HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pas@anchor.unh.edu (Paul A Sand)
Subject: Re: Pro-government media bias (was Re: Media bias)
Organization: University of New Hampshire
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 14:50:27 GMT

pn> == Peter Nelson
ps> == Paul Sand

pn> I have some sympathy for libertarian positions but they consistently
    make a *really stupid* blunder: Blaming the politicians for big
    government rather than seeing the Washington and politician for what
    they really are: EMERGENT BEHAVIOR of the underlying system/culture.

ps> I doubt whether Peter can base this assertion on anything other than
    his general ignorance of what libertarians actually have to say on
    the matter.

pn> Well I used to subscribe to their newspaper and, of course I read
    Usenet, and almost everything they say is about "the government"
    this or "the government" that. Moreover their focus is political --
    changing laws, running candidates for office, etc. I've seen VERY
    FEW libertarians here on Usenet who don't make government, taxes,
    laws, etc, the focus of their ire.

Peter dodges away from his original assertion here, which concerned,
specifically, blame.  Recognizing a problem, or griping about a
problem, or proposing strategies for attacking the problem, are *not*
the same as attaching blame for that problem.

Generally, libertarian-type folks *I've* seen are pretty much on the
mark on pointing out how statism creeps in on little cat's feet.
(Unlike Peter, I'll actually name two he can check for himself: P. J.
O'Rourke in _Parliament of Whores_, especially see the chapter on the
Audi vs. 60 Minutes and the DOT. Robert Higgs, in _Crisis and
Leviathan_, who's unfortunately not as funny.)
-- 
-- Paul A. Sand           | I learned to put the [toilet] seat down...it
-- Univ. of New Hampshire | makes you look like a warm, caring, sensitive
-- pas@kepler.unh.edu     | human being. (Prof. R. Noble, from r.h.f.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Make it a law! (was: "something else") 
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 19:27:36 GMT

In article <pebi.712519006@sirocco.aem.umn.edu> pebi@aem.umn.edu (Peter A. Bidian) writes:
>riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:
>
>
>>	The ultimate crime one can commit around here is to bore the Net.
>
>[much stuff deleted]
>>-- 
>>Bill R.
>
>I like this.. can we make it a net-law?!
>
>Cheers,
>
>Peter

You've just been indicted.
;-)



Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:35434 ca.politics:5951
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 22 Jul 92 22:51:36 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Jul21.194625.18019@tss.com>, burke@tss.com (Jim Burke) writes:
> In article <1992Jul21.052510.5743@genie.slhs.udel.edu>, starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
> 
> |> Of course.  All sorts of vicious, stupid, nonsensical things like this should
> |> be permissible, no matter how absurd.  Refusal to deal doesn't violate anyone's
> |> inividual rights; only violations of individual rights are prohibitable.
> 
> Past experience has shown where private discrimination takes us.
> Imagine one day 20 years from now after Libertarianism has been embraced
> by the masses.  Yet one young fellow in town has not converted.  Hell, he

First assumption that is clearly bogus: that sort of complete acceptance
of ANY ideology.  The only way you get that sort of compliance is by
using the totalitarian approach: you murder everyone who disagrees.
That such an approach is completely contrary to libertarian ideas should
be completely obvious.

> still believes in outdated concepts like civil rights.  Well, to teach him

Second non-sensical assumption: that libertarian ideas are contrary to
the idea of civil rights.  According to the dictionary, civil rights are
"the rights of personal liberty guranteed to U.S. citizens by the 13th
and 14th amendments to the Constitution and by acts of Congress."
Which of these civil rights are denied by libertarians?  Other than
public accommodations laws, none.

> a lesson all the merchants in town decide that they won't sell any of their
> goods to this fellow.  No mechanic will fix his car.  Nobody will hire him.
> They don't like his politics.  Is this legal?  Well, in fact, this is legal
> even today.  There is nothing in the law that prevents discrimination based
> on political views.  However, change the above story to replace political
> views with race.  The young man is black.  And the townsfolk don't like
> blacks.  So he can't work, eat, drive, live... hell, he can't _exist_ in
> such a town.  

So with two non-sensical assumptions, and the assumption that every
merchant in town is going to voluntarily agree to turn away a paying
customer, we come to a truly non-sensical conclusion.  Tell me, what
guarantees that you will have a job of any sort?  Yet you have one.
What guarantees you a right to medical care?  Nothing, but you have
access to it.  Why?  Competition, and the diversity of our society --
which liberals claim to be for, until the issue of anti-discrimination
laws comes up -- at which point they suddenly are arguing for the
government imposing the "ein Reich, ein Volk, ein Sprache" approach.

> 	Jim Burke	"Life is uncertain - eat dessert first!"
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"Well, maybe the Holocaust was right *for that culture*." -- a moral relativist
with whom I work.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.folklore.urban
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Vacation Time!
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 20:07:52 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Jul24.185354.24626@news.cs.brandeis.edu> st890270@pip.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>>  The only thing about life in the city that didn't make me retch was
>>  the social and cultural life.  I used to hang out with other "intel-
>>  lectual" types and sometimes we'd get some real brainy types -- you
>>  know, with the giant bulging foreheads and hardly any hair --  at
>>  those parties.  The fun thing to do was to to say embarassing things
>>  about sex and stuff to them and see if you were "getting to them"
>>  by taking the derivative of the rate at which the huge bulging
>> veins in their foreheads pulsed.
>
>
>Hmmm. You rant and rave about how if anyone went out of their way to
>abuse you/ humiliate

 I don't mind being humiliated; I just don't like to have my time
 wasted involuntarily.  (as opposed to voluntary time-wasting like these
 postings)
                     

> you by pulling some "infantile bullshit" prank on
>you, you would sue them. Then you go and put an insulting stereotype
>on "intellectuals".
>I'll admitt, a there are really smart people who are very introverted, but
>part of the reason is because assholes like you humiliate them.

   I generally have a policy of avoiding the use of smiley's in
   order to not insult the more intelligent/perceptive readers.
   I don't worry so much about the less intelligent ones because  

   A.)  From my perspective they're not PLU (PLM?),  and

   B.)  They generally don't know when they've been insulted anyway.


---peter


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: barrett@cloudgen1.gatech.edu (James Barrett)
Subject: QUAYLE: Vote for Clinton!
Organization: Georgia Tech College of Computing
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 04:38:28 GMT

Did everyone catch Quayle's quoteable in Newsweek this week?

"it's not enough to change the president" - Quayle

"Yes, Danforth, we need to change the VP as well." - Arsenio Hall, 7/21

---------------------OS/2 v2.0 -- It's heeeeerrrreee!!!!!-----------------------
James C. Barrett (barrett@cc.gatech.edu)| "I'm speechless...               
Georgia Tech College of Computing       |      I am without speech." - George
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: goepping@msi-s20.msi.umn.edu (Jason Goeppinger [Math])
Subject: Re: choices: was Re: Question about Clinton's "didn't inhale" remark
Organization: MSI
	<1992Jul20.210040.6869@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
	<1992Jul21.130716.28026@linus.mitre.org>
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:31:02 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.130716.28026@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:

   }Regarding the lesser of two evils proposition used to justify support for 
   }either Bush or Clinton, John McGlauglin used a great Mae West quotation in
   }Friday's show:
   }
   }     "When it's a choice between two evils I always opt for the one I
   }haven't tried."

   Oh, THAT's a good way.  Let's see - a change can either be for the better or
   for the worse.  There is not much evident better, but there is a LOT of room
   worse.  Just changing would probably go downhill.  yuch.

Oh, THERE's good logic.  Every change being either for the better or
for the worse is like saying that every person is either a "good guy"
or a "bad guy." Well, since both Clinton and Bush are bad guys I'm
going to find a good guy to vote for--say there's this Texas
billionaire who doesn't want to run for president unless he's coaxed
into it. . .the name's something like Bob Ross or that guy in the
Agatha Christie mysteries. . .let's get him to run and he'll clean up
this country just like he said he would do to Houston. . .oh, never
mind. . .
--

	Jason Goeppinger
	(goepping@s1.msi.umn.edu)
From: nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Libertarian Platform
Date: 24 Jul 92 02:18:46 GMT
	<rdippold.711676309@cancun> <BrqnvK.H59@apollo.hp.com>
	<1992Jul22.002733.21858@tss.com>
Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam NY

In article <1992Jul22.002733.21858@tss.com> burke@tss.com (Jim Burke) writes:

>In article <BrqnvK.H59@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>|>   Would you agree to holding parents responsible for the actions
>|>   of their children, then?  I.e., subjecting them to whatever
>|>   penalties would accrue to their children for doing some hurtful
>|>   thing?

>Naw, the Libertarians wouldn't go for that.  Each individual must be 
>responsible for his/her own actions.  If a little kid gets drunk and then
>does something stupid that kills somebody, Libertarian doctrine would 
>require you to lock up the little kid.  Kids have full rights and full
>responsibilities according to these guys.  

I believe that some libertarians believe that.  Many more do not.  Libertarians
are a diverse group.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Jessie Jackson and Jesus
Date: 22 Jul 92 14:37:39 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher) writes:

>In article <64026@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt4925b@prism.gatech.EDU (Jason Woodward) writes:
>>In today's Atlanta Journal, there was a letter that stated that at
>>the Democratic Convention, Jessie Jackson said that the mother of
>>Jesus was a single parent, in his speech to the convention.

>He said:

[Note: This assumes Biblical correctness...if you don't buy it, please
don't start a flame war...]

>    "Lastly, there's a lot of talk these days about family values.  Even
>as we spurn the homeless on the street, remember, Jesus was born to a
>homeless couple, outdoors in a stable, in the winter.
False.  They were not 'homeless', they were traveeling because of an ill-timed,
ill-planned government action.  There was simply no room for them to stay
in the Inn, due to all of the people.  They were by no means 'homeless'.

>    "Jesus was a child of a single mother.  But when Mary said, Joseph
>was not the father, she was abused and questioned.
Hardly.  Mary and Joseph married prior to Jesus' birth.  She wasn't a
single mother.

>    "If Mary had aborted the baby, she would have been called immoral.
>If she had the baby she would have been called unfit, without family
>values.
She was married before the child was born.  And new she was carrying the
Son of God.  

>    "But Mary had family values.  It was Herod, the Quayle of his day,
>who put no value on the family."
Huh?  Herod really didn't give a hoot about Jewish 'family values'...he was
much more interested in keeping the Romans happy, since he was their
flunky.  The condemnation would have come from RELIGIOUS leaders in the
Jewish community...not from the Romans or their henchmen.

And, Mary was operating under direct orders from God.  Once she agree to
bear God's Son, there was no way she was going to back out of the deal.
And God made sure that Joseph married her to prevent any scandals.

Jesse needs to go back to Diivinty School....

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.censorship
From: veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal)
Subject: Re: More Nilges obfuscation (was: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court)
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 22:42:11 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.135455.10286@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

>In article <1992Jul20.043442.12608@samba.oit.unc.edu> Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:

>>      Yes, Ed, some Americans of all skin hues are racist.  People are 
>>flawed.  So what?

>This is the essential mistake.  You want to make racism into Yet Another
>flaw of individual character (like farting in elevators) whereas in
>actuality it is a property of societal structures (systems.)  

     You mean people are racist because *society* makes them racist?  If
that's the case, how can society denounce them for it?

>This
>question has already been extensively discussed, and , to my mind,
>resolved.  Racism isn't just a defect of character that can as readily
>be ascribed to the black person's resentment of white mistreatment, for
>then it is an empty concept (as well as convenient to white racists who
>wish to reverse black gains.)  Racism is what society does to people not
>of the approved race, which is white.  

     So *people* can't be racist, only *societies* can be racist.
 
>Racism is a historical artifact
>of European domination.  

     Call a Japenese Chinese, or either of them Korean.

>So if you phrase your question the way you want ("do you fart in
>elevators?"  "do you approve of cross-burning?") of course you'll get a
>negative answer.

>This has nothing to do with the systematic racial
>discrimination that people who aren't white experience in our society.

     I like this.  White people are racist whether or not they are racist,
because they're society is racist.  They have no choice in the matter.


>>>
>>      Maybe you do, but I don't.  And polls these days routinely report
>>the error margins ("confidence intervals") in their results.  The assumptions
>>used are not mysterious trade secrets at all; any statistician is familiar

>Not all citizens are statisticians, nor should the expected to be.  It's
>not an especially reputable occupation (you have read, I trust, "How to
>Lie with Statistics.")

     I don't know.  Considering how many polls the average person is likely 
to be exposed to (should we take a poll about this?) it might not be a bad 
idea to start teaching kids about how these are used.  But then, there are a 
lot of practical things lacking from standard education...







===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
| Statistics are any data which can be twisted to support your posititon  | 
===========================================================================

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Bring Bush Down
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 16:20:39 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <NEERI.92Jul20011644@iis.ethz.ch> neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher) writes:
]- Are there others besides me who somewhat doubt that Bushs health remains good
]enough to let him stay in office until 1996? He seems to have aged a lot during
]the last 4 years, and had a few health problems. The thought of a few years of
]Presidente Quayle really scares me.

I consider this a good reason to vote for Bush. Quayle at least has an agenda,
and an idea of what we should be doing in this country. Furthermore, as
a former Senator, he understands congress (does Bill Clinton?).

I think that of the four candidates (2 Pres, 2 VP), the ones most likely
to represent change are:
  -Quayle - restore the Reagan revolution
  -Gore - cripple us entirely with looney left economics and extreme
          environmental regulations.
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Presidential Line-Item Veto Power
Date: 27 Jul 92 20:35:30 GMT
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

In article <veal.133@utkvm1.utk.edu> veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.054130.13285@news.iastate.edu> barrett@iastate.edu (Marc N Barrett) writes:
>
>> [Great stuff about the veto deleted, reluctantly]
>
>     The President of the United States has three choices.  He may, a) 
>approve a bill and sign it, b) return the bill with his objections to the
>House in which the bill originated (this is called a veto, though that word
>does not appear in the Constitution), or c) choose not to sign it, but not
>return it, in which case the bill becomes law without his signature, unless
>Congress adjourns during the next ten days  (this is called a pocket-veto).
>
>     These are his *only* options.  He may not sign *portions* of a bill.
>He may sign only *the whole* bill or return to *whole* bill.
>
Close, but not close enough.

Unfortunately, what you have failed to take into account is that the 
Congress has redefined a bill thus doing an "end around" the executive
veto.  It cannot be denied that the Omnibus spending bill is somewhat
immune from a veto (I think it is almost veto proof) due to the fact
that a veto can result in shutting down the government.

>     The Constitution does not provide for a line-item veto.  Everything
>else is wishful thinking.  (Not that anyone, even the President who swears
>to defend the damn thing, bothers to read it.  It's all "elastic clauses"
>and "general welfare" clauses.  If that's a recipe for limited government 
>I'd hate to see an unlimited one...)
>
But it does describe a limited government, and you need to understand what
the Founders meant by their words (as described by themselves in documents
such as the Federalist Papers) to fully appreciate it.  If you examine the
first 10 ammendments you will notice that they are mostly negations of
Federal power.  This is what the States feared, a strong central government
which would dominate them (Hmm, seems like it happened in spite of the
Founders - score one for the Statist Liberals).

The idea is to strike a balance between a government which can protect
individual rights without getting out of balance and harming these rights.
The Constitution is intended to be a living document which allows us to
govern ourselves, to make laws to suit the times.  This is one reason
why a constitutional right to an abortion is considered imaginary, the 
proper course is to make legislation allowing it. 


Mike Best
{mcdphx|asuvax}!anasaz!best
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Ban the Killer of 300,000 (losing your cars)
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 05:17:15 GMT

jdurbin@nl.oracle.com (Jason Durbin) writes:
>In article <rdippold.711922794@cancun>, rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>|> pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson) writes:
>|> >More control?!  When was the last time you tried to drive somewhere
>|> >without the use of a road?  It seems to me that if it weren't for
>|> >government cars would be useless in the first place.
>|> 
>|> Really.  Without the super-intelligent government to build all these
>|> roads for us, we'd all be too stupid to realize that we wanted roads,
>|> much less come up with the concept, and even with all the demand there
>|> wouldn't be anyone who was willing to build roads...  Not a chance.

>And you think the taxes you pay to the government for road use are high
>now. Just wait until the tolls you pay are driven by market forces.

That is exactly one of the reasons why I'd like tolls determined by
market forces.  Let's see, they don't tell you when you're pumping gas
exactly how much of that money is going into highway funds, so that
doesn't count.  They don't tell you how much of your paycheck is going
into building those roads, so that doesn't count.  Oh my god, you're
right, roads don't cost hardly anything!

Of course, I'm always glad to have the poor suckers who actually bike
or walk subsidising my driving habits, and encouraging oil
consumption, and highways built where they aren't needed because of
pork-barrel spending.  And that I have no encouragement whatsoever to
use mass transit because the government discourages it by subsidizing
those driving habits, but hey!  That's what government is about.
-- 
You are fast approaching your level of incompetence.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: joshua@lclark.edu (Josh Rochester)
Subject: RE: ORIGIONAL SUBJECTS PLEASE!!!!!!!!
Organization: Lewis and Clark College
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 16:20:42 GMT



I wholeheartedly second the motion!!!!

I wanna read this newsgrep, but it is impossble to wade through
the loads of RE: articles and glean any meaning. If you are posting here,
I assume you have some sort of opinion you want heard (otherwise, save
the net a lot of money and email it to yourself and go sit in the corner)
Please give your articles interesting subjects so that people will
read them, assuming that they are new ideas rather than unfollowable
arguments-in-progress.

Thanks,
Josh Rochester
joshua@lclark.edu

In article <1992Jul20.135413.24371@fia.dmg.ml.com>, jogulin@camelot.fia.dmg.ml.com (Joseph Ogulin) writes:
> 
> 
> 30 out of 30 messages... all with the same subject.  Not a pleasant venture
> through the muck.
> 
> Please change the subject line as applicable.
> 
> -- 
> ==> You never f**king know the answer when it's important." --The Doctor <==
> Joe Ogulin
> 
> jogulin@camelot.fia.dmg.ml.com		joe@monroe.pilot.dmg.ml.com
> jogulin@apollo.stevens-tech.edu		gcs_jogulin@stevens.bitnet
> 
> Disclaimer:  The above article is solely my opinion and does not necessar-
> ily reflect that of my employer.  The content is my responsibility alone.
> 
> 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:36267 alt.folklore.urban:19937
From: johana!tsw@apple.com (Tom Watson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: College Pranks (Was Re: Vacation Time!)
Date: 28 Jul 92 06:54:48 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: FBN/GRQ Ink.


Ah, youth, and youthful experiences...
The 'prank' that we had (many moons ago) was the drive the school
cafeteria had for 'lost' silverware.  When announced it became
an immediate contest to see who could produce the greatest
amount of 'lost' utensils from the kitchen.  Everyone was
'contrubuting' to the contest.  If I remember correctly, the
'winner' (proclamed later) was the one who produced the
12 inch soup bowl which was about 8 inches deep (it was for
serving about 8 hungry teenagers at the time).  Runner-ups
were recognized for such things as vinegar/oil dispensers,
and other such items.  It was an interesting week of activities.
But that was long ago (1965) and in a life many previous....
Besides I was not invited back for another year...
-------
Tom Watson
johana!tsw@apple.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc