HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: carroll@hercules.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll)
Subject: Re: What is Clay's real motivation?
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:19:43 GMT

In article <13774@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
][soc.motss deleted because the poor dears can't handle reading
]anything that disagrees with them.]
]
]In article <1993Jan1.042836.16705@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
]] In article <13759@optilink.COM> walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes:
]] #The parade committee
]] #accepted NAMBLA as one of the groups marching in the parade,
]] #a big mistake in my opinion.
]] 
]] Ah, respecting free speech is a big mistake.
]] 
]] -Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
]
]I guess Mr. Hennessy didn't hold the speeches by Pat Robertson and
]Pat Buchanan at the Republican Convention against the Republican
]Party.  Can we presume that Mr. Hennessy will welcome with open
]arms members of the Klan to speak at the next Democratic National
]Convention?  I mean, we have to respect free speech, right?
]

There is a great difference between inviting someone to speak at a
convention intended to describe the views and positions of a political
party, and allowing someone to march in a parade whose goal is to say
"No matter how you despise us, no matter how you fear us, you cannot
silence us."

In the first case, you deliberately select people who represent your
views. There is nothing wrong with not inviting people who don't
represent your views to your political convention. (No one expects Al
Gore to be invited to speak at the Republican convention!)

In the second case, it is most definitely wrong to deny anyone
permission to march in the parade because you dislike (or even deeply
despise) their views. The parade exists to say that they refuse to be
silenced or censured - it would be hypocritical of the leadership to
silence or censure ANY homosexual group, no matter what they think of
them.

	<MC>
-- 
|| Mark Craig Carroll: <MC>     || "There is no such thing as a problem 
|| Univ of Delaware, Dept of CIS||  without a gift for you in its hands. You
|| Grad Student/Labstaff Hacker ||  seek problems because you need their 
|| carroll@udel.edu             ||  gifts" - _Illusions_, by Richard Bach
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Libertarian heaven
Date: 6 Jan 93 04:01:00 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <CB.93Jan5142112@tamarack13.timbuk> cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster) writes:
>
>There's a country that fulfills the dearest dreams of Libertarians: it
>has no government and its populace is armed.  Until the recent intrusion
>of some outsiders, no external force impinged on that country's freedom.
>When these outsiders leave, that country's citizens will again be free
>to pursue their individual destinies.  I invite all Libertarians to move
>to that country: Somalia.


Doubtless it will all be ruined if these outsiders infringe
on the peoples right to keep and bear arms ...
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 09:50:30 GMT

In <1993Jan1.204230.14425@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>In article <1993Jan1.194924.6013@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
>>Yamanari writes:

>>#	1.  No matter how you stack the deck, it's deviant.
>>#	2.  Our culture seeks to cure those who are deviant from
>>#		their behavior.

>>Playing baseball is deviant. Should we seek to cure baseball players?

>	If someone compulsively, constantly plays baseball?  And then
>	whines that people wont be nice to them because they don't
>	have anything in common (not everyone likes talking about
>	baseball, playing baseball, etc, watching baseball)?

>	You can bet that such a person would be into a hospital faster
>	than you or I could say, "Home run"...

I'm glad I don't live in a place run by *your* odd view of liberty.  No,
such a person would *not* be in a hospital.  Not in this country.

The only time you can confine people against their will in a mental
hospital is when they pose a danger to others.

Furthermore, it goes a little beyond "won't be nice."  All the way to
"discriminates," in fact.

Personally, I think that anyone who *doesn't* like baseball is mentally
ill, but hey, I wouldn't prevent them from getting married, adopting
children, serving in the army, or visiting sick spouses.

As to your argument in another post about deviance, you're deliberately
mixing definitions.  Deviant has a connotation of *bad* as well as being
different from a norm.  Otherwise, deviant trivially means anything done
by 49% of the population or less, and doesn't give much useful information.

As to baseball, I think being left-handed is a more appropriate analogy.
It is obviously deviant by *your* definition.  Do we lock up lefties and
deny them basic rights?
-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 11:32:04 GMT

Mike Jones (mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com) wrote:
: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
: : >How about at the age of, say, twenty-five?  Then you'd damn well
: : >better be ready to say than a gay man who's twenty-five could make
: : >that call.
: : 	I don't think most people are competent to control their 
: : 	credit card spending, let alone interpersonal acts like
: : 	sexuality.  
: 
: But, of course, you are. And to pontificate about it on Usenet. We should
: all get down on our knees and give thanks for your guidance.
: 

FWIW, the best way to not get into credit card problems is to abstain :)


(for humor impaired liberals, this is a joke :)


:    Mike Jones  |  AIX/ESA Development  |  mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com
: 
: Wash a pig as much as you like, it'll go right back into the mud puddle.
: 	- Russian proverb
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:66987 soc.culture.jewish:24920 misc.headlines:7453 misc.legal:22314
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.jewish,misc.headlines,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Post-acquittal partying (was Crown Heights Jury)
Date: 10 Jan 93 21:18:02 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1993Jan8.170026.26007@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:

> [Note the "Followup-To" redirect(s) to misc.legal only.]

[Note my followups are directed elsewhere.]

> (I can see zillions of things wrong with the idea of jurors attending
> a party thrown by the defendant or his lawyer _before_ the verdict is
> returned, of course, but as I see it, after the trial is over,
> everybody involved goes back to being just plain civilian folks and
> can associate with whomever they please.)

Lemrick Nelson can go back to being a scumbag.  If the jurors choose
to associate with him, what does this suggest about them?
-- 
The views expressed herein are   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously   ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
as this would hold such views??? ||
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: A 4th branch of government?
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 04:15:15 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.153411.26156@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>Speaking of stupid Ag Dept policy, the dairy price supports are based on
>the farmers distance from Eau Claire Wisconsin.  The further the farmer,
>the higher the suport price.  Dairy farms are springing up in Texas &
>Florida, while WI & MN farmers go broke.

Yes, the Ag Dept policy is stupid, but this aspect of dairy price supports
isn't as stupid as you might think.

"Basing-point pricing" is a very effective way for cartels to maintain
high prices.  If I remember correctly, it's what U.S. Steel used to use.

Of course, when the Ag Dept does it, it's for the good of the nation's dairy
farmers, while if private business does it, it's criminal price
fixing, a felony.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
never shout movie in a crowded firestation
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: No US President Ever Survived an Energy Crisis
Date: 7 Jan 93 18:51:08 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <Jan.7.10.24.44.1993.1901@cadenza.rutgers.edu> masticol@cadenza.rutgers.edu (Steve Masticola) writes:

> An interesting fact for y'all:

Factiod.

> No U.S. president who had an energy crisis on his watch has ever made
> it through the end of a second term.

> Nixon: First Energy Crisis, 1973.  Forced to resign, 1974.

But not because of the energy crisis.

> Carter:  Second Energy Crisis, 1979.  Defeated for second term, 1980.

And not just because of the energy crisis

> Bush:  Third Energy Crisis, 1990.  Defeated for second term, 1992.

What energy crisis?

> This should suggest something to somebody...

Clue us in.  Thrill us with your acumen.
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 07:56:23 GMT

In article <1hqf6tINN92m@mozz.unh.edu> pas@kepler.unh.edu (Paul A Sand) writes:
>mp: Michael Polen

>mp: [Weinberger] was not a traitor. He was being tried for obstructing
>    justice. He did disagree, but he did not have the courage of his
>    convictions to tell the truth in front of the special prosecutor and
>    congress. That is against the law. 

>Ah, why bother with judges and juries when Mr. Polen can so reliably
>detect lawbreakers? Unfortunately for the self-proclaimed Forces of
>Truth and Justice: by all accounts even the prosecutors were willing to
>let this master criminal slip off on a misdemeanor rap had he been
>willing to testify `correctly;' that is, implicate Reagan, Bush, et.
>al.  in something or other. Evidently, this game isn't about tracking
>down crime anymore (if, indeed, it ever was); the most charitable
>interpretation is that the prosecutors were desperately trying to
>justify their dismal performance and largely futile existence by
>coercing testimony against Big Fish.

Amazingly enough, this has been done for CENTURIES.  Wow.  Giving a
subordinate a lesser sentence in exchange for implicating higher ups.

You almost fooled someone with this inane statement, though.   

I didn't see you complain when this was done to get Noriega, for instance.
Or John Gotti.

>mp: Republicans make you a hero for breaking laws against Congress as
>    long as they are done in support of Republican agendas.

>Yeah, yeah, and Democrats don't give a rat's ass about civil liberties
>and separation of powers as long as Republicans are the victims.

Not at all true, of course.  North and Poindexter's convictions were
overturned because of the 5th amendment protection against
self-incrimination.  Democrats didn't complain about that.

>Partisan potshots aside, however, I saw that at least one Democrat
>senator (Inouye) told Walsh that indicting Weinberger would be a bad
>idea. I dare say that you could get numerous Democrats to agree,
>although truth serum might be necessary in many cases.

I'm sure one DemocratIC senator did say this.
		     ^^ adjective, not noun
And I'm sure at least one RepublicAN senator told Bush a pardon would be
a bad idea.  I dare say that you could get numerous Republicans to
agree, although truth serum might be necessary in many cases.
-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: national debt? why?
Date: 13 Jan 1993 02:36:28 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, hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) says:
>
>|>Precisely. Anyone who actually expects this to happen should
>|>IMMEDIATELY run out and borrow huge sums of cash. These debts could
>|>then be repaid in worthless, inflated, dollars. Conversely, only a fool
>|>would save during an inflationary period. Take your paycheck and buy, buy,
>|>buy (DMs, Yen, real estate, gold, or whatever the government can't inflate).
>
>Yep. I going into real estate.
>

     Oh.  In that case...

    The Japanese have 76 Billion in the U.S. real estate market that 
    they're looking to dump.  Some in Vancouver, Ca, too.

    First Chicago has $2.1 Billion.
    Bank of America has $4 Billion for sale.
    Citicorp has around $5 Billion in non-performiag loans they'd be 
    happy to sell.  

    All told, the U.S. has $66 Billion in non-perfoming real-estate.
    Japan looks like a deal too.  Estimated at over $100 Billion.

    Perhaps you'd like to "invest" in some of that $30 Billion that the RTC is 
      holding?
 
    Gosh, aren't you in luck?

    I've always felt that you didn't know what you were talking about.>
>--
>
>Phill Hallam-Baker
>

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
Date: 12 Jan 93 16:27:43 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1993Jan12.025131.9874@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS) writes:

|In article <90191@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)              writes...
|>In <1993Jan11.065529.27080@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
|>|>	The only situation under which your scenario could be achieved is by 
|>|>force. Like some government making a law that says you may only work for 
|>|>that employer and cannot form any business of your own.
|> 
|>|	Or when other companies lock you out, for example.
|> 
|>How pray tell are they going to do this.

|Read up on the numerous anti-trust suits that were brought against
|Standard Oil because he paid the railroads to charge his competition
|much higher fares. 

Is this the same Standard Oil that was loosing market share while
all of these shenanigans were going on.
-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,alt.conspiracy
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
Date: 11 Jan 93 17:00:58 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1993Jan11.065529.27080@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

[A couple of silly examples deleted]

|	These examples can readily be multiplied; I have to question
|the seriousness of anyone who claims it's simple to start a business,
|especially a big one.

If you think that the only possible employers are big companies, I think I
understand why you don't like libertarianism.

Try these examples on for size.

Put a sign in your front yard saying that you will take care of kids during
the day, or night if that is your preference.

Buy a few skeins of wool and knit some sweaters.

Buy a paint brush and paint houses.

I could go on, ... and on.

|>	The only situation under which your scenario could be achieved is by 
|>force. Like some government making a law that says you may only work for 
|>that employer and cannot form any business of your own.

|	Or when other companies lock you out, for example.

How pray tell are they going to do this.
-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: Bob Hooker's possibly fraudulen (was Re: Trickle Down Economics)
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:25:52 GMT

Jamie R. McCarthy (k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu) wrote:
: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
: >
: >: |> >But Buchanan?   He's an out-and-out racist and anti-semite.  
: >: Pat is not anti-semitic.
: >
: >You wanna share the sources/writings directly from Buchannan that indicates
: >he is an anti=semite.  I've seen you and I've seen plenty of TV journalists
: >make this kind of claim.  Yet the people that deal with him day in and
: >day out and know him a lot better than you do say otherwise...
: 
: Allow me to quote from the January 1992 newsletter of the Institute for
: Historial Review.  The IHR is the leading North American neo-Nazi
: organization, a fact for which I will gladly provide as much
: evidence as desired.  

I won't waste my breath fighting NeoNazi propaganda.  I've got my hands
full with the Democratic Fascist Party... :)

[ quote from neonazi magazine article deleted ]

: Now, you can think what you like.  

I think you have a hard time documenting any kind of consistent anti-semetic
activity or agenda by the man.  


: But apparently the largest
: anti-Semitic organization in America thinks that Buchanan is on their
: side.  (And, if they're quoting him correctly--not that I f think
: they'd quote their own grandmothers correctly--it would appear that
: Buchanan at least has doubts as to whether the Holocaust even
: _occurred_.  

Gee, the NeoNazis also claim that the Holocaust never happens, an obvious
falsehood, yet you believe any claims they make about Buchanan?  Weak :)

FWIW, I heard a lot of people screaming about how Buchanan's speech at the
convention was non-stop gay bashing...  He made ONE reference to MILITANT
gay activists, and certain people make it out as if he was bashing ALL gays.
Albeit, I'm sure he doesn't like gays on moral grounds...  

But that's one of the beauties of this USA - we let those Nazis march in
Skokie (99% Jewish neighborhood), let the KKK stick crosses in the ground,
David Dukkke run for office as a republican (in spite of no well known
republican giving him any support) and let Gov. Casey of PA speak up against
abortion at the Democratic convention. :)  (big joke here :)

: Does anyone have a transcript of that section of "This
: Week with David Brinkley"?
: 

I remember hearing about the conversation in question before, and most likely
saw it.  I did not ever remember any anti-semetic statements...

: This may not concern you.  But it concerns the hell out of me.



: -- 
:  Jamie McCarthy      Internet: k044477@kzoo.edu      AppleLink: j.mccarthy
:  "This sounds like a semantico-psychological backwardization of the
:   real world image."                                   - Dave Bloom
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Affirmative Action should be Dead
Date: 5 Jan 93 15:13:49 GMT
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1993Jan5.000031.7254@Princeton.EDU>  
niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
> >No. Companies have concluded that, in practical terms, AA  
legislation
> >mandated quotas because it exposed the employer to lawsuits if the
> >'representative sample' was not present in the employee population
> >(not just in the hiring pool, but in the set of those actually  
hired).
> 
> >Recent legislation (the 1991 civil rights act) now requires that
> >employers be prepared to justify every hire that deviates from the
> >representative sample in terms of overwhelming business necessity.
> >It used to be that the plaintiff had to demonstrate that a  
violation
> >had taken place; now the defendant must prove that there has been
> >no violation, a definite shift of the burden of proof.
> 
> No, it didn't.  This is good conservative propaganda, but it's a  
lie.
> It used to be exactly the way it is now.  The Supreme Court changed  
this
> in 1989?, and the new Civil Rights Act changed it back.

True, but this still leaves open the question as to whether this
SHOULD be the way things work.  Much of this does smack of
"you are guilty unless you can prove that you are innocent."

In theory, this way of doing things shouldn't be much of a problem
if everybody is being reasonable.  Unfortunately, all too often
people aren't. Quite often government regulators of various
sorts take an adversarial attitude. They don't come into
a company saying "we want to make sure there are no
problems and want to help you fix any that you have" but
rather "we know you are lying scum and we're here to smash
you."  The EPA agent in the movie Ghostbusters was a very
accurate portrayal of many government regulators.

--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.poli
From: scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Steven M Casburn)
Subject: McKinley Did What?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:56:48 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.054906.111@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (
David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>
> [In response to a poster who inferred that all wars were started by 
> Democrats.]
>
>How about REPUBLICAN President McKinley, who did everything possible to
>get us into a war with Spain?

     Bizzzzz! I'm sorry, that's wrong. The correct answer is: McKinley had to 
be pushed *hard* by the "yellow press" and other elements to declare war on 
Spain over Cuba. McKinley remembered the carnage of the Civil War and hated to 
see it happen again. Once the war finally started, though, it is true that 
McKinley gained enthusiasm (just like the American people during the Gulf War)

                                        Steve
|
-- 
    Steve Casburn (scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)

    Building of the new .sig in progress. Please be patient.
      Sorry for the inconvenience.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc