HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: 10 Nov 92 16:15:44 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation
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 <1dmqvjINNpqq@spool.mu.edu> marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach) writes:
>In article <69.X666X@ramona.com> doug@ramona.com (Double Agent) writes:
>>Sunday on _Meet the Press_, Vernon Jordan, head of Clinton's transition
>>team, confirmed that Anita Hill is the front-runner to get the job of
>>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. Put on your goggles, folks, the fire-
>>works should be dazzling.

>Revenge is a dish best served cold.

I totally agree.

For example, the Republicans in the Senate may choose to explore the
rumors that Hill returned papers to her students with pubic hairs
inside of them.  (Yes!!  I am not making this up!  There have been
such claims by some of her former students.)

>The coldest cut:  After a stint at EEOC, Hill is appointed to the
>Court.

The amusing thing about this is that it is coming from people who
claimed that Thomas wasn't qualified.  Would someone out there please
explain to us why Hill is even remotely qualified for either the EEOC
or the Court postion?
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
From: Terri Buchman <buchman@osf.org>
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A726C91877010826@alimac28.osf.org>
X-Xxdate: Wed, 11 Nov 92 14:28:40 GMT
Organization: Open Software Foundation
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 19:28:22 GMT

In article <BxK9K7.Mvn@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> Greg Trotter,
greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu writes:
>P.S. You ever notice that companies will put EEO/AA on
applications, ads,
>etc.? Of course, this expands to mean "Equal Opportunity
Employer/Affirmative
>Action." Isn't this contradictory? If you have a quota system in
place, it's
>not equal opportunity.

Yah right.  I have listened to people complaining about this for
years.  I have heard people in my town complain about a close friend
or relative who scored highly on the test for police/firemen etc.
and then can't get a job because an AA was hired who scored much
lower on the test.  This complainer lives in the suburbs, wants to
be hired in the suburbs.  When I ask them to tell me how many
minorities actually work in their community at that job they usually
can't name any.

I'll believe your complaints when:
	Colleges do away with legacy admits (AA for rich white people -
more spaces are held for the children for alumni at Ivy colleges
than are held for all minorities put together.  Most be okay when
some folks do it.)
	Redlining is done away with in financially strapped communities. 
Why can't low income areas get small business loans.  Isn't the
great conservative panacea supposed to be the small business person
who builds a business by dint of sweat and blood.  So where's the
money for people of color so they can pull themselves up.  (See
Federal Government Study published this year detailing the failure
of the banking industry to service communities of color.)  How come
LA is still waiting for the SBA to dispense approved funds?  Will
the folks in Florida have to wait as long?  What percentage of tax
money paid by people of color actually goes back into their
communities?
	Women start making some gains in income.  We're still getting 68
cents for every dollar a man makes.  Women are still overwhelming
stuck in the pink collar ghetto/low paying wage jobs.  Less than one
tenth of one percent of the CEO's in this country are women.  The
percentages for people of color are equally bad.  If there are
quotas, then where the hell are the quotees?

This sounds like the same old bullshit I've been hearing for years. 
Americans talk a good game about believing in equality of
opportunity and equal access.  But when put to an actual test they
would rather believe that another person was given special
preference than believe that a minority or a woman might just be
able to do their job as well or better than they do.   Learn to
share power or get the hell out of the way.

TerriB.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59569 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8368 alt.president.clinton:314
From: m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: A TRUE LANDSLIDE
Date: 11 Nov 92 18:12:24 GMT
Reply-To: m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier)
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, N.H.

In article <1992Nov09.232222.27857@src4src.linet.org> erik@src4src.linet.org (Erik VanRiper) writes:
>In article <1992Nov7.150918.22011@oz.plymouth.edu> m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier) writes:
>>
>>I love this conversation about Clinton's supposed landslide.  The best
>>comedy I've seen in wuite some time.  Perhaps if you say it enough
>>times, people will believe that winning by 5% of the popular vote is a
>>landslide.
>>
>
>Please read everything.  Clinton won by an ELECTORAL landslide.
>
>No press has said that he won by a popular landslide vote.

More often than not, they've been omiting the word 'electoral',
thereby implying the other becuase thats what most people think of
first.  Even if your point is valid, didn't Reagan and Bush have
electoral landslides?  You never heard it refered to as a landslide by
many media outlets.

God bless,

Michael


-- 
 Michael Le Houllier           *  John 3:16  * Nov 12, 1991 - Dili      
 (m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu.us) *  Remember: June 4, 1989 - Beijing
 Plymouth State Women's Soccer - #2 in the nation (Div. 3)  (15-0-2)
 Three wins from the national championship.  v. U MA Dartmouth  Sun.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59223 alt.conspiracy:12072 alt.activism:18550 alt.politics.bush:13625 alt.politics.clinton:16612
From: griffith@acuson.com (Paul Griffiths)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Arms-for-Hostages
Date: 9 Nov 92 22:46:57 GMT
Organization: Acuson; Mountain View, California

pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce) writes:

>In article <MATT.92Oct31122851@physics.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>>In article <1cth99INNeps@agate.berkeley.edu> bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:

>  "George Bush should release his testimony to the Tower Commission
>   and the special prosecutor.

	Just curious, who has taken over the Tower commission since
Towers was killed in the small plane crash a year or two ago?!?
And what did he find out to cause his plane to crash?! ;)

-Paul Griffiths
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Steven M Casburn)
Subject: Re: Do you remember 1970 to 1980?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 00:20:38 GMT

  Broward Horne writes:
>
>       As part of a impromptu research project, I'd like to know what
>   YOU thought the single most important ( dramatic, traumatic ) event
>   was, between 1970 to 1980.

1. Parents' divorce (1978)
2. Passage of Prop 13 in my home state of California (1978)

     All hell broke loose at home, and then they closed my summer school down
for lack of funds. Nowhere to run to; nowhere to hide. It was a hellish three 
months.
     Older people wonder why my generation feels alienated when many of us had
such an affluent upbringing. There's more to life than money, boomers; there
also needs to be a sense that someone actually gives a damn about you. I hope
you remember that with your kids.

                                          Steve (age 22)
///
-- 
    Steve Casburn (scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)
    They gave me differential calculus, and I said "Hit me again"
    So they gave me integral calculus, and I said "Hit me again"
    Now I have vector calculus, and...I'm starting to lose consciousness...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: Norman.Miller@launchpad.unc.edu (Norman Miller)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 22:36:07 GMT

In article <10422@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:






>
>She's a woman, she's black and the conservatives don't like her.  Sounds

Let's get one thing straight: whatever you guys are, "conservative"
is not one of them.  Conservatives are people committed to rationality
and fairness.  Conservatives are not a pack of jeering fraternity
boys, nor are they racists or sexists.

>Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Norman Miller
nmiller@starbase.trincoll.edu
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58376 ca.politics:9374 ba.politics:6797
From: fulton@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben Fulton)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Property Rights
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:12:48 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

I wrote:

>>In <Bx8zoK.EFz@world.std.com> rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) writes:
>>
>>>	1. I am a libertarian. That is I favor the maximum amount of personal
>>>	   liberty consistent with a minimum of social order and lack of 
>>>	   violence.
>>
>>So does George Bush.

and received these responses:

From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)

>Bullshit.  Bush doesn't even support free markets, much less social tolerance.

From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)

>Unless you want to use drugs, have an abortion, burn a flag, pray
>freely to a different god, have sex with someone of the same sex, vote
>for whom you want, drive without being stopped at a checkpoint, carry
>cash through an airport without having it stolen by federal agents, live
>in your home without fear of it being searched without probable cause, etc.

From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)

>Bull.  Can you say "War on Drugs" and "Ban Abortions"?  Sure, I knew you
>could.

All of whom entirely missed my point.  Which tells me that I didn't make
it very well.  :-)

Bush *does* support maximum personal liberty consistent with minimum social
order.  But this little loophole allows you to say *whatever you want*.
Drugs?  Destroy the social order.  Abortion?  Against family values.  You
guys forgot mandatory seatbelt and helmet laws, too.  Aside from maybe
some rabid communists, no one does *not* support MPL consistent with MSO,
and that means it's a meaningless statement, worthless outside of context.
Do I support MPL consistent with MSO?  Absolutely.  And I'll be more 
specific:  I'm against all laws other than outlawing force and fraud.
Would Mr. Kolker be willing to say the same?  What is his interpretation
of this statement?

-- 
ben
fulton@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
Government is sanctioned violence.
From: markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark t schmidt)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: quayle in 96!!
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:55:18 GMT


  just kidding.

  like sam donaldson said on letterman last night:
  "[the way quayle acts] is not a facade to cover-up a steel-trap mind."

  was quayle unfairly attacked? sure.
  was he _at least_ a simi-boob? sure.

  mark.

  mst3k rules.
From: allard@isi.edu (Dennis Allard)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Trickle Down Economics
Date: 8 Nov 92 02:45:38 GMT
Reply-To: allard@isi.edu (Dennis Allard)
Distribution: world
Organization: USC Information Sciences Institute

---
This was my original reply to Ted's posting, to which he has not responded.
I want to be sure he sees it.  Sorry for consumed bandwidth.

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
> But you still did not answer my question.  Where else do jobs come from 
> apart from people with money (rich) creating or expanding businesses 
> or investing.

1. From the government doing so.  As in:
1.1. The U.S. post office.  One of the best run businesses in the world.
1.2  The U.S. military.  I abhor our foreign policy, but our military is
     a world class standard as to how a socialized system can work.
     This network (the Internet) on which USENET operates was built by
     people such as myself who work for that military social system.  (I
     don't work on USENET, but I do work for DARPA (as do you, I bet)).
     The U.S. military is not run by the rich (although, due to political
     considerations it is run *for* them), yet has created millions of jobs.
1.3. The U.S. highway system, city and state road systmes.  They build
     roads, sidewalks, and street signs.
1.4. The regulated telephone system before the Libertarians took it over
     so now you run into junk Taiwanese phones which won't work even when
     you want to put a real quarter into one.  I call such phones
     'libertarian phones'.  I hate them.  Ran into one the other day.  The
     operator said I couldn't make my call using a quarter because 'we
     don't own that phone).  Felt like cutting the handset off of it.
1.5  City owned or regulated bus companies and transit systems.
1.6  The University of California system.

By the way, who DO you work for?  Is astronomy funded by the private sector 
much these days?  (Ha Ha Ha).  I am FOR increasing funding of astronomy,
by the way.  I'm just skepitical of Libertarian or Republican astronomers
who don't understand economics.

2. From small businessmen doing so (many of whom are not at all rich)
   buying franchises, setting up corner markets, doing mail order, etc.

3. From large employee owned companies creating or expanding business.

4. From government and industrial cooperation creating or expanding business
   via tax incentives or outright tax based funding of projects (see Japan).

Dennis Allard
allard@isi.edu
===================================================================
U.S. law prohibits you and me from travelling to Cuba or trading
with people there.  The U.S. economic boycott of Cuba harms people.
===================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
From: doug@ramona.com (Double Agent)
Subject: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Organization: Ramona Engineering
Date: 09 Nov 92 02:09:35 GMT

Sunday on _Meet the Press_, Vernon Jordan, head of Clinton's transition
team, confirmed that Anita Hill is the front-runner to get the job of
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. Put on your goggles, folks, the fire-
works should be dazzling.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: akbloom@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
Subject: Re: About this "No Mandate" Garbage
Summary: The size of the victory doesn't determine the effectiveness of the President
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 19:51:59 GMT

eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:

>Dream on, people!  The Republican Party got trounced. Clinton has a
>mandate.
[ ...deleted... ]
>Given that the name of the contest is "win the electoral college" this
>election *is* a landside, and Clinton *does* have a mandate.

He has as much of a mandate as he needs, anyway.  Whether his margin in
the Electoral College is one vote or 100, he's still the
President-elect.  Both Houses of Congress have Democratic majorities.
If he doesn't manage to push through the legislation he wants, make the
executive and judicial appointments he wants, issue the executive
orders he wants, pass and enforce the regulations he wants, and
generally govern the country the way he wants, it won't be for lack of
a mandate.  

Those who think that Clinton will have trouble governing because he
didn't get an absolute majority of the popular vote should consider
the case of Richard Nixon.  Nixon received about the same percentage
of the popular vote as Clinton.  More importantly, his popular vote
margin over his principal opponent was paper-thin, unlike Clinton's
which was substantial.  Even more importantly, he never had a Congress
which had a Republican majority.  Yet, at least in his first term, he
was able to govern quite effectively.  (That doesn't mean I approve of
what he did; but there's no doubt that he was able to use the power of
his office to promote his purposes.)  He was able to prosecute a
wildly unpopular war with no effectual interference from his opposition.
He was able to make major diplomatic agreements with the Soviet Union
and China, on trade, arms control, and other issues, on his own
initiative.  He exerted almost dictatorial powers over the American
economy -- remember the wage and price controls?  Almost all his
executive appointments went through, at least in his first term.
True, he had trouble with a couple of his Supreme Court appointments -- 
but the four Justices he did appoint were presumably people he wanted.
And he won re-election by one of the largest majorities in history,
despite a continuing war and economic difficulties.

On the other hand, Bush in 1988 won a clear majority of the popular
vote and an overwhelming majority of the Electoral vote.  He had a
mandate -- to do what?  To salute the flag, keep Willie Horton in
prison, and not raise taxes.  Big deal.

So who cares if Clinton has a "mandate" or not -- whatever that means.
What advantage would he have if he has one, and what disadvantage
would he have if he doesn't have one?

"Mandate?  We don't need no steenking mandate!"


Keith
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Caution: objects in election are closer than they appear
X-Xxdate: Thu, 5 Nov 92 08:51:59 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 14:55:18 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.230711.5810@midway.uchicago.edu> Mmmm... Purple,
thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu writes:
>Term limits are a procrustean solution in an instance where serious
>campaign reform is needed.

I agree completely.

Norman

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




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Subject: Bork is a good judge? (NOT!) (was Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 20:10:48 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.171749.25117@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> stamber@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Kevin L. Stamber) writes:
>In article <1992Nov13.000435.12095@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, parrish@ecn.purdue.edu (Stephen L. Parrish) writes:
>> 
>> The most qualified judge in recent memory was thrown out... Bork anyone?
>> Perhaps Thomas realizes the essence of Affirmative Action anyway-- a 
>> discriminatory system to fulfill quotas.
>
>     If you can, and I intend this to all on the net, find a copy
>of Bork's tome and read it, if you haven't done so already.  For a 
>class in American politics last term, I referenced Bork many, many
>times WRT judicial interpretation.  It IS slow reading (intelligent
>thought on paper takes some time to comprehend), but well worth it.
>I especially encourage reading it to those of you who may have disagreed
>with Bork's opinions based solely upon the media coverage; the man has
>a great deal of depth.  
>
>     The main problem that those opposed to Bork had was that he was going
>to actually read and interpret based solely upon the words within.  Imagine
>that -- interpreting the nation's law on that which is written, rather
>than on a whim.

From what I've read of it, Bork strikes me as a strict literalist
who 1) ignores admendment #9, and b) has a view of government such that
the gov't has the moral power to do ANYTHING unless it is prohibited by
doing so by the Constitution.

On the contrary I 1) do not ignore admendment #9, 2) believe that the
gov't has the moral power to do ONLY what has been explictly granted to
it in the Constitution, and 3) believe it is important to try to
understand what the founder's view of gov't was at the time they
created it when attempting to use #9 to "create" a new right.
Consequently, Bork scares the hell out of me.

In fairness to Bork though, I think that if you can understand these
basic premises, each view is consistent in interpreting the
Constituion/deriding previous interpretations.

Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner		Phone: 512/346-8380
Internet: bboerner@novell.com	MHS: bboerner@novell
Please use ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ if replying by mail exterior to Novell.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian
From: pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson)
Subject: Re: Democrats and Republicans: NTU Ratings
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 03:27:41 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.225012.25305@esd.dl.nec.com> mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee) writes:
>
>I have seen these NTU scores before and often wondered:
>
>Do these scores include ALL votes for spending/taxes?
>
I believe they do.  In fact that is the problem.  The place where these
stats can be skewed is if someone continually tries to pass the same
spending bill.  It will get counted against them each time they vote for
it even though it will actually increase spending only once.  Of course
given how arcane most spending bills are it would take a lot of effort
to determine which part of the bill has been proposed before and
rejected and which part is new, original spending.

Paul.
From: markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark t schmidt)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: left - right combo from our presilect clinton
Summary: clinton to please the left early
Keywords: abortion, homosexuals, clinton policies
Date: 8 Nov 92 06:40:28 GMT


i was only half awake, still dreaming good thoughts about
what a conservative democrat could do for the land, when
i rolled onto the remote. on came cnn, telling me what
mr. bill has in store for his first 100 days.
here's a sample:

clear the way for ru486, the french abortion pill.
lift the ban on fetal tissue research.
lift the 'gag' rule on federal family counselors.
permit gays to be part of the military again.

well, hip-hip for the pro-choice moves. (you will hear the 
hoorah when it actually happens.) 
as for fetal tissue research, if you really oppose it then stop
showing fetal tissue in your anti-choice ads.

rumor has it that these moves are to appease the left.
this will allow clinton to cut spending and still make everyone
happy. oh joy. i think the last person to try that was good
old george and his civil rights bill.
it ended up pissing everyone off. 

but hey, this is slick willy. lets see if he can honor his
nickname.

mark.

why, i must be right. i am certainly not left.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc