HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: 15 Sep 92 11:11:36 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Sep12.070558.12065@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:

> So I take it you will have no objection [if] queers in Oregon took any
> action necessary to defeat the OCA?  After all 10% of the citizens of
> Oregon will soon be stripped of there [sic] right to free speech if
> the OCA gets its way.

This needs to be addressed.  Leaving aside the unsubstantiated charge
that some people might lose their rights should Oregon Prop. 9 be
adopted (I am frankly skeptical of this claim), it should be pointed
out that the "10%" figure is also suspect.  Homosexuals reflexively
claim that around 10% of the population is afflicted with their type
of malady, despite the fact that they lack conclusive evidence for
such a claim.  (I am more inclined to believe that the true figure is
closer to around 2%.)
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:44539 ca.politics:7577
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: PLEASE VOTE!!! (Clayton flame)
Date: 10 Sep 92 15:58:51 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <12188@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>If you want freedom, you need to be willing to grant it to others.

"except, of course, if you have a business establishment, or if you
have property to rent."
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Date: 13 Sep 92 14:32:21 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Sep10.95709.12603@ms.uky.edu> fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:
[deleted]
>...................... A mass market needs images and images tend to be 
>more emotional. I don't think the label "liberal" covers all the problems 
>conservatives have with the media: they want a classroom and TV news is part 
>theater. A flood of images hurtling past with no theory to tame them
>must seem like blood swilling Jacobins to conservatives.

Coach, there's a lot of truth in that statement. Conservatives lead with
their heads while Liberals "bleed" from the heart. TV is theater, it started 
as an entertainment medium, and still is for the most part. Thus tugging
at emotions is more natural to the image business than appeals to rational
thought. Showing a tree hugger chaining himself to a tree is a lot more 
emotion laden than reams of scientific data on biological diversity. It
gets higher ratings while conveying less information.

Gary
From: dgalvin@dgalvin.austin.ibm.com (David Galvin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Colin Powell's Record (was Bush giving up? (Colin Powell))
Keywords: Capture tanks??
Date: 4 Sep 92 18:33:28 GMT
Reply-To: ...@cs.utexas.edu:ibmaus!auschs!YOURCOMPUTER.austin.ibm.com!YOURLOGIN
Organization: IBM Austin, TX

Have you ever tried to capture tanks?  I admit I haven't, but the only sure	
way I can think of is to hit them with a 120 mm armored piercing round
and this would not leave them very capable of future use.  

In fact some of the engagements that occurred after the cease fire were
caused by Iraqi armor that would not leave their vehicles.  They
continued to retreat into Iraq and refused to abandon their tanks.  I
don't think there were any options other than to destroy them or to let
them retreat.  			
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 16:43:52 GMT

In article <12287@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> In article <1992Sep12.105039.7439@resonex.com>, michael@resonex.com (Michael Bryan) writes:
> > for are laws to protect us from getting fired just because somebody
> > doesn't like the fact that we're gay.  How many people do you know
> > who have lost their jobs because they were straight?  The very concept
> > of such a thing happening is ludicrous!  Yet I know many gay men
> 
> Not if the employer is gay, it's not ludicrous.

  I'm gay, I'm an employer, *this* is ludicrous. Gad, the concept of
shutting yourself off to 9/10's of the job market -- you do live in
a fantasy world.
  Hint: not many gay employers operate gay brothels.
-- 

		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: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Was Clinton a Moral Draft Dodger? (was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Date: 10 Sep 92 18:21:59 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 25077@s1.gov, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>	It's a pity that Bob Kerrey or some other candidate who
>actually served in the war hadn't gotten the Democratic nomination.
>That way, Danny Boy's military record would have been even more
>embarrassing. It wouldn't have been a question of who did the worst
>draft dodging, but who was willing to fight and who was willing to
>have others do the fighting for him.

Don't forget that Gore served in Vietnam.  But he has far better credentials
for the job than military service.  It doesn't really matter to me whether
Bush, Clinton, Quayle, or Gore were heroes or cowards when it came to military
service.  Using military service as an endorsement for public office is
about as reasonable as using church affiliation.  The real questions are what
policies will be pushed by the candidates, what advisors they will choose,
whether they will have the political skills to effect policy, etc.  The 
attention to military service is a time-honored distraction in campaigns,
perpetrated in this case by the Republicans to draw attention away from
their candidates' records.

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

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Run conservatives, run away! (Was: Re: Homophobics can't...)
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<1992Sep10.204740.11450@oracle.us.oracle.com>
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 07:02:40 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.204740.11450@oracle.us.oracle.com> rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) writes:



   >All the liberals on the national scene today want to raise taxes.

   Please define "all" and "liberals".

   Or refrain from such mind-bogglingly senile statements.

Show me a liberal who doesn't want to raise taxes and I'll admit that
Clayton is senile.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss,ba.motss
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 06:07:41 GMT

In article <12162@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <1992Sep4.180512.18080@spdcc.com>, dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
>> Cl*yt*n is viewed as an asshole, not because of his views, but because
>> of how he behaves on the net.  If he manages to get harassing phone calls,
>> he's simply reaping the consequences of his general behavior, and I am neither
>> surprised at this nor will I lose any sleep over it.  Let others like Ronzone
>
>Sort of like when homosexuals get beat up for not acting right.
>I'll remember this.

There you go again unable to tell the difference between groups and
individuals. Does the fact that your a flaming asshole give me the right
to beat up straight people?
-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
    
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 02:53:27 GMT

mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>In article <farenebt.716237519@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:

>>Clinton's plan
>>helps those who can't afford insurance but doesn't affect those who can.

>Typical left wing bull crap.  Bri wants us to forget that we will have
>to pay for it.
>-- 
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.

All right, let me ask you this, could you propose a better system? 

BRI
From: drm@esl.com (Don McGregor )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Was Clinton a Moral Draft Dodger?
Date: 7 Sep 92 18:19:34 GMT
Reply-To: drm@esl.com

In article <1992Sep7.161635.10593@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com  
(joseph.m.knapp) writes:
> 
>    Sue Voter in Peoria: "I'd like to vote for Clinton, but I don't think 
>    we've really gotten to the bottom of this 1969 draft issue."
> 
> Yeah, right.

  Joe Sixpack in Duluth:  "I'd like to vote for Clinton, but he has a  
history of being a slippery guy who's out for himself.  If he manipulated  
the system to avoid all military duty, why should I believe he has the  
moral courage to make hard decisions as president? Bad decisions at 18 are  
one thing, but it looks to me like he's lying through his teeth about the  
specifics of the draft issue and his motivations for avoiding it even  
now." 

--
Don McGregor
drm@esl.com  
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:44247 ca.politics:7522 ba.politics:5108 soc.motss:38521 ba.motss:1559
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss,ba.motss
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: 8 Sep 92 17:44:53 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <8255.1189@stratus.SWDC.Stratus.COM>, lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com (Len Bucuvalas) writes:
> In article <Bu1y3B.66q@cs.vu.nl> fjvwing@cs.vu.nl (FJ!!) writes:
> >It 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.
# #
# #:Do I make myself clear?
# #
# #Wonderful. 
# #
# #A few harass him. So he decides to help exterminate us all.
# #
# #A man of conviction and true justice.
# #
# #Lovely.
# #							FJ!! 
# 
# As I have stated in the past...Cramer, IMHO, is trying to foment
# civil unrest...this should be evident by his postings.
# GRanted this is (so far) a free environment for the exchange
# of ideas and philosophies. And as such anyone can get on here
# and state their case.  BUT when their constant raving becomes
# a tool designed to instigate racism against one group, then

Racism?  What are you talking about?  Homosexuals are a race?

# that person is fomenting civil unrest. As such, the fomenting
# of civil unrest can be prosecuted in a court of law.  The only
# road block one would have is to prove that this is what the
# person is trying to do.
# 
# Are there any legal begals on this group that can comment
# further?
# 
# Len

A true liberal -- Mr. Bucuvalas believes that the correct
response to free speech is jail time.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Are Tax and Spenders in second place
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 04:50:53 GMT

In article <9003@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>
mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:

>
>In <lacb8jINNdab@spim.mips.com> mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>
>>During an interview on PBS yesterday, the statement was made that if you
>>added up all federal welfare programs since the 1930's (the onset of
>>federal welfare), the total is a small percentage of the S&L bail-out
>>cost.  Does anyone have access to data to support or refute this?
>
>
>Considering the 100's of billions spent every year on welfare, I find this
>very hard to believe.
>
>Did the learned gentleman adjust his figures for inflation.  If he did not
>then his figures are worthless anyway.

     This came up in Poli-Sci class today.  (The instructor apparently
saw something similar to this.)  The impression I got was that "welfare"
was very narrowly defined, and certainly did not include many of the
aid-to-the-poor entitlements.

========================================================================
| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
========================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll)
Subject: Re: George Bush buys votes
Organization: Technophiles Inc. - Engineers with Attitude
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 18:16:09 GMT

You guys are awfully slow. GB has been doing this since the New
Hampshire primaries. Try to pay more attention, please.

It's not much different from Clinton's bribes to his core supporters,
the "infrastructure" spending program.

-- 
Alan M. Carroll          "Weren't there yams involved, too?" - J. Ockerbloom
Epoch Development Team   
Urbana Il.               "I hate shopping with the reality-impaired" - Susan
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rfb@CS.CMU.EDU (Rick Busdiecker)
Subject: Re: *BIG* Labor (AFL-CIO) endorses Clinton.  What a surprise (NOT!).
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Originator: rfb@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 21:49:26 GMT

In article <67611@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt7122b@prism.gatech.EDU (R. Mandock) writes:

   The suspense is over.  Lane Kirkland and his AFL-CIO have endorsed Bill
   Clinton.  I wonder what goodies he's promised them?

The end of the Bush administration.

   You'll be paying for them soon . . .

Damn straight!  I can't wait.

-- 
Rick Busdiecker <rfb+@cs.cmu.edu>
``Beware of programmers carrying screwdrivers''
				- Unknown
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45174 alt.politics.usa.constitution:143
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Dangers of line item veto.  [Was: Yes to line item veto]
Date: 13 Sep 92 21:11:11 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Sep13.171425.6225@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1992Sep13.045206.8124@eskimo.celestial.com> delisle@eskimo.celestial.com (Ben Delisle) writes:

>>	The danger I see with a line item veto, is the president
>>could, scrach out the word   'not' from the sentence fragment 
>>'is not permitted' making it into 'is permitted' thus totaly changing
>> the meaning of a new bill.

>This isn't anything like the line-item veto I've heard discussed: The
>President can't _edit_ a bill, simply veto sections of it (though,
>admittidly, "section" needs to be better defined.) The idea is to

While this isn't the *meaning* of line-item veto, I wouldn't put it past
Bush and his statist judges to attempt to redefine it this way.

>allow the President to seperate unrelated parts of all encompassing
>bill. It isn't at all uncommon for Congress to dodge a Presidential
>veto, by sticking together totally unrelated items, one of which the
>Presdient opposes and one which he suppports. A line-item veto is
>intended to curb this abuse. (By the way, it there anything in

Why do you call it *abuse*?  It's not an abuse, it's a perfectly valid
exertion of Congressional powers.  Part of checks and balances.
Otherwise the President would have a ridiculous amount of power, and it
would take 2/3 of Congress to pass anything.

>the Constitution to suggets the President does not, currently,
>have this power?) 

Well, there tain't anything in there to suggest he does.

Article I, Section 7:
	Every bill which shall have passed the HoR and Senate, shall,
before it becomes law, be presented to the president of the US; if he
approve, he shall sign it, but if not, he shall return it, with his
objections, to the house in which it shall have originated...

Doesn't seem to be anything suggested he gets to keep part of a bill only.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1992 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Brady Anderson 1992 AL MVP
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more months!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:44969 ca.politics:7663
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: PLEASE VOTE!!! (Clayton flame)
Date: 11 Sep 92 16:18:17 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <95688@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
> In article <12188@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >If you want freedom, you need to be willing to grant it to others.
> 
> "except, of course, if you have a business establishment, or if you
> have property to rent."

Homosexuals have the same freedom with their businesses and properties.
If they don't want to do businesses with straights, or homophobes,
or whoever, that should be their right, also.

Having seen want ads for positions that specified a preference for
gay or bi employees, I know that it goes on.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 20:06:38 GMT

In article <farenebt.716352807@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
>mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>In article <farenebt.716237519@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
>>>Clinton's plan
>>>helps those who can't afford insurance but doesn't affect those who can.
>
>>Typical left wing bull crap.  Bri wants us to forget that we will have
>>to pay for it.
>
>All right, let me ask you this, could you propose a better system? 

Of course not.  There's no better system than a free lunch.

There's only one problem with a free lunch; it doesn't exist.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: What was that?  Yeah, right...I think :)
Date: 11 Sep 92 07:24:51 GMT
 <BuD5IB.Mu8@helios.physics.utoronto.ca> <jwtnrdm.lmb@netcom.com> <1992Sep11.021918.4046@desire.wright.edu>
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.


 In article <jwtnrdm.lmb@netcom.com>, lmb@netcom.com (Larry Blair) writes:
> 
> If you want to live with inferior care supported with your taxes, move to
> Canada.  The last thing I need is no alternative to `California Care'.
> Canadian care is not inferior, I hear you say?  Bullshit.  I'll give you a
> very typical example: my sister (who lives in Montreal) developed a
> neurological condition.  Diagnosis required an MRI.  There is *1* MRI machine
> in Montreal and it was booked for the next 6 months.  She ended up having to
> go to New York, at her expense, for the test.  After this, and many other,
> problems with the Canadian health care system my sister and her family have
> opted out of the government system and bought private health insurance.  Not
> that they still don't have to pay taxes that you would find appauling.
 
 	Thanx for posting this.  When I posted that I had met Canadians in New
 Hampshire who said basically the same thing, the resident Usenet Canadian
 Defenders of the Realm managed to muster up a: "yeah, right".
 
 	So, Gary, going to rush in and defend mother Canada from this vicious
 assualt?
 :)
 
Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman)
Subject: Re: Former CEO of Silverado Indicted on Bank Fraud Charges
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:51:51 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <lb2brrINN3ot@spim.mips.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.224056.29598@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>|> In article <1992Sep11.015846.2394@mercury.cair.du.edu> elesatz@diana.cair.du.edu (Eric LeSatz) writes:
>|> >How did Neil Bush fit into the scheme?
>|> 
>|> As I recall, he was on the Silverado board of directors. But it isn't
>|> clear if he knew about, or profited from, any of the illegalities: 
>|> Boards often accept the CEO's recommendations without examining them
>|> too closely. Most probably, he knew (or should have known) something
>|> questionable was going on, but I doubt there is enough evidence for
>|> any sort of legal action...
>|> 
>Neil Bush, along with 5 (I think) other directors, admitted to mismanagement
>of Silverado and shared in paying a large fine.  He did not admit to breaking
>any laws other than his fiduciary responsibility to act in Silverado's best
>interest.  Not a crook, just an incompetent.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that Neil Bush took a $100,000 
    no-pay-back "loan" from a (former?) business associate of his, and then
    voted to approve a $100M(?) loan to that guy.  


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: all opinions are mine.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:44739 ca.politics:7619 ba.politics:5185 soc.motss:38759