HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton won't put ASS on the line.    (re: 2nd Debate)
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:24:35 GMT
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX

In article <MATT.92Oct15221809@physics.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>In article <15OCT199222074314@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
>
>> Clinton wouldn't take the pledge to cut the deficit in half or leave.
>
>That's right, he didn't.  He also gave his reasons for not doing
>so---reasons that, in my opinion, made a great deal of sense.  Just
>for anyone who missed the debate, I'll repeat them.  (In my words, not
>Clinton's; I don't have a transcript.)
>
>	1.  To a great extent, the size of the deficit is not under
>	    the control of the President.  If there is a recession,
>	    for example, then the government has to spent more and it
>	    doesn't collect as much in taxes.

Yet Clinton is willing to project perfectly rosy economic performance
in assumptions about how much his plans will cost.  How would you
reconcile this inconsistency?

>	2.  Anyway, the deficit is not the only problem facing America.
>	    As President, Bill Clinton will have many tasks facing him;
>	    it is wrong to single out a single one as the only 
>	    indicator of how well he has done.  Reducing the deficit
>	    is irrelevant unless we get America working again.

True, but there are a lot of us who will give this factor considerably
more weight than others.

>	3.  Finally, that's what elections are for.  If President
>	    Clinton has done a poor job, then just vote against him
>	    in 1996.

If things continue as they are now (which I suspect to be the *best*
scenario of a Clinton administration), we'll be up to ~ $6 trillion in 
debt, with interest payments on the order of $300 billion per
year.  Can we afford even those first four years?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,soc.motss,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: buckmr@vccnw05.its.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Subject: LOUISIANA 5th Congressional District results?
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 21:51:20 GMT

Seen around: 

     In the redrawn 5th District, two incumbents -- whose seats had been
meshed together -- appeared headed for a runoff. Early returns showed
Congressmen Jerry Huckaby, a Democrat, and Jim McCrery, a Republican,
tied, with 36 percent of the vote each.

So, who eventually won this seat? Jim McCrery was recently featured on the 
cover of THE ADVOCATE, being outed as a homosexual ``family values''
congressional hypocrite.

<cross posted alt.politics.elections,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,a.p.h>
-- 
RON BUCKMIRE, 11 Colvin Circle, Troy, NY 12180-3735. 
vox:(518)-276-8910 fax:(518)-276-6920 buckmr@rpi.edu buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet
"Wouldn't it be wonderful to have a cure for AIDS in the marketplace before
Magic Johnson gets AIDS?" --Vice-President J. Danforth Quayle 11/13/91 on CNN.
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Dornan a Conservative? (was moscow)
Keywords: homosexuality
Date: 8 Oct 92 12:39:51 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <ld6knlINN1cl@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:

> The current discussion is based around whether or not a homosexual
> gene could be passed down.  If homosexuality is hereditary, then
> it is not an abomination any more than red hair, average heighth,
> or good teeth.  Hardly acceptable to the homophobic, religious
> right of which Dornan is a member.

Ahem.  The idea that homosexuality is "hereditary" is utterly absurd.
Because, if this is true, then it would be so for only one generation
(i.e., handed down from the homosexual's parents) -- and it would
_VERY_QUICKLY_ disappear from the gene pool (given the nature of
homosexuals' "sex" habits).  On the other hand, if homosexuality is
indeed genetically determined, then it is much more likely the result
of a congenital birth defect.
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51034 alt.politics.clinton:9818
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Raving a bit, aren't we?
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 12 Oct 92 00:15:59 EST
 <1992Oct11.030032.4690@desire.wright.edu> <1b9tdqINNnsd@agate.berkeley.edu>
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1b9tdqINNnsd@agate.berkeley.edu>, lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
> In article <1992Oct11.030032.4690@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> 
> Businesses had about 100 years of Industrialized America to generate
> safety watchdog groups before OSHA, i.e. before the government stepped
> in.
> 
> I dared you to name five such groups and you wrote instead
> 
>>	dANDY, PCs are a recent invention (say, since mid-70s).  Can you name
>>five useful personal computers from before that date?
> 
> I can name reasons why there were no PC's in the 1960s. What (NEW)
> excuse will you come up with for the failure of the pre-OSHA free market
> to create watchdog groups? And why will this excuse not hold if
> Libertarianism was somehow adopted tomorrow?

	No, Andy, your argument is that since no pre-OSHA private groups
existed, that no group could possibly form to serve that function.  This is, of
course, faulty logic.

	"Before" UL, there was no private group to assess the safety of
appliances/electronic devices.  This, of course, did not prevent UL from
existing, did it?

	The market responds, it does not create.  Watchdog groups form when
people deem it necessary.

> I said that Libertarian theory is at odds with known historical fact.
> Your "example" does nothing to refute that.

	Andy, I know your politics will prevent you from admitting that you are
wrong.  Probably because it will invalidate many years of belief.  But proofs
by denial, and assertion do not wash.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50225 talk.politics.theory:4465
From: waldo@cybernet.cse.fau.edu (Todd J. Dicker)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: What happens when USA goes bust?
Date: 6 Oct 92 13:23:38 GMT
Organization: Cybernet BBS, Boca Raton, Florida

nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>   The point is that a significant chunk of our ~ $5 trillion national
>   economy is borrowed money -- the economy is, in effect, artificially 
>   big and we now need to get back to reality.  I don't see any good way
>   to do this without precipitating one of the problems suggested
>   earlier: depression, high inflation, breakdown of social order, or
>   a totalitarian government -- and maybe ALL of these.
> 
We've lost that many jobs during the Reagan/Bush disaster without
benefitting from any spending cuts/tax increases.  We don't
have an "artificially high" debt, we have an artificially low
tax rate.  We're borrowing money to pay for a lifestyle with no
intention to repay that money.  Federal policy is to pay the
interest only on this debt.  We have never attempted to reduce
the principle of the loans, we simple roll them over into new
loans.  Loans are fine, but they become ridiculous when you never
pay off the principle and simply continue to throw interest at them.

> The social "sciences" have failed us miserably because they refuse
> be sufficiently rigorous in their theories and models, and thus
> failing, they refuse to acknowledge this to the public.

This is the tired old line of the "hard" sciences who don't feel
comfortable with truly complicated research and thus retreat
to their little ceteris paribus test-tubes and beakers.  Social
sciences are quite rigorous.  That is why we refuse to declare
any single theory or model completely acceptable.  We explain
a much smaller portion of variance than many other sciences.
Because of incredible problems of multicollinearity, control
groups, and human behavior, we simply refuse to accept any
single theory or model or study as law.  No failure here!
Simply a strict adherence to rational, scientific inquiry.

Todd J. Dicker
School of Public Administration
Florida Atlantic University
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51649 alt.rush-limbaugh:7373 alt.politics.bush:9090 alt.politics.clinton:10333 alt.politics.elections:16690 talk.abortion:42584 alt.sex:32909
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Date: 12 Oct 92 15:41:49 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Oct12.004523.17518@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.194614.7472@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com> burkhardt@nebula.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>>>There is no way LOGICALLY to grant personhood status to a non-viable fetus.
>>>Any way you do it, it steps on some other person's rights.
>>>
>>Whether the fetus is viable or non-viable is not the question.  The question,
>>bottom line, comes down to a fetus has a right to life since it's stated
>>in the Bill of Rights that this right to life exists.  The corrolary to 
>       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>There must be two Americas, with two different BoR's.  I must live in the
>US that doesn't have a RTL in the BoR.
>
>Silly me...

Is that the one without abortion and gun control in it as well?

Ted


-- 
"How dare you call us [people] `you people'!"
	-Benjamin Hooks

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: kmoore@ncsc.org (Kevin Moore)
Subject: Re: TAX AVOIDANCE BY FOREIGN CORPORATIONS 9/29/92
Reply-To: kmoore@ncsc.org (Kevin Moore)
Organization: North Carolina Supercomputing Center
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 03:21:18 GMT

 >
 >                           BUSH'S FAILURE TO ACT
 >
 > Foreign corporations continue to avoid paying their fair share of
 > U.S. taxes and the Bush Administration does nothing.
 >
 > *    The House Ways and Means Committee said that the IRS is
 >      "outgunned and outmanned."  And even though last month's
 >      hearings documented that foreign-controlled firms still aren't
 >      paying their fair share, President Bush's FY 1993 Budget does
 >      not include additional resources for the IRS to enforce existing
 >      law. [President's FY 1993 Budget]
 >
Folks, this is not a Bush error as Clinton wants to make it seem. Jesse
Helms has been talking about this for several years. The Congress has made
no effort to move. This is a case of Clinton looking for ways to blame
Bush for things. If the IRS would stop spending their time auditing the
working people because they may have mis represented a few bucks and spend
time on this if it is really the problem they are speaking of, then something
may have been done. What is so difficult about shifting priorities? Why does
the government need a mandate and legislation to realize that it is time to
shift priorities? Especially the IRS, the most undercontrolled of all of the
divisions of the government.


-Kevin
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51814 alt.politics.usa.misc:209 alt.politics.usa.constitution:687
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Term Limits are Constitutional, Study Shows
Date: 14 Oct 92 22:02:56 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Oct13.162743.12212@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
> In article <1992Oct12.234527.29907@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

> >>It helps remove modern political bias, but it may restore old
> >>political and social biases.  
> 
> >But these "old" biases are ones to which the people have formally
> >consented (by ratifying the Constitution or its Amendments.) They
> >are not biases imposed by the whim of nine old, unelected men. 
> 
> Everyone  who ever formally consented (through ratification) is dead.

Funny.  At least two Constitutional Amendments have been ratified in
my lifetime -- possibly three.

> Why in the world would anyone today consent to old biases?

Perhaps you should ask those who ratified the 27th just last year,
after roughly two centuries -- an old bias indeed.
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Clinton won't put ASS on the line.    (re: 2nd Debate)
Organization: SSDT SPS, Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 02:01:25 GMT

(David Veal) writes:
>(Matt Austern) writes:
>>(Stephen Tice) writes:
>>> Clinton wouldn't take the pledge to cut the deficit in half or leave.
>>
>>That's right, he didn't.  He also gave his reasons for not doing

But on Larry King a few months back, he said he was going to *eliminate*
it in five years. Now he can't even stand up a promise half that? Sad.

>>so---reasons that, in my opinion, made a great deal of sense.  Just
>>for anyone who missed the debate, I'll repeat them.  (In my words, not
>>Clinton's; I don't have a transcript.)
>>
>>	1.  To a great extent, the size of the deficit is not under
>>	    the control of the President.  If there is a recession,
>>	    for example, then the government has to spent more and it
>>	    doesn't collect as much in taxes.
>
>     And yet a great portion of his campaign is based on the (incorrect)
>position that the size of the deficit *is* Bush's fault.  How many times
>have we heard Bush blamed for the "biggest spending ever."
>     Bill Clinton says he can do what Bush hasn't.  If he believes the 
>Presidency does not have the power to do what he wants to do *regardless*
>of other factors, he doesn't have a leg to stand on blame Bush *regardless*
>of other factors like the Congress.

Well said.

>>	2.  Anyway, the deficit is not the only problem facing America.

So? Since Clinton will work on other problems he *can't* work on the
deficit?
>>	    As President, Bill Clinton will have many tasks facing him;
>>	    it is wrong to single out a single one as the only 
>>	    indicator of how well he has done.  Reducing the deficit
>>	    is irrelevant unless we get America working again.
>
>     Bill Clinton has singled out the deficit (with the economy) as an
>example of what "Bush has done to this country."  If he isn't prepared to
>put in writing that he can do better than Bush, why should we think he
>can?
>     The bottom line is there's only so much the President can *legally*
>do, and Bill Clinton knows this.  He brings it up when his own job 
>perfromance is going to be the issue, and ignores it when Bush's job
>performance is at issue.

Yup.
The Clinton responses are frightening. Basically, he only
believes in the deficit as a campaign issue to bash Bush (God forbid
the Democratic Congress be held accountable for passing these budgets),
and not as a policy or economic problem.  It needs to be taken seriously.
His "PPF plan" doesn't address it seriously, especially with his
added spending and assumptions of high growth to cut the deficit.
Economists and analysts say it doesn't add up. I take Clinton's unwillingness
to sign as an indication that he too thinks it doesn't add up.

If he'd rather have a second term than make an important pledge like this,
he doesn't deserve a first term.

Pat
	Bill Clinton: The Status-Quo candidate
From: casseres@apple.com (David Casseres)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The 'Missing' Pages
Date: 14 Oct 92 16:30:06 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Oct13.190018.24591@anasazi.com>, john@anasazi.com (John R.
Moore) wrote:

> Once again, you stoop to personal attacks misinterpreting all we have
> been saying. WHAT IS WITH YOU PEOPLE??? I am disgusted.

Gee, I'd been wondering what ever happened to John Mathon, and now I see
that he's been reincarnated as John Moore.  Same bellowing capitals, same
habit of referring to the Bush Administration as "we."

--

David Casseres
Exclaimer: Wow!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: Media coverage for Marrou/Lord (call these #'s!)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 02:05:00 GMT

dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg) writes...

>Coincidently enough, when Perot first re-entered the race, his supoort
>was about 1%.  Yeah, now he's up to 10-14%; maybe it has something to
>do with the hours of free advertising the press has been giving him...

I reckon all those corporate advertizers and all the other politicians
just don't give their mega-bucks to the media for commercials,
without somehow expecting them to have some effect.

>-David "ZZYZX" Steinberg

-- Stephen Tice
From: dfpedro@nv2.uswnvg.com (Donn F. Pedro)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: I'm surprised!
Date: 7 Oct 92 19:49:08 GMT
Organization: I don't speak for them anyway.

In article <1992Oct6.193906.22246@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> psmith@iies.ecn.purdue.edu (Paul Smith) writes:
:In article <AVFRBB2C@cc.swarthmore.edu> mwertz1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Melanie Wertz) writes:
:>Your parents are physically abusive.
:>Your father IS the father of your child.
:
:I've been in this discussion on the net before, so I have to jump in...
:
:(not shouting, just don't know how to do italics in ascii :-)
:
:I DON'T CARE WHAT EXCEPTION SITUATIONS YOU COME WITH, YOU (and the STATE) 
:DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO UNDERMINE *MY* PARENTAL AUTHORITY. *PERIOD*.

I agree that the state should stay out of it but I have a question.

Do you own your children?

I know this could be seen as a nasty, snide question, but that is
not how is was meant.

Think about it.


     Donn Pedro ....................................dfpedro@uswnvg.com

		     There are no ordinary moments.

    Father, mentor, teacher, and advisor to Jessica and Sarah.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 11 Oct 92 02:19:33 EST
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <BALDWIN.92Oct9102441@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil>, baldwin@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin) writes:
> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
...
>>	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).
> 
> Not implied by what you quoted and absolutely false, besides.  I have
> had a variety of clearances ranging from SECRET to TOP SECRET/SPECIAL
> COMPART- MENTED INFORMATION and including CNWDI (Critical Nuclear
> Weapons Design Information, popularly known as "Q" clearance).  I have
> had occasion to collect and handle some very sensitive information.

	Sorry, that should have been "might result".  Didn't have my absolute
indicator on :).

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Anti-war = Anti-country?!
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 01:38:21 GMT


In article <JASON.92Oct9135511@ab20.larc.nasa.gov>, 
Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov> said:

> The point Bush was making is not that Clinton was involved in war
> protests, but that he was supporting the other side.  He apparently
> went to Russia to protest against America.

What?

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: State by State Poll Results
Summary: Huh?
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 13:21:28 GMT

In article <BvzMI3.556@doppler.ncsc.org> kmoore@ncsc.org (Kevin Moore) writes:
>In article <1b4jpgINN33f@agate.berkeley.edu>, bks@alfa.berkeley.edu
>(Bradley K. Sherman) writes:
[culled from the entire table --PLH]
> >
> >
> >Recent Poll results, ordered by number of electoral college votes.
> >
> >! == Candidate has lead of 10% or more. 
> >EV == Electoral College votes for that state (270 votes needed for victory).
> >
> >State  EV   Bush Clinton Perot   State  EV   Bush Clinton Perot
> >  AR    6    25     58!    6       NM    5    30     38    13
> >
> >Caveats: typos may exist; different sampling techniques, questions
> >and margins of error among the polls; many results are from Sept.,
> >before Perot re-entered.  In case of multiple polls, most recent
> >was used.
> >----
> >    --Brad Sherman
>
>How is it that Clinton has no lead in Arkansas? Are they wiser
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>to this guy than the rest of the nation? After watching the debate today,

You might try reading the listing before you start asking questions -- or
does 58% for Clinton and 22% for Bush not conform to your definition of "a
lead"?

--PLH (how does he only have a six-point lead in North Carolina?)


--
From: gt6367c@prism.gatech.EDU (DEAL, DOUGLAS WAYNE)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:51:22 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <ldrtlpINNn29@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
>was it also wrong for Chinese students to protest
>Tienemann Square in the US?  If Clinton need to be here for his protests
>to be effective, does that mean the students should have gone back
>to protest?

Personally, I think their protests were useless.  The people of the United
States did not need a bunch of Chinese Students to tell them that the 
incident was wrong, and the protest did not in any way affect their
homw gov't.  Lobbying for the US to intervene is OK, but if the point
of the protest was to complain to their gov't, they were wasting their time.


>China would like to have them come home to protest in their own country.
>Maybe we should send them.

Here you try to twist my words.  I do not support sending people places against
their will.

>Note that this is not an insult,

I suggest everyone read carefully. 

>but a question about the consistency of your opinion.  
>You seem to respond only to insults, however.  Are
>they easier to use to deflect the issue from the truth?

How is this not an insult.  You suggest that I only respond to insults, which
you then blame on me.  If someone tries to present put-downs as valid
arguements, I will point that out.   It is not my doing, to "deflect issues 
from the truth"  I did not start this series of insults, and if you read
what I wrote here, it is obvious I am not continuing it.  Also, where
is this question about my consistancy of opinion.  If I misinterpretted
your statement, and that last paragraph was not an insult itself, where
is this phantom question?
 


-- 
Douglas Wayne Deal
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt6367c
Internet: gt6367c@prism.gatech.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:52419 alt.politics.elections:17283