HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Stupid Boycott Mentality
Date: 8 Jan 1993 01:06:59 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Norbert Schlenker) writes:
|> Richard Steven Walz) writes:
|> 
|> >But we all get to boycott those
|> >we dislike and are not compelled to buy from them ...
|> 
|> I just don't understand this, but perhaps you can explain it to me.
|> You assert your right to boycott those you dislike, but you insist
|> that others (in this particular case, homophobic landlords) have no
|> right to boycott those they dislike.  Are you a member of some
|> nobility I don't know about?  Did you go through some special
|> initiation to become a member of the "Righteous Boycotters"?
|> 
There is a big difference.  I can boycott whom I like, because my
choices are not subsidized.  If I spend $500 on my house in repairs,
it costs me $500.  If a landlord spends $500 on his rental, the
taxpayers pay at least $170 of it.  I might be willing to consider
a landlord as able to exert is preferences if he is willing to give
his right to deduct expenses, taxes and interest from his income tax.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Politics as usual
Date: 12 Jan 93 19:07:42 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

The legislature in Massachusetts has reached a new low in politics.

Mass. has a two step ballot initiative process.  First get enough votes
on a petition, then a special session of the legislature has to vote
on the initiative, though you only need a 25% vote to get on the ballot.

Citizens in Mass. got the requisite number of signatures on a term
limit initiative.  The special session was called.
There were 24 initiatives to be voted on.  The legislature voted on
23 of them and adjurned.  The leadership of the body refused to
allow a vote on the term limit initiative.  As a result of their actions
the petition has expired.

Regardless of how you may feel about term limits, this has got to be
one of the most disgusting usurptions of power that I have ever seen.

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr)
Subject: Re: Execute Amy Fisher!!!
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 01:10:54 GMT

In article <C0Kr56.GDJ@panix.com> dannyb@panix.com (Daniel Burstein) writes:
>A new law was pased, probably Constitutional, which simply states that
>victims (and the state? not sure) may sue the aggressor for all assets,
>INCLUDING any obtained after the crime was committed.  Which gives 90% of
>teh same results.

Does "all assets" mean that the a civil suit against an alleged murderer may
may claim infinite damages (i.e. take all the accused's money)?  Or does it
mean that once a judgement is obtained it does not matter that the defendant
did not have the money before the act, as long as he has it now?

--
    John Carr (jfc@athena.mit.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy
From: gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 17:56:50 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.212006.6424@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu
(Yamanari) writes:


>		3.  "The bible says not to judge others"
>		Why:  The Bible says nothing of the sort.  Claiming that 
>		John [8:7]  ("So when they continued asking him, he lifted 
>		up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin 
>		among you, let him first cast a stone at her.") has this
>		implication is halfwitted.  

Arguing that people who say this are wrong without having read the
Bible yourself is even more halfwitted.  I suggest you go and read the
synoptics.

>		So,I'm trying to *accomplish* something.  If anyone can come
>	up with an internally consistent argument against violently 
>	anti-homosexual behavior, that appeals to the christian mindset, it
>	will do a lot more good than all of the empty slogans and stupid
>	marches in the world.  

Getting Christians to take the Gospels more seriously would be an excellent
start; it is far from being the silly idea you seem to think.
-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: kme@node_1f11c.bnr.ca (Ken Michael Edwards)
Subject: Re: Is the media liberal-biased? (was: Weinberger Pardon)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Research Triangle Park, NC
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 14:35:31 GMT

In article <randall.726535889@seashore>, randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea) writes:
|> 
|> To counter the liberal leanings of the reporters, we have these facts:
|> 
|> 1) In every Presidental election since 1944, more newspapers endorsed
|> the Republican than endorsed the Democrat.  (I do not know what the figures
|> are for 1992.)  
|> 
|> 2) Most radio and TV talk show hosts (the ones who discuss politics)
|> are conservative.  The only exception on the national scale is
|> Larry King.  (Note than some talk show hosts do not discuss politics at
|> all, or simply blast anyone who is currently in office.)
|> 
|> 3) Most TV stations, radio stations, and newspapers are owned by
|> Republicans.
|> 
|> 4) Editorial writers in major newspapers, as well as TV editorial
|> commentators, tend to be conservative.

Please supply your sources for making these claims.  These four items are 
difficult to beleive on the surface.  As a counter to item 4, the most powerful
person in shaping the news released is the managing editor.  On the CBS side 
of the network television news shop, Dan Rather IS the managing editor.  I don't
think anyone can argue that he ''tends to be conservative'. 
-- 
======================================================================

Ken M. Edwards, Bell Northern Research, Research Triangle Park, NC
(919) 481-8476 email: cnc23a@bnr.ca    Ham: N4ZBB

All opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of
my employer or co-workers, family, friends, or president(-elect).
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
From: s0xjg@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher)
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Organization: ExNet Systems Ltd Public Access News, London, UK
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 00:10:59 GMT

In article <13772@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>[soc.motss removed from the newsgroups so the poor dears won't blow
>a fuse]
>
>In article <30DEC199216231034@morgul.carleton.edu.>, lambertn@morgul.carleton.edu. (Alas, my love, you do me wrong...) writes:
>> In article <13722@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes...
># ## ## Come on, be fair!  97% of reported child molestation is done by hetro
># ## ## men.  The rest is made up of gay men and women.  Given these statitics
># ## #
># ## #FALSE.  Depending on which study you read, at least 21% of molestation
># ## #is by exclusive homosexuals, or about 30% is done by homosexuals or
># ## #bisexuals.
># 
># #I've already posted, repeatedly, a number of sources that show
># #that men molesting boys are somewhere between 20% and 26% of
># #child molestation.  That's about 5x the number of homosexuals
># #in the population.

And I have proved that the actual figures (calculated from you so called
'sources' are 2.5% , ie. 5 in 200 child molesters are self identifying
as homosexual.)

I have proved you to be incompetant at maths or to be a liar.  You
have not responded to the details I e-mailed you (and posted here).
This shows iether they were beyond your limited grasp, or you are
not mentioning them 'cause they prove you are wrong.

Do your math, apologise and then go away.

Xavier


-- 
** Xavier Gallagher                        ***********************************
** Genius, Plumber & Madman                ******* s0xjg@exnet.co.uk ********* 
** Part time Dark OverLord Of The Universe ***********************************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster)
Subject: Re: Libertarian heaven
In-reply-to: geff@iastate.edu's message of Tue, 5 Jan 1993 22:15:21 GMT
Organization: pubs
Date: 5 Jan 93 17:16:06 CST

Geff Underwood writes:

   >There's a country that fulfills the dearest dreams of Libertarians: it
   >has no government

   Again?  This was refuted about a month ago.  You have the Libertarians
   confused with somebody else.  Libertarians want a government police
   force, government courts, and government military forces -- read their
   platform if you don't believe me.

   Some individual party members may well advocate the repeal of all
   government, but they are not speaking for their party ...

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

Chris Brewster
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Speaking ill
Keywords: AIDS HIV molest
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: ca
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 00:07:39 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.192918.23108@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
    >In article <1993Jan6.184325.5487@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com
    >(Phil Ronzone) writes:
    >>If a group calling itself "Republican Steering Commitee"
    >>calls for "sending all niggers back to Africa", and there are
    >>no outcries of repudiation from Republicans in general, would
    >>it not be reasonable for most people to think all Republicans
    >>are racist assholes???
    >>
    >Yes, but you have to take action (ie join) the republican
    >party. As far as I know, you still don't have to send away
    >for your Queer Card. --

Oh? Well, if you don't vote in the primaries, then what? Since I don't
vote, I could be mistaken, but I am not aware of any method of
"joining" either political parties. I know that you can contribute
money & time to various groups affiliate with either party, but,
is there an actual legitimate meaningful way to join either party?

I don't think the tens of millions of people that voted either
way considered themselves as having joined either party.

I.e., I don't think this is a valid distinction.

But, we lose sight of the point!

Like David Duke and his definite, swift, and strong denunciation by the
Rupblican party when he "became" a Republican, I am unaware of any equivalent
reaction by, if not the legions of homosexuals, at least the other
homosexual organizations.

That is - "Hi, I'm David Duke and I'm now a Republican, not a NAZI".
Reaction? "Republican party to David Duke: Go to hell".

And that is - "Hi, us homosexuals want to contribute tainted blood so we
don't feel bad".
Reaction - "None that I'm aware of".



-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Forgotten History (Was: Weinberger's Pardon)
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 04:48:34 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.202954.11442@grace.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
>I'd say that the Democrats usually have less *reason* to lie to Congress, but that's
>IMHO, of course.  Maybe someone should compile a record of scandals in past 
>Democratic and Republican administrations.  It might prove illuminating.  :-)

Coincidentally, I'm reading a book on this very subject:

_The Ruses for War: American Interventionism Since World War II_ by
John Quigley (Prometheus Books).  A nice, footnote-filled collection
of military interventions from Korea through the Gulf War, with stops
along the way for Indonesia, the Congo, the Bay of Pigs, Grenada, and
Panama among other places, with the guilt spread thickly between both
parties.  The book is primarily about how Presidents lie to get us
into wars, hidden motives, etc.  The usual stuff.



--
"What does not kill me only makes me stronger, right?"
	"Ooooh, no. You're weak as a kitten!"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: elliott@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jr. Frank W. Elliott)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 02:49:15 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.021811.5057@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>
>>Point one:  IF homosexuality is learned.  You haven't shown that it is.
>
>
>	I don't need to.  You haven't shown that it isn't.
>
>
>>Point two:  Even if it WERE, you haven't shown that it is a danger to children.
>
>
>	If there is a *chance* that children can learn it, then they 
>	should not be placed in a situation where they do so and become social
>	outcasts.
>
>	An ounce of prevention and all of that.  Better safe than sorry.

I'm unconvinced about the sincerity of this gentleman's motives.
He once wrote:

>In article <1gg27rINNbpa@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU> schiesel-seth@yale.edu (Seth Schiesel) writes:
>>Sunday, December13 New York Times. There are accounts of three Croat and 
>>Muslim women in Bosnia who wre raped by Serbian soldiers. In fact, the 
>>Times says the Serbs have innaugerated an assembly-line rape operation in 
>>Bosnia with at least 50,000 women having already been violated. Just 
>
>	GIF!!GIF!!GIF!!GIF!!GIF!!GIF!!GIF!!GIF!!GIF!!GIF!!GIF!!

What could be the point in arguing with someone like this?

--Frank
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.current-events.somalia,alt.politics.bush,alt.president.clinton
From: goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring)
Subject: Re: WAR IN BOSNIA!!!!
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:48:15 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1hrf1oINNq74@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ck442@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Floyd Low) writes:
>
...
>not until just lately have they taken a real interest...as you say
>G Bush and Coy are probably going to do something...I think they can
>deal the belligerants a High explosive wakeup call with little

    Don't you think that using High explosives against
    the belligerents is kind of belligerent in itself and would
    only add to the number of belligerent in the region?

>risk because they don't have to drive into rifle range to do it.
>I'm talking about counter battery radars/side looking radar and
>all the gadgetry that was on trial in the Saddam Hussein war
>recently...additionally from a perspective of keeping the Serbs
>off balance, what better way to make them miserabel than to start
>sniping away at their positions with cruise missiles and other
>standoff weapons just when they thought they could enjoy a
>quiet winter of kiling helpless old women in Sarajevo

    The Serbs proposed evacuating Saraevo's civilian population, 
    but the Bosnian "goverment" would not let the evacuation take 
    place, for they hold the women and children of Saraevo hostages
    and use them as human shields, as well as for target practice, 
    preferrably in front TV cameras (more than once the "Bosnian" 
    goverment was caught shelling their own civilians for propaganda 
    purposes).

>so in short I say fear not, G Bush and Coy have the means to send the
>serbs packing in short order. do we want to do that though?

    That what the Nazi's thought (they too had a Croatian-Bosnian 
    fascist state on their side), and the Serbs gave them some
    pretty hard time.

...


    The bottom line is: B-H has never been as an independent
    state, and the majority of Bosnia's population do NOT want it to 
    become one.  It is time for the West to realize that the political 
    map of Europe has no room for the Bosnian Humpty-Dumpty.
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
Date: 11 Jan 1993 19:57:16 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <90197@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>  
mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
> In <1is1f4INNkgg@transfer.stratus.com>  
jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes:
> 
> |In article <1993Jan11.092637.7245@microsoft.com>  
leecr@microsoft.com  
> |(Lee Crocker) writes:
> |> Food, shelter, medicine, all the basic necessities of life are  
the
> |> products of work.  There is no evidenc that private charities  
can't
> |> take care of those unable to work--indeed there is ample  
evidence  
> |that
> |> they do so much better than governments do.  
> 
> |A number of libertarian posters keep saying this.  Can somebody
> |provide some of this "ample evidence."  
> 
> All of history for a start.

Which part of "all of history" are you talking about?  This
seems to me like hand waving and ignoring the facts.

--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (Smokers are productive, but death cuts efficiency)
Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
Summary: Encore!  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 12 Jan 93 22:04:39 GMT

In article <bob1.726871313@cos>, bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)               
>By now it should be reasonably obvious that by-the-book socialism
>does not work. However, any reasonable consideration of the tenets
>of Libertarianism would show that it too will fall flat on its
>collective, or individualist, ass.
> 
>Both are based on a popular fallacy, that is that people are, when
>left to their own devices, intrinsicly honest and fair. Would that
>it were so. Socialism failed because they did not realize that you
>cannot pass laws that will make everyone love each other. Libertarians
>appear to think (from what I've read here) that you don't need to
>pass laws that prevent everyone from screwing each other. Maybe the
>truth lies somewhere in between?

Encore! Encore! 

>REB
> 

-Garrett
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
From: markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:14:36 GMT

In <1993Jan8.174335.28627@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:

>In article <markp.726164495@dragonfly.wri.com>, 
>markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) said:

>> > > What was novel about it was the placement of the burden of proof
>> > > on the prosecution to show that the testimony wasn't tainted,
>> > > rather than the defense having to show that the testimony was.
>> > > [Mike Godwin]
>> >
>> > Just so. By requiring the prosecution to "prove a negative," the
>> > appellate court guaranteed that there would be no new trial.
>> > [David Marc Nieporent]
>>
>> Quit snivelling, boys! The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the
>> prosecution -- entirely in keeping with the principle, "Innocent til
>> proven guilty."

>saying that the prosecution has the burden of proof on every
>element of the crime is not the same thing as saying that the
>prosecution bears the burden of proof on every item that's in
>controversy during the trial.  

>And depending upon the exact situation and the relevant Rules of
>Procedure, Rules of Evidence, etc. in that jurisdiction, the
>_magnitude_ of any particular burden of proof could be anywhere from
>merely making a simple allegation (which the other side would then
>have the burden of countering) to the infamous Beyond a Reasonable
>Doubt standard.

Granted, my "ALWAYS" was overstated. But nothing W. Starr says actively
supports the original snivelling.
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: national debt? why?
Date: 11 Jan 93 00:45:18 GMT
Distribution: talk
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <1iq47oINN94i@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
>In article <1993Jan10.1778.29517@channel1>, "john lovett" <john.lovett@channel1.com> writes:
>|> This suggestion may be a little simplistic, but perhaps someone could
>|> flesh it out.
>|> 
>|> We have a large national debt, but since we owe it to ourselves, why not
>|> declare that we forgive ourselves the debt, and forget about it?
>
>Because we DON'T owe all of it to ourselves, for one. Foreign countries own
>about 18% of the debt. 

Also, wouldn't this involve declaring all US Savings Bonds worthless?
Probably wouldn't go down too well with the people who hold them.

Paul
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Bush really IS a wimp
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:02:27 GMT

>marc.colten) writes:
>|> Mark Pundurs) writes:
>|> > N.B. Hedd) writes:
>|> > 
>|> > >If Weinberger and
>|> > >Bush are really innocent, then they have nothing to fear from a jury of
>|> > >12 good men and women--the truth will out. Or is that what the little
>|> > >sh*t was afraid of?
>|> > 
>|> > I think he wished to avoid (though not "afraid of") years and megabucks 
>|> > wasted fighting a witchhunt, while the media and other leftists dragged 
>|> > his name through the mud, with the best possible conclusion being "not
>|> > proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." I think he did the best thing 
>|> > for himself, his fellow patriots --and the country.
>|> > 
>|> 
>|> Please!  Turn it around and let a Democratic president decide,
>|> for the judge, the jury and the country that a trial was a 
>|> witchhunt and let the person go, and see the Republican's howl.
>|>

If a Democratic president bilked the Iranians to aid anti-Communist 
freedom fighters, this Republican would be on his side.

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.culture.usenet,comp.misc,news.misc,alt.amateur-comp
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
Organization: LLNL
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:45:52 GMT

In article <90191@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <1993Jan11.065529.27080@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>
>[A couple of silly examples deleted]
>
: 	These examples can readily be multiplied; I have to question
: the seriousness of anyone who claims it's simple to start a business,
: especially a big one.
>
>If you think that the only possible employers are big companies, I think I
>understand why you don't like libertarianism.
>
>Try these examples on for size.
>
>Put a sign in your front yard saying that you will take care of kids during
>the day, or night if that is your preference.
>
>Buy a few skeins of wool and knit some sweaters.
>
>Buy a paint brush and paint houses.
>
>I could go on, ... and on.

	These are only _small_ businesses.

	What about big ones? Some businesses *have* to be big. Try
running an airline all by yourself.

: >	The only situation under which your scenario could be achieved is by 
: >force. Like some government making a law that says you may only work for 
: >that employer and cannot form any business of your own.

: 	Or when other companies lock you out, for example.

>How pray tell are they going to do this.

	If the other companies are sufficiently criminal.
-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:67248 soc.culture.canada:9934