HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: gays in the military
Date: 13 Dec 1992 14:47 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <Bz7AsG.8IF@math.uwaterloo.ca>, shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit) writes...
|In article <1992Dec9.010058.7944@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
|>Simple! An open homosexual undermines unit morale under many circumstances.
|>In the military, one who does this is normally disciplined and expelled.
|>The job requirement unique to the military is to be forced, under military
|>discipline, to spend the most intimate times with others not of one's
|>choosing....

|>...A nice assertion. I suppose you don't mind playing with the lives of
|>millions of troops with this experiment.... no of course not... social engineers
|>never mind experimenting. REMEMBER THIS: military policy is enforced by law.
|>When you come up with such a policy, you are FORCING this integration.
|>You are not suggesting it.... you are forcing it under threat of courts martial.
|>But then coercion has also been the norm of the social engineer....


|It's a bit ironic that John's objections (undermines "morale", "social
|engineering", etc.) are virtually word-for-word identical with the objections
|to integrating the US military during/after World War II.
| 
|The bigots who opposed Truman raised the same objections:  allowing blacks
|to serve side-by-side with whites would "lower morale".  You couldn't possibly
|remove racists from the military, it was said, so it would be "better for the troops'
|safety" to keep blacks out.  Doing otherwise would be "social engineering".
| 
|Although elsewhere he has denigrated the racists who kept blacks
|out of the military 50 years ago, John exhibits *exactly the same attitudes*
|towards homosexuals.  Face it:  you're a bigot, John.
| 
|Discrimination against homosexuals in the military is
|groundless.  Among NATO forces, only the US and Britain ban gay soldiers.
|Canada ended its ban on October 27.  In the Netherlands, there is no
|discrimination against homosexuals.  Germany has no anti-homosexual
|legislation.  Spain does not discriminate.  Italy ended its ban in 1985.
| 
|These countries don't believe that homosexuals "undermine morale".  They
|don't keep homosexuals out based on medieval notions.  And neither should
|the US.
| 
|Jeff Shallit
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Paul Galvanek claims...
Date: 16 Dec 92 17:08:43 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <92350.192400MMB3@psuvm.psu.edu> MMB3@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>Paul, I cannot argue with you anymore.

You're right we can't.  Though mainly because I've not once stated any
of the things you claim I have.  Exactly where did I say you got your 
job through Affirmative Action?  You want to continue making things up
that I supposedly said fine be my guest...

My final word to is; I truly hope that you're doing this on puropose
just for the sake of being combative.  Because if you're not, and
this is an indication of the quality of instructors at Penn State...

<shiver>

PSG 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: RE: THE CLINTON CABINET
X-Xxdate: Mon, 14 Dec 92 15:53:24 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:57:04 GMT

In article <665@blue.cis.pitt.edu> Paul S Galvanek, psg+@pitt.edu writes:
>Unfortunately though, the will of the majority got caught in a numbers 
>squeeze and the ideas that most Americans voted against are the very 
>ones well have to endure, until 1996 8^)  Which is more than enough time
>for Bill to crush the economic growth we're seeing and possibly involve
>us in a protracted war in Bosnia. 
>
>Just stop fooling yourself into believing that what Clinton is doing is
>what the American people asked for in November, because it's not.

Whine, whine, whine....

If you don't like our system why don't you leave and go to Great Britain
and
become part of their conservative economic miracle. The American people's
first priority was JOBS, period. This was the number one issue according
to the polls (followed closely by deficit reduction). Clinton's plan was
the
only one to address this issue.

The only true fiscal conservatives in this race were Perot and Clinton.
Perot's
deficit-reduction-at-all-cost plan was rejected by most economists because
it ignored two-thirds of the GDP equation. Clinton's plan has some bugs
in it,
but anyone with experience in economics will tell you that the details of
an
economic plan should adjust to the state of the economy at implementation.
The philosophy of the plan showed the best understanding of macroeconomics
and the causes of our weak economy and social upheaval. Clinton's recent
change of emphasis toward deficit reduction proves just how vacuous your
arguements really are.

Bush (and Reagan) not a conservative? That's right. They talked the good
talk,
but they didn't walk it. They never submitted a balanced budget. They
routinely suggested budgets that were greater than that which Congress
would wind up passing. They spent huge amounts of money on unnecessary
defense spending which recent reports from Soviet officials suggest may
even have extended the communist rule. They never suggested any plans
to reorganize entitlement programs. They gave us the biggest deficits in
history and polarized our social classes.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: BONEHEAD REPUBLICANS
Date: 17 Dec 92 00:20:44 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
*> = (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
*>= = (Neil Black) writes:
*>=It's real simple math.  But of course, bonehead Republicans slept
*>=through their intro-math classes.  That's why we now have this huge
*>=deficit.
*
*>And I guess Democrats (and a few Republicans too) can't even balance
*>their own checkbooks. [cf. House bank]
*
*Those "few Republicans" are the ones in Bush's Cabinet.  Now, how "few"
*_were_ the numbers of Republicans in the House?

I did say cf. House bank, right? When did Cabinet officers use the House
Bank? (I do have a clue about your point though.)

Remember the thread now, that [all] bonehead Republicans slept through
intro-math. I read it to be slightly sarcastic, and answered
appropriately.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	Biomedical Engineering 1993
	Vacation period (off-line): December 18 to January 11.
	Take care of the network when I'm gone.
FOUR MORE MONTHS!!! FOUR MORE CLASSES!!! FOUR MORE ACCEPTANCE LETTERS!!! 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:18936 alt.president.clinton:1205 alt.politics.bush:14793 sci.econ:9484 talk.politics.misc:64931
From: jnomina@andy.bgsu.edu (A.P.K.)
Subject: Re: Double standard
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 01:52:58 GMT

bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
> In article <BzH0o2.GMI@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter) writes:
>>Rumblings I've heard suggest that the Senate (including many democrats)
>>will fight the confirmation of Benson. I understand he's respected, but
>>not thought of very highly.
> 
> Respected == thought of highly.  Is he or isn't he respected?

(Respected != though of highly);  I can respect someone's wishes, or
opinions, or even their rights without thinking highly of them,
and without even knowing them.  At least in my understanding...

Just my $.02, feel free to send back change.

Jim

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Paul Galvanek claims....
Date: 14 Dec 92 19:01:48 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <92349.124612MMB3@psuvm.psu.edu> MMB3@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>Paul Galvanek claims that there are a number of studies showing

Really now did I?

I would've hoped an associate proffesor of anything might demonstrate
slightly higher reading skills...

I said that people should read the studies cited in the state of Florida's
lawsuit, the one intended to keep gays from adopting children.  The Clarinews 
article about this case pointed to numerous studies implying psychological
harm to children raised in same sex households.  The suggestion that these
studies exist is one that I assume the Florida State Attorney General's office
is making.  So I'd suggest you write them or get a copy of the briefs filed
in the case ( I do believe there a matter of public record) and search them out 
for yourself if you're interested.

I won't bother doing so because as I stated, I have personal experience with 
the subject and know well the impact these living arrangement can have on 
children.  So, nothing any study, complete with arbitrarily selected "healthy
emotional make up / icky emotional make up" and aggregate statistics tells
tells me is going to impact my opinion one tiny smidgen.

I know what my eyes have seen and my ears have heard, and I knows what
I knows.  And some how I doubt my experience is all that unique.

PSG
-- 
America must've gone through quite a change the last month and a half.  Since
Clinton promised a cabinet that "would look more like America," it must be that
we've all become far left academicians or career politicians.  The ivory tower
is rebuilt, communism lives and its advocates are working for Bill Clinton!
From: drass@cs.widener.edu (David Drass)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Macroeconomics 101
Date: 21 Dec 92 01:08:05 GMT
Organization: Widener University CS Department, Chester PA
NNTP-Posting-Host: shirley.cs.widener.edu

In article <1992Dec19.072615.7626@netcom.com> nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd) writes:
>Look, economies go up because people believe in them, and down
>when people are feeling concerned about the future. For the first
>time in 12 years people have a genuine sense of hope, and, as
>a result, this will probably be a record-breaking Christmas
>retail season. People finally have a REASON to celebrate.
>
>If Bush had won people would have been even more bummed out
>than they'd been, and the economy would have gone even deeper
>in the toilet.
>
It was pretty much understood that no matter who won the election in
November, the economy would take an upswing.  I am a Democrat, and I
voted for Clinton, but I believe it would be wrong to give him credit
for the economy before he does anything.  So just relax and let ol'
Bill get in office and make some changes and THEN throw it in the
Republican's face.

Dave -
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: stank@leslie.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Subject: Re: Those "nutty" Polls
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 20:29:27 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.072712.7909@netcom.com> nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd) writes:
>On the eve of the election, CNN's final tracking poll came
>out with the following numbers:
>
>47% Clinton
>35% Bush
>18% Perot
>In other words, those "nutty" polls called the election dead
>on within the stated margin of error.

>The next time some idiot with what is apparently no background
>in statistics claims that polls are inaccurate, unscientific,
>bogus, etc--tell them to go away. Polls are actually VERY
>accurate, and are ignored at one's peril.i

With all fairness to some of those "nut cases" what many were complaining
about was the Gallup organization which changed the criteria for its poll/s,
after months of doing it the same way, which changed the numbers pretty
drastically in the last week prior to the election. In this case I think the
polling was badly handled and was obviously not very accurate. I believe that
one such poll, which was seen nation wide, had Bush within 5 points the day
before the election and within 2-3 points a few days before that. I agree
completely that when properly done polls can and will give an extremely
accurate numbers within their margins.

>P.S. According to some other "nutty" polls, 70% of Americans
>believe abortion should remain safe and legal, and 75% of
>Americans believe handguns should be regulated.

These are some of the most consistent numbers polls have given to us for many
years now. Of course that means next to nothing to some.


Stan Knight
|"Father Christmas gives us your money....save your silly toys for the|
|rich little boys"                                                    |
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.censorship,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: chrisb@seachg.uucp (Chris Blask)
Subject: Jimmy Carter
Reply-To: chrisb@seachg.UUCP (Chris Blask)
Organization: Me, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 22:09:12 GMT

This is going to be a yeeha for the US, so hit N if you don't want to hear
it.

I feel I owe this to the rest of the Americans out there, 'specially since
I spend a lot of time criticizing them (and I am one).  It is easy to chew
on the US because they are big and powerful and on the front page all the
time, but we could compare government philosophies and actions for eternity
and we wouldn't find any very close to perfection.

The European countries are having a hell of a time, in general, and  don't
have the greatest history of tolerance and respect for humanity as a whole.
The majority of human societies ever invented have spent a lot of their
energy destroying everything around them and calling it progress; that
wasn't an American invention.

As much as we can beat up the US for environmental mishandling (all true),
we can alos look at western Europe (the Spanish harbours, the Black
Forest), Eastern Europe (yeesh) or the rest of the planet.  Not an American
issue alone.

George Bush is a weenie (an intelligent and well meaning weenie, but let's
face it: once a spook always a spook, I'm supposed to trust the former head of 
the CIA?  survey says BBBZZZ), Clinton is iffy, but does anyone remember
Carter?  He was on Larry King last night, and I am either the biggest
pigeon in the world, or he really is one of the most perceptive,
honourable, well intentioned, hard working people on earth, and makes me
proud to be an American (an admittedly rare feeling).  The man shows more
understanding of complex situations than is legally allowed.  Too bad he
didn't make a "better" President, but the Carter Center has done more
towards improving the lot of mankind during the last twelve years than Ron
and George did while they WERE in office.  I and dare ANYONE to refute
that.

While the US is fraught with problems, and may indeed go down in flames,
let's give credit where credit is due.  What seems to have been at least
partially decided globally?: that individual rights and the quality and
diginity of human life is increased by democracy (I know the US didn't
invent that, but let's not go back to Athens, OK?  the US has been the
dominant force through these times).

Well, it's Friday at 5:05, so I'm letting you folks off on the long tirade.
Merry Christmas, happy Hanukah, and enjoy.

And let's all fix Somalia without getting weird about it, eh?

God Bless the human race

-chris blask

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Republicans looking for jobs
X-Xxdate: Thu, 17 Dec 92 12:38:29 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 18:42:09 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.170343.24349@exu.ericsson.se> Derek Nelson,
exudtn@exu.ericsson.se writes:
>>Nothing makes me more happy than to see Extremist Right Wing Republicans
>>looking through the want ads. It is such a pleasing thought.
>
>Sad.  Very Sad that you take pleasure in the suffering of others.  I 
assume
>that claim to a Democrat.  The last time I checked Democrats claimed the
moral 
>high ground about peoples right to work.  So which is it son?  
>
>>
>>I also love to see Republicans in the welfare line.
>
>Childish, dribble.
>
>>
>>Get a job.
>
>I have one thank you. 

I have to agree with Derek. Both the gloating and the pouting 
are counterproductive. Furthermore, given the
severity of the problems this country
desperately needs to deal with, this is really annoying.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
From: exudtn@exu.ericsson.se (Derek Nelson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Republicans looking for jobs
Date: 18 Dec 92 22:14:06 GMT
Reply-To: exudtn@exu.ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              Any opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article 1gsqppINN2mk@tamsun.tamu.edu, fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298) writes:
>In article 2b300373@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu, vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu () writes:
>>
>>Nothing makes me more happy than to see Extremist Right Wing Republicans
>>looking through the want ads. It is such a pleasing thought.
>>
>>I also love to see Republicans in the welfare line.
>>
>>Get a job.
>>
>>
>
>Sorry your basic assumption is false.  Republicans are never in the welfare
>lines and always have jobs.
>
>fred

NOT.  My father is a 59 year old UNEMPLOYED Republican.  Admittedly,
he is not on welfare, but broad sweeping generalzations such as yours 
show your ignorance or lack of ability to see problems in a broad scope.
Take your pick.

Derek
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green)
Subject: Re: Double standard
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 06:21:22 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <BzJBwB.GAr@andy.bgsu.edu> jnomina@andy.bgsu.edu (A.P.K.) writes:
>(Respected != though of highly);  I can respect someone's wishes, or
>opinions, or even their rights without thinking highly of them,
>and without even knowing them.  At least in my understanding...

Look at it this way, how is the Senate Democratic (?) leadership going to
try and tear apart, burn, or even mildly disagree with the guy they were
trying to get elected Vice President just four years ago.  If they all 
thought he was the best thing since iced tea then, they can't hardly disagree
with him now (on the other hand - those ARE Democrats!)


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.bush,sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
From: harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp)
Subject: Re: Tolls on the federal highways!
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 08:07:49 GMT

erc@netcom.com (Eric Smith) writes:

>In article <1992Dec13.144908.20951@netcom.com> harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:

>>Ack.  I can see it now: "Use our new ACME Interstate Highway.  Yes,
>>with ACME you go faster!" ;)

>>I don't see how technological improvements and competition would make
>>a difference in the case of highways.  Without parallel, competing
>>roads people wouldn't have a choice as to whose road they could drive

>You answered your own question.  Lots of people would want to drive on
>ACME highways so they could drive faster, and would be willing to pay
>extra for that privilege.  They might also take other competitive
>factors into consideration, such as Consumer Reports safety ratings for
>different brands of roads.  And parallel competing roads would reduce
>the traffic congestion on each.

Actually, my joking ad was meant to imply that ACME roads were somehow
improved, allowing faster travel.  In all likelihood the government
would still regulate the maximum speed limits on these roads.  But the
ACME road is a superior product, right? ;)

Even without the ability to drive faster, there _are_ some things that
could truly be points of competition.  I'd be willing to pay more if I
was taking a long trip and I was guaranteed emergency roadside
service, free towing, flats fixed on the spot, etc., etc.  I'm still
not saying this would be a good idea, or even really feasible.  You
wrote about how the economics of it would be extremely risky, and I
agree with your points.

However, I admit that I drive on the North Dallas Tollway because
traffic-wise it's the fastest North-South road in town.  In fact, I
pay an extra $2/mo plus $.05 per trip through the toll plaza for a tag
which automatically charges the toll to my credit card so I don't have
to keep up with change and I don't have to come to a complete stop.  I
just cruise through the nearly-always-clear tolltag-only lane at 10-20
mph.  The surcharges will be going away in a couple years, now that
the tolltag system is being sold to the Turnpike Authority (it's
currently run by a private firm).  In fact, there was even noise about
Ross Perot buying the entire road.

Perhaps we're not far off from private highways becoming a reality
after all...

"New, improved ACME highways.  Now with less tar!" ;)
-- 
-----------------Greg-Harp----------------harp@netcom.com------------------
  "I think I've reached that point / Where every word that you write /
  Of every blood dark sea / And every soul black night / And every dream
  you dream me in / And every perfect free from sin / And burning eyes /
  And hearts on fire / Are just the same old song" -- The Cure
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: BONEHEAD REPUBLICANS
Date: 15 Dec 92 22:47:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
:eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
:>=neil.black@uttsbbs.uucp (Neil Black)  writes:
:>=>Look boneheads, anytime you have 3 *real* candidates, it's very tough to
:>=>get a majority (that is-over 50%) of the popular vote.
:>
:>I just want to be sure about this: wasn't Ronald Reagan voted in with a
:>majority of the popular vote back in 1980 when there were three viable
:>candidates (Reagan, Carter, Anderson)? I bet you don't want to remember
:>this bit of history either.
:
:About 50.1% of the popular vote, I recall.  Carter got a little over
:40%.
:
:Arguably, Anderson was a moderate/liberal Republican, and was drawing
:more votes off of Carter and not Reagan.

I have to examine the polling data (not me personally, but try to
remember what I had heard) regarding Perot taking votes away from Bush
or Clinton.  It was obvious that he took the disgruntled conservative
vote in California from Bush, but does that make Perot a conservative or
an alternative?

:Dontcha love spin?

The Spin Doctors are cool. :)
But remember, it's very tough to get a majority of the popular vote in a
three-person race. That was the point I was answering.
Time to puree my brain for my finals...
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	Biomedical Engineering 1993
	Vacation period (off-line): December 18 to January 11.
	Take care of the network when I'm gone.
FOUR MORE MONTHS!!! FOUR MORE CLASSES!!! FOUR MORE ACCEPTANCE LETTERS!!!