HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker)
Subject: Re: ACLU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 07:21:19 GMT

In article <ART.92Apr8232340@world.std.com> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
>Bull!  You insist that the words "powers" and "rights" are synonyms.
>Further, you cite the United States Constitution as your authority.
>Again, read the constitution, if you can, and you'll see it NOWHERE
>mentions the gov't as having rights.  Powers yes, rights no.

If you refer to a dictionary, you might note:

  2 right n (bef. 12c)
   [ME, fr. OE riht, fr. riht, adj.] ...
      2a: the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled ...
              -----

  1 pow.er \'pa<u.>(-<e>)r\ n, often attrib (13c)
   [ME, fr. OF poeir, fr. poeir to be able, fr. (assumed) L pot<e^->re to 
  be powerful -- more at POTENT] ...
      2b: legal or official authority, capacity, or right ...
                                                    -----

Your obfuscatory quibbling has now been exposed for what it is.  My
original point stands.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.canada
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Sydney Sharpe and Don Braid's new book on the Reform Party
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: ca,usa
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 92 04:06:17 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.205104.21087@mdivax1.uucp> robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr5.011849.18558@mdivax1.uucp>, robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson) writes...
>>>Sheila Copps was totally out to lunch when she compared Manning to David
>>>Duke.
> [ ... ]
>Ms Copps was simply stooping to demagoguery in making this comparison. She
>doesn't like Manning's vision, but she is too lazy or slimey to debate
>this vision. Indeed, as I said in an earlier post, a number of her fellow
>Liberals distanced themselves from her remarks. That should also tell an
>objective person something.
> [ ... ]
>                                                              Most
>accusations amount to as much substance as Copps' ravings.

Jim, just why do you consider Copps statements so significant that you
keep coming back to them again and again?  Even though Manning makes
me nervous, I do realize that she was just running off at the mouth
that time, and don't give much weight to that sort of rhetoric.

This is why I like this thread - there's been too many unsupported
statements about Manning and the Reform Party from both sides, so any
serious discussion of the man, the party, and the effect they are
likely to have is essential.

I just wish we'd all given Mulroney this much scrutiny...  (In fact,
Manning may in part be paying the price for the cynicism Mulroney has
bred in so many of us.  Then again, he's also benefitting from the
disgust with the current government...)

Just for the record, I strongly disagree with many Reform policies, yet
I welcome their presence on the political scene - the more voices are
heard, the better.  (And the harder it is for someone to get a majority
government with 40% of the vote, and thus rule unopposed for 4-5 years,
the better also.  Let's all hear it for proportional representation!)
Unfortunately, though, whatever may be said now, we won't know till
it's too late just what Reform and Manning would do if they get power.
They might reveal a hidden agenda, just as some of their critics
allege, or fail to meet the expectations of their supporters...

The Rhealist (Rheal Nadeau)                 |  Bell-Northern Research
Internet:  nadeau@bnr.ca                    |  Ottawa, Ontario, Canada 
BNR neither endorses nor censors my views   |  (613) 763-4266
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,misc.taxes,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: jovanovic-nick@CS.YALE.EDU (Nick Jovanovic)
Subject: Re: What keeps me from being Lib. (was Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS)
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 17:59:11 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.042049.12015@athena.cs.uga.edu> brady@castor.cs.uga.edu (Mike Brady) writes:
>In article <1992Apr9.201827.3723@cs.ucla.edu> frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Frazier) writes:
>Gosh, I hope that the Libertarian Party is not just *another* political
>party.  If that were the case, then I would not be a card carrying member
>today.  If the Ls are like the Rs and Ds, then we are destined to ride down
>
>The Libertarian priciples are based upon natural rights.  In speaking of
>the history and formation of the Libertarian party, David Bergland first

*Natural rights*? -- there are no such things.  What is natural about
the right to own property?  Ask a native American.  Or do libertarians
agree that the government should not involve itself in this sphere of
social activity?  If I claim to own something, isn't it just a dispute
between me and whoever else claims the same property?  Why should the
government be involved in such private affairs between individuals?

-Nick Jovanovic
>
>
>Mike Brady - brady@castor.cs.uga.edu
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Why vote Libertarian?
Date: 8 Apr 92 10:10:30 GMT
Distribution: usa,local
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:
>	A "company town" involves the company owning the property that the
>town is on.  There is also nothing in liberatarianism to pervent employers
>from forcing people to buy only at the company store and to live in 
>company housing as a condition of employment.  The company is the employer
>and the property owner.  The only "right" under libertarianism that such
>people would have would be to quit the job.

Horrors!  If you're in my house you follow my rules or leave.  If
you're in a company town, you play by their rules or leave.  It's not
the only right you have, however.  If they shot you that might
_possibly_ be viewed as a rights violation.  You keep coming up with
these "exposes" of Libertarianism which amount to something like
"Confidential sources revealed today that the libertarians may
actually profess to support both the first and second amendments."
Have any actually tried to hide this stuff?
-- 
It isn't work unless you'd rather be doing something else.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17448 misc.headlines:3239
From: rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Subject: Re: It can HAPPEN in *IOWA* [gay rights law]
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 20:41:27 GMT

In article <1992Apr06.232508.5653@Veritas.COM> rogerk@Veritas.COM (Roger B.A. Klorese) writes:
>In article <1992Apr4.215253.25602@midway.uchicago.edu> rivk@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>I have no problem with what you are say-
>>ing about "the policies of the Mormon Church", but you didn't refer in
>>your original article to the Mormon Church, but to Mormons, the individual
>>people. At absolute best, you can be accused of inadvertent insult due to
>>inaccuracy of language...
>
>No, George was being accurate.  Haven't you ever seen the commercials-in-
>public-service-announcement's-clothing that state, themselves, that they are
>produced by "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints: the Mormons"?
>Obviously, *they* believe "Mormons" == "the LDS Church"... why shouldn't I?

Because the Mormons I know do not, and because you claim to disagree
with the Mormon Church. Why should you then take their word for who
they represent, over the protests of many of the supposedly represented?

You're making me ashamed to have ever been naive enough to believe
that people who have faced bigotry are less likely to commit it. Go
play with Louis Farrakhan.

>ROGER B.A. KLORESE                                             VERITAS Software

	-Nora

-- 
Oseh shalom b'imromav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu v'al kol yisrael.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,alt.activism
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Subject: Re: Class Warfare is STUPID...
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin, Texas
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 17:38:50 GMT

rjc@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray) writes:

>In article <1992Apr10.194038.18462@uunet!tellab5!odgate> mike@uunet!tellab5!odgate (Mike J. Kelly) writes:
>>emamid@athena.ecs.csus.edu (David Emami) asks why the rich should pay a
>>greater marginal tax rate than the non-rich.  Despite a lot of abstract
>>arguing, he doesn't realize the real reason.  It's because there are
>>more of us than them.  If they don't like it, they can leave.

>                                         ...They already are...
>   and taking those precious American jobs along the way.

   are not!!  they stay here, because this is where the money is!

>  Ten years from now, after our government has succeeded in their
>brilliant plan to tax US businesses into the ground or out of the country,
>don't start screaming about unfair Eurasian business practices' damaging
>our economy.

 corporate income taxes account for about 1% of federal revenues.
 businesses are being regulated to death, not taxed to death.

>   Perhaps we should raise capital gains to 100% and >$100,000 income tax
>to 75%? That should be a great stimulus for our depressed economy. :-)

this might actually work!!  a 100% cap gain tax would force cash from 
capital to bonds and savings.  this would be bad for cap gains barons
in horse breeding, antiques, comic books, real estate, and futures
markets; but would drop real interest rates to near zero.  that would
make lots of investment profitible, lead to more home sales, lower 
interest on government borrowing (20% of fed spending!).  we wouldn't
even need the 75% tax on Richie Rich.

>BTW, you may find yourself in the so-called "rich" tax-bracket in a few
>years if inflation blows up. Although technically, you are
>rich, your income wouldn't have the buying power it does now.

Contradiction alert.  inflation blowing up as our economy goes down
the crapper?  Besides, aren't tax-brackets indexed to inflation.

>>-- 
>>--
>>Mike Kelly               Odesta Corporation, Northbrook, Illinois, USA
>>...!clout!odgate!mike    - Until odesta.com is registered.
>>odgate!mike@clout.uucp   - From the Internet.




Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17507 ca.politics:3387 ba.politics:2619 alt.politics.homosexuality:1892 soc.motss:19731
From: twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Date: 9 Apr 92 13:05:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: amhux2.1992Apr9.130534.10937
Followup-To: alt.politics.homosexuality
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst, MA

In article <wmNyiB6w164w@Nitro.CtEdge.COM> djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM writes:
>fierro@uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro) writes:
>
>>   Well, according to that philosophy, religion is a crime against humanity;
>> it is 'inflicting' a lifestype upone someone who has no choice.
>
>Kind of hard to equate the two subjects. There is a 
>difference.

Go on, djk.  Explain why the parallel doesn't work to all us poor
unwashed heathen.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "Someone here suggested blue square badges for
\  / twpierce@amherst.edu      /  straights.  Maybe we should try mauve
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /  heptagons?" - Damian Cugley, on soc.bi
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,misc.entrepreneurs,alt.individualism,comp.sys.next.misc
From: eric@tfs.com (Eric Smith)
Subject: Re: Perot for President
Organization: TFS
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 15:16:29 GMT

In article <22572@goofy.Apple.COM> earlw@Apple.COM (Earl Wallace) writes:
...
>Like we have a zillion choices here.  Talk about drawing a bad hand.  Can I
>get a new set of cards (candidates) please?

No, because there aren't enough qualified applicants.  No sane person
wants the job of U.S. President because the job amounts to leading the
government through bankruptcy.  Anyone who does it will go down in
history as a villian.

The reason the bankruptcy is inevitable is that the voters insist on
getting their fair share of the spoils, and will throw out of office
anyone who doesn't give it to them.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Frazier)
Subject: Re: Vaccination (was Re: What keeps me from being Lib.)
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 20:30:12 GMT

pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:

>In article <1992Apr7.193628.24602@cs.ucla.edu> frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Frazier) writes:

>   I agree with almost everything up above, with a major exception
>   being "vaccination... [is] the responsibility of the parents."

>The small number unlikely to vaccinate their children are unlikely to
>do it even given mandatory laws on vaccination -- they are parents who
>either do not care about their children, or parents who have a strong
>belief against vaccination and will defy the law.

Unfortunately, the numbers are not small.  Even with mandatory
vaccination, diseases like rhubella are making major comebacks
because of a lack of funding for vaccination (and parent
disinterest).

>Is it really worth our while to invoke awesome power of the state to
>stop what is essentially a non problem? Do we need to trash the whole
>concept of a free society to fix what isn't really broken in the first
>place?

Well, some of us don't think mandatory vaccinations trash the whole
concept of a free society.  Did I mention that extreme positions such
as this turn me off to libertarianism? :-)  FWIW, I wouldn't have
mentioned vaccination as an example if I agreed that it was a
non-problem.
-- 


Greg Frazier	frazier@CS.UCLA.EDU	!{ucbvax,rutgers}!ucla-cs!frazier
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:16939 alt.individualism:2280 alt.activism:7246
From: allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Class Warfare is STUPID: (Was: : Where Have A
Date: 6 Apr 92 04:30:49 GMT
 2Apr1.170853.24089@zip.eecs.umich.edu> <92092.143011DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana


	There's a quite simple reason why the general costs of government 
(not including the areas which can be taken care of with such things as 
use taxes) are generally desired to be paid for, overall, by the rich as 
opposed to the poor. The rich can afford it more.
	-Allen
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Subject: Re: Drug Legalization. Was: College Was: Perot
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 22:42:38 GMT

In article <rssrbINNjno@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes:
>emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff) writes:
>
>> 2) the quality of drugs would improve, but abuse and addiction 
>>would increase (look at cigarettes and alcohol) and non-violent deaths
>>would increase.
>
>You have no numbers to back you up.  If I can find my literature
>(probably can't...), I can show you that the system I am proposing
>would actually decrease the number of addicts in the mid-to-long term.
>Even I will admit to the initial increase drug USE.  But, part of the
>process of making something legal that had once been illegal is that a
>lot of people will want to rush out and do it.  Actual addiction would
>HAVE to decrease.  There is no reasonable theory that would account for
>the addiction rate increasing.  The graph I had looked something like
>this:

	I would be interesed in this literature that backs up your numbers
and plan. Hopefully, it will tell where this system has been tried, and
how it culturally relates to the US. My assumptions about legalization
were all based on what happened after prohibition was lifted.



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: ARBOGASTW@vaxb.gbus.virginia.edu (Warren Arbogast)
Subject: Re: Greedy Athletes
Organization: Darden Center, University of Virginia
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 19:10:36 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.133849.11973@oz.plymouth.edu> m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier) writes:
>In article <1992Apr9.002351.6896@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>We may have the chance to find out.  I heard something about the San
>Francisco Giants thinking about moving to the San Jose area I think.
>I'm not sure about this.  Anyone out there who knows more about thins,
>could you please email me or post.

>If it happened, it'd be interesting to see the impact on the Sharks.

Yes, they are considering a move to San Jose.  The team does not like 
the playing conditions at Candlestick Park and would like improvements. 
There has also been talk of a possible move to Washington over the years.

Warren
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: larry@bradley.bradley.edu (Larry D. Stratton)
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Organization: Bradley University
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 17:08:42 GMT

In <1992Apr15.201404.24034@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> jfh@greenber.austin.ibm.com (John F Haugh II) writes:
>In article <1992Apr15.054157.17941@schaefer.math.wisc.edu> junikka@schaefer.math.wisc.edu (Jari Junikka) writes:
>>Oh my god, I must be straight after all, since I get nowhere closer

>I'll explain AIDS to you.  AIDS is not easily spread.  If you
>have unprotected sex with a person who is HIV+, you have a 1
>in 500 shot of getting AIDS.  So, you'd either have to have
   I am not interested in your base argument however, the above
   statistic is grossly incorrect.  The chance of infection is
   based on the vector with certain types of sexual behavior.
   For instance: oral sex with the invasivate HIV+ has a possible
   infection rate closer to 1/700,000.  Reverse roles where the
   intruder is HIV+ and the infection rate is 1/10,000.  The above
   assumes ingestion of ejaculate.

   Blood transfusions, although rare now, and shared needle use have
   very high transmission rates.

   Statistics: Pasteur Institute, Paris, Fr. 
-- 

  In search of a sig.
    suggestions solicited
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18151 ca.politics:3469 ba.politics:2658 alt.politics.homosexuality:2099
From: mike@batpad.lgb.CA.US (Mike Batchelor)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Date: 13 Apr 92 18:18:16 GMT
Organization: The Batchelor Pad

djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM writes:

> pgr@crhc.uiuc.edu (Paul Ryan) writes:
> 
> > We both know that you have never in your entire life seen a "hunted looking
> > little child being dragged around like a prize puppy dog by a swaggering, 
> > snorting 'queer lady'."
> 
> Heh.. Wish I had a photo of that BITCH. I'd post a .GIF for all
> to see the truth.

And for balance, I'd post a GIF of the woman I saw the other day in
the supermarket slapping the shit out of a four or five year old which
I presume was her offspring.  The kid was crying, and she kept
slapping him, never figuring out that the slapping was making him
cry more.  He didn't stop crying until she mentioned telling Daddy
when they got home.

Of course, neither of those images would prove anything, but I'm sure
that would not bother you.



[] ---
[] Mike Batchelor -- mike@batpad.lgb.CA.US -- cerritos.edu!batpad!mike
[] Long Beach, California
[] TNG Quote: "You were travelling in close formation at over 80,000 kph, only
[] 10 meters from Cadet Albert, and you didn't even know his orientation?!?"
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17133 alt.individualism:2302 alt.activism:7314
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Class Warfare is STUPID: (Was: : Where Have A
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:50:33 GMT
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith) writes:
>	There's a quite simple reason why the general costs of government 
>(not including the areas which can be taken care of with such things as 
>use taxes) are generally desired to be paid for, overall, by the rich as 
>opposed to the poor. The rich can afford it more.

If that's all there was to it, then you could argue that the theft
didn't hurt the rich as much.  However, this presupposes that a) all
those costs of government are necessary or positive, and b) that the
rich wouldn't do anything with that money except bury it in their back
yard, rather than pumping it back into jobs and the economy.
-- 
The climate of Bombay is such that its inhabitants have to live elsewhere.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18270 alt.activism:7725
From: cts@dragon.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: AGRAN, Democracy, and UseNet (I)
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:33:33 GMT
Organization: Computer Projects Unlimited

In article <9204080610.AA07686@tba.msi.cornell.edu>, harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (Harel Barzilai) writes:
> 
> I will attempt to set the record straight to counteract some truly
> remarkable distortions perpetrated here.

That'll be a historic first.

> 
> The level of intellectual honesty (or lack thereof) one fails to
> appreciate to the fullest when one has been away from the UseNet for
> some time. Correspondingly, when people talk about

Oh?  I've not seen a signficant decrease in the volume of verbage dumped
here...
 
> "Agran's supporters" disrupting Clinton's Speech
> 
> and
> 
> "Now of course, you disagree with Clinton, so it's ok to disrupt him right?"
>                 ^^^presumably meaning, "Agran"
> 		or else a personal attack which is entirely baseless,
> 			in fact, counter my previous include-everyone stands

Are you disavowing disruptive tactics, such as sitins, blocking roads, 
and disrupting other canidates activities, even ones you disagree 
with?

 
> after I post that:
> 	-- It was FULANI and her supporters who disrupted
> and	-- Agran condemned it

I watched this more than once.  Whoever the woman was, she was quite vocal
about Agran's exclusion.  This, in my book, makes her an Agran supporter,
or at least someone advocating for him.

Secondly, your pal George Herbert Walker Bush condemned the Willie
Horton ads, and stated he had nothing to do with it.  I can recall
a number of things you've posted comdeming those ads...the same standard
cuts both ways.

 
> is the normal level of honesty, and it is not worthwhile to read and
> reply to further posts here. 

Keep your head in the sand, and maybe we'll go away, eh?  Not likly, as
long as we still have some sembalance of freedom to protect from the
looters.

> Rather, I will set the record straight
> and leave it at that. Those who have honest questions can email me,
> and for those who will lie again, I will be re-posting the basic facts
> and analysis revealing the lies and hatred of democracy (respectively)
> on a periodic basis for all to see.

Propaganda, by any other name.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc