HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Guy at Sun who got fired for nasty pos
Date: 12 Aug 92 18:51:42 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <1992Aug12.083955@wsl.dec.com>, gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil) writes:

|> Ahh the GOP, you mean the people who first ran Willy Horton ads and
|> then decided to try to dump David Duke when the pressure got too
|> hot?  The GOP, who got a president elected who appointed a
|> memeber of the KKK to the Supreme Court?

i) I don't believe that the RNC ever recognized Duke as a legitimate
Republican. In fact, they refused to endorse him as far back as when he
first ran for statewide office (in 1988?) [didnt't Reagan and Bush lend
their voices to TV ads directed against Duke?].

ii) Which ex-KKK SC justice would you be talking about and which GOP
President? (You might mean Hugo Black -- he was a Democrat
and a Senator before he became an Associate Justice of the SC, 
appointed by FDR who, if my memory is right,  was not a 
Republican). And, the GOP didn't just get A President elected,
they got plenty [ 9 in this century, to be exact ].

-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.guns
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Stereotyping
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 23:55:49 GMT

In article <11727@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>The psychiatrist puffs on his pipe, and leans over: "Tell me, 
>Clayton, how long have you let what a group insists on portraying 
>themselves as influence your perception of them?"

More likely the psychiatrist would lean over and ask:  "Tell me,
Clayton, how long have you had this obsession with homosexuality?"

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush 
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:34:38 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.140530.26145@pwcs.stpaul.gov>
chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:

>>chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>>> Actually, I think it's neat that Bush and Quayle would be supportive of
>>> their female offspring (or offoffspring in GHWB's case).  I wish that
>>> they would remember that _every_ woman is _someone's_ daughter or
>>> granddaughter; all equally deserving of their parents' and grandparents
>>> support of their right to choose.

>> You've never heard of the saying, "Do as I say, not as I do."?

> Definitely!  Their statements regarding their (grand)daughters are just a tad
> hypocritical; one would hope that they see the error of their ways and open
> the door for _all_ women rather than close it for their (grand)daughters.

I think it's pretty sexist of you to insinuate that all women think alike,
and that all of them are pro-choice.  


>Chris Lyman  


Doug Holtsinger
From: B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (Stephen Tice)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: = Bush/Hussein '92 =  (For 4 More Years...)
Date: 17 Aug 92 18:26:00 GMT

... because the Republicrats need a "loyal opposition."


 /              \      |      /   How else would you justify a   \
(  Stephen Tice  )  -- S --  (  $280 billion tax-dollar defense?  )
 \              /      |      \  ------------------------------  /
From: ncovey@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (neil covey)
Subject: Re: Keys to the election
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 15:46:39 GMT

There have been posts here to the effect that the press has been less
than kind to Bush than it has to Clinton recently.  I expect some of
this to change soon.  Indeed, I see it changing already with the RNC
beginning.  But I don't think we should blame the press too much for
Bush's troubles.  The Republcans have been acting very strangely lately,
and the press would have been remiss not to report these goings on.  For
example, the recent dump-Quayle, and even dump-Bush bandwagons were
played up, but not made up, by the press.  Respectable Republcans were
behind both movements.  People like D'Amato, Bennett, Viguerie, and even
Will (who is more a commentator than an actual reporter) were making
statements very much to Bush's detriment.  Even more solid Bush
supporters like Richard Lugar and Jack Kemp were/are saying things which, 
called for more vigorous presidential action, and implied less than vigorous
presidential inaction.  Moreover, the abortion problems at the RNC, when
combined with recent statements by Bush, Babs, and Quayle, suggest an
ambivalence, which conservatives in the press jump on to lambast the
less than wholehearted support that Bush seems to be giving the
Republican platfrom, and which more liberal elements in the press jump
on to lambast what they see as hypocrisy in the Bush camp.

Even the recent NYT story about the possible bombing of targets in Iraq
after a purposeful provocation by UN inspectors was given credence by
Bush when he lamented a "breach of security."  This tacit admission that
the US and UN were indeed cooking up something gives credence to the
NYT's administration sources who went on to claim that such military
action was meant to boost Bush politically.  All in all, a case of
Republicans screwing themselves rather than a liberal-biased press
bashing them.

And Rich Bond's strange suggestion that Jerry Brown would be Secretary
of the Interior in a Clinton administration reinforces the notion that
he doesn't know what's going on.  Even if all of Bond's speeches have
purposefully engaged in hyperbole, anyone with a cursory knowledge of
recent Democratic history will know that this particular attempt to make
Clinton guilty by association won't wash.  Such inept attempts by Bond
may only reinforce people's memories of his utterly incompetent and
and failed attempt to ambush Perot on the Larry King show.

In the Aug. 17 Time, there was a short which said the Republicans were
desperately trying to win two of three states: New Jersey, Michigan, and
Ohio, because they had already written off California, Pennsylvania, and
Illinois.  I can't comment on the accuracy of Time's claim that the
Republicans have already started to "write off" such states, but if
this account is true, the Republicans are in trouble, and the press
can't help or hurt them anymore than they help or hurt themselves. 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jon@lindy.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis)
Subject: Re: Why do Americans get so little vacation time?
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 23:48:50 GMT

pas@anchor.unh.edu (Paul A Sand) writes:

>I know that when one makes at least one set of reasonable answers to
>the above questions, Gordon's assertion is simply false: real median
>yearly pretax household income is bigger than in 1972, according to the
>latest numbers from the Census Bureau. (You can look this up in a
>half-decent library, and I have.)


   So have I, and according to Table 721 of the 1991 Statistical
Abstract of the United States, "Money Income of Households," the median
annual U.S. household income in constant 1989 dollars rose between 1970
and 1989 from 27,913 to 28,908 -- a whopping 3.5 percent increase in
just two decades!  Whoopee!

   Turning to Table 698, we find that our country's Gross National
Product during the same period rose in constant dollars by two hundred
and fifteen per cent.  That huge increase in productivity must have
translated into profit for someone.  Wonder where it all went?  Wait a
second, let me check my pay stub -- nope, don't see any of there. 

   At this point if I wanted to be a rabble rouser I could start looking
up what's happened to the net worth of the richest five per cent of
American families over the same period, but, let's face it --
investigations like that are only going to play hell with people's
politics and might even make it hard for them to continue being docile
and self-sacrificing little producers.   We've got an American
electorate now who's been trained to perform the amazing acrobatic feat
of kissing the asses of the men who are picking its pocket, so let's
keep it that way.  (Yawn ...) I wonder what's on teevee ... 
--


Jon Corelis               jon@lindy.stanford.edu
Stanford University       BITNET:  BR.JGC@RLG.STANFORD.EDU 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 02:48:33 GMT

In article <FOX.92Aug14150707@graphics.nyu.edu> fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:
>In article <BsxsG4.MuG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
>
>   If one believes that the fetus
>   is a human being then the issue is clear.  The right to life takes
>   precedence over other rights.  It isn't that the woman does not have
>   rights it is that they are subservient to the right to life of the
>   fetus.  Again this is logical and consistent if you accept the
>   assumption (all arguments are based on assumptions) that the fetus is a
>   human being.
>
>The right to life you are referring to prohibits taking another
>life.  However, it does not mandate giving anything up to save
>the life of another.  That is why it is not illegal to refuse to
>contribute to relief efforts in Somalia.

I think my posts were clear.  Your point is well taken.
>
>   The argument for women's reproductive right are based on the assumption
>   that the fetus is NOT a human being.  If one accepts THIS assumption
>   then the woman's right takes precedence and again no inconsistency is
>   found.  The point is that there is no inconsistency in either argument.
>   It simply comes down to which assumption about the fetus you are willing
>   to accept.
>
>From the above you see that an argument against reproductive
>rights cannot be based on whether the fetus is a human being,
>since one is not automatically responsible for the life of
>every other human being.  One might argue that the mother is
>the legal guardian of the fetus and has responsibilities for
>that reason, but this is by no means clear cut.  For example,
>the legal status of a child is very different from that of a
>fetus: you can't take it as a dependant on your taxes, you
>can't assign assets to it, etc. etc.
>

Here you have a problem.  The argument being considered is predicated on
the assumption that the fetus is a human being.  Although as you noted
above you do not have contribute to the well being of others (actually
there are many cases where you do such as laws against neglect of
children but I'll let that go for now because it isn't particularly
relevant) abortion is the destruction of the life (again all this is
predicated on a specific assumption -  this is not a pro/con abortion
debate) therefore the argument remains quite valid.

Tim


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40133 alt.politics.bush:1834
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Listing the good reasons to vote for Bush
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 14:17:04 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>The best reason to vote for Bush is to avoid placing a Democratic
>president and a democratically-controlled Congress in charge of
>spending.  

Considering the current situation, I don't see any difference....George
Bush is NOT a conservative when it comes to govt. spending...or taxes...

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40746 talk.politics.guns:19650
Organization: The Leader Desslok School of Diplomacy
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 02:26:16 EDT
From: Norman St. John Polevaulter <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gutting of the Bill of rights
Distribution: na
 <3=7mj2=.crisp@netcom.com> <1992Aug15.171821.25935@athena.mit.edu>

In article <1992Aug15.171821.25935@athena.mit.edu>, wdstarr@athena.mit.edu
(William December Starr) says:

>I'm no expert on weaponry or insurrection, but... if push came to
>shove, would the presence or absence of weapons -- even "assault
>rifles" -- in the hands of civilians really make much difference to
>the outcome?  Seems to me that, given the vast manpower and arsenals
>of the federal military, the National Guard and (to a lesser extent)
>the conventional police, the deciding factor in any modern-day
>American revolution/insurrection/whatever would be whether those
>groups chose to support or oppose the government; the random
>civilians, even those organized fairly well, would, sooner or later,
>get squashed by the professionals if they opposed them.

A word of friendly advice: don't cross-post this to talk.politics.guns!
I posted similar sentiments elsewhere recently, not knowing that it
was cross-posted, and was deluged with replies from people who had
already planned out the entire insurrection in detail!

I don't know what this means, but it does make me nervous.

[Your blood pressure just went up.]       Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
       DISCLAIMER: If it ain't money, Penn State doesn't care about it.
   "Ladies and gentlemen, I've suffered for my music! Now it's your turn!"
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40013 alt.individualism:5250
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Please fill the jar....  Drug testing is a two way street
Date: 16 Aug 92 15:22:26 GMT
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93


In article <1992Aug14.161300.3476@desire.wright.edu>, 
demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) suggested:

> Carry your own specimen jars with you, and if asked to fill
> something during the interviewing process, bring out your jars and
> say "Have the president/CEO/my potential boss/etc fill these, then
> we can exchange samples."
>
> It be interesting to videotape the proceedings for "America's
> funniest home videos."
>
> Those doing the insisting usually don't want to submit to one
> themself....

I'm not sure that this is true.  It's easy and tempting to ascribe
evil, venality, greed, etc. as motives when people we don't know take
actions that _we'd_ never take except for those foul reasons, but I
suspect that there are a lot of Drug Warriors and supporters out there
who actually _believe_ all the bullshit about how drugs are an Evil
Scourge Upon Our Fair Land (tm) and all the rest.

People with their heads that far up their asses are probably perfectly
willing (perhaps even eager) to show that they're good law-abiding
drug-free citizens.  (Especially since they're unlikely to admit even
under torture that alcohol and nicotine are drugs...)

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Defending Reaganomics?
Date: 19 Aug 92 16:16:50 GMT
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Originator: rja@redwood26


In article <1992Aug18.221116.3588@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> In article <1992Aug18.164035.1471@hemlock.cray.com>, rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
> > In article <1992Aug18.014254.3558@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> >> 
> >> > 2. The Trickle Down Theory.  By reducing taxes on the wealthy (80% of
> >> > American did NOT receive a tax break in the Reagan years) and cutting
> >> > back on social programs, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.
> >> 
> >> 	Reagan cut taxes for everyone.  Congress re-instated them for that
> >> portion of society that had income to invest. 
> > 
> > Why is it that when there was a tax cut "Reagan cut taxes" yet when there
> > was a tax increase "Congress re-instated them"?  What is the basis for
> > giving the credit to Reagan for the cut but not for re-instating them?
> > 
> > In both cases, congress passed and Reagan signed the legislation.
> 
> 	Reagan's tax cuts were all his, pushed through congress when Reagan
> went over their heads to the American people.

You have an interesting concept of how proposed legislation becomes law.

> 	Congress came back the next year and said "if you expect to pass
> anything else, you better back off the tax cuts".  They promised to cut
> spending if he would reinstate some of the taxes.  He agreed.

Do you really believe that Congress would agree to cut spending without
getting Reagan to agree to those cuts (sharing the blame of those that 
get cut)?  Could you give more details of this alleged promise?

> 	The problem was (and still is) that congress never did their part in
> cutting spending.  They pulled the same scam on Bush.  Although Bush seemed all
> too eager to raise taxes in the first place.

Reagan was quite eager to raise taxes in 1983 (increase the Social Security 
tax) and 1986 (Tax Reform).  I think Reagan also proposed tax increases in 1982 
and 1984, but I'll have to double check.

> 	In addition, a signal that a veto is futile is when the margin a vote
> passes by is larger than that needed to override a veto.  For a president to
> veto the bill anyway (and waste time and effort) when there is a government to
> be run isn't a good tactic.

Are you claiming that the *Republican* controlled Senate was going to override
Reagan's veto?  

> 	Reagan had no reason to believe that congress would go back on its
> word.  Bush should have known better.  He should have gotten it in writing.

What spending did Congress allegidly agree to cut?  Please provide some details.

-- 
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!)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Reagan and jobs
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 17 Aug 92 13:16:21 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

	Change in number of jobs during the Reagan Era:

	Minimum wage: -25%

	10$/hour and up: +67%


	Source: William P. Chesire, in USA Today Op-Ed, Monday Aug 17th, 1992.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40502 talk.abortion:32355 alt.politics.bush:2064
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 19 Aug 92 00:32:14 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
!eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:
!> By the way, I am old enough to remember when abortion was illegal.  I saw
!> someone bleeding from an illegal abortion once.  Bush says he would 'pick
!> her up, dust her off, and get (his grand daughter) back into the race' of
!> life.
!
!> It takes a lot more than 'dusting someone off' when someone has had an 
!> illegal abortion to put them back together even physically.
!
!> Sometimes, very often when abortion is illegal, they are not around to get
!> back in life at all.  Bush ought to know that, too.
!
!Amen and preach it sister!  Some time ago in talk.abortion, I read a 
!harrowing narrative by a woman who had given herself an abortion with
!a sterilized knitting needle.  She described the pain as 'excruciating,'
!and said that she bled for days.  Her reason?  Her father had stated that 
!he would kill any daughter of his who became pregnant before marriage
!and she had every reason to believe him.  I wish I'd saved the article;
!it's very worthwhile reading.
!
!I wish even more that, before they glibly spout their fetus worship, pro-
!forced-birthers would take the time to reflect on what circumstances would
!cause a woman to risk her life in order not to be pregnant.

I assume that the pregnancy was the result of consentual sex. Otherwise
I don't think she should have had that much to fear from her father.

On the other hand if her father were really that serious about killing
his daughter over premarital pregnancy, then I am very grieved over the
situation. His statement certainly is not indicative of a very healthy
family relationship. If he cannot accept that sometimes threatening to
kill someone doesn't help, then the father truly does not understand
how to encourage trust and love in the family. Besides, if he did kill
her, he'd be charged with TWO counts of murder. 
	I submit though that this stance is not taken by all fathers to
their daughters. This story is very tough to swallow, as I'm sure there
are equally emotional stories that the pro-lifers ("forced-birthers")
can write up and submit to the net. No side wins in the above story: she
did not need to have performed a self-induced abortion, and if she had a
legal abortion, I doubt this action could have helped her relationship
with her father. Making abortion available to this woman I doubt helped
her family be more closer and more trusting.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Duke football? What's that?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Listing the good reasons to vote for Bush
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 03:11:15 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.233652.13536@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>The best reason to vote for Bush is to avoid placing a Democratic
>president and a democratically-controlled Congress in charge of
>spending.  
>

Like Carter and his Congress?  The came very, very close to balancing
the budget in '79, I believe.  Unlike others who shall remain nameless
but had unusually dark hair for his age or was represented by Trudeau
as a disembodied voice...

This is getting incredibly tired, Doug.

--
But this is.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc