HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: emiddlec@mora.gac.edu (Eric Middlecamp)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: You're NO John Kennedy
Date: 8 Oct 92 01:43:35 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.115633.4568@desire.wright.edu>  writes:
>In article <7610059@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM>, myers@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Bob Myers) writes:
>>> Hello, everyone,
>>> 
>>> Who said "I knew John Kennedy. You're no John Kennedy", and to
>>> whom was it said? Could you phrase it exactly, more or less?
>>> 
>>> Thanks!
>>> Nick
>> 
>> Sen. Lloyd Bentsen of Texas, then the Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate,
>> to then-Sen. J. Danforth Quayle of Indiana, during the 1988 Vice-Presidential
>> Debate.
>> 
>> A closer quote is "Senator, I knew Jack Kennedy - Jack Kennedy was a personal
>> friend of mine.  And Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy!"  Not exact, but that's
>> the best I can dredge up from my memory.  As I recall, Quayle had no reply -
>> he just stood there looking somewhat stunned.
>> 
>	He was not stunned, he was angry.  He said "that was uncalled for,
>Senator", much to the delite of the audience present.  (But not the media.)
>
>Brett                                                      
>_______________________________________________________________________________
>Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
>Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
>Disclaimer:								   NOT!

Just goes to show that Republicans take fiction over fact.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: robart@agora.rain.com (Robert Barton)
Subject: Re: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
Organization: Organization
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 03:14:27 GMT

  [ soc.singles, talk.abortion, talk.bizarre, alt.sex,
    alt.politics.homosexuality, and alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
    removed due to obvious irrelevance                    ]

In article <1992Oct8.215753.7283@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM writes:
>
>>When 75% of the jobs are in small businesses, imposing such legislation
>>will only result in greater unemployment.
>
>Second News Flash: the bill won't affect small businesses. It only 
>                   affects businesses with more than 50 employees.


  Why the discrimination against businesses with >50 employees?
From: casseres@apple.com (David Casseres)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during V
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:26:56 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Oct12.040312.8072@anasazi.com>, john@anasazi.com (John R.
Moore) wrote:

> I notice that once again the liberals are trying to twist this issue
> around into what it isn't: red baiting and McCarthyism. Naturally this
> is easier than dealing with the real issues:
>   -Bill Clinton was out of line for demonstrating against his own
>    country IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY. It wasn't against the law, and it
>    doesn't make him a communist, but it is wrong to take internal squabbles
>    outside the country.

Why?

>   -[Clinton's character problems -- no argument on that point.]
>   -The Soviet Union was an enemy of the US at the time, and they were using
>    the peace movement as a weapon against us, and the fact that Clinton
>    went to Moscow while a member of that peace movement indicates at least
>    very poor judgement.

Please explain just how the USSR was "using the peace movement as a weapon
against us," and why it was poor judgement for a member of that movement to
go to Moscow.  This ought to be fun.

--

David Casseres
Exclaimer: Wow!
From: lbaum@bcsaic.boeing.com (Larry Baum)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Russians Release '69 KGB Blackmail Film of Clinton in Drug Orgy...
Date: 12 Oct 92 05:14:38 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle

In article <10OCT199215471015@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
: Am I supposed to put faith in Brave-Bill because of his "vacation?"
: 
: John Kennedy had back problems to remind him of the PT-109 incident.
: 
: Bob Dole has a useless arm from shell fragments which shattered 
: vertebra when he was leading an attack on a German machine gun nest.
: 
: Bob Kerrey has a prosthetic leg from a grenade blast where he led
: an attack on an Viet Cong Bunker, and still continued to direct
: the charge till the medivac'd him.
: 
: Jim Stockdale had his leg broken twiced and can't raise an arm
: because of the beating and torture the Viet Cong gave him since
: was one of the leaders of the POW resistance.
: 
: And Brave-Bill-Clinton lead anti-war protest while at college
: and in Britain. The emotional wounds he suffered required R&R
: in Moscow & Prague, I reckon. 
: 
: What did he do that I should put faith in him? 

Perhaps instead of looking for someone to have faith in, you
should try to figure out who has the most reasonable plans for
dealing with the very serious problems we face.  To most
people it is blatantly obvious that Bush falls way short on
that score.  Perhaps Perot's plans are better than Clinton,
perhaps not.  You seem to think that the Presidency is some
reward we should bestow upon the most "deserving" or brave
individual.  I'm trying to decide who will most likely restore
economic well-being to this country.  People are hurting very
badly out there.  Maybe Clinton is who we need inspite of your
misgivings about his lack of military experience.

: 
: Where is the evidence of his leadership -- if he only played 
: a minor role in the peace-movement?

He has demonstrated leadership as a Governor of a State, just
like Reagan. 

-- 
Larry Baum
Computer Science Organization
Boeing Computer Services     uucp:       uw-beaver!bcsaic!lbaum
(206) 865-3365               internet:   lbaum@atc.boeing.com       
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: Perot...Get off his back!
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 16:05:03 GMT
Organization: Austerlitz, Gershovitz, and Carmichael

Richard Caldwell writes:
>
>I was a mild supporter of Perot from his early statements and became a
>strong support after reading "United We Stand" during the time that
>Perot had dropped out.  On one hand I agree with you that many people
>who aren't really interested in what Perot has to say (ie supporters
>of Bush, Clinton or some other candidates) are ignoring Perot's ideas 
>even when he talks about them.  On the other hand, I think that Perot 
>sets himself up for it by making some false assumptions about his
>audience.
>

I don't have a problem with Ross Perot's pay-as-you-go plans. His
tax on fuels to raise the necessary $$$, the restrictions on
entitlements etc. I do have 2 problems w/ the Movement though:

1) I don't think Perot is a serious man about governing. Had he
   wanted to truly govern, back in early spring or so when he first
   felt the tickle and the country responded, he could have
   contacted people like Stockdale out in the several states
   to run with him. Instead, what we have is a belief in rule
   by magic. I can just imagine Republican's who frothed at
   Bush's 1990 tax going along with Perot. And Democrats who
   would feel that Perot's PR finessed them out of their
   years of work -- they're going to be clapping their wee handies
   in anticipation of working with him? Right. Perot would have
   no constituency beyond the folks who voted him in & that
   would not be enough. A friend at work suggests that Perot
   would not be adverse to using, umm, files and dossiers to
   replace the magic of Party Loyalty. And this guy supports
   Perot!

2) Ah, his audience. Like it or not, my feeling from the net
   suggests that Perot is appealing to the Last Remnant of 
   the Tribe of Ronald. I think many are responding to Perot's
   charisma rather than to his This is Gonna Hurt A Bit 
   message. I don't have any problem w/ his message: it's the
   same one Walter Mondale and Paul Tsongas preached. I
   just get the feeling that people are responding more to
   the crustycute messenger and won't really want to pony
   up when the time comes.
-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu>
Nobody knows, from sea to shining sea, why we are having all this trouble
with our republic.
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Media coverage for Marrou/Lord (call these #'s!)
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 22:25:19 GMT

In article <BvtLr5.I7o@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>Coincidently enough, when Perot first re-entered the race, his supoort
>>was about 1%.  Yeah, now he's up to 10-14%; maybe it has something to
>>do with the hours of free advertising the press has been giving him...
>  I don't doubt it, but so what?  Aren't they within their rights to 
>  to this?

Of course.  Libertarians are also within their rights to shout about it.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: Perot's 1st "Infomercial" (and he didn't ask for your vote)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:36:00 GMT

ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill) writes...
> 
>   You didn't see any fixes because that will come in part II this Friday. To
>fix a problem you must first understand it. Perot took an entire half hour to
>show you all the problems. Think about that for a second. As to your remark
>about it being "nothing new". 

Which is what Perot said he was going to do in the Gumble Interview (Today 
Show) posted earlier. Their just trying to spin you up Thomas.

>Perot is willing to bet the American people are sick of being told
>what political people think they want to hear. 

Or cover-up what they don't want them to hear. For instance have you
heard about the continuing resolution that is keeping the government
running right now, until the new federal budget is passed into law?

There's a $1.5 Trillion budget being worked on in the senate now, to
send to the president shortly -- but the media isn't reporting it.
When congress get's through with it, it'll have $1.17 T in revenues
and $326 Billion in borrowing. And Congress will go home to their
own re-election campaigns without having done the hard work of trimming
out the pork and prioritizing the rest.

Bush ought to veto the budget -- but he won't -- it's the same size
he submitted.

>Maybe it will take another four years of blood sucking 
>before we realize we aren't being shown reality?

Not me. I'm on a general boycott of all extra spending until responsible 
government is restored. In good conscience, I *can't* participate in the
rape of our children. 

-- Stephen Tice	   "Out on a spending strike"

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:52453 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5523
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Quayle on Rationing (was Re: GORE/QUAYLE/STOCKDALE: VP debate text (10/13) part 2/2)
Date: 16 Oct 92 16:37:54 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Oct16.034015.9420@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

>In article <1992Oct14.191711.18252@cc.gatech.edu> barrett@cc.gatech.edu (James Barrett) writes:

>>  Remember when we rationed energy in this country?  Waiting lines at
>>the gasoline stations.

>	He mixed up cause and effect here. The rationing was _because_
>of a shortage, to insure that everyone had their fair share.

No he got it right.  It was the rationing, the regulations and the
beaurocracy that caused the shortages.  There is plenty of evidence that
the actual drop in shipments was quite small.  It was congresses panic and
the presence of regulations that were designed for another era that
caused most of the pain.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: New this fall on TV ...
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:19:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.181501.7840@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> 
> >dsholtsi@csl36h.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> 
> >> What is so upsetting about looking at a picture of an aborted
> >> fetus?  If the pro-abortion people can say that a fetus is 
> >> nothing more than a "clump of cells", then there should be
> >> nothing wrong with allowing children to look at a "clump of 
> >> cells", right?  Or is this another example of their stinking 
> >> hypocrisy?

Followed by:

> I said nothing about operations to remove human tissue, I was talking 
> about the tissue itself.  There's nothing upsetting about viewing 
> a heart, a limb, or a piece of cancerous tissue.  If the pro-aborts
> can say that a fetus is nothing more than a "clump of cells" just like
> any other human tissue, then they shouldn't have any objections to 
> letting children look at this "clump of cells". 
> 
> No, it's just another example of the hypocrisy demonstrated by 
> the pro-aborts.

Well, if we want to talk abotu liars and hypocrites, if this
is still about that lawsuit brought to halt the abortions
being shown on television by some political candidate in
the midwest, the suit was brought by a woman because it
was upsetting to her children.  The woman who brought the
suit is PRO-LIFE, and the suit therefore shows nothing
about pro-choice people.

Doug, this was pointed out to you once before, but you insist
on being the biggest liar I have ever run across on the net,
so you don't even acknowledge this simple fact.  I am amazed
as hell when you manage not to tell a lie or toss a red herring
in a posting (like that nonsense about a dishonest doctor -
there's a story today in the Asbury Park Press about some
malpractice by ob-gyuns, so maybe we should close down
obstetrics altogether, just pass a law against it).  Fact
is, I can't recall a single honest posting by you.  How do you
manage it?  Does it take training and years of practice to
be that big a liar?  Do you take seminars on falsehood?

You keep claiming not to be religious.  But you lie so much
and so often that I have to take anything you claim to
be a lie until it is supported by an honest resource.
In consequence, as you insist on being as insulting to
others as possible by using the misleading term (what else?)
"pro-aborts," I label you the ultra-religious Doug Holtsinger.
A true theist is our Dougie.  In fact, I am certain that
his entire opposition to abortion is based on his religious
convictions.

Dean Kaflowitz
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50466 alt.politics.clinton:9302
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Date: 9 Oct 1992 06:07:38 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: avalanche.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Oct8.145350.4639@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:

>	My father, when he was working with the government on various black
>programs was simply not allowed to travel to Eastern Europe (much less USSR)
>because of the nature of his work.  If he had gone, he would have lost his
>clearance.  Even though our family root trace back to Hungary, Poland, and
>parts of former E. Germany.  We simply couldn't go.

>	Remember, this is military intelligence we're talking about.

Stupendous, I see how you have gotten yourself confused.

Someone who holds a high-level security clearance is not permitted to
travel to the Soviet Union or other Communist country. I believe the
higher the clearance, the longer you can't go after you retire, too.
(Well, ex-USSR.....)

However, someone who has visited the Soviet Union can easily get a
security clearance afterward. There is a fear is that the person
with the security clearance will either defect or be abducted. If he
goes BEFORE he has the clearance, then there is no possible problem. Got
it?

It is simply a matter of record that tens of thousands of Americans went
as tourists to Russia, even in 1969. They were not all KGB recruits, and
I'll bet plenty of them got sensitive jobs later in life... like the
Reagan-appointed judge.

andy
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.misc
From: wayne@mathematik.uni-Bremen.de (Wayne Tvedt)
Subject: Re: Why do Clinton and his net.apologists insist on DODGING this question?
Organization: 250 Million Pet Rocks
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 11:06:46 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

StarOwl (StarOwl@uiuc.edu) wrote:
>ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>>...
>We?  Singapore's participating in this election?

  Yes we.  Germany too.
  Some Americans live in foreign countries.  About 3 million. 

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Perot and Mortgage deduction
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 12:49:47 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Oct9.211302.19575@cbnews.cb.att.com> nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell) writes:
>From article <BvvEFD.1KE@apollo.hp.com>, by nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson):

>>   The answer is "vigorous".   Clearly Perot's proposed cuts are just
>>   not vigorous enough.   The point that Caldwell and other Perotistas
>>   just aren't "getting" is that a $1.1 trillion federal budget (i.e., 
>>   the size of government you get after sufficient cuts to balance
>>   spending with revenue) is LOTS of money.  It's still 20% of GDP.   
>>   That's not exactly some libertarian minarchy!
>
>Usenet readers with a modicum of reading comprehension will recall
>that this argument was already answered in the very post Peter Nelson
>is quoting.

  Except that this is not an "answer" . . . 

>Not even Bush believes that spending cuts alone will work.

  No, Bush does not believe that *his* spending cuts will work.   
  Nobody is doubting that spending cuts can eliminate the deficit . . . 

>You can talk about 1.1 trillion being a lot of money until you're blue
>in the face.  Congress is _not_ going to cut the budget that much as
>things stand today.   

  What's being doubted is that such cuts are politically feasible with
  the existing Congress and voter sentiment.   They say it's politically
  unrealistic.   This may be, but why is it MORE realistic to assume
  that tax increases can be enacted that will not simply result in
  higher spending?  As Perot himself pointed out in the debate last
  night, for every $1 increase in taxes, federal spending has gone up
  $1.83!    So either the spending-cuts or tax-increases-applied strictly
  -to-the-deficit assume a radical change in Congressional and political
  realities.   If we're going to have a fantasy why don't you prefer mine?

  The government is simply too big a part of the economy and of our
  lives.  Both for the sake of eliminating the deficit and reducing 
  the role of government in our lives it must be reduced in size and
  influence.  As I said, a $1.1 trillion federal budget is still
  huge; it's still 20% of GDP and big enough to warm the cockles of
  the average liberal's heart with its capacity for spending on social 
  programs and so forth.

  We stand at a crossroads where we are presented with a clear choice:
  Increase taxes or reduce the size of government.  I can't see how any 
  rational person would not prefer the latter.


---peter

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: saarinen@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Sirpa Saarinen)
Subject: Re: Anti-war = Anti-country?!
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 21:36:30 GMT

cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster) writes:

>Jason Austin writes:

>      The point Bush was making is not that Clinton was involved in
>   war protests, but that he was supporting the other side.  He
>   apparently went to Russia to protest against America.  

>WRONG.  He participated in, and organized, some war protests in the US
>and UK.  He was a tourist in the USSR; there's no connection.

>	   One thing I wonder is why Clinton is avoiding this issue
>   completely.  Instead of coming clean, ...
>                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>THERE'S NOTHING TO COME CLEAN ABOUT!!!!  What is there to say but that
>he spent a few days in Moscow?  

>While we're at it, when will you come clean about what you did last
>June?  We're waiting for an explanation!

Me too! But don't ask me what I did last June.

I just read an article in one of those clari.news....-notesfiles which
say that "the KGB does not have any information of a tourist called
W. Clinton from those days". Of course now this might cause some people 
to say: "it *proves* that Clinton is not clean" (since he was/is an agent).

It appears endless: if the KGB would have admitted knowing about
young Clinton, he would be damned, and now (I bet), since the KGB
*denies* knowing about Clinton, Clinton is damned as well (clear, using
logic above)! I don't know what to think anymore about this. Maybe I should 
just wait for the debate and find out.   
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: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 00:31:59 GMT

In article <Bw4vD1.KA1@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>
>Certainly.  If abortion is illegal, child support laws have to be given
>some very real teeth.  Men have to be made to be responsible for their 
>actions.  However, if abortion is legal, men should be able to shuck 
>child support (i.e. legally "abort" the unviable tissue mass and all
>that might ensue).  You can't have one without the other.

This is the second time in as msny days this thought has been posted.
While at first glance it seems to make sense, but if you think about it
for a minute you'll see why it doesn't.

First of all WHY have child support at all?  Why is it necessary?
Because of the child.  The child has certain needs and some of these
needs require finances.  Sometimes the woman is not able to meet these
financial needs by herself.  The logical choice to which to turn is the
natural father, if he is able.  Child support exists because the child
needs it. 

SEcondly, why punish the _child_ because the mother didn't want an
abortion?  Why should _her_ decision about this put undue stress on
her child's life, especially when there is a father who is financially
able to support his child?

What you are advocating is that financial considerations be the sole
determination of whether or not to continue a prenancy.  PErsonal
feelings mean nothing at all.  IF the woman coulnd't afford to raise
the child alone, then she should abort, even if she doesn't believe in it.

Well, that surely let's the man off the hook, doesn't it?
And, forces a woman into a medical procedure in which she may not believe,
or think is morally right.

But what if we have that thinking, then if a man WANTS to support his
child, and is able to do so, then the woman should not be permitted to
abort at all--because the money is there.  If money is the sole criteria
for aborting, then it surely must be the sole criteria for continuing.

Kinda sounds like baby-selling, doesn't it?

I don't know about you, but this kind of thinking really turns me off.

Sometimes I don't think people think about the child--and it is a child,
there's no doubt about that, once its born.  

Jennifer