HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Re: The less government the better?
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 02:47:34 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.020844.10428@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <ATAYLOR.93Jan11141604@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
>: In article <1993Jan11.093849.28803@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I.
>>Petrich) writes:
>: 	   Let's abolish the Federal Government, and break the United
>:    States up into 50 separate nations (more than 50 if one counts
>:    territories like Puerto Rico).
>>
>>	Petrich thus displays the ignorance of the Constitution
>>	which is a hallmark of "masterblaster" postings.
>
>	I guess I should have stated that it was just satire. If the
>Federal Government is the cause of essentially all the trouble in our
>nation, as a lot of government-bashing rhetoric would seem to suggest,
>then the ultimate solution is just to get rid of it.
>
>	But if there are things that government is to do, then
>_specify_ them, rather than to indulge in mindless government-bashing.

A reasonable person would expect that it would be those who defend the
actions of the federal government to justify its existence. Those who
see its flaws, and the opportunities afforded by decentralization and
privatization have no interest in setting theoretical limits.

It may well be the case that, in a post-cold war world, the federal
government is obsolete. But that is a highly speculative, and academic
question far removed from the immediate issues at hand. When the federal
government exceeds even its own constitutional powers, what point is there
in debating its existence?

>	That is because unqualified government-bashing sounds like
>"I'd like to get rid of government once and for all".

To which the defenders of the federal government reply...?

If you think that the federal government does something which could not be
done better by the states, cities, or, more particularly, by private
institutsions, why don't you provide us with a list and let us have a crack
at it?

Or are you afraid that the existence of the federal government is
indefensible?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: bill@ganesha.cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 03:16:36 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.005642.12049@psg.com> michaels@psg.com (Michael  
Sandy) writes:
> 
> Wait a minute, is somebody arguing that the prosecution must
> prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a particular piece of
> testimony is admissable????
> 
> Every piece of testimony that might have been tainted by watching
> LT Collie North testify under immunity must be proven beyond a
> reasonable doubt to have been completely untainted??????


Well, I've been trying to avoid posting anything, but this was just
too good to pass up.

YES, this is the onus that has faced the Iran-contra investigation
ever since the stupid congressmen insisted on getting immune testimony.
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Cynics view
Keywords: Humor
Date: 4 Jan 93 17:18:24 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <1993Jan4.150930.6516@netnews.alf.dec.com> harry@hershele.alf.dec.com (Harry Katz) writes:
>The great American man of letters, Samuel Langhorn Clemens, once noted
>that one should never attribute to malice things that can be more
>easily accounted for by ignorance.
>
>Harry Katz

Gee, I guess that means Reagan probably didn't know what was going on in
his administration after all.  (Have any of you seen the Phil
Hartman/SNL skit where Reagan is this genius who just appears to be a
bumbling old coot to fool people.  It's pretty good.)

-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot
From: beers@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Jim Beers)
Subject: Re: Ross Perot and "United We Stand"  (was "will appear")
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 04:08:01 GMT

In article <6JAN199319222619@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (=white ribbon=) writes:
>In article <lestrade.726339470@Ra.MsState.Edu>, 
>lestrade@Ra.MsState.Edu (John Patrick Lestrade) writes...
>
>>psmith@iies.ecn.purdue.edu (Paul Smith) writes:
>> 
>>>Where he will say that he is going to attempt to buy^H^H^H run for 
>>>president as a Republican in '96 (deep pockets vs. Jack Kemp).  
>>>Here we go again.
>>>-Paul
>> 
>>yes, buy it with his own money -- as opposed to clinton using yours,
>>Paul.  Where was Kemp this go around?  hiding...
>> 
>>--
>>John Patrick Lestrade        
>>cnesta::lestrade                       Let's try again in '96!
>
>Talk about impatient. First comes '93, then '94, then maybe '95,
>if the government isn't bankrupt from the debt interest by then.
>
>Is Ross interested in politics? Let's flash back 23 years to 1969.
>
Thanks for the article, very interesting, perspective is nice on occasion.

Well, what did ole Ross have to say?  I missed the show.

In the campaign he seemed to be saying that even if he did not win,
his UWSA group should try to influence politics.

Back to why I am replying to this, the comment, bankrupt in '95!
I just read the popular book about that, it is at home, I am not
sure the exact title, but it claims we are going to be in bad shape
by 1995.

This is the reason I back ole Ross.  I think fiscal responsibility is
the most importent issue right now.  If UWSA is going to push for this,
I am behind them 100%.

Well, let me know what he had to say.

Jim
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 15:44:37 GMT

niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>pas@kepler.unh.edu (Paul A Sand) writes:
>>Partisan potshots aside, however, I saw that at least one Democrat
>>senator (Inouye)...
>
>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.

Actually, there is a troublesome asymmetry between the terms: we have
democratic forms of government and republican forms of government.
An inhabitant of the former is a democrat and of the latter is a
republican. The repubs don't lose a syllable! Therefore, to even
things out, the noun for republican should only retain three of its
four syllables. Possibilities:

		publicans
		republis
		relicans
		repubans
		republics
		republiques

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Straw Heaven (Was: Libertarian heaven)
Date: 6 Jan 93 21:59:40 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

Did anyone else notice that the total number of votes for the Libertarian
presidential candidate in November was rather less than the daily number
of Libertarian rantings on usenet?
From: sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: national debt? why?
Date: 10 Jan 93 21:25:12 GMT
Distribution: talk
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <1993Jan10.1778.29517@channel1>, "john lovett" <john.lovett@channel1.com> writes:
|> This suggestion may be a little simplistic, but perhaps someone could
|> flesh it out.
|> 
|> We have a large national debt, but since we owe it to ourselves, why not
|> declare that we forgive ourselves the debt, and forget about it?

Because we DON'T owe all of it to ourselves, for one. Foreign countries own
about 18% of the debt. 
|> 
|> --
|> Channel 1 (R)   Cambridge, MA
|> 

-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS)
Subject: Re: Libertarian heaven
Summary: Not bad
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: Try again
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 9 Jan 93 02:21:40 GMT

In article <8JAN199319071167@utarlg.uta.edu>, b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Ledger)                     writes...
>In article <1993Jan8.134646.18018@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, 
>colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes... 
>>In article <7JAN199322151858@utarlg.uta.edu>, 
>>b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Libertrix) writes:

>* Every American citizen deserves the right to vote without restriction. *
>
Although I have often found myself arguing in favor of liberalizing voting,
even I can't favor 4 year olds voting. Perhaps if you said ever TAX PAYING
American, I could support it.

>(2nd.) A simple question: 
> 
>	What better description than "warlords" can be applied
>	to the rulers of the most powerful military nation in 
>	history?

Amen.
> 
>(3rd.) A not so simple question:
> 
>	What makes you think our military rulers will give up power?
> 
Example: El Salvador now.
> 
>Ok. As a "Perotian Prototype," We hereby declare Montana, a Libertarian
>territory for the next 10 years. Those wanting to move in please make
>arrangements with those wanting to move out. Reports and social monitoring 
>will be required from everybody there. To be reviewed when the experiment 
>is over.
> 
As a former resident of Montana, I can safely say that it doesn't get more
Libertarian than Montana in the lower 48 (except, maybe Wyoming).
	I'm not a Libertarian myself, but I do enjoy watching them stir
up things. No one is better at it.

>>What has their age got to do with it.  A 12 year old with a gun
>>can kill you just as easily as an adult.
> 
>"Can kill =you=" in the general sense of the dwellers in the center of
>society who haven't learned to defend themselves. Or =you= in the sense
>of those who would rather take a chance on being killed rather than
>raise violence against children. There are other cases. 

What a stupid statement. Why do you think they call guns "the great 
equalizer."
> 
  |
>   |  Stephen   

-Garrett
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christiani
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 12:10:31 GMT

Ted Krueger (krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu) wrote:
: In article <1993Jan5.204740.17522@hobbes.kzoo.edu> k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy) writes:
: >mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
: >
: >[the topic is nuclear power plants]
: >
: >>Comment if you like, but on TV just now, a documentary on scientists
: >>studying Mount St. Helens claimed that the blast was the equivalent of
: >>40,000 atomic bombs - more than all the nukes we've ever built as a human
: >>race...
: >
: >1992 World Almanac, p. 700:  Estimated current number of deployed and
: >spare nuclear warheads.  Soviet Union's current total:  27,300.  United
: >States' current total:  19,000.
: >
: >Do I need to point out that 46,300 > 40,000?  And this is presently-
: >existing warheads;  certainly many thousands have been destroyed.
: 
: Mike said that there were less than 40,000 bombs.  You show that there 
: are more than 40,000 warheads.  Have you ever heard of MIRVS?  You know, 
: where they put up to 16 warheads on each missle?
: 

I didn't claim anything.  I just reported, as close to verbatim, as what
I heard on TV :)  It just seemed surprising that that kind of blast happened
and didn't reak major havoc on the whole world for years (as would be us
launching all our nukes).  It also gives me a lot of respect for how the
world works :)

: Ted
: 
: 
: -- 
: So the Maples formed a union, and demanded equal rights, "The Oaks are just 
: too greedy.  We will make them give us light!"  Now there's no more Oak 
: oppression, for they passed a noble law.  And the trees are all kept equal, 
: by hatchet, axe and saw.     -  Rush, The Trees
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,alt.conspiracy
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Libertarians
Date: 12 Jan 93 21:46:26 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <ARCHER.731.726863156@utkvm1.utk.edu> ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:

|In article <90226@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
|>In <1993Jan12.025829.11030@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
|>
|>|In article <1993Jan12.015430.29461@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS) writes:
|>|>In article <1993Jan11.092637.7245@microsoft.com>, leecr@microsoft.com (Lee Crocker)                           writes...
|>
|>|: While many Libertarians, myself included, are guilty of prophecying
|>|: contrived wonderful free-trade societies that we think would result
|>|: from our policies, our opponents always drag out these contrived
|>|: counterexamples that also have no basis in reality.
|>
|>|	But some enterprises _have_ to be big, and much too big for
|>|the sort of romantic individualism that Libertarians and certain
|>|others profess. How does one keep them from misbehaving?
|>
|>|	"Contrived counterexamples that have no basis in reality"?
|>|More like "I don't want to hear about unpleasant facts like the
|>|occurrence of monopoly and near-monopoly capitalism".
|>
|>Why do you have this fascination with big companies.
|>-- 

|He has the same problem that I do with "pure libertarianism," I think.  Lib 
|philosophy clearly identifies coercion of the individual with force, either 
|phycial (literal strong arm robbery or kidnaping) or intellectual (fraud.)  
|On thing that I am yet to be satisfied with is "force by economic power."  
|A large company or extremely wealthy individual can coerce the less well off 
|by virtue of the ability to buy entire industries or land areas, and lib 
|philosophy appears morally deficient in the way that it addresses this 
|concern.

probably because we don't see how such a strategy can work.  Even if
one person were to be wealthy enough to buy up an entire industry
(which means to me that he has to buy every company currently in that
industry).  Your proverbial big man would still have to prevent anybody
else from starting up a company and entering the field.  He would also
have to find a way to prevent consumers from substituting.
IE travelling by car, train or rollerskates instead of flying.
For every product there is a range of products that can be substituted
for it, if the price differential were right.

I have yet to see anybody propose a monopoly situation that was not
either the direct result of government or that did not fall apart on its
own in a couple of years.

BTW, with the rapid advance in technology, both economies of scale are
becoming less important and the ease with which substitution products
can be introduced is increased.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.war.vietnam
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS)
Subject: Somalia invades America (Re: perspective check
Summary: Holy Cow, Batman!
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 11 Jan 93 21:18:22 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.100702.12803@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)                    writes...
> 
>The Recent Invasion of Somalia by the 
>WhiteRacistGenocidalWarMongers of the
>Bush Regime proves that:
> 
>1. Somalia is of strategic importance to the USA.
> 
>2. Somalia is a Threat to the USA.
> 
Holy Cow, Batman! Does this mean that Somalia was about to invade 
America! ;^)
	I can hear it now: "First Mogadishu, then Addis Addab, then
Main Street USA."
> 
>ciao
>drieux
> 
>This is Not a .sigfile addendum to the Post.
>You are just reading beyond the edge.
> 
-Garrett
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Affirmative action is dead
From: emiddlec@mora.gac.edu (Eric Middlecamp)
Date: 4 Jan 1993 21:58:24 GMT
Organization: Gustavus Adolphus College
NNTP-Posting-Host: ancho.gac.edu

>>In article <1h53p2INNqpq@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
>>>Actually, South Africa is a precedent for a society which bases everything
>>>on protecting the power of a racial minority.  AA will be needed to protect
>>>whites by the year 2010.
>>
>>The underlying assumption here is, of course, that AA is
>>"automatically" needed to protect every minority group.
>>
>>Not to mention that I will bet you dollars to donuts that the moment
>>somebody advocates affirmative action to protect _whites_ is the
>>moment we hear the first anti-AA sentiments from certain segments of
>>the liberal camp.

It's a matter of circumstances. You can't just make a blanket statement
like "help blacks" or "help whites." The underlying principle (which could
change also, I suppose..) is "help people who need help." "Liberals" believe
people with -less- should be helped to bring out the best in everyone. 
"Conservatives" believe that people with -more-  should be helped to bring out
the strongest of society. 

Remember: context is important. Affirmative action is temporary, in theory.
	  (However, if it turns out otherwise, either people are weird or
	  the application of "help" is not working..)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Clayton's 10% Silence
Date: 4 Jan 93 18:30:07 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

[soc.motss deleted because I'm tired of harrassment by a bunch of
emotional basket cases.]

In article <1992Dec30.004813.16500@ariel.ec.usf.edu>, woodard@figment.tmc.edu (Chris Woodard) writes:
> Clayton, you still haven't listed your sources.  If listing sources is not a
> requirement for this thread, then have I got some statistics for you
> concerning the relative proportion of Fundamentalist Baptist ministers
> convicted of child molestation!

I have REPEATEDLY posted my sources.  Again.

1. Christopher Bagley and Kathleen King, _Child Sexual Abuse: The
Search for Healing_, (New York, Tavistock/Routledge: 1990).  Bagley
is Professor of Social Work at the University of Calgary.  Kathleen
King is a social worker (MSW) in Nova Scotia.

2. Kathleen Coulborn Faller, _Child Sexual Abuse: An Interdiscplinary
Manual for Diagnosis, Case Management, and Treatment_, (New York,
Columbia University Press: 1988).

3. Diana Sullivan Everstine and Louis Everstine, _Sexual Trauma in
Children and Adolescents: Dynamics and Treatment_, (New York, 
Brunner/Mazel Publishers: 1989).  The Everstines are professionals
engaged in mental health treatment in Santa Clara County.  The title
page indicates a total of two Ph.D.s between them, and Louis Everstine
holds the M.P.H.  (Master's of Public Health).

4. William H. Masters, Virginia E. Johnson, and Robert C. Kolodny,
_Human Sexuality_, 4th ed., (New York, HarperCollins Publishers Inc.:
1992).  Masters & Johnson, of course, are too well-known in the field
of sex research to require introduction.

5. Janet Shibley Hyde, _Understanding Human Sexuality_, 4th ed.,
(New York, McGraw-Hill Co.: 1990).  Hyde is Professor of Psychology
at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.  The book is about as 
pro-homosexual as I've ever seen.

6. Jeffrey J. Haugaard and N. Dickon Reppuci, _The Sexual Abuse of 
Children: A Comprehensive Guide to Current Knowledge and Intervention
Strategies_, (San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Publishers: 1989), 71.

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
C++ is to C, as lung cancer is to lung.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:67266 alt.politics.elections:24874 alt.politics.clinton:20105 alt.politics.libertarian:3410
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: "Its all over for the political ruling class!"
Date: 12 Jan 93 15:05:01 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1993Jan11.204205.5405@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS) writes:

|In article <90187@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)              writes...
|>In <1993Jan8.230455.19116@m5.harvard.edu> borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:
|>I believe that rising standards of living lead to demands for greater
|>political freedoms.  If the government gives in to the demands then the
|>change will be peacefull, otherwise it will be violent.
|> 
|There was an old quote from a labor leader in the American Industrial 
|Revolution which went:

|	"Freedom creates wealth, wealth destroys freedom"

|I can't remember who said it off hand.
|>-- 
|>Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

|-Garrett

I don't know who said it either.  But that doesn't prevent him from
being wrong.
-- 
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
From: drm@esl.com (Don McGregor)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Date: 8 Jan 93 17:46:31 GMT
Reply-To: drm@esl.com

In article <1993Jan7.194924.16150@m5.harvard.edu>  
borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:

> To fellow Democrats out there:  like it or not, vouchers
> are going to steadily gain in popularity, and it will
> become increasingly difficult to resist them for much
> longer, in my opinion.  They can be done well, in ways that
> will help the poor and the working class, or they can be
> done badly, in ways that will hurt.  If we let the
> Republican leadership do it, it probably will turn out to
> hurt the poor. 

I don't see why a voucher program should be federalized at all.  This  
sounds like an excellent project for several forward-looking states.  Four  
or five try out different variations of voucher programs over the period  
of a few years, and other states examine the results and implement the  
best.

The only thing the national parties should provide is support and  
leadership for state parties and organizations.

--
Don McGregor | Double your pleasure, double your fun.  Xerox
drm@esl.com  | your paycheck.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:67220 soc.motss:56105