HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christianity causes the fall of civilizations...NOT!)
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 22:29:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.154158.14760@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>
>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.

Dontcha love the overlaps between the parties, and how politics in a
sense has transformed in the past 30 years?

JFK is a bit iffier to judge.  Most certainly, he was a Cold War
liberal, a believer in government.  Most certainly, he was elected by
running against "Modern Republicanism" in the form of RMN (I use
"Modern Republican" in the sense that Eisenhower articulated it, not
in terms of the Far Right bubbling up through the cracks in the GOP.),
though he was similar to Nixon in many ways.  In regards to the "Ask
not..." quote, consider that FDR said "continued dependence upon
relief induces a spiritual and moral disintergration fundamentally
destructive to the national fibre.  To dole out relief in this way is
to administer a narcotic..."  in reference to welfare-style public
assistance.  Certainly, this is a different articulation of
liberalism.  Was FDR a "modern Republican"?

LBJ, though a hawk (remember that American political discourse of the
time was dominiated by the Cold War), instituted the Great Society.
He was a Democrat, and believed in government.  The "left-wing"
radicals in the streets, in a sense, had less faith in the government,
distrusted it more, than he did.  Does that make them Republicans?

Carter was considered right-wing by the McGovern wing of Party.  What
of that?

You see, it's somewhat difficult to label people with a
two-dimensional system like "Left" and "Right."  LBJ would be
considered, perhaps, right-wing for Vietnam, but simultaneously, is a
left-winger because of the Great Society.




_Home Alone 2_ has now grossed over $90 million.

	** Macaulay Culkin: HE MUST BE STOPPED !!!! **
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: "Protect me from myself!"
Date: 11 Dec 92 22:50:52 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <Bz3A7s.4sw@newsserver.technet.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>  Baby Walker-Control: AMA Seeks to Ban the Sale of Assault Walkers
>
>    The problem with the devices [get this folks] is that they give
>  children access to things at crawling age that they normally would not be
>  able ot reach from the floor, such as pans on the stove.
>
>    The AMA has petitioned the Consumer Product Safety Commission to ban
>  the sale of the walkers in the US. The regulatory agency is to study the
>  plan, which will come before the full panel in February.
>
>No word yet from the AMA on the injuries and deaths caused every year to
>children by stairs, stoves, and toilets. No doubt the Assault Walker
>Ban is "just a reasonable first step." Don't these guys have anything
>better to do?

And taking the walker over stairs is another good one.  The parents
should be banned, not the walkers.

I think the stupidest "Protect me from myself" line I ever heard was
froma guy who lifted up a running lawnmower to trim his hedge and lost
some fingers.  He successfully sued the mower manufacturer because they
'didn't say not to use it as a hedge trimmer'.  I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP!

In Denver a few years back, a family successfully sued the city when
their daughter was injured or killed after running a stop sign.  They
said she would have stopped at a stoplight.

Helmet laws and seatbelt laws are similar.

Anyone have any other good examples?
-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (REACH OUT AND GREP SOMEONE)
Subject: Re: Bleeding-Heart Libertarianism (was Legalizing drugs)
Summary: More info  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 11 Dec 92 21:24:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.052511.4531@genie.slhs.udel.edu>, starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)       writes...
>In article <1992Dec11.024555.27364@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (REACH OUT AND GREP SOMEONE) writes:
>}I've heard about this in the newspaper. The story concerned those "private
>}police firms" being hired out by merchants to kill street kids.
> 
>I'd be interested to know the exact reference, please.

I originally read about this in the San Francisco Chronicle last spring, but
since then I've seen bits about it in serveral other newspapers.
> 
>}	As for defense, I assume you mean mercenaries. They used to
>}run armies that way (like in the Roman days). The problem was mercenaries
>}fought poorly, were not loyal to their hired country or officers, could be
>}bought off by the enemy, and were dangerous to their hired country in times
>}of peace (hence it was in the best interest to stay at war).
> 
>They don't necessarily have to be mercs.  Ancient Athens did well with
>a militia, as the US is supposed to have (proven by the mention of this
>in the 2nd amendment).  Switzerland requires that able-bodied males serve
>in the military (bad!) and that they retain their service machine gun in
>their private home.  They've been fairly stable and immune from wars due
>to this, their policy of neutrality, and other factors.

I believe the biggest reason that Switzerland has been stable for such
a long time is that they haven't been invaded since around 850 A.D. But
this has little to do with mercs.
> 
>}	As for private courts, I don't believe this has ever been tried
>}(I'm sure you will correct me if I'm wrong), but I would very much hate
>}to go to one if I was poor. I can't see how you can have a private court
>}without it becoming currupt.
> 
>Ever heard of arbitration?

What about in criminal cases, especially things like stealing and murder?
I can't see how this could be settled in arbitration.
> 
>Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
>starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64455 alt.politics.elections:24627 alt.rush-limbaugh:11729
From: young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young)
Subject: My Little Margie (was Re: Boycotts, Boycotts, Boycotts....)
In-reply-to: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu's message of 10 Dec 92 20:43:41 GMT
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
	<1992Dec9.010534.3600@s1.gov>
	<1992Dec10.204341.18673@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: 13 Dec 92 12:27:32

Regardless of anyone's particular feelings about what Ms Schott said
or did, she joined a club when she bought her baseball team.  She
agreed to abide by the decisions reached by the members of that club.
Since the club exists to further the money making potential of
baseball, and since baseball is highly visible, some members of the
club feel that it is in their best interests to censure Ms Schott for
her remarks.  Whether we feel this is right or wrong is irrelevant
except for how the other owners perceive our feelings in the matter.

We have our economic options.  We can buy season box seats at Red's
Stadium in a show of solidarity with Ms Schott.  We can refuse to
attend any baseball games or watch any on TV.  We can write to
sponsors of baseball games and threaten them with a boycott, a la
Terry Rakolta and Married With Children.  I suspect that we will
continue pretty much as we always have.

It is pointless for us to argue the matter because it makes absolutely
no difference what we say, and precious little difference what we, as
individuals, do.  Each of us is entitled to our own righteous
indignation (tm), either at the remarks or at the response to the
remarks.  
--
Peter Young
young@erim.org
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: carroll@gloin.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll)
Subject: Re: "HIV-infected molest suspect outrages town"
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:52:01 GMT

In article <13596@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
]In article <1992Dec9.210000.7785@udel.edu>, carroll@oin.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll) writes:
]] For example, in your supposed proofs, you claim that anyone who ever
]] has any sexual contact with a member of their own sex is homosexual.
]] Then, you use this assertion to create a supposed number of homosexual
]] child abusers. Then, you compare this number of a lower-bound estimate
]] of the number of fully homosexual men, and come up with a very large
]] percentage.
]] 
]] But there are two different definition of homosexuality in that "proof":
]] 
]]   Definition 1: A homosexual is anyone who has any sexual contact with
]]      with his/her own sex. (Used to generate the supposed number of
]]      homosexual molesters)
]] 
]]   Definition 2: A homosexual is anyone who has sexual contact 
]]      *exclusively* with members of his/her own sex. (Used to generate
]]      the supposed percentage of homosexual molesters.)
]
]No, a homosexual is anyone who has sexual contact with members of
]his/her own sex.  No requirement for exclusivity.
]

But - in your figure for the number of homosexuals in the general
population, that's *not* the definition you use - you only use that
definition when you're talking about which molesters are gay.  The
3-10% figure in all of the studies about the number of homosexuals is
*exclusive* homosexuals. If you include anyone who has ever had
homosexual contact as a homosexual, then the number is closer to 35%!

]
]You obviously don't read very carefully.

Sorry, but I DO read rather carefully. I suggest that perhaps you try
reading my above critique a bit more carefully, because you're making
yourself look pretty darn stupid.


	<MC>
-- 
[ Mark Craig Carroll <MC> ] You say you know no tricks, have no talents -
[ U of Delaware, CIS Dept ] Isn't everyone supposed to have their own?
[ Grad Student/Lab Hacker ] Yes, but few are obvious. Few draw notice to those
[ carroll@udel.edu        ] who posess them, like flags waving themselves.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (REACH OUT AND GREP SOMEONE)
Subject: Re: Bleeding-Heart Libertarianism (was Legalizing drugs)
Summary: Point/Counterpoint
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 11 Dec 92 23:36:23 GMT

In article <VEAL.559.724114139@utkvm1.utk.edu>, VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)            writes...
>In article <1992Dec11.214219.21122@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (REACH OUT AND GREP SOMEONE) writes: 
>>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. 
> 
>       Outnumbered?  What does number have to do with anything?  Property 
>rights has been (until socialism and modern liberalism merged) a liberal 
>right.  Whether it's one of five or one of ten or one of a thousand neither 
>changes nor lessons that.

Slow down. You are missing the point I'm getting at. Tim was saying that
the reason for the revolutions was property rights, pure and simple. I'm 
saying that it is only one of many. I'm saying that if they tried to start
a revolution based on just property rights it wouldn't have gotten 
sufficient support to be successfull (speculation, but still my opinion).
The fact that most of the Bill of Rights, and the Rights of Man deal
with other civil rights is the basis of my arguement.
> 
>David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
>PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:63874 talk.politics.guns:25092 alt.politics.marrou:2401
From: esr@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Libertopia in Somalia
Date: 11 Dec 92 08:08:57 GMT
Distribution: world

In <1992Dec9.022933.25269@midway.uchicago.edu> Ted Frank wrote:
> Anyone want to explain what attributes Somalian "government" fails
> to have to not qualify as a Libertopia?  Where are the protests
> against the UN trying to restore a monopoly on force to the government?

This one is easy.

The Somalian warlords are not operating under a libertarian common law.  They
*are* behaving like governments (or, equivalently, like violent criminals).

The American/U.N. intervention will, in this case, improve matters by lessening
the degree of coercion to which Somalis are subject.  One need not sanction
government crime to observe that there are different degrees and intensities
of it, and that the lesser is prefereble to the greater.

Next question?
-- 
					Eric S. Raymond <esr@snark.thyrsus.com>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.current-events.somalia,alt.politics.bush,alt.president.clinton
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Bleeding-Heart Libertarianism (was Legalizing drugs)
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 06:37:59 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.233623.28775@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (REACH OUT AND GREP SOMEONE) writes:
}Tim was saying that
}the reason for the revolutions was property rights, pure and simple. I'm 
}saying that it is only one of many. I'm saying that if they tried to start
}a revolution based on just property rights it wouldn't have gotten 
}sufficient support to be successfull (speculation, but still my opinion).
}The fact that most of the Bill of Rights, and the Rights of Man deal
}with other civil rights is the basis of my arguement.

Actually, I don't recall saying that, but I would take that position.  The
American Revolution was fought for the rights to life, liberty, property and
the pursuit of happiness against confiscatory taxation, tariffs, clerical
establishment, etc.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes)
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 08:28:14 GMT

dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
: 
: Besides, your comparison of homosexuality to religion is apples to oranges. 
: Homosexuality is a behavioral trait.  Behavioral traits span from irritability
: in one celled critters to sexual preference in higher order mammals.  Religion
: is something only possible in beings who are able to reason.
: 
You mean you have no creationists over there?                             
Some people just don't know their own luck.
From: dmorse@igc.apc.org (Dorothy Morse)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Libertopia in Somalia
Date: 13 Dec 92 01:50:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:1992Dec9.022933.25269@midway.uch:-670784935:cdp:1483600056:000:136
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmorse    Dec 12 17:50:00 1992


Oh, and do the marines get legalized drugs and sexual freedom and
no medical care and no government pensions and how are they financed?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Subject: Re: Khat (Summary Wed 12/9/92)
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:12:55 GMT

In article 92Dec15162420@solan10.solan.unit.no, cindy@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf) writes:
>John Switzer writes:
>>The LA Times had a feature story on this, and it left the impression
>>that since no Khat was available for the first 48 hours after the
>>Marines landed that there was a real threat of withdrawal-induced
>>rioting. The Times, though, also claimed that Khat calmed the nerves
>>of the Somali gunmen, which is hard to understand if it is an
>>amphetamin
>
>Not really.  Norwegians drink a _lot_ of very strong coffee, and of
>course caffeine is a stimulant.  I've often seen people acting very
>nervous and jumpy (and bad-tempered!) because they haven't gotten
>their usual dose of coffee today.  You would think it would work the
>other way, that they'd be drowsy, but it doesn't always.

I wouldn't lend much credence to the argument that Khat has about the same
effect as coffee on people.  I've heard the same said about cocaine.  The
fact is that we just don't know that much about it.  The subjective opinion
of reporters has been that it tends to make the "technicals" jumpy--more prone
to committing violence.  Paranoia would not be unusual in someone who is taking
an amphetamine-like drug.  Such drugs are known to induce paranoia.  (Some
suggest that drug-induced paranoia accounts for some of the extremely violent
behavior associated with the cocaine trade.)  I don't know whether caffeine
increases paranoid thoughts, but it is known to have a somewhat paradoxical
effect of causing lethargy when taken in high doses.  Similarly, hyperactive
children are sometimes treated with amphetamines, which appears to have a 
calming effect in many of them.  I don't know why it works, but maybe heavy
Khat users experience the same paradoxical effect when they indulge too much. 

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

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

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
From: dmd39855@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Daniel DuBois)
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:06:33 GMT

cherokee@cscns.com (Agv'nige Wohali) writes:

>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

Nice name.  If no one should care about whether it's 2% or 10%, then why
are gay-interest's related groups citing the figure 10% so frequently?
People are disputing the figure, not the activity.  Beleive it or not,
these two actions can be mutually exclusive.  Some people have a care and
respect for truth and science, and dont give a shit about what people do in
their bedrooms.  I personally don't like being lied to for political
purposes, whether it be a politician, or a special interest group doing
the lying.

-Dan
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Macroeconomics 101
Date: 19 Dec 1992 21:53:07 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd) says:

>The Republicans are saying "I told you so" about the recent
>uptick in the economy. They STILL don't get it: the reason
>the economy is getting better is because they've been driven
>from office, and their loss is everyone else's gain.



       This is one of the saddest posts I've ever read.

       Good luck in the future.

       For myself, I've dumped my cash, seeing as we're likely to
    have an inflationary depression now.  Plus, I've spent around
    $2K on christmas and new years, because I figure it's the last
    time to really celebrate for the next 5-10 years.

   who >
>Look, economies go up because people believe in them, and down
>when people are feeling concerned about the future. For the first
>time in 12 years people have a genuine sense of hope, and, as
>a result, this will probably be a record-breaking Christmas
>retail season. People finally have a REASON to celebrate.
>
>If Bush had won people would have been even more bummed out
>than they'd been, and the economy would have gone even deeper
>in the toilet.
>
>The Republicans are right to take credit for the recent
>improvement in the economy--but only because they LOST.
>-- 
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>Feinstein '94
>Clinton/Gore '96
>