HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin)
Subject: Re: Bush is pro-child molestors?
Reply-To: Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov>
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA
	<JASON.92Sep10153211@ab20.larc.nasa.gov> <lavha2INN6cq@spim.mips.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 18:36:54 GMT

In article <lavha2INN6cq@spim.mips.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
-> Jason Austin) writes:
-> |> 
-> |> 	Rush Limbaugh made a good point about this bill today.  Bush
-> |> has vetoed this bill in the past and the Democrats know he will veto
-> |> it now.  They want him to veto it, because when he does veto it, they
-> |> will scream, "SEE! He doesn't care about family values!"  The
-> |> Democrats know there's a sucker born every minute.
-> |> --
-> Sort of like when Bush asks congress to throw partisanship aside and
-> pass a Republican-partisan bill he wants.  He knows they won't pass
-> it.  Welcome to the sucker ranks, Jason.
-> 
-> Doesn't it embarass you to see only one side?  Is Rush L. your idea
-> of objective reporting?
-> 

	Rush Limbaugh is not a journalist, so why should anyone expect
objective reporting from him?  Instead of resorting to personal
attacks, how about adding something to the discussion?
--
Jason C. Austin
j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Subject: Thoughts on Marilyn Quayle's speech (belated)
Organization: Clarkson University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 16:34:47 GMT

Sorry this is so late but I heard something somewhere that retriggered
it in my memory.

In her convention speech, Marilyn said [paraphrased] "Not all of us
want to be liberated from our essential nature as women."

Well, Marilyn, I'm sure most women don't, however many women do not
have a choice. If the "essential nature" refered to is staying home,
I'm sure my mother would like to stay home; I'm sure my father would like
my mother to stay home. However, more important that my mother staying
home (which is as demanding as any other job but without monetary reward)
is putting food on our table; paying the mortgage, the electric bill
and the telephone bill; having decent clothes. My mother is not working
because she wants to get rich, she is working so that we can eat a decent
meal every night. Anyways, not every woman would stay home if she were
able to. A lot of women (like men) get cabin fever. 

The point is, contrary to what the Republicans have been implying (or what
i have infered), the working mother is something evil or bad. I think the working
mother and the stay at home mother are equally "pro-family" just in different
respects. The stay at home mother is probably able to afford that financially.
Most working mothers are working out of financial necessity. Marilyn was able
to stay home and raise her kids because her husband was rich; Most Americans
are not rich. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL			      	   "America needs leaders, not labels."
CLARKSON '95				    	---Ronald Reagan, 8/8/92
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU  	    
A PC-HATING, PRO-LIFE, LIBERAL CARD-CARRYING ACLU MEMBER
=============================================================================
"We are not descended from fearful men...not men who feared to write, to
speak, to associate and to defend causes which were for the moment 
unpopular."		---Edward R Murrow
	
			

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: record album stickering
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:48:12 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Sep14.141006.19839@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:

>Any rating not applied by someone other than the artist themself to their 
>creative work is a form of censorship...

  Saying so does not make it so.   

  I say labeling is informational; no different from putting the
  sodium content on a can of soup or requiring that the content
  of something match the description on the box in order to avoid
  false advertising charges.

  Parents need to have some way of determining what is appropriate 
  material for their children to view/listen to, and a label
  indicating language, violence, nudity, etc, is not in and of
  itself censorship as long as the vendor is free to sell the item 
  and the public is free to buy it.  

        
>anonymous censor...if you care about content, the least you should
>do as a concerned parent or whatever, is find reviewers of films,
>music, and books in the media you trust by comparing their reviews
>of artistic works with your own over time.

  Things don't always get reviewed, or at least get reviewed in a 
  timely manner, and such reviews may not mention the relevant
  information.   


---peter



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Was Clinton a Moral Draft Dodger? (was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<1992Sep4.062252.23869@anasaz> <1992Sep10.065717.16708@Princeton.EDU>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:17:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.065717.16708@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

[...]
   Furthermore, Clinton had NO powerful insider connections.  News flash.
   Clinton was some average guy, with no multi-millionaire parents who
   could exercise influence.

Oh?  How about his rich uncle and Judge Hill who were using all their
influence to get him into the Navy Reserve?  Ah, I see, they weren't his
parents.  Makes all the difference.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for p
Originator: rja@redwood26
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 14 Sep 92 11:58:43 CDT


In article <BuIxL2.27x@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher) writes:
> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
> 
> : A history lesson:
> : 
> : In October 1990, the Democratic Congressional leadership and the Bush
> : administration brokered a budget deal with small tax increases and some
> : (substantial) budget cuts. This deal failed to pass the House, when
> : conservative Republicans rebelled at a tax increase, and liberal
> : Democrats rebelled at spending cuts. After this failure,
> : the House Democrats rewrote the bill more to their liking. They
> : raised the tax increases, and watered down the spending caps.
> : The revised bill passed the House and Senate and was
> : signed by President Bush.
> 
> Bush could have not signed it.  He could have let it pass without
> signing it ("I'm not going to sign my name to that piece of cow
> droppings!"), or (*gasp*) he could have vetoed it.

Instead he signed it, and enjoyed signing it!

-- 
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: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Yes to line item veto
Date: 11 Sep 92 17:22:20 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mips.com

Bri Farenell) writes:
|> Michael Polen) writes:
|> 
|> >Bri Farenell) writes:
|> 
|> >It's all a matter of opinion.  In the last budget, Bush could have lined out
|> >all of the social programs and kept all of the military programs.  Since his
|> >party controls >1/3 of congress, you would move effective control of 
|> >government to the president.  The president sets the agenda, allocates the
|> >money, and controls the expenses.
|> 
|> >Not exactly my idea of checks and balances.
|> 
|> The most important check and balance is the voters. If Bush had deleted
|> all the social programs and his GOP's in the Congress had voted against
|> override, do you think his GOP friends would have been re-elected? 
|> I think NOT!

I think that after 2 years of not medicare, no AFDC, no school lunch
program, ... It won't matter.  The poor will revolt before they starve.
It will make south LA look like a republican rally.

Then I think the president declares a national emergency, postpones elections,
...

Like I said.  This is why we have checks and balances.
_________________________________________
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my
dog's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Taxpayer's Risk Should Be Reduced
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 07:37:48 GMT



  Taxpayer's Risk Should Be Reduced

  Washington -- Government-sponsored enterprises, such as the Federal Home
  Loan Mortgage Corporation, should be required to pay users' fees for the
  government subsidies they receive; those fees would cause GSEs to 
  function more like private enterprise and offset the potential burden on
  taxpayers, says a new study from the Cato Institute.

    According to economists James F. Gatti and Ronald W. Spahr, the 
  collapse of the Farm Credit System and the savings-and-loan fiasco have
  made it clear that steps must be taken to increase the financial safety
  and soundness of GSEs.

    The authors fear that the recommendations contained in the Treasury's
  1990 report to Congress might simply confer windfall gains on existing
  shareholders; encourage inefficient organizational structures; and reward
  management, not for efficient allocation of capital, but for skill in 
  shaping regulations.

    A second important recommendation of this study is that the federal
  government should be relieved of responsibility for closing insolvent
  institutions. Holders of puttable subordinated debt would be much better
  watch dogs.

    "The Burden of Government-Sponsored Enterprises: The Case of the
  Federal Home Loan Mortage Corporation" is no. 176 in the Policy Analysis
  series published by the Cato Institute.



Available from:
  Cato Institute
  224 Second Street SE
  Washington, DC  20003
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:44210 alt.activism:16052 misc.headlines:6253
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Slick Willie and the Rapists
Date: 8 Sep 92 18:42:23 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Aug31.105451.12902@anomaly.sbs.risc.net> kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>>GHWB is generally used to imply that Bush is too rich and Waspish.
>>Apparently people with too many names are automatically no good in
>>some people's eyes.  I intended no such implication.

>Using "Bush", or "George Bush" could also be construed as demeaning in an
>attempt to be insulting.

Well, you can construe it any way you want.  I don't particularly
care.  Key think is I wrote one thing.  You pretended to quote me but
actually wrote something different.

>>It wasn't significantly.  So what?  Does that mean I can parapharase
>>what you wrote and pass it off as your words?

>I hardly think that GHWB instead of GB or Bush is "paraphrasing". In fact,
>"a rewording of the meaning expressed in something spoken or written"
>is the definition I have.

Then what would you call it?  A rewording?  Well, it's different
words?  The meaning?  You claim it was the same meaning.  Something
writte.  Sure was.

>Methinks you protest too much. Perhaps because you're losing your
>argument and have nothing else to back up your point, thus you have to
>resort to petty little nitpicks. Next you'll complain because I chopped
>off a period, no doubt.

I won't complain about a period unless you chop it out of the middle
of a number or something.

As for the argument, I don't seem to be winning or losing it - no one
seems to know anything about Slick Willy's solicitude for rapists.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Bush is a mother fucker
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 8 Sep 92 14:37:36 CDT


In article <rdippold.715914035@qualcom>, rdippold@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
> Re: Subject
> 
> No, no, Barbara's his wife, though it's easy to see where the
> confusion comes in.

As we were watching the '88 Republican convention, my brother commented
"How nice, Bush has his mother on stage. ... What?  That's his wife?"

-- 
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!)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:44198 ca.politics:7511
From: dfair@octel.com (Donald Fair)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: PLEASE VOTE!!!
Date: 8 Sep 92 20:58:56 GMT
Organization: Octel Communications Inc., Milpitas Ca.


	Hi,
	I have only been back in state for about
	a year.
	Could someone send me information on where
	to find who is incumbant.
	I hear that this year they are not going
	to list who is and isn't an incumbant
	on the forms.
	I hated the way the gov. handled the budget
	problem and would like to vote to throw
	them all out. I have other peeves as well
	but none of them are quite as great as
	a room full of scum on being paid 140+ $
	a day to do what they should have done
	earlier. It would be nice to have the
	cash they wasted on that fiasco for
	our schools.
-- 
_____________________________________________
Donald H. Fair       Software Sanitation Eng.
dfair@octel.com
standard disclaimer
---------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss
From: michael@resonex.com (Michael Bryan)
Subject: Re: What is "Sexual Orientation"?
Organization: Resonex Inc., Sunnyvale CA
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 01:01:14 GMT

In article <12237@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.145921.16689@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, berninge@iron.ecn.purdue.edu (James A Berninger) writes:
># the ordinance.  Several people (including a local lawyer) mentioned
># the "fact" that "sexual orientation" includes pedophilia,
># bestiality, and the like, and that inclusion of this phrase was
># unacceptable, unless the council defined the phrase more adequately.
>
>Amazing.  There are other people in America who can use a dictionary
>to figure out what "sexual orientation" means.

Suppose the ordinance contained language which made it clear that
"sexual orientation", as used in the ordinance, meant the common usage
of the term as applied to gays, lesbians and bisexuals, that is,
referred only to the different gender combinations (male and/or
female) possible in intimate relationships.  Then would you be happy
with the ordinance?  Or would you look for another nit to pick?

-- 
Michael Bryan  michael@resonex.com  "Milk and Cheese in '92!"  |     ,_,
"Lovers are like... dentures.  You don't want them in your     |    /oo \
mouth all night, but you sure as hell want them within arm's   |    <>__|
reach in the morning!"  --- Miss Elmira Gulch                  |    |  U|
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: boutell@pecan.cns.udel.edu (Tom Boutell)
Subject: Voice: Issue #1 Out!
Followup-To:  talk.abortion 
Summary: Roe vs. Wade Issue
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:27:08 GMT

(NOTE: This is my nth attempt to post this announcement. I'm reasonably
certain previous attempts to do so failed due to news problems at my site.
My apologies if you've already seen it.)


V o i c e   M a g a z i n e


Voice is a free, independent magazine created and distributed primarily
through the net, which centers on one topic in each issue, with a
standing policy of accepting articles based on quality of writing
rather than views expressed. As a result there is a wide variety
of opinion within the magazine, making it, I believe, more interesting
to read.

The first issue, which deals with abortion and specifically
with the Roe vs. Wade U.S. Supreme Court decision's legacy, is now
available by the following means:

- FTP from isis.cshl.org. As at most sites, cd to pub and type
ls for a list of files. You should see voicei1v1 (issue #1 volume
#1). This is the entire magazine in regular plaintext, ready to
print on any typical printer.

- By email subscription; write to me at boutell@cshl.org. If you
can obtain the magazine by FTP instead, please do so to save
bandwidth.

- In the newsgroup talk.abortion, to which it has been posted in
two parts, since it is directly relevant to the group. (I will do the
same with future issues if they are specifically relevant to a 
particular newsgroup. In other groups I will only post pointers
like this one.)

- On the World Wide Web hypertext system (soon). This is a wonderful
way to read the magazine, but I haven't heard from the web's 
maintainer in approximately a month. (If you already use it and
are comfortable with making your own links from home pages of your
own, write to me and I'll give you the necessary information to
link to the magazine.)

NEXT ISSUE: The next issue will deal with the limitations of free
speech. See the current issue for more details!

-- 
                                 NERD NATION:
                   We're here. We're weird. Get used to it.
    Graduating in very very few days. Keeping email address however. Moving
up in world, depending. REPLY ADDRESS BROKEN, use: boutell@isis.cshl.udel.edu
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 5 Sep 92 14:25:38 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
-> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr):
-> > ltf@ncmicro.lonestar.org (Lance Franklin) writes:
-> > -> What annoys me is that, although the
-> > -> "anti-choice-to-abort" people seem to think
-> > -> that their arguments are superior, they
-> > -> evidently do not trust women to see this for
-> > -> themselves.
-> 
-> Of course not.  Not with 1.5 million of them
-> aborting their babies a year.
-> 
-> > which is why many consider them misogynists.
-> 
-> Crap and malarky.  Every one of those babies had a
-> male father as well as a female mother.  There is
-> nothing misogynist at all in the observation that,
-> evidently, parents need to be restrained from
-> killing their children.

it's not at all surprising that the same mindset which
would dictate what women can do with the contents of
their bodies would also reject the implication that
their position is misoyynist.




-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR)
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Summary: Jumping the gun
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Distribution: usa
Date: 14 Sep 92 21:40:43 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.173802.2657@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)     writes...
>In article <1992Sep2.012357.10369@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
>}In article <la81loINNi@spim.mips.com>, mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael writes...
>}>In article <1992Sep1.152133.25112@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>}>|> 
>}>|> Simple check:  When was the last report of a kid having a nightmare due to
>}>|> the possibility that he, his parents, his community,... might be incinerated
>}>|> while he slept?

>}>I assume you are saying that Bush gets credit for all the good things
>}
>}	Let's get real people. Reagan and Bush just happened to be
>}on the watch when the collapse came.
> 
>Along with a world-wide economic crisis.  I assume that you've noticed
>that the inflation rates throughout much of the rest of the world is
>more than ten times that in the US.  Hence, to maintain consistency
>amongst your statements, you do not give any credit to the idea that
>the White House or Congress have anything to do with the economic and
>jobs situation and just happen to be on the watch.
>
This has nothing to do with the above conversation. We were talking 
about the collapse of communism in the USSR. You can't compare a 70
year trend with a 10-15 year trend.

Let's stay relevant here. BTW, try to keep control of your emotions.

Garrett
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Subject: Re: Carter vs Bush (Re: SC rally)
Reply-To: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com
Organization: Motorola Semiconductor Products Sector
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:39:44 GMT

In article 4099@desire.wright.edu, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.125432.11198@hemlock.cray.com>, rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>> 
>> In article <BuJrys.24t@eis.calstate.edu>, kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell) writes:
>>> 
>>> But let's face facts; Granny's 13% return on her Certificates of Deposit
>>> didn't do a whole lot of good when inflation was running higher than that;
>> 
>> Let's see, interest rates at 21%, inflation at 13%, gives a real interest rate
>> of 7%.  Sounds like a good deal for Granny.
>
>	Mortgage rates were 21.5%, interest rates for CDs were 13%, inflation
>was 13.5%.  Not such a good deal, eh? (1980)
wasn't supposed to be.  tight money.
>
>>> in fact, during most of the Carter years, investing money at fixed
>>> interest rates was like throwing it away, since it LOST value over any
>>> arbitrary time scale.
>> 
>> Depends on the type of fixed interest rate.  Buying a fixed rate 30-yr bond 
>> in 1979 paying 13% sounds like a heck of a deal.
>
>	Not if Carter style inflation had kept up.  Thank god for Reagan and
>Volcker.
what did Ron do 'bout inflation?  increase gov't spending????

>
>> Granny's 4% morgage probably did not hurt her either.
>
>	No, but her 21.5% condo mortgage from 1980 probably did.

good thing she waited and locked in at 10%, and now 5.5% on variable.  
still collecting 13% on those T-bills.
who cares about a hypothetical person anyway?

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45445 ca.politics:7783 ba.politics:5319