HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Organization: SPS
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 01:17:31 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.052929.29520@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

|> 
|> >If he smoked some pot, why couldn't he just say he smoked some
|> >pot and leave it at that.  Other politicians have done it and it
|> >hasn't hurt them a bit.  We get: "I didn't inhale."  "I didn't break
|> >the laws of this land."  Clinton's got such a hard-on for this
|> >idealistic-unspoilt-young-jfk-reborn-with-a-southern-accent
|> >image he wants everyone to swallow, its clouded his judgement.
|> 
|> But again, "I didn't break the laws of this land" is presumably true.
|> It's evidence that he *doesn't* lie.  If he wanted to lie, he'd say that
|> he never smoked it. 

No way Dave.  He was asked if he did drugs and replied "I didn't break U.S. drug
laws".   Later he was asked did you ever smoke marijuana?  "Yes,  but I didn't 
inhale".  When asked to reconcile the 2 statements his anser was that he
smoked in England, thus not breaking U.S. drug laws.  But smoking
marijuana in England when he did broke English drug laws.

I submit that that is a lie.  Engage in all the hyper-technical lawyerly
distinctions you want,  it's still a lie.

|> Incidently, what should he have said if he *didn't* inhale?  (As he
|> himself pointed out, it's evidence that he ISN'T slick.  No politician
|> trying to make himself look good at all costs would say something that 
|> stupid, something which would make him the butt of jokes across
|> late-nite TV.)
 
He is slick and smarmy.  His tendency to be all things to all people and to 
have everything both ways got the better of him.  He made the "didn't inhale"
statement before he could reflect how stupid it was.

-- 
Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com               

It is impossible to take in more money than Congress can spend.  - Thomas Sowell
From: wood@siemens.com. (Jim Wood)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton and Responsibility (Contradiction in Terms)
Date: 15 Sep 92 14:24:44 GMT

kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:

[... other pathetic drivel is eliminated ...]

>The last time we had a veritable scumbag as President was when LBJ held
>that office ...

Ahem, what about Richard Nixon, the devious crook who tried to destroy
the United States Constitution he swore to uphold?  What about Nixon, the
petty tyrant who used an enemies' list to ruin people's lives?  What
about Nixon, the paranoid politician who manipulated the Democratic
primary process with dirty tricks?  What about Nixon, the perpetual liar
who bombed Cambodia to submission without the permission of Congress?

--
Jim Wood [jwood@siemens.siemens.com] (609) 734-3643
"Rise up on the wings of eagles, and two step among the stars.
 You are not forgotten.  Your smile will echo forever."
   -- Ryerson Schwark, to our friend Rob Bernardo.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45353 talk.politics.theory:4176
From: drm@esl.com (Don McGregor )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Was Clinton a Moral Draft Dodger? (was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Date: 10 Sep 92 16:19:36 GMT
Reply-To: drm@esl.com

In article <1992Sep10.065717.16708@Princeton.EDU>  
niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
> 
> Furthermore, Clinton had NO powerful insider connections.  News flash.
> Clinton was some average guy, with no multi-millionaire parents who
> could exercise influence.  

Flat-out wrong.  His uncle was pulling strings like crazy.  His induction  
physical was delayed by eight months, more than any other person's in his  
area.  They lined up a Naval reserve slot for him.

--
Don McGregor
drm@esl.com
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton and Responsibility (Contradic
Date: 15 Sep 92 21:15:28 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <lbca9eINNf7c@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc) writes:

> Theodore A. Kaldis:

>> There were a couple of young men who were working on Florio's campaign
>> who had accomplished some task in a manner that was, in Carville's
>> estimation, praiseworthy.  While Carville was thanking them, there was
>> a young female student who was interning at Florio's campaign working
>> at a copy machine nearby.  To show his appreciation for the young
>> men's performance, Carville said to her, "Suzy, front and center!
>> Bl*w jobs for these two young men right now!"

> I don't suppose you'd like to quote a source (verifable please) for
> this?  If you can't, please retract it.

This is anecdotal (obviously).  Take it for what it's worth.  I
retract nothing.

>> This is the kind of man that James Carville is, and this is the kind
>> of man that Bill Clinton associates himself with, because,
>> undoubtedly, this is the kind of man that Bill Clinton is himself.
>> (Ask Gennifer Flowers.)

> Ah! so to you Flowers is a credible witness.  [...]

Gennifer Flowers is hardly the ideal witness.  But she does have a
tape, and that _IS_ Bill Clinton's voice on the tape.
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45611 alt.rush-limbaugh:4905 alt.politics.elections:13200 alt.politics.clinton:5546 alt.politics.bush:5221
From: sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Pat Robertson and the GOP
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:06:55 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <1992Sep15.180401.26848@umbc3.umbc.edu>, alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
 
|> 	I don't care who thought it up, although I would be surprised
|> that a declaration of feminism included destroying capatalism. In any
|> case, all that really counts is:

I detest Pat as much as any body else, but what follows is false.
|> 
|> 	(a) Pat Robertson said this, recently, and with feeling.

Can you tell us where you heard this? If possible, a transcript would be
helpful.

This was part of a letter-campaign against an Iowa ERA campaign
and was drafted by a Robertson staffer and was only signed by Rev. Pat. However,
when asked about it later, the Rev. disavowed the statement.

|> 
|> 	(b) Pat Robertson is a respected GOP leader.

he's in the GOP alright. Whether he is a "respected" one is probably a matter
of opinion.

|> 
|> I suppose that there are more then a few republicans who Gack at #2, now
|> you know how moderate Dems feel about Jesse Jackson. None the less, the
|> GOP candidate had the good graces to recognise Jerry Falwell during the
|> convention (He hugged Jerry at the podium) so you'll have to really work
|> to pretend these guys arn't near the top of hte party.
|> 
|> -- 
|>                                Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services


-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.animals
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: Re: Cat Control!
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 23:48:16 GMT
Organization: N/I

In article <swood.716089764@vela> swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG) writes:
>julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) writes:
>
>`In article <1992Sep9.202410.1@vxdesy.desy.de> forbush@vxdesy.desy.de writes:
>`>You should try what they do here in Germany. 
>`>Because cats kill young birds in the spring and summer
>`>just make it legal to shoot a cat if it is off its
>`>leash in the spring and summer. That should solve the problem.
>`>
>
>`Gee, can you shoot dogs too if they're off their leash?
[ ... ]
>Dogs in this neck of the woods have been known to chase deer.  Though
>they seldom do any immediate harm to the deer, it is a scientifically
>proven fact that stress such as this on the animal (ie running a great
>distance) can cause burning of their winter fat layers and can attribute
>to starvation of the animal later on in winter as food supplys dwindle.
>
>In fact, there is a hunt club in the north-east portion of our county
>where hunters on horseback often use hounds to perform fox hunts.  Very
>often, these hounds get on the track or a deer and disobey their owners
>by chasing after the deer.
>When this crosses over into the hunting territory, I have very often heard
>stories from hunters of how they have "found" dead dogs in the woods
>shortly after hearing the baying of the hounds.  Though I do not personally
>advocate shooting dogs, I think that if I saw a pack of such chasing a deer

When I lived in Alberta about 15 years ago, it was part of the hunting
regulations that anyone was permitted to kill dogs seen chasing deer.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43871 talk.politics.mideast:19638 misc.headlines:6215
From: eggertj@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Fair Swap
Date: 5 Sep 92 03:34:40 GMT
	<1992Sep3.201539.9597@das.harvard.edu>
	<EGGERTJ.92Sep4121103@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu>
	<1992Sep4.181853.28566@das.harvard.edu>
Reply-To: eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu
Organization: MIT Lincoln Lab - Group 41

In article <1992Sep4.181853.28566@das.harvard.edu> adam@sparkle.uucp (Adam Shostack) writes:
>   ...
>   If, as you claim "International law does not mandate against Jews in
>   Jerusalem," then Jews can continue moving into houses in Jerusalem in
>   the meantime, and there will be no hue and cry, as long as the Army is
>   not building bases, but individuals are buying houses.

The Geneva Convention mandates against the construction of permanent
buildings in occupied territories.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I
don't think that these are restricted to army bases.

As far as individuals buying houses, then of course it depends on
whether the houses existed before the occupation started.

>   Fact is, when individuals buy houses, a hue and cry goes up that their
>   presence is illegal.

I wonder if the houses were just lying around, or were they built
under the sponsorship of the Israeli government, or were they
expropriated from the local indigenous population?

>   Its not "foriegn territory" it is, at worse, disputed territory.  If
>   its foriegn to anyone, it is not Jews. Jews have had a continuous
>   presence in Jerusalem for 1800 years, living in what is now "east
>   Jerusalem."  If anyone is, or was occupying it, it is the Jordanians,
>   who kicked people out in 1948, or the Arabs who rioted in 1936 and
>   1939, and chased people out of their homes.

The Israelis kicked people out of their homes in East Jerusalem in
1967 too.  Thus according to your own logic, East Jerusalem is under
occupation by the Israelis after all.

>   ...Its a logical error to say that Jews can live in
>   East Jerusalem, but the Israeli government has no right to be there.

There you go again equating Jews with Israel.  The two are not the
same.  Jews, for example, have the right to live in New York City
(Jake Livni lives there, after all), but Israel does not have the
right to occupy New York.
--
=Jim  eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: Canadian vs US health care
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 09:42:19 EDT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <92255.133552DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>, <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
|> In article <6tr-h9=@engin.umich.edu>, jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) says:
|> >
|> >In article <1992Sep11.142553.27021@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>,
|> >golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
|> >|>
|> >|> I suppose that you would heartily support the notion that all employment
|> >|> benefits should be treated and taxed as income so that employees of
|> >|> companies that can't afford health care don't have to subsidize the
|> >|> employees of companies that can.  In the US, the poor subsidize the
|> >|> health care of the rich.
|> >|>
|> >
|> >Would you care to back that statement up?  Most people in this country
|> >have health insurance, most get it through their employer where it
|> >results in a tax free benefit.  I would dare say that most people who
|> >have employer based insurance are not 'rich'.  As far as those who
|> >don't have insurance, most are not 'poor' but are in fact younger
|> >workers.  To say that the poor subsidize the health care of the rich
|> >is at the very least a gross overstatement.
|> 
|> The typical person without health insurance is an employed person who
|> works at a small employer.  The typical person who receives health insurance
|> through an employer works at a larger employer where wages are, on average,
|> higher.  The IRS estimates that the non-taxation of health insurance
|> transfers income FROM persons of low income (generally from persons at
|> the 20th to 50th percentile of the income distribtion) to those od higher
|> income (from the 50th to the 80th percentile).
|> 

I won't dispute the numbers you presented, because I believe they make
my point.  To say the the 'poor' are subsidizing the 'rich' is an
overstatement.  A more accurate statement would be to say that people
with lower middle class incomes are subsidizing those with upper
middle class incomes.  This is still a problem, which is why people
who purchase their own insurance should be given the break, not people
who get it from their employer.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for p
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 11 Sep 92 16:37:57 CDT


In article <1992Sep11.152200.11549@anasazi.com>, best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
> In article <1992Sep10.182647.27390@technology.com> richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy) writes:
> >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.
> >
> >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.
> 
> It is _not_ obvious at all.

Yea, Weinberger was probably just joking when he made the notes showing
Bush in the loop.  That Casper, what a joker...

>                              If there was anything obvious about this 
> case then we would have had many convictions (which hasn't happened)
> for the tens of millions that have been spent.

There were convictions, but they were overturned because the the convictions
used the convicted peoples own testimony, after being promised that it would
not be used.

> >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?
> >
> Look, anybody can _say_ anything to get elected.

Ain't that the truth.  Read My Lips...

>                                                   The real indicator of
> how they really will react is by examining their past behavior. 

Like failing to notice when the country is in a recession?

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Subject: "No New Taxes!"                 (*)For the rich
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 20:25:52 GMT


                --------------------------------------
                Study: 90% Pay More due to Tax Changes
                --------------------------------------

    "WASHINGTON-- 90% of American families pay more in federal taxes
    now than they would if the tax laws existing in 1977 had been left
    in place, Citizens for Tax Justice reported Thursday.

    But the very rich, as a result of tax-law changes over the last 13
    years, are paying up to 36 percent less than they would have, the
    group said.

    The results are similar to finding reported two weeks ago by the
    Congressional Budget Office.

    Several congressional Democrats cited the report as additional
    proof of their contention that the Reagan and Bush administrations
    pushed changes in the tax law that reward the rich and penalize
    everyone else."

[From: Chicago Tribune, 3/9/90 p.12. While our Free Press reports
"Read My Lips" etc as front-page material, this little fact, affecting
only 90% of their readers, was reported by the Tribune in the tiny
note I've just reproduced, near the bottom of page 12.]
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: st1ns@rosie.uh.edu (Ault, Russell W.)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 02:31:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.221026.15271@isrc.sandia.gov>, smlacke@isrc.sandia.gov (Scott M Lackey) writes...
>From article <1992Sep14.110355.4510@hemlock.cray.com>, by rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson):
>> 
>> 
>> Great, just when the public is figuring out the che "check bouncing"
>> scandal is false, a new accusation is floated...
>> 
>	I'm not sure that many people are really figuring it out.  It takes
>effort to get the relevant facts, but the non-fact-related sensationalism
>was impossible to avoid hearing about for a couple months.
> 

Most people that I've heard discussing it seem to be able to separate out the
Congresspeople who were writing checks against an agreed overdraft protection
in a prudent manner, from those who were blatantly writing themselves frequent
and sometimes substantial loans by abusing that policy.  But as most have
commented, given what they do with the public's money, what did anyone expect
them to do with each others'?    

Now if I could just figure out why I found the original post in rec.humor....


If it's green, it's Biology.           
If it stinks, it's Chemistry.
If it doesn't work, it's Physics.
If it stinks and it doesn't work, it's Poli Sci.
If it's green and it stinks, it's Business Admin.
If it's green and doesn't work, it's Economics.
If it's green, stinks, and doesn't work, it's a Federally Funded Program.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: record album stickering
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 14:57:08 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Sep15.141029.341@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>In article <BuMB24.50s@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep15.010027.18091@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
>>(Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>
>>>Putting a rating on an artistic work defaces the work and constitutes
>>>censorship...or certainly a form of censorship.
>>
>>  Gerald Olchowy seems to think that if he keeps repeating the 
>>  "labels = censorship" mantra it will become true.  
>>
>
>And you seem to think that if you keep repeating the the mantra
>that "rating labels aren't a form of censorsip" that it will become
>true.

  Study logic: the burden of proof is on the one making the positive
  assertion.  


>Because you are accepting of this mild form of censorship, and this
>mild form of censorship may have wide public acceptance, doesn't
>make it any less censorship.

  You haven't shown that it IS censorship.


>A "ratings label" has someone, some official, who examines the artistic
>material before r, d based on its contents makes a change to
>that work by attaching a label to it. 

  No one is proposing changing the work.  Attaching a label to THE BOX
  containing the work does not change the work, any more than putting
  a price sticker on it, which, as was noted before, *also* modulates 
  demand for the work.
 
  Moreover, ownership and right to modeify a commercial work, as was
  also noted before, also belongs to the producers, editors, and others
  besides the artist, so if they DO decide to make changes to the work
  this is perefectly OK as long as the artist has a contractual
  arrangement giving them that right.

> The censorship may be mild, but it is censorship nonetheless.

  Again, saying so does not make it so.   It's not censorship unless
  the material is banned from sale, or I am banned from buying it.



---peter





Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
From: elle@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ellen Keyne Seebacher)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss,ba.motss
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: 13 Sep 92 00:20:50 GMT
Reply-To: elle@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

cramer@optilink.UUCP (******* ******) babbles more than usual:
>The homosexual fascist lobby ... [blah, blah, blah] ...
>the homosexual fascist lobby ... [blah, blah, blah] ...

Can anybody give me the address?  I want to contribute.

--
Ellen Keyne Seebacher            elle@midway.uchicago.edu
  "******* ******, **** ****, and **** ******* could ... proclaim to
   the world that I could walk on water without my special sandals ...
   and I would still think they are scumbags."  --Jess Anderson