HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton Nominees for the Supreme Court
Date: 13 Nov 92 16:02:12 GMT
Organization: AT&T

rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (snake) writes:
>Clinton seems strongly committed to avoiding even the appearance
>of conflicts of interest with his anti-lobbying pledge.  I can't see him then
>turning around and trying to have his wife appointed to the Supreme Court.

Right... much better to save her for a future Presidential role.

Rodham/Feinstein in '00!  Two smart cookies.

--
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvoxc.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
From: tcanham@kilroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Tim Canham)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 00:17:44 GMT

In article <69.X666X@ramona.com> doug@ramona.com (Double Agent) writes:
>Sunday on _Meet the Press_, Vernon Jordan, head of Clinton's transition
>team, confirmed that Anita Hill is the front-runner to get the job of
>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. Put on your goggles, folks, the fire-
>works should be dazzling.
>

Is this some kind of gag?!  This seems like appointing Barbara Boxer to 
head the Federal Reserve!  This is so ludicrous that I really find it
hard to believe.  Is President Slick Willy going to get his reports with
pubic hairs on it?!

This is really too funny.


-- 
Tim Canham
tcanham@kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov
Jet Propulsion Laboratories, Pasadena, CA
"Everybody always told me I was a rocket scientist!"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.african.american
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Four years of fun
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 18:11:32 GMT

In article <1e08rkINNdc9@rave.larc.nasa.gov> Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov> writes:
>
>	Now that the election is over and a Democrat will be in
>office, it's time for four years of fun.  I can't wait to blame the
>next natural disaster on Clinton.  I can't wait to see if Clinton's
>faithful servant Al-Gore makes the White House kitchen kosher.  I
>can't wait to slam Clinton for every broken promise, most of which are
>impossible to fill.  I can't wait to see who the Democrats are going
>to blame for the problems of the world.  

You know, I've been saying over and over that the Democrats will have
to operate without the crutch of a scapegoat, like Bush has.  Perhaps
they'll take real responsibility for both their successes and their
failures.  This promises to be exhiliarating.  (Of course, I'm not an
elected official, and they may not share my enthusiasm :-)



In fiscal year 1991, the government agencies classified as secret a
total of 7,107,017 documents.  This marks the first time that the
total number of reported classification decisions in a year is a
palindrome.		-- 1991 Information Security Oversight Office
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (It's not what you got, it's what you give)
Subject: Re: Celebration in the Streets
Summary: WoW! 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 5 Nov 92 22:03:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.151831.25497@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)                               writes...
> 
>After Clinton was elected, there were celebrations in the streets in two
>cities:
>		Little Rock, Arkansas
>		Bagdad, Iraq
>Think about it.
> 
There were also celebrations in San Francisco, Calif. Does that mean
that Little Rock, San Francisco, and Bagdad, are really in alliance to
destroy the free world?
> 
>James W. Meritt:  m23364@mwunix.mitre.org - or - jmeritt@mitre.org

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: President Clinton
Date: 11 Nov 92 01:34:58 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Nov8.023941.23946@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@fish.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>In article <8NOV199201395076@vxcrna.cern.ch> casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov4.155545.15345@news.vanderbilt.edu>, rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert) writes...
>>>In article <1992Nov3.211100.3050@nic.csu.net> jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle ) writes:

>>>    And let's give the impending resurgence of judicial activism
>>>a nice big round of applause.  

>>Yeah, nothing like those unelected, unanswerable to anyone legal nerds making
>>laws.

>Unanswerable to anyone?  Have you read the Constitution?  They're
>answerable to Congress.

Bullshit.  You mean impeachment?  That's for misconduct, not for
making bad law.

>For that matter, "unelected?"  They're no more unelected than the
>President is.  And than the Senate used to be.

More bullshit.  When we voted for president we knew who we were voting
for.  Mind telling me who we were voting to put on the Court?
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Subject: The Corporate "Free Press" Covers the Elections
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 11:00:07 GMT

The Corporate "Free Press" Covers the Elections

[147]
Turning Tide, p.140: "the number of articles referring to freedom of the
press, organizational freedom and limits on opposition candidates was
zero in the case of the Salvadoran elections, whereas in the case of
the nicargauan elections, 75% of the articles discussed freedom of
the press, 50% discussed organizatiola freedom, and 62.5% discussed
mlimits on candidates. The power of the armed forces to coerce wqas
discussed in 37% of the articles on the Nicaraguan election, in 3.6%
of the articles on the Salvadoran election. To fully appreciate this
illustration of media servility to state power, one must bear in mind
that abuses of freedom of press, organizational freedom and candidate
opportunities were vastly more sever in El Salvador, and that the
direct role of the armed forces in coercion was also far greated.
There were also falsehoods in press reporting, but their impact is
minor in comparison to the effectiveness of these more indirect methods
of thought control..."

just above it says:"US officals and the Nicaraguan opposition provided
over 80% of the direct citations, and constituted 60% of the sources
cited (meaning that there was some indirect reference to the
Sandinistas) . In contrast, US and Salvadoran officials provided
virtually all the direct citations in the case of the Salvadoran
elections...and 80% of total sources (peasants constituted 0.8%)

[147] Edward Herman, Covert Action Information Bulletin, Spring 1984
From: esr@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: disinformation
Date: 6 Nov 92 00:13:43 GMT
Distribution: world
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

In <Bx3uIq.MLJ@news.cso.uiuc.edu> Virginia Metze wrote:
> Someone told me that the term 'disinformation' was invented
> during Bush's term as head of the CIA.

As a matter of fact, I can remember when and how it entered the language.  It
originated as a translation of the Russian "dezinformatsiya", used to describe
the "active measures" techniques of the KGB's Department V.  There are plenty
of things to blame on Bush, but this is not one of them.
-- 
					Eric S. Raymond <esr@snark.thyrsus.com>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: A Worrisome Example of "Subhuman" Ideology
Date: 9 Nov 92 18:27:37 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <BxFJtu.I15@unix.amherst.edu>, twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
> 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                / 

Thank you for making my point.  We won't let little nuisances
like the law get in our way, will we?
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
The Physician Assisted Death Initiative failed.  Term limits for Congressmen
passed.  If only we could have combined the two... two terms, and a doctor
does lethal injection...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Keynesian Thing / How not to edit a previous article
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 11:53:47 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

     PLEASE BE CAREFUL WITH YOUR FOLLOWUP EDITS!  You have my account
(cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville) associated with things I did not write.
Moreover, NOTHING in the following article has been written by me.

     C. Perttunen

In article <9211122156.AA00723@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com>, GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Broward Horne) writes: 
> In article <1992Nov11.124136.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville
> 
>>> Keynes is right and has always been right.  The economic "booms" of
> 
>        Keynes is deluded, and always has been.
> 
>        The latest studies I've heard of show government spending
>     on infrastructure results in a break-even result.  No
>     increase in GDP, while net transfers ( entitlements ) result
>     in negative GDP growth.
> 
> 
>>I wish people would *read* Keynes before they posted about him.  Contrary
>>to popular opinion, Keynes did not simply say "deficit spending is
>>good."  He called for a specific *type* of spending, ie investment.  Our
>>current budget spends almost nothing on this -- defense, social
>>security, medicare, etc, might be useful, but are *not* examples of
>>Keynesian deficit spending.

  [blah, blah, blah....]
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59883 alt.rush-limbaugh:9568 alt.politics.elections:23650 alt.politics.clinton:17013 alt.politics.bush:13841
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Trickle Down Economics
Date: 13 Nov 1992 04:30:19 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: avalanche.berkeley.edu

In article <BxC3Jx.CFE@eis.calstate.edu> kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell) writes:

>Decide for yourself. Kristofferson WAS a Rhodes Scholar; so was Clinton.
>Clinton didn't graduate; he flunked out. I don't know (or care) about

Rhodes Scholars don't get grades and they don't flunk out. Your
statement is as illogical as "Linus Pauling won a Nobel Prize but he
flunked out". (Some of the other prize scholarships require the
recipient to enroll in a degree program, not the Rhodes.)

I doubt if you're in contention for one.....

andy
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 18:35:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh

In <nate.801@psygate.psych.indiana.edu>, nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu sez:
>
>    Evidence and testimony are all well and good, but the Judiciary was the 
>only body which could validate Ms Hill's evidence. There were no judges 
>on the Senate Judiciary Committee,

FWIW, Howell Heflin is a former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme
Court.

> and there was no chance that any 
>new allegations made in Thomas's confirmation hearings could have been  
>validated within the purview of those hearings. Our system demands that 
>Judge Thomas be considered innocent until proven guilty, 

Our system demands that only in criminal proceedings.  Had the
Hill-Thomas matter been in court, the relevant legal standard would be
that applicable to *civil* claims under Title VII: proof by
preponderance of the evidence, *not* the far more stringent "beyond a
reasonable doubt" test.

Of course, this wasn't a court proceeding at all, but an inquest into
the fitness of Clarence Thomas to serve on the countr's highest court
for the rest of his life.

>    Even from a liberal point of view I believe that it's blatantly 
>obvious; we blew it. We wanted to prevent Thomas's confirmation very badly 
>but we flubbed our homework (we didn't make sure that Hill had irrefutable 
>proof). 

What foolishness.  Now you want the standard to be even more stringent
than BRD?  How could any nominee not be confirmed under this standard
unless he committed his vile acts in front of a video camera?


>    In both strategic planning and tactical execution our liberal leaders 
>failed. They tried to buck the rules when the only hope was to present 
>evidence which was scrupulously correct. 

Actually, the testimony offered by Hill and in support of her
comported far more with the Federal Rules of Evidence that govern
U.S. courts that did that offered by most of Thomas's supporting
witnesses.






-- 
        1992 Awards for Yeoman Service to the Democratic Party:
1st prize: Pat Buchanan  2nd prize: Craig Fuller  3rd prize: James Baker
	 Honorable mention: Rich "They aren't Americans" Bond
      * Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck *
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Term Limits
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 04:00:46 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <farenebt.721263404@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
]john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
]
]>So sack the damned staffers while we are at it. In fact, lets move
]>the seat  of government every four years while we're at it.
]>]
]>](3) Less choices for voters.
]
]>You mean fewer, not less... Huh? More choices for voters. Without term 
]>limits, the same bozo appears election after election. With term limits that 
]>bozo only appears twice, and then we get a new face. Sounds like more 
]>choice to me!
]
]No term limits means that you can re-elect the guy if he's not a bozo.
]If the guy is a bozo, then you just vote him out. What's so hard about
]that? I'll tell you, it means the voters have to take responsibility.

No, let me tell you. It is the advantages of incumbency. The incumbent
can use your tax dollars and mine to make himself look like the best
candidate. Furthermore, with the seniority system, the longer you keep
him in office, the better able he is to bring home pork to your state
at the expense of other states. Term limits help even out the playing
field.

]					
]>Still, we need term limits. The citizens of 15 states have already voted
]>in favor of them by true landslide margins (3 to 1 here in AZ).
]
]Ok, but how many of those 15 states sent back Senate members back for
]terms that would have exceeded the limit? Didnt AZ re-elect John McCain?
]Was this his 2nd, 3rd or higher term? Didnt TX send back Phil Gramm

It was his 2nd term. Term limits wouldn't have nailed him. I voted for
him, because I like John McCain, and because he is a Republican. With
term limits, when he becomes ineligible to run, other Republicans
will be available to choose during primaries. No reasonable politician
would run against McCain in a primary today. Hence, the term limits
would provide more choice.

]for his 3rd+ term after passing a term limit thing? Kansas and Bob Dole?
]Wyoming and Alan Simpson? (im but think, but am not totally sure if, 
]KS and WY passed term limits) It makes me
]wonder how much the people of those 15 states really believe in 
]term limits.					

I think most supporters of term limits believe that they should be
nationwide. Until then, we will continue to reelect our representatives
because otherwise our states will be at a disadvantage (yet one more
advantage to incumbents). We want a level playing field, which means
nationwide term limits.


-- 
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
"Modern liberals are the termites in the structure of our society."
  John Moore
From: rjs@citi.umich.edu (Robert J. Skrobola)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: President Clinton's Cabinet
Date: 5 Nov 1992 19:14:18 GMT
Organization: Center for Information Technology Intergration, University of Michigan
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: bodwin.citi.umich.edu

Heard as a horrible rumor on talk show: Pat Schroeder - Secretary of Defense

Aaagggh! he cries

<runs whimpering into the mist>
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------
Rob Skrobola      Institutional File Server Project
Normal Disclaimer: I speak only for myself
-----------------------------------------------------
From: L-Bueno@cup.portal.com (Louis Alberto Bueno)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: BUSH LIED ABOUT ARMING IRAQ...
Date: Sat,  7 Nov 92 10:03:26 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world
  <1992Nov5.193756.26699@oracle.us.oracle.com>

mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
[right-wing logic about the US not selling IRAQ weapons omitted]
>>Personally, protesting the Vietname war is one thing.
>>But selling weapons to the other side (and violating an
>>arms embargo to do it) is DEPLORABLE.
>
>Please provide any evidence whatsoever that this happened or admit
>that you are a foool and/or a liar.
 
	Can you please continue this debate without pointless name-calling?
 
	How can you expect the other guy to respond to you without feeling
disrespected or condescended upon?
 
--Louis
L-Bueno@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,ca.politics,ba.politics,misc.legal
From: PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Shooting tragedy (was Re: Support Right to 'bear arms')
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:43:39 GMT

In article <dusek.720975432@shale> dusek@rtsg.mot.com (James Dusek) writes:
>	The man murdered that kid, no differant than if he had broken
>into the kids house and shot him there.

Un, no.  He was on his own property, and clearly felt threatened.  There is 
a clear difference between this and breaking into someone's home and 
shooting them.

>
>	The two kids were NOT attempting to break into his house, they
>were standing OUTSIDE when he approached them. I don't know about LA
>laws, but around here he would be in BIG trouble for what he did. You
>cannot enforce laws OUTSIDE your house, thats what the police are for.

Those are not the facts as I understand them.  From what I have read, the 
deceased attempted ingress to the house from two separate entrances.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58475 alt.politics.libertarian:1676 talk.philosophy.misc:2292 alt.individualism:5939
From: perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Property Rights
Date: 5 Nov 92 23:05:41 GMT
Organization: HJF AIDS Research Project, Washington DC

In article <1d95p1INN3rc@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>In article <Bx76C6.GrL@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil> perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez) writes:
>>In article <1d6a85INN263@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>>>The American system, with less historical burden of conditions and explicit
>>>rejection of some, has unusually few conditions compared to the English system
>>>and almost any traditional system you can name.
>>>
>>>Libertarians seem to want to strip off the few remaining conditions in their
>>>quest for an absolute, unconditional ownership of property.
>>
>>So, every ocean-going ship ends up with barnacles on the hull. Does that
>>mean they should not be scraped off?
>
>No.  But you should be careful to leave the rudder and props in your
>quest to clean the hull.
>
>Some of the historical conditions that remain in our property system are
>functional, not merely accidental or outdated.

Which ones? That is the crux of the matter, and is not determined by
appealing to history or tradition.

Thread has been spun by hand throughout most of history. Is this an
abberation? Should we go back to drop-spindles and clothes you couldn't
wash because they had to last a generation?

IMNSHO, the relatively pure titles to property of today are a wonderful
innovation that makes a man independent of his neighbor, thus paving
the way to mutually beneficial *interdependent* interaction, rather
than chaining him to a static dependence upon the status quo within a
community.

>
>>>The purpose of this line of postings was to answer Rick Beckham's challenge
>>>to define the term "thief" with anything less than the libertarian
>>>absolutist idea of property ownership.  I pointed out that no culture
>>>had ever had such a ludicrously absolute notion, yet all had been able to
>>>define thievery without difficulty.  I haven't seen any other libertarians
>>>challenging me on this point yet.
>>
>>Is it at all possible that a person not articulate and knowledgable enough
>>to define "what is property" would nonetheless know a thief when he sees
>>one?
>
>Are you talking about yourself?  :-)  No, seriously, I don't get your point.
>Could you explain?

To be able to define a concept in words (such as "property" or "thief") is
the last step in understanding it, not the first. One can have an implicit
understanding of a concept without being able to put that understanding in
words. Any concept not defined in words, however, cannot be defended
ideologically.


-- 
==========================================================================
That which is necessary is never evil. If an evil seems necessary, look
to your context; that's where its root lies.  - Charles Perez
==========================================================================