HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 22:15:09 GMT

In article <69.X666X@ramona.com> doug@ramona.com (Double Agent) writes:
>Sunday on _Meet the Press_, Vernon Jordan, head of Clinton's transition
>team, confirmed that Anita Hill is the front-runner to get the job of
>EEOC Commissioner. Note that the EEOC is the agency where Hill was working
>when she was sexually harassed by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas,
              ^^^---- allegedly sexually harassed
See the American Spectator article on Hill for all of the conflicting 
testimony that Hill and her prime "witness" Susan Hoerchner produced during
their appearances before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

>who was then the EEOC Commissioner. Put on your goggles, folks, the fire-
>works should be dazzling.

This is great news - there'll finally be some investigations into all of 
the maneurvering the liberals did to get Hill before the Committee. 
-- 
John Switzer               | Impeach Clinton!
                           | Support the coup!
CompuServe: 74076,1250     |
Internet: jrs@netcom.com   |
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.individualism
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Property Rights
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 09:48:53 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.230310.17012@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
}In article <Bx951K.7o6@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> fulton@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben Fulton) writes:
}>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.
}
}Unless you want to use drugs, have an abortion, burn a flag, pray
}freely to a different god, have sex with someone of the same sex, vote
}for whom you want, drive without being stopped at a checkpoint, carry
}cash through an airport without having it stolen by federal agents, live
}in your home without fear of it being searched without probable cause, etc.
}
}(Note, I am *NOT* claiming that Bill Clinton is pro-choice on all of
}these, but I think he'll be better than George Bush.)

You're wrong except for abortion, homosecuality, flag burning, and praying.

}Sometimes, however, it seems to me that government regulation (of some
}sort, not necessarily the type we have now) DOES make more sense in some
}environmental type cases.  Does it *really* make sense to let the
}factory owner spew pollutants into the air and then force someone nearby
}to wait until they develop cancer 20 years down the road and then try to
}prove that the pollution caused it?
}
}Or what about car ownership?  Individually, no car pollutes enough to be
}able to identify it as the one which caused that cancer.  But collective
}car use certainly *can* lead to air pollution/smog which can lead to
}health problems.  So can you deal with it non-collectively?

Yes, it does, because anthropogenic carcinogens are insignificant compared
to biogenic ones.  See "The Apocalyptics" by Edith Efron or the work of
Dr. Bruce Ames, inventor of the carcinogenicity test (that bears his name)
and chair of UC Berkeley's bio department for more info on this.  See the
work of Hugh Ellsaesser for non-carcinogenic pollutants.


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." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.war.vietnam
From: Monte Olsen <olsenm@ccmail.orst.edu>
Subject: Re: Stockdale is a Bumbling Idiot
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A723EC09C005A70D@reynolde-mac.ads.orst.edu>
X-Xxdate: Mon, 9 Nov 92 18:20:57 GMT
Organization: OSU Extension Service
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:19:23 GMT

In article <BxFBq9.577@cs.uiuc.edu> David Kohr,
drk@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>To anyone reading Kim's postings, this admission should
serve as a warning
>signal regarding the accuracy and completeness of the
historical facts
>presented and the biases reflected in the conclusions
reached.
>-- 
Dave,

Your arrogance is astounding.

Monte
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58644 alt.politics.elections:22983
From: Furr@cup.portal.com (George Dalton Madison)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: CO-2 Ammendment
Date: Sat,  7 Nov 92 22:38:07 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1d94jtINN2j2@seven-up.East.Sun.COM> <13073@optilink.UUCP>

Clayton Cramer drools:
>If homosexuals would stop trying to FORCE people to do what they want,
>much of the backlash could be avoided.

Translation:
"If yawl would jus' be *GOOD* niggahs, yawl wudn't be gettin'
 yoselves lynched!"

Get stuffed, bigot.
 
() The imposition of stigma is the commonest form of
() violence used in democratic societies.
()      -- R. A. Pinker
-----
[> George D. Madison | NBCS: B8f+t+w-e+s+k+a!cv | Just say NO to razors! <]
[> It's a BEAR thing -- you wouldn't understand. <|> furr@cup.portal.com <]
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58514 alt.rush-limbaugh:9162 alt.politics.elections:22896
From: rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: President Clinton
Date: 4 Nov 92 15:55:45 GMT
Organization: Vanderbilt University Mathematics Department

In article <1992Nov3.211100.3050@nic.csu.net> jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle ) writes:
>OH *MY* **GOD**!!  God save us from Socialism.
>________
>Jennifer|
>--------


    "You better watch out, you better not cry, better not pout,
I'm telling you why..."

    Oh, brother.

    And let's give the impending resurgence of judicial activism
a nice big round of applause.  

    :-o


John Rickert
rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dpryce@llewella.uchicago.edu (Steven Schwartz)
Subject: Re: Celebration in the Streets
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 20:00:23 GMT

In article <4295@copper.Denver.Colorado.EDU>  
aaldoubo@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Ohm Salam) writes:
> In article <1992Nov5.151831.25497@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James  
Meritt) writes:
(Nonsense about where people celebrated Clinton's election)
>> Think about it.
> Think about *what*, James?
> 
> What *exactly* are you saying here about President-Elect Clinton?
> 
> Common, don't you know he is pro-Israel?  Isn't every politician?

Every politician?  Would you assert that Jim "Fuck The Jews" Baker isn't
a politician?  What about Jesse "I want to be the Senator from Washington,
D.C." Jackson?

If you see every politician that way either 
	(a) you haven't looked very hard
	(b) You have a radically different definition of "politician"
or 	(c) You define "pro-Israel" in a way that includes everyone  
outside of the PLO hardcore.

> 
> Anisa

D. Pryce
"Don't talk to me of love and flowers and things that don't explode"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dsc@gemini.tmc.edu (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892)
Subject: Re: Shooting tragedy (was Re: Support Right to 'bear arms')
Organization: NASA GSFC CDP VLBI
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 23:00:31 GMT

In article <434@vega.iii.com> rhockins@enrico.tmc.edu (Russell Hockins) writes:
>>pa142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>>>
>>>Police 
>>>response time can be anywhere from 20 minutes, to two hours.  Had the "
>>>victim" been an assailant, 911 would have been useless.  
>
>When you call 911, also tell them you have a gun.  Then see how fast they show up!  They don't want you to shoot anyone either,  too much paperwork for them to fill out if you do!  :)
>

If indeed you do have one, then by all means tell them, and try to be sure the
dispatcher tells the responding officer(s).  Don't take it for granted.  Here
in Prince George's County Maryland, a DC police officer was shot to death sit-
ting on his sofa by the responding PG officer after he called to report that 
his house had been broken into while he was at work.  The responding officer saw
the DC officer waiting inside the house with his gun drawn and shot him through
the window.

If you don't have one, please don't tell them that you do.  After all, the bad
guy might have one and be mistaken for you.

If you ever call 911, try to exchange as much relevent information with the 
operator as possible.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: aaiken@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Andrew C. Aiken)
Subject: Re: Is God a Socialist?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:42:26 GMT

In <1992Nov6.033332.22496@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (It's not what you got, it's what you give) writes:

>In article <Bx9wEK.KvE@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, aaiken@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Andrew C. Aiken)            writes...
>> 
>>I have read several recent posts which said that God is a Socialist.
>>
>Who said this? Are you paraphrasing?


I was referring to the following two articles:

-----------
From: mikeq@freddy.CNA.TEK.COM (Mike Quigley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: President Clinton
Date: 4 Nov 92 17:07:24 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Redmond,  OR.

In article <1992Nov3.211100.3050@nic.csu.net> jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle ) writes:
>OH *MY* **GOD**!!  God save us from Socialism.

=>Got news for you. God's a socialist. You're screwed!

-------------


From: pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Pim van Meurs)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: President Clinton
Date: 4 Nov 92 20:47:33 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Nov3.211100.3050@nic.csu.net> jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle ) writes:
>OH *MY* **GOD**!!  God save us from Socialism.
>________
>Jennifer|
>--------

=>Why ask god for this. 
=>In my opinion god must be the biggest socialist in the world. He
=>could hardly be considered a conservative now could he ?
=>Isn't it a wonderful day today...
=>Pim

-- 
=>Pim van Meurs  UC San Diego Scripps Institution of Oceanography

[...]
--------





Now the writers may have simply said this in hyperbole, but it nevertheless
lead me to think about whether this claim is valid.

The original writer was a bit hasty in assking God to save her from
Socialism, but no more hasty than those who presume that God has blessed
their pet economic theories - economic theories fashioned by man. 

Andrew Aiken

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,tx.politics,alt.politics.bush
From: jreese@NeoSoft.com (Jim Reese)
Subject: Re: History Repeats?(Re: What is a fiscal conservative? 
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 20:56:47 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.144755.26931@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>Because without Reagan's Defense policies there would have been no
>'crisis' for the Soviet Union, insofar as spending a huge amount of
>wealth and still being faced by the United States, which looked like
>it was able and willing to outrun them indefinitely? 

I'm not sure it wasn't a case of their economy collapsed from the burden
of defense spending only shortly before ours did...we were lucky.


-- 
     Jim Reese, WD5IYT            | "Real Texans never refer to trouble
  jreese@sugar.neosoft.com        |  as deep doo-doo"  --Molly Ivins

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58515 talk.politics.guns:23649 alt.politics.clinton:16109
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: President Clinton
Date: 12 Nov 1992 19:21:19 GMT
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Peter Young) writes:
|> Michael Friedman) writes:
|> 
|> >   More bullshit.  When we voted for president we knew who we were voting
|> >   for.  Mind telling me who we were voting to put on the Court?
|>  
|> You must be new here.  We've all been told, ad nauseum, that we have
|> voted for Mary-o Cuomo for the Supremes, and probably Anita Hill as
|> well.
|> 
Even more bs.  Clinton said in one interview early in the campaign that
he would consider Cuomo.  There has been no discussion at any time
in the Clinton campaing concerning Anita Hill for the Court.
You are trying to turn your paranoia into fact.  Please include "IMO"
in future posts when you start fantasizing.
-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
From: m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Reply-To: m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier)
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, N.H.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 06:54:42 GMT

In article <69.X666X@ramona.com> doug@ramona.com (Double Agent) writes:
>Sunday on _Meet the Press_, Vernon Jordan, head of Clinton's transition
>team, confirmed that Anita Hill is the front-runner to get the job of
>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. Put on your goggles, folks, the fire-
>works should be dazzling.
>
How do you know it happened as Hill claimed?

God bless,


-- 
 Michael Le Houllier           *  John 3:16  * Nov 12, 1991 - Dili      
 (m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu.us) *  Remember: June 4, 1989 - Beijing
 Plymouth State Women's Soccer - #2 in the nation (Div. 3)  (15-1-2)
 Great job this season girls.  Get U MASS Dartmouth back next year!!!!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59589 alt.politics.elections:23476 alt.rush-limbaugh:9454
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
From: Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 12:49:14 EST
Organization: The Leader Desslok School of Diplomacy

In article <1dr4vtINNne0@spool.mu.edu>, marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc
Rassbach) says:

>Oh, and Hill will prob. not be the best person to sit on the court
>when that time comes.  But if CT can qualify, so can AH.

Perhaps, but the point is moot anyway due to the little-known fact that
Anita Hill's politics are well to the right of Clarence Thomas's. No
way at all she would be appointed under a Democratic administration.

 "But Dr. Radium, was that necessary?" "Rez, _everything_ I do is necessary."
[Your blood pressure just went up.]        Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
DISCLAIMER: If PSU knew I had opinions they'd probably try to charge me for it.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59164 talk.politics.guns:23801 ca.politics:9465 ba.politics:6922 misc.legal:19705
From: rhockins@enrico.tmc.edu (Russell Hockins)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,ca.politics,ba.politics,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Shooting tragedy (was Re: Support Right to 'bear arms')
Date: 9 Nov 92 20:29:03 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: /etc/organization

>pa142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>>
>>Police 
>>response time can be anywhere from 20 minutes, to two hours.  Had the "
>>victim" been an assailant, 911 would have been useless.  

When you call 911, also tell them you have a gun.  Then see how fast they show up!  They don't want you to shoot anyone either,  too much paperwork for them to fill out if you do!  :)

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Russell Hockins               |  This civilization is recyclable           |
| Innovative Interfaces, Inc.   |              ( well most of it anyway )    |
| My own opinions  no one elses |  packet : ka6foy @ ki6yk.#nocal.ca.na.usa  |
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: glp@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson)
Subject: Re: Need text of WWII piece on the Germans
Originator: glp@merlin
Organization: Citibank IBISM
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:48:44 GMT


In article <13056@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
|> In article <Bx0Hs9.Eqx@access.digex.com>, bruceg@access.digex.com (Bruce Garrett) writes:
|> > In article <13000@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
|> # # If concentration camps were set up for homosexuals, I would be out there, 
|> # # taking out guards from about 500 meters back, so the fences could be
|> # # knocked down.
|> # 
|> #        Yah.  Right.  Put your life on the line for homosexuals in prison camps.
|> # Risk imprisonment, disfiguring and/or crippling injury and death to fight for
|> # the freedom of people who you believe are mostly left wing fascists and/or
|> # child molestors and their supporters.  Yah.
|> 
|> Because this sort of evil doesn't stop at the current victim.  And
|> that's why I fight against the efforts of the homosexual fascist
|> lobby as well.  If the religious right were a powerful force in
|> America, I would be trying to stop them.  Right now, homosexual
|> fascists are the principal power.  That's why I am trying to stop
|> that group.

Bwahaahaahaa.  Right.  There are times when I feel like
it's important to refute things, and there are other times
when the writer shows just how paranoid and off-kilter they
and their ideas are.  

I would imagine that only closely monitored medication 
prevents the inclusion of space aliens and the Rockefellers.

-- 
Greg Parkinson                  Phone: 212-657-7814  Fax: 212-825-8607
Citibank,111 Wall Street        E-Mail: glp@fig.citib.com
New York, New York  10043
The opinions expressed are my own and not those of the big 'ol bank.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59828 ca.politics:9545
From: carlos@spanky.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Carlos Carrion)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: 12 Nov 92 22:36:48 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA

niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>>carlos@spanky.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Carlos Carrion) writes:
>>> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>># #Shall I repost the many postings from soc.motss trying to justify
>># #adults having sex with 12 and even 8 year olds?
>
>># 	Don't have to.
>># 	There are people here in this newsgroup that find it acceptable
>># 	to be sexually attracted to 11 year old girls...
>
>>There are?  They are pretty depraved, aren't they?
>
>That sort of depends.  Do they have a choice, or is it
>biological/hereditary?  If it's b/h, then no, they aren't depraved.
>

	"Mr Nieport, I sure would like to out with your 11 year old
	daughter... and maybe fuck her!"

	"My god, you are a PERVERT!  Get out of here!"

	"Actually, no.  It's biological/hereditary..."

	"Hmmm... sorry my mistake.  Be back by eleven"

>Now, if they actually molest 11 year old girls, then they should be
>jailed.  But to be *attracted* to 11 year old girls?  That isn't depraved,
>necessarily, no.

	yeah, right.
	Add one more to the list...

carlos.

"Negro Equality! Fudge!" - Abraham Lincoln
      ...ames!elroy!jpl-devvax!{beowulf|pituco}!carlos
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.activism,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.usa.misc
From: craig@jido.b30.ingr.com (Craig Presson)
Subject: Re: Impeachment
Reply-To: craig@jido.b30.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, Alabama
	<1992Nov5.000014.25877@Princeton.EDU>
	<1992Nov5.040626.14082@midway.uchicago.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:52:49 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.040626.14082@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Mmmm... Purple) writes:
   In article <1992Nov5.000014.25877@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@dial.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
   >It was fun and easy, but it wasn't necessarily accurate.  Judicial
   >review is NOT mentioned anywhere in the Constitution; many people thought
   >it was implicitly in there, but not all did.  

   Who didn't?  It was pretty clear to everyone at the time that judicial
   review was an inherent power of the judicial branch.
Apparently at least the Congress didn't. Given that Marbury v. Madison
(1803) is universally cited as having _established_ the doctrine of
judicial review _of Federal law_ _by the SC_, one is left to assume
that between 1789 and 1803 the question was unsettled. The next thing
I need to check on this is what the public, Congressional, and
editorial response was to the doctrine in _Marbury_. After all, the
issue turned on whether Congress could by statute _add_ a power to the
Constitutionally-enumerated powers of the Judicial Branch, and by
affirming that it could _not_, Marshall effectively _added_ a power to
the Judicial (sometimes the law is just as strange as higher Math :-).

-- Craig Presson


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59244 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8257 alt.president.clinton:238
From: randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: A TRUE LANDSLIDE
Date: 9 Nov 92 22:17:10 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier) writes:


>I love this conversation about Clinton's supposed landslide.  The best
>comedy I've seen in wuite some time.  Perhaps if you say it enough
>times, people will believe that winning by 5% of the popular vote is a
>landslide.

I'm getting tired of the Republican sore-loser whining from the
Bob Doles of the world.  Bush won by 6%, and that was called
a "landslide".  Call it what you want.   Clinton won- he
won the popular vote, the electoral vote, most of the states,
etc. etc.   Just take your lumps and move on.  I don't remember
hearing this kind of whining from the Democrats in '88.

Dole says that "57% of the people voted against Clinton,
and I am going to represent that majority."  I don't think a lot
of the Perot supporters want to be represented by Mr. Dole, and using the
same logic, 62% of the people voted against Bush.  

-- 

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Randall Rhea                                        Informix Software, Inc. 
Project Manager, MIS Sales/Marketing Systems    uunet!pyramid!infmx!randall
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: scholl@uvmark.uucp (Kathryn Scholl)
Subject: Anita's popularity vs. credibility
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 19:51:49 GMT
Organization: VMARK Software, Inc.


I have a question with all of this net-hypothesizing about
whether or not Anita Hill would be named to the S.C.

I mean, if all this Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill brouhaha didn't come about,
would she actually have been even considered?
Or would any of you SC-nominee-watchers have even suggested her
(or even know of her?)

I'm just wondering if her being in the 'victim-spotlight' has turned
her into some sort of automatic potential nominee.

Just curious.
-- 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 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
From: fwebb@star-trek.bbn.com (Fred Webb)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:36:27 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc., Cambridge, MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: archive.bbn.com

In article <Bx9I16.E52@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com> dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:
>One other question about capital gains:
>
>Is is still true that the government will tax you fully no matter
>how much you gain, but that you are limited in the amount of losses
>you can deduct per year?
>

Yes and no.  A capital loss can be deducted 100% from other capital gains, but
only a maximum of $3000 per year can be deducted from your OTHER income.

						-- Fred
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc