HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: may@Apple.COM (Patrick May)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,misc.legal
Subject: Re: The Failure of Gun Control in New York City *Jails*
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:27:49 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <14046@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <1993Jan23.141849.3193@athena.mit.edu>, wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>> In article <13969@optilink.COM>, 
>> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) said:
># # If gun control in its most extreme form -- gun prohibition -- can't be
># # made to work in a JAIL, where you have strip searches of incoming
># # prisoners; where you are subject to arbitrary search and seizure at
># # [...]
># # prisoners -- if you can't make it work in THAT environment, what makes
># # you think you can make it work in any milder form on the outside?
># 
># Point Two: Y'know, you can make almost exactly the same statement about
># drugs instead of guns.  (No, Clayton, I'm not accusing you of supporting
># the War on Drugs; I'm just pointing out something that might otherwise
># be overlooked.)
>
># Point Three: Why is it that with reports of this sort of thing --
># prisoners possessing contraband with the knowledge and, often, the
># active cooperation of the guards -- we never seem to hear about any
># serious movement to reform the prison system to the point of at least
># only hiring honest men and women as guards?
>
>Perhaps they are honest (or at least, not actively corrupted) when 
>they are hired, but are corrupted by money?

     The brother of a coworker (how's that for reliable evidence?) is
a psychologist in a Detroit area prison.  He claims that the majority
of guards in the maximum security facility where he works are former
inmates.

Patrick May
may@apple.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70156 alt.activism:21471
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (IF YOU CANNOT CONVINCE THEM, CONFUSE THEM)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Libertarian support for unions
Summary: Naive
Date: 27 Jan 93 02:15:12 GMT
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <1993Jan26.015119.8547@microsoft.com>, leecr@microsoft.com (Lee Crocker)                          writes...
>>Anyone out there seen a Libertarian Party banner on a picket for the
>>reinstatement of workers sacked for unionizing?
> 
>Being "sacked for unionizing" is very (and properly) illegal in the
>US, and I know of no such case.  If I heard of one nearby, I assure
>you that I would be the first in line with a picket, just as I picekted
>against Oregon's anti-gay initiative, against Marrou's exclusion from
>the debates, and against abortion clinic blockades.

While I admire the sentiments, this is a very innocent statement.
If you work for a non-union company, call up a union to send someone down
and hand out cards. Then see how long you keep your job. You'll have your
eyes opened very quickly.
	Come to think of it, I don't believe that Microsoft is a union
company. So unless you are a top-flight software engineer, then you can test
my theory and confirm my results.
> 
>So when was the last time you picked up a picket sign?

About three years ago. Shortly afterwards I came to work wearing a t-shirt
with Jack London's definition of a scab on it. Eventhough there was no
dress code there, I was suspended for it. It took until two months ago
before I finally got them to pay me for the suspension.

>Lee Daniel Crocker    | Free minds; free bodies; free trade.
>leecr@microsoft.com   | Libertarian Party  1-800-682-1776

-Garrett
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dmandl@shearson.com (David Mandl)
Subject: Anarchist forum in NYC, Jan. 28, 1993
Reply-To: dmandl@shearson.com
Organization: Lehman Brothers, Inc.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 19:46:47 GMT

There will be an anarchist forum in NYC this Thursday
(January 28) on the subject:

"Anarchism and Capitalism: Friends or Enemies"

Speakers: Perry Metzger (anarcho-capitalist) & Steve Shalom (anti-capitalist)

I'm sure many or most of you know Perry from the net; Steve is a professor 
of political science, writes for Z Magazine (among others), and is editor of
the book "Socialist Visions" (South End Press).  They will debate the
virtues of capitalism and its compatibility with anarchism.  (This won't be
a formal debate--the two will each get a chance to speak, and then there will
be a question-and-answer/discussion period open to everybody.)  This should
be a particularly lively forum.

This event is FREE (donations requested/appreciated)
Please come!

Place:
Penn South Community Center
369 Eighth Ave. (corner W. 29 St.)
NYC

Sponsor: Libertarian Book Club*


* The Libertarian Book Club is anarchist, not Libertarian.  The group
was founded in 1949 when the word "libertarian" meant "anarchist," and
refuses to change its name.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten)
Subject: Re: State's Rights (Was: Re: Destruction of the U.S.)
Summary: State vs. Fed
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 01:31:13 GMT




You write:

>colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
>
>>In article <C187rF.3HI@cs.uiuc.edu>, zygote@cs.uiuc.edu (The seed of all life) writes:
>>> colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
>>> 
>>> >It's a pretty lousy way to limit power.  From my experience, people
>>> 
>>> Its all we got, unless you wish to rule be decree.
>>> 
>>I'm advocating denying the right of State authorities to rule by
>>decree.  If that is not what they have done - why were some 
>
>Reducing the power of the FG IS NOT ALLOWING THE STATES TO DO
>ANY DAMN THING THEY WANT, any more than not submitting the FG to
>the 'higher' authority of the UN is allowing Clinton to rule
>by decree.  You cannot rely on having a 'higher authority' limiting
>abuses, because at some point, some government will not have another
>level over it,
>by decree.
>
It comes to the same thing. The state forces minority children out
of the public schools - not the fed business.  The Jewish children
find themselves sitting through Christian benedictions and it's
not the feds business.   

>>> No state forced anyone to own slaves, they just protected the practice in
>>> the same way that the Fed protected it with the powers available to it at
>>> the time.
>
>>Interesting way to look at it.  Would you actually have gone up to
>>a slave and told him that "hey, no one FORCED anyone to own you."
>>I'm not concerned with whether someone was forced to own slaves, but
>>whether people were forced to BE slaves.
>
>My point was that BOTH the FG and state governments protected the practice
>with the powers they had available.  They both reacted IN THE SAME DAMN
>WAY.

Not at all. The states had slavery before the Constitution. THe
const did not really address slavery except for how to count them
for representation in Congress.  The same question has not been
answered:  Why are you more concerned with the rights of slave
owners then slaves?


marc colten
From: alexj@access.digex.com (Alex Johnson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Stephonopoulus gets screwed by Clinton
Date: 25 Jan 1993 02:52:26 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com
Keywords: Wilson, Press Sectretary, Loyalty

popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell) writes:

>kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:

>Stephanopolous is his new Communications Director, I.E. chief spin doctor 
>and head propaganda monger for Bill.  Don't cry for him.  He has all the 
>fun and Dee Dee has to deal with the Washington Press Corps.  I would 
>rather be Communication director m'self.



Sorry to butt in, but in fact, Stephanopoulos is breaking from tradition
and conducting the daily press briefings himself. Previous communications
directors (Buchanan, Gergen, Tutwiler, et al.) left it to the press
secretary. 

As a journalist, I urge Stephanopoulos to be prepared for much more
bruising treatment now than he was afforded in the campaign. The
institutional White House crew is a lot less impressed by success than is
the bunch of Young Turks traditionally assigned to campaigns. 

-- 
Alex Johnson
Washington, DC
alexj@access.digex.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.pagan,talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Freedom of Religion
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 19:33:13 GMT

In article <adams.727986896@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:

[Deletions]

>>Again, most catholics don't taste the wine more than about three or four
>>times; I add to my two only because I've seen married couples who get
>>hitched in a mass drink the wine.  Generally, the priest drains the
>>whole chalice. 
>One of Luther's list of complaints about the Roman Church...and something he
>changed...
>
Well, they aren't supposed to have sex, so we should at *least* let
them have a good stiff drink once in a while....

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: cjk@netcom.com
Subject: Re: This Shall Not Stand!
Keywords: homosexuality
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 18:15:02 GMT

In article <Jan.28.10.02.43.1993.2520@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>
>(Say, if the percentage of homosexuals in the population is really 10%, 
>as homosexual activists claim, then how come the margins against 
>homosexuality are so large?)

The closet door wouldn't open?  :-)

But actualy, I wouldn't base any conclusions on the percentage of callers.
I've seen figures that say its running about 4 to 1 against. (the lifting
of the ban)  But maybe there are alot of homosexuals that don't believe in
homosexual activism.

Two questions in my mind are:

Are there any homosexuals for the ban?

Are there any bisexuals for the ban?

>In another development, a judge has issued a restraining order
>preventing Colorado's Amendment 2, which forbids the granting of
>special privileges to homosexuals -- but does _NOT_ discriminate
>against them -- from taking effect until the courts can rule its
>Constitutionality.

The problem with Colorado's Amendment 2 is that it specificaly mentions
non-heterosexuality as the reason for not granting anti discrimination
rights and such.  It should have included all sexuality.

cjk@netcom.com

>


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70485 alt.president.clinton:1919
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Date: Thursday, 28 Jan 1993 11:17:51 PST
From: ZEITLIN, CARY <ZEITLIN@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Zoe Baird, Support Her !!!!!!!!!!
 <1993Jan22.174046.17956@cbnewsc.cb.att.com>
 <1jprrtINNc98@meaddata.meaddata.com>
 <1993Jan27.161725.24748@advtech.uswest.com> <28JAN199316102059@vxcrna.cern.ch>

Dave Borden writes:

>*I* think you are sadly misinformed.  Bush never testified to Congress about
>Iran-Contra, in fact I don't think he's ever testified under oath about it to
>anyone.

BZZZZZZT!!! Thanks for playing, though. The correct answer is that George Bush
gave sworn testimony to the Special Prosecutor which has never been released.
This testimony was the subject of considerable speculation in the aftermath
of the Christmas Eve pardons. The Bushies wanted a copy of the transcripts
*before* they would release the Shrub-man's notes; the more cynical among us
might conclude that this was so they could check (and edit?) the notes for
inconsistencies with the sworn testimony. To my knowledge, neither the notes
nor the transcripts have been released.

>Dave

*******************************************************************************
   Cary Zeitlin                        ZEITLIN@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.Edu
 Standard Disclaimers Apply                     This Space Available
*******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
From: mr55371@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (KittyKat)
Subject: Re: Murder v. Sex
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 01:53:14 GMT

>In article <3518@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> cavalama@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Randall K. Spicher) writes:
>>
>>Heres a hypothetical question for you.
>>
>>Who is the injured party in prostitution?
>>
>>Cavalama.

Prostitution is one of the crimes where no one is considered to be the 
injured party.  Prostitution is illegal mostly due to the religious 
influence in the moral code of this country.

KittyKat
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Family Leave Bill
Date: 26 Jan 93 21:15:21 GMT
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1993Jan26.204628.9294@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>  
jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes:
> Are you saying that all 500 people in the company know the other  
499 jobs?
> The possibility that a company only hires enough people to do the  
job
> seems to be lost in this debate over family leave.>

If you have enough people it is easier to find someone to fill
in. Take a manufacturing organization. If there are three people
in the company, Joe, Sally, and Mack, and Joe goes on leave,
Sally and Mack would have a near impossible time keeping up.
However, if there were 100 other people in the company, it would
be much easier to find people to pick up the work.

Another example: I used to work at a company that had a large
word processing pool. There were about 50 people to do word 
processing for the entire company. If one was out for a few weeks,
the others could fill in pretty well, as the work was spread around.
Contrast this with a 5 person company, that has hired one person
to do typing, answer phones, etc. If that one person goes on
leave, the company is in trouble. They have to hire some else
to do the job because there's nobody else to help do the work.


--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism...
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 00:30:41 GMT

In article <H8wNXB5w165w@cybernet.cse.fau.edu> caliban@cybernet.cse.fau.edu (James) writes:
>hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
>> In article <ARCHER.763.726947816@utkvm1.utk.edu>, ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T.  Archer) writes:
>> |>In article <C0t33H.6A1@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:

>> Given that the socialist party that I belong to gets a minimum 35% of the vot
>> at general elections and the "Libertarian" party fails to show up on the
>> statistics I think the onus is on the advocates of the minority faction to pr
>> their case.

>In the United States, the Libertarian Party is the third
>largest political party; in the 1992 elections it received
>well over one million votes, and it regularly appears on the
	   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
How do you figure?  Marrou got 250k votes.  Somehow I doubt there were
750k people in the country who did *not* vote for Marrou, but did vote
for another Libertarian.

>ballot and outpolls all other "minor parties" combined.  

Speaking of lying with statistics.  They regularly outpoll them at an
irrelevant level.  The stats usually look something like:

Republicans: 53%
Democrats:   46%
Libertarians: 0.6%
All others:   0.4%

>As far as I'm concerned, the number of supporters of an idea
>is not as important as how much sense the idea makes; but you
>seem to have attached some sort of significance to these sorts
>of statistics. :)
 
>Regarding the ideology of John Stuart Mill, may I draw your
>attention to his magnum opus, _On Liberty_?  Perhaps some of
>his rhetoric may have slipped your mind, along with the
>correct spelling of his name.  :)

[Quotes deleted]

Still trying to figure out how he can justify his ban on slavery, though.

-- 
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 |
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70105 alt.activism:21461
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
Date: 26 Jan 93 21:31:33 GMT
Organization: ACME Products

In article <93026.074630DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>, <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
> In article <1993Jan26.033858.17940@microsoft.com>, leecr@microsoft.com (Lee
> Crocker) says:
>>
>>In article <93023.120137DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>>
>>>More than 95% of the money collected in Medicare taxes is paid
>>>out as benefits.
>>
>>Can you post some numbers to back up this outrageous claim?  Don't
>>forget to include the portion of the IRS's budget devoted to collecting
>>those taxes.  Don't forget the portion of the Justice Department's
>>budget allocated to prosecuting evaders.
> 
> Since those numbers are not readily available, if you send me a check
> for the research I would be doing for you, I will be glad to make some
> estimates.  Otherwise, I'd suggest you do your own work.

	Nice attempt at a dodge, but it's your claim, you back it up. 
Otherwise we'd simply be engaging in a snipe hunt.

	I guess we can feel free to add "unsupported assertion" to this number
now. :)

Brett
________________________________________________________________________________
	"There's nothing so passionate as a vested interest disguised as an
intellectual conviction."  Sean O'Casey in _The White Plague_ by Frank Herbert.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.medicine,soc.culture.usa
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Statement of President Clinton on Health Care Reform Task Force
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 21:53:14 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.201607.4782@news.columbia.edu> jsb16@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Jennifer S Broekman) writes:
>>SG	Yeah, that's right. The government should steal money from those who 
>>have it and give it to those who don't. Of course, this can be done with due 
>>process and in non-violent offices by people with briefcases and university 
>>degrees so its not theft (with the implicit threat of a policeman's gun should
>>someone desire not to pay for the welfare state) but social policy."Hey Lefty!
>>Hit that guy with your fist and take his money.Yeah, tell 'em we're liberating
>>his wallet. Har! Har! Yeah, we'll buy Joe some cocaine. Yeah, we're stealing 
>>your money to help a friend. You're not gonna be selfish and refuse to help 
>>Joe, are you? Hit 'em again, Lefty."
>
>May you be faced with the choice between buying food and buying penicillin,
>despite having worked since age 13.

Needing these commodities does not give you the right to take resourced from 
people who have earned them.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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.activism
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Am I A Statist? (was Re: Amazing (Was: Libertarianism...))
Organization: LLNL
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 02:27:22 GMT

In article <ATAYLOR.93Jan22140353@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan22.005532.6644@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

:	   I think that it is legitimate to charge a government-basher
:   with being for anarchy, since if government is bad, then no government
:   is good, and no government is anarchy.

>	If so, then it is just as legitimate to charge a government-
>	lover with statism, since if government is an unalloyed good
>	than total government is the best.

	Well, I try to find Aristotle's Golden Mean. Do you?

:	   I'll show you my list of things I consider it inappropriate
:   for government to be involved with (and it's a sizable list) if you
:   show me your list of things you think that government should be
>,   involved in.

>	Considering that I have posted said list on this and 
>	other newsgroups numerous times over several years,
>	we can put this down as yet another dodge by "Blaster".

	Well, I didn't see _that_ lately.

>	Which leads to the conclusion that Petrich's "list"
>	probably consists solely of things that bring personal
>	pleasure to Petrich....

	Are you sure that _you_ don't so the same? I try to avoid
purely selfish concerns when I think about such things.

>	Something like, "The government has no business interfering
>	in *MY* sex life".

	So? I don't think that governments should be meddling in
yours, either. Or anybody else's, except if someone is forcing sex on
another. And do you think that governments _ought_ to? By, perhaps,
prohibiting all sexual activity except man on top, woman on bottom,
penis in vagina, with the intent to produce children.

-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
From: XA.U20@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Libertarianism...
Date: 27 Jan 93 03:50:56 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stanford University
NNTP-Posting-Host: morrow.stanford.edu

In article <1993Jan26.021718.10785@microsoft.com>,
leecr@microsoft.com (Lee Crocker) writes:
>>Libertarianism is not a religion at all, but a political and social
>>philosophy.  I am a christian.  Most of the libs I know are christians,
>>although there is the odd athiest thrown in.
>
>And at least one Zen Buddhist.  Libertarianism is the only political
>philosophy I can reconcile with my Buddhist commitment to non-violence.

And I know several pagans who are LP members.

/June
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (IF YOU CANNOT CONVINCE THEM, CONFUSE THEM)
Subject: Re: Libertarians
Summary: History  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 23 Jan 93 01:58:17 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.211405.13332@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)                  writes...
>In article <1993Jan22.023251.7892@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>|> >Because people who don't want to take care of themselves discovered that 
>|> >they could use the power of the state to force others to take care of them.
>|> 
>|> 	A rewrite of history. Private charity didn't work very well in
>|> the Great Depression,
> 
>Well, not even private charity, as effective as it is, can hope to do more
>good than the goverment does bad.  In the 1920's Congress pushed through
>1) Income taxes, 2) the Smoot-Harly Tariff act, 3) the Federal reserve
>and increased the money supply at over 20%.  And then everyone was surprised
>when we had an economic collapse.

Actually you have your time-table a little off. The income tax amendment 
happened under Taft, the Federal Reserve under Wilson, the Smooth-Harly
Tariff (I believe) under Hoover, and the money supply under either Coolidge
or Hoover. That's a span of 17 years and four presidents.

-Garrett
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism