HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Was Quayle a Moral Draft Dodger?
Date: 8 Sep 92 02:29:32 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

No.

Next question?
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Canadian vs US health care
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 19:07:14 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Sep14.183911.24209@Princeton.EDU> pswanson@shine.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson) writes:
>>>   The author documents numerous examples of corporations which were
>>>every bit as bound up in bureaucratic waste and paralysis as any despised
>>>government agency. And this in an era of fierce international competition...
>>
>>  Right.  So presumably they won't stay like this for long.   Either they 
>>  will change or go out of business.   Nobody says that private enterprise
>>  can't be bloated and inefficient.  But market advocate claim, and generally
>>  I agree, that such companies can't stay like that for long (unless they
>>  are protected by government intervention from feeling the effects of
>>  the market).
>>
>Does one counter-example disprove your theory?  In short, GM.  They are the
>ultimate in inefficiency and while they are loosing market share it sure is
>taking a long time.

  Funny, I think this supports *my* view.  After all, they ARE losing 
  money and market share.  It takes a long time because they're such
  a big company.   But the fact of it is undeniable.
 
  Also, I said "unless they are protected by government intervention
  from feeling the effects of the market".   Have you forgotten the
  "voluntary" import quotas?  These were agreed to by the Japanese
  under the threat of trade action by the US government.


---peter


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 13:47:02 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Sep13.204655.2589@brownfield.glv.com> <jbrow@glv.com> writes:
>In article <1992Sep13.135545.24709@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)  
>writes:
>[other stuff deleted]
>
>> 
>> More like their only other choice is to not watch news at all. Few people
>> like to be thought ignorant, yet even fewer are willing to spend the time
>> and effort to dig out facts on their own, independent of the news agencies.
>> This is a classic market failure driven by an almost undisplaceable
>> oligarchy at the top.

>Although I find your other arguments very interesting and informative, Gary, I  
>have to take exception to the "classic market failure" statement.  Any industry  
>so heavily regulated by the government (FCC) cannot be said to exhibit classic  
>market failures. 

  Oh, *this* nonsense again! 

  There are, between cable, UHF,and VHF, over 100 channels available for
  broadcast.  There are a FOUR, count 'em, *FOUR*, national TV news organizations
  in the US: ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN.  CBN (Christian Broadcasting) and PBS (Public
  Broadcasting) also have news/opinion shows on a regular basis.   

  The FCC does not control content in any way which is significant to our
  discussion.  Moreover there are no reasons except market ones why the 
  existing networks could not have amore diversity of political viewpoint
  than thery do, i.e., the FCC is not the reason why the big 4 news organ-
  izations are paper-doll cutouts of each other.

  The FCC issue is a red herring!  There is no reason to assume that if
  there were 200 channels, or 300, that things would be any different.  
  The limiting factor is the *audience*, not the channel allocation.
  It takes a reasonably large audience to attract enough advertisers
  to fund a decent news organization.  Indeed, if there were more channels
  then there would be more places for advertisers to advertise and this 
  might lower rates, making it harder, not easier, to fund a 5th news
  organization.   If there was a big enough market to support another
  news organization then the market would do so.


---peter

  

  

  


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: Was Clinton a Moral Draft Dodger?
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 19:54:52 GMT
Organization: The Gizmonic Institute

joseph.m.knapp writes:

     [On Clinton's uncle trying to get him a naval reserve position:] 
>
>I'm still waiting for evidence that this is not just another campaign/media
>circle-jerk (a la the "Dump Dan Quayle" campaign) that, as Clinton says,
>does not amount to a hill of beans. Throughout all of the mudslinging, Bush
>is still way down in the polls. Maybe people aren't concerned about the
>bogus "issues" he's trying to raise? But keep trying, George. Clinton can be
>a mean counter-puncher.
>
I'm wondering if the Bush campaign people overdid it in '88 with the 
Boston Harbor/Willie Horton stuff. That maybe people are looking askance
at any charge that the Bush people might toss out.

-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> Write when you get the chance. 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: New poll results
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 13:00:48 GMT
Organization: The Gizmonic Institute

Bruce A. Martin writes:
>
>In 1988, the Libertarian candidate got more votes than ALL OTHER 3rd PARTIES 
>PUT TOGETHER!  This was also true in 1980.  (I'm not sure about 1984.)
>
Did John Anderson run as a Libertarian in 1980?

-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> 
I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you all to repent from your sins.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Was Clinton a Moral Draft Dodger? (was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<lat620INNbj3@spim.mips.com> <1992Sep10.154502.24182@anasazi.com>
	<lavnctINN96t@spim.mips.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 08:07:18 GMT


In article <lavnctINN96t@spim.mips.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:

   John R. Moore) writes:
   |> Keywords: 
   |> 
   |> Michael Polen) writes:
   |> ]It appears that none of you were college age at the time of the viet nam
   |> ]war.  For those in college it was a sign of success and planning to avoid
   |> ]being drafted.  There were student deferements, occupational deferments,
   |> Except for those who volunteered!
   |> ]medical deferments, family hardship deferments, etc.  All legal, and all
   |> ]used.  Even joining the Guard, signing up with a reserve unit (to lower
   |> ]the odds of involvment), or opting into a military vocation unlikely to
   |> ]lead to war-zone excitement (like computer programmer) were preferable
   |> ]to the real thing.
   |> ]
   |> ]Both Clinton and Quayle accomplished the goal of every male I knew,
   |> ]though each in a different way.  The fact that this system was biased
   |> ]toward the wealthy, the educated, the white ... led to the lottery
   |> ]system.
   |> 
   |> There are two fundamental differences: (1) Clinton has been lying and
   |> changing his story about what happened, rather than simply telling
   |> it like it is. That says a lot about his character today, as opposed
   |> to what it might have been 20 years ago; (2) Clinton used a government
   |> program (ROTC) to avoid the draft, but then failed to live up to his
   |> obligations on that program. Quayle at least lived up to his obligations.
   |> 
   (1) What Clinton has called leaving out facts that he did not think were
   relevant, you call lying.  Your option.

Yep, I choose to call it lying.  I call it lying when a candidate for the
highest office in the land seeks by subterfuge and legerdemain to conceal
the facts of his past.  Especially a past that revolves around his
failure to do his duty.

   (2) Clinton did not fail to live up to his obligations to ROTC.  It was
   a voluntary program and had no obligations.  ROTC was a college class for
   units.  There were no requirements to go into the military, no requirements
   to stay in ROTC, no ...

Wrong.  There was a great difference between the freshmen and sophomores
marching around and the senior cadets.  The senior cadets signed a
contract that obligated them to a term of service in the ready reserves
with the first three years served on active duty.  This is exactly how
Colin Powell got in to the military.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 07:09:23 GMT

In article <12253@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>There is a difference, of course.  There aren't large numbers of
>blacks trying to justify child molestation.

What difference? There arn't large numbers of gays trying to justify child
molestation. Grow up.
-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
    
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45439 ca.politics:7777 ba.politics:5313
From: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss,ba.motss
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: 10 Sep 92 21:16:34 GMT
Reply-To: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

In article <8288.12310@stratus.SWDC.Stratus.COM>, Len Bucuvalas writes:
>I am "a few bits short of a byte"???? While Cramer spreads his
>hate talk all over th enet and I AM crazy?!?! That's what I love
>abouthtis stae man.....poeple .. to me...seem to have their
>priorities completely reversed.

There's nothing written that says you both can't be a little on the loony
side, regardless of your political views....

Take a little time, Len, and lie down in a cool, dark, room. Get your thoughts 
in order, and *then* post. As it is, your posts look like a stream of consciousness
from someone on five hits of cheap LSD with a little too much strychnine. 

>He is more than a nut case bud....he is a hate monger. and if
>you can support that then YOU are as bad as he is.

A particular kind of nut case, but then again, "nut case" covers every one
from JFK conspiracy theorists and UFO believers to Charles Manson and
Jeffrey Dahmer. I should think that you would have read enough of my 
postings to know whether or not I support Clayton's view of the world. 

>You are attempting to reach a blind and deaf person...blind and
>deaf to all except his own slef-contained hatred.

Maybe so, but the post wasn't solely for his consumption, now was it?
Use some of that well-vaunted reading comprehension and calm down
a little, pal. 

JZ
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45727 ca.politics:7858 ba.politics:5380
From: walsh@optilink.UUCP (Mark Walsh)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:48:40 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

From article <1992Sep14.210910.10793@Princeton.EDU>, by niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent):
> In article <1992Sep13.093513.10341@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>>In article <12273@optilink.UUCP> walsh@optilink.UUCP (Mark Walsh) writes:

>>>The good news is that the number of gays pushing for this brand
>>>of governmental discrimination is relatively small.  The bad
>>>news is that they are good at being vocal (though I will support
>>>their freedom of speech without reservation) about it, kind of
>>>like those white supremacist neaderthals.

>>I think you're wrong about this.  In fact, right after Wilson vetoed
>>AB101, a poll showed that two thirds of Californian voters supported
>>AB101.  Sounds to me like many people, not just vocal lesbigays,
>>support anti-discrimination laws.

>>>I guess my problem is that I don't see gays as disadvantaged.

> Really?  Fine.  Go tell the Army you're gay, and try to enlist.

So I guess this means that gays are indeed disadvantaged?
I don't think do.  As I said in my post, the military
discriminates, and I believe that discrimination by the
government is wrong.

>>>My best man is gay, and he is every bit as competent in the
>>>workplace as I am, so why does he need to be protected?  This

> Because people are bigots, and fire even competent people out of hate.

And what then happens to those bigots?  I suppose that there
must be laws protecting the employment of bigots.  Why don't
you want to let people ruin their businesses as they see fit?

>>>kind of legislation results in resentment between the have's
>>>(the protected) and the have not's, and removes the rights of

> There are no unprotected people under this law.  It doesn't say that
> gay people can't be fired.  It says "Gay people can't be fired for being
> gay, and straight people can't be fired for being straight."

>>>what one can and cannot do with their business.

> That assumes that there is such a right, and that it outweighs the right
> to feed yourself.

Yes, I do assume that both rights exist, and they are not
at all related.  Or can I demand that you must employ me
to mow your lawn?   I'll bet that you are revered by the
government -- in Cuba!

> David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1992 World Series Champions
> niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
>    princeton.edu     | Brady Anderson 1992 AL MVP

> Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more months!

Well, at least we agree on something.  :-)
-- 
Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
AOL: BigCookie -- Amateur Radio: KC6RKZ@WX3K -- USCF: L10861
"What, me worry?" - William M. Gaines, 1922-1992
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: doug@cc.ysu.edu (Doug Sewell)
Subject: Re: Seven Prison Cells For Seven Dangerous Criminals
Organization: Bush in 92 ? NOT!
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 17:31:36 GMT

pssres12@ucs.usl.edu (Vignes Gerard M) writes:
: 			NOTE TO THE READER
: 
: 	This person's next move will probably be
: 	to dredge up a few old postings of mine,
: 	deliberately take a few lines out of context,
: 	and use them to construct a bogus argument to
: 	"prove" that I am homophobic, and therefore racist.
: 
I've never seen homophobia == racism in this sense before... but aren't you
the fellow that wrote once that "black homosexuals don't exist" ?

You are also the same "Christian" that, when your actions were compared
with your Bible, you were found wanting.  You dismissed it with "this
crap doesn't warrant a response" type of reaction, and promptly dropped
out of the discussion.

I can't help but think you feel you need someone to discriminate against,
because of real (and imagined) injustices perpetrated against you.  Or
maybe you feel that self-righteous hate is "legitimate" hate.

Oh, and trying to toss it into alt.flame is just another way of running
from the subject.
--
Doug Sewell, Tech Support, Computer Center, Youngstown State University
doug@cc.ysu.edu	   doug@ysub.bitnet	<internet>!cc.ysu.edu!doug
Family Values: the sexist, racist, homophobic, classist, "Christian" values
of the 50's.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45644 ca.politics:7828 ba.politics:5352 soc.motss:39136 ba.motss:1636
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: 15 Sep 92 17:14:26 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <12284@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>I'm not asking you to do that with NAMBLA -- you don't have the
>legal power -- just stop helping them to justify their actions.

And, since some men on USENET post pictures of pre-pubescent girls
to a.p.b.e, you shouldn't be posting to the net because that
action would be construed as support for these men. Just like
marching in a gay parade with NAMBLA participation is an implicit
approval of NAMBLA.

If this logic upsets you, then I suggest you do one of the following.

1. You either abandon posting to USENET, since it is a haven for
   straight pedophiles,

or

2. you realize that we are responsible for ourselves and our families,
and no one else.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:44332 ca.politics:7535 ba.politics:5116
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: A State monopoly on morality
From: ** Sender Unknown **
Date: 8 Sep 92 21:52:02 GMT
 <qvln3#+.phil@netcom.com> <1992Sep4.201307.19612@pcnntp.apple.com> <exukjb.125.715741569@exu.ericsson.se>
Distribution: na
Organization: Apple Computer Inc.

In article <exukjb.125.715741569@exu.ericsson.se>, exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
> I can't wait till the government makes a law requiring employers to hire
> "mentally impaired" people.  Not lunatics, just incompetents. Then I can
> go apply for a job and sue if turned down, because I can get witnesses to
> testify to my lack of skill and mental ability to do the job. I'll win alot
> of cases, and teach other people how to do it too. [Well, I won't teach 
> them how myself because I'm mentally incompetent to do so, but I'll ask 
> other normal smart people to do it for me.]  Then we'll show them bigoted 
> employers a thing or to.  We'll show them that they really have no business
> making choices about who their companies shall employ, for all choice is
> discriminating in the end.

Not only was I misquoted, but comment was made and a conclusion drawn on
content taken out of context.  The argument was for individuals to make the
moral decisions as the key to FOA, thus defining who they would NOT associate
with.  And if you, with your lack of skill and ability, get turned down for a job
that requires it, we're not talking discrimination, we're talking qualifications (or
lack of).  Choices given the criteria necessary to achieve the goal.  Skill & ability
are relative to employment; Given both, being blue should not be.

\aliscafo/ 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Hershensohn: Hoist with his own petard
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 23:21:42 GMT

I'm just back from the "statewide forum" of United We Stand America,
the successor organization to the California Perot Petition Drive
Committee where I and many other third party candidates were invited
to share our positions with the delegates.

I appeared on a panel with Genevieve Torres, the Peace and Freedom
Candidate, and John Cortez, an independent running a write-in
campaign. Barbara Boxer declined to show up.  Bruce Herschensohn
was there too but he REFUSED to appear on the same panel with the
rest of us.  Instead he manipulated the organizers of the convention
into putting him on by himself with not one, but two warm up
introducers.

I don't know what Bruce thought he was going to get out of pulling a
stunt like that but it clearly backfired.  There were numerous
comments not only from the panel but from members of the audience
to the effect that they did not care for Mr. H's grandstanding.

This was first time I'd had a chance to meet Genevieve Torres.  We
have agreed to work together to protest the exclusion of third party
candidates from the fall debates.  I invite you to join both of us
outside the San Francisco Hilton on Monday evening, September 21st.
For further information please call my state headquarters at
1-800-894-JUNE.

/June
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45672 alt.politics.elections:13243 alt.politics.bush:5271
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Seizures, stops and searches (was: Political Parties in the U.S.)
Date: 10 Sep 92 02:23:07 GMT
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville

In article <1992Sep9.221851.10119@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>
dsc@gemini.tmc.edu (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892) writes:

>
>In article <1992Sep6.182018.21584@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (Willim December Starr) writes:
>>
>>I believe that the police only have the authority to stop people at
>>these checkpoints; they cannot conduct a search of the people in the
>>car beyond what may be allowed in a "Terry stop" (a pat-down frisk for
>>weapons is permitted if the police officer believes that he may be in
>>danger; such a pat-down must be for weapon-like bumps and bulges
>>.....
>
>Plainly the police have the authority to administer sobriety tests at
>these checkpoints.  Does such a test constitute a search?  I.e. by testing
>one's breath are they searching one's body?
>
>I believe that in most, if not all states, refusing to cooperate with a
>sobriety test is illegal, punishable by confiscation of privilege (driving)
>at the very least.  This is hardly in the 'spirit' of the constitutional
>guarantee of protection from unreasonable searches and siezures.

     I believe this is based on the idea of "implied consent."  That is,
agreeing to a sobriety check is implied in getting a driver's license.  If
you don't consent, don't get a driver's license.

     I have serious problems with this, because of the nature of the
United States it is almost impossible to live without some form of private
trnasportation outside of major urban areas.  What other rights are we
giving our "implied consent" to waiving?

========================================================================
| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
========================================================================
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:44295 talk.politics.theory:4095