HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: VIGNESWA@ecs.umass.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Another Cover-Up?
Date: 29 Sep 1992 10:00:40 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

Anwar Mohammed writes: >"
>""Innocent" 250,000? Uniformed thugs and looters caught trying to
>"escape Kuwait in their stolen autos stuffed with loot is more like
>"it. There were civilian casualties of the bombing campaign, and that's
>"an unfortunate fact of war, but the bulk of the dead were on the road
>"out of Kuwait and in the entrenchments *inside* Kuwait and southern
>"Iraq.

Palmer writes: >>
>>FALSE! The majority of those who died were civilians who died as a result
>>of our bombing sewerage treatment plants and water plants. See RED CROSS
>>reports.

Anwar writes again: >
>I'm amazed that you still have the audacity to post after your lies.  Why
>don't you address the question?  Neither Amnesty International or
>Red Cross *ever* claimed that the U.S. killed 250,000 innocent people.
>

The records I have:

According to May 92 report of Green Peace, there were more than 200,000 
deaths (directly or indirectly).  Around 120,000 Iraqi soldiers died in
the 43 day war. Half of the above was killed in the 100 hour ground war.
There were civilian deaths in the range of 49,000 to 76,000. Because of
very Strict censorship by America, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, this shock-
ing news was covered-up.  

According to another volunteer organization, the child death in Iraq is
1500 per day and there would be 170,000 child deaths in the next 5 year
period.  Due to this a whole generation has been destroyed.  The modern
techniques of war create a long term effect.  Destruction  of hospitals  
and waste treatment facilities etc  were the main cause of the indirect
effect of war in Iraq.

Though I respect the  RED CROSS and AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, I guess they
are not beyond the patriotism.  Amnesty International report during the
Gulf War said that Iraqi soldiers went to maternity hospitals and threw
the children out of the inhubator boxes (sorry for paraphasing).  Remem-
ber Naira Al-Sabah? She deserved an Oscar for her Congressional hearing!

I know.  This is not the proper forum (alt.politics.clinton) for all of
these.  But I didn't want to leave this  unanswered.  I wouldn't do any
follow up in this forum.
 
>Anwar Mohammed                FREE THE KUWAITI POWS.

That's a good demand.  Don't you need a Democratic  Republic of Kuwait?
I wouldn't like to be a citizen of Kuwait, Inc., which has a membership
in UN.

Vicky:
UMass,
Sep 29
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.rights.human,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs (was Re: Clinton's Gestapo/Plan for takeover)
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 01:12:08 GMT

In article <Bv9Kt6.Fu7@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.133336.12077@newshub.ariel.yorku.ca> cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR) writes:
>
>>The State "owns" (for want of a better word really) the individual
>>because it is the State that dictates the individual's rights.  
>
>To say that one is from a certain country and even bound by that country's
>laws is not to say that you are a slave of that country.

It seems to me that Armour has fallen victim to an inadequacy of the English
language.  The verb "belong" does indeed imply ownership.  However, it is
also used to imply association, and the two are not synonymous (see any half-
decent dictionary).

Ownership implies control.  If the United States owned me, it would be able
to force me to obey laws.  It cannot.  I choose whether to obey laws and live
with the consequences, or to break one or more and live with the consequences
of my different actions.  My mother, who lived in Germany through the Nazi
era, is fond of pointing out that no one can force anyone to do anything:
there is always a choice.  The essence of ownership is that you cannot escape
the relationship.  If you are sentient then you cannot be owned, because you
may always choose to alter your relationship.  For instance, a religious per-
son may say "I belong to God" and wish with all his/her might that s/he means
"God owns me", but in reality s/he is only associating with God and cannot,
because of his/her capability to choose, become God's property until after
s/he dies.

If you are "stateless", i.e., if you renounce and/or are denied citizenship
in all countries, you do not therefore become a free individual.  You merely
choose to accept the possible consequences of laws that treat non-citizens
differently from citizens.


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|"To every hard problem, there's a simple solution, and it's wrong." - Turski |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
From: johniac@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: KILL THE RICH!
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 17:09:01 GMT
Reply-To: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX

In article <1992Sep27.220421.16616@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
|> If could move closer to school, I would, but I cannot afford to move
|> at this time.  I sometimes get the feeling theat the bus syste penalizes
|> people for living in certain areas-if I lived in the right area, I would
|> find reliable service.

Sure it does.  The bus system is going to favor areas that have a
lot of bus riders.  Otherwise it's not cost-effective to have a bus
drive around there. 

-- 
John Iacoletti       IBM AWD Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"It takes a big man to cry.  And it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man."
                                                              -- Jack Handey
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Books: Perot, Gore, Limbaugh, Bio on Clinton
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 19:09:53 GMT

In article <BvDKGq.M3G@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarOwl@uiuc.edu writes:
>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>
>: >So who's in the lead in terms of number of books sold, current ranking, etc.
>: >Ross Perot's Book, Albert Gores, Rush Limbaughs, or Clintons Biography?

Thinking about it, Millie's book probably beats all.  Perhaps it was
not #1 on the Lists, but it was up in the top 10 for an absurdly long
itme.

>: Limbaugh's book is on the top (#1) of the NY Times Bestsellers List, as
>: of Sunday.  <head shaking, wondering "Why?">
>
>Winter's coming soon.  People need *something* to burn for heat.  :)

I have a friend who works in Simon & Schuster, the publisher of
Limbaugh's book.  They seem to have sold an absurd number in and
around the Bay Area.  Perhaps there'll be a riot at Berkeley in which
Rush's book will be tossed at the police, instead of the oh-so-mundane
rocks.

On a mildly more serious note, my friend said that Marketing thinks
the book is being bought mainly by people who normally don't buy
books.  More like something to put up on the mantle place that says
more or less, my beliefs have a spokesman and are in print.  People
feel better if there is a tangible representation of their thinking.




--
"I was trying to figure out which of my friends were hedgehogs, and which
were foxes...."
"Shakespeare wrote _King Lear_, NOT _King Leo_...."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao)
Subject: Re: SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE right on target
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:47:48 GMT

 
 
	I forgot if it's from Saturday Night Live or from Tonight Show,
about George Bush not wanting the debate because he doesn't like the format,

George Bush should ask the postpond or cancel the dame election on Nov. 3rd
since it doesn't look like he has any advantage on that either.
 
Right on 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7270 alt.politics.bush:6734
From: rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com (Rene Valdes)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Job Creation (Arkansas vs. USA)
Date: 25 Sep 92 13:39:51 GMT
Reply-To: rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com (Rene Valdes)
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton

An amazing bit of statistical data:

This morning on the TODAY show, Katie Kouric (sp?) was interviewing James
Carville from the Clinton Campaign and Charles Black from the Bush Campaign.
Mr. Carville said that according to Bush's Secretary of Labor, Lynn Martin, in the
last two years more jobs had been created in Arkansas than in the other 49 states
put together.  Since Black did not deny this statement, it appears clear to me that
she did indeed say that and that it must be true no matter how unbelievable it sounds.
If you consider the population of Arkansas in comparison to the population of the
rest of the USA, this piece of data is really amazing.

Another piece of information from this morning interview:  Arkansas, under the
allegedly "tax-and-spend" Governor Clinton has the second lowest tax burden 
among all the states in the USA.  Does the label stick?

  Rene J. Valdes              |     rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com       | 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed)
Subject: Re: Job Creation (Arkansas vs. USA)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 00:41:33 GMT

In article <47895@shamash.cdc.com> rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com (Rene Valdes) writes:
>An amazing bit of statistical data:
>
...
>
>Another piece of information from this morning interview:  Arkansas, under the
>allegedly "tax-and-spend" Governor Clinton has the second lowest tax burden 
>among all the states in the USA.  Does the label stick?

Yes, it truly is amazing.  A state with one of the lowest average income levels
in the country also has one of the lowest "tax burdens".  Will wonders never 
cease?

>
>  Rene J. Valdes              |     rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com       | 


-- 
Anwar Mohammed                FREE       Graduate Student
anwar+@cs.cmu.edu              THE       School of Computer Science
Voice: +1 412 268 3043     KUWAITI       Carnegie-Mellon University
Fax:   +1 412 681 5739        POWS       Pittsburgh, PA  15213-3890
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8165 alt.politics.bush:7497
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: George "Tax And Spend" Bush
Date: 2 Oct 1992 16:27:06 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: avalanche.berkeley.edu

The New York Times didn't have as much luck as Freeman in working out
Bush's spending plan. They noted that on the stump Bush has offered a
variety of tax cuts, a variety of "pork" goodies, and promised to reduce
the deficit. He said that he would call on Congress for $132 Billion in
spending cuts. The Times found some problems with this assertion. The
first is that the cuts do not all apply to the same fiscal year, that
almost a third of the total comes from a one-shot accounting gimmick,
and that some of these cuts have been directly repudiated as part of the
Bush Giveaway Package, specifically, the grain export subsidies.

Meanwhile, Bush appears to have figured he could use these spending cuts
to simultaneously (1) reduce the deficit, (2) cover the loss of revenues
fom his tax cuts, and (3) finance the goodies.

The error in Bush-arithmetic is left as an exercise for the reader.

andy
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
From: dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier)
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 01:08:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.220234.14465@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>In article <1992Sep21.215009.10231@tygra.Michigan.COM>, jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes:

>> Conservative are cold-hearted and dangerous
>> Liberals may  raise taxes, but we'll have a truly "kinder and gentler nation"
>> to live in
>> 
>> I prefer the latter.
>> 
>Ahem, me thinks you're missing a little something here.  Liberals 
>want to increase spending on entitlements (then raise taxes to 
>pay for it).  When you start giving more, more folks start 
>taking.  This is how slums grow, people get into a little trouble
>and turn to welfare: next thing they know, they're stuck because 
>they have to earn less to start a new job than welfare pays.
>Pretty soon they're living in a slum and are stuck on welfare.
>
>Ever notice where most of the violent crimes occur? (Hint: slums).
>
>Increased welfare will not make this a kinder and gentler nation:
>"work or starve" will have people working so hard to make a living
>that they'll not have time to committ crimes -- that will make
>it a kinder and gentler nation -- as well as revive the economy
>and pay off the national debt.
>
Hear hear!  Bravo!

Look at the most socialist state in our country, California, where there are
more people taking from the system than are putting in!  Their economy is in a
shambles, their state check book is overdrawn, and they're finally finding out
that liberalism is the quickest route to poverty and misery.

Let's look at this state as an example of what not to do.  Let's put a time
cap on welfare to turn it into the between-jobs program that it was meant to
be.  For those that don't know how to work, we'll train; for those that don't
want to work, we'll leave to their own devices.  Nowhere in our Bill of Rights
does it include, "The Right to Live Off the Sweat of the American Who Works in
Order to Survive"

Bo Gritz for President
-- 
Douglas C. Meier		|  Remember to vote this election year,       
Northwestern University, ACNS 	|  you probably won't get another one. 
I don't claim them, they don't	|  
claim me.......			|  dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 16:20:25 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Sep26.070856.17952@news2.cis.umn.edu> bunt0003@student.tc.umn.edu (Monthian Buntan) writes:
]I have one more point about Iraq.
]The Bush administration failed to tell the whole
]truth to the American people why they went to war with Iraq.
]The whole truth that started from 1890 until Sadam invaded
]what used to be part of Iraq but taken away by greedy western emperialist.

It is clear that your idea of truth is rather flawed. Kuwait existed as
a political entity since the 18th century, and as a culture for longer
than that. Iraq, on the other hand, was a CREATION of "greedy" western
imperialists, and does not have ANY historical justification to even exist.


-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
 - - Definition: invertebrate ::= George Bush - -
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8614 tx.politics:5868
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Gee, why don't we default on the US debt!!!?
Date: 6 Oct 92 13:29:32 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: usa
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Oct05.221904.10557@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
>The only problem is that large portions of the US National Debt are funded
>with short term T-Bills (30 days I believe).  The financial markets aren't
>stupid, they would simply demand higher interest rates to make up for the
>devalued money.

So far as I know, most of the debt is held in "long bonds" - the 30 year
bond.  Even still, if interest rates are pushed up, the value of those
shorter notes will fall and the government can buy back its own debt for
pennies on the dollar.

You can see the differences in which notes the government uses by looking
at the size of the bond auctions.  The longer bonds usually have bigger
auction sizes (but this is from fuzzy memory - you can look this info up
in the financial sections of the paper from time to time).
-- 
John F. Haugh II           [  TSAKC  ]       UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151    [ DoF #17 ]            Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: lyford@dagny.webo.dg.com (Lyford Beverage)
Subject: Re: George "Tax And Spend" Bush
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 19:42:51 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC

In article <1992Sep30.184901.2982@Warren.MENTORG.COM>, tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) writes:
|> 
|> ...and George Bush, never having been a Governor, has never had to
|> build the skills needed to create a balanced budget.  For example, The
|> NYT article Monday about how Clinton is very good at getting two sides
|> to agree.  This is something you need to do to get people to work
|> together to solve a money problem.
|> 

This is fascinating, given that the biggest problem George Bush faces
in this campaign is the Budget deal of 1990 that *raised taxes*.  The
budget deal was an example of George working together with the congress, 
getting both sides to agree.  Has that done anything to solve the money
problems in this country?

(The budget deal is obviously not the biggest issue for everyone, but I
think it is reasonable to argue that without it, George would probably
be sitting pretty in the polls right now.)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.abortion,alt.politics.elections
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Clinton on 24-Hour Waiting Period
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:12:41 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

     Something from the October 1992 Reader's Digest (page 63):

READER'S DIGEST: Do you favor legislation like the Pennsylvania
statute that requires a 24-hour waiting period to have an
abortion and parental consent for minors?

CLINTON: I favor parental notice but not a parental consent
requirement.  I have no problem with a 24-hour waiting period,
as long as it is not an undue burden on low-income people
who travel long distances in states where abortions are
performed only in one or two places.

I thought Clinton was against the 24-hour waiting period (in
theory, of course) based on his reaction to the Supreme
Court decision for that statute.  Has this always been his
position?  Just wondering...

     C. Perttunen
From: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton In New Jesery
Date: 4 Oct 92 18:23:41 GMT
Reply-To: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) says:
>
>Slick Willie has done a lot of stupid and pointless things.
>They costed Arkansas money, and practically destroyed the original
>culture.

Do tell! I thought "manifest destiny" took care of the original culture years
before Bill Clinton was born. Or maybe you were talking about the more recent 
culture exemplified by Governor Faubus. What were you talking about, exactly?
-- 
"In universities, it is forbidden     |  "Personally, my politics are so far
to teach nonsense. But the _history_  |  to the right, I consider Paul Revere
of nonsense -- that's scholarship!"   |  to be a pinko."
               -- Saul Lieberman      |                 -- Tom Grundner
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: alt.politics.clinton
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 08:10:16 GMT


I understand your points.  But I justvan't ignore my feelings on the
subject, especially when I think of what abortion might evolve into in
the future.   In my earlier posts I mentioned the danger of abortion as
an instrument of eugenics,so I won't rehash that here.

I wasn't attacking anyone's beliefs on sex, just pointing out that
responsibility isn't so bad.  BTW-- I also know firsthand how high school
kids are about sex--I was in high school only a few years ago.  Sex
was the only thing the guys could brag about, and was left out because
I had no stories to share.    Running out of screen here.     Simon
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8211 alt.politics.bush:7529
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Perot's Campaign Logo -- a coincidence?
Date: 2 Oct 92 21:53:42 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

gnat@stein.u.washington.edu (L Boyd) writes:
>Has anyone noticed Perot's new "America First" (or whatever the hell it
>is!) signs? 

"America First"? Wasn't that Pat Buchanan's slogan?
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
Biomedical Engineer 1993	Never take me too seriously.
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Quayle is more charitable than Gore
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 12:48:26 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Sep30.033139.8908@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao) writes:
> In article <1992Sep29.223717.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>>     Here's an interesting little piece I found in the October 5
>>National Review (pg. 12, col. 2):
>>
>>     In this corner, Al Gore, apostle of charity, compassion, and
>>     saving the earth.  His opponent, Dan Quayle -- avatar of
>>     Republican greed and selfishness.  Tax returns show that the 
>>     two had similar incomes last year.  Guess which one gave more
>>     to charity?  Of course.  The Quayles gave $5,670, or 3 per cent
>>     of their income, while the Gores gave $1,727 -- less than 
>>     1 per cent.  Maybe Mr. Gore was trying to strengthen the case
>>     for federal poverty programs.
>>
>>It looks like Gore, the media-proclaimed moderate, is really just
>>another hypocritical bleeding heart -- since his public rhetoric
>>dwarfs his private generosity.
>>
>>     C. Perttunen
> 
>  
>    By replying to your post I already gave it some value, which doesn't
> really have any.   If this is all you have, it's really a sorry case for
                                                            ^^^^^
> you.  Are you a pupil in the Childcare Center of University of Louisville ?
>
> 
     If you recall, it was Michael Dukakis who proposed a national
child care/day care program.  Fortunately, he lost the election;
hence, there is no nationally-funded child care center here at
U of L in which I could be a pupil.  Maybe you should vote for
Clinton/Gore -- they are proposing a "National [Insert-Any-Noun-Here]"
program.  Then, there might be a national program to reform the
"sorry" folks like myself.

     C. Perttunen 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush