HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Final election tallies??
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:37:23 GMT
Organization: SSDT SPS, Motorola Inc., Austin TX

In article <l=h1hma@rpi.edu> buckmr@vccsouth24.its.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire) writes:
>jhopkins@cbacc.cba.uga.edu (John Hopkins) writes:
>
>
>>Does anyone have the final state-by-state election tally?  The last I heard, 
>>Arizona and Georgia were still up in the air.  Any late word on how those 
>>turned out?  (Yes, I am *IN* Georgia, but I'm locked in an office with no 
>>radio.)
>
>Georgia went to Clinton-Gore EARLY in the night. Arizona was a tossup, though.

BZZT.  Mark Wilson reported (previous post) that actual vote count gave
Georgia to Bush.  The media muffed that one.

(Bush got AZ as well.)

Pat


>-- 
>RON BUCKMIRE
>The Anna Quindlen Fan Club
I feel sorry for you. She is a horrible writer with a narrow mind and
an unsure grasp of logic. But hey, maybe that appeals to you.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: saarinen@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Sirpa Saarinen)
Subject: Re: Four years of fun
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 15:48:21 GMT

jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin) writes:


>	Now that the election is over and a Democrat will be in
>office, it's time for four years of fun.  I can't wait to blame the
>next natural disaster on Clinton.  I can't wait to see if Clinton's
>faithful servant Al-Gore makes the White House kitchen kosher.  I
>can't wait to slam Clinton for every broken promise, most of which are
>impossible to fill.  I can't wait to see who the Democrats are going
>to blame for the problems of the world.  

You could always try to blame the Reagan/Bush legacy for the mess they
created.

Why are you talking about "broken promises", didn't your candidate ever
break any? Which candidate has never broken any of these "promises"?

Sirpa Saarinen
saarinen@csrd.uiuc.edu

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60200 alt.politics.elections:23821 alt.rush-limbaugh:9712 talk.rumors:1283 alt.activism:18794
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: 14 Nov 92 22:36:35 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

<In article <1992Nov12.165456.21991@osf.org> Terri Buchman <buchman@osf.org> writes:
<   In article <BxLvyA.24G@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> Greg Trotter,
<   greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu writes:
<   >Are you saying that quotas don't work?

<   Actually I'm saying that most of the 'quota' systems that I have
<   seen in place were put there by and for white males.  
	
	SOME. The word missing is SOME.

	There are systems which were created by *SOME* "white males",
	which benefit *SOME* "white males".

<And yes I
<   think that it is about time that those quota systems were abolished.

	And replaced with another? Wrong.

<   Affirmative action programs do not equal quota systems.  Please show
<   me the wording of the Civil Rights bill that states what quotas
<   shall be in effect and what the allocated numbers shall be.  

	What the Civil Rights Act says and what has been put
	in place to enforce that Act are two very different
	things.

	Which is, after all, rather the point; now isn't it?

<Or
<   could it be that affirmative action is actually a program designed
<   to open up opportunities for groups other than white males.  

	This term, "white males" is offensive. I have a black female
	dog; I work with women who are black. The difference between
	"black female" and "black woman" should be obvious.

<Among
<   other things, affirmative action asks employers to list their job
<   openings and encourage applicants from all backgrounds to apply.  

	It does no such thing. Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)
	law requires this. 

	Attempting to confuse EEO with AA is a common trick that
	supporters of racist quotas use. It won't wash, however.

<It
<   tries to get companies to widen their hiring pools and actually
<   recruit from a wide range of areas.  

	Nope. EEO does that, not AA.

<I read an estimate that as many
<   as 80% of all job openings are never listed.  They are filled from
<   personal references and employee referrals.  AA asks that more jobs
<   be listed so that a wider range of people can apply.  

	False. Utterly false.

	EEO is not AA; it's just that simple.

	Ask any Asian-American who has applied to a California
	University school; she can tell you the difference.
	She can also tell you about quotas and how wrong they
	are.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: kemnitz@netcom.com (Greg Kemnitz)
Subject: The name of the new Religious Party
Summary: :-) ;-)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 23:00:24 GMT

In article <dusek.721411047@shale> dusek@rtsg.mot.com (James Dusek) writes:
>
>	Alot of independants in congress will also make me happy. As to the
>religious right getting controll of the republican party, it most likely 
>won't happen. They are forming their own party, and will run aginst
>the republicans and democrats.

What will it be called?  I have some choices:

1.  Hezbollah (Party of God).  Wrong religion, already taken, but essentially
    the same agenda.

2.  The American Salvation Front.  Nice and militant, may co-opt some
    lefties :-)

3.  NSDAP: National Salvation from Democratic Athiests Party.  Acronym was
    taken by a certain German party in the 1930's, unfortunately.

4.  The Rush Limbo Party.  Got to fight against the Feminazis, the Liberals in
    the Media, and Stay Tuned for a Homeless Update.  Copyright 1992, the
    Excellence in Broadcasting Network.  All rights reserved.  After all, Bush
    lost because he was too liberal for the American mainstream...

5.  The Just-Say-No Party.  After all, right-wing fanatics are good at telling
    you when to say no, or to saying no to you, but not much else.

6.  The Freedom Party.  To be free from Liberals in the Media, Pornography,
    Gays&Lesbians, Minorities, Feminazis, and Taxes.  Gotta to build prisons
    and keep the Uzi handy, though.  

7.  The Lazy Fairy Party.  Both to pay homage to their favorate economic
    system and to get in a dig at the evil gays :-)

8.  The Family Action Party.  After all, we know school prayer, banning of
    seditious writers like Mark Twain and John Steinbeck, and getting Murphy
    Brown off the air will lead to a renaissance in Family Values (tm) in
    America.

9.  The Real American Party.  All Real Americans are rich, white, and are
    always at the church on time, except when they have an early golf date.

10. The OxyMoronic Party.  'Nuff said.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Kemnitz                        | "I ran out of the room - I
MultiMedia Information Systems Inc. | didn't want to be killed by a pile
kemnitz@netcom.com                  | of VMS manuals" :-)
                                    |
                                    | --A friend at DEC Palo Alto in the Quake
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Thank you, Anita Hill
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 19:59:14 GMT


In article <adams.720978844@spssig>, 
adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) said:

> > Let's hope that 4 years of Clinton will help undo the damage to
> > the credibility of the U.S. Supreme Court inflicted by 12 years of
> > cynical selections of unqualified candidates.
> > [bhjelle@carina.unm.edu]
>
> Robert Bork was the most qualified man in America to serve on the
> court.  It was cynical rejection of a highly qualified candidate for
> political purposes by the DEMOCRATS that kept him off the court.

Come on.  Qualified or not, Bork was nominated by President Reagan (a
REPUBLICAN) for political purposes too.  One of the more ridiculous
things about the Bork affair was the carping by some Republicans about
how the Democrats were (gasp!) politicizing the process... let's face
it: when the Constitution calls for somebody to be nominated by a
politically elected officer and then approved or rejected by a body of
more politically elected officers, you're going to wind up with a
political process, folks.  That's the way it's supposed to be.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59255 ca.politics:9473 ba.politics:6933
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Property Rights
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 09:43:50 GMT

In article <Bx951K.7o6@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> fulton@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben Fulton) writes:
}In <Bx8zoK.EFz@world.std.com> rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) writes:
}
}>	1. I am a libertarian. That is I favor the maximum amount of personal
}>	   liberty consistent with a minimum of social order and lack of 
}>	   violence.
}
}So does George Bush.

Bullshit.  Bush doesn't even support free markets, much less social tolerance.

}>	2. Property has been part of the advanced
}>	   cultures of the world since the agricultural revolution.
}
}Only property in the sense of land ownership, which before that was basically
}a renewable resource.  I suspect property in the sense of "possessions", as
}you use it in your next paragraph, was around long before that.

Not everywhere.  Some cultures had real property rights in prehistorical
times.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59679 alt.politics.elections:23535 alt.rush-limbaugh:9492 talk.rumors:1222 alt.activism:18661
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: 12 Nov 92 05:31:58 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Distribution: usa
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
'jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov () writes:
'>tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
'>>doug@ramona.com (Double Agent) writes:
'>>>EEOC Commissioner. Note that the EEOC is the agency where Hill was working
'>>>when she was sexually harassed by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas,
'>>>who was then the EEOC Commissioner.
'>>
'>>She offered no evidence that she was harassed by anyone.
'>>
'>
'>In your opinion...
'>
'
'Testimony is evidence.

In a dictionary definition, yes it is. But...

I wish that were always the case. Then what is "perjury"? Isn't it when
your sworn testimony about what happens is discovered to be found in
conflict with the evidence already given, mainly by physical evidence?
What about a situation in a rape trial in which it is essentially one
person's word against another's? Can _both_ stories, such as that in the
William Kennedy Smith trial be the truth?

Testimony or offering to testify does not necessarily mean you are
offering irrefutable evidence about a situation. I could testify that my
parents beat me when I was little all the time. It's not true, but
according to the statement that "testimony is evidence," my statement
proves that my parents beat me when I was young.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	Biomedical Engineering 1993
	THANK GOD IT'S BASKETBALL SEASON!!!!!
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,ca.politics,ba.politics,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Shooting tragedy (was Re: Support Right to 'bear arms')
Date: 10 Nov 92 20:40:53 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <yeHyTB1w165w@netlink.cts.com>, galan@netlink.cts.com (Greg Gross) writes:

> Third, Yoshi reportedly was walking away from the house when the guy 
> comes out and yells "Freeze!" and then shoots.

Source please?  I have not seen this reported anywhere; I have also
not seen anybody but you claim this in the newsgroup.

> Good old God-fearing WASP Louisiana gunslinger probably will get off 
> without so much as a slap on the wrist for this. But he was just 
> exercising his Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, right? 

If indeed he shot the student in the back, I would expect that the grand
jury would have charged him with something stronger than manslaughter...
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: cah@tyr.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen Halsell)
Subject: Re: Perot came in SECOND
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA/Caltech
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:55:54 GMT

In article <2782@tymix.Tymnet.COM>, filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit) writes:
> Final results from Utah:
> 
> Bush    320,559 - 45%
> Perot   202,605 - 29%
> Clinton 182,850 - 26%
> 
> Why has this not been reported anywhere?  I find it significant that
> Perot came in second in _any_ state.

This was widely reported ... I mean, I read it on Wed or Thur.  Not in
a headline, but in the state-by-state totals.  I don't really think it's
that significant.  Interesting, but not earth-shattering.

*********************************************************************
the only thing that speaks the truth is the eloquence of passing time
               the spoken word is a jacket too tight
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism,misc.legal
From: v140pxgt@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Daniel B Case)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: 12 Nov 92 03:09:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Nov11.165833.19066@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>, wgb3@pyuxf.uucp (25336-buoni) writes...
>To the best of my knowledge, Anita Hill's charges were never substanciated!

Anita Hill's charges *were* substantiated-just not during the hearings that 
everybody saw. Two witnesses-Angela Wright, the Charlotte newspaper editor who
said she was also harrassed, and that other woman (I forget her name-she's 
quite grandmotherly and would have made an effective witness) were scheduled to
testify, but at the last minute they were struck in favor of John Doggett. 
Their testimony can only be found added to the published record.

According to an article in Spy magazine last spring, Biden was intimidated by 
the administration through Senator Simpson. Late the Saturday of the hearing,
while the adminsitration's lawyers were feeding "Long Dong Silver" into LEXIS,
Simpson warned Biden that if he went through with letting those two testify, 
Bush was prepared to personally attack him as a racist. Biden was particularly
sensitive to that charge in Thomas's context, as the wall Street Journal had 
editorially attacked him during Thomas's confirmation of his appointment as
Ferderal Judge (using an oddly prescient title "The next Lynching")-besides 
Biden made a number of anti-busing speeches as a freshman Senator that might 
seem imprudent now.

No, perhaps Ms. Wright's story wouldn't have changed your mind. But it would
at least undeniably have corroborated a crucial part of her testimony.

							Dan Case

						V140PXGT@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu

	P.S. "Justice Thomas" is an oxymoron.

	P.P.S. Wouldn't you also find it interesting that one of the few times
	on his first term that Thomas did *not* vote with Scalia was when he 
	joined the majority in the U.S. v. Jacobson case-which, you'll remember,
	was the much-publicized conviction of a Nebraska man who was finally 
	tempted-after two years and a great expense of tax dollars-of ordering
	*one* item of kiddy porn through the mail. His conviction was 
	overturned. Justice Thomas, who joined the court's four liberals, may
	well have cast the deciding vote. I wonder why?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: President Clinton's Cabinet
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 04:39:16 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Nov6.194901.6018@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
]It'd be nice to finally have a Secretary of the Interior who actually
]gives a damn about protecting the environment: e.g., Tim Wirth. Seems like
]we've had a string of them (currently Lujan) who believe the Second Coming
]is at hand, so what's the point in preserving anything.

Bruce Babbitt will be Sec'y of Interior.

-- 
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
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
 - - Definition: invertebrate ::= George Bush - -
From: pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PAUL N. RITTER)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Doomed...Doomed...Doomed...
Date: 5 Nov 92 06:52:40 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <Bx76v6.Kt1@apollo.hp.com>, goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman)
writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.043731.138233@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (P
AUL N. RITTER) writes:
>...
>>you can't put the blame on a president for the MAJORITY of the problems in our
>>country when you have a strong Socialist governing body.
>
>    We need a president whom we can hold responsible for the country's
>    problems.  That is one of the reasons the voters sent Bush packing.

   WRONG!!! If the Congress is screwing up the country, which they are, you
   blame the CONGRESS and send THEM packing.

>
>>   In these next four years, we are going to see some significant changes. A
>>few of them will be for the common good of the people, but most to shove
>>government right down our throats and disrupt the balance.
>...
>    Why do you believe that someone who was obsessed with preserving his
>    political viability since he was in college(!) would do all these?
>
Because he SAID he would do these things. He said it to ALL of us, you just
didn't listen (or didn't WANT to). Find out about about H.R. 4848 and see what
it says. I'll post it when I have more time.
>
>
>
>
>--
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
>Disclaimer: all opinions are mine.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
>
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: 10 Nov 92 19:26:51 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Nov9.162210.17260@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, carlos@spanky.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Carlos Carrion) writes:
> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #Shall I repost the many postings from soc.motss trying to justify
# #adults having sex with 12 and even 8 year olds?
# 
# 	Don't have to.
# 	There are people here in this newsgroup that find it acceptable
# 	to be sexually attracted to 11 year old girls...
# 
# carlos.

There are?  They are pretty depraved, aren't they?
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Racism is "class struggle" applied to ethnicity.
From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: DOES CHARACTER MATTER? YOU BET!!!
Date: 12 Nov 92 19:51:30 GMT
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program

niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>In article <1992Oct30.095624.210928@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PAUL N. RITTER) writes:

>>  Mr. Clinton is dishonorable to the CORE! People that defend him, in my
>>opinion, do so because perhaps they did the same things he did or do now!

Or hope to in the future.
And therefore are also dishonorable to the CORE.

>>  I wouldn't encourage my children to dodge the draft secretly and lie about
>>it. I expect them to fight openly under a Clinton presidency, at the FRONT
>>DOOR of the WHITE HOUSE! The Constitution, under the first ammendment, gives
>>us the right to dissent under the freedom of speech. It does NOT give us the
>>right to break the law, but since Mr. Clinton broke the law and got away with
>>it, he set a precedent for anyone who disagrees with U.S. policy.

Personally, I thought he snuck out using the rules, as opposed to
overtly breaking the law.  You may find this to be the same thing,
but anyone who deals with business or government or practically
anything for that matter will tell you that people who strictly 
follow all posted rules to the letter are in for a very difficult
time in this world.  And I have little sympathy for them (except
for the poor, uneducated, etc. who know no better).

Do you ever drive 60 in a 55 zone, rationalizing that "oh the
police won't pull me over for just 5 mph over the speed limit?"

I do.
-- 
{{{{ bill eldridge                                       x                }}}}
{{{{ bill@cognet.ucla.edu    310-206-3960               xxx              }}}}
{{{{ ~more, ~better, ~faster [80's motto]                x              }}}}
{{{{ ~hot, ~toxic, and ~shallow [90's motto]                              }}}}
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59798 alt.politics.elections:23597 alt.rush-limbaugh:9537
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: 12 Nov 92 15:47:25 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Nov10.161544.9606@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>The amusing thing about this is that it is coming from people who
>claimed that Thomas wasn't qualified.  Would someone out there please
>explain to us why Hill is even remotely qualified for either the EEOC
>or the Court postion?

She's a woman, she's black and the conservatives don't like her.  Sounds
sufficient to me.  Of course if she were to claim to be a lesbian as well
the Senate would probably skip the hearing process and confirm her by
afformation.

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60055 alt.rush-limbaugh:9657 alt.politics.clinton:17107 alt.politics.bush:13871
From: cjk@nic.cerf.net
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Anwar Mohammed's possibly fraudulen (was Re: Trickle Down Economics)
Date: 14 Nov 92 04:56:35 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Distribution: usa
Organization: CERFnet

In article <1992Nov13.214007.2708@ils.nwu.edu> hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER) writes:

>Seems to me that the liberal rich spoiled intellectual side of the
>Republican party is-a-going gunning for the Right Wing.  Considering that
>the right wing was the only group not to turn on Bush,  this would seem
>like fairly harsh and unfair treatment.

INHO:  To paraphrase my own article some two weeks before the election
titled "Why I will not vote for GHWB"......

....President Bush is taken the GOP too far right.  I voted for 
12 years of GOP rule.  And now with this family value *thing*, this
innuendo of Treason *thing*, this media elite *thing*, this Iraqgate
*thing*, this Irangate *thing*, and finaly, pandering to the
conservitive religious zealot right *THING*, I'd sooner vote for
Buchannan than President Bush......

I'M A MAINSTREAM REPUBLICAN AND I DID NOT LIKE THE CHRISTIAN 
FUNDAMENTALISTS TRYING TO TAKE OVER THE GOP TO FURTHER THEIR
OWN POLICAL, SOCIAL, AND RELIGIOUS AGENDAS.

Of course you would see it that the right wing didn't turn on Bush.
It was the only group who was supporting him.  And thats the way
he/they wanted it, and that is why he lost. (PERIOD)

Chris Kevlahan
cjk@cerf.net			I voted for PEROT!



Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58274 talk.politics.mideast:21861