HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Libertarian Platform
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 22:44:57 GMT

nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>In article <rdippold.711676309@cancun> rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>>>How does giving a fifteen year old the right to get drunk make him 
>>>responsible for his actions?  Children are children and their actions
>>>need to be subject to control.
>>
>>No shit, and that's why you have parents.  If the parents feel that
>>the child is responsible enough and old enough to be drinking, then so
>>be it.

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

Absolutely.  Either they have responsibility and control or they have
neither.  Now I'm not sure about the the severity, or how it would be
split (i.e., obviously in some cases the child is going to take
punishement as well, as in juvenile jail).  I haven't thought about
that aspect of it enough.  However, the more authority the parent had
to control their child, the greater the penalty on the parent should
be.
-- 
Bore:  Wraps up a two-minute idea in a two-hour vocabulary.  -- Winchell
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship,misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 03:23:41 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.231308.11598@rlgvax.Reston.ICL.COM> scc@rlgvax.Reston.ICL.COM (Stephen Carlson) writes:
>In article <1992Jul19.211814.3023@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) quotes Judge Posner:
>>     monsters-as OTHELLO THE BLACK MISCEGENATOR [emphasis mine],
>>     Shylock the Jewish usurer...
>
>	Why is it that you do not also call Posner an anti-Semite?

Stephen, he's getting to that. Give him time. Don't forget Ed's
explanation of Clarence Thomas's anti-black sentiments.


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,     |"Of the many definitions of poetry, the   
mnemonic@eff.org | simplest is still the best: 'memorable speech.'" 
(617) 864-0665   | 
EFF, Cambridge   |                     --W.H. Auden 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Eire, Ireland? (Was Re: Separation vs. integration)
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESY ZEUS Central Data Acquisition
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 22:21:15 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.184656.4543@news.nd.edu>,
ulick@angelico.helios.nd.edu (Ulick Stafford) writes:


|> Maybe we should take it
|>off our stamps and put Poblacht na hEireann instead (even if that isn't
|>quite as official), or better still, Ireland.

Sounds a good first step if you don't want people to call you that

|>>Surrendering control over language to people who wish to use it for
|>>political ends is a very dangerous thing. 
|>
|>More nonsence.  I'm going to kill you with the word certificated (and
|>other similar American abuses of English.  Quite lethal, you know). :-)
|>>Phill Hallam-Baker

The word dangerous does not necessarily mean death you know, the danger
of such action was written on quite extensively by George Orwell in
1984.


Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.censorship
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 21:42:16 GMT

In article <1992Jul17.141629.6243@Princeton.EDU>
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In article <1992Jul16.185958.26528@decvax.dec.com> walsh@starbd.enet.dec.com (Thomas Walsh) writes:
>>
>>In article <1992Jul15.164024.24944@Princeton.EDU>, egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

>Secondly, this false counter example has been used deliberately and
>dishonestly to obscure the facts of Viktora's case.

No, this counterexample has been used to deliberately to show that the
Supreme Court's decision was correct.  A law that criminalizes some
behavior that should be criminalized and some behavior that shouldn't
is a bad law.  A law against swinging your fist is a bad law; it
criminalizes punching me in the face (good), but it also criminalizes
calisthenic exercises (bad).  Similarly, a law against burning crosses
criminalizes Viktora's assault (good), but it also criminalizes making
a movie about Reconstruction (bad).

>  Thirdly, not all of
>us HAVE goddamn lawns and as such this appeal has less charm for us
>apartment dwellers than it does for those who need burning crosses on
>their lawns in order to illuminate their collection of 1966
>GTOs-on-blocks (en bloc, as the French would say.)  

Speak for yourself.  This apartment-dweller is in favor of freedom of
speech.

>It certainly encourages assaults on my black neighbors, my gay
>neighbors, my feminist neighbors, etc., for it removes a much-needed
>legal protection.

Since the striking down of this law didn't make assault and battery
any more legal, I don't see what protection the striking-down removed.

>>And if you burn a flag on your lawn and you patriotic neighbors see it and 
>>become fearful of battery, they have a cause of action for assault.  
>
>False, for a cross burning has a historical origin as a promise of an
>eventual battery (or worse.)

Yes, that's what they meant (once upon a time).

>  Cross burnings started in the
>Reconstruction period as a way for white southerners to intimidate newly
>empowered blacks and they were MEANT, as classic forms of assault, to
>cause apprehension and fear.

Yes, they were MEANT [your emphasis; note the tense of the word,
please] to cause apprehension and fear.

>  This means cross burning is an assault

Cross burning WAS an assault, in the historical cases you mention.
Cross burning IS *SOMETIMES* an assault.

>If we are ignorant of history, we can make up countless "possible
>worlds."  If we know history, we know that burning crosses is a
>historical promise of racial assault.  

What is a "historical promise"?  Are promises always kept?  On whom is
the assault?

Suppose I say "I'm going to go out and shoot somebody."  Suppose I
have perfect credibility when I say that, so people believe me.  Have
I committed assault?  Upon whom?

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:34900 alt.politics.elections:8688
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Perot drops out!!!!
Date: 21 Jul 92 14:36:14 GMT
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX

In article <92202.201736KCRUZAT@auvm.american.edu> KCRUZAT@auvm.american.edu (Kristi Cruzat) writes:
>Who cares about the two parties' grip on politics.  The point is, Perot is a
>fascist and we should be glad to be rid of him.  Let's just worry about who
>the Perot supporters are going to vote for.  We definitely don't want more
>of the same so hopefully they will vote for Clinton.

ENOUGH!

I am sick and tired of the Republicrats and their ceaseless
pandering for the "Perot vote".  Do you really believe we view H Ross 
as some kind of Messiah?  All the Perot supporters I have had personal 
contact with will tell you the same thing, which is essentially:

WE DON'T WANT TO VOTE FOR YOUR CANDIDATES!  
   (read our lips)
WE DON'T WANT TO VOTE FOR YOUR _WORTHLESS_ CANDIDATES!!!

So far, the top award for cluelessness goes to the Young Republicans,
who asked their members to bring the Perot vote "back into the fold".  

The whole POINT is that many of us don't want to have anything
to do with the parties and their anemic, outdated platforms!  All
we DID really care about was the "two parties' grip on politics",
so there is SOME possibility other than "more of the same"!!

	Dave

***************************

P.S. Kristi, please don't take this as a personal attack; it just
     so happened to be your note (one amongst _hundreds_) which 
     precipitated my response.

P.P.S.  Uh oh, here comes that tired Libertarian pitch again.  Save 
        it please...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
From: thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 16:56:14 GMT


In article <1992Jul31.143502.26498@kadsma.kodak.com>, pajerek@telstar.kodak.com writes:

[...]

>  > Parents teach self-
> >responsibility and moderation, and alcohol doesn't have that
> >mysterious rite-of-passage appeal that makes it more attractive
> >to teenagers in the U.S. than it would otherwise be.
> 
> I certainly hope that parents in this country teach responsibility
> and moderation, too. Of course, in the USA the efforts of parents to
> do this is counteracted by a veritable avalanche of counter-messages
> from the popular media.
> 
> And BTW, what does the teaching of responsibility, etc. have to do
> with alcoholism? I thought that this was a largely genetically-determined
> problem.


Gee, ultimately everything is genetically determined.  And what isn't is
determined by the commercials we watch on television.  Nobody's really
responsible for anything they do, are they?

I'm originally from Utah.  They have very strict alcohol and pornography
laws (half the population is Mormon).  Most children are taught that
alcohol (and drugs, and pornography, and unmaried sex, etc.)  can control
them and that they must stay away from them at all costs.  Consequently,
when these kids get any exposure at all to any of these things, they do
'lose control.'  Utah has alcoholism rates (and teenage suicide rates, and
unwed teenage pregnancy rates, etc.) far above the national average.  (I 
can get the real numbers if people are interested.)

thant

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Sexual Misconduct Laws
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 19:43:21 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.184643.5887@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel) writes:

>>Others like me consider homosexuality to be immoral, illegal and
>>disgusting. I believe the majority of Americans agree with me.

>Not unless the majority of Americans are idiots.  First of all, it's
>clearly NOT illegal.  Secondly, you may be included in tomorrow's

Actually, homosexuality may be illegal in most of the US, on a jurisdiction 
by jurisdiction bases.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
From: faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Jessie Jackson and Jesus
Date: 22 Jul 92 02:56:07 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: ygdrasil.cs.berkeley.edu

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

He said:

    "Lastly, there's a lot of talk these days about family values.  Even
as we spurn the homeless on the street, remember, Jesus was born to a
homeless couple, outdoors in a stable, in the winter.

    "Jesus was a child of a single mother.  But when Mary said, Joseph
was not the father, she was abused and questioned.

    "If Mary had aborted the baby, she would have been called immoral.
If she had the baby she would have been called unfit, without family
values.

    "But Mary had family values.  It was Herod, the Quayle of his day,
who put no value on the family."

	Wayne
From: perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "American Ideals" (was: AMERICA IN DECLINE)
Date: 24 Jul 92 20:43:26 GMT
Organization: HJF AIDS Research Project, Washington DC

In article <10896@platypus.uofs.uofs.edu> bill@platypus.uofs.edu writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.221851.2401@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil>, perez@mgr.uucp (Charles Perez) writes:
>|> 
>|> Hey, wasn't the old USSR sitting on more natural resources than the
>|> USA? That's right! The USSR was the preeminant world power of its time!
>|> The US couldn't hold a candle to it. Its people were the wealthiest
>|> in the world. The Ukraine was such a breadbasket, the USSR didn't
>|> know what to do with all that grain.
>|> 
>|> The above was just to point out the collossal fallacy of believing
>|> that wealth=natural resources.
>|> 
>
>No, what the above shows is that no matter what or how much resources 
>you have a government couched in corruption can still lead you to total 
>collapse.

So Hong Kong is dirt-poor, eh? People struggling to make their own
living in a socialist state that is not providing for them represent
"corruption", eh?

>
>Anyone who believes that the USSR really practiced "communism" is very
>naive.  They had a larger separation in classes than even the US.  They
>had rich and poor, but no middle class.  You were either a member of the 
>ruling class or you were a peasant.  This is what came of the lofty ideas
>of communism and socialism.  

That's what came of wealth being distributed on the basis of political
pull, rather than (at least partly) being left to "distribute" itself
within a free market. Much wealth, in fact, did change hands within
the black (read "free") market, thus delaying the inevitable collapse.

I wouldn't call the ideals of communism and socialism "lofty", either.
They ignore the universe and our places within it. They ignore who and
what we are and what we need to live. In a system of justice, this is
unconscionable.

>
>It's too bad the US didn't learn anything from the recent collapse of the
>USSR.

I certainly learned something: that the world collapse of statism is
something I can hope to see in my lifetime.

>
>"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

The above statement can be used to back almost any point one wishes to
make. Its presence here should therefore be taken with a grain of salt.

.sig
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Bill Clinton on Health Care
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 17:05:22 GMT

In article <archer.245@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>In article <1992Jul31.002510.24909@samba.oit.unc.edu> Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen) writes:
>>Press release from Clinton/Gore Campaign
>
>[entire text of Slick Willie's health care concerned voter bribe proposal 
>deleted]
>
>I wonder where Slick Willie and Prince Albert plan to get all that money 
>from?

Hadn't you heard?  From the "rich", and from businesses, who will
be furthered required to tender more of their share, and contribute
a "fair" share to the Govt. 

Note that prior to elections, the "rich" is defined as anyone
with a Rolls in their driveway.  After elections, it is redefined to be
anyone with money in their pocket.

The tax "increases" Clinton proposes will undoubtably be as successful
as the 1932 tax increase and the 1990 tax increase at reducing the
inflow of actual Government revenue and damaging the fragile
economy.

I wonder why a so-called agent of change is pushing what is really
more-of-the-same failed tax policy that the Democrats in Congress
have been pushing for so long (and succeeded in getting with Bush
in 1990).

One can only hope that Bill 'n Al's big adventure in tax hikes
will backfire so badly that they will be forced, like the French
Socialists in 1982, to abandon their dreams of a Big Industrial
Policy Program.

--------------
P. McGuinness
			Draft Kemp Now, We need a real change
			Call your local GOP rep (conventioneer,Congressman)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:35308 alt.politics.clinton:306
From: king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Question about Clinton's "didn't inhale" remark
Date: 22 Jul 92 19:05:09 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California, San Diego

crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>I beg your pardon, but how will public works programs pay for 
>themselves?  One thing that always troubles me about the uninformed 
>democrats is that they simply do not understand economics.

Whether or not a public works program will eventually pay for itself
really depends on the program, I would think.  In this way, it is no
different from any other investment, public or private.  I think the
real problem is one of assessment: is project 'X' one that the
government can undertake more economically than some private venture,
or is it a project that will, in the long run, provide some additional
public benefit that would be unattainable otherwise?  Most people seem
to believe that the interstate highway system meets one or both of
these criteria.  But you can always have doubts: what effect did the
highway system have on what was once a state-of-the-art, privately run
rail system?  Rural electrification in the 1930s almost certainly
helped create new markets (and new industries) in the target area, and
also provided jobs (and maybe some training) for people who otherwise
may not have had them.  On the other hand, massive irrigation projects
(e.g. the whole state of California) may be a much more thoroughly
mixed bag.

Personally, I belive that some public works projects, particularly
those that provide real training for workers, can be very worthwhile.
(My guess is that most such projects are also probably very large
scale, which to some degree would make them unattainable by private
means.)  Certainly we have a workforce that is in desparate need of
retraining, in any case.

>To say that Bill Clinton's alleged successes as Governor of Arkansas
>qualify him to be President of the US is like saying the shoeshine
>stand operator in the airport is qualified to be CEO of IBM.

I *still* don't understand this.  How does being the governor of a
state where you have very limited resources, obvious problems, and a
constitution that allows (or used to) a simple majority to over-ride
vetoes make you unqualified to become president?  Accomplishing
*anything* under such circumstances would require a lot of skill and a
lot of work.  As far as letting the shoeshine worker become the CEO of
IBM is concerned, I might consider it if I were a stockholder (in
light of the company's very discouraging recent performance).

jking
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:35259 alt.politics.clinton:268
From: crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Which of you is 'good enough' ?
Date: 22 Jul 92 16:33:41 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Jul22.004331.15705@news.Hawaii.Edu> johnf@uhheph.phys.hawaii.edu (John Flanagan) writes:
>I wrote:
>
>>Hell, girl, my history couldn't survive the scrutiny required to teach
>>high-school in most states.  Nothing _I'm_ ashamed of, but not good PR
>>material in this year of "family values."
>
>P.S. -- This is why I'm voting for Clinton.  I consider George Bush's
>stance on gay rights, and human/civil rights generally, to be immoral.


Others like me consider homosexuality to be immoral, illegal and 
disgusting. I believe the majority of Americans agree with me.

-- 
Richard Crisp         Cupertino, Ca.         crisp@netcom.com
(415) 903-3832 wk    "what, me worry?"    (408) 253 4541 fax

"The first thing you have to do is disarm the people. A disarmed
public can't fight back" -Adolf Hitler
From: sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bring Bush Down
Date: 22 Jul 1992 03:45:49 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <1992Jul21.204624.19734@oracle.us.oracle.com>, mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
|> In article <l6lon3INNs1k@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
|> 
|> 
|> >According to an actuary, there is an 87% chance of Bush kicking the
|> >bucket in the next 4 years. I don't know if that takes into account
|> >his fitness-mania. 
|> 
|> 
|> Excuse me, but I think this is bullshit.

My apologies, profusely. There is an 87% chance of Bush NOT kicking the bucket
in the next 4 years, if the actuary is to be believed. I KNEW when I first
typed this in that I had missed something...

|> 
|> Do you have a source?

William Schneider, of Public Opinion, and formerly of the American Enterprise
Institute. He consulted an actuary sometime last year before the campaign began.
I heard him mention it on CNBC's Talk Live last weekend.


-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these opinions, he deserves them.
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: TSONGAS: Convention speech text
Date: 22 Jul 1992 19:18:22 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

In article <91516@bu.edu>, tesco@bumetb.bu.edu (Dances With Babes) writes:
|> >In article <1992Jul20.232455.2997@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
|> >
|> >     Look.  Bush and the Republicans *never* did any Willie Horton ads.  But 
|> >most of us are adults here.  We know exactly how the "Republicans for Bush" 
|> >and other groups work like that work, don't we?
|> > 
|> 
|> 
|> Can we drop Willie Horton already?  Al Gore addressed the furlough issue,
|> mentioning the Horton case, but you say that was fair.  George Bush (or his
|> cronies, whoever) brought up the same issue, same case, yet you say this 
|> was a low blow, if not racist.  And why?  because the ad showed Horton's
|> picture.  Why is this a big deal?  BECAUSE HE'S BLACK.  If he were white,
|> I suppose all of you not-by-the-color-of-their-skin-but-by-the-content-of-
|> their-character liberals wouldn't mind as much.

Because if he were white, the Bush campaign (and friends) wouldn't have run
the ad. (Absolutely my personal opinion based upon my belief that Bush desired
to use race as an issue in the campaign).
From: matt@physics16.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: when in trouble, when in doubt . . .
Date: 24 Jul 92 11:39:37
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
	<1992Jul24.162711.20254@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> <BrwKoA.KwL@apollo.hp.com>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics16.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com's message of Fri, 24 Jul 1992 17:02:34 GMT

In article <BrwKoA.KwL@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>    I'm not suggesting that the Iraqis are blameless, or that they're
>    not being especially provocative just now, but from the Republican's
>    perspective wouldn't this be a really good time to have a war?   

It's a fascinating question, isn't it: Is there any such thing as a
political maneuver which is so blatent and transparent that American
voters see through it?

Perhaps we will now get a chance to find out.
--
Matthew Austern              I dreamt I was being followed by a roving band of
(510) 644-2618               of young Republicans, all wearing the same suit,
matt@physics.berkeley.edu    taunting me and shouting, "Politically correct
austern@theorm.lbl.gov       multiculturist scum!"... They were going to make
austern@lbl.bitnet	     me kiss Jesse Helms's picture when I woke up.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:36248 ca.politics:6073