HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: Lyndon LaRouche & the Liberty L
From: <ASEIDEL@MIAMIU.BITNET>
Date: Monday, 7 Sep 1992 11:55:42 EDT
Organization: Miami University - Academic Computer Service

families. He does attack various prominent financial interests, most of which
are not Jewish. He does not shy away from attacking those that are Jewish. I
hope those following this thread will do their own reading on this point. He
certainly does attack the British monarchy and various related interests,
most of whom are not Jewish. I don't get the comparison to the fascist elements
in Japan (in the 1930s) attacking the Chinese or the Koreans.
     I will not dispute that the Rev. James Bevel was in the company of the
"Moonies" because I have no information on this. Bevel is not the only civil-
rights figure involved with LL, and those claiming a longtime investigative
relationship to the Labor Committees surely are aware of the hostility
between the NCLC and the followers of Rev. Moon. If this statement about
Bevel is correct, I'm genuinely sorry to hear it. But I repeat: no genuinely
"KKK-affiliated" organization will have a long history (20 years) of running
many Afro-Americans for public office.
     I must agree that mixed racial makeup does not insure nonracist politics
(it counts as some prima facie evidence against it, though). But I urge that
the soul of a political movement is in its programs, particularly its economic
programs. I urge all concerned to study the programs of all groups competing
for attention. Decide for yourselves who has serious, detailed programs for
alleviating the misery of the underdeveloped sectors of the world and uplifting
the condition of humanity. All worthy of attention swear allegiance to these
principles. Those, however well intentioned, who think there are too many
people on the planet, or humanity has reached its natural limits, cannot
consistently implement these principles. Good luck to us all.
Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: boutell@pecan.cns.udel.edu (Tom Boutell)
Subject: Voice: Issue #1 Out!
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Summary: Roe vs. Wade Issue 
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:25:33 GMT

(NOTE: This is my nth attempt to post this announcement. I'm reasonably
certain previous attempts to do so failed due to news problems at my site.
My apologies if you've already seen it.)


V o i c e   M a g a z i n e


Voice is a free, independent magazine created and distributed primarily
through the net, which centers on one topic in each issue, with a
standing policy of accepting articles based on quality of writing
rather than views expressed. As a result there is a wide variety
of opinion within the magazine, making it, I believe, more interesting
to read.

The first issue, which deals with abortion and specifically
with the Roe vs. Wade U.S. Supreme Court decision's legacy, is now
available by the following means:

- FTP from isis.cshl.org. As at most sites, cd to pub and type
ls for a list of files. You should see voicei1v1 (issue #1 volume
#1). This is the entire magazine in regular plaintext, ready to
print on any typical printer.

- By email subscription; write to me at boutell@cshl.org. If you
can obtain the magazine by FTP instead, please do so to save
bandwidth.

- In the newsgroup talk.abortion, to which it has been posted in
two parts, since it is directly relevant to the group. (I will do the
same with future issues if they are specifically relevant to a 
particular newsgroup. In other groups I will only post pointers
like this one.)

- On the World Wide Web hypertext system (soon). This is a wonderful
way to read the magazine, but I haven't heard from the web's 
maintainer in approximately a month. (If you already use it and
are comfortable with making your own links from home pages of your
own, write to me and I'll give you the necessary information to
link to the magazine.)

NEXT ISSUE: The next issue will deal with the limitations of free
speech. See the current issue for more details!

-- 
                                 NERD NATION:
                   We're here. We're weird. Get used to it.
    Graduating in very very few days. Keeping email address however. Moving
up in world, depending. REPLY ADDRESS BROKEN, use: boutell@isis.cshl.udel.edu
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Sample Diner Menu
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 11 Sep 92 11:25:54 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

Item					Price
________________________________________________________

1. Mashed taters and meatloaf (special)	$3.50

2. Burger with fryes			$4.00

3. Chicken a la Dean			$4.25

4. Fish n fryes				$3.75

5. Soup n salad				$4.00

6. Supply-side greatest hits		$4.25 (with rebate)

7. Tax cut a la mode			$2.80 (new price!)

8. One year of expanding economy	Free!

9. More revenues			-$1.00

10. Seven more years			currently out of season


Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.individualism,alt.pagan
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Who's "free-er"? Intrnat'l response wanted!
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 21:53:54 GMT

In article <1wwn3dg.adamsr@netcom.com> adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:
>I received, many of which argued that it was "disgusting the way left-wingers
>stood up for they drug-dealers and other scum while opposing decent
>Americans."

Yuck.  Imagine saying that it is wrong to treat some people better than
others.

>Others simply took the position that people who oppose the WoD
>HAVE no rights. Only ONE person who responded (out of more than 12) felt
>that any right other than the right to bear arms was under attack!

As I suspected, Adams has confirmed that he interpreted no response
to his other points as being "sure, violate those rights".

That's dishonest.  A reasonable person might well comment only on
points they disagree with.  I thought that Adams' discussion of the
other violated rights was reasonable, so I wouldn't have commented on
it while disagreeing with his 2nd amendment discussion.  It turns out
that that's how most people behave.  Yet, Adams insists on interpreting
that silence according to his preconceptions.

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

Adams is worse on this than any pro-gun/anti-drug advocate I've run
into.  If he's representative ...

Gun owners don't go looking for fights with drug legalizers.  In fact,
it's rather easy to turn gun owners into drug-neutral or even
pro-legalization folks.  However, when drug legalizers start fights,
gun owners fight back....

Remember, there's a fundamental difference between gun owners and drug
legalizers.  Gun owners are mostly fighting further restrictions while
drug legalizers are fighting current restrictions.  (Gun owners can be
naive fools who believe "trust me, we'll be reasonable" from folks who
support/don't oppose measures that prove that's a lie.)

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.latin-america
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: The Crimes of Nicaragua (II)
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 14:36:59 GMT

In article <9209060844.AA18278@tba.msi.cornell.edu> harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) writes:

>==============================================
>Life Before the Revolution -- a brief overview
>==============================================

So what's this? Are you setting us up for the old 'ends justify the
means' arguement?

I have no problem with the revolution which threw Somozza out. Indeed
it had widespread support; although this support didn't extend to the
Sandinsitas.

What the people of Nicaragua objected to is the rights abuses which where
at least as bad as the Contras. They objected to the attempt by the
Sandinistas to control the government with their own private army.

How about you Harel? how do you feel about the Sandinista human rights
abuses?

   Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------228 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: mphall@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Blue Rage)
Subject: Re: Lyndon LaRouche & the Liberty L
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:22:13 GMT

	I think it's a mistake to assume that  fascism is only obtained
through violence.

	Fascism, by the definitions I understand, is the belief that the
needs of the individual are supposed to be subverted to the needs of the
state, which is the agency by which the historical purpose of the nation
is fulfilled.

	Now, since there will probably be people who don't care to go
along with that, it seems that fascism would require some violence or at
least coercion.  But _by definition_ fascism does not require violence.
Lifting Hitlerian images of repression and murder and afixing them to
our images of fascism is not unlike contemplating the excesses of
Stalinism and afixing them to our definition of Marxism.  IMHO, at
least.

	Considering LaRouche's Trotskyist past (SWP, 50's to the early
70's) one can see how he would believe his vision would so enamor the
toiling masses that they would simply welcome the new order with little
fight.  And consider Stalin's policy of "hospitalizing" criminal
elements.  He didn't need to kill them, at least not once he had
consolidated power with his purges.

	Sorry for not including the thread's previous text.  It seemed
unnecessary and confusing.

	-Mike

-- 
Michael Hall    mphall@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
"If you're not revolting against work, you're working
against revolt." - Bob Black
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (Harel Barzilai)
Subject: LABOR (Peru,El Salvador,South Africa,Ghana,Germany,Ukraine,Ecuador)
Organization: The Ohio State University Department of Computer and Information Science
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 23:11:58 GMT

Just posted to misc.activism.progressive
Xref: sparky alt.activism:16049 talk.politics.misc:44209
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "Lies Work"
Date: 8 Sep 92 18:35:22 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 <92244.002950SML108@psuvm.psu.edu> SML108@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug30.224700.15365@oracle.us.oracle.com>, mfriedma@uucp (Michael
>Friedman) says:

>>In article <92243.163225SML108@psuvm.psu.edu> SML108@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>>>Various brouhaha about who claims what deleted...

>>>Here's how I see it...

>>>Bush makes invalid claim about Clinton raising taxes 128 times...

>>>Clinton responds that by same criteria, Bush did it 327 times...

>>>Third party says real score is Clinton 59, Bush 78...

>>>Now here's the clincher.  The way I see it, Clinton was not lying because
>>>he had already stated the criteria was bogus and was merely showing that
>>>if you apply the same Bu1!$h|+ to Bush, he's even worse...

>>Excuse me, but don't you think 327 vs. 78 is significant?  I just love
>>the way the Clinton weenies bend over backwards to pretend that their
>>idol always tells the truth.

>No, not at all.  Like the Bush Bozo that you probably are, you have missed
>the point entirely.  Let me repeat it for you with proper emphasis...

>Clinton says that by the same bogus criteria that he raised taxes 128 times,
>George Bush raised it 327 times.  Key word here: BOGUS CRITERIA...

Except, of course, that even by this 'bogus criteria' the Reagan-Bush
total is just 78.  (The people claiming 78 for Bush alone are alos
part of the Slick Willie propaganda squad.)

>Does it make sense yet?  No?  Let's try it again... Clinton says standard
>is crap.  Then says by same standard Bush is worse for added
>emphasis...

Of course, the little fact that the numbers he uses to make this point
are pure fiction is irrelevant?

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Xref: sparky alt.activism:16266 alt.individualism:5410 alt.pagan:9258
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.individualism,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Who's "free-er"? Intrnat'l response wanted!
Date: 14 Sep 92 18:44:32 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <BuKCG0.Gqp@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
>Subject: Re: Who's "free-er"? Intrnat'l response wanted!
>Date: 14 Sep 92 10:14:19 GMT

>In article <BuGC8H.8vE@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cburian@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Christopher J Burian) writes:
>>adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:

>>>              AMENDMENT II:
>>>      A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
>>>State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
>>>infringed.

>>>              REALITY II:
>>>      This right exists.

>>The simple statement "This right exists" ignores the extreme anti-gun
>>sentiment observed in modern legislatures.  California and New Jersey have
>>blatantly violated this amendment; George Bush has used (abused) his    
>>authority to restrict importation of firearms; the BATF routinely violates
>>the search and seizure clause (and after they ransack a home, they leave the
>>front door standing open); it is very difficult to own an automatic rifle,
>>even though they must be registered and *not even one* registered machine
>>gun has ever been used to commit a violent crime.  

>You are confusing the having of a right and it's being respected.

>I have a right to speak even if the government silences me.
>I have a right to defend myself even if the government leaves me defenseless.
>I have a right to own property even if the government takes it from me.
>I have a right to live even if the government kills me.
>Ihave a right to petition the government een if the government ignores me.
>I have a right to make contracts even if the government refuses to recognize them.
>I have a right to associate with whomever I choose, even if the government 
>seeks to divide me from my chosen companions.

>That's what it means for a right to be "inalienable".  Even by ignoring or
>violating a right, the government cannot make it vanish.

>--Brian

Can a person be said to have rights that are not respected?  What would an 
unacknowledged or unrespected "right" look like in practice? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenny Bell                          *        Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc       *        ANTHEM BBS 386-7907
P.O. Box 833875                     *        Severity with oneself is heroism.
Richardson, TX 75083-3875           *        --A.G.Sertillanges (France, 1943)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.activism:16314 talk.politics.misc:45617
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: FEATURE: Taking Stock of Nuclear Weapons
Date: 15 Sep 92 18:46:00 GMT
Followup-To: talk.environment
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <Greenpeace.14Sep1992.10pm@naughty-peahen.org>, Greenpeace via Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu> writes:
> [Greenpeace Press Release from Environet -- Redistribute Freely]

...[many lines of Greenhype propaganda deleted to Save the Earth]...

	Leave it to Greenhype to characterize the US/Reagan led *disarmament*
as some evil plan to use nukes.

	Get with it, Greenhype, the US led where the USSR wouldn't.  Thanks to
Reagan, the world will see nukes reduced by 50%.

	Of course the US is bringing them home, Greenhype would rather see them
left around the world?

>      The current unprecedented movement of weapons by air, sea,
> rail and road poses a number of risks. It is, of course, during
> transport that nuclear weapons are exposed to the greatest
> possibility of accidents. But more important, under the veil of
> secrecy, nuclear stocks are shifting and piling up under the
> noses of local communities that have no information by which to
> assess the risks, nor to plan for possible disasters, should they
> occur. Secrecy persists, despite the end to the Cold War and the
> fact that deployment locations are well known to nuclear
> specialists. The only people in the dark are the American people.
> Some things never change.

	You can say that again.  Someday when nukes are reduced to one each,
Greenype will still be there, saying "this is clearly evidence that the US
intends to USE the weapon".

	It's quite funny, but Reagan has a better record on disarmament than
Greenhype.  It's ironic only to those who still believe that Greenhype is
apolitical.
     
Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: "Lies Work"
Date: 10 Sep 92 14:42:19 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 <dliebman.1ehs@terapin.com> dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman) writes:
>In article <1992Sep8.203355.2356@oracle.us.oracle.com>, mfriedma@uucp (Michael
>Friedman) writes:

>>>>> Bush makes invalid claim about Clinton raising taxes 128 times...
>>>>> Clinton responds that by same criteria, Bush did it 327 times...
>>>>> Third party says real score is Clinton 59, Bush 78...

>>>> Excuse me, but don't you think 327 vs. 78 is significant?  I
>>>> just love the way the Clinton weenies bend over backwards to
>>>> pretend that their idol always tells the truth.

>>>=o= Read it again.  The 327 figure is *by* *Bush's* *criteria*.

>>Well, that's where Slick Willie's lying.  By Bush's criteria the
>>number is 78 for Reagan and Bush combined.

>according to everyone else who has wasted their time battling you on this
>lunatic topic, and according to every newspaper and newsmagazine article i have
>read, and according to michael kingsley (that third party), the
>128:327::59:78 figures are the correct ones for clinton::bush.  please provide
>a reference for your assertions (include publication name and date of print).

I'll dig it up.  Meanwhile, could you please explain your notation?
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Xref: sparky alt.activism:16100 talk.politics.misc:44446
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 11:28:34 GMT
Followup-To: alt.activism

As quoted from <kyln=6p.adamsr@netcom.com> by adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams):

> 	Not very often compared to those with guns. An unarmed 100 lb woman
> may _hurt_ you, but she is rather unlikely to kill you - or, for that
> matter, to WANT to kill you. If she was homicidal she would probably own a
> gun!

If she gets the gun, she's very likely to kill you.  I guess that doesn't 
matter, huh?

> 	Even Bernard Goetz was eventually convicted, and he was attacked by
> FOUR hoods he had REASON to fear, not by one individual who is not armed!

He was convicted of a weapons violation.  He was NEVER convicted of any wrong-
ful act in shooting his wouldbe assailants.  Get your facts straight before you
try to mislead.



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

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: alt.activism,misc.kids,alt.flame,alt.culture.usenet
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: Nicaragua - documentation
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 9 Sep 92 23:13:12 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Sep9.141849.2365@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
> In article <1992Sep8.161817.21622@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:

>>Allen recommended the book "Nicaragua - Revolution in the Family" by Shirley
>>Christian, a correspondent.  The book regularly criticizes Sandinista action
>>while ignoring other evidence, thereby offering a distorted, one-sided, view.
> 
> I prefer to view it as a nice ballance to Harel and company's postings.

	But wait, didn't we just read four posts worth of Chomsky-speak which
said that being one-sided was ok?
	So don't worry about it! :)

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky alt.activism:15947 talk.politics.misc:43864 soc.culture.latin-america:3319
From: JLM@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.latin-america
Subject: Re: Who Were the "Contras" ? (II)
Date: 5 Sep 92 03:29:13 GMT
 <1992Sep4.131626.22289@iti.org>
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <1992Sep4.131626.22289@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) says:
>
>In article <9209030733.AA11198@tba.msi.cornell.edu> harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU
>(misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) writes:
>
>>       "Rosa had her breasts cut off. Then they cut into her chest and
>>       took out her heart. The men had their arms broken, their
>>       testicles cut off, and their eyes poked out. They where killed
>>       by slitting their throats, and pulling the tongue out through
>>       the slit."
>
>Others have posted about Sandinsita torture and killing of people but this
>story reminded me on one in particluar. The Sandinista Army (funny how a
>political party has its own private army) entered a Miskito villiage. The
>adults, knowing the Sandinistas where in the area, fled into the jungle to
>hide leaving the children (assuming they where safe). The Sandinsita
>commander asked the children where the adults where. When they didn't
>(couldn't?) answer he cut their hands off.
>
>How about it Harel? I have condemned this sort of thing but so far you
>refuse to condem any abuses made by people you like. Is it that you can't
>admit to yourself they are happening? Is your ideology that fragile? Or
>is it that your concern for human rights only comes into play when it is
>to your political advantage?


 Very well said Allen !!!  Very well said !!

-- Jose L. Martinez --