HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bing@jazz.concert.net (Carter E. Bing)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Organization: Center for Communications, MCNC; RTP, NC
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:33:54 GMT


	Is this a reported fact of just something to stir up
debate on the net...


		Carter

--
"Why, have you never noticed that opinion without knowledge is
always a shabby sort of thing? At the best is blind. One who
holds true a belief without intelligence is just like a blind
man who happens to take the right road, isn`t he?"  Socrates
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58940 ca.politics:9442
From: carroll@hercules.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Who Are The Crowd Most Likely To Set Up Death Camps? (Was Re: Colorado Letter)
Date: 8 Nov 92 18:25:00 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark

In article <13086@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>It was suggested here a while back that the more moral outrage
>someone expresses, the more likely they are to form a lynch mob,
>concentration camp, or other manifestation of murderous evil.
>The following posting by Jess Anderson concerning Coloradans
>that voted for the Colorado initiative says it all:
>
>In article <1992Nov5.205943.13681@macc.wisc.edu>, anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
>> In article <1992Nov5.185336.15750@asuvax.eas.asu.edu>
>> kennedy@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Ralph Kennedy) writes:
># #     Oh for heavens sake, Jess, for once be assertive:
># 
># V. inf.
># 
># #for much too subjunctive a tone for what I assume
># #are strong feelings on your part.
># 
># The actual feelings are these: they're pig-fucks and I'd
># like them all to die right now, in the most gruesome way
># possible.  I thought I should tone that down a bit, though.
># 
># -- 
># Jess Anderson <# Madison Academic Computing Center <# University of Wisconsin
>

Well Clayton, I'm proud of you. You managed to find ONE example of a
homosexual who suggested something violent. ONE. Do you think this
proves anything?

The other day I heard a black person on television saying that all
"cock-sucking homos should be shot". Does this allow me to extrapolate
and say that african americans have violent tendencies, and are
subhuman brutes who would like to set up a concentration camp for
homosexuals?

Several weeks ago, I saw the local head of the KKK in the newspaper.
He flamed on about what he'd like to do to the Kikes, Niggers, and
Queerboys. Can I use that to extrapolate out and make a judgement
about white heterosexual men?

In _any_ population, there are going to be bastards. In any group, you
can find violent radicals. That doesn't mean that it's justified to
judge the group on the basis of it's lunatic fringe.

Homosexuals are just like any group. They've got their murderers,
rapists, thiefs, radicals, and lunatics, just like the rest of us.
That doesn't mean that they are ALL murderers, rapists, thieves,
radicals, and lunatics.

It's no more justified to say that all gay men are like Jeffrey Dahmer
than to say that all black men are like Willie Horton, or all white
men are like Adolph Hitler.

You have yet to provide a single shred of evidence of ANY kind to
prove that homosexuals are any more likely than anyone else to be
criminals, molesters, rapists, or anything else.

	<MC>

-- 
[ Mark Craig Carroll <MC> ] You say you know no tricks, have no talents -
[ U of Delaware, CIS Dept ] Isn't everyone supposed to have their own?
[ Grad Student/Lab Hacker ] Yes, but few are obvious. Few draw notice to those
[ carroll@udel.edu        ] who posess them, like flags waving themselves.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: akbloom@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
Subject: Re: What to do about Colorado
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 00:39:36 GMT

kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

>Measure 2 denies gay, lesbian, and bisexual people equal protection
>of the laws.  You could also make a strong case that the measure
>abridges GLB people's privlileges and deprives them of their
>liberty.  Disclaimer: as you can tell, I'm not a lawyer.)

What does Measure 2 say, exactly?  Would someone please post the exact
wording?


Keith
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
From: larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings)
Subject: Re: A TRUE LANDSLIDE
Organization: Intergraph
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 21:26:10 GMT

In article <92315.011135MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>, Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
> In article <1992Nov9.232842.13241@athena.cs.uga.edu>, heath@athena.cs.uga.edu
> (Terrance Heath) says:
> 
> >        Can we stop dickering over numbers now? The next President has
> >been chosen. Can we all just get about the bussiness of making this
> >dang country work?
> 
> Apparently not. I expect to read posts about this by Republicans still in
> denial for the next several months.

Since most Clinton voters want to split the 20% of the vote Clinton got
between Demo's and Rep's why do you think it is only Rep's who are upset
about the election.  The knife does cut both ways.  Think about it.

BTW I voted against Clinton, but am willing to let him try to hold off the
"raise taxes congress" before questioning whether or not his parents were
married.

> 

Larry Billings
Most of us are sad, No one lets it show,
I've been shadows of myself,How was I to know?         Eagles
*******************************************************************************



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
From: hale@btree.uucp (Bob Hale)
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 92 21:36:54 GMT
Organization: Brooktree Corporation
Subject: Re: Why Civil Libertarians Might Want To Vote For Bush (Really, I'm
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: na
Organization: Brooktree Corporation, San Diego
Keywords: 

In article <39KD02jR29EU01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>But apparently the legislatures passing these measures assess the evidence 
>differently.  I'm not taking a position on either side of this, not having 
>studied the underlying issue of what evidence there is, but if reasonable 
>minds may come to differing conclusions about the effectiveness of waiting 
>periods, than one person's conclusion isn't necessarily dispositive, and 
>legislation based on others is reasonable and acceptable.

There are a few assumptions underlying Terry's agrument that need to
be examined.  "Reasonable minds" are not generally found in the
legislatures, at least not at the present time.  The minds in the
legislatures are trying to further their own interests, and not the
interests of the population at large.

Legislation based on emotional reaction rather than factual analysis
usually serves to *worsen* the problem which is supposedly being
corrected by that legislation.  Just because a bunch of elected officials
say something doesn't necessarily make it so.

Bob Hale                                      ...!ucsd!btree!hale
...!btree!hale@ucsd.edu                       ...!ucsd!btree!hale@uunet.uu.net



Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59884 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8485 alt.president.clinton:370
From: KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: A TRUE LANDSLIDE
Date: 13 Nov 92 02:43:25 GMT
 <randall.721347430@seashore> <ATAYLOR.92Nov10143040@gauss.nmsu.edu>
 <1992Nov12.191324.1132@athena.cs.uga.edu>

In article <1992Nov12.191324.1132@athena.cs.uga.edu>, heath@athena.cs.uga.edu
(Terrance Heath) says:

>        For cryin' out loud, in a three-person race, a majority is
>hard to come by. No one knows what would have happened if Perot hadnot
>gotten back in, so why don't we just leave it for the historians to
>figure it out.

There have been several 3-man races in the past.  Reagan got over 50%,
against Carter -AND- Anderson.  It can be done.

To be fair, though, he may not have done it if Anderson were a billionaire.
But the fact remains, a majority has been won before in 3-man races.

>        Can we stop dickering about this please? We know who won. Can
>we just get on with it now?

Get on with what?  "Making our country better?"  What are we going to do
on the Internet???  The best thing we can do here is aruge with each other,
right?  [1/2 :-) ]

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
From: wgb3@pyuxf.uucp (25336-buoni)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 16:58:33 GMT

From porthos!walter!ramona.com!doug Wed Nov 11 11:59:21 EST 1992

>Sunday on _Meet the Press_, Vernon Jordan, head of Clinton's transition
>team, confirmed that Anita Hill is the front-runner to get the job of
>EEOC Commissioner. Note that the EEOC is the agency where Hill was working
>when she was sexually harassed by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas,
             ^ALLEGEDLY 
To the best of my knowledge, Anita Hill's charges were never substanciated!
           

Bill 

My opinions are my own!



Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59918 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8501 alt.president.clinton:380
Organization: The Leader Desslok School of Diplomacy
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 23:24:50 EST
From: Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: A TRUE LANDSLIDE
 <randall.721347430@seashore> <ATAYLOR.92Nov10143040@gauss.nmsu.edu>
 <1992Nov12.191324.1132@athena.cs.uga.edu> <92317.214325KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>

All right, that's it, I'm going over the edge, someone stop me before
I flame again -- TOO LATE!

In article <92317.214325KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>, Kurt Ludwick
<KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> says:

>There have been several 3-man races in the past.  Reagan got over 50%,
>against Carter -AND- Anderson.  It can be done.

Nixon couldn't do it. So was he illegitimately elected? After all, a
majority of the voters voted AGAINST Nixon, right?

>To be fair, though, he may not have done it if Anderson were a billionaire.
>But the fact remains, a majority has been won before in 3-man races.

Not only that but the fact remains, that incumbent presidents have been
re-elected to second terms.

Neither one of these two things happened in '92. SO WHAT?

>>        Can we stop dickering about this please? We know who won. Can
>>we just get on with it now?

>Get on with what?  "Making our country better?"  What are we going to do
>on the Internet???  The best thing we can do here is aruge with each other,
>right?  [1/2 :-) ]

Perhaps, but at least we could argue about something interesting. Myself,
I'm getting sick of all this whining about "But Clinton didn't get a
MAJORRRRRRRRRITY... He only got a PLURAAAAAAAALITY... Make him go away, Mom!"

CLINTON WON. IT WILL NOT BE CHANGED BY WAILING ABOUT THE FIGURES.

Now go ahead and argue against his health care plan, his welfare plan, his
defense budget, his economic policy, anything you like, but will everyone
PLEASE shut up about the numbers?

God. There DEFINITELY wasn't this much whining when Bush won.

 "But Dr. Radium, was that necessary?" "Rez, _everything_ I do is necessary."
[Your blood pressure just went up.]        Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
DISCLAIMER: If PSU knew I had opinions they'd probably try to charge me for it.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: dusek@rtsg.mot.com (James Dusek)
Subject: Re: The Influence of 700 (Re: To the Clinton supporters)
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:05:28 GMT

prabhak@giga.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar) writes:
>>Not if the Religious Right gets control of the Republican Party (we'll see
>>in February '93). If there are more independents in Congress then 
>>independents like me will be happy.
>>>James Dusek
>Dusek is perhaps right about the political influence of the religious
>right. While they are a very organized and committed bunch, their

	I did not post this, this is a responce to me.

James Dusek
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: How Many Homosexuals?
Organization: Homosexual Fascist Lobby, Rampant Paranoia Division
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 03:55:16 GMT

In article <13085@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>The 3.3% figure for male homosexuals and bisexuals used by Masters, 
>Johnson, & Kolodny looks more and more plausible.

So?

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / I use antlers in all of my decorating.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59866 alt.politics.elections:23635 alt.rush-limbaugh:9561
From: chrisda@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (David Christensen)
Subject: Re: Bush and Saddam
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 09:11:06 GMT

In article <10358@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <6918@grus.cs.nps.navy.mil> shimeall@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (timothy shimeall) writes:
>
>>I see this a lot: Bush built up Saddam, another president would have
>>stopped Saddam without going to war.
>>  a) Are you aware that Saddam (pre-Gulf) had a VERY large oil income?
>>     This basically allowed him to purchase whatever he chose to.

Iraq owed money to several other countries that had lent money to Saddam
to fight the Iran/Iraq war.  The money he used to re-arm came from us.
>
>The vast majority of Saddam's arsenal was Soviet and French.
>From the US he got some helicopters that he converted to military use.
>After the war some arms caches have been found that contained US made
>mines and artillery shells.  There has been speculation but no evidence
>about how Saddam got these weapons.
>

Answer:  Your tax dollars at work!

---
David Christensen

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.homosexual,uiuc.general,uiuc.politics
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Coalition for Traditional Values' Candidate Survey
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1992 05:04:40 GMT
Distribution: usa
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14j by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <BwyEIx.6MI@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> zell@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Joseph Zell) writes:
>trd54583@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (green spleen... ) writes:
>
>>For example, look at the bigger picture, George Bush - a staunch pro-lifer -
>>eliminated a fair amount of lives in his little PR stunt / 'War'.
>
>very true.  But the kuwaities had a choice to surrender.

I see you know as much about world events as you do about abortion.  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Doomed...Doomed...Doomed...
Date: 10 Nov 92 17:30:15 GMT
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <bob1.721410792@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
> 
> Obviously, the voters did not agree with you and only threw out a  
few
> of the incumbents. Wonder what they knew that you do not?
> 

The problem is that, while most local voters DO see the Congress
as a big part of the problem, they don't seen their own
Representative that way. For their own Reps, they often focus
in on "what did he/she do for my district?" and ignore everything
else.  And Representatives campaign on this theme.  Joe Early
campaigned on "look at what I've done for you locally," without
ever saying anything about the world outside his district. (Luckily,
Early had such high negatives that this campaign didn't work,
and we tossed him out.)

A big campaign tact with incumbants is also the fear factor.
"If you don't re-elect me, the new guy will have far less seniority
and far less power, and thus not be able to bring as much money
back to the district." So again, while the voters think Congress
as a whole should have more turnover, they are afraid to turn
out their local Rep.  (This is one reason I support term limits,
by the way.  If the people know that they don't have to worry
about keeping their own guy in for 30 years because someone from
another state has been there that long, the elections will become
more open.)




--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
From: smith@ctron.com (Lawrence C Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Date: 5 Nov 92 17:08:48 GMT
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Oct27.013533.16228@pony.Ingres.COM>, garrett@Ingres.COM (It's not what you got, it's what you give) writes:

>	Social Security is there because there was a need for it.
>I remember FDR using the words, "People no longer have to fear growing
>old."

Why, then, do _I_ fear it?  Perhaps because I know that Social Security was
set up on an actuarily unsound basis and that I have absolutely no faith that
it will be around to pay me even one-tenth of what I've put into it _so_far_?

>I don't have any numbers for it, but because something is broken
>you don't have to throw it away, let's fix it instead.

Nevertheless, I agree with you.  But the only sound basis for Social Security
is to place every person's payment into an interest-bearing account with THAT
PERSON'S NAME ON IT.  None of this "you pay for the others now and your
children will pay for you later" crap.  The changeover will be painful, we'd
have to pay for all the people already rooked by the system out of general
revenue and, yes, _we_ are the generation that is going to get it right in
the tight end, but that will happen whether we fix the damn thing or not. The
only question is _when_ will it fail.

The other advantage of my suggestion is that the money is beyond the reach
of Congress, which will not be able to find new and innovative ways to spend
it, as they always have with Social Security the _moment_ it got any money
ahead.

If we followed this plan, _I_ for one, would retire with close to a million
dollars in my account at my present rate of "saving" - which is, incidently,
far higher than I can manage on what's left.  As it is, the actuarial tables
figure I'll be dead before I can live to collect a gaddamn dime, and with the
retirement age receeding nearly as fast as I age, even modern medicine won't
help me collect _anything_ I've paid in.  What a terrific "New Deal".

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com)  No, I don't speak for Cabletron.  Need you ask?
-
Liberty is not the freedom to do whatever we want,
it is the freedom to do whatever we are able.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Subject: Re: Term Limits
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 22:56:44 GMT

john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:

>So sack the damned staffers while we are at it. In fact, lets move
>the seat  of government every four years while we're at it.
>]
>](3) Less choices for voters.

>You mean fewer, not less... Huh? More choices for voters. Without term 
>limits, the same bozo appears election after election. With term limits that 
>bozo only appears twice, and then we get a new face. Sounds like more 
>choice to me!

No term limits means that you can re-elect the guy if he's not a bozo.
If the guy is a bozo, then you just vote him out. What's so hard about
that? I'll tell you, it means the voters have to take responsibility.
					
>Still, we need term limits. The citizens of 15 states have already voted
>in favor of them by true landslide margins (3 to 1 here in AZ).

Ok, but how many of those 15 states sent back Senate members back for
terms that would have exceeded the limit? Didnt AZ re-elect John McCain?
Was this his 2nd, 3rd or higher term? Didnt TX send back Phil Gramm
for his 3rd+ term after passing a term limit thing? Kansas and Bob Dole?
Wyoming and Alan Simpson? (im but think, but am not totally sure if, 
KS and WY passed term limits) It makes me
wonder how much the people of those 15 states really believe in 
term limits.					
============================================================================
BRI FARENELL			HOBBES: Why do we always play war and not peace?
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU     CALVIN: Too few role models.
CLARKSON '95			
A politically incorrect, pro-life, liberal, card-carrying member of the ACLU.
===========================================================================
"We are not descended from fearful men... not from men who feared to write,
to speak, to associate and to defend causes which were, for the time, 
unpopular."		----Edward R Murrow
 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,misc.legal
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Waiting Periods (was Re: Why Civil Libertarians ...)
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Oct30.235954.16696@nsc.nsc.com> <1992Nov1.163803.5318@moci.uucp>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 21:45:49 GMT

	
	Followup is set to talk.politics.guns

<In article <1992Nov1.163803.5318@moci.uucp> joeb@moci.uucp (Joe Bronikowski (Little Joe)) writes:
<In article <1992Oct30.235954.16696@nsc.nsc.com> jrr@nsc.nsc.com (Jerry Roe) writes:
<>                               Now obviously, someone with an existing
<>criminal record of a nature that would get that approval turned down is NOT
<>going to walk into a gun store and try to buy anything other than
<>accessories.  Extending that logic to a waiting period instead of an
<>instant check, that same criminal is definitely not going to go apply for
<>a gun purchase and wait 5 or 7 or 15 days to go pick up his gun.

	This is in line with the recent LA experience, where
	rioters "waited" as long as it took to smash a car into
	the front of sporting goods stores, while law-abiding
	folks were told "come back in 2 weeks".

<   It seems not all criminals are that smart.  In Wisconsin, our 7-day waiting
<   period (and background check) is touted as preventing upwards of 50
<   criminals from purchasing guns.  

	Touted by whom, please? In Maryland, rabidly anti-freedom
	Governor Schaeffer claimed that "hundreds of criminals" were
	being prevented from buying firearms by a background check.

	The truth of the matter was, some 200 or more denials
	were issued; most of these denials were overturned on
	appeal as they were based on faulty records...

	Could the same thing be happening in Wisconsin?

<Of course it was the _background_check_,
<   not the waiting period, which caught them.  That doesn't stop politicians
<   from claiming the success of the waiting period though :-)
 

	In Virginia, the instant check has had moderate success;
	that hasn't stopped anti-freedom types from demanding
	a waiting period anyway.


	Followup set to t.p.g.