HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Bush really IS a wimp
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 23:48:54 GMT

In <1993Jan1.015738.25289@netcom.com> nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd) writes:

>If Weinberger and
>Bush are really innocent, then they have nothing to fear from a jury of
>12 good men and women--the truth will out. Or is that what the little
>sh*t was afraid of?

I think he wished to avoid (though not "afraid of") years and megabucks 
wasted fighting a witchhunt, while the media and other leftists dragged 
his name through the mud, with the best possible conclusion being "not
proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." I think he did the best thing 
for himself, his fellow patriots --and the country.

>Feinstein '94
>Clinton/Gore '96

Kemp '96
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: visser@convex.com (Lance Visser)
Subject: Re: Man of the Year (was Re: Is the media liberal-biased)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 07:24:55 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1993Jan12.044846.122@cis.ohio-state.edu> csmith@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith) writes:

+>For me, however, the clearest indication of media bias was what they
+>considered news during the election. Did we hear anything more about Clinton's
+>draft dodging? Or Jennifer Flowers? No, it was all Iran-Contra and whether
+>Bush knew about it or not.  And I STILL think the timing of the indictment
+>was significant. The indictment was so full of holes it was thrown out only
+>three weeks later.

	The most public conflict of intrest in the media was probably 
Rick Kaplin of ABC.  Kaplin was working for the Clinton Campaign as an
advisor/consultant at the same time he was serving as executive producer
of Prime Time Live for ABC....which could explain Prime time live's 
style of coverage to a considerable degree.

	I stopped believing in ABC as an unbiased source when they had
Ted Koppel read the ROTC letter on niteline in its entirty.  I could
have seen quoting parts of the letter on television, but doing the
whole thing it looked like they were flat-out trying to help him.

 	For the conspracy-minded, Kaplin formerly worked behind the
scenes at niteline.

	People don't seem to understand that politics and the national
media have reached a point where there is a huge overlap and its hard
to tell where one side ends and the other begins.

	The worst example is Cokie Roberts whose brother is Tommy Boggs,
super-lobbyist.  Their parents are rep. Lindy Boggs and former (now
decised) majority leader Hale Boggs.

	I dont deny these people the right to be politically active or
to be reporters, but I think that running a news program at the same
time as working with a political campaign is just ethically wrong.
That is what a Leave of Absense is for.  

	I also believe that people who work in administrations and then
move into or return to the media have an obligation to make that history
clear.  

	The overlap of the media and politics is nothing new, but the
trend seems to be accelerating and what is worse, the media seems to 
well on its way to being drawn into the world of perks that politicians
live in if it is not already there.



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green)
Subject: Re: Is the media liberal-biased? (was: Weinberger Pardon)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 02:04:18 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <randall.726535889@seashore> randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea) writes:
>The charge of "liberal bias" is often made against "the media."  Is it
>true? 

That's a nonquestion.  It is a fact.  For a good insight into this, read
L. Brent Bozell's "And That's The Way It Is(n't)".

>1) In every Presidental election since 1944, more newspapers endorsed
>the Republican than endorsed the Democrat.  (I do not know what the figures
>are for 1992.)  

And 85%+ of all major media folks voted for the Democrat.

>2) Most radio and TV talk show hosts (the ones who discuss politics)
>are conservative.  The only exception on the national scale is
>Larry King.  (Note than some talk show hosts do not discuss politics at
>all, or simply blast anyone who is currently in office.)

Say what?  Donahue, Opra, etc. are conservative?  Sorry.

How about Jesse Jackson (Both Sides with), most of the CNN staff (especially
the Special Assignments bunch).  As far as I can tell, there are very few
conservative media types in major positions.  We've got George Will, Cal
Thomas, and a few others that write editorials, and Rush on radio and TV,
but the vast majority of the media types are liberal (like the head of 
one of the big three news departments that was formerlly Ted K's chief of
staff).


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: Soul of the Republican Party
Reply-To: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 16:36:45 GMT

In article <23073@drutx.ATT.COM> dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
>In article <1hvcfiINNa6h@spim.mti.sgi.com>, mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
>} 
>} As long as their wall is tax exempt, I'm helping pay the bills.
>
>Why?  If even the government doesn't think that a church owes it
>anything, how is it that you are helping to pay the bills?
>

I think the point is that anytime a person or institution is granted
tax-exempt status, this effectively raises the tax burden on all those
who aren't tax exempt.

>--
>David Olson   dlo@druwa.ATT.COM

Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,rec.food.vegan
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy)
Subject: How big _is_ Texas? (was Re: Democrat == Loony Left???)
Organization: Kalamazoo College
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:30:21 GMT

niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy) writes:
>>mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
>>>
>>>You could take the entire human race and put it in the state of texas, have
>>>1/3 the state left over to grow enough food to feed the people, and still
>>>have 1/3 of the state left over for natural habitat.
>
>>4.5 billion people in one-third of Texas comes out to 50,500 people per
>>square mile.  I don't think so, Mr. Schwartz.
>
>As an aside, while we could cram all those people into Texas, I'd like
>to see some evidence that we could feed all the people of the world on
>the food grown in 1/3 of the state of Texas.
>
>It's certainly an interesting claim, but it appears to be a Truth by
>Blatant Assertion.

"Interesting" is one word for it.

"To supply one person with a meat habit food for a year requires three
and a quarter acres.  To supply one lacto-ovo vegetarian with food for a
year requires one-half acre.  To supply one pure vegetarian requires
only one-sixth of an acre."  (John Robbins, _Diet For a New America_,
p. 352.)

So, the total land required to feed the entire earth, eating a typical
American diet, would be around 22.9 million square miles.  Eating milk
and eggs, but no meat:  3.5 million.  And eating no animal products at
all:  1.17 million.

Texas sprawls over 262,017 square miles of land, so unless Mike is
advocating forced vegetarianism, his estimate is off by a factor of
around three hundred.  In fact, you could take all of Texas, throw in
all of California, Montana, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado,
and still not have enough land to feed an entirely-vegan Earth.  And
that's assuming every acre is arable, which they are, of course, not.

Where did you hear this, Mike?


What's interesting is that the U.S. occupies a total of about 3.5
million square miles, just about enough to feed a vegetarian Earth if
it were all farmland.  In reality, 1.55 million square miles of our
fair country is currently farmland, enough to feed an Earthful of
vegans.  Still, 40,000 people starve every day--in the time it takes
to output this article at 2400 baud, four people have died of hunger.

(All figures except John Robbins' are from the 1992 World Almanac.)
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy      Internet: k044477@kzoo.edu      AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "This sounds like a semantico-psychological backwardization of the
  real world image."   - Dave Bloom (bloomda@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu)
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The less government the better??? (was Re: Execute Amy Fisher!!!)
Date: 12 Jan 93 22:04:34 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <ATAYLOR.93Jan12114335@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:

|	And if the Federal Government is the fount of all things
|	good and true, as Petrich usually implies, then we should
|	just do away with those pesky elections and such, since
|	they *do* so interfere with the operation of government.
|	Just allow the self-appointed aristocracy to become 
|	the permanent government, for example.

I thought this was already the case.
-- 
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS)
Subject: Re: "Its all over for the political ruling class!"
Summary: Another view  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 8 Jan 93 22:34:20 GMT

In article <C0J1vx.ELu@newsserver.technet.sg>, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)                         writes...
> 
>When the Berlin Wall came tumbling down, the establishment reluctantly
>hailed it as the end of the cold war. But was it the end or merely the
>beginning of the end? Socialism collapsed in Eastern Europe and then
>the Soviet Union with a resounding thud. Yet it survives in the West
>if only barely.

To say that the socialism of Western Europe and the Communism of Eastern
Europe are the same thing, shows a definant lack of understanding of the
politics of Europe.
> 
>The chronic US deficit is but one symptom of a much
>larger disease, the slow and painfully agonizing death of the welfare
>state.

That's curious. The deficit wasn't bad during Carter's administration, yet
got much worse under Ronald borrow-and-spend Reagan, who hated socialism.
The two key causes of the deficit are health care, which isn't in a socialist
system, and bailing out the banks and S&L's which were deregulated under
Reagan. It seems that unregulated capitalism is killing the U.S.

>Already, socialist paradises such as Sweden are feeling the
>strain while nations such as Italy are on the verge of bankruptcy.

And the capitalist country of Japan is in a recession worse than Sweden.
And the capitalist U.S. is on the verge of bankruptcy.
> 
>Bill Clinton
>ran and won on the theme that he was not like the tax-and-spend Bush
>Republicans 

You mean borrow-and-spend Republicans. Bill Clinton also wants to socailize
health care like all the rest of the industrialized world. And the public
wants it.
> 
> 
-Garrett
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: robc@wicat (Rob Carlson)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism...
Organization: Jostens Learning Corp
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 02:44:51 GMT

In article <C0nwxF.2GI@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
>So what, capitalism has very little to do with free markets. The unregulated
>free market quickly becomes a monopoly.

	I'll need further illumination on this argument. It seems to me that 
a monopoly is impossible in a free market. There is absolutely nothing to 
prevent another company from competing with the one attempting to be a 
monopoly. To obtain a monopoly you will need to get a government to write 
laws and regulations that keeps others out of the market. It seems that the 
regulated market is the one that causes monopolies. It is always interesting 
that more regulation is the usual prescription for the failings of a
regulatory policy.

Rob Carlson
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Speaking ill
Keywords: AIDS HIV molest
Date: 6 Jan 93 15:09:45 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Chevron

In article <1993Jan6.095346.28463@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>First of all, your numbers are way off.  Condoms have a 90% success rate
>(in preventing pregnancies.)  But that 10% includes people who fail to use
>them properly, and furthermore, that 10% means that 1/10 of people who
>have sex *for a year* using a condom will get pregnant.  Not for an
>individual usage.
>
>David M. Nieporent   

Gee, I get to respond to two of your posts today David.

I remember that study and the numbers have been quoted more often that I
can count.  Does anyone remember the methodology and design of the
original test?  I don't, but one of the other numbers in the test made
me sit up and think about it.  

Percentage of people getting pregnant using condoms as their method of
birth control:  10 %.
Percentage of people getting pregnant using abstinence as their method
of birth control:  20%.

Those are the numbers I remember from reading the results in the
newspaper.

Therefore, if I want to lessen my chances or getting my teenage
girlfriend pregnant, I shouldn't stay celibate, I should "   " her while
using a condom.

REality check time.  The failure rate of abstinence includes times when
the couple failed to use abstinence.  Therefore, it is my opinion that
the failure rate of condoms also includes the times when a couple, fully
intending to use condoms over the course of the year to prevent
pregnancies, ran out of latex or simply were overcome by the moment or
just thought that it couldn't happen this one time.

Oh, if anyone has access to the original study, it would be nice if you
could check these numbers again.  It might actually be 20% failure for
rhythm method and 10% for abstinence, but any failure rate for
abstinence sheds a whole new light on the study.

Just wanted to clarify this.

-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: A 4th branch of government?
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Distribution: usa
Date: 12 Jan 93 15:34:11 CST


In article <90240@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
> 
> from WSJ, Dec. 28th, 1992
> 
> "Earlier this month, the Agriculture Department killed a 55-year-old
> marketing order that kept two billion navel oranges off the market and
> resulted in higher prices to consumers.  Sunkist, the cooperative that
> dominates the orange cartel, went to court arguing that the Agriculture
> Dept's move was illegal because it had only followed orders from the
> White House and had not been 'free to decide the issue.'  Incredibly
> Federal judge Gerhard Gesell agreed to impose a temporary restraining
> order against the repeal pending a full hearing."
> 
> ...
> 
> I don't know the results of this hearing, if anybody does, would you
> post it please.
> 
> Regardless of the results, the logic behind the position is astounding.
> An executive branch agency is supposed to be independent of the
> President.

Speaking of stupid Ag Dept policy, the dairy price supports are based on
the farmers distance from Eau Claire Wisconsin.  The further the farmer,
the higher the suport price.  Dairy farms are springing up in Texas &
Florida, while WI & MN farmers go broke.

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson)
Subject: Re: Department of Energy
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 21:56:31 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.173515.18333@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>
> [Lots of stuff about how unprepared Hazel O'Leary is to head DOE
> deleted]
>
My turn for a pop quiz.  It may be somewhat more difficult than the
original.

1) 'Permanent Campaign' means what?

2) Hazel O'Leary is Executive Vice President in charge of ????? at NSP.

3) The public relations performance of the DOE with regard to nuclear
   waste cleanup has been:
     a) mediocre
     b) poor
     c) bad
     d) abysmal

4) NSP has decommisioned and/or disassembled how many nuclear reactors
   since Ms. O'Leary has worked there?

Paul.
From: 00rdharringt@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Rob Harrington)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: double standards (my ass)
Date: 12 Jan 93 01:26:21 GMT
Organization: Ball State University

In article <C0pB81.6tC@inews.Intel.COM>, ighosh@frx715.intel.com (Indraneel Ghosh - EPG) writes:
> 
>  Dan Quayle : Its ok for my daughter to have the right to choose but
>               abortion is illegal for your daughter.
> 
>  Bill Clinton : My daughter should have the right to choose between  
>                 public and private schools but children of ordinary
>                 folks (those who will get vouchers) dont have that right.
> 

I don't understand how you infer that because Bill doesn't support using
public funds for private schools he won't allow people to send their kids
to private schools.  Plain and simple if you have the money go ahead and
send them to private schools, but don't expect me to help pay.  

Do you realize what would happen in the daughter of the President was
in public school?  Secret service would be tearing their hair out...

Just because the gov't doesn't pay to send your kids to a private school
doesn't mean they _can't_ go.

-- 
/---------------------------------------v-------------------------------------\
|  Rob Harrington                       |              Ball State University  |
|  Department of History                |               Muncie, Indiana, USA  |
|  Vax--00RDHARRINGT@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu  |       Unix--herring@bsu-cs.bsu.edu  |
>---------------------------------------^-------------------------------------<
|                  Ball State University - University Democrats               |
|                Not a spokesperson - REPEAT - Not a spokesperson             |
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------/
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: smay@boi.hp.com (Scott Smay)
Subject: Re: $40M, Walsh, Republicans
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 21:43:30 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

PAUL N. RITTER (pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu) wrote:
: 
:     Typical. Another Democrap who is disgruntled by the fact that taxpayer
:     money ($40M) and 6 years was spent without the benefit of being able to
:     came up with a shred of evidence that would, in some way, discredit and
:     ruin a soon to be former Republican President. Go cry on someone elses
:     shoulder...
: 4 more years. If you liked Carter, you'll LOVE Bill Clinton. :-(
: --Paul ;-)
:

I'm incredibly flattered, Paul, that you saw fit to respond to my post.

Just to set the record straight, though, I'm neither Democrat nor disgruntled.
In fact, I'm nearly ecstatic, unlike some folks I know. I did like Carter,
so I guess I'm up for four happy years, eh?

Regarding the "shred of evidence"--don't you mean "shredding"? :)

cheers,
scott 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS)
Subject: Re: Facts? We don't need no stinkin' facts! (Re: Why can't the liberals)
Summary: Welfare states  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 9 Jan 93 03:47:29 GMT

In article <C0KE6D.EHx@newsserver.technet.sg>, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)                         writes...
>In article <1993Jan7.202545.6717@bronte.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
>It has always been a favorite pastime of liberals, everywhere, to
>blame the failure of socialzed public institutions on the stinginess
>of taxpayers (or politicians) as if just one more tax increase would
>do the trick, as if just one more pilaging of the taxpayers pockets
>could undo all the graft, corruption, and sheer incompetence that is
>endemic to the welfare state.
> 
Wow! I didn't know that graft, corruption, and incompetence didn't exist
before the welfare state did! Where's that history book?

-Garrett 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: visser@convex.com (Lance Visser)
Subject: Re: national debt? why?
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 23:58:22 GMT
Distribution: talk
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1993Jan10.1778.29517@channel1> "john lovett" <john.lovett@channel1.com> writes:

+>This suggestion may be a little simplistic, but perhaps someone could
+>flesh it out.

+>We have a large national debt, but since we owe it to ourselves, why not
+>declare that we forgive ourselves the debt, and forget about it?

	The biggest part of the debt that the govenment owes itself is
money borrowed from the social security fund.  Now if we made social 
security self-sustaining from its tax intake on a yearly basis, then
I suppose you could consider that money "forgiven".


	The biggest problem with "forgiving" debt is that a country that
does it is going to find it impossible to sell its securities in future
to the market.  It also has the potential to create economic choas in
that forgiveness removes lots of wealth from the economy or at the
very least redistributes it.

	The way giant debts such as ours are typically forgiven is via 
inflation and/or devaluation of the currency.  This method is preferable
in that it works as an invisible side-effect, rather than an explicit 
action like forgiveness of the debt. 

	I have a real bad feeling, based on the pronouncements of the
Clinton people that they  think we can inflate out of the debt.
Clinton weasled out of his pledge to cut the deficit in half this past
week.
	The only way to solve the deficit is to:

	1. Make social security and medicare self-sufficient from the
	special taxes raised for the programs.  Quit stealing money
	from social security taxes to make the deficit look smaller.

	2. Freeze federal spending in most programs, cut other programs
	by vast amounts.




	3. Raise the income tax in the lower brackets until the deficit
	is closed.

	4. Bring in independent people to evaluate and rework the entire
	system by which the government does budgets and calculate 
	deficits.

	5. DO NOT set up a national health insurance program that we cannot
	possibly pay for under current circumstances.


	I dont believe that there is a will out there to solve the deficit.
	What people want is the federal government to spend more funny-money.

	Clinton and company talk about "growth" solving the deficit and how
	cutting "unemployment" is more important than cutting spending in 
	reducing the deficit.  I believe that means inflationary policies,
	more taxes, and huge amounts of new spending.  At best, it means
	probably doing nothing to cut spending.


	


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:67374 alt.sex:41856 alt.activism:20486