HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Death of Canada (Was: Death of America)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 06:37:38 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.054151.299@news.columbia.edu> gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>>>
>>>Sure ... they and their colleagues that I've met are probably the 
>>>last people that I can imagine to take off in a supposed "green card
>>>stampede"
>>
>>well of course that's the case, because those who want to leave, leave!
>>and given your obvious political preferences, why would they bring
>>up such a subject with you anyway? seriously, i don't mean to be rude,
>>but you have shown a particular way of thinking, which is fine, ...
>
>Well, you're calling me a socialist but my friends back home in
>business, medicine and high tech are always joking about me being 
>"Mr. Wall Street" and not because I live in New York City ... it's 
>all relative, 'cos I'm doing my best Canadian small "c" conservative 
>act but I feel like I'm sitting around in a Mao jacket ... (-; (-;

everythin's relative. in russia, you'd be capitalist of the year!
(apologies to any russians reading this for the stereotype)

>
>I dunno how they'd react if I ever walked into the BNR or Mount Sinai
>Hospital cafeteria with you ... but I'd put it on film! (-; (-; (-;

based on what you just said about them, your film would be pretty
boring. i wouldn't have much to say. i know a lost cause when i hear it.

>gld
>
>PS: I'm just trying to inject some humour into this discussion,
> but it is true that I'm considered mildly right wing up north ...

that's a big part of the problem i've been trying to communicate...
if you are "mildly right wing", it's no wonder the NDP are doing what
they are doing...


and sorry to be so dry (in this forum) but as i said in another post
i take these matters very seriously.

makes me wonder if you do, since you have been inserting
those smileys at a clip i don't even see in a "star trek" group.
even in much more serious posts than this last one.

--
charles
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64719 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10388 alt.rush-limbaugh:11849 alt.politics.bush:14693
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Democrat Wars? (was Re: Democrat == Loony Left???)
Date: 18 Dec 92 02:06:57 GMT
Distribution: usa, world
Organization: LLNL

In article <ATAYLOR.92Dec16141149@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
>MIn article <liqce2INNctd@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:

><   LBJ's hawkishness is also not a liberal or conservative issue.  I hadn't
><   noticed that all wars were started and fought by Republicans.  

>	Oh, really? Let's look at the record:

>	DEMOCRAT President Wilson ran for re-election in 1916
>	on the platform, "He Kept Us Out Of War"; subsequently,	
>	the U.S. entered WWI.

>	DEMOCRAT President F.D. Roosevelt did everything possible
>	to get us involved in WWII.

>	DEMOCRAT President Truman declared that Korea was not
>	"in the US sphere of interest", then sent US troops
>	there after the North Korean invasion. 

>	DEMOCRAT President Johnson campaigned for President
>	in 1964 on the platform, "I will never send American
>	boys to fight on the Asian mainland". Almost immediately
>	after taking the oath of office, he dispatched thousands
>	of troops to South Viet Nam (located on the Asian mainland).

	The charge of "Democrat Wars" is a staple of Republican
demagoguery, for those not in the know.

	If the Democrats are to be somehow held to blame, then does
that mean that we should have stayed out of _all_ these wars? Even if
it meant letting the Germans win WWI, the Germans and the Japanese win
WWII, the North Koreans win the Korean War, and the North Vietnamese
win the Vietnam War?

	Just about every Republican since WWII has considered these
wars to be worthy causes, indeed very noble ones. Just consider Nixon
on continuing the Vietnam War before he decided on the "declare
victory and quit" solution of "Vietnamization". And consider what
Reagan thought of the war. He didn't say how awful it was of the
Democrats to get us involved in it. He called it a "noble cause", as
if that was somehow irrelevant.

	The only seriously anti-war Republican I've ever heard of in
recent years was Pat Buchanan about the Gulf War, which he insisted
was really about protecting Israel more than anything else. He charged
that only Israel's "Amen Corner" supported it in Congress and that
soldiers with names like Murphy, McAllister, Gonzalez, and Leroy Brown
[non-Jewish names] will be doing the fighting. Interestingly, Isaac
Asimov in his autobiography _In Memory Yet Green_ recalled that some
of those he worked with in the Philadelphia Navy Yard in WWII seemed
to think that WWII had been fought to "save the Jews" and that our
involvement was somehow contrived by FDR and his Jewish friends.
Something like:

	Roosevelt & Co. decode some messages describing Japanese plans
for attacking Pearl Harbor. They decide to let them do it just to
outrage the public enough to support them.

-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
From: bagchi@eecs.umich.edu (Ranjan Drzzzzt!  Bagchi)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: HERE IT IS! (from ..YOU ARE CLUELESS...) 1 OF 3
Date: 20 Dec 92 16:41:03 GMT
Organization: Recreational Creationists, Inc.


	Another example of why Rush is so dag-burned
funny... he "misses" a few facts, a little context, 
and his dittobots repeat it verbatim. 

	Ah, well... Paul, met the TuckerSter yet?

	-rj
--
Ranjan Bagchi					       Ranjan.Bagchi@umich.edu
oo   oooo  o oo   ooo oo oo   oo       o o  oooo ooo o       o        oooooooo
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christianity causes the fall of civilizations...NOT!)
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 23:10:08 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.154158.14760@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>In article <1992Dec10.021802.13612@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>	Let's see from 1960 to 1992:
>
>>1960-64 JFK/LBJ
>>1964-68 LBJ
>>1968-76 Nixon/Ford
>>1976-80 Jimmy Carter
>>1980-88 Ronald Reagan
>>1988-92 George Bush
>
>>	If you think that JFK, LBJ, and Jimmy Carter are all "loony
>>left-wingers", then I've got the deed to the Golden Gate Bridge to
>>sell to you. But I've seen even Nixon called a "liberal", so I guess
>>the majority of those Presidents are flaming left-wingers.
>
>Do you honestly believe that JFK and LBJ would be considered Democrats
>today?  I seem to remember JFK saying something like "Ask not what
>your country can do for you..."  That sounds just a little to the
>right of modern Republicans.  LBJ was a hawk without compare (IMO),
>and yes, Jimmy Carter was a loony left-winger.  Or perhaps just loony.
>
And remember how it was JFK and Johnson that promoted the space program
during the 60's that ultimately got the US to the moon.  Now, hopefully
Clinton is aware of this in case he starts thinking of cutting the current
space program.  With the right push we could have a manned mission to Mars
by the turn of the century.  The technology is there.  It would be a waste
of the highest magnitude if our space effort faltered for political reasons.

Simon
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,misc.legal,soc.motss
From: hughes@dogwood.botany.uga.edu (Wayne Hughes)
Subject: Re: Gay Child Molesters (Re: Youth Info Needed)
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc  
Organization: Botany Department - U of Georgia, Athens
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 00:26:46 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.001848.830@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Jim.Shirreffs writes:
  
  [...]

>the tone of the responce he got from c++. I'm not going to join the
>"Flame war" but show a little compassion, it's almost Christmas!
>
   So jim, is christmas what it takes to make you show a 
   little compassion?

   Wayne
   directing followups *out* of soc.motss, please
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (REACH OUT AND GREP SOMEONE)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Bleeding-Heart Libertarianism (was Legalizing drugs)
Summary: Point/Counterpoint
Date: 11 Dec 92 21:42:19 GMT
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <1992Dec11.055047.5110@genie.slhs.udel.edu>, starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)       writes...
>In article <1992Dec11.040347.6036@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (REACH OUT AND GREP SOMEONE) writes:
>}I believe that free markets was only one of the topics that fueled
>}the Revolutions of the late 18th century. I've read the "Rights of Man".
>}It is almost purely concerned with civil rights.(small, but important point)
> 
>Actually, a trivial point.  Liberalism includes property rights under the
>category of civil rights and liberties.
> 
True, but that doesn't concern my point. The "Rights of Man" as well as 
the "Bill of Rights" both mainly concern themselves with civil liberties
such as the right of expression, right to trial, ect. Although, property
rights are included, they are vastly outnumbered. 

>}>Price controls on oil remained until Reagan took office, causing the shortages
>}>of the so-called "energy crisis" of the 1970s. 
>}
>}You made a small mistake here. Reagan wasn't in office in the 1970's. Carter
>}was in office when the price controls on energy was relaxed, and Carter was,
>}relatively speaking, a progressive. Reagan and Nixon, on the other hand,
>}were definantly not progressives.
> 
>Reagan decontrolled oil prices.  Carter may have done some relatively good
>things, like relax the controls, but he didn't lift them.  He also began
>much deregulation as an anti-inflationary measure, but on the whole, he
>was an economy-commander.

I remember this. Reagan finished the job, but Carter removed (this is from
memory, but I'm pretty sure about this) 95% of the controls. Also, his
deregulation of oil was the prime ingrediant to the inflation that occured.
Carter's worst inflation occured in 78 and 79. Those were the years that
oil prices shot up becuase of deregulation.
> 
>}>How about taking us off of the Bretton-Woods agreement - the "international
>}>gold standard"? 
>}
>}Speaking of gold, Carter (that progressive again) removed the price-controls
>}on gold too. Also, I believe that we should have never printed paper money
>}in this country.
> 
>Perhaps, but he sure didn't stop inflating!  I would agree that paper
>currency isn't among those powers delegated to the Federal or State
>governments, but support free banking.

When he deregulated oil, the price shot up. When he deregulated gold, the
price shot up. He seemed to be a victim of the free market.
> 
>Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
>starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Somalia
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:49:46 GMT

In article <BzFoMA.FMA@ns1.nodak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
>In article <1992Dec17.161645.3316@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>>The reference was to the Somalis who got killed or wounded at the
>>weapon-confiscation checkpoint. Their truck (or bus) failed to stop
>>and the French soldiers fired on them. The original story (disinformation)
>>was that there was a weapon mounted on the truck. Later it was admitted
>>that their was no mounted gun, but the men were armed and were trying
>>to run the roadblock to keep their weapons. Finally, the disinformation
>>gave way to truth: the passengers were not armed and their junker truck 
>>had bad brakes. Why did the truth come out? Because the press was there.
>
>Hmm, I watched the Pentagon press briefing, and nowhere did they come up with
>any of these stories.  Maybe Dan Blather did, but not the military.

You perhaps watched the press briefing immediately after the incident.
The Pentagon has changed its story a number of times.  First, it was
just French troops, then US Marines were involved, etc.  Check the
papers a few days after the incident was first reported.  You'll see a
constant evolution.


--
The insane fear of socialism throws the bourgeois headlong into the
arms of despotism.
			-- Tocqueville, 1852
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
From: cherokee@cscns.com (Agv'nige Wohali)
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Organization: Community_News_Service
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 05:58:19 GMT

Who gives a shit whether the figure is 2% or 4% or 10% or even 78%?  Why
do so many newsgroups attract so many of these sorry-ass Rambo wannabees
whose personal goal in life is the single-handed eradication of anyone who
does not think (or love) the way they do?

I say, leave the gays alone.  There are enough savory characters in the
het world to get off anyone who likes to read about child molestors and
rapists and rapist-murderers without having to look for a scapegoat
anywhere.  And sadly, the gays of this country are rapidly becoming every
conservative asshole's scapegoats.

YOU get back in the closet, you fucking sorry-ass homophobes.  I hope you
all suffocate in there, choking on your own ignorance and hatred.


Agv'nige Wohali

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christianity causes the fall of civilizations...NOT!)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<nate.906@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> <1992Dec10.021802.13612@s1.gov>
	<1992Dec10.154158.14760@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>
	<liqce2INNctd@spim.mti.sgi.com>
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:11:49 GMT

MIn article <liqce2INNctd@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:

<   JFK's "Ask not ..." led to the peace corp and other participative
<   government.  Sounds a lot like Clinton's education program and Bush's
<   1000 points of light.  What has this got to do with liberal or conservative
<   approaches to government.

	Excuse me, Bush's "1,000 points of light" referred mainly 
	to individuals OUTSIDE of government. That was rather the
	point, you see, that people such as the Salvation Army
	or the Red Cross do a much better job than the
	Red Tape Brigade.

<   LBJ's hawkishness is also not a liberal or conservative issue.  I hadn't
<   noticed that all wars were started and fought by Republicans.  

	Oh, really? Let's look at the record:

	DEMOCRAT President Wilson ran for re-election in 1916
	on the platform, "He Kept Us Out Of War"; subsequently,	
	the U.S. entered WWI.

	DEMOCRAT President F.D. Roosevelt did everything possible
	to get us involved in WWII.

	DEMOCRAT President Truman declared that Korea was not
	"in the US sphere of interest", then sent US troops
	there after the North Korean invasion. 

	DEMOCRAT President Johnson campaigned for President
	in 1964 on the platform, "I will never send American
	boys to fight on the Asian mainland". Almost immediately
	after taking the oath of office, he dispatched thousands
	of troops to South Viet Nam (located on the Asian mainland).
	
<Actually,
<   keeping our hands out of other people's business use to be a conservative
<   postion.  It probably still is.

	And Big Bill Clinton will endorse this?
	Somehow, I don't think so....

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64278 alt.rush-limbaugh:11651
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Pat Robertson's bigoted remarks at the convention...
Date: 15 Dec 1992 01:55:41 GMT
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com
Keywords: hate

Mike Van Pelt) writes:
|> Steven R Fordyce) writes:
|> >
|> >The Republican party has done everything they can, including endorsing
|> >the democrat who ran against him.  What more do you want?  Anyone can
|> >call themselves a Republican (or a Democrat for that matter -- in fact,
|> >Duke used to be a Democrat and was when he was a wizard in the KKK).
|> 
|> Bingo. 
|> 
|> Hey, Ken, how come you support the Democrats, since by your apparant
|> standards, they accept the support of Lyndon LaRouche?  I'm sure if we
|> looked hard enough, we could probably find a Democrat even more odious
|> than LaRouche to bludgeon the Democrats with, if "the worst creep who
|> calls himself a member of the party" is going to be the standard.

Because the D party has disavowed LaRouche, and the R party has said
that Robertson and Buchannon represent the party.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64336 alt.rush-limbaugh:11670
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 07:17:40 EST
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bo Gritz
Distribution: usa
 <1992Dec14.143529.9759@news.acns.nwu.edu>
 <1992Dec15.050842.6183@microsoft.com>

In article <1992Dec15.050842.6183@microsoft.com>, leecr@microsoft.com (Lee
Crocker) says:

>>Bo Gritz is a true American patriot who is being denounced as a fascist by
>>the Free Shit Brigades (tm) before his message of personal responsibility
>>and self reliance can catch on.  I sincerely hopes he weathers the storm.

>Bo Gritz is an idiot who uses a 2000-year-old work of fiction as a
>[Rest of anti-Christianity ranting and raving deleted]

You are too kind.  Really.  Do you realize that most of the Bible is FAR
MORE than 2000 years old?  Really.  Come on, if you're going to slander the
Word of God, you can do better than that!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Kurt  E.  Ludwick     | If PRO is the opposite of CON, then
 -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -|
 kel111@psuvm.psu.edu  |             what's the opposite of Progress...?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.current-events.somalia,alt.politics.bush,alt.president.clinton
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: Somalia
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 06:33:00 GMT

>>I do plenty of press bashing. Right now, I'd rather bash people like
>>you (?) who cry crocodile tears about how the press is endangering
>>lives when really it's not endangered lives they're really concerned
>>about, it's preserving their militaristic fervor and testosterone buzz.
>>Their media bashing is a political smoke screen.

>So, I suppose you support Dan Rather and his boyz for blinding the Marines
>on the beachs with their camera lights.  Suppose there had been snipers
>waiting for the USMC?  Nice to know that the media had properly illuminated
>our boys, eh? (DEFINATELY POOR JUDGEMENT ON THE PART OF THE PRESS)  

Oh, for crying out lous, people.  This has been beaten to death.  If the U.S.
military cared whether those lights were there, they wouldn't have been there.  
Was it dumb of the press?  Yeah.  But my bro (a U.S. Marine) agreed that if
the C.O. of that landing wanted darkness, it is that C.O.'s responsibility to
ensure it.   Sheesh, as if the press could physically bully some huge Marine 
around.


______________
Matt Ivaliotes				a.k.a. Lotus
ivaliote@ux1				lotus@uiuc 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64335 talk.politics.theory:5473 alt.conspiracy:13190
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Death of America
Summary: What is - is, What is not - is not, Is that all there is, It is.
Keywords: In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful...
Date: 15 Dec 92 11:44:00 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Dec15.001109.28551@pony.Ingres.COM>, 
garrett@Ingres.COM (REACH OUT AND GREP SOMEONE) writes...

>In article <12DEC199213263586@utarlg.uta.edu>, 
>b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott)    writes...

>>In article <1992Dec12.180008.20122@news.columbia.edu>, 
>>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes... 
>>>In article <12DEC199206281152@utarlg.uta.edu> 
>>>b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott) writes:
>>>
>>>>I am the accuser of the prejudiced intellectualists bigots
>>>>I am the final answer to the arrogance of the federalist Publius Caesar
>>>>I am the `bombast,' the bomb blast, and the resurrection of Christian 
>>>>Anarchy
>>> 
>>>[...]
>>> 
>>>Read the _Bhagavad-Gita_ once too many times, eh?
>> 
>>From Martin Buber's "Beside Me"...
>> 
>>	Beside me sits melancholy
>>	(Thus once the master had seen her).
>>	She does not speak to me, she never whispers.
>>	Only the hesitant stirring of her breath
>>	Carries to me, unto my innermost ear,
>>	The lament of the spirit which -- when then? How? --
>>	Lost the life of the soul.
>> 
>All right. You read "Confederacy of Dunces" once too many times then.
>> 
>-Garrett

Haven't run across it, but next time I'm strolling through the library 
I'll have a look see.  (Which may then be once too many.)

Now the Katha Upanishad, I did indeed read once to many...

	(Said to be from Yama, Lord of the Dead)

	That is not born, neither does it die;
	it sprang from nothing, nothing sprang from it.
	Unborn, eternal, everlasting, ancient,
	that is not killed though the body is killed.

	If the slayer thinks he slays,
	if the slain thinks he is slain,
	both are deluded;
	that slays not nor is it slain.

	Smaller than small, greater than great,
	in the heart of all creatures that resides,
	seen only by one who is free from desires,
	and from grief.

	Sitting still he walks far;
	lying down he goes everywhere;
	bodiless within bodies,
	unchanging among changes.

	How can one who is not tranquil or subdued,
	whose mind is not at rest,
	understand that through mere knowledge?

	How shall an ordinary man conceive that being,
	for whom both priest and warrior are as food,
	and death a condiment?


-= And you thought Virtuality (tm) was new =-
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy