HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS)
Subject: Re: Conservative Values (Re: New group proposal:  alt.conservative.forum)
Summary: Correction  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 8 Jan 93 00:39:54 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.160030.1478@hemlock.cray.com>, rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)                    writes...
>In article <2155@celia.UUCP>, steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:
>> 
>>  From 1983 to 1990 "The Seven Fat Years" we experienced the longest 
>> peace time economic expansion and the longest general economic expan-
>> sion since the Kennedy Tax Cuts in the 60's. What happened in 1990 to
>> 1992 was due to the 1990 Budget compromise.
> 
>Let's see if I've got this straight.  The recession started in July 1990
>because of a budget compromise that was not passed until the end of 
>September 1990, right?

Correction. The recession that started in July 1990 was caused by a budget
comprimise that was not passes until OCTOBER 1990.

>>  Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
>Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Clayton's 10% Silence
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 08:41:34 GMT

In article <13775@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>[soc.motss deleted because I'm tired of harrassment by a bunch of
>emotional basket cases.]

>In article <1992Dec30.004813.16500@ariel.ec.usf.edu>, woodard@figment.tmc.edu (Chris Woodard) writes:

>> Clayton, you still haven't listed your sources.  If listing sources is not a
>> requirement for this thread, then have I got some statistics for you
>> concerning the relative proportion of Fundamentalist Baptist ministers
>> convicted of child molestation!

>I have REPEATEDLY posted my sources.  Again.

[List of sources deleted.]

No, he was asking for sources that *support* your points, not sources
that disprove them, as every quote you've ever cited has.

But then, it's much easier your way, huh?  Some people use an 
unrepresentative sample of sources to prove their point.  You don't
bother.  You take sources which say one thing and then you claim they
say another.

But at least 8 or 10 people have posted the math, using statistics taken 
directly from the quotes you've posted, which shows that your
conclusions are completely unsupportable.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:67108 alt.politics.elections:24847
From: ighosh@frx715.intel.com (Indraneel Ghosh - EPG)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: double standards
Date: 11 Jan 93 17:57:37 GMT
Organization: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA USA


 Dan Quayle : Its ok for my daughter to have the right to choose but
              abortion is illegal for your daughter.

 Bill Clinton : My daughter should have the right to choose between  
                public and private schools but children of ordinary
                folks (those who will get vouchers) dont have that right.

 Surprise, surprise. 

 So, the two parties are'nt that different after all. Like the 
 communists in the former Soviet Union, they believe in having one
 standards for the Party elite and another one for the common people.

 I'm happy that I supported Perot who was totally defeated.
 At least, my conscience is clear.

 Indy.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.conspiracy
From: dwjurkat@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Jurkat)
Subject: Re: ** The Birth of NEW-ISRAEL ** 
Keywords: Renewal  
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 13:36:37 EST

In article <1993Jan2.061138.27321@sequent.com> petel@sequent.com (Pete Lancashire) writes:
>b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Jubilation) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Dec30.110333.2305@ccsvax.sfasu.edu>, 
>>f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes...
>
>>>In article <29DEC199212460728@utarlg.uta.edu>, 
>>>b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Jubilation T.) writes:
>
>>>> So let's bury the ghost of America. And turn to welcome the birth of the 
>>>> nation of NEW-ISRAEL in our land. A nation chosen by GOD and saved by GOD.
>>>> Not because there is any mystical entity which can be called "a nation,"
>>>> but because we each more than any other people, enjoy a personal relation-
>>>> ship with Our Creator -- One-to-One. Amen.
>
>>>Thank you, Stephen, for saying what needed to be said.  
>
>>You're very welcome Joe, but I only echoed the leadings of the Spirit.
>>I trust other communications "in the same spirit" are being made all
>
>WILL SOMEONE GET ME OUT OF HERE !!!!  What the hell is happening ?
>Are these people for real....
>
>-pete
>petel@sequent.com
>
>
>
There is one problem with new spiritual unity.  Back in April, 1982 a friend
of mine accidentally killed God.  I won't go into the details (it's a long
story), but you will now have to rely on something else to do your work
for you.  Also for other reasons I'm not at liberty to disclose his/her name,
so please don't ask.  It may be of interest that very few people noticed
the passing away of God.  I guess it never made much difference one way
or another.  Oh and before I forget, They closed down heaven.  You'll have
to make other arrangements now.
:)
-Detlef

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Man of the Year (was Re: Is the media liberal-biased)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 14:44:06 GMT

I really doubt that "the media" are responsible for Bush's defeat, but
if they were, all I can say is THANK YOU!!!

His demise is probably more analogous to the extinction of the mastodon in
North America, which although initially attributed to the slings and arrows
of Native American Clovis cultural elites, was probably due to overall
climate change. The predatory hunting just added a little more pressure.

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: A 4th branch of government?
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 23:32:43 GMT

In article <90240@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>Regardless of the results, the logic behind the position is astounding.
>An executive branch agency is supposed to be independent of the
>President.

Assuming we're to have agencies at all, I'd much prefer that they'd be
independent than controlled by the President.  Congress is delegating
a lot of power to these agencies, and the executive branch can exercise
what control they want through the appointments process, or by vetoing
the original delegation of power.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
never shout movie in a crowded firestation
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 03:09:46 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.024915.8715@Princeton.EDU> elliott@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jr. Frank W. Elliott) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.021811.5057@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>>
>>>Point one:  IF homosexuality is learned.  You haven't shown that it is.
>>
>>
>>	I don't need to.  You haven't shown that it isn't.
>>
>>
>>>Point two:  Even if it WERE, you haven't shown that it is a danger to children.
>>
>>
>>	If there is a *chance* that children can learn it, then they 
>>	should not be placed in a situation where they do so and become social
>>	outcasts.
>>
>>	An ounce of prevention and all of that.  Better safe than sorry.
>
>I'm unconvinced about the sincerity of this gentleman's motives.
>He once wrote:
>
>>In article <1gg27rINNbpa@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU> schiesel-seth@yale.edu (Seth Schiesel) writes:
>>>Sunday, December13 New York Times. There are accounts of three Croat and 
>>>Muslim women in Bosnia who wre raped by Serbian soldiers. In fact, the 
>>>Times says the Serbs have innaugerated an assembly-line rape operation in 
>>>Bosnia with at least 50,000 women having already been violated. Just 
>>
>>	GIF!!GIF!!GIF!!GIF!!GIF!!GIF!!GIF!!GIF!!GIF!!GIF!!GIF!!
>
>What could be the point in arguing with someone like this?


	I also wrote:

	"Oops!  Wrong group."

	For the humor impaired, see alt.tasteless.  In any case,
	it was IMHO quite proper to redicule that particular
	message (an op-ed piece quoted as some sore of Newspaper
	source) which had been posted twice, and was wholly 
	inappropriate to the newsgroup.

	Perhaps I should have put ":-)'s for the humor impaired
	or the chronically stupid/hard-up"...?


-- 
      Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	      "Psalms 23:1  The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."  
		Shepherds are for sheep.   -----      Pain teaches.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:66243 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11534 alt.rush-limbaugh:13021 alt.politics.bush:15537
From: thomson%jensen.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Rich Thomson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Drug Prices (was: What's happening to George Bush?)
Date: 12 Jan 93 00:22:21 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.drugs
Organization: Computer Science Department, University of Utah, SLC, UT

[Note: followups directed to talk.politics.drugs]

In article <1ikg8bINNgim@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
	cd651@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Wally L. Blume) writes:
>In a previous article, mikeq@freddy.CNA.TEK.COM () says:
>>      *Called his war on drugs a SUCCESS!
>
>        Drug street prices up over 25%, directly attributed to less
>        availability as reported by CNN, and USA Today. Beats what 
>        other presidents have done. 

The fact that drug prices are rising is fueling the violence in our
cities.  Driving the price up is exactly why inner-city youth find that
earning hundreds of dollars a day dealing illegal substances is worth
the risk of getting caught.  Extensive profits over illegal substances
makes it worthwhile for people to shoot each other over their customer
base ("turf").  Exhorbitant profits make it attractive for organized
crime to enter the market.

George's policy "beats what other presidents have done" to help fuel
violence in the inner cities, line the pockets of organized crime with
cash, increase disrespect for the law, increase corruption in the
judicial and electoral system and propels the U.S. to the top of the
list of countries who have the highest per capita prison population.

The drug war is an utter failure.  For all George's talk about "free
markets" he sure doesn't seen to understand how his policies have
fomented and created a thriving black market.

						-- Rich
-- 
		    Don't blame me; I voted Libertarian
Internet: thomson@asylum.cs.utah.edu		Rich Thomson
IRC: _Rich_					PEXt Programmer
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: "john lovett" <john.lovett@channel1.com>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: national debt? why?
Date: 10 Jan 93 16:03:00 EST
Reply-To: "john lovett" <john.lovett@channel1.com>
Distribution: talk
Organization: Channel 1 Communications

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

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

--
Channel 1 (R)   Cambridge, MA
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Date: 6 Jan 93 19:50:18 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <1if01aINNt35@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.140636.2393@nntpserver.chevron.com>, jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros) writes:
>
>|> 'We (Weinberger and George Scultz) informed the president that sending
>|> arms to Iran was illegal, and that using Israel as the middle man
>|> doesn't make it legal.  Reagan replied, I'll worry about the illegality,
>|> I want everyone to know that big Ron Reagan can bring the hostages
>|> home.'
>
>That's one way of putting it. What he said was that the "... American people
>would never forgive me if I didn't do all I could to bring the hostages back
>home.", which, depending on whether you liked or detested Ronnie, can mean
>one thing or another.
>
This is NOT what Weinberger's notes said.  Unless you were there at the
meeting that I (through Weinberger's notes) am referring to, you must be
talking about a public version of what he said.

>|> Those are pretty close to the exact words, as I tried to embed it in my
>|> mind when I heard it (asked my wife to repeat it to me as she heard it
>|> so I could get it right).  I didn't think "Big Ron" had it in him, but
>|> no.  He knew what was happening, he knew it was illegal (~basically aid
>|> to an enemy).  And according do Weinberger's notes, he was doing it for
>|> personal glory (ok at least according to the one entry I heard).  When I
>|> first heard it, my first thought was that it sounded like an impeachable
>|> offense.
>
>Nope. He later signed a "finding" which is basically an instrument used by
>the President to commit acts of dubious legality, and to cover their rear
>ends at the same time. That effectively shields the President from prosecution
>since it shows he was advised by the highest legal authorities (the Justice
>Dept., I think) that what he proposed to do was NOT illegal. Cap Weinberger 
>didn't know of it until later, as he revealed on David Brinkley's Sunday 
>program the week he got pardoned (27th December).
>
>Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

Wrong again.  If you are disagreeing with my last sentence, how do you
know whether or not I thought it was an impeachable offense.  And if
what they were doing was not illegal and they thought so, what are they
covering up the whole thing for?  And if Reagan knew that this "finding"
had been made, why didn't he soothe Weinberger's conscience by telling
him at the meeting I'm referring to that it *was* legal (in the eyes of
those justice department pawns -- don't get me started, but if you think
the justice department wasn't partisan, I have a nice oak forest in West
Texas to sell you).


-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Date: 08 Jan 93 00:44:06 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <0DkZwB1w165w@fennec.com> flash@fennec.com writes:
>
>If I am attracted to a woman (not my wife), does that make me an 
>adulterer?

    Nope.  It makes you either heterosexual or bisexual.
    

> How then can being attracted to a man make me a homosexual?

    That's how it's defined.


> It 
>is only my BEHAVIOR which places me in either category. Any other 
>definition is indefensible.

    Nonsense.

			-Phil

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,rec.music.misc
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Madonna on Sinead O'Connor
Originator: lip@s1.gov
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Labs, Livermore CA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 05:56:18 GMT


	Last night on MTV News, I saw some bits of an Madonna
interview. Aside from her new Hollywood Hills house, she discussed
this supposed feud with Sinead O'Connor over her tearing up a picture
of the Pope on SNL (M herself will be the musical guest on SNL before
too long, I may add).

	She said that she would not do something like that without
offering something positive as an alternative. As an example, she
stated that she would not charge that some people are sexually
repressed without suggesting alternatives. I find this stance
commendably civilized, because it is not a purely negative one.

	Perhaps more relevant to rec.music.misc, she signed a Seattle
grunge-rock group to her new record label, Maverick, and she said she
had been rather interested in Courtney Love's group, Hole.

	I guess my preference would have been for a Devo-type
techno-rock group.
-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
From: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 6 Jan 1993 00:54:08 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: holein1.corp.sun.com

In article 13522@oracle.us.oracle.com, mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
> In article <1ia8p9INNhe3@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
> >In article 9955@romulus.rutgers.edu, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
> 
> >> Moreover, he did not "steal" money, nor was this ever part of the
> >> allegations against him.  Nor did he violate public trust -- he upheld
> >> it much better than virtually all of his detractors.
> 
> >That's right.  The money that he "borrowed" to buy that home security
> >system is going to be repaid right?  
> 
> The only question that Bob raises here is whether he is a liar or an
> idiot.  

Gee, what a snappy come back!!  I'm in awe!!

>The security system was given to him by Secord.

And I suppose that you believe that Secord used money from his own personal
bank account to buy it with huh?  What a pal!


> The alleged
> offense was accepting a gift.

And where did the money come from to make the purchase?  Secord was running
an "Enterprise" that was making a profit from selling arms to the Iranians.
These profits were the property of the US government.  The only ones that
can spend US government money is Congress not a bunch of Ya-Hoos in the
basement of the White House.  This is stealing from the government and
if North didn't know where the money came from he is a bigger idiot than
I am :^D.

> 
> Just to put it in perspective, during the course of his investigation,
> Walsh has accepted gifts from the Watergate hotel in the form of
> reduced rate lodging that exceed the value of the home security system
> given to North by Secord.  Walsh is covered by the same laws that
> North is on accepting gifts.  So far no one has indicted Walsh.

Apples and Oranges.  Taking a gift in the open light of day and accepting
a "gift" under dubious circumstances like Iran-Contra are not the same.  But
at least now I understand your "perspective".


BTW, Secord is the only one of the entire lot that I have any respect for.
He is the one that has come the closest to coming clean on what he was 
doing.  North et al only did so under a grant of immunity.


Bob De Guc
I vote therefore I am!!


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: Bob Hooker's possibly fraudulen (was Re: Trickle Down Economics)
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 14:21:13 GMT

Mike Polen (mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com) wrote:
: Please present any similarities to the feminist movement and Nazi-ism.
: It must have escaped the notice of the press.  I think a better
: description of Bush is that he panders to the racist attitudes in
: others without making overtly racist statements.
: 

The most extrememe militant feminists do share a lot with nazi-ism.
Promoting abortion for abortion's sake is very common with Genocide.
And there's clear and frequently quoted feminist writings that indicate
these feminists believe in a superior race - women.

: |> >But Buchanan?   He's an out-and-out racist and anti-semite.  
: |> 
: |> No one who knows him has said that, and many have come forward to
: |> defend him, including Michael Kinsley, whom you quoted.  He has known
: |> Pat for years and says he is definitely not an anti-semite.
: |> 
: Pat is not anti-semitic.  He just thinks that anyone who isn't a
: Christian should not have a place or say in his world, should not affect
: our politics, and should not dirty his doorstep.  This is true religion
: at work.  Tolerance, not understanding.  Pity, not sharing.
: Pat isn't worth the print it takes to discuss him.

You wanna share the sources/writings directly from Buchannan that indicates
he is an anti=semite.  I've seen you and I've seen plenty of TV journalists
make this kind of claim.  Yet the people that deal with him day in and
day out and know him a lot better than you do say otherwise...

: 
: |> >William F. Buckley, who agrees with him ideologically, even admits that
: |> >he's an anti-semite.
: |> 
: |> You better read that piece again ("National Review", December 30, 1991) --
: |> that isn't what Buckley said.  He said that some of what Buchanan has said
: |> could reasonably be taken as anti-semitic, and he should apologize for
: |> those statements (which he hasn't done -- something I view as a character
: |> flaw), but that he doesn't think that Buchanan himself is anti-semitic.
: |> 
: You are giving him a lot of lattitude.  If it walks like and anti-semite,
: and it talks like an anti-semite then it probably is an anti-semite.  I agree
: with your charcter flaw statement -- anti-semitism is a serious character
: flaw.

Better yet - if you can slap a label like anti-semite on him, he must be one.


: -- 
: These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
: occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.


mykes
semite
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1isaukINNopj@transfer.stratus.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 00:54:59 GMT

<In article <1isaukINNopj@transfer.stratus.com> jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes:
<   In article <ARCHER.688.726768898@utkvm1.utk.edu>  
<   ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
<   > >...the right of the people to bear tactical nuclear weapons shall  
<   not be
<   > >abridged.
<   > 
<   > No, it doesn't. The clause you refer to, the Second Amendment to  
<   the 
<   > Constitution of the United States, states clearly, that "...the  
<   right of the 
<   > people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
<   > 
<   > Tac nukes do not fall under the category of "arms," as they cannot  
<   be 
<   > manipulated or maintained by an individual.
<   > 

<   Are you saying that if we develop tactical nukes that can
<   be maintained by the individual that they should be able
<   to own them?  How about chemical weapons and nerve gas?  Can 
<   an individual own those?  How about surface to air missles?

	Oh, *heavens*, no. 
	Individuals *obviously* shouldn't even be allowed
	to own a butter knife, as it could be used to kill.
From: nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Special Bonus Quiz
Date: 6 Jan 93 01:31:42 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

Q: What is the difference between a Whig and a Republican?
A: Time.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Feinstein '94
Clinton/Gore '96
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc