HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Subject: Re: Who's "free-er"? Intrnat'l response wanted!
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 22:04:38 GMT

adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:
>reservations concerning their RIGHT to do so.

>	One problem which had been an obstacle for both the anti WoD and the
>anti WoG groups has been the adament position taken by the majority of the
>pro-gun groups that the WoD is fair, that those who have nothing to hide
>should not care about being searched, etc. This was typical of the messages
>I received, many of which argued that it was "disgusting the way left-wingers
>stood up for they drug-dealers and other scum while opposing decent
>Americans." Others simply took the position that people who oppose the WoD
>HAVE no rights. Only ONE person who responded (out of more than 12) felt
>that any right other than the right to bear arms was under attack!

	Certainly the people who contacted you were not typical then.
Most of the RKBA types I have come in contact with are also anti-WOD.


>	Clearly this is a problem. The pro-gun advocates feel they are
>fighting a losing battle to protect their rights against government
>encrochment, while simultaneously alienating those who feel that other
>rights are being lost through their support for the very laws which remove
>those rights. Why should _anyone_ support the goals of people who oppose
>their own  (and, yes, I know that it works both ways - many of us who are to
>the left of center DO favor gun control - although few do so to the extent
>that most pro-gun advocates favor limitations on other rights such as
>abortion or free speech).

	Again, a straw man.  "most" favor no such thing.

>	What is needed is a coalition position which supports the
>restoration of ALL rights. A united front by the right wing gun advocates
>and the left wing (and right, since many are there as well) anti WoD
>advocates might actually do SOMETHING to restore a bit of personal freedom
>in this country. 

>	So long as each of us supports a "single-issue advocacy" we will
>never have the numbers to force ANY change, and the government will simply
>go along taking rights from everyone until those of us who cannot live under
>fascism are forced to leave this country (something many of us are very
>close to doing) to seek freedom elsewhere - the opposite of the original
>migratory path that formed this nation.

	So vote Libertarian.  That is about the only place where the
various single interests converge.  There will always be single issue
groups because most people only have a few things that they are very
interested in.
	

	Jim Del Vecchio
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.latin-america
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Subject: In GATT They Trust (II)
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 06:22:04 GMT

In GATT They Trust (II)


The following article was taken from the _Covert Action_ Spring 1992
[special issue dedicated to  Native people's rights/struggles]
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Terry Allen is co-editor of CAIB [CovertAction Information Bulletin] 
and a journalist who has worked in the U.S. and abroad. 
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
For more information about CovertAction Information Bulletin and
subscription information, please see bottom or email Rich Winkel at
rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

==================================== 
The Final Stage of the Uruguay Round 
==================================== 

George Bush understands, as have most of his predecessors, the utility 
of trade policies both to subdue domestic opposition  and to undermine 
foreign  resistance to  the presidential  will.   While  the Gulf  War 
established U.S.  military dominance in  Bush's New  World  Order, the 
economic  front is   problematic.   Domestic recession  coupled   with 
increasing   clout of  the European   and   Asian economic blocs, have 
challenged the abuility   of the U.S.  to  maintain   the advantage it 
institutionalized after World War II. 

Enter GATT, the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade.  This complex 
and seemingly obscure set of trade negotiations has been seized by the 
Bush administration to put real economic teeth into its New World 
Order.  The current and 7th round, begun in Punta del Este, Uruguay in 
1986, and therefore known as the Uruguay Round, is struggling to reach 
a conclusion.  The final draft proposal, presented to negotiating 
governments by GATT director General Arthur Dunkel on December 20, 
1991, was over 500 tediously technical pages long.  Buried in the 
poderous language are a number of extemely far-reaching policy changes 
that would, if approved by Congress, dramatically distort the shape of 
democracy as we know it in the United States today.  If President Bush 
gets his way in these GATT talks, it will also profoundly affect -in 
ways that could rival the impact of Columbus' arrival-the lives of 
indigenous and other Third World peoples. 


		  =================================
		  [ . . . c o n t i n u e d . . . ]
		  =================================


Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.latin-america
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: In GATT They Trust (VI)
From: 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (Wild Child)
Date: 12 Sep 92 14:50:48 +0930
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Organization: University of South Australia

In article <1992Sep11.051044.18377@mont.cs.missouri.edu>, harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) writes:
> In GATT They Trust (VI)
> These objectives have also been important factors in the internecine 
> quarrels among the industrial nations.  The economic crisis and chaos 
> created by unregulated trade competition fueled both world wars.  In 
> World War I, the struggle between European powers for colonial markets 

GARBAGE! World War One was inevitable - Kaiser Wilhelm was just itching for a
fight. He _almost_ got his excuse during the Boer War - that's what 'Breaker
Morant' is all about. The murder of Archduke Ferdinand was as good an excuse as
any, so he started a war. He was the last of the openly feudal despots in
Europe.
World War two was a racist madman using the results of the previous war as
an excuse to start another.

> 
>   Is there any man here, is there any woman, let me say is there any 
>   child here that does not know that the seed of war in the modern 
>   world is industrial and commercial rivalry?...[T]he reason that so 

You don't let the facts get in the way of a good bitching, do you?

> materials, especially oil, brought the U.S.  and Japan into direct, 
> and ultimately deadly conflict.  On the same day as the Pearl Harbor 
> attack, Japan simultaneously seized the oil resources of the Dutch 
> East Indies, now Indonesia, to relieve the strangling oil embargo that 
> had been imposed by the U.S.  the previous year. 

HA! Japan was yet another fuedal empire using brute force to get what it wanted
instead of paying for it.

-- 
John McVey, Whyalla campus, Uni S.Australia
Electronic Engineering Student & Terror Tekkie G1 (at 19!)
9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au, or try
9051467f@wh.whyalla.unisa.edu.au
'An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it.'  Don Marquis
'Those who believe in an afterlife won't be disappointed'  Me
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Obligatory disclaimer : UniSA hates my opinions...			     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.latin-america
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: The Crimes of Nicaragua (III)
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 18:31:12 GMT

In article <9209070844.AA20277@tba.msi.cornell.edu> harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) writes:

>"Nicaragua was honored by UNESCO for its National Literacy Campaign,...

More 'ends jsutifies the means'? So it's OK to torture somebody as long
as they can read.

You know harel, it seems to me that we have seen this before. You said before
that you would address the numerous Sandinista abouses after you where
done with this series. I think I see your plan: you will just keep posting
the same old stuff over and over so you can avoid dealing with the issue.

  Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------228 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.individualism,alt.pagan
From: ceci@lysator.liu.se (Cecilia Henningsson)
Subject: Re: Who's "free-er"? Intrnat'l response wanted!
Organization: Lysator Academic Computer Society, Linkoping University, Sweden
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:11:43 GMT

If you are considering to emigrate, IMHO you could look for a country
in which you don't *need* a firearm to protect yourself and your
property in the first place. Most European countries, Australia, Japan
and New Zealand come to mind. That is, if you are looking for an
industrialized country. All of these countries are socially more
stable than the US, and their crime rates are ridiculously low
compared to the US' ones. As for religious freedom, I'd recommend
Denmark or the Netherlands. You would probably do wisely in avoiding
strongly catholic countries. Secularisation is your friend religious
freedomwise. The Netherlands have rather liberal drug laws, too, if
that makes a difference to you. The Netherlands as well as Denmark and
Sweden have very fine social services with a social safety net worth
its name. Just one example: In Sweden, when you have a baby, the
parents get one year and a half of parental leave with almost full
payment. The parents can divide this between themselves as they see
fit. NB The reason I write about these countries' social benefits, is
that I know them. Other countries may have equally generous laws. Of
course you pay for these via your taxes. TNSTAAFL. About 1/3 of your
pay check is a normal tax rate.

--Ceci, living in Sweden

--
=====ceci@lysator.liu.se===========================================
"water-colour n. artists' paint mixed with water (not oil);"
                    From _The_Oxford_Guide_to_the_English_Language_
===================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.save.the.earth,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: cline@cs.scarolina.edu (Ernest Cline)
Subject: Re: BUSH Administration Hushes Auto Efficiency Studies
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  4 Sep 92 19:30:17 GMT

adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:

>	In addition to the regressive nature of the taxes, increases in
>gasoline prices will simply result in more increases in other areas to
>compensate, thus the major contribution will be to inflation - something
>Bush has been quite good at contributing to without any MORE help!

I truly hate to defend Bush, but his many faults do not include inflation
(execpt of his opinion of how well the economy is doing!) In terms of
inflation, a recession is one of the best ways to slow it down. In fact, I
think we should all thank Bush for doing what Ford tried to do but failed
                                 WIN
(He got that one on the button.)

Ernest Cline
From: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin)
Subject: Tax Records (was: Lies Work)
Followup-To: alt.activism
Reply-To: Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov>
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA
	<24803@oasys.dt.navy.mil>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:14:23 GMT

In article <24803@oasys.dt.navy.mil> tdsmith@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Timothy Smith) writes:
-> In talk.politics.misc, mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
-> 
-> >Incorrect.  If the phrase contains "by the criteria the Bush people
-> >use" (which, by the way, were actually the Arkansas state
-> >legislature's because Bush's people just copied their list of tax and
-> >fee increases) then the claim of 327 is still a lie.  In fact, so is
-> >the claim of 78 for Bush.  The only truthful claim is 78 for Bush and
-> >Reagan together.
-> 
-> 
->     False. "...by the criteria the Bush people used (lumping taxes and
-> fees)," Bush and Reagan raised "taxes" 500+ times. (revised number)
-> If you just look at tax increases under Bush alone, there were about
-> 78 in his 4 years, compared with Clintons 40 or so in 12 years.

	Clinton's campaign just compiled their own list of his tax
increases, and it came out to 127.  Only one less than the Bush
campaign claimed.  

->     Of course, this whole argument is stupid. First, who cares how MANY
-> times taxes and fees are raised, what counts is by how much. Also, why
-> arn't repeals and temporary taxes expirations factored into the count?
-> Also, it is hard to compare federal taxation with state taxation.  How
-> can "My oponent had 128 apples while I had *one* orange" be relevant?
->     For me the big issue is why the Republicans are even bringing it
-> up.  First, they look stupid by asserting that Bush "only raised taxes
-> once" and that Clinton "enjoyed it."  Right off the bat I could think
-> of 5 "adjustments" to my income from the Bush years. Also, no politicial 
-> enjoys raising taxes. Does Bush think we are fools?  That statement
-> was as stupid as the ones claiming that Bush enjoyed sending U.S. troops
-> into battle.  Sometimes you have to do what you has to be done, but
-> you don't have to enjoy it.

	All tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives
and be passed by the entire Congress.  The only official input the
president has is to decide whether veto or sign it.  If you're
concerned with tax increases, whose more likely to veto a tax bill
passed by the Democrat dominant Congress, Bush or Clinton?  The
increases during Bush's term was a compromise.  The increases during
Clinton's term were his ideas.  The ``enjoyed it'' phrase was not
meant to be taken literally but is campaign rhetoric to get the point
across in as few words as possible.  
-- 
Jason C. Austin
j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov


Xref: sparky alt.activism:16161 alt.society.revolution:502 misc.activism.progressive:6457
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: The Crimes of Nicaragua (II)
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 10:53:52 GMT

In article <7025@stan.xx.swin.oz.au> brian@stan.xx.swin.oz.au (TEHAN B) writes:

>Why don't you sanctimonious hypocrites in the good old USA leave those, who
>are unfotunate enough to live in close proximity to the USA, alone! You can
>hardly compare the situation in the U.S. a couple of centuries ago with the
>situation in Nicaragua in the 80's. 

I think you can use the differences to show that the Sandinsitas are
not democrats and had no desire to see a democratic Nicaragua.

If you want a more recent example, fine. Consider the former Soviet Union
and Eastern Europe. They relaxed laws making dissent illegal, shut down
their State Security Police, relaxed cencorship, and released political
prisoners. That's the way democracy starts no matter if it is 200 years
ago or today.

The Sandinistas did the opposite: they enacted laws making dissent illegal,
built up their State Security Police, enacted cencorshp laws, and began
rounding up thousands of political prisoners. That's not how newly formed
democracies do things.

>It is hard to have a workable
>democracy in a little country constantly under the bombs bullets, mines and 
>dirty tricks of the CIA etc.. 

Sorry that excuse doesn't wash. The Sandinsitas began repression from day
one. All the elements I address above where in place years before there
where any Contras. The Contras where a response to Sandinista repression.

>Also, the US embargo did not help matters at all. 

Which also began years after the Sandinsita repression began.

>Maybe if the US had
>been NICE to the Sandanistas, they would have been more flexible along the 
>way, but no, they had to declare war on them.

Again, you seem not to be familiar with the history. The US was very
nice to the Sandinistas from when they took over to the time of the
Reagan administration. We gave them millions in foreign aid even
during the Reagan administration.

Aid ended because the Carter Administration concluded that the Sandinistas
wouldn't end their suppression of dissent.

   Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------221 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: Harel posts a particularly clumsy lie.  (Was Re: "STRONG FAMILY VALUES" (III) (1))
Date: 9 Sep 92 09:17:38 GMT
Organization: BBS

In article <1992Sep8.183634.27890@oracle.us.oracle.com>, mfriedma@uucp (Michael
Friedman) writes:
>In article <dliebman.1b6c@terapin.com> dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman)
writ
>
>>the united states has a higher infant mortality rate than all of the other
>>'industrialized' states, including canada, japan, all the western european
>>nations.
>
>So?  Is the only measure of "the health care situation for the
>population as a whole" the infant mortality rate?  Also, don't you
>think the infant mortality rate is affected (and perhaps even
>controlled) by factors totally unrelated to health care such as drug
>and alcohol abuse?  Finally, any comparison of infant mortality rates
>must use the same definition of live birth in both cases, unless, of
>course, you are more interested in propaganda than facts.  For
>example, second trimester preemies, who we almost always count as live
>births, and half of whom die, are usually counted as miscarriages by
>most countries.

reference, please?
Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Nicaragua - documentation
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:32:50 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.231312.4019@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:

>> I prefer to view it as a nice ballance to Harel and company's postings.

>	But wait, didn't we just read four posts 

I only saw two (not counting the reruns). Did he post all four sections
or only the two I saw?

I was hoping that maybe he stopped in mid-rant and realized he wasn't
addressing the question of if he supports Sandinista human rights abuses.
If so, maybe he is, even as I write this, thinking about the question. But
I'm not holding my breath.

>worth of Chomsky-speak which
>said that being one-sided was ok?

Well only if you are on the correct side.


But you know, if I where a bit more long winded it might be interesting
to apply Chomsky's theories to Chomsky, Harel, and the whole gang themselves.
With the way Harel calls everthing he doesn't agree with a lie and the
nice, safe, protected from bad thoughts newsgroup they have I'll bet
it would be interesting.

   Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------226 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.latin-america
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Who Were the "Contras" ? (III)continued
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 14:31:48 GMT

In article <9209060151.AA04692@poly.math.cornell.edu> harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) writes:

>[Former Contra Director Edgar Chamorro:]

>"Upon reflection, I found many of the tactics advocated in the [CIA
>"Assassination manual" which he helped translate into Spanish] to be
>offensive, and I complained to the CIA station chief in Tegucigalpa.
>The station chief defended ..the manual, and no action was ever taken
>in response to my complaints....

Sounds pretty accurate to me. He's quite right, we should have been supporting
Chamorro and done what he wanted.

But then we all know Harel, that you don't care about all this. The
only time rights abuses bother you is when it is directed against
anybody you like. Your freinds however, have a free hand to kill, torture,
and suppress confident that you and your friends can be counted on to
look the other way.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------228 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.save.the.earth
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: Lotus as a public charity
Date: Mon,  7 Sep 92 22:44:33 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>The occasion is that Lotus is engaged in the the modern kind of
>corporate blackmail - "Give us a huge whopping tax break or we'll move
>out of town".

Go for it, Lotus!!!  I hope they move out of town--in fact I hope they
move out of Taxachusetts altogether--and teach the [expletive deleted]
looters a lesson.

Now that's ACTIVISM!   :-)
           --------


    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.sig  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
Xref: sparky alt.activism:15941 alt.politics.clinton:4094
From: tp@mccall.com (Terry Poot)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: "Family Values" -- Clinton Continues to Miss
Date: 4 Sep 92 21:13:14 GMT
Reply-To: tp@mccall.com (Terry Poot)
Organization: The McCall Pattern Co., Manhattan, KS, USA
Nntp-Posting-User: tp


In article <16855AD1A.JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com>, JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com writes:
>In article <9208300327.AA14754@poly.math.cornell.edu>
>harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) writes:
>>	Percentage of Americans which found the following "very
>>	important" to promote family values:
>>-- Creating a National Health Care Program: 83 percent
>>-- Spending more money on education: 88 percent
>>-- Spending more on Day Care for children: 79 percent
>
>Gee.  Are these the same people that
> -- want the budget balanced
> -- want the economy to recover quickly
> -- want jobs for everyone
> -- are mad at the "no new taxes" turnaround
> -- don't want the government to tax them anymore
> -- are educated by our wonderful American educational system?

Yep. They're also the same people that vote. 

>You fools that live and die by these "polls" might benefit from a class
>in psychology.  Ask people if they think "x" is good, without spelling
>out the realities of such a decision mean about zero in terms of what
>these same people would actually say if given the entire picture.

Yes, but which scenario more closely resembles an election? The former, of
course. 

>Think.
Vote. Better yet, do both.
--
Terry Poot <tp@mccall.com>                   The McCall Pattern Company
(uucp: ...!rutgers!depot!mccall!tp)          615 McCall Road
(800)255-2762, in KS (913)776-4041           Manhattan, KS 66502, USA
Newsgroups: alt.activism