HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Date: 5 Nov 92 17:24:34 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 18988@umbc3.umbc.edu, alex@red-dragon.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
[Responds to Fordyce's question about Quayle's being on the waiting list]
>>How do you know he wasn't?
>
>	Dan was accepted into the guard within a week of his application,
>according to guard records. The New York times locates several other 
>individuals who applied to the same unit before Quayle, but did not reach
>the front ofr the list by the time that the war ended. While records were
>not kept for the individual units, there are records that indicate that
>as many as 10,000 people were on waiting lists in indiana when Quayle was
>accepted. 

I think that the 10,000 figure is exaggerated.  The list for the entire
country was just only 116,000.  Conventional units had hopelessly long waiting
lists in Indiana, but Quayle applied to the little-known "Headquarters and
Headquarters Detachment" unit known as HHD.  This unit had absolutely no chance
of being deployed out of state, since it was the administrative unit for the
entire Indiana National Guard.  The person who got this appointment for Quayle
was Col. Alfred F. Ahner, who is known to have procured such assignments for
other well-connected people.  One such person, Samuel D. Weldy 3rd, was quoted
by the Times as saying:  "I got accepted, just like Quayle, I assume, because my 
father called Ahner.  The fact of the matter is they had openings.  But I don't
think there's any question that to learn about this kind of unit you would have
had to have some kind of connection."  Another person, Edward W. Najam Jr., did
not go through Ahner.  He applied for entry to the unit at the same time Quayle
did but was told that there were no vacancies.  The person who called Ahner for
Quayle was Quayle family employee retired Maj. Gen. Wendell C. Phillipi.

So there are the details.  Quayle wasn't on a waiting list, and he did use family
influence to get into the Guard.  The hypocritical attempt of the Republican 
campaign team to smear Clinton's character with the draft issue didn't work.  But
I do think that a substantial portion of the public saw his legitimate use of
deferments as "draft-dodging" and Quayle's back-door deal to avoid Vietnam as
"honorable service".  That's politics in America.  Perhaps Clinton's election 
will help to lessen the impact of such cynical ploys in the future.  

>ideas will distry the economy. If Clinton has at least half a brain,
                                   ^^^^^^^^
>the GOP might not see the white house until the next century.

Excuse me, but I think you meant the American public here.  ;-)

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Trickle Down Economics
Date: 10 Nov 92 18:42:55 GMT
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1992Nov7.220505.29989@oakhill.sps.mot.com>  
pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
> In article <1992Nov6.031510.15623@Princeton.EDU>  
pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson) writes:
> >In article <1992Nov3.015124.1213@HQ.Ileaf.COM> raczka@HQ.Ileaf.COM  
(christopher raczka) writes:
> >>In article <1992Oct26.160811.323@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>  
krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
> >>> Hey folks, I have a question.  If trickle-down-economics is bad  
and 
> >>> doesn't create jobs...where the hell else can jobs come from?
> >>>
> >>Not picking on you Ted ...
> >>
> >>This is incredible ... a softminded, and inept person coins
> >>a phrase that even he does not and cannot define and the country
> >>uses that phrase in conversation
> >>
> >Clinton did not coin the phrase 'trickle-down-economics'.  It's  
been
> >around since at least the 1920's.
> 
> A source for this please?
> 

I don't now if it has been around since the 1920s but it has
been around since Harry Truman.  Truman (I think during the
'48 campaign) noted that the Republicans seemed to believe that
if there was enough wealth at the top it would somehow trickle
down to those below.  Truman thought this was nonsense, by
the way.

Source: Truman, by David McCollough  (a very good book)


--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
From: lbaum@atc.boeing.com (Larry Baum)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The Electoral College -- it isn't what it used to be
Date: 3 Nov 92 18:19:24 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services

In article <1992Nov1.133128.4499@u.washington.edu> tzs@stein.u.washington.edu
(Tim Smith) writes:
>lbaum@bcsaic.boeing.com (Larry Baum) writes:
>>Given that the small States would be ill-advised to give up
>>the Electoral College, how about a Constitutional Amendment to
>>make every State's electoral votes determined as it is in
>>Nebraska:
>
>Since each state is equal in approving Constitutional Amendments,
>how whould you get the small states to vote for this amendment?
>
>--Tim Smith
>
What's the problem?  This proposal does nothing to take away the advantage that
the Electoral college gives to small States.  There is still an Electoral
college with State's having the same number of electors.  It just makes the
electoral vote for each State more representative of the feelings of that
State's populace.

Nebraska IS a small State (only 5 electoral votes) but the people of Nebraska
figured out for themselves that this way is better.

Of course, each State could go ahead and do this on its own...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 15:25:57 GMT

eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu sez:
>>    Evidence and testimony are all well and good, but the Judiciary was 
>>the only body which could validate Ms Hill's evidence. There were no 
>>judges on the Senate Judiciary Committee,

>FWIW, Howell Heflin is a former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme
                          ^^^^^^
>Court.

>>    Even from a liberal point of view I believe that it's blatantly 
>>obvious; we blew it. We wanted to prevent Thomas's confirmation very badly 
>>but we flubbed our homework (we didn't make sure that Hill had irrefutable 
>>proof). 

>What foolishness.  Now you want the standard to be even more stringent
>than BRD?  How could any nominee not be confirmed under this standard
>unless he committed his vile acts in front of a video camera?

    I'm confident that if Judge Thomas had been convicted of sexual 
harassment in a real courtroom that Ms Hill's testimony would have 
carried more weight.

>>    In both strategic planning and tactical execution our liberal leaders 
>>failed. They tried to buck the rules when the only hope was to present 
>>evidence which was scrupulously correct. 

>Actually, the testimony offered by Hill and in support of her
>comported far more with the Federal Rules of Evidence that govern
>U.S. courts that did that offered by most of Thomas's supporting
>witnesses.

    Perhaps. I personally didn't think that the evidence offered by either 
side was conclusive or qualitatively superior to the other. It boiled down 
to her word against his. I'm sorry, but I don't consider that to be good 
enough. Evidently neither did the Senate Judiciary Committee. You can state 
your opinion about what you thought about the evidence, but that opinion 
was unfortunately not shared by those whose opinions counted the most.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59333 ca.politics:9487
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Why "Child Abuse Causes Homosexuality" Really Doesn't Fly
Date: 10 Nov 92 14:42:56 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <13100@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>Masters, Johnson, & Kolodny indicated that 26% of molesters were
>exclusively molesting little boys, and 4% were bisexual.  That's 30% of
>molesters who are homosexual or bisexual.

Excuse me. Are these molesters FIXATED, or REGRESSED?

It seems to me that you were arguing about men who molest boys as almost
always being fixated.

And we both know about the psychological origin of fixated pedophilia.
It's the lack of maturation of sexual identity, leading to a narcissistic
manifestation where the man identifies with the boy victim. Fixated
pedophilia starts often before the onset of puberty; fixated pedophiles
most often start abusing when they are themselves adolescents.

Assigning an adult orientation to them is meaningless. They don't like
men or women, just kids. The fact that boys are targeted only reflects
the fact that men are almost always those afflicted with this disorder,
and they identify with boys more easily. But just look at most publicized
pedophilia cases, and you'll see that fixated pedophiles also target girls
if the opportunity arises.

Shall I repost the descriptions of fixated pedophilia that I've found?

Now, REGRESSED pedophiles, that's another story. Since they HAVE developed
an adult sexual orientation, and merely regressed into pedophilia, their
object choice DOES reflect their sexuality.

Got any data on the relative victim gender incidences for regressed
pedophiles?

Brian
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58371 ca.politics:9372 ba.politics:6795
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Playing Politics With Our Economy
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:18:51 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA


Last night, watching the evening news, Clinton's economic plan was
described: a middle class tax cut "to give confidence to consumers,"
and tax incentives to business, apparently including a capital
gain tax reduction.

Now, Mush tried to get these through Congress for some time, and
was accused of being a fool, a tool of Big Business, etc. by
the Democrats.  Even when these proposals were introduced this
year, in the hopes of ending the recession, they were vigorously
resisted.

Now Clinton is going to get them in order to revive the economy.

It should be obvious that the Democrats were simply playing
politics with our economy, willing to throw hundreds of thousands
of Americans out of work, just to get the Presidency back.

What incredible sleaze these liberals are.
-- 
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...
From: markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: clinton's court?
Keywords: supreme court . clinton
Date: 9 Nov 92 01:13:18 GMT


 we know that none of the reagan bush nominees
 will be kicking-off too soon. but does anyone
 know the ages of the supreme court members?

 i think there are few who have been waiting to 
 get out when a democrat was elected.

 but poor moderate bill....he will have to
 nominate ultra lefties to balance the court.
 i think the supreme court creates the most
 dangerous politicians: those that can find a 
 precedance for their crazy beliefs.

 i think the supreme court decision should be
 made by a big jeopardy tournament.

 all candidates could be quized on subjects
 like: contracts, the constitution, torts,
 history of law, and pop culture.

 that concludes this weeks's invention exchange.
 what do you think sirs?

 mark.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58317 talk.politics.guns:23578 ca.politics:9368 ba.politics:6780 misc.legal:19589
From: dusek@rtsg.mot.com (James Dusek)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,ca.politics,ba.politics,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Shooting tragedy (was Re: Support Right to 'bear arms')
Date: 5 Nov 92 14:57:12 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group

larryd@stein.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto) writes:
>Bloodthirsty bastard aren't you.  Tried, convicted, and condemed the man

	The man murdered that kid, no differant than if he had broken
into the kids house and shot him there.

	The two kids were NOT attempting to break into his house, they
were standing OUTSIDE when he approached them. I don't know about LA
laws, but around here he would be in BIG trouble for what he did. You
cannot enforce laws OUTSIDE your house, thats what the police are for.

>the rest of us.  Maybe you don't understand the function of a grand jury.

	Shure I understand what a grand jury does. I hope he is found
guilty. I was alittle extream with calling for the death sentance, but
prison time is deserved in this case.

James Dusek

p.s. I also own a handgun and rifles.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
From: parrish@ecn.purdue.edu (Stephen L. Parrish)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 00:11:30 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.175844.20512@kadsma.kodak.com>, pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
|> In article <1doptuINNc5r@rave.larc.nasa.gov> jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov () writes:
|> >In article <1992Nov10.023120.2114@u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
|> >>In article <69.X666X@ramona.com> doug@ramona.com (Double Agent) writes:
|> >>>EEOC Commissioner. Note that the EEOC is the agency where Hill was working
|> >>>when she was sexually harassed by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas,
|> >>>who was then the EEOC Commissioner.
|> >>
|> >>She offered no evidence that she was harassed by anyone.
|> >>
|> >>--Tim Smith
|> >
|> >In your opinion...
|> >
|> >John
|> >
|> 
|> Testimony is evidence.
|> 
|> 
|> Don Pajerek
|> 
|> Standard disclaimers apply.

Testimony is evidence?  Yes when judging the character of the individual 
and the soundness of her testament.  However, her allegations were wrought
with inconsistencies and her compatriots were of no help in ironing out
flawed time lines and happenings.  The greatest travesty of the entire
situation was the character assassination of both Thomas and (gag) Hill.
Thomas had been through, what, 4 or 5 senate confirmation hearings, the 
senate judiciary review had the FBI report for weeks-- and when it looked
like he was going to get through, the feminists and other extremists drug
Hill's "allegations" into the fray.  The Congress came out looking like the
unscrupulous lot of losers they are... character and integrity, Senator Kennedy?

-- 
Stephen Parrish              |  "Do not speak to me of good men, bind them
Purdue University            |   with the chains of the constitution"
School of Nuclear Engineering|   --  Thomas Jefferson  (roughly) 
parrish@gn.ecn.purdue.edu    |  KEMP/Powell '96   (If the US survives '92-96)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: berryh@huey.udel.edu (John Berryhill, Ph.D.)
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Organization: little scraps of paper, mostly
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 06:53:08 GMT


Is it too late to ask how Jeb Bush got away with conscientious
objector status without his father's help?

Is it too late to wonder why the story hardly made a ripple?
-- 
                                                John Berryhill, Ph.D.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: steeg@cs.toronto.edu ("Evan W. Steeg")
Subject: Re: Dear Dems: Here's your big chance-don't blow it (like last time)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Distribution: na
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:17:32 GMT

In article <Bx91Gp.8LF@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com> dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:
>
>In article <92Nov4.181946edt.342@neuron.ai.toronto.edu> steeg@cs.toronto.edu ("Evan W. Steeg") writes:
>>  I'm inspired to see that people like Mr. Oliver will keep the 
>>basic Republican mean-spiritedness alive, in spirit if not actually
>>in a campaign.
>
>....
>Toronto must give you a perfect vantage point from which to 
>understand the struggle of honest, WORKING people in America 
>to survive the continuing plunder of their earnings by the US 
>government.
>

  Keep your ad hominem nonsense to your self, bro.  I'm American,
and have lived, WORKED, paid taxes and voted in 3 different US
states.

  Your silly class-warfare-inspired innuendo above falls rather
flat as well.  You'll excuse me if I'm not impressed by the
crocodile tears for the WORKING people expressed by a supporter
of George Herbert Walker Bush of Texas^H^H^H^H^HGreenwich, CT.

  -- Evan


-- 

Evan W. Steeg (416) 978-5182      steeg@ai.toronto.edu (CSnet,UUCP,Bitnet)
Dept of Computer Science          steeg@ai.utoronto    (other Bitnet)
University of Toronto,            steeg@ai.toronto.cdn (EAN X.400)
Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4           {seismo,watmath}!ai.toronto.edu!steeg
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism,alt.politics.elections
From: goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 16:43:07 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <Bxn8ox.KKz@acsu.buffalo.edu> v140pxgt@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Daniel B Case) writes:
...
>But, as Michael Kinsley has pointed out, the whole idea of enterprise zones 
>is inherently unconservative. The government is trying to get capital to go 
>where it doesn't want to. This sounds like-industrial policy! ...

    "Economist" called enterprise zones "the Republican version of big
    goverment waste".  I tend to agree.


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: all opinions are mine.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: olsenm@ccmail.orst.edu (Monte Olsen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.war.vietnam
Subject: Re: Stockdale is a Bumbling Idiot
Date: 9 Nov 92 17:28:26 GMT
Organization: OSU Extension Service
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A723E0185701A70D@reynolde-mac.ads.orst.edu>
X-Xxdate: Mon, 9 Nov 92 17:30:00 GMT
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12

In article <BxDF5I.LCr@cs.uiuc.edu> David Kohr,
drk@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>Monte, would you care to explain the line of reasoning by
which you reached
>this intriguing conclusion?
>


Not particularly, Dave. As for cross posting. My mistake.
I'm using beta software that occasionally has a mind of
its own. No leaps of logic, Dave and no strained
reasoning. I think many people recognize you for who you
are.

Monte
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Trickle Down Economics
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:33:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.201337.19683@newshub.sdsu.edu> larryr@saturn.sdsu.edu (Larry Riedel) writes:
>Lee (leescogg@expert.cc.purdue.edu) wrote:

>>                            I don't care that people are more wealthy than I
>> am.  I *do* care that, proportionately, the wealthy pay far less taxes than I
>> do.  There has got to be a way of having everyone pay their fair share of
>> taxes.  One way of doing this would be with a flat-rate tax structure.  With
>> everyone,(poor, middle class, rich, corporations,etc.) paying a flat 15%,say,
>> there would be an increase in tax revenues and a cessation of complaints from
>> people like me.

>Hello!!  The "rich" proportionally pay more taxes, not less, and a flat
>15% tax would significantly reduce the proportional amount of tax the
>rich pay relative to the middle-class.

Really?  I doubt it.  FICA only taxes income up to $55k.

>Supply-siders would certainly agree that a flat 15% tax would increase
>revenues, but it would never even have a chance in Congress, because it
>would be an enormous decrease in the proportional amount of tax the rich
>pay relative to the middle-class.

Not necessarily.  If Bush proposed such a thing, Congress wouldn't go
near it, because Bush would be presumed to have ulterior motives.  But a
Democrat *could* get it through Congress.  (Remember, Jerry Brown -- a
*real* liberal, not a moderate like Clinton, made this the centerpiece
of his campaign.)

It's an Only-Nixon-could-go-to-China argument.  Arthur Laffer proposed
the same sort of thing.

I don't think a simple flat tax is the way to go -- I think you need to
exempt income below a certain level.

>The rich pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes than the
>middle class.  Even the Democrats don't deny that.  Their problem
>is they think the rich should pay an even greater percentage.

I deny it.  I think they pay a *lot* less.
-- 
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,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.individualism
From: rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker)
Subject: Re: Property Rights
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 14:45:55 GMT

I have been following this thread about property rights for some time, and
now I wish to comment:

	1. I am a libertarian. That is I favor the maximum amount of personal
	   liberty consistent with a minimum of social order and lack of 
	   violence. I am not an enthusiast for government, but pragmatically
	   we are going to be stuck with government. So be it. Let it be minimal

	2. Property has been part of the advanced
	   cultures of the world since the agricultural revolution. It is 
	   implicit in the control and use of land. It is a pragmatic 
	   consequence of the way we get our food, not a good thing in and
	   of itself.


	3. Property rights cannot be absolute. Why? Ownership implies control.
	   Control implies use. Use implies the potential for abuse and
	   initiation of agression. Sure you own your car, but you can't drive
	   any where and anyway you want. Society will regulate at least in
	   a minimal fashion the use of property, and this is effectively
	   limitation of property rights. Even a libertarian must have
	   second thoughts about his neighbor openning a badly run toxic
	   waste dump next door.

	4. I stand with the principle that property use if not ownership, must
	   be constrained to be consistent with the principle of non-agression
	   and forbidding the reckless imposition of hazard.


	5. I oppose the redistribution of proptery, based purely on someone's
	   perceived need.

Opinions please.

Conan the Libertarian "If you can't love the Constitution, then at least
hate the Government"

 

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59435 alt.politics.elections:23392 alt.rush-limbaugh:9392 talk.rumors:1197 alt.activism:18585