HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Subject: Re: Debate 2:  "Please state your position on Term Limits..."
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 18:44:51 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.075407.9367@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>
>I mean, geez.  Ross always talks as if we ought to run the government
>more like a business.  What kind of business would get rid of its
>employees every two years and hire new ones?  Not a successful one.
>

Well, any business which had employees as incompetent as those in
the Congress would not LAST two years.

Philosophically, David, I agree that term limits are a bad idea.

However...

The myriad advantages of incumbants have been discussed in the
media to a substantial extent (free mailings, PAC campaign money,
etc).  Short of term limits, how can we level the playing field
to give non-incumbants a fair chance to be elected?

Ross Perot has made some suggestions for election reform, and
restrictions on PAC contributions and the ability of reps to move
to high-paying consulting jobs for foreign governments after
expiration of the term(s).

To Perot's list I would suggest that pending legislation be
made a matter of public record (I read an article by someone who
wished to instruct his representative on how to vote on a major
spending package, and was told HE COULD NOT OBTAIN THE TEXT OF
THE LEGISLATION).

On the other hand, I don't hear any suggestions from Clinton.
Does he have any, or is he really just the "status-quo candidate"?
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Famous Republican Draft Dodgers
Date: 14 Oct 1992 22:35:30 GMT
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

In article <1992Oct14.211430.11538@ncar.ucar.edu>, gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
|> mq> Mike Quigley
|> 
|> mq> Let's not hear anything more about Clinton's war record.
|> 
|>   That isn't the issue. I really don't care whether Clinton dodged the draft
|>   or not, since I would definitely have done so if I were in his place. What
|>   ticks me off is his lying/hedging/oiliness on what his actions were. Why
|>   doesn't he just come out and say "Yes, I didn't want to get drafted, and I
|>   pulled as many strings as possible and did what I could to avoid it", rather
|>   than the pap we're hearing from him.
|> 
|>   Be straight and honest, for chrissakes! Clinton's a politician, though, so
|>   that's too much to hope for.
|> 
Because it's not quite that simple.  After all of the dodging and ducking,
Clinton dropped all his deferrments and submitted himself to the draft.  He
did this before the lottery that gave him a high (unlikly to be drafted)
number.  The numbers were based upon birth date, so everyone born on the 
same day he was, had the same number.

In the end, he did what everyone is blaming him for not doing.  But,
of course, his critics seem to ignore this.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.skeptic
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: WHERE WAS BILL???
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:40:40 GMT

In article <1434@tecsun1.etl.army.mil> riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:
>In article <56.X666X@ramona.com> doug@ramona.com (Double Agent) writes:
>>Washington, DC (AP) - Mary Matalin, designated Bush campaign attack-bitch,
>>followed up recent charges related to Democratic presidential candidate Bill
>>Clinton's secret meetings in Moscow with high-ranking officers of the KGB by
>>demanding to know why Clinton has no alibi for November 22, 1963, the date
>>of President Kennedy's assassination. Asked Matalin, "why won't Bill Clinton
>>come clean with the American people?"
>
>	Can you give us the name of a SINGLE reputable newspaper which
>has picked up this story ? On what day did the AP run it on the wire ?

Some of us seem to have missed the Weekly t.p.m Silly Season and
Parody Contest.

>
>	While sci.skeptic marches on, the intellectual level of t.p.m
>(never real high - ARF generally keeps it below 100 IQ) sinks to new depths.
>
>Will talk.politics.misc hit 25 IQ before election day ?

Too many posts about UFOs in sci.skeptic.  But then, we have J.
Danforth Quayle....

Has ARF been posting recently?  He's somehow found his way into my
killfile, and, you know, I haven't seen much of him since then.


--
"Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."  Psssssssssssss.....
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 16:16:49 GMT

In article <Oct05.203207.51974@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>
sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
 
>        BTW, life of the mother and rape exceptions are CONSISTENT exceptions.
>Incest, if it was also rape, is consistent as well; but allowing abortions for
>children incestuously conceived between two consenting adults would be an
>INCONSISTENT exception (and therefore one I would oppose).
>
>Steve
 
Steve....exactly *HOW* is rape a consistent exception?  If abortion is
truly the murder of an innocent child, why is a child conceived by a
rape any less innocent?  It bears no responsibility for its father's
crime.
 
Please explain....no one else has been able to do so.
 
Jim McMaster
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50823 alt.conspiracy:11153 alt.politics.elections:16061
From: jcburt@cs.wm.edu (John Burton)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Twist Slowly, Slowly in the Wind
Date: 11 Oct 92 02:01:06 GMT
Organization: The College of William and Mary

In article <1992Oct10.171537.2560@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>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!  The kind of thing that,
>only a few months ago, you could only hear about in the
>commie press.  They're still a little bit uncomfortable
>about it -- they put "Iraqgate" in quotes -- but it's all
>there.  Lots and lots of it, especially the "I don't
>remembers."

Ummm...Is this supposed to be a blast against the
Wall Street Journal, and Clinton? Are you saying that
the *story* about Iraqgate is something that you would only
read about in communist press, or that Iraqgate is something
that you would only read about in the communist press?

If its a blast against the press, what pray tell *should*
they have printed, perhaps Bush asking what Clinton did
at 1:00pm on Jan 2, 1970? or perhaps another scoop like
"Several Pages Removed from Clintons Passport Record"
(which the FBI quickly decided was someone's over active
imagination...)

>
>By the way, that's Page One, column one.  Premier real
>estate on one of the most closely read front pages in
>America.
>-- 
I wonder why they did such a nasty thing...its obviously not
important that the president and the adminstration (over
many protests from within the adminstration and legislative
branch) funneled money and guarenteed loans to Iraq for several
years (up to and including Aug 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait),
and then promptly spent another $2 billion dollars in a war
with the same country they had just been supporting...
Also, Bush has stated flat out that he had no involvement
when many of the other players involved as saying just
the opposite...you're right this doesn't even deserve
notice, this kind of obvious slander should not be printed
in the good ole U. S. of A...

> )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
>( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )

BTW: do you know where your money is tonight?

John
Organization: Engineering Design Research Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Date: 16 Oct 92 06:27:50 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In <85094@bcsaic.boeing.com> lbaum@bcsaic.boeing.com (Larry Baum) writes:
>In article <13OCT199216361127@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
>: In <84844@bcsaic.boeing.com> lbaum@bcsaic.boeing.com (Larry Baum) writes...
>: >In article <10OCT199220515401@utarlg.uta.edu> (Stephen Tice) writes:
>: >: In <1992Oct10.233650.14720@nntp.uoregon.edu>, eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes...

>: >: >It was a normal trip for young scholars.

>: >: If it was his first trip in the Soviet Union, then also likely a
>: >: memorable experience. I wonder why he won't talk about it... if
>: >: it was just a normal trip?

>: >I think that it is not at all unusual to have only vague
>: >recollections of a trip that took place 23 years ago.  In 1974
>: >I had a wonderful trip to Europe, but I doubt I could speak
>: >very precisely about any person I met there or what I did on a
>: >particular date, etc.  I can tell you what cities I visited
>: >and some of the sights I saw, but precise memories?  Not very likely.  

>: If I asked you, I hope you would at least offer that.  
>: No big deal right? 
 
>When you are running for President, every question is a big
>deal.  Especially when the GOP is clearly out to put you on
>the defensive.  If you answer the question, then the voters
>begin to think the question is legitimate.  There are times
>when the proper response is "That is a disgusting insinuation
>and I won't dignify it with a response".  This is one of those times.

Maybe, but that's sort of irrelevant.  Why?  Because your quote, above,
*IS* what Bill Clinton said.  Amazing, isn't it?

But then Republican-attack-bitch Mary Matalin began responding to this
statement with "Why won't Bill Clinton come clean about his trip to Moscow?"
Until George was finally so embarrassed by this that he said he accepted
Bill Clinton's explanation.

But in American politics, the attack is what gets remembered, not the
explanation.
-- 
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"
From: skrenta@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Rich Skrenta)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Next Perot ad?
Date: 16 Oct 92 15:32:26 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois

I believe the times for the Perot ads I had in my last post were
wrong.  Here they are, to the best of my knowledge:

Friday, Oct 16:		10:30 EDT / 9:30 CDT  NBC & C-Span
			30 minute ad

Saturday, Oct 17:	8 EDT / 7 CDT  ABC & C-Span
			one hour ad

--
Rich Skrenta
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: PEROT'S 1ST "INFOMERCIAL"
Date: 7 Oct 92 17:41:33 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Thomas Hill) writes:
|> 
|>    You didn't see any fixes because that will come in part II this Friday. To
|> fix a problem you must first understand it. Perot took an entire half hour to
|> show you all the problems. Think about that for a second. As to your remark
|> about it being "nothing new". Yes, the problems have always been there. The
|> problem is that our two candidates won't even pay lip service to them. Why?

You are about to answer a statement that isn't even true.  It is reasonable
to say you don't agree with their solutions or their priorities, but it is
not a fact they they do not address these problems.

Bush:	If we reduce the taxes on the rich enough, they will create an
	economy that will solve the problem for us.
Clinton: We can redirect the money we are already spending, along with a
	an incresed tax on the rich, to create an economy with targed
	government programs that will solve the problem for us.
Libertarians: Governement is the problem.  If we eliminate it everything will
	be solved for us.
Perot:	If we pay enough taxes, all our problems will be soved for us.

My choice is clear.  Others feel the same way (though they may
not come up with the same answer).  I am still open to hear Perot (or
others I don't plan today to vote for) come up with something
that will change my mind about the best way to undo the damage of
the last many (OK, more than 12) years.  Perot didn't do it
last night.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51416 soc.culture.canada:7436
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: KKKaldis Alert
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:40:53 GMT


I have added talk.religion.misc to the newsgroups.  This is where this
thread really belongs by now, but I wanted people on the other threads
to see what the score is.

In <1992Oct11.041107.8116@nntp.uoregon.edu> eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) 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?
>>: 

>I did find it interesting that, after they fled the destruction, Lot had
>sex with both his daughters, and they became pregnant by him.  The
>offspring became the leaders of two great peoples.

Makes it sound like Lot imposed himself on his daughters, rather than
the other way around.  By South Carolina law, the daughters were 
guilty of Third Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct, punishable by up to 
ten (10) years in prison.  According to Genesis 19: 31-38, Lot was
oblivious to what was being done to him, they had gotten him so drunk.

>Tell, me Mr. Kaldis, is that the Biblical attitude on incest?  (Note:  the 
>question is not rhetorical.  I have heard men charged with incest explain and 
>defend it on the grounds of that story.)

Well, according to that Genesis passage,
 the daughters gave rise to the Moabites and the Ammonites, two
groups of people looked down on by the Israelites; somewhat the equivalent
of "niggers" in the Jim Crow South.  Seems like a clear case of the
sins of the mothers visited upon their descendants.

But, at least by the time Ezekiel 18 was written, this kind of attitude
towards the descendants of sinners was repudiated by the biblical writers,
on the authority of the Lord.

Anyway, the mendacity of the incestuous fathers you describe above is on
a par with the worst I have seen on talk.abortion.

Peter Nyikos
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Time For Clean Sweep -was BUSH LOSES VETO FIGHT!!
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 23:20:44 GMT

In article <85050@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
>In article 21650@awdprime.austin.ibm.com, curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806) writes:
>>These sentiments are understandable.  But if you're honest you have to
>>agree that Congress is at least *part*, if not most, of the problem.
>>
>>And since they're part of the problem, then shouldn't dumping them be
>>part of the solution also?
>>
>>Be fair this November.  If you're voting for Mr. Clinton, vote against
>>Congressional incumbents too, regardless of their party.
>
>I don't advocate voting a straight ticket, since both parties can have very
>capable people.  But, other things being equal, you should vote for the same
>party this time around.  That is the only way to get politicians to stop
>playing the blame game and to start working together to find solutions.  If 
>you vote for Bush, then vote for Republican senators and congressional reps.
>If you vote for Clinton, give him enough rope.  Give him Democratic senators
>and congressional reps.


Nope. The "change" message suggests that we should vote Republican
in the House and Senate, to clean out the imperial Democratic
Congress. Voting for Dems there is asking for yet more Status-Quo
politics in those bodies.
 

Pat
		Bill Clinton: The Status-Quo Candidate
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: The Decline of America: Money for CIA Subversion, not Development
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:00:15 GMT
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB

The Decline of America: Money for CIA Subversion, not Development


==================================================================
Total official development aid as a percentage of gross national
    product, and percentage of aid going to least developed
                countries (LDCs), 1989:
==================================================================

                    DEVELOPMENT AID
COUNTRY               (% OF GNP)         PERCENT FOR LDCS

Norway                   1.04                   39
Sweden                    .97                   30
Denmark                   .94                   42
Netherlands               .94                   30
France(26)                .78                   20
Finland                   .63                   48
Belgium                   .46                   30
Canada                    .44                   37
Italy                     .42                   35
Germany                   .41                   27
Australia                 .38                   23
Japan                     .32                   18
United Kingdom            .31                   33
Switzerland               .30                   36
Austria                   .23                   22
New Zealand               .22                   12
Ireland                   .17                   38
United States             .15                   13

Source: United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1991), p. 187.

******************************************************************

From page 85 of:

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  
_We're Number One, Where America Stands -- and Falls -- in the New    
World Order_ by Andrew L Shapiro.   

New York, May 1992, Vintage Books, a division of Random House.   
$10 paperback. ISBN 0-679-73893-2  
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -   

    "America is becoming a land of private greed and public squalor.   
    This book is an indispensable road map through the wreckage. The   
    facts it reveals will startle you. They may depress you. But   
    ideally they'll fire you up to help rebuild this nation."   

                        -Robert B. Reich, author of The Work of Nations   
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: bobw@gdstech.GRUMMAN.COM (Bob Waffenschmidt)
Subject: Perot economic plan request
Organization: Grumman Corporation
Distribution: talk.politics.misc
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 19:00:19 GMT

I was told that "THE DOCUMENTATION" of the Perot plan was posted to
this group.  Well, I missed it could someome mail it to me?

I am am told it is in several parts (i.e. I know it is big).

Please, mail all parts to bobw@gdstech.grumman.com
From: gurd@next04wor.wam.umd.edu (Daffy Duck)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush is dead meat.
Date: 11 Oct 92 22:20:55 GMT
Reply-To: gurd@wam.umd.edu

Russ Nelson writes
> "Four more beers", they were chanting at the Republican National  
Convention.
> That's about all Bush is going to get.
> 
> --
> --russ <nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> I'm proud to be a humble Quaker.
> Peace is not the absence of war.  Peace is the presence of a system for
> resolving conflicts before war becomes necessary.  War never creates  
peace.

Actually they are going to get nothing more than FOUR MORE MONTHS!!!
Also don't be surpised to see the Democrats pick up 2-3 seats in the  
Senate, and retain their comfortable margin in the House.  The electorate  
is going to clean house alright, they are going to clean the White House  
out, and "Vote for a Change."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: "Perot's numbers"
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 17:50:15 GMT

In article <70dP02bT25G501@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> jej20@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Jerry E Joplin) writes:
>I can fill in part of the puzzle using Perot's numbers from 
>_United_We_Stand_.  

They may be numbers from "United We Stand," but I don't see how they
can be Perot's numbers, when he hadn't seen the materials until after
they were published.
-- 
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
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Reagan/Clinton a tale of two govenors
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 12:43:42 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <CB.92Oct12164100@tamarack13.timbuk> cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster) writes:
>Douglas Wayne writes:
>
>   ... Whether or not you agree with whatever economic policies
>   that he pushed for, the most important thing Reagan did was make
>   this country feel good again. ...
>
>Yes, he was great at creating illusions.  Meanwhile he created a huge
>permanent deficit by raising spending (on defense) and lowering taxes;

  . . . I agree with this part.  Of course he didn't do it alone.
  Nor was it just the government . . . consumers and corporations
  also had a debt party.   By 1990, according to the Economist, 
  total US (public+private+corporate) debt was 103% of GDP!  And
  it was mainly at interest rates that were way in excess of any
  reasonably anticipated growth rates.   So Reagan didn't pull the 
  wool over America's eyes -- Americans pulled the wool over their
  own eyes!   And again, the real tragedy is that those of us who 
  WERE fiscally responsible get dragged down in the resulting 
  economic morass along with all the "deserving" victims.


>deregulated everything so that we got the S&L crisis

  . . . this part is wrong.  Much of the deregulation (e.g., airlines)
  happened under Carter.  Even the original banking deregulation legis-
  lation was introduced under Carter.   But this biggest flaw in the above
  comment is repeating the perrenial Usenet falsehood that the S&L mess
  was caused by deregulation.   

  The S&L mess was caused by *incomplete* deregulation.  The government 
  no longer had such power to control the banking practices, but it
  RETAINED the obligation to rescue failing banks, or at the least
  the <$100K deposits in them.   So the problem wasn't deregulation;
  it was insufficient deregulation.  

  The correct solution was either to keep things the way they were
  or to completely disconnect the government from banking.  Halfway
  measures are always dangerous.


---peter



---peter