HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Campaign strategy
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 01:25:34 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Nov6.230646.4427@nntpserver.chevron.com> jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros) writes:
]Does anyone see the similarity between the campaign to defeat the USSR
]and the presidential campaign to beat Bill Clinton.  We built up the
]military enough to destroy the Soviet economy (or so the theory goes)
]but seem to have left ours in bad shape.
]
]Meanwhile, Bush runs a negative campaign that destroys Clintons
]character credibility, but nukes his own so bad in the meantime that he
]loses the election.  A few weeks ago, I posted a query asking what was
]wrong with Clinton.  The worst I got was that he was a politician and
]tailored his speeches to his audience (oh and had some trouble
]remembering events of 23 years ago).  NOTHING ELSE WAS SUBMITTED.  Bush's
]campaign would have you doubt the character of Jesus Christ if he had
>been the opponent (that breaker of laws, radical liberal, change the
>world guy).  That Clinton survived it all makes me respect him alot.  He
>may be a dog as president, but he earned my respect.

Oh, I could have submitted more about Clinton, but it is moot now.

If people read any history, they would know that modern presidential
campaigns are very positive compared to those of the past. Unfortunately,
the mass media from whom too many learn, also doesn't have any historical
knowledge. All one has to do is read some papers from many years past
to see that this "positive campaign, negative campaign" stuff is just
so much hypocritical posturing.

Campaigns used to be a lot more nasty than they are today. Today, people
act like there is something wrong with attacking your opponent (unless
you opponent is Bush, in which case it is okay to call him racist,
uncaring, conspiratorial, liar, etc).

Next time you hear some idiot in the press comments on how negative
the campaign was, you can feel better knowing that he/she is a fool
or a propagandist. 

Oh, by the way, take a look at the British Parliament sometime -
they boo and hiss at the prime minister as normal procedure, and
have for centuries.


-- 
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
       - - My gun is safer than Ted Kennedy's car - -
 - - - "It is better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six." - - -
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59251 ca.politics:9469 ba.politics:6931
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Playing Politics With Our Economy
Date: 9 Nov 92 17:40:26 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Nov6.163551.962@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, carlos@spanky.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Carlos Carrion) writes:
> In article <13067@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #It should be obvious that the Democrats were simply playing
# #politics with our economy, willing to throw hundreds of thousands
# #of Americans out of work, just to get the Presidency back.
# #
# #What incredible sleaze these liberals are.
# 
# 	Oh, I see.
# 	Of course the conservatives wouldn't play the same games.
# 	I see...

Where did I say that?

# 	By the way, ever heard of the word NAIVETE ??
# 
# carlos.

If conservatives exercised power, they probably would play the
same sleazy games.  Get used to it.  But don't kid yourself that
the Democrats didn't do it this time.



-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
The Physician Assisted Death Initiative failed.  Term limits for Congressmen
passed.  If only we could have combined the two... two terms, and a doctor
does lethal injection...
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59261 ca.politics:9478
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Who Are The Crowd Most Likely To Set Up Death Camps? (Was Re: Colorado Letter)
Date: 9 Nov 92 18:21:18 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Nov8.182500.21749@udel.edu>, carroll@hercules.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll) writes:
> In article <13086@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #It was suggested here a while back that the more moral outrage
# #someone expresses, the more likely they are to form a lynch mob,
# #concentration camp, or other manifestation of murderous evil.
# #The following posting by Jess Anderson concerning Coloradans
# #that voted for the Colorado initiative says it all:
# #
# #In article <1992Nov5.205943.13681@macc.wisc.edu#, anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
# ## In article <1992Nov5.185336.15750@asuvax.eas.asu.edu#
# ## kennedy@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Ralph Kennedy) writes:
# ## #     Oh for heavens sake, Jess, for once be assertive:
# ## 
# ## V. inf.
# ## 
# ## #for much too subjunctive a tone for what I assume
# ## #are strong feelings on your part.
# ## 
# ## The actual feelings are these: they're pig-fucks and I'd
# ## like them all to die right now, in the most gruesome way
# ## possible.  I thought I should tone that down a bit, though.
# ## 
# ## -- 
# ## Jess Anderson <# Madison Academic Computing Center <# University of Wisconsin
# #
# 
# Well Clayton, I'm proud of you. You managed to find ONE example of a
# homosexual who suggested something violent. ONE. Do you think this
# proves anything?

I've got a lot more than that.  But that's not my point.  My point
was about moral outrage -> concentration camps being nonsense.
Either that, or that we should worry about homosexuals too.

# The other day I heard a black person on television saying that all
# "cock-sucking homos should be shot". Does this allow me to extrapolate
# and say that african americans have violent tendencies, and are
# subhuman brutes who would like to set up a concentration camp for
# homosexuals?

No.  Nor would it justify a television ad that suggested that they
are subhuman.

# Homosexuals are just like any group. They've got their murderers,
# rapists, thiefs, radicals, and lunatics, just like the rest of us.
# That doesn't mean that they are ALL murderers, rapists, thieves,
# radicals, and lunatics.

They have more than their share of child molesters, though.

# [ Mark Craig Carroll <MC# ] You say you know no tricks, have no talents -
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
The Physician Assisted Death Initiative failed.  Term limits for Congressmen
passed.  If only we could have combined the two... two terms, and a doctor
does lethal injection...
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58521 alt.politics.elections:22901 alt.war.vietnam:450
From: olsenm@ccmail.orst.edu (Monte Olsen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.war.vietnam
Subject: Re: Stockdale is a Bumbling Idiot
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:45:55 GMT
Organization: OSU Extension Service
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A71FE1984801A70D@reynolde-mac.ads.orst.edu>
X-Xxdate: Fri, 6 Nov 92 16:47:20 GMT
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12

In article <92Nov5.230425est.47888@neat.cs.toronto.edu>
Quoc Tuan Pham, quoctp@cs.toronto.edu writes:
>
>Do you have any opposition to carpet bombing of the
jungles where
>the NVA were? 
>  
Quoc,
Here's the problem. Dave and his pals feel any war America
participates in is unfair if the U.S. uses anything more
than nerf balls. 

Take it easy,

Monte Olsen
(ex baby killer, village burner and all around bad guy--by
Dave's definition)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
From: tcanham@kilroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Tim Canham)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:31:28 GMT

>
>    Even from a liberal point of view I believe that it's blatantly 
>obvious; we blew it. We wanted to prevent Thomas's confirmation very badly 
>but we flubbed our homework (we didn't make sure that Hill had irrefutable 
>proof). Then, even after it was clear that we had flubbed our homework, we 
>continued to push through days of melodramatic and pointless testimony 
>apparently in the hope that the voting members of the Judiciary Committee 
>wouldn't notice that we didn't have anything written on our homework when 
>we turned it in.
>


This seems a tacit admission that the hearings and sexual harassment charges
were simply a desperate grab by the liberal leadership with a lack of 
solid eviidence or proof in order to block Thomas' nomination.  This is exactly
what Rush has been talking about - liberal gamesmanship regardless of the cost
to the target.  I find it despicable and yours and your "leadership's" 
end-justifies-the-means methods pathetic.


>--
>Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
>Psychology Department               Indiana University
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu


-- 
Tim Canham
tcanham@kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov
Jet Propulsion Laboratories, Pasadena, CA
"Everybody always told me I was a rocket scientist!"
From: cjk@nic.cerf.net
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Trickle Down Economics
Date: 12 Nov 92 03:04:22 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: CERFnet

>>Clinton did not coin the phrase 'trickle-down-economics'.  It's been
>>around since at least the 1920's.
>A source for this please?
>And a definition?


Some call it 'Pissing on the poor', others call it 'Voodoo economics',
still others call it 'Trick'em economics'.

However, I like to think of it as just......

Far Side Economics.
If you know what I mean :-)

Chris Kevlahan
cjk@cerf.net
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:39:13 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <69.X666X@ramona.com> doug@ramona.com (Double Agent) writes:
>Sunday on _Meet the Press_, Vernon Jordan, head of Clinton's transition
>team, confirmed that Anita Hill is the front-runner to get the job of
>EEOC Commissioner. Note that the EEOC is the agency where Hill was working
>when she was sexually harassed by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas,
>who was then the EEOC Commissioner. Put on your goggles, folks, the fire-
>works should be dazzling.

    Too bad, I hoped she'd be appointed to the Supreme Court:)

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: all opinions are mine.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
From: Terri Buchman <buchman@osf.org>
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A729359E9502082D@alimac35.osf.org>
X-Xxdate: Fri, 13 Nov 92 10:36:14 GMT
Organization: Open Software Foundation
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 15:35:55 GMT

In article <Qf0kU8u00awUB5F1Uw@andrew.cmu.edu> Thomas Omar Smith,
ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu writes:
>Legacies generate huge amounts of money for colleges, since those
whose
>children attend a school as a legacy are far more likely to make
alumni
>donations.  Legacies are good business for colleges, not a form of
>discrimination.

So you're in favor of quotas for rich white people.  Quotas are okay
if the recipients give a kick back to the organization?  I don't
know, sounds like a case were the RICCO laws should be invoked.

Toodles

TerriB>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,misc.legal
From: urbin@interlan.interlan.com (Mark Urbin)
Subject: Re: Waiting Periods (was Re: Why Civil Libertarians ...)
Organization: Racal-Datacom
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:30:09 GMT


  Just what is the `waiting period'.  My view is the waiting period in the 
PRM is much more that one week.  It's a week on the books, but it can often 
take much more time than that.  People I've talked to with pistol permits 
state that they had to wait 2 to 4 months for all the paper work to be 
processed.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59260 ca.politics:9477
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: How Many Homosexuals?
Date: 9 Nov 92 18:18:24 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Nov8.144719.23851@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>, gsmith@lauren.uucp (Eugen W. Schmidt) writes:
> In article <13085@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# ## 2.4 percent of those polled identified themselves as
# ## homosexual or bisexual, but Murray Edelman, the poll director,
# ## believes this was an undercount.  "Many people are reluctant
# ## to disclose their homosexuality, and many do not fill out the
# ## poll questionnaire all the way to the end, where the question
# ## was."  He estimated the gay vote at "possibly 4 or 5 percent,
# ## which would make it the size of the Jewish vote."
# 
# #The 3.3% figure for male homosexuals and bisexuals used by Masters, 
# #Johnson, & Kolodny looks more and more plausible.
# 
# The surveys I've seen always show higher figures for men than for
# women, whereas the 2.4% was a total percentage.  It was also almost

Yes.  All the sources I've found agree that there are more male
homosexuals than female homosexuals.  Masters, Johnson, & Kolodny
indicated 1-2% of females were homosexuals.  If 3.3% of males, and
2% of females, then you would get 2.65% of the population being
homosexual.  That matches well with the 2.4% figure, doesn't it?

# certainly an undercount, for the reasons stated.  A well-designed

Only if you assume that homosexuals and bisexuals are less likely
to reach the end of the questionairre than straights.

# *major* study find a number with better support would be interesting,
# and if the hysterical right would stop blocking funding for such
# things, it would have more of a chance of happening.
# 	
#      Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 

Odd.   I understood it was homosexuals that were blocking such
a study of child molesters.

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
The Physician Assisted Death Initiative failed.  Term limits for Congressmen
passed.  If only we could have combined the two... two terms, and a doctor
does lethal injection...
From: huumala@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Game Over; Thank You For Playing
Date: 5 Nov 92 06:36:04 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Nokia Telecommunications.

> P.S. I have had my American flag hanging in distress mode in the basement
> for 12 years. It is now flying proudly--properly lit, I might add, since
> it's night time--in my front yard. Join me.

I on the other hand had my US flag flying proudly in the front yard for 12
years (yes properly lit at night).  Now it has come down and will hang limply
in my closet for at least four year.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58067 alt.politics.elections:22538 alt.politics.libertarian:1600
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Democrats and Republicans: NTU Ratings
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 5 Nov 92 01:59:55 EST
Distribution: usa
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee) writes:
> From article <1992Nov2.230505.13838@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, by 
> clc5q@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman):
> > 
> > A common cry among the cynics is: "The Democrats and the 
> > Republicans would spend just as much as each other; they just 
> > want to spend it on different things.  It all adds up the same."
> > 
> > Not according to the National Taxpayers' Union, which tracks the 
> > voting records of all Congressmen on spending and taxing matters. 
> >  They give scores
> 
> I have seen these NTU scores before and often wondered:
> 
> Do these scores include ALL votes for spending/taxes?

i don't know if these specific scores do, but there have been other
NTU studies that take into account all spending.

the one that was posted here several weeks ago actually makes the
differences even -more- apparent. of the top 100 spenders in Congress,
(no differentiation between military and social spending) the
Democrats held 100 positions, the Republicans 4 and there was 1
independent.

yes, Republicans are generally more restrictive on the personal side
of things. but the Democrat's "solution" to the problem is probably 
worse from a Libertarian standpoint than the Republican's inaction. 
forcing someone to hire a certain number of blacks/gays/women is just
as coercive as forcing them to pay income tax. remember, the 
Libertarian position is -against- things like affirmative action.

social issues get a lot more public attention and pressure from
individuals and the media than economic ones.

when was the last time a tax got repealed because of an organization
like ACT-UP? or the protest even got on the 11 o'clock news? or
there even -was- a protest? personal rights (at least as far as
gay-rights, etc.) will continue to expand as long as people
get the message out. economic rights won't increase until we
vote Democrats out of government.

jason "when i couldn't vote Libertarian, i voted Republican" steiner

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
`,` "True love is better than anything, except cough drops."            `,`
`,`                     - The Princess Bride (book), by William Goldman `,`
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59270 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8259 alt.president.clinton:243
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: A TRUE LANDSLIDE
Date: 9 Nov 92 22:41:52 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <randall.721347430@seashore> randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea) writes:
>m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier) writes:
>
>
>>I love this conversation about Clinton's supposed landslide.  The best
>>comedy I've seen in wuite some time.  Perhaps if you say it enough
>>times, people will believe that winning by 5% of the popular vote is a
>>landslide.
>
>I'm getting tired of the Republican sore-loser whining from the
>Bob Doles of the world.  Bush won by 6%, and that was called
>a "landslide".  Call it what you want.   Clinton won- he
>won the popular vote, the electoral vote, most of the states,
>etc. etc.   Just take your lumps and move on.  I don't remember
>hearing this kind of whining from the Democrats in '88.


Actually it is kind of amusing. All this "well, at least the demos
didn't win the REALLY important race - New Hampshire" stuff. The
right wingers are going to have to get used to whining from the
sidelines for a while. 

Paul
~
From: pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PAUL N. RITTER)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: SOMEBODY'S GOT TO SAY IT (Re: Clinton by default)
Date: 5 Nov 92 10:46:03 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <3NOV199208185419@utkvx3.utk.edu>, drevik@utkvx3.utk.edu (Drevik, Ste
ve) writes:
>In article <eagle.720761837@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu>, eagle@garfield.catt.ncsu.e
du (Daniel L'Hommedieu) writes...
>>dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
>>>(someone else said)
>>Nationwide health care, like welfare, is initally a good idea.  You then
>>must come up with a way to FAIRLY pay for it.  It's not fair for all us
>>tax payers to have to pay for somebody else to sit on their fanny, not
>>working, but riding the government.  Also, put those prisoners to work!
>
>All that BC is trying to do is to optimize the 13% of GNP we spend
>on health care.  He's right in the fact that for what we are spending,
>we should be getting a hell of a lot more.  We shouldn't have 37
>million uncovered people.
>
>Case:  A guy works for McDonald's...has no health care. Poor guy hasn't
>been feeling so well lately, and the cut on his thumb he got trying to
>fix the fryer doesn't seem to be healing.  Doesn't have the money to see
>a doctor, so he just figures he'll get better.
>
>Later on, at a party, his friends notice him going into convulsions and
>take him to the ER.  Turns out he has a very advanced case of diabetes.
>
>Now, for $50, he could have seen a physician that could have told him
>"you have diabetes, and here is how you need to alter your diet to
>control it."  But instead, it's going to take $5000 to nurse him back
>to health, maybe more.  Who pays it?  YOU AND I.  Either through taxes
>for medicare, or increased costs by the hospital.

    You moron. A hospital CANNOT refuse treatment of a patient just because
    they can't pay for it. If more people realized this, we wouldn't have
    nimrods like you voting for Slick Willie.


>
>Case#2: Bush cut the federal subsidy for child immunization.  Any
>health worker will tell you as far as child immunizations go, a
>dollar spent today will save $100 tomorrow.
>
>This is one of the major reasons our health care costs so much.  BC is
>just trying to use the concept of an ounce of prevention (the other
>cause of higher health care is preventive procedures/lawsuits, and
>requires another type of reform that is much more difficult politically)
>
>>More police: you shouldn't need more police at all.  You should just
>>start enforcing the laws you have.  There are no criminal rights--the
>
>Dan, how do you 'enforce' laws without cops?  We went from a one
>criminal : 3 cops  ratio to  one cop : 3 crimes ratio.  Cops in
>just about anywhere in the country can do little but clean up and
>take notes AFTER a crime has been committed.  They can't effectively
>patrol and prevent.
>
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Thank you, Anita Hill
Date: 7 Nov 92 06:41:20 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <adams.720978844@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>bhjelle@carina.unm.edu () writes:

>>Let's hope that 4 years of Clinton will help undo the damage to
>>the credibility of the U.S. Supreme Court inflicted by 12 years
>>of cynical selections of unqualified candidates.

>Robert Bork was the most qualified man in America to serve on the court.
>It was cynical rejection of a highly qualified candidate for political
>purposes by the DEMOCRATS that kept him off the court.

Um, since when is there *not* politics involved in Supreme Court
selections?  Are you telling me he wasn't nominated for political
reasons?  Why *shouldn't* there be political considerations?

Robert Bork is one of the most intelligent men in his field.  That
doesn't mean his ideas belonged on the Supreme Court, however.  His
constitutional philosophy was (is) scary.  (And I know I'm going to get
flamed for it, but no, "judicial restraint" is not the philosophy I'm
referring to.  I'm talking about Bork's peculiar slant on it.)

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1992 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.
From: GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Keynesian Thing
Date: 12 Nov 92 21:50:42 GMT
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA07785; Thu, 12 Nov 92 13:56:39 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA00723; Thu, 12 Nov 92 13:56:31 -0800
X-Received: from IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU by idbsu.idbsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 2703; Thu, 12 Nov 92 14:59:17 MST
X-Received: from IDBSU (GCTHORNE) by IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 3764; Thu, 12 Nov 92 14:59:13 MST
X-To: talk.politics.misc.usenet

Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc