HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Slick Willie and the Rapists
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 17:00:00 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Aug27.221613.19103@anomaly.sbs.risc.net> kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>Someone wrote:

>>GHWB
>>was expected to slam Slick Willie by bringing up a bunch of rapists
>>whose life sentences he commuted.

Well, Mike, that someone was me and that isn't what I wrote.  Either you
or this Bri person changed my post and I don't appreciate that.  I
called the president George Bush, not GHWB, and if people want to
paraphrase what I said they can damned well put it in brackets 
or otherwise indicate that it is not exactly what I said.

Bri, do you hear that too?

>farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:

>>Sure, it's another example of the kinder, gentler nation that 
>>George "pro-LIFE" Bush has in mind.

>So, you feel that the governing actions of an individual should not be
>an issue discussed during a political campaign?

>Or, only the records of those you support shouldn't be discussed, as
>that would be "negative campaigning"?
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42446 alt.politics.bush:3243 alt.politics.clinton:3297
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: pro-live/Hillary inconsistencies
Date: 28 Aug 92 00:06:10 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
:Is it inconsistent to chide Hillary Clintons support of legal
:rights of children, and then demand that unborn children have
:legal rights over their mothers?  Is this what the Republican
:party is promoting?
:Methinks it is.

Depends on what rights you think Hillary is advocating. If you think Hillary believes
that children should have the right to sue their parents because they "suffer" from
what is essentially slavery, then perhaps not. If you think that the Republicans are
chiding Hillary for putting the legal rights of children over the parents, then
it does look inconsistent. It's in the way you look at the picture that the Reps are
trying to show, whether or not your interpretation correlates with theirs.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck (Duke BME '93)		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
I have entered the week of transition from my summer job at NIH to fall
semester at Duke. I will not be able to reply to everyone. If you want
to continue a thread, please email replies to me until I can post again.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: dadams@cray.com (David Adams)
Subject: Re: QUAYLE: Acceptance speech text
Reply-To: dadams@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 25 Aug 92 16:33:59 CDT

In article 3357@hemlock.cray.com, rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
|
|>             Text of Vice President Quayle's Speech
|[...]
|>     And it is time to change Congress for good.  Almost 16 years ago,
|> in my first speech as a member of the House of Representatives, I
|> proposed limiting the terms of Congress.  The Democratic Congress
|> tells us that it is good for the country to limit Ronald Reagan and
|> George Bush to 2 terms as president.  I say to them, if it is good
|> for the country to limit Ronald Reagan and George Bush to 2 terms,
|> then it would be great for the country to limit the terms of senators
|> like George Mitchell and Ted Kennedy, and the rest of that liberal
|> Democratic Congress.
|
|Of course Danny does not mention that it was the *Republican* controlled
|Congress that passed the 22nd (Presidental term limit) amendment.
|
|We could have been watching Reagan going for his 4th term if they had not.  :-)
|
|-- 
|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!)



Damn right!  The republicans were right to limit Presidential terms, and
they are right to seek limits to congressional terms as well!

(Danny boy's comments make perfect sense as it is pretty commonly accepted
now that limiting Presidential terms was a good idea.  It seems to me
that most people accept the idea that limiting congressional terms is
a good idea too--as long as they get their own share of pork!)
  

---
--David C. Adams  Statistician  Cray Research Inc.  dadams@cray.com
___________________________________________________________________
       member--Minnesotans for Global Warming.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: galluzjj@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Darkwing Duck)
Subject: Endorsement
Summary: Endorsement of George Herbert Walker Bush
Keywords: Endorse Bush US Senate female Pro-Choice
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:35:56 GMT

I have been working this summer as the Field Director for
Jean T. White, one of only two women running for the US
Senate in the country.  She is the only pro-choice female
running for the upper chamber.  I went to Houston to the 
Convention undecided having supported Buchanan in my home
state of New Hampshire and then Perot when he entered the 
race.  I made it clear that I would endorse either of the
two major candidates when I had heard both convention speeches.

After hearing the speeches,  I have decided to stick with
my Republican beliefs.  I was raised in the Great State of
New Hampshire with the belief of family, lower taxes and a
strong feeling against big government.  It is with this that
I endorse George Herbert Walker Bush for another four years
as President of the United States and J. Danforth Quayle as
the Vice-President.

I urge all undecided voters to vote for the President and
to make the tough change -- vote out Congress!  If you have
any questions on my position feel free to write.  I welcome
discussion.

Sincerely,

James J. Galluzzo III
Junior, Clarkson University

--
/     I am the terror that flaps in the night ... I am Darkwing Duck       /
/     galluzjj@craft.camp.clarkson.edu  aka Darkwing Duck                  /
/                                                                          /
/     Let's get DANGEROUS !!!                                              /
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43309 talk.politics.mideast:19506 misc.headlines:6151
From: anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Fair Swap
Date: 2 Sep 92 16:06:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BtyKqJ.Gt0.2
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


Obviously, guarantees of security will be the linchpin of any 
peace treaty in the Middle East (or anywhere;-).

There was an article a month or two back in The New Republic (I forget
the author's name) whose basic thesis was that peace between Israel 
and its neighbors would not be possible without a guarantee of Israel's 
security by the U.S..  This would entail at least a short to medium
term a U.S. military presence in Israel.

I doubt most Israelis (and Americans) would find this a palatable 
option, being somewhat independent-mined.  These objections 
aside, any thoughts on the matter?

-anwar
-- 
Anwar Mohammed                           Graduate Student
anwar+@cs.cmu.edu  (NeXTmail welcome)    School of Computer Science
Voice: +1 412 268 3043                   Carnegie-Mellon University
Fax:   +1 412 681 5739                   Pittsburgh, PA  15213-3890
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42270 ca.politics:7105
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Those Annoying Coy Conversations
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:21:17 GMT

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>> diana@wetware.com (CatWoman ) writes:
>>> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>>>> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

>>>>> ps: and their Restore Our God Given Rights
>>>>> to concubines....

>>>> Isn't it kind of dangerous leaving this around where the
>>>> CatWoman can see it???

>>> Hell - when some god walks up to me and says that
>>> it's his right to have concubines - he can have them.

>> So drieux has hardly had time to get his seat warm on the
>> Pope's Chair and he's already been promoted to god???

>> Hang on, Diana, your ProblemYoungerMan is on a fast
>> careen, er, career track!

>>> Of course, he'll have to SUPPORT them also...

>> Imho, it's _really_ dangerous to leave this around
>> where Darcy and Kellmeyer can see it...

> Isn't it just Disgusting how some folks will have these
> CutesyCutesy conversations out in public before God and Everyone....

Holy smokes, drieux, what manner of godhood were you promoted to???
If it was net.god, please please have mercy on me, a sinner!!!

> Some things are Just TOOOOOOO Disgusting for words....

Why are some gods so darned judgemental?

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
"No I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should
they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under God."  --  George Bush
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42513 ca.politics:7160 ba.politics:4842
From: wolfe@wolves.uucp (G. Wolfe Woodbury)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Not Voting & proud of it?  Ronzone the clueless.
Date: 28 Aug 92 05:43:42 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Red Wolfe @ The Wolves Den
X-Md4-Signature: 77f2cc5f85d4875d8e850053575eedd3

In article <_0bnv-=.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>
>Well, this may come as a surprise, but, they "feel" they have that right,
>because, they do. Ain't no intelligence test required to be president.
>Just goota meet some age and birth requirements and you too can be elected.
>
>But, I don't vote (never have, never will), so don't blame me.

Oh yes I *will* blame you!

How dare you even open your mouth and talk about the rights and responsibilities
of the political process when you've ducked out on the prime
responsibility?

If you are so proudly a non-participant in the process, you have no
right to criticise the process.  Even if you have a philosophical
opposition to the way that the system is set up and run, if you fail to
work within the system for its reform, you have no right to criticize
it.

You've proved that you don't really think about what you are saying
several times over, this is just proof of it.
-- 
G. Wolfe Woodbury @ The Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC         [use the maps!]
UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!wolfe   ...duke!wolves!wolfe    <Standard disclaimers>
Domain: wolfe%wolves@cs.duke.edu    wolfe@cds.duke.edu
    Above all, we celebrate.   Celebrate the Circle Statement of Purpose
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: National Health Care
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 14:22:39 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.232017.6291@brownfield.glv.com> <jbrow@glv.com> writes:
>
>Interesting.  I know that doctors generally work very hard to get where they  
>are.  Hopefully, they won't be limited in salary after they have made this  
>investment (which still does not imply that a CMA or AMA deserves a medical  
>monopoly).
>

Higher education is also highly subsidized in Canada...the Canadian
people pay most of the cost of training doctors...certainly well over
half of the cost...probably 2/3rds to 80%...and then there are
relatively generous student loan programs which often subsidize
the remainder...and we don't impose any obligation a la Northern
Exposure on them...they are free to take their taxpayer-subsidized
education South of the border if they want.

The fact that the public then collectively bargains with doctors
a fee schedule cannot be construed as a very harsh burden.

The main problem we have in Canada is that we need to allow for more
salaried surgeons, physicians, and researchers at the high-end
of the scale, so we can compete with the lucrative incentives
offered by American institutions for many of our top doctors.

Currently, there isn't enough flexibility in the type of compensation
allowable for elite doctors...we are currently losing some physicians
because the collectively bargained agreement does not allow some
of our universities and hospitals to compete.  This of course is
correctible.    

Gerald

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43681 alt.politics.elections:12389 alt.politics.bush:4037 alt.desert-storm:1743
From: gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: Endorsement
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 23:18:56 GMT

lp> Loren I. Petrich
gs> Gary Strand

lp> Some of the self-proclaimed Libertarians on this net come off as obnoxious
lp> right-wingers.

gs> Care to name names?

lp> They know who they are (tm) :-)

lp> I have in mind more specifically those who never tire of accusing univer-
lp> sity folk and others of being left-wingers and statists and enemies of
lp> civilization.

  The first two, yes, the last, well, that kind of follows from the first two.
  I don't speak from idle speculation; when I was a political science major,
  the head of the department was an avowed Marxist. Only In America!  

lp> Especially those in university positions who admire steelworkers, yet who
lp> do not try to join them.

  [Despite the ".edu" in my address, NCAR is not a university.]

  What do you mean by "join them"? Become a good Big Labor boot-licker? No
  thanks, I'll leave that to the Democrats. It's interesting that you deride
  people who don't play the game you want as "right-wingers". Have you ever
  *met* an honest-to-goodness conservative? Taken a class from one? Talked
  with them at length about their views? The net has an incredible dearth of
  conservatives, and the ones you see on TV are as representative as Jesse
  Jackson is of liberals.

  Nah, you're just setting up a strawman. Whack away, sir, whack away!


--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43125 ca.politics:7320
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Picking and Choosing our References
Date: 1 Sep 92 15:49:09 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <12014@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>I seldom see a posting in soc.motss that discusses a long-term
>relationship based on love, romance, shared interests.  Instead, I 
>see constant discussions of casual sex, the use of whips, complaints
>about casual sex partners not being willing to use condoms, 
>references to a partner as a "slam-puppet."

Wrong...  I am in a long term relationship based on love, romance and
shared interests.  I am one of the more "evil" people on soc.motss in
your mind.  Where do you get off making these comments about my
relationship?


>(by churches that recognize homosexual marriage).  Occasionally,
>Jeff Dauber will refer to his mate.  But those are very rare --

Not at all... You just do not recognize them as such... Also, the term
mate is rather tacky in this setting.  I prefer partner...

>and even those postings that refer to a "partner" make it clear
>that this is just who they go home to at night, after cruising
>the bars.

Having only set foot inside a bar twice in the last year, I resent
the implications of this statement.  What you are saying here is not
based on any reality of what appears in soc.motss, it is just your
assumptions....

Let's see here... Of your "enemies" in soc.motss....

OR and MW have been lovers for 8 years
CB and XW have been lovers for 8 years
GNN and RG have been lovers for 2 years
JD and BA have been lovers for 3 years

These are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head...
Where you get your "facts" from, no one knows...


FWA
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42204 ca.politics:7099 ba.politics:4808
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: The Claytoon on the Couch (was Re: Stereotyping)
Date: 26 Aug 92 16:31:55 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Aug26.045151.17644@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
# 	After reading some of the Claytoon's arguments on how gay
# people should ostracize NAMBLA, I'm surprised that he has not called
# upon the Republican Party to ostracize:
# 
# 	A Jew-baiter and Nazi sympathizer whose father raised him to
# beat up other kids, who once punched out a cop, and who admires Joe
# McCarthy. [Pat Buchanan]

What his father raised him to be, and what he is today are much
different.  Nazi sympathizer?  Odd, but no one managed to find
such dirt on Buchanan during the primaries.  I presume you are
just making this up.  "Jew-baiter"?  Ah yes, anyone who expresses
any disapproval of the policies of Israel is an anti-Semite.  I've
heard it all before.

# 	A lifelong mediocrity who supported the Vietnam War while
# sitting it out in the National Guard, who has a gift for embarrassing
# himself with repeated gaffes, and who considers himself
# more-than-competent to criticize pop culture. [J. Danforth Quayle]

If I had my way, Quayle wouldn't be VP.  But he's hardly in the
same category as a child molester.

# 	A woman who went to law school yet who thinks that not being a
# full-time housewife goes against a woman's most fundamental nature.
# [Marilyn Quayle]

I happen to agree with Ms. Quayle on that.  So do most women I
know, not all of whom have the luxury of raising their own kids.

By the way, the various turkeys connected to the major political
parties are why you won't find me involved with them.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
From: makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Subject: Re: Eggert vs. Livni
Summary: Mr. Eggert's sillyness
Reply-To: makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe AZ
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 03:41:52 GMT

In article <EGGERTJ.92Aug31230217@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu> eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu writes:

# In article <1992Aug30.013328.18969@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:

# >   In article <EGGERTJ.92Aug28094126@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu> eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu writes:

# >   # Do you have a wall and a drill?  Then you too can make a hole.

# >	   I probably could.  But only on the house I currently live in.  Not
# >   a house someone else currently lives in.  Or can you make yourself
# >   invisible (and the drilling inaudible)?
 
# Now this is getting very silly.  Why should a drill have to be
# inaudible or the driller invisible to make a hole?  Just being
# unobserved or even better simply forgotten would suffice.  Give me a
# drill, an innocuous repairman's outfit, and your address, and I could
# demonstrate to you how it works.

	Wanna bet?  Talk about being silly!

# >   # If they need to look a little older, why, a light application
# >   # of stain should be sufficient to create the illusion of decades of age.

# >	   I believe that scientific methods exist to make this
# >   determination.  The "illusion" would not last long.
 
# Indeed, a stupid stain would not withstand a sufficiently broad
# battery of scientific tests.  Has one been performed?  (your turn)

	Has anyone (except perhaps yourself) shown a need for one?  Silly
possibilities (such as yours) do not count.

# >   # I do not claim that the holes are fake; I have no evidence to make
# >   # that claim.  It is naive, however, to deny that holes can be faked.
# >   # No, I did not equate the physical evidence of mezuza holes with the
# >   # verbal claim of continuous Arab occupation.  I did however point out
# >   # the hypocricy of the demand that the Arabs produce complete legal
# >   # evidence for ownership of homes and land or be thrown out by Israeli
# >   # courts, and then implicitly accepting a hole in the wall as proof that
# >   # the houses belong to Jews.  That is hypocritical.

# >	   You claim you are not equating the two, but with your repeated
# >   charge of hypocrisy you are doing just that.
 
# If you misunderstand the hypocrisy, well, don't blame it on me.

	If I did not understand it, it is because it is not there.

# A
# hole is not the same as a verbal claim, but demanding full legal
# paperwork (note that I did not say accepting a verbal claim) while
# accepting a hole is hypocritical.

	Talk about being silly No. 2!

# I wouldn't accept either a hole or
# a mere verbal claim, myself, as proof of ownership of any property.

	We are not just talking about a mere "hole".  And if you refuse to
accept valid evidence, I hope you never serve on a jury.
--

David Makowsky
makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43603 alt.politics.elections:12351 alt.politics.clinton:3957 alt.politics.marrou:1020 alt.politics.bush:3994
From: thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Why I cannot vote Democratic
Date: 3 Sep 92 19:49:51 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA


In article <Bu0L8K.AH2@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com writes:

>   [...]

>   There is something "sacred" about [the opinion of the majority]
>   in the sense that ultimately it's what determines how things turn 
>   out.  As I've said before here: culture is as real as gravity!

I've never denied this!  What I have denied is that it is the *only* 
thing that determines how things turn out.


>   [...]  Human beings do not appear to be quite
>   as "rational" as some Usenerds seem to believe.  "Information" is
>   not the only (or probably even the main) basis for human decision  
>   making.   

Are you suggesting that rational thought plays *no* role in politics
whatsoever?  (I admit this often seems to be the case.)  Are you
suggesting that there is no point in rational-thought or self-motivated
action or communication with what we only assume to be other sentient
human-beings because the universe is a peculiar mixture of deterministic
automation and chaos to which rational thought doesn't apply? and humans
are defined solely by the context of the arbitrary and amorphous soup of
human culture in which they happen to find themselves at any given moment?

As for political 'reality,' CFCs are not responsible for the hole in the
ozone no matter how many people believe it.  The Industrial Revolution
did not bring down the average worker's standard of living no matter how
many people were taught this.  Etc, etc.  Culture of course is a big part
of why people behave the way they do, but culture does not manufacture
reality, and culture is not a closed system.

thant
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ