HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nuke@wam.umd.edu (root)
Subject: Re: FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 08:07:57 GMT

In article treilly@iastate.edu (Edward C Reilly) writes:
>
>     Though not a direct threat to anyone, mr. Hunt's post implies that
>this is a free forum for discussing threats.  The government then has
>reason to watch, in the interest of seeing someone go the next step and
>discuss threats.

Actually, discussing threats would be more relevant.

For instance, as cute as his trip through DC was...
He was traveling, in the open, through a region reputed for having
a high number of people hiding and using guns.  Although a vast majority
of the killings (note this is an area where gun bans are in effect) are
due to drug-related incidents... this still isn't the best place in the
world for PE Clinton to walk about, flashing his pearly whites.  All too
easy for things to go wrong.

Granted, this will be his new home... 'course, it's mine, too... mostly.

Perhaps someone will clue him in, and he won't do stuff like this.
Personally, I'm unhappy that he was elected, ESPECIALLY due to his non-
stance on the economy... but better him than Gore.  Oh my!  

Maybe I should mail him a bp-vest?  I *reeeeeally* don't want anything
to happen to him.  <shudder>

Take Care...

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17535 alt.president.clinton:592 talk.politics.misc:61076
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON
Summary: One out of two ain't abd.
Date: 20 Nov 92 15:52:38 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Rice University, in case you were wondering

In article <1992Nov19.213830.3813@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>In article <cubsfan.722154042@camelot> cubsfan@camelot.bradley.edu (Michael Silverman) writes:
>>The average Republican once again astounds the world with intellignt,
>>thoughful political discourse.
>>
>>Give the poor guy something: At least he was succinct!
>>
>It's stupid to think Republicans are like this.  The 'average' Republican is
>offended by this just the same as everyone else.

It's stupid to think *all* Republicans are like that, I agree -- right now.
If the Religious Right succeeds in completing their hijacking of the GOP,
though, those sentiments expressed above will become a bit *advanced* with
regards to the average party mentality...

--PLH, glad he's a Libertarian


--
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: Heterosexual AIDS
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:40:23 GMT

thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:

>>But the numbers
>>are that most NEW cases of aids are in the heterosexual community.

>And this is categorically, completely, utterly, false.  

Looks like I misspoke. I meant to say the number of new infections of
HIV. I saw a report on a national news program which indicated that
the number of new cases of HIV in the heterosexual community was
higher than the number of new cases of HIV in the gay community.
If you have figures which disprove that, then cite the reference.

-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington (Alumnus)
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 00:17:54 GMT

In article <rabjab.224.721014274@golem.ucsd.edu> rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof) writes:
>I fear that the seemingly liberal idea of legalizing all manner of
>addictive substances would result eventually in a government that would
>use drugs to exploit and control its population. 

I doubt the government could exploit legal drugs as much as they exploit
illegal drugs.

Currently various law enforcement agencies confiscate cash of sufficient
quantities from "suspected drug dealers", confiscate houses, cars, boats,
etc., for nothing more than suspicion.

Exactly how could legalization be exploited worse than that?

>Another problem is that the costs to the health system, regardless of
>education, might become so enormous as to exhaust the amount of 
>taxation that would keep drugs from being sold on the black market.

The cost to the health system of ILLEGAL drugs is MUCH, MUCH higher than
that of legal drugs.

Right now the health system has to deal with people who take impure drugs,
unknown drugs, unknown quantities of drugs, and drugs whose effects are much
worse than similar drugs that would be legalized.

Please, please find a copy of "Licit and Illicit Drugs" and try reading it.
Especially the chapter on recommendations.  Note that "Licit and Illicit
Drugs" wasn't written by crackpots, it was produced by Consumers Union, the
same folks who bring you Consumers Report.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)

When I said "we", officer, I was referring to myself, the four young
ladies, and, of course, the goat.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17340 alt.politics.democrats.d:603 alt.politics.elections:24020 ba.politics:7185 co.politics:2133 ne.politics:3023 nj.politics:751 or.politics:663 ny.politics:271 talk.politics.misc:60556
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 17 Nov 92 17:20:05 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:


>>>Yes, it must be guaranteed.  However, DON'T YOU DARE expect ME to pay for
>>>YOUR decision to have more kids than you can afford.  
>>
>>Never...I will have no more than I can afford...and would certainly never
>>ask you to pay for it in any event...
>
>Of course, sometimes it's not your choice, like if you die or become
>incapacitated or it's clear your children are suffering, regardless of
>your own principles someone may need to step in for the children's
>sake, you can't really write a will which says "...and if the money
>runs out let the children starve".
In concept, yes, this is possible.  And perhaps likely.  But, trying to be
responsible, I make sure that I have enough life insurance, carry
disability insurance, etc to cover these contingencies.  I do not expect
the govt to have to step in.  In fact, I've made sure to specify guardians
for my kids (with backups), etc. so that it's all covered.  That's
responsibility.

>That may seem trite, but unfortunately in a lot of cases you basically
>have this situation, fathers who left, mothers who simply aren't
>coping even if they are trying, how much do we allow the children to
>suffer because of the sins of the parents?
I understand your point...and given my set of moral principles, and my
financial planning, I don't believe this will be the case in *my*
situation.  I suspect I could conjure up some bizarre set of circumstances
that would place my kids in the 'public trust' as it were, but I think I've
got a reasonable set of protections in place.

 -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
From: wesson@fnalna.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: What would you like on your waffles?
Date: 20 Nov 92 16:38:20 -0600
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalna.fnal.gov

In article <1992Nov18.133247.5688@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> 	Clinton has now waffled on the following positions:
> 
> 	Gays in the military
> 	Reducing the deficit (wouldn't be prudent at this juncture :)
> 	Health Care
> 	Estimated growth for next year
> 	Reducing the executive branch budget
> 	Line item veto
> 	...
> 
> 	Looks like the stock market missed the election bus only to get hit by
> the waffle truck coming the other way.
> :)
> 
> Brett

	Instead of just picking out issues and accusing Clinton of 
waffling on them, why don't you post what you think his positions were 
before the election, what you believe they are now and why you believe 
each is a waffle. 

				Dennis
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 01:38:40 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.184439.19349@mercury.cair.du.edu> jvilhube@diana.cair.du.edu (Jan Vilhuber) writes:
>In article <adams.721933831@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>>>There's too many people here already. (And how many of those actually CAN
>>>live? How many die of starvation each year? How many don't have homes?
>>>How many CHILDREN die each year because the people thought it was their
>>>most basic right to have kids and then couldn't FEED them!!)

>>But that is NOT my situation.  And as for you not having any kids, fine.
>>Your choice.  Now please allow me mine.

>What do you mean that not your situation?? Are you trying to imply

He means that he didn't "think it was his most basic right to have kids
and then couldn't feed them."  However many kids he had, he *could* feed
them.

>that you don't live on the same planet as *I* do? Hardly.
>Your situation is the same as mine is the same as everyone elses.
>There's too many people and it's time to limit. Your view of the world
>is very narrow (i.e. focused on yourself). "*I* have my kids; *I*
>can afford them. So everything is fine". That still does not counter my
>argument that we have an overpopulation problem on Earth AS A WHOLE!

Yes, it does.  If only people who can afford children have them, then
the earth would *not* be overpopulated.

>You say limit people from having kinds through education, not by law.
>I wish it were that simple.How do you expect to teach people to have less kids,

You tell them how not to have kids -- like teaching them about sex, and
contraception.

>if you go ahead and have (say) 10 kids. You can afford them, so.. why not?
>This is a classical "Do as I say, not as I do" case. And that won't work.
>Educated people (like yourself and myself) have to set an example, or
>the 'teaching' part evaporates into a lot of hot air.

I haven't really been following this thread, though I've glanced over it
before, so I have a clarification question.  Is this one of those ideas
to toss around just for fun, or are you seriously suggesting having the
government decide how many children each person can have?

If you are, what exactly are you proposing?  Forced abortions, like in
China?  

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1993 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 alt.politics.clinton:17324 alt.politics.bush:13930 news.sysadmin:1468
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,news.sysadmin
Subject: Re: Annoying Computer Junk Mail
Date: 17 Nov 92 02:49:34 EST
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Nov16.232545.8503@ncsu.edu>, dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> Has anyone been receiving automated computer junk mail
> from a site called 'Campaign92.org'?   I've been trying to
> contact the sysadmins at that site to stop sending me
> their crap, but they've ignored me.  I must have gotten on
> their mailing list through my postings to a.p.c and
> a.p.b.  Has anyone been able to contact these clowns?  
> 

Sounds to me like a friend bought you a subscription :)

[This reminds me of a prank I did as a high school kid, I sent in one
of those 3x5 post cars inserts in a magazine to enroll a friend in the
Army, you can also do this with magazines and what-not ;]

-Garrett



Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:07:46 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.184439.19349@mercury.cair.du.edu> jvilhube@diana.cair.du.edu (Jan Vilhuber) writes:
>What do you mean that not your situation?? Are you trying to imply
>that you don't live on the same planet as *I* do? Hardly.
>Your situation is the same as mine is the same as everyone elses.
>There's too many people and it's time to limit. Your view of the world
>is very narrow (i.e. focused on yourself). "*I* have my kids; *I*
>can afford them. So everything is fine". That still does not counter my
>argument that we have an overpopulation problem on Earth AS A WHOLE!

And that still doesn't change the reality that it really doesn't matter
if you or I have no children or twenty.  It is equivilant to spitting
in the ocean.  You seem to be arguing that the government should force
people to limit the number of children they have because you feel that
there are too many people on the planet.  Can you let us know how you
think that such laws should be enforced ?  Should we force women to have
abortions if they are over their "quota" of children?  Should we
jail parents if they have too many kids ?  Do you really want to live
in a society where the government has that kind of power ?

There IS one way that I know of to lower birth rates, it has been 
effective in many places around the world, and it doesn't require
that the government resort to totalitariansm.  Simply, raise people's
standard of living.

>You say limit people from having kinds through education, not by law.
>I wish it were that simple. How do you expect to teach people to have less kids,
>if you go ahead and have (say) 10 kids. You can afford them, so.. why not?

Raising the standard of living has worked wherever it has been tried.
The countries with the highest birthrates tend to be countries with
terrible poverty.  

Guido

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: casey@well.sf.ca.us (Kathleen Creighton)
Subject: Re: We're all stupid!!! (was Gays in Military)
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 08:18:27 GMT


Interestingly enough, apparently the military has quite a good record
re treating personnel with AIDS.  I think it's been generally projected
how many cases they will be treating over x years, but I'm not aware that
the military has released any figures re the number of personnel they're
treating now for active AIDS.

I've been doing some research re the policy of restricting gays in the
military (and I might post it when I'm through, but given the fact that
people here tend to not read, I might not bother :-).  Prior to 1941,
"sodomy" between soldiers was punishable, no matter if gay or straight.
This has a long, long history, to the 13 colonies and all the way back
to Britain.

But when WW II loomed on the horizon, psychiatrists got into the act.
How they managed this is pretty ironic--apparently the US paid out over
$1 billion in long-term care of soldiers after WW I for "psychiatric
injuries".  The psychiatrists argued (and there were only a few) that
they could come up with a screening process that would eliminate those
who were psychologically unfit for war and save the US a lot of money.
Here it gets complicated by views of mental illness 1920-1940 and the
screwup of the military bureaucracy, and the need for military personnel
(16 million served in WW II), etc.  And as WW I was pretty gruesome,
hindsight could predict serious psychological injury to a large number
of soldiers who managed to live through it--suffering "shell shock"
(what is now known as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) would seem to be
the *norm*, and not a reflection of psychological "fitness" of the
fighting force.

I've also found that institutionalized homophobia in the military is
purposeful and does in fact serve a purpose (which would be eliminated
along with the elimination of the proscription of homosexuals in the
military).  Fascinating stuff.  Now that I've gotten into the history,
I can see how deeply it's been woven into our whole culture over the
last 50 years.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17623 alt.president.clinton:629 talk.politics.misc:61281
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON
Date: 22 Nov 92 13:54:37 GMT
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93


In article <1992Nov19.211332.2873@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, 
sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) said:

> > > I think the subject line says it all !!!!!!  Send flames to
> > > alt.to.bad.the.country.will.be.fucked.up.for.four.more.years
> > > Second thought KILL CLINTON,KILL CLITON,KILL CLINTON !!!!!!!
> > > Appealing to your subconcious.  [MARK ALLAN HUNT]

> > Well, there's a good way to get the secret service mointoring the
> > network.  So thoughful of you.  hope you get a visit from them.
> > [Edward C. Reilly]

> For the record, I didn't vote for Clinton, but I still want this
> idiot arrested for posting this trash.  And I hope no one thinks all
> Republicans think this way.  Heck, I'd be the first one to report
> him if I could!

And now for an opposing viewpoint...  Yes, I think that Mark Allan
Hunt (or, to give the account owner the dubious benefit of the doubt,
"either Mr. Hunt or whoever found Mr. Hunt's terminal unattended and
typed in that message") was being fairly assholic with that post.
However, he did not say "I intend to kill Bill Clinton," nor did he
say "I promise to give a tangible reward to anyone who kills Bill
Clinton."  All he did was say, very inelegantly, "I would be a happier
person if someone killed Bill Clinton."

Unlike some people on the net (and, possibly, federal law), I see that
not as a criminal act but as a legitimate exercise of the right of
freedom of speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment.  It isn't
speech that I like very much, but hey, that's what the First Amendment
is all about, after all.  (See my sig, below.)
-- 
William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

  "If there is a bedrock principle      "Surely one of the high purposes of
  underlying the First Amendment, it    a democratic society is to legislate
  is that the Government may not        against conduct that is regarded as
  prohibit the expression of an idea    evil and profoundly offensive to the
  simply because society finds the      majority of people -- whether it be
  idea itself offensive or              murder, embezzlement, pollution, or
  disagreeable."                        flag burning."
                                                                             
    Justice William J. Brennan,           Chief Justice William Rehnquist,
      writing for the majority.                                dissenting.
  
  -- A small difference of opinion on the U.S. Supreme Court in _Texas
     v. Johnson_ (the first flag-burning case), 491 U.S. 397 (1989)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Gays in the military
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 23:27:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.153910.29803@seq.uncwil.edu> session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
>tsv@Unify.com (Tim Vannaman) writes:
>
>>Q. #1  What is one of the most expensive illnesses?   AIDS!
>>Q. #2  What lifestyle is one (if not the highest) highest risk category for AIDS?  Gays

Then why is the army kicking out lesbians?

It's irrelevant, because the government will pick up the tab for taking care
of AIDS patients, regardless of whether they're civilian or military.

>Sorry, but your argument fails with the second question. By far, the
>heterosexual community are now more at risk than gays are. AIDs is
>spreading in the heterosexual community now much faster than it is
>through the gay community. 

This is false.  Gay men are still the largest group of HIV+ and AIDS victims.
That's in raw numbers, not just rate.  Once you count in rate, gay men are
dozens of times at more risk.  That's just in rate, not in sexual practices.
Once you count in that anal sex is much more likely to cause HIV infection
than vaginal sex, gay men are hundreds of times at more risk.  That doesn't
include the fact that women are at least seventeen times less likely to
transmit HIV during sex than men.  Once you count that in, gay men are at
thousands of times more risk.

Check the CDC numbers, or the studies in JAMA.

>It is just as likely that a heterosexual
>sailor gets AIDS from a one night stand as it is for a homosexual
>sailor to get it.

Your source for this astonishing assertion?  Or do you assume that the
heterosexual is sharing needles with an IV-drug user during his one night
stand?  99% of monogamous men don't contract AIDS from their HIV+
heterosexual lovers, despite hundreds of repeated contacts, and you're 
expecting us to believe that a one-night stand in a population with a far 
lower infection rate is likely to result in AIDS?
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17425 tx.politics:7483
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Gee, why don't we default on the US debt!!!?
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 19:43:45 GMT
 <1992Nov02.190758.2890@NeoSoft.com>
Distribution: usa,tx
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Nov02.190758.2890@NeoSoft.com>, Doug Andersen writes:

> In article <1992Oct31.080639.16898@montagar.com>, davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey) writes:
> > 	True, however, he has said enough vague things that I do not believe
> > he is a Centrist, but a Liberal playing to the people.
>  
> I can remember four or five years ago when Clinton and other leaders of
> the Democratic Leadership Council were getting roasted by the liberal wing
> of the Democratic Party for trying to turn the Democrats into another
> Republican Party. 

That was before he was the nominee.  (Also, you are comparing him to some of the
most radical liberals in the country.)  After he became the front-runner, he made
a significant shift to the left.


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc