HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Run conservatives, run away! (Was: Re: Homophobics can't...)
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:09:06 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Sep15.061707.4805@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
# That's because he's never been a liberal, by most liberal people's
# definition of the term, but rather a moderate.  Only in the last 6
# months has ANYONE ever referred to Bill Clinton as a liberal.
# 
# He founded the DLC in 1980, and has been in the conservative wing of the
# party ever since.
# 
# Let's see: pro-death penalty, pro-WOD, anti govt-funding of abortions,
# anti-national health insurance, pro-gulf war, not very strong
# environmentally.  Liberal?  I don't think so.

Anti-national health insurance?  Since when?

Also, supports bans of private ownership of guns.  

I recall a bit of a fuss about Clinton having opposed the Gulf
War -- back then.

Of course, pro-special rights for homosexuals.

# ## #In fact, I doubt you can name a single prominent Democrat who opposes
# ## #tax increases, now that Sen. Proxmire has retired.
#  
# ## You say, thereby switching the subject from "liberals" to "Democrats,"
# 
# #Are there non-liberal Democrats?  The last one I saw was Rep. Doug
# #Bosco.  He didn't last.
# 
# Sam Nunn.  David Boren.  Joe Lieberman.  Those are just the first three
# that come to mind.

Sam Nunn is the only one of those I've heard of.

# ## and also changing "*wanting* to raise taxes" with "not opposing tax
# ## increases."
#  
# ## [I daresay all Democrats *want* there to be no taxes (if for no other
# ## reason than winning reelection.)  Many, however, feel that spending $1.4
# ## trillion a year and only collecting $1 trillion is sheer idiocy.]
# 
# #Odd.  But nearly all Republicans agree.  So why does a Congress
# #dominated by liberals (Democrats) keep voting for budgets that
# #spend more than comes in, and that keeps raising taxes (1982,
# #1986, 1990)?
# 
# Probably for the same reason that a Republican president keeps proposing
# budgets that spend more than comes in, and keeps signing bills that
# raise taxes (1982, 1986, 1990). 
# 
# BTW, in 1982, it's hard to make a good claim that Congress was dominated
# by liberals.  The Senate was under Republican control, and the House was
# basically run by a coalition of Republicans and Southern Democrats.)

All tax bills must originate in the House.  It's in the Constitution.
Odd, but all the Democrats that have ever misrepresented me in the
Senate and House but one were liberals.

# In 1986, the Senate was also under Republican control, although the
# House was clearly more liberal.
# 
# David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1992 World Series Champions

Nope.  The Senate went back under Democratic control in 1984.

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
There can be no peace as long as AB 2601 lives.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: A new political platform: your comments please
Organization: LLNL
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 03:59:24 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.204200.2662@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.004840.27664@leland.Stanford.EDU> muaddib@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rob Dorfman) writes:
@ In article <168541234.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
@ >In article <1992Aug31.010359.16604@leland.Stanford.EDU>
@ >muaddib@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rob Dorfman) writes:
>
@ @ In article <1992Aug30.000208.21614@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (MichaelFriedman) writes:
@ @ >In article <1992Aug29.173057.5640@leland.Stanford.EDU> muaddib@leland.StanfordEDU (Rob Dorfman) writes:

@ @ @ 	c> Adopt national auto emmisions standards. Goal is to have
@ @ @ 	   no emissions in 20 years, each year lowing the standard.
@ @ @ 	   Cars made before adoption of this law are exempt.

@ >     You really can't just eliminate car emissions and sit back and
@ >feel all warm and fuzzy about what you've accomplished.  You've still
@ >got to *charge* those batteries, and we still produce most of our
@ >electricity burning coal.  Running all the cars off of electricity will
@ >immensely increase the demand on electricity.

@ this is obvious. my government will attack the problem one step
@ at a time.

>Well that's nice, but if you count in the enormous infrastructure
>needed to support electric cars their total pollution may be higher
>than gasoline powered cars.  Your partial solution may be worse than
>the problem.

	Good grief! All one needs are lots of electric power cords :-)

	Furthermore, the electricity can be priced so that it will be
cheaper to recharge cars at night, when electric power plants don't
have much demand anyway. I mention this because a major difficulty
with electric power planning is that one has to build for peak
capacity, only to have a lot of generating capability idle.

	I'm not denying that there are problems with electric cars.
One of them is that they have a lot of catching up to do :-) There
hasn't been much of a chance to optimize them as there has been for
gasoline and diesel cars. The Achilles' heel so far has been
batteries, most of which don't have the energy or power density of
gasoline or diesel engines. Fuel cells are potentially promising, but
most systems to date have been built to mil-specs, so they haven't
been very economical.

	But there is one great plus for electric cars. When idling,
they consume zero power.

	And they can slow down by dynamic braking, used extensively on
electric-powered locomotives and self-propelled railcars. The motors
become generators, and in principle, the electricity can be stored to
accelerate the car again.

	I'm not sure how far along _that_ technology is, however.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
From: makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Subject: Re: Eggert vs. Livni
Reply-To: makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe AZ
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 01:29:55 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.120944.26815@dscomsf.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
 
# In article <1992Sep3.013607.26708@ennews.eas.asu.edu>,
# makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:
 
# |>In article <1992Sep2.154729.9097@dscomsf.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
# |>writes:
 
# |># |>	The defeat of Likud has no effect.  Eventually, to protect Arabs
# |># |>and Jews from Killing each other, Kach ideas will have to be enacted.
# |># |>A Labor defeat would not have changed that.
 
# |># Oh yes we forgot, Makowsky is a Khach supporter. The Israeli version of the
# |>Klu
# |># Klux Klan and a tenth as popular.

# |>	You obviously know nothing about Kach.  At any rate, if you want
# |>to stop both sides from killing each other, you too will become a Kach
# |>supporter.
 
# If Kach policies were ever implemented in Israel there would be a million more
# refugees in the world. And that would just be the jews who don't want to live in
# a fascist state.

	I doubt your "million".  However, even if true, it will save
millionS from being killed, and millionS more from being refugees.
And this goes for both sides.

# |># |>	You have no idea about what your are talking.  I suggest you find
# |># |>out what a Hesder Yeshiva is.  At any rate, I live in the US where
# |># |>there is no draft.
 
# |># There is no Heseder Yeshiva only a Yeshivat Hahesder, I am instructed by my
# |># sources to tell you that you are an ignorant git.

# |>	Ignorant heh?  Would you care to move this debate to hebrew?
 
# Only if we can use the proper alphabet.

	Which is?

# I warn you though that after shalom ma
# nishma, the only hebrew I know is: matay ata ose et haguibuy shel hadisk? I
# don't see the relevance to "religious" exemptions from military service.

	The relevance is that you seemed to have a problem with the way I
phrased something in hebrew.  Admittedly I did not phrase it properly,
but I phrased it as it is most commonly used among native speakers of
english when discussing the subject.

# |># Sitting in a room reading the
# |># Torah does not count as military service, nor is 9 months token service
# |># comensurate with the 3 years that all other Israelis have to do.

# |>	You still have no idea about what  you are talking.  I suggest you
# |>find out what a Yeshivat Hahesder is, and this time ask someone who
# |>actually knows (i.e. has been there).
 
# I am prepared to trust the word of an Israeli army officer over a "Zionist" who
# lives in the wrong continent.

	I do not know who the Israeli army officer is, or if he has ever
been enrolled in such a yeshiva.  I also do not know who the "Zionist"
is that lives in the wrong continent.  What I am asking you to do is
ask somone who has been enrolled in a hesder yeshiva (er, a Yeshivat
Hahesder).
--

David Makowsky
makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.drugs,alt.conspiracy
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: **STUDENTS FOR CLINTON MAILING LIST**
Date: 11 Sep 92 14:06:39 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <ART.92Sep11012633@world.std.com> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.002015.26368@cco.caltech.edu> bjmccall@cco.caltech.edu (Benjamin John McCall) writes:
>
>		      *****ATTENTION STUDENTS!!!!!*****
>
>
>   The Clinton/Gore Email Volunteer Team has started a new mailing list
>   exclusively for STUDENT groups supporting the Clinton/Gore ticket.
>                   ^^^^^^^
>Good grief, do you mean to tell us you're not going to include DOKTOR
>LaFave, that great genius who, excuse me, hu, iz so much smarter than
>those dirty rednecks with thair fifth grade education(S)?
>
>

Wow!  Mr. Thompson goes totally berserk!  And with nary a trace of
wit or irony in all this excitement!



--
"It's a Drake's Coffee Cake....  I have another one, but I'm saving
it for _later_."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Reaganomics (Re: SC rally)
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 11 Sep 92 16:28:46 CDT


In article <BuFJs1.BM9@encore.com>, rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins) writes:
> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
> |> Clinton's plan
> |> helps those who can't afford insurance but doesn't affect those who can.
> 
> Thank God!  There really is such a thing as a free lunch!

Yup.  It's called Reaganomics.

> I guess making me *pay* for it doesn't really affect me.

Nope.  Just your kids.

> I want a law passed taking money from people with last names that start
> with F and giving it to people with last names starting with C.
> This will only give the latter group more money and will not affect
> the former group.

Close, take less money from F and keep giving it to C.  This
will give both more money and both will live high on the
hog until their kids figure it out.


-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Apolitical intellectuals
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 14:27:13 GMT

A repost from misc.activism.progressive:

From: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel)
Subject: Today's Quote...
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 08:35:14 GMT


APOLITICAL INTELLECTUALS

One Day
the apolitical intellectuals
of my country
will be interrogated
by the simplest of our people.
They will be asked what they did
when their nation died out
slowly, like a sweet fire,
small and alone.
No one will ask them
about their dress,
their long lunch breaks,
no one will want to know
about their sterile combats
with "the idea of the nothing"
no one will care about
their higher financial learning.
They won't be questioned
on Greek mythology,
or regarding their self-disgust
when someone within them
begins to die
the coward's death.
They'll be asked nothing
about their absurd justifications,
born in the shadow
of the total lie.
On that day
the simple men will come.
Those who had no place
in the books and poems
of the apolitical intellectuals,
but daily delivered
their bread and milk,
those who mended their clothes,
those who drove their cars,
who cared for their dogs and gardens
and worked for them, and they'll ask:
"What did you do when the poor
suffered, when tenderness
and life burned out in them?"
Apolitical intellectuals of my sweet country,
you will not be able to answer.
A vulture of silence
will eat your gut.
Your own misery will pick at your soul.
And you will be mute in your shame.

--Castillo

[From: _American Pictures_ multi-media show pamphlet.]


##################################################################
Mail contributions to hbar@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
(Contributions only; correspondence to my usual (Cornell) address)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: On-Line Copy of REPUBLICAN PLATFORM desired!
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 03:38:07 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <laq1fnINN662@spim.mips.com> mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
]John R. Moore) writes:
]|> ]"We believe the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which
]|> ]cannot be infringed." --1992 Republican National Committee campaign platform
]|> 
]|> This one is debatable, but at some point the child gains that right to
]|> life, and the issue is when. The quoted statement implies that when is before
]|> birth, but it doesn't say at what point before birth.
]|> 
]The platform does not say that an unborn child gains this right at 1 month or
]3 months, etc.  The platform says that all unborn children -- from the point
]of conception.

But it doesn't define unborn children.


-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Tree Hugger's Nightmare: Mt. Graham Red Squirrel Stew ...
 - - Have you ever tried looking at the stars through a squirrel? - - -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: James Baker
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 14 Sep 92 21:28:12 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Sep14.181807.29941@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>, golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
> In article <1992Sep14.114727.7279@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>>
>>If Bush really needs James Baker to save his campaign (ie create
>>a domestic program for Bush to run on), why not dump the middle
>>man (Bush) and have Baker run for prosident.
>>
> 
> The James Baker who failed to reveal his stock in a major American
> bank while he was negotiating a bailout of South American debt to
> First World Banks, 

	Hasn't JB III had his money in a blind trust since joining the Reagan
team?

> the James Baker who was Secretary of the Treasury
> while nothing was done about the S&L crisis in Reagan's second term,

	Not his job.

> the James Baker who presided over the Willie Horton campaign, the

	What Willie Horton campaign?  The media one or Al Gore's?

> James Baker who was Secretary of State while the US encouraged,
> financed, and armed Saddam Hussein, 

	Encouraged?  How?

	Armed?  What weapons?

> and encouraged Milosovic by
> saying the US preferred maintaining Yugoslavian territorial integrity,

	Define Yugoslavia.  Present Serbia, Montengero & Vendjova (sp?) or the
old pre-fall communist state.

> and tried preventing Gorbachev's Soviet Union from collapsing...
> this James Baker?

	Preventing the SU from collapsing?  Explain.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss,ba.motss
From: entropy@world.std.com (Lawrence C Foard)
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 06:00:53 GMT

In article <12286@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <1992Sep12.170552.13807@spdcc.com>, pentangl@spdcc.com (Scott Moir) writes:
>> In article <12251@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
># So why are you taking it out on us? I don't think anyone, regardless
># of gender or orientation, thinks that child abuse is good. There are
># some pedophiliacs out there on -both- sides. Why does your crusade
># get focused on gays?
>
>Because the gay community won't shun pedophiliacs like NAMBLA.
>The straight community shuns pedophiliacs with great vengeance.
>A person who showed up AT any straight parade carrying a sign for
>something equivalent to NAMBLA would not only be ejected from the
>parade, but perhaps from this world.

So let me get this straight, queers are bad because they refuse to
kill people with disagreeable view points?

If I was going to kill people with disagreeable view points, I'd be
hitch hiking to Oregon to take care of some people who not only advocate
abusing children, but are attempting to put there child abuse into law.

NAMBLA is a fringe group with no hope of making laws, why should I waste
my time when we have real threats to deal with?




-- 
----          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!         ----
\  /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers        \  /
 \/   and bean eating ways. Accept the #4 into your heart! \/
     Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568        
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Fair Swap
Date: 7 Sep 92 23:18:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.Bu8E2r.4H4.1
	<1992Sep4.181853.28566@das.harvard.edu>
	<EGGERTJ.92Sep4233440@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu>
	<1992Sep7.192526.6030@das.harvard.edu> <Bu862M.7@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Followup-To: talk.politics.mideast
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: clamen@BYRON.SP.CS.CMU.EDU

In article <Bu862M.7@news.cso.uiuc.edu> eshneken@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Edward A Shnekendorf) writes:

   Jews have always, for the last 2000 years, been the majority in
   Jerusalem.  

This statement is clearly incorrect.

Jews were banished from Jerusalem following the Bar Kochba revolt (135
CE).  The Romans and then the Byzantines did not even allow Jews in to
visit (except to lament before the Western Wall on Tisha b'Av).  Only
when the city was taken over by the Persians in 614 CE, were Jews
once again permitted to visit and reside in Jerusalem.

--
Stewart M. Clamen			Internet:    clamen@cs.cmu.edu
School of Computer Science		UUCP: 	     uunet!"clamen@cs.cmu.edu"
Carnegie Mellon University		Phone: 	     +1 412 268 2145
5000 Forbes Avenue			Fax:	     +1 412 268 5739
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3891, USA
From: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Date: 9 Sep 92 21:57:13 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Distribution: usa
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mips.com

Michael P. Deignan) writes:
|> somebody wrote:
|> 
|> >	Let's get real people. Reagan and Bush just happened to be
|> >on the watch when the collapse came.
|> 
|> 
|> So what? Dukakis just happened to be on the watch when the "Massachusetts
|> Miracle" occured, and that didn't seem to stop him from taking credit for
|> it, either.
|> 
No problem, as long as Bush takes similar credit for the recession we are
in.  I am sure the only reason he didn't admit responsibility was that
he didn't notice that it was happening.  He still refuses to admit
we are in a recession.  He says the recovery is going slower than planned.

Decreases in jobs is certainly a slower recovery than planned.

_________________________________________
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my
dog's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Dangers of line item veto.  [Was: Yes to line item veto]
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:17:46 GMT

In article <0atr02aH22jf01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>In article <1992Sep13.211111.29449@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>> Well, there tain't anything in there to suggest he does [have the right to 
>> line-item veto].

>> Article I, Section 7:
>> 	Every bill which shall have passed the HoR and Senate, shall,
>> before it becomes law, be presented to the president of the US; if he
>> approve, he shall sign it, but if not, he shall return it, with his
>> objections, to the house in which it shall have originated...
 
>> Doesn't seem to be anything suggested he gets to keep part of a bill only.

>That's not the wording.  Try this:

>"Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of 
>the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary 
>(except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to 
>the President of the United States; and before the same shall 
>take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by 
>him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of 
>Representatives, according to the rules and limitations 
>prescribed in the case of a bill."

>Sounds a lot like it would support striking individual items added by an 
>"order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House 
>of Representatives may be necessary", doesn't it?

Both you and Frank Crary managed to get this one, but you're both wrong.
Article 1, Section 7, Clause 2 IS as I quoted.
Article 1, Section 7, Clause 3 is as you quoted.

Given that spending laws are referred to as "bills", not resolutions,
orders or votes, in other parts of the constitution, I don't think he can line
item spending bills. 

(As for original intent, BTW, George Washington felt that the
president's job was NOT to make policy, but to carry out the laws.
Thus, the only bills which should be vetoed were ones that he couldn't
carry out, i.e. unconstitutional ones.)

[As an aside, the probable effect of a line-item veto would NOT be to
eliminate pork; the president is NOT going to mortally offend a
congressman by striking out his pet program, and if he did it to a bunch
of congressmen, he'd be lucky to avoid impeachment, let alone keep it
out of the budget.
Experience in the states shows that it's used as a threat to INCREASE
spending, not decrease it.  (You vote for that development project that
*I* want or I'll line-item your highway project.) ]

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1992 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Brady Anderson 1992 AL MVP
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more months!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:44098 talk.politics.mideast:19700 misc.headlines:6246