HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: AIDS and Legislation of morality
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 13 Oct 92 22:06:16 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Oct13.201832.5808@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> StarOwl@uiuc.edu writes:
>thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell) writes:
>: But people move.  It's only natural for a minority like homosexuals to
>: gravitate to urban areas where they would be likely to find other
>: homosexuals.  And North Dakota is extremely lacking in urban areas.
>: Even if a baby born in Fargo has the same chance as being homosexual
>: as one in San Francisco, once that baby becomes an adult, other factors
>: come into play.
>
>However, _people_ in general, in the US have had a tendency to gravitate
>towards urban areas.  While your statements would explain why fewer
>people in North Dakota are gay or bisexual, I suggest that it wouldn't make
>a very _big_ difference.  That's the reason I emphasized "significantly"
>above.

I would have to disagree with you.  I think it would make a big difference.
Even if the difference in the migration rate isn't that great (and I
think that someone who is *different* from his or her small-town/rural
surroundings is more likely to migrate than someone who already fits in),
the reality is that a homosexual in an urban area is more likely to be
promiscuous, if only because there are greater opportunities to do so.

Take a San Francisco -- I've heard stats that it's 30% gay, which would be
ten times the national rate.  Those people are coming from *somewhere*.

Even within San Francisco (or Chicago or New York or Houston) the gays
(like just about any other cultural group) tend to cluster in the same
neighborhood.

Such a migration would be consistent with economic theory.
-- 
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
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9578 alt.politics.bush:8528 alt.politics.elections:15985
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: MORE FACTS about the Moscow trip
From: sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman)
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 06:42:53 GMT
Organization: Cal State Long Beach

In article <1b50hvINNak7@fido.asd.sgi.com> aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Allan Schaffer) writes:
>
>	Headline: KGB successor says no information on Clinton trip
>
>	MOSCOW (UPI) -- The intelligence agencies that succeeded the 
>	former Soviet KGB have no information on a 1969 student trip 
>	to Moscow by Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton, 
>	a Russian official said Friday.
>
>	Vladimir Karpov, a spokesman for what is now called the Russian
>	Intelligence Service, told the independent Interfax news agency 
>	neither his organization nor the larger Security Ministry of which 
>	it is part had any details on Clinton's activities during the trip.
>
>I wonder what Bush, Baker, and Dornan will dream up next.

  I'm surprised you would pose such a silly, naive rhetorical question.

  Why, a Clinton-engineered cover-up involving ex-members of the KGB,
of course.

  Bush and his gang know all about these cover-up things and how easy
they are to arrange.

-- 
Jeff Sicherman
up the net without a .sig
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao)
Subject: Re: RHETORIC VS. REALITY -- THE FIRST DEBATE
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 01:56:43 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.003725.29744@msc.cornell.edu> hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:
>
>By the way, I'm undecided as of now.
>
>SEH
 
  Well, that is fine with me. BUT, that is not fine with the Bushniks. They 
will ask: 
 
  Why can't SEH make up his mind ?  One minute he favors Bush, the next minute
he favors Clinton, tomorrow he may favor Perot.  Mr. SEH, it's time for
you to level with the American people, level with the three candidates. Either
you do or you don't !  This just shows the character of SEH, the typical SEH,
pathological SEH, pandering SEH.
 
  Well, folks, don't blame me. I just learned a thing or two from the President.


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10613 alt.politics.elections:16989
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Global Marshall Plan
Date: 15 Oct 92 13:05:06 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville


     Let me give you some quotes from the "A Global Marshall Plan"
chapter in _Earth in the Balance_.  You can make your own inferences
regarding the cost of the Global Marshall Plan to the U.S.
(To ceb@dbrus -- no joking in this post.)

Pg. 297:  Improbable or not, something like the Marshall Plan -- a
Global Marshall Plan, if you will -- is now urgently needed.

Pg. 297:  In an inclusive economy, for instance, wealthy nations
can no longer insist that Third World countries pay huge sums
of interest on old debts even when the sacrifices necessary to 
pay them increase the pressure on their suffering populations
so much that revolutionary tensions build uncontrollably.

Pg. 301:  To work, however, any such effort will also require
wealthy nations to make a transition themselves that will be in
some ways more wrenching than that of the Third World, simply
because powerful established patterns will be disrupted.

Pg. 304:  As a result, the responsibility for taking the initiative,
for innovating, catalyzing, and leading such an effort, falls 
disproportionately on the United States.

Pg. 314:  And it is time for the United States to take the leading
role -- because no one else can or will.

Also, the summary of his New Global Eco-nomics plan on pp. 346-347
has 12 points -- with *8* of them beginning with the words
"Governments should...."

     C. Perttunen
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Re: Regulation/Deregulation
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 05:09:23 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.152318.11256@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
>In article <1992Oct15.004824.4823@desire.wright.edu> Stupendous Man,
>demon@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>	The recession has one primary cause: higher taxes.
>
>This is a gross over-simplification. Anyone who has studied macroeconomics
>knows that it is never as simple as this.

No, indeed. It took a 50% increase in federal regulation and the
biggest federal spending spree since FDR as well as continued opposition
to every middle class tax cut that came along to bring the Reagan expansion
to its knees.

Anyone who has studied microeconomics will realize just how stupid Bushonomics
was.

Bush gave new meaning to the word "pragmatic". He never learned that there is
more to pragmatism than being unprincipled.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: RHETORIC VS. REALITY -- THE FIRST DEBATE
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 17:58:51 GMT
Organization: Austerlitz, Gershovitz, and Carmichael

Rick Eames writes:
>
>This is the kind of BS that really pisses me off. ANYONE who watched last
>night, and anyone who watched Larry King last week will remember that he
>said he could not understand people who demonstrated against his country IN
>A FOREIGN LAND.  Our Clinton Friends here have left out that crucial part
>of the line, how clever.  He has repeatedly said he understands fully
>demonstrating in YOUR OWN COUNTRY.
>

Pardon. What difference does it make? Are you supposed to have one set of
beliefs at home and different ones abroad? If you think soldiers
are dying needlessly and your voice might spare them, are you supposed
to check the map before speaking out? I've never understood that.
Sorry. 

-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> No one -- from sea to shining sea -- 
can tell us why we are having all this trouble with our Republic.
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: VP Debate -- impressions & facts
Date: 15 Oct 92 00:51:38 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Oct14.203214.4194@Princeton.EDU>, glhewitt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gary Livingston Hewitt) writes:
> In article <1bhqg0INNdni@fido.asd.sgi.com> aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Allan Schaffer) writes:
>>Gore:  Wooden -- but solid.  I was disappointed that he didn't come back
>> with specifics immediately when Quayle attacked the line out of his book,
> 
> Because old crack-smoking DQ, EVERY time he told one of his lies,
> absolutely refused to let Gore respond and went on with his hyperactive,
> childish, *embarassing* political-operative-programmed speech on the way
> to "trust" and "waffling."  Wotta jerk.
> 
> I would love if someone who taped that thing could figure out who used
> more of the clock.  I would guess that DQ used about 3 to 3:15 of every
> discussion period (plus a few seconds of Gore's opening statement --
> wotta jerk!)

	Such whining from the Democrats!!

	Face it, any politician worth two bits could have disarmed Quayle in
seconds.  Gore blew it.  Quayle was indeed correct enough in his allegations
that all Al "did not" Gore could do is shake his head and say "did not".

	For Gore, anything but a clear win is a loss.  Quayle, for that reason,
wins the debate.  Gore actually made Quayle look good!

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:11065 alt.child-support:3493 soc.men:17823
From: zzz@byron.u.washington.edu (Sample)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.child-support,soc.men
Subject: An Argument for Establishing "No-Fault Dad-Kid Divorce"
Date: 16 Oct 92 19:57:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Oct16.195715.19021
Reply-To: zzz@byron.u.washington.edu (Sample)
Organization: University of Washington

An Argument for Establishing "No-Fault Dad-Kid Divorce"

     Clinton (and Bush) have denounced deadbeat dads (me).
Like all judges today, "Solomon" knew that ONLY ONE person 
can be granted "Primary Custody" -- because someone has 
to make "final decisions" -- even when there's 50-50 
residential placement.
     I even agree that "Primary Custody" should be given
to the "parent" who acts most like the child`s maid.
     If Clinton would champion "No-Fault Dad-Kid Divorce"
then I think we would stop hearing these near daily reports
of dad`s killing their kids, neighbors and themselves
over lost "Primary Custody" and what amounts to financial 
enslavement without representation.
     Recently, in these United States, we've been lucky 
enough to have "no-fault husband-wife divorce".  And we
have also been lucky enough to have (de facto) "no-fault 
mom-kid divorce".  Now it's time to give us "No-Fault 
Dad-Kid Divorce".
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: gerwitz@sulu.kodak.com (Paul F Gerwitz)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: I will vote for Clinton if ... [REPOST]
Date: 16 Oct 92 14:44:54 GMT
Reply-To: gerwitz@Kodak.com
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Distribution: usa
Organization: Eastman Kodak Co.

|> Teaching is the most unrespected, poorly paid,
|> and most important occupation.  Public Schools are
|> filled to over-capacity, teachers are not able to
|> give personal attention to students, and there is
|> no equipment for learning.  Private schools, on 
|> the other hand, have small classrooms, better
|> equipment, and less students overall.  Sure, I
|> could keep the cost down if I had half the students
|> who came mostly from families that are more financially 
|> stable.
|> 
|> And besides, when was the last time you spent eight
|> hours with your kid?  Talk about family values.
|> 
Gross generalizations notwithstanding, let me share the state of the
'private' school that my kids attend.

1. Small classrooms - The average class size is 25, with 1.5 teachers per
class.  And these teachers are paid less than the local school district.
The average class size is the same +/- 1%.

2. Better equipment ?  No way, the facilities we have are over 65 years
old, with lot's of second hand equipment donated by local businesses or
families.  Our computer facilities are largly still apple II.  What's the
difference ?  We treat our facilities as a 'trust' and stretch them as far
as we can. 

3. Financially stable... Yes, most of us are financially stable, but not
wealthy.  Most of the parents make some significant sacrifices to send our
kids to our school, and we also pay local school taxes to finance an
wastefull, ineffective school system.

By the way  the average cost per student in our schoold district is $6500.
The cost per student at the school my kids attend is 1500$  So who is
getting the better value ??

And last but not least.... On the state (NY) standardized tests given last
year, all the catholic schools in our district (6 total) did better than
the public school system.  In some cases, the difference was as high as 25%
and in no case did we do worse.  Again, what are we getting from our
hard-earned, compulsory school taxes ??
-- 
 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Paul F Gerwitz  WA2WPI  | SMTP: gerwitz@kodak.com                          |
 | Eastman Kodak Co        | UUCP: ..uunet!atexnet!kodak!eastman!gerwitz      |
 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10299 talk.politics.misc:51608
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: On the first debate among the presidential candidates
Date: 14 Oct 1992 06:09:23 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: avalanche.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Oct13.170602.16404@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.012718.17235@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:

>>Worst line -- Clinton's "McCarthyism" attack was a patronizing counterpunch
>>attack, especially using Bush's own Dad as mr Hero. Why doesn't he just
>>answer the question?

>BECAUSE THERE IS NO QUESTION.

I think there is even more to it. If Clinton spends a lot of time saying
what he did in Moscow (saw ballet, drank vodka, slept with KGB honey
trap, whatever), it lets Bush set the terms of the election debate. Next
Bush will be demanding Clinton "come clean" on (say) adultery. Then it
will be the times he didn't do his homework. Next there's a rumor that
Clinton farted. He hasn't told the American people about that,
either. And so on. And Clinton's lead goes down the drain.

This worked wonders against Dukakis. With Willie Horton, George Bush
threw Dukakis completely on the defensive, and Duke didn't seem to know
how to react. To the policy wonk, Dukakis's furlough program (begun
under a Republican predecessor) was no worse than Reagan's in
California, or--for that matter--Reagan's in the federal prisons. A
vicious prisoner escaped from the halfway house George Bush dedicated in
Texas and committed fresh crimes. But none of these facts availed
Dukakis at all, because the dynamic of the entire conversation had
changed. Bush attack, Dukakis defense, but no counter-thrust. The media
helped Bush by reporting his charges as if they were real. They also
bought nonsense like Bush would govern without tax increases and balance
the budget (he did not, of course, come close).

This time out Clinton goes for the counterattack immediately. I think
Clinton is helped by the media, who are MUCH more scrupulous in
examining Bush's charges and putting them in context almost immediately.
As a result, whatever valid attacks Bush makes get lost in the shuffle.
Don't blame Clinton or the media for this. Blame Bush's own campaign,
which is now stuck as the Boy Who Cried Wolf. Their bogus charges
(dating back 4 years) subtract from their valid ones. Four years ago, they
somehow added together.

The "Moscow" stuff was of course one of the bogus charges. Bush is so
desperate that when four neofascist congressmen told him he could make
Bill Clinton a traitor for being a tourist in Red Square, he bought it.
Of course, if Clinton truly committed treason, he should be tried in
court. Till then,....

andy
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: RHETORIC VS. REALITY -- THE FIRST DEBATE
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 20:06:33 GMT
Organization: Austerlitz, Gershovitz, and Carmichael

hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:
>Jeff Davis:
>> Rick Eames writes:
>>>
>>>This is the kind of BS that really pisses me off. ANYONE who watched last
>>>night, and anyone who watched Larry King last week will remember that he
>>>said he could not understand people who demonstrated against his country IN
>>>A FOREIGN LAND.  Our Clinton Friends here have left out that crucial part
>>>of the line, how clever.  He has repeatedly said he understands fully
>>>demonstrating in YOUR OWN COUNTRY.
>>>
>> 
>> Pardon. What difference does it make? Are you supposed to have one set of
>> beliefs at home and different ones abroad? If you think soldiers
>> are dying needlessly and your voice might spare them, are you supposed
>> to check the map before speaking out? I've never understood that.
>> Sorry. 
>
>Did he participate in any demonstrations in the US?  If not, its somewhat
>like smiling to someones face, but talking behind their back.  
>

My understanding is that he took part in the large demonstration called
the Moratorium during the time when he was a student at Georgetown.
Good for him. Bush, at least, has learned from Viet Nam some of the
lessons the protesters were trying to make. Change comes slowly
and grudgingly.
-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> No one -- from sea to shining sea -- 
can tell us why we are having all this trouble with our Republic.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: You're a racist! statements
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 00:38:55 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR) writes:

: One of the primordial features of America that makes it great is it's
: patriotism.  What you have is truly a nation.  When Americans go to
: war (for instance), the whole country rallies (usually).

And people who don't rally are denounced as traitors, imprisoned, shot,
etc.  The War Between the States had its fair share of draft and tax
riots, and war protests.  These "unAmerican" folks were frequently
shot, or imprisoned without a proper trial.  Protesters against
World War I in the US faced not quite as harsh treatment, but their
civil rights were infringed upon nonetheless.

In WWII, the US incarcerated thousands of innocent citizens on the
basis of their race, and most people didn't have a fighting chance
of independent thought due to the work of censors and the propoganda
folks.

Do I need to say anything about Vietnam or the Gulf War?

Yes, it may seem that US citizens usually rally behind the Grand Old Flag,
but that's because until recently, the government had no problems with
quieting up the dissentors.
--
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



Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: rn11195@sage (Robert Nehls)
Subject: Re: BUSH LOSES VETO FIGHT!! [Bush 35, Congress 1]
Organization: Medtronic, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 19:36:44 GMT

demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
: In article <9210060146.AA58813@sub.its.rpi.edu>, buckmr@rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire) writes:
: > 
: > I just saw on CNN that Bush's 36th veto was just over-ridden. So the Cable
: > Regulation Bill becomes law despite Bush. Of course it is unclear whether
: > cable rates will go up or down, but Bush losing a veto fight seems like a
: > progressive result.
: 

--
Ron,
Do you realize what you're saying!  Basically, you don't care if the passing
of this bill helps or hurts the country, just as long as it hurts Bush's
credilbility!  I don't know if this bill will raise or lower cable prices,
but I do know that the reason that it was pushed through the Congress so
quickly was to hopefully embarass Bush.  This IMHO is not the correct reason
to pass legislation!!!  I'm so sick and tired of bills being voted on based
on re-election impacts rather than the good of the country.  I believe that
the Congress should be totally cleared out, put limits on the length of
their terms, and get rid of all PAC contributions.  Maybe then something
constructive would get done.

Bob Nehls                             Sr. Design Engineer
rn11195@sage.medtronic.com            (612)574-8559

Working Towards Full Life...
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: Debate results
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:51:12 GMT
Organization: Austerlitz, Gershovitz, and Carmichael

Dewey H Barich writes:
>
>Lastly, is it just me or is Perot the only one that gives unpolished
>responses?  His do not seem to be previously planned, short of the
>factual input.  This suggests to me that those responses are exactly
>where he is coming from, whereas the others I cannot tell.  Perhaps it
>is, perhaps it isn't.
>
>I'm not willing to take that risk.
>
Fine. You are willing to take the risk that absolutely nothing
will be enacted for the first 2 years of Perot's presidency, though.
Perot's one big whopper  -- not a lie, but spreading a brush of 
paint over the whole wall  -- was his indication that he will
be able to use his election and his electronic town hall idea as a
way to forge a consensus from a reluctant alienated Congress.

Reagan sold the country on the possibility of painless, effortless
economic growth. Now, Perot has sold his followers on the possibility
of painless, effortless political change. (Perot-nistas? Perot-gis?
-- pronounced like the food: crusty on the outside, full of
mashed potatoes on the inside.) I know my Congressfolk  are just
dying to abandon their power base...  When Perot's haircut comes into 
fashion maybe!
-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> No one -- from sea to shining sea -- 
can tell us why we are having all this trouble with our Republic.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9204 alt.politics.elections:15731 alt.politics.bush:8277