HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "Politically Correct" -- A Quote
Date: 9 Apr 92 08:08:47 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: peregrine

In article <4251@gold.gvg.tek.com> conib@peri.gvg.tek.com (Coni Britten) writes:
>
>Could you please give some citations of the use of the term "Politically
>Correct" (*with* its current definition of referring to non-right-wing
>political views, please) by "leftist student activists" which occur PRIOR
>to George Will's first use of this term in this way? 

I don't know when George Will first used the term, but I can say that I
first heard it used in 1979.  I was the engineer for a radical feminist
radio show, and there was some argument over certain songs that could
not be played on the air because they were "PI" (politically
incorrect.)  Later, when things mellowed out, a song called the
"Talking PI blues" (Kristen Lems?  I forget) became popular on
the show.

As far as I ever saw, "politcally correct" was almost exclusively
used by the women against each other, not against mainstream folks.
The best comparison I can think of is "holier than thou" among
religious types.

And the right wing certainly has its own version of "politically
correct", but it's known under a much wider variety of names such as
"patriotic", "family values" and so on.

		-ed falk, sun microsystems
		 sun!falk, falk@sun.com
	That's one thing about going against the flow:  there's
	less traffic in that direction.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18360 alt.politics.elections:970 misc.taxes:2273 alt.society.civil-liberty:3482
From: harling@pictel.com (Dan Harling)
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: 9 Apr 92 22:59:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: pictel.1992Apr9.225932.28198
Organization: PictureTel Corporation

In article <WEYAND.92Apr7222939@getafix.cs.uoregon.edu> weyand@getafix.cs.uoregon.edu (Christopher Scott Weyand) writes:
>Where did you get the idea that libertarians want to change the country
>overnight?   e.g. libertarians support the abolition of income taxes.
>If a libertarian were President would this happen in a day, week, month?
>No, we all know it would take a significant amount of time.  I believe you 
>may be confusing the ideals set forth in the platform with their actual
>implementation.  I don't think any of us believe that we could (or would
>even want to) establish a completely libertarian society too quickly...

I don't mean to compare the two political systems, but didn't the
Communist Party say that government, while necessary today, would
eventually phase itself out, as the inevitable "perfect society"
gradually developed?  Once they gained power in Russia, they never
quite made it to that point...
____________________________________________________________________________
Daniel A. Harling                        (harling@pictel.com)
PictureTel Corp.             Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of
Peabody, MA  01960                 PictureTel, but they ought to be!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 92 18:40:07 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Apr7.023640.11726@cs.ubc.ca> manis@cs.ubc.ca (Vincent Manis) writes:
>In article <gPiRiB4w164w@Nitro.CtEdge.COM> djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM writes:
    >>Sure did.. So normal couples with dysfunctional reproductive
    >>systems could bear children.. Not so that un-natural sexual
    >>practices could be 'legitimized' by faking a process that is
    >>impossible under NORMAL circumstances.
    >>
    >You know, every once in a while somebody astounds me with his
    >or her stupidity. This is one of those moments. I can just
    >see biologists saying `You know, I'm going to invent in-vitro
    >fertilization, but it's for heterosexuals only.'
    >
    >I think we should have djk frozen in a block of Lucite, and
    >placed on permanent exhibition. Idiocy on this scale really
    >deserves publicity.

While you're at it, perhaps Sister Boom-Boom can go there too?
Or much of the Gay Pride Parade -- unless of course, your idea of
the representation of (the ideals of) a loving relationship is
Dikes on Bikes with one women "towing" another via chains on
her pierced nipples ...

To each his (or her (or its)) own -- 'cept I don't have to like it ...

Now, there, some more gasoline on the fire!!!!!! :-)

-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

The continuing discussion in alt.ketchup is really disgusting. All proper
right thinking volitional entities *know* ketchup is always served cold.
Exceptions for battlefield dining could be made if you must ...

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)

From: sheneman@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (Jerry Sheneman)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 04:38:51 GMT
Subject: Campaign $$$$$$$
Organization: Hewlett Packard - Boise, ID
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc

Does anyone know how much a presidential candidate spends on a
campaign?  I heard Perot was willing to spend $100,000,000 of his
own money if necessary.  Is this much more, about the same, or
much less than other candidates usually spend (usually donations)
on a typical campaign?

Thanks,
Jerry (votin' for Perot and for change) S.
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The erudite National Review picks on Bill CLinton's daughter
Date: 14 Apr 92 11:04:13 GMT
Organization: The Witherspoon Excludables

In <farenebt.703216062@craft.camp.clarkson.edu>, farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu stated:
>
>"As head of the Children's Defense Fund (see "The Week", March 30), she
>"fulfills" her profession by seeking to police the family. In our view, a woman
>who inflicted the name Chelsea on her only child is in no position to preach
>others about children's rights."
>
>Gee, this "scholarly" magazine basically makes fun on Chelsea Clinton's name.
>HOW MATURE! I always thought making fun of someone's name, especially
>a child's, was behavior reserved for immature parties. I guess the NR 
>now qualifies.

NatRev earned its stripes in this field a long time ago.  God forbid
Bill Buckley should eschew appealing to his readers' narrow-mindedness
and mean-spirited biases. I also marvel at his capacity for glibly
dismissing the significant (here, Hillary Clinton's substantial
contribution to the cause of children's rights -- a cause one might
expect BB, with his "pro-family", anti-abortion stance, to revere)
with an irrelevant _bon mot_.

One wonders when NatRev will get around to ridiculing the parents of
the great jurist Learned Hand, or those of Boston Massacre victim
Crispus Attucks.  

-- 
When the Persians have an important decision to make, the leaders discuss it
when drunk. They revisit their decision when sober, and adopt it only if they
reach that same conclusion again.  Conversely, any decisions made in sobriety
are reconsidered in drink. {Herodotus, bk. 1}   eck@panix.com  Mark Eckenwiler
From: Ben Masel <bmasel@igc.org>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Date: 07 Apr 92 23:13 PDT
Subject: POTHEAD'S MESSAGE TO CLINTON
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1483600014:000:978
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!bmasel    Apr  7 23:13:00 1992


IT'S OK, I DIDN'T INHALE

I 've just returned from the Clinton victory party here in
Madison.

Arrived sort of late, missed the TV crews, but the stunt was still
interesting. Lit up a joint and all the suits fled the room.
Couple of the younger Clinton fans and the volunteer coordinator
stuck around to hear a message I hope will be delivered. Told them
unless Bill admits he enjoyed the pot he didn't inhale, we will
collect the 2,000 signatures to put Jack Herer on the Wisconsin
Ballot as a Grassroots Party candidate for President in November.
Reminded them I had recieved 13,000 votes in my Republican primary
race for Governor in 1990, and that those 13,000 could be their
margin of victory or defeat in this state in November.

This stunt is repeatable. Show up at his HQ or a local function
carrying only 1 joint. Fire it up, blow some smoke around the
room. Say "It's OK, I didn't inhale." Leave a printed message.
Post an account to talk.pol.drugs.

Enjoy, Ben Masel

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18003 alt.individualism:2419
From: ddc1@jaguar.uofs.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: The Character Issue in Bipartisan Perspective
Date: 13 Apr 92 08:04:56 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: University of Scranton

In article <1992Apr4.054550.29806@nuscc.nus.sg>, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
> 
> 
>   The Character Issue in Bipartisan Perspective
> 
>   Bill Clinton:
>     If he lied to his wife, will he lie to the country?
> 
>   George Bush:
>     If he lied to the country, will he lie to his wife?

	George Shrub also had an affair, in 1987 with an aide. Ask Barbara
about it and she gets red and steaming and refuses to say anything. She won't
even denie it. And I'm sure Clinton has lied to the country..."I didn't inhale"
So then he didn't really smoke pot he just held a joint and didn't like it...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave D. Cawley		   |	Where a social revolution is pending and,
University Of Scranton	   |	for whatever reason, is not accomplished,
ddc1@jaguar.uofs.edu	   |	reaction is the alternative.
ddc1@SCRANTON		   |				-Daniel De Leon
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17779 alt.politics.elections:737 misc.taxes:2216 alt.society.civil-liberty:3385
From: rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley)
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: 11 Apr 92 00:41:11 GMT
Organization: Centre for Speech Technology Research

In article <1992Apr10.220819.10816@esd.dl.nec.com>, Michael Lee (ml) writes:

rjc> Medical reasons? I have nevber heard of any medical arguemnt against
rjc> whooping cough vaccination. 

ml> The risk is paralysis and/or death.  Your doctor should be able to
ml> tell you how many children die each year from whooping cough
ml> vaccinations.

I am quite well aware of that. In fact that is why I chose whooping
cough as an example. The existance of risks does not make a medical
argument against vaccination. Again, breathing entails danger of
cancer from inhaled smoke, that is not a medical argument against
breathing.

ml> My children are vaccinated.  I decided the benefit was worth the
ml> risk.  The risk does exist.  I am informed about the risk.  You
ml> clearly are not.

See above.

ml> And YOU want to tell ME how to take care of MY children?

No, because you seem to have thought things through. I simply want to
avoid children being denied medical treatment because their parents
read the National Enquirer and learn that polio vaccene turns people
into slaves to Martian mind control rays or some such.

ml> How are you able to be so sure that someone else's medical
ml> concerns are worthless?  Are you a doctor?

Find me a doctor who hasn't vaccinated their kids against whooping
cough... Well, I am sure there are a few, but _I_ wouldn't want to be
treated by one :-).

I'm not putting myself up as an authority, I am mearly pointing out
that there are doctors out there and their expertese should carry some
weight. _You_ are claiming that a parent's decision, no matter how
ill-informed or insane should be enough to deny a person protection
from a dangerous disease.

Balance is the thing here. The children have rights too and there
comes a point when the children's rights must be upheld even against
their parents. Where that line comes is, of course, incredably
difficult to decide. Personally I think any parent not vaccinating
their child has crossed the line.

ml> another foolish analogy - If you have been vaccinated, an
ml> unvaccinated person CANNOT infect you.

Oh? So, all vaccination is 100% effective? Don't be silly. 

--
rjc@cogsci.ed.ac.uk			_O_
					 |<
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17910 alt.activism:7587
From: stank@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Stan Krieger)
Subject: Re: Did American Troops Kill 3 Million Filipinos?
Organization: Summit NJ
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 03:41:23 GMT

>	A very minor nitpick, but I thought the deathrate for Jews
>was higher in the Nazi-conquered nations than for Jews within 
>Germany itself. Is this simply because the German Jews were shipped to 
>non-German deathcamps?

Well, one estimate I saw had 85% of the Jews of Germany and 90% of
the Jews of Poland murdered (despite what Ralphie the Shitbrain
says), so it isn't much of a difference.

What Holocaust survivors claim is that the local people helped
the Germans locate Jews.   The survivors whom my parents' know from
their synagogue mention the Poles, Lithianians, and Hungarians
as all helping the Nazis.
-- 
Stan Krieger                     All opinions, advice, or suggestions, even
AT&T UNIX System Laboratories    if related to my employment, are my own.
Summit, NJ
smk@usl.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Subject: Re: Jerry Brown and lack of thinking
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 21:13:32 GMT

In article <11103@borg.cs.unc.edu>
bell@cassatt.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Bell) writes:
 
>In article <1992Apr4.222713.2538@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>In article <1692@nic.cerf.net> mitsu@nic.cerf.net (Mitsuharu Hadeishi) writes:
>>>	On C-SPAN yesterday (Thursday) in a meeting of the Board
>>>of Editors of the New York Post, Jerry Brown indicated that he
>>>was willing to adjust the tax system by upping the VAT 1% in order
>>>to cushion or eliminate income taxes for those making under
>>>$15,000.
>
>>A VAT is more like a sales tax than an income or profits tax...
>>some of the complaints about it's regressivity have merit, but
>>that just means the social safety net has to be adjusted accordingly.
>
>From the Brown flat-tax proposal available over the net:
>
>For business, the basic tax is a simplified version of the value
>added tax popular in other countries.  Our version would be much
>better because it is so simple.  Each company would just take
>its total sales and subtract its purchases from other taxpaying
>companies to get its tax base.  The tax would then be calculated
>by multiplying the tax base by 13%.
>
>It *is* a tax on profits -- profits are the value added.
>
>  -Andrew Bell
>bell@cs.unc.edu
>
>(Not particularly advocating Brown -- just trying to guide the discussion
>along the right lines.)
 
NO, NO, NO!!!!!
 
Profit is *not* the value added....profits is revenue minus costs.
Please learn what a VAT is.  It is perfectly possible for a
non-profitable company to owe VAT, if its nondeductible costs are high
enough.
 
Jim McMaster
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Big Bri)
Subject: Re: The erudite National Review picks on Bill CLinton's daughter
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 14:17:51 GMT

baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker) writes:

>In article <farenebt.703216062@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Big Bri) writes:
>>The "esteemed" conservative columnist Cal Thomas wrote a column titled,
>>"If we elect Bill Clinton we also get Hilary". Needless to say, the article
>>went on to ream on Arkansas' first lady. 
>>
>>The similarly conservative National Review magazine wrote in its
>>"This Week" section:
>>
>>"As head of the Children's Defense Fund (see "The Week", March 30), she
>>"fulfills" her profession by seeking to police the family. In our view, a woman
>>who inflicted the name Chelsea on her only child is in no position to preach
>>others about children's rights."
>>
>>Gee, this "scholarly" magazine basically makes fun on Chelsea Clinton's name.
>>HOW MATURE! I always thought making fun of someone's name, especially
>>a child's, was behavior reserved for immature parties. I guess the NR 
>>now qualifies.

>Just like all the liberals who keep making fun of George Herbert Walker
>Bush and James Danforth Quayle.  Look, National Review does not claim
>to be a "scholarly" magazine.  It is about as scholarly as The New
>Republic or The Nation.  None of these magazines are above having a
>little fun on the way to making a point.

I've always considered the NR to be a scholarly magazine, it has that
snotty air about it. I read it just so I can fortify my arguments agaisnt
whatever they support. GHW Bush and JD Quayle and adult public officials.
They should and do expect some people to pick on them. Chelsea Clinton
is a 12 (?) year old who has done nothing and is running for nothing. She
should not be subjected to trash like this. Let's face it, I omitted the
NR's picking on BILL Clinton ("We don't want to accuse Bill Clinton of 
duplicity but he might be the first prez to hold his inaugural address on
a split screen") because he's the candidate and should expect stuff like 
that. CLinton is also called things like "Slick Willy", again, he's the
one running for public office not his daughter. It would be like if someone
in the media picked on one of Quayle's kids.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL	CLARKSON '95		FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU
A bleeding heart liberal card-carrying member of the ACLU.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The most violent element of society is ignorance."
	---Emma Goldman	(possibly refering to Jesse Helms)

"Political campaigns now are so simplistic and superficial, Mr Candidate.
 In the 20 seconds we have left, could you tell us why?"
	---Political cartoon		
 
"Yassir Arafat had a terrible accident. He tried to fax a mail bomb...."
	---Johnny Carson
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Slick Willy and the terrible 22
Date: 7 Apr 92 07:06:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: Princeto.1992Apr7.070631.13232
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU

In article <1992Apr06.205717.64137@yuma.acns.colostate.edu> cummingc@CS.ColoState.EDU (christopher cummings) writes:
>In article <167C1932B.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:

>***mine***
>>>state that seems to breed deficit spending??  I know I don't
>>>want Willy doin the hand jive on my books.
>***yours***
>>I wonder if Mr. Cummings grasp of reality is always this skewed.

>>What in *HELL* do the bounced checks of two Arkansas congressmen have
>>to do with Bill Clinton?
 
>Jim, I was merely pointing out the fact that it seems the Dems
>in recent years have flocked to the candidate that can say with
>the most convincing false conviction ;-> that I'VE BALANCED x 
>BUDGETS SO VOTE FOR ME....   Now, if we found out after Mike
>left office in Taxachussetts that creative accounting was his
>specialty,  and,  we already know that Slick Willy can't keep his
>finger on his congressmen, (and don't tell me he doesn't have any
>influence with them)  we can only guess at what evilness lurks
>behind Willy's used-carsalesman-like face.

I'd like to second the question, which you didn't answer:"What in *HELL*
do the bounced checks of two Arkansas congressmen have to do with Bill
Clinton?"

And I'll tell you: "He doesn't have any influence with them."  He
certainly doesn't go around writing checks on their accounts.  What are
you talking about?  Is your mind so one-track that it sees the word
"Arkansas" in two different contexts and immediately associates the two?
How much DID Bill Clinton have to do with Arkansas not making the Final
Four this year?

Hmm..  Governor of Arkansas, hangs around Little Rock.  Congressmen from
Arkansas, hang around Washington?  What do they have to do with each other?

>--
>Chris Cummings
>cummingc@beethoven.cs.colostate.edu

-- 
David M. Nieporent              |ALEast 92: 1.Baltimore 2.Boston 3.Toronto
niepornt@phoenix.princeton.edu  |4. Detroit 5.Milwaukee 6.NY 8.Cleveland
"Baseball stathead, and card-carrying member of the ACLU.  And proud of it."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,misc.taxes,alt.society.civil-liberty,pnw.general
From: visser@convex.com (Lance Visser)
Subject: Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 05:50:48 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1992Apr4.085611.8063@eskimo.celestial.com> Corner.Core.Cafe writes:



+>     The Libertarian Party is America's third largest and fastest growing
+>political party. Libertarians believe "That government is best which governs
+>least." The party supports civil liberties, a free market economy, and a
+>non-interventionist foreign policy.

	The party also supports the "right" of private discrimination in
employment, housing, and "service".  


	They believe that it is wrong to
have laws that require doctors to help at the scene of an accident or
an emergency.
	They believe in repealing the various neutrality acts that prevent
corporations from forming and supporting armies aboard and overthrowing
governments abroad.
	They believe in repeal of the child labor laws and the minimum wage.
They believe in repeal of compulsory vaccination laws and in the establishment
of a free market for human body parts.
	They oppose laws requiring either air-bags or seat belts to be 
provided as standard equipment in cars. 
	In regard to the environment they believe that "strict liability, 
not government agencies should regulate pollution."  They do not speak of
what happens when the liable entity has ceased to exist through bankruptcy,
disillusion or lack of funds.

	[All the above is from the current Libertarian party platform.  The
	 parts that usually are not part of the public pitch.]


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Subject: Re: Brown crushes Clinton; Bush camp in disarray
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1992 19:12:29 GMT

In article <1992Apr2.230713.4124@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
pjl2@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Paul J Landsberg) writes:
 
>Jim McMaster writes:
>>>Imagine if Brown wasn't a candidate this year...how do you people
>>>think the primaries would have gone?  Imagine if Harkin, Kerrey,
>>>and Tsongas all got wiped out by the Clinton money machine, and there
>>>was no Brown campaign...what do you think?
>>>
>
>>Then we might have had a chance of knocking off Bush in the fall.  As
>>it stands, Brown is practically guaranteeing a Republican victory.  He
>>does not have, and never did have, a ghost of a chance at the
>>nomination.  He is just pissing in the well.
>
>Can't you see folks!!!  Do what the goddamn party tell you.  You, the
>people, aren't out there to vote, you are simply there to confirm the
>'plan' put forth by the party.
>
Where do you get the idea that Clinton is the party favorite?  He is
not a part of the party establishment.  The insiders wanted Kerrey
to be the nominee, or Gephart(sp?).  Clinton is a member of the
Democratic Leadership Council that is trying to move the party more
to the center, rather than to the suicidal left.
 
The party leaders' endorsements of Clinton are a recognition that he
will be the party's nominee, and that all the other possibilities are
worse.  Clinton can beat a weakened Bush, but not if the other
Democrats destroy him first.
>
>Paul Landsberg
 
Jim McMaster
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18470 alt.activism:7797