HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 23:38:41 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <MATT.92Sep10152021@physics2.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>In article <BuDu1u.AHM@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>> >	(2) Every major newspaper I have seen has a "business" section,
>> >	    complete with many pages of information that is of interest
>> >	    only to well-off investors.  When is the last time you saw
>> >	    a newspaper with a "labor" section?
>>
>>   What would you put in a "labor" section that would be similarly
>>   useful in decision-making?
>
>Whose decisions, and decisions about what?

  About "labor" (look, this was *your* idea, I expect you to 
  explain it).

>It's not hard for me to think of information that would be of
>practical interest for people who are doing union organizing.

  But union organizing only applies to a miniscule part of the
  work force.   I'm a software engineer; we're not unionized 
  and I certainly wouldn't want to be.  But I am labor.  A
  "Labor" section of a newspaper that was only about organized
  labor would be like a Business section that only discussed
  municipal bonds!


---peter


 

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 15:41:24 GMT

In article <9067@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <lb1ivgINNns0@spim.mips.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>
>>You mean the Maria Shriver that is a member of the Kennedy clan and
>>the wife of Democratic VP candidate?  
>
>You're half right.  Maria Shriver is a Kennedy, but she is married to
>Arnold Scharzaneger (sp?).  Arnold has been known to be active in
>REPUBLICAN circles.

	And, since Arnolds father was a Nazi SS Officer, this means that she
is not related to Deomcrats, Republicans and Facists. With connections like
these, she could be a press agent for the Illuminatti.


-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement that 
encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice 
witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians. - Pat Robertson 1992
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 13:24:51 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Sep9.193103.10145@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>mp> Michael Polen
>
>mp> As with all "hollywood elite" concerns, media bias is a non issue.  If 
>mp> people didn't agree with the bent of newscasters, they would watch some-
>mp> thing else.
>
>  Meaning what? That newscasters would therefore be forced to try to regain
>  these non-viewers by changing their bias to accomodate the widest market?
>  Has this happened? Can the major networks afford to tilt their news towards
>  a smaller segment of the market and still be successful? 'Twould seem so.


  And again I say: it's a free market.  People have the choice of other
  sources for their news.  The thesis that NBC/CBS/CNN/ABC are a bunch 
  of liberal elite preaching to a mainly conservative audience makes no
  sense -- I spent years as a shortwave listener and used to log such
  stations as Radio Moscow, Radio Havana Cuba, etc and believe me, it
  gets very grating listening to news with a political slant that goes
  against one's own.   So we have to consider some other thesis, which
  might include:

  1.  ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN are not really that liberal.     Possible, depending
      on one's defintion of "liberal", i.e., a western European Social
      Democrat would certainly find them "conservative", but personally
      I think they are liberal by US standards.

  2.  The viewers are not so conservative.   Maybe the general public
      is conservative but the the viewers are a liberal subset.  Or maybe
      the general public is not so conservative as Quayle, et al, think.

  3.  The viewers *are* conservative, the networks *are* liberal, but:
   
    3a  they watch this stuff for hoots and grins, all the while making
        fun of Tom Brokaw, et al

    3b  They cringe through the whole thing but put up with it for some 
        perverse masochistic reasons or because conservatives are stupider
        than anyone here ever imagined and it does not occur to them to
        turn off their TV's and seek alternate news sources.

   4. We have a flawed definition of "liberal" and "conservative".  What-
      ever the viewers are, and whatever the networks are, the networks
      are giving people something which resonates with their world-view
      and values.  


   Personally I say "4".  I can think of no other likely explanation
   for why, in a world of media choices, we get the results we do.  


---peter
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: sex-ed
Date: 11 Sep 92 18:51:21 GMT
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations


	I would like to request that only people with children
enrolled in U.S. public schools, who are near the age at which
theyt are expected to study sex-ed, should publish.
	Everyone else has at best their own agenda.
	So post if you have kids of age in public school in the U.S.

				J. Wagner
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4372 alt.politics.homosexuality:5782
From: fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Biblical Bullsh*t
Date: 8 Sep 92 16:58:05 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:

>- "Hate the sin, love the sinner" is 
>- the most applicable thing I can think of at the moment.

>That statement is a form of bashing.  Bible or no Bible, you cannot
>separate homosexuality from the homosexual.  Hating the "sin" is
>definitely the same thing as hating the "sinner."

If that's true, then how can it be that the New York Catholic Archdiocese 
was running hospices for AIDS patients and admitting AIDS patients to its
hospitals at a time when other major New York hospitals were turning them
away?

-ACF
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: pck@acsu.buffalo.edu (Philip C. Kilinskas)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.rights.human,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs (was Re: Clinton's Gestapo/Plan for takeover)
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:58:37 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: UB

cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR) writes:


>I'm not a cocaine addict because:
>	d) it's something the lower-classes do

Hmmm... the "lower-classes" have sex, also.  May I assume you're a virgin,
and planning to stay that way?
____________________________________________________________________________
pck@acsu.buffalo.edu /  "Our days are like grass..." - Psalms 103:51
Your eyes are weary from staring at the CRT.  You feel sleepy.  Notice how
restful it is to watch the cursor blink.  Close your eyes.  The opinions
stated above are yours.  You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Hiding? Who's hiding? was CRISP: WHY ARE YOU HIDING?
Keywords: Buttfucker, Lee, Campbell
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 03:15:29 GMT


Crisp, of course, shows his characteristic modesty, understanding and
wit.  This is an archetypal post from him, obviously.


In article <#ymnhcd.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>
>
>Contrary to rumors, I am not hiding. I just have very little to add to
>this inane "newsgroup". I have said what I have to say, have heard the
>abuse and other illogical and rectally extracted comments from the 
>liberals, queers and other dregs of society that support the buffoon 
>from Arkansas. 
>
>You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. In short
>I have attempted to highlight the dangerous policies being espoused
>by the DumbOCrats, and if you folks don't listen, believe or agree,
>what else can I do?
>
>Have fun with your circle jerk!
>
>
>-- 
>Richard Crisp                 Cupertino, Ca.                crisp@netcom.com
>(415) 903-3832 wk  "Time for a clean sweep of Congress"   (408) 253 4541 fax
>
>A government that is afraid of an armed populace is a government
>the populace should be afraid of.


--
Sweet Thames, run softly till I end my song
Sweet Thames, run softly, for I speak not loud or long.
			-- T.S. Eliot, "The Wasteland"
From: liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton's Health Ideas.
Date: 10 Sep 92 17:29:24 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto

In article <1992Sep10.160138.16096@watson.ibm.com> johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.000819.9854@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>, golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>|> I dare wager that a faw fewer percentage of Canadians have to
>|> wait in health care lines in clinics and emergency rooms and 
>|> a far greater percentage of Canadians have greater doctor choice
>|> than Americans, if you include the uninsured and the underinsured
>|> in the American numbers. 
>
>Yes -- by design.  If you can't pay the bill, you're hardly in a
>position to complain about waiting in line.  In Canada, EVERYBODY
>waits in line.  This is progress?

Oh really?  where is the line?  I can't find the line!  ;->
>
>|> The so-called private American system is as socialized as any in
>|> the world...except it is a caste socialism, with immense subsidization
>|> of health care for particular elite classes, and hardly any for others.
>
>This is an interesting claim.  In what way is health care for the
>elite immensely subsidized in the United States?
>
>|> Canadians are not crossing the border in droves to receive care,
>|> and although there are occassionally delays for elective surgery,
>|> polls always show Canadians are among the most satisfied people
>|> in the world with our health care system.
>
>Sure...especially the people who aren't paying for it.  Why don't you
>tell us what the taxes are like in Canada?

yes, but why don't you tell us how much your Company is paying for
your health care + the taxes that going to the health care system
in the US?  

add up the numbers, you will find Canada is spending per person
than the US is spending.  Are you still going to claim private
insurers are much more efficent than the government?  I guess
so, they are much efficent at ripping you off.  

>
>-- 
>John Iacoletti    IBM AWD Austin    Internet: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com
>        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
>"Now I laugh and make a fortune off the same ones that I tortured, and the
>  world screams, 'Kiss me, son of God'" -- TMBG
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu (Chris Peterson)
Subject: Re: Will someone tell me the truth?
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center - Greenbelt, MD, USA
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Reply-To: a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Distribution: usa
Keywords: lies truth taxes
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 17:05:31 GMT
X-Posted-From: phobos.ucc.umass.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <5156@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes...
>walsh@spider.wri.com (Jerry Walsh) writes:
>:fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298) writes:
>:>The truth is:
>:[biased and broad general characterizations of two major parties]
>L[Now, about Bill Clinton, I presume:]
>:>He did inhale.
>:How do you know?
>Who really cares? But the way he answered the question regarding his
>"experimentation" with marijuana makes him look very suspect.
> 

If you've ever heard him talk about this issue after he made the "I didn't
inhale" comment he makes himself a lot clearer.  He basically says
when he made the "I didn't inhale" comment, he wasn't trying to be coy
or "slick" it was simply the truth.  He said that he "tried and tried and tried"
but he just couldn't inhale the smoke, since he wasn't used to smoking 
anything.  I find that explanation very true, believe me from experience :).

-Chris
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies (was: Re: Legalized Theft)
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 02:12:39 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content


jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:

: >Sure, but you could have found it in the almanac yourself if your brain
: >rate. Under Carter, the miltary was excluded from the calculations. Now
: >it's included.
: 
: Since the military is voluntary and an employer, I'd say that the military
: should be included.  Why not?  Aren't civil service jobs included too?

If you had been more carefull in your editing, you might have noticed
that Andrew was trying to defend his point that unemployment
did not really peak under Carter in the late 70's to early 80's.  It
peaked under Reagan.  The change in calculation methods was (IMHO) a
gimmick to make things apparently improve overnight.

: Again, peaked WHICH YEAR under Reagan.

Year	Unemployment Rate
----	----------------
1970		4.9
1975		8.5
1978		6.1
1980		7.1
1981		7.6
1982		9.7
1983		9.6
1984		7.5

etc.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"I'll have to check with my 
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			 Dad."  -- Dan Quayle before 
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD				running for the Senate
Anonymous: wi5467@wizvax.methuen.ma.us		"Go ahead; you won't win."
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher     	-- Dan Quayle's dad	

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5539 talk.politics.misc:45603 alt.politics.bush:5214
From: rdc00a@nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil (HMCM Kelly Pedersen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Informed voter (was Re: SC rally)
Date: 14 Sep 92 16:59:07 GMT
Organization: Naval Medical R&D Command

In article <1685FEBFF.PA113718@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA113718@utkvm1.utk.edu writes:
>Xref: nmrdc1 alt.politics.clinton:433 talk.politics.misc:37543 alt.politics.bush:448 alt.politics.elections:5339
>Path: nmrdc1!nocusuhs!mimsy!cvl!haven.umd.edu!uunet!gatech!willis.cis.uab.edu!utkcs2!utkux1.utk.edu!utkvm1.utk.edu!PA113718
>From: PA113718@utkvm1.utk.edu
>Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
>Subject: Re: Informed voter (was Re: SC rally)
>Message-ID: <1685FEBFF.PA113718@utkvm1.utk.edu>
>Date: 11 Sep 92 21:46:43 GMT
>References: <1992Sep9.164638.23642@henson.cc.wwu.edu> <ART.92Sep10113550@world.std.com> <1992Sep10.203312.7404@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> <1992Sep11.182310.4903@newsgate.sps.mot.com>
>Sender: usenet@utkux1.utk.edu (USENET News System)
>Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
>Lines: 27
>In article <1992Sep11.182310.4903@newsgate.sps.mot.com>
>titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:
>
>>
>>Lighten up Dr.
>>
>>Unless it's a hobby or part of your profession you're making a silly investment
>>of your time.  One vote won't change any election, therefore no wise voter will
>>work to become INFORMED.  I sincerely hope you have a better life than that.
>>--
>
If one vote won't change an election (or help) I've missed something.  Is
there an organization out there that votes in blocks?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,tx.politics
From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Re: The debates about health care
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 01:42:53 GMT

In article <CHRISF.92Sep11211202@thor.albany.edu> chrisf@csc.albany.edu (Slasher) writes:
>	2) Wouldn't we STILL have the same argument from the Republicans 
>	   that we're forcing this plan on businesses and are going to really
>	   hurt them?

  Actually, I have a few problems with forcing health care costs on
Businesses.  I'll briefly outline them and maybe spark some debate:

1)  It is just another attempt to hide the cost of a government action
by forcing its cost on "businesses".  Of course, businesses are really
people, not faceless taxpayers.  The costs comes out of our pockets one
way or another. (In the form of reduced wages or lost jobs if nothing
else.)

2)  It increases the cost of labor for businesses, quite probably
resulting in lost jobs.  This is especially true for small businesses
who just can't afford the sort of health care costs that would likely
be dumped on them over the long run.  Small businesses have been
the main area of this country's job growth for quite some time.

  In fact, an economist I read has speculated that the slow growth
of hiring is in part related to the fear that Clinton might win
and force higher health care costs.  (He surveyed some small
businesses to draw this conclusion.)  In truth, Clinton hasn't specified
his plan and really hasn't specified how it would be paid for,
but this was the economist's opinion from his survey. (So, flame me for not 
having the exact quote on hand.)


3)  It tends to tie people to their job.  Rich Williamson points out
that 85% of our "uninsured" Americans are "uninsured" for about 3-6 months
while they are temporarily unemployed.  I think that having health
insurance tied to your job is a bad.  It encourages job stagnation
and leaves people in the cold when they are out of work.  Just because 
businesses are the major supplier of health care insurance under our current 
system, is no reason to perpetuate the problem.

  In fact, for these reasons I think we should try to get health care
Costs _out_ of being the responsibility of businesses.  It may make the
costs more visible to Americans to do so, but that in itself may be good.
>
>Understand that I'm not tearing this plan apart; I think it would be a huge
>step in the right direction, and could even be used to phase in Clinton's
>proposal... have you written Clinton HQ's and suggested it?

  Understand that I am not commenting on Judy's plan specifically, just
some problems I see with tying health care to Jobs.

Pat


-- 
Patrick Sugent				E-mail me if you really want  
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		a response.  My USENET reading
(708) 447-1771				is haphazard at best.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
From: forbush@vxdesy.desy.de
Subject: Re: Helping business
Organization: (DESY, Hamburg, Germany)
Distribution: alt.politics.clinton
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:30:56 GMT

> 
>>> 
>>> If we REALLY want to be pro-business, perhaps we should re-instate slavery;
>>> if employers didn't have to pay their employees, they could be much more 
>>> competitive.  :)  My question is, when does it end?  When do we take enough
>>> away from employees to say "Now our companies can compete"?  Maybe we should,
>>> just for a little while, try the reverse philosophy and actually HELP
>>> workers...
>>> 
>>> I don't want to get too sidetracked, but who here really thinks that the
>>> cost of health care for all Americans is what the Republicans say?  I mean,
>>> if we spend the money on health care, these people will be able to take
>>> the money they once paid on medical costs and use it elsewhere.  Something
>>> else will have to benefit.
> 
> The cost 'could ' be very high if the government does
> impose ceilings for the cost of procedures.
> 

Before I get flamed... I ment to say

 The cost 'could ' be very high if the government does NOT
 impose ceilings for the cost of procedures.

-- 
Mike Forbush
forbush@panofsky.desy.de

And now for the funny part....

 We are ready for any unforseen event that may or may not occur
       -- Vice President Dan Quayle, September 1990  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: carlson@ab24.larc.nasa.gov (Ann Carlson)
Subject: Re: Biblical Bullsh*t
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 18:42:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.150715.27352@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, jon@Turing.ORG (Jon Gefaell (KD4CQY)) writes:
|>  
|> I've been thinking about this lately, and the only New Testament Christian
|> Bile^H^Hble references condemning homosexuality seem to have been written
|> by Paul (Saul of Tarsus, taxman) IS this correct? You know what they say
|> about Paul :)             ???
|> 
|> I'd really like to know, I suppose...

Yes, it's true.  And even there it's not at all clear that Paul was talking
about homosexuality as we perceive it.  Common practices at that time were
cult prostitution (or both homo- and hetero-sexual acts involved in the worship
of some god), and prostitution involving young boys.  The cities to which 
Paul wrote including these instructions are known to have had one or the other
or both of these practices occuring, and many scholars believe that the 
injunctions are against such.  Comdemning practices regarding the worship
of other gods, and practices involving unwilling participants are far more
in agreement with the larger body of scripture than is condemning same-sex
love - about which the Bible is largely silent.
-- 



*************************************************      
*Dr. Ann B. Carlson (carlson@ab24.larc.nasa.gov)*       O .
*MS 366                                         *         o  _///_ //
*NASA Langley Research Center                   *          <`)=  _<<
*Hampton, VA 23681-0001                         *             \\\  \\
*************************************************
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5448 talk.politics.misc:45491 alt.rush-limbaugh:4850