HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rcmolden@parmesan.cs.wisc.edu (Robertc. Moldenhauer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ne.politics
Subject: Re: WANTED : ST: TNG tapes
Date: 28 Jul 92 19:02:01 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept.

In article <1992Jul27.170107.16297@kronos.com> richb@kronos.com (Rich Braun) writes:
>neilp@cs.hw.ac.uk (Neil Postlethwaite) writes:
                ^^
                ||
>>Try your local Tower Records. I'm sure they would be delighted to ** SELL **
>>you them, as opposed to publically requesting a bootleg source.
>
>In defense of the original poster, I want to point out that the Supreme
>Court has ruled that tapes made from broadcast television for personal use
>are legal and not considered "bootleg".
>

Much as the US would like to think it owns the world, rulings by the US 
Supremes don't hold much water in the UK!

>-rich
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:36620 ca.politics:6149
From: twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: There was this sign in the window...
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 01:48:59 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.143356.4185@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>In article <11421@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul23.145049.1784@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US>, rob@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US (Rob Bernardo) writes:
>
>># A publicly displayed sign stating one's sexual orientation is not just
>># an act of saying "no." In context, it's obnoxious and insensitive.
>>
>>I see.  Sort of like a public display of affection by a same-sex
>>couple.  I guess those laws are OK after all, aren't they?
>
>Rob, does your point also apply to .sigs which make it clear that the
>poster is gay?  Why or why not?

You know, if either of you two bottom-feeders had any understanding of
the word "context" or, failing that, a dictionary, you might actually
be able to make a point.

Besides the ones on top of your heads, that is.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "You mean there are TWO of you, Pierce?
\  / twpierce@amherst.edu      /  God help us all."
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /   -- Major Charles Emerson Winchester III
From: sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: What is Bush's veto record?
Date: 21 Jul 1992 15:52:48 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <1992Jul20.215036.5932@sequent.com>, bills@sequent.com (Bill Sears) writes:
|> I have heard that Bush has vetoed more bills than any other president in
|> U.S. history.  In addition none of these vetoes have ever been overridden
|> by congress.  I am also of the impression (correct or not) that Bush has
|> one of the worse civil rights record in history.

i) FDR vetoed 635 bills. Bush is about 605 short. Some of the vetoes were 
different versions of the same thing (Civil Rights Act, Unemployment 
Compensation Extension etc.)

ii) Bush's record on Civil Rights is mixed. He voted against the '64 Civil
Rights Act while in the House, calling it an "intrusion" into State's Rights. 
However, he subsequently supported a Fair Housing Act (I'm not sure about the 
exact name) despite the fact that a good number of his constituents were against
it. He has also been a regular contributor (benefactor?) of the United Negro 
College Fund since his Undergrad days at Yale (source: TIME magazine sometime 
last year). TIME also mentioned that he had a record of speaking at many 
historically black-majority colleges. 

|>   bills
|> --------
|> Bill Sears            Sequent Computer Systems            bills@sequent.com

-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these opinions, he deserves them.
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco)
Subject: Re: What kind of recession we're in
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 16:50:01 GMT

mcnally@wsl.dec.com (Mike McNally) writes:

>fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:
>>On the other hand, certain policies prolong a recession - or depression.
>>Roosevelt's policies actually worsened the depression, to the point where
>>it was so bad that only World War II could get us out of it. With Clinton's
>>messianic "New Covenant," we may slip into the same sort of depression
>>that Roosevelt presided over.

>This sounds a little revisionist to me.  Evverything I've ever seen about
>the 30's shows that the economy had picked up substantially by the latter
>half of the decade.  There was even a budget surplus in 1937, and a 
>small recession following that year.  It's definitely true that the war
>completely turned things around, though.

OK, I don't claim to be completely objective, but I'm pretty sure on the
facts on this one. The economic cycle of the 1930's went pretty much as
follows: A slow, gradual spiral into depression after the stock market
crash - people kept expecting recovery to be just around the corner - until
it bottomed out in 1933-34, with unemployment 30% or more, price deflation,
etc. Then came Roosevelt's "New Deal" which provided jobs and money to
help people get by. The economic situation, though, was flat until the
mid thirties, when a slow economic expansion began - it continued until
1937, and people thought we'd weathered the storm. Then there was a complete
relapse into depression again, not just recession. This lasted until 1939,
when "lend-lease" began and Roosevelt could get the economy going again by
fueling England's fight against Germany. At no time during the 1930's, not
even 1937, were conditions better than the worst of the recession we've
just experienced. While Roosevelt's policies ameliorated the people's
problems from day to day, the policies themselves were responsible for
inhibiting the private sector from rebounding, thus delaying any real
recovery until the war. 

As for the budget problems, Roosevelt and the Congress ran up huge deficits
during the 30's - many years, budget outlays ran 100% more than revenues,
a far larger deficit, in percent, than any we've experienced. I don't recall
offhand, but maybe the 1937 budget was balanced. That doesn't indicate a
healthy economy by itself, however.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:36608 ca.politics:6145 ba.politics:3881
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Levi Strauss & The Boy Scouts
Date: 30 Jul 1992 15:42:23 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

In article <11481@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
|> In article <70532@apple.Apple.COM>, richard@Apple.COM (a flying squirrel) writes:
|> # I heard on the radio this morning that Bank of America and Wells Fargo
|> # are thinking about retracting their ban on funding BSA.  This was due,
|> # it was reported, to the hundreds of negative phone calls they have
|> # received.
|> # 
|> # Why are there not more calls from gay people to support them?
|> #  - I did, as well as Levi Strauss.
|> # Why do the FunnyMentalists seem to be better organised at making themselves
|> # heard under these circumstances?
|> # -- 
|> # a flying squirrel is: richard@apple.com  Apple Computer Inc.
|> 
|> Because subscribers to the Judeo-Christian ethic are about 80%
|> of the population, and homosexuals are at MOST 3-6%?
|> -- 
OK I give up.  How do Judeo-Christian ethic and homosexuals end up in
the same sentence.  Are you saying that less than 20% of the population
considers themselves athiests or members of eastern religions?  Are you
saying that homosexuals are not subscribers to the Judeo-Christian ethic?

This may be harder to sell than the rest of your rantings (whoops I mean
postings).
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:34893 alt.politics.clinton:110
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Which of you is 'good enough' ?
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: 21 Jul 92 14:12:00 GMT
 <BrnKGy.173@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1992Jul20.160310.5280@philabs.philips.com> <1992Jul20.195741.27981@bnr.ca>
Distribution: usa
Organization: SPSS Inc.

snoopy@crchh426.BNR.CA (Antonio Tello) writes:

>Just out of curiosity...

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

>1) how old are you ?
29...

>2) could your history survive the media scrutiny required to be
>   elected president ?
That all depends...if I run as a Republican, no.  As a Democrat, yes.
Unfortunately, I'm a registered Republican...;-)

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:35386 alt.politics.clinton:350
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Question about Clinton's "didn't inhale" remark
Date: 22 Jul 92 23:16:00 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Columbia University

In article <archer.130@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.145318.424@cos.com> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>
>>2. If we ever get a President who hasn't 'fooled around' it
>>will be a frosty day in July - what does that have to do with
>>the ability to govern?
>
>His ability to abide my his marriage vows is seen by many as a reasonable 
>indicator of how likely he is to keep other oaths.  

Ahem.  JFK, Washington, Jefferson, ....

>
>>3. If Governor Clinton has done such a lousy job in Arkansas,
>>how come they re-elected him 4 or 5 times?
>
>Because the american people will vote for whoever sounds best, regardless of 
>performance levels.  Style of substance.  As long as he made pretty 
>promises, why not re-elect him?

I can understand someone winning an election once or twice based
purely on style (Reagan), but 5 times?  After the first time, people
usually press you to keep your promises (look at Bush).  Are you
saying he fooled all these people all these times?

And how do you explain why Clinton was voted Governor of the Year
by the other governors in the country, both Dem and Rep?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: johnf@uhheph.phys.hawaii.edu (John Flanagan)
Subject: Re: Which of you is 'good enough' ?
Organization: University of Hawaii, Dept. of Physics & Astronomy
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 18:36:14 GMT

In article <4023@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

>	Question: what are the top 5 issues that gay rights people (at
>least the leaders) feel are most important that can be changed through
>the political process?

Well, there isn't exactly a ruling gay policy committee to determine
such things :-), but the 5 legal changes _I_ would most like to see are:

1) An end to sodomy laws (unsurprisingly).

2) Laws prohibiting discrimination in employment on the basis of
   sexual orientation (with the usual exemptions for religious
   organizations and so forth).

3) Similarly for housing.

4) Legalization of same-sex marriages.

5) An end to the ban on gays and bisexuals serving in the military.

Obviously, I would also like to see lots of societal changes as well,
but most of those are not appropriately addressed through legal edict.
The legal changes I would like to see cover basic human and civil
rights.

--John
-- 
John Flanagan                          ||
johnf@uhheph.phys.hawaii.edu           ||"Don't worry, honey, 
U. of Hawaii, Dept. of Physics & Astro.|| our skirts are clean."
2505 Correa Rd., Honolulu, HI 96822    ||
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: olson@acf9.nyu.edu (David Olson)
Subject: Re: Clinton misqotes Bible
Organization: New York University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:45:29 GMT

dhammers@pacific.urbana.mcd.mot.com (David Hammerslag) writes:

>Does anyone know enough about Clinton's religious beliefs to speculate
>as to whether his misquote of I Cor. 2:9 was likely to be through ignorance
>or a deliberate distortion?

This whole issue is silly.  Clinton didn't quote it in Greek, and few of
us would have understood it if he had.  Why hold his "translation," or 
paraphrase, to any higher standard than the King James "translation"?
People love that version because of all of its poetical license.

To illustrate my point, here's the verse from the RSV, Oxford
Annotated edition (the standard for academics): I Cor. 2:6, 
	"Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not
	a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are
	doomed to pass away."
This is cataloged under a different verse number in this edition,
it has none of the vigor of the KJ version, but it is a more accurate
translation.  Or compare Paul's quote from the Hebrew scriptures that
follows shortly after:  because (I presume) Paul is quoting from a
translation of the Hebrew into Greek, the quote from Isaiah 64:4 is 
different from the original.  Or even more centrally, what shall we 
make of the young girl in Isaiah who was translated into a virgin and 
thence quoted by Matthew?

I know little about Clinton's personal beliefs and doubt that anyone
knows enough to answer your question.  I'd speculate that he thought 
he remembered it well enough because I thought it was similar to one 
version.  Treat it as an allusion designed to show the importance of the 
vision thing and invoking religious connotations for the obvious reasons.
Are those connotations appropriate to the man?  He goes to church more
than Reagan.  I can't see into his heart any better than you.


david
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rbuchanan@vitalink.com (Rick Buchanan)
Subject: Re: "American Ideals" (was: AMERICA IN DECLINE)
Reply-To: rbuchanan@vitalink.com (Rick Buchanan)
Organization: Vitalink Communications Corp.  (Standard disclaimer of course)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 15:38:33 GMT

In article <10896@platypus.uofs.uofs.edu>, bill@prijat.cs.uofs.edu (Bill 
Gunshannon) writes:

> No, what the above shows is that no matter what or how much resources 
> you have a government couched in corruption can still lead you to total 
> collapse.

More importantly, it shows that planned economies _cannot_ work. 

Also, could you present examples of governments that didn't eventually
get couched in corruption?  

These are powerful arguments for laissez faire economic policy.  Given
the tendency for expanding bureaucracy and corruption, and the proven 
inferiority of central planning (proven theoretically by F.A. Hayek and
proven in practice by every country that's tried it), we should NOT be 
giving the government control over economic decisions.  Period.

   ---   Rick

       ***  Muggers are just free-lance governments  ***
From: mikeq@aspen.CNA.TEK.COM (Mike Quigley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: More Dan Quayle Stuff...
Date: 22 Jul 92 19:07:41 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Redmond,  OR.

In article <605@ceylon.gte.com> chf0@gte.com writes:
>"Dan Quayle has the best political mind in the White House"
>		
>			- Mass. Governor Bill Weld

Heard on this morning's news that the Republican party is thinking
of replacing Quayle on the ticket, and that they are concerned about
Bush's poor health.

Mike
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.discrimination
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: I loved Bush ...
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 19:53:33 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <l6tmi2INNoqg@spim.mips.com> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
]If the purpose of vouchers is to let people get a better education, but
]the opportunity is not available because there are inadequate non-
]religious options, then the voucher system will be targeted support for
]religious education.  Sorry, but that is unconstitutional in the U.S.

Nonsense. Nonreligious people have just as many opportunities to found
schools as religious people do. If they make them non-profit, then they
can be untaxed the same way as religious institutions.

If the religious folks are concerned enough about their children's education
to build schools, why should they be punished because others didn't
do the same? I pay several thousand dollars to send my daughter to
a Catholic school (for the schooling, not for the religion). In addition
to that I am paying $4000 per year in property taxes to send other people's
kids to school. Not only do I not get a voucher, I:
  -have to pay for other kids to go to schools
  -the money I pay to send my kid to school is not even tax deductible -
   it is taxed money. Why the government should give me a tax deduction for
   my mortgage, but not for my daughter's education, is beyond me!

THIS is fair? As a responsible parent I am being doubly penalized.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Tell me what Bush has done
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 00:28:37 GMT

burke@tss.com (Jim Burke) writes:
>I would sincerely like for some Bush supporters to list three 
>major accomplishments of the Bush presidency.  

When Ike was asked to name something substantive that Vice President Nixon
had done during his 8-year tenure, Ike replied: Give me a week and I might 
think of something.

Candidate Nixon later explained during a TV debate that the President was 
merely displaying his well-known sense of humor.

---
Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com
From: judson@watnxt2.ucr.edu (Michael Judson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Perot conspiracy
Date: 29 Jul 92 01:10:46 GMT

Here's a totally off the wall conspiracy theory:  Perot was actually in
a conspiracy with Bush to help him win the election.
Yes, it is true that Bush and Perot hate each other, but is this actually
true?  And even if they do hate each other, that would be irrelevant if
you're trying to win an election.  Because, Bush did say that he would do
anything to win the election.
But here are the reasons why the conspiracy has some validity:
The two are from Texas.
Perot never announced his candidacy, even when experts said that he might
announce on his birthday.  And why was this so?  Because he never was going
to announce his candidacy.
He announced his "withdrawal" during the heigth of the Democratic 
Convention.
Since Perot was taking the "outsider" approach, this would take some votes
away from Clinton.
Perot had quite a bit of support from Texas and California, and so too did
Bush.  It would be quite apparent that either Bush or Perot would win
those key states.  And if Perot dropped out, then Bush would probably
get them.  And because Clinton would have virtually no chance with those
two states, he would have to focus his campaign elsewhere, like in the
South.  Obviously he did.  Since he is from the South, why would he need
to pick a Southern running mate?  This was done only to assure his
victory in the South, where he could potentially win 61% of the votes.  And
realize that he announced his withdrawal after the Democratic Party
selected Gore as the V.P., so that Clionton wouldn't be able to change
his strategy to try to get California and Texas, where he might now have
a chance.
Well, those are just a few ideas for this completely (or perhaps not so
completely) ridiculous theory.  This was not my theory, but just 
something I noticed does actually have some validity, regarding the above
facts.  Any comments?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,misc.legal
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Perot and that dang Constitution
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESY ZEUS Central Data Acquisition
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 12:30:43 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.112121.10410@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>, mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk
(Matthew Huntbach) writes:

|>From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
|>>There are no particular tensions between the various countries. There is
|>>however a major North/ South divide where the South East, mainly Tory
|>>held affluent areas are considered to be spongers by the poorer,
|>>industialised, wealth creating North.
|>
|>How can we in the South-East of England be spongers, when
|>what the northerners are basically asking for is that we pay higher
|>taxes so that they can have bigger handouts? As for
|>wealth-creation, Britain these days is just about kept afloat
|>by southern-based invisible earnings, not the northern
|>rustbucket industries.

Rubbish, the UK is kept afloat by Scottish oil, Northern Coal and the
massive chemical industries built on the Salt chain.

It is in the North that the recovery is happening now. The South is
basically a write off because the house prices have overbalanced the
ecconomy. Unless house prices in the south halve there is no hope for
the ecconomy there. The ecconomic powerhouse of the UK in the '00s is
going to be Manchester. Birmingham will start to rise once the fast rail
route to the channel tunnel is built there, becomming the equivalent of
New York for Europe. 

There is no ecconomic case for siting industry in the South. There is no
labour pool and no space.

One thing is certain. The Tory party has no friends in the north and
after we have rebuilt our ecconomy we wil not be giving them the credit.
The north will rise despite the Tory government, not because of it. The
most they will do for us is to help secure the Olympics which is the
least they can do after Thatcher's spiteful sabotage of Scotlands
games.


The Center of Gravity of Europe is moving North. Hamburg is on the rise
since the traditional hinterland, Poland, and the Baltics are avaliable
once more. The Hanseatic league is being reformed.

Phill Hallam-Baker
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:35340 alt.politics.clinton:324
From: kevin@drogges.tti.com (Kevin Carothers)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Question about Clinton's "didn't inhale" remark
Date: 22 Jul 92 14:58:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Transaction Technology Inc.

In article <-hfmzh_.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>In article <36881@ttidca.TTI.COM> kevin@drogges.tti.com (Kevin Carothers) writes:
>
>I beg your pardon, but how will public works programs pay for themselves?
>One thing that always troubles me about the uninformed democrats is that
>they simply do not understand economics.
>
 And what upsets me are snotty republican assholes who think they know 
 everything because they subscribe to republican dogma. And by the
 way I AM a registered Republican. Have been  for twenty years.

 The economy is going down the tubes, and the Republicans are just as much to
 blame as the democrats.  And for your info, the democratic plan CAN work 
 economically.  

 IF individuals who work for Clinton's "Rebuild America" program do spend
 two years of public service work in return for government-secured jobs,
 AND the corporate sponsors who have pledged support (over $20 Billion so far)
 don't pull out, AND it is managed correctly, the monetary velocity impact
 should be suficient to reduce unemployment and stimulate employment in 
 "green" industries.

 Whereas Bush's plan is to reduce the Fed rate, to stimulate people to 
 buy housing. Can YOU tell us how well this plan is working Richard?
 Right! Real Estate  is currently in the worst slump since the depression,
 because the biggest market is the upwardly mobile middle-class, which has
 been literally decimated by the loss in jobs.

 I would suggest that both Richard and the Republican party in general get
 a few more updated clues as to what the country needs, and a new attitude 
 soon, before their opinions are taken seriously. About the only thing 
 Republicans have  done well for the past four years is bash Democrats.

--

Kevin Carothers   {psivax,philabs,retix,quad1}!ttidca!kevin
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ba.politics