HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Debate trivial nonsense
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:32:07 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <1992Oct12.134835.2593@engage.pko.dec.com> bender@riscee.pko.dec.com (Patricia Bender) writes:
>
>Bush and Perot wore their watches on their right hand, which is the
>hand that lefties normally wear their watches on.

Oh, bite your tongue!  (Or at least give a source for this assertion.)  I'm
left-handed and always (not just normally) wear my watch on my left wrist.  
I've known a few people who wore their watches on their right wrists and none
of them were left-handed; likewise, I know some other left-handed people and
all of them wear their watches on the left.  A watch on the right wrist can
interfere with shaking hands.  Clinton is a touchy-feely person (he likes to
shake hands with people); Bush is too much of a snob and Perot is too para-
noid to enjoy shaking hands.

> Clinton wore his watch on his LEFT hand!  I was quite surprised by this.
> He did make up for it by using his left hand more than the others (the 
> pumping fist he used to punctuate his remarks).

He made up for wearing his watch on his left wrist (surely not on his hand?)
by gesturing with his left hand?  How does one make up for the other?  Why
would he have to "make up" for wearing his watch on the left?  Should he
apologize for making it easy for people to shake his hand?

Today's paper pointed out that the undecideds will be even more undecided
after this debate because all 3 of them are left-handed and all 3 of them
wore striped ties.

Now there's a trivial fact for you.


21 more days!


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244		---------------------+
|   "Technical work needs reviewing for the same reason that pencils need    |
|   erasers."			- Daniel P. Freedman & Gerald M. Weinberg    |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10358 alt.politics.bush:9107 alt.politics.marrou:1613 alt.politics.correct:5682 alt.sex:32925
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.correct,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Date: 12 Oct 92 19:20:12 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Oct9.145816.14720@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.013928.6485@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> glen@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Glen Sonnenberg) writes:
>>
>>I disagree with your assessment that the first statement is trivial.  That
>>is exactly the point that should be stressed.  If all (or most) of the
>>people who have AIDS engaged in some sort of irresponsible behavior then
>>it stands to reason that if you stop the irresponsible behavior you can
>>have a big impact on the spread of the disease.  
>
>But "big impact on the spread of the disease" is fallacious.  
>"No baby has survived an airplane crash who didn't have
>his or her own seat" does not translate into "Parents should not be allowed
>to bring babies onto the plane unless they buy a separate ticket for the
>child."  The first is true.  The second isn't (though there's now a
>federal regulation that requires just that).  Such a regulation saves
>about one life every ten years, but results in an additional ten or
>so babies dying because their parents couldn't afford plane travel and
>ended up taking the much riskier route of auto travel.

The fact that you can cite a government regulation that enforces a
restriction that saves virtually noone is not suprising.  But, your
using this moot point as a refutation of my statement about AIDS shows
that either you have no concept of how AIDS is being spread or you
have some strange form of glogic that associates your moot point to
my correct point about controlling the spread of AIDS.  This arguement
is not about making useless legislation.  Our Congress has been doing
this for a long time.  What needs to be done is for people to stop
pussyfooting around the issue.  If we are going to come up with a cure
or treatment we need time.  LOTS of time.  We have yet to cure any virus.
The only thing we can do is treat the symptoms.  In the case of AIDS
we either have to bolster our immune system or we have to create
an alternative immune system.  This will not come easily or quickly.
When it comes to AIDS (Not all diseases or activies), our government 
and our people need to take a strong stand in order to stop the
irresponsible behavior that is spreading this disease.  I believe
this is where we will be most effective in curbing the spread and 
giving us more time to do the research.  

>It's the second issue that's the important one.

Post with a relevant point and I might have to spend energy to refute it. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: RHETORIC VS. REALITY -- THE FIRST DEBATE
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:00:10 GMT
Organization: Austerlitz, Gershovitz, and Carmichael

Rick Eames writes:
>Jeff Davis wrote:
>> 
>> A lot of resentment by veterans was stirred up consciously by words like
>> "Demonstrating against your country." The operative/inflammable/misleading
>> word being, of course, "country." The difference between "country" and
>> "policy" is not a stretch to comprehend and the politicos who smudge
>> the line do so deliberately.
>
>Ah, then explain that great practice of burning the flag: a symbol of the
>COUNTRY not the POLICY.  They *WERE* protesting their country if in that
>protest they defaced or destroyed symbols of that country.
>
Fancy footwork here Mr Eames. But most people who protested the war did
not burn flags and most of the people who burned flags did not do it as
a symbol of America, the land of the free, but as a symbol of Amerika
and the regrettable use of military might at the beck and call of American
economic interests. Many people consider themselves patriots who find
American military activity...like the Spanish American War and the subsequent
horrors in the Philipines, the invasion of Russia , the zillions of use of the
Marines in this hemisphere etc. to be a violation of the spirit of the 
American Revolution, the Constitution, and just a Bad Thing in general. 
There are jingoistic Veterans and anti-War veterans. Most of the
military folks I've ever met are _extremely_ anti-War in general
and anti-VietNam War specifically. World War II was not VietNam.
-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> No one -- from sea to shining sea -- 
can tell us why we are having all this trouble with our Republic.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9707 alt.politics.bush:8627 alt.politics.marrou:1545 alt.politics.correct:5656 talk.politics.misc:50908 alt.sex:32658
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.correct,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Date: 11 Oct 92 17:18:04 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Oct11.123408.10447@uoft02.utoledo.edu> jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:
>thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell) writes:
>> >legislation probably wouldn't work too well, but what is wrong 
>> >with  advertising the fact that being careless in sex can get you 
>> >killed  just as dead as weaving randomly across a highway?
>> 
>> So can standing in front of a rampaging rhinocerous.  Should we 
>> spend government money advertising that, too?
>
>no. but rampaging rhinoceri aren't as politically sensitive as
>drug use/homosexuality. not that that should make any difference,
>but it does. 

And it should be clarified that not all drug use/homosexuality
necessarily leads to the spread of AIDS.  If it is AIDS that one
is really concerned about rather than drug use/homosexuality, then
what should be targeted is needle-sharing and anal sex.  

>so does anyone have solid numbers on just what the chances are of 
>getting AIDS are? failing that, any numbers  on % of people infected 
>& what the chances of transmission are with  an infected  partner?

There are several studies on exactly this subject in several issues of
JAMA over the last five years.  From what I understand, I believe Richard 
Posner's upcoming book on AIDS (disclaimer: which I was a research
assistant on) will include a compilation of the results of these studies. 
-- 
ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
ajax crypto-analyzer -- warning! remove all chicken bones first
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10322 alt.politics.elections:16682 talk.politics.misc:51637
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: The Insane Rep. Dornan...
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 22:24:43 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <ldm94uINNl16@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>, deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc) writes:
> In article 1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu, cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu () writes:
> 
> [deletions...]
> 
>>      Regarding the definition of "student," recall that the captors
>> of the American hostages in Iran back in the Carter days were also
>> referred to as "students."
>  
> ah hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
> 
> I haven't laughed so hard since the Republicans brought up "family values"
> 
     I'm honored to have given some joy to you.  If you haven't laughed
so hard since the introduction of "family values," you must be in
dire need of some comic relief!  May I suggest the post entitled
"Republican campaign ad suggestion" by Richard Mulac?  His Terminator
3 : Election Day skit is quite funny.

     C. Perttunen
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Debate results
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 15 Oct 92 01:00:57 GMT
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:

: That was one single thing I remember about Perot at the first debate.  For
: the question "what will you do if you get in?" he was going along about how
: he'd get Congress to do this and Congress to do that, and then he said if
: they won't, then -- and then Perot paused, and I could swear he just barely
: avoided saying, "I'll just fire them all and hire me a Congress who'll do
: what I want!", and instead went on about persuasion and all that.

Then it WASN'T my imagination!  :)

Even though I won't vote for him, I gained a lot of respect for Perot
in that joint appearance.  He has got spunk in apperaring to "dare
to be different"... on the surface.  I still haven't heard all that
much _substance_ from any of the Big Three.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10687 talk.politics.misc:52075
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Gore: did not. Or did he?
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:30:21 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <15OCT199208493270@utkvx1.utk.edu> drevik@utkvx1.utk.edu (Drevik, Steve) writes:


D,S:This kind of finger-pointing is the thing that ticks me off the most
D,S:about Congressional politics.  YES, he DID vote for it.  But you and
D,S:Quayle neglect to mention that it was part of a larger trade package
D,S:whose benefits ourweighed the downside of the Car. Init.

D,S:A congressional bill is rarely one-sided and is never single-issued.
D,S:It has riders, subsections, etc.  And when it comes time for a vote,
D,S:each Congressman has to outweigh the good vs. bad.  It's called 
D,S:comprimising, something the Bush has not clue of how to do.  If Bush
D,S:could have learned to comprimise, he could have had a successful
D,S:presidency and might keep his job.  But by vetoing 35 bills and
D,S:crying his eyes out for a line-item veto, he put us all in this
D,S:terrible situation.

Sounds like another good reason to reform congress, or at least give the
president the line item veto.

Congress critters routinely hide all kinds of crap in an other wise good
or at least neutral bill.  Those who oppose the garbage are faced with
a through the baby out with the bath water situation.

It is because of hypocritical stunts like this that congress is held in
such low repute.


-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Bill, Moscow and the KGB
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:57:58 GMT

In article <MATT.92Oct13124828@physics3.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>
>If I ever run for office, I sure hope that nobody ever makes an issue
>out of how a memory I have of my tourism in Japan.

Unless you were running against a Republican moulded in the
Atwater-sling-mud-and-slander image, and we're losing a trade war with
Japan.  "What trade secrets did you pass along when you were touring
Tokyo in 1984?"


--
"Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."  Psssssssssssss.....
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Solomon
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 23:12:00 GMT

	Anybody remember that classic example of the rule of Solomon,
the wise king?
	Two women went in to see him. They were fighting over a baby.
Each lady claimed it was her own.  What did Solomon do?
	He said that the baby would be cut in half, and half given to each
woman.  One woman abided by the decision. The other protested the decision.
Solomon then decided that the latter was the true mother and gave her the
child. Today Clinton would go to one woman, and say 'Hey, I feel for you.
I've got a crippled daughter and I know what its like to have family
problems. I'll get your baby for you ma'am, if you'll just vote for me.'
Then he'd visit the other mother and say the same thing.  He would get
both votes.  Bush looks kind of tired. It doesn't look like he will get
both votes. Maybe one. But if Solomon were to have been elected based on the 
votes of the two women, he also would have gotten only one vote.
	So, who will it be? Solomon or Clinton?
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Willie Horton endorses Clinton.
Date: 14 Oct 92 14:59:49 EST
Summary: What's wrong with our society....
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Oct13.193021.6178@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, Cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark T. Evert) writes:
> Willie Horton who is currently serving two life sentences plus 85 years in 
> prison has endorsed Bill Clinton stating that it is because of what the 
> "Republicans did to me".

	This would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic, and so common.

	"Society made me do it.  Society made me what I am."

	How dare anyone react with revulsion at his torture and rape!!!

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: so690561@mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu (Susan Elizabeth Olson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Perot plan posted to alt.politics.perot
Date: 16 Oct 1992 04:02:20 GMT
Organization: Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tx
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu

For those who are interested, most of the contents of Perot's book
were posted to alt.politics.perot (~ article #s 3353-3356 according
to our newsreader) on 10/13/92 - in case you don't get enough
tomorrow night in the 2nd infomercial on NBC).  It may/may not
help uncommitteds to reach a decision.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON (enslavement) DOCTRINE
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 23:01:45 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.195433.6043@pmafire.inel.gov> tobeor@pmafire.inel.gov (Ray Hoover) writes:
>Actually the Athenean and Spartan city states had far more slaves than free citizens.  How can you state they were more democratic than the US???

Because slaves are neither citizens nor voters. We are less of a Democracy;
many of our citizens are not ALLOWED to vote, i.e. citizens under the age
of 18.  We also have many people who, although they are human, much as
Athenian or Spartan slaves were, are not allowed to vote.  These include
visiting foreigners, illegal aliens, etc., who are given no representation.
Why not? Because obviously what is in their best interest is not necessarily
what is in the best interest of the voting citizens. The same can be said
of the slaves of Sparta and Athens.  They were more interested in their own
wellbeing than in the wellbeing of their masters' the citizens.
	The slaves of Sparta, Athens and even pre-cotton gin south enjoyed
much better lifestyles than the slaves who worked picking cotton for
the cotton gin in the southern US.  After the cotton gin allowed de-seeding
of the cotton to be feasible, the slaves became a cog in a machine; they
suffered the Marxist nightmare of 'capitalism.'  Note that the US gov was 
fundamentally the same(constitution, 2 houses, presidency, etc.) as it
is today.  The problem is, slaves did not have the right to choose not
to be a cog in the machine. That is, their freedom was revoked. That is when
Democrats, defending their slave states, stated that it was the white man's
responsibility to take care of the black man, and that it was a racial
thang, even as today they state their responsibility to 'take care' of
the 'common people' through the government. Today we are enslaved; we must
pay our taxes or we risk jail, as bad easily as the slave plantation.
(Well, if you don't mind having your arse look like the Lincoln Tunnel,
I guess its not bad.)  The government intervention makes it harder for
entrepreneurs to propel themselves into the melee; thus it calcifies
class distinctions.  For example; go to Cabrini Green, a Chicago neighborhood
made primarily or entirely of public housing projects. Since it is owned and
administered by the government, no one has the right to do anything on their
own to alter the now-deadly situation. The poor people live in squalor
and death; the rich live in their fine mansions.
	No, Athens and Sparta, given the idea of the voting citizen, were
much more Democratic than America.  Slaves exist wherever the sword swings;
thus we are all a bit enslaved today, if by the government and not other
people.

				John

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.poli
From: sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley)
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 01:29:23 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.200910.10500@uoft02.utoledo.edu> jsteiner@anwsun.phya.uto
ledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:
>fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands) writes:
>>
>> Now, back to the original question -- why would promiscuous,
>> unprotected anal sex, before HIV was identified, be labeled
>> "irresponsible"?
>
>seems to me there are more diseases than AIDS out there & have
>been for a long time. moderation in anything is generally a good
>idea.

Like hepatitis!  However, the fault is not with the LGB community for not 
practicing safe sex, but with the censors who've been preventing LGB 
organizations from educating people about just that.  Safe sex education
should have been around a lot longer than it has.  It's sad that it took 
something as tragic as AIDS to thwart (IN PART!) the censorship efforts
on the part of small minded conservatives.

In other words, it's the halting of the spread of valuable information
by the Democrats and Republicans that's "irresponsible" here.  People
had to die before Middle America (tm) woke up and started making demands
for information, thus ending the suppression of information that people
have been trying to spread for decades.  Where do you think the slogan
SILENCE=DEATH comes from?

Steve Conley
sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton