HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: alberti@ux.acs.umn.edu (Timothy Fay)
Subject: Re: right to bear arms
Organization: Revolutionary Anarchist Bowling League
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 06:51:26 GMT

I think it is outrageous that there are people out in the woods teaching
bears to shoot at defenseless hunters...  Next thing you know, they'll be
giving pistols to deer, and uzis to squirrels...

What?  What's that...?  The right to bear arms, not arm bears...?
Oh, sorry...

-- 
		Reply to:  avatar@pnet51.orb.mn.org
 "Bowl a strike, not a spare; Revolution everywhere!"  -RABL credo

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: LP, GATT, and Beer (Was: Ross Perot)
Date: 10 Apr 92 19:27:56 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Boeing Computer Services Advanced Technology Center

In article <1992Apr6.181904.1173@kpc.com> emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff) writes:

>The Japanese consumers suffer from trade barriers now that they're a major
>econimic force. In the Post WWII trade barriers on key products (like
>televisions) enabled their industries to survive and grow, since they had no 
>external competition. Japan's consumers would not be as well off today
>if trade barriers weren't in place when they were needed. 

Nor would they be as well off if their trade industries hadn't learned the
slick game of selling their products outside the US, where the IRS can't tax
the profit, and then having the same products sold by their subsidiaries
inside the US for little or no profit.  That way, they pay little or no taxes
to the US on their real earnings from US sales.
-- 
    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Polling Fraud?
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 01:56:16 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.004624.15558@kpc.com> emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff) writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.214146.3820@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>Do you have any examples of the "many" instances of polling fraud?
>
>No. That's what bothers me. It seems like polls are the only US business
>that has no trace what so ever of any dishonest/unethical behavior. It's
>very strange. As far as I know, It's not regulated. What's to stop Rev. 
>Moon from conduting a Washinton Times Poll to further his own agenda?

The fact that when the poll is constantly demonstrated to be wrong, they'll
cease to have credibility.  There are too many poll-takers out there for
someone to engage in "fraud."

As for people using polls to further their own agenda, it happens all the
time.  The secret is education -- if you know how polls are constructed,
and have a sense of what's statistically significant, you become far
less impressed when the media tells you that Clinton has gained three
points on Bush in the last week.
-- 
Ted Frank          + "He wanted to be the car rather than the thimble or the
1307 E 60 St, #109 +  hat."  -- District attorney explaining Marc Cienkowski's
U o' C Law Skool   +  murder with bow and arrow of Michael Klucznik in
Chi, IL 60637      +  Doylestown Borough, PA over a game of Monopoly.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:16973 talk.politics.guns:11262 misc.entrepreneurs:1477 alt.individualism:2286
From: sybok@m4-035-17.MIT.EDU (The Terminator)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,misc.entrepreneurs,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Dumb, Sheltered College Puke( wasRe: Perot hang'in from a willow tree)
Keywords: WRONG NEWS GROUPS....
Date: 6 Apr 92 19:46:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <1992Apr6.135722.14824@athena.mit.edu> sike@athena.mit.edu (Michael G Sheldon) writes:
>In article <1992Apr3.223541.2704@athena.mit.edu>, sybok@m4-035-4.MIT.EDU (The Terminator) writes:
>|> ...  Drugs should be legalized.  The illegality of drugs
>|> creates crime, not the drugs.
>
>Then murder should be legalized?  By your reasoning, the illegality of murder
>creates crime, not the murder.

No, No.  Different effects accrue based upon whether the legalized act
has a victim who is harmed by the act.  Legalizing victimless crimes,
like gambling, prostitution, buying firearms, or buying drugs reduces
crime because the vying "companies/cartels" can resort to court room
battles instead of violence to settle their disputes, since their now
legal endeavors have standing in court.  Legalizing violent acts with
victims--rape, murder, robbery, assault, etc.--won't solve anything and
will either increase lawlessness or force everyone to hire protection.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18199 alt.politics.elections:913
From: ARBOGASTW@vaxb.gbus.virginia.edu (Warren Arbogast)
Subject: Re: Greedy Athletes
Organization: Darden Center, University of Virginia
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 18:55:52 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.002351.6896@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>In article <18370@ector.cs.purdue.edu> gritter@cs.purdue.EDU (Carl R. Gritter) writes:
>>The owner gets twice as much as Wayne because he/she is the one who is
>>taking all the risks.  


>Incidentally, the San Jose Sharks was a good counter-example refutation
>of my incorrect statement about marketing.  I'll be curious to see
>whether the franchise can continue its success ten years down the road
>when the novelty's worn off and the other major professional sports
>realize what a large market they're ignoring.

That's what it's all about.  Who knows what will happen ten years down the 
road.  But, given my pick, I'd take the Sharks over, say, the Whalers.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,misc.taxes,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 18:57:35 GMT

lbr@holos0.uucp (Len Reed) writes:
>If enough persons opt out of vaccination, though, no herd immunity results,
>and the disease is an ongoing problem.

Then educate, not legislate.  How about a safe AIDS vaccine?.  Would
people get innculated?  Hell yes.  Certainly not everyone, but more
than enough to give it a damned hard time spreading.

If, after someone hears that if they don't get the innoculation they
could die, and they still don't want to get innoculated, so be it.
One middle ground might be to treat it as any other attack.  If you
give someone AIDS and you aren't innoculated, that might well be
equivalent to manslaughter.
-- 
Where there's a will, there's a relative.
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: more info on Perot: 1st article of 2
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 18:09:42 GMT

<SML108@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>Well, I'm sure that money has been saved, but one questions how it has been
>saved.  All following figures & quotes are from America: What Went Wrong?
>by Barlett and Steele.  In 1978, before deregulation, the price of a round
>trip ticket from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh was $86.  Today, it is $260.
>A round trip ticket from NYC to Washington DC cost $38.  Today, it costs
>$142.  If gasoline prices had risen at the same rate, a gallon of gas
>would now cost $2.33.  This is savings? 

You can't just show two legs and claim that's representative.  For all
we know those could be the worst examples of increases, and given the
name of the book that's probably very likely.  It could very well be
that those legs were being excessively subsidized by other legs
previously.  How about the other legs that used to cost hundreds of
dollars and that SouthWest airlines now flies at $47?


>In 1978, the top ten airlines
>accounted for 88% of the air mileage flown in the United States.  Today,
>they account for 94%.  This is healthy competition?

Yes.  As the less capable airlines are shaken out, the others pick up
their routes.  If all the top ten airlines were horrible, you'd see
the opposite effect.


>In 1990, the worst financial year in American aviation history,
>airline losses mounted to 3.9 billion dollars.  Since deregulation,
>Trans-World, Pan-American, Eastern, Midway, Continental, America West
>and Braniff airlines have declared bankruptcy.  Braniff has done so 3
>times now.

Excellent.  This is what happens when we no longer subsidize their
shoddy business practices.  Someone else is doing it when they declare
bankruptcy, but that's another issue, along with the question of who
would deal with Braniff after the first two bankruptcies.


>In 1978, the average age for our airlines planes was 7.56 years.  Today, it
>is 13.5 years. In comparison, the average age of European and Asian planes
>is 10.4 and 8.7 years respectively.

If the planes are still safe after 13.5 years I don't see a problem
with this.
-- 
As soon as everybody chooses the wrong side, it then, by some miracle,
becomes the right side.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dave@soil.gsfc.nasa.gov (David Graham)
Subject: Re: Dumb, Sheltered College Puke( wasRe: Perot hang'in from a willow tree)
Keywords: WRONG NEWS GROUPS....
Reply-To: dave@soil.gsfc.nasa.gov (David Graham)
Organization: NASA/GSFC code 923
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 17:31:08 GMT

In article <Apr.6.10.47.54.1992.6323@gandalf.rutgers.edu>,
shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
|> sike@athena.mit.edu (Michael G Sheldon) writes:
|> 
|> >In article <1992Apr3.223541.2704@athena.mit.edu>,
sybok@m4-035-4.MIT.EDU (The Terminator) writes:
|> >|> ...  Drugs should be legalized.  The illegality of drugs
|> >|> creates crime, not the drugs.
|> 
|> >Then murder should be legalized?  By your reasoning, the illegality
of murder
|> >creates crime, not the murder.
|> 
|> Then you obviously don't understand his reasoning.  The crime that
the
|> illegality of drugs creates is not the crime of taking drugs, it is
the
|> whole underground crime world that is created in order to fill the 
|> demand for the illegal drugs.  Legalizing recreational drugs would
|> do away with the organized crime that makes is living off the sale
|> of these drugs.  
|> 

One thing that is overlooked here is crime created from dependancy.
As the life of the drug addicted degrades ( no longer can hold job )
often times these people turn to crime to support their addiction.
You may do away with some levels of organized crime, but I still
believe
crime would still be a major problem within our inner-cities.
--
_____________________________________________________________________
|                                      |                            |
|             /\W_W/\                  | David W. Graham            |
|          __/  0 0  \__               | Code 923.0                 |
|         __<\       />_\              | NASA/GSFC                  |
|        / <\  \___/  />               | Greenbelt, MD 20771        |
|         <     _|_     >              |                            |
|        <     /   \     >             | Voice: (301) 286-3799      |
|       < __          __ >             |                            |
|______<_/  _________/  _>_____________| Internet:                  |
|        UUU         UUU               |    dave@soil.gsfc.nasa.gov |
|                                      |                            |
|  Everyone's entitled to my opinion.  |                            |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: solomon@chaos.utexas.edu (Thomas Solomon)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Why doesn't anyone mention Lawton Chiles?
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:21:11 GMT
Reply-To: solomon@chaos.utexas.edu (Thomas Solomon)
Organization: University of Texas at Austin, Center for Nonlinear Dynamics

In article <167C0A776.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
> 
>He [Jerry Brown] has latched onto the current discontent in the country,
>and has come up with his $100 gimmick to get votes.  
> 

All of this talk about Brown's $100 limit makes me wonder:  why doesn't
anyone mention the fact that Lawton Chiles (spelling?) is the one who
came up with this idea a couple of years ago when he ran for governor
of Florida?  Chiles did the exact same thing:  he would not accept any
donation > $100, arguing that he would remain closer to the popular
electorate that way (and less prone to big money influence).  Chiles
was _tremendously_ successful with this approach, sweeping him to
an upset victory over then-governor Martinez (now drug czar).  Why do
I get the feeling that Brown saw how successful Chiles was with this
approach and thought, "Wow!  This might be just the gimmick to get
me the Presidency?"  I realize that I am probably being a bit cynical
here, but it concerns me that Brown is not giving any credit at all
to Chiles for this idea, which is, after all, the centerpiece of
Brown's campaign.

		Tom Solomon
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: US Election Results (Regional Ministers)
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 20:37:29 GMT

demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>In article <01GIP4QR5700000B19@utarlg.uta.edu>, B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (Stephen Tice) writes:
>> 
>>        ===   Election Results for New Regional Ministers   ===
>> 
>>                Great
>>                Lakes          
>>                -----------    
>>                Pat            
>>                Schroeder      

>	Ack!  Never!

We have to let her, or she'll cry.
-- 
Why did the chicken cross the road?  The rooster was on the other side.
From: marosen@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Mark Rosen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The Nation on Clinton
Date: 12 Apr 92 15:56:19 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

Congress is about to pass a campaign reform bill, with provisions for
Congressional campaigns and for presidential campaigns.

Bush has promised to veto this bill.

-- 
Mark J. Rosen        marosen@gandalf.rutgers.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Subject: Re: Don't vote for Brown! (Was Re: Perot Or Brown. Vote For Change!)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University
Date: 12 Apr 92 04:32:12 GMT

tami@niktow.canisius.edu (Tami Crawford) writes:

>Vote for Perot if you want change.  Brown is just a sleazy version of
>the worst we've got in politicians.   I sent him some money when
>he first started campaigning because I thought he stood for something.
>Then I watched his stump speeches from several different places, and
>saw his slanderous statements, saw him duck the issues and spout
>anger about everything under the sun before I realized I had been duped.

So, what if Parot is what he seems to have done, a ruthless capitalist,
who is uncompromisingly used to getting his way? What makes running a
computer services company as a strong man incline his to work with
the give and take of a three branch government?

Brown, for all the sleeze (Is he any less sleezy than the last two
presidents, or LBJ, or by some readings, JFK?) has said something
that rings true: There is a one-party govermnent in DC which needs
to be taken over by outsiders. The do-nothing governemt of partisan
bickering, on one hand and the good-old-boy system of veteren
insiders at the Capitol, protecting time honored priveleges, both
result in no action on pressing issues. This is a true in Sacromento
as it is in DC, because the dynamics are the same, a liberal
legislature is faced off by an executive who says "no" alot more
than "what can we do?" Political ideology translates to
political inaction and at the same time joining the gang means you
look out for the gang and ignore the rest of the state or nation.

At the same time, the answers don't really come from guys like
Parot, who really have had the ear of the administrations in
Washington for the past decade, and that has come to naught.
Not only is America, or Americans, not better off than they
were four or eight years ago, but business people haven't 
really provided the leadership to make a healthy economy and
nation, indeed acting in their own self interest they have hurt
both the economy and the nation. The one thing lacking in
government and business which the political doctrine of
Reagan/Bush could have promoted is long term planning and
a government/business partnership in investment in infrastructure
and research and development, beyond tax credits. What is
lacking in this tax-cut, less governent is good, are ideas,
and leadership. I know Parot has said things along these lines,
but can we trust him, given his inexperience with government,
to get them done?

Bruce Salem

Bruce Salem


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18509 alt.politics.elections:1018 misc.taxes:2297 alt.society.civil-liberty:3516
From: ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush Secretly Aided Saddam Until August 1990
Date: 12 Apr 92 23:00:15 GMT
Organization: The Dorsai Grey Captains

In article <brian.703117295@coombs> brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian) writes:

>	That the present government of Turkey, continues the oppression of
>the Kurdish people, and prevents their self-determination is just typical
>of the sorts of regimes that America chooses to prop up rather than help
>overthrow.  So much for a belief in the principles of "democracy" and 
>"freedom".

You know, I just had to laugh when I read this paragraph.  Here, you castigate
the U.S. for not helping overthrow scumbag regimes.  In other threads, however,
you castigate the U.S. for being an imperialistic power when it goes in and 
overthrows said scumbag regimes, such as the late regime in Panama.  Best I
can tell, it's damned if we do and damned if we don't.
-- 
Matthew DeLuca                      "Being next to Dorsai is a slow form of
Georgia Institute of Technology      the 'dissolve' command..."
Office of Information Technology    
Internet: ccoprmd@prism.gatech.edu                  - Banzai, Merc V
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: pmm7@ellis.uchicago.edu (peggy boucher murphy (you had to ask?))
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Reply-To: pmm7@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 01:19:14 GMT

In article <BVNyiB8w164w@Nitro.CtEdge.COM> djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM writes:
>mike@batpad.lgb.CA.US (Mike Batchelor) writes:
>> djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM writes:
>> > mike@batpad.lgb.CA.US (Mike Batchelor) writes:
>
>Yes I have. Several times. Kid was being treated like a g-d damn
>puppy dog and the 'husband' (a big fat ugly thing with a screwed
>up face who acted macho and antagonistic towards males) was
>the best argument for 'homophobia' I've ever seen.

idle curiousity...
where did you see this?  when?  how do you know they were 
lesbians?  have you never seen heteros dragging kids around?
have you tried to raise kids yourself?  

>> > To inflict that life on someone who has no choice is a crime
>> > against humanity.

are you against the infliction of religion?  political 
beliefs?  bigotry?  lack of education/culture/whatever?  
many things are inflicted upon children.  they *never* have
a choice.  this is reality.

peg
From: B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (Stephen Tice)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "Politically Correct" -- A Quote
Date: 7 Apr 92 20:37:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: utarlg.01GIKKEB534W0001SQ

Ron Dippold (dippold@cancun.qualcomm.com, 6 Apr.) wrote:
}(in Re: "Politically Correct" -- A Quote),
}
}harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (Harel Barzilai) writes:
}>A PC Quotable 
}>                                --Jamin Raskin, from "The Fallacies of   
}>                                'Political  Correctness'" in January Z. 
} 
} .... The least you could do
}is do as usual and cite someone who was at least pretending to be
}viewing it objectively.

On the issue of PC-Quotes, and (almost) completely aside from the previous 
exchange, there's this (p)olitical (c)artoon in the university paper
today: (From the strip "TyPOS" by Dick Collier),

[1st Frame, Two folks meeting at the counter in a cocktail bar...]

P:  "So what's your political persuasion?"

C:  "I'm BIPARTISAN."

[2nd Frame, Raised eyebrow to demure looks...]

P:  "... Y-You MEAN ..."

C:  " Yes, I'll go either way."

P:  "Ooooh!"

[Last Frame, Pan of room includes other end of bar, a couple of
 college students have over-heard the exchange...]

Student A: [Shocked expression]

Student B: [A look of worldy wisdom...] 
          "The backlash to Political Correctness: *Political Kinkiness*.

				:-) (-:


== Sdt == b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu == Neither a borrower nor a lender be. ==  

   {Any moderate in bed with both camps deserves getting `kooties.' ;^}
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18171 talk.politics.guns:11669 misc.entrepreneurs:1533 alt.individualism:2445
From: john@anasaz (John Moore)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A flat tax is too progressive (was Jerry's Tax)
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:24:03 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc. Phoenix, AZ, USA

Keywords: 

In article <1992Apr15.132855.5410@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> weverka@spot.Colorado.EDU (Robert T. Weverka) writes:
]In article <1992Apr14.231156.29813@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bf957@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Barry H. Rodin) writes:
]>In a previous article, john@anasaz (John Moore) says:
]>>I just love the terminology that we have in the tax debate. A flat
]>>tax means that the amount I pay for government "services" is
]>>proportional to my income - the more money I make, the more I get screwed.
]>>A "progressive" tax means I get screwed exponentially!
]>>
]>>A FAIR tax would be a flat amount of money paid by each person to his
]>>government. A flat tax is just MORE fair than a "progressive" tax -
]>>which is ridiculously unfair.
]>>
]>>The word "fair" has come to mean "take more from anyone less deserving
]>>of having money than me - ie, anyone who makes more of it." What a
]>>sad state of affairs.
]>>
]>>-- 
]>I agree !
]>If we have "One man -- one vote"
]>we should also have "One man -- one tax"   !!!
]>
]Let's see...  National budget -a few trillion
]              # of people     -quarter billion
]
]only $8000 each.
]Yes, Lets have a head tax of $8000 each.  Anybody that can't pay
]we will throw in jail.  
]At my income level I just have to give up the rice and beans and maybe
]move into that spot under the bridge.  I'm sure the other homeless
]people there will make room (or maybe they'll be tossed in jail for
]not paying head tax, that'll make room for me)

This is a pretty good reason for reducing federal spending, not
making the taxes more unfair.


-- 
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
 - - Support ALL ...erk  glugh   mmpph.... Memory fault (core dumped)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18025 alt.politics.elections:856