HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman)
Subject: Re: Fair Swap
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 22:03:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep04.181321.2461616@locus.com> jle@locus.com (John Elghani/10000000) writes:
>In article <1992Sep4.035918.13993@colorado.edu> perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep04.001354.2458721@locus.com> jle@locus.com (John Elghani/10000000) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep3.192057.29754@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wmuhanna@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Waleed A Muhanna) writes:
>>>>
>>>>In article <1992Aug31.200824.9011@colorado.edu>, perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU 
>>>>(Eric S. Perlman) asserts:
>>>>>And E. Jerusalem is *not* occupied territory. 
>>>>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>Really? Just because you say so?  For the umpteen time, point of fact is that 
>>>
>>>He's right Muhanna.  Jerusalem is stolen territory just like its
>>>mother Palestine.
>>
>>Neither is stolen territory.  Israel reclaimed it in a purely defensive
>>war.  And Israel was not the agressor in '48, either.
>
>First, you rob my house, I go to reclaim it from you, you are stronger,
>you take my car in addition. Does that make you defensive?

No, it doesn't.  Because we didn't rob anyone's house.  We were and are
there because we have a right to be. 

>Besides, israel came to forcefull existence on May, 15 '48.  Before
>that the term israel was only biblical pointing to an extinct tribe.

This is the most ghastly joke I have ever heard.  Elghani, you obviously
believe every bit of propaganda you've ever been fed.  I'm a *member* of
that "extinct tribe".  What is this?  Do you wish all the Jews in the
world dead?  

The nation of Israel - the Jewish nation - is hardly extinct, nor was it
ever so.  


-- 
"How sad to see/A model of decorum and tranquillity/become like any other sport
A battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee." -Tim Rice,"Chess"
     Eric S. Perlman 				 <perlman@qso.colorado.edu> 
  Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy, University of Colorado, Boulder
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 13:25:20 GMT

I don't think that most people cared that Clinton avoided the draft.
Democrats don't want it to be an issue, however, they wanted it to be an issue 
in '88 with regards to Quayle's service in the Gaurd.

I have a BIG problem with the way Clinton has reacted to questions about his 
evasion of the draft since then.  He has repeatedly denied facts concerning 
this issue.  He has, in fact, been lying instead of coming clean about what he 
did.  The latest example was his adamant denial of ANY knowledge about his
uncle trying to keep him out of Vietnam, when in fact he heard about this in
March.

He has admitted himself that he was concerned about his political viability.
I believe that is his major concern, not the best interests of the country.

Jeff.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Was Clinton a Moral Draft Dodger?
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 15:29:06 GMT


In article <1992Sep6.223640.21393@anasazi.com>, 
john@anasazi.com said:

> If he had stated anti-war sentiments in a ROTC program, he would
> have probably been kicked out, and would certainly have been
> hassled. Since we haven't heard Clinton complain about this, I think
> it is fair to assume that he had to keep his anti-war views from his
> ROTC instructors (which is what I meant about keeping them quiet).
> In other words, if he were anti-war, he should not have been in
> ROTC.

I'll admit my ignorance of the law when it comes to the extent that
military personnel are held to have had some of their Constitutional
rights suspended for the duration of their military service, but...
could someone really be kicked out of ROTC merely for expressing an
opinion that he disagreed with a current U.S. military strategy,
absent any evidence that he himself would not, despite his personal
reservations, fully carry out all his military duties to the best of
his abilities?  After all, "I think that the U.S. involvement in
Vietnam is a bad idea" does not necessarily translate to "I won't
uphold my military oath if they try to send me to Vietnam."

> I would say he was pro-Bill Clinton's skin, but unwilling to be
> honest and admit it, then or now.

Most people are pro-their-own-skins... the ones who aren't might make
great cannon fodder but I sure wouldn't want them in any positions of
authority.

> The issue is not whether he got out or not, it was how he got out
> (by defrauding the government) and how dishonest he has been about
> the issue.  On the other hand, such dishonesty should be expected
> from the man who claimed that he "didn't inhale."

I dispute that he defrauded the government.  I've seen no evidence
that Clinton, had he been called upon to serve, would not have done
so.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45734 ca.politics:7866 ba.politics:5385
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Affirmative Action for Homosexuals?  Clinton's Spokesman Appears To Argue for it
Date: 15 Sep 92 21:08:43 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

The following text was extracted from a recent posting in soc.motss.
It appears that Gov. Clinton's spokesman has committed Clinton to
not just EEO for homosexuals, but AA as well.

In article <1992Sep14.173125.6693@PacBell.COM>, rjwill6@pbsdts.sdcrc.pacbell.com (Rod Williams) writes:
# From The New York Times (9/14/92) without permission:
# 
# =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
# 
# QUAYLE CONTENDS HOMOSEXUALITY
# IS A MATTER OF CHOICE, NOT BIOLOGY
# 
# By Karen De Witt (special to The New York Times)
# 
# Washington, Sept. 13
# 
# In any case, Mr. Quayle sought to de-emphasize the debate,
# pointing out that the Bush Administration had a policy of non-
# discrimination against homosexuals.  He contrasted this with a
# Democratic Party platform position that calls for affirmative-
# action programs for homosexuals [huh?!...rod]  Mr. Quayle said
# this would lead to intrusive questioning of people's sexual
# preferences.
# 
# The President "will have a policy of nondiscrimination," Mr.
# Quayle said.  "But, obviously, the gay and lesbian activists
# are a constituency of the Democratic Party, and Bill Clinton
# has made a pledge that he will hire gays and lesbians, and the
# only way that he can do that, to have the kind of a situation,
# is to ask someone their sexual orientation.  We don't think
# it's anybody's business."
# 
# George Stephanopoulos, Mr. Clinton's spokesman, countered the
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
# Vice President's comments, saying affirmative-action laws were
# needed to protect workers' rights.
# 
# rod williams -=- pacific bell -=- san francisco -=- rjwill6@pacbell.com
# -----------------------------------------------------------------------

So much for the claim that AA for homosexuals isn't coming.

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
There can be no peace as long as AB 2601 lives.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.latin-america
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: On-Line Copy of REPUBLICAN PLATFORM desired!
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 22:43:08 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <5d2yk_j@rpi.edu> buckmr@vccnw02.its.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire) writes:
]We oppose efforts to include sexual preference as a protected minority
]receiving preferential status under civil rights statutes at the Federal, state
]and local level." --1992 Republican National Commitee campaign platform.

So what is wrong with this? Why SHOULD a sexual preference be a "protected
minority receiving preferential status?" This goes far beyond equality
or lack of prejudice, to the point of preference. Perhaps you would favor
making sexual preference as a protected minority if the preference 
favored was heterosexual, or perhaps pedophilia?

]"We believe the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which
]cannot be infringed." --1992 Republican National Committee campaign platform

This one is debatable, but at some point the child gains that right to
life, and the issue is when. The quoted statement implies that when is before
birth, but it doesn't say at what point before birth.

]Well, I hope the two above quotes are enough to swing SOME voters in the 
]Clinton-Gore direction...

Those voters are already there. These quotes are quite a bit more moderate
than I had been lead to believe by the media, who told me that the
platform was absolutely antiabortion from the moment of conception (not
supported by those quotes) and that it opposed any form of anti-discrimination
against gays (which is also not supported by those quotes). Sigh, but then
what should I expect from our mass media?
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Comment too controversial for management - Deleted :-) -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Was Clinton a Moral Draft Dodger?
Organization: LLNL
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 06:17:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.214244.3973@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>In article <1992Sep8.155452.19196@ms.uky.edu>, fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:
@  I'm wondering if the Bush campaign people overdid it in '88 with the 
@  Boston Harbor/Willie Horton stuff. That maybe people are looking askance
@  at any charge that the Bush people might toss out.

>	Considering it was the media that did the Willie Horton stuff, don't
>hold your breath.

	Wrongo. It was some group that professed to be independent of
the Bush/Quayle campaign, and one which exploited some of the dirt dug
up by Joe Biden in the primaries.

	When one considers that Bush never complained, one _does_ have
to be suspicious.

	And I thought that the news media were the great villain :-)

	Well, I hope that the Clinton/Gore campaign comes up with some
really creative negative ads to use against Bush, perhaps something
comparing Clinton's Arkansas upbringing and citizenship with Bush's
vacant lot in Texas (hey, great visual). I hope that the Clinton
campaign can come up with something that will make Bush and Quayle
hysterically denounce negative campaigning as a great moral evil.
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush Administration embargo against Haiti?
Date: 10 Sep 92 21:54:53 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation
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 <1992Sep6.225913.29422@squid.tram.com> patt@squid.tram.com (Patt Bromberger) writes:
>During a CNN "Capital Gang" broadcast they mentioned the lack of
>attention (by the media) given to the Bush Administration's embargo
>against Haiti allegedly to force the Haitians into accepting their old
>(dictatorship) government once again.

Well, that's what the current government says is happening.  

>And the Clinton/Gore ticket hasn't mentioned this either!

Nope.  They support the policy and most of the people who are up for
grabs in this election support it too.  Therefore why bring it up?

>Does anyone have any more info on this development?

Sure Pat.  So does everyone who bothers to read a newpaper once a
week.

Haiti had elections a year or so ago.  They got a leftist priest
called Aristide.  Aristide had some nasty habits... like encouraging
mobs to intimidate the courts when they were trying his political
enemies and talking in glowing terms of the beauty of murdering people
he didn't like in various unsavory ways.  The middle class and army
decided that a left wing priest was bad enough, but a left wing priest
with predilictions for massacre was intolerable and did a coup.  Ever
since we've been trying to get Aristide back into power.  The coup is
pressure to do this.

Personally, I couldn't give a damn about Aristide - it was his own
stupidity and contempt for democracy that led to the coup.  On the
other hand, democracy is a good idea.  It would probably have been
better all arround if they had shot Aristide during the coup so they
could just declare an amnesty and hold new elections.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Canadian vs US health care
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 18:14:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Sep14.162145.13082@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>In article <BuFoI4.40E@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep11.193309.22312@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>>>In article <BuF3IL.Equ@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>>>
>>>>  I don't like the Canadian system either,
>>>>
>>>
>>>I know you like to go out of your way to avoid being labelled as 'conservative'
>>>or 'liberal', but I would really like to know your specific objections to
>>>the Canadian plan, and to the concept of National Health Insurance in general.
>>
>>  Part of it is a visceral distrust of having the government involved in
>>  my life any more than it has to be.   Unlike libertarians, I don't claim
>>  that government can never do anythig right or well; but I think the odds
>>  are generally egainst it.
>>
>
>Someone recently has come out with a book, whose title I forget, which debunks
>the idea of the 'lean, mean' private sector, as opposed to a 'bloated, inefficient'
>public sector. The author documents numerous examples of corporations which were
>every bit as bound up in bureaucratic waste and paralysis as any despised
>government agency. And this in an era of fierce international competition...

  Right.  So presumably they won't stay like this for long.   Either they 
  will change or go out of business.   Nobody says that private enterprise
  can't be bloated and inefficient.  But market advocate claim, and generally
  I agree, that such companies can't stay like that for long (unless they
  are protected by government intervention from feeling the effects of
  the market).


>>  The other part of it is that I don't like to give up any control over 
>>  something as important as healthcare.
>
>These sound like objections to a British-style National Health Service, in
>which the actual medical services are provided by the government, not the
>Canadian system in which all services are still provided privately. I too
>am very leery of the British NHS.

  It depends on whether under a Canadian style system I can still choose
  my own doctors, tests, etc.   In most insurance systems, including the
  US one, the insurance provider can place lots of restrictions on many
  aspects of service.  

  Also recall that one of my objections to the Canadian system was high
  taxes.   


---peter







Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
From: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay)
Subject: Re: Accusations
Organization: Australian National University
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 13:26:05 GMT

jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:

>Phill, you are seeing bogeymen where
>there are none.  Perhaps you need a nice hot glass of tea.

Hang on a moment, Jake, this is going too far.  Call him a liar,
a scroundrel, a bigot, a racist, whatever you like.  But suggesting
that Phill would drink tea out of a GLASS!  That's disgusting.
[Phill, forgive him for he knows not what he did.]

B.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.democrats.d
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: Bush is a mother fucker
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 20:54:52 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu) writes:

: I don't know which model can succeed -- the "Democracy Now, get rich
: later(perhaps)" one or "Get rich now, democracy later(maybe)" one.  
: Russia and eastern europe are doing poorly, only Hungry seemed to be
: fine, but we have to taken into account that Hungry had been quietly
: "getting rich"  since the failed 1956 rebellion.  
: I can't think of any modern healthy democracy without a solid  
: middle class -- perhaps democracy cannot succeed without a middle 
: class.    

I seem to remember from various history classes I've taken that many
of the world's major revolutions were started by the middle class.
The American "Revolution," for example, can be seen as an uprising
of several middle-class individuals fearing for the apparent increase
in governmental interference in their lives, and fearing the "threat"
of being pushed back into the lower class.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"Scares the hell out of you,
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			 doesn't it?"
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD				--Richard Nixon, about
Anonymous: wi5467@wizvax.methuen.ma.us			  	Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher                                     


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 92 19:43:07 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Sep4.182428.14136@tc.cornell.edu> shore@tc.cornell.edu writes:
    >In article <cvmn=jm.phil@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil
    >Ronzone) writes:
    >>Really -- flinging mud on the net is one thing, but don't be
    >>such an asshole.
    >>
    >I can't help but ponder this attempt to create a polarity
    >between "flinging mud on the net" on the one hand, and
    >"be[ing] such an asshole" on the other. With Phool so clearly
    >demonstrating his 'ability' to draw distinctions and fathom
    >relationships, small wonder that he interprets laws
    >protecting people from arbitrary discrimination in housing
    >and employment as violating his personal right to freedom of
    >association.

Protecting people? Hmm, what kind of protection do YOU need?

From the SJMN (News of the Weird):

    The Iowa Employment Appeal Board ruled in April that a former
    security guard was qualified for unemployment benefits even though
    he was fired. Kay Stone, 55, was a night guard at a convenience store
    until a fight broke out one night, whereupon he ran and hid in a walk-in
    cooler. Riuled the board, "Incompettence in a position is not (a
    disqualification)."

To be nasty, brutal, and truthful, if you are anything in person like
your posts, I can understand why you seek the coercive force of law to
get what you want.

Me, I like to engage in mutual, non-coercive relationships. Too bad
you don't.

    >...harassing Cretin? I haven't seen either Phool or Cretin
    >denounce whoever it is that is posting pictures of underage
    >girls to alt.binaries.pictures.erotica and I've never seen
    >either of them apologize for "Big Tits Monthly," the 1929
    >stock market crash, or Nehru jackets, so it seems to me that
    >neither is in any position to make any demands whatsoever in
    >this regard.

Well, I don't make my denouncements public. In July of 1991, when
a (presume homosexual) posted the "boys and a pony .gif" to a.b.p.e., with
obvious underage boys, i immediately emailed a complaint to him.
the guy worked at the same company. when he ignored it, i went
thru the chain of command.

however, please, don't blame ME if you don't have big tits, or feel
undersized, or whatever the problem is that led you to equate a wrongness
such as underage minors in sexual situations with flatchestedness.

Sorry, I am NOT responsible for your lack of looks. O.K.?
-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: What Here!?! (Re: Working for change?)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 16:09:36 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Sep10.010745.24186@bellahs.com> tnelson@bellahs.com (Tom Nelson RD) writes:
    >>I consistently strive, when the issue comes up, to assert
    >>that coercive democracy is immoral. The first step is make a
    >>stand -- to show people that their cherished myths are indeed
    >>myths.
    >>
    >Oh! So you bitch a lot.
    >
    >Thats nice. I bitch a lot too... but then I vote... so I've
    >earned the right to bitch. Its real safe and easy to sit it
    >all out while things that DO affect your life are being
    >descided and then complain when the choice has been made with
    >out you that your inaliable rights, your moral and ethical
    >principals, or your rectum has been violated.
    >
    >Yeh Sure... Our society operates by voting. Its not perfect
    >but then its better than nothing. You don't wan't to be a
    >part of the society don't vote, move out of it, and shut up.
    >But then being part of this society (a "pluralistic" one)
    >violates your FOA so the only way you can maintain that would
    >be to move to say the N.W. Teritories... I think that would
    >solve your coersion problem too. That way there would be no
    >one around that you didn't want to deal with and no thing to
    >tell you what to do or who you had to talk to or hire. You
    >would be free at last, free at last. God almighty he'd be
    >free at last.
    >
    >You want freedom without responcibility... 'Fraid that don't
    >wash You want freedom from responcibility... Just shut up
    >then

Well, I obviously have touched a nerve in you.

Do you REALLY think that Clinton .vs. Bush is a CHOICE?

The same old CRAP gets posted again and again -- that it is SOMEHOW
MY fault for this mess, because I don't vote!!!

Yeah, right, and the Jews were responsible for Hitler too because after all
they didn't vote for him either.

Get off it. This is a coercive system. It works in secret (why? eh?). It
takes things from people against their will. It is immoral. It is run
and maintained by very immoral people with zero ethics. The corruption
is extremely blatant (just what does a lobbyist do?). It's about power.

You think YOU want to play in that cesspool? Well, go ahead, but don't expect
me to think much of you. No wonder you are so touchy about the issue -- I
assume you don't want to shoulder the blame alone.

Yeeecchhhhh.




-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:44730 ca.politics:7607 ba.politics:5180