HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli)
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Organization: Mentor Graphics -- IC Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:07:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.172351.10258@uoft02.utoledo.edu> steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (jason "Think!" steiner) writes:
>let's say i park my (non-existant) new car in the bad section of town,
>doors unlocked, keys in the ignition, and leave it there overnight.
>
>obviously, that doesn't make stealing it any more justifiable. the
>people who will inevitably do it should be punished all the same.
>but nobody is going to sympathize with my plight, much less want
>to replace my car for me. and the more i whine about my bad luck
>and what a victim i am the more people will scoff.

Nobody is looking for simpathy.  Well, PWAs are looking for
simpathetic healthcare, but isn't anyone who is sick?

People do want a cure to be found.

Let's refine your analogy.  I park in a neighborhood that looks
safe, but actually there is a car stealing ring stealing about
2-3 cars a night.  The police don't want to make it public because
it might give their neighborhood a bad reputation.  My car gets
stolen.

Do I want simpathy?  Well, yeah.  But what I really want is
for posters to be put up all over that warn people about the
problem.  I want all car drivers, and even those who don't, to
know.  People that don't drive should find out so they can
protect their friends, and they should get educated so they
have the CORRECT information so they don't panic and think that
this car ring is also rapeing people.

I know people that do treatment for PWAs.  90% of the people
they treat are minority women who got it from their boyfriend
or IV drug use AND NONE OF THEM THOUGHT THEY COULD GET AIDS.

The radical right and even the moderates have worked to stop
HIV education in schools.  The government's "America Responds
To AIDS" commercials refuse to MENTION condoms!  The local
prison spends THOUSANDS of dollars on AZT, and $0 for condoms
(I spoke to someone running for sherif last night).

Get a clue.

>sure, i feel sympathetic toward people who have AIDS. it's a shame 
>that anyone has to die, much less like that. however there are a lot 
>of people, including myself, who feel like some AIDS activists are
>screaming that we should be "replacing their cars" and we're getting 
>rather uncomfortable about being painted as heartless bastards just 
>'cause we'd rather not pay the price for someone else's thoughtless 
>fun. 

Name one activist that does that.  Name them.  Fax me any ACT UP
flyers that request that kind of thing.  Send me email if you want
my fax number.

Tom
-- 
Tom Limoncelli -- tal@warren.mentorg.com (work) -- tal@plts.uucp (play)
"I like Bill Clinton tremendously.  I know him from the governors' conferences.
The Democrats nominated their best person, a very able fellow.  The country is
well served by that choice." -Bush's re-election chair in NJ (Thomas Kean)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7980 alt.fan.dan-quayle:4789 alt.politics.bush:7337
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Quayle is more charitable than Gore
Date: 30 Sep 92 21:51:46 EDT

In article <1992Sep29.223717.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>, cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>      Here's an interesting little piece I found in the October 5
> National Review (pg. 12, col. 2):
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


HOHOHO! HA HA HA! HEEHEEHEEHEEHEE :) _National Review_. That's a good one.
NOW GO AWL UNDER YOUR ROCK UNTIL NEXT ELECTION OK?

> 
>      In this corner, Al Gore, apostle of charity, compassion, and
>      saving the earth.  His opponent, Dan Quayle -- avatar of
>      Republican greed and selfishness.  Tax returns show that the 
>      two had similar incomes last year.  Guess which one gave more
>      to charity?  Of course.  The Quayles gave $5,670, or 3 per cent
>      of their income, while the Gores gave $1,727 -- less than 
>      1 per cent.  Maybe Mr. Gore was trying to strengthen the case
>      for federal poverty programs.
> 
> It looks like Gore, the media-proclaimed moderate, is really just
> another hypocritical bleeding heart -- since his public rhetoric
> dwarfs his private generosity.
> 
>      C. Perttunen

Bullshit. The Republiclones go out of their way to try any and every angle
of distortion that they can dream up. What percentage of _your_ income
have you honestly donated to charity? How about Fearless Leader GWBH?
How come your revered National Review (an extermeist Republiclone magazine
which spews out propoganda that Herman Goebells himself would have
been proud of) doesn't show GWBHs charitable contributions. Or how
about America's First Son who ripped off the tax payers $2.5M and got
off scott-free. You people make me sick.

Anyone who thinks Dan Quayle is competant at *anything* is also a MORON
and should be equally ridiculed.

-Garrett
From: McAldon International Inc. <mcaldon@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Date: 05 Oct 92 20:49 PDT
Subject: Re: community based boot camps
Nf-ID: #R:1992Oct5.215001.6764@crd.ge.com:1522301742:cdp:1588800020:000:1028
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!mcaldon    Oct  5 20:49:00 1992


|[more references to Clinton's "boot camps" deleted]
|Excuse my skepticism, but how is this better/cheaper/more effective
|than just sending these folks to prison ? How is it
|better/cheaper/more effective than just sending them home ? Sounds
|marginally fascist to me...
|Ed Stokes
                  
The recidivism rate of youthful offenders sent to conventional prisons
is horrendous, something like 65-75% I believe.  These boot camps would
resemble [this is my guess] the Calif. Conservation Corps that was
successful under Gov. Brown, and might be able to educate the young
offenders to take their places in society.  Certainly the present
system is not working.  DMcKenzie
            
|                        |        definitions-->DEMOCRACY        |
|                        |        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^        |    
|    mcaldon@igc.org     |   A temporary condition, teetering    |
|                        |  between anarchy and a police state   |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
From: 75300.3115@compuserve.com (Clinton for President)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Satellite Schedules for Tuesday 9/28
Date: 29 Sep 92 08:24:16 GMT

Satellite Schedules for Tueasday 9/28

Please distribute

1.

Al Gore Iraq-Gate speech,  Washington  D.C. 

9:00 am CDT		10:00 am EDT

	COORDINATES

satellite:		Galaxy 6
transponder:		5
uplink frequency:	6025
downlink frequency:	3800
audio:			6.2/6.8


2.

Clinton rally

11:00 am CDT		12:00am EDT

	COORDINATES

satellite:		Galaxy 6
transponder:		19
uplink frequency:	6305
downlink frequency:	4080
audio:			6.2/6.8

Great viewing
Jock Gill
Little Rock



Distribution:
  General >internet:C-General-Distr@mail.clinton-gore.org
  All Volunteers >internet:c-all-volunteers-distr@mail.clinton-gore.org
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8521 talk.politics.misc:49605 alt.rush-limbaugh:6552 alt.politics.bush:7753
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
Date: 5 Oct 92 13:39:30
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
	<lcpdggINN8hn@spim.mti.sgi.com> <BvMKsu.90v@ddsw1.mcs.com>
	<ld0vk7INNah0@spim.mti.sgi.com>
	<farenebt.718311620@craft.camp.clarkson.edu>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu's message of 5 Oct 92 19:00:20 GMT

In article <farenebt.718311620@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell ("Droopy")) writes:

> >Tom Haden was a member of the Chicago 7, former husband of Jane
> >Fonda, a very, very, left wing activist.  Later he moderated
> >his views and was elected as a Democarate in Southern Calif.
> 
> He musta been REALLY radical if he had to moderate his views
> for Southern California!!

On the contrary.  California has the reputation of being a liberal
state, but that reputation is misleading.  *Northern* California,
particularly the San Francisco Bay Area, is indeed rather more liberal
than the rest of the country, but, similarly, Southern California
(particularly Orange County) is much more conservative than most of
the country.  Very few elected politicians there are Democrats.

As a consequence, statewide elections here in California are rather
odd.  Liberal candidates and causes almost always win in the north,
and conservative candidates and causes almost always win the the
south.  In the campaigns I've been involved with, the question tends
to be whether the margin we get in the Bay Area is sufficient to
overcome the opposite margin in Orange County.
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8424 alt.rush-limbaugh:6515
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: difference between Democrats and GOP
Date: 4 Oct 92 19:32:41 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR

In article <2491@unet.UUCP> stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) writes:
>Didn't I hear stuff like making homosexuality against the law at the Rep.
>Convention???

No.

>Or was it just some of the RR posters here on the net that
>were calling for such idiocy??

Who?  I haven't heard anyone call for making homosexuality against the
law.*  If any do, they are certainly not in the mainstream and it is
certainly not the position of the Republican party.

* I know some states have laws against certain homosexual (and
heterosexual) acts, but these laws were passed last century or longer ago,
are generally not enforced (yes I know they have been used against some
people and I think it is terrible) and I haven't heard anyone call for
their active enforcement or the passage of more such laws.  BTW, I am for
the immediate repeal of all such laws.
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Subject: Re: The 128 'Clinton' taxes
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 18:12:34 GMT

In article <1588800016@igc.apc.org> Dave Caulkins <dcaulkins@igc.apc.org> writes:
>
> The September 23 issue of the New York Times printed the complete list of
> 128 "Clinton" tax increases in Arkansas.  Actually, the list is much too
> short.  There are only 2 entries for Act 634 covering the fees for milk.
> Clearly there should have been entries for non-fat, low fat, regular, and
> buttermilk, bringing the Clinton tax increase total to 132....

Don't forget the Lactaid ...  Bear in mind, too, that three "tax increases"
are counted for a single item that took three lines to describe.  If the
line length is adjusted so that only one character can fit on a line, then
the number of "tax increases" goes up astronomically!

A completely unrelated question for the Bushies:

A local Republican Senatorial candidate is trying to wheedle votes away from
his Democratic rival by promising to cut costs by firing the 14 elevator
operators in the Senate building.  Would anyone happen to know what percent of
the deficit would be reduced if he got elected (unlikely according to current
polls) and somehow succeeded (as he wouldn't have the authority), considering
that the 14 people he wants to throw out of work would then get unemployment
compensation?


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|	"Test everything; retain what is good."  1 Thessalonians 5:21	      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8506 alt.fan.dan-quayle:4926 alt.politics.bush:7741
From: dfriedman@misvax.mis.arizona.edu (D R Friedman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: George's lie of the day (was: Qyl more charitable?)
Date: 5 Oct 92 23:25:00 GMT
 <1992Oct4.064406.4107@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> <1992Oct5.092345@IASTATE.EDU> <1992Oct5.165740.1@acad.drake.edu>
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona MIS Department
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Oct5.165740.1@acad.drake.edu>, vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes...
>In article <1992Oct5.092345@IASTATE.EDU>, danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>> In article <1992Oct4.064406.4107@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>,
>> bena@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Ben Aveling) writes:
>> 
>>****Much Stuff Deleted***************> 
>>    I'd not be adverse to seeing Democratic lies posted either.  They have been
>> much more subtle this time around and studying them will help me with my
>> communications skills :) :) more than the Republican ones.  
>Interesting that you mention lies... I refer you to my "coup de grace:CLINTON
>Cowardice" I would like to see more Dems. address that. 
> 
>> Dan
>> Danwell@IASTATE.EDU

Dear Dan:

A coup de grace is supposed to be a shot administered to end the
suffering of one mortally wounded.  You have managed to shoot yourself
in the foot.

This cowardice must have been a contagious disease as Dick Cheney, the
secretary of defense caught it and Pat Buchannan, mr republican, begged
out of serving because of a bum knee.  Amazing how Pat is an avid
jogger these days.

I wish I had caught it instead of spending two tours in Vietnam.


Denny
------------------------------
Why change parties in the middle of a screw, vote Republican in '92
[The only campaign slogan George Bush should use]
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: Pro-Abortion
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 16:35:14 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) writes:

: 	Yes. I would have nothing to do with the culturally-brainwashed
: 'College Democrats' like Ms. Seebacher. I love watching them drop
: classes that are 'offensive to their ideals.'

'tis far far better to act upon one's ideals rather than follow the
flow like an unthinking sheep.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92



Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 02:25:51 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Sep25.085020.29253@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
]I disagree. From reports of American politics here in Britain,
]there has been a very concerted effort by American
]Conservatives to use the word "liberal" in a pejorative sense
]and to misuse it to mean someone who believes in state
]interference. This is precisely the opposite of the way it is

The thing to realize is that american liberals used the term the same way.
Those who believed in state interference (in economic matters) happily
called themselves liberals, until other people figured out what they
stood for. Now they call themselves progressives, but conservatives still
use the term liberal.

In other words, the "misuse" of the term is by both sides (but that's okay,
conservative is "misused" also). Don't blame american conservatives...
blame americans. Like may other words, we now use the words liberal
and conservative differently than you do (and differently from
a number of dictionaries who haven't caught up with current usage yet).

The terms have partly been scrambled because they means different things
in different arenas - due to shifting political alliances. At one
time, people who were against state interference in economic matters
were also against state interference in other areas, and these were called
liberals. Conservatives were those who wanted the status quo, regardless
of the level of state interference. More recently, liberals were those
who were against state interference in non-economic matters and for
it in economic matters. Now, some liberals (those of the PC crowd)
are for state interference in non-economic matters also, but interference
by their terms. So, the term has come all the way around from
little interference in any part of life to (at the more extreme of
its adherents) interference in every aspect of life.

]I would suggest that the American pejorative use of the word
]"liberal" is quite intentional since it is meant to tar anyone
]who opposes social authoritarianism with the "socialist" or
]"tax-wasting" brush, and thus to dismiss them without ever
]having to face up to their real case.

Not at all. It is mean to tar anyone who is for reduced government
interference in sexual and free speech matters, but for increased
government interference in almost all other walks of life. Extreme
"liberals," like extreme "conservatives," are social authoritarians,
but in different areas. 

The "perjorative" use is simply a use of a label for people that they
themselves chose, but which they now eschew.
-- 
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
 - - Tree Hugger's Nightmare: Mt. Graham Red Squirrel Stew ...
 - - Have you ever tried looking at the stars through a squirrel? - - -
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: mci41087@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Occaisionally)
Subject: Re: You're a racist! statements
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 07:57:42 GMT

Oddly enough, I agree with the statement that a nation cannot hold together if
it is extremely diverse culturally.  Well, it may not be impossible, and I'm
sure someone will provide me with some historical example to the contrary.  At
yhe very least, however, cultural diversity acts as a destabilizer.  Of course,
that's just fine in my book.  I like culture, and I don't want to see it
repressed.  I, on the other hand, cannot help but loathe what America has done
to the rest of the world (excepting Great Britain, France, and a few others.
So if multiculturalism brings us down, so be it.  By the way, I am neither 
a Dem or a Rep, nor a Perot-vian.  Please do not attribute my attitudes to 
their groups,  They and I just never get along.  I'm a rationalist, you see.

Matt I.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7677 tx.politics:5739
From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Measuring Generousity (was Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Date: 29 Sep 92 14:18:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin

In article <21631@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.143747.22670@novell.com> bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>>I can see your point - in absolute terms, the more you give, the more
>>generous you are.  But I think it's also useful to look at it from a
>>per dollar perspective.
>
>No, this is true only because you have a perspective which says that
>the rich man must give an equal percentage (or more) in order to be
>as "generous".
>
>What you ignore is that the rich man has other completely unrelated
>obligations.  For example, when I started college I applied for
>financial aid.  Because my parent's were middle class, all I got was
>a BEOG for about 1 semester.  Obviously the state thinks I will be
>responsible for my children's education when they are old enough.

Good point.


>So, yes, the rich man has a moral obligation to "share", but the
>obligations don't just stop at "sharing".  They extend to providing
>for the security of his own family, and so on.

Actually, I'm not thinking about this as a moral obligation issue.  My
point is just that if you say, "Joe gave $200 to charity while Bill
only gave $100, therefor, Joe is more generous then Bill" it is fair to
look at other factors such as does Joe make double what Bill makes,
etc...

I don't know about your dictionary, but mine does not define "generous"
in either relative or absolute terms, it's just "willingness to give or
share".  One of my criteria of willingness is, does he have a larger
income from which you donate (keeping in mind your point that he may
have additional responsibilities because of the larger income).


>Again, your perspective is that percentage of total stash is somehow
>the determinent.  Did you "willingly" give it away, or what is forced
>out of you?  Do you plan on giving any more away, or is that it?  There
>are many more questions that quite simply can't be answered in terms of
>percentages.

My context is individuals who are willingly donating to charity, in the
present and past, the future doesn't count; someone can't be considered
generous for something they haven't done yet.

Later,
Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner		Phone: 512/346-8380
Internet: bboerner@novell.com	MHS: bboerner@novell
Please use ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ if replying by mail.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8193 talk.politics.misc:49141 alt.rush-limbaugh:6389 alt.politics.bush:7513
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
Date: 2 Oct 1992 20:50:24 GMT
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

John J Cassidy) writes:
|> > 
|> > After my exhaustive analysis, I have finally concluded that 
|> > I am not a Liberal or a Conservative.  I have yet to find an 
|> > individual, let alone a group or organization whose entire 
|> > platform I could accept and it seems obvious that anyone who 
|> > accepts all of the precepts of Conservativism is just as 
|> > narrow minded and ignorant as someone who accepts all of the 
|> > precepts of Liberalism.
|> > 
|> > 
|> > js
|> 
|> 	I'm with you.  Only I might be considered more of
|> a conservative.  I am more of a socialist, than most conservatives
|> I know.  I am almost tempted to side with the Democratic party
|> some times.  Except that they LIE, and pretend that what they are
|> promising is not socialism.  Tom Haden admits that when he says
|> "economic democracy" that he is really talking about socialism.
|> He says that "socialism" has a bad name, and as such tries to 
|> avoid that term.
|> 
Tom Haden is nor more your typical Democrat than Rush L is your
typical Republican.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7558 talk.politics.misc:48304 alt.politics.bush:6978