HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo)
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON DOCTRINE
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Labs
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:30:45 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.153034.16313@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.043352.26843@midway.uchicago.edu> wag5@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>
>
>Athens, perhaps, even if decisions were made by a small fraction of
>the actual population.  Sparta was an oligarchy (archons?).  I think
>this is one of the contrasts Thucydides made.
>
>
>In any case, I was under the impression that this was a discussion of
>modern democracies.  We have such sundries now as mass communication
>(though this cuts both ways: we get to see the Other Side as not being
>too different from us, making it harder to wage war.  We also may get
>news more quickly, and may act before we have a chance to digest it.)

i think it is relevant to modern times. from the descriptions of
Sparta i would think (ex)East Germany was a good modern paradigm 
of the Spartan society. hardly democratic.

-- 
-- Pat Monardo
-- pjm@cshl.org
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Thoughts on the First Debate
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:32:12 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.015203.13538@eng.umd.edu> georgec@eng.umd.edu (George B. Clark) writes:
>Unlike Bush and Clinton, I heard on the news that Perot didn't even rehearse
>for the debate. Yet Perot did so well. This lack of rehearsal made Perot
>appear more spontaneous and genuine than the other two candidates, and it
>impressed me a lot.

Well, sorta.  Perot didn't scream or droll or fall over.  His
answers to questions about the economy / deficit were the
most cogent, although nothing new (did any candidate have
new answers? no).  As usual, he was more uncomfortable with
non-economic questions:  his answers were of the "let's get
everyone together" variety.  His mention of the social / economic
effects of crack babies shows he has a good visceral
understanding of the problem, a refreshing attitude
after the past four years.

>I'm going to vote for Clinton, though, because I think Clinton has a better
>chance of beating Bush than does Perot. However, I'd vote for Perot instead
>of Clinton, if I thought Perot had a chance to win.
>
>The person to vote for is whoever you believe has the best chance of
>beating Bush, and that person is still Clinton.
>

Me too.

-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
Date: 12 Oct 92 15:04:46 GMT
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

Keywords: 

In article <1992Oct8.202316.4532@u.washington.edu> sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
]What really saddened me about GHWB's performance last night
]was the implications of his remarks.  He criticized Clinton
]for organizing anit-war rallies overseas, and attacking and
]protesting against his country while living in Europe.
]
]Most of us who participated in anti-war protests were
]not attacking America, nor were we in any way traitorous.

Nor were you in a foreign country. THAT is the issue (as Bush has clearly
stated). If you want to protest US policy in the US, fine, go to it and
there's nothing wrong with it. When you take it overseas, during the middle
of a war, it is wrong and goes against 200 years of American tradition.
It's the same principle as a family dispute... you don't do it in the
shopping mall.

]Apparently, the role of dissent in a democracy totally
]escapes GHWB.

Apparently the distinction about where you protest completely
slipped by you.

]Maybe I should take some small satisfaction in the fact
]that my (and many others') prediction that the Republican
]Sleaze-o-Matic (tm) would be working overtime in October.
]But the sight of the President of the United States
]sinking to the level of Robert Dornan is just
]too sad.

Well, Bill Clinton has been slinging all sorts of personal attacks
at Bush since he has been in the race. Fair is fair, and character
is a legitimate issue, in spite of the fact that the democrats are
trying to remove it as an issue because their candidate doesn't
have any.


-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Saddam Hussein... he just keeps going... and going... and going - -
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:16754 talk.politics.misc:51723
From: falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Vice Shrub won (NOT!)
Date: 14 Oct 92 12:24:56 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

In article <1992Oct14.160819.3183@ornl.gov>, de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
> Don't try to vote for the winner, vote for the candidate you prefer.

  Which is precisely why I'm voting for Perot.  I'm just scared that it
wouldn't make any difference in the Democratic control that they'll have come
Jan. 20.

						Mike Falkner

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: reaper@wixer.cactus.org (Keath Milligan)
Subject: Re: Upper--middle--lower class??
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 20:17:42 GMT

In article <92286.101940WJT101@psuvm.psu.edu> <WJT101@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>Hello,
>We've been hearing a lot about taxing/no taxing the rich, the middle
>class, the poor...but my question is what is the "definition" of upper, middle
>and lower class??  What are the income levels?  I've heard middle class is
>$30,000 to $62,000 - then I hear it's $84,000!  What are the current ranges???
>

Depends on who you ask.. a Democrat will tell you middle class is about
$30,000 - $40,000, a Republican will tell you its about $60,000.  Kinda
gives you an idea about how different kinds of people view things.

TX Sen. Phil Gramm claims the top two-percent in this country starts at $64k --
a figure he arrived at from census information.  Can anyone contest that?

Another interesting side note:  the 400 richest Americans are worth a
combined total of about $288 billion.  [CNN]

-- 
oooooo ooo o o  o            Keath Milligan            o  o  ooooo oooo oooooo
oooo oo ooo  o   o   Prometheus Light and Sound, Inc.   o   o  o ooooooooooooo
oooooooo o oo  o         Real/Time Communications        o    o o ooo oooooooo
oooooo oooo ooo  o  internet: reaper@wixer.cactus.org  o   o  o ooo oo ooooooo
From: dchatham@utkvx2.utk.edu (Chatham, Doug)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Perot for Pres???
Date: 11 Oct 92 14:47:00 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <92275.220751DMEJJ@CUNYVM.BITNET>, <DMEJJ@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes...
>I am amazed that there are people who can still support Perot
>for president. What assurance do we have that in the middle of
>a crisis he wont decide to leave office and let an unknown
>be president? What assurance do we have that he wont use
>the FBI, IRS, and other government agencies as sleuths against
>his "enemies"? What assurance do we have that he wont disregard
>the provisions of the constitution and the Bill of Rights?

	For that matter, what assurance do we have that Bush is not right now
ignoring the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution?  What 
assurance do we have that Clinton will have enough moral fiber to obey
the Constitution's precepts?

>What assurance do we have that he can work with anyone cooperatively?

	Is working with the Congress we love to hate such a good idea?  
Bush cooperated once in 1990 (Budget compromise), and look what it got him!

>Why vote or support anyone who is unwilling to undergo scrutiny?

	Fair question (finally).  This is one reason I didn't vote (absentee)
for Perot.

>Why waste a precious vote!

	The election is not a horse race --- you are not expected to "bet on
the winner", and it is not a "waste" to vote for the person you want for 
President, even if that person's chances are slim.  The truly wasted votes are 
those that are not cast.  (BTW, I voted for Clinton)

>Arthur

Sincerely,
Doug Chatham
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:17149 talk.politics.misc:52189
From: kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Date: 15 Oct 92 20:43:47 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1992Oct15.060138.887@europa.lonestar.org>, tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball) writes:
> 
> The Reagan era will soon bite the dust.  Unfortunately, the debt left 
> behind because of the Voodoo Economics practiced in the last 12 years 
> will not.  It turns out that one thing even worse than the "tax and 
> spend" policies we had in the 1970's is the "borrow and spend" 
> policies of the 1980's and 1990's.  Frankly, it makes me mad to 
> realize that I will be paying HIGHER TAXES FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE to 
> make up for the debt run up in the years 1981-1992.  Also irritating 
> is the realization that the quadrupleing of the national debt that 
> occurred under Reagan and Bush's watch is now so massive it is has 
> become the country's 2nd biggest threat to the national security. 
> 
> -- 
> Tom Kimball  			tom@europa.lerctr.org    
> tom@europa.lonestar.org		tom%europa@egsner.cirr.com



Hey Buddy,

It is very simple economics, all you have to do is not spend so much,
less bills, therefor less money that has to be collected. If you don't
want to pay higher taxes, vote the Demos out of the house and senate.
Every time there is a tax increase, these dopes spend MORE money. Of
course the debt keeps going up. I know, like Clinton said, that is a
great speach Ross but it is not that simple. No it is not as simple as
this but this is the general idea. Lets have a Republican senate and
house for 40 years and see what happens. I even sweeten the deal, you
can have a Democratic president. How about it??

Ken
From: rkw@zuni.unx.sas.com (Randy Whitehead)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: The only pre-election poll I trust...
Date: 9 Oct 92 13:04:33 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Originator: rkw@zuni.unx.sas.com


The poll conducted by _My_Weekly_Reader_ of children in grades 
Kindergarten through 6 has been released. It shows Mr. Bush
winning with 55% of the votes.

The _Weekly_Reader_ poll has correctly predicted the outcomes 
of every presidential election since 1956.

-- 
Randy Whitehead         And now, back to your regularly scheduled day...    
SAS Institute Inc.                     
rkw@unx.sas.com                        
                                       
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: robart@agora.rain.com (Robert Barton)
Subject: Re: That protest on foreign soil thang
Organization: Organization
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 03:57:09 GMT

In article <39450@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> kprashan@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (hyderabadi) writes:
>
>Bush says, 
>
>"It's wrong to protest [and organize protests] against one's 
> govt on foreign soil."
>
>So all those International Chinese students who protested in the
>USA against their govt's murders at TianAnMen Square were wrong
>to do that? They should have kept quiet? 


  He said he thought it was wrong while the country was at war,
so I guess it depends on whether you consider China to have
been at war at that time.

-- 
  the relevant guy
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:17453 alt.politics.bush:9592 alt.politics.clinton:11120
From: bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Bush v. Clinton: "Who do you trust?"
Date: 17 Oct 1992 02:39:49 GMT
Organization: Committee to Impeach H. Ross Perot's Barber
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfa.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Oct17.005945.10319@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>PBS pundit David Gergen said tonight that he was amazed that Bush didn't
>respond to repeated references by Clinton about the "failed economic
>theory" of the last twelve years. Gergen half seriously suggested that Bush
>may believe it! Can this be? My respect is going up for the President. Is he
>merely trapped in right-wingers' deep voodoo at this point?

This seems more plausible than most of the explanations for Bush's
inaction.  We're all going to be living for a long time with the
hangover from Reagan's fantasy decade.  Perhaps this is why Dan
is so fixated on Hollywood --Ronnie left him to pay the check.

    --Brad Sherman
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Commander in Chief Clinton ?
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:17:30 GMT

In article <3833@eastman.UUCP> pawlicki@kodak.com writes:
>	Before you fire up your flame throwers, take some time and ask
>yourself how you would really feel if Gov. Clinton told you that your
>child (or you) had to go and die for this county? 
>

Well, at least he'd have the good sense and experience of consider a
war carefully beforehand.  Moral considerations are always healthy,
and they help keep you out of trouble.  At least Gov. Clinton won't
send them out hastily and without much forethought (a la Beirut).

--
"Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."  Psssssssssssss.....
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:17100 alt.politics.clinton:10749 alt.politics.bush:9367
From: glhewitt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gary Livingston Hewitt)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Polls on VP Debate
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:00:37 GMT
Followup-To: glhewitt@phoenix.princeton.edu
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

>In article <crb2.719160391@Ra.MsState.Edu> crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson) writes:
>bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:
>
>>Who won the debate?
>
>>      Gore  Quayle Stockdale    Sample 
>>NBC    50     32      2          623 adults
>>ABC    38     35      7          500 adults
>
>I think it's pretty funny how both of these polls will state that 
>this is how everyone feels (with a -+ 4% margin of error).  Now
>since the Gore catagory is 12 different, there MUST be a better
>than 4% error, eh?  I think these polls say whatever the guy
>taking them WANTS to say....I have given up on the mainstream media
>ever giving me news that hasn't been slanted toward their agenda.

Actually, that reminds me of a long-standing question I've had about
polls.    

What is the p-value (statisticians will know) on these polls?  My sense
was that a margin-of-error estimate REALLY meant: "There is a <p% chance
that this sampling deviates from the actual population by more than
plus-or-minus x%" (where x = margin of error).  Is the p a standard .05
or do they vary it to get a proper 3 or 4% margin?  Does anyone know?

E-mail answer appreciated, as I can barely keep up with the traffic on
these group(s).

Gary 
-- 
  ++====+========+==========+=======+===++
  ||    |    Gary| L. Hewitt|       |   ||  HELP!  I've been imprisoned
  || glh|ewitt@ph|oenix.prin|ceton.e|du ||  by my .signature!  HELP!
  ++====+========+==========+=======+===++
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: vsg001@acad.drake.edu
Subject: Re: Bush cowardice? I think not (RE More Bush Cowardice)
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 09:31:29 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.063814.27711@nntp.uoregon.edu>, eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:
> In article <1992Oct8.001226.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>>
>>What a tangled web we weave... At the time, our government called the American
>>military forces to prevent the spread of Communism, something that was believed
>>to ultimately defend American interests, and therefore in defense of the US.
>>You would have a *very* difficult time trying to explain to my Father and his
>>friends (all veterans) that what they did, was not in defense of their country.
>>Clinton manipulated the draft system so that some one else went in his place.
> 
> here who volunteered, or the 75% of the local Vietneam vets group, who,
> when surveyed, said there was *no* national security interest that
> supported our involvement, and that they now believed our government had
> lied its way into the conflict.  Read some history, for cryin out loud.

Ah. Here is where I did not make myself clear. "And that they *now* believed"
My point lies in that *at the time* many of the soldiers went with the belief
that what ever they were doing, it was for the good of the "American way of
life" what ever that may be. As the war progressed, the disbelief increased. In
terms of NOW, of course I agree with your arguement, but that was not the issue
that I raised.
  
> *Stupid War, Ineptly fought: n.  See "Vietnam".  A poorly conceived and
Who ever said _any_ war was intelligent?

> I have no expectation that you will understand any of this:  you are that
> breed of conservative for whom government is gospel.  Some of us think
> government is the problem:  stop calling us liberals kid.

I believe that you are in error here. I know of no "breed" of Conservatives
that think government is "the gospel". In fact, and please correct me if I am
wrong, but didn't modern Conservatism arise from the classic liberalism of
 Locke, Hobbes, and even the Founding Fathers. Conservatives believe that "the
government that governs least, governs best." We believe that with government
protecting "life, liberty, and property" the individual can grow and prosper
the most. No, I do not believe that government is the gospel. That would be a
liberal point of view: (ie bigger government= better government)

>stop calling us liberals kid.
Indeed. You are a Conservative.
--
Here endith the Lesson
--
Disclaimers. Disclaimers.
		VSG001@acad.drake.edu (Vince Goddard-ARCH Conservative)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:15999 or.politics:253
From: robart@agora.rain.com (Robert Barton)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,or.politics
Subject: Oregon Measure 9
Date: 9 Oct 92 01:31:16 GMT
Organization: Organization

>>Measure 9 is the result of a government that has grown so powerful that it
>>can dictate private virtue.  The question of whether it SHOULD dictate is
>>considered by many as already decided, in the affirmative;  the only question
>>now appears to be WHAT it will dictate.  


  The same is unfortunately true of government interference in other
private matters, such as economics.  Bush, Clinton, Perot, and Fulani
all support massive government interference in your personal affairs,
disagreeing only on the details.  Only one candidate supports the
separation of Economics and State - Andre Marrou.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:15456 alt.politics.clinton:8862 talk.politics.misc:50011
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON DOCTRINE
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:18:55 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Oct6.212129.29279@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

|> Democracies do not go to war with one another.

Bullshit.

|> They do not sponser international terrorism.

Well, the USA was a democracy when it imported slaves.  Can anybody think
of a more modern example?

|> They do not threaten to destry other nations with weapons of mass destruction.

"We will systematically destroy Japan's ability to wage war..."  Harry Truman.

And France's nuclear weapons arn't exactly a gesture of good will either.

|> Democracy abroad helps protect economic and security interests at home. 

Can you say Vietnam?  I thought you could!  For the advanced lesson, try
saying Nicaragua, Panama, and South America.


Live in the real world.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:16363 sci.econ:8090 talk.politics.misc:51254
From: tucker@shiva.edsg.hac.com (George Tucker)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The truth about Gritz
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:48:13 GMT
Reply-To: tucker@shiva.UUCP (George Tucker)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA

In article <1992Oct12.085013.26260@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
>wjm@utrcv1 (Bill) writes:
>
>>here, then move to Mexico, etc...  Free trade is touted as giving U.S. 
>>goods a bigger market place.  In fact, it simply means you will be 
>>competing with foreign workers making 50 cents per day who can ship there 
>>goods to the U.S. without tarrifs!

Depends on whether you mean free trade in general or the NAFTA agreement.
We run a surplus with Mexico now, and if the agreement has been negotiated
properly, then we should continue to have a surplus with Mexico.  As I
understand it, the agreement creates new barriers against Asian countries
where we have deficit trade balances.  Sounds great if Mexico will move
its environmental standards in our direction and we don't reduce ours.

>	So then you are saying free trade means I will be able to buy 
>goods at a cheaper price?    That the American consumer will be able to 
>The way you describe it, it sounds wonderful!

Only for consumers with jobs.  If it meant major unemployment or drastic
wage reductions, slightly cheaper prices would not help.  Of course, if
YOUR salary is secure you would enjoy having servants again.   Unfortunately
for you it really won't make that much difference.

	 George Tucker        tucker@tcville.hac.com
	GM executive says Saturn buyers can "graduate" to GM models
	that traditionally cater to older buyers.
	No wonder we have a high dropout rate.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Stupid Medical Advice
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 20:34:58 GMT

In article <ld90fkINNfpq@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> gchin@ssf.Eng.Sun.COM writes:
>>
>>Like I said before, apparently not clear enough for some people to get it...
>>Give me an alternative to abortion that stops a pregnancy and we'll
>>discuss it.
>>
>>Jennifer
>
>Have you considered getting a hysterectomy?  This common medical procedure is
>very safe and has been successfully done thousands of times.

Jennifer, should you say it or should I?  OK, I'll say it.
AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

First, the issue is to come up with an alternative to
abortion which stops an existing pregnancy.

Second, define "very safe".  A hysterectomy is significantly
less safe than an abortion; less safe than giving birth
for that matter.

Third, there is a surgical procedure ("tying" the falopian
tubes) which eliminates risk of pregnancy and is safer
than a hysterectomy.  Is it the policy of the Sun Microsystems
School of Medicine to go for surgical overkill?

>
>|-------------------|
>| Gary Chin         |
>| Staff Engineer    |
>| Sun Microsystems  |
>| Mt. View, CA      |
>| gchin@Eng.Sun.Com |
>|-------------------|


-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:15961 alt.conspiracy:11127