HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 17:41:54 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Oct8.221743.28854@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:

>In article <ld6j6nINNk3@spim.mti.sgi.com>, 
>mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) said:

>> > 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@anasazi.com]

>> 1.  Russia was not the enemy in the vietnam war.  North Vietnam and
>>     China were the "main enemies."
>[ * * * ]

Russian inteelignece agents interrogated American POWs.  American POWs
were taken to Russia.  None of them were returned alive and it now
appears that all are dead.  Given their ages, that means they were
murdered by the Russians or treated so badly that they died by the age
of 50.

If that doesn't make Russia an enemy what the hell does it take?

>And, of course, let's not forget that there actually was no "war" at
>all.  It's kind of hard for me to get mad at someone for not being
>loyal to his country when the nation itself -- or at least its
>government -- never had the guts to actually deal with the issue of
>formally declaring war.

I fail to understand why Clinton's actions should be excused because
of the shortcomings of Nixon and Congres.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin)
Subject: Re: Anti-war = Anti-country?!
Reply-To: Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov>
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA
	<1992Oct8.184153.8840@nntpserver.chevron.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 18:55:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.184153.8840@nntpserver.chevron.com> jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros) writes:
-> 
-> I think one of the stupidest statements anyone can make is
-> "My country right or wrong."  
-> 
-> If my country isn't right, I should be doing everything in my power to
-> make it right.  If Bush wants to run this country into the ground, it's
-> my duty as an American citizen to stop him, (in legal ways, of course).
-> Get off this idea that Republican presidents can never be wrong.  Didn't
-> Nixon teach you anything?
-> 
-> This is my last post here.  (I'm unsubscribing, so no need to add me to
-> your kill files).  There are too many loonies on this group.  After
-> reading so many posts that believe in this McCarthyistic attack on
-> Clinton, I'm just going to leave these people to their own little world,
-> where they can believe that America can do no wrong, Bush has a great
-> domestic policy, and that Santa is due in 7 more weeks.

	Quit because you can't convince everyone?  Not a very American
thing to do.

	The point Bush was making is not that Clinton was involved in
war protests, but that he was supporting the other side.  He
apparently went to Russia to protest against America.  It is one
thing to peacefully protest an American policy in America, but it is
completely different to support an enemy in time of war.  Would you
vote for Jane Fonda for President after seeing her in an enemy
anti-aircraft battery pretending to shoot at American planes?  We are
not talking about just another American citizen; this is someone that
wants to become the most powerful man in the country.

	One thing I wonder is why Clinton is avoiding this issue
completely.  Instead of coming clean, he is use the old higher than
the other guy political maneuver, and people are falling for it.  I
believe I should know everything about a person's past and attitudes
before I trust them with the power of the presidency.

	I think what Clinton is trying to do is hide his radical
past, since he is attempting to come across as a moderate.
Historically, the American people do not vote for radicals.
--
Jason C. Austin
j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov




Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dpike@oavax.csuchico.edu (Dan Pike)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Perot Wins First Debate
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:27:51 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico
NNTP-Posting-Host: dan-mac.csuchico.edu
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d9
X-XXMessage-ID: <A6FF3D0FB0014069@dan-mac.csuchico.edu>
X-XXDate: Mon, 12 Oct 92 21:32:47 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.201644.24229@cbnews.cb.att.com> N. Richard
Caldwell, nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com writes:
>While I still don't think Perot can win the election outright,
>continued good performances could make him more of a factor.  His
>agenda might best be served if he could capture enough votes to >win
enough large states to cause an electoral deadlock.  Perot could >then
ask his electors to vote for whoever agrees adopt more of his >economic
and government reform plans.


If there's an electoral tie, Perot wouldn't have a chance.  There are too
many party ties within the House for Perot to get a majority selection.
From: gurd@next04wor.wam.umd.edu (Daffy Duck)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Reject Bankers' Systematic Economic Slavery
Date: 14 Oct 92 02:08:52 GMT
Reply-To: gurd@wam.umd.edu

Len B. writes
[some crap that looks like it was lifted from Lyndon Larouches campaign  
(yes he is running for President DESPITE the fact that he is in jail)  
materials]

Hey Len, can you spare us this little Larouchian economics lesson.  If  
people wan't to read crap like what you posted they can read it in  
Larouche's joke paper the New Federalist!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50481 alt.rush-limbaugh:6942 alt.politics.bush:8351 alt.politics.clinton:9322 alt.politics.elections:15783 talk.abortion:41545 alt.sex:32421
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
Subject: Re: And Hence Abortion is NOT Murder
Date: 7 Oct 92 17:15:40 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Oct7.104147.12858@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes ...
>>If this bothers you, however, then chew on this for a moment - society is 
>>already allowing hundreds of murders, if not thousands, to take place by
>>allowing convicted murderers and other criminals to be paroled. Not all 
>>parolees do kill which is why parole is allowed to continue. 
>
>Indeed!  We should do all in our power to prevent all abortions AND
>murders!  Throw EVERYONE in jail!  Take away all the coat hangers,
>knives, pencils, guns, keys, and similarly nasty sharp and/or hard and
>dangerous objects!  Remember that, since most muders are committed by
>first-time offenders, EVERYONE is suspect!
>
Why is it so hard for some people to realize that you are extremely 
stupid if you jam a coathanger inside your body to abort a baby?  In 
order to make abortions safe for those stupid people, we get a professional 
to jam a coathanger inside your body?  Something here does not make sense.

Ted


-- 
"Vote Democrat.  It's easier than getting a job."

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: damico@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (bill d'Amico)
Subject: Polling technique (was Re: Media coverage for Marrou/Lord (call these #'s!))
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:16:44 GMT

In article <1687988BE.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) 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."
>>
>>--
>> Mitchell Gold     /  middleman of
>>
>I would not do you a bit of good to tell it to the pollsters.  The
>person you talk to is probably a part-time interviewer hired at minimum
>wage or piece-rate by a local market research company.  That local
>company has a contract with one of the national firms.  (I used to work
>under such an arrangement as a college student.)
> 
>The "pollster" has no real interest in what you say.  They just want to
>get some boxes checked off on their survey form as quickly as possible,
>so they can meet their quota and go home.  If there is not a
>"Libertarian" box to check (and I am pretty sure there is not in any
>national survey) you will be checked under "other".  The "pollster"'s
>worst fear is someone who wants to discuss the question instead of
>giving a simple answer that fits in the boxes.  This wastes the
>interviewer's time, and the discussion does not get recorded anywhere.
> 
>People have the mistaken impression that "pollsters" are people with
>power.  If they give a good enough answer, the pollster surely must
>rush into George Gallup's office with the news.  Not so, I'm afraid.
> 
As someone who has been polled this year I can confrim this. When I told
the pollster I was leaning toward voting for Marrou she put me down as
other/_undecided_. Undecided? I don't think so, but that's where she
said I was being listed. She did seem willing to listen to me, perhaps
because she was also doing market research, and wanted to get my
responses there as well. BTW, I was called long distance, so it's not
always local market research companys doing the work.

>Jim McMaster
--
Bill D'Amico                           Strange women, lying in ponds,
damico@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu          distributing swords is no basis
                                       for a system of government.
                                       -- Monty Python
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51282 sci.environment:11891 talk.environment:4181
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.environment,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Date: 13 Oct 1992 03:19:26 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Oct13.001319.5556@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
>In article <1bcqbbINNhim@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>>Maybe you should look into modern steel manufacture, then.  Relatively little
>>steel contains just iron and carbon these days.  Most of it contains (you
>>guessed it) heavy metals.  Then of course, textile production and timber
>>processing facilities these days tend to use a lot of stuff made of steel.
>>Care to try again?
>
>Look, I'm not deliberately trying to be dogmatic about this. If your
>argument really holds up, which would presume that steel without heavy
>metals lacks essential qualities,

Depends on what you mean by "essential qualities."  How about some steel that
doesn't rust?  You're talking chromium in the alloy then.  Steel with a
strength/weight ratio considerably higher than you can obtain using just iron
and carbon?  Now you're talking things like molybdenum.  Now, of course you
COULD use plain steel in many applications where we now use chrome-moly or
stainless steel.  Of course, you'd have to use MORE of the plain steel, and in
some applications, you'd have to use LOTS more of other resources in order to
compensate for the inferior qualities of plain steel rather than some of the
more exotic alloys.

>and that such steel is useless as far as other industry goes, then fine, I'll
>retract the suggestion that we avoid heavy metal use.

I won't claim that simple steel is useless.  It's a question of just how much
better steel incorporating heavy metals does the job, and how much of other
resources you'd have to use to make up for the fact you're using inferior steel.
Things just aren't nearly as black and white as you seem to want them to be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Election predictions
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:19:46 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education

In article <1992Oct15.034652.19022@m2xenix.psg.com> michaels@m2xenix.psg.com (Michael Sandy) writes:

>I came across a sign that Bill Clinton is going to win:
>
>The Republican campaign keeps going on about how the American
>People are 'too intelligent' to elect a liar.

     Both sides like to talk about the mythical "American People."
Both sides say the "American People are too smart for x," and then turn
around and say things that make the major media's stupid bias look like
PhD level work.

>The _Democrats_ kept saying that in 1980, 1984 and 1988, and
>back then it was a say of how self-delusional they were.

     Delusional is an excellent word.

>The Bush campaign has as much as admited that they consider
>Clinton's draft record a more important topic to dwell on than
>the economy or their plans for it.

     Clinton's plan, like Bush's is so much economic fantasy.  You can only
say that its a joke so many times before the media decides that it's old
news and ignores you.

>By bringing in Baker to the campaign they show they consider
>Bush's re-election more important than Bush's foreign
>policy:  The Start II Treaty, the Arab-Israeli Peace Talks...

     I would hazard the guess that Bush's campaign organization pretty
much thinks Bush's re-election is more imporant than anything else.
I would extend this to Clinton as well.  As for Perot, who knows?

>I personally think that the main reason Clinton
>hasn't 'come clean' on the Draft and Moscow issue is that he prefers the 
>Republicans to concentrate on a dud issue that makes _them_ look bad for 
>throwing mud.  

     There's only so many ways to say, "Nothing happened."  What do you
really want?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  Information Services Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50031 alt.activism:17248 ca.politics:8508
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,ca.politics
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Chicken George the Coward President
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:04:54 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <Oct.6.13.48.59.1992.15288@gandalf.rutgers.edu> shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
>mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>>In article <92267.231857SML108@psuvm.psu.edu> SML108@psuvm.psu.edu writes:

>>I wonder if the average Clinton fan is so ignorant that he doesn't
>>know the difference between the CIA and the Secret Service or if Scott
>>here is special.

>Well shucks,  I suppose I'm an average Clinton fan and well, shoot,
>I reckon I wouldn't know the difference between the CIA and Secret
>Service either.

Well, in that case it confirms my opinion that Clinton is pandering to
the ignorant.  Unfortunately, there are a lot of ignorant people out
there so the strategy may work.

>Seriously.  Enlighten us.  Since, to the best of my knowledge, I have
>never encountered either and I don't know anyone who has so why don't you
>tell us how to tell the difference between the two, besides asking them
>for ID?  Do they wear different sun glasses?  Different trench coats?

Nope.  Where they are operating and what they are doing.

In particular, the Secret Service has two main missions - protecting
the president, presidential candidates, top people in the
administration, and their relatives; and catching counterfeiters.
They mainly operate domestically but they sometimes go abroad.

The CIA is responsible for gathering intelligence and covert
operations in foreign countries.  Their domestic activities are
limited to non-operational stuff like analysis, planning, etc.

>I suppose you have to be *really* ignorant not to be able to tell the
>difference so find me guilty of gross ignorance, judge! 

I agree and I do.  Any American who is not aware that the CIA is
prohibited from conducting operations inside the US is grossly ignorant.

>Better yet,
>I think its better to find you guilty of gross arrogance.

Why?  Because I expect you to know something about the way our
government works before you participate in choosing the man who will
lead it?

Oh, and one last thing, Susan.... Setting the followups group to
alt.politics.bush when the subject is the ignorance of Clinton
supporters is kind of immature.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: States in which Clinton leads by 15% or more
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 21:21:41 GMT

In article <1blimuINNmlt@agate.berkeley.edu> bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:
>   States in Which Clinton Leads by 15% or More
>
>   EV  State Bush Clinton Perot  Poll End Date
>   54   CA    30    51      7      7 Oct
>   33   NY    28    59      7     11 Oct

In NYC itself, Clinton 71%, Bush 19%.

This does not mean you shouldn't vote.  We DO NOT want to pull a Dewey.

	Everywhere was boundless divinity
	containing all astonishing things,
	wearing divine garlands and garments,
	annoited with divine perfume.		-- Bhagavad-Gita 11
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jones@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (William P. Jones)
Subject: Republicans for Clinton/Gore
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: jones@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 19:48:50 GMT

Earlier this week I received a very nice membership card and certificate 
identifying me as a sustaining member of the Republican National Committee. The 
certificate (suitable for framing) was signed by President Bush, VP Quayle, and 
Rich Bond. As a new member of this august body, I would like to call for the 
formation of a Republicans for Clinton/Gore committee.

The same person who gave them my name must be the one who convinced Bush that 
he didn't want three debates with the format of the VP debate and then led the 
negotiating team to agree to last night's format. Were we keeping George up 
past his bedtime? From the way he kept checking his watch you might think so.
Seriously though, is there something wrong physically with Bush. He looks like 
his batteries have worn out.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections,sci.econ
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Re: All deficits are not created equal.
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 17:53:32 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.074220.27084@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.022741.29579@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>The government hasn't come close to spending half of our money since
>>World War II.
>
>The government isn't just the federal government, and their gouge isn't
>just the income tax. If you add up the income tax, the SS tax, state
>income tax, local income tax, sales tax, property tax, intangible tax,
>excise tax, fuel tax, etc, etc, etc, it gets real nasty. 

But it doesn't get half.

>Jack Daniels
>says a quart of their finest costs $0.25 plus tax. GM says a Caprice
>Classic costs $627 plus tax. 

I don't deny that taxes on alcohol may comprise a higher percentage than
other sales taxes.  But I somehow doubt that Jack Daniels would sell for
25 cents a quart were all taxes abolished.

I'd like to see sources for these numbers, which are completely implausible.
-- 
ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
ajax crypto-analyzer -- warning! remove all chicken bones first
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc