HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: More Media Bashing
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 12:22:32 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

     The "little general," Ross Perot, has repeatedly said that
his re-entry into the Presidential scene is caused by the two
major parties lack of discussing the "issues."  (Note that
when Perot says "issues" he specifically means "budget deficit"
and "debt").  I have watched some of the speeches given by
both Bush and Clinton on C-SPAN.  The majority of the speech
times, in general, are indeed focussed on the issues -- with
only a minority of time allocated to opponent-bashing.  Then,
when I watch the coverage, i.e. the sound bite, given on the
nightly news, all I see are the few opponent-bashing sentences
given in the speeches.  It's the media that constantly
assaults us with the negative portions of the campaigns -- and
refuses to let us hear the actual economic plans.  I don't
care what Perot says, but these two campaigns have been
relatively clean for the most part.  Why can't the big three 
networks (ABC, NBC, and CNN) along with CBS spend just *one*
night to present the two economic plans; maybe with some
nice graphics; and without biased commentary.  I wouldn't
mind if they just sat there and *read* the two economic plans --
so long as we're not subjected to yet another poll (i.e.
manufactured news).

     C. Perttunen
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Steven M Casburn)
Subject: Re: Trueman is not a Republican
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: alt.politics.clinton
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 23:32:36 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.225427.474@news2.cis.umn.edu> bunt0003@student.tc.umn.edu
 (Monthian Buntan) writes:

>If I'm Mr. Bush, I would be ashamed of myself to compare
>myself to Trueman. . .I myself am not an American, yet
>I know enough American history.

     Great! Now if you could just work on that American spelling... :-)

                                   Steve
]
-- 
    Steve Casburn (scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)
    *The* Ohio State University
    When I was growing up, Cal and Kansas were competitive programs. They
      still are. But it's not quite the same... :-)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7452 tx.politics:5705
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies (was: Re: Legalized Theft)
Date: 28 Sep 92 12:41:45 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: usa
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Sep27.231902.2611@europa.lonestar.org> tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball) writes:
>Hmmm.  This plan is even more clever than I thought (not).  Well then, lets
>see how that scenario will work out in practice:
>
>Since the government does not pay interest on the national debt, the dollar
>becomes worthless.  All investments directly related to the US dollar (bank
>accounts, treasury bills, bonds, etc) become worthless.  Investments indirectly
>related to the U.S. dollar (stocks) lose 90% of their value.  At this point
>the majority of Americans have lost more wealth than they saved on lower
>taxes or on no taxes, with the ironic exception of the poor.  [Simple enough]
>
>But wait, that's not all.  The government no longer has any money to pay for 
>such things as the military, police, courts and prisons, so we lapse into
>anarchy.  Now we have a worse political system than existed in 1492.  [Simple 
>enough]
>
>Here's where things start to improve:  Cuba and Mexico send their armies over 
>and divvy up the country.  Of course they haul all of our possessions back to
>Havana and Mexico City.  We've already lost our financial assets, now we lose
>all our property.  But at least we save on taxes.
>
>Simple enough.

Now, please explain why this didn't happen prior to the repeal of the Poll
Tax =and= the ratification of the 16th Amendment.
-- 
John F. Haugh II           [  TSAKC  ]       UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151    [ DoF #17 ]            Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 01:43:41 GMT
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Chicago, IL

 
 Article 6809 (50 more) in alt.rush-limbaugh:
 From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
 Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.
 +           politics.bush
 Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and 
 Liberals
 
       I'm with you.....  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.
 
 
 <Tom Haden is nor more your typical Democrat than Rush L is 
 your typical Republican.
 
 
 First of all, who the hell is Tom Haden?
 
 Secondly, Rush L is nothing more or less than a political 
 entertainer.  He is successful (assuming you believe how 
 successful he says he is) for the simple reason that 
 trashing other people is and always has been popular with 
 the unwashed masses.  He has been successful because, in 
 spite of what he tries to convey, he only trashes whom and 
 what it is politically correct to trash.
 
 The only reason he chose the "Conservative" agenda to 
 promote is because no one else does and it was a niche 
 waiting to be filled.
 
 If he really believes all the rubbish he spreads, he is just 
 as ignorant as the Pinko-femanazi-tree-huggers he loves to 
 trash.
 
 The other reason he is so successful is because he takes so 
 few calls that he can control the program and happens to be 
 very good at it.  Rarely does he come off well when he takes 
 a call from a critic.  He just is not smart enough to win 
 over the truth all the time.
 
 js

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: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:55:05 GMT

In <1992Sep27.220421.16616@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:


>If could move closer to school, I would, but I cannot afford to move
>at this time.  I sometimes get the feeling theat the bus syste penalizes
>people for living in certain areas-if I lived in the right area, I would
>find reliable service.

But of course, if you could afford to live in the 'right area', you
would be able to afford a car, too.

Your argument here is pretty much on target, by the way.  For example,
which subway route in Boston has the new equipment and such?  The one
that runs out to Harvard.  The rest of them tend to get old equipment
in a poor state of repair (or at least that was my experience when I
was in Boston).

-- 
"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:7295 alt.politics.bush:6754
From: green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush is a Mass Murderer (was Re: Bush's Accomplishments)
Date: 26 Sep 92 23:19:15 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <1992Sep26.031818.7838@tygra.Michigan.COM> jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes:
>O come now, do you mean that our military is so inept that its special
>forces cannot take out *ONE MAN*?? What planet are *YOU* living on??
>We could have equipped some mercenaries, or Kurds to do the job too. 

O come on now yourself.  What Comic Books have you been reading to inform your-
self.  Can you imagine what it would take and cost to go house to house in
Iraq and try to find the guy?  Our do you figure he's going to be standing
on a street corner with a big sign?  Or consider this, what would it take
to find one person in Tokyo, or Mexico City?  We'd be fighting door to door,
and probably lose quite a few people, doing something we were never authorized
to do in the first place.

That's what I find interesting in you "born again moderates" - going in to
get Noreiga was WRONG, but getting Saddam isn't?  Helping overthrow a
dictator in Bosnia or Iraq is okay, but helping the Contras overthrow
their dictator wasn't?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Quayle is more charitable than Gore
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:25:35 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <14049.2aca2172@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu>, vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
> In article <1992Sep29.223717.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>, cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>>      Here's an interesting little piece I found in the October 5
>> National Review (pg. 12, col. 2):
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  [article deleted...you've already seen it]
 
> HOHOHO! HA HA HA! HEEHEEHEEHEEHEE :) _National Review_. That's a good one.
> NOW GO AWL UNDER YOUR ROCK UNTIL NEXT ELECTION OK?
> 
> -Garrett

    You didn't have a problem when I quoted a story from the
New Republic (by no means a bastion of conservatism) last week.  
This National Review report was posted to provide "equal time."

     C. Perttunen 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7532 talk.politics.misc:48269 alt.rush-limbaugh:6040 alt.politics.bush:6953 alt.politics.elections:14462
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
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: 28 Sep 92 19:20:04 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <1992Sep23.193009.29717@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>The Liberal philosophy is not based on individual rights but on group rights.
>Justice is based upon emotions instead of reason, emotions such as 
>compassion or envy.  The arguments against Conservatives invariably are
>based on the apparent "compassion" they exhibit toward the downtrodden
>or in the way in which they apparently are unwilling to "share".
>Liberals simply do not have the fine resolution to recognize the individual,
>they only see groups and their _general_ plight.  They also exhibit envy
>toward people based upon their "group" - the rich, for example, and feel
>that wealth is unjust.
>
>Emotion is the philosophic basis of liberalism, IMO.
>
>Mike Best

Sorry to disagree with you AGAIN Mike, but this is not accurate.  I've
been trying to come up with a simple statement of the differences
between liberals and conservatives, and have yet to succeed.  If
conservatives support individual rights, then what about the homosexual
who wants to teach?
What about the guy who wants to smoke a joint and isn't hurting anyone.
What about the woman who wants the right to her own bodily functions.

No, sorry, it's not individual rights that conservatives (certainly not
those in power) are trying to support.

Other incongruous facts:
Why do liberals think abortion is okay, but capital punishment is wrong?
How can someone who is pro-life think abortion is okay if we don't
approve of the father (rape and incest makes killing the baby *okay*!)?
On this theme, it's not really pro-life that conservatives are concerned
with, it pro-responsibility (whether the woman is "at fault" for getting
pregnant).  I really wish someone would try to dispute these last two
sentences, because then we have some true comic relief.

Please add your own examples to this list.
-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7782 alt.politics.bush:7166 alt.fan.dan-quayle:4711
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 20:55:11 EDT
From: <JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: That Legal right over Gambit...
 <1992Sep29.173521.27759@ncsu.edu>

In article <1992Sep29.173521.27759@ncsu.edu>, mhmulli@eos.ncsu.edu (MARTIN
HARPER MULLIS) says about D.Q. criticism:
>
> I guess since the national guard served in every war since its creation
> it does not deserve to be considered military.
>  One wont find the guard any different than the army.
> When the guard came home from Saudi the veterans that fought in Nam
> (who were with the guard) marched alongside.
>
Great.  This wasn't the case in Vietnam.  The guard was a well-known dodge
and that's how D.Q. used it.  He as much as admitted it.  When asked why,
if no influence was necessary, did he ask for his parents help in getting
into the Guard, he said:  "I do - I do - I do what any normal person would
do at that age.  You call home to mother and father and say, 'I'd like to
get in the National Guard.'"  And, when asked by reporters why, despite his
vociferous support for the Vietnam War, he joined the Guard to avoid the
draft, he said, "I did not know in 1969 that I would be in this room today."

> When a persons draft number came up they had the option to
> join the service of their choice. Some went to the navy, some the guard,
> and others the army. once you joined you had no idea if you were
> going to war or not because some units did and some units did not.
> Any man that joins the military knows he may be called to battle and may die.
> for that reason he has served his country regardless of where he was         .
>stationed

See, Adam Hochschild's article, "Me and Quayle at War:  C'mon, Dan, Our Tours
of 'Duty' Were Safe, Cozy and Worthless" in the Washington Post (about
[surprise] four years ago, if memory serves) in which he compares the Guard
and Reserves to the Civil War system whereby a privileged youngster could
buy a man for a few hundred dollars to take his place in the draft.

> Quayle served his country,  Clinton abandoned it.

You'll never make that Double Jeopardy round at this rate!

Hope this helps!  And, why are you cross-posting to ALT.SEX?

Jeff Luck                *My Opinions are Mine, but Facts are Facts*
CES Systems Office
Penn State University        "Whatever you guys want, I'm for."
JFL4@PSUVM.PSU.EDU              -Dan Quayle to Ohio Farmers, 1988
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: stank@perrault.net.com (Stan Knight) 
Subject: My thanks
Keywords: net power
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:19:07 GMT



My thanks to all the ones that send me lists and lists and lists of really
dumb things said by our[current]V. P. I'm sure they will help to keep our
relationship with Europe stable. Well come to think of it maybe it will 
only help when Clinton/Gore win!


Once more---THANKS

Stan Knight
|Say it with me---4 more weeks, 4 more weeks, 4 more weeks|
From: todd@hal.com (Todd Nix)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: clinton email server down?
Date: 6 Oct 92 14:10:47 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Hal Computers
NNTP-Posting-Host: alf.hal.com

I've tried sending a few messages to the clinton-gore email server, but
it seems to have gone belly up.

Has anyone else had more luck? Does anyone have some more recent status?

I tried sending 
Subject: question get 
To: clinton-wins@mail.clinton-gore.org

-- 
Todd Nix                       (512)794-2855                       todd@hal.com
 Movement1981-1982Power,Corruption,andLiesLowLifeBrotherhoodSubstanceTechnique
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
From: cramer@unixland.natick.ma.us (Bill Cramer)
Subject: Re: KILL THE RICH!
Organization: Unixland Public Access Unix  (508) 655-3848
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 23:01:36 GMT

johniac@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
: In article <1992Sep27.221029.16779@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
: |> But why should I pay for a bus service that is unreliable??  If the city
: |> improved it then people would be more willing to use it, and to pay for it.
: 
: It's Catch-22.  The city doesn't want to improve it unless people are
: using it.  The bus fares were FREE in Austin for several months a
: couple of years ago, and they STILL had empty buses driving around
: Austin.  What does that tell you about the demand for public
: transportation?

This may or may not be indicative of the demand for public 
transportation -- I'm not familiar with the Austin situation,
but all this demonstrates may be that the public demand was 
low for the routes that the bus system ran.  Some transit
system authorities are notorious for more on board rooms
than on needs-analysis (I won't mention any names, but their
initials are DART :-)

Bill Cramer

251 West Central Street, Suite 142	| "Justice is incidental to 
Natick, MA 01760 USA			|    law and order."
Internet: cramer@unixland.natick.ma.us	|        -- J. Edger Hoover
CIS: 70322,3412				| 

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush
From: pkust@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Paul R Kust)
Subject: Re: Quayle is more charitable than Gore
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 13:11:19 GMT


In article <1992Sep30.034955.11642@midway.uchicago.edu> wag5@midway.uchicago.ed
u writes:
>  [repost deleted]
>
>    I lov it! Once again you Democrats, liberals, basically
>cowardly scum of the Earth once again make a personal attack on
>an opposing viewpoint! What is this, Krystalnacht?  Who are the
>fascists!  Attack me personally, you damned dogs of scum and cowardice,
>and I will take you ALL to your graves!
>
>                        John Peter Wagner
>P.S. Pardon the bellicosity.
>
>

 Who _IS_ this guy?!
-- 
*** Paul R. Kust "Banjoman" *** Kust.1@osu.edu / kust@kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu
                                   | "Read my lips ... I'll do anything to
Jes' a-pickin' and a-grinnin'.     |  get reelected ... I knew nothing about
Yes I play, I just don't play well.|  Iran-Contra."  What credibility problem?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Libe
Organization: gte
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:42:29 GMT

In article <lcev21INN3li@spim.mti.sgi.com>, mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
[...]
> From Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (in alphabetical order):
> 
> conservatism
> 
> 	a: disposition in politics to preserve what is established
> 	b: a political philosophy based on tradition and social
> 	 stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring
> 	 gradual development to abrupt change
> 	c: the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation
> 	 to change.
> 
> liberalism
> 
> 	a: a movement in modern Protestantism ...
> 	b: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from
> 	 restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-
> 	 regulating market, and the gold standard
> 	c: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the
> 	 essential goodnes of man, and the autonomy of the individual
> 	 and standing for the protection of political and civil
> 	 liberties.
> 
> No wonder the Republicans and other conservatives are looking to redefine
> these words.  The real definitions say that the difference is between
> "forward looking" and "give me that old time religion, it's
> good enough for me."
> 

Well, the Democrats are not liberals (all the time):

They support gun control (if men are basically good, they can be trusted
            with guns -- certainly banning guns does not promote the 
            autonomy of the individual.)
They support the WOD -- This is hardly protecting civil liberties.

They passed the Civil Forfeiture laws -- the ones which permit police
            to take everything you own just because they think you are
            a drug dealer (they don't need to find drugs or press charges,
            they simply have to state that they think you're a drug dealer
            and they take everything you have.)

They support entitlements: Taking 8% of the pay of a young man who earns
            $12,000 a year to feed and clothe a family so that an elderly
            couple earning more than $60,000 can get Social Security is
            not supporting the autonomy of humans nor is it protecting
            their civil liberties -- it is gov't control of resources.

They support nationalized healthcare: Nationalized healthcare is a 
            socialist concept -- just look at the countries that have
            it.  

One might call the Democrats liberal socialists, but they are more
socialist than liberals.

Of course, the term "liberal" is more commonly used these days to mean
a liberal socialist.  (Remember that dictionaries tend to lag the
language by a number of years.)

-- 
"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US murders are 
committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"   -  Andrew Ford
gtephx!forda@enuucp.eas.asu.edu  OR  !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: cea1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Carolyn E. Adams-Price)
Subject: Clinton at Oxford
Organization: Mississippi State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:17:54 GMT

To the person who said Oxford was an easy school to get in, please
note that Clinton was there on a Rhodes Scholarship, one of the
most prestigious of all scholarships.

Let's hear it for a smart man in the white house for a change.

Carolyn Adams-Price
Department of Psychology
Mississippi State University

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: Build that wall, Bill & Al! Excellent. NOT!
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1992 22:00:09 GMT

jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:

>But what will we be exporting -- products,  or jobs and manufacturing base?

The United States should export jobs - especially those which we are 
inefficient at. This will allow us to redirect our limited resources into
those areas we are good at. This economic concept is known as "specialization".


MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7943 alt.politics.bush:7306 alt.politics.marrou:1367
From: rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu (Ray Swartz (Oh, that guy again))
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Reply-To: rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu
Organization: Vis-Orb Tragnetics Recorporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:01:41 GMT

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".

	Well, I find it strange that we keep hearing that "anyone can get it",
but if you say anything about increased testing, or required notification of
sex partners, you hear "Homophobia!!!" screamed from the rooftops.  If "it's
not a gay disease", they what's all the screaming about?

Ray Swartz
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Date: 6 Oct 92 08:00:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio


Yes, and if I caught it from tainted blood then I could fade from memory
without the sightest mention.  I would die unnoticed.

Simon
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush