HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Privatization
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:12:52 GMT

In <1993Jan22.080224.26329@mcc.com> amck@rowdy.mcc.com (Alan McKendree) writes:
>In<1993Jan22.023654.15601@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1jnh0mINNls0@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:

>>Britain is privatising its electric industry.  We can't -- it's already
>>private.

>>Phone system?  We're private, everyone else is government owned.

>>Health care?  We're private, everyone else is public.

>>Air travel?  We're private, almost everyone else is public.

>Electric:  where I live, at least, the city runs the power plant.

>Phone:  Although not officially part of the government, each privately
>owned regional telephone company is granted prtected monopoly status
>by the government (i.e., it is illegal to try to provide competing service).

But there are other services which compete with the phones, like
Cellular, though those are also heavily regulated.

>Health care:  I don't see how you can make the blanket statement that
>medical care is private.  Medicare is nationalized health care for the
>poor.  Extensive regulations and licensing laws have made the
>government an intimate part of every physician's practice, even if not
>every doctor is actually an employee of the government.  Remains to be
>seen how President Clinton will change this.

Medicare is nationalized health *insurance.*
The only national health *care* in this country are VA hospitals.

>Air travel:  the only one you've mentioned that I would call private.

Yeah, but the FAA regulates it, remember?

>Remember that the Nazis scheme was private ownership of property put
>to uses directed (or dictated, take your pick) by the government.
>When the government controls what you do with your property, it
>doesn't make much difference in whose name the title is.

Besides the silly tactic of bringing Nazis into a thread, this is
irrelevant.  Someone had said that other countries were privatizing, and
we weren't, and Ted pointed out that they're privatizing to catch up to us,
not to go beyond us.

Do you think the phones/electricity/etc aren't going to be regulated in
those other countries after they're privatized?

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | "We don't need anymore [sic] wretched refuse.  It's 
niepornt@phoenix.    |  time to send the Statue of Liberty somewhere else"
   princeton.edu     |      -- Jack "Not a bigot" Schmidling, 1/7/93
Baltimore Orioles 93 |
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: NO! President Bill, 72% of Americans are NOT lawyers!
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 01:05:02 GMT

In article <john.727989523@misty> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>Well, when the one in charge only considers the member of the minority
>and no one else, and states that that is policy in order to get
>"diversity" - the first assumtion becomes correct. I would notice that
>your second assumption is completely out of place, since Mr. Frank
>was advocating (as a devil's advocate) an Asian-American, not a white male.

'tweren't me.  Get attributions straight please.

>Clinton's "diversity" in his cabinet is a joke. 72% are lawyers, and
>all are yuppies. Almost all are Washington insiders. Some "change"
>and some "diversity." Snort!

C'mon, Warren Christopher's from Los Angeles. :)

You didn't note that 100% of them have college degrees and high school
diplomas.  Why note that 72% have law degrees?  I think it's much worse 
that the other 28% *don't*.
-- 
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:69553 alt.activism:21285
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Libertarians
Date: 24 Jan 93 18:34:07 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 <C19Ew8.EDv@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk> jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) writes:
>edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil) wrote:

>> 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?

>Anyone out there seen a Libertarian Party banner on a picket for the
>reinstatement of workers sacked for unionizing?

Of course not.  Libertarians also support the right of emplyers to
fire such people.  In the same way, most people would agree that you
have the right to sit arround all day humming to yourself and building
origame sculptures.  Most people would also agree that your employer
has the right to fire you for such conduct.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne)
Subject: "Energy" Bill Clinton!
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 4:57:48 MST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA22742; Wed, 27 Jan 93 06:08:52 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA19449; Wed, 27 Jan 93 06:08:49 -0800
X-Received: by uiboise.idbsu.edu
	(16.6/16.2) id AA03011; Wed, 27 Jan 93 04:57:49 -0700
X-To: talk.politics.misc.usenet
X-Cc: alt.politics.clinton.usenet
X-Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25]


       If I can not keep
	     My promises
       At least I brought you " Hope "

       For nothing is more precious
	   Than those goverment bonds
		We owe.

        We all must learn
	    From small misfortune
        Count our blessings 
	    That are real
       
	Let the Bells ring out for Deflation
	At the Opening of the year

	Let the Bells ring out for Deflation
	At the Opening 
	   
	     Of 
		 The 
			Year
       
	 OUTSTANDING!!!!!

	 Federal Lawnmower's coming, chums!

         All bets are in on the grass-catcher.  Too bad.

	 Get on board the gravy train, while it lasts.


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70312 alt.president.clinton:1889 alt.politics.clinton:21476
From: ez012344@chip.ucdavis.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Sperm Thurmond on CSPAN!
Summary: South Carolina Sexpot Speaks -- and I missed most of it!
Date: 28 Jan 93 05:32:37 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Computing Services, UC Davis
Originator: ez012344@chip.ucdavis.edu

Damn! My man, Strom Thurmond was actually speaking on CSPAN, and I missed most
of what he said. The accent, the attitude! I can imitate a lot of people, but
I can't for the life of me get his accent down.

STROM: Besaahdes, sodom' is illeg'll.

Dan
deherrin@ucdavis.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69036 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13366
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Debt Not Necessarily Bad
Date: 21 Jan 93 02:31:49 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

>In article <1993Jan18.044627.12112@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

->Well, to take a fairly clear-cut example, the Federal government incurred
->a debt three times as large as the one we have today in order to fight
->World War II.  We could have settled for a balanced budget, and just lost
->the war.

 You are aware of the argument that extending a debt to cover a war
has the potential of increasing the length of the war ? Russian forces
were more than capable of finishing off germany after they gained the
momentum and equivalent equipment. 
 The only reasons you need to go into debt, would be if you were un-
prepared or your combatant also went into debt. I wonder if a build
up in debt might be shown to lead to war like aggression. The greater 
the state the greater the potential conflict between states. 

->Keep in mind that the government is going to be around far longer than
->any individual house-buyer.  Otherwise, banks wouldn't mind loaning
->money to people on 100-year mortgage plans.

 Thats the whole point of the debt debate. What if the people all decide
that they want near zero statist controls and then vote people pushing these
ideals into office. The previous office holders are making that scenario
impossible due to their inability to zero the debt. 

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: acbonin@unix.amherst.edu (Adam Bonin)
Subject: Re: Necessary and Proper
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 03:00:24 GMT

Here's my take on it, in a very condensed form (I can post the 12-page, 
footnoted version if you want)...

The GW clause does mean something. It serves as a general catch-all for those
unforseen cicrumstances when Congress must spend for the good of the nation. 
The first debate in Congress over it was in 1793 over whether they had the
ability to aid the city of Savannah, which had been devestated by fire. The
prevailing view was that Congress could, so long as it was to uphold a 
principle they would consistently apply. In the instant case, they agreed that
the commercial effects of the Savannah tragedy did have a national impact upon
trade. In addition, the crisis was one which the state of Georgia alone could
not handle, so it was necessary for the national government to step in.

The question of tax/spend within the clause is a difficult one to answer, but
Madison's notes provide insight into the Founders' intent. In Governeur Morris'
draft of 9/12/1789, the phrases about the taxing power and the general welfare
clause were separated by a semicolon, creating a separate power to "provide
for the general welfare".  But that was not what they had asserted prior, so
that in the final draft they separate the phrases by a _comma_, effectively
subordinating GW to the power to tax.  In other words, we can spend for the
GW, but nothing else. In this construction, the phrase "to provide for the 
common defense and general welfare" is the _why_ of "The Congress shall have
the power to lay and collect taxes".  We tax so that we can spend the money
received, plain and simple.

But the phrase itself is, and must be, somewhat vague. A Congress strictly
limited to the enumerated powers cannot handle everything, and certainly
we cannot amend the constitution every time there is a new crisis which
requires national spending. 

Spending for the general welfare must be _general_, and not specific.  There
must be preserved the notion of localism, that the lowest level able to resolve
a situation ought do so, and that the national government must only spend,
as a general philosophy, is a manner that is consistent as to benefit all.

Questions, comments, harsh disses always welcome.

-adam  
----
Adam Bonin '94
Amherst College
acbonin@amherst.edu

"He who accepts evil without fighting against
 it is really cooperating with it."
                   -MLK




Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Am I A Statist? (was Re: Amazing (Was: Libertarianism...))
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1993Jan22.005532.6644@s1.gov> <ATAYLOR.93Jan22140353@gauss.nmsu.edu>
	<1993Jan23.022722.23553@s1.gov>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 22:54:24 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.022722.23553@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
<	   So? I don't think that governments should be meddling in
<   yours, either. Or anybody else's, except if someone is forcing sex on
<   another. 

	If I were a "progressive", such as Petrich, I would 
	intepret this to mean that Petrich is in *favor* of
	child sexual molestation, so long as no force was used.

	But I'm not, so I won't.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism...
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 23:31:38 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.135019.10125@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil) writes:
>In <1993Jan21.003041.11763@Princeton.EDU> (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>>>In the United States, the Libertarian Party is the third
>>>largest political party; in the 1992 elections it received
>>>well over one million votes, and it regularly appears on the
>>	   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>How do you figure?  Marrou got 250k votes.  Somehow I doubt there were
>>750k people in the country who did *not* vote for Marrou, but did vote
>>for another Libertarian.

>Hint:  Read the text you are commenting on.  Pay particular attention to
>the phrase "the 1992 elections".

>Big hint:  While perhaps hundreds of millions of votes were cast for
>Bush, Clinton, Marrou, Perot, and others in the general Presidential
>election, there were probably billions of votes cast in the 1992
>elections.

>Outright spoiler for the hint-impaired:  Votes were cast in many 1992
>elections other than the general Presidential election.

Well, then this really isn't very impressive, now is it?  So what's the
point of bragging that the LP got over a million votes, and pretending
that this is meaningful, if we're talking about a million out of billions?

In fact, the Libs obviously got a smaller percentage of the total votes
cast than they did of just presidential votes, since they weren't
fielding candidates for most offices.

Hint for the brain-dead: Normallly, we count the number of voters, not
the number of votes.
-- 
David M. Nieporent   | "We don't need anymore [sic] wretched refuse.  It's 
niepornt@phoenix.    |  time to send the Statue of Liberty somewhere else"
   princeton.edu     |      -- Jack "Not a bigot" Schmidling, 1/7/93
Baltimore Orioles 93 |
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne)
Subject: THANK YOU, BILL!!!  THANK YOU!!
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 7:36:00 MST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA25201; Wed, 27 Jan 93 08:48:10 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA29474; Wed, 27 Jan 93 08:47:17 -0800
X-Received: by uiboise.idbsu.edu
	(16.6/16.2) id AA03314; Wed, 27 Jan 93 07:36:01 -0700
X-To: talk.politics.misc.usenet
X-Cc: alt.politics.clinton.usenet
X-Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25]


	 Billy boy, if you do the Energy bill, you will
	 have my heart-felt gratitude till the end of TIME!

	 You can do it, Bill.  YOU know "we can do better".

	 Either you are more contemptous of the American people
	 than I thought, or the "classified" projections are 
	 worse than I thought.

	 Come on, Wild Bill!!!!!!!     

	 Oh, thank you, God, thank you.  Bill Clinton is about to
	 be the best thing that ever happened to working people 
	 in this country!    

	 Meanwhile, hop on that gravy train while it lasts, folks!

	 The absolute BEST part!   Bill KNEW so much more than
	 us.  Unfortunately, he forgot to do his studying up on
	 exponential functions.  He thinks he can dick the American
	 people NOW, and everyone will forget by '96.

	 But he'll be the instrument of his own undoing!

	 He'll have to dick y'all AGAIN, sometime around 1994 or 1995.

	 Oh, it's just great!   GREAT!!!!!!!

	 CHOOOOOOO!!!!   CHOOOOOO!!!!!!   

	       ALLL   ABBBBOOOOOAAAAARRRRRDDDD!!!!!!!

         Honestly, Dr. Norman Dude, you need to study up on the economic
	 aspects of coherent ethical systems!  :)

         YES!!! 
	 YES!!!
	 YES!!!

	       oh, I take it all back, Mom and Dad.  I take it ALL back!
	       Thank you for blessing me with an understanding of 
	       ethics!


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69943 alt.atheism:27058 talk.religion.misc:27638
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Madeleine Murray O'Hare
Date: 26 Jan 93 11:57:21 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <CINDY.93Jan25204702@solan10.solan.unit.no> cindy@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf) writes:

> Question to the net at large:  Was there anyone else other than Mr.
> Kaldis who thought my post about "posting in everyone's native
> language" was intended SERIOUSLY?

I got news for you, toots: I realize that even you aren't stupid
enough to suppose that such a thing could be done.  But you missed the
point entirely (or else are trying to ignore it).  Let me spell it out
for you: since the U.S. is the most pre-eminent country on the earth,
since the largest single group of net.users are American, and since
English (primarily American English) is by far the most popular second
language among non-English speakers world-wide, it is not an
unreasonable request to ask all posts with worldwide distribution be
composed in English.  Moreover, if the posts are addressed to U.S.
readers (whether at large or in particular) then this becomes more
than just a request -- it becomes a demand.

> If so, i apologize.

You need to apologize, but your apology has been misdirected.

> If not, he's in worse shape than i thought.

I am fine, thank-you.  How about you?

> Take a valium, Ted.  You get so upset about things that really don't
> affect you... like my sense of humor.

What sense of humor?
-- 
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??? ||
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69371 misc.legal:23157
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: NO! President Bill, 72% of Americans are NOT lawyers!
Date: 22 Jan 93 18:27:32 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1993Jan22.054522.21869@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
> In article <13949@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <1993Jan17.061634.6084@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
# ## Thirteen out of eighteen have law degrees.  One might more properly
# ## ask what happened to the other five, given the importance of a law
# ## degree to dealing with the field of law, but let's look at Ipser's
# ## objection more closely.
# ## 
# ## All of the eighteen graduated college.  Presumably, Ipser would wish
# ## that only nine of them have, and that two or three of the others have
# ## failed to graduate high school.
# #
# #Clinton's liberal quota ideology claimed that the Cabinet should
# #"look like America" but for some reason, this same reasoning
# #doesn't apply about education.
# 
# Clinton never had a quota.  He had a goal of diversity.  Diversity by

Yeah, right.  A liberal who doesn't believe in quotas.  Tell us
all about it.

# ethnic group, geography, and ideology has been common since the beginning
# of democracy in making appointments.  What Clinton proposed to do is
# expand this diversity beyond white males by including qualified women 
# and minorities in the process.

You mean, there's never been women or minorities in cabinet posts
before?  Or do you mean that he didn't really expand this diversity
at all?  Or you mean, "count the Cabinet secretaries by race and
sex, and see how diverse it is?"  Which is effectively quotas
again.

# No one has ever suggested that educational diversity is a good thing.
# You're creating a strawman.  Care to address real arguments?

Why should it matter what color or sex a Cabinet secretary is?
That makes as little sense as "educational diversity."

# #Once again, liberal enthusiasm for judging people by the color
# #of their skin, instead of the content of their character, shows
# #itself.
# 
# And what's the qualitative difference between what Clinton said,
# and Nixon's 1968 promise to nominate a Southerner to the Supreme Court?
# Oh, I forgot -- Clayton thinks Nixon was a liberal.
# -- 
# ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 

1. It was stupid.  And yes, Nixon's liberalism (price controls,
in particular) drove me out of the Republican Party for many years.

2. At least geographic diversity doesn't violate the 14th Amendment.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten)
Subject: Re: True federalism means competition in government (was State's Rights)
Summary: Moving from state to state to escape oppression
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 13:01:05 GMT

In article <C16qIB.Jsn@newsserver.technet.sg>, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
> In article <1993Jan20.135414.13055@cbfsb.cb.att.com> colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
> >
> >Well, whether or not the people of Utah are teary eyed at my concern,
> >you are wrong.  If Utah became an oppressive Fascist state you are saying
> >that everyone who didn't like it could just pick up, leave all their property`
> >behind and move.  Where?  To another state that could do that same thing?
> 
> Dur, how about to a state which doesn't.
> 

You would certianly move to a state that didn't oppress you, at that
moment.  So you could start again from scratch, build a new life,
and then watch it crumble again. It's the story of minorities when
there are no protections.

> The bottom line is that federalism, true federalism, means competition in
> government. It means that people can sort themselves out according to the
> kind of place they want to live.

I thought true federalism meant that the states ran their own affairs
until they ran over the protections guaranteed under the federal
constitution.  I doubt very much if competition in government was meant
to allow fascist takeovers.

> 
> It means having a choice.
> 

You mean, it means that the majority can have a choice and the minority
can lump it.

> >Not much of a system.  My people did that for 2000 years and it didn't work
> >very well.  Under the kind of system we are discussing they could even
> >prevent you from leaving - or living.
> 
> Well, certainly there have been nations (on the left side) which did this.
> But the closest thing you will find to this in America is slavery which has
> been outlawed for some time now.

On the "left side"?  most of the states that oppressed my people
were, by any standards, on the right.  The closest thing you find
to this in America are the thousands of abuses and indignities that
people have been subject to, until constitutional protections were
enforced.


marc colten

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.constitution