HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: I hereby declare...
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 14:52:35 GMT

TMCCART3@ua1vm.ua.edu writes:

>In article <1992Oct1.071914.1089@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
> 
>>
>>I hereby declare drieux the winner of the
>>  Person who has created the most 'threads' or new subject headings in
>>     the last few days.
>>
>And I hereby declare that drieux's postings make the least sense.

TMCART3 says, once again proving that some people just "don't get it".

Drieux is driuex.  And we wouldn't have it any other way.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Sit down and shut up PEROT!!!!
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 17:31:07 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <CB.92Sep30103402@tamarack13.timbuk> cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster) writes:
]KRB104@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
]
]     Originally, I thought it was a great idea for a third candidate, I
]   even signed a petition in Maryland, because Clinton and Bush are not 
]   exactly the greatest candidates. ...
]
]Although I'm hearing this sentiment less than I did a few months ago, I
]never could figure why people were so negative about Clinton.  Is it
]only because he had an affair?  Or what?  What I see (and have seen all
]along) is a bright, energetic guy who wants to solve problems.  (Oh, and
]he's a politician who wants to be president; somehow I think we can
]expect that of people running for president.)  What am I failing to see?

How about:
  -he's a redistributionist who wants to take from those who achieve and
   give to those who don't
  -he wants to increase the power of the federal government in our lives
  -he has never held a job in the private sector
  -he is driven by ambition
  -he dodged the draft in a dishonest way
  -he's a politician new on the national scene, who is only the nominee
   of the democratic party because the big guns chose not to run
  -he was on both sides of the gulf war ("I'd have voted with the majority
   but agreed with the arguments of the minority")
  -he's on both sides of the abortion issue (he was pro-life until he
   became a national candidate)
  -he's a slippery liar


-- 
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
 - - If a field of study has the word "science" in it - it isn't a science - -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,sci.econ
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Re: Tort reform (was: Trial Lawyers and Clintons...)
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 19:09:02 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.184417.25943@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>Note that Ruger faced strict liability.  Ruger could have chosen
>>(1) to leave the guns as they were and compensate the victims, or
>>(2) pay the costs of fixing the guns so that the defect was removed
>>
>>Obviously, Ruger chose (2) as a cheaper option than (1).  Which would
>>imply that society is better off because there was legal liability --
>>without that liability, Ruger would not have fixed the guns, and society
>>would have faced the costs of (1), rather than the costs of (2).
>
>No, without that liability, the owners of the guns would have had them
>fixed, and society would have faced the costs of (2).  Either that, or
>the owners would have decided that (1) is cheaper than (2), and they
>wouldn't have had the guns fixed.  In either case, society would bear
>the lower cost.  (In fact, if for some people (1) is cheaper and for
>others (2) is cheaper, this is the only solution that gets the lowest
>cost, by fixing some of the guns).

You're assuming perfect information.  Ruger has a true sense of the
costs involved.  Consumers won't--the cost of the information to
an individual consumer will be too great.  Furthermore, there are economies
of scale: a million gun owners fixing one gun each is going to be much
more expensive than one gun manufacturer producing a million guns the
right way the first time.

Furthermore, without that liability, Ruger is even more likely to
include other defects in the guns.
-- 
           .. . . .  .  .   .    .     .     .    .   .  .  . . . ..
          ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
         the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: The Republican Platform
Date: 1 Oct 1992 00:14:10 GMT
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

I am in the process of reading the summary of the platform posted
on this newsgroup.  It has some interesting things, most of which
are Democrat bashing, rather than proposals.  Others are blatently
misleading.  Here's one good example:

"... the president has established a bold strategy, America 2000,
which challenges communities in every state to take charge to 
achieve our ambitious national education goals.  The success of
America 2000 will depend upon the local community, where
implementation and ultimate responsibility rest."

What that says is that Bush has co-opted the Education 2000
programs that have been ongoing for at least 8 years (some
completed) in various states and is turning them into a set
of gov't defined goals that local communities are expected
to meet.  Set the rules and avoid the burden.

The state of Washington began their program in 1983 or 1984 and
made its recomentdations to the governor in 1984 or 1985.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: mrl28033@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R Linksvayer)
Subject: Media coverage for Marrou/Lord (call these #'s!)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 07:32:36 GMT

From: Steve Givot <Steve.Givot@f418.n104.z1.fidonet.org>
Date: 02 Oct 92  11:13:17

To:    All Libertarians and anyone else who wants to see the media
       cover the Marrou/Lord Campaign.

Re:    What to do to make this happen

IT IS TIME TO GET OFF OUR COLLECTIVE BEHINDS AND DO SOMETHING TO
MAKE THIS HAPPEN.  IN THE LAST 24 HOURS A LOT HAS HAPPENED IN THE
CAMPAIGN.  MOST NOTABLY, WITH PEROT'S ENTRY, THE MEDIA ARE TALKING
ABOUT THE "THREE CANDIDATES".  THIS MUST STOP.  PEROT IS SHOWING
ABOUT 7% IN THE POLLS---NOT MUCH BETTER THAN ANDRE.  YET HE IS GETTING
COVERAGE.

WE ARE ASKING YOU TO INVEST MONEY IN YOUR TELEPHONE BILL.  THE FOLLOWING
MESSAGE IS BEING SENT TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.  PLEASE
ACT ON IT.  PLEASE PASS IT ON.  PLEASE GET ON THE PHONE AND CALL THESE
PEOPLE.  PHONE CALLS ARE CHEAP.  DON'T WORRY ABOUT MAKING THEM ANGRY.
THAT IS THE OBJECTIVE.  LET THEM KNOW HOW ANGRY WE ARE AND DON'T STOP
CALLING UNTIL THEY START REPORTING THE TRUTH.

THE MEDIA HAS A HISTORY OF RESPONDING TO "PUBLIC DEMONSTRATIONS."  SO
LET'S GIVE THEM AN ELECTRONIC DEMONSTRATION THAT THEY WON'T FORGET!

---------------------------------------------------------------------

It is crucial that ALL libertarians call the following
news organizations, OVER AND OVER, starting on Monday, October 5,
at 9AM EDT:

(1) to tell them you are angry,

(2) to demand that they stop being inaccurate and start to refer to
all FOUR nationwide candidates,

(3) to demand that they include the fourth nationwide candidate,
Andre Marrou, in all subsequent coverage.


        ABC TV Network News     (212)   456-1000

        CBS TV Network News     (212)   975-4321

        NBC TV Network News     (212)   664-4971

	CNN			(404)	827-1500

Call and keep calling the same people until they get the message that
you won't stop calling until they provide coverage. Make them know that
they cannot avoid this issue, and that we will not go away.

CALL TEN LIBERTARIANS THAT YOU KNOW AND PASS THIS ENTIRE MESSAGE ALONG
TO THEM.  WE HAVE STRENGTH IN OUR GROWING NUMBERS---LETS USE IT NOW.
-- 
Mike Linksvayer   m-linksvayer@uiuc.edu   +1 217 344 1326
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson)
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:19:01 GMT

In article <5OCT199219033406@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
>I really had no reason to be against Clinton before this.
>I did have real concerns about anyone who's a war protester
>being able to lead the country in the event of war, since 
>you have to have people go and fight.
>
>But to find out while Bill Clinton was at Oxford in '69 that 
>he went to *Moscow* and eastern Europe in the dead of winter, 
>alone, and made efforts to change his citizenship to British,
>-- I'll be dead against him personally -- if all this is true.
>
>(aired on C-Span today). 
>
>Clinton better tell the whole story now. And he better go
>beyond a reasonable doubt.
>
Well, last night on Larry King Live Clinton said that he did go to
Russia for a week, the first week of 1970.  It was part of a Christmas
break trip for him.  He said he traveled through scandinavia and spent
Christmas with a friend in Finnland.  After that he went to Russia and
back out through eastern Europe.  Appartently Oxford has a 6 week
Christmas break and students are encouraged to travel during that time.
Given that he spent Christmas in Finnland, going to Russia doesn't seem
outrageous to me (they are rather close you know). 

As for Clinton changing his citizenship, there is no evidence for such an
assertion.

Paul.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 05:42:15 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Followup-To: talk.abortion

In  <celw4MS00awL8551EQ@andrew.cmu.edu>  Thomas Omar Smith <ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> Excerpts from netnews.alt.rush-limbaugh: 28-Sep-92 Re: rights and
> responsibili.. C.J. Silverio@eno.wpd.sg (1508)
>
> > Acknowledging that a possibility exists does not mean consenting
> > to live with it if it does chance to happen.  I acknowledge that
> > a risk of accident & injury exists every time I drive an
> > automobile.  This acknowledgement does NOT mean that I consent
> > to live with injury without medical redress.
>
> But, if there is no medical redress, then you will have to live with the
> consequences.  If abortion is murder, then there is no medical redress
> to pregnancy except to carry it to term.  Therefore, a couple having sex
> would consent to having a child if the contraceptives failed.

But there is, so they don't, and it's not, so there is, so they needn't.
Thank you for playing.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48515 talk.abortion:39297 alt.politics.bush:7109
From: varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:05:50 GMT
Organization: Purdue University

In <k#_pb9p.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>	If you hadn't striped the rest of my post, it would be there now!
>>Laws are made to protect people - in some cases people that are incapable
>>of protecting themselves. Laws about child labor etc are such. Why is

>This is clearly NOT "self-protection", as you claimed.

	I did not claim it was "self-protection", but protection of
a segment of society unable to protect themselves. 

>>	Note that the main thrust of my opinion is that unborn children
>>deserve civil rights just like anyone else. 
> Because a segment of the human population was being denied any
>>rights whatsoever. Wherever this occurs, we should be disgusted, and
>>work to change it. Abortion is one such case.

>There are aslo fundamental and major differences in the relationship
>a slave owner had with his slaves, and the relationship between a mother
>and fetus.

	That's right. Slave owners had much more compasion for their slaves
than pro-abortionists have for unborn children.

>To deny that those differences exist is to exhibit the same degree of
>arrogance that justified slavery.  The only difference is that you 
>deny reality by refusing to accept real differences, and slave owners
>denied reality by refusing to accept similarities.

	Good job of turning things around. To focus attention away from the
fact that you are a bigot, you now try to make it seem like I am just
like a slave owner. Really. Good show. 

	Certianly there are differences, but the basic idea is the same.
An entire segment of the population is being denied any rights whatsoever.
Not even the right to live is being bestowed upon unborn children. That
is just as disgusting as any other type of biggotry. 

			Bruce
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48984 alt.activism:17009 soc.culture.latin-america:3708
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,soc.culture.latin-america
Subject: ...more than 200 Contra regulars and 12 commanders have been murdered
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 1 Oct 92 14:16:58 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

	An interesting article is in today's Wall Street Journal (October 1st,
1992.  Page A12).

	It recounts the story of a book written about the Contras, and how the
real story was ignored by journalists because it frequently crossed the
ideological bounds of "left" and "right".

	The book "Everybody Had His Own Gringo", by Glenn Garvin, apears to be
an insightful account of the real Contras.  Not the CIA hot-shots, the
murderous warlords, the Somoza fanatics, but those interested in liberating
their country from the Sandanistas.

	Some excerpts from the article:

	Mr. Garvin's lack of idelogical bias allows him to analyze the
developments of the Contra army with all the blemishes intact.  Some Contra
leaders were frightening goons, including one who went by the nom de guerre,
"Suicida."  In 1983, Suicida began ruling his territory along the
Honduran-Nicaraguan border like a demoniacal warlord, killing local peasants at
the slightest suggestion of collaboration with the Sandanistas.  Eventually,
the Contra high command ordered his arrest, and Suicida and three of his
officers were executed.
	To most of the press corps [and some here on the net :)--Brett],
Suicida symbolized the Contra movement.  But far more common than the Suicida
aberrations were the genuine Contra heroes who fought against tremendous odds
to bring democracy to their homeland....
	...On the contrary [credit went to everyone except the Contras], since
Violeta Chamorro was sworn in as president in 1990, more than 200 Contra
regulars and 12 top Contra commanders have been murdered by revengeful
Sandanistas.  No one has been prosecuted in connection with these murders--not
surprising since the Sandanistas still control the army, the police, and much
of the judiciary.
	At least the Contras now have a book that recognizes their important
role in history.  It deserves to be read, particularly by those in the US and
in Nicaragua who so shamefully dishonored their efforts.
---end of excerpts---

	It's great to see that there are objective people out there working for
the truth, instead of a bankrupt social/economic system.
                    
Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 10:07:17 GMT

MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
: Exactly my point.  I am firmly pro-choice.  I am trying to point out
: the inconsistency inherent in the anti-abortion position.  I can
: respect, if not agree with the absolutist anti-abortion position.  Once
: they start with the "rape, incest and life of the mother" exceptions,
: though, I believe they are more interested in punishing the mother for
: daring to have sex than in preserving a human life.

Once again I have to point out that right-to-lifers do not want to punish 
women for having sex, any more than people who denounce terrorism want to 
punish minorities for taking an interest in politics, O.K.?  

:  
: >--
: >Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)                     "Republicans understand the
:  
: Jim McMaster
--
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de     "There are no unborn people, there are fetuses,
                                 or people not yet born (and hence not real)." 
				   - Ron Bense '92
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: AIDS crisis
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 00:00:02 GMT


In a previous article, mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee) says:

>Take this AIDS topic out of all these political groups.
>
>PLEASE !
>

Why?

Is it your contention that the AIDS crisis is NOT a political issue?
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist // "Assembly of God???  Strange.. *
*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller // I was not aware that the diety  *    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu // was available in source form..." *
****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.****************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: wayne@mathematik.uni-Bremen.de (Wayne Tvedt)
Subject: Re: "Skull and Bones"
Organization: 250 Million Pet Rocks
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 18:10:13 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Tim Smith (tzs@stein.u.washington.edu) wrote:
>If it is really true that Bush was a member of Skull and Bones at Yale,
>and if it is also true that S&B members are supposed to leave when S&B
>is mentioned, why haven't Bush hecklers taken to shouting "Skull and
>Bones" at Bush appearances?

  Now we know why the "Save the Shrub" team has been so insistent on 
admitting only card-carrying supporters into their rallies.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Subject: Re: If you want to know if Ross is Running -- Ask US.
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 14:36:15 GMT

In article <Sep.28.09.23.59.1992.27843@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>In article <01GPA755G24G0017Q5@utarlg.uta.edu> B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (STEPHEN TICE) writes:
>
>"Beating up" whom?  "Flail away" at whom?  You guys come off like a
>bunch of morons.  I asked, does Ross listen to the "volunteers" only
 ^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^
> [etc]
>You're an idiot.
 ^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^

He won't understand how he "beat up" anyone in this post either.

Naughty, naughty little Teddy!  Didn't you have to stay after school 
just last week for name calling?

Stephen, all of the elementary school counselors have talked to
Teddy, and they are at a loss as to what to do.  I suspect that your
efforts will be equally frustrated.  Perhaps when Teddy has graduated
from kindergarden his self-esteem will be high enough that we may
develop a more effective theraputic plan.




Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: I HEARD ROSS PEROT WILL BE BACK
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 20:10:16 GMT

In <1992Sep26.150549.1381@cnsvax.uwec.edu> falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep26.040023.24862@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>> MyPrediction: Most of Ross's credibility is gone.  He'll get 10% of the
>> vote, much of it concentrated in the south, Texas and California.  He'll 
>> pull more votes from Bush than Clinton, and will only help Clinton take
>> the south.

>  That may or may not matter.  If you take a look at some of the polls...

>  In a Louis Harris poll last Thurs. -- 20 % Perot, without even much of the
>publicity that he's receiving now...

Yes, but I don't believe this means anything.  I think people are much
more willing to take a chance during polls than during elections.  I
think people will get into the booth and say "Do I *really* want to vote
for Perot?  Won't that help Bush, who I'm trying to get rid of?  I
better stick with the safe choice."

And you're really stretching it if you're arguing that he hasn't been
getting lots of publicity.

>  I think he may win enough states to hang the election, if he's smart.

Not likely, but it is possible.  The Electoral College dynamics mean
almost anything could happen.  Texas is certainly up in the air with
Perot in the race.

>						Mike Falkner
>

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1992 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Brady Anderson 1992 AL MVP
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more months!	   SIGN BARRY BONDS!!!!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1992 00:33:39 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In  <adams.718034176@spssig>  adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
> >In  <1992Sep30.011551.18978@meaddata.com>  johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:
> >>
> >> the Reagan/Bush "packed" Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld
> >> Roe v. Wade.
> >
> >Barely.  And Blackmun has stated that he's not going to hang on another
> >4 years.
>
> Don't worry too much...President Clinton will be appointing the next SCJ.

One can but hope...

> (Now it's the lesser of *3* evils.  Oh joy.  I'm still voting libertarian.
> It's safer.)

Then, no matter *who* wins, you can say "Well, *I* didn't vote for him."
If that really makes you feel safe...
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton