HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Distribution: inet
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:55:36 GMT

In article <1icddbINNvp@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>>In article <1iab94INNsdv@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike 
Huben) writes:>>>My parents were impoverished immigrants.  They, my sisters, 
and I could>>>never have afforded our educations which propelled us into the 
middle class>>>without substantial government loans and subsidies.  I defy 
you to point to>>>a nation that creates and perpetuates a large middle class 
without such>>>subsidies.
>>
>>So let me see if I understand this. Premise 1: Your parents were poor.
>>Premise 2: You needed an education to suceed. Conclusion: Joe Richguy
>>down the street should be compelled, at gunpoint, to pay for that
>>education. Maybe I'm being obtuse, but I'm missing the logical leap
>>there.
>
>Yes, quite obtuse, in addition to misrepresenting my thought.
>
>Nobody is compelling Joe Richguy to do anything: he has chosen to live in the
>USA and abide by our government.  

True enough.

>Nobody is pointing a gun at him and
>commanding him to stay here 

Also true.

>where by mutual agreement we are taxed.

False.  I never agreed to be taxed.  I pay taxes because I am forced to.

>
>Joe Richguy has now benefitted, since I have by now already repaid (through
>taxes on my greater earnings) those subsidies, and can now better share
>supporting the costs of society with him.

Let me get this straight:  he is repaid by the fact that you are now also 
paying into a system you did not agree to?   By your support of the system, 
he gets to keep more of his money that the state was not entitled to 
redistribute in the first place, and this is compensation?

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Sapphire on Libertarianism
Date: 8 Jan 1993 16:10:31 -0600
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: cairo.crhc.uiuc.edu

bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:

| peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy) writes:
| >bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
| >| 	I think it depends on what you consider to be property.  Clearly
| >| the air is public property.  Clearly the radio signal... is public.  Is
| >| the content of the radio signal public though?  I would think not, that is
| >| the whole basis of intelectual property.  Otherwise, would a station lose
| >| all rights to a show just because they broadcast it publically?
| >
| >However, if someone puts something in my property (e.g., she broadcasts
| >a signal into the antenna in my radio receiver), it is mine.  What is
| >broadcast, being intellectual property, is not mine, but the right to
| >receive the broadcast is indeed mine.

| 	Other than the disagreement about whether the air in your house is
| your property or not (which is a pretty unimportant issue) where does your
| position diverge from mine?

From this posting and others, you seem to believe that the signal is
_not_ mine once it is in my antenna.  That is, you don't believe that
it can be read, decrypted, recorded, used as a random number generator
for your computer's Monopoly game, etc.

I believe that once the signal's in your antenna, it's yours.  The
further use and distribution of its contents, however, is subject to
the intellectual property rights of the the contents' producer.

If I have misread your opinion, I apologize.

Mike Peercy
peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Distribution: inet
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:50:22 GMT

In article <1ic9pvINNt8@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>Xref: utkux1.utk.edu comp.org.eff.talk:9286 soc.culture.usa:10664 alt.activism:22117
>>You are trying to make more champaign by pouring it
>>onto the rug and sucking it up rather than drinking it straight from the 
>>bottle.
>
>Please spare us your "reasoning" in metaphors.  They are easily turned:
>better everybody gets a swig than one person is drunk.

That depends on "better."  Who owns the bottle?

[snip]

>Yes, but that large middle class was a product of pre-industrial government
>subsidy: ever hear of the Homestead Act?  

As I recall, the state assumed ownership of the free range and then 
magnanimously gave it to people who could have gone out and homesteaded 
anyway.

>And state agricultural research?  

That can be done cheaper, privately.

>>What I'd like you to find is instances of the head of a government agency
>>declaring his agency to be superfluous and harmful and that it should be 
>>eliminated.  Who knows,  maybe you'll actually find some and convince me that 
>>governments can be trusted to regulate their own growth.
>
>You set a standard for government that private industry won't meet either.
>Let's ask a tobacco company to declare itself to be "superfluous and harmful
>and that it should be eliminated."  Isn't it funny: both know they have
>constituencies.

On the other hand, people voluntarily buy tobacco.  I support Senator 
Proxmyer's dairy subsidies whether I like it or not.

>
>I don't think you'd have to look to far to find departments of government that
>have been abolished or diminished.  Reorganizations are common.

Re-organization is not abolishment.  The federal government has NEVER gotten 
smaller.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: chris@keris.demon.co.uk (Chris Croughton)
Subject: Re: Ayn Rand(What yo gonna do?) 
Distribution: world
Organization: Keristor Systems
X-Mailer: Simple NEWS 1.90 (ka9q DIS 1.19)
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 15:41:38 +0000

In article <MERRITT.93Jan4111036@macro.bu.edu> merritt@macro.bu.edu writes:

>&   Boy, I'm glad that I don't regard Britain as part of Europe <g>...
>
>It is an island that is near the continent, no?

Physically, yes.  However, there are many (certainly a majority of the
people I know - I don't know any 'official' statistics) of Brits that do
not regard ourselves as culturally or socially part of Europe, in spite
of what the politicians try to force on us.

>Many make the argumnet that all wars have been and will be economic
>in nature. I tend to agree. The difference now is that tactics
>include hurling products, not just bombs.

Define economy.  If population pressure and political greed counts as
part of the economy (and they way well - the former certainly does in
my opinion) then you are correct.  And since political power tends to be
power over the economy (trade etc.)...

>Given that, I would prefer to be on the winning side. Although
>when one looks at the "losers" of WWII, you do have to wonder...

Both British ans American attitudes have been in the past to feel guilty
about winning, and immediately pump lots of money and resources into the
'losing' country.  Look at Germany (both WW-I and WW-II) and Japan.
Hence the fictional (but only just) story "The Mouse That Roared"...

>Another term is mixed economy, where both capitalism and socialism
>are put into practice.

Ah, that one I've heard...  Why 'high-bred', though?  Where does that
come from?

***********************************************************************
*  chris@keris.demon.co.uk      *                                     *
*  chriscr@cix.compulink.co.uk  *  FIAWOL (Filking Is A Way Of Life)  *
*  100014.3217@compuserve.com   *                                     *
***********************************************************************
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3387 alt.society.civil-liberty:7345
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: 11 Jan 93 18:29:17 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <bob1.726769032@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:

>>From about 1750 to the early 1900s, the U.S. had an economic boom unprecedented
>>in human history.  There was no charity beyond private charity, little 

>And there were all those nice sweat shops, gouging landlords, child labor,
>hospitals that were more like places to go and die. All the wonders of
>enlightened self-interest. Of course, there was also a civil war where
>the enlightened north objected to slavery in the south, while practising
>economic slavery in the north. Ah yes, the good old days.

I wonder, are you obtuese, or merely stupid.

Sweat shops.  Face it back then all work was tough.
this is because you had to work damn hard in order to produce enough to
eat.  This is caused by a lack of technology, not a lack of benevolent
government.

Gouging landlords.
Evidence please.  Or were you just spitting bile, and forgot when to stop.

Child labor.
Lack of productivity demanded that every household member had to work in
order to eat.  As productivity increased, families were able to afford
to send junior to school.

Bad hospitals.
Given the medical technology of the time, that was about all they could
do.  For god's sake man, during this time they hadn't even figured out
what germs were yet.

Economic slavery.
Requiring that men work in order to be fed.  A condition that can be relieved
through the application of a sufficiently benevolent government.
-- 
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: alt.politics.libertarian
From: bobd@marune.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 13:21:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.005426.11142@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>In article <10JAN199313422045@venus.tamu.edu> gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch) writes:
>>
>>You've heard of the "Civil War",  haven't you?  The citizens of
>>the Confederate States had never consented to be bound by the
>>Constitution in the first place,  their elected state legislators
>>explicitly rejected it,  yet it was forced on them anyway.
>>
>	No they did consent.  They latter breached the contract; or
>alternativly withdrew from it.  In either case their was original consent.
>

*I* will agree that the Constitution *is* a social contract (at least
as long as the *government* also abides by it) . I think
however, that the Southern point of view in the pre-Civil war period was 
that the Consitution which they agreed to was not necessarily a *perpetual* 
contract.  I think they also believed that the government was exceeding the
intent of the original contract and had violated it, thereby
making it null and void. The real issue of the Civil War was
states rights IMHO. 

Today, we see the government increasingly encroaching on the rights 
enumerated by the social contract known as the US Constitution (reference
the "RICO" laws in the WOD for an example). The 2nd, 4th, and 5th
amendments appear to be in serious jeopardy. At what point are the
citizens still bound to the contract if the government continually
violates it (with the consent of the judicial branch)? Just a question 
for thought.  In any case, I see Libertarianism as advocating
the *peaceful* excercise of their voting rights in an
attempt to restore a Constitutionally based government. 
What the heck is wrong with that? Why does having another party scare 
some folks so much? I view at least half the platform of either party 
from the past election as worse than what I've seen of the  
Libertarian platform.  At least much (if not all) of the Libertarian 
platform has a basis in the Constitution. Some of the points in the
major party platforms actually advocate doing mayhem to portions of
the Bill of Rights.

The gyrations the two major parties go through to paint the Libertarians
as "the loonie fringe" is worth noting. Look at the arrangements for
the debates this year. *Do not* include Ross Perot as a counter argument.
He pretty much represents viewpoints which both of the parties embrace
to a large extent and didn't really pose a real *threat* to the current
order of things. Actually, ask yourself *why* was Ross included when 
representatives of the other parties on the ballots in all fifty states 
weren't? If they were laughable, why not have them on to amuse the
voters and point out how really ridiculous they are?

-- 
==========================================================================
              Disclaimer: These are my views, not the U's

        "If it's in the paper it must be true!" --- D. Doright 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.economics
From: mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu (Michael J. Edelman)
Subject: Re: Perot's "United We Stand America" launche
Reply-To: mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu
Organization: Wayne State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:13:26 GMT

It's a measure of both Perot and his fervent followers that he managed to
gain so many adherents based on so little. His own campaign promises were
to raise taxes and "get America going again". Of course, it is also a measure
of the vacuousness of his competition.

And let us not forget the mass media, who, after ignoring the significant
increase in support and votes for various third parties over the past few
elections, suddenly decided to feature Perot. Had as much network and
press coverage been given to the Libertarian, Socialist Worker's or 
other party, no doubt they would have garnered even more votes. As it is, 
nearly all the major small parties gained impressive support in '92.

    --mike




Xref: sparky alt.politics.economics:86 alt.politics.org.un:214
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.activism
Subject: CLINTON: Clinton phone conversation with Russian President
Date: 5 Jan 1993 00:47:19 -0500
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: life.ai.mit.edu


Posted by the Office of the President-elect
Posted: January 04, 1993


Transcript of George Stephanopoulos Daily Press Briefing
concerning Clinton phone conversation with Russian President
Boris Yeltsin:

                         Little Rock, AR
                         January 4, 1993


President-elect Clinton had a phone conversation this morning with
President Yeltsin. It was a very good conversation. It lasted about
twenty minutes. 

He congratulated Presidents Bush and Yeltsin on their historic
achievement in the START Treaty. He also pledged to do everything
he could to get early ratification of this treaty.

They both authorized for Mr. Kozyrev and Secretary of State
designate Warren Christopher to begin discussions as soon as
possible on setting up a bilateral dialogue on START and other
issues and also on setting up plans for an early meeting between
Yeltsin and Clinton.

Yeltsin also indicated that he supported the U.S. position on
Yugoslavia.





Distribution:
  Clinton News >internet:c-news-distr@campaign92.org
  Clinton Foreign >internet:c-foreign-distr@campaign92.org
  Clinton Volunteers >internet:clinton-volunteers@campaign92.org

Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
From: bryant@icd.teradyne.com (Wayne Bryant)
Subject: Re: Gay Rights
Reply-To: bryant@icd.teradyne.com
Organization: Teradyne, Inc. Boston MA
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:34:19 GMT

In article 29322@oasys.dt.navy.mil, lindenm@oasys.dt.navy.mil (William Lindenmuth) writes:
>In alt.politics.sex, hawk@hawk.sps.mot.com (George Hawkins) writes:
>>The Bible is clear about homosexual behavior.  Yea, gays claim that people
>>use the Bible just to thump gays/lesbian lifestyles, however, there is no
>>misinterpretation that the Bible declares that type of lifestyle WRONG!
>....babble stuff deleted...
>George: The Bible is *not* clear about homosexual behavior.  The passages
>about Lot and Sodomites tell of raping (male travelers) by the inhospitable
>townies -- not homosexual behavior or gay lifestyles.  Do you *know*
>whether Jesus was gay? Or not!? Peace. Love. Joy.
>
>LINTY of TANKRATLAND        "What's this fuzzy white stuff?"


Of course Jesus wasn't gay!  He was bisexual.  It was Paul who was gay.

Wayne
From: kurnik@lds.loral.com (Timothy J. Kurnik)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
Subject: Just wondering...
Date: 8 Jan 93 12:13:30 GMT
Reply-To: kurnik@lds.loral.com
Organization: Loral Data Systems

In article 25964@dg-rtp.dg.com, morton@rtpnet06.rtp.dg.com (John R. Morton) writes:
>[stuff about discrimination deleted]
>[stuff about "Hate Crimes !" deleted]

>Yes, the whites are getting the bullshit end, they are not allowed
>any sort of ethnic anything, it's racism when whites are proud.

I know this is off on a little tangent, but...

Why is it acceptable for black people to where T-shirts that say "Black Power" or
"Black is Beautiful", but if a white person wore a T-shirt that said "White Power" or
"White is Beautiful" he/she would be considered racist?

Anyone?

- T.J.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
From: thumim@nevada.edu (JON THUMIM)
Subject: Re: Gay Rights
Organization: University of Nevada System Computing Services
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 22:26:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.184552.346@newsgate.sps.mot.com> hawk@hawk.sps.mot.com (George Hawkins) writes:
>
>The Bible is clear about homosexual behavior.  Yea, gays claim that people
>use the Bible just to thump gays/lesbian lifestyles, however, there is no
>misinterpretation that the Bible declares that type of lifestyle WRONG!
>I'm not in the business of using the Bible to thump gays, but still "fear" God 
>and don't want to be judged accordingly. It is still my society that will be 
>affected if gays/lesbian lifestyles become open & commonplace.  Did you ever
>hear of Sodom & Gomorah??  Also, I don't want my daughter or future children 
>getting influenced by someone else's idea of "alternative lifestyles".  If
>this type of lifestyle is approved by society, the odds of it affected future
>generations will be just that much more.
>
What about people that don't believe in the Bible, especially Jews who
don't read the New Testament?  What do you think you would do if your
daughter or future children is or are gay?  I think you will have to
seriously rethink your belief in God or suffer not being able to
communicate with your child any longer.

Do you think that people choose to be gay?  Or is it something else?
If I had the choice, I wouldn't choose this but I don't have the
choice, so what do I do now?  Commit suicide.  I don't think so.  I am
happy with my life.

>I don't have a problem with gays/lesbians getting equal opportunity getting 
>jobs, etc. however, I am very much against gay couples obtaining the
>"rights" to adopt children or gay spouse's getting insurance coverage - similar
>to heterosexual.  The way I look at it, if gays want their type of lifestyle,
>they shouldn't be granted any of the benefits enjoyed by the heterosexual
>community (i.e children).  In case you didn't notice, it still takes a man and 
>women to create a child - even if done via envitro.  At least this will 
>minimize the impact this "gay rights" generation will have on affecting 
>future generations.  Further, I don't believe children raised by gay parents
>have an equal and moral chance to be heterosexual due to the examples set by
>the parents.  Children are very impressionable....  
>

So according to your thinking, it is alright for a heterosexual couple
to raise a gay child but not gay parents to raise a gay child.  Do you
think that a child raised by heterosexual parents has an equal and
moral chance to be homosexual due to the examples set by the parents,
if that child happens to be gay?  Children are impressionable, after
all.

Peace.
Jon Thumim


Xref: sparky alt.politics.sex:583 talk.politics.misc:67086 soc.singles:36050
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex,talk.politics.misc,soc.singles
Subject: Silly: Expressions of majority group solidarity
Date: 11 Jan 93 15:02:43 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper


Uh Folks, Am i short of a Clue Here or What....

But Persons of EuroCentricKulturalHeritages
tend to associate that Ethnocentrism more with
a Specific Cultural Heritage: eg Germanic, French,
SerboCroat..... Than with a Bland and Indistinguishable Notion.

Perchance a person with a "Mellenin Challenged Persons Power"
Might be able to say what is attemtped to be said:

"Hello, I am a Person with No SPECIFC Cultural Heritage
Save for the Mellenin Count of Random Genetics."

Which is a bit different than Say the Notion that malcolm x
was putting forward in the post_back_to_africa era. Black People
are LIVING in America with no Connections to a FORMER CULTURAL IDENTITY.

ciao
drieux

ps: in Like Manner It would be interesting to see folks
get out there and wear:

	"Default Socially Accepted Sexual Preference Pride"

jon@cyclone.MITRE.org (J. E. Shum) writes:
] In article <C0K8Jy.9Eu@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, branwen@sage.cc.purdue.edu ( ) writes:
] >       An interesting question:  Why can't whites wear a t-shirt that says
] > "White Power", when blacks are perfectly able to wear a t-shirt that says
] > "Black Power" without being called racist?
] > 
] >       For the same reason that a women's college can stay a women's college
] > with very little cry for change, and no legal instrument to force change. 
] > At the same time, a men's college cannot collect federal funding if it does not
] > permit women to enroll.  Explicit expressions of favoritism or preferential
] > treatment of majorities is illegal.  While noone is very likely to sue the 
] > wearer of a t-shirt that says "White Power", according to the law, it is 
] > both possible and justifiable.  The majority have no legal recourse to protect
] > their right to express their "majorityhood".  The minority (which is defined
] > in terms of numbers and/or relative institutional power) are able to express
] > their minorityhood because it is recognized that expressions of solidarity
] > are equated with empowerment.
] > 
] > Karen
] > 
] 
] Not that this is all that related to the above but I would suggest "Irish
] Power" or "Italian Power" or something like them as a more accurate analog
] to "Black Power" than "White Power" is.  Kind of puts things in a
] more comfortable context, I think.
] -- 
] <jon@mitre.org>|--24HR Libertarian Party News (900)454-2378 [$1.95 a minute]--
] ----------------------------------| Libertarian Party            (800)272-1776 
]           DON'T BLAME ME!         | 1528 Pennsylvania Avenue SE  (202)543-1988
]        I voted Libertarian.       | Washington, DC 20003         (800)682-1776  


-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 
Just because you are a homicidal maniac
doesn't mean you don't have a sense of humor.
		- Barry Sadler