HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp)
Subject: Hiding? Who's hiding? was CRISP: WHY ARE YOU HIDING?
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 92 18:37:07 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Keywords: Buttfucker, Lee, Campbell



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
(415) 903-3832 wk  "Time for a clean sweep of Congress"   (408) 253 4541 fax

A government that is afraid of an armed populace is a government
the populace should be afraid of.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: elambert@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Eber Lambert)
Subject: Re: Family Values
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 00:51:06 GMT

sdbst5@gl.pitt.edu (Stephen D Brener) writes:


>1) What is the difference between Democratic and Republican family values?

Basically the Republicans figure that each family member is worth $2000 or
so and you should be forced to have a family member by law even if you 
dont want to once you are in a family way.
They also believe rich families should have better 
access to health care, education and legal aid than poor families.
Republicans also allow businesses and corporations to qualify as families.

Democrats figure families are good for another 10% increase in taxes 
supposedly for the betterment of society as a whole (issues mentioned above). 
Democrats support the right of a woman to terminate a potential family 
member while it still resembles a prawn.
Democrats allow gays and homeless folks as well as endangered species and the
environment to qualify as families.

>2) What are examples of republican 'family values' policies?

Rep: Cut taxes for corporations and the rich so they'll come up with
 opportunities for the poor and working class while basking in their opulence.

Dem: Tax the rich and corporations to help the poor and working class 
  so they'll be smart enough to realize they dont want the jobs offered by
   by the rich and now near bankrupt corporations.

Rep: Funnel money in to a wasteful/inefficient war machine to create jobs

Dem: Funnel money into wasteful/inefficient social programs to create jobs.

>3) How will they help to bring down the unemployment rate and the budget 
>deficit?


Neither will do either.

>4) Who thinks that campaining on a 'family values' platform is goofy?

Well its the only thing most of the American public understands. Remember
we're asking a culture which pays mediocre baseball players 50 times more
than its best scientists to pick the most powerful leader in the world. And 
this years leading litmus test is the likability of the candidate's wife. 

-eel
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The surest sign  intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe
is that none of it has ever tried to contact us"    --- Calvin
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: lav4208@venus.tamu.edu (VAN AUSDELN, LEO ANTHONY)
Subject: re: More on Clinton's plan
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 06:48:00 GMT


Here is another item in Clinton's plan that has problems:

#      6. National Service Trust Fund. To give every American the
# right to borrow money for college, we will scrap the existing
# student loan program and establish a National Service Trust Fund.
# Those who borrow from the fund will be able to choose how to
# repay the balance: either as a small percentage of their earnings
# over time, or by serving their communities for one or two years
# doing work their country needs as  teachers, law enforcement
# officers,  health care workers, or  peer counselors helping kids
# stay off drugs and in school.

If students can repay their loan through such community services, what
will they get paid?

If they get paid the prevailing wage, then they would not be working off
their loans -- they would just be paid the same rate as everyone else
who's already doing that same kind of work.

If they get paid less than the prevailing wage, how are people who are
already doing those things for a living going to feel about a bunch of
other people doing the same kind of work for less money?  Seems to me
that the unions aren't going to be too happy about it.
--
David Olson            dlo@drutx.att.com
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they
can bribe the people with their own money."  Alexis de Tocqueville


	Mr. Olson;
	It is worthy of mention to note that for many student loan programs,
	what clinton proposes is already being done. ie:
		work off part or all of loan balance thru military
		   service, teaching in a "poverty" area, various other
		   government services (peace corps, ...).

	The difference betwwen his proposal and the current state of
	student loans, as i see it, is the broadening of who qualifies
	and the broadening of repayment methods. nothing drastic other
	than a much needed overhaul. As for the questions regarding repayment,
	i think if you work in a specified field for a specified time,
	a specified fraction of your loan is excused. I dont think the
	loanee works for the government. He simply qualifies for exemption
	depending on profession (making the union argument moot), very
	much as is done today.
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: Family Values
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:46:29 GMT
Organization: The Gizmonic Institute

Chip Switzer writes:
>Michael Lax writes:
>
>>Bush, Quayle, et al, seem to be more interested in silencing and demeaning
>>their gay and lesbian children (assuming, of course, that they had any).
>>So much for their family values.
>
>Yeah, kind of like how they'd both disown their kids if they chose to
>have an abortion?
>
No. "Disown" is too strong a word. But they'd insist that they do their time...
then, they'd put their arms around them and welcome them home.
-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> Write when you get the chance. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: lcypher@nuchat.sccsi.com (Louis Cypher)
Subject: Re: Setting some of Bush/Quayle's lies straight...
Organization: /etc/organization
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 11:58:19 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.185439.10068@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark Taylor Evert) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.162609.6892@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> 
>lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
>> Historical precedent: he already has---- 11 times. You see, we don't 
>have to
>> rely on rhetoric in this campaign to make our decisions,
>> Bush and Clinton have records to
>> evaluate...Clinton's is good and Bush's is a joke.
>
>As governor of California, Reagan balanced the budget each time, too.  
>Like Clinton, he had no choice.  Both California, Arkansas, (and Texas, by 
>the way), mandate it in their laws.  Bush has never been governor of 
>Texas, but if he had been, Texas budget would have been balanced, too.   
>Therefore, Clinton's record in Arkansas, as far as budget-balancing is 
>concerned is meaningless.
>
>Mark T. Evert
>Friendswood, TX
>
>My opinions are my own.

Well...all that says to me is that the president should be required to
balence the budget too...Who cares if it is required or not? He did
it didn't he? Unlike Bush who didn't even PROPOSE a balenced budget.

Doesn't matter anyway...the election is already clearly over...
From: yount@crchh473.BNR.CA (Jeff Yount)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: re: Clinton's Connections
Date: 3 Sep 92 14:40:53 GMT
Reply-To: yount@crchh473.BNR.CA (Jeff Yount)
Organization: BNR

One other item I forgot to include in my last post is that the
allegations about Clinton's help from his dead uncle come from
none other than a former Republican candidate for Governor in
Arkansas. Now there's a reliable ( not to mention unbiased )
source. And another thing, why are the republicans always basing
stories on the actions of dead people that can't speak for
themselves? 

jeff.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,soc.women
From: kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall)
Subject: Re: CLINTON SPEECH TEXT: BUSH FETAL TISSUE VETO
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 00:09:59 GMT

In article <1992Aug23.040215.5512@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>In article <1992Aug22.205605.26961@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>President Bush supports federal funding of fetal tissue research.
>>The Bush administration has set up a fetal tissue bank that will 
>>collect fetal tissue from spontaneous and ectopic pregnancies.  
>>This will allow researchers to gain access to fetal tissue for 
>>their research needs.  
>>
>>President Bush does not support funding of research which involves the
>>use of fetal remains from elective abortions, because this might have 
>>the effect of lending legitimacy to abortion, and helping to encourage
>>abortions.  
>
>Yep, you and Bush are 100% right.  Why, just the other day, one of my
>female friends said to me:  "There needs to be more fetal tissue for
>research.  I'm going to go out, get knocked up, wait 8 weeks, and then
>have an abortion.  I just love that wonderful feeling I get when my
>cervix is being dilated."
>

 One of the TV news programs did a segment on the need for fetal tissue
 research.  A preacher in Florida, who is anti-abortion, had a child die
 of a genetics disease.  Their 2nd pregnancy was determined to carry the
 same genetic flaw and the preacher spent his resources to get fetal tissue
 to correct the flaw in utero.  Their 2nd child was born with less severe
 symptoms and may survive.  The preacher WAS adamantly anti-abortion, but
 he's singing a slightly different tune, and he's definitely pro-fetal 
 tissue research.  "If they're aborting them anyway..."

 So the news program looked into the issue of "aborting because the tissue
 would be used for a good cause".  The one private research program that is
 conducting fetal-tissue research without federal funds (very limited and
 very expensive), approaches women AFTER they have made a decision to abort.
 They are asked to sign a form allowing the aborted fetus to be used for
 research.  He claims that a large majority refuse to sign the form.

 (*sarcasm on*    How can that be when the abortion is used as
                  birth control and the woman doesn't want to
                  be inconvenienced?!   I'd think they'd all be 
                  signing that form and asking for money to boot!
  *sarcasm off*)

 This strongly dispels the president's fears.
   
 Janice Kendall    kendall@adobe.com    ...!{decwrl|sun}!adobe!kendall

        "Giving power and money to the government is like giving 
         whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."  

		- P.J. O'Rourke, former gulf war correspondant, summing
		up what he learned during two years of research on how
		our government functions.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco)
Subject: Re: Bush's Vanishing Bounce
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 19:06:41 GMT

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


>Er, well, Newsweek has the reputation of being to the left of, say,
>Time, but do you remember their Gulf War coverage?  Lots of soldiers
>holding their thumbs up, lots of hawkish sentiment.  

I'm sure they did. They have to stay in business you know, so I'm sure
they thought it wise to set aside their partisanship ( and maybe even
go the other way) in order to sell more subscriptions.
From: dave@gergo.tamu.edu (Dave Martin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton Schedule for 9/1-3
Date: 2 Sep 1992 17:33:00 GMT
Organization: Geochemical & Environmental Research Group, Texas A&M University
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <168566C28.JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com>, JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com writes...
}Whose son or husband or brother died while Slick Willie was laughing
}at the system?  Do you want this coward and liar to protect you?

I don't consider anyone who disapproves of a war (particularly if it is not
a war to defend our nation directly - i.e., a war on American soil) to be a
coward. As for "who died", I could care less. It wasn't my war, it wasn't
America's war, and those who were ignorant enough to march silently into
death because they were told to are not my problem. While it is sad that
so many were lost in a useless war, there is little that can be done about
it now other than preventing our current President from continuing the tired
tradition of sending troops to other countries in so-called "defense" of the
American way. The only problem is that he *will* force another confrontation
with Iraq before the election (or worse, after he loses the election in Nov.)
to ensure his own political victory. Trust me on this - just as you would
trust Bush to improve an economy that he refused to admit was in a recession
for two years.
I've heard a greater quantity of fabrication from the Bush camp than I've
heard from the other. Perhaps Clinton is telling more lies than I am aware of,
but Bush (and Quayle) are telling theirs openly. Of course, it's the things
that Bush *isn't* lying about that scares me away from that side of the fence.

 -                                                                     -
 - Dave Martin - Geochemical & Environmental Research Group, Texas A&M - 
 - DAVE@GERGA[GERGO,GERGI].TAMU.EDU - BROOKS@TAMVXOCN.BITNET - AOL:DBM -
 -                                                                     -
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: CNN/Crossfire
Date: 28 Aug 92 13:51:27 GMT
Organization: The Gizmonic Institute

Fred Seals 5-2298 writes:
>
>Tim writes:
>
>>We can put up bias claims all day "Why dont they trash Quayle when he
>>badmouths Clinton's not serving in the Army when what Danny did was just
>>about the same thing. 
>
>Fact:
>	Dan Quayle did not do just about the samething.  Dan Quayle like many
>	during the Viet Nam Era used all the pull and influence that he had
>	to get into the National Guard.  He served. He met his obligations to
>	his country.
>Fact:
>	Bill Clinton received an induction notice. (This notice ment you were
>	drafted and would have to report for service.)
>	He applied to be in ROTC.  ROTC would not take anyone who had been 
>	inducted.  The ROTC advisor is on record saying that had they known
>	Clinton had been inducted he would not have been accepted into the
>	ROTC.
>	Clinton then (after receiving a deferment for being in ROTC) resigned
>	from ROTC.  He did this once he knew he would not be recalled.
>
>Tim many of us that were of the draft age during the Viet Nam war used every
>legal meand possible to avoid service in Viet Nam.  Some joined the National
>Guard or the Coast Guard, some sweated out the lottery, and some used other
>means that were legal.  I have more respect for those that went to Canada than
>I do for someone who violated all rules and regulations, lied about it and now
>wants to be able to send my son to war.
>
I find the Viet Nam War avoidance of Clinton and Quayle about the same. It
wasn't exactly our best war. I don't recall hearing about the Viet Nam service
of George Bush's sons. For the life of me, I can't imagine anyone in their
right mind objecting to anyone using all of the finagling at their disposal
to have avoided it. People like Newt Gingrich went into the "ministry."
Now, these finagles are being sanitized for politics. They don't need to
sanitize them for me, but for lots of others, apparently, one finagle is
more noble than another. I think that the finagles are transparent and
the sanitizing is transparent and pro forma. Your mileage and objections
may vary with your party allegiances. 
-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> Write when you get the chance. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: jfed@athena.mit.edu (Jude G Federspiel)
Subject: Re: Aren't KILL files great?!
Reply-To: jfed@athena.mit.edu.UUCP (Jude G Federspiel)
Organization: MIT Project Athena
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:51:41 GMT


In article <1992Aug25.205939.16633@u.washington.edu> roger@wrq.com (Roger Fulton) writes:
>I just started reading this newsgroup today, and the
>first thing I did was:
>
>/^From\: crisp\@netcom\.com/hK:j
>
>Yahoo for KILL files!

That's the way to encourage intelligent discourse!!  Remove all 
dissenting opinions, and have a party full of all your buddies who
say the same thing and feel real good about themselves.

Jude Federspiel
jfed@athena.mit.edu


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:3175 alt.politics.bush:3108 talk.politics.misc:42217
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: National Health Care
Date: 27 Aug 92 02:37:24 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <BtLJyM.EvL@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.033838.5246@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>  Clearly Mr. Coffman has never been poor.  Poor people don't have 
>  $2500 dollars to pay out-of-pocket.  Nor do they have the money
>  I mentioned above for more conventional insurance.

Oh, I understand poor all right. My father never earned more than
$3,000 a year in his life. We didn't have electricity in the house
until 1954 when I paid for it. And I used to take a grass sack and 
go out along the tracks picking up coal that had fallen off the unit 
trains coming from the mine so we could heat the house and cook. I 
ran traplines and had nets in the river for money and food. I know poor.

>  It's this "let them eat cake" attitude by people like Coffman which
>  hands the health-care issue to the liberals on a platter.  When the
>  liberals finally push through some bureaucratic monster of a govern-
>  ment solution it's the Coffman's of the world, who don't have aclue
>  what life is like for millions of people living in the real world
>  who will be to blame.

Jim Baker put it a little more bluntly. He said, "Fuck'em, they didn't
vote for us anyway." Yes, I don't have much sympathy for the poor. In 
most cases it's their own damn fault. I've been there, I've seen it,
I've lived it. I got out of there. They can too if they've got any
grit.

Gary
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: nancyg@banshee.bellcore.com (Nancy Griffeth)
Subject: Re: Liberal definition (was Re: Current views of Liberals . . .
Organization: Morristown Research and Engineering
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 17:52:38 GMT

In article <3432@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
|> In article <14fclaINN6af@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU writes:
|> >Here are some more horrible (dictionary) definitions of Liberals;
|> 
|> Gee Stephen these are really good but why did you not complete them?  Don't
|> worry I'll finish them for you.
|> 
|> >
|> >1) having views that favor civil liberties, democratic reforms,
|> >   and the of government power to promote social progress.
|> >
|> 
|> ...civil liberties for everyone except white heterosexual males who can
|> be discriminated against at will, thrown in jail if they refuse to financially
|> support children they didn't want and the women that chose to have them...
|> 
|>  
|> >2) favor freedom of the individual to express and act in a manner
|> >   of their own choosing.
|> 
|> ... Unless the speech of expression is offensive to a minority, woman or
|> homosexual.  Then they classify that as "hate speech" or sexual harrassment
|> and outlaw it...
|> 
|> >
|> >3) Tolerant of ideas or behavior of others.
|> 
|> 
|> ...tolerant so long as the ideas or behavior is compatible with their own,
|> otherwise we outlaw it.
|> 
|> >
|> >4) tending to give freely; being generous.
|> >
|>  
|> ... being generous with money that they have not earned themselve but instead
|> find easier to steal from others, commonly refered to taxes, the operational
|> definition of - taxing the wealthy being NOT ME! 
|> 
|> There now we have the whole picture.
|> 
|> PSG

I've always thought the ACLU was liberal, but how would you classify
someone who opposes speech codes and will fight for anyone's rights,
no matter what their beliefs and what the cost?  Recently, they have supported a
student suing a university for throwing him out for violating a speech
code (I think this was the Brown University case) and back in the 70's, in an
unbelievable display of courage, they helped the Nazis stage a march
in Skokie Ill (this is a largely Jewish community).  They lost a lot
of support at that time, since they were heavily supported by Jews.
My impression is that they are remarkably consistent in their support
of civil liberties.  Of course, I suppose there are lots of other people
who call themselves liberal but cut out when the going gets rough.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:3847 alt.politics.bush:3884 alt.politics.elections:12255 alt.rush-limbaugh:4208
From: skywalker@DINO.QCI.BIOCH.BCM.TMC.EDU (Timothy B. Reynolds)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: CNN/Crossfire
Date: 27 Aug 1992 13:47:17 GMT
Organization: X-Ray Crystallography / Howard Hughes Medical Institute

Oh what a joy to watch the right wingers crying on Crossfire last evening
about the liberal media electing Bill Clinton. Where were these people
when the media was trashing Clinton in Jan. ???? The best comment of the 
night was that the media only metioned the J. Flowers story three times
on the news. 

Face it, the Republicans are running scared !

Tim
Clinton/Gore
Campaign 92'
From: msheldon@luna.dpl.scg.hac.com (Marti Sheldon)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Aren't KILL files great?!
Date: 26 Aug 92 00:08:56 GMT
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA


Yeah, I kill crisp, psg, and ra.  This newsgroup is so much
better for it.  I highly recommend it to all intelligent readers
who can't stand Buchananism (my new term for their form of fascism).

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: mike@uunet!tellab5!odgate (Mike J. Kelly)
Subject: Re: Clinton and the draft (was Re: CNN/Crossfire)
Organization: Odesta Corporation
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 19:23:07 GMT

dredish+@cs.cmu.edu (David Redish) writes:

>Lastly, we cannot compare the decision to fight in World War II
>with the decision to fight (or not to) in Viet Nam.  I know many people
>who are practically pacifists, but who went to World War II because
>we had to stop the Nazis.  My great uncle, a beatnik and a hippie,
>someone who marched against Viet Nam, and believed in pacifism, volunteered
>to go to World War II.  And I am told his proudest picture is him in
>his WW II army uniform.  The two wars just are not comparable.

The New York Times put it well this morning (paraphrasing) Bush, like most
men of his generation, volunteered to fight in the popular war.  Clinton, again
like most men of his generation, did whatever he could to avoid fighting in
the unpopular war.

This isn't to put down Bush's service, or to necessarily excuse Clinton's
waffling, but to simply say the two wars are not comparable.  The social
situation was entirely different.
-- 
--
Mike Kelly               Odesta Corporation, Northbrook, Illinois, USA
...!clout!odgate!mike    - Until odesta.com is registered.
odgate!mike@clout.uucp   - From the Internet.