HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com (Len Bucuvalas)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Run conservatives, run away! (Was: Re: Homophobics can't...)
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:51:26 GMT
Distribution: na

In article <1992Sep10.162831.15644@dg-rtp.dg.com> gross@eric10.rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) writes:
>>2. liberal n : one who is liberal : as : one who is open-minded in the
>                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>The only problem with being open-minded is that your brains may fall
>out! 8-)  8-)

Free fall IMHO is better than being root-bound!

>
>Gene
Len

--
*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
The accountability of government has gone to the point where the very
use of the law is the instrument of illegality.
		-- Ralph Nader @ Harvard Law School, 1/15/92
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.org.misc
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Where to find some neat stuff! (WAS: Five new groups...)
Keywords: etext documents
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 23:03:55 GMT

I thought I'd post this for general information (Note: I am not
associated with "Project Gutenberg" or "freenet"...)

---------------------------------------------------------------

There are a number of e-text documents available from
"Project Gutenberg", and other sources.  Here's a short
piece from one of the "G" e-text files"

	FTP directly to the Project Gutenberg archives:
	ftp mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu
	login:  anonymous
	password:  your@login
	cd etext/etext91
	or cd etext92 [for new books]  [now also cd etext/etext92]
	or cd etext/articles [get suggest gut for more information]

Take a look in etext/freenet (??? I think).  In addition to the "G"
stuff (Federalist Papers, etc.), there is the Magna-Carta (transcribed
to "modern" English, I assume... ;-), Articles of Confederacy, and more...!

Enjoy!

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
From: eggertj@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41)
Subject: Re: Fair Swap
Reply-To: eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu
Organization: MIT Lincoln Lab - Group 41
	<1992Sep3.210032.29898@colorado.edu>
	<EGGERTJ.92Sep4121946@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu>
	<1992Sep4.182314.28708@das.harvard.edu>
Date: 4 Sep 92 23:11:59

In article <1992Sep4.182314.28708@das.harvard.edu> adam@sparkle.uucp (Adam Shostack) writes:
>   Actually, they did write it so that it does not apply to Jerusalem.
>   The word Jerusalem does not appear in the resolution.

If that were any indication, then the same logic would lead to the
conclusion that UNSC 242 does not apply to the Sinai, West Bank,
Gaza Strip, or Golan Heights, as none of those words appear either.
Since that conclusion is obviously false, yours is too.

>  And, as has
>   been pointed out many times, the word "the" is missing, intentionally,
>   from 1.i, meaning that the resolution does *not* automatically apply
>   to all of the land, but quite possibly, only some of it.  That some
>   does not need to include Jerusalem.

That interpretation seems incompatible with the preamble.

>   For your reading pleasure:
[text of UNSC 242 deleted, but thanks for enclosing it]
--
=Jim  eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:44909 ca.politics:7655 ba.politics:5209
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Accusations
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 00:12:34 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.222347.14708@bony1.bony.com>, jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake
Livni) writes:
|>In article <1992Sep1.183356.1384@dscomsf.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
|>writes:

|>>I am still waiting for Jake to list the dates of his military service in
|>Israel.
|>>Perhaps Makowsky could also oblige. One of the most disgusting aspects of
|>the
|>>whole situation is the fact that those who are most vociferous in their
|>demands
|>>to continue the occupation of the territories and confiscation of Arab
|>property
|>>are also the very same people who wheedle out of military service on
|>"religious"
|>>grounds. 
|>
|>You used to sound so believable, Phill!  Now look at you!
|>
|>First you tell us what I believe, then you infer things about me from
|>entirely unrelated things I had written and now you are telling the
|>world about my religious stance and my excuses for military exemption.
|>Who ever said that I had any legal requirement at all to join the
|>Israeli army?  

You spend a long time trying to prove your Zionist credentials. Only if you were
a Zionist you would have bought a plane ticket and gone and lived in Israel.

You are just the same as the "settlers" in the occupied territories who do not
serve for religious reasons, you are making maximalist demands that you are not
prepared to pay the price for yourself.

>Phill, you are seeing bogeymen where
>there are none.  Perhaps you need a nice hot glass of tea.

Oh and by the way, I prefer my tea out of a china cup, in some of the colonies I
am advised that it is necessary to request fresh as opposed to salt water.

--

Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: record album stickering
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 17:02:27 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <NEERI.92Sep14173450@iis.ethz.ch> neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher) writes:
>In article <farenebt.716423991@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
>>I am no fan of censorship but I am wondering how the stickering of
>>record albums ("Parental advisory: explicit lyrics") is any different
>>from the movie industry rating its movies, G, PG, Pg-13 and R (and NC-17)?
>>Why is one ok but the other elicits fervert opposition?
>
>The problem I see with stickering is that some record stores no longer
>sell records with warning labels.

  But that's their choice.  Some stores don't sell big band or country and 
  western, or Scottish folk music.   If they're willing to give up the
  customers then it's their business decison.  7-11 doesn't (didn't?) sell
  Playboy and Penthouse due to pressure from right-wing religious groups.
  Again, their business decision.  


>   Super Club does it in two different ways: In some regions, the chain
>   restricts the sale of all product with warning labels to customers eighteen
>   and older. And in all Super Club stores, selected titles are off-limits to
>   minors, whether or not they bear industry parental-advisory labels.

>So labelling a record may make it rather difficult to obtain for minors.

  So?   Lots of things are difficult for minors to obtain.   It should be
  up to the parent to decide what things should be avaiable to minors.
  Minors can't buy alcohol either in most places but if parents want 
  to serve them wine at dinner or allow them to drink it at religious
  rituals this is OK.   

  Most parents do not take enough interest in their children's welfare
  and the results (poor education, drugs, STDs, AIDS, teenage pregnancy)
  are visited upon the children and the rest of society.  But even those
  parents who WANT to do a good job and control their child's cultural
  environment are being thwarted by lack of tools and resources.  Labeling
  provides such a tool.   


---peter





Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Was Clinton a Moral Draft Dodger? (was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Organization: LLNL
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 03:46:09 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.210345.5338@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>In article <81741@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:

@     Bill Clinton sought to avoid the draft and stay in school through 
@ perfectly legal means.  He did nothing worse than what Quayle did with
@ his "quickstep" into the National Guard, except that the legality of 
@ the influence peddling which went on in Quayle's behalf is not at all
@ clear.

>Excuse me, but when Quayle entered the Guard there were openings
>available.  One was not created for him.  There have been claims of
>influence peddling, but no one as shown any kind of evidence for it.

	Thanx to the new book _Airhead Apparent_, here is Danny Boy's
National Guard record:

	He spent three months in welding training, then just in time,
an opening appeared in the NG's Office of Public Information. The
result: Danny Boy didn't have to do any serious blue-collar labor at
all. He just had a cushy desk job the whole time. Though it was
associated with the NG's magazine, no article ever appeared under
Danny Boy's byline.

	One has to ask why an opening had appeared just in time so
that Danny Boy would not have to join the blue-collar work force for
awhile.

	Looks like draft evasion to me...

>Please compare this with Slick Willy who spent 8 months in limbo due
>to his uncle's lobbying.
>
>But of course Slick Willy would never have dodged the draft.

	Well, Slick Willie had a much better excuse for draft-dodging
than Danny Boy, who was a gung-ho hawk in his college and NG years. He
didn't like the war, while Danny Boy did.

	It's a pity that Bob Kerrey or some other candidate who
actually served in the war hadn't gotten the Democratic nomination.
That way, Danny Boy's military record would have been even more
embarrassing. It wouldn't have been a question of who did the worst
draft dodging, but who was willing to fight and who was willing to
have others do the fighting for him.

/Loren
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 12:00:05 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <BuMBH6.5BJ@apollo.hp.com> I posted:

>  doesn't seem to have hurt them.  US companies during the 
>  60's and 60's, i.e., the greatest period of growth for US
>  corporations in history, routinely discriminated against 
>  anybody who wasn't a white, heterosexual male.


  . . . should be "50's and 60's".   Luckily HP doesn't discriminate
  against software engineers who can't type.


---peter


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss,ba.motss
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 00:06:34 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Sep12.105039.7439@resonex.com> michael@resonex.com (Michael Bryan) writes:
    >There is a *large* difference between anti-discrimination
    >laws and affirmative action programs. I've yet to hear anyone
    >ask for an affirmative action program for gays and lesbians.
    >...

Yet, given the history of such laws, can AA type programs be far behind?


    >I agree whole-heartedly! I would *also* implore you to resist
    >legislation granting special governmental privileges to the
    >heterosexual population, and where such laws exist, work to
    >have them overturned. Laws which allow marriages between
    >straight people, but not gay people. Laws which prohibit sex
    >between two people of the same gender. Impending legislation
    >which would make it illegal for public property being used by
    >gay organizations. On and on the list goes of laws to grant
    >privileges to the heterosexual populace, but yet people
    >scream bloody murder at an attempt by gays and lesbians to
    >restore equality to the system.
 
Then the first step must be to REMOVE (or cease and desist) any laws
that "recognize" sexual preference. I.e., the law must ignore and must
not force anyone to hire, or not hire, on the basis of sexual orientation.
It must not say you can't. In short, this is NOT a matter for the State
to be involved in.


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: I want Line-Item Tax Allocations for me (Was: the runs..)
Date: 16 Sep 92 03:17:52 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Distribution: na
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA

In article <12283@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>I would scream at them funding any church, including one that I
>attended.

Good. I'm marking on my scorecard that Clamer v.2.1 is against a school
voucher program for Christian schools.

>You are just stupid.

Oh dear. My AutoResponse Unit (TM) just kicked in:

	"I'm rubber, you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off me and
	 sticks to you."
								MPA

P.S. It's ugly Clay. Ever since that guy responded to the "Who's Clayton
Cramer; is he a famous guy" question with a "He's nobody; just a guy with
taped glasses" response, I've lost all respect. You'll never be the same...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,sci.econ
From: goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman)
Subject: Re: Free Market Health Care was Canada
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 16:12:08 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <92259.094009DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <1992Sep15.001711.8301@clipper.ingr.com>, ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al
>Date) says:
>>
>>Excuse me for saying that the emporer has no clothes, but insurance has
>>nothing to do with medical care.  What is needed is MORE CARE,  more
>>supply of medical services, more competition.  The govt does
>>everything it can to preserve the AMA's monopoly status, including
>>raiding health clinics that practice alternative medicine and
>>prosecuting midwives.  Costs rise whenever supply is artificially
>>restricted.  Further rationing will only make it worse.
>
>Between 1970 and 1987 the number of physicians practicing in the US
>rose by 85%.  The number of physicians per 100,000 persons rose 56%.
>This is a supply restricted market???  In fact, if you'll check back
>to past posts, you'll see I posted a quote from Charles Phelps' book
>Health Economics.  He quite clearly summarizes the research in economics
>that indicates that a monopoly created by licensure cannot explain the
>rise in prices in physician care.

    The costs are rising because we, as a society, have an insatiable 
    demand for health care services, and are willing to foot the bill.  

    The demand is driven by a large, and growing, number of people
    who are entitled to receiue a virtually unlimited amount of benefits
    in exchange for little or no insurance premiums.

    It is only natural that, for the rest of us, the cost of medical 
    insurance is going through the roof, resulting in more and more people 
    being uninsured and underinsured.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: all opinions are mine.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45623 alt.politics.usa.constitution:228
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Date: 14 Sep 92 16:17:26 GMT
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

In article <92Sep11.121442edt.121@orasis.vis.toronto.edu> liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu) writes:
>In article <farenebt.716179954@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
>>alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>>
>>>In article <BuD5GD.IHM@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>
>>>The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement that 
>>>encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice 
>>>witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians. - Pat Robertson 1992
>>
>>His highness Robertson forget to blame feminists for:
>>world hunger, the war in Yugoslavia, famine in Somalia and the hole in the ozone
>>layer. Am I forgetting something?
>>
>yes, you did.  What really going to bring massive fundie turn out for
>the republicans if his holiness robertson have said:  "the Feminazis and
>the JEWs crusified Jesus Christ 1900 years ago."  ;->

You have, in your wish to believe that Republicans are religious 
fundamentalist wackos, apparently accepted as true that Pat Robertson
originated the now famous quote which Alex Crain has stained his
posts with so often.  While I do not care to associate myself with
Pat Robertson any less than Mr. Crain, I have to defend the truth
which is that this statement is actually derived from the 1971 Declaration
of Feminism.  The document apparently postures that women should 
drop the concept of marriage and adopt such ancient female "religions"
as witchcraft.

If Mr. Crain wishes to continue to imply that Pat Robertson thought
this quote up then he can do so but he will have to prove that Robertson
was responsible for it's inclusion in that 1971 document first if he
is to maintain credibility for this stance.

Mike Best 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: brownfield!jbrow (Jim Brownfield)
Subject: Re: Success or greed? (was Re: Supply-side economics)
Reply-To: <jbrow@glv.com>
Organization: Encompass
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 03:53:38 GMT

In article <183436@pyramid.pyramid.com> pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul  
Collacchi) writes:
> In article <1992Sep5.012350.647@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)  
writes:
> |> In article <1992Sep4.104728.3911@desire.wright.edu>
> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> |> >	You fail to recognize that the 'top 20%' is not a monolithic entity. 
> |> >By definition, they are the most successful.
> |> 
> 
> By your definition, maybe, and that is fine.  What is accurate is that
> the top 20% are the most successful at doing whatever it was that got
> them the upper 20 percentile rating, perhaps "making income."
> 
> Others, look at "success" as a total concept, which includes emotional
> and spiritual values, relationships, physical well-being, wholeness,
> etc.  A friend of mine used to ask, "Who loves ya?".
> 
> No indication whatsoever that high income earners do well with 
> this.  In fact one study (no scientific tour-de-force) which allowed
> individuals to assess their own personal success showed no
> correlation between income and success.  On average, on a scale of
> 1 to 5, 5 being the highest, most respondants gave their life a 2.8.

I agree with this, and different people choose to run their lives differently.   
Some people choose to have families and other more "spiritual values."  Others  
may choose to work extremely hard and forego such relationships in order to  
build things, or, quite frankly, just to make money.  It is those people who  
choose the second lifestyle that tend to be under attack by the government (and  
often, the people with the first lifestyle) because they have the most income  
to loot.

Whether a workaholic lifestyle is defined as success is a matter of opinion,  
but it is certainly not evil.  People with this type of lifestyle do not owe  
more of their time to "society" in progressive tax slavery than do other people  
who choose a more "spiritual" lifestyle.

[stuff deleted]

> 
> Paul Collacchi

Jim Brownfield
#include <standard/disclaimer.h>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for p				
Organization: Clarkson University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 19:08:10 GMT

>In article <BuL2Gs.G6H@encore.com> rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins) writes:
>>
>>Seeing liberals preach about how immoral conservatives are for not
>>wanting to soak the working folks to provide well meaning, but
>>disastrous, hand-outs to the poor makes me wonder how come I've
>>never heard the term religious left?

In case you haven't noticed, Clinton has been talking about welfare reform.
He says that everyone on welfare should be trained and given an opportunity
to find a job. If they don't find one or don't want one, they won't be given
government subsidies (except perhaps those who are unable to work). Clinton
wants to create jobs and make these people EARN their money. What is Bush
proposing along that line? Anyone?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL			      	   "America needs leaders, not labels."
CLARKSON '95				    	---Ronald Reagan, 8/8/92
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU  	    
A PC-HATING, PRO-LIFE, LIBERAL CARD-CARRYING ACLU MEMBER
=============================================================================
"We are not descended from fearful men...not men who feared to write, to
speak, to associate and to defend causes which were for the moment 
unpopular."		---Edward R Murrow
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Was Quayle a Moral Draft Dodger? (was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Date: 11 Sep 92 23:03:03 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <82341@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
>In article 5338@oracle.us.oracle.com, mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>>Excuse me, but when Quayle entered the Guard there were openings
>>available.  One was not created for him.  There have been claims of
>>influence peddling, but no one as shown any kind of evidence for it.

>Sure there were openings.  How do you think he got in?  Unfortunately, 
>the openings weren't filled on a "first come, first serve" basis.  That's
>why Quayle needed the influence of his family.  As for evidence, it came
>out of admissions from the Quayle family.  You can't get better evidence
>than that.

Does anyone know the details on this?
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.elections