HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher)
Subject: Re: "Lies Work"
Organization: Integrated Systems Laboratory, ETH, Zurich
	<1992Aug30.224700.15365@oracle.us.oracle.com>
	<1992Aug30.233852.3614@midway.uchicago.edu>
	<1992Sep8.183154.27521@oracle.us.oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 12:13:39 GMT

[Removed alt.activism from the distribution line]
In article <1992Sep8.183154.27521@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug30.233852.3614@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>As long as the phrase contains "by the criteria the Bush people use",
>>the claim of 327 is truthful.
>
>Incorrect.  If the phrase contains "by the criteria the Bush people
>use" (which, by the way, were actually the Arkansas state
>legislature's because Bush's people just copied their list of tax and
>fee increases) then the claim of 327 is still a lie.

Part of the criteria Bush's people used was apparently counting increases whose
entries span two lines twice. Thus, it is obvious that the list of Bush's tax
and fee increases can with a suitable choice of font and paper width be made to
occupy 327 lines (Doing this is left as an exercise to the reader).

Matthias

-----
Matthias Neeracher                                      neeri@iis.ethz.ch
   "I think I should tell you that I am enjoying my involuntary
    retirement, and I know and hope that President Bush will share
    the same pleasure after January." -- Jimmy Carter

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 17:38:02 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.012357.10369@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
}In article <la81loINNi@spim.mips.com>, mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael writes...
}>In article <1992Sep1.152133.25112@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}>|> 
}>|> Simple check:  When was the last report of a kid having a nightmare due to
}>|> the possibility that he, his parents, his community,... might be incinerated
}>|> while he slept?
}>|> 
}>|> Value comparison:  Which is more important to you?
}>|> 1. Having a good job tomorrow?
}>|> 2. Having a tomorrow?
}> 
}>I assume you are saying that Bush gets credit for all the good things
}
}	Let's get real people. Reagan and Bush just happened to be
}on the watch when the collapse came.

Along with a world-wide economic crisis.  I assume that you've noticed
that the inflation rates throughout much of the rest of the world is
more than ten times that in the US.  Hence, to maintain consistency
amongst your statements, you do not give any credit to the idea that
the White House or Congress have anything to do with the economic and
jobs situation and just happen to be on the watch.

Or are you not bothered by a little thing like consistency?


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: Bush's Accomplishments
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 21:42:25 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
: >nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu writes:
: >]    He's obstructed the work of my elected Congressional representatives.
: >]Yes, that's certainly a mark in his favor...
: 
: >Are you implying that YOUR elected congressional representative should
: >NOT be balanced by YOUR elected president?
: 
:     Not at all. They can balance each other all they want as long as they 
: manage to put aside their differences long enough to make the government 
: work smoothly. If "balance" means vetoing every bill Congress passes then 
: I'm not sure just how much "balance" we can take and still continue to 
: function as a nation. 

Wasn't it Thomas Jefferson who said that a little revolution every now
and then is good for the country?  :)

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"I stand by all the
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			 misstatements that I've made."
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD				-- Dan Quayle
Anonymous: apb.3995@n7kbt.rain.com
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher     

Marrou/Lord in '92

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 21:29:13 GMT

In <1992Sep13.143221.24962@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In <1992Sep10.95709.12603@ms.uky.edu> fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:

>>...................... A mass market needs images and images tend to be 
>>more emotional. I don't think the label "liberal" covers all the problems 
>>conservatives have with the media: they want a classroom and TV news is part 
>>theater. A flood of images hurtling past with no theory to tame them
>>must seem like blood swilling Jacobins to conservatives.

>Coach, there's a lot of truth in that statement. Conservatives lead with
>their heads while Liberals "bleed" from the heart. TV is theater, it started 
>as an entertainment medium, and still is for the most part. Thus tugging
>at emotions is more natural to the image business than appeals to rational
>thought. Showing a tree hugger chaining himself to a tree is a lot more 
>emotion laden than reams of scientific data on biological diversity. It
>gets higher ratings while conveying less information.

This from the party of Ronald "Morning in America" Reagan?  Geez.  Where
do you people come up with these things?  "Conservatives are smart,
Liberals are fuzzy thinkers."  This, class, is known as an
OVERGENERALIZATION, and like all overgeneralizations, is stupid.  :-)

Let me cite: "Law and Order"  "Soft on Communism"  Saddam "Another Hitler"
Hussein.  Moamar "Mad dog of Libya" Quadafi.  Right.  Like conservatives
always go for that rational stuff, while liberals go for the emotional stuff.

These sound like appeals to the heart rather than the head to me, and
they're of conservative origin....

>Gary

-- 
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!
From: ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: What if America were a direct democracy?
Date: Sat,  5 Sep 92 20:26:39 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: usa

>a thing that came up ont heir tv screen afterwards. I brought up the obvious
>question about voter fraud. The class thought that there had to be some way
>to do this (ie have everyone type in ss number or something like that). I still
>don't think it's feasible nor do I think it's a very good idea. I don't think

You think wrong (about feasibility).  Cryptographic techniques can provide
a secure fraud-proof voting system.

See the August 1992 "Scientific American" for an article on how to do this.
That article is about a secure digital replacement for cash that is private
(your bank can't tell where you spend the digital dollar), but that is
fraud proof (if you try to spend the same digital dollar more than once
you are caught).  This is implemented with smart cards, and does not
require you to go to the bank to get digital money or to go to the
merchant to spend it -- you can carry out secure transactions via
phone.

This could easily be used for voting.  Each voter is given a Presidential
Digital Dollar.  To vote, you give this to one of the candidates.  The
candidate with the most at then end of the election wins.

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Picking and Choosing our References
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 22:29:55 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA


cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>You are perfectly able to be a homosexual in private.  You don't
>have to announce everywhere you go, and thus make it an issue to
>employers or landlords.

   No they don't *have* to, but why *shouldn't* they?   This
   is like saying that it's OK to be a Jew, as long as you're 
   not observant in any public way that the Christians might
   notice.  

   Look, all the best evidence is that homosexuals are *born* that
   way.   It is a state of being.  Why should they have to go through 
   life denying it?   Clayton makes a big issue about NAMBLA, but
   that's a red herring.  If there was no NAMBLA, no bathhouses, etc,
   just some gay men who wanted to live together as couples and do
   other things that heterosexual couples do like hold hands in
   the park, gaze into each other's eyes, etc, it would STILL irk
   Clayton and others like him and they would still say that attempts
   to prevent gay-bashing represent giving gays "special treatment".

   It's hard enough to find love in this world and if two guys can find
   it in each other I'm sincerely happy for them and don't see why they 
   should be expected to hide it.


---peter

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:19:49 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.011426.8766@oracle.us.oracle.com>, mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
> 
> In article <farenebt.716237519@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
> 
> >Clinton's plan
> >helps those who can't afford insurance but doesn't affect those who can.
> 
> Typical left wing bull crap.  Bri wants us to forget that we will have
> to pay for it.
> -- 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
> 
> 

I've got news for you, you are paying alot for the present system already.
Furthermore, if something is not done, you are going to be forced to pay
much more later.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: casseres@apple.com (David Casseres)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The draft and Vietnam
Date: 14 Sep 92 17:50:31 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Apple Computer Inc.

In article <1992Sep11.170722.14124@anasazi.com>, john@anasazi.com (John R.
Moore) wrote:

> I think it important to point out that [Col. David H. Hackworth] was in VN and
> saw how stupidly the war was being prosecuted, but he was not in a position to
> determine whether the war was being fought for good ends.

Why?  Was he unable to look around him at the behavior of the Saigon
government?  If he was not in a position to determine whether the war was
being fought for good ends, who was?

> In his book (which I have
> read), his main argument against the war is that "we weren't really
> fighting for the democracy in VN, because it wasn't a democracy." With
> this level of unsophisticated analysis, it is hard to take his views
> on what was going on in the US (as opposed to VN where he was present) 
> very seriously.

It certainly did not require any sophistication to observe that there was
no democracy in Vietnam.

> Hack got pissed off at how the war was being fought, 
> and translated that illogically into a view that the war should not be
> fought.

That's an easy assertion to make, but there's no evidence for it.  On the
face of what he says himself, he decided the war should not be fought
because the regime that it was defending was no damn good.  Where is the
illogic?

> That is like being unhappy with how a mechanic is fixing your
> car, and concluding from that that the car should not be fixed.

No, it isn't.

> This is not to start an argument as to whether the war was correct,
> but rather to show that Hackworth's logic is suspect and his knowledge
> of what what it was like to be facing the choice in the US is poor.

You haven't shown that in any way, and if you claim the Vietnam War was
"correct," you're certainly starting an argument.

--

David Casseres
Exclaimer: Wow!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:44369 alt.politics.democrats.d:35 alt.politics.bush:4490 alt.politics.clinton:4559
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Good Cop, Bad Cop (Was: Bush is a father mucker)
Date: 9 Sep 92 16:59:47 GMT
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: Curious Goods (formerly Louis Vendredi Antiques)

echo@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Hagame uno mas!  Esos son muy cool!) writes:
>
>The problem with this is that Australia, which has no subsidies, is
>getting stuck with the high hard one.  Even though they are much more
>efficient and cost effective than the Americans or Europeans, they
>can't compete and survive because the US and Europe toss buckets of
>money at their farmers.  And the biggest problem is that Australia is
>legitimately pissed, but is too small and doesn't have enough clout
>to do anything about.

According to UPI Clarinet, Australia is going to spearhead a GATT
complaint with Argentina and Canada alongside, two other American
allies on this issue who are getting hit in the crossfire.  On one
hand, I am seriously wondering if this is a ploy to break the French
logjam via the EC in the stalled Uruguay Round talks ... that Bush's
announcement will not end up being spent, but part of a good cop/bad
cop act that we're playing?  On the other hand, this is an expensive,
time wasting, and emotionally draining way to go about it ... let's
just watch and see what comes out of it all.

>Of course, they have been threatening a Crocodile Dundee embargo. :)

Maybe Canada can hold back on new episodes of "The Heights" (Fox) and
"Forever Knight" (CBS). (-;

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare				
> gld@cunixB.cc.columbia.EDU		Oct 26/92: Just say "OUI!"
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			(Let's worry about the economy!)
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Was Quayle a Moral Draft Dodger?
Date: 9 Sep 92 17:54:21 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 10234@romulus.rutgers.edu, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>No.
>
>Next question?

Funny.  You usually have more to say than that.  I presented a lengthy list
of statements that support viewing Quayle as a "draft dodger" in precisely 
the same sense that Clinton was.  It was common knowledge at the time of the
Vietnam war that joining the National Guard was a fairly safe way to escape
combat.  This is not to say that service in the National Guard was dishonorable--
not for people who had moral objections to fighting in Vietnam, anyway.  We
needed somebody to stay home and defend the country while some of our best
youth were being slaughtered in a senseless war.  After all, you could never
be certain when there might be an anti-war riot on a college campus.  Look
how close Quayle was to Ohio, where the troops actually had to use live 
ammo.

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45258 ca.politics:7737 ba.politics:5277
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: 14 Sep 92 15:07:01 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <z6wnzwq.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>In article <1992Sep12.184456.28203@tc.cornell.edu> shore@tc.cornell.edu writes:

>>The phrase 'sexual orientation' covers heterosexuals and bisexuals, too.

>The bulk of hetereosexuals seem to feel no need for such a [sexual
orientation anti-dislcrimination] law.

Yet another idealist becomes a pragmatist out of convenience.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Perot Again?
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:01:39 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Sep15.113315.25339@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>I heard on the radio that a CA poll showed Clinton with a 21 point
>lead in a three way race.  It was something like
>
>	Clinton mid-40's%
>	Bush    mid-20's%
>	Perot   17%
>
>Given the tight race in TX (Wall Street Journal has an article on it 
>today), I think Perot would tilt the state to Clinton.

  Although with the above numbers, it's quite possible that if the
  electoral college vote came out anything like the popular one, 
  this would simply dump the whole thing into the House, which is
  what Perot said he wanted to avoid when he quit.   Anyway, after
  quitting before it's unlikely that he would be taken seriously 
  by anyone but a handful of fanatic-fringe types so I doubt he
  would have much effect at all on the election.


---peter
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Will someone tell me the truth?
Date: 10 Sep 1992 22:02:07 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mips.com
Keywords: lies truth taxes

Michael Friedman) writes:
|> Tim Pierce) writes:
|> >EMIL CHUCK) writes:
|> 
|> >>Who really cares? But the way he answered the question regarding his
|> >>"experimentation" with marijuana makes him look very suspect.
|> 
|> >It would be political suicide otherwise.
|> 
|> Perhaps you should explain that to Al Gore.  You see, Al the ecofreak
|> admitted that he smoked marijuana which pretty much deep-sixed it as
|> an issue.  Clinton could have followed Al's example, but he didn't.
|> That's why he is called Slick Willie - he seems to have a
|> psychological aversion to telling the truth about things he perceives
|> as negative about himself even when there is clear evidence that
|> telling the truth won't hurt him.
|> 
I know this is a dumb question, but what should he have said if he didn't
inhale?
_________________________________________
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my
dog's, never my employer's.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:44166 alt.politics.clinton:4389 alt.politics.bush:4367
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: The politics of Andrew
Date: 8 Sep 92 17:42:35 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

>     It was funny watching the video-bite of Clinton "helping" to build
>the house.  Did anyone else notice that Clinton was hammering away, but
>hitting the head of the nail only about 50% of the time?  More importantly,
>does this indicate what kind of President he would be (he can't hit the
>nail on the head with the issues either...)?

I've heard that Clinton is a south paw.  If so why was he using his right
hand to pound nails.

Could it be that if he used his left hand, he would have had to stand with
the stud between himself and the cameras.  Wouldn't want to ruin a good
photo-op now would we.

At least he didn't break Jimmy's hammer while trying to look good for the
press.


-- 
--Mark

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: Canadian vs US health care
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:21:45 GMT

In article <BuFoI4.40E@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.193309.22312@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>>In article <BuF3IL.Equ@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>>
>>>  I don't like the Canadian system either,
>>>
>>
>>I know you like to go out of your way to avoid being labelled as 'conservative'
>>or 'liberal', but I would really like to know your specific objections to
>>the Canadian plan, and to the concept of National Health Insurance in general.
>
>  Part of it is a visceral distrust of having the government involved in
>  my life any more than it has to be.   Unlike libertarians, I don't claim
>  that government can never do anythig right or well; but I think the odds
>  are generally egainst it.
>

Someone recently has come out with a book, whose title I forget, which debunks
the idea of the 'lean, mean' private sector, as opposed to a 'bloated, inefficient'
public sector. The author documents numerous examples of corporations which were
every bit as bound up in bureaucratic waste and paralysis as any despised
government agency. And this in an era of fierce international competition...

>  The other part of it is that I don't like to give up any control over 
>  something as important as healthcare.
>

[rest of article deleted]

>---peter

These sound like objections to a British-style National Health Service, in
which the actual medical services are provided by the government, not the
Canadian system in which all services are still provided privately. I too
am very leery of the British NHS.

I guess I still fail to see how your objections apply to the Canadian system,
where only the *insurance* is publicly-provided, not the services themselves.


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Subject: How unique was Clinton's draft dodging?
Organization: Clarkson University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:41:14 GMT

I'll admit my bias up front, I'm a Clinton supporter (but I trust that
doesn't	predispose to ignoring my points)
==========================================
Question for all Vietnam era vets. If you knew your son or nephew or 
grandson would be drafted, would you try to get him out of service
if you knew someone? WOuld you want your son to risk his life defending
some other country? I have a feeling that I would. I wouldn't want my
son to die in a senseless war protecting no Americans. I'm sure my parents
wouldn't (and my father was a Vietnam era Air Force vet). 

My question is, how could Clinton control what his uncle was doing? And
why would he want to? If someone did something that probably (or had a 
strong probability of) saved your life, why would you want to change it.
Why would you want to die for a cause you didn't believe in? Dan Quayle
didn't want to die for a cause he DID believe in why should Clinton want
to die for something he hated? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL			      	   "America needs leaders, not labels."
CLARKSON '95				    	---Ronald Reagan, 8/8/92
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU  	    
A PC-HATING, PRO-LIFE, LIBERAL CARD-CARRYING ACLU MEMBER
=============================================================================
"We are not descended from fearful men...not men who feared to write, to
speak, to associate and to defend causes which were for the moment 
unpopular."		---Edward R Murrow

	

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc