HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dadams@cray.com (David Adams)
Subject: Re: Demo Gun Control & just who were the v
Reply-To: dadams@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 28 Aug 92 14:05:08 CDT

julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) writes:
 dadams@cray.com writes:
| julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) writes:
|> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
|>| gt1111a@prism.gatech.EDU (Vincent Fox) writes:
|>|> garyd@netcom.com (Gary Dietz) writes:
|>|>>>The Crisp-in-ator writes:
|>|>
|>|>>>Did the people who put down the coup in the ex-Soviet Union have a lot of 
|>|>>>guns?  
|>|>
|>|>Yes.
|>|
|>|No they didn't.  The people surrounding the White House were
|>|unarmed and were told to move away if attacked.  Most of the people 
|>|with the guns were the military that came over to Yeltsin's side
|>|and Yeltsin's bodyguards.  The folks on the street were unarmed
|>|(except for gasoline and old ladies yelling at young soldiers)
|>
|>
|>You contradict your self.  The fact is that people with guns
|>(soldiers etc) came over to Yeltsin.
|>
|
|Not really a contradiction.  What I'm saying is that although *some*
|tanks and military personel went over Yeltsin, the large groups of
|people outside the White House were unarmed.
|
|It wasn't the fear of the tanks and soldiers on Yeltsin's side that
|made the KGB Alpha group not attack.  They didn't want to kill
|the large amounts of people that they would have had to.   
|It is possible that they would have attacked if all those 
|unarmed people hadn't been outside the White House.
|
|But, just in case I come across as sounding like "unarmed people can
|always put down coups - therefore we don't need guns", well,
|I certainly don't believe that.  The Russian coup was so poorly
|planned that it really can't be used as an arguement for any
|side of the issue (except as an example on how not to plan a
|coup.)
|

True.  And the passive resistance theory does little to console
the students from Tienaman Square.  

---
--David C. Adams  Statistician  Cray Research Inc.  dadams@cray.com
___________________________________________________________________
       member--Minnesotans for Global Warming.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: The first "oil shock" (was Re: Inflation and Carter?)
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 27 Aug 92 10:17:35 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Aug26.094403.15893@hemlock.cray.com>, rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
...
>>                It happened because a consortium of foreign nations, who controlled
>> the supply of oil, decided to hike prices artificially.
> 
> It should be noted that, in both oil "crisis"s (1973 & 1979), US inflation was
> increasing *before* the oil supply was interupted.  This means the real (inflation
> adjusted) price of oil had been going *down* when OPEC moved to increase the 
> (nominal) price.

	In 1973 the OPEC nations raised the price--to what it had been during
the Bretton Woods era.

	Since dollars buy oil, and dollars used to be exchanged at a set rate
for gold, the OPEC nations had a pretty stable exchange rate.  But once dollars
were not tied to gold, inflation made oil worth less.  So the OPEC nations
simply raised the dollar price back up to the old gold price.

	They said they would do this on August 15th, 1971 when Nixon 
announced the end of Bretton Woods.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: drm@esl.com (Don McGregor)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Bush closes gap
Date: 31 Aug 92 07:32:54 GMT
Reply-To: drm@esl.com
Organization: ESL, a TRW Subsidiary

According to a Time/CNN poll, the gap between Clinton and 
Bush, once up over 20%, has closed to about 6%.  Among
likely voters, the split was 46%/40%, with a margin of error
of +/- 3% (presumably one SD is 3%.)  The poll was
conducted Tuesday and Wednesday.

Not too shabby for a Bush campaign that's still finding its legs.
if Baker gets the campaign's act together in the next couple
weeks Clinton could take some hits.

---
Don McGregor | "That which does not overflow my swap file 
drm@esl.com  | makes me stronger." 

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42129 talk.abortion:33597 alt.politics.bush:3049
From: c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 26 Aug 92 21:43:29 GMT
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley

In article <p2huf1c@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>---
>c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>|Perhaps I didn't word it right.  I didn't really mean to say that 'consent
>|to sex = consent to bear a child.'  Maybe it is more like 'consent to
>|sex = being responsible to any consequence of your actions.'  
>
>|So this means that if you have sex and use contraceptives trying not to have
>|a baby, then the contraceptives fail, then that means that you should still
>|be held accountable for your actions. 
>
>And, of course, getting an abortion is a legal, responsible
>way of discharging that accountability.
>

Yes, abortion is a way of discharging that accountability.  Or another
way of putting it is abortion is flaking out.

Responsible, I disagree with. Giving blacks in the early 1800s food and
shelter, and some things to do can be construed to be responsible.  Slavery,
in fact, was also legal.  Yes, enslaving someone was a perfectly legal,
and responsible way of discharging the accountability.  But is it right?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
From: katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago)
Subject: Re: Stereotyping
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 06:43:13 GMT

In article <11896@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <p15h614@fido.asd.sgi.com>, dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>> In article <11838@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
># #Nothing's wrong with it -- it just illustrates my point -- that 
># #homosexuality isn't just a different sexual preference, but a group
># #of pathological problems, not all of which are shared by every
># #homosexual.
># 
># Many heterosexuals engage in S&M.  Why do you single out homosexuals?
># 
># FWA
>
>Yeah, I meet straight people all the time who engage in S&M. :-)

Actually, you probably do. You just don't know it because they don't
introduce themselves as such. Do you meet people and immediately say
you're a heterosexual? I didn't think so.

>Odd, I've never seen a straight S&M bar.  But you can't walk through
>downtown San Francisco without running into gay S&M bars everywhere.

I'm sure you make it a point of looking for gay S&M bars, so you see
them everywhere. When's the last time you went *searching* for a 
straight S&M bar? It's the Communists-Under-The-Bed syndrome.

Vickie
From: gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: Cultural Elite?
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:32:28 GMT


  Did anyone besides me see the special report on CNN this last weekend about
  politics and Hollywood? One little stat they mentioned was that 76% of do-
  nations from Hollywood persons goes to Democrats. It's pretty much uncon-
  tested that the majority of movie/TV actors, producers, directors, and so
  on are liberal, and I believe it's these people that Dan Quayle is talking
  about.

  Just think for a minute -- make a list of conservative TV/movie stars, and
  a list of liberal TV/movie stars. I guarantee the latter list is much long-
  er.

  Oh, and one more thing -- the studio PACs gave less money to Congress than
  the letter-carriers union did. We're not talking a lot of money from that
  source.

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43452 alt.politics.clinton:3900 alt.politics.bush:3926
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: The politics of Andrew
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 22:27:51 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:

> In article <19959@drutx.ATT.COM> dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
> >Bill Clinton is planning a trip there this week, too.  Would someone please
> >explain *one* good reason why the residents of that area need him there?
>
> Maybe as next President of the United States, he owes it to the residents to
> see the damage directly himself? Just a thought.
>
> ---
> Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com

According to AP, he (Clinton) was invited by Chiles.  Maybe Chiles figured that
if Bush got his photo-op, Clinton was entitled to his.  Clinton remarked last
week that he felt it was better for him to stay away.  I guess that, given how
useless Bush is, at least Clinton can go down there and help build somethng
like he did in Atlanta for that project of Carter's.



|Edward J. Branley                         elendil@mintir.New-Orleans.LA.US|
|Seashell Software                                UUCP:  rex!mintir!elendil|
|3508 North Woodlawn Avenue                          Compu$erve: 71237,2227|
|Metairie, LA   70006       voice: +1-504-455-5087     bbs: +1-504-455-8665|
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Increase in millionaires
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 27 Aug 92 10:33:57 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <l9nnigINN7o@spim.mips.com>, mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
> In article <1992Aug24.134822.3715@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> |> 	Why do some people feel that the number of millionaires increasing
> |> since the last election is a *bad* result?
> |> 
> |> 	If that number was 100% of the population (ignoring the inflationary
> |> effect that would have :), would that be "a bad thing"?
> |> 
> |> 	It would seem that anything that helped raise the median income is to
> |> be looked upon with favor.
> |> 
> |> 	Unless you're assuming that economics is a zero-sum game and these new
> |> millionares did it on the backs of the poor.
> |> 
> Sounds resonable to me.  We have more working americans below the poverty
> level than ever in our history.

	Percentage-wise or simply the total number?

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43109 ca.politics:7313
From: shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Stereotyping
Date: 1 Sep 92 14:04:43 GMT
Reply-To: shore@tc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell Theory Center

In article <12024@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> But you identify with a group that does such. 

No, I don't.  I do, however, recognize their rights.  I
recognize NAMBLA's rights.  I recognize them because if
their constitutional rights can be abridged because of
who they are, then mine can, too.  I recognize their
rights because morons like you make it clear that those
rights are in jeopardy.

> Then you wonder
> why you get discriminated against. 

Indeed I do.  My life is moderate, even boring, by the most
ordinary of standards.  I'm not going to repudiate the rest
of the gay community because you, Cretin Clamor, happen to
think that *my* rights should be constrained because *you*
don't like what you see in San Francisco.

> Either stop identifying with
> them, or encourage them to behave like something other than
> confused and spoiled kids.

Gee, Cretin, I must have missed your posting stating that
as THE representative of the ENTIRE heterosexual community,
you declare the folks who are posting nude images of little
girls to alt.binaries.pictures.erotica to be outcasts and
perverts.  I can only assume, then, that you yourself are
a pederast.  It's your logic - live with it. 
-- 
"I would promptly inform any homosexual who would dare to proposition
me that my preference is fisting."  -- Theodore A. Kaldis

       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42099 alt.individualism:5311
From: bill@prijat.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Train vs. plane subsidies? (was Re: Private Discrimination)
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:26:43 GMT
Reply-To: bill@platypus.uofs.edu
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Scranton, Scranton, PA

Trains have one other "minor" shortcoming in the US.

How far is it from a house (any house, feel free to pick the worst case
you can find) in Germany to a train station that offers passenger service??
It's about 150 miles from my house. All the way to Philadelphia.
And I live in that supposed Northeast Corridor.  
If you don't live in a major metro area you don't have train service.
As for extending the comparison.  I once took a train from Boston to
New York (it wasn't planned, my plane was detoured because of weather
and by morning everything was snowed in and the only way back was train
or rental car, and all the cars were taken before we got there.)
The train had seats like an old school bus and smelled of diesel exhaust 
like an old Greyhound bus.  Not at all like what they show on the Amtrak 
ads on TV.
Add into that the fact that once I got to NYC I had to take a cab to another
train station to make connections.  Trip from Boston, MA. to West Point, NY
took 14 hours.  I could have driven it in about 6.  Tell me again that trains
are a viable transportation alternative n the states.
Not lately, and we have Teddy Roosevelt to thank for it!!

bill

-- 

     Bill Gunshannon          |        If this statement wasn't here,
     bill@platypus.uofs.edu   |  This space would be left intentionally blank
     bill@tuatara.uofs.edu    |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: scholl@uvmark.uucp (Kathryn Scholl)
Subject: Re: Why I cannot vote Democratic
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 16:34:35 GMT
Organization: Vmark Software, Inc.

In article joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>I have these examples of why I will have a hard time voting
>Democratic in the near future.
>           
>Governor Jim Florio (NJ):
>               During his campaign to become Governor, he said (and I quote):
>                  "I SEE NO REASON TO RAISE TAXES"
>               Once in office, he pushed through the largest single tax
>               increase for any state, in the entire history of our country, 
>               all WITHIN SIX MONTHS. He never apologized or attempted to 
>               say why. NJ residents are generally *furious* with Jim and 
>               his party.
>

  Now, let's see.  WHO was it that said at the 1988 Republican Convention?:
  (paraprased)
              "Congress will try to pass legislation to raise taxes,
               and I'll say no.
               So they'll try again to raise taxes and I'll have to 
               say no a second time.
               So again they'll try to raise taxes and, finally, I'll
               just have to say:
                    'READ MY LIPS, NO NEW TAXES!!' "
     
  (lots of applause and cheers from the convention floor at this point
   for Georgie's famous phrase that he was going to use against Congress.)

  And WHO was it that didn't know how to use his veto pen?


>In general I simply have a hard time trusting members of the democratic 
>party - they are too quick to raise taxes

  Gosh, that's a good enough reason for me to have a hard time trusting 
  members of the Republican party!

-- 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 Kathryn Scholl  ** Above text reflects opinions of the author, not VMark **
 Vmark Software, Inc., 30 Speen Street, Framingham, MA  01701, USA
 Internet: uvmark!scholl@merk.com, UUCP: uunet!merk.com!uvmark!scholl
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,soc.culture.usa,alt.conspiracy,alt.revisionism
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: re: socialist?
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:01:55 GMT

In article <RANDOLPH.92Aug26130927@cognito.ebay.Sun.COM> randolph@cognito.ebay.Sun.COM (Randolph Fritz) writes:
>Buchanan: the kinder, gentler David Duke.
>
>Brrrr.
>
>__Randolph Fritz  sun!cognito.ebay!randolph || randolph@ebay.sun.com
>

There was a time, not that long ago, when Buchanan, as a Catholic,
would not have been allowed to address a national party convention. And
now Buchanan can think of nothing better to do with his time than
vent his fear and loathing of others who don't conform to his ideas
of acceptability...


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
From: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Cultural Elite?
Date: 27 Aug 92 18:59:55 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Gary Strand) writes:
|> mp> Michael Polen
|> gs> Gary Strand
|> 
|> gs> It's pretty much uncontested that the majority of movie/TV actors, produ-
|> gs> cers, directors, and so on are liberal, and I believe it's these people
|> gs> that Dan Quayle is talking about.
|> 
|> mp> It must have something to do with the fact that with very few exceptions,
|> mp> actors, producers, etc. are poor people, working hard and looking for their
|> mp> big break.
|> 
|>   Possible, but there's no strict correlation between poverty and political
|>   viewpoint, or, for that matter, wealth and political viewpoint. 
|> 
|> mp> The average member of the screen actors guild, according to a report I saw
|> mp> on a new magazine recently, makes less than $10,000 a year.
|> 
|>   True, but the political movers-n-shakers among Hollywood stars are among
|>   the wealthier individuals in this country. And they do tend to be liberals.
|>   I don't see what the fuss is, just let the facts be the facts.
|> 
|> gs> Just think for a minute -- make a list of conservative TV/movie stars, and
|> gs> a list of liberal TV/movie stars. I guarantee the latter list is much long-
|> gs> er.
|> 
|> mp> Maybe they are smarter that the average citizen. (It is all in how you look
|> mp> at it.)
|> 
|>   Puhleeze. I don't think that Robert Redford, Norman Lear, Ed Asner, et.al.,
|>   are smarter than you or I. However, their position and wealth means that 
|>   they do have a greater influence on our culture and our political system
|>   than we do.
|> 
|>   So far, I've said nothing that isn't obvious, yet somehow, people are react-
|>   ing like I've said something controversial. Why?
|> 
Because we all believe that even if your statements about the political
leanings of those that control Hollywood are true, if their approach to news
and shows where out of the main-stream, people would stop watching.

If the ratings go down, shows dissappear -- quick.

What is controversial is your assertion that their political positions
have any influence, or that their work is out of the main-stream.
Your assertions are rhetoric intended to divide, not reality intended to
educate or communicate.

_________________________________________
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my
dogs, never my employers.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Cultural Elite?
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 15:45:14 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Aug31.163812.19528@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
]Even so, I worry a lot more about the Republican flavor. After all, rich
]people tend to be rich as a result of a lot of conscious, deliberate effort.
]Also, they can become 'un-rich' if they want to. The Republicans go after
]people largely because of involuntarily-acquired characteristics (e.g., gays,
]blacks).

The literalist religious wing of the republican party (guaranteed to be 
portrayed as the ONLY representatives of the republican party by the liberal
media) tends to be anti-gay. I don't think that this applies 
in general to the repub party (unless you define anti-gay as being
something as mild as being opposed to gay child adoption or gay
"rights" bills). To characterize republicans as "going after" blacks
is really unfair. I challenge you to support either of your statements
as generally applying to republicans.

By the way, many gays claim that their "characteristic" is not
involuntary. I think that they are in general wrong about that.


-- 
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
Get into Ham Radio today! Morse Code no longer needed! It's a hobby, a sport, a
convenience, a technical challenge, a public service. Go rec.radio.amateur.misc
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42867 talk.politics.mideast:19361 misc.headlines:6078
From: bgdv706@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu (Noam Tractinsky)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Eggert vs. Livni
Date: 31 Aug 92 01:50:32 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: University of Texas @ Austin

In article <EGGERTJ.92Aug25164553@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu>, eggertj@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41) writes:
> In article <BtJsL7.9yu@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> idfriedm@hertz.uwaterloo.ca (id friedman) writes:

		[...]


>>     Israel has withdrawn from most of the territory.
> 
> "Most" here is presumably defined by geographical area.  One could
> easily well choose another measure, such as population or number of
> holy religious sites, which would indicate that Israel has not
> withdrawn from most of the territory.


	One could choose yet other measures, such as the average
	weight of the population, or the proximity of the holy sites
	to the moon. But one has to admit that for the last several
	thousands of years, the use of geographical measures to define
	a territory has not been severely challenged. Perhaps the time
	has come for the new theory of terrinometry.
 

		[...]


> =Jim  eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)


Noam
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc