HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: Term Limits For All
Keywords: Congressional & Presidential Term Limits
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:46:18 GMT

In article <3463@master.CNA.TEK.COM> mikeq@aspen.CNA.TEK.COM (Mike Quigley) writes:
>In article <BtLwqr.MHG@news.cso.uiuc.edu?? daniels@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Daniel R. Sawyer) writes:
>
>??I strongly agree with the (most) Republicans in their call for congressional
>??term limits.  I used to live in Peoria, IL and Rep. Bob Michel (currently
>??
>??
>		What do YOU think?
>
>
>We already have term limits. It's called the right to vote! Use it! 
>
>Mike

Sure, incumbents can be voted out if *enough* voters decide that they
should go. However, this is hardly the same as setting up a system in
which the incumbent is *forced* to step down after a certain number of
terms.

One thing that you think carefully about: the right to vote an incumbent
out is empty unless there is a plausible alternative. In today's big-money
campaign system, many incumbents run either totally unopposed, or with
opposition only from fringe candidates. This is because the accumulation
of huge campaign 'war chests', in advance of the campaign, effectively
serves to discourage worthy opponents from entering the race. The only
way to neutralize this effect is by introducing term limits.

BTW - this subject is about to get a big boost, in that it is the topic
of George Will's new book (due out in September).


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Endorsement
Organization: LLNL
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 03:59:43 GMT

In article <MATT.92Aug25195149@physics16.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>You will find that most people, when asked, say that "Congress," in
>the abstract, is bad, but that their particular incumbent is an
>exception, and that they wouldn't dream of voting against that one
>particular person---it's always the folks from *other* districts who
>are causing the trouble.  Until you understand this very basic
>political fact, and its implications, you do not understand American
>politics.

	More succintly,

	Most politicians are nothing but pork barrelers.

	But ours bring home the bacon!

	Also, people will object to "spending" in the abstract, but
will _never_ complain about _their_ favorite programs. One doesn't
hear much talk from conservatives about privatizing law enforcement or
the military, for instance, despite the supposed efficiency of doing so.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster)
Subject: Re: Is George running for First Lady?
In-reply-to: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com's message of Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:13:05 GMT
Organization: pubs
	<1992Aug25.204112.14719@cbnews.cb.att.com> <BtK8Dt.95n@apollo.hp.com>
Date: 26 Aug 92 13:57:58 CDT

Peter Nelson writes:

    despite many terms as governor of Arkansas, [Clinton's] state
    is at the bottom of just about every economic, environmental, and
    educational metric there is.

This argument is a stock Republican line currently.  How does one
governor change the entire standing of a state?  Can the governor of
Connecticut take personal credit for his state's high income level?  The
obvious implication of this line of reasoning is that politicians from
poor states are disqualified from higher office because they failed to
make their states wealthy.  Try governing, for example, Mississippi or
West Virginia for 12 years and improve their rankings according to
standard measures.

Chris Brewster
cb@cray.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43577 alt.politics.elections:12340 alt.politics.clinton:3945 alt.politics.marrou:1018 alt.politics.bush:3980
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Why I cannot vote Democratic
Date: 3 Sep 92 18:12:19 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <pd1omns@zola.esd.sgi.com> thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman) writes:
>
>In article <1992Sep2.175839.27113@auto-trol.com>, katbea@auto-trol.com writes:
>> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>> :   I wasn't trying to leave that part out of the issue; I just took it for
>> :   granted that this was understood (that the nobody wants to pay for these
>> :   things).   
>> : 
>
>To Peter Nelson:  Yeah, people want big government, but that's because
>big government sells itself by hiding the costs and misrepresenting
>the benefits.

  Sorry but I've already addressed this particular little metaphysical
  conundrum twice this week so I'll be brief:  all those "other people"
  are as free as you and I are to make decsions both about information 
  sources and how to interpret that information.  Your statement falls 
  into the "I have free will, all about me are manipulated automatons"
  category.  You didn't fall for Big Government propaganda, why assume 
  they did?  


>  There's nothing sacred about the opinion of the majority, especially
>  a misinformed majority.

  There is something "sacred" about it in the sense that ultimately it's 
  what determines how things turn out.  As I've said before here: culture
  is as real as gravity!


> The right conclusion to draw from the public's desire for big government
> is that we should work harder toward getting more real information out
> there. 

  Oh Jeesus!  For someone who talks about "information" you could
  do with some yourself:  Check out the research of Tooby (UC Santa
  Barbara), Cosmides (Stanford), or Gigerenze (Salsburg), especially 
  their work on Wason tests.  Human beings do not appear to be quite
  as "rational" as some Usenerds seem to believe.  "Information" is
  not the only (or probably even the main) basis for human decision  
  making.   

  This brings up another complaint I have about this crew in t.p.m:
  As a student of 19th century history I can assure you all that 
  the nature of the debate here does not vary a great deal from the
  nature of political debate in the last century.   In other words it
  is uninformed by (oops: there's that word "information" again) er,
  it's as if the various developments of the 20th century simply did
  not take place.  Complexity and chaos theory, research on human
  decision-making, game theory, and even deconstructionism and QM 
  all have bearing on our analyses, our conclusions, and on the 
  faith we should have in those conclusions.


---peter

  
  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: DearOldDoug Steps out for The cure!!!!
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 00:45:55 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.125545.3067@wetware.com>
drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>] In article <1992Aug27.163341.16290@nwnexus.WA.COM> 
>] jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes to Martin Guerrero:

>] > Gee, you're still equating slavery with abortion?  Haven't you learned
>] > that FORCED CHILDBIRTH EQUATES WITH SLAVERY.  And neither is right.

>] Haven't you learned that a FORCED ORGASM EQUATES WITH SLAVERY??
>] Millions of couples are being ENSLAVED by their PASSIONS into 
>] having FORCED ORGASMS!!  Couples who engage in consensual sexual 
>] intercourse should not be forced to have orgasms against their will!!

>AMEN Brother And PREACH IT!!!!!!

>HeteroSexuality IS CUREABLE!!!!!

drieux!  How DARE you imply that orgasms result solely from
HeteroSexuality?!  Shame on you!  Or has the drieux we all know and
love been possessed by the GreatConspiracyOfHeteroSexualZealots?

drieux's posts have this effect on me....

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revoltion, part I: Reverse Reaganism
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 22:04:56 GMT

nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>   I'm not sure there are *practical* limits on personal or corporate
>   borrowing, i.e., people and companies can certainly borrow way past
>   what they can afford.

Well, this may or may not be true. Generally, with individuals and 
corporations, they borrow $X based upon their ability to pay the $X back.
Then, due to whatever conditions, their income level becomes such that
paying the $X back is an impossibility.

>   In this recession there have been 1 million
>   Chapter 13 (personal bankruptcy) filings. 

While I don't doubt this, I think its irrelevant. These same individuals
may have continued to go on their merry way paying their bills had they
not lost jobs, etc.

Unfortunately, your parallel between individuals and the government in
this case doesn't wash.


>   The other thing to remember is that the government can print money
>   and sooner or later they'll have to in order to pay their debt with
>   cheaper (inflated) dollars. 

Or, the government could just say "we're not paying". 

Where deficit spending may be an "okay" thing under certain circumstances,
the main difference is that individuals and corporations are generally
limited as to how much they can borrow, even if they wanted to borrow
more money. For instance, I'd like to buy a $1 million home, but I don't
think the bank will give me the money for it.

Unfortunately, there is no such third-party control over the government's
spending.


MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: mmarx@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Matthew Marx)
Subject: Re: DearOldDoug Steps out for The cure!!!!
Organization: Stanford University CSLI
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 19:10:06 GMT



>drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>> Haven't you learned that a FORCED ORGASM EQUATES WITH SLAVERY??
>>> Millions of couples are being ENSLAVED by their PASSIONS into 
>>> having FORCED ORGASMS!!  Couples who engage in consensual sexual 
>>> intercourse should not be forced to have orgasms against their will!!

> AMEN Brother And PREACH IT!!!!!!
> HeteroSexuality IS CUREABLE!!!!!

> As Long as Hetro's Are Allowed to Wallow in their Sin and Degradation
> what Will Protect the MORALS and SCRUPPLES and WholeSomeFamilyValues!!!!!

> I Agree Brother! OutLaw Hetro's NOW!!!!!
> Its Not enough to "Just Say NO! to Hetro!"
> We Must OUTLAW THEM! We Must Make THEM find The CURE!!!!!

I *hope* drieux (, just drieux) is joking, for his petty war against
heterosexuality (not to mention proper cApitalIzatioN) is inane.
Suppose we outlaw heterosexuality. Then the human race is extinct in
one generation. Think about it.

Unless, of course, you support compulsory artificial
insemination...;->




-- 
Matt Marx     mmarx@csli.stanford.edu           
So many newsgroups, so little time...

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: US Public Schools: Get Rid of All the Bureaucrats!
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 16:00:02 GMT

In article <37209@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote) writes:
>... A company which consistently lies about its 
>products will not be in business very long.
>
>				Brad Cote'

That is the hope, anyway.

As a mild counter-example, take a look at the persistent difficulty in
finding honest, effective auto-repair shops. This has been a problem
since the automobile came on the scene, and even in this regulated age
is still a problem.

- Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: More Evidence of How Homosexuals Are "Oppressed" In America
Date: 25 Aug 92 21:16:23 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <94391@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
> Sorry for the delay...I just got back from vacation...
> 
> In article <11690@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >I'm saying that the case for antidiscrimination laws is made
> >based on supposed large scale discrimination against homosexuals.
> >I would expect to see evidence of this discrimination in lower
> >wages, wouldn't you?
> 
> No...lower wages is definitely not the complaint. The ability to

That's the complaint that kept appearing soc.motss -- that homosexuals
were out of work, homeless because no one would hire them.

> be openly gay and not have to defend ones life, or live in fear

Defending one's life has nothing to do with an antidiscrimination
law.  By the way, homosexuals aren't the only people with something
to fear in this area.

> of losing ones job because of it, is the complaint.

So are there so few employers willing to hire homosexuals?  If so,
why?  Because most Americans don't approve?  Then how will you get
such a law passed?  If most Americans support such a law, why is
there so much discrimination against homosexuals?  Do fundamentalists
secretly run nearly all businesses? :-)

> >Coercion can be justified for those situations
> >where market forces fail to protect individuals from objectively
> >measureable harm. [...] Being told that you aren't particularly
> >welcome is not a measureable harm.
> 
> But losing ones job and source of income IS, right?
> 
> kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,

It's a measureable harm.  So are lots of things.  Stupidity will
lose you a job, but we don't make stupidity a protected class.
(Well, there is civil service).


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dxf12@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas Fowler)
Subject: Don't led the U.S. become too entangled in world politics
Reply-To: dxf12@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas Fowler)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 92 00:03:24 GMT


     My grandparents received recently a campaign brochure from one
Bo Gritz - I hadn't heard of him either before now, but their HQ apparently
got my grandparents' names off the Perot petition that they signed.
     Anyway, it mentioned something that I didn't know - that there is a
State Department document which allows for the complete disarming of the
U.S. military, turning our total control over to a World government with
a world Constitution; this would supposedly be formed out of the U.N., and
one can already see that the U.N. is being respected so much that it is
acting like a world government.  Mr. Gritz's pamphlet says candidates Harkin
and Tsongas had already endorsed the measure.
     Even if this isn't true - I'll be the first to say it sounds
unbelievable, though it could be true - the very idea seems VERY dangerous.
If we allow ourselves to do this, it will be like losing the independence we
fought so hard for 200+ years ago!  It is something that we must never
consider - if we allow our military to be taken away, our freedoms might
be next.  And, Heaven forbid if another Hitler or Stalin should rise up to
the head of such an organization.
     I'm just reporting what I've read - I'm not saying it's true or not, but
our involvement in foreign affairs is something we MUST curtail; we have too
many problems at home to be worrying about other nations so much; we spend a
ridiculous amount on foreign aid that could be spent on jobs, the poor,
medical care, or trimming the deficit.  Please, don't support a candidate
unless he actively takes a stand *against* such a proposal, should one exist.
Vote only for candidates willing to spend their time at home, with America.
Look how bad things looked in 1932, and we didn't need anyone's help.  Don't
let our country be put at the mercy of foreigners, from whom the next Hitler
could wind up ruling us and taking not only our military, but our freedoms
away as well.
     I wouldn't be saying this if the possibilities weren't so dire.  We have
to take our own lead through the trust of the Almighty God whom our Founding
Fathers trusted in to make our independence stand up.  Ours is one nation,
under God, as the Pledge of Allegiance (sp?) says.  Our leaders haven't always
acted Godly, but we've tried, and our faith allowed us to create many
wonderful things and produce amazing discoveries.  We have to make sure it
stays one nation, and not part of a world government that could turn evil.
-- 
Doug Fowler: dxf12@po.CWRU.edu      :    "Every baby born into the world is
Real home: Canton, Ohio             :  finer than the last."--Charles Dickens
 Trying to follow in the path of our :     "A baby is an inestimable
Lord;anything close will be a success:  blessing and bother."--Mark Twain
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41854 talk.politics.theory:3854 alt.politics.elections:11539 alt.politics.marrou:908 alt.politics.bush:2852
From: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: US Public Schools: Get Rid of All the Bureaucrats!
Date: 25 Aug 92 23:40:41 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mips.com

In article <ednschmi.714481009@kraken>, ednschmi@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (John Schmidt) writes:
|> 
|> The trouble with a voucher system is that it creates even more opportunities
|> for marketing than it does for education.  Consider the proposition:
|> Marketing is basically lying.
|> Education is fundamentally about NOT lying. (Of course educators - like
|> everyone else - DO LIE, but that is not the point.)  Marketers who have a
|> vested interest in lying will distort the educational landscape even more
|> than it is already.
|> 
Please move over to the side of voucher supporters.  Anyone who has such
a bigoted opinion about marketing, probably hasn't done much research in
the way things run.  Nothing in this world is accomplished without marketing.
Marketeers are as honest as engineers -- some yes, some no.  The purpose
of marketing is to show someone how a company/organizations product/service
can be used to solve a problem that they have.  The purpose of marketing
is to make sure that a companies development organization knows what
customers want and will pay for.

Try to find a job in a company without marketing.  Try to get a job without
marketing yourself.  Try to get an advanced degree without marketing
yourself to your review committee.  Guess how you would find out where you
could buy something you wanted without the vendors of the product engaging
in the marketing that lets you know they are there.

Try looking around.  Try comparing your veracity to someone in marketing.
I'll swap notes with you anytime.

[flame off.  It get's kind of hot when someone accuses me of being a liar,
especially just because of the career I chose]
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42834 talk.politics.mideast:19351 misc.headlines:6073
From: makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Eggert vs. Livni
Date: 30 Aug 92 01:33:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: ennews.1992Aug30.013328.18969
Reply-To: makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe AZ

In article <EGGERTJ.92Aug28094126@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu> eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu writes:

# In article <1992Aug28.051358.8985@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:

# >   In article <EGGERTJ.92Aug27224022@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu> eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu writes:

# >   # I do not equate the two.  If you would read the above paragraph, you
# >   # will see that I said that the mezuza holes seem to indicate that the
# >   # Arab verbal claim is wrong.  Physical evidence tends to carry more
# >   # weight than oral claims.  However, present occupation of a house is by
# >   # itself physical evidence, and it would take a better judge than I to
# >   # decide which physical evidence is more compelling, present occupation
# >   # or a hole in the wall.  The former can be stolen, the latter can be faked.

# >	   How can a mezuza hole, decades (at least) old, in a home (and
# >   neighborhood) currently occupied by someone else, be faked?  And you
# >   did equate the two with you claim of hypocricy.
 
# Do you have a wall and a drill?  Then you too can make a hole.

	I probably could.  But only on the house I currently live in.  Not
a house someone else currently lives in.  Or can you make yourself
invisible (and the drilling inaudible)?

# It is
# pretty silly to think that holes cannot be drilled now, and claimed to
# be old.

	It is also silly for someone to think they could get away with
this, and for others to think someone might think this.

# If they need to look a little older, why, a light application
# of stain should be sufficient to create the illusion of decades of age.
 
	I believe that scientific methods exist to make this
determination.  The "illusion" would not last long.

# I do not claim that the holes are fake; I have no evidence to make
# that claim.  It is naive, however, to deny that holes can be faked.

	It is naive to think this could be done, or to think others would
think it could be done.

# Just as naive as it would be to deny that houses can be stolen.

	Not "just as naive", since this is in fact the cse.

# No, I did not equate the physical evidence of mezuza holes with the
# verbal claim of continuous Arab occupation.  I did however point out
# the hypocricy of the demand that the Arabs produce complete legal
# evidence for ownership of homes and land or be thrown out by Israeli
# courts, and then implicitly accepting a hole in the wall as proof that
# the houses belong to Jews.  That is hypocritical.

	You claim you are not equating the two, but with your repeated
charge of hypocrisy you are doing just that.
--

David Makowsky
makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dadams@cray.com (David Adams)
Subject: Re: Polls: are Americans fickle?
Reply-To: dadams@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 25 Aug 92 17:07:19 CDT

 adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
|>By October things firm up and the moves are only a few points.
|
|Not to mention that national popular vote polls tell nothing about how the
|electoral college will turn out.  Individual polls in each state need to be
|conducted, and electoral projections made.  Why?  Because it's likely Bush
|could get slaughtered popularly, but still scrape by and win electorally...
|
|Can you say 'Revolution'?  (or at least 'GoodBye' Electoral College?)
|

NOT!  First the amendment required would get vetod.  Second since a majority
of states elected the president (inspite of the sum) it would be very
difficult to get a 2/3 majority of states to pass the amendment.


---
--David C. Adams  Statistician  Cray Research Inc.  dadams@cray.com
___________________________________________________________________
       member--Minnesotans for Global Warming.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc