HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Anti-discrimination (was Re: why don't you just read soc.motss)
Keywords: blah blah
Date: 12 Apr 92 00:33:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.s80hgINNn2g
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: ygdrasil.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <6wtjd2f.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.035029.3955@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (James Woodyatt) writes:
>> Finally, I dare say I expect I could fabricate a hypothetical
>> situation wherein an adult could consent to do something in
>> private with another consenting adult and you would jump
>> through flaming rhetorical hoops to explain that the activity
>> should be punished by the government.
>
> This I gotta' see ... I call your bluff, fabricate away .....

Well, I'll suggest the obvious one -- drugs.  Does Clayton support
decriminalization of all drugs?  Do people have the right to do
whatever they want to with their bodies, as long as they are the only
victims?

I have a feeling Clayton would argue that life begins at conception,
so abortion isn't a victimless crime, so I won't even mention it...

	Wayne
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Campaign $$$$$$$
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 03:10:53 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.032541.1048@oz.plymouth.edu> m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.212025.18123@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>
>>Dukakis & Bush spent around $240 Million combined in 1984.
>                                                      ^^^^
>Shouldn't that be 1988?

Typo.  I meant '88.  I didn't mean Reagan-Mondale (though, how much
did they spend?)
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Electronic Town Hall and Drug Searches (was Perot for President)
Date: 9 Apr 92 04:30:34 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <rdippold.702726166@cancun>, rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
> tdawson@wheaton.edu (Anthony Palmer Dawson) writes:
> >The obvious response to these arguments of "privacy invasion/property 
> >destruction" is couched in my original post.  How many Americans do you think 
> >would vote for the kind of searches you propose?  Not many.
> 
> Certainly they would.  For instance, it's not going to happen where I
> live, a nice middle class residential area, it's going to happen in SE
> San Diego, were most of that activity takes place.  If I thought drugs
> were evil and Government was My Friend, I could vote for it without
> any consequences for me whatsoever.
> 
Exactly, I hear that quite often, and it makes me angry. Sure, people
are busy with their lives and can't cover all the issues. But it is
scary thought that people will endorse this type of thinking from Tony
Dawson, even if he was conducting some type of word game. Yes, people
are short-sighted as long as it doesn't happen to them.
And I don't have all that much faith in an electronic town hall to
convert those who don't have time for it.

barry--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker)
Subject: Re: Elections in the Mother Country ...
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 16:04:19 GMT

In article <STEINAR.92Apr10171532@faust.solan.unit.no> steinar@faust.solan.unit.no (Cindy Kandolf) writes:
>Andrew Baker writes:
>>If you look at the 15 American presidential elections from 1932 to 1988,
>>incumbents have run 11 times, and won 8/11 of these times.  The three
>>losers were Hoover (depression), Ford (Nixon appointee/pardoner), and
>>Carter (stagflation, military weakness, and malaise).  Bush is clearly
>>in better shape by this standard, so I was estimating 2-1 odds in Bush's
>>favor.  British and American elections have been fairly correlated in
>>recent decades, so if the Tories really win, this may make it as much
>>as 3-1 (although that's probably pushing it).
>
>But there's a problem with your analogy.  Although the Conservatives have
>managed to hold on to their majority in Parliament, they have _lost_ seats.
>So even if this correlation you have noticed is a more than a coincidence,
>it doesn't give any unmixed prediction about how things will go in the
>US this fall...

After reviewing the British results, my feeling is that it is 5-2 for Bush
at this time.  If the Democrats can find a more convincing nominee than
their current frontrunner, this would change.

Incidentally, can someone cite the statistics for incumbent candidates
for the whole history of the US (instead of just since 1932)?  This
information should be available in any decent almanac.
From: casseres@apple.com (David Casseres)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot for President
Date: 7 Apr 92 22:07:03 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Mar30.082209.7631@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>,
baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Mar30.055147.11728@Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU
(Roger Lustig) writes:
> >A few years ago, Perot gave his prescription for solving crime problems:
> >cordon off minority neighborhoods and search house-to-house for guns and
> >drugs.
> >
> >There you have it, folks, a simultaneous urination on THREE
> >Consitutional amendments:
> 
> A lot of Americans think that this country has to do *something* about its
> rising crime rate, and many of them are getting very tired of all these
> ACLU ideologues who think that liberty for criminals is as important as
> liberty for law-abiding citizens.  I personally don't think that it
> is necessary to amend the Constitution in order to fight crime, but if
> it is necessary, so be it.  A cost-benefit analysis of some incremental
> change like more gun control or more general search warrants would be more
> useful than emotionalistic talk of "urination" and so forth.

Well well well.  First we saw that Pat Buchanan, whatever his inner thoughts
about Jews, has the wholehearted support of some unquestionable anti-Semites. 
And now we see that Perot, whatever his attitude to the Constitution and to
individual liberties, has the approval of at least one gen-you-wine Fascist.
That's Fascist with an unabashed capital, F, folks.  I don't think I've ever
seen such a forthright example on the Net.

> >This is a man whose idea of liberty involves him ALLOWING you to be free
> >-- if you're good.
> 
> Well, most Americans are "good" so this shouldn't be a problem for them.
> And the people who aren't good -- Willie Horton and friends -- well,
> maybe they deserve a little less liberty.
> 
> >Look out.
> 
> I am still hoping that Bush wins; I hadn't thought much of Perot, but from
> the way you describe him, he doesn't seem that bad either.

And for lagniappe, we also learn something about Bush's support.

--
David Casseres
Exclaimer: Wow!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Ulrich Neeracher)
Subject: Re: Bush and the Adultery Question (was The Character Issue...)
Organization: Integrated Systems Laboratory, ETH, Zurich
	<Apr.4.13.45.22.1992.5080@math.rutgers.edu>
	<kts1omINNg5j@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 11:26:05 GMT

In article <kts1omINNg5j@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
>In article <Apr.4.13.45.22.1992.5080@math.rutgers.edu>, cromar@math.rutgers.edu 
>(Scott Cromar) writes:
>
>|> 
>|> Have any reporters asked Bush the "have you ever" question?  Rumors
>|> that I've heard include affairs with a current White House protocol
>|> officer, an ambassador and a judge (all three of whom gained their
>|> positions by Bush appointment).  
>
>Actually, a mention of this was made on last week's McLaughlin Group, and the
>reply from Jack Germond was something to the effect that there WAS a very hot
>rumour circulating in 1982, which was investigated by a whole bunch of guys
>(he himself was at the now-defunct Wash. Star) and the trail went stone-cold
>due to an absolute lack of evidence. So, Bush, with all his other warts, at least
>is free of THOSE kinds of accusations in re his personal integrity.

After all, a former Director of the CIA can be expected to know how to pull off
covert actions and not get caught :-)

But I really don't believe Bush has any extramarital affairs. He already does
it to his country and (probably) to his wife, why should he need a mistress ?

Matthias

-----
Matthias Neeracher                                   neeri@iis.ethz.ch
        "I came to the conclusion that sex is a sublimation
         of the work instinct" -- David Lodge, _Small World_
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Subject: Re: censorship
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: 'Operation: Mindcrime'
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 05:32:10 GMT

hap@scubed.com (Hap Freiberg) writes:
>In article <lamontg.703378713@milton> lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist) writes:
>>Life imprisonment is nearly as effective, costs less
>                                           ??????????
>Hasn't it been established that it costs ~$25k/year to incarcerate some-
>one? That could get very expensive and is an expense that I would just
>as soon not have my taxes go to...

So you'd rather your taxes go towards prosecuting a capital sentence
through all the various appeals processes?  It *IS* cheaper to keep them
in jail (barring making the execution process easier, which increases the
chances you kill someone innocent). 

>>>>There is also a deterent factor involved.
>>The death penalty has *never* been shown to have a deterrent effect.
>
>The deterent is that the murderer will not not have the chance to murder
>again, a scenario I find most satisfying.

Like I said, murder has the lowest recidivism rate of violent crime.  And
the number of murderers who escape from prison and go onto kill again 
probably roughly equals the number of innocent people you'd kill with
capital punishment.

There was a good article on this published in Scientific American within
the past year...

-- 
Lamont Granquist  lamontg@u.washington.edu  (anon: ap.4497@layout.berkeley.edu)
University of Washington, Seattle.    Disc: if UW ever finds out what I post... 
alt.drugs FTP site: milton.u.washington.edu[128.95.136.1] dir:/public/alt.drugs
               For quotes and other useless info see my .plan
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Where is B-CPU, you ask?
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 21:36:11 GMT

dfpedro@nv2.uswnvg.com (Donn F. Pedro) writes:
>>>I sent mail to Alan. He is the originator of the connection; in other
>>>words, he knowlingly, willingly, and admittedly set up the connection
>>>for B-CPU. 
>>
>>So what's wrong with that?  I would hope that he wouldn't refuse
>>anyone a connection, be they b-cpu, John Palmer, or even a Brown for
>>President BBS.   The slime that comes out of b-cpu is no-one's
>>responsibility but their own.

>I don't think there is anything wrong with asking Alan, "why?"

"knowingly, willingly, and admittedly" gives a connotation of guilt.
I have no problem with asking him why he did it (free speech?  I'd set
up a connection for anyone who wanted it).  But I find this a bit like
the judge calling the defendant "that guilty SOB" before the trial.
I've been trying to think of a way in which you could say that someone
"knowingly, willingly, and admittedly" did something in a positive manner.
-- 
BASIC is to computer programming as "qwerty" is to typing.
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: ACLU dogmatism
Date: 6 Apr 92 03:01:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: Princeto.1992Apr6.030132.16521
Distribution: usa
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU

In article <1992Apr5.060039.20552@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker) writes:
>In article <BAGCHI.92Apr5001430@sparky.eecs.umich.edu> bagchi@eecs.umich.edu (Ranjan Drzzzzt!  Bagchi) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr5.041925.19506@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker) writes:

>>>>They didn't ban him for 'harassing the patrons', they banned him for
>>>>being smelly.  Making lots of trouble there.  Sometimes, they ban people
>>>>for being black -- that 'harasses the patrons,' too.

>>>Amazing.  I posted this example as a kind of "ACLU-baiting"; I thought
>>>that maybe, the ACLU supporters would say something like: "Look. You
>>>can't blame us for every last thing the ACLU does.  Sure they do some
>>>loony things, but they also do a lot of good things." To this, I might
>>>agree.  But you took the bait, and defended perhaps the silliest, most
>>>obstructionist position imaginable!  Regarding ACLU dogmatism: I rest
>>>my case.

I don't worship the ACLU; for instance, they worry about the
establishment clause wrt things like "in god we trust."  While I agree
with them, I don't think it's very important.  But my main criticism
comes in that they do not go far enough in protecting our rights.

>>	Amazing indeed.  You make an information-free statement, and
>>consider it a rebuttal.  People's smell and housing conditions don't
>>deterermine their rights as citizens, at least while you're not in control.

>What do you mean "while [I'm] not in control"?  The court affirmed
>my position!

The appeals court did, true.  The lower court agreed with the ACLU.  Who
knows what another court (if any) will say?

It's hard to imagine what the ACLU does being labeled as "obstructionism";
they don't block clinics like Operation Rescue or conduct sit-ins like
ACT-UP.  They take the government TO COURT when they disagree.  They
don't obstruct anything; they use the judicial system to protect our rights.

-- 
David M. Nieporent              |ALEast 92: 1.Baltimore 2.Boston 3.Toronto
niepornt@phoenix.princeton.edu  |4. Detroit 5.Milwaukee 6.NY 8.Cleveland
"Baseball stathead, and card-carrying member of the ACLU.  And proud of it."
From: lbaum@bcsaic.UUCP (Larry Baum)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Jerry's Tax (was Tax simplification)
Date: 7 Apr 92 14:47:56 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle

In article <1992Apr3.202130.11523@crd.ge.com> davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes:
: One interesting thing is that the tax (as I understand it) is not
: regressive. By allowing people to deduct rent as well as mortgage, a
: number of low income people would get a break they never had, and
: probably would pay no more taxes than previously. And you could
: understand the tax forms.
: -- 
: 	- bill davidsen (davidsen@crd.ge.com)
: 	GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
: By analysis of usenet source, the hardest part of C to use is the comment

Unfortunately, the doing away with the personal exemptions for
each family member (currently 1900) greatly outweighs any
benefit from the rent deduction.  In fact it outweighs the
comined effect of the rent deduction and the elimination of
FICA!


-- 
Larry Baum
Computer Science Organization
Boeing Computer Services     uucp:       uw-beaver!bcsaic!lbaum
(206) 865-3365               internet:   lbaum@atc.boeing.com       
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,alt.individualism
From: skrone@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (stuart.krone)
Subject: Re: Libertarians ARE Liberals (was Re: Perot for President)
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 19:45:02 GMT

In article <14APR199218161972@jane.uh.edu> mece3d@jane.uh.edu (Chris Struble) writes:
>In article <1992Apr9.171811.17931@acsu.buffalo.edu>, blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu (Danger) writes...
>
>>Consider Andre Marrou  -Libertarian
>> 
>> >To other Libertarians reading the Net listen good!
>> 
>
>
>But we ARE liberals. We are, in fact the only liberals in America. 
>
I wouldn't say that. Liberal has taken on an extremely negative
conotation synonomous with left wing authoritarian.

I hate being called a Liberal. You might want to refer to us
as classical liberals but even that has a negative ring.

I fully understand your point and the history of the term "liberal"
but considering the conotation I distance myself from the 
term just to be safe.

Stuart Krone
Libertarian party candidate for Congress
3 rd C.D. Pennsylvania


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18292 ca.politics:3494 ba.politics:2666 alt.politics.homosexuality:2158 soc.motss:20376
From: wells@cs.hw.ac.uk (Francis Wells)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Date: 14 Apr 92 23:24:49 GMT
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Heriot-Watt University, Scotland

In article <iTF9iB4w164w@Nitro.CtEdge.COM> djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM writes:
>elf@polari.com writes:
>
>>    Nobody inflicted my love of men upon me.
>> 
>>          Elf !!!
>
>I feel sorry for you. :(
>
>-djk
Danny my sweet, there's no need to feel sorry.  Be a good boy and feel me 
instead!  I'll show you what *REAL LURVE* can be - and you need never need
your thirst quenching AGAIN!!!

Huggles
	Frankums.
______________________________________________________________________________
        This pink triangle was drawn \bi/ Francis Joseph Wells
B4 f t g++ k+(+) s+ p                 \/                    wells@hci.hw.ac.uk
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Smart highways near  (was Re: What keeps me from being Lib.)
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 13 Apr 92 10:39:10 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <rdippold.702939428@cancun>, rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
> sasafw@dobo.unx.sas.com (Fred Welden) writes:
>>economic crime of tax evasion, you could look at the package deal and
>>say "Nope, too much waste and corruption.  I'm not paying until you
>>clean things up."  But if the package deal includes enough programs
>>that you need, or feel are worthwhile for others, you'll pay and
>>then insist that things get cleaned up.  The Libertarians, who
>>insist that everything the government does can be done cheaper
>>privately, will of course withhold their taxes and spend the money on
>>toll roads, private parks, private libraries, and so on.  How about it?
> 
> I like it, except where the cards are kept legally stacked as to make
> it impossible.  For example, there are often laws in place to make
> sure that using an alternative to government supplied services is
> illegal.  Those would have to be removed.

	Speaking of toll roads, AT&T and Lockheed announced that they will
jointly construct the world's first "smart highway" with computerized toll
booths that automatically debit your monthly account.

	Heh heh.  Welcome to Libertaria. :)

Brett
===============================================================================
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                            CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 21:05:47 GMT

In article <RJC.92Apr9105300@devo.unify.com>,
rjc@devo.unify.com (Ronald Cole) writes:
>In article <PMETZGER.92Apr6184039@snark.shearson.com> pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>   We are also pro choice, because we support the right of
>   individuals to decide whether or not their wombs are to be put to use
>   or not, and to decide whether or not to be a parent.
>
>Not exactly true; the Libertarian party is still split on this issue.
>I am Libertarian and pro-life because I oppose the initiation of force
>against an unborn child to achieve social goals.  I recognize that the
>unborn child has a right to life.  These are my opinions only and
>posted solely to point out the fact that all Libertarians are *not*
>joined at the brain-stem.

While there is indeed debate among libertarians on the morality of
abortion there is no ambiguity about the official party position
which remains solidly pro-choice.  A move to consider the idea of
changing that position failed by the objection of over two thirds of
the delegates at the last national convention.

Personally I find the term "pro-life" rather meaningless, especially
when applied to libertarians where the debate clearly centers around
whether there is a life not whether that life has rights.  There are
actually a fairly large number of libertarians who could be
classified as anti-abortions from reasons ranging from the religious
to "I'd rather err on this side of the line", but of these only a
very small percentage are anti-choice because they recognize that if
we can not as reasonable people of good-will manage to resolve this
issue among ourselves, giving that power to government is hardly
likely to create any improvement.  The decision on whether or not
to abort calls for moral and clinical judgement beyond the power of
reason to currently resolve.  Which is exactly why it should be left
as an individual decision.

/June
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18187 alt.society.civil-liberty:3450
From: balaji@nexus.yorku.ca (V. Balaji)
Subject: Re: "Government is not the solution, government is the problem!"
Organization: York University
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 16:23:01 GMT

ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:

>  "Reagan Was Right: Government Is the Problem"
>  by Charlton Heston

[followed by your usual rightwing crap]

We get enough of this in the mainstream "free press". Why pollute Usenet
with it?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: weverka@spot.Colorado.EDU (Robert T. Weverka)
Subject: Re: A flat tax is too progressive (was Jerry's Tax)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 13:05:14 GMT

Inarticle <7493@orbit.cts.com> jduffin@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Joshua Duffin) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr15.132855.5410@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> weverka@spot.Colorado.EDU (Robert T. Weverka) writes:
>>]Let's see...  National budget -a few trillion
>>]              # of people     -quarter billion
>>]
>>]only $8000 each.
>>]Yes, Lets have a head tax of $8000 each.  Anybody that can't pay
>>]we will throw in jail.  
>>]At my income level I just have to give up the rice and beans and maybe
>>]move into that spot under the bridge.  I'm sure the other homeless
>>]people there will make room (or maybe they'll be tossed in jail for
>>]not paying head tax, that'll make room for me)
>>
>Well, also, unless the government just expanded to take on the entire GNP
>while I wasn't looking, the budget is around 1 trillion, not several trillion.
> That would be about $4000 per person.  However, Libertarians also advocate
>reducing government spending drastically--to a level more around $1000 per
>person.  That is quite a bit less than most people pay now--whether or not
>they have a lot of money.
>
whoops,  i blew it.

here is correction.

Federal budget-  1.25 trillion
population  quarter billion

per person- $5,000

My families share- $15,000

Well that is my entire income.  I would have to move to another country.

-Ted