HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: KAL 007: The Truth Seeps Out
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:40:17 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA


The Russian Government has released transcripts of what happened
when KAL 007 was shot down -- and all the good little Soviet
apologists who tried to claim that it was a spy mission for the
U.S., and that the Soviets did the right thing, better start
the barbecues now, because they are going to have to eat their
words.

The transcripts show that, contrary to Soviet claims, the pilot
did NOT make an attempt to contact the KAL 007 jet, it did NOT
take evasive measures to get away from the fighter, and the
cockpit recorder shows that they did NOT know that there was
a problem until they were hit by the missle.

Why does being an intellectual so often mean that a person has
to be an apologist for totalitarianism?  It's part of why
"intellectual" continues to be an insult to many people in
the U.S.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Lesson learned from Gov. Wilson's signing of AB 2601: if you don't get 
your way, have a riot.  Next time, Gov. Wilson will cower appropriately.
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
Date: 13 Oct 92 22:03:07 GMT
Organization: A.I. Chem Lab, University of Arizona

In article <3+7-dv_@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.180436.15502@unislc.uucp>, das@unislc.uucp (David Shorten) writes:
>|> Mark Wilson (mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM) wrote:
>|> 
>|> : As a citizen of this country you have a right to try and change the laws of
>|> : this country.  As an employee you have a right to try and get your employer
>|> : to change his family leave policy.  This breaks down when as an employee
>|>                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^
>|> : you use the laws of this country to force that employer to give you a
>|> : family leave policy.
>|> : 
>|> : This may be legal, but it sure as hell ain't right.
>|> : 
>|> : 
>|> Why does anything break down under this circumstance?  Looks to me like
>|> a fine way of solving the problem.  As an employee, you are in a low-power
>|> situation for purposes of bargaining.  As a citizen you are on more
>|> equal footing with your boss.  Why not try to get it legislated?
>|> 
>
>And if your neighbor has something you want you are in a low-power
>situation for the purposes of demanding that your neighbor give
>that something to you.  As a citizen you are on a more 'equal'
>footing.  Why not try to get it legislated?  A job is a creation
>of a business.  As such it is the property of the business.  The
>government has no more authority to make the job more
>agreeable to you than it would to require that a person selling
>a car make the deal more agreeable to you.
>
>
>James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
>University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
>Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:26:35 GMT

demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:

>	Actually, it is a likely scenario for a potential spy.  If Clinton, as
>John Doe, applies for a security clearance with such a background it would be
>denied.

Oh really? I think not.

-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.singles,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Forgive me if I am wrong
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 11:16:55 GMT

robart@agora.rain.com (Robert Barton) writes:
] In article <1avrpqINNsvg@bigboote.WPI.EDU> walkerr@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Robert A Walker) writes:
] >
] >>Orgasms, in the main, are messy things,
] >>and Really are not the sort of things
] >>that decent persons with good personal
] >>hygeine standards would wish to involve
] >>themselves in/with/towards.
] >
] >
] >	Sounds like this person can't get their rocks off to me.
] >Its only messy if you shoot somebody in the face or your so wet that
] >you flood your bedroom.
] 
]   What does this have to do with Bush?


Is this a Multiple Test Question?

1. half the people here will link 'bush' with orgasm.

2. half the people know there is no linkage.

3. and the prudent ones bemoan that fact.

ciao
drieux

ps: hopefully, now that the 'cold war' is over, 
there will be no more dissident poets breathing
the wind of popular unrest amongst the young.



-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Entropy, Its not Just a Good Idea,
IT's The LAW!!!!!
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Date: 9 Oct 92 11:46:44
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
	<8OCT199219514098@utarlg.uta.edu>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu's message of Fri, 9 Oct 1992 00:51:00 GMT

In article <8OCT199219514098@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:

> 2. On the personal level of people involved in war, when common folk are
>    forced to fight without exemption, can you offer reasons why those-who
>    would-lead-this-country should stand apart? 

Well, in fact, I can't, and that was one of the points of the anti-war
movement twenty years ago.  The war was very explicitly fought by the
poor and underprivileged, and that was just one of the well-known
obscenities of that war.

The system was set up, very explicitly, so that future leaders would
not have to fight, and would not be at risk---they were too valuable,
after all.  Besides, their parents were too influential: if sons of
Congressmen started dying, maybe the war would have suddenly gotten
less popular in Washingon.  There was a whole series of deferments,
and, for those who weren't eligible for them, there were enough
loopholes so that affluent people could always find some way or
another to escape the draft.  In my home neighborhood (a reasonably
affluent part of Pittsburgh), the volunteer draft counselors boasted
that nobody from that neighborhood had ever been forced to Vietnam
against his will.

Yes, it's cynical, and yes it's a mockery of equality, and yes, it was
shameful.  But that's the way the system worked, and the 18-year old
boys who were at risk weren't the ones who set it up; the old men in
Washington were.  As I said, that was one of the reasons why people
like Clinton were against the war altogether.

So Dan Quayle found a way to avoid going to Vietnam, and so did Pat
Buchanan, and Bill Clinton, and Dick Cheney.  That's the way the
system worked back then, and that's one reason I'm glad we no longer
have a draft.
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman)
Subject: Re: Bush Aide Foresees Landslide -- for Bush
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 14:49:53 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Oct12.034653.8121@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
...
>
>Bush aide looks at map and sees landslide
>-----------------------------------------
>
>           by Michael Kranish, Globe Staff
>
>WASHINGTON -- David Carney, the Bush campaign's national field
>director, sees the map of the United States as an electoral jigsaw
>puzzle.  At a time when Democrats are becoming almost cocky in their
>view that Gov. Bill Clinton will win, Carney looks at his map and sees
>nothing but good news.

    He must be looking at the wrong map.

...
>While most Bush aides interviewed this week acknowledged that things
>look bleak, several said there are three main reasons to be hopeful:
>Bush is just beginning to get personally involved in assailing
>Clinton; the Bush campaign has only just begun to launch its
>advertising campaign; and the presidential and vice presidential
                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>debates may prompt many voters to reconsider who they will support.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
...

    Quayle's performance in the upcoming VP debate is counted as one 
    of "three main reasons to be hopeful"?!



-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: all opinions are mine.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: gt7994a@prism.gatech.EDU (ORMOND,SEAN PATRICK)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: AIDS and Legislation of morality
Date: 13 Oct 92 06:55:25 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <1992Oct13.035305.26531@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <71020@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt7994a@prism.gatech.EDU (ORMOND,SEAN PATRICK) writes:
>>
>>Telling kids that condoms will protect them from a fatal disease makes
>>as much sense as telling them that seat belts will prevent them from
>>having a fatal accident.
>
>But seat belts do prevent (many) fatal accidents.  What's your point?
                           ^^^^^^
...but not ALL fatal accidents!  If a fatal accident CAN occur while
you're wearing your seatbelt, then seatbelts do not, by definition, PREVENT
such accidents.  Likewise, a condom will not PREVENT you from acquiring
an STD.  It might reduce your chances, but that's a small consolation
considering the stakes.  Let's say you have a 1% chance of catching HIV
during a heterosexual encounter.  Now this condom will reduce that to
0.2%, if you're very careful with it.  Now keeping in mind the fact that
we're dealing with a virus that leads to an incurable and FATAL disease,
are you going to feel any safer?  If you're willing to trust your LIFE
to a thin piece of latex you bought in the restroom of the local gas
station and just plain luck, this tells me a couple of things:
a) Your life's not worth shit; and,
b) You've got more balls than brains.
Kids are being taught that condoms "prevent the spread of AIDS", often
in lieu of ABSTINENCE!  This is terribly misleading and provides a
dangerously false sense of security.

-- 
Sean P. Ormond
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Clinton '92 - "Read my lips: NEW TAXES"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Re: Reagan/Clinton a tale of two govenors
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 08:10:54 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.013039.12544@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>If you say so... me, I think I prefer honesty from the men and women
>who call themselves our leaders, no matter how much it may hurt.

Me, I think I prefer people in office who do not fancy themselves as leaders,
but as servants to the people in the offices of our government. What made
Ronald Reagan so special was that he supported the interests of Americans
against the interests of the Beltway Ruling Class (TM).

Government is supposed to be our servant, not our master. I guess I'm just
an ol' fashioned kind of guy.

Oh well, back to the usual socialist drivel...


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51538 alt.rush-limbaugh:7328 alt.politics.bush:9030 alt.politics.clinton:10237 alt.politics.elections:16593 talk.abortion:42479 talk.politics.guns:22109
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns
Subject: An Aside on this Rights Issue
Date: 13 Oct 92 22:50:42 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

StarOwl@uiuc.edu writes:
] 
] The rights to life, liberty, and property are not guaranteed in the
] Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10, Amendment 27, and one other article
] that was not, and probably will not be passed).  These rights
] are protected in the Fourteenth Amendment.


we agree that the 14th does Cause problems for AntiAbortionists.

What I gets me confused about is the notion that there is a
'right to life' portion of the 'constitution' in some morally
absolute notion.

If such were the case, then it would be clear that the
'use of terminal force doctrines' as established,
under its various names, by the armed services and
law enforcement communities, would be the advocation
of a Clear Civil Rights Violation.

I find it an Intellectually Stressful notion that one would wish
to Advocate that the State Abrogate its OWN obligations....

ciao
drieux

ps: in a 'shoot, no shoot' scenario, it is not the time to
consider the Grand Constitutionality of it all.... but to 
make sure that the second round also hits its mark.

Modified Weaver, NOW and FOREVER, Amen.


ObGun: If god hand wanted us to use wheel guns 
he would have made our lives cyclical.

The first ONE of you to ask about the Cycle Rate of my Full Atuo
Goes STRAIGHT to the Stake and Will BURN!!!!!


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Don't Just Rock the Vote
Kick OUT THE JAMS!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.flame
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Pres. Debate Drinking Game Rules!
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 13 Oct 92 15:01:45 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

	Drink: 1
	Whenever Clinton or Perot refer to the failures of the Bush admin as
"Reagan-Bush", "12 years", etc.

	Two drinks if Bush does it.

	Three if a panelist/moderator does it.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51213 alt.politics.elections:16321 alt.politics.bush:8787 alt.politics.libertarian:808
From: 75300.3115@compuserve.com (Clinton for President)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: CLINTON ACCEPTS DEBATE INVITATION -- AGAIN
Date: 10 Oct 92 05:48:52 GMT

[file date 9/29/92]


            CLINTON ACCEPTS DEBATE INVITATION -- AGAIN

      Little Rock, AR.  On behalf of Governor Bill Clinton,
 Clinton/Gore Campaign Chairman Mickey Kantor today accepted the
 proposal of the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates to
 sponsor two presidential debates on October 4 and October 15, 1992.

      "The American people need and deserve presidential debates,"
 Kantor maintained.  "Governor Clinton was present in East Lansing and
 is present in Louisville ready to debate President Bush."

      Kantor stated, "We accept the Commission's proposal for two
 presidential debates to be held on October 4 and October 15 using the
 Commission's proposed format.  We also accept your invitation to the
 two campaigns to meet under your auspices prior to the debates."
 Kantor noted that the Clinton/Gore campaign has accepted the
 Commission's earlier proposals.

      The letter notes that in addition to rejecting the Commission's
 proposal, the Bush/Quayle campaign has rejected two separate offers
 by the Commission to meet and discuss any differences between the
 campaigns.

      In closing Kantor asserted, "In this election year, the nation
 faces truly watershed issues critical to its future.  The American
 people, who finance the general election campaign, are entitled to an
 open and frank discussion of these issues in a face-to-face setting
 between the candidates for president."

                              --30--



Distribution:
  General >internet:C-General-Distr@mail.clinton-gore.org
  All Volunteers >internet:c-all-volunteers-distr@mail.clinton-gore.org

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,soc.culture.usa,talk.politics.envirnonment
From: elowther@news.weeg.uiowa.edu (Edward Lowther)
Subject: Half THIS ticket's a winner:GORE's it!
Keywords: environment, politics, choices
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 21:12:16 GMT


There is no utility in having a facist like Robertson's
pet president in office.   There is no utility in having an
old geezer "war machine" Perot in office.  There is virtually
no utility in having someone who seems to be a trickster
in our highest office.     ( Aside: But many years of
the Republican Rhetoric classes is what makes Clinton a
"success" in the arena )  Call him what you will, he's
just the same as Nixon, the good and bad both.  So that
leaves us all voting Libertarian, right?  Phooey.

/Doesn't it settle the matter that Gore/Clinton (most important
first)  have ecology on their minds more than anyone
else?  Really, the most important thing is that we go on
living, not the little side bet we set up showing that whoever
has the most bits of green paper with dead peoples' faces on
them has "won"/?

Mention of a Hi-Speed rail system is good.  I don't care
whether the Democratic Prez. can do it next year or not, at
least they thought of it.   You remember the "oxymoron"
'conservative thinker'?   Someone who wants a status quo
while promising it will get better?  Well I looked up
conservative once, and it seems to me the heights of
idiocy that the status quo doesn't go back far enough
...into the  pre-pollution days.   That said, why aren't
you conservatives for CONSERVING! 

***Disclaimer. This is not U of I. views ***
 ( they have no views)
I'm voting for a *ticket* with a real conservationist this
time around, not one with a label conservative ...and
no clue what he's doing is oxyMoronic.( :-/ Potatoe /-: )
Note *ticket* means it's got at least half of the thing
on the right track.That's half better than the others.
And I'd urge you to too, but if the Congress goes the
other way, then its a dead lockstep again ,isn't it?
-------
  "Why ?"            : B. Clinton
  "Why not?"          : A. Gore
  "What?"(cringe)     : G. Bush
  "Well, HOW much?"   : H.R.Perot
  "What'd you say?"   : R. Reagan
  "my,um,er?"         : Adm.(Ret?)Stockton
  "Huh?"(blank look)  : J.D.Q. (was: "What, me worry?")
---
-- 
<elowther@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu>

  " 'Well,"   "', I said; yes, "   "!!
  ...What's wrong with saying '"   "'?  "
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50656 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6585 alt.politics.elections:15929 alt.politics.clinton:9483 alt.politics.bush:8483 talk.bizarre:33493
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
Date: 9 Oct 92 22:03:13 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education

In article <1992Oct9.214739.1488@u.washington.edu> sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:

>In article <9S5-sJB@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>>
>>No, in the original Constitutional sense.  There is no power granted
>>to the Federal government giving it the ability to interfere with
>>such contracts.
>
>Sometimes, the courts have justified such legislation
>using the "general welfare" idea which IS in the constitution. 

     That's wishful thinking and pretty smoke.  "General welfare" appears
twice in the Constitution.  Once in the pre-amble, which doesn't empower
anybody, and once as a reasoning for the power to tax.  Providing for
the general welfare is nowhere a seperate power, and the idea it would
have been provided sort of makes a mockery out of a limited government.

>>|> Legally, the government DOES have the right
>>|> to intervene in all sorts of relationships and contracts
>>|> between parties.
>>
>>Only because the courts made some giant leaps of logic in the
>>30's that haven't been corrected.  Most of the convolution centers
>>on what constitutes 'interstate commerce'.  Since the Constitution
>>allows the Federal government to regulate interstate commerce, if
>>the government decides (and the courts concur) that some activity 
>>involves interstate commerce it can legally regulate it.  The idea
>>was to regulate the 'commerce', not the employment activities of
>>companies that may engage in such commerce.
>
>OK, you disagree with the courts.  I do too, on some issues.
>So what?

     Maybe we've allowed the courts a little too much lattitude, and
failed to speak up when they are grossly out of line.

>>|> This works fine if you have an employer who is willing
>>|> to negotiate.  If not, there are no options.
>
>>Then I guess you find another employer.  After all, it your employers
>>job, its *not* yours.  It would be unreasonable for the government to
>>force a person to accept employment which was unacceptable to the person
>>and it is equally unreasonable for the government to force an employer
>>to make an offer to an individual that is unacceptable to the employer.
>
>Your view of the employee/employer relationship is substantially
>different than mine, as well as being substantially different
>from that in the laws of the legal system of the US.
>Then, I guess you can find another country. 

     Sounds perilously close to, America, Love it or Leave it.  Freedom means
a little more than just being able to leave the country.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  Information Services Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee)
Subject: Re: Polling errors
Organization: NEC America, Engineering & Support
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 01:58:34 GMT

From article <1992Oct6.004331.3493@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, by adams@liszt.berkeley.edu (Adam L. Schwartz):
> In article <Bvns4C.HJz@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>
>>The flaw in this has already been explained:  The typical margin of
>>error in a major poll is 3-5%, which is way over the % of the voters
>>who have voted for the L.P. in any presidential campaign, so there's
>>simply no rational reason for any polling company to include them.

Informal, unscientific, polls have put Marrou at 5% to 15% this year.

They should do the poll with Marrou.
If it comes back 1%, then they can drop him.

If he gets 5%, then he is about the same as Perot (7% to 10%).


-------------------------------------------------------------------
It is often stated (and certainly true) that the poor have no right
to the wealth of the rich.  It is seldom stated (but equally true)
that the rich have no right to the wealth of the poor.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer a small government which may permit some evil to
a large government which promotes evil at my expense.
---------------------------------------------------------

Michael Lee
mlee@esd.dl.nec.com
214-518-3807
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections