HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
Subject: Re: That Legal right over Gambit...
Date: 11 Oct 92 22:55:16 GMT
Organization: Purdue University

In article <1992Oct11.213217.1667@technology.com> judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
[section deleted]

>	As a teenager in the early 60s, the only guys I saw rushing
>	to get in and "serve this country" were the terminally stupid
>	and the nuts.  Everyone else tried to get in the National 
>	Guard, school, even the m word (married).

  Must have been a disgusting crowd you hung out with.  I saw honorable men
and women, people who believed in their country, going into the services.
Terminally stupid and nuts were screened out, and sent back to your neighbor-
hood.

>		Judy. Congratulations, Steve, ex-deep-water-sailor.

Larry J
S.E.A. 13JAN70-12MAR72


-- 
#L.W. Jewell Moderator at the Veterans Information Site (veteran@cc.purdue.edu)#
#& WWII-L Listowner: "Sunday's horoscope is note worthy because of its strange,#
#sudden and wholly unpredictable and inexplicable occurrences, affecting all   #
#phases of life." "Your Horoscope" L.A. Evening Herald Express, Sat, 12/06/41  #
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The Games are Over, and Clinton is Going to Win BIG!!
Date: 16 Oct 92 21:14:50 GMT
Organization: SPSS, Inc.

In article <PA146008.403.719254218@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
> In article <adams.719246053@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
> 
>>VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>>
>>>In article <adams.719178972@spssig>adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>
>>>>PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <adams.719167533@spssig>adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If you accept that Clinton is going to win, then why don't you tone down the
>>>>>>>abusive rhetoric a little and give him a chance?  
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Just like the left toned down all of their screeching during Reagan and
>>>>>>Bush's Presidencies?
>>>>>
>>>>>    Y'know, "They started it," just doesn't impress me.
>>>>>
>>>>The issue here is wanting a double standard.  It's ok for the left to
>>>>screech all they want when the White House is under control they don't
>>>>like.  But conservatives are supposed to tone down and give the opposition
>>>>a chance.
>>>>
>>>>Typical liberal/left double standard.
>>>
>>>    Who said it was ok?  The misdeeds of one party doesn't excuse the 
>>>misdeeds of the other.
>>>
>>>    These people want to be leaders?  Fine.
>>>
>>>    They can start by leading by example.
>>
>>Of course.  THEY can start.  How about the LEFT starting?  No?  Of course
>>not.  Once again, double standard.
>
>     What the *left* does, is *irrelevent* to what the right.  Whether
>the left wants to start leading or not makes *no* difference if the right 
>wants to make a go at it.
>
>     It's time both sides quite blaming the other for their own failings.

I see that you have consistantly refused to hold the left to ANY standard
while demanding that the right follow the one you set.

You are demonstrating my point quite nicely.  Thank you!

 -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
From: skrenta@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Rich Skrenta)
Subject: Next Perot ad?
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:12:34 GMT

Does anyone know when Perot's second thirty minute ad (the one with his
proposed solutions) will be aired?

--
Rich Skrenta
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50465 alt.rush-limbaugh:6936 alt.politics.elections:15766 alt.politics.clinton:9301 alt.politics.bush:8331
From: hlin@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (hua.t.lin)
Subject: Re: The Jim Baker Phenomenon
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:20:25 GMT

In article <84886@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
>
>Now we see that Bush proposes to put Jim Baker in charge of getting the economy
>back into shape.  This is better than a real plan for economic recovery. We can
>trust Baker to do for the economy what he did for the Bush reelection campaign.

Until sunday, G.Bush has been saying, `Vote for me! It is not my fault!'
Now he has a new line, `Vote for me! Trust Jim Baker!'
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50551 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6562 alt.politics.elections:15840 talk.abortion:41614 alt.sex:32449 alt.politics.clinton:9384 alt.politics.bush:8404 soc.singles:27387 alt.politics.homosexuality:6393 talk.bizarre:33439
From: bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.singles,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:08:36 GMT
Reply-To: bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU
Distribution: usa
Organization: Fluent Inc., Lebanon NH


kjurena@lonestar.utsa.edu (Keith R. Jurena) writes:

>Apparently you don't listen to Rush.

And apparently you listen to him too much (or perhaps just believe too
much of what you hear).

>In a recession with ~7% unemployment
>the thing we DON'T need is three months of unemployment promised to a
>worker.  This bill hinges on the premise that employers are cold and
>mean slave drivers who don't care about their employee's families.
>I have a revelation for you: they are NOT.
>When 75% of the jobs are in small businesses, imposing such legislation
>will only result in greater unemployment.  These bosses know their
>employees well enough to allow "slack" for emergencies.  What good is
>an unemployed worker in paying bills, providing food and welfare for
>her/his family?  If this bill would have passed, it would have required
>"Aid to temporarily unemployed workers who have sick children and who
>don't have to work".  Get real, family values is working for your children/
>spouse.

Abut the on;ly line of this I support is the last one (or at least
the part about working for your children).

Listen, Rush has this image of a mess-load of workers taking
three months off because of the death of a parent, or whatever reason.
And that's total trash.

The vast majority of the people covered by this law wouldn;t be taking 
time off because they couldn't afford to.  I make a decent living 
where I am, but I'm not swimming in excess cash and believe me, 
two *weeks* without pay would be a serious hardship, forget about 
three months.  I wouldn't take three months off if my *wife* died,
forget about if one of my parents did.

Not many people can afford to take three months off from work, and not 
many would.  
-- 
   Brice Dowaliby, Fluent Inc., 10 Cavendish Court, Lebanon, NH  03766
                         bd%fluent@dartmouth.edu        
             I don't speak for them, they don't speak for me
                              DoD # 0698
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Subject: Re: Polling technique (was Re: Media coverage for Marrou/Lord (call these #'s!))
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:49:36 GMT

In article <Bvt0vw.LFw@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
damico@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (bill d'Amico) writes:
 
>As someone who has been polled this year I can confrim this. When I told
>the pollster I was leaning toward voting for Marrou she put me down as
>other/_undecided_. Undecided? I don't think so, but that's where she
>said I was being listed. She did seem willing to listen to me, perhaps
>because she was also doing market research, and wanted to get my
>responses there as well. BTW, I was called long distance, so it's not
>always local market research companys doing the work.
>
>--
>Bill D'Amico                           Strange women, lying in ponds,
 
Interviewing is a learnable skill (I was pretty good at it).  One of
the members of the skill set is listening to a discussion in which you
are not interested, looking for an opportunity to redirect the
conversation back to the survey questions.  It involves walking a fine
line between trying to hurry the respondent and making him/her angry
enough to hang up.  If the respondent doesn't finish the survey, it
doesn't count toward the quota.  (Side note:  lots of interviewers will
"finish" the survey for you if they think they can get away with it).
 
As for the long distance calls....things may have changed since 1975
when I did this stuff.  LD rates have dropped a lot, and out-wats is a
lot cheaper.  My info could be very dated.  Still, though, I can almost
guarantee the interviewer's "power" to pass on comments not on the
survey form is very limited.
 
Jim McMaster
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: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 13:42:56 GMT

In article <treilly.719124552@vincent1.iastate.edu> treilly@iastate.edu (Edward C Reilly) writes:

>     In his book "Earth in the Balance" Gore writes that the Marshall
>plan cost 2% of the GNP, and in today's terms that amounts to 100
>billion (not 200 billion) dollars.  

Quayle quoted $100 billion.

>He then said that an environmental
>plan of that magnitude (world wide) is needed, and that cost should not
>be bourne by the U.S. alone.  

It does say (according to NPR) that the cost should be disprportionatly
by the US.

>Quayle said, incorrectly that Gore wanted
>us to pay 100 billion for cleaning up other country's environmental
>problems.  He was wrong.  

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.

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

   Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------192 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell)
Subject: Re: Perot and Mortgage deduction
Organization: AT&T Network Systems  -  Columbus, Ohio
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:13:02 GMT

From article <BvvEFD.1KE@apollo.hp.com>, by nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson):
> In article <1992Oct9.191500.16393@cbnews.cb.att.com> nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell) writes:
>>
>>I would much rather see spending cuts than taxes.  Perot has proposed
>>a vigorous set of spending cuts and they simply will not get the job
>>done alone.
> 
>   Usenet readers who were good at aptitude tests might recognize this 
>   last sentence as the kind that would precede the question, "What word
>   does not belong here?"
> 
>   The answer is "vigorous".   Clearly Perot's proposed cuts are just
>   not vigorous enough.   The point that Caldwell and other Perotistas
>   just aren't "getting" is that a $1.1 trillion federal budget (i.e., 
>   the size of government you get after sufficient cuts to balance
>   spending with revenue) is LOTS of money.  It's still 20% of GDP.   
>   That's not exactly some libertarian minarchy!

Usenet readers with a modicum of reading comprehension will recall
that this argument was already answered in the very post Peter Nelson
is quoting.  To review and elaborate for those who flunked:

Not even Bush believes that spending cuts alone will work.  With budget 
cuts and optimistic economic forecasts, he still ends up predicting a 130 
billion dollar deficit at the end of four years.   There is simply _no 
way_ in the real world you are going to cut the budget any deeper than 
Bush or Perot.  Neither of them believes that those cuts will balance 
the budget in any reasonable period of time.  

You can talk about 1.1 trillion being a lot of money until you're blue
in the face.  Congress is _not_ going to cut the budget that much as
things stand today.   

I love this idea of deficit reduction through spending cuts.  The 
difference is that I've figured out that it is not going to happen in 
our current system.  The only way you're going to get a congress 
responsible enough to make those kinds of cuts is to support Perot's 
program of government reforms.   

You're proposing four more years of gridlock and the associated exploding
deficit.


"Don't drive too slowly."                 Richard Caldwell
                                          AT&T Network Systems
                                          att!cbnews!nrc
                                          nrc@cbnews.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jyc@leo.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis)
Subject: Re: Anti-war = Anti-country?!
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date:  9 Oct 92 22:52:01 GMT


jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin) writes:


>       The point Bush was making is not that Clinton was involved in
>war protests, but that he was supporting the other side.  He
>apparently went to Russia to protest against America. 
>

   Fascinating.  Just a few hours ago I was remarking to someone that
Bush and his gang of bandits had reached a new level of sliminess by
carefully crafting their public charges about Clinton's college travels
in language that strongly suggests, without actually coming out and
saying so (because it would be a lie,) that Clinton went to Moscow to
participate in anti-American demonstrations.  Bush, for instance, said
(quoting from memory, but this is pretty close) "He [Clinton] needs to
explain why he went to Moscow and why he participated in anti-American
demonstrations on foreign soil."  

   And now here I am looking at evidence that people are actually dumb
enough to fall for this scummy rhetorical hornswaggling! 

   This reminds me of an anecdote -- I can't say it's true, but it's
been widely reported -- about Richard Nixon's early political career.
Supposedly Nixon suggested that rumors be spread to the effect that his
opponent enjoyed having sex with pigs.  When his aides objected that no
one would believe such a story, Nixon replied, "I know -- but let's make
the bastard deny it!"   
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss
From: michael@resonex.com (Michael Bryan)
Subject: Re: Kentucky Lawmaker tries to amend constitution to bar sodomy
Organization: Resonex Inc., Sunnyvale CA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:16:25 GMT

In article <9210072028.AA05670@client.its.rpi.edu> buckmr@rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire) writes:
>Harper said condoms are not always successful.  "The facts bear out that
>when people get the urge to perform some acts, they may not have a
>condom."

Gee, how about this: "The facts bear out that when people get the urge
to perform some [consenting sexual] acts, they may not care whether or
not the state considers those acts legal."

-- 
Michael Bryan  michael@resonex.com  "Milk and Cheese in '92!"  |     ,_,
"Lovers are like... dentures.  You don't want them in your     |    /oo \
mouth all night, but you sure as hell want them within arm's   |    <>__|
reach in the morning!"  --- Miss Almira Gulch                  |    |  U|
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.activism.d
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: Choice for life (was Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:35:46 GMT

In article <lefty-091092133203@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>In article <1992Oct3.031102.1065@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>,
>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) wrote:
>> 
>> But when I talk to a pro-choice advocate, abortion seems to be the only
>> choice they want to discuss.  Here's a good choice for couples: abstinence
>> until they are fully ready for children.
>
>I hate to be the one to point this out to you, but non-consummation is
>grounds for annulment.

Not only that, but I'd sure not have much of a marriage if I'd have
only had sex twice and no more.  What simon is obviously advocating is
sex for procreation only.  Does this mean that my sex life is over since
I'm finished with procreation?  I don't think so, I really don't think so.

>
>> I mean, in all the arguements that concept always gets lost.  And some folks 
>> think you just beamed down from a UFO when you bring it up.
>
>I hope that if you'd just beamed down from a UFO, you'd make better sense.
>
>--
>Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
>C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

Jennifer
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Clinton will clarify
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:15:16 CDT


In article <ldbh89INNeub@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>, deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc) writes:
> In article 15518@linus.mitre.org, jmeritt@rod.mitre.org (Jim Meritt) writes:
> > 
> > Just like the drug-use question of the same period...
> > 
> > "I was in protests against the United States, but I didn't inhale^h^h^h^h^h^h
> > organize."
> > 
> > And for those with "that far in the past doesn't matter":  Care to vote for
> > Nixon?
> 
> Well, if he it was a choice between Nixon and Bush, I'd vote for Nixon.
> At least he has convictions....errr sorry about that, he was pardoned.
> 
> Besides, per the 22nd amendment, Nixon cannot run for President....

Like he'd let a silly law stand between him and the White House...


-- 
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,alt.activism
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: Early voting in Texas
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 00:11:29 GMT

demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:

>	Actually anyone can vote early.
>	It's called an absentee ballot.

Not really. Some states place restrictions on people who "qualify" to
vote with an absentee ballot.

MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
From: gt6367c@prism.gatech.EDU (DEAL, DOUGLAS WAYNE)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: And Hence Abortion is NOT Murder
Date: 14 Oct 92 23:09:45 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <1992Oct14.150657.16122@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>> Why is it so hard for some people to realize that you are extremely 
>> stupid if you jam a coathanger inside your body to abort a baby?

>Why is it so hard for some people to realize that you are extremely 
>desperate if you jam a coathanger inside your body to abort a baby?

>Mr. Krueger, I hope this enables you to see that your statement above
>is extremely callous, and would be repudiated by more intelligent
>right-to-lifers.

I realize this following comment is in bad taste, and I probably could have
used a better example, but here goes.....
If I raped a woman, could I then use the defense that I was just desperate,
and not a criminal.  Would it be callous for someone to accuse me of being
a criminal.  I think not.  I am leaning toward Pro-Choice <-----it is not pro
choice, and i hate for people to call it that,  but I believe the argument
has gone ascew.  We need to define when a clump of tissue becomes Human.  
Their should be no debate that the fetus is alive, but when should that
fetus aquire HUMAN rights.  Both sides on this issue are not addressing
the real arguement, and a solution will not be found until they do.  pro-lifers
do not want to take away a womans right to chose.  I am sure that a pro-lifer
doesn't mind if a woman choses to drink Pepsi, listen to gloria steinem(sp?)
or read comso.  Start offering appeals to logic, and maybe you will stand
on firmer ground.  As for the pro-lifers, present more reasons why you think
a fetus should have human rights.  A dog also has a beating heart, do we give
it canine sufferage?
>
>> "Vote Democrat.  It's easier than getting a job."

>At >7% unemployment, a lot of things are easier than getting a job.

If you would research your economics, FULL employment is defined around 5%.
Due to frictional and seasonal unemployment and due to displaced workers
and people continually entering the workforce (as well as laziness) employment
will never be more than 95%.  7% unemployment isn't really that bad,
you were just spoiled during the Reagan years.


-- 
Douglas Wayne Deal
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt6367c
Internet: gt6367c@prism.gatech.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 19:07:50 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl) writes:
: >>shackeld@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (david m shackelford) whines:
: >>What is the business supposed to do with the work that needs
: >>doing during these 3 months?  Just let it pile up?  Pay
: >>for somebody to be trained, only to be laid off before being fully
: >>qualified?  Hire more people than necessary and endure the
: >>overhead all the time?
: >Hire temps, or temporarily re-hire people who retired from the company.
: >This would handle most of the cases.  I'm not positive, but I heard
: >rumors that "key person" positions [Vice-President, etc.] were exempted
: >from family leave protection.
:   This shows the ignorance of someone who has spent little time in
:   the real world of business.  

[Several good points elided]

Funny....  If the family leave concept works in Germany, another one
of the world's economic superpowers, why can't it work in the US?

--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Subject: Re: Libertarian candidate on Larry King Live
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 04:55:33 GMT

In article <Bw3AEv.A72@well.sf.ca.us> rab@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Bickford) writes:
>
>  [For those who didn't see it,
>Marrou referred to Perot as a fascist socialist and Larry King asked
>him "based on what" which Marrou answered with "based on his stands"
>but in more detail, and with references to how he ran his business.
>The Portugal comment was basically a sound-bite throw-away.]

Andre, why don't you try "Nazi" next time?  That will be SURE
to gain you more votes!

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc