HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tcanham@kilroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Tim Canham)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 23:30:27 GMT

In article <nate.807@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>tcanham@kilroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Tim Canham) writes:
>>[Nate wrote]

>>This is exactly what Rush has been talking about - liberal gamesmanship 
>>regardless of the cost to the target.  I find it despicable and yours 
>>and your "leadership's" end-justifies-the-means methods pathetic.
>
>    What do you mean *my* end-justifies-the-means-methods? It wasn't my 
>idea to parade Anita Hill in front of a Senate Committee with a bunch of 
>racy hearsay and sexual innuendo. IMHO it was a poorly thought out ploy, 
>unethically conceived and incompetently executed. Once again, I don't 
>know how to say it any more clearly than that. No, I am not happy about 
>being represented by a bunch of clowns capable of disgracing themselves 
>like that, but my home state of Indiana in its infinite wisdom re-elected 
>every single incumbent that we have in both houses. What would you have 
>me do? 
>

The reason I said "your and your leaderships" was because I left your article
with the impression that you were angry at their clumsiness and not their
premise - i.e. get Clarence at all costs.  That's what made me a little
"frosted" (to quote RL) because it appeared you were very casually discussing
the techniques used to try and discredit someone for political reasons.  If
indeed you were critical of the methods, I wholeheartedly join you.

>--
>Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
>Psychology Department               Indiana University
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu


-- 
Tim Canham
tcanham@kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov
Jet Propulsion Laboratories, Pasadena, CA
"Everybody always told me I was a rocket scientist!"
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A "New" Reich
Date: 10 Nov 1992 02:47:12 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, williamf@umbc5.umbc.edu (TheBigBopper) says:

>   C'mon, things aren't that bad.  Conditions akin to the Great
>   Depression would be disastrous for the world's economy for the


       Hehehehe.  The things I see on the net.  Wake up, chum.
       Where have you been?  They are that bad, they're practically
       screaming in your ears. :)


>   than it did then.  About 1/5 of the annual deficit is the S&L bailout
>   costs.  This year's 50 billion payout is

           70 billion, sir.  And you forget the upcoming bank failures.
           The commercial real etstate market is history.

 the last thats expected.  
>   If Clinton can nudge the economy up to a 6% growth, consistent with 


       HAHAHAHAHA.  Ohhhh, this is EXCELLENT.  The best laugh in 
       weeks.  Hey, at the current rate of conversion, hmmm. 

       Okay.  Uncle Sam sucks in about 5.5% of GDP, and pumps it 
       into the economy, with a 2% return.  To get 6% growth, we'd 
       need, oh, say 18% of GDP, or around 1 trillion dollars.

       hehehehe. Excellent. :)

>   recovery rates in past recessions, tax revenues will rise sufficiently
>   to reduce the deficit in succeeding years.   The priority now is to
>   spur growth.  If Clinton increases public spending and that leads to 
>   increased economic activity, a that move is consistent with Perot's call,
>   a short-term increase in the deficit will not be a major problem.
>                     Stay Easy__
>                      -William
>
>
>

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59259 soc.women:19193
From: m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier)
Subject: Re: Doomed...Doomed...Doomed...
Reply-To: m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier)
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, N.H.
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 92 03:08:58 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.065240.110578@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PAUL N. RITTER) writes:
>In article <Bx76v6.Kt1@apollo.hp.com>, goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman)
>writes:
>>In article <1992Nov4.043731.138233@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (P
>AUL N. RITTER) writes:
>>...
>>>you can't put the blame on a president for the MAJORITY of the problems in our
>>>country when you have a strong Socialist governing body.
>>
>>    We need a president whom we can hold responsible for the country's
>>    problems.  That is one of the reasons the voters sent Bush packing.
>
>   WRONG!!! If the Congress is screwing up the country, which they are, you
>   blame the CONGRESS and send THEM packing.

Ah, the truth.  Only one thing to add.  We've heard shouts of 'throw
the bums out' and slogans such as 'change'.  Well, if its good to
'change' the Republican White House, isn't it also good to 'change'
the Congress, which has been controlled by the Democrats for 38 years.
Hypocracy from the left.... what's now...


-- 
 Michael Le Houllier           *  John 3:16  * Nov 12, 1991 - Dili      
 (m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu.us) *  Remember: June 4, 1989 - Beijing
 Plymouth State Women's Soccer - #2 in the nation (Div. 3)  (15-0-2)
 Three wins from the national championship.  v. U MA Dartmouth  Sun.
From: gt6367c@prism.gatech.EDU (DEAL, DOUGLAS WAYNE)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Final election tallies??
Date: 5 Nov 92 13:25:45 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <l=h1hma@rpi.edu> buckmr@vccsouth24.its.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire) writes:

>


Georgia went to Clinton-Gore early, in your dreams......the networks
gave Georgia to Clinton 5 minutes before the polls closed here at 
Georgia Tech.  I know, because I was listening to the radio as I was 
watching people cast votes.

BUSH WON GEORGIA!


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
From: lewis@aera8700.mitre.org (Keith Lewis)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 13:07:31 GMT

In article <22858@venera.isi.edu>, allard@isi.edu (Dennis Allard) writes:
>I vote FOR legalizing drugs, under the following conditions.
>
>It will not be legal to advertise the newly legalized drugs.
>
>Drugs sales will only be made through government run or regulated drug
>counciling programs.  The price of drugs will be very low, since their
>current high cost is due to the risk involved in selling them. 

You just lost the Wall Street vote.  Drugs could be big (legitimate)
business.  Marijuana manufacturers would compete to provide the best 
tasting, smoothest pot.  

Imagine if the US government made all of the beer in this country.  There
would be two kinds:  US Regular and US Light.  Tipper Gore would probably be
spearheading a movement to prohibit people under 40 from buying US Regular.

>users will no longer have to steal in order to afford their fixes.

You don't need to ban advertising to have that effect.  Hardly anybody
steals for alcohol and tobacco these days.

[some benefits of legalization deleted]
>A drug user must speak with a drug/job/education counciler on a regular
>schedule.

Why?  Why just drug users?  What must they speak about?  Does the counselor
have any power over the user (i.e. to restrict drug consumption)?  Is it
your intention to legalize drugs only for those who are willing to discuss
their personal business with government representatives?  If I've been laid
off, what stops me from getting a friend to buy the stuff for me?

[natural selection by lawyer elimination deleted  :^)]

>Another problem which will arise is that ghetto based drug pushers
>will become unemployed, hence reducing the income level to that part
>of society. This is a harder problem to solve, but should be done by
>spending money on education and jobs programs, and not on this stupid
>idiotic war on drugs thing.

I agree that this lost revenue to the inner city neighborhoods will hurt
them, but this is not much of a political liability.  It might even be
easier to convince the poor to take legitimate paths to the American Dream
if we eliminated Prohibition-for-profit.

Keith Lewis             klewis@mitre.org          "Mr. Cheap"
I don't dance to music; music dances to me.  Email me for my PGP key.
The above may not (yet) represent the opinions of my employer.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59199 sci.psychology:4323
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was: Release from the Clinton Camp
Date: 11 Nov 1992 19:34:34 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) says:

>I am sure that many of us can think of a long list of good things that
>can be attributed to the automobile other than killing people when
>driven by drunks.  Would you like to give us an idea of all of the
>good things a gun provides?

   
      It protects from an evil government.
      It protects from evil people.
      It ensures my RIGHT to self-determination.
>
>Also, we already require testing, licensing, minimum physical and mental
>skills, and a waiting period (in some states) to drive a car (try
>getting an instant appointment).  It is also illegal to drive a car that
>doesn't meet strict safety and power rules.  The NRA considers all these
>to be unnacceptable conditions for gun buyers.  

        Yes, these conditions are unacceptable for one reason.
        Qualification is based on an arbitrary decision by 
        prejudiced local officials.  As many of the people 
        in Los Angeles have found out in the past year.
>
>Is this your idea of an anology?
>-- 
>These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
>occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
>
>
>

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.war.vietnam
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Say What?????
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 07:57:32 GMT

olsenm@ccmail.orst.edu (Monte Olsen) writes:
] 
] I'm sorry, Dave, did that offend your crystal pure
] sensitivities? Try spending some time in Vietnam!
] 
] Monte


Nothing person monte, old dear one,
but how about accepting the fact that
contrary to popular mythology, there 
have been a few OTHER military and
paramilitary Operations in the BigWorld
to teach folks how to say:

"FUCK! DUCK!"

My beloved housemate has learned that there
is a MINOR technical distinction between

"Incoming!"

and

"Make a HOLE!"


ciao
drieux

ps: its amusing to me that so few morn those of ours
who died OUTSIDE the perimeter of the Beirut Enclave
in operations that were NOT on Prime Time Live....

and then there is the Uganda adventures, and ....

pps: and bill mauldin complained that the VFW
was loaded with a bunch of WWI era folks telling
them that they really had it lucky in WWII....



-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, 
and the Other Two will be Upgraded In the Next Release.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 14:25:59 EST
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <lg56snINN7d9@spim.mti.sgi.com>, mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
|> Brian K. Yoder) writes:
|> |> 
|> |> >Who's defending the rich?  I'm not.  
|> |> 
|> |> Well SOMEONE ought to!  They are one of the few minorities politicians feel
|> |> safe about bashing and singling out for special punishment.  A great many
|> |> people seem to think that any measure which hurts only "the rich" is 
|> |> perfectly OK.  I wonder what these people would say if similar laws were
|> |> passed to attack "the poor" or "blacks" or "women" or "auto workers".  Of
|> |> THEN they would see that such discrimination is nothing but envious bigotry,
|> |> but they think that somehow "the rich" are more evil and deserving of whatever
|> |> punishments are proposed.  
|> |> 
|>The assumption you make is certainly not based upon fact.  The postion of
|>Clinton and the Democratic Party is that the "rich" have had unique protection
|>for the last 12 years and have been given the luxury of no give and all take.
|>The Clinton proposals are based upon removing this unique protection and 
|>making the rich share the burden as well as the opportunity.
|> 

That's a wonderful sentiment but I personally haven't seen any real
justification for it.  The arguments seem to be centered on the fact
that rates for the 'rich' were reduced by a greater percentage than
those for the middle class.  According to this argument, the rich
unfairly benefited.  The fallacy here, however, is the notion that
the rich were being treated fairly before their rates were cut.  What
I would like to see from Clinton and the Democratic Party is a
definition of what they consider to be fair and how our current
situation deviates from it.  This definition would have to be something
other than the usual hand waving that accompanies such a definition.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59818 alt.rush-limbaugh:9547
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Thursday, 12 Nov 1992 12:58:57 MST
From: <CXKPV@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bush and Saddam
Distribution: usa
 <HLiuTB1w165w@unkaphaed.UUCP> <6918@grus.cs.nps.navy.mil>

Actually, the mythical non-Bush president would not have done anything to help
or prevent Sadamm from invading Kuwaitt. The most important reason Bush waged a
 war against Iraq was because of the widely held belief that oil prices would u
ncontrollably rise and capital would bleed out of the industrailized nations.
This is notecessarily true.  There are other vendors of oil besides the middle
east; for example, Alaska, Texas, undeveloped offshore sites, South America, an
d othrs.

Even if there aren't enough alternate oil vendors to meet the demand,the oil bu
yers still have the option of forming a buying group.  I there is a seller who
has 30 percent of the supply of a product and a buyer that demands 30 percent o
f the total marketable quantinty of a good, it follows that a fair and efficien
t price will easily be determined.

This solution follows the basic pillar of free enterprise; governement should n
ither help nor hinder the buyers and sellers in a free market.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Subject: The Corporate "Free Press" Covers the Elections (II)
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 11:00:06 GMT

The Corporate "Free Press" Covers the Elections (II)

"Tables 1 and 2 summarize the sources used by the New York Times in
its news articles s on the two elections. It can be seen tha for the
Salvadoran election there was overwhelming reliance on U.S. and
Salvadoran officials, amounting to 80% of the source total. In 20 of
the 28 articles official sources were not only dominant, they were
uncontested by the use of any other cited source. Although majority
of Salvadorean are peasants, only two of 263 identifiable sources
used by the Times --under 1% of the total--were peasants. The
Salvadoran rebels wer cited..approximately 10% of the source total.
But this modest fraction grossly exaggerates the importance of the
rebels as a source. In the great majority of cases the rebels were
asked about and quoted only on their disupriton plans. ... the
rebels were not asked about or quoted on more substantive questions,
such as the reasons why free elections were unfeasible in El Savlaror.
They were several times quoted as describing the election as an
"electoral farce," but they were never allowed to expand on the
details. This makde their words mere denunciations by the enemy,
without force."

"In _demonstration Elections_ we showed that the U.S. mass media
cooperated fully in portraying the 1982 Salvadoran election in
accordance with the government's agenda. Rebel disruption and
"turnout" reigned supreme. Almost no mention was made ofa legal
obligation to vote, and the background facts of a state of siege and
over 700 civilians murder *per month* for the prior 30 months were
deemed not relevant to evaluating electoral conditions or turnout.
The media's feat in transforming the Salvadoran "security forces,"
aptly described as "a deranged killing machine," into
"protectors of an incipient democracy" is, I believe, a propaganda
achievement that totalitarian states might conceivably approach, but
never surpass."

Covert Action Information Bulletin, number 21, spring 1984.

[Note: See _El Salvador 1989: Elections Under State Terror_ by Terry
Allen and Edward S. Herman, Covert Action Information Bulletin, Winter
1990]
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Shooting tragedy (was Re: Support Right to 'bear arms')
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:00:30 GMT
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 <7714@transfer.stratus.com> jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com writes:
>In article <PA142548.379.720392138@utkvm1.utk.edu>  
>PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>> >This was discussed at length on the local talk-radio (WLS).   
>According to
>> >their account, first the student knocked on the front door and the  
>man's
>> >wife answered, was very startled, shrieked and slammed the door,  
>then
>> >urged her husband to get his gun.  The man went outside to  
>investigate
>> >and found the Japanese student and another person standing in the  
>man's
>> >carport near another door into the house.  At this point, the man  
>said
>> >"Freeze", the student approached and was shot.

>Are you saying the man shouldn't be convicted or that he
>won't be.  I certainly hope he is, though given some folks
>who have gotten away with murder before, I wouldn't bet on
>it.  True, he paniced, and as such he shouldn't be convicted of
>first degree murder. But at the very least he's guilty of
>manslaugther.

Jim, can you please explain why you think he is guilty of
manslaughter?

Mike
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
From: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Originator: usenet@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 04:11:04 GMT
Organization: Gallifrey - Home of the Timelords

In article <1992Nov10.161544.9606@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>In article <1dmqvjINNpqq@spool.mu.edu> marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach) writes:
>>The coldest cut:  After a stint at EEOC, Hill is appointed to the
>>Court.
>
>The amusing thing about this is that it is coming from people who
>claimed that Thomas wasn't qualified.  Would someone out there please
>explain to us why Hill is even remotely qualified for either the EEOC
>or the Court postion?

The first time I listened to Rush was right after Bush nominated Thomas --
before the Anita Hill squabble started. I believe that some women's rights
group was criticizing Thomas because he wasn't qualified.

Rush's comment was along the lines of: "Since when are qualifications
important to people who support AFFIRMATIVE ACTION?!?"

Great line. It turned me into a dittohead.

					- greg

P.S. You ever notice that companies will put EEO/AA on applications, ads,
etc.? Of course, this expands to mean "Equal Opportunity Employer/Affirmative
Action." Isn't this contradictory? If you have a quota system in place, it's
not equal opportunity.

							- greg

-- 
Greg Trotter				| Joe Isuzu in '96
Norman, Oklahoma			|     -- Stay the Course!
Internet: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu	|
Fidonet: 1:147/63 Treknet: 87:6012/8009	| I don't even represent me.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,alt.politics.clinton
From: ebrandt@jarthur.claremont.edu (Eli Brandt)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs, part II
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 05:05:30 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.223510.6082@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (It's not what you got, it's what you give) writes:
>Marijuana is America biggest cash crop (even by the governments numbers).
>We could pay for any health care problems many times over.

The biggest cash crop given government-subsidized prices, yes.  The
dollar value of the crop will drop drastically after legalization.
But marijuana-induced health-care problems will probably not break
the bank in any case.

I share the original poster's concern that socialist health care
will result in pressure to "live healthily", but feel that any
degree of rationality would result in this pressure being directed
against activities other than most drug use.

   Eli   ebrandt@jarthur.claremont.edu
From: bab@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Brian Alan Baker)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: President Clinton
Date: 5 Nov 1992 05:38:08 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigwpi.wpi.edu

In article <40545@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Pim van Meurs) writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.211100.3050@nic.csu.net> jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle ) writes:
>>OH *MY* **GOD**!!  God save us from Socialism.
>>________
>>Jennifer|
>>--------
>
>Why ask god for this. 
>In my opinion god must be the biggest socialist in the world. He
>could hardly be considered a conservative now could he ?
>Isn't it a wonderful day today...
>Pim

That's right Jennifer, you shouldn't be begging God to save us
from Socialism.  Instead, you should beg God for handouts and to save
you from having to take any initiative or responsibility in your
life.


Brian

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  "Laugh and the world laughs with you.  Shoot someone   |   Brian Baker
  and you really limit your appeal." - Joe Martin        |   bab@wpi.WPI.EDU
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Oregon Proposal #9... What happened?
Date: 5 Nov 92 04:23:14 GMT
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC

allen@tessi.com (Allen Warren) writes:

|Even though it was defeated, the OCA has pledged to reword it and
|put it on the ballot in '94.  I have a strong feeling that with
|the rewording, and if it's worded per many of the suggestions
|given by people who barely voted against it, the next Measure
|WILL pass.  1994 is only 2 years away and the fight simply
|continues on.

I wonder if any lesbigay or BDSM groups have considered filing a class-action
type lawsuit against the OCA on the grounds of slander....
--
Michael Adams (StarOwl@uiuc.edu  madams@nyx.cs.du.edu  wi.4962@n7kbt.rain.com)

Walk softly and carry a BIG kitten. -- anonymous
Nancy Lord in '96