HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: haefner@infonode.ingr.com (Mark W. Haefner)
Subject: Re: CLINTON: Acceptance speech text - Bible misquote
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:02:03 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.182331.6346@tss.com> burke@tss.com (Jim Burke) writes:
>In article <1992Jul19.162410.5194@infonode.ingr.com>, haefner@infonode.ingr.com (Mark W. Haefner) writes:
>
>|> Then you must hate it even worse when politicians use bible quotes
>|> to try and prove to a certain group that they really believe in the
>|> principles of the bible, but really stand opposite to it. 
>
>You are right, I would hate it if someone (politician or otherwise) claimed
>to believe in a set of priciples and then didn't live by those principles.
>I don't see how this applies to Bill Clinton.  Oh, perhaps he doesn't live
>by _your_ priciples according to _your_ personal reading of the Bible.
>I suppose you would make the same indictment of members of all the 
>Christian churches who promote the principles of the Bible, but are 
>pro-choice.  I assume it is Clinton's stance on abortion that caused you
>to question his commitment to Biblical principles.  Or are you refering to
>the rumoured extra-marital affairs?  In that case, let he who is without
>sin cast the first stone...
>

Gee, you were beginning to get on a roll with the accusations against
Clinton. Either one would cast doubt as to his moral character (IMHO).
I wouldn't cast stones at him, but I certainly wouldn't cast votes
either!

>
>|> By the way, Clinton's use of "covenant" was taken by many in the media
>|> covering the convention as a way to make the southern christian groups
>|> feel that they had something in common with Clinton. Try though he may,
>|> Clinton will not get the southern vote.
>
>I heard no such analysis.  And even if someone did give such an analysis,
>so what?  It is an analysts job to pick things apart.  
>

So what, to your so what?

>The original poster, by the way, said he had no problem with Clinton's
>quoting of the Bible.  It was the use of the word "covenant" that he objected
>to and that was what I responded to.  I stand by that.
>
>-- 
>
>	Jim Burke	"Life is uncertain - eat dessert first!"
>	Teknekron Software Systems		... burke@tss.com
>  	phone:(415) 617-2432			... uunet!tekbspa!burke

I don't object to whatever words or book he cares to quote, I was simply 
responding that his use of the word covenant was used to tickle the ears
of the southern christian voters. It wouldn't matter to me what he would
say. 


Mark


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:36609 talk.politics.theory:3121
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: The Age of Consent    was Libertarian Platform
Date: 30 Jul 92 15:31:44 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

Al Date) writes:
|> T. Archer) writes:
|> >
|> >>|> >No minimum drinking age, eh?  Pretty scarey to me...
|> >>|> 
|> >>|> Why?  Because it makes individuals responsible for their actions?  I can see 
|> >>|> how that would scare some people.
|> >
|> >>How does giving a fifteen year old the right to get drunk make him 
|> >>responsible for his actions?  Children are children and their actions
|> >>need to be subject to control.  
|> >
|> >Yes, and it is the job of the parents to control them, not the state.  
|> >Banning alchol sales to minors has done nothing to curb drinking by minors, 
|> >it has just increased the taboo appeal.
|> 
|> Actually, I have heard that other drugs are more readily available
|> than booze to teenagers.  
|> 
|> >  Actions of the state cannot 
|> >compensate for bad parenting.  And the state has no business in the 
|> >parenting business.
|> 
|> Ask any parent if she has control over her teenagers.  If not,
|> then teenagers should be held to be adults, legally speaking.
|> They should pay rent, be allowed to work for peanuts, be liable
|> for contracts, whatever it takes.  
|> 
|> Dont the Hebrews say that a boy becomes a man at puberty?
|> 
Jewish boys become men at 13.  This is a custom dating back to the days
when adults were married in their mid teens and dead in their 20's and
30's.  Schooling was complete, except for religious instruction which
went on for life.  In today's society not even Jews think thier 13-year
old adults are reponsible citizens.
|> >
|> >>This silliness about giving a 5 year old
|> >>full adult rights is just plain goofy, and until the Libertarians stop 
|> >>saying goofy silly things like this, they will remain a fringe party with
|> >>little popular support.
|> >
|> Look.  There is no absolute moment at which people all become able to
|> give consent, so we have to choose an arbitrary point.  18 is obviously
|> way to high, 6 is way too low.
|> 
|> PUBERTY as the age of consent is the only reasonable answer to this 
|> dilemma, one which is quite common in human societies.
|> 
Puberty hits girls as early as 10-11.  If you think a 12-year old is
emotionaly and intellectually ready to give consent, you have never had
a 12-year old.

|> It may be arbitrary, but it makes a lot more sense than what we
|> have today.  Go ahead, flame me.  

Why flame you.  I'll just wait until you have raised a child through the
pre-teens and let you flame yourself.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: Perot sued!!
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 14:09:33 GMT
Organization: Culturale Elit

In <DOCONNOR.92Jul21154118@potato.sedona.intel.com>, doconnor@sedona.intel.com sez:
>
>You can't usually sue for specific performance of personal service contracts,
>because that would be indentured servitude. You can only sue for damages.
>Therefor, expect the suit against Perot ( which is asking for specific
>performance as remedy, not damages ) to be tossed out.

But you *can* obtain a negative injunction barring the offender from
performing the services elsewhere.  All the court has to do is enjoin
Perot from running for president of any other country.


:).  Like, duh.

-- 
		       Apres moi, Les Etooges.

	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:35791 alt.politics.elections:9091 alt.politics.perot:1072 alt.mcdonalds.smut:6 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2037 alt.politics.marrou:162
From: wilhited@brahms.udel.edu (Douglas Ben Wilhite)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot,alt.mcdonalds.smut,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Farewell Perot
Date: 24 Jul 92 15:52:52 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware

In article <1992Jul22.193130.6958@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson) writes:
>In article <22JUL92.15386207.0024@MUSIC.TCS.TULANE.EDU> TCWS000 <TCWS@MUSIC.TCS.TULANE.EDU> writes:
>>In article <BrM35E.G2p@news.udel.edu> bew@brahms.udel.edu (Ben Williams) writes:
>>>
>>>This reminds me of when recently Bush vetoed a bill that would have
>>>automatically registered people to vote when they got their driver's license
>>>renewed.  I heard that one of the complaints was that this would put the
>>>republicans at a disadvantage... haha, is that funny or what...
>>>
>>
>
>Well, I had to add a little accuracy into usenet (where it has no place !)
>but the so-called 'Motor Voter' bill would not automatically register you
>when you got your drivers license. I would have vetoed a bill that did that;
>for one thing,no one should be coerced in any way to be registered to vote,
>and for another, you dont have to be a citizen, or 18, to drive.
>
>The bill owuld have required states to make it possible for people to register
>when they got their licenses, or renewed their plates, etc. Im still not sure
>whether i support this bill. The repub excuse of encouraging voter fraud is,
>of course, ridiculous--Im all in favor of states registering people at the
>DMV. What I oppose is the feds telling the states they HAVE to do it.
>
>-Rob
>
>

The bill would require that states give registration forms/info when drivers
come in to get their licenses.  This is one place that a truly high (90+)
percentage of Americans get to every few years.  Even the lower class.
(The truly poor do not visit the DMV all that much though, but many groups
that haven't been registering before now would be reached).

Rob mentions that he thinks people/states shouldn't be coerced into registration
But the drive behind this country is the involvement of the people.
Voting is the one way you can act as a part of the group which governs us.
In effect, it IS our responsibility to vote, and coercion(sp?) to vote is not
bad - a little distasteful, but it does get the voters to come out.

FLAME RETARDANT - I actually don't believe in government (if you do, read some
tom robbins) but I do think that responsibility for what goes on in this 
world is something we should all take.  Voting is a part of that..

doug w.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson)
Subject: Re: Question about Clinton's "didn't inhale" remark
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 01:37:04 GMT

In article <yhfmd2=.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) has 
the following .signature file:
>-- 
>Richard Crisp         Cupertino, Ca.         crisp@netcom.com
>(415) 903-3832 wk    "what, me worry?"    (408) 253 4541 fax
>
>To say that Bill Clinton's alleged successes as Governor of Arkansas
>qualify him to be President of the US is like saying the shoeshine
>stand operator in the airport is qualified to be CEO of IBM.

This is actually quite an interesting analogy because I think Akers is a
looser and the shoeshine stand operator may very well be able to run the
company beter than him.  I see a certain similarity here with Bush.

Paul.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Freedom of Association
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 13:18:44 GMT

In article <nv8il7o@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:

>The important thing to realize is that I don't want phil to invite 
homosexuals>into his life.  I want him to stop trying to keep us out of 
places he might>go.

No, you want him to be forced to allow homosexuals into his home, car, or 
place of business.

>There is a difference between not associating with someone and making it
>so that you have no contact with someone.

No, there is not.

-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: dianne@dianne.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Dianne Ferrans )
Subject: Re: Which of you is 'good enough' ? VARIETY!
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 18:36:30 GMT

In article <adams.711727920@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
|> snoopy@crchh426.BNR.CA (Antonio Tello) writes:
|> 
|> >Just out of curiosity...
|> 
|> >Could my fellow 'netters' answer these two questions (please post)
|> 
|> >1) how old are you ?
|> 27....
|> 
|> >2) could your history survive the media scrutiny required to be
|> >   elected president ?

You know, this got me to thinking ....people who apply for
top secret security for government jobs, the GOVERNMENT even
ONLY GOES BACK 10 years!  Aren't we being a bit hipocrytical
here?

I believe that people make foolish decisions when they're young.
That's how you learn!  Anyone who got though college without doing
one or two stupid things lived in a CAVE and probably didn't learn
much more about people or life than what they read in sociology
class! ....

I could probably survive scrutiny, if I told just a few
white lies and knocked off only a couple of ex-friends... :-) :-)

I went to college to LEARN, and not just bookwork! 
I hung out with punk rockers and bible-thumpers, clean-cut
republicans and crazy frat boys!  My friends were jewish and mexican
and homosexuals and southern baptists and pentacostals and catholics
and hindus!  Many used drugs, many were so innocent that they didn't
know the meaning of several profanities!  I deeply regret that I didn't
find several blacks to hang with, because I would have loved to find
out what they thought on some racial issues which puzzled me.  

Instead of being knee-jerk scared by what's different, it facinates me!
How dull life is without variety.  Why can't we all just get along? :-)
(I don't care for who said it, but it rings true!)

Could I be condemned, not for my actions, but for my associations??
Thank Got McCarthy is dead!

************************************************************************
* D. D. Ferrans           ! "I like to make everyone's day a little    *
* Software stylist        !  more surreal"                             *
* X 8410                  !             (Calvin & Hobbes )             *
*  dianne@dianne.b24b.    !                                            *
* b24b!dianne!dianne      !                                            * 
************************************************************************

Quote for the day:

 Ho!  Ha-ha!  Guard!  Turn!  Parry!  Dodge!  Spin!  Ha!  Thrust!"

  - Daffy Duck - 

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: aids conference in cuba
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:15:09 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <91715@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
> In article <11375@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #For all the whining the homosexual community does about wanting
# #the government to DO something about AIDS, the one strategy that
# #clearly works -- quarantine and massive testing -- is the one
# #strategy that is completely unacceptable to them.
# 
# Not true at all. Anonymous free testing is readily available in most
# cities in the US. So is counseling, specifically to educate the participant
# on just how reliable the tests are. I was able to receive free, anonymous
# tests every six months until I began my monogamous relationship, and thereafter
# I've used it to my advantage several more times...
# 
# The gay community has made testing an important priority ever since 
# HIV was found to contribute to AIDS and a test was made available.

The Cuban program is mandatory testing -- which the gay community
has vigorously fought.

# As for quarantines, such an idea should be reprehensible to a Libertarian.

Oh, it is.

# As it is for many, dare I say virtually all, gay men.
# 
# kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,

But why is it?  Homosexuals have already demonstrated that they
support using whatever means necessary to stop AIDS, including
extracting enormous amounts of money of the general population,
and whatever means necessary to force people to hire and rent to
them.  So why should they suddenly be concerned about quarantine?
It's for the public good, after all.  Or does your leftist 
demand for the abolition of individual rights suddenly evaporate
when it's YOUR rights?

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"Well, maybe the Holocaust was right *for that culture*." -- a moral relativist
with whom I work.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.discrimination
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 04:41:47 GMT

In article <1992Jul18.120422.23452@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
}arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
}What Ken Arromdee is talking about it "utility"; for some people
}racist practice has utility, and they are willing to pay for it.
}An additional, important aspect of this is that in a free market,
}this utility will be distributed by market forces so that the
}entire market can be affected by a racist minority.  In an article
}about a year ago, I showed that a small number of bigots who were
}willing to pay a premium for housing that discriminated against
}Tasmanians could effectively shut Tasmanians out of most housing.
}I am sure you can run the argument up for yourselves, and you
}can easily find it operating in history -- probably, the history
}of the place you live in.

Will you please e-mail me the article?

}Thus, discrimination can be economically rational, and this means
}that if it causes political problems -- if, say, discriminated
}Tasmanians consistently find they have the worst jobs and the worst 
}housing and so on, and begin to organize around their resentment -- 
}the situation seems to require a political solution outside the
}sphere of classical liberalism.  At least given the present way
}in which jobs and housing are arranged.
}-- 
}Gordon Fitch | gcf@panix.com | uunet!cmcl2!panix!gcf 
}*       1238 Blg. Grn. Sta., N.Y., N.Y. 10274      *

It's not clear to me at all that the solution for this sort of problem must
be political.  In fact, it isn't even clear to me that this is a political
problem.  No one's natural rights are being violated to my knowledge.  If the
dire straits of the minority group inspire them to violate anyone's rights,
then the answer is clearly police action.  If the minority group's rights
are being violated, the answer remains the same.

Given that we're experiencing the fall of statism globally, I find it hard
to believe that any big problems with prejudice were experienced by any
minority group in the past century sans state intervention being a major
means of oppression, but if I'm wrong, please inform me with specifics.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Libertarian Platform
Date: 22 Jul 1992 22:42:37 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

In article <rdippold.711841205@maui>, rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
|> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
|> >But if you have decided your children are not yet responsible enough, to
|> >you support the right of the local sleeze following your child around and
|> >giving/selling them alcohol?  Let's say it is your 13 year old daughter.
|> 
|> I wouldn't have any problem with that, other than that if she abused
|> it then my introducing her to responsible drinking had failed, and
|> that she was disobeying me.  That's our problem, not his.  In either
|> case, legislation isn't going to stop it.
|> 
So you can't concieve of a case where you would rather not have someone
pressing alcohol or drugs on your children before you have developed them
to the point where the can be responsible.

|> >How do you protect your daughter from alcohol and drugs long enough for
|> >you to instill your values?  Have you tried raising kids yet?
|> 
|> Actually, I have no experience with daughters, but, in this kind of
|> situation, would assume that sons would be a similar experience.  The
|> question still holds regardless of the legalization of it - how do you
|> protect your daughter from alcohol and drugs long enough for you to
|> instill your values.  Alcohol and drugs are both illegal for children,
|> but that hasn't stopped it. 

But it has slowed it down.

|>                              What shouldn't be illegal is for me to
|> follow the euopean model here and introduce them to responsible
|> drinking.  Not that I care about the law in that regard, but it is
|> potential trouble that shouldn't be there. 

In some states it is not illegal for you to introduce you children
to responsible drinking.  In texas it is legal, and your chlidren will
even be served wine in a restraunt at dinner if you ask them to.
Unfortunately, the number of deaths caused by underage drunk drivers
does not show this to be a cure.  Other parents are introducing their
children to irresponsible drinking.
From: drm@esl.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Minimum wage: balancing job losses vs pay increases
Date: 25 Jul 92 18:31:49 GMT
Organization: ESL, a TRW Subsidiary


In article jimb47@netcom.com, jimb47@netcom.com (Jim Budler) writes:
>>	It would be interesting to see, if say you work for Burger Phlem,
>>for example, for $4.85/hr, if a minimum wage increase to $9/hr would
>>cause you to get a $4.15/hr raise, or if you would just get canned.
 >
>Frankly, minimum wages have no effect on productive employement in
>profitable enterprises.
>
Oh dear.  It looks as if someone snoozed through econ 101.

>Burger Phlehm, the most profitable enterprise on the face of the earth,
>shifts the burden to their retail price structure.
>
They raise prices on their cokes to $2.50.  The higher prices discourage
office drones from eating out at lunch, and demand for burgers all down
the fast-food strip declines as more people brownbag it.  Since there
are more burger joints than can be supported by the demand, some 
close down unti l equilibrium is reached.  Joe Highschool is thrown out
of work and can't buy the latest CD from the Nun Beaters, "What's 
black and white and can't turn around in a phone booth."

Really, if "mininum wages have no effect on productive employment
in profitable enterprises," why not just up it to $50/hr?  That way
everyone can afford to drive to work in nice BMWs.

(Oh yeah, there's also a lot of studies that conclusively refute your
position.)

---
Don McGregor |  "The platform the program runs best on is the
drm@esl.com  |  overhead projector."

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 15:50:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Research

In article <18521@drutx.ATT.COM>, dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
|> 
|> } |> Obviously
|> } |> food, sex and money are different values but they are all values and
|> } |> libertarians believe that all values should be exchanged only by
|> } |> mutual agreement.  Do you disagree with this?
|> } Yes.  If you stretch the meaning of "value" so that sex
|> } is a value, why can't I stretch the meaning of "value"
|> } so that my cost of living is a value?
|> 
|> If I call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?  Five?  No,
|> four.  Just because I may call a tail a leg does not make it so.
|> 
|> Your calling your cost of living a "value" does not make it so either.
|> Why?  Because people are attracted to more value (like food, sex & money)
|> -- they are not attracted to more cost of living.

Now you're just arguing over the sign.

Would you be happier if I said -1 * cost-of-living is a value?
People are definitely attracted to more (-1 * cost-of-living).
But libertarians still don't object to some company's right
to unilaterally steal some of "my" (-1 * cost-of-living).

-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:36484 ca.politics:6119 ba.politics:3858