HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 11:30:49 EDT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <books.31.0@fsunuc.physics.fsu.edu>, books@fsunuc.physics.fsu.edu (Roger Books) writes:
|> In article <3+7-dv_@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) writes:
|> >
|> >And if your neighbor has something you want you are in a low-power
|> >situation for the purposes of demanding that your neighbor give
|> >that something to you.  As a citizen you are on a more 'equal'
|> >footing.  Why not try to get it legislated?  
|> 
|> It is, it's called eminant domain(sp).  It's something that's supposed
|> to help the majority.  The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
|> 

Ah, the tyranny of the majority.  Sorry, that's not the principle on
which this country was formed, nor is it a moral principle.  The
Constitution granted specific powers to the Federal government *because*
the founders wanted to avoid the tyranny of the majority.  Government
has no moral authority to deny the rights of individuals even if that
denial results in benefits for the majority.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943
From: rainbow@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Jennifer Lynn Hammond)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: JZ lands in a Hot LZ...
Date: 12 Oct 1992 19:28:15 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucscb.ucsc.edu


In article <Oct.2.08.10.09.1992.28715@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.211901.28023@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>
>> Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide:
>
>>> Lot (he of the salty wife) sent his two daughters out to be raped by
>>> the perverse populace of Sodom 'n' Gomorrah when they rioted outside
>>> his door ... I guess that was acceptable then,
>
>Actually, it starts in Gen. 18, where the Lord appears to Abraham.
>Abraham encounters 3 men (one of them presumably the Lord) at his tent
>door.  He offers them a chance to get cleaned up and rested, and sets

>wife looks back and becomes a pillar of salt.  (And then Lot's
>daughters get him rip-roaring drunk and then "go in with him" to
>preserve his seed, because they thought there was no man left in the
>earth for them.)
>_THIS_ is what God thinks of homosexuality.  Let's get it right, why
>don't we?
>my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
----------
Well, we've heard from his Godhood, Ted Kaldis at Rutgers. Now
tell me? Does anybody think that this story hasn't been very much
confused and mistranslated in that many years? It sure doesn't
make sense to me.

The Bible is a hoary old book full of stuff written by humans. I
have not heard God declare that "He" wrote it, and so far as I
know, the only other people who write such drivel are humans, and
probably the same sort of homophobic humans that lived then, old
weird asses who were into starting dynasties and didn't want such
a economically messy thing as "love" or sex with others to
"dilute" their family "line". What a dumb fuck. So they write
scare stories and claim divine intervention between their stylus
and their tablet, the old shell game, played all the way back to
the caves by corrupt shaman who knew how to get a free meal and
better without working. I guess what Ted and the writer of that
section are trying to defend is boinking the daughters after the
old witch is gone, eh, Ted? Not that I mind, mind you, but the
girls should have some say in your debauch. All in all I think
that section of the Bible ranks as one of the more flaky and
twisted pieces of shit I have ever read. And it makes about as
much sense as most of the gibbering nonsense from back when
people believed all sorts of crap and were even bigger suckers
than they are now, if that's possible.
- Steve W.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: What does Perot/Stockdale stand for?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 07:26:24 GMT

In article <farenebt.719030130@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell ("Droopy")) writes:
>In Sunday's prez debate, Perot insisted that what Clinton did
>20 years ago was much less significance than what Bush has(n't)
>done in the last 4/12 years. His campaign has been based on
>the "issues are the most important thing". But in the veep debate,
>Stockdale basically contradicted his running mate. He said that
>character was more important than the issues and used the
>analogy to the Lincoln-Douglas debates. What does the ticket
>really believe?

He also got confused, and claimed the Lincoln-Douglas debates were for
the Presidency, when they were actually Senate campaign debates.

He also maligned (unfairly, IMO) Stephen Douglas.

>============================================================================
>BRI FARENELL			    "If you choose not to decide, you still have
>FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU        made a choice."  --RUSH ("Free Will)
>CLARKSON '95			 	   
>A politically incorrect, pro-life, liberal, card-carrying member of the ACLU.
>===========================================================================
>     CLINTON/GORE FOR PREZ, DAVE ROBERTS FOR CONGRESS (NY-24TH)
-- 
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.abortion
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: KKKaldis Alert
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 20:53:05 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <nyikos.719177328@milo.math.scarolina.edu>,
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
> 
> In <1992Oct10.031635.6744@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:
> 
> >In article <Oct.2.08.10.09.1992.28715@romulus.rutgers.edu>
> >kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
> 
> >>_THIS_ is what God thinks of homosexuality.  Let's get it right, why
> >>don't we?
> 
> >No, KKKaldis, that's what God thinks of people trying to rape His angels.
>      ^^^^^^^^
> Elizabeth, why do you call people nicknames like this on the basis of such
> fragmentary evidence?
> 
> "Homosexuality" could refer to 1) indulging in homosexual acts, possibly
> with non-consenting people, or children below the age of consent
> 2) An inclination to do all or part of 1), not necessarily acted on.
> 3) Being sexually attracted to members of the same sex, yet not necessarily
> even wanting to do any of 1).
> 
> Invoking the KKK as you do, you seem to think Kaldis had 2) or 3) in mind,
> and even there you make the mistake of confusing "homosexuality" with
> "the homosexual".

Once again, Peter the Nit jumps in with both feet, but without the
slightest bit of evidence that he knows what he's talking about.

For your information, and out of pure grandmotherly kindness, I'll let you
in on what virtually everyone else knows: Mr. Kaldis has been a presence on
the net for a long, long time.  His mission in life, if you can call it
that, is to convince the rest of the world of the evil and perfidy of
homosexuality.  He doesn't wish to be confused by facts; in this respect he
is very similar to you.

I can't help but notice that you've displayed no equivalent degree of
umbrage at Mr. Chaney's referring to Mr. Humphrey as "PatricKKK".

Hypocrite.
 
--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: thyat@sdf.lonestar.org (Tom Hyatt)
Subject: Re: Sixteen more years
Organization: Best lil' ol' Pubnix in Texas
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 04:07:10 GMT

In article <MATT.92Oct12103900@physics.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>In article <1762@aviary.Stars.Reston.Unisys.COM> munck@stars.reston.unisys.com (Robert G. Munck) writes:
>
>> One of the things panicking the Republicans is the realization that the
>> economy will almost certainly have turned around four years from now,
>> independent of who is President and what he does.
>
>Actually, I agree that if Bush loses in '92 then the Republican party
>will probably be out of power for many years, but my reason for that
>belief is somewhat different.
>
>Look at the Republican National Convention; the Republican party is
>very close to tearing itself apart.  The various wings of the party
>(the small-government folks, the moderates, the anti-communist
>neoconservatives, the far-right religious groups) have essentially no
>commonality, and no trust for each other.  The only thing holding the
>Republican coalition together is that the party keeps winning
>elections; once that glue is removed, it will be very hard to keep the
>party from fragmenting.
>--
>Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
>(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
>austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
>matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!


I agree that the Republican convention in Houston was very much a look of the
party literally tearing itself apart - very much like the Democrats in 1980.
There is one thing that could cause a quick springback of the party in '96,
though. If by chance the Clinton presidency completely craters, there could be
another arch-conservative mandate that would really hurt the Democrats.  Also,
there is the added dynamic of third (and possibly fourth) party candidates. If
Perot gets a respectable showing, as well as Marrou, the trip toward 2000 
could be a free-for-all.

Tom H.


-- 

Just a message looking for a .signature file......
 
thyat@sdf.lonestar.org
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:52476 alt.politics.clinton:11008
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The media.  How accurate?  How fair?
Date: 16 Oct 92 16:15:51 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Stupendous Man) writes:
|> Eileen Simpson) writes:
|> > 
|> > CCN's Special Assignment reviewed the entire VP debate and concluded that
|> > Quayle had made repeated errors, distortions, and misrepresentations.  His
|> > allegations about Gore's book were labled "False."  His tax allegations
|> > were labeled "Distortion."  His claim that Gore had voted for the Central
|> > American bill on jobs was shown to be "Wrong."  They concluded that if the
|> > voters had scored the debate on the basis of who reported the facts most
|> > accurately, Quayle would be the loser hands down.
|> 
|> 	Yes, the decline of CNN continues...too bad, really.  It used to be
|> such a good source of unbiased news.
|> 
News is facts.  Fact 1 is what Quayle said.  Fact 2 is it's veracity. 
That sounds like very unbiased news to me.  If CNN is not supposed to
report Fact 2, then all they would be is a funnel for campaign
propoganda.  That is what paid campaign commercials are for.

You give the impression that news coverage should not review the
veracity of the candidates, and yet you constantly question the
veracity of Clinton.  Which side of the "character is (not) an
issue" debate do you want to take?  This appears to be waffling
worse than that displayed by the candidates.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Sixteen more years
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:55:17 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <Bw13F4.2IF@phage.cshl.org> pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo) writes:
]In article <MATT.92Oct12103900@physics.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
]>Look at the Republican National Convention; the Republican party is
]>very close to tearing itself apart.  The various wings of the party
]>(the small-government folks, the moderates, the anti-communist
]>neoconservatives, the far-right religious groups) have essentially no
]>commonality, and no trust for each other.  The only thing holding the
]>Republican coalition together is that the party keeps winning
]>elections; once that glue is removed, it will be very hard to keep the
]>party from fragmenting.
]
]i am very excited by this. after bush loses, i would love for
]those more informed on the workings of the Republican Party to keep
]us informed of how this may unfold.

I think that what you will see us do (and I want to fight for this
here in Arizona) is:
  (1) dump the abortion issue - it is impossible to put forth a moderate
      positiion on this issue with the rabidly feminist media that
      we have today. Anything other than absolutely no government
      control of abortion will be distorted too badly.
  (2) tell the religious right to moderate their views or get out
      They picked up more power than they should have, and Bush foolishly
      tried to appeal to them. Their extremism, combined with a very biased
      (in the opposite direction) mass media, caused the "family values"
      issue to be viewed as a plot to intervene in people's personal lives
      rather than an deman for personal responsibility rather than government
      paternalism, which was the real issue to all but the religious right.
  (3) pick a presidential candidate who will fight congress rather
      than go along with them like Bush has done. Republican presidents
      cannot be successful by compromising with a hostile, entrenched
      imperial congress.
  (4) Win in '96, after Clinton (a) fails to control the deficit;
      (b) is caught in a number of scandals due to his pathalogical lies;
      (c) botches a foreign military confrontation;
      (d) offends too many people by allowing extreme liberals within his
      administration to make too much policy.

-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
This is a newer version of the memetic .signature infection.  Now that's an
idea.  Copy it into your .signature today!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Term Limits are Constitutional, Study Shows
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 06:49:55 GMT

best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>Perhaps I missed a fundamental question in this argument but if the
>Founders were against term limits then why do we consider the XXII
>amendment to be a good idea?  If term limits are good enough for the
>presidency then why not the legislature?

Well, not everyone considers the XXII amendment to be a good idea, but
term limits for the presidency are clearly Constitutional, since they
were enacted by a Constitutional amendment.  The argument here over
congressional term limits is (or would be, if the discussion followed
the Subject: line!) about how they could be imposed.  Some people maintain
that individual states could impose limits on their congressional
delegation, while others maintain that congressional term limits can
only be imposed by an amendment.

--Tim Smith
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51569 ca.politics:8655 ba.politics:6081
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Debate musings
Date: 16 Oct 92 02:22:32 GMT
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu's message of Fri, 16 Oct 1992 04:02:05 GMT

In article <farenebt.719208125@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell ("Droopy")) writes:

> Too many
> times, I heard him say, "This, like many other ideas, has tons
> of proposals floating around in Washington but never got adopted..."
> BUT HE NEVER SPECIFICALLY GAVE ONE EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING HE SUPPORTED.
> He did this on gun control and on health care and, I believe, on
> education.

Yep.  After a while, it started to sound really silly.

I'm sure Perot is smart enough to know that the reason that there is
more than one proposal out there is that people don't agree on which
one is best.  There are real controversies, real decisions to make.
At some point, you have to take a stand and say what you believe.  So
what does Perot believe?  And why didn't he tell us in the debate?
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51038 alt.politics.elections:16189 misc.headlines:6585
From: arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith)
Subject: Re: Clarifying an Argument
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1992 19:50:39 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <1992Oct9.125632.2589@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>
>It has been brought to my attention that my postings
>contain a lack of linearity.

You? unclear? Nah.

>I will therefore attempt
>to rectify this for the AR's in our midsts.
>
>let S denote Sex
>let G denote Gestation
>
>It is Alledged to be true that Consent to Sex Implies Consent to Gestate.
>Given as we all know that victims of Rape also get Gestational
>we can simplify the argument to:
>
>Sex Implies Gestational
>
>NOT Gestational
>
>Therefore, by modes tollendo
>
>NOT SEX
>
makes sense.  I'm a little unclear on modes toledo, though.

>So for all of you NotFood out there....
>
>JUST SAY NO! To SEX!
>
Firstly, NotFood are asexual.  They reproduce when they want and it's a rather
drawn-out process.

Secondly, if you were speaking Pigeon NotFood you'd say.

EventSex ActionSayNoJust.

It's a hierarchical thing.
>
Big Al.  If a man gets another man pregnant, I'll be rather surprised.
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: cs011103@cs.brown.edu (Christopher Randall)
Subject: Re: A Most Pressing COncern
Organization: Brown Computer Science Dept.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 04:33:34 GMT

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.
|>                                   
|> 
|> 
|>         

Sounded sarcastic to me - I certainly HOPE it was intended that way...	

Speak softly
Drive a Sherman tank
Laugh hard
Its a long way to the bank

Crash  cs011103@cs.brown.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: That Legal right over Gambit...
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 03:26:32 GMT
X-Posted-From: eng-nxt10.cso.uiuc.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

vcsc1169@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu (Ruth Anne Ladue) writes:
: What is this thread doing HERE???

It was posted here.  I thought that was obvious.

;-)

--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Theories on Columbus-bashing and Compassion Fascism
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:19:57 GMT

In article <70803@hydra.gatech.EDU>, gt7994a@prism.gatech.EDU (ORMOND,SEAN PATRICK) writes:
} In Denver, a Columbus Day Parade was cancelled after threats by 
} Indians and their sympathetic(pathetic?) supporters, who called it a 
} celebration of 500 years of racism and genocide.

Denver's Rocky Mountain News has a nice op-ed piece about it in today's
(10/13) issue.

Protestors, led by Russell Means, had long vowed that they would use
whatever method necessary to stop the parade.  So at the last minute,
parade organizers called it off for fear that there would be violence.

Jubilant in their "victory", Means and Company then vowed that the parade
will never be held again.

Free speech took a real beating on Saturday.  I used to respect Means,
but now I see him as just another bully. 
--
David Olson            dlo@drutx.att.com
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they
can bribe the people with their own money."  Alexis de Tocqueville
From: "lois laulicht" <lois.laulicht@channel1.com>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: kremlin_gate: bill cl
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:40:34 EST
Reply-To: "lois laulicht" <lois.laulicht@channel1.com>
Distribution: talk
Organization: Channel 1 Communications

  Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc

    Subject: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.


>> It's red, but it ain't a herring. Do you really think that we should
>> not care about how a prospective president behaved towards his
>> country while his country was at war? Do you know anything about


Readers and believers of the Constitution would find it incredible
that a discussion of this sort is even taking place.  I will vote for
Ross Perot because he stands for change in these bleak economic times.

Gov. Clinton had every right to travel, to engage with other nationals
on a varaiety of subjects.  This red baiting must CEASE!  It is
destructive and devisive.

Clinton's trip abroad has no connection with his ability to be
President.  It was an immoral war in the first place. The people who
got screwed over were young black men, mostly in the infantry, who had
no connections or influence.

Bill Clinton's character or ability to lead does not rest on this
single experience.

Bill Clinton is weak and belongs to many special interests.  He is not
an innovator but rather a party hack.

-lois
---
  DeLuxe/386 1.25 #10184  Defend your democracy..Vote Perot in '92!
--
Channel 1 (R)   Cambridge, MA

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Reagan/Clinton a tale of two govenors
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 04:02:55 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <Bw17An.1Iy@mail.boi.hp.com> smay@boi.hp.com (Scott Smay) writes:
]Sadly, I have to agree. Reagan was amazing in his ability to screw the entire
]country into the ground and make a majority feel good about it.

Us majority types are just so stupid we don't when to feel bad, I guess.


-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Support ALL ...erk  glugh   mmpph.... Memory fault (core dumped)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory