HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Arms-for-Hostages
Date: 4 Nov 92 14:31:39 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Distribution: usa
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992Oct28.145943.23636@midway.uchicago.edu> shou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse) writes:
>>
>>            ....                           And we aided Saddam
>>Hussein, helping him build up his military, encouraging him up until
>>the moment he invaded Kuwait.
>
>To the contrary!  This was a well thought out strategy and the statement
>above represents a huge misstatement of the actual events of the time.

Read the New Yorker article, and learn.  Better yet, wait a few months 
and watch the trials, read what George said *under oath* (which might 
surprise you if you only listened to what he wanted you to hear in his 
campaign speeches), and examine those documents that survive the shreader.  

What you will learn when you read the New Yorker article is that you 
can rely entirely on Republicans for all sides of the story.  Because 
of the battle between Shultz/Weinberger and Casey/Poindexter, there is 
no shortage of information from one side about what the other side was 
doing and/or supporting during in-house debates.  

There was no strategy, just the ebb and flow of two competing interests 
in the Reagan-Bush cabinet.  Now we just have to wait a few months to 
see what happened in the Bush administration -- specifically the 
instructions to April Glaspie and Bush's letter to Saddam. 

--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I  
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Subject: Re: Doomed...Doomed...Doomed...
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 22:00:36 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.091008.21597@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>
>At least the Democrats claim they're going to unite the country.  Notice
                        ^^^^^
>the difference in rhetoric at the conventions.  "There is no 'them,'
>there is only 'us.'"  vs  "There's a war for America's soul going on,
>and Clinton and Clinton are on the other side."

While not wanting to exonerate the Republicans, this is a complete
crock of shit.

No 'them', only 'us'?  HA HA HA!

Unless you're the "rich" and they're the "poor".  Of course maybe
the Democrats really mean this, and we'll _all_ be in one of these
groups after four years...

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: drevik@utkvx3.utk.edu (Drevik, Steve)
Subject: Re: Game Over; Thank You For Playing
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:41:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.083604.1@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi>, huumala@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi writes...
>> P.S. I have had my American flag hanging in distress mode in the basement
>> for 12 years. It is now flying proudly--properly lit, I might add, since
>> it's night time--in my front yard. Join me.
> 
>I on the other hand had my US flag flying proudly in the front yard for 12
>years (yes properly lit at night).  Now it has come down and will hang limply
>in my closet for at least four year.

"Patriotism...but only when I win."  You guys ranked on Bill Clinton for
opposing the Vietnam war....because the country was doing something you
didn't believe in.  Why is it OK to shelve YOUR patriotism when YOU see
fit, but not anyone else?  Waffle, Waffle, Waffle anyone?

The greatest thing about this country is our election system.  For over
200 years, we have been able to select leaders, rather than resorting
to coups, inheritance of position, etc.   To turn your back on the
result of the election and say "this is a sad day for America" is to
turn your back on America itself, the Constitution, and everything
"patriotism" means.  I suffered quietly under 12 years of Reagan/Bush,
because it was the the will of the people.  I'm sorry to see that 
members of your party lack to maturity to behave in an adult fashion.

Climb back into your cribs, children... it's bedtime!
From: randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: What to do about Colorado
Date: 7 Nov 92 02:09:30 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>I'm particularly depressed about Colorado passing Measure 2.  Mike
>will vouch that it put quite a damper on an otherwise pleasant
>evening.
>I take _some_ comfort in that it looks clearly unconstitutional.
>Time to hit the courts.
>(Justification, the 14th Amendment, Section 1:
>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.)

Measure 2 will undoubtedly be taken to court.  Although you
are not a lawyer, I'll bet that the 14th amendment will be used
as part of an argument to have it declared unconsitutional.  
If the Colorado Supreme Court does not hear it, it may be heard
by the U.S. Supreme Court.  

-- 

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Randall Rhea                                        Informix Software, Inc. 
Project Manager, MIS Sales/Marketing Systems    uunet!pyramid!infmx!randall
From: nigel.allen@canrem.com (nigel allen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: nbcsl
Date: 9 Nov 92 23:18:44 GMT
Reply-To: "nigel allen" <nigel.allen@canrem.com>
Distribution: talk
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

Here is a press release from the National Black Caucus of State Legislators.

 Black State Legislators to Hold '92 Conference in New Orleans
 To: National and Assignment desks
 Contact: Kofi Owusu of the National Black Caucus of State
          Legislators, 202-624-8833

   WASHINGTON, Nov. 9  -- The National Black Caucus of State 
Legislators (NBCSL) will hold its 16th Legislative Conference 
at the ITT-Sheraton New Orleans Nov. 30 through Dec. 6.
   NBCSL president, Colorado State Sen. Regis F. Groff; conference
chair, California Assembly Member Gwen Moore; and host committee
chair, Louisiana State Sen. Diana Bajoie, announced the conference
theme: Revive, Redesign, Rebuild BLACK AMERICA "...with liberty and
justice for all."
   More than 1,000 participants are expected to attend and salute
NBCSL's growing membership.  This week's election results have added
more than 100 African American state legislators to NBCSL's ranks,
for a total of nearly 600 across the nation.  Ten African American
state legislators who were elected to the U.S. House of
Representatives and former NBCSL member Illinois Senator-elect Carol
Moseley Braun will also be honored.
   "This is the largest political movement since Reconstruction; the
largest political power shift in this century," Groff said about
the Nov. 3 state and Congressional elections.  "Effective use of this
growing political power gives African Americans dynamic influence in
deciding the political priorities and fiscal solutions to America's
many problems."
   Invited speakers include: U.S. President-elect Bill Clinton;
Illinois Senator-elect Carol Braun; Democratic National Committee
Chairman Ron Brown; University of Oklahoma Law Professor Anita Hill;
Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies President Eddie
Williams; General Benjamin O. Davis; and others.
    ------
   NOTE: NBCSL staff will be in New Orleans beginning Friday,
Nov. 27.
 -30-
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
From: mitcheec@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (Elliott Mitchell)
Subject: Re: A TRUE LANDSLIDE
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Vanderbilt University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:26:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.181224.16247@oz.plymouth.edu>, m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier) writes...
> 
>More often than not, they've been omiting the word 'electoral',
>thereby implying the other becuase thats what most people think of
>first.  Even if your point is valid, didn't Reagan and Bush have
>electoral landslides?  You never heard it refered to as a landslide by
>many media outlets.
> 
>God bless Michael

Michael, you need to find the media outlet that reports only 4-year-old 
news, I'm sure you'd be more comfortable with it.  Then you'd be hearing 
about the Bush landslide and you'd be happy.  You'd also be comforted by 
knowing that, no matter how bad things are reported to be, the world lasted 
four more years.

Just remember that the greatest thing about the press in America is that it 
doesn't print what we want it to print.


+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
| Elliott Mitchell
|  Peabody College at Vanderbilt University
|  Nashville, Tenn. Home of the Grand Ole Opry
|  IN: mitcheec@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu | BN: MITCHEEC@VUCTRVAX
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59975 ca.politics:9552 misc.legal:19879
From: Terri Buchman <buchman@osf.org>
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A727F6A5FC01080F@alimac5.osf.org>
X-Xxdate: Thu, 12 Nov 92 11:55:17 GMT
Organization: Open Software Foundation
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 16:54:56 GMT

In article <BxLvyA.24G@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> Greg Trotter,
greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu writes:
>Are you saying that quotas don't work?

Actually I'm saying that most of the 'quota' systems that I have
seen in place were put there by and for white males.  And yes I
think that it is about time that those quota systems were abolished.
 

Affirmative action programs do not equal quota systems.  Please show
me the wording of the Civil Rights bill that states what quotas
shall be in effect and what the allocated numbers shall be.  Or
could it be that affirmative action is actually a program designed
to open up opportunities for groups other than white males.  Among
other things, affirmative action asks employers to list their job
openings and encourage applicants from all backgrounds to apply.  It
tries to get companies to widen their hiring pools and actually
recruit from a wide range of areas.  I read an estimate that as many
as 80% of all job openings are never listed.  They are filled from
personal references and employee referrals.  AA asks that more jobs
be listed so that a wider range of people can apply.  

TerriB>
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60043 alt.politics.libertarian:1854
From: ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack B. Nimble)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Keynesian thing (was: A "New" Reich)
Date: 14 Nov 92 00:08:18 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.185146.10924@oakhill.sps.mot.com>, on 12 Nov 1992 18:51:46 GMT,
dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson) writes:

>
>dude, you are really trampling the "beliefs" of the
>supply-siders and the libertarians.  your facts are
>spoiling their prolific dis-information.  keep it up!

To the contrary, Keynesian economic theory has long been discredited as
a lot of bunk. Libertarians don't bother to waste their time rebutting
this drivel anymore.

It's interesting that when all sorts of harmful long term effects of
Keynesian policies were presented to Keynes, he came back with the now
famous quip: "So what, in the long run we're all dead."

        =Jack=

---

Jack B. Newsbaum             You have rights antecedent to all earthly
Library Information Systems  governments; rights that cannot be
University Research Library  repealed or restrained by human law.
ecl4jn2@mvs.oac.ucla.edu               - John Adams
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58691 ca.politics:9399 ba.politics:6863
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:37:38 GMT

In article <Zt-=2yB@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
Fred wrote: 
>|> No, it is QUITE relevant.  It is NOT part of your salary.  The 7.5%
>|> they take from you is part of your salary.  The other 7.5% is part of
>|> a forced benefit.
>|> 
>
>When an employer makes you a job offer, they don't make an offer and
>then suddenly slap themselves on the head when they realize that
>they have to pay an additional 7.5% to the government in your name.
>The 'cost' of that 'benefit' is part of your compensation package
>as far as they are concerned.  It represents the cost of employing
>you.  If they think you are worth it, they will pay it, otherwise
>they won't.  The employer portion of FICA is *very much* a part
>of your salary.

	Not at all true. The FICA is mandatory, it will apply regardless
of who an employer hires. Furthermore, it is not at all part of any
employee's salary, and is not reflected on any employee's W2 as part
of his or her gross pay. This FICA is significant in that sole
proprietors don't have to match. Corp's are beneficial, however,
for protection. A sole prop. is liable for injuries and debts, whereas
the owner of a corp. is not.

>I happen to think that an employer keeping the 7.5% without notifying
>the employee that he is receiving a pay cut borders on fraud.

	The employee is likely unaffected, SS-wise. I imagine that the
gov't would pay him/her what he/she contributed plus what the employer
did not. The employer, BTW, couldn't get away with this for more than
one fiscal qtr.



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"We need stronger death penalties..." George Bush, debate #2
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Back to the drug debate (was: SOMEBODY'S GOT TO SAY IT)
Date: 6 Nov 92 09:46:26 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Nov5.212141.25219@telesoft.com> trevor@telesoft.com (Trevor Bourget @ignite) writes:
>In <1992Nov5.131359.21004@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:

>>> Say what!?  "... victimless crimes like drug sale/use ..."  What
>>> exactly do you mean by this asinine statement?  Are you saying that
>>> people who sell/abuse drugs should be LEFT ALONE to further ruin
>>> themselves and those around them?

>>Picture, in your mind, a drug sale.  One person hands money to another
>>person, and that person hands drugs to the first person.  End of
>>story.  No victim, no crime, no "further ruin" to anyone.  And no
>>reason for the state to get involved.  At least, not in a free society.

>Picture in your mind an eight-year-old girl.  The nice man gives her
>candy.  The nice man takes her home.  The nice man molests her.  End
>of story.  No victim, no crime.  NOT!

>I'm sorry, but selling drugs to children IS a crime.  They don't have
>the judgement to know what's right and wrong, and it's too late when
>they figure it out.

Although I'm not at all convinced that the line belongs at 18 years old,
I'll certainly agree with your statement about children, and so will
about 99% of the other pro-legalization folks.

>As to drug use, who is it that pays welfare support for the person
>who eventually loses their job: the taxpayer is the victim in this
>crime.

Gee, and I suppose that we ought to ban late-night television, on the
grounds that it forces people to stay up late, not get enough sleep,
come to work late, get fired, and go on welfare?

Of course not, and this argument is just as silly.  Drug use doesn't
cause peope to lose their jobs (except when they're fired as part of
the KhemicalKorrectness program which the government mandates for all
its contractors.)  Drug abuse certainly might, but so does incompetence,
and we haven't outlawed that yet.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast
From: adam@endor.uucp (Adam Shostack)
Subject: Re: Celebration in the Streets
Organization: Aiken Computation Lab, Harvard University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:58:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.194559.28788@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>In article <5NOV199211522406@utkvx3.utk.edu> drevik@utkvx3.utk.edu (Drevik, Steve) writes:

>>This "Saddam can't wait to invade again now that Clinton is in
>>office" line is total bullshit.  Do you guys really believe this
>>garbage?  'course not...just another thing to whine about.

>What *we* believe is irrelevent ... it's what Saddam believes that
>will effect his (mis)behavior.  That he's celebrating suggests
>that *he* thinks he may be cut some more slack.

More slack than $2 billion in agriculture loans for military hardware?
More slack than being given US satellite photos of Iranian troops?
More slack than being allowed to gas Kurds with mustard gas? More
slack than being allowed to stay in power after the army of "another
Hitler" was routed?  How much more slack could the Democrats cut him? 

The fact is, the US under Reagan/Bush has had a policy of supporting
the lesser of two evils in the Middle East, and this policy has led to
the arming of Iraq, as a buffer against Iran, and the warming with
Syria (still on the State Department's list of supporters of
terrorism.) as a tool against Iraq.

Clinton has promised to base his foreign policy more on human rights
than on cold war style realpolitik, and if he follows through, that
will not in any way lead to more slack for Saddam Hussien.

Adam

Adam Shostack 					adam@das.harvard.edu

What a terrible thing to have lost one's .sig.  Or not to have a .sig
at all because of elections.  How true that is.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: SOMEBODY'S GOT TO SAY IT (Re: Clinton by default)
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:38:58 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.104603.68199@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PAUL N. RITTER) writes:
>>
>>Now, for $50, he could have seen a physician that could have told him
>>"you have diabetes, and here is how you need to alter your diet to
>>control it."  But instead, it's going to take $5000 to nurse him back
>>to health, maybe more.  Who pays it?  YOU AND I.  Either through taxes
>>for medicare, or increased costs by the hospital.
>
>    You moron. A hospital CANNOT refuse treatment of a patient just because
>    they can't pay for it. If more people realized this, we wouldn't have
>    nimrods like you voting for Slick Willie.

Yeah, hospitals can't refuse treatment, but why should we have to pay
for emergency room care (which is where most of these poor patients
wind up), the most expensive type of care around?  Why not implement a
preventive health-care plan, so we won't have to rely on
publicly-funded, extremely-expensive health care, like what we're
doing right now with the uninsured?



And gentlemen in England now abed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speak
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.	   [Henry V, 4.3]
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59997 ca.politics:9557 misc.legal:19885
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,misc.legal
Subject: Re: "Monsters Among Us", Frontlines, November 10, 1992, PBS
Date: 13 Nov 92 21:09:40 GMT
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95

kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>to.  If Hillary Clinton and our lawyer elite succeeds in making child
>divorce legal, as they have made great strides towards, how long will it
>be before a "mature" 12-year old decides to divorce his(her) parents and move
>in with his(her) 34-year old molester?

So, you are saying that a chance of abuse by a stranger is much worse than
actual abuse at home?  Interesting theory.  Is this what they mean by
"Family Values?"

--Tim Smith
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59262 soc.women:19194
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.women
Subject: Re: Eva Clayton bio
Date: 9 Nov 92 18:25:25 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Nov8.165457.7393@ncsu.edu>, black@akebono.math.ncsu.edu (Kelly Black) writes:
> In article <1992Nov6.222852.24040@dg-rtp.dg.com>, meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers) writes:
# |#         At the time, Gainesville had a 48-hour waiting period for gun
# |# purchases.  Acting on the advice of the retired chief of police,
# |# law-abiding citizens went out of town to buy guns.  Women needed
# |# immediate protection from a very real threat that could have struck
# |# at any moment.  Had a national waiting period been in effect, how many
# |# more women would have died?
# 
# When I hear this kind of vigilante argument I'm not sure

Vigilante?  Do you own a dictionary?  Vigilantism and self-
defense are quite different.

# how to react.  It is a very emotional appeal and in some
# respects it is effective.  But as a former army medic it
# doesn't really coincide with everything that has been 
# drilled and trained into me.  As a former NCO my intimate
# knowledge of the subject boiled down to three words:
# training, training, training.  We were taught to respect
# the weapons we carried and taught that training and prof-
# iciency go hand in hand.  I simply do not understand how
# people equate ownership of a weapon with safety.  We are

If the alternative is being being mutilated and murdered
by a madman (as happened in Gainesville), I think the equation
is completely understandable.  I agree that training is a very
good idea.  But would you rather a victim confront a madman with 
a handgun after reading the instruction manual, or confront a
madman unarmed?

# not talking about toys here!  I do not believe that owning
# a weapon insures safety unless the owner has the proper
# respect for its care and use and makes the effort to under-
# stand the capabilities of the weapon.  The point is that
# when someone goes out and buys a weapon they do not auto-
# matically gain protection.  In fact, use of a weapon by
# someone who does not understand it can result in quite
# the opposite.
# 
# Kelly Black / Center for Research in Scientific Computing /

How does it give the opposite result?
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
The Physician Assisted Death Initiative failed.  Term limits for Congressmen
passed.  If only we could have combined the two... two terms, and a doctor
does lethal injection...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.african.american