HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,ca.politics
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Chicken George the Coward President
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 16:17:10 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 <1992Oct7.212900.26112@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@fish.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.190454.29878@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>In article <Oct.6.13.48.59.1992.15288@gandalf.rutgers.edu> shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
>>>mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>>>In article <92267.231857SML108@psuvm.psu.edu> SML108@psuvm.psu.edu writes:

>[Lots of Mike being really obnoxious and condescending deleted]

Sorry, but rank stupidity has that effect on me.

>>In particular, the Secret Service has two main missions - protecting
>>the president, presidential candidates, top people in the
>>administration, and their relatives; and catching counterfeiters.
>>They mainly operate domestically but they sometimes go abroad.

>>The CIA is responsible for gathering intelligence and covert
>>operations in foreign countries.  Their domestic activities are
>>limited to non-operational stuff like analysis, planning, etc.

>>>I suppose you have to be *really* ignorant not to be able to tell the
>>>difference so find me guilty of gross ignorance, judge! 

>>I agree and I do.  Any American who is not aware that the CIA is
>>prohibited from conducting operations inside the US is grossly ignorant.

>And any American who believes that the CIA always obeys these rules is
>hopelessly naive AND grossly ignorant of US history.

Of course, but Susan and the original poster were referring to the
guys with dark suits and hearing aids at a Bush appearance.  Don't
play arround with red herrings.  The fact remains that both of the
people I was responding to demonstrated truly frightening ignorance.

>Geez.  Only Congress can declare war, but you've never seen that stop a
>president, have you?

David, I think you need to learn a bit more about the US as well.  No
US president has ever declared war.  That's a very important
technicallity that has had a major effect on the way we operate in
tight situations.

Mike
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51187 alt.activism:17409 ca.politics:8642
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,ca.politics
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Chicken George the Coward President
Keywords: cia, fbi, kill file, fda, dea, bush, nwo, kissinger
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:49:01 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 <hines.718753265@cgl.ucsf.edu> hines@socrates.ucsf.edu (Wade Hines) writes:
>mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>>>>ha
>>>>ha ha ha

>>Actually, I think the real scream is the Len and Wade show.

>>In particular, Len and Wade should remember that the people I was
>>responding to was not talking about covert activities in 
>>violation of the law.  They were talking about those nice boys in dark
>>suits with hearing aids who are present at presidential campaign
>>rallies.

>Hey, I can't speak for Len.  I however was just expressing my reaction
>to anyone who would let the supposed mandate of the CIA be used as an
>arguement for what they actually do

Well, Wade, in that case you are extremely naive.  For example, the
mandate of the CIA and the restrictions upon the CIA mean that you can
be virtually guaranteed that the CIA wil not engage in high-profile
activities on American soil.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.bizarre
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
Followup-To: are there any other newsgroups this could be posted to?
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 00:10:33 GMT

mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
# I consider it morally wrong to use the power of government to extort
# from somebody, something that that somebody is not willing to give up
# voluntarily.
# 
# Mob rule does not become acceptable merely because the mob now calls itself
# a government.

Now, I know you thought this belonged in talk.bizarre, and you're
entitle to that opinion -- far be it from *me* to suggest that a post
does or does not belong in that august forum for intellectuals and
other addicts, but really...

I would expect that a gentleman of your stature would at least have
the sense to make a point when expounding on politcal philosophy.
Since you neglected to, or perhaps you simply expected your readers to
infer from your subtle implications, I feel it necessary to simplify
matters and make it clear what you're actually saying, which is:

	Giving the government power is morally wrong.  Thus,
	it is imperative that we all renounce our citizenships
	immediately.

...which, on the whole, is a great idea, in my opinion.

You go first.

-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

``Men who have no time to read should devote their time to reading
books of quotations.''
                                              -- Winston Churchill
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Subject: Re: Jack S Defends Kosher Food Boycott (Was: ARF DEFENDS HIS HONOR)
Followup-To: talk.politics.mideast
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 02:21:03 GMT

eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu writes:
#
#You obviously don't understand the effect of a boycott.  A boycott,
#especially one with limited appeal, targets manufacturers and
#purveyors, not consumers.  The direct effect of a boycott is to
#depress demand for a product, which according to standard economics
#should lower the price of the product, hence helping its consumers.
#Arf's boycott would make kosher food cheaper.

That's great, Jim, just great. I guess the Nazis were really trying
to help the Jews when they began boycotting Jewish products in
1933. 

What you fail to understand, it seems, is that the possible economic
consequences dwarf in comparison to the emotional effect. Boycotting
is a bona-fida symbol of hate, and that's the only way to interpret
Schmidling's suggestion.

If *consumers of Kosher food* would gather and say "Kosher food
is too expensive, let's boycott it" that would make sense. When
the boycott offer comes as a manifestation of "political
protest" against "supporters of Israel" it is thinly veiled
antisemitic act.

Jim, every few months or so you manage to come with a statement
tha *really* amazes me. 


-Danny Keren.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot back in yo-yo mode
Date: 9 Oct 1992 20:59:32 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


   The reason why he is rerunning part I is because there was such a great
response from people that many people who refused to watch it will give it a
look this time around. Several non-Perot people I talked to said they wished
they would have watched it because those who did made it sound really very
impressive. This way you have more people understanding what the real problems
are before Perot shockes them with the answers. You can't expect people to
except the hard truth unless they get realistic about the problems. Clinton and
Bush keep offering smiles and lollipops, and people keep buying this crap
because they don't realize just how big of a mess we are in. It takes real,
hard, painful answers to fix these problems. Please, I ask you all again, even
if you hate Perot himself, to watch this program tonight. If not for anything
else then to know what the problems are so you can force your candidate to
give some real answers. Pretend this guy isn't Perot if you have to. I promise
that you won't be hearing a pitch. What you will hear is the truth about our
nation, people, and government.
-- 
George Bush? He doesn't have a clue anymore. Bill Clinton? A slick smile and
a pandering style. Neither one is being realistic about what it is going to
take. The answer..........? ROSS FOR BOSS! VOTE FOR ROSS PEROT FOR PRESIDENT!
The Cryptozoology Information Network. Want on our Email mailing list? Amiga!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Visualize (warning: offensive to clinton supporters, but funny)
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:45:11 GMT

This is a test for humour impairment. Passing the test is easy if you
are Bush supporter (since it is only offensive to Clinton). If you are
a Clinton supporter, if you want to control your blood pressure, try
to see the humour in this rather than considering it a republican
McCarthyite smear (since we all knnow that McCarthy died over 30
yeras ago :-)

From today's editorial cartoon in the Arizona Republic, drawn by
Steve Benson, a nationally renowned but very controversial editorial
cartoonist...

Close your eyes.. well... all right... you can't read and close your
eyes at the same time, so just imagine your eyes are closed...

You see an F-15 fighter/bomber in the sky filling the left half of the
panel and travelling to the right. It is carrying lots of bombs and
missiles under its wings; it has fierce looking crewmen; it has the
standard air force decal near the nose.... a star with three bars coming
out left and right from it... It is a very mean looking aircraft.

In front of the F-15, flying the same direction, is a bird... obviously 
struggling to stay ahead of the aircraft. The Bird also has an air-force
logo, but the star has been replaced with a peace symbol. The bird
is labeled "The Arkansas Chicken." The bird is saying to the aircraft
"Follow me, boys..."

-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
This is a newer version of the memetic .signature infection.  Now that's an
idea.  Copy it into your .signature today!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: Quayle, the Debate, and Family Leave
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 09:49:33 EDT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1992Oct15.125702.10623@bsu-ucs.uucp>, 00rdharringt@bsu-ucs.uucp (Rob Harrington) writes:
|> 
|> Just a little observation from Tuesday's debate...
|> 
|> Quayle stated that the reason that the Administration was opposed
|> to the Family Leave Act was that it didn't force the "small 
|> businesses" to comply...
|> 
|> Isn't that a direct contradiction to their earlier statements?  That
|> the Family Leave Act would hurt small businesses?
|> 
|> And even so the Administration's plan wouldn't force _anyone_ to comply...
|> 
|> Dammit I'm confused...
|> 

So that's why you support Clinton.  :-)

Actually the point made was quite simple.  The Family Leave Act didn't
apply to small companies.  As such, people working for small companies
would be denied their 'right' to family leave.  The administrations
plan would offer *incentives* to encourage all businesses to implement family
leave.  The incentives would apply to *all* businesses.  The hoped
for result is that small and large businesses would choose to implement
a family leave policy.  In this way, family leave would be available to
people who worked for small businesses as well as larger businesses.  No 
coercion, no draconian laws, just a simple carrot.  I don't necessarliy 
agree with the Presidents plan but I certainly prefer a non-coercive plan 
to a coercive one.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Republican Civil War (was Re: Sixteen more years)
Date: 13 Oct 92 17:02:40 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 92Oct12183845@sartre.ces.cwru.edu, yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>If Bush loses this election -- especially if he loses big, consider
>the effect on the various groups mentioned above:
>
>The Moderates:  Lose credibility.  Bush was a moderate before he was
>nominated, and this has forever associated him with the centrist wing
>in Republican minds.  Even when he spouts ultraconservative rhetoric,
>he doesn't seem to believe it.

I disagree.  Many moderate Republicans are going over to Clinton and Perot
precisely because Bush has swung sharply to the right.  In the state of
Washington, where the party apparatus has been virtually kidnapped by 
Pat Robertson fundamentalists (thanks to the "caucus" system), many of the
Republican candidates are in open rebellion against their own party.  The
former head of the Republican party is running for Congress in a safe
Republican district, and she is pro-choice and "pro-change."  Ditto for the
Republican candidate for the Senate.  Neither candidate has picked up on 
Bush campaign themes, although they, of course, support their candidate.
The mistaken assumption that most people seem to make is that the cores of
the Republican and Democratic parties are their extreme stereotypes.  The
fact is that the moderates hold majorities in both parties.  A loss for
Bush here will be blamed on the ultra-right, not the moderates.  Bush made
a mistake in embracing them too closely.

I tend to agree with the original poster, who said that the party would fragment
after a Bush loss.  The Republicans can't win anything unless they can find
a formula for joining the ideological heart of the party with the more numerous
moderate Republican voters.  Reagan achieved that, but Bush is presiding over
its disintegration.  And you can expect the same poison to invade the 
Democrats if Clinton wins.  The left side of the party will use victory as an
excuse for claiming that voters are more liberal than they really are.
Republicans will begin to heal as they recognize the necessity for compromising
ideology with their need to reclaim power.  Just like Clinton represents a 
political compromise for Democrats right now.  This is the "Gaia" theory of
political parties.  No party can get too close to ideological self-destruction.
They always bring themselves back into political balance in the end.  ;-)

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.singles,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.bizarre
From: kjurena@lonestar.utsa.edu (Keith R. Jurena)
Subject: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 19:52:03 GMT

Apparently you don't listen to Rush.  In a recession with ~7% unemployment
the thing we DON'T need is three months of unemployment promised to a
worker.  This bill hinges on the premise that employers are cold and
mean slave drivers who don't care about their employee's families.
I have a revelation for you: they are NOT.
When 75% of the jobs are in small businesses, imposing such legislation
will only result in greater unemployment.  These bosses know their
employees well enough to allow "slack" for emergencies.  What good is
an unemployed worker in paying bills, providing food and welfare for
her/his family?  If this bill would have passed, it would have required
"Aid to temporarily unemployed workers who have sick children and who
don't have to work".  Get real, family values is working for your children/
spouse.
>
>In addition, homosexual rights have become a major issue in Oregon and
>Colorado.
>
>Drieux, for those of you who haven't run into him before (primarily in
>in talk.abortion, talk.bizarre, and soc.singles) is a satirist who tends
>to x-post very heavily, into any newsgroup that has even the remotest
>connection to the current topic.  Most of his recent articles revolve
>around the following slogan: "Just say no to hetero!"

And thus propagating the myth that heterosexual relationships have no justifica
tion.  Think you simpletons: We are all products of heterosexual relationships,
be they in vivo or vitro.


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49994 sci.econ:7982
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Beijing_Gate (Was: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton...)
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:48:30 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 19106@anasazi.com, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>Keywords: 
>To conspire with an enemy country during war is an act of a traitor.
>Bill Clinton may or may not have done this - he was more likely a
>"willing dupe" - but for him to protest the war IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY,
>and to travel to the capital of the main enemy, is, to say the
>least, very suspect. As a veteran of that period, I find it
>reprehensible and offensive.

Wrap that flag tight, John.  I'm sure that lots of veterans will sleep better
at night, knowing that you speak as their representative.

This gets scary. George Bush may well have passed government secrets to the
Chinese when he was ambassador to China.  We ought to have him "explain"
himself there.  It seems that Bush himself is troubled by the fact that
Clinton visited Moscow as a tourist.  (Why would anyone want to do such a
thing if they were truly patriotic?)  Anyway, we can see now that mere
presence in the capital of the enemy is suspicious.  Since Bush spent much
more time in Beijing than Clinton ever did in Moscow, we need a public 
accounting from him of just why he shouldn't be declared guilty of treason.

>Then, there is the fact that a several of pages from his state department
>file are missing - specifically those from that period. This is VERY
>suspicious.

Are you keeping a straight face as you write this?  I'm finding it hard to
do so as I read it.  Do you think that Clinton might have hired Gordon Liddy
to break into the State Department?  What a delightful thought.  ;-)

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: smay@boi.hp.com (Scott Smay)
Subject: Re: How can you vote for Perot?
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 16:13:43 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

 (KRB104@psuvm.psu.edu) wrote:
:   The guy is in, he's out, and he's back in again!  And Tuesday he showed just
: how poor his judgement is.  Stockdale is a cute man who has led a remarkable
: life, but let's be serious.  This guy as Vice President is MORE scary than
: having Danny Boy as VP the last 4 years!!!  Could you see this guy making a
: snap decision?  Could you see Stockdale giving a State of the Union Address.
: Clinton's first speech after his nomination made the point that the first
: decision any candidate makes is his Vice Presidential choice.  Bush gave us
: Dan, and look what we got over the last four years.  Clinton chose Gore, who
: as impressed more than not.  And Perot gave us Stockdale.  If anyone seriously
: thinks that Stockdale would make a good VP, let alone President, then go ahead
: and vote for Perot, you are hopeless anyway.  Let's be honest about this, and
: if we are, we know that Perot really messed up on this one.
: Kevin

You idiot. Stockdale has made more correct "snap decisions" than the other
five guys combined. Vacuous, ill-considered thinking like this shows the
tragedy behind the fact that we get the government we vote for.

On a more conciliatory note, my first thought, too, was that Stockdale was
a discredit to Perot. When I came to my senses, I was ashamed of myself.

scott "somewhat hopeless" smay
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50451 misc.legal:18364 alt.politics.usa.constitution:596
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: re: Term Limits are Constitutional, Study Shows
Date: 6 Oct 92 19:04:36 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Oct5.192721.11432@kadsma.kodak.com>, 
pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:

> George Will's new book _Restoration_ discusses the Constitutionality
> issue in some detail, including some references to the fact that the
> original Articles of Confederation had a term-limits provision. Will
> uses this fact to help support the idea that the framers were, at the
> very least, not *opposed* to term limits.

Without passing on whether Will is correct in assuming that the deletion of a 
concept from one document (the Articles of Confederation) in creating its 
successor (the Constitution) supports that the latter document includes that 
power, I thought people would be interested in seeing the Article in 
question, as taken from the Project Gutenberg files:

<begin-quote>

V        For the most convenient management of the general 
interests of the United States, delegates shall be annually 
appointed in such manner as the legislatures of each State 
shall direct, to meet in Congress on the first Monday in 
November, in every year, with a powerreserved to each State 
to recall its delegates, or any of them, at any time within 
the year, and to send others in their stead for the 
remainder of the year.

No State shall be represented in Congress by less than two, 
nor more than seven members; and no person shall be capable 
of being a delegate for more than three years in any term 
of six years; nor shall any person, being a delegate, be 
capable of holding any office under the United States, 
for which he, or another for his benefit, receives any 
salary, fees or emolument of any kind.

Each State shall maintain its own delegates in a meeting 
of the States, and while they act as members of the 
committee of the States.

In determining questions in the United States in Congress 
assembled, each State shall have one vote.

Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be 
impeached or questioned in any court or place out 
of Congress, and the members of Congress shall be protected 
in their persons from arrests or imprisonments, during the 
time of their going to and from, and attendence on Congress, 
except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace.

<end-quote>

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex