HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: buckmr@rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Subject: Replacing BENTSEN as Senator from TEXAS?
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:01:01 EST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA07524; Fri, 11 Dec 92 16:01:14 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA18578; Fri, 11 Dec 92 16:01:09 -0800
X-Received: from client.its.rpi.edu (vccsouth15.its.rpi.edu) by rpi.edu (4.1/SMHUB39);
	id AA05017; Fri, 11 Dec 92 19:01:06 EST for talk.politics.misc.usenet@decwrl.dec.com
X-Received: by client.its.rpi.edu (4.1/SUB16);
	id AA10169; Fri, 11 Dec 92 19:01:05 EST for talk.politics.misc.usenet@decwrl.dec.com
X-To: talk.politics.misc.usenet


Anyone have a clue who will replace Bentsen as Senator until May 1, 1993?
Henry Cisneiros looked like he might want it [if he's not in the Clinton
Cabinet]. But even so, there's a special election next year. Maybe BUSH or
PEROT will run?

heee heee.


   
---
vox:(518)-276-8910 fax:(518)-276-6920 buckmr@rpi.edu buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet
``No exam-cheating, pot-smoking, draft-dodging, privileged youth Vice-President
in a "Bush The Blamer" administration can speak with moral authority about
abandoned moral values and assuming personal responsibility.''--Jesse Jackson
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Bleeding-Heart Libertarianism (was Legalizing drugs)
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 08:48:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.214750.17386@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (REACH OUT AND GREP SOMEONE) writes:
}No. Inflation was at it's worst in 78 and 79. The short 1980 recession took
}the momentum out of inflation. By 82' inflation was pretty much under control.

By what measure?  Interest rates reached 20% after 1979.  The price of gold
was in the $800/oz. range after then, too.

}I'm not going to argue this. All I'm saying is that becuase Carter was 
}more a free marketeer than Nixon or Ford he was victimized by their
}policies when he decided to relaxe controls. In other words, it sunk his
}presidency.

He may well have been more of a free-marketeer than them, but that's because
they were so bad, not because he was that good.  Also, Ford was better at
cutting spending than any of them, including Reagan and Bush, because he
didn't care about military spending.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.current-events.somalia,alt.politics.bush,alt.president.clinton
From: gtao@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Greg )
Subject: Re: WAR IN BOSNIA!!!!
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:45:39 GMT

harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:

>That is, at minimum we would be enforcing the no-fly zone by
>intercepting and possibly destroying Serbian fixed-wing aircraft
>flying over Bosnia.  At maximum, we'd be using smart bombs and
>anti-radiation missles to take out various targets.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What the hell is an "anti-radiation missile!?!"  


*******************************************************************************
* Gregory Tao                      | E-mail to:  gt38091@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu     * 
* Univ. of IL at Urbana-Champaign  |        OR      gtao@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu     *
* Department of Computer Science   |        OR      gtao@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu     *
* --------------------------------------------------------------------------- *
*                                                                             *
*  	``Change, suddenly, is everywhere we look, sweeping empires and       *
*    ideologies before it, shaping a new era even as we watch. Such moments   *
*    are rare. Today we stand at such a moment.''                             * 
*                                                                             *
* --------------------------------------------------------------------------- *
* DISCLAIMER:  My opinions do not necessarily reflect those of CCSO or the    *
*              University of Illinois.					      *
*******************************************************************************

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64242 talk.politics.drugs:7958
From: dmeyers@mal-s2.gatech.edu (Dave Meyers)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Bleeding-Heart Libertarianism (was Legalizing drugs)
Date: 14 Dec 92 23:35:40 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Georgia Tech Res. Inst./Modeling & Analysis Lab

In <Bz64sM.DBI@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus ) writes:

>>But, anyway, how do you feel about taking away someone else's money to
>>feed the hungry.

>Well, if they have quite a bit of money, I wouldn't mind much at all.  I mean, 

That depends upon what you consider "quite a bit of money".  According
to the scales in the newspapers, I'm quite impoverished.  Next to
a homeless person, however, I've got "quite a bit of money".  That
homeless person may very well decide that he has the right to take
some of mine using the same criteria that you are using.

>as unpopular as this may be with some, I have no problem taking the money that
>some rich person was gonna use to buy a second Ferrari and soend it on feeding,
>clothing, and housing people.  I guess the Libertarians and I can't debate on
>this one.  I understand their objections, but I just don't agree.

You seem to insist upon turning the problem upside down.  I ask
you:  What gives you the right to _demand_ that someone else
feed the "poor" instead of buying that ferrari?  You may reply
"What gives him the right to buy a second ferrari?", but that
is quite irrelevant.  And besides, that second ferrari is in
fact being purchased for money.  Buying that second ferrari
keeps the ferrari repair-man in his job, as well as the 
ferrari car company employed.  It seems just as unfair, or
even more so, to keep that car from being bought, as the
purchase of that car help keep people employed.  Amazing
thing -- the free market tends to distribute money!  Who'd
have ever thought that?  To bring the example closer to
the people, think about the luxury taxes that were raised,
like the ones on motorboats.  When the taxes went up, so
did the number of former motorboat sales people and repair-
people who lost their jobs.

>I am open to debate it, but am not optimistic that we'll ever agree.  

Good.  That is much better than many others out there, and
having open debates like this is essential.  Thank you.

>>It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.

--David

-- 
-- David S. Meyers (dmeyers@math.gatech.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: Death of Canada (Was: Death of America)
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: The Bates Motel
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 22:54:28 GMT

cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>
>>Our doctors are happy (in fact, disturbingly comfortable from 
>>what I've seen in my circles);
>
>would you care to describe what the term "disturbingly comfortable"
>means in a free society? 

Sure ... they and their colleagues that I've met are probably the 
last people that I can imagine to take off in a supposed "green card
stampede" (unless retirement is coming up and there's a part-time
private practice in Arizona that's open; rather than retire outright,
ease out of the saddle slowly (if you know what workaholics doctors
are, you'll understand how brutal a cold turkey retirement would be
for them), get the residency to get more "benefits" (uh -- ya turnin'
red? (-;)) let alone worry about or play politics.  I was very 
surprised that they went outside of their general apathy, my high
school friend and a former girlfriend went to a couple of "shows of
forces" in Toronto (like the Humana thing that you've cited, or by
some Texas hospital corporation) as a preemptive warning shot to chill
the Rae government (or any other party if fee schedule time is coming
up).  So that's really it -- I'm-all-right-Jack complacency.  If you
are looking for a "socialist redistributor bogeyman" ... wrong number.

>>they get paid every time they see someone
>
>it should be some other way? do you get paid for each day you 
>show up for work?

In my comments on doctors being pragmatists, that is their main
concern and why there is such little objection to the way that we do
health insurance up north; their high satisfaction rate as revealed in
a recent Medical Post survey (that's the magazine of the CMA ...
certainly not the ally of any provincial or federal health minister)
that was recently in the news is due in part to not having to worry
about being welched by a patient or an insurance company that is being
billed directly.  They don't seem to fret as much over their income as
American doctors seem to (like a friend of ours in Glendale (L.A.),
CA; he's a Texan from El Paso, btw).

gld (that commie red tory! (-;)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@cunixd.cc.columbia.EDU 		Support NAFTA
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			 Eat Mexican  (El Teddy's ad)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott)
Subject: Re: Death of America and Birth of "Republic of Maya"
Summary:  Hear those sucking sounds
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords:  NAFTA == ILLUSION
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 05:45:00 GMT

In article <BzHJ64.3rE@ulowell.ulowell.edu>, 
cshi@cs.ulowell.edu (Chunde Shi) invokes...


 	       [ the Void ]



Good point, let's slick it and start over.

-= The System Needs a Low Level Reformat =-

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64833 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10452
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (MMMMM...ESSENCE OF GELFLING)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Soul of the Republican Party
Summary: Point/Counterpoint
Date: 18 Dec 92 21:31:49 GMT
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <mlbruce.724692887@husc11>, mlbruce@husc11.harvard.edu (Matthew Bruce)   writes...
>scythe@hardy.u.washington.edu (The Grim Reaper) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec17.165709.22823@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>(eloquence deleted)
>>The Republican strategy in '92 was to move the part *AWAY* from the
>>average joe's politics, and towards the religious crazies (see
>>what happened to the Republicans here in Washington ... a platform against
>>yoga and medition =) )
>>Now guess who won?
> 
>Oddly enough, in national elections up to 1992, the Republicans seemed to
>have done best when they could demonstrate the lines of ideological
>distinction between the parties, the Democrats doing best when those
>distinctions could be blurrer.
>1972: McGovern shown to be in far left-- Nixon wins easily.
>1976: 2 moderates, Carter wins.
>1980-1984: Reagan eludicates conservative principles well, wins landslides.
>1988: Dukakis finally admits to being Liberal, Bush wins on Reagan coattails.

I disasagree with the 1988 summary. Dukakis denied being a liberal until
the last week of the campaign. That was long after he fell behind in the
polls. When he did admit being a liberal he actually went UP in the polls.
Although it was far too late by then.
> 
-Garrett
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64450 alt.sex:39672 alt.politics.homosexuality:8014
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Date: 16 Dec 1992 04:05:14 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <BzC0oB.Gn2@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl) writes:
>
> And on a lighter note, didn't some French official comment that
> France has mostly "real men," but most of the men in the U.K.
> and the U.S. were gay?  ;)

That was Edith Cresson, I think, who was Prime Minister for several
centuries one year.   She didn't say "most", but that it was one in 
five, if I recall correctly.

She also announced that the Japanese are "ants".    A really nice
person, as you can tell.     A kind of aging female French K*ld*s.

jon.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
From: dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier)
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 02:33:43 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.004605.17873@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>In article <1992Dec17.000759.26234@news.acns.nwu.edu>, dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
>> Besides, your comparison of homosexuality to religion is apples to oranges. 
>> Homosexuality is a behavioral trait. 
>
>  And religion is not? This better be good...
>
>> Behavioral traits span from irritability
>> in one celled critters to sexual preference in higher order mammals.  
>
>  Give it up:
>
>> Religion is something only possible in beings who are able to reason.
>
>  This stands alone as a singular indictment of your utter lack of reason.
>-- 
>
>		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)

You are useless to all meaningful discussion and an unfortunate barometer of
so called *liberal thought* today.  Rather than trying to debate me, you
insist on calling me names.  Does this idiotic game you play improve your
position or give you the higher intellectual ground?  Not a chance.  It just
shows your immaturity and insecurity.

Come back after you've grown up.



-- 
Douglas C. Meier		|  I have a trig midterm tomorrow and I'm
Northwestern University, ACNS 	|  being chased by Guido the killer pimp.
This University is too Commie-	|  -Miles, from "Risky Business"
Lib Pinko to have these views.	|  dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott)
Subject: Re: Death of America
Summary:  Me, I like bashing lawyers
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:58:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.154053.17594@athena.mit.edu>, 
cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes...

>In article <14DEC199200393771@utarlg.uta.edu> 
>b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott) writes:

>>Shall I go back to poetry?
> 
>might as well (aren't we getting cozy now?)

< lights candles >

>i try to be serious and get responses with my challenges deleted and
>instead anecdotes filled with smiley faces.
>i am just getting an ulcer and no-one is listening anyway. alas,
>i toil in vain, but it is better than giving up.

< a faint odor of waxey eloquence suffuses the discussion >

>make the next one rhyme a little more. and put a big mushroom cloud
>at the end (credit to broward). that would be a nice touch.

< you notice the candle is black >
< with an 8 stamped on the side, >
< its flame starts to splutter   >  

Perhaps, I can help clarify. Talk.politics.misc is like being out on
the street compared to t.p.theory, which is more academic, and could
be likened to a coffee house for the intelligentsia, ie Gordon Fitch
and co. You can get a good logical argument over in t.p.t if you're
willing to affect the raised-pinko style. T.p.misc though often as not
ends up in a brawl. 

Put another way, t.p.m is given to "rhetoric" and theatrics, both
reasonable ways of trying to punch through (or punch-out) the info-
barrage which buffets us. Even the best arguments are soon forgotten, 
but a well turned phrase, or vivid image, takes-on it's own life and
sometimes returns to haunt. The verbal graffiti bantered about often
spills over into the mass media, curiously enough.

Now in alt.conspiracy, half the folks are paranoid, the other half are
skeptics if not randians, best to go there armed to the teeth.
Ideological camouflage is used in abundance. Strongly advise travelling 
in groups of 4 or more.

The alt.pick-any-cause groups are probably where you'll get the most
sound logical arguments on a blow-by-blow basis -- if you don't mind
and have the time, to go a full 15 rounds. There are plenty of 
referees too, if not spectators.

I can't overemphasize that a lot of folks are here for entertainment,
most(?) really do care, some just want to jerk your chain, others have
axes to wield, with an assortment of real psychos, and a collection
of fledgling lawyers, politicians, and journalist polishing up their
skills.

<licks fingers, and almost snuffs out the fuse, before...>

-= Anyone know the lyrics to Bobby Brown's rap "I gotta get away" ? =- 

<fzzzt...>
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64606 soc.motss:52742 alt.sex:39763
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,alt.sex
Subject: Re: No solid proof to support ( was: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Date: 16 Dec 92 18:35:56 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1gm096INN1sv@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins)) writes:
> In article <13627@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #See "AIDS and sexual behavior in France" in the December 3, 1992
# #_Nature_.  The survey questioned 20,055 people aged 18-69.  The
# #survey asked about "at least one occurrence of intercourse with
# #a person of the same sex during their lifetime", in the past 5 
# #years, and in the past year.  The percentages reported were:
# #
# #           men       women
# #lifetime   4.1%      2.6%
# #past 5 yrs 1.4%      0.4%
# #past year  1.1%      0.3%
# #
# #This is higher than the 3.3% number for men cited by Masters, Johnson,
# #& Kolodny, but roughly in line with the 2.4% homosexual/bisexual
# #identification from exit polling in this year's election.
# #-- 
# #Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
# #C++ is to C, as lung cancer is to lung.
# 
# Of course you forgot to mention that the pollsters stated that there 
# figures may not be that accurate since many people might not or would not
# say they are gay.

I can't find such a statement in the article.  Quote?

# This study was done in France and that is fine, it reflects the information
# gathered from a small subset of people.  Where was the study done?  How
# were people distributed agewise? And how did the researchers weight the
# responses in accordance to age?  What figure did they include for error
# in relationship to people not being truthful? and on and on and on....

20,055 people, aged 18-69 years.  The survey was done by phone, 
covering all of France.  11.6% of the contacted refused to participate
in the survey; 7% of the contacted refused to participate because of
the sexual behavior questions.  Even if every one of those 7% who
refused to participate were homosexuals, it doesn't get the number up
to 10% -- not even close.

# I believe from personal experience and information that sex involving 
# motss is probably higher than 10 percent, especially in a lifetime.  You
# have all types of factors that would prohibit someone from stating that
# they had motss sex- e.g. public stigma, AIDS, etc.

I see.  You want to believe it, it's an article of faith, surveys
that show otherwise are all wrong, etc.

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
C++ is to C, as lung cancer is to lung.
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: I WAS RIGHT!!! YOU ARE CLUELESS!!!!
Date: 15 Dec 92 21:45:19 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <1992Dec15.094044.94512@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PAUL N. RITTER) writes:
>Well people, you have all proven to me that I WAS RIGHT!!! From the last two
>postings I've made, NONE OF YOU could come up with ANY recourse except for the
>fact that my grammmmmmmmer isn't by best feature. If all you can do is rip me
>for some technical misconfiguration of words, don't bother me. After all,
>LIBERALS use this type of tactic when they are proven WRONG (as opposed to
>admitting that you were WRONG)! THANK YOU, LEFTISTS! You prove ONCE AGAIN that
>Rush is the current leader in the mad race of providing POLITICALLY
>CORRECTNESS and defining people to their actions.
>
>He is a god.....
>______________________________________________________________________________
>RUSH LIMBAUGH FOR PRESIDENT '96
>Ideas and comments expressed here are not neccessarily those of this
>station....BUT THEY SHOULD BE!!!---R. Limbaugh
>_______________________________________________________________________________
>Paul N. Ritter III

What?!?  Did this get posted here by mistake instead of in talk.bizarre?
Or maybe
talk.I'm.so.stupid.that.I.can't.think.for.myself.and.need.Rush.to.tell.
me.how.to.think.and.which.facts.to.conveniently.ignore

-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
From: dmd39855@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Daniel DuBois)
Subject: Re: No solid proof to support ( was: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 22:23:10 GMT

gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:

>Daniel DuBois writes:
>#Well, Clayton has corrected this thread by saying that he did mean for the
>#7% to be extrapolated to the entire population, hence, it would be 11.1%.

>Gee, and I only told you that twice.

>#So the above statements are derived from a faulty interpretation.  Not
>#admitting I was wrong in my conclusions however.

>"I was wrong, but I'm not admitting it."

I admitted I was wrong in my interpretation of what he said... And
again, this doesn't mean my conclusions or arguemetn were wrong.
You're a tool.  Why you gotta be so stubborn, just open yer tiny mind
and try to see the valid parts of my arguement.

-Dan