HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gt7994a@prism.gatech.EDU (ORMOND,SEAN PATRICK)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Political Cartoon & the Democratic Mentality
Date: 11 Oct 92 17:26:35 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

I saw a cartoon the other day that, IMHO, rather accurately portrays 
the Democratic point of view:

Two politicians standing together, looking out their office window:
One says, "Just think... the economy in the toilet... unemployment 
skyrocketing... the environment gone to hell-in-a-handbasket... 
crime overtaking our streets... drugs... despair... hopelessness..."

Next cell cuts to exterior of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY HEADQUARTERS, 
looking in at the two:
The other responds, "It just doesn't get any better than this."

When Bush's popularity was so high during the Gulf War, it was 
almost a given he would be re-elected.  But then...we become one
of the most destitute countries in the world.  We plunge into this 
terrible recession...no, DEPRESSION...and we're facing "economic 
catastrophe".  There's massive unemployment and the media never 
misses an opportunity to film hundreds of people standing in line for 
a few new jobs at the local brewery.  Industry has forced us into an 
"ecological nightmare" and we'll be lucky to survive into the 21st 
century.  How can we do this to our children, they ask...it's all 
Bush's fault!  

This is the hoax that the liberals have foisted upon the public via 
the media.  If not for the liberal journalists and reporters, I would 
think we were living in the finest age in history.  At the height 
(depth?) of the recession/depression I had two jobs with every 
conceivable benefit, my girlfriend had a job, my mother's business 
was booming, and even my brother (a high school drop-out) had a 
job - hell, everyone I knew had a job!  Our standard of living has 
never been higher: VCRs, laserdiscs, stereo TVs, cellular telephones, 
EVERYTHING!  

When our local team won the division, they began selling play-off 
tickets only over the phone.  They figured that for every 4000+ 
people who tried to call, 1 got a ticket.  ONE out of FOUR-THOUSAND 
people got tickets.  Anyone care to explain how, in the midst of 
such economic strife, so many people can afford such a frivolity as 
an expensive ticket to a baseball game?  Furthermore, when the cable 
rates get too high, do people cancel...hell no!  They bitch and 
whine until the government steps in and lowers the price.  The fact 
is that income is not down - people just can't afford to live the 
way they THINK they deserve to live.

Over the past year or so, it's just bugged the hell out of me that over 
half of our government can do absolutely nothing but BENEFIT from 
all our misery and despair!  All their manipulative scheming will 
pay off when you vote for Clinton in November, thinking he's your 
last hope.
-- 
Sean P. Ormond
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt7994a
Internet: gt7994a@prism.gatech.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: doug@cc.ysu.edu (Doug Sewell)
Subject: Re: KKKaldis Alert
Organization: Bush in 92 ? NOT!
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 20:43:40 GMT

eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:
: In article <Oct.2.08.10.09.1992.28715@romulus.rutgers.edu>
: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
: 
: [ Story of Sodom and Gomorrah deleted... It's in Gen 18 and 19 ]
: 
: >_THIS_ is what God thinks of homosexuality.  Let's get it right, why
: >don't we?
: 
: No, KKKaldis, that's what God thinks of people trying to rape His angels.

Actually, the angels were on their way to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah
anyway, having found not even ten righteous people in the town.  Ezek.
16:48-50 discusses the sins Sodom was responsible for.
--
Doug Sewell, Tech Support, Computer Center, Youngstown State University
doug@cc.ysu.edu	   doug@ysub.bitnet	<internet>!cc.ysu.edu!doug
"Recession: your friend loses his job.  Depression: you lose your job.
Recovery: Bush loses his job" - Bill Davidsen
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.singles
From: kevin@clsi.COM (Kevin Cameron)
Subject: Re: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
Originator: kevin@dubhe
Reply-To: kevin@clsi.com
Organization: CAD Language Systems Inc.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 14:18:38 GMT


In article <BvuHG5.KHw@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, pfister@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (tom pfister) writes:
|> [A bunch of irritating, near-sighted arguments on both sides deleted]
|> 
|> First of all, I am all for family values.  Who isn't!?  Of course, my
|> family values differ significantly your family values.
|> As for the family leave bill, it is a wonderful idea and I'm sure any
|> employer who implemented it would be revered by its employees.  But it
|> is NOT the governments job to be regulating employer/employee relationships.
|> Let the unions or individual employees bargain with the employer for such
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> benefits.

An individual bargaining may be seen as a trouble maker (target for lay-off,
firing or lack of promotion), and how many netters are union members?

Kev.

PS: Could this thread be moved to just misc.jobs.misc ?


-- 

WHFS: Living in a screwed-up place in a screwed-up time with screwed-up people,
      does not necessarily mean you are screwed-up.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.bizarre
From: crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun)
Subject: Re: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 15:51:58 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

In article <1992Oct13.180436.15502@unislc.uucp> das@unislc.uucp (David Shorten) writes:
>Mark Wilson (mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM) wrote:
>
>: As a citizen of this country you have a right to try and change the laws of
>: this country.  As an employee you have a right to try and get your employer
>: to change his family leave policy.  This breaks down when as an employee
>                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^
>: you use the laws of this country to force that employer to give you a
>: family leave policy.
>: 
>: This may be legal, but it sure as hell ain't right.
>: 
>: 
>Why does anything break down under this circumstance?  Looks to me like
>a fine way of solving the problem.  As an employee, you are in a low-power
>situation for purposes of bargaining.  As a citizen you are on more
>equal footing with your boss.  Why not try to get it legislated?

The principle on which this country was founded was opposition to tyranny; and
that a tyranny of the majority is just as tyrannical as a tyranny of one.
Their solution, a limited government that cannot pursue certain policies no
matter how many approve of them.  So, for instance, the government cannot 
block off a neighborhood and search every resident and residence for drugs or
weapons.  Even if we all thought this a good idea, the protections against
unreasonable search and seizure prevent it.  The kind of thinking demonstrated
by Mr. Shorten above are exactly what they were most concerned about; that a
majority (employees) could twist the laws to their advantage as against a
minority (employers).  If we don't protect everyone's rights, then nobody's
rights are safe.

>
>Dave S.


===============================================================================

William Crosmun
crosmun@dg-rtp.dg.com

===============================================================================

"Socialism has a bad name in America, and no amount of wishful thinking on the 
part of the left is going change that in our lifetimes....The words Economic
Democracy are an adequate and effective replacement."

						   Derek Shearer - Advisor to Bill Clinton

===============================================================================

"That was the ultimate heckle."
	
		Then presidential candidate Al Gore to a heckler who suggested that he
		would make a good vice-president - 1988

===============================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during V
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 04:03:12 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Oct8.195120.28260@csrd.uiuc.edu> saarinen@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Sirpa Saarinen) writes:
]I heard this on radio as well (I guess you mean the Larry King). However,
]why didn't Larry King ask Bush what kind of evidence he has to suspect
]that Clinton talked with the KGB? I am really surprised: a guy calls in
]to the LK-show and asks Bush about "Iran/Iraq-gate" and Bush answers by talking
]about Clinton in Moskow! What kind of sissy is this LK? What kind of a
]"moderator" is Larry King? 

First of all, Bush did NOT say he had evidence that Clinton talked to the
KGB, although I am quite sure that he did.... but that isn't the point...
everyone who went to Moscow then talked to the KGB, whether they realized
it or not, but that doesn't make the communists.

I notice that once again the liberals are trying to twist this issue
around into what it isn't: red baiting and McCarthyism. Naturally this
is easier than dealing with the real issues:
  -Bill Clinton was out of line for demonstrating against his own
   country IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY. It wasn't against the law, and it
   doesn't make him a communist, but it si wrong to take internal squabbles
   outside the country.
  -Bill Clinton can't come straight on this issue, any more than he can
   on most others, which means that he has a character problem. He has
   lied and dissembled on the anti-war issue just like he did on the
   Jennifer Flowers allegations. He has told us that he met with
   anti-communist students at Moscow University. Do you believe that?
   If so, please justify your views.
  -The Soviet Union was an enemy of the US at the time, and they were using
   the peace movement as a weapon against us, and the fact that Clinton
   went to Moscow while a member of that peace movement indicates at least
   very poor judgement.

[Note: The allegation which I repeated that Clinton's passport files had
 been tampered with has been investigated and found to be false by the FBI.
 All that was missing were some innocuous items that had been misplaced.]


-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Comment too controversial for management - Deleted :-) -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.misc,chi.general
From: Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Re: This Time Around, DON'T VOTE !!
Organization: NDA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 04:36:57 GMT

(responding to Patrick Townson's posts about the corruption of
Chicago politics and the city administration)

As I said in another post, I think that much of Chicago's problems
are a function of tax policies that encouraged individuals and businesses
to leave the city for new post-war suburbs. One of the roles of central
government is to transfer tax dollars to the cities to allow them to
operate transportation networks, health care facilities, social housing
and the like at an appropriate standard, because city governments can't
operate municipal services on local property tax revenues alone.
Pooling of tax revenues in a metropolitan area through structures like
the Montreal Urban Community, the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto
or the now-defunct Greater London Council also helps.

And my smart-ass response to the suggestion that no politician in
Chicago is worth voting for is that there much be a great many Chicago-
area politicians worth voting against.

Nigel Allen       nigel.allen@lambada.oit.unc.edu
  
Slogan of the week: Vote early and often!


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50044 ca.politics:8510 ba.politics:5923
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: The Mother of All Flame Wars, Part 4 of 4
Date: 7 Oct 92 19:56:05 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

I shall respond to this and the previous three installments in a few
weeks, once my teaching duties have subsided a bit.

Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cramer@optilink.uucp (Clayton Cramer): Message-ID: <12133@optilink.UUCP>
I realize it's difficult for a person as depraved as [Brian Kane].
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (FRIENDS DON'T LET FRIENDS VOTE REPUBLICAN)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Burning the flag is OK
Summary: Premature death
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:51:06 GMT
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <Bw2sox.96G@taligent.com>, kevin_mcentee@taligent.com (Kevin McEntee)                writes...
>Summary of today's supreme court decision:
>-------------------------------------------
>Laws that ban the burning of the American Flag are unconstitutional.
> 
>Hooray for checks and balances... another nail in the coffin of fascism!

Who said it was in a coffin, much less dead?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: AIDS and Legislation of morality
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:40:11 GMT

In <71034@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt7994a@prism.gatech.EDU (ORMOND,SEAN PATRICK) says:
>In<1992Oct13.035305.26531@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <71020@hydra.gatech.EDU> (ORMOND,SEAN PATRICK) writes:

>>>Telling kids that condoms will protect them from a fatal disease makes
>>>as much sense as telling them that seat belts will prevent them from
>>>having a fatal accident.

>>But seat belts do prevent (many) fatal accidents.  What's your point?
>                           ^^^^^^
>...but not ALL fatal accidents!  If a fatal accident CAN occur while
>you're wearing your seatbelt, then seatbelts do not, by definition, PREVENT
>such accidents.  Likewise, a condom will not PREVENT you from acquiring

This is wrong.  One of the definitions for prevent IS "to keep from
happening," as you're using it.

Two other definitions of prevent are "HINDER" and "to interpose an
obstacle."  Which condoms/seat belts DO do.

>an STD.  It might reduce your chances, but that's a small consolation
>considering the stakes.  Let's say you have a 1% chance of catching HIV
>during a heterosexual encounter.  Now this condom will reduce that to
>0.2%, if you're very careful with it.  Now keeping in mind the fact that
>we're dealing with a virus that leads to an incurable and FATAL disease,
>are you going to feel any safer?  If you're willing to trust your LIFE

Of course you're going to feel safer, just as you feel safer if you wear
a seat belt.  Do you refuse to drive because you might get hurt?  Do you
trust your life to a piece of cloth and a buckle?

And as many people die every 2-3 years in car accidents as have ever
died of AIDS.

And your numbers are ridiculously high, unless perhaps you *know* the person 
has AIDS.

>to a thin piece of latex you bought in the restroom of the local gas
>station and just plain luck, this tells me a couple of things:
>a) Your life's not worth shit; and,
>b) You've got more balls than brains.
>Kids are being taught that condoms "prevent the spread of AIDS", often
>in lieu of ABSTINENCE!  This is terribly misleading and provides a
>dangerously false sense of security.

That's stupid if it were true.  But it isn't.  They're told that condoms
are the second best method, after abstinence.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1993 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Roland Hemond: SIGN BARRY BONDS!!!!!!!!
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more weeks!!!   		"Bloody urine"
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51615 alt.politics.clinton:10305
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Date: 14 Oct 92 02:15:31 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <13OCT199217232922@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
>If I assume Clinton played a minor part -- then that is perhaps the
>worst situation. Neither did he feel strongly enough to get involved
>in an anti-war leadership role, nor did he go off to war and personally
>stand along side his peers. 

Sheesh.  The man was what, 22?  I don't think a single one of us would
want to run for office solely on what was accomplished as a 22-year-old.
I sure wouldn't.

All the same, Clinton had already put up a pretty impressive resume by
that date: Rhodes Scholar, accepted into the most selective law school in
the world.  Not many his age had similar or better credentials.  Maybe
Hillary (valedictorian, commencement speaker, featured in Life Magazine,
also a Yale Law student).
-- 
ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
ajax crypto-analyzer -- warning! remove all chicken bones first
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Moral Premises--    was Some more about 'RIGHTS'
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 18:52:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.002818.1808@clipper.ingr.com> ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
    >In article <1992Oct5.190605.323@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com
    >(Phil Ronzone) writes:
    >
    >
    >>"Thou shalt not kill" -- another moral premise. Can I prove
    >>it? Nope. Can I judge other people on whether or not they
    >>accept this premise? You bet I can. I do. And I'd wager, so
    >>do you.
    >>
    >>Some "cultures" have other premises -- such as "some races
    >>are better than other and can enslave the less better races".
    >>We judge those too.
    >>
    >>And we still can't "prove" the rightness or wrongness of the
    >>moral premises. But we can observe the effects of accepting
    >>either of those two premises and the liklihood we'd be better
    >>off on a system that chose one of the other.
    >>
    >>
    >Hear hear! I knew that somewhere inside Ronzone there was a
    >reasonable man.
    >
    >Now, compare the quite reasonable things which you have just
    >said to Rand's concept of an absolute form of ethics based on
    >"man qua man," a totally theoretical model of homo sapiens
    >which is taken as an a priori truth, not even subject to
    >empirical verification.

Sigh -- sorry to disappoint you but you have misinterpreted what I
have said. I agree with Rand. What's more, I agree with Rand that
her moral premises can be, and are, subject to constant validity
checks in the day to day world.


    >Night and day.
    >
    >Instead of holding that things like property and FOA are
    >absolutes according to this untestable preconception of human
    >nature, we must show that these concepts have empirical
    >justification--that they result in positive ends, as judged
    >by certain values which we share with others.
    >
    >There aint nuttin' else to hang onto, except Randian or other
    >religious dogma.

Rands philosophy is not dogma. Fra from it, it is so far the most valid,
accurate, and moral philosophy the world has seen.

We can not PROVE that the speed of light is a constant, nor can we prove
that no man has a claim on another, but the results from the assumption
of validity of both axioms are great and unbroken so far.


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

If all the contributions of Dead White Males, a.k.a. Dead White Loathsome
Oppressors, were to vanish, you'd have the Politically Correct(tm) Loathsome
Oppressors using dull rocks to hunt and the Politically Correct Women of
Vision and Strength(tm) using leaves for tampons.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton question
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:57:59 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 14370@oracle.us.oracle.com, mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>Well, first off, given that Clinton apparently spent little time
>studying I hardly think he would have missed much.

If Clinton became a Rhodes scholar through lack of study, then he was even more
intelligent than we've been led to believe.  ;-)

>Secondly, I hardly find it surprising that you would find it difficult
>to understand someone who cares enough about his country to fight in
>its wars, or, for that matter, someone with enough personal honor that
>they would not use their privileged position to avoid fighting in a
>war in which the less well-connected were frced to serve.

Why are you attacking Dan Quayle again?  Unlike Clinton, he felt that the war was
a good idea.  Or maybe you are referring to the Soviets who sought to avoid
serving their country in Afghanistan.  Or maybe you would even like to have
castigated Germans during WWII who sought to avoid carrying out Hitler's
war aims.  After all, it's not a matter of conscience, but of following
orders.  The honor of your country.  Ours not to question why.  Ours but to
do or die.

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

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51118 misc.headlines:6591 talk.politics.mideast:21038
From: rivk@ellis.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Jack S Defends MLKing Slur (Was: ARF DEFENDS HIS HONOR)
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:16:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: midway.1992Oct12.161623.28990
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <BvzoD3.Gou@ddsw1.mcs.com> arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) writes:

> They attacked him like sharks at a feeding frenzy.  They 
> could not mention his name without playing that scratchy old 
> film of him, as an 18 year old student with a swastica, 
> protesting the Vietnam war.
> 
> I would guess I heard at least 25 time, today alone, people 
> saying that Clinton was only a 24 year old kid when he went 
> to Moscow and it is a big todo about nothing.

I haven't heard that. What I have heard is that going to Moscow
is not a particularly bad thing, certainly not on a level with
supporting and admiring those who would have murdered an entire
race if they would and did murder millions.

> Just why the hell is an 18 year old supposed to be more 
> responsible than a 24 year old?   Don't bother guessing.  

They aren't. Both are expected to be responsible enough to know
that murder is wrong and not to throw their support behind genocide.
Neither of them are necessarily supposed to care if their government 
doesn't get along very well with another government before going to
visit the country involved.

> js

	-Nora


-- 
"Light one candle for those who are suffering pain we learned so long ago..."