HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Media coverage for Marrou/Lord (call these #'s!)
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:33:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Tennessee

In article <5OCT199218410225@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
>Xref: utkux1.utk.edu talk.politics.misc:59100 talk.politics.drugs:8433 talk.politics.guns:26504 alt.politics.elections:13346
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
>Path: utkux1.utk.edu!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!utarlg.uta.edu!b645zaw
>From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
>Subject: Re: Media coverage for Marrou/Lord (call these #'s!)
>Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
>References: <Bvn0yE.Fqz@news.cso.uiuc.edu> <BvnGwt.5LC@apollo.hp.com>   <BvnMy7.90C@encore.com> <GOLDM.92Oct5125456@sage4a.rpi.edu> <1992Oct5.200227.16334@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
>Message-ID: <5OCT199218410225@utarlg.uta.edu>
>News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
>Distribution: usa
>Sender: nobody@ctr.columbia.edu
>Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 23:41:00 GMT
>X-Posted-From: utarlg.uta.edu
>NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu
>Lines: 13
>In article <1992Oct5.200227.16334@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, smcguire@nyx.cs.du.edu (Scott McGuire) writes...
>>As to Perot doing so much better than the LP as a reason to cover him
>>and not the LP: Perot is doing this well because he has been covered.
>>How well would he be doing without media attention?  
>
>Perot has been in the media longer than the LP's been around.
>
Uh, no.  The LiIbertarian Party was founded in 1972 in Denver Colerado.  I 
cannot recall Ross Perot being in the public eye, at least on a nation 
scale, before this year.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The Jim Baker Phenomenon
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Date: 12 Oct 92 23:15:38
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics2.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com's message of 12 Oct 92 23:21:36 GMT

In article <84886@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:

> Now we see that Bush proposes to put Jim Baker in charge of getting
> the economy back into shape.

It was a funny promise.  After all: if Baker is such a great man to
get our economy out of the mess it's in, and if Bush's economic plan
will just consist of turning everything over to Baker, then why should
people bother to elect Bush?  Why do we need a middleman?

The answer, of course, is that we should, instead, elect a President
who cares enough about the domestic economy to do something about it
himself.
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton (Moscow)
Date: 14 Oct 92 17:32:53 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 18831@oakhill.sps.mot.com, pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>Bzzt. Dornan made the charge that Clinton was organizing anti-war
>demonstrations in London. This was first denied, then, well, sort
>of, admitted; yes, he organized a "teach-in".
>Dornan made "speculation" because Clinton kept changing his story.

There you go again.  Clinton didn't change his story.  He said that he
wasn't a "big organizer."  And he wasn't.  Very few of the real organizers
from that time remember him playing a major role.  His infamous "draft"
letter seems to have exaggerated his anti-war activities.  It only claims
that he "organized Americans," not the whole demonstration.  What he
should have said in the letter was "help organize."

>There's a name for using Clinton's response -- McCarthy-baiting.
>It is extreme hyperbole to call Bush name like Clinton has done.
>Why can't Clinton just answer a straight question with a straight
>answer?

He did, but Bush is following Goebbels' advice:  just repeat the lie.
If Clinton's enemies get to define when he has finally given a "straight
answer," then he'll never give one no matter how hard he tries.  Bush 
himself is adept at stonewalling on Iran-Contra and Iraq, so why should
anyone want to put Clinton's feet to the fire for something that happened
over two decades ago?

I'm a little taken by your "McCarthy-baiting" label.  It's kind of silly to
complain about hyperbole and name-calling when that has been the admitted
strategy of Bush's campaign all along.  Bush had no response when Clinton
pointed out Prescott Bush's role in combatting McCarthy.  I wonder if he
felt any shame at all.

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

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: KKKaldis Alert
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:28:48 GMT

In <1992Oct10.031635.6744@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:

>In article <Oct.2.08.10.09.1992.28715@romulus.rutgers.edu>
>kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:

>[2 angels were going to spend the night in the streets of Sodom, Lot
>insists that they spend the night in his house instead, citizens come
>around to take them by force to anally rape them, Lot offers his two
>virgin daughters instead, they refuse and say they'll take Lot
>instead, angels smote city with blindness and tell Lot to flee, God
>destroys city as he was already planning to]

They did not smite the whole city with blindness, only the ones
at the door of Lot's house.

>>_THIS_ is what God thinks of homosexuality.  Let's get it right, why
>>don't we?

>No, KKKaldis, that's what God thinks of people trying to rape His angels.
     ^^^^^^^^

Elizabeth, why do you call people nicknames like this on the basis of such
fragmentary evidence?

"Homosexuality" could refer to 1) indulging in homosexual acts, possibly
with non-consenting people, or children below the age of consent
2) An inclination to do all or part of 1), not necessarily acted on.
3) Being sexually attracted to members of the same sex, yet not necessarily
even wanting to do any of 1).

Invoking the KKK as you do, you seem to think Kaldis had 2) or 3) in mind,
and even there you make the mistake of confusing "homosexuality" with
"the homosexual".

Peter Ny.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50995 alt.politics.elections:16160
From: bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bush Aide Foresees Landslide -- for Bush
Date: 12 Oct 1992 04:44:08 GMT
Organization: Committee to Impeach H. Ross Perot's Barber
NNTP-Posting-Host: s27w007.pswfs.gov

In article <1992Oct12.034653.8121@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>
>	[Quoting Bush Adviser:]
>        "If this election is Bush versus 'Not Bush,' then we lose,"
>        one Bush associate said.  "If this election is Bush versus
>        Clinton, then we win.  We have to keep the focus on Clinton."
>

It's certainly possible.  One lesson from the Saddam Hussein War is
that public opinion  can turn on a dime.  Many people do not have
opinions but rather what might be called reactions.  It's pretty
clear that the debates are not going to swing any votes in Bush's
direction, but a perfectly orchestrated smear campaign could.

A Bush victory in this manner would probably cause a true national
depression.  What would he have except a mandate to escalate the war
in Vietnam?

----
    --Brad Sherman
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: What does Perot/Stockdale stand for?
Date: 14 Oct 92 12:43:20
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Distribution: usa
	<Bw48Ht.5p@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com> <Bw4EqH.7M4@apollo.hp.com>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com's message of Wed, 14 Oct 1992 16:49:29 GMT

In article <Bw4EqH.7M4@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>   Furthermore, it is abundantly clear that the voters WANT the huge
>   deficits they've been running, based on their willingness to elect 
>   Congressmen based on their ability to "bring home the bacon" while
>   opposing new taxes to pay for all these goodies.

I think Peter is almost right here, but not quite.  My interpretation
is that the people want high government spending, low taxes, *and* no
budget deficit.

Of course, this is impossible.  And, of course, a politician whose
only desire is to do what the people want will have to have incoherent
beliefs to mirror the incoherent desires of the public.

A true leader would, in my opinion, force the public to recognize that
its desires are not compatible with each other, and would force the
public to reassess its desires, and to begin making choices between
coherent alternatives.
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: > No Pain -- No Gain <  (was My View of the Debate)
Date: 12 Oct 92 17:09:00 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill) writes...

>I'm not exactly thrilled about paying extra for gas. But it
>IS what has to be done in order to fix this country. Nobody wants to admit
>that this country is so screwed up that it will have to take some pain to
>fix our problems. Please, vote for truth and not for fantasy.

Yeah, I hate it, BUT I love the idea of saying,

"I'm doing my part -- NOW RENEGOTIATE THE DAMN DEBT." 

// Stephen   "10 CENTS on a dollar."
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: Russians Release '69 KGB Blackmail Film of Clinton in Drug Orgy...
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 22:34:00 GMT


Larry, I responded to a very similar question with you in the KGB 
thread, and I'm happy to retire this thread if you are. If not I'll 
respond directly to this.

-- Stephen  


---< recap >---

In article <84846@bcsaic.boeing.com>, lbaum@bcsaic.boeing.com (Larry Baum) writes...
>In article <10OCT199215471015@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
>: Am I supposed to put faith in Brave-Bill because of his "vacation?"
>: 
>: John Kennedy had back problems to remind him of the PT-109 incident.
>: 
>: Bob Dole has a useless arm from shell fragments which shattered 
>: vertebra when he was leading an attack on a German machine gun nest.
>: 
>: Bob Kerrey has a prosthetic leg from a grenade blast where he led
>: an attack on an Viet Cong Bunker, and still continued to direct
>: the charge till the medivac'd him.
>: 
>: Jim Stockdale had his leg broken twiced and can't raise an arm
>: because of the beating and torture the Viet Cong gave him since
>: was one of the leaders of the POW resistance.
>: 
>: And Brave-Bill-Clinton lead anti-war protest while at college
>: and in Britain. The emotional wounds he suffered required R&R
>: in Moscow & Prague, I reckon. 
>: 
>: What did he do that I should put faith in him? 
> 
>Perhaps instead of looking for someone to have faith in, you
>should try to figure out who has the most reasonable plans for
>dealing with the very serious problems we face.  To most
>people it is blatantly obvious that Bush falls way short on
>that score.  Perhaps Perot's plans are better than Clinton,
>perhaps not.  You seem to think that the Presidency is some
>reward we should bestow upon the most "deserving" or brave
>individual.  I'm trying to decide who will most likely restore
>economic well-being to this country.  People are hurting very
>badly out there.  Maybe Clinton is who we need inspite of your
>misgivings about his lack of military experience.
> 
>: 
>: Where is the evidence of his leadership -- if he only played 
>: a minor role in the peace-movement?
> 
>He has demonstrated leadership as a Governor of a State, just
>like Reagan. 
> 
>-- 
>Larry Baum
>Computer Science Organization
>Boeing Computer Services     uucp:       uw-beaver!bcsaic!lbaum
>(206) 865-3365               internet:   lbaum@atc.boeing.com       
 /                                                                  \
(  Stephen D. Tice     |     Human science is based on the writings  )
 >                  -- S --  of 300 generations, the view from one  < 
(  Arlington Texas     |     small planet and a very short lifetime. )
 \                                                                  /          
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51404 alt.politics.clinton:10100
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Raving a bit, aren't we?
Date: 13 Oct 1992 17:30:05 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbang.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Oct12.001559.4705@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:

We are rapidly approaching the point of talking past each other.


I wrote
>> Businesses had about 100 years of Industrialized America to generate
>> safety watchdog groups before OSHA, i.e. before the government stepped
>> in.
 
>> I dared you to name five such groups.

>	No, Andy, your argument is that since no pre-OSHA private groups
>existed, that no group could possibly form to serve that function.  This is, of
>course, faulty logic.

This is a mis-re-statement of my argument. As I understand it, you are
claiming that under Libertarianism watchdog groups will police worker
safety. It is impossible, logically, to refute a statement whose
antecedent is false. If you wrote: "If the Chicago Cubs win the World
Series, then Andre Marrou will win", I can not refute you.

Instead we are having an argumnet about PLAUSIBILITY. The fact that you
have been unable to post a single watchdog group which existed prior to
government regulation is, to me, a powerful blow at your claim that such
groups will exist after government regulation is (hypothetically) abolished.

I am not trying to prove that it is impossible that such groups will
exist. I don't think impossible is a meaningful word in that construct.
Similarly, I would not try to prove that it is impossible that in the
Communist government the State will eventually wither away
I will say that neither
the Libertarian nor Communist prediction seems to be grounded in any
sort of historical evidence.

>	"Before" UL, there was no private group to assess the safety of
>appliances/electronic devices.  This, of course, did not prevent UL from
>existing, did it?

>	The market responds, it does not create.  Watchdog groups form when
>people deem it necessary.

It might be worth noting that UL was not founded by consumers, but by
another large industry. In any event, your statement that UL exists does
not show that private-OSHA will exist.

andy
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Summary: Can we get rid of some of the newsgroups, folks? 
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 00:45:23 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.194614.7472@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com> burkhardt@nebula.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>>There is no way LOGICALLY to grant personhood status to a non-viable fetus.
>>Any way you do it, it steps on some other person's rights.
>>
>Whether the fetus is viable or non-viable is not the question.  The question,
>bottom line, comes down to a fetus has a right to life since it's stated
>in the Bill of Rights that this right to life exists.  The corrolary to 
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

There must be two Americas, with two different BoR's.  I must live in the
US that doesn't have a RTL in the BoR.

Silly me...
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=So tell me something, Kevin.  When are you planning on sending Lefty a "bill"=
=for your archiving services?  Myself and several other people want to know!!!=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.activism.d
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: Choice for life (was Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:38:16 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Oct6.064229.23498@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>,
sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) wrote:
> 
> I never said to prohibit sex, and based on what I have read, it is
> an enjoyable experience for some people, but what's wrong with a little
> responsibility???
> 
> And let me assure you: I most definitely practice the solution I propose.

Out of choice or necessity?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50700 ca.politics:8589 ba.politics:6006
From: saarinen@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Sirpa Saarinen)
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 14:51:07 GMT


>In article <1992Oct8.145350.4639@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>	From our quartely security briefing:
>>
>>	"All contacts with residents of [list of countries, including all
>>former communist], or persons travelling to said countries should be reported
>>to the [security office] for possible followup.  History has shown that most
>>spies come into contact with resident/agents of said countries while never
>>actually spending a large amount of time there."

But what about George? He has spent years in (Communist) China. Now he
gives these communists most-favoured-nation status - even if there are
some doubts about China's human right record. Is George Bush a Chinese
Spy? Is he actually a double agent? Considering that Mr Bush was for a
while as the head of CIA and that he now is buddy-buddy with the Chinese
leadership, I think that this should be looked at carefully as well.

Bush also visited the Middle East during the 70ties - maybe he is an
Iraqi spy? Who knows? All trips should be checked. Was Bush in Paris to
meet Iranians or the French Communists (these guys are *hardliners*)? 
I mean, this is enough to think about for the next four weeks and the
next few debates. Who cares about the economy?

I cannot understand this "trust" issue which is often referred to in
the campaign: can *you* trust an ex-cia agent?

Sirpa Saarinen
saarinen@csrd.uiuc.edu

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill-the-Bureaucrat in Moscow during Viet Nam
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords:  bureauCrAT
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 23:47:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.015232.10303@bsu-ucs.uucp>, 00rdharringt@bsu-ucs.uucp (Rob Harrington) writes...
>In article <8OCT199219514098@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.

>> 2. On the personal level of people involved in war, when common folk are
>>    forced to fight without exemption, can you offer reasons why those-who
>>    would-lead-this-country should stand apart? If indeed there is valid
>>    criticism to be made -- should it not be made from within the system.
>>    (At least so that one knows what there criticizing.)
>>                                            
> 
>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.

The peace movement, the civil rights movement, and the battlefield
were all places that leadership qualities could be tested. At a young
age, many did measure up and deserve to be held up as presidential
candidates against those with similar distinctions. 

Bill Clinton does not measure up. He avoided the draft, and apparently
he was no leader in the peace movement either. Instead he took off to
Oxford, to further his own interests, which included vacations in Europe, 
and Soviet Union.

Bill-the-Bureaucrat is a paper tiger,

And should not be a candidate.

>|  Rob Harrington                       |              Ball State University  |
>|  Vax--00RDHARRINGT@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu  |       Unix--herring@bsu-cs.bsu.edu  |

-- Stephen Tice    Arlington Texas    10-10-92
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51943 alt.politics.clinton:10568 alt.politics.usa.misc:220