HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal)
Subject: Re: TSONGAS: Convention speech text
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 23:19:14 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.232455.2997@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:

>In article <1992Jul20.125436.26302@hemlock.cray.com>, rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>>> ...
>>> >  There are no Willie Horton ads in our souls.
>>> 
>>>     I wonder where Al Gore was when this was spoken?
>> 
>> Gore brought up the furlough issue but he never used (or knew) the name(s)
>> of these furloughed.
>> 
>> Bush and the Republicans used Horton's name.
>> 
>       That's a lie.  If you have proof, earn $50 by sending me a video of the
>commercial.

>       Otherwise you might want to put *your* money where you mouth is :).

     Look.  Bush and the Republicans *never* did any Willie Horton ads.  But 
most of us are adults here.  We know exactly how the "Republicans for Bush" 
and other groups work like that work, don't we?
 
     


===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
| Statistics are any data which can be twisted to support your posititon  | 
===========================================================================

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: glp@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Originator: glp@merlin
Organization: Citibank IBISM
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 14:31:37 GMT


In article <1992Jul24.150800.20274@ncar.ucar.edu>, gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:

|>   Oh, and by the way, life isn't fair. Show me where they said it was.

Since in the context of this discussion, you are a member
of "them" and I'm not, obviously you are the authority.

"life isn't fair" always seems to roll smoothly  out of the
mouths of people who have been given some unearned advantage and
then (surprise!) are winning the game.								

-- 
Greg Parkinson                  Phone: 212-657-7814  Fax: 212-825-8607
Citibank,111 Wall Street        E-Mail: glp@fig.citib.com
New York, New York  10043
The opinions expressed are my own and not those of the big 'ol bank.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Private Discrimination
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 17:49:21 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.164330.800@auto-trol.com> katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty) writes:

>billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>: 
>: :                       I do not believe that all store-owners in the south
>: : would sell to afro-americans if they had any way to avoid it.  
>: 
>: And, why should they have to? Why should I be required to sell my goods,
>: which I own until you pay me for them, to you if I do not wish to do so?
>: There are others that will sell to you, if I do not - maybe I do not like

>But all too recent history proves that it's not true. The reality of the
>South in the 1950s is that there often was no one else that would sell to
>Blacks.  

>: "white monkeys" in my store. Now, if no one will sell to you, then you
>: have a reason for complaint.
>: 
>But under libertarianism, there would be no one to complain to, and no 
>mechanism for complaining.  And that's exactly why libertarianism, while 
>wonderful in theory, would in reality be a nightmare for minorities.  

Sure there would:  the owner/vendor.  If he doesn't want thier business, 
they can go to another vendor who knows that thier money spends.  If there 
is not other vendor, they can open thier own store and take advantage of the 
neglected market.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:36714 ca.politics:6177
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Against Our Will
Date: 25 Jul 92 23:07:04 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Western Software Lab

In article <11400@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>What has changed?
>
>1. Homosexuals are no longer an "oppressed minority" (at least in
>California) -- most of them are aggressively pursuing a campaign to
>force the rest of us to associate with them against our will.
>
Tell that to all the people who get gay bashed every year.

Associate with you ?  Not on a bet.

>2. I now have children, and I worry for their safety.  I have
>discovered, by reading soc.motss, and watching the coverage of
>gay parades, that there is substantial support for child molestation
>in the gay community -- perhaps not a majority, but certainly a
>large enough minority that there has been great reluctance to
>exclude groups like NAMBLA.
>

You live in a society that glorifies rape, and murder and you complain
about an organization of 1000 people nationwide ?

Open your eyese Claytoon.

>3. I have discovered, based on gay-positive textbooks and articles, 
>that homosexuals are disproportionately involved in child molestation.
>

Don't you mean you have invented this agenda ?

>5. I have seen too much anecdotal evidence, and some poor quality
>statistical evidence, that homosexuality and child sexual and
>physical abuse are correlated.  It's not a big leap from, "molested
>as a child" to "confused sexuality."
>

Confused eh ?  You should talk deary.

>I don't care whether they are "unmanly" or not.  I see no reason for
>our society to try to make a self-destructive lifestyle accepted.
>

An heterosexuality isn't self destructive ?  Have you stopped beating your
wife yet ?  And if you have, have your neighbors ?

>You also don't consider the possibility that gay teen suicide might
>be caused, not by societal pressures, but by whatever was the fundamental
>cause of their homosexuality.  Has anyone ever studied suicide rates
>above sexually abused kids?
>

Ys, there have been studies of both.  Of course fascists like you
are suppressing them even now.

>When you and your wife have kids, and you start finding boys who have
>been molested by gay men (as happened recently to a friend's nephew
>in the East Bay), you'll start to appreciate the fear that
>those of us with kids now have.

As opposed to the fear that many women have faced after being
molested by their fathers, brothers, cousins ??  You have
absolutely no sense of scale Claytoon.

BTW Have you sent your donation to the OCA yet ?  They sound like
your kind of group.  I think you get a free pair of jackboots
if you donate over $500.

You're a bigot and a fool, and it seems the two go hand in hand.


--
Better weapons lead to better and better weapons, until the earth is
a grenade with the fuse burning.	--- William S. Burroughs
					    _Cities of the Red Night_
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:35058 alt.politics.elections:8765
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Perot drops out!!!!
Date: 21 Jul 92 22:03:28 GMT
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA

In article <BrouoD.3E2@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
writes:
>>But it's true.  Look at the choices we have now.  We can vote for President
>>Mush
>> [  . . .  ]   Or we can vote for Clinton
>
>
>   Except that this is pure bullshit.   You get to vote for more than 
>   the President, and you get to participate in more ways than voting!
>   In fact voting is the LEAST of your powers to take part in US
>   politics!

How do you figure that?  Are you talking about here, lobbying?

Go ahead, I'm waiting...you obviously don't feel disenfranchised, so
maybe you can point out something I'm missing.

>   Furthermore, the major power to enact laws, balance the budget, change
>   spending policies, or whatever, is with Congress.   And House races
>   are typically decided by a few thousand, or at most a few 10's of 
>   thousands of votes.

And unless the group sponsoring the law carries enough congressmen to
override a veto, the president can stop them cold...

   don
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:35710 alt.politics.clinton:584
From: tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: What kind of recession we're in
Date: 24 Jul 92 02:57:42 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <EIVERSON.92Jul21212913@ithaka.nmsu.edu> eiverson@nmsu.edu (Eric Iverson) writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.205634.7994@tss.com> burke@tss.com (Jim Burke) writes:
>
>   In article <1992Jul20.155428.8208@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>
>   |> consider yourself corrected. The recession in the middle 70's and the
>   |> one in the early 80's where each far worse. This one is actually pretty
>   |> mild, it just seems worse compared to the previous decade of growth.
>
>That previous decade is one of the main reasons this recession is
>different from other ones.  Because this time we have a legacy of
>debt-loaded companies, looted pension funds, alarming amounts of
>consumer debt, and paltry amounts of savings hanging over us due to
>the decade of "growth."  Companies are frantically downsizing in order
>to remain solvent.  In the computer industry alone, tens of thousands
>of jobs have been lost.  Not sent overseas. Lost. Consumers can't buy
>our way out because they're already in hock up to their eyeballs and
>afraid their job will be the next to go.  Recessions are indeed
>cyclical, but it's going to be quite a bit harder to rebound after
>this one.  And the legacy of our "growth" will haunt us for years to
>come.
>
Eric, should I take the above to imply that the S&L was the result of
Reagan's easing of regulations?  Indeed, his administration can be blamed
for part of it, but we should remember that it was Carter in 1980 that
changed to very important S&L regulations:

           1) Raised the insurance from 50,000 to 100,000
           2) Changed the regulations on interes use and investments

And, of course, Congress had a lot to do with it too.

Consumer debt seems to be the consumers fault.

*******************************************************
* Teddy Kalivoda  ------------ tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu *
* 	University Computing & Network Services       *
*	  Institute of Higher Education (Drtobe)      *
*                                                     *
* "Philosophers disagree about everything"            * 
*       --Henrikus Aggripus Cornelius von Nettlesheim *
*******************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Trade balance (was: Electoral College w/o Perot)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 14:09:20 GMT
Organization: Culturale Elit

In <1992Jul20.231523.14715@oakhill.sps.mot.com>, pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com sez:
>
>Oh yes. American exports are up 30% these last 4 years.

It might be a more useful statistic if accompanied by information
about the level of imports over the same period.  

-- 
	It may be a police state, but it's *our* police state.

	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher)
Subject: Re: Demopublican or Republicrat ?
Organization: Integrated Systems Laboratory, ETH, Zurich
	<NEERI.92Jul23145537@iis.ethz.ch> <rdippold.711945497@cancun>
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 15:06:17 GMT

In article <rdippold.711945497@cancun> rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul22.160011.11244@morrow.stanford.edu> GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
>>>However, Mr. Sanders had previously been very active in Vermont
>>>politics as a Democrat and had developed much name recognition as
>>>such prior to deciding to seek the Senate seat as an independent.
>>>Libertarians are not willing to pretend they're Republicrats just to
>>>get elected to lower office first.
>
>>... as they conclusively demonstrated with their '88 presidential candidate.
>
>Exactly.  Surprising, however, thatan opportunist like you would even
>comprehend the possibility of not sacrificing principle to expediency.
>Maybe in a few years you'll comprehend the meaning of ethics, even.

I don't understand

- what the hell you are talking about and
- what beliefs or non-beliefs of mine should make me an opportunist (I thought
  the epitheton ornans was "statist" ?)

And I *do* have ethical principles. It's just that I didn't pick them out of
Ayn Rand paperbacks, so they might be different from yours.

Matthias

-----
Matthias Neeracher                                      neeri@iis.ethz.ch
  "And I won this ribbon in a Degradation Contest at the Teheran
   meeting of Junkies Anonymous" -- William Burroughs, _The Naked Lunch_
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Congress and the balaced budget scam
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Jul25.225425.10460@oakhill.sps.mot.com>
	<1992Jul27.130908.16051@dscomsf.desy.de>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 21:58:23 GMT

<In article <1992Jul27.130908.16051@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:

<   The problem is not single budget deficits, its the sustained budget
<   deficits. The amounts taken in tax and needed for spending will vary
<   from year to year. It is quite OK to have a budget in deficit, so long
<   as you don't do it every year.

	Ok, so why was it a "good thing" to have a budget deficit
	year after year during the 1970's, but on 21 January 1981
	"the deficit" became a major problem?

<   The real problem is that Bush and Regan didn't like taxing rich people
<   but loved spending money on arms, the Democrats didn't see why these
<   desires should stop their  desire to spend money helping poor people.
 
	Uh huh...tell me, Phillllll, when the Bush administration
	tried to cut the Seawolf submarine program, who rode
	to the rescue?

	HINT: There aren't any Republican Senators from Connecticutt.

<  The result was that everyone got what they wanted for twelve years and
<   it's only now the party is over that people are looking for scapegoats.
 
	Whoa, wait a minute; what about the standard Leftwing AgitProp
	claiming that the ReaganBush administrations "raped" the
	welfare programs?

<  What is needed is to reverse the Regan-Bush tax cuts for the rich and
<   trim down the military budget. 

	Bush already signed the biggest tax increase in U.S. history
	just before last year's war and you want more?

	Trim down the military budget; man, don't you read your
	own newspapers? How many US troops were in Germany 3 years
	ago? How many are there now?

	The US Army budget has been cut by about 15% in two
	years and will be cut more, no matter who wins the
	election.

	Don't you get tired of mouthing the same slogans, even
	when reality has already outstripped them?

<Stopping the pork barrel is a little
<   harder, the entire political system is based on it.

	So is this a ringing endorsement of Clinton, or what?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Which of you is 'good enough' ?
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 02:21:46 GMT

In article <23266@alice.att.com> garry@alice.att.com (garry hodgson) writes:
Just out of curiosity...

Could my fellow 'netters' answer these two questions (please post)

1) how old are you ?

25.

2) could your history survive the media scrutiny required to be
   elected president ?

I inhaled.

I'm an equal opportunity lover, black, white, brown, female, male.

I've never cheated on my SO without permission.

I like family values, expecially when you can get a "family value pack"
of toilet paper for 1/2 the normal price per roll.

I didn't evade the draft.

-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.censorship
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Bush's mom
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 04:04:20 GMT

In article <MATT.92Jul21165215@physics2.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>
>Is there any evidence that Bush "really believes" anything?

Winning at all costs.
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Libertarian Platform
Date: 23 Jul 1992 22:17:26 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

In article <1992Jul23.210852.15374@ncar.ucar.edu>, gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
|> jb> Jim Burke
|> gs> Gary Strand
|> lp> Libertarian Party 1992 platform
|> 
|> lp> "Children should always have the right to establish their maturity
|> lp>  by assuming administration and protection of their own rights,
|> lp>  ending dependency upon their parents or other guardians and
|> lp>  assuming all the responsibilities of adulthood."
|> 
|> gs> Now, where Jim gets the idea that child-abuse laws will be repealed is
|> gs> by a libertarian society is beyond me. Perhaps he can explain further.
|> gs> BTW, the LP doesn't want to repeal laws against rape either.
|> 
|> jb> Where I got the idea was from the Libertarian platform that states (in 
|> jb> paraphrase) that all laws based upon a person's age should be rescinded.
|> 
|>   Do you know why? Because age is not a good indicator of ethical maturity
|>   and level of responsibility. I know teenagers that are more mature than
|>   some 30-35ers I've met. 
|> 
|> jb> Therefore, it would be impossible to pass a law preventing an adult from
|> jb> having sex with a child based upon the child's age. 
|> 
|>   Because it isn't the age that's the gauge, it's maturity. So, we change the
|>   laws from age-based to maturity-based.
|> 
|> jb> I presume what Gary is pointing out is that if a child is allowed to
|> jb> establish their maturity legally, then they have the right to sexual
|> jb> consent, whatever their age.
|> 
|>   Trust me, it's not going to be simply a matter of a kid saying "I'm a big
|>   person now, treat me like an adult", and the rest of us adults merely take
|>   her at her word and let it go at that. How dumb do you think libertarians
|>   are, anyway?
|> 
So all we have to do is come up with a way to determine "adequate maturity level"
for any particular activity.  Gary even suggests doing it in court on a case by
case basis.

Actually, we already have a court system that is bloated.  I would think the
LP would like to reduce, not increase the court system.

How about we come up with a compromise rule we can use in 90% of the cases,
and only have to go to trial with the close ones.  I suggest using age.
From: shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Kissinger Involved in Loans to Iraq
Date: 21 Jul 92 21:59:20 GMT
Reply-To: shore@tc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell Theory Center

[]
For those who are interested in further information, Henry
Gonzalez has been talking about this scandal in great detail
from the House floor, almost always to a completely empty
House.  See the Congressional Record.

Aside from the obvious conflict of interest, some of the
transactions were almost certainly illegal.  Of more immediate
concern, of course, is that the money (*our* money) was used
to arm Iraq and led directly to the Gulf War.
-- 
       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.folklore.urban
From: datri@convex.com (Anthony A. Datri)
Subject: Re: College Pranks (Was Re: Vacation Time!)
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 20:51:58 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

>Second, the water would have been running quite strongly under all the doors.
>None of them can seal well enough to stop water under pressure.

Not mention that it would take quite a long time for the trickle from a
fire sprinkler to spit out that much water, that the thin glass in any windows
present would probably break under the pressure, that campus security would
know about it real soon, and that a local fire department probably wouldn't
get involved in pumping it out -- they'd just sacrifice a window.


-- 

======================================================================8--<
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.folklore.urban
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: Vacation Time!
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 07:06:37 GMT

egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
: 
: There is a story from Caltech about a student who left for the week
: to visit his girlfriend.  His friends got a lot of plaster, and made
: his dorm room door vanish; they even installed some wiring, and put
: a lamp where the door was.  When their friend returned to find
: the wall, they denied knowing who he was, as sort of existentialist
: prank.

I heard this story way back in the 60s - about MIT students. I wonder
which story came first?

: Now, I ask, is there any way we can pull this off over the Usenet
: with Mr. Kaldis's metaphorical dorm room?

I think Mr is being too polite. The best thing to do with TK is just
ignore him.

Bill
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:34917 alt.politics.clinton:116 alt.rush-limbaugh:2911
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: College Pranks (Was Re: Vacation Time!)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 09:56:09 GMT

ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
: 
: A friend of mine who had gone to CalTech was full of stories like this, but
: one I remember in particular he said had happened NOT at CalTech but where
: he'd gone for undergraduate work.  He said that in one of the dorms there
: was a stairwell to which all the doors opened inward.  (The door to outdoors
: opened into the stairwell, and the doors from the stairwell to each floor
: also opened into the stairwell.)  One Prank Night the stoonts got the doors
: closed for the first few flights, then turned on the fire sprinkler just in
: the stairwell.  It filled up a couple of stories.  The water pressure pre-
: vented the lower doors (including the door out) from opening, and the stoonts
: went to upper floors via other stairwells and went snorkeling in the flooded
: stairwell.  The admin had to call the fire department to pump out the stair-
: well from an upper-storey window.

There are a couple of big flaws with this story. First of all, the outside
doors cannot open inward - such doors are illegal in public buildings. It
is against fire codes in all 50 states.

Second, the water would have been running quite strongly under all the doors.
None of them can seal well enough to stop water under pressure.

Bill "Glug, glug" Nelson
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc