HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gsmith@polyhymnia.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 17:03:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.154816.1446@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu
(Yamanari) writes:

>	This is a matter of contention.  Being black--it is not even
>	a possibility that it's a choice.  Being gay, it is still 
>	up in the air as to whether it's inborn or learned behavior 
>	(with the further question of, "can it be cured in either case?")

>	Pretty fluid with those facts, huh.  Claiming that "gay is not
>	a choice" is like me claiming "god is a huge cow with two heads"
>	because there's a *chance* that it's possible, no proof against
>	it, and it happens to be my opinion.  

This is, typically, nonsense.  If being gay results from either
something inborn or learned behavior, then (if we mean by "learned
behavior" what the scientists using the term mean) in neither case is
it a choice.  The only thing resembling a huge cow with two heads
around here is Mr. Yamanari, since I would guess the average huge
cow with two heads makes about this much sense.  At least it can moo
in harmony.

>	"Orientation"?  Sexual orientation is *behavioral*. 

If a psychologist hooks you up to the right equipment and shows you
pictures of this month's Playboy centerfold, it is not hard to
determine if you are sexually aroused by it.  The same is true of this
month's Playgirl centerfold.  Unless you are willing to count arousal
as being a form of behavior, this won't work.  If you do, where does
"behavior" stop?  Does the production of brainwaves constitute
"behavior"?


-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy)
Subject: Buchanan (was Re: Bob Hooker's possibly fraudulen)
Organization: Kalamazoo College
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:03:54 GMT

mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
>Jamie R. McCarthy (k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu) wrote:
>: 
>: Allow me to quote from the January 1992 newsletter of the Institute for
>: Historial Review.  The IHR is the leading North American neo-Nazi
>: organization...
>
>I won't waste my breath fighting NeoNazi propaganda.  I've got my hands
>full with the Democratic Fascist Party... :)
>
>[ quote from neonazi magazine article deleted ]
>
>I think you have a hard time documenting any kind of consistent anti-semetic
>activity or agenda by the man.  

Allow me to repeat the relevant sections from that quote you
conveniently deleted:

>     In a syndicated column written in early 1990, Buchanan cast doubt
>on the generally accepted view of Treblinka as a notorious German
>"death camp" where hundreds of thousands of Jews were gassed to death.
>     Buchanan responded by saying that Treblinka was certainly a
>terrible place where hundreds of thousands of Jews were taken, and
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>where thousands of Jews died.
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I'll start trusting the IHR on the day that Rush Limbaugh has an affair
with Jane Fonda.  But they do, on occasion, get facts right (though, when
those facts concern the Holocaust, they always seem to get
misrepresented).  That is why I asked:

>: Does anyone have a transcript of that section of "This
>: Week with David Brinkley"?

Or, a copy of Buchanan's column might do as well--though it won't be
much fun to flip through every editorial page from "early 1990".
Sorry I don't have a more precise reference.

Mike writes:
>I remember hearing about the conversation in question before, and most likely
>saw it.  I did not ever remember any anti-semetic statements...

Pat would not have said anything like "Jews are evil."  He would have
said someting like what I've underlined above.  Given that you don't
remember whether or not you saw the program, do you think it likely that
you'd remember whether or not he'd said that?
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy      Internet: k044477@kzoo.edu      AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "Estimated number of DOS viruses in existence today:  1,500
  Number of Macintosh-based viruses:  Less than 40
  New DOS viruses discovered in summer '92:  More than 100"   - ComputerWorld
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: andrewg@ece.cmu.edu (Andrew R. Ghali)
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christiani
Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Originator: andrewg@viper.ECE.CMU.EDU
Reply-To: andrewg@ece.cmu.edu
Organization: Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 00:27:36 GMT


In article <82942@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:

[deleted]

>I thought that the report in question refered to Hiroshima sized bombs.
>Modern nuke's are several thousand times as powerful.
>-- 

As someone who has worked in that industry, I can tell you that modern
ICBM's (i.e. ours) are in the "hundreds o' kilotons" class.  Look it up
in Jane's for an actual number.  Warheads have gotten smaller as ICBM
accuracy has gone up - megatonnage is overkill and eats up payload on
a MIRV'd vehicle.  The old Titans which were phased out in the '70's
carried a much larger single warhead (still much smaller than "thousands
of times larger than [13Kt]") but their CEP was correspondingly higher.
The trend is to smaller throw weights over time.

Also, to another poster earlier, who claimed that we have ICBM's with
16 RV's per launch vehicle: that is incorrect.  We are limited by treaty
(with the former USSR) to 10 RV's per missile.

Based on the 20 megaton figure cited by someone earlier, the Mt. St. Helens
eruption would require a significant fraction of our Peacekeeper force
to repeat (assuming that it is possible to simultaneously detonate that
many weapons without fratricide, but that's a whole 'nother story).

Andrew
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Man of the Year (was Re: Is the media liberal-biased)
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 19:30:50 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.044846.122@cis.ohio-state.edu>,
csmith@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith) writes:

|>For me, however, the clearest indication of media bias was what they
|>considered news during the election. Did we hear anything more about
|>Clinton's
|>draft dodging? Or Jennifer Flowers? No, it was all Iran-Contra and whether
|>Bush knew about it or not.  And I STILL think the timing of the indictment
|>was significant. The indictment was so full of holes it was thrown out only
|>three weeks later.

If the indictment was full of holes why did Bush feel he needed to give his chum
a pardon?

Strange set of priorites which considers opposition to a futile and evil war and
a possible bit of nooky on the side to be a serious issue compared to a
systematic and deliberate plan by the President to break the law and breach the
US constitution.

Nixon merely covered up when his friends went a bit over the top. Bush and Regan
deliberately committed serious crimes. Arming terrorists in Iran and using the
profits to arm terrorists in Nicaragua is a damn sight more serious than what
Nixon did.

--

Phill Hallam-Baker
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 6 Jan 93 13:03:50 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1id686INNicv@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc) writes:

> From whom did Mr. North receive this gift?

If you will review the relevant press accounts of the affair, I'm sure
that you will be able to find the answer to this yourself without too
much effort.

> From where did the monies come from?

Where, indeed?

> If you would like me to get *my* facts straight, please feel free to
> help me "straighten" them out.

Because, apparently, you are unable to do so all by yourself.

> If you have facts, please post them.

Because, obviously, you are completely bereft of facts.

> But please post *all* the facts ie: if he was given this security
> system, by whom did he receive it?  Where did the money come from?
> etc etc.

I would urge you to acquaint yourself with a particular type of
institution within our society known as a "library".  It is a
repository of knowledge where answers to these kinds of questions are
to be found without having to depend upon others to provide them for
you.

> Please enlighten me.......

Enlighten yourself, you idiot.
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Libertarian heaven
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 06:09:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan07.030032.4406@microsoft.com> leecr@microsoft.com (Lee Crocker) writes:
>>Geff Underwood writes:

>>I wasn't reading about a month ago [when the Libertarian Somalia
>>nonsense was originally debated], but in my experience the most
>>characteristic sentiment of a libertarian is the line "That government
>>is best which governs least".  To me, that implies that the best
>>possible situation would be no government at all.

>You'll find no argument from me, even though the party itself is
>mostly reformer types with softer rhetoric--I'm a more orthodox Libertarian.

>Where I will argue is the idea that Somalia resembles in any way
>what Libertarians are working for.  The overwhelming majority of
>Somalis are unarmed, poor, unable to work because there is no trade
>or industry, unable to own private property because it is looted
>by armed theives supplied by foreign governments.  What do you
>call those battling gangs of armed thugs with no respect for anyone's
>rights but their own?  I call them governments, and Somalia's
>problem is too many, not too few.  They fulfill all the traditional
>roles of governments--they keep the majority of people unarmed
>and starving, they fight amongst themselves for the loot they have
>stolen, and they fight anyone who tries to better himself by earning
>an honest living.

Quite right, which simply points out the silliness of a libertopian
anarchy.  (I recognize that not all libertopias are synonymous with
anarchy.)   There is no evidence from human history that such a 
situation is *possible.*

ANY time there was no strong central government, there has *always* been
these gangs springing up to perform (some of) the functions of government.

>Libertarian heaven may or may not have a government, but its people
>will be too busy getting rich to notice.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,talk.politics.guns
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:40:23 GMT
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 <1ia8p9INNhe3@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>In article 9955@romulus.rutgers.edu, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:

>> Moreover, he did not "steal" money, nor was this ever part of the
>> allegations against him.  Nor did he violate public trust -- he upheld
>> it much better than virtually all of his detractors.

>That's right.  The money that he "borrowed" to buy that home security
>system is going to be repaid right?  

The only question that Bob raises here is whether he is a liar or an
idiot.  The security system was given to him by Secord.  The alleged
offense was accepting a gift.

Just to put it in perspective, during the course of his investigation,
Walsh has accepted gifts from the Watergate hotel in the form of
reduced rate lodging that exceed the value of the home security system
given to North by Secord.  Walsh is covered by the same laws that
North is on accepting gifts.  So far no one has indicted Walsh.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.current-events.somalia,alt.politics.bush,alt.president.clinton
From: chrisb@seachg.uucp (Chris Blask)
Subject: Re: WAR IN BOSNIA!!!!
Reply-To: chrisb@seachg.UUCP (Chris Blask)
Organization: Sea Change Corporation, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 15:22:45 GMT

>    The Serbs proposed evacuating Saraevo's civilian population, 
>    but the Bosnian "goverment" would not let the evacuation take 
>    place, for they hold the women and children of Saraevo hostages
>    and use them as human shields, as well as for target practice, 
>    preferrably in front TV cameras (more than once the "Bosnian" 
>    goverment was caught shelling their own civilians for propaganda 
>    purposes).
>

Unfortunately, evacuating the population of a country is somewhat akin to
abandoning ship; whoever comes in and takes control is the new owner, and that
is _exactly_ what the Serbian military wants.  A friend of mine is Croation,
and we've talked wuite a bit about the subject (not that that makes me an
expert), and it seems that everyone is willing to admit that there is
propoganda and bs on both sides, but it is impossible not to draw the
conclusion that Serbia is the major aggressor here.  I mean, they had a
leader (Panic) who seemed to want peace, so they ignored and ousted him.
All the Serbs need to do is stop shooting and draw back.

What are the Serbs after, anyway?  Does anyone know?  Bosnia and Croatia
are recognized countries now, does Serbia just want their territory?  I
realize that there are Serbs and Croats and Bosnians throughout the region,
but you don't have to form nations along ethnic boundries, or we'd be
chopping up every country on earth (White-South-Africa and (seven
different) Black-South-Africas, a White-Anglo-Blond-Male-USA, a Liberal-
Jewish-Male-Over-5'6"-USA...)

-chris blask
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 00:34:37 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.204023.13522@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>In article <1ia8p9INNhe3@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>>In article 9955@romulus.rutgers.edu, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>
>>> Moreover, he did not "steal" money, nor was this ever part of the
>>> allegations against him.  Nor did he violate public trust -- he upheld
>>> it much better than virtually all of his detractors.
>
>>That's right.  The money that he "borrowed" to buy that home security
>>system is going to be repaid right?  
>
>The only question that Bob raises here is whether he is a liar or an
>idiot.  The security system was given to him by Secord.  The alleged
>offense was accepting a gift.
>
>Just to put it in perspective, during the course of his investigation,
>Walsh has accepted gifts from the Watergate hotel in the form of
>reduced rate lodging that exceed the value of the home security system
>given to North by Secord.  Walsh is covered by the same laws that
>North is on accepting gifts.  So far no one has indicted Walsh.

Adding some more perspective ....

4 days before the election, the Walsh team sent up an indictment,
highly publicized, which contained "new" information, actually around
for two years, regarding notes describing Bush at a meeting.
The indictment, charging lying to Congress, was thrown out, for the
second time, by a Federal judge.

Meanwhile, earlier in the year, a report - the Fleming report -
on who illegally leaked the Anita Hill affidavit to the press came out.
The report showed clearly that Anita Hill lied in testimony
(regarding contacts with staffers among other things),
and also made clear who was involved in the leak to the press.
Neither Hill nor the staffer have been indicted for their
respective crimes.

Other famous leaks: Sen Pat Leahy made an illegal leak of classified
information in 1987. He apologized publicly for this, but
of course never faced prosecution for this.

Pat
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,talk.politics.mideast,alt.conspiracy,alt.censorship
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Libertarians
Organization: LLNL
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 23:46:44 GMT

In article <markp.726866518@joplin.wri.com> markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>In <ARCHER.731.726863156@utkvm1.utk.edu> ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>
: In article <90226@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
: >In <1993Jan12.025829.11030@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
: >
: >|In article <1993Jan12.015430.29461@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS) writes:
: >|>In article <1993Jan11.092637.7245@microsoft.com>, leecr@microsoft.com (Lee Crocker)                           writes...
: >
: >|: While many Libertarians, myself included, are guilty of prophecying
: >|: contrived wonderful free-trade societies that we think would result
: >|: from our policies, our opponents always drag out these contrived
: >|: counterexamples that also have no basis in reality.
: >
: >|	But some enterprises _have_ to be big, and much too big for
: >|the sort of romantic individualism that Libertarians and certain
: >|others profess. How does one keep them from misbehaving?
: >
: >|	"Contrived counterexamples that have no basis in reality"?
: >|More like "I don't want to hear about unpleasant facts like the
: >|occurrence of monopoly and near-monopoly capitalism".
: >
: >Why do you have this fascination with big companies.
: >-- 
>
: He has the same problem that I do with "pure libertarianism," I think.  Lib 
: philosophy clearly identifies coercion of the individual with force, either 
: phycial (literal strong arm robbery or kidnaping) or intellectual (fraud.)  
: On thing that I am yet to be satisfied with is "force by economic power."  
: A large company or extremely wealthy individual can coerce the less well off 
>
>If using one's resources to get one's way is ALWAYS "coercion," we're
>all guilty of it every day.

	But I thought that Libertarianism was based on the
"Non-Coercion Principle".

: by virtue of the ability to buy entire industries or land areas, and lib 
: philosophy appears morally deficient in the way that it addresses this 
: concern.

	That's a difficulty I have also. How does one deal with
violations of the Non-Coercion Principle? Some Libertarians seem to
think that governments are essentially the only violators of that
principle, and if we could only get rid of that g-thing, we would have
a society of virtuous anarchists. But there are such violators, both
on the individual level and on the business level. Arguing that it
would be contrary to enlightened self-interest only demonstrates that
-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.libertarian
From: thomson%jensen.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Rich Thomson)
Subject: Re: Libertarians
Date: 12 Jan 93 18:22:30 MST
Organization: Computer Science Department, University of Utah, SLC, UT

In article <1iv4mmINNs17@transfer.stratus.com>
	jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com writes:
>Libertarians cite free markets and unlimited individual rights (as opposed
>to the obligations that are the result of living in a society)

Every libertarian post I've ever read and every libertarian I've ever
met talks about the combination of rights and responsibility.

Individuals have the right to decide for themselves the fate of their
life, liberty and property so long as they do not abrogate the life,
liberty and property of other individuals.  However, no libertarian
would suggest that individuals are not responsible for the outcome of
their decisions.

Thus libertarians oppose both seat belt/helmet laws and people who sue
for injuries incurred due to their not wearing a seat belt/helmet.

With rights come responsibilities.  Libertarians advocate that people
become self-empowered by their rights and take responsibility for
their own actions.

						-- Rich
-- 
		    Don't blame me; I voted Libertarian
Internet: thomson@asylum.cs.utah.edu		Rich Thomson
IRC: _Rich_					PEXt Programmer
From: ed@wente.llnl.gov (Ed Suranyi)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Execute Amy Fisher!!!
Date: 10 Jan 93 06:17:46 GMT
Organization: UC Davis Dept of Applied Science at LLNL

In article <1ilcd8INNc7@im4u.cs.utexas.edu> lwb@cs.utexas.edu (Lance W. Bledsoe) writes:
>PS - Do any of you guys remember voting to support the UN?  I can't
>find the "UN" part in my copy of the Constitution...

What a ridiculous point!  You won't find any mention of "North American
Free Trade Agreement", "Head Start", "Environmental Protection Agency",
"SALT Agreement", "Strategic Defense Initiative", etc. in the Constitution,
either!  The Constitution can't mention every political issue or
organization that is of interest.  What the Constitution does do, is allow you
to vote for the people who do make these decisions.  

Ed
ed@wente.llnl.gov
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:66668 alt.rush-limbaugh:13298
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Is Private Charity That Effective? (was Re: "New Right" Libertarians?)
Date: 11 Jan 1993 19:59:28 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1993Jan11.190055.26061@genie.slhs.udel.edu>  
rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Rich Schwartzman) writes:
> 
> If you're referring to Aramony of the United Way, yes, there was a
> controversy over his annual compensation, reported to be more than  
$400,000
> per year.  However, there was no proof of any wrong doing.

Well, there was no proof of any illegalities.  I think
the head of a charity making >$400,000 is wrong doing by most
definitions of the term.


--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:67335 alt.president.clinton:1513
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Date: 12 Jan 93 18:59:49 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <C0Mrys.MI0@agora.rain.com> robart@agora.rain.com (Joe Bob) writes:
>In <1993Jan8.073836.6197@psg.com> michaels@psg.com (Michael Sandy) writes:

>>If an Impeachment can override a Pardon, could the Senate use
>>impeachment proceedings to override _Weinberger's_ Pardon?

>  What would be the point in impeaching Weinberger now?

Nothing.  You CAN'T impeach him now.  All impeachment (and conviction)
does is remove him from office.  If he's not *in* office, impeachment
can't touch him.

-- 
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 |