HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Your Permanent Record
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:54:54 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1764@aviary.Stars.Reston.Unisys.COM> munck@stars.reston.unisys.com writes:
>
>Here's an interesting point:  when all of these sophomores grow up and some
>eventually run for public office, all of their current half-thought-out
>rantings on the net will probably still be available in various archives. 
>After all, the full net stream is being captured and put on cdrom even now. 
>Every flame, every obscenity, every lapse of logic.  This is something new
>in the world of politics.

Er, it is?  I'd suspect that people have better things to do than
capture about 10 megs of dross on a daily basis.  The moderated
newsgroups probably have archives, I agree.  But then, something with
the remarkably high signal-to-shit ratio that t.p.m and a.p.c/a.p.b
have must be stored on a more permanent medium than mere CD-ROM.
Perhaps /dev/null?

>
>So think about that out there in .edu land; are you sure about your facts
>and logic?  What you say now may doom your run for dogcatcher in 2012.

We'll just deny everything.  "A friend was using my account!" or
somesuch.  Hey, saying "I don't recall" worked for the Big R and the
Shrub, no?


--
"Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."  Psssssssssssss.....
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: bwillems@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Balam Willemsen)
Subject: Re: Quayle's a liar!
Organization: Northeastern University, Boston, MA. 02115, USA
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 13:07:07 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.205446.4810@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>In article <farenebt.719071511@craft.camp.clarkson.edu>, farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell ("Droopy")) writes:
>> In the debate, Quayle made reference to something in Al Gore's
>> book _Earth in the balance_. Quayle made reference to a proposal
>> on a specific page. CNN reported that there was nothing on that
>> page about whatever Quayle was refering to. 
>
>	CNN isn't really correct either.  The page is 403.  What Quayle
>referred to is the "environmental marshall plan" that Gore proposes.  Since
>Gore doesn't say how much it would cost, the Reps used today's cost of the
>actual Marshal Plan: 200 Billion.

BUZZ! Sorry wrong answer!

p. 304 (Quayle's page only talks about the "old Marshall plan", and the
spending that would be equivalent to that expenditure today.)

p. 403 (Your page is in the INDEX and the words Marshall Plan are
nowhere to be seen, if you're looking for the index entry for it, it's
on p. 402!)

And they talk about trust... 
Can the American people trust GB/DQ any more than they can BC/AG? 

Balam
Now definitely for Clinton/Gore '92

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: dbn7350@zeus.tamu.edu (NASH, DAVID BENNETT III)
Subject: RE: rights and responsibilities
Summary: Try a different approach 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 19:50:00 GMT

Keywords:  

In a previous article, sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) wrote:
> 
>[stuff deleted]
>>	If babies just popped into womens' bodies from out of nowhere, I'd
>>support the pro-choice position too.  But they don't.  They're in the womb
>>because of voluntary and avoidable behavior by the woman.
>> 
	And if conditions for the birth of babies were perfect, i 
would lean more pro life.  Unfortunately too many rapes occur, too
many women will not use or do not know how to use contraceptives,
too many mothers cannot financialy support their babies, too many 
babies are scalded, beaten, starved, etc., to death because they
are not wanted, etc.  

	I challenge you as the pro life person you say you are to 
make life better for the people in your community.  Help them
achieve an income that will sustain children.  Teach them in the 
use of contraceptives.  Build them a good house that they can raise 
their children in.

	Give women incentives to bring children into the world and
they will do so on their own.  Allow conditions to stay the
same for a large section of our society, and women will still have
abortions.

dbn3.

-- one of the best star pilots in the galaxy.\dbn7350@zeus.tamu.edu
-- an enemy of the Ronald Reagan Republicans.\Texas A&M Biochemistry Undergrad.
-- let's get this show on the road. . .
<EOF>
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell ("Droopy"))
Subject: Re: Why is Clinton Soooo Slick?!
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 12:48:00 GMT

ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:

>Why does Bill Clinton insist on being so slick?

>Why doesn't he simply come out and say:
>  "If you vote for me, everyone earning less than $200,000 a year will be
>  paying less in taxes at the end of my term than they do now."

Because he saw what happened when Bush made a promise he knew he mightnot
be able to keep. That statement you made is Clinton's objective but 
he knows better than to make a promise that he might not be able to keep.
"Slick" is promising it and then squirming when he has to break
his proimse.

>What is it about that man that he insists on talking around the issue but never
							
At the GOP convention, Bush said that Clinton would raise taxes on
the rich and that Clinton defines rich as anyone who has a job. In
the current state of the economy, I would think that definition is not
too inaccurate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bri Farenell			  |	CONGRATS TO 1992 CALDER CUP  
Clarkson '95			  |		CHAMPIONS
farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu  |	  THE ADIRONDACK RED WINGS
REC.SPORT.HOCKEY'S AHL CONTACT	  |   ALSO: 1981, 1986 AND 1989 CHAMPS
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Eleven Israelis were dead. Machine guns were everywhere. Who knew what
would happen next. Going on made sense only if you believed in the idea
of sport as more than a game."	---Dave Kindred, on the 1972 Olympics
From: ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot Wins First Debate
Date: 13 Oct 1992 16:36:49 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


   I switched over to ABC after the debate and they had something like 8 or
10 undecided voters there who watched the debate. All but two or three were
in favor or Perot afterwards. What I find funny is that I hear MANY people
saying "Perot was great, but I don't think he can win the election." People,
if you all vote for Perot then he will win the election. I think this is the
result of this stupid overkill with the polls they have out every five minutes.
It locks people into being afraid of leaving the candidate that is currently
ahead. There should be a law or something that says polls can only be done
every week or so. You start listening to the reporters after a while to see
how you should vote.
-- 
George Bush? He doesn't have a clue anymore. Bill Clinton? A slick smile and
a pandering style. Neither one is being realistic about what it is going to
take. The answer..........? ROSS FOR BOSS! VOTE FOR ROSS PEROT FOR PRESIDENT!
The Cryptozoology Information Network. Want on our Email mailing list? Amiga!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Term Limits are Constitutional, Study Shows
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 04:15:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.092628.1598@u.washington.edu> tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>Term limits were proposed for the Constitution, and voted down unanimously.

Term limits imposed by the federal Constitution were voted down. Term
limits imposed by the states, or by act of Congress, were not discussed
to my knowledge. That means they are neither constitutionally required
_nor_ forbidden. The opinions of the framers are relevant _only_ as
they relate to understanding the COnstitution itself.

>There's a huge difference between something not being in the
>Constitution because the Framers actively decided not to put it there,
>and something not being there because there was never any consideration
>of putting it there.

Except for historians, there is no difference: If it isn't in the
Constitution it does not have the weight of constitutional law.
The Constitution isn't everything the framers talked about, it's 
only those things they put into writing.

                                          Frank Crary
                                          CU Boulder
From: ed@wente.llnl.gov (Ed Suranyi)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Date: 7 Oct 92 19:30:33 GMT
Organization: UC Davis Dept of Applied Science at LLNL

In article <1992Oct7.022045.19106@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>To conspire with an enemy country during war is an act of a traitor.
>Bill Clinton may or may not have done this - he was more likely a
>"willing dupe" - but for him to protest the war IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY,
>and to travel to the capital of the main enemy, is, to say the
>least, very suspect. As a veteran of that period, I find it
>reprehensible and offensive.

Do you think that anyone who was a tourist in Moscow in that period
is automatically ineligible to be president?  Because I don't believe
there's any evidence that he actually "conspired" with the enemy, or
that he protested the war while he was there.  

We all know about Dornan's long tirade on this subject.  What did he say?
He went through a long chain of evidence to show that Clinton was in
Moscow in the period in question.  Nobody disputes that!  Then he went
on to say that Clinton participated in treasonous activites while there.
When a reporter asked him what evidence he had for that, he said,
essentially, that it was entirely speculation.

Ed
ed@wente.llnl.gov


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Am I unpatriotic?
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 04:05:53 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Oct8.183558.8297@tamsun.tamu.edu> enbal@aeroj.tamu.edu (James L. Heilman) writes:
]In 1969 and 1970, I attended anti war demonstrations.  Eight years
]ago, I visited the People's Republic of China, a communist country,
]and home to George Bush's buddies, the butchers of Tianeman Square. 
]I do not remember most of the people I met during my visit. Am I
]unpatriotic? 

Not according to what you say. In 1966 I visited East Berlin, and in
1969 I took part in anti-war demonstrations (in the US, not overseas),
but then I admit it and am not running for president. Please don't throw
out red :-) herrings into this debate.

-- 
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! - -
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50235 alt.politics.clinton:9036
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Date: 8 Oct 92 13:46:45 GMT
Organization: Austerlitz, Gershovitz, and Carmichael

PAUL D CHAPIN writes:
>: 	Actually, it is a likely scenario for a potential spy.  If Clinton, as
>: John Doe, applies for a security clearance with such a background it would be
>: denied.
>
>Not necessarily.  I was active in the anti-Vietnam war movement and had
>known left-wing tendencies (like most college students back then) and still
>had no trouble getting a secret-cryto clearance while in the army.  (How I
>ended up in the army is another story).  I never could decide if the army
>security check was so poor it never noticed by college days, or so good it
>realized I took my oath seriously.
>

Of course, now that they know this, you're going to have to grow that 
beard you've been promising yourself. And get those Ray-Bans and
nifty Burberry coat like on "Secret Agent."

On a serious note, it is an indication of the panic in Bush's campaign
that he's the one actively picking up the hand grenades and tossing
them. And it's extremely saddening to see American politics at this
level. On a par with Stephen Douglas accusing Lincoln of wanting to have
whites and blacks intermarry.
-- 
Coach Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> Season: 1-5 Lifetime: 1-7
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.war.vietnam
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Yes and No
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:21:29 GMT

russest@ampex.com (Steve Russell) writes:
] 
] Hindsight, always so much clearer than mindless retoric, shows us that
] Vietnam was a lost cause from the beginning, a war which was never intended
] to be won (or we were never allowed to get serious winning) and ended up
] with no winners on anyside (I base that on body count).


I must disagree with you on this point.

It was a 'lost cause' when someone decided that trying to
refight Korea, Or WWII, or WWI, or the Liberation of the
Phillipine from the Spanish_American War was a viable model.

But I do not think that 'apriori' the notion of defending 
liberty abroad is implicitly flawed in, of, and by itself.

It would have been a much interesting world had both
Ethiopia and Spain Been defended by those who Defend
Democracy and Liberty...

So perchance even Hindsight is NOT so clear...
 
] If my country had actually been at WAR, with a real enemy, posing a real
] threat to the security of the United States then things might have been 
] clearer. Somehow I just didn't see North Vietnam as much of a threat to
] the United States.

This is a twin Devil problem:

1. it is not clear how one supports a defense against
'low intensity warfare' prior to the introduction of
main force units. Let alone how a 'declaration of war'
should be promulgated in just such a case that is
Constitutionally sound.
{we can dance for a long time about what denotes main force
units, and when has the line been crossed between
'armed terrorist' and Patriotic Minutemen defending
Home and Hearth from Evil Foreign Devils...}

2. There is also the question whether or not the notion
of 'bear any burdern' is an honorable one... and how to
balance that with the older notion of NOT stealing a 
man's rice bowl.... So yes, YOU might NOT have been
directly threatened by <X> but does that mean that 
there are no other reasons to engage in an armed struggle
against them? <when did Nazi Germany Ever bother US? And
likewise, besides recycling a lot of Obsolete Battle Ships
and showing that they were DEATH TRAPS to their crew, what
threat did Japan present us, besides the fact that they 
forceably liberated the Phillipines from Our Evil NeoColonialist Oppression.}

ciao
drieux


ps: oh that these issues were so simple and so Black and White,
as the Fact that AntiAbortionists Are ToolsOfTheDevil[tm] engaging
in cultural warfare against the Decent God Fearing Patriots....

HUM......

Should Operation Rescue be Under Indictment for TREASON for
protesting against the Law of the Land and the Government
Policy while we are in the Armed Struggle of the War On Drugs?



-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Don't Just Rock the Vote
Kick OUT THE JAMS!
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Time "Letters to the Editor" fax number
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:13:13 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <23618@hacgate.SCG.HAC.COM> msheldon@luna.dpl.scg.hac.com (Marti Sheldon) writes:


>>Apparently there had been
>>a deluge of phone calls threatening the life of Hilary and their
>>daughter and Bill Clinton which appeared to be made by about 20
>>"pro-life" activists as often and continuously as they could make
>>them.

>Sounds like a very Christian act, doesn't it? Pro-who's-life?

Who said they were Christian?

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo)
Subject: Re: Perot back in yo-yo mode
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Labs
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 18:49:20 GMT

In article <ldbc71INNe2u@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
>I now hear that the promised "solutions" from Perot are on
>hold while he re-runs his "problem" spot.  I was really
>looking forward to the solutions, but I guess I took him
>at his word.  This has not been proven to be a wise thing
>to do, but I got suckered again.
>
>What scares me is that I am now so cynical that I think it
>is possible he never planned to air segment 2 tonight.

not before the debates. very smart.
-- 
-- Pat Monardo
-- pjm@cshl.org
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51388 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6755 alt.politics.bush:8903 alt.politics.elections:16472 talk.abortion:42293 alt.sex:32841 alt.politics.clinton:10085
From: zeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Mark Gansle)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 13 Oct 92 15:34:39 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <1992Oct4.223820.4445@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Oct4.192023.1578@newshost.unh.edu> ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink) writes:
>>>Simple questions to shut up a right to lifer
>>>
>>>"How many hungry kids have you fed today?"
>>>"How many homeless kids have you taken into your home?"
>>
>>You ask those kids if they'd rather be where they are now or dead, and guess
>>what they will answer.
>
>Wait until those kids grow up, so that they can give an INFORMED response, and 
>I'll wager most of them would have preferred that their mothers had waited
>until she was in a more stable financial/marital/social status before having
>them.

Excuse me, reality check.  If she *had* waited to have the child, then that
child would not have been the one she was asking the question of.  It's 
impossible to be born at a different time because fate conspired to put exactly
that combination of DNA together to form that unique person who cannot be 
replaced or remade no matter how many times you try.  I mean, if we're talking
fanatasies here, hell!  I'd like for my parents to have been millionaires who
lived in the nicest neighborhoods, didn't smoke or drink...  No child born
could have born at any other time and still be the same person.  So the
question is, "Would you rather never have been born, or be alive now?"


+-------------------------+-------------------------+
|Loud-thundering Zeus     |Think globally.          |
|                         |Act locally.             |
|zeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu  |Eat my shorts totally.   |
+-------------------------+-------------------------+

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: weverett@jarthur.claremont.edu (William M. Everett)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 20:04:32 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.153457.11097@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = (Steven Arnold) writes:
>>> = (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>>>> = Jim McMasters:

>
>>	Well put.  It is no more punishment to require a woman to fulfil her
>>parental responsibilities than it is punishment to require one who signed an
>>enlistment contract to go to boot camp, or to require one who injures 
>>another in a car accident to do everything possible to save the life and 
>>health of the one injured.
>
>I hate to *prick* your bubble, but there is no goddamned "contract"
>signed, and the woman has NOT agreed to become pregnant just by having sex
>except in your feverishly puritannical mind.  Maybe you dopes are
>convincing each other, but in a real debate you'd be bleeding on the
>floor.  Like a woman getting a botched, illegal abortion.
>
real cute image. It's not that simple. The point is that with *any* action
you take you must be responsible for the consequences. Requiring people to
be responsible for their actions is not a punishment. It is a consequence
of living in a society with other human beings.

>>	BTW, life of the mother and rape exceptions are CONSISTENT exceptions. 
>
>They're hypocritical exceptions.  As Jim stated above, you obviously
>care more for imaginary bullshit "contracts" and punishing women for
>having sex then you do the fetus you shed so many crocodile tears over.

these 'imaginary bullshit "contracts"' are the basis for any government. You
agree to respect the rights of other people- including a fetus, which may or
may not be considered human, that issue won't be addressed here- and be held
responsible for any of your actions that might affect the rights of other
people. You also agree to sacrifice certain freedoms so that others may 
enjoy their rights.

>>Incest, if it was also rape, is consistent as well; but allowing abortions for
>>children incestuously conceived between two consenting adults would be an
>>INCONSISTENT exception (and therefore one I would oppose).
>
>Huh?  What kind of dumbass statement is this?  Can you give an example
>of "incestuously conceived between two consenting adults"?  Maybe you have
>a real-life example you could share with us.

The world is a strange and twisted place. Any study of what will or won't
be legal must take into account all possible actions. There are people who
have done exactly such things and they will do so again.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc