HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Ideologies
Date: 26 Jan 93 19:30:32 GMT
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: Deep Space Nine (DS9)

>vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
> 
> The waiting for Perot thread has some serious distortions in it,
> basically the statement that Adolph Hitler was a leftist! NOT.
> Here is the political spectrum. You sort it out.

It seems compressed for American standards ... then on an American
scale, the Canadian parties may be described as:

> Commun. Social.  Demo. Repub.    Bush     Reagan  Dole  Quayle A.H.
> |       |        |       |         |        |       |     |      |
> v       v        v       v         v        v       v     v      v
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> LEFT              CENTER                RIGHT            RUSH     

              ^  ^  ^    ^
	      |  |  |    | Reform Party of Canada
New Democratic   |  |    
Party of Canada  |  Progressive Conservative
                 |  Party of Canada (Mulroney)
                 |    
    Liberal Party of Canada (Trudeau and after)

Note that over the past 15-20 years, there was a left-shift among the
Liberals and the Conservatives and the new Reform Party is a remnant
of old Conservatives.  Also, note that the standard deviation in
beliefs within Canadian parties is much wider -- more wide than the
overlap of edges between US Democrats and Republicans, populated with
Red Tories and traditional, free trading Liberals (i.e., mainstream).

Personally, after living in Quebec, what is interpreted by English-
speakers as "left" is partly an infusion of french culture and values
after the arrival of new leaders from Quebec (Trudeau for the
Liberals, Mulroney for the Tories).  If you consider Napoleon
Bonaparte to have been a socialist, then what I just said was
irrelevant.

medkeffjs@hiramb.hiram.edu writes:
>
>No. Adolph Hitler, you will recall, was the leader of the National 
>Socialist Party of Germany. That would put him solidly in the left, 
>between Communism and Democrats.

What's in a name?  The solidly pro-business party leading Japan is
called the Liberal-Democrats, after the European conception of what
"Liberal" means.  "Mein Kampf" was pretty devoid of socialist ideas if
my memory serves me correctly.  It seems this idea of Hitler having
been a leftist is a unique feature of the American conservative/
libertarian wing (my future father-in-law is a Christian-Democrat
(Kohl), and he shook his head and let out a huge belly-laugh when 
I mentioned that idea to him last Christmas) in the post-McCarthy
era ...

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@columbia.EDU 			GO  Winnipeg Jets  GO!!!
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			Selanne + Domi ==> Stanley
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Waiting for Perot (Was Re: Who's weakening the constitution?)
Date: 28 Jan 93 01:33:01 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1735@tecsun1.tec.army.mil>, riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:
> In article <14051@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <1728@tecsun1.tec.army.mil>, riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:
# ## 	I shudda known - after George Bush wiped Pat Buchanan off the
# ## electoral map in all 50 states, Clayton the Libertarian sadly and with 
# ## a heavy heart, turned his back on the Republican Party and turned to the 
# ## "Great White Hope", Ross Perot.
# #
# #No, I didn't vote for Perot, though I know a fair number of people who
# #did.  But then again, I'm not a conservative.
# 
# 	Wait a minute - aren't you the same guy who got upset when the
# "liberal" Richard Nixon imposed wage/price controls ? Is the next thing

Yup.

# that I'm going to hear something to the effect that Ronald Reagan isn't
# a conservative, either ?

Not much of one, though closer to it than Bush.

# #Clinton received 43% of the vote.  Bush received 37%.  Perot received
# #effectively all the rest.  Most of Perot's support came from 
# #conservative to moderate sorts who would likely have voted for Bush --
# #which would have probably given Bush a thin margin of victory over
# #Clinton.  Why is this so hard for you to accept?
# 
# 	Well, if you don't like Bush, and you didn't vote for Perot,
# that only leaves one (major) candidate left. I stand by my statement
# that you're the reason Clinton carried California. 
# 
# Bill R.

I put my finger down my throat and voted for Bush -- the first time
I've voted Republican for President.  (If I had known the election
was already called, I would have voted Libertarian.)
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.peeves
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Not more on Gays in the Military
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:17:22 GMT

In article <93027.030741MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
}It is The Military's job to do what the President
}and the Congress order it to. 

Excuse me, but where did you get the idea that it would be otherwise?  When/if t
order is issued, it has been clear (to me) that it WILL be carried out.

}If Bill Clinton orders them to capture the
}South Pole in the name of freedom and democracy, then by god we should
}be bombing Antarctica by this time tomorrow morning, and Powell had better
}be SMILING about it, capische?

Nothing in there about SMILING, capische?

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69027 alt.president.clinton:1679
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton's flip-flop on Haitians!
Date: 21 Jan 93 17:18:08 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1993Jan21.004305.13768@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

|In article <90495@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
|>I tried to make an issue of Hillary's politics prior to the election.
|>I was told, quite rudely at times, that since Hillary wasn't on the ballot
|>her views were irrelevant.  Now Bill says that she is one of his principle
|>advisors.  I believe that the views of anyone who advises the president is
|>as relevant as the views of the president himself.  Now this is not slickness
|>on the part of Clinton, it is more slickness on the part of his supporters.
|>I guess it rubs off.

|This is always funny.  You mean Barbara Bush wasn't one of George's
|principle advisors?  Why not?  (1) Is she stupid?  (2) Does she have
|opinions but keep quiet like a good little wife?  (3) Does she speak up,
|but George ignores her?

How do you draw that conclusion from what I said.  I have talked about
Bill's relationship with Hillary.  I haven't said squat about any other
president and their wives.

I believe that presidents will listen to their wives (reverse the gender when
the case warrants), this is why I felt that Hillary's views were fair game.

|A wife is *always* a principle advisor.  I would hope.

|And would you stop using that word incorrectly?  Slickness?  How?

Changing the rules to fit the situation.
During the campaign - she isn't on the ticket so her views don't matter.
After the campaign  - she will be one of his principal advisers.

|>BTW, one reason I favor moving the inauguration up to a week or so after the
|>election is that it would force the candidates to name their cabinets before
|>the election, so that the electorate can examine them as well.

|But you often can't do that, because you don't know who's available
|before the elections.

Yesyou do.  Who wouldn't be available.  I guess if they were in prison or
tied to some long term contract.  But these conditions would disqualify
after election selections as well as before election selections.

|Anyway, you're forgetting, this isn't Reagan.  His cabinet isn't going
|to be running the country.  They're going to be giving advice.  They're
|not going to go make decisions and then wake up the president later and
|inform him.

Cheap shot.  Do you always get so personal when people disagree with you.
If they are going to be giving Clinton advice, I want to know what that
advice is.  I believe this will be relevant to how the Clinton presidency
is run.
-- 
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
From: matjmm@gsusgi1.gsu.edu (J. Morgan Morris)
Subject: Re: THANK YOU, BILL!!! THANK YOU!!
Organization: Georgia State University
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 21:12:54 GMT

blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne) writes:


>	 Billy boy, if you do the Energy bill, you will
>	 have my heart-felt gratitude till the end of TIME!

>	 You can do it, Bill.  YOU know "we can do better".

>	 Either you are more contemptous of the American people
>	 than I thought, or the "classified" projections are 
>	 worse than I thought.

>	 Come on, Wild Bill!!!!!!!     

>	 Oh, thank you, God, thank you.  Bill Clinton is about to
>	 be the best thing that ever happened to working people 
>	 in this country!    

>	 Meanwhile, hop on that gravy train while it lasts, folks!

>	 The absolute BEST part!   Bill KNEW so much more than
>	 us.  Unfortunately, he forgot to do his studying up on
>	 exponential functions.  He thinks he can dick the American
>	 people NOW, and everyone will forget by '96.

>	 But he'll be the instrument of his own undoing!

>	 He'll have to dick y'all AGAIN, sometime around 1994 or 1995.

>	 Oh, it's just great!   GREAT!!!!!!!

>	 CHOOOOOOO!!!!   CHOOOOOO!!!!!!   

>	       ALLL   ABBBBOOOOOAAAAARRRRRDDDD!!!!!!!

>         Honestly, Dr. Norman Dude, you need to study up on the economic
>	 aspects of coherent ethical systems!  :)

>         YES!!! 
>	 YES!!!
>	 YES!!!

>	       oh, I take it all back, Mom and Dad.  I take it ALL back!
>	       Thank you for blessing me with an understanding of 
>	       ethics!

What is it exactly that you're saying? The only information that I can derive
from this post is that you are a raving lunatic who goes into an autoerotic 
frenzy when given a keyboard and a net connection...

Later,
Morgan



-- 

John Morgan Morris
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science
Georgia State University
University Plaza
Atlanta, GA. 30303-3083

Internet: matjmm@gsusgi1.gsu.edu
Telephone: (404) 651-2253
FAX: (404) 651-2246

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70064 alt.politics.clinton:21349 misc.legal:23413 alt.politics.correct:6392
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,misc.legal,alt.politics.correct
Subject: re: woman attorny general (was RE: something inanely long)
Date: 26 Jan 93 18:40:49 GMT
Reply-To: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar

In article <cass8806.621.728070547@elan.rowan.edu> cass8806@elan.rowan.edu (Kyle Cassidy) writes:
>
>In article <9038@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>>
>>Well, that Attorney General's spot is open... hmm...
>
>how about hillary?
>

All other objections aside, I believe there are legal obstacles
to such a thing.

Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: NO! President Bill, 72% of Americans are NOT lawyers!
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 20:34:39 GMT

In article <1k643gINNju7@srvr1.engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan26.215032.6700@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>|> In article <ATAYLOR.93Jan26094626@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
>|> >	Is Smith aware of the difference between "babysitter"
>|> >	and "live-in nanny and driver"?
>|> 
>|> Whatever difference there may be, it is not one that the law cares about.
>|> Failing to pay FICA for either is equally illegal.
>
>I'm surprised at you.  This statement is simply wrong.  Typically
>a babysitter is a free lance operator.  The babysitter is essentially
>running his/her own business.  It is the responsibility of the babysitter
>to pay his/her own FICA, not the person who contracts with the babysitter.

My impression is that the law was recently changed on this so that this
statement is incorrect, and that FICA wants parents to chip in for
babysitters that they pay more than $50/quarter to.  

>It's not different than if you hire a consultant.  The consultant
>is in business for himself and is responsible for any taxes and FICA
>payments.  

Yeah, but I think there's special law for "domestic workers."

Disclaimer: I am not a Yale law school professor, nor am I a lawyer, so
	it's almost certain that I am incorrect, and that this should not
	be taken as legal advice, et cetera.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.peeves
From: dennis@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Thomas A. Dennis)
Subject: Re: Not more on Gays in the Military
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 20:25:20 GMT

In <93027.030741MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> 
writes:

>Is anyone else even slightly annoyed by how the military itself is
>causing so much trouble over this issue? You can't turn on a TV set
>without seeing Colin Powell self-righteously orating on how awful
>and bad it would be to let 'em in, or open a newspaper without seeing
>yet another leak of confidential memos to the press or statement by
>the Joint Chiefs trying to cause confusion and chaos.

Annoyed, yes.  Surprised?  Not in the least.  Look at what it took to integrate
the Armed Forces, or the continuing battle to allow female Armed Forces 
personnel to perform duties that they are clearly qualified to do, but aren't 
allowed to by overgrown Cub Scouts who never seemed to have developed beyond 
the "No Gurls Alowd" phase.
>For once and for all it's not The Military's job to underhandedly lobby 
>against
>the President's policies. It is The Military's job to do what the President
>and the Congress order it to. If Bill Clinton orders them to capture the
>South Pole in the name of freedom and democracy, then by god we should
>be bombing Antarctica by this time tomorrow morning, and Powell had better
>be SMILING about it, capische?

Has the Armed Forces ever refused to attack a target?  Acknowledging the 
blindingly obvious--that queers make good soldiers and sailors--is another 
matter entirely.

BTW, for anyone who tosses out the ObCliche "And just how long have YOU served
in the Armed Forces?": exactly long enough to know who serves whom.  So fuck 
ya.

--
>---<

Tom Dennis                  | "Every normal man must be tempted at times to 
dennis@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu  |    spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and
(217)384-2504               |      begin slitting throats." -- H.L. Mencken
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Debt Not Necessarily Bad
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 20:09:04 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.170416.28537@m5.harvard.edu> borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:
>
>This is my view on the national debt, which 
>I think is essentially common sense. 

(View deleted -- it's substantially the same thing I've been saying all
along.  The only disagreement seems to be semantic.)

>Debt in and of itself in never good.  
>It's possible to borrow and invest in such
>a way that the return from the investment exceeds the cost of the debt.  
>This is responsible investment, when it takes place.  

In that case the debt was "good", wasn't it?  You're better off incurring
the debt than you are not incurring the debt, and therefore you should
incur the debt.

I don't see us disagreing about much else except word wrap.  
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nfs@volkl (Norbert Schlenker)
Subject: Operating rules for the new Justice Dept.
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Mr. Hillary's Planning Plenum
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1993 21:10:40 GMT

PRESIDENTIAL TRANSITION PLANNING MEMORANDUM
-------------------------------------------
Not for public release!

Pursuant to new standards promulgated by the executive committee,
U.S. attorneys and the federal judiciary should take note that
violators of all federal laws will be treated according to the
following schedule:

  - 1st offence:  A claim of ignorance is prima facie evidence of
                  no violation.
  - 2nd offence:  A witting violation of any federal law is deemed
                  to be no violation if the offender makes a public
                  apology (the Baird defence).
  - 3rd offence:  Asset seizure and/or Leavenworth.

The committee continues to consider the necessity of reconciling
this new schedule with earlier rules.  We anticipate little
difficulty in explaining why admitted wilful violations of the law
are no bar to high federal office, while heated denials of
accusations are a clear disqualification (the now discredited
Thomas defence).  We will advise you as soon as appropriate rules
have been drafted.

HBill
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Privatization
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:30:15 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.023654.15601@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu
(Ted Frank) writes:

|>In article <1jnh0mINNls0@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
|>(Broward Horne) writes:
|>>In a previous article, gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) says:
|>>
|>>>an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
|>>>>
|>>>>         i)  Privitiztion is happening most everywhere but HERE
|>>>
|>>>That's because so much in America is already privatized, or never had
|>>>strategic state industries in those areas to begin with.  Also, the
|>>
|>>     Note that your posting doesn't refute what I've said.
|>
|>Yes it does.
|>
|>Britain is privatising its electric industry.  We can't -- it's already
|>private.
|>
|>Phone system?  We're private, everyone else is government owned.
|>
|>Health care?  We're private, everyone else is public.
|>
|>Air travel?  We're private, almost everyone else is public.
|>
|>What would you have us privatize that other countries are?  They're
|>just privatising stuff that's been private here all along.  How can
|>we implement the same privatization programs as them?  Unless we
|>nationalize everything and *then* privatize it, but I suspect you'd
|>be unhappy with that situation.

The Tory government didn't just sell off stuff they owned, they also sold things
they didn't own like the Abbey National.

The Labour party is planning to finnance its nationalization program by selling
off the Tory party.


The excess profits of monopolies tax that Labour Shadow Chancellor Gordon Brown
proposed together with strict regulation will effectively be equivalent to
re-nationalisation at nil cost. 


--

Phill Hallam-Baker
From: j.turner@lynx.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner)
Subject: Re: Minor Historical Nitpick (Was Re: National debt is not bad)
Organization: College of Engineering, Northeastern University
	<ATAYLOR.93Jan21095228@gauss.nmsu.edu>
	<1993Jan20.174150.18422@news.columbia.edu>
	<1jnff7INNkg7@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> <1jnmdpINNpes@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 01:19:52 GMT

an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:

> 1917.  The U.S. BEGAN capturing markets, leading to the fallout
> of 1929.  Which lead to WWII.  Which lead to the U.S. policing
> the world to protect our trade routes. 

    The US began acquiring an "empire" as early as the mid 1800s
(In Central and South America, cf. The Monroe Doctrine) or earlier
if you consider Mexico and Manifest Destiny.  Perry "opened"
Japan in '53-'54.  The Spanish American War continued the pattern
in 1898.  Except for the "normal" exploitation of the spoils of
war I do not see how WWI was much of a watershed in American
expansion.  The idea that American expansionism (which new colonies
did the US acquire?) rather than American involvement in WWI led
to the Depression and WWII is novel.
    The Cold War was not simply a question of policing trade routes.
The idea of war for the sake of the warmakers, a class which grew
wealthy in WWII, along with a, racist, fear of real democracy both
at home and abroad fueled it.

    	    	    	--Jeff Turner
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69611 alt.politics.elections:25125
From: clin@eng.umd.edu (Charles Lin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: DAY THREE: Either a lie or utter stupidity
Date: 25 Jan 1993 03:14:24 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, Maryversity von Uniland, College Park
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: periodic.eng.umd.edu
Originator: clin@periodic.eng.umd.edu


In article <MDL.93Jan24174614@ak.cypress.com>, mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum) writes:
>In article <matjmm.727895331@gsusgi1.gsu.edu> matjmm@gsusgi1.gsu.edu (J. Morgan Morris) writes:
>
>   ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:
>
>   > Blah blah.......
>   >
>   > Either he's a bold-faced liar or we need to impose an
>   >IQ test requirement on those persons who wish to run for President in 1996.
>   >And people said Quayle was stupid?  This man has brains enough to run the
>   >country?  Come on Clinton defenders, let's see how far you'll stretch 
>   >reality to excuse him on this one.

    It's easy to criticize, why not sing the praises of your favorite,
I assume, Republican.   These criticisms would be going on with almost
any Democrat elected, in your mind.    Perhaps, even with Perot.   It's
kind of a nice win-win situation for you.   Clinton gets reelected and
you say the media did it, and hoodwinked the Americans who should have
known better.   Clinton gets defeated, and you laugh at how right you were.
Must be an exciting life.

--
Charles Lin
clin@eng.umd.edu

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69855 alt.activism:21374