HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: More republican Cowardice at Penn State
Date: 28 Sep 92 13:01:43 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Sep27.191107.2016@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao) writes:

> Theodore A. Kaldis:

>> You're not American, are you?  There is nothing unique or even unusual
>> about what is being done at Penn State.  Both parties do this as a
>> matter of course, and no one of any political standing -- of either
>> party -- is likely to support a suit against this sort of thing.

> Well, may I ask you what is an American?  Or who is an American?

In this sense, I am using it to refer to one who has been brought up
and educated in this country and is thus familiar with the political
and cultural conventions of this country -- regardless of one's ethnic
heritage.  Your name appears Chinese (sorry, I can't differentiate
between Mandarin and Cantonese) and your writing style seems to
indicate (at least to me) that English is not your native language.
Since you are posting from an .edu site, I think it is probable
(though by no means certain) that you might be a Chinese (or
Taiwanese) student studying here.  And the fact that you call for a
suit against a perceived "wrong" which is actually standard operating
procedure in American political campaigning seems to indicate that you
are unfamiliar with American custom.

> I sure hope David Duke is not defining who is and who is not.

As far as I'm concerned, David Duke is not defining anything.
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Huh? (Was: Principles, principles, principles)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:48:05 GMT

<In article <92273.153643PDC103@psuvm.psu.edu> <PDC103@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

<   As far as military confrontation goes, where Clinton may have too little
<   willingness to battle, George and Ron seemed to have a (LITTLE) too much.
 
	Huh? Who is calling for the US to send troops to Yugoslavia?
	
<  At least Bill and Al can both spell Potatto.  
				       ^^^^^^^^

	Right. And Clinton knows all about cruise missiles, as well.

<What happened to world freedom when it came to Bosnia-Herzegovinia?  

	Ask the EC; they insisted it was a "European problem to
	be solved by Europeans" from the start.

<Really, George, flashbacks of 'nam?  I
<played in a sandbox when I was little, too, but some of us have grown up.

	Did you grow a "potatto" in that there sandbox?
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:7410 alt.politics.clinton:8072 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6171
From: jseaver@yaya.WPI.EDU (Jason John Seaver)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Public Education (Was: Re: Family Leave)
Date: 1 Oct 1992 21:46:00 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: yaya.wpi.edu

In article <1992Oct1.133331.2763@news.uiowa.edu> williams@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Kent Williams) writes:
>Let's get down to cases -- Norfolk Public Schools.  The public schools
>are for poor people.  Nobody of any means send their kids to public schools.
>The public schools suck.
>
>My parents, good liberals that they were, moved to Norfolk and put two
>kids (my younger brother and sister) in public school.  Having moved
>from Iowa, where the public schools are excellent, they thought "how
>bad can it be?"  They were uncomfortable with the elitist aspects of
>private school.
>
>After two years, they had to bail out and put the kids in private
>schools.  The schools in Norfolk weren't just not as good as Iowa's,
>they were a travesty.  There is an de facto two tier system -- one for
>white people with money, and one for poor people.  And the private
>schools are accountable to no one except the parents who send their
>kids.
>
>Bush's school choice platform ratifies systems like Norfolk, and moves
>backwards from the United States historical commitment to universal
>education.  It is just one more way that Bush wants to divide the
>country into winners and losers, and to penalize the losers for being
>born.

	Someone point out the logic in this argument.  As I see it:

	1)  Under the present system, Norfolk's schools don't work.
	2)  Under the present system, only people with money could send their
		children to private schools.
	3)  With School Choice, the "poor" could send their kids to private
		schools.

		- BUT -

	School Choice is bad, and it shows that Bush would be "punishing"
people.

	Go figure.
					-Jay
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Comments on Republican Cowardice
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:45:22 EDT

In article <1992Oct2.172429.17081@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
> The politically correct (corrupt) people advocate the restriction of free
> speech, so what's wrong when someone else does it to Liberals??
> 
> Can you say--HYPOCRITES!!
> 
> Simon
> 
> 

Well, let's see. Here at Ohio State Clinton gave a speech a few days ago
in which a band of about 200 Young Republiclone weasles like yourself
brough in lots of signs, and rushed right up to the podium and
chanted throughout his speech, so that noone else could hear what was going on.
Noone confiscated their signs...

The little assholes also started scuffles in the crownd. A real militant bunch.

Hey Simon, you weasle, you know as well as I do what a bunch of low-life
your little fascist buddies are. I can't wait until after
election day when Fearless Leader and Co. are out of a job.

Republiclones suck.

-Garrett


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: It gets bigger (was Re: The Big Lie)
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 14:24:10 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes:
: anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed) writes:
: "Palmer doesn't seem to want to get caught in a lie.  He claims
: "that he has an Amnesty International report sitting in front of 
: "him which says "the U.S. killed 250,000 innocent people".
: "We're still waiting.
: Ok, here we go. Page 21:
:     Estimate of Deaths in Iraq Caused Directly or Indirectly By
:             Coalition Action During The Persian Gulf War
:                           (table 2.1)
: 
:     Iraqi Soldiers                    89,500
:     Civilians                         72,000
:     Indirect Deaths (through 1/15/92  95,000 - 120,000
:     caused by destruction of infrastructure such as sewerage treatment, 
:     and water purification plants.)
:  
:     TOTAL                             256,500 to 281,500 DEATHS
:  
: Satisfied???

281,500-89,500=192,000

Nope.  Even assuming that all the "civilians" and "indirect deaths" were
innocent people you are still _at least_ 58,000 people short of your
250,000 figure.  I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to count all of the
Iraqi Soldiers' deaths as innocent deaths.

An argument could also be made that not all of the "civilians" and "indirect
deaths" are innocent, and your table gives no indication how these figures
were derived.  

--
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.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli)
Subject: Re: Bush's failing health
Organization: Mentor Graphics -- IC Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 14:38:59 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.202721.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep27.214729.550@Warren.MENTORG.COM>, tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) writes:
>> I've been very concerned about Bush's failing health.
>> 
>> If you compare pictures of him from the last 12 years in 4 year
>> increments (I looked though old Time magazines at the library) after
>> each election he's really looking a lot worse.  The rate is
>> accellerating.
[...]

>     Oh please -- not any more unsubstantiated rumors!  But, since
>rumor and inaccurate data seems to be the fuel for the alt.politics.*
>fires, let me break my own rule and throw in a rumor I heard about
>Clinton.  I heard on the Bob Grant radio show on WABC - New York
[...]

(Oh Bob Grant, that institution of ethical reporting and integrity!)

You changed the subject.  You're as bad a GHWB himself!  The issue is
that Bush is NOT as healthy as people think he is.  Has anyone else
ACTUALLY LOOKED at pictures of him?  He's really not looking good.

Tom
-- 
Tom Limoncelli -- tal@warren.mentorg.com (work) -- tal@plts.uucp (play)
       Both candidates are offering economic packages, but only
          one candidate can leave us with a President Quayle.
From: peterd@polari.online.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Have you heard of the Religious Left?
Date: 30 Sep 92 15:55:58 GMT
Organization: Seattle Online Public Access Unix.  (206) 328-4944 (all lines telebit-equipped)

Several folks have a discussion of the Good Samaritan recalled
from Sunday School - with the understanding that it was about the
selfless behavior of the samaritian.

close, but not quite.  The parable was related in response to the
question that I'm to love my neighbor but "who is my neighbor?"
i.e. how far does this go, where's the limit.  And Jesus told the
lawyer the story of the two good people who passed the guy by and
the "nigger" who 'did the Christian thing' and then asked the 
big question "Now, who was neighbor to the man?"

"And he said, 'The one who showed mercy toward him,'" not even able
to bring himself to speak favorably of the member of the out group.

It's all there in Luke.

But to get back to the original thread - why don't you hear about
the threat to the consitution posed by the Religous Left.

Why is there no furor when the Reverend Jackson makes pronouncements
(or the Revrend Coffin, or ... et al), but let a man of the cloth say
the government is doing a right thing, or needs to be made right and
one is lead to believe that to even _listen_ to the speaker is to
institute the Inquisition, Scrap the Constitution And Bring about the
end of Freedom in the Whole World?


chus
pyotr

-- 
                 Peter D. Hampe, EKA peterd@polari.online.com
Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow. "Its a simple procedure involving Lasers."
                       Will be President for Food.
-- 
                 Peter D. Hampe, EKA peterd@polari.online.com
Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow. "Its a simple procedure involving Lasers."
                       Will be President for Food.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:7916 alt.politics.clinton:8720 alt.politics.elections:15369
From: jdooley@maemaster.eng.uci.edu (John R. Dooley)
Subject: Re: Why I can't stand the Democratic party
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 7 Oct 92 00:35:50 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Oct6.173200.20409@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>  Over the last few months I've written several posts ragging on Governor
>Clinton and I'd like take a moment to explain my opinions.  I have lived my
>entire life in an area which is predominantly Democratic, blue collar, and
>ethnically diverse.  I have not had much experience with the Republicans
>locally, since it is rare that one is elected to a local, state, or
>national office from here.                               

Let's see you're from Cleveland, OH:  home of former Mayor (local
office) Voinovich (a Republican) and current OH Governor (state office)
Voinovich (also a Republican).  Apparently, elected Republicans
are not such a rarity.

<Rest deleted, because the only facts I can check are immediately
 refutable.>


John D.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: social security, retirement
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 04:03:48 GMT

	Might there be any credence to the notion that social
security system prevents personal savings?  Before the system
was set up people would save or invest for their retirement-
in banks, businesses, children, etc.  Today that investment
is being taken from them and paid back to them by the government-
they have no personal control.  The only thing this might actually
protect against is mass fooling of the population; i.e. people
buy stock in 'fake gold mines' or 'government backed currencies'
or whatnot.  But then there is the old saying fool me once,
etc., fool me twice I rip your lungs out.  The people who
lost their investments in banks in the depression today sock
their money away in least-risky indeavors- it seems to me that
such learned prudence would result in the greatest protection
from hardship.  As it is written, Noah got soused and naked,
and one son told the other two about it; the other two ACTED,
covered their pop's nackedness, and the pop told the unattendant
son he was 'second-rate' to the two who covered up their pop.
Look at it like this; the 'good sons' respected their father,
and his sense of pride, etc., the 'bad son' did not, and thus
they would succeed.  In the same way in America people who
do not heed the lessons of the past are doomed for failure;
people who do not respect the lessons of their elders are doomed
to repeat them.  Let the social security tax and system be
removed and let people learn how to avoid the untrustworthy.

			Hugs
			J. Wagner


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: vsg001@acad.drake.edu
Subject: The essence of Clinton
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 04:08:47 GMT

This is dedicated to the Democrats- who have provided so mush amusement
throughout this election year. And I think that Bill Clinton is the epitome of
it all... 'Slick Willie' this is your life:
VOTE FOR A:
Lecherous, adulterous, dope smoking, tax and spend, bleeding heart, spineless,
big government, baby killing, Jeffrey Dahmer saving, tree hugging, kill the
humans to save an owl, chicken little, draft dodging, doom and gloom,
anti-prosperity, anti-business, anti-American, socialist, God fearing, LIBERAL:

			BILL CLINTON in '92!
I'm calling on all Clinton haters to add to this list... let's see how many we
can come up with, to present a clear picture of just who the Democrats love and
worship.
		VSG001@acad.drake.edu (Vince Goddard-ARCH Conservative) 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: harryo@cbnewse.cb.att.com (harold.r.holm)
Subject: Re: Slick Willy's Peace Movement
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 20:39:46 GMT

In article <BvBMFq.9xA@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, mci41087@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Occaisionally) writes:
> Plain and simple: Clinton stood up for his beliefs by refusing to kill people   
> he believed this nation had no business killing.  Pick up the New York Times
> from Wednesday, Sept. 28 (I think, maybe the 29th), and you will see a letter
> to the editor from a Vietnam vet from the Marine Corps (Semper Fi!....excuse me)that says basically the same thing.  He makes an even better point: Who do you
> want to be Commander in Chief when your son's life is on the line, a guy who
> debated the moral questions about whether fighting is right in the first place,
> or some gung-ho old man who fought in a bold, neccessary crusade that will not
> happen again in our lifetime?  Bush sent my brother to Iraq for oil, the son of
> a bitch.  He coulda killed my bro for some bullshit hunk of sand, and he NEVER
> killed Hussein, even though anyone with half a brain knows we coulda done it in
> our sleep without an invasion, and with far more morality then bombing the Hell
> out of 100,000+ innocents.  I have reason to belive that Clinton might not do 
> that, mostly because he has struggled with whether fighting is right in a given
> situation.  Bush just pulls the trigger.
> 
> Matt Ivaliotes

OK....OK, then by your standards, when the Bill 'n Al bunch decide to 
get us involved in Yugoslavia or wherever, it'll be just fine, then,
for young men in and out of the military to make their own moral choice
decision on whether or not to go, right??  Else, all Clinton voters who
are parents of draft-age men out there had better put up or shut up 
if their man gets in and gets in some sort of situation where he commits
troops to an action that may not be so "popular".  It'll be too late 
then for Clinton-voter parents to consider just who they want to be
Commander-in-Chief with their sons' *and daughters'* lives on the line,
won't it??

                                                  H.R. Holm
*comment my own; standard disclaimers;
 replies via the newsgroup only, please*
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: jcburt@cs.wm.edu (John Burton)
Subject: Re: The essence of Clinton
Organization: The College of William and Mary
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 14:56:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.075113.24657@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>You have asked me to elaborate.  So here goes:
>
>I am concerned about Clinton's tax policies.  I hope to be successful
>finacially, and I don't want to penalized for that success in the form
>of high taxes.

I'm fairly confident in saying that the majority of people in this
country hope to be successful finacially. Unfortunately one of
your responsibilities as the "new generation" of citizen is to pay
off the debt that the administration has incurred over the last 12
years. Of course you could always not take responsibility for it
and pass this burden on to your children.

>                 I would also like to know how Clinton feels about financial
>aid for college students--how would average middle-class students be affected??

Ummm...just a quick question...where do you think the money to support
financial aid for college students comes from? It is supported/funded
by the government. Where does the government get the money ? they
either get it from taxes of one form or another, or they borrow it
which adds to the deficit. A very republican attitude is "if you're
poor, its your own fault..." which also means "if you can't afford it,
too bad..." hmmm...doesn't sound like they want to provide aid of any
kind be it welfare, medicare, or financial aid to promising college
students. 

>Now about how my career plans might be affected: I plan to be a writer, and
>I worry about the chance that I might run afoul of the politically correct
>crowd--they might have alot more power under Clinton--because something I
>wrote was critical ofClinton, if he's the President.

Just wondering, exactly how would the politically correct crowd have
any more power under Clinton than they do under Bush? Some of the
strongest support for Bush comes from Pat Robertson, a person
violently opposed to the requirement that "Equality of rights under
the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any
state on account of sex..." Bush recently gave a speech to the members
of the christian group headed by Robertson, supporting Robertson in
his views and attitudes. I don't know, but I wouldn't trust anyone
that supports denying *any* person their rights under law. From what
I've seen of Clinton, he is much more supportive of what "young
people" have to say and attempts to respond to critical comments and
questions. I have yet to see Bush address any critical comments other
than ignoring them or calling the person a liar...

John






Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:6854 alt.politics.clinton:7405
From: acadams@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Arthur C. Adams)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Bush's failing health
Date: 28 Sep 92 01:39:22 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Great Beyond

In article <1992Sep27.202721.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>  I heard on the Bob Grant radio show on WABC - New York
>that a Little Rock prostitute named Bobbie Ann Williams claims
>to have a 7-year-old son fathered by Bill Clinton.  She also
>claims that Clinton refuses to take a blood test to verify it.

Well, rumor's about Clinton and illegitimate kids have been around
since the Gennifer Flowers story first broke. Like the Flowers
story, its been mostly tabloids discussing it.

But, on the blood test. While one can lend credence to a charge
of paternity (i.e. it could say that Clinton might be the father)
it can not conclusively prove paternity; it can only prove that
a person is not the father (i.e. a mother of blood type X and a 
father of blood type Y cannot have a child of blood type Z.)

I suspect Clinton isn't responding to the call for a blood test
because he doesn't want to lend any credence to another charge.
-- 
Proud to be part of the cultural elite!
What the gamemasters wilt shall be the whole of the law.
	- Motto of the Hellfire Club, live-action roleplaying GM's
Arthur C. Adams (not the comic-book artist)                        <fnord>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: freewill@carson.u.washington.edu (William Kaufman)
Subject: Welcome to the '90's
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:20:33 GMT



  sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:

> I hope to be successful financially, and I don't want to penalized for
> that success in the form of high taxes.

Well, congratulations, that puts you in the same boat as every American
I've ever met. We all like to think of ourselves as nice, generous
people, and as soon as we get a little for ourselves, like 2 cars, a
house in the burbs, etc., we'll give that $100 check to charity. It's
called selfishness and greed and I'm as guilty as the next guy. The
point is in the '80's everyone thought exactly the same thing, get a
little for myself first. Well, them times is over, 'cause everybody
got a little for themselves first and it turned just a few people like
Neil Bush jumped in and took it all before your turn. Not meant to be
a flame, just pointing out that as more and more people try to share
the same limited resources, we're all gonna pay more and get less, un-
less you want to join Pat Buchanon's feudal society.
         Will
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins)
Subject: Perots book available now on USENET
Organization: None known
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 18:20:28 GMT


For those who haven't read the NY Times Bestseller book by Ross
Perot UNITED WE STAND, it covers in great detail Ross's plan for
fixing the ills in America. I have read it and agree in principle
with most of what he says. I had not formed any opinion on Ross - 
but reading this book changed my view - its definitely worth reading! 

Some kind soul has now posted it in alt.politics.elections.

If you browse that group you will find it posted in four parts.

Read and enjoy....

Followups to alt.politics.elections

Joe
joec@morgan.com

Usual disclaimers....

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:7843 alt.politics.clinton:8638 talk.politics.misc:49744