HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Choice for life (was Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 19:50:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.011232.18564@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <lefty-091092133622@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct6.064229.23498@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>,
>>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) wrote:
>>>
>>> I never said to prohibit sex, and based on what I have read, it is
>>> an enjoyable experience for some people, but what's wrong with a little
>>> responsibility???
>>>
>>> And let me assure you: I most definitely practice the solution I propose.
>>
>>Out of choice or necessity?
>
>Well, if he'll be able to "force his views on us" in 2005, that would
>make him 7 or 8 years old in 1992...
>--
You're WAY off--I'm 22--one must be 35 to be President, so I'd be eligible
to run in the November 2008 election.
Now lets watch all of you panic at that prospect.......
Simon
___________________________________________________________________________
"Liberals are but cockroaches before us!!!"     Doktor S.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: The 'Missing' Pages
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:00:18 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Oct11.041806.9402@nntp.uoregon.edu> eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:
]>In article <5907@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
]>>
]>>If it were politically right for Mr. Clinton to have gone to Moscow, why
]>>are there three (or however many) pages missing regarding passport
]>>documents? 
]
]Imagine how stupid the Bush campaign looks as the FBI announces that there
]was no alteration of the Clinton file--there were no pages missing.  There
]were only staple holes showing something that had once been attached was
]removed.  The FBI found that the "something" was the check for the passport
]fee, the manditory copy of Clinton's birth certificate, and the extra
]passport photo.

So what? A discrepancy was found (by a liberal news magazine), it was 
investigated by the FBI (under the Bush administration, I should point out), 
and found to be indeed a discrepancy, but one of no import. Why should
the Bush campaign look stupid about this?
]
]Paranoids and dirty dealers eventually get caught.  How lovely it is to
]watch it happen!

Once again, you stoop to personal attacks misinterpreting all we have
been saying. WHAT IS WITH YOU PEOPLE??? I am disgusted.


-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Support ALL ...erk  glugh   mmpph.... Memory fault (core dumped)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51477 alt.politics.clinton:10188 alt.politics.elections:16541
From: msheldon@luna.dpl.scg.hac.com (Marti Sheldon)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Republican Fear
Date: 13 Oct 92 17:39:33 GMT
Distribution: usa


I have noticed in the last few weeks of reading these newsgroups 
that a few Republicans are so afraid of Clinton winning this 
election (which he very handily will), that they have to flood
these newsgroups with Republican BS.  Not one article at a time.
Not one response at a time.  Five or six people are sending, on average,
twenty articles per day repeating the same garbage over and over 
again.

It's a shame that the election cannot be determined on real issues
and on the basis of truth - not innuendos, unsubstantiated rumors,
and out and out lies.  And many of these ultraconservatives claim
their religious beliefs as a reason for much of what they feel.  
I always thought the religious believed in honesty, not judging one's
fellow man, etc.  

It always upsets me to see so many lies on the newsgroup until I
realize how few people are really doing the lying.  I'm glad to see
that the majority of the posters are open-minded and thoughtful.
Even though the majority of the postings are not.  (Here's a cheer
for kill files.)

I don't mind seeing posts in disagreement with my own beliefs.  
I'm just sick and tired of the lies.  Stick to the issues. Stick 
to the facts.  This is supposed to be an election - not a wresting
match.

-Marti
CLINTON/GORE '92
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Term Limits are Constitutional, Study Shows
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:27:43 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.234527.29907@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In <1bcj28INNper@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri):
>>>No, but the Constitution is a written code of law. To read into it
>>>whatever one wants, would be equivilent to throwing away the whole
>>>thing. Wherever possible, it should eb interperted to mean what it
>>>was written to mean (e.g. what the framers intended the provision 
>>>in question to mean.) This helps remove modern political bias, etc..

>>It helps remove modern political bias, but it may restore old
>>political and social biases.  

>But these "old" biases are ones to which the people have formally
>consented (by ratifying the Constitution or its Amendments.) They
>are not biases imposed by the whim of nine old, unelected men. 

Everyone  who ever formally consented (through ratification) is dead.
Why in the world would anyone today consent to old biases?

>>Progress is making *new* mistakes.

>But the mistakes should be made by the people themselves (by amending the
>Constitution to reflect modenr, not archaic, biases and stupid ideas), not 
>by having the Supreme Court impose its biases on the people, without 
>their consent.

Aside from the fact that the Court represents the people (by the theory
of the originial constitution -- not directly, but then again, Senators
weren't and the President isn't chosen directly either), the
Constitution is *designed* to evolve.  The Constitution is NOT a
computer program which a robot could follow.  It is a set of guidelines, 
often abstract ones deliberately left open to interpretation.

After all, from the beginning of the U.S., the Court "imposed its biases
on the people."  You'd have a really hard time convincing me John
Marshall wasn't a jucicial activist.  
-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1993 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Roland Hemond: SIGN BARRY BONDS!!!!!!!!
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more weeks!!!   		"Bloody urine"
From: 00rdharringt@bsu-ucs.uucp (Rob Harrington)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Quayle, the Debate, and Family Leave
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:57:01 GMT


Just a little observation from Tuesday's debate...

Quayle stated that the reason that the Administration was opposed
to the Family Leave Act was that it didn't force the "small 
businesses" to comply...

Isn't that a direct contradiction to their earlier statements?  That
the Family Leave Act would hurt small businesses?

And even so the Administration's plan wouldn't force _anyone_ to comply...

Dammit I'm confused...

-- 
/---------------------------------------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               |
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------/
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Subject: Nicaragua Series intermission: Quotes (II)
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 17:00:09 GMT

Nicaragua Series intermission: Quotes (II)

"Compared to the statements and actions that are coming out of
Washinton, it seems they must be using our reports as toilet paper...
We've pointed out the distortions time sna time again and been totally
ignored or told to shut up."

--U.S. Embassy official, Nicaragua, April 1982

[1]Kornbluh, _Prince of Intervention_, pp. 174, 259, fn. 63, citing
_Boston Globe_, April 20, 1982.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"During a visit by a group of U.S. citizens with a U.S. Ambassador in
Central America...the Ambassador was asked to explain how such U.S.
action as the mining of Nicaragua's harbots and bombing of airports
differed from the acts of terrorism that the U.S. condemned around
the world. The reply, off the record, was, "Well, you're not going to
like this answer, but if they do it, it's terrorism, if we do it, it's
fighting for freedom."

--Patricia Hyndes, Central America Historical Institute, August 1985

[Quotes from Sklar's book]

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

_Washington's War on Nicaragua_, by Holly Sklar.
1988, South End Press, Boston.
[South End Press, 300 Raritan Center Parkway, Edison, NJ 08818]
[For a free catalog: 1-800-533-8478; see AML resource files]

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Vote for Clinton!
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 13:20:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Oct14.052950.29697@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>el> Elizabeth G. Levy
>gs> The bonus is that a Clinton presidency will make us fondly recall our cur-
>    rent economic woes, as his policies will put the economy into a Carterish
>    state. 

  Agreed.

>el> There's an amusing cartoon in the 9/21/92 issue of The New Republic:
>    BUSH imagines a newspaper headline: "Clinton Inaugurated Yesterday -- 
>         Economy Improving Already"
>
>  Pro-Clinton folks can fantasize all they want about the economy improving
>  under him, but I just don't see it. Japan and Germany aren't exactly in 
>  great shape, Europe as a whole is re-thinking its plans, and Clintonian
>  economic policies haven't been in vogue since his advisers were big in DC,
>  circa late-1970s. A recipe for ever-lengthening ever-deepening recession,
>  as I look at it. To use an old cliche, "To hurt the economy, elect a Re-
>  publican, to destroy it, elect a Democrat."

  To be fair, earlier this year the Wall Street Journal published the
  economic results for all Presidents since WWII.  On average Democrats
  had higher GNP growth and higher inflation, but the REAL (i.e., in-
  flation adjusted) growth was actually higher in the Democratic
  administrations. 

  On the other hand it should be noted that the Democrats have usually
  favored a Keynesian approach to doing this, and due to the deficit
  this just isn't an option this time.    

  So I agree with Gary -- The Dems are doomed if they win this one.
  They can achieve growth only by growing the deficit to truly
  crushing dimensions and this will make a killer campaign issue for
  the Republicans.  Or they can try to fight the deficit and make
  the economy worse, and THIS will make a killer campaign issue for
  the Republicans.   Some Republican will be elected in 1996.  The 
  only question is whether it will be a sensible moderate like Kemp
  or Weld or some slobbering neoNazi.


---peter


  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 05:16:23 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Followup-To: talk.abortion

In  <1992Oct12.200432.9297@muddcs.claremont.edu>  weverett@jarthur.claremont.edu (William M. Everett) writes:
>
> Requiring people to be responsible for their actions is not a punishment.

Taking away one of their responsible choices, however, is.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: JZ lands in a Hot LZ...
Date: 8 Oct 92 12:18:58 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Oct8.012625.13596@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:

> Well, certainly God is as entitled to his opinions on the subject as
> is the next guy, but until and unless he comes up with a more rational
> and compelling argument than "Because I say so" there isn't really any
> reason I can see to follow his guidelines.

Except, of course, that God's opinions will carry somewhat greater
weight on Judgement Day than will William D. Starr's.
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
From: nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot and Mortgage deduction
Date: 12 Oct 92 17:52:29 GMT
Organization: AT&T Network Systems  -  Columbus, Ohio

From article <1992Oct12.035238.7853@anasazi.com>, by john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore):
> Keywords: 
> 
> In article <1992Oct8.160501.7332@cbnews.cb.att.com> nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell) writes:
> ]
> ]The government, and more specifcally the taxpayers across the country,
> ]should not be subsidizing outrageously inflated housing costs any more 
> ]than they should be subsidizing million dollar homes.  
> 
> This is true. However, any change in this that isn't glacially slow will
> cause serious economic damage. 

A phase-in would certainly be reasonable but I really don't believe that 
a "glacially slow" phase-in would be needed.  

> Those who bought homes with the rules
> the way they are now would be hurt badly by a change. Removing the
> home mortgage deductions would drop about 30% off the value of houses.

I'm more than a little skeptical about the 30% number.   That might be
true at the very top of the home market (400k+) but the affect for the
vast majority of american homes would be nil with gradually increasing
affects as price increases above 250k.  What percentage of American
homes cost more than 250k?  

> It was this sort of nonsense that caused the sudden collapse of most of
> the S&L's in the country.... the 1986 law removed the deductability
> of mortgages, etc on commercial property, and BLAM, the bottom dropped
> out of the market and the S&L's asset values dropped accordingly.

Sounds like a gross oversimplification to me.  There were a lot more
shenanigans going on than that.  

> Even removing deductability at the top of the housing market would cause 
> values to drop all down the line. 

I don't see how that follows.  It seems to me that reducing the tax
benefits of the most expensive homes would make homes of less than
$250k more attractive and thus more valuable.  

> Since many people have most of their net worth
> tied up in home equity, such a change could be disastrous to anyone
> who saved and invested that money in their houses... resulting in
> economic disaster.

I doubt that there are enough people with most of their net worth
invested in over $250k homes to create an economic distaster.  


"Don't drive too slowly."                 Richard Caldwell
                                          AT&T Network Systems
                                          att!cbnews!nrc
                                          nrc@cbnews.att.com
From: reykja@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Reykja Sigurdsson)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 06:18:56 GMT
Subject: Re: Please Help
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc

>               Please answer these 9 questions and return.


>         Why in the world would I want to answer your questions? 

          Who are you and what are the questions for? 

 
> 1.) Do you think equal rights for men and women is generally a good idea?
> Yes                  [ ]
> Sometimes            [ ]
> No                   [ ]
> Haven't heard enough [ ]
> Other                [ ]

          I have really gotten to a point when I find questionnaires on 
this net to be offensive. In particular, this person/persons has not even
troubled him-/her-/itself to identify the purpose of the questions, 
what will be done with them and who is responsible for them. 

          It is nothing short of arrogant to believe that you (whoever
or whatever you are) have the right to put these things out here, just
expecting that people will answer your intrusive, obnoxious questions! 
If you want to pump people for personal information, ask your friends. 

         Note to others who may read this: this stupid thing is crossposted
to nearly every news group on the Internet. 


//rks


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Quayle's a liar!
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:52:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.174158.24722@cbnews.cb.att.com> nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell) writes:
>From article <farenebt.719071511@craft.camp.clarkson.edu>, by farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell ("Droopy")):

>> In the debate, Quayle made reference to something in Al Gore's
>> book _Earth in the balance_. Quayle made reference to a proposal
>> on a specific page. CNN reported that there was nothing on that
>> page about whatever Quayle was refering to. 

>According to USA Today page 304 discusses an "Environmental Marshall
>Plan" that would direct $100 billion to a global environmental plan.
>Gore never endorses a specific level of money to be paid by the US
>(the man is, after all, a career politician) but he does say that "the
>maximum that is politically feasible still falls short of the minimum
>that is truly effective."

>While Quayle was not entirely accurate, it was completely unfair of CNN
>to claim that there was nothing at all on that page about what Quayle
>was talking about.  There is absolutely no question that Gore's book
>supports spending large sums of US money to support environmental
>programs in other countries.  The real issue is whether that is good or bad.

That's what you get for reading McPaper.

What he *said* was that the Marshall Plan, in 1992 dollars, would be
$100 billion.  Then he goes on to note that unlike after WW2, the US
cannot afford to take on a financial responsibility like this itself.
Most of the money, he says, will have to come from Japan and Europe.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1993 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Roland Hemond: SIGN BARRY BONDS!!!!!!!!
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more weeks!!!   		"Bloody urine"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.rush-limbaugh,or.politics
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: Transcript of Sunday's Presidential Debate
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 10:47:28 GMT
Keywords: transcript, obfuscation, confusion

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

>  This is hilarious!   The Wall Street Journal
>  reports that Perot has spent $14 million dollars
>  running for President, $11 million since he "dropped
>  out" this summer.   He pays "volunteers" $10 an hour.
>  Not "special interest" money?

Yeah, not "special interest" money? Its his money. At least he's wasting his 
own money and not taking political contributions.

>  Andre Marrou was also put on the ballot in all 50 states
>  by his supporters, but he didn't have enough money to buy
>  a presence before the media or to air 30 minute spots on
>  prime-time TV.

Yeah, and Marrou is a loser. He should just give it up.


[more class-envy deleted]

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              /
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51194 alt.activism:17412 alt.rush-limbaugh:7184 or.politics:257
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Quayle won the debate. (in his dreams)
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:14:08 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:

>In article <1992Oct14.210818.8760@Princeton.EDU>, 
>niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes...

>>It was obvious that Gore was the only candidate prepared to be up there.

>Yep. You could have replaced him with a cardboard cut-out and a tape 
>recording, and not been able to tell the difference.

Perhaps you were not impressed with the way Gore said what he said,
does that invalidate what he said?  Do you think he didn't mean it,
just because he didn't deliver it well?

Try judging the debates on content rather than showmanship.  Granted,
delivery is important, but it is not more important than content.

I think you would benefit from reading a transcript of the debate.
I think I saw one posted somewhere.  It seems that you are too
distracted by the trappings of showbiz to be able to listen to what
is being said.

Sue

-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
From: usenet@transfer.stratus.com (Mr. Network News)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Debate 2:  "Please state your position on Term Limits..."
Date: 16 Oct 92 22:05:01 GMT
Reply-To: Dave_Wetzel@vos.stratus.com
Organization: Dave_Wetzel

In article <Bw89Et.IDv@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com> 
dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:

> The myriad advantages of incumbants have been discussed in the
> media to a substantial extent (free mailings, PAC campaign money,
> etc).  Short of term limits, how can we level the playing field
> to give non-incumbants a fair chance to be elected?

Do you really think that term limits will clear up the problem of 
"bought-and-paid-for" canidates?  Do you really think that because the 
congressman will only be in there 2 or 4 years, the lobbists will give up 
on trying to buy them?

The only thing I can imagine term limits doing is making it more expensive 
to run for congress.  Now that the canidate doesn't have name recognition, 
they'll *HAVE* to advertize -- and advertize often!  If that's right, then 
you'll drive the government even further into the arms of the PAC's.

If we want to get lobbists out of the business of buying the government, 
then let's do that!  Term limits won't touch it.

If we want to cap the money spent on campaigning, then let's do that!  
Term limits won't correct that either.

If we want to remove the dunning privilige, then let's do that!  Again, 
term limits won't help at all.

--------------
Dave_Wetzel@vos.stratus.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections