HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Bush is a mother fucker
Date: 11 Sep 92 17:17:58 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

>It is amazing how some individuals think that just because the net provides
>a certain amount of anonymity, this gives them free reign to be rude and
>obnoxious. I hope you don't debate with your fellow employees this way.

Considering that you are the person who started this little flame fest with
your snide comments about rednecks I don't see how you have a lot of
room to complain.  Maybe when you learn to treat others with respect then
they will treat you with respect.

Peace  (Not that I am expecting any)

-- 
--Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Silly Season '92
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 22:57:30 GMT

fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:
>jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>> [quote deleted]
>>                                            Alexis de Tocqueville, 1835 
>
>Is this from his book, "Democracy In America?"
>
>De Tocqueville really had a knack for timeless truths such as these.

I got the quote second hand, from another book, with no reference, although
since Democracy in America was first printed in 1835, it's probably a good
guess.

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jfed@athena.mit.edu (Jude G Federspiel)
Subject: Re: Why we should blame Democrats...
Reply-To: jfed@athena.mit.edu.UUCP (Jude G Federspiel)
Organization: MIT Project Athena
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:41:38 GMT

In article <BuL6wt.IG5@encore.com> rcollins@encore.com writes:
>joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>|> But we can blame Congress for pork barrel legislation that the President
>|> can't stop since Congress will not give him the line-item veto, even though
>|> the vast majority of the Governors have it.
>
>Why doesn't Bush just veto the whole thing and say remove the pork
>before I sign it?  And do it publicly so that all the congress-critters
>that voted "yes" can be shamed.  I don't know the details of
>line item veto but it sounds dangerous.  Imagine Clinton vetoing
>the main provision of a bill and signing on the pork!

That would put a pretty quick halt to pork in no time, wouldn't it?  The smart
congressfolk would figure out soon enough that the President could wildly
misuse this power; it shouldn't be too hard for them to figure out
how to stop it.  Isn't that the point, removing the pork?  Either by 
threat of the president vetoing everything BUT the pork in order to enact
legislation or appropriations which are not carefully thought out or by
allowing him to veto the pork itself, it seems to get the job done.

Jude Federspiel
jfed@athena.mit.edu
From: sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Date: 15 Sep 1992 19:19:36 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.crhc.uiuc.edu
Keywords: Electoral College President election

In article <195budINN44t@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu>, sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
|> In article <13SEP199214491335@utkvx2.utk.edu>, dchatham@utkvx2.utk.edu (Chatham, Doug) writes:
|> |> [Quote of previous discussion deleted.] 
|> |> 
|> |> 	If we are worried about giving small states influence in the election
|> |> of the President, why not simply scrap the Electoral College (which does not
|> |> adequate protect small states for reasons already discussed) and go to a
|> |> popular election with the proviso that, to win, a candidate must get a
|> |> majority vote in a majority of states as well as a majority of the total vote?
|> |> In case nobody wins (unlikely), have a runoff between the candidate who won the
|> |> most states and the candidate who won the most votes.
|> 
|> In that case, JFK wouldn't have won in 1960, since he won only 23 states, to
|> Nixon's 26 states (I think Harry Byrd took Alabama).
|> The final result, though VERY close in the popular vote count (less than 0.5%),
|> was at least reflective of the popular vote and the Electoral College (303 to
|> 219).

OOps! I didn't notice the part about majority vote. I thought the original
suggestion was only for the winner of a majority of states to be declared
President. 

-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Live Online Conference re: US Elections
Date: 7 Sep 1992 02:24:45 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, greenie@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu () says:

>
>That's September 4th, 7PM EST on the IDS World Network CB Simulator.
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>telnet ids.net [155.212.1.2]
>

             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Gee, thanks for the timely reminder.   
-- 
          "In universities, it is forbidden to teach nonsense. 
          But the _history_ of nonsense -- that's scholarship!"

                                            -- Saul Lieberman
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: defense cuts (was Re: Clinton/Gore on foreign policy)
Date: 14 Sep 92 23:06:16 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote) writes:
>anders@athena.mit.edu (Anders W Hove) writes:
>>While Clinton is for an active military, he also wants a lean military.  
>>Where Bush has proposed hardly any cuts in wasteful, Cold War oriented 
>>programs like Star Wars and the B-2, Clinton wants a smaller, more 
>>flexible force structure.  
>> [stuff deleted by jking]
>
>Yeah, like 'Slick Willie's' endorsement of the much-needed Seawolf
>attack submarine that the Pentagon wants to scrap as 'un-needed in the
>Post Cold War.' 

This was one of the Cheney suggestions, right?  And even if it isn't,
I think it's poor to assume that there aren't political implications
of *any* Pentagon decision.  And I'm not always ready to assume that
the Pentagon always knows best what weapons it really needs, even
assuming that the Pentagon and the President agree on what the defense
mission will be.  (Where were all the blasted minesweepers when we
needed them?)

>Seems he was pandering to the union vote in Connecticut.  This will 
>probably be his primary defence spending principle - jobs in Democratic 
>congressional districts. 

Oh, sure.  There's just a huge union vote in Connecticut.  And there
are just so many Democratic congressional districts in Connecticut.
(There are 3 Democratic and 3 Republican, btw, and I don't know whose
district builds the subs off-hand.)

And speaking of pandering, which presidential candidate has been going
around to defense industry company towns announcing the sale of jet
fighters to one place or another?  Hint:  it ain't Clinton.

>This hardly makes me feel good about his ability to make decisions 
>in the long term interests of national defence. 

If you like.  BTW--what about the B-2 and Star Wars?  Clinton *is*
against those, and I'm sure that there are lots of voters out there
who owe *their* jobs to these projects.

Oh, and by the way:  

THIS IS AN *ELECTION YEAR* PEOPLE.  It's not as if we've never seen
this kind of thing happen before.  I can maybe see some of the source
for the outrage, but there really isn't anything new this time.

>				Brad Cote'

jking
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: csuah@warwick.ac.uk (~WISP at CU~)
Subject: Re: New poll results
Organization: Computing Services, Warwick University, UK
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 19:01:08 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.112608.19319@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:

[Stuff about how useless opinion polls are...]
>"won't say" were in fact Conservative voters. Also the
>Conservatives ran a nasty but effective campaign appealing to
>personal greed, thus a lot of people voted Conservative but
>were ashamed to admit it. As someone once said, "voting
>Conservative is like masturbating - everyone does it, but
>no-one admits to it".

Oh, please! Labour lost that election because a) their manifesto was a
wish-list that couldn't possibly be lived up to, b) the unions still
control the party, c) Kinnock is a born-again loser and d) the Nuremberg rally
at Sheffield frightened a lot of people. It wasn't a particularly dirty
campaign, and much of what there was came from Labour (like Hill's threat
to 'get the wives involved. Good job he didn't: the Tories would have
increased their majority...).

What we need in PR: get consensus politics back, instead of this
confrontational bullsh*t...

Chris W.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Chris Williams <csuah@uk.ac.warwick.csv> aka <csuah@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
"Tony Greig in the slips, legs apart, waiting for a tickle"
                                      Brian Johnson (thanks to A. Simha 8^>)
From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Any undecides out there?
Date: 14 Sep 92 23:07:27 GMT
Organization: gte

In article <18r2akINN13c@armory.centerline.com>, thomaso@centerline.com (Thomas Andrews) writes:
> This is purely a matter of curiousity.  Is there any registered
> voter reading this group who is still undecided?  Please respond
> via email; there is no point cluttering the newsgroup with such
> noise.
> 
> Fear not, I shan't start mailing you lots of campaign literature.

There are a lot less "undecided" voters than the media would lead
you to believe.  They lump Libertarian, Perot, Green Party, Grites,
etc into "undecided" because the media does not want you to find
out about the other alternatives or vote for them.  The medias 
has a vested interest in the Democrats and the Republicans (the same
folks who control the media have also bought most of the politicians 
and if we elect an outsider, they'll have to either buy him or dig
up some enough trash to get him impeached.)

Screw Bush
Screw Clinton

Vote for an "outside" party --- personally, I like the Libertarian
candidates Andre Marrou/Nancy Lord.


-- 
"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US murders are 
committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"   -  Andrew Ford
gtephx!forda@enuucp.eas.asu.edu  OR  !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: underdog@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dwight Joe)
Subject: Re: Bush Announces Sale of F-15E's to Iraq
Organization: Miners for a Heart of Gold
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 12:03:14 GMT

In article <pgf.715630578@srl07.cacs.usl.edu> pgf@srl07.cacs.usl.edu
(Phil G. Fraering) writes:
>...
>Yah, god forbid we should sell fighters to a country [Taiwan] which will
>use them to maintain their national security and identity separate
>from such a paragon of virtue like Communist China.
>...

The central question is, "Will the USA support the creation of
the Republic of Taiwan as an independent nation apart from China?"
Taiwan is presently (technically) not a separate country.  But
would the USA support an independent Taiwan witha a gov't that no
longer lays claim to the PRC or anything else that was lost during
the Maoist revolution?

(sort of rambling but...)

Currently, the gov't on Taiwan is the loser in the Maoist revolution.
They claim to be the legitimate gov't of China; the Chinese communists
say otherwise.  What we have is a stalemated civil war that has never
officially ended.

Korea's recognition, last week, of the Communist Chinese gov't
and the discontinuance of ties with the Chinese gov't on Taiwan
is precisely what happens when foreign nations are forced to
choose between two gov'ts rivaling over the same territory.
Japan did the same.  The USA did the same.  Taiwan is, techniquely
speaking, not a separate nation--yet.

But suppose that Taiwan did become a separate nation.  The people on
Taiwan (85% of them are descended from those arriving before 1949)
have a right to self-determination.  Many of them are afraid to
voice their opinions of independence because they fear that the
PRC will invade if they do declare independence (simultaneouly
ending the civil war and creating a new nation).

If they became an independent nation, would the USA support the Republic
of Taiwan and prevent its invasion by the PRC?

If you've got interesting (non-vulgar comments), then send e-mail.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seikatsu no imi wa nan desu ka.            \|  |`      | Don't buy from Toyota;
Shitte itara oshiete kuremasen ka.          | -+-      | especially, don't buy
                                           /| / \      | from Capitol Toyota in
Copyright 1992.                                        | San Jose, California.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12883 talk.politics.misc:44910 alt.politics.marrou:1122 alt.politics.bush:4776 alt.politics.clinton:4982 alt.politics.perot:1435
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Philandros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: New poll results
Date: 11 Sep 92 21:30:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <10SEP199223231889@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>, lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes...
> 
>The Libertarian Party has been around for over twenty years.  Isn't that
>enough time to get started?
> 
>Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
>Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
>University of Arizona
>Tucson, AZ 85721

	Twenty years ago, the LP could fit inside a living room.  It does
take time.  The LP is already the largest third party, so I would say that
it is off to a good start.

	There are still many hurdles to jump.  I don't think that most people
realize just how difficult it is to make a third party successful.  Just look
at the hundreds of thousands of dollars it takes just to get third party
presidential candidates ON THE BALLOT.  This is a big drain of resources for
a third party.  Imagine the difference it would make if that money could have
been pumped into network television commercials instead...

	Libertarians have had to learn how to discuss their ideas persuasively
and to campaign effectly.  No experienced Republican or Democratic politician
is likely to help out a new Libertarian candidate...  There is a learning curve
to climb.

	I'm not making excuses.  I'm just stating reality.  I believe that with
hard work and smart campaigning, the Libertarian Party will be the next major
party.  (And it won't be a moment too soon!)


Mark Sulkowski
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,alt.politics.correct
From: evanh@sco.COM (Evan Hunt)
Subject: Re: Gladiator was Re: Pushkin Dueling Libertarians
Organization: Stan's Chosen Ones
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 02:16:54 GMT


Don't blame me, I voted for PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal).
[would a libertarian govt. allow gladiator contests?]
>"Allow" is not really the correct idea.  Since all the involved
>parties are, in theory, voluntary, then none of their rights has been
>violated.  (Making the assumption the you can voluntarily waive your rights.
>Some people don't believe you can.)

I don't think that assumption is necessary.  This is a noncoercive
government we're postulating, so it won't force people *not* to
contract away their rights if they choose to do so...but it could
insist that no one be *held to* such a contract if they make it and
subsequently change their minds.

Gladiator Inc. can build its stadium, hire its gladiators and contract
to pay them (or their estates) after the contest is over.  One of the
gladiators decides not to go through with the contest; he must immediately
be released from the contract (without pay).  This may cause the contest
not to happen, which may cause Gladiator Inc. to lose money, and they may
sue the gladiator for damages, but they'll lose, because as soon as he
changed his mind, the contract legally ceased to exist.  If the contest
went on in spite of his decision, all other participants would be guilty,
individually, of premeditated murder.  (These possibilities would surely
make the Gladiator business unprofitable and very unattractive to investors.)

Same would go for hiring oneself out as a slave, or any other voluntary
concession of rights.  As long as it's understood that the contract is
of zero duration with an option to renew every instant, the contract
is "legal".

-- 
"I had generously shown on the stage my interior life as a raging beast, but
 my exterior life as a mediocre human being and dilettante of of normal int-
 elligence remained unchronicled...I *knew* that beneath my work's primeval,
 hysterical facade there was a calm little writer in an armchair just waiting
 to burst forth." -- Wally Shawn, on the writing of "My Dinner With Andre'"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
From: buckmr@vccnw03.its.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Subject: Re: NEWSWEEK-GALLUP Poll on GAY RIGHTS in America
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 22:04:29 GMT

farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:

>>"We oppose efforts to include sexual preference as a protected minority 
>>receiving preferential status under civil rights statutes at the Federal, state
>>and local level." --1992 Republican National Commitee campaign platform.

>78% percent believe that gays should not be subjected to job discrimination
>(or at least have that legal protection). Again, the REpublican Party's
>platform and campaign is saying, "LESS IS MORE". If they can't handle diversity
>within their own party (on abortion; some polls indicated that anywhere from 
>40-75% of delegates opposed pro-life amendment), why should we trust them
>to be in charge of a much more diverse mass of people, the United States
>citizens?
The answer to THAT question, my dear, is that we shouldn't!
VOTE, BABY, VOTE! (ARE YOU REGISTERED, BABY?)
-- 
RON BUCKMIRE, 11 Colvin Circle, Troy, NY 12180-3735.  ``D.C. in 93!''
vox:(518)-276-8910 fax:(518)-276-6920 buckmr@rpi.edu buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet
"Yes, you can get AIDS from a mosquito...*IF* you have unprotected
receptive anal intercourse with an infected mosquito..." -- Randy Shilts
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,alt.politics.correct
From: katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty)
Subject: Re: Snuff Films was Re: Gladiatorial Libertarians [was Re: Pushkin Dueling...]
Organization: Auto-trol Technology Corporation -- Denver, Colorado
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 05:51:46 GMT

rjc@devo.unify.com (Ronald Cole) writes:
: In article <18rp7rINNrop@news.aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
:    To take the case one step futher.
: 
:    Suppose there is  a mother who loves her children but is absolutely 
:    stone broke desparate. Someone offers her a $10,000,000 trust fund 
:    for her children if she will be the main star of a snuff film. That
:    is she agrees to be killed in a pornographic film.
: 
:    Would this be legal in a libertarian world.
: 
: I would hope not.  In that libertarian world, I would voluntarily
: contribute a certain percentage of my personal wealth to help this
: woman get back on her feet so she can support her family once again.
: 
Hi Ronald,

   I am a mother who loves my children but I'm absolutely stone broke.
Please send me a certain percentage of your personal wealth. When I 
get back on my feet again, I will happily buy into your libertarian
fantasy utopia.


Kathy
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: Welfare - The Truth Finally Revealed! was Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 14:44:46 GMT

There seems to be an attempt to set up a straw man something like this:
"The republicans say the problem is welfare fraud, but fraud is negligible,
so there's no welfare problem". That's immaterial. There has also been
posted the stat that something like 60-70% (or whatever) of people on
welfare are only on for six months. That's misleading in two ways. It's based
not on people, but cases. There are many who are on and off for much of
their lives.
 
The real problem though, is the permanant underclass that go on and never come
off. This is partly because of the negative incentive structure of most
welfare programs where one pays an effective tax of of over 100% for any
outside income, when lost benifits are figured in. The state has contrived
a system that punishes people who try to get off.
 
The only workable system is to reverse the incentive system and reward
people for getting outside income, and making benifits for the unemployed
conditional on some kind of work where possible. This is needed not only
for incentive constraints, but to teach those in the permanant underclass
the skills that are needed for even minimal employment. There is a
significant number of people in this country who have never held any
job and do not have the basic skills needed to get a job. The answer
in not Federal training dollars, but basic work.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 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
From: cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Term Limits
Date: 15 Sep 92 23:07:18 GMT

aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron) writes:

>After reading the "Blame the Democrats" thread and seeing the debate over
>term limitations come up, I must ask a question.  Why do some favor it?  It
>seems to me that if a Senator/Representative is not doing a good job, the 
>people could just vote him/her out.  And if said politician is doing a good
>job, then term limitations would eliminate a good leader.  Term limitations
>seems like a bad idea but I would like to hear arguements in favor of it.

>  -- Scott @Brandeis

One reason - Congressmen get re-elected by bringing as much of the
federal pie as possible back to their district. Given the seniority
system, this share gets bigger and bigger the longer one is in office.
The message is - "Elect a new guy, and he won't be able to do as much
for you."

Another reason - Congress has become a ruling class. They have voted
themselves many advantages in the re-election game, most notably, free
mailers to all constituents. They also enjoy easy access to the press.
Just examining the record of re-election of incumbents will tell you
that something is wrong.

We need people in congress who are there to get a job done, not work
to stay in office. "Doing a good job" means 1) getting re-election
contributions from PACTS, and 2) spending more money in the home
district. Neither of these will get us needed reforms (middle-class
entitlement cutbacks, closure of unneeded military bases, a cap on
federal spending, a reduction of the defecit, etc).

				Brad Cote'
				University of California, San Diego
				STARE Project
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:13049 alt.flame:12822