HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: BUSH LOSES VETO FIGHT!! [Bush 35, Congress 1]
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:12:15 GMT
Reply-To: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems

In article 9485@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <1992Oct7.072505.1166@u.washington.edu> tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>
>>demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>>The broadcast networks will be able to charge
>>>cable companies for redistribution, basic cable rates will skyrocket.
>
>>Why would broadcasters charge for redistribution?
>
>Because the new cable bill requires the cable companies to pay it.
>If you could get money for nothing, wouldn't you.
>
The new cable bill DOES NOT require the cable companies to pay for 
broadcast rights.  The new cable bill allows the broadcast station to
get reimbursed in some manner, if they so choose.

The most common arrangement I've heard about so far is that cable
companies may agree to cablecast the broadcast stations on the same
station they are on now, in exchange for a no-fee rebroadcast.

I suspect many broadcasters would like to see WART on channel 6, the
way it is now, and not get additional money (which they can probably
get from their advertisers, anyway), instead of seeing it on channel
114, between TNN and The Shoppers Channel.

--f2

------------------
  "Pot is a herb.
   Bush is a dope."
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50411 alt.politics.clinton:9181
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:53:50 GMT
 <1992Oct7.002935.4596@desire.wright.edu> <1992Oct7.212635.29350@seq.uncwil.edu>
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Oct7.212635.29350@seq.uncwil.edu>, session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> 
>>	Actually, it is a likely scenario for a potential spy.  If Clinton, as
>>John Doe, applies for a security clearance with such a background it would be
>>denied.
> 
> Oh really? I think not.

	From our quartely security briefing:

	"All contacts with residents of [list of countries, including all
former communist], or persons travelling to said countries should be reported
to the [security office] for possible followup.  History has shown that most
spies come into contact with resident/agents of said countries while never
actually spending a large amount of time there."

	Such contacts will also result in your security application being
denied.  In fact, the government routinely denied clearances to refugees from
those countries (until it was ruled to be illegal).

	My father, when he was working with the government on various black
programs was simply not allowed to travel to Eastern Europe (much less USSR)
because of the nature of his work.  If he had gone, he would have lost his
clearance.  Even though our family root trace back to Hungary, Poland, and
parts of former E. Germany.  We simply couldn't go.

	Remember, this is military intelligence we're talking about.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:50:56 GMT
	<1992Oct7.163231.10199@bsu-ucs.uucp> <8OCT199200205591@utarlg.uta.edu>
Organization: pubs
In-reply-to: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu's message of Thu, 8 Oct 1992 05:20:00 GMT

Stephen Tice writes:

   So we have situations today a lot like Viet Nam on the personal level
   -- I don't care about the geopolitical level in this regard. Should
   we get involved, I don't believe we should, but I will *support* going 
   if it's with the express intent of rescuing the children who are being
   murdered and abused. On a personal level, this is the type of choices
   also confronted in Viet Nam.  

US participation killed far more children than it saved.

   So bottomline -- I don't care about Clinton as a candidate any more.
   It's become a personal matter between him and me. And as far as I'm 
   concerned -- he'd be better off dead. If he has a heart or a conscience
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   left, I hope he thinks about being on vacation while others fought and
   died. 

Watch yourself, Stephen--there are laws concerning statements like
these.  And let's ask Dick Cheney about his vacations during the war.

Chris Brewster
cb@cray.com
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Date: 9 Oct 92 00:51:00 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <CB.92Oct8110123@tamarack13.timbuk>, cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster) writes...
>Stephen Tice writes:
> 
>   And you Mr. Brewster -- lets step back just to the known and "admitted"
>   facts. BRAVE BILL was on VACATION in the Soviet Union while others of
>   his generation DIED.
> 
>I can think of quite a few other people who probably took vacations in
>the years 1965-75: Dan Quayle, Newt Gingrich, people like that.  I
>sincerely regret the 50,000 American deaths in Vietnam, especially since
>these men didn't, and couldn't, accomplish anything through their
>bravery--the cause never made sense.

1. So you see no reason to go into Yugoslavia or Somalia militarily now?
   And are there no parallels? 

2. On the personal level of people involved in war, when common folk are
   forced to fight without exemption, can you offer reasons why those-who
   would-lead-this-country should stand apart? If indeed there is valid
   criticism to be made -- should it not be made from within the system.
   (At least so that one knows what there criticizing.)

I question Bill Clinton's willingness to work within the system, and 
moreso his ability to lead when he finds himself in a situation he does
not personally support.

I wonder what Jimmy Carter says -- surely he's on record by now? And
what would John F. Kennedy have said?  "... Brave-Bill your cause was
much more noble and you are deserving of respect for the sacrifices 
you made in leading this country away from an unjust war. Your hard
work and tireless effort at home and abroad deserve recognition. For
the dedication you've shown to the American people by your work in
Britain, Europe and Asia, we want you now to take charge of the ship 
of state and stir us wisely through the perilous times to come..."

To me Brave-Bill's Soviet Vacation represents a Vacation from Duty 
-- if indeed he ever was truly determined to be leader of our country.

>Chris Brewster
>cb@cray.com

-- Stephen Tice     Arlington Texas     10-8-92
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Date: 13 Oct 92 11:55:01
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
	<1992Oct7.171803.12454@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
	<1992Oct11.114043.13438@techbook.com>
	<1992Oct12.191732.24793@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
	<5512@balrog.ctron.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: smith@ctron.com's message of 13 Oct 92 17:46:25 GMT

In article <5512@balrog.ctron.com> smith@ctron.com (Larry Smith) writes:


   In article <1992Oct12.191732.24793@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
   >What was wrong with old wetlands ? Did we have a rational reason for
   >destroying them, or is this all just post-facto rationalisation ?

   There were no "old wetlands", there were just "swamps", which were filled in
   when they got in the way.  Nowadays we know better.  

There was plenty reason to destroy some of the "old wetlands".
Washington DC used to be virtually uninhabitable in summer because
of malaria and yellow fever, eliminating the wetlands solve a lot
of those problems. Given a choice between certain death and drying
up wetlands most people go with eliminating the swamp.

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  Just because there's a reason          			*
*  Doesn't mean it's understood              Specials, 1979	* 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: pas@kepler.unh.edu (Paul A Sand)
Subject: Re: Raving a bit, aren't we?
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: University of New Hampshire
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 18:44:42 GMT

[Followups to talk.politics.misc]

al: Andrew J Lazarus

al: And last, explain below why workplace injuries and fatalities appear
    to have dropped after OSHA.

Actually workplace safety has been getting better for many decades,
pre- and post-OSHA. I'm unaware of any study that's directly linked any
general measurable improvements in workplace safety to OSHA. In fact,
most things I've seen say pro-OSHA evidence is scant or non-existent.
Signs point instead to increased wealth, market forces, private
insurance, and voluntary standards as being far more influential.

Regulatory agencies are most often driven by bad science and bad
economics (albeit good politics and good PR). Their efforts, by
inflexibly removing choices of employer, employee, and consumer, and
driving up prices, make things *less* safe. [References: _Searching for
Safety_, by Aaron Wildavsky, Transaction, 1988; _Risk by Choice_, by W.
Kip Viscusi, Harvard University Press, 1983.]
-- 
-- Paul A. Sand           | I was going to buy a copy of _The Power of
-- Univ. of New Hampshire | Positive Thinking_ and then I thought: What
-- pas@kepler.unh.edu     | the hell good would that do?
			  |     (Ronnie Shakes)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster)
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON DOCTRINE
In-reply-to: helz@ecn.purdue.edu's message of 7 Oct 92 18:18:55 GMT
Organization: pubs
	<1992Oct7.181855.12558@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:48:50 CDT

Randall A Helzerman writes:

   
   |> Democracy abroad helps protect economic and security interests at home. 

   Can you say Vietnam?  I thought you could!  For the advanced lesson, try
   saying Nicaragua, Panama, and South America.

Can you say "non sequitur"?  I suspect I would find your argument stupid
if I could understand what you mean, but I can't.  I gather you're
trying to refute Clinton's statement?  The countries (and one continent)
on your list are mostly non-democratic, with a few democracies thrown in.
So what?

Chris Brewster
cb@cray.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: New this fall on TV ...
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:56:28 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.201919.7967@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> What is so upsetting about looking at a picture of an aborted
>> fetus?  If the pro-abortion people can say that a fetus is 
>> nothing more than a "clump of cells", then there should be
>> nothing wrong with allowing children to look at a "clump of 
>> cells", right?  Or is this another example of their stinking 
>> hypocrisy?

> Well, if we want to talk abotu liars and hypocrites, if this
> is still about that lawsuit brought to halt the abortions
> being shown on television by some political candidate in
> the midwest, the suit was brought by a woman because it
> was upsetting to her children.  The woman who brought the
> suit is PRO-LIFE, and the suit therefore shows nothing
> about pro-choice people.

Does this pro-life woman claim that fetuses are nothing
more than a "clump of cells"?  If not, then I'd suggest
your point is irrelevant.  

Several pro-aborts on talk.abortion have expressed their 
opposition to the display of aborted fetuses on television.
These are the same pro-aborts who label the fetus a mere 
"clump of cells".  What are they afraid of? 

[... lots of irrelevant jabbering deleted ..]

> In consequence, as you insist on being as insulting to
> others as possible by using the misleading term (what else?)
> "pro-aborts," I label you the ultra-religious Doug Holtsinger.

I call `em like I see `em.  If you don't like it, that's tough shit.
You can call me whatever you like.  I really don't care.

A person who believes that there should be no restrictions 
on abortion IS pro-abortion, just as a person who believes that
there should be no restrictions on contraceptives (which I
believe) is pro-contraception.  

If you don't like being insulted by the term "pro-abortion", 
then perhaps you should consider changing your views. 


[.. irrelevant material deleted ..]
>Dean Kaflowitz


Doug Holtsinger
From: 00rdharringt@bsu-ucs.uucp (Rob Harrington)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during V
Date: 8 Oct 92 00:43:04 GMT

In article <7OCT199217052351@utarlg.uta.edu>, b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
> And you Mr. Brewster -- lets step back just to the known and "admitted"
> facts. BRAVE BILL was on VACATION in the Soviet Union while others of
> his generation DIED.
> 

Gee and what was Dick Cheney doing?  Dan Quayle?  There are lots of people
who DIDN'T fight in Vietnam.  Just because they didn't have to go does
mean they're bad people... 

-- 
/---------------------------------------v-------------------------------------\
|  Rob Harrington                       |              Ball State University  |
|  Department of History                |               Muncie, Indiana, USA  |
|  Vax--00RDHARRINGT@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu  |       Unix--herring@bsu-cs.bsu.edu  |
>---------------------------------------^-------------------------------------<
|               Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah -- Shane MacGowan                |
|                       Aoibheann beatha an scol/aire!                        |
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------/
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Another biblical brilliance from Teddy
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:18:05 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:


>In a previous article, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) says:
>
>>In article <1992Oct6.191104.9332@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>>
>>> trivia question here teddy dearest....
>>
>>> but does this not also mean that giving
>>> up one's virgin duaghters is also to be
>>> construed as morally correct in your weltanschaung...
>>
>>No.  The fact that Lot offerred his daughters is only reported, not
>>condoned.  (And this also applies to the later episode when his
>>daughters caused him to get drunk and then had sex with him.)
>
>Not condoned?!?  The bible cites this scumball as a "rightous" person!
>If the bible can call a man who was willing to give up his virgin daughters
>to a mob, and then take them himself,  "rightous", and then not
>condemn the action, it is CERTIANLY condoning it.

There was a larger issue at play here...the mob wanted Lot's visitors, and
his duty was to protect them at all costs.  As such, he tried to placate
the crowd by offering his virgin daughters.  The crowd declined...

As for the daughters having sex with him...they thought that life as they
knew is had vanished from the world...and wanted to have children...

Not that any of this is 'right' in our eyes, but from what I understand of
the Abrahamic times, the protection of guests was the first priority.
Heirs were extremely important, irrespective of their parantage.  Hence the
'handmaidens' who bore children for many of the patriarchs...

 -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
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: Cable Regulation [Was BUSH LOSES VETO FIGHT!!]
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: The Bates Motel
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 03:26:48 GMT

demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>
>	ESPN, TNT, CNN, USA, etc are all independent.  There aren't any 
>major cable networks I can think of that are owned by cable distribution 
>companies.

HBO/Cinemax are owned by Time-Warner, while Showtime is Viacom's.

SportsChannel America and the regional pay SportsChannel outlets are
owned by Cablevision, and is about 1/3rd the size of ESPN.  That was 
a big problem for the NHL when they had an exclusive national contract
in the U.S.  for NHL hockey, because cableco's owned by TCI would not
allow them access (and, TCI owns Prime Sports Network, a competitor
with SC for the second banana position behind ESPN).  The attrition 
of the greatest game in the world here in the United States was due 
to the cable turf wars.  This problem was only relieved slightly in 
the final two of four SC years, when SportsChannel America national
games were packaged and sold to regional Prime outlets and to third
parties like SportsSouth in a few areas where no SCA or regional SC
outlets exist in competition.  Very few.

Interested readers can check the Rec.sport.hockey past archives for
details, wherever they may be (uunet?).

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare				
> gld@cunixB.cc.columbia.EDU		Oct 26/92: Just say "OUI!"
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			(Let's worry about the economy!)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51690 alt.politics.homosexuality:6437
From: egreen@east.sun.com (Ed Green - Pixel Cruncher)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Secret HomoSexual Conspiracy Revealed At
Date: 14 Oct 92 13:31:17 GMT
Reply-To: egreen@east.sun.com
Organization: Sun Microsystems, RTP, NC
NNTP-Posting-Host: laser.east.sun.com

In article 15583@wetware.com, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>dolan@nrlmry.navy.mil (Kent Paul Dolan) writes:
>] 
>] Which reminds me, for all the gay men out there: the Navy Base Moffett
>] Field mandatory motorcycle safety course attendance sticker on my ID
>] card shows a motorcyclist in a surround of one of those cute little
>] upside down triangles that have become all the rage in .siggies here on
>] Usenet.  I think its outrageous that the same Navy that bans gays from
>] service turns around with subtle subliminal ads for the non-heterosexual
>] lifestyle.  

Um, on the off chance that this is serious...

The silhouette of a (helmeted) motorcyclist in an inverted triangle is
the symbol of the Motorcycle Safety Foundation, and organization that
researches motorcycle safety issues, publishes motorcycle safety
curricula, and organizes and oversees motorcycle rider training
programs.  It has nothing to do with sexual preference.

I suspect Moffett Field contracted MSF to run their training program.

---
Ed Green, former Ninjaite |I was drinking last night with a biker,
  Ed.Green@East.Sun.COM   |and I showed him a picture of you.  I said,
DoD #0111  (919)460-8302  |"Go on, get to know her, you'll like her!"
 (The Grateful Dead) -->  |It seemed like the least I could do...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dchatham@utkvx3.utk.edu (Chatham, Doug)
Subject: Solution to federal gridlock
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 13:56:00 GMT

Are you sick and tired of the gridlock in the US government?  Do you
want the country to move forward?

Then I have a sure-fire solution.  Take away President Bush's veto power.
It works in North Carolina, which is a democratic regime even though its
chief executive is denied the veto.  Nothing can stop the NC state legislature,
and there is no gridlock.  Without a Presidential veto, nothing could stop the
Congress.

Comments?

Anxioulsy awaiting discussion,
Doug Chatham

DISCLAIMER: I do not support the above idea or approve the current weak status
of the Governor of North Carolina.  I merely present an idea.
From: lbaum@bcsaic.boeing.com (Larry Baum)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Quayle's a liar!
Date: 15 Oct 92 06:34:10 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle

In article <1992Oct14.152238.23005@csrd.uiuc.edu> saarinen@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Sirpa Saarinen) writes:
: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell ("Droopy")) writes:
: 
: >In the debate, Quayle made reference to something in Al Gore's
: >book _Earth in the balance_. Quayle made reference to a proposal
: >on a specific page. CNN reported that there was nothing on that
: >page about whatever Quayle was refering to. 
: 
: >Quayle also accused Gore of voting for some proposal which Gore
: >flat out denied. CNN also reported that Gore, did in fact, vote
: >against the bill.
: 
: >Quayle and the Republicans are telling Clinton's campaign to
: >tell the truth?! They are saying that it's the Democrats that
: >wecan't trust?!
: 
: I also found the Quayle tactic offensive: it is one thing to say that
: your opponents are slick and untrustworthy, but it is a totally different
: thing to stand in front of many million people and tell outright lies. Did
: Quayle think that those facts cannot be checked? What does the republican 
: party think that the IQ of the average viewer/voter is (or for that matter,
: the IQ of the average journalist - I don't mean Mike Royko)?
: No wonder some people are looking elsewhere. I sure hope that Quayle/Bush
: will be held accountable for this media nonsense. 
: 
: BTW There are already signs of this: look at the TIME magazine lawsuit
: against the Bush campaign and the leak that the republican party investigated
: Clinton's records in London and Norway (Is this a a sign of a free country 
: or is it abuse of power? The USA seems to me like some South American 
: Dictatorship from the 50ties nowadays).
: 
: Sirpa Saarinen
: saarinen@csrd.uiuc.edu

One additional lie: Quayle kept asserting that Clinton's plan
calls for 150 billion in new taxes.  In fact, the paln calls
for 150B in new spending, offset by 104B in other spending
cuts.  So the accurate figure is 46B in new taxes, presumably
from the higher taxes on those making > 200K + foreign
corporations.  I have no idea if the nubers really add up (I
doubt anyone on the next can speak authoritatively about that)
but it is an absolute lie to assert that the plan calls for
150B in new taxes.  (This factoid courtesy of CNN)

-- 
Larry Baum
Computer Science Organization
Boeing Computer Services     uucp:       uw-beaver!bcsaic!lbaum
(206) 865-3365               internet:   lbaum@atc.boeing.com       
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,talk.politics.mideast