HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: elwin@ai.mit.edu (Lee Campbell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton blunder
Date: 9 Sep 92 13:16:46 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory

In article <1992Sep8.090031.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>, cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
- In article <27591@life.ai.mit.edu>, elwin@ai.mit.edu (Lee Campbell) writes:
- > In article <1992Sep4.184224.18782@cognet.ucla.edu>, tmark@cognet.ucla.edu (Terence Mark) writes:
- >> In article <1992Sep4.101956.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
- >> >
- >> >   I watched Clinton's speech to the American Legion live on C-SPAN,
- >> > and was outraged at the time at what I perceived he was saying (regarding
- >> > Lincoln having no military experience).  But, after looking at the 
- >> > text of his speech, I can see that he never claimed Lincoln had 
- >> > no military experience.  However, this is just another example of
- >> > his unprecedented political acumen (i.e. his slickness).  Let me show
- >> >      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
- >> [stuff deleted] > 
  [more stuff deleted]
- >> > I suppose if Quayle made this same speech, the headline on the NY Times
- >> > would read "QUAYLE MISREPRESENTS LINCOLN'S MILITARY RECORD TO GET
- >> > AMERICAN LEGION VOTE."
- >> > 
- >> >     C. Perttunen
- >> 
- >> Yes, and Democrats who would now argue that this point is irrelevant (along
- >> with the draft thing, the pot thing, and the (admittedly alleged) infidelity
- >> thing) would descend upon it like a swarm of hungry flies to a pile of
- >> steaming elephant dung. Of course this group would include the media.
- > 
- > 
- > Here is an excerpt from the speech in question; it was posted
- > to the net a few days ago. It sounds to me like Clinton's
- > summary about Lincoln is accurate. Decide for yourselves:

[Clinton speech quote deleted]
 
-      If you would have spent the time looking at my original post,
- you would have seen that I included this already.  And I gave
- a full analysis of it also.
- 
-      C. Perttunen

The question I was addressing was your question of Clinton's factual
errors vs Quayl's factual errors. You are objecting to Clinton's
interpretation of those facts. When Quayl gets called to task by the
press, it is because he gets his facts wrong. I re-posted the quote
of Clinton to show that (1) Clinton got the facts right, and (2) he
didn't omit any key facts. Contrast this with a classic Quayl quote
like "there are canals on Mars." Clearly Quayl's level of ignorance
puts him in a league of his own.
					- Lee Campbell
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5360 talk.politics.misc:45382 alt.rush-limbaugh:4797 alt.politics.bush:5079 alt.politics.elections:13098
From: judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for p
Date: 14 Sep 92 18:42:29 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas


	Dr. LaFave, I agree with most of what you post on this net,
	agree strongly. However, in a posting I just read you said
	[paraphrased] that the sad thing was how the people are
	still falling for that [Republican?] garbage.  

	It sounded, to me, as if you are implying that the people
	are dumb. I hope I just misunderstood you.  I believe that
	people are still falling for those lies because they've
	been told them over and over and over for the last 12
	years or more.  If you tell people something often enough
	for long enough, it begins to look true.  Kinda like
	why do women take their husbands surname upon marriage?
	Most people just want to do their jobs, enjoy their lives,
	and be left alone; they want to trust the government.
	But when everyone is calling everyone else a liar, it
	leaves little for people to glomp onto!  

	Are any of you netters actually getting out in your
	neighborhoods, etc., and trying to persuade the "uncommitted"
	voters?  I really don't believe any of us can really change
	a mind that is already made up, but lots of people still
	haven't made up their minds (I'm inferring that from the polls
	that seem to be in flux) -- if you REALLY feel strongly about
	a candidate, work on those folks who haven't yet decided;
	arguing with each other on these nets is fun, but we don't
	have much time left to play!


		Bye, Judy
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4462 alt.news-media:1158 talk.politics.misc:44273
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 04:30:24 GMT
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <EefHiK_00iUx88_Ih4@andrew.cmu.edu> "Michael J. Keating" <mk56+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Objective reporting is absolutely essential.  We have more than enough
>opporunities to hear and read interpretations of actors, fictional
>characters, commentators, politicians and a multitude of other speakers
>whom, come election year, are suddenly the most politically adept people
>they have ever met.  At a time like this, when we have to choose between
>the lesser of two evils, and so much mud is being slung, we have to know
>the basic facts!  We should know the stances on issues without those
>stances being reported to us through a biased observer.  If we run out
>of objective journalists, we are at the mercy of both candidates.  Who
>wants to be in that position?  I'd bet that none of us do.

	Well, I think you may be forgetting objective editting.
Yes, that's right.  The 'editor' of a newspaper or journal has a big
say in what is in fact published.  An editor will give you an assignment
to cover, let's say the Republican party before an election.  You
write a big, impressive piece which goes into depth and explores
thoroughly what's going on.  The layout is being set, and the editor
decides that the place where the story should go is much smaller than
the story you have. He takes a red pen and crosses out huge paragraphs,
hands the story back and says something like 'fix this up.'
	Finally your story has been broken down into a bare-bones
inverse pyramid structure that reads like the mortuary section.
	The point is, editors edit what goes into print.  The reporters
write and develop the raw copy.  If the editors are liberal then it is
not surprising if they give 3inches to a pro-Republican and 5 inches
to a pro-Democrat story.  Thus they will be able to be more liberal
with the red pen on the Republican story.  The result will be that
the pro-Republican story will be bare-bones or messed up, while
the pro-Democrat story will have room for long quotes and speculation.
	So, to be totally objective we must realize the stance of
our editoring bodies when we read a publication.

				J. Wagner


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.polit
From: walsh@spider.wri.com (Jerry Walsh)
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias -- no one else will
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 08:53:02 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.183029.16207@Csli.Stanford.EDU> mmarx@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Matthew Marx) writes:
>
>The "balance" being discussed here is one of the approach to the
>story. Case in point: the recent coverage of the respective
>candidates' visits to Florida. Nearly every television report I saw
>concerning the President's response to the disaster -- including the
>ABC analysis of Bush's speech by Stone Philips & friends -- ended up
>with a discussion of the President's political motives in visiting the
>ravaged areas of Florida, etc. [ . . . ]
>
>Contrast this with the coverage of Clinton's visit down there. I've
>seen little or no speculation as to his political motives in this
>situation. 
>
>As someone pointed out a couple of days ago, Bush does have some
>reason to be there in Florida: he sent in troops to help with
>emergency shelters and is in fact responsible for them. Why on earth
>is Clinton there? He's not about to send in the Arkansas National
>Guard. His main motivation can only be to win votes.
>
>This is the type of media bias I (and so many others) are sick and
>tired of. Indeed, the facts get reported -- most of them -- but with
>a nauseatingly blatant spin.
>
>-- 
>Matt Marx     mmarx@csli.stanford.edu           

If nauseating media bias is perceived, there is always the possibility
that some news consumer bias is to blame.  With respect to the Florida
visit thing, I agree that the President's visit was explicitly
referred to as political more than Clinton's visit was, but there is
an objective justification for that, resting on the very observations
referred to above about the respective official capacities of Bush and
Clinton in Florida.

When the president hops on a plane and heads for a disaster area, that
is considered part of his job as president.  I am sure George Bush
claims this to be so, and I am sure his expenses were paid out of
the Executive's budget, not campaign funds.  So, if the visit is
nominally apolitical, but political motives are obvious to
reporters, they ought to mention it.

Clinton is not President.  He cannot pretend to be on official
business in Florida.  _Everywhere_ he goes is political, and
we all know it.  Why would the media waste our time telling us this?

-------------
Jer.
walsh@wri.com

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: Biblical Bullsh*t
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Episcopal Church Foundation at UIUC
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 16:43:31 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

jon@Turing.ORG (Jon Gefaell (KD4CQY)) writes:

: I've been thinking about this lately, and the only New Testament Christian
: Bile^H^Hble references condemning homosexuality seem to have been written
: by Paul (Saul of Tarsus, taxman) IS this correct? You know what they say
: about Paul :)
: 
: I'd really like to know, I suppose...

To the best of my knowledge, this is the case.  However, you could make
the argument that "homosexual" has been mistranslated in these passages;
that Paul was referring to men molesting young boys rather than people
of the same gender having sex with one another.  I can't back up that
claim, since I am no Bible historian, but I have heard that argument
used many times.

All of which brings up an interesting point: if you are going to invoke
Bible passages as reasons for "why things should be," or if you are going
to attempt to take the Bible literally, at least consider the context
in which much of this was written.  God gave us brains; if She had
meant for us to follow Her blindly without thought, then why do we
have so much grey matter in our heads?

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"It was a great time.  Dan
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			 drank booze and chased broads
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 like his old man."
Anonymous: wi5467@wizvax.methuen.ma.us			--Dan Quayle's father
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher
From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Date: 10 Sep 92 18:33:20 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City

In article <1992Sep10.155104.37009@watson.ibm.com> johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:

>In that case, my pursuit of happiness requires that I be a millionaire.
>When can I expect my check from the government?  Sorry, it doesn't
>work that way.  The government isn't obligated to finance your rights.
>Health care is a commodity like anything else.
>
You have the right to pursue that million dollars if you so please. No where
is it written that the government WILL make you happy. Just that you have the
right to pursue it. Don't you think it's just a little bit funny that only
the US and South Africa are the *ONLY* industrialized countries in the *WHOLE*
world that think health care is a commodity?

Stan Knight
|Just because something is stamped "Made in America" doesn't mean there isn't|
|room for improvment.                                                        |
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
From: pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Patriotism (was Re: alt.politics.clinton)
Date: 10 Sep 92 21:30:14 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Virginia

It seems like a peculiar form of patriotism to allow Bush to continue to ruin
the country because of questions about Clinton's draft record.  The only
consideration should be: who will do the country the most good as president.
Bush's dirty campaigne tactics and his refusal to discuss the issues fairly,
in open debate, would appear to indicate that Bush believes Clinton to be
stronger on the issues and, therefore, better suited to the job.

Clinton has made a considerable effort to spell out his proposals in detail,
both before and after the Democratic convention.  He has even posted very
detailed descriptions of his proposals on this network.  Bush, on the other
hand, has done none of this.  What policy proposals he has actually released
have been vague at best.  Examples of Bush's half baked proposals include:
-Bush's health ``care'' proposal, which would cost twice as much as Clinton's
proposal and would not cover everyone.  Even the Republicans in congress admit
that they do not know how it will be paid for.
-Bush's spending cuts - the details of which he has refused to release until
AFTER the election.

It would appear that Bush does not have any real ideas for governing the 
country.  He therefore substitutes concrete proposals with dirty campaign
tactics which have, so far, included:

-lying about Clinton's tax record in Arkansas.
-making patently false statements about the efficiency and compassion of 
national health insurance and about how that system is working in Canada.
-dredging up irrelevancies through implications about Clinton's draft record
and aleged extramarital affairs.
-trying to start up another war with Iraq.
-handing out bribes to key voting blocks (eg. grain subsidies and loan
guarantees to Israel.)
-claiming, without any factual justification, that Clinton's policies would
exacerbate the nation's unemployment.  The reality of the situation is that
Arkansas, under Clinton, has enjoyed the nations fastest job growth over the
last 4 years while the US, under Bush, has suffered the longest recession
since the great depression.
-trying to blame congress for his own ineptitude.  (Quite a contrast with
Truman's "the buck stops here")

It is a sure bet that if (God forbid) Bush is reelected, his approval ratings
will plummet as soon as he starts to impliment his (undisclosed) spending cuts.
Unfortunately, by that time it will be too late to get rid of him.

Peter Lauren.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.rights.human,alt.society.civil-liberties
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs (was Re: Clinton's Gestapo/Plan for takeover)
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
	<machman.715744300@milton> <1992Sep6.060210.8083@athena.mit.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 22:44:17 GMT

Jude> == Jude G Federspiel <jfed@athena.mit.edu> 

 Jude> Tell me again that no one will kill or rob for drugs, and that no
 Jude> one would defend their legally bought drug supply from somebody
 Jude> out to steal it, possibly resulting in death.

Tell me again that no one will kill or rob for money, and that no one
would defend their legally earned money supply from somebody out to
steal it, possibly resulting in death.

Time to outlaw money, I guess.
--
Christopher Davis   | ]CALL -151       
<ckd@eff.org>       | *300: 20 DD FB 60
System Administrator| *3D0G            
EFF +1 617 864 0665 | ]CALL 768        
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:09:59 GMT

matrix@vaxb.acs.unt.edu writes:

> I'm curious, and want to find out how patriotic people are.  Bill Clinton
> dodge the draft.  I consider him a coward.  I just got out of the Marines and
> spent my time fighting for this country.  Why would I want to vote for a man
> that dodged the draft?

Whatever you do, don't vote for Dan Quayle!

> This is my question, are you really going to vote for this man?  A man that 
> runs from a fight.  What's going to happen if we end up in a war. (Which could
> very well happen with the state the world is in right now.)

Well, if you vote for Bush, and he wins, you'll have given the Religious Right
the green light to run the Constitution into the ground.  Some choice, eh?

> LIBERAL == An in-secure person, who is a scared hypocrit, believes in the rich
>            paying for everything, but for them not to have to do anything, 
>            and believes homosexuality is normal.

FLAMEBAIT == see above

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
    Not those mamby pamby wimp liberal "oh dear someone somewhere
    has done something unnice, I'll call the kare bears..." -- drieux
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4970 alt.politics.bush:4765
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Today show (and ramblings)
Date: 11 Sep 92 19:54:12 GMT
Organization: The Gizmonic Institute

Patricia Bender writes:

>I had the Today show on this morning as I was getting ready
>for work.  I thought I would share some comments about the
>segment with Charles Black from the Bush campaign and James
>Something (they never repeated his name after I decided to
>write the names down, so forgive my informality as to 
>referring to him as James) from the Clinton campaign.

I imagine it's James Carville -- who is the affianced of a similarly
employed Bush campaign factotum. The "bimbo eruption" lady. When cousins
marry, yes? 

>Black keep trying to bring up the draft issue saying that 
>Clinton was avoiding it.  James keep trying to bring up the
>economic issue saying that Bush was avoiding it by presenting
>trivial matters.  James made the point that the two of them 
>should not be discussing these matters, but that the candiates
>themselves should debate the matters publically.  

Bush's current languid campaign presence suggests one of 2 possible
scenarios: 1) he has given up or (more likely) 2) October will
bring CARPET BOMBING on the draft issue. I don't imagine that
Bush raised all that dough to shuck and nod through tepid re-hashes
of his Same Old Same Old. Clinton had better have a Better Idea
or - better yet -- a confessional tape from Jennifer with a J. 

-- 
Coach Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> 
Season: 0-1 Lifetime: 0-3 
I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you all to repent from your sins.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 21:06:02 GMT

MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
> Dr. Norman J. LaFave writes:
>> Jim Del Vecchio writes:
>>> How many of you saw this?  What did you think?  How many of you didn't
>>> know about this because your TV station or newspaper chose to deny you
>>> this knowledge?
>>>
>>Seiously though... this is just another irrelevancy in a long string of
>>irrelevancies being bandied about. It just proves that Bush can fool
>>some of the people most of the time.
> 
>Selective reporting is irrelevant? Only to those whose decisions are not
>affected by factual reporting, I suppose. 

        1) Why is a Republicoid campaign stunt ($600 paid to the pilot)
           news in the first place?

        2) The selective reporting charge is only an idle speculation on
           Mr. Del V's part.

        3) The New York Times today (9/9/92) has a story about the plane. 
           My local Republican rag declined to mention anything about it.
           They decided to concentrate on the issues raised in the speeches
           yesterday.

        4) Here one Bush supporters can enjoy: in the NYT article, it was
           mentioned that George Stephanopolous admitted pulling a similar
           stunt when he was working on the Dukakis campaign: when Bush
           raised the Great Boston Harbor Issue, and spoke with the harbor
           as a backdrop to his speech, a plane flew overhead with the
           message: BUSH IS TOXIC WASTE.

Good Democratic retort to Republican aerobatics: the Republicans can afford
to hire planes to drag their message around. Clinton just wants his message
on the bumpers of pick-up trucks across the country.

---
Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5435 alt.politics.bush:5137 alt.politics.elections:13136
From: Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Halcion
Date: 11 Sep 92 01:55:02 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a4@newshost.dartmouth.edu

Is George Bush still taking halcion? What are the effects of this drug?
Can his odd syntax been attributed to it?

Please e-mail,
fred.ringwald@dartmouth.edu
From: dmr@medicated.Corp.Sun.COM (Daniel M. Rosenberg)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: THIS GOVERNMENT IS BEING RUN BY A BUNCH
Date: 8 Sep 1992 19:30:13 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: dmr@medicated.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: medicated.corp.sun.com

In article 21190@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU, rbw3q@helga9.acc.Virginia.EDU (Robert B. Whitehurst) writes:
> In article <n1ln#0c.garys@netcom.com> garys@netcom.com (Gary Stollman) writes:
> >
> >I am Gary Stollman, the person who pulled the toy gun on Tv Consumer
> >Advocate David Horowitz on live television at the set of KNBC in 1987,
> >forcing him to read a statement on the air about how the CIA and aliens
> ....
> [major weirdness about aliens, clones, Reagan deleted]
> >-- 
> >Gary Stollman    Internet: garys@netcom.com     GEnie: G.STOLLMAN
> 
> 	Please let this be a VERY bad joke!  If not, this fellow
> REALLY needs help.  Anybody who's read the postings on sci.research
> by V.I. Fabrikant just before he started shooting people knows what I
> mean.


Gary's got all the outward markings of
full-blown paranoid schizophrenia, a disease (or group of the diseases)
that is about as well-understood as it is treatable -- that's to say, not very.

If it's any consolation --
One thing we do know is that the incidence of violent crime among
schizophrenic folks is actually lower than the general population.

Gary, if you're reading this, you should check and see if any of those
voices in your head are telling you to find a psychologist you can
trust. I'm pretty sure not all of them are clones.

[ Don't look at me, man, I've only got an A.B. in psych. ]

---
# Daniel M. Rosenberg        Dan.Rosenberg@Corp.Sun.COM   +1 415 688 9580
# Opinions expressed above aren't Sun's.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5188 alt.politics.bush:4937