HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Twist Slowly, Slowly in the Wind
Date: 11 Oct 92 08:28:01 CST
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <1992Oct11.020106.2596@cs.wm.edu>, jcburt@cs.wm.edu (John Burton) writes:
> In article <1992Oct10.171537.2560@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>>Anyone who doubts that the upper orders have pretty much
>>decided to have Clinton elected should check out the _Wall_
>>_Street_Journal_ of Friday, 10/9.  There's a long, very
>>detailed story about -- Iraqgate!  The kind of thing that,
>>only a few months ago, you could only hear about in the
>>commie press.  They're still a little bit uncomfortable
>>about it -- they put "Iraqgate" in quotes -- but it's all
>>there.  Lots and lots of it, especially the "I don't
>>remembers."
> 
> Ummm...Is this supposed to be a blast against the
> Wall Street Journal, and Clinton? Are you saying that
> the *story* about Iraqgate is something that you would only
> read about in communist press, or that Iraqgate is something
> that you would only read about in the communist press?
> 
> If its a blast against the press, what pray tell *should*
> they have printed, perhaps Bush asking what Clinton did
> at 1:00pm on Jan 2, 1970? or perhaps another scoop like
> "Several Pages Removed from Clintons Passport Record"
> (which the FBI quickly decided was someone's over active
> imagination...)
> 
>>
>>By the way, that's Page One, column one.  Premier real
>>estate on one of the most closely read front pages in
>>America.
>>-- 
> I wonder why they did such a nasty thing...its obviously not
> important that the president and the adminstration (over
> many protests from within the adminstration and legislative
> branch) funneled money and guarenteed loans to Iraq for several
> years (up to and including Aug 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait),
> and then promptly spent another $2 billion dollars in a war
> with the same country they had just been supporting...
> Also, Bush has stated flat out that he had no involvement
> when many of the other players involved as saying just
> the opposite...you're right this doesn't even deserve
> notice, this kind of obvious slander should not be printed
> in the good ole U. S. of A...
> 
>> )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
>>( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
> 
> BTW: do you know where your money is tonight?
> 
> John



	We would not even know about Iraq-gate and BNL if it were not
for the heroic efforts of Congressman Henry B. Gonzales who fought a
lonely battle for many months against a stonewalling justice department
and recalcitrant CIA.  He then delivered his findings to an almost empty
Congressional chamber with one lone reporter present.  It is indeed a
small miracle that "we the people" ever found out what our government
was up to.  Hopefully this is the beginning of the end for Kissinger
and associates and their brand of government in the darkroom.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: burkhardt@nebula.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com (Spike Burkhardt)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Reply-To: burkhardt@nebula.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com
Organization: LMSC, Sunnyvale, California
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 19:46:14 GMT

>There is no way LOGICALLY to grant personhood status to a non-viable fetus.
>Any way you do it, it steps on some other person's rights.
>
>Jennifer

Whether the fetus is viable or non-viable is not the question.  The question,
bottom line, comes down to a fetus has a right to life since it's stated
in the Bill of Rights that this right to life exists.  The corrolary to 
that is whether the fetus should be allowed to develope with the basis being
this right to life or do we ignore the inenvitable result - that of human
being

Spike Burkhardt
Systems Management VMS/Unix programming
Internet address - spike@lmsc.lockheed.com
408-756-4790(w)
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)
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:33:50 GMT
X-Posted-From: eng-nxt10.cso.uiuc.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
: 
:   Jeezus!   Y'know, I'm going to vote for Marrou/Lord, too, really
:   more as a protest than because I long for the sort of minarchy
:   they believe in.  But just as I was asking several Perot supporters
:   here to explain their self-styled libertarianism, so too must
:   I ask *you* to explain how your support of family leave policies 
:   squares with the above!    Am I the *only* person here who actually
:   understands what libertarianism is?

First, I am not a member of the LP.  I will be voting for Marrou probably
for the same reasons that you will.

Second, I am not in favor of the family leave idea, because it is, in
effect, the government's sticking its nose where it doesn't belong.
My apparent support in my past few articles for this idea comes from
my (mis?)interpretation of someone else's article that seemed to say
that the family leave idea _could not_ work.  Yes, the bill would have
introduced some expensive complications, but we don't know whether or
not it could have worked.

Correleation between the poor economic state of certain countries or
regions of the world and the existence of a family leave policy does
not imply a cause-effect relationship between the two.

--
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
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Debate musings
Date: 16 Oct 92 13:04:29
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
	<Bw8869.Hvy@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com's message of 16 Oct 92 18:18:07 GMT

In article <Bw8869.Hvy@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com>
dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:

> >He did this on gun control and on health care and, I believe, on
> >education. I couldn't stand it. Is it [the plan Perot will
> >implement] lying around the floor on Washington? Perhaps. But why
> >did he never give an example of one he supported or would support
> >or would propose!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> I think we'll get the answers tonight and Saturday.  

Maybe, maybe not.  I suspect not.  Perot has been using this line
about the unimplemented plans lying around Washington for quite some
time now, and what he has said has been the same all that time: he
will implement one of the "good plans" that's alread there.  For a
long time, people have speculated that he would soon tell us which one
of the plans he actually supported, and each time, those speculations
turned out to be false.  It's beginning to remind me of artificial
intelligence, which has been "just around the corner" for decades.

I don't think Perot is being shifty or evasive---I think the truth is
just that he doesn't care about these issues very much, so he hasn't
thought very much about them, and he hasn't made them a basis of his
campaign, and he isn't going to.

Perot has made it clear what he does think is important: reducing the
deficit.  I can respect him for making it clear just where he stands,
but that doesn't mean I agree with him.  I think we need a President
who does care about other things as well as the deficit.
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.flame
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: The Mother of All Flame Wars, Part 3 of 4
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 22:33:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.190031.16935@pb2esac.uucp> rgrodr1@pb2esac.uucp (Robert Rodriguez) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.164807.681@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>
>>If all the contributions of Dead White Males, a.k.a. Dead White Loathsome
>>Oppressors, were to vanish, you'd have the Politically Correct(tm) Loathsome
>>Oppressors using dull rocks to hunt and the Politically Correct Women of
>>Vision and Strength(tm) using leaves for tampons.

>Of course they would still have a calendar, advanced agriculture, and be able
>to perform open heart surgery on each other.

Don't forget brain surgery, blood transfusions (blood typing was developed
by a black physician), and contraceptive diaphragms. :-)

PS - We'd also still have calculus, geometry, and we'd also have a FAR
more accurate calendar...

>Robert Rodriguez
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>"We need to preserve our Western Christian Civilization" -- Pat Buchannan
>
>"Somehow I get the feeling that don't include me Pat." -- Robert Rodriguez
>
>Disclaimer: My opinions are mine, and they are worth what you paid for 'em.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: JZ lands in a Hot LZ...
Date: 8 Oct 1992 20:19:52 GMT
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
|> William December Starr) writes:
|> 
|> > Well, certainly God is as entitled to his opinions on the subject as
|> > is the next guy, but until and unless he comes up with a more rational
|> > and compelling argument than "Because I say so" there isn't really any
|> > reason I can see to follow his guidelines.
|> 
|> Except, of course, that God's opinions will carry somewhat greater
|> weight on Judgement Day than will William D. Starr's.

This argument sure carries a lot of weight with those of us that don't
believe in Judgement Day.  How about letting me take my own risks,
make my own mistakes, and pay my own price on Judgement Day.  Your
continued attempts to legislate conformance to your definition of
what might happen on such a day if it even comes to pass is 
unsupportable, unwarented, and based on an unprovable premise.

Don't forget.  This country survived almost 200 years before the
words "for God" got pieced into the pledge of allegiance.  The 
founders didn't think God should be part of our government, and
they came to this continent to get away from countries that 
forced following a state mandated religion.
-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
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
From: robart@agora.rain.com (Robert Barton)
Subject: Re: A Most Pressing COncern
Organization: Organization
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 09:46:14 GMT

In article <1avrpqINNsvg@bigboote.WPI.EDU> walkerr@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Robert A Walker) writes:
>
>>Orgasms, in the main, are messy things,
>>and Really are not the sort of things
>>that decent persons with good personal
>>hygeine standards would wish to involve
>>themselves in/with/towards.
>
>
>	Sounds like this person can't get their rocks off to me.
>Its only messy if you shoot somebody in the face or your so wet that
>you flood your bedroom.
>                                  
>
>
>        


  What does this have to do with elections?

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - IMPORTANT
Date: 13 Oct 92 16:06:49 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 25736@henson.cc.wwu.edu, n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
>	The issue as I understand it, is not merely that he went to
>the Soviet Union so soon afterwards, but that he denied going there
>when asked about it on television.

How interesting.  When and where did the question get asked?  Who asked it?
What were Clinton's words?  Well, those details aren't important.  Even if
this story turns out to be false, there'll be another one tomorrow.  ;-)

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: ssc@nwu.edu (Steven Chung)
Subject: Re: Sixteen more years
Originator: schung@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 04:12:14 GMT

[sci.econ deleted]
In article <QerUgaq00VpJI7VG5E@andrew.cmu.edu> ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Omar Smith) writes:
# Well, since we seem to have wandered into a discussion of 1996
# candidates, here's my evaluation.
# 
# Republican:
# 
# 4) Patrick Buchanan: His support is wide, but not deep.  Much of his
# support in this election came from frustration with Bush.  He might get
# another good showing in New Hampshire, but he'll be an also ran by the
# time of the convention.

I'd think it's the other way around--deep but not wide.  Many (mostly dems)
seem to consider him way out in protofascist-land, but I think most of his
support comes from the fact that he has the courage of his convictions,
unlike some other GOP candidates (nb the 1990 tax increase).  The liberal
media will probably take the 'social issues' far too seriously to get him
the nomination, however.

How about Tom Kean?  He was a really good governor, and while very
conservative economically, he is quite mainstream in social things.  Is he
out of politics forever?

-- 
ssc@nwu.edu | Nam castum esse decet pium poetam (Catullus 16)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Sixteen more years
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:42:08 GMT

RAJA@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU writes:

>In article <1992Oct12.213453.19967@news.acns.nwu.edu>, ssc@nwu.edu (Steven
>Chung) says:
>>
>>In article <1762@aviary.Stars.Reston.Unisys.COM> munck@stars.reston.unisys.com
>>writes:
>>#
>>#      Gore/Magaziner in 2000 (well, maybe not Ira.  Gore/Braun?)
>>#
>>#      Gore/Braun in 2004
>>
>>Oh right.  Braun's appeal might (_might_) be enough the first time, when
>>everyone can feel virtuous about voting for a black woman, but she can't
>>get along with such an obvious lack of character and intelligent ideas
>>forever.
>>
>Hey give her a chance. Let her first get elected to the senate and probably 
>get relected a couple of times and become a veep candidate. In my opinion 
>good luck to her. Pray why do you say she lacks chracter. It is easy to make 
>accusations. :)

Braun may not win this year.  She had it sown up until the flap about
Medicaid and her mom.  Her 20+ pt lead is gone (not completely) and she is
showing under 50% in the polls for the first time since the primaries.

 -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
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:52134 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6955 alt.politics.elections:17097 alt.politics.clinton:10745 alt.politics.bush:9365 talk.bizarre:34314
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:31:28 GMT
Distribution: na, usa
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <VEAL.381.719165169@utkvm1.utk.edu> VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:

>>It is, it's called eminant domain(sp).  It's something that's supposed
>>to help the majority.  The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
>
>     How very socialistic.


You know, I kept wondering that when I was 1-A back in the Viet Nam era.
But it seemed that the Republican Government kept telling me that the
needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

I didn't have enough guts to resist the Socialistic Tyranny, like Clinton
did,  and wasn't born with a silver spoon up my butt like Quayle, so
I was 1-A...

Glad to see you agree with Clinton on this one *smile*.
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Republicans for Clinton/Gore
Date: 16 Oct 92 22:34:45 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <Bw8Cs3.HwJ@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> jones@venus.iucf.indiana.edu writes:
>Seriously though, is there something wrong physically with Bush. He looks like 
>his batteries have worn out.
>

Shoulda used Energizers.

	Everywhere was boundless divinity
	containing all astonishing things,
	wearing divine garlands and garments,
	annoited with divine perfume.		-- Bhagavad-Gita 11
From: 00rdharringt@bsu-ucs.uucp (Rob Harrington)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot Wins First Debate
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:06:52 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Oct12.230435.4181@u.washington.edu>, sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
> Clinton's spin people claimed that they like the idea
> of Perot going after Bush last night.  Sooner or
> later, I expect Bush to strike back.

So let Bush and Perot fight it out... Big deal... they'll only hurt each
other... and leave Clinton unscathed...

-- 
/---------------------------------------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               |
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------/
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: kevin_mcentee@taligent.com (Kevin McEntee)
Subject: Burning the flag is OK
Organization: Taligent
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:55:45 GMT

Summary of today's supreme court decision:
-------------------------------------------
Laws that ban the burning of the American Flag are unconstitutional.


Hooray for checks and balances... another nail in the coffin of fascism!
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
From: hymowitz@whatever.cs.jhu.edu (Hymie!)
Subject: Re: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
Organization: Creative Sensualities dept, Jacquie's House of Underwear
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 02:37:30 GMT

and lo, there was much rejoicing among the people, as
kjurena@lonestar.utsa.edu (Keith R. Jurena) writes:
>Apparently you don't listen to Rush.

no, we like to think for ourselves.

>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.

silly me, i thought we were talking about unpaid leave so that a working
parent can stay home and care for a family membner.

>And thus propagating the myth that heterosexual relationships have no justifica
>tion.  Think you simpletons: We are all products of heterosexual relationships,
>be they in vivo or vitro.

we're also products of slabs of meat ; i know several vegetarians.
i was also the product of two jews.  i don't subscribe to organized religion.
was there a point?

--hymie
hymowitz@cs.jhu.edu                                         hymie@jhuvms.bitnet
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, so ten out of ten for style,
but minus several million for good thinking, yeah?          --Zaphod Beeblebrox
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Perot and Mortgage deduction
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:04:24 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Oct9.191500.16393@cbnews.cb.att.com> nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell) writes:
>From article <Bvv0Mo.72L@apollo.hp.com>, by nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson):

>>    Anyway, as I said, spending cuts, not tax increases are
>>    the way to go.
>
>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!



---peter




Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.environment,talk.environment
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Re: All deficits are not created equal.
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 17:54:48 GMT

In article <4aYr02rX25iM01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> joplin@mcode.amdahl.com (Jerry Joplin) writes:
>In article <exukjb.298.718546956@exu.ericsson.se>, exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>> Could someone answer for me this question. To whom are we in debt? Is the 
>> national debt just "funny money" we owe to ourselves, to other nations, 
>> whom?  To what institutions?  This is a question I never seem to be able
>> to get a straight answer to.  Not being an economist I must rely on experts
>> here.  Exactly what is the breakdown of that debt and to whom is it owed? 
>
>Good question!  I'm suprised this isn't asked more often.  About 25% of the
>debt is owed to foreign investors, Govts of Germany, Japan, and individuals
>such as the Emir of Kuwait, etc... 

This is false.  Less than 10% of the debt is owed outside the United States.
-- 
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
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49936 talk.politics.drugs:6646 talk.politics.guns:21796 alt.politics.elections:15424 alt.politics.libertarian:630 alt.politics.marrou:1459