HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: speed, police, crime, hell
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 16:54:21 GMT

In article <Sep.15.07.21.56.1992.9727@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>In <NEERI.92Sep14174043@iis.ethz.ch> neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher) writes:
>> Theodore A. Kaldis:
>>> Matthias Neeracher:

>>>> Are you joking?  I'm *definitely* afraid of Swiss police, I am
>>>> reasonably honest, and I'm not the only one.
>>>  ^^^^^|^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>       +-- [i.e., dishonest when you think you can get away with it]

>> No, honest enough not to [pretend] that I stopped at every red traffic
>> light I met in my life.

>Hello?  What did I say?  Some folks are dumb enough to think they have
>a reasonable chance of getting away with knocking over a liquor store,
>others will settle for running an occasional red light or two once in
>a while.  (BTW, rarely does anyone in the U.S. run red lights.)

As usual, this is KaldisShit (tm).  Ever been to New York City, Ted?  At
least three extra cars go through every red light after it changes.
Furthermore, everyone jaywalks.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1992 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Brady Anderson 1992 AL MVP
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more months!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: kristyp@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kristy Patterson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: DearOldDoug Steps out for The cure!!!!
Date: 9 Sep 92 16:46:03 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <mt1yy!d@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>This reminds me of the one thing that really brightened up the
>first day of this term for me.  On my way to class, I walked by
>a young man wearing a T-shirt that said 
>
>I'M NOT GAY
>BUT MY BOYFRIEND IS
>
>                     -rocker

A friend of mine has this shirt; and guess what his companion's shirt says?

BOYFRIEND.

:-)

-Kristy
-- 
 +==========================+================================================+
 |Kristy Patterson          | Nothing really rocks, and nothing really rolls,|
 |kristyp@mac.dartmouth.edu | & nothing's ever worth the cost.      -Meatloaf|
 +==========================+=================================Bat Out of Hell+
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 22:15:22 EDT
From: <SML108@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: 1000 points of light

Tonight I overheard two people talking about a new rap song called "1000 points
of Light" that contains a whole bunch of self-contradictory Bush quotes on
issues such as abortion and education and has the main chorus "Read my Lips!"

Has anyone heard this song?  Our local cruddy pop station doesn't seem to
know of its existence...

Scott
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Carter vs Bush (Re: SC rally)
Date: 15 Sep 92 06:06:09 GMT
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

Keywords: 

In article <1992Sep14.125432.11198@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
]
]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.

Nope. 
  -Granny would PAY 21% if she was borrowing, but she 
   wouldn't get anywhere close to 21% on her CD. 
  -Granny probably had a lot of her money tied up in long term CD's at 
   lower rates, which she couldn't sell. 
  -Granny had to pay tax on the full interest
   rate, even though she was only realizing the inflation discounted rate,
   which probably left her with a net loss.
  -I don't think they had CD's back then, but that's
   really immaterial. 
]
]> 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.

If you could get it, without a call on it. Even this is only a deal if
you assume someone like Reagan will come along later and reduce the
inflation rate to the point where you start realizing that deal :-)

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

She couldn't get a 4% mortgage during the Carter era.
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: 14 Sep 92 22:13:10 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <6316@transfer.stratus.com>, pfieland@citron.sw.stratus.com (Peggy Fieland) writes:
> In article <12211@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #You would have to decide which right was more important, and hold your nose.  
# 
# #-- 
# #Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
# #Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
# #prohibition won't work.
# 
# Oh. come on. What I hope I would do is refuse to give up either right,
# and have them drag me off to jail.
# 
# There are always other choices.  We may just not want to make them.

No.  The problem is that governmental control seems to be increasingly
unavoidable.  We do not get the choice of freedom anymore.  We get the
choice of letting the homosexual fascist lobby get its way (in which
case day care centers won't be able to turn down child molesters who
apply for a job), or repressive measures such as Oregon is considering.
There is no longer any political movement of significance prepared
to live and let live.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey)
Subject: Re: Bush's Accomplishments
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 20:59:10 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <1992Sep14.182441.15949@den.mmc.com> sims@possum.den.mmc.com (John Sims) writes:
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>
>>john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>>>eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:
>>>]Bush has done nothing in 3+ years.  He talks a good game now, but hasn't
>>>]performed so far, and I see no reason to believe he will be different as a
>>>]lame duck in a second term--a time when even strong presidents become less
>>>]successful.
>
>>>Well... let's see...
>>>   He did a good job of conducting Desert Shield and Desert Storm
>
>>    Strange, I thought that Schwartzkopf (sp?) did a good job conducting 
>>the war, but the greatest credit I would have attributed to Bush is that 
>>he did a good job of staying out of the way and letting the real soldiers 
>>fight the battles. 
>
>Which is precisely what he should have done.  It's also something good
>ole LBJ and Jimmuh Catah just couldn't figure out.

Nixon pretty much missed that point, as well.

Jimmy Carter???? I don't seem to remember any large US offensive in his term.
Perhaps you are referring to the hostage rescue attempt.  I also fail to
remember him 'leading' the raid.

(Yeah, Major, I said fly into THAT dust cloud.  I AM the president, you
know.  Fly lower, too.)   	:)

At least he tried SOMEthing, instead of making a deal with the Iranians not
to release the hostages until the day of the inauguration.

-H



-- 
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Howard Berkey						howard@netcom.com
"Jesus Christ, How many people does it TAKE to kill the President?"
		-John Dillinger, in _Illuminatus!_
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Help protest exclusionary Senate debates
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 00:07:55 GMT

The first of a series of debates for the 6 year Senate race is being
held in Long Beach on Saturday, September 12th.  There will be
another in San Francisco on Septemeber 21.  I am being excluded
from both of these debates.

The criteria used was to only include candidates who had received at
least 10% of the primary vote.  Since no third party in California
even has 2% of voter registration this effectively allowed them to
exclude all third party candidates.  If you believe this is unfair I
ask you to join me in a peaceful picket of these events.

I need commitments from people for the Long beach event as soon as
possible.  We're not going to proceed with it unless we can gather a
sizable enough crowd to make it worth while.  You're welcome to
carry a sign specifically condemning my exclusion or a more general
one protesting third party exclusion in general.  The event is at
the First Congregational Church in Long Beach and we need people to
commit to being there from about noon until 5 pm so that we can have
our picket set up before people start arriving for the event.

You can confirm your willingness to participate by sending me email
or calling my campaign headquarters at 1-800-894-JUNE.  You can also
call there to commit to the Sept 21st event in San Francisco, but if
you're local we'd appreciate your calling 415-554-0388 to save cost
of picking up those 800 number call.  Please make sure you leave a
phone number as we may not know for sure if this will fly until
friday.  There may be a sign making party on friday night of you
want help making a sign.  Please let us know if you'd like further
info on that.

I really need your help on this one.  If you believe that articulate
and reasonable third party candidates deserve the chance to be
compared side by side with their major party opponents please join
me next weekend to help make the point that the current format of
these debates is not what voters want.

/June
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Term Limits For All
Date: 6 Sep 92 18:03:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93


In article <19936@drutx.ATT.COM>, 
dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) said:

> } Term limitation is a foolish idea. All it really does is limit our
> } choices. It is often the case that the best person for the job is
> } someone who has had the job a while. Why limit our choices?
> } [Kathy Beatty]

> If term limits are good enough for the president, why aren't they
> good enough for congress?

Who said they were good enough for the president?  There's nothing
sacred about the 22nd Amendment; as I understand it the main impetus
for it was that a lot of Republicans were frustrated that those pesky
voters had insisted on electing the *same* wrong candidate (FDR) to
the presidency four times in a row and decided to make sure it would
never happen again.

> } If someone is doing a bad job, it is your right to vote that
> } person out of office.
>
> Oh really?  Tell me, how do I go about voting out someone who does
> not represent my district yet creates laws, regulations and policies
> that directly affect me in ways that I do not want?  How do I, a
> resident of Colorado, vote people like Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy,
> Howard Metzenbaum, Robert Dornan and Jesse Helms out of office?

You don't.  Those people don't represent you; they represent their
constituents from their home districts.  If you don't agree with what
those constituents want, tough luck.  That's the price you pay for
being in the same nation with them.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush
From: tag@hermes.ecn.purdue.edu (Tony A. Gibbens)
Subject: Re: Why I cannot vote Democratic
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 21:52:04 GMT

In article <1685AE49D.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>In article <D2150079.cuv141@ansjem.anes.tulane.edu>
>boyd@ansjem.anes.tulane.edu (Victoria L Boyd PhD) writes:
>
>>
>>
>>In article (David Veal) writes:
>>> [deleted stuff]
>>>
>>>      But I'm not particularly concerned.  I've got a stack of letters to
>>> send to my Senator (read: Sleaze-bag Gore) telling him to get his ass back
>>> to Congress where I'm paying him to be.
>>>
>>> >tag@ecn.purdue.edu
>>>


WHOOOOOAAAA!!  Please note that I did NOT write the comment above my E-mail
address.  I realize that if one looks closely, one should see the extra ">"
infront of my E-mail address indicating the comment was not mine, but I wanted
to be sure of this.  I in NO WAY agree with the comment above my address.  

Hell, while one the subject, I happen to find Bush's and the republican's 
targeting religion and family values (why not bussiness ethics or does
that happen to hit too close to home for Bush) instead of the economy, 
education, etc to be very offensive.
 
>>
>>Maybe Bush and Quayle should get their butts back to the White House and start rying
>>to figure a way out of the deficit while still trying to buy votes with his hanouts
>>to special interest groups.
>>
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Victoria L Boyd PhD
>>
>>boyd@vax.anes.tulane.edu
>>
>     That's stack of letters number two.  :-)
>
>     Prince Albert is just a little closer to home.
>
>========================================================================
>| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
>|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
>========================================================================

David, please be more careful with other's signitures and names

thanks
tag@ecn.purdue.edu
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Was Quayle a Moral Draft Dodger? (was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Date: 9 Sep 92 18:02:23 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 5338@oracle.us.oracle.com, mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>
>Excuse me, but when Quayle entered the Guard there were openings
>available.  One was not created for him.  There have been claims of
>influence peddling, but no one as shown any kind of evidence for it.

Sure there were openings.  How do you think he got in?  Unfortunately, 
the openings weren't filled on a "first come, first serve" basis.  That's
why Quayle needed the influence of his family.  As for evidence, it came
out of admissions from the Quayle family.  You can't get better evidence
than that.

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

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43983 talk.abortion:35341 alt.politics.bush:4218 alt.politics.homosexuality:5715
From: mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: DearOldDoug Steps out for The cure!!!!
Date: 6 Sep 92 17:43:04 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization


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?

> And we won't be extinct.  My, er, housemate just got a job working
> for a company that's involved in the technology that makes
> heterosexuality obsolete.

Shades of "Brave New World" there.

-- 
 \   Charles Hannum, mycroft@ai.mit.edu
 /\  White heterosexual atheist male (WHAM) pride!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Subject: Re: Yes to line item veto
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 00:33:08 GMT

mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:

>Bri Farenell) writes:

>It's all a matter of opinion.  In the last budget, Bush could have lined out
>all of the social programs and kept all of the military programs.  Since his
>party controls >1/3 of congress, you would move effective control of 
>government to the president.  The president sets the agenda, allocates the
>money, and controls the expenses.

>Not exactly my idea of checks and balances.

The most important check and balance is the voters. If Bush had deleted
all the social programs and his GOP's in the Congress had voted against
override, do you think his GOP friends would have been re-elected? 
I think NOT!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL
CLARKSON '95
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU
A PC-HATING, PRO-LIFE, LIBERAL CARD-CARRYING MEMBER OF THE ACLU
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We are not descended from fearful men...not men who feared to write, to
 speak, to associate and to defend causes which were for the 
 moment, unpopular."		---EDWARD R MURROW
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton and Responsibility (Contradiction in Terms)
Date: 15 Sep 92 11:41:14 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Sep10.142859.17019@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:

> Gerard M. Vignes:

>> Bill Clinton had his chance, during the Vietnam War,
>> to show us what kind of stuff he was made of.

> George Bush had his chance, during his first term,
> to show us what kind of stuff he was made of.

And he was indeed found wanting in many respects.

>> If he didn't have it back then,
>> what makes anyone think he's got it now?

> Good point.  No second term.

Russ says this, of course, on the basis of considerations other than
George Bush's supposed shortcomings.  Others, naturally, might differ.
George Bush is a far cry from my idea of an ideal President.  But what
also needs to be taken into consideration is the alternative.  Russ no
doubt finds Clinton much more appealing from an ideological standpoint
(which, for me, is more than enough reason to reject him).  But Mr.
Vignes brings up a very good point, i.e., Mr. Clinton's character (or
rather, the lack of same).  The last time we had a veritable scumbag
as President was when LBJ held that office -- and he (and his legacy)
has very nearly destroyed this country.  The last thing we need now is
Bill Clinton to finish the job.

Vote Bush.
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss,ba.motss
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 17:27:56 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <BuI755.9Lq@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
    >In article <yvwnk9b.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil
    >Ronzone) writes:
    >
    >>Since that does confer another roadblock (gee, we can fire
    >>joe straight, but not john homo because he may file suit)
    >>that other people don't have, yes, it does confer de facto
    >>special rights.
    >>
    >Sounds like you're only concerned about de facto special
    >rights when they are owned by people other than yourself. The
    >existing system says, "Well, let's take Joe instead of John;
    >we don't want any faggots in this company," which constitutes
    >a de facto special right for heterosexuals.

No, you are very incorrect. Please try to read the posts and understand
them (better).

I am against any so-called "rights" which are really coercive interference
into the right of Freedom Of Association.

And you logic, well, sucks (is a mild word). By your reasoning, to say
that we don't want any child molestors working at "this" company means we've
just granted special rights to the non-child molestors.

Nonsense.



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss,ba.motss
From: michael@resonex.com (Michael Bryan)
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Organization: Resonex Inc., Sunnyvale CA
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 10:50:39 GMT

In article <12272@optilink.UUCP> walsh@optilink.UUCP (Mark Walsh) writes:
>Don't get me wrong, I am a liberal who believes that Affirmative
>Action had its place.  It was an attempt to right some wrongs.
>Unfortunately, it has been carried too far.
>[...]
>I find it sad that some gays are now trying to get their fingers
>into this pie.  I don't believe that gays are mentally disadvantaged,
>and as such do not need bailout programs.  I can see it now:
>
>Joe Worker A:  So you passed the big test, eh?
>Joe Worker B:  No, I'm gay, so I got an exemption.

There is a *large* difference between anti-discrimination laws and
affirmative action programs.  I've yet to hear anyone ask for an
affirmative action program for gays and lesbians.  All we are asking
for are laws to protect us from getting fired just because somebody
doesn't like the fact that we're gay.  How many people do you know
who have lost their jobs because they were straight?  The very concept
of such a thing happening is ludicrous!  Yet I know many gay men
and women who have lost a job, or were refused a job, simply because
they were gay.  Myself included.  [I don't deny that it's possible
that a gay establishment might very well exist which will not hire
straight people.  Such places are far rarer than the reverse situation,
however.]

If anybody suggested that we be given preferential treatment, such as
being exempt from tests (as in your example), I'd laugh in their face!
The idea that anti-discrimination laws regarding sexual orientation
are somehow "special rights" is a smoke screen created by Religious
Fundamentalists and others who wish to prey on the fears of the
the average citizen.

>I implore you to resist legislation granting special
>governmental priviledges to gays.

I agree whole-heartedly!  I would *also* implore you to resist
legislation granting special governmental privileges to the 
heterosexual population, and where such laws exist, work to have
them overturned.  Laws which allow marriages between straight
people, but not gay people.  Laws which prohibit sex between
two people of the same gender.  Impending legislation which
would make it illegal for public property being used by gay
organizations.  On and on the list goes of laws to grant
privileges to the heterosexual populace, but yet people scream
bloody murder at an attempt by gays and lesbians to restore
equality to the system.

-- 
Michael Bryan  michael@resonex.com  "Milk and Cheese in '92!"  |     ,_,
"Lovers are like... dentures.  You don't want them in your     |    /oo \
mouth all night, but you sure as hell want them within arm's   |    <>__|
reach in the morning!"  --- Miss Elmira Gulch                  |    |  U|
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: The politics of Andrew
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 18:45:37 GMT

mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>
>At least he didn't break Jimmy's hammer while trying to look good for the
>press.
>

Jimmy was miffed at Clinton's work though: it seems he installed mirrors
on the bedroom ceiling.

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:44224 alt.activism:16061 misc.headlines:6254