HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Another biblical brilliance from Teddy
Date: 7 Oct 92 21:20:02 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

|> 
|> > I assume you are using the word "knowing" in the biblical sense.
|> 
|> Know you.
|> -- 
A very christian response.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: State by State Poll Results
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:18:11 CDT


In article <1b4jpgINN33f@agate.berkeley.edu>, bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:
> 
> 
> Recent Poll results, ordered by number of electoral college votes.
> 
> ! == Candidate has lead of 10% or more. 
> EV == Electoral College votes for that state (270 votes needed for victory).
> 
> State  EV   Bush Clinton Perot   State  EV   Bush Clinton Perot
>   CA   54    32     52!    9       NY   33    31     52!    8
>   TX   32    40     35    14       FL   25    38     39    13    
>   PA   23    29     47!   18       IL   22    26     46!    7
>   OH   21    38     48!    6       MI   18    33     46!   10
>   NJ   15    30     46!    6       NC   14    38     44    11
>   GA   13    36     43    10       VA   13    39     33    11
>   IN   12    34     33     4       MA   12    23     47!   16
>   WA   11    29     46!   11       WI   11    36     43     9
>   MO   11    32     45!   13       TN   11    34     46!    6
>   MD   10    34     50!    6       MN   10    34     46!    9
                                                --     --     -
I heard this morning the MN numbers are:        27     53!   13

>   AL    9    41     38    13       LA    9    37     36    11
>   AZ    8    31     36    17       KY    8    36     41     8
>   CO    8    25     44!   18       CT    8    33     47!    9
>   OK    8    23     47!   18       SC    8    41     39    10
>   MS    7    39     37    11       OR    7    37     45     8
>   IA    7    36     47!    9       KS    6    34     41    15
>   AR    6    25     58!    6       NM    5    30     38    13
>   WV    5    29     50!    5       NE    5    44!    34    12
>   UT    5    48!    36     7       HI    4    21     48!   17
>   ID    4    35     37    15       ME    4    30     44!   11
>   NV    4    42     32    15       NH    4    27     38!    9
>   RI    4    21     46!   12       MT    3    38     43    12
>   DE    3    37     42    11       WY    3    34     28    23
>   AK    3    35     36    18       ND    3    46!    36     8
>   SD    3    30     37    15       VT    3    26     50!    9
>   DC    3    17     71!    8
> 
> Caveats: typos may exist; different sampling techniques, questions
> and margins of error among the polls; many results are from Sept.,
> before Perot re-entered.  In case of multiple polls, most recent
> was used.
> ----
>     --Brad Sherman
-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50929 alt.conspiracy:11164 alt.politics.elections:16118
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Twist Slowly, Slowly in the Wind
Date: 11 Oct 92 13:25:15
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: gcf@panix.com's message of 10 Oct 92 17:15:37 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.171537.2560@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

> Summary: The ruling class hangs Bush out to dry
> 
> Anyone who doubts that the upper orders have pretty much
> decided to have Clinton elected should check out the _Wall_
> _Street_Journal_ of Friday, 10/9.  There's a long, very
> detailed story about -- Iraqgate!

Actually, I agree with Gordon's interpretation ("the ruling class
hangs Bush out to dry"), but I think there was conclusive evidence of
that a couple of weeks ago.

At this point, the big-money donors---the large corporations---are
giving more money to Clinton than to Bush.  Now there are two possible
interpretations.  One is that they think Clinton would be a better
President than Bush, and they are giving him money because they want
to help him win.  That's possible, but I think there's another
explanation that's more plausible.

My explanation is that they don't really care all that much who wins,
but they want access to the President, and they think that they will
have better access to the President if they contributed to his
campaign.  I think what we're seeing, with more and more big
corporations giving money to Clinton instead of Bush, is that they
believe Clinton will win, and they think it is to their advantage to
be on the winning side.  What we're seeing is just rats deserting a
sinking ship.

--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
From: doli@troi.cc.rochester.edu (David Oliver)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Weeping Hayek
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:22:10 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)

s students at the University of Rochester discussed the inevitability of a 
Clinton/Gore victory in November, a picture of F.A. Hayak actually cried.
This miraculous event, witnessed by dozens, is taken as sure sign that elect-
ing Clinton in November will send us down "The Road to Serfdom".

-David Oliver (doli@troi.cc.rochester.edu)
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton won't put ASS on the line.    (re: 2nd Debate)
Date: 16 Oct 92 02:18:09 GMT
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu's message of Fri, 16 Oct 1992 03:07:00 GMT

In article <15OCT199222074314@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:

> Clinton wouldn't take the pledge to cut the deficit in half or leave.

That's right, he didn't.  He also gave his reasons for not doing
so---reasons that, in my opinion, made a great deal of sense.  Just
for anyone who missed the debate, I'll repeat them.  (In my words, not
Clinton's; I don't have a transcript.)

	1.  To a great extent, the size of the deficit is not under
	    the control of the President.  If there is a recession,
	    for example, then the government has to spent more and it
	    doesn't collect as much in taxes.
	2.  Anyway, the deficit is not the only problem facing America.
	    As President, Bill Clinton will have many tasks facing him;
	    it is wrong to single out a single one as the only 
	    indicator of how well he has done.  Reducing the deficit
	    is irrelevant unless we get America working again.
	3.  Finally, that's what elections are for.  If President
	    Clinton has done a poor job, then just vote against him
	    in 1996.
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Stupendous favors regulation? (was Re: Cable Regulation)
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 11 Oct 92 03:18:22 EST
 <1992Oct7.185344.11090@u.washington.edu> <1992Oct8.143009.4636@desire.wright.edu> <1992Oct10.214655.11278@Princeton.EDU>
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.
Summary: Heaven's no!

In article <1992Oct10.214655.11278@Princeton.EDU>, pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson) writes:
> In article <1992Oct8.143009.4636@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>
>>	Laying cable, or electric wires, etc.  Should only be done once.  But
>>there is no reason to only let one company use them once they are there.  Cable
>                        ^^^^^^^^
>>signals can be multiplexed.  Electric companies can bid on service areas.  Etc.
>>
> This looks like a prescription for government regulation.  I can't

	Okay, please post the logic that leads you to this conclusion.  The
above clearly indicates that I'm in favor of letting companies compete to give
you service.

> believe this came from Brett.  BTW aren't most cable lines essentially
> privately owned?  If this is the case then regulation would be necessary
> to allow other companies to use the lines.

	I think they are treated like phone cables and electric lines.  Since
they were built with the help of government granted monopolies/aid, other
companies can use them (at market rates, of course).

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dcling@athena.mit.edu (Douglas C Ling)
Subject: UNCED session(s) on the "Green Cross" concept
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 06:24:15 GMT

I am looking for accounts, discussion, follow-up information on the 
UNCED sessions on the concept of "Green Cross" (or "Green Berets")
environmental response team. I was not in Rio, but I heard that the
discussion went nowhere due to "Green Cross"'s having been trademark
registered in this country.

It all seeems too absurd.  Can someone who was there give me some 
information?

I will also welcome printed material on the subject via mail:
  Douglas Ling
   MIT Branch P.O. Box 156
   Cambridge, MA 02139-0902


Thanks in advance.
 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 22:53:00 GMT

In article <MATT.92Oct9114644@physics.berkeley.edu>, matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes...
>In article <8OCT199219514098@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
> 
>> 2. On the personal level of people involved in war, when common folk are
>>    forced to fight without exemption, can you offer reasons why those-who
>>    would-lead-this-country should stand apart? 
> 
>Well, in fact, I can't, and that was one of the points of the anti-war
>movement twenty years ago.  The war was very explicitly fought by the
>poor and underprivileged, and that was just one of the well-known
>obscenities of that war.

We agree, with few exceptions.  

>The system was set up, very explicitly, so that future leaders would
>not have to fight, and would not be at risk---they were too valuable,
>after all.  Besides, their parents were too influential: if sons of
>Congressmen started dying, maybe the war would have suddenly gotten
>less popular in Washington.  There was a whole series of deferments,
>and, for those who weren't eligible for them, there were enough
>loopholes so that affluent people could always find some way or
>another to escape the draft.  In my home neighborhood (a reasonably
>affluent part of Pittsburgh), the volunteer draft counselors boasted
>that nobody from that neighborhood had ever been forced to Vietnam
>against his will.

Were there none who went counter the status quo?

>Yes, it's cynical, and yes it's a mockery of equality, and yes, it was
>shameful.  But that's the way the system worked, and the 18-year old
>boys who were at risk weren't the ones who set it up; the old men in
>Washington were.  As I said, that was one of the reasons why people
>like Clinton were against the war altogether.

I'm being told he did not take a leadership position in the anti-war 
effort, mostly going along with the crowd. Then he left the country all
together, in pursuit of his own benefit. And he even went all the way to
Soviet Union, to "broaden his own education." 

So when other young Americans were distingushing themselves as true
leaders on the battlefield, in civil rights, and in the anti-war 
movement.... Bill Clinton left.

>So Dan Quayle found a way to avoid going to Vietnam, and so did Pat
>Buchanan, and Bill Clinton, and Dick Cheney.  That's the way the
>system worked back then, and that's one reason I'm glad we no longer
>have a draft.

Buchanan, Clinton, Cheney, Quayle, Phil Gramm.... None of which are
"presidential material" either.  Merely bureaucrats.

The courage to lead is not tested in front of a desk.

And Bill Clinton is no better.

>Matthew Austern
>matt@physics.berkeley.edu 

-- Stephen Tice    Arlington Texas    10-10-92
From: tmis1692@altair.selu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: What if...
Date: 12 Oct 92 13:04:05 -0600
Distribution: world
Organization: Southeastern Louisiana University

What would happen if George Bush was Foreign Policy Director, Bill Clinton was
Director of Social Programs and Ross Perot was the Manager of Economic
Development and nobody was the president?

Just curious, 

Kevin Calmes - TMIS1692@selu.edu

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.libertarian
From: swami1@troy.uucp (22535-swaminathan)
Subject: Re: Republican Civil War (was Re: Sixteen more years)
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 13:16:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.184206.6200@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>Keywords: 
>
>In article <YAMAUCHI.92Oct12183845@sartre.ces.cwru.edu> yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>]
>]If Bush wins the election, I expect to see business as usual in '96
>]election, with the GOP nominating another moderate conservative like
>]Bush with few if any defining principles (e.g. Baker, Dole).
>
>I don't think so. In the off chance that Bush wins, the Republican party
>is still going to have to reconfigure, and I think someone like Kemp has
>a better chance.



If Bush wins election, in two more years there is a depression (I
expect this to happen no matter who becomes the president) that is
worse than the depression of the thirties.
Republican party is dead for the next quarter century. Then, it
reconfigures with totally new philosophy, or better still one based
on Perot's ideas. Wins in year 2020, gets aid from Europe, Japan, to
rebuild on sound basis.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The Games are Over, and Clinton is Going to Win BIG!!
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:45:33 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:

>If you accept that Clinton is going to win, then why don't you tone down the
>abusive rhetoric a little and give him a chance?  

Just like the left toned down all of their screeching during Reagan and
Bush's Presidencies?

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Americans believe Anita Hill
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<1992Oct7.021019.4598@desire.wright.edu> <84638@bcsaic.boeing.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 16:31:01 GMT

In article <84638@bcsaic.boeing.com> lbaum@bcsaic.boeing.com (Larry Baum) writes:

   In article <1992Oct7.021019.4598@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
   : In article <1992Oct6.201554.19629@tamsun.tamu.edu>, enbal@aeroj.tamu.edu (James L. Heilman) writes:
   : > The results of a recent poll by NBC and the Today Show indicate that a  
   : > majority of Americans now believe Anita Hill was telling the truth about  
   : > Clarence Thomas.  What took you so long?
   : > 
   : 
   : 	Two factors are influencing this:
   : 
   : 	1) General rise of female candidates/pride promoting awareness
   : 
   : 	2) The media as "Willie Hortonized" the affair so that every mention
   : casts Clarence Thomas as a liar.
   : 
   Another factor:

   Despite Thomas' bland asurances in his hearings that he was
   open-minded and had no particular ideological axe to grind,
   his opinions during his first term reflect quite strong
   ideological views.  His opinion in the case concerning the
   beating of prisoner's (e.g. that severe beatings were
   unfortunate but not precluded by the "cruel and unusual
   punishment" clause) are quite disturbing to many people, even
   non-liberals.  Several conservative SC justices expressed
   revulsion at that particular decision.  Since it is clear to
   many of us that he lied about his judicial philosophy, in
   order to get confirmed, we have no trouble believing that he
   could very well have lied about the Anita Hill matter.

This does not follow.  I have seen the argument in many circles that
says, since Thomas voted with the minority on Casey he must have had
"discussions" about Roe v. Wade.  Suppose he'd voted the other way.
Would then the liberals be saying he'd lied?  After all, he took a
position.  The fact is that the only way Thomas could get off this
particular hook is to adopt whole cloth the liberal position.  Well, he
ain't gonna do it, good for him.

In the beating case he argued, unpersuasively, that there were existing
laws the prisoner could have used for redress without resorting to the
eighth amendment.  He did not argue, as some twisters of the truth
maintain, that it was permissible to beat prisoners.  Indeed, one poster
on this net contorted the story so far as to claim that Thomas said it
was alright to beat a confession out of a prisoner.  What a lie.
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot's Economic Figures - TV
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:30:29 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Thomas Hill) writes:
|> 
|>    What a lod of crap, Mathew. To use your logic then any vote for anybody
|> who doesn't win is a thrown away vote. Democracy only asks that you get out
|> and vote, not that you vote for somebody who you know will probably win. And
|> who is to say that Perot won't win? Just because he doesn't belong to some
|> rich boy's club (Democrats or Republicans) does not make him a spoiler with

This is good stuff.  It never occured to me that Perot had trouble joining
any rich boy's club.  I thought he *was* the definition of rich boy's club.

|> no real chance of winning. Let us remember that only a few weeks ago Perot
|> was way ahead in the statistics. Let's give his ads a little time to work
|> before stating that he has no chance. His TV ads start today. With enough of
|> them being shown and some frequent campaining, Perot has as much of a chance
|> to win as either candidate. How does it make you Democrats feel to know that
|> Perot's dropping out is what gave Clinton a decent chance of winning? Give
|> the people a little more time to trust Perot again and we may be in for a
|> close one.
|> 

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
From: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Leading the military
Date: 13 Oct 92 16:41:58 GMT
Reply-To: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems

Just a quick question.

Has anyone wondered how being a Lt. Junior Grade in World War II is
good background to become Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces
in a post-cold war environment?

--f2

---------------------------------
  "A plague on both their houses"
  --either Mercutio or George Bush's last words
From: ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: What happens when USA goes bust?
Date: 15 Oct 1992 15:37:14 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


   What happens when the US goes totally bust? Easy, the Democrats and the
Republicans start pointing fingers at each other again. Wake up America!
-- 
George Bush? He doesn't have a clue anymore. Bill Clinton? A slick smile and
a pandering style. Neither one is being realistic about what it is going to
take. The answer..........? ROSS FOR BOSS! VOTE FOR ROSS PEROT FOR PRESIDENT!
The Cryptozoology Information Network. Want on our Email mailing list? Amiga!
From: myers@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Bob Myers)
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:56:54 GMT
Subject: Re: Excuse Please, But who Be conservative?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc

> I am sorry to hear your political affiliation... (I do like your style,
> nonetheless).  I find most conservatives lack logic, they do have guts
> generally.  Most arguments that EXTREME to MODERATE conservatives/republicans
> give are without logic.
> 

Most people *in general* "lack logic," and that includes those at all points
in the political spectrum.  Similarly, many arguments presented from both
sides lack logic, and ample proof of this is found in this group.

There are a small number of people all along the spectrum who do think and
argue logically, and their differences arise solely from differing assumptions
on which their arguments are based.  I wish we had more of them.  Too often,
and especially in discussions which seem to be dominated by a small number
of very vocal people, the arguments presented are clearly coming from what
can only be called prejudices - i.e., this notion is "liberal", or that
notion is "conservative", and therefore it is automatically "bad."  Substitute
"Republican", "Democrat", "Socialist", "Libertarian", etc., etc., for the
other labels, and eliminate all the arguments that fall into this category,
and I suspect that the volume in this group would drop by 90%.  Sigh.



Bob Myers            | "Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but  
myers@fc.hp.com      |  most of the time he will pick himself up and continue."
                     |                        - Winston Churchill             
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50645 talk.religion.misc:17967 talk.abortion:41725
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another biblical brilliance from Teddy
Date: 9 Oct 92 10:38:08 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <Oct.6.22.02.37.1992.19470@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
<In article <1992Oct6.191104.9332@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
<> but does this not also mean that giving
<> up one's virgin duaghters is also to be
<> construed as morally correct in your weltanschaung...
<
<No.  The fact that Lot offerred his daughters is only reported, not
<condoned.  (And this also applies to the later episode when his
<daughters caused him to get drunk and then had sex with him.)

These episodes are part of a larger story in which we are told that
Lot was a Good Fellow.  Surely they are condoned enough by that fact?

-- 
 `If ye hiv ears oan yer heid - then use them tae lissen.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.environment,talk.environment