HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Cuba interferes in internal Cuban affairs
Date: 12 Nov 92 00:42:58
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: yuggoth.ces.cwru.edu
In-reply-to: drm@esl.com's message of 12 Nov 92 02:46:15 GMT

In article <1708@esl.ESL.COM> drm@esl.com (Don McGregor) writes:

>From the NYT News Service:

>(Miami)  The senior military commander of one of the most militant Cuban  
>exile organizations stunned the anti-Castro movement this week by  
>announcing that he had worked as a spy for Cuban intelligence since 1979.

>[...]

>As early as January 1981, Avila said in one interview, he helped organize  
>an Alpha 66 raid on Cuba, with the knowledge and support of Cuban agents.
>But, he said, he also informed US officials of the planned attack, and  
>they moved against organizers of the raid before it could be launched.

>---------

>What can I say.  The United States Government arrests people for planning  
>to attack Cuba, while the Cuban government is PAYING FOR AND ORGANIZING  
>attacks on Cuba!?  

>I'm resisting mightily the temptation to cross-post this to talk.bizarre.

You gotta love intelligence work :-).  This even beats the
simultaneous alleged Sandinista and Contra drug smuggling
operations...

I think a screenwriter would have a tough time pitching this as a
movie plot -- too unbelievable.  Unless it was a satire, that is.

My guess is that Avila's expected lifespan should be measured in
months...

"When I was in Washington, Ballard went crazy.  Just cracked
completely.  Alderman and I had to ensure his silence -- sneak him
from safe house to safe house, drugged up to the eyeballs, until we
could get him back to the UK.  Turned out later he was working for the
Mossad, and the intel sector of a Japanese conglomerate, and also
reporting back to Washington.  Must have been the pressure of keeping
all the balls in the air that finally pushed him out of his tree."
				-- Alan Moore, "Spy Story"
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi			Case Western Reserve University
yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu	Department of Computer Engineering and Science
_______________________________________________________________________________

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: peterd@polari.online.com
Subject: Leftist Gloom on the Election
Keywords: ItsAllReagansFault
Organization: Seattle Online Public Access Unix.  (206) 328-4944 (all lines telebit-equipped)
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 03:25:05 GMT

I think it is a gas.  Co-worker is so stressed out that
Bush lost.  He just knows the RightWingFascists [a redundant
word I know] are going to sink the economy so fast it will
make our heads swim.

Listening to him, I would think that Clinton lost and Richard
Nixon was re-elected.  Haven't yet asked if he looks for
Republicans under the bed everynight.

Actually I find it 'humorous.'  The 'radical freethinker'
wants The Powers That Be to make everybody an educated 
person.  Like it isn't your responsibility to educate 
yourself???

Hey - it is only an election.  The SMOF will be transmitting
their marching orders soon and Clinton and his clique will
be playing their part in the great charade while the bicycle
riders take over.

chus
pyotr

end of republic, death of the net, fall of civilization.
tape, gifs & scholarly works at 11.


-- 
Peter D. Hampe; EKA peterd@polari.online.com
I might be arguing on my own time ...
-- 
Peter D. Hampe; EKA peterd@polari.online.com
I might be arguing on my own time ...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: A TRUE LANDSLIDE
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<randall.721347430@seashore>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:30:40 GMT

<In article <randall.721347430@seashore> randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea) writes:
<
<   m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier) writes:

<   >I love this conversation about Clinton's supposed landslide.  The best
<   >comedy I've seen in wuite some time.  Perhaps if you say it enough
<   >times, people will believe that winning by 5% of the popular vote is a
<   >landslide.

<   I'm getting tired of the Republican sore-loser whining from the
<   Bob Doles of the world.  Bush won by 6%, and that was called
<   a "landslide".  

	Bush won by a much wider margin of Electoral College
	votes, which are what count.

<Call it what you want.   Clinton won- he
<won the popular vote, 

	A plurality is not a majority.

<the electoral vote, 

	By a much smaller edge than predicted.

<most of the states,
< etc. etc.   Just take your lumps and move on.  

	That doesn't appear to be the point here; what's
	being objected to is "instant rewriting of history",
	it seems to me.

<I don't remember
<hearing this kind of whining from the Democrats in '88.

	What continent does Rhea post from? Certainly not
	North America; it is doubtful that anyone north
	of the Rio Grande has missed hearing, reading or
	viewing the neverending whines of the Democrats
	from the day after eletion day, 1988.

	HINT: Does "Bush won by fighting dirty with Willie
	Horton" ring any bells?
	
<   Dole says that "57% of the people voted against Clinton,
<   and I am going to represent that majority."  I don't think a lot
<   of the Perot supporters want to be represented by Mr. Dole, 

	Why not *ask* a Perotista, instead of assuming?

<and using the same logic, 62% of the people voted against Bush.  

	Indeed they did. It can be said that a majority of
	American voters opposed either Clinton or Bush;
	where's the "Clinton Landslide" in that, please?
From: imcc@cs.strath.ac.uk (Iain McCord)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Fear.  Lots of fear.
Date: 11 Nov 92 19:23:51 GMT
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dept., Strathclyde Univ., Glasgow, Scotland.

In article <BxIryn.xC@NeoSoft.com> fox@NeoSoft.com (Michael Johnson) writes:
>
>that it is perfectly alright for a landlord or employer to kick someone out
>based on sexual orientation.  Is this correct?
  No.  They can sue for breach of contract.  The employer/landlord must ask 
if the applicant is gay before a contract is signed.  Finding out after the
event is his misfortune.  The above statute means that it would be legal to
ask the applicants  sexuality and use the answer in determining suitability
for a possition.

                                                  Fox
-- 

		~~~~~/\~~~~~
Iain McCord	~~~~/()\~~~~	Wed Nov 11 19:23:47 WET 1992
		~~~~~~~~~~~~
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59901 alt.rush-limbaugh:9579 alt.politics.elections:23657
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: President Clinton
From: jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle )
Date: 12 Nov 92 21:17:35 PST
Organization: California State University, Bakersfield

Excuse me, who said socialism necessarily implied radical leftism?

Jennifer, Republican Extraordinaire, "Don't blame me, I didn't vote for him."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Now that it's over, I've received 5:1 e-mail.  5 pro-Bush, isn't this great?
we're gonna win in '96 for sure! to each 1 pro-Clinton nyah.  In light of
this, I still don't understand how he got elected.
--------------------------------------------------
mandate, v.  Democrats saying, "All right! It's ours again! Let's SCREW 'EM!!"
landslide, n.  Election by 40% of the vote, 5 points above 2nd place.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58579 alt.politics.clinton:16174
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Sorry, it wasn't a mandate.
Date: 6 Nov 92 11:25:18 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In <1992Nov6.062458.26454@nntp.uoregon.edu> eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
>In article <1992Nov5.155826.15548@fid.morgan.com> joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>>In article <adams.720914090@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>>>
>>>>Exit polling shows that over 50% of voters are excited about the prospect
>>>>of a Clinton presidency. This includes 20% of Bush voters (source: USA
>>>>Today 11/4). Give it up. Sixty percent of voters said that whatever
>>>>Bush was doing, please stop it. We will, and that is Clinton's mandate.
>>>
>>>And 60% said either Bush or Perot is better than Clinton.  No mandate.
>>>
>>And the Democrats lost ground in Congress as well - the Congress may in
>>fact be MORE conservative now.
>
>Dream on, people!  The Republican Party got trounced. Clinton has a
>mandate.

	Dream on Eileen, 5% is not "trounced".  The Republicans gained 5 (6?)
seats in the House.

	The Democrats have no mandate.

	I know you'd like to think you do.  After all, one president (before
this) in 24 years leads one to believe that actually winning again is a huge
victory :).

>Given that the name of the contest is "win the electoral college" this
>election *is* a landside, and Clinton *does* have a mandate.

	Nope.  400 would be.  But not what Clinton got.  1992 is more like 1968
than 1980 or 1984.

	[rest of Democratic self-delusion deleted]

	Face it, the only way you could even remotely claim to defeat Reagan
was to try an link Bush with him.  It didn't work.  People voted *against*
Bush, and mainly because Bush wasn't Reagan, the Sequel like he promised.  If
Clinton understands that, then he might be a successful president.

Brett
===============================================================================
80s: 18 million new jobs, deficits down (%GNP), tax rates down, tax revenues up
GNP up, inflation down, unemployment down, interest rates down, cold war won
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Broward Horne)
Subject:      Re: About this "Mandate" Garbage
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 92 13:43:52 MST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA10709; Fri, 6 Nov 92 12:53:48 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA22761; Fri, 6 Nov 92 12:53:21 -0800
X-Received: from IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU by idbsu.idbsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 6951; Fri, 06 Nov 92 13:51:11 MST
X-Received: from IDBSU (GCTHORNE) by IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 4951; Fri, 06 Nov 92 13:51:10 MST
X-To: talk.politics.misc.usenet


In a previous article, eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) says:

>Dream on, people!  The Republican Party got trounced. Clinton has a
>mandate.

         You know, if I were as truly hateful as many Clinton supporters
   I've seen, I would WANT Clinton to believe he has a mandate.
   It would make a pretty neat civil war.
   I could watch it from afar.
   Without a scar.

>The arguments that "Clinton does not have a mandate" are an effort to
>continue 'Government by gridlock,' and an innovative, tho somewhat sick,

         The arguments that "Clinton does not have a mandate" are an
   effort to stop the Steam-Roller of government from destroying
   what is left of my rights and future.

         The arguments that "Clinton DOES have a mandate" are a blatant
  attempt to buffalo the rest of the population who didn't support him.

         Man, if this venomous response is typical of the

         " Uniting Together " and " Healing the Country " crowd,

         I'll take Bosnia.  What hypocrisy.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: barefoot@rock.concert.net (Heath T Roberts -- Personal Account)
Subject: Opinions or info on privatization of shcools
Organization: CONCERT-CONNECT -- Public Access UNIX
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:32:57 GMT

I'm looking for information or opinions on the privatization of
elementary, primary and secondary schools in the U.S. for a 
research paper. If you can either provide information or point
me to a source (especially online sources) I'd appreciate it.

I'm particularly looking for justification of privatizing
schools, or compelling argument against it.

Please reply via email.

Thanks

-- 
Heath Roberts
barefoot@rock.concert.net
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: SOMEBODY'S GOT TO SAY IT (Re: Clinton by default)
Organization: SSDT SPS, Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 20:16:22 GMT

In article <Bx97q4.Az5@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com> dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:
>In article <ta==_v@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>>
>>Advocating a position that an individual should be free to choose
>>how much he/she is willing to give does not make the advocator
>>'selfish'.  Compassion is not measured by how much you are willing
>>to force others to conform to your notion of morality, it is measured
>>by your own personal deeds.  If anyone can be called 'selfish' it
>>is socialists like yourself who wish to impose their view of morality
>>on all others.  You are no different that those fundamentalist religious
>>types who wish to impose their notion of morality on the rest of us.

Well said.

>All "social engineers" should _carefully_ read that; it illuminates
>the real nature of what they support ever so clearly, with the cold, 
>harsh light of truth.


>I am not sure the hubris of the typical Socialist is penetrable 
>by anything, but if this doesn't do it, I can't imagine what would.

"Pride goeth before a fall" - the hubris of the social engineer is
only shattered by the breakdown of the society they are working on.
Now that the Eastern Europeans and Russians are picking up the
peices of their own disaster, they will find that they learned the
lesson the hard way.

I hope there is a way to turn away from mistakes without first having
to make them and suffer the consequences.

>My compliments on a truly outstanding paragraph!
>
>Dave

Pat
From: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Four years of fun
Date: 13 Nov 92 14:28:13
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA
Reply-To: Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ab20.larc.nasa.gov
In-reply-to: saarinen@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu's message of Fri, 13 Nov 92 15:48:21 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.154821.11203@csrd.uiuc.edu> saarinen@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Sirpa Saarinen) writes:
-> jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin) writes:
-> 
-> 
-> >	Now that the election is over and a Democrat will be in
-> >office, it's time for four years of fun.  I can't wait to blame the
-> >next natural disaster on Clinton.  I can't wait to see if Clinton's
-> >faithful servant Al-Gore makes the White House kitchen kosher.  I
-> >can't wait to slam Clinton for every broken promise, most of which are
-> >impossible to fill.  I can't wait to see who the Democrats are going
-> >to blame for the problems of the world.  
-> 
-> You could always try to blame the Reagan/Bush legacy for the mess they
-> created.

	That's probably exactly what Clinton is going to do, and it's
not going to work.  If Bush can't pass the buck to the powerful
congress, then Clinton doesn't have any chance of passing it to two
people that aren't even in an office anymore.

-> Why are you talking about "broken promises", didn't your candidate ever
-> break any? Which candidate has never broken any of these
-> "promises"?

	What's that got to do with it?  Just because one guy does it
doesn't mean it's right, and it definitely won't make it less fun
slamming him on it.
--
Jason C. Austin
j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov

	

	
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59364 alt.politics.elections:23353 alt.war.vietnam:510
From: rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker)
Subject: Feckless Libertarian Party
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:07:08 GMT

I am a libertarian by inclination and philosophy, but I hold out little
hope for the party. I think the Libertarian party should concentrate on
getting dog-catchers elected before they dream of putting a man in the
White House.

If the Libertarian stategy is to force a "major" party to take up the
Libertarian political agenda, then the Libertarian party ought to get
people elected to the House and Senate, so the program can be taken
seriously by the others.

Now the good news. In that state of New Hampshire, 4 Libertarians were
elected to the state Legislature. That is the ticket. Good start!

Conan the Libertarian "If you can't love the Constitution, then at least
hate the Governement"


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59925 alt.rush-limbaugh:9588 talk.rumors:1252 alt.activism:18728 alt.politics.elections:23669
From: ludwigj@CS.ColoState.EDU (Vilkata (Joe Ludwig))
Subject: Re: Fear.  Lots of fear.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 05:01:10 GMT
Organization: Thealir Construction Company

In various newsgroups, twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>That's incorrect.  According to Amendment 2, while queers cannot now
>legally claim discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation,
>heterosexuals can.

Not exactly, but close.  Some cities, like Denver and Aspen, had ordinances
that prohibited discrimination based on 'sexual orientation'.  Amendment 2 
excluded lesbians, homosexuals and bisexuals from these laws, leaving the 
protection intact for heterosexuals.  In most places in Colorado, it is 
just as legal to discriminate against heterosexuals as it ever was.  
(Has this ever really been an issue?)

Is this issue getting much national attention?  (Other than these posts,
I mean)

-- 
+---------------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Vilkata, the Dark King    | "I'd rather rule in hell, than serve in heaven"|
| ludwigj@cs.colostate.edu  | "See them starving on their feet 'cuz they     |
| Vilkata@Most MUCKs        |  get enough to eat from God"  --XTC            |
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: BUSH LIED ABOUT ARMING IRAQ...
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 00:26:23 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 <69045@cup.portal.com> L-Bueno@cup.portal.com (Louis Alberto Bueno) writes:
>mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>[right-wing logic about the US not selling IRAQ weapons omitted]
>>>Personally, protesting the Vietname war is one thing.
>>>But selling weapons to the other side (and violating an
>>>arms embargo to do it) is DEPLORABLE.

>>Please provide any evidence whatsoever that this happened or admit
>>that you are a foool and/or a liar.

>	Can you please continue this debate without pointless name-calling?

Not a problem - the name calling above is not pointless.  I think it
is very important to make the point that some fo the poeple in this
debate are not just wrong.  They are deliberately lying.  That's the point.

>	How can you expect the other guy to respond to you without feeling
>disrespected or condescended upon?

I don't, and I don't want him to.  I do not respect him and I want him
to know that.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rthomson@mesa.dsd.es.com (Rich Thomson)
Subject: Re: A Comment on A Local Talk Show
Reply-To: rthomson@dsd.es.com (Rich Thomson)
Organization: Design Systems Division, Evans & Sutherland, SLC, UT
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 00:19:36 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.170941.5032@news.ysu.edu>
	ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
>I remember some major figure (I don't recall if it was a politician or a media
>figure, or what), made a startling statement in the late 80's:
>
>	"The 90's will make the 60's look like the 50's in comparison..."

It was a line spoken by Dennis Hopper in the movie Flashback.

						-- Rich
-- 
		      Don't blame me; I voted Libertarian
Disclaimer: I speak for myself, except as noted; Copyright 1992 Rich Thomson
UUCP: ...!uunet!dsd.es.com!rthomson			Rich Thomson
Internet: rthomson@dsd.es.com	IRC: _Rich_		PEXt Programmer
From: allard@isi.edu (Dennis Allard)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Doomed...Doomed...Doomed...
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:24:33 GMT
Reply-To: allard@isi.edu (Dennis Allard)
Distribution: world
Organization: USC Information Sciences Institute

pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PAUL N. RITTER) writes:
> ... it seems that Gov. Clinton has fooled enough of the American people.
> ...
>  I can't believe how fast this country is going to Hell in a handbasket.
> ...
> My mission to inform the general population of this net has failed. ...
> I'm counting the days...Waiting to see how long it take Sadaam to start
> and MOST LIKELY FINISH what he has started.

Er, what was it, exactly, that he started.  (I'm saving your post so that
in four years we can look at it and have a good laugh.)  Please do tell,
what is it, exactly, the Saddam will finish?

> I just can't believe how misinformed the American people really are.

And we can't believe how misinformed you are.

Dennis Allard
allard@isi.edu
===================================================================
U.S. law prohibits you and me from travelling to Cuba or trading
with people there.  The U.S. economic boycott of Cuba harms people.
===================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections
From: hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey)
Subject: Re: President Clinton
Reply-To: hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 19:55:07 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.212448.3170@nic.csu.net>
   jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle ) writes:
>I expect as much from you, Steve.  Typical slander from liberals.  Do you
>guys who flame (both parties) on Usenet ever listen to yourselves?  It's 
>really very boring reading.  I had to jump ahead 500 posts to my articles
>just to see what senseless jibes were waiting for me.  It's ok, I was yawning
>anyway.
>Of course I think for myself, I wouldn't be a science major if I couldn't.
>Get a clue; get a point; etc.
>
>Jennifer, Republican Extraordinaire, "Don't blame me, I didn't vote for him."

Jennifer, you call yourself "Republican Extraordinaire."  Does this mean
that you vote for every Republican on the ballot?  If you do, I would
hardly say that "Of course I think for myself."

BTW, this holds for someone who would call themselves "Democrat
Extraordinaire", or any other such title that gives the appearance of
monolithic group thinking.

Just some more typical slander from a liberal (but, wait! I voted for
Reagan!)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Jim Hulsey)   TBDBITL '84 ('85 Rose Bowl)
An Ohioan living in Misery (Missouri, same difference)

Watch what you say!                Won't you sign up your name
They'll be calling you a radical   So you can be their acceptable
A liberal, fanatical criminal      Respectable, presentable vegetable
--  Supertramp "The Logical Song"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush