HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Clinton dyes his hair
Organization: SSDT SPS, Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 02:40:14 GMT

In article <adams.719250492@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
><KRB104@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>
>I fear for the Republic when only a blow-dried, slick-talking person can
>get elected President.

Trivia note - Clinton dyes his hair. Just check out how his hair color
has changed during the year. (latest issue of Forbes, letters section.)
hmmm, maybe he uses "Slick-50" :-)

>>Could you see Stockdale giving a State of the Union Address.
>Yeah.  I can see him doing that.  What's wrong if he's not a polished
>profession speaker?  What the heck does that have to do with his ability?!

John Quincy Adams, (any relation, Steve?), or many of the other
early Presidents probably would not be great on TV either.
Think of how Washington's wooden teeth would look. :-)
And Calvin Coolidge would probably have said *fewer* words than
Stockdale in the debate.

>Get off the crap about how they look and how they sound and look at what
>they've done and what they intend to do.
>
>Stockdale is exteremely intelligent...he just doesn't play well on TV.  So
>what?

Agreed. Except, if he can't articulate his beliefs, how do we know
where he stands?

> -Steve
>--
>  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
>                         -------------------
>   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
>   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: pdchapin@unix.amherst.edu (PAUL D CHAPIN)
Subject: Re: Why Do Soak the Rich Schemes Always End Up Picking Everyone's Pocket?
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 15:51:58 GMT

Ed Ipser (ipser@solomon.technet.sg) wrote:

: Ninety percent of all taxable income in this country is generated in
: brackets of $45,000 and under. More than 75 percent is generated by
: people who make $25,000 or less each year. If politicians raise

Could we have a source for this?  I don't find the numbers very
believable.  I don't think 75% of working American people make less
than $25,000 a year. (That's an impression, not a fact). For this
statement to be true, the percent of American's making less that
$25,000 a year would have to be massive. If it's true, that's an
indictment against the President's handling of the economy.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50703 ca.politics:8593 ba.politics:6009
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: "He claimed he got involved in homosexual activities 'to punish myself' after being raped at age 15."
Date: 9 Oct 92 19:49:01 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA


Everytime I turn around, there's a bit more anecdotal evidence that
fits with the data and hypothesis I recently presented in The
Mother of All Flame Wars.  From the Santa Rosa Press-Democrat,
10/9/92, p. B1:

    Rapist with HIV gets 29 years

    A 30-year-old robber-rapist who attacked a Santa Rosa woman
    last year knowing he was HIV positive was sentenced Thursday
    to 29 years in state prison.

    ...

    Miller was diagnosed as being infected with HIV in 1989 while
    serving a prison term in Mississippi for a robbery he 
    committed in 1980 when he was 18.

    He claimed he got involved in homosexual activities "to
    punish myself" after being raped at age 15.  He said he 
    doesn't know if he was infected by homosexual activity
    in prison or by using hypodermic needles to inject drugs.

All the elements are present: childhood sexual trauma; drug
abuse and homosexuality to deal with it; antisocial behavior
that got him sent to prison.  At least Miller knows why he became
homosexual.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Lesson learned from Gov. Wilson's signing of AB 2601: if you don't get 
your way, have a riot.  Next time, Gov. Wilson will cower appropriately.
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Term Limits are Constitutional, Study Shows
Date: 15 Oct 92 05:41:20 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In <7254@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.162743.12212@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>> In article <1992Oct12.234527.29907@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

>> >>It helps remove modern political bias, but it may restore old
>> >>political and social biases.  

>> >But these "old" biases are ones to which the people have formally
>> >consented (by ratifying the Constitution or its Amendments.) They
>> >are not biases imposed by the whim of nine old, unelected men. 
 
>> Everyone  who ever formally consented (through ratification) is dead.

>Funny.  At least two Constitutional Amendments have been ratified in
>my lifetime -- possibly three.

Well, you're older than me.  But the *amendments* were ratified, not the
entire Constitution.  No one alive today consented to the main part, or
even most of the amendments.

Unless you want to take Socrates view that not leaving is equivalent to
consent.

>> Why in the world would anyone today consent to old biases?

>Perhaps you should ask those who ratified the 27th just last year,
>after roughly two centuries -- an old bias indeed.

So?  What does this have to do with the rest of the Constitution?  The
27th amendment was a feel-good amendment that had absolutely nothing to
do with the problems of this country.  

Anyway, since the 27th was NOT ratified by the founders, I'd say it's a
NEW bias, not an old one at all.  

-- 
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"
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50371 can.politics:8239 soc.culture.canada:7303
From: joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.sex
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 16 Oct 92 14:49:12 GMT
Organization: Dept. of CS Ball State University Muncie IN

In article <Bw72MH.909@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:

[in response to an anecdote about a deadbeat dad]

>Yep, before RvW, this sort of thing was exceedingly rare.

This remark, on the other hand, is simply total crap.

Joe


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49945 alt.politics.usa.misc:112 alt.politics.usa.constitution:570
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Term Limits are Constitutional, Study Shows
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:01:27 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1asrkdINNh9f@agate.berkeley.edu> tyersome@toxic (Randall Tyers) writes:

>were the "Framers" really omnipotent? :)

Actually the were omniscient.
-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd)
Subject: How to feel GREAT about voting!
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 02:25:40 GMT

You know how you hate to vote because it seems pointless and/or
you always seem to have to vote for the lesser of two (three?)
evils? Well, there's another way to look at it...

Pick your least favorite person. Someone like Marilyn Quayle,
for example. Then, on November 3rd, go to the voting booth to
specifically and deliberately and joyously CANCEL that person's
vote. Think of how annoyed the CEO of Exxon would be to know that
his vote was cancelled by an unemployed steamfitter in Wisconsin.
Think how angry Pat Robertson would be to know that his vote was
cancelled by a bisexual sadomasochist from San Francisco! And
the worst thing about it from the cancellee's vantage point
is that there is NOTHING they can do to stop it--they might
as well stay home for all the good their votes will do. Doesn't
this sound like FUN?--I can hardly wait for the election!

Why, just my immediate circle of friends can completely neuter
the upper echelon of the GOP this year. And the transitive closure
of my friends and their friends' friends can take out both the first
and second tier. Think globally, act PERSONALLY.

I told this to a friend of mine who's in a punk band, and he's spent
this week writing names of sh*theads down on 3x5 cards. This Saturday,
he's going to raffle them off to the audience at Clubstitute in SF:
purchasing a card gives the bearer the exclusive right to cancel the
vote of the person named on the card.

I already have dibs, by the way, on Rush Limbaugh. I love democracy!

Next election, we're going to go one step further: we're
going to raffle off POSTCARDS with the mailing address of the cancellee
on the front. The text side will read something like:

"Dear Ms. Schlafly,

 It pleases me to inform you that I, a _____________________________
______________________________________________________________
_________________________ purchased for the measley sum of $ _____
the exclusive right to cancel your vote this election. I am sending
this little note to you 60 days before the election to make sure you
have at least a month to gnaw out your heart with the realization that
there is absolutely NOTHING you can do to salvage your vote, and that
you are therefore rendered essentially powerless in this election."

The bearer then fills in the blanks (e.g. "leather-clad motorcycle
dyke" or some such) and drops it in the nearest mailbox.

See you in three weeks.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Windows 3.0: the Mac interface done in crayon
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49924 alt.flame:13324
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Yes on 9
Date: 7 Oct 92 11:50:50 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <BvKCor.7tu@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:

> Ron Buckmire (buckmr@rpi.edu) posted, to talk.politics.misc and
> soc.motss:

>> Carl Kadie posted elsewhere:

>> ELECTION UPDATE (Washington Blade, 9/21/92)

>> WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY OPPOSES ANTI-GAY BALLOT MEASURE:

> Then Theodore A. Kaldis (kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu) posted, to
> talk.politics.misc and *alt.flame*:

>> I just want to take this opportunity to announce that if I were an
>> Oregon voter, I would vote "YES" on Prop. 9

As if this should come as any surprise to those familiar with my views
regarding homosexuality.

> Crossposting inflammatory anti-gay articles *out* of soc.motss is
> something which is done, traditionally, only by readers of soc.motss.

The original that I responded to was NOT inflammatory to homosexuals.
My response might have been construed as such, and so, not wishing to
potentially inflame certain readers, I edited the "Newsgroups:" line
appropriately.

> I think this confirms something that I have believed for a long time:
> Ted Kaldis is the pseudonym for a homosexual whose only goal, by
> posting his absurdities on the net, is to discredit the ideas of
> homophobes.

The above argument is hardly an exemplar of impeccable and
unassailable logic.  The charge that I might be a closet queer has
been thrown about on numerous occasions (presumably to anger me in
some fashion), but is in reality thoroughly without merit.  Actually I
can fart long and loud -- and thereby clear the room completely -- if
ever I elected to do so.

It is not my desire to inflame homosexuals here.  Goodness knows there
is probably no other groups that is as intensely vitriolic in their
flames as homosexuals (ask Clayton Cramer).  I have no desire to see
my mbox filled >200Kbytes/day of flames, therefore I left soc.motss
out of the distribution.
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
From: pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson)
Subject: Re: Stupendous favors regulation? (was Re: Cable Regulation)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:43:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.031822.4691@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>In article <1992Oct10.214655.11278@Princeton.EDU>, pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson) writes:
>> In article <1992Oct8.143009.4636@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>>
>>>	Laying cable, or electric wires, etc.  Should only be done once.  But
>>>there is no reason to only let one company use once they are there.  Cable
>>                        ^^^^^^^^
>>>signals can be multiplexed.  Electric companies can bid on service areas.  Etc.
>>>
>> This looks like a prescription for government regulation.  I can't
>
>	Okay, please post the logic that leads you to this conclusion.  The
>above clearly indicates that I'm in favor of letting companies compete to give
>you service.
>
Who is it who is going to 'let' other cable companies use the cable?
The government, thats who.  

>> believe this came from Brett.  BTW aren't most cable lines essentially
>> privately owned?  If this is the case then regulation would be necessary
>> to allow other companies to use the lines.
>
>	I think they are treated like phone cables and electric lines.  Since
>they were built with the help of government granted monopolies/aid, other
>companies can use them (at market rates, of course).
>
But this involves the government in either regulation of
'private' property, if the cable company owns the line, or outright
government ownership of the line.

Paul.
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Cable Regulation [Was BUSH LOSES VETO FIGHT!!]
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:30:09 GMT
 <PA146008.358.718475442@utkvm1.utk.edu> <1992Oct7.185344.11090@u.washington.edu>
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Oct7.185344.11090@u.washington.edu>, tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>>>Okay, let's grant gas companies monopolies in various cities so that they can
>>>charge whatever price they want to for a gallon of gas.
>>
>>     Let's not "grant" them anything.  You see, that was the point.  What
>>the local government did *was* grant them a monopoly, which the federal 
>>government then decided had to be regulated.
>>     If the monopoly was the problem, why didn't the federal government just
>>tell the local governments they couldn't grant those monopolies?
> 
> In many urban areas, cable must run underground.  How do you *NOT* have a
> monopoly in such a situation?  Should the city allow anyone who wants to

	Laying cable, or electric wires, etc.  Should only be done once.  But
there is no reason to only let one company use them once they are there.  Cable
signals can be multiplexed.  Electric companies can bid on service areas.  Etc.

> start a cable company to tear up the streets and disrupt traffic to put
> in their own cable?  Also, competition would not be effective in most
> cases because many of the cable companies also own or control the sources
> of programming, and won't let competing delivery systems buy rights to
> use the programming.

	ESPN, TNT, CNN, USA, etc are all independent.  There aren't any major
cable networks I can think of that are owned by cable distribution companies. 
Besides, if company X wants exclusive rights to product Y, then Company Z will
go buy exclusive rights to product A.  HBO-Showtime ran this type of war for a
few years, until they realized it was similar to MAD.

> You also have your history wrong.  The local governments granted the cable
> companies *regulated* monopolies, which the federal government *unregulated*,
> leading to the situation that the Cable Act is trying to fix.

	No, the federal government said that local government did not have to
keep monopolies.  Cable companies delivered many dollars, and said "but you do
want to keep it that way, right?"  And most cities did.  The ones that did let
true competition have outstanding services for half the cost of the average
cable company.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Reject Bankers' Systematic Economic Slavery
Date: 14 Oct 92 06:00:30 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.

In article <9210132220.AA02049@echidna.swdc.stratus.com> lpb@STRATUS.SWDC.STRATUS.COM (Len B.) writes:
>The following public service message is brought to all (I use the term loosely)
>presidential candidates: Ross Perot, Bill Clinton, George "Hoover" Bush.
>
>We now know...we care....and we aren't going to take it for much longer.
>
>Samurai_Writer
>
>
>
>----- Begin Included Message -----
>
>                           DEMOCRACY FOR ECONOMICS
>          
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!

Did anybody read this?  Well, I erased it because I'm sure as hell NONE of you
want to read it AGAIN!

I find it amusing that someone is so in to galloping INFLATION that he WANTS
to print OUR money out OF thin air.

Take care, all.  Now back to YOUR regularly scheduled FLAME war.
-- 
Douglas C. Meier		|  Remember to vote this election year,       
Northwestern University, ACNS 	|  you probably won't get another one. 
I don't claim them, they don't	|  
claim me.......			|  dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51003 alt.rush-limbaugh:7134 alt.politics.bush:8683 alt.politics.clinton:9798 alt.politics.elections:16166 talk.abortion:42042 alt.sex:32709
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The Decline of America: Priorities (III)
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:15:58 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) writes:

>The Decline of America: Priorities (III)
>
>"In a Time/CNN poll 2 weeks ago, 3/4 of Americans said they favored an
>increase in the income tax rate of the wealthiest in America...
Until you tell them what 'wealthy' means...everyone assumes it's people
making more than they are....

>similar percentages were opposed to a freeze in Social Security
>benefits or to increasing the gas tax"
Well, gee.  Don't control spending.  Don't raise anyone's taxes.  Just
spend, spend, spend. 

All of this depends on how you present the questions....

>Non Social Security domestic spending, as a percentage of GNP,
>declined during the Reagan years from 9.8% to 7.3%
And how much did Social Security go up???  Hmm???

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.singles,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.bizarre
From: mbur@nyx.cs.du.edu (MAC)
Subject: Re: A Most Pressing COncern
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 12:41:51 GMT

In article <Bvsr53.1u0@agora.rain.com> robart@agora.rain.com (Robert Barton) writes:
>In article <1avrpqINNsvg@bigboote.WPI.EDU> walkerr@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Robert A Walker) writes:
>>
>>>Orgasms, in the main, are messy things,
>>>and Really are not the sort of things
>>>that decent persons with good personal
>>>hygeine standards would wish to involve
>>>themselves in/with/towards.
>>
>>
>>	Sounds like this person can't get their rocks off to me.
>>Its only messy if you shoot somebody in the face or your so wet that
>>you flood your bedroom.
>>                                  
>>
>>
>>        
>
>
>  What does this have to do with elections?
>

Nothing, but if we're not careful here,
we may have another catchphrase on our hands.
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Does the IRS cost more than they bring in?
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:18:09 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <csc4213.718853512@gsusgi1.gsu.edu> csc4213@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (I don't know man, he was just here) writes:
>I have heard claims that the cost of running the IRS is greater than
>the income that they bring in. I would be greatly appreciative of an
>answer-finding debate to determine the legitimacy of these claims.
>
>Like most Americans, I am not fond of paying Income Tax and would much rather
>find a better way of doing things. If we can downsize government to the point
>where we automatically compensate for tax cuts, all will be happy.

The IRS is a leech, but it's not a terribly expensive leech to operate.
They took in about $800 billion in taxes by April 15 and it certainly
didn't cost that much to do it. Mostly the IRS is temporary keypunch
operators working for low wages. *We* do the hard work by figuring our
own taxes. The system runs on fear, but it runs surprisingly effectively.
The audit units, and the audit ratios are really quite low. 

Gary
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion