HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: msp@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu (Michael S. Pettersen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Gayspace
Date: 27 Jul 92 11:18:45 EDT

In article <2A735B00.7708@noiro.acs.uci.edu>, 
cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman) writes:

> Just out of curiosity, you might be able to answer my question.
> 
> Consider a hypothetical city 35% of the population of which oppose abortion  
> want to see it banned. Would you consider it proper and appropriate use of
> the taxpayers funds of that city if it decided to build a monument to
> Operation Rescue protests at a local abortion clinic ? 

John Stuart Mill had a word for the system you seem to prefer.  He called 
it tyranny of the majority.  

No segment of the population should force its will on any other part of 
the population, no matter what the size of the respective groups.

> Do you _always_ respond that way when a stranger asks you a polite question ?

Your question may not have been couched in vulgar terms, but its tone was 
certainly inflammatory.

[Followup to soc.motss deleted.]
-- 
Mike Pettersen
Ohio State Physics, msp@ohstpy.bitnet, msp@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Perfect love casteth out fear.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Bring Bush Down
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 20:46:24 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <l6lon3INNs1k@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:


>According to an actuary, there is an 87% chance of Bush kicking the
>bucket in the next 4 years. I don't know if that takes into account
>his fitness-mania. 


Excuse me, but I think this is bullshit.

Do you have a source?
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: ejalbert@jaameri.gsfc.nasa.gov (E. Jason Albert)
Subject: Re: Question about Clinton's "didn't inhale" remark
Organization: Oceans & Ice Branch
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 13:17:35 GMT

In article <crb2.711678005@Ra.MsState.Edu>, crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson) writes:
> rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com (Rene Valdes x4660) writes:
> 
> >Third, there is no connection whatsoever between this incident and Chad's claim 
> >that Clinton has a propensity to waste money.  It is a totally bogus argument that
> >simply doesn't wash.  Clinton has balanced ELEVEN budgets.
> 
> So..is balancing a budget in itself something to be proud of?  If all I had
> to do to balance my budget was to raise YOUR taxes, I dare say that my 
> budget would also stay balanced.
> 
> Chad  (A Tennessee 'n that DOESN'T support Clinton or Gore...)
> 

Hmm.  Arkansas's tax burden ranks 49th among the 50 states (source:  CNN), so
I think your comments about Clinton and taxes are off the mark.

Jason Albert
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: "American Ideals" (was: AMERICA IN DECLINE)
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:15:22 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.
> 
> Anyone who believes that the USSR really practiced "communism" is very
> naive.  They had a larger separation in classes than even the US.  They
> had rich and poor, but no middle class.  You were either a member of the 
> ruling class or you were a peasant.  This is what came of the lofty ideas
> of communism and socialism.  

  Which of course is what socialism is destined too. The collapse of 
socialism into brute force rule is inevitable since it ignores the
very human aspect of self interest. Russia did not practice socialism
in the way that was hoped because it is *impossible* -- not because
Stalin, et al, were evil creatures. Socialism gave Stalin his bully pulpit
willingly; he did not steal it.

> It's too bad the US didn't learn anything from the recent collapse of the
> USSR.
> 
> "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

  Indeed, but not for the reasons you are alluding too.
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
From: U233A@wvnvm.wvnet.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Need Address
Date: 23 Jul 92 12:56:37 GMT


     Would someone be kind enough to forward the address of
the Governors Office, Bill Clinton, Arkansas.  Thanks so much.

tony
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:35450 alt.politics.clinton:379 soc.culture.usa:6168
From: Robert_Ryan@brown.edu (Rob Ryan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,soc.culture.usa
Subject: New list topic: text of speeches, interviews, etc.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 23:33:04 EDT
Organization: Brown University - Providence, Rhode Island  USA
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: brownvm.brown.edu
News-Software: BNN via BNN_POST v1.0 beta

I'm reading several politically related lists in an effort to get information
about press announcements, the text of speeches and interviews, and the like.
Unfortunately, these factual tidbits seem to be buried in a flury of
editorials and commentaries.  Has there ever been an attempt to introduce
a netnews list that is designed for the text of speeches, press announcements,
interviews or the like?

It would be great to have a source of political information without having
to wade through hundreds of opinions daily.  What is involved in trying to
start another list?  Clearly if we wanted it moderated, we'd need a volunteer,
but in the absence of one, what is needed to start an unmoderated list?

I was thinking of something like alt.politics.text.speech and
alt.politics.text.pressrelease and alt.politics.text.interview.  I'm not
too familiar with the structure of NetNews lists, so I'm open to suggestions
for names.

What do people think?  Am I the only one getting lost in this flury of
postings?

-- Rob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Rob Ryan, internet:   Robert_Ryan@brown.edu or robr@brownvm.brown.edu
           bitnet:     ROBR@BROWNVM
           Compu$erve: 70324,227
 Brown University, Providence, RI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel)
Subject: Re: Which of you is 'good enough' ?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 18:37:53 GMT

In article <lzfmyk.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.004331.15705@news.Hawaii.Edu> johnf@uhheph.phys.hawaii.edu (John Flanagan) writes:
>>I wrote:
>>
>>>Hell, girl, my history couldn't survive the scrutiny required to teach
>>>high-school in most states.  Nothing _I'm_ ashamed of, but not good PR
>>>material in this year of "family values."
>>
>>P.S. -- This is why I'm voting for Clinton.  I consider George Bush's
>>stance on gay rights, and human/civil rights generally, to be immoral.
>
>
>Others like me consider homosexuality to be immoral, illegal and 
>disgusting. I believe the majority of Americans agree with me.
>
>-- 
>Richard Crisp         Cupertino, Ca.         crisp@netcom.com
>(415) 903-3832 wk    "what, me worry?"    (408) 253 4541 fax
>
>"The first thing you have to do is disarm the people. A disarmed
>public can't fight back" -Adolf Hitler


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Perot's October Surprise
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 13:11:37 GMT

In article <3967@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

>	Perot is going to re-enter the race in October, saying "We've
>heard these goofballs for two months, and they haven't been saying a
>thing!

No way. You don't get it, Perot was running for his ego. He got off
on crowds of people whining: "we need you Ross, only *YOU* can help
us". While people where being nice to him, it was fun. When people
started pointing out that he is actually a pretty inmature person
with a big ego, well, it just wasn't fun any more.

He dropped out because his ego wouldn't let him run.

  Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------276 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Subject: Re: CLinton Re: Question about Clinton's "didn't inhale" remark
Reply-To: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Organization: Teknekron Software Systems. Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 22:46:31 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.134136.20160@cos.com>, bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:

|> 
|> ><   3. If Governor Clinton has done such a lousy job in Arkansas,
|> ><   how come they re-elected him 4 or 5 times?
|> 
|> >	Because Arkansas is essentially a one-party state.
|> >	The governors election is really decided in the
|> >	Democratic primary. Patronage and other perks
|> >	make it virtually impossible in Arkansas (and
|> >	too many other states) to dislodge a sitting
|> >	governor running for re-election.
|> 
|> So, if it is a one party state and he is doing a lousy job, where
|> are all the Republicans, or don't the game laws protect them.

I would add to Bob's followup the fact that Clinton was indeed voted 
out of office in his first re-election bid.  So don't make it out like
Arkansas cannot get rid of a Democrat governor if they don't like him.
They already did it once, gave Clinton a second chance, and now have
stuck with him for quite a while.



|> ><   4. Family values - Quayle makes me laugh. Which party allowed
|> ><   salaries to drop so far behind inflation that both parents
|> ><   have to work, or lose everything they tried to build. 
|> 
|> >	The party of James Earl Carter. If you really believe
|> >	that the 2% to 4% inflation rate of the last few
|> >	years is responsible for the high cost of living,
|> >	think again.
|> 
|> >	The real reason for two-wage earner families
|> >	is the huge TAX load that we all pay; is that
|> >	exclusively the fault of George Bush, or does
|> >	the Democratic-party controlled Congress have
|> >	just a little bit to do with it?

Again, I would add that Carter inherited a horrible inflationary
spiral from the Ford/Nixon regime.  Do you remember Ford's "Whip
Inflation Now (WIN)" motto?  Ford was presiding over horrible
inflation when Carter beat him.

-- 

	Jim Burke	"Life is uncertain - eat dessert first!"
	Teknekron Software Systems		... burke@tss.com
  	phone:(415) 617-2432			... uunet!tekbspa!burke
From: chf0@newshost.gte.com (Curtis Fennell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: More Dan Quayle Stuff...
Date: 22 Jul 92 12:52:42 GMT
Reply-To: chf0@gte.com
Organization: GTE Laboratories, Waltham, MA

"Dan Quayle has the best political mind in the White House"
		
			- Mass. Governor Bill Weld

Heeheeheeheehee ;-)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: eiverson@nmsu.edu (Eric Iverson)
Subject: Re: What kind of recession we're in
Organization: Computing Research Lab
	<1992Jul19.225428.25403@afterlife.ncsc.mil>
	<1992Jul20.155428.8208@iti.org> <1992Jul20.205634.7994@tss.com>
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 04:29:13 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.205634.7994@tss.com> burke@tss.com (Jim Burke) writes:

   In article <1992Jul20.155428.8208@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

   |> consider yourself corrected. The recession in the middle 70's and the
   |> one in the early 80's where each far worse. This one is actually pretty
   |> mild, it just seems worse compared to the previous decade of growth.

That previous decade is one of the main reasons this recession is
different from other ones.  Because this time we have a legacy of
debt-loaded companies, looted pension funds, alarming amounts of
consumer debt, and paltry amounts of savings hanging over us due to
the decade of "growth."  Companies are frantically downsizing in order
to remain solvent.  In the computer industry alone, tens of thousands
of jobs have been lost.  Not sent overseas. Lost. Consumers can't buy
our way out because they're already in hock up to their eyeballs and
afraid their job will be the next to go.  Recessions are indeed
cyclical, but it's going to be quite a bit harder to rebound after
this one.  And the legacy of our "growth" will haunt us for years to
come.



--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Iverson				Internet: eiverson@nmsu.edu
Computing Research Lab
Box 30001/3CRL				Life is something to do when
New Mexico State University		you can't get to sleep.
Las Cruces, NM 88003-0001			-Fran Lebowitz
VOICE: (505) 646-5711	
FAX:   (505) 646-6218
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal)
Subject: Re: What is Bush's veto record?
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 22:28:24 GMT

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.  

     Not even close.  I don't think Bush has even gotten into double digits 
on his vetos.  FDR had *hundreds* of vetos.

>In addition none of these vetoes have ever been overridden.

     That's because he's very careful not to veto anything he thinks the 
Congress can override.  That way his veto looks more powerful than it 
actually is.


===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
| Statistics are any data which can be twisted to support your posititon  | 
===========================================================================

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Ooohh..... Yer gonna get it now!
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 13:43:50 GMT

In article <Bs4LJB.8q4@news.cso.uiuc.edu> gt38091@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Greg ) writes:

>veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal) writes:

>if you are even the least bit politically awake, you'd know that not 
>everything the government is allowed to do is spelled out verbatum in the 
>Constitution...

Um, yes it is.  This is why we HAVE a Constitution. It's just being ignored.

>hmmn...isn't that one major difference between democrats and republicans in
>that republicans have been trying to get government out of areas where it has
>no business...i.e deregulation???...does that make democrats unconstitutional???

Polticial parties can't be unconstitutional. They are not government 
entities.

>so what you're saying is that we don't even need a supreme court, since
>whatever's in the Constitution is law, and that's it?!?...then why is there
>a provision in the Constitution for a Supreme Court???...hey, the primary
>function of government is to provide for the people that which they can't 
>provide for themselves (i.e. military, police, etc...)...this is a huge respon-
>sibility, and that's why the "necessary and proper" clause is in there.

I'm gonna let veal@utk handle this one.  He LOVES it when people try and use 
the necessary and proper clause to justify unconstituional activity.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Organization: Doctoral student, Biology, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 21:35:28 -0400 
From: Thomas Oligino <to0b+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Clinton misqotes Bible

>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?
> 
>-- 
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>David Hammerslag            | Don't give me facts, I want the Truth.
>dhammers@urbana.mcd.mot.com | 
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
 
Who cares?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Libertarian Platform
Date: 23 Jul 1992 22:06:32 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

In article <archer.160@utkux1.utk.edu>, archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
|> In article <l6trcbINNqgp@spim.mips.com> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
|> 
|> >T. Archer writes:
|> >|> Michael Polen writes:
|> >|> 
|> >|> 
|> >|> >|> I wouldn't have any problem with that, other than that if she abused
|> >|> >|> it then my introducing her to responsible drinking had failed, and
|> >|> >|> that she was disobeying me.  That's our problem, not his.  In either
|> >|> >|> case, legislation isn't going to stop it.
|> >|> >|> 
|> >|> >So you can't concieve of a case where you would rather not have someone
|> >|> >pressing alcohol or drugs on your children before you have developed them
|> >|> >to the point where the can be responsible.
|> >|> 
|> >|> Sure.  But if my children are in a situation where they are getting access 
|> >|> to alcohol or drugs before they are able to be responsable, then I am not 
|> >|> supervising them closely enough, and it is MY fault.  I maintain that it is 
|> >|> a parent's responsability to raise children, not the state's.
|> >|> 
|> >Have you raised children to the age of responsibility?  The only way to
|> >"supervise them closely enough" is to be a jailor, not a parent.  Not
|> >on my watch.
|> 
|> Whether or not I have raised children is irrelivant to the issue of where 
|> the responsaiblity for it lies.  By being unwilling to supervise ones 
|> children closely enought to prevent them from being abused abrogates ones 
|> responsibility to the state, where it does not belong.

A tremendous leap of logic.  I have no intension of asking the state
to supervise my children.  I expect the state to help me protect them
from murderers.  In the case of drugs and alcohol, I consider anyone 
who would hook young children on drugs or alcohol to be a murderer.
I consider anyone who liquors up a 16-year old and puts them into a
car a murderer if the 16-year old kills someone.

What I do not expect is that any 16 year old is capable of making
rational decisions.  We all learn by making mistakes.  The best we
can hope to do is limit the cost of those mistakes while children
are in their learning years.

Last post on this subject.  All future postings will be to alt.children.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Question about Clinton's "didn't inhale" remark
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:06:51 GMT

echo@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Hagame uno mas!  Esos son muy cool!) writes:
>Of course, if you want to read about *TRULY* bad recessions and see where
>true laissez-faire capitalism gets you, read Alexander Keysaar's essay
>on unemployment in Massachusetts in the late 1800's. It''s enough to
>make a supply-siders hair turn as white as Kemp's.

Somehow, government being up to it's ass in helping the companies
oppress workers doesn't seem to fit the definition of laissez-faire.
Neither government helping the companies at the expense of the people,
or hurting companies at the expense of the people is hands-off
capitalism. 
-- 
The decision does not have to be logical; it was unanimous.
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Subject: Re: aids conference in cuba
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:47:55 GMT

In article <11444@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <nqscpu4@fido.asd.sgi.com>, dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>> In article <11394@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>> >Of course.  Then again, I can keep my pants zipped, unlike the
>> >homosexual community.
>> 
>> Can you say "stereotype"?  I thought so...
>> 
>> Claytoon, by the time I came out of the closet, AIDS was a fact of life.
>> The same is true of almost all of my friends.  How come you seem to be
>> able to blame anyone who is gay for the excesses of the 70s... 
>> 
>> Oh, yes... I know the answer. You are a homophobe.
>> 
>> FWA
>
>Excesses of the 70s?  Here's a recent posting from soc.motss, 
>discussing THIS year.


Clayton, you accuse all homosexuals of sleeping with many many people.  This
is just not true.  Once posting does not make a community.  Once person
does not make a trend.


Your ability to comprehend this seems to be non-existant.



FWA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Electoral College w/o Perot
Organization: SSDT SPS, Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 03:58:03 GMT

In article <1992Jul19.212628.13964@husc3.harvard.edu> koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis) writes:
>
>Hate to break it to you byt the Supreme COurt doesnt take only a day to
>decide a case, I am sure Cuomo on the COurt would take no longer than
>some other justices -- but in any case perhaps some real thought is requird
>in making supreme court decisions.  All thomas does is follow Scalia and
>Scalia's has tunnel vision in his decisions.

Yeah, his 'tunnel vision' consists of basing his judgements only on
the Constitution and the laws in question.

> I think the prospect of
>another Bush appointee after Thomas debacle is frightening and reason enough
>not to vote for Bush.

Better a Bush appointee than Cuomo, IMHO.
>  That is one reason among many. . . . . . .
---
pjm
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:34922 talk.religion.misc:12427