HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Is the ABA liberal-biased:Abortion/Hill
Date: 12 Aug 1992 17:30:42 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: holein1.corp.sun.com

In article 63892@cup.portal.com, Arthur_T_Hu@cup.portal.com () writes:
> The ABA gives Anita Hill an award for telling a story that most Americans
> don't believe, and for taking a stand that most Americans think she is lying
> about. 

Arthur,
	I don't suppose that you have any *proof* to support your assertion
that "most Americans don't believe"?


Bob De Guc



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Stereotyping
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 01:55:59 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <onsvef0@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
    >In article <sc0mbap.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil
    >Ronzone) writes:
    >
    >>Just WHAT in hell does it have to do with working for a
    >>living?
    >>
    >It has a lot to do with working for a living. In a company of
    >people who are obsessively heterosexual, a homosexual feels
    >as if they have to hide for fear of being fired. You see,
    >like you and clayton, most people find it easy to villify
    >people they do not know. It is easy to say "fucking faggots"
    >if you do not know any. However, it gets more difficult when
    >you know the guy in the next cube happens to be one.
    >...
    >Making people aware of your presence does not tell people
    >that they have to like you. It is just letting them know that
    >you are there.

Have you considered the idea that you work at a profit minded company
pursuing the manufacture and sale of workstations and NOT at an encounter
group or therapy session?

    >Oh, fuck you phil... I'll answer your stupid question.

Dream on Jeff, dream on ... is EVERYTHING sexual with you?

    >If any anti-abortion group wanted to put fliers all over the
    >SGI cafeteria announcing their existance, I would support
    >them in this right.

I doubt this, but consider the fact that you DON'T see it happening.


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Philandering George Bush
Date: 13 Aug 92 20:31:37 GMT
Reply-To: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: holein1.corp.sun.com

In article 3428@desire.wright.edu, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> 
> 	Clinton and Flowers both said "we did it", neither Bush nor Jennifer
> (what's her last name?) have said any such thing.
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

         Fitzgerald.

Please post a source for this "we did it".  I have never heard Clinton say
those words.  The only thing he has admitted to was that he didn't have
a "perfect" marriage.  And that anything beyond that was none of anyone's
business.

	Flowers is not exactly a good source by any stretch of the imagination.
She says they met in a hotel ~two years before it was built, she signed an
affidavit a few years ago stating that she had *not* had an affair with Clinton
and lastly she gained monetarily from her story.

> 
> 	Just a wee bit o' difference, eh?

Yup.  Personally, I don't put much stock in *either* story.  Additionally, I,
personally, don't think it means squat.

What I found to be to lowest (to date) blow of the election season was 
spouted off yesterday by Rich Bond:

"In his speech, Bond mockingly referred to Mrs. Clinton as `that champion of
the family' and went on to say:

	`She has likened marriage and the family to salvery.  She has referred
to the family as a dependency relationship that deprives people of their 
rights.'

	When asked to support that assertion, Bond aides provided copies of an
article citing a 1974 essay by Mrs. Clinton, an attorney on children's rights.

	In the article, however, Mrs. Clinton did not directly compare marriage
and the family to slavery.  Instead, she cited legal precedents in which an
individual's rights are superseded - such as a parent having legal authority 
over a child."

Source: The Argus 13 Aug 1992 pg A-13.  It is an AP story so your own local
paper should have it as well.

I wonder how the Bush camp would feel if the Clinton camp dug up something
that was written decades ago and twisted it to suit their purposes?? 


Bob De Guc
offended voter....
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Republican (American?) Arrogance makes us laugh.
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 19 Aug 92 02:03:01 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.
Summary: Laughter is good for the soul

In article <92231.213054A735FJO@HASARA11.BITNET>, <A735FJO@HASARA11.BITNET> writes:
> "I know what is right for the world, and I know what is right for the USA
> "I brought peace over the world, now let me bring peace in the USA"
> "We have changed the world, now let's change the USA".
>  
> Apart from that one should work on his/her faults first,
> the above makes some of us (over here in Europe) puke.  Most of us,
> however, just laugh about this outraging stupidity.
>  
> Someone (Quale?) even said that Bush brought down the Berlin wall.
> Outside the USA it is felt that the USA did not change a thing
> in East Germany, USSR, etc.  It just happened and Bush was only a
> spectator like everybody else. (If some person deserves some credit
> than it is Gorbatsjov)

	Ignoring the rest of you post, but there are millions that love Ronald
Reagan and feel that he brought and end to the cold war.  And we're talking in
Eastern Europe and the xUSSR.

	People have his picture on their walls.

	But aside from nationalistic back patting, Reagan did have a strong
influence on the end of the xUSSR.  Gorby admits it.  Soviet generals admit it.

	Bush is indeed a spectator to many things.  One of the benefits to
serving the term after Reagan.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39818 talk.abortion:31786 alt.politics.bush:1648
From: rone@nunki.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Misleading UPI story
Date: 14 Aug 1992 17:44:38 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: nunki.usc.edu

In article <1992Aug14.200916.8543@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>I apologize for accusing Mr. Echeverri of concocting the story,

As said by Kelly Bundy:  "Hello?  Weather Service?  Has Hell frozen over?"

Apology accepted.  Just don't be a butthead next time you read something you
don't like.

>It seemed more likely to me that Mr. Echeverri would concoct 
>such a misleading story. 

But we've just met!

5150
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: why penalize "short-term" investments
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 17:40:03 GMT

In article <Bt8vHJ.Ftu@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.162339.23370@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>In article <Bt8DFn.7uF@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>> it lowers the stock price.  The *theory* (whether you believe it
>>> or not depends on which economics deity you worship) is that
>>> management comes under undue pressure by US stockholders for
>>> short-term results and so tends to eschew long-term R&D investments.  
>>
>>Try again.  Investors who have been holding for a while ALSO respond
>>to short-term factors.
>
>  Well, like I said, whether you buy the theory depends on your 
>  religion.  But a poll in Business Week last years suggests that
>  American management may *perceive* itself to be under short-term
>  pressure by impatient stockholders.

Note that the argument for treating long term investments depends on
an unstated assumption that investment means stocks.  Sure, stocks
are a significant investment, but they're not the only significant one.

If you want to deal with short-term vs long-term "evils" in the
stock market, why not make the measures stock-market specific?

How about a 7 day trade latency, where any buy or sell order is held
for seven days?  (Of course, someone is going to set up series of
sells and buys for particular stocks and sell an interest in those
that are about to happen, but that will cost.)  We can even include
some sort of "if the price is" limits on those orders so that buyers
aren't writing blank checks and sellers aren't getting an unknown
amount, although limits imply the possibility of "no sale".  We could
also have different latencies for sellers than for buyers.  (No
latency for sellers might work.)

That would provide a buffer against short-term factors in the stock
market without affecting other investments.  People could still bet on
the upcoming report, but the delay would eliminate immediate
responses.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39795 alt.politics.elections:10607 alt.politics.bush:1634 alt.politics.clinton:1973 alt.politics.marrou:790
From: oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: I want to see the 1992 Platforms
Date: 14 Aug 92 21:59:10 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha

tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu (tom) writes:

>now that the Republican Party is almost ready to release their 1992
>Platform, and the Democratic Platform has been available for a while,
>how about posting them to the net? 

You can download the Democratic platform from world.std.com.  I don't
know the directory.  

You can also get it from the Clinton forum on Compu$erve.

And lots of Clinton stuff (including the platform) is being posted on
alt.politics.clinton.

Sharon O'Neil
oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40658 alt.politics.bush:2161 alt.politics.clinton:2256
From: matt@physics16.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Do I believe this?
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:47:43 GMT
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics16.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: bills@sequent.com's message of Wed, 19 Aug 92 18:02:01 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.180201.26786@sequent.com> bills@sequent.com (Bill Sears) writes:

> It seems unlikely (at best) to me that $100 [mb]illion is the
> largest spending increase ever.  Or was this another example of
> one of the biggest types of lies - statistics?

As long as we're talking about dishonest statistics, check out the TRB
column in the August 31 issue of The New Republic.

It seems that the Republicans have come out with a list that purports
to be a list of 128 tax increases which Clinton passed; this list is
grossly padded and dishonest.  For example, one item is listed twice;
three of them aren't items at all (just places where the description
took more than one line); some of the items aren't tax increases at
all (one item, for example, was a bill lengthening the season for dog
racing); and others of them involve counting the same thing many
times.  (A tax increase on alcohol, for example, was counted five
separate times: beer, wine, wine coolers,...)

So if you hear anyone use that number 128, just remember: this number
has no basis in fact.

--
Matthew Austern              I dreamt I was being followed by a roving band 
(510) 644-2618               of young Republicans, all wearing the same suit,
matt@physics.berkeley.edu    taunting me and shouting, "Politically correct
austern@theorm.lbl.gov       multiculturist scum!"... They were going to make
austern@lbl.bitnet	     me kiss Jesse Helms's picture when I woke up.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 17:20:11 GMT

In article <l955h1INN9gg@spim.mips.com> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.151018.27120@anasazi.com>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>> 
>> In article <1992Aug17.190813.1645@technology.com> judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
>>> Did someone just say that cutting the capital gains tax would benefit the
>>> poor because it would lead to jobs?  That's what Reagan said some 12ish
>>> years ago -- as someone here in San Antonio put it, quite aptly in my 
>>> opinion, 12 years is long enough for anything to trickle down!
>> 
>> You seem to have forgotten the 30 million new jobs created during those
>> twelve years.
>> 
> How could we forget.  The unemployment rate is up and a greater percentage
> of the full-time employed is earning sub-poverty level wages.  Thank you
> Mr. Reagan.

The paper (Sacramento Bee) reported that the 1990 US Census reported that the
average wage in the USA had declined since the 1980.  This average wage is
in real numbers, not adjusted for COL, inflation, taxes, military in/exclu-
sion, or any other voodoo.  That means that regardless of the numbers of 
people who lost jobs, or who found them, or who used to work part-time and
now works full-time, or vice-versa, THE AVERAGE WAGE HAS DROPPED during the
Reagan-Bush era.  And this is the 1990 US Census, whose numbers, although
acknowleged somewhat inaccurate by members of Bush's administration, the Bush
administration decided to retained even though the Census people said it
wouldn't be all that hard to make the numbers more accurate.  At present
even the traditional adjustment mini-census in 1995 is scheduled NOT to be
done.


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244		---------------------+
| "I'm new to C and need to know how to get random numbers returned."  "Just |
| send them back to the manufacturer with the original packaging and the     |
+ receipt.  What?  You didn't keep the receipt?"   	- Anon. -------------+
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40945 alt.politics.bush:2336
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: 17 Aug 92 14:19:35 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX

In article <01cyz1r@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>That is a lie, President Bush does not oppose health care reforms.  I just
>>finished watching an interview of President Bush by David Brinkley and
>>Bush mentioned that his administration did have a health care reform plan.   
>
>In 1988, Bush claimed to have an education plan.  We haven't seen that 
>yet, either.


Well then you haven't been looking. Bush has been pushing his new schools
plan through his Education secty Lamar Alexander, and just this
summer proposed his "GI Bill for children", which provides vouchers
for children from low-income families to help them choose where they
go to school.  His proposal is part of the reason why there has
been the current debate here concerning educational choice.

As for health care, he has proposed malpractice tort reform, and has
proposed a system of tax credits to fund the medical insurance of
those without such insurance.  This last proposal came out just this
year.

---
Pat
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: fulton@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben Fulton)
Subject: Re: Bush, Reagan and Deficit cutting (was Bush or Clinton)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 14:58:11 GMT

In <1992Aug11.141243.3364@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>> To get a concept of what happened in the early 80's read David Stockman's
>	He was in way over his head in the Reagan adminstration, and anything
>he writes about it is an attempt to cover up his own part in any budget messes

I can't speak for that, but I thought the proposals that Stockman said he made
were intelligent and on target.  Did you disagree with his proposals, or
do you think he didn't make them?

ben
fulton@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
will be president for food
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39241 ca.politics:6697
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: More Evidence of How Homosexuals Are "Oppressed" In America
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:08:56 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <11710@optilink.UUCP>, manley@optilink.UUCP (Dave Manley) writes:
> In article <11683@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <11682@optilink.UUCP>, manley@optilink.UUCP (Dave Manley) writes:
> >> In article <1992Aug10.015137.16592@amhux2.amherst.edu> twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
# ## #Unless, of course, you're participating in Typical Optilink Lying Fashion (tm).
# 
# ## And now part three: (for Clayton)
# 
# ##    I will not generalize the statement of an individual to those of a group.
# #
# #When homosexuals stop acting like a big hive brain, and stop
# #insisting that they must be treated as a group, they will stop
# #being treated as a group.
# 
# Ok, fine.  
# 
# But let's back up to your previous phrase: "typical homosexual lying fashion". 
# 
# How is this statement different than: "You got to watch out for
# those niggers, they all smoke crack and want to rape white women."
# 
# Is:
# 
#    Homosexual = liar
#    
# any more true than:
# 
#    Irishmen = drunk
#    Italian = criminal
#    Idahoan = white supremacist
#    Computer programmer = nerd
#    
# Isn't "typical homosexual lying fashion" a generalization, a slur,  
# just as bad, just as ugly, and just as stupid, as the ones I have given?
# 
# --
# dave
# manley@optilink.com

One difference: I have found "homosexual = liar" to be true far more 
often than not.  I have repeatedly made it clear that not all 
homosexuals are child molesters, and some are quite hostile to 
child molestation, and yet many of the homosexuals on the net keep
claiming that I said that all homosexuals are child molesters.  I
keep correcting them, and they keep saying it.  

The other generalizations above I have found to be false FAR more
often than they true.



-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
When the government wins the War on Drugs, they are welcome to try their
gun control snake oil.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Listing the good reasons to vote for Bush
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 16:17:20 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

> The best reason to vote for Bush is to avoid placing a Democratic
> president and a democratically-controlled Congress in charge of
> spending.  

Goody!  Let's only spend money on what the Republicans want to spend
money on!  Heck, that only quintupled the deficit during the Reagan
years!

-- 
Chris Lyman  -  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  -  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
"... all women think alike on the issue of abortion ..." -- Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: Gutting of the Bill of rights was (Clinton's S.S.)
Organization: Computing Center, North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 02:13:19 GMT

In article <m36m2cf.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
> ...
>Can anyone tell us which party affiliation Mr. Major Owens has?
> ...

  He is the representative of the 12th district of NY (in Brooklyn), 
is a Democrat serving his 5th term and won with 95% of the vote in
the last election.  He serves on both the Education and Labor
Committee and the Goverment Operations committee.

--henry schaffer
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Defending Reaganomics?
Date: 19 Aug 92 14:48:42 GMT
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

Keywords: 

In article <1992Aug18.164035.1471@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
]
]In article <1992Aug18.014254.3558@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
]> 
]> > 2. The Trickle Down Theory.  By reducing taxes on the wealthy (80% of
]> > American did NOT receive a tax break in the Reagan years) and cutting
]> > back on social programs, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.
]> 
]> 	Reagan cut taxes for everyone.  Congress re-instated them for that
]> portion of society that had income to invest. 
]
]Why is it that when there was a tax cut "Reagan cut taxes" yet when there
]was a tax increase "Congress re-instated them"?  What is the basis for
]giving the credit to Reagan for the cut but not for re-instating them?
]
]In both cases, congress passed and Reagan signed the legislation.

Simple. In the early '80s the Republicans controlled the Senate,
and had a working majority in the house. That is when taxes were cut.
When the demos took back the Senate and the republicans lost that
working majority in the house, the taxes went back up.
-- 
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
 - - If a field of study has the word "science" in it - it isn't a science - -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: I'm still a republican, but not a happy one
Date: 13 Aug 92 18:57:39 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

>Anyway, I would be in favor of an experiment to verify the soundness of libertarian
>principles.  Set aside a reasonably large area of land, perhaps an island, where a 
>large number of dedicated libertarians can go to live.  Allow them anything they can
>afford to buy, especially handguns and drugs.  (These two items would make it easy
>for them to feel secure in their possessions and just, well, feel good about every-
>thing.)   We could all then see, once and for all, how human beings were meant to 
>live.  One way or the other.  ;-) 

Sounds good to me to.  Do you have any suggestions, maybe we can hire the
Marines for a few days so that they can acquire one for us.  Australia\
comes to mind. ;^) * 2

>    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
-- 
--Mark

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41246 alt.activism:15265 misc.headlines:5841 sci.econ:7042