HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Subject: Re: Slick Willy's Peace Movement
Organization: gte
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 15:07:50 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.94300.24194@ms.uky.edu>, fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:
> In article <20713@plains.NoDak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
> >
> >So, what was he doing over there?  How about leading candlelight marches
> >to the US Embassy to put crosses in front of it?  How about going to
> >Oslo in January of 69 to meet with draft evaders and deserters at the
> >Institute For Peace Research?  How about taking a peace train to Moscow,
> >where he described it as having a "very friendly atmosphere" in a 1989
> >article?  (At a time when Moscow was supplying the bullets to kill
> >soldiers in Viet Nam.)
> >
> >Seems Boy Clinton was a little more than a draft dodger.
> >
> Good. I'd hate to think the depth of his stand against the war was
> limited to avoiding the draft. To quote Dan Quayle <approx> "By
> 1969 everyone was against the war. Even Richard Nixon." Repeat after
> me: Viet Nam was a bad war.

But we're not electing the Viet Nam war.

Yes, it was bad, but that does not alleviate any one person
of his/her responsibilities.  Clinton played coward, he avoided
his duty.  I don't want a person with that type of character
in the driver's seat.

On the other hand Geroge Bush is lieing s.o.b.  In 1988 he promised
"Read my lips, no new taxes."  Not only did he increase old taxes
by eliminating deductions, he even added taxes.  Bush also wrote
a letter to the NRA telling members that their 2nd amendment 
rights were safe with him -- then he enforces the assault
weapon import ban --- the worst part is that FBI figures show
that long rifles (assault rifles, hunting rifles, target rifles,
etc) account for 3% of crime!) Regardless of your views on guns, 
which I don't want to get into here, Bush is a liar and cannot be 
trusted.

What's worse is that both these guys belong to the two parties
that have been building this bureaucratic fiasco for decades:
the Democrats are quick to point out the flaws of the Republicans
but refuse to see their own errors; likewise, the Republicans
are quick to fault the Democrats, but refuse to see their own
errors.

What we need is members of different parties in *both* the Congress
and the White House to take an honest look at what's wrong and begin
tearing down the bureaucracy to build a better America (as opposed
to building a better Dem|Repbu. party).

Vote Libertarian, Bush and Clinton are the same old puppets in 
slightlty different garb.

-- 
"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US murders are 
committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"   -  Andrew Ford
gtephx!forda@enuucp.eas.asu.edu  OR  !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao)
Subject: Re: Democrats & Hippocracy
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 14:00:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.070521.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>Just because the Democrats on this board have been whinning (surprise,surprise)
>I have decided to put in my two cents worth about the subject of hippocracy...
>not that I intend to try and disprove anyone, or even for the sole sake of
>flaming, but just to remind the Dems. that they, now, more-than-ever, are
>hippocritical whiners.
>	Just seven days ago, myself and about 20 College Republicans went to
>protest a Clinton speech. And I'm sure to the surprise of some liberas out
>there, we did not have our jackboots with us at the time. What happends after
>we advance not 20 feet into the fairgrounds? We are met by the Democrat "free
>speech enforcers." Our crime? None. The rather burley youngmen decided that
>they were not going to sell us a ticket, regardless of our willingness to drop
>our signs and pay to see Bill. Though for the most part this is completely
>understandable, security must be tight for a guy like Clinton, what makes no
>sense is the rationale of one of the rent-a-cops when he actually struck one of
>us, while riding a golf cart, on our war out. Nothing had indicated that we
                                     ^^^^^
 
   Why would one of you get struck ?

      (a) The cop was one of the gang who lost his job after the Rodney king
          beating
      (b) You were as WARing as you usually are. 
 
  

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: pkust@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Paul R Kust)
Subject: Re: No looking at your neighbors' papers....
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 18:53:26 GMT

In article <1akhv8INN1bv@uwm.edu> terri@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Theresa J Flynn) writ
es:
>
>PENCILS UP, YOU MAY BEGIN
>
>Joel McNally, the Innocent Bystander -- The Milwaukee Journal 10/1/92
>
>A midterm campaign examination on everything we have learned so far:
>
>  [multiple choice test deleted to reduce bandwidth]
>

1.  b        2. a          3. b          4. a            5. c

6.  e        7. b          8. Al Haig/Oliver North

9.  c       10. b


Could someone please keep an eye out for the correct answers and post them so I
can see how I did?  Thanx
-- 
*** Paul R. Kust "Banjoman" *** Kust.1@osu.edu / kust@kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu
                                   | "Read my lips ... I'll do anything to
Jes' a-pickin' and a-grinnin'.     |  get reelected ... I knew nothing about
Yes I play, I just don't play well.|  Iran-Contra."  What credibility problem?
From: shackeld@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (david m shackelford )
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush Never Had to Fight an Unjust War
Date: 6 Oct 92 23:26:16 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

In article <1992Oct6.043049.11014@news.columbia.edu > egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
 >In article <1992Oct5.232634.14126@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> shackeld@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (david m shackelford ) writes:
 >>In article <FOX.92Oct2065604@graphics.nyu.edu> fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:
 >>>I don't think a man who was never confronted with the dilemma
 >>>of an unjust war and an unjust selective service system is
 >>>really qualified to be president.
 >>
 >>The United States has never participated in an unjust war.
 >>Neither is the selective service system unjust.  The fundamental
 >>principle involved is that the citizens of a nation should
 >>be required to take action to preserve the security of that
 >>nation.  We got into Viet Nam because the President decided
 >>it was necessary for national security.  We entered every
 >>other war for the same reason.  
 >>
 >>There is no dilemma involved -- the only right choice is
 >>to obey the law.  (Or leave and never come back)  The

  Clarification : with respect to military service...

 >>only people who are qualified to be President are law-
 >>abiding citizens.
 >>
 >>Clinton broke the law, and is unqualified to be President.
 >
 >I hope this was a joke.  If not, I want you to think carefully
 >about what you said.  Authority should not be questioned if
 >Authority has done something you feel is morally wrong? 

I omitted an important parenthetical remark in my above post.
The discussion is aimed at military service, not "civil disobedience"
We have to assume the responsibility of citizens to protect our
country or the existence of our country is jeapordized.

David Shackelford
Air Force Veteran (and damn proud of it!)
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 20:29:43 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

In article <1992Sep27.174415.23122@rchland.ibm.com>, jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
>  green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
> |> 
> |> : Seems Boy Clinton was a little more than a draft dodger.
> |> 
> 
> Clinton was braver than Quayle.  Clinton could have been arrested
> for doing what he thought was right.  Danny Boy, on the other hand, 
> just got his daddy to get him into the national guard.  Quayle was 
> the coward here, not Clinton.  
> 
WOW--------could have been *arrested*!!!  Does getting escorted by 
a London Bobbie to an English jail cell mean you come home in a 
bodybag?

Qualye still got in uniform, however tacitly.  That's still closer
than Clinton ever got to military service. 

                                                H.R. Holm

*standard disclaimers, comment my own;
 replies to the newsgroup only, please*

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: mwertz1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Melanie Wertz)
Subject: America 2000 outline
Organization: Swarthmore College
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 03:39:02 GMT


AMERICA 2000:  Bush's "bold, complex, and long range" education strategy.

I.  Overview:  We're spending lots of money on education with no result. 
We are losing out in foreign competition.  This is a result of young
people's poor work ethic and the deterioration of family values.  Schools
cannot replace what's missing in family and communities.  

II.  America's educational goals for the year 2000:
   A.  All children will start school ready to learn.
   B.  The average high school graduation rate will be greater than 90%.
   C.  Students will leave the 4th, 8th, and 12th grades demonstrating     
       competency in English, mathematics, science, history, and geography.
   D.  The United States will be #1 in the world in mathematics and
science.
   E.  Every adult will be a literate, knowledgeable citizen.
   F.  Every school will be drug- and violence-free.

Heres how well do it:

III.  First "big train" of strategy:  Better and More Accountable Schools
   A.  "New American Standards" should be set in core subjects.
   B.  An American Acheivement test (AAT) should be created specifically
for
       American schoolchildren.
      1.  Colleges and businesses should be given incentive to use the AAT
as 
          a basis for hiring and admissions.
      2.  Presidential Acheivement Scholarships should be given to high
school
          students with high AAT scores.
   C.  Reports should be issued evaluating the job each school is doing at 
       educating.
   D.  Schools which are doing well should be rewarded with federal money.
   E.  A policy of school choice should be instituted.
   F.  School control should be decentralized and bureaucracy cut.
   G.  Principal and teacher adacemies should be established.
   H.  Alternative principal and teacher certification should be made 
       available.
   I.  Outstanding teachers should be given rewards.

IV.  Second big train:  A New Generation of Schools
   A.  Unleash schools that give students a quantum leap.
   B.  Hire research and development teams to set aside traditional school 
       assumptions and create New American Schools.
   C.  Bring America on line with the latest technology.

V.  Third big train:  A Nation of Students
   A.  Americans should keep on learning new skills throughout their lives.
   B.  Businesses should set skill standards.
   C.  Skill clinics should be set up to diagnose problems and give 
       information on where to go for more training.

VI.  Fourth big train:  Better Communities
We need stronger family values, more of a sense of unity with our
communities and our churches etc., etc., etc., nothing new
here.
From: clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Slick Willy's Peace Movement
Date: 27 Sep 92 19:22:09 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Distribution: na
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <20728@plains.NoDak.edu>, Brad Green writes:

> I'm questioning the character of Slick.

If you thought the Vietnam war was wrong, why did you go?  If you
didn't, what's your problem with Clinton?  He thought it was wrong,
didn't go, and spent several years protesting instead.  If the
politicians had listened to people like Clinton first, how many of
your combat buddies would have died?
-- 
Chris Long, 265 Old York Rd., Bridgewater, NJ  08807-2618
From: falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Who's the chicken?
Date: 30 Sep 92 17:21:36 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

> On this chicken thing:  I heard Bush start calling Clinton a chicken for avoiding
> the draft.  Gee, he (Bush) just doesn't get it.  Yes, call me a chicken for avoiding
> getting myself in a position of being killed for unclear reasons (yes, I know, there
> were many reasons why we were in indochina, but please don't repeat them here), yep,
> I'm guilty as charged,  But when you avoid a debate, it is not (at least I didn't think
> it was) a choice between life and death, "chicken" seems very appropriate but not
> equivalent to the former in the least.

  Chris, not to belittle your experience in the 60's and 70's, but here is what
I think is Bush's view...

  "This is life and death.  MY life and MY political death!!!"

						Mike Falkner
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: George's lie of the day 
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 15:09:10 GMT
Organization: Austerlitz, Gershovitz, and Carmichael

Daniel A Ashlock writes:
>
>   GHWB has been claiming the best farm income in history for our farmers this
>year.  Todays Des Moines Register had a story saying that Bush's own
>agriculture department statistics indicate that in absolute numbers the last
>three years have been a little better.  If one adjusts for inflation, however,
>these same statistics indicate farm income was higher in each of the five
>previous administrations.  Apparently George thinks farmers are illiterate
>nitwits?
>
Income is a funny thing to measure. For several years now, absent federal
subsidies, net farm income in this country would be hugely in the red. There
are many reasons for this, of course: poor management, wasteful programs,
farmers paying off the horrific debt they incurred in the early 80s,
competing against _other_ countries' also-subsidized farmers. It is
an extremely complex analysis to try and figure out the health of 
agriculture in this country, but by and large it seems better now than
5 years ago. Too many small family farms for the way markets are subsidized,
but that's a whole other kettle of kows.
-- 
Coach Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> Season: 1-5 Lifetime: 1-7
Ask me about my 1 game win streak!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: Clinton / Quayle's anti-Vietnam efforts
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 01:51:48 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
: ]john@anasazi.com said:
: ]
: ]> > But not the 13th amendment?  [David Marc Nieporent]
: ]>
: ]> The 13th amendment does not apply to the draft. 
: ]
: ]Isn't that a little bit like saying that the 2nd Amendment does not apply
: ]to guns?  Conscription sure looks like involuntary servitude to me.
: 
: The 13th amendment was enacted at the end of the civil war (Dec 6, 1865)
: to codify that slavery was illegal in the US. Since the winners of
: the civil war USED the draft to win the war, and they were the folks who
: enacted it, it is clear that their intent was to ban slavery, not
: involuntary military service.

Is it all that clear?  As I recall, there were quite a few draft riots
during the Civil War...most of which were dealt with rather harshly.
Opponents of slavery were not necessarily in favor of involuntary military
service.

To me, anyway, it looks like the 13th Amendment could be interpreted to
make the draft illegal, as the Amendment make _involuntary servitude_
illegal.  You can't make a person do a job he/she does not want to do.
Period.  Of course, out current fascist, er, conservative Supreme Court
justices might disagree, but....

*shrug*  For me anyway, the point is moot.  A draft is unlikely anytime
in the near future, and if it did occur, my health is poor enough
that they wouldn't take me.  If they did take me, I would _then_ claim
the 13th.... But that series of events is pretty d*mned unlikely.  :)

--
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



Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:7612 alt.politics.clinton:8326 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6249
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Public Education (Was: Re: Family Leave)
Date: 4 Oct 1992 03:14:36 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: avalanche.berkeley.edu

In article <BvK8qz.L23@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:

>A little competition will go a very long way toward destroying the government
>education stores.  And that can be nothing but good for the country.

>Steve Kellmeyer 
>kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
                  ^^^^

And, pray tell, what is your role in the destruction
of uiuc = University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
the government education store you are affiliated with?

andy

PS Why aren't you at Northwestern to put your money where your mouth is?

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: ronwill@sierra.sim.es.com (Ron Williams)
Subject: Damn, Perot's back
Reply-To: ronwill@sierra.sim.es.com (Ron Williams)
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp., Salt Lake City, UT
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:51:25 GMT

It's official.  Perot is back in.  I just heard it on the radio.  I wonder now 
what this will do to the race.  It's bound to hurt Clinton, but I suspect it 
will hurt Bush too.  I think there are a lot of people out there who hate Bush 
but were going to vote for hime because they hate Clinton even more.  Perhaps 
this is just wishful thinking on my part.  What a winnie!
-- 
Ron Williams
ronwill@sierra.sim.es.com
Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp.
Salt Lake City, UT

	Just say noe to Bush/Quayle.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:7743 alt.politics.clinton:8508 talk.bizarre:32825
From: howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey)
Subject: Re: Democrats & Hippocracy
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 02:35:02 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.070521.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>Just because the Democrats on this board have been whinning 
				    ~~~~~           ~~~~~~~~
				      2                1

1)  What the hell is 'whinning'?

2)  Oh, 'board'.  You must be a high-school "hacker", you know the type, the
ones who 'jack in' to their local bbs at 300 baud. This is the internet, 
dumbshit.

>I have decided to put in my two cents worth about the subject of hippocracy...

What the hell is hippocracy...Rule by Hippos?

>not that I intend to try and disprove anyone, 

as if you could...

>						or even for the sole sake of
>flaming

Jesus, we're going to be flammed...

>	 but just to remind the Dems. that they, now, more-than-ever, are
>hippocritical whiners.

???? more than ever hippocritical whiners?  Who was the first 'hippocritical' 
whiner?  WHAT IS A 'HIPPOCRITICAL' WHINER?


>	Just seven days ago, myself and about 20 College Republicans went to
				              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Obviously your intellectual equals...

>protest a Clinton speech. And I'm sure to the surprise of some liberas out
								~~~~~~~
What are these? Are they like Libras?

>there, we did not have our jackboots with us at the time. What happends after
			    ~~~~~~~~~

You mean the ones you goose-step with?

>speech enforcers." Our crime? None. The rather burley youngmen decided that
						~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Brilliant.  Just a brilliant phrase.  

>were violent, or unruly. He was just your typical asshole.

I believe this, coming from an obvious asshole connoisseur.

>						     Fortunately, we will never
>have to know, but I'm not about to argue mathematics.

Well, you are hardly Einstein, now are you?

Learn to spell, geek.

>Here endith the lesson

Oh thank you so much.

>			--VSG001@acad.drake.edu (Vince Goddard-ARCH
>Conservative)

Arch-conservative?  Not really.  Just another mindless pinkboy easily fooled 
by the RepubliClones.

-Howard


-- 
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Howard Berkey						howard@netcom.com
Do what keeps thou from wilting shall be the loophole in the law.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.clinton
From: shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer)
Subject: Re: AIDS crisis
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 17:14:47 GMT

In article <lchphnINNt27@spim.mti.sgi.com>, mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
|> Michael A. Shaffer) writes:
|> |> moz [chris moseley]) writes:
|> |> |> Michael A. Shaffer) writes:
|> |> |> > >AIDS is not God's way of punishing the homosexuals for their lifestyle.
|> |> |> 
|> |> |> > AIDS is not a punishment from God at all. It is a natural consequence
|> |> |> > of ignoring the users manual. Sort of like jumping of a cliff.
|> |> |> 
|> |> |> Can you please let me know where I can get a copy? It's not listed
|> |>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> |> |> on any of the catalogues I can access. I assume it has Humans/ people/
|> |> |> homo sapiens AND `users manual' in the title/subject.
|> |> |> 
|> |> Sure any Bible Book Store. There is a free version but it is not nearly
|> |> as explicit.
|> |> 				mike
|> |> 
|> |> What you don't like that users manual. OK fine. Your decision.
|> 
|> That must be why good christians (and jews, and etc.) never have bad
|> kids.  What a crock.
|> 
|> -- 
|> These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
|> occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.

HUH!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl)
Subject: Re: Slick Willy's Peace Movement
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 17:44:15 GMT
Distribution: na
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

 green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
|> 
|> : So, what was he doing over there?  How about leading candlelight marches
|> : to the US Embassy to put crosses in front of it?  How about going to
|> : Oslo in January of 69 to meet with draft evaders and deserters at the
|> : Institute For Peace Research?  How about taking a peace train to Moscow,
|> : where he described it as having a "very friendly atmosphere" in a 1989
|> : article?  (At a time when Moscow was supplying the bullets to kill
|> : soldiers in Viet Nam.)
|> : 
|> : Seems Boy Clinton was a little more than a draft dodger.
|> 

Clinton was braver than Quayle.  Clinton could have been arrested
for doing what he thought was right.  Danny Boy, on the other hand, 
just got his daddy to get him into the national guard.  Quayle was 
the coward here, not Clinton.  

Jared Dahl
-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| Jared Dahl             | "My heart is human, my blood is boiling, | 
| Systems Programmer     |  my brain IBM"                           |
| IBM - Rochester, MN    |              -- STYX,  "Mr. Roboto"      |
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Opinions expressed are mine, not IBM's.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.libertarian