HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: NYT (6-17)--Clinton on Cuomo & Supreme Court
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:18:54 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 720979857@spssig, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>Tribe is the one I suspect will be the next nominee.  As for 'squeaky
>clean' (NOTE: this is NOT a flame or complaint, just an opinoin) a liberal 
>nominee doesn't need to be as squeaky clean as a conservative.  If you claim 
>to be a conservative, you better not have done anything out of line...if you 
>have, you'll be slaughtered.  A liberal is more likely to get away with
>minor indiscretions.  It has to do with the self-proclaimed standards.

How would you know?  It has been so long since a liberal was actually nominated
that I haven't the faintest idea, myself.  Some of the so-called "liberals" in
past Courts were actually nominated for their apparent conservativism.  They 
came to be seen as liberals when they didn't make politically correct decisions
for conservatives.

>Cuomo on the other hand would be fillibustered.

Actually, I doubt that the Republicans will be able to bring off many successful
filibusters.  Not only is the public sick of gridlock, but the party is no longer
as united as it once was.  I can't imagine D'Amato, for example, joining in to
prevent cloture on a Cuomo filibuster.  In fact, I doubt that there would be very
much opposition to Cuomo, since he was a campaign issue in a campaign where the
people overwhelmingly supported Cuomo's backer.

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

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59932 alt.rush-limbaugh:9596 alt.politics.clinton:17036 alt.politics.bush:13852
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bob Hooker's possibly fraudulen (was Re: Trickle Down Economics)
Summary: Why do ym> think Rush is a hate-monger?
Keywords: hate
Date: 10 Nov 92 06:39:55 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Distribution: usa
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR, USA

matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
<first time I heard of Bob Hooker, he was posting e-mail to the
<> bush-org list maintained (along with clinton-org and marrou-org at
<> MIT).  He represented himself as a "right-winger".  Among the views
<> espoused were that blacks are "apes".  All those who responded to
<> him objected strenuously to his posts.  He stopped.
<> 
<> I was convinced then (and posted that) Hooker was a fraud trying to
<> divide the group and stir up trouble.  
<
<Ymu know, one of the problems with today's Republican party is that it
<has become so extreme that it is very difficult nowadays to tell the
<difference between parody and reality.
<
<When somebody like Pat Buchanan is treated as a respected statesman,

What's wrong with Pat?

<when a hate-monger like Rush Limbaugh is taken seriously,

Why do ymu consider Rush a "hate-monger"?

<when the Vice President says about a bigot like David Duke that "the
<problem is the messenger, not the message,"

Do ymu know what issues Duke was running on?  What was wrong with them?

<when delegates at the Republican convention say that the United States
<should be a Christian nation,

What's wrong with that?  The USA *is* a Christian nation by virtue of
the fact that 80% of Americans are Christians (according to polls I've
seen).  Before you blast me, I'm not part of that 80%.

<then why shouldn't we believe that a racist extremist means what he
<says? What reason is there to think that this is anything outside the
<accepted spectrum of discourse in the Republican party?

Could you please give us some examples of racist discourse inside the
accepted spectrum of discourse in the Republican party?

<I've never heard of Hooker before, and I really don't care about him
<one way or the other.  I do care, though, that we should have a
<national discourse where it is clear that people who speak this way
<are out of bounds, when it is clear that they are not part of the
<mainstream of American politics.

Please give examples.  I don't know what you are talking about.

<We're not going to have that if we keep electing the party of David
<Duke and Pat Buchanan.

Ym> put these two together as if they are equivalent.  Why do ymu think
they are?
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.homosexual,uiuc.general,uiuc.politics
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Coalition for Traditional Values' Candidate Survey
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1992 04:53:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14j by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
            <BwyAEI.7G9@cs.uiuc.edu> <steph.720483200@pegasus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Followup-To: talk.abortion

In <steph.720483200@pegasus.cs.uiuc.edu> steph@pegasus.cs.uiuc.edu (Dale Stephenson) writes:
>A fertilized egg, given time, nutrients, and no untoward
>happenings, will become an adult homo sapiens.

If that's all it takes, I guess I'm anti-abortion also.  Silly me, I somehow
thought that there was a woman involved in there somewhere.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Playing Politics With Our Economy
Date: 8 Nov 1992 03:11:16 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

In article <13067@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>

>Last night, watching the evening news, Clinton's economic plan was
>described: a middle class tax cut "to give confidence to consumers,"
>and tax incentives to business, apparently including a capital
>gain tax reduction.
>
>Now, Mush tried to get these through Congress for some time, and
>was accused of being a fool, a tool of Big Business, etc. by
>the Democrats.  Even when these proposals were introduced this
>year, in the hopes of ending the recession, they were vigorously
>resisted.
>
>Now Clinton is going to get them in order to revive the economy.
>
>It should be obvious that the Democrats were simply playing
>politics with our economy, willing to throw hundreds of thousands
>of Americans out of work, just to get the Presidency back.

Clayton surely you know that all capital gain tax cuts are not the
same. Bush's cut was on any type of gain. Clinton's is only on gains 
from investment in new ventures. 

There is a vast difference!

Richard Foy  Redondo Beach, CA         Standard Disclaimer



>
>What incredible sleaze these liberals are.
>-- 
>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,soc.culture.usa,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: dusek@rtsg.mot.com (James Dusek)
Subject: Re: To the Clinton supporters
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 15:57:27 GMT

garrett@Ingres.COM (It's not what you got, it's what you give) writes:
>In article <dusek.721078053@shale>, dusek@rtsg.mot.com (James Dusek)                           writes...
>>csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN) writes:
>>	Democrats are sore loosers.
>Who's crying now?

	Not me, I can assure you.
>> 
>Not if the Religious Right gets control of the Republican Party (we'll see
>in February '93). If there are more independents in Congress then 
>independents like me will be happy.

	Alot of independants in congress will also make me happy. As to the
religious right getting controll of the republican party, it most likely 
won't happen. They are forming their own party, and will run aginst
the republicans and democrats.

James Dusek
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59907 alt.rush-limbaugh:9581 alt.politics.elections:23659
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: President Clinton
From: jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle )
Date: 12 Nov 92 21:33:38 PST
Organization: California State University, Bakersfield

In article <1992Nov4.142807.24873@ida.liu.se> e91petmo@odalix.ida.liu.se (Peter
 //odin) writes:
>jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle ) writes:
>
>>OH *MY* **GOD**!!  God save us from Socialism.
>>________
>>Jennifer|
>>--------
>
>Once you pay taxes, you're a teeny-weeny bit closer to socialism!!!
Especially under a Clinton adminstration.

>So, unless you're cheating with taxes, you're a flamin' commie!!!!!
>Oh, my God! Now, Clinton - tomorrow- ??? Stalin??? Ceacescu????????
Did I say it would go THAT far?

>Seriously, are you sure you'd know Socialism if it stood right in
>front of you yelling, "HEY! YO! LOOK AT ME!!!"? I'm not.
You'd know.  Watch what it did to Sweden happen in the US if this doesn't
end in '96.  I think national health care is as close to Socialism as I
want to get.

>Twelve years too late, but not a second too soon!...
What?  Sweden REJECTING socialism?  :-)

>=================================================================
>| Peter Modin C92       | EMail: e91petmo@und.ida.liu.se        |
>| Rydsvagen 240 B:11    |               -"Come forth and win my |
>| S-582 51  LINKOPING   |  \\\  Amiga     eternal love", God    |
>| Int. +46 13 17 81 01  |   \\\ user!     said to Moses. But,   |
>| SWEDEN                |    \\\ ///      he came fifth and won |
>|                       |     \\X//       a toaster.            |
>=== Dept. of Computer Science, Linkoping University, Sweden  ====

Jennifer, Republican Extraordinaire, "Don't blame me, I didn't vote for him."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Now that it's over, I've received 5:1 e-mail.  5 pro-Bush, isn't this great?
we're gonna win in '96 for sure! to each 1 pro-Clinton nyah.  In light of
this, I still don't understand how he got elected.
--------------------------------------------------
mandate, v.  Democrats saying, "All right! It's ours again! Let's SCREW 'EM!!"
landslide, n.  Election by 40% of the vote, 5 points above 2nd place.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58634 alt.rush-limbaugh:9186 alt.politics.elections:22978
From: davek@informix.com (David Kosenko)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: President Clinton
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:59:45 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

anonymous@wabworld.atl.ga.us writes:
>dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung) writes:
>
>> jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle ) writes:
>> >OH *MY* **GOD**!!  God save us from Socialism.
>> >________
>> >Jennifer|
>> >--------
>> 
>> For years Clinton was "too conservative" for the Democratic party.
>> And now he's a radical leftist?  Get a clue.
>
>
>He bent.  He waffled.  He did what it took to get elected.  Not difficult 
>for a man of no character, I'd presume.


And George "I bring the pork with me on the campaign trail" Bush didn't bend.
George "Reaganomics is voodoo economics, until I'm on the ticket" Bush didn't
waffle.  George "I'll do what it takes to get elected" Bush didn't at least
*try* to do what it took to get elected.  There's a lot of "character" there,
no doubt.

Dave

-- 
Disclaimer: These opinions are not those of Informix Software, Inc.
**************************************************************************
"I look back with some satisfaction on what an idiot I was when I was 25,
 but when I do that, I'm assuming I'm no longer an idiot." - Andy Rooney
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu ("Broward " It's time for me to go " Horne")
Subject:      It's time for me to go! ( Re: A "New" Reich
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 18:57:40 MST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA07024; Tue, 10 Nov 92 18:05:46 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA21225; Tue, 10 Nov 92 18:05:07 -0800
X-Received: from IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU by idbsu.idbsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 1604; Tue, 10 Nov 92 19:07:30 MST
X-Received: from IDBSU (GCTHORNE) by IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 8146; Tue, 10 Nov 92 19:07:29 MST
X-To: talk.politics.misc.usenet

Received: from IDBSU by IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 8026; Tue,
 10 Nov 92 18:50:12 MST
Received: from hela.INS.CWRU.Edu by idbsu.idbsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with
 TCP; Tue, 10 Nov 92 18:50:11 MST
Received:  by hela.INS.CWRU.Edu (5.65b+ida+/CWRU-1.5-freenet)
        id AA18014; Tue, 10 Nov 92 20:47:13 -0500 (from an030 for
 gcthorne@idbsu.idbsu.edu)
Message-Id: <9211110147.AA18014@hela.INS.CWRU.Edu>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 20:47:13 -0500
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
To: gcthorne@idbsu.idbsu.edu
Subject: Re: A "New" Reich
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)



In a previous article, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) says:

>Heh, heh.  What are your solutions, or are we in for a Weimaresque
>collapse?

        Hey, that's what Marx says! :)

        Yep, definitely, I would think my endless haranguing of
    Clinton made this clear. :)

        But, yea, verily, I have been to the mountain!

        Left side, he say we need Mr. Guv'ner do our spending fer us.

        Right side, he say no mo, no mo, no mo guv'ment.

        They are not mutually exclusive.  Easy solution here.
        The real problem is that nobody's going to have the guts
        to dare try it.

        Suspend the Federal Debt.  Cancel it.
        Revaluate all debt instruments at 50% of current value.

        Boom.  Instant redistribution of wealth.  But hey, wait
        a minute.  Why make it permanent?  Institute a structured
        free market at the same time.  And when I say free, I'm
        talking way freer than what Mr. Leftyman would have us
        emulate, Europe.  Freer even than here.  U.S. circa 1920s
        free.

        Instant competition and motivation, plus free market
        distribution of resources.  Hey, be a Clinton. Promise
        it all!   The lefties get what they want, the Righties too.

        I'd imagine that any country daring and crazy enough to
        do this would shoot straight ahead towards world
        leadership within a decade.

        Otherwise we can do it the old-fashion way, I guess.
        Destruction of existing capital a la WWII.
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Campaign strategy
Date: 6 Nov 92 23:06:46 GMT
Organization: Chevron

Does anyone see the similarity between the campaign to defeat the USSR
and the presidential campaign to beat Bill Clinton.  We built up the
military enough to destroy the Soviet economy (or so the theory goes)
but seem to have left ours in bad shape.

Meanwhile, Bush runs a negative campaign that destroys Clintons
character credibility, but nukes his own so bad in the meantime that he
loses the election.  A few weeks ago, I posted a query asking what was
wrong with Clinton.  The worst I got was that he was a politician and
tailored his speeches to his audience (oh and had some trouble
remembering events of 23 years ago).  NOTHING ELSE WAS SUBMITTED.  Bush's
campaign would have you doubt the character of Jesus Christ if he had
been the opponent (that breaker of laws, radical liberal, change the
world guy).  That Clinton survived it all makes me respect him alot.  He
may be a dog as president, but he earned my respect.

John

-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX 
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: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 14:18:24 GMT
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh

In <1992Nov12.214232.29777@ntmtv>, jmartin@ntmtv.UUCP sez:
>
>It is a fact Mrs. Hill offered no OBJECTIVE evidence (tapes, lab test, eye
>witnesses, coke can, etc..) to substantiate here claims.  Her only "witnesses"
>were heresay evidence that would not been allowed in a court of law.

Okay, expert, tell us which parts were inadmissible and why.  Make
sure to discuss the inapplicability of Federal Rule of Evidence 801,
which sets out the basic contours of the hearsay (note spelling) rule.

Or could it be that you haven't the vaguest idea what you're talking
about?  No, that could never happen.

-- 
        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 *
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Date: 6 Nov 92 22:54:14 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <7751@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:

>In article <1992Nov6.135520.26946@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>In <Bx8ALt.1n@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
>>>From what I've heard lately, there may even be an
>>>increase in companies as more Pacific Rim companies look into getting into
>>>the business.  A monopoly is highly unlikely.
>>And who are they buying their airplanes from?  

>Whoever sells the best airplane for their intended use, passenger loads,
>flight distances, efficiency, and so on. That may be Boeing,
>McDonnell-Douglas, Airbus, Beech, Tupolev, Canadair, Aerospatiale, British
>Aerospace,... a cast of thousands. Where are you going with that question?

Look again.  Do the words "Airbus Industries" ring any bells?  As in
heavily subsidized by the home governments of the producers and being
preferentially used by most European airlines because they are 'hom
built', despite a somewhat less than admirable safety record?

Someone else was just recently talking about how MD was getting out of
the business, Beech is in the toilet financially, from what I recall
from the news, and the big orders are going to just about two
companies.  Now, one of those is an American company (Boeing) who is
getting a lot of orders for aircraft from airlines that will probably
wind up having to cancel them (they desperately need to update the old
airframes in their fleet, but simply don't have the money to do it)
and the other is getting a lot of European orders (those airlines that
we're ever so happy to see taking over the domestic ones here).  

So you tell me what to expect, once airlines that preferentially buy
from their own producer are running most of the airlines in this
country, too.


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58881 alt.rush-limbaugh:9237 alt.politics.elections:23103
From: niepornt@fish.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: President Clinton
Date: 8 Nov 92 02:39:41 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

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.

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

>Funny how all those who complained about a judiciary active in protecting police
>and preventing the guilty from being freed on legal technicalities are now so
>enthusiastic about a judiciary which will be active in shielding criminals and
>overturning democratically arrived at laws.

Funny about how all those people who think the Constitution is a
technicality don't complain when Oliver North and John Poindexter are
freed on technicalities.

Funny about those strict constructionists who seem to want to ignore the
Bill of Rights when it suits them.

>1996 can't come too soon.

Four more years.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.philosophy.
From: ian@nasser.eecs.nwu.edu (Ian Sutherland)
Subject: Re: Property Rights
Organization: EECS Department, Northwestern University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 09:43:36 GMT

In article <Bx8zoK.EFz@world.std.com> rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker
) writes:
>	2. Property has been part of the advanced
>	   cultures of the world since the agricultural revolution. It is 
>	   implicit in the control and use of land. It is a pragmatic 
>	   consequence of the way we get our food, not a good thing in and
>	   of itself.

This would imply that cultures that do not feed themselves by
agriculture have no concept of property.  Do you have any evidence that
this is so?  It's not inconceivable that such evidence might be
obtainable, since nonagricultural cultures exist today, but have you
actually obtained such evidence?

In any case, even if property DID arise out of agriculture, why does
that imply that it is not a good thing in and of itself?
-- 
Ian Sutherland
ian@eecs.nwu.edu

Sans Peur
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: 13 Nov 92 20:40:30 GMT
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar

In article <Bxn8ox.KKz@acsu.buffalo.edu> v140pxgt@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Daniel B Case) writes:

[stuff deleted]

>But, as Michael Kinsley has pointed out, the whole idea of enterprise zones 
>is inherently unconservative. The government is trying to get capital to go 
>where it doesn't want to. This sounds like-industrial policy! And I thought that
>they were against that.

What conservatives are against is the actual handing out of money to favored
projects. The granting of tax breaks apparently doesn't qualify as 'handing
out money', so conservatives don't object.

Same thing with the capital-gains tax.


>						Dan Case
>						V140PXGT@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu

Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.