HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 18:35:41 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <ld3h8iINN3ad@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>Stephen Tice  writes...

>|>I really had no reason to be against Clinton before this.
>|>I did have real concerns about anyone who's a war protester
>|>being able to lead the country in the event of war, since 
>|>you have to have people go and fight.

>|>alone, and made efforts to change his citizenship to British,

>|>Clinton better tell the whole story now. And he better go
>|>beyond a reasonable doubt.

>We are certainly getting a lot of milage out of an admittedly
>speculative comment made by Robert Dornan, a congressman
>that is to the right of Falwell.  

Mind explaining what makes you think Dornan is right of Falwell?
After all, Falwell is pretty much a single issue kook and his exact
position on the left-right line is kind of hard to pin down.

>This is the same Robert Dornan who started as a right wing
>TV talk show commentator (sounds like a trend)

What's wrong with that?

>and whose wife
>once asked (when co-hosting) if homosexuality was hereditary.

And, what's wrong with that?
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.singles,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.bizarre
From: weverett@jarthur.claremont.edu (William M. Everett)
Subject: Re: A Most Pressing COncern
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 05:53:12 GMT

In article <Bvsqz3.1L4@agora.rain.com> robart@agora.rain.com (Robert Barton) writes:
>In article <1avrpqINNsvg@bigboote.WPI.EDU> walkerr@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Robert A Walker) writes:
>>
>>>Orgasms, in the main, are messy things,
>>>and Really are not the sort of things
>>>that decent persons with good personal
>>>hygeine standards would wish to involve
>>>themselves in/with/towards.
>>
>>
>>	Sounds like this person can't get their rocks off to me.
>>Its only messy if you shoot somebody in the face or your so wet that
>>you flood your bedroom.
>>                                  
>>
>>
>>        
>
>
>
>  What does this have to do with Bush?
>
	I don't know, but this group is getting kinda dull. We should have 
more discussion like this.
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Famous Republican Draft Dodgers
Date: 16 Oct 92 15:32:52 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <ldp85iINNss7@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:

MP:Because it's not quite that simple.  After all of the dodging and ducking,
MP:Clinton dropped all his deferrments and submitted himself to the draft.  He
MP:did this before the lottery that gave him a high (unlikly to be drafted)
MP:number.  The numbers were based upon birth date, so everyone born on the 
MP:same day he was, had the same number.

According to the WSJ he didn't drop his deferal until after he got his draft
number.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Media coverage for Marrou/Lord (call these #'s!)
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 05:23:13 GMT

In article <5OCT199212311479@utarlg.uta.edu>
b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:

>In article <1992Oct5.90044.27209@ms.uky.edu>, fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writs...
>>Michael R Linksvayer writes:
>>>
>>>To:    All Libertarians and anyone else who wants to see the media
>>>       cover the Marrou/Lord Campaign.
>>>
>>
>>This should give you all either heart or a peptic ulcer...a couple of
>>days ago, in an editorial in the Lexington Herald-Leader which discussed
>>the rights of Ross Perot to be in on the Presidential debates, they
>>said that the 3rd party candidate which fit the criteria to be in
>>on the debates was Marrou. If the media down here is "hep" to your
>>campaign then you can be sure the other, big-league media heavies
>>have made a conscious decision to ignore you. Just so you know the
>>inertia that you face.
>
>The libertarians are all over talk-radio. Ignoring them is like ignoring
>the debt, and the new $1.5 trillion dollar federal budget.

     Although I do not counsel the Libertarians (or any minor party, some
of which I also wish we heard more of) to stop trying to get the attention
of the media and general public, at this point the likelyhood of it actually
heppening for *this* election is none to zero.  For the national media to
mention them now would require admitting they've been ignoring them all
along, which ain't going to happen.

>More evidence of media collusion in the political process.

     I don't think collusion is really the appropriate word.  I do find
their practices annoying, and their coverage of even what they *do* cover
shows an almost frightening disregard for basic facts.
     Unfortunately, there is little that can be done without violating
their first amendment rights, which I will not advocate regardless of
their irresponsibility.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50237 alt.rush-limbaugh:6838 alt.politics.bush:8148 alt.politics.clinton:9037 alt.politics.elections:15593 talk.abortion:41304 alt.sex:32320
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:54:03 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>From article (Michael Polen):
>> 
>> Considering the chances for a normal miscarriage (abortion by God?  This
>> could start a whole new branch of discussion!) and our abnormally high
>> infant mortality rate, not being aborted isn't exactly safe either?
>
>Abortion is 100% fatal.  Obviously, being born isn't.

Yes it is.  Everyone dies.  (Enoch, Elijah, Jesus notwithstanding).

>Anyway:
>According to the book "The Politics of Breastfeeding" by Gabrielle (last 
>name?), the world infant mortality rates are directly related to the rates 
>of hospital births in a given country.  
Oh yeah?  Why does the US have the highest infant mortality of all
industrialized nations?  We sure have plenty of hospitals, and I'd bet that
the hospital birth rates here are pretty high...

>Procedures in maternity wards in hospitals around 
>the world tend to discourage new mothers from breastfeeding, simply by making 
>it extremely awkward and uncomfortable.  It has been documented by the World 
>Health Organization that the lower the breastfeeding rate, the higher the 
>infant mortality rate.  In fact, when Papua New Guinne began modernization, 
>just a little bit of forethough brought them the lowest infant mortality rate
>of any country in it's league.  It simply required that every baby-bottle
>sold require a doctor's prescription, and that that prescription required
>a significant health reason.

Oh goody.  First, forced birth, now forced breast-feeding.  What next?

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 23:22:56 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.194614.7472@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com> burkhardt@nebula.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>>There is no way LOGICALLY to grant personhood status to a non-viable fetus.
>>Any way you do it, it steps on some other person's rights.
>>
>>Jennifer
>
>Whether the fetus is viable or non-viable is not the question.  The question,
>bottom line, comes down to a fetus has a right to life since it's stated
>in the Bill of Rights that this right to life exists.  The corrolary to 
>that is whether the fetus should be allowed to develope with the basis being
>this right to life or do we ignore the inenvitable result - that of human
>being

Is that right-to-life absolute?  It is *impossible* for a fetal right-to-life
to be absolute, as it would step on the woman's absolute right-to-life.
To make exceptions for the woman's life in danger would make merely existing
for a fetus-person, to be a reason to execute it.  If fetuses are made 
persons, as are born persons, then there would be absolutely NO way they
could be executed.  However, by not executing some of them, the woman's
right-to-life (a person already) would be forfeited.  Why?  She's dont
nothing to require her forfeiting her life--she's committed no crime against
another person or the state.  Unless you want to make having sex a crime.
So, like I said above, and apparently you didn't think through, there is
no way to grant personhood status to a non-viable fetus as it steps on
some other person's rights.  Once the fetus is viable, then there is a 
possibility of granting it that right, but I question that move severely.

Jennifer
>
>Spike Burkhardt
>Systems Management VMS/Unix programming
>Internet address - spike@lmsc.lockheed.com
>408-756-4790(w)


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:30:45 GMT

In article <1avguhINN9jv@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill) writes:

>   While I'm no fan of George Bush, I do agree that the media has been very
>biased towards Clinton. This is what is to be expected from a liberal media.
>I also noticed that Jay Leno (Democrat?) tends to knock the hell out of Bush
>and Perot and doesn't say much about Clinton. They should put a statement up
>at the start of the show to let people know they are being brainwashed in a
>very subtle way.

Maybe because there's more to make fun of about Perot/Bush?

When Gennifer Flowers and "didn't inhale" were the major front-page 
stories, Leno was making fun of Clinton just as strongly.

In fact, I've seen a LOT more about these stories than Iran-contra, or
Brett Kimberlin, or Iraq-gate.  Or Ross's "house-to-house searches for 
guns and drugs." The media has a conservative bias.

>George Bush? He doesn't have a clue anymore. Bill Clinton? A slick smile and
>a pandering style. Neither one is being realistic about what it is going to
>take. The answer..........? ROSS FOR BOSS! VOTE FOR ROSS PEROT FOR PRESIDENT!

He's not running for BOSS!  That's his problem!  He thinks he is.  He's
running to be *employee*, not boss.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1993 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Roland Hemond: SIGN BARRY BONDS!!!!!!!!
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more weeks!!!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:52620 ca.politics:8740
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Clinton won't put ASS on the line.    (re: 2nd Debate)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 07:39:27 GMT

In article <15OCT199222074314@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:

>Why won't Clinton take the Pledge to Lead or Leave?

Because he believes in democracy?  Let the people decide.

>Perot has said "one term" opting for a self imposed term limit.

Of course, his plan is a *5* year plan to eliminate the deficit.  One
wonders how he's going to do this if he's only there for 4 years.

>Clinton said he won't enter a legal contract to cut spending.

>Clinton wouldn't take the pledge to cut the deficit in half or leave.

It's a stupid pledge.  The budget/deficit/economy are affected by many
things, some of which are unforseeable.  Making ironclad pledges ("No
new taxes") is silly because you don't *know* whether that is going to
be the right thing to do in all circumstances.

Furthermore, for a president, there are other issues.  We could be at
war in 1996.  Would we want a president leaving because of a pledge?

If he hasn't cut the deficit, then VOTE HIM OUT!  Stop playing with
these silly gimmicks.

>Clinton blames trickle-down but does not acknowledge that it's both
>the Republicans and the DEMOCRATS in CONGRESS and the Presidency
>who authored and passed the spending that has put this country 
>$4 Trillion dollars in debt *AND* passed another busted $1.5 Trillion 
>dollar new Federal Budget just last week. 

And the American people who repeatedly elect the people who do these things.

>I don't expect him to put his paycheck on the line like Perot, but I do
>expect him to put his name on the line. And I wouldv'e hoped he'd put
>his time on the line that if he can't produce results -- he'd get out. 

He will.  If he doesn't produce the results people want, he'll have to
leave -- just like George Bush now.

>He's a Party-Pawn plain and simple. And he won't dare upset the 
>incumbents by putting his own ASS on the line.

Where do you get this from?

>Goodbye MR. Clinton. 

Bye, Steven.  Where are you going?

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | Clinton/Gore '92.  Four more weeks!!!
Is every Bush supporter illiterate?  Democrat is a noun, not an adjective.
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Suggestions for the Bill campaign
Date: 16 Oct 92 22:28:22 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <71461@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt6367c@prism.gatech.EDU (DEAL, DOUGLAS WAYNE) writes:
>After listening to the Clinton campaign for some time now,
>I think I have formulated a few ideas that I hope that they 
>can use.  Most are based on his idea of MANAGED COMPETITION.
>
>how about
>
>Supervised privacy
>
>Limited Freedom
>
>Variant Equality
>
>and
>
>Regulated Free Trade

"...where effective competition can be created, it is a better way of
guiding individual efforts than any other.  It does not deny, but even
emphasizes, that, in order that competition should work beneficially,
a carefully thought-out legal framework is required...  Nor does it
deny that, where it is impossible to create the conditions necessary
to make competition effective, we must resort to other methods of
guiding economic activity."
			-- F.A. Hayek, _Road to Serfdom_, p.36


	Everywhere was boundless divinity
	containing all astonishing things,
	wearing divine garlands and garments,
	annoited with divine perfume.		-- Bhagavad-Gita 11
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton won't put ASS on the line.    (re: 2nd Debate)
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:11:53 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Stephen Tice) writes:
|> 
|> Why won't Clinton take the Pledge to Lead or Leave?
|> 
|> Perot has said "one term" opting for a self imposed term limit.
|> 
|> Clinton said he won't enter a legal contract to cut spending.
|> 
|> Clinton wouldn't take the pledge to cut the deficit in half or leave.
|> 
|> Clinton blames trickle-down but does not acknowledge that it's both
|> the Republicans and the DEMOCRATS in CONGRESS and the Presidency
|> who authored and passed the spending that has put this country 
|> $4 Trillion dollars in debt *AND* passed another busted $1.5 Trillion 
|> dollar new Federal Budget just last week. 
|> 
|> I don't expect him to put his paycheck on the line like Perot, but I do
|> expect him to put his name on the line. And I wouldv'e hoped he'd put
|> his time on the line that if he can't produce results -- he'd get out. 
|> 
|> He's a Party-Pawn plain and simple. And he won't dare upset the 
|> incumbents by putting his own ASS on the line.
|> 
This is really hearing what you want to hear.  Only Clinton had
the balls to answer the question, even if you don't like his "no"
answer.

Perot said one term suceed or fail.  That was not an answer to the 
question of putting his job on the line as a promise of success.

Bush didn't even address the question.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:24:54 GMT

In article <Oct05.203207.51974@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.100717.6029@sniap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>
>	Well put.  It is no more punishment to require a woman to fulfil her
>parental responsibilities than it is punishment to require one who signed an
>enlistment contract to go to boot camp, or to require one who injures another in
>a car accident to do everything possible to save the life and health of the one
>injured.

What "parental responsibilities" does a pregnant woman have?  Why?  And,
tell me why any woman who's just given birth can abdicate any and all
possible "parental responsibilities" but a woman who hasn't yet given birtn
can't?  Why is that?  It would seem to me that some people believe that
just because a woman is pregnant, she "has" to "fulfill" something, and
the not-any-more-pregnant woman has absolutely nothing to "fulfill".

Who's the one who made the requirement that pregnant women have to "fulfill"
any parental responsibilities?  Dan Quayle?

Requiring a woman to continue a pregnancy just because YOU SAY SO is STUPID.
You aren't the pregnant woman. YOU HAVE NO SAY.

Comparing pregnancy with boot camp is ridiculous.  You sign paperwork
to go to boot camp.  You don't sign ANYTHING to become pregnant (by normal
means).  ANd, you can always get out of boot camp, if you are that desperate
(or have enough influence).

And, there is no law which requires anyone to to anything to render assistance
to a car accident victim.  There are some states which have a "good samaritan"
law to protect someone who does render assistance from legal action, but as
far as I'm aware, if you want to stay out of it, you can.  Of course, you
will be sued in a civil suit (for causing the accident in the first place), 
but no criminal charges will be brought against you for not helping.

>	BTW, life of the mother and rape exceptions are CONSISTENT exceptions. 
>Incest, if it was also rape, is consistent as well; but allowing abortions for
>children incestuously conceived between two consenting adults would be an
>INCONSISTENT exception (and therefore one I would oppose).

So are you now asking us to believe that CONSISTENCY is a good enough reason
to say that the manner of conception makes a difference in a person's 
personhood?  For a person's status of "personhood" to depend on how they
were conceived is the highest form of discrimination.  For many years blacks
were CONSISTENTLY discriminated against in this country.  Do you want me
to accept that as okay?  "Well, we were _consistent_ about it..."

There is no way LOGICALLY to grant personhood status to a non-viable fetus.
Any way you do it, it steps on some other person's rights.

Jennifer

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell)
Subject: Re: Quayle's a liar!
Organization: AT&T Network Systems  -  Columbus, Ohio
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:41:58 GMT

From article <farenebt.719071511@craft.camp.clarkson.edu>, by farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell ("Droopy")):
> In the debate, Quayle made reference to something in Al Gore's
> book _Earth in the balance_. Quayle made reference to a proposal
> on a specific page. CNN reported that there was nothing on that
> page about whatever Quayle was refering to. 

According to USA Today page 304 discusses an "Environmental Marshall
Plan" that would direct $100 billion to a global environmental plan.
Gore never endorses a specific level of money to be paid by the US
(the man is, after all, a career politician) but he does say that "the
maximum that is politically feasible still falls short of the minimum
that is truly effective."

While Quayle was not entirely accurate, it was completely unfair of CNN
to claim that there was nothing at all on that page about what Quayle
was talking about.  There is absolutely no question that Gore's book
supports spending large sums of US money to support environmental
programs in other countries.  The real issue is whether that is good or 
bad.


"Don't drive too slowly."                 Richard Caldwell
                                          AT&T Network Systems
                                          att!cbnews!nrc
                                          nrc@cbnews.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: lbrother@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (Larry Brothers)
Subject: Re: When do I hear from voter registration
Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Socorro NM
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 20:15:07 GMT

In article <csc4213.718755760@gsusgi1.gsu.edu> csc4213@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (I don't know man, he was just here) writes:
>I'm registered to vote, but I haven't heard word one from voter registration 
>as to where I'm supposed to go to vote. Any clues?
>
>Josh Guttman
>

Check your local newspaper.  Actually, that's not a bad idea for all
of us, what with lots of reapportionment (read: gerrymandering)since
the last census.  The local paper is also your best bet for scanning
the candidates for local offices.  (Our local editor was so impressed
when I told her that's what I did that she went to bed with me :-).

Larry "Early & Often" Brothers

  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc