HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dpike@oavax.csuchico.edu (Dan Pike)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Perot Wins First Debate
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:14:47 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico
NNTP-Posting-Host: dan-mac.csuchico.edu
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d9
X-XXMessage-ID: <A7007D6EFB014069@dan-mac.csuchico.edu>
X-XXDate: Tue, 13 Oct 92 20:19:42 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.142420.11260@telesoft.com> , trevor@telesoft.com
writes:
>In <1bcqknINN2k2@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu>
>dpike@oavax.csuchico.edu (Dan Pike) writes:

>>If there's an electoral tie, Perot wouldn't have a chance.  There are
too
>>many party ties within the House for Perot to get a majority selection.
>
>While it's way too early to be counting chickens (we haven't even seen
all
>of the eggs, yet) I'd like to ask why you think the American congress is
so
>much different from the average American voter on the issue of gridlock?
>Maybe they'd be GLAD to have the opportunity to elect a truly
non-partisan
>executive to work on the tough issues in the next term.
>
>-- Trevor Bourget (trevor@telesoft.com)

The average American doesn't have the same party affiliation that the
average member of congress does.  IMHO, it would look pretty silly for a
majority of the democratic and republican members of congress to vote
against the candidate that their party recognizes.  

Dan

Q. Bill Clinton, Ross Perot, and George Bush are on a sinking ship in the
middle of the Pacific.  Who gets saved?

A. The American people
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: saarinen@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Sirpa Saarinen)
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during V
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 19:51:20 GMT

matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:

>In article <1992Oct8.104551.10253@bsu-ucs.uucp> 00rdharringt@bsu-ucs.uucp (Rob Harrington) writes:

>> The issue is whether or not you understand basic thoughts like
>> "tourism" and "sight-seeing."  I'll go out on a limb but I'm 
>> willing to bet that Bill didn't go around moscow praising their
>> system of government...

>Indeed.  Did you see in today's paper that George Bush, personally,
>raised this idiotic "issue" on a TV talk show?  He must really be
>getting desperate now.

>Bush said that Clinton should "come clean" about being on a tour that
>happened to stop in Moscow; I'm really curious what he thinks that

I heard this on radio as well (I guess you mean the Larry King). However,
why didn't Larry King ask Bush what kind of evidence he has to suspect
that Clinton talked with the KGB? I am really surprised: a guy calls in
to the LK-show and asks Bush about "Iran/Iraq-gate" and Bush answers by talking
about Clinton in Moskow! What kind of sissy is this LK? What kind of a
"moderator" is Larry King? 

I wonder as well whether anyone else thinks that Bush has some problem
in a direct conversation. Do you think that Bush appears to be somewhat
spaced out each time when he is interviewed in a live broadcast (e.g. even
in the pre-recorded LK-show)? I think he looks *very* old and fragile and
that he has to think long what he says next. Maybe this is why these
strange issues surface. 

Sirpa Saarinen
saarinen@csrd.uiuc.edu

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:52483 ca.politics:8727 ba.politics:6148
From: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: THIS ELECTION IS ILLEGIT!
Keywords: Candidates excluded from debate
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:16:11 GMT
Reply-To: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.


I read in a news article this morning that Andre Marrou declined to show up
in person to the minor party candidates debate last night with the reason that
he didn't want to share the stage with a bunch of fringe candidates. 

Make of that what you will, but it seems as though there are more than two
classes of candidates...

JZ
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50314 talk.politics.drugs:6671 talk.politics.guns:21897 alt.politics.elections:15646 alt.politics.libertarian:717
From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Media coverage for Marrou/Lord (call these #'s!)
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:40:53 GMT
	<DSTEINBE.92Oct7170409@emmy.nmsu.edu>
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian
Distribution: usa
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
In-reply-to: dsteinbe@nmsu.edu's message of 8 Oct 92 00:04:09 GMT


Note followups.

dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg) writes:
	First of all, no L.P. presidential candidate has ever exceeded 1%
	of the vote, so even if Marrou/Lord are doing that well this year
	and Perot is only doing 7% then Perot is still doing *7 times as
	well* as Marrou/Lord!   I would say that this IS "much better".

	Second, the polls I've seen show Perot to be in the 10-14% range.
|Coincidently enough, when Perot first re-entered the race, his supoort
|was about 1%.  Yeah, now he's up to 10-14%; maybe it has something to
|do with the hours of free advertising the press has been giving him...

Well, for entertainment value, Perot beats Marrou (And Bush and
Clinton, but not Quayle) by a country mile.

I think you're being unfair to the media.  Perot suceeded *despite*
the media which seemed to me to be completely shocked that anyone
could take him seriously in the first place.

He did a very businessman-like thing.  He went around his obstacles
and grabbed a market that had never been really used well before in
this context (the Today show, Good Morning America, Larry King) and
made it work for him.

And, in the process, transformed our politics.

Perot may be a nut or even a facist dictator in waiting (or not), but
he certainly has changed the political landscape and, more so than any
other candidate, shaped the tone of the national debate.

Add a billion dollars or so to that and you have someone worthy of
being in the debate.  Such is life.

Marrou ought to try to get on the Today show in 1995 & 1996.


--
Peace.
                    "It's not denial...  I'm just very selective 
                     about the reality I accept."
                              -Calvin
                                   -\--/-
    Don't just adopt opinions     |  \/  |       Some of you are homeboys
          develop them.           |  /\  | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
                                   -/--\-

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Hit 'em again, hit 'em again!  Harder!  Harder!
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 00:14:21 GMT


In article <1992Oct1.004938.4458@desire.wright.edu>, 
demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) said:

> Bush's latest commercials (tax raises via Clinton) are quite effective. 

Are they?  I'm not sure that this sort of simplistic, transparent
slime ("If Clinton is elected, the following bad things _could_
happen...") will work as well this year as it may have in the past.
(Anybody remember the LBJ anti-Goldwater ad with the little girl and
the nuclear explosion?  Now _that_ was a classic!)

Voters this time around may turn out to be (a) a lot more worried
about their futures and therefore (b) a lot more skeptical than they
were in '84 or '88.  In addition, I think they've learned to take
everything that Bush & Co. says with a fairly large grain of salt.

And, of course, the Clinton campaign staff (official motto: "This is
*NOT* Dukakis in '88, folks.") had a counter-ad, debunking the Bush
ads, on the air in 24-48 hours, fast enough, perhaps, to defuse it
before its "facts" could become lodged in the voters' minds as true.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Stockdale NAILED it!
Date: 15 Oct 92 21:36:45 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Thomas Hill) writes:
|> 
|>    Anybody who thinks Stockdale is not a very smart man is sadly mistaken. He
|> has one hell of a head on his shoulders. Now, he was very nervous and he isn't
|> a slick political speaker like the other two. It was like listening to two car
|> salesmen try to sell your dad a car.

Everyone knows Stockdale is a smart man.  He just doesn't have any data on 
matters important for a VP candidate to know.  Einstien was even more brilliant,
but as president of even VP?

My wife can figure out when the car is broken, and even give me a list
of the symptoms.  But when it needs fixing, we take it to someone who
knows how cars work and how to fix them.  Perot and Stockdale are telling
us what is wrong and what the symptoms are, but are they someone who
knows how government works and how to fix it?

Not in my opionion.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell ("Droopy"))
Subject: Clinton question
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:08:44 GMT

I dunno about you but I'd have SERIOUS questions about
anyone who turned down a Rhodes Scholarship to the most
prestigious university in the world so that he could
kill some soldiers in Vietnam.

BRI FARENELL

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.bizarre
From: mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao)
Subject: Re: Why do Clinton and his net.apologists insist on DODGING this question?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 16:59:22 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.110646.20107@arbi.Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.DE> wayne@mathematik.uni-Bremen.de (Wayne Tvedt) writes:
>StarOwl (StarOwl@uiuc.edu) wrote:
>>ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>>>...
>>We?  Singapore's participating in this election?
>
>  Yes we.  Germany too.
>  Some Americans live in foreign countries.  About 3 million. 
>

 
  What are you doing there ? Better not get involved with any demonstration.
20 years later the State Department may get your files out and call FBI.
 
*-(

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: 00rdharringt@bsu-ucs.uucp (Rob Harrington)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton waffling?
Date: 10 Oct 92 23:57:52 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc

In article <tdboyce-101092151458@lloyd-at1.caltech.edu>, tdboyce@cco.caltech.edu (tdboyce) writes:
> I have heard quiet a bit in the news that Clinton has waffled or been less
> than forthright on various issues and events that have come up from time to
> time during his presidental campaign.  Consequently, according to opinion
> polls he seems to have a trust problem with the American people. 

And according to opinion polls Clinton widened his lead by 6pts after
the Moscow Affair... Nice try George...

And according to opinion polls Bush's approval rating is at 34%... now
there is the sign of a great leader... (excuse the laughing)...

-- 
/---------------------------------------v-------------------------------------\
|  Rob Harrington                       |              Ball State University  |
|  Department of History                |               Muncie, Indiana, USA  |
|  Vax--00RDHARRINGT@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu  |       Unix--herring@bsu-cs.bsu.edu  |
>---------------------------------------^-------------------------------------<
|                                Clinton/Gore '92                             |
|                  Ball State University - University Democrats               |
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------/
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Statistics from nurses ( was Re: Mr. Cramer's strange views )
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:37:07 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <ldb8pvINNcte@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:

MP:Wrong.  There was a chance of getting aids donating blood because there
MP:were some cases where the needles used were not properly cleaned or there
MP:could be blood-to-blood contact between the technician and the donor.  Those
MP:gaps have been closed, so the 0:100,000 is accurate in hospital and red-cross
MP:environments.

I thought the needles were thrown away after one use.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51188 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6713 alt.politics.elections:16304 alt.politics.clinton:9931 alt.politics.bush:8780 talk.bizarre:33848
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:39:20 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Oct12.190327.19398@u.washington.edu> sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:

>Sorry.  I forgot to turn the sarcasm flag on.  My snip about 
>"finding another country" was in response to the INCESSANT
>retort from some opponents of the family leave bill
>along the line of "well, if your employer doesn't grant
>you unpaid leave, find another job".

As a citizen of this country you have a right to try and change the laws of
this country.  As an employee you have a right to try and get your employer
to change his family leave policy.  This breaks down when as an employee
you use the laws of this country to force that employer to give you a
family leave policy.

This may be legal, but it sure as hell ain't right.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ba.politics
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Women as inventors
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 08:25:23 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.195211.19171@EE.Stanford.EDU> budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.101316.25454@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct11.182411.24227@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>>>Not that women scientists haven't gotten the shitty end of the stick
>>>a lot -- look at Barbara McClintock. But sometimes they do get
>>>honors -- look at Madame Curie.
>>
>>Let me see if I follow the way you're thinking.  You don't think there
>>is a conspiracy or a way of thinking that discounts (perhaps even
>>hides) the work women do, yet you do think that women scientists have
>>"gotten the shitty end of the stick a lot"?  So, when women scientists
>>get the shitty end of the stick a lot, it isn't because of sexism or
>>misogyny, it's just that shit happens?
>
>I doubt that anyone would argue that historically, women in the sciences
>have largely been discouraged or belittled. But to claim that in this
>day and age that the past accomplishments of women are denigrated is
>absurd. Does the name Curie ring a bell? Has she been the victim of
>some villainous plot? I don't think so.

And yet, after I posted an article suggesting that women had something
to do with inventing the cotton gin, the reaper, vacuum canning,
Ronzone denied that and stated they were all invented by men.  In this
day and time, to say that the past accomplishments of women are
denigrated is absurd?

>Rather, I believe that many of the pc crowd are bending over backwards to 
>include women and other underrepresented groups, often to the point of,
>as you have done, elevating trivial accomplishments such as the invention
>of the flat-bottomed paper bag.

You should have read the whole post.  I think if you had, you would
have realized that the invention of the flat-bottomed paper bag was
not the issue.
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The Third Branch (LONG)
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:34:50 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 19581@ucsu.Colorado.EDU, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.145000.13651@toontown.uucp> ucda@toontown.uucp (Chris Andersen) writes:

>>democracy based on a trialateral balance of powers.  For the President and
>>Congress to ignore the court would be essentially to say that the courts
>>don't matter.  If the public perceives them as saying that, then what's
>>to say that they might just ignore other parts of the Constitution just as
>>well?
>
>They couldn't simply refuse or ignore a Supreme Court ruling, but what 
>if they offered a reasonable opinion, that the Court was misinterperting
>the Constitution? 

That would give rise to a Constitutional crisis.  The government works, in part,
because the people in it agree to abide by the rules.  The Court is empowered
to interpret the Constitution, but the executive might decide to "violate" the law
no matter what the Court said.  At that point, the only recourse would probably
be impeachment and trial of the President.  But what if Congress couldn't muster
the votes to do it?  The President would be able to assume dictatorial powers.

Interpreting the law is the special right of the judicial branch.  The other 
branches have no right to perform that function, no matter how good their
reasons.  On the other hand, we expect the courts to interpret the laws in a
reasonable manner.  If we perceive that they are not--e.g. if we think that
they aren't interpreting the 2nd Amendment correctly--our recourse is to change
the character of the Courts (a la the current Roe v. Wade strategy of conserva-
tives) or to pass laws (Constitutional amendments) that remove the reference in
the law's wording that the Court is basing its "unreasonable" interpretation on.
For example, one could pass an amendment that looks just like the 2nd Amendment,
but without any reference to a "well-regulated militia" if one wanted to guarantee
the personal right to own firearms.

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton won't put ASS on the line. (re: 2nd Debate)
Date: 16 Oct 92 21:00:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems

In <ldttupINNar1@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:

>Stephen Tice) writes:
>|> 
>|> Why won't Clinton take the Pledge to Lead or Leave?
>|> 
>|> Perot has said "one term" opting for a self imposed term limit.
>|> 
>|> Clinton said he won't enter a legal contract to cut spending.
>|> 
>|> Clinton wouldn't take the pledge to cut the deficit in half or leave.
>|> 
>|> Clinton blames trickle-down but does not acknowledge that it's both
>|> the Republicans and the DEMOCRATS in CONGRESS and the Presidency
>|> who authored and passed the spending that has put this country 
>|> $4 Trillion dollars in debt *AND* passed another busted $1.5 Trillion 
>|> dollar new Federal Budget just last week. 
>|> 
>|> I don't expect him to put his paycheck on the line like Perot, but I do
>|> expect him to put his name on the line. And I wouldv'e hoped he'd put
>|> his time on the line that if he can't produce results -- he'd get out. 
>|> 
>|> He's a Party-Pawn plain and simple. And he won't dare upset the 
>|> incumbents by putting his own ASS on the line.
>|> 
>This is really hearing what you want to hear.  Only Clinton had
>the balls to answer the question, even if you don't like his "no"
>answer.

>Perot said one term suceed or fail.  That was not an answer to the 
>question of putting his job on the line as a promise of success.

>Bush didn't even address the question.

 How soon they forget. Look at the subject line. Now think back to
the beginning of the primaries. Where were all the Democratic "Big
Guns" - in hiding because they didn't think they could beat King
George. Well, Clinton, Tsongas, Kerry, and the others had the
balls to think they could, and Clinton won the toss.

Now he's kicking George's ass all over the lot. Now isn't that
just loverly :-).

REB
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,talk.politics.mideast
From: arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: Re: Jack S Defends Kosher Food Boycott (Was: ARF DEFENDS HIS HONOR)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 03:20:36 GMT
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Chicago, IL

In article <1992Oct8.203124.5379@das.harvard.edu> adam@sparkle.uucp (Adam Shostack) writes:
>
>No, your target is not supporters of Israel.  Your targets are Jews.
>
>Lets take the following divisions of people
>
>1. Religious Jews
>2. non religious Jews
>
>Within each, we have Jews who are:
>a. "Supporter" of Israel
>b. "anti"-Israel
>
>and non Jews who are:
>X. "Supporter" of Israel
>Y. "anti"-Israel 
>
>The boycott effects all people who are in sets 1a and 1b, in that a
>product they like is targeted for the same reason they like it.

You can repeat your lame antisemitic accusaton as often as you like.  It 
does not make it a fact.

The boycott effects only the people who voluntarily honor it and the 
company selling the stuff..
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Date: 7 Oct 92 19:31:43 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

saarinen@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Sirpa Saarinen) writes:
>>What was wrong with that question?  How about recessive genes or
>>kin selection?
>
>Just as a reality check here: *how* do those homosexuals have offspring?
>Do we discuss the same "homosexuals" here? 

Read Richard Dawkins book "The Selfish Gene."  It's about how one can be
genetically predisposed toward reading Ayn Rand.  Just kidding!!!

Anyway, the argument is that evolution "tries" to produce genes that
propagate themselves, and that as far as "success" of a gene in
propagating goes, the correct measure is how many copies of that
gene make it into the future.

In particular, a gene can "succeed" even if it does something that
discourages it's host from reproducing, as long as that helps its
hosts relatives that carry copies of it to reproduce.  From a genes
point of view, my survival has the same value as the survival of
two siblings--my failure to reproduce is NOT a dead end for my
genes as long as that failure helps enough of my relatives to
reproduce to make up for my lack.

For example, if there were something about homosexuality that made it
so that families with a homosexual child had more net grandchildren
than families without a homosexual child, a gene for homosexuality
could prosper at a certain level.  For example, homosexual siblings
can see to food gathering or defense without being distracted by
having to care for their children.  A family with a homosexual
sibling might thus be able to do better in the long run than a
family where everyone is heterosexual.

I'm almost certainly horribly mangling the biology here.  Is there a
biologist in the house?  Did anyone save the posting from, I think,
Laura Creighton, a few years ago on kin selection?

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc