HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: garyd@netcom.com (Gary Dietz)
Subject: Re: Comrade Clinton
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 22:14:14 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.200907.731@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>  Now everything seems crystal clear!  Bill Clinton is a deep plant by the
>KGB, programmed to wreak economic havoc upon our country, leaving it
>ripe for the picking by the second coming of the Soviet Union.  Hmmm,
>Hillary always did remind me of the Russian woman trainer in Rocky IV.  {:^)
[...]
>  Seriously, if ANY of this story of Clinton going to Moscow during the
>of a moron to go to the Soviet Union FOR ANY REASON during the height of
>the Vietnam war.  If these rumours are true, I'll laugh my *** off as he 
>slides down the polls faster than Dukakis did in '88.
>
>-- 
>Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
>of free-thinking anarchist." - Charles Montgomery Burns |      are my own!    

Now let me get this straight. . . 

A brilliant young idealist goes abroad to a foreign land (even our enemy),
and now, 20 years later, somebody is calling him a traitor?  (Okay, not
this poster, but some other one earlier -- I think that Richard would 
agree, if I get the point of his post).

Now, if Clinton really DID go to the USSR to damage his own country,
prove it with some facts.

Just the fact that he DID go there makes me more apt to vote for him.
I forget the quote, but there is someone who once said something like
you have to know your enemy so you can know yourself.

And then there is some great Mark Twain stuff (among many other
scholars) about travelling abroad and how it can open one eyes.
(I'm a Liberal, thus too lazt to get away from my desk and look these
quotes up :-)

By the logic found in this "Bill went to USSR in college thus he is a 
traitor" logic, I must be a traitor too.  I spent some time in Japan
in college, and they are our now our 'trading enemies.'  (Yeah, I know, we 
weren't at war. . . but we really weren't at war with the Russian's during
the Vietnam era either.)

For that matter, I have some Russian background in my genes, so I must be
a traitor.

Oh my god, I have some non-white friends too!  And my company is partially
funded by German concerns!  Yikes!  Call the media!  I must be a traitor!
My 'political viability' is destroyed!


Okay, I've gone a bit overboard at the end here, but to chastise Bill
Clinton for going to the Soviet Union just doesn't hold water with me.

Gary
-- 

   "To find fault is easy; to do better may be difficult."  -Plutarch
   "Why do better when you can just blame it on the democrats?" -G.H.W.Bush

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Comments on Republican Cowardice
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 07:26:35 GMT


So I guess everyone except you is a Nazi.

Don't tell me that I'd be first in line at Nuremburg-- if I had been around
during the 1930s in Germany, I probably would have left the country.
I wouldn't have lasted long under a Nazi system.  There are two important
things about me that Nazis wouldn't tolerate.
So, get off this Republicans are Nazis thing.  I could call you a communist
for no reason, but that wouldn't be right now, would it, since I can't prove
it.  Now, how can I be a fascist without knowing it??? I'm dying to find out
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:7157 alt.politics.marrou:1351 talk.politics.misc:48581 alt.politics.elections:14637 talk.politics.theory:4386 alt.politics.clinton:7767
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: AIDS crisis
Date: 29 Sep 92 23:26:47 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Michael A. Shaffer) writes:
|> moz [chris moseley]) writes:
|> |> Michael A. Shaffer) writes:
|> |> > >AIDS is not God's way of punishing the homosexuals for their lifestyle.
|> |> 
|> |> > AIDS is not a punishment from God at all. It is a natural consequence
|> |> > of ignoring the users manual. Sort of like jumping of a cliff.
|> |> 
|> |> Can you please let me know where I can get a copy? It's not listed
|>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> |> on any of the catalogues I can access. I assume it has Humans/ people/
|> |> homo sapiens AND `users manual' in the title/subject.
|> |> 
|> Sure any Bible Book Store. There is a free version but it is not nearly
|> as explicit.
|> 				mike
|> 
|> What you don't like that users manual. OK fine. Your decision.

That must be why good christians (and jews, and etc.) never have bad
kids.  What a crock.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush Never Had to Fight an Unjust War
Date: 6 Oct 92 04:30:49 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Oct5.232634.14126@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> shackeld@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (david m shackelford ) writes:
>In article <FOX.92Oct2065604@graphics.nyu.edu> fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:
>>I don't think a man who was never confronted with the dilemma
>>of an unjust war and an unjust selective service system is
>>really qualified to be president.
>
>The United States has never participated in an unjust war.
>Neither is the selective service system unjust.  The fundamental
>principle involved is that the citizens of a nation should
>be required to take action to preserve the security of that
>nation.  We got into Viet Nam because the President decided
>it was necessary for national security.  We entered every
>other war for the same reason.  
>
>There is no dilemma involved -- the only right choice is
>to obey the law.  (Or leave and never come back)  The
>only people who are qualified to be President are law-
>abiding citizens.
>
>Clinton broke the law, and is unqualified to be President.

I hope this was a joke.  If not, I want you to think carefully
about what you said.  Authority should not be questioned if
Authority has done something you feel is morally wrong?  Isn't
this against the most basic American ideas?  If the law is wrong,
shouldn't there be some murmuring about its wrongness?  Blind
obedience?  What is this but an approximation of the Nuremburg defense,
where one is not responsible for one's actions, no matter how immoral.
"I was just obeying orders."


--
"Sounds interesting....  Sounds interesting...."
				-- Homer Simpson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.abortion
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Feminists for Life (was Controlling Women, etc.)
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 14:43:58 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>From article <adams.717437733@spssig>, by adams@spss.com (Steve Adams):
>> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> 
>>>Of course.  With handy dandy abortion clinics on every corner, society has
>>>no incentive whatsoever to abolish _any_ of these terrible abuses of women.
>>
>> Sorry, but the fact that abortion is legal has 0, repeat 0 to do with the
>> fact that women are paid lower wages for exactly the same work, or that
>> incest happens, or that rape happens, or all of the other ills.
>> 
>> The glass ceiling has nothing to do with the availablity of abortion...
>
>Of course it does.  Professional women all over the country are EXPECTED
>to terminate their pregnancies or face serious derailment of their careers.
>If they can no longer be expected to terminate their pregnancies, they will
>gain the leverage they need to fight back.

But the glass ceiling affects career women who DON'T WANT TO HAVE KIDS or
have already HAD kids, and no longer need maternity leave.  How do you
explain yourself in light of the 45-year old executive woman who's a junior
vice president and NEVER gets promoted?  

I think you're blinding yourself by blaming abortion.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: rjwill6@PacBell.COM (Rod Williams)
Subject: Re: Slick Willy's Peace Movement
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Francisco
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 18:39:19 GMT

> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>> fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:

>> Good. I'd hate to think the depth of his stand against the war was
>> limited to avoiding the draft. To quote Dan Quayle <approx> "By
>> 1969 everyone was against the war. Even Richard Nixon." Repeat after
>> me: Viet Nam was a bad war.
>
>But we're not electing the Viet Nam war.
>
>Yes, it was bad, but that does not alleviate any one person
>of his/her responsibilities.  Clinton played coward, he avoided
>his duty.  I don't want a person with that type of character
>in the driver's seat.

I'm getting really tired of seeing this kind of ignorance
flaunted in public.

A story in today's (9/29/92) New York Times quotes a 1965 memo
by General Lewis B. Hershey, director of Selective Service.
He wrote that manpower needs were only one task of a system
that was also "heavily occupied" in shunting registrants
toward deferments and so "developing more effective human
beings in the national interest."

It also mentions that Ford Administration documents show that
26.8 million men were in the right age group to serve during
the Vietnam era, but 15.4 million of them were deferred,
exempted or disqualified -- the majority.  The 2.1 million
men who did serve in Vietnam were mostly the urban and rural
poor and members of minorities.  The story also mentions
that Dan Quayle, Pat Buchanan, George Will and Newt Gingrich,
all of whom supported the Vietnam War, all avoided service in
that war.  Let's keep Vietnam out of this election.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
rod williams -=- pacific bell -=- san francisco -=- rjwill6@pacbell.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: Comments on Republican Cowardice
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1992 12:12:34 GMT

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:

>Now notice while being critical of what Garret is doing, I have yet to
>call him any of the names he threw at me.

There is no reason to call Garret obscenities:

	1. He proves his ignorance to everyone else when he posts.

	2. The term "newbie" would sum it up fine.


MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:7578 alt.politics.marrou:1398 talk.politics.misc:49269 alt.politics.elections:15012 talk.politics.theory:4425 alt.politics.clinton:8279
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU ()
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: AIDS crisis
Date: 3 Oct 1992 05:40:56 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1992Sep24.011838.10115@uoft02.utoledo.edu> steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (jason "Think!" steiner) writes:
>moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (moz [chris moseley]) writes:
>> rogers@ial1.jsc.nasa.gov (mister rogers) writes:
>> 
>
[deleted stuff only interested in this follow statement]

>awww. poor junkies. might have to wait 20 minutes to get their fix.
>my heart bleeds. give me, as the old and wise saying goes, a fucking
>break. AIDS isn't a scourge of God, but i'm beginning to think it's
>might be natural selection's way of increasing the average self-control
>of the human population.
>

Hmmm.. this is an interesting viewpoint.  AIDS or HIV infection is
definitely a progressive disease, but so are cancers and types of
debilitating conditions.

What is interesting to see is the shortsightedness of people when
it comes to harm being at the doorstep.  We tend not to pay attention
to long term propositions;  environmental pollutions, we have some
good correlations between environmental pollution and disease.  

Is being a addict a disease?  Many will disagree as to what is what,
but the fact is, these people exist and 'suffer' from a condition
that was brought on by many factors.

If the author of the above is concerned with average self-control
the start tomorrow, stop driving your car so much, look at everything
that you simply throw into the garbage, think about the steps you take
to accomplish a goal and how much waste was involved, how much electricity
do you use = pollution from generation.

The condition of AIDS is one that we need to be completely aware of,
the first step is to stop blaming the victim, and start looking at
the cause.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey)
Subject: Re: Slick Willy's Peace Movement
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.
            <1992Sep27.174415.23122@rchland.ibm.com>
            <1992Oct3.202943.15437@cbnewse.cb.att.com>
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 22:02:40 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.202943.15437@cbnewse.cb.att.com>
   harryo@cbnewse.cb.att.com (harold.r.holm) writes:
>In article <1992Sep27.174415.23122@rchland.ibm.com>,
   jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
>>  green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
>> |> 
>> |> : Seems Boy Clinton was a little more than a draft dodger.
>> |> 
>> 
>> Clinton was braver than Quayle.  Clinton could have been arrested
>> for doing what he thought was right.  Danny Boy, on the other hand, 
>> just got his daddy to get him into the national guard.  Quayle was 
>> the coward here, not Clinton.  
>> 
>WOW--------could have been *arrested*!!!  Does getting escorted by 
>a London Bobbie to an English jail cell mean you come home in a 
>bodybag?
>
>Qualye still got in uniform, however tacitly.  That's still closer
>than Clinton ever got to military service. 
>
>                                                H.R. Holm
>
>*standard disclaimers, comment my own;
> replies to the newsgroup only, please*

Four students came home from Kent State in bodybags, and not all of them
were even protestors.

Yeah, I guess those cowardly anti-war protestors didn't have a *thing* to
worry about.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Jim Hulsey)   TBDBITL '84 ('85 Rose Bowl)
An Ohioan living in Misery (Missouri, same difference)

Watch what you say!                Won't you sign up your name
They'll be calling you a radical   So you can be their dependable
A liberal, fanatical criminal      Respectable, presentable vegetable
--  Supertramp "The Logical Song"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Bush's failing health
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 20:56:08 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.101626.23740@ms.uky.edu> fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:
>
>Anyway, Bush has looked good on camera recently, so unless they have
>a truly amazing stunt double, I think the health issue is a minor
>one. A non-impeachment worthy one, at least.

It was Dana Carvey during the off season.  Now that SNL is back
on the air, Bush will cease making public appearances.



--
"I was trying to figure out which of my friends were hedgehogs, and which
were foxes...."
"Shakespeare wrote _King Lear_, NOT _King Leo_...."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: jjs@sei.cmu.edu (Jeffrey Stewart)
Subject: Re: Bush's failing health
Organization: Software Engineering Institute
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 13:44:34 GMT

     I used to see the occasional "how the presidency ages you" story in the 
various news magazines, showing "before" and "after" pictures of past 
presidents.  The change was usually dramatic, even for one-term presidents.  
The change was always attributed to "the stress of the presidency."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Slick Willy's Peace Movement
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 04:42:50 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Sep27.174415.23122@rchland.ibm.com> jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
]Clinton was braver than Quayle.  Clinton could have been arrested
]for doing what he thought was right.  

In England? You've gotta be kidding. He wouldn't even have been
arrested in the US for demonstrating against the war.
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality! - -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
From: rcribb@alfred.carleton.ca (Robert cribb)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.all-worlds
Subject: Mormonism
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:45:53 GMT
Organization: Carleton University

Master's journalism student at Carleton Universtiy in Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada, doing thesis on Mormonism is looking for Mormons, ex-Mormons,
and potential converts for research. I'm looking for your stories of
involvement with Mormonism.
Please contact through e-Mail or: Robb Cribb 
                                  2201 Riverside Dr., #1606 
                                  Ottawa, Ontario
                                  K1H-8K9
Newsgroups: alt.religion.all-worlds
From: daw@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Dave Webb)
Subject: HELP! I need your advice!  Please help me to keep this love al	ve
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:17:19 GMT

I desperately need some help and advice.  I have been dating a Jewish girl
from New York for the past 2 months and have developed a wonderful relationship
with her.  We have spoken of marriage and spending the rest of our lives 
together.  We see each other as often as possible, I've been to New York several
times, she's been down here (Baltimore) and we went on vactation together to
Florida.  The problem we are now facing is her parents.  They are conservative
jews and forbid her to date non-jews.  Well, too late for that.  The problem we
now are facing is when and how to tell her parents.  She confided in her sister
(she has three) and the one sister she confided in told her that the news of her
dating a non-jew would kill her parents.  She said that they would never accept
me and for her just to end it now before things get any more serious.  She also
mentioned something to her father directly.  The exact words were, "Dad, what 
would you do if I dated someone who wasn't je
					     wish?"  Her father's response was,
"I'd throw you out of the house"  (She is 24 and is living with her parents
until she finishes school next May)  Well that was that.  So now the choice she
is forced to make is between her parents and myself.  She has already told me 
that she can't give up her parents because they've always been there for her
and she can't hurt them after all they've done for her.  She is very confused
and needs some direction.  She loves me and doesn't want to leave me either..
the feeling is mutual.  I hurt for her because of everything she has to go
through.  We kind of broke up this weekend because she didn't want to hurt me
more later.  It was a very sad time.  That really wasn't what she wanted, so
we decided to continue our relationship as it was.  I need to hear as much
advice and suggestions as you all can come up with.  Things I've decided:
She should contact her rabbi and have HIM help her break things to her parents,
We need to come up with a very positive way to introduce me to her parents.
I've thought of conversion and her sister thinks that even that wouldn't do any
good for her parents acceptance.  Anyway, I'm very in love with this girl and
can't stand the thought of losing her... especially since things are going so
well.  PLEASE help me!!!  What choices do I have?  What choices does she have?
Suggestions? Hints?  I'm DESPERATE!  Help me to keep this love alive!  PLEASE??

			Thanx in advance,
					Dave Webb

        je



Newsgroups: alt.religion.all-worlds
From: rcribb@alfred.carleton.ca (Robert cribb)
Subject: Re: HELP! I need your advice! Please help me to keep this love al ve
Organization: Carleton University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 17:51:57 GMT

Dear Desperate,
My heart bleeds for you in your difficult situation. Your story has a
particular poignancy for me because I've recently gone through a very
similar experience (and continue to ponder the consequences.) For the
past couple of years I've been involved in a long-distance
relationship with a Mormon (I am Catholic) and the experience exposed
me to new depths of personal grief. In short, it was ugly, and
wonderful simultaneously. 
Unlike you, I met her through her mother, with whom I had and continue
to have a congenial relationship with. The parents were never the
problem. The church was. 
Advice? Get the hell out of it now. You can't win. Religion is the
most divisive element in our society and nothing you or she can do
will ever be able to overcome the ancient walls of religous
conviction. Don't fool yourself. Her parents are not the real issue.
You're missing the point. 
Any short term gains you may make with her parents are nothing
relative to the lifetime of complications that inter-faith relationships, and especially marriages, inherently
contain. So what if you meet her parents and they love you (yeah,
right)? What if they don't but she agrees to put her jewish beliefs
behind her and marry you anyway? Consider the long term. The
concessions she makes to be with you now will come back to haunt both
of you in the future. Make no mistake. It will be resentment with a
capital R. Her life with you will be underscored by the incessent and
unrelenting questioning about whether she did the right thing in
leaving her faith and her parents to be with you. However
unintentionally, you are forcing her into a decision which makes her a
loser whatever the decision. Even if she chooses you, you will not
be the winner in the long term. 
I'm sitting next to a conservative Jewish woman at my computer terminal who  
says if you are not planning on having children, "Go for it, but if
children are in the future, you have to think much more carefully
about this. If there are children involved it is much too complicated."
Words of wisdom. Have you thought about what happens when your kids
get to the age when religion becomes a consideration? Does she want to
raise them Jewish? How do you feel about that? What faith are you
anyway? 
I know my perscription is a bit hard to take right now, but I only say
it because through my experience I've come to believe, as cruel as it
sounds, there is no overcoming religious segregation. I tried. I
failed. It's ugly out there. 
Then again, I could be wrong.
Sincerely, 
Robb Cribb