HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hlin@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (hua.t.lin)
Subject: Re: Time Magazine's grasp of higher mathematics
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:49:51 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.185104.24502@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>
>Found this winning piece of journalism on p.28 of the 9-14-92 edition
>of Time:
>
>  In the latest TIME/CNN poll, 74% of the respondents said their votes
>  would not be affected by their views of Hillary [Clinton]; but among
>  the remainder, almost twice as many said they would vote against
>  Clinton (14%) as for him (9%) based on their opinion of his wife.
>
>You heard it here first, folks -- 14% is "almost twice as many" as 9%...

Also, 74+14+9 = 97. Where do the remainding 3% stand on this?
The three categories cover the entire spectrum I would think.
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: >>>>>>>>Bush is a mother fucker
Date: 15 Sep 92 16:04:31 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA


In <1992Sep11.183734.6657@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:

DOC:It's about time someone took these members of the electorate to task. If you
DOC:are not going to study the issues, study the records, read the postion papers,
DOC:..., don't vote. Voting is more than pulling a lever.


Definition.
Informed Electorate:  Voters who vote the way I want them to.


-- 
--Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:44806 misc.legal:17065
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: UCC 1-207 on license plate (was: Seizures, stops and searches)
Date: 11 Sep 92 13:56:49 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <6dw=02eZ21On01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com sez:
>
>The van in front of me had a license plate fram that said on the top "WITHOUT 
>PREJUDICE", and on the bottom, "U.C.C. 1-207", apparently a notation that the 
>driver was displaying the license plate under protest, and continued to claim 
>other rights that might otherwise be waived by this acquiesence.
>
>I thought this was an interesting theory.  One doesn't often see citations to 
>the Uniform Commercial Code on vehicles.

A _pro se_ plaintiff in one of my cases this year (for a refund from
the IRS, in case anyone cares) stamped this same legend above the
signature on several of his briefs and letters to the court.  I got
the distinct impression that he does this with practically every
document of any legal or economic consequence.

-- 
And one of theym . . . cam in-to an hows and axed for mete; and specyally 
he axyd after eggys.  And the goode wyf answerde, that she coude speke no
frenshe.  And the marchaunt was angry, for he also coude speke no frenshe,
but wolde have hadde egges.         Mark Eckenwiler     eck@panix.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: PLEASE VOTE!!! (Clayton flame)
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 16:05:38 GMT

In article <12031@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>Completely agreed.  When homosexuals stop trying to oppress straight
>people in places like California, maybe straight people will stop trying
>to oppress homosexuals in places like Oregon and Colorado.

Just maybe.  That's probably the mistake Martin Luther King and
Malcolm X made, too -- perhaps if they had just simmered down and let
white people live in peace, maybe, JUST MAYBE, they would have given
black people their rights.

Just maybe.

Just.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "I don't know how much support NAMBLA
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /  has in the gay community."
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /   -- Clayton Cramer, August 1992
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: kmoore@ncsc.org (Kevin Moore)
Subject: Looking for electronic copy of Dan Quayle's MB speech...
Reply-To: kmoore@ncsc.org (Kevin Moore)
Organization: North Carolina Supercomputing Center
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:55:27 GMT

Does anyone have an electronic copy of Dan Quayle's "Murphy Brown" speech?
I am also looking for excerpts (contextual) from Hillery Clinton's writings.
Anyone have some recent references on these?

Thanks.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
||  Kevin Moore                      North Carolina Supercomputing Center   ||
||  Scientific Support Analyst       3021 Cornwallis Rd.                    ||
||  (919) 248-1179                   Research Triangle Park, NC 27709       ||
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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: Bush's Accomplishments
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics, Denver
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 18:24:41 GMT

nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:

>john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>>eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:
>>]Bush has done nothing in 3+ years.  He talks a good game now, but hasn't
>>]performed so far, and I see no reason to believe he will be different as a
>>]lame duck in a second term--a time when even strong presidents become less
>>]successful.

>>Well... let's see...
>>   He did a good job of conducting Desert Shield and Desert Storm

>    Strange, I thought that Schwartzkopf (sp?) did a good job conducting 
>the war, but the greatest credit I would have attributed to Bush is that 
>he did a good job of staying out of the way and letting the real soldiers 
>fight the battles. 

Which is precisely what he should have done.  It's also something good
ole LBJ and Jimmuh Catah just couldn't figure out.

John

-- 
John Sims    sims@pogo.den.mmc.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: sean@cae.wisc.edu (Sean Rutledge)
Subject: Re: Hold on to your wallet!
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Distribution: usa
Date: 14 Sep 92 10:27:36 CDT

In article <18ta4cINNau8@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes:
>mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>
>>What do you and people making over $200,000 a year have in common?
>>You'll all be paying more in taxes during a Clinton administration!
>
>Better them than people like me who make less than $40,000. 
>

The top tax bracket in Arkansas starts at $20,000/year.  Maybe this is
considered rich in Arkansas?  Will this be rich in the US under Clinton??


sean rutledge                              murphy was an optimist!!!
sean@cae.wisc.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: brownfield!jbrow (Jim Brownfield)
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Reply-To: <jbrow@glv.com>
Organization: Encompass
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 20:46:55 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.135545.24709@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)  
writes:
[other stuff deleted]

> 
> More like their only other choice is to not watch news at all. Few people
> like to be thought ignorant, yet even fewer are willing to spend the time
> and effort to dig out facts on their own, independent of the news agencies.
> This is a classic market failure driven by an almost undisplaceable
> oligarchy at the top.
> 
> Gary

Although I find your other arguments very interesting and informative, Gary, I  
have to take exception to the "classic market failure" statement.  Any industry  
so heavily regulated by the government (FCC) cannot be said to exhibit classic  
market failures.  If anything, your arguments demonstrate how government  
licensing and regulation are essential to oligarchies, and this is another  
example of classic government failure.

Jim Brownfield
#include <standard/disclaimer.h>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: record album stickering
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 10:57:04 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Sep14.223356.13308@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>
>No...it is only fine if the creative artist labels (defaces) their own
>work.  If the company, or publisher, or government, or anyone other
>than the artist does it, it is censorship.

  As I said before, calling it so doesn't make it so.

  The artist is entering into a commercial relationship with the 
  producer/publisher/record company, etc.  So they *both* have an 
  interest (in the legal/commercial sense of "interest") in the
  product.    This idea that art is somehow "above" commercialism 
  and business concerns is naive nonsense.  The publisher/promoter
  is not obligated to publish/promote something; if he decides to
  do so he has a right to attach strings to the deal.


---peter


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Subject: Yes to line item veto
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:12:14 GMT

I think that Bush made one (or two) good points in his acceptance speech.

The one I agree with most is about the line item veto. It has been proved
that the Prez and Congress can not work together on a budget efficiently
(is government efficiency an oxymoron). It's about time that the prez
has the power to slice out pork programs that only one or a few Congressmen
want. If something important enough to enough Congressmen, they will vote
to override that line item veto.

It couldn't be any worse than it is now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL			      	   "Canadians do not have a problem
CLARKSON '95				    Canada's health care system. Only 
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU  	    Americans seem to."   ---anonymous 
A PC-HATING, PRO-LIFE, LIBERAL CARD-CARRYING ACLU MEMBER
=============================================================================
"We are not descended from fearful men...not men who feared to write, to
speak, to associate and to defend causes which were for the moment 
unpopular."		---Edward R Murrow


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
From: jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni)
Subject: Legalities
Organization: The Department of Redundancy Department
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 22:17:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.183356.1384@dscomsf.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.223515.9796@ennews.eas.asu.edu>,
>makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:
>|>In article <1992Aug31.184758.21468@dscomsf.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
>|>writes:

>Thats because you are living in a backwards hick country where the rights of
>property are not respected. What you are describing there is abuse of the law.
>In the UK we set rather a higher score on democratic rights.

I seem to recall that the Brits had harsher penalties for theft of
property than for rape.  I also seem to recall that people who were
poor enough to be hungry and then stole a loaf of bread were sent off
to the penal colonies in Australia, for life.  Your higher standards
are not particularly impressive.  Those Jews who were sent to their
deaths by the British in Palestine around WWII weren't particularly
impressed with British standards of morality, either.

>|># What Jake seeks to justify is confiscation of property without
>|>compensation.
>|>
>|>	Nope.  He seeks a return of property.  The Arabs should feel lucky
>|>they are not being asked o pay for their illegal occupation of the
>|>property.
>
>Jake is asking for no such thing. We are discussing the cases where
>no claim is being made by any individual. 

There must be thousands of Arabs who live in homes in Israel with
little or no documentation of ownership.  There is no witch-hunt to
burn them out.  

However, when a squatter is evicted by the courts enforcing someone 
elses documented claim, and the squatter then appeals to the press
with heart-rending lies about having lived in the same house for
generations and centuries, despite clear evidence to the contrary, the 
courts are not amused.  The same would doubtless be true even in
Britain.  



-- 
Jake Livni  jake@bony1.bony.com               Pat Paulsen for President
American-Occupied New York                    This year he has a real chance!
My opinions only - employer has no opinions.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:44072 talk.politics.mideast:19693 misc.headlines:6240
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Was Clinton a Moral Draft Dodger? (was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Date: 8 Sep 92 21:03:45 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation
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 <81741@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:

>    Bill Clinton sought to avoid the draft and stay in school through 
>perfectly legal means.  He did nothing worse than what Quayle did with
>his "quickstep" into the National Guard, except that the legality of 
>the influence peddling which went on in Quayle's behalf is not at all
>clear.

Excuse me, but when Quayle entered the Guard there were openings
available.  One was not created for him.  There have been claims of
influence peddling, but no one as shown any kind of evidence for it.

Please compare this with Slick Willy who spent 8 months in limbo due
to his uncle's lobbying.

But of course Slick Willy would never have dodged the draft.


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
From: joan@koala.berkeley.edu ()
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Silber of Boston University
Date: 9 Sep 1992 21:42:06 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: koala.berkeley.edu


[deletion of most of post regarding Silber of Boston University]

>... he is currently in Germany giving the
>Deutschmanner his "Straight Talk" (name of his self-promotional book
>on the woes of America), lecturing them on how to best become more
>democratic.


	This reminds me -- does anyone have information on the below
two Silber items from years ago?

1.	His idea to have alumni take out life insurance policies on
	themselves, making Boston University the beneficiary.

2.	His idea of having B.U. take over the Chelsea, MA school system.

	Did these ideas become reality and what were the results?

Joan V	(jvh@nature.berkeley.edu)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43997 ca.politics:7484 ba.politics:5068 soc.motss:38384 ba.motss:1550
From: STella@thelema.uucp (STella)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss,ba.motss
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: 6 Sep 92 18:23:54 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Organization: Idiosyncratic Anarchic Order

In article <Bu1y3B.66q@cs.vu.nl> fjvwing@cs.vu.nl (FJ!!) writes:
Clayton writes:
>:Or maybe I will take the collection of garbage I've been collecting
>:from soc.motss and turn it over to Lou Sheldon at the Traditional
>:Values Coalition and the Yes on 9 campaign in Oregon.  You know what
>:powerful ammunition this stuff is for their side.

Clayton, dear, there's a little problem there.  Those folks don't need
your collection of postings (did you get mine about gerbils?) -- they
can make up perfectly good hate on their own.  Politicians don't need
Truth, and sometimes it gets in the way.

I see a ghost on the screen before me, the ghost of Tailgunner Joe,
waving a handful of inodes, spluttering about the hundreds of preverts
in the State Department.  But this too will pass....

>:Do I make myself clear?

>Wonderful. 

>A few harass him. So he decides to help exterminate us all.

A few are _alleged_ to have harassed him.

>A man of conviction and true justice.

And he's never heard of the Non-Coersion Principle.  Real libertarians
know gun control is hitting what you aim at....  So either Clayton is
a damn poor shot, scattergunning us or his actual motivation is to
coerce others to live by his lights rather than theirs.

If Clayton Cramer were deliberately trying to make libertarian ideas,
and voting for Libertarian candidates, completely unpalateable to the
queer community, what would he do other than what he has done?

Not a whole fuck of a lot.  Good job, Clayton.  What are you, a GS-9?

>Lovely.

Faaaaaabulous.

STella@xanadu.com	1016 E. El Camino Real, #302, Sunnyvale, CA 94087
From: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: What if America were a direct democracy?
Date: 4 Sep 92 21:41:53 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Distribution: usa
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mips.com

In article <farenebt.715573893@craft.camp.clarkson.edu>, farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
|> Well, I guess the subject is pretty self-explainitory (sic?). The proposition
|> was brought up in my American politics class. most people including the
|> prof seemed to think it was a good idea. The idea was to have both sides
|> of an issue presented on the 6:30 news. The news would bring in two debaters
|> (one from each side) and they would slug it out. It was use technology so
|> that Americans would be allowed to cast their vote afterwards by pressing
|> a thing that came up ont heir tv screen afterwards. I brought up the obvious
|> question about voter fraud. The class thought that there had to be some way
|> to do this (ie have everyone type in ss number or something like that). I still
|> don't think it's feasible nor do I think it's a very good idea. I don't think
|> that the concept of direct democracy is going to help the country. When I vote
|> for someone, I do so with the understanding that he/she may not agree with me
|> on every single issue but I take the good with the bad and choose the one
|> how most closely represents my views. The opposite argument is that in a direct
|> democracy, your views are even more directly represented. I'm sure there must
|> be some thoughts on that, pro and con. Please email me.
|> 
My only problem with this approach is that there really are a lot of issues, and
none of us have enough time to address them all.  I would like to propose an
ammendment.  On all issues in congress which receive a 2/3 vote, let them handle
it.  If an issue cannot generate this high a support level, submit it to
the people.  One of the beauties of this approach is that congress will get
trained on how the public feels about issues.

_________________________________________
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my
dog's, never my employer's.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45462 ca.politics:7795 ba.politics:5324
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
From: mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us (mike batchelor)
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 09:52:24 PDT
Distribution: world               
Organization: The Batchelor Pad

phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>
> In article <1992Sep14.151153.19036@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> ry@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (ryerson.schwark) writes:
>     >Oh yes, the same special rights that women, people of color,
>     >handicapped people, religious people, and the like have. Gosh
>     >*HOW AWFUL* that we might not want to be capriciously fired
>     >by some loony toon like you.
>     >Why I feel positively special just thinking about this *HUGE*
>     >right, NOT!
>     >Phil, are you sure you don't work at Optilink?
> 
> Why of course no one wants to get fired, "capriciously" or not. But that
> wasn't the point cinder-block for brains.
> 
> The issue is the conferring of special de facto status on yet another
> special interest group, and, as usual, at the cost of rights for all.

But Phil, you wouldn't lose a thing.  If it is ever discovered that
homosexual men and women have special rights, all you have to do to
get them for yourself is pretend to be gay!  It's not a big deal, I
assure you.  We pretend to be straight all the time to get your
special rights, like keeping our children, getting a job, renting an
apartment...

Sorry, I can't get too worked up about your concern for any special
rights we might have.



[] ---
[] Mike Batchelor -- mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us
[] Long Beach, California
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Good Cop, Bad Cop (Was: Bush is a father mucker)
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 19:53:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.165947.2322@news.columbia.edu> gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>echo@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Hagame uno mas!  Esos son muy cool!) writes:
>>
>>The problem with this is that Australia, which has no subsidies, is
>>getting stuck with the high hard one.  Even though they are much more
>>efficient and cost effective than the Americans or Europeans, they
>>can't compete and survive because the US and Europe toss buckets of
>>money at their farmers.  And the biggest problem is that Australia is
>>legitimately pissed, but is too small and doesn't have enough clout
>>to do anything about.
>
>According to UPI Clarinet, Australia is going to spearhead a GATT
>complaint with Argentina and Canada alongside, two other American
>allies on this issue who are getting hit in the crossfire.  On one
>hand, I am seriously wondering if this is a ploy to break the French
>logjam via the EC in the stalled Uruguay Round talks ... that Bush's
>announcement will not end up being spent, but part of a good cop/bad
>cop act that we're playing?  On the other hand, this is an expensive,
>time wasting, and emotionally draining way to go about it ... let's
>just watch and see what comes out of it all.
>

How does this put pressure on Mitterand to compromise...it just gives
him more incentive to side with his farmers since Bush just increased
American subsidies even further for nothing but political purposes...
and Mitterand is in worse political shape than Bush.  

Gerald
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Responsibility (Contradic
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:41:53 GMT
Organization: The Gizmonic Institute

deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>Theodore A. Kaldis writes:
>>The last time we had a veritable scumbag
>> as President was when LBJ held that office -- and he (and his legacy)
>> has very nearly destroyed this country.
>
>So, I suppose that you consider Nixon to be an honorable man?  Please!!  Give 
>me a break!  Nixon was *THE* most dispicable person ever to hold the office
>of President.
>
>Also, be so kind as to document how LBJ "nearly destroyed this country."
>

I think Mr Kaldis is referring to the nearly disastrous budget surplus 
which LBJ ran. A very bad example, him being one of those tax and
spend Democrats and all. Got the electorate all confused.
-- 
Modest Coach Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> Season: 0-3 Lifetime: 0-5 
It's raining goats! Alleluia!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:44580 ca.politics:7584 ba.politics:5159
From: martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: What Here!?! (Re: Working for change?)
Date: 10 Sep 1992 18:33:45 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: avalanche.berkeley.edu

In article <qstn_q#.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>
>Do you REALLY think that Clinton .vs. Bush is a CHOICE?
>

For a moment there, I thought I read:

   Do you REALLY think that CLAYTON .vs. Bush is a CHOICE?