HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi)
Subject: The colour of socks
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:41:46 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.112948.1@cc.helsinki.fi>, leisti@cc.helsinki.fi (Teemu Leisti) writes:
...
> 
> If 75% of the American people supported bombing a certain foreign nation
> X into the stone age because the American President didn't like the
> color of X's leader's socks, would that make it all right?
> 

Funny, I thought they did, or was it just another Danno/media stunt :-))

~Paul

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2917 talk.politics.misc:41967 alt.politics.clinton:3008 alt.politics.elections:11574
From: edcrwfrd@unlv.edu (Edward Crawford)
Subject: Re: Intellect of Electorate
Organization: UNLV
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 20:13:15 GMT

You said that independants are the most intelligent? I find
them to be the least. Why? Because they have the least say,
if you registar republican or democrat you can vote in
their primary, but if you register independant you have
to wait for the general... 

Newsgroups: alt.politics.election,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.perot
From: ray@nmt.edu (Ray Piworunas)
Subject: Politics and the constitution.
Organization: New Mexico Institute of Mining & Technology
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 22:52:36 GMT


	The constitution is the foundation of our country.  It should
	not be a depository of laws, but the document which defines the
	workings of our law.

	Our constitution establishes and defines the privileges we have
	as citizens.  It allows each individual the flexibility to live
	their life as they see fit.  We should not let it become an
	instrument by which extremists (or any others) can harness power
	over our lives through its modification, to express their point
	of view, during whatever brief periods when they may seem to
	have the favor of the general populace.

	Voting is but one means of political expression.  It should be
	put to good use.  If blame is to be assigned (a waste of effort)
	for our current situation we, as individuals, are the only ones
	upon whom it can properly be placed.  I think we have come to
	expect others to live the difficult parts of our lives for us.

	Enough.  Is there discussion on any of this?  (No private email
	please. I don't have the time).

	Ray Piworunas,
	ray@nmt.edu
	(Please don't respond by email, I don't have the time).
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: bills@sequent.com (Bill Sears)
Subject: Will someone tell me the truth?
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 21:16:55 GMT

Here I've been reading these newsgroups for almost 2 months so that I can
get some idea of what the qualifications that each of our candidates have
to do the job of President.  Here's what I've seen so far:

    Clinton has raised taxes 128 times to Bush's 1 time.  And that's the
    truth.

    The truth is that Clinton only raised taxes 40 times in his ten years
    as Governor while Bush has raised taxes 132 times in four years as
    President.

    But the real truth is that Clinton actually lowered taxes 40 times,
    while Bush has had the largest tax increase ever.

    But that's a bald face lie.  Bush has actually lowered taxes in his
    term as President.  _That's_ the truth.

Another thing I've seen:

    Bush has never balanced the budget.  The deficit keeps increasing and
    the debt has doubled in less than four years.  That's the truth.

    The truth is that congress is the body which actually creates the budget,
    and the congress is controlled by the democrats.

    But the real truth is that the President has never even submitted a
    balanced budget to the congress for consideration, so it's his fault.

    But that's a lie.  The President doesn't have the power to submit any
    piece of legislation to congress.

Let's see what else:

    We have Bush and the fetal tissue research bill.  He has and will continue
    to veto legislation allowing researchers to use fetal tissue in research
    for a cure for several diseases.  That's the truth.

    The truth is that the Bush administration fully supports government
    funded fetal tissue research for these diseases.

    But the real truth is that only tissue from spontaneous abortions
    (i.e. miscarriages) and medically necessary abortions can be used in
    government funded research.

    That's a damn lie.  Researchers can use any fetal tissue that is
    provided in disease research.

The list goes on and on.  How can there be so many diametrically opposed
"truths" to these questions.  If I ask you a "yes or no" question, there
should only be two possible mutually exclusive answers (i.e. "yes" or
"no" :-).  But it seems that there are always people who know that the
correct answer to the question is "yes" and others who are certain that
the correct answer to the question is "no".  It can't be both ways, can it?

For example:
    Who raised taxes more often?  There should be only one answer.  There
    should be one number associated with GHWB, and one number associated
    with BC.  Is GHWB > BC or vice versa?

So would someone please tell me the "real(tm) truth"?

  bills
--------
Bill Sears            Sequent Computer Systems            bills@sequent.com

While a transcendant vocabulary is laudable, one must be eternally careful
to ensure that the calculated objective of the communication does not become
ensconsed in obscurity.  Stated simply, it is invariably preferable to 
eschew obfuscation.                                           - Unknown
From: fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 26 Aug 92 13:19:09 GMT
	<1992Aug22.055327.21185@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
	<1992Aug24.030926.13829@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
	<1992Aug24.164454.8174@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences

In article <1992Aug24.164454.8174@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

   In article <1992Aug24.030926.13829@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon) writes:
   >In a previous article, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) says:
   >>A subpopulation is a group that has relevant common characteristics.
   >>It may, or may not, have those characteristics in common with
   >>the whole population.
   >
   >What "relevent common characteristics" are you referring to?

   In the rest of the article Condon is responding to, I discussed them.
   I'll summarize, but it's fairly obvious that he's looking for a
   rhetorical club and isn't really all that interested in the discussion.

   Certain subpopulations in the US won't use free pre-natal care and
   have habits that are associated with infant mortality.  (That isn't to
   say that ALL members of those subpopulations do this, but that certain
   subpopulations are far more likely to fit this model than the
   population as a whole.)  The general population isn't much like that.

   It isn't obvious what to do about this.  Should we have social workers
   round up pregant women for pre-natal care and monitor them?  Should we
   pay them if they "do the right thing"?  Should we punish them if they
   don't?

If I were a member of the Republic Party, I suppose I'd try
to eliminate pre-natal care programs for both the people who
don't use it and the people who do.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3955 alt.politics.clinton:3923 alt.politics.elections:12320
From: cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark Taylor Evert)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Legacy of an Education Presidency
Date: 3 Sep 1992 14:06:11 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: Loral Space Information Systems

In article <PUCCIO.92Sep2211256@media-lab.media.mit.edu> 
puccio@media.mit.edu (Jim Puccio) writes:
>   Outdated ways of financing school districts have compounded the 
problem.
> Most school budgets still come primarily from property taxes; thus, the 
more
> affluent the area is the more money its school district receives.

Not necessarily the case.   Friendswood, TX is an affluent Houston suburb 
with many $300,000 homes (You can buy a lot of house for $300K in this 
area).   However, there is almost no commercial property.  Now, our 
schools are ranked as one of the best in the state, but our property taxes 
are also among the highest in the state as far as schools go.  Our 
spending per pupil is just slightly above average however.   Ironically, 
we stand to gain from the current school funding fiasco.   Another nearby 
community, Deer Park, is located in a heavily industrialized (refinerys, 
chemical plants, Houston Ship Channel) area.   It's schools are virtually 
paid for by these industries.  Despite a somewhat less desirable location, 
 many affluent people have built there because of low taxes and good 
schools.  They stand to lose big time.   Major cities like Houston have a 
pretty diversified tax base and enough industry to keep taxes down 
although Houston schools just pushed thru a 32% tax increase.   Their 
taxes are still lower than mine in Friendswood.  These are just some 
random comments.  

Mark T. Evert
Friendswood, TX

My opinions are my own.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4103 alt.politics.marrou:1047 talk.politics.misc:43801 alt.politics.elections:12446 talk.politics.theory:4046
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Anti-religious fanatics (Was Re: School Choice )
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:26:16 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Sep3.135001.4987@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:

>In article <1992Sep2.195731.4732@math.okstate.edu>, russ@math.okstate.edu (Horatio "Random" Hellpop) writes:
>>
>>*I* understood what he meant.  There is no teaching of Christ which reads
>>"go kill those weird easterners who bathe".  Quite the opposite.

>So what?  In theory, Christianity is safe, but in *practice* much blood has
>been and will continue to be shed in the name of Christ.

I repeat your so what.  Assholes have managed to attach themselves to every
movement throughout history.

Our so called defenders of democracy have certainly exceeded their
authority from time to time.  They have done many things that could be
called evil.  Do you likewise condemn democracy.

To paraphrase my earlier post. 

Being an asshole is a human condition.

You have yet to show any evidence that religion is a greater attractor
of assholes than are any of the other things that can stir men's souls.

Fact.  After the fall of Rome their was only one institution with the
organization to fill the power vacuum.  That organization was the church.
It wasn't called the Holy Roman EMPIRE for nothing you know.

People who want power are attracted to the institutions that have power.

This means that many people joined the church for non-religious reasons.

People who have powere are willing to go to great lengths to destroy those
that threaten their power base.  Ergo, heretics must be destroyed, not for
religious reasons, but for political reasons.  This was being done by
people who were primarily motivated by plitical not religious passions.

You have also not demonstrated how the leaders of this so called church
were any worse than any of the other rulers of that time.

-- 
--Mark
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: Religious Leaders Criticize Republican Blasphemy
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 17:22:12 GMT
Organization: The Gizmonic Institute

Louis Cypher writes:
>Timothy Smith writes:
>>Jim Puccio writes:
>>
>>>  "Dozens of religious leaders have complained to the Presidential 
>>>candidates, especially President Bush and the Republican Party, about the 
>>>injection of religion in to the campaign, saying the partisan use of 
>>>God's name is blasphemy.
>>
>
>hmmm...I was just thinking, when I saw this again, that in the eyes
>of Xians, Blasphemy is the one unforgivable sin....So, I guess that
>Bush/Quayle, and all the republican stooges that went along with the
>little G-O-D stuff in the platform, are going to hell? talk about
>poetic justice...
>
Pardon me. (Just getting in practice.) The religious statement in general
asked that all candidates refrain from speaking for God in this
campaign. It may have been prompted by the Republican Toast the Holy
Ghost on the Gulf Coast, but the religious leaders' statement -- as one
would imagine God's favor -- shines on the just and the unjust alike.

-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> Write when you get the chance. 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3109 alt.politics.clinton:3176 alt.politics.perot:1352
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Why Should I vote for Clinton? (long)
Date: 27 Aug 1992 05:45:28 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: hailstorm.berkeley.edu

In article <bazyar.714457003@teal> bazyar@teal.csn.org (Jawaid Bazyar) writes:
>adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:

>>	How about "I raised taxes ONCE . . .[Clinton] raised them 128 times.
>>. ." a statement which is totally untrue and which cites numbers refuted in
>>print in the New Republic well prior to his speech.

>  Uh huh, refuted in a newspaper.  Who says the newspaper is telling the
>complete truth?  I don't know, do you?

Well, the magazine mentioned by NUMBER which "taxes" on the list were
wrong and went into great specifics about how the list was cobbled up.
Three of the 128 didn't exist at all; they were caused by a typo. A
liquor tax was counted 5 times, once for each type of booze. One tax was
counted twice, by typo. Why don't you go to Bush HQ and check it out for
yourself?

>  You fail to mention that Clinton did pass several income tax increases during
>his term, regardless of the inventiveness of the Republicans in finding
>'128' of them.

Wel, yes. He also passed 40+ tax decreases. Meanwhile, GHWB welshes
retroactively on his 1990 tax hike, but HE HASN'T SAID WHAT SPENDING
CUTS HE WOULD MAKE IF HE HAD TO DO IT OVER AGAIN.

Don't be fooled. Close inspection of Bush's lies is why his poll ratings
are heading down again.

andy
andy
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Subject: Re: "Moral" issues (was Re: DATELINE: Clinton fucks up!)
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 18:39:49 GMT

In article <tfvymml@rpi.edu>, blythes@cs.rpi.edu (Stephen Blythe) writes:
>Murder, theft etc. are *not* moral issues. 

How about rape?  To say that rape is wrong is a MORAL statement (morality is
all about what is right and/or wrong).  Clearly, to a rapist, rape is fine.
To make it illegal is to impose a majority-held moral conviction, namely that
rape is wrong, on a small minority of people, namely rapists.  Does the
difference come because it is a MAJORITY-HELD moral belief?  All criminal laws 
are the imposing of moral beliefs on others.

  -- Scott @Brandeis
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Why Should I vote for Clinton? (long)
Organization: nope
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 18:15:43 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.215544.27554@watson.ibm.com> mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.161339.7281@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>The New Republic is also an active participant in the Clinton campaign.
>
>Pardon? I'd really like to see some evidence of this.

One of the senior editors wrote Clinton's nomination acceptance speech and
others have claimed that they're helping as well.  There's nothing wrong
with that, but ....

Reading the same story in multiple places merely demonstrates that
it's been printed in multiple places.  That isn't "verification",
especially with an incestuous press that believes itself.

>That happens to agree pretty well with my bias, which is why I subscribe.

Which makes them fairly useless as a source for you.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: trust
Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, Eden Prairie, MN
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:35:47 GMT

c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>Personally, one of my yardsticks in choosing a president is:
>   Who would you rather be friends with?   Who would you prefer to be your
>close relative?
>Personally speaking, Bush wins hands down.

Bush can't win this one with me, simply because he considers my religious
views so reprehensible; it seems I don't believe in his god, so he doesn't
consider me to be a patriot or a citizen, or (apparently) worthy of any
respect.  This kind of bigotry I can do without.

---
Merlyn LeRoy
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3917 alt.politics.clinton:3888 alt.politics.elections:12289
From: puccio@media.mit.edu (Jim Puccio)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Legacy of an Environmental Presidency
Date: 3 Sep 92 02:52:36 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: M.I.T. Media Laboratory

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Pic caption:  "U.S. Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy II stands near a trash-covered  |
|  pier on Boston Harbor yesterday, claiming President Bush has failed to     |
|  fulfill his 1988 campaign promise to clean up the polluted waterway."      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Joe K: President's Harbor Pledge All Wet (excerpt)
  by Nick Tate and Eric Fehrnstrom [The Boston Herald, 2-SEP-92]

  Tearing a page from the GOP's 198 playbook, the Clinton/Gore campaign used
the legacy of Boston Harbor yesterday to criticize President Bush's 
environmental record and vowed increased anti-pollution efforts.

  U.S. Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy II, chairman of the Clinton/Gore in Massachusetts
campaign, called the harbor a symbol of Bush's "hollow" pledge to be an 
"environmental president," noting the president twice vetoed funds for the
$6.3 billion harbor cleanup.

  At a harborside news conference, Kennedy outlined a four-point plan supported
by the Democrats to increase funding for environmental programs such as the
harbor project -- including proposals to increase direct funding, expand uses
of federal Superfund monies, make corporate polluters pay and toughen up the
Clean Water Act.

  "If his record on Boston Harbor is any indication of his trustworhiness, he's
up the Charles River without a paddle," said Kennedy (D-Brighton).

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "If you're worried about caribou, take a look at the arguments that were   |
| used about the pipeline.  They'd say caribou would be extinct.  You've got |
| to shake them away with a stick.  They're all making love lying up against |
| the pipeline and you've got thousands of caribou up there."                |
|   -- President George Herbert "Hoover" Bush, 31-OCT-91                     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: jsimon@bnr.ca 
Subject: Re: Gulf War Thing
Keywords: Bush Gulf War Choices
Organization: bnr
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 14:29:44 GMT

In article <BtptFt.AHB@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, daniels@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Daniel R. Sawyer) writes:
|> 				[stuff deleted]
|> 
|> Bush did not want to help the Kurds or Shiites.  Because of the media, he did
|> however.  He didn't want to because they were only a sideshow, something to
|> eat away Hussein's power so another Sunni would-be dictator could take over.
|> 
|> Bush left Saddam Hussein in power because our Arab allies did not want the
|> United States to invade and garrison an Arab capital.  Don't tell me this was
|> all the U.N.'s doing because everyone knew that the UN=US policy.
|> Also, deposing Hussein and setting up a STABLE and democratic government
|> would be very difficult and would involve a lot of messing around with
|> internal Iraqi affairs.  For better or for worse, I think that's why Bush
|> left Hussein in power.
|> 
|> Daniel at UIUC
|> 
|> -- 
|> Daniel R. Sawyer
|> daniel-sawyer@uiuc.edu
|> 
|> --

There are a few more reasons:

1. Historically the land of the Kurds (Kurdistan) has never been an
   independent nation. Large chunks of Kurdish lands are part of eastern
   Turkey, northern Syria, north-western Iran and pockets in Azerbaijan and
   ofcourse northern Iraq.

   Turkey, which was a US ally in the gulf war, was extremely scared that
   an independent Kurdistan in northern Iraq might enthuse its own Kurdish
   population to intensify its fight for independence.

   Syria also had similar misgivings.

2. Iran on the east was eyeing shiite southern Iraq.

jac simoneaux
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: trust
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 04:47:30 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.025612.6882@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>Personally, one of my yardsticks in choosing a president is:
>
>   Who would you rather be friends with?   Who would you prefer to be your
>close relative?
>
>Personally speaking, Bush wins hands down.
>

Er, have you ever met Clinton or Bush?  Talked to them personally, or
are you just referring to the media image of either candidate?



--
"There's one reborn every minute."
		-- Dalai Dan, 153rd Reincarnation of the Lama.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Re: George Will on the GOP
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 21:30:09 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.154222.17218@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:

  Looking for a good read in the mismash of convention coverage? Let
  me direct you to George Will, syndicated columnist. Will is a staunch
  conservative, and an excellent writer, and a quick look at any of his
  recent output will explain why Rush Limbaugh was a speaker at the convention,
                                 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  and George Will wasn't. From Wednesdays Washington Post:

Did Rush speak? Sorry I missed that. Can anyone post a transcript of
Rush's speech?

   [ Will's discouraging words and Alex' comments omitted..]
 
 (..)
  ~~
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..
Because the plot demands: an EVIL man!

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush