HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Date: 6 Oct 92 00:26:01 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Stephen Tice) writes:
|> I really had no reason to be against Clinton before this.
|> I did have real concerns about anyone who's a war protester
|> being able to lead the country in the event of war, since 
|> you have to have people go and fight.
|> 
|> But to find out while Bill Clinton was at Oxford in '69 that 
|> he went to *Moscow* and eastern Europe in the dead of winter, 
|> alone, and made efforts to change his citizenship to British,
|> -- I'll be dead against him personally -- if all this is true.
|> 
|> (aired on C-Span today). 
|> 
|> Clinton better tell the whole story now. And he better go
|> beyond a reasonable doubt.
|> 
Clinton has already said this is not true.  On one hand, we hear
complaints that everything he has done in life (including
while in college) was targeted at running for office, and then
we hear he tried to change his citizenship.

Most of the stuff on c-span is an opportunity for elected
officials to put things "on the record" without benefit of
someone to question their statements.  How on C-Span was this
drek presented this time?

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48239 alt.rush-limbaugh:6025 alt.politics.bush:6934 alt.politics.clinton:7511 alt.politics.elections:14447 talk.abortion:38895 alt.sex:31066
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 28 Sep 1992 11:33:41 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Sep28.184101.9307@sniap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>: In article <1992Sep22.173704.15681@sniap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>: >
>: >Why do you feel society _owes_ you a second choice?  
>: >Why has society no right to protect a foetus if it sees fit?
>: 
>: Society isn't involved.  Society doesn't "owe" anything, specifically not
>: an adherance to some policy of 'responsible behavior' that is, on the face
>: of it, irresponsible.
>
>A gang threatens your daughter's life.  Is society involved now?  

Now this is funny.  You *just* *finished* typing to Ray that 'one may die
of natural causes but that isn't a shooting.' and then you type in this 
crap?!?!?!?

NOBODY said, "Society owes me a second choice".

You set it up as a straw man and then went around and knocked it down!
And now you want to set up another one.

NO!  Nobody said this, nobody's interested.  "Society" ain't involved.

>: Frank, nobody needs your permission to [ things I never said deleted]

Ah, but does SOCIETY HAVE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH (things you never said)?

Heck, we can *all* play this stupid useless game if we haven't anything
better to do, silly twit!

Adrienne Regard
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:09:13 EDT
From: <SAYED@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: VA senate and Congress

I live in Fairfax Co. Va.,
can some one please tell me who the Senators for state of Va are and
who the congressman for our area is.   Also if I want to write to them
where should I send the letters to???

thanks in advance
Sayed.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Hit 'em again, hit 'em again!  Harder!  Harder!
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 2 Oct 92 12:27:32 CDT


In article <1992Oct1.004938.4458@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> 
> 	Bush's latest commercials (tax raises via Clinton) are quite effective. 
> One wonders why Bush hasn't used something similar much earlier.  That issue
> helped destroy Mondale in '84.

1984, when Mondale said "He'll [Reagan] raise your taxes and so will I.
He won't tell you and I just did".  Of course then Reagan proposed and
signed the 1986 tax increase.

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: What is "Sexual Orientation"?
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 02:29:32 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.171241.28098@microsoft.com> bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:
    >(phil) /Oh, so then all those nasty old stupid businesses
    >that refused to do /business with South Africa -- they were
    >wrong.
    >
    >No; they made a choice based upon varying forces. What does
    >this have to do with what we are talking about?

Please keep the full context. You stated that businesses had no right
to refuse to sell to people if, in essence, they had the cash.

    >(phil) /And, and why not sell stuff to Iraq. Just because you
    >and all the officers of the company /dislike ole' Saddam,
    >well, hell, nows not the time to let personal /prejudices get
    >in the way of business, nosirrreeee ...
    >
    >Which side are you arguing, Phil? Do you even know?

Bluntly -- you've swallowed hook, line, and sinker the whole PC(tm)
bullshit, and what you are seeing are the logical contradictions
of your accepted position.

    >A person's belief of conscience can be exercised only where
    >such exercise does not conflict with another person's rights.
    >What your "conscience" tells you does not matter if those
    >actions will result in the breach of another person's
    >liberties.

Oh? What a muddled piece of shit -- you don't even believe in this.

What rights? Are you claiming that I must sell a hamburger in
my restaurant to anyone that has the money?

Yes or no?


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: goldm@rpi.edu (Mitchell E. Gold)
Subject: Re: Media coverage for Marrou/Lord (call these #'s!)
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
	<GOLDM.92Oct5125456@sage4a.rpi.edu> <Bvns4C.HJz@apollo.hp.com>
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 20:27:14 GMT

In article <Bvns4C.HJz@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
   In article <GOLDM.92Oct5125456@sage4a.rpi.edu> goldm@rpi.edu (Mitchell E. Gold) writes:
>>Maybe we should start mentioning the LP not just to the media, but also to
>>the pollsters. Gallup might take more interest, having more of a reputation
>>for good polls, though I doubt any Republican/Democrat Party sponsored polls
>>would care, except to "normalize" the poll and add it to the "error."

>The flaw in this has already been explained:  The typical margin of
>error in a major poll is 3-5%, which is way over the % of the voters
>who have voted for the L.P. in any presidential campaign, so there's
>simply no rational reason for any polling company to include them.

Pardon me for being a statistical abberation. Back to stumping.
--Mitch
From: cindy@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Term Limits are Constitutional, Study Shows
Date: 6 Oct 92 17:26:43 GMT
Organization: /home/ludviga/cindy/.organization

Matt Staben writes:
>Tip O'Neil - (Of all the presidents I have known, Reagan was
>the worst.  But, he would have made a hell of a king.)
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Not in modern times he wouldn't....  I've seen "a hell of a king".
About the only things he has in common is that they're both men and
both had English as (one of) their native language(s).

-Cindy Kandolf
 cindy@solan.unit.no
 Trondheim, Norway 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 13:32:32 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <lcnsptINNrcv@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk) writes:
>In article <lefty-290992185354@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:

>|Look up the word "credulous" and see what it means.
>
>Try looking it up yourself; it's not *in* the dictionary.

  For those who are credulous enough to believe Falk's posting isn't
  a joke, it's on page 338 of my American Heritage Dictionary, Second
  College Edition.


---peter


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: bb063@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Christopher J. Crobaugh)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: re: Admiral William Crowe's endorsement of Clinton
Date: 3 Oct 1992 22:10:28 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


Might I point out that in his speech at his retirement ceremony,
Admiral Crowe spoke of his thinking that Americans had BETTER
GET USED TO THE IDEA OF MANY FEWER CIVIL LIBERTIES, BECAUSE WE
HAVE GOT A "WAR ON DRUGS," DON'T YOU KNOW!!
That such a totalitarian asshole would endorse Clinton suprises
me not at all. I just hope the word goes out about Crowe in
time. BTW, Crowe has a PHd in Pol Sci from Georgetown. Not
all that big a surprise, is it? [his attitude toward the Bill
of Rights.)
-- 
bb063@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu  Chris Crobaugh - (216) 327-6655 (V)
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little 
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48385 alt.politics.bush:7039 alt.politics.marrou:1343 alt.politics.elections:14542 talk.politics.theory:4371 alt.politics.clinton:7632
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: AIDS crisis
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 29 Sep 92 05:57:08 GMT
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (jason Think! steiner) writes:
: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl) writes:

: > eng-nxt03 [3] ~> man sex
: > No manual entry for sex.
: > 
: > Hmmm..... Perhaps this could be part of the problem....   ;)
: 
: obviously, you don't have the full distribution of the man pages.
: this should fill the gap:
: 
: 
: SEX(6)              EUNUCH Programmer's Manual               SEX(6)


THANK-YOU THANK-YOU THANK-YOU THANK-YOU!  :-)

You have no idea how long I've been looking for this file.  I was
just wondering if my earlier article would cause it this to appear,
without crossposting to alt.sex.  :-)

: all in all, about the only good thing to come with the emacs distribution.
: *puts on asbestos underwear*
: 
: jason "just another vi user" steiner

Gee....you wouldn't be trying to start another emacs/vi flamefest, would
you?  After all, it has absolutely nothing to do with politics or this
Presidential election...which means that this potential flamefest is
totally appropriate for these newsgroups.  :-)

Yes, I am an emacs user, and I have tried both emacs and vi.  Emacs codes
(to me, anyway) just make a lot more sense than vi codes...especially
now that I reset my communications software to send ^?'s when I hit
backspace rather than ^H's.  :)  I will admit, though, if I ever start
coding directly on the mainframes (rather than using a DOS editor and
then uploading), my need to keep up a good typing speed will probably
force me to change over to vi.  :-/  Since I don't do much "serious"
typing on the NeXTs or mainframes here right now, I'm happy with
emacs.

Now returning you to your regularly-scheduled newsgroups....
--
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: B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (STEPHEN TICE)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: The Issue -- Dominant Parties Destroying US. ($1.5 T Abuse)
Date: 2 Oct 92 21:48:00 GMT

(A point I made in email correspondence, recently...)

I won't tell ya why you should vote for a candidate, that's your
decision. 

I've documented the shallowness of the media lies about Perot.
Such as the Laura Miller article about cordoning, in which she
says that she got her information from another journalist, one
of 30, though the rest would not come forward. And there have 
been several instances where I've shown that the Dallas
Morning News flat out lied in quoting their own prior articles
about Perot. It took a while to understand that there are people
on the right and left (and apolitical) who make it their business 
to lie -- either by omission or directly. It's useless to deal 
with past information, unless the source is cited.

The objective undeniable fact remains -- a $1.5 Trillion dollar
federal budget is being authored by the bi-partisan congress, 
which will be signed into law by the partisan president.

Every insult and abuse on the taxpayer by the political class 
is heaped together in that one collusive act. And the media 
is not covering it. Even though it robs us and our children
of their future.

If you don't understand yet. Here it is short and sweet.
Perot isn't the issue. You are -- as one of the partisans who
are destroying US. I want you to know that clearly.

-- Stephen

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49683 alt.politics.clinton:8593
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Raving a bit, aren't we?
Date: 6 Oct 92 03:16:55 GMT
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In <1992Oct5.191244.19614@ra.msstate.edu> cea1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Carolyn E. Adams-Price)
>And....to all of you who think the problem with the US is
>business regulation, I say, I hope you drown in the pollution
>or are hurt by an end to safety standards that an end to business
>regulation would cause!!!!!
>
>Carolyn Adams-Price
>Department of Psychology
>Mississippi State University

	Let's hope you are a bit more lucid after freshman year :).

	Libertarians don't want pollution, or lax safety, or anything else like
that.  It's a common fallacy among statists to believe than anyone who wants
less government likes pollution, etc.

	However, the Libertarians believe that the individual, and the market,
are strong enough to keep these things under control.

	As long as government isn't interfering and allowing companies to
pollute and have unsafe work conditions.

	Which government agency was supposed to inspect that Carolina chicken
factory?

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (STEPHEN TICE)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Date: 6 Oct 92 21:58:00 GMT


cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster)...
|>

{ Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.,  6 Oct, t.p.m } 
 
|>Stephen Tice writes (apparently with a straight face):
|> 
|>   Going to Oxford is very like going to Canada. Protesting the war
|>   by going to Moscow is very like Jane Fonda in Hanoi. I don't
|>   like it, but I can live with it. 
|>
|>   I have a problem beyond this, which has to do with how effective
|>   the soviets were in recruiting people. This is where my concern 
|>   is. (Kim Philby and company, considered)
 
|You actually mean this.  You're saying Clinton might have been RECRUITED
|by the Soviets?  I admire people with active imaginations.
 
NPR reported he went. Another Clinton supporter has said he 
went. I am *asking* why he went, where (Moscow? Eastern Europe?),
and what happened?  This was doing Viet Nam and I think it stinks, 
even if he just went for a visit.

This whole thing sounds just like the typical cases we're told to 
watch for in counter-spy training in the military.

Besides the classic British cases, which involve soviet recruitment
on British university campuses, we have our own "traitors" such
as John Walker -- so yes I do take it very serious. (And personal.)

I want to know what he was doing over there while we were fighting
in Viet Nam?? Where did he go and why? That's reasonable to ask.
And the response "visiting as a student" is not an answer.

And I want to know if he's held any security clearances in the time
between? This has all likely been checked out if he has. (Though it 
certainly didn't help with Walker.) 

SO yeah it's all very f_____ unfunny to me.

|Chris Brewster
|cb@cray.com

most sincerely, 

Stephen D. Tice
From: lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com (Len Bucuvalas)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Hospital Study Suggests Gays Are Very Unlikely To Be Molesters
Keywords: cia, fda, kill file, osi, dea, Bush is a traitor
Date: 2 Oct 92 23:25:09 GMT
Organization: Informed Consent

In article <2OCT92.13392908@enh.nist.gov> aberson@enh.nist.gov writes:
>In a previous article, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) wrote:
>>This Associated Press report should be of interest:
>> 
>>DENVER (AP)---A child is 100 times more likely to be molested by a
>>family member than a homosexual, a new study shows.
>
>Well, obviously a homosexual cannot be a family member.
>
>       Sim Aberson   Ft. Lauderdale, FL   aberson%3328.span@sdsc.edu
>"It's always Beach Party Barbie, or Malibu Barbie....  That shit does not
>prepare you for the true horror of a real woman's life.  Where is Single,
>Abused, Trailer-Park Barbie?"             - Roseanne Arnold

So ... are we to take this sarcastically? IE: Are you reaching
to hard for any excuse to do a little bashing?

Len 
--
*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
The accountability of government has gone to the point where the very
use of the law is the instrument of illegality.
		-- Ralph Nader @ Harvard Law School, 1/15/92
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48250 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5984 alt.politics.bush:6940 alt.politics.elections:14451 talk.abortion:38908 alt.politics.clinton:7519
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 28 Sep 92 19:09:03 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Sep28.163907.22679@meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:

>legalization of abortion caused any significant reduction in the number of
>women's deaths due to complications from abortion, when in fact the numbers
>are nearly the same (I can get these if you wish). 

How nice, please do.

> Furthermore, several
>surveys, including one by Planned Parenthood, confirm that at least 90% of
>women who have abortions do so not by choice, but because they believe they
>are forced to.  That is, they would rather carry the baby to term, but for

Any support for this interesting statement?
By whom are they forced?
>financial or circumstantial reasons are compelled to abort it.  If only the

Ah.  'Circumstances'.  In what way are these circumstances changing to
un'force' these women?

>abortion just wouldn't be an issue.

That's an interesting opinion.  What are you doing to see the money and effort
expended in the pro-life/pro-choice battle is redirected toward the needs of
pregnant women?

>By the way, the issue in this Presidential election is not whether or not to
>have legalized abortion; it is whether or not to require taxpayers to foot the
>bill for it.  

This statement is not correct.

>Over 1.5 million abortions are now performed annually in the
>U.S. -- how many do you think there will be when it's "free" (i.e. cheaper
>than a condom)?

More.  Why do you ask?   After all, if abortion is the most cost-effective
method of birth control, I'd expect people to use it.  Why do you figure it
would become 'cheaper than a condom' however?  There isn't today a single
surgical method that is 'cheaper than a condom'.  That would be a pretty
neat trick.

Adrienne Regard
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49693 talk.politics.guns:21739 soc.culture.canada:7227
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Yet further tripe from Richard Reeves
Date: 6 Oct 92 13:04:27 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Sep30.160855.16375@cs.sfu.ca> troy@cs.sfu.ca (Troy Brooks) writes:

> ljb@parkcity.dr.att.com:

>> 6. So much for my reasoned, educated arguments.  The Canadians are for
>> the most part a meek people (save some of their true living pioneers).

> What a bunch of crap.  Save this jingoism for someone who shares your
> narrow minded prejudices.

The truth hurts, huh?  Canadians have been called "history's couch
potatoes" by a prominent _Canadian_ writer (who's certainly in
position to know), and not without good reason.  Canadians seem all
too readily willing to go along with whatever idea is currently in
vogue with the liberal "intelligentsia", regardless of how much it
infringes on personal liberty.

Homosexuality is an aberration.  There, I have just broken the law in
Canada -- just by expressing this (easily provable) idea.

>> They are a fairly homogeneous group ethnically, politically and
>> economically.

This isn't quite true, particularly in Montreal or Toronto.  Moreover,
the dominant culture of Quebec is something quite different than that
of the rest of Canada.

>> Comparisons of their culture, or any other culture to that of the U.S.
>> is erroneous.

This is absolutely true when you are comparing the U.S. with english-
speaking Canada.  U.S. culture is based upon the complete repudiation
of the idea of having a government based on monarchy and class
privilege, while many Canadians (particularly older ones) still revere
the English crown.

>> Our ancestors did not come to this land to live like the serfs of
>> Europe, Asia or any other land which they fled or were driven from.
>> Rather, they wished to live in freedom and depend on themselves for
>> sustenance, not on the [whimsical] [largesse] of some government
>> benefactor.

> Actually, I think Bill Murray said it best in 'Stripes': "We're
> Americans!  That means our forefathers ... were thrown out of every
> decent country in the world!  We're mutts!  We're mongrels! ..." :-)

As if Bill Murray is a respected commentator on U.S. culture.  What
other "decent" countries are there in the world?  Despite all its
flaws, the U.S. is tops in that category (in my estimation).  As for
our forefathers being "thrown out" of other countries, I can't think
of that ever happening on a large scale.  They came here because they
_WANTED_ to -- and that still holds true today.  There are even many
Canadians who would like to emigrate to the U.S. -- if they could do
so legally.  So keep your sour grapes to yourself.
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||