HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:18:11 CST
From: David E. Thomas <U47526@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christiani
Distribution: usa

In article <C0Jtvo.2Dw@unix.portal.com>, mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke
schwartz) says:
>
>Mark Wilson (mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM) wrote:
>: In <C0JB5K.n15@unix.portal.com> mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
>writes:
>:
>: |I didn't claim anything.  I just reported, as close to verbatim, as what
>: |I heard on TV :)  It just seemed surprising that that kind of blast
>happened
>: |and didn't reak major havoc on the whole world for years (as would be us
>: |launching all our nukes).  It also gives me a lot of respect for how the
>: |world works :)
>:
>: I thought that the report in question refered to Hiroshima sized bombs.
>: Modern nuke's are several thousand times as powerful.
>
>FWIW, I posted it 2 seconds after I heard it, so my memory probably wasn't
>in error :)  Also, the reason I posted it was because it sure sounded like
>a terrible amount of devastating force, yet didn't seem to do as much harm
>as all the man-made damages some claim we are doing to the earth...
>

Someday the Dittoheads are going to learn how to put these little facts into
some kind of appropriate context.

Tell you what Myke, suppose we give you a choice (purely hypothetical of
course):  You can be shot 10 times in the leg or only once in the heart.
Which do you choose?  Once in the heart, of course, since it is only 1 / 10th
the amount of devastating force.


David E. Thomas
University of Illinois at Chicago


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Libertarian heaven
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 00:20:27 GMT

In article <1993Jan07.030032.4406@microsoft.com>, leecr@microsoft.com (Lee
Crocker) writes:

|>You'll find no argument from me, even though the party itself is
|>mostly reformer types with softer rhetoric--I'm a more orthodox
|>Libertarian.

|>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.

Unless they were starving of course.

--

Phill Hallam-Baker
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:66775 alt.sex:41372
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Child Abuse (got tired of the old subject)
From: zitsky+@CS.CMU.EDU (Mark Ryan Miller)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 20:07:21 GMT
 <30DEC199216231034@morgul.carleton.edu.> <13772@optilink.COM> <1993Jan7.215800.145@seachg.uucp>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University

In article <1993Jan7.215800.145@seachg.uucp>, chrisb@seachg.uucp (Chris Blask) writes:

|> I will go out on a limb, here, and pseudo-side with Clay on one point;
|> professed homosexuals in our society are quite possibly more unstable than
|> "true" straight people.  The difference between Clay and I is that I think
|> the instability comes from society as opposed to the acts, or desire for
|> them.  Wads and wads of blame should go straight to the Christian Church.
|> 
|> I would imagine that most people in our society could be defined "all
|> screwed up" from at least one angle (<- anti-flame header), and I'm sure a
|> valid arguement could be staged to classify non-heterosexuals as "screwed
|> up" too.  Most of the gay people I have known (not that I'm an expert, or
|> anything) have been at least a bit uncomfortable, twitchy or downright
|>
|> -chris blask
|> 
|> PS  I think Clay is a CHRISTIAN, (the _real_ kind), in which case we're all
|> wasting our breath.  Nothing a mortal can say will distract a True Believer
|> from finding the questions to fit their answers.


[some deleted from above]

As a fucked up gay man, I know that my problems aren't because I'm
gay.  They are because I was told that _being gay_ is not right.
It has nothing to do with my sexuality.  My family didn't know what
they were doing.  My father was "screwed up" and he wasn't gay.

The idea that gay men are more unstable that hets is bogus.  I thought
we had already dispelled that myth.

--Mark
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: leecr@microsoft.com (Lee Crocker)
Subject: Re: Discrimination!
Date: 13 Jan 93 03:03:11 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <9301090737.AA32689@localhost> buckmr@rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire) writes:
>
>mrl28033@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R Linksvayer) writes:
>
>>I agree wholeheartedly. Discrimination is one area where
>>government can govern not at all.
>
>Do you have any suggestion for ending discrimination or do you think that
>discrimination does not occur?

You reduce discrimination exactly the way it was reduced in the past--
education, protest, strikes, boycotts--the free market.  Laws only
follow public opinion, they do not shape it.  All of the progress we
have made in civil rights in the last few decades has been from tearing
down discriminatory laws and changing public opinion.  Anti-discrimination
laws were an effect of that change, not the cause of it.

Do you truly think that government is the only way to solve problems?
There are lots of ways to solve problems, and government is about the
least efficient and most corrupt of the bunch.
-- 
Lee Daniel Crocker    | Free minds; free bodies; free trade.
leecr@microsoft.com   | Libertarian Party  1-800-682-1776
From: ed@wente.llnl.gov (Ed Suranyi)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The Spotlight
Date: 10 Jan 93 06:31:35 GMT
Organization: UC Davis Dept of Applied Science at LLNL

In article <1ile28INN18c@im4u.cs.utexas.edu> lwb@cs.utexas.edu (Lance W. Bledsoe) writes:
>I'd like a copy.  Can anybody get me some information?

Just go to the Livermore (Calif.) Public Library.  They subscribe to it!

About six months ago I wrote the Library a long letter telling them that
they were subscribing to a racist and ant-Semitic newspaper, and giving
references from that paper to prove my point.  They wrote back, saying
that the subscription was a gift, and they didn't want to remove it 
because of the 1st Amendment, etc., etc.  I couldn't really argue with
them, since I am a fairly strong civil libertarian.  (In my letter, I
had said, "I'm not asking you to remove this newpaper from the library.
I just want you to be aware of its biases, if you weren't already, and
to think about spending the library's limited funds on such a
publication.")  However, I still feel funny when I go to the newspaper
rack and it's there, next to the Wall Street Journal.

Ed
ed@wente.llnl.gov


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:66299 ca.politics:10515 ba.politics:8049
From: owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Speaking ill
Keywords: AIDS HIV molest
Date: 5 Jan 93 18:25:28 GMT
Followup-To: poster
Distribution: ca

I have removed soc.motss from the newsgroups line.
(Robert McMillin) writes:
> Question: what is included in talking ill of homosexuality?  I personally
> have no problem with gay sex -- the act, that is.  Short of murder in
> the form of a duel, consenting adults should have the right to do 
> anything they want to, so long as it infringes on no one elses rights or
> property.  But am I allowed to say that gay political aims still seem,
> at least from some quarters, to focus on a return to a latexified 1970's
> where homosexuality = multiple partners with the added twist of a 
> barrier?  This is what I see in things like the "Guide to Safe-r Sex" 
> that has widely circulated on the Internet.

Where you an adult in the early 1970's ?
If you were, you would know that the so called sexual revolution included
strayt people too.
If you were, and didn't know that the sexual revolution included styrayt
people too... then you missed it.

You might also want to get clear that the latexification of sex in the
ninetys also includes strayt people too. It might just save your life.

Now, that out of the way....
There is a radical homosexual agenda, and I'm gonna clue you in on it.
It's - Equality, nothing more , nothing less.

> Now, clearly not all gays are of these opinions.  But the fact that such
> misinformation continues to spread worries me; it looks like nobody has
> learned much.

Thats a pretty vague statement, loaded with loaded terms and hyperbolicly
insinuating that you are enlightened and every one else is ignorant.
Isn't THAT special.

We have a steady stream of adolescents, Gay and strayt, rushing headlong
into the hormonaly charged state of sexual discovery. None of them
are really prepared, which has been true of every preceeding generation.
But these current generations have the added equation of HIV.
Their parents got to do their sexual exploration without that factor,
and their parents conveniently forget how they were fucking like bunnies
when they were the same age. Again , if you missed that too, you have 
my sympathys.

We also have a segment of our population that fears the spread of
clear, unbiased information about sex more than they fear the spread of
HIV. Make no mistake about it, when they thought it only killed queers,
they were content to ignore it, and even today they are content to ignore
the fact that *world wide* the majority o AIDS cases are heterosexuals.

LUX ./. owen

--
D. Owen Rowley {uunet,fernwood,sun}!autodesk!owen, owen@autodesk.com
[ EU-PHORIA: A STATE OF WELL BEING ]
Euphoria is my natural state, I do what I enjoy and an abundance 
of all good fortune comes to me for it.
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Facts? We don't need no stinkin' facts! (Re: Why can't the liberals)
Date: 11 Jan 93 16:40:58 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1993Jan9.034729.11519@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS) writes:

|In article <C0KE6D.EHx@newsserver.technet.sg>, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)                         writes...
|>In article <1993Jan7.202545.6717@bronte.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
|>It has always been a favorite pastime of liberals, everywhere, to
|>blame the failure of socialzed public institutions on the stinginess
|>of taxpayers (or politicians) as if just one more tax increase would
|>do the trick, as if just one more pilaging of the taxpayers pockets
|>could undo all the graft, corruption, and sheer incompetence that is
|>endemic to the welfare state.
|> 
|Wow! I didn't know that graft, corruption, and incompetence didn't exist
|before the welfare state did! Where's that history book?

Noone said that it did.
-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: thomasr@cpqhou.se.hou.compaq.com (G. Thomas Rush)
Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 22:44:15 GMT

For my own personal "best of usenet" file, and in article
<1993Jan11.065529.27080@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>
>	Start your own resort. You must buy land, and buy land at a
>good resort spot (Hint: in the middle of the desert or on the top of a
>mountain is not a good place).

	Hmmm.  Ever heard of a place called Palm Springs?  
Or, perhaps, Las Vegas?

	Thanks for a good laugh.

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
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Execute Amy Fisher!!!
Date: 8 Jan 93 17:43:19 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1993Jan8.150808.6452@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:

> Need I say more?

Well, yes.

> We've got to do something about murderers!

Except for one minor problem.  Amy Fisher's victim didn't die.
-- 
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: ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 01:52:15 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.224144.10620@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu
(Yamanari) writes:
> 	What you are hitting on is what I have been saying for the last
> 	two weeks:  Just because someone holds the opinion that X is
> 	right or wrong does not make it so.  The only way to resolve such
> 	a conflict is by majority consensus.

Alas, this is just what was done in Germany in the 1930s (and in a lot
of other places and other times with similar results).

Sorry, I don't believe that majority consensus can override individual
rights as long as the exercise of those rights does not do demonstrable
harm to someone.  (Saying, "Having to live in the same society as
people who don't follow my religion" does not constitute demonstrable
harm.  IMHO.)

Evelyn C. Leeper  |  +1 908 957 2070  |  att!mtgzy!ecl or  ecl@mtgzy.att.com
--
"To make the point [that homosexuals hamper military effectiveness] I'd
say that you would have to sift through your military history till you
find an instance in which failure has been attributed to the presence
of homosexuals on the losing side.  I'm not aware of any such case in
the past 2500 years, but I'd be interested to hear what you find."
-Nathan Engle
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: Libertarian heaven
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 23:03:32 GMT

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?



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.censorship,alt.privacy
From: galt%peruvian.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt)
Subject: Re: To boycott is not to censor
Date: 4 Jan 93 11:31:05 MST
Followup-To: alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,alt.privacy,alt.sex
Reply-To: galt%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu
Organization: University of Utah, CS Dept., Salt Lake City

In article <1993Jan2.224336.24949@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, dlaro@lonestar.utsa.edu (David O. Laro) writes:
>In article <1993Jan1.172113.13999@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>
><clip, clip, a lot of stuff is gone>
>
>>See my statement (1), above... if it's your newspaper or magazine,
>>your editorial decisions as to what goes into or stays out of it are
>>not censorship because all you're doing is refraining from providing
>>someone else with a soapbox.  You _aren't_ preventing someone else
>>from printing whatever he wants in _his_ newspaper or magazine.
>
>What?  Let him print what ever he wants in *his* newspaper or magazine?
>Hey, if only _you_  have a newspaper or magazine, you have denied access.
>Sounds a lot like "let them eat cake!" to me.  Indeed, I guess everybody
>has a magazine or newspaper at his disposal.
>
>And how do you see it when the National Endowment for the Arts (or the NEH)
>refuses to fund those arts which appear pornographic and objectionable to
>most of us taxpayers?  There were so many people who called it censorship!

>Seems there is more than one definition, huh?

It seems that there are three definitions that people seem to be assuming
here:

1) Censorship is when physical coercion is used to stop speech.
2) Censorship is when speech is prevented by unreasonable lack of access 
   or physical/economic coercion.
3) Censorship is all of the above with organized ignoring ("boycotts") added.

In a way, all three are correct.  #1 is the only kind of censorship where
physical coercion (i.e. violence) to stop the censorship is justified.
#2 can be seen as unethical, and boycotts, etc. are justified to stop it,
though it would be difficult to justify violence and laws to stop it.
#3 is a very broad definition that implies any action that has stopping 
speech as its goal is censorship.  Ostracism and organized ignoring are
included.  I would say this definition is much too broad because of the
negative connotations that 'censorship' has, though it is easy to see how
this definition is just the broadest version of "anything that tries to stop
people from saying things".

----
Join the Greg Alt boycott! Put /galt/h :j in your killfile today!
----
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Speaking ill
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Distribution: ca
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 04:35:14 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <4945@wet.UUCP> mhi@wet.UUCP (Philip E. Murphy) writes:
]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.  

Is this true? I believe that in theory a single viral particle COULD
lead to an infection, were it lucky enough to infect a cell. Where does
this "threshold" idea come from?
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
       - - Gun Control Means Hitting What You are Aiming At! - -
 - - - "It is better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six." - - -
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:66572 talk.religion.misc:25421
From: 00rdharringt@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Rob Harrington)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Date: 11 Jan 93 04:10:42 GMT
Organization: Ball State University

In article <1993Jan10.232455.23921@mtu.edu>, pecampbe@mtu.edu (Paul Campbell) writes:
> 
> Okay, what is the difference between Communism and Socialism?

Hmmm well I came in late to this one... seeing as I have no clue what this
has to do with Wienberger... (it pissed me off by the way)...

Anyways, the way I figure it... Communism is a political system and
Socialism is an economic system... just like Democracy is a political
system and Capitalism is an economic system...

it should also be noted that there has never been a true capitalistic or
true socialistic country... (at least not to my knowledge)...

-- 
/---------------------------------------v-------------------------------------\
|  Rob Harrington                       |              Ball State University  |
|  Department of History                |               Muncie, Indiana, USA  |
|  Vax--00RDHARRINGT@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu  |       Unix--herring@bsu-cs.bsu.edu  |
>---------------------------------------^-------------------------------------<
|                  Ball State University - University Democrats               |
|                Not a spokesperson - REPEAT - Not a spokesperson             |
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------/
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dmb@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (David M. Brumley)
Subject: Re: Is Private Charity That Effective? 
Organization: University of Louisiana
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 11:56:46 GMT

In article <1isjj0INNssg@transfer.stratus.com> jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes:
   In article <1993Jan11.190055.26061@genie.slhs.udel.edu>  
   rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Rich Schwartzman) writes:
   > 
   > If you're referring to Aramony of the United Way, yes, there was a
   > controversy over his annual compensation, reported to be more than  
   $400,000
   > per year.  However, there was no proof of any wrong doing.

   Well, there was no proof of any illegalities.  I think
   the head of a charity making >$400,000 is wrong doing by most
   definitions of the term.

Really?  What if by offering a $400,000 salary, the charity can attract
a successful corporate executive, someone who has proven his/her ability
to make large amounts of money for his/her organization?  What is
wrong with charities hiring high-salaried corporate executives in
order to gain increased revenues?  Which is more important: making
more money for the charity's worthy causes or censuring CEOs whose
only apparent crime is a six figure salary?

ObStrawManDefense:  I am by no means defending CEOs who make six and
seven figure salaries while their companies *lose* money.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: fxars@camelot.acf-lab.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Subject: Re: Pardon stuff..Define please
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
	<1993Jan11.154056.4660@ncsu.edu> <C0pBoA.9D7@panix.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:15:01 GMT

In article <C0pBoA.9D7@panix.com> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
> I think this is a defective conclusion.  Even assuming the accuracy of
> the sources, what was established by the examples given is only that
> *convicted* persons must first admit guilt.  Since Weinberger was
> never even tried, let alone convicted, the confession-of-guilt
> requirement (if it exists) would seem not to apply.

I think there needs to be a distinction between what is legally
required to accept a pardon, and what accepting a pardon implies.

Legally, one is not required to admit guilt to accept a pardon (though
the President could easily place that requirement for it if he wants
to, he's not required to place that proviso on the granting of a
pardon).

There are people who believe that accepting a pardon is tantamount to
admitting guilt.  But then there are people who believe that refusing
to testify in criminal trial that you're the plaintiff is also
tantamount to admitting guilt.  That doesn't change the legal
situation.
=== Al
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism