HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Quayle Now Expert on Homosexuality
Date: 15 Sep 92 00:45:45 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Sep14.173715.7082@PacBell.COM> rjwill6@pbsdts.sdcrc.pacbell.com (Rod Williams) writes:
>George Stephanopoulos, Mr. Clinton's spokesman, countered the
>Vice President's comments, saying affirmative-action laws were
>needed to protect workers' rights.

Well, not all workers' rights, it really depends on the color
of your skin, gender and sexual orientation, doesn't it?  You
might even say that affirmative action programs "discriminate"
based on these features.

Now, before I get charred here, let me say that while I believe
that the approach taken with affirmative action programs in
this country is wrong, its goals are worthwhile.  Flame away.

>
>--------------------------- end of article ------------------------
>-- 
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>rod williams -=- pacific bell -=- san francisco -=- rjwill6@pacbell.com
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------


-- 
Anwar Mohammed                FREE       Graduate Student
anwar+@cs.cmu.edu              THE       School of Computer Science
Voice: +1 412 268 3043     KUWAITI       Carnegie-Mellon University
Fax:   +1 412 681 5739        POWS       Pittsburgh, PA  15213-3890
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: mmarx@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Matthew Marx)
Subject: Re: Anti-Clinton posters
Organization: Stanford University CSLI
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 20:50:58 GMT

In article <14819@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds) whines:
>
>These groups would really help the political process if we could use the 
>usenet for helping the people seeking the highest office spread their ideas
>and talk about their plans and programs for the future with out a bunch of
>"draft dodger" comments from people that arent going to vote for them anyway.

Perhaps a moderated alt.elections.info newsgroup would serve this purpose.

>So what does that say ? You have nothing better to do than sit around and 
>badmouth this candidate because your's has no program on which to stand 
>(or run), you dont see me on alt.politics.bush do you ??????
> 
Did I badmouth Clinton in this post? No, I shot down the implication
that it's only the anti-Clintonites who are crossposting and clogging
up things. If you believe that, I've got this bridge...

>
>>Deal with it.
>
>Get a (candidate) life !

I haven't committed myself to voting for either candidate yet. So
there. ASS/(mostly)U/ME.




-- 
Matt Marx     mmarx@csli.stanford.edu           
No News (is bad news)
No mail for mmarx (is worse)

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Helping business, health care costs
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: alt.politics.clinton
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 17:40:51 GMT

In article <92258.195810DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.164955.831@sma2.rain.com>, fred@sma2.rain.com (Fred Brooks) says:
>>In article <1992Sep14.113746.1@vxdesy.desy.de> forbush@vxdesy.desy.de writes:
>>>As far as the German health care system goes, I think that it
>>>offers more at a cheaper rate than the US. My wife had
>>>a baby in Germany for $1000.00. I can't believe that anyone in the
>>>US could do that.
>>
>>My health cost is $25 per month with my company Kaiser Health Plan. The
>>total cost for the birth of my last child was $7.50.
>
>That's very relevant.  Compare the total costs in the German system to the
>out-of-pocket price for a well-insured American.  Do you really think it
>only cost the hospital $7.50 to deliver?  I'll lay you money the total
>cost of the delivery was at least twice the German rate.

I'm looking forward to hearing why Kaiser must be more expensive than
the German system, as Kaiser actually is a single-payer system.  Its
facilities are dedicated to its customers, so there's no inherent
overhead beyond checking the "is this one of our customers" card at
the door.  Shea insists that overhead is a significant part of any
difference, yet insists that a no-overhead US provider doesn't have
significantly lower costs.

Kaiser collects a flat sum, just like a govt-run single-payer system
would, and provides care without worrying about consumption by
specific individuals.  It keeps track of overall usage, so that it can
allocate resources and accurately set the flat rate, but every system
has to do that.  (Kaiser pays its personnel a salary, so there's the
only "is he pulling his weight" accounting for employees.)

In other words, it has all of the properties that Shea insists are
necessary for significant savings in overhead.  Shea insists that
overhead is significant, but then asserts that a system with those
properties doesn't have the cost advantage he insisted it would.
Hmm.  Is it that Kaiser isn't a govt office?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: rjwill6@PacBell.COM (Rod Williams)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: sex-ed
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 12 Sep 92 17:38:45 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Francisco

> wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) writes:

> 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.

What about those of us who don't have children, but whose
taxes go to pay for cleaning up the messy results of
inadequate or non-existent sex education?
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
rod williams -=- pacific bell -=- san francisco -=- rjwill6@pacbell.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: Biblical Bullsh*t
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Episcopal Church Foundation at UIUC
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 02:07:41 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
: jfed@athena.mit.edu (Jude G Federspiel) writes:

[Jude's Bible anti-homosexual quotes elided]
 
: You know, all of this stuff has been used as an excuse for bigotry and
: gay-bashing...of the most violent sort.  If this is part of the
: Christian agenda, then to hell with Christianity.

It's not part of the Christian agenda.  It's part of the paranoid Fundy
Christian agenda.  

I wonder if Jude, in hir "the Bible should be Law" mode, remembers to
not eat bacon or pork-chops, and to not wear clothing made from two
types of fabric.

: But, see, I don't for one minute *believe* that it is a Christian
: agenda.  I think it's an agenda for those who use their Bible to
: *hide* thier insecurities.
: 
: - And as for a _non-Biblical_ Christian, well, such a thing exists in name
: - only.  
: 
: Nonsense.  I know many of them.  They follow the basic ideals ("Love
: thy neighbor," for instance).  They just don't take the Bible as
: literally as some.

Thank-you!  I sometimes wonder if the tame, mostly harmless real Christians
are overlooked due to the noise-making of the Fundies.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi5467@wizvax.methuen.ma.us			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher                                     


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
X-Newsgroup-Comments: Goodness I am getting tired of having to rearrange these Newsgroup: lines to get them so that they will be accepted by my news server.... :)
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 20:51:26 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

: >I believe that, if a person is willing to work hard and work long, that
: >person should be rewarded with a new 486/50 DX with a 330MB SCSI, 64MB
: >RAM, SVGA monitor and an Exabyte 2.3GB 8mm tape drive.
: 
: >Oh.  Health care is a "right".  I keep forgetting that basic liberal
: >assumption.  Now, why isn't it that a nice computer isn't a "right"?
: >I keep forgetting.
: 
: Because lack of health care, like lack of food, water, etc., will kill
: you and lack of that computer typically won't?

I don't know; some of us are mighty dependent on our computers!  :)

--
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: apb.3995@n7kbt.rain.com		"Go ahead; you won't win."
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher     	-- Dan Quayle's dad	
Marrou/Lord in '92

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4632 talk.politics.misc:44433 alt.rush-limbaugh:4460 alt.politics.bush:4545 alt.politics.elections:12710
From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Date: 9 Sep 1992 22:00:19 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.

In article <1685DE28A.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu>, MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Sep9.182041.13703@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
>       [...]
> >> How many of you saw this?  What did you think?  How many of you didn't
> >> know about this because your TV station or newspaper chose to deny you
> >> this knowledge?
> >>
> >> Jim Del Vecchio
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Oh yeah, I always trust my local beer-swizzling red-necks with fifth
> >grade educations to give me their in-depth political commentary :-).
> >
> My supporters are thoughtful, caring people; yours are beer-swilling
> rednecks. Do I detect a value judgement? Very unmutual of you.

This is only a commentary on the importance of the draft dodging
issue and how some
people have been fooled by their own biases to believe it is a real
issue. It is funny how the people who are hurt the worst by Bush's
policies are the easiest to fool.

>  
> >Seiously though... this is just another irrelevancy in a long string of
> >irrelevancies being bandied about. It just proves that Bush can fool
> >some of the people most of the time.
>  
> Selective reporting is irrelevant? Only to those whose decisions are not
> affected by factual reporting, I suppose. I'll bet this is one of the
> same posters who denied there was any tilt in the convention reporting,
> too ;-)

This was not a comment on the relevancy of biased reporting, it was a comment
on the irrelevancy of the draft dodging non-issue.

> >
> >Dr. Norman J. LaFave
> 
> 

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5103 talk.politics.misc:45088 alt.politics.bush:4872
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Date: 13 Sep 92 03:36:46 GMT
	<ART.92Sep11032801@world.std.com>
	<1992Sep11.145525.1488@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
	<ART.92Sep11122717@world.std.com> <TOMSTER.92Sep12211205@wpi.WPI.EDU>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

In article <TOMSTER.92Sep12211205@wpi.WPI.EDU> tomster@wpi.WPI.EDU (Thomas Richard Dibble) writes:

   In article <ART.92Sep11122717@world.std.com> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:

   [much, much, much bickerring and tramping about deleted]

      Gee, Dr. when you sneer at others in public as ignorant louts you open
      yourself up to public rejoinders.  I wouldn't have jumped on you if you
      hadn't called them "beer-swizzling red-necks with fifth grade
      educations".  I know everybody makes spelling mistakes, but when you hold
      yourself out as somehow more intelligent or better educated you assume an
      obligation to demonstrate this status.

   I'm sorry, but this is about the only thing significant I have seen come out
   of this entire diatribe.  Such a truth, Dr!  Let me change it a bit:

	   Gee, Dr. when you decide you want to rise above the crowd a bit,
	   whether as a movie star or a presidential candidate, you open yourself
	   up to public rejoinders.

Well, you'd have a point if the good Dr. were rising on the basis of
something he'd accomplished.  Unfortunately all he can do is state
opinion as fact and when pressed for documentation fail to deliver it.
Then, after failing the most rudimentary evidentiary requirements he
sneers at those less educated than he.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: rbw3q@helga9.acc.Virginia.EDU (Robert B. Whitehurst)
Subject: Re: Patriotism (was Re: alt.politics.clinton)
Organization: University of Virginia
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 03:33:01 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.190043.7426@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <1992Sep8.000005.1@vaxb.acs.unt.edu> matrix@vaxb.acs.unt.edu writes:
>>I'm curious, and want to find out how patriotic people are.  Bill Clinton
>>dodge the draft.  I consider him a coward.  I just got out of the Marines and
>>spent my time fighting for this country.  Why would I want to vote for a man
>>that dodged the draft?
>>
>>This is my question, are you really going to vote for this man?  A man that 
>>runs from a fight.  What's going to happen if we end up in a war. (Which could
>>very well happen with the state the world is in right now.)
>
...
>anti-war movement.  In any case, to simply label as unpatriotic those
>who disagree with you verges on blind nationalism.  "America, love it
>or leave it?"  And one may think that someone who would not go lightly
>into war would be better for our country.
>
>>LIBERAL == An in-secure person, who is a scared hypocrit, believes in the rich
>>	   paying for everything, but for them not to have to do anything, 
>>	   and believes homosexuality is normal.
>
>I'm sure that we could come up with something equally as charitable
>for you.

	Well, to be fair, this guy just did get out of the Marines.
While the USM may be the sharpest spearpoint in the world, they don't
train their men in critical political thought, and I don't blame
them.  Also, there's a certain high, I'm sure, to being in combat,
doing the job, and getting out safe.  A couple of guys I knew who were
in the Marines definitely did some thought recalibration when they got
out, but it took a few years.  All said, I've still got to give the
D.S. troops credit for a sharp job.  Too bad they were reined back.

-- 

Brad Whitehurst    |   Aerospace Research Lab
rbw3q@Virginia.EDU |   We like it hot...and fast.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: mmarx@csli.stanford.edu (Matthew Marx)
Subject: two jokes (one for each side)
Organization: CSLI, Stanford University
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 18:46:40 GMT

On Jay Leno last night (paraphrased):

Yeah, Clinton's got a plan to reduce the size of the military. He's
going to put his uncle in charge!



In a clari.news.politics story:

At a Bush speech yesterday, hecklers responded to Bush supporters'
chants of "Four More Years" with a sarcastic "Four More Months!"




-- 
Matt Marx     mmarx@csli.stanford.edu           
No News (is bad news)
No mail for mmarx (is worse)

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5228 talk.politics.misc:45209 alt.rush-limbaugh:4727 alt.politics.bush:4969 alt.politics.elections:13017
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
From: kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell)
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 02:52:04 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher) writes:
> kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell) writes:
> : Dr. Norman Lefave writes:
> :  
> : >We have had 12 disasterous years due to these sheep. Ronald Reagan presented
> : >them with flags, bombs bursting in air, mom, apple pie, and baseball and they
> : >bought it hook, line, and sinker. The sad thing is that they have been the
> : >ones to suffer the worst due to his policies and they are still falling for
> : >these substance-less smokescreens. And now, here they are falling for
> : >a brand new set of smokescreens.... (family-values, draft records,....).
> : 
> : Oh, really? 12 disastrous years? What country do you get your news from? 
> 
> The U.S, and its news media.  Of course, we all have heard what at least
> one PhD on the net thinks of his local news media....
> : 
> 
> : Inflation is now essentially zero. Interest rates haven't been this low in
> : decades. The only reason that we're having this recession now is that
> : the democrats in congress (I capitalize neither "democrat" nor "congress",
> : because they don't deserve the honor) enacted (yes, with George Bush's
> : connivance) the biggest tax increase in history, which forced many
> : businesses into bankruptcy and caused countless others to scale back. 
> 
> The low interest rates are not helpful to everyone.  They hurt
> people (like Grandma, who makes us all apple pie?) who rely on
> their savings and interest on that savings for their incomes.
> And we can thank george bush (I capitalize neither "george" nor "bush",
> because he doesn't deserve the honor, even though it is poor grammar
> to do so) for this?
> 
> Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 

Mike, I'm not a big Bush fan, either, and I'm more than tempted to follow
your lead in voting for Marrou, the Libertarian. 

But let's face facts; Granny's 13% return on her Certificates of Deposit
didn't do a whole lot of good when inflation was running higher than that;
in fact, during most of the Carter years, investing money at fixed
interest rates was like throwing it away, since it LOST value over any
arbitrary time scale. Now, with interest rates down at 3% and inflation
even lower, Granny is actually EARNING money (though I'll admit that it
sure LOOKS worse over the short term). 

Ken Mitchell
kmitche@eis.calstate.edu

 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4932 talk.politics.misc:44837 alt.politics.bush:4729
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Date: 11 Sep 92 16:40:16 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mips.com

Jason Nadrowski) writes:
|> Chris you miss the point.  The liberal bias in media refers to Maria (I know
|> this one is totally misspelled) Shribert asking one of economic advisors
|> "how are you going to pay for this stupid plan!!!  There is no way!!!  HOW!!!"  and
|> then asking Clinton or Democrats..."This excelent plan of yours how did
|> you ever come up with it?"

You mean the Maria Shriver that is a member of the Kennedy clan and
the wife of Democratic VP candidate?  

That's like expecting Buchannon to be impartial.

-- 
_________________________________________
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my
dog's, never my employer's.
From: awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING)
Subject: Biblical Bullsh*t
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Sep6.181209.12231@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>
	<1992Sep6.214508.6895@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
	<1992Sep7.154642.12539@athena.mit.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 01:20:57 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.154642.12539@athena.mit.edu> jfed@athena.mit.edu (Jude G Federspiel) writes:

- "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them has done
- what is detestable"
-	   --Leviticus 18:22

You left out the death penalty part.

- "In the same way [as women who had turned to lesbianism] the men also 
- abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one
- another.  Men committed indecent acts with other men, and recieved in them-
- selves the due penalty for their perversion."
-	   --Romans 1:27

- "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?
- Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor
- adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor
- the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the
- kingdom of God." 
-	   --I Corinthians 6:9-10

You know, all of this stuff has been used as an excuse for bigotry and
gay-bashing...of the most violent sort.  If this is part of the
Christian agenda, then to hell with Christianity.

But, see, I don't for one minute *believe* that it is a Christian
agenda.  I think it's an agenda for those who use their Bible to
*hide* thier insecurities.

- And as for a _non-Biblical_ Christian, well, such a thing exists in name
- only.  

Nonsense.  I know many of them.  They follow the basic ideals ("Love
thy neighbor," for instance).  They just don't take the Bible as
literally as some.

- And no, preachers for the most part _don't_ preach about condemnation for
- the ugly (I'm not endorsing preachers on the whole here; many of them
- are quite foolish) but preaching that homosexuality is a sin and as such
- is to be avoided is very Biblical.  

And extremely cruel.  Every time a preacher says shit like this,
another teen-ager commits suicide.

- This doesn't mean I'm telling anybody 
- to hate [or fear] homosexuals, 

Good.

- so don't bash me for homophobia or hate 
- tactics or something equally silly.  

Hmm...I wish I could consider you unbashed, but unfortunately you go
on and actually show where you're coming from:

- "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."

I won't bash you.  I just think wonder how much you've thought about
what you're touting.

--
Andrew Werling   awerling@nmsu.edu   yip@rever.nmsu.edu
"Jesus is coming, look busy."
          --from a button I bought in an Albuquerque bookstore.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.thlingon
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Election '92
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 05:30:05 GMT

In article <J47mqB4w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>
>> In article <1992Sep4.205813.15877@midway.uchicago.edu> wag5@midway.uchicago.e
>> >
>> >     Yah? Yah? Well, how do you know Worf won't visit 1920's Earth
>> >in a future of ST:TNG, like Captain Kirk did in one of the TV
>> >shows? Huh?  And another thing-I liked the intro the way it used
>> >to be, 'man,' not 'one.'  Sheesh. Like an alien is not a 'one.'
>>
>> Ooh, you forgot the season finale for ST:TNG!  They all travel back
>> in time to around 1870.  Worf didn't go, I think, but Picard went,
>> and he knows Klingon.
>
>Somehow, I'm trying to come up with a JDQ tie-in for this thread, but it eludes
>me at the moment...

Quayle is actually a member of the Q-Continuum.  He's playing with
our minds....



--
"I wish I could vote for you a hundred times"
"There is . . . just kidding."
			-- _Bob Roberts_