HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: NYT (6-17) -- Clinton on Cuomo & Supreme Court (re: The 
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 14:42:54 GMT
Organization: Austerlitz, Gershovitz, and Carmichael

Rob Strom writes:
>Jeff Davis writes:
>|> Except that he is now somewhat old, I'd really like to see Jimmy Carter
>|> get asked (I don't think he'd accept) to join the Supreme Court. Or
>|> Secretary of State. (I don't think he'd accept that either.) Some kind
>|> of public re-affirmation of the man.
>|> 
>
>No! No!
>
>I'm an enthusiastic supporter of the Democratic party slate.
>I feel better about our forthcoming White House leadership now
>than I have felt since 1963, when Kennedy was killed.
>
>But I don't believe there should be any public rehabilitation
>of Jimmy Carter.  He was a disastrous president who
>brought negative leadership, massive malaise, and
>nearly destroyed the Democratic party.  It took 12 years to rebound.
>
>I am glad that Carter is doing humanitarian volunteer work.
>I think he should be permitted to continue to do something
>he does well.  He has no special qualifications for
>the Supreme Court, and negative qualifications for
>Secretary of State.
>
Nonsense. All around. Jimmy was a poor leader because he started
running for re-election the morning after election and listened to
that wretch Pat Caddell (spelling?) -- the guy who gave us New Coke,
remember? But he was and is a decent, intelligent man who got caught
up in a very volatile world situation. Maybe his predicament 
was simply inherent in his brand of liberal thought -- someone who
wouldn't take his own side in an argument (from Robert Frost; anti-liberal
thougt is older than you think.) I'll leave that call to critics
of liberalism. But there's no particular requirement of having
legal training to sit on the Supreme Court: at that level your
clerks scavenge the law books and you deal with the policy. His demonstrable
fairness and intelligence are qualifications enough. 

And as for State -- it was Carter who won through to the Camp David 
accords. "You have written your name into the history of two ancient
peoples." He is one of the few Americans who are respected in the
Middle East. He didn't pay a penny of tribute to our enemies. And his
work worldwide since then has made him personally familiar with
at least as many world leaders as Bush.    

I'm sorry you still (in my mind) mis-measure the man. Milton said,
fame is the last infirmity of the noble mind. Take away the lure of 
office and Carter's decency is a refreshing antidote to 12 years of 
plausible deniability, appeasement, and war making as means of boosting 
one's standing in the polls. 
-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: e91petmo@odalix.ida.liu.se (Peter /\/\odin)
Subject: Re: The US - laughing stock of the world
Organization: CIS Dept, Univ of Linkoping, Sweden
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 14:44:56 GMT

garrett@Ingres.COM (It's not what you got, it's what you give) writes:
>	Finally, don't you remember Europe laughing their heads
>off when we elected a second-rate actor for president? I do.

Hey, no fair. We elect second rate politicians too. Europe isn't a
homogenous group of intellectuals; we have self-righteous religious
leaders, corrupt politicians, a big bunch of morons and so on, just
like you do! However most people I know DON'T think whether Bill
Clinton inhaled Marijuana, or whether he had an affair with someone,
etc, etc, or NOT, is an important issue. We're just waiting for him
to throw up in another leader's lap :-)
--
=================================================================
| Peter Modin C92       | EMail: e91petmo@und.ida.liu.se        |
| Rydsvagen 240 B:11    |               -"Come forth and win my |
| S-582 51  LINKOPING   |  \\\  Amiga     eternal love", God    |
| Int. +46 13 17 81 01  |   \\\ user!     said to Moses. But,   |
| SWEDEN                |    \\\ ///      he came fifth and won |
|                       |     \\X//       a toaster.            |
=== Dept. of Computer Science, Linkoping University, Sweden  ====
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: speterse%peruvian.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (soren--Ms. Jackson if you're nasty)
Subject: Re: What to do about Colorado
Date: 7 Nov 92 14:36:53 MST
Organization: The Erland Cult

In article <13079@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>Think about it: in Oregon, the homosexual lobby had the following
>groups on their side:

>1. All the major newspapers in the state.
>2. All the state politicians, Republican and Democrat.
>3. All the TV stations.
>4. The Catholic Church.
>5. William F. Buckley, Jr.
>6. Many of the main-line Christian churches.
>7. The national mass media.


>And STILL, Measure 9 received 42% of the vote!  

It kind of gives the lie to your oft-repeated pronouncements about the 
political power of the "homosexual fascist lobby", doesn't it?


>Homosexuals better give up the attempts to use coercive state
>power to achieve their goals, because groups like OCA are empowered
>by such efforts.  When homosexuals insist that the government should
>subsidize homosexual propaganda efforts, it forces many people with
>a "live and let live" attitude to say, "Enough!"

Measure 9 mandates, among other things, that the government subsidize
anti-homosexual propoganda in the schools.  How you can POSSIBLY claim 
that the OCA is anti-big-government?

--
    "From your signature it is obvious that you are a homosexual"
soren f petersen           :        i AM NOT          :    --Doc
speterse@peruvian.utah.edu :  THE university OF utah  :
"How could I dance with another/When I saw him standing there"  --Tiffany
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Back to the drug debate
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 13:26:59 GMT


In article <JASON.92Nov5150540@ab20.larc.nasa.gov>, 
Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov> said:

-> Picture, in your mind, a drug sale.  One person hands money to another
-> person, and that person hands drugs to the first person.  End of
-> story.  No victim, no crime, no "further ruin" to anyone.  And no
-> reason for the state to get involved.  At least, not in a free society.
-> [wdstarr]
>
> Picture the first person's kids seeing their parent take those
> drugs, and picture the kids taking drugs.  Picture a room full of
> crack babies.  No one lives in a vacuum, and what you do affects the
> people around you.

(1) It's up to parents to raise their children responsibly, including
making the children understand that there are some things that adults
can do but children can't, such as drive cars, use recreational drugs,
stay up past their bedtimes, express their opinions of other people
honestly without getting yelled at for using bad language, eat three
pints of Ben & Jerry's Cherry Garcia ice cream at one sitting, etc.

It's not up to the state to create a society in which children are
never exposed to things that their parents might consider to be evil
or sinful.  It's up to the parents to teach their children about these
things. 

(2) If you want to extend the child abuse laws to include knowingly
exposing an unborn fetus to dangerous substances, including but not
limited to currently-illegal recreational drugs, fine.  I'll support
you.  Now explain why anti-drug laws should apply to people other than
pregnant women.

(3) Yes, what you do affects the people around you.  But as long as
it does not violate or threaten to violate the rights of the people
around you, the state should not get involved in trying to regulate or
control what you do.  The purpose of the state is to preserve people's
freedom to live as they want, not to create the particular sort of
society that the majority or the powerful happen to want.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59169 alt.politics.elections:23250 alt.war.vietnam:495
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Speaking of the Horrors of Medicine on Demand...
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 10:55:42 GMT

dougs@eng.umd.edu (Douglas W. Sauder) writes:
] In article <1992Nov05.052415.90471@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
] >
] >"Anti-abortion" is an accurate description of the "pro-life" position, while
] >"pro-abortion" is not an accurate description of the "pro-choice" position.
] >
] >Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
] 
] Anti-arbortion does not match up with pro-choice.  Anti-choice would be
] better if you want to be consistent.  The use of the word "choice" is 
] again just another tactic---it's an attempt to avoid the connotation of 
] the word arbortion.  How about "pro-abortion-choice"?  After all, the issue
] is whether a woman should be permitted to choose *abortion*.  

ding Ding, Planet Earth Calling....

Did You Know that if the GOP Platform on abortion had
been enacted into LAW, this would have DISALLOWED ALL
CASES of abortion, including problems with ectopic pregnancy.

One of the HORRIBLE things of trying to defend a FREE REPUBLIC
is that I get to support your RIGHT to say STOOPID THINGS.


] The way I see it, the issue is *abortion on demand*.  That is, whether a 
] woman should be able to have an abortion if she wants to.  Those who are
] pro-choice are, in fact, pro-abortion-on-demand.  It's true they are not all
] pro-abortion, but they do favor abortion on demand.  Thus "pro-abortion" is
] not all that far off.
] 
] Doug S.


Now, would you like to make any editorial comments
about say the right to Medical Attention Upon Demand....


Or should I just leave my medics bag in the car....


ciao
drieux

ps: some times folks have good reasons for doing the
things that they do, STRANGE CONCEPT.



-- 
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,alt.politics.elections,tx.politics,alt.politics.bush
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: History Repeats?(Re: What is a fiscal conservative? 
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 14:52:03 GMT

In <1992Nov12.083701.849@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>In article <1992Nov11.144755.26931@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>In <1992Nov10.033656.8548@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (It's not what you got, it's what you give) writes:

>>>>The interesting question is this: will Ronald Reagan get the credit for the
>>>>collapse of communism in America or with the credit go to whomever is on

>>>why not give the credit to Gorbechev (spelling?)?

>>Because without Reagan's Defense policies there would have been no
>>'crisis' for the Soviet Union, insofar as spending a huge amount of
>>wealth and still being faced by the United States, which looked like
>>it was able and willing to outrun them indefinitely?  Bush tried to
>>claim credit for this one, but he just happened to be the one in
>>office when things came to fruition.  The credit belongs (on this side
>>of the Big Water) to President Ronald Wilson Reagan.

>And without Gorbachev, they might have decided to hold on to their
>Empire, possibly leading to a major war.

No, because the Russian military could look at the situation and see
it as too risk to attempt.  Contrary to what is apparently popular
belief, the military are typically not stupid and typically aren't
interested in fights that they don't think they can win.  This is what
put the pressure on the whole situation in the first place.

>But that's besides the point.  Are you claiming that communism *works*?
>If not, then the most you can say is that Ronald Reagan slightly speeded
>up the process of the collapse, not that he caused it.

Well, I think that given a lack of outside pressure it can certainly
stumble along.  This is a bit different from 'works', but this is
another one of those situations where the answer isn't two-valued.
Given a lack of competition (which Ronald Reagan provided them with),
they could probably have stumbled along for quite some time.  After
all, they'd kept it going for over 70 years.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Organization: Junior, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism,talk.rumors
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 00:28:44 -0500 
From: "James S. Brown" <jbae+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
	<1992Nov11.074838.8909@nntp.uoregon.edu>

Eilleen Simpson writes:

    As a woman who was on the leading edge of our exit from the
    pink-collar ghetto, I found affirmative action to be essential to
    having anyone look at my qualifications. 

and she goes on to write:

    Women applicants had significantly higher qualifications than men
    and would've been over half the class if they were admitted on the
    same basis men were selected before women's applications increased. 
    They created a special category to make certain that under-qualified
    white males, especially veterans, continued to be admitted in
    something close to their historic numbers


        Well, it seems you have been out-minoritied by veterans.  You
see, like you, they are one of the many classes protected by the quota
system, and since they are much more of a minority, you lose.  Much as
these businesses are required to hire you whether or not they feel you
are under-qualified, they are more obligated to hire veterans who are
under-qualified.  So do you support affimative action or don't you?

					--Spencer
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58495 tx.politics:7055
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Date: 6 Nov 1992 15:36:36 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Distribution: usa
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Nov6.135520.26946@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <Bx8ALt.1n@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
>>From what I've heard lately, there may even be an
>>increase in companies as more Pacific Rim companies look into getting into
>>the business.  A monopoly is highly unlikely.
>And who are they buying their airplanes from?  

Whoever sells the best airplane for their intended use, passenger loads,
flight distances, efficiency, and so on. That may be Boeing,
McDonnell-Douglas, Airbus, Beech, Tupolev, Canadair, Aerospatiale, British
Aerospace,... a cast of thousands. Where are you going with that question?
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
     We survived Jimmy Carter; we'll (probably) survive Bill Clinton.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58422 alt.politics.clinton:16018 alt.activism:18422
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.activism
Subject: Other candidate totals:
Date: 5 Nov 92 13:01:25 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

	Here they are, and they're not pretty:

	Libertarian:	278,528
	New Alliance:	211,742
	Populist:	 97,601
	Natural Law:	 44,521
	Taxpayers:	 39,391
	LaRouche:	 25,063

	The Libertarian Party needs to change.  0.3% is pathetic.
                                                  
Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: Norman.Miller@launchpad.unc.edu (Norman Miller)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 21:00:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.165833.19066@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> wgb3@pyuxf.uucp (25336-buoni) writes:

>             ^ALLEGEDLY 
>To the best of my knowledge, Anita Hill's charges were never substanciated!
>           
>
>Bill 
>
>My opinions are my own!
>
>
>

As is your spelling.

Norman Miller
nmiller@starbase.trincoll.edu
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: A Worrisome Example of "Subhuman" Ideology
Organization: Homosexual Fascist Lobby, Rampant Paranoia Division
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 03:46:41 GMT

In article <13076@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>What's troubling about this is that by reducing the gay-basher
>to the level of an animal, the homosexual fascist lobby creates
>the implicit assumption that anything done to such a person,
>just like a dangerous dog, is therefore justified: execution 
>without trial, using him in laboratory experiments, or torture.

Really?  In my experience, there is considerable overlap between the
set of queers and that of animal-rights activists.  I would bet that
most queers you ask would oppose laboratory experiments, torture, or
unnecessary executions applied to animals.

On the other hand, if someone is shown to have a pathological,
*provably incurable* hatred of queers to the extent that they cannot
prevent themselves from attacking queers with the intent to kill, and
jail terms and psychiatric treatment do not improve this behavior,
then more drastic measures may be justified.  Just as with a rabid
dog.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / I use antlers in all of my decorating.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /
From: lbaum@atc.boeing.com (Larry Baum)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Unlikely Voters
Date: 3 Nov 92 18:40:43 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services

In article <1992Nov2.025018.26464@u.washington.edu> tzs@stein.u.washington.edu
(Tim Smith) writes:
>mpye@netcom.com (Michael Pye) writes:
>>these numbers and believethat the good news they carry is also 
>>realistic.  Here is why:
>>
>>CNN "Likely Voter: (about half of voters)   Perot 16%   Bush 38%   
>>Clinton 40%

What leads you to think that this is "about half"?  Traditionally about 80% of
registered voters vote, so I would suspect the likely voters are a lot more
than 50% of the sample.
>>
>>CNN "Unlikely Voter" (about half of voters)Perot 57%   Bush 13%   
>>Clinton 24%

Where did you get those figures?
>>
>>Average of the two halves (i.e., the whole) Perot 37%   Bush 26%   
>>Clinton 32%
>
>Justify averaging the percentages in the two polls.
>
>--Tim Smith
>

Anyway, CNN also posted their results with the "unliekly voters" put back in
and it was something like 44-36-16.

One thing that I think people fail to consider when criticizing polls they
don't like: Producing polls are what these people do for a living.  That is
their profession.  What the skeptics are saying is that the pollsters are
consciously putting out bad numbers; i.e. that they are deliberately doing bad
work.  Do you deliberately do bad work at your job?  If you did, what do you
think would be the result?  The same is true for these professional pollsters. 
Their livelihoods depend on their being reasonably accurate.  All the polls
today show approximately the same result: Clinton by about 7 pts.  If Bush
should win, or Perot do much better than expected, what do you think will
happen to the careers of those pollsters?  News organizations and politicians
depend on them for accurate results.  They pay for those results.  I suspect
that what they pay is closely correlated with how well they have done in the
past.  So the pollsters' greatest incentive is to be accurate.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59741 alt.politics.elections:23559 alt.rush-limbaugh:9517 talk.rumors:1229 alt.activism:18678
From: jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov ()
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: 12 Nov 1992 13:43:31 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov

In article <k_q1tq-@rpi.edu> root@june.cmp.rpi.edu (J.R. Ordon) writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.175844.20512@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>>In article <1doptuINNc5r@rave.larc.nasa.gov> jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov () writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov10.023120.2114@u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>>>>In article <69.X666X@ramona.com> doug@ramona.com (Double Agent) writes:
>>>>>EEOC Commissioner. Note that the EEOC is the agency where Hill was working
>>>>>when she was sexually harassed by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas,
>>>>>who was then the EEOC Commissioner.
>>>>
>>>>She offered no evidence that she was harassed by anyone.
>>>>
>>>>--Tim Smith
>>>
>>>In your opinion...
>>>
>>>John
>>>
>>
>>Testimony is evidence.
>>
>>
>>Don Pajerek
>>
>>Standard disclaimers apply.
>
>If it was truly "testimony", then why all the fuss over how she was
>treated by the "cross-examiners". BTW , Clarence Thomas "testified" that 
>her allegations were false, if you take her testimony as "evidence", you 
>must take his as evidence also.
>-----------------------
>J.R. Ordon
>
>the views expressed here are mine & not my employers

Interesting that when Thomas was "cross-examined", he accussed the
"cross-examiners" of holding a "high-tech lynching..." Interesting
that there was not a single woman on the committee examining the
allegations of sexual harassment...

I *do* take Thomas's testimony as evidence. I also think that he *was*
telling the truth as he saw it. I also think that Hill was telling
the truth as she saw it...now, which is *reality* ? If you grew up
in a society where murder was an acceptable form of personal advancement
and murdered a person in a society where it was *not* acceptable, then of
course you can honestly say that you did not do anything wrong...

John