HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lee@wang.com (Lee Story)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,misc.taxes,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: What keeps me from being Lib. (was Re: FW: news release:
Date: 14 Apr 92 19:17:14 GMT
	<1992Apr9.225400.17519@vexcel.com>
Distribution: na
Organization: Wang Laboratories, Inc.

(dean alaska) writes:
                                                 [...] When all
   pollution violations are subject to criminal law and cost benefit
   analyses of pollution are seen as making as much sense as cost benefit
   analyses for burglars, then the important step towards a clean economy
   will have been made.  But it can't start with the laws, it has to start
   with the people.  This is a fundamental of the radical Greens (as
   opposed to everyone and their brother who claims to be "green").

   Just as some of the Libs here have trouble explaining the difference between
   short and long term goals to new readers, Greens have the same problem
   in explaining these differences.

No.  If you are an accurate spokesman for these "radical Greens",
their long-term goals are pretty clear.  From what you write, they
would readily wipe their arses on the Bill of Rights in the interest
of a greater good.  Our executive _does_ cost-analysis on burglary
before deciding to pursue prosecution.  We should do more such (for
example, when considering drug prohibitions).  Often we make wrong
decisions.  Maybe with these "Greens" in charge of a much-enlarged
police state we can be guided to the right decisions every time.
"Pollution violations" according to whom?  Criminal penalties for
spitting on the sidewalk (or is that organic, and "good")?  This
sounds like a cross between _1984_ and Judi Bari's idea of Heaven.  No
thanks.  I've supported some fairly "radical" environmental causes,
but not this, and suspect you'll have to settle for a total membership
consisting of the .001% lunatic fringe of the movement.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Lee Story (lee@wang.com) Wang Laboratories, Inc.
              (Merrimack Valley Paddlers)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,sci.econ,misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Get Back on Welfare Where You Belong!
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 21:38:40 GMT

In article <RJC.92Apr13200716@brodie.cstr.ed.ac.uk> rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley) writes:
>Now, I realise that the customs of a foreign country can often seem
>strange, and I realise that the USA leads the world in employment
>protection for lawyers, but... 
>
>How on earth did anyone get a `cosmetology' board and licenses for
>hairdressers set up? If the references to Washington and dollars were
>removed I'd assume this was an anti-Brussels joke, and a poor one
>because it is so unbelievable. 

Presumably, the hairdressers lobbied the legislature bemoaning the
low standards of hairdressing in the state.  (Read: existing hair-
dressers, worried about competition, and grandfathered by the 
licensing legislation, wanted to create barriers to entry in the
market to create an artificial shortage of hairdressers so that
they could charge higher prices.)

It's hardly a practice unique to the United States: Adam Smith and
Max Weber wrote about the medieval craft guilds which essentially
did the same thing.  The professions protected by such vary from
state to state, but the licensing tends not to be questioned when
it applies to such "important" professions as medicine, and, dare
I say it, the bar.
-- 
Ted Frank          + "He wanted to be the car rather than the thimble or the
1307 E 60 St, #109 +  hat."  -- District attorney explaining Marc Cienkowski's
U o' C Law Skool   +  murder with bow and arrow of Michael Klucznik in
Chi, IL 60637      +  Doylestown Borough, PA over a game of Monopoly.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17132 alt.activism:7313
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: "Politically Correct" -- A Quote
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:46:31 GMT
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (Harel Barzilai) writes:
>A PC Quotable 
>
>                                --Jamin Raskin, from "The Fallacies of   
>                                'Political  Correctness'" in January Z. 


Puh-lease.  We're supposed to believe this any more than we believe
the "unbiased" opinion of Dahmer's psychiatrist that he didn't know
what he was doing, or your support of Agran?  The least you could do
is do as usual and cite someone who was at least pretending to be
viewing it objectively.
-- 
Nothing you can't spell will ever work. -- Will Rogers
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:16980 alt.politics.elections:442 misc.taxes:2124 alt.society.civil-liberty:3252 pnw.general:513
From: skrone@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (stuart.krone)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,misc.taxes,alt.society.civil-liberty,pnw.general
Subject: Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS
Date: 6 Apr 92 20:46:12 GMT
Followup-To: alt.society.civil-liberty
Organization: AT&T

In article <visser.702539448@convex.convex.com> visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:
>In <1992Apr4.085611.8063@eskimo.celestial.com> Corner.Core.Cafe writes:
>
>
>
>+>     The Libertarian Party is America's third largest and fastest growing
>+>political party. Libertarians believe "That government is best which governs
>+>least." The party supports civil liberties, a free market economy, and a
>+>non-interventionist foreign policy.
>
>	The party also supports the "right" of private discrimination in
>employment, housing, and "service".  
>



The government does not exist to force your set of moral values
on other people. If I own a house it should be my decision as to who I
will or will not sell my house to.

>	They believe that it is wrong to
>have laws that require doctors to help at the scene of an accident or
>an emergency.

What right do you have to compell someone to act just because of their
chosen profession? Who are you to tell them what risks they should 
take.

>	They believe in repealing the various neutrality acts that prevent
>corporations from forming and supporting armies aboard and overthrowing
>governments abroad.

Are you implying that this doesn't happen today ??

>	They believe in repeal of the child labor laws and the minimum wage.
>They believe in repeal of compulsory vaccination laws and in the establishment
>of a free market for human body parts.

What gives you the right to dictate "morality" to anyone else ??
If I wish to sell my kidney or work for $1.00/hr. who are you to 
tell me that I can't ?? It's my life thank you, I'll live it as I see fit.

The child labor laws would be highly debatable by the way.
Most Libertarians would NOT support that.

>	They oppose laws requiring either air-bags or seat belts to be 
>provided as standard equipment in cars. 
>	In regard to the environment they believe that "strict liability, 
>not government agencies should regulate pollution."  They do not speak of
>what happens when the liable entity has ceased to exist through bankruptcy,
>disillusion or lack of funds.
>
>	[All the above is from the current Libertarian party platform.  The
>	 parts that usually are not part of the public pitch.]
>
Some of what you said is correct, but to imply that Libertarians are
joined at the brain stem and think alike is incorrect.
There is considerable debate over these and other issues within the party.
I joined the Libertarian party because almost all of their policies made
sence. These policies are a hell of a lot better than what the Republicrats
have done to our country.
I invite you to investigate for yourself and take what is useful

Stuart Krone
Libertarian party candidate for Congress
3 rd District Pennsylvania
(N.E. Philadelphia)


>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,misc.taxes,alt.society.civil-liberty,pnw.general
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Libertarian party (was Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 92 15:59:03 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:

>	The party also supports the "right" of private discrimination in
>employment, housing, and "service".  
>	They believe that it is wrong to
>have laws that require doctors to help at the scene of an accident or
>an emergency.

[...]

>	[All the above is from the current Libertarian party platform.  The
>	 parts that usually are not part of the public pitch.]

Ya...


So where's the beef?

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC        | "Hey, don't blame me.  I voted Buchanan."
Rapid Deployment System, Inc. | 2nd Amendment RADICAL 
Marietta, Ga                  |              
jgd@dixie.com                 | Need public access in Atl?  Write me.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17432 alt.individualism:2345 sci.econ:3622 alt.activism:7410
From: sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,sci.econ,alt.activism
Subject: Re: "Government is not the solution, government is the problem!"
Date: 9 Apr 1992 00:19:48 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <balaji.702750181@yorku.ca>, balaji@nexus.yorku.ca (V. Balaji) writes:
|> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
|> 
|> >  "Reagan Was Right: Government Is the Problem"
|> >  by Charlton Heston
|> 
|> [followed by your usual rightwing crap]
|> 
|> We get enough of this in the mainstream "free press". Why pollute Usenet
|> with it?

Ever heard of the First Amendment? Naaaw, stoopid question. I guess that's
also just so much "rightwing crap."

-srinivas
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 20:15:29 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.172224.21645@kpc.com>,
emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff) writes:
>In article <1992Apr6.195608.9372@morrow.stanford.edu> GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
>>When trade barriers raise the price (either by limiting the supply
>>or causing duties to be added to costs) consumers have to pay more
>>for the products they wish to purchase.  This was just as true for
>>the Japanese after WWII as it was been for everyone everywhere.
>>While I don't have any specific data handy on this particular
>>subject I would be willing to bet that when the restrictions you
>>cite were in effect, Japanese consumers were paying more for their
>>TVs than they would have had to in the absence of any such
>>restrictions.
>>
>They were paying more for their TV's. On the other hand, without
>the protectionism, they probably wouldn't have had the jobs that
>would have afforded them TV's in the first place.

No, there would have been less jobs available in television
building but that doesn't mean that there would have necessarily
been less jobs -- just different job.  If were not cost effective
to build TV's the investors putting their money into that industry
would have looked for someplace they could have gotten a better
return on their money than it making TVs.  The result would have
been the creation of job in other industries *plus* imported TVs
that were affordable by more people.

/June
From: sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Elections in the Mother Country ...
Date: 10 Apr 1992 15:50:53 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <STEINAR.92Apr10171532@faust.solan.unit.no>, steinar@faust.solan.unit.no (Cindy Kandolf) writes:
|> Andrew Baker writes:
|> >If you look at the 15 American presidential elections from 1932 to 1988,
|> >incumbents have run 11 times, and won 8/11 of these times.  The three
|> >losers were Hoover (depression), Ford (Nixon appointee/pardoner), and
|> >Carter (stagflation, military weakness, and malaise).  Bush is clearly
|> >in better shape by this standard, so I was estimating 2-1 odds in Bush's
|> >favor.  British and American elections have been fairly correlated in
|> >recent decades, so if the Tories really win, this may make it as much
|> >as 3-1 (although that's probably pushing it).
|> 
|> But there's a problem with your analogy.  Although the Conservatives have
|> managed to hold on to their majority in Parliament, they have _lost_ seats.
|> 
|> -Cindy Kandolf
|>  cindy@solan.unit.no
|>  Trondheim, Norway

So they did, but compare that against the performance of ANY other govt. in
the middle of a BAAAD recession, and Major comes off looking good. Compare it
against the pollsters' expectations and he comes off looking better. Compare the
fact that Maggie "Attila-the-Hen" Thatcher's Tories won only 42.2 percent of
the vote in 1987 versus Major's 43% this time, in lousy economic times; and Major
comes off looking positively god-like. The only conclusion that you could draw
w.r.t. how things will go in the Fall is that Bush wins again, but the Dem.
nominee makes it awfully close; which really makes no difference, given that in
a Presidential election, a miss is as good as a mile.

Of course, the US is a LOT bigger than the UK, and the UK election was a lot
more issue-oriented than the Fall election shows potential of being.

-srinivas
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor)
Subject: Re: Greedy Athletes
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 18:48:51 GMT

In article <18370@ector.cs.purdue.edu> gritter@cs.purdue.EDU (Carl R. Gritter) writes:
>The owner gets twice as much as Wayne because he/she is the one who is
>taking all the risks.  
FACT: the owner who lost $2 million/year must be Jerry Buss, not Bruce McNall.
 
FACT: Jerry Buss bought the Kings, along with the Lakers and the Forum, from
      Jack Kent Cooke in 1979, right after the draft of Magic Johnson. I
      don't know how much the Kings cost within that package. I bet he
      made some hefty profits for holding on that properties for 7 years
      before unloading it to McNall.

In other words, Jerry Buss might have lost $2 million/year on the Kings.
He might also have:

1) earned profits on renting his own Forum to the Kings 
2) earned profits on concessions/parking of the Forum in Kings game
3) earned profits for having the Kings on his own Prime Ticket network;
   without the Kings, he might not have charged $X to southern California
   and Hawaii cable operators.  You need live sports to fill the hours.
4) made hefty capital gains for selling the Kings to Bruce McNall

Before you examine the books on Southern California Sports, the corporation
under which the Lakers/Kings/the MISL Lazers/Team Tennis/Forum/Prime Ticket
operate, you have no evidence that the Kings lost money for Jerry Buss.

Just looking at the books of the Kings is NOT enough.

>Wayne gets paid even if the Kings don't win a
>game and no one renews their season tickets.  The owner is also the
>one who lost $2M a year before Wayne came to town.  
That's a superficial perspective of "the owner lost $2 million".

It's just like: I lose money in my mortgage interest of my house. Never
mind I live in the house and save the rent, never mind the appreciation 
of the house. The loss is the only thing that I'll show you. I need 
your sympathy.

>But this comes with the territory.  Its the American/Canadian
>way of doing things.  A person is allowed to make money from a
>business venture.  This same person can also go bankrupt and lose
>his/her fortune.  
The American/Canadian way of earning wages: the salary you command
is based on how much your employer values your service, i.e. how much
profit you can get him. So what if it's 20 times of an average citizen's
salary? The average citizen's salary has no place in this picture.

As long as McNall feels Gretzky can make him $10 million, Gretzky deserves
his $3 million, wouldn't you say?

-- 
                                          Edward Lor
                                          lor@cbnewsk.att.com
                                          
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18613 ca.politics:3576 ba.politics:2696 alt.politics.homosexuality:2390
From: jkusters@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (The Chrome Jester)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Date: 17 Apr 92 19:37:41 GMT
Organization: Cal Poly State Univ,CSC Dept,San Luis Obispo,CA 93407

jfh@greenber.austin.ibm.com (John F Haugh II) divulges:
->
->Nah.  I've read things by GAY DOCTORS about gay men who have
->10 partners in a single weekend.  Something about them trying
->to convince the local government in San Francisco to close the
->bath houses.

I see, since a couple of gay doctors said something about a couple of
gay patients, therefore ALL GAY MEN must have more than 10 partners
per weekend, right?  Where DID you take your rhetoric classes....

Besides, what you're talking about (the closing of the San Fran bath
houses) occurred almost a decade ago.  Get some more recent facts and
figures, dude!

->Do you really want to pretend that for a disease to go from a
->few hundred case 11 or 12 years ago to 1,000,000 (and 6% of the
->population) that these people aren't having a hell of a lot of
->sex?

Again, your figures are alarmingly old!  We know now that there were
a LOT more cases originally (a lot more than a few hundred) that were
mis-diagnosed because the medical profession did not know what AIDS
was.

I will not argue that AIDS spread very fast in the gay community at
that time.  But if you'll remember, the 70's was the era of free love
and casual sex.  If the epidemic had started in the straight community,
it would have spread just as fast, if not faster.

JOhn.
-- 
/-John A Kusters, jr.----------------------------------------------------______
| jkusters@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu & phule@bbs.fubarsys.com              \    /
Silence keeps us all in darkness, we can't change things overnight!       \  /
But we can shed a little light, Be Political not Polite! -Romanovksy & Phillips
From: geraldb@tau-ceti.isc-br.com (Gerald Bryan (Denver))
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Noriega Convicted
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:11:28 GMT
Organization: ?

In article <1992Apr10.202319.4395@udel.edu> watrous@huey.udel.edu (Michael Watrous) writes:
>Oh I just love this!  200 Panamanian citizens, 300 Panamanian soldiers and
>23 US servicemen were killed.  Why?  So that some pathetic little dictator
>could be dragged through a farce of a trial.

This is interesting.  523 people were killed in order to bring to trial a man
who is not even facing the death penalty himself.

Isn't this patently absurd ?
-- 
"Truth is simply the understanding of seeking" -- da Free John
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: ileicht@jarthur.claremont.edu (Spiff)
Subject: Re: Hair testing article in C&EN
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 02:42:46 GMT

I could be off on this... but as I understand they are going to take
a hair.. or a few hairs or whatever... and get them into a solution
and then analyze the contents of it.. I don't see why hair dyes.. etc
would make a difference...

And I don't think that peroxides are going to help either. They would
maybe clean off stuff off the outside of the hair.. but they
won't actually clean out all of teh deposits within the hair..
From: 891034d@ace.acadiau.ca (PETER F. DEARMAN)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Hempless History - Can you help me?
Keywords: hemp
Date: 6 Apr 92 20:50:28 GMT
Organization: Acadia University

Organization: Acadia University
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1992 21:22:35 GMT
   I'm doing a research paper on the suppression of hemp by the government 
and similar forces.  I know what a valuable plant hemp is.  What I want to 
know more about is what sort of decisions and events led to the prohibition 
of cannabis.  The standard line is that a moralistic society and effective 
lobby groups combined to make it politically necessary to ban the plant.  I 
find such a simplistic pluralistic explanation hard to swallow.  Why is it 
illegal almost everywhere?  Did the pulpwood, petrochemical, gasoline, 
textile, or pharmaceutical industries have a significant influence?
    And why is the world's easiest-to-grow source of high quality protein so 
underutilized in the third world?  This could be (and apparently has been up 
to colonial times) the world's number one subsistance food source.  Why isn'
t it?  Who made sure that it isn't?
    Please help me answer these questions.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:2975 alt.drugs:7750
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Hemp Paper
Date: 16 Apr 92 01:57:56 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.drugs
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Apr15.024510.6961@muddcs.claremont.edu>, ileicht@jarthur.claremont.edu (Spiff) writes:
> I received a lot of mail after mentioning that our local Hemp Legalization
> orginazation was getting hemp paper.
> 
> I asked where we got it from and this is the answer:
> 
> Bach Business Alliance For Commerce in Hemp
> 213-661-9978
> 
> You want to talk to larry..
> 
> as I understand supply is very limited. I am hoping that if enouh
> people express interest that they will be able to stock a larger supply
> and make some more $$'s...


Do they sell business-size envolopes? Computer printout paper?

Thought I would ask before calling.

barry--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Follow-up post from San Diego NORML
Keywords: public access TV, videotape, fax, NORML, TCI
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 19:46:23 GMT


In article <1992Apr10.022211.21292@cbnewsd.cb.att.com>, 
press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) said:

In article <1992Apr9.003491.usenet@ucsd.edu>, SD_NORML.usenet@ucsd.edu writes:

> > San Diego County NORML.  snail mail:  PO Box 171396, San Diego CA 92197
> > phones:      (619) 281-8586 or 571-0088.                no email (yet).

> > Survival lesson: keep your membership lists safe!  One of our
> > leading members was busted, and the police confiscated a
> > hardcopy of his list.

> What good is a copy of a mailing list to the cops? Is it illegal
> now to be a member of NORML? Please, no flames, I'm just ignorant
> on this statement made about mailing list safety. E-mail if
> posting would be criminal:-)

I got the impression that it was a _membership_ list, not a mailing
list.

In any event, in today's society the police can make life hell for
people they don't like without breaking the law themselves.  They
can even have a lot of fun while doing it, and raise some cash to
buy new squad cars while they're at it.  And one of the best ways to
get on the cops' Designated Victims list is to be pro-drug-freedom,
because the cops know that you'll get near-zero sympathy or support
from the public or the courts if you try to put up any kind of a
fight.

Remember: we are now living in a police state.  Being a known
troublemaker can be a very bad career move.

-- 
William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

  A quintessential test of a legal system's respect for individual
  liberty lies in whether it simply outlaws actual criminal acts, or
  instead tries to prevent crime by adjusting putative causes.  The
  former recognizes the responsibility of each individual; the
  latter treats citizens as raw materials from which the law-makers
  would shape society as they desire it.
                                             -- Russell Turpin
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs