HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: barich@bach.udel.edu (Dewey H Barich)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Organization: University of Delaware
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 15:23:57 GMT

In article <BD.92Sep12083407@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
>tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>>Rush is obviously a bright fella...  what I can't understand is;
>>1)  how can a bright fella like Rush not see the simple truth of this  OR
>>2)  is he purposefully twisting facts for political gain
>>If he values truth less than political gain,  then how can any of us
>>ever trust him (or what he stands for)?   And why do people fall for it?
>Rush is fun to listen to, but I can't think of a single time
>that he has honestly presented the liberal position on _anything_.
>His entire show consists of setting up straw dogs and shooting them down.

Sure, Rush is using facts that favor his position, but so does just
about anyone.  At least with Rush Limbaugh, he TELLS you that he is "a
conservative's conservative," and thus you can listen to him with the
properly sized grain of salt.  Why should he present a liberal position?
He claims that his show is conservatives' "equal time" against the
liberal media.

>Of course he is twisting the facts for political gain.  Most of
>his listeners, however, don't care too much about the facts.

For political gain?  Whose?  He's said several times that he has no
interest in running for President, he doesn't want to owe favors to
campaign contibutors.  Maybe a lower office, but why campaign nationally
for a regional office?  I'm not saying you are wrong, but who's
political gain is he doing all this for?

Who are you to judge his listeners?  Do you know the majority of his 2.7
to 3 million listeners a day?   I doubt it.  So how can you state that 
they don't care about the facts?  That's a stupid statement. 

I don't listen to him often, but I do enjoy the program, and I take a 
few salt tablets before it starts.

And, for that matter, I don't think he does much twisting of facts, just
selecting only those he wants to use.  But then again, unlike most talk
show hosts, he TELLS you that he is doing it.  He even tells you that they
screen the callers.  Besides, one main intent of his program is to
entertain, and he does just that.

QUIT
ram is to
entertain, and he does just that.
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush/Florida/Hurricane Andrew
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 92 08:59:13 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:

> In article <q3VLqB7w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us>,
> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) wrote:
>
> > Agreed, there are intolerants in the Democratic party also.  However, when
> > come from David Duke's home town, you see Republican racism at its worst on
> > regular basis...
>
> Where were you when Duke was a Democrat?  Hiding?  He *picked* the party,
> not the other way around.

Duke *never* ran for office as a Democrat, always as a third party candidate.
He picked the GOP because he found a good match for his perverted beliefs with
that constituency.  He was serious enough that about a Presidential bid that
Buchanan had to run to deflect Duke.

>
> But, if you're gonna blame us for Duke, then I suppose we can slam you for
> LaRouche "The only name George Bush feared enough to put in prison."  God,
> I love that poster.  What a hoser.
>

Hey, slam away.  Rouchie is a joke.  Duke, on the other hand, is quite serious,
and if you compare one of his speeches from his gubenatorial or presidential
races to one of Buchanan's you won't find much difference.  Duke's beliefs are
firmly rooted in current GOP tradition.  It's his past Nazi and KKK
affiliations that scare mainstream Republicans, not his beliefs.



|Edward J. Branley                         elendil@mintir.New-Orleans.LA.US|
|Seashell Software                                UUCP:  rex!mintir!elendil|
|3508 North Woodlawn Avenue                          Compu$erve: 71237,2227|
|Metairie, LA   70006       voice: +1-504-455-5087     bbs: +1-504-455-8665|
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
From: neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: Integrated Systems Laboratory, ETH, Zurich
	<1992Sep2.212447.16220@calspan.com> <1992Sep9.111518.26548@sinix.UUCP>
	<1992Sep10.062620.17652@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:57:08 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.062620.17652@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>But you are leaving out one major point: Switzerland has the loosest
>gun laws in Europe. In fact, citizens are requires to keep fully
>automatic assault rifles and ammunition in their homes, and are
>incouraged to go to rifle ranges and practice.

Encouraged ? I get sent to prison if I don't practice. You might call that
encouragement, I call it forcing.

>It is absure to say the Switz don't have access to firearms.
>Since their crime rate is so low, but guns are available, perhaps 
>this means crime is a result of social factors, not access to guns.

It's certainly to a large degree a result of social factors, but access to
handguns is *very* restricted. Recently, a newspaper article mentioned that of
the more than 300'000 inhabitants of Zurich, only 200 had a handgun carrying
permit. Illegal carrying, of course happens relatively often.

Matthias

-----
Matthias Neeracher                                      neeri@iis.ethz.ch
   "He carried an automatic pistol in one pocket and a rabbit's
    foot in the other" -- Ayn Rand, _Atlas Shrugged_
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:5220 alt.politics.clinton:5545 talk.abortion:36615
From: mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac)
Subject: Re: The big flaw in Clinton's Vietnam scenario
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 02:05:17 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.182101.23823@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>
>In article <1992Sep6.045247.5649@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>, 
>mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) said:
>
>> In Clinton you have a man who boasts proudly that he already had as
>> a goal becoming President while in his teens, a man who claims to
>> have more qualities of leadership than Bush, a man who says he
>> firmly believes in his principles, and a man who eloquently wrote of
>> how he could not morally justify fighting in the Vietnam war.  If
>> all these things are true, wouldn't such a man have thrown himself
>> into the forefront of the anti-war movement and demonstrated what a
>> great leader he was?...  If Clinton was of presidential stock, he
>> would have stayed in the US and worked his way into the leadership
>> of the anti-war movement, instead of worrying about future
>> 'political viability'.
>
>I don't agree with your reasoning.  Why should Clinton have sacrificed
>his chances of making a big difference in the future in favor of
>making a small difference in the present?

   I could not feel good about voting for someone who would ignore the
problems of the present because he thought he would have to 'save' himself
for some hypothetical period in the future which would require his brillant
leadership.  I didn't know that one of Clinton's pluses was the ability to
predict the future twenty years ahead.  We could easily have had fifty
straight years of properity after Vietnam.  And for all the bad things
going on in this country now, I would never take instead the state this
country was in during the Vietnam war, one of the most divisive times this
country has ever been through.  He should have tried to make a difference
then.

-- 
Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"With our combined strength we can end this destructive | These pontifications
conflict and bring order to the galaxy." - Darth Vader  |      are my own!    
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Clinton gaffe of the day
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:12:33 GMT

In article <1685EB6A9.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu> MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
> 
>>people even think that Bush stated half a dozen times that it was
>>a war "with Saddam Hussein, not a war with the Iraqi people."  A
>>quick survey of the corpses would seem to indicate that he could
>>not possibly have said that.
> 
>This is a silly argument. Either you're talking about the civilians,
>in which case you're flat out wrong about numbers, or you're talking
>about soldiers, in which case you have some astoundingly naiive ideas
>about what happens in a war!
> 
>Rather than talking to the corpses (you do have quite a gift there!)
>if you'd read interviews with the Iraqui non-combatants in the major cities
>that were published in the world media you'd have discovered that they
>were amazed at how *little* collateral damage they received. One prisoner
>told a WSJ reporter that his officers had told him not to worry, the
>Americans were very accurate and were only attacking aircraft, gun emplacements
>and so forth. If he stayed dug in he was safe.
> 

I suggest you read some non-American newspapers about collateral
damage...the claims about how smart a fair number of the American bombs were
are about as true as the incubator scam perpertrated by Hill and
Knowlton for the Kuwaiti Royal family.

Gerald

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: htilney@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: The big flaw in Clinton's Vietnam scenario
Organization: Clark University
Date: 7 SEP 92 16:22:07 GMT


In a previous article, mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) wrote:
>>> If all these things are true, wouldn't such a
>>> man have thrown himself into the forefront of the anti-war movement and
>>> demonstrated what a great leader he was?

What are the facts regarding Clinton's involvement with the anti-war 
movement? Is it certain that he didn't partake in it to any degree?
> 
>  No, actually as long as he would have articulated himself without
>resorting to violence I would have had no problems with him representing
>the anti-war movement.

I trust that Bush's operatives would have *made* it a problem.

	[stuff about Clinton's moderate philosophy deleted]

>   He could just as easily have moved to a moderate position because of the
>move to the right by the majority of the US since the beginning of the
>eighties.

This is getting a bit too speculative, but if you'd agree that Clinton was
mature enough to have a developed world philosophy at an early age, then it's
not fair to propose that he'd assume a moderate stance just to suit the public
trend of the past decade.

>Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>"The question is - who do you trust to make change work | These pontifications
>for you?" - President George Bush                       |      are my own!    

"My position has not changed. I'm still, uh, pro, pro, uh, pro-life."
						- President George Bush

-				|   "A guy with a hard-on is not
Bart "Webb" Tilney		|    my idea of art."
Email: htilney@vax.clarku.edu	|    			- John Mellencamp
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:5157 talk.politics.misc:45503 alt.politics.clinton:5463
From: unrzc7@daphne.rrze.uni-erlangen.de (THOMAS LUBANSKI)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: economics, swedes, and fantasies (was Re: Bush is a ...)
Date: 15 Sep 92 13:30:43 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum Erlangen

In article <BuMA0w.4A0@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
>Subject: Re: economics, swedes, and fantasies (was Re: Bush is a ...)
>Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 11:17:20 GMT
>  I'm not sure it's good news all around.  The high mark effectively
>  prevented other nations from lowering their interest rates, or in
>  the case of Sweden forced dramatic increases.   This encourages
>  savings and DIScourages borrowing.  Yesterday's drop will reverse
>  this.   The BBC said that the French, for instance, will probably 
>  react by lowering their rates to try to stimulate their way out of
>  their 11% unemployment rate.  The UK at 9.5% may do the same.

It is good news. (I'm German, I've gotta know :)) First of all the high mark 
effectively stiffled almost all other European economies. France and the UK 
really didn't need to have such high interest rates but were forced to keep 
them by the Bundesbank. 
And the drop really isn't that significant - it is mostly a political 
signal. They lowered the Diskontsatz by .5% to 8.25% and the Lombardsatz 
by .25 to 9.5% (please check those two words out for yourself; they exceed 
my knowledge). I still call this high interest rates.


Thomas

"What would Janna say about it?"
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:5179 alt.politics.clinton:5494 alt.politics.perot:1482 rec.humor:28685 talk.bizarre:30221 talk.politics.misc:45532 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5395
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Date: 15 Sep 92 15:45:23 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Distribution: na
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Scott M Lackey) writes:
|> Brice Dowaliby):
|> 
|> 	Re. Congressional bad checks.
|> > 
|> > No question this was abused, but it is _not_ illegal, any more than it 
|> > would be illegal for me and my wife to set up a joint account and for me
|> > to write checks on "her" funds.
|> > 
|> 	As I have heard numerous people explain, this is exactly the case.
|> Any group of people can set up an account like Congress did.  However,
|> I would not want to be responsible for the actions of a couple hundred
|> people representing a cross section of Americans.  The net account would
|> be positive for about 5 seconds. How ironic that people complain about
|> Congress doing something that ordinary Americans could do also if
|> ordinary Americans were honest enough as a group!!  I have no delusions
|> that Congress is honest, really!!!  However, I do think it is really
|> hard to complain about Congress when the electorate is more worried 
|> about bashing Congressmen regardless of whether or not they have got
|> their facts straight, then they are about  things like the
|> deficit, civil rights, foreign policy etc...  IMHO, as long as we
|> whine about trivia and ignore real issues, we (as a country, not
|> necessarily as individuals) deserve what we get!
|> 
Another interesting point is that all of the overdrafts were short term,
and that the net account was generaly positive.  They all paid it back.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Hormones
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 9 Sep 92 02:30:00 GMT
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

glass@adcalc.fnal.gov (Michael Glass) writes:
:      Am I the only one who believes that Geo. Bush is acting manic
: again?

Nope.  Time for a new President.  :) 

--
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.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed)
Subject: Re: realism & the deficit
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 06:47:30 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.044900.255@eng.ufl.edu> jason@alpha.ee.ufl.edu (Jason Nadrowski) writes:
>In my nonprofessional opinion Bush has the right idea; however he does
>not go far enough.  He should phase out Social Security.  If memory
>serves me right, the government has borrowed more from Social Security
>than it has from banks and the such.  Social Security is just a tax
>in disguise.
>
>Also with the baby boomers retiring, and thus receiving SS, the base
>for the now transfer payments will shrink in proportion to those
>receiving SS payments.
>
>As always, canidates avoid the controversial issues.
>
>What do you think?

I'd like to see Social Security phased out.

At least make SS optional, eliminating any separate payment into the 
SS fund.  Allow people to *choose* put a percentage of their 
income tax into the SS fund.  Pay people out of the fund according 
to whether they put money into the fund.  Call it a government 
sponsored IRA, whatever you like.  Just give me a choice.

Unfortunately, the closer people get to their death, the more
short-sighted they seem to become.  Just ask the biggest opponent
of any sort of SS reform, the AARP.

-anwar
-- 
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
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4865 alt.politics.clinton:5095 alt.politics.elections:12949
From: tomster@wpi.WPI.EDU (Thomas Richard Dibble)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The big flaw in Clinton's Vietnam scenario
Date: 12 Sep 92 20:53:36
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA 01609-2280
NNTP-Posting-Host: wpi.wpi.edu
In-reply-to: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu's message of Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:18:47 GMT

In article <BuF9BD.7v4@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher) writes:


   nfs@kastle (Norbert Schlenker) writes:

   : All you Democrats had better hope Bill Clinton doesn't win in
   : November.  The depression is coming, and whoever wins is going to be
   : raked over the coals for not doing enough to stop it.  Do you really

About 10% of the people in California are under the delusion that the
depression you speak of is already here.  I'd say Bush has already guaranteed
his place in the Hoover Hall of Fame.

		---- tomster@wpi.wpi.edu


--
/^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\
|  The bleeding hearts and the artists  \ /  Words of Wisdom, Inc.            |
|  make their stand.  And when they've  / \  Thomas R. Dibble, esquire, C.E.O.|
|  given you their all, some stagger &  \ /  aka, The Tomster, Tomahawk, etc. |
|  fall,  after  all,  it's not  easy,  / \  send mail/ money to:             |
|  banging your heart against some mad  \ /  tomster@wpi.wpi.edu              |
|  bugger's wall. ---R. Waters, _Wall_  / \  (or don't send it at all)        |
\vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv/

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao)
Subject: Re: Clinton gaffe of the day
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 22:34:09 GMT

In article <BuDrrp.318@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarWatcher@uiuc.edu writes:
>golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>
>: I suggest you read some non-American newspapers about collateral
>: damage...the claims about how smart a fair number of the American bombs were
>: are about as true as the incubator scam perpertrated by Hill and
>: Knowlton for the Kuwaiti Royal family.
>
>I can't help but wonder about these claims that there was little collateral
>damage, when there were so many reports about "friendly fire" casualties.
>What?  All the collateral damage was on our side of the lines?
>
>--
>Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"C'mon boys, don't bother me.
>Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			 I'm debating Danny Quayle.
 `

   There were not "so many" reports on friendly fires. In fact, there were
major cover ups on friendly fires. We all know now the majority of causalties
the allied troops were from so called friendly fire. When firepower kills 
people, there is no "friendly" fire.  Same deadly fire !, be it from the
US army or from Saddam's republican guard, and the republican white house
(of George Bush and Ron Reagan) should find some responsibilities for these
casulties, for they armed Saddam in the first place.
 

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Subject: Re: Have you heard of the Religious Left?
Organization: Intel Supercomputer Systems Division
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 16:07:03 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.142704.9707@news.uiowa.edu>, williams@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Kent Williams) writes:
|> > ...makes me wonder how come I've
|> > never heard the term religious left?
|> 
|> Because religious people on the left do good, they don't just talk
|> about it.  

Oh, this is rich!

Ho, ho, ho, call me Santa Claus!

Hey, let's vote ourselves some more bread and circuses!

|> It's only on the right that there are people who call
|> themselves "religious" and want to stick their noses into everyone's
|> business and tell them how to behave.

Right, that's why the religious left is always lobbying to soak the productive
for money for the poor, gun control, support of leftist regimes, special rights
for the "underprivileged", etc.

It seems these days that "religious" and "busy-body" are synonyms.

|> I could name a few very active, left-leaning religious organizations
|> but I don't want to disturbe your ignorance.  Or blow their cover.

Actually, given the lack of facts in your posting, it looks more like it's your
ignorance you don't want to disturb.  You have, however, done a fine job of
*displaying* your ignorance.

If they're honest, above board organizations, they don't need "cover", so I say
you are full of bluff.

In playgound language, which I *hope* you can understand:

		"Name three."

|> "I'm tired of being nice to people who're full of shit" -- Me

Me, too - that does, however, summerize quite nicely my attitude towards you.

-- 
Kirk Hays - NRA Life.
Start your day with a little civil disobedience.  Call BATF at 1-800-ATF-GUNS or
1-800-RUN-GUNS, tell them what you think of gun grabbers and government employees
that encourage people to narc on their neighbors.  Good for the soul.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4305 alt.politics.clinton:4304 alt.politics.elections:12583