HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (It's not what you got, it's what you give)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs, part II
Summary: Netherlands example  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 6 Nov 92 22:35:10 GMT

In article <rabjab.228.721028709@golem.ucsd.edu>, rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof)                         writes...
>>>Ask yourself why you abstain from using drugs.  Is it because they are
>>A *great* example from Richard Lawrence Miller's book "The Case for Legalizing
>>Drugs": how cheap would cigarrettes have to be before you would begin
>>smoking them?  What if they were a dime a pack?  Would you take up smoking
>>then?
> 
>For all you drug afficianados out there:  the more socialized the
>government gets --- the less freedom you will have!

Are you trying to tell us that the conservative shift over the last 
12 years has EXPANDED our freedoms?

  CERTAIN drugs
>may be decrimalized, like Marijuana, but never expect many of
>the others to gain that status! 

This is probably true.

 Ok, tax drug sales, but how much
>will you need to bring in to cover all the potential health problems of
>a drug addict and possible offspring!? 

Marijuana is America biggest cash crop (even by the governments numbers).
We could pay for any health care problems many times over.

 I'm telling you, combining
>legalized drug sales, socialized medicine and government would be
>just plain nuts, though it would be a drug pusher's dream.
> 
Take the Netherlands example who have pretty much legalized drugs.
Although drugs are used in public more, the number of addicts has dropped
by as much as 50%. These numbers are solid becuase the government has 
encouraged addicts to register so they can be treated without penalty.
Your fear is not founded in reality.

>I promise you, I will vote against it!  I don't care how many
>conservative judges recommend it! (like the one in L.A.)
> 
If you want to ignore reason that is your choice, but I wouldn't 
recommend it.

>rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59286 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8264 alt.president.clinton:244
From: erik@src4src.linet.org (Erik VanRiper)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: A TRUE LANDSLIDE
Date: 9 Nov 92 23:22:22 GMT
Organization: The Source for Source

In article <1992Nov7.150918.22011@oz.plymouth.edu> m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier) writes:
>
>I love this conversation about Clinton's supposed landslide.  The best
>comedy I've seen in wuite some time.  Perhaps if you say it enough
>times, people will believe that winning by 5% of the popular vote is a
>landslide.
>

Please read everything.  Clinton won by an ELECTORAL landslide.

No press has said that he won by a popular landslide vote.


-- 
Like wow...  This be a .sig, eh? 
GEEKS Anonymous                   Join today!              1-900-BE-A-GEEK
The Source for Source - Pub Access Unix.  (516) 968-7824 or (516) 666-5877
From: doli@troi.cc.rochester.edu (David Oliver)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Dear Dems: Here's your big chance-don't blow it (like last time)
Date: 13 Nov 92 18:11:01 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)

In article <casseres-121192101416@missmolly.apple.com> casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.223108.20379@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>,
>doli@troi.cc.rochester.edu (David Oliver) wrote:
>> 
>> To all of you Democrats who have been moaning about not having an opportunity 
>> to really improve this country the past 12 years,  here's your big chance. 
>> With the presidency and the Congress in your column your philosophy of 
>> government; i.e. let the government run a large portion of your lives (after 
>> all, its for your own good), tax away your earnings (when will tax freedom day 
>> be 4 years from now), and punish those who achieve and create in this country, 
>> will be put to the test.  If your wrong, then here comes a Republican stampede 
>> in 1996.
>> 
>> Kemp/Weld in '96
>
>...bringing in *your* philosophy of government: let the government run a
>large portion of everybody else's lives (after all, its for their own
>good), borrow away our kids' earnings, and punish those who achieve and
>create anything except personal wealth in this country.
>
>--
>
>David Casseres
>Exclaimer: Wow!

Hmmmm, I don't recall saying that these things were part of *my* philosophy
of government.

-David Oliver (doli@troi.cc.rochester.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: dmcanzi@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi)
Subject: Re: Defending Dahmer Wasn't Satire
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 06:21:32 GMT

In article <1992Nov2.173140.7338@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>A negative reaction, and a query as to the morals of someone who
>questions a comparision of Dahmer and Qualye, and you steal the horror
>of lynch mobds and pogroms.
>
>The equating of vileness and evil to an opponent is a basic building
>block of your lynch mobs and progroms -- i.e., "All niggers are ..." or
>"All Jews are ...".

And isn't this what Clayton is doing with his never-ending efforts to
associate homosexuality with evil?  What is the point of his digging up
statistics to show that there is a higher proportion of child molestors
among gay men than among straight men?  What is the point of his mining
soc.motss for things he can (mis)interpret as support for Jeffrey
Dahmer?

>What *IS* the rational response to a concentration camp? If you do
>not feel more sickened, more horrified, and more enraged than you ever
>have been, then I would believe you to be mentally ill in the
>clinical definition.

Sickened, horrified, and enraged are *emotional* reactions, not
rational reactions.  I'll get annoyed when somebody proposes setting up
a concentration camp.  The concentration camps that were closed down
over 45 years ago are not a matter for concern, other than as a lesson
that such things can happen again.  In preventing them from happening
again, the ability to recognize where the threat is likely to come from
is more valuable than the ability to become enraged on cue like a
conditioned animal in a psychology experiment.

Consider two kinds of people:
(1) Those who rarely experience moral outrage.
(2) Those who frequently do.

Which kind are most likely to form lynch mobs?  Which kind are most
likely to build concentration camps and carry out genocides?

Most people can't kill unless they're outraged.  If you want to know
where the future fascists will be coming from, here's a hint: look
among the people who are often morally outraged.

-- 
David Canzi
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: cah@pavonis.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen Halsell)
Subject: Re: The name of the new Religious Party
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA/Caltech
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 23:40:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.230024.23546@netcom.com>, kemnitz@netcom.com (Greg Kemnitz) writes:
> In article <dusek.721411047@shale> dusek@rtsg.mot.com (James Dusek) writes:
> >
> >	Alot of independants in congress will also make me happy. As to the
> >religious right getting controll of the republican party, it most likely 
> >won't happen. They are forming their own party, and will run aginst
> >the republicans and democrats.
> 
> What will it be called?  I have some choices:
> 
> 1.  Hezbollah (Party of God).  Wrong religion, already taken, but essentially
>     the same agenda.
 [...] more great names deleted

Where did you get this information, James?  I'm not challenging you,
I'd just like to read about it.  Christian candidates have been taking
local offices as Republicans for a few years, and Pat Robertson and
Falwell are still active.  I'm shocked if what you say is true.  Shocked
and dismayed ... :-).

BTW, I vote for the Freedom Party :-).

*********************************************************************
the only thing that speaks the truth is the eloquence of passing time
               the spoken word is a jacket too tight
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60030 alt.politics.elections:23729 alt.rush-limbaugh:9642 talk.rumors:1265 alt.activism:18747 misc.legal:19893
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: Other candidate totals:
Organization: Finnish University Network Information Centre, Finland
Date: 8 Nov 92 23:43:41

>	   Here they are, and they're not pretty:
>
>	   Libertarian:	278,528
>	   New Alliance:	211,742
>	   Populist:	 97,601
>	   Natural Law:	 44,521
>	   Taxpayers:	 39,391
>	   LaRouche:	 25,063

What is the source of these results?  Have all votes been counted for
these results?

These contradict the earlier results (by a factor of four wrt the
Libertarian party, for example).

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
From: tom@uts.cc.wayne.edu (Thomas Richard Stevenson)
Subject: Re: A TRUE LANDSLIDE
Organization: Wayne State Univ.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 16:26:03 GMT

Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>Had Perot not been in, Clinton STILL
>would have won, 53-49. As H. Ross himself would say, "It's just that simple."
                 ^^^^^
The D.Q. school of math (I know, it was just a typo, but I did hit both sides).
-- 
     ____  __   __       Tom@UTS.CC.Wayne.Edu
      /   /_/  /_        Thomas_Richard_Stevenson@MTS.CC.Wayne.Edu
     /.  /\ . __/.       Tom@CMS.CC.Wayne.Edu
                         UserTom@WayneMTS.Bitnet
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59310 alt.rush-limbaugh:9353 alt.politics.elections:23328 alt.politics.clinton:16675 alt.politics.bush:13655
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Trickle Down Economics
From: kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 08:58:06 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

Norman.Miller@launchpad.unc.edu (Norman Miller) writes:
> 
> There's been a lot of talk about Clinton being a "failed"
> Rhodes scholar.  Would somebody bring me up to date on that?
> 
> Thanks.    
> --

Pretty simple, really; most Rhodes Scholars get a degree from Oxford;
about 80% do.  Clinton flunked out, mostly because he didn't attend any
classes during his second year there. 

Ken Mitchell
kmitche@eis.calstate.edu

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
From: dmcanzi@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi)
Subject: Re: Who Are The Crowd Most Likely To Set Up Death Camps? (Was Re: Colorado Letter)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 05:51:15 GMT

In article <13111@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov8.182500.21749@udel.edu>, carroll@hercules.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll) writes:
>> In article <13086@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
># #It was suggested here a while back that the more moral outrage
># #someone expresses, the more likely they are to form a lynch mob,
># #concentration camp, or other manifestation of murderous evil.

If this is meant to refer to something I have said recently, it's
not accurate.

What I said in one posting was that a person who is outraged at some
target *and* at people who don't share his outrage is dangerous.  The
clause after the "and" is important.  (I'm too short of time to explain
its importance right now, alas.) Moral outrage by itself is not the
whole story.

What I said in another posting was that, if you want to know where the
future fascists are coming from, look among people who are frequently
morally outraged.

># Well Clayton, I'm proud of you. You managed to find ONE example of a
># homosexual who suggested something violent. ONE. Do you think this
># proves anything?
>
>I've got a lot more than that.  But that's not my point.  My point
>was about moral outrage -> concentration camps being nonsense.
>Either that, or that we should worry about homosexuals too.

You will note that I did not say at any point that moral outrage leads
inevitably to concentration camps.  I said the future fascists will be
found *among* those are often morally outraged.  (Need a course in
remedial logic and/or set theory, Clayton?)

Even supposing that your misunderstanding of what I said were true, it
still doesn't follow, from some homosexuals being dangerous, that all
are.  But you spend so much time drawing inferences of that form that I
think it must be your main hobby.
-- 
David Canzi
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri "Droopy" Farenell)
Subject: Penguin=the devil?
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 19:43:56 GMT

A student in Colorado Springs, AZ was expelled from school for
wearing a Penguin tshirt...that's Penguin as in the archrival
of Batman. Apparently, the town is a Mormon dominated area.
and, for some reason, believed the tshirt was satanic.

...now if had been a Pittsburgh Penguin tshirt, that would be
 another story; I could understand that. :)
============================================================================
BRI FARENELL			HOBBES: Why do we always play war and not peace?
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU     CALVIN: Too few role models.
CLARKSON '95			
Hate is not a family value
===========================================================================
"We are not descended from fearful men... not from men who feared to write,
to speak, to associate and to defend causes which were, for the time, 
unpopular."		----Edward R Murrow
 



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rkaplan@netcom.com (Richard Kaplan)
Subject: Re: Socialist health care (was legalizing drugs)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 15:21:52 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.092741.3981@cbnewse.cb.att.com> doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey) writes:

>But we're talking the United Sates here.  The land of the free and the home
>of the brave.  The only country on the planet where herbalism is banned.
>Where there are laws being proposed to define vitamins beyond a certain 
>potency as 'drugs', subject to the same ruthless enforcement as other
>banned substances.  Where nutritional supplements are threatened with


You don't think vitamins (particularly fat soluble ones --
ADEK -- which are stored by the body) can cause toxicity?
They can, just as aspirin can cause significant morbidity
and mortality.


>would first seize your company's and the magazine's assets.  Here in the
>land of the free, the FDA is already censoring medical journals that
>talk about "unapproved" uses for drugs.  They don't want our researchers
>to know about the information untill the FDA has already approved them.

Data please?

Off-label prescribing of medications is quite common and 
alive and well in the medical community.

-- 
Richard Kaplan M.D.           Medical Software Exchange BBS
806 2nd St. SW # 104          (507) 281-1989 14,400 HST
Rochester, MN  55902          (507) 281-1689 Voice
PP-ASEL-IA     N4VRB          rkaplan@mayo.edu|netcom.netcom.com  
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58781 talk.abortion:47013
From: gt4925b@prism.gatech.EDU (Jason Woodward)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Coalition for Traditional Values' Candidate Survey
Date: 7 Nov 92 17:37:21 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Distribution: usa
Organization: Jack Kemp in 1996

In <BxBw7o.Dww@news.cso.uiuc.edu> mchaffee@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Rockville) writes:

>pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
 >>>
 >>>"Anti-abortion" is an accurate description of the "pro-life" position, while
 >>>"pro-abortion" is not an accurate description of the "pro-choice" position.
 
 >>To put it another way:
 >>"pro-life" is an accurate description of the "anti-abortion" position, while
 >>"pro-choice" is not an accurate description of the "pro-abortion" position.
 
 >Most people I know who are pro-choice are against abortion, but realize that
 >in America, their own moral values may not be imposed on others.  Pro-choice
 >activists very seldom call pro-lifers "pro-poverty" or "pro-single-motherhood"
 >or "anti-american" although all three are true.  We support choice. 
                                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Everyone supports "choice" in some form.  For example, the right to
choose to wear blue pants, a red shirt, and brown shoes.

The term "pro-choice" is totally meaningless to me - "pro-choice" on
what?  Since most "pro-choice" people never mention the choice of
prostitution, drugs, working for $1.00 per hour, maybe "pro-abortion
rights" or "pro-choice on abortion" would be more accurate.


-- 
"Socialism has a bad name in America, and no amount of wishful
thinking on the part of the left is going to change that in our
lifetimes...The words Economic Democracy are an adequate and 
effective replacement." Derek Shearer, CLINTON advisor|  Kemp 96
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.war.vietnam
From: jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner)
Subject: Re: Stockdale is a Bumbling Idiot
Organization: College of Engineering, Northeastern University
	<1992Nov5.204935.29624@oracle.us.oracle.com>
	<1992Nov6.093945.23354@Princeton.EDU>
	<1992Nov7.152731.15169@emr1.emr.ca>
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 01:54:47 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.152731.15169@emr1.emr.ca> knguyen@emr1.emr.ca (Kim Nguyen) writes:

> I think there is some misconception in history here. The war has
> been escalated by the involvement of North Vietnam Army and comunist world.
> After the attack of 36 SVN provincial capitals and 5 major cities
> failed, National Liberation Army suffered heavy loss (33,000 killed) in
> Tet Offensive 1968; the ranks of Viet Cong evaporated. As result,
> "MOST OF INSURGENTS IN SOUTH VIETNAM WERE ACTUALLY NORTH VIETNAMESE
> SOLDIERS".

	Who or what are you quoting.

> The Tet Offensive failed because there was no support from the populace
> of South Vietnam; it meant that NLF burnt all their own men. Instead of
> seeing things behind this event; peace activists told lie to the public
> that it was an immoral war because it was a civil war. When being mentioned 
> about this, the public started backing up; their conscience was not
> behind a "immoral war".

	There was no support from the populace of South Vietnam?
C'mon, get of it.  John Stockwell, US CIA (retired) who was involved
in covert operations there has testified otherwise.  If there was
no popular support for the Viet Cong then what was the whole point
of the strategic hamlets?  And why had the president of SV tried
to negotiate a settlement 5 years earlier if it was simply a hostile
invasion?

	The US and the ARVN LOST THE WAR.  Get off trying to
prove otherwise.

				--Jeff Turner
From: 00rdharringt@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Rob Harrington)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: President-elect Clinton lying already
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:19:38 GMT
Organization: Ball State University

In article <1dea4pINNend@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:
 
>   On Thursday the media quoted President-elect Clinton as saying "It was
> just an exchange of pleasantries, nothing else was discussed", when asked
> about his first phone conversation with Russian President Boris Yeltsin.
> This contradicts Yeltsin's view of the conversation, which he says included
> discussion of a summit meeting in the very near future.

Hmm... let's see if we can reconstruct a possible discussion...

Hi... Hey how's it going... Not bad... Say we'll have to get together
sometime... Sounds good, how's the wife.. blah blah blah...

Do you think an exchange of pleasantries could have included a talk about
getting together?

-- 
/---------------------------------------v-------------------------------------\
|  Rob Harrington                       |              Ball State University  |
|  Department of History                |               Muncie, Indiana, USA  |
|  Vax--00RDHARRINGT@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu  |       Unix--herring@bsu-cs.bsu.edu  |
>---------------------------------------^-------------------------------------<
|                                Clinton/Gore '92                             |
|                  Ball State University - University Democrats               |
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------/
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58382 alt.politics.libertarian:1645 talk.philosophy.misc:2285 alt.individualism:5930
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Property Rights
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:29:33 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

fulton@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben Fulton) writes:

>In <Bx8zoK.EFz@world.std.com> rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) writes:
>
>>	1. I am a libertarian. That is I favor the maximum amount of personal
>>	   liberty consistent with a minimum of social order and lack of 
>>	   violence.
>
>So does George Bush.

Bull.  Can you say "War on Drugs" and "Ban Abortions"?  Sure, I knew you
could.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections
From: young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young)
Subject: Re: President Clinton
In-reply-to: mfriedma@uucp's message of 11 Nov 92 01:34:58 GMT
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
	<8NOV199201395076@vxcrna.cern.ch> <1992Nov8.023941.23946@Princeton.EDU>
	<1992Nov11.013458.1246@oracle.us.oracle.com>
Date: 12 Nov 92 13:19:44

In article <1992Nov11.013458.1246@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>   More bullshit.  When we voted for president we knew who we were voting
>   for.  Mind telling me who we were voting to put on the Court?
 
You must be new here.  We've all been told, ad nauseum, that we have
voted for Mary-o Cuomo for the Supremes, and probably Anita Hill as
well.


--
Peter Young
young@erim.org
From: smith@ctron.com (Lawrence C Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: gas tax proposal
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:50:07 GMT
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.

In article <guru-a0.720380373@access.digex.com>, guru-a0@access.digex.com (Guru Aleph-Null) writes:
>If it reall cuts down on CO emmissions I won't
>mind; but I don't know exactly what in car emissions makes the air so
>cruddy to breath, but less of it would be a nice thing.

Oh, it will cut down emissions - provided your emissions were illegally high
in the first place and provided you never get your engine tuned.  Oxygenated
gasoline is _more_ toxic, _more_ volatile, and _more_ expensive than regular
gas it does absolutely nothing for a properly-tuned motor.  Once again, we
have punished the majority for the crimes of a few.

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com)  No, I don't speak for Cabletron.  Need you ask?
-
Liberty is not the freedom to do whatever we want,
it is the freedom to do whatever we are able.
From: jgostin@mal-s1.gatech.edu (Jill Gostin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Final election tallies??
Date: 5 Nov 92 13:56:49 GMT
Organization: Georgia Tech Res. Inst., Modeling & Analysis Lab

In article <73731@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt6367c@prism.gatech.EDU (DEAL, DOUGLAS WAYNE) writes:
>
>BUSH WON GEORGIA!
>
>

Wrong. Early morning counts (without all of the metro Atlanta votes counted)
showed Bush leading by a few thousand votes. But the metro area is
heavily for Clinton... the final tally showed Clinton to be the winner.


-- 
Jill Butterfield Gostin                EMAIL: jgostin@mal-s1.gatech.edu
Georgia Institute of Technology, GTRI Modeling and Analysis Lab
"Happiness is excitement that has found a settling down place..."
-E.L. Konigsburg, _From the Mixed-up Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler_
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism