HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier)
Subject: Re: FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:46:29 GMT

In article <92Nov19.135641edt.592@neuron.ai.toronto.edu> steeg@cs.toronto.edu ("Evan W. Steeg") writes:
>In article <Bxz4oG.IAz@news.cso.uiuc.edu> mmaggio@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael J Anthony Maggio) writes:
>>mahunt@eos.ncsu.edu (MARK ALLAN HUNT) writes:
>>
>>
>>>I think the subject line says it all !!!!!!
>>
>>>Send flames to alt.to.bad.the.country.will.be.fucked.up.for.four.more.years
>>
>>>Second thought KILL CLINTON,KILL CLITON,KILL CLINTON !!!!!!!
>>
>>>Appealing to your subconcious.
>>
>>I agree...and everyone in my fine town agrees... my subconcious needs no
>>  sublimination... Everyone elses does...
>>But I'd like to know how to do it in such a morally bankrupt society where
>>  Bill et al. is actually in office now...
>>
>
> (They're multiplying!)   
>
> Why the sudden burst of activity from the semi-literate assassination-
>fantasizing right-wing loonie corner?  Are you guys organized now, or
>what?
>
Yes!  Yes we are!  And we are coming to your neighborhood very, very soon!

Beware our power once united to eliminate the Red Scourge from the United
States of Amerika!

:-)  :-)  for the differently sarcastic.

And if the Secret Service/Gestapo/Brown Shirts/Central lack of Intelligence
Agency/Federal Bureau of Irritation/Who Have I Forgotten wants to come over
for a visit, I'll keep the soup warm for them.

Bye for now, where'd I put my blowtorch........

-- 
Douglas C. Meier		|  Spin with the archer now, and       
Northwestern University, ACNS 	|  laugh in his face as he cocks his  
This University is too Commie-	|  bow....  -The Guess Who
Lib Pinko to have these views.	|  dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu ("Broward " X " Horne")
Subject:      Re:
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 16:35:14 MST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA02728; Mon, 23 Nov 92 09:37:25 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA07409; Sun, 22 Nov 92 15:38:15 -0800
X-Received: from IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU by idbsu.idbsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 1142; Sun, 22 Nov 92 16:40:55 MST
X-Received: from IDBSU (GCTHORNE) by IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id
 4033; Sun, 22 Nov 92 16:40:55 MST
X-To: talk.politics.misc.usenet

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: steeg@cs.toronto.edu ("Evan W. Steeg")
Subject: Re: Why Bother? (Re: FUCK CLINTON, etc.)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 22 Nov 92 20:36:15 GMT


>  1) I don't think I missed the point.  2) I'm 31 years old, and make no

        yep, knew it.  In Los Angeles years, that's about 15.

>special claims about wisdom.  Finally, I don't understand why you're
>bringing up the CIA when I was defending the Secret Service, and

        Come, come.  Do you really think there's a difference?
        I direct you to Mr. Starr's article on the Secret Service.

        In addition to his article, I have a long time friend in
        the FBI.  Do you think that *they* are playing by the rules
        now?

        Hmmm.  Well, okay.  Maybe the LAPD?

        Get ready for real adventure, pal.  I would highly
        suggest reading up on Latin American debt versus democracy.
        We're headed for a police state you won't BELIEVE.


>the Secret Service is really just the Gestapo in more boring
>uniforms".  It's the lazy way out.  The apparatus and tools of government
>and national security are not *inherently* evil -- they have been
>abused savagely during the last 45 years (to say the least), but
>let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

           I say we nuke it all from Venezuela.
           It's the only way to be sure.

           You're more than welcome to NOT take the " lazy way " out.
           Go ahead.  Get killed.
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Guns and Abortion (was Re: A Means To Help Keep Change In Check)
Date: 19 Nov 92 19:37:40 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 28381@cs.cornell.edu, elster@cs.cornell.edu (Anne C. Elster) writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.011740.29446@cs.tulane.edu> lang@cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang) writes:
>>In article <1e8vffINNmqm@gilligan.East.Sun.COM> mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori) writes:
>>>                                        I just have a hard
>>>time believing that guns cause crime, just by their presence.
>>
>>You should read the interview with the man in Baton Rouge who blew
>>away a Japanese exchange student by mistake.  Of course, this is
>>anecdotal evidence, but in effect he said exactly that: since there
>>was a gun available to him, his reaction was to use it.  The mere
>>presence of the gun changed how he chose to handle the situation.
>
>I am not a big gun advocate, but the sad thing is that this
>happens also with weapons other than guns.
>
>Just this fall an aquaintance of mine was stabbed to death by some
>unknown local highschool students on the steps of the MIT librabry
>at 9pm on a Friday night. His friend was also stabbed, but survived.
>Apparantly the kids had headed over to MIT to see "who could mugg
>some students  for the most money" -- It was one of those sensless
>acts of violence that makes you go "shudder"! It hits you even harder
>when you knmow the victims ... :-(

I think that you missed the original point.  It is often called the
"instrumentality" factor.  The gun anecdote cited was an instance where
the person who used the weapon indicated that the incident would probably
not have happened without the presence of a gun.  Your anecdote tells us
nothing at all about the influence of the weapons used.  There seems to
have been no real connection between the crime committed and the weapons
used.  The perpetrators would have used whatever weapons were available
to them.  Pro-gun advocates seem to believe that the instrumentality effect
of firearms is insignificant.  This belief, of course, does not prevent 
them from arguing that widespread ownership has an effect on *lowering*
crime rates.  When the argument turns to the need for self-protection,
knives are suddenly much less effective.  ;-)

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

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE)
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Summary: Wrong  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 17 Nov 92 23:18:10 GMT

In article <10576@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)              writes...
>In <1992Nov16.230855.11796@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE) writes:
> 
>|>It is on the same island chain and was part of American property. The Midway
>|>invasion was going to be used as a staging point to invade the larger
>|>Hawaiins. For all intents and purposes, this was a planned invasion of
>|>Hawaii. (But we are getting of track)
> 
>Sorry, but Midway is not part of the Hawaian chain.  Midway is about as
>far from Hawaii as California is.
> 
Midway is quite a ways from Hawaii, but it IS part of the Hawaiin island
chain. Not the POLITICAL Hawaiin island chain, but the PHYSICAL island
chain. There are several islands between the Midway and Hawaiin proper.

>Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2: How was it worded?
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 15:09:29 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.174754.11952@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> hagstrop@oberon.mathcs.carleton.edu (Paul Hagstrom) writes:
>What was the wording on the ballot in Colorado?  Does anybody who voted on the  
>Colorado ballot recall basically how it went?  (I ask because I have heard that  
>it had a pretty severe slant, but perhaps I am wrong)
>
Funny, I heard just the opposite.  I heard that all of the "Murder of
Homosexuals is now legal, etc, etc." was all horse hockey that was
extrapolated out of the original wording to increase the uproar.

What is the true story?

-- 
Douglas C. Meier		|  Spin with the archer now, and       
Northwestern University, ACNS 	|  laugh in his face as he cocks his  
This University is too Commie-	|  bow....  -The Guess Who
Lib Pinko to have these views.	|  dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: hpzg0650@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Hale P Zengingonul)
Subject: Overpopulation
Summary: Is food enough?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:15:20 GMT
Keywords: overpopulation


	Why everbody thinks food is the only thing humans need? Overpopulation
  is the world's biggest problem today. People need more than food to lead
  a decent life, like schools, like roads, like housing, like electricity,
  like running water, like you name it. When I go back to my country (no, it's
  not Somalia) I can see the results of overpopulation. More crowded schools,
  less jobs, deteriorated government services,enflation, etc. It's easy to talk
  when you have everthing here living in an affluent society, and I guess it's
  harder to visualise what overcrowded means.
						Pinar
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Patsy Schroeder on Term Limits
Date: 19 Nov 92 17:58:56 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Nov18.152559.3051@dg-rtp.dg.com> crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:
>In article <92Nov16.150720edt.441@neuron.ai.toronto.edu> steeg@cs.toronto.edu ("Evan W. Steeg") writes:

>>  Perhaps I've missed the definitive television, print, or usenet
>>argument for term limitations, but I remain unconvinced as to
>>its merits as well as surprised that so many "conservatives" are backing it.

>The definitive argument for me is Dan Rostenkowski.  Dan is the Chairman of
>the House Ways and Means Committee.  As Chairman he has a control of 
>appropriations which drive tax policy which drives the economy which drives my
>standard of living.  In short, he represents, not just his own constituents
>but me as well and I don't like the way he is doing it.  What can I do about
>it?  Nothing. As long as he uses his position to buy the votes of 150,000
>people in Chicago he can screw the rest of us to the wall.  The same goes for
>Robert Byrd of West Virginia who promised to get a billion dollars of Federal
>spending for West Virginia if he were reelected and did it in less than a year
>through such things as moving federal agencies from Virginia to West Virginia
>for no good reason.  Who's paying for his promises?  Nobody who can vote
>against him.  If there is another way to make these people responsive to the
>country's needs I'm for it, but term limits is the only one being offered at
>this point.

This is one of the dumber reasons I've heard in a long time.

You *do* realize that there's nothing in the Constitution requiring a
seniority system, don't you?  The only reason we have one is because
people support it.  Tell your representative/Senator to get rid of the
chairmanships of Byrd/Rostenkowski.  They can do it, you know.  It seems
to make a lot more sense than to tell the people of Chicago that they
*can't* have Rostenkowski if they want him.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1993 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism,alt.politics.elections
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: Entreprise Zones
Reply-To: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:36:10 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.170941.19457@polari> peterd@polari.online.com writes:
>wix@eskimo.com (Dennis Wicks) writes:

>As to the question of 'enterprise zones forcing capital
>to go where it doesn't want to': wrongo.  Capital has
>no conscience [Marx] - it goes where it can find a return.
>
>Peter D. Hampe; EKA peterd@polari.online.com
>Drat - I've traded my magic beans for a stupid cow!


No, not 'wrongo'. Capital would not flow to the 'enterprise zone'
if it wasn't one (i.e., an artificial creation of government).


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: Patsy Schroeder on Term Limits
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 10:38:10 EST
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1992Nov17.235453.6146@pmafire.inel.gov>, cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov17.162601.27809@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
|> >
|> >I've said it before and I'll say it again: the main argument for term
|> >limits has to do with the way in which today's money-driven politics
|> >has made it almost impossible to compete effectively with well-financed
|> >incumbents. Many incumbents run unchallenged, or opposed only by
|> >'fringe', single-issue candidates who are usually not plausible
|> >replacements for the incumbent.
|> 
|> If this is indeed the root cause, why not eliminate it, instead of using
|> a blanket approach?  Why not limit expenditures?  Or maybe publicly fund
|> campaigns?

If you limit expenditures you will limit the spread of new or different
ideas.  Image Perot's candidicacy if he were limited by spending.  
Regardless of what you may have thought about the man, he was able
to have an impact and offer a different choice.  If you publicily
fund campaigns, who decides who gets the funds?  Do funds only go
to those candidates with 'popular' support?  If so, how can real
change occur.  Change often requires education which requires money.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60677 sci.econ:8735
From: pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
Subject: Re: Look Back in Anger, part 1: Missed Opportunities
Organization: Precipitating Pendulums Postal Party Poopers
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 17:43:57 GMT

I felt compelled to repost and highlight this morsel from Stupendous Man:

   Why are the poor poor?  What is the most meaningful difference between
   the poor and the not-poor.

        Education?
        Opportunity?
        Government?

   IMO, it's the government.  

Enough said.

-- paul

-- 
There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a
little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider
price only are this man's lawful prey.
						John Ruskin
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:61252 alt.sex:37100 ca.politics:9789
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,ca.politics
Subject: Re: For Those Who Think That Gay Men Have Changed Their Behavior
Date: 21 Nov 92 23:44:40 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1992Nov21.225909.26965@midway.uchicago.edu>
thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes: 
#You're comparing apples and oranges.  What was defined as "unsafe sex"
#in the heterosexual study puts one at thousands times less risk than
#the behavior Clayton describes.

No, I'm comparing oranges and tangerines. While not all sexual
activities carry the same sorts of risks, I don't think that
"thousands" is the proper factor. 

My basic point is that Clayton is ignoring the fact that the
homosexual community is more serious about AIDS prevention than the
heterosexual community. That can have severe consequences in the
future. 



--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60888 alt.politics.clinton:17458 alt.president.clinton:544
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON
Date: 19 Nov 92 16:49:54 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

mahunt@eos.ncsu.edu (MARK ALLAN HUNT) writes:

>I think the subject line says it all !!!!!!
>
>Send flames to alt.to.bad.the.country.will.be.fucked.up.for.four.more.years
>
>Second thought KILL CLINTON,KILL CLITON,KILL CLINTON !!!!!!!
>
>Appealing to your subconcious.

Ya know, if the Secret Service or FBI really does read this stuff Mr Hunt
may be going away very soon...

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.women,soc.men,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: gsmith@clio.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: Misogyny gay and straight
Keywords: hippocrapy
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 16:47:32 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.210755.19666@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu
(Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:

>>>Of course, the misogyny of male homosexuals isn't surprising,
>>>if you simply interpret it as the response of someone filled
>>>with self-loathing about their efforts to fulfill (at least
>>>occasionally) a role that the male homosexual regards as "female."

>>This presumes women are inferior in order to conclude male homosexuals
>>are inferior.  

>Not really. What the original poster said was: That male homosexuals
>REGARD as female.  So, he is not giving his own idea about women, but
>he is presenting his idea about how homosexuals regard women.  His
>comment, even if wrong, has nothing to do with his idea about women.

This is a circular argument.  Unless you already know that the male
homosexuals are misogynists, it makes no sense to say they are "filled
with self loathing" because they are trying to be in some sense
female.  But Cramer was trying to argue that male homosexuals ought to
be misogynists, because they are trying to be female.  Therefore, one
can conclude that Cramer thinks it is self-evident that women actually
are inferior, because he assumes this without question in order to
make his argument work.  This is the typical operating assumption of a
sexist and misogynistic heterosexual man.

-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:61411 sci.econ:8818
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
Subject: Re: The Lawnmower Strategy ( for the 90s )
Date: 23 Nov 92 14:36:02 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

	From the archives disproving "raising the rates "on the rich" will not
change the way people make money":

In article <9211222154.AA02016@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com>, GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu ("Broward " Crabgrass " Horne") writes:
...
>           Since 1989, I personally have cut my:
> 
>                a) car insurance by almost 60% in the past 3 years,
>                   while doubling my coverage and halving my deductible.
>                   Another 10% decrease is pending for next year.
> 
>                b) Reduced my taxable income by 50%.  My federal taxes
>                   for 1992 will less than 1/2 of my 1989 taxes.
> 
>                c) Reduced my car registration by over 60%.
> 
>                d) Reduced my gasoline consumption by 25%
> 
>                e) Reduced my home energy costs by almost 50%.
> 
>                f) Reduced my housing costs to almost zero.
> 
>        All by moving from a big city ( Los Angeles ) to a small city ( Boise ).
>        As the squeeze gets put on, I believe we'll see a greater migration
>        from high-tax, welfare-bound big cities to mid-size cities, both by
>        *working* people, and by companies.

	No, people wouldn't do anything *radical* just because the government
wants more of your income :).

	The exodus has already begun.  Look for people to return to those
smaller states they left in the 80s in search of "ever increasing home prices"
and "year round sunshine" (which they found out was a euphamism for drought :).

	Clinton is starting to see the light WRT the iron triangle of congress,
pork and special interests:

	"The advisors [Clinton's] also haven't ruled out widening the budget
deficit in the short run to spur growth, but Clinton has made no decisions."

	Wall Stree Journal, A1, November 23rd, 1992.

	Anyone for Reagan II: The Democrats Strike Back? :)  Of course, Clinton
does not have the choice that confronted Reagan (winning the cold war or
eliminate the deficit).  So hopefully his choice will be "b", and he'll sit on
congress until they cough up 10% each year.

Brett
===============================================================================
80s: 18 million new jobs, deficits down (%GNP), tax rates down, tax revenues up
GNP up, inflation down, unemployment down, interest rates down, cold war won
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 00:12:38 GMT

In <1992Nov12.214232.29777@ntmtv> jmartin@ntmtv.UUCP (Jeff Martin) writes:
>From <1doptuINNc5r@rave.larc.nasa.gov>, by jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov ():
>> In article <1992Nov10.023120.2114@u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>>>In article <69.X666X@ramona.com> doug@ramona.com (Double Agent) writes:

>>>>EEOC Commissioner. Note that the EEOC is the agency where Hill was working
>>>>when she was sexually harassed by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas,
>>>>who was then the EEOC Commissioner.

>>>She offered no evidence that she was harassed by anyone.

>> In your opinion...

>NO! NO! NO!. 
>It is a fact Mrs. Hill offered no OBJECTIVE evidence (tapes, lab test, eye
>witnesses, coke can, etc..) to substantiate here claims.  Her only "witnesses" 
>were heresay evidence that would not been allowed in a court of law.

Um, you might want to check with your local lawyer before making such a
claim.  You'll be proven wrong.  The evidence *would* have been admissable.

As to "objective" evidence, you seem to be sadly mistaken about the
definition of the word.  You seem to want some physical evidence of
something (lab test? of what?) to help substantiate her claim.  That's
fine, but that isn't "objective" either.

>Believe her or not, at least admit to yourself that this case was at best
>her word against his. What little evidence there was (phone logs documenting
>the fact that AH continued to contact Thomas after leaving the EEOC) seem
>to call into question Mrs. Hill's allegations.

Of course it was her word against his.  No one denied that.  So is every
rape case in which the defense is that it was consensual.  That doesn't
mean that you can't get a conviction in one of those cases.

And that's with a higher standard of proof -- beyond a reasonable doubt
-- than was needed here.

I *still* haven't figured out what Anita Hill's motive for lying would
have been.  It wasn't like they were going to keep a conservative off
the court and get a liberal next time.  Bush was going to keep
appointing conservatives.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1993 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.