HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (droopy)
Subject: you get from the system what you put into it (term limits)
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 15:17:07 GMT

Actually, this has to do with term limits and not taxes.

I've heard a lot of people supporting term limits because
of the terrible choices they see when going into the voting
booth. They see: Incumbent bozo A, challenger numskull B and
third party airhead C (,D and E). They complain about how bad all
the candidates are and how horrible their choices are. They 
complain about how powerless they are in the system.

If you don't like who's running, where were you before? Where
were you in the primary stage? If you saw two bozos who didn't
deserve your vote, why didn't you go out and try and get someone
better on the ballot? Why didn't you say to your friend or
local hero, 'why don't you run?'? Why didn't you get involved earlier?
The general election is the final product. It's the final step
in a long process. Get involved before then. How many people voted
in the prez primary? I think it was like 18% in the Dems nationwide.

If you're in a party, get involved early and make sure your
party puts forth the best person for the job. If the party's
favorite is a bozo, then work your butt off and make sure there
is at least one good person on the ballot. If you're an independent,
make sure more Ross Perot's are on the ballot. Make sure there really
is a choice. 

Before you complain about your lack of choices, make sure you
really do all you can to prevent that (a lack of choices) from
happening!

Get involved (or shut up)
============================================================================
BRI FARENELL				Hate is not a family value.
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU
CLARKSON '95			
We already have term limit provisions in the Constitution, it's called voting.
===========================================================================
"We are not descended from fearful men... not from men who feared to write,
to speak, to associate and to defend causes which were, for the time, 
unpopular."		----Edward R Murrow


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:61046 alt.politics.clinton:17523 alt.president.clinton:584
From: aaron@funcity.njit.edu (Aaron Watters)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: <Expletive Deleted>: EDIT THE SUBJECT LINE!
Date: 20 Nov 92 12:38:14 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology

TO THOSE WHO RESPOND TO RECENT OBSCENE CONTENTLESS POSTINGS:
   FOR GOD'S SAKE EDIT THE OBSCENITIES OUT OF THE SUBJECT LINE!	-a
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,misc.legal
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: "Monsters Among Us", Frontlines, November 10, 1992, PBS
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 13:47:29 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc

As quoted from <Bxoywp.82z@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> by kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l):

> I will assume that you find homosexual activity to be perfectly acceptable.
> Please explain why, if we accept homosexual activity, we should not accept
> sexual activity between 12-year olds whom the court has declared "mature"
> and 30-year olds, same sex or otherwise.

1. I DON'T find homosexuality acceptable, for MYSELF.  I find it aesthetically
displeasing in other men.  I therefore neither practice it nor put myself in
situations where I would be called upon to observe it.

2. If you believe in the concept of majority and consent (NAMBLA doesn't, maybe
you don't either.)  It would be invalid for a court to make such a ruling,
whether the "relationship" was a heterosexual or homosexual one.  A 12-year old
can be reasonably presumed to be incapable of making an informed decision of
this nature.  In general, his wishes are immaterial.  That's why they call it
STATUTORY rape.  Since the 30-year old by definition is committing a non-
consensual act, he should be punished, the child's opinion merely being an
interesting aside.


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.rumors,alt.activism,misc.legal,alt.politics.elections
From: ptyler@iat.holonet.net (Paul Tyler)
Subject: Re: Bork
Organization: HoloNet (BBS: 510-704-1058)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 03:26:35 GMT


I haven't read the man's books but what struck me about the opinions he
was writing before the confirmation hearings was their obviously political
intent. It was if he was campaigning for the job, writing with one eye
toward Ed Meese and the Reagan Justice Dept.
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Anita's popularity vs. credibility
Date: 16 Nov 92 18:57:40 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Nov15.143702.23023@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:


|>Point of Inflammation: Would Clarence Thomas actually have even been
|>considered if not for the fact that both he and the retiring Justice
|>whose seat was open happened to have the same relatively high levels
|>of melanin in their skins?

According to many court watchers, Thomas was on the short list for the
position that eventually went to Bush's first nominee (Souter?).

There was even some speculation that Bush might name him then.

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.individualism
From: dasher@well.sf.ca.us (D Anton Sherwood)
Subject: Re: Property Rights
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 07:58:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.103716.21487@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>In article <1de1mjINN6rr@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>
>}For example, anthropologists have studied division of game in many societies.
>}Usually the hunter and his family have the right to the choicest portions,
>}and the rest get to divide the remainder.
>
>This just seems like a variant on the Anglo-American common law rule of
>first possession.  The only contrast between it and the libertarian concept of
>it is that we'd think that the hunter would have the right to it all, a priori.
>Of course, contractual arrangements could alter this for things like this.

And a contractual arrangement need not be formal.  It could be established
by long custom, like the tradition that says that by getting into a taxicab
I promise to hand money over when I get out of it.

Presumably the hunter gets something from the other members of the tribe in
exchange for meat.  Custom, then, has said that in exchange for those
things, the non-hunters acquire part-ownership in the kill.  This is not a
limitation on property rights; this is an _assignment of_ property rights.

A customary implied contract is not immutable; the hunter may at any time
say (if this is a libertarian tribe), "From now on I keep all the meat I
kill."  Other members of the tribe will say, "You still owe me for that
basket / spear / bunch of apples," and the hunter will say, "Oh all right,
after my next kill."  And the contract is voided.

I don't claim that mine is the one true analysis.  For all I know, some
hunter-gatherer societies are communistic.  (That's why their populations
are small:)

And I suppose someone will come back and say that my neighbors have, by
the same sort of custom, a fractional property right in my obeying the speed
limit.  I don't know how to argue with that, so I'll leave it for Tim Starr
(who probably has more time to read this, anyway).

Good night!
-- 
Anton Sherwood                                          dasher@well.sf.ca.us
    *\\*    Opinions mine, but available for lease at easy terms    *\\*
+1 415 267 0685                 1800 Market St #207, San Francisco 94102 USA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
From: thf2@quads.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Look Back in Anger
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:06:08 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.131926.5633@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>In article <92321.103319DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>, <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>> I see no evidence that the increase in inequality during Reagan's terms
>> did raise the long-term growth rate of GDP.
>
>	The growth rate improved from 2.6% during the 70s (actually 1973-1982)
>to 3.5% (1983-1990).  WWII-1972 was 3.6%.  Certainly the affect was to raise
>the GDP growth rate.  

What happens when you add in 1991 and 1992?

Remember?  Bush was thrilled with a 2.7% annual rate for one *quarter*.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Subject: Re: income vs. consumption (was Re: VOTE,
Reply-To: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com
Organization: Motorola Semiconductor Products Sector
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:38:42 GMT

In article 23581@cbfsb.cb.att.com, mbb@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (martin.brilliant) writes:
>> The spread between the cost of funds and the prime rate is fairly high now:  
>> look at how banks have profited recently.  Banks are sinking their money 
>> into T-bills because then they don't have to hold loan losses required by 
>> the government.  The problem is not with the firms:  they'd love to invest 
>> if they could get the loans.  They're not.  Don't look at the rates so 
>> much:  It matters little if I can't get a loan.
>
>You're saying the trouble is not so much consumer confidence as banker
>confidence.  Why is banker confidence low?  Are you saying that
>government regulations inhibit lending?  Maybe that's the
like that nasty rule that requires banks to be "solvent".  
what a burden:)

>explanation.  When interest rates were high, banks made risky loans to
>meet investor expectations for gain, and lost.  Now that interest
>rates are low, the government regulations intended to prevent what
>happened then are the wrong thing now.  There's neither a shortage
>nor a surplus of savings, it's all due to the Reagan-Bush government
>being on our backs.
>

...

>Actually, firms are investing in improved productivity.  But the
>purpose and net result is to employ fewer people to produce the same
>goods, not to produce more.  That kind of investment doesn't promote
>growth.

this is an erroneous attempt to apply the situation of a single 
business to an entire market.  in the market, the industry improves
its productivity, which shifts its supply curve downward.  if the
market is competative, then prices will fall and volume will increase.
that is "growth".

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.censorship,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: The Secret Service strikes again...
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 12:21:40 EST

In article <1992Nov21.170140.17818@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>
>   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.

Incredible.  Many, many years ago, I recall finding an old dartboard of my
parents' with a picture of Spiro Agnew and the phrase "Et tu Spiro" on
it.

I guess my parents are lucky that the SS didn't come after them, too.
(And with policies like this, "SS" is probably the *proper* term!)


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.veterans
From: smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy)
Subject: Re: Compensation for Gays Ousted from Government Employ
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 16:33:38 GMT

In article <1ee61lINNt7@talon.UCS.ORST.EDU> Monte Olsen <olsenm@ccmail.orst.edu> writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.033059.18007@Princeton.EDU> Jr.
>Frank W. Elliott, elliott@phoenix.Princeton.EDU writes:
>>There are more than a few cases of people
>>who claim to have discovered their orientation after
>signing
>>up with the military.  In the cases of which I'm aware
>these
>>people have advised their superiors of the facts after
>they
>>became available.
>>
>
>
>You are absolutely right about that, and I apologize for
>overlooking them. However, what does that do to the
>argument that a person is born gay? That sexual
>orientation is determined at birth? 
>
>The people who advise their COs of such a change should be
>commended for their honesty and their bravery. 
>
>BTW, I honestly don't know whether the change is a good or
>not. One person brought up the question of how to protect
>openly gay people in the armed services from people who
>don't want them there. There are many issues, mainly
>relating to peoples' perceptions and feelings, that need
>to be addressed if there is to be a policy change.
>
>Monte

Has anyone considered the (rather reactionary-sounding) idea of creating
all-gay units in the millitary? This is  how the milltary took care of
racial integration at first, and it might work here, too.

(Please, no flames. This is only an idea.)

Lost Boy

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,misc.legal,talk.politics.theory
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Subject: Re: Term Limits & "Encumbant Ballot Access Limits"
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 04:56:44 GMT

wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>> > No term limits means that you can re-elect the guy if he's not a
>> > bozo.  If the guy is a bozo, then you just vote him out. What's so
>> > hard about that? I'll tell you, it means the voters have to take
>> > responsibility.  [Bri Farenell]
>If you think that the current system is riddled with abuses, the
>proper solution is to put forth, and support, proposals which reduce
>or eliminate those abuses.<*>  Term limits don't do that; all they do
>is take away from the voters the right to cast a valid vote for the
>candidate of their choice.  That isn't democracy.

Then both of you guys will like Washington State's new "Term Limits",
which are actualy just ballot access limits.

There are no term limits.  You may serve as many times as you want...
...but, you have to run as a write-in.  If you are a real good bozo,
then the voters do have a right to keep sending you back year after
year as a write-in.

For US Representative you can get on the ballot if you have spent 
6 of the last 12 years as a non-encumbant (not as a US Representative.).

For US Senate you can get on the ballot if you have spent 6 of the
last 18 years as a non-senator.

You can still run as a write-in in any case.

State legislators and governor have similar provisions, and I believe
require spending 6 of the last 14 years as a non-encumbant.

I don't think this can be struck down.  A state may not add new
requirements to become a US legislator, _but_, any state is free
to set its own ballot access rules with whatever arbitrary and
near-impossible requirements they see fit.  This new ballot access
law is just another such requirement.

Jim Del Vecchio
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton Nominees for the Supreme Court
Date: 20 Nov 92 17:13:32 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Nov18.164757.24804@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>Do you think she would have had an administration post in the past if
>she was *not* a conservative?

She did not have an administrative post.  She was a civil service employee.

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Term Limits
Date: 22 Nov 92 14:32:25 GMT
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93


In article <KvG=VDB@engin.umich.edu>,
jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) said:

> > If the reformation or abolition of the seniority system is your
> > goal, why not agitate and work for the passage of legislation (or
> > a constitutional amendment) that would do that directly?
> > [wdstarr]
>
> Too much effort for too little probability of success.  Term limits
> will do the job and I don't believe will adversely affect the
> democratic process, particularly if term limitation is used as a
> ballot access restriction (ala Washington state).

and in article <5985@balrog.ctron.com>, smith@ctron.com said:

> Most of the people pushing for term limits are fully aware of the
> fact that it is not a perfect solution, that it will have problems
> of its own, and, bluntly, we accept that as the price of getting
> that first piece of dynamite into the logjam, for we feel the
> likelihood of encouraging the system to reform _itself_ is
> foredoomed to utter failure.

I can understand this viewpoint -- that it's better to try for a
flawed solution that might get implemented than for a better solution
that probably won't -- but I don't agree with it.  I guess that our
disagreement is much more a disagreement over personal aesthetics than
a dispute of political theories or ideologies... I just think that if
you're going to do this, you ought to do it right or not at all,
rather than being governed by expediency.

You suggested that I "sound like someone very enamoured of Congress,
that [I] believe it is basically sound and requires only minor
tinkering to make it better gov't."  Nope.  Heck, I'm not even that
enamoured of the idea of democracy at all, at least not as a tool for
deciding anything that's really important.  (That's why I'm grateful
that we have counter-democratic protections like the Bill of Rights,
feeble as they are in this day and age.)  But, to repeat myself, I
believe that if you're going to do democracy -- or, more precisely,
democratic republicanism -- at all, you should do it right, a process
which includes allowing the people to cast valid votes for whomever
they please, including incumbents.  Term limits look to me like a
classic example of the (apocryphal?) H.L. Menken adage that "For every
human problem, there is a neat, plain solution -- and it is always
wrong."

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:61486 alt.sex:37434 ca.politics:9834
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,ca.politics
Subject: Re: For Those Who Think That Gay Men Have Changed Their Behavior
Date: 23 Nov 92 18:10:49 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Nov21.234440.23014@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
> In article <1992Nov21.225909.26965@midway.uchicago.edu>
> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes: 
# #You're comparing apples and oranges.  What was defined as "unsafe sex"
# #in the heterosexual study puts one at thousands times less risk than
# #the behavior Clayton describes.
# 
# No, I'm comparing oranges and tangerines. While not all sexual
# activities carry the same sorts of risks, I don't think that
# "thousands" is the proper factor. 

From what I have read, yes it is.

# My basic point is that Clayton is ignoring the fact that the
# homosexual community is more serious about AIDS prevention than the
# heterosexual community. That can have severe consequences in the
# future. 
# 
# -Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia

If heterosexuals become as promiscuous, casual about their sexual
partners, and engage regularly in practices as high risk for AIDS
as homosexuals do, yes, I would agree.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
We could say that Congress spends money like drunken sailors.  But that would
be unfair -- to the sailors.  They, at least, are spending their own money.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60811 ba.politics:7244 ca.politics:9670
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Date: 18 Nov 92 17:53:17 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Nov17.204523.1863@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
> In article <13185@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> #I'm saying that if the government sends out thugs to enforce its
> #will, and says, "Go ahead -- burn down buildings, it's governmental
> #policy," it makes it much easier for people to do those things.
> 
> Which is far different from your first claim, which was the government
> had all the responsibility, and the citizens none.

You tried to claim that Naziism was an example of insufficient
government.  I was pointing out that this is false -- Naziism
was the result of too much government (liberalism).

> #Yup.  That's one of the reasons that I oppose the efforts of the
> #homosexual fascist lobby to enforce their morals on non-aggressive
> #people.
> 
> But you don't loudly protest black civil rights laws, or religious
> civil right laws, or special interests for heterosexuals. 

Those laws are already there, and therefore impossible to stop.
Also, I have yet to see evidence that any of the aforementioned
groups are promoting child molestation.  When will NAMBLA stop
marching in gay parades?

> Are you aware that you look like a hypocrite for this?
> 
> -Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia

Are you aware that you look like a supporter of child molestation
for continuing to defend NAMBLA's soap box, the homosexual fascist
lobby?  See how silly this is?

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"Foxes prefer rabbits with short claws." -- Nadja Adolf
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60298 alt.politics.elections:23874 alt.rush-limbaugh:9768 talk.rumors:1296 alt.activism:18834
From: rovero@attu.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Quota at colleges for the rich (was Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: 14 Nov 92 05:22:26 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School,Monterey CA

In article <1992Nov13.200024.22930@novell.com> bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>
>BTW, it would probably be more accurate to say quota for rich people,
>not rich white people.  I imagine colleges aren't too picky where the
>big bucks come from.
>

Agreed.  Bill Cosby just made some very large donations to historically
black institutions.  And I'm certain that some of these same institutions
practice the same "quid pro quo" with respect to alumni donations.

Money talks, nobody walks.....

-- 
Josh Rovero   (rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil) | or Internet 5346p@cc.nps.navy.mil 
Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Rv |      Bitnet 5346p@NAVPGS 
Naval Postgraduate School              |              
Monterey, CA  93943   (408) 646-2084   |
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:61034 alt.politics.elections:24176 alt.rush-limbaugh:10063 talk.rumors:1349 alt.activism:19033