HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Holocaust II in Serbia: Why Isn't Anyone Doing Anything?
Date: 12 Aug 92 19:16:22 GMT
Organization: Pyramid Technology

In article <zd4m6jj.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <183014@pyramid.pyramid.com> glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert) writes:
>    >You have yet to answer the question: Who appointed the US as
>    >Global Policeman?
>
>Well, probably the entity (or non-entity) that say, appointed eco-fascist
>groups such as Greenpeace as world what-evers.
>
BZZZZZZT!  Sorry, Phil, but with that non-sequiteur response, you've proven
your inability to respond to this question.

Greenpeace is funded by contributions from individuals around the world who
concur with their goals and methods.  It is not a nation interfering in 
other nations' civil wars or secessionist issues.  

George Lambert
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu)
Subject: Re: Clinton's S.S. (was National Police Force)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:43:40 GMT

In article <sd6mm_a.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>All of this talk about Clinton's National Police Force and his plans for
>disarming us of our assault weapons, the only weapons protected by the 
>Constitution, reminds me an awful lot of Adolf Hitler, his SS and the
>mesmerization of the German people during his intitial rise to power.
>
>Very dangerous man, indeed!
>-- 
>Richard Crisp         Cupertino, Ca.         crisp@netcom.com
>(415) 903-3832 wk  "The Demos have to go!"   (408) 253 4541 fax
>
>"The first thing you have to do is disarm the people. A disarmed
>public can't fight back" -Adolf Hitler
>
>It is interesting that the so called enlightened Democrats
>seem to espouse the same tactics of their buddy Hitler:
>disarm the public, and enlist the aid of the media to 
>make all believe that they need to cooperate with the 
>new order blindly.

Disarming some assault-rifle touting ultra-right religious fanatics
and put them in concentration camps seems to be a good idea.  Pat
Roberson can be the camp spirital leader.
From: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Newest Quayle Quote!
Date: 21 Aug 92 12:46:51 GMT
Reply-To: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems

In article 11844@news.columbia.edu, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <4723@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>>From the Washington _Post_ today:
>>At a gala, "where Bush praised his running mate as a man who has 'given
>>better than he's got,' Quayle jokingly promised the President, 'I will
>>not represent you at a spelling bee.
>>	"Quayle said that he spells LIBERAL:
>>
>>	C-L-I-N-T-O-N <<adding after a pause>> -E."
>
>NYT today:
>
>_AIDS Speech Brings Hush to Crowd_, p. A21
>
>"Many of the delegates at the first seemd not to be listening.  They
>could be seen chatting and wandering about the floor.  But as she went
>on, the room gradually feel to attention.  By the middle of her speech
>almost everyone was staring up at the podium, quiet and with grave
>expressions.
>
>"There were exceptions.  A television camera caught Vice President Dan
>Quayle, standing in his box in the rear of the hall, glad-handing a
>beaming Arnold Schwarzenegger."
>
>
>--
>But this is.


Last night on Comedy Central's "InDecision '92" coverage of the
GOP convention, they showed a short video taken a few years ago.

I didn't catch the exact location/date/occasion, but it was a
luncheon where the key speaker was Pres. Ron Reagan.  He was
speaking earnestly about govt. spending, and a large crowd was
watching and listening intently.  At least one suit got out a pad
and seemed to be taking notes.

Right in front of the camera (which was behind the crowd), was Senator
Dan Quayle, the only man visible in the entire room who was voraciously
eating his lunch.  He looked up once, when Reagan said something about
"$400 billion".

--f2
----------------------------------------------
  "How can I be so stupid when I is so smart?"
  --Howland Owl, or Dan Quayle, I forget which
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rab@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Bickford)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism vs. government
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 00:02:31 GMT

In article <l8inekINNots@spim.mips.com>,
 mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:

   [quoted comments and analogies deleted -- rab]

>
>Amputation is used when traditional therapy doesn't work.  We haven't
>begun to try traditional therapy on fixing the schools.

Actually, we've been using "traditional therapy" on the government
schools for a coupla *decades* now.  I refer, of course, to the
time-honored practice of throwing money at a problem in the hopes that
it will go away or at least get better.
--
  Robert Bickford        /-------------------------------------\
  rab@well.sf.ca.us      | Don't Blame Me: I Voted Libertarian |
                         \-------------------------------------/
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: I'll do anything to be re-elected
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 17:41:43 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <Aug.14.12.14.39.1992.21786@math.rutgers.edu> cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:
>If he's willing to do anything to be reelected, let me put forward a
>new idea:
>
>CUT THE DAMNED DEFICIT!

   OK, what are you willing to give up?  I mean you, personally,
   not "As a white middle class professional, I'm willing to 
   give up AFDC")    Surely you must be the beneficiary of some 
   tax-supported program.   You post form a .edu account, so

   Are you on a federally-backed student loan program or some kind
   of scholarship that uses government money that you'd be willing 
   to give up? 

   Are you willing that your school give up the tax deductibility of 
   donations to college?   This would certainly result in smaller
   donations, so your tuition would probably go up.

   Do you benefit from any NSF, DoD, or other federal grant programs
   that colleges and universities often enjoy?  Give those up?

   If you're a graduate student working for some professor on a 
   research grant, would you give that up?

   Are your parents deducting their mortgage interest?  Would you
   give this up?

   Or do you favor higher taxes, and if so, how much more would you 
   be willing to pay to balance the budget?


   
   
   I've already gone on record as being willing to give up home
   mortgage interest deductibility to reduce the budget deficit
   and make the system more fair.   Since this is worth many thousands
   of dollars to me, I think that it's only fair that anyone else 
   who proposes cutting the deficit be prepared to offer a similar
   sacrifice, assuming they also enjoy tax-funded benefits.


---peter


  
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39967 talk.abortion:31911 alt.politics.bush:1717
From: pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush (was Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 16 Aug 92 01:47:13 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1992Aug16.000244.16184@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <adams.713718210@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>
>>>In article <l8hms5INN4n9@girtab.usc.edu> rone@girtab.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri) writes:
>>>>
>>>>	HOUSTON (UPI) -- A Republican platform subcommittee overwhelming-
>>
>>The same George Herbert Hoover Bush who renegged on his "Read My Lips"
>>pledge?  The same one who was Pro-Choice until he suffered a convention
>>conversion to be RR's running mate?  The same one who denied that we were
>>in a recession?  The same one who wants to outlaw abortion (except of
>>course for his own family)?
>>
>>How can you trust him?
>
>
>Check out Al Gore's voting record. Up until a few years ago, he voted
>pro-life over 80% of the time. 
>
>Now, he's "pro-choice" all the way. 
>
>How can you trust him? 
>
Peoples' views, on the very difficult issue of abortion, do change.  I used
to be strongly pro-life and am now pro-choice (although it wouldn't swing
my vote).  What makes me suspicious about Bush is the way that his stance
conveniently changed when Reagan was looking for a pro-life running mate.
I can remember seeing a speech where Reagan, who had just selected Bush as a
running mate, was trying to assure his apparantly skeptical conservative
friends that Bush was not as liberal on abortion as they apparantly thought.
Bush says that his stand on abortion may cost him some votes.  This may seem
commendable at first; but it should be remembered that, while the majority of
the population is prochoice, pro-lifers are much more likely to vote on the
abortion issue alone.

Also, does their not appear to a double standard when Bush publicly opposes
abortion and yet vehemently opposes health care reforms which would reduce
infant mortality?

Peter Lauren.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
From: shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore)
Subject: Re: I demand
Reply-To: shore@tc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 00:29:27 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.234248.12001@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll) writes:
> I don't have much respect for Clayton, but I have even less for this
> sort of collective guilt trip / thought police action. Clayton is
> responsible for what he says - not anyone else. 

Well, golly.  I surely am breathless in anticipation of
your equally rapid condemnation of the Moron Who Shall Not
Be Named the next time he holds all gay people responsible
for NAMBLA.  [And they say feminists are humorless.  Neener
neener.]
-- 
       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41003 alt.individualism:5294
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Private Discrimination (was: Libertarians and big tits)
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 21 Aug 92 00:47:24 EST
Distribution: na
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <fulton.714323098@copper>, fulton@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben Fulton) writes:
> In <thong.714251052@husc10> thong@husc10.harvard.edu (Theodore Hong) writes:
> 
>>You live in a small rural town that has two grocery stores.  Both store 
>>owners decide that they don't want to sell to people whose last name 
>>begins with an "E"; the rest of the population doesn't care (no one else's 
>>name begins with "E").  What do you do?

	Assuming the rest of the population would not care is a bit
presumptuous.  Can you honestly think of a present day city (rural, suburb,
whatever) where *all* the people would not care about discrimination of one or
two people?

> Since I can't start my own store, and

	(You could, but you don't want to.  Is that what you mean?)

>>your only added customer is yourself 
> 
> The other stores are discriminating against ME, personally, even if it's
> under cover of not serving E-people.  The easiest solution would then be
> to have a friend buy food for me.  If I have no friends, I guess it's time
> to move :-)

	Let's assume that there is such a place.  We'll call it potato land :). 
In potato land, no 'e's are allowed.  They refuse to do business with 'e's.

	Once all the 'e's are gone does everyone sit back and breathe easy? 
Probably not.  Such societies are formed and live on having a scapegoat to
blame their problems on.  As soon as times got tough, they'd find something
wrong with 'x's.  And push them out of town.

	Meanwhile, over in New Potatoe, the people pushed out, plus those that
don't want to live in potato land have formed a society.  They fight against
discrimination by not buying any products from places like potato land.

	Gradually places like New Potatoe thrive while place like potato land
stagnate.  If nothing else, the next generation of potato land learns a lasting
lesson about what is really in their own best interest: tolerance and open
mindedness.

	Now, having told that far-fetched story, we do have some built in
potato land here in the present day USA.  Under the guise of programs to help
minorities, businesses *can* hide their discriminatory practives by pointing to
government laws and regulations and saying "this is all they'll let us do" or
"this is all we're supposed to do" and place the blame on the government.

	That's how you get businesses in large minority areas without a large
minority representation.  "Government" says they have to have N people of race
Y.  The discriminatory business uses that law to ensure that not more than N
people of race Y work there.

Brett
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Repost: Call for transcripts Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 12 Aug 92 19:28:31 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

Article 2165 of alt.politics.bush:
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: There's no reason to vote for Bush
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 15:46:31 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug14.130709.24504@ncsu.edu>  dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Aug14.041938.38489@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes
>
> >dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
> >>margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>
> >>>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
> >>>> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
>
> >>>>> What happens to the woman's rights if we decide to award rights to a fetus
>
> >>>> All human females would have the right to life.
>
> >>> This does not answer the question asked.
>
> >> It does answer the question if one believes that all human females
> >> should possess the right to life.
>
> > The question was what happens to the woman's rightS (plural).  Women already
> > have the right to life.  Therefore, your response did not in any way address
> > the question asked.
>
> Not all human females possess the right to life.

That was not the question.  *Women* (i.e., adult females) already have the
right to life.  The question was, what happens to the rights of the pregnant
adult female if you decide to award rights to a fetus.  Your trite response
indicates that you'd like to award the right to life to a (female) fetus,
but says nothing about which rights of the woman you're planning on stripping
away.  I can understand why you would choose not to answer this.  But don't
fool yourself into believing that you have answered it, since you're not
fooling anyone else.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 03:41:12 GMT

In article <16n43bINNh9h@agate.berkeley.edu> wft@soda.berkeley.edu (William F. Tell) writes:
>
>I think Mark Russell put it best when he noted that people who
>are pro-abortion are generally those who have already been
>born.

Similarly, all men are mortal.  The wonder of a definition that
encompasses the whole universe is that it defines absolutely nothing.
A stronger observation would be that the majority of the anti-choice
people are male.

--
But this is.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Followup-To: talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 05:36:22 GMT

  [followups to talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush]

el> Elizabeth G. Levy

el> A stronger observation would be that the majority of the anti-choice 
el> people are male.

  I doubt that. Seems to me, based on what I've seen and read, is that it's
  about 50/50. I'm sure plenty of surveys and polls will back me up. Also,
  you have to remember that the extreme pro-choice position, like the ex-
  treme anti-choice position, is not the most prevalent position, it's some-
  where in-between. Parental notification, waiting periods, and so on, don't
  seem to bother most Americans.


--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40737 alt.politics.elections:11012 alt.politics.clinton:2292 alt.politics.bush:2216
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:20:33 GMT
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA

In article <1992Aug18.151018.27120@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>
>You seem to have forgotten the 30 million new jobs created during those
>twelve years.
>
	we didn't forget 'em, we just misplaced 'em ;-)









	(Sorry, I couldn't resist)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: enbal@aeroj.tamu.edu (James L. Heilman)
Subject: I'll do anything to be re-elected
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:50:55 GMT

True to his word, George Bush begged James Baker to leave
the State Department to become Chief of Staff.  It's
not very comforting that a successful Secretary of
State is being replaced by Lawrence Eagleburger, one
of the architects of the secret war in Laos and the
abandonment of POWS, and the man who so greatly under-
estimated the intentions of Sadaam Hussein. Apparently
the Middle East peace talks, "ethnic cleansing" in Croatia
and Bosnia, and a holocaust in Somalia are not as
important as George's re-election.  George Will was right
when he wrote that the only reason George Bush is running
for a second term is that he wants to be re-elected. 

James L. Heilman
____________________
enbal@aeroj.tamu.edu
From: neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The Bush Record
Date: 19 Aug 92 09:59:23 GMT
Organization: Integrated Systems Laboratory, ETH, Zurich

In article <1992Aug18.151421.26912@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>The Bush Record
>
>4) About 1 million new jobs have been created during Bush's term.[1]
>	Bush promised 30 million new jobs.

But he promised them for *two* terms, and this makes his reelection all the
more attractive. Just imagine, 29 million new jobs in the next four years.

Matthias

-----
Matthias Neeracher                                      neeri@iis.ethz.ch
   "What do you do when your President ignores all the palpable,
    relevant facts and wanders in circles."
                -- David A. Stockman, _The Triumph of Politics_
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39610 talk.abortion:31647 alt.politics.bush:1524
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: 14 Aug 92 11:55:56 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Aug13.183438.25997@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Aug13.140530.26145@pwcs.stpaul.gov>
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
> 
> >farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
> 
> >>chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
> 
> >>> Actually, I think it's neat that Bush and Quayle would be supportive of
> >>> their female offspring (or offoffspring in GHWB's case).  I wish that
> >>> they would remember that _every_ woman is _someone's_ daughter or
> >>> granddaughter; all equally deserving of their parents' and grandparents
> >>> support of their right to choose.
> 
> >> You've never heard of the saying, "Do as I say, not as I do."?
> 
> > Definitely!  Their statements regarding their (grand)daughters are just a tad
> > hypocritical; one would hope that they see the error of their ways and open
> > the door for _all_ women rather than close it for their (grand)daughters.
> 
> I think it's pretty sexist of you to insinuate that all women think alike,
> and that all of them are pro-choice.  

This statement of Doug's is not correct.  The insinuation he claims
is not present in Chris Lyman's remarks.

Substantiate it or retract it, Doug.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu ( )
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 15:32:20 GMT

In article <16drfkINNbst@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

> What happens to the woman's rights if we decide to award rights to a fetus?

All human females would have the right to life. 

>Adrienne Regard


Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Intervention in Bosnia
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 12 Aug 92 13:40:19 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

	Our local news rag, the _Dayton Daily News_, actually published an
apologist excuse for the current Serbian atrocitites.  The writer (staff for
the Cox system, the people who own DDN) had to go all the way back to WWII era
Croatia to highlight the atrocities that the puppet regime committed on behalf
of Nazi Germany.
	His conclusion was that since "Croatia" did it then, we shouldn't be so
fast to condemn Serbia today.

	Hmmmm.  It's too bad the paper published my letter castigating them for
publishing Carter-revisionism.  There's a 90-day ban between published letters
from any one person.  Otherwise I could expose that twit also.

	For those who are complaining about US intervention:  there's no reason
why the US *has* to be the one to do it.  I think the Euros need to handle this
one.  But it definately needs attention.  We can't let the Serbs genocide the
Croats and Muslims.

	"Vietnam", hell.  More people died in WWII for the same type of cause.

	Or is it better that we all go on with our lives, comfortable in the
notion that it's not happening here?  (Yet)

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: There's no good reason to vote for Bush
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 22:13:29 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug13.153220.15332@ncsu.edu>  dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu ( ) writes:
> In article <16drfkINNbst@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
>
> > What happens to the woman's rights if we decide to award rights to a fetus?
>
> All human females would have the right to life.

This does not answer the question asked.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics