HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Time to Get Rid of the Nation-State? (was:  Re: THE NEW BULLY OF THE BALKANS [ Part 4 from 4 ])
Date: 9 Sep 92 08:45:06 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Sep2.170113.24965@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>When I read of the innumerable small ethnic groups killing each
>other in the Balkans, it becomes clear to me that the idea of the
>nation-state, which appeared so attractive to liberals in the
>early 20th Century, has simply failed.  It no longer appears to
>be anything but an excuse for people to kill one another, and
>for what?  So they can be oppressed by thugs who speak their own
>language instead of thugs who speak some other language.
>
>As it appears that we are not ready for anarchy yet, and must
>have some form of government, how about utilizing the United
>Nations to take over some of the work? Surely Bosnia, Somalia,
>Afghanistan and Cambodia would be better off under a neutral 
>U.N. administration of military and police functions than they
>are subjected to competing warlords and religious fanatics.
>
>I don't agree, by the way, with the common theory that a
>world government would be necessarily tyrannical.  The clever
>fellows who set up the U.S. Constitution found a solution in
>having different parts of the government impede each other in
>a structured way.  Surely the same principles can be applied
>on a larger scale.

As the US Civil War showed, the breakup of the Soviet Union
showed, the conflicts in Eastern Europe show, and the ongoing 
violence in Africa shows, the widespread support of the population 
for the government is critical to it's peaceful success. No amount 
of checks and balances work without the acceptance of the population. 
Without popular support, force must be used to impose an outside
government on the people. 

Local tribal and ethnic loyalties are stronger than supranational
loyalties. That's why nations still exist. A supranational government
can only succeed by imposing it's will by force against local and
tribal interests. Thus world government must be tyranical to succeed 
in today's world. The trend is clearly in the other direction, toward 
smaller and smaller governing enities. Most conflicts today are waged
by separatists, not colonialists. International bodies can be 
helpful in getting those enities to cooperate with each other, but 
can't replace them.

Gary
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: sims@possum.den.mmc.com (John Sims)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics, Denver
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 21:12:32 GMT

mann@eskimo.celestial.com (Tom Mann) writes:

>In article <1992Sep13.153330.12362@anasazi.com>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>> But most of the draft dodger issue IS about the present (ie, how Clinton
>> is now dealing with the issue). I personally am interested in how any
>> future leader deals with controversy and personal attacks, and I am
>> greatly disimpressed with Clinton's response to this issue.

>Hmmm. Are you impressed with the way Bush has responded to questions
>about Jennifer Fitzgerald (I think that's her name)? Seems like he
>got pretty testy when Mary Tillotson asked the question as tactfully
>as she could - now I hear that Fitzwater has made the statement that
>she's more or less personna-non-grata around the White house. In an
>interview, his response was something like "HOW DARE you ask that
>question of me in the Oval office?". Pretty impressive!

>It seems to me that we can't have it both ways.... If Clinton has
>to address a non-issue like the draft, Bush should address a non-issue
>such as a little playing around. 

But there is a big difference in responding to a situation where both
alledged parties have repeatedly denied its truthfulness, and the only
remarks made are in a book by someone now dead; and the situation where
the facts are known and public knowledge, and are verifiable.  Bush is
responding to a repeated question which has no basis in provable fact.
I would be ticked if people continued to hound me on such an issue.
It's almost taken on the tone of the old Groucho Marx line:  "So tell me
Mr Bush, is it true that you've stopped beating your wife?  Just answer
yes or no."

As a member of the military, and having had a draft number of 97, I
definitely consider Clinton's response to this "non-issue" very
relevant.  

John
-- 
John Sims    sims@pogo.den.mmc.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45056 ca.politics:7687 ba.politics:5234 soc.motss:38916 ba.motss:1595
From: aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss,ba.motss
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: 12 Sep 92 18:54:25 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park

In article <1992Sep12.184456.28203@tc.cornell.edu> shore@tc.cornell.edu writes:
>In article <yvwnk9b.phil@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>> Since that does confer another roadblock (gee, we can fire joe straight,
>> but not john homo because he may file suit) that other people don't have,
>> yes, it does confer de facto special rights.
>
>Amazing.
>
>Duh, Phool.  The phrase 'sexual orientation' covers 
>heterosexuals and bisexuals, too.
>-- 

But that us tricky.
Our society accepts heterosexuality as the normal sexual orientation,
something such as the norm. Then, when the term protection from discrimination
based on "sexual orientation" is used, the first idea that comes to mind is
"gay, lesbian, bisexual, and other non-heterosexual orientations".
It is like if in this cas "sexual orientation" were a definition 
of non-heterosexual, besides it's actual meaning.





>       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu

AAP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Dangers of line item veto.  [Was: Yes to line item veto]
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 22:20:25 GMT

In article <190dhfINN6gt@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ads3@po.CWRU.Edu (Andrew D. Shults) writes:
[Interesting Penn history stuff deleted]

>     The Republicans, of course, are crying foul but I'm just laughing and
>thinking that there truly is poetic justice in this world.  Frankly, I don't
>think anyone should have a line-item veto power, not Bob Casey, not George
>Bush, no one.  Budgets are compromises worked out in the state legislatures
>or in Congress.  An executive should be able to say yes or no to the plan,
>but should not be allowed to re-work the whole deal to his liking.

Unfortunately for you, the Founders believed otherwise.  They intended that
the executive would exercise the veto liberally in order to provide a check
against bad legislation (man were they prescient!).  If you would take a
few days to review the record of the Constitutional Convention you will 
note that the men there argued about the veto quite vigorously.  They did
not like the idea of an absolute veto but rather preferred the qualified
veto that we (should) have today.

In modern terms, how can your proposal that the President veto the omnibus
spending bill be practical?  Is it not the case that the Congress has 
done what Madison warned against, that the legislature would try to find
a way to circumvent the veto? 

The line item veto is necessary to restore the health of our legislative
process - or the definition of a Bill must be changed.  Otherwise the
President will be reluctant to use the veto especially regarding the
omnibus spending bill.

>     If you are truly against pork-barrel legislation, call up your
>Congressman and tell him you want think that military base in your home town
>belongs on the base closure list.  Tell him you don't want federal highway
>dollars to help rebuild that highway through your home district.  Tell him
>you don't want any federal money at all going to projects located solely
>within your home district.  As long as voters keep supporting pork-barrel
>legislation for themselves, it does no good to complain about dollars going
>to projects in other districts.

This is good advice, I wish that it could work.

Mike Best
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc

During the Vietnam war, Clinton showed he would do what he could to stay out
of the war.  He didn't want to go, he didn't think other people should be
forced to go (didn't think the US should have been involved.)

I'd like to think he would still do what he could to stay out of a war, that
he would do everything he could to keep other US citizens from being sent
to war, and would avoid getting our country involved in wars in the first
place.

Contrast this with Dan Quayle, who thought it was just fine to send people
to war -- as long as it wasn't HIM who had to go.  (I read in a magazine
something to this effect: "Quayle said he couldn't go because it was important
that he continue his law studies...as if there was a shortage of lawyers in
the 60s...)

I think there is evidence that the Gulf war might have been avoided all
together, had the US policy regarding Iraq and the region been different.
(However, I'm not a foreign policy expert by any means...maybe someone
else can elaborate on this idea.)

While I think Clinton would do what he could to avoid a war, I believe
he would fight to win if war was unavoidable.  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Dangers of line item veto.  [Was: Yes to line item veto]
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 17:14:25 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.045206.8124@eskimo.celestial.com> delisle@eskimo.celestial.com (Ben Delisle) writes:
>	The danger I see with a line item veto, is the president
>could, scrach out the word   'not' from the sentence fragment 
>'is not permitted' making it into 'is permitted' thus totaly changing
> the meaning of a new bill.

This isn't anything like the line-item veto I've heard discussed: The
President can't _edit_ a bill, simply veto sections of it (though,
admittidly, "section" needs to be better defined.) The idea is to
allow the President to seperate unrelated parts of all encompassing
bill. It isn't at all uncommon for Congress to dodge a Presidential
veto, by sticking together totally unrelated items, one of which the
Presdient opposes and one which he suppports. A line-item veto is
intended to curb this abuse. (By the way, it there anything in
the Constitution to suggets the President does not, currently,
have this power?) 

                                                 Frank Crary
                                                 CU Boulder

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: **STUDENTS FOR CLINTON MAILING LIST**
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 06:26:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.002015.26368@cco.caltech.edu> bjmccall@cco.caltech.edu (Benjamin John McCall) writes:

		      *****ATTENTION STUDENTS!!!!!*****


   The Clinton/Gore Email Volunteer Team has started a new mailing list
   exclusively for STUDENT groups supporting the Clinton/Gore ticket.
                   ^^^^^^^
Good grief, do you mean to tell us you're not going to include DOKTOR
LaFave, that great genius who, excuse me, hu, iz so much smarter than
those dirty rednecks with thair fifth grade education(S)?


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45333 alt.rush-limbaugh:4769 alt.politics.elections:13067 alt.politics.clinton:5315 alt.politics.bush:5040
From: mann@eskimo.celestial.com (Tom Mann)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Summary: How a president deals with personal attacks?
Date: 14 Sep 92 11:24:14 GMT
Organization: -> ESKIMO NORTH (206) For-Ever <-

In article <1992Sep13.153330.12362@anasazi.com>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
> But most of the draft dodger issue IS about the present (ie, how Clinton
> is now dealing with the issue). I personally am interested in how any
> future leader deals with controversy and personal attacks, and I am
> greatly disimpressed with Clinton's response to this issue.

Hmmm. Are you impressed with the way Bush has responded to questions
about Jennifer Fitzgerald (I think that's her name)? Seems like he
got pretty testy when Mary Tillotson asked the question as tactfully
as she could - now I hear that Fitzwater has made the statement that
she's more or less personna-non-grata around the White house. In an
interview, his response was something like "HOW DARE you ask that
question of me in the Oval office?". Pretty impressive!

It seems to me that we can't have it both ways.... If Clinton has
to address a non-issue like the draft, Bush should address a non-issue
such as a little playing around. 

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom "Old" Mann KD9NL/7 Kirkland, Wash.     

I don't do drugs, don't do DOS and definitely do not do Windows.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Anti-religious fanatics (Was Re: School Choice )
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 8 Sep 92 17:03:25 CDT


In article <1992Sep8.170354.28808@bilver.uucp>, alex@bilver.uucp (Alex Matulich) writes:
> In article <1992Sep3.234120.12583@Csli.Stanford.EDU> mmarx@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Matthew Marx) writes:
> >It sounds to me like the traits you are referring to are those of
> >savagery, hatred, warmongering and the like -- which, if you check
> >the New Testament, have no place in Christian beliefs. Now, if some
> >people *exhibit* the above traits, it is nothing taught by Christ.
> 
> Oh yeah?  Then I'm interested in how you'd explain away the following
> quotes from the New Testament:
> 
> "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth, I come not to send peace
> but a sword."  (Matthew 10:34)

Of course before that He said (to his disciples) "Behold, I send you out
as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves."
(Mathew 10:16)  "When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next;"
(Mathew 10:23)

> "Suppose ye that I come to give peace on earth?  I will tell you nay, but
> rather division."  (Luke 12:51)
> 
> And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them out of the
> temple . . . and pured out the changer's money and threw over the tables.
> (John 2-15).  [kinda contradicts the "love thine enemies" directive in
> Luke 6:27, huh?]
> 
> "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garments and buy one."
> (Luke 22:36)

"And one of the struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his right
ear.  But Jesus said, "No more of this!"  And he touched his ear and healed
him." (Luke 22:50-51)

> You won't easily convince me that this isn't warmongering.

Then read it again, to get the context, to convince yourself.

>                                                              Your assertion
> that it has nothing to do with Christ's teachings is false.
-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,soc.culture.greek
From: ptg2351@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Panos Tamamidis )
Subject: Re: How can I tell if I'm Greek or Macedonian?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 03:43:28 GMT

rcsjp@cgl.rmit.oz.au (Jason Pouflis) writes:

>So,
>How can I tell if I'm Greek or Macedonian?
>Heritage wise I mean?
>I was born in Australia, but my Father and Ancestors came from around Edessa.

>In this region Greek is the official language, but it is commonplace to 
>speak a combination (possibly a Creole) of Macedonian and Greek.

>So what is it that would make me Greek or Macedonian?
>The culture, language, the gene lines (parentage), place of residence, religion?
>what?
>What is the difference?

 There is no difference.  Macedonians are Greeks.

 Note also, that if you were a slav, your father would have changed his
 name to Poufliski ...

 Regards,

-- 
---> Panos Tamamidis
     University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: delisle@eskimo.celestial.com (Ben Delisle)
Subject: Re: Anyone done a recent Usenet Poll?
Organization: -> ESKIMO NORTH (206) For-Ever <-
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 04:23:45 GMT

cobarruvias@asd2.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
> Has anyone performed a recent usenet poll on Bush/Quayl and Clinton/Gore?
	
	You are forgetting that there are others running for 
President of The United States Of America.
We must include at least the top 5 or so of the third parties to
be fair and accurate. There are better people than Bush or Clinton.
	Be sure to include Marrou/Lord of the Libertarians!
But there are people from the populist party ( Bo Gritz )
New Alliance Party, Workers World, the real Republican party 
(pre relegious fanatic takeover), Chef Ra! and others.
	I want to know how the others fare, differnt people bring
alternative ideas. That can effect many factors including how
the mainstreamers will act.

--
 +-(c)--------------------------+   Freedom is to the soul is what  
 | delisle@eskimo.celestial.com |   fresh air is to the lungs, and  
 +------------------------------+   knowledge is to the mind.  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss,ba.motss
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 17:40:43 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Sep12.061527.3113@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> ry@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (ryerson.schwark) writes:
    >In article <12272@optilink.UUCP> walsh@optilink.UUCP (Mark
    >Walsh) writes:
    >>(talking about affirmitive action) I find it sad that some
    >>gays are now trying to get their fingers into this pie. I
    >>don't believe that gays are mentally disadvantaged, and as
    >>such do not need bailout programs. I can see it now:
    >>
    >Huh? Are you actually paying attention? I don't know any gay
    >or lesbian folks who are looking for affirmative action or
    >"special rights", and I'm willing to bet big bucks that I
    >know a LOT more of them than you do. All we'd like is the
    >government to pass some laws saying we can't be fired just
    >because we're not straight. Is that "special rights"? I sure
    >don't think so.

Since that does confer another roadblock (gee, we can fire joe straight,
but not john homo because he may file suit) that other people don't have,
yes, it does confer de facto special rights.



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

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

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Pork Barrel Politics
Date: 7 Sep 92 15:47:20 GMT
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93


In article <19891@drutx.ATT.COM>, 
dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) said:

> } As I understood it, the act of bouncing a check off of the House
> } Bank didn't cost any taxpayers anything.  [wdstarr]

> I disagree.  Perhaps it did not cost much in monetary terms (Other
> financial institutions pay for their operations through things like
> charging interest on loans or the payment of penalties on overdrawn
> accounts.  Since the House Bank did none of these, but rather paid
> for their operations through taxes, it did cost the taxpayers.).

Granted, though the costs to the taxpayers of operating the now-
defunct House Bank (a) would have been the same (I think) even if
there'd been no overdrafts and (b) comprised a minuscule fraction of
the federal budget -- the military probably spends more per year on
tuba maintenance for its marching bands.

> But it cost something even more valuable -- trust.  How can people,
> who routinely write *dozens* of overdrafts (they really weren't
> bounced checks, since the checks were covered -- just with someone
> else's money) *every month* and don't even bother to keep their own
> records, be trusted to come up with a responsible budget for the
> entire country?  How can people, who are so reckless with their own
> money, be trusted with everyone elses?
>
> Do you really want people, who show such a complete and reckless
> disregard for finances, managing a $6 trillion economy?

For some reason, this doesn't bother me very much... as you say, the
checks _were_ covered, and each congressman _knew_ when he wrote each
check that (a) it wouldn't bounce and (b) if there were any expenses
or losses incurred in the process, they'd be covered not by the
taxpayers but rather by his fellow _voluntary_ participants in the
House Bank.  So where's the irresponsibility?

Don't get me wrong -- I'm perfectly willing to admit that there are
probably zillions of reasons for thinking of any given congresscritter
as being somewhere below the warthog on the respect scale... I just
don't see the "House banking scandal" as one of them.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
From: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton and Responsibility (Contradic
Date: 15 Sep 1992 22:11:14 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: holein1.corp.sun.com

In article 13213@romulus.rutgers.edu, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
> In article <lbca9eINNf7c@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc) writes:
> 

[deletion of James Carville supposedly making lewd remarks to a female
co-worker.  I refuse to have it continue to be part of this thread especially
when Mr. Kaldis cannot back it up.]

> 
> > I don't suppose you'd like to quote a source (verifable please) for
> > this?  If you can't, please retract it.
> 
> This is anecdotal (obviously).  Take it for what it's worth.  I
> retract nothing.

It's worth _NOTHING_ unless you can back it up.  It's amazing how you
are willing to use hearsay/anecdotal/rumors to further your own ends but
when it comes time to present FACTS, you decline.  You're probably alot
of fun to debate!  :^D

> 
> > Ah! so to you Flowers is a credible witness.  [...]
> 
> Gennifer Flowers is hardly the ideal witness.  But she does have a
> tape, and that _IS_ Bill Clinton's voice on the tape.

So she recorded a phone conversation with Clinton (illegally BTW), what
does this prove?  Answer: she had a conversation with Bill Clinton!

Wow!  That's pretty damn incriminating!!  I don't suppose you'd like to
apply the same sort of test to Bush and Iran-Contra (He says he was "out
of the loop" but notes from others like Weinburger & Schultz say otherwise)
or Iraq-gate (Bush says he didn't know that the money was going to buy
weapons, but it's been demonstrated that alot of the government did yet
they were blocked by the State Dept).

Bob De Guc
I vote, therefore, I am!!


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush