HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell ("Droopy"))
Subject: Debate musings
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 04:02:05 GMT

My answer to the perpetually asked question concerning 
Thursday's debate is that I think it was basically a draw
between Bush and Clinton. I saw slight edges to Clinton like
that he was better at answering the question than Bush and
Clinton tried to stay more positive (IMO) than Bush *although
Bush to his credit was pretty non-negative himself). I felt
comfortable listening to Clinton; I felt like he was talking
to me. I have no pretensions to say that my support of Clinton
didn't cloud the views of how he made me feel but I think
that the edge was slight at best. In general, I think that the
two fought to a draw because there were no real zingers or home
runs or major lies/distortions (no more than expected). I thought
Perot wsa a non-factor after winning the 1st debate. Too many
times, I heard him say, "This, like many other ideas, has tons
of proposals floating around in Washington but never got adopted..."
BUT HE NEVER SPECIFICALLY GAVE ONE EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING HE SUPPORTED.
He did this on gun control and on health care and, I believe, on
education. I couldn't stand it. Is it lying around the floor
on Washington? Perhaps. But why did he never give an example of
one he supported or would support or would propose!!!!!!!!!!!
============================================================================
BRI FARENELL			    "If you choose not to decide, you still have
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU        made a choice."  --RUSH ("Free Will)
CLARKSON '95			 	   
A politically incorrect, pro-life, liberal, card-carrying member of the ACLU.
===========================================================================
CLINTON/GORE FOR PRESIDENT		DAVE ROBERTS FOR CONGRESS (NY-24TH)
From: gt4925b@prism.gatech.EDU (Jason Woodward)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: ==> Albert Gore Biographic Info
Date: 16 Oct 92 23:59:01 GMT
Organization: Politically Incorrect and Proud of It

In <VEAL.399.719252278@utkvm1.utk.edu> VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:

>In article <92290.004244U56503@uicvm.uic.edu> <U56503@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:

 >>                           SENATOR AL GORE

 >     Tennesee's own resident (not really, but he's got a house here and even
 >visit occasionally.  Like for photo-ops) slime ball.

Gore was born in 1948.  Since his father was a long-time US Senator,
he grew up in DC.  He then went to Harvard, then the Army for 2
years.  This gets us up to about 1972.  He was elected to the US
House in 1976.

Therefore, about 4 of Gore's 44 years have been spent in Tennessee - 
9 percent.

For Gore to claim to be a Southerner is an outrage.
>>
>>      In his l6 years representing the people of Tennessee, 

>     Represent... Right...

-- 
Jason Woodward | EE Graduate Student | Georgia Tech | Go Braves!
"many signs point to the possibility that the Earth may be heading
 for another ice age", NY Times, 8-14-75; "we must prepare for the
 next ice age", Science Digest, 2-73 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50911 alt.rush-limbaugh:7101 alt.politics.bush:8637 alt.politics.clinton:9718 alt.politics.elections:16109 talk.abortion:41970 alt.sex:32663
From: russest@ampex.com (Steve Russell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
Subject: Re: That Legal right over Gambit...
Date: 11 Oct 92 19:18:26 GMT
Organization: Ampex Corporation, Redwood City CA

> Any man that joins the military knows he may be called to battle and may die.
> for that reason he has served his country regardless of where he was stationed
>
> Quayle served his country,  Clinton abandoned it.
>  

I wouldn't consider slogging through the rice paddys of beautiful southeast
aisa as serving my country. certainly not defending it...

-steve
a ex-deep-water sailor
"we rode to work"
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49992 alt.politics.clinton:8852
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Raving a bit, aren't we?
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 7 Oct 92 02:16:54 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Oct6.210642.28699@u.washington.edu>, sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
> In article <1992Oct5.221656.4554@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>In <1992Oct5.191244.19614@ra.msstate.edu> cea1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Carolyn E. Adams-Price)
>>>And....to all of you who think the problem with the US is
>>>business regulation, I say, I hope you drown in the pollution
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>>or are hurt by an end to safety standards that an end to business
>>>regulation would cause!!!!!
>>>
>>>Carolyn Adams-Price
>>
>>	Libertarians don't want pollution, or lax safety, or anything else like
>>that.  It's a common fallacy among statists to believe than anyone who wants
>>less government likes pollution, etc.
> 
> And, it's a common falacy among (some) libertarians to refer
> to holders of contrary opinions as statists, specifically
> whim-worshipping statists.  The only group who would be justified
> in attaching the opprobrium "statist" to their opponents
> would be anarchists; nearly all members of the Libertarian Party
> are quick to distinguish themselves from anarchists.

	People who advocate more state intervention are indeed statists.

	Next?

> 
>>	However, the Libertarians believe that the individual, and the market,
>>are strong enough to keep these things under control.
>>
>>	As long as government isn't interfering and allowing companies to
>>pollute and have unsafe work conditions.
> 
> I'm not sure that I read this correctly:  are you saying that the
> government should allow companies to pollute and have unsafe
> working conditions, or not.  If not, then the LP have come
> quite a distance since I left it.

	Not should, they *do*, under the guise of regulation and "let the
government take care of it".

	Libs would let the market, and individuals, punish polluters. 
Litigation and informed consumers shut down many polluters/unsafe operations.

>>
>>	Which government agency was supposed to inspect that Carolina chicken
>>factory?
> 
> I heard that is was an agency which had a staff of two people
> who were responsible for inspections of thousands of businesses
> in North Carolina.  No red tape here!

	You just don't get it, do you?  The assertion is that government is
taking care of it.  Oops?  People burn?  Why, obviously *more* government is
needed!

	Government *isn't* doing the job.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51472 talk.abortion:42363 alt.activism.d:3842 alt.flame:13539
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.activism.d,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Serving Life (was Re: Choice for life)
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:36:18 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <1992Oct13.023318.15323@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.195053.13962@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>
>>You're WAY off--I'm 22--one must be 35 to be President, so I'd be eligible
>>to run in the November 2008 election.
>>Now lets watch all of you panic at that prospect.......
>>Simon
>
>Somebody has to replace Lyndon La Rouche and Gus Hall as the wacko candidates.
>Why should you be exempt...
>
La Rouche and Hall are avowed racists, while I am light years from being
a racist.  It's common to call those who disagree with you a racist.

Simon
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Can she just Virtually Gestate?
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 13:12:31 GMT

arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith) writes:
] 
] Before I do, I wanna tuck in this DISCLAIMER:  This is how the argument works.
] I'm not saying whether I believe in it or not.  drieux, lay off with the
] hurricanes.

So what do you have against veneral British Fighter Aircraft?

] By having sex, a woman has "signed" a virtual "consent form" that reads
] more or less "God forbid we actually concieve, I will carry this child to
] term, 'less my life is in danger" So on so forth.
] 
] When she is raped, she did not consent to carry the child to term, and so can
] do with it what she wants.

1. if it is a virtual contract, then why is it not
still a virtual contract when she is raped? If you 
actually fight with women you will learn that they
CAN HURT YOU.

Or are you saying that Virtual Contracts are null
and void if one party to it did not have Full Virtual consent.

2. This Virtual Contract Notion is Pleasant, 
but Avoids the whole of the Argument:

	2.1: If there is EXPRESSED and ACTUALIZED intentionality
		that no such gestational event should occur, as
		is indicated by the use of a contraceptive.

		{this is my one exception to the notion:
		HOPE IS NOT A CONTRACEPTIVE! }

	2.2: The argument that the UnBorn are Actually Born
		Prior to their Birth. { or how sum ever it is
		that AntiAbortionistRhetoriticians wish to put
		that sentance together. And Folks think my posts
		are systemically unique... } Which means that it
		is OK to MURDER an UnBornPerson if there was Rape.

3. Can NOT this Virtual Contract be Fulfilled by a Virtual Gestation
and a Virtual birth Followed by Virtual Children, and Then Virtual
Marriages, after the Virtual Kids have Virtual Abortions because
of the VirtualVirtual failure of their virtual contraceptives....
{oh that way does get twisted...} But we allow the woman to have
an actual abortion anyway... But VR gives her a mean to Virtually
Fulfill the Virtual contract.


ciao
drieux


ps: is this actually me ?

Or is it just a posting?



-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Don't Just Rock the Vote
Kick OUT THE JAMS!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51454 ca.politics:8650 ba.politics:6074
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Term Limits are Constitutional, Study Shows
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 07:21:59 GMT

>were the "Framers" really omnipotent? :)

I don't know, but some of them could travel through time.  See last weeks
Saturday Night Live for an example. :-)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton
From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:01:23 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.141705.3145@meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.184207.27208@unet.net.com>, stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) writes:
>|> Well then I guess that you'll be having no problem at all when Clinton,
>|> promising choice, gets elected by a huge margin. Proving that the majority
>|> of Americans are pro-choice. It will be the will of the people you know.

>Since when did the President have the authority to make the laws of this
>country?  I guess that if an activistic Supreme Court can confer such authority
>on itself, an activist President might as well exhibit equal disregard for the
>Constitution and do the same.  Note that Roe v. Wade did not legalize abortion;
>it merely struck down laws made by duly elected representatives of the states.
>If Clinton wants choice, let's see him offer equivalent funding to Crisis
>Pregnancy Centers.

Never said that Clinton as Pres. would have the power to single handedly be
able to make laws giving women a choice--Just that he has promised to fight
for these type of laws. Which a huge % of Americans favor. Even the most
staunch pro-lifers will tell you they are in the minority on this issue. I
don't know how the heck you could get that from the above paragraph. Reading
between non-existence lines maybe? Now for a little clue for you:The pro-choice
position has always been to give support to organizations such as Crisis 
Pregnancy Center. The pro-choice position is that an aboration should only be
used as a last resort and that the government has no right dictating to women
what they *must* do. You're getting being pro-choice confused with a small 
fantical group which are pro-aboration.  Just as many confuse being "pro-life" 
as meaning being pro life when in fact it has been demonstrated over and over 
that it really means being anti-aboration.

Stan Knight
|Perfection would be free legal aborations which no one would ever want|
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:52512 alt.politics.elections:17358 alt.politics.bush:9526 alt.politics.clinton:11039 alt.politics.perot:2303
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another biblical brilliance from Teddy
Date: 7 Oct 92 12:05:11 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Oct7.041819.16526@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

>> No.  The fact that Lot offerred his daughters is only reported, not
>> condoned.  (And this also applies to the later episode when his
>> daughters caused him to get drunk and then had sex with him.)

> That, and a lot of other Biblical mischief, is not criticized
> _anywhere_.

Well, actually, yes it is.  Take a look at the books of Leviticus and
Deuteronomy, for example.  (Hint: Lot lived before these books were
written.)

> How is one to tell what is presented as exemplary conduct and
> what is just reported?

By knowing the word of God.

> Well, my favorite part of the Bible is Psalm 137.

Yes, what of it?  What special insight do you have of it?
-- 
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,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.misc
From: yount@crchh473.BNR.CA (Jeff Yount)
Subject: Re: Why does Clinton want to tax people living in poverty?
Reply-To: yount@crchh473.BNR.CA (Jeff Yount)
Organization: BNR
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 20:58:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.023322.18260@nuscc.nus.sg>,
ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
|>Why is the Clinton administration so insistant upon taxing working
|>Americans living below the poverty line? Is it to punish them for not
|>being on welfare?
|>
|>Why hasn't Clinton proposed tax relief for the poor? Serious tax
|>relief, not this $300 per child gimmicky crap.
|>
|>Why are the Libertarians the only ones advocating removing the poor
|>from the tax rolls?
|>

Maybe you should actually read Bill Clinton's plan before you
start making comments about it. From his plan for America's future:

"For the working poor, we will make work pay by reforming and
expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, so that it ensures that
anyone who works full-time, year-round, will earn enough to support
his or her family above the poverty line."

In other words, he proposes to make sure that taxes will not be the 
reason that a person's income falls below the poverty line. Sounds
like a pretty good idea to me. To suggest that Libertarians give
a damn about poor people is as much fantasy as their platform. I
believe that one of their ideas is to make sure an education is
available to all that can afford a private school. I bet that's a
big boost for the poor. Exactly who do you think is going to put
a private school in Watts, or in poor states. That's what we need, fewer
educated people.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: The Cat's Meow: or how I learned to stop voting and love the party
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 7 Oct 92 13:53:37 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

		New Voter is a Demo-Cat

	A woman on a bet with a friend registered her cat to vote in Cuyahoga
County, where the elections board is being investigated for allegations of
computer riggin and nepotism....She used Morris' birthday of May 30, 1974 and
list his occupation as "part-time exterminator".  The elections board mailed
back a notice that Morris was registered to vote in the Nov. 3 election.
--end story

	For those unfamiliar with Ohio/Cleveland, this region rivals the old
Chicago-machine for political machinations.  Let's just say you can't get
elected unless you are a Democrat, and can't stay elected without paying of
certain people....

	Just one more story from "the land of the free".

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Dornan a Conservative? (was moscow)
Date: 7 Oct 92 21:13:25 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Michael Friedman) writes:
|> Michael Polen) writes:
|> 
|> 
|> >We are certainly getting a lot of milage out of an admittedly
|> >speculative comment made by Robert Dornan, a congressman
|> >that is to the right of Falwell.  
|> 
|> Mind explaining what makes you think Dornan is right of Falwell?
|> After all, Falwell is pretty much a single issue kook and his exact
|> position on the left-right line is kind of hard to pin down.

I'll buy that.  He is actually at, or to the left of, Buchanon and
matches Falwell on religious issues.  He is Rush L. with political
office. 

As to why do I think this?  More than a year watching his
show, his voting record, his campaign speeches, his appearances on
night-line and other shows supporting homophobic, fundamentalist
agendas, this crap about Clinton's visiting Moscow indicating
KGB ties, etc.
|> 
|> >This is the same Robert Dornan who started as a right wing
|> >TV talk show commentator (sounds like a trend)
|> 
|> What's wrong with that?
|> 
Nothing except that his success required taking extreme positions
and defending them, not exactly congressional skills.

|> >and whose wife
|> >once asked (when co-hosting) if homosexuality was hereditary.
|> 
|> And, what's wrong with that?

The validity of her question (asked in 1968) is under discussion
in this group, but you had to have been there to see the reaction
of her husband.

The current discussion is based around whether or not a homosexual
gene could be passed down.  If homosexuality is hereditary, then
it is not an abomination any more than red hair, average heighth,
or good teeth.  Hardly acceptable to the homophobic, religious
right of which Dornan is a member.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51399 alt.politics.elections:16480
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Perot Wins First Debate
Date: 13 Oct 92 15:53:29 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <Bw17yo.9Ht@rice.edu> byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd) writes:

>When people start believing (again) that Perot can win,
>watch his numbers take a huge leap in the polls.
>Don't vote for who you think can win.  Vote for the
>best person for the job.


Funny, that's the same argument I have been using for months.
I to intend to vote for the best candidate.

Marrou.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Statistical Aberration -- Parties Represent Less Than 20% ...
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:47:00 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Oct7.065620.29005@u.washington.edu>, tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes...
>B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (STEPHEN TICE) writes:
>>For the presidential election less than 50% of eligible voters
>>participate. Split [this number] in half and assume some people voted
>>because there were no good choices, and the Democrat [or] GOP
>>party represent less than 20% of the people at best.

{ I changed "these" to "this number" and "and" to "or" --   }
{ on rereading it wasn't clear. Hopefully better now --Sdt. }

>>It's even less if we look at local and congressional elections.
>>More like 5% or less.  And now that other choices are coming 
>>into play even less.
>>
>>It's a joke to chastise libertarians for only representing a 
>>small percent of the populace. 
> 
>Except can't you use the same argument to diminish the fraction of the
>population represented by the libertarians, too, thus reducing them to
>something insignificant?

Worth consideration.

>Also, if everyone eligible *did* participate, isn't the safest assumption
>that they would split among the parties in the same proportion as those
>who now participate split among the parties?

Well let's find out by putting it to the test.

If the libertarians and other critics of the system are no threat, 
then why are they blacked out by the media?

Doesn't this go directly to the fundamental question that 
"minority viewpoints" deserve to be heard -- mainly since 
they bring critical reflection to the larger system?

>--Tim Smith

-- Stephen Tice
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: amck@mcc.com (Alan McKendree)
Subject: Re: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
Organization: MCC, Austin, TX
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 20:31:25 GMT

In article <books.31.0@fsunuc.physics.fsu.edu> books@fsunuc.physics.fsu.edu (Roger Books) writes:

>>And if your neighbor has something you want you are in a low-power
>>situation for the purposes of demanding that your neighbor give
>>that something to you.  As a citizen you are on a more 'equal'
>>footing.  Why not try to get it legislated?  
>
>It is, it's called eminant domain(sp).  It's something that's supposed
>to help the majority.  The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
>
>>James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
>>University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
>>Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
>
>Roger
>books@fsunuc.physics.fsu.edu

Strong disagreement here.

"Sorry, citizen, the Great State of Texas needs your land for a
highway (never mind that your house happens to be on it."

"Apologies, but the People of the United States (as represented by the
Congress) have determined that more people need another 10% of your
paycheck than do you, so hand it over.  Have a nice day."

"Mister, the people need the next two years of your life more than you
do.  It's your civic duty to report to the Public Works Camp."

"A majority of The People have decided you are a menace to their way
of life.  You are to be hung by the neck until dead tomorrow at
sunrise."

"Property rights!!???    Ha ha ha haha...You believed that little joke??"

Life, liberty, and property.  People need all three to conduct their
lives; if "the majority" can vote these away we move away from
civilization and toward gang warfare.

Alan

READ
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50809 alt.conspiracy:11148 alt.politics.elections:16049