HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Summary: Start Talking 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 17 Nov 92 00:00:05 GMT

In article <10522@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)              writes...
>In <1992Nov13.020626.16654@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE) writes:
>|>In article <1992Nov12.045708.7546@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)                      writes...
>|>This is outside of my field, but I believe that you are saying that
>|>if poor people weren't being given help through food stamps, WIC and
>|>other services then they wouldn't steal more than they are now? This CAN
>|>be proven one way or the other. 
> 
>We could try looking at a time before such programs existed.  It wouldn't
>be hard, that was only about 60 years ago.
> 
You're right, let's look. It just so happens that I was in the library
this weekend and wrote down a graph about this.
In 1920 the homocide rate was 6.8 per 100,000, and the suicide rate was 10.2.
In 1930, with the Depression hitting full stride, the homocide rate was
8.8, and the suicide rate was 15.6. These are both figures from before the
New Deal. 
	Now let's look to after the the New Deal.
In 1940 the homocide rate had dropped to 6.3, and the suicide rate to 14.4.
This was before the Depression was completely over.
	This is only a very small sample, so if you have any numbers to
conflict with mine, please post.
	If not then how can you still defend your statement that
economic hardship doesn't increase crime?

>Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60235 alt.politics.elections:23844 alt.rush-limbaugh:9733 talk.rumors:1289 alt.activism:18822
From: bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: 15 Nov 92 14:33:44 GMT
Reply-To: bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU
Distribution: usa
Organization: Fluent Inc., Lebanon NH

jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov writes:

>There *were* eye witnesses that were not allowed to testify at the
>hearing. As for *FACTS* Mr. Thomas called the senate committee
>"a bunch of racists conducting a high tech lynching..." because they
>were investigating a possible incidence of abuse of power...That kind
>of statement was totally uncalled for *especially* from someone who
>is being considered as a supreme court justice...as for *FACT* there
>was not a single woman on the senate committee considering allegations
>of sexual harassment...kinda stacked against Hill to begin with...

I could be wrong, but I believe his words were "This is a high tech
lynching", and I don't recall Thomas ever calling the senate committee
"a bunch of racists".

If you put something in quotation marks, please try to
be accurate.

-- 
   Brice Dowaliby, Fluent Inc., 10 Cavendish Court, Lebanon, NH  03766
                         bd%fluent@dartmouth.edu        
             I don't speak for them, they don't speak for me
                              DoD # 0698
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:61417 alt.sex:37359 alt.politics.correct:5867
From: giamomj@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu (Mike G.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Heterosexual AIDS
Date: 23 Nov 92 20:15:57 GMT
Organization: Drexel University
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1b2

Re: Heterosexual AIDS

In article <1992Nov23.181243.9865@leland.Stanford.EDU> Godfather of Soul,
jimbo@leland.Stanford.EDU writes:
>$4 billion is enough for AIDS research.  Other people with other
>diseases are suffering, too.  Any more money for AIDS would take away
>from research in other important areas.
>


James....

Too bad you don't see the forrest through the trees. AIDS is fast
becoming the
number one killer of young males and females in the US. The biggest
problem
with AIDS vs. cancer, heart disease, MS, diabetes, etc. is that it is
*contagious*....everybody like sex...not everyone protects themselves.
God help those who don't. You, James are going to be attending a lot of
funerals in the future as AIDS *does* play "catch-up" in the hetero
community.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.usage.english,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.african.american
From: yozzo@watson.ibm.com (Ralph Yozzo)
Subject: Re: Doublespeak Awards
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 04:12:21 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

Personally, I like the one that Used Watch and Car salesman use:
 The car (or watch) is not USED, it is PRE-OWNED.


I've actually heard the following at meetings:
 One department wanted to get paid for some work they were planning
 to do, but they did not ask for CASH.  Instead, they asked for
 some MONETARY FEEDBACK.

-- 
 Ralph Yozzo (yozzo@watson.ibm.com)  
 From the beautiful and historic Mid-Hudson Valley area of NY state
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60945 alt.politics.elections:24150 tx.politics:7532 alt.politics.bush:13957
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,tx.politics,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: History Repeats?(Re: What is a fiscal conservative?
Summary: Correction
Date: 19 Nov 92 21:24:45 GMT
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <Bxw7p1.Gp0@sdf.lonestar.org>, tad@sdf.lonestar.org (Tad Dowe)                             writes...
>In article <1992Nov13.214925.24184@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
>>In article <21851@rpp386.lonestar.org> John F. Haugh II,
>>jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org writes:
>>>In article <BxMFIq.FJ8@NeoSoft.com> jreese@NeoSoft.com (Jim Reese)
>>>Our economy is nowheres near collapsing. 
>>
>>True, but a large part of the deficit and the burgeoning debt that you
>>conservatives are so quick to blame on us liberals was due to this
>>wasteful and unnecessary spending. Furthermore, calling this economy
>>healthy can only be done by sticking your head firmly in the sand.
> 
>Your comments are the ones that display sand in the ears and eyes. Defense
>spending is *not* the cause of the deficit; it is really the only spending
>of any significance which can be blamed on the Presidencey, however. So,
>liberals use it to misrepresent (read lie) about the real cause for the deficit:
>congressional spending in welfare, medicare and other social programs.
>If defense spending were to be cut in half, it would not make any significant
>change in the deficit. Now, if welfare and medicare were treated equally, the
>deficit could be reduced in no time.

Spending on defense is the largest item on the budget except for interest
on the deficit.
> 
>Tad
> 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:61435 alt.sex:37375 alt.politics.correct:5870
From: xenon@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Heterosexual AIDS
Date: 23 Nov 92 18:02:32 -0500
Organization: Carnegie Mellon Computer Club

In article <1992Nov23.201557.3326@netnews.noc.drexel.edu>, giamomj@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu (Mike G.) writes:
> Re: Heterosexual AIDS
> 
> In article <1992Nov23.181243.9865@leland.Stanford.EDU> Godfather of Soul,
> jimbo@leland.Stanford.EDU writes:
>>$4 billion is enough for AIDS research.  Other people with other
>>diseases are suffering, too.  Any more money for AIDS would take away
>>from research in other important areas.
>>
> 
> 
> James....
> 
> Too bad you don't see the forrest through the trees. AIDS is fast
> becoming the
> number one killer of young males and females in the US. The biggest
> problem
> with AIDS vs. cancer, heart disease, MS, diabetes, etc. is that it is
> *contagious*....everybody like sex...not everyone protects themselves.
> God help those who don't. You, James are going to be attending a lot of
> funerals in the future as AIDS *does* play "catch-up" in the hetero
> community.


Sounds almost like wishful thinking, doesn't it?  I've been hearing for years
now that the "AIDS Epidemic" is "exploding", but somehow it still lags far
behind cancer, heart disease, auto accidents, etc.  SMOKING is killing more
people than AIDS.

Incidentally, nobody has ever developed a cure for any disease caused by a
virus.  Even vaccines are no panacea. In some cases they can cause the disease
they are supposed to prevent, or something worse (remember the Swine Flu
vaccine that caused hundreds of people to become paralyzed?).  They still can't
come up with a flu vaccine that doesn't have to be renewed every year to fight
a new strain.  And after many years of research, they still have not found a
cure for the common cold.  Many scientists think it is IMPOSSIBLE to even make
a vaccine to PREVENT the common cold.

So it is probably impossible to cure AIDS.  Everyone that already has it is
going to die no matter what the government does or does not do.  It MIGHT be
possible to develop a vaccine, but even that is an iffy proposition.  So does
it really make any sense to funnel billions away from research on other
diseases to spend on AIDS, when almost everybody already knows how to avoid 
catching it?

- xenon

avoid getting it
e
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy
From: ochealth@unixg.ubc.ca (ochealth)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Keynesian thing (was: A "New" Reich)
Date: 16 Nov 1992 04:11:33 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <1992Nov14.181417.29039@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
:In article <19921113160809ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU> ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack B. Nimble) writes:
:>In article <1992Nov12.185146.10924@oakhill.sps.mot.com>, on 12 Nov 1992 18:51:46 GMT,
:>dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson) writes:
:>
:>>
:>>dude, you are really trampling the "beliefs" of the
:>>supply-siders and the libertarians.  your facts are
:>>spoiling their prolific dis-information.  keep it up!
:>
:>To the contrary, Keynesian economic theory has long been discredited as
:>a lot of bunk. Libertarians don't bother to waste their time rebutting
:>this drivel anymore.
:
:Well, that's why there are neo-Keynesians now, who can argue such
:things as price stickiness on a mathematically sound base.
:

And I'll bet they are arguing that way to save face. Or tenure.  Or both.


-- 
______________________________________________________________________________
jpm: ochealth@unixg.ubc.ca         
                            Happily using OS/2 2.0 because MS Windows isNT ___
                                                      Insert VapourFeature ^^^
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Subject: Re: americans dont really believe in term lim
Reply-To: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com
Organization: Motorola Semiconductor Products Sector
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 19:37:34 GMT

In article 722007801@craft.camp.clarkson.edu, farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (droopy) writes:
>
>I found the stat i was looking for:
>
>14 states passed term limit initiatives.
>In those 14 states, the re-elected 71 (seventy one) members of Congress
>	who exceeded their limit just passed.
>
>
ONE MORE TIME....   there is *no* contradiction between re-electing
your representative and supporting term limits.  the latter says that
you want to change the system whereby reps. spend their time sending
pork home without regard to national need and the former merely 
acknowledges the system that rewards re-elected reps with more power
and $$$$.  ther is no contradiction in wanting to get the most of
your tax dollars back and wanting an effective congress.  FYI 90%
of congresspersons running for re-election in Nov. won.
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: clinton's court?
Date: 16 Nov 92 20:23:14 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 22340@athena.mit.edu, wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>
>In article <86937@bcsaic.boeing.com>, 
>rwojcik@atc.boeing.com said:
>
>> Believe it or not, [Byron] White is the only Democrat on the Court.  
>
>Minor technical quibble: White is the only currently sitting Justice
>who was appointed by a Democratic president (JFK, 1962).  That's not
>quite the same thing as saying that he's a Democrat himself, or that
>he's the only one.

I didn't mean it that way.  I meant that he is the only Justice that considers
himself to be a Democrat.  The rest belong to the Republican party.  The GOP.
Some may take positions that their critics regard as "liberal", but they don't
do so out of loyalty to the Democrats.

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
From: glass@adcalc.fnal.gov (Michael Glass)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-a4  
Reply-To: glass@adcalc.fnal.gov
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 04:15:37 GMT

     In article <1992Nov17.015421.21073@athena.mit.edu>,
wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes...
> 
>It's been a while, but I think I remember that the Senate Judiciary
>Committee's final vote was a tie and that therefore they neither
>recommended that the full Senate approve Thomas nor that it reject
>him.  As I said, though, it's been a while, so this a fairly
>low-confidence memory... anybody know for sure?
> 

     The Committee split 8 to 8 on recommending Thomas.  At this point
it should have been DEAD.  However Senator Biden wimped out and had
the committee vote on whether to forward the nomination to the full
Senate.  That vote was 13 to 1, with only Senator Simon dissenting.

      Good guy, Paul Simon.

-- Michael Glass
   glass@adcalc.fnal.gov
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The Purpose Of Government
Date: 16 Nov 92 19:52:31 GMT
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1992Nov15.011307.17611@mr.med.ge.com>  
larry@ducktales.med.ge.com (Larry Landwehr) writes:
> Governments are a rather recent innovation in human history. Prior
> to a few thousand years ago there were no governments. Even as late
> as the last century there were vast areas of the globe that had no
> governments of any kind. Now there are virtually no populated areas
> that are not under the control of some government. What is it that
> governments do that has made them so wildly successful? What is
> their purpose?
> 

Perhaps you should define "government."  Based on most 
definitions I've seen (and based on those most of us use),
you statements are flat out wrong.

--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.politics.correct
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Heterosexual AIDS 
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 16:22:37 GMT

hasn@midway.uchicago.edu  writes:
>thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>>I've got news for you -- the future is here.  It's now.  AIDS has peaked.
>>All of the dire predictions of "one out of three heterosexuals will be dead by
>>1990" aren't going to happen.  The epidemological pattern of AIDS is such that
>>there is not going to be a heterosexual AIDS epidemic.
>
>I wish what you said is true.  But there is no way that AIDs has peaked.
...
>And of the hetro people affected most will be heterosexual women
>(women have a much larger risk of contracting aids from men
>than men from women).

That is why AIDS will not reach epidemic proportions in heterosexual
populations. It's too unlikely for women to pass it on.

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott)
Subject: Re: = X = (The Boycott)  (... was The Movie) 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords:  Electronic Drugs
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 01:33:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.135715.5690@desire.wright.edu>, 
>demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes...

>In article <17NOV199215350428@utarlg.uta.edu>, 
>>b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott) writes:
>> 
>> { Subj:  = X = (The Movie)  Please take Wednesday (18th) off... }
>> 
>> Skip work or school. Take a sick day. Take part of the day off.
>> Cut out early. Take a long lunch. Come in late ...whatever works for ya.
> 
>	Mmmmm, no.

Tempting, eh? It's not too late.

>> ..whether you go see the movie or not. 
> 
>	Not.

I didn't either, but I'll probably read X's autobio
when I can check it out of the library. Better yet, 
I think I'll stick up a notice at the University. 
Someone's bound to have a copy I can borrow.

>> 
>> Did I leave anyone out?
> 
>	Those of us who think Spike is an ass because of the way he exploits
>his race for personal gain.

Ooops. Sorry. Hadn't thought of that. 

I'm interested in reading more about Lee though. It's certainly plausible 
that he's no better than the rest of the entertainment-pushers in LA and NYC.

{ ...make that `entertainment-pushing-scum.' You already know my bias. }

Can anyone suggest some fair, unbiased articles re: Mr. Lee?

>	Anyone else disgusted by the way he shafted the family of Malcolm X
>(only giving them part of th proceeds from X after they sued) and trying to
>rationalize it by saying (ala Sister Souljah) he can't possibly be exploiting
>anyone because he is black?

> 
>	Boycott X merchandise.

>Brett

Makes sense to me, for national commercial products. Seems better 
to make your own instead, and sell it or give it away local.

No reason to give money to the Fat-Cats who control the entertainment industry? 
( ...or the extra taxes to local and federal gooberment.)

{ ...and someone reading is going:                      }
{                                                       }
{ "Yeah I'll have to ask <the Talk Show DJ> about that" }


-- Stephen  " Does anyone know of an Electronics-Anonymous NewsGroup? "
            " I wanta learn to dance the 12-step. (hmm... soc.e-anon) "  

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Hillary will not have a cabinet position.
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 16:47:18 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.081112.12062@bsu-ucs> 00rdharringt@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Rob Harrington) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.183446.5669@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>> 
>> 	It's illegal for the President to appoint relatives to positions over
>> which he exercises control.
>> 	The law was passed in response to Kennedy giving the AG position to his
>> brother.  Johnson signed it into law in 1965.
>> 
>And who's to say Bill "exercises control" over Hillary?  

No one.  But the President exercises control over cabinet positions.  By
definition.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,tx.politics,alt.politics.bush
From: rex@iqsc.COM (Rex Black)
Subject: Re: History Repeats?(Re: What is a fiscal conservative?
Organization: IQ Software Corp.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 19:36:35 GMT

David Marc Nieporent writes:
>I wrote:
>>Tad Dowe writes:
>>>If defense spending were to be cut in half, it would not make any significant
>>>change in the deficit. Now, if welfare and medicare were treated equally, the
>>>deficit could be reduced in no time.
>Not true, of course.  If defense spending were halved, the deficit would
>go down by 40%.  But that's besides the point.

I believe there's a phrase in economics, ceterus paribus, which means
"all other variables being held constant."  If the "peace dividend" 
emerges during Clinton's watch, I will bet that "ceterus paribus" will
not apply.  For one thing, the dividend will be smaller than lots of
people have predicted (if we do the cuts correctly).  For another, 
everybody who wants Federal pork has already cooked up a reason why
the peace dividend _has_ to fund their pet project.  

>>Both Republicans and Democrats...obscure the fact that without a 
>>serious attack on entitlements, esp.  Social Security, no progress 
>>will be made.  
>Not true, either.  The fastest growing segment of the entitlements
>portion of the budget is health care, and Clinton *has* plans to control
>health care costs.

Dr. Spin, I presume.  First, "fastest growing" does not mean "biggest
expenditure".  Second, and more to my point, both Republicans and
Democrats have avoided discussing the fact that, if the Social Security 
retirement age remains constant, when the baby boomers retire, the 
system will either beggar the post-boomers or go broke.  Third, 
Clinton's plan is too vague, which was great for getting votes,
because it didn't make anyone unhappy, but also means that he has no
mandate to call for the tough changes that must be made to solve the
problem.

The only thing Clinton got votes for was to "save" the economy.  Given
that all recessions end eventually, Zippy the Clown could accomplish
the same thing sitting on his hands for four years, which would probably
do less harm than "tax and spend"--ooops, "fair-share and invest"--
will end up doing to our economy.

Rex
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:61451 alt.politics.elections:24281 misc.legal:20339
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,misc.legal
Subject: Jurisdictional Gerrymandering (was: Judicial Branch)
Date: 24 Nov 92 00:49:11 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <18lu02Ii2cby01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com 
(Terry Carroll) writes:
> I have no references handy, 
> but I have them at home, and if I remember, I'll look them up and cite them 
> for you on Monday (11/23/92), okay?

Picking up from last Friday:  Gunther's _Consitutional_Law_ discusses these 
theories beginning on page 43.  Among others, he cites to one of Reagan's 
Attorneys General, and to La(u|w)rence Tribe at Harvard.  Interestingly 
enough, Tribe's article is entitled using the same appellation I used: 
"jurisdictional gerrymanding".  I'd like to claim that "great minds think 
alike", but I'm sure I nicked it from him without remembering.  I did 
allegedly read that part of the book for my Constitutional Law class. 

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60723 sci.econ:8748