HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wlarkin@panix.com (Ward Larkin)
Subject: 1992 Democratic Platform & NED
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 01:53:48 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

The 1992 Democratic Platform specifically endorses the
National Endowment for Democracy, as disreputable, 
deceitful and dangerous an organization in the United
States, nonetheless, an organization which has received
$100,000,000s in U.S. federal funding.

The section in the 1992 Democratic Platform entitled
Promoting Democracy reads as follows:

"Support for democracy serves our ideals and our interests.
A more democratic world is a world that is more peaceful
and more stable.  An American foreign policy of engage-
ment for democracy must effectively address:

[ some items deleted for brevity ]

"Democracy Corps.  Promoting democratic institutions by
creating a Democracy Corps to send American volunteers
to countries that seek legal, financial, and political expertise
to build democratic institutions, and support groups like the
National Endowment for Democracy, the Asia Foundation,
and others."

The National Endowment for Democracy is nothing more 
than a microcosm of Reagan-Bush foreign policy, and the
Democratic Party should be brought to task for endorsing it.

The addresses and telephone numbers for the Democratic 
National Committee and the Clinton for President campaign 
are

Clinton for President
112 West 3rd Street
Little Rock, AR  72201
(501) 372-1992

Democratic National Committee
430 South Capitol Street,  SE
Washington, DC  20003
(202) 863-8000


My understanding is that Madeleine Albright is the most
knowledgeable person within the Democratic National 
Committee with regard to the 1992 Democratic Platform
stands on U.S. foreign policy.  Her address and telephone
number are

The Center for National Policy
317 Massachusetts Avenue,  NE
Washington, DC  20002
(202) 546-9300


Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 21:45:01 GMT

In article <archer.132@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>In article <nkghems@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>
>>In article <archer.127@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>
>>>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.
>
>>Actually, what I seem to notice is that almost every libertarian I know
>>is a white heterosexual middle-to-upper class male.  Why is this, you may
>>ask?  Because these people have never seen how terrible people can be
>>to each other.  Since they have never experienced bias, they do not see it
>>anywhere.
>
>
>Be careful how you stereotype.  That can lead to bias, prejudice, and 
>racism.  Dr. Nancy Lords, the candidate for VP this year is female.

I know some female white heterosexual libertarians as well.

What percentage of your wonderful party are people of color?


>And if you are interested in bias, try being the only literate person in a 
>public school system that reveres jock-dom and football above all else.  I'
>ve shed my share of plasma on the field of bias.

I experienced this as well.  It is nothing compared to the bias I have
received as a homosexual (which is nothing compared to the bias an african
american man would receive).


>>>I am sorry, but I am not willing to accept that.
>
>>I find it hard to believe that an american business would pay women as much
>>as men if they were not afraid of a lawsuit (even with the fear of a lawsuit,
>>they pay them less).  I do not believe that all store-owners in the south
>>would sell to afro-americans if they had any way to avoid it.  
>
>>The amount of hate that I see for being a gay man, in my day to day life,
>>convinces me that given a choice, many many people would be biased against
>>me.
>
>Then don't associate with them.  Why would you want to?

Because I am forced to in a business environment.

Libertarians have a hard time distinguishing between personal life and
business life.


>>All the evidence that I have seen for libertarianism is history which has
>>been rewritten to make libertarianism seem like the answer.
>
>What?  Where?  What on earth are you talking about.

If you think that you are the only libertarian I have argued with, you 
are wrong.  There are many who have given me papers and books to read
which have rewritten history from the libertarian point of view.


>
>So you believe that the government should be in the business of mandating "
>good," or "moral," or "right" behavior, then.

No.  However, they can mandate what businesses can and should do.



>I believe that people should be free to associate with whom they choose, 
>regardless of their motivations.


People should.  Businesses should not.


FWA
From: martin@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk (Martin Gorman)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: 'terrorists' vs. 'freedom-fighters'
Date: 29 Jul 92 11:33:35 GMT
Organization: British Telecom

aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>Are you actually saying that this activity adheres to international
>rules of warfare? Do you actually believe that?

Both sides commit attrocities in armed civil conflict? Surely not!

>-- 
>+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
>|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
>+----------------------270 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
I like that!
From: dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen)
Subject: Re: Universal Wages   was Libertarian history
Organization: Sequoia Peripherals, Inc.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 23:52:11 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.165130.29374@clipper.ingr.com> ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
>In article <1992Jul15.215112.12549@bmerh85.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul10.195513.15397@leland.Stanford.EDU> dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen) writes:
>>>
>
>>I have argued that a freemarket type principle might define what
>>a wage is for a particular amount of work; but that that amount
>>of work should be paid the same worldwide. Isn't that the 
>>"free" market way?

Please watch your attributions. I didn't write anything that
was quoted in this article.



-- 
Dave Eisen    dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU   Sequoia Peripherals: (415) 967-5644
      There's something in my library to offend everybody.
        --- Washington Coalition Against Censorship
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,sci.econ
From: kenr@orleans.storage.tandem.com (Ken Rose)
Subject: Re: Universal Wages   was Libertarian history
Organization: Tandem Computers Inc, Cupertino CA
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 22:47:49 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.165130.29374@clipper.ingr.com>, ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
> In article <1992Jul15.215112.12549@bmerh85.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:

> 
> >I have argued that a freemarket type principle might define what
> >a wage is for a particular amount of work; but that that amount
> >of work should be paid the same worldwide. Isn't that the 
> >"free" market way?
> 
> Well, it could be.  You see, the amount that someone is willing to pay
> for a certain amount of work depends on how wealthy they are, and
> how desperate they are to hire a particular person, which depends
> on the amount of local competition for that laborer.
> 
> So, the free market determines that wages will never be exactly the
> same anywhere for the same amount of work, unless there is uniform
> wealth and capital distribution worldwide.  As it currently stands,
> there are some nations which are capital-rich, and some which are
> capital-poor.  Wages are high in the former, and low in the latter.
> 

Not only does the labor/capital ratio enter into wages, but so do
the multitude of factors that affect supply and demand.  For example,
basketball is a popular sport in the USA, and top players command
incredible salaries.  If, for example, Michael Jordan insisted on
living and working in Poland, he would have to accept a lower salary
as a basketball player (unless, I suppose, it became a matter of
national pride to win the Olympics!)  So educational backgrounds,
cultural preferences and values, age of the workforce, etc., all
play a part in determining wages (as well as the aforementioned
capital accumulation).

> >
> >
> >No, I am not advocating the enforcment of any edict. I
> >am advocating that the principle of equal pay for equal work
> >be law at least in principle. Now what capitalist could
> >possibly oppose such a reasonable principle!?!?  (You seem
> >to assume that the concept of capitalist is maintained. I
> >don't see any reason for this....if we eliminate the idea
> >of private property because it is based on force.)
> >

We've seen this argument by Robin (Frank) in sci.econ before.  
Apparently he is unswayed by attempts to point out that people
*differ*, and will value the exact same work differently in
various parts of the world (even in different regions of the
same country), as illustrated by the example of Michael Jordan trying 
to play overseas.  As a debating technique, I suppose it's 
clever to identify one`s own argument as "reasonable", but let's
see a bit more justification than ex cathedra declarations.


____________________________________________________________________
Ken Rose    (kenr@storage.tandem.com)
The Usual Disclaimer:  Any opinions expressed above are mine alone, not
those of my employer (who is kind enough to allow me Usenet access).
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13764 talk.politics.misc:36693 alt.desert-storm:1646
From: nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 31 Jul 92 08:33:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1992Jul31.083330.20801
Followup-To: alt.individualism
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR

In article <kgqmfkq.messina@netcom.com> messina@netcom.com (Tony Porczyk) writes:
>>Individualism: "neither owes the other anything"
>>Communitarianism: "everyone owes everyone"
>>I'll take the latter any day, thank you.
>REALLY???  Okay, this is an authentic curiosity - Why?

Gee, I'm sure it's an absolutely *fascinating* question, but I don't
care. Get it? go away! This thread has been going on far too long in
far too many newsgroups. Take it the hell away from soc.motss.

ObMotss: having mango juice licked off of thighs is pleasurable, but
it's a rather high intensity pleasure. I enjoyed lying with my head on
another man's chest in a grassy tree-shaded park, too. Relaxed and
pleasurable, with a good feeling of both queer-space and intimacy.
-- 
                __
nelson@reed.edu \/                   There is absolutely no other possibility
Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: maxwell@fnala.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: Imposters in the Temple -- Part 2y
Organization: What does *this* button do!?
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 21:34:38 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnala.fnal.gov
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <Brr1qv.4up@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, 
bfrg9732@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Brian F. Redman) writes:
> 
> Imposters in the Temple:
> American Intellectuals are Destroying our Universities
> and Cheating our Students of their Future
> 
> by Martin Anderson
> 
> Part 2  --  Academe


Short version:

Those rotten academics have it too easy, they're greedy and they no longer
beleive in the goal of educating students. And if they do, well, they're
incompetent.

With plenty of examples of how "they" have it "easy" and opinion-as-fact thrown
in to flavour the stew.

What's part three going to tell us, that Amerika will be stronger if eviscerate
our universities?

Martin Anderson must be a pseud' for Danny Q.

 maxwell@fnalf.fnal.gov
monningh@basil.fnal.gov
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13377 alt.revisionism:611
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.revisionism
Subject: Lyndon LaRouche & the Liberty Lobby
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 19:57:16 GMT
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac, Vancouver Island, CANADA
Keywords: LaRouche

Pursuant to my promise to see if I could dig up proof for an assertion
published in my FAQ regarding B-CPU et al., I can only say that I have been
unable to document any formal connection between the Liberty Lobby and
LaRouche, and have been equally unable to substantiate the statement that
LaRouche controlled Liberty Lobby.

Interestingly enough, the material I quoted from was originally presented to
me as having been published by the ADL, but I have been unable to
substantiate that one to date, although efforts continue.

In all fairness to Mr. LaRouche, who I personally find nuttier than the
proverbial fruitcake, I have removed the reference from my FAQ.

Interestingly, I've been told that Mr. LaRouche does apparently share many
beliefs with the neo-nazi Liberty Lobby, including the "Trilateral
Commission" and other similar items...

The saga continues...
-- 
"I boiled  the soap  out  of  the  bodies of women and men.  The process of
boiling alone took several days --  from 3 to 7.   During two manufacturing
processes, in which I directly participated, more than 25 kilograms of soap
were produced." (Mazur, from "Hitler's Death Camps")
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: scottj@gumedlib.georgetown.edu (John L. Scott)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism vs. government
Organization: Georgetown University Medical Library
Followup-To: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 19:38:19 GMT
X-Posted-From: iamac-1.georgetown.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <l6trvfINNqgp@spim.mips.com>, mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael
Polen) wrote:
> What does this have to do with Ron's original premise that the trickier
> and nastier people will gravitate to the government, and that the idea
> of Libertarianism is to limit the damage these people can do?
> 
> Even if all that is true, if you limit the damage government can do, these
> tricier and nastier people will move elsewhere (private sector, TV
> evangelists, Libertarian Party officers, etc) and do their damage there.
> Now how do you limit the damage they can do.  All Ron's proposal does is
> cause them to use a different "best tool."

Libertarians (well, the sensible ones) hold that the only proper function
of the government is to prevent from the initiation of force or fraud
against
an individual.  A minimal government would provide police, courts, and
jails
for this purpose.  Now TV evangelists would be limited in the amount of
damage they could do by the fact that they would be prevent from or
punished
for initiating force.  It is hard to do damage without force.

> Finally, you state the breaking an immoral law is a moral act, but that laws
> are defined at the behest of the people.  What the hell do you think morals
> are.  God given, non-changing, absolute standards?  Who's God?  Libertarianism
> is the literalist religion of politics, and deserves its place on the
> fringes.

The libertarian "moral" standard is merely that you must not initiate force
against another.  Other than that, anything goes.  And why not?  Why do you
think the government should force "morals" other than that on individuals?
What the hell do you think morals are?  God given, non-changing, absolute
standards?  Whose God? (Actually, I liked "Who's God?")  Why does the
majority get to choose new morals for a person who is minding his own
business
and not hurting anybody?  That practice is putting "religion" into
politics.

-John L. Scott
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: veal@utkux1.utk.edu (David L. Veal)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 22:41:47 GMT

In article <55659@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> dev@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Weeks) writes:

>ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) once wrote: 
>> Do I overstate my case?  Perhaps a little.  Perhaps not at all,
>> considering some of the recent actions of the US govt in the war
>> against some drugs (now including RU-486).

>Hi,

>While I think the "war on drugs" has done much injustice, from illegal
>takings to violations of trial rights, the federal government is
>perfectly entitled to regulate commerce into the nation and between
>the states. Personally, I don't agree with banning drugs, since it
>will just continue the current mess like in the age of Prohibition.
>But the power is valid, and should be valid. How it is used is just a
>matter of policy.

     The Federal Government *might* have a leg to stand on if it was only
prohibiting the importation of drugs and their transfer between the states.
(Might.)  However, the Federal Government has no legal authority to make
laws regarding posession, etc. *within* the borders of a state.  (Their 
power is *interstate* commerce.)

>Larry

===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
| Statistics are any data which can be twisted to support your posititon  | 
===========================================================================

Xref: sparky alt.activism:13418 soc.motss:32412 talk.politics.misc:35757 alt.individualism:4535
From: jdurbin@nl.oracle.com (Jason Durbin)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 24 Jul 92 09:15:48 GMT
Followup-To: alt.activism
Organization: Oracle Europe

In article <1992Jul24.053416.535@genie.slhs.udel.edu>, starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
|> 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.
|> 
|> Yes, St. Augustine.  In case anyone doesn't know, this position in the
|> philosophy man is essentially St. Augustine's.  More recently, Libertarian
|> activist David Bergland called it the PANG premise, an acronym for People
|> Are No Good.
|> 
|> This is the standard view of man shared by socialists and fascists today.
|> The only difference in their belief in this version of original sin is that
|> the socialists think that man can be redeemed by force and fraud, and fascists
|> have no hope of redeeming man short of the attainment of Heaven in the after-
|> life.
|> 
|> Besides which, the statement "people aren't rational" is strictly contradictory.
|> The person making this assertion must be rational for it to be taken as any-
|> thing more than incoherent, and others must be rational to debate it.  This
|> is the sort of conclusion reached by observing some irrational men, then
|> generalizing this.
|> 
|> That people are rational is axiomatic; in order to attempt to deny this
|> assertion, human rationality is required.
|> 
|> 
|> Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
|> 
|> "True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
|> oneself and others." - Voltaire

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.

Jason Durbin
Technology Division
Oracle Europe
From: harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (Harel Barzilai)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: VOLUNTEERS WANTED -- AFSC "queer world work"
Date: 30 Jul 92 23:14:03 GMT
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB


>From PeaceNet's youth.activism -- email address
for replies is afscid@igc.org --Harel
##################################################################
Topic 58        AFSC queer world work 
afscid  Students and Electronic Activism         9:57 am  Jul 29, 1992 
##################################################################

The International Division of the American Friends Service Committee
is seeking volunteer contacts for its work on lesbian/gay/bisexual
issues.  We are developing our staff and committee competence for work
against homophobia, heterosexism and biphobia and are accumulating a
list of contacts and resources.  In order to facilitate this process,
we are looking for individuals with specific expertise and sensitivity
to the issues relevant to sexual minorities in the following regions:
Africa, Asia, Latin America/Caribbean, the Middle East and
Central/Eastern Europe.  (We urgently need contacts in gay and lesbian
organizations in Bolivia and Paraguay!!!!)  We would like the
volunteer consultants to help us with information analysis, overseas
contacts and advice.  If you are such a person , know someone who
would be of help or can recommend resource materials please contact
Daren Wade or Barbara Smith through peacenet at afscid.

THANK YOU!!!!!! 
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13755 soc.culture.african.american:8433 soc.rights.human:2765
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Preferred Discrimination
Date: 30 Jul 92 05:12:40 GMT
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA

In article <1992Jul29.135416.13329@fig.citib.com> glp@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson) writes:
>|> [yammer yammer]
>|> I was not annoyed, I was beaten senseless on a fairly consistent basis.
>
>And does this threat of beating continue to this day?  Or did it
>end when you left public school?  Do you continue to be discriminated
>against in housing or in employment?

Of course not.  Anyone who can read can tell he's a "reformed
intellectual".  Praise Jaysus he's been delivered from his affliction.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13628 talk.politics.misc:36263 soc.culture.latin-america:2747