HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The draft and Vietnam
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:26:45 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

John R. Moore) writes:
|> 
|> Let's look more closely at what Nixon did. Nixon wanted to end the war,
|> but not by surrendering. He escalated (in the North, NOT the south)
|> in order to get the North to agree to a peace plan that would
|> force a return of all POW's and leave the South alone. It was ultimately
|> that escalation that worked... the Christmas bombing of Hanoi
|> caused the North to start serious negotiations immediately, after years
|> of delaying negotiations by arguing about the size of the table, etc.
|> The agreement that was signed guaranteed return of all POW's, and guaranteed
|> that the South could choose their own destiny.
|> 
|> Unfortunately, when the North violated the treaty by sending huge numbers
|> of troops south, and by failing to return all POW's, the US was unable
|> to enforce the truce. Henry Kissinger reports that Le Duc Tho would
|> respond to requests for more POW information or to return the troops
|> to the north by reading to him US News reports of anti-war demonstrations
|> and congressional actions prohibiting him from doing anything to encforce
|> the agreement. The result is that a number of POW's were left behind
|> to the tender mercies of the communists (mostly in Laos), and South Vietnam
|> was invaded and conquered by a conquering army with more armour than
|> was fielded by General Patton in WW-II.
|> 
So was Nixon fooled by North Viet Nam and got suckered into a peace
that the other side never intended to agree with?  I think not.  My
recollection was that Nixon wanted a face-saving way out.  Knowing
that the North had no intention to follow the terms was not a deterrent
to signing.  He did it right and they were the bad guys.  Actually,
that peace treaty wasn't much worse than the most recent example
with Iraq.  Bush must have learned from Nixon.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Perot treating us like idiots
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 12:00:28 GMT

In article <1992Sep24.233052.1366@cnsvax.uwec.edu>, falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu
writes:

|>In article <lc3pcoINN66a@spim.mti.sgi.com>, mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com
|>(Michael Polen) writes:
|>> Ross Perot continually states that his "campaign" (good choice of words
|>> for a non-candidate) is driven from the bottom up.  He says that the troops
|>> will decide if he re-enters the race.  He says that it is not his decision.
|>> 
|>> If I were stupid enough to believe this then I would believe:
|>> 
|>> 1.	It was his troops that decided he should drop out earlier.
|>
|>  Wrong.  He said that was his own decision, which he now believes is a
|>mistake.

No you are both wrong. Perot is following the orders given to him by George
Herbert Walker Bush.


Perot has at all times strenuously attempted to align himself with the Democrats
platform. This is so that he takes voters from Clinton who will return to Bush
when he quits a second time endorsing Bush just before polling day.


Has anyone seen any sign of Tice and Stratters recently?


--

Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore)
Subject: Re: No on 9
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 20:34:08 GMT

In article <090n2m-.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>For me, it is very upsetting to an attempt to grab the shield of horror
>from the Jews, who have been subject to horrors that homosexuals
>have rarely seen en masse and place it onto a group of people that
>are disliked for what they accurately are. (Accuracy being relative
>in this day of mass media).

Why, Phool, you moron.  As usual, you have absolutely no
idea what you're talking about.

A number of Holocaust survivors are active in Parents and
Friends of Lesbians and Gays, and have gone on national
television stating unequivocally that the current anti-gay
sentiment in this country directly parallels what they
experienced as Jews in Germany in the 1930s.

So how does it feel to be likened to a Nazi by someone
who survived the death camps?  It's people like you that
they're talking about, you know.
--
       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Socialist advisor?
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:39:10 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <70144@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt4925b@prism.gatech.EDU (Jason Woodward) writes:
>This is a quote from Derek Shearer:
>
>  "Socialism has a bad name in America, and no amount of wishful
>thinking on the part of the left is going to change that in our
>lifetimes...The words Economic Democracy are an adequate and 
>effective replacement." 
>
>  I have seen this quote several places, and Shearer is always
>referred to as a Clinton advisor.
>
>I have 3 questions:
>
>1)  Is Shearer really an advisor to Clinton?
>
    Yes.

>2)  Did he really say this stuff about "Economic Democracy"?

    I do not know, he claims to be a neo-moderate now, but
    he used to be an avowed socialist.
>
>3)  If 1 and 2 are true, when will the press ever report this?

    WSJ recently ran two or three articles that specifically addressed
    Mr.Shearer's views as well as his personality.

...

    Having said that, Bush too has his fair share of wierdos and loonies 
    helping him to get re-elected.  Consider Mr.Lake who is a deputy 
    chairman and a spokesman for the Bush's campaign.  He also happens
    to be the chief US spokesman for the principal owner of BCCI and
    ruler of Abu-Dhabi Sheik Zayad (source: WSJ).  One can only wonder 
    how Mr.Lake manages to speak for both King George and Sheik Zayed, 
    and not have a conflict of interests of some kind...  I mean, isn't
    BCCI being investigated by the Bush administration?

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: all opinions are mine.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ads3@PO.CWRU.edu (Andrew Shults)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 03:15:08 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b62204.student.cwru.edu

In article <5OCT199219033406@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:

>But to find out while Bill Clinton was at Oxford in '69 that 
>he went to *Moscow* and eastern Europe in the dead of winter, 
>alone, and made efforts to change his citizenship to British,
>-- I'll be dead against him personally -- if all this is true.


What's good for the goose is good for the gander:

     My hawkish *Republican* Congressman (Don Ritter, PA's 15th Dist.) was
studying in Russia during Vietnam.  His opponent, Paul McHale, was an
infantry training officer during that same period.  Even better, McHale is
currently a Major in the Marine Corps Reserve and served on active duty
during Desert Shield and Desert Storm, and it wasn't some cushy desk-job,
he was literally on the "Line in the Sand."

Say goodbye to one 7-term incumbent.


[Part of A Jeopardy Game]  * Paul McHale for Congress *   //    Andrew Shults
Emma: "Let's try 'The Best Medicine' for $20, Alex."    //   ads3@po.cwru.edu
Alex: "And the answer is -- '[Congressman] Don Ritter's pledge to run a clean
       campaign focusing on the issues' (BZZZZ) Emma."
Emma: "What is ha ha ha ha?"-B. White, Columnist, Allentown [PA] Morning Call


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Subject: The Decline of America: USA #1 in NOT Ratifying Human Rights Treaties
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:00:15 GMT

The Decline of America: USA #1 in NOT Ratifying Human Rights Treaties


  Actions of various nations on the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant
   on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), and the
   United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel,
    Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1991.
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
            Key: S = Signed, R = Ratified, X = No Action:

COUNTRY       ICCPR(22)  ICESCR  U.N./TORTURE

Australia          R       R          R
Austria            R       R          R
Canada             R       R          R
Denmark            R       R          R
Finland            R       R          R
France             R       R          R
Germany            R       R          R
Italy              R       R          R
Netherlands        R       R          R
New Zealand        R       R          R
Norway             R       R          R
Spain              R       R          R
Sweden             R       R          R
United Kingdom     R       R          R
Belgium            R       R          S
Ireland            R       R          X
Japan              R       R          X
United States      S       S          R

[Having been active in Amnesty International before the ratification
of the treaty against Torture, it should be pointed out that getting
this signed by Bush took a tremendous amount of pressure over a
prolonged period of time. Could Bush's support for the funding of
government-run (according to Amnesty and others) "Death-Squads" in El
Salvador, Guatemala, etc, have had anything to do with it?]
[Send the 1-line email message consisting of GET AI_REPT ELSALV ACTIV-L
to: LISTSERV@UMCVMB.BITNET for how our tax-dollars support
death-squads (i.e, DS's are gov't/army-run).]
******************************************************************
Source: Amnesty International Report 1991 (New York Amnesty International,
1991), pp. 240, 273-77.
******************************************************************

From:
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  
_We're Number One, Where America Stands -- and Falls -- in the New    
World Order_ by Andrew L Shapiro.   

New York, May 1992, Vintage Books, a division of Random House.   
$10 paperback. ISBN 0-679-73893-2  
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -   

    "America is becoming a land of private greed and public squalor.   
    This book is an indispensable road map through the wreckage. The   
    facts it reveals will startle you. They may depress you. But   
    ideally they'll fire you up to help rebuild this nation."   

                        -Robert B. Reich, author of The Work of Nations   


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: harry@netnews.alf.dec.com (Harry Katz)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Jack S Defends MLKing Slur (Was: ARF DEFENDS HIS HONOR)
Date: 30 Sep 92 21:18:32 GMT
Organization: DEC - Customer Support Center, Alpharetta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

In article <19n5k6INN2mu@early-bird.think.com>,
shaig@Think.COM (Shai Guday) writes:

	Perhaps I am out of touch, but please tell me when it became
	common knowledge that MLK "slept around".  I am not saying
	yea or nay, merely that I don't recall hearing anything about
	it.


In article <Bv2FHB.JJ@ddsw1.mcs.com>,
arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) responds:

	Of course you haven't.  The pinko press has protected you from
	such details.

Pure poppycock!  When it comes to peddling papers, the press has no
principles.


	Be a hell of a thing to have replaced Wahington's birthday with
	a holiday to commemorate a dirty old man, wouldn't it.

The only "dirty old man" in this scenario is the founder and first
director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover.  He is the one who believed in
the racist stereotype, that Black men have uncontrollable libidos, and
consequently could not believe that Dr. King was not controlled by
his sexual urges.  That is the basis for the "sex scandal" reported in
the press at the time the FBI files were sealed.


Harry Katz
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: debates
Date: 2 Oct 92 11:33:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <MARTIN.92Oct1171124@chimera.titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu> martin@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Tracy Martin) writes:

> Both Bush and Clinton have invited Perot to participate in the
> Debates, if he declares that he is a candidate.  Have they extended
> this same invitation to the Liberatarian candidate?

No.

> Isn't he also on the ballet in all 50 states?

Probably, but he doesn't have 3 1/2 billion bucks.
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Some more about 'RIGHTS'
Date: 5 Oct 92 17:44:41 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

In article <1992Oct5.163531.19868@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
|> In article <BvnGD7.53p@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
|>     >>Secondly, if all this "Randroid drooling" is so "weak", why,
|>     >>then, it should be extremely easy for you to post your
|>     >>refutations.
|>     >>
|>     >Look, take some courses in logic. The onus is on the person
|>     >making the *positive assertion* (that's you) to prove it. If
|>     >I said "bander- snatch are frumious" (a positive assertion)
|>     >how would you go about DISproving it? You can't. But that
|>     >doesn't mean my claim is correct. The responsibility is mine
|>     >to define "bandersnatch" and "frumious" and describe how I
|>     >reached my conclusion.
|>     >
|>     >Rand's assertions are simply undefined and unsubstantiated
|>     >claims.
|> 
|> Well, then, per your post, PROVE IT. I have a dictionary of Rand's
|> terms, and it has 350+ pages in it. And she has at least a dozen
|> books that substantiate her philosophy.
|> 
Is this a confusion of the terms "substantiate" and "agree with?"

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
From: mshar@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Mike Mshar)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: That Legal right over Gambit...
Date: 1 Oct 92 05:24:12 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

> barryc@malamute.UUCP (Barry Chalcroft) writes:
>Let me see, Clinton is Governor and Qayle was a Senator and is VP. That`s
>serving the country, maybe not militarily but IT IS serving the country.
>You don`t have to join the military to serve your country (how about the 
>Peace Corps or VISTA ?). I`d just as soon drop the draft question, that, 
>just like what one did or didn`t (or does..) smoke or take in College is 
>not really what matters.

I should have to agree. It is getting a little out of hand.

>
>What matters is the future for our country, do we continue with the same
>old ideas that haven`t worked in 12 years or do we start thinking about 
>tomorrow. I`ve got 3 kids, been laid off 3 times in the  past 12 years (in 
>the computer/electronics field) and don`t see anything from the incumbents
>that makes me feel optimistic about their plans for this country. Hasn`t
>worked for me in the past. 

Let us remember one thing, however. The Democrats have controlled Congress
for well over fifty years. So don`t try to tell anyone that it`s the
Republicans` fault. The Republicans have not been able to pass any budget 
plans they wanted through the Congressional stonewall. So how can anyone
say that the President, whether Republican or Democrat, is responsible 
for the economic woes of this country, when he has not been able to try
any of his plans? 

Do the country a favor. Get the old, career politicians from both parties
out of Congress, and get new blood in there. The new guys are the ones
who will still believe in supporting and representing the people, instead
of supporting their careers.

My political .02...


P.S.  Is this the right newsgroup for this???

-- 
|       Michael G. Mshar        | My Life-Long Goal: To keep common sense    |
|   mmshar@mn.ecn.purdue.edu    | alive and keep the idiots from taking over.|
|  mshar@mentor.cc.purdue.edu   |     \\President, Nice Guys Anonymous//     |
|____>>> United States Steel, Mechanical Engineer, Technical Services <<<____|
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
From: pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson)
Subject: Re: Quayle and Lawyers
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 00:01:58 GMT

In article <Oct.1.14.47.03.1992.18130@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>
>Would a lawyer who is engaged in trial work ever attempt to discredit
>testimony by questioning the integrity of the one who gave it?  Naw
>... wouldn't happen.  Pshaw!
>
>It is not necessary to always appeal only to logic when trying to
>convince a jury.

But it is necessary to use logic to convince this jury (the average
USENet reader).  If you aren't going to try and be logical you might as
well just stop posting now.

Paul.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: norris@athena.mit.edu (Richard A Chonak)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 23:01:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.204501.4095@Warren.MENTORG.COM>, tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep25.232935.745@muddcs.claremont.edu> gmeltzne@jarthur.claremont.edu (Manu) writes:
|> 
|> >	Oh give me a break.  A large percentage of anti-abortionists are 
|> >	women too.  Give it up.
|> 
|> This is not so.  In fact, the majority of people working against
|> abortion are male.  Publicly they make sure that all quotes come from
|> women, but this is just to make them look like anti-choice is the voice
|> of women.

Can you substantiate this in any way?  I've seen figures from the
Boston Globe/WBZ poll which regularly studies abortion opinion in detail;
they show pro-life sentiment to be stronger among women than among men,
stronger among non-whites than among whites, and stronger among poor people
than among the affluent.

---
Richard Chonak, norris@athena.mit.edu
I have very exclusive and nuanced opinions.  License info available on request.
From: mike@PENGUIN.GATECH.EDU (Mike Gourlay)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Novmber Wizardry
Date: 27 Sep 92 03:00:08 GMT

Without being concerned with the origin of the quote coming up, see
what it makes you think of:

  In a society where human worth is measured by money, home and family may
  seem to be the last refuge of human values.  This belief is especially strong
  in times of economic crisis, such as that in the United States in the 1930s.

What does that remind you of?

I asked a friend of mine and she said, "Oh my God.  That's Bush's whole
election platform."

Hmm.  Just what I was thinking.

This quote is in a book on film studies as a potential summary explanation of
the movie, "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz",  along with three other possible
explanations.  Looks like the Murphy Brown episode and the Nancy Reagan "Just
Say No" spiel and Reaganomics and the collapse of the economy have something in
common.

Of course, many of us knew that all along.  I'm not saying anything
new-- but it's interesting that such a basic theme is being used rather
unsuccessfully by our world leader to point our direction away from the real
problems of this country and toward some trumped up imaginary fallicy, the
decline of human values as apparently manifest in the fictitious War on Drugs
and the disestablishment of traditional family roles.

--
Michael J. Gourlay                                mike@penguin.gatech.edu
                "That's me; I've been ionized...." - Buckaroo Banzai
35431 Georgia Tech Station   H:(404) 873-4782        W:(404) 894-9734
Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Physics, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss
From: train@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Love or Sex
Date: 7 Oct 92 01:16:43 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <1992Sep29.201600.5463@ncsu.edu> bkdavis@eos.ncsu.edu (B K DAVIS) writes:
>
>Which would you rather have ? Would you rather be in love with a person and 
>spend time together, or would you rather have sex with people (safe people ie
>no diease)? Are there any lovers out there ? I mean people who take their time
>plot and plan a seduction, not a get drunk wham bam. 
>
>
>Brian
>Tetsu Yama

Well, I for one would rather have love.  I mean, when you're in love you can just just sit and hold each other and not really have to have sex.  I did the one night stand thing once and I felt guilty afterwards - I just couldn't handle it in my conscience(sp?).  Well, that's my $.02 worth.
-- 
*******************************************************************************
*  "My neural pathways have become accustomed    |    Alton R. Pouncey II     *
*   to your sensory input patterns."             |  train@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu  *
*******************************************************************************

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 03:50:56 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.025119.19034@Warren.MENTORG.COM> tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.232935.745@muddcs.claremont.edu> gmeltzne@jarthur.claremont.edu (Manu) writes:
>
>>	Oh give me a break.  A large percentage of anti-abortionists are 
>>	women too.  Give it up.
>
>This is not so.  In fact, the majority of people working against
>abortion are male.  Publicly they make sure that all quotes come from
>women, but this is just to make them look like anti-choice is the voice
>of women.  This kind of "information control" is called "spin".  They
>know what they're doing.

So I guess that when I took that bus to the Right to Life march in DC and most
of the people on it were women (of all ages, and only a couple of nuns) they
were all a rouse fabricated by the Fascist Front for the Oppression of Women.
As were the rest of the women at that march, and there were a lot women more  
than men present the entire march route.

Gimme a break, pal.


-- 
Douglas C. Meier		|  Remember to vote this election year,       
Northwestern University, ACNS 	|  you probably won't get another one. 
I don't claim them, they don't	|  
claim me.......			|  dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion