HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: era@csn.org (Ed Arnold)
Subject: REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE
Originator: era@teal.csn.org
Keywords: Extremists, Christian Right, Amendment 2
Reply-To: era@csn.org (Ed Arnold)
Organization: Citizens Project; Colorado Springs, CO
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 01:47:53 GMT

We of the Citizens Project (Colorado Springs, CO) are looking for people
who could assist us in re-distributing the Citizens Project Newsletter
to non-Internet computer services.  If you have an account on any such
services (CompuServe, FidoNet, Genie, Prodigy, America Online, and others)
and are willing to help us, please let us know via return email to
era@ncar.ucar.edu.

The Citizens Project is a Colorado Springs, CO - based group of volunteers
who seek to prevent extremists from eliminating our fundamental freedoms,
in the face of growing political and religious intolerance in Colorado.
--
Ed Arnold * Boulder, CO * 303-497-1253(voice,weekday) * 303-494-6949(voice)
internet: era@csn.org * compuserve: internet:era@csn.org * bitnet: era@ncario
-- 
Ed Arnold * Boulder, CO * 303-497-1253(voice,weekday) * 303-494-6949(voice)
internet: era@csn.org * compuserve: internet:era@csn.org * bitnet: era@ncario
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism...
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 14:04:35 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.224033.14314@deeptht.armory.com> rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
>Now if Libertarians could only give me a reasoned approach about how roads
>could be built into new territory (where's that!?) that everyone could use,
>or how roads could be built at all originally had it been under
>Libertarianism, without their biggest bugaboo, taxes and eminent domain,
>then I might think they weren't retarded. 

Both the allocation of new territory and the initial construction of roads 
are not practical concerns.  There is no more territory, and roads can be 
paid for by people who are going to use them.

>They can't
>seem to tell you how social services could be met either, about half of
>them wanting anybody with a problem to just go away, and the other half

What social services?

>somehow trying to convince me that capitalist syndicates would join to pay
>for the disabled or the elderly and their medical expenses. 

Oh, I see, everyone has a RIGHT to health care.  Your worldview can't accept 
libertarianism, because these people would be responsible for thier own 
care.  The elderly would be expected to have made provisions for themselves 
before they BECAME elderly.

>Libertarians
>typically have never been really ill yet in their life. After an illness
>like that, they are usually not Libertarians. 

I've been hospitalized twice and been in a motorcycle accident.  My private 
medical insurance that I pay for managed to cover my expenses without the 
help of the state.

>Libertarianism is the
>religious political philosophy for those who think that God loves them best
>because they are going to live forever and never make any costly mistakes
>or have accidents happen to them. 

Libertarianism is not a religion at all, but a political and social 
philosophy.  I am a christian.  Most of the libs I know are christians, 
although there is the odd athiest thrown in.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
E-Mail to PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu, mail to ARCHER at that address will
bounce.    "Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Ted Kennedy (Was: Re: Fresh Air (was Re: Zoe Baird, Support Her !!!!!!!!!!)
Date: 28 Jan 93 18:51:42 GMT
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1993Jan28.180141.17215@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>  
dlaro@lonestar.utsa.edu (David O. Laro) writes:
> (since Doug has been so kind as to inject a bit of humor, I'll buy  
in.)
> From one Texan's viewpoint, good idea!  Goferit!  We do seem to  
have a few
> of those "predisposed" folk getting into office.  And I'll just bet  
Sen K would
> go for it, too.  (hasn't he shown a proclivity for the bottle?  Or  
did he get
> that complexion from spending too much time on the beach?)  (can  
you get a
> sunburn at night?)

Yeah, the local Kennedy joke a year ago back was that a doctor
told Kennedy that he'd have to cut back on the wine, women, and
song, so Teddy cancelled voice lessons.

Seriously, while I didn't think John Tower was a great choice
for Secretary of Defense (and was happy, in retrospect, that
Dick Chenney, not John Tower, was SoD during the Gulf War),
I thought it was hypocritical for Ted Kennedy to say Tower
was unfit to serve because he drank and womanized too much.

--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69676 alt.sex:43119 talk.religion.misc:27507 soc.college:6043 alt.peeves:19566
From: ccjm@st-andrews.ac.uk (Colin Charles James MacDonald)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,talk.religion.misc,soc.college,alt.peeves
Subject: Re: Shocked Beyond ALL BELIEF!!!!!
Date: 25 Jan 93 15:16:35 GMT
Organization: St. Andrews University, Scotland.

In article <1993Jan25.085937.18352@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>cindy@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf) writes:
>] 
>] Does this mean i think prostitution should be legal?  Yup.  (It is in
>] Norway - a fact which seems to surprise the heck out of some people,
>] for some reason...)
>
> [edited...]
>WHAT!!!!!!!
>This the Immortal Land of St. Olaf!
>The Patron Saint of Pious Pedantics Upon the HILL!!!!
>WHAT!!!!!!
>I am just SHOCKED!!!!!
>ciao
>drieux
>ps: and to think we sent them Sid Rand,
>and he was still UnAble to SAVE THEM!!!!!
>ObPeeve: that I did not know this while
>I was a student at Stained O'Laugh.....

Would you be more shocked to learn that prostitution is legal here in stuffy 
old Britain? It's only *soliciting* that is illegal. What's the difference?
How should I know? Solicitors are prostitutes that get caught?

Colin.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69251 talk.politics.theory:5729 alt.rush-limbaugh:14860
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Libertarians/programmers
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 23 Jan 93 20:07:58 EST
Distribution: inet
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
> helz@ecn.purdue.edu 
> |>hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill
> |>
> |>Phill you haven't got a clue what Patriotism is.  "Getting killed 
> |>in a foreign war" is most definatly something which a society has 
> |>got to _earn_.
> 
> Ah so the "Libertarian" cause is reduced to a squalid excuse for 
> draft dodging?

no. the anti-draft position is -part- of the libertarian philosophy,
but hardly the only reason for its existance.

> It is one thing to object to a war as immoral as Clinton did over 
> Vietnam, quite another to justify draft dodging on mere self 
> interest.

last time i heard, involuntary servitude was illegal. i don't know
what else you'd call the draft... of course, the government rarely,
if ever, follows its own rules.

> Just for the record I don't beleive in that form of patriotism any 
> more than the Libertarians do. However it is interesting to 
> demonstrate that the right has such people as well as the left. 

it's a moot point, unless you're trying to reach the "them long-haired
draft dodgers should be shot" audience.

jason

--
  "I'm the keeper of the cheese, and you're the lemon merchant!" - Ren Hoek  
,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
From: blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Billigan's Island
Date: 21 Jan 93 00:57:58 GMT
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA07432; Wed, 20 Jan 93 19:02:38 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA20383; Wed, 20 Jan 93 19:02:36 -0800
X-Received: by uiboise.idbsu.edu
	(16.6/16.2) id AA00380; Wed, 20 Jan 93 17:57:59 -0700
X-To: talk.politics.misc.usenet
X-Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25]


      Just sit right down
         And you'll hear a tale
      A tale of brand new lips 
     
      That started in Hot Springs, Arkansas
         And ended with pink slips

      Four politicians set sail that day
	 For a Four year tour

      A FOOOOOUUUUUURRRRRRRR year tour

      The deficit started getting tough
	 The promises were tossed
      Even with the pockets of frugal few
	 Financial faith was lost

      With Billigan

      The Tipper, too.

      Hillary, the wife.

      etc. etc.  Sorry, my memory these days.

       Here on Billigan's Isle.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69225 alt.sex:42852 talk.religion.misc:27262
From: rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Murder v. Sex
Date: 22 Jan 93 15:08:49 GMT
Organization: The Armory

In article <3518@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> cavalama@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Randall K. Spicher) writes:
>
>
>Heres a hypothetical question for you.
>
>Who is the injured party in prostitution?
>
>Cavalama.

-------------------
You know that the age-old answer to that one is the spouse left at home,
and possibly endangered in these days of HIV. But they are not criminally
harmed unless someone knows they have HIV at the time. Funny how ignorance
amounts to non-guilt in a country where "ignorance of the law is no
excuse". And then there's the old saw that the man is the victim because he
is somehow "forced", or "compelled" by his overwhelming sex drive to seek
out sex, and anyone who satisfies him and charges him for it is doing the
equivalent of raising the prices on water during a disaster, which is
illegal. Geez, one grocer out here misunderstood the nature of the
capitalist ethic in this country and tried to raise all his prices after
our big quake two years ago. He found out quick that the law doesn't
tolerate that. And then there is the feminist pity line that prostitutes
are the most disadvantaged class by that trade, and if they are being kept
and used, that might be true. Then again, how's a fellow to know whether
she employs a man to protect her or whether he's got her psychologically or
through brutality. And how is that different from some marriages we all
know? It seems clear that all of these participants, pimp, prostitute,
john, and wife at home can be either victim or victimizer. Sounds like
America to me. Not that that's the greatest, but the pattern of everyone
taking advantage wherever they can seems like the pattern of this culture.
I would say they are all victims of a culture of antisex and this economic
system, and that these two things are sides of the same coin, like Madison
Avenue and bad self-esteem. In a culture/society where sex was available to
all in variety, and money wasn't used because of tribal collectivism, and
people were honest about their partners and diseases and got tested and
told the truth, I don't think anyone would even know what prostitution was!
And so it's like a lot of less than adequate things about this society.
So fuck it all!
- Steve

-- 
* Richard STEVEn Walz   rstevew@deeptht.armory.com   (408) 429-1200  *
* 515 Maple Street #1   * Without safe and free abortion women are   *
* Santa Cruz, CA 95060    organ-surrogates to unwanted parasites.*   *
* Real Men would never accept organ-slavery and will protect Women.  *
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Subject: Re: Are you pro-choice on education? (was Re: Pro-)
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:26:10 GMT

In article 27707@oakhill.sps.mot.com, pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>How would a voucher system be any more a 'subsidy for the rich'
>than the current public school system? This is a red herring.

Rich people tend to incur the cost of private schools anyway.  All your plan would
do is give them extra government money to defray their normal expenses.  Under the
current system, they must pay taxes to support public education even if they choose
not to send their children to public schools. 

>Pro-abortion-choice folks often speak of the family planning
>angle. (can't let an 'unwanted' child be brought out into the world.)
>Why isn't the best education for your child considered
>a part of the important life choices that a family should be able to
>plan for? We are not speaking of choice in education as a "right", but
>that choice in education is simply good social policy that
>is in the best interests of the children and the families involved.

Why not give everyone the choice to ride first class on airplanes?  Why not make
sure that everyone can eat at the restaurant of their choice?  Everyone should
have the absolute best, but our system rewards those who have money.  A voucher
system is no guarantee that those of limited means will have access to a better
education.  It is only a way of stealing money from the public school systems and
handing it over to private schools.  Increase the demand and the price is sure to
follow.  Hopefully, the supply will, too.  All of those qualified teachers and shiny
bright schools materializing out of thin air.  ;-) 
-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@boeing.com)   Seattle, WA

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: cindy@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf)
Subject: Re: Madeleine Murray O'Hare
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Organization: /home/ludviga/cindy/.organization
	<Jan.15.22.05.57.1993.26003@romulus.rutgers.edu>
	<1993Jan21.162625.17617@aber.ac.uk>
	<Jan.22.07.10.37.1993.754@romulus.rutgers.edu>
	<CINDY.93Jan22211912@solan10.solan.unit.no> <CI
	<Jan.26.06.57.20.1993.7432@romulus.rutgers.edu>
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:28:13

Ted Kaldis delivers another one:
> it is not an
>unreasonable request to ask all posts with worldwide distribution be
>composed in English.  Moreover, if the posts are addressed to U.S.
>readers (whether at large or in particular) then this becomes more
>than just a request -- it becomes a demand.

You're amusing when you're being egocentric.  

The original post was in English.  You were whining about the spelling
of a single word.

I wrote a joking post to show how silly i thought your demand that
everyone use American spelling was, and now you're justifying your
attitude by claiming it's not an unreasonable request that all posts
with worldwide distribution be in English (a view i disagree with, but
don't care to debate with you).  Amazing.

-Cindy Kandolf
 cindy@solan.unit.no
 Trondheim, Norway

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Zoe Baird should step aside
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 01:48:51 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.131622.3838@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>
>NPR (Nina Totenberg) just said that Feinstein & Braun are working
>behind the scenes to get Zoe to withdraw.  I hope it's true.

I believe NPR reported this evening that Feinstein has received some
600 letters/phone calls/telegrams against Zoe, and some 30 for.
Certainly, there's strong pressure from the electorate.



--
<Phone rings> "Hello?...  He did what?...  Bomb 'em....  I'm still
President."
			-- Dana Carvey's George Bush, 1/16 SNL
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.economics
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: Taxing & Spending
Organization: Partnership for an America Free Drug
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 23:54:34 GMT

mike@uunet!tellab5!odgate (Mike J. Kelly) writes:
>>I am SO damn tired of hearing this cliche.  I am part of the
>>middle class.  I do not receive medicare, medicaid,
>>I pay INTO social security, and I receive NO benefit from ANY
>>budget busting programs except, perhaps, some benefit from
>>military protective services.  So WHAT, exactly, am I getting
>>for my money??
>
>Have you no parents?  Do they also receive no Social Security
>payments and no Medicare coverage?

For the majority of people, the tax payments made into the social
security system, if invested privately, would have yielded much
greater returns. For the majority of people, the cost of private
health insurance would have been smaller than the taxes spent for
medicare. The people who get benefit from these programs are those who
are so poor that they pay little in taxes.

>Will you never, ever be unemployed?

Have you heard of private unemployment insurance? It costs less than
the taxes you likely put into the system to pay for the public
version.

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
Laissez faire, laissez passer. Le monde va de lui meme.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.african.american
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (TRUTH IS. BELIEF IS NOT REQUIRED.)
Subject: Re: Cuba
Summary: More info please  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: Mario Baeza, Assistant Secretary of State for Latin-American Affairs
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 28 Jan 93 04:56:35 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.202237.19286@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@midway.uchicago.edu                           writes...
>In article <C1IC4z.G7E@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> kautaj@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (The Wise Man from the East) writes:
>>Speakers of the house don't have any powers even here in the US. Heck, you
>>need 2/3 of the house and 2/3 of the senate to override the whims of a single
>>president! Wrong?
> 
>Wrong.

Excuse me for interupting, but since when doesn't it take 2/3 of the house
and senate to override the president?
> 
>>>>And the status of blaks there is in no
>>>>doubt the highest in the Americas in terms of self-esteem, health-care, level
>>>>of education etc... 
>>>
>>>Unless they have AIDS, and then they're locked up in prison camps.
>>
>>Here blacks are locked-up anyway -- with or without AIDS. There are more black
>>males in prison (between the age of 20-29) than in college (all ages!).
> 
>I'm sorry, I made the mistake of thinking I was dealing with an intelligent
>person.
> 
I believe that his numbers are correct. What do you have to refute them
besides name calling?

>ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 

It is now proved beyond a doubt                              Garrett Johnson
that smoking is one of the leading                        Garrett@Ingres.com
causes of statistics.                                        Alameda, Calif.
  :^) We're making progress. Things are getting worse at a slower rate.:-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70122 alt.president.clinton:1859
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Shocked Beyond ALL BELIEF!!!!!
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 16:07:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.075916.22317@deeptht.armory.com> rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
>No, in the dictionary, soliciting for prostitution is taken to be the act
>by the prostitute of approaching a man entreating him to pay her money for
>sex acts, as it is presumed that the man is unable to resists this and that
>it threatens the otherwise stable family, a bit like entrappment in
>criminal law. If the man requests the service, it is presumed that he knows
>what he is doing. In other words, soliciting is advertising, unless a man
>is selling his sexual favors for money, and then he can be soliciting for
>prostitution too. In the old school, the payor is never in trouble.

I believe that if you will consult a british dictionary, you will discover 
that the lawyer who acts on behalf of the defense in a british court of law 
is referred to as the "solicitor."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
E-Mail to PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu, mail to ARCHER at that address will
bounce.    "Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70056 talk.politics.medicine:709 soc.culture.usa:10162 soc.culture.african.american:14388 sci.med:24487
From: cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Subject: Re: Statement of President Clinton on Health Care Reform Task Force
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.medicine,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.african.american,sci.med
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 28 Jan 93 05:16:59 GMT

In article <1993Jan28.044849.26210@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>In article <2B67258E.13008@news.service.uci.edu> cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>>In article <90712@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>
>>>So you believe that the end justifies the means?
>>
>>Another dualist who can't think of things in more than two terms. 
>>
>>I never said that.  I said that motivations should be introduced when
>>making any judgement calls like this.  Certainly, someone who stole
>>soemthing to buy penicillin would get a lesser punishement than someone
>>who stole things for heroin.  If the judicial system in this country is
>>capable of seeing shades of grey, what's everyone else's problem?
>
>The judicial system is bound by laws made by politicians, and
>reflects the opinions and skills of these politicians. This system's
>decisions are in no way a standard of thinking or making judgements, 
>but is a _result_ of a judgement of those who made the law or appointed
>the judges. 

Okay, being metaphorical isn't working here.

Dov, are YOU able to see the difference between someone stealing for
heroin and someone stealing for penicillin or something similarly
important?  Yes, they are both stealing, but can you not see ANYTHING
else REMOTELY different that makes one even SLIGHTLY excusable and the
other not?  If someone robbed me for heroin, I'd not mind seeing their
asses locked up.  If someone robbed me for penicillin, I might feel
angry at being robbed, but I'd at least sympathize a little.  Jeez.

Regards,
Janis C.


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70193 alt.president.clinton:1868