HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: 13 Nov 92 18:12:55 GMT
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar

In article <k_q1tq-@rpi.edu> root@june.cmp.rpi.edu (J.R. Ordon) writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.175844.20512@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>>In article <1doptuINNc5r@rave.larc.nasa.gov> jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov () writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov10.023120.2114@u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>>>>In article <69.X666X@ramona.com> doug@ramona.com (Double Agent) writes:
>>>>>EEOC Commissioner. Note that the EEOC is the agency where Hill was working
>>>>>when she was sexually harassed by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas,
>>>>>who was then the EEOC Commissioner.
>>>>
>>>>She offered no evidence that she was harassed by anyone.
>>>>
>>>>--Tim Smith
>>>
>>>In your opinion...
>>>
>>>John
>>>
>>
>>Testimony is evidence.
>>
>>
>>Don Pajerek
>
>If it was truly "testimony", then why all the fuss over how she was
>treated by the "cross-examiners". BTW , Clarence Thomas "testified" that 
>her allegations were false, if you take her testimony as "evidence", you 
>must take his as evidence also.
>-----------------------
>J.R. Ordon


Of course it's evidence. The trick is to decide how much weight, if any,
to give to the varieties of evidence introduced. You apparently prefer
Thomas, and that's your privilege, as is mine to arrive at a different
conclusion.


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.war.vietnam
From: jarthur@bnr.ca (John Thompson)
Subject: Re: Stockdale is a Bumbling Idiot
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Richardson, Tx.
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1992 22:08:35 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.093945.23354@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>
>And why, exactly, should he believe them?  Are captors often in the
>business of telling POWs what their leadership's policy decisions are
>based on?

Yes.  Of course it may have no relationship whatsoever to the truth, but if
you hear anything often enough under the right conditions you'll believe it.
Are you naive enough to think otherwise?

>And this is silly, anyway.  Anyone who had studied the history there
>would have noticed that the Vietnamese had been fighting for decades
>when there was no anti-war protests in their enemy's countries.  They
>weren't likely to surrender simply because there were no anti-war
>protests in the US.

I'm sure the good Admiral, as were almost all the pilots I've known, was
an avid student of history.  Even if he had not been before, he should have
become one - having all that free time and access to the outstanding library
at the Hilton.  How silly of him if he didn't!

>And Stockdale *still* doesn't seem to get the idea that if our
>government had LISTENED to the anti-war protestors, the war would have
>ended sooner, with less people getting killed or taken prisoner, and he
>would have been home sooner.

Couldn't the same thing be said about every war?  Thank God there are people
with conscience, even some I don't agree with.  I hope there's some point in
your education at which you learn to think and have convictions - not just
LISTEN and believe the last thing you heard.

>-- 
>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.

John Thompson
jathur@jamatx.lonestar.org

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
From: gsmith@lauren.uucp (Eugen W. Schmidt)
Subject: Re: How Many Homosexuals?
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 92 14:47:19 GMT

In article <13085@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

># 2.4 percent of those polled identified themselves as
># homosexual or bisexual, but Murray Edelman, the poll director,
># believes this was an undercount.  "Many people are reluctant
># to disclose their homosexuality, and many do not fill out the
># poll questionnaire all the way to the end, where the question
># was."  He estimated the gay vote at "possibly 4 or 5 percent,
># which would make it the size of the Jewish vote."

>The 3.3% figure for male homosexuals and bisexuals used by Masters, 
>Johnson, & Kolodny looks more and more plausible.

The surveys I've seen always show higher figures for men than for
women, whereas the 2.4% was a total percentage.  It was also almost
certainly an undercount, for the reasons stated.  A well-designed
*major* study find a number with better support would be interesting,
and if the hysterical right would stop blocking funding for such
things, it would have more of a chance of happening.
	

-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.individualism
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Property Rights
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 09:39:19 GMT

In article <1d6a85INN263@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
}The purpose of this line of postings was to answer Rick Beckham's challenge
}to define the term "thief" with anything less than the libertarian
}absolutist idea of property ownership.  I pointed out that no culture
}had ever had such a ludicrously absolute notion, yet all had been able to
}define thievery without difficulty.  I haven't seen any other libertarians
}challenging me on this point yet.

Not quite "without difficulty".  All cultures prohibit random takings of
property.  It's the systematic takings that vary.  All you've done is
cited examples where property rights are abridged systematically in some way
or another by the State.  What about cultures without States but with
property rights?


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Broward Horne)
Subject:      Oh, no. It's Mr. BILL!
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 92 13:29:26 MST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA07686; Mon, 9 Nov 92 12:30:06 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA07251; Mon, 9 Nov 92 12:30:01 -0800
X-Received: from IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU by idbsu.idbsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 0691; Mon, 09 Nov 92 13:32:48 MST
X-Received: from IDBSU (GCTHORNE) by IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 6381; Mon, 09 Nov 92 13:32:47 MST
X-To: talk.politics.misc.usenet


    Sorry, Joe Knapp Dude.  I KNEW it was going to get better.

    Let's see -

      NAFTA unchanged.
      Deficit is unimportant.
      The middle tax cut was "an idea".
      The suspicious 4 A.M. female reporter in Mr. Bill's room.
      Clinton and Walsh, The Movie

    hehehehhehehheheh.

   This isn't going to be good.  This is going to be excellent!

   If I'm going to lose what's left of my civil liberties and American
   future, I might as well get a laugh out of it. :)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (It's not what you got, it's what you give)
Subject: Moderate GOP vs. Right Wing
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 7 Nov 92 02:39:51 GMT

	Today's edition of the San Francisco Examiner had an interesting
article about battle for control of the GOP. Here are a few excerpts:

	"...nobody believed what the Nazis could do and what the religous
right could do", said Herriet Stinson, a lifelong Republican and organizer
of the Republicans for Choice group.
	It's crises time in the Republican Party. The loss of the White House
seems likely to worsen the already serious rift between the moderate and
conservative wings of the party. There's talk about Ross Perot's followers
joining up with disenchanted Republican moderates to form a third party.
	"Either they include us or exclude us and take their own party,"
Stinson said.

	[I knew something like this was going to happen, but not to
	 this degree]

	"The Republican Party is going to have some variety of 
bloodbath," said Kevin Phillips, a Republican analyst.

	The extent of the moderate-conservative split will become
evident in battles over the next few months. They will include the
chioce of the next national party chairman as well as most state chairman,
including California's.

	By Marty Keller's reckoning, 549 of the delegates eligible
to vote at the February convention [Califoria's] will be from the right
wing, predominantly the religious right. Another 477 will back Gov. Wilson,
he said, while the views of the remaining 231 aern't known.

	The differences at such grassroots meetings are just as bitter
as on the national level.
	"They don't know the meaning of comprimise," Stinson said. "It's
all or nothing, just like it is in the Bible. All black and white."

	[Stuff about how the moderates will meet in Houston, and the 
         conservatives will meet in Virginia with their leader, Robertson.]

	But if their is a fight in California, Schroeder likes the right's
chances. "The elections was a fairly devastating setback for Wilson
[Gov. Wilson is a moderate],"he said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
[My comments now]

It's decision time for the Republican Party. If they drift anymore to 
the right they will lose touch with mainstream America. And then they
can kiss goodbye to the presidency until 2000. Not that I will be too
upset about that.
	When the Democrats lost in 68' they drifted farther to the
left and therefore lost the 72' election. Will the Republican learn
from the Democrats mistake? Probably not.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: gsmith@clio.uucp (Eugen W. Schmidt)
Subject: Re: Colorado tactics
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 14:55:57 GMT

In article <13074@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>So?  Is there a law against discrimination against heterosexuals?
>No.

Unbelievable.  We have a guy who has been whining and campaigning for
eons against laws which prohibit discrimination against heterosexuals,
and now he claims they don't even exist.  Yes, they exist, Nitwit.
Moreover, in Colorado they exist on the local level in certain cities.
Whether Prop 2 outlaws them is not clear, but it is possible to argue
that it does.

-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Date: 13 Nov 92 03:00 PST
Subject: RANGE OF POLITICAL CHOICE: Was Nica
Nf-ID: #N:9211131100.AA01097@tba.msi.corne:-918492155:000:2399
Nf-From: math.cornell.edu!harelb    Nov 13 03:00:00 1992


Subject: RANGE OF POLITICAL CHOICE: Was Nicaragua More Democratic than the U.S.?
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)

RANGE OF POLITICAL CHOICE: Was Nicaragua More Democratic than the U.S.?

[From:
       ========================================================
       I s   N i c a r a g u a   M o r e   D e m o c r a t i c
       ========================================================
            T h a n   t h e   U n i t e d   S t a t e s ?
       ========================================================
                        By Michael Parenti (*)

[From: Covert Action Information Bulletin, Number 26, Summer 1986]]



=========================
Range of Political Choice
=========================

Elections that offer little choice are said to be wanting in
democratic standards. The choice in Nicaragua was noticeably wider and
more democratic than in the United States. Seven parties ran for seats
in the national assembly and for the presidency, representing a broad
ideological range: from those on the far left (who damned the FSLN for
its moderate policies and for allegedly betraying the workers and
peasants) to those on the center and right (who accused the FSLN of
exercising a rigid control over the country, wrecking the economy and
leading Nicaragua to war). All these charges and countercharges were
reported and debated extensively in the public and private press in
Nicaragua.

In the United States the choice was limited largely to Democrats and
Republicans, who in many races are often hard to tell apart. True,
there were a variety of minor parties but these were not accorded the
same opportunity for participation as were the various opposition
parties in Nicaragua, as we shall see.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
   -->  [Send the 1-line message GET FAIRNESS NICA-USA ACTIV-L to]
        [LISTSERV@MIZZOU1.BITNET for a copy of this file.         ]

   -->  [Send GET ACTIV-L ARCHIVE ACTIV-L to above address for a ]
        [listing with brief descriptions of other files available]

        [To get a file named FILE NAME from the archiver (files are ]
        [two words  separated by a space), send the 1-line message: ]

   -->  GET FILE NAME ACTIV-L

        to: LISTSERV@MIZZOU1.BITNET [or: LISTSERV@MIZZOU1.MISSOURI.EDU]
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: The Line-Item Veto
Organization: LLNL
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 00:56:08 GMT

In article <13049@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <Bx4Kz3.2ss@umassd.edu>, rufus@cis.umassd.edu (Rui N. Campos) writes:
$ One more point (and the one that is probably going to get the most attention):
$ Personally I find it quite repulsive to hear the president speaking so 
$ vehemently against pork.  Why?  Because he, and most politicians, fight long 
$ and hard to protect the single largest pork barrel in the US; the Pentagon, 
$ and it's much talked about, infamous Military Industrial Complex.  You want 
$ to talk pork?  Look no further, this place is a lard factory.  While everyone
$ is busy running around complaining about how wasteful the education system is,
$ or the health care system, they fear to tread on the BIG PIG.  Now I'm not 

>So how do you know about it?  And why is that I hear upset about
>the military spending all the time, and yet, there is no mass 
>media discussion of the administrator-rich education system?

	Although I disagree with the Claytoon on a range of serious
issues, I do think that he has a point here.

	I _have_ seen the question of school systems top-heavy with
administrators raised from time to time, so there _has_ been public
discussion of this question. In one political ad, a state candidate
[Dan Boatwright] boasted of having dealt some setback to some school
administrators who had had their noses too far in the public trough.

	One significant news item a couple months back was that the
Postal Service decided to eliminate 30,000 out of its 130,000
administrative positions. I didn't quite catch what they did to the
occupants of these positions -- fire them or transfer them or
eliminate the positions of every administrator who retired.

	I, for one, would look forward to seeing the question of
top-heavy bureaucracies brought out into public view. A purge of
unnecessary administrators would be something that could get
widespread support because (1) they can easily look like "fat cats"
getting rich off of the public purse and (2) their
elimination/transfer would probably not hurt, and possible improve,
government functioning.
From: GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu ("Broward "1865" Horne")
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A "New" Reich
Date: 13 Nov 92 18:28:56 GMT
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA10434; Fri, 13 Nov 92 10:33:40 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA27427; Fri, 13 Nov 92 10:33:38 -0800
X-Received: from IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU by idbsu.idbsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 3208; Fri, 13 Nov 92 11:36:29 MST
X-Received: from IDBSU (GCTHORNE) by IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 9654; Fri, 13 Nov 92 11:36:29 MST
X-To: talk.politics.misc.usenet

From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: A "New" Reich
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 08:48:31 GMT


>Um, this is the philosophy on which our country was founded.  Elitism.
>It's good old "traditional American values."

>James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and all them.  They didn't want those
>janitors running the country.  They knew what would happen.  That's why
>they wanted a republic rather than a democracy.

     I'll see your Madison and Hamilton with a Lincoln and Jefferson.
     And raise you a Emancipation Proclamation and a Women's Sufferage.


>Victims usually are large contributors to their problems.  People who
>walk down dark alleys in the middle of the night may not *deserve* to
>get mugged, but they're still largely at fault when they get mugged,
>since common sense tells you not to do that.

     Common sense tells me I shouldn't have to hide in my own
     house for the majority of my life.


>If someone says that they can balance the budget by cutting taxes and
>raising spending, and people vote for them, who is at fault when the
>politician cuts taxes and raises spending?

      It means our government is at fault for not requiring  1993
      buyers of government bonds to be labelled "Thrillseekers".

princeton.edu       | "I still believe in a place that's broke! "
Taxing/More '92.  Don't start thinking about tomorrow.
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton Nominees for the Supreme Court
Date: 12 Nov 92 18:30:14 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 80My023X2aC901@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com, tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.184012.8453@midway.uchicago.edu>, 
>thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (All this) writes:
>> Well, leaving aside her work for the ABA, this makes her about as qualified
>> as Blackmun was when he was appointed.  And about as qualified as the 
>> average circuit court judge is when he or she is nominated
>
>Well, Blackmun _was_ a federal judge, whereas H. Clinton has not been; I see 
>that as a significant distinction in qualification.

I find it hard to support her.  I think that Hillary Clinton is far more qualified
to sit on the Supreme Court than several of the Justices there.  But being 
qualified is not the same as being among the best qualified.  The real question is
whether she would even be up for consideration if she were not the president's 
wife.  I doubt it.  I doubt that Bill Clinton would dare try to appoint her (despite
JFK's precedent of appointing brother Bobby to Attorney General), and I would be
disappointed in him if he did.  Nepotism is wrong, and the president needs to be
sensitive to the message he sends out with his appointments.  Bobby Kennedy was a
good Attorney General, but I still think that his brother did the wrong thing in 
appointing him.  Clinton seems strongly committed to avoiding even the appearance
of conflicts of interest with his anti-lobbying pledge.  I can't see him then
turning around and trying to have his wife appointed to the Supreme Court.  There
is a difference between being qualified and being right for the job.

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

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58717 soc.culture.usa:8323 alt.politics.perot:5283 alt.politics.clinton:16281 alt.politics.bush:13442
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (It's not what you got, it's what you give)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: To the Clinton supporters
Summary: Sorry, game over.
Date: 7 Nov 92 04:51:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: pony.1992Nov7.045158.1025
Distribution: usa
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <dusek.721078053@shale>, dusek@rtsg.mot.com (James Dusek)                           writes...
>csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN) writes:
>>Yes, we won!!!  Doesn't it feel great?!!  
> 
>	Don't get so happy, Clinton failed to get over %50 percent of the
>popular vote. More people don't like him than do. If he starts screwing
>up, he'll be hit hard.

You mean like Bush did?
> 
>	Millstone of doom? Its people like you that cause these problems.
>You nor the democratic congress NEVER gave the Bush a chance. At these
>Bush threw his support to Clinton after he won, instead of saying
>"The Americans have the millstone of doom around their necks, don't
>support Clinton." 

You should settle down before you post. Your sentences are incredibly
awkward. 

>	Democrats are sore loosers.

Who's crying now?
> 
>>How can we even talk about healing a nation, when we divide it by our 
>>words?
> 
>	So true, to bad when the Democrats lost four years ago they didn't head 
>these words. 

Who used race to get elected? Clue: It wasn't the Democrats.
> 
>>"Four more years" begins TODAY
> 
>	In two years if nothing changes, William could be looking at a congress
>fully of republicans and independants.
> 
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.

>James Dusek
From: pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PAUL N. RITTER)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Doomed...Doomed...Doomed...
Date: 5 Nov 92 06:12:05 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Nov4.094404.20897@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU
 (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.043731.138233@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (P
AUL N. RITTER) writes:
>>Well, at this time it is not yet official, but it seems that Gov. Clinton has
>>fooled enough of the American people. I can't believe how fast this country is
>>going to Hell in a handbasket. Congrats Democrats. My mission to inform the
>>general population of this net has failed. I'm counting the days...Waiting to
>>see how long it take Sadaam to start and MOST LIKELY FINISH what he has
>>started. I just can't believe how misinformed the American people really are.
>
>Why not?  They elected Reagan twice.

   Then why did it take 3 terms of Republicans to dismantle the towering robot
   of the Democratic influence?


>
>II'm counting the days to see my right to own firearms slip away. I'm counting
>>the days until the people realize that for 60 of 65 years, the Congress has
>>had the Democrat majority rule in everything we do. And that it's just as easy
>>to vote in new congressmen/women as it is the President of the U.S., and that
>>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.
>
>If you understood the meaning of socialist, you'd either (1) conclude
>that the Democratic party is NOT socialist, or (2) conclude that the
>Republican party IS socialist also.
>
  Gee, I thought the meaning of Socialist meant that the Gov't takes care of
  everything, just like the Democratic philosophy. At least as a Republican, I
  still have a choice.


>>   In these next four years, we are going to see some significant changes. A
>>few of them will be for the common good of the people, but most to shove
>>government right down our throats and disrupt the balance.
>>I mourn for four years...Doomed...Doomed...
>
>--
>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