University - University Democrats               |
|                Not a spokesperson - REPEAT - Not a spokesperson             |
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------/
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,alt.sex
From: dlaro@lonestar.utsa.edu (David O. Laro)
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:37:14 GMT

In article <1i8ld2INNmli@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> rainbow@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Jennifer Lynn Hammond) writes:


I've noticed, and now wonder aloud, why it is that everytime I see a post
from Jennifer Lyn Hammond (sp?) I find the initials "RSW" at the end of the
message.  Okay, is RSW the "dark side" of R.S. Walz?   Who _is_ "RSW?"

Inquiring terminals want to know?

>Somebody must have dropped you on your head too many times,
>Clayton. That would keep homosexuals so busy, why they would have
>to make the rounds each night and sneak down chimineys! You can't
>find that statistic anywhere. Why do you just make up things? You
>look like a complete idiot. Is that your desire? Pederasts aren't
>even interested in grown-ups, of any flavor. And they don't come
>from the ranks of homosexuals any more than heterosexuals, and
>the figure I have seems to indicate less pederasty developing
>among those who find that they are gay, percentage-wise among
>each group. So where in the world do you get this insane crap,
>out of your dark subconscious?
>-RSW
>


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Outlawing HeteroSexuality And HomoPhobia for Reasons of State?
Followup-To: alt.sex,soc.singles,talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 01:48:20 GMT

kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
] In article <13722@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes...
] >I've already posted, repeatedly, a number of sources that show
] >that men molesting boys are somewhere between 20% and 26% of
] >child molestation.  That's about 5x the number of homosexuals
] >in the population.
] 
] He's also repeatedly neglected in the same data the parts which say that
] men who molest boys do so at roughly ten times the frequency of
] men who molest girls.


which perforce of logic mandates that he should
come out ten times stronger against the Evil Wicked
WantonHeteroSexualKonspirakii?????

And brings up the dangerous Question:
"Has Clayton Cramer Decided to Stop HeteroSexuality?"

Or is it something that he is unable, or Unwilling to Address?

Maybe he is a victim of Latent Unresolved HeteroSexual inclinations?

Or Worse yet, He has been moving towards following his Fellow
Church Burner from Florida?????[1]

ciao
drieux

[1] folks, the guy who was torching churches in florida
turned out to confess that he did it to prevent 'homosexual desires.'
A most interesting sort of HomoPhobic Response.... Might
make folks consider OutLawing HomoPhobia as a threat to society?


-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: "Olivia Newton-John is the grand-daughter 
of Nobel Prize-winning physicist Sir Edmund Newton-John." --Frank

Clear Proof Of Genetic Superiority, eh No????
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 14:50:11 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.142658.14090@novell.com> bboerner@novell.com
(Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>In article <C01x89.MC1@NeoSoft.com> jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs)
writes:

>>If homosexual sex is simply abnormal when how come we don't see our
>>dogs (male) and cats (male) giving one another head?

>Well, it might be because oral sex is an endeavor limited to humans?

It isn't.  Many animal species have been observed engaging in anal and
oral sex.  My prediction is that this won't change Shirreffs opinions
in the least, because while his opinions are defended with arguments
they are not actually based on either facts or reason.

-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring)
Subject: Re: WAR IN BOSNIA!!!!
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 22:16:57 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1993Jan8.152245.5341@seachg.uucp> chrisb@seachg.UUCP (Chris Blask) writes:
>>    The Serbs proposed evacuating Saraevo's civilian population, 
>>    but the Bosnian "goverment" would not let the evacuation take 
>>    place, for they hold the women and children of Saraevo hostages
>>    and use them as human shields, as well as for target practice, 
>>    preferrably in front TV cameras (more than once the "Bosnian" 
>>    goverment was caught shelling their own civilians for propaganda 
>>    purposes).
>>
>
>Unfortunately, evacuating the population of a country is somewhat akin to
>abandoning ship; whoever comes in and takes control is the new owner, and that
>is _exactly_ what the Serbian military wants.  A friend of mine is Croation,
>and we've talked wuite a bit about the subject (not that that makes me an
>expert), and it seems that everyone is willing to admit that there is
>propoganda and bs on both sides, but it is impossible not to draw the
>conclusion that Serbia is the major aggressor here.  I mean, they had a
>leader (Panic) who seemed to want peace, so they ignored and ousted him.
>All the Serbs need to do is stop shooting and draw back.

    As far as I understand, neither Serbia nor Croatia are directly 
    involved in Bosnia's civil war.  The war is between the Muslims
    who want to keep Bosnia in one piece and build an Islamic Republic there
    (their premier Izabegovich (sp?) just quit the negotiations in Geneva
    and went to the Conference of Islamic Nations instead), the Serbs and 
    the Croats who both want to secede and join their fellow countrymen.
    At the moment, the Serbs control 70% of Bosnia's territory, Croatians
    - 25%, Muslims - 5%.

>What are the Serbs after, anyway?  Does anyone know?  Bosnia and Croatia
>are recognized countries now, does Serbia just want their territory?  I
>realize that there are Serbs and Croats and Bosnians throughout the region,
>but you don't have to form nations along ethnic boundries, or we'd be
>chopping up every country on earth (White-South-Africa and (seven
>different) Black-South-Africas, a White-Anglo-Blond-Male-USA, a Liberal-
>Jewish-Male-Over-5'6"-USA...)

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Follow the money" Deep Throat
Disclaimer: Other opinions are mine only
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: fajack@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Is the media liberal-biased? (was: Weinberger Pardon)
Date: 12 Jan 93 16:17:16 MDT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Utah State University

In article <43359@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote) writes:

> About this man of the year choice. Give me a break. Clinton hasn't
> even wiped his but in the oval office head, and he is man of the year?
> He has an overriding 'mandate' with 41% of the popular vote (the same
> percentage that Dukakis lost with 4 years ago)? He has yet to take
> office, and his 'governing style' has already been compared (in a
> major article) to Lincoln?
> 
	To be fair, I believe Time also picked Reagan and Bush as Man of the
year before they 'wiped their butt in the oval office head".   In addition, I
believe Dukakis got more than 41% (46% ? I think) of the vote.

	One more story for those of you who are still sore with the media for 
giving the election to Clinton (I wonder where are those liberal media 
for the last 12 years ?).
	This was reported by a reporter from The Times of London in Houston 
during the election night.  One bitter Bush supporter inform 
him that Jane Fonda told Ted Turner she will refuse to make love to him if CNN
will not give Clinton a good coverage.
        Would you believe this ?  Who said the conservative has no sense of
humor ?


Jack Teh
  

 
> 
>                                     Brad Cote'
>                                     University of California, San Diego
>                                     STARE Project
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:67311 talk.religion.misc:25991
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Libertarianism...
Date: 12 Jan 93 19:57:21 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <C0r2H9.9o1@newcastle.ac.uk> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:

|>3) Such monopolies are increasingly on the defensive as technology destroys
|>the natural basis of the monopolies.

|Hmm.  How many cable tv companies are there in a given area?  How
|many companies in toto make VCRs?  How does technology affect the
|monopolistic nature of running water provision?

Every cable monopoly that I am aware of got that way because they were
granted an exclusive license by the government.  Sounds like an abuse of
government power, not an excuse for it.

There are a number of companies making VCR's, the number is in constant
flux as some companies get out and new companies get in.  No one company
dominates this market, much less monopolizes it.

Do you mean the water company that brings water to your house?

The owning of water lines, gas lines, power lines, telephone lines and
perhaps cable lines are the only true natural monopolies that I am aware of.
But I am definitely talking about the owning of the lines.  You should
still be allowed to buy electricity, gas, water, phone service and cable
service from whichever company you want to.  BTW, if it weren't for our
current regulatory climate, it would be no big deal to combine the
wire that provides cable service with the one that provides phone service.
-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 15:04:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.115119.19144@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> gsmith@polyhymnia.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>In article <1993Jan9.143304.25938@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu
>(Yamanari) writes:
>
>>	Nope.  I need do no such thing.  If it is a possibility 
>>	(and it is) that the behavior is learned or reactionary (to
>>	abusive treatment, say) it is more than enough of an argument to
>>	keep it out of schools. 
>
>It is possible that homosexuality is caused by heterosexual teachers
>and role models.  Therefore, by your reasoning, no heterosexuals 
>should be allowed to teach.


	Now we get into the argument of "minimal risk" because
	it is obvious that if we rule out homosexuals, and heterosexuals,
	we havenothing left (except Toby).  Given this, we choose the least
	risky proposition--heterosexuals.

	(in other words, why bother bring up such useless points?)

-- 
      Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	      "Psalms 23:1  The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."  
		Shepherds are for sheep.   -----      Pain teaches.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: lbaum@atc.boeing.com (Larry Baum)
Subject: Re: national debt? why?
Organization: Boeing Computer Services
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:20:03 GMT

In article <16B52108F4.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David
Veal) writes:
>In article <1993Jan10.1778.29517@channel1>
>"john lovett" <john.lovett@channel1.com> writes:
>
>>This suggestion may be a little simplistic, but perhaps someone could
>>flesh it out.
>>
>>We have a large national debt, but since we owe it to ourselves, why not
>>declare that we forgive ourselves the debt, and forget about it?
>
>       "We" do not owe "ourselves".   The Federal Government owes a
>fairly substantial (but by no means all) portion of the debt to private
>citizens.
>        Do *you* own U.S. Savings Bonds?  Know somebody who does?  I
>know more than a few who've got their entire savings wrapped up into
>"investing" in America.
>        It's not a case of "us" forgiving ourselves.  It would be a case of
>the federal government reneging on billions (perhaps trillions) of
>loans by individuals who may be counting on being paid back.
>
The percentage of the debt represented by savings bonds is pretty small.  Most
of the debt is in large notes held by large institutions and foreign investors.
 Without the heavy investment by Germans and Japanese over the last decade, we
would have been incapable of financing our large deficits.

Even if we could default (the effect on the world economy would be
devastating), we would be foolish to do so, since we have no intention of
getting anywhere near a balanced budget for years.  Who would finance our
deficit if we defaulted now?  Would you buy a savings bond or treasury note
from a country that had defaulted on its debts.

For every hard problem, there is a simple soultion that won't work.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: "Its all over for the political ruling class!"
Date: 10 Jan 93 19:15:13 GMT
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA

In article <1993Jan8.223420.13323@pony.Ingres.COM>, garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL
ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS) writes:

|>In article <C0J1vx.ELu@newsserver.technet.sg>, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed
|>Ipser)                         writes...
|>> 
|>>When the Berlin Wall came tumbling down, the establishment reluctantly
|>>hailed it as the end of the cold war. But was it the end or merely the
|>>beginning of the end? Socialism collapsed in Eastern Europe and then
|>>the Soviet Union with a resounding thud. Yet it survives in the West
|>>if only barely.
|>
|>To say that the socialism of Western Europe and the Communism of Eastern
|>Europe are the same thing, shows a definant lack of understanding of the
|>politics of Europe.
|>> 
|>>The chronic US deficit is but one symptom of a much
|>>larger disease, the slow and painfully agonizing death of the welfare
|>>state.
|>
|>That's curious. The deficit wasn't bad during Carter's administration, yet
|>got much worse under Ronald borrow-and-spend Reagan, who hated socialism.
|>The two key causes of the deficit are health care, which isn't in a socialist
|>system, and bailing out the banks and S&L's which were deregulated under
|>Reagan. It seems that unregulated capitalism is killing the U.S.

No, the reasons for the deficit were the huge tax cuts for the super-rich and
the arms build up.

The medical budget could easily have been accomodated, even with the failure to
tackle the problems caused by exploitation of the legal system.

The S&L disaster, while crass was the sort of one off cock up that any system
must be able to cope with at some time or other. The main point is that the
budget deficit was not merely an accidental cock up but a completely forseeable
disaster caused by a refusal to accept the reality that you cannot spend more
than you raise in tax.


|>>Already, socialist paradises such as Sweden are feeling the
|>>strain while nations such as Italy are on the verge of bankruptcy.
|>
|>And the capitalist country of Japan is in a recession worse than Sweden.
|>And the capitalist U.S. is on the verge of bankruptcy.

As a result of which the US has elected a socialist President.

Hell if the Right are ignorant enough to be able to distinugish communism from
socialism then they won't be able to tell Clinton from a socialist, Clinton from
Bush, or their arse from their elbow.


--

Phill Hallam-Baker
From: esr@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Why not beat Cramer up?
Date: 6 Jan 93 05:35:02 GMT

As quoted from <C08qy0.166@exnet.co.uk> by s0xjg@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher):
> So, having said this, why shouldn't someone beat Cramer up?

Uh...Mr. Gallagher, do you realize that you've just validated Clayton's ravings 
about "the homosexual fascist lobby" by advocating violence against him?
Whatever his faults, he at least publicly opposes violence against gays.

In the last couple years, I've watched Clayton Cramer degenerate from a
halfway reasonable person into a hysterical crank.  Amazingly, his gay
opponents occasionally manage to sound even more blinkered than he is.
This is one of those times.
-- 
					Eric S. Raymond <esr@snark.thyrsus.com>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush