HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gt6367c@prism.gatech.EDU (DEAL, DOUGLAS WAYNE)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Date: 16 Oct 92 06:28:53 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology



In article <85108@bcsaic.boeing.com> lbaum@bcsaic.boeing.com (Larry Baum) writes:
>In article <71249@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt6367c@prism.gatech.EDU (DEAL, DOUGLAS WAYNE) writes:
>: 
>: If he really
>: wanted us to stop the vietnam war, he would have stayed in the U.S. and
>: protested in the streets of America, burning his draft card and risking
>: arrest.  



>That's nonsense.  Millions of people actively opposed the war
>without burning their draft cards.  Why do think that there
>was exactly one correct way to oppose the war?  It's real easy
>to look back 23 years later with perfect hindsight and say
>what people should have done.  Those of us who lived thru it,
>unfortunately did not know how things would turn out, we had
>to make it up as we went along.  Choices were hard.  Some
>people burned their draft cards and spent their whole time
>working against the war; millions of others tried to maintain
>as normal lives as possible while still doing what they could
>to oppose the war.  


I did not imply exclusivity by not stating other forms of protest.
I was only stating an example of protesting in the streets of America.
But still, if he tried to avoid the draft in the United States, and protested
in the US, he would have risked arrest. 










-- 
Douglas Wayne Deal
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt6367c
Internet: gt6367c@prism.gatech.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: <None>
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 13:38:08 GMT

mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:

>In article <1992Oct3.031102.1065@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>> 
>> But when I talk to a pro-choice advocate, abortion seems to be the only
>> choice they want to discuss.  Here's a good choice for couples: abstinence
>> until they are fully ready for children.  
>
>NOT!!  doesn't this even go against the "Christian perspective"????
>I mean, how the Hell could you even consumate a marriage??  What if
>you already have plenty-o-kids?  You can't have sex until after
>the woman reaches menopause???

St. Paul said that husbands and wives should not deprive each other of sex
except for a brief time, and then, only for ritual purity.  And then they
should return to having regular sex so that they 'do not stray'...

Paul understood the sex drive, at least.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Anti-war = Anti-country?!
Date: 9 Oct 1992 19:54:28 GMT
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

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.  It is one
|> thing to peacefully protest an American policy in America, but it is
|> completely different to support an enemy in time of war.  Would you
|> vote for Jane Fonda for President after seeing her in an enemy
|> anti-aircraft battery pretending to shoot at American planes?  We are
|> not talking about just another American citizen; this is someone that
|> wants to become the most powerful man in the country.
|> 
1.  At no time did Bush say Clinton protested the war while in Russia, 
although he did mix the protests in England and the vacation in
Russia in the same sentence.  You just got suckered by Bush's
hoping you would make the connection that doesnt exist.

2.  At the time Clinton included Russia in his European/Asian vacation
trip at winter break, Russia was not the enemy.  There was indeed a
cold war, but we were in the middle of detante.

3.  Visiting Russia was not unusual, nor did it imply devious intent.

4.  I am hoping that you are just kidding about this and aren't dumb
enough to take to pieces of data and invent a non-existant conspiracy.

|> 	One thing I wonder is why Clinton is avoiding this issue
|> completely.  Instead of coming clean, he is use the old higher than
|> the other guy political maneuver, and people are falling for it.  I
|> believe I should know everything about a person's past and attitudes
|> before I trust them with the power of the presidency.

How do you come clean about something that didn't happen.  Do you
remember who you met with on a vacation over 20 years ago?  Hell, 
when I am on vacation, I try not to meet with anyone, and I'm 
usually successful.  Please post what questions you think that 
Clinton hasn't come clean on.
|> 
|> 	I think what Clinton is trying to do is hide his radical
|> past, since he is attempting to come across as a moderate.
|> Historically, the American people do not vote for radicals.

What radical past?  He agreed to being against the Vietnam war and
participating in rallies.  That was not a radical position by 1969.
It was majority America.  He also agreed to visiting Russia on
his vacation.  That was not unusual, not unamerican, and not
important.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51090 alt.rush-limbaugh:7159 alt.politics.bush:8721 alt.politics.clinton:9851 alt.politics.elections:16229 talk.abortion:42066 junk:38812
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,junk
Subject: Re: And Hence Abortion is NOT Murder
Date: 12 Oct 1992 09:29:06 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <eyrdz5v@Unify.Com> ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.104147.12858@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>Indeed!  We should do all in our power to prevent all abortions AND
>>murders!  Throw EVERYONE in jail! 
>Or do something faster, easier, cheaper, and no less legal!  Force all men
>to have vasectomies!  


Sorry, don't think it would work.

Recently now, they determined a rape wasn't a rape because the rapist used
a condom 'at her request'.  Use of birth-control apparently implies consent
to sexual battery now-a-days......


Adrienne Regard
.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mpye@netcom.com (Michael Pye)
Subject: Re: Next Perot ad?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 10:41:45 GMT

skrenta@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Rich Skrenta) writes:

>Does anyone know when Perot's second thirty minute ad (the one with his
>proposed solutions) will be aired?

The next ad will be aired on this Saturday on ABC.  Don't know offhand 
the time-slot, but it will be for an hour - not 30 minutes.

He has also purchased a 30 minute spot on the eve of the election.
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 19:30:20 GMT

demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:

>	Haven't applied for one.  But my dad had one high enough to work on
>Stealth projects.  Needless to say, he couldn't take vacations in Eastern
>Europe.

Maybe not AFTER getting the clearance and working on the project, but
I seriously doubt that travel as a tourist 20 years beforehand would
have little bearing on getting the clearance.

>	Judges don't need security clearances, they're not working for the
>military or the executive branch.

Depends. Some may depending on what they are doing. But it is an
interesting comparison.

>	I don't think he is either.  It just fits in nicely with his other
>patterns of deception (the affair, the marijuana, etc.)

The so-called patterns of deception are also made up by the RNC. Clinton
has answered all questions honestly. Yet, the RNC still find fault with
that.

>	Would you buy a car from this guy?

Irrelevent. Clinton is not running as a car salesman.

-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Subject: The Decline of America: "We're Number One" in Elderly in Poverty
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 04:00:14 GMT

The Decline of America: "We're Number One" in Elderly in Poverty

Percentage  elderly living in poverty 1984-1987:(3)

               ------------------------------
				     ELDERLY
	       COUNTRY              IN POVERTY
               ------------------------------

	       United States          10.9

[More than twice of 2nd worst:]

	       United Kingdom          5.2

	       France                  4.5
	       Sweden                  4.3
	       Australia               4.0

	       Netherands              3.4
	       Germany                 2.8
	       Canada                  2.2

Source: Timothy M. Smeeding, "U.S. Poverty and Income Security Policy in a
Cross National Perspective, October 1991, Luxembourg, October, 1991,
Luxembourg Income Study, working paper 70.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  
From page 74 of:

_We're Number One, Where America Stands -- and Falls -- in the New    
World Order_ by Andrew L Shapiro.   

New York, May 1992, Vintage Books, a division of Random House.   
$10 paperback. ISBN 0-679-73893-2  
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -   

    "America is becoming a land of private greed and public squalor.   
    This book is an indispensable road map through the wreckage. The   
    facts it reveals will startle you. They may depress you. But   
    ideally they'll fire you up to help rebuild this nation."   

                        -Robert B. Reich, author of The Work of Nations
From: walsh@starbd.enet.dec.com (Thomas Walsh)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: All deficits are not created equal.
Date: 14 Oct 92 17:47:54 GMT
Reply-To: walsh@starbd.enet.dec.com (Thomas Walsh)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <1992Oct13.200152.9786@news.acns.nwu.edu>, dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
>In article <56494@olivea.atc.olivetti.com> markn@firenze.orc.olivetti.com     
>(Mark Nass) writes:
>>
>>   Under Bushs administration the U.S. government has run up something like
>>$950 Billion dollars in defecits. This is about 25% of the total us defecit, 
>>he did all of this in only 4 years. What on earth leads you to believe that
>>he is going to or even has any intentions of reducing the federal defecit?
>>  
>>Mark Nass
>>
>Yes, and he did it all by himself, right?  All by his lonesome, Bush raised
>taxes and spending.
>
>Sounds like someone here doesn't remember exactly who writes the laws,
>approves the budget, etcetera, so forth, and so on.  Think back real hard to
>the Constitution.  Remember who helped out now?  Goody, I knew you could!

Sound like somone desperatley trying to make excuses for a terrible record.  
Bush signed every budget, every new law, every tax increase.  There is 
no doubt that the Democrat controlled senate deserves an equal amount of 
the blame, but that doesn't change the fact that Bush didn't get the job 
done and doesn't deserve to be reelected.  If he really "doesn't believe in 
the tax and spend policy", he would have veoted every tax increase and vetoed
every budget which increased spending.  (Considering the fact that he proposed
every budget which increased spending, I really don't see that happening.)
Bush is the man most reponsible for the budget deficit, and his efforts 
to avoid the blame for his actions will not change that fact.

--
___________________________________________________________________________
Thomas Walsh 		walsh@via.enet.dec.com		Nashua, NH

:opinions do not necessarily reflect those of my employers
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill-the-Bureaucrat in Moscow 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 13:56:00 GMT

00rdharringt@bsu-ucs.uucp (Rob Harrington) writes...
>

>b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
>>

>>>And if your argument were valid can you give any good
>>>reasons why Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, and Dan Quayle should be in
>>>one of "those-who-would-lead-this-country"?
>> 
>> Nope. Cheney, Quayle, and the rest of the bureaucrats -- like Clinton,
>> do not deserve to be measured against proven leaders. That doesn't
>> make them bad people -- just not good candidates for president.
> 
>So in other words, to be president you have to have fought in a war?

No, personal leadership "under-fire" was also tested by participation
in the peace movement, and the civil rights movement. Also in the 
grueling pace of economic "warfare" which is eating people now: with
stress illness, divorce, auto-injuries from commuting, the trauma of
lost jobs and broken dreams. (_The Soul of New Machine_ comes to mind).
Also, disaster assistance such as fire-fighters, or the personal
courage of the police on the street. And their are the rainbow warriors. 
And the nightingales. 

When I think of the true heros.... There is no bureaucrat that comes
even close. So tell me how Bill Clinton measures up. I find no evidence
from 20 years ago -- perhaps there is something in the time bewtween?

>That's stupid... And I remember Quayle is just "a heartbeat away" from
>the presidency... so by your standards he isn't a good candidate and
>therefore we shouldn't vote for him... (not that I was going to vote
>for him in the first place...)

That's right. Nor for George Bush who plays golf at the same time that
Dan Quayle perfunctorily carries out his "duties" at Arlington National
Cemetary on Memorial Day. 

So tell me -- what has Bill Clinton led? This is your chance to shine. 

>|  Rob Harrington                       |              Ball State University  |
>|  Vax--00RDHARRINGT@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu  |       Unix--herring@bsu-cs.bsu.edu  |

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: An Aside on this Rights Issue
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 00:32:09 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.070720.11338@genie.slhs.udel.edu>, starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
> In article <1992Oct13.225042.13970@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
> }StarOwl@uiuc.edu writes:
> }] 
> }] The rights to life, liberty, and property are not guaranteed in the
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
See below...

> }] Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10, Amendment 27, and one other article
> }] that was not, and probably will not be passed).  These rights
> }] are protected in the Fourteenth Amendment.

They are protected under the 5th....

> Actually, property rights are given surprisingly strong protection by the
> Takings clause of the 5th amendment: "nor shall private propety be taken
> for public use without just compensation".  The libertarian legal theorist
> Richard Epstein has written an excellent book about this: "Takings: Private
> Property and the Power of Eminent Domain."

The 5th is a little more explicit than that:

  "No person shall .... be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
   without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken
   for public use, without just compensation."

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Term Limits are Constitutional, Study Shows
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 14:57:43 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.082458.25098@nuscc.nus.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>In article <farenebt.718340867@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
>>Secondly, if they weren't opposed to term limits,
>>why did they vote unanimously not to include them in the Constit.?
>
>I'll lay odds that the founding fathers were opposed to child molestation.
>But, for some strange reason, there is no prohibition in the Constitution
>on such or similar practices. It follows, according to Farenellian logic,
>that laws against child molestation are pattently unconstitutional on their
>face.
>
>When you arge that something is unconstitution, you are arguing that
>it violates the constituion in some way. There are any number of reasons
>that the original proposal was not passed including that the framers did
>not consider it necessary given the practices of the time.

I agree and I would like to add that the intention was to create a limited
federal government (probably the only kind the States would accept).
The Constitution is a document that describes the basic workings and 
powers of the government but, you will notice, that most of the first
10 ammendments are *negations* of federal power.  The Founders intended
this to be a *living* document which would enable us to rule ourselves
at any time in the future.  That is one reason that it is vague and it
is also why I find it highly frustrating that people try to use it to
promote their agenda.  The open nature of this Constitution should be
used to allow us to determine how we want to live via the legislature
more often than by the judiciary as we unfortunately seem to do today.


Mike Best

"He who lives by judicial review, dies by judicial review" - Mom
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50517 alt.politics.clinton:9345
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The Games are Over, and Clinton is Going to Win BIG!!
Date: 15 Oct 92 21:16:55 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education

In article <adams.719178972@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>
>>In article <adams.719167533@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>
>>>rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:
>>>
>>>>If you accept that Clinton is going to win, then why don't you tone down the
>>>>abusive rhetoric a little and give him a chance?  
>>>
>>>Just like the left toned down all of their screeching during Reagan and
>>>Bush's Presidencies?
>>
>>     Y'know, "They started it," just doesn't impress me.
>>
>The issue here is wanting a double standard.  It's ok for the left to
>screech all they want when the White House is under control they don't
>like.  But conservatives are supposed to tone down and give the opposition
>a chance.
>
>Typical liberal/left double standard.

     Who said it was ok?  The misdeeds of one party doesn't excuse the 
misdeeds of the other.

     These people want to be leaders?  Fine.

     They can start by leading by example.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  Information Services Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.singles,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.bizarre
From: robart@agora.rain.com (Robert Barton)
Subject: Re: A Most Pressing COncern
Organization: Organization
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 09:43:32 GMT

In article <1avrpqINNsvg@bigboote.WPI.EDU> walkerr@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Robert A Walker) writes:
>
>>Orgasms, in the main, are messy things,
>>and Really are not the sort of things
>>that decent persons with good personal
>>hygeine standards would wish to involve
>>themselves in/with/towards.
>
>
>	Sounds like this person can't get their rocks off to me.
>Its only messy if you shoot somebody in the face or your so wet that
>you flood your bedroom.
>                                  
>
>
>        


  What does this have to do with Clinton?

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: Media coverage for Marrou/Lord (call these #'s!)
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:44:56 GMT

In article <BvrLyq.MLG@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>   In *any* enterprise the *customer* is the one who pays the money
>   for whatever product or service is being rendered, in return for
>   that product or service.   The radio listener or TV viewer is
>   not the customer, he is the PRODUCT!   The advertiser is the 
>   is the customer; he pays the station to deliver to him a qualified
>   audience of a certain size.   

Advertisers are the customer of the commercial broadcast media.  The product
is the audience.  Being components of the product, we have direct control over
the size and composition of the product, and hence it's desirability to the
customer.

If we complain to the networks and convince them that they are in danger of
losing a significant portion of their product, they'll be motivated to address
our concerns.

We could also contact the consumers (advertisers) directly and let them know
of our concerns.

None of these appeals will be effective until enough people complain to
convince those buying and selling our attention that we're too big of segment
of the audience to ignore.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)           For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: msheldon@luna.dpl.scg.hac.com (Marti Sheldon)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Time "Letters to the Editor" fax number
Date: 13 Oct 92 17:51:10 GMT
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA


>Also incidentally, earlier in the campaign I called Bill CLinton's
>800 number to find that it had been disconnected.  I had to go to
>some trouble to do this, but finally tracked it down by calling
>a non-800-number in Little Rock. 

>Apparently there had been
>a deluge of phone calls threatening the life of Hilary and their
>daughter and Bill Clinton which appeared to be made by about 20
>"pro-life" activists as often and continuously as they could make
>them.

Sounds like a very Christian act, doesn't it? Pro-who's-life?

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51486 alt.politics.elections:16548