HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Phil H-B's delusions (Was: "New Right" Libertarians?)
Date: 26 Jan 93 21:20:34 GMT
Followup-To: alt.bigot
Organization: ACME Products

> hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
> 
>> ...the self christened "Libertarian" party need a more descriptive name.
>> They sit quite happily in with the Pat Buchannans etc as a sort of
>> militant agnostic wing but wanting essentialy the same thing, a retreat
>> to the old world parochial certitudes of never never land.

	Phill places himself squarely in the corner of other groups that insist
on arriving at their own label for groups they disagree with:

Wop
Spic
Nigger
Kike
...

	More than just a little bit disgusting.

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
From: tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley)
Subject: Judiciary Committee, Please Get a clue!
Organization: Harris Computer Systems Division
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 13:08:58 GMT

On the radio this morning they said Zoe Baird (thankfully) withdrew her
nomination as attorney general, but Zoe Baird doesn't bother me nearly as
much as the Senate Judiciary committee. More than a year after the
Thomas/Hill brou-ha-ha, after getting a couple of new members, they still
don't have a clue. Only in-depth immersion in an intense reality distortion
field could make the Zoe Baird confirmation seem like some kind of tough
choice the Senators needed to agonize over and consider for days or even
weeks. What exactly is there to think about? Consider how the whole thing
looks to an ordinary citizen without the benefit of a law degree or years of
experience as a politician:

   * Bill Clinton has proclaimed his administration will meet such high
     ethical standards that not even the appearance of conflict will exist.

   * Zoe Baird has knowingly violated immigration as well as federal and
     state tax laws. Her excuse basically boils down to the fact that it
     would have been personally inconvenient for her to obey the law, and
     besides, all the other yuppies do it too.  (One wonders what other
     "inconveniences" she might encounter as attorney general...).

Is there anything wrong with this analysis? Can anyone explain why the
members of the Judiciary Committee were having trouble making such a "tough"
decision in light of the facts?

This reminds me of the case last year in which the supreme court was
deciding if executing an innocent man was "cruel and unusual". Only lawyers
with years of special training can get their heads in a state where
questions like this don't have immediately obvious answers.
--
======================================================================
domain: tahorsley@csd.harris.com       USMail: Tom Horsley
  uucp: ...!uunet!hcx1!tahorsley               511 Kingbird Circle
                                               Delray Beach, FL  33444
+==== Censorship is the only form of Obscenity ======================+
|     (Wait, I forgot government tobacco subsidies...)               |
+====================================================================+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.medicine,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.african.american,sci.med
From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Subject: Re: Statement of President Clinton on Health Care Reform Task Force
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 15:21:06 GMT

In article <2B676C4B.20509@news.service.uci.edu> cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>In article <1993Jan28.044849.26210@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:

>>The judicial system is bound by laws made by politicians, and
>>reflects the opinions and skills of these politicians. This system's
>>decisions are in no way a standard of thinking or making judgements, 
>>but is a _result_ of a judgement of those who made the law or appointed
>>the judges. 
>
>Okay, being metaphorical isn't working here.
>
>Dov, are YOU able to see the difference between someone stealing for
>heroin and someone stealing for penicillin or something similarly
>important?  

Difference in what context ? If you are talking about a guidance
for _action_ ( i.e. should I go and steal penicllin now from some
innocent person ? ) the answer is no. The other person does not owe
me anyting. However, if someone comes and _asks_ me for a loan
or a gift to buy penicillin I would be more inclined to help him/her.

Are YOU able to see the difference between forced ( e.g. robbery )
and voluntary action ?

>If someone robbed me for heroin, I'd not mind seeing their
>asses locked up.  If someone robbed me for penicillin, I might feel
>angry at being robbed, but I'd at least sympathize a little.  Jeez.

You are taking things out of context again.

I would feel more sympathy as you do, but I would object to _legalize_
theft of penicllin as much as I would object to legalizing theft 
for heroin.

Dov
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69412 talk.politics.theory:5739 alt.rush-limbaugh:14951
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Libertarian support for unions
Date: 27 Jan 93 11:31:10 EST
Organization: ACME Products

In article <1993Jan27.021512.6030@pony.Ingres.COM>, garrett@Ingres.COM (IF YOU CANNOT CONVINCE THEM, CONFUSE THEM) writes:
>... 
> 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.

	When I worked for Federated Dept. Stores (the old, pre-Campeau one),
the managers called everyone in for a meeting.
	
	They said that we'd be getting a visit from a union organizer and
wanted to present their side.  Which they did very effectively.  It never even
came to a vote :).

	But no one was fired....

> 	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.

	The tendency seems to be the more educated the profession, the less
likely there is to be a need for unions.  I'm certainly not going to give up my
right to negotiate with the company because someone promises to look out for my
interestes.

	I can do that just fine, and I don't have to pay anyone for the
"privilige".

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,alt.activism
From: edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil)
Subject: Re: Libertarians
Reply-To: edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 12:30:04 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.023251.7892@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
writes:

>	I may add that workers _have_ tried changing such
>circumstances by forming 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?


                                -- edp (Eric Postpischil)
                                "Always mount a scratch monkey."
                                edp@rusure.enet.dec.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: Starting Trouble
Followup-To: talk.poultices.misc
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 19:12:19 GMT

In <14085@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM sez:
>
>The violent fantasies that keep appearing in soc.motss (like the
>one below) are really worrisome.  Doesn't anyone get worried about
>this sort of emotional instability?

The occasional kook posting is soc.motss about "str8 bashing" doesn't
worry me any more than your intolerant ravings, Clayton, or the
tire-iron-wielding gay-bashing fetish-fantasies of T*d Kaldis.

If, OTOH, one based one's opinion of heterosexuals on your non-stop
effluvia, one would have a very low opinion of them indeed.


-- 
        "Maybe I'm mistaken, maybe I'm not.  Frankly, I really don't
         give a damn . . . ."    - Paul Havemann (paul@hsh.com)
                                   in <1993Jan25.190648.548@hsh.com>
	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com     ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69647 alt.atheism:26966 talk.religion.misc:27497
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Madeleine Murray O'Hare
Date: 25 Jan 93 12:53:30 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <CINDY.93Jan22211912@solan10.solan.unit.no> cindy@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf) writes:

> Ted Kaldis says another weird one:

No, Ted Kaldis makes sense.

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

[The answer to this was "no".]

>> This is America here.  In this country, the word is spelled "tire".
>> You Brits do as you like, but if you are going to address us Yanks,
>> please do us the courtesy of spelling the words as we would perceive
>> them to be spelled correctly.

> No, this is Norway here.  I checked.

But you also forgot to limit distribution of your post to Norway.

> In this country, the word is spelled "dekk".  You folks over on that
> side of the ocean do what you like, but if you're going to set the
> distribution to "world", please do us the courtesy of writing your
> posts in all of our native languages, not just your own.  Thank you.

It ain't gonna happen, darling.  Addressing a certain folk is one
thing, distributing a message worldwide is quite another.

If you wish to compose your post entirely in Norwegian, you know quite
well that I cannot stop you.  But I surmise that you also realize that
it isn't going to be understood by very many people outside of your
puny little country (and perhaps a few wayward souls in Minnesota).
And moreover you would be flamed by a good number of USENET readers
(and not just American ones) for wasting net resources by posting a
message that hardly anyone can understand.  (It seems that only the
frogs are so ill-mannered as to engage in such rude and boorish
behavior as this.)

So, by your actions, you acknowledge that, to have your message
understood by the greatest number of readers, it is in your own
interest to compose your post in the language that is spoken in the
most pre-eminent nation in the world (which, by the way, is _NOT_
Great Britain, let alone England).  You at one time used to be an
American, so it is to your advantage that you have been educated in
are thus are quite proficient in this language.
-- 
The views expressed herein are   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously   ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
as this would hold such views??? ||
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,rec.music.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Madonna on Sinead O'Connor
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:30:13 GMT

In article <4602@iris.mincom.oz.au> shaun@iris.mincom.oz.au (Man in Polyester Suit) writes:
>Louis Alberto Bueno (L-Bueno@cup.portal.com) wrote:
> :  
> : 	Joey Buttafuoco (is that the right spelling?) was the face in
> : the picture that Madonna tore up, while saying "fight the real enemy" (words
> : identical to Sinead O'Connor).  It must have stirred someone to action;
> : Joey's auto body shop took a bullet from a passerby recently.
>
>Who the hell is "Joey Buttafuoco (is that the right spelling?)" and what does
>he have to do with Madonna?

Australia, seemingly, was spared the ravages of the Amy Fisher
Triplecast.

A long time ago, in a far away kingdom called Long Island, this
forty-something prince named Joey charmed a little peasant girl named
Amy.  What happens next is a Rashamon-like mystery, as Amy (a high
school student turned prostitute) maintains that Joey seduced her, and
made her shoot his wife in the head; and Joey, who isn't really a
prince but an auto mechanic, says that he didn't touch Amy (and so
didn't commit statutory rape), just had pizza with her, and that she
shot his wife all on her own.  One thing is certain, though: all three
major networks in America rushed three separate made-for-TV movies
into production, and so these United States was subject to a terrible
barrage of "The Amy Fisher Story" on many fronts.

You should perhaps be thankful that a certain American fascination
with sleezy little stories like this isn't exported to Oz.  An example
of "American exceptionalism" if nothing else.


--
<Phone rings> "Hello?...  He did what?...  Bomb 'em....  I'm still
President."
			-- Dana Carvey's George Bush, 1/16 SNL
From: buckmr@rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: REQUEST: Contact Info for 103rd Congress
Date: 25 Jan 93 21:34:26 GMT
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA03115; Mon, 25 Jan 93 13:34:34 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA18501; Mon, 25 Jan 93 13:34:31 -0800
X-Received: from client.its.rpi.edu (vccsouth23.its.rpi.edu) by rpi.edu (4.1/SMHUB41);
	id AA04557; Mon, 25 Jan 93 16:34:30 EST for talk.politics.misc.usenet@decwrl.dec.com
X-Received: by client.its.rpi.edu (4.1/SUB16);
	id AA26330; Mon, 25 Jan 93 16:34:30 EST for talk.politics.misc.usenet@decwrl.dec.com
X-To: activ-l@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu
X-Cc: talk.politics.misc.usenet




I noticed that in the action on Zoe Baird sent out last weekend individual
phone numbers for the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee were posted.

Does anyone out there have a directory for all 535 members of the 103rd
congress? I know such a file existed for the 102nd congress. I have it, and
have made it publically available in /pub/QRD/qrd/info/GOVT/congress on
128.2.35.7.

If you have phone/fax/postal info for Members of Congress, please send it to
me.

Thanks!


---
 .vox:(518)-276-8910 fax:(518)-276-6920 buckmr@rpi.edu buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet
``No exam-cheating, pot-smoking, draft-dodging, privileged youth Vice-President
in a "Bush The Blamer" administration can speak with moral authority about
abandoned moral values and assuming personal responsibility.''--Jesse Jackson
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70500 alt.politics.clinton:21541
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: THANK YOU, BILL!!! THANK YOU!!
Date: 28 Jan 1993 22:50:30 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, matjmm@gsusgi1.gsu.edu (J. Morgan Morris) says:

>And you didn't deny that you were a lunatic. You also didn't deny the autoerotic 
>frenzy part. Here's guessing that the "Rod of Reality" is more like the "Q-tip
>of Lunacy".
>

        Yes, yes, of course.  I AM a lunatic.  Everybody else has 
        already tuned me out.  You're the only one left in the room :)

        
         Here, we might as well have some yuks about it.  There'll
         be plenty of time to feel bad later.  Try this, that I 
         did a couple of days ago:


    Get yourself a cowboy hat, a saxophone and the soundtrack from
    "Toys".   Get in your car, pop in the tape, and blow along with
    the first track on side 1.  Then, every once in awhile, put your 
     head out the window and yell,

        " YEEEEEEEEHHHHHH
                   HAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!! 

      Gravy train is coming 
                   DOOOWWWNNNNNN!!!!!! "


    Try it, it's great.


    You know, in anticipation of this inaugural event, I was doing a 
    little studying up on 1930-1939.  You want to know something
    AMAZING?   Nobody, almost NOBODY, wanted to talk about the upcoming
    war.  They just went into this massive group-denial of reality.


    Personally, I would never have believed it, if I hadn't seen it
    with my own two eyes.  I *still* can't.

>
>>     There's still time.  If I were you, I'd get that house on
>>     the market TODAY!  And you should move assets out of 
>>     country while it's still legal.
>
>Don't have a house. Right now I'm investing in my children's lives
>to the point that all assets are gone. I hope to buy a house in the
>near future, but I realize that my children are more important. *People*
>are our greatest assets, and I hope that we now have a government that
>realizes that fact.
>
>Later,
>Morgan
>
>-- 
>
>John Morgan Morris
>Department of Mathematics and Computer Science
>Georgia State University
>University Plaza
>Atlanta, GA. 30303-3083
>
>Internet: matjmm@gsusgi1.gsu.edu
>Telephone: (404) 651-2253
>FAX: (404) 651-2246
>
>

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Are you pro-choice on education? (was Re: Pro-)
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 23:17:46 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.201613.27707@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.004906.26636@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>Because, Craig, many pro-choice people are intelligent enough to distinguish
>>between an issue of personal autonomy and an issue of government subsidies
>>for the rich.
>
>How would a voucher system be any more a 'subsidy for the rich'
>than the current public school system? This is a red herring.
>
>Pro-abortion-choice folks often speak of the family planning
>angle. (can't let an 'unwanted' child be brought out into the world.)
>Why isn't the best education for your child considered
>a part of the important life choices that a family should be able to
>plan for? 

Are you proposing government funding of abortions?  That's the true
analogy.

The analogy is between outlawing abortion and outlawing private schools.
The other possible analogy is between funding private abortions and
funding private schools.  Do you see how the original analogy of
allowing abortion and funding private schools is invalid?
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69320 alt.atheism:26867 talk.religion.misc:27319
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Madeleine Murray O'HaIR (not O'Hare!)
Date: 22 Jan 93 23:51:38 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <C19pC5.1rxt@austin.ibm.com>, frank@austin.ibm.com (F. Karner) writes:
|> 
|> In article <Jan.22.07.10.37.1993.754@romulus.rutgers.edu>, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
|> > In article <1993Jan21.162625.17617@aber.ac.uk> 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".
|> > You Brits do as you like, but if you are going to address us Yanks,
|> > please do us the courtesy of spelling the words as we would perceive
|> > them to be spelled correctly.
|> > 
|> 
|> Can it be that you made the above comment in jest?  

I don't think Ted knows how to jest, except in using that 
lumbering pompous writing style he adopts when he imagines 
he is delivering some ace put-down.  Ted's a kind of Buckley
manque: all the heavy-handed sarcasm, and none of the wit or
learning.

In this case, he's simply wrong.   The spelling "tyre" is an 
acceptable variant spelling, right here in the good ol' US 
of A.

jon.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70100 alt.politics.clinton:21369 misc.legal:23429 soc.culture.african.american:14398
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,misc.legal,soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: NO! President Bill, 72% of Americans are NOT lawyers!
Date: 26 Jan 93 21:52:17 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1993Jan26.193602.18031@news.acns.nwu.edu> pakrat@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Robert Grogan) writes:
>	Even if you discard the fact that 72% of them are lawyers, look at how
>they stack up as "qualified" for their positions.  Fine, a law degree is
>useful when one occupies a political position (that belief being the reason
>that is a republic and not self-government- not good) I can at least accept
>that part.  However, when qualified candidates are blatantly passed over in
>favor of a black candidate, who so ever is a lawyer becomes irrelevant.  

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that the set of "qualified" candidates and
"black" candidates was mutually exclusive.

>	It is a load of shit that the new administration is shoveling.  Either
>decide that the moral ramifications of nominating minorities outweighs the
>pragmatic aspects of actually getting someone useful inoffice, or don't.  But
>don't try to convince me that theses selections are QUALIFIED!!!!

Well, why don't you try to convince us that these selections are any
less qualified than the white men they replaced.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
From: XA.U20@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Libertarians and Labor Unions
Date: 22 Jan 1993 18:41:52 -0800
Organization: Stanford University
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: morrow.stanford.edu

In article <C19vJ4.BD7@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
Timothy.J.Young@dartmouth.edu (Timothy J. Young) writes:
>In article <Jym.19Jan1993.1919@naughty-peahen>
>jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:
>
>> =o= Unless that happens, it is entirely reasonable to suspect
>> the Libertarian platform of representing the interests of
>> powerful members of the private sector rather than the interests
>> of individuals _per_se_.
>>     <_Jym_>
>
> Well, Jym, there's a good reason it seems that way : it is that way.
>Big Business would rather deal with a small government than a big one,
>so they can get away with more shady dealings. The Libertarian party
>has money : do you think a truly progressive party would ever get the
>kind of financial support the Libertarian Party gets? Of course it's a
>party of wealthy private interest : so are the Republicans, and, to a
>lesser extent, the Democrats. Personally, Wall Street frightens me a
>lot more than Washington does...
>
>Tim Young - Dartmouth College, Class of 1996

Is this supposed to be a joke?  "The Libertarian Party has money"?
The New Alliance Party, a bunch of slightly crazy socialists, raised
and spent more money on their presidential campaign than we did on
the Marrou/Lord effort.  I spent about $8000 to run my whole
California Senate campaign.  The largest contribution I got (as best
as I can recall from memory) was $300.  The vast majorty of
contributions were less than $100, perhaps more than half being $50
or less.  Most libertarians are working professionals, not high
rollers.  I, and most Libertarians did not get any PAC money.

Big business *wants* to deal with big government because only big
government has the power to legally protect them from competition.
Most regulations are initiated by those who will be regulated
because it creates barriers to the entry of new competition.  Big
government allows the haves to keep the have-nots from getting
their foot in the door.

/June