HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Coalition for Traditional Values' Candidate Survey
Organization: SSDT SPS, Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 00:01:53 GMT

In article <1992Nov05.052415.90471@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <Bx2ME0.Iyw@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tspila@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Spila Timothy) writes:
>>
>>UGH, UGH, UGH   We all know why the two terms pro-life and pro-choice are
>>thrown around.  First, it is easier to get people to agree with you if your
>>title is positive (i.e. "pro-").  Second, if the pro-lifers were
>>"Anti-abortioners", then they would lose support.  Also, if the pro-choicers
>>were "Pro-abortioners", then they would lose support.  Perhaps even more
>>support than the pro-lifers, but if one side can play with words, then why
>>can't the other side?
>
>"Anti-abortion" is an accurate description of the "pro-life" position, while
>"pro-abortion" is not an accurate description of the "pro-choice" position.

To put it another way:
"pro-life" is an accurate description of the "anti-abortion" position, while
"pro-choice" is not an accurate description of the "pro-abortion" position.

Pat
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59254 ca.politics:9472 ba.politics:6932
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: A Worrisome Example of "Subhuman" Ideology
Date: 9 Nov 92 17:47:54 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1devduINN4e@agate.berkeley.edu>, joan@koala.berkeley.edu writes:
# I too, disliked this ad against gay-bashing, further, I think it
# ineffective.  I believe that, rather than spread lies about
# Dobermans, or portray the basher as a powerful brute, it would
# be more effective to show the basher hiding his face at the trial
# while his momma cries, or something like that.
# 
# There is no reason to degnigrate the non-human, let alone the
# much-maligned Dobie, most of which, like most dogs, are very 
# sweet.
# 
# I really would prefer that rather than a vivid picture of victimization,
# a picture of a failed gay bashing be shown.  Perhaps the gay could
# escape, or perhaps something bad could happen to the basher rather
# than the gay.  It is, after all, dangerous to assault people.
# 
# Joan V

Since gay-bashing frequently involves multiple attackers, and a
single victim, the only way to make it dangerous for the attackers
is if the victim is armed.  You can immediately see why such an
ad will never appear on TV.

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
The Physician Assisted Death Initiative failed.  Term limits for Congressmen
passed.  If only we could have combined the two... two terms, and a doctor
does lethal injection...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
From: root@june.cmp.rpi.edu (J.R. Ordon)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 19:15:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.175844.20512@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>In article <1doptuINNc5r@rave.larc.nasa.gov> jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov () writes:
>>In article <1992Nov10.023120.2114@u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>>>In article <69.X666X@ramona.com> doug@ramona.com (Double Agent) writes:
>>>>EEOC Commissioner. Note that the EEOC is the agency where Hill was working
>>>>when she was sexually harassed by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas,
>>>>who was then the EEOC Commissioner.
>>>
>>>She offered no evidence that she was harassed by anyone.
>>>
>>>--Tim Smith
>>
>>In your opinion...
>>
>>John
>>
>
>Testimony is evidence.
>
>
>Don Pajerek
>
>Standard disclaimers apply.

If it was truly "testimony", then why all the fuss over how she was
treated by the "cross-examiners". BTW , Clarence Thomas "testified" that 
her allegations were false, if you take her testimony as "evidence", you 
must take his as evidence also.
-----------------------
J.R. Ordon

the views expressed here are mine & not my employers
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
From: parrish@ecn.purdue.edu (Stephen L. Parrish)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 00:04:35 GMT

In article <lg2gp4INNpfm@spim.mti.sgi.com>, mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
|> Greg Trotter) writes:
|> |> 
|> |> The first time I listened to Rush was right after Bush nominated Thomas --
|> |> before the Anita Hill squabble started. I believe that some women's rights
|> |> group was criticizing Thomas because he wasn't qualified.
|> |> 
|> |> Rush's comment was along the lines of: "Since when are qualifications
|> |> important to people who support AFFIRMATIVE ACTION?!?"
|> 
|> Of course, Thomas' nomination was AFFIRMATIVE ACTION personified.  It is
|> his stance that the program he benefited from throughout his career is
|> unnecessary and and unfair, that it hypocritical.  Of course Thomas is
|> not intentionally hpyocritical.  He is probably the only person in the
|> country that thinks he was the most qualified person for the job.
|> |> 
|> |> Great line. It turned me into a dittohead.
|> |> 
|> 
|> -- 
|> These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
|> occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.

The most qualified judge in recent memory was thrown out... Bork anyone?
Perhaps Thomas realizes the essence of Affirmative Action anyway-- a 
discriminatory system to fulfill quotas.


-- 
Stephen Parrish              |  "Do not speak to me of good men, bind them
Purdue University            |   with the chains of the constitution"
School of Nuclear Engineering|   --  Thomas Jefferson  (roughly) 
parrish@gn.ecn.purdue.edu    |  KEMP/Powell '96   (If the US survives '92-96)
From: matthew_c_zank@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Last line on BUSH
Date: Thu,  5 Nov 92 21:31:44 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world

62 percent of voters have said that BUSH is no good!!!!!!
the 12 years of voodoo gloom are done!!!! it is a new
day.
BYE BYE BUSH, BYE BYE BUSH
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Election Analysis
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:34:57 CST


In article <a===3g_@engin.umich.edu>, jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) writes:
> In article <1992Nov4.084729.9552@hemlock.cray.com>, rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
> |> 
> |> It's quite simple.
> |> 
> |> If the economy is good, the incumbant is re-elected.
> |> If the economy is bad, the incumbant is kicked out.
> |> All other analysis is just talk.
> 
> I don't completely agree with this, at least not as far as this
> years election was concerned.  I think the major problem with
> the Bush campaign is that it lacked focus.  Of course some would
> say that was the problem with his domestic agenda and they would
> be correct.  Bush allowed Clinton to take the offensive on the
> economy and Bush never fought back until the very end.

The reason Clinton could take the offensive on the economy is
because the economy sucked.
>                                                         Bush
> should have counterattacked on the economic issue.

The problem was that when Bush would argue that the economy was
not so bad, it just fueled the perception that Bush was out of
touch.
>                                                     There are
> many points that Bush could have made but never did.  He also
> should have stressed foreign policy more.  We are living in a
> world which is seeing great political change.  Bush should have
> emphasized that he would be the better person to deal with all
> the newly emerging nations.  This tactic would have worked well
> agains Perot as well.  To me Perot is the embodiment of the 'ugly'
> American.  He would have been terrible at foreign policy, maybe
> even dangerous.

I have my doubts about Perot as president, but I think he did this
country a great service by trying to solve important economic issues.

>                  In the end, I think that the Bush campaign accurately
> reflected the fact that Bush lacked 'the vision thing'.  I
> find myself glad that he's gone, but scared at the prospect of
> what Clinton and Congress are going to do to the country.

I think they will do a good job...

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Clinton won... let's calm down
Date: 5 Nov 92 14:57:53 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA

As one who has strongly opposed Bill Clinton, I want to say the following:

Clinton has won. He is the president elect. It is time to stop attacking
his past, because it is no longer relevant. We need to give him the
benefit of the doubt, and not go after him unless we disagree with his
actions as president (or president elect).

Likewise, it is time for the Bush/Quayle bashers to cease. Any more attacks
will simply be gratuitous ad-hominem garbage. It no longer matters whether
he knew about arms for hostages, or other issues that have been hammered
to death. It no longer matters if Quayle can spell (well, it never did,
but it is no longer a useful line of attack).

Finally, we can stop going after Perot. If he pops back up (and I think he
will), we can restart the arguments, but again attacks on him at this
point have no value.

I hope Bill Clinton is a good president. I know I will disagree with some
of his actions (I wasn't exactly fond of a lot of Bush's actions either),
but I still hope he does a good job. We can do without partisan bickering
UNLESS Clinton does some bad things. Clinton will face a lot of tough
challenges (deficit, foreign crises, crime at home, etc). It no longer
matters what we predicted of him. What counts is what he really does,
and we have no way of knowing how he will behave in office. 

Let's cool it for the present.
-- 
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
 - - Comment too controversial for management - Deleted :-) -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58848 alt.politics.elections:23088 alt.politics.libertarian:1726
From: sjameson@fergie.dnet.ge.com (Stephen M Jameson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Democrats and Republicans: NTU Ratings
Date: 6 Nov 92 22:04:14 GMT
Reply-To: sjameson@atl.ge.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: General Electric Advanced Technology Labs
NNTP-Posting-Host: retaxes.atl.ge.com
In-reply-to: clc5q@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU's message of 2 Nov 92 23:05:05 GMT

In article <1992Nov2.230505.13838@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> clc5q@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman) writes:
>
>Not according to the National Taxpayers' Union, which tracks the voting
>records of all Congressmen on spending and taxing matters.  They give scores
>ranging from 0 to 100, with a score of 56 or higher called "Taxpayers' Friend,"
>and 26 or lower in the Senate, 21 or lower in the House, being called "Big
>Spender".  In between are the "Average" and "Fair" categories.
>

Does anybody have any information on the specific measures by which the
congresscritters were judged?  Ideal, of course, would be raw data:  measures
listed, with positive or negative value attached to each, individual
congresscritters votes on each.  Failing this, some less detailed statistics
would still be helpful.  Does anybody have address information for the NTU,
either snail- or e-mail?

--
Steve Jameson                           General Electric Aerospace 
sjameson@atl.ge.com                     Advanced Technology Laboratories
                                        Moorestown, New Jersey              
****************************************************************************
**  . . . but I do not love the sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow    **
**  for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory.  I love only that   **
**  which they defend . . .                                               **
**    -- Faramir, "The Two Towers"                                        **
****************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism,misc.legal
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 14:55:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.074838.8909@nntp.uoregon.edu> eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:
>
>Spoken by a beneficiary of white male privilege. What you call a quota
>system is the only thing that has gotten people to even look at what are
>called "qualifications of merit" when they are displayed by white men.

(lots of text deleted-it was interesting though)

I'm not trying to trivialize the problems of discrimination, but
an ideal system would be to (pardon the cliche comments to follow)
ignore all racial and gender classification on employment applications.
The problem that people have with affirmitive action laws is that it is
seen as the goverment trying to legislate attitudes.  Unfortunately,
prejudice can't be scrapped overnight, but not everyone is racist or
sexist.  Discrimination is clearly wrong and should be dealt with
accordingly, but affirimitive action laws seem written as if to say
that anytime someone doesn't get hired there was deliberate discrimination
involved.  I am totally in favor of everyone having equal opportunity.
Of course we need laws prohibiting discrimination but it should not
be assumed that every employer will discriminate unless the law fo

I can post more on this further, but please understand that it is
not bigotry merely to criticize affirimitive action.
Everyone deserves an fair chance.  I strongly beleive that the only
thing that matters is that person's abilities.  Government intervention
can disrupt individual initiative.


(the above was not a flame.  Please don't sent hate e-mail about
how racist I am because it is not true.)

Simon


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: jfr@RedBrick.COM ()
Subject: Re: Term Limits
Organization: Red Brick Systems, Los Gatos, CA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 11:42:30 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.040046.29049@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>Keywords: 
>
>In article <farenebt.721263404@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
>]john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>]					
>]>Still, we need term limits. The citizens of 15 states have already voted
>]>in favor of them by true landslide margins (3 to 1 here in AZ).
>
>I think most supporters of term limits believe that they should be
>nationwide. Until then, we will continue to reelect our representatives
>because otherwise our states will be at a disadvantage (yet one more
>advantage to incumbents). We want a level playing field, which means
>nationwide term limits.

  My guess is the exact opposite is going to happen.  Congress will finally
  exert its Constitutional authority and pass a NO TERM LIMITS law which
  will preempt the field from the states and require that elections for
  Federal elections (except President which is mandated by the Constitution 
  to be two terms) not have term limits.  The 1st Article of the Constitution
  grants Congress the express power to set and determine the qualifications
  of its members and the manner of their election, except the time and place
  of such elections which will be determined by the state.  Congress has not
  acted so its unclear whether Federal term limit laws will be struck down.
  Once Congress acts, the Constitutional authority is clear and the courts
  will have no option by to strike down any state legislation on the issue.

  The only exception is in California where they have neatly attempted to
  dodge the issue by having an initiative which does NOT set a qualification
  for election, merely a qualification for appearing on the ballot.  Anyone
  can be written in and elected notwithstanding the limits in the law.  So
  you can win election 3 times normally and then 10 times more by writein.
  Whether this will hold up is unclear.  The biggest loophole in the law
  which could cause its demise is that the TITLE of the initiative was
  explicitly TERM LIMITS, even though it did NOT have anything to do with
  TERM LIMITS because it doesn't limit terms in Congress, merely whether
  you can appear on the ballot (although the effect is the same).  If a
  court determines that the title of the initiative was misleading, it
  might be struck down on that grounds.  Of course, if they had called
  the initiative BALLOT QUALIFICATIONS, it might have been easier to run
  a campaign against it.

  Jon Rosen
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: President Clinton
From: jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle )
Date: 12 Nov 92 21:26:55 PST
Organization: California State University, Bakersfield
Summary: God's a Socialist?

Ha h....

Jennifer, Republican Extraordinaire, "Don't blame me, I didn't vote for him."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Now that it's over, I've received 5:1 e-mail.  5 pro-Bush, isn't this great?
we're gonna win in '96 for sure! to each 1 pro-Clinton nyah.  In light of
this, I still don't understand how he got elected.
--------------------------------------------------
mandate, v.  Democrats saying, "All right! It's ours again! Let's SCREW 'EM!!"
landslide, n.  Election by 40% of the vote, 5 points above 2nd place.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58470 alt.politics.libertarian:1675 talk.philosophy.misc:2291 alt.individualism:5938
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Property Rights
Date: 6 Nov 1992 15:06:59 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <1992Nov6.093919.28271@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>In article <1d6a85INN263@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>}The purpose of this line of postings was to answer Rick Beckham's challenge
>}to define the term "thief" with anything less than the libertarian
>}absolutist idea of property ownership.  I pointed out that no culture
>}had ever had such a ludicrously absolute notion, yet all had been able to
>}define thievery without difficulty.  I haven't seen any other libertarians
>}challenging me on this point yet.
>
>Not quite "without difficulty".  All cultures prohibit random takings of
>property.  It's the systematic takings that vary.  All you've done is
>cited examples where property rights are abridged systematically in some way
>or another by the State.  What about cultures without States but with
>property rights?

Good question.  The answer is that systematic takings are common in hunter-
gatherer societies to make optimal use of sporadically available resources
such as game or large domestic animals when they are slaughtered.

For example, anthropologists have studied division of game in many societies.
Usually the hunter and his family have the right to the choicest portions,
and the rest get to divide the remainder.

I read an interesting article recently about how some stone-age type
cultures in Brazil, when introduced to metal knives and cookpots
(singular, irreplaceable artifacts that give a major advantage over their own
technology constructed simply from materials at hand) change from an
essentially propertyless state of ownership for tools and the like, to a
system of posession like ours.

Mike Huben

"Historians will have to face the fact that natural selection determined the
evolution of cultures in the same manner as it did that of species."
Konrad Lorenz in "On Agression" 1966.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings)
Subject: Re: Stockdale is a Bumbling Idiot
Organization: Intergraph
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 15:46:00 GMT

In article <83326@ut-emx.uucp>, wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester) writes:
> In article <JTURNER.92Nov7205744@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu> jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner) writes:
> ]In article <1992Nov7.152731.15169@emr1.emr.ca> knguyen@emr1.emr.ca (Kim Nguyen) writes:
> ]
> ]> "MOST OF INSURGENTS IN SOUTH VIETNAM WERE ACTUALLY NORTH VIETNAMESE
> ]> SOLDIERS".
> ]
> ]	Who or what are you quoting.
> 
> The reference is found in many books. Including, I think one written by
> General Giap after the war. NVA troops were in the South mixed in with NLF
> forces. It's in quite a few history books. Look it up. Or are you just going
> to dismiss it as propaganda?


I too have read many books saying that at least in the later years, many of
the "VC batallions" were largely NVA filling in.

> 
> ]
> ]	The US and the ARVN LOST THE WAR.  Get off trying to
> ]prove otherwise.
> 
> Won every battle but lost the war anyway. Funny, but true.
> 
> ]

I don't know about funny..

> ]				--Jeff Turner
> 
> 
> -- 
> Patrick Chester            |----------------------------------------------------

Larry Billings
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.individualism
From: fulton@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben Fulton)
Subject: Re: Property Rights
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:41:44 GMT

In <Bx8zoK.EFz@world.std.com> rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) writes:

>	1. I am a libertarian. That is I favor the maximum amount of personal
>	   liberty consistent with a minimum of social order and lack of 
>	   violence.

So does George Bush.


>	2. Property has been part of the advanced
>	   cultures of the world since the agricultural revolution.

Only property in the sense of land ownership, which before that was basically
a renewable resource.  I suspect property in the sense of "possessions", as
you use it in your next paragraph, was around long before that.

>	   initiation of agression. Sure you own your car, but you can't drive
>	   any where and anyway you want. Society will regulate at least in
>	   a minimal fashion the use of property, and this is effectively
>	   limitation of property rights. Even a libertarian must have
>	   second thoughts about his neighbor openning a badly run toxic
>	   waste dump next door.

You *can* drive anywhere you want, so long as you don't trespass on the
property of others without their permission.  Public roads?  Like other
manifestations of publically owned property, they suffer from the tragedy
of the commons.  If we got rid of them, there would be no social restrictions
on the use of one's car.  As far as toxic waste dumps, "badly run" is a
judgment call.  If the dump is leaking onto your property (or you're afraid
that it will), sue him.  If not, you have nothing to complain about.  
Certainly a libertarian, or any other person, would be concerned about a
nearby waste dump, but that does not automatically imply that the best way
to deal with the problem is government regulation, which is easily
circumvented by greasing enough pockets.

>	4. I stand with the principle that property use if not ownership, must
>	   be constrained to be consistent with the principle of non-agression
>	   and forbidding the reckless imposition of hazard.

But who gets to decide what is "reckless"?

-- 
ben
fulton@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
Government is sanctioned violence.