HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee)
Subject: Re: What keeps me from being Lib. (was Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS)
Organization: NEC America, Engineering & Support
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 22:08:19 GMT

From article <RJC.92Apr9212908@brodie.cstr.ed.ac.uk>, by rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley):
> In article <1992Apr9.014232.4438@esd.dl.nec.com>, Michael Lee (ml) writes:
>
> ml> It is a value judgement whether the potential value exceeds the risk.
> ml> I think it is worth the risk and so do you. But some people object for
> ml> religious, medical, or other reasons.
>
> Well, religious reasons are not interesting (people can always
> fatasise up a new religion to excuse their actions, this is not to say
> we should prevent them from having their beliefs, just that deciding
> that driving at 150mph on the wrong side of the road is God's Will
> doesn't make me less in favour of convicting you :-)).

foolish analogy - an unvaccinated person is NO risk to a person who has
                  been vaccinated.

> Medical reasons? I have nevber heard of any medical arguemnt against
> whooping cough vaccination. The differewnce between the risks and the
> benefits are so extreme that it is like trying to find a doctor who
> says that breathing is bad because you might breath in some smoke and
> get cancer.

The risk is paralysis and/or death.
Your doctor should be able to tell you how many children die each year from
whooping cough vaccinations.

> Others? Well, I suppose ther is sloth... but appart from that I can't
> think of any.
>
> ml> Anyone who is concerned about getting whooping cough should be
> ml> allowed to get the shot and those who do not want should not be
> ml> forced to get it.
>
> This is fine for adults who never want to leave the house. Children
> can not make such a decision and it is, to say the least, unclear that
> the parents should have the right to deny the child basic medical
> treatment.

My children are vaccinated.  I decided the benefit was worth the risk.
The risk does exist.  I am informed about the risk.  You clearly are not.

And YOU want to tell ME how to take care of MY children?  No thanks.

How are you able to be so sure that someone else's medical concerns are
worthless?  Are you a doctor?

Doctors know the risks and will explain them to you.

> Also, while I don't know the details for whooping cough, in many cases
> (eg influenza I think) not being vaccinated would make someone who
> caught it more infectious for longer. In such cases, not being
> vaccinated is like driving a car without functioning brakes.
>
> --
> rjc@cogsci.ed.ac.uk			_O_
> 					 |<

Thank you for admitting you are not informed.

another foolish analogy -
If you have been vaccinated, an unvaccinated person CANNOT infect you.


---------------------------------------------------------
I prefer a small government which may permit some evil to
a large government which promotes evil at my expense.
---------------------------------------------------------

Michael Lee
mlee@esd.dl.nec.com
214-518-3807
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Ozone problem burns Michael Deignan
From: kmcvay@oneb.wimsey.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 02:05:17 GMT
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac, Vancouver Island

In article <1992Apr8.063143.16172@tygra.Michigan.COM> jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes:

>  Don't let Mr. Deignan get to you. He is a real jerk who likes to 
>incite trouble and also engage in slander and defamation of character.
>He and Mr. Karnes are two of a kind. (along with Mr. Dolan who may
>not post to the net anymore, but he does spy on us - His last login
>on his well acct. was 3/27). 

Ah, the infamous Mr. Dolan - hey, Kent, if you need an account, access
here is free - just drop me a line and let me know - I enjoyed the way
you documented ol' JP's bullshit!

-- 
      === The Old Frog's Almanac, Vancouver Island, Canada ===
Public Access UseNet for Central Vancouver Island via SCO XENIX 2.3.2GT
  Waffle v1.64: (604) 758-9698 HST v32bis   (604) 758-6208 (2400 x 4)
kmcvay%oneb.wimsey.bc.ca@mala.bc.ca  Telebit TB+ For Sale - $400.00 (Firm)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: Is voting anonymous?
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 17:14:35 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.172028.14639@dirac.physics.sunsyb.edu>,
rinat@dirac.physics.sunsyb.edu (Rinat Kedem) writes:
>
>
>Is voting supposed to be anonymous?  Here in NY, it isn't.  i.e. they
>take down enough information to enable them to keep track of exactly
>who votes for who.  I know people will probably think this is no big
>deal, but I've always thought that voting was a private affair and I'd
>like to disillusion myself if it isn't true.  What do they want this
>information for anyway?  What do they do with it?  Seems like a lot of
>trouble to go to if they are only collecting it for the fun of it and
>have no use for it.

Rinat,

Can you give me some more information on what datat they collect and
how it ties you to your vote?  I thought N.Y. used machines which
can't even keep an audit trail of individual votes, much less who
they are cast by.

/June

p.s. I tried to post this to the authoe but it bounced as a bad
system name.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17573 talk.politics.guns:11463
From: casseres@apple.com (David Casseres)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Brown on Guns (short)
Date: 27 Mar 92 22:03:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: goofy.22083
Organization: Apple Computer Inc.

In article <qmjc2INNhhm@agate.berkeley.edu>, fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank
Crary) writes:
> 
> In article <21768@goofy.Apple.COM> casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes:
> 
> >> 	To judge by his actions, Brown is willing to
> >> 	tear at least one Amendment out of the Constitution
> >> 	just for starters.
> 
> >Or at least, interpret it the way the courts have overwhelmingly
> >interpreted it for many years.  What a baddy!
> 
> Which courts are those? The United States Supreme Court, at least, has on 
> five occasions handed down rulings that either said or implied that the
> Second Amendment protected a private citizen's right to freely own firearms.
> They have made any ruling to imply the reverse.

Well, what I was implying was that Brown seems to feel the Constitution allows
government to exercise some control over gun ownership.  That, after all is the
only Constitutional issue raised by his positions.  Are you saying that the
Court has ruled five times that government may NOT control guns?  If so, how
come we still have all these gun control laws?

By the way, before any of you gun fanatics go off half-cocked, or half-brained
as the case may be (sometimes it's hard to tell), I am NOT advocating gun
control, only responding to an exaggerated attack on Brown.

--

David Casseres
Exclaimer: Wow!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18011 soc.culture.african.american:4548
From: dc4l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Dean Calloway)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Social Spending Constitutional?
Date: 13 Apr 92 12:26:15 GMT
 <1992Apr6.141801.17827@daffy.cs.wisc.edu><1992Apr12.091843.2210@agora.uucp>
Organization: Masters student, Urban and Public Affairs, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts From Captions of netnews.soc.culture.african.american:
12-Apr-92  Re: Social Spending Constit..  Robert Barton@agora.uucp (616)    
>  Whether it "fits" or not is irrelevant, since Congress is not given power
>in those specific areas.
> 

But it doesn't explicitly prohibit this.  "General welfare" is a broad
term open to interpretation.

DCAL
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17297 alt.activism:7353 soc.women:8727 soc.college:1814
From: timlee@public.btr.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,soc.women,soc.college
Subject: Re: "Politically Correct" -- A Quote
Date: 6 Apr 92 06:52:05 GMT
Reply-To: timlee@btr.com (Timothy J. Lee)
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,soc.women,soc.college

harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (Harel Barzilai) writes:
|
|A PC Quotable 
|
|--"[P]olitical correctness" does not exist, and has never existed, as
|a body of political ideas.

"Politically correct" was fashionable as a self descriptive among
some leftist student activists who used it as a way of quickly
sorting people's political views.  That was before rightists started
using the term as a way of bashing others.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: right to bear arms
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 15:15:47 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc

As quoted from <1992Apr7.151458.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> by cl231519@ulkyvx.louisville.edu:

> A note about the constitution and the right to bear arms:
> 
> 1) it guarantees your right to own a musket.  (that's all the firearms they had
> back then)

Then presumeably, the 1st Amendment guarantees your right to own a printing
press or be a town crier... since those were the principle means of           
disseminating information back then.

> 2) it's purpose, according to our founding fathers notes, was to insure that we
> could protect ourselves from an invading force or from a military coup.

And just how exactly would a musket protect you from a military coup NOW?
Maybe the 2nd's as flexible as the 1st....

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

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18491 ca.politics:3545 ba.politics:2684 alt.politics.homosexuality:2261
From: twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:38:37 GMT
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst, MA

In article <5J40iB5w164w@Nitro.CtEdge.COM> djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM writes:

>mike@butt-pad.lgb.CA.US (Mike Batchelor) writes:

Talk about selective editing, Mr. D.K.  (Is that Daniel Karnes or Dark
Knight ... ?)

>> And for balance, I'd post a GIF of the woman I saw the other day in
>> the supermarket slapping the shit out of a four or five year old which
>> I presume was her offspring.
>> ...
>> Of course, neither of those images would prove anything, but I'm sure
>> that would not bother you.
>
>Sure it would bother me.. Some people are afraid to go in public
>with me because I _DO_ care enough to speak up  in situations
>like that.

Bullshit.  Don't evade the issue.  You're only interested in speaking
up in situations where you perceive your big ol' manliness threatened
by the presence of queerness.  Can't have women running around who
don't want to have sex with YOU, huh?

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "Someone here suggested blue square badges for
\  / twpierce@amherst.edu      /  straights.  Maybe we should try mauve
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /  heptagons?" - Damian Cugley, on soc.bi
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Subject: Re: Smart highways near  (was Re: What keeps me from being Lib.)
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 19:35:04 GMT

In article <STEINAR.92Apr15171135@faust.solan.unit.no> steinar@faust.solan.unit.no (Cindy Kandolf) writes:
|
|We already have that in Trondheim.  You have a small chunk of plastic 
|fastened to the windshield of your car.  The plastic contains a tiny
|transmitter that sends out a very weak signal identifying your car.
|At the toll booths, a receiver sends the information to the computer
|and the computer automatically deducts the appropriate charge from
|your account.  It's been in service since October.
|
|
|-Cindy Kandolf
| cindy@solan.unit.no
| Trondheim, Norway

Cindy: 

I tried to e-mail but got nowhere. So:

If you know someone that I could contact to find out more details, the
supplier of the equipment etc I would appreaciate a message with such
information.

I am working with some candiates in our upcoming elections. I
think it would be helpful to introduce some info such as above into the
campaigns.

Thank you.

Richard Foy
From: peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot speaks
Date: 13 Apr 92 07:55:32 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: dopey.crhc.uiuc.edu

I writes:

| But if this were after election "reforms" got passed, and elections were
| publicly financed with people needing a bizillion signatures to even be
| considered a candidate--so there'd be no LP candidate, no Andre Marrou--,
| and if voting were required, then I'd probably vote for Perot over Bush
| and Clinton.

| At least he has a brain; and at least he recognizes some problems, if
| not the solutions.

I feel I should qualify this.  I probably would _not_ vote for Perot,
even under the conditions given (only 3 candidates, no abstaining), if
it weren't for the great inertia of Congress.

| Mike                          "Oh, no.  I'm really a good man.  I'm just
|                                a bad wizard." -- The Wizard of Oz

Mike                            "Pay no attention to that man behind the
                                 curtain!" -- The Wizard of Oz
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17600 ca.politics:3392 ba.politics:2622 alt.politics.homosexuality:1926 soc.motss:19813
From: pgr@crhc.uiuc.edu (Paul Ryan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Date: 9 Apr 92 23:21:31 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: bach.crhc.uiuc.edu

djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM writes:

>> QUEERS HAVE KIDS.
>Poor kids. :(

>> And there's nothing you can do about it.  Neener neener.
>Sure there is. Plant a flower for each hunted looking little
>child I see being drug around like a prize puppy dog by some
>swaggering snorting 'queer lady'.
>To inflict that life on someone who has no choice is a crime
>against humanity.

Mindless, hatred-filled crap from a mindless, hatred filled tweezot.

Loving, caring, supportive, involved parents are a priceless gift
to any child.  The one thing you can be sure about queers with kids
is that they *wanted* the kids.

Looking for a crime against humanity?

How about strayt people who toy with reproduction as a fucking SPORT
and have children by ACCIDENT!

Do you really give a shit about the plight of children?  I don't think
so.  If you did, you would have spent enough time with them to know that
their problem is the disinterest of strayt America, not the interest of
queers.

We both know that you have never in your entire life seen a "hunted looking 
little child being dragged around like a prize puppy dog by a swaggering, 
snorting 'queer lady'."

More important, what kind of parent are you going to make?  Are you going
to teach your child to sneer, judge and hate as well and as freely as you
do?  Will you be proud of increasing the sum total of hatred in the universe?

We need to protect children from the haters like you , not the women who 
love too much.
-- 
Paul Ryan                  (pgr@crhc.uiuc.edu)     1101 W. Springfield Ave.
Center for Reliable High-Performance Computing     Urbana, IL 61801
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign         (217) 244-7179
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: juphoff@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (Jeff Uphoff)
Subject: Re: Elections in the Mother Country ...
Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Socorro NM
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 06:46:16 GMT

In article <ku9ti5INN74c@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
>
>A harbinger of things to come in the fall in this old colony? Is a Democrat ==
>Labour; Perot == Liberal; Bush == Conservative (no matter how laughable that
>sounds) equation a valid comparison? Let the debate/flames begin.

If you consider Perot a liberal, you are making a grave mistake...
His views place him at the far ends of both sides of the political
spectrum.  Where that places him, I haven't a clue.
How about "Radical Centrist?"  (Not to be confused in any way with
moderate or middle-of-the-road.)
 
-- 
Jeff Uphoff -- "Uppie"     |  The post office raises the price of stamps,
                           |  becomes a paying sponsor of the olympics,
juphoff@astro.phys.vt.edu  |  then purcahses ad time on tv to brag about it.
juphoff@zia.aoc.nrao.edu   |    Is this a great country or what?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (Stephen Tice)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Union Dues or Taxes -- King George is Exactly Right!
Date: 13 Apr 92 22:29:00 GMT

Amazing. Chairman Bush is moving to enforce the restriction that
union dues not be used to support political action against an 
individual worker's wishes. (This is an '88 supreme court ruling.)

Doesn't this set a precedent that an individual's *taxes* should not be
used for political actions against an individual citizen's wishes??

Correct me if I'm mistaken -- perhaps this only very specifically applies
to campaign money. Which of course means Bush's move is nothing more than 
dirty politics (no matter how principled the issue is).

No mistake, the principle is more important -- equality of representation. 
On this, I agree 100% ... "Atta boy, George." ;^)

 / Stephen D. Tice \     |     /  Terrorists are Stupid. It's smarter \
 )                 (  -- S --  )  and easier to blow up sewers than   (
 \ Arlington Texas /     |     \  trains or planes.   Ask Chicago.    / 

   "Imagine the stink it would raise -- especially in London or NY." 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18216 alt.individualism:2451 sci.econ:3743 misc.legal:9279
From: tucker@shiva.edsg.hac.com (George Tucker)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,sci.econ,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Get Back on Welfare Where You Belong!
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:46:32 GMT
Reply-To: tucker@shiva.hac.com (George Tucker)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA

In article <1992Apr13.213840.3539@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>It's hardly a practice unique to the United States: Adam Smith and
>Max Weber wrote about the medieval craft guilds which essentially
>did the same thing.  The professions protected by such vary from
>state to state, but the licensing tends not to be questioned when
>it applies to such "important" professions as medicine, and, dare
>I say it, the bar.
               ^^^
Do you mean the kind where people get drunk on booze or the kind where
they get drunk on power and money? 


	George Tucker        tucker@kali.hac.com
		Just say NO to incumbents.
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Brown -- an analysis
Date: 8 Apr 92 07:54:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: Princeto.1992Apr8.075429.4721
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU


I thought this was a good summary of The Problem With Brown (tm) --
reprinted from Sidney Blumenthal's (editor of the New Republic) column
in the NYT on Sunday

"The elements of Mr. Brown's demagogy are classic.  (1) Government is a
conspiracy, democracy is a charade and the people are innocent and
unknowing.  The system, unreformable, must be destroyed.  His prior sins
don't matter -- he fought campaign finance reform in the courts of
California -- because he claims to have been born again.  (2) Panaceas
like the flat tax are the solution.  These are as vague and as sweeping
as the conspiratorial rhetoric.  (3) Appeals are made to xenophobia,
playing on the fear and loathing of the foreign.  The candidate of 1980,
who campaigned on the slogan 'explore the universe,' now runs on 'not
one penny' for foreign aid and opposition to free trade.  (4)
Complexity, ambiguity, and compromise are telling signs of the enemy."

"As he explained in New Hampshire... 'Issues are the last refuge of the
scoundrel."

Anthony Lewis on the same day explained how Brown destroyed the
University of California system when he was Governor.

"Stanley Sheinbaum, an outstanding liberal Democrat, was named to the UC
Board of Regents by Gov. Brown and served for 12 years.  He remains
'grateful' for the appointment, he says, but his memories of what Mr.
Brown did to the university are not happy.  'He had a disrespect for the
university,' Mr. Sheinbaum told me.  'He was very rough on the budget,
and not just for lack of money.  He virtually eliminated extension
courses, with the comment, 'Why have courses for housewives?''"

Also in Lewis's column:

"Gov. Brown cut funds for mental hospitals and let conditions in them
get so bad that the hospitals were decertified and Federal funding cut
off.  Interviewing him in 1978, I asked him why he had done that.  'I
was not comfident that I understood the program,' he said, 'I've had
some doubts about the role of psychiatry and the approach in mental
illness.'  One may well have intellectual doubts about the treatment of
mental illness. But for a governor to let patients go hungry, dirty and
neglected while he mulls those doubts is something else."

He then goes on to talk about how Brown virtually ruined the reputation
of the Cal. Supreme Court by appointing Rose Bird, who had little
experience but had the qualification of being his friend, to be Chief
Justice.

-- 
David M. Nieporent              |ALEast 92: 1.Baltimore 2.Boston 3.Toronto
niepornt@phoenix.princeton.edu  |4. Detroit 5.Milwaukee 6.NY 8.Cleveland
"Baseball stathead, and card-carrying member of the ACLU.  And proud of it."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: doconnor@potato.inews.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Fuzzy Logic (was Re: Ross Perot)
Date: 17 Apr 92 05:35:07 GMT
Organization: /eng/eng25/doconnor/.organization
In-reply-to: B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU's message of 14 Apr 92 20:10:00 GMT

B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (Stephen Tice) writes:


] doconnor@layton.inews.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor, 14 Apr) wrote:
] |(Subject: Re: Ross Perot)
] |lee@wang.com (Lee Story) writes:
] |] Let's take one other example---the dress code that EDS was famous for....
] |
] |Assuming the employees know before they took the job, then there's no moral
] |or ethical problem of even the slightest kind. It's pure quid-pro-quo.
] |I wear a suit and do other things for you, you pay me.
]
] Here I've got a chance to be identified prominently as a minority, and 
] you want to go inject *reason* into the discussion. Grrrrr.

Sorry. I didn't mean to cause anyone discomfort.

] Ding dang "poodles" ain't got no respect for those of us of the fuzzy 
] persuasion.

I haven't put razor-to-cheek in a years. Last time I did, people
I'd known for years walked right by me without recognizing me. Really.
Until I spoke, they didn't know me. But I forgive you the "poodle" bit ;-)

] |But, IMHO, why leave a job you otherwise like over such trivialities ?
] |Surely having rewarding, enjoyable work ( that pays ) is more important.
]
] Hey, it might be trivial to you, but the *reason* I have a beard is that
] I'd rather look like a bear than a pencil-neck geek with an overbite!

"Vanity, vanity, all is vanity." I have a beard because
	1.) shaving is a bother, and 
	2.) (sigh) yes I look AWFUL without one.

] |] My one and only question about the man is:  Who will protect me from
] |] H.Ross Perot if he becomes President?
] | 
] |The Congress and the Supreme Court. Checks-n-balances, remember ?
]
] Hahhh! Trust who?! 

I only trust them to take care of themselves. That'll be enough.
--
Dennis O'Connor			doconnor@sedona.intel.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18269 alt.activism:7724