HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast
From: steeg@cs.toronto.edu ("Evan W. Steeg")
Subject: Re: Celebration in the Streets
Summary: *Shame*, James Meritt.
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 5 Nov 92 22:34:27 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.151831.25497@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>
>After Clinton was elected, there were celebrations in the streets in two
>cities:
>		Little Rock, Arkansas
>		Bagdad, Iraq
>
>Think about it.
>

  I desperately hope you're not trying to make a serious point here,
Mr. Meritt.  But at the risk of falling into a clever sarcasm trap
(and keeping in mind that there *are* Republicans and "conservatives"
out there who really do think that way, even if you don't), I'll
act as if you are....

  The celebration in Baghdad was *not* one of joy over Clinton's
election -- it was over Bush's defeat.  The Iraqis mouthed the usual
nonsense about the well-deserved fall of evil serpents, etc., etc.
Bush defeated them (well, more or less -- Saddam led the festivities
yesterday, which implies he's still alive and in power, eh?) and now
he's been defeated, so the loonies must dance.  (None of this implies
that Bush did not play a major role in building Saddam's war machine --
of course he did; but he did win the war he caused and so is still 
an official enemy of the regime there).

  Perhaps I read about the celebration in a newspaper that used
bigger words and smaller print than whatever you read, but in mine
the article went on to point out that many of the radical Arab
leaders are actually *disappointed* in a Clinton victory, because
he has, for example, compared Syria's territorial hunger with Iraq's
and urged that Israel never give up the Golan.  Several Likud-linked
Israeli spokesmen seemed, on the other hand, optimistic about a
Clinton presidency.  

  Your low attempt to imply that Clinton is a friend to tyrants,
or that Beijing Bush, is not is pretty lame.  It's on the same order
as watching the Iranians dance and cheer after Carter's loss to Reagan
and claiming that therefore Ronnie was the mullahs' own boy.  (Well,
given later developments in the arms trade, maybe that wouldn't
have been so crazy....)

  The crazies sing and dance and chant Death to America (whether 
spontaneously or under close politico-military "encouragement")
rather often, and certainly whenever one of their official enemies
falls or even stubs a toe.  

  But why do *you* choose to sink so low into partisan smear-
mongering?  You're not a zealot, are you?


>--
>James W. Meritt:  m23364@mwunix.mitre.org - or - jmeritt@mitre.org

   -- 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:58563 alt.politics.clinton:16158 alt.politics.elections:22937
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Term Limits
Date: 6 Nov 92 10:01:11 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In <1dcfd6INNpge@eagle.natinst.com> chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz) writes:
>In <1992Nov5.212307.10045@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>>>|> Artifically so.  If the problem is that the incumbent has the overwhelming
>>>|> advantage, the solution isn't to prevent people from voting for the
>>>|> incumbent, but give challengers the same set of advantages the incumbents
>>>|> have -- be it through publicly financed campaigns,PAC reform, vouchers for
>>>|> free television use, mandatory debates, franking privileges for
>>>|> challengers, restriction of franking for incumbents, spending limits, etc.

>>How do they reduce diversity?

>I don't know if they would reduce diversity but you would have the government
>deciding who got financing and who didn't, who got vouchers, franking
>privileges, etc.  I think this is a very bad idea to let the government
>decide who gets what funding for campaigns.  This is basically letting
>the government decide who gets to run for government.

There's a simple method.  Make it objective.  Base it on a number of 
signatures on petitions.  Anyone who qualifies should get it.  

>You could argue that what we have now is worse because we just get the
>same people over and over.  I kind of agree but there has got to be
>away to solve the problem without giving the government more control
>over the process.

What other method is there?  The real problem is the disparity in money
between candidates.  Term limits won't solve that -- Dems and Reps will
still have more money.  


-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Keynesian thing (was: A "New" Reich)
Date: 12 Nov 92 18:51:46 GMT
Reply-To: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com
Organization: Motorola Semiconductor Products Sector

dude, you are really trampling the "beliefs" of the
supply-siders and the libertarians.  your facts are 
spoiling their prolific dis-information.  keep it up!
--Don
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60069 ca.politics:9567
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: 13 Nov 92 17:27:49 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <BxLBMr.MnK@unix.amherst.edu>, twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
> In article <13129@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <1992Nov9.162210.17260@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, carlos@spanky.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Carlos Carrion) writes:
# ## 	Don't have to.
# ## 	There are people here in this newsgroup that find it acceptable
# ## 	to be sexually attracted to 11 year old girls...
# #
# #There are?  They are pretty depraved, aren't they?
# 
# They are.  Alt.sex is, in fact, proof positive that heterosexuality is
# a dangerous mental disorder, and that children should not be exposed
# to this pernicious influence.
# 
# ____ Tim Pierce                / 

If soc.motss were the only evidence of how screwed up homosexuals
were, I would be prepared to discount it.  It's not the only
evidence.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Racism is "class struggle" applied to ethnicity.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: giovin@medr3.ecs.umass.edu (Rocky J Giovinazzo)
Subject: Re: Trickle Down Economics
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 16:54:35 GMT

In article <1dvb0rINNsb@agate.berkeley.edu> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
>In article <BxC3Jx.CFE@eis.calstate.edu> kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell) writes:
>
>>Decide for yourself. Kristofferson WAS a Rhodes Scholar; so was Clinton.
>>Clinton didn't graduate; he flunked out. I don't know (or care) about
>
>Rhodes Scholars don't get grades and they don't flunk out. Your
>statement is as illogical as "Linus Pauling won a Nobel Prize but he
>flunked out". (Some of the other prize scholarships require the
>recipient to enroll in a degree program, not the Rhodes.)
>
>I doubt if you're in contention for one.....
>
>andy

I think you misunderstood this statement.  Clinton *was* a Rhodes
scholar.  He didn't finish the program because (I think this was the
reason) he didn't take courses in the program during his 2nd year.
I think by "flunked out" Kenneth Mitchell must have meant that
he didn't finish, not "failed some courses."

Rocky Giovinazzo
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
From: m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier)
Subject: A TRUE LANDSLIDE
Reply-To: m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier)
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, N.H.
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 92 15:09:18 GMT


I love this conversation about Clinton's supposed landslide.  The best
comedy I've seen in wuite some time.  Perhaps if you say it enough
times, people will believe that winning by 5% of the popular vote is a
landslide.

On the other hand, here in New Hampshire, we had a true LANDSLIDE.
Govenor-elect Merrill (R) won by a whoping SIXTEEN points over Arnie
(Broad Base) Arnesen.  She tried to convince the New Hampshire people
that it was actually a victory.  We it was, a Merrill victory was a
victory for the people of New Hampshire who don't want our state to
become like Maine or the People's Republic of Massachussets.

Perhaps if Ms. Arnesen says it enough, people will actually believe
it.  She might even convince us that we actually WANT a broad base
tax.  In the meantime, Merrill has a true MANDATE.

God bless,

Michael

-- 
 Michael Le Houllier           *  John 3:16  * Nov 12, 1991 - Dili      
 (m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu.us) *  Remember: June 4, 1989 - Beijing
 Plymouth State Women's Soccer - #2 in the nation (Div. 3)  (14-0-2)
 Four wins from the national championship.  v. William Smith today
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59258 ca.politics:9476 ba.politics:6935
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: A Worrisome Example of "Subhuman" Ideology
Date: 9 Nov 92 17:57:52 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1di0roINN7tg@news.aero.org>, foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
> Clayton are you not aware of the Biblical story of the Good Samaritan?
> 
> Was no the Good Samaritan a homosexual?
> 
> Richard Foy  Redondo Beach, CA         Standard Disclaimer

What does this have to do with my posting?

Are you emoting, instead of reading?
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
The Physician Assisted Death Initiative failed.  Term limits for Congressmen
passed.  If only we could have combined the two... two terms, and a doctor
does lethal injection...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dise@decoy.uoregon.edu (David Casti)
Subject: Re: Oregon Proposal #9... What happened?
Reply-To: dise@oregon.uoregon.edu
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 16:52:41 GMT

In article <_=h1rca@rpi.edu> buckmr@vccsouth24.its.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)  
writes:

> Yes, but the scary thing is that if it is NOT ruled uncnstitutional there is 
> almost no way to repeal the thing. It calls for a 2/3 vote in a referendum
> to repeal.

It is quite possible that the amendment could be ruled unconstitutional on  
that point alone.  The amendment does not change the referendum clause in the  
constitution, and cannot except itself.  It would take two amendments to  
accomplish that: amendment 2, and then a second amendment changing the  
referendum procedure.
From: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: How does one begin a political campaign?
Date: 6 Nov 92 10:06:43
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA
Reply-To: Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ab20.larc.nasa.gov
In-reply-to: rkaplan@netcom.com's message of Fri, 6 Nov 1992 01:00:03 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.010003.25952@netcom.com> rkaplan@netcom.com (Richard Kaplan) writes:
-> Suppose I am an educated, honest, middle classs, non-politically
-> connected citizen who truly wishes to become involved
-> in government and change what I believe are some 
-> basic inequities in our laws and governmental process.

	Good luck.

-> How does one go about, say, beginning a campaign for
-> Congress?  Where does one typically get the money and
-> staff?  Is it necessary to get to know the local party
-> chiefs and play political games?  Is it naive and
-> idealistic to mimeograph off some ideas, post them, and
-> see who is interested?   Am I ultimately destinted to
-> relent to the influences of PACs?  
-> 
-> Any good references to books which might delve into
-> some of these?
-> 
-> Basically, how does one go about starting a grass roots
-> campaign.

	Jumping right to Congress is not an easy thing to do.  Run for
city council, school board, or one of the many other lower level
public offices.  You will probably find that you hate politics, but if
not, move up the ladder one step at a time.
--
Jason C. Austin
j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58803 alt.politics.clinton:16358 alt.politics.elections:23066 alt.president.clinton:137
From: aphrael@cats.ucsc.edu (Robert D West)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Transition Team
Date: 7 Nov 1992 20:21:12 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


President-elect Clinton, with his voice so strained he had to release a 
written statement instead of a vocal one, announced his transition team.

It will be headed by Vernon Jordan and Warren Christopher, the latter  having
removed his name from consideration for a cabinet post.
It will also include Madeline Kunin (former governor of Vermont); 
Mickey Kantor (head of the Clinton campaign);
Thomas McLarty (chief executive of Arkla, inc, a natural-gas pipeline
company centered in Arkansas);
and Henry Cisneros (former mayor of San Antonio).
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was: Release from the Clinton Camp
Date: 11 Nov 1992 18:17:20 GMT
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Bill Meyers) writes:
|> 
|> The NRA has roughly 3 million members, about the same as the AAA.
|> If Mothers Against Drunk Driving had chosen to advocate banning of
|> cheap, unsafe cars ("Saturday Night Specials"), automobile brokerage
|> services ("Mail Order Murder"), radar-absorbing auto body materials
|> ("Undetectable Plastic Cars"), heavy duty truck bumpers ("Cop-Killer
|> Pickups"), and sporty-looking ("Assault") cars with tailfins and
|> semi-automatic transmissions, the _members_ of the AAA would have
|> opposed some of that nonsense and the AAA would no doubt have had
|> to organize a lobbying division, as the NRA did about 1976.
|> 
I am sure that many of us can think of a long list of good things that
can be attributed to the automobile other than killing people when
driven by drunks.  Would you like to give us an idea of all of the
good things a gun provides?

Also, we already require testing, licensing, minimum physical and mental
skills, and a waiting period (in some states) to drive a car (try
getting an instant appointment).  It is also illegal to drive a car that
doesn't meet strict safety and power rules.  The NRA considers all these
to be unnacceptable conditions for gun buyers.  

Is this your idea of an anology?
-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.peeves,alt.sex
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Why Clinton Really Won
Followup-To: soc.singles,alt.sex
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 09:37:45 GMT

parr@acs.ucalgary.ca (Charles Parr) writes:
] In article <1992Nov7.025535.22143@wetware.com> diana@wetware.com (CatWoman ) writes:
] >
] >So, I got to vote in the comfort of my own home,
] >on Thursday, October 29!  No lines, no punch cards,
] >didn't even have to get dressed...
]                      ^^^^^^^^^^^
] A new marketing idea...."VOTE NAKED" t-shirts.
] 
] Should go over *big* in nomination caucus parties.


I personally do not think this is advisable for
our canadian bretheran for reasons of health....

Either that or we need to move election day.


ciao
drieux

ps: some how 

	'get naked and vote'

just isn't a good "PartyAnimalSlogan."

-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, 
and the Other Two will be Upgraded In the Next Release.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Stockdale is a Bumbling Idiot
Date: 6 Nov 92 18:52:19 GMT
Reply-To: mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
Organization: N.I.C.E.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.128.60

Monte Olsen <olsenm@ccmail.orst.edu> writes:
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but, in fact, didn't the
>protesters force the U.S. out of the war? Yes, that is

I disagree with you on this.  I think the protest movement
had remarkably little to do with ending the war.  It didn't
affect Johnson's conduct, unless at the very end of his term;
but maybe Tet had more to do with it than the protests.   The
record of Nixon seems to show him trying various strategies to
try to either win or get better deals in Paris, with the
end result being we essentially abandoned South Vietnam to
its fate.  But I don't think it shows him responding to
the anti-war movement -- just the opposite!
From: smith@ctron.com (Lawrence C Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: SOMEBODY'S GOT TO SAY IT (Re: Clinton by default)
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:43:20 GMT
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.

In article <VEAL.466.720893914@utkvm1.utk.edu>, VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:

>Like alcohol prohibition, making the drugs legal would 
>eliminate much of the crime involved.

We could also tax the hell out of them to pay for cleaning people up when
they discovered drugs weren't good for them, and to bury the ones who dis-
covered it too late.  But the sad fact of the matter is: if any serious
presidential candidate were to suggest legalizing drugs, he or she would
be shot so fast both announcements would be on the same news program.  And
it would be one of the drug gangs that would have ordered the hit.  Now, I
don't know about you, but I'm _for_ whatever the drug lords are _against_,
and vice versa.  Legalization would destroy their business.  If a nickel bag
of drugs really _cost_ a nickel, people wouldn't shoot each other over the
chance to sell in a particular neighborhood.  I guess that logic is lost
on the zealots.

I used to be against legalizing, but I'm not stupid.  The War on Drugs was
the gov'ts best shot, it gave them all the money and power they could use,
and seriously damaged the Constitution into the bargain.  It just, plain,
didn't work.  Drugs are a bigger business today than ever!  It's time to admit
we're licked and try something else.  It's just Prohibition all over again.
How many people did Al Capone waste to be able to sell liquor?  It's
amazing how few changes they had to make in the old "Scarface" script to
do the remake.  ":0,$s/booze/coke/g" was most of it.

We have a precedent for the sale of deleterious addictive substances.  We
permit the sale to people over 18 and we forbid advertising them on TV.
Perhaps we could extend the ban to "no advertising" or sponsering sports
events, etc.  I think giving up commercial speech rights is a pretty fair
trade for allowing someone to sell a deadly, addictive substance.  It's
certainly less of a compromise than no-knock searches, seizure of property
without warrant or conviction, and all the other civil-rights violating
excesses of the WOD.

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com)  No, I don't speak for Cabletron.  Need you ask?
-
Liberty is not the freedom to do whatever we want,
it is the freedom to do whatever we are able.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58203 talk.politics.guns:23552 ca.politics:9358 ba.politics:6745 misc.legal:19573
From: smith@ctron.com (Lawrence C Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,ca.politics,ba.politics,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Shooting tragedy (was Re: Support Right to 'bear arms')
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:30:13 GMT
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Distribution: usa
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.

In article <dusek.720734858@shale>, dusek@rtsg.mot.com (James Dusek) writes:
>	He should fry. There is a reason for 911, too bad he didn't feel
>like calling the police. Now I hope he goes to jail or frys on the
>electric chair.

Sure.  Next time perhaps someone will call 911 and while they listen to the
nice music they will discover the man approaching them _isn't_ a harmless
Japanese exchange student.  Like that poor woman in Boston last year who
was thoroughly raped and beaten in broad daylight while some poor schmuck
waited _on_hold_ on 911!  Jesus, we can't have it both ways, you _must_
provide protection or you must permit self-protection.  Until cops _prove_
they can handle all emergencies, there is no moral reason to disarm people.

As for killing him, that was just Goetz's Lesson: when you shoot, shoot to
kill.  It's very sad, and I feel for the student and his family, and perhaps
the shooter should get some community-labor, though I don't doubt he feels
bad enough already.  But the saddest fact is that that poor student was just
an inevitable casualty of the cloud of fear that is a fallout of the War
on Drugs and the epidemic violence that is the inevitable consequence of
it.  God, you'd think Prohibition would have taught us not to give lucrative
business opportunities to organized crime...

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com)  No, I don't speak for Cabletron.  Need you ask?
-
Liberty is not the freedom to do whatever we want,
it is the freedom to do whatever we are able.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l)
Subject: Re: "Monsters Among Us", Frontlines, November 10, 1992, PBS
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 05:50:34 GMT

kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

>In article <Bxny3z.Aww@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
>kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:

>>Why is your judgement on homosexuality
>>superior to his judgement?  Society used to ban homosexuality and child
>>molestation.  Now you are working to make sure it only bans child 
>>molestation. [...] You dislike the idea that society may proscribe homosexual
>>activity because you engage in homosexual activity.  Too damn bad.  There is
>>action which, no matter how pleasant it may be to the actor(s) involved,
>>should not be allowed in a society.  

>Tell us all why homosexuality "should not be allowed in society", dreary.

>We're all ears.

>Brian

AIDS, NAMBLA, strong tendency towards promiscuity that is, on average,
much greater in homosexual activity than in heterosexual activity, 
with a concomitant escalation in the rate of transmission of numerous
veneral diseases, emphasis on self rather than other is at the core of
homosexual activity, and is necessarily detrimental to any group of 
people who want to constitute a society, within the original meaning of
the word.  In a word, decadent.

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.

Steve Kellmeyer
-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu