HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker)
Subject: Re: If you don't want Perot:  Bend over to the Republocrats.
Reply-To: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Center
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 14:22:25 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.174833.3537@sequent.com>, jwk@sequent.com (John "Just Say Noe" Kramer) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct5.160110.18136@kpc.com> emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff) writes:
|> >In article <VNCRBD9C@cc.swarthmore.edu> mwertz1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Melanie Wertz) writes:
|> >>> 
|> >	Just to set the record straight...
|> >
|> >	The quote is "we can ammend this dang Constitution". By the way,
|> >the last time we did ammend the "dang" constitution was earlier this year.
|> >
|> >	The employee who quits before a certain time period was forced to
|> >reimburse EDS $9K for the training costs. It was challanged after Perot
|> >sold EDS to GM and backed out of GM. Perot Systems has no such policy.
|> >
|> >	The first charge that he crushes his adverseries was too vague
|> >to callenge or clarify.
|> >
|> 
|> On a slight tangent, there was an interesting article on Perot in the
|> Oregonian (yes, that bastion of journalism) that went in to some details
|> of Perots' highly successful business dealings. One of them smacks of
|> hypocrisy. This was one about how he successfully lobbied for the FAA to
|> approve the building of an airport in Texas. It just happened to be close to
|> some 17,000 acres of Perot owned land. Strange that once approval was 
|> granted, the saleable value of the land doubled? 
|> 
|> If this article is correct, then isn't this surely an prime example of
|> the special interests that HRP complains about, the same ones that control
|> the Government? In this, some $200 million of Federal money was invested
|> in the project, adding further to national debt.
|> 
|> Can anyone explain this somewhat extraordinary set of contradictions?
|> 
|> 
|> 

I don't see your problem.  The man is a buisnessman.  And a good one.
So he should lobby to build this airport away from all his property?

Yes, he understands the system.  Yes, he has used the system.  What
better insight do you need to fix the system?

Doug

PS.  This is actually the kind of investment that the Federal Government
should make.  That 200 million will be recovered in a very few years
because of the commerce and taxes of the employees at the airport.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48315 ca.politics:8246 ba.politics:5685
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU ()
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: No on 9
Date: 28 Sep 1992 22:27:15 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <090n2m-.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>
>99% of all anti-semitism derives from totally false images of Jews
>and their behaviour.
>
>I'd say 50-99% of all "anti-homosexual feelings" result from accurate
>images of homosexual behaviour.
>
I would say that you need to prove this statistical range: it is in my
opinion that the "anti-homosexual feelings" come from a number of sources:
religion being the largest.

The images that people hold of gay people cannot be accurate since most gays
are 'invisible' to the majority of society.  What is projected to society
via TV and printed matter is a small part and as is nature of post 
journalism tends to be the 'sensationalised' parts.

If I were to use your reasoning, then I would probably hold very negative
viewpoints of other groups of people that I see being portrayed in a bais
fashion.

Stop making claims about knowledge that you obviously do not have.  If you can
show me hard numbers that 50-99% of  "anti-homosexual feelings" result from
accurate images, then let's see them.

>BIG DIFFERENCE.
>
>
>For me, it is very upsetting to an attempt to grab the shield of horror
>from the Jews, who have been subject to horrors that homosexuals
>have rarely seen en masse and place it onto a group of people that
>are disliked for what they accurately are. (Accuracy being relative
>in this day of mass media).
>
>
Keep in mind that the nazis also rounded up homosexuals, poles, russians, etc.
>
>-- 
>phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
>
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Cable Regulation [Was BUSH LOSES VETO FIGHT!!]
Date: 6 Oct 92 16:41:22 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

ORMOND,SEAN PATRICK) writes:
|> Ron Buckmire) writes:
|> >
|> >I just saw on CNN that Bush's 36th veto was just over-ridden. So the Cable
|> >Regulation Bill becomes law despite Bush. Of course it is unclear whether
|> >cable rates will go up or down, but Bush losing a veto fight seems like a
|> >progressive result.
|> 
|> PROGRESSIVE RESULT?  This has got to be one of the most disgusting examples
|> of government interference.  The way congress pandered to the public (and
|> especially the networks), embarrassed the President, and infringed on the
|> rights of the cable companies in one fell swoop is a tribute to the type
|> of scum that inhabit our legislative branch.  What better pre-election
|> gift from Santa Congress to the "entitlement junkies" than the promise to
|> lower their precious cable bill!  Never - NOT ONCE - did I ever hear anyone
|> in the media suggest that you simply cancel your subscription if it's too
|> expensive.  People think they're bloody ENTITLED to low-cost cablevision, as
|> if it were a necessity of life!  The locals interviewed generally responded
|> something like this [in your best red-neck, "Bubba" accent]:  "It just
|> ain't far that I gotta pay 40 bucks a month for my M-T-V!"  Combined with the
|> fact that so many people this election year think Clinton is going to 
|> significantly improve their lives, this bill well illustrates the selfish
|> idiocy rife within the American public.
|> 
What planet are you on Sean.  The cable industry was a government
supported monopoly that could make whatever rules it wanted.  Who was
pandering?  Bush.  If he wanted the cable industry de-regulated, take
away their monopoly and let them compete on the open market.  But
you can't have it both ways, goverment protection and a free rein.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: United We Stand, America  (was "... Deliver")
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:47:46 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA



   A few words about this business of "sharing the pain".  We 
   don't need to have tax increases to "share the pain".  Any
   serious attempt to cut the deficit will results in LOTS and
   LOTS of pain everywhere for the simple reason it will require 
   taking massive amounts of capital out of the economy for no 
   other purpose than to pay the deficit.   (this money was borrowed
   in the first place so in that respect it shouldn't have been 
   there in the first place)

   Consider that the gap is about $350 billion in an ~ $5 trillion
   economy, i.e., a nontrivial portion of the total economy.

   Let's, for the sake of discussion, accept the average wage of
   $39,000 posted by one of my detractors.   Thus the deficit rep-
   resents about 9 million jobs!   Obviously the federal government
   doesn't have 9 million jobs, but that will be the number of jobs
   that will have to go between federal employees, contractors, 
   defense industries, businesses that depend on them, etc, etc. 

   The private sector can't absorb them since there's no corresponding
   tax *cut* to put more money back there.   Even as it is, thee private
   sector has been unable to keep up with the normal growth of the
   labor pool, which is why the unemployment rates keep climbing.

   A tax increase, to reduce the size of the federal cuts only takes that
   money out of the private sector, saving federal jobs at the expense of
   private ones but there's no *net* savings.  So the jobs are still lost.

   There will be some minor ameliorating factors:  some of these
   unemployed would have left the labor pool anyway over the next
   few years through retirement, death, etc.  Some will find jobs
   at lower wages, etc, but all this will just be a fraction of 
   the total.    But the bottom line, IMO, is that a serious attempt
   to cut the deficit will, in the short term, push unemployment rates
   into double digits, maybe as high as 14%.   This would transform
   our little recession into a depression, though possibly not as bad
   as the 1930's, where it hit 25%.

   Still, if we don't eliminate the deficit now, we'll have to do it
   later with interest.   And until we do it will be a drain on the 
   economy.  So we have to do it, but it will clearly involve lots
   and lots of pain and nobody will be immune.


---peter




    


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,talk.politics.mideast
From: arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: Re: Jack S Defends MLKing Slur (Was: ARF DEFENDS HIS HONOR)
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:57:59 GMT
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Chicago, IL

In article <1992Oct1.232325.22775@panther.mot.com> ronf@panther3.panther.mot.com (Ron Feigen) writes:
>In article <BvGDJr.6xn@ddsw1.mcs.com> arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct1.023319.2619@cs.brown.edu> dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) writes:
>>>Arfie lead a crusade for David Duke, who did far worse things than
>>>"sleep around". Kindof makes you wonder why Arfie is willing to
>>
>>Perhaps you would like to point out the "far worse things" Duke has 
>>done.
>
>We know you think the KKK,White Aryans,White Supremists and Neo-nazis are really
>an enlighten bunch of guys, who are way ahead of their time.  But most of us
>find them revolting.  The activities and beliefs that they promote are 

I think you will have to dig a little to find some quote of mine that would
lead one the that conclusion.  I never said or implied any such thing.

Furthermore, you conveniently forgot to tell us what evil things David
Duke has done.    

js
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Subject: Re: Term Limits are Constitutional, Study Shows
Organization: Clarkson University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 03:07:47 GMT

>pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>>George Will's new book _Restoration_ discusses the Constitutionality
>>issue in some detail, including some references to the fact that the
>>original Articles of Confederation had a term-limits provision. Will
>>uses this fact to help support the idea that the framers were, at the
>>very least, not *opposed* to term limits.

First off, were the framers of the Articles the same as the framers
of the Constitution? Secondly, if they weren't opposed to term limits,
why did they vote unanimously not to include them in the Constit.?
Finally, I'd like to remind you about how stable and long-lived
the nation was under the Articles.

============================================================================
BRI FARENELL				"Violence is the last refuge of the
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU     	 incompetent."  --Salvor Hardin	
CLARKSON '95
A politically incorrect, pro-life, liberal, card-carrying member of the ACLU.
===========================================================================
"If you choose not to decide, you have still made a choice."   
	---RUSH ("Free Will")

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.singles
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: What is Wrong with this Picture....
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:41:57 GMT

elle@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
] varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) opines:
] >A couple DOES consent to the possibility of pregnancy when they
] >consent to sex.
] 
] Thanks.  Next time I take a woman to bed, I'll have to remember that.
] 
] Parthenogenetically,
] --
] Ellen Keyne Seebacher            elle@midway.uchicago.edu
]  "There is _no_ ...cabal, _no_ pods, ...and _no_ plot to overtake the world,
]   turning it into a purely queer world where the only procreation done is
]   via bisexuals and insemination.  Nope.  Lies, all of it."  --John Dorrance


Some how I don't think Ellen Really Understands the
True nature of the Discussion....

If there is NO potential for Gestation, there is NO SEX.

I hate these ClosetHetro's who are so easily confused....


THERE IS A DISTINCTION 

between going to bed with someone
and Having SEX....

ciao
drieux



-- 
Modern Day Problems

Does that 'answer' your question,
or should I be a little more vague.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: skaven@milton.u.washington.edu (William Gilliland)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What is Wrong with this Picture....
Summary: A:  You're in it, Drieux
Date: 29 Sep 92 00:40:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Sep29.004053.1155
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Sep28.204157.18785@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>elle@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>] varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) opines:
>] >A couple DOES consent to the possibility of pregnancy when they
>] >consent to sex.
>] 
>] Thanks.  Next time I take a woman to bed, I'll have to remember that.
>] 
>] Parthenogenetically,
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>] --
>] Ellen Keyne Seebacher            elle@midway.uchicago.edu
>
>Some how I don't think Ellen Really Understands the
>True nature of the Discussion....
>

I want you to to look up that big long word that Ellen very discretely
slipped in just before her .sig file.  It, and the context of her post,
reveal that she is being sarcastic (SAR-kah-stick) and has a far firmer 
grasp on the conversation than you realized.

> If there is NO potential for Gestation, there is NO SEX.
>
> I hate these ClosetHetro's who are so easily confused....

> THERE IS A DISTINCTION 

> between going to bed with someone
> and Having SEX....

> ciao
> drieux

As for your idea about there being NO SEX if there isn't any possibility for
procreation, is someone who gets his/her tubes tied incapable of having SEX?
What about oral SEX? Why is SEX in all caps, anyway? What if its the wrong 
time of the month (The Vatican (tm) non-birth-control birth control method) 
for ovulation (AH-vyoo-lay-shun) to occur? While we're on the subject of
periods, why do you have "SEX...." when an ellipsis has three? Why not look 
up SEX when you're looking up Parthenogenically and see if those fine, friendly
dictionary people share your view? 
 

>Does that 'answer' your question,
>or should I be a little more vague.

Really, please, be a little more vague.  Not a whole lot more vague, mind you,
but just another little smidgen more vagueness and you would be perfectly 
incoherent.  A little dollop should do you.

DISCLAIMER: Since Ellen's post (and a damn funny one that) flew over your head
while at the same time going in one ear and out the other, consider this
message to be liberally sprinkled with colons, semicolons, and number eights
all followed by right-side parentheses.

   "Do what you can for the Earth,     \ /  Bill Gilliland
   But remember:  The species you       |   
   save may be your own."               +   skaven@u.washington.edu
                                        |  
                 -- Asta Bowen         / \  I'm not a doctor, but I have a TV.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48319 talk.abortion:38986
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 28 Sep 1992 15:29:32 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Sep28.170510.24008@ms.uky.edu> fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:
>Adrienne Regard writes:
>>Jeff Davis writes:
>I would not try to formulate such an argument. I would be trying to
>find a political solution which currently seems insoluble. 

Why does the 'problem' need a political solution, Jeff?

I think the whole abortion 'problem' was made up out of whole cloth by
backlash baby boomers who started having children and suddenly did a 180
degree turn back to the 'traditions of their forefathers' (conveniently
forgetting about half of 'em.)  

It has been pointed out on this net repeatedly, that if the pro-life faction
stopped aggitating for legislation that would restrict a woman's right to
her own body, the pro-choice political groups would fade away.

>I don't feel intellectually dishonest in trying to reduce the number
>of abortions. Nor do I feel morally superior because of my
>opposition to abortion. 

Uh, I don't believe anyone said that you did.  I was merely speculating
about why the political solution you proposed might not go over big with
the population in the US in general.  I think picking some midpoint for
the sake of argument, then assigning legal restrictions on individual 
choice to placate a set of busibodies is perhaps expedient, but also
dishonest.  Unless you hold those ideas near and dear, no one is accusing
you of such foolishness.  Did I misunderstand you?

>There is a Zen saying: If you see the Buddha, kill him. I 
>distrust people who feel they have a direct line to God. Most
>people do as well. My whole post was written as an attempt
>to draw back from absolutes.  To try to imagine a 
>political -- i.e. temporizing -- way to limit abortions.


(-:  

(drawing back from absolutes ain't great debate rhetoric, you know.  Politics
may be the art of compromise, but at the base of any system, there are some
axioms that remain pretty absolute.  In our culture, individual freedom is
one of those axioms.  I'm not at all sure that drawing back from that 
particular absolute in order to temporize a 'solution' to someone else's
problem is a terrific idea.  But I like your notion about Budda.)

Adrienne Regard
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: If you want to know if Ross is Running -- Ask US.
Date: 29 Sep 92 12:50:26 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <01GPBHNCY37K0012Y4@utarlg.uta.edu> B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (STEPHEN TICE) writes:

> Theodore A. Kaldis:

> As to your "questions" ...
>> I asked, does Ross listen to the "volunteers" only on some days, or
>> what?  I didn't get an answer.  Were the "volunteers" telling him not
>> to get in the race in mid-July, or did he just blow you guys off?
>> What's the story here?

> I answered:
>>> was glad he was in the ring for us, and when he'd had enough, I didn't
>>> expect him to continue to get bludgeoned with [the media's] lies.

>>> I would have been disappointed if he hadn't climbed back up in the
>>> saddle after getting knocked down by the media though.

> Allow me to amplify.  [ ... equivocation deleted ... ]

It looks to me that Ross is a god-like figure to you -- he can do
absolutely no wrong.  It doesn't matter _WHAT_ he does -- or how
inconsistent it is with his previous statements -- you're going to
rationalize it and portray it in a manner so as to minimize whatever
negative effect it might have on your god.

It is impossible to have a rational discussion with one who has
compromised his rationality in order to achieve what he perceives to
be a "higher" goal.  I say you're an idiot not as a flame, but because
that is exactly how you are behaving.  Please let me know when you put
your mind back in gear.
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: jcburt@cs.wm.edu (John Burton)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: The College of William and Mary
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 13:02:17 GMT

In article <Oct05.203207.51974@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.100717.6029@sniap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>|> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:

[...stuff deleted...]

>|> : though, I believe they are more interested in punishing the mother for
>|> : daring to have sex than in preserving a human life.
>|> 
>|> Once again I have to point out that right-to-lifers do not want to punish 
>|> women for having sex, any more than people who denounce terrorism want to 
>|> punish minorities for taking an interest in politics, O.K.? 
>
>	Well put.  It is no more punishment to require a woman to fulfil her
                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>parental responsibilities than it is punishment to require one who signed an
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>enlistment contract to go to boot camp, or to require one who injures another in
>a car accident to do everything possible to save the life and health of the one
>injured.

Ummm...last time I checked, it takes TWO to produce a child...I notice
you make no mention of requiring a man to fulfill *his* parental
responsibilities... Is this anything akin to saying "if a woman gets
pregnant its her fault and therefore *she* has to pay the
consequences??? I guess this is what is meant by "family values..."

John



>
>Steve


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Rich Blimpo's Toon Logic  (was ...committtee)
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 21:19:00 GMT
X-Posted-From: utarlg.uta.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Oct3.012725.4505@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes...
>In article <farenebt.718037663@craft.camp.clarkson.edu>, farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell ("Droopy")) writes:
>> "If you choose not to decide, you have still made a choice."   --Rush Limbaugh
>> 
>> 	(I know it's HIM, but it's still a great quote)		
> 
>	Rush must be a Rush fan.

"Rich Blimpo" is a fat-cat-wannabe political cartoon. And little 
different than "Murphy Brown" as a vehicle of political propaganda. 

He does however, make a perfect embodiment of a Pork-Party-Pundit.
The type that rails against trivia while endorsing massive spending
in crime, defense, and other "concerns" of the fear-motivated side
of the political spectrum. (as opposed to the guilt-motivated side)

A cartoon distraction, nonetheless.

-- Stephen   "And a waste of breath"

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.singles,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.bizarre
From: aahz@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine)
Subject: Re: I hereby declare...
Organization: Bill 'n' Opus for Prez
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:23:12 GMT

In article <BvGLKB.IDo@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> ksdavis@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Karleenus Schwartz Davis) writes:
>Martin Guerrero:
>>>I hereby declare drieux the winner of the
>>>  Person who has created the most 'threads' or new subject headings in
>>>     the last few days.
>
>TMCCART3@ua1vm.ua.edu
>>And I hereby declare that drieux's postings make the least sense.
>
>That's how threads get started -- contradicting or flaming someone with 
>whom you disagree, or who presents holey (or holy :) arguments...
>Kind of a waste to follow up a perfect post with something like, "Yeah!"

I'm sorry, I'm afraid that I'm forced to disagree with you.
-- 
                         --- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
                             @netcom.com 

Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6

Trying to be happy is like trying to build a machine for which the only
specification is that it should run noiselessly.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48746 alt.rush-limbaugh:6271 alt.politics.elections:14732 talk.abortion:39590