HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
Date: 12 Jan 93 21:55:22 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1iv4ugINNs59@transfer.stratus.com> jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes:

|In article <90228@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>  
|mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
|> In <1iuiriINNjie@transfer.stratus.com>  
|jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes:
|> |But some degree of regulation is needed here.  First off, the
|> |government must make sure that you don't have criminals running
|> |a taxi organization and mugging every third customer.
|> 
|> This is ludicrous.  If you knew that a given company was in the
|> habit of mugging it's customers, would you use that comapny.
|> I wouldn't.

|And how are you going to know this?  I consider licensing
|akin to consumer protection laws, which most of us support.
|(That is, since most of us support them, we have the right
|to collectively, via the governemnt, ask the government to
|check up on potential taxi drivers for us.)

Ah, once again, if the majority want it, it must be right.

(excuse me while I heave)

Just because you are to lazy or to stupid to do a little basic research
for your self, you find it easier to take away everyone else's
freedom in order to make your life a little bit easier.

|> 
|> |Second,
|> |the government provides some resources: most cities have taxi
|> |stand areas, where cabs can park but where cars cannot. For
|> |both these reasons, the government has to exercise some kind of
|> |control over cabs.
|> 
|> Another ludicrous argument.  Because the city provides a subsidy to
|> some taxi companies, the city has the right to control all taxi
|> companies.  Get rid of the taxi stands.  If some company like a  
|hotel
|> or an airport wants to provide stands as a service to their  
|customers,
|> then let them.  The city has no business providing such a service.
|> 

|And what about taxi stands in other areas of the city, where
|they are a service to the citizens as a whole.  The people
|(through the government) have decided they want this service,
|and want to take part of their city area for this service.

You have not demonstrated why you think these so called stands are of
a benefit to anyone other than a few taxi drivers.  It is my contention 
that the government should not be providing this service in the first
place.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: national debt? why?
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:33:53 GMT

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. 

That's exactly why it _shouldn't_ be "forgiven" via inflation--the effects
are "invisible."

It should be explicitly renounced.  Yes, the government would have trouble
borrowing in the future, but just look at the debt--I wish it had trouble
borrowing now.  They clearly can't be trusted with the ability to borrow.
They are abusing it.

|> 
|> 	I have a real bad feeling, based on the pronouncements of the
|> Clinton people that they  think we can inflate out of the debt.
|> Clinton weasled out of his pledge to cut the deficit in half this past
|> week.
|> 	The only way to solve the deficit is to:
|> 
|> 	1. Make social security and medicare self-sufficient from the
|> 	special taxes raised for the programs.  Quit stealing money
|> 	from social security taxes to make the deficit look smaller.

Amen!

|> 	2. Freeze federal spending in most programs, cut other programs
|> 	by vast amounts.

Yes again.

|> 	3. Raise the income tax in the lower brackets until the deficit
|> 	is closed.

Gettin' iffy.  Currently, my net income of a month is around $60.  I couldn't
afford much more taxes or I'd quite literally starve.

|> 	4. Bring in independent people to evaluate and rework the entire
|> 	system by which the government does budgets and calculate 
|> 	deficits.

OK.

|> 	5. DO NOT set up a national health insurance program that we cannot
|> 	possibly pay for under current circumstances.

Yes yes yes yes.

|> 	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."
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:66856 alt.conspiracy:13865 alt.politics.bush:15737 alt.president.clinton:1460
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.bush,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Execute Amy Fisher!!!
Date: 9 Jan 93 03:22:15 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1ikjolINN2pe@rana.usc.edu> amanda@rana.usc.edu (Amanda Bischoff) writes:

> Actually, in some states (NY included) a criminal cannot make money
> off a televised documentation of his/her story.

The New York law was overturned last year by the Supreme Court (in a
case brought by David Berkowitz -- the notorious "Son of Sam") as a
violation of the first amendment.

> As I understand it, Amy didn't get any gratuity from it.

Amy Fisher sold the rights to her story in return for having bond
posted so she could get out of jail prior to her trial.
-- 
The views expressed herein are   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously   ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
as this would hold such views??? ||
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 19:01:22 GMT
Distribution: usa, world
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <1993Jan4.165739.1698@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>
>>As to your argument in another post about deviance, you're deliberately
>>mixing definitions.  Deviant has a connotation of *bad* as well as being
>>different from a norm.  Otherwise, deviant trivially means anything done
>>by 49% of the population or less, and doesn't give much useful information.

    Precisely.

>>As to baseball, I think being left-handed is a more appropriate analogy.
>>It is obviously deviant by *your* definition.  Do we lock up lefties and
>>deny them basic rights?
>
>	Unlike homosexuality, left-handedness does not affect interpersonal;
>	interaction.

    So what?  Does the fact that homosexuality does affect interpersonal
interaction mean that gays should not have basic rights?

-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Subject: Forgotten History (Was: Weinberger's Pardon)
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 20:47:50 GMT

In article 93Jan2113828@world.std.com, art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
>... 
>war.  The FDR claims aside, clearly the LBJ lies were the worst since
>they lead to our involvemant in that hideous fiasco in Southeast Asia.

You know better than that.  Truman started it by reversing FDR's policy of not
letting the French back into Indochina.  He violated US law by shipping French
soldiers on US ships into Vietnam.  Then Eisenhower supported Diem's abrogation
of the partition agreement in the 1950's.  Thanks to the Dulles brothers'
policy of containment, the Vietnam fiasco was shifted from the French onto
our backs.  Kennedy escalated our involvemnt, but was said to have been 
reconsidering it before his death.  LBJ used the Gulf of Tonkin as a pretense
for further escalation, but his action was not the only one that got us involved
in Vietnam.  We were already thoroughly ensconced by that time.  Had Kennedy 
lived, and pulled us back, we might have avoided the inevitable escalation and
failure that 3 administrations prior to LBJ's led us into.

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@boeing.com)   Seattle, WA

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Distribution: usa 
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:09:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.185949.829@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>In article <C0Mrys.MI0@agora.rain.com> robart@agora.rain.com (Joe Bob) writes:
>>In <1993Jan8.073836.6197@psg.com> michaels@psg.com (Michael Sandy) writes:
>
>>>If an Impeachment can override a Pardon, could the Senate use
>>>impeachment proceedings to override _Weinberger's_ Pardon?
>
>>  What would be the point in impeaching Weinberger now?
>
>Nothing.  You CAN'T impeach him now.  All impeachment (and conviction)
>does is remove him from office.  If he's not *in* office, impeachment
>can't touch him.

       Actually, impeachment also renders you inelligable to ever again hold 
office (I think the phrase is 'faith and trust') in the Federal Government.  
So, if you're worried about him coming *back* it might be an idea...
       I don't believe *anything* (short of a Constitutional Amendment) can 
set aside an impeachment.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
                         Information Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 93 19:59:13 GMT

sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
>jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros) misquotes:

>|> 'We (Weinberger and George Scultz) informed the president that sending
>|> arms to Iran was illegal, and that using Israel as the middle man
>|> doesn't make it legal.  Reagan replied, I'll worry about the illegality,
>|> I want everyone to know that big Ron Reagan can bring the hostages
>|> home.'

>That's one way of putting it. What he said was that the "... American people
>would never forgive me if I didn't do all I could to bring the hostages back
>home.", which, depending on whether you liked or detested Ronnie, can mean
>one thing or another.

Thank you Mr. Sunder for correcting John "I can't recall what he said so
let me make something up rather than remain quiet" Viveiros.

Gee John, maybe you can be called as an expert witness since you heard
the facts right out of Reagan's mouth.  Add a relatively minor twist here
and major tuck there and what'dya know it comes out sounding just like you
want it to.

tom

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mhi@wet.UUCP (Philip E. Murphy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Speaking ill
Date: 8 Jan 93 17:01:51 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Distribution: ca
Organization: Wetware Diversions, San Francisco

It has always been scientifically known that viral material is resilient and
can survive dry spells and exist in many different environments.  But it does
take X amount of any viral material to reach a threshold amount that will   
cause the body to react to it.  Were this not the case we will all be dead
with hepatitis, and every other conceivable disease.  

Otherwise my advice to you is to do what the Mel Gibson does in "Forever Young"


P. Murphy



-- 

Phil Murphy                                          (415) 285-2595 voice 
P.O. Box 460084 San Francisco,CA 94146-0084          (415) 285-8213 fax 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE (Bakayaroo Banzai)
Subject: Re: Speaking ill
Keywords: AIDS HIV molest
Organization: Deutsches Klimarechenzentrum GmbH, Hamburg
Distribution: ca
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 12:03:36 GMT

In article <1if28mINNsse@spim.mti.sgi.com> dauber@tattoo.mti.sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.031006.2712@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>|> In article <Ti3wwB1w165w@surfcty.com> rlm@surfcty.com (Robert McMillin) writes:
> |> 
>|> As Randy Shilts also points out - "Gay men made up about 80% of the 70,000
>|> patient visits to [SF} VD clinics. ... and the [VD] clinic was considered
>|> an easy place to pick up both a shot and a date".
>
>|> 
>|> And homosexuals wonder why most of public "doesn't like them".
>
>I still wonder.  I wonder because I have never been to a VD clinic.  
>I was not out and active in the 70s.  Unfortunately, people tend to
>look at the behaviour of one group of homosexuals in one era and
>apply it across the board to all a homosexuals. 
>
While I too feel that the 70s were a time of real irresponsibility
with regards to sexual practices (by no means limited to homosexuals)
I have to agree with the above response based on personal observation.
When I moved to the SF Bay Area in the early 80s a walk down Castro
or Polk to get to a favorite restaurant would result in several 
upleasant encounters with street hustlers. After the AIDs problem
shifted into high gear in 87 and 88 you could have launched a  
rocket down both streets without hitting a soul. The simple truth
is that times have changed. Many people still seem nostalgic for
the "anything goes" sexual mentality of the 70s and early 80s but
practicing it nowadays is basically suicidal.

*******************************************************************************
*  "Supernatural, perhaps...Baloney, perhaps not" - Bela Lugosi               *
*******************************************************************************
Matt Marchese	    The opinions expressed here are not those of my employer, *
Cray Research  	    my wife, my church, or myself...But they are the opinions *
DKRZ                of Elvis as revealved to me through the medium of my pet  *
Hamburg, Germany    hamster, Lee Harvey Oswald...                             *
*******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rainbow@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Jennifer Lynn Hammond)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,alt.sex
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Date: 4 Jan 1993 06:27:46 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucscb.ucsc.edu


In article <13710@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <BzMEHL.46t@exnet.co.uk>, s0xjg@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher) writes:
>> In article <13671@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>> >In article <1go3r6INN8m7@copland.crhc.uiuc.edu>, pgr@crhc.uiuc.edu (Paul Ryan) writes:
>> >> Arthur_T_Hu@cup.portal.com writes:
># ## 2) Because Clayton is dancing around the net twisting these statistics to
>FALSE.  Depending on which study you read, at least 21% of molestation
>is by exclusive homosexuals, or about 30% is done by homosexuals or
>-- 
>Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
------------------------------------
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
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Special Bonus Quiz
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 04:54:49 GMT

In article <C0Exr7.3xw@newsserver.technet.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.013142.26432@netcom.com> nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd) writes:
>>Q: What is the difference between a Whig and a Republican?
>>A: Time.

Mr. Hedd, much as random sniping may be amusing for a while, it grows
tiresome very quickly.  As may be apparent to the rest of us by now,
you have very little of substance to say.  Don't call us, we'll call
you.

>
>Q: What is the difference between a Communist and a Democrat?
>A: Native Language.

[More fun Q & A deleted]

Mr. Ipser, meanwhile, has responded through the time-honored and
equally vacuous tradition of red-baiting.  Joy.


--
"What does not kill me only makes me stronger, right?"
	"Ooooh, no. You're weak as a kitten!"
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:66436 soc.culture.canada:9789
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: CANADA: Montreal Synagogues Painted With Swastikas
Keywords: Montreal
Date: 6 Jan 93 18:50:31 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1993Jan06.162413.27443@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) writes:

> "One possibility is that this series of incidents was perpetrated by
> neo-Nazi skinheads or members of the neo-Nazi movement," [...]

Or maybe Vichy Quebecois skinheads?
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: archer@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Libertarians
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 19:45:39 GMT

In article <markp.726866451@joplin.wri.com> markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:

>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:
>>>
>>>|You seem to have forgotten the whole reason and cicumstances for the
>>>|labor movement during the Industrial Revolution (when America was more
>>>|Libertarian than at any other time).
>>>
>>>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 the union initiates the use of force against someone else.

I'm not yet ready to concede that a monopoly on resource is not, in fact, 
"force."

Note that I have removed alt.sex from the Newsrgroups line and will see no 
replies.  Constuctive comments via e-mail are invited.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Special Bonus Quiz
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 00:54:48 GMT

In article <C0Exr7.3xw@newsserver.technet.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.013142.26432@netcom.com> nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd) writes:
>>Q: What is the difference between a Whig and a Republican?
>>A: Time.
>
>Q: What is the difference between a Communist and a Democrat?
>A: Native Language.
>
>Q: What is the difference between a Communist and a Democrat?
>A: Degree.
>
>Q: What is the difference between a Communist and a Democrat?
>A: The Democrats still run the USSA.
>
>Q: What is the difference between a Communist and a Democrat?
>A: The Communists were more honest about their agenda.
>
>Q: What is the difference between a Communist and a Democrat?
>A: Under Communism, the government is supposed to eventually fade away.
>
>Q: What is the difference between a Communist and a Democrat?
>A: The Communists fought in Vietnam.
>
>Q: What is the difference between a Communist and a Democrat?
>A: I give up?
>

The Number One difference between the 
Communists and the Democrats is:
	In ten years there will be no more Communist one-party
states, but the Democrats will still have Maryland. :-)

Pat
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:67149 alt.politics.elections:24855 alt.politics.clinton:20065 alt.politics.libertarian:3372
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: "Its all over for the political ruling class!"
Summary: Old Quote
Date: 11 Jan 93 20:42:05 GMT
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <90187@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)              writes...
>In <1993Jan8.230455.19116@m5.harvard.edu> borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:
>I believe that rising standards of living lead to demands for greater
>political freedoms.  If the government gives in to the demands then the
>change will be peacefull, otherwise it will be violent.
> 
There was an old quote from a labor leader in the American Industrial 
Revolution which went:

	"Freedom creates wealth, wealth destroys freedom"

I can't remember who said it off hand.
>-- 
>Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

-Garrett
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: thomasr@cpqhou.se.hou.compaq.com (G. Thomas Rush)
Subject: Re: Libertarian heaven
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:56:39 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.230332.22145@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>In article <C0nyA4.2s8@dscomsa.desy.de>, hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
>
>|> |>Libertarian heaven may or may not have a government, but its people
>|> |>will be too busy getting rich to notice.
>|> 
>|> Well finaly the Libs manage to come out with their bottom line. If we had a
>|> libertarian society nobody would notice the starving in Somalia, they would all
>|> be getting too rich to notice.
>
>Yeah?  So you're country has an open immagration policy with Somalia, right?
>
>Or are you all just too busy getting rich to notice?

A libertarian nation will have an open immigration policy with 
everyone, I suppose.  Much like this country had until earlier
this century.

Of course, we also won't have government handouts for those who
choose to come -- if they are willing to come and make their own
success, we will welcome them.  

As far as Somalia goes, a libertarian government wouldn't have worked 
so hard to screw the place up initially; given that it is screwed up,
there would be no restrictions on its citizens supplying whatever
aid they deem appropriate -- without coercion, of course.



thomas rush			compaq computer corporation	
thomasr@cpqhou.compaq.com	their employee, not their opinions.
By my belief that government should be minimalized, I swear to oppose
the unrequested intrusion of government into the lives of individuals
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:66487 misc.legal:22110