HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: anne@cco.caltech.edu (Anneliese Lilje)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Date: 6 Oct 1992 00:29:51 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: trixie.caltech.edu

In article <1992Oct2.171824.16878@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>What gets ridiculous about the whole AIDS issue is that people keep saying
>"Anyone can get it".  But take a look at how it is spread, and take a look
>at what the high-risk groups are.  How can I get it if I don't do any of
>the things that would expose someone to it??  I figure, if you don't shoot
>drugs, and practice abstinence (I'll get flamed as a prude on this one, what's
>wrong if I have self-control?/), you chances of getting it drop to near zero.
>Am I wrong here??
>
>Simon

Just hope you don't need to get any blood for an operation, emergency etc.
If the blood is tainted with the AIDS virus then your in trouble. I suspect
that tests are BETTER than they were for detecting this.

Yes...ANYONE can get it. AIDS doesn't care if your balck, white, gay or 
straight. 
anne
>
From: McAldon International Inc. <mcaldon@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Date: 26 Sep 92 17:28 PDT
Subject: Re: William F. Buckley on Bush, Clinton
Nf-ID: #R:1992Sep23.143701.26590@walter.be:-194689887:cdp:1588800017:000:910
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!mcaldon    Sep 26 17:28:00 1992


|In concluding the column, Buckley asks why Bush does not instruct the
|Treasury to index capital gains, since Bush has recently been advised 
|by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel that he has the 
|legal authority to do so.  Bush continues to say that he does not have 
|the legal authority. 

Characteristically, Buckley is dead wrong.  The Justice Dept. informed
Bush he does NOT have the authority to index.  Rumor has it Baker so
instructed the Justice Dept., so Bush could look good without risking
anything.  Sounds logical.  DMcKenzie
            
|                        |        definitions-->DEMOCRACY        |
|                        |        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^        |    
|    mcaldon@igc.org     |   A temporary condition, teetering    |
|                        |  between anarchy and a police state   |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Droopy)
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Libe
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 22:09:41 GMT

bnolte@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Bill Nolte) writes:

>From article <1992Sep25.224150.20383@technology.com>, by judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin):
>> In article <1992Sep25.134020.16348@news.uiowa.edu> bnolte@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Bill Nolte) writes:
>>>From article <1992Sep15.180936.6562@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>, by krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger):
>>>
>>> Conservatives think that liberals are wrong.
>>>> Liberals think that conservatives are stupid.
>>>
>>>Liberalism stands for collective rights and collective responsibilities.
>>>Conservatism stands for individual rights and individual responsibilities.
>>>
>>>I think it is pretty good, how about anybody else.
>>>
>> 	Liberalism stands for individual rights and social responsibility;
>> 	Conservatism is a euphemism for fear.
>> 
>> 
>> 		It's only my humble opinion.  Judy.

>So much for an attempt at calm, rational discussions with liberals.
>Just keep in mind, I did try.

Speaking of calm and rational, how about taking one response and saying,
"well ALL liberals are like so-and-so". Conservatives get so defensive
when liberals associate them with extremists like Operation Rescue or
Pat Robertson but they will just as easily associate liberalism with
someone like Ted Kennedy.

Anyways, Conservatism is not a euphemism for fear, modern politics is.
---
Bri Farenell				"It is better to have clean hearts and
Clarkson '95				 dirty hands than dirty hearts and
farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu	 clean hands."  ---Rev Jesse Jackson

CLINTON/GORE AND BOB ABRAMS (US SENATE) IN '92
A PC-HATING, PRO-LIFE LIBERAL CARD-CARRYING MEMBER OF THE ACLU

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8040 talk.politics.misc:48922
From: gl1@cec2.wustl.edu (Greg Lyon)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Why won't you answer, Mr. Gore?
Date: 1 Oct 92 15:14:26 GMT
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO

In article <1992Oct1.005909.4460@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>	Money should be used to help develop other country's economic standing
>so that (in part) they can be better trade partners with the US?
>
>	Why can't you answer that question, Mr. Gore?
>
>Brett                                                      

   Kind of like the Export Assistance Program which offers tax breaks to US
companies to take American jobs overseas?  I DON'T think so.

Greg
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7595 alt.politics.homosexuality:6273
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:26:19 EDT
From: <TAF102@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Family Values
 <1992Sep24.190524.7185@microsoft.com>
 <1992Sep25.002336.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>
 <1992Sep28.204242.1970@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
 <1992Sep28.185808.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>

If this discussion on the Bible is going to continue, please take it to
e-mail or one of the religion net-groups.  It has no place in alt.politics.
clinton.


Tracy A. Freeling
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: KILL THE RICH!
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:09:01 GMT

In <1992Sep30.163900.16929@watson.ibm.com> johniac@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:

>In article <1992Sep29.142155.6850@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>|> My statement is just that.  A
>|> statement.  With one of those little conditional phrases that John
>|> Haugh seems to have so much trouble with, 'more necessary' -- in other
>|> words, relatively speaking, people require cars more in the United
>|> States in order to function within our society than people require
>|> cars in, say, Zaire, in order to function within that society.
>|> 
>|> Now, what is your problem with that statement?

>Well, as this is the first time you've made that statement, I'm not
>sure why you would expect me to respond to it before you made it.

Unfortunately, it is not the first time I've made that statement,
John.  It's the first time I've wasted suffiecient time and bandwidth
to explain all the reasonable assumptions that are implied in my
statement.  I didn't bother with it before because it seemed quite
obvious what they were. 

>"Cars are more necessary in the United States".  Fine.  If I want to
>go to school at the University of Texas, and I also want to live in
>Zaire, then I could claim that a Concorde Jet is more necessary.  So
>what?  Necessary is in the eye of the beholder.  I was responding to a
>person who was complaining that it takes him 90 minutes to get to 
>school and two hours to get home, and I just asked a simple question: 
>Why don't you move closer to school?  

Because, as has been pointed out, it costs more to live closer to
school.  This is true for practically ANY university unless it is
located in a very large urban area, or such has been my experience.

>You have a chip on your shoulder
>a mile wide, Fred.

I think it's really neat that you can say that, given that you know
nothing about me.  Just what do I have this massive chip on my
shoulder ABOUT, John?  If you know I have one, you certainly must know
why it's there.  Enlighten me, pray tell.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7951 alt.politics.bush:7314
From: pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.election
Subject: Re: Who's the chicken?
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 30 Sep 92 19:24:38 GMT
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Labs

In article <BvEMw4.LyL@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarOwl@uiuc.edu writes:
>born@scepter.raleigh.ibm.com (Christopher J. Born) writes:
>
>Also, the last debate under Bush's plan would be the Sunday before the
>election.  (Anyone know what its format will be?)  Neither candidate
>will be able to recover from any "damage" done by that debate before
>the election.  An interesting gamble, I think.
>

i sure hope Clinton doesnt allow a debate that close to the election
to be held in "press conference" style. that would be too susceptible
to sabotage.

-- 
-- Pat Monardo
-- pjm@cshl.org
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: incumbent
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 04:02:58 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
:      Get out your Drano -- here I come!  This, along with a previous
: thread, could be the basis for an Abbott and Costello routine.
: Let me see if I have this straight.  A vote for Perot is actually
: a vote for Bush.  Moreover, if you do not vote for Clinton, then 
: you are actually voting for Bush.  But, a vote for Marrou is
: actually a vote for Clinton, since a Marrou supporter is more
: inclined toward Bush than Clinton.  Also, a non-vote is actually a vote
: for the incumbent, who happens to be Bush.  A vote for Lyndon
: LaRouche (sp?) is actually a vote for Mike Dukakis since both
: LaRouche and Willie Horton are in prison; but Mike Dukakis is not
: running, so the vote is wasted.  Therefore, if you do not like
: either Bush or Clinton, your vote should go to LaRouche.  Do 
: I have it yet, or is there more?

I don't know.  Better ask drieux.  :)


--
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



Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: assassination
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 03:48:23 GMT

The current street price for assassinating a 'commoner' in Chicago
is around $500.00, U.S. There are at least several contending organized
crime groups in Chicago.  It is very easy to assassinate a leader. What
would happen, however, if family 'A' or orgainzation 'B's leader were
assasinated by Family 'C' or Org. 'D?' Mass bloodshed, total retribution.
Some of you liberals out there think we should have sent in an assasin
to kill Hussein, and everyone would be happy -:)!  Well, I think that
the resultant genocide and organization of a people behind a 'martyr'
(Saddam wasn't exactly hated at the time in Iraq) not to mention
the 'righteous anger' of the next-in-line would fuck things up
REAL bad. Any of you cultural elit ever read 'Julius Caesar?' Remember
what happened when the congesscritters sanctioned Julius?  The next
in line cleared the fuckers out big time.  Yes, we should have liquidiated
Saddam, then you liberals could complain about how we were 'assasins'
and how Bush had 'caused an otherwise unhostile people to rise in holy
war against the U.S.'  You people whould not be trusted to mow the lawn,
much less control the most powerful military might in all history.

			J. Wagner
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Quayle is more charitable than Gore
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:36:56 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.151513.253@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
pkust@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Paul R Kust) writes:
> 
> 
> Herman Goebells??  Never heard of him

   You're kidding, right?  He worked for Adolf Schicklegruber after that
gentleman got out of the army and into govenment work.  He was in charge
of public relations.

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
"Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it"
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7894 alt.politics.bush:7260 alt.politics.marrou:1361
From: cathy@octel.com (Cathy Kearns)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Date: 30 Sep 92 00:14:03 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Octel Communications Inc., Milpitas Ca.

In article <19bh3jINN6ng@bigboote.WPI.EDU> padutton@wpi.WPI.EDU (Peter Alan Dutton) writes:
>In article <machman.716589366@milton> machman@milton.u.washington.edu (The Machman) writes:
>>steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (jason "Think!" steiner) writes:
>>
>>>AIDS is a deadly virus. it's a deadly virus that one can almost certainly
>>>avoid if we exercise "personal responsibility". and one that you're very
>>>likely to get if you don't. the fact is that unlike cancer AIDS is a
>>>disease that could be entirely controlled by a few -simple- decisions
>>>about behavior. it's your right to do whatever you please, but don't
>>>expect the consequences to take the day off on your account.

>>tell that to the significant amount of people who have gotten the virus 
>>through blood transfusions.  twit.

>So what you're saying is that people with AIDS can actually transmit the
>disease to "innocent bystanders". Now you're not allowed to say that!

>In any case, the vast majority of people who have AIDS got it through
>sex ("protected" OR "unprotected") or through shooting drugs with
>infected needles. And they could have made those decisions not to. Why
>are people like you so reluctant to admit this???

I'm confused about what you people are argueing about.
You seem to all agree to me.

a)AIDS is a deadly virus.
b)It can in most cases be avoided if they "exercise personal responsibility".
 b1)  All people should be educated so that they know how to exercise
      personal responsibility.
c)Even if people started "exercising personal responsibility" from the
  day they were informed of the risks, there are still significant 
  numbers of people who will get the disease. We should do whatever we
  can to stop the death of these people.

The part you seem to disagree on is what to do with the people who
knew the risks and then purposely decided to act in a manner that 
put them at risk.  Well, I vote we do the same thing with them that
we do with the rest of those people who partake in risky behavior,
you know, the motorcycle riders, the smokers, the pregnant women,
the football player, the personal vehicle drivers, the airline
passengers, the people who eat red meat, the hang gliders, the
skate boarders, the people who lay in the sun, etc.

Let's at least be consistent.

							Cathy
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Latest poll: one person polled, landslide for candidate X!
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 6 Oct 92 12:08:27 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

	About these "polls" with less than 2000 people....

	500 people = +- 10% error
	1000 people = +- 5-6% error
	2000 people = +- 3% error

	Statistics in action.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: George's lie of the day (was: Qyl more charitable?)
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 14:23:45 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.064406.4107@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>,
bena@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Ben Aveling) writes:
> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu wrote:
> :      Here's an interesting little piece I found in the October 5
> : National Review (pg. 12, col. 2):
> : 
> :                          ...  The Quayles gave $5,670, or 3 per cent
> :      of their income, while the Gores gave $1,727 -- less than 
> :      1 per cent. 
> : 
> :      C. Perttunen
> 
> And you believe those figures.   Gee, I guess no Republican would ever lie 
> would they ?
> 
> 	Ben

   GHWB has been claiming the best farm income in history for our farmers this
year.  Todays Des Moines Register had a story saying that Bush's own
agriculture department statistics indicate that in absolute numbers the last
three years have been a little better.  If one adjusts for inflation, however,
these same statistics indicate farm income was higher in each of the five
previous administrations.  Apparently George thinks farmers are illiterate
nitwits?

   I'm wondering if the net couldn't find a lie by a prominant republican
exposed in the media _every day_ and post is to the appropriate groups. 
Remember to include lie of the day in the title and to only post lies actually
exposed in that day's news :).

   I'd not be adverse to seeing Democratic lies posted either.  They have been
much more subtle this time around and studying them will help me with my
communications skills :) :) more than the Republican ones.  

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
PS: I'm a registered republican with a stomache ache watching the "big tent"
blow away in a evangelical hurricane.  G(ods) O(wn) P(arty)...   ...NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.election
From: tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli)
Subject: Who's slick?
Organization: Mentor Graphics -- IC Group
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:59:55 GMT

Bush announced his "challenge" late in the day (very late) so that
every news show would say, "Clinton hasn't yet responded."

Who is being slick?  I think that are down right dirty of Bush.

Tom

-- 
Tom Limoncelli -- tal@warren.mentorg.com (work) -- tal@plts.uucp (play)
"I like Bill Clinton tremendously.  I know him from the governors' conferences.
The Democrats nominated their best person, a very able fellow.  The country is
well served by that choice." -Bush's re-election chair in NJ (Thomas Kean)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.bizarre
From: dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews)
Subject: Re: I hereby declare...
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Clara Division
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 14:56:48 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.071914.1089@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>I hereby declare drieux the winner of the 
>  Person who has created the most 'threads' or new subject headings in
>     the last few days.

Hurrah for drieux!

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8226 talk.politics.misc:49204 alt.rush-limbaugh:6401 alt.politics.bush:7540 alt.politics.elections:14979
From: cassidy@cps.msu.edu (John J Cassidy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
Date: 2 Oct 92 17:57:21 GMT
Reply-To: cassidy@cps.msu.edu (John J Cassidy)
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Michigan State University
Originator: cassidy@cypress.cps.msu.edu

> 
> After my exhaustive analysis, I have finally concluded that 
> I am not a Liberal or a Conservative.  I have yet to find an 
> individual, let alone a group or organization whose entire 
> platform I could accept and it seems obvious that anyone who 
> accepts all of the precepts of Conservativism is just as 
> narrow minded and ignorant as someone who accepts all of the 
> precepts of Liberalism.
> 
> 
> js

	I'm with you.  Only I might be considered more of
a conservative.  I am more of a socialist, than most conservatives
I know.  I am almost tempted to side with the Democratic party
some times.  Except that they LIE, and pretend that what they are
promising is not socialism.  Tom Haden admits that when he says
"economic democracy" that he is really talking about socialism.
He says that "socialism" has a bad name, and as such tries to 
avoid that term.

	John J Cassidy		cassidy@cps.msu.edu
	~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8423 talk.politics.misc:49473 alt.rush-limbaugh:6514
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
Summary: Homosexuals already have equal protection of the law.
Date: 4 Oct 92 19:16:18 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR

In article <farenebt.716915704@craft.camp.clarkson.edu>
farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
>Also, conservatives have no qualms with minority rights so long as the
>minority believes in the same moral system as the conservatives. Homosexuals
>, for example, all they want is equal protection of the laws as guaranteed
>by the 14th Amendment.

Homosexuals already have equal protection of the law under the 14th
Amendment, so that isn't what they are asking for, nor what they want.  The
homosexual rights groups don't want tolerance, they want acceptance, and
approval (and who can truly blaim them?).  However, they can't get that
through the law and it is a counter-productive mistake to try.

For a thoughtful and more thorough discussion of this general topic, please
read, "The Virtues of Toleration", by John Gray, "National Review", October
5, 1992, pg 28.

>"I suppose I could have stayed home, baked cookies and had teas. But the
>work I have done as a professional, a public advocate, has been aimed...to
>assure that women can make the choices...whether it is full-time career,
>full-time motherhood or some combonation."	---Hillary Clinton

I had to laugh at this.  Only a liberal like Bri would think that quoting
the full context of this statement would make the first sentence any less
of an insult to full-time motherhood or housewives than it in fact is.
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: harbison@dbsun.uucp (harbison)
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:59:06 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.011321.8487@leland.Stanford.EDU>
farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
> This assumption that only drug addicts and promiscuous gay men get
> AIDS is wrong and can be deadly.  You only need your one-and-only to
> have had sex with one person infected with HIV to be at risk.  Think
> about that.  

Even if your "one-and-only" has always been true, you may still be at
risk.  During the delivery of our second child, my "one-and-only" was
given a transfusion (the delivery was by C-section).  At that time,
the blood supply was not screened for HIV as it is today.  Therefore,
my wife and I are both at risk even though we have always been a
monogomous heterosexual couple.

-- 
*realName: Phil Harbison
*mailName: harbison%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu
*phoneList: 314-731-7475 (w) 314-272-9318 (h)