HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: Dial 1-800-HITLER2? (Too bad Gorby didn't have a Party Line :)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 03:27:00 GMT

In article <farenebt.717778967@craft.camp.clarkson.edu>, 
farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Droopy) writes...

>He doesn't necesarily think that Perot is similiar
>in his motives but rather in some other ways (please read the whole
>thing before you flame).

No reason to flame. Considered criticism helps, even if it only 
interjects new perspectives.

It's been said that the basis of all politics is fear. If you have
something to lose, you have something to fear, so it's natural to
want to protect whatever.

Whether it's fear, greed, power lust, or some other negative emotion
that moves you to select a certain stance, there are other options.
One way or the other there's always going to be a risk.

>BRI FARENELL				"If you don't vote, you don't count!"
>FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU	"Eligible non-voters are hypocrites."
					 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^	
With all the effort there is still to keep people from voting, such as
the recent Veto of the Moter Voter Bill, gerrymandering districts, 
having elections on work days, preferential treatment for parties in
the constitution, and such... There is still no more effective method
than just simply discouraging folks with disdain. The same technique is
also used quite effectively in the schools as a quality control measure.
Very, very effective and cheap. No doubt Alexander Hamilton refined the 
technique.

-- Stephen   " The methods of the elites are worthy of study. "

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49576 alt.politics.elections:15185 alt.politics.bush:7745 alt.politics.clinton:8510
From: cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: perot's media schedule....
Date: 6 Oct 92 00:54:29 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc

joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:


>Ross Perot has purchased TV time and the schedule is:
> Tuesday 10/6 CBS  8:00pm (30minutes)
> Friday  10/9 ABC  9:30pm (30minutes)
> Friday  10/9 NBC 10:30pm (30minutes) - this is tentative right now

>joec@morgan.com

What time zone is this, because I have to set my VCR (and the TV guide
doesn't list commercials!)

				Brad Cote'
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Guns
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 01:20:07 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
NNTP-Posting-Host: maine.ce.utk.edu

In article <1992Sep25.140458.13780@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
\>In article <1992Sep25.141831.5368@anasazi.com>, john@anasazi.com (John R. 
Moore) writes:>> Keywords: 
\>> 
\>> In article <1992Sep25.013813.21712@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (
\>>QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
\>>]It was a bunch of liberals that wrote "
\>>freedom of expresion" and "freedom
\>> ]of the press" into the 
\>>constitution. It was a bunch of conservatives 
\>> ]that called themselves 
\>>tories, and fought for the English.
\>> Garrett, it was also a bunch of liberals that wrote "right to keep and 
\>>bear
\>> arms" and "nor shall private property be taken for public use without
\>> just compensation." Today, those views are supported by the conservative
\>> movement and scorned by the liberal movement.
\>
\>So if the private property is marijuana, Conservatives support the owner's
\>right to that property.  Right?

     Some do.  The ones running the country don't.  (But then, the
liberals running the country don't, either.)

     It's a hell of an ideological mess.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  Information Services Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48720 alt.rush-limbaugh:6259 alt.politics.bush:7265 alt.politics.clinton:7903 alt.politics.elections:14713 talk.abortion:39564 alt.sex:31405
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 30 Sep 92 01:56:20 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <Bv9K8H.J03@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu
(Bruce Varney) wrote:
> 
> Have you ever seen a film of a child being killed in his/her mother's womb?? 

No, and neither have you.

Look up the word "credulous" and see what it means.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: NY Times quote on Perot  (Grammar skills in decline)
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 20:50:00 GMT
X-Posted-From: utarlg.uta.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster) writes...
> 
>New york Times, 10/2/92, p A11 ("Center of Attention"):
> 
>"
>In terms that revealed the startling degree to which he regards himself
>as the embodiment of national sentiment, Mr. perot described an America
>in which one man, himself, represented the sacred will of the people, a
>will that was precisely known to himself, and that had been corrupted
>and ignored by the Government and the two major parties.
> 
>"

This is not a quote of Perot.

It does read like the NYT's typical arrogant interpretation.

-- Stephen

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48866 alt.rush-limbaugh:6305 alt.politics.elections:14805 alt.politics.clinton:8000 alt.politics.bush:7358
From: chrisda@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (David Christensen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Answer the question, John (was Re: Bush is a Mass Murderer (was Re: Bush's Accomplishments))
Date: 1 Oct 92 07:30:38 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University

In article <1992Sep30.161734.2084@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>Ditto! I have had to debate this with dozens of people and I STILL don't
>know where they get this 250,000 civilians killed by the US, from! 
>
>I want to see this proof, also.
>

Don't know about the 250,000 civilians figure, but the numbers do trickle in.
The New England Journal of Medicine just published a study of deaths among
children in Iraq immediately following the Gulf War.

Their figure was 46,900 children in the first seven months of 1991.

The number was attributed to a severe outbreak of diarrhea, caused by lack
of working water and sewer systems.  The study was paid for by the United
Nations Children's Fund, and researchers were drawn from the U.S., England,
New Guinea and Jordan.

46,900 is a lot of kids.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: What is "Sexual Orientation"?
Date: 04 Oct 92 23:04:14 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.


   (me)
    >1. Because the legal right to discriminate does not exist
    >
    >2. Because the govt has always, ever since the beginning of
    >this country, reserved to itself the right to regulate trade
    >and commerce and to place restrictions on both for the
    >preservation of the general welfare
    >
    >3. The philosophical basis for your argument is a libertarian
    >belief which has no legal foundation in this country; i.e.,
    >the existence of a right of association


/(phil)
/Let me restate your position:

/1. Because the government said so and that's good enuf' for me.

You are arguing for a change in the system.  It is encumbent upon you
to demonstrate why a change is necessary.  So far you have not done so; not
by a long shot.


/(phil)
/2. That's the way we've always done it anyway.

One of the ways that you can argue for change is by pointing to historical
precedent.  There are none that support your position.  

Another way to argue for change is to prove that our current system has
somehow gotten "off track", and needs to be put back on the original
course.  Since the US never held your position, you have again failed.


/(phil)
/3. If I close my eyes maybe it will all go away.

Society in this country does not recognize your position as valid, so
why should the rest of us be bound by it?

"It will all" implies that there is a huge swelling group of people
that agree with you.  Current polls show that 78% of Americans believe
that there should be no discrimination against gays in employment.


Now, my turn to restate your position:

1.  I wanna discriminate

2.  I wanna discriminate

3.  I wanna discriminate, and if you don't let me, I'm gonna hold my breath 
    until I turn blue




(phil)
/Me, I say BUTT OUT ASSHOLES!!!
/How come you don't?????

Explain to me how a principle of nondiscrimination for race, sex, 
ethnic origin, orientation, etc. can backfire.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Media coverage for Marrou/Lord (call these #'s!)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:07:25 GMT

In article <BvovxM.IKJ@news.cso.uiuc.edu> mrl28033@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R Linksvayer) writes:
>This article appeared in the October LP News.
>
>LP SHOWS UP IN POLLS - The Marrou/Lord Campaign has
>begun to show up in some national polls, reports
>campaign chairman Steve Dasbach.
>
>"For months, CompuServe Information Service has excluded
>Marrou from the list of candidates in their on-line
>poll," remarked Dasbach. "Finally, in late August, he
>was included. The most recent results (9/11/92); Bush
>43%, Clinton 42%, Marrou 5%, Someone Else 3%, No One 1%,
>Undecided 5%."

OK, one out of twenty users of CompuServe like Marrou.
Better than nothing, but this is far from a randomly
selected sample.  A poll taken at the local survivalist
convention would probably show wild and enthusiastic
support for Bo Gritz.

Since most national polls show Clinton with a 9 to 15
point lead over Bush, but the CompuServe poll shows
Bush leading Clinton, this poll looks totally spurrious.

>The campaign has also received information about the
>most recent Gallup/USA Today poll. "That poll asked
>respondents who they would vote for: Bush, Clinton,
>Perot, or Other," said Dasbach. "If they responded
>'other', they were asked to name who they were going to
>vote for. Our sources report that over half of the
>'other' vote was for Marrou (or Libertarian). That
>indicates 2 1/2-3% national support in spite of not
>being listed in the poll."
>
>Whether or not a candidate is listed has a tremendous
>effect on the results. "When Perot was listed in the
>Gallup/USA Today poll, he received 14% verses about 3%
>for Marrou," said Dasbach. "However, when Marrou was
>listed in the CompuServe poll, he received 5% versus 3%
>for 'someone else'. Since Perot was not listed, his
>support would fall under 'someone else'. Since Perot was
>not listed, his support would fall under 'someone else'
>and appears to be less than Marrou's. Clearly, whether
>or not you are listed affects the results."

The conclusion is undoubtedly true, but the method of
comparing two different polls, with totally different 
sampling methodologies, seems a bit of a stretch.

>The CompuServe poll had another interesting result for
>Libertarians. Respondents were asked: "Which political
>party's platform do you feel is closer to your own
>values or position?" The results: Democrat 36%,
>Republican 43%, Libertarian 11%, Some other party 2%, No
>party 7%.

Does this LP article mention the assorted limitations
on the interpretations of these results?  Or is the LP
no longer claiming to be the Party of Reason?
>-- 
>Mike Linksvayer   m-linksvayer@uiuc.edu   +1 217 344 1326



-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee)
Subject: Re: FY '93 Budget Due October 1st  --  Pork Party's Edict
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores CA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 06:45:34 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

Bravo!  Well said.   I don't even want to think about how much of my tax
money goes into the interest payment on the national debt which somebody
(a truly bipartisan effort) some time ago decided to live beyond their means.
This is getting worse by about 10% every year if we don't ACT NOW.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: An informed voter picks Bush
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 17:31:51 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Sep26.155520.20866@cbnews.cb.att.com>, jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
>>Did you catch CNN today?  Seems Wall Street is finally looking at the
>>possibility of Clinton winning, and stocks are dropping?  How can that
>>be, if all these CEO's and Wall Street folks support him?
> 
> As Lou Dobbs explained, the market is taking the possibility of a Clinton
> victory very seriously, and is adjusting like they always do to a new
> situation. The drop in the *drug* stocks was attributed to recognition
> that Clinton's spending-cap proposals might cut into the pharmaceutical
> profit stream. So what? That money is probably better spent elsewhere.
> Like defense cuts in the public sector.

     What wasn't reported on CNN is that around 3:00 in the afternoon,
a rumor was circulating the markets that there was more damning
evidence about Clinton's draft escapades (based on reports of what
James Carville said during the taping of Evans and Novak).  This caused
the DJIA to increase around 15 points in an hour.
 
> Was there a general panic at the prospect of President Bill Clinton? No,
> other losses are due to current economic news.

     Actually, if you have been following the stock and bond markets,
you would realize that some seemingly *bad* economic news causes
the stock market to go up -- the reason being that expectations
are raised for more fed easing.
 
> On the other hand, the market responded negatively as a whole when Bush
> gave his speech at the convention, with promises of tax cuts which in
> Wall Street's view (apparently) will worsen the deficit.

     Correct -- this caused problems in the bond market which then
hurt the stock market.  But, the stock market did react positively
when Bush presented his Economic Renewal plan at the Detroit
Economic Club. 

     C. Perttunen
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: New anti-abortion tactic
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 07:42:14 GMT

bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:

>Naturally, USA Today -- being a lighthouse on the rocky coastline of
>American journalism -- declined to print any material derived from
>interviews with anyone who might explicitly make the charge that these
>people are simply anti-abortion activists exploiting a loophole in the
>law to get their gory pictures on the air through subversion of the
>electoral process.

Ok...who volunteers to run for federal office so we can show pictures
of the women who died from illegal abortion and tell their stories?
(Tagline: "Illegal Abortion Kills Women!"?)

>J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)

                   -rocker
                    but not during afterschool specials - i _care_
                    about kids
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49543 ca.politics:8443 ba.politics:5870
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Some more about 'RIGHTS'
Date: 5 Oct 92 19:06:05 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <BvnrxM.HB7@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
    >[ claims that a lion has a "right" to kill prey in order to
    >live, etc. ]
    >
    >>>According to what? Why do you think this is true? This is a
    >>>good example of the sort of unsubstatiated "thinking" that is
    >>>at the base of your philosophy.
    >>>
    >>As I said, and you edited out, that is a moral premise.
    >>
    >Then it's totally arbitrary. Why should we accept this
    >premise?
    >
    >This is typical of Randian "logic", incidentally: proof by
    >definition.

Then it is typical of most useful logic.

Parallel lines shall never meet. Makes for great Euclidean geometry.

Gravity attracts. Nice physics.

Neither one of the above can be "proved".

That is what a premise is all about.

"Thou shalt not kill" -- another moral premise. Can I prove it? Nope.
Can I judge other people on whether or not they accept this premise?
You bet I can. I do. And I'd wager, so do you.

Some "cultures" have other premises -- such as "some races are better
than other and can enslave the less better races". We judge those too.

And we still can't "prove" the rightness or wrongness of the moral
premises. But we can observe the effects of accepting either of those
two premises and the liklihood we'd be better off on a system that chose
one of the other.

Empirical verification of a moral premise. We do it all the time, you
include in all probability.


Now, what are YOUR moral premises?



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: You're NO John Kennedy
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 6 Oct 92 11:56:33 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <7610059@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM>, myers@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Bob Myers) writes:
>> Hello, everyone,
>> 
>> Who said "I knew John Kennedy. You're no John Kennedy", and to
>> whom was it said? Could you phrase it exactly, more or less?
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> Nick
> 
> Sen. Lloyd Bentsen of Texas, then the Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate,
> to then-Sen. J. Danforth Quayle of Indiana, during the 1988 Vice-Presidential
> Debate.
> 
> A closer quote is "Senator, I knew Jack Kennedy - Jack Kennedy was a personal
> friend of mine.  And Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy!"  Not exact, but that's
> the best I can dredge up from my memory.  As I recall, Quayle had no reply -
> he just stood there looking somewhat stunned.
> 
	He was not stunned, he was angry.  He said "that was uncalled for,
Senator", much to the delite of the audience present.  (But not the media.)

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Re: Answer the question, John (was Re: Bush is a Mass Murderer (was Re: Bush's Accomplishments))
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory
	<1992Oct1.073038.9588@leela.cs.orst.edu> <BvG4zJ.BEE.2@cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 04:36:45 GMT

In article <BvG4zJ.BEE.2@cs.cmu.edu> anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed) writes:
     [...]

   >
   >The number was attributed to a severe outbreak of diarrhea, caused by lack
   >of working water and sewer systems.  The study was paid for by the United
   >Nations Children's Fund, and researchers were drawn from the U.S., England,
   >New Guinea and Jordan.
   >
   >46,900 is a lot of kids.

   20-25,000.  That's still a lot of kids.  Kids who needn't have died if
   it weren't for the Iraqi government.

Absolutely. You've got that 100% correct, Anwar.

L.
"Yeh, Buddy..            | larry@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_
 I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)
 Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\ 
 (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
"We will be asking them to join with us. I'm also going to ask them to help us
to change Congress. It's not just enough to change the president if we want to
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: What is "Sexual Orientation"?
Date: 04 Oct 92 23:07:49 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.




     
    >(phil) /Oh, so then all those nasty old stupid businesses
    >that refused to do /business with South Africa -- they were
    >wrong.
    >
    (me)
    >No; they made a choice based upon varying forces. What does
    >this have to do with what we are talking about?

(phil)
/Please keep the full context. You stated that businesses had no right
/to refuse to sell to people if, in essence, they had the cash.


You are a liar, and a bad one.  I did not say that.  I said that people
do not have the right to discriminate for the reason of the protected
categories. 

If historically they had failed to buy from Uganda, for example, based 
entirely on the fact that Ugandans are black, then that would be morally
and legally wrong.





    >(phil) /And, and why not sell stuff to Iraq. Just because you
    >and all the officers of the company /dislike ole' Saddam,
    >well, hell, nows not the time to let personal /prejudices get
    >in the way of business, nosirrreeee ...
    >
    >Which side are you arguing, Phil? Do you even know?

(phil)
/Bluntly -- you've swallowed hook, line, and sinker the whole PC(tm)
/bullshit, and what you are seeing are the logical contradictions
/of your accepted position.

Bluntly--you don't know what you are talking about.  I have a BA in 
Middle East Affairs and a second BA in Arabic Language.  Are you quite
sure you want to argue about Iraq?

I asked you for a clarification of your position, and your response is
to accuse me of not knowing what I am talking about.  I smell a panicked
individual struggling to find an argument that doesn't dissolve in his
hands.  






(me)
    >A person's belief of conscience can be exercised only where
    >such exercise does not conflict with another person's rights.
    >What your "conscience" tells you does not matter if those
    >actions will result in the breach of another person's
    >liberties.

(phil)
/Oh? What a muddled piece of shit -- you don't even believe in this.

Oh?

So now Phil the Wonder Boy is telling me what I do and don't believe.
Do you also do card tricks in addition to mind reading?



(phil)
/What rights? Are you claiming that I must sell a hamburger in
/my restaurant to anyone that has the money?

/Yes or no?

You may not fail to sell to him based upon sex, race, marital status,
ethnic or national origin, Vietnam veteran status, or sexual orientation.





Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.bizarre,alt.politics.perot
From: dickens@gibson.nacto.lkg.dec.com (Jeffrey Alan Dickens)
Subject: Re: Henry Ross Perot -- anagrams
Reply-To: dickens@nacto.lkg.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:20:18 GMT


In article <1992Oct5.060438.13285@sbcs.sunysb.edu>, dtiberio@csws18.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) writes:
|>Xref: nntpd.lkg.dec.com talk.politics.misc:147381 talk.bizarre:124086 alt.politics.perot:3145
|>Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.bizarre,alt.politics.perot
|>	George Bush - Bush E Gorge

Naw,  

George Herbert Walker Bush:	Huge, Berserk Rebel Warthog