HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: double standards
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 08:54:05 GMT

In article <C0pB81.6tC@inews.Intel.COM> ighosh@frx715.intel.com (Indraneel Ghosh - EPG) writes:

> Dan Quayle : Its ok for my daughter to have the right to choose but
>              abortion is illegal for your daughter.
> Bill Clinton : My daughter should have the right to choose between  
>                public and private schools but children of ordinary
>                folks (those who will get vouchers) dont have that right.

> Surprise, surprise. 

> So, the two parties are'nt that different after all. Like the 
> communists in the former Soviet Union, they believe in having one
> standards for the Party elite and another one for the common people.

> I'm happy that I supported Perot who was totally defeated.
> At least, my conscience is clear.

And you simply prove that Perotists are no different than Democrats and
Republicans in their willingness to lie to make a point.

There is no parallel between "abortion should be illegal" and "you
shouldn't have vouchers."   Bill Clinton did NOT say that going to private 
school should be illegal.  He didn't even say that going to private school 
is bad.  What he SAID was that vouchers would make the situation worse.

There is no contradiction between "vouchers will make the situation
worse" and sending your kid to a private school.  The *ARGUMENT* is that
vouchers takes badly needed money away from public schools.  By sending
Chelsea to Sidwell Friends, he takes NO money from the DC schools.
Therefore, it can't hurt the schools.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | "We don't need anymore [sic] wretched refuse.  It's 
niepornt@phoenix.    |  time to send the Statue of Liberty somewhere else"
   princeton.edu     |      -- Jack "Not a bigot" Schmidling, 1/7/93
Baltimore Orioles 93 |
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:67364 alt.activism:20479
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Poverty in the 1980s
Date: 12 Jan 93 16:15:20 EST
Organization: ACME Products

	I guess this is as good a time as any to jump back into the fray :).  I
can see this New Year's resolution lasted...12 days! :).

In article <1993Jan12.024343.8830@pony.Ingres.COM>, garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS) writes:
> In article <markp.726768433@joplin.wri.com>, markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)                         writes...
>>>In article <C0nIDp.oy@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
>>>>With the collapse of Reaganite ecconomics [...] 
>>>>The Free-Market ideology of Regan/Bush plunged the country into an
>>>>ecconomic failure unparalleled since the last time deregulation was tried in the
>>>>twenties. On this basis the New-Right Libs need a hefty dose of new thinking.
>>>>
>>Reagan came close enough to free-market policies to produce an unprecedented
>>economic boom that DID "lift all boats."
> 
> Never mind that there was more poverty in 1989 than in 1980. Also, never mind
> that he morgaged all of our future's.

	Here are some facts to intrude on your fantasy world:

[Source: Statistical Abstract of the US, page 458-9.]
[1988,89 % computed from 1980 census figures]

Year	% below poverty line	number below poverty line (millions)
====================================================================
1979	11.7			26.1
1980	13.0			29.3
1981	14.0			31.8
1982	15.0			34.4
1983	15.2			35.3
1984	14.4			33.7
1985	14.0			33.1
1986	13.6			32.4
1987	13.0			32.2
1988  	12.8			31.7
1989	12.7			31.5

	As you can see, both the total number of people under the poverty line
declined and as a % of the total population declined.

	Far from the massive increase in poverty some would have you believe
occurred.

	For those of you still unwilling to admit it: Reagan's full program was
not in place until the final tax cut in 1984.

Brett
________________________________________________________________________________
	"There's nothing so passionate as a vested interest disguised as an
intellectual conviction."  Sean O'Casey in _The White Plague_ by Frank Herbert.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: buckmr@rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Discrimination!
Date: 9 Jan 93 07:37:49 GMT
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA18503; Fri, 8 Jan 93 23:37:51 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA18228; Fri, 8 Jan 93 23:37:49 -0800
X-Received: from localhost (marcus.its.rpi.edu) by rpi.edu (4.1/SMHUB41);
	id AA13763; Sat, 9 Jan 93 02:37:47 EST for talk.politics.misc.usenet@decwrl.dec.com
X-Received: by localhost (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/AIXV3-SUB16) via SMTP;
	id AA32689; Sat, 9 Jan 1993 02:37:49 -0500 for talk.politics.misc.usenet@decwrl.dec.com
X-To: talk.politics.misc.usenet



mrl28033@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R Linksvayer) writes:

>I agree wholeheartedly. Discrimination is one area where
>government can govern not at all.

Do you have any suggestion for ending discrimination or do you think that
discrimination does not occur?

   
---
RON BUCKMIRE, 11 Colvin Circle, Troy, NY 12180-3735. ``D.C. in '93!''
uunet!rpi.edu!buckmr||buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet||buckmr@rpi.edu||+1 518 276 8910
"I'll tell you who is to blame, The Japanese are to blame. If they hadn't 
 invented the camcorder, none of this would have happened."--Darryl Gates.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.org.un,eunet.politics,eunet.misc
From: djb6@ellis.uchicago.edu (Dennis Brennan)
Subject: Newsgroup Proposal: misc.edu.model-un
Reply-To: djb6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 08:34:04 GMT

Attention to all who are interested in Model United Nations conferences and
organizations:

Matt Rosenwasser is drafting a charter for a proposed newsgroup 
misc.edu.model-un for the discussion of topics pertinent to model UN
organizations.  We need your support to perfect and formalize the charter
and to carry the formal vote.  

If you are interested, please contact Matt Rosenwasser at the address
F36SI@CUNYVM.BITNET for more information, or follow news.groups, where
we expect discussion of the creation of misc.edu.model-un to occur.

Thank you for your support.


-- 
Dennis Brennan
djb6@midway.uchicago.edu
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Man of the Year (was Re: Is the media liberal-biased)
Date: 12 Jan 93 16:50:06 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1993Jan12.144406.20349@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:

|I really doubt that "the media" are responsible for Bush's defeat, but
|if they were, all I can say is THANK YOU!!!

Then you are saying that the Ends will always justify the Means, as long
as you approve of the Ends in question.

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christiani
Organization: Kalamazoo College
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:47:40 GMT

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 Schwarz:
>>>Are you talking about those high-tech sillycon valley executives who came out
>>>in favor of Clinton?

Dr. LaFave:
>>No, I don't mean these "turkeys". Apple is one of the boldest companies in
>>America.

Mike Schwarz:
>Yeah, they boldly go to court and sue anyone with deep pockets.  And they've
>lost market share every year since the Mac was introduced.  Bold...  you
>picked the WORST example.

Funny, the Mac went from 9% market share in 1990 to over 15% in 1991.
Apple's market share has been steadily climbing since the company's
formation.

Where _do_ you get your facts, Mr. Schwarz?
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy      Internet: k044477@kzoo.edu      AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "This sounds like a semantico-psychological backwardization of the
  real world image."   - Dave Bloom (bloomda@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu)
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 6 Jan 93 14:53:48 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <1993Jan5.204023.13522@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>In article <1ia8p9INNhe3@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>>In article 9955@romulus.rutgers.edu, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>
>>> Moreover, he did not "steal" money, nor was this ever part of the
>>> allegations against him.  Nor did he violate public trust -- he upheld
>>> it much better than virtually all of his detractors.
>
>>That's right.  The money that he "borrowed" to buy that home security
>>system is going to be repaid right?  
>
>The only question that Bob raises here is whether he is a liar or an
>idiot.  The security system was given to him by Secord.  The alleged
>offense was accepting a gift.
>
>Just to put it in perspective, during the course of his investigation,
>Walsh has accepted gifts from the Watergate hotel in the form of
>reduced rate lodging that exceed the value of the home security system
>given to North by Secord.  Walsh is covered by the same laws that
>North is on accepting gifts.  So far no one has indicted Walsh.
>
Just like I suspected.  North is corrupt, Walsh is corrupt.  Note that
both are Republicans.  Do I detect a trend.  :-)

-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX
From: cd651@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Wally L. Blume)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: What's happening to George Bush?
Date: 8 Jan 1993 18:13:30 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: cd651@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Wally L. Blume)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, mikeq@freddy.CNA.TEK.COM () says:

>Within the last few weeks:
>
>      *Threatened another war with Saddam!

        Which Clinton Supported in his latest press confrence.

>      *Threatened a new war with Serbia!

        Which Les Aspen (Clinton's Sec. Of Def.) Said we should have done 
        long ago. (Per Sen. Conf. Hearings)

>      *Pardoned his cronies!

        To keep the Lawrence Walsh from spending another 40,000,000.00
        dollars and six years to get virtually nothing.

>      *Submitted budget that grossly underestimated next year's deficit!

        I had no idea you new more about the deficit than the President.
        please tell us where you get these most accurate figures for what 
        is supposed to happen next year.

>      *Blubbered during speech at West Point!

        Please don't remove things from context. Give us the full quote.

>      *Called his war on drugs a SUCCESS!

        Drug street prices up over 25%, directly attributed to less
        availability as reported by CNN, and USA Today. Beats what 
        other presidents have done. 

>
>George! LAY OFF THE HALCYON!!

  Is this funny, I had a grandmother who had some real problems as a result
of Halcyon and trust me it wasn't funny. 
-- 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   /   / __  /  /     |         Wally Blume         | Earth:
  /   / _ / /  / /_/  |      Internet address:      |    Mostly harmless.     
 /_/_/ /_/ /  / __/   | cd651@cleveland.freenet.edu |-HH Guide to the Galaxy
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<1993Jan5.135645.3552@nntpserver.chevron.com>
	<1993Jan6.084537.22214@Princeton.EDU>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 08:48:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.084537.22214@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

[...]

   Um, sorry, but Caspar's notes prove that Reagan was at meetings
   where these things were discussed.  However, I still find it quite 
   believable that he didn't know it was happening.  He probably thought it 
   was a movie or something.  Or maybe he just dozed off in the middle,
   like he did at summit meetings.

You mean like the same way both Clinton's dozed off at the "economic
summit"?  There's film of it.  The press had a field day with Reagan
dozing off, but not a word about Slick's nodding.



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 23:50:17 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.122624.24912@sei.cmu.edu> firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:
>In article <72546@cup.portal.com> L-Bueno@cup.portal.com (Louis Alberto Bueno) writes:
>
>>	The following is the *exact* content of said Article:
>
>>	"Treason against the United States, shall consist 
>>only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their 
>>enemies, giving them aid and comfort...
>
>Exactly so.  How, then, are Weinberger and the others guilty of treason
>by giving aid and comfort to the *friends* of the United States?

That's the first time the Iranian government (post-Shah) was ever described
*that* way, I'll wager.

>Except, of course, for "treason" against the liberal scum in Congress;
>if that be treason then let treason thrive.

The fact is, Weinberger didn't commit treason.  That doesn't mean he
can't be a traitor, under the dictionary definition of the term.  For
instance, people were happy to label Jonathan Pollard a traitor, even
though his crime was giving classified documents to Israel.  He wasn't 
tried for treason, though.

But that's beside the point; the main point is, he broke the law, and
did *not* do it out of patriotism.  Patriotism could justify sending
arms to Iran, and diverting money to the contras.  Maybe.  

It can't justify a cover-up, though.  A cover-up serves one purpose only
-- to keep yourself and your friends out of jail.  Okay, it also serves
to keep the American people ignorant of what you're doing.  How pro-democracy.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: leecr@microsoft.com (Lee Crocker)
Subject: Re: Libertarian heaven
Date: 07 Jan 93 03:00:32 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

>Geff Underwood writes:

>I wasn't reading about a month ago [when the Libertarian Somalia
>nonsense was originally debated], but in my experience the most
>characteristic sentiment of a libertarian is the line "That government
>is best which governs least".  To me, that implies that the best
>possible situation would be no government at all.

You'll find no argument from me, even though the party itself is
mostly reformer types with softer rhetoric--I'm a more orthodox
Libertarian.

Where I will argue is the idea that Somalia resembles in any way
what Libertarians are working for.  The overwhelming majority of
Somalis are unarmed, poor, unable to work because there is no trade
or industry, unable to own private property because it is looted
by armed theives supplied by foreign governments.  What do you
call those battling gangs of armed thugs with no respect for anyone's
rights but their own?  I call them governments, and Somalia's
problem is too many, not too few.  They fulfill all the traditional
roles of governments--they keep the majority of people unarmed
and starving, they fight amongst themselves for the loot they have
stolen, and they fight anyone who tries to better himself by earning
an honest living.

Libertarian heaven may or may not have a government, but its people
will be too busy getting rich to notice.

-- 
Lee Daniel Crocker    | Free minds; free bodies; free trade.
leecr@microsoft.com   | Libertarian Party  1-800-682-1776
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The less government the better??? (was Re: Execute Amy Fisher!!!)
Date: 12 Jan 93 21:50:45 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <ATAYLOR.93Jan12114335@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:

|	And if the Federal Government is the fount of all things
|	good and true, as Petrich usually implies, then we should
|	just do away with those pesky elections and such, since
|	they *do* so interfere with the operation of government.
|	Just allow the self-appointed aristocracy to become 
|	the permanent government, for example.

I thought this was already the case.
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 15:03:05 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.021811.5057@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:

>>It boggles my mind that in this world filled with hatred, people would
>>actually become indignant about the way two people express love for
>>one another.
>
>	Love or perversion?  Who makes the call?

Do you think you can make that call, with respect to your own self?
How about at the age of, say, twenty-five?  Then you'd damn well
better be ready to say than a gay man who's twenty-five could make
that call.

>	I certainly hope that you become as indignant as I do when
>	I see a man who is obviously engaging in inappropriate "love"
>	behavior with a child.

Of course.  Do you become as indignant as I do when you see people
making obviously fallacious connections between consensual adult
homosexuality and pederasty?

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:07:13 GMT

>In article <C0nIDp.oy@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
>>
>>With the collapse of Reaganite ecconomics [...] 
>>The Free-Market ideology of Regan/Bush plunged the country into an
>>ecconomic failure unparalleled since the last time deregulation was tried in the
>>twenties. On this basis the New-Right Libs need a hefty dose of new thinking.
>>

Reagan came close enough to free-market policies to produce an unprecedented
economic boom that DID "lift all boats." Bush produced the collapse by
abandoning Reaganomics for re-regulation, accelerated spending hikes, and
tax hikes.

>>Phill Hallam-Baker

Mark Pundurs
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:67271 alt.sex:41808 alt.activism:20438
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 16:24:03 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1993Jan12.015430.29461@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS) 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)

-- 
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: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Libertarian heaven
Date: 6 Jan 93 21:00:17 GMT
	<1993Jan6.040100.20448@informix.com>
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

<In article <1993Jan6.040100.20448@informix.com> proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:
<   In article <CB.93Jan5142112@tamarack13.timbuk> cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster) writes:
<   >
<   >There's a country that fulfills the dearest dreams of Libertarians: it
<   >has no government and its populace is armed.  Until the recent intrusion
<   >of some outsiders, no external force impinged on that country's freedom.
<   >When these outsiders leave, that country's citizens will again be free
<   >to pursue their individual destinies.  I invite all Libertarians to move
<   >to that country: Somalia.


<   Doubtless it will all be ruined if these outsiders infringe
<   on the peoples right to keep and bear arms ...

	
	Oh, absolutely; we simply *must* ensure the Liberal's
	desires by disarming everyone except the warlords...that
	way one of the warlords can pretend to be a central 
	government, crush all opposition and get World Bank loans 
	much sooner.

	The Great Bureaucrat In The Sky must forbid that any
	mere peon have the ability to stop thugs from stealing
	her baby's food.....
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 15:04:38 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.030946.7892@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:

>	For the humor impaired, see alt.tasteless.

Like he said.  What could possibly be the point in arguing with such a
person?

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Date: 5 Jan 93 13:40:24 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <4JAN199312473816@acad3.alaska.edu> fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R. Sparks) writes:
> [Re:  Walsh]
>As was pointed out in previous posts, he has been able to spend
>millions of $ on this.  He has a large staff, gets paid a lot more
>than most if not all people in the Justice Department, and this is
>supposed to cap his career in law (he's in his 70's).  If this turns
>out to be a bust (as it has so far) then he won't get his footnote in
>history.  He's milking this for all he can get.  === Al Sparks

Gee, do you have that cynical a view of all Republicans?
-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics