HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: americans dont really believe in term limits
Date: 17 Nov 92 16:30:50
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA
Reply-To: Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ab20.larc.nasa.gov
In-reply-to: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu's message of Tue, 17 Nov 1992 13:43:21 GMT

In article <farenebt.722007801@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (droopy) writes:
-> 
-> I found the stat i was looking for:
-> 
-> 14 states passed term limit initiatives.
-> In those 14 states, the re-elected 71 (seventy one) members of Congress
-> 	who exceeded their limit just passed.
-> 
-> 
-> But, after all, it was a resounding statement against the status-quo.

	I believe in term limits, but I will also vote for a good
incumbent.  The reason is I don't want my state to have a lot of
young, less powerful representatives due to term limits while other
states keep their influential people.  If all states don't have term
limits, I don't want my state to have them.
--
Jason C. Austin
j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ,alt.activism,misc.headlines
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: Compensation for Gays Ousted from Government Employ
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:36:33 GMT

In article <1ee61lINNt7@talon.UCS.ORST.EDU>, Monte Olsen <olsenm@ccmail.orst.edu> writes:
> BTW, I honestly don't know whether the change is a good or
> not. One person brought up the question of how to protect
> openly gay people in the armed services from people who
> don't want them there. There are many issues, mainly
> relating to peoples' perceptions and feelings, that need
> to be addressed if there is to be a policy change.

  Howsabout we treat them like big boys and girls and let
them make their own determination about their safety. Also 
howsabout we not take harassment and violence lightly in
the armed forces. It seems after Tailhook, this latter
point needs a bit of consideration irrespective of Gay
people in the military.
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
From: curmw@dcatla.uucp
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: By the people or AT the people?
Date: 18 Nov 92 15:39:25 GMT
Organization: Digital Communications Associates, Alpharetta, GA


(Jyrki Kuoppala), Helsinki University of Technology, Finland wrote:

> That's probably at least partly because over 50 % (I don't remember -
> 70? 80?) of the people in prison are political prisoners.  Operation
> Just Because, operation Prohibition, operation More Iron to the
> Streets, operation War on Constitution, operation Use Terrorist
> Tactics Against Evil Vitamin, Hemp and Mindfood Salesmen - whatever
> they call the one where armed thugs kick down people's doors, steal
> their property and kill them, then say "Sorry, wrong address".

> //Jyrki

This guy is from Finland and knows more about our tyrannical government
than most *Americans*.  It's time that we educate our fellow citizens
and make some choices.

National kidnapping should not be tolerated (Noriega).
Erosion of the Bill of Rights should not be tolerated (War on Some Drugs).
Civil forfeiture abuses should not be tolerated.
No knock searches should not be tolerated.
Attempts at gun control should not even be CONSIDERED.

These things are done IN OUR NAMES!  It's time to let it be known that
these are not things that Americans stand for, or *will* stand for.

Rob Waterson
rob_waterson@pacdata.com

"RIGHT NOW our government is doing things that we think only other
governments do." -- Van Halen
From: parvin1@husc10.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Keynesian thing (was: A "New" Reich)
Date: 18 Nov 92 12:24:05 GMT
 <19921113160809ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU> <1992Nov14.181417.29039@news.columbia.edu> <37652@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu>

jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky) writes:

>>things as price stickiness on a mathematically sound base.

>More neo-Keynesians? Great. Please give an example of this price stickiness
>business.

>I'll be happy to rebutt any Keynesian drivel.

>Jim Hranicky (jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu)

Hmm. Price stickiness is a fact of life, and I think you'll find that the
most ardent anti-Keynesians are those who recognize the power inherent
in altering the money supply.  Find me any respected economist who claims
that prices are completely elastic.  "Keynesian drivel" may be a term used
by those who doubt that any good can come of disturbing a long-run
equilibrium, but to claim that price-stickiness is non-existant is to
reject virtually all accepted economic theory.  As for your challenge to
find an example, virtually all prices outside of fluid financial markets
exhibit inelastic properties to lesser or greater degrees. Heck, if they
didn't, you wouldn't have anything to fear from Keynesians, since any change
in the money supply would have zero effect on unemployment, real interest
rates, etc.

-- 
===========================================================================
Douglas Parvin
parvin1@husc.harvard.edu
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Twice F***ed (Colorado gays)
Keywords: idiocy, sexism
Date: 21 Nov 92 13:34:54 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <13179@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

> Of course, the misogyny of male homosexuals isn't surprising, if you
> simply interpret it as the response of someone filled with self-
> loathing about their efforts to fulfill (at least occasionally) a role
> that the male homosexual regards as "female."

> I've seen more misogyny from homosexuals in soc.motss than from
> heterosexuals in all other groups combined.

This is completely unsurprising.  If you look at the nature of the
pre-eminent defining male homosexual act (buggery), it is the apparent
acting out of the participants' -- _BOTH_ participants' -- failure in
the sexual arena.

The male homosexual's "ideal" passive partner is a handsome
muscle-bound man with an athletic physique in the prime of virility: a
symbol of the kind of man he has presumably lost out to in the
conquest for a female mate.  The fantasy of performing the homosexual
act on such a man is an expression of the homosexual's frustration at
his own failure with women, and of his bitterness against his
perceived antagonist -- and misogyny is an obvious logical complement
to these negative feelings.  When, on the other hand, the homosexual
assumes the "female" role, it is the acting out of his own abasement
in this failure -- and this inflames his misogynistic feelings even
more.

It must also be said that female lesbianism is an entirely different
(but related) phenomenon from male homosexuality.  Both are based on
hate of the opposite sex, but they approach the matter from opposite
ends (having to do with the proper relationship of men to women, and
vice versa).  This is best illustrated in the deep-rooted controversy
between homosexuals and lesbians over the terms "sexual orientation"
vs. "sexual preference".  Lesbianism is an act of a conscious and
deliberate rejection of men which lesbians generally wish to proudly
declare.  Homosexuality is a denial of any feelings toward women which
the homosexuals use to conceal their apparent failure with women.
Thus, male homosexuals don't wish to exhibit _ANY_ overt feelings
toward women -- even misogyny -- while the converse is obviously not
true concerning lesbians.
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60674 alt.politics.clinton:17397
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Hillary will not have a cabinet position.
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:34:45 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

	It's illegal for the President to appoint relatives to positions over
which he exercises control.
	The law was passed in response to Kennedy giving the AG position to his
brother.  Johnson signed it into law in 1965.

Brett
===============================================================================
80s: 18 million new jobs, deficits down (%GNP), tax rates down, tax revenues up
GNP up, inflation down, unemployment down, interest rates down, cold war won
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy,alt.sex
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott)
Subject:  Iceberg Vs. Vortex  (Re: FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON...
Summary:  Just what is the best metaphor?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 11:53:00 GMT


{ I always want a cigarette after posting in this thread }

In article <1992Nov22.181029.61158@cc.usu.edu>, 
sl1yn@petersboro.delab.usu.edu (869483 Denys Larry) writes...

>  Iceberg at twelve O'clock.
   ^^^^^^^
>  The PCers/Democrats/liberals have given the orders: straight ahead.
>  "I'm givin' 'er full power, Captain,"  [Ensign] Kennedy.
>  "I don't think she can take much more,"  [Engineer] Perot.
>  "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead," [Navigator] Ron Brown.

<woop, woop, woop... `General Quarters, General Quarters'> 

>  Collision imminent. 

And then.

>  ...43% of the crew elect the professional politician/liar/pot-smoker/draft-
>        dodger/bimbo-chaser/chameleon Clinton to the helm.

<claxons sound, strobes go off, red lights whirl, 
 sparks splutter, and arcs erupt at the consoles...>

>  All intelligent rats [and droids] prepare to abandon ship.
>  CRASH  BIFF  KAPOW KARUMBA RIP  POUND  KRIICK  GROING  SHRED  AURGH
>  SOS
>  We're going down...
>  help...anybody...

<ahem..>

I enjoyed this immensely Denys.

Still and all this notion of the Ole Ship-of-State (SOS) heading for the
proverbial =iceberg= leaves me frigid. (Though certainly better than the
mountain-of-debt analogy.)

"Chasm-of-debt" perhaps. And considering the magnitude of the federal
mess, "Abyss-of-Debt," might be a good deal more apropos. Or for those
of religious bent, the apocalyptic "Pit-of-Debt" is likely even more
appropriate. 

<a `vast-sucking-sound' rumbles in like the freight-train-to-hell>

Personally, considering the wildly gyrating nature of a `supposedly'
ever-expanding-economy, fueled to supercritical tension in a last ditch
desperate effort to induce a nervous-necromantic-nova...  
<pant, pant, pant>

.. my own deep sense of foreboding leads me to view the forthcoming
event as a *plunge* into-the-maelstrom.

But there's just something about that word "(male)strom."

So I've fallen on the notion of plummeting-headlong-into-the-Vortex...

..just as when the lobotomist/dentist probes deeply into the socket
with his icepick-like-tool -- then thrusts thru the eggshell of the
skull's eye-casing, shearing deep, deep inside the cortex, with a full
body twist, to gash the tissue side to side.  <uhhnnnn gack!> 

eeep... <wheww. strikes match, inhales very deeeeply>


I think I'll go ponder black-holes for a while, 
and what it's like to be stretched lengthwise on
the economic-rack -- ad infinitum, all the while 
compacted laterally on each side <squuishhh...>, and
squeezed out of existence, like a small-businessman.


So which is the better analogy for the-death-of-a-nation??


< shadowy figure rises from the chair, reaches over and powers up the
  amplifier-like-dynamos, and having flicked on the midi, starts to 
  finger-strum the keys, humming, then intoning ... >

" Save my life, I'm going down for the last time..."
From: markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: That's it, man. Game OVER! (description of armageddon)
Date: 17 Nov 92 22:57:54 GMT


 i tend to agree with the end of the world
 scenario. but first economic alliances will
 be formed by most of the nations.

 the us will either side with europe or 
 the asian nations.

 the arab nations will get into the act by 
 siding with the former soviet states and their
 nuclear weapons.

 whichever side the us chooses, we will not
 be the major economic player in our group.
 the economic downfall of the us will lead to
 serious internal conflict. this will result 
 in the us falling from its superpower status.

 middle-east peace will finally come about
 in the future by isreal giving up its elite
 defence strategy and agreeing to be protected
 by a u.n.-like force. this peace will be short-lived
 when a real trade *war* begins as the economic
 groups try to position their control over
 natural resources. 

 the isreal protection force will have conflicts
 of interest when they realize the impending 
 conflict. as scuffles break out, the arab
 nations will use the opportunity to finally
 overrun the hated isreal.

 the total war will probably be won by the
 european alliance. the president of france will
 emerge as the leader from this conflict.

 the catholic church will have played a major 
 role in the middle-east peace solution, and will 
 continue to be a *major* player in world affairs.

 i doubt the catholic church of the future i 
 describe will resemble the current church in 
 many areas. it will incorporate many popular
 beliefs from numerous religions.

 a popular belief from the war will be that isreal
 was to blame for the war. this will justify
 the tracking of jews by the political organization
 of the future.

 the two most powerful forces in the future will
 be the president of france and the pope.

 have i just described armageddon?
 i think so.
 might i be wrong?
 of course. i hope so.

 mark.

 chance is the luck of fools.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60637 ca.politics:9629 misc.legal:20087
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,misc.legal
Subject: Re: "Monsters Among Us", Frontlines, November 10, 1992, PBS
Date: 17 Nov 92 23:02:23 GMT
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA

In article <13186@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> In article <1992Nov14.202602.23939@gordian.com>, mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
> > In article <13166@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >   Oh yes, keep dreaming. You, Clayton Cramer, have done more to
> > give NAMBLA a platform than anybody else I know of. I guess 
> > you should work on your self loathing.
> 
> By saying that the homosexual community should shun NAMBLA, I
> give them a platform?  I guess Bnai Brith gives neo-Nazis a platform,
> too.

  Actually, if I had to make an analogy it would be more like the
John Birchers giving the Communists a platform. Your lunatic ravings
about the subject serve only to dismiss any legistimate concerns
that there may be. In your case, it's even worse because your
ravings have been systematically been cast in great doubt by
Kane, Chase, Bartholomew et al. You are doing your cause far
more damage than good exactly the same way that Birchers only 
served to make people want to distance themselves with Red Baiting.

> > > Take a look at California's laws on child molestation.  It's
> > > obvious they are written the way they are to benefit homosexuals.
> > 
> >   !!! Are you actually suggesting that legislators purposefully wrote
> > laws which benefit homosexual molestors? You realize, that would be the
> 
> Sure.  Willie Brown, Assemblyman from San Francisco, has been speaker
> of the Assembly for many years now.

  Well, Willie is from SF, so I guess it's guilt by association.
But let me see if I've got this correct: Willy Brown is the ring
leader of the homosexual fascist conspiracy to cause people perform
witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and leave their spouses and become 
homosexual? 
  Right?

> Go read the laws about child molestation in California.  It is
> illegal to have intercourse with a female under 18.  It is illegal
> to have sex with a boy under 14, but legal if he is 16-18, and the
> adult is within 10 years of the boy's age.  It is a misdemeanor
> if he is 14-16, and the adult is more than 10 years older than the
> boy.  Now, the same law applies if the victim is a female (and
> ONLY a female), but if intercourse happens, it is "unlawful sexual 
> intercourse" as well.  So we have this weird situation where:

  All this proves is that our statutory rape laws are completely
irrational and rather sexist. What a revelation. You can't even
get a good percentage of people to say the word "condom". So 
what's your point?
  Homosexual Fascist Lobby indeed.
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE)
Subject: Pre/Post New Deal
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 17 Nov 92 01:42:54 GMT

	These numbers are from the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census. I am posting them becuase of the recent discussion concerning how
the New Deal affected the economy and the working class of America.
Although I researched this becuase of Frank's inquiry, any discussion is
welcome.

GNP Growth Rate (%)
1909-10		2.8%
		2.6%
		5.7
		 .9
	       -4.3
	       -.8
		7.9
		 .7
		12.3
		-3.5
1919-20		-4.3
		-8.6
		15.8
		12.1
		-.2
		8.4
		5.9
		  0
		 .6
		6.7
1929-30		-9.8
		-7.6
		-14.7
		-1.8
		9.1
		9.9
		13.9
		5.3
		-5.0
		8.6
1939-40		8.5
		16.1
		12.9
		13.2
		7.2
		-1.7
		-11.9
		-.9
		4.5
		.1
1949-50		9.6
		7.9
		3.1
		4.5
		-1.3
		7.6
		1.9
		1.4
		-1.1
		6.4
1959-60		2.5
		2.0
		6.6
		4.0
		5.5
		6.3
		6.5
		2.6
		4.7
		2.6
1969-70		-.6

	I have several more graphs to post. Any comments or 
constructive criticism is welcome.

Garrett@Ingres.com

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60535 alt.politics.elections:24003 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8719 talk.rumors:1322 alt.activism:18913
From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Bork is a good judge? (NOT!) (was Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: 17 Nov 92 14:08:32 GMT
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin

In article <BxupxB.By2@eis.calstate.edu> kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell) writes:
>Actually, Brendan, you couldn'tbe more wrong if you tried. Judge Bork
>would most likely have ruled that the Federal government had NO powers
>other than those specifically listed in the Constitution; that's what
>scared the liberals so badly, because 95% of the liberal agenda would be
>thrown out on that basis. It looks like the media smear campaign worked;
>you clearly have PRECISELY the impressions about Bork that the left-wing
>wants you to have. 

I have those impressions of Bork by reading his discussions of the
right to privacy in HIS book.  I acknowledge that I _could_ be taking
it out of context and might change my mind after reading it in it's
entirety, but I kinda doubt it.

Regarding powers of govt., you might be right, but: a) he apparently
doesn't think that this applies to what the state govts can do, and b)
again, he isn't interested in using #9 to protect individual rights
from what the state govts might want to do.  He has written in places
along the lines of, "there is no right to <blah> in the Constitution,
so it is ok for the state govt to do <blah>."  Sounds to me like he
views govt. as having power unless denied.

As for the "liberal agenda", you'll have to clue me as to what exactly
that is.  You might want to also compare and contrast to the
"conservative agenda" if possible.

Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner		Phone: 512/346-8380
Internet: bboerner@novell.com	MHS: bboerner@novell
Please use ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ if replying by mail exterior to Novell.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,rec.arts.books
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Term limits and seniority
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 23:45:17 GMT

In article <4015@randvax.rand.org> jim@rand.org (Jim Gillogly) writes:
>George Will's new book about term limits 

was apparentally axed to itsy-bitsy pieces in the New York Review of
Books recently for shoddy research.  Can someone post a summary?
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rchao@well.sf.ca.us (Robert Chao)
Subject: who is Al Sharpton
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 03:43:44 GMT


Can someone give me a basic idea of who Rev. Al Sharpton is, what he
is known for, and why he is considered controversial? All I know is
he is said to be anti-semitic, and he had a cameo in Malcolm X.
-- 
Robert Chao
Oakland, California
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy