HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sharon@unixland.natick.ma.us (Sharon Machlis Gartenberg)
Subject: Rally for Bosnia-Herzegovina
Summary: Try to help stop the slaughter
Organization: Unixland Public Access Unix  (508) 655-3848
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 11:30:14 GMT

THERE WILL BE A RALLY IN BOSTON FRIDAY, 2:30 P.M., AT THE STATE HOUSE IN
BOSTON IN SUPPORT OF THE PEOPLE OF BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA, specifically to
push for an end to the arms embargo on Bosnia. 

As you may know, the non-Serb population of Bosnia-Herzegovina, a former
republic of Yugoslavia which declared independence earlier this year,
has been subject to air and artillery attacks, imprisonment and torture,
and shortages of food, water, and shelter. As the Serbs capture territory,
their policy of "ethnic cleansing" -- through killing and terror -- has 
driven more than a million Muslims and Croats from their homes, many with
no place else to live and no way to get through Serb artillery and sniper
fire to reach safety. While the Serbs are heavily armed with warplanes,
hundreds of tanks, and heavy artillery (they are even using incindiary
anti-aircraft weapons against apartment buildings in civilian neighborhoods),
all thanks to the Yugoslav army, the Bosnians who are trying to defend their
land and their people have only some light weapons, no planes, a couple of
pieces of artillery they have captured from the Serbs, and a couple of tanks.

Yet the West has kept an arms embargo on all of what is/was Yugoslavia,
denying the Bosnians the ability to try to adequately defend themselves 
against the murderous attacks on their civilian population (already, more
than 50,000 people have been killed, thousands of them children). While
the embargo was originally put in place to try to lower the level of
fighting in ex-Yu, what the embargo has done now is GUARANTEE the Serbs
will keep military superiority, and allow the Serbs to continue to attack
and kill Bosnian civilians at will.

It is estimated that in a "best-case scenario"  -- a 
relatively mild winter -- 147,000 Bosnians will die from cold, starvation,
and/or war this Balkan winter. A harsh winter could put that at *more than
400,000* according to estimates from the UN High Commissioner for
Refugees and the CIA.

The Bosnian government has pleaded with the West -- if you do not want to
send in your own military force to try to save the lives of our people,
at least lift the embargo so we will have the ability to defend our
own people and homeland. So far, President Bush continues to support the
embargo, although there are reportedly a number of senior White House
officials who are "uncomfortable" with it, and Gov. Clinton spoke about
lifting it during the first televised debates.

-- 
Sharon Machlis Gartenberg
Framingham, MA  USA
email: sharon@unixland.natick.ma.us   or   uunet!think.com!unixland!sharon
Newsgroups: ne.politics,ne.general
From: ed@odi.com (Ed Schwalenberg)
Subject: Re: Massachusetts residents: Tuesday is the last date to register to vote.
Organization: Object Design, Inc.
Distribution: ne
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 13:52:41 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.032140.11682@unixland.natick.ma.us> bill@unixland.natick.ma.us (Bill Heiser) writes:
  Kind of late to ask now, but I'll ask anyway.  What is the story
  if you're registered in one party but want to vote the other?  Can
  you switch on election day?

In general elections (such as the one a month from now) any registered voter
of any party affiliation can vote any which way.

In PRIMARY elections, you may only vote in the primary of the party you are
registered for.  An unenrolled voter (commonly known as "independent", but
that term is now carefully avoided in Massachusetts to prevent confusion with
persons enrolled to vote in Independent Voter's Party primaries) may choose
on PRIMARY election day which party to enroll in, vote in that election, and
then change his party affiliation (back to unenrolled, for example), all in
10 minutes at the voting place.
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: usenet@transfer.stratus.com (Mr. Network News)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Wild speculation on Perot. Watch the DEBATE tonight
Date: 16 Oct 92 21:33:34 GMT
Reply-To: Dave_Wetzel@vos.stratus.com
Organization: Dave_Wetzel

In article <3145@mitech.com> gjc@mitech.com (George J. Carrette) writes:

> If I call it "wild speculation" that is pretty accurate.
> 
> When you call it "paranoid" you are way off base. 
> 
> => Tell us exactly what I said that was paranoid.

Well, paranoid may have been a little strong.  But the whole concept that 
Clinton has KGB ties because he visited Moscow strikes me as a little 
paranoid.  David Souter also visited Moscow (on a similar trip while *HE* 
studied at Oxford), but no one assumes he's a KGB plant.

To call it speculation implies that one has taken certain facts and after 
concidering them has generated a rational idea.  I find it hard to call 
the process rational that proposes that since person A is a liberal and 
has visited Moscow, it is likely person A KGB ties.

Anyway, if you want to drop it down to just "dilusional" that's okay by me.

--------------
Dave_Wetzel@vos.stratus.com
From: usenet@transfer.stratus.com (Mr. Network News)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Wild speculation on Perot. Watch the DEBATE tonight
Date: 14 Oct 92 18:23:36 GMT
Reply-To: Dave_Wetzel@vos.stratus.com
Organization: Dave_Wetzel

In article <3123@mitech.com> gjc@mitech.com (George J. Carrette) writes:

[insanely rediculous text deleted]

You don't happen to write for the National Inquirer do you?  "Wild" 
speculation doesn't even come close... paranoid delusion may be closer.

Or was this a joke?

--------------
Dave_Wetzel@vos.stratus.com
From: boba@miki.pictel.com (Bob Alexander)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: The truth about Gritz
Date: 14 Oct 92 16:45:41 GMT
Organization: PictureTel Corporation

I'm curious about how Bo Gritz would solve some seeming contradictions.
He says he wants to restore constitutional government, and government
consistent with Christianity.  But what happens when the two conflict?

For example, the Bible clearly prohibits blasphemy and worship of false
gods, but the 1st Amendment allows both.  What is Bo's position?

Also, talking about Christian values doesn't tell me much.  I can go
to Central American priests, the Pope, Cardinals in the U.S., and
Billy Graham, and get very different views of Christian values and their
implications for government policy.  Whose version of Christian values
does Bo subscribe to?

     Bob Alexander                                     boba@pictel.com
     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     Organizations don't have opinions; people do.  The above opinions
     do not reflect those of the directors, stockholders, managers, or
     other employees of PictureTel.
From: rnewman@bbn.com (Ron Newman)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Panel of Native Americans on Columbus
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:10:36 GMT
Organization: Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: spcsun25.bbn.com

In article <Bw6v0q.DJ7@unix.amherst.edu>, aspandia@unix.amherst.edu (ANAND SANKAR PANDIAN) writes:
|> 
|> SPEAC and SCONAS invite you to a panel discussion on Tuesday, October 20,

sounds potentially interesting, but what are SPEAC and SCONAS ?

-- 
Ron Newman		rnewman@bbn.com
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: mondol@tiberius.mit.edu (Mark Mondol)
Subject: Presidential Stock Exchange?
Keywords: election presidential stock money
Reply-To: mondol@mtl.mit.edu
Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology
Distribution: ne
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 15:00:32 GMT


Friday morning I heard a news piece on NPR about some sort of presidential  
stock exchange.  It was being run on internet out of a university in Iowa.  
The report sounded serious and said that you could open an "account" with  
a $5 minimum and $500 maximum.  The idea was that you could buy and sell  
shares in canidates.  Apparantly the guys running it thought that it would   
reflect the real difference in the canidates popularity- better than the  
pollsters do.

I am very keen on buying some shares but know nothing of the email address  
of this thing - anyone out there with information?

Regards,

Mark K. Mondol
mondol@mtl.mit.edu

My apologies if this has come up before , it looked liked the obvious  
newsgroup and recent traffic did not seem mention it.
Xref: sparky ne.politics:2429 ne.general:2812
From: clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones)
Newsgroups: ne.politics,ne.general
Subject: Re: Massachusetts residents: Tuesday is the last date to register to vote.
Date: 7 Oct 92 07:20:23 EDT
Reply-To: clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones)
Followup-To: ne.politics
Distribution: ne
Organization: Kendall Square Research Corp
In-reply-to: bill@unixland.natick.ma.us (Bill Heiser)

In article <1992Oct7.032140.11682@unixland.natick.ma.us>, bill@unixland (Bill Heiser) writes:
>spike@world.std.com (Joe Ilacqua) writes:
>
>>	If you are going to vote in Massachusetts in November and you
>>have not yet registered, Tuesday 10/6 is the last day to do so.
>
>Kind of late to ask now, but I'll ask anyway.  What is the story
>if you're registered in one party but want to vote the other?  Can
>you switch on election day?

Party affiliation only matters for primaries.  The upcoming election is a
general election, not a primary, so everyone gets the same ballot.  Registered
is registered for this election--party affiliation (or lack thereof) doesn't
enter into the game.
--
Chris Jones    clj@ksr.com
From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Wild speculation on Perot. Watch the DEBATE tonight
Date: 14 Oct 92 09:02:35 GMT
Organization: The World


Not so wild speculations on why Perot re-entered:

1. He's deluded and thinks he can win (or did 60 seconds before he
re-entered), and his pride won't let him pull out now that the polls
haven't materialized in his favor.

2. He liked the attention, but realized he could never win, dropped
out for a while, but decided what the hell, for a few million spent on
the last few weeks he might just make the history books. A serious run
would have cost much more.

3. He hates Bush (this is well-known), and figures he can help throw
the election to Clinton (not that it seems to be needed) by drawing
away some of the types of folks who normally would vote for Bush. Who
says you can't rig the Presidential elections for a few megabucks?

Some pollsters (e.g. read the recent Atlantic letters section) believe
that the opposite is likely to occur, although Clinton is still likely
to win, a lot of Perot supporters jumped to Clinton once Perot pulled
out, probably the reasoning being that once they'd made up their mind
that the status quo was no good then that was the only place to go. So
by coming back in Perot draws back a lot of his supporters from
Clinton.

I don't know who I believe. I do know that there's a difference
between what might be true and what Perot might believe (or believed,
or hopes) is true.

4. The guy actually thinks he has a point to make, which he sort of
does (whether we agree is irrelevant), he's a billionaire without a
lot to do of any significance these days, so here he gets to meddle in
national politics for a fairly insignificant amount of his value, and
without having to pay his (political) dues to work through the
political system, make contacts etc.

Perot has "paid dues" to some extent in other areas, but compare and
contrast to, say, what someone like Mitch Kapor does, working at a
fairly discrete level, making his point in public and focused forums,
spending some years doing his homework and understanding the process,
"getting invited to the party" as it were, etc. Perot has a different
solution, when he wants to get invited to a party he just gets out his
wallet and throws a party.

Win or lose Perot gets to make his point in a respectable forum to all
of the USA, even the world.

I tend towards 4. I think Perot believes he is a patriot and is doing
something for his country by airing issues and being a splashy public
figure. His past activities (e.g. POW's) would tend to support this,
again, whether or not you or I agree with his point of view.


--
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
From: jboor@ra.cs.umb.edu (Joan Boorstein)
Newsgroups: ne.politics,ne.general
Subject: Re: Massachusetts residents: Tuesday is the last date to register to vote.
Date: 7 Oct 92 09:27:52 GMT
Distribution: ne
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Boston, Dept of Math and CS

In article <1992Oct7.032140.11682@unixland.natick.ma.us> bill@unixland.natick.ma.us (Bill Heiser) writes:
>
>Kind of late to ask now, but I'll ask anyway.  What is the story
>if you're registered in one party but want to vote the other?  Can
>you switch on election day?

In a general election -- such as the upcoming one in November -- one's
party affiliation (if any) does not matter -- the ballot is the same.

It is only in a primary election that one's party affiliation determines which
ballot one gets.  One can change on primary day.  However, I was surprised
to find at the last primary that if one was registered as a Democrat
or Republican, you had to go to City Hall (this was in Newton) to change
your affiliation, whereas if you were listed as unenrolled (the new designation
for independent), you could change at the polling place (and change back 
again after voting if you so desired).  

Joan Boorstein (jboor@cs.umb.edu)
From: richb@kronos.com (Rich Braun)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: New England email connection for Clinton?
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:25:05 GMT
Organization: Kronos Inc. / Waltham, MA
Disclaimer: This posting is a personal opinion and not that of Kronos Inc.

[Hopefully this is a new thread--our newsfeed dumped about four days
of postings on the floor over the Columbus Day weekend...]

One of my coworkers reports that the Clinton/Gore campaign has set up
an email address 'clinton_wins@mail.clinton-gore.org'; sure enough,
the domain is registered at the Internet NIC.  But it's not online;
mail goes through globus-pallidus.mit.edu.

With all the rhetoric I've heard about Internet from Al Gore in the last
couple of months (using the buzzword 'information superhighway' instead
of Internet), I'm curious as to just how much use the campaign itself
is actually making of this technology.  To hear Gore speak is somewhat
inspirational; a generation of Americans has been beating up on the nerds
who might perhaps have a better way of running things, and it's my
fervent hope that Gore will succeed in boosting the image of the
R&D industry.  It's not people like me he needs to reach; it's the
rest of America which seems to have adopted an anti-technology, pro-Bart
Simpson stance toward the way we do business.

But sometimes the cynic in me says that Gore has never actually sat down
and sent out a piece of email, let alone posted to USENET or the
equivalent.  Nor have the campaign folks.  Am I (hopefully) wrong?

-rich
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: The truth about Gritz
Date: 11 Oct 92 21:29:32 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <8OCT199208565063@utrcv1> wjm@utrcv1 (Bill) writes:
>To everyone who called Gritz a white supremist, neo-nazi, etc...
>
>It just goes to show how misinformed you are, and/or how much faith you put 
>into the media's slanted coverage of a 'non-favored' individual.

None. 

>Bo is on the ballot for the Populist Party in Illinois.  Big Deal!
>To say that the Populist Party is a front for the KKK in every state, and 
>that the Populist Party in every state believes in the same thing, is like 
>saying that every Democrat or Republican has the same exact views as every
>other Democrat or Republican.  Nonsense!

No that's not the same. 

>And what does a military background have to do with being president?  I 
>guess leadership means nothing.  Step aside President Eisenhower.

Being a favorite soldier of General "Hamburger Hill" Westmorland is
a pretty poor recommendation.

>P.S. Go ahead and make fun of my signature!  It's simply from a gospel song 
>talking about spiritual matters.  I'm not ashamed of my religious heritage.
>(Oh, excuse me.  I forgot that religion had nothing to do with the founding 
>of our country or consititution.)

Sure it did. Many of the people who came here fled from countries where
religious nutcases were able show their devotion to their religion by
torturing and murdering hundreds of thousands of innocents.  
Jefferson, Adams, Paine, and Washington were all deists and rationalists,
and they would have found your "gospel" song be an example of the medeival
superstition and sickness of  Europe's horrifying history. 

>+ God's got an army, not afraid to fight.                   +
>+ Soldiers of the cross, and children of the light.         +
>+ Warriors of righteousness, with healing in their hands.   +
>+ God's got an army, marchin through the land.     -Carman  +

Thansks, but no thanks. Why don't you move to Northern Ireland or 
Iran or somewhere that already enjoys the benefits of one or two of
God's armies? 

-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: gjc@mitech.com (George J. Carrette)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Wild speculation on Perot. Watch the DEBATE tonight
Date: 15 Oct 92 09:38:09 GMT
Organization: Mitech Corporation, Concord MA

In article <2801913816@dwetzel.mis.stratus.com>, usenet@transfer.stratus.com (Mr. Network News) writes:
> In article <3123@mitech.com> gjc@mitech.com (George J. Carrette) writes:
> 
> [insanely rediculous text deleted]
> 
> You don't happen to write for the National Inquirer do you?  "Wild" 
> speculation doesn't even come close... paranoid delusion may be closer.
> 

If I call it "wild speculation" that is pretty accurate.

When you call it "paranoid" you are way off base. 

=> Tell us exactly what I said that was paranoid.



-gjc
From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Wild speculation on Perot. Watch the DEBATE tonight
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:55:28 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <3123@mitech.com>, gjc@mitech.com (George J. Carrette) writes:
> [...]
> My wild speculation [...]

I speculate that, unlike Clinton, you *HAVE* been inhaling...

-- 
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
From: tdh@ksr.com (Dave Hudson)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Online election results Nov. 3
Date: 9 Oct 92 12:37:42 EDT
Organization: Kendall Square Research, Waltham MA

>     Every 20-30 minutes, we'll upload the latest numbers from 
>Presidential and Massachusetts congressional races, statewide ballot 
>questions and MetroWest legislative races. 

I hope that you are going to upload these from AP (available via
Prodigy) rather than NES.  NES has been notoriously corrupt in the
past, and while it seems they're not planning on lying about the
election results again they are planning on providing only partial
results.  AP will not necessarily be able to cover all polling places,
but at least what they are going to provide is supposed to be
complete.

				David Hudson
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: fitz@wang.com (Tom Fitzgerald)
Subject: Re: Wild speculation on Perot. Watch the DEBATE tonight
Organization: Wang Labs, Lowell MA, USA
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 23:15:17 GMT

bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:

> Not so wild speculations on why Perot re-entered:
[...]
> 3. He hates Bush (this is well-known), and figures he can help throw
> the election to Clinton (not that it seems to be needed) by drawing
> away some of the types of folks who normally would vote for Bush. Who
> says you can't rig the Presidential elections for a few megabucks?

This is probably the likeliest of the lot.  If this is true, then there's a
good chance that, down toward E-day, Perot will do something to push
undecided voters toward Clinton.  It's unlikely he'd drop out of the race
again, since this would probably irritate his volunteers to the point where
they wouldn't listen to anything he said - but he might express his
admiration of Clinton's policies or attitudes, or mention that if he had
stayed out of the race he'd probably vote for Clinton, or something along
those lines.

There really are a lot of voters who will _not_ vote for Perot but are
undecided between Bush and Clinton, and I suspect Perot would rather see
Clinton get them.

-- 
Tom Fitzgerald   Wang Labs       fitz@wang.com   "I went to the universe today;
1-508-967-5278   Lowell MA, USA                   It was closed...."
From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Wild speculation on Perot. Watch the DEBATE tonight
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:52:59 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <bw6r9j.de8@wang.com>, fitz@wang.com (Tom Fitzgerald) writes:
> There really are a lot of voters who will _not_ vote for Perot but are
> undecided between Bush and Clinton, and I suspect Perot would rather see
> Clinton get them.

One of Perot's top aides made the statement (on the record),  that
"Clinton with a democratic congress would be a disaster for the nation".

It doesn't appear that Perot hates Bush enough to just want to hand the
election to Clinton. Or he would have fired that aide.
-- 
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
Xref: sparky ne.politics:2431 ne.general:2823
From: tdh@ksr.com (Dave Hudson)
Newsgroups: ne.politics,ne.general
Subject: Re: Massachusetts residents: Tuesday is the last date to register to vote.  [too late now]
Date: 8 Oct 92 12:52:41 EDT
Organization: Kendall Square Research, Waltham MA

>In PRIMARY elections, you may only vote in the primary of the party you are
>registered for.  An unenrolled voter (commonly known as "independent", but
>that term is now carefully avoided in Massachusetts to prevent confusion with
>persons enrolled to vote in Independent Voter's Party primaries) may choose
>on PRIMARY election day which party to enroll in, vote in that election, and
>then change his party affiliation (back to unenrolled, for example), all in
>10 minutes at the voting place.

This is not quite correct.  Any voter may change their registration
when leaving the polls after voting in a party primary, if the city or
town has supplied the correct forms.  (Oral advice from the MA Sec'y
of State's office's Elections Division says that any written
communication, rather than that town's own form, suffices.  But the
last time I looked at this provision of the election laws it seemed
that this was not so, and no uniform statewide form had been laid out.
Your mileage may vary.)  In fact, you don't even have to have an
election official present to change your enrolment; this can be done
anytime by mail.  Voters enrolled in a political designation and
voters enrolled too late in a political party may not vote in any
primary.  Voters enrolled early enough in a political party may vote
only in their own party's primary, but under certain conditions small
political parties might not have a primary.  Unenrolled voters may
take a ballot for any political party's primary; this implicitly
enrols them in that party.  The law has not, as far as I know, yet
been changed so that this primary-day enrolment would be transitory.

There is only one type of ballot for all voters for a particular
precinct at a general election.  It is the town's option to have forms
available for changing voter registration at a general election.

				David Hudson
From: ed@kronos.com (Ed Baker)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Presidential Stock Exchange?
Keywords: election presidential stock money
Date: 14 Oct 92 19:03:25 GMT
Distribution: ne
Organization: Kronos Inc. / Waltham, MA
Disclaimer: This posting is a personal opinion and not that of Kronos Inc.

Telnet in to 128.255.44.2 and follow the instructions.  No port number
is needed.
Newsgroups: ne.politics