HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE)
Subject: Re: Well, we lost.....
Summary: We are likely screwed.
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: Screwed, tax and spend
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Distribution: usa
Date: 14 Nov 92 02:05:10 GMT

In article <1668@seqp4.sequoia.com>, jcurtis@seqp4.sequoia.com (John Curtis)                     writes...
>	Another round lost in the slow slide towards
>	state socialism.  Look at England in 1970 and 
>	you are looking at our future circa 2000.

Look at England today and you can see what America is like after 12
years of conservatives. BTW, I have two roommates from England who
came out here because there is no work in their home country.
> 
>	(to which I have no real objection), and a lot 
>	of economic bungling.

In other words, more of the same.

>	jcurtis@sequoia.com
>  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Shooting tragedy (was Re: Support Right to 'bear arms')
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 10:56:50 GMT

wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf) writes:
>He wasn't "enforcing the law", he claims self-defense. You are entitled
>to self-defense *ANYWHERE*.

But what you can do in self-defense depends on the circumstances.  For
example, if you pull into a parking space, and I say, "Hey, asshole!
You took my space!" you can't whip out your gun and blow me away, even
though you see that I'm big and mean looking.  On the other hand, if you
wake up in your bedroom and see me standing there, and I say, "Hey, asshole!
You took my space!" and you grab that same gun and blast away, you
probably are fine.

His self defense claim is not going to work unless he can show that a
reasonable person would have felt threatened sufficiently to require
deadly force.  From what I've seen so far, it doesn't sound like he has
much of a chance of doing this.

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: trevor@telesoft.com (Trevor Bourget @ignite)
Subject: Re: Back to the drug debate (was: SOMEBODY'S GOT TO SAY IT)
Organization: TeleSoft, San Diego, CA, USA
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 21:21:41 GMT

In <1992Nov5.131359.21004@athena.mit.edu>
wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:

>> Say what!?  "... victimless crimes like drug sale/use ..."  What
>> exactly do you mean by this asinine statement?  Are you saying that
>> people who sell/abuse drugs should be LEFT ALONE to further ruin
>> themselves and those around them?

>Picture, in your mind, a drug sale.  One person hands money to another
>person, and that person hands drugs to the first person.  End of
>story.  No victim, no crime, no "further ruin" to anyone.  And no
>reason for the state to get involved.  At least, not in a free society.

Picture in your mind an eight-year-old girl.  The nice man gives her
candy.  The nice man takes her home.  The nice man molests her.  End
of story.  No victim, no crime.  NOT!

I'm sorry, but selling drugs to children IS a crime.  They don't have
the judgement to know what's right and wrong, and it's too late when
they figure it out.

As to drug use, who is it that pays welfare support for the person
who eventually loses their job: the taxpayer is the victim in this
crime.

-- Trevor Bourget (trevor@telesoft.com)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,soc.men,soc.women,alt.religion.computers
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: Different Issues 
Followup-To:  soc.women,soc.singles,alt.sex
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 17:42:08 GMT

john@anasazi.com writes:
] In article <1992Nov2.033350.7886@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] ]cea1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Carolyn E. Adams-Price) writes:
] ]
] ]] With regard to rights and responsibilities toward sexuality, let
] ]] me comment on something I have noticed in the Gender Classes I 
] 
] What the hell is a "Gender Class" and do I want to know?


Would You believe me if I told you its a C++ definitional Structure
from which the Objects Male, Female, Other are derived, and which
they inherit the public and private characteristics....

Its important to recompile should you change anything
in the Gender Class....

ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, 
and the Other Two will be Upgraded In the Next Release.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.libertarian
From: gmeltzne@jarthur.claremont.edu (Manu)
Subject: Re: Celebration in the Streets
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 01:55:23 GMT

In article <4295@copper.Denver.Colorado.EDU> aaldoubo@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Ohm Salam) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.151831.25497@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>>
>>After Clinton was elected, there were celebrations in the streets in two
>>cities:
>>		Little Rock, Arkansas
>>		Bagdad, Iraq
>>Think about it.
>
>
>Think about *what*, James?
>
>What *exactly* are you saying here about President-Elect Clinton?
>
>Common, don't you know he is pro-Israel?  Isn't every politician?

	How about John Sununu?  Besides I see nothing wrong with being
	pro-Israel.  However, it is not the main trait I seek in a
	politician.  I wonder if you can say the same.


	Geoff

>
>Anisa


-- 
Email: gmeltzne@jarthur.claremont.edu            

A .sig?  A .sig? We don't need no stinkin' .sigs!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Boycott Colorado
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:13:33 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <82qC03FSb98P00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> fierro@uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro) writes:
referring to Arizona...
]  This coming from a citizen of a state which refused to pass a MLK 
]holiday- can't say I'm surprised at the level of ignorance...
]
]  Doug

Speaking of IGNORANCE,
  Arizona is the ONLY state to put the MLK holiday to the vote.
  Arizona has a paid state MLK holiday, the ONLY ONE IN THE COUNTRY
    enacted as a result of citizen referendum.
  In the election in which Arizona failed to enact an MLK holiday, there
    were two competing petitions that would have created the holiday, and
    between them, they got over 50% of the vote.

Next time you want to slur someone based on what state they live in,
at least get the facts straight! Then, shove 'em, Dave.
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality! - -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.individualism
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Property Rights
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 10:37:16 GMT

In article <1de1mjINN6rr@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
}>Not quite "without difficulty".  All cultures prohibit random takings of
}>property.  It's the systematic takings that vary.  All you've done is
}>cited examples where property rights are abridged systematically in some way
}>or another by the State.  What about cultures without States but with
}>property rights?
}
}Good question.  The answer is that systematic takings are common in hunter-
}gatherer societies to make optimal use of sporadically available resources
}such as game or large domestic animals when they are slaughtered.

I'm not an anthropologist, but I know people who play them at UC Santa Barbara.
Haven't there been any stateless agricultural societies?

}For example, anthropologists have studied division of game in many societies.
}Usually the hunter and his family have the right to the choicest portions,
}and the rest get to divide the remainder.

This just seems like a variant on the Anglo-American common law rule of
first possession.  The only contrast between it and the libertarian concept of
it is that we'd think that the hunter would have the right to it all, a priori.
Of course, contractual arrangements could alter this for things like this.

Are you familiar with the libertarian legal theorist Richard Epstein's book
"Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain"?  He proposes that
these sort of arrangements can be rationalized by means of the principle of
just compensation.

In this case, one could argue that the hunter is compensated for his loss of
the other parts of the animal by values provided by the rest of the tribe,
thus at least implicitly recognizing his property right.

His theory is based upon common law and the takings clause of the 5th amendment
to the US Constitution: "nor shall private property be taken for public use
without just compensation."  It's very powerful, although it approximates a
libertarian system, it doesn't establish an absolute one.  Through it, he
argues that transfer payments, progressive taxation, rent control, much zoning,
and other regulation is unconstitutional.

He started out believing in absolute property rights, then decided that they
had been and had to be conditioned by utilitarian considerations.

Frankly, most libertarians would be quite happy with a government that agreed
with his argument, and find little fault with it.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bill Clinton denies being in the loop
Date: 11 Nov 92 17:35:01 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 6931@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil, jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes:
>Walsh is a Republican, so arguments that he was pro-Clinton don't add up.

Quite right.  Another puzzling fact is that his prosecution team asked the judge
to delay the indictment until Nov. 9, after the election.  The judge denied their
motion.  Bush's people knew well in advance that an indictment was expected, and
they had 24 hours before anyone else to review it.  I think that the judge should
have granted Walsh's effort to delay the indictment, but nothing that was released
was in error.  Weinberger unintentionally left a historical record for all to see.
A smoking gun.  It's understandable that Democrats were happy to see the information
in the headlines a few days before the election, and Republicans were not.  But
it wasn't the same as publishing a lie a few days before the election.  It was the
truth.  Bush still can't explain it away.

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

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
From: ludwigj@CS.ColoState.EDU (Vilkata (Joe Ludwig))
Subject: Re: Fear.  Lots of fear.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 20:08:56 GMT
Organization: Thealir Construction Company

In many groups, twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>In many groups, fox@NeoSoft.com (Michael Johnson) writes:
>
>>it sounds to me like the measure says
>>that it is perfectly alright for a landlord or employer to kick someone out
>>based on sexual orientation.  Is this correct?
>
>No: if a gay landlord decided to kick out a straight person because
>they didn't want to rent to heterosexuals, the tenant could sue.

Only in certain cities.  Most places have no laws regarding discrimination
based on sexual orientation.

-- 
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Vilkata, the Dark King   | "I'd rather rule in hell, than serve in heaven" |
| ludwigj@cs.colostate.edu | "Priests and cannibals, prehistoric animals,    |
| Vilkata@Most MUCKs       |  everybody happy as the dead come home."        |
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58178 ca.politics:9355 ba.politics:6736
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Trickle Down Economics
X-Xxdate: Fri, 13 Nov 92 08:40:19 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 14:43:42 GMT

In article <BxC3Jx.CFE@eis.calstate.edu> Kenneth Mitchell,
kmitche@eis.calstate.edu writes:
>Of course, a LOT than Clinton has done strikes me as foolish; but not
half
>so foolish as the people who voted for him!!

How arrogant can you get.....   Those of us who voted for Clinton did so
because
he was the only candidate to present a comprehensive plan for the economy
and our social problems; because Bush did nothing on domestic issues in 3
1/2
years despite grave warnings from the experts (then he wouldn't even admit
there was a problem); because Bush's honesty and integrity is questionable
(Iraqgate, Iran contra, dirty campaigning); because Clinton has presented
the
only reasonable economic plan for boosting our long-term economy while
gradually eliminating the deficit; because we are now paying big-time for
the
things that were swept under the rug by Ronald Reagan to make our economy
look so rosy; because the fanatical religious right owns the Republican
party and Bush; because Bush is a hypocrit (many of the things he accuses
Clinton of apply doubly to himself---waffling, dishonesty,...). Calling
those of
us who voted for Clinton "foolish" is not a substitute for an explanation
of the
facts presented.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: LP vote totals?!?
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 23:54:59 GMT

betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz) writes:

|Does anybody have definitive vote totals?  I'm interested in
|the Libertarians performace both in total number (did we
|break a million votes?) and as a percentage (did we crack
|1%?).  The media around here won't tell me anything.

Many jurisdictions will not be counting third party and write-in votes
for quite a while.  The results as announced are quite unofficial in
most places, but were just made public do to media pressure.
--
Michael Adams (StarOwl@uiuc.edu  madams@nyx.cs.du.edu  wi.4962@n7kbt.rain.com)

Walk softly and carry a BIG kitten. -- anonymous
Nancy Lord in '96
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Thank you, Anita Hill
Date: 9 Nov 92 17:09:32 GMT
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems

In <1992Nov8.195914.16043@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:


>In article <adams.720978844@spssig>, 
>adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) said:

>> > Let's hope that 4 years of Clinton will help undo the damage to
>> > the credibility of the U.S. Supreme Court inflicted by 12 years of
>> > cynical selections of unqualified candidates.
>> > [bhjelle@carina.unm.edu]
>>
>> Robert Bork was the most qualified man in America to serve on the
>> court.  It was cynical rejection of a highly qualified candidate for
>> political purposes by the DEMOCRATS that kept him off the court.

>Come on.  Qualified or not, Bork was nominated by President Reagan (a
>REPUBLICAN) for political purposes too.  One of the more ridiculous
>things about the Bork affair was the carping by some Republicans about
>how the Democrats were (gasp!) politicizing the process... let's face
>it: when the Constitution calls for somebody to be nominated by a
>politically elected officer and then approved or rejected by a body of
>more politically elected officers, you're going to wind up with a
>political process, folks.  That's the way it's supposed to be.

No, that's the way it is, but the Framers had the idea that this
court would be representative of all Americans. We can but hope
that it some day will be so.

>-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

REB
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58797 talk.politics.drugs:7371 alt.politics.clinton:16353
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Socialist health care (was legalizing drugs)
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 05:47:15 GMT
Organization: ucsd
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu


>I share the original poster's concern that socialist health care
>will result in pressure to "live healthily", but feel that any
>degree of rationality would result in this pressure being directed
>against activities other than most drug use.

Hypothetically, how much pressure can a socialist health care system
place on an individual before violating constitutional rights?  For instance,
assume that a pregnant woman is examined and her fetus is found
to be abnormal.  Her child may live, but would probably require
expensive therapy all its life.  Will she be pressured (or required)
to abort, violating her freedom to choose?  I assume the system will have to 
factor in the expected incidence of medical problems in the population into 
the cost.  (Standard work for an actuary.)  How would right-to-die 
relate to all this?  And what about AIDS?  The government would 
REALLY be on the horn promoting (or requiring) safe sex, behavior change, 
etc., maybe even trying to enforce it (hypothetically might be 
suggested seriously if a right-wing regime were to follow the liberal
government that socialized medical care.  They could graft on all manner
of draconian incentives and enforcements, using the possibility of
removal of health care as leverage!).  And what if, WHAT IF (!) we
get back in "eugenics", or a movement to "improve" the human race
through fetal genetic testing and selective abortion?  I seem
to recall that before WWII, California led the nation in eugenically
inspired abortions (!). Hitler made "eugenics" as promoted in the U.S.
rather unfashionable (at least for awhile). 


On the lighter side,
perhaps the government would give tax deductions for being a non-smoker,
or for a high degree of fitness.  But all of this seems to really get into
the personal life of a citizen in a way that seems to invade
privacy.  

I don't know if I will like socialized medicine.
------------------------------
rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu
From: smittie@beach.csulb.edu (Smittie)
Subject: Re: Stockdale is a Bumbling Idiot
Organization: Cal State Long Beach
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 20:22:23 GMT

Monte Olsen <olsenm@ccmail.orst.edu> wrote:
>Your arrogance is astounding.

Not nearly as astounding as your ignorance.

smittie
--
___________________________________________________________________________
GEnie, MCI, AOL:Smittie   All of these accounts except MCI will die on or
smittie@beach.csulb.edu   about Dec 31. UNIX will be forwarded for 2 weeks.
___________________________________________________________________________
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Wine Tariff
Date: 9 Nov 92 18:34:03 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 2afb2785@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu, vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu () writes:
>I heard on the radio that Bush's daughter just got married to some
>rich person in the California wine business. Is this true?
>
>Is this related to the recent WINE TARIFF imposed by BUSH on the Europeans?

This issue is far more serious than most people realize.  The French are in an
extremely difficult position.  French farmers, like the Japanese rice farmers,
wield enormous power in French politics.  Jacques Delors, the French president of
the EC, wants to replace Mitterand, and his entire career depends on his saving
face with his domestic constituency.  So he has blocked a compromise between the
US and the EC that would have hurt French subsidies to their farmers.  The US
retaliates by hitting European white wines, something that affects the French
economy worse than any other.  But, so far, we have seen nothing but a general
mobilization for what could escalate into a thermonuclear economic exchange between
trading partners.  That would devastate the US economy, as well as that of other
governments.  A world-wide depression would be a very likely outcome.

The wine industry would not welcome high tariffs on French wines, since they also
export wines.  And they also sell a lot of wine to people whose incomes depend on
healthy international trade.  In a crashing economy, there wouldn't be a lot of 
money available for the high-priced varietal wines that domestic vintners need to
sell.  You might see rising demand for cheaper blended wines, though.

So far, I can't believe that a trade war is going to happen.  Everyone has too much
to lose.  I have the highest respect for French cuisine, and I am quite curious to
see whether the solution that they serve up for this mess will bear the slightest
resemblance to crow.  ;-)

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

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
From: heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath)
Subject: Re: A TRUE LANDSLIDE
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 19:13:24 GMT

In article <ATAYLOR.92Nov10143040@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
>
>	Indeed they did. It can be said that a majority of
>	American voters opposed either Clinton or Bush;
>	where's the "Clinton Landslide" in that, please?


	And where, praytell is the vidication of Bush? 
	For cryin' out loud, in a three-person race, a majority is
hard to come by. No one knows what would have happened if Perot hadnot
gotten back in, so why don't we just leave it for the historians to
figure it out. 
	Clinton got a plurality of the popular vote, more than the
other two candidates. He also collected a least 100 more electoral
votes than he needed to win. 
	Can we stop dickering about this please? We know who won. Can
we just get on with it now? 

-- 
"Black men loving black men is THE revolutionary act!"
			-Joseph Beam_
Terrance Heath 
heath@athena.cs.uga.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: NYT (6-17)--Clinton on Cuomo & Suprem
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 20:29:59 GMT

solensky@andr.UB.com (Frank T Solensky) writes:

>In article 720979857@spssig, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>.. As for 'squeaky
>>clean' (NOTE: this is NOT a flame or complaint, just an opinoin) a liberal 
>>nominee doesn't need to be as squeaky clean as a conservative.  If you claim 
>>to be a conservative, you better not have done anything out of line...if you 
>>have, you'll be slaughtered.  A liberal is more likely to get away with
>>minor indiscretions.  It has to do with the self-proclaimed standards.
>>
>My gawd, Steve, I almost agree with you!
Hi Frank...this must be the end of the world, then, eh? ;-)

>The slaughtering of the conservative appointment, though, is often 
>accomplished by their own:  once -- who was it, Greenberg? -- admitted to 
>inhaling, it was the Reagan administration that withdrew the nomination.
Ginsburg.  But, yeah.

>>Cuomo on the other hand would be fillibustered.
>
>I think the larger problem might be the amount of time it would take him to
>decide if he wanted to accept the appointment. (I can hear it now: "The 
>Supreme Court decided by a 5-3-1 majority today..." :-)
>								-- Frank
Yeah...;-)

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60056 ca.politics:9563 misc.legal:19899