HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: ACLU
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<1992Apr8.002940.23633@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
	<ART.92Apr8004815@world.std.com>
	<1992Apr8.085320.3477@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 04:23:40 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.085320.3477@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker) writes:

   In article <ART.92Apr8004815@world.std.com> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
   >In article <1992Apr8.002940.23633@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker) writes:
   >
   >   In article <ART.92Apr7113917@world.std.com> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
   >   >In article <1992Apr7.023024.1152@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker) writes:
   >   >
   >   >   In article <rqo3nINN6sl@agate.berkeley.edu> mitja@hera.Berkeley.EDU (Mitja Baumhackl) writes:
   >   >   >Sorry to break the news, but communities DON'T have rights.  Read the
   >   >   >Bill of Rights and I don't think it talks about groups but instead
   >   >   >defines rights for individuals.
   >   >
   >   >   Read the whole Constitution.  Its principle purpose is to grant certain
   >   >   rights to the federal government: the right to declare war, the right
   >   >   to regulate interstate trade, the right to collect taxes, etc.  If you
   >   >   don't want to use the word "rights" for the government's prerogatives,
   >   >   that is fine -- but juggling definitions isn't going to make your
   >   >   argument any stronger.
   >   >
   >   >I suggest you take your own advice and read the whole constitution.  It
   >   >refers to POWERS granted to the gov't, not to rights.  There is a big
   >   >difference here....
   >
   >   Sorry, this difference escapes me and is in any case irrelevant to the
   >   issue under discussion, namely a library's right/power/privilege/prerogative
   >   to exclude the noisome.
   >
   >Sorry, but again, I suggest you try reading.  The library issue is
   >irrelevant, in the light of your quasi semantic quibblings.  You raise
   >the point of the statements in the constitution, misquote them and then
   >don't like having your error called to attention.  Sorry, you're wrong.

   Sorry, I didn't make any error, and you are the one is quibbling.
   My original point stands.

Bull!  You insist that the words "powers" and "rights" are synonyms.
Further, you cite the United States Constitution as your authority.
Again, read the constitution, if you can, and you'll see it NOWHERE
mentions the gov't as having rights.  Powers yes, rights no.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: bf957@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Barry H. Rodin)
Subject: Re: A flat tax is too progressive (was Jerry's Tax)
Reply-To: bf957@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Barry H. Rodin)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 23:11:56 GMT


In a previous article, john@anasaz (John Moore) says:

>
>I just love the terminology that we have in the tax debate. A flat
>tax means that the amount I pay for government "services" is
>proportional to my income - the more money I make, the more I get screwed.
>A "progressive" tax means I get screwed exponentially!
>
>A FAIR tax would be a flat amount of money paid by each person to his
>government. A flat tax is just MORE fair than a "progressive" tax -
>which is ridiculously unfair.
>
>The word "fair" has come to mean "take more from anyone less deserving
>of having money than me - ie, anyone who makes more of it." What a
>sad state of affairs.
>
>-- 
I agree !
If we have "One man -- one vote"
we should also have "One man -- one tax"   !!!

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17213 ca.politics:3350 ba.politics:2595 alt.politics.homosexuality:1818 soc.motss:19487
From: fierro@uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Date: 7 Apr 92 22:39:08 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

>it is 'inflicting' a lifestype upone someone who has no choice.
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                      lifestype upon

...and I can't type today :-(

Doug
-- 
                                                     Doug Fierro
                                      |\             UTS System Software
  O                         __________|_\______      CASE tools development
  \_.______________________| * * * * * * * * */      fierro@uts.amdahl.com
 __\____                   |=================/       (408)746-7102
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: What keeps me from being Lib.
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 04:59:47 GMT

I should note in all this that I'm not opposed to paying the
government for services.  However, to have the government take close
to half my income, with the ability to toss me in jail if I don't
cough up, and then to waste it (and to know that all the money they
take from me as long as I live will be wasted in less than a second)
on pork, entitlements, unecessary spending, and just pure waste, or
even worse, that they'll spend it on something completely repulsive to
me (war on drugs, for example) is insane, especially when I know what
could really be done with that money.
 
However, if the government would fund things that truly need to be
performed by the government, and made an effort to eliminate waste,
and told me how much they thought they'd need to do it, and suggested
a payment I'd most likely be happy to pay it.  I give 5% a year to
charity, I would be happy to do the same to a minimalist government.
5% is far more than necessary, but there are others who probably
wouldn't give anything, so I'd give a bit more.  It's no longer
coercive, and best of all, they have to justify to me that their
spending increases are excusable, or I don't increase my payment.
They have incentive to only fund necessary programs and to cut waste.

In addition, with the huge number of you "Taxes are a wonderful thing"
still giving your 40%, they'll have more than enough money.


-- 
Isaiah 36:12: "Hath he not sent me to the men that sit upon the wall,
that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?"
From: sheneman@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (Jerry Sheneman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Ross Perot appearances
Date: 11 Apr 92 23:11:38 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard - Boise, ID

Interested in finding out more about H. Ross Perot?  His
scheduled appearances include:

     April 11, 8:00 p.m. cst. =  C-SPAN I

     April 16, check local time = LARRY KING LIVE


I'm a volunteer for the Perot petition drive in Idaho.  I've
found that many people have not yet heard of him.  The ones that
have however are very enthusiastic.  It will be interesting to
watch what happens in the coming months.
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Ozone problem burns Politically Correct
Date: 6 Apr 92 04:33:59 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Apr5.153906.9233@anasaz> john@anasaz (John Moore) writes:
>Keywords: 
>
>In article <4APR199219110535@zeus.tamu.edu> pac9897@zeus.tamu.edu (PHIL CARNEY) writes:
>
>I keep asking this question, and getting no answer: has anyone measured
>significant increases in UV-B in populated areas? Can you answer this?
>
>Malignant melanoma deaths are also greatly on the rise in the Southern
>US, but this has NOTHING to do with the ozone hole and everything to
>do with excess sunlight exposure. Furthermore, the ozone hole is a new
>phenomenon, and melanoma typically has a ten or twenty year latency.

The NY Times had a few articles on the ozone hole recently, mostly
on the effects on sunbathers in Chile.  I recall that there was
significant anecdotal testimony on a rise in reported cases of both
types of skin cancer, though it should be kept in mind that better
reporting of cases doesn't necessarily mean serious damage by UV.

Folks down there are putting on more sunblock, though.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17330 rec.sport.hockey:9199
From: entropy@yaya (Lawrence C Foard)
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 02:39:40 GMT

In article <41F9iB6w164w@Nitro.CtEdge.COM> djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM writes:
>Actually, that example was the most vivid of several such parents 
>I have encountered..

And I suppose the following family is alright because they are a good straight
Christian family?

From noc.near.net!hri.com!know!mips2!news.bbn.com!usc!rpi!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uxa.cso.uiuc.edu!mjh39177 Tue Apr 14 22:15:11 EDT 1992
Article: 1005 of alt.brother-jed
From: mjh39177@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tom Banjo )
Newsgroups: alt.brother-jed
Subject: Re: brother jed back at Umd anytime soon?
Date: 14 Apr 92 07:03:25 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

beowulf@wam.umd.edu (eighqmes) writes:

>In article <1992Apr11.022625.15342@wam.umd.edu> spinoza@next03wor.wam.umd.edu (Prince Lev of the Domovoi) writes:
>this is something i've wondered about for a while -- a
>guy was here last spring (at Univ of MD) with his wife,
>a few kids, a whole bunch of signs, a cross, and a 
>pretty vocal attitude. i never did find out what his name
>was, and i was curious -- could this have been The Jedster?
	
   [Woody Allen sig deleted]
	No, that's Dennis. Dennis and his wife and his six kids (four daughters
and two sons, all under ten years of age) tour around the country in a mobile
home, subsist on peanut butter and boloney sandwiches.  Dennis preaches; you
can identify him by the two-logs-wired-together cross that he _always_ holds.
The kids hand out leaflets and answer all questions in terror with averted 
eyes, always mentioning how much Jesus is Their Special Fucking Buddy.  The 
wife rides herd on the kids, talks up the interested-appearing (read: potential
converts/sources of cash), and responds to intense questioning and "I'm gonna
go call fucking DCFS _right_ NOW!!!" with "C'mon, kids, back in the van..."
Lots of "The Lord will provide..." and "Jesus told us to do this."  Folks, if
you see Dennis at your school of place of employ, don't _tell_ him/his wife
you're gonna call Children and Family Services (my mistake! I'm dumb...), just
_go_ _call_ them... these kids, hard as it is to get them to answer questions,
seem to be suffering mightily.  Get them _away_ from this fucking wacko if you
can, _please_.

	Flame away... Sorry, but I feel _rather_ strongly about Dennis...
Matt. ---- mjh39177@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu


-- 
Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are 99.44% true.            ------  0<p<1  
Hackers do it for fun.  |  Being Bisexual squares your         \    / therefore
"Profesionals" do it for money. |  probability of not getting   \  / p^2<p and
Managers have others do it for them. |  laid on a saturday night.\/ 1-p^2>1-p 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17315 alt.politics.elections:544 misc.taxes:2153 alt.society.civil-liberty:3295
From: ni@hal.com (Minister of Silly Walks)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,misc.taxes,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: What keeps me from being Lib. (was Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS)
Date: 7 Apr 92 20:01:54 GMT
Organization: HaL Computer Systems

In article <1992Apr7.193628.24602@cs.ucla.edu> frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Frazier) writes:
:rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
:
:>Yes, notice all those "requirings" and "forcings" and "mandatings?"
:>Vaccination and child labor are the responsibility of the parents.
:
:I agree with almost everything up above, with a major exception
:being "vaccination... [is] the responsibility of the parents."
:We all suffer if people don't vaccinate there kids.  In a "perfect"
:libertarian world, we wouldn't have to pay for all of the sick
:people's medical care, but we would still suffer the economic
:and social repercussions of large percentages of the populace
:being sick if vaccination against measles, polio, rhubella, etc.

I would have absolutely no problem with vaccinations, _if_.

The problem comes in that there is a lot of conflicting evidence,
both ways, as to the effectiveness of vaccination.  In addition,
the long-term effects of the vaccination is really not very well
known, nor is the effect that the vaccination has on the rest of the
body's immune system very well understood.  Basically, there is no
such thing currently as an informed decision on vaccination.
In light of this, I have a lot of trouble with the idea of forced
vaccination - you're mandating that people have something that is
not fully understood (and, to attempt in vain to head off the flames,
you can NOT claim that vaccination is _fully_ understood unless you
discount large numbers of qualified researchers) done to them; it
would be sort of like saying "go into this room, and when you come out,
we think that it's likely that you'll never have xxx problem, though
we don't quite know what this process will do to the rest of your body,
though in the last 10 to 20 years, we haven't noticed anything wrong
in our small test group that we can't attribute to something else in
their environment".
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
	"We have high-calibre management here, as in .44 and .45"
		-- Andrew Heller, Mr. HaL Himself
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Acting!!! Re: "Government is not the solution
Date: 12 Apr 92 15:22:20 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Apr12.044435.1@jaguar.uofs.edu> ddc1@jaguar.uofs.edu writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.054420.25066@nuscc.nus.sg>, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>> 
>> 
>>   "Reagan Was Right: Government Is the Problem"
>>   by Charlton Heston
>
>	Great another actor who thinks he knows how to fix the gov't! Who's
>next? Tom Sellack?!?

Has Ahnold Schwarzenegger expressed any political ambitions?
He is a Kennedy, and is on the Bush Council of Exercise,
or somesuch.
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: Electronic Town Hall and Drug Searches (was Perot for President)
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 18:39:04 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.163745.5709@wheaton.wheaton.edu>,
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.  If the Perot
>administration cannot come up with a viable, legal, Constitutional program to
>present to the American people, then the Town Hall has worked to prevent an
>injustice.  If they develop a fair and implementable solution to a problem,
>then reasonable Americans will vote for it and welcome the positive results.
>Am I a hopeless populist?  Perhaps, but reasoned refutations are welcome ;-).

Unfortunately, I'm afraid that the answer to your first question
is "far too many".  Most people will believe either the police
would only get rough with people who looked and acted suspicious.
Look what's already happen in the search and seizure arena that
people are just willing to ignore.  We already have too many
people who feel that drugs are so evil that *anything* should be
permitted to stop them (even though most of what they're afraid of
is really related to the illegality of the drugs than the drugs
themselves).

Look what the people of Italy and Germany were able to ignore in
their countries 60 years ago.  It *can* happen here.

/June
From: tami@niktow.canisius.edu (Tami Crawford)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Don't vote for Brown! (Was Re: Perot Or Brown. Vote For Change!)
Date: 5 Apr 92 23:37:23 GMT
Organization: Canisius College, Buffalo NY. 14208

In article <1992Apr4.151051.8911@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill) writes:
> 
>    I'd like to again encourage people to vote for one of these two men. We
> need something totally new in this country. Either one of these two men
> will make a great president. Some of you might be afraid of change, but we

If you think Brown is new,  you haven't been watching him much.
Brown uses emotional appeals to manipulate people.  He doesn't
care whether what he's saying has any basis in reality
(for instance, when making accusations).

Brown ran on this same type of platform in '74.  He still
was one of those "corrupt politicians" taking $1000 donations
and arguing to eliminate limits on contributions after that.

Brown is using the "Senator Smith" strategy thought out
by Pat Caddell (brown's campaign speech was written by Caddell
in 88, two years before brown testified to *remove* campaign limits.
The idea on the flat tax was to be very vaguely defined so that
it couldn't be criticized (it could be good idea or a bad idea, depending
on the details)

Vote for Perot if you want change.  Brown is just a sleazy version of
the worst we've got in politicians.   I sent him some money when
he first started campaigning because I thought he stood for something.
Then I watched his stump speeches from several different places, and
saw his slanderous statements, saw him duck the issues and spout
anger about everything under the sun before I realized I had been duped.

-- 

Name: Tami L. Crawford           | Computer Science Dept
Email: tami@canisius.edu         | Canisius College
Phone: (716) 888-2433            | Buffalo, NY 14208
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18577 misc.legal:9407
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Unions
Date: 17 Apr 92 14:44:05 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <BZS.92Apr16191130@ussr.std.com> bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>From: rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
>>As long as unions get special preference from government, they
>>shouldn't be too outraged to find out that they end up paying the
>>piper.   Otherwise I'd agree.
>
>What special preference is that? Most of the regulations I know of
>(e.g. the NLRB) were set up to keep unions at bay and put strict
>limitations on their ability to engage in things like job actions etc.

The National Labor Relations Act requires employers to negotiate in good
faith with *one* union.  In J.I.Case Co. v National Labor Relations
Board, 321 US 332 (1944), the Supreme Court ruled that a contract that
an individual employee had negotiated with the company before the
certification of a union was not enforceable, even if the terms were
better than the result of the collective bargaining between the union
and the employer.  
-- 
Ted Frank          + "Question whether attorney's filing claim for 'stud fee'
1307 E 60 St, #109 +  as countersuit to paternity action was improperly
U o' C Law Skool   +  motivated required remand."  Headnote 9, Committee on
Chi, IL 60637      +  Legal Ethics of WVa State Bar v Douglas, 370 SE2d 325.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17991 alt.activism:7633 soc.rights.human:1384
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,soc.rights.human
Subject: Re: Candidate Larry Agran Excluded, Arrested
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 23:50:00 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <visser.702970984@convex.convex.com>

 >+>Jerry Brown recently said,
 >+>"Why doesn't he get some people together and hold his own event?"  That
 >+>was the same rationale used by white bigots back in the 1950s to keep
 >+>blacks out of segregated schools -- "separate but equal."  The Supreme
 >+>Court threw out "separate but equal" because it was unconstitutional.  I
 >+>guess Jerry Brown didn't get the message.
 >
 >	This is true garbage.  Excluding Agran, who has since the beginning
 >beginning tried to muscle his way into national promenence/coverage by
 >claiming to be a "victim".  He has no support.  The party and the
 >media know it.  

But this IS "working within the system"--the DEMOCRATS' self-proclaimed
ethical system.  Under this system, one person's "need" becomes another's
obligation, such "obligation" being enforced by the guns of the State.  As
long as the wicked capitalists can be conscripted as hosts, the Democrats
cheerfully side with the parasites.  Now that it's their turn, they behave
just like good professional hypocrites.


   Alan T. Furman           |       Vote Libertarian--Marrou/Lord in '92
----------------------------+--------------------------------------------
   atfurman@cup.portal.com  |  Stamp out signature viruses!  Pass it on!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17270 ca.politics:3360 ba.politics:2601
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Jerry's Tax (was Tax simplification)
Followup-To: usa
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 21:29:07 GMT

In article <54180@hydra.gatech.EDU> dsm@prism.gatech.EDU (Danny McGurl) writes:
>In <70585@bcsaic.UUCP> lbaum@bcsaic.UUCP (Larry Baum) writes:
>
>>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!
>
>That depends greatly on who you are and how much you make.
>
>Cosider a single person.  1900 / 12 is well under 200$ and most people
>spend more than that on rent.  That doesn't even include FICA elimination.
>For anyone making 30K or so a year, the FICA elimination will be even 
>greater than the 1,900$ deduction.

But for a single person, the deduction is $5,550 ($3,400 filing singly
plus a $2,150 standard deduction).  That's over $450 a month.

The VAT will just about counteract the FICA savings.
-- 
Ted Frank          + "I would think that if God were on Arafat's side, the
1307 E 60 St, #109 +  plane wouldn't have crashed in the first place."
U o' C Law Skool   +  
Chi, IL 60637      +  					--  Daniel Frank
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
From: jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com (Jake Coughlin)
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Originator: jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 92 17:08:04 GMT
Organization: IBM T. J. Watson Research

djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM:
> As they say down under: 
> 
> 'Kiss my pooter mate.'

oh dear, have you been mating with poodles again?  you oughta consider
the cruel lifestyle that you're inflicting on those poor walking afros;
i would suggest a chia pet; i hear they're even into water sports...
-- 
Jason Coughlin ( jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com )
Queer Without A Cause!
"I find myself suddenly in the world, and I recognize that I have one
right alone: that of demanding human behavior of the other." -- Fanon
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc