HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: daniels@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Daniel R. Sawyer)
Subject: Term Limits For All
Summary: Limit Congress terms and change President's
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:56:50 GMT
Keywords: Congressional & Presidential Term Limits

I strongly agree with the (most) Republicans in their call for congressional
term limits.  I used to live in Peoria, IL and Rep. Bob Michel (currently
the House Minority leader) has been in office for at LEAST 30 years!  If we
look at other districts, I am sure there are many other "lifers" in
Congress.

This has got to stop. I don't think the founding fathers intended for 
congress to be a full-time career.

Therefore, I think term limits of 2 terms for Senators (12 years) and 
4 terms for Representatives (also 12 years, to be fair) would do nicely.

Let me throw this out here as well: restricting the President to one term
but lengthening it to 6 years (except when a VP inherits the Presidency, he can
serve out the inherited, then run again on his own).

I think there are PLENTY of capable people out there who can serve in gvt.

Daniel at UIUC 		What do YOU think?
-- 
Daniel R. Sawyer
daniel-sawyer@uiuc.edu

--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 28 Aug 92 00:00:02 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
#c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
#|Perhaps I didn't word it right.  I didn't really mean to say that 'consent
#|to sex = consent to bear a child.'  Maybe it is more like 'consent to
#|sex = being responsible to any consequence of your actions.'  

#|So this means that if you have sex and use contraceptives trying not to have
#|a baby, then the contraceptives fail, then that means that you should still
#|be held accountable for your actions. 

#And, of course, getting an abortion is a legal, responsible
#way of discharging that accountability.
#
#Thank you for playing, Martin.  The exit is to your left.
#
#Next!

Sorry, I think I'll exit to my right! :)

But before Martin goes, can you [not Martin] tell me how abortion is "responsible"?
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck (Duke BME '93)		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
I have entered the week of transition from my summer job at NIH to fall
semester at Duke. I will not be able to reply to everyone. If you want
to continue a thread, please email replies to me until I can post again.
From: cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Why I cannot vote Democratic
Date: 25 Aug 92 22:49:40 GMT
	<1992Aug19.232800.22275@midway.uchicago.edu>
	<1992Aug23.160101.2504@anasazi.com>
	<1992Aug25.191613.23545@fid.morgan.com>
Organization: pubs
In-reply-to: joec@fid.morgan.com's message of Tue, 25 Aug 1992 19:16:13 GMT

Joe Collins writes:

   I have these examples of why I will have a hard time voting
   Democratic in the near future.

   Jimmy Carter - a nice guy to be sure but NOT a good President.
		  For those with short memories, go look at what
		  the prime rate, inflation was during his years.

Look at the deficit and unemployment rate after 12 years of Republicans.

		  He also wanted to work with the Soviets, until
		  they invaded Afghanistan. 

The Republicans worked with Saddam (as in flooded him with money) until
he invaded Kuwait.

                  And then there were our hostages in Iran. 

And then there was selling arms to Iran.

                  And Cubans in Angola. 

And Italians in Australia.  Seriously, what in the world does the above
have to do with the Democrats?

                  Libya's Qaddaffi was
		  also openly supporting state-sponsored terrorism.

But I don't remember the Carter administration being friendly to Qadafi.
Syria and Iraq have supported terrorism just as openly during the
Republican tenure, and Bush has treated them as allies (until Desert
Storm in Iraq's case, which had nothing to do with its support of
terrorism).  And how do you like our chummy relationship with Peking?
And how do you like Bush's environmental policy of using up the earth's
resources as quickly as possible?

Chris Brewster
cb@cray.com
From: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Cultural Elite?
Date: 27 Aug 92 19:20:39 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Gary Strand) writes:
|> pn> Peter Nelson
|> gs> Gary Strand
|> 
|> gs> One little stat they mentioned was that 76% of donations from Hollywood
|> gs> persons goes to Democrats. It's pretty much uncontested that the majority
|> gs> of movie/TV actors, producers, directors, and so on are liberal, and I
|> gs> believe it's these people that Dan Quayle is talking about.
|> 
|> pn> So what?
|> 
|>   Merely pointing out a fact, that's all.
|> 
|> pn> As I mentioned in a recent posting, there is a free market in "media" in
|> pn> this country.
|> 
|>   *De jure*, yes, *de facto*, no.
|> 
|> pn> Presumably if, say, movies or TV shows had a liberal message that grated
|> pn> on the nerves or consciences of the viewing public then they would turn
|> pn> off their TV's or reward some other shows offering different, more con-
|> pn> servative world views with their business.  
|> 
|>   That's generally true. Of course, this assumes that the body politic and
|>   those who view television are one and the same, which isn't necessarily
|>   true, you being a specific example. Those who watch a lot of television
|>   (and thus help determine content) tend to be younger and more liberal com-
|>   pared to those who regularly exercise their political control (and thus
|>   help determine the current political setup.)
|> 
Not even close.  The people that pay for TV (consumers) are getting older,
not younger.  The boomer generation is in their 40's, and the number of
people living into the 70's and 80's has never been higher.  Show me
any statistics that says these populations are not holding up their fair
share of TV watching.

_________________________________________
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my
dogs, never my employers.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42969 talk.abortion:34144 alt.flame:12452
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Mr. Kaldis's "misogyny"
Keywords: Mr. Kaldis's homsexual fantasy
Date: 31 Aug 92 19:48:54 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Distribution: na
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA


In article <Aug.30.22.57.09.1992.22622@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A.
Kaldis) writes:

[583 word homosexual fantasy written by the Tire Iron Boy deleted]
[Anybody curious what would drive such a homophobic little twit as
Teddy really should go back and read this.  Fascinating stuff]
 
So Teddy, why were your homosexual fantasys posted to these newsgroups
and not one of the sexual fantasy groups?  Not to say I didn't appreciate
seeing how your twisted little mind works, but I think there are 
more appropriate groups for this type of post.

Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Subject: Re: Why I cannot vote Democratic
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin, Texas
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 18:09:33 GMT

joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:

>I have these examples of why I will have a hard time voting
>Democratic in the near future.
straight ticket == block head.  vote for the person not the party
and maybe there will be good people instead of lousy parties to
choose from.

>Jimmy Carter - a nice guy to be sure but NOT a good President.
>               For those with short memories, go look at what
>               the prime rate, inflation was during his years.
it is clear that he inherited a mess from Nixon and Ford.  Clearly
his brilliance set up the turn-around in the 80's.
>               He also wanted to work with the Soviets, until
>               they invaded Afghanistan. And then there were our
Afghanistan lead to the fall of the USSR.  another plus for JC.
>               hostages in Iran. And Cubans in Angola. And Soviet
>               advisors in Central America. Libya's Qaddaffi was
>               also openly supporting state-sponsored terrorism.
now he does it covertly.  hostages does not make for a bad prez.
Advisers in CA, are there not there now?  
>           
>Governor Jim Florio (NJ):
>               During his campaign to become Governor, he said (and I quote):
>                  "I SEE NO REASON TO RAISE TAXES"
but he didn't promise!!
>               Once in office, he pushed through the largest single tax
>               increase for any state, in the entire history of our country, 
sounds like bush...or was that reagan?
>               all WITHIN SIX MONTHS. He never apologized or attempted to 
>               say why. NJ residents are generally *furious* with Jim and 
>               his party.

>And then there is Mario Cuomo, Governor of NY.

>In general I simply have a hard time trusting members of the democratic 
>party - they are too quick to raise taxes and 'help me' with new programs.
both parties suck.  

>Just my opinion....
go for it, this is America.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42949 talk.abortion:34097 alt.politics.bush:3569 alt.flame:12449
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: 31 Aug 92 16:42:18 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
-> Haven't you learned that a FORCED ORGASM EQUATES
-> WITH SLAVERY??  Millions of couples are being
-> ENSLAVED by their PASSIONS into having FORCED
-> ORGASMS!!  Couples who engage in consensual sexual
-> intercourse should not be forced to have orgasms
-> against their will!!  The passion which enslaves
-> them is the principal reason why there are over a
-> MILLION ABORTIONS performed each year!  Forced
-> orgasms are not right!  We must allow people to take
-> back control of their bodies!

ummm, DODie, orgasms don't necessarily cause pregnancy,
much less abortion. if you post a note from your
parents saying that it's ok for you to have information
on this kind of thing, i'll ask dan king to explain it
to you.

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: My Purpose In Getting NAMBLA Shunned
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 17:37:06 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc

As quoted from <8220.23505@stratus.SWDC.Stratus.COM> by lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com (Len Bucuvalas):

> In article <BtLzyr.GKA@NCoast.ORG> cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton) writes:
> >As quoted from <1992Aug25.104706@wsl.dec.com> by gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil):
> >
> >> In article <11846@optilink.UUCP>, manley@optilink.UUCP (Dave Manley) writes:
> >> |> Question: If these statements do in fact represent the beliefs of the
> >> |> people, both hetero- and homosexual alike, how can anyone who opposes
> >> |> child molestation find a way to support NAMBLA - when they refuse to
> >> |> moderate their position to at least exclude prepubescent children? 
> >> |> 
> >> 
> >> I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of NAMBLA :-)
> >> 
> >> I do, however, think that they have the right to exist.
> >> 
> >> Period.
> >
> >As do others have a right to publicly revile and despise them, a position
> >which I strongly endorse.
> As well do I. But the existence of NAMBLA in no way reflects the
> majority opinion of the gay community.

I never claimed it did.  I think it's reasonable to stipulate that it reflects
the opinion of SOME of the gay community, which is to be expected.  I'm sure
that if you look hard enough you could find a homosexual who thinks that all
homosexuals should be shot and tossed in a ditch.

Rather than largescale support for NAMBLA, what I've seen especially here, is
ambivalence regarding NAMBLA, especially from Jeff.  My point is that if as
others claim, NAMBLA is an aberration, half-hearted defenses of them by gays, 
help NAMBLA and harm gays as a whole, since they lend credence to the false 
(so far as I've seen) claim that all gays are child molestors, and support
NAMBLA.


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

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty)
Subject: Re: Term Limits For All
Organization: Auto-trol Technology Corporation -- Denver, Colorado
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 19:58:14 GMT

dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
: In article <1992Aug29.045904.22170@auto-trol.com>, katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty) writes:
: } Term limitation is a foolish idea. All it really does is limit our
: } choices. It is often the case that the best person for the job is
: } someone who has had the job a while. Why limit our choices?
: 
: If term limits are good enough for the president, why aren't they good
: enough for congress?
: 
: } If someone
: } is doing a bad job, it is your right to vote that person out of office.
: 
: Oh really?  Tell me, how do I go about voting out someone who does
: not represent my district yet creates laws, regulations and policies
: that directly affect me in ways that I do not want?  How do I, a
: resident of Colorado, vote people like Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy,
: Howard Metzenbaum, Robert Dornan and Jesse Helms out of office?

If they are not your representative, you have no right to vote them out
of office. If they are representing their constituency, their constituency
should be the only ones with the right to vote them in or out of office.
If they are doing good jobs representing their constituencies, why should
*YOU* have the right to throw them out of office?


Kathy
From: pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Polls: are Americans fickle?
Date: 26 Aug 92 15:14:28 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <adams.714753937@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>
>Not to mention that national popular vote polls tell nothing about how the
>electoral college will turn out.  Individual polls in each state need to be
>conducted, and electoral projections made.  Why?  Because it's likely Bush
>could get slaughtered popularly, but still scrape by and win electorally...
>
There simply is no precedent for someone loosing big in the popular vote
and winning in the electoral college.  All this talk about the electoral
college lock for the Republicans is garbage.  The fact that there are
states which are sure to go for Bush implies rather the opposite of what
most people seem to think.  Namely Clinton can win with a minority of
the popular vote but Bush cannot.  Why?  Lets examine the situation.

A state that is firmly pro-Bush implies that Bush will win there by
quite a majority, say 10% at worst.  Now, supposedly the Democrats don't
have a lock on any state, which means that most states that they win
will be by a much smaller margin that the states where Bush has a lock.
I'll leave the math as an exercise to the reader but it should be fairly
clear that for Clinton to get more total votes that Bush he will have to
carry far more states than Bush which, in turn, implies that Clinton
will win the electoral college if he wins the popular vote.

Basically it boils down to this; the election is won by the person who
wins the popular vote.  The rest is fodder for newspaper columnists.

Paul.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: harryo@cbnewse.cb.att.com (harold.r.holm)
Subject: Re: Keys to the election
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 20:07:24 GMT

In article <l9nom7INNpj@spim.mips.com>, ankur@mips.com (Ankur Saha) writes:
> In article <ART.92Aug26144828@world.std.com> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
> >In article <1992Aug26.025832.16332@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
> >
> >   In article <5156@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sdbst5@gl.pitt.edu (Stephen D Brener) writes:
> >
> 
> >I'm sitting here listening to Rush Limbaugh and he just said that Hillary
> >is being considered for Attorney General, possibly even Secretary of
> >State.  If that proves to be the case, then a very, very careful analysis
> >of her legal and political positions is in order.
> >
> 
> Yeah, a fair and balanced source of information.
> 
Um.....EXCUSE ME,BUT....Rush was referencing an article about Ms. Clinton
in the May issue of Vanity Fair.  *That* is the source of the statement.  
On behalf of her brother, at least in part.  Folks, I've verified what 
Rush says his source material is a number of times.  See for yourself, and
don't "Rush" to judgement and conclude that he bases his commentary on 
his own whim.  Step out of whatever protest-activist march you're always
in, for a change, and go down to the library and look for yourself.  Go
on, take the chip off your shoulder.... don't be so lazy...go and see for
yourself......

 <Sigh>, but then again, some of you *are* contemporary Democrats...I'm asking
too much, maybe.  Guess that addiction to Government Largesse and Compassion,
in whatever form, will have its side effects......

                                                H.R. Holm

*standard disclaimers, comment my own*
*pls to reply to the group only*             **********************************
                                             ACTUP....GROW UP.......
                                             your actions make me THROW UP.
                                             **********************************

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43809 ca.politics:7457 ba.politics:5049 soc.motss:38242 ba.motss:1541
From: lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com (Len Bucuvalas)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss,ba.motss
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: 4 Sep 92 18:43:47 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc., San Jose, CA

In article <Bu1y3B.66q@cs.vu.nl> fjvwing@cs.vu.nl (FJ!!) writes:
>It writes:
>:Or maybe I will take the collection of garbage I've been collecting
>:from soc.motss and turn it over to Lou Sheldon at the Traditional
>:Values Coalition and the Yes on 9 campaign in Oregon.  You know what
>:powerful ammunition this stuff is for their side.
>
>:Do I make myself clear?
>
>Wonderful. 
>
>A few harass him. So he decides to help exterminate us all.
>
>A man of conviction and true justice.
>
>Lovely.
>							FJ!! 

As I have stated in the past...Cramer, IMHO, is trying to foment
civil unrest...this should be evident by his postings.
GRanted this is (so far) a free environment for the exchange
of ideas and philosophies. And as such anyone can get on here
and state their case.  BUT when their constant raving becomes
a tool designed to instigate racism against one group, then
that person is fomenting civil unrest. As such, the fomenting
of civil unrest can be prosecuted in a court of law.  The only
road block one would have is to prove that this is what the
person is trying to do.

Are there any legal begals on this group that can comment
further?

Len

DISCLAIMER: My opinions....not my employer's.

--
*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
The accountability of government has gone to the point where the very
use of the law is the instrument of illegality.
		-- Ralph Nader @ Harvard Law School, 1/15/92
From: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Remarks by William Bennett (text)
Date: 3 Sep 1992 22:51:26 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: holein1.corp.sun.com

In article 92Sep3165307@tamarack13.timbuk, cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster) writes:
> Bradley K. Sherman writes:
> 
>    What is [Bennett's] claim to fame, anyway?  Henry Kissinger
>    award for most respected intellectual with absolutely no
>    accomplishments?
> 
> Something like that.  He strikes me as an intellectual-for-sale, the 
> guy who makes a sleazy cause seem more respectable because he has brains.
> 
> Chris Brewster
> cb@cray.com

Well he once went on a date with Janis Joplin!!



Bob
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Endorsement
Keywords: ika ika squid
Date: 26 Aug 92 02:10:52 GMT
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <galluzjj.714782156@craft.camp.clarkson.edu>, galluzjj@craft.camp.clarkson.edu sez:
>I have been working this summer as the Field Director for
>Jean T. White, one of only two women running for the US
>Senate in the country.  She is the only pro-choice female
>running for the upper chamber.  I went to Houston to the 
>Convention undecided having supported Buchanan in my home
>state of New Hampshire and then Perot when he entered the 
>race.

If you really want a career in politics, you'd better clean up your
rhetoric.  Jean White may be a woman; she may be running for the
Senate; she may even the only pro-choice female Republican Senate
candidate. 

She is not, however, "the only pro-choice female running for the upper
chamber."  Naming a half-dozen or more pro-choice Democratic women
Senate candidates is left as an exercise for the semi-conscious.

-- 
Morally and artistically, Henry Miller had MORE right to free speech than
Walt Disney and [Father] Coughlin because Miller was an honest man whereas
Disney and Coughlin were liars.   - Ed Nilges
	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com     ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42372 misc.headlines:6011 alt.activism:15543 sci.econ:7194