HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Monte Olsen <olsenm@ccmail.orst.edu>
Subject: Re: Amusing Technical Aside
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A727DA5CF801A70D@reynolde-mac.ads.orst.edu>
X-Xxdate: Thu, 12 Nov 92 17:54:36 GMT
Organization: OSU Extension Service
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:52:53 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.075732.4240@wetware.com> drieux,
drieux@wetware.com writes:
>have been a few OTHER military and
>paramilitary Operations in the BigWorld
>to teach folks how to say:
>
>"FUCK! DUCK!"
>
>My beloved housemate has learned that there
>is a MINOR technical distinction between
>
>"Incoming!"
>
>and
>
>"Make a HOLE!"
>
>
>ciao
>drieux
>
>ps: its amusing to me that so few morn those of ours
>who died OUTSIDE the perimeter of the Beirut Enclave
>in operations that were NOT on Prime Time Live....
>


drieux,
I DO appreciate your perspective. You're absolutely right
and I apologize for being so narrow minded on the matter.
There sure are lots of us walking around with the good ol'
incoming flinch.

Thanks again for getting this mind right.

Monte
>and then there is the Uganda adventures, and ....
>
>pps: and bill mauldin complained that the VFW
>was loaded with a bunch of WWI era folks telling
>them that they really had it lucky in WWII....
>
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bespectacled Bill C.
Date: 9 Nov 1992 04:40:23 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, jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) says:

>GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>>      But I *sure* don't remember seeing them on Clinton!  :)
>>
>>      This is just too, too funny. hehehehehheheh.
>
>Get a grip... you haven't been paying too much attention to this election,
>have you? Clinton was regularly shown studying for the debates with his
>glasses on. He also slipped them on when he read things on talk shows.



      No, I surely don't remember Clinton having glasses during
the debates, and I saw ALL of them.  For the talk shows, you might be
right.  Now.  Tell me that YOU saw a cigar.

      Perhaps you'd like some info on Clinton.

      He went into office in Arkansas, with a mandate for CHANGE.
      And by God, he CHANGED stuff, the voters be damned.
      Then, when the voters decided they didn't LIKE the change,
      he began his philosophy of "conserving political capital".

      That is, in order to get re-elected.

      No, son.  I think I've paid more attention here than you
think.  I didn't vote him. 

>
>>      I anxiously await tomorrow's revelation.
>>      This is going to be good. :)
>



      What would get me through the night might be somebody
trustworthy.  I've long since passed the age of naiveity.
I have a pretty good idea what Clinton is.  
The real question.  Will the voters who put him in be able
to deal with their consciences?   Hmmmmm?

>Whatever gets you through the night.
>
>---
>Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
>

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58206 ca.politics:9359 ba.politics:6746
From: smith@ctron.com (Lawrence C Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,ca.politics,ba.politics,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Support Right to 'bear arms'
Date: 13 Nov 92 15:55:41 GMT
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Distribution: usa
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Oct29.193028.19825@cbnewsc.cb.att.com>, rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat) writes:
>In <1992Oct29.163800.9016@Firewall.Nielsen.Com> John Kapson states:

>Seems to me some sort of prejudicial thought process was at work with
>the wife.

>What gets me is how the homeowner, didn't simply back away, when he
>clearly had control of the entire situation.

>To me, this is at a minimum manslaughter...

Oh, we are just so bloody clever on this net, to be able to reach out
and read the minds of all participants and decide with such bloody certainty
what happened and who was right and who was wrong.  The homeowner's wife
screamed because she was _frightened_.  _I_ don't know why, neither do you,
nor does anybody else but her, and anybody she may have explained it to,
like the Grand Jury, which is is the only body empowered to _decide_ if a
crime was committed.  Maybe it was prejudice, but I tend to think not, I've
never seen a chinese teenager so horrifying all by himself that he could
surprise a woman into screaming and slamming the door.  He was in costume,
I've never seen report about _what_ costume, for all we know he was soaked
in fake blood and carrying a fake dismembered head.

The homeowner felt he was threatened.  Maybe he didn't feel "simply backing
away" would protect him or his wife.  Why?  I don't know, and I'm not prepared
to just _imagine_ why and convict him, and I'm _sick_ and _tired_ of people
like you who will invent the entire situation in their heads and then castigate
the man or convict him of manslaughter without even a kangaroo court.  YOU
WEREN'T THERE, "MORRIS", SO STOP IMAGINING YOU WERE!  We have a legal system
in this country designed to deal with these circumstances, if a flood of facts
come out that seem to indicate the boy was shot in cold blood and the Grand
Jury refused to return an indictment, THEN maybe you should talk about what
is WRONG with that system.  But absent BOTH of these, maybe, just maybe, you
should give the people who KNOW, who were THERE, who INVESTIGATED the incident
and who were made RESPONSIBLE for doing so by their fellow citizens, a chance
to DO THEIR JOB, and stop trying to second-guess them out of YOUR OWN DAMNED
PREJUDICE.

You haven't convicted this man because of circumstances, you've convicted him
because he's WHITE and he dared shoot someone who wasn't.  That's all this
crap boils down to, if he'd shot a young white kid this thread never would
have been.

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com)  No, I don't speak for Cabletron.  Need you ask?
-
Liberty is not the freedom to do whatever we want,
it is the freedom to do whatever we are able.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 06:17:42 GMT

So, how did elections go for state offices?  Here in the state of Washington,
the Republicans got trounced.  One high Republican party official summarized
the results as "God looked down and said there shall be no Republicans."
(not an exact quote -- I no longer have the newspaper article).

What was most interesting was the Jobs vs. Owls results.  Several Republicans
tried to follow the President's lead and claim that Democrats would take away
the jobs to save the Spotted Owl.  The ads from the Republican candidate for
lands commissioner went so far as to try to use the word "environmentalist"
the way Republicans used to use the word "liberal."  That candidate lost by
9%.  (The Libertarian candidate got 4% for that office, by the way.)

Anyway, here are the results:

	U.S. Senate: 1 D, 0 R
	U.S. House: 8 D, 1 R
	Governor: D
	Lt. Gov: R
	Attorney General: D
	Land Commissioner: D
	Insurance Commissioner: D
	State Auditor: D
	Secretary of State: R
	State Treasurer: D
	State Legislature: 79 D, 39 R

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: carlos@spanky.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Carlos Carrion)
Subject: Re: Defending Dahmer Wasn't Satire
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Distribution:  ca
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 16:02:55 GMT

mchaffee@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Rockville) writes:
>cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>># Most people can't kill unless they're outraged.  If you want to know
>># where the future fascists will be coming from, here's a hint: look
>># among the people who are often morally outraged.

	like Cramer...

>Oppressed minorities have the right to be outraged.  Try being one.  Better
>yet, wait ten years.  Then brain-dead supremacists such as yourself WILL be
>an oppressed minority.  I can hardly wait.

	You don't really mean this do you?

>...If you want
>to see a group working on true fascism, take a hard look at the Wrong
>Religious Right, or most of the far Right in general.  Gays don't want to

	Well, to the extent that they have an agenda for passing laws that
	encompass their religious beliefs and no others and therefore would
	impose their beliefs on you, I guess you can call them fascist.
	But be aware that they are not the only ones that are doing this...

>...If the majority of the population still did not
>believe in the rights of African-Americans, they would be on your shit list
>too.  "A greater percentage of the murders in this country are committed by

	They are.  He doesn't believe in anti-discrimination laws.

>There is nothing in my life that I am more proud of than the fact that I am
>a homosexual and able to accept that fact.  IMHO, anybody who wants to deny

	I don't mean to sound ignorant, but why are you proud of being
	homosexual?  What is it about your sexual orientation that makes
	you proud?  Or is it the fact that you are willing to accept whatever
	dangers are inherent in being homosexual and still keep true to
	yourself?  Is that what makes you proud?  I can accept that.  Please
	enlighten...

carlos.

Ever feel like the whole world is a tuxedo and you're a pair of brown shoes?
      ...ames!elroy!jpl-devvax!{beowulf|pituco}!carlos
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Release from the Clinton Camp
Date: 13 Nov 92 18:48:01 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 1657@Princeton.EDU, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.172358.12239@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>Well, I guess it is no more an infringement on the right to bear arms
>>than a waiting period before printing anything would be an
>>infringement of the right to free speech.
>
>I wish you people would get the (IMHO silly) analogy correct.  The Brady
>Bill doesn't require a waiting period before *using* a gun.  It requires
>a waiting period before *buying* a gun.

I think that Jerry Seinfeld came up with a typically New York response to
the Brady Bill:  What's the point?  After 7 days, I'm not angry anymore.  ;-)

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: bill needs some math classes.
Keywords: clinton, taxes, spending, deficit
Date: 10 Nov 92 15:08:17 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <markts.721347002@mcl> markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark.) writes:


|> heard yesterday that bill was going to raise
|> taxes by 160 billion. raise spending by 200
|> billion. cut military by 40 billion.

|> now i only have degrees in economics and 
|> geography, and i only work for a software
|> company. so there is no given that math is
|> my strong suit. just take my word for it.

|> the deficit will grow with this plan.
|> you see, interest compounds. the principal
|> needs to decrease. but 200 - 200 equals
|> 0. 

|> i never thought a democrat would tax too little.

So you believe that taxes should be increased by more than 160 Billion.

I guess its time to hide my wallet again.

First anybody who believes that Clinton's 160 billion plan will raise
any where near 160 billion has been not inhaling for too long.

Targeted corporations and individuals will change their behavior in order
to minimize their tax exposure, plus the economy will slow down even more.

The experience of the last 50 years is that every dollar in increased
taxes is spent, and then some.

If Clinton tries to push this kind of proposal I predict the deficit will
double, at least.

-- 
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:60057 ca.politics:9564 misc.legal:19900
From: kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,misc.legal
Subject: Re: "Monsters Among Us", Frontlines, November 10, 1992, PBS
Date: 14 Nov 92 05:54:58 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:

>kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>>to.  If Hillary Clinton and our lawyer elite succeeds in making child
>>divorce legal, as they have made great strides towards, how long will it
>>be before a "mature" 12-year old decides to divorce his(her) parents and move
>>in with his(her) 34-year old molester?

>So, you are saying that a chance of abuse by a stranger is much worse than
>actual abuse at home?  Interesting theory.  Is this what they mean by
>"Family Values?"

I'm saying that laws already on the books dealt with child abuse without
the need to go to child divorce - a concept which assumes a level of 
maturity in 12 year olds which is absurd on it's face.  However, once
that maturation level *IS* accepted, the scenarios which follow, due to
that unnessecery expansion of the law, become even more ludicrous, and even
harder to argue against.  Note that the term "child molestation" simply
wouldn't apply in this case since the court would already have determined
that no child existed to be abused.  There are only two consenting adults.

>--Tim Smith

Steve Kellmeyer
-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
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 10:52:19 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <3NOV199208185419@utkvx3.utk.edu>, drevik@utkvx3.utk.edu (Drevik, Ste
ve) writes:
>In article <eagle.720761837@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu>, eagle@garfield.catt.ncsu.e
du (Daniel L'Hommedieu) writes...
>>dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
>>>(someone else said)
>>Nationwide health care, like welfare, is initally a good idea.  You then
>>must come up with a way to FAIRLY pay for it.  It's not fair for all us
>>tax payers to have to pay for somebody else to sit on their fanny, not
>>working, but riding the government.  Also, put those prisoners to work!
>
>All that BC is trying to do is to optimize the 13% of GNP we spend
>on health care.  He's right in the fact that for what we are spending,
>we should be getting a hell of a lot more.  We shouldn't have 37
>million uncovered people.
>
>Case:  A guy works for McDonald's...has no health care. Poor guy hasn't
>been feeling so well lately, and the cut on his thumb he got trying to
>fix the fryer doesn't seem to be healing.  Doesn't have the money to see
>a doctor, so he just figures he'll get better.
>
>Later on, at a party, his friends notice him going into convulsions and
>take him to the ER.  Turns out he has a very advanced case of diabetes.
>
>Now, for $50, he could have seen a physician that could have told him
>"you have diabetes, and here is how you need to alter your diet to
>control it."  But instead, it's going to take $5000 to nurse him back
>to health, maybe more.  Who pays it?  YOU AND I.  Either through taxes
>for medicare, or increased costs by the hospital.
>
>Case#2: Bush cut the federal subsidy for child immunization.  Any
>health worker will tell you as far as child immunizations go, a
>dollar spent today will save $100 tomorrow.
>
>This is one of the major reasons our health care costs so much.  BC is
>just trying to use the concept of an ounce of prevention (the other
>cause of higher health care is preventive procedures/lawsuits, and
>requires another type of reform that is much more difficult politically)

   Boy, what a MORON! When you go to the doctor under Clinton's plan, what
   makes you think he's going to give a crap if you get better or not? Now
   he's just like a public defender; he gets paid NO MATTER WHAT!
>
>>More police: you shouldn't need more police at all.  You should just
>>start enforcing the laws you have.  There are no criminal rights--the
>
>Dan, how do you 'enforce' laws without cops?  We went from a one
>criminal : 3 cops  ratio to  one cop : 3 crimes ratio.  Cops in
>just about anywhere in the country can do little but clean up and
>take notes AFTER a crime has been committed.  They can't effectively
>patrol and prevent.
>
     So, what you propose is that we pay for an entire population of "cops" to
stand outside each and everyone's doorway? What an IDIOT!
From: markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: bill needs some math classes.
Keywords: clinton, taxes, spending, deficit
Date: 9 Nov 92 22:10:02 GMT


 heard yesterday that bill was going to raise
 taxes by 160 billion. raise spending by 200
 billion. cut military by 40 billion.

 now i only have degrees in economics and 
 geography, and i only work for a software
 company. so there is no given that math is
 my strong suit. just take my word for it.

 the deficit will grow with this plan.
 you see, interest compounds. the principal
 needs to decrease. but 200 - 200 equals
 0. 

 i never thought a democrat would tax too little.

 mark.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson)
Subject: Re: Trickle Down Economics
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 03:15:10 GMT

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?
>>
>Not picking on you Ted ...
>
>This is incredible ... a softminded, and inept person coins
>a phrase that even he does not and cannot define and the country
>uses that phrase in conversation
>
Clinton did not coin the phrase 'trickle-down-economics'.  It's been
around since at least the 1920's.

Paul.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59212 alt.politics.elections:23275 alt.rush-limbaugh:9331 talk.rumors:1187 alt.activism:18547
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: 9 Nov 92 23:38:16 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
=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. 

Sorry, John. That won't happen. Let's say "kid gloves" and add Carol
Braun, Barbara Boxer, and Barbara Mikulski (among the other liberal
women Senators) into the mix. She'll get so many free rides that she'd
bankrupt the Walt Disney Corporation.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	Biomedical Engineering 1993
	THANK GOD IT'S BASKETBALL SEASON!!!!!
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: New Presidential policy on sex
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 13:35:27 GMT


Lead by example: say it with Flowers.


--
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.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58091 alt.rush-limbaugh:8988 alt.politics.elections:22560 alt.politics.clinton:15728 alt.politics.bush:13106
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 20:30:49 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <27161@dog.ee.lbl.gov> mike@shemesh.lbl.gov (Michael Helm) writes:
>David P Lavacek writes:
>>do go national, assuming your profits increase relative to the amount
>>of service you provide, would you not be able to grow faster (and 
>>provide more jobs) with a lower capital gains tax (Bush in the White
>
>For growing the business, I would think the tax on profits would
>be the main consideration, not the capital gains tax, until it came time
>to sell the business.

Do you think that there is a difference between the tax on profits and 
capital gains tax?  What do you think capital gains taxes are?

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
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: President Clinton's Cabinet
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:49:01 GMT

It'd be nice to finally have a Secretary of the Interior who actually
gives a damn about protecting the environment: e.g., Tim Wirth. Seems like
we've had a string of them (currently Lujan) who believe the Second Coming
is at hand, so what's the point in preserving anything.

---
Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc