HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Date: 11 Dec 92 21:32:24 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <lif60aINN2e8@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:

|Mark Wilson) writes:
||> In other words, Do you feel that states should be required to place on the
||> ballot anybody who so requests?
||> 
|I thought this is what I answered.  I believe that the courts will rule that
|states cannot not create unequal rules for ballot access.
|-- 
|These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
|occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.

But don't other forms of ballot access rules also create inequalities.  That
is some people are able to meet them and some aren't.

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24659 talk.politics.misc:64971 tx.politics:8048
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Date: 20 Dec 92 04:07:37 GMT
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Jim McMaster (MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com) wrote:

[Much deletia]

: Some things were specified quite clearly, and those take an amendment
: to change.  I believe a state could have allowed women to vote in
: state, but not federal elections, since the Constitution said only
: males could vote.                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Are you sure about this?  The only part of the original Constitution and Bill
of rights that I can find, relevant to voting, is Article 1, Section 4,
Paragraph 1 which states "The times, places, and manner of holding elections
for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the
Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such
regulations, except as to places of choosing Senators."

: Other things were left open.  Congress was forbidden to outlaw the
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: slave trade for a certain period of time.  After that, they could if
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: they so chose via legislation, but they were not required to do so.
: Congress can pass laws on many things, either because the powers are
: explicitly granted, or because the powers granted are very broad, like
: the interstate commerce and general welfare clauses.

And where do you find the above assertion in the Constitution?

[more deletia]

: Jim McMaster

I'm just curious about these two statements.  To my knowledge, the framers of 
the Constitution and Bill of Rights did not deal with gender at all (persons 
and citezens are referred to) and only dealt with slavery to the extent that it
impacted on representation.

Am I wrong?

Mike McAngus
-- 
(mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org) I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the 
whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law
respection an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise 
thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." Jefferson
From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: (was Somalia & Iraq) A follow-up.
Date: 15 Dec 92 04:53:10 GMT
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program

gtao@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Greg ) writes:

> 
>>By the way, Schwartzkopf called the Gulf "war" a "turkey shoot."
>>And he's right: 200,000 dead Iraqis, and about 100 dead US
>>service people. I mourn them all. 

>Just where do you get your 200,000 figure?


Well, if you read alt.conspiracy, you would see confirmation of
the 200,000 figure in a secret meeting of America's most powerful
at a social event on the west coast.  I'm surprised - you seemed
like such a well-informed young man.
-- 
{{{{ bill eldridge           310-206-3960                x                }}}}
{{{{ bill@cognet.ucla.edu    310-206-3987 fax           xxx              }}}}
{{{{ ~more, ~better, ~faster [80's motto]                x              }}}}
{{{{ ~hot, ~toxic, and ~shallow [90's motto]                              }}}}
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.president.clinton
From: nancyg@banshee.bellcore.com (Nancy Griffeth)
Subject: Re: Does Bush hate Xmas or What ?
Organization: Morristown Research and Engineering
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 19:31:15 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.111044.15163@news.columbia.edu>, dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec13.062447.26229@netcom.com> harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:
|> >dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina) writes:
|> >
|> >>In article <1992Dec12.223948.25318@netcom.com> harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:
|> >
|> >>>The problem is that the growth of the 80s was centered primarily on
|> >>>the already well-off.  The 80s were an age of gluttony which we will
|> >>>probably never see again.
|> >
|> >>The growth was not centered around only the well-off.  Read the thread
|> >>on the REAGAN-BUSH RETROSPECTIVE.

How on earth do you conclude that from the figures posted in the thread you
cite???
 
In case anyone else followed this thread to the end looking for the correction
to this mis-statement, here are the figures that were posted in the
Reagan-Bush retrospective thread:

>        AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME

>        Lowest  Second  Third   Fourth  Highest  Top
>        Fifth   Fifth   Fifth   Fifth   Fifth    5%
>-----------------------------------------------------
>1977    7,193   17,715  29,287  42,911  76,522  117,023
>1980    6,836   17,015  28,077  41,364  73,752  110,213
>1989    7,372   18,341  30,488  46,177  90,150  145,651
>1990    7,195   18,030  29,781  44,901  87,137  138,756
%change    0.0      1.8     1.7     4.6    13.9     18.6

This supports the claim that the growth of the 80s was centered 
on the already well-off.  Mr. Harp was quite right.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:14672 alt.president.clinton:1157
From: ray@cs.rochester.edu (Ray Frank)
Subject: Re:  Somalia Question
Organization: University of Rochester
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 18:34:38 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.163911.1677@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>In article <BzCyyp.MD4@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> gtao@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Greg ) writes:

>}Maybe I just don't know all that much about the Somalia situation, but
>}there just doesn't seem to be that much threat to US troops there.
>
>Not to the troops, nor from Somalia.  To the US government, from the various
>and sundry "blame america first" crowd evident throughout the world and
>adequately represented on USENET in general and these groups in particular.
>

Amen to that.  Some of these people have their mindset cast in concrete.

ray
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: nancyg@banshee.bellcore.com (Nancy Griffeth)
Subject: Re: Does Bush hate Xmas or What ?
Organization: Morristown Research and Engineering
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 22:08:55 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.024244.19084@news.columbia.edu>, dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec14.193115.20114@walter.bellcore.com> nancyg@banshee.bellcore.com (Nancy Griffeth) writes:
|> >In article <1992Dec13.111044.15163@news.columbia.edu>, dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina) writes:
|> >|> In article <1992Dec13.062447.26229@netcom.com> harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:
|> >|> >dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina) writes:
|> >|> >
|> >|> >>In article <1992Dec12.223948.25318@netcom.com> harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:
|> >|> >
|> >|> >>>The problem is that the growth of the 80s was centered primarily on
|> >|> >>>the already well-off.  The 80s were an age of gluttony which we will
|> >|> >>>probably never see again.
|> >|> >
|> >|> >>The growth was not centered around only the well-off.  Read the thread
|> >|> >>on the REAGAN-BUSH RETROSPECTIVE.
|> >
|> >How on earth do you conclude that from the figures posted in the thread you
|> >cite???
|> > 
|> >In case anyone else followed this thread to the end looking for the correction
|> >to this mis-statement, here are the figures that were posted in the
|> >Reagan-Bush retrospective thread:
|> >
|> >>        AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME
|> >
|> >>        Lowest  Second  Third   Fourth  Highest  Top
|> >>        Fifth   Fifth   Fifth   Fifth   Fifth    5%
|> >>-----------------------------------------------------
|> >>1977    7,193   17,715  29,287  42,911  76,522  117,023
|> >>1980    6,836   17,015  28,077  41,364  73,752  110,213
|> >>1989    7,372   18,341  30,488  46,177  90,150  145,651
|> >>1990    7,195   18,030  29,781  44,901  87,137  138,756
|> >%change    0.0      1.8     1.7     4.6    13.9     18.6
|> >
|> >This supports the claim that the growth of the 80s was centered 
|> >on the already well-off.  Mr. Harp was quite right.
|> 
|> 
|> I conclude that on the basis of my response to Mr. Harp's conclusions.
|> Please do follow the thread to the end.  

I did, and it didn't help.
|> For those who missed it, the
|> response I made was in alt.president.clinton, article 1818.

Hold on a minute -- first, you referred us to the Reagan-Bush retrospective;
but when I quote your figures from that, you say that your claim is supported 
by...

the very thread that points us to the Reagan-Bush retrospective!!

This must be what's meant by a circular argument...  I think I'll just
put it in my circular file!

|> 
|> 
|> David
|> dnm9@columbia.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.president.clinton,alt.current-events.somalia
From: mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough)
Subject: Re: Does Bush hate Xmas or What ?
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Date: 13 Dec 92 18:51:28 CST

In article <1992Dec13.194637.14439@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>In article <1992Dec13.111044.15163@news.columbia.edu> dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina) writes:
>>I agree.  Lose some administrators (the teacher's union is the largest
>>and most powerful lobby group in the country,) gain some teachers (and
>>pay them better.)
>
>
>	It's worse than that.  I've noticed that a lot of the peopl ein 
>	the teaching profession are wholly without morals (i.e. refusing
>	to write recommendations as a form of striking?).  Furthermore,
>	the teaching *quality* of a lot of teachers is rotten--these
>	are people who were education and sociology majors--you know,
>	the people who didn't belong in college so they took the
>	easiest majors on the planet (other than art)?  

I am familiar with the teachers strike in MD, and I didn't see any good
teachers refusing to write recomendations.  The already rotten teachers
who didn't care yes, but not the ones who cared.  And many of the teachers
did care.  In one school district, the strike was by limiting activities
that aren't specified in their contract.  As for the quality I say the
following.  The degree that the teacher holds tends to have little 
influence over the quality of the education.  Where were you going that
most teachers didn't have at least a degree in the education of the
subject they were teaching?  Don't accuse education of being ultra-easy,
it isn't always.  Many really good teachers have education degrees, and
many good teachers have a MS in (Science, Math, English,...).  There are
some good teachers, but if the student doesn't take the attitude that they
are going to learn, there isn't much the teacher can do.
>
>	These people are teaching all sorts of garbage, and the teachers
>	union continually refuses and blocks any kind of teacher rating
>	system to get rid of the real bozo's.  (And there are some doozies.)
>
>	If they don't know the subject--fire'em.  
>
Ever here of tenure?  Yea, inclue teacher evaluations, but some teachers
actually encourage that already.  I'm not saying that the system is great,
merely that it isn't as in bad a shape as you make it out to be.
:)M^2
>
>
>     all mail to --> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu <-- (please use if different above) 


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina)
Subject: Re: Does Bush hate Xmas or What ?
Reply-To: dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 02:42:44 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.193115.20114@walter.bellcore.com> nancyg@banshee.bellcore.com (Nancy Griffeth) writes:
>In article <1992Dec13.111044.15163@news.columbia.edu>, dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina) writes:
>|> In article <1992Dec13.062447.26229@netcom.com> harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:
>|> >dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina) writes:
>|> >
>|> >>In article <1992Dec12.223948.25318@netcom.com> harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:
>|> >
>|> >>>The problem is that the growth of the 80s was centered primarily on
>|> >>>the already well-off.  The 80s were an age of gluttony which we will
>|> >>>probably never see again.
>|> >
>|> >>The growth was not centered around only the well-off.  Read the thread
>|> >>on the REAGAN-BUSH RETROSPECTIVE.
>
>How on earth do you conclude that from the figures posted in the thread you
>cite???
> 
>In case anyone else followed this thread to the end looking for the correction
>to this mis-statement, here are the figures that were posted in the
>Reagan-Bush retrospective thread:
>
>>        AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME
>
>>        Lowest  Second  Third   Fourth  Highest  Top
>>        Fifth   Fifth   Fifth   Fifth   Fifth    5%
>>-----------------------------------------------------
>>1977    7,193   17,715  29,287  42,911  76,522  117,023
>>1980    6,836   17,015  28,077  41,364  73,752  110,213
>>1989    7,372   18,341  30,488  46,177  90,150  145,651
>>1990    7,195   18,030  29,781  44,901  87,137  138,756
>%change    0.0      1.8     1.7     4.6    13.9     18.6
>
>This supports the claim that the growth of the 80s was centered 
>on the already well-off.  Mr. Harp was quite right.


I conclude that on the basis of my response to Mr. Harp's conclusions.
Please do follow the thread to the end.  For those who missed it, the
response I made was in alt.president.clinton, article 1818.


David
dnm9@columbia.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Subject: Re: RUSSIA'S OPERATIONAL STAR WARS DEFENSE SYSTEM
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 23:29:41 GMT

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>
>I haven't read sci.military in a few days, so I donn't think I've seen that
>yet.  But the stuff this guy posts is routinely showing up in various
>newsgroups, and the author never responds to any replies posted.

Why should he?  I'd rather he kept writing original stuff, rather
than get bogged down into explaining why his fantasies are really
true.

Encore....Encore!!!!

-- 
{{{{ bill eldridge           310-206-3960                x                }}}}
{{{{ bill@cognet.ucla.edu    310-206-3987 fax           xxx              }}}}
{{{{ ~more, ~better, ~faster [80's motto]                x              }}}}
{{{{ ~hot, ~toxic, and ~shallow [90's motto]                              }}}}
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: sulkanen@xanth.msfc.nasa.gov (Martin Sulkanen - NRC/ES65)
Subject: Re: Bush kills 46,000 kids
Organization: NASA/MSFC
Date: 15 Dec 92 15:13:29 GMT

>mtl2001@andy.bgsu.edu (*-*-*-*) writes:

>>------------------------------------------------------*
>>DEATH OF 46,900 CHILDREN
>>ATTRIBUTED TO GULF WAR

>>[Peace Media Service] An estimated 46,900 Iraqi children under the
>>age of five died from war-related causes in the eight months

>>study...confirm that `the causalities of war extend far beyond
>>those caused directly by warfare'...''


>I assume you're just as concerned about the Kurdish children
>gassed by Hussein in 1989, Kuwaiti children in 1990, and even
>Moslem children in Bosnia this year?

>Save your breath and focus on someone who still has power.
>(note: the posting is relevant, your title somewhat unnecessary.
>There's enough blame to go around.  So the war department promised
>you a clean war, and you believed them...Sigh.

How about "FDR kills N x 10^4 (German and Japanese) Kids"?

Martin Sulkanen

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Bush WANTED to lose
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 23:29:10 GMT


Like I said previously, this guy is a sore winner.

Most people I know who voted for Clinton are happy that their candidate won
and are optimistic about the future.

Loose cannons make everyone look bad.

And the 'Nuremburg Rally' crack is just plain cliche.

Simon

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: fred@pamphlet.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Fred Eichelman)
Subject: Gays in the military showers
Organization: Bellcore
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 22:37:40 GMT

Regarding all this about showering together with gays in the
military:

At the age of 12 I was sexually molested by a gay male while I was
in the shower. Obviously he got turned on by me.

I don't think that all gays would do that sort of behavior if
given the chance. I do think that the percentage of gays that 
would molest me if given the chance is higher than the percentage
of heterosexuals that would sexually molest me if given the chance.

What do you think?

Perhaps the guy who molested me was really hetero? Would you want
to make a bet on that?

I have no use for gays in the same public shower with me.

But, before being branded as a homophobe, I have had very good homosexual
friends. With all three of them I was one of the few people that they came
out of the closest. With one of them I was one of the very first persons
that they opened up to. (And not one of them propositioned me.) Furthermore,
we kept a close friendship up for several years until we moved away. All
three of them would clearly admit that I loved them and respected them
much more than their liberal friends that on one side of their face say
that gay is ok but on the other side of their face crack jokes about gays.

I hate homophobia too!

But that doesn't mean I want to shower with them. Not because I don't like
them, but because of the risk involved. A lot of them are a lot bigger than
me.

fred
---
Fred Eichelman
                    electronic : fred@ctt.bellcore.com
   Location:        telephonic : (908)699-2757
                    physical   : RRC 1H218
                organizational : Knowledge-based Systems Development, 25956
                                 Bell Communications Research

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: RUSSIA'S OPERATIONAL STAR WARS DEFENSE SYSTEM
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 21:15:50 GMT

In article <dwells.724116581@castor> bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge) writes:
>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>>
>>I haven't read sci.military in a few days, so I donn't think I've seen that
>>yet.  But the stuff this guy posts is routinely showing up in various
>>newsgroups, and the author never responds to any replies posted.
>
>Why should he?  I'd rather he kept writing original stuff, rather
>than get bogged down into explaining why his fantasies are really
>true.
>
>Encore....Encore!!!!
>
I admit, what he posts is 'interesting', but on the other hand, I 've seen
the same few postings from him appear in just about every newsgroup I
subscribe to.  Not all at once, but I know I've seen them off and on for
the past few months, variations on coverup stories about exotic technologies.

But they are fun to read though.
Simon
From: ray@cs.rochester.edu (Ray Frank)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Clinton's foreign affairs (was Re: Somalia)
Date: 19 Dec 92 19:28:23 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester

In article <1992Dec17.141955.9515@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
>In article <1992Dec17.081511.5007@news.columbia.edu> David Neal Messina,
>dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu writes:
>>Yes, I agree it's unlikely Clinton has enough foreign policy smarts to
>>cause a long-lasting peaceful, U.S. solution to the Somali situation and
>>will have to blame someone.
>
>I love when people make baseless conclusions like this. Clinton has
>already displayed a talent for working in a bipartisan manner, for
>attacking a problem in an organized, thoughtful manner, and for
>compromise when it is necessary and appropriate (read analyses
>of his time as governor). He has also shown that, while he makes
>some mistakes (nobody is perfect despite the claims made by Repubs
>about Reagan :-)  ), he has proven that he can learn from them and
>mend his fences. Furthermore, since he hasn't even been inaugurated
>yet, the conclusion above is based on ZERO data.
>
>Clinton is intelligent,
>dignified, hard-working, and principaled. Only time will tell if he is
>good at foreign policy, but the tools are there.

Uh, principaled?  How do you know that.  I don't necessarily mean that as a 
derogatory question towards Clinton.  But we know little about him.  In the
early stages of the campaign, both he and Hilary appealed little to the 
people.  There was a 'manhattan' like project undertaken to redo his image to
appeal more the the Amerian public.  It worked.  And now we have no real
idea who the president is.  

>Norman
>
>Dr. Norman J. LaFave
>Senior Engineer
>Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company


Wow, it sounds like someone is still camgaigning for Clinton.  The election
is over.  And even though he is probably not nearly all those things you 
say about him, it is a moot point since we are stuck with him
for the next four years.  
There is one thing that Clinton is, a professional politican with intelligence.
Make no mistake about it, he knows the ins and outs of politics and knows
how to project an image that appeals to both sides.  Now let's see if
he can deliver and avoid messing up the country any more than it already is.
Saying and actually doing require two different abilities.

ray
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,sci.econ,talk.politics.misc