HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Greatest President Since Teddy Roosevelt
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 00:39:17 GMT

In article <randall.711846814@seashore> randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea) writes:
>john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>>
>> [Arguments deleted about Iran-Contra special prosecutor]
>
>The deliberate circumvention of the Consitution and its system
>of checks and balances is a much bigger threat, and that is
>just what happened in Iran-Contra.  The executive branch,
>along with private citizens and certain people from the military,
>decided that they were going to conduct foreign policy on their
>own, Congress and the Constitution be damned, even if it meant handing 
>weapons over to terrorists.  Such were the acts of your "moral people."
>Recent revelations that Reagan knew what was going on shows that he 
>was personally corrupt, not just a innocent bystander.
>
Paper bag time  (in-out-in-out)  ... ok

If it is the Constitutional separation of powers in question then
why isn't this issue before the Judiciary branch whose duty it is
to decide such issues?  

I don't believe that the special prosecutor is employed to determine
constitutionality, isn't the special prosecutor determining whether
legislation was violated not constitutionality?  You are mixing up
two totally separate issues.

Do you get equally as hyper when Senators and Congress(people) go
to other nations and seemingly perform their own foreign policy?

Mike Best
{mcdphx|asuvax}!anasaz!best
From: mikeq@aspen.CNA.TEK.COM (Mike Quigley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Adios, Smith Corona
Date: 22 Jul 92 17:06:18 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Redmond,  OR.

This is just the start of a flood of manufacturing jobs that will
flee across the border whether or not there is a Free Trade Agreement. 
It doesn't matter who is president, the American blue-collar worker
is finished.

Not even a general uprising can change this course of history.

Mike
From: John.Tipton@iphase.UUCP (John Tipton)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: more bush-it
Date: 29 Jul 92  22:30:00 EST

DOES UNCLE GEORGE INTEND TO BRING THE US INTO A MORE `KINDER AND GENTLER MODE COMETITIVE WITH THE EUROPEN COMMON MARKET BY BRING GAS PRICES UP TO EUROPEAN PRICES IF HE'S FOUND ANOTHER `WILLIE HORTON' TYPE COMMERCIAL AND BRING AMERICA INTO A THOUSAND POINTS OF LIGHT THAT HE PROVIDED SADAM HUSSANE WHEN HE WAS THE VICE PRESIDENT UNDER OPERATION `POTATOE'?

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Subject: Re: "Willie Horton" and Willie Horton
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin, Texas
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 17:37:09 GMT

demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>>There are two issues here:
>>>
>>>1) what are the facts (e.g. who initiated the Willie Horton story: the 
>>>   Democrats) and
>>>
>>>2) how should we interpret the incident (e.g. racism vs. security).
>>>
>>>While there IS a correct answer to 1s, there is no correct answer to 2s. 
>> 
>> But there are clues to (2).  For example, Gore didn't even know what
>> race Horton was: he was attacking the concept of a furlough system.

>	This is incredible.  All the Bush campaign does is air a commercial
>showing a revolving door on prisons and yet they're "racist".  Gore uses
>Willie's name yet he's "attacking a concept".

but they did mention the race of the victim.  that was only necessary
to bring race into issue.

>	Revisionism of any color is just as stinky.

>> The Republican ad that I saw, on the other hand, prominently displayed
>> Horton's face and made the underlying racial implications very clear.

>	But you would be lying (again).  There was no Republican ad that showed
>his face.  The only people to have done that are Mr. Brown and his band of
>fanatics and...the US media.

i guess they commercials just got lumped together.  is `republican ad' defined
as "paid for (100%) by the GOP"?  and who else uses that narrow definition?

Newsgroups: alt.politics.election,talk.politics.misc
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: Whether you like Clinton or not,...
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 15:32:07 GMT
Organization: Culturale Elit

In <3496@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, psg+@pitt.edu sez:
>In article <LGOLD.92Jul20132648@cds8952.Cadence.COM> lgold@cds8952.Cadence.COM (Lynn Gold) writes:
>>
>>If Bush gets re-elected, he'll be able to topple a woman's right to
>>have a safe and legal abortion.  (PLEASE, no pro-choice or pro-life
>>flames here!)
>
>Gee Lynn I guess you missed the fact that three of the Reagan/Bush appointees
>voted to uphold Roe v Wade.  Proving again that only one group in government
>has a one issue litmus test for appointees, the Democrats.  If proved that
>all the NOW and NARAL hype about those appointees was just fanatical hysteria.

This is truly amusing.  "The fact that Republican appointees don't
perform according the litmus test by which they were selected = there
was never a litmus test."  Back to remedial logic at UPgh for you,
Paul old man.

BTW, Justice Thomas's dissent in _Casey_ sorta makes your claim about
the "hype" look a mite foolish.

-- 
		       Apres moi, Les Etooges.

	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:35471 alt.politics.elections:8969
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Perot sued!!
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 23:28:07 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Jul21.192940.20241@dscomsf.desy.de>
  <DOCONNOR.92Jul21154118@potato.sedona.intel.com>
  <1992Jul22.140933.5258@panix.com>

Perot's supporters were hoping that he would make Big Brother "work",
rather like what Gorbachev claimed he would do.  They were not interested
in issues or principles, just someone who would turn their emotions
around.

In last Saturday's San Jose Mercury News, one Perotista was quoted as
saying, "I'm like a baby in the street.  Who's going to pick me up?"

If people want to sue Perot, then let it be for "emotional distress"...


    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.sig  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.history,soc.culture.usa
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Question about Clinton's "didn't inhale" remark
Date: 21 Jul 92 14:30:01 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Jul21.000115.10189@tss.com> burke@tss.com (Jim Burke) writes:
>|> Well, IMHO, this shows either a fear of rejection of the lack of courage to
>|> say, "No thanks, I don't do drugs."
>
>The man was 19 or 20 years old.  Criticizing him on this
>basis seems lame to me.  
>

But Jim that's not what they're criticizing him on.  Al Gore was confronted with
his pot smoking and just said, yes I did it I was a kid so what, and no one has
made an issue about it.  Clinton is criticized not because of the smoking but
his feeble and disingenuous responses and attempt to deny it, first saying no
then saying "I never broke any laws of the U.S." and then the now famous "but
I didn't inhale".  People don't like having others pull the wool over their 
eyes and to most people when they hear an answer(s) like that it means he still
has something to hide.

That's why he's being hammered on it.

PSG

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:36768 ca.politics:6192
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Molesters vs Molestation (WAS Re: Against Our Will)
Date: 31 Jul 92 15:53:47 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <11487@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>Ah, yes, the tired old claim that a child molester, even one who
>molests the same sex, isn't a homosexual.

Clayton, honey, the only jaded myth is what you're espousing. The Abel
and Harlow study you cited trying to gain support for your position
says that "only 21% of boy-molesters are exclusively homosexual". It's
right before your eyes.

># Think about it. 48 out of 403. This is about 12%. This number represents the
># fraction of MOLESTERS that molest boys exclusively.

>That's still about 2x the number of homosexuals in the population

Whoa. Back up. It says the fraction of molesters who molest boys, not
the fraction of exclusively-homosexually-identified molesters of boys.

>you don't accept Hyde's 20% figure, then your computation above is
>suspect.

Hyde's 20% figure was for incidents, not molesters.

>It means that a lot of bisexuals and nominal heterosexuals are molesting boys.

Which is what I've saying all along.

>guess why the bisexuals weren't broken out as a percentage?

Your guess is as good as mine. Maybe their questioning of the details of
the respondants bisexuality was insufficient to break it down. If they
found that most of the remaining 79% of boy-molesters were bisexual, would
you then claim that bisexuals are over-represented among molesters? You
still couldn't do this in light of the fact that boy-molesters as a whole
are underrepresented as a proportion OF MOLESTERS (NOT INCIDENTS!) because
of their multiple victim approach.

>I keep forgetting: men having sex with the same sex aren't homosexuals

That's right, they're heterosexuals who molest boys, bisexuals who molest
boys, homosexuals who molest boys, and even others, who have no adult sex
life, who actually consider their orientation to be pedosexual.

>WHY?  They could have -- but didn't.  Both were gay positive articles.
>What does this tell you?

Like I said, maybe they couldn't have. Ask them.

>I consider bisexuals and homosexuals indistinguishable.

That's your problem.

Brian.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
oneself.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:35107 alt.politics.clinton:170
From: johnf@uhheph.phys.hawaii.edu (John Flanagan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Which of you is 'good enough' ?
Date: 22 Jul 92 00:43:31 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Hawaii, Dept. of Physics & Astronomy

I wrote:

>Hell, girl, my history couldn't survive the scrutiny required to teach
>high-school in most states.  Nothing _I'm_ ashamed of, but not good PR
>material in this year of "family values."

P.S. -- This is why I'm voting for Clinton.  I consider George Bush's
stance on gay rights, and human/civil rights generally, to be immoral.

--John
-- 
John Flanagan                          ||"And it won't be long                 
johnf@uhheph.phys.hawaii.edu           || When everything you said             
U. of Hawaii, Dept. of Physics & Astro.|| Won't sit around and pile up with the
2505 Correa Rd., Honolulu, HI 96822    || traffic in my head." -- Alison Moyet 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: What is "Silencing?" (was: Re: Hate speech okay ...)
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 22:26:47 GMT

On the topic of libel:

egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

[...]
>It is, in other words, unlikely that public figures are going to sue
>little people for attacking them in public forums.  While of course
>little folks like us need far better protection for our own freedom of
>speech (in particular, we need this freedom on the job), a public figure
>exception benefits media companies far more than it benefits us.
[...]

It is to our benefit to have media companies watching public figures.

Great Briton has libel laws much like you advocate. In practice, such
laws are used to stop little people (and even bigger people) from
critizing public figures.

- Carl

-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:34947 alt.politics.elections:8707 alt.politics.perot:973
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Polls ( was Re: Politics and Poker)
Date: 21 Jul 1992 16:17:27 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

|> >   Clinton scares me because he seems to continually change his personality
|> >to get more votes.  Just look at his wife:  early in the election she was very
|> >outspoken... a very independent woman.  But, that wasn't helping Clinton's
|> >popularity, so now she plays that role of the humble wife and mother.  Sheesh.
|> >Talk about schmooze!  Do we know what Clinton is _really_ like?
|> 
The alternative is Perot.  He tells us that preserving his style and
opinions is more important than helping the country.  The President of the
United States is supposed to be a representative of the people -- a leader.
I want a leader that listens, and does what is necessary to lead us where
we want to go.  That is more important than having a leader that leads
us where he wants to go.

The other alternative, of course, is George Bush.  He did change his position
on the economy.  He used to call supply side theories "voodoo economics."
Now, after 12 years of "voodoo economics" he touts it as the savior for the
country.  Ask the Reagan question.  "Are you better off than you were 12
years ago?"  Ask that question for all those who are at the same point in
their lives/careers that you were 12 years ago.  All 2 million people that answer
yes to that should vote for Bush.  The other 100 million should vote for
Clinton.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:35174 alt.politics.clinton:194
From: crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Question about Clinton's "didn't inhale" remark
Date: 22 Jul 92 06:52:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <36881@ttidca.TTI.COM> kevin@drogges.tti.com (Kevin Carothers) writes:
> service jobs which you will be required to fill if you apply for government
> assistance. Very much like the WPA programs of the thirties. This is a LOT
> different than "welfare". This is a program that pays for itself. Sure, the
> 30's "New Deal" was expensive, but  we know a lot more about how to manage
> and account for a public works program nowadays than we did back then.

I beg your pardon, but how will public works programs pay for themselves?
One thing that always troubles me about the uninformed democrats is that
they simply do not understand economics.

-- 
Richard Crisp         Cupertino, Ca.         crisp@netcom.com
(415) 903-3832 wk    "what, me worry?"    (408) 253 4541 fax

To say that Bill Clinton's alleged successes as Governor of Arkansas
qualify him to be President of the US is like saying the shoeshine
stand operator in the airport is qualified to be CEO of IBM.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.history,soc.culture.usa
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: President Bill and International Trade
Date: 23 Jul 1992 17:57:11 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com
Keywords: Touchy People!  What Are You Afraid Of?  The Truth?

In article <1992Jul23.160841.27187@usl.edu>, pssres12@ucs.usl.edu (Vignes Gerard M) writes:
|> In article <l6rhquINN6n5@spim.mips.com> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
|> >If I selected the words you would use to answer the question "How do you
|> >justify taking up space on the network," you'd sound even worse than
|> >you are trying to make Clinton look.  If you're going to do fiction,
|> >you ought to find the right news group.  
|> 
|> 	Michael seems to be better at giving advice than taking it.
|> 	(especially when it's his own :-)
|> 
|> 	He could have contacted me via e-mail,
|> 	if he was truly concerned about bandwidth,
|> 	but that's not what he did,
|> 	and maybe there's a reason why.
|> 
|> >Try alt.put.your.stupid.words.in.others.mouths.
|> 
|> 	Maybe he's upset because I don't think Bill
|> 	would make a good president.
|> 
|> 						Gerard Vignes

You have just proved you are not a blitering idiot.  But if I got to
write your script, I could make you look like one.  I think that would
be unfair to you.  Just as you were unfair to Clinton by writing his
script.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:34914 alt.politics.clinton:114
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Question about Clinton's "didn't inhale" remark
Date: 21 Jul 92 14:41:01 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Jul21.035951.8389@news.Hawaii.Edu> blais@milo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Kristin Blais) writes:
>
>Clinton never said he had an affair. Also at the point the Gennifer 
>Flowers affair supposedly took place, He was running for 
>re-election-had a ten *month* old daughter. Even the 
>Republicans Arkansas say that he was too *obsessed* with his career
>to ever jeopardize it that way. Additionally the story is *known*
>to have been brought to the press by an old enemy of Bill Clinton,

Ya know Kristin if you're going to support this guy you might want to 
brush up on the facts so you don't look quite so silly. 

Ms. Flowers was number thirteen in a string of women (mostly state employees)
that have claimed to have affairs with Bill and received a job or promotion
to keep quiet.  Secondly these accusations have been around since long before
his plan to run for President and it wasn't Republicans that called him on the
issue but Democratic state house representatives that had gone as far as suing
him for official corruption because of his alleged sex for jobs scam.

Get it right would you.

PSG
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
Subject: Re: Vacation Time!
Keywords: Ditch Day, vanishing room
Reply-To: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
Organization: ACUSON, Mountain View, CA
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 17:32:15 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.103631.22708@wvus.org> art@wvus.org (Art Nicolaysen) writes:
>
>Every 3 years or so, the local papers rediscover Ditch Day and run an
>article; has anybody seen these published outside of Southern California??

There was an article in Smithsonian (I think) sometime in the last 5
years or so on the CalTech "brain games."

-- 
Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Libertarian Platform
Date: 22 Jul 1992 21:46:04 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

In article <archer.134@utkux1.utk.edu>, archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
|> In article <l6ri1kINN6n5@spim.mips.com> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
|> 
|> >But if you have decided your children are not yet responsible enough, to
|> >you support the right of the local sleeze following your child around and
|> >giving/selling them alcohol?  Let's say it is your 13 year old daughter.
|> 
|> >How do you protect your daughter from alcohol and drugs long enough for
|> >you to instill your values?  Have you tried raising kids yet?
|> 
|> God, no!  Me, a parent?  I'm much to selfish.  Imagine, some else who 
|> actually thought THEY were the center of the universe.

This is apparent from your statements about the parents responsibility to
instill their values in their kids.  Did your parents teach you to be selfish?
|> 
|> Anyway, if he is so much of a sleeze that he woould give/sell alchol to a 
|> thirteen year old girl, he will do it anyway, regardless of the law.  

So all laws are a waste.  Community standards are a waste.  Tear up the
Libertarian platfor -- it is a waste.  Re-word it to 

	you don't mess with me
	I won't mess with you.

Now we can conduct life on personal revenge and vendetta.  Not a bad idea
at that.  I had better get a pair of dueling pistols (that pull a few
degrees to the left).
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot
From: pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman)
Subject: Re: PEROT HAS NOT WITHDRAWN !
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 15:00:35 GMT

In <1992Jul21.022415.4269@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.203823.16680@bradley.bradley.edu>, pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman) writes:
>|> This amazes me.
>|> He Quit.
>|> How can you not believe he's a quitter?
>To answer your question, my point wasn't whether or not Perot was a quitter--
>I wanted to emphasize the PAIN that we are in for.  If H. Ross Perot
>quit after looking at the size of the problems we face, those problems
>have got to be monumental indeed.

Well, I guess I see the piont then, but
I really don't see why anyone needs anything
but a good look at reality to realize what
PAIN we're in for--Ross Perot is a footnote,
not a canary in a coal mine.
-- 
Pete Hartman		       Bradley University	pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
             "See you guys ar--see you.  Er.  Great.  Fine.  Ciao."
     As the Bently skidded off into the darkness Ligur said, "Wossat mean?"
            "It's Italian," said Hastur.  "I think it means 'food'."
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:34858 alt.politics.elections:8674
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Carter Best President in Memory
Date: 21 Jul 92 08:39:45 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman)
>Blaming Jimmy Carter for inflation after Nixon had needed wage and
>price controls (!) and Ford had spend most of his presidency
>flogging WIN (Whip Inflation Now) pins, is absurd.

Carter suffers from the same problem that the Labour Party
suffers from in the UK. Both were in office during the time
when economies the world over were suffering badly,
particularly from high inflation caused by the Arab oil
embargo, and both left office just before the worldwide economy
picked up again, so they took all the blame while their
successors took all the credit.

In this year's UK election the Conservative Party got
away with the claim that the slump our country is falling
into was all the fault of worldwide factors (funny how no-one
else has managed to fall into a slump quite as deep as we
have), which is ironic since they managed to win the previous
two elections by blaming problems caused by the world economy in
the 1970s entirely on the Labour Party.

Matthew Huntbach
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc