HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: shou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:26:21 GMT
Organization: U of Chicago, SSPPCC

In article <1992Oct13.012024.29909@m.cs.uiuc.edu> watanabe@milton.cs.uiuc.edu (Larry Watanabe) writes:
>shou@quads.uchicago.edu (roger colin shouse) writes:
>
>>Something else is interesting about this issue.  Exactly why was
>>Clinton opposed to the war then ...
>
>Because it was STOOPID to take on the Vietnamese, as the
>Mongols, Chinese, Japanese, and French could have told you
>(most people at the Pentagon would probably agree, now).
>
>>-- 
>>Roger Shouse
>>The University of Chicago 		Email: shou@midway.uchicago.edu
>
>Especially stupid when they were backed by China, 
>a safe (America didn't want to nuke China) logistic base.
>China is a lot closer to North Vietnam than
>the US is to South Vietnam.
>
>-Larry Watanabe
>
 
But clearly Larry, a more aggressive military strategy on our part 
(greater and more effective use of air power on the North) could have
seriously hurt the  North and their Viet Cong puppets.  China and 
Vietnam had been long time foes of each other and it was doubtful that
she would have intervened.  

In any event, has Clinton come out and stated that this was his reason
for opposing the war?  Having lived through that period, I recall that
most of the opposition to the war centered on the belief that we should
not be involved in a "civil war" and that we were fighting for the wrong
side!

Roger Shouse
The University of Chicago
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8246 alt.politics.clinton:9144 alt.politics.elections:15697
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Them Democratic handlers sure are smart!
Date: 8 Oct 1992 22:50:32 GMT
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
NNTP-Posting-Host: eno.wpd.sgi.com

---
mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
|>skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds) writes:
|>Bill Clinton now only makes 35,000 per year (source 10-8-92 USA today)
|>He seems very in touch with the adverage person to me. He has been
|>poor, no one will argue that. He worked and payed his own way through
|>school. When he finished law school he went back home to Ark to practice
|>instead of Wall St. 

|But you forget that along with that Governor's salary, Clinton gets room
|(the Governor's mansion) and board (fine dining every night).  I thought it
|was estimated that these and other perks came out to over $100,000 a year.
|Bush gets perks also, so I think it can be said that neither of them can be
|considered paupers.

Which one (if either) of them would be a non-pauper out of
office?  According to the above, Clinton out of office is 
left with $35K/year;  Bush out of office still has oil money.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"All sorts of people who don't know me and my many fine personal qualities 
say absolutely dreadful things about me.  What can you do?  Have them 
killed, of course, but that's *so* expensive." --Jon Carroll
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:54:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.182621.20464@midway.uchicago.edu> shou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse) writes:
>
>In any event, has Clinton come out and stated that this was his reason
>for opposing the war?  Having lived through that period, I recall that
>most of the opposition to the war centered on the belief that we should
>not be involved in a "civil war" and that we were fighting for the wrong
>side!

Stepping into the usual minefield...

Oh, but it was a civil war in the sense that the Government of South
Vietnam had no legitimacy.  It was a US creation.  We feared that if
the Vietnamese were given free elections in the '50s, Ho Chi Minh
would win big time.  After all, the Vietnamese saw him and the Viet
Minh as their liberators from the French (As opposed to Diem, who was
simply put there by the US.  Worse and worse, he was a Catholic, and
so was part of a small minority.  Even worse, he persecuted the
Buddhists.  Since you were around then, dontcha remember the
self-immolating Buddhists monks?  They were protesting Diem's
policies.)  We were fighting to impose our own Government on the
Vietnamese.

--
"Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."  Psssssssssssss.....
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey)
Subject: Re: Parental consent (was Re: I'm surprised!)
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:27:27 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.035333.23672@nntp.uoregon.edu>
    eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:
>
>I was surveyed on abortion last night.  By telephone, out of the blue.
>There were 2 questions and I have to choose between one of two answers, no
>middle ground.  I think, from the reaction of the questioner to my
>responses, that it was done by a religious group opposed to abortion.
>
>The questions were, (1) which is closest to your position:  abortion should
>be legal for any woman who wants one, or abortion should be illegal except
>in cases where the mother's life is threatened; and (2) no minor should be
>able to obtain an abortion without parental consent.
>
>Forced to choose between those options, I voted a straight pro-choice
>ticket.  I did point out to the caller tho, that the absence of
>alternatives to parents was a serious flaw in the second question.

This is the normal pro-life method for saying that a majority of Americans
are pro-life.  My Missouri state representative mailed a survey that was
very similar.  It had three choices.  (1) Completely illegal abortion.
(2) Abortion allowed only in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of
the mother.  (3) Completely unrestriced abortion.  So, given the extreme
pro-life, the moderate pro-life, and the extreme pro-choice positions, it's
only natural that the moderate pro-life position won with a large majority.

They don't care about the facts, they only want some statistics to backup
whatever they believe.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Jim Hulsey)   TBDBITL '84 ('85 Rose Bowl)
An Ohioan living in Misery (Missouri, same difference)

Watch what you say!                Won't you sign up your name
They'll be calling you a radical   So you can be their acceptable
A liberal, fanatical criminal      Respectable, presentable vegetable
--  Supertramp "The Logical Song"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: mister rogers <rogers@ial3.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Bush's Veto
X-Xxdate: Tue, 13 Oct 92 18:52:22 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:53:24 GMT

if you think your cable company is charging too much for the service you
receive, there is a better alternative to regulation.

call them and cancel. tell them why you cancelled.
your payment for TV service will be lower this way.

-------------
mister rogers
-------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.clinton,alt.sex
From: fharding@nyx.cs.du.edu (Frank Harding)
Subject: Re: AIDS crisis
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 15:56:05 GMT

thf2@quads.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell) writes:

>In article <1992Sep24.011838.10115@uoft02.utoledo.edu> steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (jason "Think!" steiner) writes:
>>do you know what probability is? let's assume for the moment, that
>>the chances of getting HIV from an unprotected encounter is 10%.

>Doubtful.  That might be the chance of getting HIV from an HIV+ partner
>in the late stages of AIDS where both partners have open genital sores,
>but it most certainly isn't the chance of contracting HIV from any
>unprotected encounter.

>Keep in mind that over a three year period, only twenty percent of
>female partners contract HIV from their HIV+ monogamous heterosexual
>partners.  The female to male transmission rate is about 1.5% (and even
>that may be overstating the probability -- it was one male out of seventy
>or so in the study, and it was possible that he was infected by another
>man's semen).

Do you really mean that only 1 male out of 70 contracted HIV from HIV+
female partners over 3 years?!

I think this study has been mentioned before but I didn't realize that it was
over THREE YEARS.  Rather astounding statistics.  Any clues as to where I could
look this up?

-- 
Frank Harding
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8211 alt.politics.clinton:9108 alt.destroy.the.earth:658
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.destroy.the.earth
Subject: Re: No looking at your neighbors' papers....
Date: 7 Oct 92 12:45:05 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN

In article <1992Oct6.162127.3657@sci34hub.sci.com>, gary@sci34hub.sci.com (Gary Heston) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.000021.14558@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> shackeld@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (david m shackelford ) writes:
>
>>     A.  Man does not have the capacity to destroy the planet.
>
>Famous last words......

Truer words were never spoken.  We probably could destroy most of the larger
life forms if we honestly tried, but nobody has been able to describe in any
detail a scenario in which all life forms including bacteria and viruses
would be destroyed.  And even then, as long as the planet is intact, there's
no reason to believe life couldn't happen again.

No, if "destroy the planet" means "make the planet unihabitable by man", then
I agree we have that power.  But that's certainly a convenient definition.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)           For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:9006 alt.politics.clinton:10210 alt.politics.elections:16569
From: hargijk@wkuvx1.bitnet
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bush's Veto
Date: 13 Oct 92 14:53:37 CDT
Organization: Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY

In article <1bd28oINN6ri@news.aero.org>, foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
> In article <BERG.92Oct12142817@logan.cass.usu.edu> berg@logan.cass.usu.edu (Glenn Berg) writes:
> ...
>>
>>Unless I'm mistaken, demand for cable has also skyrocketed.  This would also
>>have driven rates up.
> 
> 
> Why?

Simple. If you made bicycle tires and sold them for $1.00 and people
wanted 100,000's of them, wouldn't you raise your prices to increase
your profits?


Joey Hargis 
> 
> Richard Foy  Redondo Beach, CA         Standard Disclaimer
> 
> 
> 
>>
>>
>>--
>>----------------------------------------
>>Glenn Berg (berg@logan.cass.usu.edu)
>>CASS, Utah State University, Logan, Utah
> 
> 

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8613 alt.politics.clinton:9677 alt.politics.elections:16086
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Schoolchild on Net (was Re: ... Republican Cowardice)
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:51:41 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Oct7.145042.28991@sbctri.sbc.com> asper@time.sbc.com (Alan E. Asper) writes:
>
>(ravings due to insecurity deleted)
>
>Lighten up, net-friend. The point is that if someone doesn't know how to spell
>or construct a sentence--things we all should have learned long ago--it's
>difficult to take their arguments as serious and thought-out. That's all. 

Maybe he'll fall back on the Quayle Defense: "I went to public school."



--
"Sounds interesting....  Sounds interesting...."
				-- Homer Simpson
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8224 alt.politics.clinton:9121 alt.rush-limbaugh:6880
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:39:38 EDT
From: <JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Republican's Bullshit Movement
Distribution: na
 <1992Oct3.202343.15285@cbnewse.cb.att.com> <1992Oct4.040119.2618@anasazi.com>
 <haudlrs@Unify.Com>

In article <haudlrs@Unify.Com>, tsv@dbrus.Unify.Com (Tim Vannaman) says:
>
>The Press are a bunch of "Liberals" who say they tell the public everything,
>but only report what they want.
>

This continues to be bullshit.  The press did nothing in the '80s except
report what was fed to them on a Presidential spoon (to borrow a phrase).

Hope this helps,

Jeff Luck                *These opinons are mine, but facts are facts*
CES Systems Office
Penn State University      "Whatever you guys want, I'm for."
JFL4@PSUVM.PSU.EDU            -Dan Quayle to Ohio Farmers, 1988
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: bender@riscee.pko.dec.com (Patricia Bender)
Subject: Re: Magic Johnson vs George Bush?
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard MA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:35:08 GMT

What I am really curious about is will Magic Johnson attend the
last debate in East Lansing, Michigan, Johnson's home town?  Training
camp for the Lakers is going on now, so it isn't likely, but I would
love to see him in the audience where the audience can ask questions.


patricia

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298)
Subject: Re: Welcome to the '90's
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:13:41 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.172033.26240@u.washington.edu>, freewill@carson.u.washington.edu (William Kaufman) writes:
|> 
|> 
|>   sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
|> 
|> > I hope to be successful financially, and I don't want to penalized for
|> > that success in the form of high taxes.
|> 
|> Well, congratulations, that puts you in the same boat as every American
|> I've ever met. We all like to think of ourselves as nice, generous
|> people, and as soon as we get a little for ourselves, like 2 cars, a
|> house in the burbs, etc., we'll give that $100 check to charity. It's
|> called selfishness and greed and I'm as guilty as the next guy. The
|> point is in the '80's everyone thought exactly the same thing, get a
|> little for myself first. Well, them times is over, 'cause everybody
|> got a little for themselves first and it turned just a few people like
|> Neil Bush jumped in and took it all before your turn. Not meant to be
|> a flame, just pointing out that as more and more people try to share
|> the same limited resources, we're all gonna pay more and get less, un-
|> less you want to join Pat Buchanon's feudal society.
|>          Will


Boy Will you have been really hooked by the Democrat line.  You work hard, get a good education
save your money, buy the good things for your family because you earned them, your donation
to charity is light, but otherwise you are enjoying the American Dream.  Now the liberals
have come along and made you feel guilty because other folk who haven't taken advantage of
all their opportunities want what you have worked for.

I do not buy it and neither should you.  The government has never made things better for 
people only worse.  If you do not believe me go grocery shopping.  Stand in line and see
folk on food stamps by name brand while you are buying generic.  See how many of you middle
class friends are having only one or two children because they have to pay for theirs and 
others.  See how you skip doctors appointments because you can not afford to go because
the taxes you pay in medicare and medicade rob you of that opportunity.  I could go on and
on but why use up bandwidth.  DON'T BUY IT.  The problem is not your success.  You did it
right it is not your fault others are doing it wrong.


fred

##############################################################################

"Taxes are paid in the sweat of every man who labors. If those taxes are excessive, they are
reflected in idle factories, in tax-sold farms, and in hordes of hungry people, tramping 
streets and seeking jobs in vain.  Our workers may never see a tax bill, but they pay.  They
pay in deductions from wages, in increased cost of what they buy, or in unemployment 
throughtout the land." guess who said this and win a prize.

You can not be one kind of man and another kind of President.

Bush/Quayle 92

Fred Seals

##############################################################################
From: psmith@iies.ecn.purdue.edu (Paul Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Parental consent (was Re: I'm surprised!)
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:09:22 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Oct9.035333.23672@nntp.uoregon.edu> eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.145658.3102@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>>In article <AVFRBB2C@cc.swarthmore.edu>, mwertz1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Melanie Wertz) writes:
>>>
>>>Many of the biggest opponents of parental consent laws are parents of now
>>>dead teenagers who had illegal abortions or committed suicide...
>>
>>Such things are tragic, but they don't justify destroying parental rights. 
>>Luckily, all of the parental consent laws I've heard of have allowed a judge
>>to determine when the consent requirement can be bypassed, i.e., many of the
>>above scenarios.
>>
>
>Not all of the proposed or passed laws have that feature.  In fact, it is
>the most common reason they are struck down.
>

MYTH: 
Parental consent laws should have exceptions for those *really* tough cases.

There are *already* laws in most (all?) states that allow a minor to petition 
the courts for emancipation.  Seems to me this would allow for all of those
exception cases quite nicely, and would force the child to think a little 
harder before doing an end-run around their parents.

Fact is that pro-abortion groups don't like parental consent laws because
they stand to lose business? (some of their easiest customers?)

-Paul
--
---
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8263 alt.politics.clinton:9175
From: jdooley@maemaster.eng.uci.edu (John R. Dooley)
Subject: Re: Tom Selleck on Arsenio
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 9 Oct 92 01:47:53 GMT

In article <1b1s4aINNovl@early-bird.think.com> laird@think.com (Laird Popkin) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.102331.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Oct6.054809.25524@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald) writes:
>>> In article <1992Oct5.195918.1@acad.drake.edu>
>>> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>>> 
>>>> "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."
>>> 
>>> A noble sentiment, but the way to achieve this is NOT by clubbing them
>>> to death!
>>By this do you mean subjugating people to the hopeless programs of welfare,
>>that only serve to entrench the needy into endless circles of dependency?
>>"Noble", well... yes of course, it is always noble, if not inspiring to see
>>someone cast off the shackles of government dependency (pardon the melodrama)
>>and stand on their own two feet. Surely this is what you imply. Or do you find
>>something inherently wrong with this philosophy? Indeed, shouldn't it be the
>>prerogative of all governments to wean the less fortunate off government aid?
>>I'm not sure I understand your arguement, Care to elaborate? 
>
>I am getting tired ot this myth that all welfare recipients become
>dependent on the government.  The majority of people on welfare are off
>within a year, and the *vast* majority are off of welfare within a few
>years.  Life on welfare is *rotten*, and people don't stay on welfare when
>they have a choice.  

It also may be a good time to remind our readers that Clinton
has been praised by Bush cabinet officers for his innovative
welfare reforms that have moved 17000 from welfare rolls to 
steady employment.

John D.
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:37:26 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <9210081734.AA21278@MIT.EDU>, bowler@athena.mit.edu (Bert Smith)
wrote:

>  *    Bush's latest attack on Bill Clinton for a trip he took 23 years
>  ago is a pathetic attempt to divert the American people from the
>  worst economic record in 50 years.  It is a sign of pure
>  desperation.

I would like to know why you call it an "Attack" when he was answering a
question about how he felt about this incident.  He *was* asked the
question, after all, and he *did* answer it from the heart.

You people act as if Bush just stood up and announced this by himself.  He
didn't even bring it up, King did.

>  *    Bush said last night it's been an ugly political year.  He's
>  right -- and he's responsible for it.  It's smear campaigns like he's
>  running that have turned off the American people.

Oh, I see.  And bashing him for 11 months is cool.
 
>  *    The American people don't want to hear about Bill Clinton's 1969
>  itinerary, they want to hear about the course America is going to
>  take.  Bill Clinton has a plan to create millions of new jobs,
>  provide every American with affordable health care, and improve our
>  schools.  George Bush can only offer more of the same.

I sure as hell want to.

>  *    Because the Republicans have such a miserable economic record,
>  they've resorted to lobbing hand grenade after hand grenade, hoping
>  that one will explode.  Even as he was attacking Clinton, Bush told
>  Larry King, "I don't have the facts."

Right, he was responding to a hypothetical question, you moron.
 
>  *    Moscow was just one of many places Clinton visited as a tourist
>  during his Northern European vacation.  He traveled alone, without a
>  sponsor, and he paid his own way.

Neat how he was able to get into Moscow when Ross Perot was unable, eh?
 
>  *    Clinton's travels took him to Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland,
>  Russia, and Prague, Czechoslovakia before returning to England.
>  Clinton traveled Europe as a tourist -- not to attend any meeting or
>  demonstration.  While in Norway, he visited a friend from Hot Springs
>  who was attending Oslo University.  He met Father McSorley
>  coincidentally at the Oslo train station, they traveled to the
>  University where Clinton was introduced to McSorley's friends, and
>  then Clinton went to visit his friend.

Father McSorley has a completely different story.  He also says he
understands why Clinton is lying.  I am looking to find out if Clinton is
calling this holy man a liar.  Is he?


--
Rick Eames                               My Opinions Are My Own (not
Apple's)
athos@apple.com

HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to Barbara Boxer.