HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Nobel Laureates
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 19:46:09 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

jason@alpha.ee.ufl.edu (Jason Nadrowski) writes:

: The legal system is the one wasting the money.  Needless lawsuits & 
: exorbitent claims.  Clinton does not address this at all.

Seems to me that the government is the biggest money-waster in all of
this mess....

--
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                                     


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4604 alt.news-media:1184 talk.politics.misc:44409
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Date: 9 Sep 92 14:02:49
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
	<1992Sep7.200625.14617@leland.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Sep08.174533.29008@watson.ibm.com> <lasdquINNt4i@spim.mips.com>
	<1992Sep9.190004.20879@afit.af.mil>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jswitzer@afit.af.mil's message of Wed, 9 Sep 1992 19:00:04 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.190004.20879@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:

> Buchanan was a comentator--not a reporter or an editor.  Comentators and
> editorialists usually state their bias up-front and operate from it
> consistently.  News is another matter altogether.  People expect to
> get facts from their news, not opinions.

If this is so then people expect wrong, and they should learn better.
The choice of which facts to present, how much emphasis to give each,
and how to present them, cannot be made in an ideology-free manner.
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
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
	<1992Sep9.182041.13703@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:35:50 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.182041.13703@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:

[...]
   Oh yeah, I always trust my local beer-swizzling red-necks with fifth
   grade educations to give me their in-depth political commentary :-).

Oh, Dr. you are ever so smart.  Much smarter than those stupid smelly
rednecks.

   Seiously though... this is just another irrelevancy in a long string of
   irrelevancies being bandied about. It just proves that Bush can fool
   some of the people most of the time.

But you are just too clever to fall for that stuff, right Dr?

   Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: chrisf@csc.albany.edu (Slasher)
Subject: Bush's stand on abortion...
Organization: State University of New York at Albany
Distribution: alt.politics.clinton
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 04:03:52 GMT
X-Posted-From: thor.albany.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

Could someone enlighten me about Bush's stand on abortion?  I specifically
want to know how he intends to prevent those rich enough to travel abroad
from getting abortions in other countries if abortion was banned in the US.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
From: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas)
Subject: Informed voter (was Re: SC rally)
Organization: SPS
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 18:23:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.203312.7404@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
|> In article <ART.92Sep10113550@world.std.com>, art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
|> > 
|> > In article <1992Sep9.182041.13703@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
|> > 
|> > [...]
|> >    Oh yeah, I always trust my local beer-swizzling red-necks with fifth
|> >    grade educations to give me their in-depth political commentary :-).
|> > 
|> > Oh, Dr. you are ever so smart.  Much smarter than those stupid smelly
|> > rednecks.
|> > 
|> >    Seiously though... this is just another irrelevancy in a long string of
|> >    irrelevancies being bandied about. It just proves that Bush can fool
|> >    some of the people most of the time.
|> > 
|> > But you are just too clever to fall for that stuff, right Dr?
|> > 
|> >    Dr. Norman J. LaFave
|> > 
|> > 
|> 
|> That's right Al but it has nothing to do with being clever, it has to do with
|> refusing to have my attention deflected from the real issues by this
|> irrelevant crap. It has to do with
|> spending the time at the library  studying the facts of these issues
|> and the records of the candidates. It is called working to become an
|> INFORMED voter instead of a blind sheep or a random number generator.

Lighten up Dr.

Unless it's a hobby or part of your profession you're making a silly investment
of your time.  One vote won't change any election, therefore no wise voter will
work to become INFORMED.  I sincerely hope you have a better life than that.
-- 
Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com               

It is impossible to take in more money than Congress can spend.  - Thomas Sowell
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<1992Sep7.200625.14617@leland.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Sep08.174533.29008@watson.ibm.com> <lasdquINNt4i@spim.mips.com>
	<1992Sep9.190004.20879@afit.af.mil>
	<1992Sep10.181107.7909@kadsma.kodak.com>
	<1992Sep10.213233.9013@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 06:20:04 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.213233.9013@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:

   In article <1992Sep10.181107.7909@kadsma.kodak.com>, pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
   > 
   > In article <1992Sep9.190004.20879@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
   > >mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
   > 
   > [article deleted]
   > 
   > A small contribution to this debate: a magazine column I was reading last night
   > opens with the lines: "I have listened to NPR for many years; in reach and
   > scope it is far and away the best news radio operation. However, I am sometimes
   > driven to distraction by its persistent leftist bias..." (somewhat paraphrased)
   > 
   > The columnist: Morton Kondracke
   > The magazine:  The New Republic
   > 
   > 
   > Don Pajerek
   > 
   > 
   > 
   > 

   I'm sorry to interrupt but the use odf one biased source to prove the bias
                                      ^^^
Jezus, Doktor, I thought your spel tzchecher was between yure erz.  I
wish I wuz a Dahktr 2.  Then I'd bi az smard as u.

Allan R. Thompson, Ph.D.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.rights.human,alt.society.civil-liberties
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs (was Re: Clinton's Gestapo/Plan for takeover)
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 06:54:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.155846.13922@athena.mit.edu> jfed@athena.mit.edu.UUCP (Jude G Federspiel) writes:
}
}What percentage of people growing up with constant exposure to and use
}of illegal narcotics like cocaine, for example, would kill or rob for
}them?  I don't pretend to know, but I bet it's a hell of a lot more than 
}would kill or rob for money, which _everyone_ lives with.  But nice try.

Then why wasn't this a significant problem prior to the prohibition of cocaine?
Prescription cocaine costs about $7/oz., street price about $10Kper kilo.  Who
would need to steal for their coke habit at a free market price, which would
be less than the prescription price?  A lot less than do now, that's for sure.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.polit
From: tmark@cognet.ucla.edu (Terence Mark)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:10:02 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.133453.9536@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
>
>It is irrelevant because a.) Clinton was an 18 year old kid; b.) it has
>
How could Clinton have been 18 at the time ? I thought he was a
Rhodes scholar when he wrote the letter ?


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: csuah@warwick.ac.uk (~WISP at CU~)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Nobel Laureates
Organization: Computing Services, Warwick University, UK
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 11:09:59 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.195306.22724@eng.ufl.edu> jason@beta.ee.ufl.edu (Jason Nadrowski) writes:
>
>I fail to see how the restructure of health care (12% of GNP) within 100
>days could be in any way helpful for the American economy.  If you can
>not see DEPRESSION labeled on his plan, you must be near sighted!
>

What? The whole point of this restructuring is that the healthcare system
is crippling the US economy! 12% of GNP is about double what anyone else
spends (and for no better results), and that money is *wasted*. It doesn't
provide jobs, just goes to insurance companies and a small number of
shareholders who invest their money mainly abroad. That 12% is a huge drain on
the US economy, even without taking into account the limits the system places
on workforce mobility, the horrendous social consequences and the burden that
the spiralling insurance costs place on most every business in the USA!

Will that do for starters?

The Wisp. [leading the blind...]
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Chris Williams <csuah@uk.ac.warwick.csv> aka <csuah@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
"Tony Greig in the slips, legs apart, waiting for a tickle"
                                      Brian Johnson (thanks to A. Simha 8^>)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 13:13:35 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

     Did anyone see the 9/5/92 'Reliable Sources' show on CNN?
(This is a show that examines and critiques the media.)
CNN anchor Reid Collins, who was a guest on this show, admitted 
twice that he believes there is a pro-Clinton bias in the reporting 
of this year's election campaigns.  He was, however, somewhat 
apprehensive to give his reasoning behind this belief.
     Two questions that come to my mind are:
     1.  Does Reid Collins have some substantive, behind-the-scenes
         evidence for this belief that he fears sharing?
     2.  How much longer until CNN fires Reid Collins?

     C. Perttunen
From: skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Anti-Clinton posters
Date: 11 Sep 1992 16:03:37 GMT
Organization: X-Ray Crystallography / Howard Hughes Medical Institute


Why don't you Anti-Clinton people take your butts over to alt.election.bush.
and quit wasting so much bandwith, thats why there are TWO diff. groups.

Tim
CLINTON/GORE
Campaign '92


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Nobel Laureates
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 05:24:12 GMT

egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

>What Clinton is refering to is a plan put forth by the 6 (or eight)
>Nobel Prize winners along with about a hundred other economists
>a few months ago.  They called for many billions of dollars in
>infrastructure investment over the next 4 or 5 years.

Are you saying that these Nobel winners got together and developed a
plan that Clinton has since adopted?  While this is laudable, it is far
different from his campaign ads that claim that these Nobel winners
are supporting *his* plan.  Subtle, but very important difference.

-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 11 Sep 92 22:49:11 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
[someone's explanation of federal definition of militia, by law]

>You forgot the "well-regulated" part. And the "necessary to the security of a
>free state" part. You also forget that USC Title X does NOT override the 
>Constitution, and is therefore irrelevant, since the 2nd Amendment does not
>empower Congress to modify the operative definition of "militia" at will.

And what, pray tell, is that definition? At the time of the writing of the
Constitution, as stated in the Second Amendment, the militia is "the
people".  Period.  No other definition exists or makes sense, whether you'd
like it to or not.

The existence of the militia is "necessary to the security of a free state",
meaning a free society (according to the then-used distinction of state vs.
State or several States), and the RKBA is necessary to the existence of the
militia.  We have already established (several times, thanks to knowledgable
posters) that "well-regulated" cannot mean government-regulated, since that
would invalidate the militia's ability to maintain the security of a free
state against abusive government, and the Second Amendment clearly states
that the government may not infringe on RKBA (by the way, note the use of
the word states in that sentence, illustrating the need to carefully
determine exactly the meaning of a word as used before playing games with
it, Kevin).  Hence, the point is proven, and you lose.


Mike Ruff
U.T. Austin
 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Poverty
Date: 10 Sep 92 15:12:41 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <1992Sep4.140158.2029@engage.pko.dec.com> bender@riscee.pko.dec.com (Patricia Bender) writes:
>In article <1992Sep4.130143.12988@tamsun.tamu.edu> fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298) writes:
>>
>>	62% of the "poor" own a car
>>	14% of the "poor" own two or more cars
>
>Yeah, but do they run?  :) 
>
Good question.  On a dead-end street around the corner from my apartment building,
there are three guys (who seem nice enough) living in a truck.  And no, it doesn't
run.

     - Dave Borden
       borden@m5.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Clinton confuses quail
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 03:11:17 GMT

In article <BuC8IA.H8p@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell) writes:
>OK, let me get this straight, Clinton said cruise missles fly down chimneys,
>and Danny-poo said that it was actually Santa Clause that did that, right?
>

Or George Bush with his Sack-Full-of-Money on Election Day Eve.  He
knows (ex-CIA chief) who's been naughty (cultural elite) and who's
been nice (Ozzie & Harriet).

Ho ho ho.



--
"I wish there was a way I could vote for you a hundred times"
"There is . . . just kidding."
			-- _Bob Roberts_
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Clinton's Nobel Laureates
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 00:06:08 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Sep9.213953.8710@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>  
> One thing about our health care system.  It perhaps is true that we
> excel at providing exotic, highly technical medicine, but we are
> closer to the bottom among industrial nations in, say, infant mortality,
                                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> preventive care, and so on.  Preventing an illness before it gets
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> serious is generally cheaper, and our medical system tends not to
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> favor this approach to treating patients.  Doctors make more money
> as specialists, treating the exotic.
> 
     What you say about about the tragedy of infant mortality in 
the US is true.  The statistic would be even worse if you include
the 1.3 million abortions performed each year in the US.  We could
then modify one of your sentences to read: 

     Preventing an unwanted pregnancy by birth control is generally
     cheaper (in monetary and psychological terms) than having 
     an abortion...

So, I do agree with you -- responsible, preventative "medicine" 
should be preferred over reactionary "treatment."

     Cary Perttunen

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 00:19:14 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <PA146008.276.716169870@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>In article <BuD6LG.J5u@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>     I think you missed one.  Specifically, watching the network news
>is *easy*.  You've got your television there, click it on, and away you
>go.

  But NOT watching it is even *easier*, i.e, doing nothing is even easier
  than doing something even if that something is pressing "on" on the
  remote.  Also you can listen to news on the radio in your car if you
  have a car radio, or at home while you're doing other chores.   But
  however easy it is, this would not explain why, if TV's views really
  clashed with that of the viewer they would put up with it.

  But i'm the wrong person to ask since I don't know how anyone can 
  stand ANYTHING on TV.

---peter
From: heidi@wolf.net.com (Heidi Wolf)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: SF Bay Area Clinton campaign office?
Date: 14 Sep 92 21:05:01 GMT
Organization: N.E.T., Redwood City, CA

In article <1992Sep11.232844.4114@PA.dec.com> mok@fortsc.enet.dec.com (Charles
Mok) writes:
>
>Can someone give me a pointer to the SF Bay Area Clinton campaign office?


Not sure what part of the Bay Area you're interested in, but there
is a Clinton campaign office in Mountain View (2290 W. El Camino).
The telephone number is (415) 903-4699.  Someone at that office can
probably give you information about other offices in the area.


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4807 talk.politics.misc:44648 alt.rush-limbaugh:4533
From: richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.polit
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for p
Date: 10 Sep 92 18:26:47 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <1992Sep10.113614.29185@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes:
[stuff deleted]
>Why is it an irrelevant issue?  Because Clinton supporters say it is?  If 
>voters are concerned about Clinton's integrity than it should be an issue to 
>Clinton.
>>
>>> >
>>> >Dr. Norman J. LaFave
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Dr. Norman J. LaFave
>
>Commoner Jeff.

If one party had a monopoly on integrity then it might be an issue. However,
this is not the case. There is obviously an integrity gap with Bush over
Iran-Contra. There is another one with the Norriega business when he was
VP and when he was head of the CIA. Personally, I think that trying to predict
what someone might do based on things they have already done is only a
gamble. Who could have predicted the great commie basher Nixon would go to
China or that he would break the law later? If Clinton tells a different story
on his draft history, how is that any different than Bush telling a different
story on why he signed the tax increase? Or for that matter, does anyone wonder
if Bush knew what one of his sons was doing when he worked for a mafia type
down in Florida?

Face it, the day after the election the only thing that matters is where this
country is going for the next four years. The integrity issue will be gone
in a flash......
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
	<ART.92Sep11024425@world.std.com>
	<1992Sep11.151548.2253@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 17:30:39 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.151548.2253@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:

[...]
   Oh shove it Al. With the exception of the title in my .sig, which I have
   explained so many times I could spit, I have never LORDED my degree over
   anyone, even when I was under baseless attack (like now).
   Show me some proof from my postings where I used my degree as a tool for
   making an arguement.

Just what do you call it when you refer to rednecks with fifth grade
educations?

 I have used my research and my experience (as have
   others), but never my degree. Come on Mr. net.etiquette, let's see it.
   You know, a little ex-lax might do you alot of good.

   So I called the
   people at Darlington Red-necks... Big deal. a.) It was a joke, b.) I was
   making a point about in-bred biases being easy to manipulate, c.)
   nobody else seems to have taken offense to it, d.) the comment had nothing to
   do with my degree. It was a statement about the use of irrelevant
   smokescreens as a substitute for discussions of the issues (alot like the
   drivel in your posting), and the unfortunate effectiveness of such tactics
   with large blocks of the electorate.

   So why don't you go take your %$#* down the hall and tell someone who gives
   a &*(%^$$#!

It was the fifth grade educations stuff that sunk you.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,tx.politics