HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Is asking one's religious preference forcefully constitutional?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 06:19:43 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.060848.16793@seas.smu.edu> kayaalp@seas.smu.edu (Mehmet M. Kayaalp MD) writes:
>I am wondering whether the USA constitution protects people's privacy
>in terms of religious belief or not. I've seen that in the registration 
>form of my University (SMU at Dallas Texas) the religious preference is 
>questioned without any "not available" option. 

I'm not aware of any prohabition on asking, on a form, such a question.
If you could show your freedom of religion would be infringed by sharing
this information (e.g. if you told people, they would probably discriminate
against you) you could probably get a court to prohabit the question.
Also, I don't believe this applies to private organizations (but then,
private groups can't force you to answer...) The protections of rights
in the United States are aimed at the governemnt, since they are the
ones most likely to use force to violate a right.

                                                   Frank Crary
                                                   CU Boulder

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8474 tx.politics:5851
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies
From: davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey)
Date: 5 Oct 92 09:42:15 GMT
 <1992Oct2.203245.18119@mksol.dseg.ti.com> <1992Oct3.142404.16797@montagar.com> <21660@rpp386.lonestar.org>
Distribution: usa,tx
Organization: Montagar Software Concepts, Plano TX

In article <21660@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> In article <1992Oct3.142404.16797@montagar.com> davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct2.203245.18119@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>> In <1992Sep30.213640.31229@watson.ibm.com> johniac@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>>> This is generally considered a Bad Thing (tm) when done by
>>> governments, ...
>>
>>	See "Russia" for a current example of a possible outcome.
> 
> No, "Russia" is an example unto itself.  It was unable to feed itself
> years ago - back when it could still produce oil and gold for export.
> We don't have Russia's problems - we have plenty of good solid industry,
> we just have a government that it bent on pissing away all of our money.

	Pissing away all our money?  Hmm...  Again, see "Russia".  If we don't
recognize and REALIZE that what happened there could just as easily happen
here, then we deserve to fall apart.

> -- 
> John F. Haugh II           [  TSAKC  ]       UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
> Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151    [ DoF #17 ]            Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
David L. Cathey		                |INET: davidc@montagar.com
Montagar Software Concepts              |UUCP: ...!montagar!davidc
P. O. Box 260772, Plano TX  75026-0772  |Fone: (214)-618-2117
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush
From: picard@engin.umich.edu (Ronald V Picard)
Subject: Re: Quayle is more charitable than Gore
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 08:07:38 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1992Sep30.031604.5482@news.uiowa.edu> williams@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Kent Williams) writes:
>From article <1992Sep29.223717.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>, by cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu:
>>      Here's an interesting little piece I found in the October 5
>> National Review (pg. 12, col. 2):
>> 
>>      In this corner, Al Gore, apostle of charity, compassion, and
>>      saving the earth.  His opponent, Dan Quayle -- avatar of
>>      Republican greed and selfishness.  Tax returns show that the 
>>      two had similar incomes last year.  Guess which one gave more
>>      to charity?  Of course.  The Quayles gave $5,670, or 3 per cent
>>      of their income, while the Gores gave $1,727 -- less than 
>>      1 per cent.  Maybe Mr. Gore was trying to strengthen the case
>>      for federal poverty programs.
>> 
>> It looks like Gore, the media-proclaimed moderate, is really just
>> another hypocritical bleeding heart -- since his public rhetoric
>> dwarfs his private generosity.
>> 
>>      C. Perttunen
>
>Now hold it there one ding-danged minute.  Do you KNOW to which
>charities the the Quayles donated?  A lot of rich people's charity
>giving goes to the opera, symphony, and moldy art gallery of their
>choice.  Nothing  wrong with that, but it doesn't have a lot to do
>with the traditional definition of charity.

What an idea!  Anyone want to put together a list of types of 
charities and their corresponding PC scores?  

>--
>Kent Williams -- williams@cs.uiowa.edu
>"I'm tired of being nice to people who're full of shit" -- Me

Ron Picard
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: hsm@sei.cmu.edu (Scott Matthews)
Subject: Where is ELECTORAL tally?
Organization: The Software Engineering Institute
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:18:44 GMT


Hi everybody

A few weeks ago, somebody posted the IMPORTANT statistics for the elction at this point in time.  I.e. the RUNNING ELECTORAL votes.

That person had collected the support polls and assigned electoral votes to each candidate based on which states they were carrying.  CLinton was way ahead because Bush is only beating him in a few little electoral vote states.  

Assuming Clinton keeps kicking ass in the BIG STATES like CA, etc.  he really couldnt lose.  Has anybody updated these electoral college numbers?  If so, please post...

thanks
scott
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: cower@csli.stanford.edu (Richard Cower)
Subject: Re: A vote for Perot=A vote for Bush
Organization: CSLI, Stanford University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 19:39:06 GMT


Hey Jeff,

If this is the approach that Slick Willie is going to take (ie..A vote for
Perot=a vote for Bush)...I wish him and his supporters the best of luck.
This ain't gonna fly. I vote my conscience, and if that doesn't happen
to land on what MIGHT be the lesser of two evils..thats just too bad.

I WON'T vote for Bush. Voting for the slickster is just not an option -
the man needs to read the Bill of Rights.		 

...rich cower

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: KILL THE RICH!
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 22:04:21 GMT


If could move closer to school, I would, but I cannot afford to move
at this time.  I sometimes get the feeling theat the bus syste penalizes
people for living in certain areas-if I lived in the right area, I would
find reliable service.

Simon

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 16:18:22 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Sep26.031401.7667@tygra.Michigan.COM> jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes:
]"In <1992Sep22.152036.26058@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
]">In article <1992Sep21.215009.10231@tygra.Michigan.COM> jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes:
]"JP:Conservative are cold-hearted and dangerous
]"
]"JM:I challenge you to support this claim. It is a favorite claim of the
]"JM:left that we (conservatives) are cold hearted, but I have yet to see
]"JM:any plausible support for this.
]"
]
]1> Bush vetos family leave bill.

  Interfering in the contract between employers and employess is not
necessarily cold hearted. How about those who won't be hired if
there is a family leave bill, because the potential costs to employers
are too high? How about the added cost to business? How about the
fact that, for businesses that CAN afford this, most already have
such a policy. But then, it does appear that liberals view business
as just underutilized community service charities.

]2> Bush vetos extention of unemployment benefits until it becomes
]   obvious that it will be against him in the elections

Trying to shake some flakes off the doles. I guess it is hard hearted
to force people to chose between work and welfare.

]3> Bush fails to support the Kurds and Shi'its in Iraq and allows
]   Saadam to butcher them.

This was a mistake and doesn't characterize "conservative heartlessnes."
Besides, Bush isn't a conservative in the first place. 

-- 
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
Get into Ham Radio today! Morse Code no longer needed! It's a hobby, a sport, a
convenience, a technical challenge, a public service. Go rec.radio.amateur.misc
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7953 alt.politics.bush:7316
From: scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Help out!
Summary: Bill Clinton and how to help
Date: 30 Sep 92 21:59:00 GMT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Sep29.001435.16580@cs.tulane.edu>, tcws@convex1.tcs.tulane.edu 
(Bill Sirinek) writes...
>If you want to learn how you can contribute money, or where you can go to 
>volunteer for the campaign of who will be our country's next President:
> 
>Bill Clinton !!
> 
>Call 1-800-FOR-BILL

No thank you.  I have a feeling that if Mr. Clinton does win, I will be 
contributing enough money as part of his "Income Reduction Act of 1993."
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7824 alt.politics.bush:7196 alt.fan.dan-quayle:4720
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: That Legal right over Gambit...
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 23:01:20 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

<JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

> Hope this helps!  And, why are you cross-posting to ALT.SEX?
>

You know, that's a good question, given that the entire article dealt with Our
Boy, with not a single mention of golf.



>Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us<
>Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087<
From: rushing_tw@lrc.edu (Trigger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: ** IRAQI COVER UP? **  I don't think so
Date: 28 Sep 92 19:22:25 EDT
Organization: Lenoir-Rhyne College, Hickory, NC

> The horrible thing I am refering to is that THOUSANDS of Iraqi
> POWs were burried ALIVE in the desert.  The POWs were ordered to
> lay down in trenches while US troops bulldozed sand over them.

Sounds like B.S. to me.  Probably someone greatly exaggerating the burial of
dead Iraqi soldiers in a mass grave to avoid spreading disease.

Nobody semed to mind in World War 2 (pacific campaign) when US troops often 
simply buried Japenese soldiers alive in their bunkers by buldozing them over
with dirt.  Some bunkers were just too tough to take so it was easier to bypass
them.  Call up a buldozer, lay down some suppressive fire, and poof...no more
threat. 

> The US soldiers were ordered, under penalty of death for disobeying,
> to do this.

Direct refusal of an order in combat is NOT punsihable by death under article
15.  The last time anyone was executed under combat conditions was when Pvt.
Eddie Slovak was executed by firing squad in 1944 (or 1945??) for refusing to
return to his combat unit and cowardice under fire.

> When I first heard this story, I said to myself that this sounds like
> Hitler's solution.  

Sounds like a Hussein solution to me.  I mean he was the one that used chemical
weapons on his own troops and people?!?!

> The other day, my friend who told me this story had
> some more information about this incident.  He told me that he has
> heard that there was a secret war crimes trial after the war and
> US military personnel are now in prison.  

Until your buddy gets some hard *evidence* to back up his claims, all this is 
just conjecture.  I seriously doubt your friend's credibility.

> How come we, the people, have not heard about this?  It hasn't been on CNN, or
> in the newspapers. I think there is a another huge cover-up going on.  It
> doesn't take too much of an imagination to think of who is behind this. 

But it does take a good imagination to think up a good story like that!

===============================================================================
Travis Rushing..."Trigger"  |  "You cannot eggagerate about the Marines.  They
e-mail: RUSHING_TW@LRC.EDU  |    are convinced, to the point of arrogance, that
			    |    they are the most ferocious fighters on the 
USMC (R)                    |    earth - and the amusing thing about it is that
Semper Fi		    |    they are!"
Duty, Honor, Country	    |  	                     Unknown War Correspondant
 		            | 			     Chosin, Korea 1950
===============================================================================

 

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Clinton's Hair
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
	Anybody else think Clinton's dyed hair makes him
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 03:41:27 GMT


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Libe
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 21:22:04 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <lcertfINN29r@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:

>|> >> Conservatives think that liberals are wrong.
>|> >>> Liberals think that conservatives are stupid.
>|> >>
>|> >>Liberalism stands for collective rights and collective responsibilities.
>|> >>Conservatism stands for individual rights and individual responsibilities.
>|> >
>|> >	Liberalism stands for individual rights and social responsibility;
>|> >	Conservatism is a euphemism for fear.

   I honestly don't know why this thread has hung on so long.  Terms
   like "liberal" and "conservative" are extremely vague and it is 
   easy to find exceptions to any generalization.  It's a cinch to find
   exceptions to every one of the above. 

   I've often chastised self-styled conservatives for having a "F***
   you, Jack, I've got mine" attitude toward the poor and suffering and
   lacking any real engagement on issues like health-care and poverty
   and thus handing these issues to the liberals .

    (BTW last week Mr. Moore and Mr. McGuinness both said "not true,
     try us", but when I did, they went away and didn't respond with
     the specifics they promised.   I'm still waiting for a major 
     conservative's position on health care access for the poor and
     uninsurable.)

   . . . but today the Wall Street Journal referred to Jack Kemp as
   a "bleeding heart conservative", a wonderful term which probably
   describes some of my attitudes, too.   There are fiscally conser-
   vative Democrats, anti-abortion liberals, gay Republicans, etc, etc.
   

---peter
   


   
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8276 alt.politics.bush:7576 alt.politics.marrou:1397 alt.politics.correct:5589
From: yount@crchh473.BNR.CA (Jeff Yount)
Subject: Re: How do three way debates go?
Reply-To: yount@crchh473.BNR.CA (Jeff Yount)
Organization: BNR
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 19:12:07 GMT

A three way debate would go something like this:

Bill Clinton would discuss the issues and be completely
ignored.
George Bush would talk about the draft while his bussed-in
supporters cheered.
And Ross Perot would say "it's in the book, it's in the book'
it's in the book" while his volunteers claim that the
country would be better off if all the candidates discussed
the issues like Ross does.
Go figure.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Quayle is more charitable than Gore
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:05:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.223717.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>     Here's an interesting little piece I found in the October 5
>National Review (pg. 12, col. 2):
>
>     In this corner, Al Gore, apostle of charity, compassion, and
>     saving the earth.  His opponent, Dan Quayle -- avatar of
>     Republican greed and selfishness.  Tax returns show that the 
>     two had similar incomes last year.  Guess which one gave more
>     to charity?  Of course.  The Quayles gave $5,670, or 3 per cent
>     of their income, while the Gores gave $1,727 -- less than 
>     1 per cent.  Maybe Mr. Gore was trying to strengthen the case
>     for federal poverty programs.
>
>It looks like Gore, the media-proclaimed moderate, is really just
>another hypocritical bleeding heart -- since his public rhetoric
>dwarfs his private generosity.
>
>     C. Perttunen

Media-proclaimed moderate?  In the last 2 weeks, I've heard the
media refer to Gore as a conservative, moderate, and liberal.
There seems to be some confusion on this point.

Speaking of bad journalism, did this National Review article
fill in a few relevant details like:
(1)  Levels of charitable giving over the past several years?
(2)  Unusual family circumstances?  I know that Gore's son
spent a long time in a hospital a few years ago.  Charitable
giving for most people varies on a yearly basis depending
upon exceptional expenses (illness, buying a new house, college, etc.)
(3)  What charities do our candidates support?  Help for widows,
orphans, disadvantaged?  Or support for rip-off charities of
questionable social value?

More importantly, what does one year's level of giving have
to do with the policies that a VP will support and enact?
Any correlation?

It seems that the National Review has hit the nail on
the thumb, as usual.

-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Pro-Abortion
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: york
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:39:52 GMT


How is Christianity organized crime??

Just curious.


Simon

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8049 alt.politics.bush:7395 alt.politics.elections:14838
From: skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: CSPAN Schedule?
Date: 1 Oct 1992 20:01:26 GMT
Organization: X-Ray Crystallography / Howard Hughes Medical Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu

C-SPAN broadcast it's schedule at 6:58 CDT here.....

tim


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: The Insane Rep. Dornan...
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 23:39:09 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <BvnusF.2ow@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl) writes:
> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
> 
> :      It's difficult to attribute the title of "student" to Clinton
> : in his second year, since he really didn't show up for class on
> : a regular basis (if at all), he did not take the exams, and did not
> : graduate.
> 
> Depends on the school.  Around here, and probably at several other
> Universities, there are many "students" like this.  I happen to live
> with two (cf. my posts in a different group  ;)
>
     Well, obviously, there are Democrats at all universities.  :-)
Fortunately, they do not all become President.  :-)

     C. Perttunen  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Libe
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 17:01:03 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.224150.20383@technology.com> judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.134020.16348@news.uiowa.edu> bnolte@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Bill Nolte) writes:
>>From article <1992Sep15.180936.6562@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>, by krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger):
>>
>> Conservatives think that liberals are wrong.
>>> Liberals think that conservatives are stupid.
>>
>>Liberalism stands for collective rights and collective responsibilities.
>>Conservatism stands for individual rights and individual responsibilities.
>>
>>I think it is pretty good, how about anybody else.
>>
>
>	Liberalism stands for individual rights and social responsibility;
>	Conservatism is a euphemism for fear.
>
>
>		It's only my humble opinion.  Judy.
>
>

I think it is damn interesting that, on the whole, the conservatives
responding to this thread have made some thoughtful (yet obviously
biased) comments much like the original "definition" that started this.  
Most liberals responding have done so with about as much flare as the 
above poster.  Maybe you liberals who are agruing against the original 
post should reread it... (it's right up there at the top--go ahead, 
read it again).  


Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 14:34:10 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball) writes:
: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
: 
: >But the government doesn't have to provide EVERY SINGLE SERVICE known to
: >mankind.  The STATES are free to provide services.  One such service MIGHT
: >be the assumption of debts related to all the pork a state has received.
: 
: The idea that the Federal government could be funded solely through the Poll
: Tax and the State government would have regular taxes is bogus.  After all,
: the States could reimbose both the taxes and the services that the federal
: government does now.


Although I disagree with John's idea of a poll tax, I must admit he has a
point.  The Framers of the Constitution intended the States to be the
primary "service providers," not the federal government.  The feds only
handle matters that the states can't handle themselves without creating
a big mess (national defense, dealing with other countries, stuff involving
two or more states....).  At least under this system, the "service providing"
government would be closer to the people; people in Illinois would not
be paying for some pork barrel project in Idaho, and vice-versa.

For reasons I've already aired, I do not like the poll tax idea.  But this
would possibly be the one "accidental" advantage of it.

--
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



Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh