HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ed@wente.llnl.gov (Ed Suranyi)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Judiciary Committee, Please Get a clue!
Date: 25 Jan 93 23:11:21 GMT
Organization: UC Davis Dept of Applied Science at LLNL

In article <TOM.93Jan22080858@amber.ssd.csd.harris.com> tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley) writes:
>This reminds me of the case last year in which the supreme court was
>deciding if executing an innocent man was "cruel and unusual". Only lawyers
>with years of special training can get their heads in a state where
>questions like this don't have immediately obvious answers.

Apparently, the Supreme Court decided today that executing a possibly
innocent man is NOT cruel and unusual!  What the opinion said, basically,
was this:  "Sure the guy might be innocent.  But it's too late for him
now.  He should have brought this up years ago.  The courts can do nothing
for him.  Maybe the governor will give him clemency.  That would be the
only remedy in a case like this."

Ed
ed@wente.llnl.gov
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Seem to have missed...
Date: 21 Jan 1993 15:42:57 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1993Jan21.132030.16214@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix  
(James Meritt) writes:
> 
> Could someone please let me know when Hillary Clinton won an  
elected position, or
> was appointed and went through a confirmation hearing?  I really  
seem to have missed
> when she got the authority to attend cabinet meetings or direct the  
national health
> policy and when she was given the equivalent responsibility.  I  
wonder if Gore
> noticed Bill Clinton's answer to "If you could have ONE adviser,  
who would it be?"
> Sort of a good-news/bad-news for the VEEP:  The good news is that  
it will be a
> co-presidency.  The bad news is that the VEEP isn't the "co".

I don't know.  Did I miss something?  Did they pass a law that
says everybody who advises the President must be approved
by Congress?  Or is there a law that says that Congress must
give someone authority to attend cabinet meetings?  I thought
it was simply the President who gave anyone authority to attend.
He can seek advice from anyone he wants to: most Presidents have
consulted with lots of people, including their friends.

--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.perot
From: ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack B. Nimble)
Subject: Re: Libertarians and Labor Unions
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:57:55 PST

In article <1k5cvt$43g@agate.berkeley.edu>, on 27 Jan 1993 07:18:21 GMT,
ssusin@emily10.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) writes:

>
>There aren't any laws that _force_ people to join labor unions,
>however, unions often _negotiate_ contracts with employers that
>require employees to join a union.  Judging from the replies to this
>question, it seems like the libertarians out there are suggesting
>that unions and companies shouldn't be allowed to negotiate such
>contracts.  Having the government ban certain types of contracts
>seems like a clear violation of libertarian tenets to me.
>
Quite to the contrary. Libertarians have no problem with *freely*
negotiated contracts between labor unions and employers which require
employees to join unions.

>Note that if an employee is unhappy about being required to join a
>union, she doesn't have to work there--in the same way that she can
>quit if she doesn like, say, the benefits package the company offers.
>
>Now, since in 24 states, such contracts are _illegal_ (these are
>so-called 'right to work' states), how come libertarians never
>attack these clear restrictions on the right to make contracts?
>
Libertarians are opposed to right-to-work laws. From the 1992 Platform:

10. UNIONS AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

We support  the  right  of  free  persons  to  voluntarily  establish,
associate in, or  not associate in,  labor unions.  An employer should
have the right  to recognize, or  refuse to recognize, a  union as the
collective bargaining agent of some, or all, of its employees.

We oppose government  interference in bargaining,  such as  compulsory
arbitration or the imposition of an obligation to bargain.  Therefore,
we urge repeal  of the National  Labor Relations Act,  and  all  state
Right-to-Work Laws which  prohibit  employers  from  making  voluntary
contracts with unions.   We oppose all  government back-to-work orders
as the imposition of a form of forced labor.

    =Jack=
---
Jack B. Newsbaum             You have rights antecedent to all earthly
Library Information Systems  governments; rights that cannot be
University Research Library  repealed or restrained by human law.
ecl4jn2@mvs.oac.ucla.edu               - John Adams

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: DAY THREE: Either a lie or utter stupidity
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:45:32 GMT

In article <matjmm.727895331@gsusgi1.gsu.edu> matjmm@gsusgi1.gsu.edu (J. Morgan Morris) writes:
}Clinton's
}    one of the brightest politicians we've seen in a long time.

ohboy.  Isn't THAT saying a lot!

How does it go "cleanest roach under the sink"?


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70254 alt.politics.clinton:21458
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Congratulatoin, Bill-Bots!
Date: 28 Jan 1993 18:09:13 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) says:

>
>I give up. I will no longer respond. You guys are getting too
>wierd, too bitter, too vacuous,


     Oh, Doc.  First Lance bails off the Clinton bus, and now YOU.
     Man, just when we jumping on board.  :)

     BITTER??!!!!  NOT AT ALL!!!  I'm looking forward to this.
     I'm ready for cash!

     Here, let me draw you a schematic of " The Future " -



                   Everything is Okay            Economy Blows UP
                ------------------------------------------------------

You, Dr. LaF          YOU pay more taxes          YOU lose everything
betting on
hyperinflation

Me, The Fool        *I* get more Federal Freebies      *I* make out
betting on
deflation



       Come on, it's the start of New Age.  Go, Clinton.

       Man, you'd think he'd be happy that we finally jumped on
       ticket.

>Norman
>
>Dr. Norman J. LaFave
>Senior Engineer
>Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company
>
>
>
>
>When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
>                               Hunter Thompson
>

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Subject: Re: Homework assignment for the media
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 01:07:58 GMT

In article <1jo0aiINN31f@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:

>I'm waiting for the poll crazy media to ask 'TODAY who would you vote
>for for President (two or three man race) ?'  I think it would be a
>clear victory for Bush.  But why do I think the media would be afraid
>that Clinton would be offended if they asked such a question now.

NEWSWEEK poll conducted 1-14 & 15 Latest edition(1-25) 

Reagan/Bush or Clinton admin. more likely to meet the needs of people like you.

56%--Clinton
36%--Reagan/Bush

Sorry Richard but no points for you here.

Other points of possible interest:

What's more important:
50%--Stimulate economy even if deficit reductions delayed short term 
40%--Reduce deficit even if economy recovery delayed short term

Will economy improve after 4 years of Clinton:
65%--Yes
31%--No
(Indicates consumer confidence higher then I would have expected)

Is Clinton somewhat to very likely to:
26%--Cut deficit in half within 4 years
29%--Cut taxes soon for middle class
(Indicates that not all that many were banking on these issues when they voted)

Are Cabinet Apointees too tied to special interest.
43%--No
35%--Yes

Do you approve of the way Clinton has handled the transition?
68%--Yes
18%--No

Sorry again Richard---still no points.

Is Clinton likely to:
62%---Send troops to Bosnia
88%---Renew military action with Iraq.
(Must be that perception on the new type Democrat/Liberal)

Well Richard you wanted to know what the latest polls said---now you do.


Stan Knight
|Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it!|
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: leecr@microsoft.com (Lee Crocker)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism...
Date: 26 Jan 93 02:17:18 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

>Libertarianism is not a religion at all, but a political and social 
>philosophy.  I am a christian.  Most of the libs I know are christians, 
>although there is the odd athiest thrown in.

And at least one Zen Buddhist.  Libertarianism is the only political
philosophy I can reconcile with my Buddhist commitment to non-violence.
-- 
Lee Daniel Crocker    | Free minds; free bodies; free trade.
leecr@microsoft.com   | Libertarian Party  1-800-682-1776
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: Drug Prices (was: What's happening to George Bush?)
Organization: Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 06:40:06 GMT

In article <1j1elaINN332@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cd651@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Wally L. Blume) writes:
>  And I suppose drug legalization is the answer. If we look at the drugs 
>we have legal now (mainly alcohol) we see that this isn't such a rosy 
>picture at all. I think that there are far more alcohol abusers than
>illegal drug users and people dying left and right due to drunk driving.
>Dying is dying be it a bullet in a drug war, drinking yourself to death,
>or a drunk driving crash...

And I suppose you would prefer the relative better times of Prohibition, with
speak-easies, cops on the take, drive-by shootings, St. Valentine's Day
Massacre, rum-running, illegal stills, bathtub gin, poisonings from bad
alcohol, etc., etc., etc.?

We can compare Prohibition against what was before and after, and I think most
of us would conclude that the repeal of Prohibition was a good thing, despite
the problems.

Perhaps the lesson of Prohibition should be applied to currently illegal
intoxicants?

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)

I think that God in creating man somewhat overestimated his ability.
- Oscar Wilde
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70464 ca.politics:10729 ba.politics:8385 alt.sex:43482
From: walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.sex
Subject: Re: What is Clay's real motivation?
Date: 27 Jan 93 21:26:25 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

From article <1k48gcINN51f@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, by stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (coram populo):
> In article <14066@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

#>But an 8 year old is.  Mr. Brack and the rest of NAMBLA want it to
#>be legal for an adult to sodomize an eight year old.  And apparently,
#>so does Mr. Nieporent.

> Can you produce the evidence that Mr.'s Brack and Nieporent and NAMBLA
> want to sodomize 8 year old childern?

Very good point.  They (NAMBLA) simply want it to be legal to do
such things.  Now, why could that be?...  :-(
-- 
Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
AOL: BigCookie -- Amateur Radio: KM6XU@WX3K -- USCF: L10861
"What, me worry?" - William M. Gaines, 1922-1992
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69649 alt.activism:21327
From: edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Libertarians
Date: 25 Jan 93 13:23:26 GMT
Reply-To: edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

In article <1993Jan24.183407.21721@oracle.us.oracle.com>, mfriedma@uucp
(Michael Friedman) writes:

>>Anyone out there seen a Libertarian Party banner on a picket for the
>>reinstatement of workers sacked for unionizing?
>
>Of course not.  Libertarians also support the right of emplyers to
>fire such people.

That's a non sequitur; while libertarians would support the _right_ of
employers to fire unionizers, that does not mean they would think it is
a good thing or would not work against it, including the non-violent
means of picketing.


                                -- edp (Eric Postpischil)
                                "Always mount a scratch monkey."
                                edp@rusure.enet.dec.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Privatization
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 02:23:54 GMT

In article <1jq7ieINN1mh@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>      Exactly the attitude that will kill the U.S.
>
>     Meanwhile, my technical skills put me in the top 5% of 
>     jobs in most "undeveloped" countries, and cashing all
>     my stuff in for U.S. dollars gives me a retirement 
>     that I can only DREAM of in the U.S.
>
>     Uruguay has a climate that would probably be conducive to solar.

Well, you go uruguay, I'll go mine.  Say hello to Sendero Luminoso if 
you pass through Peru.  
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70185 alt.activism:21481
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Libertarians
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 19:31:14 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

>jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) writes:

>> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) wrote:

>> > jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) writes:

>> >> edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil) wrote:

>> >>> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

>> >>>> labor unions, and I've yet to see Libertarians take unions seriously.
>> >>> Supporting the right of people to form labor unions is part of the party
>> >>> platform.  How much more seriously do you want them to take it?

>> >> Anyone out there seen a Libertarian Party banner on a picket for the
>> >> reinstatement of workers sacked for unionizing?

>> > Of course not.  Libertarians also support the right of emplyers to
>> > fire such people.  In the same way, most people would agree that you
>> > have the right to sit arround all day humming to yourself and building
>> > origame sculptures.  Most people would also agree that your employer
>> > has the right to fire you for such conduct.

>> So it appears that the Libertarian Party does not in fact support the right
>> of workers to form organizations devoted to collective resistance to the
>> power of the employer class.  

Jack, you seem to have a reading comprehension problem.  The
Libertarian Party believes that workers have that right.  I fail to
understand why you think they don't.

>> Sorry, but that's what the rest of the planet
>> has meant the words "labour union" since at least the time of the Tolpuddle
>> Martyrs.  What you appear to mean by "union" is precisely what the rest of
>> the human race means by "origami club".

Jack, I challenge you to find anything in my post where I gave a
definition of union.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.peeves,talk.politics.medicine,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.african.american,sci.med
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: Statement of President Clinton on Health Care Reform Task Force
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: Deep Space Nine (DS9)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:40:18 GMT

res4w@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Robert E. Schmieg) writes:
>zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com  writes:
>> He said that this is especially important for non-white people,
>> who routinely die in the ER for lack of care because they don't
>> assume that you can pay or have insurance.
>
>3) IF you or he DO NOT have any documentation that this has
>occurred (and documentation is NOT "he said she said ..." or "
>my cousin ...) then EITHER get the documentation in order and
>pursue 1) above, OR SHUT UP.  You and he are either spreading
>unfounded rumors, or else ignoring a changeable situation.	

There was a hospital just near the Los Angeles Forum that was caught
refusing patients due to insurance at their ER during the riots.  An
NBC camera crew (WNBC took KNBC's raw feed live after Carson -- talk
about yer priorities, eh? (-;) and they originally intended to film
folks fleeing for home after the Lakers game.  It's been a long time
and I've not been able to follow-up on whether the prosecution was
successful or not.

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@columbia.EDU 			GO  Winnipeg Jets  GO!!!
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			Selanne + Domi ==> Stanley
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69690 alt.activism:21334 alt.conspiracy:14619
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Destruction of the U.S.
Date: 25 Jan 1993 16:45:10 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) says:

>In article <1jnh0mINNls0@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>>     And, I find it hard to characterize an economy where 1/3 of 
>>     all goods and services are consumed by government as 
>>     " already privatized ".
>
>  Sorry, but no matter how hard you find it, economics measures
>  "privatization" by who produces the goods and services, not
>  by who consumes it.  This is one of the reasons why despite 
>  Sweden's huge social-welfare and defense establishments, it
>  is still technically incorrect to call them "socialist" 
>  since 90% of their GDP is produced by private industry.


        Yes, yes, of course.  How could I have been so wrong, as
        Sweden prospers beyond my wildest imaginings.  The U.S. 
        should adopt their system.

        Oh, Piece train sounding LOUDER!
           Everyone hope aboard the Piece Train!
        Forgive my stupdity.

 
        >
>  Now you may argue that this is a distinction without a
>  difference, but the other fact to consider is that in most
>  other industrialized nations and even larger % of goods 
>  and servises is consumed by the government.   
>
>  I'd like to see more privatization and a reduced role for 
>  government in the US, too, but there's no hope of it:  All
>  three of the major candidates wanted BIGGER government: 
>  Yes, even Perot -- in his book he makes it clear that he
>  wants higher taxes and a bigger role for government in 
>  industrial policy, health, and education.   And the LP
>  candidate got about a third of the vote they got in the
>  last Presidential election.
>
>
>---peter
>
>
>

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70502 alt.politics.clinton:21543
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: My money's on BILL!
Date: 28 Jan 1993 23:07:25 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Mike Jones) says:

>blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne) writes:
>
>[nothing worth quoting]
>
>Hmmm. Guess it gets pretty boring in Idaho in the winter.
>


     See, John Morgan?  Total denial.  Disparage the bearer of bad news,
     ignore him, anything but admit the truth.

     We are watching a truly monumental mass pyschosis of the American
     people.  Want to know the most memorial time ( that I'm aware of ) that i
     it happened last?   Germany 1932, Hitler is elected on a platform 
      of "rebuilding infrastructure" and "renewed social benefits".

   
     I absolutely can NOT believe it.


      The tip-off?  Absolutely NO admittance that it might possibly be 
      happening.  Historical parallels havincredible strong.  Racism,
      the Neo-Nazis, problem economy, a sudden hysterical belief that
      everything will continue upward, trade wars starting, etc.

>
>In his State of the Union address Mr. Bush spoke more touchingly about the
>distress of the nation's banks than he did about the suffering of his fellow
>citizens.
>	- Lewis H. Lapham
>

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Libertarians
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:12:23 GMT

In article <93023.120137DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>More than 95% of the money collected in Medicare taxes is paid
>out as benefits.

You are mis-informed. Over 40% of medicare taxes are eaten by the 
beaurocracy.

Please note that I have removed the newgroup that I regularly read from the 
header, as we have strayed far beyond the charter.  I will most likely not see 
your well-reasoned and courteous response.  Constuctive e-mail is welcomed.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
E-Mail to PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu, mail to ARCHER at that address will
bounce.    "Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dchuk@netcom.com (Denise Chuk)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill for Attorney General!
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:32:23 GMT

mmdd@igc.apc.org writes:


>Anita Hill for Attorney General!

You must be joking!
-- 
------

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent --Salvor Hardin
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69600 alt.pagan:15800 talk.religion.misc:27460 talk.abortion:57779
From: markr@seqp4.sequoia.com (Mark Roddy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: WELLLLL! IT'S DAY ONE. WHERE'S THE PLAN???
Date: 26 Jan 93 15:21:37 GMT
Organization: Sequoia Systems Inc., Marlboro, Mass.

>%
>%                           PREDICTION
>%
>%In one year an attempt will be made to hold a recall election for
>%the office of President of the United States.

Interesting prediction as there is no such mechanism in the constitution. Perhaps
you would like to revise this to 'impeachment'?

-- 
-Mark Roddy
Sequoia Systems, Inc.          (508) 480-0800 x1284
markr@seqp4.sequoia.com        m2c!seqp4!markr