HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas)
Subject: Re: Informed voter (was Re: SC rally)
Organization: SPS
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 17:45:59 GMT

In article <1685FEBFF.PA113718@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA113718@utkvm1.utk.edu writes:
|> In article <1992Sep11.182310.4903@newsgate.sps.mot.com>
|> titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:
|> 
|> >
|> >Lighten up Dr.
|> >
|> >Unless it's a hobby or part of your profession you're making a silly investment
|> >of your time.  One vote won't change any election, therefore no wise voter will
|> >work to become INFORMED.  I sincerely hope you have a better life than that.
|> >--
|> 
|> Are you really serious about what you just wrote?  You're criticizing someone
|> for taking democracy seriously enough to make a rational rather than an
|> emotional choice in the voting booth?  This is just the kind of scary,
|> anti-intellectual philistinism that the Republicans hope to thrive upon.
|> You're going to vote for the "Education" President while proudly thumbing
|> your nose at those who value knowledge.  The RNC probably has a seat warmed
|> up for you already.  Glad to hear you have more important things to do than
|> to learn, although I probably would have guessed as much even if you hadn't
|> stated the obvious.
|> 

Investing time educating yourself in something useful or interesting is fine.

But you were talking about going to the library to read position papers and study the
candidates.  1 vote amongst 100 million votes is NOT worth that investment.  If this
is something you ENJOY go ahead and do it.

I was and am totally serious about what I wrote.  It seems rational to me whereas
your reaction seems emotional and shallow.  Please pause to think before you post.
-- 
Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com               

It is impossible to take in more money than Congress can spend.  - Thomas Sowell
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Nobel Laureates
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:39:08 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.002402.23739@afit.af.mil>, jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:

|> >|> What has this statement to do with *anything* I said above?  If you are
|> >|> implying that I have the same double standard, I'm going to have to 
|> >|> ask you to show me one of my posts that support it.
|> 
|> >	Why? You didn't do that for me, Chip.
|> 
|> I most certainly did, Alex.  It was in direct reply to the topic we were
|> discussing and most directly aimed at that very post you had written. 

	No, you didn't. You made the comment in response to a post where
we were arguing over the semantics of "adopting" a pln vs. "constructing"
a plan, and it's still not clear to me what, exactly your point was.
Something about how it doesn't count to have experst agree with you if 
the ideas arn't soley yours.

	Furthurmore, I followed up that post with a detailed explanation
of my position, which you declined to comment on. If your truly felt that
this is an example of my hypocracy, that weas the time to drive the point
home, and you chose not to.

	You can't play the same strategy on offense and defence, you end
up stomping on yourself.

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement that 
encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice 
witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians. - Pat Robertson 1992
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: goodrich@lynx.larc.nasa.gov (Mike Goodrich)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Nobel Laureates
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 14:53:03 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.214712.25792@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, tag@hermes.ecn.purdue.edu (Tony A. Gibbens) writes:
|> 
|> To put it very quickly, there is NOTHING which insures that the market
|> will enforce a Corperation to be extremely efficient.  To survive, the 
|> Corperation will ensure that it makes a profit, but profit and efficiency
|> are not always the same thing.  

NOT TRUE. Effeciency always affects profits, thereby constituting a natural
feedback mechanism to pressure biz's towards greater effeciency. Ain't
Capitalism the greatest ?!


...mike
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: tag@hermes.ecn.purdue.edu (Tony A. Gibbens)
Subject: Re: Family Values
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 15:27:41 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.182025.1169@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren) writes:
>
>What exactly are Bush's "family values"?  He has promised to veto a bill to
>mandate UNPAID family parental or emergency leave.  He has also vetoed a bill
>to prevent convicted child-molesters continuing to work at day-care centers in
>another state.   
>
>I heard of a case where a father was fired from his job because he went to
>the hospital where his son was having open heart surgery.  The family leave
>bill is intended to stop this sort of thing from happening and Bush has
>promised to veto it.  
>
>Peter Lauren.
>

Bush has already veto'ed other bills with this provision in them.  His
major argument against such mandated ability to leave is that it will make 
us unable to compete.  However, most other major economic powers have such 
laws (Germany is just ONE example).  I guess that Bush just believes that
America can't compete on equal footing.  

IMHO, America doesn't have limitations.

tag@ecn.purdue.edu
From: elwin@ai.mit.edu (Lee Campbell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton blunder
Date: 14 Sep 92 12:21:13 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory

In article <crb2.716221434@Ra.MsState.Edu>, crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson) writes:
- another person writes
- 
- >>      Maybe Clinton is now in Quayle's league with his comments
- >> on the Patriot missiles going through chimneys. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
- >> (And this could be our future commander-in-chief?)
- >> 
- >>      Cary Perttunen

I wrote

- >I guess I misunderstood the post I saw. I probably didn't read it
- >as carefully as I should have, and I didn't look back to see your
- >earlier post. What can I say; I screwed up.
-
- >As for Clinton's blunder about the patriot missile, he really did
- >get that wrong! And then when Quayle corrected Clinton in public,
- >Quayle said it was *cruise missiles* not *patriots* that flew down
- >chimneys! Quayle looks even more foolish getting his *correction*
- >wrong!! We all know it was laser guided smart bombs, not patriots
- >or curise missiles!
- 
- THERE IT IS AGAIN!!!!  BULL!!!!
- 
- You are wrong! If you are talking about 'missiles', the only 'missile'
- that we have that WILL FLY DOWN A CHIMNEY, OR THROUGH A DOOR is a
- CRUISE MISSILE!  True, a laser guided 'smart bomb' will also, but
- that is a plane delivered 'bomb'.  The commentator on CNN during
- the war joked that he watched a Tomahawk (Cruise missile) come down
- main street, and take a right at the light!

That commentator was either joking, exagerating, or just plain wrong.
Think a little about this. Cruise missiles are subsonic; they fly about
600mph. How many G's do you have to pull to make a 100 foot radius
turn at 600 mph? Answer: too many!

As I said in an earlier post, cruise missiles use something called "terrain
mapping guidance." This means they carry a sequence of digital maps of
the area they over-fly, and they measure their position by using on-board
radar to make small maps of the area below and then compare those with
the stored maps. This (plus gyros & accelerometers) gives them an accuracy
*at best* equal to that of the digital maps or of their mapping radar.
These digital maps do not include windows and chimneys! According to an
article in Scientific American by Kosta Tsipsis, the maps have an accuracy
of about 10 meters. Pretty good, but not windows and chimneys!

- You (and the liberal media) need to check YOUR facts before you try
- and discredit a man that OBVIOUSLY knows more on the subject than
- EVEN YOU!!!
- 
- Chad

Excellent advice. What's your source on cruise missiles? As I said, mine
is articles in Scientific American by Kosta Tsipsis. Sorry, Chad, the
cultural elite (which includes anyone smarter than D. Q.) are right on
this one, and poor old Danny is wrong!
						- Lee Campbell
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: The same old unemployement lies
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 21:35:27 GMT

In <1992Sep13.194438.25482@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>In <BuHBtM.C1q@eis.calstate.edu> kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell):

>>In the U.S., we started 1980 with 12% inflation, 20+% interest rates,
>>unemployment nearly double what it is now, and a resurgent, aggressive
>>USSR. 

>	While inflation was indeed bad in 1980, unemployment never went over
>7% under carter. The current rate is 7.7%, and would be higher under the pre-
>1984 accounting rules, which dropped the long term unemployed from the
>calculation (The new numbers are more informative, and lower). In spite
>of the runaway interest rates, there were more jobs created under Carter
>then in either of Reagans terms, and the total number of jobs has *dropped*
>since 1988, as has the median income (which dropped $1100 last year alone).

Furthermore, inflation was a phenomena of the entire 1970s, not just
when Carter was in office.  

Also, 1980 was a recession, and thus artifically worse than the rest of
Carter's term, just as 1982 was worse than the rest of Reagan's term,
and 1991-2 was worse than the beginning of Bush's term.

>	Just so you know.
>-- 
>                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
>"I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens,
> nor should they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under God"
>                                     - George Herbert Walker Bush, Feb 1989 

"I have read the Democratic platform, and it doesn't have the letters
G-O-D in it."  George Bush, paraphrased.

"What about the abortion plank in the Republican platform?"  
"I haven't actually read the Republican platform."  -- George Bush

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1992 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Brady Anderson 1992 AL MVP
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more months!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
From: john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 23:01:51 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX

In article <1992Sep9.191421.17961@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
|>                                      What do you propose should
|> happen to the vast majority of us who don't have the money to cover
|> medical care in the event of a catastrophic illness?  Let us die?

Well....yeah.  When did medical care become an inalienable right?

|> If a doctor doesn't have malpractice insurance and loses a
|> malpractice suit, what do YOU think he's going to do after he loses
|> all his money?  What kind of incentives do you think that will create
|> for others to become doctors?

Why should we give incentives for people to choose a particular
profession?  I don't consider it to be a tragedy if an incompetent
doctor leaves the profession.

-- 
John Iacoletti    IBM AWD Austin    Internet: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"Now I laugh and make a fortune off the same ones that I tortured, and the
  world screams, 'Kiss me, son of God'" -- TMBG
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed)
Subject: The Economic Plans (was Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!")
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 22:59:52 GMT


Jason Nadrowski writes:
|> Chris you miss the point.  The liberal bias in media refers to Maria (I know
|> this one is totally misspelled) Shribert asking one of economic advisors
|> "how are you going to pay for this stupid plan!!!  There is no way!!!  HOW!!!"  and
|> then asking Clinton or Democrats..."This excelent plan of yours how did
|> you ever come up with it?"

Well, there is at least one exception: Newsweek.

Quotes from the September 7 issue [all highlights are mine]:

"Clinton, despite his neoconservative rhetoric, appears from his policy
blueprints to be a programmatic liberal.  He proposes at least two dozen 
new tax and spending programs, including national health insurance,  welfare
reform, national education reform and universal job training.
The Clinton campaign hasn't estimated the cost of its national health
plan and says the other three programs should total about $20 billion
a year.  But the real price is almost CERTAINLY HIGHER--perhaps as much
as $150 billion , including health-care reform."
...	
"Clinton, in short, promises to spend his way back to economic health, 
while Bush wants to put government on a crash diet to unleash the 
magic of the market."
...
"Bush, for example, would be lucky to win even half his proposed 
reductions in federal spending from a Republican Congress--and 
he would have to selttle for much smaller retrenchments if, 
as now seems likely, the Democrats keep control of the House
and Senate.  As a result, his plan to stimulate the economy with
tax cuts balanced by spending reductions is largely based
on POLITICAL FANTASY."
...
"The Clinton program, on the other hand, is ECONOMIC FANTASY. By
failing to put a price tag on his four biggest programs, as well 
as some of the smaller ones, Clinton is able to pretend that 
he would add only $42 billion to federal spending during his first
year in office and only $64 billion by 1996.  The real cost is 
arguably at least THREE TIMES higher than that."

-- 
Anwar Mohammed                FREE       Graduate Student
anwar+@cs.cmu.edu              THE       School of Computer Science
Voice: +1 412 268 3043     KUWAITI       Carnegie-Mellon University
Fax:   +1 412 681 5739        POWS       Pittsburgh, PA  15213-3890
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.rights.human,alt.society.civil-liberties
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Subject: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:46:38 GMT


My girlfriend saw this one on tv news.  I was suprised the local 
station would report this one, rather than ignoring it as I would 
have expected them to.

Clinton this weekend (sept 5-6) went to a rally in South Carolina.
He was booed so hard and loud by a majority of the huge crowd that 
he couldn't be heard at all.  The best part was the plane:  Overhead
flew an airplane towing this banner:  "We don't want a draft dodger
for president!".

The plane was lovely.  I wish she had recorded it on the vcr.  As
I said, I am suprised that the tv news station here chose to cover it.

I have yet to see any mention of this wonderful event in our local
paper, (which runs daily anti-Bush editorial cartoons).   I plan to
go to the library and see which papers do cover the event, but I 
imagine there are not many.  If the same thing had happened to Bush,
you can bet it would be in every paper and tv news show.

How many of you saw this?  What did you think?  How many of you didn't
know about this because your TV station or newspaper chose to deny you
this knowledge?

Jim Del Vecchio
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jason@alpha.ee.ufl.edu (Jason Nadrowski)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Nobel Laureates
Organization: EE Dept at UF
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 05:41:55 GMT

>As for the first 100 days stuff, it sounds like you've been listening

Clinton said 100 days in some speach reported on by CNN.  I also
heard it on Rush (which does not make it fact).

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:25:48 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

In article <1992Sep15.142146.16304@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>In article <BuKovn.6D7@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarWatcher@uiuc.edu writes:
>>To just blame the President(s) solely for economic problems (or to
>>give them total credit for economic successes) would be wrong.

 Presidents have relatively little direct influence on the economy.  
 Much bigger issues than that are things like the productivity and
 quality of industry, the Fed's monetary policy, cultural issues
 like crime, litigation, etc which may soak up productive resources,
 international economic issues, and so forth.  Not to mention tax,
 spending, and regulations and laws affecting business, all of which
 are set by Congress (laws can be vetoed but vetoes can be over-
 ridden.)

 About all the President can do is veto bills he doesn't like and
 "set the tone" through effective leadership.   And THESE have been
 the big failures of recent presidents: lack of leadership and an
 unwillingness to use their veto power to back up their philosophy,
 even symbolically, i.e., when an override is a given.   For instance
 president Bush talks a good line on deficits but has never proposed
 a balanced budget, and has never vetoed an out-of-balance one.  Nor
 do I have any reason to think Clinton be any more of a leader than
 Bush - neither men appear to have strong beliefs or character.
                                                               

>>I would vote for Reagan, if he were able to run again, provided
>>some guarantee could be made about his health, he didn't choose 
>>a boob for a running mate, and if he didn't pander to the ultra-
>>conservatives too much.  I cannot in good faith vote for
>>GHWB (or for Clinton, for that matter).

  I can't imagine anyone voting for Reagan -- he has cabbage for
  brains, and never resisted the spend and borrow philosophy of
  the democrats, or spoke out against the borrow-and-borrow 
  philosophy of consumers and corporations at that time.  This
  is a perfect example of the leadership problem -- the President
  has the power and the forum to speak out clearly on issues of the
  day, and tell it like it is.   The debt excesses of the 80's
  were obvious to anyone with half a brain, and it was irresponsible 
  of anyone who had the ear of the public the way Reagan did to 
  not comment on them, but poor R.R. didn't even have half a brain
  and while the stage was being set for the current recession he said
  nothing.


---peter
  


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Nobel Laureates
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 12:05:02 GMT

tom@arthur.jsc.nasa.gov (Tom Robinson) writes:

>In article <1992Sep9.164233.12599@eng.ufl.edu>, jason@alpha.ee.ufl.edu (Jason Nadrowski) writes:
>> (Argument asserting Clinton's health care plan would trigger depression
>>  deleted for brevity.)
>> 
>>   When has the government ever done something efficient?
>> 
>>   NEVER!!!!
>> 

>I think you mean _efficiently_.  The word _efficient_ is an adjective and,
>thus, can only modify a noun or a pronoun.  Certainly you did not mean for
>_efficient_ to modify _government_ (a noun) or _something_ (a pronoun), did
>you?  The word _efficiently_ is an adverb and, thus, can only modify a verb,
>an adjective, or another adverb.  Did you not intend for your modifier to
>apply to the verb _has_done_?  Here's what your sentence would look like if
>you has used the proper part of speech:

>When has the government ever done something efficiently?

>Incidently, your argument is hopelessly vague.  Your lack of cogency belies
>a lack of understanding of just what it is that Clinton does propose.

>I leave _you_ with this thought:
>There is no such word as _reprocussions_.  (Buy a dictionary.)

There was an article in rec.humor about people like you who flame
others on their spelling.  It was hilarious--read it.

Of course this *could* be a real issue, since the Democrats have set
themselves up as the "issue police"...

-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire
From: dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Date: 8 Sep 92 17:45:31 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Clara Division

>>No, I think its quite obvious from watching much of the network
>>reporting, the Emmys, and the state of the US in general. I don't
>>think its any kind of organized conspiracy to support Clinton, but its
>>just the natural biases of the people making the decisions.

And maybe it's just that everyone who speaks is fed up with Bush...

>  I agree.  I don't understand why some people seem to have a problem
>  with journalists, editors, and newspapers and TV stations having
>  opinions which are expressed in their reporting.   The idea of 
>  "objective journalism" is naive nonsense anyway and we should all
>  grow up and stop demanding or expecting it.

Not just that, but why is there so much hype about the media being pro-
Clinton (but not by that much) this year?  I mean, it's not like the
media has never been pro-Reagan/Bush.
Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA