HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: Re: Jack S Defends MLKing Slur (Was: ARF DEFENDS HIS HONOR)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 03:29:26 GMT
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Chicago, IL

 
 
 Article 36262 (9 more) in misc.headlines:
 
 From: gummitch@techbook.com (Jeff Frane)
 
 >Whether David Duke ever participated in a lynching is 
 irrelevant; he has preached hatred to others who then 
 committed these atrocities; he is responsible, just like any 
 other rabble rouser.
 
 First of all, you are going to have to prove to me that he 
 preached hatred.  You are simply parroting  media hype.  I 
 defy you to come up with a single quote wherein he preached 
 hatred.
 
 Secondly, I am not here to defend his actions or behavior.  
 All I have ever contended was that he was visciously abused 
 and slandered by the media.
 
 They attacked him like sharks at a feeding frenzy.  They 
 could not mention his name without playing that scratchy old 
 film of him, as an 18 year old student with a swastica, 
 protesting the Vietnam war.
 
 I would guess I heard at least 25 time, today alone, people 
 saying that Clinton was only a 24 year old kid when he went 
 to Moscow and it is a big todo about nothing.
 
 Just why the hell is an 18 year old supposed to be more 
 responsible than a 24 year old?   Don't bother guessing.  
 
 The answer is of course, Israel again.
 
 Clinton has opened up his campaign to AIPAC and vowed to 
 turn American Taxpayer's Pockets inside out to send more 
 money to Israel.  Gore has a proven track record of doing 
 the same.  
 
 Duke is, of course a vociferous critic of Israel.
 
 js

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Subject: Re: Senators get off the hook.
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:51:41 GMT

In article <9503@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>Another jewel from the back pages of the Atlanta Journal and Constitution.
>Oct. 7
>
> [etc]
>Now it is gone, replaced with language that makes the government pay any
>damages won by a senate employee with a bias complaint.

Surprise, surprise.

"Take your country back!"

   Dave
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Sunday, 11 Oct 1992 17:19:55 CDT
From: <U56503@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: ==> Alt.Politics.Clinton Contains Position Papers

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Information in the public interest which does not imply that it
is the opinion of UIC.  Contact 75300.3115@compuserve.com for
further information.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There are over three screens of position papers for Clinton/Gore
on alt.politics.clinton for interested readers.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51601 alt.rush-limbaugh:7349 alt.politics.bush:9066 alt.politics.clinton:10294 alt.politics.elections:16657 talk.abortion:42548
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: That Legal right over Gambit...
From: kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell)
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 03:16:23 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
> In article <Bvzssz.Iqt@eis.calstate.edu> kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell) writes:
> > ... I don't believe
> >for a moment that he really intended to join ROTC and then "changed his
> >mind", and if you really believe that, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell
> >you, CHEAP. 
> 
> See, guys, Mitchell is basing his vote on his (Mitchell's) religious beliefs.
> He believes, without any possibility of proof, Bush's assertion that Clinton
> lied.

Sorry to spoil your poetic experience, but it just ain't so. 

First of all, I neither LIKE nor BELIEVE George Bush. If he told me that
the sun was out, I'd check to make sure that I had a shadow. If he told me
that the sky was blue or water wet, I'd check for myself. Y'see, despita
all his crap about "who do you trust?", the answer (for me) is "NOT
BUSH!". 

But that's O.K., because I CAN check for myself. 

Bill Clinton has been on both sides of a LOT of issues. First he's AGAINST
public financing of abortions, now he's FOR it. First he "never broke any
US laws", then admitted that he'd smoked pot, but "didn't inhale". First
he never got a draft notice, then yeah, he did.  First he says that he
resigned from ROTC and made himself subject to the draft; then it turns
out that he'd already had a high draft lottery number when he resigned. 

Figure it out, folks. Here's a man who DESPERATELY wants to not be
drafted, at ANY price. He'll agree to ANYTHING even to delay the
inevitable. If it hadn't been the high lottery number, he'd have thought
of something else the following year why he couldn't attend ROTC, or, if
he couldn't get out of that, why he couldn't be commissioned. 

Not that it's an issue, or anything. 

But as bad as Bush is, he's clearly the lesser of two evils.

Ken Mitchell
kmitche@eis.calstate.edu
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: The Decline of America: Private Profit over Public Good
Date: 16 Oct 92 16:00:18 GMT
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB

The Decline of America: Private Profit over Public Good

------------------------------------------------------------------
"Prior to the Gulf crisis, the U.S. imported 290 million barrels of
oil a year from Iraq and Kuwait. Raising auto-efficiency standards by
a measly 2.75 mpg, says the Silocon Valley Toxics Coalition, could save
the U.S. the same 290 million barrels...."

Source: In These Times, Dec. 12-18, 1990, page 6.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: JZ lands in a Hot LZ...
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:01:22 GMT
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <Oct.8.17.41.30.1992.8311@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>In article <ld95v8INNmcq@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
>> This argument sure carries a lot of weight with those of us that don't
>> believe in Judgement Day.
>
>Judgement Day is a disjoint event from your faith (or lack thereof) in
>it.
Yes, and from yours, Mr. Kaldis.

>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???       ||
No, but then again, I can't believe that anyone with an IQ above
room temperature would hold such views.
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50143 ca.politics:8522 ba.politics:5930
From: ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: No on 9
Date: 7 Oct 92 19:00:21 GMT
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

In article <1992Oct4.203257.29830@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>
>Man is nothing without property. If you do not have the right to your
>own body (not being sold into slavery for example), your food, your
>water, your air, your clothes, your shelter, why then, how long would
>you survive?
>
>Many totalitarian states agree with your position. With organizations
>such as Amnesty International, all one has to do is NOT to kill
>the dissenters -- after all, you haven't killed them now, have you.
>
>You've just LEGALLY removed some of their property, like, a place to
>live in, and left them only LEGALLY able to live in the
>Great Wall jail house for example.
>
>In short, and again, without property rights, you are nothing. 
>A slave ....

But then, as Ben Franklin said, how could you complain if the
govt only required, say, 5% of national income, as it once did. 

It is impossible to be a 100% free man while living in a society.
Even if the sole purpose of govt is just the protection of individual
rights, that costs money, and whether people will voluntarily
support the justice system is not assured by any means.  If the 
system is not voluntarily supported, society has the power (and
a power is a legal right) to levee taxes.

So property rights are not absolute.  The way to protect property
rights is not to claim their absoluteness (which cannot be proven)
but to show their utility to society at large.  

The same is true of the Freedom of Association, or any other right.
Society has the power to circumscribe this right, as it is currently
doing.  The way to defend it is to show how necessary this right
is in everyday life, and how it works best if it is NOT circumscribed.

Btw, in a previous article, you claimed that the Freedom of Association
is the most basic right of humans.  Now you claim that it is property.
Which is it?  


--Al Date
From: skrenta@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Rich Skrenta)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: WANTED: Recommendation for electronic news service (like Reuters,etc.)
Date: 14 Oct 92 13:55:36 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois

ph600fcy@sdcc14.ucsd.edu (Matthew Harrington) writes:
> I feel like moving out of the 19th century and into the 21st by
> giving up my beloved newspaper (the New York Times) and moving to a
> newspaper in electronic format.

A neat service is Xpress (1-800-7PC-NEWS).  They sell you a box and
some software for about $100.  The box has an input for your cable TV
and a serial port on the back that spews a continuous stream of 9600
baud data.

There is no monthly charge for the "first tier" of service, which includes
stock quotes, weather reports, AP & UPI feeds, and lots of other junk.
Their software can be told to watch for things you're interested in (say,
certain stock quotes, your local weather report, and anything from UPI)
and catch them when they come by.

The second tier of service costs about $22/month and includes more stock
quotes and investment news blurbs.  You have to buy an extra  magic decoder
box to get tier 2.

At one time I had a kludged Unix daemon eating the feed, catching quotes
for stocks that I watch and stuffing the news stories into local newsgroups.

I was worried that this was a "novelty" service, and the appeal would wear
off.  But it turned out to be quite useful.  HNN can give you the world
in 30 minutes; reading "AP Top Stories as of <hour> EDT" gives you more
depth in five minutes.  Plus they often have the full text for speeches that
you only see clips from on TV.

--
Rich Skrenta
From: curmw@dcatla.uucp
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: The Embarassing VP Debate.
Date: 14 Oct 92 10:35:38 GMT
Organization: Digital Communications Associates, Alpharetta, GA


I watched the V.P. debate last night.  I was EMBARASSED.
Embarassed to be a member of a society whose leaders cannot have
a real discussion of the issues without bickering like children,
avoiding each other's questions, and making fools of themselves.

Quayle somehow managed to keep his foot out of his mouth at least some
of the time, but would avoid any direct question from Mr Gore with the
same weak sounding condemnations of Mr Clinton's integrity.  Anyone
who has been paying attention to the news is fully aware of Mr Clinton's
half-truths, and will make their own decision.  I'm not saying that it should
be irrelevant, but Quayle used it as a crutch to avoid the issues all night.
The fact is that both Mr Bush and Mr Clinton are dishonest panderers, and
will say anything to get elected.

Gore, while he "performed" well, was too polished and seemed to have
a canned, rehearsed response for any topic that came up.  He had a GREAT
line, however, when Quayle was referring to the fact that there are term
limitations on the President:  "We're fixin' to limit one."  I have to
agree that we need to get rid of Bush, but Clinton/Gore IS NOT THE
ANSWER!!!

Admiral Stockdale proved that he is no public speaker, and seemed very
nervous, but he did come across as intelligent to me.  I don't think you
need to be a slick, made-up, handled, blown-dry phoney to be Pres/VP,
but while Mr Perot's charisma and attitude can overcome that, he may
be hurt by his running mate's inability to be "slick."  In my opinion,
Adm. Stockdale did have the best line of the night when, after a spat
of meaningless bickering between Gore and Quayle, said something to the
effect of "Now I see why we have this gridlock in government."

I wish Nancy Lord had been there!

Rob Waterson
rob_waterson@pacdata.com
My opinions, not DCA's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: If you don't want Perot:  Bend over to the Republocrats.
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:50:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.094011.1440@cnsvax.uwec.edu>, falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>		FOR ALL THOSE WHO WANT PEROT TO SHUT UP...

I don't know if you include me in this group or not, but I don't want Perot to
shut up.  I want people not to vote for him because he's not trustworthy.  He
promised to run a world-class campaign if the volunteers put him on the
ballot.  By pulling out (not entering) the race, he has broken that promise. 
I used to support him...I planned to vote for him.  When he pulled out, I
re-examined Clinton and Marrou.  Although I know he doesn't stand a chance of
winning, I plan to vote for Marrou because he and the Libertarians support
most of things Perot said that appealed to me.  Clinton is vastly preferrable
to Bush, but overall their policies are more similar than they are different.

>    One simple fact remains:  You'll have to bend over to the establishment
>again.  If or after Perot is defeated, he will be forgotten by the lawmakers,
>who won't do anything of the sort that he sees to help bring the deficit down.

As someone pointed out to me in e-mail, Perot has the right message but is
the wrong messenger.  If enough people are moved by Perot to examine
alternatives to the Dems and Reps, maybe someday we will have a real change.
Perot is a salesman.  Buy his message if it appeals to you, but don't act
hastily...comparison shop before you decide to buy Perot himself.  Make a
long-term committment to change; don't give up when/if Perot fades away.  The
Libertarian Party won't pull out; they'll probably be going strong long after
Perot is just a memory.

>    You want $500bn deficits??
>    You want an $8-10tr debt??
>    How far do you want this to go before someone has to step in??

No.  No.  No farther.  But I also don't want a cure worse than the disease. 
I don't want to impulsively ride the first bandwagon that looks at all
promising.

>With a Dem. total win in November imminent,

It ain't over yet.  There's a politically infinite distance between today and
Nov. 3.

>just remember what Clinton is asking for, because he'll get it with no
>problem. 

Just like Jimmy Carter did?

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)           For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,talk.politics.mideast
From: ronf@panther3.panther.mot.com (Ron Feigen)
Subject: Re: Jack S Defends MLKing Slur (Was: ARF DEFENDS HIS HONOR)
Organization: Motorola Panther Project, Chandler, AZ
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:05:21 GMT

In article <BvzoD3.Gou@ddsw1.mcs.com> arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) writes:
> 
> 
> Article 36262 (9 more) in misc.headlines:
> 
> From: gummitch@techbook.com (Jeff Frane)
> 
> >Whether David Duke ever participated in a lynching is 
> irrelevant; he has preached hatred to others who then 
> committed these atrocities; he is responsible, just like any 
> other rabble rouser.
> 
> First of all, you are going to have to prove to me that he 
> preached hatred.  You are simply parroting  media hype.  I 
> defy you to come up with a single quote wherein he preached 
> hatred.

  Yes, as the Grand wizard of the KKK duke preach peace and goodwill
  to all men (after we burn the Jews and run the Black back to Africa).
  Are you trying to say that Duke as the leader of the local KKK  did not 
  preach the KKK hate platform.

> 
> Secondly, I am not here to defend his actions or behavior.  
> All I have ever contended was that he was visciously abused 
> and slandered by the media.
> 
> They attacked him like sharks at a feeding frenzy.  They 
> could not mention his name without playing that scratchy old 
> film of him, as an 18 year old student with a swastica, 
> protesting the Vietnam war.
> 
> I would guess I heard at least 25 time, today alone, people 
> saying that Clinton was only a 24 year old kid when he went 
> to Moscow and it is a big todo about nothing.
> 
> Just why the hell is an 18 year old supposed to be more 
> responsible than a 24 year old?   Don't bother guessing.  
> 
> The answer is of course, Israel again.

  Of course Duke was attacked because of your fantasy Jewish controlled
  media conpspiracy.  Of course not even Duke denied his role in the KKK.
  Are you saying the KKK has been slander by the Jewish controlled media.
  You have seemed to infer that the KKK doesn't do anything wrong.  do you
  propose the anti-KKK feelings are the product of a Jewish conspiracy.
> 
> Clinton has opened up his campaign to AIPAC and vowed to 
> turn American Taxpayer's Pockets inside out to send more 
> money to Israel.  Gore has a proven track record of doing 
> the same.  

  You claimed earlier in the campaign the Perot was the product of the
  Jewish conspiracy.  This is why he only got "good" press coverage.
  That the Jewish controlled gov't/media fabricated a candidate and was
  putting him in office.  you now "forget" this conspiracy theory and
  accuse AIPAC of putting Clinton in office. 

  BARF, did you ever consider that the neo-nazi, white aryan candidates
  you support are unpopular because the majority of the US finds them
  repugnant?  As the majority of the net find you repugnant.
> 
> Duke is, of course a vociferous critic of Israel.

  Duke is of course a racist ex KKK grand wizard.  He is a vociferous critic
  of civil rights, equal opportunity, free speach, and the Bill of rights.

> 
> js
>


-- 

>
Ron Feigen
ronf@panther.mot.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.environment,talk.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Subsidies for Roads and Cars in the USA
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Oct14.163009.26180@ke4zv.uucp> <1992Oct15.000014.20196@s1.gov>
Date: 14 Oct 92 19:08:38

BART paying for 50 percent of operating costs and nothing on its
investment is not encouraging either for extending BART or building
similar systems elsewhere.  Appartently the newer MARTA system is
even worse.

If the stuff about how long a BART car lasts were relevant, BART would
be paying its way.

I have ridden BART several times.  It's ok as public transportation
goes.  These have been on occasions when I drove to San Francisco
and didn't want to repark, and where BART just happened to go where
I wanted to go.

The efficiency experts don't consider it relevant that not many people
want to ride BART.  The arguments that they ought to want to ride BART
are much more relevant to them.  Probably the Clinton-Gore Administration
will be receptive to some ingenious proposals to coerce people into
riding it, so work on them guys.

--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51096 alt.politics.elections:16235
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bush Aide Foresees Landslide -- for Bush
Date: 12 Oct 92 14:27:35 GMT
	<1992Oct12.170534.17149@cbnews.cb.att.com>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: ran@cbnews.cb.att.com's message of Mon, 12 Oct 1992 17:05:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.170534.17149@cbnews.cb.att.com> ran@cbnews.cb.att.com (Robert A. Neinast) writes:

> Actually, I think that Bush is right--it is wrong (morally/patriotically)
> to demonstrate against your *country* when it's at war.  However, the
> distinction not being made is that Clinton did NOT demonstrate against
> his country, just against the (then) current government and its policies.

In the case of the Vietnam War, especially, this was an important
distinction.  There were a few real radicals in the anti-War movement;
there were a few people who really were demonstrating against the
United States.  Most of the people in the movement, though---
including, by all accounts, Bill Clinton---were demonstrating for
their country, not against it.  They were trying to stop their country
from an action which was both mistaken and wrong---an action which
even Bush, 20 years later, admitted was wrong.

Remember: patriotism does not require unquestioning support of every
government policy, no matter how foolish.  Genuine patriotism means
more than that.
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51557 alt.politics.clinton:10265 alt.politics.elections:16625
Organization: The Leader Desslok School of Diplomacy
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:26:05 EDT
From: Norman St. John Polevaulter <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Republican Fear
Distribution: usa

In article <Bw2usz.5Hs@phage.cshl.org>, pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo) says:

>did you see the CNN report on the "Spin Fest" after the first
>debate? Verrry Orwellian. As the reported noted, the Founding
>Fathers must be spinning in their graves.

I did like what Bernie Shaw did afterwards... "Let's go now to our
one-man defender of truth and right... [name], did anyone lie to us
out there tonight?" The correspondent proceeded to point out a couple
of, er, "misstatements" on the parts of the debaters. NBC did this too,
after the veep debate (incidentally, the single moderator format was great!
The first debate was dull -- this one I listened to the whole thing!)

At least the news media aren't being QUITE the patsies they were in '88.

                  "Two hundredth verse, same as the first!"
[Your blood pressure just went up.]        Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
DISCLAIMER: If PSU knew I had opinions they'd probably try to charge me for it.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc