HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: alain@elevia.uniforum.qc.ca (W.A.Simon)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: the politics of sci.crypt (was: Freedoms in the USA)
Date: 08 Nov 92 11:09:21 EST

In <4071@bcstec.ca.boeing.com>
kuryakin@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Rick Pavek)
is going pale:

> I am struck by the government's gradual process of eroding our 
> freedoms.
> [ ... ]
> Also, while the current government might be relatively benign and not
> abuse its power (anybody want to bet otherwise?  I won't argue.) the
> realization must be made - provided it's not obvious - that the _next_
> government might not be as tolerant as the current one.

	And you (US people) just had a close call.  Another four
	years of Bush and his friends would probably have eroded
	the whole Constitution... but four years of Perot would
	have taken you straight to the next paragraph:

> Robert Heinlein predicted some years ago that the US government would
> become a religious tyranny by the turn of the century.

	The Handmaiden's tale (a great book, and an acceptable movie
	with Robert Duvall) written by Margaret Atwood (Canadian),
	make the same prediction, in very convincing terms.

	In Canada, we are faced with the same kind of problem,
	and his name is Manning.

	Don't let your guard down, you now have so-called
	liberals in the pilot's seat...  they tend to bend
	easily.

> If we are to maintain our electronic privacy, we'd best start now with
> an offensive to generate and sponsor legislation that will prevent the
> possibility of the government, whoever controls it, cannot usurp the
> freedoms we still maintain and recover those we have recently lost.

	Let's enumerate a few facts here:
	-	businesses don't care about democracy
	-	people with money don't like democracy
	-	politicians only know the word democracy 
	-	people with children don't want democracy
	-	law enforcement don't understand democracy
	-	the military establishment don't know democracy
	-	anybody who wants political change blames democracy
	-	anybody who wants to settle a conflict suspends democracy
	-	etc...
	In other words, few people have democratic reflexes, and even
	those who respect and understand why we must have democracy
	sometimes wish they could suspend it for a few minutes or for
	a few weeks, months, years...  the line is never drawn.

	A large number of people would gladly sacrify freedom in exchange
	for security, and they are not even using words like "little bit".

	Few, very few people have received the education to understand
	the notion, even fewer have given it some thought, and a large
	part of society have other worries.

	Don't expect things to improve.  Make them improve.



--
 Alain
 [ ... usual disclaimer... ]
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Do we need Washington?
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:54:51 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

The discussion here has reminded me of an editorial I read a few months ago.

The gist of the piece was that with modern communications, why do Senators
and Representatives have to move to Washington anyway.
Committee meetings could be held via conference calling. In a few years
even visual conference calling will be readily available.  It's available
now, but it is a bit expensive and cumbersum.  Voting can be done via e-mail
or some such.  A little more security to prevent tampering, but still doable.

The advantages would be that each representative and senator could actually
stay in touch with the people who elected him.  I believe that such a system
would also make it more difficult for lobbiests.  Instead of being in one
place with all of the congresscirtters, the lobbiest would either have to
do a lot of travelling, or the lobbying organization would have to maintain
lobbiest all over the US.
One of the biggest expenses for members is maintaining a house in Washington
as well as one in their district.  This would no longer be a problem.

I believe it would also make it easier for people who don't want to spend
their entire lives a congresscritters.  You wouldn't have to uproot
yourself and your family if you won.  I am not at all convinced that
being a representative at least should have to be a full time job.
But if you move to Washington you have no choice.

I also believe that it may be time to increase the size of the House.
200 years ago, each representative represented around 30,000 people.
Now it is about 500,000.  This is more than many states had back then.

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59078 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8211 alt.president.clinton:197
From: taco@baby.csd.harris.com (Pablo Fumero)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: A TRUE LANDSLIDE
Date: 9 Nov 1992 14:11:16 GMT
Organization: Harris Computer Systems Div., Ft. Lauderdale, FL
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.134.78.5

In article <1992Nov7.150918.22011@oz.plymouth.edu>, 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.

Yeah, Clinton and his sidekick Gore are in for 4 years. I would not call
it a cushing defeat for the Republicans. Roughly 60% of the voting
public voted for someone other than Clinton and Gore. That alone makes
him a Minority President. The popular vote was very close indeed, about
5% between Clinton and Bush. The electoral numbers are a product of
the system and are no proportional indicator to the true political
makeup of the country. Bush lost because he cared more for foreign
affairs that domestic. Clinton won because he was able to capitalize
on Bush's short commings. Perot was the monkey wrench that broke the
machine. Let's see what the Novice Governor does. Let's give him
a chance. There's time for opposition later. The country comes first
in these matters.
-- 
Pablo Fumero 			Internet: taco@flipper.csd.harris.com
Diagnostic Engineering 		UUCP:  ...!uunet!travis!flipper!taco
Harris Computer Systems 	(305) 973-5167
Opinions expressed here are entirely my own and not of Harris Corporation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.war.vietnam
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Good Books, and Good Intentions
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 17:57:50 GMT

knguyen@emr1.emr.ca (Kim Nguyen) writes:
] In article <1992Nov7.194627.23470@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] >
] >We Can Only Hope that David Kohr will take the time
] >to read 'Vietnames Gulag' and notice the Big Difference
] >between the Evil S.Vietnamese Police State where Dissidents
] >could get Access to the 'LiberalMedia' and seek legal appeals.
] >
] >Unlike the Correct Thinking, Forward Looking, Progressive
] >Policies of the Communists, who understood that Dissidents
] >suffered from 'Mental Illness' and needed to be 'cured.'
] -------------
] 
] I am stunned to know that you did get the book. If someone can read that
] they would know what the fate of a sympathizer. This shows that what we
] base on to put on debate is real and painful. Alas, Doan van Toai, why
] did you make me and your fellows in 1972 heart-broken ? You have failed
] our trust. Toai, do you hear me ?

Kim,

I have had several copies of the book, and have loaned
out all of them. IT IS a must read. 

You know, as well as I do, that it was NOT JUST Doan Van Toai,
and that the same can be said of many players in the south 
vietnamese culture as well, including members of the Old Regime.

The same, alas, can also be said of many americans on both
sides of the 'war' issue - the good intentions were not always
as 'effective' nor produced the 'expected results.'

And the most painful of all questions:

Why did Ho Chi Mihn replace French Colonialists with Soviet Colonialists?

ciao
drieux



-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, 
and the Other Two will be Upgraded In the Next Release.
From: pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PAUL N. RITTER)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: SOMEBODY'S GOT TO SAY IT (Re: Clinton by default)
Date: 5 Nov 92 10:56:10 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <eagle.720807820@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu>, eagle@garfield.catt.ncsu.ed
u (Daniel L'Hommedieu) writes:
>jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes:
>>">Daniel says:
>>">criminal gives up his rights.
>>">A prison can never be overcrowded.
>
>          vv (he=Daniel; me)
>>You see - he is one of the causes of social breakdown, in a small way.
>>When we cease to treat a person as a human being, then we are dooming
>>society to depravity.
>>
>>NO MATTER WHAT A PERSON DOES HE HAS INALIENABLE RIGHTS WHICH MAN CANNOT
>>TAKE AWAY.
>>
>>GOT IT???
>>
>>When our children see us treating people like animals, then they beleive
>>that its ok to do this and grow up to be dysfunctional and antisocial.
>>THAT IS THE CAUSE OF CRIME!

    Gee, didn't the V.P. mention something about that? Wasn't it.....,,
                       FAMILY VALUES????


>
>The cause of crime is that this country has moved its focus from God.
>People today have this crazy idea that FREEDOM means ANYTHING YOU WANT
>TO DO, DO IT.  There is NO complete freedom.
>
>The purpose of prisons is to show that when someone breaks the rules,
>they are removed from society.  When a person commits a crime, he gives
>up his "inalienable rights."
>
>Mr. Clinton's idea of putting more police around the country is an
>attempt to fix the symptom of the problem, not the caues of the problem.
>See previous postings.
>
>Daniel
>--
>
>Daniel L'Hommedieu / Junior, CSC Depatment, NCSU / eagle@catt.ncsu.edu
>From: Rec.humor.funny:                            "Ich bin ein Adler"
>      My unique solution to two of the world's problems:
>      "Feed the Homeless to the Hungry"
>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.rumors,alt.activism
From: Thomas Bjorkman <Thomas_Bjorkman@cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
X-Xxdate: Tue, 10 Nov 92 08: 17:47 GMT
Nntp-Posting-User: tnb1@cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell University
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d7
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 13:13:56 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.023120.2114@u.washington.edu> Tim Smith,
tzs@carson.u.washington.edu writes:
>She offered no evidence that she was harassed by anyone.

Even if Clarence Thomas did nothing, the senators did a pretty good job
making up for it!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58092 alt.rush-limbaugh:8989 alt.politics.elections:22561 alt.politics.clinton:15729 alt.politics.bush:13107
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Trickle Down Economics
Date: 3 Nov 92 20:37:43 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Nov3.034809.9120@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (It's not what you got, it's what you give) writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.015124.1213@HQ.Ileaf.COM>, raczka@HQ.Ileaf.COM (christopher raczka)                   writes...
>>In article <1992Oct26.160811.323@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>> Hey folks, I have a question.  If trickle-down-economics is bad and 
>>> doesn't create jobs...where the hell else can jobs come from?
>
>>If Bill Clinton wins this Presidential election, it will take 4 years
>>to educate him on what the Economy really is and how it functions 
>>.... this is "change" America
>>$200,000 year to learn economics on-the-job
>>
>I have a few question. Why do you understand the economy, and a Rhodes
>Scholar doesn't? And where did you pull the 4 years number from?
>And why is "change" limited to something bad? You have made several 
>accusations without any evidence to back it up. 
>
>>chris

Chris, are you aware that Bill Clinton is NOT a Rhodes Scholar?  You 
can only be a Rhodes Scholar under two circumstances:
	1) You are currently going to school under a Rhodes Scholarship, or 
	2) You graduated from school on a Rhodes Scholarship.

Bill is not going to college now, nor did he graduate.  Therefore, he 
is not now a RS.  (He was when he was attending school, but the appropriate 
was to characterize Bill is `former RS' or `he was a RS.'

In addition, are you aware that many RS get degrees in subjects not even 
remotely related to economics?  Do you think that RS' are omniscient?

Ted

-- 
Bill Clinton was voted best governor by his peers - 1988
Michael Dukakis was voted best governor by his peers -1986
            krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60032 alt.politics.elections:23730 alt.rush-limbaugh:9644 talk.rumors:1266 alt.activism:18748
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: 14 Nov 92 01:23:01 GMT
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <1992Nov13.171749.25117@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, stamber@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu sez:
>
>     The main problem that those opposed to Bork had was that he was going
>to actually read and interpret based solely upon the words within.

Imagine that.  Imagine states having the power to repress free speech
and oppress minority religions, since the First Amendment restricts
only the power of Congress.

This wouldn't the same Bob Bork who dismissed the Ninth Amendment as
"an inkblot on the Constitution," now would it?  So much for
literalism . . . .



-- 
			     819 F.2d 451

	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Celebration in the Streets
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:18:31 GMT


After Clinton was elected, there were celebrations in the streets in two
cities:
		Little Rock, Arkansas
		Bagdad, Iraq

Think about it.


--
James W. Meritt:  m23364@mwunix.mitre.org - or - jmeritt@mitre.org
The opinions above are mine.  If anyone else wants to share them, fine.
They may say so if they wish. The facts "belong" to noone and simply are.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell)
Subject: So how about that deficit (was Re: Clinton's plan our best and only hope for the future
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 03:32:25 GMT

In article <7709@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>All this talk of Clinton and Congress working together frightens me no end. It
>means there will be no brake at all on a Congress run amok. We will see an
>orgy of taxing and spending the likes of which have not occurred since the
>days of the Great Society...and we all know what a bust that was.

Okay, I've got some general questions here. Like many people, I've
been accepting the contention that 'Democrats spend more than
Republicans' for some years now, but after looking at actual numbers I
can't really say I'm convinced. 

As far as I can tell, more than 3/4 of the existing $4.1 Trillion
(i.e. 10^12, or a MegaMegaBuck :-) existing federal deficit was
incurred during the last 12 years of American history, the "Reagan/Bush"
years.

Now, I know the president doesn't control federal spending. And I'll
accept that the president might approve certain spending provisions
that he didn't agree with just to help the process of consensus along
a bit. However, the president does have to sign all budgets into law,
and frankly I just can't see how someone can rationally divorce the $3
x10^2 incurred federal deficit of the last 12 years from the
Reagan/Bush presidency. 

From my limited observation (I was 10 when Reagan was elected :),
Reagan was more than happy to sign all of those huge spending
increases into law, without the slightest hesitation. He got away with
it because the economy was in fairly good shape, and the bulk of the
opinion-makers in the country (i.e. the middle and upper classes) were
making $$$.

So, I ask the diehard Republican supporters here: When you went to the
polls, how did you rationalize this behaviour? How can Reagan and Bush
be held without responsibility in this matter (or, with minimal
responsibility)? In what way would re-election of G. Bush have
addressed the deficit issue?

These aren't loaded questions; I have no set opinion on this matter,
and I would very much like to hear the Republican reply to these
questions.
-- 
#      Rick Russell | TAMU Meteorology | wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu       # 
#      This netnews message has been brought to you by the number 3!   #
From: fierro@uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Boycott Colorado
Date: 10 Nov 92 07:13:39 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <25930@optima.cs.arizona.edu> bakken@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Bakken) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.204645.17596@newsgate.sps.mot.com> craigp@dolphin.sps.mot.com (Craig Petty) writes:
>>Colorado has become the first to constitutionalize discrimination.  If you
>>care about civil rights, please consider boycotting Colorado in all aspects
>>(business, travel, etc).
>
>Why stop at homosexuality?  Why not give special civil rights protection
>to bestiality, necrophilia, exhibitionists, etc?  Or nose pickers,
>cherry pickers, slobs, left-handed people, etc.
>
>Or maybe you like the idea that churches should have to hire
>homosexuals, even if this is strongly against their beliefs.
>--
>Dave Bakken                               Internet: bakken@cs.arizona.edu
>Dept. of Computer Science; U of Arizona   Voice:    +1 602 621 4098      
>Tucson, AZ 85721; USA                     FAX:      +1 602 621 4246
>The fact that you're paranoid doesn't prove they're *not* out to get you.


  This coming from a citizen of a state which refused to pass a MLK 
holiday- can't say I'm surprised at the level of ignorance...

  Doug
-- 
                                                     Doug Fierro
                                      |\             UTS System Software
  O                         __________|_\______      CASE tools development
  \_.______________________| * * * * * * * * */      fierro@uts.amdahl.com
 __\____                   |=================/       (408)746-7102
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Trickle Down Economics
From: kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell)
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 05:09:42 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm) writes:
> Kenneth Mitchell writes:
> #>I think it was Kris Kristofferson who said that he and Bill Clinton had
> #>pretty much demolished the idea that Rhodes Scholars were automatically
> #>"intelligent".  
> 
> Here's a logical fallacy I have neve come across before: the  appeal to
> the self-impeaching authority.  Funny, tho.
> 

The point is that Kris Kristofferson, who is an actor of no particular
intelligence, was also a Rhodes Scholar, and he recognizes that
such honor does not automatically confer greatness. 

For Clinton, who didn't complete the program, to point to the fact that he
was a Rhodes Scholar, as if that somehow PROVED his fitness to be
President, is laughable. 

And, now that it's "President-elect Slick Willie", it is to cry about. 

Ken Mitchell
kmitche@eis.calstate.edu

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,ca.politics,ba.politics,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Shooting tragedy (was Re: Support Right to 'bear arms')
From: galan@netlink.cts.com (Greg Gross)
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 92 21:07:21 PST
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

dusek@rtsg.mot.com (James Dusek) writes:

> pa142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
> >For someone who purports to oppose individuals acting as "judge, jury, and 
> >executioner," you are very quick to condemn.
> 
> 	I overreacted to what I have heard, its not as bad as I though, but
> it is still pretty bad.
> 
> >Sure, there is a reason for 911.  But I have a feeling that we have a 
> >radiaclly different perspective as to it's use, and efficiency.  Police 
> >response time can be anywhere from 20 minutes, to two hours.  Had the "
> >victim" been an assailant, 911 would have been useless.  
> 
> 	First, they rang his doorbell. Not many criminals do this, but 
> sometines they do.
> 
> 	Second, they made no attempt to enter the house forcefully.
> 
> 	The proper way would have been to grab the gun and call 911. Wait
> INSIDE of your house for the police to come. IF they break in and confront
> you inside of your house, than you can justify the shooting. Running outside
> with a loaded gun in a neighborhood is just plain stupid. 
> 
> James Dusek


James:

You might have added:

Third, Yoshi reportedly was walking away from the house when the guy 
comes out and yells "Freeze!" and then shoots.

Good old God-fearing WASP Louisiana gunslinger probably will get off 
without so much as a slap on the wrist for this. But he was just 
exercising his Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, right? 
Besides, it's not as if he killed a real person, just some Japanese kid, 
so no big deal, right? Who knows? There's probably a wild-eyed gang of 
Japanese exchange students plundering houses all over Baton Rouge...can't 
be too careful, you know...
G.

--
Gregory Alan Gross      Welcome to life, where no good deed goes unpunished.
San Diego Union-Tribune         (619) 293-1270 (voice)
P.O. Box 191                    (619) 293-2333 (fax)
San Diego, CA 92112-4106        galan@netlink.cts.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59943 tx.politics:7274
From: gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Is SS part of compensation? (was Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Date: 10 Nov 92 02:47:47 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Gordon Burditt

>Every year Novell sends me a little booklet detailing my compensation
>package.  Included is my salary, bonus, insurance, AND Novell's payment
>of SS on my behalf.  As far as Novell is concerned, that's money that
>they have to pay as part of employing me, hence, it is a benefit.  I'd

It *IS* an expense of having employees.  That does not make it a benefit,
and it especially does not make it a benefit TO YOU.  

I suspect that the day will come when doctoring the SSA's books to
erase record of that SS tax payment would be to your financial benefit.

>like to be able to do what I want with that 7.5% rather than have it
>sucked back to Washington...

Given the choice of burning that 7.5% or having it sucked back to
Washington, which would you choose?

					Gordon L. Burditt
					sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc