HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.censorship,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: The Secret Service strikes again...
Date: 21 Nov 92 17:01:40 GMT
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93


Sigh. I do _not_ believe this... 

From the 11/20/92 Boston Globe, p.21 (attributed by the Globe to the
Orlando Sentinel; lord knows how much editing was done to the original
O.S. version):

   Secret Service vetoes a target
   ------------------------------

      Orlando, Fla. -- A right-wing Young Republican group, bowing to
   pressure from the US Secret Service, yesterday backed off plans to
   use enlarged photos of President-elect Bill Clinton as targets for
   a weekend turkey shoot.
   
      "They came down hard on us, saying we threatened the President,
   things like that," said David Abrami, vice president of the Central
   Florida Young Republican Club.  "So we canceled it."
   
      When Abrami heard the Secret Service was investigating, he was
   worried.  Yesterday morning, he spoke with the Secret Service, then
   decided to cancel the event.
   
      "We just figured he's head of the Democratic Party right now,
   and we're Republicans," said Abrami.  "We thought it would be a
   nice parody.  We didn't mean any ill will by it."


-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu ("Broward " Intellectual Socialist " Horne")
Subject:      Re: That's it, man.  Game OVER!
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 09:15:33 MST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA04177; Mon, 16 Nov 92 08:20:38 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA07346; Mon, 16 Nov 92 08:20:35 -0800
X-Received: from IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU by idbsu.idbsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 4169; Mon, 16 Nov 92 09:21:17 MST
X-Received: from IDBSU (GCTHORNE) by IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 9386; Mon, 16 Nov 92 09:21:16 MST
X-To: talk.politics.misc.usenet

 yale.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!news.uta.edu!utarlg.uta.edu!b645zaw
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott)
Subject: RE: That's it, man. Game OVER!
Summary:  Intellectualist, Racist, Sexist.... same, same
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Keywords:  Poesis
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 06:10:00 GMT

>>   Lot's more.  Go do the research.  Personally, I'm getting my stuff
>>   together now.  I figure we might have another 2 to 4 years before
>>   the real fireworks begin.

>The beauty of just up-and-leavin' is that we can rub it in their faces.

>The intellectualists and socialists both depend on nearly universal
>support from the populace to fund their schemes. In fact they need a
>growing populace of emigrants as well. If 4% of the US populace (ie 10
>Million) leave the megalopolii to return to the country, or their deserted
>hometowns, then all the expansionary schemes come crashing down.

        Who said anything about the country?  I'm already IN the country.
        Nope. I seen enough.  I'm looking for ANOTHER country.
        I only need it to last 35 more years.  I figure my original
        cash injection should last that long.

>Wonder of wonders, the migration has already started since it's not
>worth living in a: high-speed, high-stress, toxin-polluted, crime-ridden,
>commute-intensive, comsumer-pushed, over-populated, disease-vulnerable,
>dirty-stinkin', and largely interpersonally-shallow -- city. (Nor being
>able to see the stars at nights, or walk-about without being armed and
>on-guard.)

         Yes, of course it has.  And now Uncle Sam is coming to ME.
         Right.  I don't think so.

         Toll roads, when I'm already paying federal gasoline taxes?
         More gasoline tax, when I'm already paying for existing roads?

         Luckily, I'm not rich.  Therefore these new taxes obviously
         don't apply to me.  I see I'll have to go pick up my "Don't
         Get Rich, Do not Pay Tax" card.


-- Stephen   " It's easy to overthrow the USSA -- just quit. "

       I'm working on it.  Be patient.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60813 ba.politics:7246 ca.politics:9672
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Date: 18 Nov 92 17:58:44 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Nov17.231032.11606@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
> In article <13187@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <1992Nov14.171639.6061@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
> >> In article <13162@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# : And yes, I find it not at all
# : #surprising that NAMBLA marches in gay pride parades, and has
# : #support from a surprisingly large number of homosexuals.
# : 
# : 	How many Gay Pride marches have you been to, O Master
# : Homosexologist?
# 
# #None.  I've seen NAMBLA's appearance in the S.F. parade.
# 
# 	Translation:
# 
# 	I didn't go to see the parade; I just saw some interesting
# tidbits about it on the local news. And the _only_ thing that
# interested me was what they did about NAMBLA.

No, I saw some clips that could not have been shown on the local
news -- the men masturbating on top of floats, naked men whipping
other naked men, NAMBLA, etc.

Local TV news gives the best possible coverage (for gays) of this
parade.  They don't show the depraved crap that is going on.

# : 	I challenge you to come down to San Francisco next year for
# : our annual Gay Pride march. It'll be on the last Sunday of June and
# : it'll be on Market Street between the Embarcadero and the Civic Center.
# 
# #Why?  You don't deny that NAMBLA marches.  Gay Perot supporters,
# #however, were prohibited.
# 
# 	And I saw what happened when the NAMBLA contingent marched by.
# They were booed.
# 
# 	They were only a couple of people in the hundreds that
# marched.

The parade usually has thousands of participants, not hundreds.
The tape I saw of the 1990 parade had at least a dozen people 
just holding up the NAMBLA banner.  No one was throwing anything
at them or booing them in 1990.  Why suddenly, in 1992?  Sudden
realization that NAMBLA was bad PR?

You still haven't answered the question: why were the Gay
Perotistas not permitted, but NAMBLA was in 1992?
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"Foxes prefer rabbits with short claws." -- Nadja Adolf
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism,alt.politics.elections
From: wgb3@pyuxf.uucp (25336-buoni)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 17:07:57 GMT

From porthos!walter!att-out!rutgers!ub!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!usenet.coe.montana.edu!news.u.washington.edu!uw-beaver!uw-coco!nwnexus!ole!rwing!fylz!eskimo!wix Thu Nov 19 12:06:54 EST 1992

>Sound like a good description to me.  The people that live in the
>"enterprise zones" don't have the skills needed  to get many of
>the new jobs.  Oh, a janitor or two, and maybe some jobs on the
>loading dock.  But the best jobs will be taken by people
>commuting _in_ from the suburbs!  The people that need the jobs
>and the training will not benefit much, if at all.  But we
>will be subsidizing some very nice new facilities for a few
>businesses.

Of course, even if this is the case, commuting "suburbanites" bring in 
business to local delis, restaurants, convience stores, ..., not to mention 
the need for new services and such to support the "enterprise business" itself.

The real problem, in my opinion, is that businesses may not be able to find
people willing to work in the areas which need help the most.  If I feel the 
need to carry a gun to work, maybe I might consider looking for a new job 
(dodging bullets can become tiresome very quickly you know)!

Bill
My opinions are my own!
              


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: Look Back in Anger
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 09:13:57 EST
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1992Nov22.023432.5757@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov21.050749.28105@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
|> > In article <1992Nov17.180536.5664@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
|> >>	(1982-1990)
|> 
|> > dates.  Why does the period begin in 1982 instead of 1981?  If you're
|> > arguing that 1981 should be attributed to the residual effect of Carter,
|> > then why isn't 1991 attributed to the residual effect of Reagan-Bush?
|> 
|> 	1982 is the inflection point for the economy.  Bush killed the
|> Reagan expansion in 1990 (the tax hike).  It had been wavering since the 1987
|> tax folly.
|> 

Also, the Reagan tax cuts, which were the heart of 'supply side' economics,
were passed in October of 1981 and phased in over 3 years.  The simple
fact is that 1981 was not materially affected by Reagan's policies.  It
wasn't until 1983 that the full effect was being felt.  Starting with
1982 is not unreasonable if you are trying to evaluate the effects of
'Reaganomics'.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re:      I don't believe
Summary: AMEN
Date: 20 Nov 92 21:34:49 GMT
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <9211182210.AA07490@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com>, GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Broward Horne)                    writes...
> 
>       Well.
>       After 16 years of watching my rights slowly dissolve...
> 
I believe it goes back a lot farther than that.

>       After 10 years of watching my government bankrupt me, and
>         destroy my future...

And our children's future.
> 
>       After listening to a bunch of lies from Corporations, blathering
>         about "quality", and "teamwork"...
> 
AMEN!

>       no.
>       I don't believe ANY of it anymore.
>       NONE.
> 
>       I'm done.

On the contrary. You just took your first step toward the truth.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:61129 alt.flame:15008 alt.politics.clinton:17552 alt.president.clinton:601
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
From: steeg@cs.toronto.edu ("Evan W. Steeg")
Subject: Re: FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 19 Nov 92 18:56:59 GMT

In article <Bxz4oG.IAz@news.cso.uiuc.edu> mmaggio@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael J Anthony Maggio) writes:
>mahunt@eos.ncsu.edu (MARK ALLAN HUNT) writes:
>
>
>>I think the subject line says it all !!!!!!
>
>>Send flames to alt.to.bad.the.country.will.be.fucked.up.for.four.more.years
>
>>Second thought KILL CLINTON,KILL CLITON,KILL CLINTON !!!!!!!
>
>>Appealing to your subconcious.
>
>I agree...and everyone in my fine town agrees... my subconcious needs no
>  sublimination... Everyone elses does...
>But I'd like to know how to do it in such a morally bankrupt society where
>  Bill et al. is actually in office now...
>

 (They're multiplying!)   

 Why the sudden burst of activity from the semi-literate assassination-
fantasizing right-wing loonie corner?  Are you guys organized now, or
what?

  I would forward your postings to the Secret Service myself if I
thought your explicit and implicit threats were anything more
than the feeble attempts of over-compensatingly macho nose-picking
undergrad geeks to give themselves erections.

  Plus, I'm confident that law enforcement agencies *do* scan the
net anyway.

  -- Evan



-- 

Evan W. Steeg (416) 978-5182      steeg@ai.toronto.edu (CSnet,UUCP,Bitnet)
Dept of Computer Science          steeg@ai.utoronto    (other Bitnet)
University of Toronto,            steeg@ai.toronto.cdn (EAN X.400)
Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4           {seismo,watmath}!ai.toronto.edu!steeg
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:61058 misc.legal:20212
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: LBJ's anti-nepotism law (was: Hillary will not...)
Date: 20 Nov 92 15:04:12 GMT
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93


In article <1992Nov19.173101.25548@midway.uchicago.edu>, 
thf2@midway.uchicago.edu said:

> It's de facto constitutional.  No president would dare challenge
> *this* law's constitutionality, even if it isn't constitutional.  A
> president would have enough grief appointing a relative -- that
> grief would only be compounded if they challenged Congress on it, no
> matter how valid, Constitutionally, the challenge would be.  The
> press would *never* understand the subtleties and would report it as
> "Bill sues to give Hillary a job."  And then Bill still risks having
> the nomination rejected.  I can't imagine a single president who'd
> be willing to waste so much effort and political capital for so
> little tangible gain.  The statute doesn't create a precedent for
> other unconstitutional limitations -- the last twenty years has seen
> plenty of jurisprudence on the nominations and removals process.
> 
> That is, of course, assuming that such a law exists.

I'm glad you confirmed my suspicion that such a law, if it existed,
would be de jure unconstitutional.  As for the de facto side of
things, I agree that it's incredibly unlikely that President Clinton
(feels sort of weird typing that, doesn't it?) would challenge it, at
least not in his first term.  On the other hand, I can more easily
than you see a popular second-term president taking this particular
bull by the horns, especially if he or she has a nominee in mind whom
almost everyone agrees is easily qualified for the job and would glide
through the nomination-and-approval process without any meaningful
opposition but for the prospective appointee's membership in the
President's family.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism,alt.politics.elections
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: Why are women paid less? (was Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:33:06 GMT

In article <BxoKJ7.4CL@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter) writes:
>In article <1992Nov13.203514.18128@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>>If these are the two main reasons, then it may demonstrate that the
>>entire system is biased against women.  If a system requires something
>>of a person to succeed that functionally is not possible in most cases
>>(women who want children), then the system is biased.  A key question
>>is whether missing a few years of work to raise a child (or even the
>>few weeks that many women take off today) really detracts from the
>>contributions a women can make to a company.
>
>If I'm a manager, and I've got two good workers names Jack and Jill --
>both of whom are excellent workers in a similar way, I may face a time
>when Jill chooses to have a child. If she takes time off (via vacation/
>company falily leave/federally mandated family leave, etc.), then she can
>still keep up in the field. But, when she returns, and I need to promote
>someone, I'm more likely -- all else being equal -- to promote the person
>who has been there, has more hands-on experience in the office. It's just
>good business. It's a biological disadvantage that women have to weigh. It's
>not fair, but I wouldn't go so far to say it's biased. It's just life.
>
>						- greg


The problem here is that it applies not specifically to women, but to parents
of either gender who would like to take some time off when a child is born
in order be at home with the child during its first few months. This sort
of thing has traditionally been associated with women, but this link is
getting weaker all the time.

The fact is that current corporate practice is biased against families,
period. Companies want employees who have no competing interests, and a
family is just that.


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.politics.correct
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Heterosexual AIDS 
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 21:52:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.213027.11164@netcom.com> ssturgis@netcom.com (Scott Sturgis) writes:
>>
>>I do.  First, homosexuals are dozens times more likely to be HIV carriers.
>
>Perhaps in the U.S. at the moment yes. But that will change

There is no indication that that will change.

>>The homosexual community needs to be more serious about AIDS prevention
>>than the heterosexual community because they're much much more at risk.
>
>Again Ted that may be true for the present but the future is a different
>story. There will be many THOUSANDS more to die before the cure is found. 

I've got news for you -- the future is here.  It's now.  AIDS has peaked.
All of the dire predictions of "one out of three heterosexuals will be dead by
1990" aren't going to happen.  The epidemological pattern of AIDS is such that
there is not going to be a heterosexual AIDS epidemic.  If the government ever
got around to distributing clean needles and funding drug treatment programs,
you'd actually see numbers going down instead of staying level.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: Patsy Schroeder on Term Limits
Reply-To: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:21:04 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.235453.6146@pmafire.inel.gov> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.162601.27809@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>>
>>I've said it before and I'll say it again: the main argument for term
>>limits has to do with the way in which today's money-driven politics
>>has made it almost impossible to compete effectively with well-financed
>>incumbents. Many incumbents run unchallenged, or opposed only by
>>'fringe', single-issue candidates who are usually not plausible
>>replacements for the incumbent.
>
>If this is indeed the root cause, why not eliminate it, instead of using
>a blanket approach?  Why not limit expenditures?  Or maybe publicly fund
>campaigns?

These have been tried, and have proven to be unenforceable in practice,
or in some cases in violation of the First Amendment.

>
>>and when there is no 'someone else', the incumbent will stay by default.
>
>So?
>

Everyone who opposes term limits does so on the grounds that it is
'anti-democratic', that it arbitrarily limits choice in an election. My
response is that it is the *current* system that limits choice, by
discouraging qualified prospects from running, because they would have
to take on an overwhelmingly well-funded and well-known incumbent,
without having any effective means of making up the gap.

If an incumbent remains in office because he/she was unchallenged, this
is anti-democratic.
 
>
>Look, the real problem here is that everybody yells about the "other guys"
>congresscritters slinging pork for their constituents, yet they want to 
>continue to get theirs.  So, they keep returning their reps to the trough.
>People are getting exactly what they are voting for.
>

No. The real problem is that Congresspeople put their own career interests
ahead of either their consituents' interests, or the national interest.

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>....Dale Cook    "I don't much care how a man prays -- there's plenty of
>                 room in hell for all of us."  --- "Mad Jack" Duncan
>The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,misc.legal
From: rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese)
Subject: Re: "Monsters Among Us", Frontlines, November 10, 1992, PBS
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 22:42:52 GMT
Organization: QueerNet

In article <BxozJx.9I7@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>The whole point behind "child divorce" is that the child
>*IS* on equal terms with the parent.  Sheesh.

Have you read or researched a damn thing about this?  The concept is *not* that
the will of a child is on equal terms with the will of the parent, but that
the state has an obligation to protect the physical and emotional well-being
of the child from the parent.
-- 
ROGER B.A. KLORESE                                              +1 415 ALL-ARFF
rogerk@unpc.QueerNet.ORG              {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!sgiblab!unpc!rogerk
"Normal is not something to aspire to, it's something to get away from."
                                                                   -- J. Foster
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum)
Subject: Re: History Repeats?(Re: What is a fiscal conservative?
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Southeast Design Center
	<1992Nov13.214925.24184@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> <Bxw7p1.Gp0@sdf.lonestar.org>
	<1992Nov20.150656.24753@iqsc.COM>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 22:29:34 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.150656.24753@iqsc.COM> rex@iqsc.COM (Rex Black) writes:

   Tad Dowe writes:
   >If defense spending were to be cut in half, it would not make any significant
   >change in the deficit. Now, if welfare and medicare were treated equally, the
   >deficit could be reduced in no time.

   Partisan name-calling notwithstanding, neither Clinton nor Bush provided
   any concrete, courageous plans for attacking entitlements like Social 
   Security and Medicaid, which are the real sources of the debt explosion.
   Both Republicans and Democrats use this "guns vs. butter" canard to
   obscure the fact that without a serious attack on entitlements, esp.
   Social Security, no progress will be made.  


I think Paul Tsongas and Warren Rudman are starting some group that is
designed to make people aware of what it will take to eliminate the
debt and deficit.  Does anyone know anything about it?  I've heard
about them supporting some group who tries to get candidates to
sign some sort of pledge.
--


Matt Landrum                    | mdl@cypress.com
Cypress Southeast Design Center | office: (601) 324-4609, FAX - 4614
1 Research Blvd, Suite 200      | "There's a fine line between 
Starkville, MS  39759           |  stupid and clever" -- Spinal Tap


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60420 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8687 talk.rumors:1310 alt.activism:18877 alt.politics.elections:23935