HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: Clinton gaffe of the day
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:59:19 GMT

In article <18ns49INNd78@agate.berkeley.edu>
bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:
      [...]
>Are these the same analysts who told us that the Patriots were 90%
>successful during the PG War, then 80% then 70% then finally revealed
>that there was only _one_ confirmed kill of a Scud by a Patriot and
>that the Patriots had exacerbated the damage in Israel?
>
In fact, the Patriot was 100% effective in keeping Israel out of the
war and preserving the alliance. Not all battles are won by firepower.
 
>With all the misinformation coming out of the DoD, it's surprising
>that anyone can speak intelligently about defense matters.  Some
 
This seems to be an argument for more accurately disclosing our weaknesses
to the opposing side during war. Brilliant idea there.
 
>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.
 
>    --Brad Sherman (bks@alfa.berkeley.edu)
>
Oh, Berkeley. Right.
      --mike
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:5032 alt.politics.clinton:5306 alt.politics.perot:1471 rec.humor:28587 talk.bizarre:30051 talk.politics.misc:45316 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5360
From: barich@bach.udel.edu (Dewey H Barich)
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: 14 Sep 92 18:11:01 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Delaware

[LOTS of stuff deleted]

In article <BD.92Sep14094144@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
>
>>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?
>
>I did not say personal gain, I said political gain.  Whose gain?  
>Conservatives in general, of course. 

Nor did I say personal gain.  I just wanted to be sure whose gain YOU
were talking about.  :-)

>>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.
>
>No, it isn't.  Having listened to the show daily for over a year, and
>having listened to all the calls he's gotten over that year, I think
>I have the right to make judgements about his audience.  You have the
>right to disagree, of course, but that doesn;'t mean that my statement
>was stupid.

Well, I suppose you can make judgements about his callers, but I'm not
sure you can extend that to his listeners in general, especially since
Rush has stated and/or implied that he screens callers, thus biasing the
sampling of an otherwise random process.  I still think it's a stupid
statement, for the reason just mentioned.

>>I don't listen to him often, but I do enjoy the program, and I take a 
>>few salt tablets before it starts.
>
>I _do_ listen to him often, and I enjoy him immensely.  Perhaps you 
>should listen to him more, if you doubt what I have said.

I'd LOVE to listen to him more, but I can't pick up the show here in
Newark, Delaware.  There are a few station not to far that carry it, but
I just can't pick them up in the dorm.  Boo Hoo! ;-( 

>He certainly does entertain.  He also claims to educate, and I think
>he falls fails miserably on that one.

He certainly entertains, but I'd have to say he educates, too.  Not
necessarily in an objective fashion, though.

See ya later!

Dewey

PS -- It was SOOOOOO nice to get flamed without being yelled at!!!
Probably a one-in-a-million shot, huh?  :-)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4204 alt.politics.clinton:4189 alt.politics.elections:12507
From: hillyard@lynx.msc.cornell.edu.UUCP (Sean Edward Hillyard,F7 Clark,50649,)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Originator: hillyard@msc2.msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 06:20:22 GMT

From article <1992Sep12.070447.11974@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, by jks2x@holmes.acc.Virginia.EDU (Jason K. Schechner):
> In article <swood.716272312@vela> swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG) writes:
>>
>>`"Eighty percent of air pollution comes from plants and trees."  --Ronald Reagan
>>
>>And why include this quote?  You read that new book didn't you?  Well,
>>for your information trees do cause 'air' pollution - I can't attest
>>for the figure of 80% as I am not an ecologist.  But you must not let
>>your emotions get ahold of you before considering the logic in this.
>>Do not let yourself equate air pollution with other kinds of pollution.
> 
> 	Actually, trees do NOT produce air pollution they clean it
> up.  They take in CO2 and give off O2.  We and our factories/cars/etc
> do just the opposite.  You may be thinking of decaying trees, that
> give off some pollutants, but it isn't the live ones.  What does,
> however, give off a large amount of greenhouse gasses is volcanos and
> biological decay.  That may be what you're thinking of.

At least some varieties of trees do indeed cause air pollution.  The
Great Smokey Mtns were so named because a prevalent species emits
a gas that ends up being converted to smog.

SEH
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4535 talk.politics.misc:44424 alt.politics.clinton:4620 alt.politics.elections:12706
From: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Suing parents (was Re: Passing out Condoms)
Date: 9 Sep 92 22:16:25 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mips.com

Bill Moore) writes:
|> ->>header.
|> ->]>Not true. What she wanted to do was eliminate the legal status of "minor" -
|> ->]>giving children the presumption of competency in the courts. This would
|> ->]>indeed allow any child to sue his parents under any conditions.
|> ->]
|> ->]Do you have a reference for this?  I heard on NPR that she argued that
|> ->Yes... see American Spectator - they have a complete quote (I don't
|> ->expect you to believe their non-quoted stuff).
|> ->
|> ->]children deemed responsible by the court should be able to sue their parents
|> ->]over matters that can significantly affect their future, e.g., child abuse,
|> ->]surgery to repair a hair-lip, ability to stay in highschool, etc.  I also
|> ->]understand that her position is now standard practice and well within the
|> ->]legal mainstream.
|> ->
|> Well then parents could sue their children! How neat!  This liberal stuff is
|> really great when you get into it.  Would there be a statue of limitations?
|> (forgive me for not knowing this stuff - I'm new at liberal).  It's been
|> almost 23 years since my son peed in the back of my brand new color TV.
|> 
Actually you are correct.  If you're children abuse you, you can sue them.  If
your children deprive you of needed medical attention, you can sue them.  But
you could always do this.  Now the courts can hold you responsible for your
child's life and welfare by allowing the child the right of legal representation.
You are probably correct that a child can sue over stupid issues, but then
so can you.  All you child has to do is find a lawyer that will take on a case
for a percentage of her allowance.

God, but you people get scared over the stupidest things.

|> But it's only been two weeks since my granddaughter shit my couch.  Will I
|> be able to sue her as per Ms. President?  Or would this just be for 
|> "serious" stuff like nervous breakdowns, car wrecks and that kind of thing?

Hillary would probably recommend a course in diapering so the shit stays where
it belongs.
|> 
|> How about when my daughter pulled out $3,200 worth of braces.  Supose she
|> had sued me to get the braces to start with.  When she did that could I
|> sue her back for the second set I had to buy?
|> 
|> I hope you'll answer these questions because I could be in for some really
|> big bucks here.  Oh, and then, hot shit, I could sue my Mother too.  She's
|> done some nasty stuff to me lately.  

Doesn't it embarass you to act like this?
|> 
|> No wonder the trail lawyers support this pair! (Guess who's ((ultra liberal))
|> daughter is going to law school)

_________________________________________
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my
dog's, never my employer's.
From: acadams@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Arthur C. Adams)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Can someone check this out?
Date: 12 Sep 92 22:43:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Great Beyond

In article <5286@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>??? Can someone report if the Handbook actually said Clinton raised taxes
>128 times ???

Not exactly. The Republicans went through it and "counted" "tax" increases.

That count of tax increases was arrived at in a very curious method.
Everything that in any way increased revenue for Arkansas is a tax
increase, by the Republican definition.

For instance, a one dollar court cost fee for convicted criminals
is counted. An increase in the length of the dog-racing season
counts.

Furthermore, taxes are often counted repeatedly. An increase in the
gas tax counts twice, once for regular and once for diesel. 
An increase in the liquor tax counts four times, for beer, wine,
hard liquor and coolers (I think there was a fifth category, but
I can't remember it.) 

One of Clinton's advisors said that, counted realistically, there
are about 57 tax increases, including ten the Bush gang managed
to miss. 

Michael Kinsley, who discovered this duplicity, added that, if you
count the Bush tax increase from 1990 in the same way, you get
something like 139 tax increases.

128 tax increases is just one more Republican lie.
-- 
The world is not analog. The world is digital,
with an incredible number of bits.
Arthur C. Adams (not the comic-book artist)                        <fnord>
E-Mail acadams@afterlife.ncsc.mil
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Trial Lawyers and Clintons in bed
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 22:47:20 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Sep6.175234.19488@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
]
]> Both Clintons are well-beloved by trial lawyers. Having lawyers
]> further stick their noses into the workings of families is yet
]> another solution-by-litigation that has done more harm than good in
]> the many areas we have tried.
]
]Please cite your reasons for believing this.

The fact that the trial lawyers are overwhelming supporting Clinton
and putting huge amounts of money into his campaign.
]
]> It's like saying we don't need tort reform because lawsuits only
]> occur with "serious abuses" in liability or medical malpractice.
]> Well, the bill for litigation is $300 billion in this country, and
]> with the lawyers Clinton & Clinton, who are anti-tort reform(*) and
]> pro-litigation, it will further increase.
]
]Please cite your reasons for believing that this figure is accurate.
]Please cite your reasons for believing that it would further increase
]under a Clinton administration.  Please cite your reasons for

Because the trial lawyers, who have a lot to gain from it increasing,
support Clinton.


-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality! - -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4944 alt.politics.clinton:5201
From: martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: "Whom Do Hispanics Admire Most?"
Date: 13 Sep 1992 23:48:00 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: avalanche.berkeley.edu

Information taken from 'Parade,' S.F. Chronicle and Examiner's special
sunday pull-out magazine.

"In a recent survey in five major U.S. cities, more than 1000 Americans
 of Hispanic descent were asked to name the man they most admired.
 George Bush was the winner..."

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4844 talk.politics.misc:45040 alt.politics.clinton:5067 alt.politics.elections:12928
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Hold on to your wallet!
Date: 14 Sep 92 12:41:57 GMT
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT

>In article <1992Sep13.063842.510@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao) writes:
>>    In case you don't know, the wallets of a lot people, (A MAJORITY OF
>>PEOPLE, if I am going to use your terminglogy), have been taken away by
>>Bush and Reagan.
>>
Well, I hesitate to use *your* "terminglogy", but how does this notion
fit in with the low interest rates and growth in personal income of the
80s? We've published figures showing, for instance, that inflation adjusted
income for workers and managers rose a real 3% between 1982 and 1991. Under
Carter this figure fell.
 
>>   More rambling:    I don't know which eutopia heavan you live in, but ask
     *************
 
Ah,.  honesty in posting.
 
>>some people around Cleveland, Parma, Lorain,  maybe you are not that
>>"republican" (may I call it stupid, sorry, I really want to say this to you)
......
         --mike
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: jdm42241@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Doug Mraz )
Subject: Re: Right to Discriminate
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 22:55:02 GMT

The notion of discrimination based on one's sexuality doesn't tread
much water with me. I am a conservative, and I'm not denying discrimination
exists. But it's much easier for someone who is black to be discriminated
than a homosexual for the simple fact that you can instantly identify a
black and discriminate against him, whereas the only way one can tell if
someone is gay is for him to identify himself as gay. Secondly, minorites
have as a result of their discrimination suffered greatly economically
but homosexuals have done much better economically. Many homosexuals have
succeed financially, whereas blacks still face discrimination when it
comes to getting loans.  Finally, a person is born black. A person is not
born gay. I believe that sexual orientation is an opinion, and employers
have always discriminated prospective employees based on their attitudes.
You don't think the Clinton/Gore campaign would hire me, based on my
beliefs?  An excellent article appeared in National Review some time
back by Ernest van den Haag on gay rights.


-- 
"How bad can the economy be if Michael Dukakis has a job?"-Rush Limbaugh
DA BULLS! GO BLACKHAWKS! WHITE SOX WIN, YES!


Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:5225 alt.politics.elections:13206 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3795 talk.politics.guns:20980 talk.politics.misc:45618
From: grimoire@byron.u.washington.edu (John Greer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:38:52 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <swood.716272312@vela> swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG) writes:
>
>Remember, there are a hell of a lot more trees in the world than there
>are cars or flagellating cows, and the pollution (spoken of) they give
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>off is activily produced from sun-up to sun-down if I understand
>correctly.
>
>swood

Ooh, kinky!
                 
(I somehow think you might mean "flatulent", guy. No doubt I'm an elitist
to say so, but get a f***ing dictionary before you try to use words you
don't know.

(And while you're at it, get a few functioning brain cells. The quote
pollution unquote produced by trees has been a natural part of the 
ecosystem for about a billion years so far, and it hasn't wrecked the
biosphere yet. The pollution that comes out of cars, factories, et al.
has been introduced to the environment in any volume only in the last
century or so, and only in present (huge) volumes since the end of
World War II.  Funny how forest die-off, acid rain, the breakdown of 
the ozone layer, et cetera, et cetera, just happen to have shown up
since then.  Is something trying to tell us something?  Naaah...)

Now can we get back to Birdboy, please?

---John "I'd rather be an elitist than a moron" Greer
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac)
Subject: Clinton gaffe of the day
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 04:44:20 GMT

  Today in a speech defense expert Bill Clinton referred to Patriot
missiles as 'being able to go through doors and down chimmenys (?)'.
Analysts were quick to point out that he was confused and must have been
thinking of the cruise missiles which were used in the Gulf war.  It's the
Dukakis tank ride all over again.

-- 
Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       "I'm not a Bush supporter, I just can't         | These pontifications
             can't stand Clinton." - me                |      are my own!    
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: mhl@spirit.ece.cmu.edu (Mikko H. Lipasti)
Subject: AIDS crisis
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 23:58:39 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.174558.25653@dg-rtp.dg.com> gross@eric10.rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) writes:
>
>Currently, the most conservative estimate I've seen says that some 3
>million Americans are now infected with HIV.  Better than 90 percent of
>them do not even know that they are infected.  But one thing is for
>sure, they will die slow, agonizing deaths, and probably will have
>unwittingly spread the disease to others for many years before the first
>AIDS indicators appear.  The last time I checked the average cost to
>treat an AIDS patient for one year was $177,000.  Multiply that times 3
>million -- not to mention the thousands who already have AIDS.  Quite a
>sum.
>

Let me do the math:

            $177,000 per patient per year
         x 3,000,000 patients
        ==================================
           531 billion dollars per year

Isn't this roughly one-third of the entire federal budget (in the ballpark
anyway)?

Who is going to be willing to and able to pay for this?

Since there is no cure for AIDS in sight (can you name one virus that 
medicine has a cure for?), we are talking about at least 531 billion a
year for the foreseeable future.

Why isn't anyone talking about this?

Isn't it obvious that we need a lot more than condoms and "safe sex"
to deal with the AIDS crisis?

These numbers are food for some serious thought...

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: Have you heard of the Religious Left?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:41:48 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc


In <1992Sep15.142704.9707@news.uiowa.edu> Kent Williams states:

|Because religious people on the left do good, they don't just talk
|about it.  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.

Which certainly explains why the Methodist Church wants people disarmed
of handguns and assault rifles [Through the auspices of NCBH], right? 
"Tell them how to behave"... give me a break... the busy bodies of the
"Religious Left" are just as interested in sticking their noses into
everyone's business as the "Religious Right." Are the "Religious Left"
interested in the agenda of "Economic Democracy" i.e. the U.S. Politically
Correct phrase for socialism or aren't they?

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

Interesting. "Or blow their cover?" If they claim to be acting in
favor of "humanistic interests" why would they need cover at all?
Unless of course they imply a certain set of actions via some nebulous
umbrella title or organization, and do a whole lot of left-leaning
type activities as well without the knowledge of financial supporters...
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush/Florida/Hurricane Andrew
Date: 8 Sep 92 05:06:41 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <agNoqB3w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us>,
elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) wrote:
> >
> > From Newsweek (Sept 7, 1992):
> >
> > "During the Miami stop the president offered Chiles federal troops several
> > times.  The governor, sensistive to old-fashioned political ideas like not
> > truckling to Washington, and still out of touch with the full scope of the
> > hurricane's damage, turned him down."  (pg. 27)"
> >
> > --
> 
> Well, dude, if you had bothered to read that article you quoted, you'd find
> that I was knocking Bush's level of preparedness as President.  Like I said, if
> he can't take an initiative in campaign mode, we're in trouble for the rest of
> the time, especially now that he would be a lame duck.
> 

The Pentagon was *ready* before the hurricane hit.  Man, it's no wonder you
people aren't happy with presidents: you want SuperMan to react immediately
to situations.

I'd like to see what kind of pressure you'd have put on Lincoln concerning
(1) Whether or not to supply Sumter or (2) His handling of McClellan. 
People like you were all over Lincoln to hurry the hell up.  Given time,
however, he's become the greatest in memory.  Go figure.

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

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