HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: It's only the difference between internal and external, after all
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 18 Aug 92 12:28:23 EST
 <1992Aug17.142234.22584@dscomsf.desy.de> <1992Aug17.161918.3539@desire.wright.edu> <1992Aug18.085329.29740@dscomsf.desy.de>
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Aug18.085329.29740@dscomsf.desy.de>, hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
> 
> |>In article <1992Aug17.142234.22584@dscomsf.desy.de>, hallam@zeus02.desy.de
> |>(Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:
> |>> In article <1992Aug12.153110.3400@desire.wright.edu>,
> |>> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> |>> 
> |>> |>Subject: It's only the difference between internal and external, after
> |>all
> |>> 
> |>> |>    "Saddam's record was already so sordid that the conquest of Kuwait
> |>> |>    added little to it, ..." --The Noamster
> |>> 
> |>> 
> |>> Brett's ignorance of the middle east is obviously so vast that he has
> |>
> |>	(I guess this means the truce is over :)
> |>
> |>> not heard of the Iran/Iraq war. This was a far greater crime committed
> |>> by Saddam than the invasion of Kewait, the number of lives lost was far
> |>> greater and the destruction far worse.
> |>
> |>	But started during Carter's term, not Bush's.  In fact it ended before
> |>Bush became president.  So just a weee bit irrelevant when you are trying to
> |>slam Mr. Bush.
> |>	(After all there are so many other things you can do that on, why
> |>weaken your position with irrelevancies?)
> 
> Brett, perhaps you could shouw just where I mentioned Bush in my post?

	Red Herring/strawman.  I never said you did.

	However, the Noamster was trying to show how Bush let Saddam get away
with things.  Bush wasn't in a position to do anything about the Iran-Iraq war.

> Also Brett is rather off in the dates for the Iran/Iraq war. Most of it happened
> during the movie actor's term, the one who makes Dan Quayle look like Einstein.

	It started in 1980, during Carter's term.  It ended in 1987, during
Reagan's term.  Perhaps you have redefined the word "off".

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41245 talk.politics.theory:3788 alt.politics.elections:11269 alt.politics.marrou:867 alt.politics.bush:2494
From: ednschmi@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (John Schmidt)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: US Public Schools: Get Rid of All the Bureaucrats!
Date: 22 Aug 92 10:56:49 GMT
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia

steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (jason "Think!" steiner) writes:

>mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>> joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>> |> >lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>> |> >
>> |> >	My solution to the US public schools' problems:
>> |> >
>> |> >	Get rid of all the bureaucrats!
>> |> 
>> |> I agree 100%
>> |> 
>> |> US Public schools have FAR more administrators than
>> |> private/independent schools. But US public schools do a much
>> |> worse job of educating America's kids.
>> |> 
>> |> We outspend the Japanese by 2-to-1 on money spent per student,
>> |> yet their students are far more educated than ours.
>> |> 

I wonder if Japanese children really are more educated than American
children.  They may be able to do some things (like pass rigidly codified
exams) better but that is not being better educated.

>> |> On an international basis, we rank last among 13 nations in
>> |> math/science.
>> |> 
>> |> Its time do do something - I support school choice.
>> |> 
>> Interesting.  The Japanese don't agree with you.

>the type of school system has nothing to do with it. overall
>(i know there are exceptions, i am one) students do well
>because of parental involvement. our students would be best
>in the world too if parents spent hours learning the lessons and
>doing the homework alongside the children.

>public schools here have brushed parents off. in some areas it's
>even outright antagonism. it gets worse when issues of religion
>and "indoctrination" are considered.

>parents who care enough to send their kids private schools are just
>more involved. IMHO, a voucher system would be a great way to
>empower parents & get them back into the system. public schools
>now have no real incentive to change except for some decree from
>Washington. maybe some competition can change that.

>jason

The trouble with a voucher system is that it creates even more opportunities
for marketing than it does for education.  Consider the proposition:
Marketing is basically lying.
Education is fundamentally about NOT lying. (Of course educators - like
everyone else - DO LIE, but that is not the point.)  Marketers who have a
vested interest in lying will distort the educational landscape even more
than it is already.

John Schmidt
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40620 alt.individualism:5275
From: thong@husc10.harvard.edu (Theodore Hong)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Private Discrimination (was: Libertarians and big tits)
Date: 19 Aug 92 19:04:12 GMT
 <1992Aug3.221341.12332@leland.Stanford.EDU> <l7repcINNep6@spim.mips.com>   
 <archer.276@utkux1.utk.edu> <l7u1amINN9qp@spim.mips.com> <archer.289@utkux1.utk.edu> <1992Aug14.145456.13047@cos.com>
Distribution: na

[Indents were piling up too much]

[Michael Polen writes:]
>>>No, but what would you do if you were the one that was not allowed to
>>>get an education or take a job that could feed your family.  Or if
>>>you could not advance in your company because your last name starts
>>>with an "E?"

[T. Archer writes:]
>> Then I wouldn't want to work there.  I have refused to work at more than one 
>> place because they insist on drug testing, and I will not put up with that 
>> kind of invasion of my privacy.
>> 

[Michael Polen writes:]
>>>What will you do when all the companies you
>>>would like to work for require a drug test?  Give up drugs or eating?

[T. Archer writes:]
>>Start my own company.  

Hm... this seems to be a fairly stock Libertarian answer.  What about a 
variant?

You live in a small rural town that has two grocery stores.  Both store 
owners decide that they don't want to sell to people whose last name 
begins with an "E"; the rest of the population doesn't care (no one else's 
name begins with "E").  What do you do?

If you try to start your own grocery store, startup costs are high, and
the market probably won't support a third grocery store.  You don't have
a significant competitive advantage over the other two because your only
added customer is yourself (the locals aren't bigoted, but aren't activist
enough to boycott/whatever either).

So what's the "correct" answer in this case?

Theo Hong
thong@husc.harvard.edu 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39882 ca.politics:6809
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: More Evidence of How Homosexuals Are "Oppressed" In America
Date: 14 Aug 92 21:54:11 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Aug13.200116.23229@gordian.com>, mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
> In article <193246@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov>, pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew) writes:
> > In article <ohbj36c@fido.asd.sgi.com>, dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
# # # The child resorts to his final tactic, when losing an argument.  "You are
# # # lying" screams the child as he stamps his feet.
# # 
# # God, I hope that's his final tactic.  I'm very much afraid, though, that
# # Clayton is not through spewing hatred and lies onto the net.
# 
#   Actually, my theory is that Clayton is in a manic phase right now,
# which is waning into a depressive stage. Haven't you noticed that
# he comes on really strong on the beginning of a rampage and becomes
# more and more irrational until he disappears for a while? It's all
# suspiciously cyclical.
#   Hmmm.
# -- 
# 
# 		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)

Manic-depressive?  No, the garbage collector is just trying to
get some heap back. :-)

There are particular postings that enrage me.  Postings that 
justify using children as sexual partners are in that category.

I keep getting told that soc.motss isn't typical of the homosexual
community.  Then I get told the gay parades aren't typical of the
homosexual community.  But then I get told that soc.motss isn't
so bad after all, and that the gay parades are just the diversity
of the gay community.

I suggest that "normal" homosexuals -- the ones that don't
have their entire lives tied up in constantly changing sexual
partners and chasing children for sex -- either take an aggressive 
position of showing that homosexuals aren't the groups that engage
in the scary and absurd behavior, or ask the weirdos to stop
screeching, "We're the gay community."
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
I can make myself popular on USENET again -- all I have to say is that I'm not 
disturbed by the support for North American Man-Boy Love Association in the 
homosexual community.  Being popular at a child's expense isn't worth it.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Abstinence is the only answer
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 03:04:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug20.230945.1622@nevada.edu>  tierney@nevada.edu (TIM TIERNEY) writes:
>
>    No.  Sex is fine between consenting adults,

Sometimes, *damn* fine!  :-)

>    but it should be *responsible*
>    sex where measures are taken by the man or the woman, or preferably
>    both to prevent an unwanted pregnancy.

No argument here.

>    Something like 90% (can't remember the exact figure)
>    of aborted pregnancies are the result of "unprotected" sex.

Do you remember where you heard this?  The figures I have (1988) are that 90%
of the women at risk for unintended pregnancy use some form of contraception.
Only 9% of women having abortions have never used a birth control method;
nonuse is greatest among those who are young, unmarried, poor, Black,
Hispanic or less educated.

Half of all abortion patients in 1987 were practicing contraception in the
month during which they conceived, and a substantial proportion of those
who were not doing so had stopped using a method only a few months before
becoming pregnant.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39809 ca.politics:6788
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: More Evidence of How Homosexuals Are "Oppressed" In America
Date: 13 Aug 92 18:52:34 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Aug12.154103.15415@udel.edu>, carroll@hercules.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll) writes:
> In article <11690@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <93268@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
> >> In article <11652@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# ## #The argument advanced for antidiscrimination laws to protect homosexuals
# ## #is that they can't get decent jobs because of prejudice by employers.
# ## #Yet the evidence above suggests that there must be a lot of EXTREMELY
# ## #well-paid gay dishwashers.
# ## 
# ## You're still saying, "shut up, because you make more money than the
# ## rest of us", as if everything would be hunky-dory...
# #
# #No, I'm saying that the case for antidiscrimination laws is made
# #based on supposed large scale discrimination against homosexuals.
# #I would expect to see evidence of this discrimination in lower
# #wages, wouldn't you?
# 
# The point that you are _deliberately_ ignoring is the fact that _only_
# the higher paid, successful homosexuals can afford to come out, and
# admit that they are gay. If you could perform an accurate study, where
# all of the homosexuals who aren't out were counted as homosexuals,
# you'd get very different results.

You are ignoring the possibility the other direction -- that higher
paid, successful homosexuals have a lot more to lose by being out.
I've seen far more "swishy" waiters than "swishy" doctors.  Now,
"swish" isn't necessarily a sign of being out -- but it's hard to
believe that the person engaging in such stereotypical behavior
is going to pretend to be straight.

# || Mark Craig Carroll: <MC#     ||"In all seriousness of truth, hear this:

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
I can make myself popular on USENET again -- all I have to say is that I'm not 
disturbed by the support for North American Man-Boy Love Association in the 
homosexual community.  Being popular at a child's expense isn't worth it.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39368 ca.politics:6736
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: More Evidence of How Homosexuals Are "Oppressed" In America
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:05:09 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <11724@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>... I am tired of homosexuals telling lies, repeatedly.



The child resorts to his final tactic, when losing an argument.  "You are
lying" screams the child as he stamps his feet.



FWA
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39581 talk.abortion:31633 alt.politics.bush:1505
From: tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 14 Aug 92 00:21:13 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana

In article <1992Aug13.224120.4058@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <BsxsG4.MuG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
>>
>>Sorry Adrienne but again this is simple.  If one believes that the fetus
>>is a human being then the issue is clear.  The right to life takes
>>precedence over other rights.  It isn't that the woman does not have
>>rights it is that they are subservient to the right to life of the
>>fetus.  Again this is logical and consistent if you accept the
>>assumption (all arguments are based on assumptions) that the fetus is a
>>human being.
>
>But should a woman give up her life for the fetus's, given your
>assumptions?  After all, it's alive.  Take this to the logical
>extreme.  Given that a woman's rights are "subservient to the right to
>life of the fetus", shouldn't we strap the woman down for the term of
>the pregnancy and anesthetize her, so there would be no danger of the
>fetus coming into contact with hazardous substances or various other
>accidents?  She'll be free to go after giving birth.  After all, the
>woman is the carrying case for the fetus, and no more than that.

Either you haven't read the other posts that clearly restated and
defined the argument or you are being insincere in continuing the
discussion.  

Tim
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 12:26:49 GMT

In article <1684613F53.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (David Veal) writes:
>      We do not elect our representatives to rubber-stamp the will of the
> majority.  We elect them to make their own decisions, which we may then
> review at each election.

Actually, that is a bit of a dilemma, and I don't think you are
strictly correct.  There are two schools of thought on it, but
neither is necessarily preferred, as you suggest.  In fact, the
entire point of a political campaign is not to convince people
that you are the smartest, ablest person for the job, but rather
that you will do what they think is best.  There is a distinct
possibility, which I will not debate, that we do need higher
taxes in this country in order to reduce or eliminate the federal
deficit and manipulate the economy for the ultimate purpose
of expanding that economy (and if the boot-lickers in Wasington
ever really did care about the people we'd see more money going
into alternative energy), but you won't catch too many
politicians saying that because the folks who vote won't stand
for it.  So politicians are generally elected because the people
who vote for them think the politician will vote the way those
people want, and not that they think the politician is so very
bright that he will make the right choices.  Were that the case
we would see fewer lawyers and more academics in politics, if
only because people think lawyers are bright, but doctors are
brighter, if you get my meaning.

I have a good friend who thinks like you, though.  He was going
to vote for Perot.  I asked him what Perot's positions were
and how Perot was planning to get the economy moving.  My
friend's response was that he didn't know, but that Perot was
a self-made billionaire, so he must know how to run the
government like a business.  While I didn't point out to my friend
that businesses don't make laws which apply to everyone in the
nation, or that the Congress is really responsible for how the
money is spent, I did point out that I wouldn't vote for someone
when you have no hint as to what that someone is going to do when
they get all that power in their hands.

Anyway, that's a lot of words to say I don't agree.

Dean Kaflowitz

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revoltion, part I: Reverse Reaganism
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 22:07:12 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <MATT.92Aug21120132@physics2.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>In article <BtC5FF.GE8@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>>   Dammit, Anders, why'd you have to spill the beans?   Don't you know
>>   there are people on Usenet who actually believe that economics is
>>   more than just rain dances and witch doctors?
>
>In fact, I am one of them.  However, I also belive that economics is
>not free of ideology: economists have a position (whether implicit or
>explicit) about what an economy should be like, and about what
>questions are important.

>  We really ought to bear in mind, though, that what they
>say is always filtered through their own political positions, and we
>should insist that those political positions be stated openly, instead
>of hidden.

  For me the political biases of economists are really not that interesting,
  any more, that say the biases of physicists or chemists.  The bottom line 
  is whether their modesl accurately track the real world.  This is the ONLY
  measure of an economic theory as far as I'm concerned.  

  Economics, for our purposes here, is only of interest is it has *predictive
  value*.  If we can't use it to project tax revenues, project the effects of
  monetary policy, predict the impact on employment (#, types, and distri-
  bution of jobs), and so forth, in other words to help us MAKE DECISIONS
  in the political realm, then it has no real political significance.
  So I don't care what the political biases of an economist are; I only 
  care if his models work.   And I don't know any which consistently do.


---peter



Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39242 ca.politics:6698 ba.politics:4441
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Levi Strauss & The Boy Scouts
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:11:23 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <Bstn0D.6v5@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
> In article <1992Aug10.201246.2874@BofA.com> dan@BofA.com (Dan Brockman) writes:
# #|# Because subscribers to the Judeo-Christian ethic are about 80%
# #|# of the population, and homosexuals are at MOST 3-6%?
# #
# #Methinks you overestimated the number of Judeo-Christians.
# #Who do you include in the count?
# 
#   Methinks the original poster also fails to appreciate how
#   amorphous a concept "Judeo-Christian" is.   If he thinks
#   being gay and subscribing to Judeo-Christian culture are 
#   mutually exclusive then he hasn't studied fuzzy set theory.
# 
# ---peter

There are people who purport to follow Judaism or Christianity,
yet are homosexual.  Not many, though.  In any case, both
Judaism and Christianity have pretty clear prohibitions on
homosexuality.  To say that you subscribe to either religion,
while engaging in homosexuality, is rather like claiming to be
a Marxist, while capitalizing a company.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
When the government wins the War on Drugs, they are welcome to try their
gun control snake oil.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals are like the rest of us, right?
Organization: FERMILAB
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:48:09 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <11669@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cr*m*r) rants:
> Ah yes, ordinary people like you and I, seeking long-term loving, emotional 
> relationships. :-)
> 
> There's more to life than 18 hours a day satisfying your genitals.

Mr. Cr*m*r has clearly never read heterosexual singles ads... not surprising as
that would require reading.
-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
TEAM STAR Charter Member             | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40316 misc.legal:16098
From: ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Speaking of the death penalty...
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 22:00:55 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

The various death penalty debates that surface from time to time on Usenet
usually end up involving an argument over the value or lack thereof of the
death penalty as a deterrent.

One thing I've never seen discussed is its value as persuasion.  For example,
if you have a group of people commit a crime, the threat of the death penalty
can be powerful persuasion to convince one of them to testify against the
others.

Based on cases in "True Detective" and "Master Detective" and "Front Page
Detective" (look, I was out of town for a couple of weeks, and was willing
to read _anything_!), it seems that even though the death penalty in the
abstract might be useless against a criminal before the crime, once that
criminal is caught and is facing a concrete example of it, it is quite
persuasive.

Does anyone have information on how useful the death penalty is as a
bargaining tool for prosecutors?

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush