HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: USA Today/CNN tracking poll -- final results
Date: 6 Nov 92 23:46:35 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Nov6.194009.1842@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao) writes:
> In article <1992Nov6.110837.5445@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>
>>	Just wanted to make an observation here.  Does anyone remember what
>>happened on 10/30?  The press pulled their own "October Surprise" and trumped
>  
>      No, the Press just reported it. Do you mean the Press should not have   

	No, they didn't "just report" it.  They used words like "smoking gun"
and "direct link" to imply that Bush was now irrevocably linked to Iran-Contra.
	But later analysis proved that Casper's notes were nothing new, and
nothing concrete.

> reported that ?   I don't seem to remember you said anything against the
> press when they reported Wenberger was aquitted early this year. It's the
> press's job to report this kind of news that concern the public. 

	I don't remember you asking me my opinion :).

Brett
===============================================================================
80s: 18 million new jobs, deficits down (%GNP), tax rates down, tax revenues up
GNP up, inflation down, unemployment down, interest rates down, cold war won
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: carlos@spanky.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Carlos Carrion)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: A Worrisome Example of "Subhuman" Ideology
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:26:02 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA

cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>The close of the ad says, "Hate.  It's not human."

	Hate IS Human.  It's all around us.
	Just read this newsgroup...

carlos.
Ever feel like the whole world is a tuxedo and you're a pair of brown shoes?
      ...ames!elroy!jpl-devvax!{beowulf|pituco}!carlos
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 08:59:36 GMT

In article <6946@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>'jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov () writes:
>'>tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>'>>doug@ramona.com (Double Agent) writes:

>'>>>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.

>'>>She offered no evidence that she was harassed by anyone.

>'>In your opinion...

>'Testimony is evidence.

>In a dictionary definition, yes it is. But...

>I wish that were always the case. Then what is "perjury"? Isn't it when
>your sworn testimony about what happens is discovered to be found in
>conflict with the evidence already given, mainly by physical evidence?
>What about a situation in a rape trial in which it is essentially one
>person's word against another's? Can _both_ stories, such as that in the
>William Kennedy Smith trial be the truth?

What about it?  Have you *ever* seen the losing side of one of these
cases prosecuted for perjury?  Why not?

>Testimony or offering to testify does not necessarily mean you are
>offering irrefutable evidence about a situation. I could testify that my

There IS NO SUCH THING as irrefutable evidence.

>parents beat me when I was little all the time. It's not true, but
>according to the statement that "testimony is evidence," my statement
>proves that my parents beat me when I was young.

NOTHING *proves* that your parents beat you.  Not your testimony, not
anyone else's testimony, not even a videotape that shows them doing it
(since the videotape could be faked, or out of context, or something.)

What these things do is provide evidence for the claim that they did.  

Then a jury takes all these pieces of evidence and decides whether they
prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that it happened.  But that doesn't mean
"proved."  You can't *prove* something.  It isn't geometry.  

If I have your fingerprints on a gun, and you locked in the room where
the murder took place, that doesn't *prove* you did it.  It's *evidence*,
strong evidence, but it isn't proof.

-- 
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.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: Term Limits
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:10:12 GMT

In article <farenebt.721263404@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
>john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>>You mean fewer, not less... Huh? More choices for voters. Without term 
>>limits, the same bozo appears election after election. With term limits that 
>>bozo only appears twice, and then we get a new face. Sounds like more 
>>choice to me!
>
>No term limits means that you can re-elect the guy if he's not a bozo.
>If the guy is a bozo, then you just vote him out. What's so hard about
>that? I'll tell you, it means the voters have to take responsibility.
>

If the guy is a bozo, you can NOT vote him out. You can only vote someone else
IN. This means that there must be an acceptable 'someone else' on the ballot,
something that our incumbency-driven process often precludes.
					
>============================================================================
>BRI FARENELL			HOBBES: Why do we always play war and not peace?
>FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU     CALVIN: Too few role models.
>CLARKSON '95			
>A politically incorrect, pro-life, liberal, card-carrying member of the ACLU.
>===========================================================================

Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was: Release from the Clinton Camp
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 20:59:07 GMT

In article <lg2jhgINNpfm@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:

>Bill Meyers) writes:
>|> 
>|> The NRA has roughly 3 million members, about the same as the AAA.
>|> If Mothers Against Drunk Driving had chosen to advocate banning of
>|> cheap, unsafe cars ("Saturday Night Specials"), automobile brokerage
>|> services ("Mail Order Murder"), radar-absorbing auto body materials
>|> ("Undetectable Plastic Cars"), heavy duty truck bumpers ("Cop-Killer
>|> Pickups"), and sporty-looking ("Assault") cars with tailfins and
>|> semi-automatic transmissions, the _members_ of the AAA would have
>|> opposed some of that nonsense and the AAA would no doubt have had
>|> to organize a lobbying division, as the NRA did about 1976.
>|> 
>I am sure that many of us can think of a long list of good things that
>can be attributed to the automobile other than killing people when
>driven by drunks.  Would you like to give us an idea of all of the
>good things a gun provides?

      Self-defense.  (I doubt several hundred thousand police officers
would carry a gun otherwise.)  Recreation.  (Along the same lines, what good 
is a baseball bat other than smashing in people's heads?)

>Also, we already require testing, licensing, minimum physical and mental
>skills, and a waiting period (in some states) to drive a car (try
>getting an instant appointment).  It is also illegal to drive a car that
>doesn't meet strict safety and power rules.  The NRA considers all these
>to be unnacceptable conditions for gun buyers.  
>
>Is this your idea of an anology?

      The analogy is faulty.  Tests for driver's licenses apply only to the 
use of a car on public property, not on the posession of the car or use of 
it on private property.You don't have to pass a test to purchase a car (and 
minors are not prohibited from purchasing cars as they are guns).  The 
difference is you're applying the test to the purchase and use of a gun on 
private property, and that is totally different from requirements from 
automobiles.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
                         Information Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: "...and we have to make sure he regrets that." (was: Celebration...)
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 14:49:02 GMT


In article <1992Nov7.194559.28788@oakhill.sps.mot.com>, 
pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) said:

In article <5NOV199211522406@utkvx3.utk.edu> drevik@utkvx3.utk.edu () writes:

> > This "Saddam can't wait to invade again now that Clinton is in
> > office" line is total bullshit.  Do you guys really believe this
> > garbage?  'course not...just another thing to whine about.
> > [Drevik, Steve]
>
> What *we* believe is irrelevent ... it's what Saddam believes that
> will effect his (mis)behavior.  That he's celebrating suggests that
> *he* thinks he may be cut some more slack.

From "Clinton Warns U.S. Foes and Reassures Its Friends," 
New York Times, 11/5/92 (the Thursday after Election Day), p.B10:

      Mr. Clinton and his foreign policy aides concluded in the weeks
   leading up to the election that if he won, the leaders of Iraq,
   Iran or China -- whose elderly statesmen have grandchildren Mr.
   Clinton's age -- might be tempted to test him when he takes office
   in January.  [ * * * ]  When Mr. Clinton was receiving foreign
   policy briefings during the campaign, he often asked experts:
   "Where will I be tested first?  What should I say to prevent that?"
   one adviser recalled.
   
      Clinton aides said today's statement was carefully written with
   such questions in mind, and it got an extra jolt after the news
   that President Hussein fired his gun into the air in defiant
   celebration of President Bush's electoral defeat.  As one Clinton
   adviser put it: "The only world leader who was unreservedly for
   Bill Clinton is Saddam Hussein, and we have to make sure he regrets
   that."

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: Norman.Miller@launchpad.unc.edu (Norman Miller)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 16:00:23 GMT

In article <1dv62nINN5jh@rave.larc.nasa.gov> jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov () writes:

>
>I certainly *hope* you are right, but when you have the likes of Pat
>Buchanan, Pat Robertson, and David Duke calling themselves "conservatives"
>it makes me wonder just *what* is considered rationality and fairness...
>
>BTW: Norman, I'm not flaming you, in fact I agree with your concept of
>     a conservative, it just seems that there are many self proclaimed
>     conservatives that would call you a liberal...
>

They can call me a liberal if they like, though in fact I'm far to the
left of Clinton (whom I see as a Democratic apotheosis of Nelson Rocke-
feller) on some things and quite conservative on others (such as the
on-the-ground consequences of affirmative action).  

But that's neither here nor there.  The basic agreement between genuine
liberals and genuine conservatives (of whom there are fewer than you'd
suppose on either side) is on the issue of fairness.  The relation
between the two is that liberals know several generations before con-
servatives do that some people are getting shafted.  Conservatives,
comfortable and without imagination, need to have their noses rubbed
in the dirt for a while before they get it.  But they finally do and
generally do the decent thing.

In fact, this very decency of conservatives is what most infuriates
the reactionary canaille (Buchanan and others) because they're 
increasingly isolated in their racism and misogyny.

Norman Miller

nmiller@starbase.trincoll.edu

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.homosexual,uiuc.general,uiuc.politics
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Coalition for Traditional Values' Candidate Survey
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1992 05:24:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14j by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion

In <Bx2ME0.Iyw@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tspila@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Spila Timothy) writes:
>
>UGH, UGH, UGH   We all know why the two terms pro-life and pro-choice are
>thrown around.  First, it is easier to get people to agree with you if your
>title is positive (i.e. "pro-").  Second, if the pro-lifers were
>"Anti-abortioners", then they would lose support.  Also, if the pro-choicers
>were "Pro-abortioners", then they would lose support.  Perhaps even more
>support than the pro-lifers, but if one side can play with words, then why
>can't the other side?

"Anti-abortion" is an accurate description of the "pro-life" position, while
"pro-abortion" is not an accurate description of the "pro-choice" position.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.war.vietnam
From: Monte Olsen <olsenm@ccmail.orst.edu>
Subject: Re: Stockdale is a Bumbling Idiot
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A720275B3D01A70D@reynolde-mac.ads.orst.edu>
X-Xxdate: Fri, 6 Nov 92 21:44:59 GMT
Organization: OSU Extension Service
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 21:43:32 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.093945.23354@Princeton.EDU> David
Marc Nieporent, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU writes:
>And Stockdale *still* doesn't seem to get the idea that
if our
>government had LISTENED to the anti-war protestors, the
war would have
>ended sooner, with less people getting killed or taken
prisoner, and he
>would have been home sooner.
>


David,
I guess I'm an ingrate and a bit thick headed, too, I
spent a year over there, and I don't feel I owe protestors
other than the Vietnam vets a debt of gratitude either.

Monte Olsen
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 92 23:19:23 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: IBM T. J. Watson Research
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

fred j mccall 575-3539 (mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com) wrote:
: Well, no.  You DID say it, what with your little Marxian quotation.

I don't know where you got "pinko faggot" out of that, but who am I to argue
with your own introspection?  :-)

:                                                                     As
: for feeding people, this is tantamount to saying something like, "Why
: should the government tell me who I can and can't shoot?  I'd rather
: choose the people I shoot, thank you very much."

No, it's not like that at all.  In that case you are actively harming another
person.  If you really believe that then you better give me $10,000 right now
because if you don't then that's tantamount to stealing from me.

: I've always found REASONED DISCUSSION to work fairly well with anyone
: who is open to changing their minds.  I've never seen a libertarian
: who was capable of doing that without being snide and insulting and
: tossing in all sorts of cruft about "theft"

If the shoe fits...  Entitlements and income redistribution have become so
institutionalized, that you don't even see them for what they are.

:                                      If your theory is good, you
: should be able to make a logical case for it without playing
: rhetorical debating games

You're kidding, right?  This is tx.politics.  What we do here is play 
rhetorical debating games.  And you've become pretty accomplished at it 
yourself.

: or assuming that everyone who disagrees with
: you is <insert 'socialist' insult of choice>.

I'm sorry you find 'socialist' insulting, but that's what you espouse.

--
John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"When you're following an angel, does it mean you have to throw your body off a 
 building?" -- TMBG
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Doomed...Doomed...Doomed...
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 11:45:47 GMT


In article <1992Nov4.043731.138233@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, 
pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PAUL N. RITTER) said:

> I can't believe how fast this country is going to Hell in a
> handbasket.

"Fast"?  I don't know.  I mean, twelve years may not be very much on
the geological time scale, but...

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59816 alt.politics.elections:23608 alt.rush-limbaugh:9546 talk.rumors:1237 alt.activism:18694
From: hines@socrates.ucsf.edu (Wade Hines)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: A Worrisome Example of "Subhuman" Ideology
Date: 10 Nov 92 20:04:07 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:


Yeah, I'm deleting alot of stuff.  Read the original to get
the full flavor.

>My wife was flipping through TV channels last night, and we ran into
>some tax-subsidized homosexual propaganda on PBS, a gay variety
>show called "In The Life."

Gawd, I'm glad to know it was his wife who flips to PBS
(Maybe she's a closet liberal!?)

>At one point in the show, they showed an ad clearly intended to
>raise consciousness about gay-bashing.  It was very well done,
>and for the most part, I found myself very pleased with it.
>It captured the terror of being attacked, and not being able to
>defend yourself.  (It's a shame that PBS would never deign to show 
>a similar ad against generalized violent crime -- but then again, 
>straight lives aren't worth much to the leftist establishment of this
>country).

(oh, aren't parenthetical wonderful)


>What's troubling about this is that by reducing the gay-basher
>to the level of an animal, the homosexual fascist lobby creates

hey what about us liberal fascists?

>the implicit assumption that anything done to such a person,
>just like a dangerous dog, is therefore justified: execution 
>without trial, using him in laboratory experiments, or torture.

Get serious jack.  Why not instead extrapulate that the bashers,
like an abused and "trained" doberman, is really the victum.  
Poor critter probably was teased and tormented in his youth
by hatefull bigots parading as queens in feather boas.  Maybe
with a loving master the basher could be converted into mans
best freind, maybe even write a Jack London like book about his
experiences and get a network TV minidrama out of it.  They you
and your wife wouldn't have to watch that awefull PBS

>And of course, the ad is wrong: hate is very human.  Just read

Anyone who has seen one of your post knows that.

-Wade Hines  
"It just doesn't matter" -B. Murry
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Why are women paid less? (was Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: 13 Nov 92 20:35:14 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

In article <1992Nov13.195624.22807@novell.com> bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>In article <Bxn8ox.KKz@acsu.buffalo.edu> v140pxgt@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Daniel B Case) writes:
>>
>>"Many women choose to work part-time, so they can raise families". Oh God! 
>>That's rich!!! Only someone with no idea what it's like in the current minimum-
>>wage service sector slave pits would talk like that. 
>>
>>Maybe lawyers can *choose* to work part-time, but at the lower end of the wage
>>scale, choice is a moot point. Hell, if these women had any choice, they wouldn't
>>be working at all in the first place!! They work because there's no such thing as
>>family leave, because they have no other way to feed their children.
>
>Hmmm, I'm not so sure.  I can't speak about minimum wage families, but
>my brother who works for Mobil is the single earner in his family -
>it's non-trivial, but they're doing it.
>
>In addition, I took a women's studies course back when I was in school
>and we got to discussing the 5 or so reasons why women make 68 cents on
>the dollar compared to men.  Two of the 5 are a) a woman on average
>will be out of the workforce about 6 years per child while she has kids
>AND she does it at the worst possible time between the ages of 25-35
>when men are building their careers and b) women are perceived as being
>less reliable than men because they will place their kids/family above
>their career and men tend to do the reverse.
>
>I discussed this with the Prof. after class one day and got her to
>admit that these could be the 2 main reasons for the $0.38 gap -
>however, she continued to assert in class that it was discrimination
>that held women down.
>
>While I've worked at Novell-Austin I've had 3 bosses, all women.  From
>my personal experience, I can't see any obvious discrimination, on
>Novell's or my part.

If these are the two main reasons, then it may demonstrate that the
entire system is biased against women.  If a system requires something
of a person to succeed that functionally is not possible in most cases
(women who want children), then the system is biased.  A key question
is whether missing a few years of work to raise a child (or even the
few weeks that many women take off today) really detracts from the
contributions a women can make to a company.  In some fields, they
would need to keep up on current education.  Obviously, there is
lost time, but why can't they get back in where they were if they
keep up with new knowledge in the field?  Is this a fair reason to
put women on the slow track?
>
>Brendan
>-- 
>Brendan B. Boerner		Phone: 512/346-8380
>Internet: bboerner@novell.com	MHS: bboerner@novell
>Please use ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ if replying by mail exterior to Novell.
>


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59991 ca.politics:9556 misc.legal:19883