HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: 00rdharringt@bsu-ucs.uucp (Rob Harrington)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during V
Date: 9 Oct 92 06:52:32 GMT

In article <8OCT199219514098@utarlg.uta.edu>, b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
> 
> 1. So you see no reason to go into Yugoslavia or Somalia militarily now?
>    And are there no parallels? 

Send 500,000 troops in?  No. Of course not...
yes, there are parallels... _that's_ why I wouldn't send 500,000 troops
in...
 
> 2. On the personal level of people involved in war, when common folk are
>    forced to fight without exemption, can you offer reasons why those-who
>    would-lead-this-country should stand apart? If indeed there is valid
>    criticism to be made -- should it not be made from within the system.
>    (At least so that one knows what there criticizing.)
>                                            

Hate to mention this but the men fighting over there weren't equally
from all walks of life.  There were proportionally more blacks and
more poor.  And if your argument were valid can you give any good
reasons why Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, and Dan Quayle should be in
one of "those-who-would-lead-this-country"?
                                           
-- 
/---------------------------------------v-------------------------------------\
|  Rob Harrington                       |              Ball State University  |
|  Department of History                |               Muncie, Indiana, USA  |
|  Vax--00RDHARRINGT@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu  |       Unix--herring@bsu-cs.bsu.edu  |
>---------------------------------------^-------------------------------------<
|                                Clinton/Gore '92                             |
|                  Ball State University - University Democrats               |
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------/
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51375 talk.abortion:42283 alt.activism.d:3831
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Choice for life (was Re: Walking down to the student center last night
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 15:06:10 GMT
 <lefty-091092133622@lefty.apple.com> <1992Oct12.011232.18564@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 

kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:

>In article <lefty-091092133622@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct6.064229.23498@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>,
>>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) wrote:
>>> 
>>> I never said to prohibit sex, and based on what I have read, it is
>>> an enjoyable experience for some people, but what's wrong with a little
>>> responsibility???
>>> 
>>> And let me assure you: I most definitely practice the solution I propose.
>>
>>Out of choice or necessity?
>
>Well, if he'll be able to "force his views on us" in 2005, that would
>make him 7 or 8 years old in 1992...

I assumed that that would make him eligible for running for President,
which would make him 22...

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.flame
From: ncovey@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (neil covey)
Subject: Re: State by State Poll Results
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 20:30:59 GMT

Thanks for the state-by-state tally.  I know Perot, debates, and such
will change things, but by my, admittedly quick, calculation, Clinton
has 281 electoral votes just in the states he leads by ten points or
more.
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Statistics from nurses ( was Re: Mr. Cramer's strange views )
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:20:31 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Mark Wilson) writes:
|> 
|> >twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
|> 
|> >In article <12528@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
|> 
|> >>told a donor that there was still about a 1:100,000 or so chance
|> >>of getting AIDS-tainted blood.
|> 
|> 
|> >That nurse should have been reprimanded for alarmism.  The chance of
|> >being infected with HIV for *donating* blood is 0:100,000.
|> 
|> Since by definition the blood donor is not getting any blood.  It is pretty
|> obvious that the above number only refers to blood receipients.
|> The donor is still safe.
|> 
Wrong.  There was a chance of getting aids donating blood because there
were some cases where the needles used were not properly cleaned or there
could be blood-to-blood contact between the technician and the donor.  Those
gaps have been closed, so the 0:100,000 is accurate in hospital and red-cross
environments.
-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49901 misc.legal:18205 alt.politics.usa.misc:106
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Perot and Mortgage deduction
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:18:50 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <Bvv0nr.2MD@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com> dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.140035.5043@cbnews.cb.att.com> nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell) writes:

>>While you're complaining that his program is a "soak the rich"
>>scheme, others are complaining that his gas and sin taxes place an
>>unfair burden on the middle class or that his deep spending cuts will
>>place an unfair burden on the poor.  Sounds like shared pain to
>>me.
>
>This is an excellent point, and a powerful argument in favor of
>what Perot is saying.  If you have people of all economic classes
>complaining about how certain proposals are hurting their individual
>benefits from government largesse, it is both rational and correct
>to characterize the results of such proposals as "shared pain".
>
>Dave
>   Libertarians for Congress!
>   Perot for President!

   What, is there a phenothiazine shortage on the Net these days?  Perot
   wants to raise taxes and increase the role of government in the economy
   and here we have yet *another* person who divides his loyalties between
   Perot and libertarians!     

   This is moronic.   Perot and libertarianism is like oil and water: 
   they don't mix.   Perot is the opposite of a libertarian.  

   Anyway the concept of government enforcing "shared pain" is bogus for
   two reasons:

   1.  Any serious attempt to eliminate the deficit and start paying
       down the national debt will produce PLENTY of pain to go around
       in the form of double-digit unemployment.

   2.  Why SHOULD the pain be distributed equally?   It should be mainly
       directed at those who advocated massive government programs and
       huge deficits in the first place.   Those groups and industries 
       who have been promoting this nonsesne are the ones who should
       pay.


---peter



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:16:19 GMT

In article <Bw2CE4.GEC@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.043701.28553@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>In article <1687E86A2.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct12.024125.7749@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
>>>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>>
>>>>"Intelligent Liberal" is an oxymoron, and a liberal is just a moron.
>>>>
>>>>:)
>>>>Simon
>>>
>>>Simon...until now, I respected you, because you seemed to be trying to
>>>have a serious debate.  Now, you have sunk to silly name-calling, and
>>>you have lost my respect.  And *NO*, the smiley does not change that.
>>>
>>>I am quite a bit more liberal than you, although I do not find myself
>>>in agreement with all "liberal" positions.  I am considered intelligent
>>>by everyone who knows me.  You just insulted me with your silly
>>>comments.  If you want to have a serious discussion with people, that
>>>is not the right way to proceed.
>>>
>>I got equally "silly" flames in e-mail.  So now my side of the debate
>>is invalid because I told a joke??  I'll keep up this debate, in a serious
>>manner, what you saw is posted in measured amounts, not indiscriminately.
>
>Well, if you really believe that what you're doing is debating in a serious
>manner, then don't be too surprised if no one bothers to take you seriously.
>Good luck with your LaRouchian campaign in 2008, assuming there's still a
>Presidency to have an election for...
>
La Rouche is a Nazi, I am not.   Did you notice that those one or two
jokes came in the middle of the debate?? I don't just sit here firing of
jokes on the net.  I mean, there are bad anti-Bush jokes, no one gets in
trouble for that.  I do intend to keep seriousness in this debate though.
Simon
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: The Economy, stupid!
Date: 9 Oct 92 22:09:56 GMT
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Originator: rja@redwood26


There are 200,000 fewer jobs now than there were two months ago.
No wonder Bush keeps taking about Clinton's college days...

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Quayle's a liar!^H^H^H^H^Hbit inventive!
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 14:24:40 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.060835.28430@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>>He was wrong about the figures (kind of like the way Clinton is wrong
>>when he accuses Bush of Medicade and Medicare cuts) but is correct
>>about the basic issue.

>Well, Bush said so.  He said he wants to cut entitlements.  But not
>Social Security.  What else is left besides Medicare?

Clinton agrees that entitlements need to be cut. So why isn't he saying
the same thing about himself?

No, it doesn't wash. Bush is proposing a freeze on spending which is not
a cut.

>>Perhaps you can tell us all just how much Clinton wants to spend to clean
>>up other peoples environmental problems?

>They aren't other people's environmental problems.  Gore isn't talking
>about cleaning up a toxic waste dump in Tanzania.  

I think he is. But your ducking the question: how much will he spend?

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------191 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Re: AIDS and Legislation of morality
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 03:53:05 GMT

In article <71020@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt7994a@prism.gatech.EDU (ORMOND,SEAN PATRICK) writes:
>In article <schumach.718938584@convex.convex.com> schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
>>Not telling kids about condoms because they might then go out and
>>have sex, makes as much sense as not telling them about seat belts
>>because they might then go out and drive.
>
>Telling kids that condoms will protect them from a fatal disease makes
>as much sense as telling them that seat belts will prevent them from
>having a fatal accident.

But seat belts do prevent (many) fatal accidents.  What's your point?
-- 
ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
ajax crypto-analyzer -- warning! remove all chicken bones first
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Re: PREDICTION: ECONOMY NOSE DIVES IN 1993
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:56:04 GMT

In article <14OCT199211193984@utkvx3.utk.edu> drevik@utkvx3.utk.edu (Drevik, Steve) writes:
>I will make a prediction that the US economy will take a
>massive nose dive in late 1st and 2nd quarter 1993.

I'll agree, but only because of another Bush-mistake.  New
regulations go in to insure the banks in December, and this
will cause many of the banks to fail.  This will cost the
government and taxpayers billions of dollars more than if
the FDIC shut down the banks this summer, but then that
would have made the economy look bad before the election.
So, these failing banks are currently sitting there, losing
billions more dollars, waiting for the ax to fall and the FDIC
to bail them out.

>Why?  Well, this all goes back to George's pathetic attempt
>to get the economy going in early 1992.  By executive order,
>employers were told to change the IRS witholdings of wage
>earners all across the country.  The idea was that everyone 
>would have more money NOW (well, THEN) in favor of money LATER
>and we would pull out of the recession.

I don't think that the change in refunds will have any serious
effect on the economy.  There's no evidence that that the receipt
of the refund increases spending markedly, and there should be no
real effect when people have to pay a sum for taxes instead of
receive a refund.  (And people are better off this way, in that
they have the extra money now, instead of twelve months later.
Conversely, the government's worse off in having the money twelve
months later instead of now.  Of course, inflation and interest
rates are so low, that the twelve months doesn't really make a
difference, either.)
-- 
ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
ajax crypto-analyzer -- warning! remove all chicken bones first
From: gt7994a@prism.gatech.EDU (ORMOND,SEAN PATRICK)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Serious question for Clinton bashers
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:24:07 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <1992Oct16.175830.13536@nntpserver.chevron.com> jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros) writes:
>I've been thinking for a while about the large unfavorable rating for
>Clinton.  I had a pretty unfavorable idea of him also, until I realized
>that much of this information was coming from biased sources.
                                               ^^^^^^
Unfortunately, during an election year, the ONLY sources are BIASED sources.
I've seen the most scientific looking facts twisted and turned by both
parties.  One simple way to cast a vote, is to ignore the media, ignore
the platforms, and ignore their theatrical debate performances.  Simply look
at the type of people who support Clinton and the type of people who support
Bush.  Which group do you most closely identify with, or which group would
you MOST LIKE to identify with?

>I am leaning towards voting for Clinton at this time.  I'd like to know
>why I shouldn't...

I don't claim to be unbiased, but IMHO, Clinton CANNOT be trusted.  Rush
is probably more biased than all the liberal media put together, but one
thing he does very clearly is to show Clinton making statements that are
clearly contradictory or flat out lies.  He recently showed consecutive
pictures of Clinton's hair going from gray to brown to gray over a sequence
of days, depending on whether Clinton was addressing a group of young 
students or a group of senior citizens.  I clearly remember during the
Democratic primaries, how Clinton would adopt the accent of whoever he
happened to be addressing.  Most recently, I heard a (supposedly unbiased)
newsman report that Clinton mentioned that he would consider legalizing
drug use during an interview in Rolling Stone magazine.  Did you hear him
during the debate?  Did you read the article?  I guess Clinton could
say, "I did 'consider' drug legalization, and decided I was dead-set
against it!"  He always leaves himself a backdoor; hence, the name "Slick
Willie".  Now the fact that Clinton dyes his hair in no way disqualifies
him from the presidency.  It does, however, point out how desperate he
is to be everything to everybody.  The only fact I know about Clinton
is that I don't know what he looks like, I don't know what he sounds like,
and NOBODY knows what he REALLY thinks about any issue.  Note: just about
everything I pointed out is verifiable by watching Clinton's speeches, and
nowhere did I say that the Democrats have a monopoly on such tactics.

-- 
Sean P. Ormond
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Clinton '92 - "Read my lips: NEW TAXES"
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50571 ca.politics:8572 ba.politics:5985
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: No on 9
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:22:33 GMT
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA

In article <1992Oct8.155154.26572@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
writes:
>    >Different issue. The original poster was talking about
>    >gay-bashing, an inexcusable act of violence which typically
>    >entails several people with bludgeons thrashing one or two
>    >unarmed people. The victims don't have a chance to surrender
>    >their wallets, they are beaten purely out of malice. I
>    >believe this happens reasonably often; I have friends who
>    >have been beaten by such cowards. The property damage you
>    >mentioned was a burned police car, not someone's private
>    >property.
>
>Oh, it was a POLICE car! Well then, THAT makes it different, eh? I
>suppose if the had murdered somebody, and it turned out to be a
>policeman, then that would have not been so bad either?
>
>Actually, it was TWO cars burned, and a hell of a lot of windows
>shattered, and at least one store somewhat looted.

Wait, are YOU running AutoRonzone now? :)  Your thought processes seem
to be skittering around pretty randomly...

I assume you're talking about something that happened after the killer
of Moscone and Milk was sentenced, in the late 70s?  Two police cars
were burned; I'm not making any excuses for that.  However, they weren't
private property, so no one (possibly uninsured) person suffered as a
result of that crime.  IMO, that property damage isn't shit, compared to
a brutal and merciless bashing.  Your assertion that they are somehow on
par makes me wonder just what relative values you place on people and
property, Phil.

    don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Mars is essentially in the same orbit... somewhat the same distance from the
 Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals,
 we believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If
 oxygen, that means we can breathe."
                -- Vice President Dan Quayle
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Baldwin  -  Software Engineer  - e-mail to:  donb@tamri.com
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Anti-war = Anti-country?!
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:41:53 GMT
Organization: Chevron

I think one of the stupidest statements anyone can make is
"My country right or wrong."  

If my country isn't right, I should be doing everything in my power to
make it right.  If Bush wants to run this country into the ground, it's
my duty as an American citizen to stop him, (in legal ways, of course).
Get off this idea that Republican presidents can never be wrong.  Didn't
Nixon teach you anything?

This is my last post here.  (I'm unsubscribing, so no need to add me to
your kill files).  There are too many loonies on this group.  After
reading so many posts that believe in this McCarthyistic attack on
Clinton, I'm just going to leave these people to their own little world,
where they can believe that America can do no wrong, Bush has a great
domestic policy, and that Santa is due in 7 more weeks.

Adios.
-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: csc4213@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (I don't know man, he was just here)
Subject: Does the IRS cost more than they bring in?
Organization: Georgia State University
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 01:31:52 GMT

I have heard claims that the cost of running the IRS is greater than
the income that they bring in. I would be greatly appreciative of an
answer-finding debate to determine the legitimacy of these claims.

Like most Americans, I am not fond of paying Income Tax and would much rather
find a better way of doing things. If we can downsize government to the point
where we automatically compensate for tax cuts, all will be happy.


Josh Guttman
csc4213@gsusgi2.gsu.edu 
Uncle_Remus on ICB

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc