HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Bush Aide Foresees Landslide -- for Bush
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:09:02 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Oct12.153028.7899@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:

>(After all, we must keep in mind that Bush is the man who actually
>said, in public, that it is wrong to demonstrate against your country
>when your country's at war.  The mind boggles.)

   Yes, those were his exact words.  I could hardly believe it when 
   I heard him say them.   Clearly Bush is desperate and is starting
   to seriously fall apart mentally.   I don't know if this tendency
   to crack under pressure is a good quality in a man who would be
   president.  I mean he's been through war and one term already 
   so we know he used to be pretty stable, but he's older now and
   has been in a high-pressure job for four years and frankly I
   think he's starting to go to pieces.


---peter



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: bschlesinger@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Barry Schlesinger)
Subject: Re: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA - Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 20:01:00 GMT

In article <1688012A38.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes...
>In article <14OCT199209444249@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov>
>bschlesinger@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Barry Schlesinger) writes:
> 
>>In article <1992Oct9.214739.1488@u.washington.edu>, sieferme@stein.u.washingtonedu (Eric Sieferman) writes...
>>>In article <9S5-sJB@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>>>>
>>>>No, in the original Constitutional sense.  There is no power granted
>>>>to the Federal government giving it the ability to interfere with
>>>>such contracts.
>>>
>>			...
>>
>>Where is there a "right of contract" in the Constitution?  Where is
>>the government forbidden to regulate contracts?
> 
	[...attempt at wit deleted...]
	
>     The Constitution of the United States is an *empowering* document, not
>a *restrictive* document.  In it the Federal Government is granted certain,
>specifc powers.  Notice Article I, Section 8 says, "Congress shall have the
>power to..", not "Congress hall be forbidden to..."
	[discussion of Bill of Rights deleted]
>     The government is given specific powers.  Amendment 10 further says
>that only those powers listed in the Constitution belong to the federal
>government, with all others being reserved to the states or the people.
>     The federal government does not have to be forbidden to control
>contracts, but the other way around.  It must be granted that power, and
>it hasn't.
> 
The Congress is given powers to enact legislation in a number of
areas.  The authority to legislate in these areas incorporates the 
power to restrict contracts in these areas.  

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50121 talk.politics.drugs:6656 talk.politics.guns:21851 alt.politics.elections:15512 alt.politics.libertarian:678 alt.politics.marrou:1476
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Media coverage for Marrou/Lord (call these #'s!)
Date: 7 Oct 92 15:43:24 GMT
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering

In article <GOLDM.92Oct5125456@sage4a.rpi.edu>
goldm@rpi.edu (Mitchell E. Gold) writes:
 
>
>Maybe we should start mentioning the LP not just to the media, but also to
>the pollsters. Gallup might take more interest, having more of a reputation
>for good polls, though I doubt any Republican/Democrat Party sponsored polls
>would care, except to "normalize" the poll and add it to the "error."
>
>--
> Mitchell Gold     /  middleman of
>
I would not do you a bit of good to tell it to the pollsters.  The
person you talk to is probably a part-time interviewer hired at minimum
wage or piece-rate by a local market research company.  That local
company has a contract with one of the national firms.  (I used to work
under such an arrangement as a college student.)
 
The "pollster" has no real interest in what you say.  They just want to
get some boxes checked off on their survey form as quickly as possible,
so they can meet their quota and go home.  If there is not a
"Libertarian" box to check (and I am pretty sure there is not in any
national survey) you will be checked under "other".  The "pollster"'s
worst fear is someone who wants to discuss the question instead of
giving a simple answer that fits in the boxes.  This wastes the
interviewer's time, and the discussion does not get recorded anywhere.
 
People have the mistaken impression that "pollsters" are people with
power.  If they give a good enough answer, the pollster surely must
rush into George Gallup's office with the news.  Not so, I'm afraid.
 
Jim McMaster
From: cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: State by State Poll Results
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:31:54 GMT
	<1bc2q5INN41j@hal.com>
Organization: pubs
In-reply-to: todd@alf.hal.com's message of 12 Oct 92 14:41:09 GMT

Bradley K. Sherman:
    >  AR    6    25     58!    6       NM    5    30     38    13
   Arkansas
    >  AK    3    35     36    18       ND    3    46!    36     8
   Alaska

    >How is it that Clinton has no lead in Arkansas? Are they wiser
    >to this guy than the rest of the nation? 

Todd Nix:
   58-25-6 looks like a pretty substantial lead to me. Looks like they're
   wiser than you as far as knowledge of state abreviations goes.

I symphathize.  I once mistook AK for Arkansas _when_I_was_in_Alaska_.
The two-letter abbreviations guarantee mistakes for the A's and the M's.

Chris Brewster
cb@cray.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:30:37 GMT

In article <ld6jm5INNk3@spim.mti.sgi.com>, mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
> Michael A. Thomas) writes:
> |>   When you can show me that any significant number of heterosexuals
> |> are doing the equivalent [of getting married for tax reasons], I 
> |> might be impressed. Otherwise I'm not.
> |> In any case, the only thing that would point out is the absurdity 
> |> of entitlement programs...
> 
> Acutally, Mike Best is wrong on this one.  The tax and social security
> codes only favor married couples when only one works, and when that 
> one makes enough so the survivor does not require social security.
> It is more likely, particularly among older couples and welfare
> couples, to not get married for tax and income purposes.
> 
> On the other hand, Michael Thomas is even more wrong on thinking
> that it is any of his business what homosexuals do or what the
> sex of the person is that they marry.

  Huh?! How on *earth* did you interpret that from what I wrote? 
Duh. Get a clue.
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: joe@stat.psu.edu (Joe Broniszewski)
Subject: Balanced budget in Alabama
Organization: Statistics Department, Penn State University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 16:51:05 GMT

Bill Clinton has been saying that Alabama has had a balanced budget
for the last 12 years.

Last night, President Bush said that state law requires the budget
in Alabama to be balanced.

Is Clinton using Yet Another Sneaky Political Maneuver or is Bush wrong?
From: 00rdharringt@bsu-ucs.uucp (Rob Harrington)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: BRAVE BILL's excellent (commie) Vacation-from
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:18:10 GMT

In article <8OCT199212545141@utarlg.uta.edu>, b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
> In article <ld8kieINNjql@spim.mti.sgi.com>, 
> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes...
>>Stephen Tice) writes:
>> 
>>This is really good stuff Stephen.  
> 
> Thank you.
> 
>>You ought to send it to "National
>>Enquirer."  It doesn't meet their quality standards but it sure
>>meets their "try to create something out of nothing standards.
>>Please tell us about Elvis's new home in arlington also.
> 
> You know... I have been hearing a melancholy sax streaming in and out 
> of the city sounds down here... After midnite in amerika. 
> 
> It sorta wafts along like a hobo clown... and then trips and splutters 
> -- but always returns with a jerk, to either "Back in the USSR" or a
> solo "Heartbreak Hotel." < da da  da da  dadada...>
> 
> Just the sorta tune the Piper always plays to the lonely patchwork hearts 
> busted flat down here in the "Broken Promised Land." 
> 
> Rag paper, confetti, and that same-old-song are all that's left now for 
> the people to cling to since the Party broke the Spirit by hobbling the 
> American Dream with government-surplus red tape.
> 
> And I think I'll send Norma Jean a faded black ribbon.
> 
> -- Sdt

What the hell is all this about?  Anyone?  Anyone?  You're weird...

-- 
/---------------------------------------v-------------------------------------\
|  Rob Harrington                       |              Ball State University  |
|  Department of History                |               Muncie, Indiana, USA  |
|  Vax--00RDHARRINGT@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu  |       Unix--herring@bsu-cs.bsu.edu  |
>---------------------------------------^-------------------------------------<
|               Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah -- Shane MacGowan                |
|                       Aoibheann beatha an scol/aire!                        |
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------/
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: New Quayle Quote List
Originator: news@nimaster
Keywords: potatoe intellectual heartbeat-away future-burger-king-manager
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 06:45:21 GMT

In <70884@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt6367c@prism.gatech.EDU DEAL, DOUGLAS WAYNE writes:

>This is in response to a posting about Quayle speakos

>I am fed up with the grammar experts from around the world who
>have decided to pick apart every word spoken by our v.p.  I would
>love to have each and every one of you losers who have nothing better
>to do than collect your welfare checks to invest in a tape record
>so that you can transcribe every word that you say during a normal day.
>How often does one use correct grammar in speech, or even letter writing.
>In the written form, one has the ability to go back and edit ones errors.
>Dan Quayle, just like anyone else, cannot unspeak something once the
>words come out of his mouth.  Think anout it the next time you are talking
>to someone.  How often do you use partial sentences or make a point with
>a gesture that cannot be put on paper.  For example when describing the
>size of a box, one may make a box with his hands and say the box was yay
>big.  That on paper makes absolutely no sense; however, to a live 
>audience, it makes perfect sense.  
>Before you start making fun of the VP, who is actually a very knowledgeable
>intelligent man, take a look at your own sorry excuse for grammar that you
>use every day.  
>Just my two cents.

And that's what it's worth.  People know the difference between poor
grammar and stupidity.  While George Bush certainly utilizes his fair
share of the former, he isn't stupid, and no one would ever accuse him
of *that* particular problem.

But Danny-boy?  He is *stupid.*  He is NOT a "knowledgeable intelligent man."

It's not the *grammar* that makes people laugh at Dan.  Some people have
problems ad-libbing perfectly.  But that's not Dan's problem.  The *content*
is what causes the laughter.

Who else would explain to the Samoans that they are "happy campers?"
Who else would explain to the press that "Hawaii is in the Pacific?"
Who else would say "I love California, I practically grew up in Phoenix?"
Or "bondage between a mother and child?"

But those are just the silly slips.  It's when he explains his
scientific views about Mars that people really doubt him.

It's when he has *no idea* what target prices are -- even though he
supposedly dealt with them all the time in Congress -- that he sounds stupid.

It's when he can't spell -- more than once.

It's when, during the 1988 campaign, he talks about the importance of the 
program to interdict drug shipments at our borders -- but can't name the
person in charge of overseeing this program -- GEORGE BUSH.


-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1993 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Roland Hemond: SIGN BARRY BONDS!!!!!!!!
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more weeks!!!   		"Bloody urine"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.environment
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during V
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:17:43 GMT
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Originator: rja@mahogany126


In article 8072@anasazi.com, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:

>I notice that once again the liberals are trying to twist this issue
>around into what it isn't: red baiting and McCarthyism. Naturally this
>is easier than dealing with the real issues:

>  -Bill Clinton was out of line for demonstrating against his own
>   country IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY.

Clinton was not "demonstrating against his own country", he was 
demonstrating against the Vietnam War.

The problem I have with Bush & Moore's argument is that I do not
think that demonstrating against the Vietnam War == "demonstrating 
against his own country".

>                                  It wasn't against the law, and it
>   doesn't make him a communist, but it is wrong to take internal squabbles
>   outside the country.

So like you'll never criticize President Clinton's policies outside the
US, right?



-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
From: drevik@utkvx3.utk.edu (Drevik, Steve)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: YUGOSLAVIA - a silly proposal?
Date: 16 Oct 92 04:52:00 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

Perhaps a bit simplistic, but here goes (try not to flame too much)

We won't go into Yugoslavia...er, make that Serbia, B-H, Croatia, etc.
because we don't want it to become another Vietnam.

What made Vietnam so unique?
(1) Didn't have a clear objective
(2) Hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys.. and we
had good guys we wanted to support & keep in power.

Well, #1 in Yugo would be simply to stop the slaughter of
civilians and force them (by keeping them from fighting)
to negotiate.

#2 can be solved by this: we don't take sides.  We just
go in and kill EVERYBODY with a gun.  Serb, Croat, Bosnian,
anybody.  You got a rifle. you get shot.  You got a mortar,
you get shot or bombed.   Eventually, all the soldiers either
die or put down their guns.

The major hole in this plan is how to deal with a possible
guerilla war, where the weapons are never really seen (a
grenade gets tossed into a crowd, car bombs, pistol attacks,
etc).  Oh well.

It's just such s darned if we do darned if we don't proposition.
As an American I feel hypocritical for marching into Iraq and
sitting on my thumbs while civilians are slaughtered every day.
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Why I think I'll vote for Clinton Clause
Date: 16 Oct 92 22:37:40 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <71536@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt6367c@prism.gatech.EDU (DEAL, DOUGLAS WAYNE) writes:

[usual silliness deleted]

>Also please note when the economy went south, very very close tot he time
>Georgie broke his no new taxes pledge.  What does that tell you.

Nope.  Recession started summer of '90.  They didn't come to a budget
deal until, what, October '90?


	Everywhere was boundless divinity
	containing all astonishing things,
	wearing divine garlands and garments,
	annoited with divine perfume.		-- Bhagavad-Gita 11
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:52063 alt.rush-limbaugh:7509 alt.politics.bush:9325 alt.politics.clinton:10677 alt.politics.elections:17043 talk.abortion:42836 alt.sex:33052
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
Subject: RE: rights and responsibilities
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:05:51 GMT
Organization: Clark University

In a previous article, weverett@jarthur.claremont.edu (William M. Everett) wrote:
>In article <14OCT92.21213487@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>In a previous article, sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) wrote:
>>
>>[stuff deleted]
>>>	If babies just popped into womens' bodies from out of nowhere, I'd
>>>support the pro-choice position too.  But they don't.  They're in the womb
>>>because of voluntary and avoidable behavior by the woman.
>>
>>Excuse me, but isn't "voluntary and avoidable behavior" by the man also 
>>involved in this process?  Do you think it is fair to force women to pay for 
>>consenting to sex with their health and possibly their lives without insisting 
>>on the same consequences for men who consent to sex?
> 
>	Men are required to pay child support of they get put in jail. I'd
>call that paying.

Once a child is born, unless it is put up for adoption the man and woman both 
have a financial obligation to it.  A woman who refuses to buy food for her 
child can be thrown in jail for neglect/abandonment.

The inequality is that DURING a pregnancy, only the woman is paying.  As far 
as I know there are no laws forcing men to pay for maternity clothes, the 
extra food a woman must have, etc.  And, as I mentioned above, women pay for 
pregnancy not just financially but also with their health.  Men who consent to 
sex are not forced against their wills to endure back pain, nausea, weight 
gain, massive hormonal changes, restrictions on their diet and exercise, etc.  

So why do you think it is fair for women to face a much tougher punishment 
than men, when they have both done the same thing (engaging in sex)?


				.... Heather.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,ca.politics
From: niepornt@fish.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Chicken George the Coward President
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:29:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.190454.29878@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>In article <Oct.6.13.48.59.1992.15288@gandalf.rutgers.edu> shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
>>mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>>In article <92267.231857SML108@psuvm.psu.edu> SML108@psuvm.psu.edu writes:

[Lots of Mike being really obnoxious and condescending deleted]

>In particular, the Secret Service has two main missions - protecting
>the president, presidential candidates, top people in the
>administration, and their relatives; and catching counterfeiters.
>They mainly operate domestically but they sometimes go abroad.

>The CIA is responsible for gathering intelligence and covert
>operations in foreign countries.  Their domestic activities are
>limited to non-operational stuff like analysis, planning, etc.

>>I suppose you have to be *really* ignorant not to be able to tell the
>>difference so find me guilty of gross ignorance, judge! 

>I agree and I do.  Any American who is not aware that the CIA is
>prohibited from conducting operations inside the US is grossly ignorant.

And any American who believes that the CIA always obeys these rules is
hopelessly naive AND grossly ignorant of US history.

Geez.  Only Congress can declare war, but you've never seen that stop a
president, have you?

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1993 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Roland Hemond: SIGN BARRY BONDS!!!!!!!!
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more weeks!!!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: JZ lands in a Hot LZ...
Summary: ...while T*d wallows in the filth, as usual.
Organization: Beats me!
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:16:10 GMT

In article <Oct.8.08.18.57.1992.4961@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.012625.13596@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>
>> Well, certainly God is as entitled to his opinions on the subject as
>> is the next guy, but until and unless he comes up with a more rational
>> and compelling argument than "Because I say so" there isn't really any
>> reason I can see to follow his guidelines.
>
>Except, of course, that God's opinions will carry somewhat greater
>weight on Judgement Day than will William D. Starr's.

Assuming there'll be such a day -- and that your deity will actually
appreciate your incessant speaking for him...

--PLH (Jesus wouldn't qualify to be a Christian by today's standards)

-- 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Media coverage for Marrou/Lord (call these #'s!)
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 20:47:28 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <DSTEINBE.92Oct7170409@emmy.nmsu.edu> dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg) writes:
>In article <BvnGwt.5LC@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>     First of all, no L.P. presidential candidate has ever exceeded 1%
>     of the vote, so even if Marrou/Lord are doing that well this year
>     and Perot is only doing 7% then Perot is still doing *7 times as
>     well* as Marrou/Lord!   I would say that this IS "much better".
>
>     Second, the polls I've seen show Perot to be in the 10-14% range.
>
>
>Coincidently enough, when Perot first re-entered the race, his supoort
>was about 1%.  Yeah, now he's up to 10-14%; maybe it has something to
>do with the hours of free advertising the press has been giving him...

  I don't doubt it, but so what?  Aren't they within their rights to 
  to this?   Larry King was not compelled by the government or force
  or fraud to invite Perot on his show.  

  There is nothing to stop the L.P. from nominating a figure who has
  the kind of dash or emotional appeal or whatever the other qual-
  ities are of a Ross Perot (or George Wallace, or John Anderson
  or Teddy Roosevelt (of the Bull Moose days) that attracts the 
  attention of the media.   It's pure Usenerdism to think that
  people are successful in politics based soley on their ideas.
  Style and P.R. (or B.S., if you like) are just as important if
  not more so.


---peter


  

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Easy to be conservative? Not (was Re: Redefining the Roles of Protest)
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Keywords: Young Liberal Democrat Protestor
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 01:42:25 GMT

In article <Bw803y.66L@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> daver@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (David Ruby) writes:
>
>In this sense, it's very easy to be conservative since all they want 
>is what they already have.

You are truly ignorant of what conservatives want if you believe this.
Hint: they are *not* happy with Government and society as it
now exists. Not by a long shot.

What do conservatives want in a nutshell? " A free and civil society" (TM).
Now think about how free and how civil our society is.

Pat
	Clinton/Democratic Congress: The kakistocrat coalition!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex