HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: What's happening to George Bush?
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 05:01:07 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.044234.5151@news.acns.nwu.edu>, dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
(Douglas Meier) writes:

|>In article <4157@master.CNA.TEK.COM> mikeq@freddy.CNA.TEK.COM writes:
|>>Within the last few weeks:
|>>
|>>      *Threatened another war with Saddam!
|>>      *Threatened a new war with Serbia!
|>>      *Pardoned his cronies!
|>>      *Submitted budget that grossly underestimated next year's deficit!
|>>      *Blubbered during speech at West Point!
|>>      *Called his war on drugs a SUCCESS!
|>>
|>>George! LAY OFF THE HALCYON!!
|>>
|>Gotta admit, the man is piling up one of the finest lame duck records in the
|>history of lame duck presidencies.  Still wants to be a world leader, still
|>wants to work for the American people right up until the time Klinton is
|>sworn
|>in.  

Yep, George is heading for a new record. The man who achieved more after losing
the election than he did before it. Since what he achieved before was Zip this
ain't hard.

--

Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:03:32 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.155205.2234@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:

>	Any decision that an individual makes that is out of line
>	with the general populous is suspect unless there's a lot
>	of evidence or logic on the side of that decision.

"Shepherds are for sheep."

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: dlaro@lonestar.utsa.edu (David O. Laro)
Subject: Re: Libertarians DO care!
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 15:10:00 GMT

In article <16B5210826.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>In article <1993Jan10.192714.14804@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
>dlaro@lonestar.utsa.edu (David O. Laro) writes:
>
>>Certainly they do.  Otherwise, why would they have entered a profession
>>where they are surrounded by books all day?
>
>       Well, now that we've had the requisite snipy comment that adds
>nothing to the discussion...
>

ADD to the discussion?  There's nothing LEFT to add to the discussion.  This
poor thread has been picked clean - everything that's fit to say (and a lot
that wasn't, I imagine) has already been said on alt.sex, as well as
several other newsgroups.

And, if "subtle" doesn't work, I'm not at all sure why a political topic
has resided so long in alt.sex, unless there's an even more subtle point!

Since you didn't get the hint, I used this opportunity to delete alt.sex
from the listed newsgroups on my reply.   Maybe you would be so kind as to
follow suit in the future?  Thank you for your own "snipy" (but marvelously
sensitive) comment.

David
P.S.  I didn't like Andre Marrou's beard, either!
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
Date: 12 Jan 1993 19:08:00 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <90228@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>  
mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
> In <1iuiriINNjie@transfer.stratus.com>  
jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes:
> |But some degree of regulation is needed here.  First off, the
> |government must make sure that you don't have criminals running
> |a taxi organization and mugging every third customer.
> 
> This is ludicrous.  If you knew that a given company was in the
> habit of mugging it's customers, would you use that comapny.
> I wouldn't.

And how are you going to know this?  I consider licensing
akin to consumer protection laws, which most of us support.
(That is, since most of us support them, we have the right
to collectively, via the governemnt, ask the government to
check up on potential taxi drivers for us.)

> 
> |Second,
> |the government provides some resources: most cities have taxi
> |stand areas, where cabs can park but where cars cannot. For
> |both these reasons, the government has to exercise some kind of
> |control over cabs.
> 
> Another ludicrous argument.  Because the city provides a subsidy to
> some taxi companies, the city has the right to control all taxi
> companies.  Get rid of the taxi stands.  If some company like a  
hotel
> or an airport wants to provide stands as a service to their  
customers,
> then let them.  The city has no business providing such a service.
> 

And what about taxi stands in other areas of the city, where
they are a service to the citizens as a whole.  The people
(through the government) have decided they want this service,
and want to take part of their city area for this service.

--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Is Private Charity That Effective?
Date: 12 Jan 93 14:12:52 GMT
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <DMB.93Jan12055646@srl03.cacs.usl.edu>  
dmb@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (David M. Brumley) writes:
> In article <1isjj0INNssg@transfer.stratus.com>  
jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes:
>    Well, there was no proof of any illegalities.  I think
>    the head of a charity making >$400,000 is wrong doing by most
>    definitions of the term.
> 
> Really?  What if by offering a $400,000 salary, the charity can  
attract
> a successful corporate executive, someone who has proven his/her  
ability
> to make large amounts of money for his/her organization?  What is
> wrong with charities hiring high-salaried corporate executives in
> order to gain increased revenues?  Which is more important: making
> more money for the charity's worthy causes or censuring CEOs whose
> only apparent crime is a six figure salary?

One big problem is that charities like the United Way 
need public support and trust to raise money.  It is hard to
explain to someone making $15,000 per year why he/she should
give money to a charity organizaton that is paying one of
its people $400,000 per year.  


--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.activism
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Libertarians
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:22:17 GMT

In article <90224@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>
>|You seem to have forgotten the whole reason and cicumstances for the
>|labor movement during the Industrial Revolution (when America was more
>|Libertarian than at any other time).
>
>there is nothing in libertaria that would prevent groups of people from
>banding together in order to sell their labor.  (IE labor unions)
>

Isn't that a coercive monopoly, though?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:66983 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12132 alt.politics.homosexuality:9302
From: urgent@roissy.umd.edu (gen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Date: 10 Jan 93 20:28:45 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Maryland

Alright, I know now that I should just give up. My intent was for distillation
of what Yamanari wants, because his intent seems, well, not bad. Here's what
_I_ think he's asking/stating:

	1. Xtians have a consitant view (not neccesarily a valid view)
	that reflects the morality of this here country (at least). Or,
	perhaps this country reflects the morality of xtians (unclear
	to me).

	2. Morality here is defined as  What the majority considers
	appropriate behavior. (Note: this is a definition I don't agree
	with, but I'll adopt it for the moment).

	3. These majority based morals say:
		a) help the sinner
		b) homosexuals are sinners

											4. Please provide an argument based on xtian morals that homosexuality
	is not wrong.

	5. Go to 1.

Sorry, parsing error. Infinite loop detected. Won't compile. I have
to show an inconsistancy in xtian morals, but their morals are consistant.


help!
gen
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Date: 5 Jan 93 01:01:57 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <58172@dime.cs.umass.edu>, rjudy@dime.cs.umass.edu (Judy Ruot) writes:
> In article <13723@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <168C7D5B8.PKJAMES@UKCC.UKY.EDU>, PKJAMES@UKCC.UKY.EDU writes:
# ## I wish I could have said what you said.   I should have known by the
# ## time I looked at your sig you weren't from here.  I think we all like
# ## the USEnet because of it's complete openess-it's like a "freedom wall"
# ## where everyone can go, BUT that doesn't mean we have to agree and I will
# ## let you know that if that fucking Clayton ever comes here to KY and
# ## starts that bullshit-he better be bringing body guards.   He can say
# ## stuff like I'm crazy- I think he's the crazy one, and if he say's it to
# ## my face he's just damn suicidal.                Paul  (...xavier only
# ## mad dogs and englishmen go out in the midday sun..smile)
# ## PAUL JAMES   (PKJAMES@UKCC.UKY.EDU)
# #
# #The average homosexual: he doesn't like what you say, so he threatens
# #you with violence.
# 
#    Great, you're not only apparently a homophobe but sexist as well,
#    Clayton:  "The average homosexual: he"... uh, I got news for you
#    homosexuals come in both genders.  You seem to spend a lot of

But most are men.  The average homosexual is a man.  The 10% figure
is not only false, but false in suggesting that men and women are
homosexuals at comparable rates.  See the recent surveys done in 
Britain & France.

#    time trashing gays, Clay;  I can't help but wonder if you fall into
#    the 70% range of folks on the Kinsey continuum of sexual identity who
#    aren't exclusively homosexual or heterosexual. I also can't help but
#    imagine that because of societal reasons and pressures, you have
#    chosen, instead of loving and accepting the part of yourself that
#     is homosexual, to turn homophobe instead; why else would you go
#    on and on as you do with such bigoted homophobic tirades? 

No, it's because of the hard time that homosexuals have opposing
child molestation.

#    Just a hunch.  I, too, don't like what you say but have no intention
#    whatsoever to threaten you with violence.  You're simply not worth
#    the time or effort.  
# 
# jd

Alas, PKJAMES@UKCC.UKY.EDU making threats of violence against me is
hardly the first homosexual on USENET to make this sort of threat.



-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 4 Jan 93 17:12:21 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <1993Jan4.154437.14984@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>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

How about Repugnants? :-)
-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: michaels@psg.com (Michael Sandy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 9 Jan 93 00:56:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: psg.1993Jan9.005642.12049
Organization: Pacific Systems Group, Portland Oregon US


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??????


-- 
Michael Sandy
michaels@m2xenix.psg.com
"I resolve to make no non-tautological New Year's Resolutions!"
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:67221 alt.president.clinton:1507
From: cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Is the media liberal-biased? (was: Weinberger Pardon)
Date: 12 Jan 93 02:26:10 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc

randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea) writes:

>In other words, I think that things are balanced.  

I know this is just one data point, but it is an influential one at
that. Examine Time magazine for the year before the election, and then
look at their selection for 'man of the year.' Count column inches
devoted to each candidate. Make your own list of 'key words' to
categorize story slant as upbeat or downbeat. Then compare and
contrast the stories devoted to each of the major three major
candidates. You make the list. Anyone who does this will be quite
amused by the positive slant given to Clinton. Since Time has gone to
more of a "USA Today - America's High School Newspaper" look, you also
have to look at the graphics and pictures. Almost all photos of Clinton
or his spouse are taken from a low angle looking up. Clinton is, of
course, usually smiling, upbeat, arm probably extended, exuding that
'good ol' boy' charm. Bush photos are taken with a level angle, with
him usually grimacing or frowning. Interesting choices, but effective.

About this man of the year choice. Give me a break. Clinton hasn't
even wiped his but in the oval office head, and he is man of the year?
He has an overriding 'mandate' with 41% of the popular vote (the same
percentage that Dukakis lost with 4 years ago)? He has yet to take
office, and his 'governing style' has already been compared (in a
major article) to Lincoln?

What really upsets me is that the press abdicated the very important
responsibility it has in a democratic society: they sided with a
candidate and did more that just 'report' the news. They slanted it
heavily in favor of one candidate. This should everyone of all
political persuasions. In print, and on network news, we were
bombarded by stories about how bad the economy was. Now we find out
that the positive economic estimates of GNP released just before the
election were off, just as the we were told they would be by the
talking heads. It's just that the revised figures are better than the
initial estimates, not worse. I must have read about "It's the
Economy, STUPID" over fifty times before the election. Where are all
those negative economy stories now? I guess the recession did end last
spring, only the press decided it wasn't worth reporting, since it was
"their boy's" strong suit. 

I never saw one story which made any suggestion that the recession we
were in might just be an adjustment from a 'cold' war economy to a peace
time economy. The recovery has been very, very slow, true. But the
"worst recession since the Great Depression?" Certainly not.

This 'slanting' of the news, and the backing of one candidate over
another can work both ways, unfortunately. That is worth considering.


                                    Brad Cote'
                                    University of California, San Diego
                                    STARE Project
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:67273 alt.sex:41809 alt.activism:20440
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.activism
Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
Date: 12 Jan 93 16:29:29 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

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.
-- 
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: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed? (Re: The New Education President)
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 20:25:45 GMT

In article 92C@newsserver.technet.sg, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:

>Yes, Clinton has sent his daughter to a private school. He has done, publicly,
>what most liberals have been doing privately for some time. Even (especially?)
>public school teachers are increasingly sending their children to private
>schools to avoid the consequences of their own ideologies.

Clinton is not violating any "liberal" principles by allowing his daughter to attend
a private school.  Liberals do not oppose private schools, nor do they argue that
everyone ought to send children to public schools.  (Indeed, from the viewpoint of 
most Democrats, Clinton is not even a liberal.  He is a moderate.)  You clearly 
blame all of the ills in our public school system on some vague, unidentified
liberal programs.  I would attribute at least some of the mess to a public that
has undervalued and underfunded education.  Stingy taxpayers and stingy politicians. 

>It was not always like this. Education in America was not always run by the
>state, it was not always such a microcosm of the soviet economy. The fact is,
>the socialization of education in America occured roughly at the turn of the
>century when socialism was "the wave of the future". Before that, education
>was primarily a private or community affair much like churches.

IMHO, the Soviet mass education was something of an improvement over czarist days. 
Anyway, if you want to condemn public education in general, you need to look at
all the successfully run public schools, both here and abroad, over the past
century.  If you could explain how the current shameful mess in the US applies to
our previous success--and especially to the current success in foreign lands--then
you would really be making a case against public education.  At best, there is 
only evidence that the US system has recently stumbled on a formula for bungling
the education of its children.  That reflects poorly on our implementation of
public education, not on public education in general.

BTW, the only beef that some "liberals" have with Clinton's action is with the 
message that it sends out.  I doubt that sending Chelsea to a public school 
would have done anything more for public education than Amy Carter did by
attending a public school.  Symbolic action can become a liability when 
it substitutes for substantive reform.  The silver lining in this little tempest
is that Clinton will be more motivated than ever to support public education
in ways that count.

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

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Special Bonus Quiz
Date: 6 Jan 93 13:27:12 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1993Jan6.013142.26432@netcom.com> nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd) writes:

> Q: What is the difference between a Whig and a Republican?
> A: Time.

This is a time-worn relic that has seen several go-'rounds this
century, most recently in 1974.

> Clinton/Gore '96

More likely than not, Clinton/Gore will do the most to repudiate it
this time around, probably long before '96 gets here.
-- 
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,alt.activism
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism...
Organization: LLNL
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 07:33:51 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.225331.21995@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>In article <C0nwxF.2GI@dscomsa.desy.de>, hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
: If you want to claim that the free market has never been tried then fair enough.
: However every approximation to the free market has failed. Without governement
: intervention in the market there would be only on oil producer (standard oil),
: one telephone company (AT&T), one steel company and one motor manufacturer.

>What a monumentally bad example.  AT & T only grew as big as it was _because_ 
>of goverment interference in the marketplace.  It was a goverment-enforced 
>monopoly.  History shows that there were many competing phone companies before 
>AT & T persuaded the goverment to outlaw them.  And the very day that it was
>legal to compete against them they had competitors.

	I would like to see the full story on that sometime. One of
the difficulties in having several competing phone companies is how to
connect from one to another, short of having several phone companies
run their wires to each neighborhood and giving each phone user a
choice of which line to connect to. And even then, what if you
subscribe to Phone Company A while your best friend subscribes to
Phone Company B?

	Some kinds of monopoly are difficult to avoid, it must be
conceded.
-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:67379 alt.activism:20489