HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lbaum@atc.boeing.com (Larry Baum)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:42:33 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services

In article <7OCT199217052351@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen
Tice) writes:
>cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster) writes...
>>John VietNam Veteran Moore writes:
>> 
>>   To conspire with an enemy country during war is an act of a traitor.
>>   Bill Clinton may or may not have done this - he was more likely a
>>   "willing dupe" - but for him to protest the war IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY,
>>   and to travel to the capital of the main enemy, is, to say the
>>   least, very suspect. As a veteran of that period, I find it
>>   reprehensible and offensive.
>
>John I agree, it sucks.  While other young men were fighting and dying 
>in Viet Nam -- Bill Clinton took a "vacation" around the Soviet Union. 

Bill Clinton and the millions like him (and me) were actively doing what we
could to stop the fighting and dying.  We spent countless hours doing what we
could to stop the killing.  But even the most tireless of us took occasional
vacations; so what?  You may very well feel we were misguided or even wrong to
protest and work against the war; but you have no reason to suggest that we
were not sincere in our desire to end the suffering of those doing the
fighting.

Presidents Nixon and LBJ and all the other politicians that directly sent those
men off to die routinely took Christmas vacations too, you know.  Their
enjoyment of the Christmas season and other vacations strikes me as much more
despicable than what some student did on his time off.
>
>While others such as Sam Johnson and Jim Stockdale were rotting in POW
>camps -- BRAVE BILL CLINTON was (at least) on a merry Christmas tour in 
>the heart of communism. At most, BRAVE BILL was planning out his presi-
>dential career 20 years later as a fellow-traveler in the communist 
>enlightenment, and the ultimate mole.

This is slanderous garbage.  You have not one scintilla of evidence that
Clinton was ever a "fellow traveler", much less a Soviet agent.  Millions of
people opposed the war and were not communist sympathizers.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50606 alt.politics.perot:1938 alt.politics.elections:15894
From: rl24@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Robert Lamoureux)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: All deficits are not created equal.
Date: 9 Oct 92 18:25:33 GMT
Reply-To: rl24@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Robert Lamoureux)
Organization: Columbia University

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... The other 75% is owed to U.S. individuals,
>corporations, trust funds, retirement accounts, etc..  
>
If this is true, then it's pretty easy to see how the debt will be
handled: in the name of patriotism (or some such precious entity),
Americans will simply be asked to "forgive" this debt.  If they decide
against this, the debt will simply be "forgiven" anyway (interest
payments withheld, etc.).  Even that, though, won't pay off the debt
in its entirety, or come even close.

Rob L.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: smay@boi.hp.com (Scott Smay)
Subject: Re: Reagan/Clinton a tale of two govenors
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 23:15:58 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

DEAL, DOUGLAS WAYNE (gt6367c@prism.gatech.EDU) wrote:
: Bill Clinton being just like Reagan in regards to foreign policy
: experience.  That may be true, but Reagans best asset was not 
: foreign policy.  Whether or not you agree with whatever economic policies
: that he pushed for, the most important thing Reagan did was make this country
: feel good again.  In the post vietnam era, going into the early '80s,

Sadly, I have to agree. Reagan was amazing in his ability to screw the entire
country into the ground and make a majority feel good about it.

scott
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: Clinton waffling?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 04:30:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.031836.25846@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes...
>In article <1992Oct10.185752.10384@bsu-ucs.uucp> 00rdharringt@bsu-ucs.uucp (Rob Harrington) writes:
>>
>>And according to opinion polls Clinton widened his lead by 6pts after
>>the Moscow Affair... Nice try George...
>>
>>And according to opinion polls Bush's approval rating is at 34%... now
>>there is the sign of a great leader... (excuse the laughing)...
> 
>Friday's WSJ noted that Bush's accusations along these lines have
>raised Clinton's negative rating by about 3%.  Good news for the
>Shrub.  The attacks also raised Bush's negative rating by 10%.  Bad
>news for the Shrub.

Monday oughta be a riot.

But we all know this has to be a 3(+) way split going into election
day, to make the bookies and the media more money with the fever pitch.

Of course the dem wing has ringer in the house vote, right?
So the bookies know how to cover the odds.

>"Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."  Psssssssssssss.....

Ahem. Is this PG?

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: Two birds with one stone
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 01:30:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.160524.11028@linus.mitre.org>, jmeritt@rod.mitre.org (Jim Meritt) writes...
> 
>Heard a clever idea from Clinton last night.  Have the de-military military
>personnel join the police departments and have the time served there
>count towards their military retirement.  Not bad at all.  Add the
>medical facility access from the miitary and let the police departments
>just pay their base salary and let the military pick up the benefits.

Having served for 11 years in the military, I'd like to point out 
that there is a third criminal code you're subject to, that there are 
additional duties required after work hours every few days (cleaning,
guard duty, and such) that often extend overnight, and that the pay
sucks. This is of course during normal times, during deployments and
exercises -- you leave your family for long periods, and work long, 
long hours in hard conditions. 

== But the military is the perfect model for democratic socialism. ==

-- Stephen Tice   "Bill didn't -- But YOU will if you vote Democrat"

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:52609 alt.politics.clinton:11125
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:36:45 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <14OCT199211093588@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
>
>So how'd he do. Valedictorian? Did he get his "masters" at Oxford?
>Did he get a law degree?

Clinton got a bachelor's degree from Georgetown University.  He studied at
Oxford under a Rhodes scholarship, but was not in a degreed program there.
(You don't have to be, in a European university.)  He got a J.D. (Doctor of
Jurisprudence) from Yale University.  He has taught constitutional law at, I
believe, the University of Arkansas.  All these can be checked (and correct-
ed, please, if necessary) against the curriculum vitae available from the
Clinton compuserve people.  They post their email address here regularly.  Of
all the Americans eligible to vote in this election, we are among those with
the least excuse for ignorance.


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|		"Never" is about six months.   -- Charlie Gibbs		      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50430 alt.rush-limbaugh:6919 alt.politics.bush:8286 alt.politics.clinton:9215 alt.politics.elections:15734 talk.abortion:41492 alt.sex:32387
From: radcliff@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (David G Radcliffe)
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: 9 Oct 1992 03:06:31 GMT
Organization: UW-Milwaukee Math Department
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
:  
: Steve....exactly *HOW* is rape a consistent exception?  If abortion is
: truly the murder of an innocent child, why is a child conceived by a
: rape any less innocent?  It bears no responsibility for its father's
: crime.
:  
: Please explain....no one else has been able to do so.
:  
: Jim McMaster

It is very simple.  Sex is sinful, unless done within the confines
of marriage for the purpose of procreation.  If a woman chooses to
have sex, then she must face the consequences of her actions.  However,
if she is raped, then she is blameless.  In other words, pregancy is
God's punishment for sex.  I cannot think of another explanation.

So-called "pro-lifers" who make exceptions for rape and incest don't 
care about the life of the fetus.  They despise women who have sex out
of wedlock, and use religion as a cover for their prejudice.

I may not agree with genuine pro-lifers, but at least I can respect
their views.  I have little respect for hypocrites like Bush.

--
David Radcliffe                                
radcliff@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
From: 00rdharringt@bsu-ucs.uucp (Rob Harrington)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill-the-Bureaucrat in Moscow d
Date: 11 Oct 92 03:49:10 GMT

In article <10OCT199218472726@utarlg.uta.edu>, b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
>>> 1. So you see no reason to go into Yugoslavia or Somalia militarily now?
>>>    And are there no parallels? 
>> 
>>Send 500,000 troops in?  No. Of course not...
>>yes, there are parallels... _that's_ why I wouldn't send 500,000 troops
>>in...
> 
> But there is some level of action you'd support. Special operations perhaps.
> You'll recall that Viet Nam was intended to be a "limited" war, according 
> to the military thinking at that time.
> 

Yes... what we are doing now is fine... trying to deliver aid... but to send
troops in to keep the sides apart is insane...

>>Hate to mention this but the men fighting over there weren't equally
>>from all walks of life.  There were proportionally more blacks and
>>more poor.  And if your argument were valid can you give any good
>>reasons why Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, and Dan Quayle should be in
>>one of "those-who-would-lead-this-country"?
> 
> Nope. Cheney, Quayle, and the rest of the bureaucrats -- like Clinton,
> do not deserve to be measured against proven leaders. That doesn't
> make them bad people -- just not good candidates for president.

So in other words, to be president you have to have fought in a war?
That's stupid... And I remember Quayle is just "a heartbeat away" from
the presidency... so by your standards he isn't a good candidate and
therefore we shouldn't vote for him... (not that I was going to vote
for him in the first place...)

-- 
/---------------------------------------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               |
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------/
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50429 sci.environment:11810 talk.environment:4138
From: beast@netcom.com (Master)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.environment,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Subsidies for Roads and Cars in the USA
Date: 9 Oct 92 01:51:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.1992Oct9.015100.21819
Organization: Belle & Philippe, Pty. Ltd.

In article <1992Oct6.174123.24496@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
>
>Personally, its not clear to me how the combination of bicycle, bus,
>train, plane and occasional car rental can be described as "cramped".

How's this for "cramped"?

Distance to school:
	surface street + interstate by car:	10 miles
	surface street only by car or bucycle:	14 miles
	surface street only by bus:		22 miles 

Time to get to school:
	car:			20 min.
	car (suface st. only):	45 min.
	bicycle:		1.5 hrs.
	bus: 			2.25 hrs 

If mass stransit could get me there in less than 45 minutes, I'd be willing
to take it.  I have much better things to do with my life than spend 4.5
hours a day riding the bus.  Until then, I'll drive my car.

BTW, there's a county ballot measure here (Santa Clara County, Calif.) that
will add a half cent sales tax (to replace the one expiring in 1995) for
twenty years to help fund mass transit projects.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey A. Kintscher	 | "Now, my suspicion is that the universe is not only
beast@netcom.com     	 |  queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can
			 |  suppose. . . . I suspect that there are more things
"No matter where you go, |  in heaven and earth than are dreamed of,  in any
 there you are."	 |  philosophy."
			 |				J. B. S.  Haldane
	Buckaroo Bonzai	 |				Possible Worlds
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: All deficits are not created equal.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 09:21:23 EDT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1992Oct9.174531.7539@oakhill.sps.mot.com>, dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson) writes:
|> 
|> >  Of course
|> >this whole notion of Keynesian pump priming is garbage.  Unless the
|> >deficit is monetized, leading to inflation, you can not make the economy
|> >grow by taking money from taxpayers (who would spend and save it) and
|> >give it to the government to spend.  You may rearrange the economy
|> >but you won't make it grow.  Keynes believed that inflation was a 
|> >valuable tool because you could give the illusion of a growing 
|> >economy and workers were too stupid to realize that their purchasing
|> >power was actually declining.  Keynes also got very confused when
|> >dealing with the terms 'saving' and 'investment'.  Sometimes he
|> >stated that saving was investment, and other times he stated 
|> >otherwise.
|> 
|> all deficits/debts are monetized, because we will always have some
|> inflation.  but, govt. can increase the spending velocity.  This 
|> swirls the pot instead of really adding more soup.  
|> 

I don't agree that all deficits/debts are monetized.  Borrowing money
from people does not increase the supply of money any more than taking
the money in the form of taxation increases the supply of money.
If I run a deficit of $100 billion, and the $100 comes from investors,
this means that the investors have given the government $100 billion.
To eliminate the deficit, taxes would have to be raised $100 billion.
This would mean that taxpayers have given the government $100 billion.
How does one increase the money supply but not the other?

|> >
|> >|> >As to the fact that the deficit sucks up > 1/2 of investment capital,
|> >|> >I would like to see a source for that figure.  If the government 
|> >|> >borrowing is so detrimental, why are interest rates so low?
|> >|>
|> >|> are they?  some would say that >5% real rates is pretty high for
|> >|> a pseudo-recession.
|> >|> 
|> >
|> >The various Fed rates are the lowest they've been since the 60's, I
|> >believe.  Interest rates still carry a residual inflation premium.
|> >Real interest rates have dropped even while deficits increased.
|>
|> sure, the overnight rate is low, but that is not as good a measure
|> as the 30 year T-Bill rate that is set by market forces.  in a 
|> recession capital demand is low and interest rates should be low
|> also.  again, >5% is kind of high.  some of that is of course fear
|> of inflation increasing a few points.

The point is that interest rates (long and short term) are dropping
not rising, even though our deficits are increasing.  If deficits have
such a detrimental effect on interest rates, why are they dropping?


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50686 alt.politics.clinton:9518
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Raving a bit, aren't we?
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:43:53 EST
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <casseres-071092100154@kip2-29.apple.com>, casseres@apple.com (David Csseres) writes:
> In article <1992Oct5.221656.4554@desire.wright.edu>,
> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man, aka The Enema) wrote:
>> 
>> 	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?
> 
> Are you seriously claiming that the Holy Free Market would have kept those
> workers from being burned to death?  Those people died because government
> didn't do its job of enforcing regulations, not because there were
> regulations.

	When freed of culpable deniability, consumers take it upon themselves
to regulate economic concerns.  Yes, without OSHA supposedly doing the job,
there would be workplace watchdog groups.
	And government not doing it's job is the point.  More government will
result in more people not doing their job.
	Bureaucracies do not solve the problems they are designed to fix. 
Instead they perpetuate their existance by seeming to be doing the job while
perpetuating the problem.
	How many times have you actually seen someone work themselves out of a
job.  (Government people, that is.)  I've seen contractors do it, becuase their
continued livelyhood depends on results, not tax dollars from people convinced
that "the government will take care of it".
	So great, keep OSHA.  I'll take the UL equivalent.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: PEROT'S 1ST "INFOMERCIAL"
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:12:52 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Thomas Hill) writes:
|> 
|>    I just got down watching Perot's first half hour program on TV and all I
|> can say is WOW! Setting politics aside, have you EVER in your life seen a
|> candidate hit you with clear and precise facts like this? It was like being
|> splashed with cold water. What a very refreshing, informing, non-bashing
|> "commerical" this was! I was once a Republican. I can see the point of the
|> Democrats concerning the average worker (but I don't trust/like Clinton). I
|> guess I side with the moral values of the Republicans and the concerns for the
|> middle class of the Democrats. What I'm saying is that I do like certain parts
|> of both, but NEITHER party has anything but fluff to show for an organized plan
|> and a clear understanding of the problems this country faces. Ross Perot, on
|> the other hand, is honest enough to show us the true problems and the hard
|> fixes it is going to take. Please, I beg you all to throw down your silly little
|> labels and pick a president based on ideas, not "Well....uh...I'm a Democrat so
|> I got'a vote for Clinton..." WHY? Please remember that both groups do not own
|> our nation. There is nothing in our laws concerning democracy that even mention
|> "Republican" or "Democrat". What it does mention is "the people" and this
|> movement is democracy in the truest since of the word. Don't "spoil" the country
|> by voting for the same lame men's clubs.
|> 
Actually I did not see anything new.  Everything he showed has already been in
my local newpaper, here on the net, or on TV.  Nor did I see anything that
showed he had a workable plan, or that he could lead congress to adopt
any plan.  He has selected a running mate who has only shown he is very
conservative and very smart -- big deal.  Politics, unfortunately, is the
art of the practical.  Perot-economics is the image of the impossible.

Hell, one of our problems is that too many or our citizens can't even read
Perot's book.  He still tells them to go read it.  He should have used a lot
of pictures.
-- 
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.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.singles,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.bizarre
From: arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith)
Subject: Abortion, family leave, what next?
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1992 06:49:09 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

Okay a couple of things.

1) You'll note that I took alt.sex out of the header.  Please do the same on
future postings.  (Yeah, right)

2) WHO THE *%$@! IS RUSH LIMBAUGH?  More importantly, who cares?  If you manage to get an unbiased view together, send me email.  That's UNBIASED.  As in the
FACTS.  How old he is is a FACT.  What his job is is a FACT.  That he's the 
savior of our race is NOT a FACT.  That he's the stupidest person on the face
of the earth is NOT a FACT.  Get it?

3) I'm gonna skip the sig line, you guys wouldn't get it anyway.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ba.politics
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Women as inventors
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 03:01:21 GMT

>Believe Me I have- and sometimes I think God wouldn't it be great not
>to have noisy cars, telephones ringing, or all of those light bulbs
>ruining my night darkness so that I can use my telescope and learn
>for myself some new things.

Note that I didn't say that cars, telephones, and light bulbs were
*BETTER* than flat-bottomed paper sacks and dishwashers.  I said that
they were more important.  I will be quite surprised if you can find
anyone who can make a believable case otherwise ("believable" means
that if you presented the argument on PBS with a British accent, a
majority of views would think that they were watching a serious show
rather than a Monty Python spoof).

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.environment,talk.environment