HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 11 Sep 92 16:03:36 CDT


In article <ART.92Sep11142723@world.std.com>, art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
> In article <1992Sep11.174408.33847@watson.ibm.com> mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Mike Jones) writes:
>    In article <ART.92Sep11013334@world.std.com> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
>    >In article <lavh2bINN6cq@spim.mips.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>    >   StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher) writes:
>    >   |> Glenn Story) writes:
>    >   |> : forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>    >   |> Um, aren't there laws in most states making it a felony to knowingly
>    >   |> write bad checks?
> 	   [stuff deleted]
>    >   I am not saying it was not abused.  I am just saying they broke no
>    >   laws, spent none of our money, violated no bank rules, etc.
>    >Yes, it's true they broke no laws, but they did spend our money.  It was
>    >our tax dollars that covered their loans.
> 
>    You are either being knowingly duplicitous or willfully ignorant. The
>    overdrafts were covered by the deposits of other House members. There was no
>    external (i.e., other than salaries paid to Representatives) tax money
>    involved?
> 
> Are you sure about this.  I thought I read somewhere that the Treasury
> covered any deficits in the House bank.

Nope.  The overdrafts were covered using other Congresspeoples money.
The House "bank" did not charge for overdrafts (free loans) but also
did not pay interest on their deposits.  

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss,ba.motss
From: elle@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ellen Keyne Seebacher)
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Reply-To: elle@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 17:38:12 GMT

In article <12274@optilink.UUCP> walsh@optilink.UUCP (Mark Walsh) sniffs:
>Besides, would you want to work for a company that fired people
>because they were gay?  I wouldn't.

It's nice that you can pick and choose.  Millions of people out of work
in this country can't.

--
Ellen Keyne Seebacher            elle@midway.uchicago.edu
  "Currently, we have true equality:  both gay people and straight people 
   can be fired because they're gay."  --David Christopher Rogers
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:44076 talk.politics.mideast:19694 misc.headlines:6241
From: adam@endor.uucp (Adam Shostack)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Fair Swap
Date: 7 Sep 92 19:25:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: das.1992Sep7.192526.6030
Organization: Aiken Computation Lab, Harvard University

In article <EGGERTJ.92Sep4233440@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu> eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep4.181853.28566@das.harvard.edu> adam@sparkle.uucp (Adam Shostack) writes:

>>   If, as you claim "International law does not mandate against Jews in
>>   Jerusalem," then Jews can continue moving into houses in Jerusalem in
>>   the meantime, and there will be no hue and cry, as long as the Army is
>>   not building bases, but individuals are buying houses.

>The Geneva Convention mandates against the construction of permanent
>buildings in occupied territories.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I
>don't think that these are restricted to army bases.

The problem is that calling Jerusalem occupied is a misnomer.  The UN
declared that it owned Jerusalem, the Jordanians occupied it, violated
the Geneva conventions by expelling legal residents and also violated the
ceasefire agreement.

The fact is that Israel has provided, by and large, fair government,
free access to religious sites, and democracy to all the residents of
Jerusalem.  Thats more than any other group can claim.

>As far as individuals buying houses, then of course it depends on
>whether the houses existed before the occupation started.
>
>>   Fact is, when individuals buy houses, a hue and cry goes up that their
>>   presence is illegal.
>
>I wonder if the houses were just lying around, or were they built
>under the sponsorship of the Israeli government, or were they
>expropriated from the local indigenous population?

Or, perhaps, bought from the local population who kicked out the
Jewish residents in 1936 and 1939?

The idea that the indeiginous polulation is all Arab is a load of
bull.  There are many Jewish families who lost their property to
riots who are now buying it back.   The people who have "lived there
for generations" took the property by force in many cases.

>>   Its not "foriegn territory" it is, at worse, disputed territory.  If
>>   its foriegn to anyone, it is not Jews. Jews have had a continuous
>>   presence in Jerusalem for 1800 years, living in what is now "east
>>   Jerusalem."  If anyone is, or was occupying it, it is the Jordanians,
>>   who kicked people out in 1948, or the Arabs who rioted in 1936 and
>>   1939, and chased people out of their homes.
>
>The Israelis kicked people out of their homes in East Jerusalem in
>1967 too.  Thus according to your own logic, East Jerusalem is under
>occupation by the Israelis after all.

And gave them other home, in Jerusalem.  They kicked people out of the
slums that the Jordanians had built in the early 50's, and compensated
them for their houses, which were built on occupied land.


Adam Shostack 					adam@das.harvard.edu

What a terrible thing to have lost one's .sig.  Or not to have a .sig
at all.  How true that is.      
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Term Limits For All
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 15:58:29 GMT


In article <1992Aug31.165500.19830@kadsma.kodak.com>, 
pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) said:

> > The *only* way to neutralize this is by introducing term limits?
> > This seems a bit dubious to me.  How about the various forms of
> > campaign reform that have been proposed over the years?
> > 
> > Changing the rules to enforce a more level playing field for all
> > the candidates is a good thing.  Changing the rules to make it
> > impossible for people to cast valid votes for the candidate of
> > their choice is not.  [wdsatrr]
>
> Your question is reasonable. However, there is some good evidence
> that any attempt to level the playing field through campaign reform
> is likely to run afoul of the First Amendment. This includes such
> obvious ideas as media spending limits.

Probably true.  So, amend the Constitution (that's what Article V is
there for, after all).  Of course, I'm not certain that term limits
can be imposed on federal Senators or Representatives other than via a
Constitutional Amendment either; I'm virtually certain that they can't
be imposed by state laws.  (Just my opinion, of course; obviously this
matter has never been decided by the Supreme Court.)

In any case, what I'm saying is that people shouldn't succumb to the
temptation to take the quick and easy way out (term limits) rather
than bite the bullet and develop and implement a solution that (a)
attacks the sources of the problem rather than just a symptom and (b)
has as little negative impact as possible on the people's right to
elect their own representatives.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Bush Announces Sale of F-15E's to Iraq
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 11 Sep 92 16:43:26 CDT


In article <1992Sep10.214917.7078@eng.ufl.edu>, jason@beta.ee.ufl.edu (Jason Nadrowski) writes:
> |> Both wrong, gentlemen; the S&L crisis was caused by changes in the tax
> |> lasw relating to real estate development. Congress did it. 
> 
> >	And Ronald Reagan, who, while signing the bill into law, called
> >	it "The most significant piece of legislation this decade", had nothing
> >	to do with it, right? We should also ignore that the regulatory agency
> >	in charge of the S&Ls was, at least in some cases, deliberately lax in
> >	enforcing the law. We should especially ignore that part because that 
> >	agency is part of the legislative branch, right?
> 
> But then congress changed the laws again without Reagan's signing the bill.

How did "congress change the laws again without Reagan's signing the bill"?
What "change" are you refering to?

> If you want to get technical, that was the problem.

Let's get technical, what was the problem?

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pssres12@ucs.usl.edu (Vignes Gerard M)
Subject: More Democratic Campaign Songs
Keywords: Sing it while waiting for your draft notice.
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern La., Lafayette
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 22:42:17 GMT

		Spend All The Money
	(to the tune of "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang")

	Spend, spend, spend all the Money
	Spend all the money, rig-ht now.

	We don't care 'bout tomorrow
	'cause we're having too much fun right now.

	Bill Clinton,
	can't inhale,
	Hillary's a crazy girl,
	Al Gore and Tipper second team...

	Vote the Dem-o-cratic Par-ty
	Marxist I-dea-ol-o-gy.

	Vote the Dem-o-cratic Par-ty
	FI-NAN-CIAL CA-TAS-TRO-PHE!

	Spend the money
	Spend all the money

	Spend the money
	Spend all the money...

						Brought to you by,

						Gerard Vignes



-- 

pssres12@ucs.usl.edu	Gerard Vignes, USL PO Box 42709, Lafayette LA 70504 USA

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: DearOldDoug Step out for The cure!!!!
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 11:06:21 GMT

mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum) writes:
] In article <1992Sep3.091333.7410@wdl.loral.com>
] bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
] >
] > Wimp.  I don't care if you're hetero, just don't bother me with it.
] > There's no reason anyone needs to know you're a het, so as long as
] > you're quiet about it, no one will know and you won't be hunted down
] > like the traitorous counter-revolutionary subversive running dog
] > breeder that you are.
] 
] Is this actually how you view gays as being treated?  If so, why?

who's Talking about 'gays' -

We're Talking about CURING HETRO's[1] before they Breed.....

ciao
drieux


[1] the first one of you starts talking about
meat in the smoke house out back gets it....


-- 
If I have Told You Once, I've Told You a Thousand Times:
To Keep Good Girls From Going Bad,
Put them back in the Refrigerator.
This Also Works for Stale NFS Handles.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
From: jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni)
Subject: Re: Fair Swap
Organization: The Department of Redundancy Department
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 21:30:32 GMT

In article <EGGERTJ.92Sep4233440@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu> eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep4.181853.28566@das.harvard.edu> adam@sparkle.uucp (Adam Shostack) writes:

>>   ...Its a logical error to say that Jews can live in
>>   East Jerusalem, but the Israeli government has no right to be there.
>
>There you go again equating Jews with Israel.  The two are not the
>same.  Jews, for example, have the right to live in New York City
>(Jake Livni lives there, after all), but Israel does not have the
>right to occupy New York.

This highlights the sheer lunacy of the current political stance on
the issue.  While both Arabs and Jews are allowed by local law to buy
and build houses in New York, Jews are prohibited from doing so in
Arab states and Jews are now prohibited from doing so in the
Occupied/Disputed territories.  To Israelis who consider these
territories to be part of Israel, such a "Pale of Settlement" on Jews
in the Jewish State is incredible.

Your analogy would be more complete if you also noted that Jews who
have lived in the Northeast of the United States for generations are 
not automatically granted "the right of self-determination" with some
guaranteed right to secession and self-rule.  Why Arabs who have been
residents in Israel for generations should somehow deserve this,
despite the complete absence of historical nationhood, is beyond logic.

The political leaders in Washington and Jerusalem have decided to
limit or prohibit Jewish residency in some areas.  Such a legal
agreement couldn't possibly pass inside the United States and, were it
to be established anywhere else, would be considered a racist motion
of the most vile order.  Realpolitik. 

-- 
Jake Livni  jake@bony1.bony.com               Pat Paulsen for President
American-Occupied New York                    This year he has a real chance!
My opinions only - employer has no opinions.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Canadian vs US health care
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:13:32 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Sep11.132745.10732@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>
>  [followups to talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory]
>
>hp> Hossein Parandeh
>
>hp> I needed a major knee reconstruction surgery [...] I got it right after
>hp> my injury and for free. 
>
>  Nope. Canadian taxpayers paid for it. It was *not* "free". "Free" to you
>  perhaps, but not to the millions of others who paid for it. 

  True.  Although let's not forget that a major reason we have
  "$5 aspirin" is that we, too, are paying for "free" medical care
  for the poor.   But note also that our system encourages poor
  people to wait until their illness gets real expensive before
  seeking help for it.   

  Also note that we pay for it when we buy a car or any other US
  made product, since US health care costs, and thus health insurance
  costs are the highest in the world, and "employer paid" health
  insurance is a significnt part of the cost of US-made goods.    

  I don't like the Canadian system either, but I have repeatedly challenged
  conservatives to detail *their* plan.  Our current system is screwey; 
  it is *way* more expensive than everyone else's and causes enormous
  human suffering.  But the conservatives refuse to become engaged in 
  the issue, and thus they allow the liberals to OWN it.


---peter





Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:44153 alt.politics.bush:4359 alt.politics.clinton:4377 alt.politics.elections:12610
From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Trial Lawyers and Clintons in bed
Date: 8 Sep 92 17:31:28 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
> We might also look at the relative policies of the two regarding trial
> lawyers. Bush is pushing tort reform, something Clinton is trying to kill.
> According to a mailing from the president of the Arkansas Trial Lawyers
> Ass'n printed in last week's WSJ, Clinton was ready to sign a "Good Samaritan"
> bill protecting providers of emergency medcical care from liability- when
> the trial lawyers were mobilized. CLinton vetoed the bill.

Of course, there's another side to this story.  Clinton vetoed the
bill because he thought that it would be unconstitutional and didn't
want to waste money on a legal fight he was bound to lose.  (The right
to sue is enshrined in the Bill of Rights, so tort reform has to be
very carefully written to pass muster.  I'll let some of our legal
experts in net.landia explain the details if they're up to it.)

In addition, he favors tort reform in the form of compensation boards
for medical liability.  This is the same idea being pushed by Sen
Hatch, so I imagine it passes constitutional muster, though I don't
know the details of the plan.  I suspect that wild horses couldn't
drag either Clinton or Hatch to admit that they aren't that far apart
on this issue, though.

(Clinton's proposal for medical liability reform is outlined in a
section in his white paper on health care.  I don't know whether it is
available by ftp or not.)

--Scott
From: z_totahmc@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Research Help
Summary: Images of Congress
Date: 15 Sep 92 16:42:11 GMT
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

I am currently writing a research paper on the Image of Congress.

My part is too look at Foley, Mitchell, Franks, and Kennedy, and also 
Newt.  If any body out there could help it would be appreciated.
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Run conservatives, run away! (Was: Re: Homophobics can't...)
Date: 9 Sep 92 19:17:04 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <95617@bu.edu> I (kane@buast7.bu.edu---Hot Young Star) wrote:

>In article <12158@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>>sexual orientation is not defined by AB 2601].
>>Rape is definitely a sexual orientation; so is child molesting.
>>Disgusting, immoral, horrifying sexual orientations -- but
>>nonetheless, sexual orientation.  AB 101, at least, defined
>>what it meant.

>What a red herring! What you've just said is tantamount to saying,
>"well, there's nothing wrong with homosexuality in itself, so if
>I'm going to successfully portray it as disgusting, I'd better try
>to link it behavior which is almost universally condemned"

>As I've said, Boston University's illustrious president, HRH John
>Silber, gave the same trashy argument as you have here, Clayton.

And as an afterthought, this is also precisely what is going on in
Oregon. The OCA is making a thinly veiled attempt to constitutionally
outlaw the public mentioning of homosexuality in a favorable light.
Strange, the only way they think they can manage to get their
fascist measure approved is by grouping together homosexuality
with sadism and masochism, bestiality, and pedophilia.

Clayton, does this sound familiar?

Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cramer@optilink.uucp (Clayton Cramer): Message-ID: <12133@optilink.UUCP>
I realize it's difficult for a person as depraved as [Brian Kane].
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: Canadian vs US health care
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 19:33:09 GMT

In article <BuF3IL.Equ@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>  I don't like the Canadian system either, but I have repeatedly challenged
>  conservatives to detail *their* plan.  Our current system is screwey; 
>  it is *way* more expensive than everyone else's and causes enormous
>  human suffering.  But the conservatives refuse to become engaged in 
>  the issue, and thus they allow the liberals to OWN it.
>
>
>---peter
>
>

I know you like to go out of your way to avoid being labelled as 'conservative'
or 'liberal', but I would really like to know your specific objections to
the Canadian plan, and to the concept of National Health Insurance in general.
By 'in general', I mean you must confine yourself to objections on the
theoretical level only; to say that you don't like the way bureaucracies work
in this country is a practical objection, and doesn't count in this context.

I fail to see how any health insurance program, whether private, public, or
some combination, can be efficient unless large numbers of people are involved.
After all, that's what insurance is all about - spreading individual risk
over a broad population. Once you have large numbers of people, you must have
a bureaucracy to administer the program. If anything, the Canadian example
shows how administrative overhead can be *reduced* in a government-run
bureaucracy.

Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Carter vs Bush (Re: SC rally)
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 14 Sep 92 12:54:30 CDT


In article <BuJrys.24t@eis.calstate.edu>, kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell) writes:
> 
> But let's face facts; Granny's 13% return on her Certificates of Deposit
> didn't do a whole lot of good when inflation was running higher than that;

Let's see, interest rates at 21%, inflation at 13%, gives a real interest rate
of 7%.  Sounds like a good deal for Granny.

> in fact, during most of the Carter years, investing money at fixed
> interest rates was like throwing it away, since it LOST value over any
> arbitrary time scale.

Depends on the type of fixed interest rate.  Buying a fixed rate 30-yr bond 
in 1979 paying 13% sounds like a heck of a deal.

Granny's 4% morgage probably did not hurt her either.

>                        Now, with interest rates down at 3% and inflation
> even lower, Granny is actually EARNING money (though I'll admit that it
> sure LOOKS worse over the short term). 

Looks like less than a 7% spread to me.


-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)