HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: A Worrisome Example of "Subhuman" Ideology
Date: 9 Nov 92 18:24:50 GMT
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95

twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>Really?  In my experience, there is considerable overlap between the
>set of queers and that of animal-rights activists.  I would bet that
>most queers you ask would oppose laboratory experiments, torture, or

I would bet that the frction of queers who oppose laboratory experiments
is about the same as the fraction of the general population that does so.
In any given queer's experience, however, there will be considerable
overlap between the set of queers and the set of <people-who-agree-with-
that-queer-on-animal-rights>.

For example, I know many more biologists and other scientists than I
do animal-rights supporters, and guess what?  I find considerable overlap
between the set of queers and the set of people that experiment on
animals.

--Tim Smith
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58542 alt.rush-limbaugh:9172 alt.politics.elections:22918 alt.politics.clinton:16141 alt.politics.bush:13379
From: mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Trickle Down Economics
Date: 6 Nov 1992 18:13:35 GMT
Organization: N.I.C.E.
Reply-To: mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.128.60

Kenneth Mitchell writes:
>mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm) writes:
#>I think it was Kris Kristofferson who said that he and Bill Clinton had
#>pretty much demolished the idea that Rhodes Scholars were automatically
#>"intelligent".  

mike> Here's a logical fallacy I have neve come across before: the  appeal to
mike> the self-impeaching authority.  Funny, tho.

>The point is that Kris Kristofferson, who is an actor of no particular
>intelligence, was also a Rhodes Scholar, and he recognizes that

Why should we accept his judgement on the matter, if he's someone
of no particular intelligence?
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59934 alt.politics.elections:23673 alt.rush-limbaugh:9599
From: jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov ()
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: 13 Nov 1992 03:05:59 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov

In article <1992Nov12.223607.5714@samba.oit.unc.edu> Norman.Miller@launchpad.unc.edu (Norman Miller) writes:
>In article <10422@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>
>>
>>She's a woman, she's black and the conservatives don't like her.  Sounds
>
>Let's get one thing straight: whatever you guys are, "conservative"
>is not one of them.  Conservatives are people committed to rationality
>and fairness.  Conservatives are not a pack of jeering fraternity
>boys, nor are they racists or sexists.
>
>>Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
>
>Norman Miller
>nmiller@starbase.trincoll.edu

I certainly *hope* you are right, but when you have the likes of Pat
Buchanan, Pat Robertson, and David Duke calling themselves "conservatives"
it makes me wonder just *what* is considered rationality and fairness...

BTW: Norman, I'm not flaming you, in fact I agree with your concept of
     a conservative, it just seems that there are many self proclaimed
     conservatives that would call you a liberal...

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: cep@taligent.com (Christophe Pettus)
Subject: Re: Boycott Colorado
Organization: Taligent, a little subsidiary of two really big companies.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:12:29 GMT

In article <25930@optima.cs.arizona.edu> bakken@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Bakken) writes:
>Why stop at homosexuality?  Why not give special civil rights protection
>to bestiality, necrophilia, exhibitionists, etc?  Or nose pickers,
>cherry pickers, slobs, left-handed people, etc.

The "special civil rights" protection is a canard.  Passing a law making
it illegal to discriminate against blacks does not give them more rights
than whites.  Passing a law making it illegal to discriminate against
gays does not give them more rights than straights.  It does mean that
the society does not tolerate that particular kind of discrimination, and
that the characteristic has been determined, a priori, to be irrelevant
in society's eyes.  This is not a special right.

>Or maybe you like the idea that churches should have to hire
>homosexuals, even if this is strongly against their beliefs.

Why, exactly, should a church be allowed to discriminate against gays,
yet not against women or blacks?  Freedom of religion is not an
absolute; you can't start a church whose doctrine is that you aren't
going to obey the law, and expect the First Amendment to protect you; I
don't know why it should give protection from the Fourteenth.
--
-- Christophe

"I draw the line at Styrofoam packing kernels, you sick pervert."
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot came in SECOND
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:41:21 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit) writes:

>Final results from Utah:
>
>Bush    320,559 - 45%
>Perot   202,605 - 29%
>Clinton 182,850 - 26%
>
>Why has this not been reported anywhere?  I find it significant that
>Perot came in second in _any_ state.
This actually isn't too surprising, Bush got >66% of the vote in Utah in
1988...his total + Perot's is only 74%...

 -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,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
From: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker)
Subject: Re: A TRUE LANDSLIDE
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Center
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:27:41 GMT

In article <randall.721347430@seashore> randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea) writes:
>m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier) writes:
>
>
>>I love this conversation about Clinton's supposed landslide.  The best
>>comedy I've seen in wuite some time.  Perhaps if you say it enough
>>times, people will believe that winning by 5% of the popular vote is a
>>landslide.
>
>I'm getting tired of the Republican sore-loser whining from the
>Bob Doles of the world.  Bush won by 6%, and that was called
>a "landslide".  Call it what you want.   Clinton won- he
>won the popular vote, the electoral vote, most of the states,
>etc. etc.   Just take your lumps and move on.  I don't remember
>hearing this kind of whining from the Democrats in '88.
>
>Dole says that "57% of the people voted against Clinton,
>and I am going to represent that majority."  I don't think a lot
>of the Perot supporters want to be represented by Mr. Dole, and using the
>same logic, 62% of the people voted against Bush.  

Yes, I was quite offended by Mr. Dole's statement.  I voted for Ross
Perot and I do not want Mr. Dole representing me.  It sounds like he is
making a pledge to continue the gridlock in government.  Exactly what
Perot and his supporters are NOT looking for.

Now, of course he can feel free to represent all of the Lyndon LaRouche
followers.


-- 
Doug                   

Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can 
do for your country.  - JFK
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.homosexual,uiuc.general,uiuc.politics
From: chai@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Your friendly neighbourhood Spectre)
Subject: side issues
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:42:47 GMT

steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>It's exactly true.  How many pro-lifers worried about inner-city victims of
>the L.A. riots?  I saw _none_ on t.a.

To be fair, many people involved in things like Habitat for Humanity,
taking in pregnant girls, etc. are pro-life. (In fact of those I
personally know, most are pro-life.)

As I pointed out in an earlier message, I think both sides are spending
too much time screaming at each other rather than talking sensibly
because both sides miss each other's basic premises.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: SOMEBODY'S GOT TO SAY IT (Re: Clinton by default)
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 92 10:15:05 EST
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <22821@venera.isi.edu>, allard@isi.edu (Dennis Allard) writes:
|> drevik@utkvx3.utk.edu (Drevik, Steve) writes:
|> > Case:  A guy works for McDonald's...has no health care. Poor guy hasn't
|> > been feeling so well lately ... Turns out he has diabetes ...
|> > 
|> > ... for $50, he could have seen a physician ... 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 ....
|> 
|> Steve,
|> 
|> Libertarians and Republicans DON'T CARE if he dies.  Bush proposed
|> what amounted to a $400 per year incentive to the poor (the amount
|> they save on their taxes for being able to deduct $3500 in medical
|> expenses).  Libertarians inform us that the guy could have chosen to
|> buy health insurance, so it's his tough luck if he dies.  It's his
|> choice.
|> 
|> Neither the Republicans nor the Libertarians have ANYTHING to say
|> about your case where the guy simply CANNOT afford health insurance
|> in our current system.  They have NOTHING to suggest but to let the
|> guy suffer or die.
|> 


If a person cannot afford health insurance, there are only two solutions;
one is to not buy insurance, the second is to rely on some form of
charity.  As far as charity is concerned, you can rely on voluntary
charity or forced charity.  Libertarians perfer the voluntary method.
You obviously favor the forced approach.


|> You see, Republicans and Libertarians have the following main defining
|> characteristic.
|> 
|> They are selfish.
|> 

Advocating a position that an individual should be free to choose
how much he/she is willing to give does not make the advocator
'selfish'.  Compassion is not measured by how much you are willing
to force others to conform to your notion of morality, it is measured
by your own personal deeds.  If anyone can be called 'selfish' it
is socialists like yourself who wish to impose their view of morality
on all others.  You are no different that those fundamentalist religious
types who wish to impose their notion of morality on the rest of us.
From: anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Celebration in the Streets
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:11:08 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Nov5.151831.25497@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>
>After Clinton was elected, there were celebrations in the streets in two
>cities:
>		Little Rock, Arkansas
>		Bagdad, Iraq
>
>Think about it.

Of course, soon after the election, they called Clinton a "power-hungry
maniac" and something else about being two-faced.  Diplomatic finesse,
it seems, is not one of Iraq's strong suits.  But I don't need to tell
you that.

>
>
>--
>James W. Meritt:  m23364@mwunix.mitre.org - or - jmeritt@mitre.org
>The opinions above are mine.  If anyone else wants to share them, fine.
>They may say so if they wish. The facts "belong" to noone and simply are.


-- 
Anwar Mohammed <anwar+@cs.cmu.edu> Vox:(412) 268-3043 Fax:(412) 421-8661
ASAP PhD SCS CMU. "You'll note that politicians no longer spend money,
they invest it.  Don't worry about paying more to the [IRS].  You aren't
being taxed; you're taking a plunge on a fly-by-night stock issue." - P.J.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Support Right to 'bear arms'
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1c7vl8INNr79@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
	<1992Oct26.020311.12962@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
	<1992Oct27.025307.2825@jetsun.weitek.COM>
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:48:04 GMT

<In article <1992Oct27.025307.2825@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
<   In article <1992Oct26.020311.12962@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:<
<   >Not according to the Supreme Court, federal law or the framers of the
<   >Constitution. They define the militia refered in the Second Amendment
<   >as "...all males physically capable of acting in consert for the
<	       ^^^^^ 
<	       ^^^^^
<   >common defense..." (US v. Miller), "all males between 18 and 45 years
<   >of age" (United States Code, Title X; paraphrase) and "everyone, 
<   >except for a few public officials" (Col. George Mason) respectively.

<   >It would seem the militia refered to includes almost everyone.

<   Really?

	Adolf has claimed that Title X has been interpreted
	to exclude women from the unorganized militia.

	Perhaps she can provide a citation for this assertion?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: howp@skyfox.usask.ca
Subject: Call for pres. candidate anagram lists.
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 23:30:56 GMT

Hi.

     Now that the American election is over, does anybody have a list of
anagrams of all of the U.S. Presidential candidates, i.e. Tsongas, Bush,
Clinton, Perot, etc... 


     I know they're out there, but I didn't bothered to extract them when they
came out.  Thanks, I think they're hillarious.

Peter How, gradual student,
ISAS,
University of Saskatchewan,
Saskatoon, SK,
CANADA
S7N 0W0
(306) 966-6452

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59528 alt.politics.elections:23445 alt.rush-limbaugh:9423 talk.rumors:1203 alt.activism:18614
From: marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: 11 Nov 1992 14:22:53 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Department MSCS
NNTP-Posting-Host: studsys.mscs.mu.edu

In article <1992Nov10.161544.9606@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>In article <1dmqvjINNpqq@spool.mu.edu> marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach) writes:
>The amusing thing about this is that it is coming from people who
>claimed that Thomas wasn't qualified.  Would someone out there please
>explain to us why Hill is even remotely qualified for either the EEOC
>or the Court postion?

You are correct here.  I did feel Thomas was not the BEST qualified for the
job.  For the EEOC, he may have been.  

Hill has worked for the EEOC.  A 'better choice' would be to promote
the head from within the structure of the EEOC, but that will not
happen for the same reason Hill may be chosen....politics.

Oh, and Hill will prob. not be the best person to sit on the court
when that time comes.  But if CT can qualify, so can AH.  

-- 
Marc Rassbach    marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu    If you take my advice, that
MS-DOS - it's not   marc@milestn.mil.wi.us    is your problem, not mine!
my problem!     If it was said on UseNet, it must be true.
   Unix - It's a nice place to live, but you don't want to visit there.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: A Comment on A Local Talk Show
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:07:40 GMT

jazz.concert.net (Carter E. Bing) writes:
>	Normally I laugh at such callers but one that called upset me
>slightly. This caller, who called himself Major X, launched into the
>current diatribe concerning having a pot smoking, draft dodging
>president in the White House.

I wouldn't worry about it. The Bushbaker campaign spread all kinds of
hateful propanganda that will dispel now that the choice has been made.
It'll take some people longer than others to let go of their fantasies.
Like those still calling C-SPAN saying "oh, what are we gonna do, our 
President-elect can't get a security clearance, oh woe." They're still
suffering separation anxiety and will come around in a few days or weeks.

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59612 alt.politics.elections:23490 alt.rush-limbaugh:9471 talk.rumors:1219 alt.activism:18642
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: 11 Nov 92 18:15:16 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes

      [Personal narrative about discrimination in hiring deleted]

As an opponent of quotas and an advocate of merit I have to say that
your story makes a strong case the other side.  The discrimination
of which you write is real and pervasive, at least more pervasive
than the advocates of my side of it acknowledge it to be.  I still
believe that AA, when it is made mandatory, based on percentages,
and enforced by threat of lawsuit, does more harm than good,
both to the hirer and to the hiree, especially the minority person.
But you are right.  AA may be a penalty we have to pay, in the absence
of a better solution, but I am not optimistic about its success in the
long run. I just wish my fellow conservatives would pay closer attention 
to the fact that removing AA will not in itself make the problem go 
away.  Where is the truly human solution?  It will not be found by
denying there is a problem. Need to work on that.

g.p.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59970 ca.politics:9550 misc.legal:19877
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 12 Nov 1992 17:59:51 GMT
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Brian K. Yoder) writes:
|> 
|> >Who's defending the rich?  I'm not.  
|> 
|> Well SOMEONE ought to!  They are one of the few minorities politicians feel
|> safe about bashing and singling out for special punishment.  A great many
|> people seem to think that any measure which hurts only "the rich" is 
|> perfectly OK.  I wonder what these people would say if similar laws were
|> passed to attack "the poor" or "blacks" or "women" or "auto workers".  Of
|> THEN they would see that such discrimination is nothing but envious bigotry,
|> but they think that somehow "the rich" are more evil and deserving of whatever
|> punishments are proposed.  
|> 
The assumption you make is certainly not based upon fact.  The postion of
Clinton and the Democratic Party is that the "rich" have had unique protection
for the last 12 years and have been given the luxury of no give and all take.
The Clinton proposals are based upon removing this unique protection and 
making the rich share the burden as well as the opportunity.
-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58456 alt.politics.usa.misc:542 alt.politics.elections:22849
From: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: [t.p.drugs] total votes for all candidates
Date: 6 Nov 92 09:20:01
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA
	<Bx9Exw.Isy@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Reply-To: Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ab20.larc.nasa.gov
In-reply-to: hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu's message of Thu, 5 Nov 1992 20:15:17 GMT

In article <Bx9Exw.Isy@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Matt Hucke) writes:
-> In article <1992Nov5.134113.1408@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
-> 
-> >           Andrew Marrou, Oth 64,328 - 0 percent
-> 
-> Who?  Never heard of him.

	You just summed up the problems of the Libertarian party.
--
Jason C. Austin
j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Hey! Libertarians only got 37,000 votes
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 00:23:09 GMT

cjp@megatek.com (Chris "Systems Stud" Pikus) writes:
>	Actually, according to the AP news service, the Libertairans
>(nationwide) got a little over 250,000 million votes.

Did most of these 250,000,000,000 votes come from Chicago?

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rkaplan@netcom.com (Richard Kaplan)
Subject: How does one begin a political campaign?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 01:00:03 GMT


Suppose I am an educated, honest, middle classs, non-politically
connected citizen who truly wishes to become involved
in government and change what I believe are some 
basic inequities in our laws and governmental process.

How does one go about, say, beginning a campaign for
Congress?  Where does one typically get the money and
staff?  Is it necessary to get to know the local party
chiefs and play political games?  Is it naive and
idealistic to mimeograph off some ideas, post them, and
see who is interested?   Am I ultimately destinted to
relent to the influences of PACs?  

Any good references to books which might delve into
some of these?

Basically, how does one go about starting a grass roots
campaign.

-- 
Richard Kaplan M.D.           Medical Software Exchange BBS
806 2nd St. SW # 104          (507) 281-1989 14,400 HST
Rochester, MN  55902          (507) 281-1689 Voice
PP-ASEL-IA     N4VRB          rkaplan@mayo.edu|netcom.netcom.com  
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58250 talk.politics.mideast:21858
From: zeus@vxcrna.cern.ch
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Celebration in the Streets
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:57:21 GMT
Organization: CERN European Lab for Particle Physics

In article <1992Nov5.151831.25497@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
> 
> After Clinton was elected, there were celebrations in the streets in two
> cities:
> 		Little Rock, Arkansas
> 		Bagdad, Iraq
> 
> Think about it.

Yeah, really strange how they aren't gratefull in Iraq anymore for
all the arms that Bush let them have.

China were hoping for a Bush win. As it is there haven't been any celebrations
in Tiannamen Square.

                   
Phill Hallam-Baker
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59122 alt.politics.elections:23223 alt.war.vietnam:493
From: olsenm@ccmail.orst.edu (Monte Olsen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.war.vietnam
Subject: Re: Amusing Technical Aside
Date: 9 Nov 92 17:37:22 GMT
Organization: OSU Extension Service
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A723E22F3E02A70D@reynolde-mac.ads.orst.edu>
X-Xxdate: Mon, 9 Nov 92 17:38:55 GMT
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12

In article <BxFCqv.5G3@cs.uiuc.edu> David Kohr,
drk@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>This is precisely the level of humor which the term
"sophomoric" was
>invented to describe.
>-- 

I'm sorry, Dave, did that offend your crystal pure
sensitivities? Try spending some time in Vietnam!

Monte
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc