HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Destruction of the U.S.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 14:27:27 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1jnh0mINNls0@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>     And, I find it hard to characterize an economy where 1/3 of 
>     all goods and services are consumed by government as 
>     " already privatized ".

  Sorry, but no matter how hard you find it, economics measures
  "privatization" by who produces the goods and services, not
  by who consumes it.  This is one of the reasons why despite 
  Sweden's huge social-welfare and defense establishments, it
  is still technically incorrect to call them "socialist" 
  since 90% of their GDP is produced by private industry.

  Now you may argue that this is a distinction without a
  difference, but the other fact to consider is that in most
  other industrialized nations and even larger % of goods 
  and servises is consumed by the government.   

  I'd like to see more privatization and a reduced role for 
  government in the US, too, but there's no hope of it:  All
  three of the major candidates wanted BIGGER government: 
  Yes, even Perot -- in his book he makes it clear that he
  wants higher taxes and a bigger role for government in 
  industrial policy, health, and education.   And the LP
  candidate got about a third of the vote they got in the
  last Presidential election.


---peter


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.conspiracy
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Destruction of the U.S.
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1993 16:17:10 GMT

In article <1993Jan17.215123.22321@oracle.us.oracle.com> kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee) writes:

>I believe the split will be between those who believe government is responsible
>for much of our lives and those who don't.  (At issue are things like health
>care, housing, welfare, social security, job security, etc.)  This is the
>fundamental ideological difference.  This is where the battle will be fought

No, the fundamental ideological difference is whether government should
help provide equality of opportunity or not.  

>for the soul of the Union, if it is to be preserved.

>Unfortunately, if we do split and people massively migrate to the new countries
>where their ideology is followed, the nation of govt. minimalists will tend to

Bullshit.  People will split apart into different communities, not that
they haven't already, but there aren't going to be too many of them leaving 
the country.  Where are they going to go?  The US is the most laissez-faire 
state in the world.

>attract the economically able (the rich and skillful segment of the population)
>and the other one the poor, the miserable and true-blue liberals (we'll see
>how many of the armchair net liberals of today will remain faithful when
>their own futures are at stake!) Even though govt. minimalism has merits on
>its own, it will have this self-fulfilling prophecy as an unfair advertisement.

Robert Reich wrote about the split in the NYT Magazine on 20 January
1991, in "Secession of the Successful."

His point was that we're *already* seeing the two tiered system in the
US which is common in Latin America.  The split is mostly urban/suburban
at this point, but it isn't a perfect parallel.  There are lower-middle
class suburbs, too.

The split is that the rich are hiring their own security guards, sending
their kids to private schools, fencing off their suburbs from the
undesireables, etc.

Then, the poor are stuck in those cities with eroded tax bases, which
means that there are few jobs and that the schools suck, since local
taxes pay for most schools.  Therefore, it makes the problems of
escaping the ghetto even *more* difficult than before.

The drug dealers hang out in the poor neighborhoods, where the police
don't do a good job, and all those middle class drug users commute to
the poor areas for their supply.  Thus, they keep their own
neighborhoods nice and the property values high.

Their schools get even better, then, with those high property values
equalling high property taxes equalling high school spending.  All their
schools have computers for the students who want to use them.  Their
textbooks are up to date.  No holes in the ceilings of their schools.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | "We don't need anymore [sic] wretched refuse.  It's 
niepornt@phoenix.    |  time to send the Statue of Liberty somewhere else"
   princeton.edu     |      -- Jack "Not a bigot" Schmidling, 1/7/93
Baltimore Orioles 93 |
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder)
Subject: Re: Family leave (wasL Re: Clinton's flip-flop on Haitians!)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 13:16:52 GMT


>>>Certainly a lot of people agree with you on this.  However, the
>>>government takes care of families all the time.  We can go down
>>>a lengthy list: pure food and drug laws, child labor laws, Social
>>>Security, disability insurance, unemployment insurance, Medicare,
>>>Medicaid, laws to promote safe working conditions, environmental
>>>regulations for clean air and water, child support laws,
>>>and I could go on.   Certainly each of these things leads to
>>>more regulatory bureaucracy.  It's worth it.   If the government
>>>won't protect families, then no one else will.
>>
>>In most of these cases the government has not stepped into a private contract
>>between two responsible parties and dictated how that contract will be
>>implemented.
>
>This arguement went out with the Robber Barons of the 1800's. This was
>the same arguement that the Supreme Court used to defeat Child Labor Laws,

We do not consider children capable of entering into labor contracts in
this country.

>Worker Safety Laws, Consumer Protection Laws, ect. Thank God, Oliver Wendell
>Holmes helped put a stop to that.
>
These laws are universal in this country.  Small businesses are not exempt
from these laws merely because they are small.

>>The Family Leave Act is an intrusion by government into the
>>affairs individuals where it does not belong.
>
>Only if you define the "individual" to include businesses.

It may shock you to know that businesses are owned by individuals with
families also.   Business are also "entities" and are treated as such by the
law.

>>>
>>>The problem is that many companies are run by people that cannot
>>>or will not understand that our society has changed dramatically
>>>over the past 25 years.  The working mother is a fact - a reality.
>>>Wishing for a return to the "good ol days" won't change anything.
>>>When your child gets sick, child care organizations and babysitters
>>>won't take him/her.   A parent must take care of the child in these
>>>cases.  To do so, you risk losing your job in many companies.  One
>>>can say, "just go to another company with a more progressive
>>>policy", but in this recession, that's difficult if not impossible
>>>to do.
>>
>>Baloney.  If that employee has made themselves worth keeping, the company
>>will keep them and their (sometimes substanial) investment in that employee.
>>
>So that will stop children from getting sick? But then I guess society
>is better off if single mothers and their children are all starving or
>on welfare.

Society is better off without single mothers.  Emotional appeals 
do not sway me.

>>>
>>>Randall Rhea                                        Informix Software, Inc.
>>>Project Manager, MIS Sales/Marketing Systems    uunet!pyramid!infmx!randall
>>
>>JSL.
>
>-Garrett
JSL.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,tx.politics,alt.conspiracy
From: thyat@sdf.lonestar.org (Tom Hyatt)
Subject: Re: Ross Perot to be on D/FW talk radio (on 1-21, 8:00 pm CST)
Organization: sdf public access Unix, Dallas -- 214-436-3281
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 18:14:32 GMT

In article <20JAN199322013752@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
>One of the local radio stations is interviewing Ross 
>tomorrow (21st) at 8:00 pm central time. This is from
>the Dallas/Ft Worth metroplex area.
>
>The host is Bob Ray Sanders, (liberal/independent).
>
>The station is KLIF am.  (570 KHz)
>
>One local call-in number is 787-1570 (metro, or 214 area code).
>
>And my christian "Brother Bob" is ecstatic about President Clinton's
>taking office, so it ought to be interesting.
>
>   |
>-- J -- 
>   |
>   |  Stephen
>
>

This was rescheduled until the week of 1-25/1-29 on his show because of the
WBAP/KXAS simulcast on 1-22-93. It was decided that two shows so close 
together couldn't achieve good interviews on both (there would be a lot of
repitition, etc.). Should be on next week though.....

Just clarifying...

Tom H.


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Tom Hyatt                                  I'm a diehard Saints fan, so i've    thyat@sdf.lonestar.org                     suffered quite enough, thank you!    Arlington, TX                                                                                                                                                    Help! I'm being repressed!  -M.Python                                          -------------------------------



-------------------------------------------------


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69546 alt.pagan:15791 talk.religion.misc:27448 talk.abortion:57714
From: Keith R. Elflein <kre@po.CWRU.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.pagan,talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Freedom of Religion
Date: 24 Jan 1993 20:11:10 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: b61693.student.cwru.edu
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
X-XXMessage-ID: <A78860EF8001F0FD@b61693.student.cwru.edu>
X-XXDate: Sun, 24 Jan 93 15:06:23 GMT

Freedom of Religion

If the "blood rituals and cannibalism" break no other laws that may
exist, then i see no problem in granting them their 2nd ammendment
rights. If they do break other laws, then the rituals are probably
infringing in some way on another person's rights, which is unacceptable. 

Blessed be,
Keith
"Double double, toil and trouble...fire burn and cauldron bubble!" -
*hahaha* Don't ya love it!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: My money's on BILL!
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A78C04A53405192A@42.25.154.146.in-addr.arpa>
X-Xxdate: Wed, 27 Jan 93 09:21:41 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d15
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:25:36 GMT

In article <9301270317.AA15158@inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com> Broward L. Horne,
blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu writes:
>         Come on, Bill Baby!
> 
>         Pass that ENERGY BILL!   YES!!!!
> 
> 	COME ON, COME ON, COME ON,   BABY NEEDS NEW SHOES!!! 
> 
> 	Come on, just follow in those historical footsteps, com 
>         Come on, come on, COME ON, CROSS THAT LINE!!!!
> 
> 	YEAH!   ALL RIGHT!, William "Herbert Hoover" Clinton!
>       
> 	Always, ALWAYS bet on numbers, Ted.  
> 	NEVER, EVER on words!
> 
> 	Come on, Stephanopoulous,  come on, come ON!  Override
> 	congress and make that military ban-lifting an EXECUTIVE 
> 	ORDER!   Come on, come on.  Show those bastards who's 
> 	boss.  Do it, do it, DO IT! 
>        
>         YEEEEHHAAAAAWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 	Ride 'em, Wild Bill.  You got my vote!

It's sad to watch someone lose his mind.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: an3205@anon.penet.fi (ROI)
Subject: What If I Said...
Organization: Anonymous contact service
X-Anonymously-To: talk.politics.misc
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 08:29:07 GMT

		I'm Gay!!!
		I'm Really, Truly Gay!!!

		...and now you'd better be real nice to me,

			OR ELSE

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind system, any replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.medicine,soc.culture.usa
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: Statement of President Clinton on Health Care Reform Task Force
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: Deep Space Nine (DS9)
Distribution: world 
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:50:41 GMT

bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:

>We spend more on health than any other country and have nothing much
>to show for it - look around you, what is the state of health of the
>people you see.

Or, comparison shop (travel is good for the soul).

With increased travel to Canada by U.S. businesspersons as a result 
of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, a lot of people are seeing
through the propoganda.  Those people count more than those who sit
around and listen to Rush Limbaugh ...

My father-in-law-to-be's American colleagues come back from their
first trips to Paris and Frankfurt in mild shock, too.

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@columbia.EDU 			GO  Winnipeg Jets  GO!!!
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			Selanne + Domi ==> Stanley
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70011 talk.politics.theory:5788
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Big Three Begs Big Government (again)
Date: 28 Jan 1993 00:17:13 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee) says:

>Is this the kind of "change" we get from the Clinton administration?
>Perhaps the Big Three do have some brain cells still alive and sense that
>they might get away with it this time?


    Protectism is coming.  besides, it's okay now, Karl.  These guys
    still don't get it.  Clinton has two choices:

         i)    Wipe all the people who bet on inflation.  Probably
               about 60% of the middle class.

         ii)   Wipe out EVERYTHING!

     he's chosen i)

      YES!!!!!!!   

   
>- Karl Wee
>
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: (no subject given)
Date: 27 Jan 93 14:40:02 GMT
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <nate.1120@psygate.psych.indiana.edu>  
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>     Ok then, I'm curious. Do you "ask your wife's permission"  
before you 
> walk away from her while she's telling you something? Should we all  
stand 
> around and laugh at you if you do?
> 

Of course I do, at least implicitely. As does anyone else who
has manners. If any of my friends, including my wife, is talking
to me, I'm not just going to trot off while they are in mid
sentence and walk away.  At the very least, I'm going to say
"Excuse me a minute. I'll be back." and pause for a second to
make sure she is at a reasonable breaking point and doesn't mind
the interruption.

--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.peeves
From: goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring)
Subject: Re: Not more on Gays in the Military
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 15:43:37 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1k8ln4INNid2@titan.ucs.umass.edu> jennyg@titan.ucs.umass.edu (Well Paid in Name Only) writes:
...
>My point about Clinton not coming out with a statement about why
>redheads shouldn't serve, was simply to point out the idiocy of
>your complaint about him not saying why gays should serve.  They
>should be able to serve, because they want to.  And if they want to
>go and fight & kill & die for me, well, I, for one, got no problem
>with that.

    Good point, if you were hiring your private army.  However,
    according to recent polls, the public opinion is split
    right down the middle on the issue.
>
>Why do you have a problem with it?  Afraid your boyfriend might
>get called up?

    I keep my mind open on the subject, and I would like to hear
    arguments from both sides, including some expert testimony 
    before the Congress.

    I have a problem with the way a major policy reversal is
    carried: behind closed doors, with little or no
    public debate, and with President being tight-lipped
    on the issue: "I've made a commitment, and I intend to
    follow through".  Come on Bill, tell this to the Haitians.

    Since you are such a supporter of eliminating the ban,
    why do you NOT have a problem with Clinton's using
    an executive order to let gays into the military:
    unlike a legislation, an executive order may easily
    be reversed in four years... easy come, easy go.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Follow the money" Deep Throat
Disclaimer: Other opinions are mine only
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70081 misc.legal:23418
From: riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Zoe Baird
Date: 27 Jan 93 01:35:20 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Distribution: usa
Organization: LNK Corporation, Riverdale, MD

In article <1993Jan26.061953.8438@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>I know some women were concerned that having the first woman attorney
>general who had the ethical problems Baird did would make them look bad --
>I can easily see a Rush Limbaugh complaining about the affirmative action,
>and how the "most qualified woman" was really corrupt.  Baird's flacking for
>the insurance industry didn't help her, for sure, but I think the real reason
>women abandoned Baird is because they don't *want* tokenism any more than
>men do.  What women's groups wanted was the serious consideration of
>qualified women for important government positions. 


	It would appear that "serious consideration of qualified women for 
important government positions" is precisely what is lacking. The irony
that the conservatives like the women nominees better than the liberals do
should tell us something about how this process is working out. As with
Clarence Thomas, not only is the ideal nominee be a member of the oppressed 
group in question, he/she must also support the political agenda of that group's
organized lobbyists. The Republicans put loads and loads of women up for
the US Senate in 1990 - some of the best Congresswomen in ther Republican party
risked their political careers to get a shot at a Senate seat. (All natives
of the great state of Illinois should be familiar with Lynn Martin's
debacle.)  But to hear NOW and "Emily's Choice", the only "Year of the 
Woman" was 1992, and the only "qualified women" they supported were Democrats.



Bill R.

--

"When up a dangerous faction starts,         "My opinions do not represent
With wrath and vengeance in their hearts;     those of my employer or
By solemn League and Cov'nant bound,          any government agency."
To ruin, slaughter, and confound;             - Bill Riggs (1992)
To turn religion to a fable,
And turn the Government to a Babel;
Pervert the law, disgrace the gown,
Corrupt the senate, rob the crown;
To sacrifice old England's glory,
And make her infamous in story.
When such a tempest shook the land,
How could unguarded virtue stand ?"
- Jonathan Swift (1732)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l)
Subject: Re: Minor Historical Nitpick (Was Re: National debt is not bad)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 14:26:40 GMT

j.turner@lynx.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner) writes:

>an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:

>> 1917.  The U.S. BEGAN capturing markets, leading to the fallout
>> of 1929.  Which lead to WWII.  Which lead to the U.S. policing
>> the world to protect our trade routes. 

>    The US began acquiring an "empire" as early as the mid 1800s
>(In Central and South America, cf. The Monroe Doctrine) or earlier
>if you consider Mexico and Manifest Destiny.  Perry "opened"
>Japan in '53-'54.  The Spanish American War continued the pattern
>in 1898.  Except for the "normal" exploitation of the spoils of
>war I do not see how WWI was much of a watershed in American
>expansion.  The idea that American expansionism (which new colonies
>did the US acquire?) rather than American involvement in WWI led
>to the Depression and WWII is novel.
>    The Cold War was not simply a question of policing trade routes.
>The idea of war for the sake of the warmakers, a class which grew
>wealthy in WWII, along with a, racist, fear of real democracy both
>at home and abroad fueled it.

>    	    	    	--Jeff Turner

I'd agree with everything but the last paragraph.  The "war for the 
sake of warmakers" concept is pretty hollow, as is the idea that there
was somehow a "racist, fear of real democracy".  The US had a long
pre-WWI history of hating Communism.  Official US policy towards the
Soviets was *never* friendly, largely because the US realized that the
October revolution of 1917 was not a groundswell from the people but a
power-grab by a small group of radicals in Moscow and St. Petersburg.
Remember, FDR only recognized the Sovs in 1933, and only because his
advisors convinced him that it might help get the country out of the
Depression (it didn't).  The Red Scares of the 20's made the 50's
look like a ball game.

The WWII friendship with the Sovs was purely one of convenience, as a 
reading of contemporary sources will readily show.  Before WWII even 
ended, the voices counseling against further "friendship" were already
being heard.  The Cold War was started and maintained primarily because
the ideological differences between Communism and democracy were, from
the very inception of Marxist-Leninist revolution, antithetical.  Claiming
that it had something to do with weapons manufacturers or racism is
simply wrong.  Weapons manufacturers surely profited from the Cold War,
but that was an effect, not a cause.

Steve Kellmeyer
-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
From: jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Origin of Ban on Gays in Military
Date: 28 Jan 1993 03:26:09 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: forney.berkeley.edu

In article <1993Jan27.180123.12493@hounix.org> wlarkin@hounix.org (Ward Larkin) writes:
>With regard to Clinton's promise to rescind the military
>regulations barring gays and lesbians from armed service,
>there has been talk as to whether the President has the
>authority to rescind the ban via executive order, or if
>it is necessary for Congress to pass a law rescinds the
>ban.

There's been no such talk among informed people.  You may be surprised
to learn that there was no formal ban on gays on the military until
1982, and that it was Ronald Reagan's executive order that created it.

Clinton can lift the ban on his own authority as commander in chief, just
as Truman did when he ordered blacks into all parts of the armed services.
Congress could pass a law making the ban official, but Clinton could veto
it.  Congress could attach the ban to another law that Clinton wants, and
then he would have to choose between campaign promises (there's talk of
Congress doing this to the family-leave bill).



--
Joe Buck	jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.misc