HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Date: 15 Apr 92 03:17:59 GMT
Organization: NMS&Systems Engineering

pmm7@ellis.uchicago.edu (peggy boucher murphy (you had to ask?)) writes:

> yup. bigotry.  
> 
> and you don't need to tell me this is your opinion.  did you think
> i would mistake it for any form of fact?  
> 
> peg


'Bigotry' in itself is not bad. You might call learning that cars
will squish you and avoiding them 'bigotry' with as much imagination
as it takes to label dislike of the gay 'lifestyle' bigotry.

You guys wanna do it that way.... FINE.

Just don't call me names when I call a spade a spade.


-djk

--- Daniel J. Karnes / WA6NDT --------------------------------------
--- NMS&Systems Engineering ----------------------------------------
--- Djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM / ..CtEdge!Nitro!Djk ----------------------
-- 'innovative solutions for modern problems' ----------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rdippold@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Why vote Libertarian?
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Distribution: usa,local
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 20:09:54 GMT

visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:
>+>Horrors!  If you're in my house you follow my rules or leave.  If
>+>you're in a company town, you play by their rules or leave.  It's not
>+>the only right you have, however.  If they shot you that might
>+>_possibly_ be viewed as a rights violation.  

>	No it would not.  If they shoot at you, you are undoubtibly a 
>"trespasser" on company property.  The second the company fires you, 
>you will of course become a "trespasser".  They have a right to defend their
>property with deadly force.

Defend from what?  Can I shoot you once you've entered my house?  Is
trespassing justification for shooting?  They need more than that, and
they'd have a devil of a time explaining why he was a trespasser and
all the others who entered the town weren't.  This is also extremely
stupid and bad publicity.


>	Company towns and the rules by which they were ruled are not
>some abstract idea, they are part of history.

Yes, and the part of history also includes a record of how they did
it:  with the help of the local governments.  They bought them off.
Illegal activities with the support of the government.  Any time you
have a corrupt government, this isn't the worst that's going to happen.
-- 
How can I miss you if you won't go away?
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17019 alt.individualism:2290 sci.econ:3564 alt.activism:7279
From: scc@rlgvax.Reston.ICL.COM (Stephen Carlson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,sci.econ,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Why Did We Lose the War on Poverty?
Date: 6 Apr 92 22:56:18 GMT
Reply-To: scc@rlgvax.Reston.ICL.COM (Stephen Carlson)
Organization: International Computers Limited, Reston, Virginia, USA

In article <1992Apr04.133150.2850@anomaly.sbs.com> mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>
>>From 1967 to 1980 the U.S. spent a vast amount of money on Social
>>security.  The rate of poverty among whites over age 65 fell from
>>27.7% to 13.6%.  The rate among blacks fell from 53.3% to 38.1%.
>
>These statistics are meaningless. During the same time period the price
>of oil increased. Does that mean the vast spending on Social Security
>caused the price of oil to increase?

You bring up a valid point, but there are more things wrong in the
original example:

1	It is unclear how spending on Social Security should have anything
	more than a marginal effect on "the rate of poverty."  Certainly,
	Social Security was intended to alleviate poverty among the elderly,
	but most poor are in reality young.  In fact greater than half are
	children.

2	Assuming that "the rate of poverty" is in reference to the poverty
	line, then the numbers are woefully inadequate in comparisons across
	time.  Some experts believe that poverty line has lagged behind true
	increases in costs of living.  I saw congressional testimony (from
	Dr. Patricia Ruggles, I believe) that if the poverty line were more
	reasonable, at least a quarter of the population would be poor.  If
	true, this would indicate the contrary conclusion: despite the vast
	amount of spending, poverty has not budged.

Given these defects (lack of a causal connection and bad data), this
"statistic" ought to be discarded.  Perhaps something more illuminating,
like looking for hidden agendas, is in order.

-- 
Stephen Carlson           | ICL OFFICEPOWER Center    | In theory, theory and
scc@rlgvax.reston.icl.com | 11490 Commerce Park Drive | practice are the same.
..!uunet!rlgvax!scc       | Reston, VA  22091         |    (703) 648-3300
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18606 alt.drugs:7858 misc.legal:9410
From: mike@uunet!tellab5!odgate (Mike J. Kelly)
Subject: Re: Class Warfare is STUPID...
Organization: Odesta Corporation
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 19:40:38 GMT

emamid@athena.ecs.csus.edu (David Emami) asks why the rich should pay a
greater marginal tax rate than the non-rich.  Despite a lot of abstract
arguing, he doesn't realize the real reason.  It's because there are
more of us than them.  If they don't like it, they can leave.

-- 
--
Mike Kelly               Odesta Corporation, Northbrook, Illinois, USA
...!clout!odgate!mike    - Until odesta.com is registered.
odgate!mike@clout.uucp   - From the Internet.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17016 ca.politics:3321 soc.motss:19338
From: rogerk@Veritas.COM (Roger B.A. Klorese)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,soc.motss
Subject: Re: It can HAPPEN in *IOWA* [gay rights law]
Date: 6 Apr 92 23:25:08 GMT
Organization: VERITAS Software

In article <1992Apr4.215253.25602@midway.uchicago.edu> rivk@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>I have no problem with what you are say-
>ing about "the policies of the Mormon Church", but you didn't refer in
>your original article to the Mormon Church, but to Mormons, the individual
>people. At absolute best, you can be accused of inadvertent insult due to
>inaccuracy of language...

No, George was being accurate.  Haven't you ever seen the commercials-in-
public-service-announcement's-clothing that state, themselves, that they are
produced by "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints: the Mormons"?
Obviously, *they* believe "Mormons" == "the LDS Church"... why shouldn't I?
-- 
ROGER B.A. KLORESE                                             VERITAS Software
4800 Great America Parkway #420   Santa Clara, CA 95054    +1 408-727-1222 x310
rogerk@veritas.com                               {apple,pyramid}!veritas!rogerk
"Life turns on a dime." -- Ruth Ann
From: trd54583@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (green spleen...)
Subject: Re: "Politically Correct" -- A Quote
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 03:16:50 GMT

bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>However, I still find many/most PC people do tend to label opponents as
>racist/sexist, 

True. Then again does the opposite go on also. For example, I have many
beleifs which I geuss I would consider progressive (I hate labels). Now,
to some rabid anti-PC'ers, I would be considered PC. However, I do not
consider myself PC because I don't label opponents as being sexist/racist
or "evil" in any other way. I believe that they can beleive what the wanna
believe and can express it. Although I may not agree with them, I'm not
gonna preach to them that they are thinking the "wrong" way and then try
to convert them or something. (although I will debate people)

I geuss,then, my definition of PC: 
 when one believes that only one's own beliefs are correct and that the
 opposition's views are "evil"(for lack of a better word)(by"evil" I mean
 sexist/racist/liberal-commie-pinko/etc.) To carry this out, one tries to
 censor all opposing views and force their views onto the opposition.

 Note that this type of "correctness" can take place on both sides of the
 political spectrum (I have seen it occur on both sides, boys and girls)

 [Maybe one these days, I'll actually spend some time to word this 
  definition more appropriately }:)]


>No, another part of the PC'ness that I percive is the tendency for the PC
>to fight for somebody else's rights, not their own.  This is where the part
>about letting the direct victim do most of the protesting, rather than
>having the PC person do most of the protesting 'on behalf of the victim'
>in a rather paternalistic (IMO) way.

I understand what you're trying to say and, to an extent, I agree with you.
The only problem I see lately, is that anyone who helps another by standing
beside them or standing up for them is immediately labelled as being "PC"
(mainly) by those who proclaim themselves to be "anti-PC". IMO, rabid anti-
PCness is just as stupid as rabid PCness. You've got 2 extremist sides pointing
their fingers at the other and yelling without actually stopping to see what
the other side has to say. 
 Somewhere in this kooky debate, there's gotta be a middle ground.

		Peace,
-- 
"1984 has past, forget about Big Brother
 Welcome to the 90's, where the government's
  your mother."            -Scatterbrain
-Tom Dobrowolsky--LunarWolf---trd54583@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu--(AntiKrist@uiuc.edu)-
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker)
Subject: Re: Tax zap cap
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 00:06:36 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.100715.10947@hellgate.utah.edu> tolman%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Kenneth Tolman) writes:
>>>So why don't we cap incomes at some
>>>very high number, say 1,000,000 dollars a year.
>>>  Or the cap could be a straight one, with the govt taking anything more
>>>than that in taxes.  The extra money would be kept in the corporation, to
>>>be spent on whatever (research and development, which could burn that
>>>cash fast)
>>
>>But the purpose of R&D is to increase your future profits.  What good is
>>this if you can never access these profits?
>
>As you yourself pointed out, why would anyone work hard if they could not
>get more money?  Well, there is the expectation of future profit which
>they still can get.  

If your income is limited to a million dollars a year, then there is no
incentive to increase the value of the company above the amount that will
generate this much per year.
From: ak574@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (David Choweller)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy,soc.history,soc.culture.filipino
Subject: Re: Did American Troops Kill 3 Million Filipinos?
Date: 16 Apr 92 16:13:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1992Apr16.161309.5956
Reply-To: davidch@zimmer.csufresno.edu
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


In a previous article, mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer) says:
>No, this is the sequel to the Spanish-American war which ended, three
>years or so later, with the Philippines as an American colonial
>possession.  It was the United States' only real exercise in 19th
>century European-style colonial imperialism-- sort of a perfunctory,
>"keeping up with the Joneses" kind of conquest.  There was a Mark
>Twain essay on the subject recently printed in _Atlantic_ magazine, in
>which he gave the total body count at "only" one million rather than
>three.  (He was, shall we say, less than pleased by the US' actions.)

So, is one million a low estimate?  I read the Atlantic article (a good
read, by the way) and the estimate is from U.S. officer.  So Gore Vidal's
estimate is on the high side.  If Vidal is right, then the U.S. came
close to matching Hitler's killing of 6 million Jews!  Amazing!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17541 talk.politics.guns:11456 alt.individualism:2357
From: blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu (Danger)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Perot for President
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:23:20 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: UB

In article <22572@goofy.Apple.COM> earlw@Apple.COM (Earl Wallace) writes:

[Perot bashin deleted]

>
>Like we have a zillion choices here.  Talk about drawing a bad hand.  Can I
>get a new set of cards (candidates) please?

Consider Andre Marrou  -Libertarian

Libertarians support the Constitution as it was intended.  A delineation
of Powers granted to government.  All other powers of government are
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.


To other Libertarians reading the Net listen good!

There is a tendency among people unfamiliar with the party
to see the first 5 letters and nothing more.

It is very very wrong to see Libertarians in the same light as
Liberals!  
Be sure to underline that Libertarian is NOT Liberal.  We don't
need to be painted with the same brush.

Libertarians want to deregulate the ownership of guns to the
extent they were _intended_ to be and that ain't all!

Marrou/Lord in '92

-- 
************************************************************************
Thaddeus Krag Blayda blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu, v063j3h4@ubvms.buffalo.edu
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Caution : DANGER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I may be crazy...But it might just be a lunatic you're looking for
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism.d,talk.politics.theory,talk.environment,sci.environment
From: nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson)
Subject: What's wrong with America.
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam NY
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 03:48:43 GMT

There are multiple things wrong with America, but I will only address one
of them here.

But first, to make sure that I am not called a "Blame-America-Firster", I
will praise America.  The American way of life has produced untold bounty
for its citizens.  Even the poorest person here is fabulously wealthy compared
to the poor of the third world.  Most Americans have all their material needs
met, and more so.

But the problem is that "more so."  We here in America seek satisfaction
through the acquisition of material goods.  We have been taught that we will
be "better off" than our parents.  And indeed, in terms of material goods,
we are.  Our refrigerators are bigger and more well stocked.  Our air
conditioners are more numerous and powerful.  Etc.

But we are not happier.  That is because we have reached the
saturation point for material goods.  We have gone "over the hump", to
where the money earned to pay for yet another material good is paying
for less and less pleasure and buying more and more environmental
destruction.  (Again, note that this does not apply to the poor in
America, just the middle class.)

So, what is to be done?  Well, there is hope.  Instead of seeking
pleasure through material goods, which pleasure must necessarily be
fleeting, some people are learning to seek pleasure through the arts,
and through human relationships.

Environmentalism, when pursued to its logical conclusion, demands that
we "make do" with fewer material goods.  There are people who cannot
imagine happiness without the continual acquisition of new and
improved goods.  This article answers, in part and in very brief, the
question of how we can be "poorer" and happier at the same time.

[ This article seems to short and "choppy".  Perhaps I am leaving too
much out.  A whole book can be written on this subject, and indeed, has.
It is _The_Poverty_Of_Affluence_, by Paul Wachtel.  If this article
speaks to your condition, then you will enjoy the book.  ]

--
--russ <nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> I'm proud to be a humble Quaker.
Peace is not the absence of war.  Peace is the presence of a system for
resolving conflicts before war becomes necessary.  War never creates peace.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: visser@convex.com (Lance Visser)
Subject: Re: WHO IS LARRY AGRAN (Demoract) FOR PRESIDENT?
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 03:06:00 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <9204071900.AA07135@tba.msi.cornell.edu> harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (Harel Barzilai) writes:




+>How many Tompkins County voters have heard of Larry Agran? He's been
+>campaigning for the presidency since August 1991 -- the second
+>Democrat to announce his candidacy. He's on the ballot in New York
+>State, and got more votes in New Hampshire than Jerry Brown. So why
+>havn't we heard of him?

+>	[Note: Agran did *not* get more votes than Brown in the NH
+>	*primary* (this may have a tiny bit to do with the media
+>	black-out overviewed below). Agran DID *poll* ahead of Brown
+>	in NH (original results by available by email), this I know
+>	for a fact, and not far behind Harkin; it is *after* this
+>	strong 	showing by Agran, the mainstream nooz refused to
+>	include Agran in any of the natioanlly broadcast debates -HB]

	Deception to explain deception right?  The numbers that both
	Agran and brown were drawing were so low that the polls margin of
	error became very significant in this widly touted poll
	result.  What matters is that in the primary he got next
	to no support.








Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17201 talk.politics.guns:11325
From: mcgredo@bluto.ie.orst.edu (Don McGregor)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: right to bear arms
Date: 7 Apr 92 20:36:24 GMT
Reply-To: mcgredo@bluto.ie.orst.edu
Organization: Oregon State University - Univ. Computing Services

cl231519@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes
>A note about the constitution and the right to bear arms:
>
>1)it guarantees your right to own a musket.(that's all thefirearms they had
>back then)

And clearly, the first amendment only protects publishing when manually  
operated presses with hand-set type are used (that's all they had back  
then).  Assault Xerox machines are right out.

--
Don McGregor             | "I like maxims that don't encourage behavior
mcgredo@bluto.ie.orst.edu|  modification"   --Calvin
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:16934 alt.politics.elections:421 misc.taxes:2120 alt.society.civil-liberty:3242 pnw.general:509
From: edp@math.zko.dec.com (Eric Postpischil)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,misc.taxes,alt.society.civil-liberty,pnw.general
Subject: Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS
Date: 6 Apr 92 13:09:57 GMT
Reply-To: edp@math.zko.dec.com (Eric Postpischil)
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

In article <visser.702539448@convex.convex.com>, visser@convex.com
(Lance Visser) writes:

>	The party also supports the "right" of private discrimination in
>employment, housing, and "service".

But supporting the right to do something is not the same as supporting
doing something.  There are economic and social means by which
discrimination can be combatted, and I feel these would be more ethical
and more effective than government force.

>	They believe that it is wrong to
>have laws that require doctors to help at the scene of an accident or
>an emergency.

I really don't think we have to worry about an epidemic of non-help at
accidents or emergencies.  In fact, reluctancy to help at accident
scenes is most likely due to ridiculous liability judgements that I
would also support changing.

>	They believe in repeal of the child labor laws and the minimum wage.

Libertarians certainly don't believe children can be exploited!  Maybe
current laws are too excessive, but wanting to change them doesn't mean
children will be unprotected.

As for the minimum wage, it is clearly unethical for the government to
use force to require one person to pay another a sum of money when both
of the parties involved are willing to voluntarily make other
arrangements.  Most people seem to think of minimum wage as meaning the
employer _will_ pay the employee more money.  What it really means is
that the employer will _not_ hire people for jobs that are not worth as
much as minimum wage.  It means that work will go undone, that people
with few or no skills will be denied a route to enter the job market and
improve themselves, thus putting them on welfare and keeping them there
because they can never get the START from which to work to better
positions.


                                -- edp (Eric Postpischil)
                                "Always mount a scratch monkey."
                                edp@alien.enet.dec.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
From: fist@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Richard Pierson)
Subject: Re: right to bear arms
Reply-To: fist@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Richard Pierson)
Organization: Bell Communications Research (Bellcore)
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 15:51:48 GMT

It could always go the other way and change a few names
redefine as it were, some examples:
M-16A3 musket
AK-47R5 musket
M-203A1 (AR-15 on top and a 40mm shotgun underneath) combo
etc...Hell if politicians can change wording around to suit
why cant the manufacturers ?
Or put out some militia models meeting mil specs.
-- 
##########################################################
There are only two types of ships in the NAVY; SUBMARINES 
                 and TARGETS !!!
Richard Pierson E06584 vnet: [908] 699-6063
Internet: fist@iscp.belcore.com,|| UUNET:uunet!bcr!fist  
#include <std.disclaimer> My opinions are my own!!!
I DONT CARE IF I SOUND CONFUSED, I KNOW WHAT I MEAN !!!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17164 alt.individualism:2308
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Big Bri)
Subject: Re: The erudite National Review picks on Bill CLinton's daughter
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 03:40:14 GMT

sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:

>|> >And they say that Conservatives have no sense of humour!!
>|> 
>|> Unfortunately, the president is the biggest joke of all.
>|> 

>And he's no Conservative (or at least, that's what most Conservatives say).

Perhaps but he's no moderate. He sure as hell is no liberal. He's not as 
conservative as the demogaguic Jesse Helms but he no liberal (this is not
to imply that all conservatives are demagogu
es or that no liberals are dema.
but Jesse Helms is my favorite whipping boy)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL 	  is a bleeding heart liberal card-carrying member of the ACLU.
CLARKSON '95
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU

"Yassir Arafat had a terrible accident. He tried to fax a mail bomb...."
	---Johnny Carson


     
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: more info on Perot: 1st article of 2
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 21:48:19 GMT

rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>My impression from the original post was that the authors used the average
>age number to show airlines were not replentishing their capital stock (buying 
>new aircraft).  The implication being that they were lowering their costs
>not through increased efficiency, but by delaying capital purchases.  This 
>should be taken into account when looking at lower ticket prices (not assume
>that lower ticket prices are entirely the result of increased efficiency).

But this is great.  If before they were making unnecessary airline
purchases at our expense, and are no longer doing so, this is indeed
increased efficiency.
-- 
Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17947 ca.politics:3437 ba.politics:2645 alt.politics.homosexuality:2030
From: djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 04:07:31 PDT
Distribution: world
Organization: NMS&Systems Engineering

mike@batpad.lgb.CA.US (Mike Batchelor) writes:

> The sun goes round the earth.

[blibbering from butt-pad mikey deleted]....

> The sun goes round the earth.
> 


You have a habit of repeating yourself... Is this perhaps due
to some learning disorder like super-dyslexia or something???

Is this normal? Are you speaking the way you need to hear 
things in order to understand others?

Please tell us.


-djk

--- Daniel J. Karnes / WA6NDT --------------------------------------
--- NMS&Systems Engineering ----------------------------------------
--- Djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM / ..CtEdge!Nitro!Djk ----------------------
-- 'innovative solutions for modern problems' ----------------------