HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Doomed...Doomed...Doomed...
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:04:41 GMT

In <1dorj7INNgi6@transfer.stratus.com> jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes:

>In article <bob1.721410792@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>> 
>> Obviously, the voters did not agree with you and only threw out a  
>few
>> of the incumbents. Wonder what they knew that you do not?
>> 

>The problem is that, while most local voters DO see the Congress
>as a big part of the problem, they don't seen their own
>Representative that way. For their own Reps, they often focus
>in on "what did he/she do for my district?" and ignore everything
>else.  And Representatives campaign on this theme.  Joe Early
>campaigned on "look at what I've done for you locally," without
>ever saying anything about the world outside his district. (Luckily,
>Early had such high negatives that this campaign didn't work,
>and we tossed him out.)

>A big campaign tact with incumbants is also the fear factor.
>"If you don't re-elect me, the new guy will have far less seniority
>and far less power, and thus not be able to bring as much money
>back to the district." So again, while the voters think Congress

In plain english - voter greed ahead of country. To hell with
the national debt, we need that bridge over the dry lakebed.
And they expect their representative to behave better than they
do?

>as a whole should have more turnover, they are afraid to turn
>out their local Rep.  (This is one reason I support term limits,
>by the way.  If the people know that they don't have to worry
>about keeping their own guy in for 30 years because someone from
>another state has been there that long, the elections will become
>more open.)




>--
>Jim Mann            
>Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  

REB

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59931 alt.rush-limbaugh:9593 alt.politics.bush:13851 alt.politics.clinton:17035 alt.politics.elections:23672 talk.abortion:47794
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: abortion, slavery
Date: 9 Nov 92 06:49:37 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR, USA

In article <1992Oct24.180031.22844@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org
(Kevin Darcy) writes:
<In article <1992Oct22.203641.15660@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com
<(Mike Best) writes:
<>In article <1992Oct21.025730.305@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com
<>(Jennifer Brindle) writes:
<>>Yes, I remember slavery and forcing women to give birth when they don't
<>>want to is a form of slavery.  
<>
<>First of all, this would only be true if they were forced to get pregnant
<>as well.  
<
<Wrong. Slavery is involuntary servitude. By "involuntary" all we mean is
<"not consented to". Sex is not consent to bearing a child, so mandated 
<childbirth is a form of slavery.

If this is true, why isn't it also true after birth?  After a child is
born, his parents must see to his welfare (or see that he is put in someone
else's, but that case, they are responsible until someone else has assumed
the responsibility, i.e. they can't just abandon him), and if they don't,
they can be charged with crimes.  If a child is burden before birth, surely
he is even more of a burden after birth.  Is that also a form of slavery?
If not, why not?  If it is, are you prepared to fight to have those laws
repealed too?  I would genuinely like an answer.
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59724 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8433 alt.president.clinton:343
Organization: The Leader Desslok School of Diplomacy
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 02:06:29 EST
From: Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: A TRUE LANDSLIDE
 <1992Nov09.232222.27857@src4src.linet.org>
 <1992Nov11.181224.16247@oz.plymouth.edu>

In article <1992Nov11.181224.16247@oz.plymouth.edu>, m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu
(Michael L. Le Houllier) says:
>>
>>No press has said that he won by a popular landslide vote.

>More often than not, they've been omiting the word 'electoral',
>thereby implying the other becuase thats what most people think of
>first.  Even if your point is valid, didn't Reagan and Bush have
>electoral landslides?  You never heard it refered to as a landslide by
>many media outlets.

Actually, as I recall, the headlines for 1980 and 1984 DEFINITELY used
the word "landslide," and I believe so did the '88 ones.

What's it mean?

It means the media likes to use the word "landslide." They think it's
cool. That's all; no deep conspiracy here.

 "But Dr. Radium, was that necessary?" "Rez, _everything_ I do is necessary."
[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
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.war.vietnam
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Stockdale is a Bumbling Idiot
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 20:49:35 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 <1992Oct31.142450.12037@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:

>In article <1992Oct30.022004.342@rational.com>, 
>msmiller@Rational.COM (Mark Miller) said:

>> Your fight is with the politicians who created the war, NOT with the
>> people who fought and died in it. Stockdale survived 7.5 years worth
>> of something you wouldn't have lasted 7.5 minutes worth of.  If
>> nothing else, he deserves more respect than you have shown.

>I think that your first sentence may reflect much of what people are
>complaining about Stockdale about.  ("Syntax meltdown decloaking off
>the starboard bow, Captain!" :-)  Stockdale, in some recent comments
>about the Vietnam antiwar protests, at least appears to be blaming the
>protestors for his captivity, rather than the politicians who got him
>into, and prolonged, that mess in the first place.  To me, this
>doesn't necessarily brand Stockdale as a hypocrite, but he sure does
>give the impression of being someone who just doesn't get it.

Excuse me, but if the North Vietnamese were taunting US POWs with news
about anti-war protests back home and stating that the US anti-war
movement convinced them that if they could just hold out long enough
they could win they you're the one who just doesn't get it whereas
Stockdale had his nose rubbed in it for seven and a half years.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: MODEL UN NEWSGROUP
From: <F36SI@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Monday, 9 Nov 1992 22:23:30 EST
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

    Looking for support for the creation of talk.politics.model-un.
    Please post to news.grops to show your support.   Questions,
    email f36si@cunyvm or f36si@cunyvm.cuny.edu.
                                                 Peace,
                                              Matt
-------


    MATTHEW J. ROSENWASSER    MODEL UN WORLD TOUR 92 - 93
    F36SI@CUNYVM                       PEACE ROCKS
    F36SI@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
      "A MAN IS NOT GREAT BECAUSE HE HAS NOT FAILED,
       A MAN IS GREAT BECAUSE FAILURE DOES NOT STOP HIM."
                                    - CONFUCIOUS
-------
    MATTHEW J. ROSENWASSER    MODEL UN WORLD TOUR 92 - 93
    F36SI@CUNYVM                       PEACE ROCKS
    F36SI@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
      "A MAN IS NOT GREAT BECAUSE HE HAS NOT FAILED,
       A MAN IS GREAT BECAUSE FAILURE DOES NOT STOP HIM."
                                    - CONFUCIOUS
-------
    MATTHEW J. ROSENWASSER    MODEL UN WORLD TOUR 92 - 93
    F36SI@CUNYVM                       PEACE ROCKS
    F36SI@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
      "A MAN IS NOT GREAT BECAUSE HE HAS NOT FAILED,
       A MAN IS GREAT BECAUSE FAILURE DOES NOT STOP HIM."
                                    - CONFUCIOUS
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: SOMEBODY'S GOT TO SAY IT (Re: Clinton by default)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 07:22:48 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.020239.1391@brtph560.bnr.ca> denebeim@brtph254.bnr.ca (Jay Denebeim P025) writes:
>In article <eagle.720807820@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu> eagle@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Daniel L'Hommedieu) writes:

>>The cause of crime is that this country has moved its focus from God.
>>People today have this crazy idea that FREEDOM means ANYTHING YOU WANT
>>TO DO, DO IT.  There is NO complete freedom.

>Please go read the constitution and the bill of rights.  If I recall
>the preamble promises 'certain inalienable rights, amoung them, life,
>liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'.

While I'm all for smacking people over the head with the Constitution,
and maybe a large sledgehammer, when they explain that the problem with
freedom is that we have too much of it, I'd like to be accurate.

Your quote is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.  

>Webster's defines liberty as: freedom or release from slavery,
>imprisonment, captivity, or any other form of arbitrary control.  It
>also states it is a synonym of freedom.

>Also looking up freedom it states: Liberty, often interchangeable with
>freedom, strictly connotes past or potential restriction, repression, etc. 

>Being american means to me complete freedom.  That's what makes us
>different than other countries.  It does not mean freedom to focus on
>god, nor does it mean freedom to do anything except what you disagree with.

Shhh.  Don't tell Pat Robertson/Buchanan or Jerry Falwell.

>>The purpose of prisons is to show that when someone breaks the rules,
>>they are removed from society.  When a person commits a crime, he gives
>>up his "inalienable rights."

Does he?  Wouldn't this mean the rights ARE alienable?

>This is untrue.  When the person is CONVICTED of a crime beyond a
>shadow of a doubt they loose their rights.  Taking rights away before
>conviction is exactly what the constitution forbids government from doing.

Anyway, even upon conviction, he still has some rights -- like the right
to be free of cruel and unusual punishment.

>>Mr. Clinton's idea of putting more police around the country is an
>>attempt to fix the symptom of the problem, not the caues of the problem.
>>See previous postings.

>This I will agree with.  I'm sure I wouldn't agree with your suggested
>solutions though.

Ditto.
-- 
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.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59705 soc.women:19403
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: What to do about Colorado
Date: 9 Nov 92 17:56:49 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Nov7.203654.20206@gordian.com>, mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
> In article <13079@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# # Measure 9 was seriously flawed because of how far it sought to
# # go in preventing homosexual promotion by the government, so seriously
# # that many conservatives I know up there had grave misgivings about it.
# # Even I had might have voted against it, if I had been in Oregon.
# 
#   What a stinking hypocrite. Don't ever try to parade around with
# your "I'd defend homosexuals, I just don't want them to legislate
# morality" ruse again. Measure 9 was utterly about legislating morality
# and if you would have voted for it, you have no credibility at
# all.
#   You're sick Clayton. Sick. Sick. Sick.

Measure 9 had parts that limited governmental power, and parts that
were oppressive in nature.  That's why I expressed my misgivings
about it.

# # 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...
# 
#   I'd vote for this, and place your name in nomination forthwith.
# -- 
# 		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)

No sense of humor?
-- 
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...
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59065 alt.rush-limbaugh:9286
From: shimeall@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (timothy shimeall)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Bush and Saddam
Date: 9 Nov 92 00:17:08 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

In article <HLiuTB1w165w@unkaphaed.UUCP> popec@unkaphaed.UUCP (William C. Barwell) writes:
>If Bush had been locked up, and someone else been president, Saddam 
>probably would not have been allowed to get into a position where he 
>could invade Kuwait while Bush sat on his spotty butt popping pimples.

I see this a lot: Bush built up Saddam, another president would have
stopped Saddam without going to war.
  a) Are you aware that Saddam (pre-Gulf) had a VERY large oil income?
     This basically allowed him to purchase whatever he chose to.
  b) The initial argument Saddam had against Kuwait had NOTHING to
     do with the US.  Kuwait was underbidding Iraq, cutting Saddam's
     income.
  c) The only things the US could have done to stop Saddam:
     + Threaten war if he invades Kuwait (oops, the rules of
       the statement say you can't go to war, so Saddam laughs at 
       this)
     + Threaten (or carry out) an assasination of Saddam
       (Given his level of security, he laughs at this -- 
         assassins are expected in Iraqi politics, he's well protected)
       Plus: what are the ethics of a peacetime killing of a 
       soveriegn nations' ruler?
     + Threaten an embargo if he invades Kuwait (he laughs at 
       this, knowing that one or more of his neighboring states
       will provide a conduit through the embargo.  Note that the
       current embargo of Iraq is leaking like a sieve.)

So, what would your mythical non-Bush president have done to prevent
Saddam from invading Kuwait?
     
-- 
Tim Shimeall ((408) 646-2509)
The proper response to detecting a bug isn't to fix the bug - it's to make 
sure you'll never have to worry about that bug again.  --- Richard Hamming
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: A TRUE LANDSLIDE
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 11:48:24 GMT

proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:
>Actually it is kind of amusing. All this "well, at least the demos
>didn't win the REALLY important race - New Hampshire" stuff. The
>right wingers are going to have to get used to whining from the
>sidelines for a while. 

In the end, they will beg for death, but will not receive it. Now that
the uncertainty of the election is finally over, the magnitude of Clinton's
victory is finally sinking in for me (and them presumably). Executive
orders can immediately nullify: the abortion "gag rule," ban on RU-486,
ban on free speech for the many gays in the military, Helmsian-restrictions
on federal funding for the arts. Over 100 Bush judicial appointments
pending confirmation are now null and void, and belong to Clinton. At
least 3 Supreme Court justices will retire in the next four years alone
(never mind 8, 12,...). Sweet victory!

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: How times change
Date: 9 Nov 92 18:50:32 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <1992Nov7.181102.27412@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>Isn't it also funny how all the recent good news on the economy ....
>productivity up sharply in the third quarter, drop in the unemployment
>rate again, other good signs on the housing front ...
>all these suddenly suggest a brand new day, while before the
>good news was just blips on an otherwise grim scene.
>
>The paper sure is reporting it differently.
>I guess they don't have George to kick around any more. :-)
>
>Pat

For any of you out there who are open-minded, the following is for you:
The Midland Reporter Telegram is a newpaper so conservative, that they
had to endorse Bush 3 times this election.  6 out of 7 days, they ran a
blatantly anti-Clinton add.  This newspaper would not hide any good news
about the economy.  Even when the 2.7% growth story came out, they ran
an analysis stating that most of the growth (2.6%) was due to Bush's
handing out of pork during the campaign, as well as the rebuilding after
hurricane Andrew.  No one was hiding this information.  Would the Wall
Street Journal have sat on the story?

If you truly believe the only objective source of
unbiased information is Rush Lamebrain, I feel sorry for you.
-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59466 alt.rush-limbaugh:9406 alt.politics.elections:23410 alt.politics.clinton:16773 alt.politics.bush:13716
From: ssoar@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Steven E Soar)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Trickle Down Economics
Summary: just the gross oversimplifications, mam
Date: 10 Nov 92 22:51:18 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc

In article <crb2.721423114@Ra.MsState.Edu>, crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson) writes:
> >>Clinton did not coin the phrase 'trickle-down-economics'.  It's been
> >>around since at least the 1920's.
> 
> >A source for this please?
> 
> >And a definition?
> 
> 'Trickle-down-economics' is slang for 'supply side economics' which
> is the economic theory that says that if people (or businesses) are
> left to themselves, and not 'punished' for succeeding, then the
> 'laws' of economics (supply and demand) will result in everyone's
> status being improved.  It works by increasing the possibility of 
> return on investments, which makes the user invest, which creates
> a market (jobs).  The alternative is a regulated economy in which it
> is easier to 'sit' on your money, because if you make a bunch it's
> just taxed away anyway...therefore no investment, no market, no jobs.
> 
> That's a synopsis brought to you by Chadonomics 101.
> 
> Chad
> 

Lets see if I can add my gross oversimplification to your own......

"Trickle-down economics"

-Tried by the US in the '20s; led to wild speculation based on unsupportable
levels of debt, led to repudiation of debt through deflation/depression.

-Tried by the US in the '80s; led to wild speculation based on unsupportable
levels of debt, led to recession and an economic recovery that is
indistinguishable from further recession.

-Is a first-order simplification for modeling a system dominated by nth order
effects

More seriously, if your answer were all there was to it, our trade deficit would
have corrected itself after we devalued the dollar by half.  After 10 years of
this policy, our total manufacturing output would not have fallen for the first time
in our industrial history.  Our manufacturing employment would not be
continuing to shrink.  And the division of wealth between rich and poor would
not be continuing to widen.

Trickle-down, supply-side, laissez-faire, what ever you call them, they are all
attractive for their simplicity.  It would be easier if the world really
worked this way.  It doesn't.

Name one other country firmly in the grip of TDE.  That's easy, Great Britain.
Results: economic stagnation for the past 10 years.

NO OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRY SUBSCRIBES TO THIS THEORY AS WHOLE-HEARTEDLY AS
WE DO!

Not Germany.  Not Japan.  Not Korea.  Not Singapore.  None of the Asian
Tigers.  Are they all stupid?  Maybe----But they are all beating us (Measured
by 10 year growth in GDP)

steve soar
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: President Clinton
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: usa 
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:54:56 GMT

In <1d7osoINNb5q@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu> ingramje@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (The Poet) 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|
>> --------
>GOOD GOD PEOPLE!!!!  Get a life.  The man has not even taken office yet,   
>and you're already saying how bad he is.  Give it a rest.  At least try to  
>open your mind up once in your lifetime.  The Democrats accepted Bush when  
>he was elected didn't they?  Why can't at least one Republican open up  
>his/her mind?

Because they haven't been able to locate them as yet? :-)

>To avoid as much criticism in return for this as possible, let me say that  
>I'm worried too, I just think that the status quo has gotten us nowhere  
>ever since it's been the status quo.  Give him a chance, then slam him  
>senseless when and if he actually screws up.
>And incidentally, do you actually know what socialism is?  Try to find  

No, but why should they be worried about accuracy in labeling? It
never occured to them to be accurate before.

>out, you may see that it isn't ALL bad.  It does have good points.   
>Communism is all bad, socialism is medium bad.  The man is a Democrat, not  

The part of socialism that failed was when they thought they could
make people love their fellow men by legislation - didn't work. But,
you can damn sure see that they don't beat upon their fellow men
with legislation - that works.

>a Socialist.  Wait until you see what he actually does before you start  
>playing McCarthy.
>__________________________________________________________________________

New GOP slogan - half employment and a socialist in every pot! :-)

Does anyone know - were the dinosaurs republicans :-)

[some days I really hate myself - but it was fun]

REB
>"Never confuse truth with honesty." - The Poet (me)