HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton's Health Ideas.
Date: 10 Sep 92 16:36:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Gizmonic Institute

fred j mccall 575-3539 writes:
>
>I'd like some numbers for this assertion that "the 'cream of the crop'
>doctors all want to come to the United States".  I'd also like some
>hard numbers for the assertion about Canadians, because I've heard
>claims going both ways on this one -- and the average wait in Canada
>isn't even close to 6 months, according to Canadians I know.  More
>like 3 weeks.

I'd also like to see numbers that makes the "cream of the crop" make
any difference. Here in the US we pay top dollar for heath care and
yet are something like 13th in mortality rate. Sort of like paying
big bucks for a baseball free agent and then have him go pfft. 

Besides, most people are healthy. The body, left to its own devices,
does pretty well for 70 or so years. If one avoids tobacco,
drinks moderately, doesn't pig out, eats a few green things once
and awhile, is sexually monogamous, and drives sensibly...how much health
care would one really need? Part of the cost of health care in this
country stems from the Myth of Catastrophe that keeps us all on
pins and needles. The bogeyman of metastatic cancer waiting around
every corner is used to justify horrific rationing of common
care by preposterous prices....can't wait..gotta go...gonna die...
Yes, the promise of decent cancer care is fine. Heart transplants
are miraculous. But, poor people dying because they can't afford basic
care is too steep a price for a society to pay. That is the one of the
things we'll be voting on this November. Basic (I hope) direction
and policy.
-- 
Coach Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> 
Season: 0-1 Lifetime: 0-3 
I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you all to repent from your sins.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5160 talk.politics.misc:45142 alt.rush-limbaugh:4697 alt.politics.bush:4916 alt.politics.elections:12985
From: gummitch@techbook.com (Jeff Frane)
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 23:46:34 GMT

nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>   But again, you're doing what the other poster did, which is equating
>   "labor" with "organized labor".  In 1992 only 17% of the workforce
>   in the US is in some kind of union.  But all of us who work for a 
>   living are "labor".   BTW, the Wall Street Journal does a better
>   and more complete job covering strikes and union organizing efforts
>   than any other paper I've seen.   And while it might seem natural
>   to accuse a capitalist institution like Dow Jones of bias in 
>   this topic, if you can illustrate any systematic anti-labor bias
>   in their coverage of such topics I'd be interested.  I've certainly
>   read coverage of related stories in the WSJ that seemed, if any-
>   thing, pro-labor and anti-management, such as an article they did
>   early this year on working conditions at some southern poultry
>   plants.

>   As I said to the other poster, organized labor is a tiny subset of 
>   all labor and having a "labor" section devoted to union or unionizing
>   issues is like having a Business section which only covers municipal
>   bonds.   


>---peter

The fact that newspapers no longer have labor reporters, as they once
did, and the fact that organized labor is in decline are, I suppose,
unrelated?  There are any number of issues which you might define as
only of interest to union members, but which would be of great interest
to those who for a great number of reasons are prevented from organizing
-- or carry distorted ideas of what organized labor means.  This,
clearly, is the sort of information that a Labor section would carry.

Quite honestly, I don't read the Wall Street Journal (altho sometimes
pick up the editorial page is my blood pressure is down).  But, frankly,
it doesn't suprise me that they would take a "pro-labor" stance on the
working conditions at southern poultry plants -- they are so bad that
they give business a very bad name.

You may think that organized labor is so small a group that it isn't
worth regular coverage (although there are certainly regions of this
country in which this isn't true): why then do all daily newspapers
devote pages to the stock market when an even smaller fraction of the
community owns stocks?

Jeff Frane

-- 
gummitch@techbook.COM  Public Access UNIX at (503) 220-0636 (1200/2400) 


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4276 alt.politics.bush:4284
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: A Dearth of Jobs
Date: 7 Sep 92 16:14:03 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Sep7.103517.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep7.031815.25831@athena.mit.edu>, bowler@athena.mit.edu (Bert Smith) writes:
>> 
>> I don't think that anyone else could have done any better.  Now, on the
>> other hand, a room full of monkeys could have done better than George.
>>             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> -bert
>
>     Are you referring to Congress with that 'room full of monkeys' 
>quip?  The problem is Bush has to try to work with a room full of
>monkeys (Congress), and the only power he has over them is the veto,
>i.e. refusing them bananas.
>

Perhaps Sununu, Darman, et al., would qualify as the proverbial
"room full of monkeys".




--
"I wish I could vote for you a hundred times"
"You can . . . just kidding."
			-- _Bob Roberts_
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<1992Sep10.211451.8458@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 08:28:01 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.211451.8458@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:

   In article <ART.92Sep10114135@world.std.com>, art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
   > 
   > In article <1992Sep9.215511.18804@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
   > 
   >    In article <2AAE62CF.11063@news.service.uci.edu>, harvey@cafws1.eng.uci.edu (Harvey Chen) writes:
   >    > 
   > 
   >    > >Oh yeah, I always trust my local beer-swizzling red-necks with fifth
   >    > >grade educations to give me their in-depth political commentary :-).
   >    > >
   >    > >Seiously though... this is just another irrelevancy in a long string of
   >    >    ^^^
   >    >      Talk about fifth grade educations....please....:)
   >    > 
   >    > >irrelevancies being bandied about. It just proves that Bush can fool
   >    > >some of the people most of the time.
   >    > >
   >    > >Dr. Norman J. LaFave
   >    > 
   >    > 
   > 
   >    Oh, I'm so sorry I didn't run my post through a spell checker. I was a very
   >    naughty boy and the net.spelling.police should take away my license.
   >    :-/
   > 
   >    Dr. Norman J. LaFave
   > 
   > Well, Dr. you were the one who banged somebody else for not using his
   > spelling cheker.  Since you're a Dr. I would think your spelling chequer
   > would be between your ears.
   > 
   > 
   Actually, I assumed that people on this newsgroup weren't shallow enough
   or rude enough to critique my typing. I guess I was wrong.

No you asshole, it's because you criticized somebody else's spelling with
a misspelling.  You show you are an idiot when you do that.  Not too clever
for a Ph.d.

Let me tell you something Mr. Doc. You are such a hotshot (all we have to
do is ask you) that you can't figure out there are others of us out here
who also are Doktors and who are so offended by your nose in the air
attitude that we just can't resist shoving your nose in it.  Just who the
hell do you think you are anyway?  Do you think you are the only guy, or
gal who worked to get a Ph.D?  As I said, the only time I ever mentioned
my doktorate on this net was when I became offended at your nose in the
air attitude.  As I have said, you pompous ass, I and lot of others
worked just as hard, put up with just as much shit, and lived in just as
much poverty as you did, so, again, just who the hell do you think your
are?

   Dr. Norman J. LaFave

Allan R. Thompson, Ph.D.

PS  What does the J. stand for?  Jerk?

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5486 talk.politics.misc:45525 alt.rush-limbaugh:4869 alt.politics.bush:5173 alt.politics.elections:13166
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 16:24:47 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

jogulin@pub_one.fia.dmg.ml.com (Joseph Ogulin) writes:

: The media has a very pro-Clinton/anti-Bush tone to it which pisses me off to
: no end.  HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO MAKE A FAIR JUDGEMENT WHEN THE PRESS WILL NOT
: REPORT ALL THE FACTS?  I mean, just because Bush told them where they could
: put their pencils and notepads during Desert Storm... :-)

Easy: go out and do research about the candidates, their speeches, etc.
yourself.  It may take a lot of time, but if it is important enough
to you that you can't stand the status quo regarding the media, then
it should be a worthwhile task.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"We thought it was a joke when
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			 he asked Dan to run."
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD				-- Marilyn Quayle
Anonymous: apb.3995@n7kbt.rain.com
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher     	

Marrou/Lord in '92
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Death of the Boom (was: SC rally
Date: 15 Sep 92 18:19:04 GMT
Organization: The Gizmonic Institute

Michael Edelman writes:
> 
>Read it again. It's a Bush/Congress "compromise" that killed growth.
> 
Such certitude. Perhaps sociological reasons stifled growth a bit...
too many baby boom pigs stalled in the python...or the bust in the
Japanese real estate market...or the decline in American CD rates
which sent moola to Germany or kept moola in Germany...any of dozens
of things. On the sociological front: boomers in their big homes
didn't need to move up while their half generation younger followers,
mired in lower tier jobs, couldn't afford to move out of their
cookie cutter apartment complexes. So, death of real estate boom...and...
voila! dominos of prosperity topple like so many democracies in
Asia. 

Multiple causes for the end of a trend? Nah, too obvious. Multiple 
non-taxation causes? Nah, not ideological enough.
-- 
Coach Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> Season: 0-3 Lifetime: 0-5 
I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you all to repent from your sins.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4227 alt.politics.homosexuality:5722
From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Family Values
Date: 6 Sep 92 22:50:08 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: sgi

In article <1992Sep6.181209.12231@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum) writes:
|> 
|> In article <1992Sep1.221503.15330@Princeton.EDU>
|> elliott@leda.princeton.edu (Frank W. Elliott) writes:
|> >
|> > What does the phrase "family values" mean? Literally, it has _no_
|> > meaning; however, it serves as a signal that "It's US against THEM."
|> > (In this respect it's much like Hitler's phrase "white culture".)
|> 
|> Or like the "gay rights movement"'s term "straights".
|> 
|> These analogies to the holocaust are dangerous.  With respect to the
|> "gay community" (and I use the term loosely) in this country, there are
|> no concentration camps; there are no death camps; the leadership is
|> *not* actively encouraging people to hunt down and abuse/kill
|> homosexuals.

Until after Hitler came to power, there were no death camps
in Germany either.    Does that mean that Germans ought not
to have pointed out what the Nazis intended to do, if they 
ever did get power?

When people make these "dangerous" comparisons with Germany
that upset you so, they are comparing the US today with 
Germany before Hitler.   They are not claiming that we have 
a Hitler now, but rather we should be careful not to get one.

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 20:25:58 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

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

: Fortunately, the American public is too sensible to listen to this
: nonsense.  I should know; I'm a Canadian and all I see is stupidity
: in politics.  Canada is touted as a free and tolerant nation.  This
: is garbage since there is nowhere on Earth where each citizen is 
: "watched" (of George Orwell fame) as much as here.  Canada has a 
: large secret service, which never gets publicity like the CIA does.

Don't forget the censorship exercised in Canada!  Certain books,
magazines, etc. are not allowed in Canada.  I think that they're
even trying to figure out how (or if) they can censor the net up
there.

: As far as this pertains to the USA, you fortunate people have the 
: benefit of sensible levels of freedom.  No other country on Earth
: can claim as good a balance of public duty vs. personal freedom.

And what a shame it is that personal freedoms in the U.S. are gradually
becoming more and more like those of Canada.

[...]
 
: Clearly, drug use has to be controlled now.  This means a rebalancing
: of the scales is needed but, that's progress.  Since they will never be
: eliminated altogether, we can only focus on stopping the spread of 
: narcotics.  Don't let the world down; we're all depending on you to 
: make the right choice.

You're depending on the politicians in Washington?  Now THAT's a 
scary thought!  ;-)

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"We thought it was a joke when
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			 he asked Dan to run."
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD				-- Marilyn Quayle
Anonymous: apb.3995@n7kbt.rain.com
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher     	

Marrou/Lord in '92

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: ellie@ora.com (Ellie Cutler)
Subject: On the Cover of the Rolling Stone
Organization: O'Reilly & Associates, Inc.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 15:54:12 GMT

Besides being endorsed by a member of the ever-so-Brahmin (and devoutly
Republican) Cabot family, Clinton has also picked up the nod from
Rolling Stone magazine.

The article was very straightforward and right on the money.  I plan to
pick it up for my roomate's 18-year-old son, who needs a clue about
who to vote for.
-- 
        Ellie Cutler

        ellie@ora.com               
        uunet!ora!ellie
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: Just to keep things straight . . .
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 16:35:29 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
: 
: If you have specific numbers contradicting mine, post them. As to the rest
: or it, what's your answer? Where is the extra $230B+ coming from?

Ah, deficit spending.  We know it well.  :)

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi5467@wizvax.methuen.ma.us			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher
From: sdbst5@gl.pitt.edu (Stephen D Brener)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Bush, the impotent president
Keywords: Sex, lies, and impotence
Date: 4 Sep 92 20:51:54 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

I posted an article yesterday concerning a new book that disputes the GOP
claim that the President can't rule because the House is Democratic.  In 
response to the interest it generated, I have decided to post the citation.
The article that describes it can be found in the August 23, 1992 New York 
Times and is entitled "Divided Government: Messy, but Not Fatal."  It was
written by Robert Pear.  The book, entitle "Divided We Govern," was written
by a Yale professor named David R. Mayhew.  According to the author, who 
studied 267 major laws enacted form 1947 through 1990, a divided partisan
control of Congress and the White House makes 'very little difference' in the
output of legislation.

Mayhew found that strong Presidential leadership and strong committment to 
solving national problems could create broad bipartisan majorities for the 
passage of major bills even in times of divided government.  Examples
abound--including Reagan's 1981 tax cut.  The author also claims that Bush
has done less than some of his predecessors to roll away the roadblock.
By the same token, there is no reason to believe that President Clinton will
have clear sailing with Congress even if they are of the same party.

As an aside, while the Republicans focus on Clinton's womanizing, we should
be levelingn scathing attacks on the President's impotence.

Steve Brener




Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4475 alt.news-media:1159 talk.politics.misc:44287
From: fyl@fylz.wa.com (Phil Hughes)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Date: 9 Sep 92 05:47:43 GMT
Organization: FYL
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
: pn> Peter Nelson
: pn> I don't understand why some people seem to have a problem with journalists,
: pn> editors, and newspapers and TV stations having opinions which are expressed
: pn> in their reporting.  The idea of "objective journalism" is naive nonsense
: pn> anyway and we should all grow up and stop demanding or expecting it.
: 
...
:   I don't think it's out of line to demand objectivity, since we as consumers
:   of the media have the power to force it to accomodate our wishes. Also, as
:   powerful as the media is, with regards to the political system in this coun-
:   try, I believe that they *do* have some degree of obligation towards objec-
:   tivity. 

The reality of the situation is that it is easier to find "the truth"
from something of known bias.  Reading People's Daily World or The
Spotlight is generally more useful than reading the LA Times as you
know the bias of PDW or Spotlight and can adjust the story
accordingly. 

The most common bias is selection of what to report on.  PDW picks
articles that shows why Communism is good and Capitalism is bad, the
Spotlight picks articles that shows how the US government is corrupt.
Many of these articles offer reasonable facts but don't reflect
balanced reporting.

I work for Washington Green.  It is a newsletter somewhat aligned with
the Green Party.  We select articles on subjects that are not normally
covered by the mainstream media.  I feel our articles are objective
but the mix does not reflect the relative importance of all subjects.

TV news is the best example of picking for their own reasons.  If an
abandoned warehouse burns down on the same day as four AIDS patients
die, the hot news item is the warehouse because the pictures look good
on TV.

-- 
Phil Hughes - FYL - 8315 Lk City Wy NE - Suite 207 - Seattle, WA 98115 
Phone: 206-526-2919 x74      Fax: 526-0803
E-mail: fyl@fylz.com or nwnexus!fylz!fyl or cpac.washington.edu!fylz!fyl
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 05:53:15 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
: petonic@hal.com (Michael A. Petonic) writes:
: >john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
: >>Well....yeah.  When did medical care become an inalienable right?
: >
: >Persuit of happiness, buddy.  Tough to do it if you're 6' under.
: >Unless, of course, you're Hindu.
: 
: In my pursuit of happiness, I need a 486/50 w/32MB RAM and a 200MB
: hard disk, and SVGA.  Should the gov't be required to finance this
: for me also?  Right...

The government isn't required to give you such a machine (although it
would be nice...), but the government can't deny you the "right" to
go about getting such a beast, without some other reason.  You have
the right to pursue happiness.  It is not the government's obligation
to give you the means to pursue happiness; the government can only
not obstruct your pursuit of happiness unless there is some overriding
reason.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"We thought it was a joke when
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			 he asked Dan to run."
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD				-- Marilyn Quayle
Anonymous: apb.3995@n7kbt.rain.com
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher     	

Marrou/Lord in '92
From: elwin@ai.mit.edu (Lee Campbell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Hiding? Who's hiding? was CRISP: WHY ARE YOU HIDING?
Keywords: Buttfuhrer, Crisp, Quentin
Date: 8 Sep 92 12:32:24 GMT
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory

In article <#ymnhcd.crisp@netcom.com>, crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
 
% Contrary to rumors, I am not hiding. I just have very little to add to
% this inane "newsgroup". I have said what I have to say, have heard the
% abuse and other illogical and rectally extracted comments from the 
% liberals, queers and other dregs of society that support the buffoon 
% from Arkansas. 
% 
% You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. In short
% I have attempted to highlight the dangerous policies being espoused
% by the DumbOCrats, and if you folks don't listen, believe or agree,
% what else can I do?
% 
% Have fun with your circle jerk!
% 
% 
% -- 
% Richard Crisp                 Cupertino, Ca.                crisp@netcom.com

Mr. Crisp:  You *are* hiding.  I caught you in a bald faced lie,
and you are hiding from answering it.  Three times now I have
posted your comments, which I consider to be false, and asked
you to provide sources or examples or references. Each time you
change the subject, ignore the question, or weasel out in some
way. Do you want me to post my questions again? I'll be glad to.
I can see that you are bitter when you complain above that people
don't believe you, but you have trashed your own reputation.

Sleep well in the bed you have made for yourself!
							- Lee Campbell