HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Date: 6 Jan 1993 16:17:09 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) says:

>
>It was announced today that Chelsea Clinton will be attending a private 
>school.  Apparently the public school system is good enough for us plebes,
>but not for Mr. Clinton's daughter....or has he changed his mind about
>education vouchers?
>

And to add to the hypocrisy - I wonder if the wonderfull unbiased media, which
blasted Quayle if he happened to play golf one time at some obscure club which
had no minority members, will give us a breakdown of the student population
at this elite private school.  And if it turns out to be 99% WASP, will they
splash across the front pages of the New York Times and Washington Post that 
Bill has chosen a rascist institution to educate his daughter?  I WOULDN'T
COUNT ON IT!

It sickened me last night to see that Clinton doesn't even have to defend
himself on this - CBS was doing all his spin control for him!

-- 
Richard Mulac                                       ck347@cleveland.freenet.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       1996 election countdown - 1399 more days         | These pontifications 
 until the Democrats are thrown out of the White House  |      are my own!     
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr)
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 05:51:54 GMT

In article <3JAN199318013732@acad3.alaska.edu>
	fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R. Sparks) writes:

>> The entire Clinton campaign was based on the assumption that the voters are
>> stupid, ignorant, and have a memory which fades after a day or two.

>So was the Bush campaign.  The only campaign that even tried to treat
>the voter as intelligent was Perot's.

I remember last spring Tsongas and Clinton went to the industrial midwest.
Clinton told the workers what they wanted to hear; Tsongas was honest.
Guess who won the primaries?

(I'm a Republican, but I thought Tsongas was the best of the Democrats.)

--
    John Carr (jfc@athena.mit.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics,misc.legal
From: pecampbe@mtu.edu (Paul Campbell)
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 15:25:52 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.101940.9187@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>As to Perot treating the voters as intelligent, I don't think so.  He
>pretended to treat the voters as intelligent.  He, as a salesman, sold
>the idea of no-frills campaigning as "treating the voters as intelligent."

Agreed. Perot basically offered one thing: Bush was a trained liar and
cheat (ex CIA head) and Clinton proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he
was a liar. Perot at least didn't lie. On the other hand, his paranoia
theories scared most people away.

>For all that talk about those flip charts, how many voters had *any*
>idea what Perot was talking about, or can remember at this point in time
>what Perot said?

I did. I suspect many more people than you think did. And, despite my own
misgivings about them, I don't think that someone has any reason to go
around complaining that the politicians treat the "voters" as being less
intelligent than most animals when they do the same thing 3 sentences later.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff)
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Organization: NEC America, Inc Irving TX
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:04:32 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.192934.4549@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <1if0m5INN1dc@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:
>>
>>And to add to the hypocrisy - I wonder if the wonderfull unbiased media, which
>>blasted Quayle if he happened to play golf one time at some obscure club which
>>had no minority members, will give us a breakdown of the student population
>>at this elite private school.  And if it turns out to be 99% WASP, will they
>>splash across the front pages of the New York Times and Washington Post that 
>>Bill has chosen a rascist institution to educate his daughter?  I WOULDN'T
>>COUNT ON IT!
>
>Today's NYT did a small piece on the school, including ethnic
>breakdown.  I don't have the article in front of me, but I recall
>figures of around 17% black, 3% or 7% asian, and 7% or 3% hispanic (I
>remember the asian and hispanic figures adding up to 10%).  I believe
>the school also offers minority scholarships, etc.
>

What is the breakdown for D.C. Look at the local population and compare
it's ethnic makeup to the schools to see if it is similar.


-- 
Doug Dillhoff            Any opinions expressed are strictly my own.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Bush pardons Iran-Contra scumbags
X-Xxdate: Mon, 4 Jan 93 09:10:44 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 15:14:30 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.003723.4415@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> Simon E. Booth,
sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu writes:
>OK that was a bit much.  But of all the places to go, why Moscow, at the
>height of the cold war, in the dead of winter?

If you had political ambitions at the time, you Simon would have gone.
Patton beat Rommel by knowing Rommel. What better way to thwart or
bargain with an advisary than to understand him?

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd)
Subject: Special Bonus Quiz
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 01:31:04 GMT

Q: What is the difference between a Whig and a Republican?
A: Time.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Feinstein '94
Clinton/Gore '96
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan)
Subject: Re: Bush pardons Iran-Contra scumbags
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 93 11:12:00 GMT

Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:

>What a pompous hypocrit you are. I count 8 messages from you in this group
>just this morning. I hope you don't think that cheap attacks on my
>character
>are a substitute for intelligent replies?

Surely you recall you posted a message suggesting that I couldn't tell
a humorous reply from a serious one ?  Norman leads with a right followed
by an uppercut and Tom is supposed to sit there ?

Neither the posting nor my reply on that message involved you at all you
poked your nose for no reason whatsoever to ridicule me.

Your turn to blame me for something else...

tom

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan)
Subject: Re: Bush pardons Iran-Contra scumbags
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 93 11:21:25 GMT

Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:

>If they are innocent, they have nothing to fear. That is how our
>legal system works for everybody.

This is drivel...

>Gee, generalization from one example. What a great arguement for
>disbanding our legal system.    :-/

You know for a fact that it wasn't the only case of this type and you
know I'm not arguing for the disbanding of the legal system.

Stoke your ego to whatever degree you need you seem a bit desperate
at this point.

tom


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan)
Subject: Rostenkowski Diverts Funds
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu
Distribution: alt.politics.bush, alt.politics.clinton, talk.politics.misc
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 93 11:23:05 GMT

So far, it is only Democratic congressmen that show a disdain for the
law and a contempt for the public.

At least the Bush administration admitted their mistakes.  Rostenskowski
is telling you he didn't do it, and that you can't ask any questions,
and if you think he did it you are a no good anti-american, facist dupe.
Or worse, a conservative.

So many questions about the Rowstenkowski affair have yet to be answered.

When Democrats break the law, you call it a "conservative-sponsored"
witch hunt.

Diverting campaign funds for personal gain is currently a crime.

If they didn't want "the whole truth and nothing but the truth" then
they appointed the wrong man to investigate Rostenkowski the prosecutor 
assigned is relentless in his pursuit of truth and it is especially
annoying to him to watch government officials sworn to protect the
laws of the USA try to smack the American people in the face with it!

But the fact that Rostenkowski thought he was being `patriotic' doesn't
put him in a position above the law.....

What Rostenkowski did was not unpopular, nor was it politically
incorrect.  It was merely very, very illegal.

I will state once again that my opinion about Rostenkowski being
a "traitor" is just that, my opinion, and I am more than aware that
he is being investigated for converting thousands of dollars of postage
stamps into cash, etc., etc.

Democrats make you a hero for breaking laws as long it involves
stealing money.

If he is innocent, he has nothing to fear. That is how our
legal system works for everybody.

If the investigations are costing so much money it is because the player
in this scandal has been lying and covering his tracks.

Are you suggesting that the Republicans made him break the law?  If
you have solid evidence that there was no crime and this is just
some kind of political conspiracy, I'd love to see it. Otherwise,
he should be brought to justice.

When my high government officials put themselves above the very defining
principles of my government, that is QUITE serious and a dangerous
precedent.

Now who is a wimp? The principal difference here is that Rostenkowski is
willing to steal money for a cause he believes in.  The Vietnam war just
wasn't such a cause.

As expected, he is too timorous to brave open court, so he's doing the
typical Democrat thing and paying off those who might help to convict him.
What a wimp: afraid of his fellow citizens. What did he have to fear, after
all?

What kind of message does this send to the children ?

tom

When the going gets weird, the weird quote Hunter Thompson
From: aa680@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Vern Morrison)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush as a World Leader
Date: 12 Jan 1993 12:52:33 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: aa680@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Vern Morrison)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, rnegules@neumann.uwaterloo.ca (Radu Negulescu) says:

>Like it or not, each American voter bears the responsibility of 16 
>other human beings. If I were an American voter, I'd give the 16 
>other fellows at least a second thought.
>
>President Bush has been not only an American leader, but also a
>world leader. 

      "World leader pretend" is more like it.  

>During his presidency, hundreds of millions of people 
>gained their liberty (I'm one of them). For the generosity and 
>audacity of his foreign policy, he deserves a place in history as 
>one of the greatest world leaders of all times.

       The only generosity Bush ever displayed was to the corrupt old men
who rule China.  His two-faced policy there, pretending to denounce their
murderous acts while secretly sending envoys to meet with them, only weeks
after the bloodbath in Tiananmen Squre, shows Bush's treachery and
duplicity.

>Thank God that America exists.

        Thank God that we're about to see an end of twelve years of
Republican misrule.
-- 
    "The biggest problem with reading [Usenet] is there is so much and it 
is all so interesting.  It is easy to be enamored with it.  Be selective
about which groups you read.  It could mean your job, your family, or your
college career."  --Ed Krol, _The Whole Internet User's Guide and Catalog_
From: asuncion@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: BEATING around the BUSH
Date: 6 Jan 93 16:28:34 -0400
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada


                           Memorandum
To: Bill C. 
From : me

Diplomacy: Much Ado About Nothing

Did it ever work ? Even if it did, it was probably an exception to the rule.
This is why the EC's diplomatic sideshow is so amusing...and a bit annoying.
Not only is such foolishness pointless, it is also rather dangerous. In fact,
more people seem to die during ceasefires in Bosnia than before or after them
since it is an ideal moment for tit-for -tat via sniper turkey shoots and
smashing mortar successes.What about the diplomats themselves ? Have they no
shame ? Apparently not. Why else would they continue to smile, line their
pockets and turn a rather blind eye ?

U.S. Intervention: Nibbling on half-baked powder cakes
 George Bush says that intervention in Somalia is justified whereas such zeal
in Bosnia would be reckless. Why ? Quite simply, the rule is : no intervention
unless we can cash in and win big. Thus, yes to the Gulf War (oil), no to the
Iraqi Kurds (fear of the Ayatollah's boys), no to Bosnia (too many
headaches),and yes to Somalia (smiling faces + disarmed, unemployed gun-
toters= media coup).However, in each case of intervention, the eventual
outcome has usually been less than expected (i.e., Saddam still smilin', Bush
to take a very long fishing trip).Moreover, it usually amounts to mopping up
after the big arms bash. Who armed who ? Even worse, when the Yanks go home,
who will sit on the rice bags ? The U.N. ? The U.N. couldn't 
Fear not, it's the new world order.

ciao.
Ross
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush pardons....
Date: 4 Jan 93 19:30:43 GMT
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <C05H1A.A1p@panix.com>, eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
> In <1992Dec31.114442.424@hsh.com>, paul@hsh.com sez:
>>
>>  Chew on this 
>>one, Norm:  if they were guilty of the major charges -- selling arms to Iran, 
>>or sending money to the Contras -- WHY WEREN'T THEY CHARGED with these 
>>crimes?
> 
> Chew on this one, Paul: you conveniently forget that North was, in
> fact, originally charged with two counts relating to the diversion of
> funds from the arms sales to the Contras.
>
> But don't let the facts stand in your way, Paul.  

Have a care, Mark: Ignorance Is Dangerous To Your Credibility.

Oliver North was NOT one of the six men pardoned.  If it's "facts" you care 
about, do make some small attempt to get them right, will you?

------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 

Paul Havemann  (paul@hsh.com)

   "I have answered your questions and that is enough," 
   Said yours truly, "Don't give yourself airs.  
   Do you think I can listen all day to this stuff?
   Now be off, or I'll kick you downstairs!"
                                          -- with apologies to the author
From: asuncion@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: We've been BUSHWACKED...
Date: 11 Jan 93 20:49:40 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada




U.S. Intervention: Nibbling on half-baked powder cakes
 George Bush says that intervention in Somalia is justified whereas such zeal 
in Bosnia would be reckless. Why? Quite simply, the rule is : no intervention 
unless we can cash in and win big. Thus, yes to the Gulf War
(oil), no to the Iraqi Kurds (fear of the Ayatollah's boys), no to Bosnia 
(too many headaches),and yes to Somalia (smiling faces + disarmed, unemployed 
gun-toters= media coup).However, in each case of intervention,
the eventual outcome has usually been less than expected (i.e., Saddam still 
smilin', Bush to take a very long fishing trip).Moreover, it usually amounts 
to mopping up after the big arms bash. Who armed who ? Even worse,
when the Yanks go home, who will sit on the rice bags ? 

False STARTs: Some questions about arms reduction
The recent START II agreement, which is to reduce U.S. Russian stockpiles by 
two thirds, is at best, a good`start'. At worst, it is a useless scrap of 
paper which fails to deal with details such as (i) the costs of disposal (ii) 
the third party shenanigans. That is reduction on such a massive scale will 
require big bucks.That is, the peace dividend should not be overestimated. 
Some of the cash that was once earmarked for shiny new nukes must now be 
coughed up to help cash-starved Russia, Ukraine etc. in the costs of disposal 
and transition to military to civil industries. However, all of this assumes 
that the treaty is actually signed by everyone which may be a rather shaky 
assumption. If Ukraine fails to say yes to START I, START II will simply be 
filed away someplace.


M.A.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Bush pardons Iran-Contra scumbags
X-Xxdate: Mon, 4 Jan 93 14:35:34 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 20:39:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.112451.7125@pegasus.com> Tom Leylan,
tleylan@pegasus.com writes:
>Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes (though barely):
>>
>>Get a clue Tom.
>
>But nobody is listening...

Obviously....

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
From: rnegules@neumann.uwaterloo.ca (Radu Negulescu)
Subject: Bush as a World Leader
Originator: root@neumann.uwaterloo.ca
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 22:00:57 GMT

Dear netters,


Like it or not, each American voter bears the responsibility of 16 
other human beings. If I were an American voter, I'd give the 16 
other fellows at least a second thought.

President Bush has been not only an American leader, but also a
world leader. During his presidency, hundreds of millions of people 
gained their liberty (I'm one of them). For the generosity and 
audacity of his foreign policy, he deserves a place in history as 
one of the greatest world leaders of all times.

Thank God that America exists.


Radu Negulescu

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: eng10511@nusunix1.nus.sg (RAM VIKASH TIWARY)
Subject: Re: Bush as a World Leader
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 12:18:20 GMT

Radu Negulescu (rnegules@neumann.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
: Dear netters,
: 
: 
: Like it or not, each American voter bears the responsibility of 16 
: other human beings. If I were an American voter, I'd give the 16 
: other fellows at least a second thought.
: 
: President Bush has been not only an American leader, but also a
: world leader. During his presidency, hundreds of millions of people 
: gained their liberty (I'm one of them). For the generosity and 
: audacity of his foreign policy, he deserves a place in history as 
: one of the greatest world leaders of all times.
: 
: Thank God that America exists.
: 
: 
: Radu Negulescu


Bush is no doubt an able and pragmatic administrator.  But to credit him
with the end of the cold war and 'liberation' of the eastern block is
going too far.  Communism collapsed because it is a failed ideology.
His greatness or otherwise would be judged by future historians and Bush
certainly won't be remembered as the greatest leader of all times, not
withstanding your enthusiasm.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Bush really IS a wimp
X-Xxdate: Mon, 4 Jan 93 09:04:21 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 15:08:04 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.003435.4343@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> Simon E. Booth,
sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu writes:
>But Clinton's attitudes about the military are a cause for concern the
next
>time the Husseins or Kaddafis of the world run amok.  How would Clinton
>respond to terrorism or even some madman with nuclear weapons?

You confuse his attitude about the military with his attitude about a
particular war. One does not necessarily follow from the other.

The fact is that he is president and we will find out, but don't presume
that
being against a particular military action makes you anti-military or
soft.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan)
Subject: Re: Bush pardons Iran-Contra scumbags
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 93 11:24:51 GMT

Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes (though barely):
>
>Get a clue Tom.

But nobody is listening...

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Bush pardons Iran-Contra scumbags
X-Xxdate: Mon, 4 Jan 93 14:45:29 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 20:49:17 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.112125.7004@pegasus.com> Tom Leylan,
tleylan@pegasus.com writes:
>Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
>
>>If they are innocent, they have nothing to fear. That is how our
>>legal system works for everybody.
>
>This is drivel...

Oh, good factual rebuttal.... Well it's back to the drawing
board for me.  :-/   I suppose you wouldn't like to explain
why this is drivel or is this just suppose to be a postulate?

>
>>Gee, generalization from one example. What a great arguement for
>>disbanding our legal system.    :-/
>
>You know for a fact that it wasn't the only case of this type and you
>know I'm not arguing for the disbanding of the legal system.

You sure sound like you are. You are suggesting that our legal system
should use "cost of litigation" as a criterion for judging whether a
case should be investigated and/or litigated. This would severely
weaken our judicial system at its very foundation by undermining
its defining principles---that all men are equal in the eyes of the
law.

Maybe a lawyer type listening to this discussion
would like to comment on this?

>
>Stoke your ego to whatever degree you need you seem a bit desperate
>at this point.

I sleep like a baby. I have confidence in my convictions and their basis
in principles.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.gooley,talk.bizarre,alt.non.sequitur,alt.fan.gooley
From: mdw@db.TC.Cornell.EDU (Matt Welsh)
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Organization: Jim's Burger Hut 
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:10:46 GMT

GOOLEY SIGHTING! HE'S ALIVE!

In article <1993Jan5.211138.24836@advtech.uswest.com> mgooley@advtech.uswest.com (Mark. Gooley) writes:
>Gooley politics aren't especially green.  In fact, they're more
>slash-and-burn.
>
>Mark. Gooley
>gooley@netcom.com
>mgooley@advtech.uswest.com

Looks pretty damn fake to me.

mdw

-- 
Matt Welsh     mdw@tc.cornell.edu     Cornell Theory Center
  "It's a Katana, ya Midwestern computer geek." --Tom Payne
Newsgroups: alt.religion.all-worlds