HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bobc@natinst.com (Bob Conyne)
Subject: Re: Election '92
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 20:39:26 GMT

In article <RBQIWZ2@taronga.com> kossack@taronga.com (Jordan M. Kossack) writes:
>judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
>- Does anyone know where this came from:
>- 
>- 		If I fool you once, shame on me!
>- 		If I fool you twice, shame on you!
>
>	It's a bastardization of an old Klingon saying: 
>	"Fool me once, shame on you;  Fool me twice, prepare to die." 
>
How can this be an "old" Klingon saying?  The Klingons won't exist for another
couple hundred years or so!
>
>- 	Remember this when you start to pull that lever for Bush!
>- 
>	Or Clinton, for that matter.  I don't trust either.  
>
Ah, therein lies the rub.  How to select the lesser of two abominations.
Say, is it just me, or has anyone noticed that what most Americans seem to want 
(whatever "most" and "American" means depends on your point of view) is a
candidate who's fiscal policy is somewhat conservative (i.e., will strive hard
to reduce Govt. spending and only raise taxes as a last resort) but who's 
social policy (specifically, as regards abortion, school prayer, pledge of 
allegiance, attitudes toward homosexuality and AIDS) is in the moderate to
liberal range?  Sort of the William Weld mold. I know that the '88 campaign
makes this argument questionable.  But Clinton's continuing lead in the polls
seems to indicate that the Reps. have succeeded largely on their economic 
record, and all indications are that the extreme right-leaning of the current 
Rep. platform and such crypto-Fascists as Buchanan and Robertson are hurting, 
rather than helping GB's cause.  

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Organization: Twilight Zone
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:35:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.230344.7605@news.Hawaii.Edu> blais@milo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Kristin Blais) writes:
>
>A technigue my brother learned in the marine corps for taking 
>out *dug in* tanks was to crawl up under the gun barrel, where they
>really can't see you, count the shots , and then dumb a grenade in
>the mussel while they reload. (and then run/slither like hell) 

	Well, unless tank design has taken a turn for the worse since I
	last studied them, it sounds as if the marines either are as dumb
	as they ever were (likely) or they really hate your brother.

	Being as the commander is often peering outside to see what's a
	happenin', I find it hard to believe that he would not shoot a
	marine that he spied crawling up the barrel of the main gun toward 
	the muzzle.  There are usually a couple of articulated machine guns
	available to the crew in a tank.

	Now durring WWII, certain individuals with balls the size of a Terex
	Titan, would stuff grenades into the exhaust port of a tank.  This
	would, on occaision, disable the vehicle.  Methinks that today's
	tanks are a bit less permeable.  The tracks are still the weakest point
	unless you happen to have a sizeable amount of thermite available to
	you, in which case you can punch holes through armor with fair ease,
	provided you can get close enough without getting your head handed
	to  you first.  

>This only works with certain grenade/tank combinations I believe

	I bet.

	Oh, another potential weak spot is the bore evauator, that cylindrical
	bulge about midway down the barrel.  If you can disable it, then life 
	becomes less pleasant for the crew as the cabin will fill with burnt
	propellant fumes every time they open the breech right after a shot.
	The main hitch is, they ain't that easy to disable, though AP ammo
	from a .50 might just do the trick.  Anyone?

	-Andy V.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298)
Subject: Re: CNN/Crossfire
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 13:10:11 GMT


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.


##############################################################################


The above opinions are my own. To my knowledge they are not shared by my 
employer or my friends. However, they should be.

If you receive more than one copy of this notice please pass it on to a 
friend.

Fred Seals
409-845-2298

##############################################################################
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:3738 alt.politics.homosexuality:5616 alt.politics.elections:12137 alt.rush-limbaugh:4161
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Family Values
Date: 1 Sep 92 18:12:22 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <AWERLING.92Aug31172210@dante.nmsu.edu> awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
>I keep saying this, but oh well...AMEN!  What a great story!  The GOP
>propaganda tool they dub "traditional family values" has nothing to do
>with values...it has everything to do with *rejecting* members of the
>family who don't happen to be straight, don't happen to be
>"conservative," don't happen to feel "Christian" all the time.

 Reread Bill Bennets speech at the convention. Family Values means relying on
your family members and surrounding neighbors for support, counsel and guid-
ance and not expecting a big government socialist program to cure all the
problems you have. It also means establishing a set of traditions or values
within your family which you think are important. 
 These values can vary from family to family but must be based on a foundation
of ideals. These ideals can be very simple. Dont steal, murder, use racism etc.
etc. The family unit can pass its value system along with is fortune down to
succeding members. Eventually the family becomes economically secure and might
even free itself from the bondage of labor. They still will have to pay taxes
though. At least for now.

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 3 Sep 92 19:23:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Gizmonic Institute

>
>This shows pretty conclusively that under a democratic president who would
>have vetoed decidedly _fewer_ democratically-pushed bills, our debt (and 
>deficit) would be MUCH bigger.  Oh, I'm sorry, I must have forgotten all of 
>the miraculous growth that would occur with all this spending, and the tax 
>revenues would roll right in, right?  Sure.	
>

There are always a good number of I-dare-you bils of all kind. Jesse Helms
used to introduce lots of bills with no possibility of passage, just to
get up-and-down votes on record for people he didn't like. Congress, in fact,
passed George Bush's economic recovery package back in March. Bush's own
package was vetoed! It, too, was part of the I-Dare-You game of politics.
Unfortunately for all of us, the Republican leadership in Congress took
one look at Bush's recovery package and said "No Thanks." So, Bush vetoed
his own package. Eheu. Yes, the Blame Game goes around and around. There
is no way to quantify the kind of money a Democratically controlled 
Congress would have spent had it felt that, yes, these dollars are going
on the Budget and You will be held accountable. It is not ridiculous to
suggest, for example, that the quickest way for Bidness to get its 
capital gains tax would be to vote in a unified Congress-and-Presidency.
The Dems can't let the Republicans get credit for anything and vice versa.

There is a shortage of serious, honest people up there.

-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> Write when you get the chance.
From: darsie@eecs.ucdavis.edu (Richard Darsie)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Bush's Vanishing Bounce
Date: 26 Aug 92 21:06:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California, Davis

Today's NY Times has a first-page article stating that Bush's
"bounce" in the polls from the Republican Convention has already
vanished.

Also, this week's Newsweek, which I consider overall to be a
politically moderate publication (certainly not Liberal), just
excoriates the Republican Convention as a display of hatemongering,
fearmongering, and out and out mendacity virtually unequalled in
the history of our republic.

Bush has had it.

Richard
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:3604 tx.politics:4674 alt.politics.bush:3607
From: bills@sequent.com (Bill Sears)
Subject: Re: CLINTON SPEECH TEXT: BUSH FETAL TISSUE VETO
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 23:44:10 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.210715.24108@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.175008.21615@sequent.com> 
>bills@sequent.com (Bill Sears) writes:
>
>> The government says "sure do your
>> research on rats, guinea pigs, and monkeys, and we'll give you money
>> for it.  But don't do any research using humans or we'll cut you off."
>
>I've seen no evidence for this accusation.  Substantiate it or retract it.

If you would take the advice the the originator of this thread and
obtain a transcript of the episode of "60 minutes", it's there.  The
person in the segment explicitly stated this.  That the law is written
so narrowly as to only preclude this research on human beings.  I don't
know where he got his information.  Ask him.

I would love to get the text of this regulation.  Does anyone know
where it can be obtained?

>The Bush administration fully supports fetal tissue research.

The Bush administration does "fully support fetal tissue research."
There can be no argument on that point.  But this support is only held
as long as the research does NOT use tissue from voluntarily terminated
pregnancies.  Even the administrations own experts including the person
who originally proposed the ban (a Reagan cabinet member) have stated
that the ban should be lifted.  In spite of these recommendations, Bush
has repeatedly vetoed bills that would lift this ban.

  bills
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: National Health Care
Date: 25 Aug 92 16:28:52 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Aug25.120451.7063@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>
>In Canada, I can go to any doctor I choose, and they give me great
>attentive service, since they want me to come back, and since they
>don't have to worry about whether I can pay or not.  Since they
>don't have to worry about my ability to pay, all they have to worry
>about is my health.   They don't have millions of forms from thousands
>of different insurers to worry about, but one set of forms from a
>single insurance payer, where fees are negotiated collectively by
>the doctors with the insurer, who happens to be the government.
>

You know it's funny Gerald but I just finished reading an article in 
September's Reader's Digest about the Canadian system and not everyone 
they quote is as thrilled as you are with the system.  Not the families
that have seen people die because urgent care was unavailable when needed,
not the 8300+ doctors that have left Canada to practice in the U.S. and
certainly not the people waiting in line for a service only to be bumped
back when some politician jumped line.

It's a very interesting article and one of the things they mention is 
the difference in levels of satisfaction with the system between those
people that think they have free services waiting for them but never
actually used them and those people that have actually counted on the
system to tend to their medical problems and came away less than happy.

So just out of curiosity Gerald what serious medical condition did the
capable and "free" Canadian system resolve for you?  Or are you just one
of those people repeating government quotes because you assumed the system
would work as they claimed, should you ever need it?

PSG

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4049 alt.politics.bush:4088
From: cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: Trade Imbalance
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:53:16 GMT

In article <BtGCM2.6us@rice.edu> kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.161727.5659@u.washington.edu> cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner) writes:
>- In article <wa#nn5c.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>- >"The first thing you have to do is disarm the people. A disarmed
>- >public can't fight back" -Adolf Hitler
>- >
>- 
>- Someone else in this room has repeatedly asked you for a source on this quote,
>- to which I have seen no response. Although the analogy to the armed American
>
>	Well, not being a NAZI historian, I can't verify whether or
>   not Hitler actually said what Crisp has attributed to him.  But 
>   the following may help illustrate how Hitler felt about RKBA.   
>
>  "... history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their
>   subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall" 
>                    -- Adolph Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938.
>
>-- 
> Jordan M Kossack   |   "To use taxes to cure a deficit is like using 
> kossack@rice.edu   |    leeches to cure anemia."    -- Ronald Reagan 
>  +1 713 240 2073   |   "Voodoo Economics!"            -- George Bush 
>  
Thanks. Crispin never did respond, so I assume he just made it up, or
paraphrased a "telephone-game" version of what you've just quoted.

Notice that the quote refers to "subjected peoples," by which Hitler
means conquered nations. At least ostensibly, he doesn't mean Germans.

As both the original poster asking for a reference and I stated in our
first requests for a reference, we don't doubt Hitler would have not liked
the idea of an armed population for the same reason. Just that he would say so
in public.

The whole thing had to do with the idea that good ol' patriotic Americans
with rifles are the last line of defense against an American government gone
totalitarian. Too many "action thrillers" from those awful Hollywood elite,
I guess.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,soc.women
From: dfriedman@misvax.mis.arizona.edu (D R Friedman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Bush Has Made At Least 1 Important Contribution to the USA
Keywords: bush contribution
Date: 31 Aug 92 12:07:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona MIS Department
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

I'd like to thank our glorious president for making an important
contribution to the country.  After becoming unemployed, and spending
countless hours filling out forms and standing in numerous lines and
becoming weary, I realized that I was just too BUSHED to deal with
the reality.  Thank God our presient's last name isn't something like
Hoover because I don't think I could be too hoovered  after spending
a day at the unemployment office.

I am not going to be too BUSHED to participate in the elections in November
because I would like George to feel what it's like to be unemployed.  Maybe
then he'll get it.  

Denny 
-------------------------------------
I'd say something about the GOP here, but I am just too BUSHED these days
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Crisp's Gestapo/Plan (Was Re: Clinton's Gestapo/Plan for takeover)
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 21:14:56 GMT

In article <82gnrnp.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>In article <7x3eln4@Unify.Com> ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
>>
>>	Clinton has *not* proposed a "National Police Force".
>>
>
>Begging to differ, my dear:
>If you check Clinton's Economic Plan speech and the Democratic Platform
>you will find the proposal clear as a bell.

To clarify matters, here's what I found in the copy I have:

	% Fight crime by putting 100,000 new police officers on
the streets. We will create a National Police Corps and offer
unemployed veterans and active military personnel a chance to
become law enforcement officers here at home. We will also expand
community policing, fund more drug treatment, and establish
community boot camps to discipline first-time non-violent
offenders.

Make of it what you will, but I find this a nice way to handle the
retooling of our economy and retraining of our military personnel, far
better than saying, "Bye, you've done your job, now get out of here."
With the statement about community policing, I'd venture that these
new law enforcement officers would be under local control than
national.
--
Sweet Thames, run softly till I end my song
Sweet Thames, run softly, for I speak not loud or long.
			-- T.S. Eliot, "The Wasteland"
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:3086 soc.culture.jewish:14869
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: CLINTON NEW TEXT: ISRAEL AND THE MIDDLE EAST
From: Yaakov Kayman <YZKCU@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Wednesday, 26 Aug 1992 13:39:33 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

I wouldn't put my chances of voting for Bush as any better than
that of a snowball in Hell, and with the slur reportedly made by his
Secretary of State and now campaign manager Jim Baker, according to
Maariv columnist and editorial-page editor of the English language
Jerusalem Post, David Bar-Ilan, I can't even IMAGINE why ANY Jew would
vote for Bush, who put such a person in such high positions (Yes, I DO
believe Baker made the remark below!),

     (Bar-Ilan had quoted a moderate Republican who, in 1990, spoke to
     Baker to express fears that the Bush administration's relations with
     other Mideast leaders, such as Saddam Hussein, would force Jews to
     leave the Republican party. According to Bar-Ilan, Baker replied

           "Don't worry, Jews remember the Holocaust, but they forget
           insults as soon as they smell cash.")

but it's a shame Clinton's pro-Israel position as now stated couldn't
have been made public while Yitzchak SHAMIR was Israel's Prime Minister.
It would have been much more credible, and might have actually done some
good.

To keep things in their proper perspective, all should, of course,
recognize that the November election is for President of the *United
States*, not for PM of *Israel.

Yaakov K. (yzkcu@cunyvm.cuny.edu on the Internet)

Views mine, not my employer's.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Gore's Definition of Pollution
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 19:37:09 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

     We all know of Sen. Gore's care and concern for the ecological
welfare of the planet.  On pg. 247 of his book, "Earth in the Balance,"
he gives us an indication of what he considers as 'pollution.'

     "Indeed, the first instance of 'pollution' in the Bible
     occurs when Cain slays Abel and his blood falls on the
     ground, rendering it fallow. ... God then tells Cain that
     his brother's blood has defiled the ground and that as a
     result, 'no longer will it yield crops for you, even if
     you toil on it forever!'"

Are these words typical of a mainstream, moderate, centrist politician?
Moreover, is there anyone out there in NETland that agrees with Gore's
statement?  I would be interested in hearing.
     On the lighter side, there is some benefit gained by this definition
of pollution.  Do you remember how the only way to convict Al Capone
was via the Internal Revenue Service?  If Gore is Vice-President, maybe
the Environmental Protection Agency will be able (or should I spell it
Abel) to convict murderers who slip through the courts on charges of
toxic-waste dumping.
From: fay@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: covenants and character
Date: 30 Aug 92 14:30:02 -0500
Summary: importance of agreement
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

Covenants do matter.

If I sign an agreement to be inselective service, even if I intend to skip the
country if drafted, I show very different behavior from someone who lets the SS
folks know that he won't sign up.

If I hear someone in one of the classes I teach make destructive comments and
do nothing, I exhibit different behavior from someone who does not allow  (say)
male-bashing in a class.

The issue is not if Bush's convenant was legally enforceable.  A promise to not
sell your house to any of "those people" is a repugnant promise.  A man who is
supposedly going to provide is with "moral leadership" has to meet different
standards than that to get my vote.

Of course, if you agree with the covenant he signed, that's your right.  (sigh)

P.S.  Clinton supporters having signed or not signed such agreements is
irrelevent.  So is having one Clinton backer agree or disagree on the issue
with other view-points.  If youi have a hard time following that, maybe you
have to think a little more clearly.


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:3972 tx.politics:4777
From: judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Date: 3 Sep 92 18:03:04 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

>	Re: Patrick Henry and "I hope this isn't a cruel joke."


		Jim, Duh, I didn't grow up in Virginia so, of
		course, I know nothing about the Revolution.

		It was a joke to me, but cruel to you!  Sorry,
		but I feel as I'm sluffing off if I don't offend
		at least one person a day.  

		You are correct, also, about my knowledge of the
		future -- I have none, neither do you, unless 
		there is something you haven't told us.

		Regards my knowledge of history, before college,
		my education was furnished completely by the
		corrupt liberal elite public school system in
	 	the USA -- therefore, I can't possibly know
		what somebody (presumably, like you) who had the
		benefit of a private education would know.  

		Also, I'm having a difficult time right now, so
		please be gentle.  You see, I've thought for some
		time now that the lunatic fringe was running the
		country, but I thought this was a somewhat recent
		event.  I didn't know until you pointed it out
		that this is nothing new. What, realistically,
		can be done here?


			Judy
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton