HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rab@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Bickford)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Why I cannot vote Democratic
Date: 1 Sep 92 16:24:45 GMT
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link

In article <1992Aug28.143612.18977@Princeton.EDU>,
 pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson) writes:

   [quoted comments about Gov. Florio ommitted --- voter disgust, etc.]

>>
>Well this used to be an issue until those backstabbing sons of bitches
>in the NJ Republican party took over.   . . . . .

   [summary of 'sins' of the Republican legislature deleted]

>So lets total up the score for the NJ Republican controled legislature.
>Special interests: 2 (at least)
>Voters:            0
>
>What is the message here?  Well, first, I don't think that an
>anti-Florio vote is going to be much of a factor in the presidential
>election.  Second, NJ voters did throw the bums out (the legislature was
>previously controled by the democrats) and it didn't seem to change
>things.  Kind of depressing, actually.

Well, I hate to say "we told you so" but the fact is that We Told You So.

There isn't any significant difference between the Republicans and the
Democrats when it comes down to the bottom line.  Oh, sure, sometimes
the Reps *talk* a good line about fiscal restraint this and balanced
budget that but when push comes to shove they're perfectly capable of
outspending the Dems --- who then feel a moral obligation (it seems)
to go the Reps one better next time.

No, if you want a real change you'll have to support candidates (and
parties) who have a track record of *cutting* government spending at
every opportunity.  You'll have to work to build enough support for
them that they can get elected at the statewide level (which only
rarely happens now).  Only a strong grassroots movement will cause
The Powers That Be to pull their snouts out of the trough and run for
cover, while the *real* visionaries take care of cleaning up their
mess after them.

In short, you need to support the Libertarian Party and their candidates.

--
  Robert Bickford        /-------------------------------------\
  rab@well.sf.ca.us      | Don't Blame Me: I Voted Libertarian |
                         \-------------------------------------/
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rab@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Bickford)
Subject: Re: Endorsement
Keywords: pro-choice female candidates
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 00:59:03 GMT


In article <galluzjj.714782156@craft.camp.clarkson.edu>,
 galluzjj@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Darkwing Duck) writes:
>
>I have been working this summer as the Field Director for
>Jean T. White, one of only two women running for the US
>Senate in the country.  She is the only pro-choice female
>running for the upper chamber.

This is false!  As to the first sentence, there are three women running
for US Senate from CA alone (Boxer, Feinstein, and Genis), and I
believe there are more in other states.  As to the second sentence,
June Genis (L) is running for the US Senate from California, for the
6-year seat, against Boxer (D) and Herschenson (R) and in that race
she is considered the moderate.  Her campaign HQ can be reached at
(800)-89-4-JUNE (or, if you want to save the campaign a few dimes,
call (415)-554-0388).

BTW, in the race against Feinstein (D) and Seymour (R) we have an
African-American motivational speaker and writer named Richard Boddie (L)
running (this is for the 2-year seat).  His campaign HQ can be reached
at (800)-6-BODDIE.

--
  Robert Bickford        /-------------------------------------\
  rab@well.sf.ca.us      | Don't Blame Me: I Voted Libertarian |
                         \-------------------------------------/
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Networking Solution????
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 22:09:29 GMT

dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson) writes:
] rjohnson@shell.com (Roy Johnson) writes:
] >pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson) writes:
] >   How about RU 486?  It works by 'withholding assistance'.
] >   Paul.
] 
] >In much the same way as pulling life-support from a recovering
] >patient is 'withholding assistance'.
] 
] so does "the pill".  it makes the uterus un-hostly.  that is
] why the catholic church preaches against the pill.

Gee, isn't this just a 'networking' problem....

If One system does not respond, shouldn't
there be another HOST on the net available
to pick up the traffic?????

Maybe if Women Can Ethernet Ready we wouldn't
have all of these problems and could just
have them do an Xhost projection across the wire.


ciao
drieux


Next week: How to Upgrade Your Woman so she is Vatican COmpliant.



-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: michaels@m2xenix.psg.com (Michael Sandy)
Subject: Re: BCCI and Jimmy Carter (again)
Organization: Pacific Systems Group, Portland Oregon US
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 05:52:33 GMT

BCCI is only the tip of the iceberg.  Standard business practice for
many small nations is to act as a tax haven for income for 
businessmen who wish not to pay taxes.  Many nations have mandatory
privacy for bank customers in order to _attract_ such taxe evaders.

Now the good news.  Clinton hopes to "revenue enhance" 45 Billion $
from foreign companies that do business in the US and don't pay taxes.
The bank lobby may have a heart attack, but I think he'll try to close
that hole.

Granted it is the incredible mobility of capital that enables nations
to act as tax havens, and we profit from that mobility, but something
needs to be done!


-- 
Michael Sandy
michaels@m2xenix.psg.com
"Going to teach someone a lesson" is a very interesting English phrase.
It obliterates the altruistic connotation of 'teaching'.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: "Thank You Lord -- For Ending the Cold War"
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 04:12:52 GMT

In article <37144@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug22.002225.3820@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>The mind boggles at the possiblities.  Think of the rallies, the
>>campaign ads, the speeches!  Jesus on Larry King!  Bush accusing
>>Jesus of negative campaigning!  Wow!
>
>Jesus would be even better than Perot at running the uncampaign,
>with refusal to discuss the issues and campaign slogans such as
>"Just trust Me" and "Who are you to judge Me?".

The Bush-Perot Spat would pale in comparison.  We'd have Bush accusing
Jesus of poor family values (hanging out with the unsavory and the
poor; father not being mother's husband; having a beard and longish
hair; oh, and most importantly, being a convicted felon, of a capital
crime, in fact).  What else?  Socialistic medicine (healing the sick,
no matter who they are), perhaps.  Also, Bush would accuse him of
Chicago-esque manipulation of voters, by raising the dead (who
wouldn't vote for Bush, most likely).

Jesus may not be able to run, being of non-American birth.


--
But this is.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: GATT/NAFTA/FTA
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: Curious Goods (formerly Louis Vendredi Antiques)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 01:53:49 GMT

garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary writes...
>>pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
>>>			    
>>>Well isn't that nice. I'm sure that will balance up the trade effects
>>>of the maquilidoras quite nicely.
>> 
>>That last thing that we need in Canada are more blue-collar jobs when
>>we have a broad and highly educated but underemployed white collar
>>pool.
>
>Pardon? You're saying that your country doesn't need well paying 
>blue-collar jobs? Please explain. This doesn't make sense. Almost 
>every country in the world is crying for jobs of any kind.

With all due respect, please reread my brief history of the Canadian
corporate sector in the cited posting ... we have a broad and highly
educated population that is yearning for more of those white collar
brain jobs that drive corporations and create wealth and other jobs,
and upon which a nation builds its future and its direction.  For
example, working on Northern Telecom office automation systems not
only employed 200+ people at one Bell Northern Research lab, but the
results of development have the consequences of many more blue collar
jobs in factories in Burlington, Ontario or Bromont, Quebec, or even
in the United States.  Sure, more blue collar jobs open as Tim Horton
Donuts expands its chain (going for 1000 locations, as former hockey
player Bobby Baun (Toronto Maple Leafs) mentioned on a recent edition
of Don Cherry's "Grapevine"), but I'm more distressed at seeing good
university graduates working as receptionists and bank tellers because
there are no other opportunities for them to take advantage of.  Lab
expansions by IBM Research in Toronto and Ericssen in Montreal compete
for the talent pool that NorTel previously had first picks from, but
otherwise equally-talented that would have been leftover due to the
numbers game back when are now doing development on real products
today with somebody else rather than making Timbits(tm)* at 5:00 AM
... or emigrating.

gld

* Equivalent to Dunkin's "Donut Holes" (tm)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare				Elections 1992-93:
> gld@cunixB.cc.columbia.EDU		* Jean Chretien (Canada)
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			* Perot^H^H^H^H^H Elvis! (USA)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin, Texas
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:58:07 GMT

MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:

>In article <1992Aug25.182451.15307@kadsma.kodak.com>
>pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
> 
>>
>>Precisely. The main argument against the capital gains tax cut isn't that
>>it 'benefits the rich'. It is that the tax code shouldn't prefer some sources
>>of income to others. It is the job of the market to make these decisions.
>>
>>Don Pajerek
>>
>>Standard disclaimers apply.
>>
>Of course, if you listen to CLinton et al, that's not the argument you
>actually hear. The argument given is that it benifits the "rich", i.e.,
>anyone with a bank account or a home.
> 
>The argument given above- that it "favors one source of income" - falls
>apart on a number of points.
> 
>1. Capital gains tax is a tax on inflation. It's very easy- as I showed
>in a number of examples- to pay an effective tax rate of over 100%. At
>a minimum, capital gains should be indexed.

so are lots of things.  interest income.  pension income.  SS income.
the over 100% assumes total unrealism.

> 
>2. Capital gains taxes are anti-growth. This quest for "equality" in taxing
>all income helps push capital out of the economy.
govt. borrowing sqeezes capital, not taxes.
> 
>3. It's a double tax. This was explained by another poster.
it was wrong earlier too.
> 
>The arguments for a capital gains tax appear to be based on a sort of
>morality argument- it's not fair for people to get income they're not
>taxed on. The argument against cpaital gains tax is egalitarian; we all
>benifit from increased capital investment. The fact that the investors
>profit more is a reasonable reward for their taking the risk of investing.
wrong.
> 
>Every investment is a risk. Since the government doesn't always- and
>probably should never- insure the downside risk, why should they tax the
>upside profit at the same rate as a risk-free source like salary?
who has a guaranteed salary?   cap losses are written off against gains.
how many horse breeders are you trying to help out?
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43433 ca.politics:7391 ba.politics:5004 talk.bizarre:28632
From: manley@optilink.UUCP (Dave Manley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,talk.bizarre
Subject: ROSEBUD"S LAST WORDS (was Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home)
Date: 2 Sep 92 18:10:16 GMT
Followup-To: alt.slash.dev.slash.null
Distribution: ca
Organization: THE SOCYITY FOR THE PREVENSHUN OF CREWLTY TO PEEPULS PARK INHABATENTS

I HURD THAT ROSEBUD"S LAST WURDS WER "DIE COMMIE RAT BASTARDT!!!"

ANYWON ELSE HEER THAT?

ALSO;^H: I SEE A GREAT NEED FOR A NUSFEED 2/FROM PEEPULUS PARK!!!

LET THE PEEPUL SPEEK!!!

BIFF!!!1


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: Why I cannot vote Democratic
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 12:59:56 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.180933.1906@oakhill.sps.mot.com>
dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson) writes:
 
>     [...]
>>I have these examples of why I will have a hard time voting
>>Democratic in the near future.
>          [...]
>>Jimmy Carter - a nice guy to be sure but NOT a good President.
>>               For those with short memories, go look at what
>>               the prime rate, inflation was during his years.
 
>it is clear that he inherited a mess from Nixon and Ford.  Clearly
>his brilliance set up the turn-around in the 80's.
 
Yes, he inherited the mess of 7% inflation and 4% unemployment, and was able
to turn that into 16% inflation and 7% unemployment in only four short years.
Truely the work of an genius.
 
>>               He also wanted to work with the Soviets, until
>>               they invaded Afghanistan. And then there were our
>Afghanistan lead to the fall of the USSR.  another plus for JC.
 
Yes, the Russians didn't know what trouble was until JC pulled our
Olympic team! That's playing hard ball, by god! The weapons the Reagan
administration supplied probably just slowed down the pace of history
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Joseph Edelman           Wayne State University
 medelma@cms.cc.wayne.edu         Computing & Information Technology
 mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu        Detroit, Michigan
 medelma@waynest1.bitnet          (313) 577-0742
 KE8YY
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Rocker, Tell that to My ProblemOlderWoman
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 2 Sep 92 15:25:00 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Sep2.130328.3186@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
> ] dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> ] 
> ] >Haven't you learned that a FORCED ORGASM EQUATES WITH SLAVERY??
> [ a post with the potential for drieuxishness thinned... ]
> ] 
> ] Uh, Holtsinger, although it IS amusing to watch you froth at the
> ] mouth (as well as vie for the Stupidest Rewording of an Opponent's
> ] Argument Award with that Nyikos character), I doubt seriously that
> ] you could force an orgasm on an unwilling person.  Orgasm is not
> ] anything like conception, nor anything like pregnancy.  You just
> ] look stupid here.
> 
> rocker
> 
> 1. I think the DearOldDoug is Finally Coming Out of the Closet
> and may some day be able to accept himself for whom he is without
> having to try and edit himself too badly.
> 
> 2. You should Learn to be more sensative to this Clear Cry for
> acceptance, and support, and maybe someone who can push him 
> over the edge and actually give his Frigid Little <token> an Orgasm.
> 
> 
> 3. Also would You PLEASE esplain to my problem older woman that
> merely as she has not had 'sex' in a week is NO excuse for her
> to Flaunt Herself at me in her Vain Efforts to Force an Orgasm on me.
> 

	Many rape victims need therapy to get over the fact that they had
orgasms while being raped.  It takes a long time to convince them that it was a
mechanical body response, and is not to be construed as them having derived
pleasure from it, any more than nocturnal emissions are a result of conscious
thought.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Rocker, Tell that to My ProblemOlderWoman
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 13:03:28 GMT

cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
] dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
] 
] >Haven't you learned that a FORCED ORGASM EQUATES WITH SLAVERY??
[ a post with the potential for drieuxishness thinned... ]
] 
] Uh, Holtsinger, although it IS amusing to watch you froth at the
] mouth (as well as vie for the Stupidest Rewording of an Opponent's
] Argument Award with that Nyikos character), I doubt seriously that
] you could force an orgasm on an unwilling person.  Orgasm is not
] anything like conception, nor anything like pregnancy.  You just
] look stupid here.

rocker

1. I think the DearOldDoug is Finally Coming Out of the Closet
and may some day be able to accept himself for whom he is without
having to try and edit himself too badly.

2. You should Learn to be more sensative to this Clear Cry for
acceptance, and support, and maybe someone who can push him 
over the edge and actually give his Frigid Little <token> an Orgasm.


3. Also would You PLEASE esplain to my problem older woman that
merely as she has not had 'sex' in a week is NO excuse for her
to Flaunt Herself at me in her Vain Efforts to Force an Orgasm on me.


ciao
drieux





-- 
If I have Told You Once, I've Told You a Thousand Times:
To Keep Good Girls From Going Bad,
Put them back in the Refrigerator.
This Also Works for Stale NFS Handles.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR)
Subject: Re: Bush loses post-convention bounce
Summary: 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 27 Aug 92 01:20:14 GMT

In article <BtLx26.MMx@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, daniels@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Daniel writes...
>sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
>  
>>The current standings in their poll are:
> 
>>Clinton: 51%
>>Bush:    36%
> 
>>This is widely different from a post-convention poll which showed
>>Clinton leading by 45% to 42%. That one was a poll of 1186 voters.
>>53% disapprove of Bush's handling of his job, 38% approve. This 
>>figure is virtually the same as before the convention.
> 
>Ah, but the polls can change quickly. Look what happened to a "reformed"
>Labour Party in the United Kingdom.  John Major STILL won, despite the
>worst recession since the 1930's.  AND all the polls said he would lose,
>right up to election day.
>  
>Daniel R. Sawyer
>daniel-sawyer@uiuc.edu

This is true, but there is something you are overlooking. The polls
before the elections in the U.K. had labor up by just 5 or 6% (with a 
improbability factor of 2 or 3%). So it was very close.
	Clinton is up by 15% (give or take 3-4%). Unless Bush starts
cutting into the lead he WON'T do a John Major.

-Garrett
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42390 misc.headlines:6018 ba.politics:4823 ca.politics:7120
From: johna@psdcae1.gvg.tek.com (John Abt)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Slick Willie and the Rapists
Date: 27 Aug 92 20:22:22 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Distribution: usa
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA

In article <farenebt.714851936@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
>[Bush]
>What "family values" are the GOP's pushing when they don't want give children
>any legal recourse when the system sends them back to abusive parents?
>We're not talking about children complaining about chores or not having a
>Nintendo. We're talking about children beaten, both physically and emotionally. 
>Do they have no rights if the system makes a mistake?
>VOTE FOR FAMILY VALUES ACTION, NOT TALK. CLINTON IN '92

Or, which "values" are the GOP`s pushing when they wish to support
parents who:

	want to force a 16 year old straight A student to quit school
        and work for the family business??

	refuse corrective surgery for disfigurement, e.g., cleft palate,
        for a teenager based on fundementalist religious beliefs?? 
        ...how about when the teenager is 17, not living at home, and
        has their own money?

Not quite as simple as Mr. Buchanan`s world, is it?

John Abt
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Clair George's trial a mistrial!!
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<1992Aug29.123237.6053@panix.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 16:13:01 GMT

In article <1992Aug29.123237.6053@panix.com> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:

   In <1343@esl.ESL.COM>, drm@stimpy.com sez:
   >In article 14336@panix.com, eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
   >>
   >>Like the North and Poindexter juries, right?  Ooops, better check
   >>those facts again.
   >>
   >>(And before you saddle up on your high horse, I know perfectly well
   >>that those convictions were vacated on appeal.  I could even give you
   >>a fair account of the reasons.  That doesn't alter the fact that the
   >>nonsense above about juries consistently acquitting is, well,
   >>nonsense.) 
   >>
   >OK, juries have been acquitting the defendents in every fair trail
   >conducted so far.

   What exactly do you mean by "fair trial"?  You're blurring the
   necessary distinction between 1) trial errors that call into question
   the factual reliability of the outcome and 2) errors which are _per
   se_ reversible because they violate the constitution.

   It's true that the D.C. Circuit found that the convictions were
   tainted by contact with immunized testimony, in violation of the
   defendants' fifth amendment rights.  But that's not the point.  The
   original poster's argument was that juries are too clever to be duped
   by these hopelessly trumped-up charges.  In fact, the North and
   Poindexter juries convicted on the basis of relevant (and damning)
   evidence. 

No they didn't.  You yourself say that their constitutional rights
against self incrimination were violated.  Then you go on to claim that
there was damning and, by implication, untainted evidence.  If the
convictions were based on such good evidence why did the Inquisitor
General choose not to prosecute again?

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42925 ca.politics:7254 ba.politics:4893