HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Send Flowers to Poor Clarence Thomas (WAS Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!)
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 17:37:56 GMT

In article <100891@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
    >In article <1992Nov6.181935.4506@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com
    >(Phil Ronzone) writes:
    >
    >>I believe Gennifer Flowers.
    >>
    >Let me guess...you believe Clarence Thomas, though, right?

Gee, again?

1. At first, I (in a causal sort of way) did NOT believe Clarence Thomas.

2. Then, as I examined the issues, it became more and more clear that
   Anita was lying through her teeth. But that is slightly different
   than believing Thomas.

a. Given her jib and other life experiences, it hard to believe Anita
   as a submissive women that would change jobs and follow a sexually
   harassing boss.

b. Bosses that sexually harass rarely limit themselves to just one woman.
   Yet there have been no other women that have stepped forth. Every case
   I've ever read of, once one woman took the step, other women came forth.
   (Safety & confidence in numbers perhaps).

c. Anita lacks the outrage and speech patterns of someone speaking the truth.
   Given that once she stepped forward she knew her career would be altered,
   she displays no rage, vindictive upset, etc. In addition, she has been
   muting her story on the lecture circuit, and I quote from Newsweek
   "[per the Thomas hearings with her and Thomas] ... whatever the story
   really is ..."!!!!!!

   Sounds like a classic case of a liar retreating step by step to me.



Alas, of course, we'll never REALLY know will we?




-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky ba.politics:6861 talk.politics.misc:58685 alt.politics.elections:23008 co.politics:1642 ne.politics:2778 alt.politics.clinton:16258 alt.politics.democrats.d:356
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (It's not what you got, it's what you give)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,co.politics,ne.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Summary: Amen
Date: 7 Nov 92 03:16:05 GMT
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <1992Nov5.194512.8097@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)                     writes...
>In article <1992Nov5.155600.26424@mercury.cair.du.edu> kguinn@diana.cair.du.edu (Kip J. Guinn) writes:
>>Please remember that Clinton was in a three-way race (whatever you personally
>>think of Perot, he was a candidate in the end), and will end up with
>>~40-43% of the popular vote.  With Perot running at about ~18%, in 
>>reality Clinton did well.  Certainly not an overwhelming mandate, but
>>not bad either...
> 
>It isn't a mandate at all. 60% of the voters hated or distrusted Clinton
>more than they did Bush or Perot. Clinton will be President because he
>is the least hated of a very unpopular trio, and not becuase a majority
>of the people agree with his views.
> 
Although I disagree with 90% of what you post, Frank, on this one
I agree 100%. Of all the Democrats running, Clinton was probably the
worst one (yes, even worse than Brown).
>                                                  Frank Crary
>                                                  CU Boulder
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:18:50 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.183158.2817@gvl.unisys.com> armagan@prc.unisys.com writes:
>Both Stevens and O'Connor have cancer. They are likely to step down,
>especially Stevens. I doubt that Rehnquist will step down even though
>we hear that he is depressed since his wife's death. 

What type of cancer does Sandra O'Connor have ?  I have not heard
that she was ill.  If it is breast cancer (my best guess for a woman
her age), it is quite likely that she will recover (this depends,
of course, on how early it was detected, etc...).  But I personally
know several women who have had breast cancer and recovered.

Guido
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Send Flowers to Poor Clarence Thomas (WAS Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!)
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:34:38 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1992Nov6.181935.4506@netcom.com>
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>I believe Gennifer Flowers.

Let me guess...you believe Clarence Thomas, though, right?
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7088 talk.politics.misc:59985 alt.politics.elections:23697 co.politics:1939 alt.politics.clinton:17060 alt.politics.democrats.d:519
From: wayne@ultra.com (Wayne Hathaway)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: YYYEEEEESSSSSSS!!!
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:58:09 GMT
Reply-To: wayne@ultra.com (Wayne Hathaway)
Organization: Ultra Network Technologies

> After 12 years of the most bloated deficit spending ... can things
> really get worse under Clinton? 

Two well-established "facts":

(1) For every dollar in new taxes that Congress takes in it spends MORE
    than a dollar.  You can argue about the percentage (I've heard up
    to $1.52) but "more" is almost unarguable by any statistics.

(2) Clinton wants more taxes.

> Well, yes, they could, but it is very unlikely.

Put (1) and (2) together and I think it becomes EXTREMELY likely.
Darn it.

    Wayne Hathaway               domain: wayne@Ultra.COM
    Ultra Network Technologies     uucp: ...!ames!ultra!wayne
    101 Daggett Drive             phone: 408-922-0100 x132
    San Jose, CA 95134              FAX: 408-433-9287
Xref: sparky ba.politics:6869 ca.politics:9405
From: randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Third Party Strategies
Date: 7 Nov 92 02:12:51 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

rburns@key.COM (Randy Burns) writes:

>If they had made an informal agreement among themselves _not_ to
>vote for Republicrats, they would have sent a much more powerful message
>to the polls-WITHOUT AFFECTING THE OUTCOME OF THE ELECTION. Boxer and Clinton
>would still have run, but with less of a mandate to create mischief.

>My own sense is that we need some strategies to increase the overall vote for
>third party candidates by some kind of system of informal agreements among
>friends. Clinton is now listening to Perot because
>1) Perot has a big megaphone to squawk through
>2) Without Perot's support clinton has no popular mandate.

We're hearing a lot about "mandate" since Clinton didn't get a majority
of the popular vote.   Wilson, JFK, and Nixon also lacked such 
a "mandate", and Reagan barely got a majority in 1980.  Each of these
presidents managed to do quite a lot anyway.  All were re-elected
by healthy majorities in the next election. (JFK would have been
re-elected had he lived.)

A "mandate" is what you make of it.  If Clinton proposes a bill,
no one in Congress is going to say, "you didn't get a majority, so I
can't vote for it."  They will vote on the merits of the bill and will
be swayed by the Clinton's political skill.  His percentage of the
popular vote is irrelevant, except to Republican sore-losers.  Hey,
Democratic sore-losers did the same thing in 1968 and 1980 too.  It's
still irrelevant.  

It's also irrelevant how many votes 3rd party candidates received,
unless it affected the outcome of the election.  If it DID affect
the outcome, then one of the two major parties will incorporate
the 3rd party's platform into their own in the next election.
This is what always happens with 3rd parties.  The Republicans
adopted much of the George Wallace/American-Independent anti-Civil-
Rights beliefs into their platform; the Democrats adopted many
the policies of the Progressive/Bull-Moose party.  

On the other hand, if the 3rd party didn't receive enough votes
to affect the election's outcome, then everyone just ignores them,
and eventually the party disappears.   Clinton does not care how
many votes Marrou got, because it wasn't enough to change the
election.  For that matter, he doesn't care about Perot either
for the same reason.   Clinton never bothered to attack Perot
during the campaign.  You know how much of Perot's platform is
going to be proposed by Clinton?  Big fat zero.  You only
have political power if you can get the votes to change the
outcome of the election.


-- 

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Randall Rhea                                        Informix Software, Inc. 
Project Manager, MIS Sales/Marketing Systems    uunet!pyramid!infmx!randall
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,co.politics,ne.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
From: hines@socrates.ucsf.edu (Wade Hines)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Archive YYESSS!
Summary: remember those far (farside) minded pundants
Keywords: 96
Date: 10 Nov 92 19:44:43 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

Please, will someone who has space and will be around the net
in '96 archive some of the jibberish floating around the
YYEEESSSSSS!!!! dialoge.  Such assurity about how the world
will look in 4 years needs to be called.

Wade Hines  "It just doesn't matter" B.Murry
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Date: 9 Nov 92 18:55:06 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rbbb

In article <13080@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>Yet Abel's study did that.  He found that 21% of the ones that
>went after little boys were *exclusively* homosexual 

What exactly did Abel mean by "exclusively homosexual"?  Was it any of
the following (and if so, which one):

1) all molested victims were boys (i.e., exclusively homosexual molestor)
2) all sexual partners (adult or child) were male.
3) all adult sexual partners were male (and there were adult sexual partners)

> ... Unless we
>assume that <20% of child molestation is little boys, that means
>that homosexuals are disproportionately represented.

You've confused victims and molestors again.  Because of "fixated
molestors" who raise the average numbers of victims per molestor by a
factor of 12 (based on Brian Kane's interpretation of your numbers)
(and how does this group overlap with the 21% who are "exclusively
homosexual", whatever that means?), only about 2% of child molestors
molest boys.  20% of that takes you down to .4% of molestors.  This is
clearly less than their portion of the general (male) population, so
the incidence of child molestors among male homosexuals is clearly
lower than the incidence among male heterosexuals.

Unless "exclusive homosexuals" molest girls at some unusual rate, I
think this means that, if your goal is preventing child molestation,
then the best man for interacting with a mixed group of children is an
"exclusive homosexual" (however Abel defined the term).

Do you disagree with this conclusion, and if you do, why?  Note that I
said "if your goal is preventing child molestation" -- your concern
for this issue is very clear.

David Chase
Sun
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7096 talk.politics.misc:60003 alt.politics.elections:23710 co.politics:1958 alt.politics.clinton:17078 alt.politics.democrats.d:527
From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,co.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 13 Nov 92 22:03:46 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Xxdate: Fri, 13 Nov 92 16:00:26 GMT
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12

In article <1992Nov13.195526.19886@informix.com> David Kosenko,
davek@informix.com writes:
>And if you think being homeless is easy, take a day off and spend it
watching
>how one or two homeless people spend their day.  Trying to survive when
you
>have nothing is a lot more work than I think you realize.

Excellent post Dave. My volunteer work validates your observations.
The problem is not lazy poor folks, the problem is lack of opportunity
and misconceptions like the ones stated by the previous poster.
Furthermore, if you think the social problems will just go away
because you choose to ignore them or deny their nature, you are in
for a rude awakening when your taxes go up to pay for more police,
more prisons, more mental institutions, large health care costs for
the poor due to a lack of preventitive care, more hungry kids, more
out-of-control schools, more urban decay, ....

As they say...you can pay now or really get socked later.

Norman

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




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
From: rburns@key.COM (Randy Burns)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Congrats to June Genis
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:36:01 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Advanced Systems, Fremont CA



Now that the results are coming in, I think that June deserves a round of
net applause. In the race between Hershensohn and Boxer, over 10% of the
voters didn't vote for _either_ Republicrat candidate. In single party
states like the former Soviet Union, even a 5% no vote on the approved list
of candidates is considered a _very_ serious indication of low confidence.
June, made a measure blow to business as usual working with a minimal budget.


It is easy to focus on the respects in which June lost, but it it also important
to  look at the ways she _won_. 
1) She contributed to the highest overall true third party turnout in a 
   major statewide California race.
2) She may well have acheived the highest number of votes per dollar speant
   of any candidate

And she did it without sacrificing morals, values or ideals. 

Way to go June!!!!!
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7047 talk.politics.misc:59806 alt.politics.elections:23600 co.politics:1852 ne.politics:2931 alt.politics.clinton:16965 alt.politics.democrats.d:488
From: davek@informix.com (David Kosenko)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,co.politics,ne.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 12 Nov 92 19:59:09 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

Frank Crary writes:
[responding to:]
>>Frank, good choice of words there. Can I thus infer that as a member
>>of a (large) modern civilization/society that you DO in fact feel
>>that you DO have an obligation to insure some people agianst some
>>forms of misfortune? 
> 
>In general, no. I think it is the responsibility of every individual to 
>take care of himself (as opposed to depending on others to take 
>care of him.) I do think the government should protect 
>people from criminal invasions of their rights, and (I suppose,
>although I can't think of an example) this might be considered
>protection from misfortune, in some very limited cases.

	"Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?.."
	"I pay taxes to support these institutions.  Those
	 who are poorly off must go there."

	"But some would rather die than go there!"

	"If they are to die, then let them do it, and decrease
	 the surplus population."

	From "A Christmas Carol" by Charles Dickens

Mr. Carey, it would seem, would have found a kindred spirit in
Mr. Ebeneezer Scrooge.

Dave
-- 
Disclaimer: These opinions are not those of Informix Software, Inc.
**************************************************************************
"I look back with some satisfaction on what an idiot I was when I was 25,
 but when I do that, I'm assuming I'm no longer an idiot." - Andy Rooney
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,co.politics,ne.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 05:26:15 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.195909.9113@informix.com> davek@informix.com (David Kosenko) writes:
>>In general, no. I think it is the responsibility of every individual to 
>>take care of himself (as opposed to depending on others to take 
>>care of him.) I do think the government should protect 
>>people from criminal invasions of their rights, and (I suppose,
>>although I can't think of an example) this might be considered
>>protection from misfortune, in some very limited cases.

>	"Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?.."
>	"I pay taxes to support these institutions.  Those
>	 who are poorly off must go there."
>
>	"But some would rather die than go there!"
>
>	"If they are to die, then let them do it, and decrease
>	 the surplus population."
>
>	From "A Christmas Carol" by Charles Dickens

That's very interesting, but not terribly relevant: I was talking about
what individuals should do, and what the government should not. The
passage you quote is about (in complete agreement with me) what the
government should not do (provide for the poor through such institutions
as workhouses) and what private charity should do. I am in full support
of private charities assisting the poor, especially "helping them
help themselves."

>Mr. Carey, it would seem, would have found a kindred spirit in
>Mr. Ebeneezer Scrooge.

Actually, the only Carey I know is a very nice guy, and not especially
political.

                                                    Frank Crary
                                                    CU Boulder
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7116 ca.politics:9569 talk.politics.misc:60075
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Date: 13 Nov 92 17:43:49 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Nov12.103515.8607@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
> In article <13154@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <1992Nov11.052747.24208@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
> >>In <13131@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# ## #Those decisions may be good, they may be bad, but when the government 
# ## #says that a group with either a disproportionate number of victims, or a 
# ## #disproportionate number of molesters in it, MUST be given protected
# ## #minority status, I get very upset.
# 
# ## An interesting statement to be made on the aniversary of "Kristalnacht". 
# 
# #Dense, aren't you?  Who was responsible for all that broken glass
# #and burned buildings?  Individuals?  No, the government of Germany,
# #intent on imposing its will on non-aggressive individuals.  Not
# #surprisingly, you support the enlargement of state power against
# #non-aggressive individuals, just like Nazi Germany did.
# 
# No, the answer is: the government of Germany, using pseudoscience to
# attempt to portray a minority as inferior degenerate people in order to
# justify discrimination and abuse and, of course, eventually mass murder,
# of them.  
# 
# It's funny, though.  They used to say that one of the things Jews did
# was kidnap children and use them for their own nefarious purposes (to
# make matzah, in that case).  See any similarities, Clayton?  Of course not.

No.  You see, I didn't think that homosexuals were so very different,
until I started to research the subject -- and then discovered that
they are indeed very different.

In any case, I strongly oppose any governmental discrimination 
against homosexuals in employment.  It's not the government's
business what you do in the bedroom, just as it isn't their
business who a private employer decides to hire.

# After all, Clayton, the pogroms weren't actually government action,
# right?  They simply incited the people by claiming that Jews did all
# these evil things to their children, and then let the mobs run their course.   

The pogroms relied on the fact that the governments had disarmed
Jews.

# David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Racism is "class struggle" applied to ethnicity.
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7093 talk.politics.misc:59999 alt.politics.elections:23707 co.politics:1955 alt.politics.clinton:17075 alt.politics.democrats.d:524
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,co.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
Subject: Morally Right (Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Summary: Point/Counterpoint
Date: 13 Nov 92 21:55:45 GMT
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <1689E685.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)                        writes...
>In article <1992Nov13.020626.16654@pony.Ingres.COM>
>garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov12.045708.7546@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU Frank Crary)                      writes...
>>>In article <1992Nov12.023946.29923@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE NLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE) writes:
>>>>It does to me. The question is, do you split a piece of bread between a
>>>>starving man and a fat man just to be "fair"?
>>>
>>>If the fat man supplied the materials and baked the bread, I'd call
>>>it more than fair. The question is, "whose bread is it?" Need does
>>>not justify theft.
>>
>>If you think that someone taking a piece of bread from rich man to feed
>>a starving man is theft then the law must be changed,
> 
>       For a starving man to take the bread of a rich man without his
>permission *is* theft, and should be considered so under the law.  If the
>rich man has refused to give the bread to the starving man then, as far
>as I'm concerned he is morally in the right and if *I* was on the jurt
>I wouldn't vote to convict him, regardless of the law.  (But that gets
>into FIJA.)
> 
Legally right? Yes. Morally right? Definantly not. If you look in the
Bible you will find in Matthew 25:41

	"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you
who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you
gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in,
I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and
you did not look after me."
	[I work with a very religious person. This is a quote from Jesus.]

      I prefer to stay away from any religious discussion, but I never
discount Jesus just becuase he is religious. I re-thought what I posted
last night and decided that you can't legislate morality, so therefore
I withdraw my comment from before. But to withhold help from someone who
needs it, cannot be morally defended.

>David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
>               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7058 talk.politics.misc:59854 alt.politics.elections:23626 co.politics:1875 alt.politics.clinton:16992 alt.politics.democrats.d:494