HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: akbloom@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
Subject: Re: Maybe I'm paranoid, but ...
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 04:10:55 GMT

jon@lindy.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis) writes:

[ About the Bush administration's tariffs on European wine imports: ]

>   I'm not usually given to conspiracy theories, but I find myself
>wondering if the Bush administration isn't doing what it can to leave
>Clinton with the worst economy possible -- that George is, so to speak,
>taking a dump in the Oval Office and leaving it for his successor to
>clean up.

If Bush is doing this, he's being very foolish.  Clinton will be
judged on how much the economy has *improved*, especially after the
first year or so.  If Bush screws up the economy now, that will only
make Clinton look better when it pulls out of the slump.  Besides,
Bush won't deliberately send the economy into a tailspin from pure
spite.  He may be despicable, but he's not *that* despicable.

What Bush and Clinton might consider doing is to play a sort of good
cop/bad cop game, in which Clinton starts talking tough about trade
and foreign policy generally, while Bush says "you'd better deal with
me now, because after Jan. 20 you'll have *real* problems."  We could
conceivably get a few concessions that way.


Keith
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,ca.politics,ba.politics,misc.legal
From: wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf)
Subject: Re: Shooting tragedy (was Re: Support Right to 'bear arms')
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 18:56:59 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.105650.19369@u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf) writes:
>>He wasn't "enforcing the law", he claims self-defense. You are entitled
>>to self-defense *ANYWHERE*.
>
>But what you can do in self-defense depends on the circumstances.  For
>example, if you pull into a parking space, and I say, "Hey, asshole!
>You took my space!" you can't whip out your gun and blow me away, even
>though you see that I'm big and mean looking. 

I think our respective definitions of self defense are *widely*
different.

>On the other hand, if you
>wake up in your bedroom and see me standing there, and I say, "Hey, asshole!
>You took my space!" and you grab that same gun and blast away, you
>probably are fine.
>
>His self defense claim is not going to work unless he can show that a
>reasonable person would have felt threatened sufficiently to require
>deadly force.  From what I've seen so far, it doesn't sound like he has
>much of a chance of doing this.

The part of the post that you excluded emphasized that this is
what juries are for: to examine evidence not "what I have seen so far".
There's a difference between press hysteria, rumor, and what actually
happened. 


-- 
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Wayne J. Warf -- WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu -- I speak for myself only  |
 | Midterm Countdown-Bill and the Congress have to '94 to screw it up |
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: gt6367c@prism.gatech.EDU (DEAL, DOUGLAS WAYNE)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Call for pres. candidate anagram lists.
Date: 10 Nov 92 18:01:00 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <9NOV92.23305629@skyfox.usask.ca> howp@skyfox.usask.ca writes:
>Hi.
>
>     Now that the American election is over, does anybody have a list of
>anagrams of all of the U.S. Presidential candidates, i.e. Tsongas, Bush,
>Clinton, Perot, etc... 
>



The only anagram of any merit that i have ever come up with......

Clinton and Gore
dont clean groin



QUIT
t clean groin
From: emiddlec@mora.gac.edu (Eric Middlecamp)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Hold It Right There Bud, we ain't no BambiHuggers
Date: 12 Nov 92 04:38:45 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.082630.4749@wetware.com>  writes:
>bashford@scripps.edu (Don &) writes:
>] >>>>> In article <92Nov7.124526est.47991@neat.cs.toronto.edu>, quoctp@cs.toronto.edu (Quoc Tuan  
Pham) writes:
>] 
>] Quoc> Do you know how much destruction is brought to the jungles in
>] Quoc> the Central part of the country by their policy of "New Economic
>] Quoc> Zones" and rampant loggings which cause floodings at a scale
>] Quoc> never seen before? The last two things have been occurring way
>] Quoc> after the end of the war and have much more devastating effects
>] Quoc> than the Americans and their bombs during the war were able to
>] Quoc> do.  In fact, the bomb shrapnels embedded in the trees have a
>] Quoc> positive benefits.  They are not so good to the saw blades in
>] Quoc> Thailand's logging mills. 
>] 
>] Ah Ha!  We had to bomb the rain forest in order to save it!

Wrong! (McLaughlan voice)
We put #8 nails in the trees!

>] 
>] I shall dash of a letter right now to President-elect Clinton
>] suggesting the B52 carpet bombing of the Olympic Pennensula
>] in Washington.
>] 
>
>Hold IT RIGHT THERE!
>
>Before You go running off and trying to make the USAF
>a bunch of BambiBuggering, Tree Spiking, EcoTerrorist Lunatics.....

>ps: what is wrong with the Youth of america!!!!

They're sheep! They think the system is everything!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59245 alt.politics.elections:23292
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (It's not what you got, it's what you give)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The US - laughing stock of the world
Summary: the more things change...
Date: 10 Nov 92 01:26:08 GMT
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <1diocbINNa2b@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)             writes...
> 
>  I can't believe it.  President-elect Bill Clinton's mistress, Gennifer
>Flowers, posing nude in this month's Penthouse.  We have gone from the
>envy of the world to the butt of it's jokes.
[rant,rant,rant]
 what kind of people 
>will he pick to help him run the country using that same "judgment"?
>I guess one thing we'll be short of during the next four years is family
>values at the top.  I just hope he doesn't turn the White House into a
>brothel like Kennedy did.  What a black eye on the United States of
>America.  Oh, the shame of it all!
> 
I've seen pictures of Gennifer nude, and I've seen Hillary, and personally
I believe that Bill has a much better judgment when it comes to women
than George or Ronny (BTW, John chose Marilyn. Now THAT's a man that
can pick women).
	Finally, don't you remember Europe laughing their heads
off when we elected a second-rate actor for president? I do.

>  I know, maybe if we start now we can develop a campaign based on the 
>theme "America wants change".  I'm sure the American people will go for
>it and elect someone else in 1996.
> 
>Richard Mulac
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was: Release from the Clinton Camp
Date: 12 Nov 1992 01:02:27 GMT
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Broward Horne) writes:
|> 
|> In a previous article, mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) says:
|> 
|> >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?
|> 
|>    
|>       It protects from an evil government.

Do you have any example where this has been operative in the US since we became
a country?

|>       It protects from evil people.

There is some evidence to support this, although people who use guns for self
defense tend to be killed, rather than kill.

|>       It ensures my RIGHT to self-determination.

???????????
|> >
|> >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.  
|> 
|>         Yes, these conditions are unacceptable for one reason.
|>         Qualification is based on an arbitrary decision by 
|>         prejudiced local officials.  As many of the people 
|>         in Los Angeles have found out in the past year.
|> >
So you would contend that a person with an IQ so low they can't learn how
to tie their shoes should be allowed to own a gun.  In Houston, about 3 years
ago, there was a 12 year old boy who was on the news and paraded by the local
NRA because of his excellence in gun handling and his knowledge of gun safety.
A year later he was back on TV.  He had accidentally shot and killed his
sister at a shooting range

People who do pass driving test are dangerous enough.  Times have changed.
When the constitution was written, a gun was an everyday part of nearly
everyone's life.  Hunting and local wars were the game of the day.  Young
boys (sorry ladies - not to many annie oakley's back then) were tought
how to use and care for a gun at an early age.  Now, most of the people 
buying guns have not skills, training, or respect for their new toy.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59171 talk.politics.drugs:7406
From: allard@isi.edu (Dennis Allard)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs
Date: 9 Nov 92 18:10:25 GMT
Reply-To: allard@isi.edu (Dennis Allard)
Distribution: world
Organization: USC Information Sciences Institute

I vote FOR legalizing drugs, under the following conditions.

It will not be legal to advertise the newly legalized drugs.

Drugs sales will only be made through government run or regulated drug
counciling programs.  The price of drugs will be very low, since their
current high cost is due to the risk involved in selling them.  Drug
users will no longer have to steal in order to afford their fixes.

The programs will finance themselves partly via the funds they raise,
partly through local taxes, and partly through federal taxes.  It will
not be necessary to raise local taxes, since police budgets will be
lower due to lower incidents of drug induced crime (less people who
steal in order to afford drugs and less or no more drug pusers).  It
will not be necessary to raise federal taxes because we will divert
the 'War on drugs' funding to the new program.

A drug user must speak with a drug/job/education counciler on a regular
schedule.

Lawyers and others, who can afford illegally distributed cocaine
so as to not be bothered by having to speak with a councilor will
continue to be a problem, but that's ok, they don't have to steal
in order to afford their fix, and maybe they'll die of an overdose
and reduce the lawyer population (which will also be reduced due to
the incredible lessing of drug related crime cases).

Another problem which will arise is that ghetto based drug pushers
will become unemployed, hence reducing the income level to that part
of society. This is a harder problem to solve, but should be done by
spending money on education and jobs programs, and not on this stupid
idiotic war on drugs thing.

Put the drug mafia out of business.  Lower police costs.  Reduce the
number of lawyers.  Lower home theft insurance rates.  Improve the
quality of inner city life.  Eliminate CIA meddling in Columbia (and
everywhere else).  Hire teachers, fire drug enforcement officials.
Regulate drug use in a caring and educational manner, but LEGALIZE DRUGS!

Dennis Allard
allard@isi.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.war.vietnam
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Impeachment
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Keywords: law, Constitution, Supreme Court
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:09:49 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.040626.14082@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>Who didn't?  It was pretty clear to everyone at the time that judicial
>review was an inherent power of the judicial branch.

As I recall, Thomas Jefferson didn't think so.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I can solve this Orient Express thing without
mnemonic@eff.org| breaking a sweat. It's that simple."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Hercule Perot
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Presidential Vote Totals in Washington: All Parties!
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 06:38:21 GMT

Bill Clinton		830,832
George Bush		589,545
H. Ross Perot		448,657
Andre Marrou		  6,203
James 'Bo' Gritz	  3,903
John Hagelin		  2,025
Howard Phillips		  1,807
Lenora Fulani		  1,493
Ron Daniels		    692
Jyndon LaRouche		    656
James Warren		    438

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: rthomson@mesa.dsd.es.com (Rich Thomson)
Subject: Re: [t.p.drugs] total votes for all candidates
Reply-To: rthomson@dsd.es.com (Rich Thomson)
Organization: Design Systems Division, Evans & Sutherland, SLC, UT
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 06:56:58 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.134113.1408@nntp.hut.fi>
	jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>           Andrew Marrou, Oth 64,328 - 0 percent

In article <Bx9Exw.Isy@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
	hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Matt Hucke) writes:
>Who?  Never heard of him.

Obviously you didn't read your ballot.  Obviously you haven't been
watching the McNeil/Lehrer News Hour, or CNN, or C-SPAN.  Andre Marrou
appeared on all of those TV media organizations as well as the ballot
you voted with.

						-- Rich
-- 
		      Don't blame me; I voted Libertarian
Disclaimer: I speak for myself, except as noted; Copyright 1992 Rich Thomson
UUCP: ...!uunet!dsd.es.com!rthomson			Rich Thomson
Internet: rthomson@dsd.es.com	IRC: _Rich_		PEXt Programmer
From: lbaum@atc.boeing.com (Larry Baum)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton's plan our best and only hope for the future
Date: 3 Nov 92 18:27:28 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services

In article <21788@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh
II) writes:
>In article <Bx02t1.Ivt.2@cs.cmu.edu> jab+@cs.cmu.edu (Justin Boyan) writes:
>>Finish your argument.  So you think Bush is bad, and Carter and
>>Hoover were worse.  Fair enough.  Now, get out there and vote for
>>someone with a positive campaign and a positive economic plan that
>>will work -- Bill Clinton!
>
>Bill Clinton?
>
>Bill Clinton will spend this country into a short-lived recovery.  A
>recovery built on government spending can only go so far.  When the
>recovery is over - or when every road has been re-paved, every school
>de-asbestosed, every hospital door flung open, what then?  Pay for
>the entire drunken spending binge?

I think you have Bill Clinton confused with Ronald Reagan.  

...

>I'd rather eat my own puke than vote for Bill Clinton.  Most of the
>conservatives I know are scared to death of a Clinton victory.  Bill
>Clinton in the White House is not something I can even come to grips
>with.  Recessions I can plan for, but I've never been able to figure
>out how one plans for a depression.  And that is what Bill Clinton
>will give us - about 1 year of boom and 3 years of bust.

Why do conservatives fear from Clinton what they loved in Reagan.  Reagan spent
at a record pace and charged it all.  The result was just the kind of
short-lived recovery you now fear.
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The "education" President-elect
Date: 12 Nov 92 19:27:09 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 92Nov11073332@solan10.solan.unit.no, cindy@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf) writes:
[responding to Mark Wilson]
>Linguistics is the study of language - as it is.  Therefore, it's not
>in the scope of linguistics to go around labeling things "right" and
>"wrong".  If a word does not exist in a certain language, it is
>usually said to be "not in the lexicon" or something similar.  A
>grammatical construction that doesn't make sense to a native speaker,
>or that a native speaker would never use, gets a label like "not in
>the grammar".  This is not "a school of linguistic thought"; this is
>the basis for all work in linguistics.  

I don't disagree with your basic comments, Cindy, but I feel inclined to stick
up for linguists that do concern themselves with the social aspects of language.
The "not in the grammar" judgment has more to do with generative theoretical
methodology than with linguistics as a whole.  Some even argue that Noam Chomsky,
the founder of generative theory, has a bias against sociolinguistics.  Be that
as it may, I think you'll find that there are plenty of us "heretics" around 
who believe that the study of linguistic behavior and attitudes are within the
purview of linguistic theory.  How're we going to explain the objections to the
use of "how're"?  Why are other forms of contraction in the dictionary, but not
this one?  On what basis did the dictionary's usage panel reject it?  (Or did it
even occur to them to put it in the dictionary?)

>Spelling isn't within the scope of linguistics.  

Sure it is.  Baudouin de Courtenay, the founder of modern linguistic theory,
invented the term "grapheme", which is still in use.  The use of spelling to
support some types of linguistic generalizations is controversial, but spelling
itself is a legitimate area of study.  Alphabetic writing is phonemic.  Or so I
(and many others) claim, anyway.  ;-)

>If you really feel these little details are worth arguing, fine, but
>could you please leave us linguists out of it?

Actually, I think that linguists should make themselves available to comment on
any kind of linguistic issue that might bear on politics or any other subject of
interest to nonspecialists.  It's worse for us to be ignored.  ;-) 

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

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Subject: Re: SOMEBODY'S GOT TO SAY IT (Re: Clinton by default)
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:08:26 GMT

In article <22819@venera.isi.edu> allard@isi.edu (Dennis Allard) writes:
>
>you get here.  I believe we could lower doctors salaries by paying for
>their education (say, pay medical students 50K per year while they are
>in school) but limit what they can charge, either by training more of
>them and letting supply and demand do the job, or by administrating
>cost controls.  Such an administration would cost less, not more, than
>our current pay the recepitionist and send in your forms absurd method
>we now use, due to its simplicity.

I would vehemently oppose paying medical students to go to school.

A better approach, IMO, would be to make loans more easily available.
Then, UPON GRADUATION, offer them the option of paying the loan off 
themselves, or signing a legally binding contract which would
prohibit them from charging above a certain rate for treatments for
a certain time period.  This time period would be high enough to
ensure that the doctor bore the costs of the loan -- in other
words, that:

  saved fees paid by govt - cost of the loan to the govt

would be greater than or equal to zero.  Preferrably _slightly_
greater than zero (say 1% or so).

Of course, this assumes that one believes that government should
be involved in the first place, a notion to which I do not
necessarily subscribe...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: President Clinton
Organization: SSDT SPS, Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 23:37:20 GMT

In article <40545@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Pim van Meurs) writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.211100.3050@nic.csu.net> jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle ) writes:
>>OH *MY* **GOD**!!  God save us from Socialism.

Jennifer, he did save us from Socialism.
That's why he sent us his only begotten Reagan. 
"Tear down that wall!"

The question is: why is God sending us Clinton-ism.
Clearly, this is punishment for something ... too much
New Kids on the Block annoying him, I guess.

>>________
>>Jennifer|
>>--------
>
>Why ask god for this. 
>In my opinion god must be the biggest socialist in the world. He
>could hardly be considered a conservative now could he ?

God must be a conservative ... " God helps those who help themselves".
He's sort of a bootstrap-aid kind of guy. 
 
>Isn't it a wonderful day today...

The day after the election, the weather was extremely bad here ...
hail and sleet in the morning.

I suspect God may been rooting for Perot in this one.
He clearly wasn't happy at the outcome.  God only knows why.


Pat,
"Father, if I add a :-), does that mean it's not blasphemy?"

	Vox Populi, vox dei
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Return to Camelot? (Was: Doomed...Doomed...Doomed...)
Date: 5 Nov 92 22:54:44 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 138233@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu, pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PAUL N. RITTER) writes:
>   In these next four years, we are going to see some significant changes. A
>few of them will be for the common good of the people, but most to shove
>government right down our throats and disrupt the balance.
>I mourn for four years...Doomed...Doomed...

Paul, you're just another one of those doomsayers.  ;-)  I really found this 
paragraph nostalgic.  It took me back to 1980, when I felt exactly the same.  In
fact, my fears about Reagan turned out to be right in the long run.  His policies
led this country to the brink of disaster and ruin.  Meanwhile, we survived him.
And Bush's lackluster stewardship, while not improving our situation, did not
make it *that* much worse.  It depresses me that we must now clean up the mess,
but I believe that we have elected a truly outstanding President.  Better than
we usually get a chance to vote on.  Clinton is no guarantee, but he is an 
opportunity.

So I feel exactly the opposite of you doomsayers.  I am elated.  This is the first
president that has ever made me feel so optimistic about our future.  I know that
the glow won't last, but I'll savor it while I can.  Christmas in November.  But you
have my genuine sympathy.  I remember what it felt like while so many others 
celebrated on that bleak day in November, 1980.

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

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59104 alt.conspiracy:12051 alt.activism:18534 alt.politics.bush:13587 alt.politics.clinton:16533