HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Quayle and Lawyers
Date: 30 Sep 92 19:35:04 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Sep30.174039.2431@meaddata.com> joem@meaddata.com (Joe Mehrle) writes:

> Theodore A. Kaldis:

>> By being admitted to the bar, the lawyer becomes an officer of the
>> court.  (And I don't think that a law school education is a necessary
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> prerequisite -- but good luck trying to pass the bar without one.)

> Here you just lost all credibility as a source of authority for your
> arguments you are DEAD WRONG!!

Ahem.  Please define the highlighted phrase in my quotation above.  It
wasn't exactly a categorical statement that I had made, now was it?
And I didn't exactly portray myself as any kind of authority on the
subject, either.  So who has lost credibility?  (Probably no one --
one must first have credibility in order to lose it.)

> You need to have a J.D from an approved Law School to take the bar in
> all states (Wisconsin has no bar, you still need a J.D to practice).

So how did G. Harold Carswell (Nixon Supreme Court nominee who was
rejected) get by?  One of the major objections against him was that he
had graduated from a non-accredited law school.

> You can always represent yourself (called Pro Se) but never represent
> someone else without passing the Bar.

Didn't I allude to that in the following?

>> So if "lawyer" is defined as one who has the right to argue in court
>> on behalf of another, then the figures quoted by Quayle are probably
>> accurate.  [Yawn]
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:6867 alt.politics.clinton:7419
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Does it really matter ? Re: Bush's failing health
Date: 28 Sep 92 03:09:22 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Distribution: usa
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao) writes:
@cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
@>tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) writes:
@>> I've been very concerned about Bush's failing health.
	[Rest of article deleted.]
	[I edited :]
@>I heard on the Bob Grant radio show on WABC - New York
@>that a Little Rock prostitute named Bobbie Ann Williams claims
@>to have a 7-year-old son fathered by Bill Clinton.

@   Good for Clinton !   
@ 
@   I wish there is someone out there who mysteriously come out and claim 
@I have a son !  There is nothing happier than that.  Some of you may not
@like kids, but I love them. 
@   And shall I remind you that most men have slept with more than one women 
@before. What's the big deal?  I often dreamed someday somehow some kid comes
@to me and calls me daddy. Imagine the happiness and joy ! And the fun to 
@do all the catching up. 

I hope your spouse feels the same way.

@   This is a weird post ?  Not really.  I am saying to some of you people out
@there who has nothing better to discuss, go out and date some women (or men)
@and have some real fun. I will take a President who might have other women 
@before but who can manage the economy and give people decent jobs and living
@rather than a proven failure who might be ailing.  I am saying Bush go away 
@if you are sick and you can't do anything but pointing finger at some man who
@slept with some women. 

What's the point if both men are sick?
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Taking life pretty seriously. NOT.
From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: GOP Cowardice at Penn State and Elsewhere
Date: 26 Sep 92 03:47:25 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange

>TAF102@psuvm.psu.edu wrote:
>: "But Secret Service agent Dennis McCullough said that his agency did not
>: stop anyone from entering because of a sign.  Such confiscation would be in
>: violation of the protestors' civil rights." [Thank you, Agent McCullough!!
>: You obviously understand the Constitution and the Bill of Rights better than
>: many Republicans!] "Bush volunteers can't force them to give up their
>: signs," McCullough said, adding that he thought the WHITE HOUSE (!!!) staff
>: ordered the no-sign rule because similar situations had occurred before!!
>

Heloise's Helpful Protest Hints:  If you are going to bring a sign to a
Presidential campaign appearance, *don't* put it on a stick.  You can't be
anywhere near the candidate with a stick.

eyes
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Quayle and Lawyers
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 05:59:00 GMT

In article <Sep.30.15.19.17.1992.2859@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>In <1992Sep30.174039.2431@meaddata.com> joem@meaddata.com (Joe Mehrle) writes:
>> Theodore A. Kaldis:

>>> Is it our intent to look at the matter objectively here, or is it to
>>> try to score some political points?  If the former, then the question
>>> arises: is there an agreement as to how to define "lawyer"?  If the
>>> latter, then this question becomes spurious.

>> No, you are WAY OFF!! The definition of Lawyer must be static in order
>> to objectively compare the argument otherwise this is strictly
>> comparing apples to oranges and trying to draw conclusions.

>But this is exactly the problem!  Quayle is promoting an argument
>based on a different definition of the word than his (politically
>motivated) critics are using in an attempt to discredit him.

>Whadda maroon!

Quayle, or you, Ted?  Either way, you're wrong again.  Quayle said "The
U.S. has more lawyers per capita than Japan,Germany,etc."  (Not a direct 
quote, but the idea holds.)  But he's WRONG.  He's comparing apples+oranges 
in the US to just apples in Japan and then saying we have more.  It's
true, but not relevant.

If someone in the U.S. goes to law school, passes the bar exam, and then
becomes a stockbroker is called a lawyer, then you have to include the
people in Japan who aren't CALLED laywers, but who also are stockbrokers.

If you only count *litigators* in Japan, then you should only count
*litigators* in the U.S.  Actual litigators, not potential ones.

-- 
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 months!
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: The essence of Clinton
Date: 6 Oct 92 21:58:18 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Oct6.124605.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.145611.20363@cs.wm.edu>, jcburt@cs.wm.edu (John Burton) writes:
> A very republican attitude is "if you're
>> poor, its your own fault..." which also means "if you can't afford it,
>> too bad..." hmmm...doesn't sound like they want to provide aid of any
>> kind be it welfare, medicare, or financial aid to promising college
>> students. 
>WHAT???WHO THE HELL SAID THAT? NAME THE PERSON THAT YOU'RE QUOTING FROM!! Name
>ONE Republican who has said that!! I want to see SOURCES!! FAX me, e-mail me,
>write through the postage system, call collect! Is this the only way you can
>provide meaningful disscussion, through blantant lies? Are you trying to
>address the idea of 'individual responsibility'? If so, you are WAY off the
>mark!  

Hmm.  Wonder who else extrapolates grossly from statements....

>
>> Just wondering, exactly how would the politically correct crowd have
>> any more power under Clinton than they do under Bush? Some of the
>> strongest support for Bush comes from Pat Robertson
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>The politically correct crowd that Simon is referring too are the special
>interest groups that control Clinton's every thought. If Clinton were to be
>elected, these groups (ie the PC crowd) *would* gain considerable power,
>because they have a friend in the White House. It sucks, but that's politics.
>By saying that the strongest support comes from Robertson, do you mean "greatest
>amount of contributions"? If so, you are mistaken. Or are you simply trying to
>paint fanatical support, because then, you just have a pointless arguement.
>> 
>> John
>Here endith the lesson

The Republican core is now, more or less, the fundamentalist Right.
Look at the convention, look at the platform.  Conservatives such as
George Will have defected (actually, we should have Will moderate the
debates, no?).  A fair number of business folks have repudiated Bush
(for a number of things, not just the fundies).

Actually, there was this interesting article in _The New York Review
of Books_ about a month ago, but Garry Wills, I think.  It was about
Bush's early political roots and experience.  Wills argues that Bush,
at heart, is one of those patrician Republicans of the Wall
Street/Eisenhower crowd who sold his soul to the New Right in the
pursuit of power.  His soul hasn't been put on auction by the original
buyers, either.

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


--
"Sounds interesting....  Sounds interesting...."
				-- Homer Simpson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: Perot to be on CNN 9/28 Larry King 9pm, live from Dallas
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 13:22:59 GMT
Organization: The Gizmonic Institute

StarOwl@uiuc.edu writes:
>
>One question: If Ross re-enters the race, who will his running mate be?

A  good question. It will determine who he is the 'rabbit' for -- a
conservative VP, a la Jeanne Kirkpatrick, means he is playing the
rabbit for Clinton. A moderate VP means he is playing that role for the
Bush camp. I'll go ahead a pick blind and predict a moderate.

Of course, he may not choose a running mate since, according to his
closes aids, he's just in there to "force" a meaningful -- i.e. Perot-
vanity-saving -- debate of the issues.
-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: cower@csli.stanford.edu (Richard Cower)
Subject: Is bush too ill (or drugged) to debate?
Organization: CSLI, Stanford University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:51:38 GMT


Anyone given any thought that Bush might be too ill to debate? These 
30 minute whistle stops, all choreographed he can handle. I think he is
too ill (or drugged) to handle a debate.

rich cower


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: The essence of Clinton
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 04:51:08 GMT


Something tells me that under Clinton's economic policies there will
some unwritten reason that I won't be able to take part in his system of
equal opportunity.  Plus I fear that my career plans might be jeopardized
under a Clinton presidency.

Simon
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:6742 alt.politics.clinton:7277 alt.politics.elections:14314
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Chicken George, where are you?
Date: 26 Sep 92 18:18:07 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

saurav@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Saurav Chatterjee) writes:
?mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
?>But a lot of people would say that if it was not for the panel format we
?>would not have gotten the great insight into Dukakis's persona when he
?>answered the 'What if Kitty was raped and murdered ...' question.  The
?>answer he gave ended his presidential asperations.
?
?I think Bernard Shaw asked the stupidest question when he asked this
?hypothetical question. Of course we would feel differently if something
?happenned to someone close to us -- but then we would be thinking with
?our emotions and not with our heads. 
?
?If someone raped someone close to me, I would probably want to kill him.
?However, I don't think that anyone who rapes should be executed. 
?
?BTW, unlike Dukakis, I favor the death penalty and personally I see nothing
?wrong with life imprisonment for people who commit acts such as rape, etc.
?However, I wouldn't dis-qualify Dukakis solely based on his answer to
?this question. There were many other reasons to do so...
?
?BTW, this is why I think the current debate format, as espoused by Bush,
?is bad for the people. Journalists, such as Bernard Shaw, try to make
?a name for themselves by asking questions that will get them in the next
?day's paper, rather than trying to ask questions that would help the
?people decide who to vote for.

I just want to know how come Bernard Shaw's rape question to Dukakis was
such a bad hypothetical question whereas Larry King's question to Quayle
about if Corinna Quayle (daughter) were going to have an abortion if he
would support her (and similarly the Dateline question to President
Bush). Do you (public not just Saurav) have any opinions on that? And
recall that these questions were asked on a one-on-one situation, not
with a panel of journalists.

I agree that there are some journalists that will make a name for
themselves and being proud of "having sunk [e.g., Bush's] election." I
am not so sure that this won't happen with a single moderator format
either; it may in fact encourage it if you have an inexperienced,
untempered moderator.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	No social life & damn proud of it.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: evasquez@dewey.NMSU.Edu 
Subject: Re: Neil Bush
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 11:00:19 GMT

In article <Busvp7.459@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry  
Jewell) writes:
> Anyone know how many of the Bush offspring have been in the military?
> 
> 
> Larry J
> 
> -- 
ZERO!  A certain son was eligible for the draft at one point during Vietnam but  
his namewas quickly removed due to daddy's intervention.
From: sderby@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Stuart P. Derby)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: thursday's Nightline on ABC
Date: 27 Sep 1992 19:21:50 GMT
Organization: Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tx

In article <6281@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> 
   valentin@midnight-blue.cis.pitt.edu writes:
>I'm really steamed. I never read these groups. so forgive me if I'm not
>using proper netiquette, but I have to tell people what I saw. Until today, 
>it was possible that I might vote for Bush. (barely possible, but possible)
>
>Then I saw tonight's (Thursday Sept 24) Nightline on ABC. 
>
>The format was Ted, with Bush's VP Chief of Staff Craig Fuller (I think) 
>and a reporter from the St Louis Dispatch. The topic was the Iran-Contra
>affair, and Bush's credibility wrt that. 
>
>The reporter and the Chief of Staff traded partisan factoids, until the last 20 
>seconds. The reporter was given one last comment.
>
>Reporter: "Well, we have a signed, hand-written note from Bush to Oliver North 
>thanking him for his help with the hostage-thing, and central America, so I
>think its fair to say that Bush knew what was happening."
>
>Fuller: "And it didn't matter in 1988, and it won't matter in 1992." 
>
>Can you believe it? Its the 90's version of "let them eat cake." It the most
>arrogant thing I've EVER heard a politician say. Its disgusting. Its gross. 
>I want to puke. ASCII can't do it justice. The *tone* of the statement was
>outrageous. 
>

  WARNING: UNCOUTH VULGARITY FOLLOWS

  I agree, that one statement at the end probably did more to move
uncommitted voters to Clinton than anything else in the whole show.
My reaction at the time was, "My God, he just told America to suck
his cock!" <Apologies to those offended, but that is what I actually
said to my roomate>. Seeing that statement again reminded me how
strongly it struck me at the time. Looking at those words in print,
the impact is substantially lessened, because the smug arrogance
with which those words were delivered was left behind, but 
Fuller's tone and expression implied (to me) that Fuller has
about zero respect for the electorate, that it's just a 
power-game to him. 

  Of course, no one should base their vote on the tone of voice
of one campaign surrogate. I'm voting for the candidate I
think will be the most responsible...


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stuart Derby - sderby@bcm.tmc.edu  | When in trouble, when in doubt,
Baylor College of Medicine         | run in circles, scream and shout.
Houston, Texas                     | -from _Glory Road_, R.A.Heinlen
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Subject: Re: Bush's failing health
Originator: hillyard@tiger.msc.cornell.edu
Reply-To: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 03:45:52 GMT

From article <1992Sep28.013922.29571@afterlife.ncsc.mil>, by acadams@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Arthur C. Adams):
[...]
> 
> But, on the blood test. While one can lend credence to a charge
> of paternity (i.e. it could say that Clinton might be the father)
> it can not conclusively prove paternity; it can only prove that
> a person is not the father (i.e. a mother of blood type X and a 
> father of blood type Y cannot have a child of blood type Z.)
> 
> I suspect Clinton isn't responding to the call for a blood test
> because he doesn't want to lend any credence to another charge.
> -- 
> Proud to be part of the cultural elite!
> What the gamemasters wilt shall be the whole of the law.
> 	- Motto of the Hellfire Club, live-action roleplaying GM's
> Arthur C. Adams (not the comic-book artist)                        <fnord>

Thats using blood type, but aren't the DNA tests they have nowadays much 
more accurate and able to get a pretty good bead on whether you're the likely
father.

SEH
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Does (800) 368-1200 work?
Date: 2 Oct 92 01:35:48 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

ortega@cactus.org (Paul Ortega) writes:
:I've been trying to get a copy of Bush's _Agenda for
:American Renewal_.  I've called and called the phone
:number given in a newspaper article, (800) 368-1200.
:There has been no answer and I've tried for two weeks.
:
:On the other hand, I sent a postcard with my name
:and address to Clinton's P.O. box in Little Rock
:and a got a copy of his economic plan DAYS ago.
:
:And I mailed the postcard the day after the first
:phone call attempt for Bush's economic plan.......
:
:I guess that is something else I will remember in
:early November.

Sorry if that's the case. The text is online at nptn.org which you can
retrieve by anonymous FTP. If you want any help, I can get send
instructions.
-- 
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.
Organization: Engineering Design Research Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 22:21:45 -0400 
From: Alison Rebecca Colman <ac10+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: CWA and AFA

Hello,

I hope this is the right bboard to post this to. I would like to know if
anyone out there would be able to provide me with the mailing address of
Concerned Women of America and the American Family Association. Thank
you very much in advance!

Cheers,
Alison Colman
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: mci41087@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Occaisionally)
Subject: Parties are losers
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 07:25:29 GMT

I know this may not be the place, but I just thought I'd share a startling
network revalation.  From reading posts here and in the Clinton newsgroup, I
have come to the conclusion that Democrats are a bunch of semi-socialist 
whiners who will propably back out of their garnds schemes if it begins to
cut into their own pie, and Republicans are self-righteous bastards who are
convinced that the government, the most easy to corrupt entity in existence,
should actually control morality.  Sad.  Not as sad as my spelling above, 
however.  My apologies.


Matt I.
From: falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Economic Recovery Plan
Date: 25 Sep 92 16:33:03 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

In article <54TNRB3w164w@cellar.org>, kml@cellar.org (Scott Tiger) writes:
> 
> For a free copy of the economic recovery plan, call 1-800-272-9763.
> 
> 

  To be fair, I must ask:

  WHOSE economic recovery plan??  There are at least four floating around.

						Mike Falkner
						falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Bush's failing health
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:57:50 GMT

In article <5669@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>-jjs@sei.cmu.edu (Jeffrey Stewart) writes:
>->     I used to see the occasional "how the presidency ages you" story in the 
>->various news magazines, showing "before" and "after" pictures of past 
>->presidents.  The change was usually dramatic, even for one-term presidents.  
>->The change was always attributed to "the stress of the presidency."
>-
>-Well, President Reagan's hair looked EXACTLY THE SAME when he left office
>-as when he came in.  Though I suppose, Reagan didn't feel that much stress
>-during his presidency, what with the soporifics...
>
>Well, I thought Reagan's hair looked a little matted down, especially in
>the back of his head upon which one can snooze quite comfortably in an
>office chair.

thought he did a good job of snoozing standing up...


--
"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.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: gratrix@spot.Colorado.EDU (Jackie Gratrix)
Subject: New debate format
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:11:24 GMT

I would like to suggest a format for the upcoming presidential
debates, based on the 1970's game "The Gong Show".

With this format, you would have a moderator asking questions,
with a panel of three journalists who, when feeling the candidate
was lying, dodging a question, or giving a stupid answer, 
would then be at liberty to "gong" him.

Jackie