HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jpp@well.sf.ca.us (John P. Palmer)
Subject: Re: It gets bigger (was Re: The Big Lie)
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 00:22:36 GMT

In article <BvG5CC.6oL@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarOwl@uiuc.edu writes:
"jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes:
": anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed) writes:
": "Palmer doesn't seem to want to get caught in a lie.  He claims
": "that he has an Amnesty International report sitting in front of 
": "him which says "the U.S. killed 250,000 innocent people".
": "We're still waiting.
": Ok, here we go. Page 21:
":     Estimate of Deaths in Iraq Caused Directly or Indirectly By
":             Coalition Action During The Persian Gulf War
":                           (table 2.1)
": 
":     Iraqi Soldiers                    89,500
":     Civilians                         72,000
":     Indirect Deaths (through 1/15/92  95,000 - 120,000
":     caused by destruction of infrastructure such as sewerage treatment, 
":     and water purification plants.)
":  
":     TOTAL                             256,500 to 281,500 DEATHS
":  
": Satisfied???
"
"281,500-89,500=192,000
"
"Nope.  Even assuming that all the "civilians" and "indirect deaths" were
"innocent people you are still _at least_ 58,000 people short of your
"250,000 figure.  I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to count all of the
"Iraqi Soldiers' deaths as innocent deaths.
"
"An argument could also be made that not all of the "civilians" and "indirect
"deaths" are innocent, and your table gives no indication how these figures
"were derived.  
"
"--

Most of the Iraqi army was made up of conscripts who were recruited at 
the point of a gun. Really, it doesnt matter - they are human beings
as well. My point is that the problem could have been avoided by NOT
bombing on and after Jan 17, 1992. 

This discussion is getting off track. My point is that the Bush administration
did what it did primarily because of its rich Kuwaiti oil buddies. If
Bush really cared about dying and suffering, we would have sent troops to
Bosnia-herzegovinia by now and probably alot of other places too (like 
Somolia). Instead, we see weak, inattentive lip-service to these crises, 
which are just as demanding in terms of loss-of-life as the Iraqi 
invasion of Kuwait. If Bush really cared, he would be at the UN volunteering
500,000 US forces for both problems and pushing for a UN resolution for the
use of force. Why doesnt he? No Oil, No rich buddies to help. End of 
discussion.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: vsg001@acad.drake.edu
Subject: Re: Comments on Republican Cowardice
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 02:56:56 GMT

In article <14106.2acfc113@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu>, vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
> In article <1992Oct4.051914.26556@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
> 
> I don't have a problem with socialists. I have a problem with National
> Socialists like your ilk.
You seem to have a fetish for the Nazi's, in fact that is the only comparison
you have been able to make. Sure, comparing people to Hitler can be fun, but
Garrett, you have lost any credibility to your arguement. How about when your
High School offers a class on Nazi Germany, you be the first in line to take
it. And to satisfy your needs until then, read Rise and Fall of the Third reich
by William Shirer, or The SS: Alibi of a Nation by Gerald Reitlinger. Both are
excellent books, though they have no pictures, so you may be lost at first, but
that is natural.  

> Dude, I am sure you would have been first in line during the Nuremberg rallies
> in the '30s given the chance. Giving the 'ol 'Sieg Heil' to Pat Robertson/Buch-
> anan fits within your job description.
"Dude"? Excellent rhetoric Garrett, excellent.  wing Democrat for that matter. 
 
> You vote extreme right wing Republican, therefore you *are* fascist.
What is the "extreme right wing republican"? I'm not to sure if there *is* a
"extreme right wing Republican" or extreme left wing Democrat for that matter.
Wouldn't extremism place them into a entirely different party all together?
(I'm sure the first thing that sprung into your mind was...) 
--
Disclaimers.Disclaimers.
		VSG001@acad.drake.edu (Vince Goddard-ARCH Conservative)
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Parties are losers
Date: 5 Oct 92 17:28:50 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <Bvn0MJ.Evp@news.cso.uiuc.edu> mci41087@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Occaisionally) writes:
>I know this may not be the place, but I just thought I'd share a startling
>network revalation.  From reading posts here and in the Clinton newsgroup, I
>have come to the conclusion that Democrats are a bunch of semi-socialist 
>whiners who will propably back out of their garnds schemes if it begins to
>cut into their own pie, and Republicans are self-righteous bastards who are
>convinced that the government, the most easy to corrupt entity in existence,
>should actually control morality.  Sad.  Not as sad as my spelling above, 
>however.  My apologies.
>

On the count of three,

one

two

three

"Welcome to Usenet!!!!!!"



--
"Sounds interesting....  Sounds interesting...."
				-- Homer Simpson
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:7315 alt.politics.clinton:7952 talk.politics.misc:48776
From: kloomis@cco.caltech.edu (Kate E. Loomis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: here's slick's tax list
Date: 30 Sep 1992 22:41:41 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl) writes:

>barnejd@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
>: <TAF102@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>:>The Clinton campaign objected to George Bush saying that Clinton raised
>:>taxes 128 times but that he only raised taxes once.  If you use the same
>:>criteria that Bush/Quayle used to calculate those 128 separate tax increases
>:>and applied it to Mr. Bush's record as the New York Times did, then you would
>:>see that Bush has raised taxes more than 128 times.  Of course, the article
>:>you posted here neatly side-steps that issue, though.
>: 
>:Just as your post neatly forgets to mention the fact Bush is over a
>:government many, many times larger than that of Arkansas. 
>:Proportioally, who do you think comes out ahead?  Hmmm... I wonder?

The point of the comparison was that the criteria the Bush camp used
to come up with the numer 128 was totally bogus. They counted each 
separate component of each separate Act as one tax or fee hike. The 
Bush camp only counted the number of tax _bills_ the man signed - ie., 
one. What bulls***. As for the "128" tax increases. some examples:

1) of course, the familiar extension of the dog racing season.
2) the institution of a $500 licensing fee for abortion clinics (boy,
I bet George _wishes_ he could have passed this one...)
3) an additional $1 fee to convicted criminals for court costs.
4) an additional 50 cents license renewal fee.

etc. Get the picture?? The "128 taxes and fee hikes" is a STUPID, 
issue, contrived by the DESPARATE Bush camp to DELIBERATELY mislead 
the American public. The issue in this election ... who do you trust??!

Kate


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Democrats & Hippocracy
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 00:26:47 GMT

In article <BAGCHI.92Oct4124229@quip.eecs.umich.edu> bagchi@eecs.umich.edu (Ranjan Drzzzzt!  Bagchi) writes:
>	Don't meant to be culturally elit(e) or anything, but
>it's spelled "Hypocrisy."

Unless we're discussing a society in which the ruling elite consisted of
large, riverine mammals.


--
"Sounds interesting....  Sounds interesting...."
				-- Homer Simpson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Them Democratic handlers sure are smart!
Date: 7 Oct 92 01:48:20 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Distribution: usa
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]


  Boy, those Democrats sure know how to counter Bush's appearance on Larry
King on Sunday.  They had Clinton and Gore dressed up in their blue jeans
and rolled up shirt sleeves on Monday.  I guess these guys are common folk
just like us!  Too bad they forgot to remove the price tags and iron out
the creases from the store shelves which the clothes were sitting on that
afternoon.  I'll bet they even had them eat supper at McDonalds before the
show!
  The gullability of the American electorate continues to amaze me.

-- 
Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The question is - who do you trust to make change work | These pontifications
for you?" - President George Bush                       |      are my own!    
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:7565 alt.politics.clinton:8264 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6231
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Public Education (Was: Re: Family Leave)
Date: 3 Oct 1992 04:32:20 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbang.berkeley.edu

In article <1afrioINNnuf@bigboote.WPI.EDU> jseaver@yaya.WPI.EDU (Jason John Seaver) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.133331.2763@news.uiowa.edu> williams@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Kent Williams) writes:
>>Let's get down to cases -- Norfolk Public Schools.  The public schools
>>are for poor people.  Nobody of any means send their kids to public schools.
>>The public schools suck.

>	2)  Under the present system, only people with money could send their
>		children to private schools.
>	3)  With School Choice, the "poor" could send their kids to private
>		schools.

Hmmm. Last I saw, a Bush voucher was worth about $1000. But private
school tuition (secular) runs at least $6000. I don't see the poor
scraping up the other 7K. Sure, a few people on the margin will be able
to use private school for the first time. The public schools fo the poor
will become more of a dumping ground. The middle-class is supposed to
fall in love with Bush for what amounts to a $1K tax cut.

The numbers on the private school vouchers don't add up.

andy
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: The essence of Clinton
Date: 6 Oct 92 07:51:13 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio


You have asked me to elaborate.  So here goes:

I am concerned about Clinton's tax policies.  I hope to be successful
finacially, and I don't want to penalized for that success in the form
of high taxes.   I would also like to know how Clinton feels about financial
aid for college students--how would average middle-class students be affected??
Now about how my career plans might be affected: I plan to be a writer, and
I worry about the chance that I might run afoul of the politically correct
crowd--they might have alot more power under Clinton--because something I
wrote was critical ofClinton, if he's the President.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli)
Subject: Re: Bush's failing health
Organization: Mentor Graphics -- IC Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:25:30 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.134434.14514@sei.cmu.edu> jjs@sei.cmu.edu (Jeffrey Stewart) writes:
>     I used to see the occasional "how the presidency ages you" story in the 
>various news magazines, showing "before" and "after" pictures of past 
>presidents.  The change was usually dramatic, even for one-term presidents.  
>The change was always attributed to "the stress of the presidency."

So you agree that he is showing wear.  I still think the economy should
be the #1 issue, but the #2 issue should be Bush's health.

NOBODY WANTS A PRESIDENT QUAYLE!

Tom
-- 
Tom Limoncelli -- tal@warren.mentorg.com (work) -- tal@plts.uucp (play)
"I like Bill Clinton tremendously.  I know him from the governors' conferences.
The Democrats nominated their best person, a very able fellow.  The country is
well served by that choice." -Bush's re-election chair in NJ (Thomas Kean)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: Comrade Clinton
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 12:54:00 GMT
Organization: Austerlitz, Gershovitz, and Carmichael

In article <1992Oct6.043550.7425@sma2.rain.com> fred@sma2.rain.com (Fred Brooks) writes:
>A check of the passport records for Bill Clinton for the 69-70 time period
>has revealed that the pages for that period are missing from the state
>department records. The FBI is looking into this matter now.
>I wonder who has them?
>
The same people who have Bush's 1980 passport records I'd imagine.
-- 
Coach Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> Season: 1-5 Lifetime: 1-7
Ask me about my 1 game win streak!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: New debate format
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 22:22:00 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

gratrix@spot.Colorado.EDU (Jackie Gratrix) writes:
: I would like to suggest a format for the upcoming presidential
: debates, based on the 1970's game "The Gong Show".
: 
: With this format, you would have a moderator asking questions,
: with a panel of three journalists who, when feeling the candidate
: was lying, dodging a question, or giving a stupid answer, 
: would then be at liberty to "gong" him.

YES!  That's it!  I love it!   :)

--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92



Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Re: Public Education (Was: Re: Family Leave)
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory
	<1992Oct1.133331.2763@news.uiowa.edu> <1afrioINNnuf@bigboote.WPI.EDU>
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 02:21:21 GMT

In article <1afrioINNnuf@bigboote.WPI.EDU> jseaver@yaya.WPI.EDU (Jason John Seaver) writes:

	   Someone point out the logic in this argument.  As I see it:

	   1)  Under the present system, Norfolk's schools don't work.
	   2)  Under the present system, only people with money could send their
		   children to private schools.
	   3)  With School Choice, the "poor" could send their kids to private
		   schools.

Oh really? So, let me understand this. Either there is no differential in
the tuition costs between the public and private schools, or the voucher
will simply cover the difference. Right?

Or, (reality), the voucher pays a fixed amount, which is adequate for
children in public schools, and gets supplemented by additional funds from
the parents who can afford to pay the difference. The poor kids whose
parents can't possibly afford it will end up stuck in the public school
system, while the more affluent kids will get the private education,
subsedized by public school tax revenues.

Meanwhile, the public schools will have their funding decreased
porportionately and become even worse. That funding will end up
benefitting private schools and make them even better.

Sounds like a good way to further polarize the poor and rich. And the poor
get the short end of the educational stick.

		   - BUT -

	   School Choice is bad, and it shows that Bush would be "punishing"
   people.

	   Go figure.
					   -Jay

I've got nothing against private schools, I just think they should be paid
for completely by *private* funds.

L.
"Yeh, Buddy..            | larry@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_
 I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)
 Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\ 
 (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
"We will be asking them to join with us. I'm also going to ask them to help us
to change Congress. It's not just enough to change the president if we want to
change America." - Dan Quayle, on courting Ross Perot's supporters. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: garrett@Ingres.COM 
Subject: Re: Tom Selleck on Arsenio
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Summary: Trickle down
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 6 Oct 92 02:22:25 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.195918.1@acad.drake.edu>, vsg001@acad.drake.edu                               writes...
>In article <5822@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>> 
>How true. Jack Kemp said something similar:
>"Conservatives define compassion not by the number of people who receive some
>kind of government aid but rather by the number of people who no longer need
>it."

This explains why the Reagan-Bush administration started to drop people off
the unemployment numbers if they were under-employed, or "have given up
finding a job" in the mid-eighties. That way there are fewer people 
who no longer "need" government aid.

>Disclaimers.Disclaimers.
>		VSG001@acad.drake.edu (Vince Goddard-ARCH Conservative

-Garrett
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush & Clinton Acceptance Speeches
Date: 26 Sep 92 18:41:00 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

Not that I don't appreciate the work done for this analysis, but if a
voter decides his/her selection of a candidate because of a reduced
number of syntactical or grammatical mistakes, then this country's got
some strange selection criteria.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	No social life & damn proud of it.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: cassidy@cps.msu.edu (John J Cassidy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Voting for the Hometown Kid (was Another example...)
Date: 2 Oct 92 18:20:59 GMT
Reply-To: cassidy@cps.msu.edu (John J Cassidy)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Michigan State University
Originator: cassidy@cypress.cps.msu.edu

In article <1992Sep29.120356.6866@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>
>(Btw, if any of you out there are unfamiliar with ex-Texan John
>Silber, just picture a Ross Perot with three billion less dollars, one
>less working arm, and none of the charm, charisma or social skills.)
>
>-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

	...and a heck of alot more brains, reasoning, and arguing potential.


	John J Cassidy		cassidy@cps.msu.edu
	~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR)
Subject: Re: Draft constitutionality
Summary: Yes!  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Distribution: usa
Date: 2 Oct 92 03:48:10 GMT

In article <1advl6INNlj2@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, aphrael@cats.ucsc.edu (Robert Dan writes...
> 
>Interesting proposal, that Selective Service be abolished.
>Of course, it doesn't need to be abolished.
>It's illegal to begin with and, as a result, is not binding. 
> 
>"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude," the 13th amendment says,
>and a draft certainly qualifies as involuntary service.

Amen! How can I sign up for this? 

BTW, for future debate, there was no draft in the US until 1863 (the 
same year our country violated the Constitution by issuing paper money). 
And when the draft was imposed we experienced the worst rioting in our
countries history (2,000 died in New York).

-Garrett
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:6795 talk.politics.misc:48059
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: More republican Cowardice at Penn State
Date: 27 Sep 92 17:13:39 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <Bv0009.299@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

> TAF102@psuvm.psu.edu writes:

>> What's even worse...and the original poster did not point out...is
>> that ole George's appearance here at Penn State is being held on
>> campus...but the site--a lawn--is being roped off.  Area Republicans
>> have already given away 12,000 tickets to Republicans from 24
>> surrounding counties so that these people can stand toward the front
>> of the crowd.  [...]

> This is fascinating -- it sounds like the sort of stuff that tin horn
> dictators in various totalitarian regimes do.

Yes -- just exactly like what Mike Dukakis of the Peoples Republic of
Massachesetts did here at Rutgers back in '88.

> No doubt the Bush campaign will show footage of the President's "warm
> and enthusiastic reception by students at Penn State" in their ads.

And no doubt like what the Dukakis campaign had hoped to do with the
Rutgers rally.  But they couldn't.  We saw to that.  (We shouted him
down.)
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:7605 alt.politics.clinton:8318 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6248