HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu ("Broward "Trillions" Horne")
Subject:      RE: That's it, man.  Game OVER! ( 1932 )
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 14:59:10 MST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA18524; Sun, 15 Nov 92 14:08:15 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA10509; Sun, 15 Nov 92 14:08:13 -0800
X-Received: from IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU by idbsu.idbsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 3903; Sun, 15 Nov 92 15:11:02 MST
X-Received: from IDBSU (GCTHORNE) by IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 6995; Sun, 15 Nov 92 15:11:02 MST
X-To: talk.politics.misc.usenet

From: poser@vxcrna.cern.ch (Till Poser  -  ZEUS OFFLINE)
Subject: Re:
Reply-To: poser@vxdsyc.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 18:53:06 GMT


>It appears that Your mathematical erudition is on par with with Your
>political acumen. It might serve well as an idictment of US education.

        You're right, I'm a lousy politician.  That's why I'm back in
    school.  I seen enough corporations.  But ...

    An Interesting Theory!

 Adapted from Charles Kindleberger ( " A World In Depression, 1986 ) -

    1918 - WWI has left Europe in ruins.  The U.S. becomes a manufacturing
    and agricultural powerhouse, rebuilding Europe.  The largest creditor
    nation. De facto World Financial Leadership is being passed to the U.S.
    from Britain.

    1926 - Europe has rebuilt, but the U.S. stock markets go on a buying
    binge, etc, culminating in 1929.  Boom!  2 years, 8 months later the
    NYSE stands at 16% of peak value.

    1973 - A combination of Watergate, the Oil Crisis, and Vietnam have
    eroded the U.S. confidence and determination.  During the next 17
    years, Japan becomes a manufacturing powerhouse, and a major net
    creditor nation.  World financial leadership is being passed from
    the U.S. to Japan.

    1990 - After a incredible stock market and real estate rally,
    possibly exceeding 1929, the Japanese market starts to go.
    2 years, 4 months later, it stands at 35% of peak value.  Only
    government intervention has prevented a complete crash.  And that
    appears to be only temporary.

    Late 1920s - due to great increases in manufacturing ability,
    differentiation into other markets, trade wars loom.  Due to
    the worsening economies in most countries, each is striving to
    boost it's economy at the expense of other countries.

    Late 1980s - 1992 - Due to great increases in manufacturing and
    boosting of agricultural outputs, trade wars loom.  See above.

    Glutting of commodity markets, the same.

    Widespread real estate speculation, the same.  Falling values,
    and imploding banks in Sweden, France, Britain, Japan, Canada, the
    U.S.

    Lot's more.  Go do the research.  Personally, I'm getting my stuff
    together now.  I figure we might have another 2 to 4 years before
    the real fireworks begin.

    Kondratieff, Marx, Batra, Thurow and Kindleberger said it would
    be like this. :)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60400 alt.politics.elections:23925 alt.rush-limbaugh:9808 talk.rumors:1308 alt.activism:18874
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: 16 Nov 92 16:40:07 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Nov14.134717.6706@samba.oit.unc.edu> Norman.Miller@launchpad.unc.edu (Norman Miller) writes:

|>In article <1992Nov14.020401.185@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
|>>Alos, I find your description of my original post as "sophomoric
|>>titters about pubic hairs" to be kind of revealing.  Don't you think
|>>it is important that some of Hill's former students are apparently
|>>claiming that she inserted pubic hairs into their tests before
|>>returning them?
|>>
|>>Don't you think such allegations should be investigated before she is
|>>given any important job whatsoever?
|>>

|>To which I say: I have nothing to say.  I urge readers to have another
|>look at the lines above and judge for themselves.

I have, so what's your point Norman.  If it is true that such allegations
have been made.  I've never heard them myself, but then again I do not
make it a point to follow the career of Hill.

If such allegations have been made, and if Hill is nominated to a position
in government, then these allegations deserve at least as much investigation
as Hill's allegations got.

Do you have a problem with that Norman?

-- 
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
From: aa650@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Marc Snitzer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: E-Mail to the President?
Date: 19 Nov 1992 03:16:03 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu


I once saw posted (before the election) E-Mail addresses for all
the presidential candidates.  Does anyone still have those?  Do
you know what they are and if they are still in effect?

Marc
-- 
Marc Snitzer- SYSOP "Safety and the Environment" SIG 
              Cleveland Freenet-Cleveland Ohio.
Internet: aa650@cleveland.freenet.edu
Bitnet:   aa650@cleveland.freenet.edu@cunyvm
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: That's it, man. Game OVER! (description of armageddon)
Date: 18 Nov 1992 00:27:08 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark.) says:

>
> i tend to agree with the end of the world
> scenario. but first economic alliances will
> be formed by most of the nations.
>

      Who said anything about the end of the world?
      
      I do believe we're entering another world wide depression, and
      I believe there is now a plethora, or myriad if you want, of 
      events and numbers to support it.

      I anticpiate at least a 10% drop in the U.S. GDP, maybe a 30%
      drop in Japan's, a very probably a sizeable war.

      Looking at South America, I figure a 10% drop is practically
      guaranteed, based on our current borrowing patterns.

>
> mark.
>
> chance is the luck of fools.
>

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,tx.politics
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Dole v. Foley and Mitchell
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 14:36:53 GMT


<<< Note the "Followup-To:" redirect(s) to:
<<< talk.politics.misc.

In article <4013@randvax.rand.org>, 
jim@rand.org (Jim Gillogly) said:

> In my view, the 50% rule *does* allow partisan pork-slashing under
> the current distribution of votes.  With 2/3, some Republicans have
> to be brought on board to override a veto -- precisely the problem
> the Dems were having with Bush's vetoes -- and the distribution in
> Congress is no more favorable for the Dems than before.  With 50%,
> the Dems themselves can push through their pork if they want to.

Right, but they'd have to be fairly blatant about it.  I don't think
that the idea behind the line-item veto is that the chief executive
kills the pork directly; rather, it's that the porkers are discouraged
by the fact that the chief executive's veto will cause a spotlight to
shine on their activities with regard to that particular piece of
[alleged] pork.

A corollary of this, of course, is that the chief executive has a
motive to be somewhat restrained in his use of the line-item veto; if
he over-uses it, the public will become blase and apathetic about any
given item of controversy and, with the spotlight dimmed, the porkers
will feel more free to override the veto.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Privacy of headspace (was: Fundamentalist Nightmare)
Date: 19 Nov 92 16:32:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93


In article <1992Nov19.002500.10191@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, 
carlos@spanky.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Carlos Carrion) said:

> > Like Clayton, you seem to have a tough time distinguishing between
> > an orientation and an action.
> >
> > The attraction is probably not under the person's control, which
> > means there isn't anything wrong with it.  *Acting* on that
> > attraction is wrong.
> >
> > What list?  The list of people who are capable of something
> > besides a knee-jerk reaction to a question?  Or is it "people who
> > disprove Clayton's gay-bashing child molestation theory?"
> >
> > [David Marc Nieporent]
>
> Let's try this:
> the list of people who DON'T see anything wrong with being sexually
> attracted to 11 year old girls...
> ooooo... sorry, except when it is not one's choice... yeah that's the
> ticket...
> 
> yeah right...

Advice to David: give up.  This guy is _never_ going to acknowledge that
what goes on in the privacy of somebody's head is nobody else's business.

Note to Carlos: Just out of curiosity, can you state, specifically, just
what _is_ wrong with being sexually attracted to 11 year old girls?

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60794 alt.politics.elections:24110 misc.legal:20141
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,misc.legal
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Judicial Branch
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 01:10:53 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <89B302WJ2bed01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.104906.22155@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, 
>wr001b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (william e raftery) writes:
>> On top of which, in Article III the Congress also has the power to limit
>> thecases the Supreme Court can hear when pertaining to certain laws. Though
>> I am far from a scholar, I seem to remember a case in the 1860's in which
>> Congress basically put on a bill "The Supreme Court may not hear any case
>> relating to this law". 

>Humph!  Jurisdictional gerrymandering.  Technically legal in most cases, but 
>still suspect, IMHO.

Hardly a gerrymander.  Also, why are you calling it technically legal?
The Constitution specifically permits it.  It is totally and
completely legal.

>There've also been suggestions that where a jurisdictional gerrymander 
>interferes with the Court's core functions or an individual's fundamental 
>rights, it would be unconstitutional.  These theories, of course, have not 
>been tested.

No.  I challenge you to give us a cite on these theories.  I don't
believe they exist.  Why?  Because the Constitution explicitly permits
Congress to limit the cases the Court can try.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: "Monsters Among Us", Frontlines, November 10, 1992, PBS
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 05:31:40 GMT

Bill Riggs writes:
#	I was shocked to learn the other day that it is also a 
#violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice...this is just 
#something they don't tell you in Basic Training. :)

Clarinews had an recent article about a heterosexual being thrown out
of the army for oral sex. A bit weird.

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Line Item Veto (was Re: Clinton and Dole v. Foley and Mitchell)
Date: 18 Nov 92 15:27:33 GMT
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1992Nov18.002057.12640@hpcvusn.cv.hp.com> msl@hpcvusc  
(Mark Laventhal ) writes:
> If this is what people who want a line-item veto have in mind, then  
it's all 
> much ado about nothing!  Currently, when a President vetoes a bill,  
he usually 
> (in his veto message) indicates what portions of the bill he finds  
offensive.  
> Congress can then take any of the above 3 courses of action  
already; the only 
> difference is that if they do #(1), i.e. pass a new version of the  
bill with 
> some changes made, then the President can once again veto the new  
version; 
> but if he has been clear about which are the offending portions,  
and if 
> Congress passes the new version without those portions, then he  
presumably 
> would sign it.
> 
> So what's the big deal about a line-item veto? 
> 
> Mark Laventhal

The big deal is that what often happens now is that a bill
that is 85% good and 15% pork gets passed. Congressmen vote
on it, in part, because they can't vote against the good
parts of the bill.  It goes to the president, who may not
want to veto it, because the 85% good parts are needed.  Even
if he vetos it, 2/3 of the Congress may override, again based
on the good parts of the bill.  

With a line item veto, the president could let the necessary parts
of the bill pass. Congress can then try to override on the 
15% pork, but they are less likely to than for the bill as 
a whole because a number of them may not have liked that 
15% in the first place, but only voted for it since it was
part of a package they liked.

--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:61146 ba.politics:7298 ca.politics:9765
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Date: 20 Nov 92 23:49:35 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

>In article <13278@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>#You missed such postings, then.  I have also recently posted about
>#the absurdity of a deaf person taking orders in a fast-food restaurant,
>#as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
>


So which paragraph and article of the Act says that someone has to hire a
deaf person to take orders in a fast-food restaurant?

Anyway it shows your ignorance and lack of knowledge that you cannot use
sign language.  What is wrong with you learning sign language?  You want to
keep them out of the work force according to your own limitations.

I think that a deaf person can perform many jobs in a fast-food restaurant
quite well and probably better than you.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60264 alt.rush-limbaugh:9752 talk.rumors:1291 alt.activism:18825 alt.politics.elections:23857
From: wix@eskimo.com (Dennis Wicks)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: 15 Nov 92 06:24:56 GMT
Organization: >>> Eskimo North (206)-FOR-EVER <<<

In article <Bxn8ox.KKz@acsu.buffalo.edu> v140pxgt@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Daniel B Case) writes:
>In article <Qf0kU8u00awUB5F1Uw@andrew.cmu.edu>, ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas > 
>>Legacies generate huge amounts of money for colleges, since those whose
>>children attend a school as a legacy are far more likely to make alumni
>>donations.  Legacies are good business for colleges, not a form of
>>discrimination.
>>
>
>Oh god! I never heard such a load of bullshit rationalization in all my life
>If you give preference to those whose parents went there (and give a lot of 
>money, to be honest) over equally well qualified candidates, that is 
>discrimination in the most objective sense of the word. By your logic, the 
>affirmative action you so despise would be "good business" too-the college
>practicing it would gain a reputation for giving minorities a break, so they 
>would be in a position to receive more applications-and tuition checks-from 
>minorities.

Oh god!  I never heard such a load of bullshit rationalization in 
all my life!!  Do you _really_ think that _tuition_ covers the cost
of operating a college or university?  Do you really think that
_you_ paid for your education.  _All_by_yourself?_  

If it wasn't for rich alums, and "legacies," most private schools
would have to close their doors.  Many have already.  If it as
state school, then the taxpayerss are keeping it going, and not
too successfully in several instances.

Your "good business" argument doesn't hold water. That minority,
or middle class WASP for that matter, is never going to become a
rich alum who can donate a trust fund or finance a chair in some
department.  OK, not _never_, but the chances are somewhere
between slim and none.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
From: dsc@gemini.tmc.edu (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892)
Subject: Re: "Monsters Among Us", Frontlines, November 10, 1992, PBS
Organization: NASA GSFC CDP VLBI
Distribution:  na
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 21:50:53 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.083938.1@acad3.alaska.edu> fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) writes:
>
>I've seen reports of people in the Navy getting thrown in the Brig for
>six months+ (and subsequently thrown out) for having consensual sex
>with officers' wives.
>

Their own?  Or someone elses?

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60918 alt.politics.clinton:17474 alt.president.clinton:552
From: tsv@Unify.com (Tim Vannaman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Line Item Veto (was Re: Clinton and Dole v. Foley and Mitchell)
Date: 19 Nov 92 17:43:34 GMT
Organization: Unify Corporation (Sacramento)

In article <1992Nov16.230706.26173@berlioz.nsc.com>, roger@thoreau.nsc.com ( Roger Wakefield) writes:
> In article <1992Nov16.170637.109799@watson.ibm.com>, dwl@watson.ibm.com
> (David W. Levine) writes:
> 
> > From what I can tell, there is interest in some sort of line item veto,
> > the current question is what form it will take. A simple line item
> > excision that requires a majority vote to override has been bandied
> > about as a compromise. This strikes me as reasonable enough. It lets
> > the president (And since this is a precedent setting thing, one may as
> > well assume either of the same or a different party than controls congress)
> > to point at individual items and ask "Do we need this" and force a majority
> > of congress to agree it's needed, on the record, on that specific item.
> > 
> > One thing I would like to see is that excision require a role call vote,
> > on a per item basis to override. I could easily imagine the logrolling that
> > an "omnibuss measure to override the excision of various items" would
> generate.
> > 
> > The current process does tend towards obfuscating responsibility for
> porkbarrel
> > legislation. Making it clear that a specific item was "owned" by a specific
> > collection of represenatives and senators would help clear this up.
> 
> The goal of a line-item veto should be to allow the President to kill
> pork-barrel attachments to bills without actually gaining the power to
> make law.  Therefore, there must be some method of returning the bill to
> Congress after the line-item veto. The best idea I've heard seems to be:
> after the President strikes the offending portions of a bill, it returns
> to the both houses, which can: 1.) by simple majority, pass the new bill
> with the struck items ommitted, or 2.) by 2/3 majority, pass the
> original bill (same as the old veto override), or 3.) kill the bill altogether.
> No further amending would be allowed.
> 
> You cannot let the President line-item veto a bill into law.  To permit
> this would be a wholescale change in the intent of the Constitution. 
> Further, if George Bush could have done this, he would have passed a
> bunch of the Congressional bills that contained tax increases to pay for
> the costs of the bills, increasing both spending and the debt simultaneously.
> 
> --

Texas has a line-item veto for the governor and it works fine.  I  see no difference in
application between a governor and the prez.  
 If you enact a line-item veto, the bills that congress passes would be different, they wouldn't send as much screwed up legislation to the prez.

Tim.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60799 alt.politics.elections:24112 alt.rush-limbaugh:9993
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rum
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 01:26:42 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Nov17.204237.8845@starbase.trincoll.edu> nmiller@starbase.trincoll.edu (norman miller) writes:
>In article <10521@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Ma
>rk Wilson) writes:

>>If such allegations have been made, and if Hill is nominated to a position
>>in government, then these allegations deserve at least as much investigation
>>as Hill's allegations got.

>>Do you have a problem with that Norman?

>Problem?  Not at all.  Only revulsion at people who hide behind
>unattested rumors by unnamed people to make sneak attacks. 

Rumors that got into print.  I can't remember if it was Insight,
National Review, or New Republic, but they did get printed.

That means at least one news magazine was confident enough that they
were not afraid of a lawsuit.

>Friedman (who ought to know better) is trying hard to pose
>as a responsible citizen following "charges" wherever they might
>lead.

Bullshit.  I take great glee in following these charges where they
lead.  I am also extremely amused at the way the same people who were
so intrigued by the rumors of Bush's extramarital affair are now being
holier-than-thou.  

>However, since there is not a single sign that anyone is even _thinking_ of
>appointing Hill to anything, 

From what I've heard she is on Slick Willie's short list.

>the only motivation I can see here is the
>shameful one of slander and calumny. 

Actually, I'm enjoying watching people like you squirm.

>Friedman is entitled to his
>nostalgie de la boue but he ought not try the drag the rest of us into
>it.  Slander, says our Jewish tradition, is equivalent to the shedding
>of blood.

Sorry, Norm, but I'm an atheist.

Also, slander has to be a lie.  Do you have any evidence for that
accusation?

Mike
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
From: hagstrop@oberon.mathcs.carleton.edu (Paul Hagstrom)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Colorado Amendment 2: How was it worded?
Date: 21 Nov 92 17:47:54 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona Physics Department

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)

--
schmotsignature.
Paul Hagstrom
(hagstrop@carleton.edu)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60933 ba.politics:7268 ca.politics:9712