HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.latin-america
Subject: Re: Who Were the "Contras" ? (III)
Date: 11 Sep 92 00:10:16 GMT
Organization: Memes-R-Us
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>Edelmiro Salas recently posted a similar account except that the 
>Sandinistas where killing the civilians they didn't like. So Harel,
>are you willing to condem these Sandinista killings and other human
>rights abuses?

Allen, why don't you quit whining and do something like Harel ? Take
it upon yourself to provide a balanced insight into the news, get some
right-wing channels and post their side.

Shut up and quit bitching and do something _tangible_, if you care.

Man, you sound like a five-year-old demanding to know why you can't go
outside and play.

-- richard

-- 
=====
-- richard childers		rchilder@us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411
         oracle data center  --  unix systems & network administration
                    Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.individualism,alt.pagan
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: Who's "free-er"? Intrnat'l response wanted!
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 12:32:23 GMT

In article <exukjb.153.716496272@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>In article <BuKCG0.Gqp@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:

>>You are confusing the having of a right and it's being respected.

>>I have a right to speak even if the government silences me.
>>I have a right to defend myself even if the government leaves me defenseless.
>>I have a right to own property even if the government takes it from me.
>>I have a right to live even if the government kills me.
>>I have a right to petition the government een if the government ignores me.
>>I have a right to make contracts even if the government refuses to recognize them.
>>I have a right to associate with whomever I choose, even if the government 
>>seeks to divide me from my chosen companions.

>>That's what it means for a right to be "inalienable".  Even by ignoring or
>>violating a right, the government cannot make it vanish.

>Can a person be said to have rights that are not respected?  What would an 
>unacknowledged or unrespected "right" look like in practice? 

In the same way as any fact is true whether people choose to recognize it
as such.  The world was still round even back when people thought it was
flat.

A closer analogy would be any old moral principle.  For example, murder is
wrong even if those around you happen to think otherwise and kill you.  A
more abstract analogy would be that there is a right time for a spark plug
to fire and there is a wrong time for it to fire.  No public opinion polls
or government edicts can change that.  All they can do is make an engine that
doesn't work, or stand by a working engine and say "It works this way, but we
could have legislated otherwise.".

I suppose to really get this point, you have to understand that moral
principles are objective facts and not mere opinions.  Is that your 
understanding?

--Brian
From: dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: NEWS: Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
Date: 10 Sep 92 02:11:00 PST
Organization: BBS

In article <1992Sep9.205251.17792@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>,
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.153215.4126@fylz.wa.com> fyl@fylz.wa.com (Phil Hughes)
>writes:
>>: Sounds scary, no?  But how much is that compared to normal background
>>: levels? 
>>Considering that plutonium and americium [are] "manufactured" elements I
>>would suspect that the answer to this question is fairly obvious.
>
>No, no, not how much _plutonium_ compared to normal background plutonium, but
>how much _radiation_ compared to background levels of _radiation_.

excuse me, but do any of you people _know_ if the levels cited in the
greenpeace article are either unusual or dangerous?  i don't.  thus, i tend to
keep my mouth shut.

-dave
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: Rich Richer, Poor Poorer
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 15 Sep 92 13:37:57 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Sep14.223521.24547@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
> The statement: "There are more poor people today than there were".
> 
> seems to have been accepted but countered with: "Many of these
> poor people are now better off due to social mobility".

	Not quite.

	First, there are more poor is the same as saying there are more people. 
Duh.  So express it as a percentage of the population.

	In addition, the people who *were* poor 10 years ago are not the same
people who are poor *today*.  So trying to make it look like a long-term,
endemic issue doesn't wash.

> If these two statements are accepted then the obvious conlcusion is
> that even more people who were either wealthy or at least middle class
> are poor.  This indicates that many people are worse off than they
> were while some are better off.  Is this really a defense of the 80's?

	That's not the conclusion, or a comment on the 80s.

> I would claim that this is due to the switch to a (non-unionized) 
> service economy and also indicates that the US economy is a
> zero-sum game, at best.

	Both are wrong.

	The number of $10/hour jobs or better increased 67% during the Reagan
years and the $10/hour and less jobs decreased by 25% (USA Today, August 17th,
Op-ed page).

	Economics is no more a zero sum game than population is.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky alt.activism:16048 talk.politics.misc:44208
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "Lies Work"
Date: 8 Sep 92 18:31:54 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Aug30.233852.3614@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug30.224700.15365@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>In article <92243.163225SML108@psuvm.psu.edu> SML108@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>>>Various brouhaha about who claims what deleted...

>>>Here's how I see it...

>>>Bush makes invalid claim about Clinton raising taxes 128 times...

>>>Clinton responds that by same criteria, Bush did it 327 times...

>>>Third party says real score is Clinton 59, Bush 78...

Not quite.  The third party included Reagan and Bush together.
Clinton's apologists have been misrepresetning this ever since.

>>>Now here's the clincher.  The way I see it, Clinton was not lying because
>>>he had already stated the criteria was bogus and was merely showing that
>>>if you apply the same Bu1!$h|+ to Bush, he's even worse...

>>Excuse me, but don't you think 327 vs. 78 is significant?  I just love
>>the way the Clinton weenies bend over backwards to pretend that their
>>idol always tells the truth.

>As long as the phrase contains "by the criteria the Bush people use",
>the claim of 327 is truthful.

Incorrect.  If the phrase contains "by the criteria the Bush people
use" (which, by the way, were actually the Arkansas state
legislature's because Bush's people just copied their list of tax and
fee increases) then the claim of 327 is still a lie.  In fact, so is
the claim of 78 for Bush.  The only truthful claim is 78 for Bush and
Reagan together.

>The Bush people aren't even pretending to be honest.

True, but neiter do Clinton's.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: Lotus as a public charity
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1992 01:15:18 GMT

emamid@athena.ecs.csus.edu (David Emami) writes:

>Oops! I suppose I'm going to get flamed by Comrade Party Chairman from
>misc.politics.oppressive because of this. I guess I'm just a running dog
>lackey of the fascist American warmongering imperialist exploiters.

No, it would be "misc.activism.progressive", not "misc.politics.oppressive",
and you would be a "yankee pig-dog", not running dog lackey.

MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.latin-america
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Who Were the "Contras" ? (III)
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:32:17 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.001016.17964@oracle.us.oracle.com> rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) writes:

>Allen, why don't you quit whining and do something like Harel ? 

What makes you think I'm not doing something?

>Take it upon yourself to provide a balanced insight into the news, get some
>right-wing channels and post their side.

That is one of the things I have been doing.

>Man, you sound like a five-year-old demanding to know why you can't go
>outside and play.

No, this is different. Harel is calling me a liar and accuses me of all
sorts of evils. He is therefore placing himself on a higher moral plane
then me. I, myself, do not believe Harel is either a liar nor evil; just
foolish.

Now if Harel is actually morally superior to me then he should be willing
to condem Sandinsita abuses. That he has to date refused to do so simply
acts in my defense and shows to the whole world that he is (at least)
no better then he CLAIMS I am.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------225 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.individualism,alt.pagan
From: hurd@fraser.sfu.ca (Peter L. Hurd)
Subject: Re: Who's "free-er"? Intrnat'l response wanted!
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 23:07:17 GMT

pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek) writes:

>both enshrined in law AND protected in practice.  For example:  The USA
>gets points for the bill of rights, but loses points for failing to uphold
>it against pornography legislation, BBS raids, u.s.w.
 
I see no excuse for giving points for things on paper, if they don't
get translated into effect in people's lives.  Many people in this
department come from China, or indonesian villages miles from the
closest phone.  You should talk to these people after their first
visit to a big american inner city.  Paper tolerance, and paper
rights don't count for squat.
-- 
-- Pete Hurd, hurd@sfu.ca          |"So I've got this 22Meg output file..." |
Behavioural Ecology Research Group |"Yeah, well delete it."                 |
Dept.Biol.Sci., Simon Fraser Univ. |"But how will I know what it says"      |
Burnaby B.C. V5A 1S6 Canada        |"Well, how will you know what it means?"|
Xref: sparky alt.activism:16034 alt.individualism:5362 alt.pagan:8924
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.individualism,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Who's "free-er"? Intrnat'l response wanted!
Date: 8 Sep 92 15:44:41 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Sep8.070252.6252@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek) writes:
>From: pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek)
>Subject: Re: Who's "free-er"? Intrnat'l response wanted!
>Date: 8 Sep 92 07:02:52 GMT

>>I see no excuse for giving points for things on paper, if they don't
>>get translated into effect in people's lives.  Many people in this
>>department come from China, or indonesian villages miles from the
>>closest phone.  You should talk to these people after their first
>>visit to a big american inner city.  Paper tolerance, and paper
>>rights don't count for squat.

>I said that I am looking for *both* theory *and* practice.  My concern is
>that even if a nation currently does not censor speech or writing, it may
>do so at any time if there is no restriction on power of the government.
>Or, put another way, if the bill of rights or something like it is not
>upheld as an idea, any adherence to these principles in practice is accidental.

>--
>Paul Ciszek, pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu | No nation was ever drunk when wine was
>                                   | cheap.   -- Thomas Jefferson

Yeah, take a look at the UN's Declaration on Human Rights to see a specific 
application of exceptive clauses in the specification of rights as a matter 
of policy -- "Such-and-such a right [freedom of speech, etc]", it reads, "
shall not be abridged, UNLESS.." the government deems it necessary in 
order to establish law, order, peace...". 

No, uh uh.  Give me the absolute guarantees in the Bill of Rights 
without exceptive clauses anytime, because remember, the purpose of those 
ammendments were to protect citizens' rights against encroachments from the 
state, and with such absolute guarantees, any right can be abrogated in 
the name of some ostensibly overriding good. "Let no more be heard of the 
power of man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the 
Constitution. (TJ)" I dunno, call me an extremist. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenny Bell                          *        Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc       *        ANTHEM BBS 386-7907
P.O. Box 833875                     *        Severity with oneself is heroism.
Richardson, TX 75083-3875           *        --A.G.Sertillanges (France, 1943)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: Lyndon LaRouche & the Liberty L
Date: 9 Sep 1992 04:19:37 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


mphall@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Blue Rage) says:

>In article <189s6lINNnc9@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker) writes:
>>
>>Could anyone here who thinks LaROuche is fascist explain how that
>>evaluation is consistent with his long-standing opposition to the
>>death penalty? Seems a little odd for a "fascist", to say the least.
>>-Steve

>        Well, I have not got a formal background in ideological studies,
>but I did spend time researching right wing politics at a newspaper I
>worked at.  The most consistent definitions I have found for Fascism say
>nothing of the death penalty.

>        A fascist could easily conclude that the death penalty was wrong
>for a number of reasons, including the difficulty it might create for
>consolidating power and holding it in the face of political opposition
>to a noticably murderous regime.
        
>        Why do you think the death penalty is part and parcel of
>fascism?  Am I missing something?

>        -Mike


Well, maybe there's less here than meets the eye. My impression of 
fascist political movements is that they organize on the basis of
hatred, by appealing to the most ignorant and violent tendencies 
among the masses. I would expect a fascist political leader to
engourage blood lust among his supporters, and terror on the part 
of his opponents. The death penalty does both. 

To organize AGAINST the death penalty, on the other hand, is to 
appeal to reason. It is virtually impossible to speak against
the death penalty without saying, in effect, "stop and think".
All the arguements that have been made against the death penalty
ask the person in the street to suspend their first reaction of
outrage at some heinous and brutal crime and ask questions like
"do we really KNOW this is the guilty person", "does execution REALLY
deter further crimes, or does it just give us a self-righteous rush
of justified vengence", and finally, "regardless of what a murderer
has done to others, is he not also a soul o fpotential value? Is
he not capable of acts of love and beauty just as we are capable of
acts of depravity? Do we really want to sink to his level?"

Somehow, it is hard to imagine a fascist constituency being 
effectively organized to go attack some scapegoat group by
first being encouraged to ponder such questions.

Or is it ME that's missing something?

-Steve
From: 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (Wild Child)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: disparity between rich and poor widening
Date: 12 Sep 92 05:02:48 GMT
Organization: University of South Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: sirius.itd.adelaide.edu.au
Originator: daemon@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au

In article <1992Sep10.182326.9622@pony.Ingres.COM>, rogerl@Ingres.COM (Roger Leuthner) writes:
> 1959, groups earning 31 billion
> 
> 	top 4%: 2.1 million individuals and families
> 	bottom 35%: 18.3 million individuals and families 
> 
> 1989, groups earning 452 billion
> 
> 	top 4%: 3.8 million individuals and families
> 	bottom 51%: 49.2 million individuals and families
> 
> source: Internal Revenue Service
> 
> 
> between 1959 and 1989, approx. 2/3 of the time a republican was president

The number of unversity graduates fell in that period. Hence, the money these
poeple earn went up. More people tried to get semiskilled jobs. Hence the money
these people earnt went down. Both of these are due to market forces, and is
also responsible for the decline in living standards - too many are leaving all
the product enhancement to foreigners, being satisfied with a short term
gain instead of developing it to a decent product (ie the protection of
intellectual property instead of finished products).

I think it's about time some of the 'poor' stopped wallowing in their own self
pity, get of their ar**s and get a decent education instead of being satisfied
with shovelling dirt for a living. It's also about time intellectual property
laws were abolished.

-- 
John McVey, Whyalla campus, Uni S.Australia
Electronic Engineering Student & Terror Tekkie G1 (at 19!)
9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au, or try
9051467f@wh.whyalla.unisa.edu.au
'An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it.'  Don Marquis
'Those who believe in an afterlife won't be disappointed'  Me
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Obligatory disclaimer : UniSA hates my opinions...			     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
#! rnews 2485
From: 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (Wild Child)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: In GATT They Trust (VI)
Date: 12 Sep 92 14:50:48 +0930
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Organization: University of South Australia

In article <1992Sep11.051044.18377@mont.cs.missouri.edu>, harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) writes:
> In GATT They Trust (VI)
> These objectives have also been important factors in the internecine 
> quarrels among the industrial nations.  The economic crisis and chaos 
> created by unregulated trade competition fueled both world wars.  In 
> World War I, the struggle between European powers for colonial markets 

GARBAGE! World War One was inevitable - Kaiser Wilhelm was just itching for a
fight. He _almost_ got his excuse during the Boer War - that's what 'Breaker
Morant' is all about. The murder of Archduke Ferdinand was as good an excuse as
any, so he started a war. He was the last of the openly feudal despots in
Europe.
World War two was a racist madman using the results of the previous war as
an excuse to start another.

> 
>   Is there any man here, is there any woman, let me say is there any 
>   child here that does not know that the seed of war in the modern 
>   world is industrial and commercial rivalry?...[T]he reason that so 

You don't let the facts get in the way of a good bitching, do you?

> materials, especially oil, brought the U.S.  and Japan into direct, 
> and ultimately deadly conflict.  On the same day as the Pearl Harbor 
> attack, Japan simultaneously seized the oil resources of the Dutch 
> East Indies, now Indonesia, to relieve the strangling oil embargo that 
> had been imposed by the U.S.  the previous year. 

HA! Japan was yet another fuedal empire using brute force to get what it wanted
instead of paying for it.

-- 
John McVey, Whyalla campus, Uni S.Australia
Electronic Engineering Student & Terror Tekkie G1 (at 19!)
9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au, or try
9051467f@wh.whyalla.unisa.edu.au
'An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it.'  Don Marquis
'Those who believe in an afterlife won't be disappointed'  Me
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Obligatory disclaimer : UniSA hates my opinions...			     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: rogerl@Ingres.COM (Roger Leuthner)
Subject: disparity between rich and poor widening
Reply-To: rogerl@Ingres.COM (Roger Leuthner)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 10 Sep 92 18:23:26 GMT

1959, groups earning 31 billion

	top 4%: 2.1 million individuals and families
	bottom 35%: 18.3 million individuals and families 

1989, groups earning 452 billion

	top 4%: 3.8 million individuals and families
	bottom 51%: 49.2 million individuals and families

source: Internal Revenue Service


between 1959 and 1989, approx. 2/3 of the time a republican was president
Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: disparity between rich and poor widening
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 22:10:37 GMT

rogerl@Ingres.COM (Roger Leuthner) writes:

>1959, groups earning 31 billion

>	top 4%: 2.1 million individuals and families
>	bottom 35%: 18.3 million individuals and families 

>1989, groups earning 452 billion

>	top 4%: 3.8 million individuals and families
>	bottom 51%: 49.2 million individuals and families
         ^^^^^^^^^
Overall, pretty meaningless statistics. Top 4% of what in 1959? Bottom
35% of what? Define "individuals and families".

I notice you didn't use "bottom 35%". What's the matter? Statistics
didn't support your political agenda?

MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /