HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: caliban@cybernet.cse.fau.edu (James)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Libertarians
Date: 26 Jan 93 07:35:34 GMT
Organization: Cybernet BBS, Boca Raton, Florida

jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) writes:

> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) wrote:
> > jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) writes:
> >> edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil) wrote:
> >>> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
> >>>> labor unions, and I've yet to see Libertarians take unions seriously.
> >>> Supporting the right of people to form labor unions is part of the party
> >>> platform.  How much more seriously do you want them to take it?
> >> Anyone out there seen a Libertarian Party banner on a picket for the
> >> reinstatement of workers sacked for unionizing?
> > Of course not.  Libertarians also support the right of emplyers to
> > fire such people.  In the same way, most people would agree that you
> > have the right to sit arround all day humming to yourself and building
> > origame sculptures.  Most people would also agree that your employer
> > has the right to fire you for such conduct.
> 
> So it appears that the Libertarian Party does not in fact support the right
> of workers to form organizations devoted to collective resistance to the
> power of the employer class.  Sorry, but that's what the rest of the planet
> has meant the words "labour union" since at least the time of the Tolpuddle
> Martyrs.  What you appear to mean by "union" is precisely what the rest of
> the human race means by "origami club".

Some libertarians sympathize with workers, some with employers,
and some with both.  However, all libertarians support the 
basic human right to freely associate and to organize groups of
every sort -- corporations, communes, unions, churches, and even
origami clubs.  Libertarians are opposed to the initiation of
force by government, private groups, and individuals.  No one can
legitimately use force on others while simultaneously denying
them the right to do the same.
From: jlohrmann@igc.apc.org
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Date: 25 Jan 93 23:21 PST
Subject: White House Text: Gore on Competiti
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1483600071:000:1698
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!jlohrmann    Jan 25 23:21:00 1993


From: <jlohrmann>
Subject: White House Text: Gore on Competitive Council

To: Clinton News <c-news-distr@campaign92.org>,
        Clinton Volunteers <clinton-volunteers@campaign92.org>,
        Clinton Economy <clinton-economy-distr@campaign92.org>
Subject: The Council on Competitiveness

                          THE WHITE HOUSE

                   OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT

      For Immediate Release                        January 22, 1993

                Statement of Vice President Al Gore

      Today, we are sending a clear message to the special interests
 who used the Council on Competitiveness as a back-door to avoid the
 law. That back door is closed. No longer will special interests
 receive special favors. No longer will our laws be ignored or
 undermined. No longer will decisions that should be made in public be
 made in private. In this Administration everyone will play by the
 rules and public decisions will be public information.

      The Council on Competitiveness was founded on a false choice;
 that the interests of workers, consumers, and the environment
 conflict with the goal of economic growth. And, rather than
 reconciling those objectives in public, the past Administration used
 the Council on Competitiveness as an excuse for special favors for
 narrow interests and back-room decisions. We are committing ourselves
 to a process that will serve the American people honestly, openly,
 and with respect for the law and their safety.

      President Clinton and I today reaffirm our strong support for
 policies that recognize we must ensure environmental protection to
 have strong economic growth.

                            ################




Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.religion.misc
From: rharlan@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Rick Harlan)
Subject: Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 08:33:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.174606.22838@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = (craig sivils) writes:
>
>>Tit for Tat,
>>
>>Why are so many people who claim to be "pro-choice" against the right of 
>>an individual to use public money for their children to attend the school 
>>private or public of their choice.
>
>Why does Craig think that being pro-choice means I should spend MY tax
>dollars on PRIVATE schools?  Maybe Craig can simply pay for those
>PRIVATE schools with his own PRIVATE money and leave the PUBLIC alone.
	Public schools are not free schools.  It takes a lot of money
to pay the teachers, for instance (it's still not enough, considering
that public schools don't pay qualified, dedicated teachers anymore
than they pay the other 85%).   
	Furthermore, that money doesn't come out of thin air.  It
comes out of the pockets of the same taxpayers who might otherwise pay
tuition to make their children educated, productive citizens.
	Why should a taxpayer spend HIS tax dollars on PUBLIC daycare
(oops, I mean "schools").  Ultimately, it is the PUBLIC that won't
leave him alone.   
	[The biggest fallacy that seems to infect political and
economic thinking in this country is the failure to recognize
opportunity costs (especially in regard to taxes).  When you spend a
dollar on some public work (such as public school), you've taken a
dollar AWAY from some other purpose.]
	On the other hand, there would be no difference between some
government paying for a poor child to attend a parochial school, and
that same government paying the medical bills (medicaid, &c.) at a
religious hospital.  Or, more to the point, giving him a GSL to go to
Notre Dame, et al.
>
>Let's not forget that many of these PRIVATE schools are religious
>brain-dead robot makers, and I'm surprised Craig thinks the public
	This is the first time I have ever heard anyone argue against
the quality of education in private schools.  I won't hold you to this
one.  

>should pay for religious instruction...
> 
>-- 
>+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
>+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>steven@advtech.USWest.Com

-- 
Rick Harlan	     // The answer is blowing in the wind.
 rharlan            //			-Bob Dylan
@ucs.indiana.edu   // The Proof is left as an exercise for the reader. 
Indiana University//		        -Pierre de Fermat
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Congratulatoin, Bill-Bots!
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:28:03 GMT
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA29766; Wed, 27 Jan 93 13:39:13 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA25748; Wed, 27 Jan 93 13:39:09 -0800
X-Received: by uiboise.idbsu.edu
	(16.6/16.2) id AA03799; Wed, 27 Jan 93 12:28:03 -0700
X-To: talk.politics.misc.usenet
X-Cc: alt.politics.clinton.usenet
X-Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25]


	Congratulations!

	You just bought yourselves a Triple 'E' ticket on the 
	greatest deflationary ride in HISTORY!

	Come, on, Billy Boy!  Energy Tax, we NEED it!  Gotta cut 
	consumption!  Cut that military too.  

        And there go those entitlements!   YES!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70207 talk.politics.medicine:743 soc.culture.usa:10220 sci.med:24543
From: PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.medicine,soc.culture.usa,sci.med
Subject: Re: Statement of President Clinton on Health Care Reform Task Force
Date: 27 Jan 93 21:20:01 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee

In article <1993Jan27.170053.4800@news.columbia.edu> gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>>>May you be faced with the choice between buying food and buying 
>>>penicillin, despite having worked since age 13.
>>
>>A theft is still a theft, no matter what the purpose is.
>
>I hope that the Americans look hard at the German model which differs
>from Canada and France in one aspect and that is the German system is
>"voluntary" ...  in theory.  Nobody in private insurance will provide
>equivalent comprehensive coverage like the public plan* and the first
>question they ask is if you have basic public coverage --- if you say
>"Nien", they show you the door.

They will refuse to treat those things that ARE covered by private 
insurance?  Time for a lawsuit.

>
>Let's say that after a year of following this topic (with years in 
>the real world, being the token Canadian in my department), I like the
>idea of the German system ... as long as good Repo Men are around to
>deal with uninsured libertarians who'd otherwise ring up a big tab on
>my nickel -- let's hear it for private transactions! (-;

I can support that.  
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
E-Mail to PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu, mail to ARCHER at that address will
bounce.    "Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: DAY THREE: Either a lie or utter stupidity
X-Xxdate: Mon, 25 Jan 93 16:46:09 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d15
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 22:50:07 GMT

In article <1k1merINNk47@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Richard A. Mulac,
ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu writes:
> You people (Oops! Perot got in trouble for using that phrase) just don't
> get it!  Who cares if he takes responsibility.  Defend how he can say
that
> 'I knew that Zoe Baird employed illegal aliens, but I didn't know that
she
> didn't pay their Social Security taxes'.  How can he come up with the
idiotic
> assumption that illegal aliens will take on illegal employment, yet they
> will follow the law by getting a Social Security number and pay their
SS taxes.
> He's trying to cover his butt because HE KNEW EVERYTHING ABOUT THE
ILLEGAL
> ALIEN SITUATION before the hearings, but now he's trying to claim
ignorance
> with this stupid excuse that he only knew about half the situation. 
He's
> either a liar or an idiot - take off your rose colored glasses and
admit it,
> people!

This is crap speculation on your part based on no documented
facts. Please provide proof for these outrageous accusations.
These fantasies are tainted by your goal to give Clinton
no credit no matter what decisions he makes, what the outcome is, or
how well he does. No sense letting those annoying facts get in the
way of your rantings.  I think it is you who need to come down from those
bad LSD hallucinations you're having. Wake-up indeed!

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,misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: dev@barley.ecn.purdue.edu (Larry Weeks)
Subject: Re: Necessary and Proper
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 02:54:52 GMT

acbonin@unix.amherst.edu (Adam Bonin) once wrote: 
> But my question, and I'll put it to Ted and anyone else who wants to
> play with it, is this: Is the phrase "to provide for the general
> welfare" at the beginning of I,8 a _separate_ enumerated power of
> Congress, or does it merely serve as a preamble to the enumerated
> powers listed below?

It's a preamble. The legitimate spending powers of Congress come after
the semicolon. Below is the text of the Federalist Papers relating to
just this very argument. Madison made it quite clear what that
section of the Constitution meant. Definitely not what it has been
perverted into today.

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

FEDERALIST No. 41
General View of the Powers Conferred by The Constitution
For the Independent Journal. 

MADISON

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation,
have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the
language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that
the power ``to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises,
to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general
welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to
exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the
common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given
of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than
their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or
definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the
Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of
the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have
been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing
an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy
the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the
course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very
singularly expressed by the terms ``to raise money for the general
welfare.'' But what color can the objection have, when a
specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms
immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than
a semicolon? ...

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

Larry
--
Larry Weeks        | "Experience should teach us to be most on our
dev@ecn.purdue.edu |  guard to protect liberty when the government's
-------------------+  purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are
 naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil minded
 rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment
 by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding."
  -- Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis
From: amck@rowdy.mcc.com (Alan McKendree)
Subject: Re: Privatization
Organization: MCC, Austin, Texas
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:48:11 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.203515.15714@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan22.080224.26329@mcc.com> amck@rowdy.mcc.com (Alan McKendree) writes:
>>Electric:  where I live, at least, the city runs the power plant.
>>
>>Phone:  Although not officially part of the government, each privately
>>owned regional telephone company is granted prtected monopoly status
>>by the government (i.e., it is illegal to try to provide competing
>>service).
>
>These things are, in a sense, natural monopolies, because they have
>decreasing returns to scale: it's cheaper for one provider to supply
>everyone than for many smaller companies to compete with each other.
>However, you'll have a monopoly situation, with all the potential
>abuse that it entails.  That's why there's regulation in these cases.

Actually, strictly speaking, there's regulation because the industry
and the bureaucrats like it that way.  Addressing the issue, however,
note that *there has never been a monopoly arise in practice except
where the business is protected by the government*.

This is a classic case of the government selling the citizens the idea
that without government protection, their lives will be worse.  So
government controls over key industries are instituted which pleases
the bureaucrats, and they repeat the falsehoods about impending
monopolistic doom if the controls were to be lifted.

In real life no company can ever fend off competition in the
relatively short term and long term if it sells at above-market prices
(keeping in mind that that price is always changing, sometime
day-to-day).  OPEC tried in the early 70s and failed miserably.

Theoretically, one company could, perhaps, become the sole supplier in
a market, but it could only become so and remain so by offering a
better product and/or a better price than its competitors.  We need
not fear this unlikely scenario even if it were to occur.

The undesirable form of monopoly, in which no competition is possible,
*has only happened by government's explicit prohibition of
competition*, examples being the postal service and the old
pre-breakup Bell Telephone Co.

Government is the only source of coercive monopoly, which it claims to
protect us against.  All in all, a masterful job of propaganda on its
part.

More info in D. T. Armentano's _Antitrust:  The Case for Repeal_,
which I strongly recommend to your attention.  I trust the readers of
this newsgroup will not be unduly skeptical of the concept of reduced
government interference in the economy; this book will give you
valuable ammunition against the opposite position.


-- 
Alan McKendree          Opinions posted by me are mine, only.
amck@rowdy.mcc.com         Who/Little Feat/racquetball/Rand
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69035 alt.activism:21147
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
Date: 20 Jan 93 20:29:56 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <2207@celia.UUCP> celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree) writes:
>In article <90425@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:

>>I read this three times, and I still do not understand how you got the IE
>>out of the given paraphrase.  I would also like to see the original
>>quote before commenting further.

 My paraphrasing was rough to say the least. Here are the actual quotes 
which might seem timely now. 
 From "In the Words of Adam Smith" by Edward W, Ryan  1990

 quotes from "An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations"
             "The Wealth of Nations" for short.

    Author  Adam Smith  1776
                   note - This book was written during the economic period
                          known as Mercantilism. Which developed out of the
                          Feudalism of the Middle Ages.

  page 421 (The Wealth of Nations)

 "Every Individual is continually exerting himself to find out the most
advantageous employment for whatever capital he can command. It is in his 
own advantage, indeed, and not that of the society which he has in view.
But the study of his own advantage naturally, or rather necessarily leads
him to prefer that employment which is most advantageous to the society."
                       
  page 423 (The Wealth of Nations)

 "By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society
more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." 
 
 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum)
Subject: Re: DAY THREE: Either a lie or utter stupidity
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Southeast Design Center
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 23:49:14 GMT

In article <matjmm.727895331@gsusgi1.gsu.edu> matjmm@gsusgi1.gsu.edu (J. Morgan Morris) writes:

   ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:

   > Blah blah.......
   >
   > Either he's a bold-faced liar or we need to impose an
   >IQ test requirement on those persons who wish to run for President in 1996.
   >And people said Quayle was stupid?  This man has brains enough to run the
   >country?  Come on Clinton defenders, let's see how far you'll stretch 
   >reality to excuse him on this one.

   A few points:

   (1) Before you criticize, where's *your* Rhodes Scholarship? Clinton's
       one of the brightest politicians we've seen in a long time.

   (2) I don't know whether Quayle is stupid, but he certainly said
       some stupid things. And that "deer-in-the headlights" look does
       him in. Rest assured that Clinton is much smarter than Quayle, and
       for that matter Quayle, Bush, and Reagan put together.

   (3) I somehow feel as if I'm lowering myself by replying to your
       insipid posts, but I'll get over it.

   Later,
   Morgan

Look Morgan, if you're going to get down and dirty with this type of
partisan poster, you need to do something trite like pointing out a
spelling error (bald-faced, not bold-faced), then say something like
"yer mamma".  It's the only way to handle these types.  They don't
listen to reasonable arguments or desire constructive dialog.

Clinton may have gone back on some promises and made an error
nominating Zoe Baird for Attorney General, but I think he's wise to
take his lumps rather than pull a "READ MY LIPS" a few years from now.

Just trying to help...
--


Matt Landrum, CAD Engineer      | e-mail: mdl@cypress.com
Cypress Southeast Design Center | office: (601) 324-4609, FAX - 4614
1 Research Blvd, Suite 200      | "You can get what you want if you
Starkville, MS  39759           | know how to find it." -- Tower of Power


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Subject: Re: Madeleine Murray O'Hare
Organization: Somewhere in the Twentieth Century
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 16:44:57 GMT

kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
> jma@aber.ac.uk (Jonathan Michael Ashley) writes:

>> Is this the same Ted "Tyre-Iron" Kaldis

>This is America here.  In this country, the word is spelled "tire".

Is it really, Ted. Well, I'm just having a look around me here.....nope,
I still think I'm in Ireland, Toto.

P.

PS. We believe you about the tYre-iron incident. Really we do. How 
could a nice guy like you do a thing like that?

PPS (to every else). Ted is a guy who, a year or two ago, immediately assumed
I was gay because I replied in the negative to one of his articles. What 
a complete maroon.
-- 
moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersspikeleepratchett
clive  P a u l   M o l o n e y    "I'm pretty witty and you're itty bitty    pe
james  Trinity College, Dublin     And isn't it a pity the city can't see?   vr
brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70316 alt.peeves:19738
From: geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.peeves
Subject: Re: Not more on Gays in the Military
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.peeves
Date: 28 Jan 1993 16:59:07 GMT
Organization: FizzBall Racing
Distribution: world
Reply-To: geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: purplehaze.corp.sun.com


kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:

>Wait a minute ... aren't you English?  [Even if you do post from a
>German site.]  What are you doing talking about American issues (which
>you apparently know very little about)?  Why don't you just mind your
>own business and quit poking your nose where it doesn't belong?


One wonders whether the Tedster would have been so quick to dismiss 
this foreigner, had the guy expressed an opinion more in agreement
with his own. 

I'm always suspicious when someone tells another that he's unqualified 
to participate in a discussion on the net; it's usually just a thinly-
veiled, all-too-convenient ploy to avoid addressing the points the 
person has raised.


Geoff


-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
   "These kinds of remarks are wholly inappropriate and are the mark of a
         bigot." -- Theodore A. Kaldis <kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu>
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: National comedians Week?
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 05:46:30 GMT

kellyj@leland.Stanford.EDU (Kelly Johnson) writes:
]
] Values apart from some absolute standard are worthless.


So since You do NOT hold to The Warriors Code,
it is OBVIOUS that you do NOT have worthwhile Values.


ciao
drieux


-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 

sometimes, a thing will happen after another thing, 
and they may not be connected..... 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70308 alt.politics.homosexuality:10421