HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Judiciary Committee, Please Get a clue!
Date: 22 Jan 1993 15:38:23 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <TOM.93Jan22080858@amber.ssd.csd.harris.com>  
tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley) writes:
> On the radio this morning they said Zoe Baird (thankfully) withdrew  
her
> nomination as attorney general, but Zoe Baird doesn't bother me  
nearly as
> much as the Senate Judiciary committee. More than a year after the
> Thomas/Hill brou-ha-ha, after getting a couple of new members, they  
still
> don't have a clue. Only in-depth immersion in an intense reality  
distortion
> field could make the Zoe Baird confirmation seem like some kind of  
tough
> choice the Senators needed to agonize over and consider for days or  
even
> weeks. What exactly is there to think about? 

While you make a few reasonable points, I can understand why they
had to agonize.  She would have made a good Attorney General.
They had to decide whether the infraction she had committed
was a big enough negative to outweigh her strong positives.
I do think, that for the postion of Attorney General, the negative
(unfortunately) did outweigh the positive.  It's a shame, though.
I wish she hadn't done what she had, as she seemed like she'd
have done a good job.

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

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69067 alt.activism:21155 alt.conspiracy:14453
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Destruction of the U.S.
Date: 22 Jan 1993 01:01:10 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, gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) says:

>an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>>
>>         i)  Privitiztion is happening most everywhere but HERE
>
>That's because so much in America is already privatized, or never had
>strategic state industries in those areas to begin with.  Also, the


     Note that your posting doesn't refute what I've said.

     And, I find it hard to characterize an economy where 1/3 of 
     all goods and services are consumed by government as 
     " already privatized ".

>privatization of formerly-strategic industries should not be confused
>with the forming of private companies and private investment houses
>(e.g., Hungary), though, nor private companies that already exist
>(e.g., Siemens, Mercedes-Benz, Nixdorf, etc. in Germany).  The true
>analogous situation is equivalent to Los Alamos seeking research
>contracts with industry ...
>
>gld
>--
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Gary L. Dare
>> gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.EDU 		Carnaval de Quebec (City)
>> gld@cunixc.BITNET			February 4 - 14
>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Anita Hill for Attorney General!
From: medkeffjs@hiramb.hiram.edu
Date: 25 Jan 93 16:24:57 -0500
Organization: Hiram College
Nntp-Posting-User: medkeffjs

In article <1483600069@igc.apc.org>, mmdd@igc.apc.org writes:
> 
> Anita Hill for Attorney General!

Oh, really.... I would rather have a lawyer with some credibility left to
run Justice. Did we forget the Senate didn't believe her? And hasn't
she been fired or asked to resign from almost every job she has held
outside the academic world?

Just wondering......

                                 Jeff Medkeff
                                 medkeffjs@hiramb
                                 medkeffjs@hiramb.hiram.edu

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70288 alt.politics.clinton:21468
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: THANK YOU, BILL!!! THANK YOU!!
Date: 28 Jan 1993 19:14:33 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, matjmm@gsusgi1.gsu.edu (J. Morgan Morris) says:

>>     There's still time.  If I were you, I'd get that house on
>>     the market TODAY!  And you should move assets out of 
>>     country while it's still legal.
>
>Don't have a house. Right now I'm investing in my children's lives
>to the point that all assets are gone. I hope to buy a house in the
>near future, but I realize that my children are more important. *People*
>are our greatest assets, and I hope that we now have a government that
>realizes that fact.

      In that case, I apology.  I feel sorry for you.  "Hoping" ain't 
      going to do it.  You're right, your children are more important
      Unfortunately, *you* are a standing target.

      Good luck.

>
>Later,
>Morgan
>
>-- 
>
>John Morgan Morris
>Department of Mathematics and Computer Science
>Georgia State University
>University Plaza
>Atlanta, GA. 30303-3083
>
>Internet: matjmm@gsusgi1.gsu.edu
>Telephone: (404) 651-2253
>FAX: (404) 651-2246
>
>

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,misc.legal,alt.politics.correct
From: garyb@gcm.com (Gary Blumenstein)
Subject: Re: woman attorny general (was RE: something inanely long)
Organization: Greenwich Capital Markets, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 17:42:22 GMT

: >>Well, that Attorney General's spot is open... hmm...
: >
: >how about hillary?
: >

Scenario:  Hillary Rhodam muscles her way into some high-visibility official
position in the white house and later develops some problems.  

The Slickster: "Hillary darlin', baby doll, ah know you've been a good wife 
to me all these years but... don't bother showin' up fer work tomorrow." 


-- 
garyb@gcm.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69131 ca.politics:10630 ba.politics:8270
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Speaking ill
Date: 20 Jan 93 17:46:09 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <8876.31340@stratus.SWDC.Stratus.COM>, lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com (Len Bucuvalas) writes:
> And once again Cramer shows he has no concern for anyne or
> anything except his own agenda.

Actually, I'm even more concerned about truth.  The problem is
that a lot of people are more interested in panic.

> You're a flaming genius claytoon.....how is it then that CNN
> can report saliva contains the HIV antibody yet you maintain by
> implication in your ridiculous postings that HIV cannot be
> caught via kissing?

I never said that -- just that it wasn't very likely.  It is
theoretically possible to catch syphillis by French kissing -- and
I've heard a public health doctor in L.A. say that, indeed, he knew
of two such cases of syphillis transmission in L.A. County in 20
years.  But just because it's possible, doesn't make it likely.

> Len
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: hallam@vxdesy.desy.de
Subject: Re: Phil H-B's delusions (Was: "New Right" Libertarians?)
Followup-To: alt.bigot
Organization: (DESY, Hamburg, Germany)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 14:04:18 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.162034.6815@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes:
>> hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
>> 
>>> ...the self christened "Libertarian" party need a more descriptive name.
>>> They sit quite happily in with the Pat Buchannans etc as a sort of
>>> militant agnostic wing but wanting essentialy the same thing, a retreat
>>> to the old world parochial certitudes of never never land.
> 
> 	Phill places himself squarely in the corner of other groups that insist
> on arriving at their own label for groups they disagree with:
> 
> Wop
> Spic
> Nigger
> Kike
> ...
> 
> 	More than just a little bit disgusting.

Ahh me old friend Brett who lied when he claimed to have read Marx and Mills.

What I find disgusting is the sort of person who can't answer an argument so
starts to try a smear. The Labels that Brett refers to are disgusting because
they impute that the people refered to are inferior because of the ancestry.

Since I have never made such a claim I think that Brett owes me an appology for
this underhand method of calling me a racist.


In any case my whole point is not applying a label to the "Libertarian" party,
it is removing one that they have no right to.


Dr Phillip Hallam-Baker


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: brent@syacus.acus.oz.au (Brent Davies)
Subject: Re: DAY THREE: Either a lie or utter stupidity
Organization: Australian Centre for Unisys Software, Melbourne
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 01:27:19 GMT

ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:
>After his abandonment of Zoe, President Clinton took full responsibility
>(how gracious of you) and offered this as an excuse - 'I knew that she had
>hired illegal aliens, BUT I DIDN'T KNOW THAT SHE HADN'T PAID THEIR SOCIAL
>SECURITY TAXES!'.  Oh, I guess the first thing illegal aliens do when they
>cross the border is TO GET A SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER (which is required when
>paying the tax).  Either he's a bold-faced liar or we need to impose an
>IQ test requirement on those persons who wish to run for President in 1996.
>And people said Quayle was stupid?  This man has brains enough to run the
>country?  Come on Clinton defenders, let's see how far you'll stretch 
>reality to excuse him on this one.

>I don't know why CBS signed up Letterman to go up against Leno.  They should
>have signed Bill Clinton.  He'll make more people laugh (or possibly cry)
>over the next four years than either of them.

Jeez, does this guy sound *bitter* or WHAT?

Might we guess how YOU voted in November, Richard?  ;-)

-- 
 _--_|\    Brent Davies                    ACSnet:    brent@syacus.acus.OZ
/      \   Aust Centre for Unisys SW       Internet:  brent@syacus.acus.OZ.AU
\_.--._/   700 Blackburn Rd                Voice:     +61-3-550-1640
      v    Melbourne, Australia 3168       FAX:       +61-3-550-1599
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder)
Subject: Re: Family Leave Bill
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 20:46:28 GMT

In article <1k3eouINNkqh@transfer.stratus.com> jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com 
writes:
>In article <44048@zygot.ati.com> john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)  
>writes:
>> In article <9301222329.AA29961@client.its.rpi.edu> buckmr@rpi.edu  
>(Ron Buckmire) writes:
>> 
>> >        The family leave bill would establish a national policy  
>for Millions
>> >of working families. The bill... which would affect businesses  
>with 50
>> >employees or more... would allow a worker to take up to 12 weeks  
>of
>> >UNpaid leave per year for the birth or adoption of a child... or  
>to
>> >attend to a seriously ill family member.
>> >
>>>
>> And even beyond that, why do only people who work for large
>companies
>> get to play? There are millions out there who work for small, Ma
>and Pa
>> operations. Are they less needing of family leave? And if the size
>of
>> the company is involved, why is this less of a problem for larger
>> companies than smaller ones? Key people are key people; or is the
>> premise that large companies are inherently overstocked with
>personel?
>>
>
>It only works for big companies because they have the resources
>to fill in for some one for a couple of months.  If a company has
>500 employees and one goes on leave, that leaves 499 (and they've
>only lost .2 percent of their work force.  If the corner store
>employs 5 people and 1 goes on leave, they've lost 20% of their
>work force. That's much harder to compensate for.


Are you saying that all 500 people in the company know the other 499 jobs?
The possibility that a company only hires enough people to do the job
seems to be lost in this debate over family leave.>
>--
>Jim Mann
>Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com

JSL.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69746 alt.activism:21343 alt.conspiracy:14638 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13814
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Privatization
Date: 25 Jan 1993 22:05:32 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, bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) says:

>>>      My best pal announced to me he's visiting Brazil in June.
>>>      HE'S seen his future.  Anyone industrious by nature will continue
>>>      getting dicked here.
>>> 
>Better buy him a wheelbarrow (to bring his pay home in - fast) given
>the Brazilian inflation rate :-).

      Ahhh, yes, the informed and thoughtful answer.  

      Hmmm.  Well, let's suppose that my friend gets a job representing
      an American company in Brazil.  He pays no federal taxes, first of
      all.  He gets paid in dollars.  He can build contacts.  Then, he
       dump his final cash-out into any one of several Caribbean islands,
      and pay no taxes, while buying himself a boat and mansion in 
    Brazil.


   >
>>-No, I'm not a socialist. (Just in case you were wondering...)
>
>>Tim Young, Dartmouth College, Class of '96
>>"Not everyone can carry the weight of the world..." -R.E.M.
>>The opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Dartmouth
>>College or any of its students...
>
>REB
>
>

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Not more on Gays in the Military
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 18:41:52 GMT

In article <93027.030741MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@
psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>Is anyone else even slightly annoyed by how the military itself is
>causing so much trouble over this issue? You can't turn on a TV set
>without seeing Colin Powell self-righteously orating on how awful
>and bad it would be to let 'em in, or open a newspaper without seeing
>yet another leak of confidential memos to the press or statement by
>the Joint Chiefs trying to cause confusion and chaos.
>
>For once and for all it's not The Military's job to underhandedly lobby against
>the President's policies. It is The Military's job to do what the President
>and the Congress order it to. 

       If Clinton orders the military to drop the administratic ban on
gays, then I have absolutely no doubt that Colin Powell and the others will
grit their teeth, say "Yes, sir, Mr. President," and do it.
       They would, however, be derelict in their duty if they failed to 
advise him based on their own judgement.  You and I may not agree with them,
but the Joint Chiefs of Staff shouldn't be head-bobbing yes-men falling all 
over them-selves to do what the President says no matter what it is.  They 
are advisors to the President, and have both the right and the duty to tell 
him what they think, even it they think he's wrong.

>If Bill Clinton orders them to capture the
>South Pole in the name of freedom and democracy, then by god we should
>be bombing Antarctica by this time tomorrow morning, and Powell had better
>be SMILING about it, capische?

       I'm sure if Bill Clinton ordered an assault, they'd sigh, say,
"Yes, sir, Mr. President," but if Colin Powell didn't object if there wasn't 
a good reason he'd be a fool, and Clinton would be an even bigger fool if he 
dind't listen.  President's have military advisors for a reason.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
"For every action there is an equal, and opposite, government program"
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69675 alt.activism:21331
From: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Libertarians
Date: 25 Jan 93 16:00:11 GMT
Reply-To: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin)
Organization: COMANDOS Project, Glesga Yoonie

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.  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 Campin    room G092, Computing Science Department, Glasgow University,
17 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8RZ, Scotland   TEL: 041 339 8855 x6854 (work)
INTERNET: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk or via nsfnet-relay.ac.uk    FAX: 041 330 4913
BANG!net: via mcsun and uknet     BITNET: via UKACRL    UUCP: jack@glasgow.uucp
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:68945 alt.activism:21130 alt.conspiracy:14433
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Destruction of the U.S.
Date: 21 Jan 1993 15:15:52 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, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) says:

>Bullshit.  People will split apart into different communities, not that
>they haven't already, but there aren't going to be too many of them leaving 
>the country.  Where are they going to go?  The US is the most laissez-faire 
>state in the world.


       I wouldn't count on this yet.  In the past month, I've talked with
    several people.  One mentioned the Virgin islands.  Another mentioned
    Australia.  Myself, I'm looking seriously at Uruguay, Venezuela, and
    now I'm checking out Belize.  That's the definition of "free trade"
    And last night, watching the "anti-inaugural" celebrations, I was
    surprised to hear emmigration mentioned on nationwide television.  

       It doesn't take too much thinking.  

         i)  Privitiztion is happening most everywhere but HERE

         ii) I'm obviously going to get dicked for higher and higher
             taxes, while getting less and less back.  Then, supposedly
             I ( and millions of others ) will get it back in social 
             security

          iii)  I can cash out my assets now, grab my inheritance, go
                just about anywhere else and live WELL.  Why should I 
                stay in a place that is charging me full-boat for a 
                sinking canoe?

    I predict there will be a major emmigration OUT of the U.S. during 
    the 1990s. 

>>attract the economically able (the rich and skillful segment of the population)
>

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69122 alt.politics.clinton:20892 misc.legal:23080
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,misc.legal
Subject: Re: NO! President Bill, 72% of Americans are NOT lawyers!
Date: 19 Jan 93 01:42:05 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1993Jan17.061634.6084@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
> In article <C0vLK8.BL3@newsserver.technet.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
# #Fully 13 of 18 of Slick Willie's nominees for cabinet positions are
# #lawyers. This is not a cabinet that looks like America. It is a
# #cabinet that looks like America's worst nightmare!
# 
# Thirteen out of eighteen have law degrees.  One might more properly
# ask what happened to the other five, given the importance of a law
# degree to dealing with the field of law, but let's look at Ipser's
# objection more closely.
# 
# All of the eighteen graduated college.  Presumably, Ipser would wish
# that only nine of them have, and that two or three of the others have
# failed to graduate high school.
# 
# ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 

Clinton's liberal quota ideology claimed that the Cabinet should
"look like America" but for some reason, this same reasoning
doesn't apply about education.

Once again, liberal enthusiasm for judging people by the color
of their skin, instead of the content of their character, shows
itself.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70066 alt.politics.clinton:21350
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 00:19:21 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, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) says:

>>Come on, Stephanopoulous,  come on, come ON!  Override
>>congress and make that military ban-lifting an EXECUTIVE
>>ORDER!   Come on, come on.  Show those bastards who's
>>boss.  Do it, do it, DO IT!
>>
>>YEEEEHHAAAAAWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>So, does Slim Pickens have net access now?
>
>(remember a certain 1964 Kubrik film-one of my all-time favorites!)

    
     Clinton has chosen to launch deflationary nukes at AMERICA!

       YEAH!  RIGHT ON!

     Freebies!  Grab em while you can!

>:-)
>
>
>Simon
>
>

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69926 alt.pagan:15891 talk.religion.misc:27631 talk.abortion:58069
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.pagan,talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Freedom of Religion
Date: 26 Jan 93 15:38:04 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>In article <adams.727986896@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>
>[Deletions]
>
>>>Again, most catholics don't taste the wine more than about three or four
>>>times; I add to my two only because I've seen married couples who get
>>>hitched in a mass drink the wine.  Generally, the priest drains the
>>>whole chalice. 
>>One of Luther's list of complaints about the Roman Church...and something he
>>changed...
>>
>Well, they aren't supposed to have sex, so we should at *least* let
>them have a good stiff drink once in a while....
>

Not so...Luther's priests were permitted to marry...and Lutheran's continue
to do so today.  Luther himself married...

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:68898 alt.conspiracy:14422 alt.activism:21107