HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mpye@netcom.com (Michael Pye)
Subject: Re: Vietnam Memorial (was Vietnam Moratorium)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 01:39:50 GMT

thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:

>>I don't suppose you can prove this?  And no, The New Republic is not proof.  

>Well, if you insist on closing your eyes to evidence presented by magazines
>and newspapers, then, no, I can't "prove" anything.  But under the same
>standards, can you prove that Perot even exists?  And, no, Larry King show is
>not proof.  Luckily, most people aren't so paranoid as to think that the media 
>is conspiring against them.

Sorry, but when the editor of the New Republic openly admits that the
magazine is biased towards a particular person, that there are definately
un-truths printed supporting this bias, and that it's up to the reader
to sort fact from fiction - yes - it sure sounds like they're conspiring.

Of course, if their views just happen to fall in line with your own, I
can see how you might miss that.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: fester@island.COM (Mike Fester)
Subject: Re: Libertarians in WW2
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:25:49 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.021937.24246@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.013012.21277@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>>> Wait, you just said that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor because
>>> they were afraid that the US would get involved in the fighting!
>>> 
>>> You can't have it both ways -- the Japanese would no more have attacked
>>> a Libertarian States of America than the Nazis would have attacked
>>> Switzerland.
>>
>>  Nonsense. Germany certainly invaded plenty of other "neutral"
>>states. 
>
>But they had objectives for doing so.  In each and every one of them.

They also wanted to invade Switzerland. However, they needed the trains that
passed through those mountains, and the Swiss indicated that, in the event of
and invasion, those would be the first things they would blow up (the tunnels
that it). The Nazis settled for access to the trains.

>Japan would not have had designs on a Libertarian States that was its
>chief source of oil, and was not at all involved.

Japan did not have 'designs' on us in any event. They simply wanted our navy
out of the way while they grabbed for the SE Asian oil fields.

>>Also, they were putting a good deal our ships to the
>>bottom of the ocean at the time too. 
>
>Because we were supplying the enemy.  Under a Lib States, the government
>wouldn't be selling arms.
>
>>  In retrospect, Japan bombing Pearl Harbor had to be its
>>single largest mistake. Had we entered the war at all, it would
>>have been against Germany, and we would have probably ignored the
>>autrocities that the Japanese were performing in the Pacific.
>
>I got news for you.  When we entered the war, the primary objective
>*was* Germany.

News alert. We entered the war against Japan. Germany declared war on us. Had
Hitler not done so, it might have been difficult to get Congress to fight
a European war, when we had been attacked from Asia. FDR had tried to get us
into the European conflict earlier, with resounding non-success. Had the 
Germans stayed out of it (and they were not required by the treaty to declare
war on the US, not that that would have mattered to Hitler), or if he had 
denounced the attack, it may have been very difficult to get the American 
public to forgo massive retaliation against the Japanese just to get involved
in a war that, at that time, was largely being fought in Russia.

Mike
-- 
Disclaimer - I'm only doing what the little voices tell me to do. 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24257 talk.politics.misc:61338 alt.rush-limbaugh:10244
From: joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: SPRINGTIME FOR THE BUSHMAN
Keywords: Willie Horton
Date: 23 Nov 92 04:16:10 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Distribution: usa
Organization: Intelligent Systems Program

In article <1138@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>What was wrong?  The only thing I said that is even arguable is that the
>ads were fair.  I still contend they were.

If the ads were so fair, why did the Bush campaign make an official
request that the ads be discontinued, and go to such lengths to
distance themselves (at least officially) from the ads?   

David
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: re: "Media Bias," again (was Re: Vietnam Memorial)
Reply-To: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:32:37 GMT

In article <BALDWIN.92Nov18165303@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil> baldwin@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin) writes:
>[Distribution slightly modified.  Edit the header if you don't like.]
>
>In article <1992Nov18.164621.10514@midway.uchicago.edu>
>thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes, quoting mpye@netcom.com
>(Michael Pye):

[stuff deleted]

>Formal editorial endorsement of a candidate doesn't invalidate a news
>organization's objectivity (theoretically, anyway--it might cast
>suspicion).  When TNR endorses Clinton and then goes on to report only
>things favorable about Clinton/Perot and unfavorable about Bush,

>--
> From the catapult of:              |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
>   _,_  J. D. Baldwin, Comp Sci Dept|+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
> _|70|___:::)=}-  U.S. Naval Academy|+| retract it, but also to deny under
> \      /   baldwin@usna.navy.mil   |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

TNR did endorse Clinton. They also printed many articles, including a
couple of cover stories, which were highly critical of Clinton.

Editorially, they hammered Perot pretty hard (more so than Bush).


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: vsg001@acad.drake.edu
Subject: Re: Liberal Flaws (was Re:Bork a good judge (NOT!) (was Anita Hill....)
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 22:33:28 GMT

In article <BxxJyn.46r@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, lnosek@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Luke Nosek) writes:
> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
> 
> 	I don't know how long it's going to take you liberals and conservatives
> to get it.
> 
> 	You both favor big goverment, and government intrusion into our lives.
> 
> 	The difference is that you liberals want to intrude ECONOMICALLY while
> you conservatives want to intrude SOCIALLY, while both of you claim that you
> are protecting our freedoms. (the conservatives - our economic freedoms, the
> liberals, our social freedoms)
> 
> 	I am getting more and more disgusted with this inconsistency, and
> despite the impracticallity of it, I am finding myself more and more alligned
> with the liberatarians, who favor less government in both the economic AND
> social sectors.

I didn't write this! And I certainly disagree that liberals and Conservatives
have a similar view on government.... but that is an entirely different thread.

Disclaimers. Disclaimers.
---------
Do you hear the people sing?
 Singing the song of Angry men?
It is the Music of a people who will not be slaves again!
----------
		Possible Republican Creed
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: lnosek@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Luke Nosek)
Subject: No such thing as a "wasted" vote
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 08:47:19 GMT

	We wouldn't have the problem of people demanding change but not being
able to get it if we just get it out of our heads that we should vote only for
people that "have a chance at winning," because otherwise our vote is "wasted."

	Let me ask you: What is a wasted vote? Isn't it a wasted vote for me if
I vote for Bill Clinton in Illinois, and the state goes democratic?

	What did my vote do? NOTHING. Had I voted any other way - the state
still would have gone democratic. The same is true for everyone - because in
large elections the vote is never decided my a single person.

	You see, a single vote doesn't affect anything significant, and we just
have to get it out of our heads that our "vote" is a valuable "commodity" that
must be carefully "spent", or we might vote for a loser and it will not count
at all.

	NO! The vote is a mechanism for POLLING the public - it is your opinion
that should be reflected in your vote. If we actually voted this way, perot
would have come much closer to winning, and perhaps marrou would have a
respectable total.

	I'm getting sick of having to defend my choices as a "protest" vote.
	It's not me who is out of line - voting according to my opinion,
	but the rest of the people in this country, who vote with one eye
	on the polls at all times.

						Luke Nosek

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,soc.history
From: U23590@uicvm.uic.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Isolationist?
Date: 15 Nov 92 17:26:33 GMT
 <BxIq60.4nJ@well.sf.ca.us> <1992Nov15.022850.13866@midway.uchicago.edu>
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago

>
>If Libertarians had won the election in 1932....
>
>Still be under a Fourth Reich in Europe.
>

Last I checked, the US did not enter WWII until the 40's.

>
>And the US would have some dictatorial fool like Huey Long as pres..
>

And how would this come about?
-watkins@earth.eecs.uic.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 14:56:50 GMT

In <Bxz1nx.548@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:

>In article <g-w+r*xk1@caleb.UUCP>, jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>> In article <1992Oct31.185649.28876@NeoSoft.com>, Doug Andersen writes:
>> 
>> > Saudi Arabia is more than capable of protecting themselves, especially if
>> > the US allowed them to buy the weapons they wanted.  This whole argument
>> > goes back to whether or not the US should be in the business of protecting
>> > rich countries that could afford to protect themselves, if they were
>> > so inclined (which they aren't since the US does it for them).
>> 
>> This is nonsense.  Regardless of the weapons that we let the Saudis buy, they
>> don't have the population to use them!  Much of their current military is
>> manned by foreign mercenaries (e.g. Pakistanis, etc.)  The Saudis cannot
>> possibly defend themselves alone.
> 
>When I said alone I didn't mean literally "only by Saudi citizens".  I
>meant with Saudi money alone.  I don't care if they stock their army with
>mercenaries.  I just don't want the U.S. to continue in the business of
>defending wealthy countries so that they can spend their money on other
>things (like building infastructure to compete with us).

Doug, Saudi Arabia alread spends 12.8% of their total GNP on Defense
(we spend 6.3%, Iraq spends a whopping 32%).  This does not sound to
me like the Saudis are getting some kind of free ride.  And it's not
like it isn't in our interests for their current government to
continue in power, rather than becoming a vassal state for someplace
like Iraq.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: * THE MEDIA ELECTED CLINTON!?! *
Date: 17 Nov 92 15:36:23 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Nov14.195918.13852@psg.com> michaels@psg.com (Michael Sandy) writes:

|>In article <10440@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
|>>Why did Walsh et. al. rush to reindict Weinberger.  The reindictment came down
|>>barely a month after the original conviction was thrown out.  This process
|>>normally takes a lot longer than this.  Does anybody know if the prosecuters
|>>even have any new information or are they hoping to get a plea bargain by
|>>bankrupting Weinberger.

|>Baaaamp.  "Barely a month after..."  You have the timing reversed.  There
|>was adeadline of one month to refile the indictment.  This was not
|>a rush.  If they were any slower they couldn't refile at all!

Sorry, you are wrong.  I believe that there is a deadline for refiling, but
it is a lot longer than 1 month.

|>>
|>>The press and everybody in Washington had known about the memo for months,
|>>they even knew roughly what was in it.  There was nothing new in the memo.

|>If there was nothing new about it, why the anger at _Walsh_ for revealing
|>it?  The Press and Clinton jumped on it, but that isn't Walsh's fault 
|>(or credit *smilee*)  The memo was relevant to the case,  maybe not
|>exhibit 'A', but ...

The anger was not at Walsh for revealing it, but for all the play that
the memo got.  From what the media were saying you would have thought they
had just discovered the "smoking gun".  The memo was barely relevant to the
case.

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,tx.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:23:42 GMT
Distribution: usa,tx
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstations and Systems, Austin, TX
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

fred j mccall 575-3539 (mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com) wrote:
: Why is it all these people want to foist off what they "suspect" on
: me?  Hell, suspect what you please.  Perhaps the problem is that you
: are responding from what you "suspect" instead of what is said?

Perhaps because you do it so often yourself?  What was it you said about
an "activist version of the Golden Rule"?

--
John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
    "Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age" -- TMBG   "I Palindrome I"
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24091 talk.politics.misc:60744
From: jovanovic-nick@cs.yale.edu (Nick Jovanovic)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "Media Bias," again (was Re: Vietnam Memorial)
Date: 18 Nov 1992 17:41:31 -0500
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
NNTP-Posting-Host: zoo-gw.cs.yale.edu

In article <BALDWIN.92Nov18165303@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil> baldwin@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin) writes:
>
>Neither is it what conservatives complain about when they talk about
>"media bias."  I've never seen an analysis or accusation of such bias
>(which I firmly believe exists in several major news organizations)
>that included "biased" statements made by such journals of opinion.
>
I agree that *media bias* exists--a definite conservative bias.  Look at 
the coverage we were offered leading up to and during the Gulf War.  I am
aware of several anti-war rallies held in New Haven which the local and 
national media refused to air.  All we got was anti-Saddam propaganda 
designed to hype us for the war.  It was pathetic, and if you think a
liberal bias produced the pandering to Bush the networks and newspapers
called news, then you have a very selective memory.

If you don't like that example, then look at abortion.  Almost no TV
show mentions the word, even if the plot includes one.  I see "Life,
what a beautiful choice" ads several times a day, but I have *never* seen
a commercial offering abortion services.  If that is not a conservative
bias, what is?

Also, people like George Will, Pat Robertson, Bill Buckley, Pat Buchanan,
William Safire, John Sununu, David Gergen, David Brinkley, etc. have quite
an impact on the media--they all contribute to the conservative bias.

Clinton is extremely conservative for a Democrat; Bush angered conservatives
and acted like a fool during the election.  That is why the conservative
bias was of no help to George Bush, latest victim of the nationwide trend
of restructuring.

-Nick Jovanovic
From: jcorwin@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (James C Spencer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: RFD: alt.loathing.bob-dole
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:24:31 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

jovanovic-nick@cs.yale.edu (Nick Jovanovic) writes:

>>In article <1992Nov16.163109.27953@samba.oit.unc.edu> dil.admin@mhs.unc.edu  
>>(Dave Laudicina) writes:
>>> I find it strange that Bob Dole can claim support from all the 
>>> people voting for Perot. If Perot did not run his vote would most

>My impression is that Bob Dole started campaigning for president in 1996
>shortly after the Republican convention, when Bush's numbers just wouldn't
>budge.  In Kansas, he made statements about Bush pulling everyone down
>together.  Dole distanced himself from Bush in Kansas, giving usually
>faithful Republicans the wink they needed to vote for someone else than 
>Bush this year.  The result was that Perot got 27% of the vote in Kansas,
>tied for second out of all the states, behind only Maine (30%).

Actually, Utah voted 28% for Perot, enough for Perot to come in second in that 
state.  Kansas had the third highest percentage for Perot.

Being from Kansas, I also have to disagree with the assertion that Perot did    well here because Dole didn't support Bush.  I think that the Kansas voters
were just interested in a change in the White House.  Most of the people that
I know that voted for Perot didn't want to vote for Bush again and definitely
didn't want to vote for Clinton ever.  Perot was the only reasonable alterna-
tive for them.


>I have no doubt that that 27% would have gone largely to Dole if he had
>been the candidate instead of Bush.  My wife and I have relatives in
>Kansas, and they all (independently) feel that Dole is preparing one last
>thrust for the presidency in 1996.  I think (and hope) he would surely lose 
>if the Republicans nominated him.  

>-Nick
>

----Jim Spencer 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,soc.history
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,soc.history
Subject: Re: Libertarians in WW2
Date: 17 Nov 92 04:28:31 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1992Nov16.235843.2228@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov16.204210.11462@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
|>
|> >> >Also, they were putting a good deal our ships to the
|> >> >bottom of the ocean at the time too. 
|> >> 
|> >> Because we were supplying the enemy.  Under a Lib States, the government
|> >> wouldn't be selling arms.
|> >
|> >  Wrong. I'm sure the distinction would have been blurred on the
|> >Germans had "supplying of the enemy" been in an official
|> >capacity of the US government or just by private transactions
|> >of our population -- it made little differnce from their
|> >perspective.
|> 
|> But the English would have been sinking private ships selling to
|> the Germans.  Why do you think the Libs would've taken sides if 
|> both sides were sinking ships?

I see we are back to the "would have" arguments.

There's nothing so hypothetical about the history of the
two world wars that requires this kind of speculation.

The UK declared a blockade of Germany, and they did board and/or
seize ships carrying contraband to Germany.    This is in
accordance with applicable International Law.

However, they did *not* randomly sink ships, nor did they engage
in unrestricted submarine warfare against neutral shipping.

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Isolationist?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 02:28:27 GMT

In article <Bxu4I3.9JF@access.digex.com> steve-b@access.digex.com (Steve Brinich) writes:

>  > >  Saying that the US should not meddle or be the world's policeman
>  > >is hardly "isolationist".

>  >  Au contraire, it is the precise definition of the word.

>Therefore, every nation on Earth, except for those few superpowers which
>routinely meddle in the affairs of others or act as world policeman, is
>"isolationist" -by- -definition-.  This conclusion is so preposterous that
>your definition of "isolationish" must be rejected out of hand.

No.  "Isolationist" does not describe a set of actions, but rather a
philosophy.  The fact that Norway has not invaded Sweden or anywhere
else does not make it isolationist; the fact that under no conditions would 
it ever invade anywhere would.

Most countries *do* meddle in the affairs of others.  They *do* put
embargos or sanctions against certain countries, for various political
or humanitarian reasons.  (See Serbia,Iraq.)  They *do* give foreign aid to
other countries (See Somalia.)  They *do* agree to mutual defense
treaties with other countries (See NATO.)  

Libertarians deny the power of governments to do even these things; 
*that's* what makes them isolationist.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1993 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23922 talk.politics.misc:60390 tx.politics:7378
From: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:14:18 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstations and Systems, Austin, TX
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

fred j mccall 575-3539 (mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com) wrote:
:                                                          hell, how
: much have the French gotten back for their assistance in our
: Revolution?

I think saving their asses from Hitler was good enough.  And they still didn't
let us fly over their country so that we could go kill Kaddafi's baby.  That's
gratitute for ya.

--
John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
    "Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age" -- TMBG   "I Palindrome I"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: lnosek@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Luke Nosek)
Subject: Re: Liberal Flaws (was Re:Bork a good judge (NOT!) (was Anita Hill....)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:06:19 GMT

vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:

	I don't know how long it's going to take you liberals and conservatives
to get it.

	You both favor big goverment, and government intrusion into our lives.

	The difference is that you liberals want to intrude ECONOMICALLY while
you conservatives want to intrude SOCIALLY, while both of you claim that you
are protecting our freedoms. (the conservatives - our economic freedoms, the
liberals, our social freedoms)

	I am getting more and more disgusted with this inconsistency, and
despite the impracticallity of it, I am finding myself more and more alligned
with the liberatarians, who favor less government in both the economic AND
social sectors.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23878 talk.politics.misc:60304