HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cts@dragon.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: AGRAN, Democracy, and UseNet (II)
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:02:49 GMT
Organization: Computer Projects Unlimited

> But giving that answer would concede to the fervently anti-demoratic
> sentiments implied: if you're "only" a mayor, part of The System --
> meaning one of the 150-person elite in the entire US of Senators or
> Governors (or perhaps a larger pool of still under 600 people) -- you
> do not deserve to be President, in fact, you do not deserve to be
> heard by the people, in fact, you do not deserve to be taken
> seriously, no matter your record or your positions, since you are a
> "tiny mayor or a tiny city" (Irvine is the country's largest
> master-planned city, 110,000 -- but again that answer would have
> missed the point).

Has little to do with his "only" being a mayor.  For example, Ross Perot
has never held elective office as far as I know, and I consider this a
bug plus.  Agran is merely another fringe canidate from the lunatic
fringe that is so far out of touch with what the vast majorities of voters
want, he deserves little more than a footnote in the election coverage.
The only thing he's done that's newsworthy, is have people advocating
his inclusion in the debate disrupt Slick Willie (of course, he disavows
their conduct).

Agran's ideas go even beyond most of the left wing of the party.  Tom
Harken, the canidate of the traditional left, reached only a small
percent of the voters with his proposals;  it is the stated desire of
the democratic party to appeal to the average american - the people
who have been turning away from the party in national elections for
the past 12 years.  In any event, Agran is not a draw to any mainstream
voters.  The fact that he was able to get elected mayor doesn't surprise
me mainly due to the fact the berg's in California.  This same state gave
us the "People's republic of Berkley";  no wonder Northern California
wants to succeed.

Anyway, when Agran gets some ideas worth listening to, instead another
re-heating of the old discredited socialist crap, maybe then he'll see
some media coverage.  More than ever, the breakup of the USSR is proof
that socialism doesn't work;  the average voter wants his peace dividend
back in his pocket, not thrown down the rathole of entitlements.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,misc.taxes,alt.politics.elections
From: berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com (Hal Berenson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,misc.taxes,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Vaccination (was Re: What keeps me from being Lib.)
Date: 10 Apr 92 17:09:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: shodha.6522
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Distribution: usa
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <PMETZGER.92Apr8102723@snark.shearson.com>, pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes...
>We forget that diseases like polio are terrifying, and that when the
>first vaccines became available, people rushed to have their children
>vaccinated without any external impulse needed.
> 
I'll second that!  One of my early childhood memories is lining up to get
the polio vaccine.  From what I gather of my parents generation, their
fear of polio far exceeded today's panic over AIDS.  But polio wasn't a
guaranteed death sentence you say?  No, they considered it worse than
death.  If an AIDS vaccine became available tomorrow, people would rush
out to be vaccinated even if they (or their children) were in the lowest
risk groups, and EVEN IF THE GOVERNMENT RECOMMEND AGAINST IT for all but
the highest risk groups.

.............................................................................

Hal Berenson	

Home: 71640.3535@compuserve.com
Work: berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com

-- Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are my own, not my employer's! If
I happen to communicate with you from work rather than home, its just
for convenience (just like asking for a "daytime phone number") and should
not be construed as representing the views of my employer or its
employees, officers, directors, or stockholders. --
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (James Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: "Professional" politicians.
Organization: Space Systems/Loral
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 00:04:22 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.174650.13979@oakhill.sps.mot.com>, dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson) writes:
|> Seriously, term limitations are needed not in theory, but 
|> in reality.

``Stop me before I vote for them again!''

(Actually, I wouldn't be terribly opposed to an amendment that instituted
term limits for federal legislators -- but let's all admit what we're
actually saying, hmmm?)

Convince me that careerism in Congress is the problem and not a symptom
of a deeper problem, and I'll jump on the term limits bandwagon in a
heart flutter.

For term limits to work, I think they have to be part of a larger program
designed to take affirmative action to stop corruption in Congress by
implementing short-term solutions (like term limits) with long-term
programs (like campaign spending limits and limited public financing).

Term limits by themselves would be ineffectual, in my opinion. They
wouldn't stop the PowerfulSpecialInterests(TM) from capturing influence
by corrupt means. All they do is guarantee a turnover, which isn't
always what you want. Just ask all those Eisenhower supporters who
would have loved to see him run for a third term.

-- 
*\ James `Dr. Strychnine' Woodyatt  . ``You asked talk.bizarre to suggest
**\ bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com       . a new nickname for yourself?'' ``Yeah,
***\ Space Systems/Loral            . I thought it would be funny.'' ``You
****\ Palo Alto, CA                 . haven't any shame, do you?'' ``No.''
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Get Back on Welfare Where You Belong!
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 21:44:33 GMT

platt@watson.ibm.com (Daniel E. Platt) writes:
>What ever gave you the impression that Unions were liberal?  They
>have tended to be liberal when it comes to supporting candidates
>that would advocate better labor conditions, more health and safety
>standards, etc.

And bigger government, more government handouts, more regulations,
more anti-business laws.  It's no suprise they endorse democrats.


>It is not a 'liberal' policy to require barbers to graduate from
>barbers' colleges, or to even get certification to buy a license
>(but didn't I just say that earlier?).

Certainly it is.  More government revenue, more government
regulations, more government control, more government period.  More
"you're too stupid to think for yourself, so let us limit your options
for you" attitude, and more laws to make it harder to start a
business.  All staples of modern American liberalism.


>Guild restrictions are also not liberal... There wasn't even a
>liberal philosophy when guild restrictions were first imposed. 

When the guild ran itself instead of being run by the government,
certainly.  When they lobby for government to impose restrictions on
those who aren't members of the guild, that's liberal.  Using
government to do your dirty work is as old as government, liberalism
just incorporates it.


>What do you think liberal means, anyhow? 

More government, less freedom, lower standards of living.
-- 
Smoking is one of the leading causes of statistics.  -- Fletcher Knebel
From: jxxl@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Ross Perot
Date: 7 Apr 92 19:40:47 GMT
Reply-To: jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:

# While I
# don't want to imply that Perot is as bad as Hitler there are
# disturbing parallels between the way people are reacting to Perot
# and the way that Germany and Italy fell to fascism.

Go for it. What are the parallels?

John
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Why Are the Liberal Pundits So Infatuated With Clinton?
Date: 6 Apr 92 04:39:42 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <STEINAR.92Apr5145829@faust.solan.unit.no> steinar@faust.solan.unit.no (Cindy Kandolf) writes:
>Elizabeth Levy writes:
>>I'd say Bobby Kennedy also had a decent shot [at becoming President].  Just didn't quite make it.                      ^^^^  
>
>You may have just won the Unintentional Pun Award of the Month.

You know, the thing is, the Pun Warning Bells were going off when I
wrote this.  I just ignored them with a pshaw.
:-)
From: john@anasaz (John Moore)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot speaks
Date: 15 Apr 92 21:42:04 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc. Phoenix, AZ, USA

Keywords: 

In article <1992Apr13.124458.5570@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
]impression is misleading.  I have the benefit of having followed Perot's
]actions long before he started talking about being president.  I think
]he is a man of solid values.  I know from experience he does not call
]for "action for the sake of action".  He does follow the engineering 
]process of trying altherative and showing demonstratable results before
]implementing a plan.

I also have the benefit of having followed Perot for a long time, and of
having worked for him in the past. I have a lot of respect for him, but I
think he would be a lousy president. His basic platform is "elect me and
I'll run things competently." Reminds me of Jimmy Carter! Ross has a lot
of experience running businesses, but when he didn't control everything,
he failed in his reforms (wall street in the 70's, GM). Ross would have
to change his whole style of operating to deal with the Imperial Congress.

By the way, people I know who knew Ross better than I did are even more
skeptical.

Furthermore, he HAS publicly shown a tendency to "do whatever it takes to
get it to work" - including violating civil rights. And, some of us
remember the dress codes, and the interviews of spouses of potential
employees to make sure they were "okay."

]I think Perot is suggesting a process for dealing with this countries problems.
](I don't think that implies that the only solution to those problems are 
]the tyrranical application of government.)  I think it shows that Perot is 
]used to having to persuade people, as opposed to dictating solutions.  Perot
]could not, and did not, run EDS as a dictatorship.  I know that he realizes
]that the country cannot be run as a dictatorship.

Perot did indeed run EDS as a dictatorship. Yes, he listened to people, and
was accessible to his people, but he always had the last word. He ran it
like a benevolent dictatorship.

]Use the engineering process to find a solution.

As an engineer, I like the sound of that. However, I also know that social
problems in a political context are not that simple. Jimmy Peanut was
also an engineer, you know.

]He'd use the engineering process to find a solution.

This is getting repetitive. I look at it as "Trust me. Elect me and I'll use
the engineering process to find a solution." Right!

-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
"Modern liberals are the termites in the structure of our society."
  John Moore
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mcgredo@bluto.ie.orst.edu (Don McGregor)
Subject: Re: more info on Perot: 1st article of 2
Reply-To: mcgredo@bluto.ie.orst.edu
Organization: Oregon State University - Univ. Computing Services
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 22:19:37 GMT

Russ Anderson writes
>My impression from the original post was that the authors used the average
>age number to show airlines were not replentishing their capital stock  
>...The implication being that they were lowering their costs
>not through increased efficiency, but by delaying capital purchases. 

But new planes aren't really that more efficient in ways passengers can  
measure or notice.  Older planes still get them from A to B at essentially  
the same speed and they still get lasanga on every flight.  Air travel is  
mostly a commodity; there isn't much of a way to distinguish between one  
metal tube with wings and another from a passenger's standpoint.  Unless the  
staff is really, really out to lunch.

Newer planes are more efficient in some respects, notably fuel consumption.   
The 757 et al were designed in the late 70's when fuel costs were expected  
to be a critical factor in overall operating costs.  But fuel actually  
turned out to be fairly cheap, and the increased capital costs for efficient  
engines and fancy electronics probably completely offset any potential fuel  
savings.  Capital costs are just as real as maintenance or fuel costs,  
particularly when you're plunking down $150 million for a 747.

The older average age for US aircraft reflects the purchasing patterns of US  
airlines.  We made large block purchases in the 70's, while Asian airlines  
(for example) are often just getting going and are still buying new planes.   
The US fleet of 727/737s are reliable and do the job.  They still have a lot  
of years left.

US airline operating costs are, I believe, far below that of foreign  
airlines that are still regulated.  We can't take advantage of that fact due  
to assorted barriers to entry and international airline market agreements.   
I've heard that German/European air fares are roughly twice that of the  
states.

Anyway, the airline's financial statements should include depreciation as a  
cost, so a reported profit should include this factor.
>
>Before I get flamed, I do think that airline deregulation, in the long run,
>is better than the previous regulation (because it will lead to greater
>efficiency), but it is no panacea (with price wars and capital depletion
>followed by ologopoly (higher) pricing to finance new capital acquisition).

--
Don McGregor             | California danger signs: you own more pairs of 
mcgredo@bluto.ie.orst.edu| shorts than you do long pants.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,sci.econ
From: jmo@courant.princeton.edu (Mike Orszag)
Subject: Re: Airline Deregulation
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 23:10:08 GMT


In the Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith saw an important role for the
government in limiting monopoly power and regulating commerce. Now, if
you deny any role for government and want to let the Mike Millken's
and Lincoln Saving's of the world do what they want, then if that makes
you feel more free than that is fine. All I am saying is that from
an objective standpoint tie-in arrangements such as frequent flyer
coupons are economically inefficient and interfere with the price
mechanism. In certain cases, markets are incomplete or competition
insufficient due to scale economies; for instance, your local electricity
company has a monopoly and could charge you a fortune if it were not
regulated by the local government. If you prefer to get gauged by
an airline or a local utility company that is fine, but you must
realize that the end result is a lower income for you given initial
resources and on top of that a distorted price system.

MIKE ORSZAG
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: AIESEC - Ohio State <aiesecrs@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Re: GREEN REPUBLICANS?! (more)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 04:39:07 GMT

Would the founders of the GREEN REPUBLICANS please wake up.  Don't do to the
Republicans in 1992 what the radical left did to the Democrats in 1968.  We are
not a party of many contradicting factions, and I hope Green Republican 
candidates are rejected by the true Republicans.  If you want to start your own
party, fine, but don't hide behind my party's good name.  Thank you.

R. Scharfy
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: right to bear arms
Date: 8 Apr 92 10:18:53 GMT
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

cl231519@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:

>A note about the constitution and the right to bear arms:

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

Interesting.  So the government could make Christian Science or
Scientology the official state religion, as they weren't around 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.

And most of all from the government itself.



-- 
Stop worrying so much about whether or not people like you.  Just accept the
fact that they don't and they never will.  There, now do you feel better?
From: Mark.Hinkle@f11.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Mark Hinkle)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Free Exchange
Date: 7 Apr 92 09:01:00 GMT


 
The next Free Exchange Pot-Luck will be held on Saturday, April 18, 1992 at 6:30 PM for dinner, program at 7:30 PM.
 
Location: 553 41St Ave. in San Francisco, CA 94121
Phone: (415) 387-2543
Cost: $3 donation
Speaker: Steve Hayward, Research Director for the Pacific Research Institute.
Topics: Californian's Five Worst State Programs
 
Free Exchange is a project of the International Society for Individual Liberty.
 
FYI.............Mark Hinkle, Sysop 1:143/6 & 11


--  
Mark Hinkle
UUCP: uts.amdahl.com!kennel!11!Mark.Hinkle
INTERNET: Mark.Hinkle@f11.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG
"The views expressed above are those of Mark Hinkle only."
Organization: The Leader Desslok School of Diplomacy
Date: Thursday, 16 Apr 1992 12:58:41 EDT
From: Norman St. John Polevaulter <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The erudite National Review picks on Bill Clinton's daughter

In article <1992Apr15.214751.28733@anasaz>, john@anasaz (John Moore) says:
>In article <farenebt.703216062@craft.camp.clarkson.edu>
>farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Big Bri) writes:
>]"As head of the Children's Defense Fund (see "The Week", March 30), she
>]"fulfills" her profession by seeking to police the family. In our view, a    n
>woma
>]who inflicted the name Chelsea on her only child is in no position to preach
>]others about children's rights."
>]
>]Gee, this "scholarly" magazine basically makes fun on Chelsea Clinton's name.
>]HOW MATURE! I always thought making fun of someone's name, especially
>]a child's, was behavior reserved for immature parties. I guess the NR
>]now qualifies.
>
>National Review, like most opinion magazines, also has some humour in
>it. They make fun of all sorts of things. So what?

Let me get this straight. The National Review, a gigantic political
magazine, teases a twelve-year-old schoolgirl in print over her name, and
you don't see anything wrong whatsoever?

Ladies and gentlemen, I believe we have a fundamental difference in
world-views here. The word "yawning chasm" could be used in this context.

[Your blood pressure just went up.]       Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
 DISCLAIMER: Penn State cares about my money, not my opinions.
  "All my father wanted to do was make a toaster you could really set the
    darkness on -- and you perverted his work into those horrible machines!"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,soc.misc,alt.revisionism,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Want facts? "WHO RUNS THE MEDIA? The Alarming Facts"
From: kmcvay@oneb.wimsey.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 20:33:00 GMT
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac, Vancouver Island

In article <1992Apr16.143856.5404@midway.uchicago.edu> gross@befvax.uchicago.edu writes:

>Please indicate if you want more details about the connection of the IHR
>and other revisionists to hate groups.

Be my guest, old son - I've been archiving many of the responses to
the posts from the twits at trashnet, and welcome more  - the more
documentation and refutation available the better, if only to make
recruiting that much more difficult.              

-- 
=======================================================================
> UUCP:  Path (..twiki!b-cpu) "ELIMINATED" BY ZIONIST THOUGHT POLICE!!!
"how come the awesome zionist machine hasn't managed to even squash a
little turd such as yourself?" (martin@pharoah.cyborg.bt.co.uk)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Subject: Re: "Professional" politicians. was Re: Study Explains Why *Political Scientists* Oppose Term Limitations
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin, Texas
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 17:46:50 GMT

have you heard the one about 535 monkeys banging away
at 535 typewriters?  Well, ...

Seriously, term limitations are needed not in theory, but 
in reality.  I am sure we could easily pick 535 people off of 
this network who can make better decisions after only a few
months on the job.  Let's face it, half of legislators are lawyers
and they will get jobs elsewhere.  (they've legislatively 
guaranteed it!)

C-SPAN junkies unite!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: What keeps me from being Lib.
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 00:37:15 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.193000.12970@unx.sas.com>,
sasafw@dobo.unx.sas.com (Fred Welden) writes:
>In article <rdippold.702939428@cancun>, rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>|sasafw@dobo.unx.sas.com (Fred Welden) writes:
>|I like it, except where the cards are kept legally stacked as to make
>|it impossible.  For example, there are often laws in place to make
>|sure that using an alternative to government supplied services is
>|illegal.  Those would have to be removed.
>
>Can you give some examples?
>--
>--Fred, or another blind 8th-century BC  |  sasafw@dobo.unx.sas.com
>        Hellenic poet of the same name.  |

Easy.  The Postal Express Statues prohibit anyone from competing
with the USPS on First Class mail and other services they provide.
Some states have (or at least did have) laws which provented home
power generators (e.g. from you own windmill) from being sold back
to the power company thru the monopoly power grid run by the local
utility. (Fortunately some of these laws at least went south during
the last "oil crisis".)

/June
From: cl231519@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: right to bear arms
Date: 7 Apr 92 19:14:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: ulkyvx.1992Apr7.151458.1
Organization: University of Louisville

A note about the constitution and the right to bear arms:

1) it guarantees your right to own a musket.  (that's 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.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Subject: Re: Perot speaks
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 20:18:55 GMT

In article <peercy.703145709@dopey.crhc.uiuc.edu> peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy) writes:
>emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff) writes:
>
>| 	By the way, why doesn't anybody ever speculate about fraud
>|  in polling data?
>
>Fair question.  I think the reason is the wide ranges of control over the
>machines, observers at the stations, etc., as well as a comfy feeling
>people have about not having a case of fraud in a while.
>

	I didn't mean vote fraud. I meant fraud involved in the many
Polls taken by Harris and others, that tell us before the election,
who is going to win.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17089 talk.politics.theory:1973