HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Date: 12 Oct 92 15:56:20 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Oct12.023719.15705@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.152824.11911@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>
>[Clinton is not a "liberal"...]
>
>>Dream on!  How many non-liberals do you know of who lead anti-American, 
>>anti-war protests,
>
>	What's "anti-Americanism"? Is "anti-Americanism" simply not
>sounding like a card-carrying member of the John Birch Society?
>
>	He seriously disagreed with the war. What is the _right_ thing
>to do about it? And why are you not flaying Pat Buchanan alive for
>opposing the Gulf War? It is unpatriotic to criticize wars, right?

The right thing to do is certainly not to go to our ENEMY (remember, 
we were in a cold war with the soviets at that point, and that they had 
preformed a brutal crack-down in Czechoslovakia (sp) just a few months 
before Clinton went there) and protest our country.  The right thing 
may be to protest in our country.

>pick a running mate who believes that the automobile is the 
>>most dangerous weapon on the earth, etc.
>
>	What did Al Gore actually _state_?

Read his book.  He said that the most dangerous weapon on the earth is 
the automobile.  He is talking about the danger to the ozone layer.

>	Actually cars are a rather troublesome albatross in some ways.
>
>	Here in the USA, oil has to be imported to fuel them,
>accidents cost $130 billion/year, 45,000 people die in car accidents a
>year (the leading cause of death for those under 44), they are a
>leading cause of smog problems in major cities, and so forth. I have a
>relative who moved out of LA because the smog there would aggravate
>his asthma.

He said DANGEROUS not deadly.  How about nuclear weapons as a candidate 
for the most dangerous.

Ted


-- 
"How dare you call us [people] `you people'!"
	-Benjamin Hooks

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Choice for life (was Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 08:39:04 GMT


You claim that I wouldn't get any dates here in San Antonio or anywhere
else.

For the record, my girlfriend and I have had a very serious relationship
going for the past year.  So alot of dating has been going on.

Now I guess you all would be shocked to think that I could actually care
about someone, right.  I am real, not an AI program!!
From: 75300.3115@compuserve.com (Clinton for President)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: GEORGE BUSH AND ARMS-FOR-HOSTAGES: IT'S TIME FOR THE TRUTH
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:45:56 GMT


 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE             
 October 13, 1992                             

     GEORGE BUSH AND ARMS-FOR-HOSTAGES: IT'S TIME FOR THE TRUTH

    (Statement of George Stephanopoulos, Communications Director)

      It is time for George Bush to tell the truth about Iran-Contra.
 For six years, George Bush denied he knew about the arms-for hostage
 deal with Iran.  Today, he admitted he did know.

      For six years, George Bush has acknowledged he knew of the arms
 shipments to Iran, but not of the trade for hostages.  He has
 maintained, despite an avalanche of evidence to the contrary, that he
 was "out of the loop" and did not learn of the arms-for-hostage deal
 until December 1986.

      In 1987, George Bush was asked if he was comfortable with the
 personal role in the Iran- contra affair.  He replied it was proper
 to reach out to Iran, but "if this includes arms for hostages, that's
 wrong.  I wish I had known something so I could have done something
 different on that."  [NYT, 2/27/87]

      In January 1988, stumping for the Presidential nomination in
 Iowa, Bush said, "I sensed that we were sending arms.  And I sensed
 that we were trying to get hosages out.  But not arms for hostages."
 [news conference transcript, 1/8/88]

      But this morning in the White House, Today Show host Katie
 Couric asked, "You knew about the arms for hostages?" George Bush
 replied, "Yes, and I've said so all along, given speeches on it."
 Bush also claimed on Today that sworn answers confirm his current
 account.  Asked whether he had knowledge of the arms-for-hostages
 deal, he replied, "I've testified 450 times under oath, some of them,
 and our staff 3,500 that yes, but nobody's accused me of not doing
 it."

      But Bush's answers under oath -- given to the Tower Commission
 and to the Special Prosecutor's Office -- have never been made
 public.  Since his current story is now different from his original
 alibi, Bush either told the American people one thing in public and
 told investigators another in private -- or misled both.

      It's time for George Bush to make public the transcripts of his
 questioning by the Tower Commission and the Special Prosecutor's
 office.

      George Bush's statements just don't add up.  Today, Bush yet
 again denied he was aware of the opposition to the deal of Defense
 Secretary Casper Weinberger and Secretary of State George Shultz.
 "There were two key meetings where they almost got into a shouting
 match, I'm told, that I did not attend."

      Yet, Bush was in the room during a January 7, 1986 National
 Security Council meeting with President Reagan to discuss a
 Presidential finding that authorized the arms for hostage deal.
 Shultz and Weinberger were present at that meeting and expressed
 strong objections to the idea.

                               --30--
From: irwin@iago.caltech.edu (Horowitz, Irwin Kenneth)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: WE ARE STILL HERE: THE 500 YEARS CELEBRATION
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Date: 12 Oct 1992 11:39 PDT
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: iago.caltech.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <81529@ut-emx.uucp>, wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester) writes...
>In article <1992Oct3.004131.7559@mont.cs.missouri.edu> rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel) writes:
>>of history. The multibillion)dollar official extravaganza
>>includes a race to Mars between three solar)powered spaceships
>          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>named after Columbus' Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria; a "Tall
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>WHOA!! What the hell are you talking about here? I tend to follow the space
>program very closely and I have not heard of this. In fact, then only craft
>recently launched towards Mars was the Mars Observer, which is definitely not
>powered by solar sails. This must be a mistake.
>Anybody know otherwise? 
This is a reference to the Columbus 500 Solar Sail race that was supposed to
get off the ground this year (but didn't :-).  The main participants include
the World Space Foundation here in the US, as well as teams from Europe and
Japan (I believe).  I believe that they are still looking at trying to launch
in the next two to three years.

For more info, you should contact either the Planetary Society or the World
Space Foundation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irwin Horowitz                        |
Astronomy Department                  |"Whoever heard of a female astronomer?"
California Institute of Technology    |--Charlene Sinclair, "Dinosaurs"
irwin@iago.caltech.edu                |
ih@deimos.caltech.edu                 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:3678 sci.econ:8026 alt.censorship:7997 soc.college:4226 talk.politics.misc:50506
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,sci.econ,alt.censorship,soc.college,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: High costs of college education
Date: 9 Oct 92 13:07:51 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <FDa8RB3w165w@bluemoon.rn.com> bmb@bluemoon.rn.com (Bryan Bankhead) writes:

>robart@agora.rain.com (Robert Barton) writes:

>>   Obviously, they don't care who pays, as long as they continue to get a free

>Hey, why not? we fund K-12, why not 13-16?

For me funding depends on the degree sought.  I have little trouble
supporting someone who is getting a degree in science or engineering.  But
I have a lot of trouble with most of the arts or humanities.  For the first
you have a good chance of getting a job.  For the second, you run a big risk
of flipping burgers anyway.

Also, how many degrees do we give out for free.  I have a sister-in-law
who is on her third degree and counting.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
From: roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle)
Subject: Re: WE ARE STILL HERE: THE 500 YEARS CELEBRATION
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:16:53 GMT

henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

>In article <81529@ut-emx.uucp> wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester) writes:
>>>includes a race to Mars between three solar)powered spaceships
>>          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>named after Columbus' Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria; a "Tall
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>WHOA!! What the hell are you talking about here? I tend to follow the space
>>program very closely and I have not heard of this...

>It's not mistaken, just out of date.  The Columbus Cup solar-sail race was
>originally going to launch this year.  Funding problems -- aggravated by
>the untimely arrival of a recession -- scuttled that schedule, and perhaps
>the entire race.  (Some of the would-be entrants are still interested, but
>as far as I know, nothing much is happening lately.  Certainly the Canadian
>Solar Sail Project [which started as a race entry] is on hold until the
>money situation improves.)

Reminds one of the once-proposed French space-ring, intended to be a
mindless non-functioning street-light-in-the-sky.  The plan was to
launch the silly thing (it was the winner of some sort of art contest)
into LEO to celebrate the Nth anniversary of the Eiffel Tower.  The
intensity of reflected sunlight was expected to be similar to full
moon.  Fortunately, and to the delight of astronomers, level heads
prevailed and the idea was nixed.

Curt Roelle
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,sci.space
Subject: Re: WE ARE STILL HERE: THE 500 YEARS CELEBRATION
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:55:33 GMT
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <1992Oct12.214334.19163@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>To all you politically correct people out there:
>
>HAPPY COLUMBUS DAY.  Remember, this is the 500th aniversary of Columbus
>DISCOVERING the new world.
Well, the first widely distributed charted course to the New World; even if
Columbus didn't know what he'd found. I do agree a little w/the claim about
the natives knowing where they were. But I haven't heard of any accurate world
maps found among the booty taken by conquistadores. ;>

Hooooo boy. Bet he's going to get some hate-email. 

By the way, has anyone confirmed that claim about the three solar-powered
spacecraft to Mars in honor of Columbus? Or is it another blatant lie by
the "progressives" as I thought it was when I first read it. Wouldn't
surprise me if they start a campaign on the "neo-colonialist" ideals
inherent in space travel. Naaah, getting too paranoid. :)
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Chester            |"The earth is too fragile a basket in which to keep
wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu |  all your eggs." Robert A. Heinlein
Politically Incorrect      |"The meek shall inherit the earth. The rest of us
Future Lunar Colonist      |  are going to the stars." Anonymous
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Viet Nam
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: dfw
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:45:16 GMT

In article <exukjb.291.718484705@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>
>Simple question.  Why did the U.S. enter the Viet Nam war?
>
>Please. Simple statements, documented if possible.
>//////////////////////////////////////
>/* Kenny  *   Welcome to Mind Wars! */
>//////////////////////////////////////

We entered Vietnam to stop the Communists from taking over Southeast Asia.
And it was a just war.........

Simon
From: goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman)
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:00:45 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1069@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
...
>
>The best evidence of liberal bias (and in fact, error) in the media is
>the way the Reagan years have been and still are being reported.  It is
>absolutely cliche that during the Reagan years the poor got poorer and
>the rich got richer.  We've all heard it over and over.  It isn't true!
>In the "National Review", August 31, 1992, there is a section called,
>"The Real Reagan Record."[2]  Even I, who have been following this
>subject for years, was shocked by the level of outright deceit.

    I read that section and came to a conclusion that the "conservatives"
    are as good in twisting the numbers as the "liberals".

>  Check
>their figures out yourself; the figures they use are in the public
>record.  It is absolutely clear and indisputable: the poor, most
>unambiguously did not get poorer during the Reagan years.  They got
>richer, and if you follow individuals instead quintiles, people who
>were in the bottom 20% of income earners in 1979, increased their
>income by a much larger percentage by 1989 than people in the top 20%
>did over the same period. 

    These numbers conclusively prove that a:) our incomes tend to grow
    as we are getting older and b:) the rate of growth tend to be higher
    for younger people.  What else is new?

                              The Reagan years were in many ways a huge
>success, and it is an enormous crime that the record has been so
>distorted that we are running from his successful policies.

    Most people in this country benefited from the economic expansion
    during the Reagan years, but only history can tell whether or not
    his economic policies had been successful.  Even if we assume they
    were, we still have to sort them out.  The question is: what Reagan
    policies brought about the economic boom of the 80's?

        lower marginal income tax rates, fewer tax loopholes
        
        higher capital gains tax rates

        massive public works projects (defense)

        construction boom fueled by S&L run amok

        massive deficit spending

    What will be the long term effect of those policies?

...

    Regarding the media bias in this country, it is neither "liberal",
    nor "conservative", but what I call a "two-party" bias: few truly
    independent thinkers, herds of party propagandists.  Perhaps,
    that is because the average voter is more inclined to buy
    a pre-packaged party line than spend time sorting through the issues.


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: all opinions are mine.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: 75300.3115@compuserve.com (Clinton for President)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: "A DAY TO RALLY FOR REFORM": OCTOBER 14
Date: 13 Oct 92 22:17:55 GMT


 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
 October 13, 1992

              "A DAY TO RALLY FOR REFORM": OCTOBER 14
        Democratic Leaders and Reform Advocates Rally Behind
             Clinton Agenda to Enact Health Care Reform

      In an unprecedented show of support, on Wednesday, October 14,
 Democratic leaders, health care advocates, citizens groups, business
 and labor leaders will gather in every state across the nation to
 rally behind the Clinton agenda to enact health care reform.

      They will join in asserting the need for Governor Bill Clinton's
 leadership in the White House and reaffirm their commitment to work
 with him in the first 100 days of a new Administration to move
 forward quickly on comprehensive health care reform.

      Events will also launch a Women's Health Care Week to bring
 attention to Bill Clinton and Al Gore's commitment to improving
 women's health.

      "Together, we will deliver a message to the country that
 Democrats, led by Bill Clinton, will break the gridlock and 'deliver'
 on comprehensive health care reform," said Senator Jay Rockefeller
 (D-WV), National Co-Chair of the Clinton-Gore Campaign and organizer
 of the Day to Rally for Reform.

      Governor Bill Clinton will release a statement to acknowledge
 the national demonstration of support for his efforts to reform the
 health care system.

      October 14th efforts in all 50 states:  The day's efforts to
 support the Clinton health care agenda include:

 *    Pittsburgh, PA. -- 12:00 noon, Market Square -- Democratic Vice
      Presidential Candidate Al Gore will join Senate Majority Leader
      George Mitchell (D-ME),  Senator Harris Wofford (D-PA),
      Democratic Senate Candidate Lynn Yeakel and others for the
      noontime rally.

 *    Portland, OR. -- 8:15 AM PDT, Oregon Convention Center, 777N.E.
      Martin Luther King Blvd. -- Governor Howard Dean (VT)will
      participate in a health care forum.

 *    Los Angeles, CA. -- 2:00 PM PDT, Venice Family Clinic, 604Rose
      Ave. --  Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), will joinSenator Edward
      M. Kennedy (D- MA), Representatives MaxineWaters, Henry Waxman
      and others for a tour of the clinic.

 *    St. Louis, MO. -- 3:30 PM CST, Carpenters Hall -- House Majority
      Leader Dick Gephardt and Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell
      will join Senate Candidate Geri Rothman-Serot, Representative
      Joan Kelly Horn (MO) and others for a press conference.

 *    Efforts in other states:  Democratic Governors, Senators,
      Representatives and other leaders, health care advocates,
      citizen groups, doctors, nurses, business leaders and labor
      leaders in all other states will participate in health care
      events.

 Contact the regional Clinton/Gore office in your area for more
 information.

                             -- 30 --


Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:3594 alt.rush-limbaugh:6723 talk.politics.misc:49952
From: hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Date: 7 Oct 92 13:51:45 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: ILS

In article <1069@bug.UUCP>, stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:


> 
> The best evidence of liberal bias (and in fact, error) in the media is
> the way the Reagan years have been and still are being reported.  It is
> absolutely cliche that during the Reagan years the poor got poorer and
> the rich got richer.  We've all heard it over and over.  It isn't true!
> In the "National Review", August 31, 1992, there is a section called,
> "The Real Reagan Record."[2]  Even I, who have been following this
> subject for years, was shocked by the level of outright deceit.  Check
> their figures out yourself; the figures they use are in the public
> record.  It is absolutely clear and indisputable: the poor, most
> unambiguously did not get poorer during the Reagan years.  They got
> richer, and if you follow individuals instead quintiles, people who
> were in the bottom 20% of income earners in 1979, increased their
> income by a much larger percentage by 1989 than people in the top 20%
> did over the same period. The Reagan years were in many ways a huge
> success, and it is an enormous crime that the record has been so
> distorted that we are running from his successful policies.

> orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
> uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
> 
>   

You see Medi Bias in Time and yet the National Review is an unquestionable
source of truth?

Hint for thoue that never took a stats class;  when ever you read the
bottpm 20% compared to the top 20% rather then a comparison of samller more
meaningful groups be on the look out.

20% is a huge number,  where there changes within the 20%,  say did the top
5% of the nation get much much richer while the bottom 5% get poorer.  AN
who could argue that 20% of the nation is "poor",  do you really expect
anyone to but that 2 our of 10 Americans are "poor".  ANd on the other hand
what make 2 out of 10 americans rich.

Clearly the National Review numbers, if true anyway (there is some clear
doubt about this publication which is beyond just biased-its propaganda),
well clearly these number include alot of middle class Americans.  

To acess "poverty" I want information on the poor, those living below the
poverty line would be better then the bottom 20%.  How did they do?
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:3789 alt.rush-limbaugh:7152 talk.abortion:42063
From: jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Public Opinion on Hill/Thomas Hearings (was: CWA Membership)
Followup-To: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh
Date: 12 Oct 92 09:05:34
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
Distribution: na
	<JYM.92Sep22101720@remarque.berkeley.edu> <g27ny2-.jrs@netcom.com>
	<JYM.92Oct1144216@remarque.berkeley.edu> <1065@bug.UUCP>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: stevef@bug.UUCP's message of 4 Oct 92 17:02:40 GMT

[This thread is becoming only peripherally relevant to
talk.abortion.  Select followups with care.]

>>> Two-thirds of American women did not believe Anita Hill . . .
>> [That] contradicts the polls I've seen, which show an
>> *enormous* gender gap on this particular issue.
> 63 to 70 percent of the people, even broken down by race or
> gender, did not believe Anita Hill and thought Thomas should
> be confirmed.

=o= I was going to reiterate my recent remarks about polling
techniques and discrepancies and such.  But then I saw the
latest _US_News_&_World_Report_.

=o= _USNWR_ is (and is widely acknowledged as) a newsweekly
with a very conservative bias.  They conduct polls all the time,
and routinely come back with "public opinion" measurements that
are more conservative than others'.  Nobody's quite sure how
they manage this, but most can agree that whatever they do,
their polls are "conservative-friendly."

=o= They're a source that Rush Limbaugh and his Dittoids would
(usually) be happy to quote.

=o= The latest _USNWR_ has an interesting cover story on the
Hill/Thomas hearings.  It seems that their conservative-friendly
opinion polls have found a shift in opinion on the matter, one
year after the fact.  And that shift has been away from Thomas
and for Hill.

=o= More to the point, they compared their conservative-friendly
1992 results with their conservative-friendly 1991 results.  And
the gender gap that I've been mentioning shows up very clearly.
    <_Jym_>
__
I can't say I identify with any specific educational goal.
                -- George Bush, 1988.
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:3887 alt.rush-limbaugh:7424 talk.politics.misc:51800