HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Subject: Re: Question about Clinton's "didn't inhale" remark
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin, Texas
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 18:01:38 GMT

pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:

>In article <1992Jul20.223228.618@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> tag@hermes.ecn.purdue.edu (Tony A. Gibbens) writes:
>>>Paul Galvanek:
>>>>Gerald Reno:
>>>>Correct me if I'm wrong... aren't we ALREADY in the biggest
>>>>recession since the 1930's?
>>>
>>>Well Jerry I'll correct you.  First of all we are NOT in a recession at all,
>>>yes the media likes to use that word but if you pick up an economics book you'll
>>>see the reality. 
>>> ...
>>>Read the Wall Street Journal and you see that what we have is called a "
>>>"period of reduced growth".  Growth being the operative word here, we're
>>>still growing just not at the rates we've become accustomed to over the last
>>>12 years.
>>>
>>>If you want to see the worst recession since the 30's take a look at the
>>>economy near the end of the Carter administration, that's a bad recession
>>>and take note at the policies Carter and his Democratic Congress and how
>>>similar they are to what Clinton proposes.
>>>
>>>How soon they forget, but I won't.
>>>
>>>PSG
>>
>>Well Paul, Jerry might of used the wrong term, but you missed the ENTIRE
>>point. .....
>>Whatever you call it, (slow growth, modified recession, etc) the
>>america of now has less promise than the america that many of us grew up 
>>with.

>Well, then, you didn't grow up in the 70's.

>> The last 11+ years, under the guidance of a poorly skilled actor and
>>a one-time CIA director, have created a nation lacking of dreams, visions, 
>>hope, and growth.  Many of our industries can not compete in world markets,

>Exports have increased almost 140% in the Reagan/Bush years.
>Overall, American industry is far more competitive now than in 1980.
>The *overall* trade balance in 1991 was -$7 billion . A large surplus
>in services balanced the -$60 billion merchandise trade deficit.
>We will soon have an overall trade surplus.
>(Forbes, March 30, 1992.) 

pm,  we can't have a surplus until we balance the currency accounts.  and
that ain't gonna happen till we trim the deficits or we start saving 
big bucks as a country:(

PS.  still working on that book.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ne.politics
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: WANTED : ST: TNG tapes
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
	<1992Jul27.170107.16297@kronos.com>
	<1992Jul28.190201.26896@spool.cs.wisc.edu>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:47:15 GMT

rcm> == Robertc. Moldenhauer <rcmolden@parmesan.cs.wisc.edu> 

 rcm> Much as the US would like to think it owns the world, rulings by
 rcm> the US Supremes don't hold much water in the UK!

The original poster, however, was *not* in the UK.
--
Christopher Davis * ckd@eff.org * System Administrator, EFF * +1 617 864 0665
   ``The First Amendment is often inconvenient.  But that is besides the
  point.  Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation
         to tolerate speech.'' --Justice Anthony Kennedy, in 91-155
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Which of you is 'good enough' ?
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 13:09:01 GMT

In article <veal.106@utkvm1.utk.edu> veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal) writes:

>In article <1992Jul20.195741.27981@bnr.ca> snoopy@crchh426.BNR.CA (Antonio Tello) writes:

>>Just out of curiosity...

>>Could my fellow 'netters' answer these two questions (please post)

>>1) how old are you ?

>     20.

>>2) could your history survive the media scrutiny required to be
>>   elected president ?

>     *My* history could, but the media would have a field day with my 
>family.
> 
>     I'd never get elected to anything national.  When you put me in front 
>of a camera I look like a vampire.  Skin goes completely white.  Awful.

Ah, he ain't so bad.  He's right about the cameras though.  He'd need more 
than just a hint of makeup any time there was a camera in the same county.

I haven't seen that much white meat since last thanksgiving.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: lintz@buster.cis.udel.edu (Brian Lintz)
Subject: Re: Baker to join Bush campaign
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 17:41:18 GMT

Great. One of the few people in the Bush Administration that I have
any respect for, and they have to take him out of office. Especially
now, with the possibility of progress being made in the Mideast with
the new government. Well, Bush is just showing what we knew all along:
he really doesn't care what happens, as long as he's President.

Brian Lintz
lintz@udel.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: lintz@buster.cis.udel.edu (Brian Lintz)
Subject: Re: California Fields Poll
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 17:52:04 GMT

In article <l7ej71INNn28@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
>The California Fields Poll shows Bush to be lagging
>34 percentage points behind Clinton, which is the
>largest gap ever in the polling history of the 
>organization. It is a state-wide poll.
>
>Clinton gets 62%, Bush 28% (I guess error margins
>are irrelevant given the size of the margin).

Also, a poll in Orange County, CA, which hasn't gone democratic since
FDR, shows Clinton ahead by 7 points. Not to mention that George Will's
latest column states that many significant republicans wish Bush would
step down... It's looking real bad for George these days.

Brian Lintz
lintz@udel.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Interesting Revelation (WAS Re: Libertarian Platform)
Date: 28 Jul 92 15:07:35 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <11411@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>Classical liberalism, as stated by thinkers such as Adam Smith,
>John Stuart Mill, Thomas Jefferson, were skeptical of concentrations
>of power because it led to destruction of individual rights of
>conscience, and economic self-determination.  The fundamental
>roots of these ideas are Judeo-Christian tradition that human
>beings are intrinsically sinful, and left to their own devices,
>will abuse power, unless restrained by competition, government,
>or naked force.

Yeah, people are always a bit upset that one of the founding fathers
of our country rejected the Judaeo-Christian tradition. I know that
the most fascinating classes outside of my major in physics were in
history at William and Mary (also Jefferson's alma mater).

I wonder how many people know that Abraham Lincoln, widely considered
to be the liberator of the black race, was actually a segregationist
who once proposed sending back all of the liberated slaves to Africa?
Of course, that was considered a liberal attitude.

>There is no theory of conservatism, other than to slow the rate
>of change so that it can be adjusted to with minimum pain.

This guy Marvin Liebman I alluded to before (correct me if I got
his surname wrong), the self-outed homosexual compatriot of William
Buckley, has said that his theory of conservatism espoused many
of the same values you attribute to classical liberalism. Which is
to say, that the word liberalism has taken such a bashing in the
media in the last decade that some classical liberals now take to
calling themselves conservatives.

>Libertarianism is an attempt to come up with a scheme of
>government that does not require a government, and does not
>require an ideology of governmental coercion that will be
>later expanded.  Classical liberalism recognized that some
>forms of coercion increased the common good without being a 
>major burden on individuals

Since you define yourself as a classical liberal, what forms of
coercion do you find increase the common good?

Why not anti-discrimination legislation? Are the discriminators
really hurt as you complain?

Brian.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215.=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: geoffg@sco.COM (geoff galitz)
Subject: Re: What kind of recession we're in
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:53:13 GMT


In article <1992Jul21.161102.22960@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:
>burke@tss.com (Jim Burke) writes:
>
>
>I agree that no one knows how to prevent recessions, but I definitely
>believe we know how to get out of them. That is why Reagan wasn't blamed
>for the 1982 recession. Bush knows what needs to be done for this one, too,
>but the media created a panic last fall, which created the "double dip"
>that we're in right now. 
>
>On the other hand, certain policies prolong a recession - or depression.
>Roosevelt's policies actually worsened the depression, to the point where
>it was so bad that only World War II could get us out of it. With Clinton's
>messianic "New Covenant," we may slip into the same sort of depression
>that Roosevelt presided over.
>
	I'm not trying to attack, but actually see this issue from another 
viewpoint.  Can you explain why Roosevelt's policies made the recession
worse?  And how Bush's were going to help us recover?  And how would
Clinton's take us back to a recession?  

  

-- 

An Englishman once sang:  "Is it Love,  
                              or is it the idea of being in Love?"     
Geoff Galitz -- geoffg@sco.com -- (SCO Customer Service)   
member, Computer Geeks Anonymous
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:35674 ca.politics:5973
From: lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: aids conference in cuba
Date: 23 Jul 92 20:55:24 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc., San Jose, CA

In article <11375@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.211117.18795@cs.ucla.edu>, crosenberg@igc.org (Charlie Rosenberg) writes:
># Cuba has the most controversial program for preventing and  
># controlling AIDS in the world today. The Cuban program is the  
># world's most restrictive -- and most effective.  
>#   
># The restriction: Cuban's who test positive for the HIV virus are  
># not, in general, allowed to live or even travel freely around the  
># island until they have demonstrated to a board of doctors and  
># psychologists that they have fully understood and accepted their  
># responsibility for not passing the disease on to anyone else.   
>#   
># The effectiveness: To date, only 68 Cubans have died of AIDS out of  
># a population of ten million. Massive testig has so far detected only 
># 772 people positive for the HIV antibodies. Hemophiliacs and  
># newborns, devastated by the disease in other countries, have escaped  
># almost completely untouched in Cuba (2 hemophiliacs, 4 children HIV  
># positive so far).  
>
>For all the whining the homosexual community does about wanting
>the government to DO something about AIDS, the one strategy that
>clearly works -- quarantine and massive testing -- is the one
>strategy that is completely unacceptable to them.  How serious
>are they about stopping AIDS, and preventing others from being
>infected?  Clearly, not very serious, when it starts to inconvenience
>them.
>-- 
>Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
>"Well, maybe the Holocaust was right *for that culture*." -- a moral relativist
>with whom I work.

Clayton old chap! I assume you are heterosexual? Are you
willing to be quarantined if you get HIV? I'm sure an
intelligent chap like yourself is up on the national and world
news? You are awrae that heterosexual women are the latest and
greates stas in the increasing pandemic called AIDS? Have you
been tested? Should we believe your answer? 

Len
From: sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Which of you is 'good enough' ?
Date: 21 Jul 1992 15:58:26 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <1992Jul20.195741.27981@bnr.ca>, snoopy@crchh426.BNR.CA (Antonio Tello) writes:
|> Just out of curiosity...
|> 
|> Could my fellow 'netters' answer these two questions (please post)
|> 
|> 1) how old are you ?
21 and going strong, thank you.

|> 
|> 2) could your history survive the media scrutiny required to be
|>    elected president ?

Alas, the question is moot. Not having been born in this country, I am
constitutionally barred from running to be Prez. 

-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these opinions, he deserves them.
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: whh@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (william.h.havanas)
Subject: Re: Baker to join Bush campaign
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:01:13 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.174118.27480@udel.edu> lintz@buster.cis.udel.edu (Brian Lintz) writes:
>Great. One of the few people in the Bush Administration that I have
>any respect for, and they have to take him out of office. Especially
>now, with the possibility of progress being made in the Mideast with
>the new government. Well, Bush is just showing what we knew all along:
>he really doesn't care what happens, as long as he's President.
>

	If Bush doesn't get reelected Baker won't be Secretary of State
anymore.  Baker didn't want to do this but with the polls as they
are he and Bush didn't have a choice.

	Bill Havanas
	bill@cblph.att.com



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Clinton Announces Top Latina Leader As Campaign Co-Chair
Organization: Echo Beach
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 00:20:25 GMT

Press release from the Clinton/Gore Campaign

 Clinton Announces Top Latina Leader As Campaign Co-Chair 
 
   SAN FRANCISCO, July 28 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Gov. Bill Clinton 
announced today the appointment of Los Angeles County Supervisor 
Gloria Molina as national campaign co-chair. 
   Molina will be joining National Campaign Chairman Mickey Kantor 
and Co-chair Maxine Waters. 
   "I'm grateful that Supervisor Molina has accepted the position," 
said Clinton before leaving California for Illinois.  "Her experience 
and commitment to grassroots organizing brings added energy to this 
campaign." 
   Molina will have a leadership role in the decision making process. 
As co-chair she will serve as a top advisor to the campaign. 
   "I am very pleased to become part of the Clinton/Gore team," said 
Molina.  "Americans are tired of a government that has failed them. 
Bill Clinton has a plan that will put people first by creating jobs, 
improving education and providing health care for every American. 
That's why people across the nation are responding to Clinton's call 
for change." 
   Molina was elected to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors 
in February of 1991.  Previous to that she served in the L.A. City 
Council (1987-91) and the California State Assembly (1982-87). 
Through her public service Molina has built a reputation for her 
strength, independence and dedication to community empowerment. 
   "I'm looking forward to assisting the campaign in formulating the 
strategy that will take Clinton's message to all Americans and get 
them to the polls in November," said Molina. 
   As a top Latina leader in the nation, Molina will also be a voice 
for her community in the campaign.  Elected in a predominantly 
Hispanic district in Los Angeles, Molina exemplifies the growing 
Latino voting power in the United States. 
   "Molina's high level appointment demonstrates the campaign's 
commitment to reach out and be inclusive of everyone," said Kantor. 
 -30- 
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:36410 ca.politics:6098 ba.politics:3835
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Fear or loathing?  So what?
Date: 28 Jul 92 20:32:40 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <92008@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
> In article <j3kmvtq.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) tries
> to explain why he doesn't want his daughter to associate at all with
> gay men or lesbians:
> 
> >For the same reason I don't want a lot of people who engage/are in
> >activities that are legal, moral, permissible -- because it is not want I
> >want for her to be, see, or ACCEPT AS O.K.
> 
> What are you going to say when she asks you why you won't let her associate
> with friends who are different? Are you going to punish her if she should
> disagree with you?

"Daddy, what's wrong with Johnny?  Sure, his hair is a little short,
and he wears that cute little symbol on his arm -- what did you
call it, a swastika? -- but isn't it *my* life?"

or 

"You're interfering with my rights.  If I want to hang around people
that wear gang colors, sell drugs, and murder people, what's it
to you?"

When he or she turns 18 (or maybe even sooner, if he or she shows
some maturity), we let our kids go out and make their own decisions.
In the meantime, they are too young to make some decisions.  (At this
point in the discussion, George Neville-Bush starts screeching that
preventing 8 year olds from having sex with adults is a form of
human rights violation.)
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"Well, maybe the Holocaust was right *for that culture*." -- a moral relativist
with whom I work.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:34997 alt.politics.clinton:130
From: jogulin@camelot.fia.dmg.ml.com (Joseph Ogulin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Original Subjects, please...
Date: 20 Jul 92 13:54:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Rift from Here to There


30 out of 30 messages... all with the same subject.  Not a pleasant venture
through the muck.

Please change the subject line as applicable.

-- 
==> You never f**king know the answer when it's important." --The Doctor <==
Joe Ogulin

jogulin@camelot.fia.dmg.ml.com		joe@monroe.pilot.dmg.ml.com
jogulin@apollo.stevens-tech.edu		gcs_jogulin@stevens.bitnet

Disclaimer:  The above article is solely my opinion and does not necessar-
ily reflect that of my employer.  The content is my responsibility alone.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:35133 ca.politics:5918
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: 1 white male among new San Jose firemen of 22
Date: 20 Jul 92 17:03:13 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <Tg05NB3w164w@netlink.cts.com>, galan@netlink.cts.com (Greg Gross) writes:
> Having experienced 40 years worth of racism myself, I would not 
> casually wish it upon anyone else...not even you.
>  
> On the other hand, a lot of non-whites have been trying to explain to a lot 
> of whites why they should not be racist and the harm that racism does, with 
> little apparent effect. So, since we cannot seem to get through verbally to 

Is that why so many laws have been passed to prohibit discrimination
in employment, housing, and law?  Is that why the government has spent
tremendous quantities of money trying to end both de facto and de jure
segregation?  Is that why it has engaged in enormous efforts to
help blacks up the ladder, even at the expense of promoting racism
against whites (affirmative racism programs)?

> those white who are racist, or who exhibit racism toward others, it is 
> not a faffetched idea to wish that such people could experience the 
> problem firsthand from the other side.

You are assuming that all whites are racists.  The number of white
racists that I've ever met is VERY small -- less than 1% of all the
whites I know.  You think that oppressing the 99% of whites that
find racism abhorrent is going to help?  No.  The <1% of whites
who are racists aren't going to change their mind by being dis-
criminated against -- but you may make them a bit more sympathetic
to organized forms of racism, like Aryan Nations.  I think it no
coincidence that neo-Nazi groups came back in a big way during the
Carter Administration, when exactly the sort of Affirmative Racism
policies you promote were in vogue, and actively enforced.

> Gregory Alan Gross      Welcome to life, where no good deed goes unpunished.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"Well, maybe the Holocaust was right *for that culture*." -- a moral relativist
with whom I work.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:34849 talk.politics.theory:2960 alt.discrimination:3706 misc.legal:14590
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Bernie Sanders (Was: Demopublican or Republicrat ?)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 18:54:13 GMT

<In article <1992Jul22.160011.11244@morrow.stanford.edu> GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
<   In article <Brsn0p.BDK@apollo.hp.com>,
<   nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
<   >In article <1992Jul22.021646.4576@esd.dl.nec.com> mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee) writes:
<   >>From article <BrrCyK.AEz@wrs.com>, by gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven):
<   >>>
<   >>> Why is this so hard for people to understand?  NO NON-DEMOPUBLICAN WILL
<   >>> WIN THE PRESIDENCY IF EVERYONE VOTES DEMOPUBLICAN!  That goes for
<   >>> elections at any level, really...the very very low number of
<   >>> independent, Libertarian, or any other third-party holders of partisan
<   >>> offices is a testament of that.
<   >
<   >
<   >  This is simply wrong.   Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont is a
<   >  socialist independent.

<   However, Mr. Sanders had previously been very active in Vermont
<   politics as a Democrat and had developed much name recognition as
<   such prior to deciding to seek the Senate seat as an independent.
<   Libertarians are not willing to pretend they're Republicrats just to
<   get elected to lower office first.

	Worse than that, Sanders was an extremely special case.

	The sitting Representative he challenged, a Republican, 
	was elected on a platform which included "no more gun control".
	When said Republican co-sponsored a poorly-worded "assault rifle
	ban", the Vermont Sportsmans' Association blasted his
	office with letters and phone calls. It got so hot that
	the President's office sent someone up there to try
	to calm them down; but by telling Vermont gun owners
	"Tough for you; you don't have anyone else to vote for",
	said "expert" poured flaming gasoline on troubled waters
	rather than oil.

	The upshot was: Vermont Sportsman's Association carried
	water for the Socialist, just to show that they damned
	well DID have somewhere else to go. In his admission
	of defeat, the Republican congressman bitterly blamed
	"gunlovers" for his defeat.

	(Note that Congressman Saunders voted for his first
	year in line with the NRA suggestions.)

	I'm afraid that one cannot cite this particular case
	as "proof" that a 3rd party candidate is all that
	easy to elect to national office.