HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rdippold@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: More Rumors About Clinton and Brown
Date: 9 Apr 92 23:15:05 GMT
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

Two rumors that showed up on the news on a local station.

A Chicago station ran a poll on Clinton vs. John Gotti for president.
Gotti got over 80% of the vote.  This was presented as a fact, not a
rumor.  (Too bad they didn't run one on Bush).  Anyone have the exact
figures, and if there were any comments on why they voted for Gotti
over Clinton?

And another one, on Brown, but this has a lot of qualifications.
Apparently, Brown has some explaining to do about huge cocaine and pot
parties he used to throw while in California.  They said they couldn't
verify whether or not Brown personally used them.  However, this is
going to be a bit harder to explain than "I smoked a joint once but
didn't inhale," and cocaine is a bit less acceptable than pot.
-- 
It's six o'clock and time for the penguin on top of your terminal to explode.
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Ross Perot
Keywords: pragmatic election strategy
Date: 8 Apr 92 09:49:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: cancun.rdippold.702726595
Distribution: usa
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

philip@reed.edu (Philip Moore) writes:
>Perot has the necessary and sufficient funding to win the presidency.  
>Marrou doesn't. (Period)

Right.


>Perot doesn't have a national well organized political party to help get
>him elected, or candidates running for Congressional seats to help effect
>necessary changes in the government once he is elected.
>Marrou does.

Okay.


>A pragmatic allegiance (called a coalition in parliamentary governments) is
>the ONLY WAY to dislodge the Republicrats.  

>Anectdotal stories about Perot's off the cuff comments regarding violent
>neighborhoods may make your libertarian ideologies flare into full flame,
>but are you willing to sacrifice any hope of ever really making a difference
>by directing your rhetorical skills against a fellow challenger of the
>status quo?

See, the trouble is we don't like where he'd take the status quo.
He's not for making government less powerful and intrusive, he's just
more making it more efficient.  If all Libertarians cared about was
winning elections, they'd have allied with one of the major parties
long ago, most likely the Republicans (because social policies vary
within parties more than fiscal policies).

It would also seriously damage the LP credibility.  You may not agree
with the LP platform, but you can believe that when a Libertarian
candidate says that he/she is for downsizing government, cutting
spending, lowering taxation, and fighting for individual freedoms that
he/she actually means it.  For it to get involved so closely with such
an anti-libertarian like Perot would be the end.
-- 
Chemistry professors never die, they just smell that way
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: Ozone problem burns Politically Correct
Organization: Small Business Systems, Incorporated, Esmond, RI  02917
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 21:45:07 GMT

john@anasaz (John Moore) writes:

>Guess what, wise guy, it IS over the northern hemisphere also. Before you
>react in such a knee-jerk manner, why don't you learn something about the
>issue?

Considering that "they" have been "measuring" ozone levels for "40 years",
don't you find it strange that this "huge hole" suddenly appeared over
the Northern Hemisphere?

Can you say "research funds"? Good, I knew you could.

>Just because "they" were wrong about the new ice age coming, and the
>evidence for global warming is weak, does not mean that "they" are wrong
>about the Ozone hole.

Just because there is a finite possibility for me getting struck by a bus as I 
cross the street means that I should never leave my house?

> The problem with any politicized issue is that, for the non-specialist,
> it becomes difficult to find out the scientific evidence separated from
> political weighting. Thus, my natural tendency is to be skeptical of
> environmental scares. These are the folks who are more scared of nuclear
> power than they are of coal power, after all!

Yes, I've always found the "No Blood For Oil" folks particularly amusing,
especially when you ask them if they would object to a nuclear power plant
being built to replace that oil-fired electric generating station.

>However, sometimes the reality happens to come down on their side, and
>the ozone hole is one.

That's debatable. Sure, there has been some measured decrease in
atmospheric ozone isolated to particular regions of the world, but
there is no evidence to prove that such depletions are man-induced.

>Global warming is, to some extent, another in
>that it is likely that some warming will occur as a result of man's
>activity.

Yeah, until you ask a global-warming advocate why the frost line in the
United States has been moving progressively south.

MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /   I'm not a bigot,
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /    I hate everyone.
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              / 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:16945 ca.politics:3306 ba.politics:2567 alt.politics.homosexuality:1729
From: dfpedro@nv2.uswnvg.com (Donn F. Pedro)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Summary: Plenty of 'em.
Date: 6 Apr 92 15:10:09 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: US West NewVector, Bellevue, WA


soc.motss taken out of Newsgroups line. You aren't welcome there.

In article <VDw5HB3w164w@Nitro.CtEdge.COM> djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM writes:
>
>Sheesh... Given enough information (or enough bullshit) one can
>rationalize or explain away anything....

[ Refrain of "Onward Christian Soldires" as djk takes up the Flag of Cramer
and marches off into the sunset to do just that. ]

>-djk


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael Thomas)
Subject: Re: Libertarians (lost the original subject) (LONG)
Reply-To: mike@gordian.com (Michael Thomas)
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 17:38:07 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.071121.555@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
|> And how did you *gain* your property originally, if it wasn't through
|> the initiation of force?  Yes, you might have inherited it, or bought
|> it, but how did the original owner get it without initiating force?

   Huh?? By definition an "unowned" piece of property could not be taken
by force. Just whom would you be forcing? If you were forcing somebody
that would imply that there was a question of ownership - no?
   Perhaps you are confusing, say, the original ownership of America where
the indians had claim to land which the settlers abrogated? It certainly
doesn't alter the fact that they had a legitimate claim and they were
forced to give it up. Wrong is wrong.

|> You can accept the idea that people have the right to the results of their
|> labor without accepting property rights.  They aren't the same thing.
|> This is a (the?) fundamental problem with libertarianism.

   How do they fundamentally differ? How could we "have" the results of our
labor without owning it? This seems to be a fundamental problem, but not
with libertarianism ;-) 
   Perhaps you are thinking of the contorted fascist form of governments
concept of property where people can have the fruits of their labor so
long as the government doesn't lay claim on it ever? This certainly isn't
ownership, or "having" it either. At best you might consider it to be an
infinitely retractable loan.
-- 
		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,rec.sport.hockey
From: m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier)
Subject: Re: Greedy Athletes
Reply-To: m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier)
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, N.H.
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 03:29:11 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.224241.27510@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.133957.1036@oz.plymouth.edu> m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier) writes:
>>I'm sorry.  I have no sympathy for athletes making hundreds of
>>thousands or even millions of dollars a year.  
>
>Why athletes?  They do more to earn their money than CEO's.  Since
>when were you upset by the free market?

I'm not upset by it.  But I don't have to have sympathy for them.
>
>>Unfortunately, many of
>>the fiscal woes of the NHL are due to the mismanagement of John
>>Ziegler.  Because of this, there is no major network contract in the
>>United States and only six teams routinely make a profit.  
>
>There's no major network contract in the US because well over half
>the country doesn't care about a Canadian three-game-in-one (cf.
>George Carlin).  As for "only six teams routinely mak[ing] a profit,"
>how do you know this?  Have you seen the books, or are you just
>eating up the self-serving owners talk hook, line, and sinker?

The fiscal woes of the NHL are well reported and documanted, and much
of this is due to poor marketing and the lack of a major network
contract.  Without this huge source of money coming in every year, is
it any wonder that the NHL is not as fiscally strong as the NBA, NFL
or MLB?
>-- 
>Ted Frank          + "A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged, it
>1307 E 60 St, #109 +  is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in
>U o' C Law Skool   +  color and content according to the circumstances and
>Chi, IL 60637      +  the time in which it is used."  --  Holmes


-- 
 Michael Le Houllier           *  John 3:16  * Nov 12, 1991 - Dili      
 (m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu.us) *  Remember: June 4, 1989 - Beijing
 Go BLUE JAYS   1-0   at Tigers Monday (4-2), Wednesday and Thursday
 End the strike.  Get back on the ice.  Get the playoffs going.
From: B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (Stephen Tice)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: US Election Results (New Regional Ministers)
Date: 13 Apr 92 23:05:00 GMT

rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold, 13 Apr) writes:
|demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
|>In article <01GIP4QR5700000B19@utarlg.uta.edu>, 
|>B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (Stephen Tice) writes:
|>> 
|>>        ===   Election Results for New Regional Ministers   ===
|>> 
|>>                Great
|>>                Lakes          
|>>                -----------    
|>>                Pat            
|>>                Schroeder      
| 
|>	Ack!  Never!
| 
|We have to let her, or she'll cry.

Hey Stupendous, Ya blew -- should've put in a write-in. Daly Jr. mebe?

Ron, It could be worse, Tammy Faye just moved into town down here. :'(

thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank, 13 Apr) questions as usual:
}Really, how'd she get over into this neck of the woods?  I thought she
}was from Colorado.  

I'll probably regret this Ted...

Let's say it's a back-room deal.   J. Ross Ewing won SouthWestern
Regional Minister by funding his own campaign -- but still had to 
get Schroeder out of the way, so he bought off the Chicago Machine
and then funded her campaign up there. ;^) 

(SouthWestern then includes: Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Texas.)

Better Question: How'd Kirkpatrick get the Central Region? 

                  |
-- Stephen     -- S --  
                  |
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17212 ca.politics:3349 ba.politics:2594 alt.politics.homosexuality:1817 soc.motss:19486
From: fierro@uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Date: 7 Apr 92 22:23:40 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <4ZHViB1w164w@Nitro.CtEdge.COM> djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM writes:
>
>> And there's nothing you can do about it.  Neener neener.
>> 
>
>Sure there is. Plant a flower for each hunted looking little
>child I see being drug around like a prize puppy dog by some
>swaggering snorting 'queer lady'.
>
>To inflict that life on someone who has no choice is a crime
>against humanity.
>
>-djk

  Well, according to that philosophy, religion is a crime against humanity;
it is 'inflicting' a lifestype upone someone who has no choice.

   Doug
-- 
                                                     Doug Fierro
                                      |\             UTS System Software
  O                         __________|_\______      CASE tools development
  \_.______________________| * * * * * * * * */      fierro@uts.amdahl.com
 __\____                   |=================/       (408)746-7102
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: alberti@ux.acs.umn.edu (Timothy Fay)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "Spat Upon?" (Was: "A disappointment to all military people"?)
Date: 17 Apr 92 08:20:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: ux.alberti.703498806
Organization: Revolutionary Anarchist Bowling League

In <23274@goofy.Apple.COM> casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes:

>...there was our own beloved government, especially the military itself and 
>the V.A., which fucked the veterans every way they could invent.  Where are 
>the right-wing critics of these abuses?

They were busy blaming those same soldiers for "losing" Vietnam (you could
say it was the Right-wing's way of "spitting" on them).

-- 
		Reply to:  avatar@pnet51.orb.mn.org
 "Bowl a strike, not a spare; Revolution everywhere!"  -RABL credo
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Subject: Re: Who is H. Ross Perot? - The Perot Amendment
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 16:31:58 GMT

In article <sg74kINN6h5@cutlass.ksu.ksu.edu> strat@cutlass.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes:
>guy@coos.dartmouth.edu (Guy Schiavone) writes:
>
>
>>Here is an example of a Perot "position", as related second-hand
>>by a Perot supporter:
>
>[Paul Mahler's paraphrasing of Perot's Pilot Program idea deleted]
>
>> This isn't a position, it's a placebo.
>
>Wrong.  A placebo doesn't do anything except give the patient
>confidence that the treatment will work.  Setting up pilot programs
>not only gathers more data, but also encourages development in the
>field.
>
>>  The problem has already been
>> extensively studied for decades.
>
>And unless something is DONE, physically, this problem will continue
>to be "studied" for decades.  
>
>>  We already have full-scale working
>> systems in Canada and all across Europe, so why do we need "four pilot
>> programs"?
>

	The same reason Ford already makes card, but when a new car, is going
to built, they run it through a "Pilot" line, to work out all the bugs.
The fact that almost all industrialized countries have full-scale working
sytems already doen't mean that taking one and implementing it on 250
million people is going to be a snap. It would be more efficient to work
on a plan that covers only, say, Provo, Utah, and get the paperwork and
procedures all worked out before implementing it on everyobody.

That's the difference between a pilot program and  studying what others
have done.
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Dumb, Sheltered College Puke( wasRe: Perot hang'in from a willow tree)
Keywords: WRONG NEWS GROUPS....
Date: 6 Apr 92 20:16:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: drutx.15125
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Apr6.133108@soil.gsfc.nasa.gov>, dave@soil.gsfc.nasa.gov (David Graham) writes:
} In article <Apr.6.10.47.54.1992.6323@gandalf.rutgers.edu>,
} shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
} |> ...The crime that
} the
} |> illegality of drugs creates is not the crime of taking drugs, it is
} the
} |> whole underground crime world that is created in order to fill the 
} |> demand for the illegal drugs.  Legalizing recreational drugs would
} |> do away with the organized crime that makes is living off the sale
} |> of these drugs.  
} 
} One thing that is overlooked here is crime created from dependancy.
} As the life of the drug addicted degrades ( no longer can hold job )
} often times these people turn to crime to support their addiction.
} You may do away with some levels of organized crime, but I still
} believe
} crime would still be a major problem within our inner-cities.

While I don't think crime in the inner-cities will disappear, I also
don't think it would be any worse than it already is.  We already have
two addictive drugs that are sold legally -- nicotine and alcohol.  Yet
I do not see people turning to crime to obtain a carton of cigaretts or
a six-pack of beer.
--
David Olson ...!att!druwa!dlo
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they
can bribe the people with their own money."  Alexis de Tocqueville
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: LP, GATT, and Beer (Was: Ross Perot)
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 20:24:27 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.172043.23435@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>,
gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>Would I be correct in implying that a Libertarian U.S. federal gov't
>would not care about working in concert with other nations to bring
>down trade barriers on a global scale, as epitomized by GATT?  What
>would happen to American export industries, then, in that case?  I'm
>just curious, that's all.  The last couple of follow-ups imply that
>party Libertarians do not concern themselves with happenings outside
>of U.S. borders ...

If we are willing to unilaterally lower our own trade barriers in
what sense would we need to work with other nations to generally
lower barriers.  We would most certainly encourage them to do so,
but but unilaterally removing out own barriers we would be
disengaging ourselves from the international version of tit-for-tat
that has been going under the handle "fair trade".

It is not the job of the U.S. government to protect the profits of
U.S. export enterprises.  The only job of the U.S. government is
to protect the rights of American citizens on American soil.  If the
people of France are deprived because their own country restricts
their access to American products it is up to them to call upon
their government to cease such activity.

>Gary L. Dare

/June
From: dsm@prism.gatech.EDU (Danny McGurl)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Libertarians (lost the original subject) (LONG)
Date: 9 Apr 92 23:02:15 GMT
Organization: Revelstone High Command

In article niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

[Lots of stuff deleted]

:And how did you *gain* your property originally, if it wasn't through
:the initiation of force?  Yes, you might have inherited it, or bought
:it, but how did the original owner get it without initiating force?

You sit on it and say "this is mine".  Ever hear of the homestead act?


-- 
Danny McGurl                        "No, no Pixel!  Beer is not for baby cats."
Office of Information Technology        --Richard Ames,
dsm@prism.gatech.edu 		        __The Cat Who Walks Through Walls__
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: Social Security Debate (was Sold Down the River...)
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 16:28:07 EDT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu
Keywords: deficit

In article <Apr.17.13.03.45.1992.15665@math.rutgers.edu>, cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:
|> cf@blackjack.dt.navy.mil (CF Snyder) writes:
|> 
|> [followups to talk.politics.misc]
|> 
|> > I think your comment
|> > about people over 65 wanting to ride free on the younger
|> > generations is a little over stated.  
|> 
|> The real question is why wealthy people over 65 feel that they have
|> the right to a welfare check which comes from the most regressive tax
|> in our system.  I don't begrudge support to poor elderly folks, but it
|> really grates on me that my tax dollars go to pay welfare to someone
|> who needs the money less than I do.
|> 

People over 65 were forced to buy into a system that was supposed
to give them retirement income.  To them, it's not a welfare check,
it's the proper payment that they are due.  I don't have a problem
with this.  What I have a problem with, is the perpetuation of
the situation.  The government should announce that it is phasing
out SS to be replaced with required personal pension plans.  People
nearing retirement age would be entitled to a certain amount of
SS payments.  The further away from retirement you are, the less
you get.  New monies would go into your own pension plan that will
only benefit you and your heirs.  The government doesn't get one
cent of it.  The welfare components of the current SS system would
get shifted to the general fund where they belong (and hopefully
eliminated).  It's not a perfect solution but it's better than
continuing down the dead-end road were headed currently.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:16960 misc.headlines:3187
From: bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Brown crushes Clinton; Bush camp in disarray
Date: 6 Apr 92 18:18:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.rq4lcINN3de
Organization: None of the Above
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfa.berkeley.edu

In article <167C0ABB0.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
>Where do you get the idea that Clinton is the party favorite?  He is
>not a part of the party establishment.  The insiders wanted Kerrey
>to be the nominee, or Gephart(sp?).

Balderdash!  Please attempt to substantiate this statement.

------------------
    --Brad Sherman (bks@alfa.berkeley.edu)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17260 talk.politics.guns:11348
From: IO80914@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Candidus Lite)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: right to [keep and] bear arms
Date: 8 Apr 92 01:06:45 GMT
Organization: University of Maine System

> cl231519@ulkyvx.louisville.edu

>A note about the constitution and the right to bear arms:
                                               /\
Folks, have you ever noticed how anti-gun rights people almost always
leave the "keep" out of "the right to keep and bear arms"?

[Wanting to generate discussion, I'll leave myself open to the obvious
counter-quip.]

>1) it guarantees your right to own a musket.  (that's all the firearms
>they had back then)

I take it, therefore, that your freedom of speech only extends as far as
your lungs can carry it, or that the freedom of the press doesn't apply
to photocopiers or laser printers (is anything printed on manually-
operated presses these days?), or that the Mormons don't enjoy freedom
of religion because they weren't around when the Bill of Rights was
penned.

If you are correct, why didn't the Founders specify that "the right to
keep and bear muskets shall not be infringed" instead of using the
generic term, "arms?"

BTW - You're also wrong about muskets being "all the firearms they had
back then."

>2) it's purpose, according to our founding fathers notes, was to
>insure that we could protect ourselves from an invading force or
>from a military coup.

How did they expect us to oppose an invasion with muskets? We should
at least be able to also keep and bear cannon.

}>:-)> --->
Malcolm Fuller                     E-mail: io80914@maine.bitnet
Surveying Engineering Department
University of Maine

     "Live Free or Die; Death is not the worst of evils."
                                    - General John Stark (1809)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,misc.taxes,alt.society.civil-liberty